Jump to content

Talk:Anne Bonny

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2021 and 21 April 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Stark.ni.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Biography Assessment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 05:29, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from[edit]

Again, the beginning two paragraphs are essentially correct. As for the final paragraph, there are no “official records” of any kind in regard to Anne Bonny, save a trial transcript from Jamaica. Her name is mentioned in a few letters from the Royal Governor Woodes Rogers of the Bahamas, and in a mostly fictional work entitled “A General History of the Pirates.” The reader will notice in nearly all “biographies” of Anne Bonny that supporting documentation of facts is rarely provided. But rather, assertions of authenticity are made in reference of such documents, without the writer actually providing them, save modern reference works that in themselves provide no historical documentation of factual evidence. -- Originally posted to article by (talk · contribs) at 02:34, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

no mention of her having lived in Dundee in earlier life?

-- (talk) 21:29, 25 March 2013 (UTC)== Annie Bonny got Pregnant!! ==[reply]

To characterize Defoe's "A General History" as a "mostly fictional work" is an inaccurate assessement. The vast majority of Defoe's accounts in the GH have been proven generally accurate by subsequent research. Given the absence of official records and correspondence regarding Bonny, any information above and beyond that which has been provided by Defoe should be regarded with suspicion.

I agree and disagree, here. DeFoe's book is certainly a compendium and compilation; it mimics a work of non-fiction very effectively. Parts of it follow newspaper accounts closely. However, other parts describe people and events that have been invented by the author. (DeFoe invented several characters, events, and details for thematic or narrative effect.) Our problem as present-day readers is that it wasn't 18th century literary practice to explain to the reader that a text was a mixture of reportage and invention. Manuel Schonhorn's extensive scholarly introduction to the 1999 Dover Press edition is essential reading. (This was originally published in 1972; Schonhorn updated the introduction and bibliography for the Dover edition of 1999.) --Galliaz 10:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Establishing Facts in an Encyclopedia Entry[edit]

One other important thing: I also think there's a big problem with the way the recent History Channel documentary is being used as a source to substantiate information in the entry. I believe the entry should actually list who actually provided the information that's cited from the documentary: did the "talking head" from the documentary provide a source for their information, or were they speculating on camera? Have they written an article or book that we can cite in the entry? Most importantly, could a researcher check the speaker's sources in order to independently verify what they have said? --Galliaz 13:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe a History Channel documentary is even cited at all. If the statements made there are well-founded, then they're probably repeating something in published sources, which ought to be cited instead. But I don't think the History Channel documentaries, in themselves, have high enough of a reputation to earn citation in an encyclopedia. In fact, I think they're awful, and routinely sacrifice accuracy to entertainment. But that's my opinion. 19:40, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
But History Channel rarely, if ever, actually cites its sources. The trail of information stops at them. While anything on History Channel is likely to be well researched, without them citing their sources, they cannot be cited by Wikipedia. Citing History Channel about pirates holds the same scholarly weight as citing someone who says "I'm 400 years old. I am my source." —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who complained to the governor?[edit]


Section "Marriage and Later Affair With a Pirate" says "He complained to the governor...". Who complained - Rackham or James Bonny ? Why would he complain to the Governor ? Jay 01:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems rather odd to me that either James Bonny or Jack Rackham would complain, as both were likely members of the Brethren of the Coast. A pirate complaining to a governor is just as likely to get captured as the pirate they're complaining about. (talk) 10:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Clear in the current version of the article. James complained to charge a case of adultery. James worked as an informant to the governor, and Rackham had the King's pardon, so no question of getting captured. Jay (talk) 03:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Pyrates" does not say any of that.[edit]

Captain Charles Johnson's work, A General History of the Pyrates, needs to be reread. He never says that Anne Bonny walked in on Mary Read while dressing. He says that Bonny was attracted to Read, assuming Read to be a man, and therefore Bonny told Read that she was a woman. Read knew immediately why Bonny was telling her this and so knew that her own secret could not be kept. Therefore, Read then told Bonny that she herself was also a woman. This is how the two women told their secrets to each other. However, Calico Jack was upset by the close relationship between his lover, Bonny, and Read, whom he still assumed to be a man. So, Bonny told Jack that Read was indeed a woman in order to quell his jealousy.

Bonny, known to be a man, was attracted to Read, also known to be man. So, Bonny tells Read that Bonny is a woman, hoping to attract Read, still thought of as a man, into an affair. Read knows that an affair is not possible since she is also a woman and tells Bonny this. They then began a friendship as co-conspiritors. Then, in order to defend her friendship with Read to Rackham, Bonny tells Rackham the truth about Read.

It's confusing but actually clearly laid out in Pyrates.

--Bt1159 19:12, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this needs to be explained in the text of the article because the text as is with Bonny and Read and she and she is about as clear as mud. Smokesignal11 (talk) 11:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Added her to Disappeared People[edit]

I added Anne Bonny to “Disappeared People” because she disappeared from all record with no traces. So she belongs to Category of Disappeared People. I added her awhile back to this category but someone deleted it for no reason. --James 01:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Year of death[edit]

A recent edit added Anne Bonny's year and place of death with a source. But how is it known what year she died if she was supposed to have disappeared? Something is amiss, either with the article or the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. — blobglob talk 22:39, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After doing some searching, I've found a few sites referring to the 1782 date and South Carolina as where she died. However, they all seem to have things similar to "some records imply", and so on, without saying anything about what these records were. The article needs to be adjusted somehow, as it's not good to have information about her death following straight after describing her disappearance with nothing in-between. Perhaps the year/place of death should be removed unless a reliable source about the rest of her life is found? — blobglob talk 23:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The ODNB says: "... Bonny and Read were tried by the same court on 28 November and were also found guilty and condemned to death. However, they revealed that they were both pregnant and were reprieved. Mary Read died in gaol and was buried on 28 April 1721. Evidence provided by the descendants of Anne Bonny suggests that her father managed to secure her release from gaol and bring her back to Charles Town, South Carolina, where she gave birth to Rackam's second child. On 21 December 1721 she married a local man, Joseph Burleigh, and they had eight children. She died in South Carolina, a respectable woman, at the age of eighty-four and was buried on 25 April 1782. "
The sources are given as --- C. Johnson, A general history of the robberies and murders of the most notorious pyrates (1724) · The tryals of Captain John Rackam and other pirates, PRO, CO 137/14 [transcript of trial printed in Jamaica by Robert Baldwin, 1721] · The Boston Gazette (10–17 Dec 1720) · D. Cordingly, Life among the pirates: the romance and the reality (1995) · M. Rediker, ‘Liberty beneath the Jolly Roger’, Iron men, wooden women, gender and seafaring in the Atlantic world, 1700–1920, ed. M. Creighton and L. Norling (1996), 1–33 --- which does not explain the source of the marriage and burial dates, unless we are to assume that these are publicly accessible records in S. Carolina. "Evidence provided by the descendants" is also a telling phrase, since there is no note in ODNB for checking this ??is it in Cordingly or Rediker?? --mervyn 13:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. If there is a sort of weaselly line like "evidence provided by descendants" in there, even if there is a citation, why is the death date being given as fact?Staszu13 (talk) 23:52, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have just removed the source because it wasn't pointing to the relevant clause, and I don't have access to it to understand what exactly it says and where. Someone should fix this regarding the death date. —Ynhockey (Talk) 12:39, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Naked before the court?[edit]

"He complained to the governor, who brought her before the court, naked, and sentenced her to be flogged and to return to her legal husband. Anne Bonny and Rackham instead eloped."

Wait. What? Really? Was this a typical practice for adulterous women? (talk) 00:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anne bonny qestions[edit]

                                               Anne bonny Qestions  —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] 
                                                  Anne bonny qestions                               1.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply] 

Mary Read Inconsistency[edit]

In this article it says Anne Bonny's and Mary Read's genders were known from the start. However, in Read's article it clearly states several times that she was dressed as a man. Anne never dressed as a man, but Mary very much did. Sailorknightwing (talk) 01:17, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Their genders were known (to Gov Rogers and the other pirates) from the start, but they did dress as men while on board. Vincent pearse (talk) 13:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no question as to whether or not Anne Bonny dressed as a man. She did. If she didn't, there would have been no awkward moment between Read and Bonny. Also (and I'm quoting from The Life of Anne Bonny chapter in the second edition of A General History of the Pyrates) "...so that she consented to elope from him, and go to Sea with Rackam in Men's Cloaths". So I'd like to contest the assertion that "Bonny did not disguise herself as a man aboard the Revenge as is often claimed." Blind Donkey (talk) 06:12, 21 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blind Donkey (talkcontribs) 05:56, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bonny's Frustration with Rackham[edit]

I added the following comment on the talk page for "Calico Jack" Rackham. It really should have been here, I suppose. -- What happened to one of the most colorful vignettes in the pirate canon - that of the quick-tempered Bonny's becoming so incensed with the inebriated (or hung-over) Rackham and his male crew and guests for cravenly leaving the defense of the vessel to her and Mary Read, that she emptied two pistols blindly into the hold where they had fled? (This, during the action against Barnet). Is this just an unverified romanticisation? If so, it's a real shame. D.Helber (talk) 14:55, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was Mary Read, not Bonny, who fired her pistols into the hold, killing one fellow pirate and wounding others, according to Charles Johnson's General History of the Pyrates (pgs 161-62 of the original 1724 edition). I don't know if the story appears in the trial transcript, though I'm told the transcript mostly agrees with Johnson's version.
Of course, Bonny was frustrated with Rackham, as demonstrated by her caustic comment to him after the trial that "if he had fought like a Man, he need not have been hang'd like a Dog." Pirate Dan (talk) 18:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

here is all wrong —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:05, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Tattered Flag[edit]

This movie has a citation -needed note. There is a trailer, with text underneath at http://jmaucoin.com/trailer-a-tattered-flag/. Is that acceptable? (talk) 02:25, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any older sources?[edit]

After reading this: https://www.reddit.com/r/badhistory/comments/4ie4sz/anne_bonny_the_female_pirate_how_a_1960s_fiction/ i wonder if there are any sources from before 1960. (talk) 15:39, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Anne Bonny. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:05, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Is it real? Oscar's peace (talk) 13:49, 28 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Yes, subject of this article was a pirate, as provided sources state. Anton.bersh (talk) 19:28, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Date of birth[edit]

I know nothing about Anne Bonny, but couldn't help but notice you have listed her date of birth at the top of the article as 8 March 1697, and then subsequently stated "Bonny was born in Ireland around 1700", and "Bonny's birthdate is speculated to be around 1700." Can I suggest you remove the incorrect information, whichever it may be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:20, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1697, if true, is "around 1700." Dgndenver (talk) 15:32, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The honest truth is that we don't really know when she was born. That date of birth changes rather wildly from 1697 to 1701. There is no mention of age in her trial transcript or newspaper articles in 1720 or 1721, even General History of the Pyrates doesn't really give an age. Personally I would just say her birth is unknown, its a cop out but its the most honest statement. Lady Tyler "Bio" Rodriguez (talk) 05:14, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit war regarding thewayofthepirates.com[edit]

Hello IP, you seem to be involved in a slow edit war with Jmccormac regarding one statement in lead:

Before meeting Jack she was unofficially married to a fellow female pirate.

I believe the issue here is that the provided source is not reliable. Fortunately, I found a better source we can use: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Anne-Bonny . I will edit the article accordingly. Anton.bersh (talk) 19:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is a persistent attempt to add a link to the article along with article text being vandalised. I've restored to the RS link version. Jmccormac (talk) 16:43, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see. At first I assumed that IP was not malicious and genuinely wanted to clarify the marriage history of Anne Bonny. After the most recent revert it's clear that IP just wants to promote thewayofthepirates.com. I never was in a situation where IP continues reverting even after being invited to a discussion on Talk page. Is there any process to ban a particular site from being used on Wikipedia? Anton.bersh (talk) 18:36, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It to request protection for a page so that only established editors rather can edit it ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Protection_policy ). Adding a site's URL to the spamlist is very much the nuclear option in that some of bots will automatically remove those links if they are added again. Jmccormac (talk) 19:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Date of Capture?[edit]

"She was captured alongside Rackham and Mary Read in October 1720" is the stated date of capture in the article on Anne Bonny. However, the one on Mary Read says "[Read], Bonny and Rackham were arrested in November 1720." These are inconsistent- which is correct? I'm creating this new section on both talk pages, as I couldn't determine which one it ought go on. TypistMonkey (talk) 05:06, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was October 22, 1720 at around ten PM according to the trial transcript for John Rackam, which was November 16th the same year. The Tryals of Captain John Rackam and other Pirates, 1721. Lady Tyler "Bio" Rodriguez (talk) 05:33, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

'Modern Interpretations of Anne Bonny[edit]

This entire section is confounding and should be removed. It seeks to engage in abstract academic discourse about Anne Bonny. You would expect such a delicate section to be extensively referenced in the name of balance. Instead, it exclusively references a single paper, which is locked behind a paywall. It names a number of concepts (transatlantic subject?) that are not explained presumably anywhere other than in the single reference. Furthermore, this reference does not appear, after some googling, to be of much academic significance (if I am wrong, there should be other sources available on this topic - they are not referenced). Until there is more published discourse surrounding the presented abstract concepts in relation to Anne Bonny, I do not think this section meets the standards of balance required for Wikipedia. Additionally, it is riddled with clumsy language and gramatical errors. Thrdclss (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Better sources needed[edit]

There's a large number of citations that are coming from iffy websites and travel guides. Some sources like Tony Bartlemes Post and Courier article is being used to say General History of the Pyrates is broadly reliable, which isn't what he said. Citation number is from the Legend of Anne Bonny video which says she was perhaps born in 1690 judging by a parish birth record for an Ann Bonny, not 1700.

There are several good books that have sections about Anne Bonny that should be quoted, the first one is Professor Neil Rennies book, Treasure Neverland: Real and Imagined Pirates from 2013. That book has an entire chapter called Something for the Broads that's primarily on the historiography of Anne Bonny and Mary Read from 1724 to 2004. An earlier chapter went over the primary sources on her, which is mostly a handful of newspaper articles from the Boston Gazette, and the trial transcript of her November 28th trial.

Another important book is Manushag N. Powell's book, British Pirates in Print and Performance from 2015 which mainly focused on the British history of stageplays and piracy, there's an entire chapter about female piracy and Anne Bonny takes center stage.

Both of these books discuss that there is a long history of people quoting each other and creating new myths instead of primary sources. John Carlova was a romance writer and his 1964 book Mistress of the Seas should not be quoted by anyone, yet it was ultimately and a lot of his inventions, such as Bonny escaping prison and moving to the Carolinas, and her parents being named William Cormac and Peg Brennan, stem from Carlova.

Lady Tyler "Bio" Rodriguez (talk) 05:50, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Year of Birth[edit]

Okay judging by the edit history around the date of birth, this is one of the more contentious questions. Well I am sorry to say but there isn't at all even a slight hint in any worthwhile source as to the date Anne Bonny was born. You will usually find it between 1698 and 1702 in a lot of recent books. That date is a complete phantom its coming from nothing, each author changes the month and the year but never cites anything beyond perhaps another author doing the same thing.

Primary sources aren't much use here. The trial transcript for Bonny and Reads trial never says a word about age. The closest is an off hand remark about her carrying gunpowder during pirate actions, which is a job normally referred to as a powder monkey. This is a job usually given to children since they were smaller and harder to shoot at, but has been performed by women and sometimes anyone if there's no other choice. The few newspaper sources ignore any question of age and occasionally even get her name wrong, one called her Sarah Bonny.

She does claim to be pregnant at the end of her trial, this is true. Which theoretically could roughly give an age range between, lets cautiously say 16 to 50 with a more likely age range being in the 20s to 30s range. But that's entirely hypothetical and still leaves a massive gap of time. This is made worse by the possibility the pregnancy was a lie, the last statement in the trial is that an examination will take place. No outcome is written down and those examinations were hardly foolproof, lying about pregnancy to avoid a stronger sentence was so common in London and across Old Bailey records, that this is jokingly noted in Daniel Defoes 1719 book Moll Flanders, published a year before Bonnys trial.

General History of the Pyrates, which I must stress is not remotely reliable especially in the female pirate chapters, doesn't come with an age either. Its intentionally very vague as to what time period its describing when it says she was born in County Cork Ireland. It perhaps claims she was a teenager in the Carolinas, but without a specific timeframe of what year, its worthless, even if it was a true story and its not.

Geneology databases can't give a strong statement either. If one was to go through archives and parish records looking for an Anne Bonny or Ann Bonny, you will find them but most are from Lancashire County England, not Ireland, and primarily in the 1650s. Anne Bonny was definitely not an 80 year old woman so that's an easy discount. The closest example is an Ann Bonny born in London around 1690, but all you get is a baptism record and nothing more. Not a burial record, but we cannot be sure of anything else. Is that her? Impossible to say, sounds like a reasonable date, 30 in 1720 but without any further documentation you can't make wide ranging guesses.

As of now the page merely says, born in the late 17th century. That's entirely reasonable guess. Its possible she was born after 1700, a 19 year old female pirate is not impossible. But its probably more likely to be before that date, we just don't know what date. I also wouldn't mind just getting any mention of a birth and saying, known record August 1720-November 1720. We rarely known the exact day a pirate was born, Anne Bonny is not an exception to this. Lady Tyler "Bio" Rodriguez (talk) 15:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think your last sentence is telling. If we don't know in this case either, that should be made plain instead of speculation. Ponsonby100 (talk) 15:19, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a fair point. I do wish there were more papers on this subject, because most academic papers/books at the moment usually go with the 1698 and 1702 range. I know Manushag N. Powell has a paper coming out within the next six months entirely about the pregnancy question, but that's the only one to my knowledge. Honestly the page in general could use A LOT more ambiguity, as it for the most part takes General History's version at face value with a little bit of John Carlovas 1964 romance novel Mistress of the Seas sprinkled in. How that became a commonly cited source is a real bizarre story and frankly too long to mention in text. Suffice to say, any mention of the names William Cormac and Peg/Mary Brennan is coming from Carlova and immediately false. General History merely says the parents were The Attorney and The Maid, no names and that book isn't trustworthy either. Lady Tyler "Bio" Rodriguez (talk) 15:25, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Searching for a DOB for Anne Bonny might be futile. There may be a way of verifying her father's background as the legal fraternity tends to keep records and he was, I think, a lawyer. A lot of civil paper records were destroyed during the Irish War of Independence when the Customs House was destroyed in Dublin. If William Cormac practiced law and moved to London and practiced law there, it is possible that there would be some legal records in cases, contracts and other paperwork. Jmccormac (talk) 15:29, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This was already attempted back in 2018. Tony Bartlemes fantastic article The True and False Stories of Anne Bonny looked into any records. He didn't find any. He never found any William Cormac in any records of Ireland or London that fit the late 18th century, certainly none that moved to the Carolinas and bought a plantation. That last one is impossible to scrub from records, it would be around.
I know Rebecca Simon in her 2022 book claimed to find records about William Cormac. But, it was a website of people claiming relations to Anne Bonny and there were no citations or actual documentation.
Its worth again noting the name William Cormac is from John Carlova's Mistress of the Seas. A soft erotic 1964 novel that claims Anne Bonny lived until the 1780s after being rescued by a big hunky guy. That last claim somehow got later repeated by Tamara Eastman in 2000 and eventually into David Cordinglys work. There's more piracy among the literature of Anne Bonny then the real Anne Bonny ever did. Lady Tyler "Bio" Rodriguez (talk) 15:36, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if Tony Bartlemes visited the Irish national archives (where some legal/court records are preserved). The spelling of some surnames was quite fluid until recently. Bonney was supposed to ahve been born near Kinsale and though the 1659 Census was (It is a 978 page PDF https://www.irishmanuscripts.ie/digital/censusofireland1659/Census%20Of%20Ireland%201659.pdf ) main census with only property owners listed, the principle Irish names are mentioned and there are variants of Cormac in listed in the areas. It should be remembered that the compilers were often illiterate when it came to Irish names and this meant that they recorded variations of the same name. It would not be surprising if Bonney's father had converted to Protestantism (the Penal Laws in Ireland made it a very harsh place for the vast majority of Irish people who were Catholic). Dropping the Mc and the 'k' might have been part of this as Irish Catholics were banned from the legal profession. Jmccormac (talk) 18:10, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He checked online, which yeah not everything is digitized but you can still get a lot out of it. Spelling is very fluid, as can be seen with the pirate Bonny served under. Is it John Rackham? Rackam? Racum? Rackum? Wrexham? All of those are different spellings from just newspapers and calendar records. I know Rebecca Simon CLAIMS she looked through the Irish archives, but she doesn't a citation in her book to back up that claim which is very sloppy it was just an ancestry website, not even a good one at that. It was My Heritage, specifically this link. There is one claiming its from 1660 but if you have an account and look, there's no documentation being used here, its just someone claiming relations.
I don't doubt there were people with the surname but nobody matches the one in Carlovas story. I don't mean this harshly, but, there's no point in looking for a William Cormac or a Peg/Mary Brennan. Like I said, that name is originally from an erotic romance novel of the 1960s that is quoted by I believe the historian Linda De Pew who was in turn quoted by Pamala Jeykell who was quoted by David Cordingly and on and on it goes. General History gave no names for the parents. Carlova likely just made up the names because they were good Irish names, that's all. David Fictum noted as much in his piece on Anne Bonny when he quoted work by Tamara Eastman, who claimed to have Anne Bonny's family bible. A claim she eventually admitted was a lie.
The entire story in General History itself is clearly fictional. How the hell did an author in 1724 learn about a comical mistake of silver spoons causing a wife to assume a maid was cheating on the husband and then switching spots and finding out the husband is cheating leading to more mishaps with silver spoons? Also amusingly, General History never said Kinsale, its only written as, County Cork. We don't even know beyond a shadow of a doubt if Anne Bonny is Irish. That surname, Bonny, its an English surname that comes from the French word Bon. Anne was a hyper common given name due to Anne Boleyn and later Queen Anne of England. In Scotland and to a lesser extent, Bonny and later Bonnie was just a word for pretty. The depictions of red hair didn't start until 1888 with the cigarette cards.
The only things we actually know, for a fact, is that on August 22 1720, two female pirates helped a pirate named Rackam steal a sloop called William from Nassau harbor. The names given were Mary Read and Ann Fulford alias Bonny. They rob several fishing boats, a couple sloops, and a schooner between the 22 and October 22, when they are captured after an incredibly brief fight with a sloop merchant captain/former privateer named Jonathan Barnet.
They are put on trial November 28th, they are found guilty fairly quickly, they both plead the belly. Mary Read dies in late April 1721, Anne Bonny is never mentioned and doesn't appear in any parish record outside of maybe a 1733 burial record. That's it, everything else is speculation or mythology. Its actually awe inspiring how little is actually known compared to what is claimed if you look basically anywhere. Lady Tyler "Bio" Rodriguez (talk) 18:28, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is a great story and people have, over the years, imposed their own interpretations on it. A lot of Irish documents of the period are not available online and that's one of the big problems with researching it purely online. There was a lot of emigration from Ireland at the time both to England, Europe and what would become the USA. There are some elements of Grainne Mhaol's (Grace O'Malley) history in the story. It could be the legend becoming fact and that's part of the enduring appeal of the story. Jmccormac (talk) 20:04, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh there's definitely some real life inspiration in the story. I know Mary Read's story sounds a lot like a woman named Christian Cavanaugh, a woman who secretly served during the War of Spanish Succession, and later interpretations are probably playing around with Hannah Snells story a bit. I don't know if Nathaniel Mist or whoever penned General History was aware of Grace O'Malley, perhaps. He definitely added stage play theatrics and whatever he felt would make a good story. General History was above all, about making money, it was never a primary source created to tell history. Hell, mocking the Hanover Kings was perhaps as much a goal if it was Mist, since he was a hardcore Jacobite.
Its all a game of telephone, people like Charles Elm when he wrote Pirates Own Book in 1837, or Philip Gauss in the 1920s, all the way up to Cordingly, Woodard and Simon. By the end, only a fracture is true, because the truth was already tenuous by 1721.
I always go back to the ending line from the show Black Sails, a story is true a story isn't true, its true because we make it so. Of course that's not how historians work but that's definitely how popular understanding goes. Lady Tyler "Bio" Rodriguez (talk) 20:21, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notes, References, and Books.[edit]

Okay so I have noticed recently people have just been editing in any book to section of the page just titled BOOKS. First it was romance novel from 2019 about Anne Bonny, now its a 2020 book called The Pavilion which appears to be just a fiction book that includes Anne Bonny.

This needs to change. I am not happy with the state of the reference section in general. There is currently one note, 36 references, and two sub sections for websites and books that are not descript. If you look at a good pirate page like Stede Bonnet, notes get a sub section, references get a sub section, and there's a bibliography not just books and websites. Also its abundantly clear all the books in the bibliography are cited throughout the page. Much of the books in the bibliography section are not cited anywhere, like Rebecca Simons 2022 book Pirate Queens. Its mentioned, but nobody cited it.

I will say again, this page is what I think the Anne Bonny page should try to replicate more. I know in some ways that's impossible since Stede Bonnet is a well recorded pirate, and Anne Bonny has less primary sources then one has fingers on a hand.

Stede Bonnet

Lady Tyler "Bio" Rodriguez (talk) 06:49, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pop Culture section[edit]

Okay, the pop culture section has been a mess for the longest time, it made up a disproportional amount of the overall page, and some of the examples given were incredibly niche including authors adding there own romance novels for more attention. That being said, having it cut down to about 4 is probably a little too small. I would say Assassins Creed IV and Black Sails are pretty major pop culture depictions of Anne Bonny, she's a major character in both. I know she also appeared a lot in swashbuckling films, Neil Rennie's book Treasure Neverland has a full chapter on just Anne Bonny and Mary Read depictions which can be used as a source. Lady Tyler "Bio" Rodriguez (talk) 20:18, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Humanities 2 1400-present[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 January 2024 and 7 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Summerstorm10 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by ATraylorHolmes (talk) 00:35, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete citations[edit]

There are three citations given in the ref-list as Meltzer (2001), Lorimer (2002), p. 47, Sharp (2002). These seem to be simply incomplete: more bibliographic information is needed. (Also consider for repeated citations of the same works {{sfn}}.) Similarly, the citation to Britannica doesn't provide an entry title. Some of the parameters given in templates, eg the following, also seem to be rather wildly misused.

{{cite web |last1=Baldwin |first1=Robert |title=The Tryals Of Captain John Rackham and Other Pirates |url=https://archive.org/details/the-tryals-of-captain-john-rackham |website=Internet Archives |publisher=1721, The trial does not give an age, and calls her a spinster in one instance. This could theoretically give an age range, but proof of her pregnancy is not assured and thus cannot be trusted. |access-date=22 October 2023}}

This one here could be re-rendered as, with better bibliographic information.

{{cite book |last1=Baldwin |first1=Robert |title=The Tryals Of Captain John Rackham and Other Pirates |url=https://archive.org/details/the-tryals-of-captain-john-rackham |publisher=THE_ACTUAL_PUBLISHER |location=Jamaica |year=1721 |access-date=22 October 2023}} The trial does not give an age, and calls her a spinster in one instance. This could theoretically give an age range, but proof of her pregnancy is not assured and thus cannot be trusted.

I haven't taken a really long look however. But given that this appeared very quickly I think some further looking might be advisable. Ifly6 (talk) 22:33, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree with those suggestions. I've been planning on addressing that for sometime. Some of those sources like Meltzer or the Britannica citations are not very good and probably ought to be replaced or removed. Stuff like the trial transcript could be rephrased as you noted. Lady Tyler "Bio" Rodriguez (talk) 22:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add sub sections for information from General History and a section for primary sources?[edit]

At the moment the page is in a very strange spot, with some parts having accurate dates and noting when we don't know for sure, and other parts filled in by information in 1724s General History of the Pyrates. Its not a very reliable source in general and the Anne Bonny/Mary Read chapters are very much a nadir. But they are pretty well woven into the legend of Anne Bonny and hard to really cut out.

I suggest having a section for information taken from General History. Like, instead of Early Life just relying on General History, have, Early Life, and General History's events or something along those lines. Would help lengthen the article, which for probably the most famous female pirate, wouldn't be a bad thing. Lady Tyler "Bio" Rodriguez (talk) 20:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Initial text in the major sections should be documented and verifiable by period sources. Moving General History and other popular "facts" (from Mistress of the Seas, etc.) to a sub-section is a great idea.TheLastBrunnenG (talk)


Petition to remove the image of her in the bio box? First, it seems like AI, and secondly, it seems unnecessarily sensual/sexualized, and thirdly, she was from Ireland, so she was probably not Black. This depiction is unhistorical and adds nothing of value to the page. Tttttarleton (talk) 19:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good lord I thought you were kidding for a second. Oh that's getting removed on the double what the hell. Lady Tyler "Bio" Rodriguez (talk) 19:40, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]