Talk:Lady-in-waiting

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 7 January 2019 and 23 March 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hollynelson8.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 02:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Tasks
So what do lady in waitings do?

The plural is "ladies-in-waiting", dear. And don't forget the hyphens. As for what they "do", the question is answered in the first sentence of the article. They act as personal attendants to female royalty.


 * Yes indeed, but it does not give any examples as to wath that actually means. Give examples! For example: "The task of a lady-in-waiting is to follow the queen when she walk through a room." --85.226.44.201 (talk) 15:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Dress
Can someone please tell me what type of garments did these women wear? Were they colorful? Did they have gold running thru them or were they just tattered clothing? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.233.112.228 (talk) 01:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

A very silly question, this. Obviously royalty doesn't dress its attendants in tatters. Think about it, and it'll be obvious it's a pretty dressy occupation.
 * Well, in some countrys, they were actually a form of "unifrom", as speciall dress code, for this position. --85.226.44.201 (talk) 15:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Confused sentences
"ladies-in-waiting were divided into four separate systems: great ladies, ladies of the privy chamber, Maids of Honour and chamberers. The ladies of the privy chamber were the ones who were closest to the queen and thought to be the highest level of unpaid ladies-in-waiting. Most of the other women were considered Maids of Honour. The Maids of honour were the single, unmarried ladies-in-waiting." These sentences are so confused that I can't figure out the meaning, let alone how to rearrange them.

I'll try to list the oddities, and maybe someone else with more understanding of the language and more intuition can fix them.


 * 1) There are four kinds of lady listed, but:
 * 2) only two are more or less described, the other two ("great ladies" and "chamberers") are completely forgotten after this first list
 * 3) you would assume that these are in order of rank of some sort, but later it says that the "ladies of the privy chamber" are the most important, which are listed after the "great ladies"
 * 4) "thought to be the highest level of unpaid ladies-in-waiting"
 * 5) "thought to be" implies that they actually weren't, or that at least it was questionable. Instead, nothing is said about that
 * 6) "of unpaid" means that other ladies were paid? It doesn't say anything about that either
 * 7) "Most of the other women were considered Maids of Honour"
 * 8) "most"? "considered"? So it wasn't official? Or it was?
 * 9) "The Maids of honour were the single, unmarried ladies-in-waiting"
 * 10) now you're just kidding me. This sentence is incompatible with the previous one. The "Maids of honour" were automatically the unmarried ones? So what is the previous sentence supposed to mean?

--Lo&#39;oris (talk) 11:44, 30 March 2010 (UTC)


 * since no one gave a shit, I just removed the section. It was so confused that it wasn't useful anyway. --Lo&#39;oris (talk) 11:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

==Is Cambodian Case analogous to European ones?

The European ladies-in-waiting were intended more as companions of similar (although not equal) rank to women of high aristocracy, while the Cambodian case as described in the document seems to be really a high class serving women. The latter isn't really "ladies-in-waiting" in the European sense, are they? I think that reference ought to be struck as potentially misleading. 71.226.32.149 (talk) 15:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

queen regent ?
Near top of article, shouldn't this be queen regnant (to contrast with queen consort)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.72.144.66 (talk) 03:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Full citations needed
@user:Aciram thank you for adding so much information to this page between 26 August 2016‎ and 19 September 2016 (diff). Unfortunately the citations you gave do not meet the requirements of WP:CITEHOW and WP:PAGENUM. If you still have access to your sources please add page numbers, as it is unreasonable to expect someone to read a whole book for find the sentences that support the information in the article. Also more information is needed to identify the book. Typically the publisher and the year of publication as a minimum (but also edition and isbn if available). This is because pagination differs between editions -- just compare most paperback editions with a hard back of the same book.

-- PBS (talk) 13:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello. I admire your good work in formatting the article's references. I do not feel well at the moment and do not have the energy to get involved in this, but as I remember, the rules of Wikipedia does support us to contribute to the best of our ability, and the correct forming of references was and is not easy for me: the reference is there, which I thought was the main thing, but of course it should be referenced correctly, and I am glad you take the time to do this. I can help you in this way at least. I used this reference: I hope you can used this in your good work!  --Aciram (talk) 14:13, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * @user:Aciram I looked at the link and am confused. It is a link to multiple pages in:
 * The Politics of Female Households: Ladies-in-waiting across Early Modern Europe. BRILL. 24 October 2013. ISBN 978-90-04-25839-6.
 * Are you saying that is the only reference you used? I thought you had used a lot more for example in the diff above the first two are:
 * Caroline zum Kolk, "The Household of the Queen of France in the Sixteenth Century", dans The Court Historian, volume 14, number 1, june 2009
 * Britta Kägler: Frauen am Münchener Hof (1651-1756)
 * -- PBS (talk) 13:20, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

copied from user talk:Aciram (diff) 
 * Hello! I am afraid that I do not have the mental strength to give this more attention, at least not at the moment. Of course the references should be correctly formed, but the main thing is that there are references to the information. At least for now, that would have to be enough. I posted a link to one of the references I used the most as a reference in the page you are talking about, but I am afraid that I do not feel well enough to give this any more attention right now. I apologize to you. --Aciram (talk) 14:10, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

-- PBS (talk) 11:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)