Talk:Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough

Birthdates

In my research I am noticing two different birth dates June 5 & May 29. Is this because of OS and NS I wonder?

for instance: [1] and [2] Daytrivia 15:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The May 29th date is wrong. Sarah's biographer, Ophelia Field, and the ODNB both quote June 5th as the date of birth. This is the old style date, which would make the new style date June 15th PeterSymonds 18:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

In the infobox I have replaced the {{birth date}} and {{death date and age}} templates because they display whatever their input is, but require that the input be in the Gregorian calendar in order to emit correct metadata. Those templates are not suitable for subjects who's date are given in the Julian calendar. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:28, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

GA hold

Hmm. I have now read the article and prepared my comments, but I am not sure if it is really being nominated for GA. It appears on the GA nomination page but there is no GA nomination banner here. If the editors did not mean to nominate it, please let me know.

I am placing the article on hold; it is an excellent article - a real pleasure to read - but significant and controversial claims have not been cited (see WP:V).

• I have added fact tags to demonstrate where the citations are needed (some sections of the article were cited very well - it was odd).
• Also, the "Legacy" section seems slightly POV at the moment. Perhaps that is because it is hard to know who is saying what about Sarah.

Other suggestions beyond GA:

• The lead seemed a bit too detailed to me, but this is a subjective judgment. See WP:LEAD for hints on writing leads.
• Footnotes are supposed to go after punctuation marks (see Wikipedia:Footnotes#Where to place reference tags).
• Many of the images are on the right side of the page - could you stagger them, so that the page is more aesthetically pleasing? Also, these are beautiful paintings - might you include the name of the artist in the caption?
• What do you think about some sort of table for the children? Currently the information is a little hard to read. Here is one example.
• I would suggest that a very good copy editor look at this article. There are a few awkwardly phrased sentences that could be improved. However, the level of the writing is, on the whole, very good.

I was really impressed with this article; I would suggest that you nominate it for featured article after these issues have been addressed. If you do, though, I would strongly suggest perusing the manual of style for a while and making sure that everything is formatted correctly. That way, you can avoid people complaining about your use of dashes or whatever. :)

If you have any questions about this review, let me know. Otherwise, drop me a line on my talk page when you want me to re-review it. Awadewit | talk 17:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Further review

I am passing this article for GA. Here are some further suggestions to improve the article. They may look extensive, but they are just little tweaks that should improve the readability of the article and help the reader understand the events better. I took it upon myself to copy edit a bit - I hope that was acceptable. Feel free to revert any changes I made.

Content: *Is Sarah's birthdate "old style"? If so, it should be labeled as such (see Joseph Priestley).

• Usually leads allude to all major parts of the article; you might think about including something on Sarah's death and legacy (see, for example, Anna Laetitia Barbauld and Mary Wollstonecraft).
• Yet more on the images: Dates, even approximate dates, would be nice for the images, so that the reader can contextualize them.
• fearing Sarah’s powerful influence, William kept Anne out of government affairs, and did not make her regent in his absences - Is this unusual?
• Anne countered by offering the Marlboroughs a pension of £5000 a year, as well as £2000 extra from the Privy Purse, and they accepted the Dukedom. - Was this perhaps a shrewd way of acquiring more money?
• Despite now being the most powerful woman in England other than the Queen, she was infrequently at court. - Do we know why?
• Sarah was known as Mrs Freeman, and Anne as Mrs Morley. - Do we know why these particular names signified equality? (I can guess at Freeman, but it should be explained, if you have a source that does.)
• Perhaps include more on her children in the actual article itself?
• Some readers may be confused when the article switches between "Sarah" and "Duchess of Marlborough" (and other such switches).
• Aware of the tension between them personally, Anne had explained before that she would not allow the public to think that their relationship was failing. - Why did Anne not want the failure to become public?
• It is a little unclear to me how the relationship goes from "Sarah demanding everything and Anne desiring to assage her" to "Anne casting her off in favor of Abigail". A few generalized sentences regarding this trajectory might be helpful to the reader.
• Do we know what Sarah died of?
• I see you have endeavored to write a "conclusion" to the article. I have often tried to do this as well and been reprimanded (wikipedia articles are not essays, they tell me). Just a warning on that.
• Are there any "External links" you could add to the article? See Mary Wollstonecraft#External links for an example.

Small content issues:

• Sarah had an extraordinarily close relationship with her husband, John Churchill - I know why you have said this - many couples did not have close relationships in the eighteenth century, as they married for land, money, etc. - but many readers may not - they may ask why it is necessary to say that the couple was close. A bit of historical context here, perhaps?
• Although no date was recorded, it was unofficially announced so that Sarah could keep her position as virginal Maid of Honour to the Duchess of York. - I find this a bit confusing. If it was announced, wouldn't people have assumed she was no longer "virginal"?
• an incriminating document signed by the Earl of Marlborough supporting the Jacobite cause had been discovered - "Jacobite cause" is not a familiar idea - needs to be explained to the reader or at least linked.
• This document (likely to have been forged by Robert Young, a known forger and disciple of Titus Oates - Explain to the reader who Titus Oates is in a phrase or two.
• Sarah was heartbroken over the loss of her son John, Marquess of Blandford, in 1703 - sudden introduction of John - comes out of nowhere
• However, the Queen told Marlborough that Sarah was to resign immediately, and return her gold key within two days. - What key? Not everyone will have read the caption, I'm afraid.
• The Marlboroughs also lost state funding for Blenheim Palace, and building ceased. - First we hear of the palace, I think.
• The Duchess of Marlborough fought against anything she thought was undue extravagance. She wrote to the Duke of Somerset, ‘I have reduced the stables to one third of what was intended by Sir John [Vanbrugh] yet I have room for fourty[sic] fine horses.’[12] Two features of Sarah's uncharacteristic extravagance are - is she extravagant or not? this seems contradictory
• Her persona non grata status in the Walpole-controlled court prevented her from suppressing the rise of the Tories, who were gaining influence as a result of Walpole's unpopular taxes and peace treaty with Spain. - The Tories were gaining influence at court or among the people or among the aristocracy?

Prose:

• leading public figures often turned their attentions to Sarah as a means of persuading Anne to comply with a request - How about just "leading public figures often turned to Sarah as a means..."?
• In the second paragraph of the lead, the reader thinks Anne is already queen because you have referred to her that way in the first paragraph. It is a teensy bit jarring to then arrive at "by the time Anne became queen..."
• When Princess Anne came to the throne after the death of William III in 1702, the Duke of Marlborough, together with Sidney Godolphin, the first Earl of Godolphin, rose to the head government. - They rose because of Sarah's connection to the queen?
• A strong-willed woman who always liked to get her own way, Sarah soon tried the Queen's patience whenever she vehemently disagreed with Anne on political, court or church appointments. - "vehemently" might be overkill since you already have "strong-willed", etc. (It's a lovely word, though!)
• suo jure - This is not a well-known phrase - perhaps leave it for later?
• In 1677, Sarah's brother died, and she and her sister, Frances, gained significant wealth. - "gained significant wealth" is a bit awkward, don't you think?
• The early reign of James II was reasonably successful, despite being a Catholic king in a fiercely Protestant country. - This reads oddly. I think the "despite being" clause refers back to "reign" and not "James" (as you want it to).
• However, the king soon attempted to reform the national religion, and popular discontent for James and his government was becoming widespread. - can you have "popular discontent for" something?
• Sarah, however, explains in her memoirs that the guards were "easy", and the two easily escaped. - This sounds sexual to the modern reader. Also "easy" is repeated twice in the same sentence.
• The decision to invite the Prince and Princess of Orange (later William III and Mary II) to invade provoked James to flee on 11 December 1688, and because of this act, the throne was ruled vacant, and promptly filled with James’ daughter and her husband. - This sentence repeats information that has already been stated.
• Anne immediately offered John Churchill a dukedom, to which Sarah initially refused, claiming that the family’s fortune was not fit for the rank. - say immediately that it was not enough
• Nevertheless, in all matters, Anne turned to Sarah for advice. - "all" might be a bit strong - always easy to disprove
• Sarah was famous for always telling the Queen exactly what she thought, and never offered her flattery. - "always" and "never" are also usually too strong - again, easy to disprove
• Anne pathetically responded to her flattery and charm. - Do you mean the "with pathos" definition or the more familiar definition with negative connotations?
• Sarah found life travelling the royal courts difficult, and remarked that royal courts were full of dull company.[22] However, she took the waters at Aix-la-Chapelle in Germany on account of her ill health, corresponded with those in England who could supply her with political gossip, and indulged in her fascination with Catholicism. - Does the "however" really work here?
• Sarah and the Queen never made up their differences, although one eyewitness claimed to have heard Anne asking whether the Marlboroughs had reached the shore, leading to rumours that she called them home herself.[2] Whether or not this was true, Queen Anne died on 1 August 1714 at Kensington Palace - Explain the "whether or not this was true" connection between the two events
• John and Sarah made frequent visits to the Hanoverian court during their exile from England - were they really exiled? That is a stronger statement than was made earlier in the article, I think.
• Henrietta eventually married Thomas Pelham-Holles, first Duke of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, in April 1717, and other successful marriages followed. - Marriages for whom? Sounds like they're for Henrietta.
• The Duchess of Marlborough had a good mind for business throughout her life - "good mind" is a bit vague
• her friend, Arthur Maynwaring, wrote that she was more capable of business than any man - sounds a bit awkward
• Nevertheless, Sarah maintained her good looks - The "nevertheless" would not seem to follow from the bit about Walpole and the Tories. Why would that make her lose her looks? :)
• Modest and retiring, she had a much more subtle influence controlled by her second cousin, Robert Harley. - unclear

I noticed one recurring problem in particular with the prose - sometimes it becomes difficult to follow the narration because it is unclear who or what is being discussed due to a reliance on titles, pronouns, etc. I have fixed some of these. Here are some more:

• His first impressions were favourable, and in 1664 Sarah’s sister, Frances, was appointed maid of honour to the Duchess of York - It is not entirely clear who "his" is.
• Although Frances was forced to give up the post because of her marriage to a Catholic, his memory of the family remained - not clear who "his" is (I thought it was a mistake for "her" initially).
• Sarah became close to the young Princess Anne at this time - "at this time" is a bit vague for the beginning of a section (some readers jump around)
• There was also a rival for Churchill; Catherine Sedley, a wealthy mistress of James II - What about "Sarah had a rival for Churchill, Catherine Sedley..." - I think it is clearer.
• If James had won, he could have imprisoned and/or executed Lord and Lady Marlborough for treason. It is not likely that he would have subjected his daughter to this fate. - not terribly clear who is daughter is at this point; is "won" the right word here?
• This created a rift between the sisters that would never heal. - remind us who the sisters are again
• This sum would end Anne's dependence on her powerful sister and brother-in-law. - who, again?
• In return, Anne expected kindness and compassion. - "in return" for what? For the beginning of a section, this is vague. (Wikipedia articles are not essays - they lack that kind of flow. I am always being accused of writing in "essay style" rather than encyclopedia style. It is hard to get used to.)
• Sarah had previously introduced Abigail Hill to court, with the aim of finding a role for her impoverished cousin. - Not actually clear that Abigail is her cousin.
• Anne wrote to Marlborough encouraging him not to let the rift between she and Sarah become public knowledge, but he could not change her mind. - change her mind about what?
• Sarah had always been jealous of Anne's affection for Abigail Masham, and, together with her husband and most of the Whig party, had tried to force Anne to dismiss her. - with Abigail's husband?
• However, the passion she showed to her bedchamber woman, and the stubborn refusal to dismiss her, angered Sarah to the point that she implied that a lesbian affair was taking place between the two women. - Be clear about where Abigail fits into all of this - is she the bedchamber woman?
• This detail extended to her smaller land purchases. After purchasing the Wimbledon estate (which she described as ‘upon clay, an ill sod, very damp and...an unhealthy place’[16]), and Holdenby House near Althorp, she kept detailed account of her finances and expenditure, while also keeping a sharp look-out for any dishonesty in her agents.[17] - These sentences seem out of place as "this detail" seems to refer to her business sense.
• Further rulings by the courts restricted Sarah's income, and her quarrels with her surviving daughters resulted in estrangement. - Seems out of nowhere - why was she involved in court cases? Why was she quarreling with her daughter? Which daughter?
• many forget that she was a vibrant and intelligent woman, who loyally promoted Anne's interests when she was Princess - What "many"?

Style and layout:

• Some editors might demand that you include an infobox - you should know that these are not required, if you don't already know that! They are a personal preference.
• Query: Is it acceptable to refer to a queen by her first name only? I don't really know these things.
• There are probably a few more links that could be added (Whig, Tory, Lady of the Bechamber, etc.)
• If you go for FAC, you should definitely check out Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style#Web sites and articles (not from periodicals) for the footnotes. Your web citations could be clearer.
• I would also suggest that you rearranging the "References" in alphabetical order by the author's last name and format all of the entries in the same way.

I hope this wasn't too overwhelming. I felt that you might want a thorough review. If not, feel free to ignore these comments. Awadewit | talk 18:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Combining notes

You might think about combining some notes, since there are so many. I used Falkner as an example of how to do this. Feel free to revert the change if you dislike the style. Awadewit | talk 04:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

This has been done. Thanks for your efforts with the footnotes (and the support for the FAC) PeterSymonds 08:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. (There are more notes that could be combined, if you are interested, such as "Field, 60" - there are at least three notes like that.) Awadewit | talk 09:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again – combined most of them now; shall have another look a bit later on. Also added publication information based on the hidden notes in the bibliography and elsewhere. PeterSymonds 10:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Maid of Honour

The article states that Sarah became Maid of Honour to the Duchess of York in 1667. This should be 1673, yes? Raymond Palmer 22:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is 1673. Someone changed it to 1667 in an earlier version of the article, and I changed it back. 1673 is definately the date she entered the court (see Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough) Thanks for pointing it out. PeterSymonds 06:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Holywell; Lady Marlborough

This is an excellent article. Two nitty points:

The article refers to "Holywell, St Albans". Notwithstanding what the stub article on Holywell says, I am not aware of "Holywell" being used to designate an area in St Albans, unlike, say, Bernard's Heath or Marshalswick or St Michaels or Fleetville or Garden Fields. Looking at the list of wards names for the local council,[3] we have Batchwood, St Peters, Verulam, Sopwell, Cunningham, Ashley, Clarence (Park), several Marshalswicks, St Stephens. There certainly is a major road named Holywell Hill, about two thirds of the way down of which is Holywell House (rebuilt in the 1800s), but the area is not called Holywell. (It is also not entirely clear where the "holy well" is, or even if there was one.)

Thanks for this–I can't find any reference to it either (as an area). As I'm no expert on St Albans, I have just removed "St Albans" from the lead and left it at Hertfordshire. I'll do some extra research and update the Holywell article when this is done.PeterSymonds 19:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, my point is really that there is not, as far as know, an area named "Holywell" at all. I am by no means an expert either, but I am quite familiar with St Albans, and I have never heard the relevant area - along "Holywell Street" and around "Holywell House", close to the (presumed) "holy well" - called "Holywell". The area is just south of the centre of St Albans, between the Abbey (Cathedral) to the west and the Sopwell area to the east. Perhaps the term fall out of use over time, or perhaps it has been used by people writing about Sarah who are not as familiar with St Albans as they might be? -- !! ?? 21:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't find any reference to it anywhere, either. Therefore I've removed Holywell, Hertfordshire and the link to the article, and replaced it with Holywell House, St Albans, Hertfordshire. I've done a bit of research–Holywell manor was called Hallywell in 1571; it passed to Sir Ralph Rowlett, and when he died, it was inherited by his nephew, Robert Jenyns (Jennings). It passed through the Jennings family line, and in 1684 was in joint ownership between Sarah and her sister, Frances. Frances sold her share to Sarah. Anyway, it looks like "Holywell" is a corruption of Hallywell, the original manor. I'm going to change the Holywell, Hertfordshire article based on this. PeterSymonds 12:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Secondly, the article says that "If James had defeated Prince William of Orange's army, he could have imprisoned and even executed Lord and Lady Marlborough for treason". Surely this was in 1688, when they were Lord and Lady Churchill (of Eyemouth, and of Sandridge)? -- !! ?? 13:43, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I've changed it to Lord and Lady Churchill. Thanks for pointing this out.PeterSymonds 19:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem - I thought it was an oversight. There is already a "Titles" section, but perhaps it may be helpful to signal in the text the points at which "Sarah Jennings" become "Mrs" and then "Lady Churchill", and then "Lady Marlborough"? -- !! ?? 21:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

A third nit, if I may :) How long was she able to masquerade as a "virginal Maid of Honour" after her marriage? She gave birth to Harriett in October 1679, having married John "sometime in the winter of 1677–78" (according to our article on her husband). What happened then? Did she secure a different position? The article on John also says that they "shared life between his parent's home in Dorset ... and ... his bachelor lodgings in Jermyn Street" which would make the pretense of virginity difficult... -- !! ?? 21:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying. I've added some information about her life just after marriage to John. I've also removed "virginal" because there has been question over that phrase before. Explaining it would be unnecessary detail, but it's confusing without it, so it's better that it's not there at all. PeterSymonds 12:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

First name?

Referring to a person by their first name is discouraged by Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies)#Subsequent uses of names. Thus, I am wondering: is it appropriate to use her first name instead of her surname or title? Surtsicna (talk) 20:38, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, her surname was "Churchill", and as there were several Churchills in this biography, it could lead to confusion. Calling her "The Duchess" seemed unnecessary and a bit long-winded. "Sarah" unequivocally refers to the subject, whereas other names do not. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 20:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

You can't call her "Churchill" or "Marlborough" because that is ambiguous with her husband. I think "Sarah" is pretty clearly the best thing to use here. john k (talk) 05:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Overlinking

Why doesn't an outstanding, featured article like this one conform to WP:OVERLINK. Is there a reason? Surtsicna (talk) 13:12, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes. It was featured in 2007. At that time, there were different standards. Also, it's had five years to decay. --Dweller (talk) 20:36, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

why was it placed on the main page in such condition? "Wikipedia's best". Seems irresponsible. MathewTownsend (talk) 20:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Because it was nominated at WP:TFAR and four people supported the nomination and then Dabomb87, as TFA delegate, acted on that expression of opinion to schedule the article for the date suggested. More scrutiny of nominations is always welcome. Bencherlite^Talk 21:00, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

"one of the most influential women in British history"

Do we have a source for this significant claim? --Dweller (talk) 08:52, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

That does seem to be rather an overly bold claim. I've toned it down to "one of the most influential women of her time", which I don't think needs citing, although I can easily provide one if necessary. Malleus Fatuorum 15:19, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

"In an age when marriage was principally for money, not love, Sarah enjoyed an unusually close relationship with her husband"

Do we have a source for either of these two claims?

The first seems particularly spurious in its current generalised form, although it may have been true of the British aristocracy of the time, a tiny fraction of society. Even if amended, it'd still need a source. --Dweller (talk) 08:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I've changed that to "Sarah enjoyed a 'long and devoted' relationship with her husband of more than 40 years ...". Malleus Fatuorum 20:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Much better! --Dweller (talk) 20:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

"In an age when ...": I wondered about inserting a {{Citation needed}} when I saw that and then thought not to after looking through her ODNB entry. Malleus' edit is surely a direct quote from the ODNB? I can't check until I get into work tomorrow but I believe that's right. I recall reflecting that it was a source at least for the latter part of the assertion. I might restore the original if I can find a good source for "marriage was principally for money". FrontBottomFracas (talk) 23:49, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Ah, I see ... Malleus indeed is quoting from the ONDB entry and cites it. Apologies. Neverthless Sarah's entry should also be cited in the Bibliography. FrontBottomFracas (talk) 04:58, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Continuing with this, I see that Encyclopædia Britannica has this in its article on John Churchill: "John, the eldest, advanced rapidly both at court and in the army but, marrying for love, remained throughout his life dependent upon his career in the public service for financial support." Of course that's a tertiary reference and shouldn't be cited as such, but it does point to a lacuna that arises deleting the original here. FrontBottomFracas (talk) 07:08, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

"After this further disappointment, James fled the country"

This may be chronologically accurate, but the implication of the sentence is that the flight of the Churchills precipitated James' capitulation. Really? Is that what the source says? --Dweller (talk) 10:32, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

To compound the problem, no date is given for the Churchills' escapade, and the language / lack of date leaves us unclear whether "James fled the country" refers to his abortive flight or the successful one, though I'd guess the latter. --Dweller (talk) 15:35, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Both occurred in December 1688, so I've simply said that. The chronology did indeed imply too much, as any "disappointment" James may have felt at the escape played very little, if any, part in his decision to flee to France. I'll look for a date for Sarah and Anne's confinement, but I'm pretty sure it too was in 1688. Anyway, I've done a bit of rewriting to address at least some of your points. Malleus Fatuorum 15:58, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

this article seems to be somewhat of a mess. Needs checking. Perhaps English folk understand it, but the rest of us ... ? MathewTownsend (talk) 18:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid that being English is of very little help in this case. Malleus Fatuorum 20:55, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I also feel that way Mathew, and I'm English. Malleus, thanks, your edits have improved things. --Dweller (talk) 20:57, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps we've dealt with at least some of the worst of it today, but it really does need a good spring cleaning. Malleus Fatuorum 21:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Last favourate

The introduction says Sarah was 'the last in the long line of Stuart favourites', but the last Stuart favourite was Mrs Masham, as stated later in the article. Philip Jelley (talk) 19:06, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

You're right, fixed now. Malleus Fatuorum 21:20, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Sarahs's ONDB entry

This should surely be cited (especially as so much of it is sourced) but for reasons I can't fathom was deleted as a "tidy-up". I'm restoring and would appreciate clarification here if it's deleted again. FrontBottomFracas (talk) 22:17, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Malleus introduced it as an inline reference and removed it from the Bibliography in this edit. Having it in both places is tautologous. Having it as an inline citation is far superior to including it in a basket of additional references the reader may care to look at. --Dweller (talk) 23:47, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

A rare use of "tautologous" to mean mere "repetition" in modern English letters I fancy. Cited just once from 1689 in OED.

Of course you would expect to find the citation in a Bibliography and especially when so much of the article is in fact sourcced from it (Malleus quotes directly). I am restoring it. Huge as you and Malleus may be in Wikipedia I ask you to humour a newbie :).

Thank you. FrontBottomFracas (talk) 00:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Repetition would be if it were listed twice in the References. However "huge" I may or may not be on Wikipedia, it works by policies, guidelines and consensus. --Dweller (talk) 08:16, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

So, our guideline on the subject is WP:GENREF. It's not totally clear what it's saying for cases like this, but I have a view on its interpretation. What do you think it says? --Dweller (talk) 08:27, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Didn't mean to be pointy, but rather ironic and aplogise if I offended. In fact I'm indeed a little at fault here because I hadn't looked in detail at what Malleus did. He quoted ODNB and cited it: I didn't notice that.

Regarding the References section it's divided into Notes, Citations and Bibliography and I think that's a very good model. But I don't see any problem with repeating a cited source in the Bibliography, indeed I would expect that. I'm the sort of punter that looks at the bibliography first and a bibliography after all is (OED 4): "A list of the books of a particular author, printer, or country, or of those dealing with any particular theme; the literature of a subject". The citation can be a short citation and the bibliographical entry a full one.

I looked at WP:GENREF. I suspect the authors weren't making a distinction between Citations and Bibliography as is made here.

On the whole I think Malleus has been a bit punctilious here about editing out the reference to a marriage based on love rather than money. Like you, it struck me initially as something needing citation but after looking through ODNB I was reassured. After all this is an article that has been meticulously prepared by (I assume) specialists in the period and I was happy to assume the assetion was correct. Incidentally I'm not sure of the correctness of your own remark about it being true only of the aristocracy. After all it's a theme of Fielding's Tom Jones written a century later of country gentry.

However, I'm done here. I only meant to add to an ODNB edit that conformed to their approved recommendation and mentioned (as does its WP template), as many people are perhaps unaware of, that it's available to most UK library ticket holders. Happy to let the established editors here do what they will. FrontBottomFracas (talk) 11:07, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I definitely wasn't offended. Too short of time now to reply properly but no apology needed at all, thanks. --Dweller (talk) 11:13, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Just to sign off here, I see that the very next featured article Andjar Asmara gets over the problem here with the shortened footnote templateTemplate:Sfn, which looks very neat to me. Used with Shortened footnotes. Teaching grandma to carry coals no doubt, but what I'll be using I think shoud I ever start an article. FrontBottomFracas (talk) 00:18, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page4983.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sarah Churchill, Duchess of Marlborough. 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://web.archive.org/web/20100411201907/http://www.msa.md.gov/msa/speccol/sc1500/sc1545/e_catalog_2002/anne.html to http://www.msa.md.gov/msa/speccol/sc1500/sc1545/e_catalog_2002/anne.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) 15:09, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Pope's portrait

I think it might be worth mentioning Pope's portrait of her under the name of Atossa, in his Epistle to a Lady. A great, and to me moving, piece of writing. Seadowns (talk) 00:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

There's a paper by Lucinda Cole in The Eighteenth Century: Theory and Interpretation about it here. Martinevans123 (talk)