This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gilbert and Sullivan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gilbert and Sullivan on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Gilbert and SullivanWikipedia:WikiProject Gilbert and SullivanTemplate:WikiProject Gilbert and SullivanGilbert and Sullivan articles
I raise an eyebrow and even purse a lip at "Cholmeley's name is frequently misspelled as Cholmondeley..." in the lead. The idea of a standard spelling of any name in the early sixteenth century is surely anachronistic. We know, most famously, that even eighty years later Shakespeare was spelling his own name any number of ways but never, as far as we know, as "Shakespeare". The question, it seems to me, is not how Sir Richard's relations spelled their surnames circa 1517, but how he spelled his. Is there any evidence that he used the spelling "Cholmeley"? If not, I'd say a tombstone is as good an authority as any. (I must add that among the many things in which I am no expert, early Tudor orthography is a prime example and am quite willing to be told I'm talking nonsense – but at present I rather suspect I'm not.) Tim riley talk19:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As the last section, and especially the last paragraph, of the article explains in possibly tedious detail: "In Victorian times, Sir Richard's tomb in St. Peter ad Vincula was relocated and had a new name panel fitted. The panel states that the Lieutenant of the Tower was named Richard "Cholmondeley". Thus, Gilbert and Sullivan called him "Sir Richard Cholmondeley". However, Sir Richard's father was John Cholmeley, his grandfather was William Cholmeley, and his brother was Roger Cholmeley. His will is signed Richard Cholmeley and his illegitimate son was Sir Roger Cholmeley. After the Cholmondeley branch became the more highly titled branch of the family, Sir Richard Cholmeley, Lieutenant of the Tower, was confused with his cousin, Richard Cholmondeley of Cholmondeley, Cheshire, or one of the five knights named Richard Cholmondeley, Chomondley or Cholmeley living around the same time." Chamley, Benson. "The Yeomen of the Guard: Fact or Fiction", W. S. Gilbert Society Journal, vol. 3, issue 21, Summer 2007, pp. 648–57
His signing himself Cholmeley is impressive evidence. But I'm not yet persuaded that "misspelling" is a justifiable term. We see from the bottom of the page "1497: Appointment of Richard Cholmley, Knight, as Lieutenant of Berwick". Misspelled? By the English civil service? Impossible. I remain of the view that we are talking of variant spellings rather than misspellings, and that is the gravamen of my eyebrow-pursing and lip-raising. Tim riley talk21:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the spelling at the bottom was my own typo. Should be Cholmeley, as now corrected. "Cholmondeley" was clearly a spelling used by different branches of the family, and clearly *not* by this Sir Richard's branch. Gilbert's spelling is clearly a misspelling, not just a variant. I can see Cholmley as a "variant" of Cholmeley, but not "Cholmondeley". This is what Ben Chamley's decades-long research is all about: that the name on the tomb is simply misspelled. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:55, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. I am far from convinced, but will refrain from pressing the point further. In passing, it's quite reassuring to see us on opposite sides of an argument for once. No party line here or anywhere else! (But I'm still right.) Tim riley talk22:10, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
