Talk:Madge Shelton

Untitled
I am not convinced we can take it as undisputed that it was Mary Shelton who was Henry's mistress, not Margaret. One work of primary research is not enough. Can it be shown that this is now accetped in most recent histories of the period? PatGallacher (talk) 19:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

As Margaret Shelton redirects here, I suggest we turn it into a joint biog. of the 2 sisters. PatGallacher (talk) 00:29, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

"Some historians" is vague, implies more than one. Is the hypothesis that they were the same person just an obscure fringe theory, not worth mentioning? PatGallacher (talk) 17:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it's worth mentioning - the reference is to Hart's book, which discusses the issue in depth; it's also discussed in Herman's book. They are the only two books I've read which discuss Mary/Margaret in detail, and both conclude that it was probably the same person. Boleyn (talk) 19:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Editing Page
To the Head Editors of this page:

I am writing to inform you that I and two other members of my group will be editing this page for a project in our English Literature Class. We were interested in researching more details about Mary Shelton’s life, and felt that the page could use more information about her. Please do not hesitate to e-mail us or our professor whose username is redcknight. Thank you very much! Flosnemus (talk) 22:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Needs sections
The lead is overly long. May I suggest that sections be added and the lead shortened? It would make the page more readable.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

King's mistress: evidence please
I am not able to find Chapuys' remark that Mary or Margaret Shelton was the King's mistress. A Lady Anne Shelton was the governess of of Princess Mary and also the aunt of Anne Boleyn in 1535, according to the source cited CSP Spain, vol.5 part 2 (1889). So following CSP Spain, when Chapuys writes of the Queen's mistress or concubine in 1535 he means Anne Shelton's niece, Anne Boleyn. It would be nice to clarify whether the other historians cited by the article are mistaken, or the editor and translator of CSP Spain (1888) is at fault, perhaps by writing more carefully what evidence previous authors have. It seems to me that there was a Margaret or Mary Shelton, who was a poet, and there is no evidence that Henry had a mistress of that name, certainly not from Chapuys.Unoquha (talk) 07:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Antonia Fraser's work on the 6 wives of Henry VIII states that Margaret Shelton was 1 of his 3 undisputed mistresses, so although this view is now actually disputed it does have some currency. PatGallacher (talk) 16:43, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Name Change?
Given the information contained in recent additions to this page, I would propose that we can change the name of the article to just "Mary Shelton." Any thoughts? Redcknight (talk) 19:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

This Article is a Mess
Bolded italics indicate I have copied & pasted text from the article:

Recent research has indicated that they were the same person.[2][3]

Two *historians* 15 yrs apart does not a consensus make.

This should be made clear. The major Tudor historians have not weighed in on this to any great degree. Making it sound as if they have is injecting OPINION into the article, which I understand is a huge no-no & well it should be for something that claims to be an encyclopaedia of FACTS. Just because you want it to be an undisputed fact does not magically make it so.

'Mary was part of a social group which included the poets Sir Thomas Clere (d. 14 April 1545), Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey, and Thomas Wyatt,[6] with all of whom she was romantically linked. In an epitaph he composed at the death of Sir Thomas Clere, Surrey identified Mary as Clere's "beloved".[1]'

After the death of her first husband, Thomas Clere

'Mary became engaged to Thomas Clere the poet. He, unfortunately, passed away soon after their engagement'

OK, PICK ONE.

Was she *romantically linked*, *married*, or *engaged*? (Which would be *betrothed* in this time period,; cease assigning modern values to what are supposed to be impartial articles with no originality whatsoever.)

The last two do not compute. They were NOT married if he *unfortunately passed away soon after their engagement*. He is NOT her *first husband*, period.

Where is the footnote citing proof for either of those statements? Both of them should be removed. There is nothing to indicate either of those things occurred, ie, church records of the day regarding a formal betrothal or a wedding taking place.

Also, it seems this is implying Mary was a HUGE trollop to be *romantically linked* with all these men PLUS the king by the tender age of 15!/s

However recent research

1994 is hardly *recent research*, & that is what Hart is parroting.

In fact, Kelly Hart’s research has concluded that Mary was indeed the Shelton girl who was involved with King Henry VIII.[11]

In fact, Kelly Hart is about as respected a Tudor historian as is Elizabeth Norton....which is to say, not much....& her *research* is a regurgitation of Remley's opinion because it suited Hart to use it, nothing more. Dame Antonia Fraser is far more respected an historian & it ought to be no contest as to whose research carries the greater weight.

in which the "y" resembled a "g", a common confusion in sixteenth-century writing

You may be confusing the confusion that commonly arises between *f* & *s*. Where is the citation for that opinion?

Abbreviating *Margaret* to *Marg.* in writing was actually common; it's a long name. I've also never see anything that indicates *Madge* as a nickname for *Mary* (unless you want to count Madonna). But Margaret was commonly truncated to *Madge*, *Marge*, *Mag*, *Meg*, *Megotta* or *Marget* (little Margaret; Margaret Douglas was called Marget as a child to differentiate from her mother) & even *Daisy* (for marguerites). Margaret Shelton was known as *Pretty Madge*, as per the accounts of the portraits of Christina of Milan & Anne of Cleves that compared them favorably to her good looks. Stands to reason if people were telling Henry his prospective brides looked like that Shelton chick he'd been boffing, it was more than likely Margaret & not Mary.

Because there is still some speculation as to when Mary was born, it is believed that she could have been as young as fifteen when she began her affair with King Henry VIII.[11]

I believe the *1510/1515* given as a birthdate points out that there IS *speculation* as to when Mary was born without repeating it. There is speculation as to when a lot of people were born due to the fragility of paper records, Henry's wholesale Dissolution of places where records were most likely to be kept, & the fact that if you were not *notable* at birth, very often your birth was not written down somewhere. Henry's *commoner* wives do not have a definitive birth date. Hardly unusual or worth belaboring.

Additionally, *Aunt Shelton* (Thomas Boleyn's OLDER sister, Anne, born 1475) had 10 children, birth order anyone's guess. As an older sibling & a female, it stands to reason that her offspring would start off older or at least around the same ages as those of her younger brother. The only DOBs in the whole bunch is 1500 for her eldest son John (who married Jane Rochford's older sister, Margaret, who would then ALSO be a Margaret Shelton to confuse further) & 1520 for her youngest son, Thomas.

You can guess at the birth order from looking at the recorded dates of death, but that's still just an assumption. It's entirely possible Anne Shelton's daughters Margaret & Mary were contemporaries of Mary & Anne Boleyn, not born 15 yrs later (though it would also then be highly unlikely for them to be starting families in the late 1540s, so a dozen yrs later seems like a decent guess). I think the best that can be done on a DOB for any of Anne Shelton's other 8 kids would be a range of 1501/1519. Could be late 1400s as well, but I don't think into the 1520s, though it's always a possibility she kept breeding past 45. Eleanor of Aquitaine managed it.

Margaret was said to be older than Mary, & therefore more likely to have been given a place at court. Either way, putting Mary's involvement with Henry at age 15, even going by the DOB range given in the article, means it happened whilst he was still married to Catherine of Aragon, not whilst he was married to Anne Boleyn! Which makes the entire article irrelevant. The DOB range given would have Mary at age 18-23 at the earliest (1533) & 21-26 at the latest (1536).

We're supposed to be shocked that Henry would do a 15 yo when the author previously listed 3 men Mary was *romantically linked* with? OK.

Injecting modern values to point out Mary *may* have been 15 when she & Henry dallied. Margaret Beaufort was 12 when she became pregnant with Henry VII. Mary de Bohun was 13 when she conceived her first child by Henry of Bolingbroke (the future usurper Henry IV). If a girl had her period, she was considered a woman & therefore old enough to be sexually active. (It was not unusual for very young girls to marry much older men. Edmund Tudor was twice Margaret Beaufort's age when they married, & he got his 12 yo bride pregnant immediately.)

That sentence is unnecessary to this article. It's not like a 40+ Henry was banging HS cheerleaders & needed Child Protection called on him. If a girl was old enough to attend upon the queen, then she was a woman, end of. Immature children were off being polished in noble households or attending upon royal children as Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey did with Henry Fitzroy, Duke of Richmond & Somerset. They were not at court collecting 4 *romantic involvements* by age 15./s

according to Hart, “...this did not mean that their families were allies--not all Boleyns supported the queen...” [12]

Hart is incorrect. Just because it's in a book doesn't mean it's true (yet another error that keeps cropping up in these articles).

They certainly DID support the queen; Anne's cousin Sir Nicholas Carew, one of Henry's favorite privy gentlemen well before she came to court (Carew was raised in the royal nursery at Eltham as a companion to Henry, from the age of 6), being an example of one who was sent on diplomatic missions to France & Spain regarding The King's Great Matter.

Carew threw Anne to the wolves when he saw which way the wind blew, & opened his home in Surrey to Henry & Jane Seymour for their *secret* premarital dalliances. But until May 1536, he was the perfect example of a cousin to the queen who supported her completely, & his defection had more to do with self-survival than anything else after how many men were sent to the Tower suspected of adultery with Anne. If her own brother was not safe from suspicion, a mere cousin could not hope to emerge unscathed without quickly turning his coat.

There is rumor that Carew's wife (m.1514), Elizabeth Bryan, numbered amongst Henry's many conquests, & she was instrumental in getting the former Princess Mary to sign on the dotted line of the Act of Supremacy by making Mary believe her father really would have her executed if she did not (he may well have; a disobedient daughter was making him lose face). It was imperative for Anne & Henry to have his daughter publicly acknowledge his remarriage as valid & her half-sister Elizabeth as heir presumptive in Mary's place.

The KING was more important to please than whomever was warming the royal bed. It bought Carew 3 more yrs of life, as he was executed in connection with the Exeter affair in 1539, though there was zero evidence of any involvement in yet another Tudor purge of Plantagenet blood.

Boleyn relations did indeed fully support the queen, UNTIL it became expedient for them to back away & ally themselves with the KING, who held the real power & could literally kill them for stubbornly supporting a wife of whom he wished to be rid. He had done so with Catherine's few supporters (Fisher & More).

Hart is an imbecile if she cannot realize this truth of royal politics. Anyone who takes this as Gospel is equally uneducated in the nuances of the Tudor court. That statement really has no relevance in this article & should be removed.

In point of fact, Queen Anne has been said to have been deeply in love with Henry and also very jealous of his attention to other women.

In point of fact, I am LMFAO at this sentence.

There is NO way to definitively discern whether Anne was *deeply in love with Henry*, & I would venture to say there is more evidence that she was NOT in love with him. He refused to walk away without getting what he wanted of her, & she used it to her advantage upon realizing he would not go away.

She was not *very jealous*, either. Henry was no bedsport prize once he was past 30. She was attempting to hold onto her position, seeing how Henry had treated Catherine once she was no longer useful to him & fearing the same fate. Anne had to keep the king in HER bed so that she would conceive the son he desperately desired. She had wasted 6 fertile yrs (or more; the first *official* recording of their liaison dated to 1527 but it likely began earlier) whilst Henry huffed & puffed impotently at Rome, & in the end he was not willing to keep waiting more than 3 yrs, not after her second miscarriage & no son to show for him turning the Catholic Church on its head for her.

Point being, there was no way to conceive an heir if Henry was off dallying with some other wench, a son was what Anne needed to solidify her position, & she wasn't getting any younger, so yes, she voiced displeasure at his dalliances, but very doubtful it was from jealousy; more like, she feared another Bessie Blount providing Henry with another illegitimate son.

There is no citation for this sentence & it ought to be removed as an interjection of opinion.

Especially seeing as the concept of *marrying for love* is a relatively new one that began after WWII. Very few people had the luxury of marrying for love alone. They married for political alliances &/or territorial gains &/or financial gains.

A king didn't just pick a likely princess for his heir to wed; he looked at what she brought to the table. In Catherine of Aragon's situation, it was strong recognition of Henry VIIs shaky grip on the English throne by Their Most Catholic Majesties, Isabella & Ferdinand. What was most shocking about The King's Great Matter was not that Henry VIII wished to rid himself of a wife who was past childbearing, but that he wished to replace her with some common English wench he claimed to love & not another royal princess for some gain in world politics. He may have gotten somewhere with Rome if he had continued to allow negotiations for the hands of royal women whilst his case was considered, rather than shouting his great love for Anne Boleyn from the parapets. In the entire history of the English monarchy since 1066, there had been ONE who married for love (Henry's maternal grandfather, Edward IV, to Elizabeth Woodville). It just. wasn't. done.

Queen Anne was especially jealous that Mary could have been writing love poems about her husband, the King.[13]

Seriously? Hart doesn't realize Anne was an accomplished musician & could write her own stuff? On what hard evidence is Hart basing this additional *jealousy*? Does she think Anne cared *if* her husband was flattered in verse? Has the author of this article shown us ONE poem attributed to Mary Shelton that is indeed a *love poem to Henry*? If not, this is irrelevant & should be removed.

This other rumour, that Margaret or Mary Shelton might become Henry's wife in 1538, appears in one of the Lisle Letters.[16]

Commonly accepted that Honor Lisle regarded any woman of the court as a rival for shoving forward her unmarried Bassett daughters to catch the king's notice. Her *bribes* to both Anne Boleyn & Jane Seymour to give her girls places at court are well-documented. It was also rumored Anne Bassett was *romatically linked with the king* & *could* become Henry's 4th wife as well, but Henry never had any intention of selecting another subject as his new bride, delusionally thinking he was a great catch on the international marriage market & instructing Cromwell to look for a lady of a royal house for this one (which he got in the person of Anne of Cleves). I think Henry's actions speak louder than court gossip about what he *might* do. This is not relevant, either. And surely in the Lisle Letters, Honor didn't word it as *Margaret or Mary Shelton*, unless they were both in the running, indicating that perhaps both sisters had been *romantically linked* to Henry?

Mary seemed to have been very accepting of the situation with the king, and did not press him to give her land, money, or a title.[13]

Hart doesn't KNOW that. That is pure speculation.

All Hart knows is that Mary did not RECEIVE any lands, money, or titles from Henry (& I rather would question the money bit, as it's not that hard to slip someone a purse of gold angels on the QT, or pay for court expenses like new gowns, slippers, headdresses, cloaks, jewelry, a mount, etc). Hart doesn't know Mary didn't ASK for these things. Hart doesn't even know *if* Mary was Henry's mistress!

Since the *affair* itself cannot be proven, this is also irrelevant & should be removed.

Surprisingly, Mary was engaged to a Henry Norris during the time of her romance with the king.

And it states above that she was engaged to Sir Thomas Clere at the time. Pick one, remove the other. Conflicting info. Also not cited for source. Needs to be removed just for that alone.

And why is it *surprising* that a girl of good family would enter into a betrothal contract with anyone of her status? Or that Henry would wish to have a convenient cuckold on hand in case of pregnancy?

Is the inserter of this info surprised because of Sir Henry Norreys & his unfortunate connection to Anne Boleyn? He had been married & had had 4 children, Henry, William, Edward, & Mary, by the time he was hauled off to the Tower in May 1536, so no surprises there, sorry. He was also 10 yrs older than Henry VIII & in his mid-50s. May-December matches were not uncommon & Norreys was widowed in 1531, but he was also one of Henry's oldest & closest friends & his offices to which he was appointed by the king were not merely ornamental, but paid very well. Norreys had no need of a rich wife, & Mary Shelton certainly was not that. She was also far too old for his heir, also called Henry (born c.1525), unless she was born closer to 1520. If it was the younger Norreys, then his father's execution was reason enough for the Shelton family to break the contract.

BTW just because the name is PRONOUNCED *Norris* doesn't mean it's not spelt as *Norreys*. The *ey* would be pronounced as a short *y* sound, as in, oh, I don't know, say, *Boleyn*, & you don't see people vandalizing THAT one to *Bolin*, do you? (In its original form it was likely pronounced exactly as it's spelt, as Anne was known as *Boullaine* at the French court.)

Her engagement to Norris was broken off when her father passed away at the age of sixty-two and left his family with financial troubles.[17] As a result, Mary went away to a convent.[17]

Really. Then how was she so busy at court doing Henry, if she was immured in a convent? How could she afford to remain there if the family finances were so bad, when it was a considerable expense to be at court? How did she manage to get a convent to take her, as they also required a hefty dower? How did she manage to scrape up a dower for her subsequent marriages if she was so poor it was a reason to break off a betrothal?

Neither of these sentences make sense without further explanation of them, & should be removed if the author cannot provide any explanation.

'After returning home, Mary became engaged to Thomas Clere the poet. He, unfortunately, passed away soon after their engagement, leaving Mary his lands in his will.[17]'

Where above does it state she *returned home*? Returned home from where? When did this happen? No continuity in timeline.

If she got lands from Clere, then how it is she was considered too poor to wed *a Henry Norris*? Land was better than money in those days because it produced income.

Clere is ALSO her cousin (as well as the queen's). He was the son of Thomas Boleyn's younger sister, Alice. So why isn't he linked to Alice's page to corroborate this fact? An actual real fact that can be proven, ignored in favor of nonsensical, romanticized, *the queen is such a lovesick jealous termagent* drivel.

Repetitive. Clere needs to be consolidated, not splattered throughout the article just to take up space & make it *seem* longer & not a *stub*. He was in her poetry group, they were betrothed, he died, & left her some goodies. Not hard to accomplish all in one paragraph. This needless jumping around is ridiculous. Dreadful organization in this article.

By 1546 Mary had married her cousin[2] Sir Anthony Heveningham (1507–1557).[1] by whom she had five children, including Arthur Heveningham, and her youngest daughter, Abigail (wife of Sir George Digby of Coleshill, Warwickshire), who was in attendance on Queen Elizabeth in 1588.[1]

Didn't anyone read this for clarity?

NO period after the husband's name, as the sentence then continues to relate offspring by him, or create a separate sentence for issue, as it's unwieldy in the present form once the superfluous period is removed.

And exactly how IS he her cousin? Whose child was he in her family tree? He is not important enough to have his own article, so you can't go there to discover the facts. If an article contributor is not going to fully elaborate, then terming him such is unnecessary & it needs to be either removed or elaborated upon. FIND OUT or drop the relationship.

And how is it important that her daughter was a lady in waiting to Elizabeth I, 50 yrs after the *meat* of Mary's story occurs & when Mary is already long dead? Her daughter is not important enough to have an article, either. Who cares? It's just trying to fill in space.

Personally, I HATE the *style* of cramming all offspring & marriages into a single paragraph as this article does. At the very least, the offspring ought to be in a list (bullet-pointed or numbered) in chronological order of birth with the dates (& if you don't know, then FIND OUT, there are a myriad of online sources available!) & their spouses/issue, if any.

Other marriages should be noted in a separate paragraph after the offspring of the first marriage. If there are multiple marriages each producing children, then they should each have lists of said children. Only if subsequent marriages produce no issue should they be clumped together in a single paragraph.

'Interestingly enough Kelly Hart writes, "...through Arthur, Mary is thought to be an ancestor of Diana, Princess of Wales." [17]'

Interestingly enough, this would only have relevance in an article on Diana's pedigree, & needs to be removed. It's not like Kelly Hart was interested enough to explain just how Mary & Diana were *possibly* related, is it? There's no family tree appended to see how. (There isn't even a family tree to show how Mary was Anne's cousin. Hello, The Other Anne Boleyn Girl?  Didn't even rate a mention.)  This is another space-filler that needs to leave.

In 1546 there was suspicion of conspiracy between Mary and Surrey, which was noted for investigation by the Privy Council.[1]

Since Surrey LOST HIS HEAD over this, becoming Henry's last execution in January 1547, there ought to be a link to further explanation of the episode (or a *see main article:* going directly to that bit of it in Surrey's article), not merely a link to explaining what a Privy Council is. Any fool interested in Tudor history knows THAT bit already, but they may not know WHY Mary Shelton was yanked in for questioning over Surrey's attempts to get himself named Regent of Edward VI before Henry VIII had actually demised. (Even THAT is not fully explained in Surrey's article!)

WHO is writing this stuff, & considers themselves such *experts*, that they cannot explain & source basic facts of Tudor history? The last guy Henry VIII executed IS a big deal!

The majority of poems are ascribed to Thomas Wyatt.

So NOT Mary Shelton, as was claimed earlier?

as well as “Ann,” which may refer to Anne Boleyn.[18]

Yes, because there was no one else called *Ann* in all of Tudor England, save the queen! Not even Lady Shelton, or her daughter Anne! No Anne Bassett, Anne Somerset, Anne Seymour, no other Annes at all!/s

And how exactly WAS Anne involved in the manuscript, when she allegedly *hated* Mary Shelton for trying to steal her man, as is implied earlier in the article, & mocked her for wasting time composing *idle poems*? (I'd hazard someone hadn't a clue what *ydll poesies* meant, as it wasn't explained for those unfamiliar with Tudor English & its variant spellings.) Let's not forget the involvement of Mary Howard, Duchess of Richmond & Somerset, who was also deemed to be an ideal bride for Henry because her marriage to Fitzroy had never been consummated & would keep the Howards afloat at court after Anne's disgrace. Surely Anne was *jealous* of her as a *love rival*, too?/s

A few months after the confinement of Margaret Douglas and Thomas Howard for an impolitic affair in 1536

Why is this important to Mary Shelton's life? It does not state she received the manuscript directly from Margaret Douglas. It is more than likely Mary Shelton received it from Mary Howard, who retired from court to observe mourning after Richmond's death July 17, 1536, not from Henry's niece who was unceremoniously collected & imprisoned in the Tower for the crime of being 25 yrs old & wanting a life. Anything coming out of the Tower via Margaret would have been scrutinized closely & likely never made it to its intended recipient.

Also, no explanation for WHY Margaret's liaison was deemed *impolitic*, even though it's quite easy to figure out; Thomas was a Howard & Anne had just been executed, so they were NOT going to be advanced with another royal marriage. Yes, Lady Margaret Douglas was royal, being the daughter of Henry's sister Margaret, Queen of Scots. Why not just mention his niece's other ill-timed romantic indiscretion with Thomas's nephew Charles Howard, at the time of Catherine Howard's disgrace, too, if you want to toss in irrelevancies?

And for pity's sake, WHICH Thomas Howard? *I* know which one, but there were so many of them that others will not & will think it was old Norfolk. I bet whoever stuck that in doesn't know which Thomas Howard it was.

Although there is much debate and ambiguity surrounding the manuscript, Shelton is argued by scholars to be the main contributor and editor of the document.[18] Margaret Douglas is sometimes also credited with this.[19]

Completely contradicting the Wyatt contribution! (which has no source)

Someone needs to actually VET these & FIX SIMPLE ERRORS. Good grief, what a mess. No, I'm not fixing it, it's not my mess. ScarletRibbons (talk) 03:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Restored the long section. This is not some ridiculous rant about the subject of the article — it's a list of problems about the article that was posted in order to resolve the problems.  This is the very purpose of a talk page!  Nyttend (talk) 00:47, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Nyttend :-) This was my very first WP comment. This article blew my mind & is what prompted me to open an account.  I realized I could have used a softer approach in retrospect (& may have edited it, had it not disappeared almost immediately), but we all get passionately carried away at times, so I do apologize for coming on very strong for a noob's first post.  I've since been helped to muddle through a few things by a nice Wikipedian gentleman, & also realize that what I *thought* was correct protocol — pointing out issues BEFORE presuming to do any edits — is not.  I've just had a comment left by the deleting party in which I was told I made the talk page here *look like dog's bollocks*, which I found quite rude.  You have restored my faith in the people of WP with this restoration.  Thanks again!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScarletRibbons (talk • contribs) 11:21, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I was responding to the comment below, but it popped into the bottom of this one as evidently it was deleted again whilst I was in the process of editing. Which is good, as I was saying it was now unnecessary with the restoration of the original comment, & had erased both it & the nasty reply it received (which wasn't worth a response). ScarletRibbons (talk) 15:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I have also made some edits to this comment, in hope that the person who keeps following me around harassing me on academic credentials will cease & desist. ScarletRibbons (talk) 15:22, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Mary Shelton in the Devonshire MS
Whatever one's opinion on the identity of these two figures, it is established that the name of the person recorded in the Devonshire manuscript is 'Mary Shelton' (facsimile). Since most of the article is about her work, it seems most sensible to put that information under her name; cf. the practice of the ODNB. AndrewNJ (talk) 16:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)