Talk:Anne Hathaway (wife of Shakespeare)

message: At 26 when they married, she was eight years Shakespeare's senior.
Sounds weird. Being x years somebody's senior doesn't depend on your age.
Mayavada 12 Mar 2005
:Looks like someone changed it. :-) — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:38, Mar 14, 2005 (UTC)
:Agreed.  I changed it to mention their ages (26 and 18).  --Grmagne 12:32, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bizarre wording

message: Why has this page been moved to "Anne Hathaway Shakespeare" (see here)?
Whatever the shortcomings of the former title, the new one strikes me as just plain daft. Does anyone want to defend it? If no, can an admin please fix? AndyJones 20:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The brackets have been reinstated, as she is known as Anne Hathaway, not Anne Hathaway Shakespeare. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 13:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Anne Hathaway Shakespeare???

message: I've added a bit of stuff from Aunt Germaine's recent effort (which is outstanding piece of imaginative scholarship BTW, thought provoking and helpful about Mr Shakepeare too) haven't added page refeences but will ultimately.----Jeremytrewindixon 03:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Germaine Greer]]'s new book

message: Robert Nye's novel Mrs Shakepeare, I think 1993, also worth mentioning. Notable for scene in which Will sodomises Ann on that famous second-best bed. Jeremytrewindixon 03:58, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fiction about Mrs Shakepeare

message: Earlier today, I corrected her identity in the first line from wife to widow. That was reverted by a user who claimed my correction was 'bizarre'; that she was a wife for much longer than she was a widow. However, all widows were previously wives, but not all wives become widows, hence why widow is the better term for a woman who remained married to her husband until the husband's death, and whom did not remarry. The argument that being a wife for longer than being a widow makes said woman's identity wife rather than widow is nonsense: Nancy Reagan and Betty Ford are both currently described in the first sentence of their articles as widow, not wife, despite the fact that they were both wives for far longer than they have been widows. A widow's identity does not revert to wife when she dies, her identity is still widow. Thus, Anne Hathaway's identity has been widow for over 390 years, which is many times longer than she was a wife for. Nietzsche 2 (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. I might entertain the idea if she was still alive while, but otherwise this change seems absurd to me. More to the point, none of the relevant sources describe her as Shakespeare's widow but as his wife. --Xover (talk) 16:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I just added a short addition to the introduction to write in the year in which she was widowed. Snowman (talk) 21:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

text: Nancy Reagen and Betty Ford are alive. They are currently the widow of their notable husband. All married historical figures who never divorced will have been a widow or widower, but we do not describe them as such. Calpurnia Pisonis is the last wife of Julius Caesar, not the widow of Caesar. John Adams is not referred to as the widower of Abagail. There are many other examples. Paul B (talk) 23:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Identity is widow, rather than wife

message: I remember reading that the best bed stayed with the house, like a door or a fireplace, so this may be why Shakespeare willed the second best bed to his wife.  Can't remember where I read it, though.  69.104.55.200 (talk) 17:50, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In the BBC podcast "Great Lives" featuring Shakespeare available here, one of the guests, Dominic Dromgoole, Artistic Director of the Globe Theatre, claims that the 2d best bed was the marital bed and hence the appropriate bequest to his wife (showing his love to her). Will this do to satisfy the 'citation needed' tag on the main page?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.221.152.231 (talk) 23:58, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second Best Bed 

message: Another page move proposal has been made to make the Anne Hathaway (actress) article the primary topic of "Anne Hathaway", and move the Anne Hathaway page to Anne Hathaway (disambiguation). Please make any comments at Talk:Anne Hathaway (actress)#Requested move (2012). Thank you. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:43, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion 

message: The text of this article rambles around quite a bit, perhaps it could be checked for consistency. Wistchars (talk) 13:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you be more specific? Paul B (talk) 14:01, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I read the article from top to bottom, not as part of a proofreading task, but merely out of interest in the topic. I noticed that the text started to become very inconsistent and difficult to follow around the "Shakespeare's will" section and subsequent sections. Do you agree with me? If not perhaps it is the fault of my way of reading things. Wistchars (talk) 15:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I guess I haven't read it through myself for a while. I agree that it gets a bit confusing around that point, though I don't see anything that's actually "inconsistent". I think the reason is that it refers to her younger daughter Judith's marriage, but not to the older daughter Susanna's. It then starts talking about the "second best bed", without really explaining what that refers to, and then suddenly mentioning Susanna's husband in the middle of the discussion. As for the 'literary references' section, that starts in the 20th century, and says nothing about the Victorian era. Essentially Anne is typically portrayed as a traditional 'good wife' in Victorian fiction. There's a novel about her, which should be mentioned. Then after Frank Harris's books she gets to be portrayed as an a conniving slut or a "shrew" for a period, before more varied portrayals come in. The problem with these sections is that it's difficult to organise them, as people just add books, plays, films etc in an ad hoc way, but I think the evolution of her portrayal could be more clearly outlined. Paul B (talk) 16:02, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

text: I've done my best to smooth it out, adding some material on Victorian literature. Paul B (talk) 17:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rather rambling 

message: Looking at a photo of the Ann Shakespeare's tomb inscription and playing with Bable fish interpretor I believe I have spotted two minor errors in the Latin of the tomb inscription, which is in ref 13. I tried to edit ref 13, but don't see how to do it. Here are the changes I think should be made to ref 13 latin:
1) (line 4) Exatvt => Exeat ('exeat is clear in photo and means 'out'. Latin translator does not recognize exatvt or exatut)
2) (line 6) 'et petet' => 'et astra petet'  (In photo there is clearly is a word between 'et' and 'petet', which looks like 'as??a' or as?ra. This is probably 'astra', which translates to 'stars' and is in the Wiki english translation). 24.61.212.124 (talk) 20:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I transcribed the inscription by hand from another website. I probably missed out "astra" by accident. The other changes are in the version that I copied. From what I can gather, the original says "Exeat christi", but some versions add "Ut" (or "vt") to the end of "Exeat" for grammatical reasons. Paul B (talk) 13:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latin Tomb Inscription 

message: Dear Mr. Barlow,
By leaving my contribution in (with regard to there were other people with the surname of Shakespeare), this would have informed Wikepedia readers that there were other people during Shakespeare's time who had the surname "Shakespeare," and I went on to show how the name was spelled in other ways.  I disliked it that someone (not you)would assume that seeing the name "Wm Shaxpere" on a marriage licence would automatically mean it to be the playwright William Shakespeare.  I didn't like it that someone felt so certain that the "Whately" name on the marriage license was "Hathaway" but just misspelled badly.  So, we are supposed to assume that this marriage license was definitely the one filed by William Shakespeare and Anne Hathaway?  To me, especially in matters of history, we have to be more certain.  The purpose of my contribution was to provide more information to further enlighten the reader.
Okbrand (talk) 01:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, Oakbrand. I removed your addition  for several reasons. It was not properly cited for a start. There was just a vague reference to a book. That's not a big problem in itself. I did check the source, which is online , and yes, there was a "Manasses Shakespeare" living in London who got married in 1710. There's also a Henry Shaksper, Jonathan Shakspeare and John Shackspeare who married during the 17th century. It's not really news that other people existed with the name Shakespeare, or variations on it. None of this is directly connected to William or his marriage, as A) none of them have the first name William, and B) none of these marriages were registered in Worcester in 1582. You've used a book about London to make an argument about the Diocese of Worcester. That's what we call WP:SYN. If anything the evidence indicates how unlikely such a coincidence would be, since even in heavily-populated London there are no other "Wm Shakespeares" getting married at all between 1521 and 1869, a period of more than 300 years. In fact research has been undertaken to find out whether there would have been another William Shakespeare who, by amazing coincidence, was getting married to another woman called Anne at almost exactly the same time in the same diocese. William Ingram in The business of playing: the beginnings of the adult professional theater in Elizabethan London (Cornell University Press, 1992, p.24) states that there is no evidence in surviving records of any other William Shakespeares of marriageable age in the diocese of Worcester. No evidence of an Anne Whateley has even been found either. The arguments concerning this issue are given in more detail in the article on Anne Whateley. Paul B (talk) 08:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Other William Shakespeares

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Anne Hathaway (Shakespeare's wife). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060113091013/http://www.robotwisdom.com:80/jaj/ulysses/scylla.html to http://www.robotwisdom.com/jaj/ulysses/scylla.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051201083018/http://www.robotwisdom.com:80/jaj/ulysses/oxen1b.html to http://www.robotwisdom.com/jaj/ulysses/oxen1b.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051201065930/http://www.robotwisdom.com:80/jaj/shakespeare.html to http://www.robotwisdom.com/jaj/shakespeare.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:46, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Anne Hathaway (wife of Shakespeare). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080510192302/http://www.shakespeare.org.uk/content/view/50/50/ to http://www.shakespeare.org.uk/content/view/50/50/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:47, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Well done! I genuinely enjoyed reading this article, and learned quite a bit that was unfamiliar to me. Schazjmd (talk) 22:36, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  To all the editors who have contributed to this article 

message: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 
The result of the move request was: not moved. There is a strong consensus in favour of the current title. (closed by non-admin page mover) Lennart97 (talk) 15:27, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Anne Hathaway (wife of Shakespeare) →  – We should avoid marking women as belonging to men. Georgia guy (talk) 14:42, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 22 November 2021 

message: I dobn't understand why you remove 
 For American actress, see Anne Hathaway  in this page
Vwqvj qwhiu (talk) 04:44, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why remove direction? 

message: :Copied from User talk:Jimbo Wales. Sandizer (talk) 05:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Sofiairiondo. Talk:Anne Hathaway (wife of Shakespeare) may be a better place to post your message. –Novem Linguae (talk) 15:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, that's good advice.  Speaking only to broad general principles, which may be helpful to some degree in this case, we will often be confronted with opinions stated by reliable sources in the past which strike us as offensive or otherwise problematic today.  We shouldn't always therefore simply hide those views or dismiss them out of hand, but we should take care to contextualize them appropriately.  For example, in this case Sophia is objecting (rightly, in my view) to the old fashioned view of "entrapment" and so rather than use the word ourselves (in the voice of Wikipedia, as it were) we should quote from the original if that's possible.  Reading the rest of the passage we see that Harris's view is far from universally held, which is all the more reason to treat it with due caution.  It is noteworthy that the word 'entrapment' doesn't appear in the source.  (Although a cursory reading of the passage in question leaves little doubt that Harris thought in those terms more or less at least. source)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:47, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact we have an essay, WP:PRESENTISM related to this area, in that we should not apply modern sensibilities to sourced content that wasn't seen as offensive in the past. Masem (t) 16:08, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments from Jimbotalk