Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by HelenOnline (talk | contribs) at 16:43, 20 November 2013 (→Warning: cmt). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is HelenOnline's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5Auto-archiving period: 31 days

Edward IV and G.E. Cokayne

Hi Helen, RE - Ancestry of Catherne, Duchess of Cambridge. You might like to know that in Volume X, page 34, copyright 1945, S11568, The Complete Peerage of England..." by G.E. Cokayne, it is clear that there was issue from the Plantaganet- Lumley marriage

http://our-royal-titled-noble-and-commoner-ancestors.com/p1924.htm

You may also be interested in a published book (by Pen and Sword Books) It was published in Feb. 2013 - called "Tracing Your Aristocratic Ancestors". It is written by royal geneaologist Anthony Adolph (please see his web site). Chapter 6 is called "Heraldry" and it deals with the indisputable descent of the duchess of Cambridge from Edward IV.

Good Luck! Cheers Mike (Ted) Reed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.144.90.209 (talk) 10:14, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I have responded on the article's talk page as there are other editors involved. HelenOnline 13:04, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear Helen, You might like to refer to Cracroft's page - he, along with many geneaologists - is in absolutley no doubt that their was issue from the Lumley - Plantagenent marriage - (which includes descendants such as the Queen Mother).

http://www.cracroftspeerage.co.uk/online/content/catherinemiddleton.htm

This is, as I am sure you know, a ludicrous situation. So many geneaologists have published this Edward IV ancestry of Kate Middleton's: C.Hall, A.Adolph, Cracroft and of course, Burke's Perrage and Cokayne. Here is the original (longer) version which he had on his website, (albeit briefly)-

"The Complete Peerage article on the Lords Lumley (Vol VIII p.274) does not say that there were no children from this marriage (patently not, as Richard, 4th Lord Lumley, was the son of Sir Thomas Lumley and Elizabeth Plantagenet) but that there was no evidence of the marriage. Given that the marriage was in the late 15th century this is not unusual. In the Addenda & Corrigenda to the Complete Peerage (p.457) Peter Hammond gives two sources for the evidence for this marriage. His last sentence reads: “The assertion that there were any issue is certainly not true”. Given Peter’s earlier comments, this is obviously a typo and it should read: “The assertion that there was no issue is certainly not true.”

Hope this helps. Use his specific facts (page numbers etc) in the article if necessary. You seem a very capable editor - moreso than me!! Michael E. Reed

Thanks, I cannot cite Cracroft's website due to the WP:BLPSPS policy. If you really want to help, please participate in the discussion on the article's talk page. WP:Consensus matters. HelenOnline 09:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

November 2013

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.

I think there was some confusion as to the edits I made on list of haplogroups of notable people, particularly the King Tut section. I couldn't fit it all in the edit summary so I've brought the discussion here. Your first edit was in regards to this sentence "After pressure to publish Tutankhamun's full DNA report to confirm his Y-DNA results, the researchers refused to respond." It is known that they purposely left out his Y-DNA results in the final report despite testing his Y-DNA (His Y-DNA results were publicly broadcasted when they were trying to determine if Akhenaten was his father). After the leak the researchers responded by calling it "unscientific" but did not deny the results were accurate (Since it was publicly broadcasted so they couldn't deny it) and also refused to further comment when they were asked to officially report his Y-DNA results.

You made a rv in your second edit, I removed that part because I didn't feel it was relevant to the article.

In your third edit you reverted this additional information I added "In December 2012 according to a genetic study conducted by the same researchers who decoded King Tutankhamun's DNA, found that." I thought this part was relevant because it showed that these particular researchers were willing to publish the Y-DNA results of the mummies, but possibly tried to censor King Tuts DNA results due to him having European ancestry.

In the fourth edit you removed the origin of R1b1a2 (R-M269) and E1b1a for an unknown reason. Let me know how we can settle this, thanks Anarchistdy (talk) 09:12, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

All my edits are clearly explained in my edit summaries (I broke it down carefully so there could be no confusion). Including the origins of the haplogroups amounts to WP:CONTENTFORKING which is not constructive. If you read the deletion nomination discussions listed on the article's talk page, you may have a better idea where I am coming from. If the article deteriorates further, deletion is a distinct possibility. HelenOnline 09:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

"All my edits are clearly explained in my edit summaries (I broke it down carefully so there could be no confusion)" You attempted to explain them but I don't think they were justified.

I disagree that it falls into the contentforking category because it does conform to the Manual of Style for list and the first paragraph states. "On the other hand, as an article grows, editors often create summary-style spin-offs or new, linked article for related material. This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage."

I read the deletion discussion and the overwhelming opinion was to keep the article, with suggestings to clean it up and remove some of the less notable people. My edit to the King Tut section was to make it more neutral because the entire section was trying to discredit those particular results just because the original researchers didn't publish the YDNA in the final report. As I said before his DNA testing was publicly broadcasted, and the camera showed a close up of the results which were R1b1a2 (R-M269) to 99.9% certainty (For comparison most of the results on this list claiming a certain YDNA are probably only around 80% certainty). The the only way the researchers could deny these results was if contamination occurred, which it clearly didn't since the same sample proved that Akhenaten was his father. Anarchistdy (talk) 20:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Reposting quote here for clarity: "On the other hand, as an article grows, editors often create summary-style spin-offs or new, linked article for related material. This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage."

This refers to intentional forking, e.g. in the Haplogroup R1b (Y-DNA) article editors may decide to split out Haplogroup_R1b_(Y-DNA)#R1b1a2_.28R-M269.29 if the main article becomes too long and this section warrants an article of its own. List of haplogroups of notable people is definitely not the place to discuss the origins of a haplogroup (possibly duplicating or contradicting what is posted in the main article where it is already covered in more detail). If someone wants to know more they can click on the R1b1a2 wikilink in the section. HelenOnline 05:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I am moving this discussion across to the article talk page so other editors can contribute to the discussion. HelenOnline 05:00, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Untitled

Dear Helen, Well done on your work on the Edward IV ancestry "issue" of Kate Middleton. I wonder if the information will ever be placed back in her own article? What do you think?

There were at least 2 films found in July 2013, by British Pathe which featured Kate's ancestors. The first was from 1915 and her great great grandfather Francis Martineau Lupton appears in it. Francis is part of the Mayoral entourage following his brother, Sir Charles, who is inspecting the "Leeds Pals Battalian" at a camp near Colsterdale, in the Yorkshire Dales. His brothers Arthur and Hugh are also in the entourage.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/07/09/kate-middleton-ancestors-caught-on-film_n_3567707.html

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/footage-found-of-duchess-of-cambridges-ancestors--meeting-royalty-8698340.html

http://britishpathe.wordpress.com/2013/07/10/the-duchess-of-cambridges-ancestors-discovered-on-film/

http://www.itv.com/news/update/2013-07-09/archive-footage-shows-kates-great-great-great-relatives/

The second Pathe film is from 1927 and shows Kate's great great grandfather's brother Hugh, Lord Mayor of Leeds, and his wife Isabella, the Lady Mayoress, greeting Princess Mary in Hunslet, Leeds. Princess Mary is the current Queen's aunt.

These films were shown in the UK on the BBC Look North TV programme on the day,6.30pm, of Prince George's birth!

I do hope this helps clear things up and well done again. Cheers Mike — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.138.209 (talk) 09:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Personally I prefer it on one page only. There is no need for the duplication, which increases article maintenance and the possibility of point of view forking.

Thanks, I figured there were two different films from different dates but they seem to have been mixed up in the text I edited?. The brotherly entourage related to the 1915 film not the 1927 film mentioned in the previous sentence. The way it was written made it sound as if the brotherly entourage related to the 1927 royal visit, which I understand is not the case. Please let me know if I am mistaken about this. HelenOnline 09:45, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Helen,

Good to hear from you and thanks.

It is my understanding that the 4 films were of interest to the UK media because they all relate to each other - over a period of 50 years. They all show that the four Lupton men (as well as Lady Mayoress Isabella Lupton) and also Kate's grandfather, all knew Royalty well - obviously not just in "Lord Mayoral" official capacities.

Pathe Film 1 - Kate's great great grandfather Francis is seen with his brother Sir Charles and his two other brothers, in the 1915 film. Sir Charles was Deputy Lieutenant of the West Riding of York to Princess Mary's father-in-law, Earl Harewood, who was his Lord Lieutenant. Princess Mary's (future) husband, Lord Harewood, is also apparently in the entourage but I have searched the records from Pathe and I cannot see where this idea originated from - but I agree that it is most probable. His wikipaedia entry certainly lists him as a soldier.

Pathe Film 2 - Kate's great great great uncle Hugh and his wife Isabella, are greeting and then waving "good bye" to Princess Mary, the Princess Royal in Hunslet, Leeds, in the 1927 Pathe film. This also interested the BBC as Princess Mary is Prince William's great great aunt. A magazine called "Majesty" did an article on all of this fairly new information recently. Footage and stills were also found of Sir Charles' brother-in-law, Viscount Bryce (British Ambassador to the USA) in the Library of Congress. A photo of Viscount Bryce, alongside Prince Arthur, was also in "Majesty" - a UK publication which sells world wide. I think it was also mentioned in a Daily Telegraph article too.

Pathe Film 3 - Kate's great great great aunt is seen at a huge Leeds Rememberance event - with the Great Mace of Leeds being carried before her, as Lady Mayoress, this being a "sign of Royal Authority". http://www.britishpathe.com/video/armistice-day-thousands-attend-deeply-impressive-3

Pathe Film 4 - The UK public would have been interested to see the Pathe film which shows Co-pilot Peter Middleton together with the Duke of Edinburgh in the 1962 "Tour of South America". Peter Middleton is the grandfather of Kate Middleton. The Duke is Prince William's grandfather. http://www.britishpathe.com/video/selected-originals-dukes-successful-tour-3/query/shanty

Fascinating on television to watch!

I do hope this helps. All the Best M.E.Reed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.219.138.209 (talk) 11:32, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

You're an inspiration...

I am new to Misplaced Pages as a writer. I stumbled onto your User Page, and is busy using it (along with a few others) to create my own. Thank you for being an inspiration to me in this regard.

How long did you take to get your User Page to where it is now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freddie2012a (talk • contribs) 11:09, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

How do I make a link so people can message me as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freddie2012a (talk • contribs) 11:10, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

No problem, I am happy to help. Don't forget to sign your posts with four tildes. HelenOnline 11:21, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Warning

Your recent editing history at Erzurum shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Yozer1 (talk) 16:41, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

One revert of an unsourced edit does not constitute edit warring. HelenOnline 16:43, 20 November 2013 (UTC)