# Talk:Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester

Just as a matter of interest, what is the source of the evidence for the breast cancer theory? Deb 12:38 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)

According to Elizabeth the Queen, by Alison Weir, a Professor Iain Aird suggested in in 1956. The only primary evidence given in that book is that Alvaro de Quadra, a Bishop and a Spanish ambassador, wrote in April 1559 of her having "a malady of the breast". She implies that other sources confirm some kind of illness, and doesn't give details as to why breast cancer in particular was the conclusion. Onebyone 01:03, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
In the fictional book (based on the true story) of "The Virgin's Lover", by Philippa Gregory, it states that rumours were spread of Lady Amy Dudley being sick with breast cancer. Scotteh 13:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
And it claimed that Elizabeth's party was most likely involved in her death, or suicide, however it is well known that we can't always trust Gregory's works historically; they are part fiction...Sweetlife31 (talk) 06:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually, as I recall it, they started in the book that Amy's "heart was breaking". It was implied she might be poisoned, but I don't remember any mention of anything relating to breast cancer. And Philippa Gregory's work is not to be taken that seriously--she's well-known for her, er, "creative" changes to history.68.79.11.47 16:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Are we sure we're not seeing a portrait of his son -- the mapmaker? Sparky 03:33, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Could be. Both his sons were also called Robert, weren't they, so it would be an easy mistake to make. Onebyone 01:05, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
At its start, this article suggests that Dudley and Elizabeth met in the Tower of London. Later it states that they were friends from childhood. This inconsistency should be addressed.

They were friends from childhood. Scotteh 13:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Actually, because Dudley was a bit low-born, it is probably more likely that Elizabeth and he became friends later on (probably around the time he sold some of his estates and gave the money to her). Kings generally didn't allow their heirs (even if Elizabeth was considered a bastard) to socialize with the descendants of traitors when the traitor had only been one's grandfather....68.79.11.47 16:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
But the Dudleys -- Leicester's father -- were not out of favor in the latter part of Henry's reign, which is when it is believed that Robert and Elizabeth first met, along with the other royal children. --Hiraeth 01:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Was Leicester really the last governor before the German occupation?--Anglius 03:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed the infobox, since the two positions were completely separate -  one being an English governor for a short period during the 1580's, and the second one being the WWII German occupation governor. The Netherlands didn't have governor's in between then.
Arun 03:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The page still implies Seyss-Inquart as a "successor" to Leicester.  This is at best spurious.  As above, there was no subsequent English governor of the Netherlands.  [[[User:24.69.20.94|24.69.20.94]] 04:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)Steve Allen]

Being as how we're not mindreaders who lived with Elizabeth I (or I hope we aren't), how can we truly say she wished to marry him? She may have flirted with him a lot, but it isn't as if she said, "I wish I could have married Robert." I think we should change the first sentence, and I will do so if this isn't replied to soon.68.79.11.47 16:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Who the heck are you? Anyway, I second your statement. Scotteh 13:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I changed his birthdate from June 24 1532 to September 7 1533. In Elizabeth Jenkin's Elizabeth and Leicester she adresses the issue and cites several sources that state Robert and Elizabeth were born on the same day. Since I could only find one mention of the June 24 birthday and no comtemporary sources on it, the September 7 date seems much more likely.
Leicester's date of birth is highly debatable. Contemporaries believed that he was born on the same day as Elizabeth, but this may have just been a fanciful rumour. June 24 the previous year is a recent calculation that seems more probable - especially since the earl was supposed to be older than her. It's a very debatable topic, and nobody can be sure, but don't you think it would be too much of a coincidence that they were born on the same day? I think the date should be kept as June 24, but the article needs to mention the question of his birthdate somewhere.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by BRCScriptor (talk • contribs) 12:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC) 

There seems to be some confusion about the demise of Robert Dudley's first wife, Amy Robsart. Paragraph two in the intro states "He is said to have poisoned his first wife Amy Robsart.." while the first paragraph in "Relationship With Elizabeth" says "She had previously suffered from breast cancer, but she was ultimately killed by falling down a flight of stairs in her house."  --72.68.227.212 (talk) 18:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking we should add that it has been suggested he had a son with Elizabeth I. There is some very good evidence to suggest it. Im saying he definatley did or anything, but i think we should mention it somewhere in the article. Any thoughts?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chloe2kaii7 (talk • contribs) 09:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC) 

Rewriting this article, I have given sources where putative children of Elizabeth and Leicester figure, in a footnote. I couldn´t include all cases, as there are innumerable, but the 1587 case is Arthur Dudley. I have my personal opinion about who he probably was, but cannot mention this in the article, as this would amount to "original research".
Buchraeumer (talk) 15:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

I just would like to tell everybody, that since about 4 February 2009, I have practically rewritten this article, since it seemed to me in great need of amendment (there was also box asking for it). I have added lots of facts, dates, as well as some aspects (although within the framework of the old article as regards thematic scope. I have only made one new subdivision: Politics). However, I want to stress, that I have not taken away any quotations! In all cases, I could identify the original source from which the quote came. I have also given  some references to facts mentioned in the original article, as there was no single reference (i.e.footnote) given in it. I have also put further quotations in the article, along with all the footnotes in there so far.
Buchraeumer (talk) 12:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

This article really needed a thorough rewrite with citations.  Thanks for taking it on. - PKM (talk) 16:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for your encouraging response!
I have now made a further heading
"Youth", and added facts about Dudley´s
education, youth, politics, the Kenilworth  Festival, theatre, university, etc. in order to give a more rounded picture.
Buchraeumer (talk) 07:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
I have still expanded the article and made a new heading "Leycester´s commonwealth" as this book was immensely important for Leicester´s long-term reputation.
Buchraeumer (talk) 12:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The article is substantial and has good pictures and references but has problems with an unencyclopedic subjective tone (the tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, see Neutral point of view) and many peacock terms. Hekerui (talk) 23:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for assessing the article. I wonder, however, why articles like Robert Devereux, 2nd Earl of Essex, and especially, William Cecil, 1st Baron Burghley got B-class. The latter used to be a most partial, unreferenced eulogy lifted entirely from the 1911 EB, containing hardly any factual information. There were mainly unreferenced attacks on other people. Regarding "peacock terms", they are well referenced, and they are not many (and one can hardly dispute that Leicester was "one of the most important" statesmen of Elizabeth's government, notwithstanding the 1911 EB!). I cannot see why the tone should be "subjective": I mentioned different opinions, e.g. regarding Amy Dudley's death. Anyway, I personally will not change anything in the tone of the article, as I struggled very much with it already (the tone I found here was really unencyclopaedic!), other than perhaps adding new aspects. Buchraeumer (talk) 11:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
These two articles were not correctly assessed. If you have more questions, feel free to contact me on my talkpage. Hekerui (talk) 12:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
It is subjective due to the choice of words, as for example in: "The couple paid dearly over the years ...", instances of "obviously", "The reputation of Leicester has suffered immensely under the influence of a libel commonly called Leycester's Commonwealth ..." etc. Hekerui (talk) 12:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Please, Hekerui, I didn't mean my comments today here so much directed to you (and I didn't mean to be rude). I meant rather the occasional passers-by. That's why I still have to clarify some points regarding "tone": That Leicester's reputation was very, very strongly influenced (negatively) by Leycesters Commonwealth over the centuries is surely "established academic opinion"; even Conyers Read acknowledged that, and he found it necessary to write about Leicester's death that "Indeed, England was well rid of him" in his standard biography of Cecil (so much for professorial neutrality). I tried not to use the word "obvious", but it can be useful for nuances: "her obv.ly very intimate relationship" was meant in the literal sense: obvious to the contemporaries. If one writes that she had a "very intimate relationship", then this is biased (although, according to scores of contemp. sources, true) and so forth... Buchraeumer (talk) 18:09, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
I didn't take offense. You gave an explanation, problem is, when you have to explain, the language is not clear and should be worked over. Hekerui (talk) 18:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Robert Dudley was also Vicechancellor of Cambridge University from 1563 till 1588. This is not in the box, but I am afraid, I don't know how to put it in there. Also, I don't know the preceding holder of that office, neither the successor. So, if somebody wants to find out, please help! Thank you.
Buchraeumer (talk) 22:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

List of Vice-Chancellors of the University of Cambridge does not include Leicester, and from that list it seems to be an annual appointment.  Perhaps your source is confusing Cambridge with Oxford? - PKM (talk) 02:44, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I confused it myself, sorry! He was High Steward of Cambridge University from 1563-1588, not Vice-Chancellor! "Dudley, Robert (DDLY564R)". A Cambridge Alumni Database. University of Cambridge. also has it. Really embarrassing, but I didn't mention any Cambridge honorifics in the article, so no great damage, I hope. As regards the Offices box, I would like to point out that he was also Baron of Denbigh from 1564, along with being Earl of Leicester. The dating of the office of "Lord Steward of the Royal Household" is problematic, as historians don't really know when he got it. Dating ranges from c.1570 till 1587! I've given sources where this is discussed in a footnote. For the purposes of this box here, I don't know what to do. Perhaps simply nothing. Buchraeumer (talk) 14:13, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm, I don't have anything immediately at hand on predecessors/successors for those offices, and I'd say just leave them out for now.  :-) - PKM (talk) 02:53, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Very detailed, fun to read....why isnt this a featured article? 77.250.25.165 (talk) 17:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Because these things take time; I suspect it will be before too long. Buchraeumer: I'm impressed by the bibliography, but I notice you haven't included Simon Adams' entry on Dudley in the new Oxford Dictionary of National Biography.[1] The on-line version of this is a pay service, and you might not have access, but I thought I'd mention it anyway. Lampman (talk) 19:24, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
It's free if your local library subscribes. Log in from home using your library card. --Doris Kami (talk) 01:43, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I'd would really regret to produce an edit war over this! But please, Doooglas, understand that the text in the lead of an article is not normally footnoted, as far as (uncontroversial) facts that are treated further down in the text are concerned. In the article section "Governor-General of the United Provinces" your issue is treated. The whole issue of his title in the Netherlands is a perfect example of Elizabeth's difficult character. I suppose the only thing that was uncontroversial about the entire episode was her boundless fury over Leicester's acceptance of the title Governor-General, although, it is true (but seldom mentioned), that the same title was earmarked for him in the Treaty of Nonsuch. Elizabeth's righteous indignation is mentioned in every summary or biography, so we cannot exclude it here in the lead! Buchraeumer (talk) 14:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, no edit war! Having looked into it in the section you refer to, it's clear that Elizabeth approved the position of Governor General for Leicester as part of the Treaty of Nonsuch. Indeed, the section says that it was later issues of sovereignty that angered her as opposed to his acceptance of the post. There is no cited evidence that "accepting the post of Governor-General of the United Provinces" "infuriated his Queen". If, however, there is citable evidence that you can add showing the act of accepting the post, that she herself offered, directly angered the Queen, then I'm happy with your revert. Doooglas (talk) 15:45, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I think the key sentence here is (italics): "It was clear that the Earl of Leicester would go to the Netherlands and "be their chief as heretofore was treated of", as he phrased it in August 1585.[214] He was alluding to the recently signed Treaty of Nonsuch, in which his position and authority as "governor-general" for the Netherlands had only been vaguely defined.[215]" The Dutch would not accept less than Governor-General at Nonsuch, and, typically with  Elizabeth, the actual meaning of the title was kept deliberately vague. But it was also the title which infuriated her. As regards Elizabeth (but not the Dutch), the treaty was old paper when Leicester went to the Netherlands in December 1585; Elizabeth's own instructions did only see him as Lieutenant-General and were (as it appears) in contradiction to the treaty which she had signed some three months earlier. It's a bit as it was later with the execution of Mary Queen of Scots: Elizabeth was in a dilemma, couldn't make up her mind, signed the death warrant and lastly blamed everyone else. Interestingly, in both cases, Elizabeth's fury was sparked principally because she was concerned about her international reputation. Buchraeumer (talk) 17:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I hate to be pedantic but you have not cited evidence that "it was also the title which infuriated her". The facts remain that she signed the Treaty referencing the title (however ill-defined) and so the evidence is that the acceptance of the title did not infuriate her. You should really revert back to my more neutral edit or clarify that it was the subsequent level of sovereignty desired by the Dutch that infuriated her. Doooglas (talk) 10:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I quote from Elizabeth I of England on 10 December 2007, 16:24, the date the article was kept as a WP:FA (undeservedly, if you ask me): "He enraged Elizabeth by accepting from the Dutch States General the post of Governor-General, which Elizabeth saw as a Dutch ploy to embroil her further in her affairs." The footnote gives: Haigh, Christopher. Elizabeth I. Harlow (UK): Longman, (1988) 1998 edition. ISBN 0582437547. p. 137. (Incidentally, I did not copy the sentence in this Dudley article here from the Elizabeth article). Buchraeumer (talk) 11:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough! Thanks for that and apologies. It just appeared a bit subjective - given that the treaty was only signed shortly before... and there was no citation. Perhaps you could add that? Doooglas (talk) 23:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: maclean (talk) 04:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

GA review (see Wikipedia:What is a good article?)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 

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. 

It is stable. 

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: 
Notes
In "Education and marriage", "John Dudley was now the most powerful adult in England." - this is quite the statement. I think it should be qualified. For example, 'powerful' in terms of what (politically, socially, economically, etc),  and according to whom (did contemporaries think this or is this an assessment of historians?).
I've changed the wording. He was a kind of regent, but without the title.
Are these images necessary: File:Edward VI swagger.jpg, File:Nicholas Hilliard 005.jpg, File:Sir Francis Walsingham by John De Critz the Elder.jpg - there is a copyright claim against them but given The_position of the WMF I will accept them as correctly tagged.
Thanks. These so-tagged National Portrait Gallery images have been allowed in recent GAs; apart from the WMF stance it was argued that the case seemed somehow resolved; if you see a problem perhaps you might ask at User talk:Awadewit for clarity. Buchraeumer (talk) 17:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
Conclusion
The article meets all the GA requirements listed above. It is comprehensive beyond the GA's requirement for being broad. The prose is all correct but the quality varies from excellent to ok: while ok, I don't particularly care for structures like "Henry Dudley was killed in the battle by a cannonball, before Robert's own eyes, as he said." For a more detailed review, try Peer Review or FAC. -maclean (talk) 15:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the pass and for your pains and tips!! I will do something about that sentence. Buchraeumer (talk) 16:20, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

The language is still unencyclopedic and the GA class questionable imo. Just one example picked at random: "His wife's and his father's shadows haunted his prospects." (I first thought this was an assertion about ghosts on some of his property, but this is merely flowery unencyclopedic language.) Hekerui (talk) 18:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Disagree. English allows and is enriched by succinct and accurate figures of speech. Otherwise, what would you do, a sociologic and psychiatric analysis of just what is meant by that figure? How would we obtain any data on that? The meaning is just as clear as it can be. I wouldn't consider it flowery. This article is a work of art, among the best I have seen. That is not because it is flowery and literary but because it is a good mirror of the moving biographic details. I have to confess, as I read it, "mes yeux pleuvent." Works of art make you laugh and weep, and I've done both on this. It's been rated good, it is good, it gives us something to shoot for in the other articles, let's leave it. One more thing, and I hope I can say this without being too insulting. If you interpreted this as an assertion of belief in ghosts, I think you would benefit by longer study of English and English culture. It's a subtle point, no doubt; figures of speech generally are.Dave (talk) 19:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
QED. Hekerui (talk) 23:25, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
QED, hey? Actually, I'm a bit confused by your use of "flowery." I looked at that passage rather carefully and I definitely did not see anything that might relate to botanical reproductive organs; no petals, no sepals, or any carpels. Are any of those words Linnaean coded names? Were the Dudleys a clan of secret botanists using their own cipher? Was Robert known for his magnificent anthers as well as his eyes, or what? Should we put on a tag asking for the expansion of the botanical aspects, to be filled in by you? You must know what you mean since you used the word. Well, enough of this reductio. Fare thee merry old well. We still use "ye" round heeyuh, disguised as written y'. Thee (du) is gone, however. We got the Dutch ja (yeah), so at least we have that in common. Excuse, me, I'm still getting choked up by Bess having to go on without Eyes. I'm a great fan of Lady Jane as well.Dave (talk) 05:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
however this is bad English: "on suspicion to be involved".  It should read "on suspicion of being involved."
4.249.63.202 (talk) 23:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The article makes absolutely no reference to Leicesters role in crushing the Northern Rebellion of 1569-70. This really ought to be included, since I gather from my limited reading that he was the leader of the queens army. Spidergareth (talk) 12:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The leaders of the Queen's army were Robert Dudley's brother-in-law Henry Hastings, 3rd Earl of Huntingdon and his brother Ambrose Dudley, 3rd Earl of Warwick. Leicester himself was part of the London-based government during the rebellion, he was not in the field. Buchraeumer (talk) 12:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Though the article itself if amazing, I find the number of succession boxes at the bottom of this article to be excessive. Many of them are, in fact, useless, since  Leicester's predecessors and successors are not named. We see only a big, black "Vacant" instead of those names. The succession box for his peerage title also seems unneccessary. If he was neither preceded nor succeeded by anyone, do we really need a succession box? Surtsicna (talk) 17:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

This strikes me as an overly narrow interpretation of "succession". Just because someone was not immediately succeeded in a peerage title does not mean they did not hold the title or that the title was not, theoretically, hereditary. We've seen many such titles dissolved and recreated over the years, some of them several times. I would support inclusion of these, regardless of succession. If there was no immediate successor (or predecessor), then that information too is important to readers. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 17:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
If there was any kind of a predecessor or a successor at any point (such as after a vacany, abeyancy, or forfeiture), the box would make perfect sense. In this case, the box lists none. Does it make any sense to have a succession box if there is no succession to illustrate? Surtsicna (talk) 18:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't know what you understand under a vacancy, but Leicester's nephew, Robert Sidney, 1st Earl of Leicester, was the next holder of the title; it was a new creation, but of course he got this particular earldom in consideration of the family relationship. Buchraeumer (talk) 22:48, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
To reiterate my point, "no immediate successor" is a valid answer, and that information may be just as valuable to a reader as any other entry that could exist.  So in my opinion, yes, it does make sense to have a succession box for hereditary titles and political offices even if there wasn't any successor. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 22:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
To reiterate my own point, it does make sense to have a succession box when there is no successor if there is a predecessor. If there is neither predecessor nor successor, then there is no succession, obviously. If there is no succession, a succession box is a meaningless waste of space. The succession box, as it stands now, gives the reader no clue about Leicester's nephew. How does that nephew's existence make the box useful if the box does not mention the nephew? Whether the box should, in fact, mention him is another matter. Surtsicna (talk) 23:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I frankly don't understand your removal of the Denbigh title, with this edit summary: "This, at least, is against common practice. The two titles were held at the same time and were passed on in an identical manner (i.e. not at all). Thus, there is no need for the lesser one (nor for the greater one, but that's another point)." Perhaps you could explain? Buchraeumer (talk) 22:58, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I meant Surtsicna's edit (edit conflict). Buchraeumer (talk) 22:59, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
I totally agree with Wilhelm Meis. Buchraeumer (talk) 23:00, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
Subsidiary titles are not included in succession boxes unless the way they passed from person to person differs from the way the main title passed. See, for example: John Spencer-Churchill, 10th Duke of Marlborough; David Cholmondeley, 7th Marquess of Cholmondeley; John Spencer, 8th Earl Spencer; Bertrand Russell, 3rd Earl Russell, etc. That is the standard practice. Surtsicna (talk) 23:17, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Just skimming through this article i've seen a couple sentences that kind of make sense, but are awkward to read like "She giving him reason to hope, he was a suitor for the Queen's hand for many years." I feel like this should be "For many years he was a suitor for the hand of the Queen, who had given him reason to hope."
Also: "The craft of the courtier Robert learnt at the courts of Henry VIII and Edward VI." Again, it's a bit weird. Maybe change to "Robert learnt the craft of the courtier at the courts of Henry VIII and Edward VI."
These sentences (and I'm sure there may be more) are just a bit confusing to read and at first I didn't think they made sense. I hope this helps.
Otherwise, magnificent article! I'm researching Leicester's early life for something I'm writing and it's among the best info I can find on the web.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by BRCScriptor (talk • contribs) 12:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC) 

I am a little surprised at the pulling of the gallery I posted yesterday. The Dudley monuments at Warwick represent a widow's valedictory statement. As such I don't understand how they can be said to "toally break up" a biographical article, especially when placed between a section on the man's death and a section on later assessmanents of him. I think the choice of themes in the inscription and the decorations are highly significant and refelect or comment on many of the points made in the article. For example, I find the inscription's insistence on his pedigree and his father's achievements, to the extent of overloading the syntax, highly significant. I think there is a much greater emphasis on his role in the Netherlands - not an entirely successful venture - than we might expect. I think the rapacious attitude to heraldry, taking in emblems of even the remotest relevance, is noteworthy. There is also the simple fact that Lettice Knollys chose to be buried and memorialised here, although she had 3 husbands, and that she chose to be portrayed - very convincingly and surely from life - at the age she did, when she lived to be 90.
I am pleased to see that there are literate and vigilant people looking after this page, although clearly I have offended by contributing to what is no ordinary wikipedia page but personal property. Rest assured I shall stay away from now on. Sjwells53 (talk) 10:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Under Love affairs and remarriage, it says:

An official investigation conducted by Henry Sidney, Lord Deputy of Ireland and Leicester's brother-in-law, did not find any indications of foul play but "a disease appropriate to this country ... whereof ... died many"
Was Henry Sidney Leicester's brother-in-law, or were Henry Sidney and Leicester's brother-in-law two different people? It's difficult to tell because the rest of the article was poorly punctuated.
Thanks. Inglok (talk) 11:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Sir Henry Sidney was his brother-in-law. Buchraeumer (talk) 11:31, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Inglok (talk) 12:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

The comma in "Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester" and similar cases is  part of the name. Some writers omit it altogether ("Robert Dudley Earl of Leicester" etc.). Wouldn't this be the better altenative, instead of treating this part of the name as an independent part of the sentence? Buchraeumer (talk) 11:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are mistaken. Robert Dudley is the name and Earl of Leicester is the title. They do not together make one name and are not treated as such. One is treated as the appositive of the other. If there is to be a comma separating them, there must also be another punctuation mark afterwards – a comma, full stop or dash, for example. To separate such a title with commas is far more common than not to, and it makes it easier for the reader to make sense of the text. I recommend against leaving out the commas altogether. Inglok (talk) 12:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

For a non-expert (on English names and titles of nobility) it is rather confusing in the text of this article that the names Dudley and Leicester are used intermittently for one and the same man. Sort of like using Charles and Wales back and forth in an article about the Queen's eldest son. Can something be done about that? Seems to me we could pick one of the names and stick to it throughout the text. Am I wrong? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

see WP:SURNAME. It's not like Charles and Wales because Robert Dudley is probably best known as Leicester, especially in non-specialist and international literature, as well as in older texts. Charles as a royal is another case altogether. Importantly, Leicester was not an earl all the time of his life, so he can't be called Leicester throughout the article, and he is increasingly called Dudley also as earl in the literature (but, as I said, by far not consistently). Most non-experts on English/European history who would read this article are probably perfectly aware who is who, and if they aren't they should notice when they look at the article title. Buchraeumer (talk) 17:49, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not that easily confused, nor am I usually imperfectly aware, but reading your reply as if you think everything is perfect in this regard, I'll try to simplify what I'm trying to say as briefly as possible, as far as the principle of the thing goes. Do you feel a paragraph like this, for example, would be a good idea?
Dudley died in 1588. After various negotiations with family and government Leicester was buried at Westminster.
? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 18:52, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
For the principle: [2] Buchraeumer (talk) 19:23, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Nothing in there answers my principle question, which is not about correct name formats (of which I long have been quite aware and you reminded me quite well above) but about alternating between two different names within just a few sentences in the same bio. Would be lovely if you'd give me your opinion on that, please. If you feel there is not one instance of that in this article, I stand corrected, but how about the principle. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 20:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
There seems be two different people:

Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester (1532/3 – 1588). Died without issue (son died before him).
and

Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester (1563-1626). His nephew.
Wikipedia only has one page for them both. – Talk about confusing (talk) 02:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)