Talk:Leveson-Gower family

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

United Kingdom This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage 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.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

What exactly makes them Scottish? The Leveson Gowers' seat was Trentham in Staffordshire for centuries. Before that, the Levesons were Merchants of the Staple based in Wolverhampton. The duchy of Sutherland doesn't make its bearers Scottish, any more than being Viscount Galway made the Moncktons Irish, for example. I'm not saying they aren't Scottish. Just asking. Sjwells53 (talk) 12:24, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. I have changed it to British. Zacwill16 (talk) 12:05, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

John Gower is included in category Leveson-Gower. Is there any citation which supports this? I am contemplating deleting this category from John Gower article.Rdmoore6 (talk) 02:02, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The illustration's fourth quarter isn't a black (sable) flory cross on top of barry-of-eight silver/white (argent) and red (gules). It's the black cross on top of "argent, four bars gules" for a total of nine stripes, not eight. At some number it might be correct to change "bars" to "barrulets", but I think common practice is that four or fewer are "bars" and five or more are "barrulets". I must acknowledge that MAYBE this illustration comes from the College of Heraldry and, if so, there's weight behind it, even if it is in error (which has happened with such documents where the artist makes a slight goof vs. the text blazon), but then please document that. Also, there may be some really hyper-obscure rule that very few people know about, pertaining to the count near the narrower (bottom) end of a shield, and if so please cite. I'm not adamant that the drawing is incorrect, but if it's correct then it is correct in spite of readers' reasonable objections as to what they would EXPECT to find, and those objections should I think be explained away.2600:8804:8800:11F:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 06:58, 19 February 2022 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson[reply]