Talk:Mary Seymour

Untitled

The bulk of this article seems to be fictional, written as fact. I can't verify that the reference actually exists. I deleted everything below the top paragraph, but if anyone can verify any of this information, feel free to change it back. johnpseudo 17:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• A recent IP address has added a family story with no sources. Should I leave it with all the questions of "according to whom" or delete the paragraph which was poorly written? Most of this article is fictional stories. It's rather sad after all the research that has actually been done on Mary that people must come on Wikipedia and share their family fables. This has been happening a lot lately. -- Lady Meg (talk) 00:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

If it's unsourced it can be deleted. Most scholars and biographers have concluded that Mary sadly never lived past childhood. As the daughter of Queen Elizabeth's stepmother and a member of the powerful ducal Seymour family, Mary could never have lived in obscurity and quietly married into minor gentry. We must not let sentimental and romantic speculation cloud our judgement. Yes, it would have been interesting had at least one of Henry VIII's wives left behind descendants; alas, the evidence is not there.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following is a closed 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 Move. Duja 09:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Mary Seymour (Chatsworth) → Mary Seymour – No other Mary Seymour Kurando | ^_^ 15:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC) Kurando | ^_^ 15:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Survey

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

• Support - Per request Morphh ^(talk) 15:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Support - Sure, go ahead johnpseudo 15:54, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

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.

Mary Seymour never past at the age of 2. She was casted out because of her relation to Elizabeth and Thomas. she left England and came to America to eventually marry an Otey of Dorris California. she is my grandmother. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cameronjones1993 (talk • contribs) 21:30, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

No Hard Evidence of Mary Seymour's Death Date

Normally churches of the time kept records of births, marriages and deaths. Has any scholar ever searched for Mary Seymour's death record in churches close to the Duchess of Suffolk's estate? It is odd that the child of a queen and a famous adventurer/aristocrat would have quietly disappeared. If the Duchess of Suffolk resented being saddled with guardianship of the child, as has been documented, it is possible she farmed her out quietly and the child grew up in obscurity. Younggoldchip (talk) 16:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

I just put in a citation needed for her death date. There is no death date. We have no clue what happened to her. It’s been speculated that she died by Linda Porter. We should probably take out a speculative death date and just have a birthdate. Lady Meg (talk) 07:29, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Few places in England have complete parish records from that time. I don't know if anyone has ever done a search specifically for her. I'd be surprised if not, but I'd also be surprised if such a record exists. Renerpho (talk) 20:09, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Old Elizabethan texts, and the historian S. Joy

The paragraph that I have just removed[1] was added in October 2010,[2] removed the same day,[3] and then reinstated a few days later.[4] It was not touched ever since, apart from the two "citation needed" tags that were added in March 2014.[5] The summary of that last edit reads "what a mess!", and I concur.

I have strong doubts that a historian S. Joy ever existed; or that the alleged references in "old Elizabethan texts" are real. I am not the first one to suggest this,[6] but for some reason the claims have survived unchallenged in the article until the present day.

I think the entire paragraph is complete bogus, but if anyone has input, please comment. Renerpho (talk) 11:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)