Talk:Ellen Terry

A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on February 27, 2020, February 27, 2022, and February 27, 2023.

This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers 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 Actors and Filmmakers. Theatre High‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of theatre on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject TheatreTemplate:WikiProject TheatreTheatre articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Shakespeare High‑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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Women's History Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles 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.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Women This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women 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.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women articles inactive .CoventryWikipedia:WikiProject CoventryTemplate:WikiProject CoventryCoventry articles

Where is the link to Charles Dickens? Septentrionalis 22:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That was Ellen Turnan.

Encarta has her middle name as "Alicia", even though The Times obituary on its site uses Alice. Britannica strangely gives no middle name at all. The Dictionary of National Biography, which is the most authoritative source of British biographical information uses Alice and adds the reversal I have mentioned in the article.

In her autobiography, she states that she was born in 1848 and was married shortly before her 16th birthday. Other sources cite her birthdate as 1847 and maintain that she married shortly before her 17th birthday. I changed the dates to those in her autobiography, but I am not sure if they are correct.Alcinoe 20:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is an online exhibition at the Family Records Centre which shows she was born in 1847. Regards Arniep 19:13, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the quick answer. I wonder why she changed her birthdate.Alcinoe 20:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It could just be absentmindedness, a mistake in the printer, who knows??? I doubt it was for vanity reasons as she would have shaved a lot more years off! Arniep

Sorry I mentioned the birthdate in the wrong section. It IS 1847 as her niche in St. Paul's Covent Garden shows. I've understood that her family shaved the year off so that she would be seen as suitable for her first theatre role (where she played a young boy). Of course, in my personal case, my father "lost" a year; his large family forgot what year he was born. He thought it was 1937 and they insisted it was 1938. A niece found his birth certificate in 1987 and told him he was right; he was 50.

The correct date IS 1847. It was not acknowledged in her life but the niche in St. Paul's Covent Garden bears the 1847 date. If you have any question about the date, you should ask them. It says: 1847-1928. I took a picture of the niche which was included in an article I published that mentions her cremation at Golders Green (London). 67.187.100.198 (talk) 18:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)Lisa Kazmier, PhD.[reply]

Yes, thanks, it's definitely 1847. Her birth certificate says so! -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added information and links to this article, but much more can be said about Terry, one of the most important Victorian era actresses. In particular, more needs to be said about the arc of her career. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 23:05, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am the daughter of David F Cheshire who wrote The Portrait of Ellen Terry listed in the references. I am happy to add more information, but much would be taken from Dad's book: is this appropriate. Please advise? Ellen (honestly - I have a brother called Henry!!!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Douglas08 (talk • contribs) 15:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How come there is no mention of Lewis Carroll? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.103.184.57 (talk) 21:26, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recently the files below were uploaded and they appear to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think they would be a useful addition, please feel free to include any of them.

I've also placed a better version of "Choosing" in the article. Dcoetzee 02:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! These are beautiful. I added one. I think the one on the left is too similar to "Choosing", and the article is bursting with images, so I didn't add it. More information about the images could be added to the descriptions. For instance, you wrote date "unknown", but the website gives the information in some of the cases. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:01, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I respect Ssilvers' objections to some edits I made. However some good edits were reverted at the same time, which I restored and should be uncontroversial. Please let me know on my talk page if there is anything further. Thanks, [email protected] (talk) 05:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted the removal of {{Tenterden}} from this article. Ellen Terry lived in Smallhythe Place for over a quarter of a century. The use of the template is fully justified as Small Hythe comes under the parish of Tenterden. Mjroots (talk) 22:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this navbox belongs here. The fact that Terry lived in Small Hythe, and the fact that it is near Tenterden is adequately represented by the links already in her article. The other stuff in the navbox is irrelevant to Terry. Plus, I don't think a navbox is supposed to expand to another whole Wikipedia article, is it? What does everyone think? -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:21, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The relevance of the template is to Tenterden, not Ellen Terry. That is why it is called {{Tenterden}} and not {{Ellen Terry}}. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "expand to another whole Wikipedia article". The navbox is displayed normally collapsed because it looks neater that way, particularly when there are many navboxes. For an extreme example, see the Margaret Thatcher article. As I explained on your talk page, Ssilvers, one benifit of the navbox is that it helps with building the web, particularly for the more obscure articles. Mjroots (talk) 10:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, as I explained to Mjroots, I think the navbox interferes with building the web properly, because it adds links to the "what links here" tab that are not actually relevant links in the article. It seems to be an artificial method of protecting non-notable articles from being considered for deletion. More relevant here, however is my above point that the navbox is redundant in this article, since there are adequate links about Small Hythe and Tenterdon. The box could be considered to give Tenterdon

The inclusion of any article in a navbox makes no judgement on the notability of the article. Any editor is welcome to nominate in good faith any article which they feel does not meet notability standards. Should an article be deleted via PROD or AfD, it will then be removed from the navbox. Mjroots (talk) 19:37, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also feel that the inclusion of the Tenterden template is not appropriate on the Ellen Terry article because the places mentioned are already adequately blue linked in the text. I speak as the creator of four of the articles on the template (Smalllhythe Place, Edith Craig, Clare Atwood and Christabel Marshall). Jack1956 (talk) 21:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jack1956's comments seem to me most convincing. I think we have a consensus for removing the template. In truth, I think is is not only inappropriate but rather incongruous in this article. Unless any new contributors vote against I propose to delete it. Tim riley (talk) 22:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I can see that consensus is against the template remaining on the article and will respect that. The removal of the template from this article is not carte blanche for the removal of the template from any other article it is used on, nor it is to be used as a reason to remove the Ellen Terry article from the template. Those should be separate discussions at the appropriate venues. Mjroots (talk) 07:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a fair point. I can't see any reason why it needs to be removed from any of the other articles. I added the template to the Edith Craig article. Jack1956 (talk) 07:49, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mjroots's willingness to go along with the consensus here is greatly appreciated. Point taken about other pages, naturally. Tim riley (talk) 15:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the courtesy, Mjroots. I hope you will be more selective in placing these placename templates on articles only where the person or thing had a connection with the place that cannot be adequately understood from a bluelink to the town and the text in the article itself. All the best! -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:14, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is really well-done piece with so much work involved in finding all of these acting credits from the 19th and early 20th century. Kudos to the editors who worked on this article. I didn't know anything about Ellen Terry before coming across this page and I feel like I learned a great deal. Thanks! 69.125.134.86 (talk) 10:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The whole Terry family is quite interesting, and these articles get increased traffic because of the connection to John Gielgud. -- Ssilvers (talk) 15:36, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article at present says that Terry and Watts were 'separated', but other sources state that they were 'amicably divorced'. Both parties subsequently remarried, which would not be possible, while they were both alive, unless the marriage had been legally terminated by divorce or annulment. In view of the age disparity, I wondered if the marriage was annulled on grounds of non-consummation (cf. the well-known case of Ruskin and Effie), but I haven't found any mention of this. Indeed, some online sources say that both parties were unfaithful during the brief marriage, which implies that they were both sexually active. In any event, at the relevant time (the 1860s), it would not have been possible to obtain a divorce by mutual agreement: there would have had to be some grounds, such as adultery. The Wiki article on Watts himself states that Terry eloped with another man, and Watts was 'obliged to divorce her'. Divorce on the grounds of the wife's adultery would have been a huge disgrace for her at the time, so I wondered if some other ground was fabricated. In the 20th century it was common for 'amicable' divorces to be based on a fictitious adultery by the husband. Anyway, maybe someone who knows the facts could revise the article.86.155.131.24 (talk) 15:34, 2 October 2015 (UTC) [Added: I have found this National Trust document (a fairly reliable source) which states that Watts and Terry were not divorced until 1877, long after their separation, and only as a result of pressure being put on Watts (by whom is not stated): http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/document-1355767026972/ ]86.155.131.24 (talk) 15:41, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have no trouble believing that she and Watts divorced in 1877 in anticipation of her 2nd marriage, but the National Trust document does not seem reliable in its details, many of which disagree with the DMB entry (and some of which may have come from an earlier version of the Wikipedia article), so I think we should wait until we have a better source. There are several biographies of her, and we will have to wait until someone goes to the library. Her 1908 memoir is online, but it is not helpful. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Watts Gallery in Surrey provided the relevant documents on display and these will be described in the catalogue of the exhibition. I will see if I can find my copy. Katharine Cockin Kcockin (talk) 20:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A new contributor,

My reply: not sure how to use the Talk page at the moment, so I hope this works: I added new information about Ellen Terry's continued contact with James Carew. This comes from my research on The Collected Letters of Ellen Terry, added to the bibliography. I am biographer of Edith Craig too and added this and other related publications to the bibliography as well as those by other academics publishing in this field. Let me know what further information you require. Some of the info on the Edith Craig pages comes from the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography article I wrote or from my biography, Edith Craig (1869-1947): Dramatic Lives (1998). Many thanks, Katharine Cockin Kcockin (talk) 11:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, User:Kcockin, and thank you for bringing the discussion to the Talk page, which is how we resolve editorial disagreements. You wrote that, after her two-year marriage to Carew, Terry and Carew "remained in contact for some years." Why is this significant? If it is significant, please cite a source (including page number and url, if available), that explains why it is significant. Generally people "remain in contact" with their ex-spouses, but it is only important if he had a continuing influence on her life or career. I added back in the mention of the Pioneer Players. Please let us know what else is missing in Terry's article. As for the bibliography, it is best to add sources that are actually used and cited in the body of the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from User:Kcockin's Talk page: "Re: Ellen Terry's continued contact with James Carew This is relevant because they continued to be married until her death. He also supported her in various ways with advice and help with accommodation. See The Collected Letters of Ellen Terry Vol. 6, edited by Katharine Cockin (London: Pickering & Chatto, 2015), pp. 164 (etc). ISBN 13 9781851961504 Their relationship is also covered in Vol. 5." Thanks, Kcockin. Check the change I just made in the article to add this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Also copied from User:Kcockin's Talk page: "Re: Ellen Terry's date of birth 1847 or 1848 In earlier posts there is discussion about this. She thought she was born in 1848. On her death, documentation revealed that she was born in 1847. This discovery was announced by Edith Craig at the Ellen Terry Birthday Festival, reported in the press; see, for instance, Birmingham Post, 28 Feb 1935 (press cutting in National Trust's Ellen Terry and Edith Craig Archive; catalogue at www.ellenterryarchive.hull.ac.uk" Thanks! What page does the article appear on in the Birmingham Post of 28 Feb 1935? Was it not covered in The Times, or a national paper? -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1. The source of the information about Ellen Terry's 1847 birth year came from press cuttings in her archive, now owned by the National Trust and catalogued by me and described online at www.ellenterryarchive.hull.ac.uk These press cuttings rarely have a page number and this article was syndicated, copied in several newspapers. If readers of the page want to search the online catalogue on the previously mentioned URL they can find other cuttings relating to it.

2. The point about Ellen Terry's continued contact with James Carew is that some authors have assumed that their marriage 'ended' and then they were out of contact. The Collected Letters of Ellen Terry make it clear that she continued to write to him, ask for and receive advice and support and through the First World War. They were still married when she died. More details are provided in The Collected Letters of Ellen Terry if anyone is interested.

3. Re. Bibliography I provided an updated list of further reading as I thought this would be useful to readers. If these pages are only for 'works cited' then I can see your point about redundant information. But isn't wikipedia providing information of general use to readers? If it's clear that it is further reading then anyone else can simply add to the list. I can't see the conflict of interest in providing this information. Do let me know if there is anything else I can clarify or add to. I think I have now figured out how to use the Talk pages. Thanks for redirecting me to the Talk page here. Thanks, Katharine Cockin Kcockin (talk) 20:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it looks like you're getting the hang of it! To respond to your thoughts above:

• 1. We already cite her birth certificate. Why do we need to cite something else?
• 2. Did you see the changes I made? I think the article is clear now about Carew.
• 3. Note that we use Bibliography to mean things that the subject of the article wrote. If a source has important information about Terry, it should be used in the text of the article and cited. We can also list a small number of very important and/or unique references about her in a "Further reading" section, but Wikipedia articles should not contain exhaustive lists of sources. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:43, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored some images recently deleted from the article. Each of them is in itself interesting and historic, but more importantly each adds something specific to the article, illuminating the text and increasing readers' understanding. In the section where there were three images, I have moved these to a gallery at the end of that section to avoid overflow or sandwiching. Where a portrait painting or photograph was made by a well-known artist, it is customary and informative to provide the artist's name (and the date); indeed, the fact that a subject was portrayed by such society figures is itself notable and relevant to the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:33, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are too many images in this article, pinching the text. I've now moved the excess images to the bottom, but it would be better to delete them, I think. You can find them by clicking on the commonscat link at the bottom. -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:44, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'd have preferred to leave the images locally, as there could be short galleries in several sections. It looks fine to me at a range of sizes, but text sizes and image sizes are user-customisable so it's hard to predict what users will see, and impossible to account for tastes; I see no "pinching" at all, but never mind. We can easily move one or two more images to the gallery if need be; their value here in the article in my view easily outweighs any distaste we may share for excessive galleries. That visual immediacy to readers is in no way compensated for by the theoretical ability to go and view more on Commons, however useful we editors may find that resource. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have just checked on three computers of varying screen size and resolution (if that's the correct term), and the earlier version with all the pictures in the text caused squeezing of the text on all three screens, to varying degrees. (I'd check on my smart-phone too, but I don't know how to work the wretched thing.) I think the pictures all add value, and the gallery is an excellent device here, in my view. Tim riley talk 09:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Tim on this: the gallery at the bottom is a good place to drop the excess (rather than part way down the page). – SchroCat (talk) 19:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140407095803/http://www.theirvingsociety.org.uk/missing_letters.htm to http://www.theirvingsociety.org.uk/missing_letters.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018.

• 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.—

I have just modified one external link on Ellen Terry. 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/20080720182507/http://www.c20th.com/GSearly.htm to http://www.c20th.com/GSearly.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018.

• 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) 00:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Julia Margaret Cameron (British, born India - Ellen Terry at Age Sixteen - Google Art Project.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on February 27, 2017. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2017-02-27. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Picture of the day

Shakespearean actress in Britain. Born into a family of actors, she began performing as a child and toured widely in Britain in her teens. Among other comic and dramatic roles, she gained fame for her portrayals of Portia in The Merchant of Venice and Beatrice in Much Ado About Nothing, opposite Henry Irving, both in Britain and America. She later managed the Imperial Theatre in London, lectured, and continued to act until 1922.Photograph: Julia Margaret Cameron

Archive – More featured pictures...