Talk:Margaret de Neville

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 06:53, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that unusually for a woman in fourteenth century England, Margaret de Neville used her own name as her signature? Source: Legg, Katrina Jane (2002) An edition of the Coucher Book and charters of Bolton Priory (Yorkshire). PhD thesis, University of Sheffield. 174.
• ... that she wasn't the "wife of" or "daughter of" as the 14th century noble signed herself simply domina Margareta de Nevill?

• Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Monument to the King's Liverpool Regiment

Created by Lajmmoore (talk). Self-nominated at 12:18, 5 November 2021 (UTC).

• Its long enough and new and lots of good refs - including the hook fact. It documents a notable woman from the 14th century and there were not many of those. There is no image, its well written and I offer an alternative phrasing of the hook, but its up to someone else to decide if its ok. No evidence of close paraphrasing I could see. Nice addition. well done Victuallers (talk) 10:31, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

• Reopening this because I think the hook is misleading, as according to the source it was usual for women of the nobility, like Neville, to sign with their own names. Gatoclass (talk) 02:10, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Gatoclass: I don't think most will know that, so maybe we go with ALT1 or some variation on it? We don't need to say it's unusual if we phrase it that way theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:14, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Theleekycauldron, the problem with both hooks is that they imply that there was something out-of-the-ordinary in a woman signing something in her own name in that era, whereas the source indicates that was normal practice for women of the nobility. So the hooks are misleading. Gatoclass (talk) 02:19, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• All right—I'll ping @Lajmmoore and Victuallers: back here, y'all can work this out. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:33, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• Was it usual for women in the fourteenth century to sign with their own name ... no. Is is usual for women in the 21st century to sign with just their first name? No. So "did you know that unusually Canada's head of state signs documents with just her first name and an R for Regina?" (Someone shouts) "BUT all British Queens do that!!" (Someone shouts) "That implies that it was unusual for Queens to sign with just their first name." No it doesnt. I think @Gatoclass: is reading the source and then saying that the hook doesnt explain every piece of information in the source... which obviously it doesnt. Its unusual that "a woman" is doing this at all. It WAS unusual for women in the fourteenth century to sign and if they did then they did not usually use just their own name. Its a fact - its unusual. Did You know that women did not sign their own names on documents in the 14th century? No I didnt. That is something that Lajmmoore wrote about and now I know. Thanks. Victuallers (talk) 08:28, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

• Hello Gatoclass all so the part of the source I was using is this, which is talking about signatures for charitable donation "Although most of the widows declare themselves to be the wife of their late husband, or their father's daughter, others, who were members of the nobility, simply give their names, such as 'domina Margareta de Longvl' and 'don-ýina Margareta de Nevill' (the same person). The majority of widows declare that their marital status and their power to act, using a variety of phrases, including 'in pura viduitate', 'in pura viduitate mea et ligia potestate', and 'in viduitate mea propria et potestate legitima' ..." and I read that as it was more usual for (noble) women to use a signature that described them as "wife of, etc..." I read the passage as Legg using Margaret de Neville as an unusual example. Legg is talking about the Coucher Book signatures specifically, but I still think they are marking out unusual practice. In terms of the hook, I wonder whether changing 'woman' to 'literate woman' might work? Lajmmoore (talk) 09:32, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't work just to add "literate". And your reading of the text just amounts to an unsupported assumption on your part. Because while the text could admittedly be less ambiguous, the statement that others, who were members of the nobility, simply give their names does not in any way suggest that it was rare or unusual for a member of the nobility to give their name, it only states that members of the nobility as a class were inclined to give their names. So there isn't sufficient support in that statement for a hook which implies that Neville's act was in any way unusual for a member of her class. The hook makes Neville sound like some sort of proto-feminist who boldly challenged the system, when the underlying source only indicates that either her entire class did the same thing, or at least that it was an accepted practice for members of the nobility. So I still think that either the hook needs to be substantially reworked to more closely reflect the source, or a new hook be found. Gatoclass (talk) 02:53, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your interpretation of your text Gatoclass. My interpretation (& so the hook) is based on Legg's use of the word most - in that "most of the widows declare themselves to be the wife of their late husband, or their father's daughter" and you rightly point out "others, who were members of the nobility, simply give their names" but I think that needs to be balanced by the "most" earlier in the sentence i.e. for women generally, they don't give their name, but some noble women do but overall, for women signing their name, it is unusual enough to be pointed out in the text. Lajmmoore (talk) 09:00, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Gatoclass main hook only. Debate seems to have ended. Victuallers (talk) 11:49, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

• Sorry I forgot to get back to this. The issue with ALT0 is that it says her signing her own name was "unusual for a woman", but there is no indication in the text that it was unusual for a noblewoman, in fact the text if anything suggests the opposite. So I still think the hook either needs to be reworked for accuracy, or a new hook be found. Gatoclass (talk) 12:35, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Given the vagaries of the text, it might be best to just quote the ambiguous phrase more or less verbatim:

• ALT2: ... that while most women in 14th-century England signed documents as "wife of" or "daughter of", Margaret de Neville, like other noblewomen, signed with their own names? Gatoclass (talk) 13:06, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I think this is literally a second choice for hook. Its not at all misleading or hooky. It is over long IMO. I'm happy for either of the hooks to be picked. Victuallers (talk) 16:58, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

• hello Victuallers, hello Gatoclass - thanks for suggesting ALT2 - it's generous of you. I'm going to suggest a different one:

ALT3: ... that when Margaret de Longvillers married into the House of Neville, her wealth consolidated its position in English society? McNiven, Peter (2004). "Neville [de Neville] family (per. c. 1267–1426), gentry". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/54532. ISBN 978-0-19-861412-8. Retrieved 2021-09-15. (Subscription or UK public library membership required.)

Let me know what you think Lajmmoore (talk) 23:16, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

That's sourced too. Thanks Victuallers (talk) 08:57, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Since we've found a hook we can all agree on, let's go with ALT3. Gatoclass (talk) 16:23, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

ALT3 to T:DYK/P6