Talk:Dorothy Vernon

Date of Marriage

Dorothy Vernon must have married John Manners in or before 1557. In the will of John Slater of Aylestone, dated 1557 (unfortunately the exact date was not stated on the document), the testator Slater at the bottom of the page states that he owes money to "my lady maners" - which can only refer to Dorothy Vernon. He also stated that he owed money to "gorge varno[n]" (ie, her brother George Vernon or her father of the same name) and his own son Richard. John2o2o2o (talk) 08:42, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

This is interesting, but you cannot simply assert this. You need to cite public, published sources (please give all the bibliographic details), that show very clearly that the two sources given currently in the article are wrong as to the date. Please see WP:RS for more information about what sources are acceptable in this encyclopedia. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

[John2o2o2o wrote elsewhere: The will of John Slater of Aylestone is held in the Record Office for Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland. It is listed in the "Calendars of Wills and Administrations Relating to the County Of Leicester Proved in the Archdeaconry Court of Leicester 1495-1649" as transcribed and indexed by Henry Hartopp. The will is indexed on page 35 of this publication under the year 1557. There is a copy of this book available online, however if you want to access the will itself you will have to visit the record office and inspect it yourself or telephone the record office who will provide a copy for a fee.]

Oh dear! Look SSlivers. Firstly. This is the discussion page. You will note that I have not made any attempt to edit the main page and for this reason. The guidelines do not surely apply to the discussion pages, otherwise nothing would ever be discussed! Secondly. Give me a chance! I only posted this yesterday. I myself am the source and it is from original research. I will cite the reference for your information. However, I will not edit the main page.

The source is the will of John Slater of Aylestone held in the Record Office for Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland. The will is listed in the "Calendars of Wills and Administrations Relating to the County Of Leicester Proved in the Archdeaconry Court of Leicester 1495-1649" as transcribed and indexed by Henry Hartopp. The will is indexed on page 35 of this publication under the year 1557. There is a copy of this book available online, however if you want to access the will itself you will have to visit the record office and inspect it yourself or telephone the record office who will provide a copy for a fee.

I checked the document again yesterday and can confirm the date. There is an inventory attached to the will, which is dated 10th November in the fifth year of the reign of Mary and fourth of Philip, ie, 10th November 1557. Therefore the marriage must have taken place before this date. An inventory is usually taken within days of the death. Mr Slater's burial date cannot be ascertained as the parish register does not being until 1561.

I am not going to say anything further about this matter. Do what you will with this information. Thank you. John2o2o2o (talk) 10:03, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

It is fine to discuss it here. The prohibition on WP:OR applies only in the article itself, not here on the Talk page. David Trutt's research indicates that this is a mistake: Dorothy Vernon was born in 1545. She was 12 years old in 1557. Dorothy's older sister married in 1558, but Dorothy did not marry until 1563, when she was 18 years old: http://www.haddon-hall.com/HaddonHallBooks/DorothyVernon.pdf -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

No. David Trutt's research does not say that this is a mistake. I have read somewhere that there is a legend that Dorothy was supposedly married in 1558. That is perhaps what David Trutt was for some reason refuting.

My interest is not in Dorothy Vernon in any case, but in Aylestone. I just happened to come across the statement by Slater as part of my studies and put it here as it represents fresh evidence concerning the marriage of Dorothy Vernon.

I doubt that David Trutt ever saw the will of John Slater, which is not the source of the legend. And why would it be as the will is dated the year before anyway! The will is a 458 year old document. It is genuine. There is no reason why anybody would lie about this as it was simply the testator's statement that he owed her money. He refers to her by her married name so clearly she was married by that date. It is new evidence that clearly proves beyond question that Dorothy was married before 10th November 1557.

I'm sorry, but clearly David Trutt was wrong. I am a professional researcher in historical records. The record is a genuine one. I don't know what Haddon Hall has to do with it, they don't have a monopoly on the truth of the matter.

Dorothy is not stated to be certainly born in 1545. Even here that is an estimate. "c" means "circa" ie, "about". She could have been legally married at the age of 12 at that time, but that is a little unlikely. I think in the light of this new evidence that the date of her birth is in fact probably a little earlier than 1545. Probably more like about 1540, but again that is an estimate. I doubt that there is any concrete record of the exact date of her birth surviving anywhere.

Now please. Let this matter rest here - I don't know what more I can add. If you want to look at the will of John Slater yourself please follow my instructions above. Thank you. John2o2o2o (talk) 12:52, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

It really is regrettable when this sort of dilemma occurs. On the one hand we have first-hand expert research which says one thing, and on the other we have WP's requirement that we go by published secondary sources, and they seem to say something else. For my part, I find John2o2o2o's contentions very persuasive, but Ssilvers is right too: we are just not allowed to go on original research. At least the matter remains here for anyone who may want to see the discussion of the matter, and I think Wikipedia should be grateful to both parties above for their input. Tim riley talk 21:59, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, Tim. I should point out that I made no attempt to alter the main page of this article. I have used the talk page to discuss the matter. (However, what I have said can easily be verified!)

I think that this issue highlights one of the problems of Wikipedia. There is (thus far) an almost robotic adherence to the policy of referencing published resources. However, the publication of statements in magazine or book form does not in itself constitute evidence of reliability or accuracy. Far from it !

Ultimately the most reliable sources of information for matters of a historical nature are original, contemporary documents. There is no real substitute for these. Even then, there are times when, for political or selfish reasons, individuals may lie, but in this case, the context of the document and the date is evidence enough of reliability.

I think, indeed I hope that it will in time be recognised that original research, backed up (as in this case) by references that can easily be checked, is not only acceptable, but extemely valuable in improving the reputation of Wikipedia as an information resource.

I am very disappointed in general with Wikipedians and I find posting on Wikipedia - despite the fact that it is supposedly a place where any interested parties are free to edit articles - an extremely frustrating and generally very depressing experience. John2o2o2o (talk) 12:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I have now submitted an article for discussion on the wikipedia policy pages. It is (to me crass) that incorrect assertions on a printed source are still being displayed on the main page of this article, despite the fact that what I have said is easily verifiable - I challenge the reader to obtain the document that I have referred to above. John2o2o2o (talk) 09:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

If you (or anyone) were to write an article about the Will and publish it in a respected history journal, then we would happily cite it. But all we have so far are the assertions of an anonymous person on the internet (John2o2o2o) that the Will is authentic and means what you say it means. You really, really need to read this link: WP:RS. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

For anyone who is interested in the above, a copy of the will of John Slater can be obtained from Lecestershire Record Office for a small fee or inspected in person. Website address: http://www.leics.gov.uk/recordoffice

And now a message for "SSilvers", who has been harassing me over this matter. Dear sir/madam I am an adult. I am therefore your equal, whoever you are. I certainly have never heard of you. I object very strongly to the high handed manner in which you have chosen to address me and I also object very strongly to the dictatorial tone of your responses.

I have placed the above information here, on a talk page not for your benefit alone sir/madam, but for the benefit of anyone who has a passing interest in this (forgive me) very minor historical figure. Thank you. John2o2o2o (talk) 02:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I am a respected researcher in archives and despite being relatively young have a great many years experience of research both in a personal capacity (as here) and in a professional capacity working on behalf of clients for a fee. It is my right and my choice to be anonymous on Wikipedia. Thank you. John2o2o2o (talk) 09:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. It is partly because we are anonymous that Wikipedia requires that facts be presented and explained in secondary sources. I may be the greatest authority in the world on Shakespeare, but if I want to argue that some evidence found in an old Will means that Shakespeare's birthday was x, not y, then I need to cite recognized authorities who have written on the subject. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I have found myself on the wrong side of the 'original research' debate once or twice, but I understand now the importance of verifiable and reliable published secondary references. This protects Wikipedia from charges of being inaccurate and maintains its reputation as being a valid and reliable source. Jack1956 (talk) 19:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I sympathise with all my heart with any well-informed contributor who is frustrated by Wikipedia's rule that statements must be backed by published, reliable sources. I have been at lectures where I learned fascinating things that I'd love to pass on in the relevant WP articles, but cannot because the lectures were not transcribed and published and so don't meet WP's standards for verifiability. But the rules are sensible, however frustrating, and they are something up with which we have to put. Tim riley talk 22:03, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I return to the page after some absence to make a few more points. I think my problem is partly with the phrase "don't meet WP's standards", which is a bit insulting. And also with the statement 'published reliable'. Whether something published is 'reliable' or not is I would strongly suggest often a matter for debate in itself!

I am not really interested in trying to 'prove' myself or my point. The document that I refer to above is in the Record Office for Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland. It is a legally proved and valid will, which anyone is free to inspect. I'm not sure that actually even constitutes research. Is finding a printed source to quote from not equally "research"?

I have merely told people that there is a piece of paper, a genuine document which implies that Dorothy was married on or before November 1557. See it for yourself. There's really nothing else to discuss. It is a published, publicly available piece of paper. It is in the public domain. Wills once proved in a court of law have to be made available for anyone to inspect.

Surely there is no more reliable a source? I've quoted from it in exactly the same way that you might quote from any source. I don't understand your problem with it. I really don't.

I quote from Wikipedia:

"All reliable sources are, by definition, both published and accessible to at least some people. Sources that are not published (e.g., something someone said to you personally) or not accessible (e.g., the only remaining copy of the book is locked in a vault, with no one allowed to read it) are never acceptable as sources on Wikipedia."

The document I have referred to is PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE TO ALL as I have said a number of times now.

I think the problem here is partly that the original researcher for the main page is hostile to anything which challenges his (or her) views on the matter. And that is why he has reacted with such hostility to my original post. He is here just trying to manipulate the current Wikipedia rules to serve his own agenda.

Had this person reacted with enthusiasm to what I had said, but stated that he felt unable to put it on the main page due to the current limitations of Wikipedia rules, then I think would have been quite happy with that.

Wikipedia was created by private individuals for the use of all. Its rules are not laws. All rules are matters for debate and if and when a large enough concensus becomes convinced that a rule should be changed then a rule will be changed. Unfortunately I have neither the time, nor sufficient energy to keep banging on about this. If people want to bury their heads in the sand then that is up to them. John2o2o2o (talk) 18:00, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Dear John, Like all the others here, I am sorry you are having a hard time in trying to post something you know to be true, but which falls foul of our rules. Unfortunately we are governed by them – much as academics or researchers are governed by the rules of their own fields of study – and they are there for our protection. Wikipedia constantly suffers from incorrect information being added (even entire spoof articles have been created in the past), and so we have to demand information that comes from reliable, published third party sources. We are not a locus for original research and shy away from the pitfalls of WP:PRIMARY SOURCES wherever possible. – – SchroCat (talk) 08:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

[Left] By the way, it seems to me that "my lady maners", as of 1557, would likely have referred to Margaret Neville, the first wife of Henry Manners, 2nd Earl of Rutland, rather than Dorothy Manners. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:23, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

No. The Manners family had no connection to the parish of Aylestone before the marriage of Dorothy Vernon to John Manners. There is no reason for a relatively lowly individual in a small village to owe money to an aristocrat with no connection to his parish. His indebtedness would probably have been some form of rental for his cottage. Slater does not say it any more explicitly than stating 'my lady maners', so it is clear that everyone would have known to whom he was referring. And when he says 'my' lady that also indicates a connection of some sort to his parish. Underneath he stated that he also owed money to 'gorge varno[n]' (sic) and his own son Richard. ('Vernon' was clearly pronounced 'Varnon' as 'Derby' is pronounced 'Darby'). SSilvers why are you so hostile to my ideas? It's nothing personal. I was - I am - only interested in the truth of the matter. I wasn't trying to be clever or get at anyone. There's no money in it for me and there's no sort of personal capital to be gained from my 'anonymous' posting. I was just trying to be helpful when I made my first post last year. That's all. I have often wondered since that time if David Trutt was a close relative of yours whom you feel you have to defend. And, by the way, you do not own the editing rights to the main page on Dorothy Vernon. John2o2o2o (talk) 10:00, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say that although very clearly sincere and exceptionally well informed, John is still misunderstanding what various editors have been trying to explain about Wikipedia’s house rules. Questioning the bona fides of one of us is neither an acceptable nor a sensible response. Original research is admirable – indeed essential – in the right place, but that place is not Wikipedia, which draws on published material from reliable sources, for the reasons made clear by SchroCat, above. Happily, these exchanges will remain on record here; they will be by no means the first or last examples of interesting and relevant material inadmissible to an article but well worth flagging up as background, and accessible to anyone who is interested. – Tim riley talk 10:42, 17 March 2016 (UTC)