Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Talk:R. H. Bruce Lockhart

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Football

[edit]

"At the time of his arrival in Russia, people had heard that a great footballer named Lockhart from Cambridge was arriving, but did not know the difference between Association Football and Rugby Football." It's not clear to me, either. I'm an American, and I'm never sure what Brits mean when they say, "Footie," "football" or "footballer." Did he play soccer or rugby? And if rugby, union or league? - Wes Clark — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.207.242.4 (talk) 14:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can make neither head nor tail of these Soccer references - can they be removed please if there are no external references? They make no sense, factual or logical, as they stand. 77.102.253.202 (talk) 22:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is expanded on later in the paragraph - "The great player however was Robert's brother, John, who had played rugby union for Scotland, and by his own admission Robert barely deserved his place in the team and played simply for the love of the sport." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.207.115 (talk) 09:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted suggestion that Russians couldn't tell soccer from rugger. What RB-L actually says is that the Charnock brothers didn't stop to ask if he was soccer or rugger before nabbing him for their team. That doesn't support a suggestion that Lancastrians (which is what they were) couldn't tell the difference, let alone Russians, which they weren'tRjccumbria (talk) 18:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relations

[edit]

Is he related to Lord Bruce-Lockhart? Otherwise, why the "See also"? JRawle (Talk) 10:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - either grandfather or great-uncle. I'll check which when I have time. Xn4 10:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Sir Robert Hamilton Bruce-Lockhart's brother (JH) was the grandfather of Baron Bruce-Lockhart. BTW Sir Robert had the KCMG (1943)whihc appears to be missing in the article. Alci12 15:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Omission or admission?

[edit]

Seems to me that it should read "by his own admission"... Jpaulm 19:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]