Talk:Richard of Cornwall

message: Please tell me why this man is claimed to have been a contender for Holy Roman Emperor in the List of German Kings and Emperors interregnum period (if those two concepts are not mutually exclusive)?
Similarly (and the one might imagine that the explanation will be the same) why is he referred to as 'King of the Romans'?
He was the richest man in Europe.  He bought the title.  RickK | Talk 16:01, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: He seems to have corrupted 3 of 7 Kurfürsten (Köln, Mainz, Pfalz). "Rival king to Alfonso of Castile; held no real authority." 78.50.234.90 (talk) 20:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: JUNE 14, 2012
DEAR EDITOR,
LET HISTORY NOT BE ERASED.  PLEASE PUBLISH BY REQUEST THE STORY OF THE CRUSADES AND
THE LIFE OF RICHARD THE 1ST. PUBLISH HIS PHOTO AND DO NOT REVEAL THE PLACE OF HIS BURIAL.
THANK YOU.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.9.12.65 (talk) 00:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  tHE SON OF ELENORE OF AQUATAINE AND THE KING OF ENGLAND RICHARD (COUER DE LEON) 

message: Richard was the only legitimately elected King of the Romans during the Interregnum of 1254 to 1273. He reigned officially from 1257 to 1272. Why is his article the only German king's that is not formatted Richard of Germany? Contemporaries, except for those who supported Alfonso X of Castile all recognized his title, and all of his children were surnamed "of Germany" in recognition of their father's position. Not everybody recognized a lot of German kings, but their articles are all properly titled "X of Germany" (or Holy Roman Emperor if they received that dignity). Richard's is the only exception. It doesn't matter that he bribed the electors for his title or that he did not actively reign within Germany, that same thing can be said of virtually all of the later Habsburgs who lived in Austria and rarely had any authority within Germany or Italy. Richard's article needs to be changed to match the other articles on German kings.–Darius von Whaleyland, Great Khan of the Barbarian Horde 00:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Whaleyland, I would suggest you put in for a Requested Move on this suggestion.  It's bound to cause some discussion, as most royal moves do.  1bandsaw (talk) 20:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about Article Title 

message: I am puzzled by the argument that we ought to refer to people/list people by the names of the articles about them. We do not normally do that in Infobox royalty anyway; see virtually any article about an English king. The predecessor and successor are always listed without "of England", the children are nearly always listed with titles that do not appear in the names of the articles about them, the mother is listed without her marital title even if one is included in the article title, etc. In text we refer to people by whatever name is convenient. If we can agree that "William II of Holland" + "Rudolf I of Habsburg" in this infobox makes more sense than "William II of Holland" + "Rudolf I of Germany", then we are in no way obligated to use the latter. And indeed, "Rudolf I of Habsburg" is natural, common and perfectly consistent with both "William II of Holland" and "Richard of Cornwall". Surtsicna (talk) 10:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: As I noted before, the names "William II of Holland" and "Richard of Cornwall" are both the names of their respective Wikipedia articles. I think you ought to take up this at Rudolf I of Germany, which is certainly not his common name.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:08, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: And as I explained in great detail, we are not bound to use the exact names of Wikipedia articles. Pipes exist. Redirects exist. Surtsicna (talk) 00:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I fail to see how saying Rudolf I of Habsburg is more consistent than just keeping the current name, which is, like the other names you're citing to try to prove that Rudolf of Habsburg would be more consistent, the name of his article. They are thus all three consistent with the names of their articles, and I think this makes more sense than that we say "of Holland" and "of Cornwall" - of course we do, those are the names of the Wikipedia articles! Whether we are "bound" to use them is an entirely different issue than whether this change improves the article, which I don't think it does.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:09, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It's more consistent because Richard of Cornwall and William II of Holland were also kings of Germany. The practice for that parameter is to do away with the definer for the Holy Roman Empire and use the name of the person before they became King of Germany. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:23, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's the practice. It probably isn't worth arguing over anymore anyway. As I've said before, we should probably change Rudolf von Habsburg to his more common name, though...--Ermenrich (talk) 15:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rudolf 

message: Do we really need both images of the verso side of his seal: the seal itself and an artist's interpretation of it?  Could we just move the seal to the infobox, or is it unclear enough that we need the artist's rendering? Were these both in the body, a side-by-side would be an alternative, but that doesn't really work when one is the infobox image. Agricolae (talk) 14:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seal images 

message: "Isabel of Cornwall, who received a grant from King Henry III in which she was called "niece". - It has been found that this child has been incorrectly attributed and is in fact the daughter of Isabel (wife of John I) and Hugh De Brun).[22]"
Okay, so if she's not Richard's daughter, why is she still here? This should be deleted. 2600:1700:BC01:9B0:544F:E012:2320:EFE4 (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wives and progeny 

message: A son Lawrence keeps being put in among Richard's illegitimate children.  The claimed basis is an unpublished charter executed by 'King Richard' and witnessed by 'Laurence son of Richard'. WP:NOR prohibits editors from reaching novel conclusions not found in a reliable source, and while WP:PRIMARY sources can be used with care in very limited circumstances, this certainly doesn't extend to drawing novel conclusions from an archive's online catalogue entry for an unpublished primary historical document. As to the claim itself, the document only refers to a Laurence son of (some person named) Richard, but whereas when referring to the Earl it calls this person 'King Richard', in the case of the witness there is no indication given that the man's father Richard was the grantor, and there were any number of people named Richard in England at the time, any of whom could just as well have been the father of 'Laurence son of Richard'. Further, it would be rather unlikely for someone with a personal, biological connection to the grantor to appear so low in a witness list - 11th witness. Finally, there has been a scholarly study that explicitly addressed the question of whether Laurence 'of Ulverston' was the son of Earl Richard, and it concluded not only was the evidence was insufficient to conclude this was the case, but likewise it is uncertain that the 'Ulverston' Laurence was the same man as the one who appears in Cornwall, and that the Cornish Laurence had a brother Andrew who was already active as an adult in 1226, making him (and by implication Laurence) of the same generation as Richard, not his son. This is complex, with no definitive answer, and certainly too complex for editors to be putting their own conclusions into the article based solely on their reading of a single unpublished primary document. Agricolae (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claimed illegitimate son Lawrence