Talk:Alice de Lacy, Countess of Lincoln

Why 3rd? Surely she's the 4th?

Her father was the 3rd Earl. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

name change

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 moved. --BDD (talk) 17:07, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Alice de Lacy, 3rd Countess of Lincoln → Alice de Lacy, 4th Countess of Lincoln – her father was the 3rd Earl, so how can she be the 3rd countess? Relisted. BDD (talk) 20:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC) Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:09, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment and very weak oppose on available evidence wouldn't it be natural for Earls and Countesses to be counted separately, seeing as they are different titles? From Earl of Lincoln#Earls of Lincoln, Fourth Creation (1217) there appear to have been three earls and two countesses in the line prior to Alice, hence it would be natural to consider her the third countess. Please could you explain (with supporting sources if you have any) why you think she is the fourth countess? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 22:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

  Comment: judging from the article you link to, it appears that the 1st and 2nd earls shared their titles with their wives, the wives thus receiving the same numerals as their husbands. Alice de Lacy, however, is not the wife of the 3rd earl, but the daughter. Additionally, it would not be advisable to keep separate numerals for the countesses, as that would make it hard to determine the correct generation for a person. Imagine a 4th countess as the daughter of the 17th earl, in turn the son of the 3rd countess. It would be illogical and confusing. HandsomeFella (talk) 08:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

• Relisting comment As an American, I wouldn't really know, but Amakuru's concern seems valid. Are we just misunderstanding? --BDD (talk) 20:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support (unless other evidence emerges): see for instance Flora Fraser, 21st Lady Saltoun. Her father was the 20th Lord Saltoun. Only male heir died young. HandsomeFella (talk) 21:04, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Other evidence Philippa, 5th Countess of Ulster - there was never a 1st, 2nd or 3rd countess (who was not just the wife of an earl). Isabel de Clare, 4th Countess of Pembroke - there was never a 1st, 2nd or 3rd countess (who was not just the wife of an earl). Anne O'Brien, 2nd Countess of Orkney - there was never a 1st countess (who was not just the wife of an earl). Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:02, 17 July 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.

Careful with 'rape'

Some of the editorializing in this article is based on a misunderstanding of medieval 'rape', which does not mean the same thing as the modern term. There is a significant scholarly record on the range of occurrences it could be used to cover in medieval England. The term meant "to seize and take away by force," but force is in the eye of the beholder, and more to the point, the eye of the complainant who often wasn't the 'victim'. It could refer to any number of violations of the social order involving a woman and a man to whom they were not married at the time of the offense. In addition to the mundane extramarital affair, when another man helped a woman escape her abusive husband or when her husband was squandering her inheritance, that could be called 'rape'. No actual sexual congress need have occured. When two teenagers ran away together, that could be called 'rape'; when a widow took up with her boy-toy and her family feared the loss of lands to him, that could be called 'rape', and when (as happened in this case) a widow was 'abducted' by her lover to marry without the required royal permission, that could be called 'rape'. Note that the force involved is not necessarily directed against the woman, but may be directed against her 'legitimate' caretaker (as defined by medieval law), or even against the social order, and that in all these cases the complainant was not the woman involved, but the person who viewed themselves disadvantaged by the fully voluntary events. Likewise, 'rape' could be claimed when a woman was abducted and held against her will to gain access to her lands or moneys, or as part of a family squabble, or to force her to consent to some agreement against her will, with no sexual intercourse taking place. And, of course, when a woman was raped (modern sense), that was also rape (medieval sense). This makes it very difficult to attribute motivations unless there is explicit testimony of the woman herself, and this rarely survives. Unfortunately, the blog post (not a WP:RS) that serves as one of the major sources here seems unaware of this body of work, and is looking at it through the lens of the modern definition, and while it may be reasonably trustworthy in laying out the chronology, the same cannot be said for the interpretation it attributes to these events, let alone editorializing further and removing the part of a quote from a scholar that provides a more nuanced view. As an example, to say, as this article did, "that she was forced into marriage is strongly suggested by the haste in which the unlicensed marriage occurred" misses a much more mundane explanation - people who elope marry quickly thereafter, by choice. Agricolae (talk) 16:35, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 28 November 2020

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 discussion.

The result of the move request was: Non-contested move (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 20:06, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

---

Alice de Lacy, 4th Countess of Lincoln → Alice de Lacy, Countess of Lincoln – She's listed at Earl of Lincoln as the 5th Countess. The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography says her father was the 5th Earl[1]. As shown by the discussion above in the first requested move, there's confusion over the numbering. Unnecessary disambiguation: there are no other Countesses of Lincoln called Alice de Lacy. DrKay (talk) 21:16, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.