Talk:John Rolfe

Untitled

John Rolfe was killed by the Powhatan Confederacy, and the chief's name is Wahunsonacock, not Powhatan, and Opechanaough killed him and many of 350 colonists in 1644. The war ended in 1646, in which the colony became a royal colony.

all slavers were assholes. he was a slaver, so Rolfe was an asshole, why cant wikipeida says so?

According to multiple sources, the Colony of Virginia became a Royal Colony in 1624 after the charter of the Virginia Company of London was revoked. It is my understanding that no one knows for sure whether Rolfe who died in 1622 was killed in the Indian Massacre of 1622, although it is speculated that may be the case. Could you please cite your source for that information?

Mark in the Historic Triangle of Virginia Vaoverland 01:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Updating citations about Rolfe's death, which miscite a source to claim Rolfe died before the 1622 Powhatan Attack. Steele's book Pocahontas is misnamed Matoaka. It was originally published as Pocahontas and the latest 1980 reprint by University of Oklahoma calls it Pocohantas. On the cited page given, 190, Steele states that Rolfe died in the attack. Another source points out that the evidence is not conclusive.

As an aside to the very old comment above: Rolfe was not involved in the black slave market did not run his plantation with enslaved blacks. Like other plantation owners, he most likely used white indentured servants. Wtfiv (talk) 22:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Page name

This page was recently moved from John Rolfe to John Rolfe (English Settler), and thence to John Rolfe (English settler), in accordance with WP:CAPS. But I'm not sure that (English settler) is the best disambiguator for this John Rolfe. Would (Virginia colonist) be more descriptive? He's known for his role in early Virginia history and the history of tobacco. "English settler" is accurate, but I think that "Virginia colonist" would be more helpful to readers trying to find the right John Rolfe. What do other folks think? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:50, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I think this is a pretty good case for being a primary topic. The other John Rolfe's appear to have pretty minor claims of notability. older ≠ wiser 12:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Coudln't disagree more since notability is subjective and depends on perspective and environment. Primary topics are used where there is an original use of the phrase or word, with later subsidiary uses based only upon that phrase of word. ie "New World" quite rightly has a primary article on its meaning as the Americas, and other articles, because they are subsidiary and based upon this original usage, are seondary articles. However, neither John Rolfe the actor, nor John Rolfe the classical scholar are famous as a subsidiary (ie because of) the John Rolfe who is an English settler. It would not therefore be correct to allocate the English settler John Rolfe primacy over the others. This would be to make a value judgement on their notability which I feel is misplaced and based on geographic location. - PocklingtonDan 14:58, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

That is a misunderstanding of primary topic -- there are countless examples of primary topics that have no relation whatsoever to the other similarly named articles. From Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Primary topic, there is no mention of original or subsidiary uses. It says simply, When there is a well known primary meaning for a term or phrase, much more used than any other (this may be indicated by a majority of links in existing articles or by consensus of the editors of those articles that it will be significantly more commonly searched for and read than other meanings), then that topic may be used for the title of the main article, with a disambiguation link at the top. Where there is no such clearly dominant usage there is no primary topic page. Although it is at best only an extremely rough gauge of notability, Google shows that John Rolfe the settler is overwhelmingly more notable than any of the others. [1]. older ≠ wiser 15:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I tend to agree that Pocahantas' husband is the primary topic for "John Rolfe". —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Done. I'll be checking the links. - Nunh-huh 02:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Fixed; all the links in article space now link directly here rather than to a disambiguation page or a redirect. - Nunh-huh 03:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

First wife and child

The sex of the first child and the location where child and first wife died seems to be unclear, based upon conflicting information in various sources. There seems no doubt that the three of them left England together, and only John Rolfe survived to continue on after finally arriving back at Jamestown for good with Lord Delaware, etc. So, I have edited the information about these two individuals to only state that they had died after leaving England. If we can verify more details, we can add that in as appropriate. Vaoverland 04:14, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Paragraph ends abruptly with "Among those left buried in Bermuda were Rolfe's ". Text relating to wife and child probably misplaced?

There is no proof that I am aware of which confirms that John Rolfe and his wife had a child before leaving England.

However there was a child, known by extant statements, born in Bermuda. Their daughter was named Bermuda Rolfe. She was baptised and buried in Bermuda. There is no mention that Mrs Rolfe died in Bermuda so it can safely be assumed she went to Virginia and died there as Rolfe later remarried. [[[User:Marpam|Marpam]] (talk) 10:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC) sept 08]

US or UK spelling?

Recently, 86.136.175.11 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) changed the spelling in Christopher Newport, John Smith of Jamestown and John Rolfe from US to UK English. I've started a discussion on what national variety of English these articles should use at Talk:Christopher Newport#US or UK spelling?. Anyone who has an opinion is invited to join and help us work towards a consensus. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Rolfe, Iowa connection

I noticed the article has no source confirming that Rolfe, Iowa was named after John Rolfe. Loosely using the word "after", it was named after him. According to a member of the town's public library staff, the town has no direct connection to John Rolfe. At the time Iowa's counties were being named, a state legislator's wife suggested the name Pocahontas for the county where Rolfe is located. Rolfe was the first settled community in the county, so it "seemed only natural" to name it Rolfe. In addition, there is the Powhatan township and another Iowa community called Varina. Thank you. Cortina2 (talk) 23:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Biography

Norfolk Record Office has uncovered new information about John Rolfe.

Following an enquiry about the Rolfe family of Heacham, the Norfolk Record Office (NRO) has uncovered an error in the often quoted date of baptism for John Rolfe.

Previously believed to be 6 May 1585, the NRO has now looked at the original Heacham parish register in our custody and has discovered that the correct date of the baptism is 3 May 1585. He was baptized in Heacham alongside Eustace his brother (and possible twin).

The entry for the baptism of John Rolfe reads as follows:

Baptisma in Anno Domini 1585.

Eushacius et Johannes fillii Johannis Roffe tertio die Maij.

Baptism in the Year of our Lord 1585.

Eustace and John sons of John Roffe [sic] 3rd day of May.

Norfolk Record Office, PD 699/1

KGaff82 (talk) 11:26, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

John Rolfe married 3 women befor he died he never liked his wifes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.26.21.129 (talk) 15:21, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Rolfe. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080515232835/http://www.lhaltd.com/speakers/cheatham/Rolfe.html to http://www.lhaltd.com/speakers/cheatham/Rolfe.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 20:33, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Rolfe. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928160736/http://www.bayjournal.com/article.cfm?article=1757 to http://www.bayjournal.com/article.cfm?article=1757

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 19:31, 28 November 2017 (UTC)