Talk:Elizabeth Pierrepont, Duchess of Kingston-upon-Hull

message: The name of the article is Elizabeth Pierrepont, Duchess of Kingston-upon-Hull, but the text says her name was Elizabeth Chudleigh, with no mention of the Pierrepont name; was it her mother's maiden name? If not, not clear why it doesn't match Chudleigh. Perhaps Burke's Peerage should be consulted? --FeanorStar7 10:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: She was born Elizabeth Chudleigh and became Elizabeth Hervey on her secret marriage to the Hon. Augustus John Hervey, but never used the name.  After she persuaded a court to accept her word that she had not married Hervey, she then married Evelyn Pierrepont, 2nd Duke of Kingston-upon-Hull, and took his surname and title.  However, she was still legally married to Hervey, so when he inherited the title of Earl of Bristol in 1775 she became Countess of Bristol. She still was when she died, but it would be inappropriate to call the article "Elizabeth Hervey, Countess of Bristol", because she was never known officially by this title.  Her bigamy was eventually exposed but she continued to use the title Duchess of Kingston for the rest of her life, so this is probably the best title for the article.  Nevertheless, she was famous (and infamous) at Court for many years as "Miss Chudleigh" and this is how she tends to be referred to by historians - there are plenty of dukes and duchesses of this and that, but only one Elizabeth Chudleigh.  --Karenjc (talk) 20:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's the case, then changing "This did not, however, prevent her from becoming the mistress of the 2nd Duke of Kingston-upon-Hull" to "This did not, however, prevent her from becoming the mistress of Evelyn Pierrepont, the 2nd Duke of Kingston-upon-Hull" would clarify how she acquired the Pierrepont name. 24.128.188.152 (talk) 05:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Name of article

message: Which proof is there for that claim? It is well-established today that Frederick II of Prussia was not interested in women m uch, and probably less so in a random socialite from England. Indications point to Fred having been gay; or impotent after a botched operation; or both.I checked and found this edit introduced the idea, my guess is that this user had no idea what he was writing about. Being received by a king, however formally or informally, is not equal to being his mistress. --Enyavar (talk) 02:02, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistress to Frederick the Great? 

message: Wasn't the character Becky Sharp in the novel Vanity Fair modeled on Elizabeth Pierrepont? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 22:29, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: To add to article

message: To add to this article: where was she buried? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 23:11, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Burial

message: My emphasis:
> However, before Hervey could succeed his brother as Earl of Bristol, Chudleigh established proof of their marriage by forging an entry in the parish register at Lainston, unbeknownst to him.
> Hervey wanted to end their marriage by divorce, but Chudleigh preferred to avoid any public acknowledgment of it. She initiated a suit of jactitation against him, requiring him to cease claiming marriage to her unless proved.
What changed? 80.71.142.36 (talk) 20:07, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proof of marriage?