I would put this under John Churchill not Duke of Marlborough and use the Duke of Marlborough page to direct to pages for each Duke (presuming the other dukes were notable). I know the British system is diferent but which would be easier? -rmhermen
I'm inclined to leave it. He's far more famous as "The Duke of Marlborough", and from the time he was made Earl Malborough his legal name was "Marlborough", not "John Churchill". Putting him under "John Churchill" would be like putting "John Wayne" under "Marion Morrison". As for the other dukes, fortunately none of them were more than faintly notable (the famous Winston Churchill was not duke). If push comes to shove that's what the notation 2nd Duke of..., 3rd Duke of... is for. --
PaulDrye
Then at least shouldn't he be listed as 1st Duke not just Duke. We call them Quenns Eliz. I and II, although the first Elizabeth didn't call herself that. -rmhermen
We've stepped into a difficult spot here, in which there's no good solution but popularity. During his life, I scan the following proper names for Our Man:
- John Churchill
- Sandridge (short form)/John?, Baron Sandridge (long form)
- Marlborough/John?, Earl Marlborough/John?, Duke Marlborough
as well as the titles:
- Baron of Sandridge
- Earl of Marlborough
- Duke of Marlborough
- 1st Duke of Marlborough
Ten different names correct in one way or another. Which to choose, which to choose? All I can say is that The Duke of Marlborough is known far and wide as "The Duke of Marlborough". The other eight possibilities are just trivia about his life. A reality check: Google reports 5,730 hits for "Duke of Marlborough", 539 for "1st Duke of Marlborough" and 4,440 for "John Churchill" (many of which are different people). If someone cares to type in any of the other possibilities, redirect them here, but let's stick to calling him by what he is generally known as -- PaulDrye
>his star began a meteoric rise.
...they don't go in that direction. But then again, I'm not accustumed to English metaphors.
![[Home]](wikipedia.png)