Talk:Dido Elizabeth Belle

Dodo’s birth location

As stated in the report by the American visiting the family. Dido was born in London after her mother was returned there.

The Article should be changed to reflect this and updated to show her actual birthplace. Having been born in England she was not a slave even though her mother was and this should also be in the article. It is after all from contemporary sources Alastair parsons (talk) 08:02, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

more fact is that Dido was baptised when she was 6 year old! which was impossible if she was born in London. this is pretty much almost concrete evidence she wasn't born in London yes the wiki page has been updated to show her actual birthplace according to most concrete evidence Wentwort12 (talk) 08:45, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for the misspelling in the title. Autocorrect can be hell Alastair parsons (talk) 08:03, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

dodo's birth location lol. i don't know why people treated the American statement as fact! do you think Lord Mansfield would say my nephew knocked up enslaved woman and have a bastard half black child to a guest he just met? of course not lol.. Wentwort12 (talk) 05:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

"I knew her history before, but my Lord mentioned it again. Sir Jno. Lindsay having taken her mother prisoner in a Spanish vessel, brought her to England, where she was delivered of this girl, of which she was then with child, and which was taken care of by Lord M., and has been educated by his family. He calls her Dido, which I suppose is all the name she has. He knows he has been reproached for shewing a fondness for her—I dare say not criminal."

the meaning has been interpreted by people :

website 1."As Hutchinson tells Dido Belle’s story, Capt. Lindsay wasn’t necessarily her father—but most people had no trouble saying he was."

website 2."Hutchinson is clearly a critical and racially prejudiced commentator, but aside from this there are several points stated or implied here which indicate the ambiguity of Dido’s status.  First, Lord Mansfield seems to have disguised from the Governor the fact that Dido was his own great niece, and there is an implication that Hutchinson thought she was Mansfield’s mistress.  Such a relationship would have been common in the West Indies at the time, of course."

both agree that Lord Mansfield did lie and sugar coat it and keep reminding the american even when he didn't ask Wentwort12 (talk) 05:33, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

so dido's birth place is still up for debate. regardless In his will Lord Mansfield was also careful to confirm Dido’s freedom she was not a slave. meaning he is also wary of Dido freedom. he is a judge after all who understand law better than himself. if dido was not a slave and factually born in london, he doesn't need to confirm dido's freedom.

not to mention cases of kidnapping black people in england who use to be slave or descended from slave, they were kidnap and sold to slavery in west indies once again.

until we know for a fact then it's up for debate Wentwort12 (talk) 05:45, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Letter details

The letters from Hamilton and Boscawen does merit a mention, to support the notion Belle was somewhat removed from the social life of her niece. But since they don't actually mention Belle, devoting that much space in *this* article is undue, since all we need to do is summarize "Letters never mentioned Belle" and then giving sources, and proceeding to any conclusions. The details are about the household and the nieces, but *this* article is about Belle.

Before making any edits, I'm opening this discussion. CapnZapp (talk) 10:11, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree that this article is about Belle, but the details about the household did help us picture Dido's life around them, although she wasn't mentioned, these people were lifelong friends of Lady Mansfield and Lady Stormont.

Hamilton and Delany were also particularly close, so does Boscawen and Delany.

I'm not oppose to trim something down, but I felt like without it, the context would be lost, Dido was in charge of poultry yard, menial tasks, etc. I provided this evidence because this is her real life situation and I dare not to make conclusion that Dido was completely excluded since we had no evidence of that, although she wasn't mentioned by Lady Mansfield's close friends or Lady Stormont's. Wentwort12 (talk) 04:48, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Factoids like Dido in charge of poultry are nice and I don't mind keeping them. But let's analyse the section currently called "Mary Hamilton's Letters". Can I first ask you to refer to those letters as something else than "evidence"? "First hand accounts" or "contemporary details" perhaps. Now: there are several paragraphs of details with no relevance for Dido just to set up the observation "Although Lady Elizabeth was invited, Dido was quite evidently not invited to the royal ball." The section goes on with excessive detail just to keep making the same observation; Dido isn't mentioned. I'm taking a stab to condensing this to what is relevant for this article. CapnZapp (talk) 06:49, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

"First hand accounts on Mansfield's family" ? like this

I will try trimming it into half of the current existing paragraphs, but I felt it might omitted a lot of details about Dido's environment. that's why it was fascinating to me since Dido did live among these people and their accounts provided details about their daily life and how we can imagine Dido's affected by them although she wasn't mentioned, I suppose the relevance lies in the connection that Dido live among them and therefore would shared the same topic of conversations, so what they experience would cause Dido to react about those experiences, although evidently she was excluded from the events.

it also raises interesting detail that 2 of Lady Mansfield's closest life long friend failed to mention Dido and "found her alone" even when the Miss Murrays was gone to a christening at Stormont's ( from Mary Hamilton's diary, if I'm not mistaken she attend that same christening and again Dido was absent there too) i might not find it excessive, since any information about the writers of the accounts give the personality of the writers and how reliable their information was.

for example: Mary Hamilton was observant, humble, "progressive" and kind. Her observation was highly truthful, she even mentioned servants on some occasion by their first name in her diaries, so if she saw Dido she would hardly missed to describe her unlike maybe other visitors even thought they were lifelong friend of the Mansfield's

either way what do you think the sub title should be? "Mary Hamilton's letter" "Mrs Boscawen to Mrs Delany's letter" or just simply "Accounts of Mansfield's family" Wentwort12 (talk) 08:38, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

• I might not find it excessive, since any information about the writers of the accounts give the personality of the writers and how reliable their information was. But others might find it so*

I will try trimming it to half and kept the topic brief and will edit after we can find the appropriate subtitle for this accounts/letters Wentwort12 (talk) 08:41, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I would like to argue that the argument is not at all served well with a subheader "Contemporary accounts from family friends did not mention Belle". Again, the very notion she was not mentioned should be a clue to add the content elsewhere, not to this article. This subheader is getting more and more detail added to it when it should be pruned, condensed, and summarized to focus on the article subject; or as I argued previously: devoting that much space in *this* article is undue. CapnZapp (talk) 13:18, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I would like to argue that providing the background of the character also proved how reliable her evidences about the household were.

just like Thomas Hutchinson, it was already condensed and summarized! it does focus on the subject, giving people the idea what kind of people were admitted to Kenwood during Belle's occupancy Wentwort12 (talk) 13:51, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

recent edits

You asked me to discuss first before deleting such huge information. I choose to follow WP:BRD where the discussion phase comes after the editing phase.

I stand by every single removed statement as being relevant for John Lindsay but not really for Dido Belle, but tell me which ones you want to keep and we'll discuss, User:Wentwort12. CapnZapp (talk) 14:57, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I stand by the information being very relevant for Dido Belle, the article is very informative and factual as is.

I can tell you haven't read book about her or other sources about her, the information presented correlate to Dido's early situation without making huge assumptions Wentwort12 (talk) 15:28, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

1. Dido had many half siblings, some born very close to when she was taken to Kenwood House
2. What happened to Maria Belle since she had taken care of Dido for 5 years before Dido was taken to Kenwood
3. her mother's status as a slave, which then again correlate to Dido's status, and again when her mother bought her freedom, it also caused Dido's status to become more favorable.

Wentwort12 (talk) 15:31, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

I stand by the information being very relevant for Dido Belle, the article is very informative and factual as is. This is sweeping, general and thus, unproductive. Discuss the specific changes you object against, please. To start us off, I'm going to assume you want to keep three things:

1. that Dido had half-siblings. The way the article phrased it, there was no relevancy to Dido's life. It was all framed as John Lindsay's life. If you can make it relevant please do so, but the mere fact some of these children were born at the approximate time Dido was taken to Kenwood House makes them relevant is a very weak argument. Do any of the sources discuss her interacting with these children whatsoever? (I suspect they had nothing at all to do with each other. They do belong on Wikipedia, but mostly on John Lindsay's page. Maybe we could briefly mention she had several half-siblings.)
2. I did not remove Maria Belle's activities. I did convert some details into a footnote.
3. Your edit summary this is removing the speculation and instating from majority of the sources that her position was and always unclear, but she did those task mentioned is rambling and I can't really make out what you're trying to say. the it wasn't clear if the conception was consensual bit, if that's what you mean, is sensationalist and gross and should remain deleted. You keep sniping away at the idea Dido was a member of the household, but you haven't achieved any consensus for this.

I'm going to assume these are the three edits you are concerned about, despite wholesale reverting my entire edit. Unless you enumerate more. Please be specific. CapnZapp (talk) 19:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

reverting your good faith edits, these informations you edited were essential in making Dido's early life and circumstances much clearer without drawing conclusions.

I have read multiple book about her and countless reference and sources, the article as is was already an oversimplification, but at least provided a lot of valuable informations about her Wentwort12 (talk) 19:58, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, I am asking you to be specific. This is the second time I have asked. Sweepingly talking about "these informations you edited" will not do. What specific bits and pieces do you feel are essential and in what way, because I don't see it. I also need to clarify that "I have read multiple book about her" does not cut it on Wikipedia. I might want to trust you, but so far you have supplied no specific reasoning that can convince me you are right. I suggest you begin with the three points we do have, or at least the first two:

1. would it suffice to briefly mention that Dido had X half-siblings? If they were important to Dido's life at Kenwood, how so?
2. Why did you revert my changes to Maria Belle's fate, when I have stated I did not remove anything?

CapnZapp (talk) 14:02, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I missed your earlier reply, but as I have said, I stand by the information meaning there is no need for your edits.

The fact that "you don't see it" is quite telling why i think you should've at least read books about her and other sources, before you frantically edited her page, since you clearly have no idea about 18th century society and why these informations matters, just because "you" don't see it doesn't mean others can't or shouldn't be on this page, what I don't understand is why you are so hellbent on "editing" and you seemed to take this personally, when I take this academically and wanted to preserve Dido's history as fairly, complete, and competence as possible.

Editing for the sake of editing doesn't cut it on wikipedia and I don't need you to trust me, this is Wikipedia not YouTube comment section. But alas I would spell it out or rather explain these informations to you since you clearly have no interest in reading about her 18th century experience from other sources.

1. "would it suffice to briefly mention that Dido had X half-siblings" No, the Early life's section is already concise and short as it is, if I were to completely explained the circumstances and why it's important, it would be far too long for her Wikipedia page, that's why I just presented the raw informations. -This tells us that even after Dido's birth, Lindsay clearly still has other relationships with other women and keep on producing illegitimate children despite his existing relationship with Maria Belle, after reading it, people can guess what happen to Dido and Maria, since Lindsay is by today's standard was unfaithful and still galavanting with other women, also tied to wether his relationship with Maria was consensual, spur of the moment, etc. -Some of the children was born before Dido was even at Kenwood House or taken to England, offer a fascinating window about her early life and what possibly transpire. Like where did Lindsay house these women and their children and how he provide for them including Dido in the West Indies. -Some of the children were given the last name Lindsay, some weren't. This play apart to wether Lindsay's choice to not give Dido his last name was more pragmatic or not. (to be fair some had theorized that they might have died early, so the only surviving children were Dido Belle, Elizabeth Lindsay and John Lindsay. but this still doesn't answer that some children were given his last name at birth before even knowing if they will survive) -Out of all his children, only Dido was taken to Kenwood, again this surrounded Dido's early life and what might have transpired, although this is still up for debate. (Elizabeth Lindsay and John Lindsay were given the Lindsay name and acknowledgement which was huge for 18th century, and they were the two that were mentioned in Lindsay's will, this further the mystery and circumstances on why Dido was brought to Kenwood, but not them, they had more rights than Dido to live at Kenwood and they were only slightly younger than Dido). -This information of mentioning sibling was also typical for page about historical person, there is no reason to cut it out.
2. Mary Milner, this one provided a weird circumstances, where Sir John Lindsay seemed to have kept Maria Belle as some sort of mistress even after he married Milner, also she was implicated in Sir John Lindsay's will later on.
3. that Maria Belle even after being "captured" can only be considered free once she purchased her own freedom and had legal paper, this tied to Dido's early and later life, Mansfield seemed to think that confirming Dido's freedom in his will was essential despite his rulings, probably for good reason (since most probably Dido didn't have any legal document stating her freedom).
4. an obituary (written by someone else) can't acknowledge paternity over other people's illegitimate children, that can only came from Sir John Lindsay and clearly he had no any intention in acknowledging Dido. Especially not an obituary who used phrase like "we believe" ( change from "acknowledged" to "concluded" ) the obituary's credibility was also questioned since it failed to mention the two other children bearing his name and mentioned in his will proudly as his acknowledged offsprings and left all his money.
5. the other edits are just unnecessary.

On that note, the current article should stand as is Wentwort12 (talk) 23:02, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Dido's social position

Dido Belle wasn't an aristocrat, she wasn't even an actual "gentlewoman" although she was presumably educated as a gentlewoman. Nevertheless she lacked the actual "public" social position as a gentlewoman, which was way more important, possibly due to being illegitimate and mixed race.

I know we categorized her as a gentlewoman to be "kind", but in actuality, she was below gentlewomen but above servants. There was no term for such position. The closest was governess, which she wasn't. The most correct term for Dido for now are "educated woman" or "illegitimate daughter"

If she was a real gentlewoman, she could sit at dinner, visit neighbors, attend parties and balls, marry a gentleman. The fact that Dido married a servant was also a huge indication that she couldn't attract a spouse from gentry class. Dido also had to assume her husband's social position as a servant's wife after her marriage.

Anyone with more knowledge are welcome to discuss this to present a better summary on her social position Wentwort12 (talk) 08:17, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

This are examples of the summaries on other illegitimate children:

Elizabeth Courtney (20 February 1792 – 2 May 1859) was the illegitimate daughter of the Whig politician and future Prime Minister Charles Grey, 2nd Earl Grey.

(Eliza was married to a gentleman, hence assumed his position and became a gentlewoman, but before that her position was arbitrary like Dido, they can't categorize her as anything but illegitimate daughter of an aristocrat. But we have to remember that Eliza's parents were really high nobilities, her children eventually married aristocrats and upper gentry, unlike Dido or her children (they still can't marry gentry).

Another example :
Harriet Osborne, Baroness Godolphin (née Arundel Stewart; 17 August 1800 – 28 October 1852) was a British noblewoman. An illegitimate child, her mother was the society figure Henrietta Ponsonby, Countess of Bessborough
(she married a nobleman and became a noblewoman by marriage) Wentwort12 (talk) 08:24, 27 February 2024 (UTC)