Talk:George Plantagenet, Duke of Clarence

message: There is a claim made by some that George's descendants are the true heirs to the crown. As George was attainted would this actually be correct? Jackiespeel (talk) 15:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The [[attainder]] and the succession

message: Does anyone know exactly what constituted George's treason?  Thanks.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Treason 

message: This says George was the 1st Duke of Clarence. Surely Lionel of Antwerp, son of Edward III, was the first Duke of Clarence?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.54.121.27 (talk) 20:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: Under "Death" reference is made to George DoC being "put on trial for treason". However, my understanding is that an Act of Attainder is a legislative process rather than a judicial one. If he had been tried (presumably by his peers) he would have been impeached. Quentin Durward (talk) 12:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trial? 

message: I have noticed that he appears to be left hand dominant in his portraits. Was he left handed?68.32.154.213 (talk) 00:34, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Who the hell cares? Richard75 (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was George left-handed? 

message: In the article on Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick it states that his son in law the Duke of Clarence 'was awarded the Duchy of York' by Parliament in 1470 after Henry VI's restoration following his elder brother Edward IV's attainder. This attainder removed Edward's claim to the duchy which he had de facto inherited on the death of their father Richard of York, 3rd Duke of York in 1460 at the Battle of Wakefield and used until he was proclaimed King in 1461. Assuming this claim to be correct,this would mean that Clarence held the title Duke of York for a period under Henry VI in 1470-71 until his defection back to Edward IV -either as the de jure 5th Duke of York of the first creation (in succession to Edward  who had merged it in to the crown and would later use his claim to the duchy as the a pretext for returning to England in 1471), or the first Duke of a new creation. If this is indeed the case should this be mentioned in the article as the Duchy of York would be seen as senior to Clarence? Dunarc (talk) 21:08, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duke of York? 

message: Hi all. 
It would be great if a relevant historian could verify/correct the following sentence; 
* 'Clarence had actively supported his elder brother's claim to the throne, but when his father-in-law (known as "the Kingmaker") deserted Edward IV to ally with Margaret of Anjou, consort of the deposed King Henry, Clarence supported him and was deprived of his office as Lord Lieutenant'. 
* 
The word 'when' seems misleading given that Clarence and Warwick teamed up to try to get rid of Edward much before Warwick starting liaising with Margaret. In fact, Warwick's deal with Margaret (to try to get her and his kids on the throne) is what pushed Clarence away from Warwick.
Michelle Kemp (talk) 20:09, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading use of 'when' 

message: The article currently states that George "was the third of the four sons of Richard and Cecily who survived to adulthood." His brother Edmund died at aged 17. The sentence is a bit misleading. He was not a part of the battle of the three brothers for the crown. Anna (talk) 22:49, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I can see your point, but it is a bit of a thorny issue. Although 17 Edmund was considered enough of an adult to be fighting with his father at the Battle of Wakefield where he died. Shakespeare of course portrayed him as a child who was unjustly executed, but that was dramatic licence (especially as he also implies he was younger than Richard!). His death did mean he was not caught up in the later struggles between the brothers, but he was a significant figure at the time of his death, and with both his oldest brother (commanding the Yorkist forces in Wales) and father fighting the Lancastrian forces, could easily have become the Yorkist claimant to the throne, and so was seen as a problem to the Lancastrians. Dunarc (talk) 19:22, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not saying it's inaccurate, just potentially misleading. Better to rephrase to be clear. Anna (talk) 02:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Would something like "was the second of the three sons of Richard and Cecily who survived their father and became a potential claimant for the crown" be a better fit do you think? Dunarc (talk) 22:52, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, excellent. Thanks Anna (talk) 16:18, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

text: Thanks - I have gone ahead and made the change. Dunarc (talk) 20:42, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brother Edmund