Talk:Henry Wriothesley, 3rd Earl of Southampton

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage (assessed as Low-importance).

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Shakespeare Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shakespeare, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of William Shakespeare on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ShakespeareWikipedia:WikiProject ShakespeareTemplate:WikiProject ShakespeareShakespeare articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Paintings[edit]

Has never anyone doubted whether the portrait of the fair haired young man is really Henry Wriothesley, the 3rd Earl? In the portrait of his youth, and as a grown man, he has brown eyes. In the portrait of him being 21, his eyes are blue. How is that possible, if it is supposed to be the same man. I know that paintings from back then differ a lot, but the eye colour? Gabriele Breder (talk) 20:19, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Painters were not always candidly true-to-life (note example of the improbable youthfulness of Elizabeth I's later life portraits), and sometimes altered features to suit the vanity of the sitter if the latter were powerful.Cloptonson (talk) 21:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled[edit]

What does it mean to "cole and hug?" It's marked off with quotation marks, but there is no citation to be found. Can anyone help clarify this? The reference is under the heading on the association between Wriothesley and the Earl of Essex.

New Earl of Oxford Paternity Theory[edit]

This section violates wikipedia guidelines on several counts, starting with its reliance on self-published material by an author with no standing in the fields of Shakespearean studies or early modern English history. Whittemore's unproven theories are presented without qualification as facts. The book is hyped as "setting forth a consistent and coherent explanation of the sequence of the sonnets as they follow events from Henry Wriothesley’s life," a description that will amaze the vast majority of readers as an overstatement entirely contrary to the principles of careful elucidation of controversial claims on which Wikipedia has built its reputation. It would be appropriate to eliminate the entire section and replace it with a more detailed but balanced account of the history of Southampton's possible involvement as fair youth of the Shakespearean sonnets as propounded by various scholars. --Twinkletoes2u 15:03, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I have tagged it. If there's a more appropriate tag, please update. - PKM 17:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation of Name[edit]

Concerning the pronunciation of Wriothesley's name, is it 'Rye-slee' or 'Rizz-lee'. This could be clearer. --Grantsky (talk) 14:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to Jonathan Bate's book "The Genius of Shakespeare", those who knew Wriothesley said it was pronounced "Rosely". This makes a lot of sense, since it makes a lot of rose-puns possible, and can explain why the word "Rose" is italicized in sonnet 1. 82.143.208.73 (talk) 21:50, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

jonathan bate is quite possibly wrong. the pronunciation of Wriothesley is a matter of serious debate that might never be settled. the wikipage should reflect that. 173.246.203.158 (talk) 04:04, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The US Webster's Biographical Dictionary (an edition I read in the 1970s) renders the pronunciation as if it were spelled wrisley.Cloptonson (talk) 21:43, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Onlie Begetter[edit]

In the passage about Thorpe's dedication of the sonnets to the "onlie begetter", down a couple of lines there is the word "better". Is this a misspelling of "begetter"? Otherwise, the meaning of these sentences is unclear. -- Grantsky (talk) 14:09, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Life Under King James I (and IV)[edit]

Was it Grey or Wriothesley who was in great trouble in 1621? Which took up the Protestant side in Germany, and proposed action against the Barbary pirates? The passage is ambiguous. If it is Wriothesley we're talking about, the sentence about Grey should be in parentheses. -- Grantsky (talk) 14:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"one of William Shakespeare's patrons"[edit]

I've just been reading a couple of news articles about Wriothesley (here and here), and both describe him as Shakespeare's "only known patron". This clashes with the opening statement here which says he was "one of Shakespeares patrons". Is there a basis for the "one of" claim? If not perhaps the phrasing should be "a patron of Shakespeare" (which covers both cases) if there is some contention over this fact. -- BigBadaboom0 (talk) 02:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since Shakespeare was in a theatre troupe sanctioned by the throne, I think it is reasonable to see Queen Elizabeth and King James as his patrons, too. Hence, there was more than one. 82.143.208.73 (talk) 21:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could it have been possible that Henry Wriothesley was in fact biological father of Henry de Vere, 18th Earl of Oxford, and thus interested in the person of Will Shakspere of Stratford? --Zbrnajsem (talk) 17:06, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1911 Classic Encyclopedia[edit]

Much of this article reproduces word for word the entry in the 1911 Classic Encyclopedia [1], now in the public domain. It should be possible to incorporate other reliable sources, and revise the wording so that it's not directly copied from that single source. NinaGreen (talk) 19:18, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Henry Wriothesley, 3rd Earl of Southampton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://archive.is/20130202134731/http://shakespeare-1.com/poetry-sonnets/lucrece.html/ to http://shakespeare-1.com/poetry-sonnets/lucrece.html/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:31, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Caption problem[edit]

The blazon of the coat of arms depicted doesn't match the coat of arms, which has eight subdivisions, not four. The bottom row of four is simply omitted from the blazon. The blazon probably belongs not to this article's subject, but, rather, to some ancestor of this article's subject, from whom this article's subject inherited those four pieces.2600:8804:8800:11F:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 20:46, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson[reply]

Alternatively, the blazon may be correct for this article's subject, in which case the illustration is wrong, belonging to some DESCENDANT of this article's subject who inherited the four described quarters from this article's subject. There's a mismatch is all. It's not self-evident whether the illustration is wrong or the caption is wrong, only that they do not agree with each other.2600:8804:8800:11F:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 20:49, 4 September 2022 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson[reply]