Talk:Lady Eleanor Talbot

Untitled

This might be a copied page, the same text is found here: http://lady-eleanor-talbot.biography.ms/.

The page you quote has all the hallmarks of being copied from wikipedia. Deb 17:41, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Source Tag

I've tagged the specific issue that stuck me as POV and needing a source. However, the article could use sources throughout for WP:V Agne27 03:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you querying whether Stillington told Clarence, or whether Clarence was unstable and untrustworthy - or both? Deb 11:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Mistress?

I don't see how this article particularly falls into the category of "Mistresses to English Royalty." A pre-contract marriage hardly qualifies, particularly as there is no evidence that their relationship continued. Fisty 05:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Quite - a marriage remains a marriage, even if the spouses separate.Smlark (talk) 14:53, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion between User:Deb and User:Smlark

I'm reproducing this discussion from a user talk page for the benefit of a wider readership:

I think you're missing the point here. Titulus Regius does not record any pre-contract although it alleges there was one. Neither is there any evidence, apart from Commines' testimony, that Stillington was the priest in question or that he made the allegation. Deb (talk) 12:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Correction: A secret marriage requires just two or three people: a bride, a groom and a witness (unless the first two provide written evidence or a confession). Edward IV's first marriage had himself, Lady Eleanor and Stillington - the later evidence of their lives and career paths demonstrates this. The third person testified in 1483. Like Ann Boleyn with Edward's grandson, Lady Eleanor evidently refused to be a royal mistress. His second "marriage" remained secret for years, being disclosed only when a foreign bride was suggested for him. Until 1464, there was no solid evidence that it had happened. What changed is that Lady Eleanor didn't become pregnant (her probable remains show no child unless she miscarried very early) but Elizabeth Woodville did. The child and it's later siblings needed a veil of "legitimacy". Edward may not have meant what he said in the promise that sealed either of the marriages but people say "I do" today without meaning it. A King with a pregnant partner and no public wife could write Lady Eleanor out of history and establish a dynasty as Henry VIII sought to do. Oh, one other thing. I didn't mention that I know Dr. Ashdown-Hill quite well and we met several times in the years leading up to revealing her as the "Secret" Queen. Should I have done? Smlark (talk) 13:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

There is no documentary evidence of any marriage or betrothal having taken place. Everything you have said above is mere speculation. Deb (talk) 14:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I should have answered your other question. I don't think you need to worry about a conflict of interest as long as you are not related to Dr Ashdown-Hill or anything like that. What you do need to think about is quoting actual evidence, if you are aware of any. That does not include their later careers or your personal opinions about Edward's motivation, which are at best circumstantial. Deb (talk) 14:42, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

There is gallons of evidence - Lady Eleanor leaving no will, although a widow would have done, and receiving land that neither her father nor first husband was associated with - unless Edward just gave land to random women because he felt like it. There is evidence implicit in Titulus Regius that there was documentary evidence (Stillington's testimony) even though this was destroyed later. There is evidence in the trajectory of Stillington's career: arrested, released and raised to a Bishopric, then imprisoned for life. Clarence had been disloyal for years but is suddenly executed when he discovers the secret and threatens to reveal it. Not only does this explanation make sense but no alternative explanation makes sense any more. The pre-contract was regarded by Parliament and the Council as proven, as the passing of TR shows, and the bi-posthumous revelation supplies the publicity to reinforce the marriage (JA-H). After all, there is no documentary evidence of Edward's other secret "marriage" (to another older, Lancastrian widow) because registration of births, deaths and marriages dates in England from the following century. The latter confided in her mother, of course. QED. Smlark (talk) 14:48, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I would agree, there is no evidence of Edward's secret marriage to Elizabeth Woodville. The difference is that Elizabeth was publicly declared to be Edward's wife and was crowned queen (in May 1465, when she could not yet have known she was pregnant with Elizabeth of York). But none of the other statements you have made constitutes evidence. The fact that Eleanor did not leave a known will could have a myriad of explanations. The fact that she was Edward's mistress doesn't prove that she had a marriage contract with him. Stillington's career progress (whether or not he was actually the priest who performed the alleged ceremony) is highly suggestive of someone whose allegiance was up for sale to whomever the monarch of the time (or the most likely alternative claimant) happened to be. Titulus Regius may be regarded by some as likely to have been based on documentary evidence; the contents are regarded by others as propaganda to bolster Richard's usurpation of the throne. Try and come up with something concrete if you want your edits to stand. Deb (talk) 15:26, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Eleanor was publicly declared to have been Edward's wife in the Titulus Regius, as a condition precedent to the settlement of the crown thereby , and none of those who could have challenged that alleged marriage in the ecclesiastical court, that is Elizabeth Woodville and her children by Edward, ever chose to do so.

The fact that (Eleanor) was Edward's mistress doesn't exist; Eleanor is never described as Edward's mistress in the sources; the only author mentioning intercourse taking place betweeen them is Commines, who describes a context that made them man and wife.

Stillington's career progress stamps him out as a dyed in the wool yorkist supporter, certainly no opportunist: he chose to joepardize his hard won peace with Henry the VII to support the Lambert Simnel rebellion, a quixotic enterprise if ever there was one. He must have been in his 80s at the time, since he is thought to have been born ca 1405. 93.36.218.51 (talk) 08:30, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Stillington's evidence before the Privy Council or Parliamentary would have been transcribed unless it was submitted in written form already. PS Are you suggesting that Edward's secret marriage ceremonies be treated consistently on here? If neither have surviving written evidence, fully recognise neither or both, and edit other pages accordingly. Smlark (talk) 17:57, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I explained the difference, and what I see in the article reflects that difference. You are trying to make it appear, without any evidence other than hearsay, that the marriage with Eleanor Butler definitely took place. If you can't provide citations, these edits of yours will be removed. Deb (talk) 18:15, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I've done my best to bring this into conformity with NPOV, which means including both sides of the debate, but giving most prominence to the views of mainstream historians. Of course if you think the balance is not correct, we can discuss the matter. Paul B (talk) 16:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

This is something of an improvement in that the previous version quoted Ashdown-Hill extensively but then ignored his conclusion. If Stillington's testimony was verbal then it would have been transcribed - imagine a late Medieval version of the Leveson inquiry - probably by a lawyer such as Catesby, who was conveniently executed three days after Bosworth. Titulus Regius 1484 was not merely repealed but every known copy destroyed and Stillington's testimony probably went the same way. TR was rediscovered by Speed in 1611 (JA-H, p.190) and Buck, in 1619 (JA-H op. cit.) was first to expose Lady Eleanor's true identity. JA-H (p.201) shows that TR was taken largely from a Petition to Richard of Gloucester, dated 26 June 1483 (days after Stillington's revelations) - surely the only written confirmation of a secret marriage ceremony in that era (JA-H, p.156), including Edward to Elizabeth Woodville. By contrast, Scotland's Robert II definitely cohabited with his first "wife" but there may not have been a ceremony (he had little expectation of inheriting at the time). Pedro the Cruel of Portugal declared himself, on his succession, to have married the mistress his father ordered to be executed, and by whom he had several children that his declaration legitimised. In neither of these cases was there a putative previous wife to complicate things. Just to clarify my knowledge of late medieval England: I have met DR. Ashdown-Hill on many occasions and discussed genealogical-historical issues with him verbally and electronically. I have written short articles on Thomas Stafford (before the Wikipedia page was written), Lord Hadham, Henry VIII's "wives", the full joint descent of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge from Edward III (also Princess Eugenie and her apparent partner), the Marguerite de la Pole mystery (which I hope to take a lot further soon), researching Robert Catesby's descent from Sir William and the Lumley-Lascelles descent from Edward IV (including the Earl of Harewood who married the previous Princess Royal, producing the last two half-Plantagenet children before next year). PS John prefers to refer to ladies consistently by their maiden names e.g de Roet for Swynford, Talbot for Butler and Woodville for Grey - so that is also an improvement. Smlark (talk) 20:47, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you agree. It's a major improvement because it quotes reliable sources and makes it clear what is fact and what is merely opinion. Deb (talk) 08:45, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Not to beat a dead horse, but I just finished reading a book by Peter Hancock, "Richard III and the Murder in the Tower". He makes a powerfully convincing case that it wasn't Stillington who revealed the secret contract (although he probably confirmed it), but rather William Catesby. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

It's somewhat disputed whether there was a secret contract at all! After all, its existence appears to rely on the supposed testimony of one, strangely anonymous, person. I don't know what Peter Hancock's qualifications are, but generally the History Press publish local history books by amateurs, so I doubt it would be an appropriate RS for this topic. Paul B (talk) 19:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't planning on adding anything in this article. I just thought he made a very convincing case. His book is well worth reading for anyone interested in the issue. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I think he could be an RS as much as Alison Weir can be (although I admit that's not a very high standard). Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:31, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, she's respected as a popular historian, but I guess we shouldn't use her if more scholarly works are available, which, luckily, they usually are. Paul B (talk) 19:43, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a problem using her as an RS, mainly because she technically is, even though she is sloppy IMHO. And in the same manner, so is Peter Hancock, even though you may not think highly of him (which is ok, since I too have my personal preferences). Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I've not read him, so I don't personally think highly or lowly of him. If he's established independently as an expert then the status of the publisher doesn't matter so much. Alternatively, if the book has been well reviewed by historians who are well qualified then it doesn't matter too much if he isn't qualified. Paul B (talk) 20:03, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Another source I am reading implies that Lord Hastings knew about the pre-contract long before 1483 and possibly before the second marriage in early 1464. This would explain a lot but will confirm this later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smlark (talk • contribs) 21:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I haven't come across Peter Hancock. I try to keep an open mind on these things and it would be interesting to know what sources he's used. Deb (talk) 21:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

For info, here is his CV: [1] Of course, having a degree from Loughborough doesn't necessarily make you a jock. :-) Deb (talk) 21:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I strongly recommend his book. It lucidly written, it's inexpensive, and it's relatively short. Also, it's filled with sources and includes several very interesting appendices. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I had a quick look at the preview on Amazon and it looks interesting - at least it's a variation on the usual "Richard was a nice man" theme. However, he does appear to admit that he relies heavily on secondary sources. And the good reviews seem to originate from the US, which is always a worry. (No offence intended to any American who might be reading this.) The problem with so many of the revisionist theories (I'm not including Hancock, at least until I've read his work) is that their authors fail to recognise that it doesn't matter a jot whether Eleanor Butler was pre-contracted to Edward or not. If Richard knew about it, he could have chosen to ignore it - medieval kings did exactly as they liked as long as they were "in" with the pope at the time. He chose to make an issue of it because he wanted to be king himself. Unfortunately many people aren't familiar with the medieval mindset and wrongly believe that people in the 15th century had the same attitudes and moral standards as we have today. Deb (talk) 12:15, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually the pre-contact (which could only have taken place during 1461-4 after she was widowed) matters a lot under medieval canon law - it amounts to a marriage and neither party could marry again until one of them was deceased or an annulment was obtained (confirmed by Helmholz). Carson has confirmed to me that Hastings could well have known about it before Edward's second "marriage". This is the reality of the medieval mindset and explains why a later era spawned the "Royal Marriages Act". This invalidated all subsequent secret royal marriages and, had it applied in C15, Edward would have died as a bachelorSmlark (talk) 22:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Who is Carson? It's not a source quoted in the article - and the Royal Marriages Act resulted specifically from the activities of George III's brothers, three hundred years after the alleged pre-contract between Edward IV and Eleanor Talbot. I think you are missing the point of my comments. We all know what medieval canon law says - the point is that it was regularly ignored, overruled or changed when it suited popes and monarchs to do so. Doubt has been shed on the legality of Richard's own marriage to Anne Neville; that's also pretty irrelevant to the question of whether he was "right" or "wrong" to usurp the throne. Deb (talk) 11:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Of course if there was such a contract Hastings "could have known" about it. Anyone we can mention could have known about something that could have existed. Or not. It seems to be speculation on speculation, based on assertion. We know that Richard never made any legal attempts through the appropriate channels to confirm any contract. He appears to have just said "It's true" and wheeled out someone who had a grudge against Edward. The country was filled with people who had lost out in power struggles, or hoped to gain more. The place was a seething swarm of grudges; full of people who'd say anything to get an advantage. That's part of the background. No-one could trust anyone. Paul B (talk) 14:57, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I believe it's the case that Hastings was a strong supporter of Edward V up to the point where it became clear his best chance of personal preferment lay with Richard. I must read up further on that aspect. Deb (talk) 16:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

He WAS a nice guy!! And this proves it.  :) Regarding the book, I may be able to get you a free copy. More on that later today or tomorrow. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 14:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

:-) I certainly wouldn't turn down the offer. Deb (talk) 14:53, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Peter told me that if you buy a kindle version of the book, he'll send the buyer a signed hard copy. If you, or anyone else, is interested, I can get you his email address (although I think he's on Amazon.com). Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 15:20, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

"Surname" Spelling

If the article for her father shows that his "surname" is "Boteler" -- why is this not used in this article? The Butler family and the Boteler family were completely different; it's a HUGE difference. The Boteler's are quoted as such in plenty of sources including the official site for Sudeley Castle; Lord Boteler of Sudeley to be specific. What sources are being used to confirm that Butler should be used in this article? The Oxford DNB article for her father states Boteler, Ralph, first Baron Sudeley (c.1394–1473). The Annals of Winchcombe and Sudeley by Emma Dent (Lady of Sudeley), which is kept at Sudeley Castle, also states Boteler. -- Lady Meg (talk) 20:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

"The Butler family and the Boteler family were completely different; it's a HUGE difference". I'm sorry, but that's utter nonsense. There was no such thing as "correct" spelling at this time in history (see for example Spelling of Shakespeare's name). Boteler and Butler are the same name (in the Titulus Regius her name is spelled "Elianor Butteler"). Such names only become differentiated when a standard spelling gets established, but that's not until centuries after this period. Most sources referring to her spell the name "Butler", so per WP:NAME that's what we should use. The quotation at the end from Michael Hicks's, English Political Culture in the Fifteenth Century uses the spelling as he publishes it.
In the 19th Century it was common for posh families to adopt a more unusual spelling to differentiate them from the common herd. A famous case is the Wellesley family, who were previously called "Wesley", a name associated with lower-class nonconformism. It would not surprise me one bit if the Butlers decided they were really Botelers to avoid the horrifying suggestion that they descended from servants! I agree that this sometimes produces odd anomalies - if one family member is typically spelled one way while their brother or father is spelled differently, it can cause confusion. I had a similar difficulty deciding on the spelling for the recently created Lewes Lewknor article. See the Talk:Lewes Lewknor page. Paul B (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Update - using the online academic research library Questia I found a total of one reference to her as "Eleanor Boteler" in the whole library. There were numerous references to "Eleanor Butler". Some were to different women with the same name. Using combinations with "Edward" I found eight clearly referring to her. There may be more in which the name Edward does not appear on the same page. Paul B (talk) 16:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

This is a bit of a digression, but I knew someone surnamed "Butler" whose family name had been changed from "Le Boteler" by his father and was changed back by his brother! Deb (talk) 12:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes, slipping in a "le" helps to give it that Norman-knight quality. Of course the Brontë family were the masters of name gentrification, managing to mutate their moniker from Irish to English and then up again from Brunty to Brontë with that hard-to-place diacritic creating an air of vaguely continental but undeniable gentility. Paul B (talk) 17:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

BTW, even your own source, The Annals of Winchcombe and Sudeley by Emma Dent, spells it Butler! See p.128. Paul B (talk) 10:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I already looked at that book -- Emma Dent uses "Butler" for Ralph Boteler, 1st Lord? No she doesn't. The name is CLEARLY spelled Boteler. A recorded close role from Edward IV's reign in that book clearly states that the family name is Boteler on pg 124. The Boteler's and Butler's don't even have the same ancestry. At the point of 1270 -- the ancestor of the Butler's of Ormonde was Sir Edmund of Carrick Butler. The Boteler's ancestor at that time was Sir William Boteler, 1st Lord Boteler. Their coat of arms are also completely different. That can be seen on Sudeley Castle's own timeline. Actually on page 128, if you actually read it, it states Lady Eleanor Butler, the widowed daughter-in-law of James Butler, Earl of Wiltshire -- the Boteler's didn't hold that title and if we are talking about the same Eleanor Talbot, her father-in-law was not James Butler; it was Ralph, Lord Sudeley! As for Sudeley's page -- It was a pre-contract of marriage between Edward IV and Boteler’s widowed daughter-in-law Lady Eleanor Boteler (formally Lady Eleanor Talbot) on which Richard III relied on to declare Edward IV’s marriage to Elizabeth Woodville bigamous and their children illegitimate leading to the imprisonment and disposal of the Princes in the Tower. There are a lot of sources, and one from that time period, that states Boteler.

• William Beaumont, Annals of the lords of Warrington
• John Jesse. Memoirs of King Richard the Third
• The Ricardian from the Richard III Society, 2006, Volume 16 states, Eleanor, describing herself as 'lately the wife of Thomas Boteler, knight, now deceased', -- Lady Meg (talk) 23:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I ALSO found this from an author that I talked to -- "John Ashdown-Hill's book about Lady Eleanor doesn't mention any connection between the families (at least from what I can tell from looking at the index). I think it's fine to use the "Boteler" spelling--that's how Eleanor spells it in a deed that A-H quotes." So that's actual proof from Eleanor's actual deed that it IS spelled Boteler. -- Lady Meg (talk) 02:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Now you are just being obtuse. "I already looked at that book -- Emma Dent uses "Butler" for Ralph Boteler, 1st Lord?" Just read the page I pointed you to. The author refers to Eleanor Butler, the subject of this article, by that spelling of the name. It's clearly the same person, as it says that she "clandestinely married" Edward IV. Or do you think there were two separate Elizabeth Butlers who clandestinely married the king? If you can't even fairly describe the page that's been presented to you there is no point in discussing the matter. In fact that page gets so many details wrong it throws into question the reliability of the whole book - but there's no doubt it is this Elizabeth Butler who is meant.
The rest of your post just indicates that you do not even seem to understand the issue. No one doubts that you can find examples of the Boteler spelling, or that it's perfectly acceptable. I found one myself, but it is not the "correct" spelling. There was and is no such thing. WP:NAME requires that we use the most common spelling. You are not even addressing the evidence that this is the most common spelling. Your idea that there is some difference between the "Botelers" and the "Butlers" is pure fantasy. BTW why don't you look up the etymology of the word Butler (O.F. bouteleur). I've no doubt there was more than one family with the same name. You may be amazed to discover that this is not uncommon. Paul B (talk) 10:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Bit harsh, Paul :-) How about we compromise by saying "Butler" (or "Boteler") to make it clear that there is no "correct" spelling? Deb (talk) 11:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Lady Meg appears to be intentionally misrepresenting evidence and ignoring the policy issue. That does make me angry, yes. Her sources are obscure and minor works from 1873 and 1902 (not to mention the 1877 Annals)! This suggests to me that she is not trying to find the truth about the most common spelling, but picking out any evidence she can and intentionally ignoring all the evidence she finds that contradicts her. She completely misrepresents what I said about the Annals. You can check it for yourself. She still repeats like a mantra the confused idea that there is some perpetual name difference between the "Botelers" and the "Butlers" evident in the 15th century and dating back as far as 1270! I don't think we should be adding other spellings. If we do, we may as well add Butteler too. If she is genuinely interested in the history of the name, she could add useful information to the article on the family by finding out when the name was codified by the family as Boteler. Paul B (talk) 11:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Also note that Lady Meg says: "I ALSO found this from an author that I talked to -- "John Ashdown-Hill's book about Lady Eleanor doesn't mention any connection between the families (at least from what I can tell from looking at the index). I think it's fine to use the "Boteler" spelling--that's how Eleanor spells it in a deed that A-H quotes." So that's actual proof from Eleanor's actual deed that it IS spelled Boteler." It is difficult to imagine a clearer case of outright deception and disingenuousness, since throughout the book Ashdown-Hill spells the name "Butler", a fact she never mentions. [2]. There's a point when innocent confusion or honest disagreement becomes tendentiousness. BTW, the document in question is a Latin text drawn up by a lawyer, not "how Eleanor spells it", as if it were her own personal signature. Paul B (talk) 14:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I like Deb's compromise, since there indeed was no "correct" spelling. That's my $0.02. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 14:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

If it does not confuse things, fine. I admit my resistance is rather conditioned by my horror at Lady Meg's misrepresentation of sources. Paul B (talk) 14:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Promotor Veritatis "enacts" deletions

Deletion enacted on the grounds of the following

Deletion on the grounds of inaccuracy. Eleanor did not become a nun ( Second Order) merely what is known as a religious tertiary

Source 1 John Ashdown Hill

Eleanor the Secret Queen

Whitefriars – the Priory of Our Lady of Carmel of Norwich. Privately published but copy available in the British Library.

Source 2 Bodley 73 a collection of medieval manuscripts aka Collectanea Carmelitana, Duke Humfrey’s Library, Bodleian, Oxford

Promotor Veritatis (talk) 23:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

P.M., it's not clear what you are stating about these sources. What are they being used to assert? Please be clear. Paul B (talk) 11:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion space

Discussion below has been moved from User talk:Promotor Veritatis. Deb (talk) 16:44, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

PV's comments were moved to the talk page. The reliability of Ashdown-Hill is debatable, but there is no reason to doubt the specifics. This is a very minor issue, which could have been dealt with easily. Paul B (talk) 14:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

For info re. RS: Dr JAH = member of the Royal Historical Society, the Society of Genealogists, and the Centre Européen d’Etudes Bourguignonnes. Thus the debate, such as it may be, is somewhat reduced Happy Saturday all, it makes a change for me to be on PV's page and not be nailing him to the wall. Basket _Feudalist 15:00, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. PV added a lot of incomprehensible comments, plus his signature (a basic error which, as you can see, a caring fellow-contributor had alerted him to just recently), to the text of the article. Paul has reverted them and asked him to explain what they mean. It's not a question of doubting the suitability of the sources, it's finding out what he meant to add to the article. Deb (talk) 15:09, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Someone clearly stating 'The reliability of Ashdown-Hill is debatable' was responded to. Well done on sorting out his signature though! Basket _Feudalist 15:12, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Reliability is indeed debatable because of the circumstances of publication. As I understand he's essentially a genealogist. As I said, there is no reason to doubt the specifics. Paul B (talk) 15:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

What circumstances? Did he smuggle it out of the Hanoi Hilton?! Viz Butch's dad's watch... Basket _Feudalist 15:35, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this user's talk page is a good place to debate this. PV has been reproved by several editors for his unwillingness to fix his errors or even accept help in avoiding them. It does appear to me that he likes being the centre of attention even when it means wasting time we could be spending on more constructive tasks. Deb (talk) 15:43, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The press specialises in local history books by amateurs. If you have information that casts light on his status as a historian please do so. Membership of societies does not mean much - or rather it depends on the type of society and the type of membership. But I no desire to disparage Ashdown-Hill or get into a sarcasm contest. As Deb says, it's not very productive. Paul B (talk) 15:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually it's a pretty respectable publisher. And does the RHS meet the criteria for a respectable society? I believe he is a genealogist and a historian; similar to an Art Historian, it's a cross-discipline, and perfectly possible to be both. PS, on a lighter note, I enjoyed your edit summary! Basket _Feudalist 16:28, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear both, Do you mind if I move this discussion to the Eleanor Butler/Talbot/whatever she's called today Talk page for further thrashing out, rather than giving PV any more satisfaction? Deb (talk) 16:36, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Right! After trying to make sense of PV's contributions, I have looked at such on-line sources as I can find and there seems to be no evidence that she actually entered the convent at Whitefriars, only that she was its benefactress. The Richard III Society's plaque refers to her as a conversa of the Whitefriars, but I can't find a satisfactory definition. What do the rest of you think? Deb (talk) 17:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

And I've amended the text of the article to reflect what we know for sure. Deb (talk) 17:20, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Ashdown-Hill appears to be saying that she lived in the convent (I only have partial online access to the book). The section on Eleanor's actual life is the weakest in the article so far. Ideally that should be expanded. Paul B (talk) 19:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

"Converso, s. m. a lay-brother in a religious order.— Conversa, a lay-sister in a nunnery." Also, there's an intriguing discussion of the meaning of the word here in which a certain "trish wilson" speaks about it with reference to Eleanor herself [3]. Trish also seems to insist on instructing Ashdown-Hill that her name should be spelled Boteler not Butler. Hummm. Paul B (talk) 19:35, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you found that because I couldn't (not even on wiktionary). Maybe Trish is someone we know - but I doubt it can be PV as he can't spell or punctuate. Deb (talk) 20:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Deb

So sorry about the problem of punctuation due not to atrophied cerebellum but an atrophied keyboard. Problem now resolved but not I fear to our mutual satisfaction.

I had a wonderful evening yesterday picking up on your digital footprints going back 11 years and now satisfied that it’s not a matter of presentation you disagree with but content. But of course you're another Ricky Groupie.

As it is there was one edit that really had me going into convulsions and that was that of Andrew Gray 12th March 2007 whose comment was ‘Reverted edits by 87.80.210 (talk) to last version by Deb (undo)’. So why should I be in so interested in Andrew Gray?. It so happens not only is he the British Library’s Wikipedian in Residence but it was his workshop I attended recently. Small world isn’t it?

As for you Paul Barlow I don’t take kindly to you high-handed approach either. After all there’s nothing any of us can do regarding an Internet malfunction

86.190.103.79 (talk) 00:56, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

There was no "internet malfunction", nor was my approach high handed. You placed material on the main page which should have been on the talk page. I moved it where it should have been placed and then told you. I assume I am responding to Promotor Veritatis. Please log in. Paul B (talk) 10:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

The funniest thing of all is PV's continued insistence on me being a Ricardian! Had he actually looked at any of my past edits, he'd know how far off the mark that is! Deb (talk) 11:42, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

BTW, I have a degree in Latin. Deb (talk) 11:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you are a deep undercover Ricardian "sleeper". This may be why PV has been tracking your ancient edits, looking for unguarded moments when you reveal your true agenda. Paul B (talk) 12:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I knew it!!! Deb is a Ricardian mole.  :) Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 14:51, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, you know what they say: "Dispute not with her: she is lunatic." Deb (talk) 16:21, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear Deb

Oh dear we have got off to a bad start and been at rather cross purposes but will I be forgiven if I out the REAL Ricardian mole?

First things first. I wasn’t lying about the Internet malfunction. I’ve never been goggled so many times in my life before. I don’t know what went wrong exactly but imagine my alarm when the number of Internet hits began to mount steadily and finally I had to reboot.

As for the mole to judge by your comments you had already got a whiff of the proverbial rodent. It’s was the m that threw me at first but it’s smlark aka Stephen Lark one of the more fanatical followers as is Ashdown-HiIl as is Muriel Smith of what someone else has described as the ‘The Cult of St Richard of Fotheringhay’ I am sorry but I cannot recommend either JAH or MS as suitable reader material or for that matter Peter Hancock. I’ve read all – null point. I’ve further bad news for Stephen who’s become something of an Internet troll - I’ve discovered his cherished idol’s feet of clay.

I wonder if you can do me a favour Deb. That edit about EW’s other ancestors and the reason I’m a little het up about it is I did promise Arlene Okerlund I’d give it public prominence. If I post it on PV talk can you take it from there?

Regards PV Promotor Veritatis (talk) 20:35, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm still unclear how adding material in the way you did can be the result of a malfunction, since you said you were adding it because the edit summary did not give you room. Still, it's perfectly understandable that you should not appear as a fully-formed instant expert on Wikipedia codes, conventions, footnoting mark-up etc etc. There are a lot of them! You can, of course, make edits straight to articles, but I think it might be better to make proposals on the talk pages first. This is the page for discussion of Eleanor Butler, so you should add to Talk:Elizabeth Woodville if you have proposals for that article. I'm not sure what you mean by "PV talk". Do you mean your own talk page: User talk:Promotor Veritatis? That should not be used for making proposals about specific articles. It's really for communication between individual editors. Of course people do use the talk pages for discussion of articles - but that's only when they want to attract a specific editor's attention with one of those yellow message banners. Paul B (talk) 21:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

If you choose not to believe me Paul that's your problem not mine.

For the record it's CONVERSUS not converso which is the ITALIAN term. And someone defines you as a NOTABLE? How I did laugh.

Give my regards to your chums Dugwelly and Dimwitted.

As for you Basket suggest add 'case' to your nom de plume. It would seem more apt. The reputation of Ashdown-Hill debatable? More like debacle to me. Nail me to the wall would you? Wait till I do it to JAH.

For the record I'm a SHE not a he. Can we at least get the gender right?

Promotor Veritatis (talk) 00:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Not good. Paul holds out the olive branch to you and you take the opportunity to insult him. I'm afraid you've only got yourself to blame for being mistaken for a man, by selecting a masculine user name - you should have called yourself Promotrix, then we'd have known. We're all more than willing to discuss changes to the article with you if you are willing to do so in a non-confrontational manner. Let's start now. Deb (talk) 09:28, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

I was quoting from a dictionary, which was giving Italian terms. No one said anything about Latin. The text on the plaque to which Deb referred is in a language known as English [4]: "Lady Eleanor Talbot (Lady Butler) c. 1436-1468 benefactress and conversa of the Whitefriars was buried here in the Carmelite Priory Church." Whether the word conversa is borrowed from Latin or Italian is rather unimportant. Who defined who as "a notable"? You are not making any sense at all that I can discern. Perhaps you are confusing the Wikipedia term "notable" (see WP:NOTABLE) with "noble". Paul B (talk) 09:50, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Arise, Baron Barlow of Sussex! :-) Seriously, though, I am in the middle of the Peter Hancock book and I think I spot some flaws in his logic, but I don't want to prejudge. Deb (talk) 10:45, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes, one tries to keep quiet about one's noble lineage, stretching back almost as far as the last century. I've still no idea what (s)he is talking about. Perhaps being "goggled" has blurred her vision. Paul B (talk) 12:43, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Better draw a line under it quickly before User:You Can Act Like A Man returns from his 72-hour block. Deb (talk) 13:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

PV, I don't understand your intense dislike of Ashdown-Hill. Can you explain? Thanks. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 13:52, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear, oh dear – what a shambles.

Let’s start with you Paul. Why consult an Italian dictionary? We’re talking medieval here when such terms would have been in Latin and still are in Latin. For the record I not only speak Italian and Latin but Dutch, French, German, Greek, Portuguese and Spanish as well. So please disabuse yourself of the notion I’m a complete nincompoop.

Deb I’m not going to suggest you stop reading Peter Hancock but I read it months ago. It was one of those many occasions while being in the British Library when I’ve either want to howl in disbelief or howl with laughter or throw the book from one end of the reading room to the other in sheer disgust and reading Muriel Smith’s article was another so perhaps you can understand why I’ve renamed ‘The Ricardian Bulletin’ by chopping off the last four letters.

The worst day, however, was when I finally got round to reading ‘Eleanor the Secret Queen’ or as I’ve renamed her ‘The Queen who never was’. The blurb suggests JAH has proved Eleanor was married but as someone who’s studied Law I know different since he has produced not one shred of evidence to prove it

I’ll give you an example. JAH tries to suggest that Eleanor already a tertiary (Third Order) which meant she could live at home could not enter the convent (Second Order) of another monastic/mendicant order because she was married. It could well be that because she’d already taken vows in respect of one order she couldn’t switch to another. Or maybe she just didn‘t fancy the convent life with its rigours and discipline and virtual cut-off from the world. Maybe she wanted to stay in her own home and live the rest of her life in own way. The point I’m trying to make Bill is the fact that she didn’t enter a convent is NOT proof she was married. As it is according to one Carmelite history and the Dictionnaire Historique de la Suisse at that time she couldn’t even have become a tertiary if she were a married lady.

If I were to walk into Court tomorrow, all bright and breezy, waving the book and shouting at the judge ‘I’ve the proof that Eleanor was married to Edward’ I don‘t think I’d fare very well. Same as if it I tried to pull a similar stunt with the Titulus Regius.

Promotrix. I fear Deb you have been a little too clever on this one but fair dos you have no idea how I came by my nom de plume. It’s my take on the ecclesiastical term ‘Promotor Fidei’ (Promotor of the Faith) better known to you and the rest of the world as Advocatus Diaboli. Perhaps I’d better switch to Advocata Diaboli Historiae.

Boa noite e sonhos agradáveis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Promotor Veritatis (talk • contribs)

Your reply is a shambles. "Let’s start with you Paul. Why consult an Italian dictionary? We’re talking medieval here when such terms would have been in Latin and still are in Latin." No, we are talking about an inscription put up by the RIII society a few years ago. It's not medieval. It's in modern English. Deb was looking for the meaning of the word. I provided it by doing an online serach. That's what matters, since its purpose was to clarify Eleanor's status. No-one wants to think you or anyone else is a complete, or even partial, nincompoop, but you are creating bad feeling because you seem to be far more keen to show off than to be helpful. Paul B (talk) 19:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh dear. This isn't working, is it? Everything PV says is, in essence, true, but it's the tone that causes a problem. Of course there is no reason why Paul shouldn't have consulted an Italian dictionary to find the meaning of "conversa". I had tried looking for a meaning of the Latin term already and couldn't find it. The literal meaning in Classical Latin is not the same as the medieval ecclesiastical meaning, which is far more like the Italian. I suggest you just get off the high horse and stop assuming the rest of us are not as well-educated than you, because I'd hazard a guess most of us could outdo you at every turn if we chose to boast about who we know or how many languages we speak. If you want to contribute, then take some notice of what everyone is telling you - we can't all be wrong. If you don't want to contribute, fine, carry on the way you're doing, because you could well find yourself in the same basket as the basket if you do.

Let's go back to what we agree on. You, Paul and I all agree that there is no real evidence for the pre-contract and no obvious reason to believe that there ever was any. What we should not do is to assume that everyone who thinks differently from us is an idiot (even if some of them are). We need to concentrate on getting the article into good shape, and that goes for Elizabeth Woodville as well - and if you have a look on Talk:Elizabeth Woodville, you'll see I've left you a message there. Deb (talk) 20:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

PV, I haven't read JAH's book yet but I have read Peter Hancock's book and I don't remember anywhere in that book where he claims to "prove" anything. In fact, where he is uncertain, he clearly says so and is never dogmatic.

Deb, if you run across anything in Hancock's book that contradicts that, please let me know, because when it comes to history, no author can be certain of anything. I finished reading Hancock's book a couple of months ago and I don't remember Hancock being sure or dogmatic about anything. I would be surprised if Hancock does that.

PV, what I think you're missing is that Hancock (and probaly JAH) is merely offering what he thinks MAY have happened and he offers evidence (not "proof") to back up his reconstruction, so I'm still not sure why you're so angry. I have no problem with people being passionate, but Deb is right regarding your tone. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:06, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

You're correct about that, Bill. In fact, one of my problems with Hancock is that he hedges his theory about with so many ifs and buts that you start to wonder if he has anything really worth saying. I don't exactly blame him - the only surefire way to get a book published these days is to come up with some outrageous theory (look how well it's worked for Dan Brown), and that's also one of my problems with the whole Ricardian lobby - they are so full of theories about what might have happened to the Princes in the Tower that they fail to notice that most of those theories are mutually exclusive. Only one of them can be true, and no single alternative theory is as strong as the theory that "Richard did it" - sorry to be so blunt! What is good about Hancock is that he is going down less well-trodden paths. Unfortunately, he is not a strong enough writer to drag me away from Donna Tartt or even from wikipedia, so I haven't finished the book as quickly as I anticipated! Now, if you want something really interesting to read, something that is way ahead of its time, you could do worse than read Commines (in the original, of course - LOL). Deb (talk) 02:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

So sorry Bill if I’m suddenly become passionate. When it comes to debate I much prefer the cool, logical reasoning backed by unassailable facts and irrefutable evidence but when certain people can’t admit to the fact that they’ve got it wrong that’s where I draw the line. I’m sure you wouldn’t disagree that one can’t set up a meeting between two people if one of the parties has been dead for over five years but the only response I got for making that logical, observation was the most abusive email I’ve ever received.

As for you Deb you need to smarten up and fast. Like I’d never heard of Commines before now. I’ve not only read Commines but Dominic Mancini too dismissed by Ricardians on the grounds that he couldn’t speak English. What a pity for them that my lingual knowledge is a lot better than theirs.

1 Like what English? There was no standard English at the time and the Great Vowel Shift of the sixteenth century had yet to happen.

2 English had only replaced French as the official language some 120 years before and even then French remained a prerequisite for many people, the high-born, the lawyers who maintained a degenerate patois right up until the eighteenth century, university students and last but not least merchants. As it it I can think of one French-speaking merchant who might have been able to offer Mancini a royal tit-bit or two and that is none other than William Caxton who before setting up the printing press in England had been head of the English delegation in Bruges,

3. At the time Latin was the lingua franca for the cleric and the diplomat. As it is Latin continued to be used as the diplomatic medium right up to the eighteenth century. The original text of the Treaty of Utrecht (1713) which ended the War of the Spanish Succession and under which Gibraltar was ceded to the British is in Latin which makes one wonder why the Spanish, largely Catholic, have such a problem understanding the term ‘in perpetuum’.

Last but not least is the matter of Mancini’s boss Angelo Cato, Archbishop of Vienne, and confidante of Louis XI of France. His full title acquired through the French heraldic almanac was Angelo Cato de Supino and through that I discovered he’d actually written a treatise about comets. I put it to you Deb would such a man in his position and with his degree of intelligence send an employee on an intelligence-gathering mission if he couldn’t communicate with the local populace?

ADH

PS

As to the matter of Hastings ever heard of something called a smoke-screen? As for you smlark there is no evidence certainly nothing that would stand up in a Court of Law. Promotor Veritatis (talk) 20:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Dear PV, so far this discussion has taken up a huge amount of space on this talk page, but it remains increasingly unclear, at least to me, what you arguing about. This talk page is for suggestions concerning the specific content of the article. If you have some suggestions for improving the content, please state what they are clearly and concisely. You appear to be debating the merits of Dominic Mancini's evidence concerning the Princes in the Tower. Such debate should go on the talk page of the relevant article, not here. This is not a forum for discussing Ricardianism. It's an article about Eleanor Talbot. Paul B (talk) 21:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree. I'm out of this discussion until something sensible (or at least comprehensible) emerges. I'll talk to Bill about background reading on his talk page. Deb (talk) 08:14, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Paul When are you and Deb going to realise the reality? Promotor Veritatis (talk) 23:00, 15 March 2013 (UTC)