Talk:Eliza Larken Monson

improved article

on April 5 I improved the article as requested. --Elisa.rolle (talk) 19:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cracroft's Peerage

William John [Monson], 6th Baron Monson born 14 May 1796 mar. 8 May 1828 Eliza Larken (b. 24 Oct 1803; d. 22 Jan 1863; bur. at South Carlton, co. Lincoln), dau. of Edmund Larken, of Bedford Square, co. Middlesex, by his wife Anne Greaves, dau. of John Greaves, of Mark Lane, London. died 17 Dec 1862 (bur. at South Carlton, co. Lincoln) suc. by son children 1. Hon William John Monson, later 7th Baron Monson later 1st Viscount Oxenbridge 2. Hon Debonnaire John Monson, later 8th Baron Monson 3. Charles Edmund John Monson (b. 29 May 1831; dvp. 18 Apr 1832) 4. Hon Edmund John Monson, later Rt Hon Sir Edmund John Monson, 1st Bt. 5. Hon Charles John Monson (b. 10 Aug 1836; dvp. 30 Mar 1846) 6. Rev Hon Evelyn John Monson, Vicar of Croft, co. Lincoln (b. 7 May 1838; d. 13 Sep 1892), mar. 10 Jul 1872 Anne Grace Hynde Kinncar (d. 30 Aug 1919), dau,. of James Kinncar WS, of Edinburgh, and had issue 1. Hon Eliza Edom� Monson (dvp. 25 Aug 1849) 2. Theodosia Anne Monson (dvp. an infant 6 Jul 1841) 3. Hon Florence Grace Monson (d. 12 Dec 1900)--Elisa.rolle (talk) 16:23, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It has all the children, but does it have all of their information?–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

for that chapter yes, plus you added the reference for Rt Hon Sir Edmund John Monson, 1st Bt. and I added the link to his wiki page. --Elisa.rolle (talk) 16:29, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, cool, thanks!–CaroleHenson (talk) 16:31, 6 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

I'm not really seeing what's notable about this person. She's a noblewomen but that's not enough on its own. She's perhaps related to other more notable people, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. Her dress wound up in a museum, but it sounds like it's something she purchased, not something she created herself (see [1]: "Artist/Maker: Unknown"). The article as written also seems to fail WP:NOTGENEALOGY, as it's almost totally concerned with genealogical relations. I'm not seeing any clear merge or redirect targets, so perhaps it should just be deleted. - GretLomborg (talk) 22:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GretLomborg, I am seeing your point.

There is a red link at Baron Monson for her husband, William John Monson, 6th Baron Monson (1796–1862). Perhaps this can be edited down, with perhaps a sentence with just their names of the children, and converted into an article about the husband. What do you think?–CaroleHenson (talk) 09:28, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That might work, though I'd hope he did more to make himself notable than hold an inherited title. All I'm getting is genealogy in some cursory searches for him. Another option might be to just add a mention to to her Baron Monson next to William John Monson, 6th Baron Monson and redirect there. - GretLomborg (talk) 15:09, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks, a short blurb about the two of them at Baron Monson seems like a good option if there's not enough to prove notability for either of them on their own.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of notability what I am seeing is MP, MP, deputy-liet of Lincolnshire. As a member of parliament, he meets WP:POLITICIAN, right?–CaroleHenson (talk) 02:39, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. I'm having a little trouble parsing those sources: is he himself the "1st peer" or was that John Monson, 1st Baron Monson? I'm leaning towards the latter, since the description matches up with his wiki article. I'm guessing deputy-liet = Deputy Lieutenant which is a subordinate to a local-level Lord Lieutenant. Now it seems that position is largely ceremonial, but back then it has some duties regarding the militia. By WP:SOLDIER it might not be notable. - GretLomborg (talk) 18:26, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so it sounds like notability is just as MP. I don't see the harm in a separate article for him, but I'm ok with merging just a blurb into the Baron Monson article. It looks like Elisa.rolle is not weighing in on this, although I posted a message on her talk page about it... so it sounds like it's not a big deal to her, either.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@CaroleHenson: Was the 6th Baron really an MP though? Those sources seem be formatted this way: 1 sentence of genealogy, 1 sentence bio of the peer, 1 about the origin of the peerage, then a 1 sentence bio about his heir/presumed successor. The MP stuff was in the sentence about the "1st peer" which also say that person's "2nd son was created 1st Baron Sondes." If you look in John Monson, 1st Baron Monson, you find a listing of three sons, the second of which is described "Lewis Thomas, who assumed the name of Watson, and was created Baron Sondes in 1760." Does that make sense? If you look at some of the later entries for a "Nth whatever," you find a similar pattern with a sentence about the "1st whatever." - GretLomborg (talk) 22:08, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GretLomborg It looks like he was in 1858, see [2].–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:33, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@CaroleHenson: Isn't that William Monson, 1st Viscount Oxenbridge, his son? - GretLomborg (talk) 22:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, you're right. I withdraw my proposal then and am good with the blurb to Baron Monson.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:13, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CaroleHenson, sorry, but I was away to work till few minutes ago. No, my preferences lean on having a page for the husband with all the info of the wife we have included. It's basically the husband, so it's fine to convert them like that.--Elisa.rolle (talk) 18:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If we determine William John Monson, 6th Baron Monson is not notable, we should de-link him on Baron Monson and maybe put a note on the talk page there, so no one is tempted to go digging again. - GretLomborg (talk) 18:40, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: A separate article about William John Monson, 6th Baron Monson, with a redirect from this article. Mindful of WP:NOTGENEALOGY and that some of the information about Eliza is not notable, trim the content that is in this article for that article, so that it focuses on the limited information that seems to be available about him and the family. The family information should be brief, listing the children with links to their articles. A brief mention that the wedding dress is in Victoria and Albert Museum, with a link to the image in commons.–CaroleHenson (talk) 18:58, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@GretLomborg and Elisa.rolle: I removed a lot of detail - and the too much detail tag - and then added info about William to give a better sense of what that article might look like.–CaroleHenson (talk) 19:41, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CaroleHenson, fine for me, please save the portrait and the dress in the final article. I found a nice curiosity that we have both the portrait and the wedding dress of a woman who lived so long ago.--Elisa.rolle (talk) 19:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw it now based upon the comments above that it was the son that was the MP.–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:13, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I created a summary blurb from content of the article, added it to Baron Monson, and redirected this article to that page.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]