Talk:Richard of York, 3rd Duke of York

Renovation

I'd like to renovate this page, as I think it doesn't do justice to one of the most important characters of mid fifteenth-century England. However, my only contribution to Wikipedia so far is the page on William Neville, so I've never updated any else's work.

If anyone would like to give me any advice or make any comments on how to do this without offending anyone, I'd be grateful.

Thanks

Thewiltog 21:45, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I've made a start on the new page - I've created a sub-page from my home page called Richard of York. Please have a look and feel free to make comments or suggestions.

Thewiltog 17:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I've completley replaced the previous article with a new one. Mostly, I've just expanded on what was in the earlier one, but below are the points where I've made fundamental changes

According to Johnson (page 1), York was born on 22nd September, not the 21st. Johnson points out the origin of the error

The only evidence that York started using the name Plantaganet in 1448 is Gregory's Chronicle (Wolfe, chapter 2, footnote 26). Even if this is true, York's actions at this time do not suggest he was claiming the throne

He succeeded to the title Duke of York from his Uncle in 1415. His father's attainder did not prevent this. (Johnson, page 1)

York wasn't present at the Battle of Northampton - he was still in Ireland. It cannot be said with certainty that Warwick was following York's orders at this time, so it is not accurate to say these were York's forces.

Thewiltog 16:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Quote

The section of Saint Albans starts with the quote "If Henry's insanity was a tragedy, his recovery was a national disaster". Who said that? We should clarify this since this opinion has to be clearly attributed to avoid POV issues.--RR' (talk) 11:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The quote is from Storey "The End of the House of Lancaster" - first sentence of chapter XII —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thewiltog (talk • contribs) 20:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

What does Loveday mean here?

Quote: Henry's attempts at reconciliation between the factions divided by the killings at St Albans reached their climax with the Loveday on 24 March, 1458.

According to the article of Loveday, I do not understand what it means here. The phrase "WITH THE Loveday" makes it unlike a name of a certain place.Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 13:07, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The only reference to it I've seen is in an episode of The Adventures of Robin Hood. There Love Day is the one day of the year that legal disputes can be taken before a learned cleric who can deliver immediate judgement (even in civil matters) - a way of providing cheap justice. That series often did its research in these matters. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

As indeed have you. See Wars of the Roses#First St. Albans and the Love Day. This particular aspect of the article on the Wars of the Roses could do with some expansion. HLGallon (talk) 12:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

The link is wrong- it takes you to the name Loveday and I suggest we need a Page for Love Day- some kind of day in which reconciliation can take place or something.

IceDragon64 (talk) 22:10, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done linked to the article about medieval arbitration. _Muffled ^Pocketed 13:14, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Burial Location Inconsistant

Cecily's Wikipedia page says buried with Richard at Church of St Mary and All Saints. Richard's Wikipedia page says he was buried at Pontefract Castle.

Which is it?

Mellie107 (talk) 07:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

English Monarchs (http://www.englishmonarchs.co.uk/fotheringhay.html) says Edward IV moved his father's remains to the Church of St Mary & All Saints,, Fotheringhay, from Pontefract:

'on 24 July the bodies were exhumed, that of the Duke 'garbed in an ermine furred mantle and cap of maintenance, covered with a cloth of gold' lay in state under a hearse blazing with candles, guarded by an angel of silver, bearing a crown of gold as a reminder that by right the Duke had been a king. On its journey, Richard, Duke of Gloucester, with other lords and officers of arms, all dressed in mourning, followed the funeral chariot, drawn by six horses, with trappings of black, charged with the arms of France and England and preceded by a knight bearing the banner of the ducal arms. Fotheringhay was reached on 29 July, where members of the college and other ecclesiastics went forth to meet the cortege. At the entrance to the churchyard, King Edward waited, together with the Duke of Clarence, the Marquis of Dorset, Earl Rivers, Lord Hastings and other noblemen. Upon its arrival the King 'made obeisance to the body right humbly and put his hand on the body and kissed it, crying all the time.' The procession moved into the church where two hearses were waiting, one in the choir for the body of the Duke and one in the Lady Chapel for that of the Earl of Rutland, and after the King had retired to his 'closet' and the princes and officers of arms had stationed themselves around the hearses, masses were sung and the King's chamberlain offered for him seven pieces of cloth of gold 'which were laid in a cross on the body.' The next day three masses were sung, the Bishop of Lincoln preached a 'very noble sermon' and offerings were made by the Duke of Gloucester and other lords, of 'The Duke of York's coat of arms, of his shield, his sword, his helmet and his coursers on which rode Lord Ferrers in full armour, holding in his hand an axe reversed.' When the funeral was over, the people were admitted into the church and it is said that before the coffins were placed in the vault which had been built under the chancel, five thousand persons came to receive the alms, while four times that number partook of the dinner, served partly in the castle and partly in the King's tents and pavillions. The menu included capons, cygnets, herons, rabbits and so many good things that the bills for it amounted to more than three hundred pounds. Thomas Whiting, Chester Herald.

So both Pontefract & St Mary's are correct, except for the fact that Richard was only interred at the former for 16 yrs. Edward's brother Edmund, Earl of Rutland, who was also killed at Wakefield, was buried with their father & removed to St Mary's at the same time. There is a photo of detail from Cecily & Richard's tomb included at the website. I've always found English Monarchs to be a good source. Does it suit WP standards is the question. If it does, I can add (& source) the info to Richard's article, & I can add the page there as an external link. Is there a template for something akin to a quote box? I think Chester Herald's description of the funeral is worthy of mention in Richard's article. Any objections to an addition? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScarletRibbons (talk • contribs) 00:51, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Descent and Claim to the Throne

The current article contains:

After some hesitation Henry V allowed Richard to inherit his uncle's title and (at his majority) the lands of the Duchy of York. The lesser title and (in due course) greater estates of the Earldom of March also became his on the death of his maternal uncle Edmund Mortimer, 5th Earl of March, on 19 January 1425. The reason for Henry's hesitation was that Edmund Mortimer had been proclaimed several times to have a stronger claim to the throne than Henry's father, Henry IV of England, by factions rebelling against him. However, during his lifetime, Mortimer remained a faithful supporter of the House of Lancaster.

Richard of York already had the Mortimer and Cambridge claims to the English throne; once he inherited the March, he also became the wealthiest and most powerful noble in England, second only to the King himself.

The second paragraph is written as if Mortimer and March are different people; of course he inherited the March lands and the Mortimer claim simultaneously when Edmund Mortimer died.

However, I don't have any good reference works on Richard of York so before I amend the page and possibly introduce new errors, does anyone know:

• Was the Cambridge claim to the throne of any importance? Cambridge's claim was undoubtedly inferior to Henry V's and Cambridge had been plotting to establish Mortimer rather than himself on the throne. In any case wouldn't it be better to call it the York claim since Cambridge was younger brother to Edward the 2nd Duke.
• Why did Henry V hesitate, and over what? It is sort of understandable that Henry V hesitated before allowing Richard to inherit York because of Cambridge's treachery, York being an important and wealthy title and the chance that Richard would also inherit Mortimer's far more dangerous claim to the throne, but this was really decided when Cambridge was not attainted less than a year earlier (Richard would have been almost certain to inherit York at the time, given York's wife's age). A Duke of York might well be able to command more influence than a mere Earl of March but was Henry worried in 1415 that Richard would inherit Mortimer's title and claim? The York title on its own was surely no threat, and Richard already had Plantagenet lineage whether he was Duke of York or not.

By all means someone else go ahead and amend this section. Zipperdeedoodah (talk) 18:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Richard of York, 3rd Duke of York. 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/20090208144642/http://www.royalist.info/execute/tree?person=72 to http://www.royalist.info/execute/tree?person=72

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) 00:52, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Apart from the inclusion of a daughter "Joan", who was demonstrably invented about thirty years ago, in the genealogy, I see no problems. I don't know how to correct www.royalist.info, or I would. The contemporaneous poem "Richard liveth yet", for instance, doesn't mention her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smlark (talk • contribs) 19:58, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Prince of Wales?

How was Richard Prince of Wales? GoodDay (talk) 13:42, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Hmmm, it's because he was named the King's heir in parliament. This particular wording was added in July 2013; but it is only sourced to a primary source, which is not wholly compatable with WP:PTS. From a cursory re-reading of the relevant chapter, the modern authority on York—Paul Johnson—doesn't mention that particular title. —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 14:30, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Was curious about it, as he's not listed in the Prince of Wales article. GoodDay (talk) 14:34, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah...it's a bit moody really. I doubt he was ever actually considered to be PoW whilst there was another one around, by contemporaries—only parliament, as part. And he was certainly never invested as such... —SerialNumber54129 ^{paranoia /cheap sh*t room} 14:51, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Can we get a source for his son John's date of death?

The 8th child in the list of his children is John of York and as of the date and time of this talk-page edit it is saying he lived until 1512. That is a bit unlikely because he would have been given a Title of Nobility like his brothers. There are Internet sites that say he died in the year after he was born. Why wouldn't we have more information about him in WikiP if he lived for such a long time? If he was born with a profound mental incapacity and that's why he has no title or bio then just say so.2603:7000:9900:2CAF:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 13:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson

1512 date was introduced today and reverted thanks to your comment. Surtsicna (talk) 13:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

This source says "died infancy". Martinevans123 (talk) 13:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

English throne descent

"All future English monarchs would come from the line of Henry VII and Elizabeth, and therefore from Richard of York himself." Although (to my limited knowledge) this is established, to a general reader it may imply a rather direct line of descent - perhaps it would benefit from a qualifying phrase? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diomedes Agonistes (talk • contribs) 18:08, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

York

When did Richards son Edward take over the leadership of the house of york 95.145.221.147 (talk) 12:23, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

The afternoon of 30 December 1460. SN54129 12:54, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Picture of Richard III is incorrect.

The site is using an incorrect painting of Richard III, which is not accurate. Since his DNA was tested in 2022, we know for a fact that his hair was not black and neither were his eyes.

His DNA has proven that he had blue eyes and blond or dark blond. There are many articles about this. I think the painting below would be more accurate.\ https://www.cnn.com/2014/12/02/world/europe/richard-iii-dna-hair-eyes/index.html 2600:8803:E508:9100:6817:BE5:177B:F7D9 (talk) 16:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

That is the picture shown in the article. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Protector of the Realm, 1453–1455 section - dubious statement

The statement at the start of the Protector of the Realm, 1453–1455 section that "the marriage of the newly ennobled Edmund Tudor, 1st Earl of Richmond, to Margaret Beaufort provided for an alternative line of succession" seems dubious to me. Edmund Tudor was the half brother of King Henry VI, but on the maternal side - he was not descended from any King of England and as such would not have been acceptable to many others who had a better claim or the majority of the nobility. Margaret Beaufort was indeed a descendent of Edward III of England via John of Gaunt, and this is what their son King Henry VII would later use to claim to be the Lancastrian heir. However a) they did not marry until 1455 b) Until 1471 several other male Beauforts would have seen themselves as having better claims than York including her cousins the 3rd and 4th Dukes of Somerset (and also the heirs of Catherine of Lancaster had an even better claim than the Beauforts). It was only really after 1471 that Henry Tudor became the obvious alternative to the York line. Dunarc (talk) 22:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

I assume what's meant is that, at a time when the rules of succession were far from settled, any new line that would be created following the marriage by Margaret Beaufort withy anyone would create an alternative line of succession (albeit other lines might be "stronger"). However, this is an entirely WP:OR line of discussion and a citation is needed for the assertion (nothing more, nothing less). So I've added a {{cn}} tage to the sentence. DeCausa (talk) 23:14, 11 June 2024 (UTC)