# Talk:Lord Guildford Dudley

It may well have been spelled both ways originally, however this also could be a spelling mistake. Compare the title of the article to the start of the first paragraph. --Dumbo1 22:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Changed "mother" to "father" in the statement where it lists those who were imprisoned with him. :)

I have edited the statement that Guildford's father, John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland (after late 1551), became "Regent" of England following the death of Edward Seymour, Lord Protector and Duke of Somerset. Northumberland was never "Regent." Following the removal of Seymour as Lord Protector, Dudley became the leader of the Privy Council and remained, until Edward VI's death, the king's chief minister and principal advisor. At no point during the reign of Edward VI did anyone serve in the specific titular office of "Regent." PhD Historian 08:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
In accordance with Wikipedia naming conventions, should the title of this article not just be "Guildford Dudley"? PatGallacher 13:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes. PhD Historian 21:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

No it shouldnt. He's always known as "Lord Guilford Dudley"; see also Lord Frederick Windsor and many, many others.--UpDown 07:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
The issue, UpDown, was, as Pat Gallacher observed, in regard to Wikipedia's naming conventions, not to social naming conventions. The Wikipedia articles on titled figures of the English Tudor period generally do not include the honorific terms "King" or "Queen" or "Duke" or "Lord" or others before the name in the title of the article. Even the honorific title "Sir" is usually omitted from the titles of Wikipedia articles on individuals. Thus the article on Great Harry is under the name "Henry VIII, " not "King Henry VIII." The article on John Dudley is under "John Dudley," not "Duke John Dudley" or "Lord John Dudley" or "His Grace John Dudley." Ditto articles on Mary Tudor, Elizabeth I, Thomas Howard, Charles Brandon, Anne Boleyn, Francis Drake, Francis Walsingham, and so on. The article on Lady Jane Grey is, as far as I know, unique among Wikipedia articles on Tudor-era figures in that it does include the honorific in the title, perhaps because the honorific has become largely inseparable from her Christian and surnames over the past 450 years. That is not the case with Guildford. The standard modern biographies and texts only rarely refer to him as "Lord" Guildford. He is most commonly referred to in print as simply "Guildford." I'm not sure on what you base your claim of "always known as Lord Guildford Dudley." But back to the basic issue: in accordance with Wikipedia naming conventions, the title of the article should indeed be simply "Guildford Dudley," not "Lord Guildford Dudley."  PhD Historian 12:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

All I can say to that is that you obviously haven't actually read the naming conventions. (Or, it would seem, any of the articles you cite as examples of them: John Dudley, 1st Duke of Northumberland or Charles Brandon, 1st Duke of Suffolk, for example. And Thomas Howard is a disambiguation page, as all the people called Thomas Howard in that period have their titles in their article names.) Look at Category:Younger sons of dukes to see what the naming conventions actually are. Proteus (Talk) 13:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, sorry PhD Historian but you have no idea what you are talking about. "King" or "Queen" is not included in article title of any English/British monarch, so where you get the idea Tudors are the exception is a mystery. Duke is in titles of all articles for dukes (there are no exceptions I know off at all). "Sir" is never included in article title (except for baronets for disamb) so thats a different case. Lord or Lady before Christian name is nearly always used. --UpDown 07:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Whatever you say UD. You "obviously" did not read my response with full comprehension, but that's ok. If it makes you happy to insist on placing "Lord" before "Guildford Dudley" in the article title, I can certainly live with that. So many of these Wikipedia articles on Tudor-era figures are so erroneous in content and packed with information gleaned from the novels of writers like Phillipa Gregory that the title is really a relatively minor issue. PhD Historian 21:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed I did understand, but for the reasons Proteus gave above it made no sense (i.e. the people you listed as not having duke in their article title, when they did!). If our articles are so "erroneous" why don't you correct them with sources, although as a historian I worry you'll add your own research. --UpDown 07:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
The conventions don't say what you think they say, UpDown.  Using "Lord" in the title of an article is an exception rather than a rule, and is used when the person was born with that title and/or is best known by it.  Neither of these is the case with Guilford Dudley.  It should not have been moved. Deb 22:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
Sometimes what's written in the naming conventions doesn't correspond exactly with actual practice. If he didn't have "Lord" in his article name he'd be pretty much the only younger son of a duke without it. Proteus (Talk) 22:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
This is a tedious discussion, so this will be the last I have to say on it. Firstly, UD, I have not done extensive editing on the LJG article, or any other, for the very reason you cite: I would have to cite my own research, which seems to be unacceptable on Wikipedia. But since no other trained academic historian has yet done any serious scholarly research on LJG, there is no other research to cite. To date, the popular biography by Alison Plowden, a former BBC scriptwriter and editor with no university education, is the only recent work focusing narrowly on LJG. Yet it is largely a verbatim repetition of the Victorian-era mythology of LJG with little or no grounding in legitimate primary sources. Hers is a popular work, but it has been harshly criticized by the academic community (I can provide reference to numerous negative reviews of her work that can be found in academic journals.) I could, of course, give copious citations to archived primary sources that would support my editing of the articles. But when I have done so in the past, I have been harshly criticized for using "obscure" references and for citing printed or manuscript materials that are not readily available rather than citing easily accessed Internet-based ones. Rather than deal with those who think the Internet is the only reliable source of valid information, I have chosen not to amend the article. I don't know what else to do. If you have a suggestion for how to get around the absence of Internet-based scholarly work on LJG other than my own, I'd be delighted to hear it. As for the titling issue, the articles on John Dudley, Charles Brandon, et al., do not begin "His Grace" (the proper courtesy address for a duke), etc. They begin with the person's name, follwed by whatever proper title they may have borne. Yet the Guildford article begins with a courtesy title. This is an inconsistent practice. In my opinion, regardless of Wiki's "naming conventions," all articles on individuals should begin with the person's actual name, not their title. It is a glaring inconsistency to have some articles begin with the person's legal name followed by their title and yet to have others begin with some honorific title followed by their legal name. PhD Historian 23:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

We agree - this is tedious! But, as Proteus said nearly all younger sons of Dukes are down as Lord in article title, to say its the exception Deb is wrong. It's common convention. And PhDHistorian, there is a difference between "His Grace" and "Lord". The former is a formal styling rarely used and especially rarely used when referring to someone. The latter is very widely used when referring to duke's younger sons. --UpDown 07:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
It's still not the naming convention.  Younger sons of dukes are not given articles of their own unless they are in some way notable.  This usually means that they have achieved success and been given some other title.  When younger sons are referred to as "Lord" in the titles of their articles, it is normally the case that they have held this title from birth or extreme youth, thus it has, in effect, become part of their name.  This is quite different from "Sir"s, who don't usually have any title until they have reached maturity (hence their title is not in the name of the article) and younger sons who haven't been born with the title - as in this case.  Guilford Dudley wasn't born a lord, and he is seldom referred to as "Lord" Guilford Dudley. Deb 17:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. I believe that is he most often referred to as Lord Guilford Dudley. --UpDown 08:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
In fact, I've never heard him referred to as anything else. Proteus (Talk) 13:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Now I know you are being disingenuous. Deb 18:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
still garbage in article - "unduly harsh" based on what ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.190.34.142 (talk) 08:53, 3 January 2022 (UTC) 

I am willing to agree to disagree on what constitutes the correct spelling of the Christian name of the article's subject, Guildford/Guilford. His mother's last name, however, was spelled "Guildford." For the authority of this spelling, see the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography article on Jane Guildfords' father, Sir Edward Guildford (1479-1534) or Professor David Loades' biography of her husband, John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland, 1504-1553. PhD Historian 12:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Which would you say is the correct spelling of his name? I have no particular opinion either way, and would be interested in what your experience says about how it's usually spelt. Proteus (Talk) 15:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I've re-listed this article for GA assessment because there was concern that it was approved too hastily.  See discussion here.  MMagdalene722talk to me 18:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Guildford was never accused or convicted of aspiring to the crown himself, but his crime was defined as having “compassed to depose” Queen Mary by sending troops to his father and the “receiving, honouring, and proclaiming” of his wife as queen. And of course Jane was de facto queen, so her husband would be a de facto consort. Buchraeumer (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

The problem with this image is that it isn't listed in scholarly works relevant to this era; for example where does the claim come from that it was painted in the 16th century. The BBC cannot be relied on such issues, the press often uses images that won't stand up to scrutiny. It is also problematic to say that this or that portrait influenced later images without a relevant source (such as a book on art history) which actually says so. WP:OR. Buchraeumer (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Wait what is the problem with the picture. It should still be shown regardless the fact it is a non-contemporary image. We show a statue of Alfred the Great on his article. Isn't there any 19th century Victorian representation of him?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 02:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
The only information about this image is that it is "Called Guildford Dudley" [1] The problem remains that no RS use this image. Also, there is already one well-known 19th century depiction of Guildford and Jane in the article, by the artist Leslie. Buchraeumer (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2013 (UTC)