Talk:Richard III of England/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

"Die Hard"?

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)

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)

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)

It might be better to use the Society of Antiquaries portrait, in the gold doublet. Not only is it earlier, but he would be facing the text. Also, it has been cleaned recently and the colours are gorgeous. Silverwhistle (talk) 18:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I believe that's also a contemporary portrait, albeit less recognisable than the current picture in the infobox. I would support Silverwhistle's suggestion to use the Society of Antiquaries portrait. What do other editors think?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not contemporary (the only contemporary surviving ones are manuscript drawings of rather stereotyped figures), but it's the earliest surviving portrait, copied from a lost original. (If I recall correctly, the tree-ring dates put it to about 1520; there's a matching Edward IV panel cut from the same tree.) All the portraits may be derived from one drawing (probably from life), then given to artists to paint. The hand gestures are the same, but some are flipped to face left, some to face right, and there seem to have been 2 versions of painting the costume: the dark velvet one, and the cloth-of-gold one. The National Portrait Gallery portrait is a copy of about 1580-1600 of the Royal Collections portrait, which is from the early 16C. Silverwhistle (talk) 10:48, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the picture, and put the late 16C National Portrait Gallery picture on the Cultural depictions of Richard III of England page because it's quite a late one (1580s-1600-ish) and it's the one which Tey used in The Daughter of Time. Silverwhistle (talk) 11:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

It looks good.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to correct the caption on it: it is an early copy of a lost original, and has been dated to c. 1520 through tree-ring dating (so is not contemporary). It's not part of a diptych, but is a matching pair with one of Edward IV, on a panel cut from the same tree.Silverwhistle (talk) 14:41, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

How many contemporary images are there of Richard III? There's the Waurin picture of 1477 when he was Duke of Gloucester but that's only probably him, and there's the stained glass image in Penrith church but I don't really trust stained glass images. Apart from that there's only the Rous Roll and the coinage, both of which tell us approximately nothing. Anyone know of another? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.207.211 (talk) 01:01, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

As with most people of that period, sadly. Deb (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2011 (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)

It's now thought more likely that Richard's illegitimate children -- both of whom are documented and were acknowledged by him -- post-date his marriage. See Hicks and Wilkinson (footnoted in the article). There is no independent evidence to support the claims of Richard 'Plantagenet' the builder. Silverwhistle (talk) 14:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

The story of Richard Plantagenet, alleged illegitimate son of Richard III, is known to us only through a letter written on 1 September 1733 by Thomas Brett LLD to William Warren LLD, which was incorporated in 1735 into Francis Peck's "Desiderata Curiosa". Brett computes the birth year of this Richard Plantagenet as 1469 or 1470. He outlines his reasoning in his letter. Richard III would be about seventeen. (204.112.62.126 (talk) 02:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC))

That's old enough to father a child! Several of Charles II's illegitimate offspring were sired when he was in his teens.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:10, 5 March 2011 (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)

Can this please confirm it —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.83.125.225 (talk) 13:45, 17 March 2010 (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)

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

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)

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

Harold II was half-Danish! Tigerboy1966 (talk) 09:49, 17 October 2009 (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 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)

Universities

Which universities did Richard found?

Jackiespeel 17:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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)

None. I suspect there is a confusion here over his founding of "colleges" in the sense of collegiate churches, as at Middleham. Silverwhistle (talk) 12:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Nephews

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)

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)

Err, maybe YOU didn't read Kurt's comment? He said that Henry didn't make that accusation, which is true. The accusations came from other sources.--96.26.229.154 (talk) 06:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Costain was primarily a novelist, not a reputable (or recent) scholar. I'd be wary of citing him. Silverwhistle (talk) 12:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

If R3 was not responsible for the murders (or deaths) of this nephews, then he at least bears the responsibiliy for not keeping them safe (assuming they didn't die from disease). Nevertheless, if I had to put money on it, from the many books and articles I've read in the past, I would say R3 had nothing to do with their untimely demise. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 08:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hunchbacks

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)

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)

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)

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)

Yes, let's assume that the possibility exists unless we prove a negative! ... I really hope you're not working in academia.--96.26.229.154 (talk) 06:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

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)

It's obvious that his slightly higher left shoulder accounted for King Richard's description as a "hunchback". But to say he was deformed is clearly a gross exaggeration and has no place whatsoever in this article.--jeanne (talk) 07:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Princes in the Tower?

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)

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)

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

Song of ice & fire?

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)

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.

i need help on Richard III

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).

Hi there...this is so confusing...how did Henry VII killed Richard? I have no idea about it... Some say that he dragged Richard off the field "immediately" by coiling a rope around his feet and "attached" it to his horse's feet, and rode off the entire field, not knowing Richard's head bumps on every rock they cross.... Another question: is it true that Henry ruthlessly displayed Richard's naked body on the field? Please clarify these things... I really need a reply... thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubbles16 22 (talk • contribs) 07:41, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I can't really understand how does Richard III. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bubbles16 22 (talk • contribs) 07:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

At the top of this page you will see a notice stating that this is a talk page about discussing improvements to the article. It is not a place for discussing the subject. Jezhotwells (talk) 12:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Richard III Society

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)

"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)

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)

Cute. You know that the Richard III Society was founded in 1924, right?--96.26.229.154 (talk) 05:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Relationship between Warwick and Richard?

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)

Dr Jones' research

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)

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)

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

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

Yes. It's an excellent book, although his geographical theories on the site of the battle have been overtaken by the archæology. Silverwhistle (talk) 12:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The Borgias

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)

In popular culture

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

It's more that she seems to have swallowed Clements Markham's arguments (from 1905) entirely uncritically, and repeated them in fictionalised form. His work – more reflective of 19-early 20C neo-chivalric romanticism than serious scholarship – has been overtaken by later research. (Tey/Macintosh was a romantic, conservative Scottish Episcopalian, with a tendency to sentimentalise the Stuarts.) Her use of the portrait (besides its illogicality) is undermined further by the fact that it is a late 16C copy. She seems to have been unaware of the earliest surviving portrait (even then, an early 16C copy of a lost one) in the Society of Antiquaries. Silverwhistle (talk) 13:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

Should the Popular Culture section be moved over to Cultural depictions of Richard III of England? Silverwhistle (talk) 13:11, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Richard's possible descendants

Is there a possibility of King Richard having any descendants alive today through some of his illegitimate offspring? jeanne (talk) 08:26, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure there is. But I doubt that we will ever know. There were no paternity tests in those days. Deb (talk) 20:41, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

According to a video on YouTube (?), someone has traced the descendents of George (R3 brother) to a family now living in Australia. But I don't know of anything that does the same for R3.

Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Richard's daughter Katherine had died without issue by 1487 (her husband's children were by other marriages). John of Gloucester died without legitimate issue, and there are no references to illegitimate issue. It seems unlikely. Silverwhistle (talk) 13:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

It's possible John of Gloucester produced illegitimate offspring when he was govenor of Calais; also there's the mysterious Dickon the Master Builder; he may have had descendants. Most medieval men started fathering illegitimate children while they were still in their teens. Of course, we have no proof that Richard has descendants,; I'm just speculating.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

John's post as Governor of Calais seems to have been honorary. There's a question as to his age: the current theories re: the identity of the mother(s) of Richard's illegitimate children (Hicks, Wilkinson) suggests they may have been born after his marriage. The payment to Alice Burgh -- if she was his mother -- may suggest John was only 12 or 13 when his father was killed. The builder's tale is folkloric in nature, with no external evidence to support it. It seems fruitless to speculate. Silverwhistle (talk) 14:37, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Using DNA it is now possible to identify direct descendants of anyone from the past whose remains are available to us, providing that the descent is through either the unbroken female line or the unbroken male line, this latter alternative only having recently come available through the discovery of genes which pass from male to male. However Richard III's remains are not presently available. At our end (of the time-line) we would also realistically require a National DNA Database, which the British Police have been pressing for for years but which is generally being resisted by the public. Such a database would however allow a list of present day direct descendants of any historical character to be printed off very quickly. This technology is moving very fast and is already causing some concern in various power circles around the world. In Egypt for example it is feared by some that a Royalist resurgence might be created by an identification of the present Pharaohess of Egypt, which will have passed down through the female line only. Although the remains of Cleopatra VII are not available, it is thought that they are on the verge of discovery (2011); and these fears may also extend beyond a nation's borders, for example if it should turn out that the present Pharaohess of Egypt is not an Egyptian national but say an Israeli girl. Monarchs around the world may also find themselves to be not descended from people that they really ought to be descended from, due to indiscretions committed by those alleged ancestors. We already know, from statistical analysis, that if Richard III has living descendants, then the optimum quantity estimate would be around 1.08% of the present British population or about 630,000 people. By contrast, one third of the British population directly descends from Edward I. (Refer: Society of Genealogists). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.207.211 (talk) 22:58, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Minor Monarch

I think the quote about King Richard being a "minor monarch" from the BBC History Magazine should be removed from the article. How can he be considered minor when he is clearly one of the most notable of English kings along with Henry VIII and Henry V. He is certainly one of the most notorious monarchs of England, whether one believes in his innocence or not (I do). Admittedly his reign was brief but that doesn't render him minor anymore than John F. Kennedy's relatively short term as US president would automatically make him a "minor American president" for future historians and journalists.15:04, 16 June 2008 (UTC)jeanne (talk)

Yes! Didn't he invent bail, the College of Arms, the Heralds and the Court of Appeal (then the Court of Requests)? And didn't he also introduce Devolution for the North, with his Council of the North, abolish benevolence taxes and have the laws written out in English instead of French? Not bad, for 2 years work. One wonders what he might have done in 20.

Obviously the BBC History Magazine didn't bother to study Richard's achievements during his short reign.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:17, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Location of Richard III's body

"According to one tradition, during the Dissolution of the Monasteries his body was thrown into the nearby River Soar, although other evidence suggests that this may not be the case and that his burial site may currently be under a car park in Leicester." Can I ask as to the source of the car park suggestion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuartghall (talk • contribs) 10:26, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

A number of researchers have "zeroed in" on the Leicester car park upon the same single piece of deduction, namely the superimposition of a layout map of the ancient abbey, over the present street map of Grey Friars. The car park coincides with the area behind the High Altar, where Richard would SUPPOSEDLY have been buried, assuming of course that his remains were not after all thrown into the river. Note the overall degree of supposition in the entire story, however. Not one to put your beer money on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.207.211 (talk) 23:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Nature of Richard's authority in 1483

At the start of the entry there is reference to Gloucester being 'regent' under the title of 'lord protector'. He was not appointed as 'regent', which was seen as a very specific term, the 'reg' ('king') element being crucial, and there is no evidence that he had asked to be so appointed or that Edward IV on his deathbed had nominated him. The matter had come up before, in 1422 and particularly in 1454/5, when Richard of York had had it spelled out to him on appointment that 'protector' did NOT mean regent, lieutenant, governor or tutor of the realm. It was seen specifically as a 'defence' role against enemies without and rebels within. It required the officer to work WITH an authoritative council and gave him no particular independent authority beyond that 'security' aspect. True, the Croyland Chronicler does exclaim that Richard was given powers 'just like a king', but what did the chronicler actually know (especially given Michael Hicks's recent arguments against the chronicler being even a councillor)and he makes the remark in the context of an account of events professing bewilderment why Gloucester should have eventually felt he had to bid for the throne? If Richard had been regent he would have been able to move much more freely in his authority. If he had been refused it explicitly, I think we would have known about it. Mancini is pretty garbled about the 'constitutional' position on Edward's death and deployed terms better-suited to his Italian/French experience.

In short, I would suggest re-working that sentence to remove 'regent' as unfounded and liable to confuse those trying to interpret Gloucester's position at the time? medieval duck. 26.1.2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Medievalduck (talk • contribs) 08:15, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you. He was not appointed Regent but rather as Lord Protector, just as the Duke of Somerset was made Protector for King Edward VI.--jeanne (talk) 08:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes and note also that the Lord Protector article is also confused on the difference between Protector and Regent, and needs editing. Loren Rosen (talk) 22:38, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

New picture, perhaps?

Link: http://www.richardiii.net/

As we know the potrait currently on the page wasn't painted in his lifetime. The picture immediately seen on the website was, and has been dated to the early stages of his rule (late 1483). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.238.41.82 (talk) 06:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I've suggested this above, in the Portrait section. Silverwhistle (talk) 18:45, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Last English king to lead his troops in battle

Two editors, User:Bevo74 and User:Ian_Rose, have made recent edits removing the phrase last English king to give battle or die in it. George II was not an English king or even King of England, he was a German-born King of Great Britain who did lead troops in battle at Dettingen as British monarch. This is the distinction. I hope my recent edit is clear, now. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Much clearer to me now. I hope other editors apreciate the difference between King of England and Great Britain. (I wouldn't like to argue in a pub that 'Elizabeth Windsor' isn't the Queen of England! I think George II actually fought at Dettingen as Elector of Hanover. Bevo74 (talk) 16:48, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand the points about George II and Dettingen, but Charles I, who was a pre-union king of England (ie he was king of Scotland separately), led his troops at Edgehill in Warwickshire and Naseby in Northamptonshire (albeit a bit less valiantly than Richard at Bosworth!). I've amended the introduction to reflect this. I hope this is OK.

Stephen 81.129.2.220 (talk) 19:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Good point. Deb (talk) 11:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Wasn't Henry VIII at Guinegate, as well? Charles II also led his troops at Worcester, and William III led troops during the Nine Years War and at the Battle of the Boyne. john k (talk) 23:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Richard III

All sources seem agreed that Richard was totally loyal to his older brother Edward, taking no part in the rebellions of the middle brother, Clarence against Edward.

Following the death of Edward under circumstances not regarded as suspicious, Richard, as Protector, begins helping and grooming his nephew to become next king. A month before the coronation something seems to go wrong and the ceremony is postponed for a month. Before that month has elapsed the coronation seems be postponed indefinitely.

There were, are, rumours about the real paternity of Edward and it is possibly that some evidence about this emerges during the postponement. The previously loyal Richard must have been horrified at this possibility.

Rather than slander his brothers memory and his own mothers reputation, some face saving explanation for Richard's next actions is needed. The possible pre contract with Eleanor Butler is dusted down and used to legitimise Richards claim to the throne, he is after the senior surviving brother.

The two princes go into the Tower of London and gradually disappear from the record.

Mancinis record must be regarded as dubious. As an accredited Embassy, one of Mancinis duties was to gather information about the political situation in England. Who knows what tales he may have been fed in exchange for a few drinks in the inns and bars around the Tower of London?

There are a couple of potential snippets that may help. Richard makes careful provision for the care of his three illegitimate children, all carefully recorded in his expenses. There is no existing record of any provision for the princes.

The implication is that they were both dead by the beginning of Richards reign and he knew it although this does not imply that Richard had any part in any plot. Which may also be the simple explanation why Richard was never able to produce the two princes to confound any rumours.

From Richards point of view, a complete silence on the subject may have helped prevent any investigation leading back to the matter of his (half?) brothers paternity. Blood is always thicker than water. The cover up is so successful that Henry VII would be faced with a whole series of pretenders.

The second point concerns Sir Thomas Moore who was eight years of age when Richard was killed at Bosworth. A little younger than the Princes but he may have known some information now lost and records later in life "one of the princes was sickly".

It does seem odd that at a time of increasing literacy and record keeping, nobody seems to directly accuse Richard of having disposed of his two nephews, even in a secret diary, neither is anybody else seemingly directly and clearly implicated in such a plot.

 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.93.199.154 (talk) 07:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC) 

Not sure what you are trying to say in the above, but most of the points you raise are covered in this article and Princes in the Tower. However, it is not possible that "both dead by the beginning of Richards reign and he knew it" because Richard's reign began the day he ousted Edward V and both princes were seen alive after that. Deb (talk) 11:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Last Warrior King (of England)

He was certainly the last king to lead his forces in a traditional way on the battlefield, was he not? Henry VII was not a warrior, nor was his son, Henry VIII. The former Henry was a money hungry fool and the latter Henry was nothing more than a womanising gormund with a voracious appetite for control. And after these scoundrels, the position of King/Queen morphed solely into a position of political power. Why is my edit continuously being denied? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.238.41.82 (talk) 11:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Surely a warrior is someone who goes to war? Deb (talk) 11:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the last King of England to lead his troops into battle was George II at the Battle of Dettingen in 1743.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Shsilver (talk • contribs) 12:26, 20 July 2009 {UTC}

We've been here before see the comment above: Last English king to lead his troops in battle. Jezhotwells (talk) 18:39, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Please take into account the battles of Barnet and Tewkesbury. George II was merely a cermonial figure at the battle, not an active participant. In the England of the 15th century and before, a warrior king was one who demonstrated his ability mainly though the art of war, such as Henry V. The king as warrior died as the English Renaissance took hold. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.238.41.82 (talk) 10:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

So Richard demonstrated his ability primarily through war, then? I doubt many people would agree. Deb (talk) 11:21, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, his personal motto: "Loyaulte me lie" is oft-translated to "loyalty binds me." Historians such as PMK say that he was more formidable as a loyal officer of his brother Edward, than acting as a king himself. His entire two and a half year reign was dominated by conflict: Buckingham's rebellion, Henry Tudor's first aborted invasion, the Breton naval wars, and of course, Bosworth. Please see "Richard the Third" by Paul Murray Kendall. The crux is, Richard III was the last English king I know of that actively fought with his troops. And, certainly, this entitles him more to the title of 'warrior king' than George II, who almost certainly "accompanied" his men in battle merely for publicity and for people like you to consider his act a return to chivalric ideals. No. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.238.41.82 (talk) 23:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I've read Kendall's book and many other books on the subject. But what about William III? Surely he has an equally good claim to be a "warrior king"? Deb (talk) 11:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I am aware of other kings' presence as figureheads of armies post-1485, but what I am arguing is the fact that they weren't active participants. Sure, even to this day, people like Duke Andrew are ceremonial leaders of battalions (although he did actively participate in the Falklands campaign, if I am correct?) but don't embody the chivalric ideals of an era long since swallowed by technology and the like. In essence, Richard's "swan song of medieval chivalry" was the last vestige of a position that was not only simmered in a flurry of absolute power vested in righteousness, but challenged by the necessity of leading the country's men and fighting with them as their liege. I think you aren't considering the label "warrior king" as an antiquated term. To me it is highly anachronistic to ascribe this ancient device to anyone who lived and ruled in a time period not dominated by war and civil strife. Entire reigns during the 13th, 14th and 15th centuries were engulfed in war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.238.41.82 (talk) 06:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The further you go, the clearer it is that your interpretation of the term is highly subjective. Deb (talk) 11:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I sure hope you aren't insulting my intelligence or patronising me. The term "warrior king" is an old term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.238.41.82 (talk) 06:05, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

...and a very subjective one. Please remember to sign your posts. Deb (talk) 11:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry baby, I've found solace now in your indolence. I am right and you are most certainly wrong, but have it your way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.238.41.82 (talk) 09:51, 25 July 2009 (UTC) Yes, master. XVCXCXCXIIIV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.238.41.82 (talk) 02:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I make that one X short of a C. Deb (talk) 10:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

This is all pretty wrong. Henry VIII and Charles I were not particularly military leaders, but they did nominally command troops in battle. So, sort of, did Charles II and James II, although at times when they were not recognized in England as king. William III and George II were actually the real as well as the ostensible commanders of armies in battle. The idea that Richard III was the last king to be in a battle is pretty unsupportable. john k (talk) 00:03, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Richard's crest

His crest was supposed to have been a wild boar. This was referenced in Shakespeare (Act III, Scene II, Line 11). For this reason, Shakespeare had Lady Anne insultingly call him a hedgehog (Act I, Scene II, Line 102). The article has no information about the crest of his coat of arms.Lestrade (talk) 16:48, 17 August 2009 (UTC)Lestrade

One of the many things this article is missing. Good luck trying to add the truth, the people around here won't allow it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.238.41.82 (talk) 10:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

What about Ford's statement about archeaological finds at new location announced for Battle of Bosworth

"The most important by far is the silver-gilt boar, which was Richard III’s own badge, given in large numbers to his supporters. But this one is special, because it is silver-gilt. It was almost certainly worn by a knight in King Richard’s own retinue who rode with the King to his death in his last desperate cavalry charge. It was found right next to the site of a small medieval marsh - and the King was killed when his horse became stuck in a mire." taken from http://www.bosworthbattlefield.com/battle/archaeology/battlefield_found.htm

Genealogy Jo (talk) 11:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit

David Hipshon has written a book titled Richard III: The Death of Chivalry. I encapsulated his arguments into a few sentences. That is the 'reliable source.' Can I ask why my edits are continuously deleted? Is it because I am an eponymous contributor or is it because there is monopoly on editing? Strange what goes on around here, a website that tries to remain unbiased and fails miserably.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.238.41.82 (talk) 18 September 2009

This seems like a reasonable point - you should add it back with a footnote citing Hipshon's book, if you like. john k (talk) 18:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with John. Go ahead and replace it, but include the citation.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

If you're unsure how to include a footnote, please read WP:CITE, or just include the bibliographical info (page number, isbn, etc.) here and we can fix the rest for you. Gabbe (talk) 19:00, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

It didn't read like a very encyclopedic addition with "faded into the heather". I'm afraid additions from editors with usernames do tend to be taken more seriously. PatGallacher (talk) 19:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, I'd rather let you wallow in your own worthless sense of self-satisfaction. The intrepid are rewarded. What kind of reference books do you like reading, Pat? Haha, you smug little bunch of church mice.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.238.41.82 (talk) 04:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

King Richard's signature

I checked Commons but it doesn't have an image of his signature. Perhaps someone can locate a printed copy of his signature and upload it to the article as it would be a nice addition to King Richard's infobox.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I created replicas of King Richard's two signatures and I have added one of them to the article. Melinda Rácz (talk) 20:23, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Nice work, with a good provenance! --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it looks great! Thank you, Melinda Rácz.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:21, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Earl of Cambridge

I read where Richard also held the title of Earl of Cambridge, but have been unable to find a ref. Can anybody shed some light on the matter?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

His father and grandfather both held the title, but when Edward IV came to the throne, it was merged into the Crown. So in a sense it's true he was Earl of Cambridge when he became king, but I can't imagine he would have bothered with the title. See the wikipedia article on Earl of Cambridge. Deb (talk) 18:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Deb, you solved that mystery for me. I had read somewhere that he held the title along with Duke of Gloucester prior to being crowned king, but couldn't find it anywhere on Internet. Seeing as the title was merged into the Crown during the reign of Edward IV, Richard couldn't possibly have held it before his ascension to the throne.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

It could be they were confusing him with his father and grandfather, who were both called Richard. Deb (talk) 18:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes perhaps, or else the author didn't realise the title had been merged into the Crown.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

White Surrey

Is there any basis in fact for Shakespeare having named the white horse Richard rode at Bosworth "White Surrey" or is this just one another of the bard's numerous inventions?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I checked Holinshed and More but they don't name the horse, so it may be Shakespeare's invention. I found a reference [3] to a book by KS Wright, The Field of Bosworth which may throw some more light. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Good question! Sharon Penman's research is usually immaculate, and she doesn't use that name for the horse (as far as I remember). Deb (talk) 12:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Richard III's mistress

The article states Katherine Haute to be the possible mistress of Richard III, but it is to be noted that Katherine Haute, while a true historical person, was only the mistress of Richard III in the historical fiction book 'A Rose for the Crown' by Anne Easter Smith. Is there any proof to back this, because Richard III's mistress's identity has not even been suggested to my knowledge. --Virusguy5611 (talk) 00:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Hicks seems to have suggested Katherine in his Anne Neville (p. 156), and Wilkinson refers to her (Richard the Young King to Be, 2009, p. 228-9), on the basis of the grant of an annual payment of 100 shillings made to her in 1477; also because his daughter was called Katherine, a name uncommon in the York and Neville families. Wilkinson suggests Alice Burgh as the possible mother of his son John of Gloucester (also known as John of Pontefract, presumably after his birthplace). Richard visited Pontefract from 1471, in April and October 1473, and in early March 1474 for a week. On 1 March 1474 he granted "dilecte nobis Alesie Burgh generose sibi" £20 a year for life "for certain special causes and considerations". She later received another allowance, apparently for being engaged as nurse for Clarence's son, Edward of Warwick. Richard continued her annuity when he became king. (Wilkinson, p. 253-4). -- Silverwhistle (talk)[13 March 2010, morning (GMT)]

Actually, there was a Katherine in the Neville family, Katherine Neville, Baroness Hastings, a sister of the Kingmaker. She was obviously named for her paternal great-grandmother Katherine Swynford whose daughter Joan married into the Neville family.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:44, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, but it's not a name that they use every generation. Alternatively, it may simply be that she was born around the feast-day of one of the Saint Catherines. Silverwhistle (talk) [13 March 2010, 12:14 (GMT)]

Nicknames

The article states that "Richard was often known by the affectionate childhood nickname of "Dickon", or the less affectionate "Old Dick" and "Richard Crookback". There is only evidence of contemporary usage of "Dickon" in the note allegedly left for the Duke of Norfolk before Bosworth. The description of a him as a "crookback" is found in an allegation made a couple of years after his death, but not as a nickname; nor is there contemporary evidence, in any biographies I have read (Kendall, Ross, Hicks, Jones, Wilkinson) for "Old Dick" (which seems odd for a young man anyway). Should this be amended? -- Silverwhistle (talk) [13 March 2010, morning (GMT)]

I agree. Dickon appears to have been the only contemporary nickname; therefore based on that, "Old Dick" should be removed entirely. The article should mention that "Crookback" was only applied to him after his death; as a dscription, not a nickname.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:39, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Lord Hastings and Anthony Woodville

Paul M. Kendall on pages 162-63 of his biography on Richard, clearly states that Hastings had advised Richard to place the children under his protection. Jane Shore, who was acting under the orders of her lover, Thomas Grey, Marquis of Dorset, entered into a conspiracy against the Lord Protector, who ordered his immediate execution. The fact that Richard placed Hastings' widow under his personal protection and didn't put an attainder on his estates proved that he was not the villain as Tudor historians have made him out to be over the centuries. On a final note, I would take the word of Kendall over Weir, whose books often display many historical inaccuracies.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:36, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

So the reason for Richard's summary execution of Hastings was...? Deb (talk) 20:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a certain amount of contemporary revisionism when it somes to Richard. Whether he was as vile as history would have us believe is a matter of degree; his was a vile age but he somehow stood above his noble contemporaries in this regard. There is a rather spare but I think accurate description in the Oxford Illustrated History of the British Monarchy that goes, ..."When Edward died ..., as protector of his newphew Edward V he [Richard] felt his position threatened by Queen Elizabeth and her Woodville relatives. He therefore planned to seize the crown: he executed Lord Hastings, Edward IV's chamberlain and the queen's brother, Earl Rivers, while the Queen took sanctuary in Westmister Abbey."SBmeier (talk) 03:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

There certainly is revisionism, but that's not my point. I can clearly see why he executed Hastings; it was because Hastings would have defended Edward V's claim on the throne against Richard. But this is at odds with the comment above which suggests that the fact that "Hastings had advised Richard to place the children under his protection" somehow proves Richard's innocence in their deaths. Deb (talk) 12:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I think far too much weight is being given to Kendall. I've never seen another source (and I've read a lot on the life of Lord Hastings and his progeny) that suggests that he was ever in conspiracy with Richard. I respectfully think Jeanne has taken this quote out of full context. The historical consensus that is conveyed in Princes in the Tower indicates that Richard expressed a desire to safely transport Edward V to London as the heir to the throne. Not realizing that Richard had ulterior motives, Hastings reasonably thought that was a good idea. When Richard's entourage linked up with the young king's escort and then managed to steal away with Edward while they slept (after a convivial night of drinking together), the first of several duplicities was revealed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SBmeier (talk • contribs) 13:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC) As it is seemingly cited to support the conspiracy theory, I should have addressed the matter of Jane Shore. That she existed and was Hastings' concubine is well established, but I've never read any other reference that attributes to her an interest in or ability to influence politics. All that can really be said from our distant perspective is that she was attracted to powerful men and they to her.SBmeier (talk) 13:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

When Hastings entered into his fateful conspiracy against Richard, at the instigation of the Woodvilles, via the conduit of the voluptuous Jane, it was with the aim of removing (murdering) Richard, who was Lord Protector of the realm. It is obvious why the Woodvilles wished to eliminate Richard as it was his person who stood in the way of their controlling England. This was the reason Hastings had advised Richard to place the boy king under his protection-namely to prevent a Woodville-dominated kingdom. Thomas Grey wished to take the place of Richard so he had his mistress Jane convince Hastings to betray his friend. Ironically Thomas Grey's wife, Cecily Bonville was Hastings stepdaughter. It is easy to see why Richard would have reacted to his former friend's treachery with such violence; the fact that Hastings's estates were not placed under an attainder proves that Richard was not basically a cruel man. Just compare him with other monarchs such as John or Henry VIII!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:26, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that the Woodvilles were invested in the crown going the rightful heir but that does not implicate Lord Hastings. His loyalty was to Edward IV and his heirs. While getting Hastings out of the way was important to this man who wanted to be king, this was a tri-angulating age. Hastings' Neville in-laws were very powerful in their own right and Richard wisely chose not to take them on as well. Maybe Deb can help us find some compromise language here?SBmeier (talk) 15:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Remember Richard's mother was a Neville. The most powerful Neville in the realm (the Kingmaker) had died in 1471. Yes, I would welcome Deb's input in using neutral language as regards Hastings. She's an excellent editor and strives to remain NPOV. I admit to being pro-Ricardian, and you appear to be pro-Hastings LOL.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I've made some attempt. Deb (talk) 20:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Deb, thanks for helping us out here. I think this is an improvement and we are moving to a more neutral place. That said, I believe this still suggests witting complicity that is not supported by the record. Hastings sensed the general danger that any heir to the throne might be subject to but he had no way of knowing that the Tower would be anything but a safe haven. Also, for reasons already stated, the Jane Shore angle is titilating but not sufficiently supported to introduce in such a decisive way. Anyway, let's see what Jeanne says.SBmeier (talk) 03:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I see an error. Why would Anthony Woodville have plotted to kill the young King- as the latter was the tool for the Woodville family to wield power in England; besides had young King Edward V died, there was Richard, Duke of York to take his place?! No, the article should instead read that Anthony Woodville was executed for having plotted against Richard. It was commonplace for mistresses to be used as political instruments; one only needs to recall Catherine de Medici and her infamous Flying Squadron. I can actually only think of one royal mistress who did not meddle in politics and that was Mary Boleyn.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:58, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

It would have been very difficult for Anthony Woodville to plot against Richard. At the time of Edward IV's arrest, he was in Wales, which he administered on behalf of the young Prince of Wales. They were recalled very suddenly, and Rivers was arrested and executed within days of the meeting with Richard - before Richard had even seized the throne. But in any case, I think we need to be very careful to steer clear of speculation in the text of the article. We either state all the arguments (citing sources) for and against a particular theory of what happened, or we omit them. Deb (talk) 08:18, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you that Anthony Woodville was probably innocent of plotting against Richard. In my opinion, Richard was on a Woodville-hunt, fearing plots from all members of that family. I would say, from the evidence that is available to us, that Thomas Grey was definitely guilty of working against Richard; same with his mother Elizabeth, who appeared to have feared the Lord Protector, but Anthony was doubtless innocent of any treachery.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Opinion of Elizabeth I

This sentence: "Elizabeth I, who in addition to being the granddaughter of Henry VII had experienced numerous challenges to the legitimacy of her own rights to the throne from early childhood to long after her succession and thus, though a century removed from Richard's death, would likely still not have viewed with objectivity or with favour any remotely sympathetic or positive portrayal of the man her grandfather had supplanted as king." reads like original research. Syntax apart, we can't have any "likely" suppositions without an authoritative source to say who supposes them. I propose to delete this. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree - and ungrammatical to boot. I've removed the second half of the sentence and I think it's okay to untag now. Deb (talk) 11:47, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Yep, that's a fix. Thanks. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Deleted ridiculous "Controversy and reputation" section

Please, this is an encyclopedia, not a place to air your personal theories or brilliant insights. The deleted section was nothing but unsourced POV and weasel-worded conjecture, as well as an advertisement for a fringe group of Richard III fans. It's the kind of advocacy rubbish that completely undermine's Wikepedia's credibility. If you wish to make a section about the controversy, then please discuss what published scholarship thinks, not what you think. — J M Rice (talk) 01:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Publicity campaign?

'A publicity campaign was mounted condemning Edward IV's marriage to the boys' mother Elizabeth Woodville as invalid'. Am I alone in considering the term 'publicity campaign' anachronistic and somewhat exaggerated/biased? To my knowledge publicity campaigns in the sense that we understand them weren't possible in an age without mass media. What is the evidence that there was a 'publicity campaign'? The text in the current article refers to a single public statement read outside a cathedral, followed by an Act of Parliament. In the absence of further citations demonstrating the validity of the term, I'm going to change the text to suggest a public announcement rather than a 'publicity campaign'. V1oletv (talk) 03:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

KG

whats wrong with showing the post-nominals of a knight of the garter?? not worth the acknowledgement, eh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.15.169.17 (talk) 09:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

It's an anachronism; AFAIK probably dating only from C19. Besides, wasn't he the Sovereign of the Garter, for which there isn't a postnom? --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

if it's an anachronism you have several hundred to fix on this website. i have seen it applied to noblemen from the 14th and 15th centuries. his brother, edward iv, was the sovereign of the order, and bestowed it upon richard and george, duke of clarence when they were quite young. as the sovereign, edward could not bestow the order upon himself, but was rewarded with the equally prestiguous order of the golden fleece. richard diivied out a few garter orders to his close knights. full circle: henry vii on usurping the throne was not a knight of the garter. he was however the sovereign of the order, which explains why his sleaze fiend of a son was invested as a knight of the garter, ad nausem, ad infinitum. blah blah blah. do not patronise me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.15.169.17 (talk) 15:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

ah. i see what you meant. i apologize. just like peerage titles upon ascending to the throne, the post-nominals are also merged into the crown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.15.169.17 (talk) 15:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I did indeed mean that the "Knightood" was superseded by "Sovereign of the Garter" on ascending the throne, but I see that I've failed to answer your point about the postnominal letters being used in the C14 and C15. Not forgetting WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but do you have examples?

I'm sorry if I've appeared to be patronising: that was not my intention. --Old Moonraker (talk) 16:30, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

death in battle.

as far as i am informed harold and richard iii were the only kings of england/britain/uk killed in battle. richard the lionheart did not die in battle per se, but as a result of wounds garnered in nothing more than a light skirmish. the modern military acronyms, KIA (killed in action) and DOW (died of wounds) readily attest to the difference. as a personal aside, being killed in battle does not allow for a living man's body to leave that place of combat for treatment as was the case with richard the lionheart. 70.15.169.17 (talk) 10:05, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

I concurEregli bob (talk) 06:23, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Eleanor Butler

Lets see if I have this correct. Edward IV either marries or has some sort of precontract with Eleanor Butler. While she is still alive Edward then apparently marries the Wydeville widow both secretly and without banns being called.

Even if Eleanor Butler died after the Edwards marriage to the Wydeville widow, this would still render both of Edwards sons illegitimate and even this marriage seems legally dubious.

After Edwards death and while Richard was Regent for his nephews, did any of the Wydevilles ever claim that the original arrangement with Eleanor Butler was untrue or even propaganda spread by Richards supporters?

If not, then it seems that they were perfectly aware of the Edward - Butler situation and hoped that it would never be revealed.AT Kunene (talk) 15:32, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

That's a bit like the "Have you stopped beating your wife?" argument. If the pre-contract with Eleanor Butler did not happen, then the Wydevilles couldn't possibly know whether it was true or not. Deb (talk) 16:26, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Eleanor Butler II

All right then Deb, did ANYBODY claim that the Eleanor Butler story was false or was Richards propaganda?

In the years since Eleanor Butler, the Wydevilles must have caught at least some whiff of it and never subsequently claimed that the story was false. Neither did anybody else, even from the safety of France or Flanders.

This total lack of denial seems reasonably convincing of a general belief, at the time, that there was at least some substance to the story of an agreement of some kind with Eleanor Butler.

Given Edwards reputation, there may well have been others.AT Kunene (talk) 13:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed there were lots of other women in Edward's past, but that isn't the issue. Proving a negative is not easy (what would be acceptable as evidence that something did not happen?) While Richard was in power, it would have been a brave man indeed who spoke out against him. Both Earl Rivers and Richard Grey were summarily executed by Richard within days of the Butler accusation being known. Deb (talk) 17:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

The Wydevilles

OK Debs, I'll agree that trying to prove a negative some seven hundred years later won't be easy but one possible interpretation on the sequence of events may provide one plausible answer.

As soon as the Wydeville widow was queen and firmly on the throne, she immediately began moving her relatives into positions of power as though she might have to later face some sort of challenge, such as the Eleanor Butler story, and would need allies.

It almost worked. Had Edward lived longer perhaps all the parties aware of the potential scandal would have then been dead and the whole story buried. As it happens, Richard Stillington was still alive as possibly the last witness to the Eleanor Butler story.

It still seems decidedly odd to me though, that at a time of reasonably wide spread literacy, at least amongst the upper and middle classes, nobody at the time seems to have left any kind of reasonably definite record, even in a secret diary, accusing Richard of not being the legitimate king or involvement with doing away with the princes in the tower.AT Kunene (talk) 15:20, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

The negatives

Debs, Just had another thought about your point regarding negatives and proving that something didn't happen.

In Richards case there seem to be a lot of literate people not saying "RICHARD DID IT". Could so many "no comments" be intepreted as "it didn't happen"?AT Kunene (talk) 15:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Only if the fact that a lot of literate people did say "Richard did it" can be interpreted as proving that it did happen. Deb (talk) 11:30, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Another negative

After the death of Richard at Bosworth and Henry VII had taken the throne, he issued a document accusing Richard of many, mostly routine, crimes. Specifically missing from this list is any mention of Richard having any part in the disappearance of the Princes from the Tower. Had there been any such evidence, Henry would surely have pounced on it with great enthusiasm.

Deb, to me this still seems a very big negative Perhaps the largest on a list of negatives. Nobody at the time seems to think Richard had murdered his nephews. Perhaps the simple answer must be NOT PROVEN.AT Kunene (talk) 07:11, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Not sure which document you are referring to, but it is a matter of record that Richard was openly accused of murdering his nephews as early as January 1484. Deb (talk) 11:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Deb. That's not to say I believe Richard was guilty, but it's a matter of historical record that he was openly accused of killing the princes.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Documents

Debs, JeanAnne, Some years ago a British TV company hired two retired senior policemen to examine all the available evidence and at least try and reach some conclusion about Richard and the Princes in the Tower.

One of the documents shown on the programme was that published by the incoming Henry VII after his victory at Bosworth. Henry accuses Richard of a long list of the usual routine "crimes". As the two policemen stated "Specifically missing from the list is any mention of Richard having any complicity in the missing princes".

Their final conclusion was that Richard seemed to be "a happy family man" but "it is doubtful if we shall ever know for sure".

Another later TV reconstruction with a Judge and two QCs questioning various experts and witnesses, a jury was unable to find Richard guilty.

All of which goes back to my original point that the Woodvilles never seemed to have contested Richards right to kingship or accused Richard of harming the two princes and a large number of contemporary literate people are not saying "Richard did it". AT Kunene (talk) 10:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

This is part of the problem really - a lot of people who have no understanding of historical source material or of the medieval period take it on themselves to make assumptions based on what they think they know about psychology. For example, the idea that a "happy family man" cannot be a murderer can be proven to be nonsense by everyday examples, and yet people allow it to cloud their judgement in the way you seem to be doing.

If you really want to continue this argument, it would be useful if you could quote some sources, rather than referring to "one of the documents" shown in a nameless TV programme that you cannot even put a date on. I saw the "Trial of Richard III" that you refer to as a "later TV reconstruction" (it wasn't a reconstruction but we'll let that pass). The jury consisted of ordinary members of the public, and they were given only a few hours to assimilate the evidence and the testimony of expert witnesses such as Dr David Starkey - who expressed his opinion as a historian that the "small lawyer's mind" of the defending QC was incapable of recognising the evidence in its context.

Do not make the mistake of thinking that a medieval English king who gave a lot of money to the church could not possibly have killed his nephews. Richard had already dispossessed his nephews of their inheritance, thus showing himself disloyal to his brother, who had made him their protector. Worse still, even if he was not guilty of their murder, he failed to fulfil his duty as protector, because somehow those children disappeared without trace before the beginning of 1484, while they were under his "protection". If you can explain why Richard failed to produce the boys in public when he was first publicly accused of their murder, then you may have an argument worth adding to the article. Deb (talk) 11:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Apart from being a "happy family man", he was also very much admired in Yorkshire having been regarded as a fair, judicious and good administrator. I happen to be an admirer of Richard. However, as Deb correctly points out, these factors do not preclude him from having murdered his own nephews. We must judge people in the context of the mores of their day., not ours. Infanticide was viewed with the same repugnance in the 15th-century as it is today, yet Richard might have considered their "removal" a lesser evil than a realm completely dominated by the Woodville clan and himself ousted from power.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

While I have no strong views on the subject, how is "infanticide" relevant to this article? Our current definition of infant defines the term as humans below the age of 3. Edward V was 12-years-old at the time of his disappearance (July, 1483), Richard of Shrewsbury was 9-years-old. Too old for this term. Dimadick (talk) 17:36, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, somebody needs to invent a better word for child-killing. Deb (talk) 20:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

After thoughts

Debs, JeanAnne.

Good point about a happy family man also possibly being a murderer.

The TV programme involving the two experienced police inspectors was broadcast in B&W, which shows how long ago it was. The police officers thought that the most likely contender for any possible murder was Hastings but the evidence was described as "dubious"

For the later TV trial of Richard III, I tried to look a the whole thing impartially and could only agree with the final verdict of "not guilty". I also thought that one of the QCs looked decidedly tired.

As the programme also tried to analyse the duties of Mancini, I thought "reconstruction" a reasonable description as this seemed to be the main evidence prsented against Richard. We must agree to differ in our own individual interpretations.

In the end I can only come back to my original point, which has been described as being of the "have you stopped beating your wife" type. At a time of reasonably widespread literacy nobody seems to be saying "Richard did it".AT Kunene (talk) 11:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I think this point has already been answered above, to everyone's satisfaction but yours: viz. at a time of reasonably widespread literacy lots of people were saying "Richard did it". Deb (talk) 15:08, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

possible scenario

Debs, JeanAnne,

Let us try this scenario.

After Richard is securely on the throne there is a possible collective sigh of relief that the long drawn out, expensive and bloody conflict now known as the Wars of the Roses could be finally over. In the second year of his reign Richard's only legitimate son dies under circumstances which do not seem suspicious.

Without a clear successor there must have been the possibility of the war resuming. Richard now feels his grip on the situation beginning to slip so he starts moving his own (northern) supporters into almost every level of administration even in the southern counties thereby causing considerable resentment. Henry Tudor may have detected this resentment and decided to act upon it. As 29th. in line for the English throne he was so obscure that he hasn't offended anybody of importance.

There is little record of any mass support for Henry in England and who would take up arms against Richard, the anointed king, but there must have been considerable sitting on the fence with the tacit sympathy "better the Welshman than all these northerners/Geordies around the place".

After gaining the throne Henry issues the usual documented charges against Richard, which doesn't even mention the Princes in the Tower, and settles down to governing his new kingdom. He is soon to be faced with the first claimant to be the son of Edward IV and rightful king so somebody believes the Princes to be alive.

The claimant is so obviously a phoney that Henry is able to laugh the whole thing off. Only when he realises that he is likely to be faced with a series of such phoneys he sets up a commission to investigate the whole matter.

The commission is unable to reach a definite conclusion as nobody did know what had happened to the Princes in the Tower. Nobody at the time seems to have left any record accusing Richard of murdering his nephews. This is despite there still being many people alive who had lived through these times.

The most recent and highly plausible reconstruction of the period seems to be "Richard III, Maligned King" by Annette Carson who also concludes that "Richard didn't do it" which seems to be almost the same conclusion as the earlier Police Inspectors had reached with no proof either way. Some seven hundred years later no definite proof of Richard's guilt has emerged.AT Kunene (talk) 10:09, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

700 years? The man died in 1485, 527 years ago. Are you confusing Richard with his ancestor Edward II of England (reigned 1307-1327)? More importantly, how do you establish "definite proof" of murder when there are no corpses to examine, reliable testimonies, or anything resembling a contemporary police report? Like many historical mysteries, there are multiple theories and next to no hard facts. Dimadick (talk) 17:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

This sentence is not quite correct: "He is soon to be faced with the first claimant to be the son of Edward IV and rightful king so somebody believes the Princes to be alive." Although it's true that Lambert Simnel was initially represented as Richard, Duke of York, his puppet-masters quickly changed their minds and decided he was Edward, Earl of Warwick, son of the Duke of Clarence. Why? I would suggest it was because few people believed that Edward IV's sons were still alive. Also, as I mentioned previously, the statement that "Nobody at the time seems to have left any record accusing Richard of murdering his nephews. This is despite there still being many people alive who had lived through these times" is not true, as is explained in the article.

Ms Carson's book may well be a very interesting one, but, as far as I can tell, all she really sets out to prove is that Richard's reputation was deliberately tarnished in retrospect - we already knew that; in fact, we have known it for hundreds of years. So I ask again, A T Kunene, have you got anything new to contribute to the discussion, or are you just arguing for the sake of it? Deb (talk) 15:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Case Closed

You have a point Debs. It all depends on which reconstruction you find plausible and I intend to close my thoughts on this subject with a brief summary although I've rather enjoyed your comments.

Referring more specifically to the Princes in the Tower.

The Richard III supporters produce reasonable evidence that "Richard didn't need to do it".

None of Richard's contempories are saying "Richard did it".

Henry VII, the man with the most to gain from Richard's guilt, is unable to find any definite proof that "Richard did it".

More recently, the retired Metropolitan Police Chief Inspectors hired by TV, having examined all the available evidence are also unable to find any evidence that "Richard did it".

Case closedAT Kunene (talk) 07:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you don't seem to have absorbed any of the factual information you've been given during this discussion, but if you prefer to keep a closed mind on the matter, it's really your loss. Deb (talk) 15:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Hunchback?

Apart from a humorous quote from Horrible Histories, the article doesn't mention anything about this story, whether to confirm or deny. --Dweller (talk) 13:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems the tale is controversial. DNB mentions both the humpback and the doubts about it, observes it can't have been too marked for such a warrior, and mentions Sir Thomas More (Sir_Thomas_More#History_of_King_Richard_III) as a source. The recently discovered skeleton shows a sideways S-curve (scoliosis) with one shoulder higher than the other, rather than a hump (kyphosis) as so often portrayed by actors, so the name Crouchback may have been more political opposition than medical fact. Some of this should probably go into the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:03, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

More commonly "Crookback", surely? Deb (talk) 17:32, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm all for both sides of a controversy being presented clearly and carefully. Omitting it altogether isn't the right way though, especially as it's so notable. Any and all terms used notably against him should be included. --Dweller (talk) 09:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Up to now, any idea of a deformity has been dismissed as Tudor propaganda. It would be rather funny if an excavation funded by the Richard III Society proved he actually did have one. Deb (talk) 11:11, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Deb, if you watched the press conference you would find they emphatically said the body (which is almost certainly Richard although of course they will not say so yet) did not have a hunchback. Scoliosis is different and the earliest accounts do suggest that is what Richard had. I do however think that after his death his disability (which after all was not much of one, considering his reputation as a warrior) was exaggerated into a hunch. We all know what popular rumour can be like!. Ferrymansdaughter (talk) 18:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure Deb is perfectly well aware of that. The point is that Ricardians have been strenuously arguing that he had no deformity at all, or even that he was such a hunk that he had a bulging muscular shoulder on one side, due to his military training, so that that shoulder appeared to be higher than the other! In fact the so-called Tudor propaganda after his death appears to be largely accurate, if we are referring to the accounts given by Rous, Vergil and More. Shakespeare, of course lays it on with a trowel, giving him a hump, a withered arm and a limp too, (Henry VI part 3, Act III, Scene 2, lines 1645-50) but he's a dramatist, and his Richard is a prototypical super-villain. Since no historian has ever used the play as a historical source, the fact remains that the actual Tudor historical sources on his appearance are vindicated, not disproved. Paul B (talk) 19:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

I've added a section on "Reputation" to include a discussion of the alleged deformities. Vergil's account seems to to be consistent with the findings. More could be added on later views of Richard. Paul B (talk) 16:05, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

That's a good idea, and great outcome of my original post, thank you. --Dweller (talk) 16:14, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

If it is now shown that he had scoliosis (and I do believe this is Richard they have found) it would, according to the team at Leicester, not have been very noticeable when he was dressed. Rous (in his Tudor era alterations to his original work) said Richard was two years in his mother's womb and born with long hair and all his teeth. More said Richard had a hunchback and a shrivelled withered arm. These are the Tudor sources you mention and they are patently not vindicated at all. (Apparently Erasmus said that More had one shoulder higher than the other, maybe he too had scoliosis.) Incidentally, many people have scoliosis, Elizabeth Taylor did for one and apparently Usain Bolt does too. I'd hardly say either of them had a deformity but apparently some people disagree. Ferrymansdaughter (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:09, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

They were not "Tudor era alterations to his original work". It was a different work. Whether he had teeth and hair as a child or not cannot be known (it's possible), though obviously he was not two years in his mother's womb. The point is that no one has ever seriously believed that the womb story was true - probably not even at the time. In any case, I was talking about Tudor era accounts of his physical appearance. Rous, by the way, was a very "medieval" writer whose books are full of credulous stories about giants and magic. Still, all he says about his appearance is that he was slight and had one shoulder higher than the other. That's it. More and Vergil are much more rational and as-it-were modern writers. More does not say that he had a hump. He says he was "crook backed", as do almost all of the other sources. As for the arm, that's described in the context of Richard's claims about Hastings' supposed "witchcraft". Richard is supposed to have shown his arm to the council, revealing some form of injury or disease. This could have been a recent infection, skin problem, or many other things that would not show up on a skeleton. Indeed it is clear in context that it was supposed to be a newly developed problem, not a congenital condition. So, if you look at what the sources actually say they are far more plausible than the Ricardian "myth" that they claimed all sorts of highly exaggerated deformities. Vergil and More are not full of wild superstitions. Vergil only mentions his appearance very briefly in passing. That's true of most of the creative writing too. In Ricardus Tertius it's not even mentioned at all, and in the True History it gets half a sentence. The reality is that the only writer who made it important - and central to Richard's motivation - was Shakespeare. Paul B (talk) 18:54, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

The Leicester skeleton discovered in September 2012 had a scoliosis of the spine. This has been taken as confirmatory evidence of identity. Matching of mDNA may allow for a retrospective refinement of Richard's deformity. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:43, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, of course, that's accepted. The debate is about what this implies regarding the reliability of Tudor-era sources on his appearance. Paul B (talk) 19:57, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Until and unless there is a DNA match it means nothing. From Carolyn Hammond at richardiii.net: "The raised shoulder of the Windsor portrait can be shown under X-ray to be a later addition to a painting with a normal shoulder line." [4] - and so evidence of possible later exageration. Surely Shakespeare's dramatic licence, over 100 years later, is the main reason we now think of him as having had a hump (and withered arm) at all. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:00, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't mean nothing. If we were living before DNA-matching had been identified, the evidence so far would, I think, be considered near-conclusive. The portrait is irrelevant. No contemporary portrait would have depicted him with a deformity, any more than the elderly Elizabeth would be shown with wrinkles and black teeth. Even in the ‘altered’ portrait it's hardly even noticeable! So much for propaganda. Of course Shakespeare is the main reason for the way we now view him. That was my very point. It's his creative decision to make the deformity central, not "Tudor propaganda". Even other Tudor dramatists barely bothered with it. Paul B (talk) 20:52, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

But we aren't living before DNA-matching. The identity of the skeleton is what needs to be established first. Perhaps I'm just worried that, as sometimes the case with archaeology, it's easy to try and have it both ways - the spine abnormality adds to the confirmatory evidence that the skeleton really is his, and then the "mere scoliosis" is used to discredit the hypothesis that he had a hunchback. I don't see why any historical evidence, including portraiture, should be simply discounted as irrelevant. However, I think your appraisal of Rous, Vergil and More is probably spot on. Who knows, perhaps the folks over at richardiii.net will unearth evidence of some even stranger tasty spinal deformity. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:14, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

(Reset) When are the results likely to be known? Jackiespeel (talk) 15:52, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

There is some continuing confusion as to the nature of a 'contemporaneous source'; Shakespeare is not one, and was writing (great) fiction; More is not one (for that period), and was also writing (good) fiction. Rous IS a source, but as we know he spoke well / ill of RIII depending on whether he was king or dead, his value is minimal. Likewise, 'Tudor historical sources on his appearance are vindicated, not disproved.'- how? Historians (I quoted Ross, not exactly the greatest fan of RIII) that have actually examined the evidence come to the conclusion that disabilities, if any were slight. On close examination, Tudor (so-called) 'sources' appear less like fact and more like rumour. It strikes me as mildly bizarre to be accused of 'arguing' with the sources, when in fact all that was happening is that sources were being established. John Stow IS a contemporary source- but PB has the effrontery to delete all reference. This does NOT indicate impartiality. And making a second non-edit in order to prevent editing is childish and immature. You Can Act Like A Man (talk) 19:12, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

The obvious question is - if the disability was so slight as not to be noticeable, how did the rumours start? Deb (talk) 19:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

That's a very good point. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:16, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Your comments display a lack of knowledge of the sources. Both More and Vergil consulted people who knew Richard. The idea that sources have to be contemporaneous in the literal sense - written during a person's life - to be valid is as absurd as arguing that literature on Hitler or Stalin written in their lifetimes is somehow more reliable than what was written based on living sources after they died. The point about 'arguing' with sources concerns the structure of the article. We shouldn't be adding disclaimers to passages in the middle of a text. It tends to make the article unreadable. At its worst we get things like 'X says this, but this is possibly wrong because Y, but maybe it's right because of Z, or it is after all actually wrong because of Y.1'. So the best approach is to say that 'no comments about his physical appearance were made in his lifetime' and then go on to say what historians said later. We should present the evidence to the reader in context, not try to prod the reader to accept or reject sources according to our wishes. Paul B (talk) 20:40, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

BTW, the claim that I made a 'second non edit' in order to conceal my revert is an outright calumny. It was a legitimate edit and anyone who looked at the diff would see the previous edit summary. I'd have to make two edits to conceal the revert, if that was what I wanted to do. All of You Can Act Like A Man's edits have been crudely partisan, and have, IMO, added nothing by way of new content. I have added information. Paul B (talk) 21:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Reputation

I've added a paragraph to the "Reputation" section so that most of the contemporary sources are at least named in this article, and I've tried to do so objectively. I think what happened in the past is that the "Princes in the Tower" section became so large and dominant that it was taken out and made into a separate article, and most of the sources went with it - because, let's face it, the major interest in Richard is whether or not he killed them and 99% of the arguments were devoted to resolving that question. Deb (talk) 17:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why you inserted that into the middle of the text which is arranged as a chronological account of his unfolding / evolving image. I think it should either be at the beginning or the end. I've moved it to the beginning. Still, I must admit I'm not really sure what purpose listing the existence of primary sources from the period actually serves. We could list sources about any major figure and say that some or all of them are likely to be biassed. Paul B (talk) 21:01, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not something I would normally worry about - but I do think this article needs special consideration and I think that the omission of any mention of the primary sources (or rather, the fact that they were moved wholesale to the "Princes" article) is an oversight in this case. Deb (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

The final monarch to die in battle in England proper?

The text in the article states of Richard III that "He was also the second and final monarch to die in battle in England proper", which is erroneous. James IV of Scotland died at Flodden Field in Northumbria some 28 years later.

Perhaps the text should be "He was also the second and final English monarch to die in battle in England proper"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.137.46.194 (talk) 10:15, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

What is "England proper"? Deb (talk) 11:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Good point, I suspect 'England proper' refers to the portion of the Kingdom of England (i.e. post 1284) that does not include Wales. As no English kings have been killed in battle in Wales since the death of Richard III perhaps the 'proper' is unnecessary. Another thing strikes me is that the sentence says Richard III is the second monarch to die in battle in England. This is untrue as Edward the Elder (arguably an English king) died in battle at Farndon in 924. Whether Farndon was part of England at the time is a moot point, but it certainly is now. Additionally, Harold Hardrada famously got his six feet of English soil in 1066 and Malcolm Canmore got done in at the battle of Alnwick in 1093 - so in no way was Richard III the second monarch to die in battle in England, proper or otherwise. Finally, why limit the sentence to England? No other English monarchs were later killed in battle anywhere else and unless devolution takes effect this is unlikely to change. I would now suggest the sentence reads "He was also the final English monarch to be killed in battle." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.137.46.194 (talk) 11:10, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. I'll make the change. --Dweller (talk) 11:19, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

NB the fuller text in the lead was much less problematic: "Richard fell in the Battle of Bosworth Field, the last English king to die in battle (and the only English king to die in battle on English soil since Harold II at the Battle of Hastings in 1066)." The only problem with that being the unnecessarily metaphorical and misleading "fell", which I'm about to amend. --Dweller (talk) 11:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Nice One. That reads a lot better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.137.46.194 (talk) 15:11, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Positive feedback on Wikipedia is rare and appreciated. If you ever decide to get an account, please do let me know, so I can welcome you properly. --Dweller (talk) 15:51, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

The origin of the tradition that Richard's remains were dumped in the river are uncertain. I ought to point out that it was the archaeologist Matt Morris who found the skeleton which may be that of Richard. Iy was Dr Appleby who examined the remains, thought that they might be those of Richard and exhumed them under the conditions of a Ministry of Justice licence (LCA) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.112.87 (talk) 19:53, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

AN ANALYSIS OF THE CASE FOR AND AGAINST RICHARD FROM A POLICE POINT OF VIEW

I am a former Police Constable in Australia and may I commend to those who may not have read it the book entitled 'Daughter of Time' by Josephine TEY. There is an old adage that goes "Truth is the daughter of time", inferring that that truth will come out no matter how long it takes.

It is fiction I admit but examines facts. A detective, hospitalised after an on-duty accident, begins to look at the evidence and into the case for and against Richard having murdered his nephews. I will not spoil what is a ripping read by saying anything else.

I will however state that I am firmly in Richard's camp and have 'championed' this maligned monarch for some thirty years.

Roger DESHON, Toowoomba, Queensland, Australia. Insidivs Fvngvs (talk) 08:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

We are all thrilled. However, history is not like detective stories. From the overthrow of Edward II on, every single ruler who deposed the previous ruler later killed them in captivity. Edward II (Mortimer); Mortimer (Edward III); Richard II (Henry IV); Henry VI (Edward IV). The only 'exceptions' are the fact that Mortimer was officially executed and that Edward V's death was never acknowledged. But he and his brother disappeared during Richard's reign. Paul B (talk) 10:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I've read "Daughter of Time". Very entertaining, but also very dated and written in JT's usual somewhat romanticised style. In none of her books is the chief suspect the actual villain. She was not a historian, still less a detective, she was a writer of fiction. She starts from the premise that "Richard looks nice in his portrait - he must be misunderstood" and tailors the evidence to suit her conclusion. Deb (talk) 11:08, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The various possibilities include:

• Richard III ordered their deaths (as they were potential foci of opposition).
• The Duke of Buckingham (to further his claims/eliminate rivals)
• Henry Tudor (ie before he became king)
• Henry VII (after he became king)
• 'One or several' of the persons in the Tower (possibly trying to second-guess what is required)
• They died of natural causes in the Tower (but the information was not released as Richard knew he would be blamed).
• One or both escaped (hence Lambert Simnel, Perkin Warbeck, Richard's 'Third bastard', and several works of fiction)

There are arguments for or against the above - and probably a few fantasy versions (they escape on the Tardis etc).

Any more to add to the list (which I will copy at some point to the Richard III wiki on Wikia)? Jackiespeel (talk) 18:09, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Just one point - you're in the wrong article. See Princes in the Tower. Deb (talk) 18:30, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I was following on from the originator of the thread.

I just didn't want you to do a lot of unnecessary work. Deb (talk) 13:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The RIII wiki is [5] - anybody wishing to pursue OR etc welcome. Jackiespeel (talk) 11:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Margaret of Anjou

QUOTE: 'beyond the reach of Henry VI's vengeful Queen, Margaret of Anjou'... WAS she vengeful? Probably. Should it be mentioned in an Encyclopedia? Probably not... MY CURRENT SIGNATURE: Admin don't like me mentioning cretins in my signature  ;) (talk) 17:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Can't fault your logic. Deb (talk) 18:20, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Cretinism, sadly, cannot be cured, however one signs oneself. It's true that we cannot know Margaret's state of mind. Paul B (talk) 18:29, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Yep. Touched a nerve there I think. Only a two-dimensional one of course  :)

MY CURRENT SIGNATURE: Admin don't like me mentioning cretins in my signature  ;) (talk) 12:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I think she might have been curable, though :-) Deb (talk) 18:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

So, I tried to work out a balanced way of keeping a reference to MoA, and couldn't; but to be fair, just erasing it and blending the following sentence seem fine? MY CURRENT SIGNATURE: Admin don't like me mentioning cretins in my signature  ;) (talk) 12:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I think that's quite a reasonable way of achieving NPOV. Deb (talk) 13:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

'Reign of Edward IV' Section

It occurs to me, this section could probably (i.e., DEFINITELY!!!) say a whole lot more than it does about his life at this time- very approximately, his brother was king for TWO-THIRDS of his life, yet this is a very small section. Hein? Paranoiacs comment on other peoples' sigs, AH-HA !!! (talk) 13:00, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you think you can resist the temptation to be quite so childish and just try to live up to your actual user name? Paul B (talk) 15:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

If you stop banging the drum, you will no longer create the echo! Thanks for your contriBUTTions!!! ;) You Can Act Like A Child (talk) 15:49, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

No one but you is banging any drum. Paul B (talk) 14:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

No. But a lot of hot air from your general direction.You Can Walk Like A'Gyptian  ;) (talk) 14:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Such as? Paul B (talk) 14:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

SEE BELOW. You Can Walk Like A'Gyptian  ;) (talk) 14:21, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

That's reasonable discussion, not bullying and offensive playground behaviour. In any case, useful conversation develops by evolving points, not by trying to belittle people. Paul B (talk) 14:45, 12 December 2012 (UTC) >>>Feel free to re-write any of your previous remarks as you did here. And not have the necessaries to admit it. I assume you are at war with East Asia. And have never been at war with Eurasia...? :p You Can Walk Like A'Gyptian  ;) (talk) 21:19, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Which you are indulging in with all your little come-backs. You don't actually contribute do you.You Can Walk Like A'Gyptian  ;) (talk) 14:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes - it would be good to have more content about his residence in the north, and also about his long-running feud with Clarence, which I think many Richard-lovers are unaware of. Deb (talk) 13:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

It admit that it would be slightly bizarre being in love with a dead feller. Like Shakespeare :p It would probably have to have sub-sections, 'Council of the North', 'Relations with Northumberland', File:Queen Eleanor & Fair Rosamund.jpg, 'Scottish wars', 'Patronage' etc? Paranoiacs comment on other peoples' sigs, AH-HA !!! (talk) 14:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I should have said "Richard-worshippers" :-) Those suggestions of yours, whilst perfectly valid, sound like they'd be quite short sections. If there is to much material, of course, the article can be split - just as there is a separate article on the Battle of Bosworth and a separate one on the Princes in the Tower. Deb (talk) 15:38, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

The sections would have to be on stand-alone topics (i.e. the Council of the North is a legitimate stand-alone but '[Richard's] Relations with Northumberland' really isn't. Paul B (talk) 15:46, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Interesting- his relations with Northumberland in this period had a consequence at Bosworth! You Can Act Like A Child (talk) 15:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Of course, but that does not make it a topic for a stand-alone article. It's not of sufficient interest independent of the biography of Richard, nor does it have the internal logic to be an article. Paul B (talk) 14:03, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

A point I address below if you can deign to lower your eyes from your naval-gazing  :) You Can Walk Like A'Gyptian  ;) (talk) 14:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

If you take, as a parallel, an article like George Frideric Handel (just plucked that out of the air), you'll see that sections such as Handel at Cannons exist as separate articles. There's no hard-and-fast rule. So, whilst I agree that "Richard's relations with Northumberland" doesn't, at first sight, appear viable as a separate article, it depends how much there is to say about it (without turning this into yet another book about Richard III!) Deb (talk) 16:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

See the point. I've started in the sadbox, think the length is about right, can add more ref's. Not finished yet, obviously. 'Relations with Northumberland' could maybe be 'Relations with nobility'? I don't think he was particularly good at 'man-management, remember his spat with Stanley? With even more obvious results in 1485!

Here's the thing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:You_Can_Act_Like_A_Man/sandbox You Can Walk Like A'Gyptian  ;) (talk) 16:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I've commented there. Deb (talk) 22:52, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Inspired by you both, I have added a section on Richard's marriage and its consequences for his relationship with his brothers. This was very little coverred in the article previously and I think it is quite significant. Deb (talk) 12:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

That's good. Yesssssss... it was a pretty grubby business all round with the treatment of Warwick's widow wasn't it... You Can Walk Like A'Gyptian  ;) (talk) 14:01, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree - though this kind of family bickering can still happen in the lives of quite ordinary people.Deb (talk) 14:08, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah? Parliament revoking legal rights? Being treated as dead?! Now that's some Simpsons-esque dysfunctionality... LOL You Can Walk Like A'Gyptian  ;) (talk) 14:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Believe me, old people are frequently treated as though they were dead by those who stand to inherit from them. Deb (talk) 14:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Ha! -although it still doesn't compare with the bickering that goes on on Talk Pages!!! :D You Can Walk Like A'Gyptian  ;) (talk) 14:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I think you could both stop now. You seem to be heading in the same direction, near enough. The only glory will go to the one who doesn't feel he has to have the last word. Deb (talk) 19:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Huh. Anyway- HE started it...!!!! ;) You Can Walk Like A'Gyptian  ;) (talk) 12:09, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, bad luck - you lose. Deb (talk) 12:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

...You know what they say; 'In war, there are no winners. In wikipedia, only complete losers'. Now if we could return to the matter in hand. Viz, I have added stuff to the Sadbox, have a gander? You Can Walk Like A'Gyptian  ;) (talk) 13:01, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, "Estates and titles", "1471 military campaign", "War with Scotland" and "Exile and return" are ready for inclusion although they contain a few typos (they can always be tweaked later). Deb (talk) 20:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot about it- inserted now You Can Walk Like A'Gyptian  ;) (talk) 11:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Unnecessary edit

From User:Jabberjawjapan

...adding a 'the' before 'Bishop of Ely'. Not a major malfunction but it adds irrelevant emphasis to his title rather than the man. Nowhere else do we refer to'Henry Stafford, :the: 2nd Duke of Buckingham' or 'Charles the Bold, :the: Duke of Burgundy', etc.

'The Bishop of Ely, John Morton' would be fine though.

Just a thought.

--Basket Feudalist (talk) 14:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd say it kind of depends on the context. Deb (talk) 15:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

But not worth it in this case AND he's taken out the comma! Deb (talk) 15:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps invite him in to discuss it...Basket Feudalist (talk) 16:19, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Hey, I think you're getting the idea :-) But it's hardly worth the effort for one word, so I've just undone it with an explanation. Deb (talk) 17:58, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't like to do it myself! Although took the liberty of removing one lone parenthesis. PS: re: the IP post below, is 'Strawberry Fields' relevant, or mildly cretinous here?! No offence of course  ;) Basket Feudalist (talk) 18:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

As there are various minor digressions on the talk page, John Morton and Strawberry Fields Forever. 80.254.147.68 (talk) 18:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The reign itself-

-doesn't really get much of a mention. The sections effectively jumps from Stafford's rebellion in Oct. 1483 to Aug. 1485. Maybe the clocks stopped.

Let's go to work.

Basket _Feudalist 15:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, well, he was so busy killing all the opposition, wasn't he! Seriously, though, his reign was quite short and the personal blows of 1484-1485 (deaths of son and wife) probably made it difficult for him to apply his mind to administrative affairs, so I wouldn't expect too much interesting material just because he happened to be king at the time. Deb (talk) 15:47, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Ross gives about 80 pages to it, Horrox 50, and Hicks- seems to have disappeared temporarilly. Basket _Feudalist 15:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

There is certainly material relating to the reign. The question is more about its relative importance. If you take out all the machinations, you will (I imagine) be left with fairly mundane stuff about how much he spent on improving castles, etc. So, while I have nothing against including it - in fact I'm rather bored with hearing about the more "exciting" events of his life - I think you will need to be quite selective. Deb (talk) 16:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. Maybe a new section on his personal toilet at Warwick Castle... Basket _Feudalist 16:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

That sounds fun. I don't suppose they've found any bodies down there? :-) Deb (talk) 20:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Not yet. But then, he probably banged his head on the way! -Imagine the U-bend at Warwick ;) Basket _Feudalist 21:52, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of toilets, did you know that his castle at Middleham had 18 toilets? I learned that from a documentary on the castle. Here's a clip: [6]

Are you sure that's not a load of...erm? Deb (talk) 20:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

...eighteen loads of...?! Basket _Feudalist 07:45, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Well, that's what the documentary said. (Shrug) Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Founding of the College of Heralds springs to mind. Jackiespeel (talk) 23:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

University of Leicester's search for Richard III

I've tried to tidy up the new para on the search for Richard III. It's still in progress and therefore changing. it could probably do with its own stub. I'm not a great expert at this so what do colleagues think? A section in this entry or a new section of its own? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rich ard (talk • contribs) 18:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I would personally wait for the outcome before attempting a separate article. The results are likely to be inconclusive. Deb (talk) 17:34, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Why 'inconclusive'? The investigating team are confident that DNA samples will be provided from the skeletals remains , which apparently are in excellent condition. The seventeenth great-nephew of Richard III (from Anne of York, Richard's sister) have already been provided. There is every possible chance of a conclusive result here of whether the remains are those of Richard III or not.Ds1994 (talk) 14:06, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Because archaeology is my hobby, I know how unlikely it is that any excavation will pinpoint something like this and come up with the expected result - especially so quickly. It's come as a big surprise to me that they've got this far. Deb (talk) 15:03, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, will do, thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rich ard (talk • contribs) 19:05, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

'Category of persons whose deaths, funerals and related post-moretem happenings get their own Wikipedia page.'

Whence the story that Richard's remains were thrown in the river? Jackiespeel (talk) 16:22, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

I think you probably mean 'Whither . . . ' :-). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 84.21.143.150 (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

'The Accession' etc

I added a few extra facts to this section; but it occured to me that it could warrant an article of its own. It was only a few weeks, but plenty happened within a lot of detail.--Basket Feudalist (talk) 16:42, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

The use of "Queen Elizabeth's armies" in this section is very unclear. Presumably, this is Elizabeth Woodville, but she was never referred to as a Queen prior to this in this article, and could cause confusion since Queen Elizabeth I was obviously not born at this time... It would be mroe appropriate to refer to her as Elizabeth Woodville here, if this is indeed correct (I won't edit, since I don't know the facts well enough!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.227.5.242 (talk) 17:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I do see what you mean. Deb (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Sword up b*hind?

Richard III was also raped/molested by a sword up the back? Our news said so.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.168.48.122 (talk) 21:22, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Mmm, not quite that. It looks like someone stabbed him in the bum while he was slung over the horse's back after he died. Deb (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Latest revelations

I'm puzzling over how far it's possible/advisable to go with re-wording and/or re-interpretation of the article content in the light of the new information. I see an obvious connection between the skull wounds and the contemporary Welsh-language comment that Richard's head was "shaved" - but is it reasonable to make the logical link explicit in the article or should I wait for someone to say it in print (in a reputable source, naturally)? Deb (talk) 16:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

What revelations? Basket _Feudalist 16:29, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The fact that it's his body they've found in Leicester in what our US friends call "a parking lot". Deb (talk) 17:59, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

(.. these Colonials.... seems they also paved paradise.) Martinevans123 (talk) 21:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Only the bare facts of the new information can go in the article unless a source makes the type of link such as you suggest with the shaved head. Then that go in. To make the link yourself would be WP:OR. You need to wait until a source does it. DeCausa (talk) 07:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Identification remains/archaeological investigation

I'm thinking that this section is too detailed for this article (given that it's mainly about the mechanics of the investigation and not about R himself) and in fact should have its own article. There would then just be a couple of lines on the fact of the investigation here and any new information on R. integrated into the bio. DeCausa (talk) 23:16, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

That seems very sensible. (Although the re-burial in Leicester Cathedral will also have to fit somewhere?) Martinevans123 (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I've just created Exhumation of Richard III - take a look. I suggest that when he's reburied we rename it as "Exhumation and reburial of Richard III". Prioryman (talk) 23:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Looks good. Title seems a bit narrow given that the main point is the investigative process rather than the exhumation itself. Presumably the section here should now be cut right down. DeCausa (talk) 07:45, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Inconsistency in lead

It says in the lead:

"There were three major battles against Richard. The first, in October 1483, was led by staunch allies of Edward IV and most notably by Richard's former ally, Henry Stafford... The revolt collapsed and Stafford was executed at Salisbury near the Bull's Head Inn. In August 1485, there was another rebellion against Richard, led by Henry Tudor, 2nd Earl of Richmond (later King Henry VII), and his uncle Jasper...Richard died during the Battle of Bosworth Field, the last English king to die in battle (and the only one to do so on English soil since Harold II at the Battle of Hastings in 1066)

That's two battles - where was the third? Richerman (talk) 13:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

That's a recent mix up or unnoticed vandalism caused by heavy editing of the page. Paul B (talk) 14:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

What vandalism? And have a look at these edits here[[7]], I'm not suggesting vandalism by the IP but can't really see the point to them... Basket _Feudalist 15:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not going to trail back over all the edits today and yesterday to find out who changed it. Yesterday morning it said "two rebellions" as it has done for a long time. Today it got changed to something nonsensical ("three battles"). Presumably either that was was "unnoticed vandalism" or an accidental "mix up", as I said. If you want to trail through the edits please feel free. The changes you point to are all copy-editing, certainly not vandalism. Paul B (talk) 15:48, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I said I wouldn't, but I did [8]. Paul B (talk) 17:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Spotted. Curious form of vandalism that. Basket _Feudalist 17:27, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, just slightly pointless ones. BTW, two rebellions?! "I can't belive it's not battles! Basket _Feudalist 15:55, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I had actually been wondering whether we ought to protect this page temporarily, but there seems to have been surprisingly little vandalism in the past 24 hours. Deb (talk) 16:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Not a bad idea, it would let the ground settle for a week or two, it's so high profile at the moment. Mind you is it within procedure or precedent to protect a page that might-but-hasn't-yet suffered vandalism? Basket _Feudalist 16:16, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

It would be risky for me to do it myself, as I'm so heavily involved, and I don't think I could justify it. Deb (talk) 18:11, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Someone did just delete the whole childhood section and replace it with 'Gansta' speak... Basket _Feudalist 18:24, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Wyllyam Gardynyr

User:Anne-theater made the following addition: "Newer researches dispute these explainations as not covered by facts", referencing, "Lynda Pidgeon in :Who killed Richard III? Ricardian Bulletin, Magazine of the Richard III Society December 2012 p 48f ISSN 0308 4337". I don't think this is helpful for several reasons. I doubt the RIII Soc would count as WP:RS, and the sentence as added doesn't help. We'd need to know why is it not "covered by facts", what the facts do support etc. Having said, that I've been unhappy about this section for quite a while. The citation tags have been there since 2009 for the quotation ""Richard’s horse was trapped in the marsh where he was slain by one of Rhys Thomas’ men, a commoner named Wyllyam Gardynyr." This person even has his own page William Gardner (knight), which is largely uncited and rather confused. I tried to find something out about the sources for this a while back, but could find nothing. If anyone has useful sources for this section it greatly improve that section of the article. Paul B (talk) 18:23, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree, that's a very unclear addition, not to mention ungrammatical. Don't know of this Gardynyr - it's not a Welsh name so it would be surprising if he was one of them. Deb (talk) 19:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

I can't find anything about the mysterious Mr Gardner aka Gardynyr. The only inflormation I can find is about Rhys ap Thomas. The following is from Sir Rhys ap Thomas and his family: a study in the Wars of the Roses and early Tudor politics (1993): "The supreme accolade of striking the blow that killed Richard III has been claimed for several in Henry's army. Guto'r Glyn, in his praise-poem addressed to Rhys after the battle was over, may be taken as implying that it was delivered by Rhys himself - 'killed the boar, destroyed his head'. This might be thought an excess of flattery on the part of an obsequious poet were it not for the fact that the Burgundian writer, Jean Molinet, noted that a Welshman delivered the final stroke with a halberd when Richard's horse was stuck in the marsh of the battlefield. But one can go no further than that." Paul B (talk) 16:28, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

May be worth pointing out that the user who created the page has had a slew of articles about "famous" Gardners world wide speedy-deleted. I suspect the good Wyllyam should follow them post haste. Ian Dalziel (talk) 20:25, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

There are references in reputable sources to William Gardiner being Stephen Gardiner's father, but I have yet to find any support for the idea of this being the same William Gardiner that was credited with killing Richard. Deb (talk) 10:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I could find no reliable references to anyone called "William Gardner" (under various possible spellings) being the killer of Richard. There is also the question of whether the man who married Jasper Tudor's daughter is the same person who was the father of the bishop - though that is really a question for the William Gardner (knight) page. Of course where surviving documents are scanty historians often speculate whether a person mentioned in document A is the same person as the one recorded in document B. If that's what's going on so, ideally we should note that, if we can find the sources. Paul B (talk) 11:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Update: According to this book the Gardner who was the Bury-St-Edmunds cloth-merchant father of the bishop is a completely different person from the London Gardner, a skinner by trade, who married Helen Tudor. The two were apparently conflated by 19th century genealogists and the error has been repeated many times since. No mention whatever is made of any earlier career as a soldier for either of them, let alone something as memorable as killing a king. Both Gardners appear to be stolid middle-class tradesmen. Paul B (talk) 11:24, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Right - I looked in Alison Weir's "Britain's Royal Families", which confirmed that there was such a person but not that his son was the bishop nor what he might or might not have done in the Wars of the Roses. Of course, the one who married Jasper's daughter is likely to have been a Tudor retainer and probably a knight, but that's as far as it goes. Deb (talk) 12:16, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Anne-theater has kindly sent me a copy of the article she refers to. Embarrassingly, it is entirely about Mr. Gardynyr as he appears on Wikipedia. Or rather it is about the fact that the page has been quoted in some newpapers in which the information that William bashed Richard's head in has been repeated as fact. Lynda Pidgeon seems to have come to the same conclusions we discussed on the talk page of the William Gardner (knight) article - that our William is just a conflation of different Gardners, garnering their independent gardens to become one bloated imaginary knight. Paul B (talk) 16:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Was his face red! Oh no, can't have been, he doesn't exist! Deb (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

He was a sickly gardener green. I've nominated it for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Gardner (knight). Paul B (talk) 16:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

The fat knight has been deleted. He's in Arthur's bosom. Paul B (talk) 10:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)