Talk:Francis Walsingham

Untitled

I'm curious what 'Fire Over England ' has to do with Francis Walsingham. There seems to be a spying theme, but no link to Francis in particular.

The last bit about fiction

I'm also curious as to why the last bit was written. It seems to have been written solely to take a jab at the movie Elizabeth without offering any insight as to why the character of Walsingham was not portrayed accurately. I would think that this portion of the article could easily be removed without harming the otherwise informative writeup.

--Airosche 18:36, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Also, wasn't Walsingham portrayed in that HBO movie made in 2006?

If you are referring to the "gloriously inaccurately" comment, it is a while since I saw the film, but I seem to remember Walsingham is shown as a. not religious b. probably homosexual c. sleeping with and murdering Marie de Guise; none of these is at all accurate. The film's portrait stresses the Machivellianism dimension which would certainly have pained Walsingham who saw himself as a devout Protestant fighting for his country's life.

Date of birth?

Sir Francis Walsingham (c. 1530 – April 6, 1590) is remembered by history as…

Francis Walsingham was born in Scadbury Park, Chislehurst, Kent in about 1532

Which is it? 1530 or 1532? Yes, I realize they're both hedged as "circa" or "about," but the article should be consistent one way or the other. Which is the more likely birth date? --Dodiad 06:26 29 Jul 2006 (UTC)

Burial place?

Anyone know where Walsingham was buried, or entombed? --Michael K. Smith (talk) 02:15, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

He was buried in Sir Philip Sidney's tomb in (old) St Paul's and therefore his memorial disappeared in the Great Fire Mleimon (talk) 20:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Edward Stafford

The statement about Walsingham "winning" over Stafford is simply not borne out by the evidence, I am afraid: The fullest account (the only one using the original Spanish sources, not the translated calendars) so far is the article by Geoffrey Parker: "Treason and Plot in Elizabethan Diplomacy: The 'Fame of Sir Edward Stafford' Reconsidered" in Success Is Never Final by the same author (2002). There can be no doubt that Stafford was the best mole the Spaniards had, and Walsingham did not neutralise him before the Armada, when it would have mattered. So, since there is no reference given, I removed the last sentence about Walsingham and Stafford. Buchraeumer (talk) 21:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Walsingham in Fiction updated

Changed the ownership in Elizabeth_I_(tv series) 2005 from HBO to the actual producers Channel Four HBO were just the US distributors.Twobells (talk) 12:45, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it best to group literary references together Sceptic1954 (talk) 15:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Davies, Watson and Camden are contemporaries writing eulogistic descriptions of the real man. This is quite different from the modern-day fictional portrayals. DrKay (talk) 15:03, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, leave it there. Do you have a link to Watson's eulogy? Sceptic1954 (talk) 15:07, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Having found and added a reference to Watson's poem I think the death section is too heavy now and we should have a literature section divided into poetry and novels Sceptic1954 (talk) 15:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with the length of the section. DrKay (talk) 15:27, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I didn't mean length, it's rather a bit too much detail which may be better separatelySceptic1954 (talk) 16:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Dr.Kay The MOS point you raised can be easily bypassed, there's another poem, by Spenser to be added and the points can be fleshed out a little. It strikes me that many of those interested i n his death will not be interested in the poetry whilst those who may be interested in the poetry may not find it if it is buried away with the account of his death. Do you have any especial objection to a separate sub-section on Walsingham in poetry. It strikes me that all artistic references should go together in the same general section? Sceptic1954 (talk) 23:32, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Chef?

Under "Walsingham's Interests", there is a sentence "His chef was noteworthy." What does this mean? Did he have an interest in cooking, or was he a publicist for his cook...? Norman21 (talk) 20:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The above seems to have been written on 21:02, 5 February 2009 by Mleimon. Can anyone verify it? Norman21 (talk) 19:06, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Related Music

Would it be frivolous to list the instrumental song "Walsingham" (written by John Dowland) at the bottom of the page? Title of song listed on Songs from the Labyrinth (performed by Edin Karamzov). Would I need to do more than simply list the title and include some information about Dowland and research why the tune was titled "Walsingham"? whooshing (talk) 13:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Protestant or Puritan

Several books/texts list Walsingham as a Puritan yet he is listed here as a Protestant? I was always lead to believe that Proestantism and Puritanism were bothe different?82.20.8.96 (talk) 15:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Puritans are Protestants. The sources used in the article say he was Protestant and that there is no direct evidence he was a Puritan. DrKay (talk) 16:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Slavery

It is not clear if Walsingham benefitted financially from slavery. The article says he "promoted" the activities of Francis Drake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.68.22 (talk) 14:56, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Drake was certainly involved in slavery. So was Elizabeth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.68.22 (talk) 12:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Hawkins, Cecil, Walsingham and Drake were all on good terms with each other in 1582. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.68.22 (talk) 12:32, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

The site www.elizabethfiles.com says Walsingham invested in Drake's 1577 effort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.153.103.250 (talk) 14:44, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Walsingham's investment is already in the article. DrKay (talk) 15:08, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The article says "Walsingham was amoung the promoters of Francis Drake's profitable 1578-1581 circumnavigation of the world". This does not says clearly if Walsingham's promotion was financial or not and does not clearly mention slavery. Walsingham was presiding over England when slavery was legal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.123.215.180 (talk) 13:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Lead

His coat of arms is not worthy of inclusion in the lead. The lead is for the most important points and is designed to be a summary of the article. It shouldn't be used to introduce material not found in the article body or material of doubtful relevance. I also doubt the necessity of giving his maternal grandfather's address in the article. This is at best a tangential detail of little to no relevance. Also, note WP:DUPCITES, duplicate references should be merged. Per MOS:CAPTION, captions should be succinct with details on the file page. The captions of the introduced files were particularly bad: one misspelled his name and the other repeated details from the article text unnecessarily and was incorrect grammatically. DrKay (talk) 19:07, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Scadbury is an important historic estate purchased by Francis's great-great-grandfather, an MP and wealthy merchant. It continued to be held by the senior line of the Walsingham family until 2 generations after Francis's death. It's important to identify him with this important gentry family. The article at present is weak in this area. In fact the HoP article I sourced from is wrong (surprisingly, HoP is usually pretty good), his father was a younger son and thus did not inherit his father's estate. Nevertheless, it's relevant to explain the connection. As for the maternal grandfather's "address", it's convention to state the seat of gentry families, such as Denny, in biographies. When you know the seat it's possible for those who are interested to look into the family further, e.g. using VCH of the manor, or a county history. I don't care where the coat of arms goes, but it's certainly worthy of going in the article, WP biogs have 1,000s of CoAs so it's a well established WP convention to include them, near the top - they concern family origins, which start at the top. The 1562 stained-glass is a very valuable illustration, and needs to be included. Captions should explain what the images depict, a golden rule of any publishing. It's very irritating for the reader to be presented with an image unexplained or semi-explained by the caption and then to have to hunt through the whole article to find an explanation. Thanks for correcting any of my errors, that's always welcome, but it might be more helpful if you would work in a collaborative manner rather than delete contributions added inadvertently and in good faith in the wrong place. We're not all WP lawyers who study the rules in great depth, that's not what WP is all about for most of us. So in conclusion I intend to replace the images of the arms, under the lead if you would prefer that, and also I intend to develop the ancestry and origins of this person. Lobsterthermidor (talk) 19:50, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Your characterization of my edits as wikilawyering, uncollaborative and deletionism is insulting. I helped expand this article e.g.[3] and obviously contributed collegially at Wikipedia:Peer review/Francis Walsingham/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Francis Walsingham/archive1. This article is about Walsingham not his ancestors. DrKay (talk) 20:05, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

None of that warrants the inclusion of two heraldry-related images into the lead (i.e. summary) of this article. The lead should contain one image, depicting the subject. Images should not be added wherever there is space because they are not supposed to be primarily decorative. They should be relevant to the section in which they appear. See WP:IMAGERELEVANCE. Surtsicna (talk) 20:49, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Origins

New section on origins added, more information, more logically arranged. He was from a well-established gentry family, which needs to be explained, his earliest notable ancestor was Thomas Walsingham (died 1457), MP, who purchased Scadbury. That needs to be mentioned too.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 12:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

It's at Scadbury Park, where it belongs. The section on his family connections is already more than adequate to put across the pertinent point: that he was a well-connected member of the gentry. DrKay (talk) 12:47, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Need to explain what that connection was. That has been done in one sentence. Important information. Lobsterthermidor (talk) 12:50, 4 May 2020 (UTC) Expanded (in one sentence) on who his father was, connecting him back to his earliest prominent ancestor, an MP and wealthy merchant. Clearly important info, not trivia.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 12:55, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Request for comment

Expanded (in one sentence) on who his father was, connecting him back to his earliest prominent ancestor, an MP and wealthy merchant. Clearly important info. Edit reverted and categorised as "trivia". Request for comment.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:01, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

The section on his family connections is already more than adequate to put across the pertinent point: that he was a well-connected member of the gentry. Biographies of Walsingham do not talk about his distant ancestry because it is trivial; we should follow the same practice as sources about the subject per WP:PROPORTION, Wikipedia:Too much detail and Wikipedia:Featured article criteria #4. DrKay (talk) 14:05, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

We need to explain how he was "well-connected" to the Kent gentry. That has been done in one short succinct sentence, linking him to that WP page. Is there a word-count limit on this article? It is not trivial to explain to readers that he was descended from a wealthy merchant and MP. WP biogs are more all-encompassing than pre-wiki era printed biogs which concentrate almost entirely on political careers. We are able link into all sorts of wider areas too. This information in no way damages or detracts from the article, it enhances it. If some printed biogs miss this detail, that's an unfortunate omission.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:16, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

It is explained already in three paragraphs. His distant, dead-75-years-before-he-was-born ancestors are not relevant. The main sources used in the article were all written after the foundation of wikipedia: they are up-to-date recent biographies written by topic experts. None of them go into this detail. The one source you've introduced was written thirty years before the main biography used to bring this article to featured status. DrKay (talk) 14:24, 4 May 2020 (UTC) Amended. DrKay (talk) 14:47, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Note: the sentence in dispute here is as follows

(second son of James Walsingham (1462-1540) of Scadbury Hall, Chislehurst, grandson of Thomas I Walsingham (died 1457), MP, who purchased Scadbury),

References

Note: Reference 2 doesn't mention Francis Walsingham at any point. Reference 1 is about Scadbury Park not Francis Walsingham.

"Distant, dead ancestors" are what history is all about, especially when they are such prominent ones. Distance in time and death are not things to be sneered at in historical topics. If you want to strip all WP biographies of text concerning "distant, dead ancestors", we would be able to decommission several hundred computer servers. I'm not sure we need to enact such drastic austerity. This seems to be the expression of the view of history taken by Ceaușescu or Mao, basically tabula rasa before the present era - or here before the era of our subject.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Reference 2 is about his prominent ancestor (Thomas I Walsingham (d.1457)) who founded the Walsingham family at Scadbury, the seat of Sir Francis Walsingham's grandfather James Walsingham. Are you interpreting the non-mention of his great-grandson Sir Francis Walsingham as a denial of his existence or as a denial of a family relationship? I don't understand your point. As for Reference 1, it is primarily about the descent of the estate of Scadbury, but it's clearly a family tree of the Walsingham family, thus a relevant source. It could probably be improved upon by quoting directly from the Heraldic Visitations of Kent, no doubt the ultimate source. I can do that if you wish.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 14:50, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Balancing aspects, Wikipedia:Too much detail and Wikipedia:Featured article criteria #4. DrKay (talk) 14:58, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Instead of quoting regulations and guidelines, please engage with the discussion, namely why you consider connecting Sir Francis Walsingham back to his earliest prominent ancestor, an MP and wealthy merchant, to be "trivial".Lobsterthermidor (talk) 15:17, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

It's explained at the linked pages. DrKay (talk) 15:34, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I cannot see how this one short, succinct sentence, highly relevant to "Origins and early life" offends against any of the guidelines you raise. Wikipedia:Featured article criteria #4: "It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style" - summary style suggests that where a sub-topic is too long and complex it should be hived-off into a new sub-article. I don't think this section is anywhere near such a length. How is it "unnecessary detail" to mention the ultimate known (notable) origin of Sir Francis Walsingham? It is very relevant to his origins, which the section is concerned with. How does this sentence "unbalance" the article or section? As for Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Balancing aspects: "An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject", This is one sentence, relevant to the subject of origins in a section of several hundred words, how is that "undue weight"? You can quote the guidelines, but it would be more helpful if you would explain how and why you consider that they are contravened by this sentence.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 18:27, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I did. In my first and second comments above. Out of tens of thousands of words in book-length biographies on Walsingham, not one word is written of his distant ancestor who died decades before his birth. It is undue weight to give him coverage here. DrKay (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

I cant see that the information adds to the article, wikipedia is not a genealogical website. The fact that his father doesnt appear to be of note adds to the fact that this is just trivia. MilborneOne (talk) 07:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

It is precisely because his father doesn't appear to be of note that it's important to point out that this was a well-established family, with a history of membership of the establishment. He did not sping up from nowhere. You could just state "he was from a well-established family", but that will lead the curious reader to wonder further. This one extra sentence answers that question. This is about English history, where ancestry mattered, it's not about a person in the USA, where discussion of origins is despised because many want to forget about where they came from in the "Old World" (maybe from poverty and squalour) or due to belief in a meritocratic society - great concept for today's world, but alien to 16th c. England. Very rarely did a great person rise up from humble beginnings, although of course some famous examples are well known. Careers largely depended on who you were, who you knew and who your ancestors were. People generally had to be introduced to court or to wealthy patrons, and that process was eased where ancestors had already broken into the establishment, albeit generations before. You didn't just send in your CV. The first ancestor who performed that service, and broke through into the establishment, is thus important to the future history of his family.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 23:00, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

From the article: "William Walsingham (died 1534), a successful and well-connected London lawyer who served as a member of the commission appointed to investigate the estates of Cardinal Thomas Wolsey in 1530.[4] William's elder brother was Sir Edmund Walsingham, Lieutenant of the Tower of London. Francis's mother was Joyce Denny, a daughter of the courtier Sir Edmund Denny of Cheshunt in Hertfordshire, and a sister of the courtier Sir Anthony Denny, the principal Gentleman of the Privy Chamber to King Henry VIII.[6] After the death of her first husband she married the courtier Sir John Carey in 1538.[4] Carey's brother William was the husband of Mary Boleyn, the elder sister of Anne Boleyn, the second wife of King Henry VIII.[7] Of Francis's five sisters, Mary married Sir Walter Mildmay, who was Chancellor of the Exchequer for over 20 years, and Elizabeth married the parliamentarian Peter Wentworth.[8]" Connections with the court and the establishment from the pertinent time period are already in the article, . DrKay (talk) 06:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

The connections cited by DrKay above are all oblique and indirect. We need to address the establishment connection from the direct male line, not just via the brother or maternal line - or even via step-father Carey. These are all oblique references. The direct male line was what mattered in the primogeniture era. A man's "family" was his paternal line, the one which bore the family coat of arms, the football club colours. That's what mattered. The Walsingham family "of Scadbury" was an ancient and notable gentry family. That needs to be mentioned - that concerns the direct male ancestry. Only once is the word "Scadbury" mentioned - in a caption. That is insufficiently prominent, it needs to be mentioned and explained in the main text. The reader is not expected to be a detective, important data needs to be served up on a plate, not as an optional side-dish. I cannot understand what the fuss is about over the addition of one short and important sentence. Again, is there a word-count limit on this article? Would the addition of the one extra sentence add to or detract from the article? The sentence needs to be added.Lobsterthermidor (talk) 09:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Of course it detracts. Articles should be focused on the topic and be representative of published reliable sources. They should not go off on a trivial tangent of original research. DrKay (talk) 10:05, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

DrKay, that's the guideline stated, which is helpful, but we are discussing here whether and if so how, this extra sentence materially contravenes any of those criteria. "Focused on the topic" is open to interpretation, and I suggest yours is far too narrow. Nor is it original research, the connection between Thomas and Edmund (Francis's brother) is clearly made in the Heraldic Visitations of Surrey. Filling in the gap that as both were brothers (as the article already states), therefore Thomas is a shared common ancestor, is not OR. I have attempted to explain above how this is not a "trivial tangent".Lobsterthermidor (talk) 13:36, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

You're looking at it with a genealogist's eye, not an encyclopedist's. As DrKay has emphasised, our articles are based on reliable secondary sources and as far as anyone has been able to determine, none of them mentions Thomas. Low importance articles like the 600-odd that you've started get away with more leeway in this regard because no-one examines them in any depth, but FAs have many watchers. Back in 2014 you said this re GAs. Presumably you feel the same about FAs!

Regarding this case, is there maybe a compromise - a footnote, perhaps?  —SMALLJIM  14:30, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

A footnote merely confirms the triviality and irrelevance of the suggested content. It's not even a footnote in Walsingham's book-length biographies, so it certainly shouldn't be one here per WP:DUE. DrKay (talk) 14:53, 18 May 2020 (UTC)