Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on September 4, 2023. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Just as a matter of interest, what is the source of the evidence for the breast cancer theory? Deb 12:38 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Are we sure we're not seeing a portrait of his son -- the mapmaker? Sparky 03:33, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
At its start, this article suggests that Dudley and Elizabeth met in the Tower of London. Later it states that they were friends from childhood. This inconsistency should be addressed.
But the Dudleys -- Leicester's father -- were not out of favor in the latter part of Henry's reign, which is when it is believed that Robert and Elizabeth first met, along with the other royal children. -- Hiraeth 01:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Was Leicester really the last governor before the German occupation?-- Anglius 03:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Arun 03:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
The page still implies Seyss-Inquart as a "successor" to Leicester. This is at best spurious. As above, there was no subsequent English governor of the Netherlands. [[[User:24.69.20.94|24.69.20.94]] 04:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)Steve Allen]
Being as how we're not mindreaders who lived with Elizabeth I (or I hope we aren't), how can we truly say she wished to marry him? She may have flirted with him a lot, but it isn't as if she said, "I wish I could have married Robert." I think we should change the first sentence, and I will do so if this isn't replied to soon. 68.79.11.47 16:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I changed his birthdate from June 24 1532 to September 7 1533. In Elizabeth Jenkin's Elizabeth and Leicester she adresses the issue and cites several sources that state Robert and Elizabeth were born on the same day. Since I could only find one mention of the June 24 birthday and no comtemporary sources on it, the September 7 date seems much more likely.
Leicester's date of birth is highly debatable. Contemporaries believed that he was born on the same day as Elizabeth, but this may have just been a fanciful rumour. June 24 the previous year is a recent calculation that seems more probable - especially since the earl was supposed to be older than her. It's a very debatable topic, and nobody can be sure, but don't you think it would be too much of a coincidence that they were born on the same day? I think the date should be kept as June 24, but the article needs to mention the question of his birthdate somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BRCScriptor ( talk • contribs) 12:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
There seems to be some confusion about the demise of Robert Dudley's first wife, Amy Robsart. Paragraph two in the intro states "He is said to have poisoned his first wife Amy Robsart.." while the first paragraph in "Relationship With Elizabeth" says "She had previously suffered from breast cancer, but she was ultimately killed by falling down a flight of stairs in her house." -- 72.68.227.212 ( talk) 18:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking we should add that it has been suggested he had a son with Elizabeth I. There is some very good evidence to suggest it. Im saying he definatley did or anything, but i think we should mention it somewhere in the article. Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chloe2kaii7 ( talk • contribs) 09:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I just would like to tell everybody, that since about 4 February 2009, I have practically rewritten this article, since it seemed to me in great need of amendment (there was also box asking for it). I have added lots of facts, dates, as well as some aspects (although within the framework of the old article as regards thematic scope. I have only made one new subdivision: Politics). However, I want to stress, that I have not taken away any quotations! In all cases, I could identify the original source from which the quote came. I have also given some references to facts mentioned in the original article, as there was no single reference (i.e.footnote) given in it. I have also put further quotations in the article, along with all the footnotes in there so far. Buchraeumer ( talk) 12:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
The article is substantial and has good pictures and references but has problems with an unencyclopedic subjective tone (the tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, see Neutral point of view) and many peacock terms. Hekerui ( talk) 23:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Robert Dudley was also Vicechancellor of Cambridge University from 1563 till 1588. This is not in the box, but I am afraid, I don't know how to put it in there. Also, I don't know the preceding holder of that office, neither the successor. So, if somebody wants to find out, please help! Thank you. Buchraeumer ( talk) 22:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Very detailed, fun to read....why isnt this a featured article? 77.250.25.165 ( talk) 17:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd would really regret to produce an edit war over this! But please, Doooglas, understand that the text in the lead of an article is not normally footnoted, as far as (uncontroversial) facts that are treated further down in the text are concerned. In the article section "Governor-General of the United Provinces" your issue is treated. The whole issue of his title in the Netherlands is a perfect example of Elizabeth's difficult character. I suppose the only thing that was uncontroversial about the entire episode was her boundless fury over Leicester's acceptance of the title Governor-General, although, it is true (but seldom mentioned), that the same title was earmarked for him in the Treaty of Nonsuch. Elizabeth's righteous indignation is mentioned in every summary or biography, so we cannot exclude it here in the lead! Buchraeumer ( talk) 14:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Reviewer: maclean ( talk) 04:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
The language is still unencyclopedic and the GA class questionable imo. Just one example picked at random: "His wife's and his father's shadows haunted his prospects." (I first thought this was an assertion about ghosts on some of his property, but this is merely flowery unencyclopedic language.) Hekerui ( talk) 18:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
4.249.63.202 ( talk) 23:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
The article makes absolutely no reference to Leicesters role in crushing the Northern Rebellion of 1569-70. This really ought to be included, since I gather from my limited reading that he was the leader of the queens army. Spidergareth ( talk) 12:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Though the article itself if amazing, I find the number of succession boxes at the bottom of this article to be excessive. Many of them are, in fact, useless, since Leicester's predecessors and successors are not named. We see only a big, black "Vacant" instead of those names. The succession box for his peerage title also seems unneccessary. If he was neither preceded nor succeeded by anyone, do we really need a succession box? Surtsicna ( talk) 17:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Just skimming through this article i've seen a couple sentences that kind of make sense, but are awkward to read like "She giving him reason to hope, he was a suitor for the Queen's hand for many years." I feel like this should be "For many years he was a suitor for the hand of the Queen, who had given him reason to hope." Also: "The craft of the courtier Robert learnt at the courts of Henry VIII and Edward VI." Again, it's a bit weird. Maybe change to "Robert learnt the craft of the courtier at the courts of Henry VIII and Edward VI." These sentences (and I'm sure there may be more) are just a bit confusing to read and at first I didn't think they made sense. I hope this helps. Otherwise, magnificent article! I'm researching Leicester's early life for something I'm writing and it's among the best info I can find on the web. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BRCScriptor ( talk • contribs) 12:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I am a little surprised at the pulling of the gallery I posted yesterday. The Dudley monuments at Warwick represent a widow's valedictory statement. As such I don't understand how they can be said to "toally break up" a biographical article, especially when placed between a section on the man's death and a section on later assessmanents of him. I think the choice of themes in the inscription and the decorations are highly significant and refelect or comment on many of the points made in the article. For example, I find the inscription's insistence on his pedigree and his father's achievements, to the extent of overloading the syntax, highly significant. I think there is a much greater emphasis on his role in the Netherlands - not an entirely successful venture - than we might expect. I think the rapacious attitude to heraldry, taking in emblems of even the remotest relevance, is noteworthy. There is also the simple fact that Lettice Knollys chose to be buried and memorialised here, although she had 3 husbands, and that she chose to be portrayed - very convincingly and surely from life - at the age she did, when she lived to be 90.
I am pleased to see that there are literate and vigilant people looking after this page, although clearly I have offended by contributing to what is no ordinary wikipedia page but personal property. Rest assured I shall stay away from now on. Sjwells53 ( talk) 10:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Under Love affairs and remarriage, it says:
An official investigation conducted by Henry Sidney, Lord Deputy of Ireland and Leicester's brother-in-law, did not find any indications of foul play but "a disease appropriate to this country ... whereof ... died many"
Was Henry Sidney Leicester's brother-in-law, or were Henry Sidney and Leicester's brother-in-law two different people? It's difficult to tell because the rest of the article was poorly punctuated.
Thanks. Inglok ( talk) 11:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
The comma in "Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester" and similar cases is part of the name. Some writers omit it altogether ("Robert Dudley Earl of Leicester" etc.). Wouldn't this be the better altenative, instead of treating this part of the name as an independent part of the sentence? Buchraeumer ( talk) 11:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
For a non-expert (on English names and titles of nobility) it is rather confusing in the text of this article that the names Dudley and Leicester are used intermittently for one and the same man. Sort of like using Charles and Wales back and forth in an article about the Queen's eldest son. Can something be done about that? Seems to me we could pick one of the names and stick to it throughout the text. Am I wrong? -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 16:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
There seems be two different people:
and
Wikipedia only has one page for them both. – Talk about confusing ( talk) 02:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Robert Dudley, 1st Earl of Leicester has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||
| ||||||||||
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on September 4, 2023. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Just as a matter of interest, what is the source of the evidence for the breast cancer theory? Deb 12:38 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Are we sure we're not seeing a portrait of his son -- the mapmaker? Sparky 03:33, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
At its start, this article suggests that Dudley and Elizabeth met in the Tower of London. Later it states that they were friends from childhood. This inconsistency should be addressed.
But the Dudleys -- Leicester's father -- were not out of favor in the latter part of Henry's reign, which is when it is believed that Robert and Elizabeth first met, along with the other royal children. -- Hiraeth 01:41, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
Was Leicester really the last governor before the German occupation?-- Anglius 03:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Arun 03:15, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
The page still implies Seyss-Inquart as a "successor" to Leicester. This is at best spurious. As above, there was no subsequent English governor of the Netherlands. [[[User:24.69.20.94|24.69.20.94]] 04:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)Steve Allen]
Being as how we're not mindreaders who lived with Elizabeth I (or I hope we aren't), how can we truly say she wished to marry him? She may have flirted with him a lot, but it isn't as if she said, "I wish I could have married Robert." I think we should change the first sentence, and I will do so if this isn't replied to soon. 68.79.11.47 16:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
I changed his birthdate from June 24 1532 to September 7 1533. In Elizabeth Jenkin's Elizabeth and Leicester she adresses the issue and cites several sources that state Robert and Elizabeth were born on the same day. Since I could only find one mention of the June 24 birthday and no comtemporary sources on it, the September 7 date seems much more likely.
Leicester's date of birth is highly debatable. Contemporaries believed that he was born on the same day as Elizabeth, but this may have just been a fanciful rumour. June 24 the previous year is a recent calculation that seems more probable - especially since the earl was supposed to be older than her. It's a very debatable topic, and nobody can be sure, but don't you think it would be too much of a coincidence that they were born on the same day? I think the date should be kept as June 24, but the article needs to mention the question of his birthdate somewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BRCScriptor ( talk • contribs) 12:06, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
There seems to be some confusion about the demise of Robert Dudley's first wife, Amy Robsart. Paragraph two in the intro states "He is said to have poisoned his first wife Amy Robsart.." while the first paragraph in "Relationship With Elizabeth" says "She had previously suffered from breast cancer, but she was ultimately killed by falling down a flight of stairs in her house." -- 72.68.227.212 ( talk) 18:24, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I was thinking we should add that it has been suggested he had a son with Elizabeth I. There is some very good evidence to suggest it. Im saying he definatley did or anything, but i think we should mention it somewhere in the article. Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chloe2kaii7 ( talk • contribs) 09:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
I just would like to tell everybody, that since about 4 February 2009, I have practically rewritten this article, since it seemed to me in great need of amendment (there was also box asking for it). I have added lots of facts, dates, as well as some aspects (although within the framework of the old article as regards thematic scope. I have only made one new subdivision: Politics). However, I want to stress, that I have not taken away any quotations! In all cases, I could identify the original source from which the quote came. I have also given some references to facts mentioned in the original article, as there was no single reference (i.e.footnote) given in it. I have also put further quotations in the article, along with all the footnotes in there so far. Buchraeumer ( talk) 12:08, 16 February 2009 (UTC)
The article is substantial and has good pictures and references but has problems with an unencyclopedic subjective tone (the tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, see Neutral point of view) and many peacock terms. Hekerui ( talk) 23:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Robert Dudley was also Vicechancellor of Cambridge University from 1563 till 1588. This is not in the box, but I am afraid, I don't know how to put it in there. Also, I don't know the preceding holder of that office, neither the successor. So, if somebody wants to find out, please help! Thank you. Buchraeumer ( talk) 22:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
Very detailed, fun to read....why isnt this a featured article? 77.250.25.165 ( talk) 17:52, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd would really regret to produce an edit war over this! But please, Doooglas, understand that the text in the lead of an article is not normally footnoted, as far as (uncontroversial) facts that are treated further down in the text are concerned. In the article section "Governor-General of the United Provinces" your issue is treated. The whole issue of his title in the Netherlands is a perfect example of Elizabeth's difficult character. I suppose the only thing that was uncontroversial about the entire episode was her boundless fury over Leicester's acceptance of the title Governor-General, although, it is true (but seldom mentioned), that the same title was earmarked for him in the Treaty of Nonsuch. Elizabeth's righteous indignation is mentioned in every summary or biography, so we cannot exclude it here in the lead! Buchraeumer ( talk) 14:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Reviewer: maclean ( talk) 04:20, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
The language is still unencyclopedic and the GA class questionable imo. Just one example picked at random: "His wife's and his father's shadows haunted his prospects." (I first thought this was an assertion about ghosts on some of his property, but this is merely flowery unencyclopedic language.) Hekerui ( talk) 18:28, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
4.249.63.202 ( talk) 23:08, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
The article makes absolutely no reference to Leicesters role in crushing the Northern Rebellion of 1569-70. This really ought to be included, since I gather from my limited reading that he was the leader of the queens army. Spidergareth ( talk) 12:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Though the article itself if amazing, I find the number of succession boxes at the bottom of this article to be excessive. Many of them are, in fact, useless, since Leicester's predecessors and successors are not named. We see only a big, black "Vacant" instead of those names. The succession box for his peerage title also seems unneccessary. If he was neither preceded nor succeeded by anyone, do we really need a succession box? Surtsicna ( talk) 17:42, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
Just skimming through this article i've seen a couple sentences that kind of make sense, but are awkward to read like "She giving him reason to hope, he was a suitor for the Queen's hand for many years." I feel like this should be "For many years he was a suitor for the hand of the Queen, who had given him reason to hope." Also: "The craft of the courtier Robert learnt at the courts of Henry VIII and Edward VI." Again, it's a bit weird. Maybe change to "Robert learnt the craft of the courtier at the courts of Henry VIII and Edward VI." These sentences (and I'm sure there may be more) are just a bit confusing to read and at first I didn't think they made sense. I hope this helps. Otherwise, magnificent article! I'm researching Leicester's early life for something I'm writing and it's among the best info I can find on the web. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BRCScriptor ( talk • contribs) 12:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I am a little surprised at the pulling of the gallery I posted yesterday. The Dudley monuments at Warwick represent a widow's valedictory statement. As such I don't understand how they can be said to "toally break up" a biographical article, especially when placed between a section on the man's death and a section on later assessmanents of him. I think the choice of themes in the inscription and the decorations are highly significant and refelect or comment on many of the points made in the article. For example, I find the inscription's insistence on his pedigree and his father's achievements, to the extent of overloading the syntax, highly significant. I think there is a much greater emphasis on his role in the Netherlands - not an entirely successful venture - than we might expect. I think the rapacious attitude to heraldry, taking in emblems of even the remotest relevance, is noteworthy. There is also the simple fact that Lettice Knollys chose to be buried and memorialised here, although she had 3 husbands, and that she chose to be portrayed - very convincingly and surely from life - at the age she did, when she lived to be 90.
I am pleased to see that there are literate and vigilant people looking after this page, although clearly I have offended by contributing to what is no ordinary wikipedia page but personal property. Rest assured I shall stay away from now on. Sjwells53 ( talk) 10:48, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Under Love affairs and remarriage, it says:
An official investigation conducted by Henry Sidney, Lord Deputy of Ireland and Leicester's brother-in-law, did not find any indications of foul play but "a disease appropriate to this country ... whereof ... died many"
Was Henry Sidney Leicester's brother-in-law, or were Henry Sidney and Leicester's brother-in-law two different people? It's difficult to tell because the rest of the article was poorly punctuated.
Thanks. Inglok ( talk) 11:08, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
The comma in "Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester" and similar cases is part of the name. Some writers omit it altogether ("Robert Dudley Earl of Leicester" etc.). Wouldn't this be the better altenative, instead of treating this part of the name as an independent part of the sentence? Buchraeumer ( talk) 11:35, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
For a non-expert (on English names and titles of nobility) it is rather confusing in the text of this article that the names Dudley and Leicester are used intermittently for one and the same man. Sort of like using Charles and Wales back and forth in an article about the Queen's eldest son. Can something be done about that? Seems to me we could pick one of the names and stick to it throughout the text. Am I wrong? -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 16:41, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
There seems be two different people:
and
Wikipedia only has one page for them both. – Talk about confusing ( talk) 02:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)