Talk:Lady Lovibond

[Untitled]

Hocus pocus? JSTOR records no mention of "Lady Lovibond". Recorded, it appears, in Hole, Haunted England: A Survey of English Ghost Lore (1941) and Fanthorpe, Unsolved Mysteries of the Sea (2004) and verious spooks 'n kooks websites. What mention of this "legend" dates earlier than 1941? Where were these "sightings" reported? --Wetman (talk) 04:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Hoax tag removed

I have removed the "hoax" tag from this article, because the article itself is not a hoax - the books it cites are real, and so far as can be seen in Google Books preview they support the article text (except for the date being a Friday, which I have removed as neither source says it and the date was not a Friday in either the Julian or Gregorian calendar). Whether those books are reliable sources is another matter; I have reworded the article slightly using "is said to... " JohnCD (talk) 16:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The folklore is real but based on a ship that apparently never existed, according to Lost at Sea: Ghost Ships and Other Mysteries by Michael Goss and George Behe, which I've just been reading. If I get around to it, I'll drop some of the info into the article. Simon Burchell (talk) 16:17, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Dubious

My understanding is that this ship really did exist and really did sink. There are references in several sources to a subsequent court inquiry and a verdict of "misadventure". So why does the article imply that the ship did not exist? Are those sources wrong? 109.147.185.178 (talk) 19:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Simply yes, those sources are wrong. The actual records of the time make no mention of the ship, supposed crew or any court inquiry. See the comments above, none of this information appears before it first gets mentioned in fringe works from the 1940s onwards. These are not reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.34.55.63 (talk) 22:11, 16 January 2015 (UTC)