Jump to content

Talk:Hugh Trevor-Roper

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


There seem to be discrepancies among the sources, regarding the following points:-

  • date of marriage (1954 or 1957)
  • wife's previous married name ("Howard-Johnston" or "Howard-Johnstone")
  • number of children of wife (two or three)

Anyone happen to have easy access to Burke's Peerage or Who's Who...? :) -- Oliver PEREIRA 21:29 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

Burke's 1999 says:

  • 1954, and, under "Haig", October 4, 1954
  • Howard-Johnston
  • 3: 2 sons, one daughter (listed under "Haig")

-- Someone else 21:38 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

Thank you ever so much for checking, Someone else. :) -- Oliver PEREIRA 21:42 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

Hitler Diaries[edit]

The article is wrong to call the Hitler diaries crude fakes. They weren't crude at all. They were caught out through microscopic examination which revealed among other things that they were bound with a type of glue not manufactured in the 1940s. But there was nothing crude about the actual diaries, which to the eye, in the absence of scientific examination, looked genuine. In Trevor-Roper's defence, he said he judged them on their content, not binding, and initial readings left an impression in many readers that they were genuine and the discovery of the century. JTD 15:58 Jan 28, 2003 (UTC)

You are may well be right. It is debatable. However, on reflection, I don't think this is the right place to report this controversy (whether the diaries were a crude fake or a sophisticated one) - it should go in the Hitler Diaries article. If you have no objection, I'll revert to your "proved by forensic examination to be a fake", and remove the tangential remark about glue, which I think disrupts the flow of the paragraph. GrahamN 16:31 Jan 28, 2003 (UTC)

Sounds fine. JTD 18:17 Jan 28, 2003 (UTC)

Peerage title[edit]

Why does this article title include his peerage title? He is not generally known by it. john k 02:36, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The article refers to the "nadir of Dacre's career," etc., so it would seem that he was famous as "Lord Dacre of Glanton" as well. -- Emsworth 22:08, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Evelyn Waugh's attacks[edit]

Would it be worth mentioning Evelyn Waugh's attacks on T-R, because of the latter's overt anti-Catholicism? After all, it isn't every day that a world-famous novelist and a world-famous historian square off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor-Roper said that Fisher and More were executed on the same day. Actually, they were executed on different days. Trevor-Roper said that they were the first to be executed. Actually, Houghton was. Waugh noted that Trevor-Roper had no priviledged right to speak, merely because Trevor-Roper's family had apostasised more recently than Waugh's. Trevor-Roper had claimed this right.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Trevor-Roper accused the Pope of supporting the Nazis. On a separate occasion, Waugh noted that Roper's ancestors had invaded England from Germany at the expense of the Welshmen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:7C87:4F00:DD0D:AC77:F33A:5F8F (talk) 13:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the first thing you lot will need to do is find a reliable source that discusses this. I have Sisman's bio, which might do, but the onus is on you and I think he was pretty daming of most religions, not just Catholicism. This place works a lot better if people are pro-active. - Sitush (talk) 15:21, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Depressing, the Wikipedia tendency to soften any criticism of Communism. HTR's forthright Encounter articles have to be watered down with the editorializing that well, off the record, you know, he really did think Koestler was too hard on Communism.... Come on. Quit interjecting yourself. Let HTR be who he was. Look at the Orwell article, which is similarly diluted. ~~Profhum

New addition of African debate[edit]

I have added a section on Trevor-Roper and his claims about African history, which he made first in a lecture on BBC radio in 1963 and later in his book The Rise of Christian Europe (1965). This is a very important aspect of controversy about T-R, and I hope the way in which I have described the conflict is sufficient both in didactic voice, clarity, and neutrality. If there is any question as to the neutrality, please comment on the discussion board b/f editing things out, so we can have a debate over what constitutes a neutral position on this matter. It should be noted that T-R's claims have been completely discredited in the academic world; no one of any repute still holds to the "no African history" thesis, except perhaps a few isolated individuals. I welcome any suggestions anybody might have regarding the presentation of this issue in T-R's life.--Lrschum 19:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)lrschum[reply]

I've taken the liberty of editing a section of that section to more accurately reflect that "no one of any repute still holds to the "no African history" thesis except perhaps a few isolated individuals." LoreKeeper1 (talk) 11:48, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Related to the above commentary on the new section, after someone has had a chance to review it, do you think it should be a subsection of the academic controversy section or in its own section? It is rather lengthy.--Lrschum 19:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New section[edit]

After looking over what I'd written, it seems it requires its own section so the African debate issue does not interfere with the academic controversy section above.Lrschum 00:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


In 1982, in an article in the "Daily Telegraph", Trevor-Roper said that the Gaelic language was "obsolete". This led to a number of protests, often from native speakers of Gaelic in Scotland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that HTR's essay in Hobsbawm's Invention of Tradition and his posthumously published work "The Invention of Scotland" deserve a small paragraph - we was writing in the 70s ahead of the Scottish devolution referendum and was motivated by a strong unionist opinion. Nevertheless he made a valuable contribution which challenged many "sacred cows" of Scottish nationalist history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:33, 15 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and it would be nice if there were a similar work on the invention and myths of England; ie, an explanation as to how England was invented by the Normans and Scots. This individual didn't dare publish this shameless, bigotted polemic himself and it wouldn't have seen the light of day if it hadn't been pounced on by another jealous bigot with an axe to grind against a people who played such a huge role in putting their own country on the map. Roper makes a point of informing the reader that he's married to a 'Scotswoman' and lives just outside Edinburgh, as if these inconsequential details should absolve him from any possible allegations of malicious ethnic disparagement. Anybody reading this extremely boring book can be left in no doubt as to its transparent agenda: it is not just, as has been suggested above, a calculated countercheck to the nationalist aspirations of a proud, disparate people anxious to preserve their culture and identity; but also an unashamedly contemptuous verbal assault on the very validity of the Scots as a distinctive, unique people. The emphatic implication of this miserable diatribe, that the Scots are unworthy of being classified as a nation or people, is all the more galling because it comes from the pen of a man (albeit one who purposefully courted controversy to achieve notoriety)who himself belonged to a much more ethnically diverse people than the Scots themselves - the English! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:32, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

someone there doesn't like his sacred cows challenged ... (talk) 14:38, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Call for contributors: The Invention of History[edit]

The comment above reminded me that by 2010 HTR's participation in the Invention of History debate continues to be cited, but isn't in our article. Really, our article often reads like a collection of minor grudges by people whose professions were threatened by HTR's ideas. It could use more meat. Reading this article, the student is at a loss to discover why HTR is so admired. (Unless that's the point, but then, that's not good wiki.) Profhum (talk) 18:30, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was a student at Peterhouse in the 1980s and talked to HTR at dinners on two or three occasions. I strongly agree with the above. HTR despite his faults (which contributed to his problems in Peterhouse, something that again the article fails to communicate) was a great historian. (talk) 11:24, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pardon my not understanding how someone – an Oxford academic to boot and a supposed historian no less – could be considered "great" in spite of claiming that an entire continent and it's peoples basically "have no history." We would think that even the stupidest of "historians" would know such a claim to be counterintuitive and that any mindset harbouring it is demonstrating instincts contrary to the fundamental precepts of the social science the study of history is. IMHO, HTR basically hobbled his intellect and the integrity of his science with a vain, racist and eurocentric view of history that robustly demonstrates how supposedly "great" people can be stultifyingly "dumb". LoreKeeper1 (talk) 12:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]


The section "Military service in World War 2", sounds like an advertisement written by Trevor-Roper or his friends. A vague "opinion" is mentioned. We are told that Trevor-Roper was most superior to Angleton. It seems that T.-R. never saw any action. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC) Only the first line and a half refer to Trevor-Roper's service. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:10, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The remark about Angleton has now disappeared. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relation in the RAF[edit]

This is not an enormously common surname, you might think.

But nowhere on the web can I find any mention of whether he was related to the only other fairly well-known T-R, the Flight Lieutenant Richard Algernon Dacre Trevor-Roper, who served on the Dambusters raid with Guy Gibson in 617 Squadron, and was eventually killed in action in 1944.

Does anyone know anything about this? --Ndaisley (talk) 09:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They were second cousins, sharing a great-grandfather; Charles Blayney T-R > Richard Henry T-R > Bertie William Edward T-R > Hugh T-R; Charles Blayney T-R > George Edward T-R > Charles Cadwaladr T-R > Richard A. D. T-R. It's a late response, but still. Ashiyura (talk) 21:57, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of his lengthy After Dark appearance[edit]

Given potential COI issues I don't propose reverting the removal of the reference to After Dark. However if one checks, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_After_Dark_editions#Series_3, one can see that the several hours of his appearance is now available for download by scholars. As this is without doubt the longest single filmed appearance of Dacre's career, and so not without historical interest, perhaps some editor might want to find a way of incorporating a reference in the article to benefit others who may not be aware of it.

Incidentally, on the reasons given for removal: adding something of note, properly referenced, is surely not as unencyclopaedic as the comment suggests. Nor is referring to Tony Benn's published diary an act of OR. Nor is pointing to a further source - held incidentally by the British Film Institute - in any way OR either. But I don't want to get into a debate on these points, just trying to be helpful, as people studying Dacre might want to know about this resource. AnOpenMedium (talk) 16:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

make an external link of the download. Statements in the text have to include some substance--and this one merely says he reminisced about the war for several hours, with no notion of what he said. That is, the statement that was reverted has near zero content. Rjensen (talk) 16:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Life Peerage[edit]

The section used to contain the following "His was the first Life Peerage created during Margaret Thatcher's term as Prime Minister." A quick look at the list of life peers created under Thatcher shows that this is not even close to be true, as she created nearly two dozen peers before Trevor-Roper. I have accordingly removed that information. Atchom 04:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ascherson quote[edit]

There is some truth in the lengthy Ascherson quote but all of the tripe about mourning Franco etc is just that, tripe. I suspect he was also the anonymous author of the Economist review that is referred to below the quotation. I knew both HTR and Cowling (and others involved) and, yes, they really didn't get on with each other. That dislike started even before HTR turned up at Peterhouse because he was astonished that a fellowship had been awarded to Harold James, who had not at that point been awarded his PhD. But the stuff about Jews and Franco etc sounds to me more like journalistic licence and certainly wasn't something I either witnessed or heard of. Should we really be placing so much weight on the opinion of someone who is nothing more than a journalist? - Sitush (talk) 00:43, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for making me aware of this stuff. If he is indeed only a journalist, I believe his opinions should not be on a par with those of true historians such as HTR, whose opinions I have a very high regard for. Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 12:51, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ascherson studied history at King's, Cambridge, and very successfully, too. But he has never been a professional historian etc. He is also an ardent fan of HTR, which makes him far from a neutral source. - Sitush (talk) 12:55, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I used to play croquet on occasion with HTR, usually 0900-ish when there was still dew on the grass. He invariably wore a dressing gown and slippers, which of course got soaked. I wasn't the only person to play him in those conditions but I've never seen it mentioned in a published biography. He was quite eccentric in several ways, as was Zandra. - Sitush (talk) 13:16, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If events described in the quote such as these:

...fellows should wear mourning on the anniversary of General Franco’s death, attend parties in SS uniform or insult black and Jewish guests at high table.

have any resemblance to anything that migh have occurred in reality in the dirty academic politics of Cambridge, something my current degree of knowledge of the subject is not enough to determine, then the quote should remain as is, in my view. warshy (¥¥) 13:29, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And, as I said, I never saw or heard of such things and was a damn sight closer to events than Ascherson. Yes, there was some behaviour (language, mostly) that nowadays would be considered racist but that had nothing to do with being dons and indeed was just a reflection of most of the UK at that time. I ask again, what authority does Ascherson have to make such comments, especially bearing in mind his known allegiance to HTR and dislike of Cowling? It is easy to smear the dead, especially in vague terms where you do not specifically name names but the inference is obvious. - Sitush (talk) 13:44, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My own regard for HTR's views comes from what I consider his valuable contributions to the history of WWII, from the perspective of a generation that did not in fact live the events. As I said in my original posting that got erased because of an edit conflict, academic politics can usually become as dirty and mundane as any other politics. I have to thank you again for making me aware of these issues, in which I did not previously delve at all. You are talking here as a live witness to events, and your insight is indeed valuable to me. As for what can be published in WP, I guess we have to rely on published reliable sources. Thank you. warshy (¥¥) 13:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and my point is that Ascherson is not reliable for this because he is far from independent - there is a vendetta going on and he happens to have outlived his bete-noire. See this, for example, which mentions the opposite "schools" of him and Cowling. Believe me, this is all about that rivalry and not much to do with fact. - Sitush (talk) 13:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we're definitely talking politics here, rather than scholarship. It is an interesting conversation, because there is so much time and geography that separates us. I had never heard the name of Ascherson until an hour ago, more or less. Now I see that he is quoted in your latest source side by side with other British intellectuals such as Arnold Toynbee, among others. His quote is certainly eloquent and well-written. Other editors should chime in also. Thank you for your interesting input into this matter. And good health to you too. warshy (¥¥) 14:10, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, it is politics but Ascherson's, not mine. Like I said, I got on ok with both of them. Cowling used to call me a "Tory anarchist", which he considered to be a compliment; HTR gave me a least a couple of very decent bottles of single-malt. - Sitush (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My own knowledge of British politics stops at WWII, never really followed it in depth after that. And I last studied that in depth in college, many years ago. For me, history after WWII is still more the realm of journalism and politics than the realm of history proper. In fact, I would not have imagined before this morning that there could be contemporaries of HTR still active and publishing in WP. Long live British intellectuals! warshy (¥¥) 14:49, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't call myself a contemporary in the sense of age. He was years older than me but Peterhouse is a very small college - the smallest and oldest at Cambridge University - and that makes a difference. Add to that the fact that HTR didn't regard age as a barrier to anything provided the person was intelligent. We're drifting off topic but I thought I should set the record straight before you think of me as some decrepit relic! - Sitush (talk) 15:22, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for setting the record straight for me. I myself was born in 1952, and I had not disclosed that little fact before anywhere on WP. warshy (¥¥) 15:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence in the intro on Dacre's reputation[edit]

There is a small but significant error in the introduction. The last sentence says that his reputation was severely damaged by the Hitler Diaries episode. That is true, but as it is the last sentence, one gets the idea that his reputation was permanently tarnished. Could someone insert a follow-up sentence (with a reference) about how his legacy has survived as a reputable historian? HalfdanRagnarsson (talk) 12:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unattributed Hegel quote[edit]

A bit over a month ago, I removed the sentence 'Africa is "no historical part of the World; it has no movement or development to exhibit"' from the article, on the basis that the quote comes from Hegel's Lectures on the Philosophy of History (p. 103 in the free Google Books edition), not Hugh Trevor-Roper (or Voltaire) as the article implies. I've just noticed that you reverted that change, warshy, on the basis that I was mistaken about the quote's origin. Would you object to me reinstating my edit, now that I have provided a source? Thanks in advance, Swadge2 (talk) 06:59, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Swadge2 - So, you are saying that Trevor-Roper was openly quoting Hegel, when implying that the African continent had no history per se as understood in post-Enlightenment history? That you found the quote in Hegel still does not prove to me that Trevor-Roper was quoting/using Hegel when making that argument. But if you can show conclusively that he was, I won't object to it remaining on the page. Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 18:07, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
warshy - No, sorry if I've been unclear: what I'm saying is that Hugh Trevor-Roper never wrote that Africa was "no historical part of the world..." etc—Hegel did. For some reason, this Hegel quote has ended up in this article in a way that makes it look like Trevor-Roper's words, and so I think it should be removed. When I tried to remove it from the article, you reverted my edit on the basis that it was probably a quote from Trevor-Roper or Voltaire, and in my message above I was just trying to show that it actually was a quote from Hegel by providing the source. Clearly there are similarities between Hegel and Trevor-Roper's views on African history, so the confusion is understandable, but I just want to remove the misattributed quote from the article. Thanks, Swadge2 (talk) 00:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Swadge2 - OK, I think I uderstand your argument now. In any case, the quotation in the text as it is right now is unreferenced. If you are sure that Trevor-Roper himself never said anything like that, go ahead and remove it. I wouldn't have the time to try and search through his work looking for it... Thank you, warshy (¥¥) 01:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
warshy - Thanks, I'll remove it, as I'm confident those are not Trevor-Roper's words (even though he made a similar argument in The Rise of Christian Europe). I've just looked back through the article's history to see how the sentence in question got there, and discovered previously it was within the "quote" field of a reference to Hegel's Lectures on the Philosophy of History. Then in 2018, an IP editor deleted the reference but (probably inadvertently) left the quote in the article text. See Special:diff/864803057. I think the Hegel comparison is more appropriate than the Voltaire one which was added by that editor, so if I get a chance and can find supporting references I might edit that later. Thanks, Swadge2 (talk) 02:12, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]