Talk:Rose Kennedy

Children

Shouldn't the names of all of her children be listed here? SNUGGUMS obviously doesn't agree and a few days ago he and an IP user had removed the template about her children completely. Obviously there are articles about many powerful, notable, and royal families here on Wikipedia and in almost all of them I have seen similar templates where the names of their notable children are listed, alongside their dates of birth and death, marriage, children, etc. I don't know why we should make this one an exception. Keivan.f^Talk 21:36, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

The children are already listed in the first paragraph of "Marriage and family life". This article is supposed to focus on Rose's family life, not serve as a genealogy page for the Kennedys (that's what Kennedy family is for). Also, just because other articles include certain templates/tables doesn't automatically mean this one should, so WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't a good argument here. Their births are obviously worth noting. Not sure about their deaths (particularly for those who died after she did), but grandchildren and children's marriages are probably out of scope. Snuggums (talk / edits) 21:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'm not saying that there's a rule here that we should have such templates or tables on every single article, but there's actually something that I should probably call a common method that I have seen in so many articles including the article about Rose's husband, where everything about the children are listed in detail. There are dozens of other examples available, including royal figures such as Elizabeth II, or members of powerful or notable families such as Patrick Kennedy. At the same time I have no prejudice against removing that table but I want to get a consensus here first so we can know what needs to be done from now on with similar articles. I hope the other users also participate in this discussion. Keivan.f^Talk 21:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

If such a table is used at all, then I'd just have the children's names, when they were born, and maybe when they died. That detail is what's truly pertinent here. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I'll try to make it more simplified. Keivan.f^Talk 03:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Some of Rose's notability stems, no doubt, from her life as the child of Boston's boss "Honey Fitz", and as the consort of businessman-cum-diplomat Joseph Kennedy. But by far she is most renowned for the role in which she exercised greatest influence and held longer than the roles of daughter or wife: matriarch. Matriarch of a family which has had arguably more influence on the public policy of the United States than all but a few since the colonies exchanged the House of Hanover for elected presidents. That family's prominence continues beyond her life, yet derives in significant part, if numerous biographies of its members are to be believed, from Rose's impact on their lives educationally, morally and hereditarily. If Joseph Kennedy's descendants had been born to him by another wife and played substantially the same roles in American history, we'd still have the Kennedy family article under Joseph's surname. But published history suggests that's inconceivable because the momentum she's given living generations of her descendants is unique -- and it's unfair to Rose to minimize her connection to the political dynasty of which she's a main progenitor. When genealogy is traceably relevant to history, it's relevant to Wikipedia. I urge that we keep it. FactStraight (talk) 07:40, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Sure she's noted for being JFK, RFK, and Ted Kennedy's mother, but not really for her role as a grandmother or mother-in-law. I would also remove the "marriage and children" parameter as her children's weddings and offspring aren't relevant to this page. For what it's worth, Joe is also much more known as their father than as a father-in-law or grandfather. Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:12, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Disagree. She's very well known for being the mother-in-law of -- to name just some -- Ethel Skakel, Jackie Bouvier, Sargent Shriver and Peter Lawford, and for being the grandmother of Maryland Lt. Gov. Kathleen Townsend, Congressmen Patrick J. Kennedy and Joseph Patrick Kennedy II, Maria Shriver Schwarzenegger, Chris Lawford, Rory Kennedy and the notorious Dr. William Kennedy Smith; and as the great-grandmother of Congressman Joe Kennedy and Rose Kennedy Schlossberg, among others, nearly all of whom have spoken and/or written about her influence, as counselor or role model, on their own public lives. Template info on them should stay. FactStraight (talk) 18:49, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Those connections aren't nearly as well known as those to their children. I'm absolutely certain that nobody would first think something like "That's Patrick Kennedy's grandmother" or "That's Jackie Kennedy's mother-in-law" before "That's RFK's mother" or certainly not before "That's JFK's mother" when referring to Rose. Any in-laws, grandchildren, or great-grandchildren of hers are far less pertinent to what she's noted for than her husband or children. Individual biography pages are not supposed to be extensive genealogy sites per WP:NOTGENEALOGY, particularly when such relatives aren't connected to what someone is prominently noted for. Such relations are much better for Kennedy family, which is specifically dedicated to the family history and lineage. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, those connections occurred to me without looking them up. I may be older than the average Wikipedian, but people my age read Wikipedia too, and others read it to learn what they didn't already know. The fact that Rose is more famous for being JFK's mother than Congressman Joe Kennedy's great-grandmother does not mean that she is not known for both -- the article's criteria don't pit her sources or degrees of notability against one another. She was a matriarch because her influence is perceived as extending beyond her immediate reach. Her descendants' ongoing prominence attests to that reputation. FactStraight (talk) 04:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I personally knew about those relations myself before you mentioned them, but the only ones from that list who could possibly be worth mentioning at all are Jackie and Ethel, and even then it would be better to briefly mention such connections in article prose rather than in a table. There's a difference between covering major aspects of one's life and overloading a page/section with excessive details. Don't confuse the two. Again, take into account the WP:NOTGENEALOGY section of WP:What Wikipedia is not. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Genealogy isn't banned from Wikipedia articles when relevant to the topic: displaying the high percentage of Rose's descendants who continue to achieve prominence beyond her lifetime easily and succinctly demonstrates why she is regarded as a matriarch. Your contention that "the only ones from that list who could possibly be worth mentioning at all are Jackie and Ethel" makes clear your own perception, but doesn't establish that others see Rose and her legacy so narrowly. FactStraight (talk) 22:58, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

It's not simply my own perception; there are lots of people who know little to nothing about grandchildren besides Caroline Kennedy or JFK Jr. Her grandchildren and great-grandchildren aren't relevant to what she's prominently noted for at all. Genealogists might be interested in extended lines, but that's not what individual biography articles are supposed to focus on. Her only relations with any real prominence are her father, husband, children, and maybe daughters-in-law. Most (if not all) of the other connections are rather obscure in comparison. Going beyond the generation of her children here quite simply is too much detail. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Again, we simply disagree and each is offering our perceptions -- not poll data. People don't just look up Wiki bios to confirm what they already know, but to expand their knowledge about the subject, the subject's connections and influence. I agree with Keivan.f that the template he added concisely displays info that exemplifies how and why Rose Kennedy is a matriarch. FactStraight (talk) 01:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

If people are looking to expand knowledge on relatives outside her immediate family, then there's a much better chance they'd go to Kennedy family, where such detail is far more appropriate. Her individual page is where people would more likely go to know more about her as a person and what she herself did in her life. Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

What she did in her life was establish herself as the matriarch of a family distinguished in public affairs. Her most significant achievement extends beyond her individual actions, but was relational and multi-generational. Given the more limited scope of roles women of her generation and earlier were often steered into, they deserve public acknowledgement of the significance of the contributions they've made to others' lives. Joseph Kennedy's notability derives largely from achievements he made outside the home, whereas Rose's was within. Readers shouldn't have to leave her article to see the scope of her attainment and influence. FactStraight (talk) 01:56, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Aside from genealogists, history buffs, and other Fitzgerald/Kennedy family members, not very many people are likely to be interested enough to look so far beyond her children, husband, or father. Regardless, being a grandmother or great-grandmother was far less of an achievement than her recognition and impact as a mother. This is supposed to have a more narrow focus than the family article. Snuggums (talk / edits) 03:21, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with FactStraight. As a Wikipedia reader I previously had no knowledge about JFK's mother; I already knew many things about the majority of his siblings, but when I focused on his mother's biography the first thing that came to my mind was that she had a prominent role as a matriarch. She had given birth to 9 children and had put all her energy and effort in upbringing a generation that would make her family proud. Besides, as an individual who lived for 104 years, I think she had had enough time to at least establish some sort of relationship with her grandchildren as well. Her influence over her children was important and is one of the things she'll probably be remembered for. So a simple table/list of her children with the inclusion of their marriages would do no harm as her sons/daughters-in-law were notable as well. Keivan.f^Talk 03:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Mentioning spouses in article prose is one thing, but when they married certainly isn't relevant to her page. Mentioning them within prose briefly (if at all) is a better idea than in a table. Too much detail on children's families detracts focus from what's pertinent to her notability. The fact that Joe Jr. and Rosemary died without marrying or having children themselves also isn't relevant to this page. Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

These arguments are beginning to repeat: being a matriarch isn't just about raising children, but about influencing generations of prominent individuals specifically through family ties, blood and marital, while the fact that Rose is known more for her connections to some than to others doesn't moot those others -- rather, templating her connection to their lives allows readers to learn about her broader influence efficiently. We've discussed this thoroughly, Keivan.f, reached unanimous agreement on the first generation's inclusion, and two of the three participants concur on inclusion of further generations. FactStraight (talk) 05:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that connections to subsequent generations are less known (and probably of much less public interest), there are way too many grandchildren and great-grandchildren to mention anyway. Naming them all would be a nightmare. I should also note that pure head count is not the sole determining factor of including/excluding things in pages. There's no good reason to make this a family dumping grounds page when it would surely detract focus from what's truly worth mentioning, even if she was part of their lives. It might not be so bad to briefly mentioning any role played within their pages, though. Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:17, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I also don't believe that we should name all of her grandchildren, as she had influence on her own children and was a prominent figure in their lives. That's why I just added the number of offspring that each of her children had. Keivan.f^Talk 12:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Numbers are vastly better than naming them all individually. That's for sure. Snuggums (talk / edits) 12:49, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

One day older

I've changed her birthdate to July 21, per her birth certificate: https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:S3HY-6QV3-NDJ?wc=M61J-KP6%3A73565701%3Fcc%3D1536925&cc=1536925

This is an original from 1890. --2602:306:8381:7390:BD6A:316D:2814:5CC2 (talk) 07:33, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

Title of countess

Kennedy did use her Papal noble title, and even signed her name with the title when signing into convents and monasteries. [1] -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 17:36, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Re this revert: I cannot see how the courtesy title is significant enough in Rose Kennedy's life story to be in bold font in the first line of the article. It's undue weight and distracting. Will remove again unless someone can come up with a motivation for emphasizing it to that extreme. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:09, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

The title of "Papal Countess" is a legitimate title that Rose Kennedy used. It should be included in the bold font because that is standard protocol for noble titles on Wikipedia. Look on the pages of literally every single British peer and you will see that their titles are in bold font right after the name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.37.137.207 (talk) 18:46, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

The title is a personal gift not a government-sanctioned appointment. Read that article! It is trivial to her life story, already is mentioned at the end of the lead (that's enough) and should not be in bold type. According to her biographers she never called herself "Countess Kennedy" even if some of us may wish she had been eccentric enough to do that. We do not bold-type Oscar winner in bio leads. Same same. I'll be removing this again in a few days unless consensus is reached here to keep it. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:01, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Do you not understand the concept of a noble title? We do not bold-type "Oscar winner" in the bio leads because "Oscar winner" is NOT an noble title or official government honor of any type. It is not "same same" in any way. A British knighthood isn't a "government-sanctioned appointment" either and you could say that being knighted is "trivial to the life story" of most actors, writers, businessmen, etc. yet every single celebrity with a knighthood has "Sir..." on their wiki pages. You seem to think that because this is a Papal title and an American it "doesn't count", but that's just not true. The Holy See is a legitimate government that has the authority to give out legitimate noble titles, so what is the difference between Papal titles and any other noble titles? Why should Wikipedia only recognize noble titles like British peerages and knighthoods and not those of other countries? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.37.137.207 (talk) 05:06, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

The title is already mentioned in the lead of the article. It's not nobility but a personal papal gift. It should not be in bold type in the first line. That's the issue here: bold type; first line. Nothing else. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:37, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:THIRD: I don't think the title should be bold or even present in the first sentence. It is unexpected to apply customs for addressing royalty to an American. The explanation at the end of the lead is appropriate treatment. ~Kvng (talk) 19:10, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 10:49, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Rose should have her title in her first sentence, because other American Women who were given a title from the pope have it in theirs --YoungExpert (talk) 22:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by YoungExpert (talk • contribs) 18:59, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Two of us here do not agree. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:38, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Kvng's logic above as well. The title doesn't belong bolded in the opening line. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 23:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

But why not?? It doesn't make sense that other American Women have the title in their bio but Rose does not?--YoungExpert (talk) 23:22, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

We're not talking about other articles, but this one. Her honorific is properly noted in the opening section. Perhaps it is time to move onto other ways to improve this encyclopedia? --ZimZalaBim ^talk 00:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

paternal grandmother?

In her autobiography “Times to Remember,” Rose says her father John Francis “Honey Fitz” Fitzgerald’s mother was Rose Mary Murray. Practically every other source says it was Rosanna Cox. This site

http://thekennedys.www1.50megs.com/early.htm

says both...first Cox, then later on in the article Murray. Has anyone ever figured out why this strange discrepancy? I assume whoever wrote Rose’s book simply got it wrong but others do go along with that. 71.184.87.187 (talk) 16:35, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

This is the first time I've heard of the name Rose Mary Murray. Not sure what to say on the answer or whether we need to discuss her here, but if that's the actual name and not Rosanna Cox, then Honey Fitz's page definitely should be updated accordingly. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:01, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

If Murray were mentioned in her book and nowhere else I'd say just forget it as a typo. But it does show up other places, so people are likely to wonder who really is her grandmother. 71.184.87.187 (talk) 17:12, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Why not have both, sourced accordingly? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, I looked into this some more and it turns out I was wrong to think that the consensus has settled on Cox. Quite a few books say it was Murray, as of course does Rose herself in her autobiography, so I was wrong to assume that was an error. I'm surprised Wiki wasn't aware of this. OK, not really surprised. Do what you want. 71.184.87.187 (talk) 02:30, 24 June 2022 (UTC)