Talk:Kathleen Simon, Viscountess Simon

Changing titles

Between 1933, when she was made DBE, and 1940, when her husband was elevated to the peerage, she would have been entitled to call herself Dame Kathleen Simon. Did she ever do so, or was she content to be known merely as the wife of a knight (Lady Simon) rather than a Dame in her own right? -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:36, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I wondered about that too. The sources used in the article refer to her as Lady Simon. I actually thought it convenient because it enables us to avoid switching to another name (i.e. it is correct to refer to her as Lady Simon both before and after her husband's elevation to peerage). Anyway, it's possible that her husband's order of knighthood outranked hers and that she thus ranked higher as his wife than as dame in her own right. Surtsicna (talk) 21:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

OK. In any case, we would need a cite to show she actually did use "Dame Kathleen" for some time. Not all dames in that situation did/do so. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I checked the correspondence of W.E.B. Du Bois and he addresses her as "Lady Kathleen Simon" both before and after (see The Correspondence of W.E.B. Du Bois: Selections, 1934-1944). She also seems to have had her from address as 'Lady'. The Times also names her as Lady Simon when describing the March 28, 1935 Royal Court (March 29, 1935 issue) (she was there as the wife of a cabinet minister). --Erp (talk) 03:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

"Lady Kathleen Simon" is certainly wrong, however. She was never entitled to that style. Surtsicna (talk) 13:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

True, but Du Bois was American though he had studied in Germany so possibly not up on style (perhaps a merging of Dame Kathleen with Lady Simon). What it does show is that 'Dame' isn't used (the only place I have seen it is in her obituary in The Times when giving her full name with titles and awards). --Erp (talk) 14:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Photos

They show her in the same identical pose, and were even taken the same day. The only difference is the clothing she's wearing. Do we really need both? I'd prefer the bottom one if we're going to dispense with one of them. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 22:08, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure if we need both, but I don't see any harm in retaining them. They don't harm the layout, for example. The goal is to depict the subject, and two photographs do that better than one, don't they? Please correct me if I'm wrong. Surtsicna (talk) 13:10, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

In this case, no, two photos are not better than one, imo. What does the second (in whichever order) tell us that the first doesn't? The only difference between them is that she dressed differently. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

One could use one of the pictures in the Sir John Simon article and a little bit more about her influence on him. --Erp (talk) 06:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I like that idea. I've inserted a photograph of her husband in this article and a photograph of her in the article about her husband. Surtsicna (talk) 13:23, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Abolitionist

The lead describes her simply as an abolitionist, but that link goes to a disambiguation page. It needs to specify that she was a slavery-abolitionist, but I'm not sure of the correct terminiology. GrindtXX (talk) 03:17, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Taken care of. "slavery abolitionist" and pointing to "abolitionism" (which is on slavery abolitionism). --Erp (talk) 03:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Life before second marriage

There are a few mysteries here. I did some looking on ancestry.com and so found her son's name (and then a suitable secondary source to cite), Brian O'Donoghue Manning born 1891 in Ireland. The 1911 UK Census shows her living in London as a widow with her 19 year old son and one live in domestic servant. It shows her at age 41 (which would indicate a birth date of about 1870 not 1863/64) and having been married for a sum total of 26 years which would indicate she was very recently widowed (married in 1885). On the other hand a birth date of about 1870 means she was married at 15/16. I'm inclined to think she gave the wrong age or there was a transcription error. I'm also inclined to think that her first marriage was mostly spent in Ireland and that the travel to the US was between her marriage in 1885 and her son's birth in 1891 (her son shows up in an ancestry.com family tree as having been educated in Dublin though sources aren't given). BTW "The British and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society, 1838-1956" by James Heartfield, 2016 has some info on her. --Erp (talk) 01:50, 1 March 2018 (UTC)