Talk:Jane Seymour/Archive 1

Archive 1

Requested move

• I noticed that this page had been moved to "Lady Jane Seymour" without consensus or even consultation. I have moved it back to the correct title. I can understand why "Lady" Jane Seymour may seem to be correct according to the naming conventions, but Jane Seymour, the queen, is never referred to in this way, and in any case it would be wrong to do so because, if a title is used, it must be the highest one she ever possessed, which of course would be queen. Deb 17:23, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Very well, so I will post this onto WP:RM and propose the new title as "Queen Jane Seymour" and let other chime in. But I will explain my originally intention here: I think "Jane Seymour" should be a disambig page because many editors and users would expect Jane Seymour the actress instead of Queen Jane Seymour. In my opinion, they are roughly equal in popularity, and thus under Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Page naming, the Queen should not be the primary topic. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:03, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • The exact line am I referring to in Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Page naming is "where there is no such consensus, disambiguation pages are named after the topic itself" Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:28, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Jane Seymour would never have been known as "Lady Jane Seymour". Her father was not a duke, a marquess or an earl so she would therefore not have been entitled to style herself "Lady" and would have been Mistress Jane Seymour before her marriage.

---

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

• Support as the nominator. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:14, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Oppose. To suggest that more people are familiar with the actress than with the queen is... shall we say, unrealistic? "Jane Seymour queen" gets twice as many google hits as "Jane Seymour actress". The actress only took the name "Jane Seymour" because the name was already so famous. Furthermore, the inclusion of "Queen" in the title would be in contravention of the naming conventions. Deb 21:58, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

• Support Support this move. Neutral. True, she was born as "Jane Seymour" but was "Queen Jane" not "Queen Jane Seymour". I was going to propose a similar solution like User:Angr proposed. Gryffindor 22:13, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Abstain because I don't like the choice. I agree Jane Seymour should be a disambig page, but I'm not convinced the queen consort was even known as "Queen Jane Seymour". How about Jane Seymour (queen)? --Angr/_{tɔk tə mi} 19:57, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

Can someone delete that "Im a idiot" on the biography for Seymour?

Perhaps "Instead she was taught in needlework and household management, which was popular at that time for women" gives the wrong impression. "Household management" for a noblewoman often meant training to manage a sizable and complex family and communal business. Though I do not know if that was the case with Jane Seymour.RMcPhee (talk) 23:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Discision

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved.

Request was:

• Talk:Jane Seymour - Jane Seymour → Queen Jane Seymour I think "Jane Seymour" should be converted to a disambig page because many editors and users would expect Jane Seymour the actress instead of Queen Jane Seymour. In my opinion, they are roughly equal in popularity, and thus under Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Page naming, the Queen should not be the primary topic. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:08, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 20:29, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Links

The link for the Seymour family home seems rather dubious to me. The house is in Somerset, not Wiltshire, and the website states only that it is a 15th century farmhouse commissioned by the family of Sir Thomas Seymour. Can anyway elaborate?? Paul75 02:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

New image

I recently uploaded the image to the right, an engraving of Queen Seymour by Wenceslas Hollar. Feel free to use it or not. Dcoetzee 22:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Grammar and style

This article is in need of some grammar and style editing. There are lots of run-on and otherwise poorly constructed sentences. 18.173.1.125 (talk) 17:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Her Religion

I suppose that she kept the Roman Catholic faith even after swearing the Act of Supremacy. I think the article seems to implicate that. I ask someone who knows better the England 16th century History to please explain that, since there is no mention of it in the article.213.13.245.246 (talk) 17:13, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not aware of a shred of evidence for believing this. PatGallacher (talk) 17:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I was asking to someone who knows better the England 16th century History to explain this. The article states explicitly that she followed the "old faith" and wanted to have Princess Mary rights to the throne reinstated.213.13.245.246 (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

From the article:

"Jane was of the Roman Catholic faith, known as the "old faith". It is believed, because of this and her loyalty to her former mistress, Catherine of Aragon, Jane put forth much effort to restore Henry's first child, Mary Tudor, to court and heir to the throne behind any children that Jane would have with Henry. Jane brought up the issue of Mary's restoration both before and after she became Queen. While Jane was unable restore Mary to the line of succession, Jane was able to reconcile Henry with his daughter Mary. Chapuys wrote to Charles V of Jane's compassion and strive for Mary's return to favour. A letter from Mary to Jane shows that Mary was grateful to Jane. While it was Jane who first pushed for the restoration it would not be until Henry's sixth wife convinced him to reinstate Mary and Elizabeth. [5]"213.13.245.246 (talk) 18:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think a work entitled "A Treasure of Royal Scandals" can be regarded as a reliable source. There is a large amount of material on the Tudors and the wives of Henry VIII, I don't remember anything about this in e.g. Fraser's work. PatGallacher (talk) 18:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

From a link to the article: "ane's religious convictions made her a popular figure among commoners and courtiers alike who hoped she would return the king to the Church. Jane, an ardent and pious Catholic, would try to do just that. First, she secured a reconciliation between Henry and his elder daughter, Mary, who shared her religious views (see Role as Queen). Then, in October 1546, just months after the reconciliation, rebellions rocked the kingdom."213.13.240.141 (talk) 13:29, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Funeral

What is this sentence supposed to mean?: "...Henry was buried beside her in the grave he had sent to make." Filmfluff (talk) 18:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Birth date

This edit of 24 May 2011 brought to light that we've had her birth date in the infobox as 10 October 1508, ever since this edit of 6 December 2010 by anon user 81.132.40.13.

But in the lede it's still just "c. 1508".

There is no documentary evidence of a birth date of 10 October or any other particular date, is there?

User 81.132.40.13 does not have an extensive record of accurate edits. I AGF and ascribe it to a well-meaning but erroneous edit. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 20:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Fixed now. -- Jack of Oz ^{[your turn]} 23:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Why the Percy's mentioned and not the Mortimers, de Burghs, Wentworths and all the others?

I can understand why the article mentions that Jane was descended from Edward III (through Lionel Plantagenet), but I do not know why one set of her lineal ancestors should be singled out, above the others. She has Neville as well (far more famous). So I'm deleting the Percy part.69.108.25.101 (talk) 18:28, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

==This article has been vandalised but I cannot seem to revert it even with rollback. Can someone please fix it?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Requested move (2013)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was not moved per the long-term significance aspect of the primary topic policy, and the warranted incredulity seen below to the assertion that there is any parity between the subjects on that issue.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 11:33, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

---

• Jane Seymour → ?
• Jane Seymour (disambiguation) → Jane Seymour

– The historical figure has the same numbers as the well-known actress of titular courageous, brave character of Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman. However, I still believe that people are looking for the actress. In fact, when the queen is disambiguated, the numbers of the queen page will go down drastically. I'm not proposing that either woman be a primary topic of the same name. In fact, I will let readers decide whether to read about the queen or the actress in the disambiguation page. As for "long-term significance", both actress and queen equally weigh to be remembered for a long time. I recently learned that she appeared in Smallville as a villain, while the queen died of childbirth. George Ho (talk) 17:46, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - Joyce Frankenberg's stagename (who?) is not as encyclopaedic as a major queen of England. It won't do television addicts any harm to discover that a villian in a Superman TV show has named herself after a historical figure. They might "learn" something, we are an encyclopedia not IMDB 2.0. George, seriously. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is an actress called Jane Seymour? Surtsicna (talk) 00:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support disambiguation, Jane Seymour, Queen of England (if it isn't moved, then a redirect should exist) -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 00:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
• Comment "Lady Jane Seymour" also needs to be renamed, since the Queen was a Lady prior to being Queen. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 00:46, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
  • No, she was never styled as "Lady Jane Seymour". Surtsicna (talk) 01:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support move to Jane Seymour, Queen of England: A page move be should be made based on "usage" aspect WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. As I stated in the previous 2005 page move discussion, many editors and users may be expecting Jane Seymour the actress instead of Jane Seymour, Queen of England. This is backed up by the traffic stats that the nominator cited. And regarding the long-term significance aspect, I'm not convinced that one has greatly more than the other. Thus, there should be no primary topic. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:15, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Definitely not "Jane Seymour, Queen of England". She was the wife of a king, and a Queen Consort. She may have been styled "Queen Jane" in her time, but she was never "Queen of England". -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 08:03, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
    • What nonsense! Of course she was "Queen of England" (regina Angliae), as were wives of all English kings. Do you even need proof of that? It makes no sense to attempt to distinguish between queens consort and queens regnant that way; up to the 21st century, queens consort were the norm and queens regnant were the anomaly. Surtsicna (talk) 10:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. The Queen of England, one of the six wives of Henry VIII (himself one of history's most notable monarchs) and the mother of his heir, against an actress of fading notability. No contest. Claims that the actress will have as much long-term notability as the queen, about whom much is still written more than 400 years after her death, are frankly laughable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:56, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. The actress deliberately adopted the stage name "Jane Seymour" as homage to the undeniable notability and historic importance of the queen. So should we. Moriori (talk) 23:25, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

File:Hans Holbein the Younger - Jane Seymour, Queen of England - Google Art Project.jpg to appear as POTD soon

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Hans Holbein the Younger - Jane Seymour, Queen of England - Google Art Project.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on October 24, 2017. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2017-10-24. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:58, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Picture of the day

Jane Seymour (c. 1508 – 1537) was Queen of England from 1536 to 1537 as the third wife of King Henry VIII. She succeeded Anne Boleyn as queen consort following the latter's execution in May 1536. She died of postnatal complications less than two weeks after the birth of her only child, a son who became King Edward VI on Henry's death. She was the only one of Henry's wives to receive a queen's funeral, and his only consort to be buried beside him in St George's Chapel at Windsor Castle.Painting: Hans Holbein the Younger

Caesarian Section?

Walter Pyle in Anamolies and Curiosities of Medicine speaks of a possible c-section. Any truth in this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabbycatlove (talk • contribs) 03:02, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

There has been some discussion of it in the literature, but the current consensus seems to be against it. See https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0160932716300540. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't know whether that article would be properly called pseudoscience or pseudohistory. possibly both. (not that i think there was, but I do think that any claims one way or the other purporting to be anything other than fanciful speculation to be unworthy of any credibility) Firejuggler86 (talk) 05:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 14 November 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus, defaulting to status quo. While some editors were convinced by the page views, others were more concerned with long-term historical significance. There is no clear consensus to make any changes at this point in time. (closed by non-admin page mover) Bradv🍁 05:22, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

---

• Jane Seymour → Jane Seymour, Queen of England
• Jane Seymour (disambiguation) → Jane Seymour

– Well, it’s been about 5 years since the last move request (see Talk:Jane Seymour#Requested move (2013)), so let’s give this another try. Comparing the page views between “Jane Seymour” and “Jane Seymour (actress)”, it is impossible to distinguish a primary topic. In fact, I would go to lengths to state that in the Americas, the primary topic for “Jane Seymour” is the James Bond/Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman actress (Jane Seymour (actress)), and arriving at the page for the queen when looking up “Jane Seymour” is a WP:SURPRISE. Steel1943 (talk) 18:58, 14 November 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Favonian (talk) 18:39, 21 November 2018 (UTC)--Relisting. B dash (talk) 03:07, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• Disagree because of longevity. Jane Seymour was a queen, and is written about regularly nearly 500 years after her death. It is unlikely in 30 years if there will be anyone that interested in an actress who named herself after the queen. Boleyn (talk) 20:22, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Possibly, but that’s a prediction 30+ years out, which doesn’t apply to present day. I’d even believe that in present times, some readers would not even know about the queen’s existence of it weren’t for the actress using the queen’s name as a stage name. From what I see, moving these pages into a configuration that better accommodates the readers of today is the best service Wikipedia can provide. In addition, the actress has had a career that has spanned several decades, so I’d hardly say that there will not “...be anyone that interested in an actress who named herself after the queen.”. Also, longevity doesn’t necessarily hold water to declare a primary topic in some cases: For examples, see Gouda and Angus. Steel1943 (talk) 21:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Also, compare this to Bill O'Reilly; the aforementioned disambiguation page is the result of two conflicting views on a primary topic, both of which seem to be the result of opposing view points from different sides of the world. I see the same here; even though both subjects have English roots, the actress is more prominent as the potential primary topic in parts of America (and possibly worldwide), whereas the queen consort’s notability may be endemic to English history for reasons that seem to include her short tenure as a queen consort (about a year). Steel1943 (talk) 05:36, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose Queen of England from 1536 to 1537 as the third wife of King Henry VIII. Or a supporting actress in a 1973 film? In ictu oculi (talk) 22:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Queen for only a year? I see the reason for that was death due to childbirth, but still. The actress has done a lot more in her career after James Bond, including starring roles (Dr. Quinn), and has established notability for a longer period of time than a year. That, and it makes me believe that in addition to all that has been said so far, I could see editors erroneously linking to the article about the Queen when they are actually trying to link to the article about the actress. Steel1943 (talk) 22:54, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

  In fact, I just found and corrected an erroneous link, so there are probably more. Steel1943 (talk) 22:58, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

  ...And here’s some more links that I fixed: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. Steel1943 (talk) 03:30, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

  ...And again, some more links I fixed: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. Steel1943 (talk) 19:21, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• Support - per WP:NOPRIMARY. Long-term page view stats show there is an equal interest in both topics (as close as any two topics I've seen: 3,998,763 vs 3,815,412 views over 3 years), and under the current naming we don't know how many of the primary topic views are due to people seeking info on the actress. I think this represents a WP:SURPRISE situation in both cases, and en exemplary application of NOPRIMARY. -- Netoholic @ 08:51, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
• It would have to be Jane_Seymour,_queen_consort of_England. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:22, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support per Netoholic's data. Note that there should also be disambiguation with Lady Jane Seymour, the Queen's namesake niece and co-author of the Hecatodistichon.Dimadick (talk) 12:16, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose per Boleyn. The fact that we are discussing the queen 500 years after her life is a very strong argument for long-term significance. She will still be in the history books 100 years from now—no crystal ball needed. The actress? Who knows. Srnec (talk) 12:42, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
• No primary topic. Old does not make for long term significance. Introduction from https://englishhistory.net/tudor/monarchs/jane-seymour/ "Henry VIII had six wives .... She was Henry’s third wife and seems never to have made much of an impression upon anyone except the king." She was lady in waiting to the late second wife, was never crowned, her the next king died a child king. Her serving family, the guardians of the orphan boy king, their's decisions made much more long term impact than any of Jane's active contributions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:41, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Comment "seems never to have made much of an impression upon anyone except the king" Rather accurate assessment. Among Henry VIII's consorts. 1) Catherine of Aragon is remembered mostly because her (two) marriages secured an alliance between the House of Tudor and the House of Trastámara, because of her close connection to the House of Habsburg (who would use their influence on the Popes to deny a marriage annulement to Henry VIII), because she served as regent of England and took military initiative against the [[Kingdom of Scotland), and because seeking annulement from their marriage is what led pious Catholic Henry VIII to join the Reformation. 2) Anne Boleyn is remembered for her controversial trial and death, because the Boleyn family reached the [peak of their political influence thanks to her, and because she was closely related to the already politically influential House of Howard (who used the marriage to further expand their influence). 3) Anne of Cleves is remembered because the marriage secured an alliance of the House of Tudor with the Schmalkaldic League (and implicitly against the Holy Roman Emperor), because of Henry VIII's peculiar reasons for the annulerent of their marriage, because of her (accidental) role in the political downfall and swift execution of Thomas Cromwell (who was blamed for the failed marriage), and for suspicions that she was affiliated with Wyatt's rebellion (1554) and conspired to have her step-daughter Elizabeth I of England rising on the throne. 4) Catherine Howard is remembered for being another member of the House of Howard and a cousin of Anne Boleyn, for her supposedly scandalous sexual history, and for her controversial imprisonment and execution. 5) Catherine Parr is remember for serving as Regent of England, influencing the Third Succession Act (1543) which allowed her stepdaughters to eventually rise to the throne, for being a published author, for being Elizabeth I of England's legal guardian following Henry VIII's death, for tutoring Lady Jane Grey in her household, and because she served as a stepping stone in the ambitions of power for her last husnand, Thomas Seymour, 1st Baron Seymour of Sudeley. By comparison, Jane does not stand out in the group of Queens consiort and has not attracted much attention attention by historians of the era, or by historical novelists. Dimadick (talk) 19:23, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

• Support - per WP:NOPRIMARY. Dolphx (talk) 17:02, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support - per nom, some others above, WP:ASTONISH, WP:NOPRIMARY. I proposed the disambiguation back five years ago, which the consensus opposed. I guess consensus has been changing? The Queen was one of Henry VIII's six wives (other wives are more primary topic as of date) and a queen for one year until complications of childbirth; her biography is very astonishing to read for those very interested in the British history. However, despite her long-term significance, I'm not convinced that the queen herself is the primary topic per Wikipedia standards. Less-than-accurate statistics of the Queen article shows that the Queen is probably not in the best interest to most readers, including those searching for the actress article. Also, the statistics of the queen article are less than accurate at best, compared to five years ago. I can predict that, once the Queen article is disambiguated, the view counts would tremendously decline. Furthermore, I've not yet heard one world history teacher mentioning the Queen; probably historians specializing in the British history have done so. I can conclude that the Queen is significant to just one country.

  The actress herself, successful she has been, doesn't meet standards of primary topic probably because she didn't receive enough awards. However, the actress has been well praised throughout her career, aside from one Razzie nomination, especially because her role as titular character in Dr. Quinn, which lasted five years, made her more than just one of mere James Bond supporting actresses. Moreover, the show was probably internationally distributed, and she also appeared in theatrical films that have been internationally distributed, making her more globally significant, though most of her roles in films and television post-Dr. Quinn are supporting and/or guest characters, including one in Wedding Crashers. --George Ho (talk) 15:12, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Comment "most of her roles in films and television post-Dr. Quinn are supporting and/or guest characters" She isn't getting any younger. When Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman ended in 1998, Seymour was 47-years-old. There aren't that many film roles available for middle-aged women. By 2018, Seymour is 67-years-old and had to pose for Playboy (for the 3rd time) to get some publicity. Dimadick (talk) 09:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose The two main criteria listed in WP:PRIMARYTOPIC are usage and long-term significance. Usage is evenly split, according to the stats someone posted earlier, so significance ought to tie-break. On that count I don't think there can be any doubt that Jane Seymour, Queen is far more significant in the long-term than a mildly-famous actress. Atchom (talk) 19:59, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I can sympathize the long-term significance argument. However, do you think that the statistics are very accurate on counting readers? Also, do you think most readers would want to read the whole article about the Queen? The statistics must also counted those who briefly read the introduction or the infobox and then used the hatnote to go to dabpage and then clicked "(actress)". George Ho (talk) 22:21, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

  • Surprisingly, articles of other wives have thousands of daily view counts. The Queen article is on the par with Anne of Cleves or Catherine Parr. Nevertheless, I can't be certain whether the stats are very accurate; I can predict that the Queen article will be viewed less than the other two queens. George Ho (talk) 22:50, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I can't be certain, no, but respectfully, neither can you. Tudor history is 'sexy', an Henry VIII's wifes occupy a pretty prominent position in people's general historical consciousness. Even accepting that some of the traffic to Jane Seymour (Queen) is meant for Jane Seymour (actress), in the absence of quantifiable evidence one way or the other, plus one's clear long-term notability, I think the case is strong to keep the current arrangements. Atchom (talk) 06:39, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose Jane Seymour, Queen of England, is far more notable. Numerous history books and novels about this person. Clear long-term significance. This proposal is extreme WP:RECENTISM. Jack N. Stock (talk) 01:43, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm not arguing that the queen is not notable, but the queen is just not notable enough, compared to other queens of her time, to be more notable than the actress. Since this discussion started, I e been looking and researching a bit to prove myself wrong in that the queen is just so extraordinarily notable that she is the primary topic for her name, but I am just not able to find that proof. There have been arguments made that the actress may lose notability after her eventual passing or disappearing from the spotlight for whatever other reason. But, there is no way to prove that at this time. Of course the actress will most likely never be the "first" subject all readers will be expecting to find, but it certainly doesn’t seem that the queen is what every reader is expecting to find either. Above, I’ve even shown examples of even improper links caused by editors who linked to the queen when they meant to link to the actress. The current situation benefits less readers than the amount that would benefit from the disambiguation page being moved to the ambiguous title so they can decide for themselves what subject they are trying to find, in addition to a bot recommending to editors to fix an erroneous link to a disambiguation page when linking to the ambiguous title expecting the ambiguous title to link to the actress’ article. Steel1943 (talk) 02:24, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support some move. All the evidence shows that there is no primary topic. Criteria for primary topic are rather stringent, and no, they do not work as Atchom would like: a primary topic ought to be something that is the first thing in most people's minds. No such user (talk) 13:13, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• Does it matter if those minds are British or American? Martinevans123 (talk) 13:32, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
• I'm not basing my claim on "what I would like", but to the Primary Topic guideline, which specifically refers to "enduring notability and educational value" as part of its criteria. A very cursory search turns up three full-length bios of the queen published in the last four years (for someone who died five centuries ago). If that's not clear evidence of "enduring notability" I don't know what is. Atchom (talk) 06:48, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose per Atchom, who summarises my thoughts on WP:PRIMARYTOPIC better than I could have. Iffy★Chat -- 09:46, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. Clear primary topic as far as long-term significance is concerned. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:37, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
• Support, clear absence of a primary topic in light of the unusually robust 50 year film, television, and stage career of the actress, which makes her far more instantly recognizable to substantial regions of the world than the brief occupant of the royal position. bd2412 T 03:51, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, per long-term historical significance, but add the well-known actress to the hatnote. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:27, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support. I most often edit articles about historical rulers. I am therefore partial; I would much love to pretend that the queen is the primary topic, but I cannot fool myself. Having lived five centuries ago does not translate to "long-term significance". WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY says so quite clearly. It also suggests that the actress naming herself after the queen does not determine that the queen is the primary meaning. We are not writing Wikipedia for people who will look up these women in 30 years or 100 years, as has been suggested here. We are writing it in 2018, and in 2018, the living actress whose career has spanned 50 years is at least as notable as the woman who was queen for one year in the 16th century. For what it's worth, Queen Jane is the dullest of King Henry VIII's wives; no other has attracted less interest from biographers. The article about the queen, under its undisambiguated title, attracted 144,780 views, while the article about the actress, to which readers probably get only after coming to the queen's biography and following the link to the disambiguation page, got 141,343 views. This suggests that the actress is looked up much more often. I suspect that many of the people coming to this article are not looking to read about the queen, and that will become apparent when the article is moved and the views recede significantly. Surtsicna (talk) 13:20, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Note that English schoolchildren grow up (or, at least, did when I was at school) learning the names of Henry VIII's wives and what happened to them. For English people, I would say that the queen is almost certainly the primary topic (even though the actress is herself English!). She was the wife of one of the most famous kings in history (and one of the few whose wives' names are almost universally known in his home country), whose reign has been written about, analysed and depicted on film countless times, and the mother of another king. I would say that is why she has long-term significance, not because she lived five centuries ago. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:47, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
    • I would not be so sure that the queen is the primary topic for English people either. I am not English, but the web pages from the UK seem to be slightly more interested in the actress than the queen. Yes, Jane Seymour was the wife of one of the most famous kings, but only one of six wives, and the dullest of them. One was queen for over 20 years and sometimes regent, one was a heroine of the Reformation, one provided yet another drama, one was active in the Reformation and also a regent... And then there is Queen Jane, who is usually treated as a footnote in King Henry's life. Queen Jane is notable, but I think it is naive to think that everyone is as interested in history as we are. Surtsicna (talk) 14:25, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
      • She doesn't sound that dull on my copy of the album. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:04, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
      • I would suggest that dismissing her as "dull" may be a little POV and not really relevant to her notability! Trust me, the actress barely registers in Britain these days. I doubt whether most people even recall who she is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:21, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
• Comment. There's no question that the vast majority of readers landing on this article who do not want the queen, want the actress. I've therefore added the actress directly to the hatnote, as suggested above. That way, if this article is not moved, those wanting the actress will be spared the unnecessary step of going through the dab page in order to get to the article they want. Station1 (talk) 03:54, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
• Support WP:NOPRIMARYTOPIC that the unadorned title should lead to the DAB page. No opinion on the correct form for the title of the article about the third wife of King Henry VIII who may or may not have been regarded as the Queen of England. --Scott Davis ^Talk 01:25, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Jane Seymour definitely was regarded as Queen of England, Scott Davis. You may have confused her with Lady Jane Grey. Surtsicna (talk) 01:33, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
    • No, I just have plenty of other Wikipedia things to devote attention to, and noted that she had never been crowned, so thought she may not have been Queen Jane. I thought someone else objected to the title "Queen of England". I have no objection to moving the article to Jane Seymour, Queen of England if that is accurate. I just know the limits of my expertise. I've learned that any headline about "Kate Middleton" or "Meghan Markle" is not worth reading. The ones about the duchesses of Cambridge or Sussex might be. --Scott Davis ^Talk 02:34, 6 December 2018 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Relevance

What is the relevance of this "Sir Laurence or Lawrence Cheney or Cheyne"? Why is he mentioned in the article? Or "Margery or Marjory Wadham"? Or any of the subject's great-great-grandparents? What do these names tell readers? Surtsicna (talk) 20:32, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Excessive detail tag

This tag in in the ancestry section is inappropriate. The section, added by Hedwig0407 on 27 Octover 2007 is a fairly standard genealogical chart. It doesn't provide "excessive detail"; it contains only the names of the article subject's ancestors, which is the exact level it's necessary to provide in an ancestry chart. Furthermore, since it's a drop-down menu, only interested readers even need to see this information.

As FactStraight pointed out in similar discussion about Lady Jane Grey, "ahnentafels are a compact way to provide interested readers allusions to that data which they can readily pursue according to their interests by clicking links, where they exist. ...The near ubiquity of ahnentafels in dynastic bios is indicative that they have not heretofore been truncated as 'trivia,' and that label in this case is a debatable opinion." There's no need for this tag. Flyte35 (talk) 18:42, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

It isn't useful or necessary to know whether her great-great-grandparents were Sir John Croker of Lineham and Elizabeth Fortescue, or Sir Robert and Joan Coker of Lydeard St Lawrence, none of whom had any impact on her life. It's a trivial disputed detail that can easily be avoided by simply cutting the table down to the nearer, undisputed generations. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:36, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Is there a policy or guideline you can cite? or is your opinion based on experience? What makes you think that readers won't be interested in the ancestry as it is presently depicted? Are we reader-motivated or editor-motivated? Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  13:17, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

The policy is at Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a directory: 'Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic.' Celia Homeford (talk) 13:31, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

It is certainly within reason for you to question whether or not the ancestry here presented is "appropriate to support the reader's understanding" of Jane Seymour. That, however, sounds like a very general policy statement with subjective overtones that would require a consensus among interested editors to apply to each notable subject. If you seek more of an RfC type reading of the policy, then why treat this peacemeal with this one article? Has there already been an RfC? If not, then why not start one at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not? Looks like it's already been bandied about a bit. Or is your idea to treat all of these genealogical questions on an individual-article basis? In any case, you haven't given an opinion on exactly what changes you would make. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  00:30, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Celia Homeford has given an opinion on changes that should be made: "simply cutting the table down to the nearer, undisputed generations". Surtsicna (talk) 01:52, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

The fact that in the past five centuries no biographer of Jane Seymour has ever mentioned Joan Coker of Lydeard St Lawrence assures me that Jane Seymour's connection to this woman is neither relevant nor interesting. Wikipedia biographies should be based on published biographies, i.e. secondary sources. WP:INDISCRIMINATE: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." Since no independent source elaborates on the importance of Jane's descent from these people, their names provide no encyclopedic value. Surtsicna (talk) 13:59, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

A genealogical chart is not a violation of these standards. This is not a family history (family history is narrative and, in this case, is presented at the beginning of the article); this is a genealogical chart. This is also not an indiscriminate collection of information. This information is put in context and references independent sources. Considering how common ahnentafels are in dynastic bios on Wikipedia, your interpretation of Wikipedia guidelines here is, well, unique. Flyte35 (talk) 15:43, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Tend to agree with you. And to Surtsicna, your valid opinion sounds like a subjective assessment; however, I'm sure you don't mean to imply that all readers share your opinion, necessarily. Is it that you don't consider this source to be reliable? Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  00:37, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I am referring to secondary sources and policies, so my stance is anything but a subjective assessment. It is also not solely my opinion, but that echoed by the subject's biographers. The book you cited may be a reliable source for genealogy, but it is not a biography of Jane Seymour. As WP:INDISCRIMINATE says, " merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." If biographies of Jane Seymour do not mention any Joan Coker in any context, neither should we. Flyte35, please do tell me what "context with explanations" (per WP:INDISCRIMINATE) relates to this ahnentafel. I honestly do not see any. Surtsicna (talk) 01:52, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I believe that you honestly don't see any way in which this information provides context for or value to an understanding of Jane Seymour. The point is that others among your fellow editors do see sufficient context and value, to offer it for Wikipedia's readers to determine if they find it worth accessing. The clause quoted from WP:INDISCRIMINATE does not ban such material, but says that it is not "automatically" suitable for inclusion. But this Ahnentafel, and others like it, are being discriminately selected as suitable for inclusion, because of the inobtrusive way the info is presented (compactly yet comprehensively, with links where available, in a drop-down menu labeled "Ancestry" that readers must choose to access in order for it to become visible) and because it is not included in the vast majority of Wikipedia articles, but is almost exclusively inserted only in bios about historical dynastic figures. Nor do Wikipedia policies restrict sources to biographies of the subject: If the ancestry of the article subject has been published in a reliable source, it is appropriate to draw information therefrom. The contribution to "understanding of the subject" offered by the Ahnentafel is that it is a visually intuitive summary of relatively recent genealogical information, especially familiar and suitable for royalty and families whose influence derived from hereditary position, because the chief notability of members of such families habitually lies in their kinships rather than their individual deeds. Readers are more apt to expect to find some background on ancestry indicative of contributors to the person's status, origin, order in the succession, multi-nationality, familial rise, degree of pedigree collapse, etc. Ahnentafels are a compact way to provide interested readers allusions to that data which they can readily pursue through links or independent research. Thus the assertion that this Ahnentafel's info should be excluded because it is "of no interest", "irrelevant" or "trivial" is a finding of opinion, not fact: some do find it of relevant, non-trivial interest. FactStraight (talk) 14:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

In many cases a 5 generation ahnentafel is useful. In many cases it presents relevant information. As far as I can tell, this is not such a case. If there is valuable information to be gathered from the names of Jane Seymour's great-great-grandparents, something that helps readers understand the topic, then put it into prose. Do not leave readers to come up with their own interpretations of a bunch of unlinked names. If the point is that Jane Seymour's ancestry was mostly minor gentry, that is what we should say. Merely tossing out the name "Joan Coker of Lydeard St Lawrence" is ridiculously unhelpful. I also have to point out that you are directly contradicting WP:INDISCRIMINATE: "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia". Surtsicna (talk) 22:27, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

What is unhelpful is dismissing the opinions of your fellow editors here as ridiculous. We are discussing a disagreement about how Wikipedia's guidelines are to be interpreted and applied to this article. Treating the views of others as frivolous is neither persuasive nor respectful. FactStraight (talk) 01:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

No-one is disputing that some description of family background is beneficial. However, remote ancestors that have no bearing at all on the article's topic and that are never discussed in relation to the topic in reliable sources about the topic should be excluded. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:03, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

No, it looks like that source is self-published. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:03, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

It's worth noting here that Celia Homeford recently reverted the removal of the tag in question by Paine Ellsworth on the grounds that "it's not the inclusion of the family tree that is in dispute, it's the excessive number of generations." Really? Because all of the discussion above here seems to have to do with what Wikipedia considers appropriate for inclusion. As far as I can tell Wikipedia guidelines say nothing about the number of generations genealogical charts should include. Flyte35 (talk) 16:06, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. They do not, which is why I am puzzled by your insistence to include as many as five, and even in cases where the great-great-grandparents are disputed or obviously irrelevant to the understanding of the subject. Surtsicna (talk) 01:52, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

This discussion above seems to be somewhat ambiguous. "Excessive" is an inherently vague adjective. But the tag should probably be reserved for material that is objectively excessive. If your real argument is just that genealogical charts in Wikipedia should include only four generations, well, OK. You can go ahead and make that argument. It's an arbitrary cut-off point, however, and not supported by Wikipedia guidelines. Flyte35 (talk) 16:22, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

If "excessive" is an inherently vague adjective, then surely there can be no such thing as objectively excessive. My argument is that each article should contain only relevant and useful information; in some cases it would be beneficial to have six generations, in some only four, and in some no ahnentafel is needed. This is supported by the above mentioned policies and guidelines. Your one-size-fits-all 5 generation cut-off point is not supported by any guideline. Surtsicna (talk) 22:27, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Neither 4 nor 5 generations is explicitly supported or deprecated by any guideline, and each side believes its point of view falls within them. The article's editors are engaging in a discussion about how to apply guidelines and editorial judgment here. The guideline won't decide that. We will. FactStraight (talk) 01:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Well it seems to me if the real question here is about the number of generations genealogical charts in Wikipedia should contain this discussion is, as User:Paine Ellsworth says above, really more appropriate for an RfC. Considering the 5 generation ahnentafel is quite common in articles about historical dynastic subjects, the overly detailed tag here seems essentially arbitrary. Flyte35 (talk) 16:11, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Often when a few editors cannot agree, getting input from more editors results in consensus one way or another. Just be aware that the ensuing discussion and consensus might not always be to your liking; however, whether or not I've liked it, I've always respected the consensual outcome. Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  16:56, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Here in this discussion thus far I've seen "no consensus", and that usually means that the status quo should reign free. An RfC gives those who want to effect a change the opportunity to garner consensus for the change. Best to everyone! Paine Ellsworth, ed.  ^put'r there  17:07, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 August 2021

The article states, “By Christmas 1536, Jane was pregnant, but she lost the child.” Delete this or say something like “some historians suspect Jane may have been pregnant and lost a child.”

There is no evidence to suggest Jane Seymour was ever pregnant more than once or that she ever suffered a miscarriage. Her only known pregnancy was with Edward VI, who was born in October 1537. There is supposition that Jane may have conceived earlier in her marriage and suffered miscarriages, but no evidence beyond a select few historian’s pondering. 2601:1C2:1:800:5CDB:F785:5F60:F1A7 (talk) 08:10, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done The source is this: "The Manuscripts of His Grace the Duke of Rutland: Letters and papers, 1440–1797 (v.3 mainly correspondence of the fourth Duke of Rutland). v.4. Charters, cartularies, &c. Letters and papers, supplementary. Extracts from household accounts. H.M. Stationery Office, 1888, p 310". Are you saying this unreliable? I must admit I do not have a copy to hand. But who are those few historians? If they are notable, perhaps their ponderings could be clearly attributed? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 08:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 September 2021

Suggest changing:

She died of postnatal complications less than two weeks after the birth of her only child, later King Edward VI.

to

She died of postnatal complications less than two weeks after the birth of her only child, the future King Edward VI.

which reads better to me. 109.152.42.225 (talk) 19:01, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 20:45, 8 September 2021 (UTC)