Jump to content

Talk:Richard III of England

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Former good articleRichard III of England was one of the History good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 25, 2014Peer reviewReviewed
August 30, 2014Good article nomineeNot listed
November 27, 2017Good article nomineeNot listed
March 21, 2018Good article nomineeListed
April 6, 2019Good article reassessmentDelisted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on July 6, 2014, July 6, 2018, July 6, 2022, and July 6, 2023.
Current status: Delisted good article

No such thing as 'Plantagenet dynasty'

[edit]

There was never such a dynasty. It's a later invention. None of those royals ever called themselves 'Plantagenets'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.103.107.57 (talk) 12:13, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Richard's achievements during his short reign

[edit]

The article is being reassessed here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Richard_III_of_England/GA4#GA_Reassessment and it has been pointed out that the "King of England" section only addresses Richard of Gloucester's rise to the throne and the opposition he later met, but fails to point out what he actually did during his reign. I think this is a valid point, especially because some interesting things can be said about his achievements during his reign, despite having a single parliamentary session, like perfecting the system of bail, starting to issue laws in English instead of Latin to make sure the common people could understand them, lowering taxes on imported books, which ultimately led to a wider distribution of knowledge, etc. Would anyone like to help out setting up a subsection like "Achievements" or "Reforms"? There certainly is plenty of literature out there to reference. Isananni (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I am not an editor of Wikipedia or formally a Richard III scholar. I study human remains from archaeological sites though and forensic biohistory, though and have been interested in the case since his remains were found. I just wanted to comment that this page seems to be the product of a surprisingly strong Ricardian revisionism, which is to say an attempt to rehabilitate Richard III legacy. As is noted by Richard Toon and Laurie Stone, and their book chapter Ga
Game of Thrones: Richard III and the Creation of heritage HAll of the recent attempts to rehabilitate Richard the thirds legacy and dismiss previous centuries criticisms of Richard as "Tudor propaganda" ignore the fact The primary sources that we have now are the same by enlarge as those that were available earlier. There really is no cogent argument that earlier depiction of him are incorrect. Thank you., eritage 2601:845:C100:7560:E340:B713:1756:D741 (talk) 23:15, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There really is. Shakespeare's play is pure Tudor propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.103.107.57 (talk) 12:15, 13 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

[edit]

Page has been vandalised. Does anyone have the correct dates/a cached page to restore it? Can this page be protected somehow? It's hardly an evolving topic 146.198.57.231 (talk) 06:51, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

View history. Which edits are you referring to? Moops T 06:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Moops I can still see the article image as some misogynistic YouTuber Radical Larry 1 (talk) 07:05, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@146.198.57.231 bumping this (If needed) whoever did this will 100% just do it again if it isn't locked Radical Larry 1 (talk) 07:03, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I just reverted and warned, but yes. Good to protect this if its been persistent. TY Moops T 07:07, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We do not know who Richard lll's father was.

[edit]

DNA had proved his mother is his mother but it does not prove his father. 2600:4040:2525:B300:BDCC:926F:923B:6F50 (talk) 23:24, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

When a married woman conceives a child, that child is presumed a child of the husband unless otherwise proved; apart from that, there were no doubts raised of Richard’s being the duke of York’s son; apparently his colouring and build were the same as the duke’s. 79.51.184.168 (talk) 06:53, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a late reply but there isn't much reason to doubt the father of Richard III. False paternity events are uncommon, about 1 to 2% of every birth. Statistically speaking it is more likely to have occurred some time in the ancestry of the current Duke of Beaufort simply because more generations have passed. Foxhound03 (talk) 14:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Richard's grandfather on the York side was commonly held not to be really the duke of York's child, but the product of his mother's adultery. This, if true, wouldn't affect Richard's claim to the throne, however, because that came of his father's Mortimer inheritance through his mother. 93.36.216.248 (talk) 15:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Edward I of England which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]