Talk:Thomas Howard, 3rd Duke of Norfolk

message: What ya say we redact the following...
:"However this marriage was miserably unhappy, since the duke showed off about his betrayal with his wife's maid, Bess Holland, and savagely beat her when she protested."
206.170.106.22 00:07, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Strongly suggest we do something!  What's the evidence? PKM 19:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I restored the missing text at the end and fixed the dates, and added the Mark Strong info.  FYI, if someone has messed up an article, you can use the "history" link at the top to go back and find out what was there before. - PKM 02:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  bess holland????? 

message: I've taken the liberty of deleting the notice stating that page numbers haven't been included in the footnotes to the article. Almost all the sources cited are articles in a reliable source, the online Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, available by subscription, in which the articles don't have page numbers which could be cited. NinaGreen (talk) 04:16, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnote Notice 

message: His father's titles were forfeited in 1485 after the Battle of Bosworth and attainted. His father was then restored as Earl of Surrey in 1489; restored as Duke of Norfolk in 1514, and resigned the Earldom to his son on the same day. So shouldn't the dates in the box for Earl of Surrey be 1514-1554? -- Lady Meg (talk) 23:42, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello @Lady Meg Thomas was Earl of Surrey from 1514 until 1524, when, on becoming the 3rd Duke of Norfolk, he bestowed the title of Surrey on his eldest son, Henry Howard. If I was wrong about something, any correction from you @Lady Meg or user @Sbishop are welcome. Leito.Cmj (talk) 00:48, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The title of “Earl of Surrey” went to his son when he became Duke, yes. Lady Meg (talk) 13:23, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Earl of Surrey 

message: He is not buried "to his first wife's right" but to her left, i.e. alongside the left side of her body, which is the right side of the tomb effigy if you look at it from the foot end and the hierarchically lower side. Aloracthur (talk) 14:40, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tomb in Framlingham 

message: Hello people, good morning, I have my doubts regarding Holbein's drawing of Howard: Howard Earl of Surrey.jpg . Is it really Thomas when he was still Earl of Surrey (before 1524) or could it be Henry Howard, Thomas's son? If it were Thomas, it would be proof that Holbein traveled to England long before the traditionally cited dates of installation in the country (1527-1528). Leito.Cmj (talk) 23:26, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the top of the portrait says "Thomas, Earl of Surry" I'm really intrigued. Leito.Cmj (talk) 23:30, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: One point to consider is that Thomas Howard was already aged 50 before he became 3rd Duke in 1524. The sitter in this portrait looks much younger than that, too young for it to have been Thomas in the early 1520s.Sbishop (talk) 08:00, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it's true. Although it says "Thomas Earl of Surry" at the top of the portrait, I have a presumption that this is actually Henry Howard, given the resemblance to Holbein's other extant portraits and sketches of Surrey, so In my opinion, the correct thing to do would be to move that image added by the user @LuisCanelo.MJ to the article about Henry Howard. Leito.Cmj (talk) 13:01, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it would be reasonable to do this. However, it would need a footnote explaining why the portrait is named 'Thomas'. Incidentally, the source of the portrait, the National Potrait Gallery, seems to have decided it must be of Henry Howard and not the 3rd Duke - see https://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw205073   Sbishop (talk) 13:11, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The handwriting at the top of the portrait is undoubtedly Holbein's, but the artist may have misnoted at the time. Besides, it is well known that Henry Howard sat down in front of Holbein on several occasions to be portrayed by said artist. Leito.Cmj (talk) 13:19, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I meant that the artist has misnoted the name on that portrait. Leito.Cmj (talk) 13:21, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: And the other Thomas, who is the fourth Duke, is impossible, be the one since by the time he was Earl of Surrey (late 1553 to August 1554), Holbein had already died a few years earlier. Leito.Cmj (talk) 13:40, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

text: Hello @Sbishop think that this is the third Duke because there you see a Howard between approximately 40 and 50 years old. Thomas turned 50 in 1523 and was around 51 years old when he succeeded his father as head of the Dukedom in 1524. If the portrait is between 1520 and 1523, Howard was between 46/47 and 50 years old. LuisCanelo.MJ (talk) 20:15, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @LuisCanelo.MJ anything is possible but I think the one in the photo is Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey, although the photo says "Thomas Earl of Surry". Leito.Cmj (talk) 00:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello @MrDevonshire Richmond was a Prince and he became so when he was recognized by his father and given the double title of the Dukedom of Richmond and Somerset. Subsequently referred to in all formal correspondences as the "right high and noble Prince Henry, Duke of Richmond and Somerset" as if to compound this sense of royal dignity and endow the child with as much respectability as possible. See article about him. Leito.Cmj (talk) 18:32, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

text: Henry FitzRoy, Duke of Richmond and Somerset's article only mentions it once "right high and noble Prince Henry, Duke of Richmond and Somerset" which has a citation asking for a source for it as his only ever referred to as My Lord of Richmond in State Papers. And later on, it's stated that the Duke was raised 'like' a prince not an actual Prince of the realm, so what should I be looking for exactly? MrDevonshire (talk) 15:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Doubts 

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 :Thomas Howard, 3rd Duke of Norfolk'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 "Burton":
From Robert Aske (political leader): Burton, Edwin. "Pilgrimage of Grace." The Catholic Encyclopedia Vol. 12. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 16 August 2018
From Pilgrimage of Grace: 
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. Feel free to remove this comment after fixing the refs. AnomieBOT⚡ 05:29, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Thomas Howard, 3rd Duke of Norfolk]]