Talk:Lady Arbella Stuart

Updated Lead section

I edited the lead section to attempt to summarize the main points of the article. Open to suggestions. Srbsf7 14:29, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Untitled

To whom this may concern, Lady Arbella was never "Lady Beauchamp" because her husband's elder brother was still alive at the time and did not in fact die until after the death of Lady Arbella in 1618, three years after. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.234.240.178 (talk) 04:30, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

An additional chapter of Arbella's life. Added 6 May 2006

Note: Today a new "chapter" of Arbella's life has been added by John Baker, based on his discoveries elaborated in Notes & Quires, September 1997, (Vol. 44, #3., 369-70) now widely accepted by Arbella's biographers. Anyone changing this material is deleting important new information about her life and times. The record shows that Boas and Nicholl both wrongly rejected this chapter, based on a lack of knowledge of the whereabouts of Arbella during the 1589-92 period. John Baker, Ph.D. (abd), has been widely published in peer reviewed journals for two decades, has presented papers at Oxford and Cambridge and is webmaster of the most frequently visited site on Marlowe as Shakespeare [[1]]which features several essays on Arbella, along with portraits of her. I will be most happy to discuss these changes and the need for them with anyone. Indeed the new edition of the DNB has been revised to take note of them. John Baker

Note removed from main article --- Note: The following "chapter" of Arbella's life has been added by John Baker, based on his discoveries elaborated in Notes & Quires, September 1997, (Vol. 44, #3., 369-70) now widely accepted by Arbella's biographers. Anyone changing this material is deleting important new information about her life and times. The record shows that Boas and Nicholl both wrongly rejected this chapter, based on a lack of knowledge of the whereabouts of Arbella during the 1589-92 period. John Baker, Ph.D. (abd), has been widely published in peer reviewed journals for two decades, has presented papers at Oxford and Cambridge and is webmaster of the most frequently visited site on Marlowe as Shakespeare [[2]]which features several essays on Arbella, along with portraits of her.

I have removed most of this gentleman's contributions, which claim that Stuart's tutor was Christopher Marlowe. Wikipedia does not use original research or material from self-published websites, which is what 99% of his contribution is. I cannot vouch for Arbella Stuart biographies, but a recent biography of Marlowe identifies her tutor as a different person. Incidentally, Mr Baker's Notes and Queries publication is a letter, not a peer-reviwed article, and despite the statement above, the latest edition of the DNB makes no mention of Mr Baker's claims. The Singing Badger 23:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Well in that case you must be the foolish person who quoted the suggestion that Thomas Morley's son was Arbella's tutor. If you'd done the maths (why is it that these types don't do maths?) you'd have noticed that Thomas Morley was born c. 1558, or far too late, to have had a son who could have been this Morley. Unless he went through puberty at age five. I know the professor whose biography you cited and am hardly surprised she didn't do her math either.

The point is that ONLY the POET, Christopher Marlowe (b. 1563/4) attended and then left a university setting at the date suggested by Bess's letter.

Now next, N&Q is a "peer reviewed" format. Letters are not simply printed. They pass through a rigrious selection process before they are printed and the bulk of them are rejected.

More importantly since the publication, which cited new and origianl research and brought to light mistakes in bench mark studies of Arbella's and Marlowe's lives, such as Durant's and Boas', NO scholar has suggested that either the evidence Durant's discoveries set aside Boas' objections to Bess's "one Morley" being Marlowe. That's a lot better than just a few "peers" reviewing an essay or letter. That's thousands of scholars who have had a chance for nearly a decade to refute what I discovered or not. Their muteness prove my point.

The text you cited simply hadn't connected the dots. If it had, it would NEVER have suggested that a six year old Thomas Morley fathered, c. 1564, a son who was in 1589 Arbella's "attendant" and "reader."

Yes my web pages are the world's foremost webpages on Marlowe, based on "hits." They contain over 100 essays, and the bulk of it is "self-published," but I've been published in peer-reviewed journals, including Literary and Linguistic Computing, The Elizabethian Review, and N&Q.

I also correct mistakes brought to my attention by the many readers. I make mistakes. But hardly as foolish as this one by "The Singing Badger..." (:}) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.10.194.230 (talk • contribs).

Hello there John Baker (sorry if I got your name wrong), it was me that put the welcome message on your user page. I've been reading your points and must admit that I don't know that much about Arbella so I'm not really able to comment on them, but I've noticed that some of the 'side comments' in your posts and edit summaries might affect how your changes will be viewed if it comes down to a vote deciding whether your changes should be included. On Wikipedia we are careful not to make 'personal attacks' like calling each other foolish or jerks, as doing so can reduce these talk pages to flamewars instead of simple debates on the facts, and users reading the comments might assume they are being made because it is simpler to attack the person who disagress with you rather than debate the facts. You can find out more at WP:NPA Have fun with wikipedia! Kaid100 20:27, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

This paragraph is on the main page, it says the reason the page has a disputed tag. This was written by User:John_Baker,_Ph.D._(abd)

This biography has replaced the one written by a Stratfordian using the pen name "the singing badger." This "authority" redacted my earlier essay (John Baker, Ph.D., (abd) and a cited a biography of Marlowe which claimed a son of "Thomas Morley" was the tutor to Arbella. Neither the Badger or the author of the biography had checked their dates. Thomas Morley, the famous musician, was born c. 1558 and would, thus, have only been six in 1564 when Arbella's tutor was most likely born. Five seems too early to have been a father even in those distant times. So I have reclaimed this earlier essay of mine from the history pages where Badger banished it. And I am double checking all sources, making certain they are cited. Most of them are not original with me. I simply noticed that only the Poet Christopher Marlowe left a university setting at the time suggested by Bess's dispatch to Lord Burghley, making the identification "exclusive." My findings were published a number of years ago in a Note or Query in Notes and Queries, an internationally read Oxford University published scholarly publication that emphatically will not and did not simply publish any letter or note submitted. All Notes and Queries are reviewed by the Editors, university scholars in their respective subjects, depending on the content of the letter or essay. Most of them are rejected. (At least most of mine have been.) See 1. Moreover in the decade that has passed since publication, not ONE scholar has contested what was said in my note and many have embraced it openly. The discovery completely revises Marlowe's biography and substantially refocuses Arbella's. The discovery cannot be set aside by wild speculation and poor math. Arbella's tutor simply had to have been a university educated scholar holding an MA. He could not have been the musician Thomas Morley, who lacked that degree and is known elsewhere during the period. He cannot have been the "other Marlowe" the Trinity scholar, also holding an MA, because he remained at Trinity and a fellow. So it had to have been the poet. Which is why I wrote the identification proves "exclusive."

As I have said before I am not an expert on Arbella Stuart and I know relatively little about Marlowe, but I'd like to ask you/John Baker a few questions if I may:

First of all you say that only Christopher Marlowe left university at the time suggested by Bess' dispatch. Did only one person leave university that year? Or was Marlowe the only one to leave with a name that sounds a bit like Morley? Does the note specify that Morley left university a only shortly before the note was written, or could it have been any time before? Must this 'Morley' be someone who is otherwise well-known, or could he simply be a nobody who is only notable for being Arbella's tutor? You mention that it is impossible that Thomas Morley's son could have been Arbella's tutor. Does that mean that only Marlowe could have been?

You also mention that your paper hasn't been challenged by any experts. This could be important, but it doesn't prove anything in itself: It could simply mean that no experts noticed it or thought it important enough to talk about. Have any experts actually endorsed it or cited from it in their own paper?

Also, you describe the Singing Badger as a Stratfordian. I understand that is a term used by people that believe Shakespeare did not write the plays ascribed to him to describe people that do. Are you yourself among the people that believe that Shakespeare didn't write his plays? Is this line of reasoning about Arbella one that leads to Marlowe as the author of Shakespeare's plays?

I must stress these questions and comments are not intended as any sort of attack on you personally, but only intended to establish the facts. Kaid100 18:19, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Mr Baker is an adherent to Marlovian theory (see his website), although I don't think his theory about Arbella Stuart's tutor necessarily has anything inherently to do with that. Mr Baker's theory could well be correct: if so, it's very interesting and needs corroboration. The problem is that his theory has only been expressed in one short letter in Notes and Queries, which has either been ignored or, more likely, not noticed. Letters to journals do not usually get listed in bibliographic databases, so anyone doing a search for 'Christopher Marlowe' in, say, the MLA database, will not discover his letter; it can only be seen by someone who happens upon it by chance while flipping through old copies of N&Q. It's hardly surprising that no Marlowe scholars have spotted it.

If letters to N&Q are peer-reviewed, I apologise for suggesting otherwise; but if I were Mr Baker, I would re-publish it more visibly as a long article in a journal, because if he's right, it's really interesting, and if he's wrong, it needs a clear rebuttal; either way, it needs corroboration from experts, which he won't get from Wikipedia.

Anyway, to return to Wikipedia, I think Baker's theory has every right to appear in the article, but it does need to be flagged with a warning that (rightly or wrongly) it has not yet been corroborated by any major Marlowe biographies. The Singing Badger 09:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I've made some changes to try to preserve POV based on what's been said here, and requested citations for a few statements- I'm happy to discuss it more however. Kaid100 14:52, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Having made the changes earlier today and coming back to them now, I worry that we are giving undue weight to a minority theory, which WP:NPOV#Undue weight argues against. Anyone got any ideas how it might be reworded? Kaid100 22:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the real problem is that this is all about Marlowe, not Arbella. Most of it should be shifted to Christopher Marlowe or Marlovian theory, with just a brief note on Arbella's page. The Singing Badger 14:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

As those who complete and defend a dissertation learn, it is unwise to claim a PhD until you actually have one. Becoming ABD is an achievement in itself. However, the completion of the dissertation and defense is an equally important, mind-altering step in the scholarly process, and those who have gone through those steps realize the difference.

As an ABD scholar, Mr. Baker is entitled to certain puppy privileges. Nonetheless, it's important to understand the significant distinction between a letter and a peer-reviewed article: such articles are not just reviewed and selected but almost always revised during the review process in light of questions and criticisms from the reviewers. Like the dissertation defense, the peer-review *process* is essential to the production of a certain kind of scholarship. The issue is not whether a point has been "refuted" (which is probably not possible on a topic like this) but rather whether it has been taken up and integrated into a larger fabric of serious work on this and related subjects, even if it remains controversial. Acute questions and critical remarks are part of the work of serious scholarship.

NB "Notes and Quires" is really "Notes and Queries." It's not good to misspell the title of the journal you cite, as it indicates a worrisome level of carelessness.

It's not that one needs a PhD to do good work. But it's a bad idea to invoke the apparent authority of a PhD without the knowledge, skills and understanding of scholarly processes that acquiring the degree should ensure.

Elenchus2 (talk) 16:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea about the validity of Mr. Baker's academic credentials, but the case he makes for Marlowe being the most likely - indeed, the only likely - candidate to have been Arabella Stuart's tutor is absolutely correct. It is known that he was working as a spy for the English government, and was probably sending information about her to Sir Francis Walsingham and/or Lord Burghley. As Mr. Baker pointed out in these notes, there is no other person who would have left Cambridge or Oxford during this time period whose name could possibly have been rendered "Morley." And I certainly do not think this bit of information should be dismissed as original research, as it has never been refuted and can be found on many reputable internet sites.Daver852 (talk) 02:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)daver852

In response to Daver852, even if it is "absolutely correct" that Marlowe was Stuart's tutor, any reference to that effect in the main article will require a valid citation. That given, in response to your other points, how do we know how broad the "time period" is that Morley left Oxbridge? It could be immediately before (John Baker's assumption) but it could have been thirty years before. Secondly, how do you know there is no other person with a name close to Morley that left university in that period? Do we have a copy of the list of graduates for those years? Just because Marlowe is the only person otherwise known to history in that era, doesn't mean that there aren't others who lived in obscurity. Before responding, please consider that any debate on this is moot unless we have a valid citation, Wikipedia cannot 'decide' here the truth of facts, only report on what is said elsewhere. 82.17.208.52 (talk) 08:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup

I have attempted to tidy up the mess that this article has become. I have added a lot of citation requests. I removed most of the material about Marlowe, keeping only the stuff relevant to Arbella; I will place the rest into the Christopher Marlowe article. I removed the stuff claiming Aemilia Lanier didn't write her poem, which was not supported by any citations and seemed like eccentric original research. The Singing Badger 17:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

---

This is about tag cleanup. As all of the tags are more than a year old, there is no current discussion relating to them, and there is a great deal of editing done since the tags were placed, or perhaps there is a consensus on the discussion page, they will be removed. This is not a judgement of content. If there is cause to re-tag, then that of course may be done, with the necessary posting of a discussion as to why, and what improvements could be made. This is only an effort to clean out old tags, and permit them to be updated with current issues if warranted.Jjdon (talk) 21:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Children by Seymour?

I am looking for historical proof that Arbella had children by Seymour.

- No historical proof, but speculation that Mary Dyer was the result of their marriage, given off to one of her ladies in waiting (Mary's mother in law). The records and letters passed back and forth show Arabella's medical conditions during the period similar to pregnancy, combined with James I's ambiguous wording about any products of the match not being a threat to his legitimacy. But no historical or incontrovertable proof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.94.163.36 (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Identity of monarchs?

The article on Arbella Stuart mentions — but does not identify by name — a Duke of Parma, a Pope, a cardinal who was the Pope's brother, as well as the kings of France, Spain and Poland. I want to identify and make links for the Pope, cardinal and kings mentioned in the article.

My sketchy memory of the names of European leaders of the late 16th and early 17th centuries makes me ask these questions:

Is the King of France Henry IV?

Is the King of Spain Philip III?

Is the Pope Clement VIII? Did he have a brother who was a cardinal? Was that cardinal really defrocked in order to marry Arbella Stuart?

And who are the Duke of Parma and King of Poland mentioned in the article?

I would appreciate someone who knows more about the period to find out and add the appropriate links to the article. Many thanks.

— Diamantina 05:02, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Some of this stuff seems dubious. The ODNB article on Arbella mentions the Earl of Leicester's son, James VI, and the Duke of Parma's sons as possible suitors, but makes no mention of the Pope's brother or the House of Savoy. john k 15:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

According to one of the sources linked, it was the Duke of Parma's younger son who was the cardinal, not any Pope's brother. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:26, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

possible child

This section seemed to be total nonsense, based on some family legend. I've commented it out, except for a statement that most sources say they had no children. john k 14:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Just because you feel it to be total nonsense does not mean that could not be true. The Garrett family was an important family at one time, many things were written about them and like many families they have their ideas as to where they come from. Therefore the idea should be presented. The source states that Mary was of royal blood. Well, there was only so many people she could be descended from at that time. It also states that because of her marriage she would have been disinherited, so there would not be a lot of evidence to her background as her family took her out of the picture.

I myself study history and geneaology of families, which is why when I found this theory it seemed exciting to present.

I simply can not understand the huge upset nor the harm of leaving it up. There are many theories presented on this site about things that go against what we thought we knew. No one takes them down and yet this one seems to have really put people up in arms. I find that very interesting.

In any event, the point was to bring up a new theory and idea for people think about, it was not meant to offend or cause people get upset. Whether it be nonsense or has some truth to it, people make their own decisions and seemed worth mentioning. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RosePlantagenet (talk • contribs) 17:20, 12 August 2006.

Hi Rose, I don't have a strong view on this since I'm not familiar enough with the subject matter, but in an article like this one, which is rather short and hasn't been worked on enough, it's important not to make minority theories seem more important than they are. The policy about this is called 'avoiding undue weight', and you can read it here: WP:NPOV. It is summarized as follows:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.

The theory you've included apparently comes from one extremely obscure publication that is not (as far as I can tell) widely available. Do you know if anybody else has ever put forward this theory in print? This is meant as a polite query, not an attack. :)

The basic point is that we have to make sure that the average reader cannot mistake an extreme minority theory for a commonly-held theory. If that happens, the article becomes untrustworthy. The Singing Badger 17:54, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree! They did not have a kid together. Most sources say that they did not. Dose anyone have any historical evidence?

No, I do not see it as an attack. :p I simply did not understand the upset, until you explained the reasons. I do not fully agree with the reasons but if it is how the website is run, then so be it. If it upsets people or if hurts the crediablity of this site then fine suppose it should not be up there.

Recently, I have been trying to gather up all my sources from my geneaology history, and I know some direct descendents, very well actually, who would strongly disagree that it is not true and unimportant. it is ashame.

I, however, believe that no amount of sources will convince anyone. As you said, it is a minor thing whether there is proof or no proof. Unfortunately, sometimes it seems geneaology and history collide. Anyway, seeing as how it has bothered so many, I have taken it out.

Thank you for not getting too upset and explaining the rules. ^_^! RosePlantagenet 19:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for being understanding, and obviously this says nothing about the child theory per se, which is indeed intriguing and might be true, but this website has to be strict because otherwise it opens the floodgates to crazier theories getting unreasonably promoted.The Singing Badger 19:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I just feel bad for the direct descendents. RosePlantagenet19:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to note, I can't imagine any reason why the existence of a daughter of Arabella Stuart and William Seymour would not be mentioned in contemporary sources. Both were important people (with claims to the throne) and the story of their elopement is known in considerable detail. Arabella may have had a miscarriage at some point in 1610 or 1611, but there is certainly no evidence of the existence of a daughter who survived to adulthood. The Marquess of Hertford (as Seymour became) was a very important politician of the time, and became a royalist officer in the civil war. It beggars reason to think that the existence of a daughter by his (extremely controversial and politically significant) first marriage would not be noted anywhere, even if she were later disinherited. Being disinherited does not mean that a conspiracy wipes out all trace of your existence. I can't imagine such a thing would be possible in the 17th century, where we know a great deal about what was going on, and certainly about the lives and histories of as prominent a person as Hertford and his family. The idea that only a family legend would preserve the existence of this daughter is incredibly unlikely. If she existed, there would be plenty of contemporary evidence. john k 20:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, in theory you would be correct. However, the Garretts were a very powerful and weathly family who came from England during the 1600s. I find it highly unlikely they would simply lie about their origins. Especially, about a woman who has no power and would have married a man far below her station.

Everyone keeps saying evidence and saying it would have to be in sources, well whether people choose to believe it or not, not everything back then was documented 100% correctly. You can not just assume everything is down to the letter.

Just because many sources say she did not exist does not mean she could not have. On the article about Queen Victoria, someone suggests that she may not be the daughter of the Duke of Kent (That is still up oddly), and I have never read anything to say that but anything is possible. So, the possibitly of Arbella and William having as daughter is not far fetched. Unless we go back in time can we be so sure?

All I can say about this woman is, her name was Mary and she married John Garrett. She was of royal blood (only so many people she could have been related too) but because of her marriage she was written out by her family. So, it would be unlikely you would easily find anything about her. I, like you, believed it could not be true. However, I have studied other royal families from that time descended from the English royal family and found nothing. However, this woman did exist. Most geneaological records say she did. It is interesting that William Seymour named another daughter Mary not to long after, this Mary would have married and been disinherited. Both Mary's would have lived and died about the same time.

Is it her? My evidence says it is, and I know people who believe that they are direct descendents from her. You and others say no. The fact we are debating about this tells me that it is something that has sparked interest because it turned into a strong debate. I would have never put it up had I known it would create such an upset. Which means, to me, there is a bit of uncertainity.

I will only close with saying that if this theory is something that the runners of this site would prefer people not read, while that is ashame, it is down now. No harm is done. I will not be placing it back up.

RosePlantagenet 17:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

King James Bible

The section on Literary Legacy contains a paragraph about the King James version of the Bible, and that 9 out of 10 words in the KJV were taken from William Tyndale's earlier translation. Does this have anything whatsoever to do with Arbella, or is it a typo? If there is some connection there, it needs to be established. Right now it seems like a total nonsequitor. Amity150

Sources for Arbella or Arabella, etc?

Please would someone explain the lady's alternative names or spellings? I suppose spelling was simply inexact? I have only heard of her (and indeed the name generally) as Arabella, but I am no historian. Could we have some sources please? Jezza (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Arabella Stuart gets >100,000 hits in Google Books, Arbella Stuart just 5000. In Google Scholar, just under 1500 and 327 respectively. I think this page should be renamed, as Arabella is the more favored form. Agricolae (talk) 02:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I think the more critical point is that Arbella invariably used that spelling herself, although she used both "Stewart" and "Stuart" for her family name. From Blanche Christabel Hardy's Arbella Stuart: a biography (1913) to Sarah Gristwood's Arbella: England's lost queen (2005), Arbella is the form preferred by those most familiar with the subject. For Arbella's signatures, see Hardy, p. 20. Moonraker2 (talk) 02:58, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The form used by the person is not the standard for Wikipedia nomenclature. Agricolae (talk) 19:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

No doubt you are correct in that. If the criterion is simply Google hits, then the commonest form of a name is likely to prevail at Wikipedia, whether it is a correct form or not. In this case, neither is incorrect, but 'Arabella' is really more popular than scholarly. Having said that, Encyclopedia Britannica moved from an article by P. M. Handover called Arbella Stuart in 1957 to one by Ian McInnes called Arabella in 1968. Curiously, the single name seems to have been used in 1968 because McInnes's own preference is for "Lady Arabella Seymour"! Moonraker2 (talk) 20:46, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

At some point, an overwhelming popular usage overrides scholarly usage, but the question is at what point. How about DNB and ODNB? What do they use? Agricolae (talk) 20:28, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The DNB article is here. The ODNB has also used Arabella. Moonraker2 (talk) 04:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Seeing as the DNB article uses Arabella, I think it behooves us to follow suit and change the article's name to Lady Arabella Stuart.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I admit I'm not convinced. There is still a strong use of 'Arbella' in reliable sources, and given the movement of opinion towards "authenticity", which gives us Ælfthryth instead of Elfrida and Cnut the Great instead of Canute, I suspect the trend in this case is probably towards Arbella. Arabella is essentially an 18th century revision. Moonraker2 (talk) 02:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

This 'authenticity' trend is not stable - the early Scottish kings' names have gone back from the more authentic Gaelic forms to more popular ones (e.g. Mac Bethad is now Macbeth), and various others such as Godwin (not Godwine) and Alfred (not Ælfræd) retain the popular over the more authentic. Your own example actually mixes the two: Ælfthryth, wife of Edgar (not Eadgar). As to Cnut/Canute, that issue was just re-raised in the Harald I -> Harald Bluetooth rename discussion - it all just shows how there is no consensus for how popular a popular form must be before it trumps authenticity. Agricolae (talk) 07:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Sources for court visits

[3] and [4] Dougweller (talk) 17:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Which Lennox in 1588? Ludovic or Esmé?

Which Lennox was suggested for her husband in 1588, when she was 13? The article currently says Ludovic Stewart, 2nd Duke of Lennox (1574-1624) (succeeded to the Dukedom in 1583); but we also have an article Esmé Stuart, 2nd Duke of Lennox, which claims that he was the proposed husband.

It's not clear whether the latter is an error for the actual 2nd Duke, ie Ludovic; or whether his younger brother Esmé Stewart, 3rd Duke of Lennox (1579 – 1624) (succeeded briefly to the dukedom in 1624) might have been intended.

At the moment the article cites Sarah Gristwood's Arbella: England's Lost Queen, p. 109: "In 1588 and again the following year King James, frantic for alternatives to the ever-threatened Farnese alliance, suggested that Arbella should marry Ludovic Stuart, son of his first favourite Esmé"

To try to track where the confusion with Esmé may have come from, here are some hits from Google for "Arabella Stuart" with "Esmé Stuart":

• 1911 Britannica (here) said "Lord Esme Stuart, whom [King James VI] had created duke of Lennox" -- but Esmé Stewart, 1st Duke of Lennox (1542 – 1583), who had been made Duke of Lennox in 1581 by James, was dead, and had been married since 1572, as well as being far older than Arabella.

• The National Trust webpage [5] includes "Esme Stuart, Duke of Lenox" as one of Arbella's proposed suitors, citing "Miss Bradley's 'Life of Arabella Stuart', 1889".

• Cates (1867), A Dictionary of General Biography, p. 1081: "her cousin, King James, was inclined to marry her to Lord Esmé Stuart, whom he had created Duke of Lennox, and whom, before his marriage, he considered as his heir".

• Elizabeth Cooper (1866), The Life and Letters of Lady Arabella Stuart. vol 1, p. 118 describes a letter (now in the State Papers) from Robert Bowes to Lord Burghley in 1592, reporting that the "Duke of Lennox ... longeth after Arbella". Cooper seems to misinterpret the Duke in question as Esmé Stewart, 1st Duke of Lennox.

  (and cf our (rather colourful) bio of Ludovic Stewart, 2nd Duke of Lennox for more of Bowes' reporting).

• Leigh Hunt (1843), One Hundred Romances of Real Life, p. 20 "James himself, then unmarried, proposed for the husband of the Lady Arabella one of her cousins, Lord Esme Stuart, whom he had created Duke of Lennox, and designed for his heir."

• (1837), [6]

(more to follow) Jheald (talk) 13:30, 1 June 2020 (UTC)