Talk:Christopher Lee

Probably not the only one in the Jackson films to have met Tolkien

Martyn Sanderson was apparently taught by him at oxford:

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/15820/death-of-martyn-sanderson

©Geni (talk) 11:20, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Photo

Since there seems not to be any photos available to use from middle age, as is typically done after a subject is deceased, the photo from 2009 seems to be best in quality, including focus. Please discuss before making changes. 2604:3D09:927F:E900:CED:F2EF:E379:648C (talk) 05:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Milowent

May I ask you to shed your opinion on the photos from 2009 and 2013. Thank you. 2604:3D09:927F:E900:CBD:A840:D9DD:E770 (talk) 04:39, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Hello @Helper201

Please engage in discussion. 96.53.142.126 (talk) 19:33, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• I have no strong opinion between the 2009 and 2013 photos. I see commons has some shots from earlier in his film career (film shots), though i didn't dig into whether people could quibble on copyrights of those.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 15:14, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Article’s over reliance on Lee’s own autobiography

I have made some significant edits to trim down the military service section, given its sourcing and claims by others of embellishment by Lee. I am surprised this article received good article status given how much seems wholly sourced by a regurgitation of his autobiography (which may or may not be reliable). There is a significant number of other parts of the article which are also almost exclusively reliant on Lee’s own version of events. Feel free to assist with replacing with/adding secondary sources where possible, or alternatively if you disagree feel free to discuss here Cbe46 (talk) 13:56, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

The issue is you would have it weighted towards embellishment and disregarded what he has stated, rather than keep what he stated and then counter with the embellishment claim. The latter tone is neutral, the former is not. Para Clark (talk) 14:11, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I have no issue with that necessarily, but at the very least I think the embellishment claim needs to be inserted somewhere so that readers are at least aware of the fact that not all necessarily accept his autobiography as gospel Cbe46 (talk) 19:26, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I have now recast my edit as per helpful suggestion above. I can see that my original edit was perhaps too much WP:BEBOLD, I suppose I was reacting to what I perceived as a general inclination of the page (and the military section in particular) to paint Lee in a slightly positive, less than neutral light. As just one example, here is some hidden text still currently on the page: “Lee claimed a link with Popski's Private Army but he is NOT on their records. Maybe he spent a day or two liaising with them or something below the radar.” It doesn’t seem to have occurred to whoever inserted that text that, as obvious alternatives, Lee could have either been mistaken or (as the critics might argue) this is an example of embellishment. Ie explaining any discrepancy in a way that preserves Lee’s account/reliability. Feel free to let me know if my edit is still too unbalanced or not neutral or however you want to call it, but the genesis of my changes is that I do think there are some serious issues on this page with it sounding too much of a puff piece for Lee, especially when much of the info of his early life is provided by himself (I am a Christopher Lee fan by the way). Wiki is not here to mirror whatever someone has written about themself in their own autobiography, with one or two occasional secondary sources thrown in here and there to give the impression of authoritative, reliable wiki voice. This is especially so when (legitimate) questions have been raised about aspects of that account Cbe46 (talk) 07:47, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

What image should be used in the infobox?

Opening a discussion because there have been back-and-forth edits over what image to use in the infobox for a while. Here are examples of what have been used and alternated between and a few extras. Let’s try and come to some consensus. Please vote and given your reasoning below.

• 
  A.
  (2013)
• 
  B.
  (2009)
• 
  C.
  (2008)
• 
  D.
  (2009)
• 
  E.
  (2007)
• 
  F.
  (2010)

Helper201 (talk) 22:07, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

A, B, or D. All of these three are good quality photos, show his face, head and hair without cutting any off in the picture (C, for example is not good because it cuts his hair out at the top). Helper201 (talk) 22:11, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

I would like to see a photo from the 1970s if possible, in his 50s or middle age. If none are available, I would say B or D. "A" seems soft and slightly unfocused. 2604:3D09:9284:2500:F579:685A:D2A1:1E0D (talk) 02:46, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

We don't have any photos from those times freely available, unless you count when he playing the role of another person during a film, which I'd say would not be appropriate in this context. Helper201 (talk) 01:11, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

"had to have the permission of the King of Sweden to marry"

I would like you to review the statement that he "had to have the permission of the King of Sweden to marry". You legally have to be an adult to marry. To get an exception from that rule, you need the legal authorities approval. The term you then use is "gå till kungs" (ask the King). But that does not mean that the royal highness himself review the act. It is reviewed by the civil service, from what I know in the Governors office, Länsstyrelsen. At the time of Lees engagement with Rosen, adulthood was reached at the age of 21. Therefor those "Kings permission" were then rather common. From what I know of today, you cannot get such exceptions anymore. You can get exceptions from marrying a close relative, but not an underage. 213.112.55.17 (talk) 08:12, 20 April 2025 (UTC)