Talk:John Wolley (MP)

Household Account of the Princess Elizabeth
Hi Surtsicna,

For some reason the edit summary didn't show up when I changed it back to 'Princess', and then we ran into an edit conflict. In any event, the two reliable sources cited (see the citations) refer to it as The Household Account of the Princess Elizabeth 1551-2, so it appears she should be referred to as 'Princess' to avoid confusion. Hope that helps. NinaGreen (talk) 19:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi! I am afraid it would actually add confusion because she was not a princess at the time. The reliable sources are obviously wrong; she was specifically stripped of the title following the annulment of her parents' marriage, which rendered her a bastard and ineligible to succeed to the throne. That makes it so important to distinguish between the period when she was a princess and the period when she was "merely" the King's bastard. Even after he was influenced by Catherine Parr to put Mary and Elizabeth back into the line of succession, Henry made it clear they were still bastards and made sure they were styled as such. If there is a problem with "Lady Elizabeth", we can always switch to plain "Elizabeth". Surtsicna (talk) 19:19, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I would prefer not to dispute the reliable sources. NinaGreen (talk) 19:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand that, but there are plenty of reliable sources that confirm that Elizabeth was not "Princess Elizabeth" after 1536 and that nobody referred to her as such. There are also plenty of reliable sources that explain the significance of her loss of that title. I would prefer not to dispute these reliable sources, given how detailed and accurate they are. Surtsicna (talk) 19:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Could you provide citations for a few of the reliable sources which state that nobody referred to her as Princess Elizabeth after 1536 until she became Queen in 1558? NinaGreen (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * This one is rather straightforward, as is this one. In fact, it seems it was treason to refer to Elizabeth as princess after 1536. The recently deceased Eric Ives notes that even the almost-three-year-old Elizabeth noticed when she was downgraded from "Lady Princess" to "Lady Elizabeth". The story is actually often cited. Surtsicna (talk) 20:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, and for what it is worth, Elizabeth did use a princely title as an adult. She referred to herself as a prince on at least one occasion! Of course, that is a completely different matter and I doubt she had gender identity issues, but it is still a fun fact. Surtsicna (talk) 20:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The two references you've provided don't state that nobody ever referred to her as Princess after 1536. In any event, almost every modern historian and reliable source refers to her as Princess Elizabeth, including the most authoritative, as, for example, the Calendar of State Papers, and for Wikipedia to adopt a different usage I think there would need to be some sort of consensus reached on the issue. I'll ask at the Help Desk to see if anyone has any suggestions as to how Wikipedia usage on this point can be standardized since there are so many Wikipedia articles which mention Elizabeth. NinaGreen (talk) 20:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * They do state that referring to her as the King's legitimate daughter (i.e. a princess) is high treason, so I very much doubt anyone ever did that. I should also note that you did not provide any source that says it was appropriate to refer to her as a princess - if you are requesting me to provide a source that contradicts this, shouldn't you provide a source that confirms it? As for your claim that "almost every modern historian and reliable source" refer to her as Princess Elizabeth, I believe I have just shown that your assertion is not true. Even if it were, it would still be irrelevant, for there is no question about Elizabeth ceasing to be a princess in 1536. I have no idea why you are refusing a compromise I suggested - referring to her simply as Elizabeth, which is least confusing and perfectly accurate given that it was her name. Refusing compromises hardly helps a discussion, but if you think the Help Desk is going to make a difference, go ahead. Surtsicna (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've just trying to move forward on this. I think it's confusing to refer to her as something other than 'Princess Elizabeth' during this period when virtually every modern historian does so, as well as extremely authoritative sources such as the Calendar of State Papers, to which I provided a link above. Modern historians may all be technically in error in doing so, for the reasons you've cited, but is Wikipedia the place to break new ground in opposition to virtually every reliable source? Hopefully the Help Desk can direct us to somewhere where the topic can be discussed with other editors interested in this historical period, and where consensus can be reached. NinaGreen (talk) 21:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but I fail to see how it could possibly be confusing to refer to her simply as "Elizabeth", which is a suggestion of mine that is being ignored continuously. As I said and showed already, it is not true that virtually every modern historian refers to her as "Princess Elizabeth" and, even if it were true, it still would not make that accurate. A number of scholars wrote extensively about how she was downgraded from princess to a royal bastard. One of them was knighted for his work on this matter and I find him extremely authoritative, in addition to the Second and Third Succession Act. Surtsicna (talk) 21:55, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
 * As per the suggestion at the Help Desk, I posted on this topic at WikiProject English Royalty, and in reply to your suggestion there that Elizabeth and Mary be referred to simply as 'Elizabeth' and 'Mary', I wrote:
 * I'm afraid that doesn't work because of context. One can't write that Sir Walter Buckler was chamberlain to 'Elizabeth', and expect any reader to understand who is meant. The reader would have to click on the link (if there is one) to find out who 'Elizabeth' is, which is actively discouraged by WP:EASTEREGG.
 * The problem, in a nutshell, is that there's no practical way of referring to Elizabeth and Mary during the years between their bastardization in 1536 and the dates on which they respectively became Queens other than the one historians, the Calendar of State Papers, the National Archives, the Cecil Papers et al and even the current English monarch have adopted, which is to refer to them as 'Princess' so that readers will readily understand who is being referred to. I would suggest that if you wish to refer to them by another designation in articles you're working on, that you go ahead and do that. But under the circumstances it doesn't seem warranted for you to alter the way they are referred to in other Wikipedia articles when it's so widely accepted by authoritative sources that it's perfectly acceptable to refer to them as 'Princess Mary' and 'Princess Elizabeth'. If you can get consensus among Wikipedia editors for your view, then it would be in order for you to alter the references throughout Wikipedia, including the image in Wikipedia Commons which is titled 'Elizabeth I when a Princess' .NinaGreen (talk) 19:15, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Of course there is a "practical way" that is not also a factually inaccurate and very misleading way. I disagree with the assertion that it is perfectly acceptable to refer to them as Princess Mary and Princess Elizabeth. I have explained why in great detail. Your claim that Elizabeth II adopted such practice is ridiculous - do you really believe that she monitors the website you linked to? Besides, I do not care if Elizabeth II took a microphone and declared to the world that it is okay to refer to her namesake as "Princess Elizabeth" because that still would not make it correct. Yes, referrring them simply as Elizabeth/Mary can work if one explains who they are and from then on uses their plain names: "He wished to marry the future Queen Elizabeth I, but Elizabeth turned him down"; "he was a servant of Mary I prior to her accession, and Mary was his most significant patron"; "she then met Elizabeth, who would ascend the English throne in 1558", etc. That is called piping and has nothing to do with Easter egg links. The articles about Mary and Elizabeth and their family manage to mention them properly, accurately and clearly. I see no problems there. In fact, it seems to me that a problem is being made out of nothing. The anachronistic title should not be used, much like it is not used in the articles about the women themselves. Surtsicna (talk) 21:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, I should also note that Wikipedia is a collaborative project and that I do not own articles I am working on. Therefore, I have no right to refer to people as it pleases me. Instead, I have an obligation to refer to them correctly, using names that are as undisputable as possible. Surtsicna (talk) 21:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
 * See my further comments here, where this thread will come to the attention of other editors interested in the topic, and where, as per Surtsicna's suggestion, it should more appropriately continue, rather than on this Talk page where few editors interested in the topic are likely to see it. NinaGreen (talk) 22:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)