Talk:Groom of the Stole

England Low‑importance

	England portal This redirect 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
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

English Royalty

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject English Royalty. For more information, visit the project page.English RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject English RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject English RoyaltyEnglish royalty articles

Tone and Style[edit]

The origins section as it currently stands (14-Jan-2012) is informative, but it is not written in the style of a Wikipedia (or other encyclopaedia) article, and reads more like prose from a book written many years ago due to its liberal use of euphemisms, oblique style, and unconventional syntax. For example:

"The question must be faced in a serious examination of the Office of Groom of the Stool, as to whether the Groom actually cleansed the royal posterior himself. The answer is probably affirmative, but only when necessary, for example if the King was wearing an awkward garment."

This could read "It is believed that in some cases, especially when clothing was cumbersome, the Groom of the Stool wiped the King's behind." However, the whole article needs to be overhauled, so that changes like this do not seem to be glaringly different than the rest of the article. While it may take some tact and collaborative editing to discuss bodily functions in both a tactful and straightforward manner, it surely can be done.

Petropetro (talk) 22:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The style is 'wrong', but treasurable. A splash of replica Edwardian English will not bring Wikipedia crashing down.

Notreallydavid (talk) 19:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Groom of the Stool[edit]

On the talk page for the Groom of the Stool there has been been discussion of merging it with Groom of the Stole. It is the same office, though it should be determined which term takes precedence. In my limited familiarity with the term I have heard "Stool" but never "Stole." However, this would need to be done after the tone and style issues of this article are resolved.

Petropetro (talk) 22:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I think. Different name & different function, whatever the theoretical continuity. The last discussion was 6 years ago, please note. I don't think it is realistic to try to keep an element of "Horrible Histories" out of this article, but I agree the style needs attention. Suggest you have a go. Johnbod (talk) 23:03, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What did Queen Victoria do?[edit]

No mention of her.--Streona (talk) 14:06, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure Her Majesty did the same as the rest of us humans. Whether she found it amusing, though, is an entirely different question the answer to which history has been charmingly silent. 122.109.129.187 (talk) 12:32, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]