# Talk:Lettice Knollys

Regarding the edit by wjohnson, which seemed to take issue with the allegation of the second Earl of Essex's paternity, please see "The Poems of Edward DeVere, Seventeenth Earl of Oxford and of Robert Devereux, Second Earl of Essex," Studies in Philology, Vol. 77, Early Winter, 1980, Number Five (special number), Steven W. May.  Professor May, of Georgetown College, cites the original error of Essex's date of birth that appeared in Thomas Mille's Catalogue of Honor, 1610.  Mille gives the date as November 10,1567, but May points out that the contemporaneous Court of Wards document describing Essex's knighting by the Earl of Leicester gives the former's birthdate as two years earlier, 1565.  Mille is unreliable in that his work contains other errors in dates for the Devereux family, for example, that Robert was knighted in 1585 rather than 1586 and that his younger brother Walter died in Lisbon in 1589 rather than in France in 1591.  The conception resulting in a 1565 birth date corresponds with the verified account of Queen Elizabeth's fierce public argument and reconciliation with Leicester and Lettice Knollys's return to her husband.  In his biography of Leicester's son Robert by Douglass Sheffield, The Son of Leicester, Biography of Sir Robert Dudley, Arthur Gould Lee also discusses the possibility that Leicester was Essex's father; unfortunately, he also had the date of Essex's birth wrong, so he was unable to amplify this argument.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by  Sbrice@sbcglobal.net (talk • contribs) 10 November 2004 

The flirt of Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester with Lettice happened in June 1565, according to the Spanish Ambassador. So Lettice must already have been pregnant. Furthermore there is a certain resemblance with the first Earl of Essex in portraits of his son, whilst there is none with Leicester.
Buchraeumer (talk) 15:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Re my 1/10/06 edit stating that Lettice's son Walter was probably fathered by Walter senior.  It was prompted by Leicester (Dudley's) return to the Queen's favor, the fact that Walter was the traditional Devereux name, and the chronology of Lettice's time in Staffordshire as opposed to being at court.  I think the suggestion that Dudley was the father may have been inadvertent, due to a non-related edit.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by  71.131.240.234 (talk • contribs)  11 January 2006 

Did Catherine Carey really believe that Anne Boleyn was innocent??
Unbelievable!!
What would have happened to the really close bonds between mother and daughter (Mary and Catherine). I mean, after everything Anne did to Mary; stealing her children, banishing her from court, dishonering and disgracing her name, it must have been nasty to have had a daughter who believed in the innocence of the schemes of Anne!!
Oh well, I am not a historian so no chances of me being right!!
Sweetlife31 (talk) 10:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
and one question...isn't Lettice's real name Laetitia??
over and out Sweetlife31 (talk) 10:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I assume from your post that you're a fan of Philippa Gregory's fiction! Anne didn't steal Mary's children, on their father's death they were made wards of the King and brought up in the care of an influential relative - this was not only normal, but considered the best way to bring up noble children. Anne was the only one of her family who sent any money to Mary when she was banished from Court, for what was, by the standards of the time, appalling behaviour. It's not for us to judge by the standards of nearly five hundred years later. As for disgracing her name, to disgrace one sister was to disgrace the other and the whole family. May had a reputation at the court of France, then an affair with Henry VIII and when her husband died in 1528, Henry believed that her  unborn child had been fathered by someone else (the child did not survive.) She then married a commoner, compromising the family line. Her behaviour was dangerous and stupid by the standards of her time. Almost all of the courtiers would have considered that it was Mary who had dishonoured Anne. Catherine almost definitely believed in Anne's innocence, as would have Mary. As the dates of these liaisons were clearly fabricated, it is highly unlikely that anyone at court believed that Anne was guilty. 
As for your second question, yes, Lettice is short for Laetitia. It is unusual for an Englishwoman of her time to be known by the diminutive form, but Lettice was.Boleyn (talk) 16:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Boleyn. Mary was a disgrace to the Boleyn family, especially after marrying a common soldier when Anne was queen and already bore the brunt of nasty allusions to the Boleyn's merchant origins. Mary showed a lack of common sense and discretion. Anne was accused of being vindictive but could be generous to those who slandered her such as her aunt, the Duchess of Norfolk who openly supported Catherine of Aragon and sneered at Anne's family, yet Anne was kind enough to arrange splendid marriages for her aunt's children. Catherine Carey was an intimate of Queen Elizabeth who greatly valued her service.jeanne (talk) 14:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there isn't an agreement about the order of birth of the three surviving Boleyn children, so why is Mary described as being Anne's younger sister? If no one knows who was the first to be born, shouldn't she be just mentioned as her sister? Diana Prallon (talk) 04:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the fact that Lettice has numerous descendants is a reason not to list the notable ones. If this went past a sentence, i would agree that this was quite unnecessary, but at worst this one sentence could be considered intereting trivia, though not necessary. People who are interested in Lettice are likely to find this one sentence worth reading and it isn't unencyclopedic to add this. Boleyn (talk) 05:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
If it is, by your own admission, quite unnecessary, then "but, I like it" or "but it is only one sentence" is hardly persuasive.  It is WP:UNDUE to say it, and to say it here. The exact same statement could be said of Francis Knollys (the elder), of Catherine, Lady Knollys, of William Carey (courtier), of Mary Boleyn, etc.  Believe it or not, most modern people of note descend from people in the 17th century, statistically speaking just about every notable 17th century person with descendants is going to have some notable (by Wikipedia standards) descendant, but that doesn't mean this genealogical game of Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon need be recorded on every page.  There is nothing special about these descents.  They tell you nothing illuminating about either Lettice Knollys, nor the supposed descendants, nor (unlike, say, two people of the same surname) is someone going to go to the Lettice Knollys page with a deep curiosity over whether she is ancestress of Charles Darwin.  Finally, the whole thing is undocumented. Agricolae (talk) 15:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Undocumented? You should brush up on your geneaology and history before making statements like that.  There is nothing special about these people?  Charles Darwin, the man who came up with evolution?  Princess Diana, who is not only the mother of the future King of England but made a difference in people's lives through her charity work?  Winston Churchill,  the man who saved England during WWII?  No, nothing special about these people at all.  Also, Charles Darwin is a direct descent of her daughter Penelope.  Perhaps, several hundreds of people are descended from her but not millions.  She only lived five hundred years ago.  That is about twenty-five generations, not nearly enough.  I have readded the statement until someone can come up with a better arguement than "these people are nothing special". Virgosky (talk) 19:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Undocumented. I don't see a reference or footnote there. Do you?  I didn't say there is nothing special about the people.  Read it again. I said there is nothing special about the descents, and there isn't.  A million, several hundred thousand?  Are you really basing your argument on the number only having 5 zeros after it rather than 6? A lot of people lived 500 years ago, and most of those of her status were ancestors of someone important. It is nothing but genealogical six degrees of separation.  That is what a genealogical database is for, not an encyclopedia.  There are thousands, if not tens of thousands of Wikipedia pages regarding ancestors of Winston Churchill.  We do not repeat this fact on every one of the pages. We do not even give this fact on the page for the father of Lettice. So why is the descent of Lettice to Churchill (or Darwin or Diana) particularly relevant? What is the particular importance of the Lettice-to-Churchill link that does not apply to her father or mother.  The fact is, there isn't any particular relevance - it is WP:UNDUE. Agricolae (talk) 16:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lettice Knollys/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello! I'll be reviewing this article for possible GA status. My review should be posted within the next day or two. Cheers, Nikkimaria (talk) 03:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 
Prose needs copy-editing for flow and clarity. Some sections are difficult to understand because they are not clearly worded.
I've simplified some sentences.
B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 

Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 
Many citations lack page numbers; heavy reliance on Adams (over 50% of references are to one of his works).
I used the online edition of the Oxford Dictionary of Biography, which has no page numbers. Following earlier advice by the same reviewer, I abridged web citations, with full details in the References section.
Lettice Knollys hasn't a biography dedicated to her; the only treatment specifically on herself is the ODNB entry by Dr. Simon Adams, whose works are, on the whole, by far the most reliable in the sense of Wikipedia or any other sense. Lettice figures in biographies of her daughter Penelope, and less so in those of Leicester and Essex. I could technically change some of the Adams citations to more market-oriented and more outdated works; but I don't see the point as regards WP's policies. Furthermore, the GA criteria do not preclude articles with even one or two sources, as long as they are reliable.
B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 
Assertions like "undying hatred" are not backed up by citation or by article text (lack of forgiveness does not equate to deep hatred).
I have sourced this now to Lacey's Essex biography, p. 15: "For Queen Elizabeth hated Lettice Devereux bitterly, and it was all because of Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester." There are many similar expressions in other books. I'd also contend that if you are repeatedly called a whore by someone (even before ambassadors and your son) this is akin to hatred. The "undying" means it never went away, which I hope appears from the article. Of course there are  more instances of this than those mentioned in the article, but I'd think it becomes clear even so that Lady Leicester could hardly move around or show herself without triggering an eruption of royal wrath.
C. No original research: 
Expressions of opinion (popular or otherwise) not always supported by citations
Everything is supported by the citations.
Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 
Phrases like "virulent libel against the Earl of Leicester of 1584 containing all
kinds of gossipy enormities" should be more neutrally worded

I've changed this to "a Catholic underground libel against the Protestant Earl of Leicester satirically detailing his alleged enormities" to hint to the political background this seminal masterpiece of propaganda had; this wasn't just any scandal sheet. I can think of no better word than "enormities" to describe its contents, and my formulation is supported by citations.
Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 
Source link for Devereux image is dead; copyright claims against Robert Dudley and Robert Devereux images
I found new links for two images; they should now be working. All images from the National Portrait Gallery sadly have this "brow sweat" tag, which means they can be used on Wikimedia-related pages, but perhaps not in some countries other than the U.S. Featured Articles like Mary Rose have relatively recently passed with such images. See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mary Rose/archive1, where this point is specifically addressed. There are multiple GAs as well with these images from the NPG.
B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 
Unfortunately I don't feel this article is yet at GA standard; please continue your good work in improving it and renominate at a later date. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
O.K. I will use this page to explain issues step by step for my own convenience and that of future reviewers. Buchraeumer (talk) 10:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Lettice Knollys/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see here for criteria)
{{{overcom}}}
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): 

It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 

It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 

It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 


### Comments
There are a number of clarify and citation required tags I added that need looking at
 Done
Lettice Knollys links to 2 different disambiguation pages Sir Francis Knollys (redirect page), Francis Knollys and United Provinces
 Done
While alt text is no longer required it could be added
When Walter Devereux returned to England in December 1575, the Spanish agent in London, Antonio de Guaras, reported: If this is a block quote why so many references one would suffice at the end or should the quote end at reference 13 ?
 Done This was some automatized error; "/blockquote" was missing at the end.
A lot of the language used is of the day but as its taken from source material its not a problem.
Reference 3 Adams 2008a,  43 Adams 2008b, 47 Hammer 2008, 58 Adams 2008c and 61 Slater 2007 are internet references and should use the cite web template.
By my last GA reviewer I was specifically told to use short citations also for web citations. WP:CITESHORT says this is also o.k. with Internet sources that have no page numbers. Since I do everything manually, I am generally not keen on using cite templates (especially for books). Would you like to have the web template in the references section or in the inline text?
A lot of double and triple references are used and its not clear why (some by myself using ref name) but the extreme example is in the Litigation and old age section there are five references for At all times, Lettice Knollys cared for her siblings, children, and grandchildren. Until their respective deaths in 1607 and 1619, her daughters Penelope and Dorothy were her closest companions do all five cover different points ? or are they just duplicate refs if so some can be deleted the two web based would be best
 Done. I reworded and moved three citations behind "siblings, children, and grandchildren". This is a special case: Although all sources specifically say she cared for them, they say so for different classes of relatives separately, and at several stations throughout her life. I thought it best to summarize this point somewhere in the article.
There are numerous other examples where ref 3 Adams 200Oa is used alongside a book ref if this is to cover  some point fine but it could be moved to that point to make it clearer. If not suggest the web ref is deleted and the book ref will suffice. Unless there is some doubt or contradiction with the book ref then that should be made clear.
 Done. In 98% of the cases still remaining this is in fact to cover some point; in many cases these are minor, even tiny, things like a month/year or a location. In two cases it's because I quoted from a primary source, but the meaning is the same as in the cited secondary source (where these quotes also figure).
All the citations should have the year following as ref 7 Hammer 1999 p. 22
 Done
In the bibliography books need publishing locations
 Done
Thank you! Buchraeumer (talk) 14:24, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
There are some to be going on with, I will return later. Feel free to contact me on my talk page, or here with any concerns, and let me know one of those places when the issues have been addressed. If I may suggest that you strike out, check mark, or otherwise mark the items I've detailed, that will make it possible for me to see what's been addressed, and you can keep track of what's been done and what still needs to be worked on.--Jim Sweeney (talk) 10:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Passed GA Jim Sweeney (talk) 15:15, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Thanks! Buchraeumer (talk) 17:00, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to verify, the name ends w an [s] sound, not a [z] sound, right? And first name rhymes with niece? — kwami (talk) 21:53, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

It's actually the name "Knowles". Buchraeumer (talk) 09:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Okay, will change. — kwami (talk) 10:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)