Biography: Military / Peerage and Baronetage B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage (assessed as High-importance).

Military history: British / European Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  British military history task force European military history task force

Template:Blackadderproject Template:FAOL

This term is highly questionable, not at all a good way to describe Richard's opponents. Additionally, this page on the historical Richard III reflects heavy bias and borrowing from Shakespeare's text. For instance, it is not known that Richard did in fact place his nephews in the Tower of London. In my view, this page could do with some overall improvement in terms of historical accuracy, although I am not an historian who is familiar with that time of England's history.

--Dauodwa (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No offence to you, but that is evident from your comments. This page has suffered extensively from Ricardian revisionist "history" in the past, and some of us have worked very hard to maintain its neutrality. Deb (talk) 13:02, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious as to the reason for that last reversion? Deb 13:06 21 Jun 2003 (UTC)

If there's no answer, I may as well reverse the reversion. Deb 18:04 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Thanks for that latest amendment. I think whoever called them "Lancastrians" probably meant that they (or in E Woodville's case, her family) has been Lancastrian supporters in the first phase of the Wars of the Roses, before Edward came to the throne. Deb 18:07, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hastings, I think, was always a Yorkist. Certainly he was one in 1460-61. My guess is they were working from a narrow construal of "Yorkist" to mean "supporter of Richard III" and "Lancastrian" to mean "everybody else", but I'm not sure. As far as it goes, there were really no true Lancastrians left in England in 1483. There were people like Buckingham or the Earl of Northumberland who were from Lancastrian families but who were really too young to remember Lancastrianism as a vital political force, and exiles like the Earl of Oxford or Jasper Tudor. Richard's actions basically single-handedly revived Lancastrianism. john 22:09, 29 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Can anyone think of a better position for Richard's portrait? As it is, right-aligned, he has his back to the article, which looks wrong; but it can't be fixed merely by left-aligning the picture, because then he'll be trapped between the margin and the table of contents, which will look even more wrong. —Paul A 01:28, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think the list of Richard's illigitimate children can be expanded. There is at least one further child, Richard Plantagent, who could be included. He was born about 1464 or slightly later, was present at Bosworth before the battle (he had, by his own account, being brought there by and to meet his father), went to live and work in London, and lived well into the reign of Henry VIII. As far as I know he never married or had any children. Fergananim

Richard III was 12 in 1464. It seems unlikely any son of his could have been born in that year. john k 05:48, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Richard is thought to have had an illegitimate child when he was in his early teens, but obviously it can't be confirmed. In fact, the estimated birthdate of his legitimate son, Edward of Middleham, varies over a period of about four years. Deb 12:45, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Is the Further reading section a bibliography or just a suggested reading list? It's policy to include a Bibliography section for multiple citations of one source, or a References section for citations in the text (with footnotes). See Wikipedia:Cite sources and Wikipedia:Footnote3. Can I change it to a Bibliography to ensure internal Wikipedia consistency?Alun 16:30, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why not. Deb 14:20, 25 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This got added to the Richard III article: Sadie Sanderson is an upcoming comic book about a 16-year-old with psychic powers that allow her to see ghosts. Among them is King Richard III, who is presented as a somewhat bad-tempered but deeply principled Chancellor of the Dead, who ably fills Sadie's longing for a father figure. Queen Anne Neville, Prince Edward of Middleham (Richard and Anne's son), are featured as well, and oddly enough, Richard finds a rival in Erik, The Phantom of the Opera. As a character, he is given to occasional moodiness due to almost constant physical pain, but Sadie sees through this and adores him. I don't see why we should be citing unpublished works from unknown authors, no matter how centered on Richard III they are. Cut. Jberkus 06:12, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that discussions of modern pretenders to the English throne, whether direct lineal descent from Richard III, Edward IV, George, or anyone else, do not really belong in the article about Richard and, much like Perkin Warbeck should be discussed elsewhere.Shsilver 21:04, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree with you. It's been an uphill struggle to keep this page (and the page on Edward IV) out of the clutches of theorists and revisionists. Deb 11:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Someone get rid of it. And on a similar topic, is the list of Blackadder characters at the bottom appropriate either? Richard of York 20:22, 11 July 2006

This page is a good example of what happens when there is a cohesive lobby for a particular historical figure: well-attested facts about the reign of Richard III get turned into 'questionable theories', and highly probable likelihoods get turned into nullities, solely because there is no comparable lobby for Edward IV, Edward V, or Henry VII to hold them accountable.

Not quite sure what you mean, Anon. The pro-Ricardian lobby is extremely strong. Thankfully, we've managed to avoid it taking over the page completely. Are you talking about the illegitimacy theory? Deb 17:48, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Today I've removed a number of amendments by an anon contributor, who had restored irrelevant sentences and comments about alternative "true" heirs to the throne. This is an article about Richard III, not about whether William III had the right to sign the Act of Settlement, and such comments belong elsewhere. Deb 10:43, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a paragraph stating that Richard was the "last English monarch" of England. Very subjective - he had French blood, just as the present monarch has German blood. Deb 17:47, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it again. Please stick to facts, preferably relevant ones. Deb 12:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The last ENGLISH monarch was Harold II. Vidor 03:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the statement "However the most visually accurate moving image of Richard III is in the 2001 animated movie Shrek, where he appears as Lord Farquaad." to make it a little more believable. Is there evidence that this depiction is directly based off Richard III? I haven't been able to find any. Does any reference to Shrek belong on this page? Note that this anon author also edited the Shrek entry to mention this, and has made various inappropriate edits in the past. Romalar 19:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which universities did Richard found?

Jackiespeel 17:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he actually founded any -- he just gave them money. Cambridge, for example. Deb 18:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He probably didn't found any universities per se, but may well have founded colleges within Oxford and/or Cambridge Universities. Other monarchs before him (notably Henry VI) have done so, as have many monarchs since.  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 01:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What actual evidence is there that he killed his nephews? If Titulus Regius is correct and Edward was married before then they were illegal and could not inherit the throne. So why kill them? If Titulus regius was incorrect why would Henry VII try to destroy every copy? Shouldn't Henry have just a good a reason then to kill them after the battle? Henry VII,s history shows that he did make it rather a habit to either banish or kill people he thought were a threat to his throne. I'm no expert at this period but if I dont remember correctly please say so but didn't Henry, after the battle, accuse Richard for a lot of things in parliament including tyranny and cruelty but not the murder of two princes. You should think if they were known to be killed by Richard it should be the first thing he mentioned. 20.04, 6 Aug 2006 (Kurt)

Richard had already been accused of killing them by the beginning of 1484, and this is documented in official records. Your comments suggest that, not only are you not familiar with the source matter, but you haven't even read the articles on wikipedia relating to the subject. Deb 21:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, if by "the articles on Wikipedia relating to..", you mean the Princes in the Tower article, you must have caught it on a good day. It fluctuates, and can occasionally appear in need of quite some help. A glance through the history and a few diffs will give you an idea of the differences between different editors there. I have seen it veer between three, four and five "main suspects" (including Richard) depending on who last edited it. Telsa (talk) 18:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you pointed that out. I hadn't looked at it for a while. I'll be watching it now. Deb 19:18, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas B.Costain's "The Last Plantagenets" presents a strong case for the innocence of Richard. It cannot be ignored. Richard has been placed in the same position as Lee Harvey Oswald-he'll be forever regarded as a murderer despite growing evidence to the contrary.jeanne (talk) 12:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeanne, could you cite your source within the article using ref tags and page numbers, per guidelines, rather than just naming them in the edit summary? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if Richard's inclusion in this category is a joke, but unless anyone has sound historical reasons for the inclusion, I'll delete it.

Thewiltog 17:18, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to subscribe to the theory that even charecterizations — even grossly exaggerated ones — tend to have some basis in fact, even if a tiny one. We don't really know whether he was as badly deformed as he is portrayed, but there was probably at least some noticable deformity. If there were not, nobody would have made so big a stink about it.  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 14:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Er, no, sorry, try again. The hunchback thing was a pure fictional invention of the Elizabethan era which believed that all evil people were also physically deformed. There is absolutely zero evidence for it, and considerable evidence for its wholesale invention 100 years after his death (such as alteration of portraits). Removing refernce. Jberkus 08:03, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's not quite true either. Although there is no evidence for him being deformed, the fact that his portrait was touched up is not evidence that he wasn't deformed. And we don't know which came first - the Shakespeare portrayal or the portrait. Deb 15:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are references that Richard was a very good archer. It was common even for the aristocracy to shoot for sport and to hunt with a longbow. Hunting with a bow was a particular English speciality.

The use of the longbow causes to the body to develop asymetrically. In my years of shooting a high powered longbow my left shoulder, which is put under huge compression, is almost 1.5 - 2 inches higher than my right. The right arm develops differently as it is put under high tension which stretches it. This is visibly noticeable. Evidence to support this can be seen in the skeletons of archers recovered from the Mary Rose, where bone density is higher on the left shoulder giving a "hunchback" appearance.

I find the weight of the armour of up to 80lb for an English armour a little excessive, 55-60lb would be closer to the mark. If like his brother Edward IV he bought the best available from the Low Countries then weight would have been lighter than a comparable Italian harness. Even with the deformity that I have acquired from a long history of archery and a previously fractured spine, I have no problem wearing a 15th century harness for a whole day and as a Living Historian often do. As long as the armour is made to fit the individual anyone of reasonable fitness can wear it.Schurchill 14:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was rather surprised to read this article after seeing the feature article on the "Richard III" film, and find that the only references to the disappearance of the Princes in the Tower were buried deep within the article, in the Legacy and In Popular Culture sections. This is an important part of the story, so I moved it to the Succession section. I largely copied the verbiage in the Princes in the Tower article, which states that most historians consider Richard the guilty party. Vidor 04:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your reasoning, and it certainly should be mentioned in the main text. However, the Princes in the Tower article was created specifically to avoid the controversy "taking over" this article. Copying the wording is overkill. Deb 08:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having said that, you don't seem to have added much, so I take it back. Deb 08:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should the reference to SoIaF be on this page? It's not really relevant. And if it is, which characters is is supposed to be referring to? Eddard stark is the only one that springs to mind, but he doesn't have a usurping brother. 203.97.106.191 23:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's wildly inaccurate -- the dwarfish hunchback Tyrion Lannister is (loosely) ASOIAF's Richard III equivalent who has been accused (falsely) of killing his nephew Joffrey (who is really dead). His nephew Tommen is still alive. The boys referred to in the article are Bran and Rickon Stark who are falsely thought to have been killed by Theon Greyjoy -- who is absolutely no relation.

Bold textHi people, I'm Karlee & I'm 11 years old, I use this site all the time because I don't go to school & I'm HE (home educated). I need help on Richard the 3rd family, like who he married & how many children he had. thanks & i hope you can help. kind regards Karlee —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KarleeJones (talk • contribs) 09:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I've removed what I think is excessive - and in places unencyclopedic - detail on this group which has its own article anyway. The material removed is here if anyone wants to clean up and/or merge with Richard III Society:

The Richard III Society may, at first glance, appear to be an extraordinary phenomenon - a society dedicated to reclaiming the reputation of a king of England who died over 500 years ago and who reigned for little more than two years. Richard’s infamy over the centuries has been due to the continuing popularity, and the belief in, the picture painted of Richard III by William Shakespeare in his play of that name. The validity of this representation of Richard has been queried over the centuries and has now been taken up by the Society.

In the belief that many features of the traditional accounts of the character and career of Richard III are neither supported by sufficient evidence nor reasonably tenable, the Society aims to promote, in every possible way, research into the life and times of Richard III, and to secure a reassessment of the material relating to this period, and of the role of this monarch in English history.

The Society has over 3,000 members worldwide. It operates on many levels and is open to laymen and historians alike. All that is needed is an interest in the life and times of Richard III.

Cheers, Ian Rose 00:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Richard’s infamy over the centuries has been due to the continuing popularity, and the belief in, the picture painted of Richard III by William Shakespeare in his play of that name."

No, this is untrue. Are you saying that the many historians who have cited facts and public record to support their assertions that Richard had his nephews disposed of and murdered Hastings wihthout trial are manipulated by a play? You might as well say all the so-called Ricardians are influenced by the equally biased "The Sonne in Splendor." Accept the fact that most people who have studied the topic do not agree with you.24.239.133.243 04:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ho-hum. I'm not saying anything about it. If you read the first sentence you'll see I removed this info from the article after it had been inserted by another editor. I've now placed the removed information in a block quote to make things clearer for the less observant among us... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose 12:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the first paragraph about his childhood and tutelage, there is the following: " Richard spent much of his childhood at Middleham Castle in Wensleydale under the tutelage of his uncle Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick"

There is a mistake here, or at the very least something funny going on.

Both Richard Nevilles during the war of roses were earl of Salisbury. They were father and sons. The Father was ONLY earl of salisbury and was of the same generation as Richard III's father, Richard duke of york. In fact, his sister Cicely married him. He WAS Richard III's uncle. But he died 8 years after Richard was born, which without actually checking anything, makes the claim that Richard III spend "much of his childhood" under his tutelage. Richard Neville "Junior" was the 6th Earl Salisbury (from his father) and became 16th earl of Warwick through his wife Anne. He is probably the one spoken of in the quote above, especially since his age (34 at Richard III's birth) makes it far more likely that he was the tutor and not his father.

But Richard, 16th Earl of Warwick was Richard III's cousin, not his uncle.

I will therefore change the mention "uncle" for "cousin" in the article. In case someone finds something wrong, please feel free to change it back. Tailindil

I think you're correct. Deb 11:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added this as it goes back before Titulus Regius and casts doubt on Edward IV's parentage. While Edward lived Richard was not in a position to challenge him, and Titulus Regius cast doubt only on Edward's marriage, thereby saving Richard's mother from blame after the event. Presumably Jones will also publish this on paper at some point.86.42.222.242 09:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All this stuff is already mentioned in the Edward IV of England article. Is it really that relevant here? Also, if it's unpublished, it's not regarded as a reliable source for wikipedia. Deb 11:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jones has published. See: * Bosworth 1485, Michael K. Jones, Tempus Publishing, 2002. [1] 65.54.154.42 11:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is that the book in which these theories are to be found? Deb 13:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the future Alexander VI/Rodgrio Borgia and family had been "nearer England" at the time, they would probably have been blamed for what happened to the Princes in the Tower as well.

Minor observation, nothing more (g). Jackiespeel 23:08, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This section has been greatly expanded of recent. As it is not about Richard as such, I am considering whether to split in into a new article. Any thoughts? Bevo74 (talk) 16:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a good idea. These sections are not considered to be of real encyclopaedic value. If anything, it should be cut down. See Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles. Deb (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your thoughts. My thinking was that the page should be about the life of King Richard. Plays, films, etc aren't about the man himself, so shouldn't form such a large part of the article allowing to be better focused. I'd find it difficult where to drawn the line. Shakespeare maybe, as he has shaped the popular view, but after that? Bevo74 (talk) 19:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer to see this section remain with the page but be cut down, as Deb suggests, or else made more prose-like. For instance, why do we need a separate item for every filmed version of Shakespeare's play? Aside from the better-known adaptations like Olivier's and Loncraine's, you could stick them in one long sentence or simply drop many of them entirely. The original Tower of London should remain also, as probably the most famous non-Shakespearean film inspired by him. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As the person whom added most of these, I obviously do not agree that they should be removed. I think they are a perfectly valid addition to the article and are of interest to many people. Who has the right to determine which are "valid" additions and which are not? Why is one film valid and another not? Why is one portrayal valid and another not? I have no objection to them being split into a separate article (although I'm not really sure why this is necessary), but I certainly do not agree with their deletion. Incidentally, note that the popular culture article is an essay, not any form of policy or guideline. The guideline is Wikipedia:Trivia sections, which would not actually categorise these sections as trivia and does not in any case encourage the deletion of "trivia". -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's not really what it's about. It's simply that these don't add anything to this article - especially ones that are based on Shakespeare's play, which are not really anything to do with the historical figure and could easily be confined to the article on the play. Deb (talk) 12:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there should be a Disambiguation Page separating and distinguishing between the real Dickon and the murderous hunchbacked villain of the play and movies. Among her many arguments in defense of King Richard, Josephine Tey points to the King's portrait. Just look at his face, she says. It is the face of a kind and wise man. You can tell if she has a point by looking for a few minutes at the portrait included in this article. Das Baz, aka Erudil 15:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The article on the real Richard III includes a cross-reference to the play, and vice versa, therefore a disambiguation page would be superfluous. And don't make the mistake of thinking that Josephine Tey was impartial. She was looking at the portrait from the point of view of a 20th century Englishwoman who believed from the outset that, being an English king, he was above any kind of wrongdoing. She made the portrait (which is not contemporary) fit what she wanted to see. Our task is to ensure that the article is written from a neutral point of view. Deb (talk) 17:23, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, Josephine was not impartial. She is very passionate in her defense of the Innocence of King Richard the Third. However, she did not believe that every English king is above reproach. She portrays Henry VII as a monster -as the murderer, tyrant and usurper that he falsely accused Richard of being. Every impartial historian agrees that Dickon was not the hideous deformed hunchback that the Tudors accused him of being. Are the accusations against his moral character just as slanderous? It is a question very much worth examining. Das Baz, aka Erudil 17:47, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I fear we're wandering from the point a little. Josephine Tey portrays Henry as the murderer precisely because he wasn't English - he was half-Welsh and a quarter French. This in her eyes (and I'm sorry to say in the eyes of many people even in this enlightened age) is enough to make him a more likely candidate than Richard III, even though it is a matter of historical record that Richard summarily executed many others who stood in his way. But the point, really, is whether the article is impartial, not whether it contains a full discussion of the possibilities. See Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Deb (talk) 20:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why would Josephine Tey employ "the point of view of a 20th century Englishwoman" when, as the first line of her own article confirms, she was a Scot? 87.81.230.195 (talk) 02:46, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake (and a bad one). But you know what I mean... Deb (talk) 17:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And is there any solid basis for the claim that she only defended the innocence of English kings while considering French usurpers fair game? This sounds like sheer speculation and mind-reading to me. You should not make such claims without reference. And can you name any of those "many others" whom Dickon supposedly "summarily executed" because they "stood on his way"? Josephine Tey argues very credibly that he did no such thing (but Henry VII certainly did). If he really carried out any such summary executions without trial, please provide names, and some reference - and not from Will Shakespeare. Tey proves that a summary execution in Shakespeare's Richard III is sheer fiction, with no basis at all in fact. Das Baz, aka Erudil 16:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC) Oh, and the attacks on the character of Richard III certainly do not go back to any impartial sources but to Tudor propaganda, which threw everything and the kitchen sink at Dickon. Das Baz, aka 16:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I can name them. In the month of his accession, Richard executed the king's uncles Anthony Woodville, 2nd Earl Rivers and Richard Grey, and also Edward IV's chamberlain William Hastings, 1st Baron Hastings. There is no record of any trials. The fact has been removed from this article by someone - Ricardian propagandists, perhaps? Deb (talk) 17:09, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is very wrong to remove facts. Let us put them back in, and appeal to the better nature of all editors not to remove them. If anyone has any evidence that the executions did not take place, or that they followed proper trials, let such evidence be added, rather than any facts being removed from POV reasons. Das Baz, aka Erudil 21:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)