Talk:Battle of Bosworth Field

message: See Wikipedia:WikiProject Battles
--------
Merged in main item (see history) except for:
"Thus the five Yorkist peers, the earl of Essex and lords Audley, Dinham, Dudley and Ferriers are not named as being present at any engagement in 1469-71. They did enter London in triumph with Edward IV on 21 May 1471 but they could have joined him only after the fighting was done.
"That they were caught up in the politics of these years is shown by their removal from all commissions during the redemption. Their is therefore a strong presumption that they were known to be favourable towards Edward IV." (p70. The wars of the Roses. AJ Pollard.)
Originally from an article on the lord Dudley.(by Faedra)
Stan 17:18, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: From old article

message: Did Jasper Tudor fight in the Battle of Bosworth Field? "There is no contemporary record that Jasper Tudor, earl of Pembroke, fought at Bosworth... " (The Tudor Nobility. pg 50) Does anyone have counter-evidence?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zirk (talk • contribs) 16:37, 13 April 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Jasper Tudor

message: Doesn't Richard I's death count towards dying in a battle?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.135.92 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Killed in Battle 

message: The article says "Richard of York was the third and last English king to die in battle – Harold Godwinson at Hastings, 1066, killed by the Normans, was the first. Richard III was the second."  This doesn't make sense.  Who was the second king killed in battle ? 136.153.2.2 07:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If Harold counts, then so must other Saxon kings; were none of them killed in battle? I can't think of any others - Richard I died of an infected wound, but he didn't die in battle. Cyclopaedic 17:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification

message: Isn't the title tautologous? Surely "field" in this context means "battlefield"? It should either be the "Battle of Bosworth" or Bosworth Field. cf Stoke Field or Lose-coat field, of the "field of Agincourt". Cyclopaedic 17:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it's a battle that took place on a field outside of Bosworth (actually closer to other villages). That's just what it's called. --cfp 22:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know it's 11 years since I posted this but it's still wrong. Field in this sense is the ancient word for a battle. It's either Bosworth Field or the Battle of Bosworth. Oxford English Dictionary Online, "1.8 archaic A battle. ‘many a bloody field was to be fought’. More example sentences ‘Rupert made himself conspicuous during our Civil War in many a bloody field.’ ‘All these were slaughtered in savage fields for the faith and fell beside the standard of the Cross, breathing loyalty to God and man in their last agonies.’ Cyclopaedic (talk) 16:59, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: Before my edit the account of Richard's death reads
:Richard III was killed by the poleaxe of the brave Welsh warlord Rhys ap Thomas, a very powerful Lord from South Wales, after making his famous "A horse! A horse! My kingdom for a horse!" cry upon being dismounted 
and cites Bennett as the source. However, Bennett does not say any such thing, and I know of no suggestion that the famous cry is anything other than Shakespeare. Bennett refers to Shakespeare having "access to a tradition that his horse was taken from under him, and he cried out for a replacement." Bennett says there is no account in English of the mnner of his death, Bennett does not mention ap Thomas, but says the probability is he was hacked to death by ordinary Welsh pikemen. Cyclopaedic (talk) 15:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought he was known to have died shouting "Treason! Treason! Treason!" Valetude (talk) 14:53, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Death of Richard III 

message: "Norfolk was a military veteran, having fought in the Battle of Towton in 1461 and against the Saracens as Hastings' deputy at Calais in 1471.[46]"
I have not read the book cited in [46], but this has to be a typo, or a metaphorical usage in [46].  Surely there cannot have been Saracens at Calais in 1471.
68flapjack (talk) 20:15, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: May have been Saracen pirates, and Norfolk may have been involved in naval action against them (just a guess). Ning-ning (talk) 20:39, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  My mistake, it was Earl Rivers who decided to abandon his post as Calais lieutenant to fight the Saracens.  Thank you for pointing out the incredulous information.  Jappalang (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saracens?? 

message: I have not read this very carefully—I primarily looked for common MOS pitfalls, and scanned the sourcing.
*I'm a bit befuddled by the Bibliography subsections "Reports" and "Online sources". The Foard source listed under Reports is cited using , yet appears to be a standalone report, not published via a journal—and is available online, yet is not listed in the Online sources section. Then, under Online sources, we have an item called "English Heritage Battlefield Report"—something that calls itself a report, yet isn't listed as such here. The other item in Online sources, "The Bosworth Campaign" from Battlefields Trust, confuses me because it doesn't seem to be specifically cited in a footnote—yet there are three short-form cites to other Battlefields Trust pages, which are not listed under the Bibliography.
*Why is "Bibliography" a top-level section? The combination of top level (or more specifically, not being a subsection of References) plus the word 'bibliography' (often used as a section header for books by or about the subject, regardless of whether they were used as sources) leaves the purpose of the section ambiguous.
*"The other sources were written by foreigners; Vergil, Jean Molinet, and Diego de Valera." - a semicolon is not right here; indeed, only parentheses would actually 
Overall, this is in great shape. The short-form cites needed only a few tweaks for some missing spaces. Logical quotation was almost consistent and only took a couple fixes. I found no abused hyphens, endashes or emdashes—that might be a record :) Maralia (talk) 16:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved Foard's report to Online section.  As for "The Bosworth Campaign", it is used as the "main page", similar to how a book is listed as the main material under bibiliography but individual pages and sections (in this case, sub-webpages) are referred to in short footnotes.  I have replaced the semicolon after foreigners with an emdash, though I wonder if a colon would be a better idea...  Bilibography is a top-level section as following the suggestion by an editor in an FAC for a previous article of mine.  Jappalang (talk) 23:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pre-FAC review 

message: I hate to carp, given that someone has obviously put much effort into them, but in both battlefield maps, the troops on Richard's left wing are marked "Northampton". Nobody called or titles "Northampton" appears anywhere in the text (except in someone's alt. text to the maps), and it is stated that Richard's left or rear battle was commanded by the Earl of Northumberland. HLGallon (talk) 11:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.  I failed to notice that error.  It is now corrected.  Jappalang (talk) 22:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map inaccuracies 

message: The thrust of this article as previously stated is a general overview without going too much into details.  Thus, mentions of the name of Richard's steed and a list of names of his knights might be excessive, hence this reversion.  The fates of Catesby, Ratcliffe, and Lovell might be summarised in Post-battle (not Engagement where the "battle is still ongoing" and that they are not mentioned in significance before this battle) due to their positions as Richard's cohorts (the cat, the rat, and the dog under the hog), but even then I am not too certain of their notability.  The rest, however, do not seem to be of significance to this battle.  Jappalang (talk) 09:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Details 

message: The section "Background" contains material that could better be placed in the entries on the Duke of Gloucester / Richard III and on Henry Tudor / Heny VII. Some of the material seems to be based uncritically on Tudor propaganda, e.g. there is no certainty about what happened to the Princes in the Tower. ¬¬¬¬  —Preceding unsigned comment added by J.C. Rigg (talk • contribs) 15:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The article never stated Richard did the deed.  It only said what the popular opinion over the matter was; so this point is pretty much moot.  Jappalang (talk) 01:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  This point is NOT pretty much moot. The impression given of Richard III on this page is taking the Tudor propaganda as fact: "seized the throne", insinuation that he killed the princes... For this article to be factual, it needs to be noted that this story only comes from those who overthrew the reigning king. He may or may not have been involved in declaring the princes to be illegitimate, but this uncertainty must be stated. Guy.shrimpton (talk) 13:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Background

message: The fairly contemporary sources could better be treated separately rather than in a section "Legacy". Not mentioned are the compensations by Henry VII to Merevale, Atherstone, Mancetter, Witherley, Atterton and Fenny Drayton. John D. Austin (Merevale and Atherstone: 1485; recent Bosworth discoveries, Friends of Atherstone Heritage, 2004, p.2-6) reconstructs the movements of Henry on the basis of this contemporary evidence. His reconstruction is close to that of M.K. Jones (Bosworth: 1485; psychology of a battle, Tempus, 2002) but relies also on detailed knowledge of the local area. Neither of these sources is discussed in the present Wikipedia article. There are now two physical items of evidence: firstly Dadlington Church and graves, presumably mainly from Henry;s army; secondly the finds in an area south of Upton from the recent archaeological survey. 
Another source of evidence is local place-names, past and present. Redemore, on grounds of analous Leicestershire place-names, probably means 'Road Moor' rather than 'Reed Moor'. According to J. Nichols (The history and antiquities of the County of Leicestershire, 1811), Henry marched to battle along the Redway, which was the prehistoric road from Edgehill through Coventry to Derby, passing through Fenny Drayton to Atterton and Sibson. This means that the munition residues found could be from Henry's army. 
On names too, King Richard's Hole (originally probably Halgh, meaning lowland by a river) at the confluence of the Sence with the Anker at the Mythe in Sheepy parish is evidence that Richard spent his last night with his ally Sir Humphrey Stafford at Mythe Hall,then a considerable fortress, reckoning on facing Henry across the River Anker. Henry probably moved along the Redway to Atterton and Upton during the previous night, so that Richard was facing into the morning sun, as pointed out by Jones and Austin. 
The local evidence is against most identifications of Sandeford, where Richard was killed. The only sandy ford on the slow-flowing River Saint or Tweed is where the river crosses Upton Ridge, namely Miles Ford south of Wellsborough Hill, which is probably the 'mountaine full high' to which Sir William Stanley removed according to Bosworth Feilde ballad. Even allowing for any exaggeration in the ballad, the 'dale' or 'plaine' can only be that nearer the confluences of the Saint, the Sence and the Anker. In that area, Richard, on arrival from Leicester, would be in sight of both Wellsborough Hill and Merevale Abbey. Christopher Rigg  —Preceding unsigned comment added by J.C. Rigg (talk • contribs) 16:52, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is based (reliant) on sources widely accepted as reliable and accurate (please read WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NPOV).  It is not our cause to propogate sources that are not widely known or accepted.  I am not an academic, but the article has used the common versions of the battle out there and is mostly reliant on the sources that have been vetted academically (Ross and Chrimes) .  The sources presented above in this section are not to my knowledge widely known or recognised.  Jappalang (talk) 01:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources of evidence about the battle

message: Have any historians commented on this?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article7032790.ece
Thanks.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, no.  It is very likely that as Foard's findings are recent, it will take some time for the academic society to digest and come up with their opinions of them.  If I am not wrong, Foard has yet to submit his findings to a university body (he and his team are probably busy at the moment compiling and editing such an item).  Very likely, there will be changes in the official interpretations of the battle, but it is not for us to think up such ideas but to report the published papers of others.  Jappalang (talk) 01:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that's too bad.  I've read a lot of books about the War of the Roses, although I haven't done so in years.  I saw Times Online article and was reminded about how little is known of the battle and was hoping historians and archeologists had something "official" to declare.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:04, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Jappalang, you are swiming against the tide. This entry needs a better coverage and details of the new findings on the location on the battle, whether or not it hasn't been published in, or approved of by some academic source deemed appropiate by yourself. It may only be a news item at the moment (covered by the BBC, Guardian, Times etc.) but I have not heard or seen any experts contradicting the new evidence or denying it's authority. Wikipedia is indeed not a news wiki, but the main appeal of it to myself is it's ability to (relatively) quickly incorporate new thinking and evidence. If I wanted something truly authorative under your rules (which may or may not be Wikipedia's too), what would be the point of me visiting a reactive/adaptable/vibrant online source when i really should be refering to a published paper or a book e.g. a proper Encyclopedia! Michael 11:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have already pointed out the relevant policies and guidelines above.  In particular, please remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.  As borne out by the various policies and guidelines pointed out here and above sections, it is not an indiscriminate amalgation of "new thinking and evidence".  Neither should it predict that a news item would become something more (WP:CRYSTAL).  The sourcing for academic subjects on this project should rely on academic sources.  In particular, the rules are stricter for this article because it is a Featured Article, and thus should comply with the FA criteria ("Claims are verifiable against high-quality reliable sources") to maintain its status.  Since Wikipedia is a work in progress, we can certainly wait for those academic discourses to have a high quality article rather than trying to piecemeal something out of fragmented reports.  As it is, the article already mentions Foard's work and that is enough for now.  If you are here for "a reactive/adaptable/vibrant online source" instead of an "Encyclopedia!", then you are in the wrong place (or have misunderstood the project's purpose).  Jappalang (talk) 12:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  What about keeping everyone happy to a point, not disrupting the flow or quality of this article, but producing the seperate article suggested on Foard's work etc as per topic 17 above (which seems to have been overlooked since early November), as the anticipated early February announcement has now been made, is indeed more exciting about the roundshot and metal finds than the specific location issue, and the conference included several historians as experts to discuss it. As per http://www.leics.gov.uk/pressrelease.htm?id=187332 and http://www.leics.gov.uk/pressrelease.htm?id=187332 and http://www.bosworthbattlefield.com/battle/archaeology/battlefield_found.htm Genealogy Jo (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 10:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

text: This is rather late, but I was looking at how the discussion of the location has proceeded and is still unresolved 5 years later. I cant help thinking it is a false argument to argue that BECAUSE something is a feature article, and thus the best on wikipedia, it should be allowed to perpetuate an error for longer than an ordinary article. It is absolutely  not to the benefit of an article that it ignores difficult editorial decisions. The right course is always to explain a problem of sources disagreement where one exists. An editorial decision has to weigh not just the number of supporters of each camp, but the magnitude of the problem, and having a different location and thus quite a lot of potentially false description is a pretty big problem. Sandpiper (talk) 18:31, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Battlefield location found? 

message: Removed 'penultimate,' which means second-from-last, not 'biggest,' as it was apparently used in the article.  The Battle of Bosworth field was the last battle of the Wars of the Roses.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.32.120 (talk) 02:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a substantial body of opinion that the Battle of Stoke in 1487 was the last pitched battle of the Wars. I'm sure that "penultimate" was used in this sense. Whichever was meant, the removal of the word made the opening sentence ungrammatical. HLGallon (talk) 18:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Grammar

message: Some reference should be made to the works of recent scholars who point out that there were reports of sightings of the princes in the Tower after Henry Tudor came to the throne and that since the princes had been declared illegitimate they were more of a threat to Henry than they would have been to Richard.  After all, if they were illegitimate, so was their sister, Elizabeth of York, and Henry would not gain anything by marrying her, but if she was legitimate, so were they and Edward of York would be the true king of England, not Henry Tudor.    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.239.152.174 (talk) 06:07, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about the Battle of Bosworth Field, not an exploration of the Princes in the Tower; the background for the battle presents a summarised view of the story behind the princes.  For such theories, please look to the article mentioned.  Jappalang (talk) 21:50, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Who killed the Princes?

message: "penultimate battle"? What was the final battle then? Penultimate means second to the end, not the end. Unless there was another battle, maybe this should be called the 'final battle'. 
(posted by an anonymous newbie)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.40.218.20 (talk) 08:11, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: See Battle of Stoke Field (and that one was new to me, too). --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I recommend a visit to the battlefield at East Stoke- more evocative than Bosworth; the Red Gully is accessible and the site of the battle visible from the (soon to be) old A46. Ning-ning (talk) 12:57, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: "penultimate battle" ?

message: you are familiar with me by this point, but my points are being ignored by the registered members, whose allegiances i am questionable of. it is said by numerous authors that he only charged tudor with his household knights and their squires. rolls from the time state he had anywhere from 20-25 household knights and their customary squires. most sources point to the number being no more than 100 that took with him in death's shadow. he is said to have excused common soldiers and only summoned his bodyguard because of the obvious danger. i know the records are scarce, but 800 is an absolutely proposterous number. please fix. 70.15.169.17 (talk) 05:21, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: “Numerous authors”: it would be helpful if you could name them, and the books where they say that he ordered no more than 100 into “death’s shadow”. --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:18, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't necessarily say tired of your references to Kendall, but the last time proved to be something of a wild goose chase: you sent me to the wrong book! Can you be more specific this time?--Old Moonraker (talk) 10:19, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I know not where the numbers of "20-25" knights and "no more than 100" come from, and Kendall's Richard the Third (1956) does not seem to have this sort of figures.  I do notice that Ross later wrote his own thoughts about the figures given by others, so I put it down.  Hopefully, that will satisfy this issue (and the IP editor will take Moonraker's comments to heart and be more discerning with personal thoughts and more careful with attribution of facts to sources).  Jappalang (talk) 01:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

text: I missed that as I was scanning for figures ("more than 100" per quote).  As for your "20–25", that is original research and would be against policy to include in the article.  It would have been better if the details (p. 441, Kendall, Richard the Third) were supplied in the first place (the altercation would not have happened in that case).  If one is to criticize an article, then it is a matter of basic courtesy and form to supply accurate information (basis) on what is wrong; that did not happen the first time (as evidenced in the above thread).  It does not help to continue pushing an attitude that causes conflict and again without specific details.  There is a history here (and thus it would not be surprising if that person's opinions are treated with caution and doubts); if one wishes others to ignore or forget about that, then the person has to improve the manner they are editing here.  Jappalang (talk) 01:02, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: 800 MOUNTED MEN?

message: I just deleted the following sentence: "Except for those in the north, the people of England firmly believed that Richard, the "tyrant",[citing Lander p 327] had murdered his nephews.[citing Ross p 104]" Ross doesn't actually say that; in fact, he implies the exact opposite, that only in "the southern and western counties of England" did these rumors sway large numbers of people, and that "the rest of the country seems to have been untroubled by such sentiments." Other historians make clear that even for years after Bosworth there was no consensus ("firmly believed" or otherwise) on the fate of the princes, and in fact Perkin Warbeck spent several years successfully claiming to be Richard of Shrewsbury.DCB4W (talk) 21:11, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Background

message: I haven't removed them yet but the Coats of Arms shown for the Duke of Norfolk and Earl of Surrey as leaders of the Yorkists are incorrect. They are the Howard arms but show the Flodden agumentation awarded to Surrey (then 2nd Duke of Norfolk) after the Battle of Flodden. Since this was almost 30 years after Bosworth the relevent arms should be the Howard arms without the augmentation. In addition, Surrey's arms should have a mark of difference e.g. a label of three points since othrwise he would be carrying the same arms as his father which is contrary to the laws of heraldry.
Jwasanders (talk) 11:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding is that the system of differencing arms was not formalised with the marks of cadency until the Tudor period at the earliest: see eg http://www.theheraldrysociety.com/articles/marshalling_and_cadency/differencing_in_england_scotland_and_france.htm. Many illustrations backdate later rules to earlier periods. Eldest sons commonly bore their father's arms undifferenced (and still do). Cyclopaedic (talk) 12:11, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Coats of Arms

message: The Background section contains this sentence:
:The Beauforts were originally bastards, but Henry IV legitimised them on the condition that their descendants were not eligible to inherit the throne
My understanding is that Richard II legitimized them and that Henry IV confirmed that but added that they were not eligible for the throne.  Is that sentence mistaken?  Could it be written clearer?  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:25, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Background Section 

message: According to The Guardian in March 2015:
:
Looks pretty conclusive to me, they don't say "might have" or anything. They sound pretty sure and they're probably not in the habit of making flat-out statements like that if they don't have pretty good reason. If this is true, it's not service to the reader to indicate that the location is not known. Herostratus (talk) 10:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location of battle 

message: The Oxford English Dictionary's definition of "field" in this context is: "The ground on which a battle is fought; a battlefield."   Amongst many others (incuding Shakespeare) it quotes the Old English poem The Battle of Maldon: Wearð her on felda folc totwæmed, scyldburh tobrocen. and John Gower's Middle English Confessio Amantis: Thei setten day, thei chosen field, The knihtes coevered under Schield Togedre come at time set.  It seems clear that the correct name for the battle is therefore either "the Battle of Bosworth" or "Bosworth Field".  Calling it "the Battle of Bosworth Field" is tautological and incorrect, albeit widely used. Fillthemill (talk) 13:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure if it helps, but there is an interesting paper on this here.--SabreBD (talk) 18:19, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I absolutely agree. Most modern historians call it "the Battle of Bosworth" or simply "Bosworth"; some (influenced by Shakespeare) call it "Bosworth Field". Nobody seriously calls it the "Battle of Bosworth Field". Article title should be changed. GrindtXX (talk) 01:05, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't care one way or another about the title, but you should never change the content before changing the title just because it's 'easy' to do so. Also, we don't change titles because they are 'incorrect'. We follow WP:COMMONNAME. BTW, this discussion should include the Battle of Stoke Field. Paul B (talk) 08:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair points. My contention is that, because of the tautology, the common name is either "Battle of Bosworth" or "Bosworth Field", and not "Battle of Bosworth Field". I am not so sure about "Battle of Stoke Field", which I think is found slightly more often, though "Battle of Stoke" is also a common name: however, I have posted a note on the Stoke talk page encouraging a single discussion here. After five days, nobody has so far attempted to defend "Battle of Bosworth Field". I will leave things another week, but if nobody steps in I will treat the change(s) as uncontroversial and move one or both articles. GrindtXX (talk) 12:07, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  Good to see that the Battle of Flodden is correctly titled, even though it too is sometimes incorrectly called the Battle of Flodden Field - Battle of Flodden Field redirects, as could presumably be done with Bosworth and Stoke.  Fillthemill (talk) 15:59, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

text: I'm sorry, I was under the naive impression that "controversial" meant that at least two mutually contradictory opinions had been expressed. Clearly I was mistaken. GrindtXX (talk) 13:04, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

text: I have raised this point here before so i support the renaming. Cyclopaedic (talk) 11:21, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correct name of battle? 

message: I have read several accounts that Henry hid himself among his pikemen and his welsh body guards during Richard's charge. Some of the French mercenaries involved in the battle say that Henry refused to engage in combat personally. According to the same source, Lancastrian soldiers in close proximity to the King heard him refuse an offer to flee when Stanley's men closed in, proclaiming to his men he will fight to the death. I think this is worthy of mention in the article if there are no objections. Dapi89 (talk) 20:54, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I cannot see any objection if you have reliable sources to support the claims.--SabreBD (talk) 20:02, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Goes without saying, I'll add it. Dapi89 (talk) 15:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Henry and Pikeman 

message: The article states that 30 ships brought Henry and the others to Milford Haven. The Wikipedia article for George Bissipat gives the number of seven. I've been told the Wikipedia article corresponds to a history of the French navy, but I've never seen such a history. Based on the type of ships, however, it is quite possible that each ship carried 400-500 men, which would make seven ships quite possible.
(For some reason, the page won't allow the Wikipedia page for George Bissipat to be linked, but you can find it by googling George Bissipat.)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.95.1.238 (talk) 22:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of ships 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Battle of Bosworth Field. 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://web.archive.org/web/20160818145049/http://www.hwa.uk.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/EB-23.pdf to http://www.hwa.uk.com/site/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/EB-23.pdf
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) 13:36, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I am not sure that the opening statement "The Battle of Bosworth Field (or Battle of Bosworth) was the last significant battle of the Wars of the Roses" is entirely fair. Though Bosworth was indeed the last battle to result in a change of ruling house, it was not clear at the time this was the case (especially as the Tudors had revived the Lancastrain claim after the defeat and death of all the notable Lancastrians in 1471), and there were later attempts to restore a Yorkist to the throne, which involved some fighting. While the majority of these were arguably not serious threats, the Battle of Stoke Field two years later is significant. The article on the battle notes that "Though it is often portrayed as almost a footnote to the major battles between York and Lancaster, it may have been slightly larger than Bosworth, with much heavier casualties". The battle represented a serious threat to the Tudor dynasty as the Yorkists were supposedly fighting to restore Edward of Warwick, a direct male line descendant of Richard of York. While the "Edward" they had was an impostor, he had been crowned Edward VI in Ireland and if the battle had been won the real Edward, whom Henry VII viewed as a serious threat, could have been put on the throne if not killed. Alternately, John de la Pole, 1st Earl of Lincoln who died fighting at Stoke Field, had been named heir by Richard and had a strong claim to the crown (and arguably was the only serious adult male Yorkist claimant still alive). The elimination of the false Warwick and the death of Lincoln and the deaths or disappearance of other leading Yorkists, notably Francis Lovell, 1st Viscount Lovell arguably marked the point of no return for the Yorkists. So in terms of outcome and loss of life Stoke Field was significant, making it difficult to justify saying that "was the last significant" battle in the conflict. Dunarc (talk) 19:04, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening statement 

message: Can this be added 
to Category:Deaths and funerals of British royalty? Darrelljon (talk) 03:39, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:   Category:Deaths and funerals of British royalty