Talk:Elizabeth Canning

message: I have added a reference list as I needed to highlight that Mary Squires was linked to James Squire (Considered Australia's first brewer), without using a direct link because it was not directly about Mary Squires. I hope I have not offended any one by doing this.
Macr237 19:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference list 

message: In Modern view it says "Susannah Wells has variously[citation needed] been described as a madam, although evidence for this is unclear. I have found in the British Library online archives an advert for the publication for 3d of a pamphlet on "The Life and actions of that notorious old bawd Susannah Wells and Mary Squires an old travelling gypsy" in the Public Advertiser (London, England), Monday, March 5, 1753; Issue 5725. Do you think that constiturtes evidence that she was thought to be a madam? Also in the newspaper story I added to "Reappearance" it says "The house of that notorious woman well known by the name of Mother Wells, between Enfield Wash and Waltham Cross" which I suspect  means she was also thought to be keeping a house of ill repute. Richerman (talk) 00:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: it seems likely but I haven't yet seen it written explicitly in a modern source. I'm going through what I have methodically so no doubt it'll dbde mentioned soon. Parrot of Doom 09:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Susannah Wells 

message: Shouldn't this section be called "Elizabeth Canning's trial"? Second trial makes it sound as if the original defendants were being tried for a second time. Richerman (talk) 00:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't gotten that far yet. Parrot of Doom 01:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, you're nothing if not methodical :) Richerman (talk) 01:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second trial 

message: I'm not sure where exactly this should be (Hall made several recantations) so for now I'll remove it from the article and place it here.  I also have reservations about the second paragraph - some stories in those days were paid for by various patrons (both Gascoyne and Fielding did this), and the lower paragraph may well have been funded by Gascoyne, to support his case.
Nine affidavits were received, from "Persons of credit in Dorsetshire", that Mary Squires was in that county at the time of the robbery.  When confronted with this evidence Virtue Hall began to recant her story and eventually swore that "all she had sworn upon the trial was false". 
She said that Canning had not been in the house of Mrs. Wells on the day the robbery was said to have been committed, that no such robbery had been committed there, and that Canning was never in the house until brought there by those who carried out the prosecution. She added that this was the account she had given to the magistrate when she was first examined, that no-one had been confined in the house and the whole story was a forgery. When asked why she would swear to such a "chain of falsehoods" at the trial and be the means of "taking away the life of a person who had not injured her?" she replied "The true cause was that was (sic) will appear hereafter; it is not yet the time for it". She later said that she had always told the true story before Canning came to have them arrested but she was then "frightened into swearing falsely".
Parrot of Doom 18:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chronology 

message: Perhaps I did not pay close attention to every word, but one thing evades me: why was the party called "the Egyptians" ? There's only one quote mentioning "the ancient Egyptian Cunning". East of Borschov 10:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Old slang for Gypsey. Parrot of Doom 11:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah! thanks. Did the word mean the real Roma Gypsies or the Irish travelers? East of Borschov 16:12, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably the former although I'm not sure. Parrot of Doom 17:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Could this fact be added to the article?  I found it mysterious too, and while the industrious reader can come to the Talk page to find out, it seems better if the article itself mention it.  The article seems to suggest that the allegation that Mary Squires was a gypsy is itself a disputed point -- is this the case?  If so, why did those who defended Mary Squires call themselves "Egyptians"? — Lawrence King (talk) 02:14, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've wikilinked it to Gypsy Richerman   (talk) 11:52, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

text: I'd wondered the same thing, but assumed it was a Biblical reference - "Canningites" being a play on "Canaanites", with the Israelites caught between the two.  You live and learn.  195.188.176.146 (talk) 12:16, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Why Egyptian?

message: Hi,
This is not a biography, but rather a story of trials, investigations and war of words. Elizabeth Canning is surely central to this affair, but the bulk of the article is not about her life. The article should be renamed.
Cantons-de-l'Est (talk) 16:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Renamed to something approximating a film title?  I'm sorry but I don't agree.  We know little about Robin Hood, even if he existed.  We don't call his article "The mystery of Robin Hood". Parrot of Doom 17:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elizabeth Canning Affair ? 

message: Do we really need the History section heading? I think we could safely eliminate that heading and promote up a level all the subheadings beneath it.--ukexpat (talk) 16:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sections 

message: "Since taking the sacrament four years earlier and becoming a Justice of the Peace for Middlesex and Westminster..." What is the relevance of him "taking the sacrament"? - to me that would mean he took Holy Communion and googling the term seems to confirm that. Was it something to do with becoming a JP? Richerman   (talk) 10:08, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: In this context, it probably refers to the fact that public officials in 18th-century England were required to belong to the Anglican Church, and publicly communing in a church was considered the proof of this status.  (Catholics, Presbyterians, Puritans, and Jews might keep silent about their status, but it would violate the dictates of their own religions to receive communion in an Anglican church -- hence this was an effective test.) Someone who avoided Anglican services was considerd a recusant or a nonconformist.  So he had to publicly receive communion to be eligible for the JP position. — Lawrence King (talk) 02:21, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fielding's evidence