Talk:Bridget Chaworth

A fact from Bridget Chaworth appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 18 December 2013 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that the inscription on Bridget Chaworth's monument commemorates her 25 years of service as a gentlewoman of the Privy Chamber to Elizabeth I and 14 years of service to Anne of Denmark?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2013/December. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Bridget Chaworth.

Wikipedia

Origin

There are several problems with the material related to the origin of the family. First, your source is a web page which itself provides no source for much of this information. Where it does supply a source it cites the Battle Abbey Role, which was put together long after the Conquest, and added to later than that, with the primary intent of glorifying the nobility of the time it was created rather than reflecting actual history. It is not a reliable record of who was present. By the 19th century, just about every gentry family in England claimed such an origin, so the fact that our subject came from a family that likewise claims such an origin is like simply saying she was a member of the English gentry - there is nothing special about this designation. It is particularly notable that the more scholarly source you cite, the ODNB article on the family, begins its account in the 1160s, not in the 1060s, so they, at least, don't think giving these family origin myths serves a useful purpose, and that is for their article on the family, rather than on this one individual member. Then there is the old "some sources say . . ." way of expressing it - when the sources don't agree, sometimes that is because they are simply speculating, or worse, and the best solution is to leave out both dubious versions.

Setting all that aside, people descend from other people, so what makes the derivation 500 years before noteworthy in a biography of this woman? How is this relevant to her story. Yes, an account of the family (what you cite) is interested in the family's origin, but when we talk about Bridget herself, how is the fact that 500 years before the family lived in a specific French town the slightest bit informative? Did she behave differently because her family came from that town? Do we get a better understanding of her by knowing that her great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-grandfather came from there? Likewise, is there something all that notable about this particular town that makes deriving from it 500 years earlier particularly noteworthy. Accepting that people have to come from somewhere, after 15 or 20 generations a person whose family originated in one French town is pretty much indistinguishable from one belonging to a family that originated from the neighboring town, so it suffices to simply say that her family belonged to the Anglo-Norman nobility and avoid the whole issue of the Battle Abbey Roll and what some people say but other people disagree with and the dubious ancestral claims that every Anglo Norman family made and made up. Agricolae (talk) 18:51, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted your deletion of pertinent material in the article which is sourced to the ODNB, which states:

Chaworth [ de Cadurcis] family (per. c.1160–c.1521), gentry, originated from Sourches near Le Mans in Maine. It is probable that Bourchard de Cadurcis was with William the Conqueror at the battle of Hastings, but it was the descendants of Bourchard's brother Hugh that settled in England. Patrick de Cadurcis (d. 1133) acquired the Gloucestershire honour of Kempsford through marriage into the Hesding family, and his great-great-grandson, another Patrick (killed in battle against the Welsh in 1258), added the Welsh marcher lordship of Kidwelly by his marriage to Hawise (d. 1274), daughter and heir of Thomas de Londres (d. c.1216). This senior male line of the family ended in the granddaughter of this marriage, Maud (1278–c.1322), who, as a ward of Edmund, earl of Lancaster, was married to Edmund's second son, Henry, later earl of Lancaster (c.1280–1345), in the 1290s.

Moreover your statement that 'your source is a web page which itself provides no source' is completely inaccurate. The stated source is the Thoroton Society of Nottinghamshire, on which Wikipedia itself has an article which states that 'The Thoroton Society of Nottinghamshire is Nottinghamshire’s principal historical and archaeological society.'

Please leave the material in place in the article until other editors can express their views on the Talk page. NinaGreen (talk) 19:21, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should also add that Bridget Chaworth's family origins assist Wikipedia users in understanding the composition of Elizabeth I's inner circle of attendants; one of the considerations which had a bearing on the Queen's choice of particular women as her personal attendants was family background. NinaGreen (talk) 19:42, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Issue

"Bridge(t) born about 1542" . . . "is said to have had three sons" . . . "and George Carr (15 August 1599 – 4 April 1682)".

Is it likely she would have had a child at age 57? Curious, Eddaido (talk) 00:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. NinaGreen (talk) 06:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so now you have left that out. Have you reviewed the rest of the article? Eddaido (talk) 06:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was doubtful about the three alleged sons from the get-go since her husband's brother was his heir, but included them with the words 'it is said' to cover off the possibility that she might have had three sons, as some sources allege. But as you pointed out, the dates for one of her alleged sons are so discrepant (if we accept that she was 79 years old at her death, as stated on her monument), that it's preferable to omit the alleged sons until some further evidence of their existence turns up. NinaGreen (talk) 16:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you checked for other errors? Eddaido (talk) 02:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't an error. When there's a difference among reliable sources, one sets out the two different positions. NinaGreen (talk) 07:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But without comment it just looks ridiculous. Have another look (if you think you have fixed all the errors). Eddaido (talk) 08:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're playing games, and I don't have time for that. Let's drop it. NinaGreen (talk) 15:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. I think it is good of you and others to, well, expand the information available in the History of Parliament series, correcting where necessary but you should allow for them to be read by readers who mind what you write. I have not read this article in entirety but my first puzzlement was with the numbers in the infobox. You are doing a disservice to yourself if you let them stay as they are. (PS its a wapentake) Eddaido (talk) 21:52, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I suggested you drop it, but you continue to drone on with irrelevant and coy comments. Give it a rest. NinaGreen (talk) 22:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]