Talk:Lady Margaret Beaufort

message: Can anyone tell me why images that are placed on the right of the page are overwriting the text in my browser? I don't believe I can be the only person experiencing this problem.Deb
:I'm not having this ptoblem on this article, but it has happened to me on other articles. I'd say it was because the text and image can't both fit on the screen at once, but that's why we have things like word wrap and horizontal scrollbars.  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 13:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: "though every monarch since Henry VII is their descendant."
Actually that is every monarch since Edward IV of England. He was son to Cecily Neville, grandson to Joan Beaufort, great-grandson to John of Gaunt and Katherine Swynford. User:Dimadick
:I think the above statement in the article is somewhat obvious and shallow since Edward IV and his father were, more importantly, (in law anyway) descended from a more senior line of John's elder brother Lionel of Antwerp and so was also Henry VIII and all the other subsequent monarchs (only Henry VII was not). The line of John of Gaunt already led through his son Henry IV of England. I propose to remove this line.--Muzhank (talk) 21:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree--Tigranis (talk) 10:02, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Descent from [[John of Gaunt]] and [[Katherine Swynford]]

message: Can anybody help me find out when exactly (year would be enough) Margaret Beaufort was married to Edmund Tudor? Hints appreciated!
-- NicApicella; 27/May/2005
:I think she was something like 13 when her son (later Henry VII) was born. Granted, this isn't a date of marriage, and I'm not certain I'm right, but it would probably help detirmine a ballpark figure.  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 18:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marriage Date? 

message: The original text for the parentetical dats read, "born May 31, 1443 at the Kingston Lacy estate in Dorset – June 29, 1509." I changed to the present version (only the dates). This is a little more "standard" and much more easily readable.  — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 21:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dates of Birth & Death (my edit)

message: The Margaret Beaufort article says she founded St John's College. However, the College article says there was no mention of it in her will - although the foundation was suggested by her chaplain. Would it be better to amend this article to match the St John's college article?
Thewiltog 11:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: St John's College, Cambridge

message: quoth the article:
Margaret sometimes signed herself Margaret R, the form of signature used by English queens regnant to indicate the title "Regina," the feminine form of "Rex." This referenced Margaret's own potential claim to the English throne, which would have had precedence over her son's claim, though she never asserted it. Had she successfully done so, she would have been a queen regnant — ruling in her own right, not through marriage — and entitled her to sign documents with the suffix "Regina."
Can we get a source on whether anyone thinks this is actually some kind of assertion of queenship, rather than what looks like speculation?  It's kind of hard to argue that she's asserting her rights as queen because she's signing like English queens regnant do, because at this point there hadn't been any English queens regnant.  Even Maude had only use the title "Lady of the English." --Jfruh (talk) 01:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "Margaret R" discussion 

message: Should this be included, as it's not remotely authentic? It's definitely of a late 16C man, from the style of the clothes and beard. There is a more authentic, if damaged, tomb effigy. Silverwhistle (talk) 22:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please improve the article if you can. If there is a better image of him, feel free to replace the current one. Surtsicna (talk) 13:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portrait of Thomas, Lord Stanley

message: I moved this page to make the title consistent with the articles on Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Stafford and Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Devon. Richard75 (talk) 21:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: She wasn't the 'Countess of Richmond and Derby'. Articles should be at the common name where possible. See Wikipedia:Article titles#Use commonly recognizable names. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:46, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

text: The ODNB title is 'Beaufort, Margaret [known as Lady Margaret Beaufort], countess of Richmond and Derby', so her common name was Lady Margaret Beaufort, but she was also Countess of Richmond and Derby. One of the 5 characteristics of a good article title in Wikipedia:Article titles#Deciding on an article title is precision: "The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects." Both the Countess of Stafford and the Countess of Devon are linked to from other pages in Wikipedia by the text 'Lady Margaret Beaufort' - for instance, the Spouse(s) field in the infobox for Humphrey Stafford, Earl of Stafford (and perhaps these references should be clarified too!) - so it would be ambiguous for just one of the 3 ladies to be called THE Lady Margaret Beaufort. MSOrschel (talk) 21:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: , this page move is controversial and should have been discussed. Deb (talk) 23:08, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

text:  sorry, yes of course discussion is always good... I see though that Margaret styled herself Countess of Richmond and Derby, so moving the page back to the title it had had between 2012 and 2018 isn't unreasonable. Cokayne, Collins and others call her such, and thousands of Google search results indicate it's a style she's very well recognised by. Her will begins [sic] "In the name of ALMIGHTY GOD, Amen. We Margarete Countes of Richmond and Derby, Moder to the most excellent Prince King Henry the VIIth..." MSOrschel (talk) 20:42, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move 

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:Lady Margaret Beaufort from NPG.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on August 22, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-08-22. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! —howcheng  {chat} 00:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Lady Margaret Beaufort from NPG.jpg]] to appear as POTD soon 

message: I think that this section is clumsily written: "She is buried in the Henry VII Lady Chapel of the Abbey, in a black marble tomb topped with a bronze gilded effigy and canopy, between the graves of William and Mary and the tomb of Mary, Queen of Scots."
It would be more accurate to say: "She is buried in the Henry VII Lady Chapel of the Abbey, in a black marble tomb topped with a bronze gilded effigy and canopy, and can today be found between the graves of William and Mary and the tomb of Mary, Queen of Scots."
Clearly she was not buried between those people since Mary, Queen of Scots was Margaret Beaufort's great-great granddaughter and was buried a considerable time later, and William and Mary even later still!. They may be said to have been buried near to Margaret Beaufort, as she was already in her grave.Moonraker55 (talk) 22:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death 

message: Okay, she has a degree in history but her Ph.D is in 18th century literature, which is in no way relevant to the content of her historical novels, so referring to her as "Dr" Philippa Gregory in this article is in no way indicative of specialist knowledge or research on the subject.  In her TV documentary series "The Real White Queen and her Rivals", she presents certain facts but also adds her own interpretation of them, eg. referring to Margaret Beaufort as "cunning" is not a fact, it is simply her opinion based on such facts as she knows.  Likewise, her suggestion that Beaufort was responsible for the deaths of the Princes in the Tower, whilst a valid theory, is not a fact, nor did she present it as such in the documentary.  
Gregory's novels are fiction, and as such are not valid references for this or any other article on history, except in the "Popular Culture" section.  They are simply one individual's interpretation of the known facts (which are few) and are deliberately embroidered on for the purposes of making her novels more interesting to the reader.  I would suggest that anyone who comes here thinking they know what happened because they have read the novels (which I enjoyed) or watched the TV series (which I also enjoyed) are on the wrong track.  Those who have watched the documentary are better-equipped to recognise the difference between fact and fiction but should also recognise that Gregory does not claim to be correct in every detail of her interpretation: she simply says "I believe" that this is what happened.Deb (talk) 09:11, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The article by Baldwin which you cite was written to coincide with the showing of the documentary, not, as you imply, one of "many places" where she is suggested as a suspect.  Baldwin himself is such an eminent historian he doesn't even have his own wikipedia article.  As to the BBC not being in the habit of pouring out un-researched historical documentaries, I'm afraid their standards are not high, particularly when it comes to anything relating to women or involving the bedroom habits of the monarchy.  Naturally, this is my own judgement and I cannot make use of that to disprove anything that was said, but there were certainly factual errors.  Moreover, statements like "Anne made a calculated, hard-headed decision" are so subjective that they would never be allowed in a wikipedia article except in quotation marks as something that Philippa Gregory said, which most historians would find debatable at the very least, yet this was made to sound like a known fact.  Amy License, another eminent historian, made similarly sweeping statements that were not backed up. Deb (talk) 19:40, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Outside of 'X in the media', why would we want to use anything else than reputable academic historians for history articles? And any sweeping statements about the personality of a historical character absolutely have to be attributed and if there are other views those need inclusion. Deb, not having an article isn't that important (although no article and no mention in other reliable sources would be, but I don't think that's the case here) Dougweller (talk) 14:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, David Baldwin (historian) does now have an article, and rather a good one, written by none other than User:Rushton2010! Deb (talk) 14:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: A note on Philippa Gregory

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Richmond and Derby. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20121208155920/http://link.library.utoronto.ca/reed/patron.cfm?PeopleListID=652 to http://link.library.utoronto.ca/reed/patron.cfm?PeopleListID=652
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Do we know Margaret's coat of arms. I assume she would have used the arms of the Duke of Somerset impaled with those of her various husbands. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 21:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heraldry 

message: Is there evidence for her being called "My Lady the King's Grandmother" in her final weeks? Robin S. Taylor (talk) 19:09, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style in Later Life 

message: The St John's College painting has now been pretty firmly re-attributed to this guy, previously just a name in court records, which means lopping nearly a century off its date, and makes it "the oldest large-scale portrait of an English woman". It now seems to be painted within a year after her death, and becomes very much the prime version of all the paintings. I've updated the article, but using it in the lead, rather than the poor copy now there, should be considered - it doesn't have to be in the infobox. Johnbod (talk) 03:51, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting.  Painted a year after her death, in the first year of Henry VIII, I think it does very well illustrating the Legacy section.  Does this painting predate the sculpture on her tomb?  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:14, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Meynnart Wewyck]] 

message: Why did married people take this?
Also, should it not be called `vow of celibacy'? More info needed. 2A00:23C7:E287:1900:CD8:C7E2:4F5B:5457 (talk) 00:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: There was a recent New York Times article on Josephite marriage... AnonMoos (talk) 08:05, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Vow of chastity

message: the Margaret Beaufort who married the Duke of Buckingham, was this Margaret's cousin, and moter of Henry, 2nd Duke of Buckingham, he of Buckinham's rebellion.
This Margaret Beaufort, mother of Henryv11, married 3 times, 2nd to Henryvll, dad, and 3rd to Thomas Stanley, betrayor of Richard III at Bosworth.
An interesting thought - if either or neither of these women had been born, would we be living in a Plantagenet England now? 82.69.4.43 (talk) 08:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you have got this quite right. However, you are right that the Margaret Beaufort who was the mother of a Duke of Buckingham was not the subject of this article, but Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Stafford. Where you have gone wrong is to ignore this Margaret's third marriage to Sir Henry Stafford. The big problem with this period is that it has too many Margarets, Humphreys and Henrys, who had some complicated relationships! Btw Thomas Stanley was Margaret's fourth husband. LynwoodF (talk) 09:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marriage to Humphrey, Duke of Buckingham 

message: I'm not a deep English history buff, but this caught my eye:
She [Margaret Beaufort] was the daughter and sole heiress of John Beaufort, Duke of Somerset (1404–1444), a legitimised grandson of John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster (third surviving son of King Edward III), by his mistress Katherine Swynford, whom he married.
Now, her father was John Beaufort alright, but her mother was Margaret Beauchamp. Katherine Swynford (nee de Roelt)(1349-1403) was the wife of Duke John's grandfather, John of Gaunt.
later:  OK, I see what the passage was trying to say.  All the embellishment was appropos to John of Gaunt, not John Beaufort. I edited it anyway for clarity.  SkoreKeep (talk) 07:45, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Swynford?