Talk:Margaret Pole, Countess of Salisbury

message: The article reads: Eventually she was executed—on May 27 1541 in the Tower of London—by Henry VIII in continuation of his father's program of eliminating possible contenders for the throne..  Is this right?  A more probable reason was because her Cardinal son would not recognise Henry's marriages.
: Just an (more or less) educated guess: it might have been both. If she was still a contender for the throne, that right would have been inherited by her children. By sentencing her for treason, her children would lose the right of succession, which was probably more important than getting rid of a frail, nearly 70-year old woman who had not made any effort to ascend the throne. Henry VIII was still very cautious of other contenders because he feared the tudor dynasty might not be stable enough.
::Possibly - she was his nearest living relative (other than his children).  otoh Henry was upset with the Cardinal and had executed many other clergy--ClemMcGann 19:56, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think whe was his nearest relative.  Unless I'm missing a closer link, Margaret Pole was Henry's mother's father's brother's daughter.  His nearest relatives would have been his sister's children.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.48.4.35 (talk) 16:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: She was one of the most senior Yorkists (House of York) as a daughter of George Plantagenet, 1st Duke of Clarence. Certainly the Tudors had many Yorkists arrested and executed in fear that the Yorkist would come back to power and the Tudors would be sent back to Wales. Though when Margaret Pole was executed, the most senior Yorkist was probably Edward Courtenay, 1st Earl of Devon, who was locked up in the Tower of London. - Yorkshirian (talk) 07:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, this explains much. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

text: Being an heir to the throne is not grounds for execution. Treason or some trumped up criminal charge was needed. However very often the contenders were guilty of wishing if not trying to overthrow the king.Royalcourtier (talk) 07:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Reason for execution

message: Shouldn't there be some sort of note on her being "Blessed Margaret Pole", on account of her being beatified? - 16:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure, I suggest that you ask this query at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Saints - ClemMcGann 23:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

text: She died on the 27th; her Saint's day is the 28th; I'm not sure why - probably to distinguish her from St. Augustine of Canterbury. Some minor English  bureaucrat was probably confused. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Sainthood

message: in the second paragraph of the "life" section, it reads that Margaret returned to the court after the fall of Anne (which was in 1536) but then mentions Reginald Pole's book re: Henry's policies in 1530; should this be presented a bit more clearly? someone who does not know the timeline might be confused by this. 18.173.1.125 (talk) 20:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: confusion in second paragraph of "Life" section

message: Was Margaret ever known by the style HRH, as indicated in the statistics box? I've never heard that before. Under the circumstances, it seems strange that she would have been given a royal style.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.47.42.32 (talk) 08:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely not.  I don't believe anyone had a style of "royal highness" in the 15th or 16th centuries. Henry VIII himself was only "Highness" at the beginning of his reign. john k (talk) 02:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Titles and Styles

message: Are the banners at the top of the article about disputes of neutrality and factual accuracy still needed?— Rod talk 18:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree; this text is (still) special pleading. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

text: These seem excessive, though some of the CE language seems to survive. Does no one have access to the ODNB?  I see more possible inaccuracy than POV; whichever way you look at it, Henry's actions were not pretty. I'm not aware she is regarded as a Catholic martyr in any very active sense. Johnbod (talk) 12:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I let my ONDB access lapse for a while, as an economy over the holidays, since I'll shortly be pretty busy with holiday stuff and less time for Wikipedia. But, besides the usual number of scholarly journal articles (see Google scholar search) there is also a recent biography from the University of Wales Press - Here, plus this, although I've never heard of Pentland Press. Other sources would include the number of biographies of Reginald and also those of Mary, which will probably have other views of Margaret. Biographies of Henry should be consulted also, for other views on her. Whether the tags are supported is another matter - but certainly basing this article mainly on the CE is a bad idea. At the very least it should be balanced by the old DNB entry which I'm sure she has. My personal opinion is that anything from the CE is likely slightly more biased than things from the old DNB, but neither are what you can call "neutral" in the terms we know them, especially on the bigger name and more controversial subjects. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:49, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: And the New Catholic Encyclopedia has much less of an axe to grind. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You did the right thing. None of the peerage books give an ordinal for her.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

text: No, certainly not. Half of this text (and the most tearjerking part) is exactly what it was when the conversation started; it even still has the (commented out) pov-tags, with which most of us, I gather, agree whole-heartedly. When those are gone, we can consider the matter.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality and accuracy banners 

message: One of the more tendentious claims in this article asserts that the Tudors had a long-standing and continuous policy of killing off claimants to the throne. This is a POV - and certainly an attested one - but it should not be claimed as though it were consensus of scholarship; it is asserted by power-worshippers and by those who dislike the Tudors for other reasons, who do not, even together, make up  a majority. 
For one thing, it is contradicted by the rest of this article. Margaret Pole lived for fifty years under Tudor rule before she was touched; she was arrested and executed for communicating with an English subject who was actively engaged in deposing the monarch. 
*Henry VII's policy on female heiresses of York is clear enough: marry them off safely, and keep them dependent; which of them did he kill?  
*Henry VIII's policy seems to have been "Nobody threatens me twice". This was bloody enough;  Machiavelli's actual advice: "decide who needs to die, kill them, and get it over with" might well have killed fewer. But if his policy had been to kill Margaret, he need not have given her great possessions in 1512; and he could have executed her in 1521 along with Buckingham.
*This, of course, assumes Henry had a continuous policy. Another POV is that Henry had a succession of viziers: Wolsey (who disliked Buckingham), Anne, Cromwell.... As long as they pleased him, he gave them their heads; when they did not, he took their heads - and their purses too. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Tudor policy?

message: ::::::::::::::Plantagenet? Only by sources which positively revel in anachronism. Geoffrey, Count of Anjou, had a nickname Plantagenet; his descendants did not take it as a family name.  Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Other historians refer to her as "Lady Margaret Plantagenet". In this recent publication from Yale University Press,  added to the sources by me and commented out by Pmanderson, that is one of the titles used. The same publication refers to the young Mary Tudor as Princess Mary, the usual terminology used for the daughter of a reigning monarch, but not the one used in the article. I am not aware that any historians refer to Margaret Pole as "Salisbury", as happens in the article.  Here's a very recent article  which examines the connection between Lady Margaret Beaufort and Margaret Pole. Again Margaret Pole is called Margaret Plantagenet. On wikipedia normal procedure is to include as many sources as possible, particularly if they discuss the subject at length and satisfy WP:RS, as in the case with both of those mentioned above (by the historians S. Powell and G. W. Bernard). Mathsci (talk) 07:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's the entry  in the "Dictionary of British History", published by Oxford University Press, Again she is called "Margaret Plantagenet". They give a pretty a good account: "Margaret Plantagenet was a daughter of George, duke of Clarence, and a niece of Richard III. After the execution of her brother the earl of Warwick in 1499, she was the sole heiress to the dukedom of Clarence and the earldoms of Salisbury and of Warwick, and was granted the title countess of Salisbury in 1513. But after her son Reginald Pole was made cardinal in 1536, Henry VIII moved against the Pole family. Her eldest son Lord Montagu was executed in 1539 and her younger son Geoffrey sentenced to death. The countess was executed in the Tower, the executioner bungling the beheading. She was the last of the Plantagenets." Mathsci (talk) 08:04, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Insofar as these are references to the dynasty: It is indeed called Plantagenet, having no other name (contemporaries rarely needed to distinguish it from the Norman kings). But that is an eighteen-century invention, not Margaret's usage; if we are going to refer to a convenient fiction, it is bad writing to imply it is more.   Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:32, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Plantagenet

message: There are still has neutrality and accuracy banners on the execution section after a year. Is there any way the knowledgeable editors of this article could agree a form of words which would allow these to be removed?— Rod talk 20:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy and netrality banners on execution section 

message: "her brother's lands of the earldom of Salisbury (only), for which she paid 5000 marks (£2666.13s.4d)"  Is this amount in lsd an exact amount mentioned at the time?  Or a modern equivalence? --Richardson mcphillips (talk) 10:47, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  5000 marks (£2666.13s.4d) 

message: The article is a mess. It needs full citations and clariication for this important historical figure. It's a shame to see the write up in a bad way. Anna (talk) 23:33, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Overhaul

message: The wife of Richard Duke of York was Cecily Neville not Isabel as stated in this article Pluckrose (talk) 07:52, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Isabel Neville