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 within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages 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.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
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
There is hardly a single biographical fact about Isabel in the entire article. Her mother, her father, her step-fathers and step-siblings and great-uncles and -in-laws, etc., etc., but what, exactly, did Isabel do that merits a page? Agricolae (talk) 10:00, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
She was a member of the English royal family. In the 21st century, members of the British royal family are still deemed notable, even though their power has considerably diminished and they are no longer regarded as divine.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Among arguments to be avoided WP:ITSA, "All examples of foo are inherently notable." All members of all royal families that have ever existed are not inherently notable. Further, "Family members of celebrities also must meet Wikipedia's notability criteria on their own merits – the fact that they have famous relatives is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article." If the best that can be done is that her mother's mother's father was a king, I am not sure that even makes her a 'member of the royal family" by Medieval standards. Agricolae (talk) 16:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Let's place Isabel's story into a fictional 21st-century context. If Isabel's equivalent had been born into the present day royal family-let's say as the great-granddaughter of George VI-and was the issue of the latter's granddaughter (herself the daughter of a wayward princess who had created a shocking scandal by having wed a commoner), who had been abducted and impregnated by an eccentric and enterprising nobleman of lower birth (her first husband having been killed in action while serving King and Country). Now this wee girl's father dies when she's a baby, so her mother, Lady Elizabeth marries as her third husband a man, Roger O'Maury who rebels against the British monarch. Seeing as we're in late 20th-early 21st century, he'd likely be a member of the IRA, and when he's arrested after a failed attempt against the British Government, it's discovered that Elizabeth was also involved. She, Isabel and her daughter by her last husband, are all sent to Armagh Women's Prison for a number of years. When they're released, Isabel grows up as a wealthy heiress, a member of the royal family, not to mention, the stepdaughter of a notorious IRA rebel. Now, would Lady Isabel not be the darling of the Press and paparazzi? Of course she would. Her picture and story would be in all the tabloids. Her wedding would most likely be the social event of the year, providing it did not occur in 2011. Unfortunately there was no TV, tabloids or Internet in the 14th century, but if there had been, she would have been regularly caught in the glare of the photographers' flash. The medieval scribes have often neglected people whose lives today would have attracted rivers of publicity.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:12, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nifty little bit of 'What-If' fiction, but that's all it is. She didn't live in the 21st century, and it looks like nobody in her time or since has written sufficiently about her to render her notable by Wikipedia standards. At first I thought it was just a badly written article, but a 'she would be notable if she was alive today' argument goes a long way toward an admission that she is not notable. Agricolae (talk) 17:38, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ralph de Ferrers, who married Joan de Grey of Codnor, was the son of William de Ferrers, not Henry. My proof for this is found here: Douglas Richardson, Royal Ancestry, Vol. III, p. 206-207. Monsieurdlmon talk00:19, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
