Talk:Jane Seymour

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Royalty and nobility work group.

Contents

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)