Talk:Richard of Shrewsbury, Duke of York

message: 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)
replies: text: I expected objections to the title. I looked around the web for inspiration to disambiguate this Richard, Duke of York and found http://www.btinternet.com/~timeref/hprr.htm#J1440, 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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 (talk • contribs) 18:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Richard of Shrewsbury - 1st Duke of York??????????????????/ 

message: 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)
thread_title: "Perkin Warbeck"

message: 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)
thread_title:  Date of death? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Wrong info 

message: 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":
From Edward V of England: David Baldwin, What happened to the Princes in the Tower?, BBC History: 2013
From Princes in the Tower: "The Real White Queen and Her Rivals", BBC2, 4 Aug 2013
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)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Richard of Shrewsbury, 1st Duke of York]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: As explained in the article, he was born there. DrKay (talk) 22:33, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Shrewsbury 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Marriage?

message: This article is due for a substantial overall based on Langley's authoritative report on The Missing Princes Project. PlaysInPeoria (talk) 21:43, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Also compare this National Geographic article, published 20 November 2023, which includes a high resolution photograph of the document discovered in May 2020 at the archive of Lille in France (announced in November 2023) that proves that Edward V. was alive as of 16 December 1487 (sic). There is a second document, found in November 2020 at an archive in the Netherlands, similarly showing that Richard of Shrewsbury was alive in 1493. The two documents are described in some more detail at thehistorypress.co.uk, under paragraphs "Discovery 3" and "Discovery 4", respectively, and I would imagine also in the book that is curiously already cited in the Wikipedia article (leaving out what may be its most important conclusion). Renerpho (talk) 06:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Princes in the Tower by Philippa Langley