Talk:Bess of Hardwick

Untitled

Removed:

In some episodes of the BBC TV series Lovejoy, Charlotte Cavendish runs an auction house and often works with Lovejoy, as does D.C. Hardwick of the local police force. Is this mere coincidence or an insiders' reference to the importance of the Cavendish and Hardwick families in collecting antiquities and displaying them to the public?

This appears to be baseless speculation. -- Oliver P. 03:36 12 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Re: Bibliography: Note

Of Houshold Goods was the correct spelling, given that Elizabethans were somewhat variant in their practice.

User: Calibanu 12: 14, 08 July 2006

No Citation Needed.

The statement in the article, "...but Bess eventually ended up with a descendant on the throne: Queen Elizabeth II," is true. If you visit Queen Elizabeth's ancestry article, and look at the ancestry chart you can trace Lord William Charles Augustus Cavendish-Bentinck (number 28) back to William Cavendish, 1st Duke of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, where in his article it states he is "the grandson of Sir William Cavendish and Bess of Hardwick."

kkarma 05:58, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

New file File:Elizabeth Talbot, Countess of Shrewsbury from NPG.jpg

Recently the file File:Elizabeth Talbot, Countess of Shrewsbury from NPG.jpg (right) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. Dcoetzee 12:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Lady Alathea Talbot

Lady Alathea Talbot was married with Thomas Howard, 21th Earl of Arundel and not with Thomas Howard, 1st Duke of Norfolk I think there is a wrong link - somebody with more knowlegde about wikipedia should correct it... --Atlantica0705 (talk) 10:32, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Arbella & court

[1] and [2] Dougweller (talk) 17:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Wrong Portrait

The 2nd portrait, Bess of Hardwick, 1550s, seems to be the one of Queen Mary.

Just make the dark part of the portrait lighter and you'll read "Maria Regina"!

FEW, user of French Wikipedia, Sept 10, 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.29.239.30 (talk) 14:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Edits by Tasmn

Tasmn has now been reverted by 3 editors. I reverted partially because of the poor English, but I note that Tasmn also removed sourced text in the last edit. Here's the edit that was added:

The greatest problem in Bess marriage was that she was married to the jailor of Mary Queen of Scots but that also would be Bess greatest contribution in the saving of Protestant England, Bess first met Mary in 1569.Mary was brought from Bolton castle in a litter under heavy guard in the harsh winter of 1569,Lady Livingston collapsed on the road and Mary herself was very sad because she was a prisoner for life after her trial in England which did not find her innocent from the charge that she murdered her husband and very sick because of the very harsh conditions of her captivity. Elizabeth instruction to Bess and her husband was that Mary should be respected but also cut from any contact with the outside world. Mary finally reached her new prison Tutbury castle in February 1569, the castle was a dismal place, it had been chosen as Mary's prison with security rather than comfort in mind, little Bess would imagine in that morning that the tall beautiful very large woman she saw getting out of the litter with the help of her servants with many guards around her would be in her husband custody for 15 years and that her presence would not only would destroy her marriage but specially destabilize the reign of Elizabeth herself.<ref>Bess of Hardwick Empire Builder 2005 Mary S. Lovell p 210.</ref><ref>Roderick Graham The life of Mary Queen of Scots 2009 pp 314-316</ref> Bess and her husband did not own the castle of Tutbury, it was a royal castle who was leased to them, Mary complained to Bess that the two rooms allowed to her were very small, not fit for a royal prisoner, that they were damp,very cold, that even the sun could not reached her barred windows. Bess herself admit that the castle was subject to continual stench under Mary window because it didn't have any privies system, for all these reasons Mary was removed in a litter with a lot of guards by Bess and her husband first to Wingfield then to Bess own castle Chatsworth.<ref>E.Carleton Williams,Bess of Hardwick pp74-80</ref> Elizabeth wanted Bess and her husband to keep Mary a close prisoner and not to allow her any contact with the outside world, the couple was given around 2500 pounds per year to guard Mary while the cost of keeping was more than 10000 pounds per year which in time would cause great financial difficulties for the couple and is one of the main reasons in the breakup of their marriage.<ref>E.Carleton William,'''Bess of Hardwick'' pp123-124</ref> Bess and her husband wanted to keep Mary in their custody in order to benefit at all levels, the Earl of Shrewsbury was nominated a member of the privy council, than he became Earl Marshal the highest military position in England; Bess on the other hand would learn from Mary the latest fashions and trends specially from Paris in addition Bess would spent much of her time talking with Mary and working with her on her embroidery. Both women loved to sew and Bess learned a lot from Mary, indeed all Mary work would go to be part of Bess historical collection at Hardwick Hall.<ref>Lovell,2005,pp220-221</ref> Bess and her husband were moderate Protestants who were loyal to Elizabeth yet they didn't like the puritans and at first they believed like many moderate aristocrats that a compromise between Elizabeth and Mary was possible, yet this policy failed for two reasons: first Elizabeth jealousy and suspicion of Mary and second Mary wanted not only her liberty but mainly to be the queen of a Catholic England. Under the nose of Bess and taking advantage of the limited freedom she was granted by the couple in 1569,Mary told Phillip the king of Spain that with his help she could be the queen of England in 3 months and that the Mass could be said all over England. The Catholics raised the standard of revolt in the North of England, their purpose was to liberate Mary and to marry her to the Duke of Norfolk, it was only the swift action of Bess and her husband that prevented the rebels to reach Mary on time, almost put by force by her guards in her litter in spite of being a very big fat double chin and sick woman unable to move alone, Mary was taken by Bess and her husband in a litter under heavy guard to the city of Coventry, Mary who was not given the permission to look outside her litter or have any contact with any person did not know that Bess and her husband have received an order to kill her if somebody tried to liberate her ; at first Mary was imprisoned in an inn than in the great hall of the city. Bess and her husband were able to play a very important role in the saving of Elizabeth because if Mary escaped them and was able to be helped by Spanish troops, Elizabeth could have lost her throne because England was not ready at that period of time to face both an internal rebellion and a foreign invasion.<ref>Lovell,2005,pp 222-224.</ref>

There's quite a bit here that wouldn't belong in the article in any case as it appears to be original research (WP:NOT), starting with the first sentence, text such as "little Bess would imagine in that morning", etc. It isn't a question of correcting the English - it would need to be completely rewritten. It also isn't clear to me what was meant by " before my contribution there was nothing here". Dougweller (talk) 16:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok this is a dictatorship and a place to steal the contribution of other, good luck I'm stopping all my contributions and resigning.Tasmn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tasmn (talk • contribs) 16:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Noting that Tasmn continued to try to edit war his/her edits into the article without discussion. Dougweller (talk) 21:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey guys -- I know edit wars are a blast, but can you please be careful about what you revert to? The section in question had, as I found it, numerous broken links. It seems a vandal copied the text from the rendered page into the source editor, and that was the version that kept getting reverted to.

Incidentally, Tasmn: Read WP:OWN. 192.91.171.42 (talk) 10:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay already there are two major mistakes in the article, first Mary main prison was Sheffield castle not Tutbury, second the cost of keeping Mary was around 10.000 Pounds while Elizabeth provided only 2500 pounds, which means one quarter not one tenth. Also I have seen WP:OWN,I'm not claiming this article as my own but my contribution was completely used by others to completely rewrite the article, they even used my sources ,I have spent a lot of time and money to find these books and facts only to see them used and taken completely by others, you have only to see the article before my contribution, Mary captivity was mentioned into 2 lines, although it was the main event in Bess life. I wanted to offer a lot more but frankly know I want simply to see what other contributions these gentlemen's could make to the article, for myself if my article is restored even with some changes, I'm ready to add more than 500 words to this article alone.Tasmn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tasmn (talk • contribs) 11:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

You may have read WP:OWN, but you didn't understand it. Others using your contributions and references and possibly rewriting them is how Wikipedia works. You explicitly allow your work to be used in this way when you click "Save page". Or maybe you'd also better read the terms of use and the license.

Frankly, you're not that good a writer. Until you improve, it's enough to add information, and let others put it into a readable form.68.170.190.61 (talk) 08:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Edits to Bess's Fourth Marriage

I am the person who made the big changes to Bess of Hardwick's "fourth marriage" section. I was not trying to vandalize the article, or otherwise upset anyone, or take credit for anyone else's work; it is just that I did not know what I was doing. I tried to make some edits, but it was more difficult that I thought it would be. I often use Wikipedia, but this is the first time I have ever tried to edit an article. I have a great interest in the Tudors, which includes Queen Elizabeth's contest with Mary Stuart. So, to find out a little more about Mary's guardians, I looked up Bess of Hardwick, and read the article. I noticed that the grammar was quite bad, worse than any Wikipedia article I had ever read. And "it" says that anyone can edit an article. So I merely thought to fix the verbs, and the possessive cases, and put in periods at the ends of sentences, and start new proper sentences, and things like that. But then, I began to notice that it did not seem to be an encyclopedia quality article, but ran far afield from the subject, more like creative writing in its tone, including a lot of speculation and personalized adventures. So, I just started taking out little bits and pieces, that did not seem to belong in the article, and before you know it, poof, it was a lot different. Even though I knew I didn't know what I was doing, I think the article seemed a bit better. I did not mean to chop out references, or links. So I started reading all of the Wikipedia information about how to edit, and reference articles, and almost immediately, the article was restored exactly as it had been before. So, I copied and pasted my changes back. (There is probably where I made my biggest mistake). When I started to make the editorial changes, I did not think of anybody else who might have written the article, or who might be seeking to restore it; it didn't occur to me. And through, this, I have not been able to announce myself, communicate, or apologize, since I don't know what I am doing. But, finally now, I have an account. Finally, I am here on this page explaining myself. Let me say, that my only intention has been to improve the article. I surely did not mean to use other's work and take credit for it as my own. It is just that when I whittled the text down, I did not take everything out, I just edited and changed what seemed inappropriate to me, so some of it is "theirs' and some of it is mine. I am very interested in learning how to cite references. I am quite interested in this subject and willing to read the books and do the research to make proper references to give the article credibility. Most of the adventures associated with Mary's movement from house to house, and her possible association with plots to escape might all be referenced under the separate article "Mary Queen of Scotts." And the special circumstances of the "Northern Rebellion" might also be referenced in a separate article. It hardly seems plausible to me that Bess saved the Tudor dynasty from defeat during the Northern Rebellion. From now on, I will be more careful and try to "talk" my way through this before making changes. With my sincere apologies to anyone that I may have offended.Grinbriar (talk) 21:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for that explanation, and for your efforts to tidy up the poor English. In answer to your question about references, have a look at WP:Referencing for beginners. - David Biddulph (talk) 21:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok fine what you are saying is fair and honest to a large degree, Mary daily life in captivity is very important when we are talking about her jailors ,the article Mary Queen of scots (see Talk :Mary)is to long to add details about plots and her life, there is an article about the Northern Rebellion ,here we are only talking about Bess role in it; finally I agree with you that Bess did not save the Tudor dynasty but she played an important role, for historical fiction you could read Phillipia Gregory "The other queen",so I propose we work together either on this article or an article about Mary queen of scots in captivity that could be created see(Mary Talk),ok I'm sorry if I hurt anybody with my comments but the honesty of Grinbiar changed everything.Tasmn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tasmn (talk • contribs) 05:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I have already read "The Other Queen." I have a lot of knowledge on this subject. But I do not have, off the top of my head, where it all comes from. However, I would like to reference all of this stuff eventually. I also think, that, yes, maybe a new article entitled "The captivity of Mary Stuart, Queen of Scotts" would be a good idea. I could help you with your grammar and punctuation.Grinbriar (talk) 13:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

After Bess's fourth husband, the Earl of Shrewsbury, died, the article ends. But shouldn't it keep going until her death, which was some years later? Grinbriar (talk) 14:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Ok great we'll work together, I'll give you all the references ,I'll combine your article with mine and I 'll finish Bess who died in 1608,of course we 'll work together and you could correct it and rewrite it when I finish writting in the next few days.Tasmn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tasmn (talk •[[[User:Tasmn|Tasmn]] (talk) 08:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)]

changes to text 30 September 2013 by QueenMarieStuart and possible point of view problem

I would like to add some notes here about QueenMarieStuart's edits to my text. I do not necessarily want to change it back, but I would like to give some thoughts and see if there are any comments, since I am new at this. I will sign off for now to collect my thoughts to put here later.Grinbriar (talk) 19:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

First of all, this article is about Bess of Hardwick, not about Queen Elizabeth nor Mary Queen of Scots. They are mentioned because their struggle effected Bess's life. "QueenMaryStuart" indicates that Bess held Mary Stuart in captivity:

"An accomplished needlewoman, Bess joined her captive charge, Queen Mary Stuart, at Chatsworth House for extended periods in 1569, 1570, and 1571, during which time they worked together on the Oxburgh Hangings."

However Bess was no one's jailer and held no one in captivity. It is true that Queen Elizabeth's government held Mary Stuart in indefinite house arrest, under the guardianship of the Earl of Shrewsbury, but that only make Bess the hostess to anyone staying at their several residences and not their jailer. Surely this made for a sort of social awkwardness that contributed to Bess's marital troubles.

"QueenMaryStuart" also indicates that Mary Stuart had a legitimate claim to the English throne, and that Queen Elizabeth treated her unjustly and regarded her with ill-will and deception. However, these are controversial opinions, not necessarily of encyclopedic quality. The fact is that under the renaissance monarchies of Europe, the medieval tradition of legitimacy was not set in stone, was not black and white, and was subject to much interpretation, depending upon who was in power, and under what rules you were operating. For example, there were the rules as seen through Protestant eyes, and the rules as seen through Catholic eyes. We know that Queen Elizabeth depended upon a Protestant worldview as the basis of legitimacy, but we also know that compared to her contemporaries, especially someone like Mary Stuart, that she had an almost modern sense of toleration between the two opposing sides, and sought above all else, to quieten the religious strife of the time. Of course Elizabeth would find Mary's claim to the English throne a threat. But on the other hand, Queen Elizabeth did not like the idea of Lords deposing a monarch, and she did not like the idea of casting her own blood kin aside. In short, we know that Queen Elizabeth was conflicted about the status of her cousin, Mary Queen of Scots, and put her origianlly under house arrest as a temporary measure until some resolution could be found. And out of procrastination and indecision, she let Mary remain under house arrest, for many years. From Queen Elizabeth's point of view, she was not hurting her, but was actually treating her well, as a monarch should be.

For these reasons, I think my original wording, which was slightly less detailed, was better because it showed a real confusion and miscommunication between the Queens and a conflicted anxiety on the part of Queen Elizabeth. "QueenMaryStuart" gives a more black-and-white portrayal, which some people may believe, but which does not match the historical consensus.Grinbriar (talk) 21:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Additional comments added December 3, 2013

"Mary had a legitimate claim to the throne" is an untrue statement. She had a legitimate claim as Elizabeth's successor, since Elizabeth had no children, but Queen Elizabeth was Princess Elizabeth, daughter of Henry VIII. Only if you work through the complex struggle between Catholics and Protestants, and take sides, as though there is any legitimacy at all in this mayhem of religious conflict, can you say that Queen Mary had legitimate claim to the throne. And this point of view cannot be the point of of view an encyclopedia.

"The Babbington Affair" is Mary's story, not Bess's. And it makes no sense to mention it out of the blue, and not to explain it.

The purpose in holding the York Conference is unclear. To assert unclear speculation as truth deviates from an encyclopedic point of view. The fact that Queen Elizabeth convened this strange conference indicates her indecision over Queen Mary. In fact, indecision and procrastination are marked personality traits of Queen Elizabeth, throughout her very long reign, rather than any supposed malevolent scheming and conniving. The truth is that Queen Elizabeth could have done away with Queen Mary at any time, but she did not. The truth is that Queen Elizabeth was horrified that Scottish Lords had deposed their Queen; it undermined the institution of monarchy, in general. Plus, she had some sentiment for Queen Mary as a blood relative. The best outcome for Queen Elizabeth would have been to restore Queen Mary to her throne in Scotland. More likely, the York Conference was an attempt to exonerate Queen Mary from any involvement in the assassination of her husband, and to set the stage for returning her to her throne, hardly a malevolent intention. However, the evidence, real or concocted, was steadily mounting against Queen Mary, so the conference was dissolved without resolution. In my version, I added a link to the York Conference, which helped explain all of this. And by the way, let us not forget once again, that this is the story of Bess, not of the "adventures of Mary Queen of Scots", nor of the "mad Queen Elizabeth." Grinbriar (talk) 16:44, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

contribs) 14:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC) 

Pinterest external link

The only citation for the coat of arms jpg is a link to a Pinterest search result. Surely we could do better? Matuko 14:05, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Who is Dugdale?

Who is Dugdale? There is no explanation or documentation for this name anywhere, in the article. It sounds like it belongs to an early biographer. 2600:1012:B05F:1D8E:D4DE:3853:8529:5ABF (talk) 06:28, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Eight lines of verse

Back in a previous century I read, probably in Smithsonian magazine, a big story called "England's Other Queen Bess" about this lady and Hardwick Hall and all, including eight lines of popular doggerel celebrating her prowess as wife and businesswoman. Can anyone find this for us? J S Ayer (talk) 20:17, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Fourteen lines, not eight: J S Ayer (talk) 02:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Four times the nuptial bed she warm'd, And every time so well perform'd, That when death spoil'd each husband's billing, He left the widow every shilling. Fond was the dame, but not dejected; Five stately mansions she erected With more than royal pomp, to vary The prison of her captive Mary. When Hardwicke's towers shall bow their head, Nor mass be more in Worksop said; When Bolsover's fair fame shall tend Like Olcotes, to its mouldering end; When Chatsworth tastes no Ca'ndish bounties, Let fame forget this costly countess.

Death and Burial

"Bess of Hardwick died at 5 pm on Saturday 13 February 1608... On 6 February her body was placed in a vault in All Saints Church, Derby..."

Surely there's a contradiction here. The date 13 February 1607/8 seems to be the accepted date of her death. Can someone correct the other date please and post a note here when it's done. Mike Spathaky (talk) 21:32, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

“Sometime keeper to the captive…”

It fullerly reads… “sometime keeper to the captive Mary, Queen of Scots”

The word “keeper” needs ‘belinking’ to wherever explaining the aforesaid “keeper” word it’s meaning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:9C97:5D01:250D:F82F:CDE5:1D2F (talk) 16:30, 28 April 2022 (UTC)