Talk:Eliza Stephens
![]() | Eliza Stephens 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. Review: August 8, 2023. (Reviewed version). |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from Eliza Stephens appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 9 July 2023 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
Additional research
While researching this article, User:SusunW and myself found a few additional leads and resources that may be on the wrong side of WP:OR to include, but I would like to list them here for future reference. —Kusma (talk) 08:45, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Baptismal records:
- "England Births and Christenings, 1538–1915: Francis William Stephens". FamilySearch. London, UK: General Register Office for England and Wales. 25 April 1780. FHL Film #993563, reference id "item 5". Retrieved 12 December 2022.(subscription required)
- "England Births and Christenings, 1538–1915: Jane Elizabeth Stevens". FamilySearch. London, UK: General Register Office for England and Wales. 5 November 1778. FHL Film #1068897, reference id 2:11RD2Q1. Retrieved 12 December 2022.(subscription required)
- "England Births and Christenings, 1538–1915: Marianna Margt Stephens". FamilySearch. London, UK: General Register Office for England and Wales. 22 November 1784. FHL Film #993563, reference id "item 34". Retrieved 12 December 2022.(subscription required)
—Kusma (talk) 08:45, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- While primary records of government agencies are curated and independent, and likely reliable as the clerks are merely reporting events, we also found this web reference, which is not reliable. We were unable to find any reliable source that specifically gave Annette, Anyuta, Anna Zlobin/Smirnovna/Imberg's birth or baptismal dates, although Speransky's letters state she was baptized. SusunW (talk) 14:24, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
From the Hampshire Records office (search for "Henry Stephens" in the catalogue we have the following information about a Henry Stephens that fits with ours, but there is no proof that they are the same. Records are DC/B3/5/35 and DC/B3/6/2.
- 16 Jul 1773
- Page 396: Henry Stephens appointed Minor Canon to replace Henry Newman
- 22 Dec 1777
- Page 22: John Woodburn admitted as Minor Canon in place of Henry Stephens who had resigned
We believe that Henry Stephens was from Winchester, and there is an entire Stephens family that looks likely to be ours. —Kusma (talk) 14:42, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- Several sources mention that Henry Stephens' brother George was from Winchester and his sister Mary Ferrand, is shown in French records as being from there as well. SusunW (talk) 14:59, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- It would be great to know exactly when Henry Stephens died. In February 1789 he was still alive and testified at a trial between Andrew Robinson Stoney Bowes and Mary Eleanor Bowes. The report says he was about 38, his wife about 30 years old. [1] Henry must have died in 1789 but he is not this guy: [2] because that one is in Britford in Wiltshire: [3] —Kusma (talk) 14:48, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- The Stephens family in Winchester, Hampshire can be guessed at from here: [4]. From there, it looks like Henry Stephens Sr and Mary of Saint Thomas, Winchester, Hampshire, England had the following children:
- Ann 21 October 1746
- Henry 13 November 1747
- Joseph 5 July 1749
- George 2 July 1750
- Jane 2 August 1753
- Mary 16 June 1756
- Another mystery is that in "Wedlock", Eliza appears to have a home in Devon and an older sister named Mrs Baddiley. [5]. This doesn't go well with anything we know about the Plantas. Perhaps Mrs Baddiley is a sister-in-law?? —Kusma (talk) 15:39, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
- Pure speculation: Is Reverend Samuel Runt in Thackeray's The Luck of Barry Lyndon (played by Murray Melvin in Kubrick's Barry Lyndon) modelled on Henry Stephens?? —Kusma (talk) 16:04, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
Did you know nomination
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by 97198 (talk) 11:12, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
- ... that while Eliza Stephens worked as governess for Mary Eleanor Bowes, she supported Andrew Robinson Stoney's schemes to seduce her employer? Source: Moore 2009, p. 111 [6] and other places
- ALT1: ... that Eliza Planta succeeded her sister Elizabeth Planta as governess for the children of Mary Eleanor Bowes? Source: Moore 2009, pp. 103-107
- ALT2: ... that Eliza Stephens, previously governess for the children of Mary Eleanor Bowes, emigrated to Russia to work for Catherine Shuvalova, Lady-in-waiting of the Imperial Court of Russia? Source: previous and Solodyankina 2010: [7]
- ALT3: ... that Eliza Stephens, an English governess, accompanied her employer Catherine Shuvalova to Germany to select Tsar Alexander I's bride? Source: Korff, p 69 "Наша Англичанка скоро умѣла привязать къ себѣ и мать, и доче- рей, и графиня Шувалова взяла ее съ собою въ извѣстное путешествие свое, окончившееся прибытіемъ къ вашему двору двухъ Баденскихъ принцессъ, изъ которыхъ одна сдѣлалась, потомъ, Императрицею Елисаветою Алексѣев-ною." ["Our Englishwoman [Stephens] soon knew how to bind the mother and daughters to her, and Countess Shuvalova took her with her on her famous journey, which ended with the arrival at your court of two Baden princesses, of whom one became, then, Empress Elisaveta Alexeievna".]
- Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Chabacano metro station
- Comment: There are many juicy stories here but I lack the correct front-page reporter skills to exploit them. Help with more exciting hooks very welcome. The Stoney Bowes story is part of the plot of The Luck of Barry Lyndon, famously adapted as Kubrick's Barry Lyndon, but that leads a little bit away from Planta-Stephens. It might be worth saying that Mary Eleanor Bowes was a great-great-(...)-grandmother of King Charles III and the richest heiress in the country in the 1760s.
Moved to mainspace by Kusma (talk) and SusunW (talk). Nominated by Kusma (talk) at 09:14, 7 May 2023 (UTC). Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Eliza Stephens; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.
New enough, long enough. No neutrality problems found, no copyright problems found, no maintenance templates found. QPQ done. I propose the following hook: ALT4: ... that descendents of Eliza Stephens have married George VI and Ulysses S. Grant?--Launchballer 18:59, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- @Launchballer: That isn't true and is not claimed in the article, though. —Kusma (talk) 20:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- My mistake. I think Bowes is the great-great-great-great-grandmother of the current King, might be worth suggesting a hook based on that.--Launchballer 20:58, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- The problem with that is that for DYK, we can't rely on information not in the article at hand, and while it is true that Mary Eleanor Bowes was the great-great-great-grandmother of Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother, I see no way to sneak that fact into the article. One of these days/months/decades, I might improve MEB to GA and then we could run that. Anyway, here is one more. Do you think any of these pass "interesting"? —Kusma (talk) 21:46, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- My mistake. I think Bowes is the great-great-great-great-grandmother of the current King, might be worth suggesting a hook based on that.--Launchballer 20:58, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- ALT5: ... that Eliza Stephens eloped with her husband ten days after the first meeting, and later denied allegations that advertisements had been placed to find a husband for her? Source: Moore p. 115 "When the penniless chaplain eloped to Gretna Green with the young governess just ten days after their first meeting, the Planta family was understandably outraged — not least with Eliza’s mistress." p. 135 "Whether Stephens initially believed the child was his is unclear; he would later admit he had married Eliza only ten days after their first meeting although she would deny having placed an advertisement seeking a husband"
Yeah, I can approve that. Good to go.--Launchballer 11:12, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you @Launchballer! Are you also approving ALT0 through ALT3 or is there something wrong with any of them? —Kusma (talk) 15:14, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- I would say that ALT0-2 rely on too much specialist knowledge to be interesting and to a lesser extent ALT3 does as well.--Launchballer 08:32, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- I expected "help someone to seduce your employer" to be enticing for enough people even if you don't know who the people involved are. Would it improve things if we involve the fortune teller? —Kusma (talk) 09:24, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
That's a good point. Alright, approved for ALT0 as well.--Launchballer 10:19, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- I expected "help someone to seduce your employer" to be enticing for enough people even if you don't know who the people involved are. Would it improve things if we involve the fortune teller? —Kusma (talk) 09:24, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- I would say that ALT0-2 rely on too much specialist knowledge to be interesting and to a lesser extent ALT3 does as well.--Launchballer 08:32, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you @Launchballer! Are you also approving ALT0 through ALT3 or is there something wrong with any of them? —Kusma (talk) 15:14, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
GA Review
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
- This review is transcluded from Talk:Eliza Stephens/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: UndercoverClassicist (talk · contribs) 11:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
I can have a look at this one. The research really shines off the page: no small feat given the huge and multilingual list of sources. Always good to see biographies outside the usual cohort of posh white men with military medals! UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- @UndercoverClassicist, thank you for picking this up! This article is a collaboration with @SusunW, who wrote the Russian section and the article about Eliza's granddaughter. —Kusma (talk) 11:47, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- Even better - thanks. I've put in my first set of comments: it's ended up longer than I expected (as it often does...), but lots of them are fairly minor and easily-addressed nits to pick. Please do take your time and let me know if I've been unclear or unfair anywhere. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:02, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- UndercoverClassicist Thanks for picking her up. Really appreciate your help in improving the article and am looking forward to collaborating on it. SusunW (talk) 14:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- I've answered most of the Russian section questions but will have to come back to it tomorrow. Am really enjoying the collaboration. Who knew pence was abbreviated with a d, because that's logical??? SusunW (talk) 21:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- Makes perfect sense... I was always told it was short for denarii, which is the ancient Roman currency... go figure! UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:21, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
- I've answered most of the Russian section questions but will have to come back to it tomorrow. Am really enjoying the collaboration. Who knew pence was abbreviated with a d, because that's logical??? SusunW (talk) 21:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- UndercoverClassicist Thanks for picking her up. Really appreciate your help in improving the article and am looking forward to collaborating on it. SusunW (talk) 14:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- Even better - thanks. I've put in my first set of comments: it's ended up longer than I expected (as it often does...), but lots of them are fairly minor and easily-addressed nits to pick. Please do take your time and let me know if I've been unclear or unfair anywhere. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:02, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- Apologies, I have been very busy in real life today, and am in the middle of completing another GA review (I am the reviewer, and it's been a bit long since I started), but I will do my best to address all issues as soon as I can. —Kusma (talk) 22:11, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
- I think I've cleared all of the Russian part, references and photos, leaving Kusma the British part. But, I'll keep checking on it. If he can't shake loose, I can try to wade through it, but I am not familiar with the sources, so probably better if he can. I really appreciate the thoroughness of the review UndercoverClassicist. SusunW (talk) 17:56, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
- There's very much no rush, from my point of view. Happy for Kusma to come in whenever ready. Thank you both for your part in this so far: I've really enjoyed the process and feel like the article is shaping up very nicely. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
- I think I'll get back to this article within the next 48 hours and hope to address some more of your many excellent points. —Kusma (talk) 21:32, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
- I am going to work on this in a slow but steady manner. Some of the sources contradict each other, and sorting this is slow work. Basically, we have the three claims "Eliza and Henry were both part of the Temple of Folly in mid-1776" (from Foot), "Eliza and Henry married ten days after meeting each other" (from one of the court reports I think) and "Eliza and Henry married in December 1776" (from some letters and the Monthly Miscellany) and not all three of these can be simultaneously true. Arnold believes in the Temple of Folly and a late December marriage, but says that early December letters mentioning Henry and Eliza as husband and wife indicate not that they were married, but that Mary Eleanor Bowes was very loose with the words "husband" and "wife". I don't know whether he isn't aware of the ten days, deliberately ignores them or interprets the statement as them living together and having a sexual relationship without being formally married. Moore ignores that Foot mentions Henry early on and constructs a story where he comes in in November and marries Eliza in December, early enough for the letter to be correct. Parker, who is overall the least informed of the three 20th century biographers of MEB that I have read, seems to believe in the ten days and the Temple of Folly, so the wedding happens around August of 1776. I have been mostly following Moore, who seems to be the best source, but I may need to mention more of the other interpretations. Anyway, your suggestions are much appreciated, I just can't follow all of them easily without doing a better job on the central contradiction mentioned above. The good news is that it has become much clearer to me what the contradictions are and where I think they come from. —Kusma (talk) 22:45, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
- As ever: please do take your time and feel free to ping me if you want me to look at anything specific. Equally, if any of the points have become obsolete, please do let me know. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:43, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- @UndercoverClassicist, I think I'd like to hear your opinion on some of my changes. Apologies again for taking so long, work has been unexpectedly and incessantly busy for the last two weeks. —Kusma (talk) 21:41, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Kusma, @SusunW: as far as I'm concerned, most of the substantive stuff is now pretty much sorted, and so I've started the spot checks. Is there anything else content-wise that you think is still very "open" or needing a major look at it? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- I just read through it again and only found one minor thing to tweak. However, I am not sure that having a conversion rate is helpful. While doing another review, I recently came across this tool, which I think provides a better perspective on for example Stoney's £5,000 inheritance from 1776 (rounded to 1780) was the equivalent of 33333 days of wages for a skilled worker, i.e. 91 years, more than the average lifetime. It was much harder to find that info for Russia, but good that for the UK that tool exists. I'll leave it up to you Kusma whether you think this is a better measure than the conversion to current currency. SusunW (talk) 17:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- My personal take would be that the comparison ("more than a lifetime's earnings...") is indispensable if we can provide it: it's more intuitively clear than the conversion and avoids the problems of differences in living costs and economic inequality. However, I've got no problem with including both if either of you think that would be wise. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- I concur that is a good comparison. Sorry I wasn't clear, my comment was in regards to "equivalent to £287,000 in 2021" SusunW (talk) 17:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Looking at [8], I notice that all measures other than the RPI-based one used by the {{inflation}} template give significantly higher modern equivalences, which fit better with my own impression of the amounts. I don't quite know how to cite those, though, so I use the lazy way out, which is the template. —Kusma (talk) 21:14, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- I concur that is a good comparison. Sorry I wasn't clear, my comment was in regards to "equivalent to £287,000 in 2021" SusunW (talk) 17:50, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- My personal take would be that the comparison ("more than a lifetime's earnings...") is indispensable if we can provide it: it's more intuitively clear than the conversion and avoids the problems of differences in living costs and economic inequality. However, I've got no problem with including both if either of you think that would be wise. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- I just read through it again and only found one minor thing to tweak. However, I am not sure that having a conversion rate is helpful. While doing another review, I recently came across this tool, which I think provides a better perspective on for example Stoney's £5,000 inheritance from 1776 (rounded to 1780) was the equivalent of 33333 days of wages for a skilled worker, i.e. 91 years, more than the average lifetime. It was much harder to find that info for Russia, but good that for the UK that tool exists. I'll leave it up to you Kusma whether you think this is a better measure than the conversion to current currency. SusunW (talk) 17:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- @Kusma, @SusunW: as far as I'm concerned, most of the substantive stuff is now pretty much sorted, and so I've started the spot checks. Is there anything else content-wise that you think is still very "open" or needing a major look at it? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 16:38, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- @UndercoverClassicist, I think I'd like to hear your opinion on some of my changes. Apologies again for taking so long, work has been unexpectedly and incessantly busy for the last two weeks. —Kusma (talk) 21:41, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
- As ever: please do take your time and feel free to ping me if you want me to look at anything specific. Equally, if any of the points have become obsolete, please do let me know. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:43, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- There's very much no rush, from my point of view. Happy for Kusma to come in whenever ready. Thank you both for your part in this so far: I've really enjoyed the process and feel like the article is shaping up very nicely. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
- I think I've cleared all of the Russian part, references and photos, leaving Kusma the British part. But, I'll keep checking on it. If he can't shake loose, I can try to wade through it, but I am not familiar with the sources, so probably better if he can. I really appreciate the thoroughness of the review UndercoverClassicist. SusunW (talk) 17:56, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Comments before full review
Resolved matters
Resolved matters
|
---|
|
Lead
- Note a: having written articles on pre-Gregorian calendar Greece, I sympathise. If there's any case in which we can be reasonably sure which calendar is used (e.g. because the source itself was written somewhere that used the Julian calendar at the time), suggest using the OldStyleDate template to clarify. More generally, it strikes me that practically everything in the first part of the story takes place in Britain after 1752, so it's practically certain that we're in the Gregorian calendar: I'd suggest only introducing the Julian Calendar as a concept when we move to Russia (see Ludwig Ross for an article that negotiates the same problem). Why "England" not "Britain" in the footnote?
- The note is where it is because I thought it important that the issue be noted immediately. I've changed it to Britain, but in actuality the source uses both. We aren't 100% sure what calendar for her death date. Probably OS, but not sure as the Bunge family were German but living in "Russia". I'm not sure about moving it, but I'm fine if it does. SusunW (talk) 14:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- England and Scotland changed from Julian to Gregorian at the same time, but the start of the year was changed at a different time (1600 versus 1752). This is irrelevant for the present article, but it is one of the many ways in which old style dates can trip people up. —Kusma (talk) 14:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Is there any ambiguity on whether e.g. her birth date uses the Gregorian or Julian calendar? My point is that I think we're implying doubt on the British dates where none really exists, but please correct me if that's wrong. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 14:56, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- I think all of the British dates are certainly Gregorian, and most if not all of the Russian dates are Julian, actually, with doubts only when Westerners report on Russian dates. Perhaps we need to work on that footnote to clarify this. —Kusma (talk) 22:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- That would be my sense of things. In my Greek articles, I've generally solved that problem by using that OldStyleDate template whatever the calendar system in the source (just make sure you put the date in the right place): here, as we can assume our readers will generally use the Gregorian, we can at least wait to introduce the calendar problem until we get to Russia. Again from anecdotal experience, most of the time when I've had this problem of wondering which calendar a source used for a Greek event, they almost always used the Old Style date that Greek people/newspapers etc would have given, but I think it's wise to be clear if we don't know. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 03:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
- I have shortened the footnote to remove some of the doubt inherent in it. I think we should assume Julian for everything from Russia. —Kusma (talk) 07:23, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- I think this is a tricky one. The footnote essentially leaves it up to the reader how daring they wish to be: I think the difficulty is that the judgement really hinges on the source, but the reader is generally (or at least primarily) exposed to the subject matter, and I doubt it's the case that every date for the Russian section hinges entirely on a Russian-language source. To me, we're in fine territory for GA at least, but this might be an area to think again about (essentially: can we do better than assumption?) if taking the article any further. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:31, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- I have shortened the footnote to remove some of the doubt inherent in it. I think we should assume Julian for everything from Russia. —Kusma (talk) 07:23, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- That would be my sense of things. In my Greek articles, I've generally solved that problem by using that OldStyleDate template whatever the calendar system in the source (just make sure you put the date in the right place): here, as we can assume our readers will generally use the Gregorian, we can at least wait to introduce the calendar problem until we get to Russia. Again from anecdotal experience, most of the time when I've had this problem of wondering which calendar a source used for a Greek event, they almost always used the Old Style date that Greek people/newspapers etc would have given, but I think it's wise to be clear if we don't know. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 03:00, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
- I think all of the British dates are certainly Gregorian, and most if not all of the Russian dates are Julian, actually, with doubts only when Westerners report on Russian dates. Perhaps we need to work on that footnote to clarify this. —Kusma (talk) 22:35, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- Fair enough. Is there any ambiguity on whether e.g. her birth date uses the Gregorian or Julian calendar? My point is that I think we're implying doubt on the British dates where none really exists, but please correct me if that's wrong. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 14:56, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- England and Scotland changed from Julian to Gregorian at the same time, but the start of the year was changed at a different time (1600 versus 1752). This is irrelevant for the present article, but it is one of the many ways in which old style dates can trip people up. —Kusma (talk) 14:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- The note is where it is because I thought it important that the issue be noted immediately. I've changed it to Britain, but in actuality the source uses both. We aren't 100% sure what calendar for her death date. Probably OS, but not sure as the Bunge family were German but living in "Russia". I'm not sure about moving it, but I'm fine if it does. SusunW (talk) 14:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
It is possible she had an affair with Stoney and carried his child when
: are both of these things only "possibles"? This seems to come from Moore: does she give any sense of why this might have been the case (was it a rumour going around at the time?) This echoes in the body text.- It is very likely that she was pregnant, but we do not definitely know who the father was. Moore seems certain it was Stoney but there is only circumstantial evidence. —Kusma (talk) 20:53, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- Is there enough evidence to separate that out, and be more confident on the fact of the pregnancy? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:45, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
- I'll think about the presentation in the body first, then see what can be done here. —Kusma (talk) 21:39, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
- As Moore is the only source who presents this pregnancy as fact, and she gives no sources confirming the birth, name, or fate of the child, I would not want to be more confident here. It would of course be perfectly scandalous if Jane Elisabeth, the mother of Bagreeff-Speranski, had been Stoney's daughter, but I find it difficult to believe she wasn't baptised until she was over a year old. (The baptismal register unfortunately does not give any details about dates of birth). —Kusma (talk) 07:30, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- Fair enough. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:32, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- Is there enough evidence to separate that out, and be more confident on the fact of the pregnancy? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:45, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
- It is very likely that she was pregnant, but we do not definitely know who the father was. Moore seems certain it was Stoney but there is only circumstantial evidence. —Kusma (talk) 20:53, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
his friend, Captain Perkins Magra, the brother of James Matra, who had taken part in the first voyage of James Cook.
: grammatically, this says that Perkins had sailed with Cook, though I think we mean that James had. Suggest "whose brother, James Matra, had taken part...".- Rephrased as part of a general moving around of things. —Kusma (talk) 22:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Early life and family
Employment by Mary Eleanor Bowes
- What do the square brackets in
Marianne Marg[are]t
mean? - Suggest wikilinking
hush money
as possibly a little obscure (I'm thinking here especially of non-native speakers). UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:43, 6 August 2023 (UTC) using a "black inky kind of medicine"
: sounds nasty. Who is being quoted here?- Mary, added. —Kusma (talk) 22:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Captain Perkins Magra
: per MOS:HONORIFIC, we don't normally use people's titles, ranks etc in apposition with their names: suggest "Perkins Magra, a captain in the Royal Navy" (which is more informative anyway). He went on to have a diplomatic career but I suspect hadn't embarked on that yet?- He was in the Army, not the Navy, where he rose another rank or two before becoming a diplomat. Fixed. —Kusma (talk) 22:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- Ah, that was my bad inference from seeing that he'd been writing to Nelson. This report of his death gives his various regiments (he ended up a Major, one rank up from Captain), but none of them are particularly interesting. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 03:03, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
- He was in the Army, not the Navy, where he rose another rank or two before becoming a diplomat. Fixed. —Kusma (talk) 22:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
£2000
: we're inconsistent about whether to use a comma here. Personally, I would, especially if we've got larger amounts in the article. Can we give any sense of how much money this was: is it "generous" like a big Christmas bonus, or inordinately extravagant (my sense is towards the latter)?- It is pretty extravagant.
{{Inflation}}
gives £2,000 (equivalent to £340,231 in 2023); other points of comparison are Frederica's annual salary of £100 (described by Elizabeth as "mediocre") or the £6,000 John Hawkesworth received in 1773 for An Account of the Voyages in "one of the most lucrative literary contracts of the eighteenth century." - I have used the inflation template; Moore calls the amount "sufficient funds to keep her comfortable for life".
- Is it worth putting that quotation in, perhaps in a footnote? It's concise and very informative. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- A small grammar quibble (another unintuitive quirk of English): neither these £2,000 or this £2,000 quite sits correctly: this sum, this payment (both singular) or similar is better. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:43, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- Fixed. —Kusma (talk) 12:32, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- A small grammar quibble (another unintuitive quirk of English): neither these £2,000 or this £2,000 quite sits correctly: this sum, this payment (both singular) or similar is better. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:43, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- Is it worth putting that quotation in, perhaps in a footnote? It's concise and very informative. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- It is pretty extravagant.
or her first husband's family
: whose first husband? I'd suggest replacing with the name.- Added. —Kusma (talk) 22:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Stoney's life story was later adapted by William Makepeace Thackeray as that of the anti-hero in The Luck of Barry Lyndon. He was later described as a "schemer" who had come to London with the purpose to seduce and marry the wealthy Bowes
: grammatically ambiguous even though there's no real chance of confusion: He really ought to be Barry Lyndon or Thackery, but we mean Stoney. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:43, 6 August 2023 (UTC)Described by Bowes's biographer Wendy Moore as "wily, flighty, and promiscuous", she quickly became an important and trusted companion to her mistress
: two quibbles here. Firstly, this seems a bit of a non sequitur: being flighty, wily and promiscuous would seem a reason not to take someone as your trusted companion. Secondly, that description smells rather strongly of sexism: I certainly can't imagine those last two adjectives being applied to a man in the same way. Are we absolutely certain that this description is both justified and helpful?- Removed the quote. Moore uses this mostly to contrast Eliza with her "prim" elder sister Elizabeth; I tried to use it to add some colour, but I see your point. —Kusma (talk) 22:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- Other less good sources do not make so much distinction between the sisters; here they are just "equally poisonous". —Kusma (talk) 22:36, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
the Irish lieutenant
: I'd suggest clarifying exactly what we mean by lieutenant: in particular, army or navy (the former, but do we know, for instance, his regiment?) His article has a bit of a side-plot where he pretended to be a captain, which might be worth noting if that pretence was significant to his relationship with Bowes.- Army indeed, but I think the only relevance of that to the story is that this is how he became friends with Magra. —Kusma (talk) 22:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- Stoney's article described him as Anglo-Irish, which is (and was) quite substantially different from Irish (the Duke of Wellington, also born in Ireland, famously quipped that being born in a stable didn't make you a horse). Given the political sensitivities around being British, Irish etc in Ireland, I'd make absolutely certain that we're following HQRS here.
- Certainly a Protestant from an English family settled in Ireland. Sources tend to point out his Irishness more than the family's English background, though. Is "Irish-born" acceptable? —Kusma (talk) 22:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- It's a real can of worms: I think what you've said there ("[a Protestant] from an English family settled in Ireland") is the best way to put it. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 02:55, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
- Done. —Kusma (talk) 21:20, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
When Bowes and Gray became formally engaged in St Paul's Cathedral in August or September 1776,
: presumably she divorced the former Lyon beforehand?- He died. Seems I need to spend more time on MEB's story here to make this comprehensible. —Kusma (talk) 21:54, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
- Better now? —Kusma (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
- Definitely: you might want to separate out John's death so that we have the 'correct' chronology of departure -> initial affair -> death -> pregnancy. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- Tried. —Kusma (talk) 22:36, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- Definitely: you might want to separate out John's death so that we have the 'correct' chronology of departure -> initial affair -> death -> pregnancy. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- Better now? —Kusma (talk) 21:29, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
- He died. Seems I need to spend more time on MEB's story here to make this comprehensible. —Kusma (talk) 21:54, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Andrew Robinson Stoney arrived in London, scheming to seduce and marry the wealthy Bowes
: introduce Stoney briefly. Scheming is a little non-NPOV and reads a little like a Jane Austen novel.- Well, Moore writes "Stoney set out for London purely ... with the aim of seducing the Countess of Strathmore ... the sheer intricacy of Stoney's scheming ..." Arnold says "Stoney was essentially a schemer". I have added a few words of introduction and namedropped Barry Lyndon. —Kusma (talk) 22:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
- I like the Barry Lyndon addition. To be safe, if we're going to use a word like "scheming", I'd make sure we do so in an objective and verifiable way: something like "Stoney has been described as a "schemer" who had come to London entirely to seduce Bowes". We can, after all, prove with total certainty that he has been described as such. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- Tweaked in this direction. —Kusma (talk) 22:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- WP:NONFREE would really like us to attribute in text, though I'll admit to not always following that rule myself. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:43, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think in-text attribution is necessary for a single word. Attribution could hide that this is the consensus opinion. —Kusma (talk) 12:37, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Fair point, though who's the authority identifying it as the consensus? If it's us as editors, we're close to the OR line. If it's multi-cited, we've got a reasonable argument that the NFREE benefit of naming the sources doesn't justify the tradeoffs of doing so in terms of verbosity and taking the reader away from the point. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- It is cited to three different sources. —Kusma (talk) 20:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Precisely; I think we're fine here, though consider using SFNM to make the text more readable; it transfers clutter from the body text - which everyone reads - to the footnotes section, which almost nobody reads. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:01, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- It is cited to three different sources. —Kusma (talk) 20:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Fair point, though who's the authority identifying it as the consensus? If it's us as editors, we're close to the OR line. If it's multi-cited, we've got a reasonable argument that the NFREE benefit of naming the sources doesn't justify the tradeoffs of doing so in terms of verbosity and taking the reader away from the point. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:22, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think in-text attribution is necessary for a single word. Attribution could hide that this is the consensus opinion. —Kusma (talk) 12:37, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- WP:NONFREE would really like us to attribute in text, though I'll admit to not always following that rule myself. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:43, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
- Tweaked in this direction. —Kusma (talk) 22:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- I like the Barry Lyndon addition. To be safe, if we're going to use a word like "scheming", I'd make sure we do so in an objective and verifiable way: something like "Stoney has been described as a "schemer" who had come to London entirely to seduce Bowes". We can, after all, prove with total certainty that he has been described as such. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- Well, Moore writes "Stoney set out for London purely ... with the aim of seducing the Countess of Strathmore ... the sheer intricacy of Stoney's scheming ..." Arnold says "Stoney was essentially a schemer". I have added a few words of introduction and namedropped Barry Lyndon. —Kusma (talk) 22:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
It is likely that the response to Bowes' query (Bowes was pretending to be a grocer's widow) whether she should marry "a brewer or a sugar-boiler" indicated the advantages of Stoney over Gray.
: I'm doubly in suspense here: what was the response, and how did brewers and sugar-boilers relate to these two men?- The answer has not been recorded. —Kusma (talk) 22:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
- Perhaps I'm being dense, but I really don't see what she meant by the two professions: was Gray in the beer or sugar business? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- The point here is mostly that Bowes is pretending to be of a much lower class and asking her question about her lower class avatar's possible suitors, to which the fortune-teller likely gave a very insightful answer hinting at Stoney's features instead of just saying "marry the brewer". Bowes was superstitious and the skeptic Magra had also vouched for the fortune-teller, so this episode may have been important as part of Stoney's scheme. I present it here as an example of Eliza working for Stoney. —Kusma (talk) 22:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- Ah, I see: so it's not that Gray's the brewer and Stoney's the sugar-boiler (or vice-versa), but the fortune-teller says something like "I hear army lieutenants are good", taking a third option that's clearly Stoney? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 02:58, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
- I think she is asking the fortune-teller "whom should I marry?" and gets an answer that says "Stoney". I can drop the brewer and sugar-boiler if you think they are too confusing. —Kusma (talk) 22:20, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
- I think it's good but needs fleshing out that she askes a coded question and receives a coded answer: it might be that the best approach is to simply be unsubtle and gloss something like
...when asking whether to marry a brewer or a sugar-boiler (an oblique means of asking for advice on her romantic situation), the fortune-teller answered with a double-entendre intended to indicate the advantages of Stoney
. Perhaps "double-entendre" will give the wrong idea, though... UndercoverClassicist (talk) 21:43, 6 August 2023 (UTC)- Expanded slightly, but I do not wish to say "double entendre" without knowing what was said. It is now explicit that we do not know the answer. —Kusma (talk) 12:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- I think it now should make (enough) sense to a first-time reader, though I must admit to having spent so long thinking about it that it's difficult to get my head in the right place to judge! Nice work. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- And you see now, UndercoverClassicist, why we broke it into two sections and gathered info for months before we started writing it. So many complicated details and intrigues to put in perspective in two different countries, with totally different players, laws, court politics, etc. IMO, Kusma, you've done a really good job of explaining the Bowes situation, but I too am very close to the info, so maybe not be best judge. SusunW (talk) 16:30, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- I think it now should make (enough) sense to a first-time reader, though I must admit to having spent so long thinking about it that it's difficult to get my head in the right place to judge! Nice work. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Expanded slightly, but I do not wish to say "double entendre" without knowing what was said. It is now explicit that we do not know the answer. —Kusma (talk) 12:42, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- I think it's good but needs fleshing out that she askes a coded question and receives a coded answer: it might be that the best approach is to simply be unsubtle and gloss something like
- I think she is asking the fortune-teller "whom should I marry?" and gets an answer that says "Stoney". I can drop the brewer and sugar-boiler if you think they are too confusing. —Kusma (talk) 22:20, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
- Ah, I see: so it's not that Gray's the brewer and Stoney's the sugar-boiler (or vice-versa), but the fortune-teller says something like "I hear army lieutenants are good", taking a third option that's clearly Stoney? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 02:58, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
- The point here is mostly that Bowes is pretending to be of a much lower class and asking her question about her lower class avatar's possible suitors, to which the fortune-teller likely gave a very insightful answer hinting at Stoney's features instead of just saying "marry the brewer". Bowes was superstitious and the skeptic Magra had also vouched for the fortune-teller, so this episode may have been important as part of Stoney's scheme. I present it here as an example of Eliza working for Stoney. —Kusma (talk) 22:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
- Perhaps I'm being dense, but I really don't see what she meant by the two professions: was Gray in the beer or sugar business? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 13:42, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
- The answer has not been recorded. —Kusma (talk) 22:23, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Marriage to Henry Stephens
He was a widower and had some debts
: had some debts reads as slightly casting aspersions: don't (and didn't) most people have some debts? It sounds as though we're meant to take away that he's a bit of a wrong 'un, but I worry that that implication is really only coming from the editorialising at this point.- Clarified by giving the amount (both a realistic one and a much higher one given by Parker without any evidence). He wasn't an acceptable match in the eyes of the Planta family. —Kusma (talk) 22:07, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
It is unclear whether Henry Stephens was aware of his wife's pregnancy; Eliza herself later denied claims that advertisements had been placed to find a husband for her
: the semicolon implies that these two sentences fit together, but it isn't immediately clear how (presumably, if he had been aware, he would have placed the advertisements?)- There is no longer a semicolon. I am a bit unsure whether I can turn the pregnancy claims down further; I personally do not find Moore's conclusions from her evidence fully convincing. (The strongest-looking evidence for Eliza being pregnant for long enough to be noticeable is a letter from Bowes's footman written in 1788, and she doesn't give a full quote from it). We do not have a name or a birth date for the child, and I haven't seen it mentioned in other reports —Kusma (talk) 22:07, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
- Phrasing like "Smith denied beating his wife" is one of the classic journalistic pitfalls (or nefarious tactics): it gives the strong implication that Smith was indeed beating his wife (see this possibly slightly mischevious example from the BBC recently). As we've currently phrased it, we've given the strong implication that Bowes did advertise in newspapers, or at least that it's a very live possibility. Is that the right thing to do here? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:26, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- I think it is possible it is true, but I don't know how likely it is. The story comes from the 1788 report of the trial, where both sides present witnesses accusing most people on the other side of adultery (Eliza also denies the story of Stoney coming out of her bedroom at 5am). Moore takes away from this that Stoney and Eliza did indeed have a sexual relationship and deduces that this is part of making her one of his stooges. An alternative explanation would be that all of this is just unfounded accusations that are intended to make Eliza an untrustworthy witness at the trial. In any case, the 1788 source and Moore disagree on who placed the alleged advertisement; Moore claims it was Eliza, the original source says it was the Countess of Strathmore, i.e. Mary Eleanor Bowes. I have now put a compromise into the article, but I don't know how to get away from reporting that Eliza denied something. We are here in a part where we follow Moore's speculations about the pregnancy, and the denial is a (weak) piece of evidence for it. —Kusma (talk) 20:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Perhaps frame in the positive: something like "Rumours later circulated that Henry Stephens had placed advertisements [in the press?] for a new wife, though Eliza called them 'complete nonsense'"? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- I don't know whether there were any such rumours at all, and in which quarters. All I know is the court report from the 1788 trial, where the court reporter paraphrased what Eliza said as "[She said t]hat she never knew of any advertisement being put into the papers, by Lady Strathmore, to procure her a husband." This was during cross-examination; the question she was asked is not reported. Moore uses this as part of her evidence for a pregnancy. I've moved this to a footnote. I will need to check some of the trial dates, though, as I may have accidentally mixed the 1788 trial in which Bowes won her fortune back from her husband and the 1789 divorce trial. There is a third trial in which Stoney was accused of kidnapping his wife. But all of that belongs in the articles about that unhappy couple, not so much here; I just need to sort out which trials the Stephens family attended (and the May 1788 trial is definitely among them). —Kusma (talk) 10:36, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- Ah, that's fair. Seems an odd thing to say out of the blue (unless the lady doth protest too much) but, as you say, it's difficult to say too much more in the absence of the precise question.
- UndercoverClassicist (talk) 10:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- I don't know whether there were any such rumours at all, and in which quarters. All I know is the court report from the 1788 trial, where the court reporter paraphrased what Eliza said as "[She said t]hat she never knew of any advertisement being put into the papers, by Lady Strathmore, to procure her a husband." This was during cross-examination; the question she was asked is not reported. Moore uses this as part of her evidence for a pregnancy. I've moved this to a footnote. I will need to check some of the trial dates, though, as I may have accidentally mixed the 1788 trial in which Bowes won her fortune back from her husband and the 1789 divorce trial. There is a third trial in which Stoney was accused of kidnapping his wife. But all of that belongs in the articles about that unhappy couple, not so much here; I just need to sort out which trials the Stephens family attended (and the May 1788 trial is definitely among them). —Kusma (talk) 10:36, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- Perhaps frame in the positive: something like "Rumours later circulated that Henry Stephens had placed advertisements [in the press?] for a new wife, though Eliza called them 'complete nonsense'"? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 08:12, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- I think it is possible it is true, but I don't know how likely it is. The story comes from the 1788 report of the trial, where both sides present witnesses accusing most people on the other side of adultery (Eliza also denies the story of Stoney coming out of her bedroom at 5am). Moore takes away from this that Stoney and Eliza did indeed have a sexual relationship and deduces that this is part of making her one of his stooges. An alternative explanation would be that all of this is just unfounded accusations that are intended to make Eliza an untrustworthy witness at the trial. In any case, the 1788 source and Moore disagree on who placed the alleged advertisement; Moore claims it was Eliza, the original source says it was the Countess of Strathmore, i.e. Mary Eleanor Bowes. I have now put a compromise into the article, but I don't know how to get away from reporting that Eliza denied something. We are here in a part where we follow Moore's speculations about the pregnancy, and the denial is a (weak) piece of evidence for it. —Kusma (talk) 20:58, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Phrasing like "Smith denied beating his wife" is one of the classic journalistic pitfalls (or nefarious tactics): it gives the strong implication that Smith was indeed beating his wife (see this possibly slightly mischevious example from the BBC recently). As we've currently phrased it, we've given the strong implication that Bowes did advertise in newspapers, or at least that it's a very live possibility. Is that the right thing to do here? UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:26, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- There is no longer a semicolon. I am a bit unsure whether I can turn the pregnancy claims down further; I personally do not find Moore's conclusions from her evidence fully convincing. (The strongest-looking evidence for Eliza being pregnant for long enough to be noticeable is a letter from Bowes's footman written in 1788, and she doesn't give a full quote from it). We do not have a name or a birth date for the child, and I haven't seen it mentioned in other reports —Kusma (talk) 22:07, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
In her Confessions
: we tease at quite an interesting origin for this document, but it's still a bit mysterious at this stage. Quite a long quotation from a primary source: generally, the MOS advises against those unless there's a really compelling reason. Can it be cut to just the juiciest phrasing and the remainder paraphrased?- I have moved this one into a footnote. —Kusma (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
ostensibly on his death bed after a staged duel
: there's clearly some level of fakery going on here, but I'm not clear whether he was actually injured (but didn't die, despite predictions) or even whether the duel was real. If he faked one or the other... why?- The letters in the newspaper were fake, the duel was fake, the medical opinions were fake or used cheating. There are two versions of the story: either he did this so Bowes would marry him on his deathbed as a romantic gesture, or Bowes was in on the plan and this was the least reputation-damaging way for her to end the engagement with Gray. —Kusma (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
- Clarification seen; happy here. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- The letters in the newspaper were fake, the duel was fake, the medical opinions were fake or used cheating. There are two versions of the story: either he did this so Bowes would marry him on his deathbed as a romantic gesture, or Bowes was in on the plan and this was the least reputation-damaging way for her to end the engagement with Gray. —Kusma (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Stoney-Bowes
: this is the former Stoney: is it worth clarifying when we mention his marriage, as we did for Lyon, that he (unusually) changed his name?- He did change his name to Bowes in February 1777. Maybe I'll just leave this out. —Kusma (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
- suggest wl'ing by-election and getting the word "Parliament" or "parliamentary" in here somewhere for clarity.
- done. —Kusma (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
A witness later claimed seeing Stoney leave Eliza's bedroom at 5 a.m. one morning after the election
: claimed to have seen is grammatical here. Suggest also five o'clock one morning to avoid the tautology of a.m. one morning.- done. —Kusma (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
when they left the employment
: not quite grammatical: left the family's employment?- done. —Kusma (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
- Another long quotation from the Confessions: again, suggest trimming and paraphrasing.
- done. —Kusma (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
It is not quite known what happened to cause Bowes to write in such terms about her previous intimate friends
: better asIt is not quite known what caused Bowes to write in such terms about her previously intimate friends
.- done. —Kusma (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
In 1785, Bowes escaped from her abusive husband Stoney
: another buried lede, I fear: back up a bit and explain how (and when) Stoney had been/become abusive.- He hit her, he tried to take her money, he raped the maids, the works. I am trying to say only what is needed about the Stoney-Bowes family, which is already quite a lot, so I just tried to separate this out. —Kusma (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
- Sounds like a lovely man. I think the way it's currently framed here is good (though hope all that detail would find a place in Stoney's article?) UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- He hit her, he tried to take her money, he raped the maids, the works. I am trying to say only what is needed about the Stoney-Bowes family, which is already quite a lot, so I just tried to separate this out. —Kusma (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Afterwards, Eliza attempted to reconcile with Bowes and informed her about her daughter Mary's location and helping to remove her from Stoney's power
: should be helped.- Done. —Kusma (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
- Comment: I know, I am not the reviewer, but when I was doing the references, I realized the Henry Stephens section doesn't show when (or even that) they had Elizabeth, Frances, or Maryanne, which it should probably do, since the Russia part starts with the moved there without her children. SusunW (talk) 21:05, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, we should have them here. From what I can recall, the only sources we have about them are the primary church record sources and those that talk about their time in Russia. In particular, we have absolutely no idea what happened to the child Eliza was probably pregnant with when she married Henry. —Kusma (talk) 21:35, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, if I recall, we never figured out about that first kid, but there were two children that died. I think we're fine with primary, as it's only simple statements, we aren't drawing any conclusions. I can go back through the emails if you like. SusunW (talk) 21:55, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
- That would be super helpful. I have difficulties finding anything in that massive email thread. —Kusma (talk) 23:00, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, there was a lot of research before we started writing. Found the thread and sent you the links via email. SusunW (talk) 04:37, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
- As per your request, I added the children in what I thought was the most logical place, but feel free to move them or whatever. SusunW (talk) 20:10, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you @SusunW! From [12], I think it is "Marianna Margaret" or "Marianne Margaret", but there seem to be some transcription errors (later she seems to be Marianne). I am pretty certain "Margt" is just an abbreviation. It would be great to see a scan of the original source. —Kusma (talk) 22:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
- I'm 100% sure it's either Margaret or Margaretta, but I did ask Paul but he said there wasn't anything in the records that clarified it. You know what a nightmare I had trying to send funds from Mexico via the US to him in the UK to get original scans. And he was really clear that the originals couldn't be shared. It'd probably only cost you £5, but because of minimum transaction amounts, I got them for the special
price of £10 and it only took 4 days to wire the overnight funds. SusunW (talk) 23:02, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
- I don't think the originals will help us all that much. From what we see online, it looks like "Margt" is an abbreviation, so I've expanded it out with brackets and used Marianne for consistency with the latter parts. —Kusma (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
- I'm 100% sure it's either Margaret or Margaretta, but I did ask Paul but he said there wasn't anything in the records that clarified it. You know what a nightmare I had trying to send funds from Mexico via the US to him in the UK to get original scans. And he was really clear that the originals couldn't be shared. It'd probably only cost you £5, but because of minimum transaction amounts, I got them for the special
- Thank you @SusunW! From [12], I think it is "Marianna Margaret" or "Marianne Margaret", but there seem to be some transcription errors (later she seems to be Marianne). I am pretty certain "Margt" is just an abbreviation. It would be great to see a scan of the original source. —Kusma (talk) 22:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
- As per your request, I added the children in what I thought was the most logical place, but feel free to move them or whatever. SusunW (talk) 20:10, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, there was a lot of research before we started writing. Found the thread and sent you the links via email. SusunW (talk) 04:37, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
- That would be super helpful. I have difficulties finding anything in that massive email thread. —Kusma (talk) 23:00, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, if I recall, we never figured out about that first kid, but there were two children that died. I think we're fine with primary, as it's only simple statements, we aren't drawing any conclusions. I can go back through the emails if you like. SusunW (talk) 21:55, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Governess for Russian nobility
- Suggest moving Henri's death to the following paragraph, which covers other deaths in 1811.
- My thought is that it would be confusing to reintroduce him later. There are already a lot of names to remember and I think it is easier on the reader to "dispatch" him after he is introduced since he is a very minor figure. SusunW (talk) 18:05, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- Generally, we want to keep biographies (especially) chronological, but this isn't a huge point. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:45, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Death and descendants
prepared to graduate in the middle of February 1824
implies that she didn't graduate: what happened here?
- Speransky's letter says she was supposed to graduate in February. We don't have a source that says she did (or didn't). SusunW (talk) 20:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Imberg was granted the Order of St. Stanislav in the 2nd degree
: wikilink? Certainly good to explain what this was: was it a big deal?
- I wikilinked and explained for merit. A big deal? You tell me
, titles/medals mean nothing to me, but a lot of people put a lot of emphasis on them. SusunW (talk) 20:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- I suppose I was wondering if we could say "Russia's highest order of merit", "awarded on the personal recommendation of the Tsar's chambermaid", or something to indicate its status. What we have is workable, I think. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:45, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
- I can't find a description of it's status, just a description of the medal itself. SusunW (talk) 15:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
- Not a major problem. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 15:19, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
- I can't find a description of it's status, just a description of the medal itself. SusunW (talk) 15:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
- I wikilinked and explained for merit. A big deal? You tell me
- There's a lot here on Speranskaya and her own descendants which, being uncharitable, I might suggest is out of scope for this article. Certainly, it's a bit odd to be including material on the grandson of someone's daughter in a biography of the great-grandmother.
- I won't quibble if someone wants to cut some of it, but I would note that I have read many, many biographies of nobility on here which give descendants ad infinitum, mostly male, of course. SusunW (talk) 20:30, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
- That's true, though whether it should be true is another matter. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:45, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Notes, sourcing and references
I still need to do plagiarism, CLOP and TSI checks, which will follow after the main text of the article is more-or-less resolved. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
As promised. Could I please have the quotation from the original source which supports:
- Note 25:
After the death of George Bowes in 1760, Mary Eleanor became heiress of a vast fortune.
(Moore 2009: 29–30)- " Workmen had only just begun digging the foundations when George Bowes died on 17 September 1760, aged 59. [...] As the only heir of her father's vast estate, conservatively estimated at £600,000, [...] Mary Eleanor had become the richest heiress in Britain, perhaps even in Europe."
- Note 60:
It is not quite known what caused Bowes to write in such terms about her previously intimate friends
(Parker 2006: 65)- "Those are strong words, especially when one remembers that they were spoken about a couple who had been the Countess’s intimate friends and had lived in her house on the most amicable terms for the best part of a year. Various conjectures have been made by both of Mary Eleanor’s previous biographers as to the basis for the quarrel, but neither seems to have homed in on Mahon’s story, which surely offers a probable solution." Mahon's story here is the one of Stoney coming out of Eliza's bedroom at 5am. —Kusma (talk) 16:54, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Note 114:
Speransky was a graduate of the Alexander Nevsky Seminary [ru] and had that year entered the civil service
(Raeff 1957: 9, 15).
- p. 9 "In 1790, as member of its first class, Speransky entered the Alexandro-Nevskii Seminary in St. Petersburg". p. 15, "Speransky eagerly welcomed this opportunity of following a new career… Early in January 1797, the former seminarian formally entered into the ranks of government service". SusunW (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- Happy with all of these on all fronts. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:04, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
- p. 9 "In 1790, as member of its first class, Speransky entered the Alexandro-Nevskii Seminary in St. Petersburg". p. 15, "Speransky eagerly welcomed this opportunity of following a new career… Early in January 1797, the former seminarian formally entered into the ranks of government service". SusunW (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
For what it's worth, Earwig is happy and I have no concerns about plagiarism.
Image review
All good here. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
GA Template
Well-written
(a) the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct:
(b) it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:
Verifiable with no original research
(a) it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline:
(b) reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):
(c) it contains no original research:
(d) it contains no copyright violations or plagiarism:
Broad in its coverage
(a) it addresses the main aspects of the topic:
(b) it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):
Neutral
- Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:
Stable
- Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute:
Illustrated
(a) media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content:
(b) media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
Overall
Pass: this really stands out for the depth and quality of research by its two main authors, whose level of scholarship is an example to all of us on this site. In commending them for their work and congratulating them on the GA, I must also thank them for a stimulating and enjoyable review process, and for their timely, thoughtful and often extremely erudite responses to comments. Do please let me know if you decide to take it to FAC. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 11:02, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for your in-depth review, it was a pleasure to work with you. I am not sure about FAC; for "comprehensive" I feel I would need to find a way to present all of the remaining contradictions in the sources, and I am not sure I am up to that task at the moment. Perhaps I need to wait for further sources to be written, or work in depth on the Stoney-Bowes saga first. —Kusma (talk) 12:23, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
- Well-written
- Verifiable with no original research
- Broad in its coverage
- Neutral
- Stable
- Illustrated