Talk:Lord Guildford Dudley

message: It may well have been spelled both ways originally, however this also could be a spelling mistake. Compare the title of the article to the start of the first paragraph. --Dumbo1 22:07, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guilford of Guildford? 

message: I have edited the statement that Guildford's father, John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland (after late 1551), became "Regent" of England following the death of Edward Seymour, Lord Protector and Duke of Somerset. Northumberland was never "Regent." Following the removal of Seymour as Lord Protector, Dudley became the leader of the Privy Council and remained, until Edward VI's death, the king's chief minister and principal advisor. At no point during the reign of Edward VI did anyone serve in the specific titular office of "Regent." PhD Historian 08:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No it shouldnt. He's always known as "Lord Guilford Dudley"; see also Lord Frederick Windsor and many, many others.--UpDown 07:53, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: All I can say to that is that you obviously haven't actually read the naming conventions. (Or, it would seem, any of the articles you cite as examples of them: John Dudley, 1st Duke of Northumberland or Charles Brandon, 1st Duke of Suffolk, for example. And Thomas Howard is a disambiguation page, as all the people called Thomas Howard in that period have their titles in their article names.) Look at :Category:Younger sons of dukes to see what the naming conventions actually are. Proteus (Talk) 13:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, sorry PhD Historian but you have no idea what you are talking about. "King" or "Queen" is not included in article title of any English/British monarch, so where you get the idea Tudors are the exception is a mystery. Duke is in titles of all articles for dukes (there are no exceptions I know off at all). "Sir" is never included in article title (except for baronets for disamb) so thats a different case. Lord or Lady before Christian name is nearly always used. --UpDown 07:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Indeed I did understand, but for the reasons Proteus gave above it made no sense (i.e. the people you listed as not having duke in their article title, when they did!). If our articles are so "erroneous" why don't you correct them with sources, although as a historian I worry you'll add your own research. --UpDown 07:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The conventions don't say what you think they say, UpDown.  Using "Lord" in the title of an article is an exception rather than a rule, and is used when the person was born with that title and/or is best known by it.  Neither of these is the case with Guilford Dudley.  It should not have been moved. Deb 22:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sometimes what's written in the naming conventions doesn't correspond exactly with actual practice. If he didn't have "Lord" in his article name he'd be pretty much the only younger son of a duke without it. Proteus (Talk) 22:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

text: We agree - this is tedious! But, as Proteus said nearly all younger sons of Dukes are down as Lord in article title, to say its the exception Deb is wrong. It's common convention. And PhDHistorian, there is a difference between "His Grace" and "Lord". The former is a formal styling rarely used and especially rarely used when referring to someone. The latter is very widely used when referring to duke's younger sons. --UpDown 07:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's still not the naming convention.  Younger sons of dukes are not given articles of their own unless they are in some way notable.  This usually means that they have achieved success and been given some other title.  When younger sons are referred to as "Lord" in the titles of their articles, it is normally the case that they have held this title from birth or extreme youth, thus it has, in effect, become part of their name.  This is quite different from "Sir"s, who don't usually have any title until they have reached maturity (hence their title is not in the name of the article) and younger sons who haven't been born with the title - as in this case.  Guilford Dudley wasn't born a lord, and he is seldom referred to as "Lord" Guilford Dudley. Deb 17:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. I believe that is he most often referred to as Lord Guilford Dudley. --UpDown 08:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, I've never heard him referred to as anything else. Proteus (Talk) 13:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Now I know you are being disingenuous. Deb 18:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Northumberland as "Regent" 

message: I am willing to agree to disagree on what constitutes the correct spelling of the Christian name of the article's subject, Guildford/Guilford. His mother's last name, however, was spelled "Guildford." For the authority of this spelling, see the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography article on Jane Guildfords' father, Sir Edward Guildford (1479-1534) or Professor David Loades' biography of her husband, John Dudley, Duke of Northumberland, 1504-1553. PhD Historian 12:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Which would you say is the correct spelling of his name? I have no particular opinion either way, and would be interested in what your experience says about how it's usually spelt. Proteus (Talk) 15:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  His Mother's Name 

message: I've re-listed this article for GA assessment because there was concern that it was approved too hastily.  See discussion here.  MMagdalene722talk to me 18:15, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Re-Listing

message: Guildford was never accused or convicted of aspiring to the crown himself, but his crime was defined as having “compassed to depose” Queen Mary by sending troops to his father and the “receiving, honouring, and proclaiming” of his wife as queen. And of course Jane was de facto queen, so her husband would be a de facto consort. Buchraeumer (talk) 22:11, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  De facto consort 

message: The problem with this image is that it isn't listed in scholarly works relevant to this era; for example where does the claim come from that it was painted in the 16th century. The BBC cannot be relied on such issues, the press often uses images that won't stand up to scrutiny. It is also problematic to say that this or that portrait influenced later images without a relevant source (such as a book on art history) which actually says so. WP:OR. Buchraeumer (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Wait what is the problem with the picture. It should still be shown regardless the fact it is a non-contemporary image. We show a statue of Alfred the Great on his article. Isn't there any 19th century Victorian representation of him?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 02:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The only information about this image is that it is "Called Guildford Dudley"  The problem remains that no RS use this image. Also, there is already one well-known 19th century depiction of Guildford and Jane in the article, by the artist Leslie. Buchraeumer (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fantasy portraits