Talk:Lady Eleanor Talbot

message: This might be a copied page, the same text is found here: http://lady-eleanor-talbot.biography.ms/.
The page you quote has all the hallmarks of being copied from wikipedia. Deb 17:41, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I've tagged the specific issue that stuck me as POV and needing a source. However, the article could use sources throughout for WP:V Agne27 03:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you querying whether Stillington told Clarence, or whether Clarence was unstable and untrustworthy - or both? Deb 11:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Source Tag

message: I don't see how this article particularly falls into the category of "Mistresses to English Royalty."  A pre-contract marriage hardly qualifies, particularly as there is no evidence that their relationship continued.  Fisty 05:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mistress?

message: If the article for her father shows that his "surname" is "Boteler" -- why is this not used in this article? The Butler family and the Boteler family were completely different; it's a HUGE difference. The Boteler's are quoted as such in plenty of sources including the official site for Sudeley Castle; Lord Boteler of Sudeley to be specific. What sources are being used to confirm that Butler should be used in this article? The Oxford DNB article for her father states Boteler, Ralph, first Baron Sudeley (c.1394–1473). The Annals of Winchcombe and Sudeley by Emma Dent (Lady of Sudeley), which is kept at Sudeley Castle, also states Boteler. -- Lady Meg (talk) 20:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: "The Butler family and the Boteler family were completely different; it's a HUGE difference". I'm sorry, but that's utter nonsense. There was no such thing as "correct" spelling at this time in history (see for example Spelling of Shakespeare's name). Boteler and Butler are the same name (in the Titulus Regius her name is spelled "Elianor Butteler"). Such names only become differentiated when a standard spelling gets established, but that's not until centuries after this period. Most sources referring to her spell the name "Butler", so per WP:NAME that's what we should use. The quotation at the end from Michael Hicks's, English Political Culture in the Fifteenth Century uses the spelling as he publishes it. In the 19th Century it was common for posh families to adopt a more unusual spelling to differentiate them from the common herd. A famous case is the Wellesley family, who were previously called "Wesley", a name associated with lower-class nonconformism. It would not surprise me one bit if the Butlers decided they were really Botelers to avoid the horrifying suggestion that they descended from servants! I agree that this sometimes produces odd anomalies - if one family member is typically spelled one way while their brother or father is spelled differently, it can cause confusion. I had a similar difficulty deciding on the spelling for the recently created Lewes Lewknor article. See the Talk:Lewes Lewknor page. Paul B (talk) 20:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Update - using the online academic research library Questia I found a total of one reference to her as "Eleanor Boteler" in the whole library. There were numerous references to "Eleanor Butler". Some were to different women with the same name. Using combinations with "Edward" I found eight clearly referring to her. There may be more in which the name Edward does not appear on the same page. Paul B (talk) 16:26, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a bit of a digression, but I knew someone surnamed "Butler" whose family name had been changed from "Le Boteler" by his father and was changed back by his brother! Deb (talk) 12:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah yes, slipping in a "le" helps to give it that Norman-knight quality. Of course the Brontë family were the masters of name gentrification, managing to mutate their moniker from Irish to English and then up again from Brunty to Brontë with that hard-to-place diacritic creating an air of vaguely continental but undeniable gentility. Paul B (talk) 17:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

text: BTW, even your own source, The Annals of Winchcombe and Sudeley by Emma Dent, spells it Butler! See p.128. Paul B (talk) 10:22, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

text: I already looked at that book -- Emma Dent uses "Butler" for Ralph Boteler, 1st Lord? No she doesn't. The name is CLEARLY spelled Boteler. A recorded close role from Edward IV's reign in that book clearly states that the family name is Boteler on pg 124. The Boteler's and Butler's don't even have the same ancestry. At the point of 1270 -- the ancestor of the Butler's of Ormonde was Sir Edmund of Carrick Butler. The Boteler's ancestor at that time was Sir William Boteler, 1st Lord Boteler. Their coat of arms are also completely different. That can be seen on Sudeley Castle's own timeline. Actually on page 128, if you actually read it, it states Lady Eleanor Butler, the widowed daughter-in-law of James Butler, Earl of Wiltshire -- the Boteler's didn't hold that title and if we are talking about the same Eleanor Talbot, her father-in-law was not James Butler; it was Ralph, Lord Sudeley! As for Sudeley's page -- It was a pre-contract of marriage between Edward IV and Boteler’s widowed daughter-in-law Lady Eleanor Boteler (formally Lady Eleanor Talbot) on which Richard III relied on to declare Edward IV’s marriage to Elizabeth Woodville bigamous and their children illegitimate leading to the imprisonment and disposal of the Princes in the Tower. There are a lot of sources, and one from that time period, that states Boteler.
* William Beaumont, Annals of the lords of Warrington
* John Jesse. Memoirs of King Richard the Third
* The Ricardian from the Richard III Society, 2006, Volume 16 states, Eleanor, describing herself as 'lately the wife of Thomas Boteler, knight, now deceased', -- Lady Meg (talk) 23:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Now you are just being obtuse. "I already looked at that book -- Emma Dent uses "Butler" for Ralph Boteler, 1st Lord?" Just read the page I pointed you to. The author refers to Eleanor Butler, the subject of this article, by that spelling of the name. It's clearly the same person, as it says that she "clandestinely married" Edward IV. Or do you think there were two separate Elizabeth Butlers who clandestinely married the king? If you can't even fairly describe the page that's been presented to you there is no point in discussing the matter. In fact that page gets so many details wrong it throws into question the reliability of the whole book - but there's no doubt it is this Elizabeth Butler who is meant.The rest of your post just indicates that you do not even seem to understand the issue. No one doubts that you can find examples of the Boteler spelling, or that it's perfectly acceptable. I found one myself, but it is not the "correct" spelling. There was and is no such thing. WP:NAME requires that we use the most common spelling. You are not even addressing the evidence that this is the most common spelling. Your idea that there is some difference between the "Botelers" and the "Butlers" is pure fantasy. BTW why don't you look up the etymology of the word Butler (O.F. bouteleur). I've no doubt there was more than one family with the same name. You may be amazed to discover that this is not uncommon. Paul B (talk) 10:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

text: Bit harsh, Paul :-)  How about we compromise by saying "Butler" (or "Boteler") to make it clear that there is no "correct" spelling? Deb (talk) 11:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Lady Meg appears to be intentionally misrepresenting evidence and ignoring the policy issue. That does make me angry, yes. Her sources are obscure and minor works from 1873 and 1902 (not to mention the 1877 Annals)! This suggests to me that she is not trying to find the truth about the most common spelling, but picking out any evidence she can and intentionally ignoring all the evidence she finds that contradicts her. She completely misrepresents what I said about the Annals. You can check it for yourself. She still repeats like a mantra the confused idea that there is some perpetual name difference between the "Botelers" and the "Butlers" evident in the 15th century and dating back as far as 1270! I don't think we should be adding other spellings. If we do, we may as well add Butteler too. If she is genuinely interested in the history of the name, she could add useful information to the article on the family by finding out when the name was codified by the family as Boteler. Paul B (talk) 11:27, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

text: Also note that Lady Meg says: "I ALSO found this from an author that I talked to -- "John Ashdown-Hill's book about Lady Eleanor doesn't mention any connection between the families (at least from what I can tell from looking at the index). I think it's fine to use the "Boteler" spelling--that's how Eleanor spells it in a deed that A-H quotes." So that's actual proof from Eleanor's actual deed that it IS spelled Boteler." It is difficult to imagine a clearer case of outright deception and disingenuousness, since throughout the book Ashdown-Hill spells the name "Butler", a fact she never mentions. . There's a point when innocent confusion or honest disagreement becomes tendentiousness. BTW, the document in question is a Latin text drawn up by a lawyer, not "how Eleanor spells it", as if it were her own personal signature. Paul B (talk) 14:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

text: I like Deb's compromise, since there indeed was no "correct" spelling.  That's my $0.02.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 14:54, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If it does not confuse things, fine. I admit my resistance is rather conditioned by my horror at Lady Meg's misrepresentation of sources. Paul B (talk) 14:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Surname" Spelling 

message: Deletion enacted on the grounds of the following
Deletion on the grounds of inaccuracy.  Eleanor did not become a nun ( Second Order) merely what is known as a religious tertiary 
Source 1
John Ashdown Hill
Eleanor the Secret Queen
Whitefriars – the Priory of Our Lady of Carmel of Norwich. Privately published but copy available in the British Library.
Source 2
Bodley 73 a collection of medieval manuscripts aka Collectanea Carmelitana, Duke Humfrey’s Library, Bodleian, Oxford 
Promotor Veritatis (talk) 23:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: P.M., it's not clear what you are stating about these sources. What are they being used to assert? Please be clear. Paul B (talk) 11:24, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Promotor Veritatis "enacts" deletions