Talk:Herbert Kitchener, 1st Earl Kitchener/Archive 1

Kitchener's conversation with Lord Derby

This article has recently been read by Henry Kitchener, 3rd Earl Kitchener and he raised the matter of the conversation with Lord Derby and would like to know reference(s) for this. It is now in para 4 of World War 1 section and originally posted 8th December 2003 by Valisk. He is generally pleased with the article and feels it gives a fair picture of his great uncle. Timothy J Baker 21:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you convey to Lord Kitchener that I am sure that, in part at least, I based the statement on a paragraph from Pollock's Kitchener, pp472-3 which mentions that K of K presented his outline for a peace of reconciliation to Lord Derby following a private dinner.

Derby is quoted as noting 'There was only one thing he really hoped to live for, and that was to be one of the English delegates when peace was made. [Derby asked what views he might want to put forward] he said he had one very strong one and that was, whatever happened, not to take away one country's territory and give it to another. It only meant a running sore and provocation for a war of revenge to get back the ground lost. He was most emphatic about that...' Pollock does not note the source for the quote.

Could you also mention to the Earl that not having learned very much at school here in the UK about the 1st Lord Kitchener, I was fascinated when I began to discover just how important a historical figure he was, and I am glad Lord Kitchener is pleased with the efforts we have made here at Wikipedia to give a fair portrayal of his great uncle.

Valisk 21:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. I will pass this on. I note your comment about the importance of K. How much that was taught about him seems to be part of the debunking of Britsh Imperialism which was in its heyday 100 years ago. It must be remembered that at this time Germany was flexing its military muscles which eventually led to WW1. K was expecting to return to Egypt, but became Secrtary of State for War. The man was a hero in the eyes of the press & public (Omdurman & Boer War). If you have read the terms of the treaty which concluded the Boer War such views would be entirely in keeping with his character. Timothy J Baker 06:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Poster

Would it be fair to say Kitchener is now best-known for the "kitchener poster"? Certainly needs mentioning here.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/ARTleete.htm

I've added a picture of Leete's poster to the article and expanded the mention - Valisk

Name and title

"Horatio Kitchener, 1st Earl Kitchener of Khartoum" is a ridiculous name for the article. Articles are supposed to be "most common unambiguous" and this ain't it. It makes sense to add titles to disambiguate multiple lords of the same name, but how famous Horatio Kitcheners are there?? Stan 01:27, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Hmm? How many famous "Edward Seymours" are there? There's only one article about any, and it redirects to Edward Seymour, 1st Duke of Somerset. More apropos, how many famous "Edward Geoffrey Smith Stanley's" are there? Only one, I'd wager, but yet we still include "14th Earl of Derby". I'd also refer you to here, where it states,

1. Members of the hereditary nobility (ie, people who inherit their title), such as a marquess, viscount, count, duke. earl, etc., as with royals have two names. For example Henry John Temple was also the 3rd Viscount Palmerston, hence typically referred to as "Lord Palmerston". Rule here is, "So-and-so, ordinal (if appropriate) title of place", and place redirects as you see fit. The sequence number is included since personal names are often duplicated (see Earl of Aberdeen.) Examples: Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, or Henry John Temple, 3rd Viscount Palmerston, with redirect Lord Palmerston, which allows both of his names to be included.

Kitchener is well known as "Earl Kitchener of Khartoum", and I see no reason why he should not be stated by his title. I tend towards the view that, when in doubt, one should use the full title, which is always unambiguous and unique. In this case, yes, it's probably not completely necessary for unambiguousness purposes. But it is more accurate, and I don't feel like Kitchener's so much better known as merely "Horatio Kitchener" as to make the full title harmful. (As it would be, for instance, if we had an article like Arthur James Balfour, 1st Earl of Balfour, or whatever.) john 01:45, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

OK, I thought he had a life peerage (found ref to hereditary on the net, not in the article, ahem). That's a lot of redirects to fix though, glad I didn't sign up for that... Stan 04:13, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Goddamned redirects...there were no life peerages until 1958, and life peerages are all baronies, though. john 04:31, 18 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It's fun isn't it, the Peerage systems and all it's foibles. It's the main reason why I left altering all that stuff from the original article to someone who understood the vagaries better than I, and also I cannot change redirects :)

As far as I am aware Kitchener was best known simply as K of K, and he was contempraneously refered to as Lord Kitchener by newspapers, writers etc. Though today he is not so well known that refering to him in this way would not distinguish him from his decended heirs.

In most period correspondence refering to him, he is known simply as K, though I suspect K of K or simply K would not today be enough to distinguish Kitchener from any other famous individual.

Valisk 12:36, 19 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Sexuality

I have removed the Hyam quote because it is highly selective in it's quotes rather liek the full book, and suggestive of paedophillia.

>:"Kitchener was a man whose sexual instincts were wholly sublimated in work; he admitted few distractions and 'thereby reaped an incalculable advantage in competition with his fellows.' >There is no evidence that he ever loved a woman;

There is a fair bit of evidence he did, including his relationship with Hermione Baker. Both his and her relatives kept correspondence suggesting that they had more than a friendship, as well as anecdotal evidence by friends of hers that he had asked permission to marry her. There is also the point that Kitchener kept a locket containing her hair and wore it constantly, until just before his trip to Russia in 1916, when for some reason he sent the locket to her family for safe keeping.

>his male friendships were few but fervent; from 1907 until his death his constant and inseparable companion was Capt. O.A.G. FitzGerald who devoted his entire life to Kitchener. He had no use for married men on his staff.

Nor did many other Generals of the time, it was almost a prerequisite of high service in the Victorian British Army. Nevertheless Kitchener maintained strong friendships with the former members of his staff who married, particularly Frank Maxwell, his former ADC, and became godfather to a large number of children.

>Only young officers were admitted to his house - 'my happy family of boys' he called them;

Young being on average late 20s, hardly 'boys.'

>he avoided interviews with women,

Though enjoyed friendships with a great number of women in India, Egypt and England, and particularly enjoyed parties and dancing, until an accident in India permanently injured his leg. He also enjoyed a friendship with Lady Helen Vane-Tempest-Stewart, daughter of the Marquess of Londonderry, which terminated with her turning down his proposal of marriage in favour of Lord Stavordale.

>worshipped Gordon,

Given that Kitchener was a junior officer when he met the celebrated Gordon, already a hero figure at this point around the British Empire, and Gordon treated Kitchener well, taking him under his wing, it is hardly suprising that K held him in high esteem.

>cultivated great interest in the Boy Scout movement, took a fancy to Botha's son and the sons of Lord Desborough,

Assertions with quite a nasty slant.

>and embellished his rose garden with four pairs of sculptured bronze boys."

The vast majority of Hyam's assertions against Kitchener, and others are agenda riven, and do not present a neutral view, but rather an attack on Imperialism by attempting to undercut the Victorian moral justifications used to prop up the imperial edifices, and of course those who like Kitchener and Gordon represented the Imperial ideal in the eyes of the people.

I am quite open to the idea that he may have been gay, but I would like to see some actual evidence of such rather that tired sly slurs of the kind that suggest he must of been gay because he collected porcelain, or gold salt cellars, or enjoyed arranging flowers.

My brother and a number of my friends are gay, and I am quite certain that they would laugh at the idea that any particular interest makes a person gay, yet this is what the whole tone of this excerpt would suggest and it links homosexuality with implied paedophilia, and Hyam's book itself ignores the social mores and pressures of the time period in which Kitchener lived and died.

Valisk 13:55, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

From The Pink Plaque Guide to London, Michael Elliman and Frederick Roll, Gay Men's Press, 1986, ISBN 0-85449-026-4. p118:

Later in life, however, he gathered about him a small group of younger men who were known as "Kitchener's Band of Boys" and agter he became a general his staff were given the same name. Kitchener himself called them "a happy family of boys". Queen Victoria commented, "They say he dislikes women but I can only say he was very nice to me." He made it an absolute rule that his officers were single men, and he took great care in personnally interviewing all candidates for positions on his staff. Thus he managed to bring under his command a closely knit group of unusually young colonels totally dedicated to their leader.

Kitchener's preference for attractive young men on his staff caused a great deal of comment and speculation. A Reuter correspondent declared, "He drinks and has the other failing acquired by most Egyptian Officers, a taste for buggery."

In 1904 Kitchener met Captain Oswald Fitzgerald (1875-1916) of the 18th Bengal Lancers who became his aide-de-camp and later his military secretary. A mutual friend observed, "Never was there a stronger or more loyal bond than that which these two man had for one another." They were inseparable and lived together openly for the rest of their lives, arousing even more interest among Kitchener's detractors, as did his passion for collecting porcelain and his liking for flower arranging.

--Zefrog 00:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

To be quoted as a serious source, the above item should have some names & original sources, not just “a Reuters correspondent” and a “mutual friend”. Hugo999 13:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

The real problem with Pollock's book is astonishing naivety about human nature and psychology. Kitchener never married and was not known to have had a sexual relationship with a woman. Yet Pollock insists he was heterosexual, and dredges up an implausible "romance" with a 17-year-old girl (who later died of TB) as the cause of his "confirmed celibacy". We are told he was thereafter "married" to the army, and that he sublimated all his libido in "service". Pollock will not even allow that Kitchener was a repressed homosexual or sexually neuter. Every single circumstantial detail is against Pollock, every index of probability, every consideration of common sense. Pollock clings to the consolation that there is no "documentary evidence" of Kitchener's homosexuality, as if somewhere there might exist a diary in which he writes: "All right, it's a fair cop. I'm queer." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.218.90.228 (talk) 13:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The mention of interior design and fine china is rather confusing in the midst of this interesting section. Surely, we're not suggesting ... --OhNoPeedyPeebles (talk) 22:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Contemporary writers such as CR Ballard often refer to Kitchener's 'artistic' nature and mention the porcelain collection. It is likely that this was their way of implying what they would not or could not say explicitly. So the porcelain is relevant to this issue, funnily enough. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

This section is yet more speculative wiki-nonsense about someone who cannot defend themselves and should be taken with a grain of salt if read at all. It cannot be proven one way or the other and is not encyclopedia material. Please stop Wikipedians! Every day more and more bio's have this foolishness added to them. Take it to GayOrStraight.com and leave us with our Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tkeator (talk • contribs) 22:50, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

There's clearly a debate over his sexuality (which won't go away) and this article covers that debate fairly well, citing the proponents of each case. Nunquam Dormio (talk) 06:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there a real debate about Kitchener's sexuality, or is this a creation of modern gay historical revisionism?JohnC (talk) 05:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

"Is this a creation of modern gay historical revisionism?" I think you should assume that edits are made in good faith, and avoid pushing any political agenda. Contaldo80 (talk) 14:12, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

of Khartoum

Both Leigh Rayment and hereditarytitles.com say that the "of Khartoum" was part of the title, and not just the geographic locator. I'm going to move him back, unless Proteus can provide support for the claim that this was not a part of the title. john k 05:20, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Earldom was created as "Earl Kitchener of Khartoum and of Broome in the County of Kent". Either "of Khartoum and of Broome" is a territorial designation and the title is "Earl Kitchener" or it's not and the title is "Earl Kitchener of Khartoum and of Broome" (which would be rather silly). Either way, "Earl Kitchener of Khartoum" is not an option, as it would leave "and of Broome in the County of Kent" as a territorial designation, and it's not valid as one, as territorial designations can't start with "and". (There was a thread on alt.talk.royalty about this a while ago. [I should point out that since then I've discovered that the website concerned had simply missed out the second "of Culross" and "of Magdala" from those titles, but that's not an issue with Kitchener since someone quoted the London Gazette for his creation.]) I suppose the fact that he's called "Kitchener of Khartoum" makes people think that was his title as well, but "Surname of Foreign Place" titles like that were more of a WWII thing, and weren't particularly common earlier on (so there's Viscount French (of Ypres and of High Lake), Baron Beatty (of the North Sea and of Brooksby), Viscount Nelson (of the Nile and of Burnham Thorpe), Earl Nelson (of Trafalgar and of Merton), Earl Roberts (of Kandahar and Pretoria and of the City of Waterford), Viscount Allenby (of Megiddo and of Felixstowe) etc.), with "Surname of Foreign Place" only being used when "Surname" was unavailable (like "Byng of Vimy"). Proteus (Talk) 10:49, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hmm...Burke's gives "Earl Kitchener of Khartoum and of Broome", but I've never found them to be terribly reliable. The atr discussion is interesting, but not dispositive, I think. In such a disputed case, I think, it might be wise to follow wikipedia guidelines of "most common name". Even if "Earl Kitchener of Khartoum" is not technically the name of the peerage, it is the most commonly used name, and it seems to be in dispute as to whether or not it is technically correct. Until we get a look at the letter patent, or whatever, I say we should go with it. But I'm not sure... john k 18:22, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Googling seems to indicate that the most common way to refer to him is "Lord Kitchener", so what would you think of "Horatio Herbert Kitchener, 1st Earl Kitchener (born 24 June 1850; died 5 June 1916), commonly known as Kitchener of Khartoum, was a British Field Marshal..."? Proteus (Talk) 12:12, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, of course he's normally "Lord Kitchener." Curzon was normally "Lord Curzon," not "Lord Curzon of Kedleston". I remain uncertain. john k 15:14, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I had a flick through some old London Gazettes today, and in one a dispatch from Kitchener is printed which he signs "Kitchener", so it seems that he at least considered himself to be simply Lord Kitchener. Proteus (Talk) 17:17, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Connection with Big Brother

Many say Orwell's Big Brother, "a man of about forty-five, with a heavy black moustache and ruggedly handsome features", was based on the "Kitchener poster". I think that deserves a mention here...Lebob 05:02, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In his photographs, Lord Kitchener resembles King George V and Czar Nicholas II to an almost mysterious degree.

At six-feet-two-inches, Kitchener was more largely built than them; in photos Kitchener conspicuously overtowers the King.Cloptonson (talk) 20:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Herbert or Horatio?

I have the vague idea that "Herbert" was the name Kitchener actually went by. If so, the article should be at Herbert Kitchener, 1st Earl Kitchener. Does anybody know for sure, though? john k 02:51, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Apparently he did, Mr. Kenney.

Moved. Proteus (Talk) 14:21, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

K.B.E.

How could His Lordship have been made a Knight of the British Empire if he had passed away a year prior to the creation of the order?

He wasn't as you correctly point out, but he was a member of the Order of Merit Valisk 2 July 2005 15:58 (UTC)

an orphaned image

Can someone put Image:LordHKitchener.jpg to good use ? -- PFHLai 06:08, 2005 August 28 (UTC)

We do not know how many recruits the famous poster encouraged, but 3 milllion seems dubious, considering there were only about 1 million British volunteers in WW1. PatGallacher 15:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

There were rather more volunteers than that - 2.5 million by the end of 1915. See Simkins (1988) Kitchener’s Army: The Raising of the New Armies 1914 –16 (Manchester: Manchester University Press) 137.73.126.168 13:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

480 rifles???

What does this mean?

"On 4 June 1916, he personally answered questions asked by politicians of his running of the war; they learned that immediately at the start of the war Kitchener had placed huge orders for munitions with American companies, who had delivered 480 of 2,000,000 rifles ordered. He received the resounding vote of thanks from the 200+ MPs who had arrived to question him"

That Kitchener ordered 2,000,000 rifles and two years later a mere 480 of them had been delivered? And for those 480 rifles he received a resounding vote of thanks? This sentence requires a tad more clarity. --MadRat Jack 13:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Well made point. Have amended it Valisk 17:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Style issue discussion

There is a discussion going on here whether or not the first sentence of a biographical article should contain the full name of the individual and include any post nominal initials (eg. VC, KCB, OBE) or whether these should be relegated to later in the article. I have tried to point out that this is standard style and part of their full titles but there are “readability” concerns. This arose because of the Richard O’Connor featured article and one possible solution, a biobox, is now in place on that page. Please make your opinions known.Dabbler 12:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The whole "peerage title in the article title" thing kind of annoys me. When someone is born to the title -- when it's inherited, that is -- then, fine, include that name in the article title. But with someone like Kitchener, or Balfour, or Margaret Thatcher, the individual received a title because of what they did as a "civilian". Their wikipedia-worthiness preceded their acquisition of a title. Those individuals should be indexed by their pre-peerage name, the name under which they became famous. That's the only approach that seems logical to me. --Michael K. Smith 13:09, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Bias?

Is it just me, or does the whole article have a tinge of "couldnt put a foot wrong" throughout? From education reforms to not only the children of the elite, to declaring that he would pursue a friendly truce with Germany et al, just seems to me that whomever wrote the article was implying that Lord Kitchener was a grace from god or somesuch. The tone just doesnt seem "neutral" to me. 220.235.142.170 06:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

History has generally been kind to Kitchener. However, the article needs development in many areas. Many incidents need expanding; there's little mention of his shortcomings as a field commander, and surprisingly nothing on the was-he-or-wasn't-he-gay debate. Nunquam Dormio 07:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

This last point has now been addressed. Nunquam Dormio 19:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Kitchener was known as K of Chaos in the Boer War with his centralisation of transport arrangements, ref Thomas Packenham, “The Boer War”. At the beginning of WWI, one of the politicians in the cabinet thought he was mad – when he said he was planning for a three year war (not home by Christmas or when the leaves fall!) ref Barbara Tuchmann, “August 1914”. Hugo999 13:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

• Didn't notice any mention of his role in the murders of Morant and Handcock. Shouldn't that be in the article ? actually it is there. see it now.PalX 19:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

"Murders" of Morant and Handcock! You are forgetting that those two were convicted of 12 murders. Kitchener had little if any involvement in their subsequent trial. And neither is there any evidence whatsoever that he authorised the murder of Boers (or German missionaries, for that matter). Furthermore, even if Kitchener had authorised mass murders, why was Morant's unit the only one that systematically carried out this "order". Perhaps the rest of the army knew that they shouldn't obey patently illegal orders. The whole Morant industry is a fabrication of Australian anti-British zenophobia and conspiracy theories.JohnC (talk) 05:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't putting people into concentration camps and creating conditions under which a large percentage will die, constitute mass murder or genocide. --41.19.97.76 (talk) 10:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no question this is biased. He slaughtered thousands of women, children and elderly in concentration camps during the second Boer war. But hey I guess "might makes right" huh? Since the british 'Won" the second Boer war they get to write history. Just like the Nazi's would have whitewashed the Holocaust if they would have won. I love to listen to the british spew self righteous crap about the Nazi's and then read the whitewashing they do of when they did exactly the same thing. Except when they do it "It didn't quite happen that way" blah, blah, blah.131.247.83.135 (talk) 16:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The need is to prove that extermination was the agenda. We should not let the Holocaustic connotations of 'concentration camp' confuse the issue, although Nazi propagandists drew attention to the Boer War system to counter British criticism of their system. Unlike the Nazi's system, there was no policy of extermination at any stage. (Note the Nazi employment of their camps in the Holocaust was a later development - initially it was to detain opponents of, or those proscribed by, the regime). The deaths in the British camps were not by the captors' violence but malnutrition (due to inadequate food provision and being cut off from their agrarian livelihoods) and diseases that flourished in the climate and overcrowded, unhygienic conditions. In conjunction with a 'scorched earth' policy (eg burning Boer farms) it was a means of trying to contain ('concentrate') the rural Boer population and cut off support they could offer Boer troops who were fighting outside what the British considered the rules of war. (Recalled from a British textbook by an Anthony Wood (1970s) when I took history at A-level.) Cloptonson (talk) 20:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Lord Kitchener in Australia & New Zealand

It does not seem to get a mention in the Kitchener biography, but Lord Kitchener spent some time in Victoria, Australia near the town of Seymour, which is about 96 kms North of Melbourne. The site of which is now occupied by the racecourse at Seymour was used in 1910 for a Military Parade for Lord Kitchener. We have photos of Kitchener's tent camps in the area as well as one of an ordance train arriving at the rail station. There are also photos of bullock teams hauling Kitchener's ' Big Guns' through the township of Seymour from the rail head to his camp. There are also several photos featuring the Inscribed arch erected to " Welcome Kitchener to Seymour" There is some suggestion that during his visit he advised the then Government that the area around which is now occupied by Puckapunyal Army base in the area would be ideal for military training purposes. 203.62.141.129 10:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Kitchener had a married sister in New Zealand, who embarrassed him by some of the things she said about him when he came to New Zealand to give military advice: Mrs Francis (Millie?) Parker of a sheep station at Kurow, Otago. They had a son Lt James Herbert Parker killed in the Boer War, on 1 May 1900 at Houtnek/Thabanchu; he was in Kitcheners Horse Hugo999 13:07, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Note that someone keeps adding "mass murderer" to this page?

India: Kitchener v Curzon

I am currently reading a biography by David Gilmour on Curzon, and after having read through the part where Kitchener comes in, I believe that there is quite a gulf between Gilmour's views and the version in this article. I am not a specialist in this field, but I feel that Gilmour has a point (chapter 20: Kitchener's Conspiracy), and he went about to achieve his aims by manipulating a considerable number of people of influence. Apparently, the Army of India's state was not quite as bad as the reader of this article might believe. Any other views on this point?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.81.89.195 (talk)

I read about this in Ballard's Kitchener some years ago. From memory, the dispute centred around the role of the Military Member, whose role Kitchener felt was being enlarged and abused by Curzon to interfere with the running of the army. The Kitchener article as it stands is too vague. The dispute, which Kitchener won, is an article in itself. Nunquam Dormio 13:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Irish?

The article refrences him as being Irish many times, but was he really Irish? He was born in Ireland, but his parents were English, so was he really Irish?(Lucas(CA) 04:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC))

Well, it says in the article that he was born in Ireland but his parents were English. I think it would be more accurate to refer to him as "an Irish-born English Field Marshal" GusF 17:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it would probably be easier to describe him soley as British since there was no independent Irish state in his lifetime. TashkentFox 18:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm Irish, and I can't imagine there'd be any Irish person who'd want to claim this evil bastard as "Irish". He was British - ethnically, culturally and politically. 109.77.9.3 (talk) 21:51, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

What, pray, was "evil" about Lord Kitchener? JonC^Talk 10:01, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Well considering a lot of Irish nationalists are some of the most hateful and racist people I have ever come across, along with some of the most stupid and uneducated - that comment is hardly surprising. This generally is common among all nationalist groups, sadly. Considering just how many of these "evil" British politicians and military men have actually had Irish sympathy, along with actual direct support for the Irish state, that comment is wholly unjustified (*cough* Gladstone *cough*) lord Kitchner was not evil, and you're comment is just racist, a dig at the whole British populance. --Nutthida (talk) 05:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Mason

Note Im not one of those conspiracy theorist gooks, but from what Ive read of the article (I kind of read it a speed so I could be wrong) It dosent mention that Kitchener was a freemason. I guess its of questionable importance, but for such a long article its a bit strange if it dosent mention his beliefs or allieggances (i.e. freemasonary) I believe it could be given due weight, although it probably Isn't that important. Note the only source I have of this is when I was surfing the web and found Kitchener's biography on a masonic website claiming he was a freemason.86.150.145.177 (talk) 11:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Conspiracy theories

• 
  Joseph Stalin
• 
  Lord Kitchener

Alexander Cockburn claims that Kitchener was the same person as Josef Stalin... AnonMoos (talk) 18:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, do you think he might be on to something? - Crosbiesmith (talk) 18:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The ear lobes are different. -- Ctatkinson (talk) 02:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

As Stalin died in 1953, were Kitchener the same man, Stalin would be 103 years old at death, highly unlikely given Stalin's heavy drinking habits!Cloptonson (talk) 20:59, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Kitchner's Propagandist

Sir Hedley Le Bas should get a mention in this article, but there is no mention of him at all. Brothernight (talk) 11:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Anglo-Irish background

I remove the statement that his family was "of notable Anglo-Irish background" because his father was from England and only immigrated to Ireland to purchase land because he needed to make more money off of it or something. His father wasn't Irish and as I understand it the term Anglo-Irish refers to the Protestant Ascendancy families that had been in Ireland for a long time, such as James Butler's or Charles Stewart Parnell's family, for example, not just to Englishmen who suddenly immigrated to Ireland. Does anyone disagree with my change. I used to on another account edit different articles and always got bogged down in aimless arguing because other editors were angry with my changes so I want to be careful here. --LordKitchener16 (talk) 12:06, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

The predictions of Cheiro

Should be noted but isn't that the late Victorian/Edwardian mystic, Cheiro, made some pretty interesting predictions regarding Kitchener, see here.

Makes an interesting point as Kitchener did indeed drown aboard HMS Hampshire. I find it a point of history that one of the few surviving eye witnesses claim he looked calm. I suppose if he had many years to come to terms with the manner of his death there was no need to panic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.108.65 (talk) 22:22, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

long war

All references agree that Kitchener was convinced and publically stated that that it would be a long war when everybody else had seemed to think that it would "all be over by Christmas" 1914.

Does anybody know why or can suggest a link giving details just why Kitchener was of this opinion in contrast to everybody else?AT Kunene (talk) 12:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Kitchener/Stalin

AnonMoos, as Kitchener never learned to speak Russian and Stalin never learned to speak English, I would have thought that this supposition could be easily and immediately dismissed.AT Kunene (talk) 12:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Memorials - Kitchener's ADC

It is incorrect that All Souls Chapel in St Paul's Cathedral "is also the last resting place of" his aide-de-camp (who perished with him) because his body also was never recovered for burial and were he buried in the Cathedral, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission would record the grave. The officer was belatedly recorded on the Hollybrook Memorial in recent years. (Earl Roberts is the only CWGC listed casualty recorded buried at the Cathedral.) I have changed the phrase to "another memorial, to".Cloptonson (talk) 21:38, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Might you want to add the Canadian city of Kitchener? It had been named Berlin c1854 - 1916, as it was founded by Germans. I think it had a vote in 1916 to proclaim its loyalty by renaming itself Kitchener. (Brian Murphy, 13/3/17) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.68.221.92 (talk) 00:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Styles - Medal Ribbon Bar

Kitchener was also entitled, because of his First World War service, to the 1914 Star, the British War Medal 1914-1920, and the Victory Medal 1914-1919, though he did not live to receive them.(Source - The Complete Peerage, Volume VIII (1932), Appendix F - List of Peers and sons of Peers who served in the Great [ie First World] War, page 798.) Cloptonson (talk) 19:56, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Honorary Regimental Appointments

I have listed these honours with citation to Kelly's Handbook of 1916 (year of his death) but editors with access to London Gazette are welcome to firm these up with citations from the latter. Their variety illustrates his appeal in the army.Cloptonson (talk) 23:05, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

curzon's hereditary peerage

The article says " (Curzon simply signed himself "Curzon" as if he were an hereditary peer, ". I had a quick look and as far as I could see just about the only sort of peer at the time was an hereditary one, so presumably in fact he was? It seems to have been a title in the Kingdom of Ireland, and as such did not carry a seat in the house of lords at Westminster, deliberately chosen so he could still sit in the house of commons, but was presumably hereditary? Sandpiper (talk) 17:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

"Well, I'm Lord Melbury, so I just sign "Melbury" " (with apologies to Fawlty Towers). Curzon was indeed an Irish peer at the time, as he wanted to keep open the possibility of a return to the Commons, although this never happened as the King forebade him to stand for the Commons, but for a long time owing to his quarrel with Balfour he was denied the Earldom traditionally given to ex-Viceroys. "Hereditary Peer" is infelicitously phrased - it should be "as if he were the owner of a grand title of many generations standing, and a cut above some recently ennobled general".— Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulturtle (talk • contribs)

It's odd in two respects: (1) Including "Lord" in the signature would be most strange. It's very unlikely that Kitchener would have been unaware of the correct signature of a peer. Are we sure the source isn't referring to a signature of "Kitchener of Khartoum"? (2) Curzon's signature should have been "Curzon of Kedleston". There's actually a story about the then Earl Howe (whose heir, Viscount Curzon, is entitled to sign simply "Curzon") reprimanding him for using the incorrect form. So rather strange of him to be drawing attention to that fact. Proteus (Talk) 22:45, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I've seen quite a lot of Kitchener's signature and none with 'Lord' in them. It would be appalling wrong if it did. I disagree on Viscount Curzon, only a substantive peer is entitled to sign with their title alone. Courtesy peers might or might not do so but they have no right to do so. Garlicplanting (talk) 11:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the point is that Curzon took to signing himself simply "Curzon", whereas Kitchener probably signed himself "Kitchener of Khartoum". Thank God neither of them was ever given a Neapolitan Duchy like Admiral Nelson (who thereafter signed himself "Nelson and Bronte").Paulturtle (talk) 20:55, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

He did There are a number of peers with double or even tripple of their rank.Garlicplanting (talk) 11:38, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is interesting but I remain unclear whether curzon was the owner of a hereditary title, or not. It seemed to me that he was, and if so the article is factually inaccurate as it stands. Maybe someone has some better phrasing to tidy up the anecdote? Sandpiper (talk) 20:43, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I made a tweak to the text based on this discussion and the fact that the article about Curzon seems to indicate Curzon was rightfully styled as a lord. I'm not familiar with peerages or that sort of protocol, so revert if need be. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Curzon was a hereditary peer (no one owns a peerage!) first of Ireland then of the UK. The 'Lord' issue is straightforward in respect of the signature. All peers sign correctly with their substantive title without qualification of rank. In the two cases the only correct titles were Curzon of Kedleston and 1898-14 Kitchener of Khartoum and 1914-16 Kitchener Garlicplanting (talk) 12:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Two biographies of Curzon (Gilmour, p. 217 and Rose, pp. 331–332) suggest that the issue of Curzon's signature (and his omission of "of Kedleston") blew up around 1900, so his request that Kitchener omit "of Khartoum" may have been an attempt to defend his own practice rather than to pick a fight with Kitchener. Choess (talk) 02:56, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

All peerages were hereditary at that time - Life Peerages in the modern sense did not come in until the late 1950s (although I think some mid-Victorian judges may have had Life Peerages, but I may be wrong). However, Curzon was initially an Irish Peer, not all of whom were entitled to sit in the Lords (Palmerston had been an Irish Peer and had sat in the Commons), until he was appointed a British Peer in 1911. The point is that by just signing himself "Curzon" he was trying to sound grander than he was, in the same way that the Duke of Norfolk might just sign himself "Norfolk".Paulturtle (talk) 03:18, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Herbert Kitchener, 1st Earl Kitchener. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130930091931/http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/history/famous-cases/the-duquesne-spy-ring to https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/history/famous-cases/the-duquesne-spy-ring

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:49, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Another theory about the sinking

Hugh MacDiarmid in his "Islands of Scotland" 1939 mentions the book by a German Ernst Carl 'Ein Gegen England' where he claims to have engaged two Irish sailors with Republican sympathies to smuggle bombs on board HMS Hampshire. It is said in the reviews of the book at the time that whilst no one could verify the claim it was equally hard to disprove. I've not heard this mentioned elsewhere.

81.178.128.227 (talk) 11:29, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Poetic Justice

term exists in wikipedia, but i am not showing link

is his death an example of such?

Juror1 (talk) 11:03, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Dates of Kitchener's ownership of El Nabatat Island

Having difficulty in locating a good EARLY original reference for this. Everything is modern and not referenced. He may have received it in the 1890's, for leading the Egyptian Army to success in the Sudan. The battle of Toski was 1891. He took control of the Army in 1892. Major operations in the Sudan were between 1896 to 1898. Likely date of acquisition would be 1899, when he got many rewards. South Africa 1900-1902, and India 1902-1909 intervened. He may have sold his interest in it in 1902. The island's article is saying he was gifted the island, when he served as Consul-General in Egypt (no dates given), but that was from 29 September 1911 to June 1914. apparently he was very interested in gardening etc. --BeckenhamBear (talk) 20:52, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Herbert Kitchener, 1st Earl Kitchener. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120513193154/http://www.blackcountrybugle.co.uk/News/How-1920146s-Dudley-honoured-Nurse-Cavell-2.htm to http://www.blackcountrybugle.co.uk/News/How-1920146s-Dudley-honoured-Nurse-Cavell-2.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:24, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

knitting

To editor Allanaaaaaaa: I warn you against edit-warring. Discuss. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:49, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I added one sentence to the Legacy section to show that something the subject created/propagated is still in use today. I added a modern photo as well. The statements are factually proved earlier in the article, in the chronological section. What are you disputing? Allanaaaaaaa (talk) 20:52, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

The article about Grafting (knitting) doesn't say that Kitchener had anything to do with that stich, save for someone named it after him. Furthermore, that article only cites an offline source which I can't easily verify. The image is described as "Knitted grafting stitches" and doesn't specify that it is a Kitchener stich, so it doesn't belong in the article about him. Finally, you did not add any citation to the content you added to verify your claim. What you're doing looks like vandalism. You've already wrongfully inserted this content twice, so if you do it again we're headed to WP:ANEW. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:58, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

You don't seem to be assuming good faith. These are great comments and questions about the content - why not simply make these arguments first, instead of threatening me with disciplinary action? Since I was not responsible for the citations provided earlier in the article, I cannot be held responsible for "wrongful insertion" of information that wasn't verified before my first edit. It is not acceptable to assume vandalism when someone does NOT make a direct reversion and instead edits their contribution to become more acceptable given vague and insulting feedback. If you want someone to genuinely improve this encyclopedia we're all collectively writing, try some encouragement rather than threats. You may want to review the WP:AGF and WP:HTBAE especially the "positive and directly constructive" bits. Allanaaaaaaa (talk) 21:03, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

... Out of curiosity, is that "can't easily verify it" thing some actual rule somewhere? Wikipedia would be very empty if it only cited open-access online materials. Are you going to remove the relevant portion in this article under the "1916" section that cites an offline source? Allanaaaaaaa (talk) 21:12, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't assume good faith; it's often counterproductive. You added material likely to be challenged without a citation. That's fair territory to revert and issue a warning, which I did. Had you read the warning I issued, you could have re-inserted that material with a citation as required by WP:V. Instead, you reverted me using the edit summary "made the writing less good by request" which says a lot about your intent. I reverted you and warned you a second time. Only now that I have threatened you "with disciplinary action" do you stop and reconsider what you're doing. It would have been easier had you obtained competence in editing first or at least responded to my initial warning with a question. That behavior would have prompted me to waste words explaining what you should already know. Instead, you incentivize my policy of assuming bad faith because that is ultimately what gets your attention. In the future, do not be oppositional to countervandalism editors. We're just trying to protect the hard work of other Wikipedians. We don't seek to stifle constructive contributions. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:18, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Offline sources, I'm not expecting all citations to be online, or to be open-access if they are. Really, citations don't even have to be English-language. Had that source been available to me, I would have checked to see if it says more about the Kitchener stich beyond what's claimed in the article because you might be right. However, since you added no citation and I can't check the one that's there I have no way to see that what you're claiming is correct. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)