Talk:Jane Seymour

Latest comment: 12 days ago by Zaslav in topic Appearance

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

edit

  This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2022 and 6 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hdgoble.

"Also known as Jane Semel"

edit

I've never seen the Seymour family being referred to as "Semel". I know spelling of names hasn't been standardized back then, but I find it odd that this variant (probably used only by one, non-native speaker in a private letter) warrants an "also known as" in the lede of the article (for comparison: not even the several, well documented variants of the Boleyn name merit a mention in the first sentence of Anne's article). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:AB88:2A0D:5B80:1461:586B:4328:951C (talk) 17:57, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Noticed this as well, especially since it was referred to prominently in the first sentence of the lead (but no where else in the article). It appears that only Imperial Abassador Eustace Chapuys referred to her as "Jane Semel" in his letters. Whether this was an his error, or an error of translation, it is still an error made only by a single person. I don't believe there is enough weight to merit the line "also referred to as" in the lead sentence. While this was simply was not her name, it leads to the widespread misunderstanding that it was was, as this page, especially the lead, is picked up by so many site mirrors, that don't go on to clarify the error and what lead to it. I've moved the mention of the errorneous name to the article body, after the first mention of Chapuys, where is coincidentally notes his making mention of her. - wolf 18:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)Reply
I agree that the article does not need to lead with "also known as Jane Semel" if it is very rarely or never used in the scholarship and was only used by a few people as a mistake or mistranslation. Does it need to be included in the article at all if it is used so rarely? CmisterHistorian (talk) 22:42, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Semi-protected edit request on 2 June 2022

edit

HistoricalWyd (talk) 21:15, 2 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

What are you proposing? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Ancestors of Jane Seymour (including great great grandparents) HistoricalWyd (talk) 05:34, 3 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Why? They're mostly not notable, which is why we don't have articles about them. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:19, 7 June 2022 (UTC)Reply

Ancestry

edit

Semi-protected edit request on 22 October 2022

edit

Queen Jane Seymore is mentioned in the book The Lady Elizabeth by Alison Weir Queen Jane Seymore is mentioned in the book My Lady of Cleves by Margaret Campbell Barnes Diane harris71 (talk) 22:04, 22 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Also, any additions will need to be supported be independent secondary sources to demonstrate that it is noteworthy. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:13, 23 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

Date of birth

edit

Are there no records for Jane Seymour’s birth? It seems odd that we don’t have at least a baptismal record. LostInHistoria (talk) 19:00, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

She was born before English parishes were required (in 1538) to keep a record of baptisms. Before that date, it is more likely that no written record survives.Sbishop (talk) 19:23, 21 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
I find it amazing that there is no complete record of where exactly she was born as well as specifically what year. The speculation makes the image of her all the more intriguing given that when she was married and when she passed, she could have been quite a few ages. Historianmummy (talk) 17:50, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply
It's not uncommon - Anne Boleyn's year of birth is not known with any certainty. As to where, she was almost certainly born in the family home, like most children of the time; but no-one would have thought it worth recording the fact. Sbishop (talk) 21:41, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Semi-protected edit request on 19 May 2023

edit

Missing citation 12 1204. Mary to Jane Seymour in British Papers Henry *8th https://www.british-history.ac.uk/letters-papers-hen8/vol10/pp504-530 TheBardIreland (talk) 07:38, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Heart (talk) 07:42, 19 May 2023 (UTC)Reply

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2024

edit

Add to "In popular culture: In film and on stage":

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. MadGuy7023 (talk) 17:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2024

edit

Please add the category Category:Mothers of monarchs. 2601:249:9301:D570:9012:4870:54CD:5F95 (talk) 23:12, 11 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Done Liu1126 (talk) 01:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Appearance

edit

The current article says 'According to Chapuys, she was of middling stature and very pale; he also said that she was not of much beauty, but Russell said she was "the fairest of all the King's wives".' Can Russell have meant by "fair" her pale coloring? It's a fair use of the word (pun intended; sorry)? I suggest this plausible reading because there may be no contradiction despite the "but". 18:54, 9 November 2024 (UTC) Zaslav (talk) 18:54, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply