Talk:Perkin Warbeck

Comment

The date of his confession is clearly incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.25.30.54 (talk) 13:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Monarchy abolished?

Why does the infobox on this page currently claim "Monarchy abolished" in 1485 ?Eregli bob (talk) 17:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm, good question - I suspect the infobox can't cope with a pretender where the monarchy is continuing. DuncanHill (talk) 21:32, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Well spotted! I've dealt with this.Butcherscross (talk) 16:59, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

And where was the court of Burgundy in 1490?

In the Netherlands? Ghent perhaps? Because the duchy of Burgundy was under French rule for good since 1477 and the Free County the same up to the mid-1490s. Dijon was no longer the Burgundian capital. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.85.148.202 (talk) 17:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Allegedly?

At the moment we have this in the "Imprisonment and death" section: "Allegedly, the two tried to escape in 1499." I always find allegedly a weird thing to stumble over in Wikipedia and perhaps even more so in a historical article. It seems like it might be a bit of a shorthand or cop-out. Who is alleging this? Is it sourced? It just seems ... odd. If you take away "allegedly" then you end up with a simple sentence that should be in or out, depending on whether it has an RS or not. Similarly, if what we mean is "According to the near-contemporary account of Sir Fred Smith the two tried to escape in 1499" then we should say it, and again it needs an RS for where Fred is quoted alleging this. Ahem, or not. But the current version just seems a bit ... hmmmmm. Or is it just me? Cheers 138.37.199.206 (talk) 13:10, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah yes, WP:ALLEGED helps a bit here. (It doesn't like it.) :) 138.37.199.206 (talk) 13:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I've taken out the inappropriate (I'm trying to be polite here!) "allegedly" and made it into a simple statement - which is challenged by the "unreffed" tag I've also added... hmmm. Best wishes to all 138.37.199.206 (talk) 11:00, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Burial ?

Do records exist of a place of burial ? Given the recent rediscovery and identification of Richard III, the true identity of "Warbeck" could be established if his bones could be located. RGCorris (talk) 15:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Perkin Warbeck/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Some historians such as Ann Wroe have even gone as far as to claim that Warbeck was actually Richard, Duke of York, although this is not the general consensus. I think this is incorrect. Ann Wroe's "Perkin" is a confusing book in some ways, but in my opinion it still stops short of claiming that Warbeck was actually Richard, Duke of York. It can be said to leave open reason for doubt, which is not unreasonable given the absence of firm evidence. Wroe does make the case that Perkin Warbeck may not have been Perkin Warbeck (Pierrequin Werrbecque), i.e. that the identification assigned to this person by his enemies may have been incorrect as well, and his post-capture "confession" unreliable. This seems within the boundaries of the probable, but should not be confused with claiming that Warbeck actually was Richard of York.

Last edited at 16:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 02:39, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

"Peter Ure" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Peter Ure has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 11 § Peter Ure until a consensus is reached. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2023 (UTC)