Talk:Groom of the Stool

England Low‑importance

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

English Royalty

	This article 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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

I believe this is actually true and therefore shouldn't be deleted

There is something beautifully ironic about the phrase (in this contest) "To meet Wikipedia's quality standards, this article or section may require cleanup"

Groom of the Stole[edit]

Was this actually a position distinct from Groom of the Stole, or shou;d the two articles be merged? TheMadBaron 19:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was the same office and yes, the articles need to be merged. Craigy (talk) 01:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second the motion, however the Groom of the Stole has some tone and style issues that need to be taken care of before merging (or, perhaps dealt with during the merger) Petropetro (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. By ME. 122.109.129.187 (talk) 12:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

Is there a more intellectually respected reference than the sun's website that someone could use?- Ben

Probably yes. But as this article discusses royal rectums from which the sun doth shine, that particular website is quaintly appropriate. 122.109.129.187 (talk) 12:36, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning your buttocks[edit]

Do you 'clean your buttocks' after a stool? This is euphemistic nonsense. It is your anus that you wipe, and presumably the anatomy is no different when the job is done for early modern monarchs by some 'colourless functionary'. --OhNoPeedyPeebles (talk) 20:46, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only if proceedings have gone sadly awry. I agree euphemism should be avoided.

Qemist (talk) 00:36, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen of the Privy Chamber[edit]

I've removed the reference to Victoria's Gentleman of the Privy Chamber because it didn't say he was Groom of the Stool (or Stole). All Grooms of the Stool were Gentlemen of the PC but not all Gentlemen of the PC were Grooms of the Stool. With best wishes, --OhNoPeedyPeebles (talk) 14:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok as someone who came to this page to find out about "The Groom of the Stool" that little bit of info is actually very relevant as I would have no idea there even was a gentleman of the privy chamber - something that seems intrinsically linked. Zarniewoop (talk) 03:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article doesn't actually explain what the Groom of the Stool did[edit]

The current version of the article doesn't really explain what what the Groom of the Stool's namesake role comes from... 38.104.178.30 (talk) 14:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unintended pun?[edit]

Apart from all the primary scatalogical references (originally intended or arising later through euphamism), I'm wondering whether there should be a re-wording of "This secret information he was privy to..." to avoid a secondary-level pun, by association? 213.205.252.104 (talk) 11:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Heneage[edit]

Please do not re-link Thomas Heneage to the article for Thomas Heneage. They are different people; the Thomas Heneage who was Groom of the Stool in 1538 was the uncle of the MP born in 1536. 24.76.103.169 (talk) 10:03, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"ablutions"[edit]

My guess is that 99% of North Americans under the age of 85 have no idea what the word "ablutions" means. Maybe it's a UK word, but it is a failure for an encyclopedia article to use words unknown to the general reader, given that encyclopedias are, by definition, written FOR the general reader. I suggest that this word should be changed, so that the article is less of a failure.77Mike77 (talk) 18:52, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What do you suggest it be changed to? --McGeddon (talk) 11:11, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Have Americans never come across a dictionary? I found it in under 30 seconds in Merriam-Webster's. TheVicarsCat (talk) 16:51, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you're not suggesting that our North American readers should have to do some work to find out what happens in the rest of the world? Richerman (talk) 11:17, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, and here I thought IQs were going up? lol. In the past 12mo, I've encountered ablutions at least three times: At least twice Howard Stern talking about his mother and once binging Star Trek Discovery. Each of these are American examples. But if I didn't know what ablutions were, I'd hover over the word and see the definition and move on... not steam about it (lol pun intended). 2603:8001:4502:D2E9:59D:8EAA:7017:456 (talk) 07:30, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lambert Simnel[edit]

I can't say whether Simnel was ever groom of the stool (though I have never seen any indication that he was; I only know that he was a scullion and later a falconer under Henry VIII), but he definitely was NOT groom of the stool from 1485-1487. The Battle of Stoke Field was only in 1487, which is when Henry VII pardoned Simnel for his pretense and brought him into the royal household. He definitely wasn't Henry's groom of the stool whilst the two were at war! 2.28.245.26 (talk) 14:38, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, added by this ip edit (his only one). Perhaps a joke. Gone now. Johnbod (talk) 19:10, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Mind you, his bio says: "...and was thereafter employed by the royal household as a scullion, and, later, as a Groom of the Stool.<ref Elton, G. R. England under the Tudors. London: Methuen, 1974. /ref> - no page given. Elton is (was) a well-known textbook. Can anyone confirm? Johnbod (talk) 19:14, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]