Talk:Richard of Shrewsbury, Duke of York

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


This title doesn't exactly trip off the tongue, does it? And I think "Tower" needs a capital letter, even if "prince" doesn't. Deb 20:08, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I expected objections to the title. I looked around the web for inspiration to disambiguate this Richard, Duke of York and found, which indeed has a capital P and a capaital T, so I'm sorry for that. I've no objection to the page been moved to something more suitable, if you have a better suggestion. Mintguy 22:37, 18 Aug 2003 (UTC)

this page stinks it doesn't give you any information and uses words that hardly anyone understands! Angry jade from gornal west midlands

Richard of Shrewsbury - 1st Duke of York??????????????????/[edit]

I don't think this title is correct - the subject's father is quoted as being 3rd Duke of York; The title for this Article '1st Duke of York should therefore be corrected, because:

Edward III created his 4th son

Edmund, 1st Duke of York, died 1402 Edward, 2nd Duke of York, died 1415 Richard, 3rd Duke of York, died 1461 RICHARD, 4th DUKE OF YORK, died 1483 (thereabouts- not going to get into an argument about who killed him).

I am unable to correct —Preceding unsigned comment added by Policymaster (talkcontribs) 18:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No. Wrong. This article is about the First Duke of York of the 2nd creation. Yes his father was the 3rd Duke of York. And so if this article's subject had inherited his father's title he'd be the 4th Duke of York. But he never inherited his father's title. The subject of this article had a living older brother. So how does a YOUNGER brother INHERIT the title "Duke of York" from the father? That doesn't happen. Only the OLDER brother could INHERIT the title. What happened is that their father, the 3rd Duke of York, became King. At that instant the title "Duke of York" became extinct by reason of merger with the Crown. The former 3rd Duke of York, as KING, bestowed upon his SECOND son a NEWLY-created title, "Duke of York". The King had the right to bestow that title (unless it was already held, but, at that time, it wasn't, having gone defunct by merger with the Crown) on ANYONE he chose. The former 3rd Duke of York was not obligated to see that his oldest son receive the same title he himself had held before being King. In this NEW creation of the title "Duke of York" the younger son was the First ever to hold that title. The older boy was not created "Duke of York" because he received greater honors, such as being Prince of Wales. Why do you not object to this article's subject being billed as "1st" Duke of Norfolk too? There was a run of four Dukes of Norfolk before him, so why aren't you changing him to the "fifth" Duke of Norfolk? Why doesn't your quibble apply consistently across the board?

It says at the bottom of the page, for both titles, "New Creation". Obviously, then, he must be the "first" Duke of both. (talk) 17:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)Christopher L. SimpsonReply[reply]

Actually the 3rd Duke of York (who inherited the title through his mother's side, and therefore may have been a new creation himself) was the grandfather of Richard of Shrewsbury and was dead long before he was born. I think that King Edward IV, the son of the 3rd Duke of York and the father of Richard of Shrewsbury, became Duke of York on his father's death (having previously been Earl of March) but soon afterwards became King. Otherwise your points appear correct. RGCorris (talk) 11:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Perkin Warbeck"[edit]

In this article it says "Perkin Warbeck claimed to be Richard, Duke of York, but he is generally considered to have been an imposter, and was labelled thus by the Tudor regime." Since the Tudors, aside from Mary I, were the arch enemies of the House of York they would of course love to disinherit Richard even if "Perkin" was him or not. So essentially their stance on the matter is meaningless. Since "Perkin" only "confessed" to the Tudor version of history after they captured and likely tortured him this is hardly vertifiable. There is no absolute proof that Richard was not "Perkin Warbeck". - Yorkshirian (talk) 05:06, 1 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no absolute proof either way, which is why this article cannot be definite on the matter. Nevertheless the majority of historians seem to favour the idea that he was an imposter, therefore "generally considered" seems a fair way to describe the matter. RGCorris (talk) 11:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They would not have loved to disinherit Richard. He would have been Henry VII's brother in law and initially was treated like a member of the family and was actually married to the King of Scotland's cousin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Date of death?[edit]

The article states 1483, yet there is no evidence that that is accurate. That is only according to the works of Shakespeare. Dr Rgne (talk) 15:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is actually a popular myth. Raphael Holinshed, in his "Chronicles of England, Scotland and Ireland", 1577, p746, lines 48 thru 55, states that Richard III stood before Parliament immediately after the Buckingham rebellion in October 1483, and demanded "his innocencie concerning the murther of his nephews toward the world" (sic). —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wrong info[edit]

in 1789, when restoration work was being carried out at the tomb of Edward IV in Windsor Castle, the coffins of two mysterious, unidentified children were found in what appeared to be a secret vault adjoining the main vault of the king and queen. But these were never examined.[1]

The *restoration work* took place in 1790 & involved patching up a hole some enterprising fellow had made in the side of the vault attempting to gain access to it; this was discovered by workmen putting new flooring in who were overcome by curiosity & gained access themselves in 1789. The majority of the work was putting a new monument to Edward IV atop the vault, designed by Georgian architect Henry Emlyn. Every looky-loo & his brother tramped through that vault once word got out before Windsor Castle officials put a stop to it. People were pocketing souvenirs such as Edward's teeth, fingers, & hair. Even the Dean of Windsor took a lock of Edward's hair (which is still extant at the Society of Antquaries of London) & a phial of the liquid in which Edward's skeleton lay (possibly what was left of him; it was a lead coffin, after all), as well as a piece of wood from Elizabeth Woodville's coffin, which had been lowered in atop Edward's & moved out of the way so that people could gawk at the king. There was no *secret* vault & the *mysterious, unindentified children* entombed there were Edward & Elizabeth's second daughter, Mary, who died aged 14 in 1482, & their third son, George, Duke of Bedford, who died at almost age 3 in 1478. (Edward's tomb was also previously entered in the 1640s by Parliamentarians, who removed its decorations that were made of gold, pearls, and rubies.) *Examining* any of the royal corpses in a medical fashion wouldn't have done much good in 1789. Romantic turn of the last century sources (much like Agnes Strickland) can never be totally relied upon, especially as this gentleman was writing about the tomb-robbing 124 yrs after the fact & can't tell the difference between a restoration & a completely new grave marker erected the yr after he claims it was. ScarletRibbons (talk) 13:46, 11 August 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Richard of Shrewsbury, 1st Duke of York's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "BBC":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT 19:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Unopposed for over a fortnight. Jenks24 (talk) 03:48, 9 July 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Richard of Shrewsbury, 1st Duke of YorkRichard of Shrewsbury, Duke of York – Per reliable sources,[1][2][3][4]. Per WP:NCNT, for royals with a substantive title (which he was until June 1483): "Numerals are not generally used". For those Ricardian editors who think York was illegitimate: "The use of 1st, 2nd, 3rd... is a matter of convenience... it is acceptable to omit the number". --Relisted. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC) DrKay (talk) 16:57, 23 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.


Where did he get that surname? The article lists nothing in his life that relates to that town, nor is it in any of his or his parents' titles. Would he not be better titled Richard of York, Richard Plantagenet or even just Richard? Robin S. Taylor (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As explained in the article, he was born there. DrKay (talk) 22:33, 1 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The use of birthplace to distinguish different members of the royal family with the same given name is in regular usage - e.g. Henry of Bolingbroke, Henry of Monmouth, Henry of Windsor for Henry IV, V and VI respectively. RGCorris (talk) 09:41, 2 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
More precisely, it's because they did not use surnames; "Plantagenet"—the obvious example—only began being used in the 1450s by the third duke of York to emphasis his lineage and dynastic link to the throne. ...SerialNumber54129...speculates 11:43, 2 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Saying he was married at the age of 4, to a 5-year-old, can't be correct as marriages were not deemed valid unless consummated, an act obviously impossible at that age. 2A00:23C8:8F9F:4801:9555:9DED:6542:AD9E (talk) 03:47, 11 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In that era there were numerous under-age "marriages" - for instance Richard II married Isabella of Valois when she was aged six, with consummation not expected until she was at least twelve. RGCorris (talk) 06:40, 11 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]