Talk:Lady Catherine Grey
|WikiProject Biography||(Rated C-class)|
|WikiProject Women's History||(Rated C-class, Low-importance)|
I believe she was not universally always known as Lady, and I believe she is recognizable without it. Therefore "Lady" shuld not be included in the article title (as the requirement for such inclusion is: person if universally recognised with it and their name is unrecognisable without it). It seems to me that recently, there has been sort of campaign by some users to put titulary into headings, without any solid support from naming conventions, and this here apparently is a part of such campaign. 188.8.131.52 02:34, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Dear Arrigo (and please remember to sign your name on all comments) I moved the page in accordance with naming conventions, which were discussed at length and agreed before you arrived on this project. You will note that the pages for her sisters, Lady Jane Grey and Lady Mary Grey, are similarly named, and the previous name of the article was inconsistent. Deb 21:57, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Firstly, I signed using four tildes. Your further demands (if exist) for signature are unfounded, and only make you appear worse.
I have read the agreed naming conventions, which clearly state that "lady" is included "if person is universally recognised with it and their name is unrecognisable without it". It is not very far to think that you Deb actually do not understand very much of the convention. And we others do not need to follow your ideas nor your "own" conventions, whatever such are.
Name in published primaries
Thomas Randolph's letter 23 September 1560 refers 'the Lady Catherine, daughter to the late Duchess of Suffolk (CSP Scot., i, 483), CSPF Elizabeth (1559-60), 3, has 'L. K' ! Irrelevant to this discussion, Lady Catherine or Lady Katherine / +/- Grey, all that matters is that the person is uniquely designated in their article title, as we can all set links in other articles as we prefer. Unoquha (talk) 19:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I think the earlier renaming was without any voting. Consistency is no reason if those other articles are in wrong places, and they may. We do not need to be "consistently wrong". Arrigo 12:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- I have reverted this change. Deb 16:21, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
Background of the case: the naming convention 6 for other non-royal names states "Courtesy titles (also referred to as an honorific prefix)² such as Lord or Lady differ from full titles because unlike full titles they are included as part of the personal name, often from birth. As such, they should be included in the article title if a person is universally recognised with it and their name is unrecognisable without it. For example, the late nineteenth century British politician Lord Frederick Cavendish was always known by that form of name, never simply Frederick Cavendish. Using the latter form would produce a name that would be unrecognisable to anyone searching for a page on Cavendish. Similarly, Lady Gregory, the Irish playwright, is more recognisable to readers than Augusta Gregory."
- You seem to feel you are some kind of arbiter here. You are not, and no one owes you an explanation. If you want facts, go and look at google. In the meantime, please remember to sign your posts. Deb 11:40, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
Not sure if it merits any link on this article but I just finished transcribing a manuscript that aparently belonged to Lady Catherine Grey (named in the document as "Countess Katherine Seymour Hertford").
- It's very interesting. I agree, it's difficult to know whether a link is merited - I would say it depends whether how many other MSS are in existence that are known to belong to her. Presumably none? Deb 17:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the cleanup tag that was placed, pending someone explaining what kind of cleanup they believe is required. Deb 16:55, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
- You're absolutely right, I should have been more specific. I have added a more specific tag, believing that this article needs sections.Lilac Soul 17:11, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Lady Jane Grey
Jane was the sister of Catherine Grey and is famous for being the nine days queen, but her title as monarch is disputed, she was never crowned. I don't think this article should refer to her as Jane I of England, but Lady Jane Grey. Moerover, in the article about Jane Grey, she is refered to, in the title, as Lady Jane Grey. Little.miss.sunshine (talk) 09:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- Which image? The one of her holding her son shows her to have been rather doll-like in appearance.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Why is Catherine's mother referred to as Lady Frances Brandon? In her mother's article, she is referred to as Frances Grey, Duchess of Suffolk. To refer to her by her maiden name is confusing, inconsistent with her own article, and conflicts with methods of title usage elsewhere in Wikipedia. PandaPounce (talk) 01:23, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- I've edited the sentence to say "by his marriage to Lady Frances Brandon", which is the name she's best known by and which I hope covers your point. Of course, important 16th century women are often known by their maiden names - Lady Jane Grey and Lady Catherine Grey are cases in point. Moonraker (talk) 02:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Not Listing Spouses
What is the problem with listing spouses? After adding Anne Parr, wife of William Herbert, 1st Earl of Pembroke, this happens -- (Undid revision 476413108 by Lady Meg (talk); we don't list any other spouses either; it's not done in the sources); Why? What does "it's not done in the sources" mean?? -- Lady Meg (talk) 23:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi! I removed the box, sorry for forgetting to sign in. Being unable to sign for months in has had its effect. Anyway, I removed it because it was wrong: Lady Catherine Grey was never "Heir to the English and Irish Thrones". The heir to the throne is the person seated on the throne. The first-in-line is either heir apparent or heir presumptive but not "the heir". Furthermore, it can be said that Lady Catherine Grey was "preceded" by her sister but it can also be said that she was preceded by Lady Mary Tudor. Likewise, it can be said that she was succeeded by Lady Elizabeth Tudor, Lady Mary Grey or Viscount Beauchamp. Even if all this were not true, I still find "heir presumptive/apparent" succession boxes quite pointless, trivial and unsightly. What purpose do they serve? They soon multiply and before you know it, you see succession boxes such as "heir to the throne of Flanders", "spouse of the heir to the English throne", etc. What do you think, Jeanne? Surtsicna (talk) 23:05, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- Support removing these boxes. (Lady Catherine Grey as heir apparent would have been "preceded" by her sister, as there was a document, the letters patent of 21 June 1553, which named both, in this order). Buchraeumer (talk) 23:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Whatever the merits of who was heir at this point, Surtsicna is using "heir" in a different sense to that now recognised. I think we've been over this before. PatGallacher (talk) 23:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
- Succession boxes do provide a reader with rapid information regarding his or her title as well as successor, etc. I for one find them helpful.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:20, 20 March 2012 (UTC)