![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I edited the lead section to attempt to summarize the main points of the article. Open to suggestions. Srbsf7 14:29, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To whom this may concern, Lady Arbella was never "Lady Beauchamp" because her husband's elder brother was still alive at the time and did not in fact die until after the death of Lady Arbella in 1618, three years after. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.240.178 (talk) 04:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Today a new "chapter" of Arbella's life has been added by John Baker, based on his discoveries elaborated in Notes & Quires, September 1997, (Vol. 44, #3., 369-70) now widely accepted by Arbella's biographers. Anyone changing this material is deleting important new information about her life and times. The record shows that Boas and Nicholl both wrongly rejected this chapter, based on a lack of knowledge of the whereabouts of Arbella during the 1589-92 period. John Baker, Ph.D. (abd), has been widely published in peer reviewed journals for two decades, has presented papers at Oxford and Cambridge and is webmaster of the most frequently visited site on Marlowe as Shakespeare [[1]]which features several essays on Arbella, along with portraits of her. I will be most happy to discuss these changes and the need for them with anyone. Indeed the new edition of the DNB has been revised to take note of them. John Baker
Note removed from main article --- Note: The following "chapter" of Arbella's life has been added by John Baker, based on his discoveries elaborated in Notes & Quires, September 1997, (Vol. 44, #3., 369-70) now widely accepted by Arbella's biographers. Anyone changing this material is deleting important new information about her life and times. The record shows that Boas and Nicholl both wrongly rejected this chapter, based on a lack of knowledge of the whereabouts of Arbella during the 1589-92 period. John Baker, Ph.D. (abd), has been widely published in peer reviewed journals for two decades, has presented papers at Oxford and Cambridge and is webmaster of the most frequently visited site on Marlowe as Shakespeare [[2]]which features several essays on Arbella, along with portraits of her.
Well in that case you must be the foolish person who quoted the suggestion that Thomas Morley's son was Arbella's tutor. If you'd done the maths (why is it that these types don't do maths?) you'd have noticed that Thomas Morley was born c. 1558, or far too late, to have had a son who could have been this Morley. Unless he went through puberty at age five. I know the professor whose biography you cited and am hardly surprised she didn't do her math either.
The point is that ONLY the POET, Christopher Marlowe (b. 1563/4) attended and then left a university setting at the date suggested by Bess's letter.
Now next, N&Q is a "peer reviewed" format. Letters are not simply printed. They pass through a rigrious selection process before they are printed and the bulk of them are rejected.
More importantly since the publication, which cited new and origianl research and brought to light mistakes in bench mark studies of Arbella's and Marlowe's lives, such as Durant's and Boas', NO scholar has suggested that either the evidence Durant's discoveries set aside Boas' objections to Bess's "one Morley" being Marlowe. That's a lot better than just a few "peers" reviewing an essay or letter. That's thousands of scholars who have had a chance for nearly a decade to refute what I discovered or not. Their muteness prove my point.
The text you cited simply hadn't connected the dots. If it had, it would NEVER have suggested that a six year old Thomas Morley fathered, c. 1564, a son who was in 1589 Arbella's "attendant" and "reader."
Yes my web pages are the world's foremost webpages on Marlowe, based on "hits." They contain over 100 essays, and the bulk of it is "self-published," but I've been published in peer-reviewed journals, including Literary and Linguistic Computing, The Elizabethian Review, and N&Q.
I also correct mistakes brought to my attention by the many readers. I make mistakes. But hardly as foolish as this one by "The Singing Badger..." (:}) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.10.194.230 (talk • contribs).
Hello there John Baker (sorry if I got your name wrong), it was me that put the welcome message on your user page. I've been reading your points and must admit that I don't know that much about Arbella so I'm not really able to comment on them, but I've noticed that some of the 'side comments' in your posts and edit summaries might affect how your changes will be viewed if it comes down to a vote deciding whether your changes should be included. On Wikipedia we are careful not to make 'personal attacks' like calling each other foolish or jerks, as doing so can reduce these talk pages to flamewars instead of simple debates on the facts, and users reading the comments might assume they are being made because it is simpler to attack the person who disagress with you rather than debate the facts. You can find out more at WP:NPA Have fun with wikipedia! Kaid100 20:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This paragraph is on the main page, it says the reason the page has a disputed tag. This was written by User:John_Baker,_Ph.D._(abd)
As I have said before I am not an expert on Arbella Stuart and I know relatively little about Marlowe, but I'd like to ask you/John Baker a few questions if I may:
First of all you say that only Christopher Marlowe left university at the time suggested by Bess' dispatch. Did only one person leave university that year? Or was Marlowe the only one to leave with a name that sounds a bit like Morley? Does the note specify that Morley left university a only shortly before the note was written, or could it have been any time before? Must this 'Morley' be someone who is otherwise well-known, or could he simply be a nobody who is only notable for being Arbella's tutor? You mention that it is impossible that Thomas Morley's son could have been Arbella's tutor. Does that mean that only Marlowe could have been?
You also mention that your paper hasn't been challenged by any experts. This could be important, but it doesn't prove anything in itself: It could simply mean that no experts noticed it or thought it important enough to talk about. Have any experts actually endorsed it or cited from it in their own paper?
Also, you describe the Singing Badger as a Stratfordian. I understand that is a term used by people that believe Shakespeare did not write the plays ascribed to him to describe people that do. Are you yourself among the people that believe that Shakespeare didn't write his plays? Is this line of reasoning about Arbella one that leads to Marlowe as the author of Shakespeare's plays?
I must stress these questions and comments are not intended as any sort of attack on you personally, but only intended to establish the facts. Kaid100 18:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As those who complete and defend a dissertation learn, it is unwise to claim a PhD until you actually have one. Becoming ABD is an achievement in itself. However, the completion of the dissertation and defense is an equally important, mind-altering step in the scholarly process, and those who have gone through those steps realize the difference.
As an ABD scholar, Mr. Baker is entitled to certain puppy privileges. Nonetheless, it's important to understand the significant distinction between a letter and a peer-reviewed article: such articles are not just reviewed and selected but almost always revised during the review process in light of questions and criticisms from the reviewers. Like the dissertation defense, the peer-review *process* is essential to the production of a certain kind of scholarship. The issue is not whether a point has been "refuted" (which is probably not possible on a topic like this) but rather whether it has been taken up and integrated into a larger fabric of serious work on this and related subjects, even if it remains controversial. Acute questions and critical remarks are part of the work of serious scholarship.
NB "Notes and Quires" is really "Notes and Queries." It's not good to misspell the title of the journal you cite, as it indicates a worrisome level of carelessness.
It's not that one needs a PhD to do good work. But it's a bad idea to invoke the apparent authority of a PhD without the knowledge, skills and understanding of scholarly processes that acquiring the degree should ensure.
Elenchus2 (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea about the validity of Mr. Baker's academic credentials, but the case he makes for Marlowe being the most likely - indeed, the only likely - candidate to have been Arabella Stuart's tutor is absolutely correct. It is known that he was working as a spy for the English government, and was probably sending information about her to Sir Francis Walsingham and/or Lord Burghley. As Mr. Baker pointed out in these notes, there is no other person who would have left Cambridge or Oxford during this time period whose name could possibly have been rendered "Morley." And I certainly do not think this bit of information should be dismissed as original research, as it has never been refuted and can be found on many reputable internet sites.Daver852 (talk) 02:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)daver852[reply]
In response to Daver852, even if it is "absolutely correct" that Marlowe was Stuart's tutor, any reference to that effect in the main article will require a valid citation. That given, in response to your other points, how do we know how broad the "time period" is that Morley left Oxbridge? It could be immediately before (John Baker's assumption) but it could have been thirty years before. Secondly, how do you know there is no other person with a name close to Morley that left university in that period? Do we have a copy of the list of graduates for those years? Just because Marlowe is the only person otherwise known to history in that era, doesn't mean that there aren't others who lived in obscurity. Before responding, please consider that any debate on this is moot unless we have a valid citation, Wikipedia cannot 'decide' here the truth of facts, only report on what is said elsewhere. 82.17.208.52 (talk) 08:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have attempted to tidy up the mess that this article has become. I have added a lot of citation requests. I removed most of the material about Marlowe, keeping only the stuff relevant to Arbella; I will place the rest into the Christopher Marlowe article. I removed the stuff claiming Aemilia Lanier didn't write her poem, which was not supported by any citations and seemed like eccentric original research. The Singing Badger 17:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
---
This is about tag cleanup. As all of the tags are more than a year old, there is no current discussion relating to them, and there is a great deal of editing done since the tags were placed, or perhaps there is a consensus on the discussion page, they will be removed. This is not a judgement of content. If there is cause to re-tag, then that of course may be done, with the necessary posting of a discussion as to why, and what improvements could be made. This is only an effort to clean out old tags, and permit them to be updated with current issues if warranted.Jjdon (talk) 21:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am looking for historical proof that Arbella had children by Seymour.
- No historical proof, but speculation that Mary Dyer was the result of their marriage, given off to one of her ladies in waiting (Mary's mother in law). The records and letters passed back and forth show Arabella's medical conditions during the period similar to pregnancy, combined with James I's ambiguous wording about any products of the match not being a threat to his legitimacy. But no historical or incontrovertable proof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.94.163.36 (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article on Arbella Stuart mentions — but does not identify by name — a Duke of Parma, a Pope, a cardinal who was the Pope's brother, as well as the kings of France, Spain and Poland. I want to identify and make links for the Pope, cardinal and kings mentioned in the article.
My sketchy memory of the names of European leaders of the late 16th and early 17th centuries makes me ask these questions:
I would appreciate someone who knows more about the period to find out and add the appropriate links to the article. Many thanks.
— Diamantina 05:02, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This section seemed to be total nonsense, based on some family legend. I've commented it out, except for a statement that most sources say they had no children. john k 14:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just because you feel it to be total nonsense does not mean that could not be true. The Garrett family was an important family at one time, many things were written about them and like many families they have their ideas as to where they come from. Therefore the idea should be presented. The source states that Mary was of royal blood. Well, there was only so many people she could be descended from at that time. It also states that because of her marriage she would have been disinherited, so there would not be a lot of evidence to her background as her family took her out of the picture.
I myself study history and geneaology of families, which is why when I found this theory it seemed exciting to present.
I simply can not understand the huge upset nor the harm of leaving it up. There are many theories presented on this site about things that go against what we thought we knew. No one takes them down and yet this one seems to have really put people up in arms. I find that very interesting.
In any event, the point was to bring up a new theory and idea for people think about, it was not meant to offend or cause people get upset. Whether it be nonsense or has some truth to it, people make their own decisions and seemed worth mentioning. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RosePlantagenet (talk • contribs) 17:20, 12 August 2006.
I agree! They did not have a kid together. Most sources say that they did not. Dose anyone have any historical evidence?
No, I do not see it as an attack. :p I simply did not understand the upset, until you explained the reasons. I do not fully agree with the reasons but if it is how the website is run, then so be it. If it upsets people or if hurts the crediablity of this site then fine suppose it should not be up there.
Recently, I have been trying to gather up all my sources from my geneaology history, and I know some direct descendents, very well actually, who would strongly disagree that it is not true and unimportant. it is ashame.
I, however, believe that no amount of sources will convince anyone. As you said, it is a minor thing whether there is proof or no proof. Unfortunately, sometimes it seems geneaology and history collide. Anyway, seeing as how it has bothered so many, I have taken it out.
Thank you for not getting too upset and explaining the rules. ^_^! RosePlantagenet 19:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I just feel bad for the direct descendents. RosePlantagenet19:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in theory you would be correct. However, the Garretts were a very powerful and weathly family who came from England during the 1600s. I find it highly unlikely they would simply lie about their origins. Especially, about a woman who has no power and would have married a man far below her station.
Everyone keeps saying evidence and saying it would have to be in sources, well whether people choose to believe it or not, not everything back then was documented 100% correctly. You can not just assume everything is down to the letter.
Just because many sources say she did not exist does not mean she could not have. On the article about Queen Victoria, someone suggests that she may not be the daughter of the Duke of Kent (That is still up oddly), and I have never read anything to say that but anything is possible. So, the possibitly of Arbella and William having as daughter is not far fetched. Unless we go back in time can we be so sure?
All I can say about this woman is, her name was Mary and she married John Garrett. She was of royal blood (only so many people she could have been related too) but because of her marriage she was written out by her family. So, it would be unlikely you would easily find anything about her. I, like you, believed it could not be true. However, I have studied other royal families from that time descended from the English royal family and found nothing. However, this woman did exist. Most geneaological records say she did. It is interesting that William Seymour named another daughter Mary not to long after, this Mary would have married and been disinherited. Both Mary's would have lived and died about the same time.
Is it her? My evidence says it is, and I know people who believe that they are direct descendents from her. You and others say no. The fact we are debating about this tells me that it is something that has sparked interest because it turned into a strong debate. I would have never put it up had I known it would create such an upset. Which means, to me, there is a bit of uncertainity.
I will only close with saying that if this theory is something that the runners of this site would prefer people not read, while that is ashame, it is down now. No harm is done. I will not be placing it back up.
RosePlantagenet 17:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The section on Literary Legacy contains a paragraph about the King James version of the Bible, and that 9 out of 10 words in the KJV were taken from William Tyndale's earlier translation. Does this have anything whatsoever to do with Arbella, or is it a typo? If there is some connection there, it needs to be established. Right now it seems like a total nonsequitor. Amity150
Please would someone explain the lady's alternative names or spellings? I suppose spelling was simply inexact? I have only heard of her (and indeed the name generally) as Arabella, but I am no historian. Could we have some sources please? Jezza (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[3] and [4] Dougweller (talk) 17:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which Lennox was suggested for her husband in 1588, when she was 13? The article currently says Ludovic Stewart, 2nd Duke of Lennox (1574-1624) (succeeded to the Dukedom in 1583); but we also have an article Esmé Stuart, 2nd Duke of Lennox, which claims that he was the proposed husband.
It's not clear whether the latter is an error for the actual 2nd Duke, ie Ludovic; or whether his younger brother Esmé Stewart, 3rd Duke of Lennox (1579 – 1624) (succeeded briefly to the dukedom in 1624) might have been intended.
At the moment the article cites Sarah Gristwood's Arbella: England's Lost Queen, p. 109: "In 1588 and again the following year King James, frantic for alternatives to the ever-threatened Farnese alliance, suggested that Arbella should marry Ludovic Stuart, son of his first favourite Esmé"
To try to track where the confusion with Esmé may have come from, here are some hits from Google for "Arabella Stuart" with "Esmé Stuart":
(more to follow) Jheald (talk) 13:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]