h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: The Wicked Wanton Ways of the Worsleys: The 18th Century's Sex Scandal - A87788083
Author: Bluebottle - U43530

I've successfully written an article whose title is (just) under 1,000 words – does this count, Dmitri?
It could have been a lot longer, I was quite tempted to write this as two articles, one from Sir Richard's perspective – betrayal by unfaithful wife and dishonourable friend! – and one from Lady Worsley's perspective – neglected, and unloved, she finally finds the solace she had so long been denied and braves society's prejudice to be with the one she loves. But I didn't as I thought it would be too repetitive.

<BB<

A perfectly wonderful Horrible Example, here.

Actually, I like the idea of two entries, though.

Your title may be under 1000 words but the entry itself is 6000. I am afraid that old scandals won't hold readers attention till the end even if they did occur on the Isle of Wight.

I was pretty shocked to find my entire book, Lady Worsley's Whim, by Hallie Rubenhold (Chatto & Windus, 2008) paraphrased here in almost a chapter-by-chapter break down, with not a SINGLE mention of it being my work! This is all my original (and published) research. The correct thing to do, if you'd like to use my work so extensively, is to cite it quite prominently as a reference. I am also somewhat uneasy that you have, with small exception followed my precise format in retelling the Worsley's story. I'm afraid that breaking it into two articles, told from Lady Worsley and Sir Richard's individual points of view would only render it more similar to the way in which I've recounted their narratives. I don't mind you using my work, but please bestow credit where it is due. I'm not independently wealthy, and my books are the way in which I earn my keep.

Thank you for your comments. I would like to begin by saying that I really enjoyed your book, Lady Worsley's Whim, and I regret the oversight of not originally mentioning it in the article, however I have done so now. The only thing I disagreed with regarding your book was the opening section in which you wrote that no-one you asked on the Island were aware of what the Worsley's did. I've heard several ghost stories about them, and my wife used to work at Appuldurcombe House, so that is not the experience that I have had.
Without having a copy of the book in front of me, I can't point out all the things that this article includes which are not mentioned in your book. Please forgive me if I am wrong, but I do not think you mentioned the Worsley's family motto, the Worsley connection with King Charles I's escape, the French invasion of 1545, the Spanish-French Armanda of 1779, the Falkland's crisis, the siege of Gibraltar, Sir Richard's involvement in setting up the Isle of Wight workhouse, the pronunciation of Knighton, many of the details about Lord North's government etc etc.
Many other things mentioned in the book are freely available online, such as the pictures available in the US Library of Congress, and the trial's transcript.
I am happy to re-write this, however there is an inherent overlap. When writing a chronological account of someone's life, you do inevitably write that someone was born in 1751, got married in 1775 and died in 1805. The emphasis placed on the facts can be changed, but chronological order is chronological order.

<BB<

A warm welcome to The Author. I have left you an ACE message in your Personal Space, and hope you will find helpful

lil
ACE/CE

The Author is absolutely right. If you've relied heavily on his/her book, please be careful that you haven't lifted any of the content. That wouldn't be cricket.

Also, please include a 'for further reading' section, and list the book's bibliography along with any of the primary materials you mentioned that are available online.

Maybe The Author would have a suggestion or two, and maybe a quote to offer?

Hi All,

BB's withdrawn this entry from PR, and as such it doesn't need any more peer reviewing for the moment

I too would ask for suggestions from The Author about how we can make this a better entry. I'm not the one to explain how Peer Review works here, but I can say for certain that we're very careful about things like plagiarism and paraphrasing. BlueBottle is one of our most prolific and experienced authors here, and I'm sure he'd be very happy to work with you on this.

Pastey
Chairman: Field Researchers Limited

Dear Author, I would like to apologise if I have inadvertently upset you, which certainly was not my intention.

The book 'Lady Worsley's Whim: An Eighteenth-Century Tale of Sex, Scandal and Divorce' is now mentioned at the start of the article and in a 'Further Reading' section, at the very end of the entry, and so is now for all intents and purposes the first and last thing anyone reading this entry would read.

The article has now been re-written to remove any information that is not available elsewhere, such as books on Isle of Wight history, sources listed in the Recommended Reading etc.

I would like to invite you to have another read through, and let me know your thoughts about how the article now reads. If you feel that there is anything more that needs to be changed, please do not hesitate to contact me. I am sure that we can work together to find a mutually beneficial solution, and I will not return this to Peer Review until we have done so.

As someone who has studied Richard Worsley, May I take this opportunity to ask your opinion on an unrelated question? John Hassell's 1790 'Tour of the Isle of Wight' states that Sandown Castle on the Isle of Wight was attacked by privateers, yet this event isn't mentioned in Sir Richard Worsley's 1781 History of the Isle of Wight. It is possible, but extremely unlikely, that this happened after 1781. Surely this sort of occurrence justifies Sir Richard Worsley's position as a Colonel of the South Hampshire Militia and the value of allowing him to act independently of the North Hampshire Militia, yet in his history, Sir Richard Worsley does not mention it. Why not? The only explanations I can think of are:
1.) Sir Richard chose not to mention it.
2.) It happened after 1781 (yet the vast majority of privateer raids along England's south coast took place in the 1770s.)
3.) John Hassell was mistaken
So do you have any opinion on what the truth is?

<BB<

I've re-written this and for the opening, gone back to the beginning of the story. Not the 1770s, but the 1980s, when as a child I went for a walk in the countryside with my granddad along the railway track to Wroxall and back via Godshill, and he told me the tale of the Worlseys as I first heard it. (Although I've combined my granddad's version with the one I heard round the campfire as a teenager).
This tale definitely would not be found in any books any where as it is even less historically accurate than a Hollywood blockbuster (you'd think my grandfather would know, having been in Shanklin's ARP and fire brigade during the war, that it was a German bomb and not God's wrath that destroyed Appuldurcombe House's roof, but why would he let the truth ruin a good story? Especially when he could point to physical 'evidence' such as a ruined house or demolished obelisk and claim that it proves what he was saying is true. And no story is ever complete unless a part of the Isle of Wight falls into the sea dramatically at the end. No-one did 'part of the Isle of Wight falling into the sea with a loud, dramatic crash heard as far away as Southampton and Portsmouth' quite like my granddad.)

As for the rest, I believe it flows chronologically, as that is the way that makes most sense.
Tall Tale – how I first heard the story (although this version is not true)
Previous Worsleys
Sir Richard Worsley – he was born before Seymour, so is mentioned first
Lady Seymour Worsley – born after Sir Richard. No real Island connection.
Their early wedded life – how they got together and their life before the trial.
The end of their marriage & elopement
The Trial
The Trial's aftermath
Sir Richard's later life – he died first
Lady Seymour's later life – she died after, so it makes sense to mention what she did after Sir Richard had died after I've said he0 died.
Sir Richard's Legacy – not much of one.
Recommended Reading

The above order is the way that I feel makes most sense. There is a degree of overlap in this order and the order in the book, but this is largely unavoidable. If you go to a bookshop and browse biography books, let's say for example John Lennon, you will find that they inevitably stick to chronological order (ie John Lennon's birth, formation of Quarry Men, meets Paul McCartney, early years of the Beatles, marriage to Cynthia and birth of Julian Lennon, Beatles success, meets Yoko Ono, break-up of Beatles, life in Berkshire, life in New York, Assassination).

Please let me know whether this re-write meets with your approval.

<BB<

Looks fine to me