Talk:Thomas Howard, 4th Duke of Norfolk

message: A citation is requested for the fact that some doubt Norfolk's involvement in the Ridolfi plot.  One such doubter is Edward Gibbon, Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire (Methuen ed. of 1912, vol. vi, p. 483 (ch. 62, n. 23).  The pertinent sentence is the last:  "The gallant and unfortunate earl of Surrey might probably have escaped his unmerited fate, had not his demand of the combat against his accuser been over-ruled."  J.B. Bury, who edited this edition, allowed this opinion to stand without comment.
Perhaps someone more adept at the mechanics can put this citation where it belongs.  :)
Terry J. Carter (talk) 16:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is hardly a refutation of the 4th Duke of Norfolk's involvement in the plot; is this the ONLY historian who is on record formally doubting his guilt?  Is there no better reference?  If not, I say pull the remark from the article.HammerFilmFan (talk) 09:18, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation to Add 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Thomas Howard, 4th Duke of Norfolk. 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/20120309144503/http://homepage.ntlworld.com/peter.fairweather/docs/framlingham.htm to http://homepage.ntlworld.com/peter.fairweather/docs/framlingham.htm
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) 04:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello Wikipedian people, I am disappointed because they delete what I edit. Yes, I know perfectly well that what I put will be protected by copyright, but I have the authorization of said source page (www.tudorpalace.com.ar) to re-publish that information on Wikipedia and even add more information to the existing one. Leito.Cmj (talk) 20:28, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Apart from the fact that it is standard WP policy not to include copyrighted material, the authorisation given by the website owner, even if that is correct, is not relevant because WP also tries to avoid having websites indirectly promote themselves by being copied into Wikipedia. If you wish to add the information in these articles to the Howard Wikipedia article, you will need to rewrite it and also find alternative scholarly citations for the information. Sbishop (talk) 08:09, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thomas Howard edition citation copyright. 

message: In the template, the religion part should be added: he was Catholic. Although Norfolk denied being a Catholic at the time he was about to be executed and, as a child, was partly educated by John Foxe, the famous Protestant martyrologist, it is well known that he professed the Roman faith, especially since the Howards had kept loyal to the Church of Rome in those turbulent years of the Reformation in England. Leito.Cmj (talk) 07:02, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that the article text in effect says that he was really Catholic, I would see no objection to that being added to the infobox. Sbishop (talk) 08:27, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

text: Denying at his exceution that he was Catholic may well have been an attempt to save his children from some of the consequences of his conviction and execution. Sbishop (talk) 09:29, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

text: Very possibly, but th relevant point here is that there was a delay and that led to the HoL taking action - not what the cause of the delay was. the article is not about the Holy See. Sbishop (talk) 09:52, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

text: No-one is denying that he was at heart a Catholic. But religion is an invalid parameter in the infobox. Sbishop (talk) 10:50, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

text:  LuisCanelo.MJ (talk) 21:52, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion of Duke of Norfolk 

message: Hello good people, in the last edition of the article on the 4th Duke in the part of his younger siblings (Jane, Henry, Katherine and Margaret) it should be added that Margaret was born shortly after the execution of her father. Surrey died in January and Margaret was born shortly thereafter, as a posthumous daughter.
He had added the information that Margaret was born shortly after the execution of her father, Surrey, but they removed it in his last revision. Any other information that appears, welcome. Leito.Cmj (talk) 15:59, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is about Thomas Howard. The fact that one of his sisters was born after their father's execution has no particular relevance to Thomas' life or its events. That is why I removed the information in my last edit. If there were to be an article about the sister (there isn't at present), then the information would certainly be relevant to her. Sbishop (talk) 16:24, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

text: All the more reason to make no reference to her being born after the execution. Sbishop (talk) 17:13, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brothers of the Duke of Norfolk. 

message: Hello people, Norfolk's marriage to Audley was during the transition from the rule of Mary I (died November 1558) to that of Elizabeth I that is well documented. Leito.Cmj (talk) 16:23, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I am afraid you have a very confused idea about 'government transition'. England is not the USA. Elizabeth became queen the moment her sister Mary died (see Wiki pages on the two of them for dates of their reigns). Her coronation took place on 15 January 1559, but that is a separate matter from ascending the throne (cf. Charles III ascended the throne on 8 September this year when his mother Elizabeth II died, but he will not be crowned until 2023). There was no 'transition', and there is no point in trying to mention one in this article. The text already conveys the necessary facts; Norfol's betrothal took place and a papal dispensation was applied for in Mary's reign; the wedding took place and was ratified by Parliament in Elizabeth's reign.Sbishop (talk) 17:17, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

text: All of these things must have a citation from a reliable secondary source to be included in the article. Otherwise no-one canm be certain that you have not just invented them. That is how Wikipedia works except for the most commonplace and well-known facts.Sbishop (talk) 10:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

text: Any iinformation will need to be backed by citations from recognised secondary sources, otherwise you will be breaching the Wikipedia ban on original research. Sbishop (talk) 14:43, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corrections 

message: Hello @Sbishop, I have been looking at your latest corrections and it seems wrong not to point out that the Duke and his brothers, when they were children, grew up amidst all the intrigues that happened in the Howard family. That is why he had since the Duke and his brothers grew up in the midst of the tumultuous environment into which the family itself had fallen, following the executions of Boleyn and Howard, Surrey's first cousins. Leito.Cmj (talk) 17:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but since there is no eveidence whatsoever cited as to the actual effect of the family upheavals on the children, it is not right to refer to it. We do not know if these years felt 'tumultuous' to them; they may well have done, but that would only be speculation.Sbishop (talk) 19:11, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

text: Hello @Sbishop good morning. Regarding the last correction, according to the source of the information: Groves, the marriage of the 4th Duke to Mary FitzAlan was arranged by the 3rd Duke around 1553-1554, while still alive. The marriage of the 4th Duke and Mary took place in 1555 obviously but the 3rd Duke had already planned it in 1553-54, time before he died. Greetings and have a good weekend. Leito.Cmj (talk) 10:10, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes indeed, but I made the change because it is redundant to say that he arranged it before his death.Sbishop (talk) 10:22, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Very good explanation then. Greetings and have a good weekend. Leito.Cmj (talk) 10:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that what you've now changed it to on both pages is fine. You also.Sbishop (talk) 10:37, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Any correction you have to make is welcome. Leito.Cmj (talk) 10:39, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corrections