Talk:William de la Pole, 1st Duke of Suffolk

message: "It was suspected" that Suffolk's arch enemy, Richard of York, was behind his execution?  
Can someone provide a source for this, and indicated who suspected it? At the time of Suffolk's banishment and murder, Richard of York was in residence as governor of Ireland and didn't return to England until late summer or early fall of 1450.  Given the history between the two there is plenty of reason to think that they were rivals and even enemies, but I'm not aware of any sources that show a connection between Richard and the murder.  As my knowledge of the period is quite limited, however, I'd appreciate being pointed to a reference. Thanks. Pmacbee (talk) 18:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This article has him imprisoned in France from 1429 to 1431 but has him marrying Alice Chaucer in 1430. How did he marry her if he is imprisoned in France? Kevin Rector (talk) 14:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of marriage 

message: The suggestion that William de la Pole was considered an upstart because "he was one of first nouveau riche nobles, risen from the merchant class" is a bit disingenuous. William was the son and grandson of de la Pole earls of Suffolk and as the second earl of the third generation could hardly be called "nouveau riche"; he came into his wealth the old fashioned way - by inheriting it. While the first earl, his grandfather Michael, was the son of a "mere" wool merchant the family by that time was already extraordinarily wealthy; the first earl's father, Sir William de la Pole, was Edward III's chief financier and chief Baron of the Exchequer. It is more likely that the younger William was considered an upstart because Henry VI promoted him to duke even though he was in no way related to the English royal family unlike most if not all of his contemporary dukes, however tangentially. Donmaps (talk) 02:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jackanapes 

message: "In short order he was appointed Chamberlain, Admiral of England, and to several other important offices."
He doesn't appear to be mentioned at Lord Great Chamberlain nor at Lord Chamberlain. Is some other office meant? Harfarhs (talk) 22:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chamberlain 

message: Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://archive.org/stream/encyclopediabrit26ed11arch/encyclopediabrit26ed11arch_djvu.txt. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  Citrivescence (talk) 05:32, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks for your proactive patrolling of copyright on Wikipedia! But I've restored the material and removed the revdel template. The 1911 EB is okay legally, esp. with attribution. Happy holidays! ——SN54129 10:28, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

text: ...and incidentally, that cool quote on your user page? Without attribution to the writers of Clueless, it's actually more of a copyright issue than anything in this article :) ——SN54129 10:34, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for letting me know. I must be mistaken about the policy as I was under the impression that verbatim text requires attribution via the usage of quotation marks. Anyway, I appreciate the reply.  Citrivescence (talk) 03:29, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: Nothing here of his feud with John Mowbray, 3rd Duke of Norfolk. Thanks. Spicemix (talk) 08:36, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Feel free to emend my edit, SN54129. Cheers Spicemix (talk) 13:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feud