Talk:Anne Stanley, Countess of Castlehaven

Untitled

In the front page, someone (in the start) had confused two cousins. As the obvious intent was to write about THAT Anne Stanley who was potential heiress of Elizabeth I, the result is crap.

The correct heiress was:

Anne Stanley1 (F) b. May 1580, d. circa October 1647, #47549 Anne Stanley was the daughter of Ferdinando Stanley, 5th Earl of Derby and Alice Spencer.1 She was born in May 1580.1 She married, firstly, Grey Brydges, 5th Baron Chandos of Sudeley on 28 February 1607/8.1 She married, secondly, Sir Mervyn Tuchet, 2nd Earl of Castlehaven, son of George Tuchet, 1st Earl of Castlehaven and Elizabeth Noel, on 22 July 1624 at Harefield, Middlesex, England.1 She died circa October 1647 at Ruislip.1 She was buried on 11 October 1647. - Through her marriage, Anne Stanley gained the title of Countess of Castlehaven on 22 July 1624.

    Child of Anne Stanley and Grey Brydges, 5th Baron Chandos of Sudeley:
   Elizabeth Brydges   b. b 1619, d. c Mar 1678/79 

Citations [S6] G.E. Cokayne; with Vicary Gibbs, H.A. Doubleday, Geoffrey H. White, Duncan Warrand and Lord Howard de Walden, editors, The Complete Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom, Extant, Extinct or Dormant, new ed., 13 volumes in 14 (1910-1959; reprint in 6 volumes, Gloucester, U.K.: Alan Sutton Publishing, 2000), volume III, page 86. Hereinafter cited as The Complete Peerage. 217.140.193.123 19:08, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Heading

I believe she was not universally always known as Lady, and I believe she is recognizable without it. Therefore "Lady" shuld not be included in the article title (as the requirement for such inclusion is: person if universally recognised with it and their name is unrecognisable without it). It seems to me that recently, there has been sort of campaign by some users to put titulary into headings, without any solid support from naming conventions, and this here apparently is a part of such campaign. 217.140.193.123 02:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

A possible pretender today

Who is Lady Anne's senior living descendant today? He/she would be a potential pretender to the throne of England. Jess Cully 12:36, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

She has no living descendants. According to Arrigo, the heir-general of the Duchess of Suffolk is Michael Abney-Hastings, 14th Earl of Loudoun, who also happens to be the heir-general of George, Duke of Clarence and hence a pretender to the English throne twice over. Odd. I redacted that from his edits to the article — he has a tendency to stick in long recitations of the heirs-general to dubious claims — but if you want the info back in here, maybe I should revert that part of my edit. IMO the info would be best confined to the Earl of Loudon's page, and maybe Elizabeth I of England. Choess 05:19, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Apparently no living legitimate descendants. We do not know of illegitimates. However they usually are not regarded as eligible to inherit. Regarding the question of heir general of Duchess of Suffolk, actually there are the two alternatives: whether Seymour (Beauchamp) was illegitimate or not, the heir general is either his heir or Stanley heir. The "heir general" of Anne Stanley is heir general of only Eleanor Brandon in sufficient certainty. re location, page of a person who actually was not very noteworthy without her more or less recognized claim, deserves to include to where that claim then evolved. Remember that that claim actually made this as an article. Arrigo 08:36, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

So is the Earl of Loudoun Eleanor Brandon's heir general? Jess Cully 11:13, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Neutral POV?

"lasciviousness and gross immorality" doesn't sound like a neutral POV to me.

Lady Caroline Ogilvy as legitimist heir

As touched on in the page on Michael Abney-Hastings, 14th Earl of Loudoun, when supporters of a claim to the throne other than the one that succeeded in taking possession of it seek to establish who is the current holder of the claim, strict legitimists argue that laws passed under the monarchs that they consider to be usurpers are not valid, because the parliaments that passed them were not summoned by the rightful monarch, and the laws were not given the Royal Assent by the rightful monarch. Thus legitimist supporters of Lady Anne Stanley's claim will regard all English and British laws passed since 1603 as invalid. That includes laws on divorce. As the page on divorce says :

From the earliest years of the Christian age until the 18th century, annulment was the only means by which a marriage could be dissolved, and the circumstances under which annulment was proper was solely within the province of ecclesiastical courts. The common-law courts had no power over marriage since it was a status granted by the Church.

Thus under the laws of 1603 only the church courts could dissolve a marriage. The 9th Earl of Jersey's divorce was not granted by the church courts, therefore under 1603 law it was invalid, and the Earl remained married to his first wife until she died. Therefore his subsequent marriages were null and void and the children of them illegitimate. Therefore, for strictly legitimist 'Stanleyites', the rightful monarch of England is not anyone descended from these 'illegal' marriages, but the Earl's only (in their eyes) legitimate-born child, Lady Caroline. Jess Cully 12:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Portrait is wrong

This profile features a portrait that is on its face, not Anne Stanley, but says right on it “Alice Spencer.” Why is this portrait here? It is in essence wronging them both, and all the readers. 2600:4040:5AEF:B400:7232:A121:EFEE:B6FF (talk) 21:42, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Well spotted. I removed it - this was an image of Anne Stanley's mother. Nl maclean (talk) 23:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC)