# Talk:Amy Robsart

In Scott's novel, isn't she supposed to be from the West Country? Just an interesting point ...

She is a novelist, not a professional historian. Her speculations are irrelevant.

Whether or not Dudley killed her, the rumours always claimed that she had shamed him in an argument and that he had decided to "dishonour" her, so anyone who was in alliance with her should watch their back. Isn't this evidence enough to claim some sort of punishment against the 1st Earl??
The evidence also claims that he repeatedly kept her away from court and the true rumours, and constantly lied to her about his relationship with Elizabeth, this shows a cheat and a liar. 
Even though whatever information about Lady Robsart's death today points more to one of Elizabeth's schemes than Dudley's, he treated Amy very wrongly indeed and he should have been punished for that.
But I guess, in a way, he did get punished, since he was ridiculed even more, returned to the background of court, and lost his only opportunity to complete his jigsaw to attaining the Royal Crown.
Sweetlife31 (talk) 06:45, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not really sure what the point of this post is, i.e. its relevance to a biographical entry in an encyclopedia. Vikingwoman2 (talk) 21:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This is interesting:

Dudley sent a friend to the country estate to check on the circumstances and did not attend the funeral as was proper and expected of the widowed husband in those days.
First I've heard of this custom. What was the basis of it? Drutt (talk) 14:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

It's also quite unclear, since from a grammatical point of view this suggests that it WAS proper him for him to attend the funeral, but nevertheless he did not Vikingwoman2 (talk) 21:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
It wasn't common or *proper & expected* at all for royalty/nobility to attend the funerals of close family members even as late as the 16th century.  Some may have done so in a private box within the church or cathedral, but not publicly.  Have you ever read where so & so was appointed as *chief mourner* for a royal or noble funeral?  They did the funeral arrangements & led the funeral procession in place of the deceased's family, & were often a relative or close friend, but not in the immediate family circle.  Henry VIII appointed Thomas Howard, Duke of Norfolk as Henry Fitzroy's chief mourner, & the king did not attend his only surviving son's funeral; does that indicate Henry murdered Henry?  No.  It was how it was done then.  Besides, Dudley was rather busy being held under house arrest at Kew, & even had he not been, it would be another 20 yrs before he dared do something without Elizabeth's permission & approval.   ScarletRibbons (talk) 04:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I am going to move this page to Amy udley, as she is more known as this, if no one replies within 3 days I wil just move it. This is a place where you can voice your view!

)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.94.13 (talk) 11:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Lady Amy Dudley is completely wrong.  She would never have been called this, but simply Lady Dudley.  I have moved the article back to its previous title, the name by which she is best known.  If anyone wants to move it, I suggest you be aware that it is likely to be controversial and follow the procedure at Wikipedia:Requested moves.  Deb (talk) 15:32, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
There was a period of several yrs when they were first wed that she WAS entitled to be called *Lady Amy Dudley*, as she assumed her husband's status as the son of an earl & later the son of a duke upon marrying.  Once he lost that status with the attainder of his father, he was no longer *Lord Robert Dudley*, but plain old *Master Robert Dudley*, & therefore she was plain old *Mistress Amy Dudley*, like any other untitled commoners.  (The Warwick title was dusted off & returned to Robert's eldest surviving brother Ambrose, not to Robert, so that gave him no status bump.)  Amy's husband was invested as a Knight of the Garter in April 1559, upping his status to *Sir Robert* & that of his wife to *Lady Dudley* for the last 17 mos of her life.  Dudley was not created Earl of Leicester until 1564, so after Northumberland's attainder Amy was not ever Lady Amy again.  Technically, the style of Lady Amy Dudley is correct, but ONLY until her father-in-law's execution.  Then she became Mistress Dudley, followed by Lady Dudley after his small elevation to knighthood.  I do concur that she has become ingrained in history as simply Amy Robsart (& I'd bet that was because of the status flipping; no one could agree on what to call her, though Lady Dudley would have been the right way to go as that is what she was known as when she died).  ScarletRibbons (talk) 04:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
Robert Dudley was knighted sometime in 1549, around the time of his first military campaign. It is also wrong to state that Robert Dudley was no longer called "Lord Robert" after his father's attainder in 1553. Technically, they may have lost any "rights" but in reality the family continued their former usage of titles as if nothing had happened. Just read any contemporary chronicle, diary, letter, or ambassadorial report. The same way, his mother continued to be styled the Duchess of Northumberland. Buchraeumer (talk) 11:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

I have completely overhauled this article and referenced it with more inline citations, as was requested on a template.
Buchraeumer (talk) 14:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
It would be good if someone could clearn up the writing as well - it's ungrammatical in some places and a bit too casual/chatty in tone. Vikingwoman2 (talk) 21:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible that the portrait miniature located in the "Life" section of this article has an incorrect caption? The same image file appears in the article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portraiture_of_Elizabeth_I_of_England and carries the caption "Portrait miniature of Elizabeth as a princess, Levina Teerlinc, c. 1550." I have no special knowledge of this subject, but stumbled upon the inconsistency when researching Elizabeth I and Lord Dudley, and thought it best to bring this to the attention of the contributors.
Ghope (talk) 01:28, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The identity of this miniature's sitter is unknown, as is made clear in the caption in this article. The caption has a footnote in which the case in favour of Amy Robsart is explained. Roy Strong thinks it is Princess Elizabeth, but this has never been widely accepted, so the caption in the Elizabeth portraiture article should make clear that this is only one art historian's opinion; David Starkey suggested Lady Jane Grey, which has been rejected by Eric Ives and others, and there are apparently still other candidates. Buchraeumer (talk) 10:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

As a wife of a younger son of a Duke, should her title be "Lady Robert" (not "Lady Amy" or "Lady Dudley" sprinkled in the article)?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trajanis (talk • contribs) 05:17, 17 May 2011 (UTC) 

she was the wife of an earl stupid. a countess Delighted eyes (talk) 17:10, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't think I'd be calling anyone "stupid", you know, if I were just going to display my own ignorance in turn.  Lord Robert Dudley was made an earl four years after Amy Robsart died--she was never a countess.  She was properly known throughout her married life as "Lady Robert", though the 16th century wasn't as punctilious about those things as later ages.  Perhaps less attitude and more attention to history on your part would be more productive and pleasant for the rest of the world.  98.210.166.239 (talk) 05:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Maybe Princess Michael is confusing people.  That's a royal style, not a noble style.  Have you ever seen Jane Dudley (Northumberland's wife) referred to as *Lady John*?  I've never seen any women of the English nobility referred to as *Lady Husband's Christian Name & Surname, Countess of Whatchamacallit* .  (I mean, see any article on females of the English nobility.)
As I just said above where this was already mentioned (& elaborated about Amy's status changes), there was an attainder laid on the House of Northumberland.  An attainder not only takes away your goodies, but those of your descendents.  After Northumberland's execution, his surviving children were no longer entitled to the style of children of an earl or a duke.  The sole title Amy could lay claim to at the time of her death derived from Robert's status as a Knight of the Garter, making her *Lady Dudley*.  When her FIL was still alive, she could be addressed as *Lady Amy* because her spouse was *Lord Robert* as derived from his father's status, but she was never the wife (or daughter) of an earl as Dudley was not created Earl of Leicester until 1564, & Amy died in 1560.
The issue with the inconsistent usage in this article is that there's really no way to explain ups & downs in status without going off on a Northumberland tangent.  Perhaps someone who understands how to make those box things (which is not me!) could attempt to do it simply & without adding paragraphs to the article?  Lacking that, I do think just calling her *Amy* throughout might suffice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScarletRibbons (talk • contribs) 18 April 2013 (UTC)
It is wrong to state that Robert Dudley was no longer called "Lord Robert" after his father's attainder. Technically, they may have lost any "rights" but in reality the family continued their former usage of titles as if nothing had happened. Just read any contemporary chronicle, diary, letter, or ambassadorial report. The same way, his mother continued to be styled the Duchess of Northumberland. Re this article, WP:MOS doesn't allow to refer to the article's subject with their Christian name, and perhaps you could take into account that this article has passed WP:GA as it is. Buchraeumer (talk) 10:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I agree, there is a difference between being entitled to use a style & continuing to use it despite its legal removal.  People were referred to as *my lord This* or *my lady That* as a courtesy even when they were not strictly entitled to it &/or it was wrong to do so.  Ambassadors in particular made that mistake or misidentified people entirely. *Lady Robert* was very likely not used as was mentioned above.  Really, no first names allowed?  There are a lot of historical articles that refer to females as such, especially royal ones who technically had no surname.  They're not constantly referred to as *the queen*, *the princess*, *Lady Percy* or whatever in their articles.  I'm not arguing with you, I'm just saying I've seen that quite frequently, so it would appear many articles don't follow that policy.  Good to know, TYVM.  (That explains the gazillion repetitions of *Amy Dudley* in this one, I guess.) ScarletRibbons (talk) 18:12, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
I strongly disagree with using the subject's first name. "Robsart" is entirely appropriate in every instance. Surtsicna (talk) 13:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The miniature in the infobox is described by the owning museum as "Lucas Horenbout, 1490/95–1544, Netherlandish, active in Britain, Portrait of an Unknown Lady, ca. 1535".  I really don't think we can keep it, when it seems to have been painted when she was a toddler, apart from anything else. Johnbod (talk) 03:43, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

‘Portrait of a Lady’, gouache on parchment laid down on card, diameter: 1 7/8inches (4.8cm), in the Yale Center for British Art, Paul Mellon Collection, accession number B1974.2.59, was always dated to ca. 1545–47 and attributed to Lavinia Teerlinc (d. 1576) by the museum. The re-dating of the miniature by the museum to 1535 is done based on Polly Saltmarsh's identification of the lady in the miniature as Mary (I) Tudor as a Princess. This identification has not gained widespread acceptance, and unless one is absolutely convinced that the miniature is of Mary I Tudor, there is no reason to suppose that it is from 1535. Roy Strong attributes the miniature to Levina Teerlinc and dates it to 1550. Roy Strong, Artists of the Tudor Court: The Portrait Miniature Rediscovered, 1520–1620 (London: Victoria and Albert Museum, 1983), 52–53; and Strong, The English Renaissance Miniature, 58. Roy Strong, “Teerlinc, Levina (d. 1576)”, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004). Levina Teerlinc was one of five daughters of renowned miniaturist Simon Bening. ByTheDarkBlueSea (talk) 09:44, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
@Johnbod@ByTheDarkBlueSea
Polly Saltmarsh notes that the sitter's clothing dates from around 1535 to the early 1540s: "The fashion for square necklines on dresses was popular in England from the 1520s. By the mid-1530s, the neckline had widened to reveal the sitter’s shoulders, a trend which continued into the early 1540s." (Saltmarsh, Polly (30 September 2020). "Portrait of an Unknown Lady: Technical Analysis of an Early Tudor Miniature". British Art Studies (17). doi:10.17658/issn.2058-5462/issue-17/psaltmarsh.). See also Edwards, J. Stephan (2015). A Queen of New Invention: Portraits of Lady Jane Grey Dudley, England’s ‘Nine Days Queen’. Palm Springs: Old John Publishing. ISBN 9780986387302, pp. 103-106 at p. 105. Edwards notes that the shape of the French hood is more in keeping with the style of the 1530s and 1540s, and he dates the work roughly "1535 to 1540". Ammelida (talk) 06:14, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Roy Strong notes that the sitter's clothing is from ca. 1550. He's right. Compare with the portrait of Elizabeth I when a Princess in the Royal Collection and all of the portraits of Katherine Parr. Look at all of the portraits and sketches by Holbein, they are in a quite different style. Holbein died in 1543. ByTheDarkBlueSea (talk) 08:39, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Some further explanation for this theory would be warranted. How exactly do its proponents suppose her to have committed suicide - by just throwing herself and rolling down the stairs in the hope that it would kill her? That seems like a very inefficient and uncertain method that is more likely to fail and produce only pain and crippling than to succeed. Or by hitting herself on the head and snapping her own neck by hand? No comment. 62.73.72.3 (talk) 15:07, 8 September 2024 (UTC)