Talk:Richard III of England

reversion

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)

Lancastrians

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)

Portrait

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)

Richard III's Illegitimate Children

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)

Bibliography

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)

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

Cut unpublished work from article

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)

Current Pretenders to the Throne

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)

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)

One-sidedness

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)

NPOV

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)

Reason for reversion

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)

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

Shrek?

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 author also edited the Shrek entry to mention this. Romalar 19:36, 8 May 2006 (UTC)