Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

Jump to content

Talk:Effie Gray

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 6 days ago by Masato.harada in topic Was she a writer? Lead and infobox.

Recently the file File:Euphemia ('Effie') Chalmers (née Gray), Lady Millais by Thomas Richmond.jpg (right) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. Dcoetzee 03:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

Effie movie already being filmed in Venezia

[edit]

On-site gondola scenes shown in the photo blog of a local extra:

http://iamnotmakingthisup.net/12516/venice-starring-me/

Probably not encyclopaedic, but shows that Effie is not in "pre-production", it is actually "in production" right now. 82.131.210.163 (talk) 18:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

Why not Effie Millais?

[edit]

I was wondering while recently translating this article - shouldn't the title be "Effie Millais" instead of Effie Gray? I don't think it's customary to keep the maiden name in the title in case of married women. Viktorhauk (talk) 13:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

This is mainly determined by WP:COMMONNAME. For example Shakespeare's wife is usually referred to as "Anne Hathaway", not "Anne Shakespeare", but Michelle Obama is usually known by her married name, not Michelle Robinson. In this case the fact that she was also Mrs Ruskin complicates matters further. Paul B (talk) 14:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

I see. Google brings up > 2 million hits for "Effie Gray", only 300 000 for "Effie Millais". In this recent biography of hers (The Model Wife: Effie, Ruskin and Millais) she is called "Effie Millais", while on the preraphaelites.net, she's called "Effie Ruskin". Thanks for pointing this out to me. Viktorhauk (talk) 10:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

Ruskin's Real Reason for Not Consummating His Marriage

[edit]

Biographers and researchers have shown a ghoulish obsession with Ruskin's claim that he didn't consummate his marriage because he found some aspect of his wife's person disgusting. He also said that human women were not as he had imagined them to be, based on his experience viewing nude female statues. Some writers have believed he was upset by Effie's public hair. Others thought she must have been menstruating, and the "disgusted" bridegroom glimpsed blood. No one seems to have reached the most obvious conclusion, which is that Ruskin was impotent, then and always. He knew it, and fabricated an excuse which would cast the blame on his wife rather than himself. As one biographer dolefully put it, "Ruskin is not known to have had sex with anyone, ever." That's rather compelling evidence of incapacity. Younggoldchip (talk) 16:29, 18 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Was she a painter? Short description and lead.

[edit]

The short description and lead both claim Gray was a painter, however it is not mentioned at all in the article. Either include information about her career as an artist, or reword the short description and lead.


My suggestion for the short description:

Scottish artists' model and wife (1828–1897)

I include "wife" because the majority of the article deals with her romantic relationships with Ruskin and Millais.

Liam2520 (talk) 12:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

I agree this is a good point. The article does mention her copying other works. She was certainly not an artist of any great repute, but I have been able to trace one publicly held work by her, a potraits she did in the 1870s, which can be seen on the ArtUK site at:

https://artuk.org/discover/artworks/effie-millais-nee-gray-18281897-129655/view_as/grid/search/works:effie-millais-ne_e-gray-18281897/page/1

The reality is I think that she was an amateur artist working in the shadow of her two husbands. But I would not favour a change in the description myself. Sbishop (talk) 12:26, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

That link show a portrait of her by her husband Millais, not a work by her. I believe more information on her artmaking of any kind is required to keep the short description as it is. On Wikimedia Commons I found at least six pictures of her as a model. Surely this must be enough?
Liam2520 (talk) 14:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Reply

Was she a writer? Lead and infobox.

[edit]

The lead describes her as a "British artists' model and writer", and the Writer infobox is used, but I see nothing in the article to support that. She maintained a detailed journal, and was a prolific letter writer, but those are not unusual for a Victorian lady. The short description says she was a "British artists' model and wife".

Can anyone argue a case for her being described as a writer? Otherwise, I think it should be removed. Masato.harada (talk) 15:21, 1 August 2026 (UTC)Reply