Talk:Charles Brandon, 1st Duke of Suffolk

message: needs merging with Charles Brandon, Duke of Suffolk. And by the way, I think the latter page title is to be preferred, since there was no 2nd Duke of Suffolk. Loren Rosen 05:31, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: er, check out the article - he had two sons who briefly followed him as Dukes of Suffolk. john 06:09, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

text: Actually, the other article, which I wrote, was derived from the info in Plowden's book, though I might have taken a look at the old encyclopedia as well.
HMM...I just finished adding two cite-needed tags to this article and then noticed this nonsense (above.) So as I understand it, the entire content of this article is just plagiarism of an article in an Encyclopedia Britannica that is almost a hundred years old? Surely someone can come up with something better?? (By the way - I managed to find the aforementioned 1911 Britannica in it's entirety so if no one is able to come up with better content maybe we can start the process of adding just a couple inline citations based on the one online reference we have?)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ocrasaroon (talk • contribs) 06:31, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: Recently the file :File:Charles Brandon, 1st Duke of Suffolk from NPG.jpg (right) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. Dcoetzee 06:35, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New file [[:File:Charles Brandon, 1st Duke of Suffolk from NPG.jpg]] 

message: Aw Gee. This is just So Romantic. Can someone please edit out the novelettish nonsense. Eddaido (talk) 08:52, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Where are you reading 'novelettish nonsense'? I haven't written anything in this article but I'm very familiar with the story and let me tell you it happened that way and it could actually have been written with much more tear jerker detail (like including the promise Henry made her that she could choose her second husband herself and the tearful way she 'convinced' Suffolk to marry her). There's a reason a dozen or so romance novels and a Disney film were inspired by this secret marriage. The article is actually written in a pretty neutral way.--Feuerrabe (talk) 18:03, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marriage to Mary Tudor 

message: "Mary Tudor died on 25 June 1533 and in September of the same year Suffolk married his ward Catherine Willoughby (1520–1580), suo jure Baroness Willoughby de Eresby, then a girl of fourteen"
If she was born in 1520 then she was 13 in 1533. Which datum is incorrect? 2.25.142.221 (talk) 22:56, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Willoughby's date of birth is uncertain, she was either born on 22 March 1519 or 1520. The contemporary date is given as 22nd March 1520 (in the inquiry after her father's death), however since both the Gregorian and Julian Calendars were used at the time and it can't be determined which one was used there, it could mean either 1519 or 1520. She was either 13 or 14 at the time she married Suffolk.--Feuerrabe (talk) 17:36, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, would you please provide a proper reference for the IPM you refer to. Eddaido (talk) 00:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can explain to me what you mean by "IPM"? ;-) I'm not familiar with that term.--Feuerrabe (talk) 18:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You refer to "the inquiry after her father's death" and I assume you refer to the inquisition post mortem. Right? Eddaido (talk) 20:29, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I meant, yes. I'm not quite sure where I read about the inquiry though. I think it was either in Melissa Franklin-Harkrider: Women, Reform and Community in Early Modern England, Katherine Willoughby, Duchess of Suffolk, and Lincolnshire's Godly Aristocracy, 1519−1580, Woodbridge, Rochester, NY, Boydell 2008 or possibly in her father's entry in Cokayne's The Complete Peerage. I don't really have the time to investigate at the moment.--Feuerrabe (talk) 19:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maths error 

message: The article claims that Anne Browne's mother was Eleanor Ughtred (Sir Anthony Browne's first wife), citing the LDS website (a dead link) and a 2011 genealogical publication.  I have no way to evaluate the sources cited for Eleanor Ughtred to be Anne Browne's mother, but I am skeptical because these contradict Cokayne's Complete Peerage (vol 9, 1936, pp. 458-459) in Suffolk's article, which has quite a bit of detail.  Specifically, Cokayne quotes in a footnote from the papal bull ratifying Suffolk's annulment of his marriage to Margaret Neville, Lady Mortimer.  (The London Archdeaconry court had voided the marriage in about 1507;  the papal bull ratified that decree, but it was dated 1528, after the deaths of both women.)  One of several reasons listed in the papal bull was the consanguinity of the two women:  Anne was related to Margaret "in the second and third degrees of consanguinity" (i.e., she was her niece).  (Suffolk had contracted a marriage with Anne and cohabited with her, producing a daughter, but not solemnizing the marriage.  Then he decided to marry her aunt.)  If Anne and Margaret are indeed niece and aunt, then Anne must be the daughter of Anthony Browne's second wife, Lucy Neville, Margaret's sister.  Eleanor Ughtred was not a blood relation of Margaret's.  
The papal bull also states (quoting Cokayne) that "Suffolk's grandmother was the sister of the father of a former husband of Margaret's (ac etiam ex eo avia tua et genitor olim conjugis dicae Margaretae frater et sorer fuerant)."  I don't have Sir John Mortimer's connections (Margaret's husband before Suffolk) but it's possible she had been married before him to someone else (she was about 41 when she married Suffolk;  Mortimer died before 1504).  I'd have to do more research to unravel that.  
Before changing the article (and a few corresponding ones) to reflect what I believe to be Anne's correct ancestry, I wanted to post here on the talk page to give an opportunity for rebuttal.  There may be good reasons for the revision (such as contradicting marriage and birth dates), but somehow it needs to be made consistent with the papal bull of 1528. Laura1822 (talk) 20:43, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Anne Browne's mother doesn't necessarily have had to have been Lucy Neville in order for Margaret Mortimer to have been classified as Anne's aunt. Consanguinity also took into consideration relationships by marriage....as you noted with the papal bull referencing Suffolk's grandmother having been related to Margaret's former husband. This may be a question that has no answer, unless an obscure source come to light. ScarletRibbons (talk) 23:49, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Anne Browne's mother is a big deal as that would have made her connected to the Nevill family. I'm not sure what the problem is. There are plenty of reliable sources that state who her mother was. Also, the [17] points to her mother as Lucy from Cokayne. Yet it has Eleanor in the actual text of the article. This is not correct and it needs to be fixed. This is a matter that has already been settled so why is Lucy not noted as the real mother?? Lady Meg (talk) 22:16, 20 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anne Browne's mother