Talk:Catherine Carey

Clean Up?
The article is looking pretty messy; could it be cleaned up at all? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.100.62.217 (talk) 16:21, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It would help a lot if you specified which part of the article - in your opinion - is "pretty messy".--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Fictional bit
There is this book called Henry VIII's Wives by Alison Prince that has this character in it called Catherine "Kitty" Carey, who is the daughter of Mary Boleyn and was with her aunt, Anne Boleyn, when Anne was imprisoned and in that book, some people thought Kitty was the King's bastard daughter because Mary was the King's mistress. Then the Kitty in this book went on to marry Sir Francis Knolleys, and by the end of the book had three children, Lettice, Mary and Henry. Can we please put this on the Wikipedia article? 86.174.211.82 (talk) 18:33, 31 March 2012 (UTC)unsigned

Categories
I have re-introduced the category: Tudor People. I think it is useful to have all the important courtiers in one group. If people want to delete this, could they please state their reasons on here first and we can see what the consensus is? Thanks. Boleyn (talk) 16:37, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You only have to look at the contents of the category to see why Lady Knollys should not be included under Category:Tudor people : ie. because she is a woman. All the people in the category (apart from those recently added by you) are men. The women go in the sub-category Category:Women of the Tudor period. Sexist it may be, but this is in line with Category:Anglo-Saxon women, Category:Women of medieval England, etc. If you wish to change this situation, you should start a discussion on one (or preferably all) of these pages (and probably others). Until a concensus is reached the ladies should not be put into the parent category. Verica Atrebatum (talk) 22:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I have been editing on Wikipedia for only a few months, but there were certainly women on Tudor people before I started adding. Do you know how to add 'Women of the Tudor period' to the sub-categories that show up when you go to Tudor people, as 'Tudor clergy' is? If so, the two categories would be separate yet linked.Boleyn (talk) 09:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Or perhaps renaming the category 'Men of the Tudor period', for clarity? 'People' clearly implies men, women and children. I have now removed all women on the Tudor people page and have set up the question on its Talk page re change of name. Boleyn (talk) 10:18, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It does appear under the sub-categories, but only when you bring up 'W' for Women. I must say, I find this very annoying and often think that sub-categories are missing when they're just listed on a subsequent page. I agree that 'Men of the Tudor period' or something similar would be much more accurate. It would be a lot of work to move all the entries, but you could suggest the category is renamed and then, if agreed, an administrator would do it all automatically. Verica Atrebatum (talk) 17:51, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:The Boleyn Inheritance.jpg
The image Image:The Boleyn Inheritance.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --08:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Objection to today's move
I disagree with this move, as "Catherine Carey, Lady Knollys" was never her name. Where a person's name and/or title change, we usually use the last version of the name, and failing that the one best known. "Catherine, Lady Knollys" seems to me to be a better title. It was at least her name from 1547, so for nearly half her life. Moonraker2 (talk) 19:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC) Agree, Boleyn (talk) 21:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Her real full name was Catherine Carey. On what purpose someone comes and says it shouldn't be??? I've never seen that anywhere else! Beside, Lady Knollys is more like a courtesy title, since her husband was only a Knight. Dgarq (talk) 18:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Catherine Knollys's maiden name was Carey – that is, until she married at about the age of fifteen.
 * The "purpose" is to challenge a move which would be a bad precedent. Would you wish to move Nancy Astor, Viscountess Astor, to Nancy Langhorne, Viscountess Astor?
 * I take your point on the word 'Lady', except that you yourself decided to include it in the name. Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) includes a paragraph on 'Titles of Knighthood', which it suggests "usually need not be included in the article title". It seems an anomaly to include 'Lady' in the name of an article on Catherine Knollys, but to need no title in that on Francis Knollys (the elder). However, if 'Lady' is left out, then the choice is plainly between Catherine Carey and Catherine Knollys, with no opportunity to mix them up. Catherine Carey, apart from being a maiden name, is occupied by a disambiguation page, but there is no such problem with Catherine Knollys. Moonraker2 (talk) 22:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No, but I'd add her maiden name to her name too, aside with her husband's name. Beside, back in the day women didn't take their husband's names as much as an official rule as they do today. Either way, it was usual back then already to treat the wife of Sir Francis Knollys and Lady Knollys. Dgarq (talk) 18:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * So far as England is concerned, you're mistaken to say that "women didn't take their husband's names as much". In parts of Scotland, you would be nearer to the truth, but Catherine was not Scottish. On "it was usual back then already to treat the wife of Sir Francis Knollys and Lady Knollys" (I think you mean "as Lady Knollys"), it's actually more complicated than that, and the title Dame was often used. What we can be certain of is that the modern American custom whereby women use their maiden name as a middle name before their married name was utterly unheard of in the 16th century. The only way to use two surnames together was to join them with the word alias, but we have no evidence that after her marriage Catherine called herself anything but Catherine Knollys. Moonraker2 (talk) 22:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If a reader were doing a search for her, he or she would likely look under the name of Catherine Carey; therefore, I must weigh in on the side of Catherine Carey rather than Catherine, Lady Knollys.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My main concern is to avoid mixing up two surnames, which we can be sure were never used together. Of course, there were other notable women of both names.
 * Should her first name be given as Catherine or as Katherine? The usual 16th century spelling was Katherine, as used in the Westminster Abbey epitaph I added today. Moonraker2 (talk) 20:04, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It isn't clear why someone might be more likely to look for Carey than Knollys. The ODNB's article on her is called rather awkwardly "Knollys [née Carey], Katherine, Lady Knollys (c. 1523–1569), courtier". Perhaps the title should be Katherine Knollys or Katherine Knollys (courtier)? Moonraker2 (talk) 20:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I support the spelling Katherine, because as you rightly say it was the standard 16th century spelling for the name; however, I'm still not convinced that Knollys should be used instead of Carey. What about her daughter Lettice Knollys? The latter was definitely better known by her maiden name, and I think we should stick with Carey for her mother to avoid confusion with Lettice's sister, who was also Catherine Knollys.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Mary Knollys
There seems to be no evidence that Mary Stalker existed. Google Books and Google Scholar return no hits for "Mary Knollys" "Edward Stalker". 217.206.93.210 (talk) 20:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Moves
There's been some confused moves taken without discussion. Was this article recently at "Catherine Carey", and if so should it be moved back? PatGallacher (talk) 16:58, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I personally would support a move back to Catherine Carey--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC).

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Catherine, Lady Knollys → — This article has gone through some confused moves recently, but some people think it should go back to the title it was at fairly recently. PatGallacher (talk) 17:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Support move Catherine Carey makes her easier to identify than Catherine, Lady Knollys. I don't know why it was moved in the first place.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:35, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Her portrait
Catherine's portrait shows her to have born an uncanny resemblance to Henry VIII. She even had his colouring. I hope that scholars will one day discover some evidence that he was indeed her father.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:55, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Elizabeth Knollys and Kate Middleton
There is no definitive evidence that Kate Middleton is the descendant of Elizabeth Knollys. The Daily Mail cites NO sources and is not a genuine source that is allowed on Wikipedia. Even the Reitwiesner's page just posted that is has been DISPROVEN. "In Hobbs (full citation below), on p. 13, F. M. Lupton cites a pamphlet William Davenport, of Reading, and his descendants, by Rev. James Davenport, which claims that this William Davenport of Reading (number 636, above) was the same person as the William Davenport born at Worfield, Shropshire, on 24 Feb. 1679, a younger son of Henry Davenport of Hollon, Shropshire, by his wife Elizabeth Talbot.

Rev. James Davenport appears to have written several different works on William Davenport of Reading, as a correspondent refers to a publication by Rev. James Davenport, Rector of Harvington in Worcestershire, titled The Davenport Family of Reading and Welford on Avon, and printed in 1923 (long after Hobbs was printed). About the identification of William Davenport of Reading with the William Davenport baptized at Worfield, the correspondent states that the author "concludes that insufficient evidence exists to establish such a connection beyond a reasonable doubt." This identification has been DISPROVEN." -- meaning it's NOT true! -- Lady Meg (talk) 23:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not about truth but verifiabilty. Whether Kate is a descendant of Elizabeth Knollys or not is not the point here, but rather the media coverage which claims the connection, thereby making it notable and worthy of mention.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:35, 29 May 2011 (UTC)


 * What the late William Addams Reitwiesner (or it may be one of his editors) says is "... a correspondent refers to a publication by Rev. James Davenport, Rector of Harvington in Worcestershire, titled The Davenport Family of Reading and Welford on Avon, and printed in 1923 (long after Hobbs was printed). About the identification of William Davenport of Reading with the William Davenport baptized at Worfield, the correspondent states that the author 'concludes that insufficient evidence exists to establish such a connection beyond a reasonable doubt.' This identification has been disproven." The last sentence seems to me to be a leap in the dark.
 * In the 17th century, records are generally sparse and certainty has to give way to circumstantial evidence and to degrees of probability. It seems that in the first instance the Rev. James Davenport was satisfied that the William Davenport of Reading (married 1707, buried 1723) was the William Davenport baptized at Worfield in February 1679. I do not have his work in front of me to see how he arrived at that conclusion. An unidentified "correspondent" (presumably someone who wrote to Reitwiesner) quoted "the author" (presumably the same James Davenport, in his later book) as concluding that "insufficient evidence exists to establish such a connection beyond a reasonable doubt". The words "beyond a reasonable doubt" represent the legal test applied in the criminal law, which is to do with having enough certainty to convict and punish someone, whereas in civil matters the test is "on the balance of probabilities". Goodness only knows where "This identification has been disproven" is drawn from. No source for it is suggested, and I suspect it is parachuted in by one of Reitwiesner's editors. No claim is made that Davenport found some evidence to disprove the connection, which it seems he was satisfied with on the balance of probabilities.  Moonraker2 (talk) 07:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jeanne Boleyn. She is correct that the issue here is verifiability. In my view, we can still cite Davenport and Hobbs for the descent from Elizabeth Knollys, so long as we refer to it as probable and not as certain. Moonraker2 (talk) 07:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

First, you can not site what has been disproven as probable. Second, you can not site Reitwiesner's theory when you agree with it and then when the site disproves the claim ignore it because you disagree. If you and others were willing to accept the connection to Elizabeth Knollys as fact even through the site clearly has stated from the beginning that the claim was speculative, then you now have to be willing to accept that the site says it has been disproven. You can not have it both ways. Virgosky (talk) 23:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)