Talk:Hugh Grosvenor, 7th Duke of Westminster

Skeleton infobox rv

Skeleton infobox rv as per WP:MOS “The most important group to consider are the casual readers of Wikipedia, who will never do any significant editing. Infobox templates that contain many blank fields, question marks and unknowns present an unprofessional appearance, diminishing Wikipedia’s reputation as a high-quality encyclopedia.” Quis separabit? 21:04, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

University of Oxford

There was nothing to say Hugh went to Oxford University before the 9th of August, then it was added unsourced. A source was added but it is a tabloid article from after this unsourced material was added to this wiki page, which makes me think the tabloid used this wiki page as a source (there are other paragraphs pretty much lifted from this wiki article in the cited source). Hence I think this still requires a citation. He graduated Necastle in ~August 2013, and started at Wheatsheaf in September of 2013, so attending Oxford seems unlikely. Perhaps this rumour was initiated by this person who had a linkedin page suggesting Hugh went to Oxford, but it seems this is an impersonator as many of his accounts have been closed down and his biography contains falsifiable information (e.g. he didn't go to eton college and was not president of OUCA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D Wells (talk • contribs) 11:30, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

References

Arms

I have added a note but the Arms need to be updated to remove the Garter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.234.36.213 (talk) 23:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hugh Grosvenor, 7th Duke of Westminster. 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/20101230154123/http://www.flintshirechronicle.co.uk/flintshire-news/local-flintshire-news/2010/12/02/duke-and-duchess-of-westminster-s-daughter-lady-edwina-marriestv-presenter-dan-snow-51352-27751501/ to http://www.flintshirechronicle.co.uk/flintshire-news/local-flintshire-news/2010/12/02/duke-and-duchess-of-westminster-s-daughter-lady-edwina-marriestv-presenter-dan-snow-51352-27751501/

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 04:28, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Amendments for accuracy

Hello Wikipedia editors,

My name is Paul Mannion and I am the Public Relations and Communications Manager for the Grosvenor Estate which represents the business activities of the Grosvenor family.

I am aware of the guidelines around Wikipedia editing by those with a conflict of interest so wanted to come to you as editors to ask for the following changes to be made to the 7th Duke's Wikipedia page as they are inaccurate.

Under the siblings section, the Duke's elder sister Lady Tamara Katharine Grosvenor is spelt incorrectly, it is "Katherine".

It is our understanding that the "Lines of succession to the British throne" box is incorrect and should be deleted.

Similarly, the "Orders of precedence in the UK" box is also incorrect and should be deleted.

Many thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulmannion (talk • contribs) 14:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

I've amended the spelling of Lady Tamara's middle name (the spelling you give is confirmed by online sources like thepeerage.com and Cracroft's Peerage). But I'm not sure on what basis you suggest the boxes are "incorrect". In any event, if they are incorrect, they should be amended to correct them, not deleted (unless the Duke has no position in the order of precedence, which can't be correct, and/or isn't in the line of succession to the Throne).

succession line to the throne

Just to explain the problem some people see in the Duke's position in the Line of Succession to the UK throne: Because duke Hugh's matrilineal great-great-grandmother, comtesse Sophie Merenberg (lineage up to her: -> Sasha of Phillips - Georgina of Wernher - Anastasia de Torby - Sophie of Merenberg) was born illegitimate, this Sophie does not convey hereditary right to the UK throne, although Sophie unquestionably is a direct descendant of Electress Sophia's 'body', though not heir. This Sophie Merenberg was born about a month before her parents, duke Nicolas of Nassau and Russian noble Natalia Pushkina, became married in their wedding in July of 1868. The 'English' succession law is adamant in these matters: only children born in wedlock are Electress Sophia's heirs to the throne. (comtesse Sophie's father duke Nicolas is a direct descendant of King George III's first-born sister, Augusta, duchess-consort of Brunswick, and therefore Nicolas was in Line of Succession, as are those descendants of duke Nicolas who descend from Nicolas' such children who were born after Nicolas married Natalia.)

However, this is not the end of the story about the Line of Succession here. Sophie of Merenberg's own birthdate is irrelevant to the possibility that her daughter Anastasia de Torby could be, and actually is, in Line of Succession as child born in wedded marriage of Sophie of Merenberg with her husband the Grand Duke Mikhail Mikhailovich of Russia. This is because Grand Duke Mikhail Mikhailovich himself is a direct HEIR of Electress Sophia's 'body' and had inherited right of succession in the UK. The third-born aunt of King George III was queen Louise of Norway and Denmark, as daughter of King George II one of heiresses of the Electress Sophia's 'body'. Queen Louise's daughter, Sophia Magdalena the Queen-Consort of Sweden had son, King Gustav IV Adolph. His daughter was Sweden's princess Sophie, Grand Duchess of Baden, whose daughter Cecilie Olga is the mother of the said Grand Duke Mikhail Mikhailovich.

So, the illicit birth of Sophie of Merenberg excludes Duke Hugh from the lofty position of heirs among the sister of George III, and Duke Hugh enjoys the mere lower position in the Line of Succession, derived from the third daughter of George II. This lower position puts Duke Hugh somewhere below the 3000 first ones in the succession, whereas the lost position from George III's sister would be just below the 2000 first ones...

Sophie Merenberg and her birth at pre-marital chronology: https://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00010334&tree=LEO

This display link https://www.genealogics.org/pedigree.php?personID=I00010336&tree=LEO&display=standard&generations=4 pinpoints the ancestry of duke Hugh's great-grandmother, comtesse Anastasia de Torby, from her legitimate great-grandmother, Baden's grand duchess Sophie, princess of Sweden from a younger Vasa dynasty (herself in Line of Succession because of her own great-grandmother, Louise, third daughter of George II). 2001:14BA:485C:F700:750C:A7B7:264B:CFC8 (talk) 10:33, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

spacing

In references, down near the bottom of the page, number five needs a space before the first parenthesis. I couldn’t figure out how to do this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.118.32.5 (talk) 23:10, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

sorry. i just figured it out. just a little (a lot!) rusty in editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.118.32.5 (talk) 23:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Pregnancy announcement

@ItsShandog: It seems announcements of pregnancy are on a lot of pages after the birth Where? Keivan.f^Talk 09:02, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Prince William’s article keeps the pregnancy announcements for all three of his children, even after they were born. ItsShandog (talk) 09:06, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I guess we can't compare the relevance of Princes of the realm to a Duke's child. GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 09:07, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

And yet Catherine, Princess of Wales' page mentions only one such announcement and that's because it refers to the fact that as a public figure she had to cancel engagements due to morning sickness. What is the reason for keeping the announcement on Olivia or Hugh's pages? She is essentially a private individual, and their child's delivery and its circumstances are no different from someone like Jennifer Lopez who's actually more widely recognized. Keivan.f^Talk 09:12, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree. It seems to be a good reference though. So maybe if the phrase is structured in a more neutral way, combined with the birth announcement, it can stay? GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 09:16, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Was the announcement of such relevance and implication on people's life's that it needs to be documented here?

@Keivan.f raises a good argument in reg the Princess of Wales. In that case, it had a certain implication. GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 09:18, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Since this is their first child, and the pregnancy was formally announced and widely reported, it holds clear public interest—especially given Hugh and Olivia’s high profile. If it were a second or third child, the threshold for inclusion might be different, but in this case the announcement helps document a significant milestone and aligns with how similar biographies are handled. ItsShandog (talk) 09:28, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

What do you mean formally announced?

The Royal Family does formal announcements.

As for the Grosvenors, the only ref in this page reg the announcement states that a spokesperson mentioned the pregnancy, but it does not say how and by whom. I wouldn't consider this widely reported, given it is only one reference. It is a great milestone in every parents life.

Also, pls consult this: WP:BLPNAME GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 09:40, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

A spokesperson does it for the royals as well so i don't see the difference. If Prince William's page has the announcement of the 3 children and Princess of Wales has the announcement of the first one i don't see what's wrong with keeping the announcement of the first child on this page. It wasn't one reference the announcement was published in lots of places i only added one reference cause what's the need for lots of them when one covers all the details. ItsShandog (talk) 10:12, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

The relevance of the individuals being discussed appears to differ, which may be contributing to the discrepancy in our perspectives. As previously stated, the Wales family and the Grosvenor family operate on distinct levels of public relevance.

There's a well-established historical precedent for public announcements surrounding royal births that does not typically extend to the birth of a Duke's child.

Can you provide other examples of people at the same level of Hugh Grosvenor who have pregnancy announcements on their page? This is the specific information we are discussing here. GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 10:20, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

While the child’s birth is now documented, the pregnancy announcement remains relevant as part of the chronology of publicly reported events. Wikipedia reflects not just outcomes, but the sequence of notable coverage. In this case, the pregnancy was reported by multiple national outlets and formed a key part of the media narrative surrounding Grosvenor’s transition into family life. Removing it would omit a widely covered milestone that contributed to public interest and shaped subsequent reporting. Its inclusion helps preserve the continuity and context of coverage, especially given Grosvenor’s elevated visibility due to royal associations. This isn’t about routine aristocratic pregnancies—it’s about a case where the announcement itself was treated as newsworthy. ItsShandog (talk) 10:44, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

You have been told multiple times why some pages have the announcements listed (Serena Williams) and why some others don't (Jennifer Lopez). So unless you can come up with a reason as to why this announcement was of a huge cultural or public significance I might have to assume that I'm dealing with WP:COMPETENCE here. Keivan.f^Talk 10:23, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree, I go back to my initial point, was this "Pregnancy Announcement" of such relevance and impact in people's life's/society that it needs to be documented here? Or is it more on the realm of trivia?

Like I said, if rephrased in a more neutral way and combined with the birth info, maybe it can stay on the page. GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 10:26, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Combining the two sentences could be a possibility. But keeping the announcement separate as if it was a huge deal makes zero sense. If it were up to me, it would have been removed altogether by now but of course we cannot engage in edit wars. Keivan.f^Talk 10:31, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

As I view it, the child is now born, meaning that this information supersedes the "pregnancy announcement" one. GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 10:31, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Nevertheless, it is advisable to wait for one or two days to see if any other users might decide to side with the person who holds the opposing view. If not, I'll proceed with the removal. Keivan.f^Talk 10:35, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

In Hugh Grosvenor’s case, the pregnancy announcement was reported by multiple national outlets and formed part of a sequence of notable events: engagement, high-profile wedding, pregnancy, and birth. His role as godfather to Prince George and Prince Archie places him in a unique position of public visibility within the British aristocracy. While this may not meet the threshold of “huge cultural significance” in the same way as a global celebrity, it was clearly treated as newsworthy by reliable sources and contributed to sustained public interest. That’s the standard Wikipedia uses—not just cultural magnitude, but coverage in reliable sources. ItsShandog (talk) 10:43, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Ok. Then ensure to put this references in the text to sustain the information and your arguments. GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 10:45, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Several sources reporting the announcement of the pregnancy. https://www.tatler.com/article/duke-westminster-hugh-grosvenor-olivia-henson-baby-announcement https://people.com/duke-duchess-westminster-pregnant-expecting-first-child-11695707 https://www.gbnews.com/royal/royal-news-prince-william-latest-duke-of-westminster-baby-announcement https://www.townandcountrymag.com/society/tradition/a64166117/duke-duchess-of-westminster-expecting-baby/ ItsShandog (talk) 10:54, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Not everything that makes it into the news cycle is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. See WP:NOTNEWS. Keivan.f^Talk 10:59, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

GBNews is most definitely NOT a reputable source WP:RSP GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 11:03, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/hugh-grosvenor-olivia-westminster-prince-of-wales-prince-george-b2713880.html https://people.com/duke-duchess-westminster-pregnant-expecting-first-child-11695707 these sources are. ItsShandog (talk) 11:06, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't see anything but coverage in a bunch of magazines (except The Independent). It's not like The Times or The Washington Post put out news articles for this pregnancy announcement which you happen to be the only one to think is of utmost importance. Again, nothing but WP:NOTNEWS. Keivan.f^Talk 14:29, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

True. The reality is, there's so little substantive news about the Duchess at present that even minor updates can seem notable to some. But in my experience, that's not what Wikipedia is for—we need to stick to lasting, well-sourced coverage, not just momentary media buzz. MSincccc (talk) 14:34, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

If you check the page I have removed the announcement. ItsShandog (talk) 14:52, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

@Keivan.f So unless you can come up with a reason as to why this announcement was of a huge cultural or public significance I might have to assume that I'm dealing with WP:COMPETENCE here.

I would suggest striking this piece of praeteritio. I also thought the article was improved by including the announcement and its accompanying citation, so @ItsShandog wasn't alone in that. I think it adds to the narrative flow of the article. Whether the reporting was in newspapers or magazines is not really relevant, and in fact, the invocation of WP:NOTNEWS actually adds to the case for including it, we're not just recounting what the newspapers thought was important, because we're not a newspaper.

@MSincccc But in my experience, that's not what Wikipedia is for—we need to stick to lasting, well-sourced coverage... but no one is claiming that the announcement didn't happen, after all, we do have a credible newspaper source. If we had a vastly longer article and we needed to trim it down for some reason, sure, but here it captures the zeitgeist associated with the subjects. -- Jahaza (talk) 22:08, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

and in fact, the invocation of WP:NOTNEWS actually adds to the case for including it What? This is your personal interpretation of the policy which clearly states "While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style." The relevant fact here is that a non-notable child has been born to a notable couple under very normal circumstances just like millions of other births that take place each year. When they put out an announcement about their pregnancy to the public and which magazine decided to report on it is irrelevant. Keivan.f^Talk 03:02, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

the announcement helps document a significant milestone No it does not. The child's birth is a milestone not a statement on their pregnancy announcement which was just put out for public consumption. Did they make the pregnancy announcement while posing for photographs like Serena Williams? No. Did she have to cancel public engagements like Catherine, Princess of Wales? No. Then there's no reason for inclusion from an encyclopedic point of view. Keivan.f^Talk 09:41, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I understand that Wikipedia shouldn't be used as a diary, but surely it will depend on the source quality and how the phrase is structured.

Also, I believe minors names are not written in their parents pages. GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 09:07, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I concur with Keivan above. The announcement lacks lasting relevance, fails WP:NOTNEWS, and raises BLP:NAME concerns. MSincccc (talk) 11:20, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Agree. GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 11:21, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Okay, removed. ItsShandog (talk) 11:38, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

What is the WP:BLPNAME concern? The name is available in the sources linked in the article now for the birth announcement.

Why hasn't the announcement of their engagement been removed as well?

And the part about visiting the University of Chester is now oddly adrift, since it is located in time by reference to the pregnancy announcement, which is no longer in the article. (And is arguably far more trivial than the pregnancy announcement itself.) Jahaza (talk) 22:16, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Read footnote f which states: This is generally interpreted by the community to include the removal of names of non-notable minors from articles about their notable family members, such as when a notable individual births or sires a non-notable minor. Notability is not presumed or inherited with extremely limited exception (such as heir to a throne or similar).

Being engaged is a milestone in a person's life; another milestone would be when a couple realizes that they are expecting, not when their representative decides to announce the news of them expecting to some local magazines. Unfortunately (!), we do not know when the couple realized they were expecting and frankly we are not entitled to know it.

The University of Chester visit is notable for being a charity visit by the couple. The part about it being the first visit by her since her pregnancy announcement should be tossed as well. Keivan.f^Talk 04:28, 30 July 2025 (UTC)