Talk:Edward Cavendish, 10th Duke of Devonshire

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Edward Cavendish, 10th Duke of Devonshire article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Biography: Peerage and Baronetage / Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Politics of the United Kingdom Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Derbyshire Low‑importance

The article on Edward Cavendish, 10th Duke of Devonshire is supported by the Derbyshire WikiProject, which is a collaborative effort to improve the quality and coverage of Derbyshire-related articles on Wikipedia.DerbyshireWikipedia:WikiProject DerbyshireTemplate:WikiProject DerbyshireDerbyshire

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

More information:
/
	At least one photograph is included in this article
	This article has an infobox

Freemasonry Mid‑importance

This article is part of WikiProject Freemasonry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freemasonry articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to join us in our labors, please join the discussion and add your name to the list of participants. The "Top of the Trestleboard" section below can offer some ideas on where to start and what to do.FreemasonryWikipedia:WikiProject FreemasonryTemplate:WikiProject FreemasonryFreemasonry

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

◆ WikiProject Freemasonry's "Top of the Trestleboard":

Improve to Featured Article status
Add content to stubs…
Check recently changed articles for possible improvement, to remove vandalism, etc.
Requests
[Watch this list]
- Articles for all United Grand Lodge of England-recognized Grand Lodges (if notable)
Participate in articles listed for deletion
Need images
New Article to be created

Category alphabetisation

alphabetised by family name unless category refers specifically to peerage or nobility. Jdcooper 15:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Murdered?

The article is allocated to "Murdered politicians" category, but it doesn't make it clear whether the man was murdered or not. --Mal 12:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In all likelihood, Adams didn't murder him in the traditional sense but he did probably withhold treatment (he did this in other cases - plus, Adams wasn't just a serial killer - he was also a Plymouth Brethren fundamentalist who would automatically have had a grudge against such a high-ranking Mason (though the duke wouldn't have realised this)). If that counts, then the category can be put back. See pages 97-101 of 'Stranger in Blood' - Cullen, 2007. Malick78 17:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the Estate section, there is this sentence, "The Duke's surprise death meant that his estate had to pay 80% death duties, which would have been avoided had he lived a few months longer." Why would that have been the case? To avoid the tax, was there a particular date he needed to live until or did he need to be a particular age? I think it would be useful to (briefly) explain this in the article.

DinaFelice (talk) 07:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Major Rearrangement

I have divided the section Career into sections Early Life, Political Career and Other Civil Posts (latter to be completed). In time I will add further section on Military Career.Cloptonson (talk) 21:08, 25 September 2012 (UTC) The latter section, with citations to Who Was Who and Kelly's Handbook, was inserted today, Saturday 20 October 2011.Cloptonson (talk) 19:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Avoiding death duties

'The Duke's surprise death meant that his estate had to pay 80% death duties, which would have been avoided had he lived a few months longer.' Why would these have been avoided. Valetude (talk) 17:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's been there a while and I'm unsure too as to what it means. Presumably the law changed soon after, but I'm not certain.Malick78 (talk) 11:13, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think in those days, if you made a lifetime transfer of the estate to your heir and then lived for five years afterwards, death duties were not payable, and they went down on a sliding scale up to that point. The article now says that the duke lived less than four years afterwards, so there was only a 20% reduction. I've a vague idea the duty-free limit is now seven years, because people live longer, but the principle remains the same. This is how a few great estates like Chatsworth and Goodwood have survived. The Devonshires got caught that time, and the Richmonds did in the 1930s (and had to sell the family's Scottish estates to pay The Man and fell back on just Goodwood), but since then they've managed to make lifetime transfers and last out beyond the limit. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]