This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
Add any additional comments
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)
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)
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)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
Add any additional comments
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)
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)
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)