Talk:Lettice Knollys

Paternity of Robert Devereux, Second Earl of Essex

Regarding the edit by wjohnson, which seemed to take issue with the allegation of the second Earl of Essex's paternity, please see "The Poems of Edward DeVere, Seventeenth Earl of Oxford and of Robert Devereux, Second Earl of Essex," Studies in Philology, Vol. 77, Early Winter, 1980, Number Five (special number), Steven W. May. Professor May, of Georgetown College, cites the original error of Essex's date of birth that appeared in Thomas Mille's Catalogue of Honor, 1610. Mille gives the date as November 10,1567, but May points out that the contemporaneous Court of Wards document describing Essex's knighting by the Earl of Leicester gives the former's birthdate as two years earlier, 1565. Mille is unreliable in that his work contains other errors in dates for the Devereux family, for example, that Robert was knighted in 1585 rather than 1586 and that his younger brother Walter died in Lisbon in 1589 rather than in France in 1591. The conception resulting in a 1565 birth date corresponds with the verified account of Queen Elizabeth's fierce public argument and reconciliation with Leicester and Lettice Knollys's return to her husband. In his biography of Leicester's son Robert by Douglass Sheffield, The Son of Leicester, Biography of Sir Robert Dudley, Arthur Gould Lee also discusses the possibility that Leicester was Essex's father; unfortunately, he also had the date of Essex's birth wrong, so he was unable to amplify this argument.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbrice@sbcglobal.net (talk • contribs) 10 November 2004

The flirt of Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester with Lettice happened in June 1565, according to the Spanish Ambassador. So Lettice must already have been pregnant. Furthermore there is a certain resemblance with the first Earl of Essex in portraits of his son, whilst there is none with Leicester.

Buchraeumer (talk) 15:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Paternity of Lettice's son Walter

Re my 1/10/06 edit stating that Lettice's son Walter was probably fathered by Walter senior. It was prompted by Leicester (Dudley's) return to the Queen's favor, the fact that Walter was the traditional Devereux name, and the chronology of Lettice's time in Staffordshire as opposed to being at court. I think the suggestion that Dudley was the father may have been inadvertent, due to a non-related edit.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.240.234 (talk • contribs) 11 January 2006

Innocence or Not?

Did Catherine Carey really believe that Anne Boleyn was innocent??

Unbelievable!!

What would have happened to the really close bonds between mother and daughter (Mary and Catherine). I mean, after everything Anne did to Mary; stealing her children, banishing her from court, dishonering and disgracing her name, it must have been nasty to have had a daughter who believed in the innocence of the schemes of Anne!!

Oh well, I am not a historian so no chances of me being right!!

Sweetlife31 (talk) 10:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

and one question...isn't Lettice's real name Laetitia??

over and out Sweetlife31 (talk) 10:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I assume from your post that you're a fan of Philippa Gregory's fiction! Anne didn't steal Mary's children, on their father's death they were made wards of the King and brought up in the care of an influential relative - this was not only normal, but considered the best way to bring up noble children. Anne was the only one of her family who sent any money to Mary when she was banished from Court, for what was, by the standards of the time, appalling behaviour. It's not for us to judge by the standards of nearly five hundred years later. As for disgracing her name, to disgrace one sister was to disgrace the other and the whole family. May had a reputation at the court of France, then an affair with Henry VIII and when her husband died in 1528, Henry believed that her unborn child had been fathered by someone else (the child did not survive.) She then married a commoner, compromising the family line. Her behaviour was dangerous and stupid by the standards of her time. Almost all of the courtiers would have considered that it was Mary who had dishonoured Anne. Catherine almost definitely believed in Anne's innocence, as would have Mary. As the dates of these liaisons were clearly fabricated, it is highly unlikely that anyone at court believed that Anne was guilty.

As for your second question, yes, Lettice is short for Laetitia. It is unusual for an Englishwoman of her time to be known by the diminutive form, but Lettice was.Boleyn (talk) 16:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Boleyn. Mary was a disgrace to the Boleyn family, especially after marrying a common soldier when Anne was queen and already bore the brunt of nasty allusions to the Boleyn's merchant origins. Mary showed a lack of common sense and discretion. Anne was accused of being vindictive but could be generous to those who slandered her such as her aunt, the Duchess of Norfolk who openly supported Catherine of Aragon and sneered at Anne's family, yet Anne was kind enough to arrange splendid marriages for her aunt's children. Catherine Carey was an intimate of Queen Elizabeth who greatly valued her service.jeanne (talk) 14:31, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Mary Boleyn, the younger sister

I'm pretty sure there isn't an agreement about the order of birth of the three surviving Boleyn children, so why is Mary described as being Anne's younger sister? If no one knows who was the first to be born, shouldn't she be just mentioned as her sister? Diana Prallon (talk) 04:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Notable descendants

I don't think the fact that Lettice has numerous descendants is a reason not to list the notable ones. If this went past a sentence, i would agree that this was quite unnecessary, but at worst this one sentence could be considered intereting trivia, though not necessary. People who are interested in Lettice are likely to find this one sentence worth reading and it isn't unencyclopedic to add this. Boleyn (talk) 05:45, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

If it is, by your own admission, quite unnecessary, then "but, I like it" or "but it is only one sentence" is hardly persuasive. It is WP:UNDUE to say it, and to say it here. The exact same statement could be said of Francis Knollys (the elder), of Catherine, Lady Knollys, of William Carey (courtier), of Mary Boleyn, etc. Believe it or not, most modern people of note descend from people in the 17th century, statistically speaking just about every notable 17th century person with descendants is going to have some notable (by Wikipedia standards) descendant, but that doesn't mean this genealogical game of Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon need be recorded on every page. There is nothing special about these descents. They tell you nothing illuminating about either Lettice Knollys, nor the supposed descendants, nor (unlike, say, two people of the same surname) is someone going to go to the Lettice Knollys page with a deep curiosity over whether she is ancestress of Charles Darwin. Finally, the whole thing is undocumented. Agricolae (talk) 15:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Undocumented? You should brush up on your geneaology and history before making statements like that. There is nothing special about these people? Charles Darwin, the man who came up with evolution? Princess Diana, who is not only the mother of the future King of England but made a difference in people's lives through her charity work? Winston Churchill, the man who saved England during WWII? No, nothing special about these people at all. Also, Charles Darwin is a direct descent of her daughter Penelope. Perhaps, several hundreds of people are descended from her but not millions. She only lived five hundred years ago. That is about twenty-five generations, not nearly enough. I have readded the statement until someone can come up with a better arguement than "these people are nothing special". Virgosky (talk) 19:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Undocumented. I don't see a reference or footnote there. Do you? I didn't say there is nothing special about the people. Read it again. I said there is nothing special about the descents, and there isn't. A million, several hundred thousand? Are you really basing your argument on the number only having 5 zeros after it rather than 6? A lot of people lived 500 years ago, and most of those of her status were ancestors of someone important. It is nothing but genealogical six degrees of separation. That is what a genealogical database is for, not an encyclopedia. There are thousands, if not tens of thousands of Wikipedia pages regarding ancestors of Winston Churchill. We do not repeat this fact on every one of the pages. We do not even give this fact on the page for the father of Lettice. So why is the descent of Lettice to Churchill (or Darwin or Diana) particularly relevant? What is the particular importance of the Lettice-to-Churchill link that does not apply to her father or mother. The fact is, there isn't any particular relevance - it is WP:UNDUE. Agricolae (talk) 16:32, 5 November 2009 (UTC)