Talk:House of York

Royal House template

As the House of York is a cadet branch of the House of Plantagenet, and the Yorkist took the surname Plantagenet, is it correct to describe it separately to the House of Plantagenet, in the "Royal Houses" succession template?

The Yorkists are listed as part of the House of Plantagenet in the List of monarchs of England page, not separately to it, and included in the list of Plantagenet Kings in the House of Plantagenet page.

Equivalent, related comments also raised for the House of Plantagenet, House of Lancaster, and House of Tudor "Royal Houses" succession templates.

--Drojem (talk) 02:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The White Rose of York is supposed to stand on two leaves. Wikipedia has it standing on one leaf.BeeryUSA 2:02, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

"cadet branches"

A user just added the following as Cadet branches but I can find no reference to them:

"House of Tyne, House of Washington, House of Lee (later unified into the joint House of Washington and Lee by the marriage of General Robert E. Lee to Mary Anna Randolph Custis - Custis was the great Grand-daughter of George Washington and Martha Custis -Washington and thereby by name basis unified the two houses)"

Nor do they have articles. On that basis I'm going to remove it. - Yorkshirian (talk) 07:28, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I think someone's taking the having a larf. Craigy (talk) 08:07, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Conflict

There is a conflict between this article which states:

The House of York was descended from Edmund of Langley, 1st Duke of York, the fourth surviving son of Edward III.

and the article House of Lancaster, which states:

...the descendants of Edward III's second surviving son, Lionel of Antwerp, 1st Duke of Clarence...eventually became the rival House of York.

--Ttownfeen (talk) 21:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Both are correct according to the Oxford History of Britain. Edmund Duke of York (4th son of Edward III) had a son Richard who married Anne Mortimer the great granddaughter of Lionel Duke of Clarence (2nd surviving son of Edward III). The House of York are the descendants of this line. I'll look at the best way to change the articles to reflect this, (it gets even more complicated as they are also descended from John of Gaunt, Edward III's third surviving son, through one of his granddaughters). --Kaly99 (talk) 23:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Category:House of Plantagenet vs. Category:House of York

Category:House of York is itself a catageory within Category:House of Plantagenet. — Robert Greer (talk) 22:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Earl of Loudoun

I figured that it was worth noting the Loudoun branch, as a modern claimant. --Zimriel (talk) 19:53, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Heraldic Symbol - White Rose

On the basis that the symbol used on the this article appears to be a romantic victorian affectation rather than a coat of arms should the article be changed to a coat of arms used by the House— namely the quartered lillies and lions?Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:House of York/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

. Requires inline references adding Keith D 20:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 20:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 18:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned references in House of York

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 House of York'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 "history":

• From John Crosby (died 1476): 'The history of Crosby Place', Survey of London Monograph 9: Crosby Place (1908), pp. 15-32 Retrieved 16 August 2013.
• From International Standard Book Number: "ISBN History". isbn.org. 20 April 2014. Archived from the original on 20 April 2014. Retrieved 20 April 2014. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
• From History of graphic design: "The White Rose of Yorkshire". YorkshireHistory.com. Retrieved 2008-03-21.

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. AnomieBOT⚡ 19:57, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on House of York. 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/20070717172838/http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/House_Of_York to http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/House_Of_York

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:10, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Text copied from other articles

On the 5 June 2017 and the 7 June 2017] user:JMvanDijk copied text from several different Wikipedia pages including: fr:Armorial des Plantagenêt and the White Rose of York. The latter has an attribution entry in the edit history (see this edit by user:Diannaa).

user:JMvanDijk also transluded some text from List of coats of arms of the House of Plantagenet which included short-inline-citations but without the long-citations from the references section. I have now copied across all the citations I that could work out from the ref...tag names. However I could not work out what the correct citation is for <ref name=Louda2/> user:JMvanDijk please add the correct full inline-citation.

-- PBS (talk) 15:09, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Done: it was a reapeat, so I removed it. -- JMvanDijk ^talk

Richard of Conisburgh & Richard Plantagenet confused?

Hi there. In the final paragraph of the section titled "Descent from Edward III", I think there has been a mix-up between Richard of Conisburgh and Richard Plantagenet. Specifically, in the first sentence Edmund Mortimer is referred to as the uncle of Richard of Conisburgh; my understanding is that he was actually his brother-in-law, and that Mortimer was in fact the uncle of Richard Plantagenet (Conisburgh's son). The second sentence of this paragraph then states that the Dukedom of York "passed to Richard of Conisburgh's eldest son, Richard Plantagenet, 3rd Duke of York, later King Edward IV". It was of course Richard Plantagenet's eldest son (Edward), rather than Conisburgh's, who would later became King Edward IV. I suspect some errors have occured during copying and pasting. I don't have a Wikipedia account but hope pointing out these errors (if agreed) is helpful. Regards, Gavin 31.125.29.218 (talk) 20:38, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Well Gavin, suggest you get yourself an account :-)

More seriously I think you are right. I did a very quick rewrite and added a source - it was a bit of a mess. What do you think?

Also removed the unsourced badges. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:48, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Norfolkbigfish - will definitely look at setting up an account. The plethora of Richards and Yorks makes for a bit of a minefield, especially as their names seem to change each time a relative dies! Your re-write works, but it's still a tricky read. I've had a go myself, but with no knowledge of Wikipedia conventions etc. I may have missed the mark. The following I think contains all the info from the original section - would be interested to know if it reads any better. For the various names I have put the Wikipedia full name in brackets (presumably this is usually done with hyperlinks?). Apologies if I've cluttered up the talk page...

The fourth surviving legitimate son of Edward III and Philippa of Hainault, Edmund of Langley, was created earl of Cambridge in 1362, and the first duke of York in 1385. Edmund's first marriage was to Isabella of Castile, daughter of Peter of Castile and María de Padilla, and sister of Constance of Castile, second wife of Edmund’s older brother John of Gaunt. Through this marriage Edmund had two sons, Edward (Edward, 2nd Duke of York) and the younger Richard (Richard of Conisbrough, 3rd Earl of Cambridge). His second marriage was to Joan Holland, whose sister Alianore Holland was mother to Anne Mortimer, the great-great-granddaughter of Edward III via Lionel of Antwerp, 1st Duke of Clarence, second surviving son of Edward III and elder brother of John of Gaunt. Richard of Conisbrough married Anne Mortimer, the marriage producing two children, Isabel (Isabel of Cambridge, Countess of Essex) and Richard (Richard of York, 3rd Duke of York). It was through Anne Mortimer’s lineage that the Yorkists derived their main claim to the throne.

Following Edmund of Langley’s death in 1402, his son Edward (Edward, 2nd Duke of York) succeeded to the dukedom but had no issue before he was killed at the Battle of Agincourt in 1415.[2] Edmund’s other son Richard (Richard of Conisbrough, 3rd Earl of Cambridge) had been executed for treason earlier in the same year following his involvement in the Southampton Plot to depose Henry V in favour of Edmund Mortimer, Richard’s brother-in-law. The dukedom therefore passed to Richard Conisbrough’s son Richard (Richard of York, 3rd Duke of York), who became 3rd Duke of York. He also became heir general to the Earldom of March after his mother Anne Mortimer’s only brother, Edmund Mortimer 5th Earl of March died without issue in 1425. Anne and Edmund’s father Roger Mortimer, 4th Earl of March had been named heir presumptive of King Richard II before the seizure of the throne by Henry IV, the first Lancastrian king, in 1399. Although it had been passed over at the time, Richard (Richard of York, 3rd Duke of York) also inherited this Mortimer claim to the throne and the Mortimer estates. Richard adopted a new coat of arms (in lieu of his paternal arms) which quartered the arms of Clarence, de Burgh and Mortimer, emphasising his claim to the throne from that senior lineage.

Bw Gavin 31.125.29.218 (talk) 19:31, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Much better than my version, which was rushed. To tell the truth, although it is better for attribution reasons, you don't need an account to edit WP. Just click on either Edit or Edit Source and put this in. Need to pay attention to wiki-links and sourcing citations (see the Weir one) but the quality of this article is so poor you can only improve it. WP editors will soon tell you if you have done something wrong, sometimes very rudely. If you want a good example House of Plantagenet is worth a look and the rules are at WP:MOS, although I find that a pedants paradise. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:54, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

OK - account created and hopefully edited the section as above without messing anything up! ArgyllRobertson (talk) 09:39, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Looks good to me! This article needs a lot of improvement so feel to keep going :-) Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Simon Abney-Hastings, 15th Earl of Loudoun

While everyone enjoys fun alternate successions this one is really unsubstantiated. House_of_Plantagenet#Pole puts this well and has the advantaged it is sourced. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:24, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

@David Plantagenet-two newspaper articles doesn't really have the required academic research to support this. Both Clarence and Margaret Pole were attainted at the time making any claim they had legally invalid. Furthermore, it was considered in the early 17th century (along with 10 other claims) when a successor for Elizabeth I was required and the current line was preferred. It's fun, I'll give you but historical nonsense. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:35, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

The attainder was reversed. Even the BBC dis a documentary on the story with Sir Tony Robinson acting as presenter and researcher.

But this is about the titular holder of being head of the house of York, not being king. that is a separate issue that requires far more time to research fully. David Plantagenet (talk) 17:59, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi @David Plantagenet, the documentary isn't WP:RS. I love Tony Robinson or Baldrick as he is better known, but he is not an academic historian or indeed an historian of any kind at all.

This trumps everything in this debate that I am happy to have with you because it is just a bit of fun, like the TV programme which is entertainment rather than documentary. By convention Houses, if they can be said to exist, pass down the male line rather than through both genders. That is why this one is called York, even though all claims to the crown derive from Lionel of Antwerp. Following your rationale, this would make the House Clarence and the Australian fella the head of this house. House of York is considered to have gone extinct in 1499 with the last direct male descendant. As for titular head, all the titles were absorbed into the crown. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:43, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi @David Plantagenet, I have reverted again on the basis that the citations were malformed. Even if this was true you need a citation to WP:RS listing the page number of your assertion. If it is contested you also need to include the contrary position to ensure WP:NPOV. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:58, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Which Citation is incorrect please? I need to know what is incorrect in order to fix it. David Plantagenet (talk) 14:44, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

All of them. Where you state a fact you need a citation to a WP:RS with a page number. Not only that the citation needs to point to content that supports directly that fact. Where facts are contested you need to give appropriate weight to the alternative position. But before you waste your time the consensus is that the House of Plantagenet, with its cadet branch, went extinct with the execution of Edward, Earl of Warwick. There is no serious counter argument to this and there hasn't been for centuries. Simon Abney-Hastings may be a lineal descendant of Margaret Pole, that is unproven, but de facto and de jure that doesn't make him the head of a House that doesn't actually exist. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Lets be clear, sourcing indicates the House went extinct with the execution of Warwick in 1499. Sexist I know, but agnatic descent applies in Houses by convention. There were numerous cognatic descendents but these didn't continue this particular House. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:52, 23 July 2023 (UTC)