Talk:Margaret Roper

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ashallcr07.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Categorisation

I'm wondering whether it's really appropriate for Margaret Roper to be in the category Catholic Martyrs, seen as she herself wasn't martyred. I can see the logic of the categorisation, but it seems a little incongruous to me. Any thoughts?

Also, I'd like to put in a sentence or two about her education (later, when I've found some reliable sources), but, in the meantime, does anyone know if her translation of Erasmus's Devout Treatise on the Paternoster is available on the Internet? It’s got to be public domain, but they don’t have it at Project Gutenberg. Nicola79 13:29, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

The category is because she is important for RCC martyrology, not because she is a martyr. I.e. she is in the category because she ministered to her father, saved the relic, etc. At least that was my thinking, and absolutely not any suggestion that she was herself a martyr.

As for the education, you've got an excellent point. She was fantastically well educated by her father and his buddy, Erasmus, and More took great pains to educate her well. I think there's something in More's Latin Epigrams about education that applies to her, too. Unfortunately, I haven't the expertise myself nor the references at hand. I will go look at the 2004 Dictionary of National Biography to at least get bibliographic data on her publications, so we can at least refer readers to her. Also, they might have some more matter to add.

I should have put this article on my watchlist when I wrote it. I missed the query here. I hope anyone and everyone with information builds on what I wrote, as I consider it a true stub, and I'm not strong enough in the Renaissance to pull more information out of my head. Geogre 02:38, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Category: Martyr

I won't protest beyond this, or revert, but I can see a reason for putting her in the martyr category. She isn't studied for the mention by Tennyson, but solely because she figures in the story of More. Hence, her story is part of the martyr story of Thomas More, and therefore her biography -- her story -- is part of the martyr story. I would assume that the tag does not imply that she was herself a martyr -- she wasn't -- but merely that she is part of that division of subjects. Again, I won't revert again, as I don't feel strongly about any category tag, much less this one, but I do feel it belongs here. Geogre 02:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough, but you took out the birth and death date categories that I had added as well. Probably my fault — I should have been clearer in my edit summary. :-) AnnH ^(talk) 02:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

section : legacy

recommend for deletion of this section with its only sentence. that sentence makes no sense. it is entirely about speculative reasons for content in a work for which there is no link. seems contrary to wikipedia policy, seems a promotional link to particular work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.206.246.67 (talk) 08:39, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Margaret Roper. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100623015901/http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/Ftrials/more/roper7-5-35.html to http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/Ftrials/more/roper7-5-35.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:30, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Off-site commentary on "first non-royal woman to publish a book she had translated into English"

I happened across this page, which scoffs at the above claim, as an example of the "non-scholarly" nature of Wikipedia. But there's an entirely scholarly citation given. The source actually says: "Yet in this early stage of translating into English, Margaret Roper was a novelty: the first non-royal woman translator to make her mark." That's not quite saying "first published", however. Is there a better wording that summarises that gist without over-reaching? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:24, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

"Lord's Prayer" and "Paternoster"

The text says that Margaret translated Erasmus's commentary on the Paternoster, and states that Margaret ALSO translated Erasmus's commentary on the Lord's Prayer. "Paternoster" is Latin for "Our Father,' the beginning of the Lord's Prayer. So it would seem that there was only one translation, not two.Other Choices (talk) 19:03, 23 December 2019 (UTC)