Talk:Jeffrey Hudson

reason for temporary reversion

These added details are interesting but where did they come from? I am skeptical because they were conspicuously not in Nick Page's book, which is our most inclusive overview of his life. Was this simply imaginary embellishment centuries later? Feel free to re-add or revert back along with a source for the extra detail. thnaks alteripse 12:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

knighted

was he or not? Was it just a nickname? Johnbod 02:56, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

There are lots of references to his knighthood. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

There is no mention of Jeffrey in The Knights of England (1906). Ned de Rotelande 17:21, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

irony

"It is ironic that the smallest man in England was born in Rutland the smallest county in England." This word, 'ironic'. I do not think it means what you think it means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.142.50.26 (talk) 04:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you are right. Perhaps the, er most "fitting" word, would be "fitting": as in It is fitting that the smallest man in England was born in Rutland, the smallest county in England. So go ahead and fix it. alteripse 00:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I fixed itHenry 21:43, 8 November 2007 (UTC)Henry

Re: the above. The sentence has indeed been changed and now reads "Perhaps it is ironic that..." This remains incorrect.

There is no "perhaps" about it; the smallest man in England being born in the smallest county, just like rain on your wedding day, is not ironic in any sense and no-one with an understanding of the meaning of the word could think that it was. As an example, Jeffrey Hudson being born to England's tallest woman would be ironic.

I realise this may seem a minor point but language is everything. We should endeavour to use it correctly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.93.161 (talk) 23:05, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Pretender?

Is there any chance that the 50 year old "Jeffrey Hudson" of 1669 was a "pretender"; simply a short statured person trying to obtain money by claiming to be the famous dwarf who disappeared 25 years previously. The lack of records and the doubling of his height seem peculiar, and how interesting that he turned up so soon after the Queen died. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.20.228.140 (talk) 04:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That occured to me as well. I have absolutely no evidence to back it up (I haven't looked for evidence), and I don't know much about dwarfism, but a doubling in height so late in life... I can't help but think that it would put great strain on the bones. If I had been at the court, and this guy showed up with his claims, I'd have been highly sceptical, and would have asked him to prove that he really was the original Jeffrey Hudson. --Peter Knutsen (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

If that information about the height is true then it would astonish me if mainstream scholars really think the 1669-82 Hudson was who he claimed to be. Maybe it's possible for someone to have a growth spurt in late adulthood; it's much more likely the guy was just lying for lucre. 69.227.22.94 (talk) 15:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I always wondered about whether it was the same Jeffrey but it seems far fetched that there was another person with the same condition who looked similar enough to pull it off. Also Jeffrey ended his days in prison for being a Catholic so it would have to be a pretty determined fake who went to prison for not recanting his Catholicism. johnnybriggs (talk) 15:40, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I think it is more likely that he was never only 18" high in the first place. If you look at the painting of Henrietta Marie, Hudson comes up to her hips. She gave birth to 5 children so she was not a dwarf. I think he was already about 45" tall when he was in her court.

Hudson, in the picture is between 2 1/2 feet and 3 feet tall. He is the size of a normal two-year-old, whose end height would be from 5 to 6 feet. He is 30-36 inches tall. About the size of Verne Troyer who is one of the smallest adults in the world.

Amandajm (talk) 13:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

In a very late response, when Hudson returned from his 25 year stint as a slave (and apparently twice the size he was when he was last seen), he stayed with his brother, who I would like to think would recognise his own brother. Also, Henrietta Marie was less than five feet tall herself, so wouldn't loom over anyone, no matter how short they were. --Roisterer (talk) 07:06, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Birthdate

Jeffrey Kacirk gives the birthdate as 27 February 1619. Is the article wrong? -- SECisek (talk) 21:36, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Kacirk seems misinformed. The only date that comes up when I googled "jeffrey hudson 1619" was 14 June. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Jester

The article Jester states, "Charles later employed a jester called Jeffrey Hudson who was very popular and loyal. Jeffrey Hudson had the title of Royal Dwarf because he was short of stature. One of his jests was to be presented hidden in a giant pie from which he would leap out." However this article states nothing of Hudson being a jester or a fool. Mike R (talk) 15:51, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:18, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Improbable claim

"which he attributed to the buggery he had regularly suffered at the hands of his captors."

This is given straight in the article, but for anyone as small as him, any buggery would have severely injured him with a high risk of consequent death from infection. Perhaps he meant this as a joke (and it seems like so to me) and as such this should be pointed out in the article. Contrary evidence: in the remainder of the article he seems to have become quite a serious person, especially with regards to the duel and the army position, so would he have joked about this? It's either a lie (joke) or he possibly never said it.

I don't have access to the source book, could someone check the source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RedTomato (talk • contribs) 20:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Given that there is no way a contemporary would have the medical knowledge to ascertain the cause, his self diagnosis would be at best, conjecture. The growth spurt sounds more like the doing of constitutional growth delay or acromegaly, but I am no doctor. I hope whoever they interviewed, whether it was the real Jeffrey or not, did not actually suffer in that way. I don't know if the highlighted section should be adjusted, but I highly agree with scrutinizing it. The only physical activity I am aware of that affects human height is space travel. If there is insight into the causes of growth spurts or the nature of this era's humor to be sourced I welcome it. Viethra (talk) 09:38, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Change of title?

Both the DNB and the ODNB call him Jeffery (not Jeffrey) Hudson. I've changed the spelling throughout the article, but I thought I should raise the matter here before changing the article's title. Any objections? --Antiquary (talk) 18:51, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Pistol duel?

It strikes me as odd that Hudson reportedly fought a pistol duel in 1644. Pistol dueling was not really a thing in the 17th century. In fact, Wikipedia's own article concerning the topic claims the first recorded pistol duel took place in 1711 - that's a full 67 years after Hudson's duel. Even in 1711 it was apparently unusual and did not become commonplace until the 1760s. So either Hudson fought the first pistol duel in recorded history, or something isn't adding up.

The name of the man that Hudson shot is not even recorded, making it essentially unprovable that anyone was actually killed (and thus that the encounter took place at all), and his use of a "water squirt gun" seems like another anachronism - water squirts did indeed exist in the 17th century, but they very large and were used for putting out fires; 'water pistols' for recreational use (which seems to be what the story is trying to evoke) did not exist until the late 19th century.

Is there a primary source for Hudson's duel? Is it even true, or just something invented by a later historian? Because it very much reads like somebody from a much later time period projecting a bunch of non-contemporary things onto the 17th century. I'd be very interested to know what the basis for this story is. 2A00:23C7:C892:5D01:686E:148D:761D:BAEB (talk) 09:11, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Water squirt gun?

The term "water squirt gun" is factually incorrect, and calls to mind Hudson's opponent using a modern day squirt-gun toy resembling a fire-arm. Additionally, it isn't the term used in the article cited. The cited article specifically uses the term "water squirt".

Squirt gun toys did not exist at the time, but devices called "water squirts" did, which were essentially large syringes used for putting out fires etc... (for details see the cited article and the footnote attached to the "water squirt gun" term explaining what the term "water squirt" means)

This entry uses a different term: "water squirt gun" than the very source it is citing (which specifically uses "water squirt"), additionally, the call-out explaining what a "water squirt" is, is nonsensical when attached to the label "water squirt gun" (there being no need to explain it in that case because it isn't a term for an anachronistic device that needs to be explained).

This entry should be changed to use the correct term "water squirt" instead of the incorrect and nonsensical "water squirt gun". 142.113.188.162 (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC)