|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 A note
- 2 West Dakota Prize
- 3 Titles
- 4 question
- 5 Introduction altered
- 6 Question on Sources
- 7 Genealogical reading
- 8 The opening sentence isn't worded sufficiently
- 9 Inconsistent Information
- 10 her child / henry viii
- 11 Eldest daughter
- 12 Born at Blickling
- 13 Mary's Age
- 14 Church Law
- 15 Citation Please...
- 16 Article Needs References Reorganized
- 17 Descendants
- 18 Linking
- 19 Middleton
- 20 Lady Mary Stafford?
- 21 Request to have a fix made
- 22 Re insertion of poorly-sourced material
- 23 Bessie Blount's "fame, wealth and power"?
- 24 Knighthood clarification
For organized sourced information on Mary Boleyn go to: http://www.tudorplace.com.ar/Bios/MaryBoleyn.htm
West Dakota Prize
- A Winner of the August 2004 West Dakota Prize
This entry has won the West Dakota Prize for successfully employing the expression "legend states" in a complete sentence.
This entry, one of an unprecedented 52, has won the September 2005 West Dakota Prize, awarded for successfully employing the expression "legend states" in a complete sentence.
As far as I can ascertain, Mary Boleyn was married to William Carey in 1520 (which would make her Lady Mary Carey), but prior to that was the daughter of a knight, which would make her plain Mary Boleyn. Her father didn't become an earl until later. I don't see any period when she woulad have been Lady Mary Boleyn. Deb 23:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- Done. Remember to change the article to express the facts, too. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 07:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
- While Mary Boleyn's marriage to William Carey has been dated as 31 Jan or 14 Feb 1520, it would actually taken place within the year 1521. These dates are often given as 1520/21 because the New Year would be celebrated 25 March. For our purposes, the year is 1521. History Lunatic (talk) 05:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)History Lunatic
≈this is the istory why is`ent there a timeline of all this? 15:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)15:21, 15 September 2006 (UTC)~~Ξ±±±±±±
There is a possibility, under etiquette, that she and her sister could have been styled "Lady" even prior to 1520, because they were the granddaughters of the duke of Norfolk (the premier aristocrat in England) and the earl of Ormonde (the premier aristocrat in Ireland.)
- I see. That wouldn't make it a valid article title, but it's interesting. Deb 19:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
In fact, she would have been known as "Lady Mary" (i.e., Lady Firstname) after her father's elevation to an earldom— from 1529 if the date in his article is correct—because she was not married to a peer and her precedence and courtesy title as an earl's daughter was higher than that of a knight's wife. So from birth she would have been Mistress Mary Boleyn; Lady Carey (wife of a knight) on her marriage in 1520 (assuming he was knighted before his marriage); Lady Mary Carey from 1529 when her father became an earl, and Lady Mary Stafford from 1534 (rather, from the time the secret came out), on her second marriage.
I have never heard of a duke's granddaughters being allowed a Lady Firstname style, but things were less rigid in Tudor times. Certainly the king could have granted any style he chose. Laura1822 17:32, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Would Mary's title have been affected by her father's elevation even though she was married? I wasn't sure, I don't know the protocol for daughters of men elevated to the rank of duke/marquess/earl who marry before their father receives the title. "The Other Boleyn Girl" stated that she was not affected, but that's hardly trustworthy. - Holly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 16:03, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
In the list of Styles, Mary is listed as being "Mary Stafford" after her second marriage - as the daughter of an earl, wouldn't she have been entitled to the title of Lady and styled as "Lady Mary Stafford", regardless of her husband's status? Frances Brandon, Lady Jane Grey's mother, retained her title of Lady even after she married a commoner, Adrian Stokes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 15:47, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, after her father's elevation to his earldom(s), his daughter would be "Lady Mary," this title deriving from her father's rank. No matter who she married, she would still be "Lady Mary," unless her husband's status granted her a higher style. History Lunatic (talk) 05:47, 17 November 2012 (UTC)History Lunatic
why is`ent there A timeline of this great suff i mean should`ent we be able to skim through and find what we need faster? if so we should speak up and get a freaking timeline thnk later
This article is full of problems. The fact that her date of birth is unknown, then in the following paragraph, a specific date of 1514 "when she was about 15 years old". Which is right? Was she about 15 in 1514, or was she born between the years given in that 20 year time span?
This article needs serious cleanup and fact checking.
I don't believe it needs fact checking. There is a clear reference to the historical works and sources which support a date of c. 1499, which means she would have been "about" 15 in 1514. It is only a 9 year period of debate, not 20 - the guesses for her birth are between 1499 and 1508, but - as the reference shows - the standard historical answer is 1499, 1500 or 1501. User:Gboleyn
- Yes, I agree, the article looks okay as it stands. Deb 21:23, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
The 1499 date stems from the fact that the date of her parents' marriage is usually set around the 1498/9 mark, so she couldn't have been born earlier than that. Mary would have had to be born in 1508 or earlier because she married in 1520 and twelve was the minimum age for marriage. One historian I know of to use the 1508 date for Mary is Professor Warnicke, who bases her reasoning on the fact that it was Anne and not Mary who was sent to the Netherlands and as it would be unusual for Anne to be given this opportunity ahead of an older sister, Mary must have been younger than Anne. However, this is directly contradicted by documentary evidence; the letters patent for Anne's elevation to Marquess of Pembroke referred to her as "a daughter" of Thomas Boleyn, not "the elder daughter", as would certainly have been the case if she had been the older of the two, and Mary's son, Henry Carey, would later claim the earldom of Ormonde through his mother's right, a title that would have belonged to Anne's daughter, Elizabeth if Anne had been the older sister.
I removed the "and gained infamy" from the description of Mary - it basically read, "she was the member of a titled English family who wielded power, and gained infamy, in the Tudor period." This is an inappropriate tone for an encylopedia article - "infamy" is subjective in this context. User:Gboleyn
Question on Sources
Although, I am sure that the information is being sourced correctly, I am curious as to why the sources for Weir, for example, only give her name and a page number. Why are the titles of the books where the information came out of from Weir not listed there as well? I know it sounds silly as they are listed below but it might look neater to have only one section with either the sources or just a reference section with the title of the book, her name and a page number. Virgosky 15:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you to whomever fixed it. Virgosky 13:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Could someone help? I think the genealogical reading sentence should be sourced better as to whether Weir said it or Ives. I removed it for now. If anyone can find the source then please put it back up. Virgosky 22:13, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I have also removed the sentence about Weir and Ives suggesting when she was born and Mary's pregnancy at William Carey's death. After re-examining some of their books neither Ives nor Weir ever suggested any genealogical error nor those two theories. Both of them seem to simply question whether both or if either child was ever fathered by Henry VIII. Virgosky 16:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
The opening sentence isn't worded sufficiently
"Mary Boleyn was a member of the famous aristocratic Boleyn family, which enjoyed considerable influence during the early part of the 16th century".
- Influence over what, exactly?--22.214.171.124 13:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
- There's no point in adding unseen comments to the text of the article. If you don't think the phrase is meaningful, make an appropriate amendment to the article. Deb 18:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
At the end of the Second Marriage section, it states that Mary's second husband predeceased her and that her death was in 1543. However, the final paragraph of the following section, Children states that Sir William Stafford (the 2nd husband) died in 1556, So either he did not predecease her or he did not die in 1556. Motshd5 (talk) 12:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
her child / henry viii
The article currently states that,
There is no other contemporary evidence that Mary's son, Henry Carey, was the king’s biological son and a close reading of the Letters and Papers (a collection of surviving documents from the period) clearly pinpoint Henry's birth in March 1526 - by which time the affair is believed to have ended.
The problem is that this text, as written, implies that this timing renders Henry VIII's parentage impossible. Clearly it's not the time of Henry Carey's birth that's relevant, but the time of his conception. I don't have access to the sources to verify what was intended, or to figure out how to accurately rewrite this. --Lquilter (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- More of a sequitur, maybe! Anyway, that makes it clearer -- the reference is definitely to Henry Carey's birth. However, it doesn't actually resolve any question about whether the child was H-8's or not. If the affair was over prior to his conception, we should state that clearly. In the meantime, I like your wording and am tinkering with it a bit more. --Lquilter (talk) 23:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
- Okay - it ended up being more of a tinkering than I'd anticipated. I think it reads better now, though. The information about when the affair ended has been moved up to the section about the timing of the affair. The section about the rumors about the children thus does not have the affair information, and therefore does not give any false impressions about the timing. --Lquilter (talk) 23:25, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I agree. The affair was no doubt over by the time of his actual birth, however, that does not account for the earlier nine months at his conception. Often times, during the middle ages, the day you were baptist was used rather than your actual birth date. When writing about the Carey children, there should be no wording to direct opinion one way or the other. Unless a DNA test is done, no one can say with 100% certainty the paternity of these children. Best to let people make their own decision and not insert POV. Virgosky (talk) 13:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
This pages claims that Mary Boleyn is proven to be the eldest daughter of Thomas Boleyn, but lacks any source for this information other than a reference to a website. I'm not sure if I buy it, since I know for a fact that the idea that Mary was the eldest daughter of Thomas Boleyn is hotly debated. The page claims that Mary's grandson Lord Hunsdon's petitioning to receive the Earldom of Ormonde by right of inheritance from his great-grandfather is proof of Mary being the eldest daughter as it would lend him superior rights of inheritance. However, it must be remembered that, according to Allison Weir, Anne Boleyn's marriage to Henry VIII was annulled right before her execution and her daughter was declared a bastard. Thus, because she was illegitimate in the eyes of the law, Elizabeth would have been considered ineligible to succeed to the Earldom of her grandfather anyway, no matter which one of Thomas Boleyn's daughters was the eldest. This, along with the fact that Elizabeth was female and thus probably less likely to be awarded the Earldom anyway, and also that her mother had been attainted by act of Parliament and thus she could not have inherited any of her claims even if she had been legitimate I think is enough proof that the article's statement about Mary being the elder daughter is unprovable. Also, if at the time the suite was made Elizabeth had acceded to the throne, then her rights would have already been merged with the Crown and she would have been able to recreate the title a new anyway, and that is only IF all of the above had not been true (which it is, and I cite Allison Weir's Six Wives as my source). Therefore, I propose that we remove at once the statement "The evidence suggests that the surviving Boleyns believed Mary had been the eldest child; in 1597, her grandson—Lord Hunsdon—claimed the title of “earl of Ormonde” on the grounds that he was the Boleyns’ legitimate heir. According to the strict rules of aristocratic inheritance, if Anne had been the elder sister, the title would have belonged to her daughter, Queen Elizabeth—since a title descended through the eldest female line in the absence of a surviving male line." Just thought I'd bring that to everyone's attention, since the debate about Mary or Anne being the elder daughter is one that has yet to be solved and is hotly debated (to the extent of my knowledge). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 01:33, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
This shouldn't be removed. Hunsdon would not have challenged Elizabeth on the basis that she was a bastard whose mother had been attainted. At the time of the suit Elizabeth was queen. The vast majority of modern historians assert that Mary was the elder. Boleyn (talk) 08:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- And I think the article is pretty clear that no one knows for certain which was the elder (despite the repeated efforts of some anonymous contributors to make it read as if Mary was definitely younger). Deb (talk) 12:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
The idea that she was the younger daughter seems to stem from the idea that, if Mary had been the elder daughter, Anne would never have been sent to the court of the Archduchess Margaret instead of her, but since Anne seems to have been the brighter of the two, it makes sense that she would have been sent, even if she was younger. - Holly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 23:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC) ==Just based on the fact that Mary was married before Anne,seems to pretty much point in the direction of Mary being the eldest sister.I would even hazard a guess that she was born in spring 1500.This is based on evidence I have read but cannot verify with absolute certainty that Anne was born in May 1501; and as their father himself declared that every year his wife brought forth a child; the spring of 1500 seems a possible date for Mary's birth.
- "However, it must be remembered that, according to Allison Weir, Anne Boleyn's marriage to Henry VIII was annulled right before her execution and her daughter was declared a bastard. Thus, because she was illegitimate in the eyes of the law, Elizabeth would have been considered ineligible to succeed to the Earldom of her grandfather anyway, no matter which one of Thomas Boleyn's daughters was the eldest. This, along with the fact that Elizabeth was female and thus probably less likely to be awarded the Earldom anyway, and also that her mother had been attainted by act of Parliament and thus she could not have inherited any of her claims even if she had been legitimate I think is enough proof that the article's statement about Mary being the elder daughter is unprovable. Also, if at the time the suite was made Elizabeth had acceded to the throne, then her rights would have already been merged with the Crown and she would have been able to recreate the title a new anyway,"
- If Henry Carey had claimed the earldom during the reign of Mary I, then that argument would make a lot of sense but he did it during Elizabeth I's reign. He would have been a fool to lay claim to the title if Anne was the elder daughter, or even if the order of birth was uncertain. It would have been nothing short of political suicide for him to make a claim that would imply that Elizabeth was illegitimate, or to draw attention to her mother's conviction for treason.
- If the title was inherited by Elizabeth and merged with the Crown, then Carey wouldn't be able to claim it, any more than he could claim any other title belonging to the Crown. I suppose he could *ask* to be created Earl of Ormonde, as a favour or a gift, but there's a big difference between that and *claiming* the earldom as a right.184.108.40.206 (talk) 15:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- "in 1597, her grandson, Lord Hunsdon, claimed the title of “earl of Ormonde” on the grounds that he was the Boleyns’ legitimate heir. According to the strict rules of aristocratic inheritance, if Anne had been the elder sister, the title would have belonged to her daughter, Queen Elizabeth—since a title descended through the eldest female line in the absence of a surviving male line. Logic, however, indicates that since Elizabeth had no children, the title would revert to Mary's line, since she did have children. Therefore Mary's grandson would not make an indirect assertion that his grandmother was the eldest, but rather the opposite."
- The above sounds very muddled; if Mary was younger than Anne, how could Lord Hundson lay claim to the title of Earl of Ormonde as heir ahead of Elizabeth during Elizabeth's lifetime? Since Elizabeth was childless, one might argue that Hundson could claim to be the legitimate heir after she died. Before, it would be a different story. If Anne was older, then Elizabeth would be heir (since only a total fool would claim that she was illegitimate and therefore disbarred) until the day she died but if Mary was older, her descendants would have prior claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 15:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
I have deleted the word "elder" in the sentence "It was once believed that it was Mary who began her education abroad and spent time as a companion to Archduchess Margaret of Austria; but it is now clear that it was her elder sister, Anne. Mary was kept in England for most of her childhood." It contradicts the previous paragraph and it is not necessary. Whoever was the elder of the two sisters has nothing to do with who left home first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amj1967 (talk • contribs) 08:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
"Logic, however, indicates that since Elizabeth had no children, the title would revert to Mary's line, since she did have children. Therefore Mary's grandson would not make an indirect assertion that his grandmother was the eldest, but rather the opposite."
this should be deleted-- because logic doesn't indicate that the title would revert to Mary's line-- it indicates that the title would be absorbed into the Crown if Anne was the elder sister, because Elizabeth would have inherited the title.18.104.22.168 (talk) 03:10, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
- I agree, and have deleted the statement, which was in any case a matter of opinion. Deb (talk) 12:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Born at Blickling
Seeing as Mary was born at Blickling Hall and not Hever, wouldn't this pinpoint her date of birth as prior to 1505 when Thomas Boleyn inherited Hever Castle?--jeanne (talk) 11:17, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware, we only believe Mary and Anne were born at Blickling because we believe they were born before 1505. I don't think there's any conclusive evidence for it. Boleyn (talk) 11:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
At the beginning of the article, a range of years of birth is given for Mary, stating that she was born between 1499 and 1508. However, later in the article, the following sentence:
"It was not until 1514, when she was between the ages of twelve and fifteen, that she was sent abroad."
narrows the range of dates to 1499 to 1502, effectively excluding the possibility that she was born between 1503 and 1508, a possibility that was already acknowledged in the article, which seems very contradictory. Why bother mentioning Mary's age in 1514 at all, when her possible years of birth, along with the approximate date currently favoured by "most scholars and historians" are already included? Wouldn't it be better not to try to pin down her age at all? Maybe the sentence should be changed to:
- There were precedents for very young children to be sent abroad - Anne Brandon was 6 when she joined the court of the Archduchess Margaret in 1512 - though, given the allegations about Mary being a mistress of King Francois, I'd be inclined to think that 1499-1502 is closer to the truth than 1508.
Could we come to an agreement on some clean up for the section on the legality of Anne's marriage to Henry, given his previous liaison with Mary? It seems poorly written - I've added some cuation to the one sentence about whether church law should have condemned the marriage (pointing out it's not a simple as the original article wants to imply), but I didn't want to really take a scalpel to the original piece without getting permission from the group. In particular, I'd like to cut the sentence "As Henry was a man who was educated in theology, it is likely that he was aware of this impediment." It seems unnecessary and contrived, given that we KNOW Henry knew his Church Law inside out - not because he "was educated in theology" but because that's what his divorce to Catherine was all about! It also seems weasel, at it appears to being trying to condemn Henry as a hypocrite, in an overly simplistic tone. But I don't like deleting other people's contributions without some agreement from other users first Oriana Naso (talk) 22:44, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
"some historians claim she was the younger sister, but her children believed Mary was the elder sister, as do most historians today"
Which historians. A few names...?
- I have added a citation from Antonia Fraser confirming Mary's seniority, so can we finally lay the matter to rest?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Article Needs References Reorganized
This article's reference section and notes need to be reorganized. There is no way any of this information is useful. No page numbers, no publisher for specific notes - how is any of this supposed to be useful? No one ever did a bibliography? Stevenmitchell (talk) 03:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
There is currently a dispute over the "degree of celebrity" of the descendants of Mary Boleyn. Some people think Hilary Duff and Haylie Duff aren't to be mentioned as her descendants, perhaps due to celebrity elitism. Dgarq (talk) 17:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
This is an encylcopedia; you would not expect an encyclopedia to add people who have recently become famous and may not be still in a year or two. This whole section is invalidated if it starts to add every one of the thousands of descendants Mary Boleyn now has. As stated before, this section is perceived by some as trivia which should be removed, and in my opinion adding the Duffs tips it over the edge into trivia. Mentioning that Princess Diana is a descendant is relevant: she will still be famous in a hundred years, and it also gives the information that Prince William, future king of England, is descended from Mary - and with the speculation about the paternity of her children, it also raises the possibility that Prince William will be the first king or queen descended from Henry VIII since Elizabeth I - that's significant and worth a very brief mention. A line has to be drawn on who is included on this, or the list would takeover the whole article. Very few articles name distant descendants. I believe the information you have added has been deleted six times by two or three editors - the fact that you have yet again added it to the article is edit warring. Boleyn (talk) 18:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- I agree with Boleyn's assessment. Deb (talk) 18:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- So do I. Boleyn gives a very articulate explanation of why Princess Diana should be mentioned and the Duffs excluded. If we listed all of Mary Boleyn's direct descendants, the article would become the size of a major city's phone directory. We have to draw the line somewhere.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:23, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
|Your Third Opinion has been declined and removed from the list of active disputes:|
|Reason: Deb's statement constitutes either (a) a third opinion itself (any user can be a Third Opinion Wikipedian) or (b) a third editor entering the discussion, either of which makes this dispute inappropriate for a Third Opinion. WP:3O says, "This page is for resolving conflicting viewpoints involving only two editors. ... For more complex disputes that involve more than two editors, or that cannot be resolved through talk page discussion, editors should follow the other steps in the dispute resolution process." —TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 20:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)|
Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother (Bowes-Lyon) was one of Mary Boleyn's descendants. If Henry VIII was the father of Mary's children, then Queen Elizabeth II is the first of his descendants to ascend the throne since Elizabeth I.LM
- Could well be true, but if we don't know for certain that he was the father, we shouldn't put that in the article. Too many "if"s. Deb (talk) 14:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Indeed. But whatever the identity of the father of Mary Boleyn's children, William will not be the first king descended from her. His grandmother is that person. LM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 07:25, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Mary Boleyn → Catherine Carey → Lettice Knollys → Robert Devereux, 2nd earl of Essex → Lady Frances Devereux → Lady Jane Seymour → Charles Boyle, 3rd Earl of Cork, 2nd Earl of Burlington → Richard Boyle, 4th Earl of Cork, 3rd Earl of Burlington → Charlotte Elizabeth Boyle, Baroness Clifford → Lady Dorothy Cavendish → Lord Charles Cavendish-Bentinck → Rev. Charles William Frederick Cavendish-Bentinck → Nina Cecilia Cavendish-Bentinck → Lady Elizabeth Bowes-Lyon (HM Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother) → Elizabeth II, Queen of Great Britain and N-Ireland — Of course, this is quicky written, but any version of Debrett's Peerage, Burke's Peerage or anything genealogically oriented will show you the validity of this link, as Mary Boleyn is an ancestor to a huge percentage of the English nobility. Thus, the present queen is the first of Mary Boleyn's descendant to ascend the Bristish throne. Diana Princess of Wales was also among Mary's descendants, but her son won't be the first sovereign... All of this having probably no relevance in an article on Mary Boleyn, as neither the Queen nor Diana nor William have publicly expressed themselves on the matter, which they are, rightly, probably not even aware of. LM — Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 12:33, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
It's not necessary to link prostitute, as I'm sure anyone with the ability to master the reading of this article knows the meaning of the term prostitute. Linking words such as this just creates a link farm.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
This most recent news about her being connected to royalty is and may be rubbish as it was put out by newspapers and magazines. There is no official source for it. This is the only source which shows the direct lineage, an article from the Daily Mail . Those who use the official books which were written over a decade ago such as Burke's Peerage know that her supposed ancestor William Davenport and Grace Alloway are NOT listed anywhere except for those newspapers recently put out and now sites following that article. Also the question to ask is why would this information just come out AFTER the engagement when for 8 or 9 years people have had access to every possible source and information about the family?
The article claims that William Davenport was a son of Elizabeth Talbot and Henry Davenport. In the article from the Daily Mail it states the Kate is a descendant of Elizabeth Knollys by Sir Thomas Leighton, their daughter Elizabeth Leighton married a Sherrington Talbot; their son Sherrington Talbot married a Jane Lyttelton -- this is ALL correct up to this point.. then it goes off with some undocumented names that don't seem to add up as they are not mentioned in both of the sources below and others. In the Daily Mail article it then goes on to state that their supposed daughter Elizabeth Talbot marries a William Davenport. Crofts Peerage's Sherrington Talbot who married Jane Lyttelton doesn't even mention an Elizabeth Talbot who married a William Davenport. The same goes for the book Charles Mosley, editor, Burke's Peerage, Baronetage & Knightage, 107th edition, 3 volumes (Wilmington, Delaware, U.S.A.: Burke's Peerage (Genealogical Books) Ltd, 2003), volume 1, page 838. But then if you go over to Burke's Peerage here Burke's Peerage there is a mention of an Elizabeth Talbot, daughter of a Sharington Talbot, but there is NO mother and NO mention of that Elizabeth Talbot who married Henry Davenport ever having a William Davenport that went on to marry a Grace Alloway and it only states "Henry Davenport Esq who m 22 Oct 1665 Elizabeth dau of Sharington Talbot Esq of Lacock co Wilts." This is what the facts state and until otherwise proved by genealogical and historic records there is no proof of any of this nonsense and the information should be taken down. -- Lady Meg (talk) 05:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
The Daily Mail article is based on an unproven link between William Davenport of Reading and Henry Davenport of Worfield.
The author seems to have based his article on a book by Lupton printed for private circulation in 1914 which takes the Davenport information from an earlier (1890) pamphlet by Canon James Davenport, who in a later pamphlet (1923) written after carrying out a considerable amount of research to try to prove the connection, had revised his views and conceded that the ancestry of William Davenport could not be conclusively proved. This was several years after Lupton’s book was published.
A professional genealogist has estabished the probable ancestry of William Davenport and virtually conclusively disproved the connection with Henry of Worfield http://www.jwgs.co.uk/davenport.html BillHodgson (talk) 17:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Lady Mary Stafford?
I have never seen a source which refers to her as Lady Mary Stafford. The article was stable for years with Mary Boleyn in the intro. I have never seen her entitled Lady Mary Boleyn anywhere either. This article needs to go back to its stable version. The name Mary Boleyn is no longer in the infobox, just the unreognisable Lady Mary Stafford.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:05, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh dear. I'll leave a message on Jack's and Iamundone's pages (same person?), both accounts have only bee active a couple of weeks so perhaps doesn't know that we try not to edit war here. I agree with you, it should be as it's been for years. Her title changed over the years, but she is known today as Mary Boleyn, and was only Lady Mary Stafford from 1534 - from the time she drops out of the pages of history into almost complete obscurity. She did send a letter to Cromwell after her marriage, signed Mary Stafford, but I think that's the only example. Boleyn (talk) 07:29, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- Should we leave the article as it is or change it back to the stable version?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:59, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
- You're right. If we change it back, it could lead to edit-warring. Hopefully, we'll get more input here from other editors.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Deb. I've also looked a bit further into these "two" editors; people might want to see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marquis de la Eirron/Archive or Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Marquis de la Eirron, which I've just opened. No response from either editor to my messages on their Talk pages. Boleyn (talk) 06:55, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- It's probably safe to lift the protection now then, but I will leave in place the "move" protection that was already there. Deb (talk) 11:45, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Request to have a fix made
|This edit request has been answered. Set the
In the section Mary Boleyn#Depictions in fiction, in its second paragraph, there are some extraneous closing square brackets after the name "Wendy J. Dunn". Would someone please remove them? Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:42, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
- Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:02, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Re insertion of poorly-sourced material
It needs to be stressed that romantic fiction writers such as Philippa Gregory are not reliable sources, so please do not add material from Gregory's novels to this article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia; people come here for facts not fantasy.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
I agree, especially as there are 2 biographies of Mary Boleyn, and a book on the mistresses of Henry VIII, also now Loades has written a book on the Boleyns - we're not lacking reliable sources. Boleyn (talk) 06:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Bessie Blount's "fame, wealth and power"?
Under the heading "Royal Mistress" it is noted that Mary did not enjoy the same fame, wealth and power of Henry's previous mistresses such as "Bessy" Blount.
Leaving aside the fact that Mary Boleyn is the best known of Henry's mistresses other than Blount (solid proof of other actual sexual partners such as Anne Stafford being slim to none), what fame, wealth or power did Bessie Blount enjoy other than being the mother of Henry's acknowledged illegitimate son? Did Bessie or her family receive any revenues such as the Boleyn family did? Or wealth of her own? She got an arranged marriage, period. As for power, even when her son was ennobled (due to Henry's need to prove his virility and to set up Henry Fitzroy as a possible alternative heir, not due to any influence of Bessie's) she was present but not given any prominence.
I just find this statement nonsensical. If Bessie had already been married, or if Henry had not had a desperate need to prove he could father healthy sons, I doubt we would know her name! 188.8.131.52 (talk) 17:37, 22 May 2013 (UTC)History Lunatic
- Seems to me that you are correct. If there is no citation to back up the statement, it should be removed from the article, and you are welcome to do the edit! Deb (talk) 18:19, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Mary's first husband, William Carey was not knighted. Her second husband, William Stafford was knighted 23 September, 1545, around two years after her death.  --Madame Bonheur (talk) 01:18, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
- "Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII, Volume 4: 1524-1530, 4197, 24 April 1528". British-history.ac.uk. Retrieved 7 November 2013.
- Shaw, William (1906). The Knights of England. p. 57.