Talk:George Plantagenet, Duke of Clarence

George, Duke of Clarence

Listed as "George Plantagenet, Duke of Clarence". Plantagenet is the retronym of a royal house, not a surname, and was not used as a surname. Should be simply, "George, Duke of Clarence".

See also here: [1] ScottyFLL 18:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't terribly mind a move, but it should be noted that in his case, "Plantagenet" was not a retronym. His father Richard, Duke of York, called himself "Richard Plantagenet," perhaps to emphasize his superior claim to the throne over the reigning king Henry VI. (The nickname had existed before that, but nobody had used it as a surname.) But I don't know if his children used it. john k 19:06, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't find my source, but I believe the term Plantagenet was not used to describe the royal house until Shakespeare's time. It is a retronym because it is used to describe people who pre-existed its use as a royal-house name. It is not my opinion that royals should be identified by using what we call a surname anyway, because they themselves do not use one (though modern-day record keepers might).

Examples of royals listed in Wikipedia whose HEADINGS do not include surnames are Prince William of Wales, Prince Philip, and Queen Elizbeth II. I think we should follow suit with the Duke of Clarence here. ScottyFLL 06:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think Plantaganet is correct for either Richard, Duke of York or George, Duke of Clarence. From what I can remember, neither of the standard biographies (Johnson for York, Hicks for Clarence) refer to them in this way. Nor do the biographers of Henry VI (Wolffe, Griffiths) or Edward IV (Ross) - but I don't have the books to hand at present to confirm this. However, it seems to be quite common in Wikipedia to refer to the English aristocracy of the middle ages as though they had a surname in the modern sense.

Thewiltog 12:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's an explanation of the use of the name Plantagenet: [2]

--ScottyFLL 23:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

A note has been put on the Ancestry section complaining about lack of citations. Inserting citations in the Ancestry section will simply duplicate what should be in the article of each numbered individual on the family tree. If a person on the family tree cannot be properly referenced in his/her own article or properly linked to a person with his/her own article, only than should he/she should left off a family tree in the Ancestry section of a Wikipedia article.. That simply does not apply here.Trahelliven (talk) 02:45, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

The attainder and the succession

There is a claim made by some that George's descendants are the true heirs to the crown. As George was attainted would this actually be correct? Jackiespeel (talk) 15:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

• Maybe that is up to the Parliament.Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 03:47, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Treason

Does anyone know exactly what constituted George's treason? Thanks. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Title

This says George was the 1st Duke of Clarence. Surely Lionel of Antwerp, son of Edward III, was the first Duke of Clarence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.54.121.27 (talk) 20:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

First of the third creation. Duke of Clarence is a title which has been traditionally awarded to junior members of the English and British Royal families. The first three creations were in the Peerage of England, the fourth in the Peerage of Great Britain, and the fifth in the Peerage of the United Kingdom.

The title was first granted to Lionel of Antwerp, the third son of King Edward III, in 1362. Since he died without sons, the title became extinct. The title was again created in favour of Thomas of Lancaster, the second son of King Henry IV, in 1412. Upon his death, too, the title became extinct. The last creation in the Peerage of England was for George Plantagenet, brother of King Edward IV, in 1461. The Duke forfeited his title in 1478, after he had been convicted of treason against his brother. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.145.126 (talk) 20:49, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Trial?

Under "Death" reference is made to George DoC being "put on trial for treason". However, my understanding is that an Act of Attainder is a legislative process rather than a judicial one. If he had been tried (presumably by his peers) he would have been impeached. Quentin Durward (talk) 12:09, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Was George left-handed?

I have noticed that he appears to be left hand dominant in his portraits. Was he left handed?68.32.154.213 (talk) 00:34, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Who the hell cares? Richard75 (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep a civil tongue, you. It matters because a common tactic when borrowing images is to turn them over left/right. If we know the subject's handedness we can figure out if an image was turned over or not. That means that when trying to find the source of that image, we can flip it over before feeding it to Google (which, now in 2024, may not be necessary as Google may automatically search for rotated images). So, that's why it matters. Details matter.2600:1700:6759:B000:E894:BFCC:705D:880 (talk) 01:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson

Duke of York?

In the article on Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick it states that his son in law the Duke of Clarence 'was awarded the Duchy of York' by Parliament in 1470 after Henry VI's restoration following his elder brother Edward IV's attainder. This attainder removed Edward's claim to the duchy which he had de facto inherited on the death of their father Richard of York, 3rd Duke of York in 1460 at the Battle of Wakefield and used until he was proclaimed King in 1461. Assuming this claim to be correct,this would mean that Clarence held the title Duke of York for a period under Henry VI in 1470-71 until his defection back to Edward IV -either as the de jure 5th Duke of York of the first creation (in succession to Edward who had merged it in to the crown and would later use his claim to the duchy as the a pretext for returning to England in 1471), or the first Duke of a new creation. If this is indeed the case should this be mentioned in the article as the Duchy of York would be seen as senior to Clarence? Dunarc (talk) 21:08, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect citations and wrong article.

I’ll make this simple. Material on Richard belongs in the article on Richard, although that’s also a very bad article due to being policed by his fanboys. Not in the article on Clarence. In any case, if the only source for a fairly significant claim is to be found in a book written 67 years ago by somebody who was not an historian and is widely dismissed by modern scholars as a mixture of fantasy and wishful thinking, it doesn’t belong here anyway. Horrox, Hicks, Carpenter and even the normally sympathetic Baldwin, recent experts, point out there is little evidence of Richard’s prior efforts to save Clarence and indeed quite considerable evidence that Edward (who after all vacillated for months over what to do) would have abandoned the execution had Richard not ‘at least tacitly’ (Horrox) consented to it. Whether he felt guilt or remorse later is an altogether different question. But again, that belongs in his article, not here. It would be helpful if people would stop making changes to fit particular narratives based on unsound scholarship.109.146.233.172 (talk) 06:38, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

@109.146.233.172: I have reviewed the "Kendall 2002" citation & it certainly does indeed pertain to George, therefore it does belong in the absence of other citations. If you have a problem with the veracity of Kendall, then you need to provide specific citations, & that means page numbers if you are citing books. Otherwise you are merely providing original research. You simply cannot spout off a bunch of names & expect us to take your word for it, especially when you falsely imply that statements of Kendall about George have nothing to do with this article. It is relevant & as WP:VNT suggests, Editors ... may not remove sources' views from articles simply because they disagree with them. Thus the onus is on you to prove that inaccuracy of the "Kendal 2002" text. Peaceray (talk) 22:04, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Ignoring the personal abuse, I'm sorry Peaceray but this is not correct and moreover it very much misses the point. LEaving aside the fact that the work of Kendall has been discredited years ago - he was a Professor of English Literature and as befits a Professor of English Literature he was coming up with the most radical interpretation of material that he could rather than considering the most plausible explanation based on the available evidence - there are three key problems with including this part in the article

1) It is incorrect. There is no evidence whatsoever or even any serious discussion outside the biography of Kendall (described by Ross in his 1981 biography as 'extreme,' 'rhetorical, and 'imaginative') that Richard tried to prevent Clarence's murder. Only one chronicler - admittedly Mancini, probably the most reliable of them - even says he regretted it. (Ross, Richard III, 32-33). As against that he was undoubtedly one of the two chief beneficiaries of Clarence's fall (the other being the King). He was recreated Great Chamberlain of England and his son made Earl of Salisbury (Ross, 33-4) he 'may have been glad to see the back of Clarence or he may have thought Edward was overreacting' (Baldwin, Richard III p.80) 'we need not believe Domninic Mancini's story that Gloucester mourned his brother's death (Charles Ross Edward IV 244) Every indication is that Edward had to be chivvied into killing Clarence - certainly by the Commons, possibly by his wife as well - and had Richard been opposed that would almost certainly have tipped Edward to the other option of life imprisonment. Or, 'it is fair to say Edward could not have murdered one brother without at least the tacit consent of the other' (Rosemary Horrox, ODNB entry on Richard III).

2) It is arguing about a 'common belief' that doesn't even exist, as rather too much of the work of the Richard III society does. Nobody apart from Shakespeare - not even More, or Polydore Vergil, or Clarence's own daughter Margaret of Salisbury - accuses Richard of being in any way involved in the murder of Clarence. The most More, the most hostile of all the contemporary or near-contemporary chroniclers will say is that he was privately happy to see the back of him but adds 'we can't be sure of this though.' No scholar - including all the ones I cite above, plus Carpenter, or even the incredibly hostile A L Rowse (Bosworth Field and the Wars of the Roses pages 180-181) who did actually use Shakespeare as a reliable source, suggest he bears any direct responsibility whatsoever. This is because, quite simply, he had no direct responsibility. It was Edward IV had him murdered, and the Commons who tipped the balance to execution.

3) It doesn't belong in this article. That's the point I keep coming back to and that's the point you and too many others are entirely missing. Commentary on Richard belongs in the article on Richard. Admittedly, this particular set shouldn't go there anyway because as I note above it's wildly inaccurate and based on a false premise. But it's irrelevant (ultimately) to the article on Clarence.

This is in fact a very poor article anyway full of misconceptions, outdated research, and also very short for somebody who for much of his comparatively short life was one of the most important and influential people in England. I think I shall do some tidying up and adding of proper scholarship (not at the moment, too busy with resit marking and research of my own). But in the meanwhile, I have removed it. If you have any reasonable argument as to why a false statement from a book written 66/7 years ago and widely discredited arguing against a belief that doesn't even exist should remain in it, I'm listening. Have a good one.2A02:C7E:728:800:1C17:819:B05D:D9FE (talk) 11:16, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

@109.146.233.172 and 2A02:C7E:728:800:1C17:819:B05D:D9FE: To be clear, I was indicating that the assertions of (Kendall 2002) were misrepresented as failling to pertain to Clarence: Material on Richard belongs in the article on Richard ....

I am correct in that a portion of (Kendall 2002) did directly pertain to Clarence. For instance this passage from p. 259 has nothing to do with Richard.

The Bishop of Bath and Wells had probably let slip to Clarence the secret of the precontract. It helped to engender Clarence's misty dream that when he had married Mary of Burgundy he could use her power to win forhmself the English crown.

Nor does the attestation in the article that you removed:

Richard III biographer Paul Murray Kendall believes that the reason Edward was so harsh with his brother was that he had discovered from Bishop Robert Stillington of Bath and Wells that George had let slip the secret of Edward's marriage precontract with Lady Eleanor Talbot.

My interest was not in whether or not Kendall was correct, but that the attestation & citation should remain in the absence on contravening sources. You have provided some as requested in my 10 October 2021 comment.

I would recommend that you learn to adequately cite sources, as you have not provided full citations. While I know how to obtain them, the typical reader would not. I would also ask that you adopt the Wikipedia standards on citing sources, as there was a consensus to deprecate parenthetical citations.

Below, for example, are the full citations for Baldwin, Horrox, & Ross. Please note that I have chosen different years for Baldwin & Ross due to their online availability.

• Baldwin, David (2012). Richard III : a life. Stroud: Amberley. p. 80. ISBN 978-1-4456-0182-3. OCLC 759584703 – via Internet Archive.
• Horrox, Rosemary (2013-05-30) [2004-09-23]. "Richard III". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford: Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/23500.
• Ross, Charles Derek (1975) [1974]. "Edward IV". London: Book Club Associates. p. 244. OCLC 1033597891 – via Internet Archive.
• Ross, Charles (1983). Richard III. Berkeley: University of California Press. pp. 32–34. ISBN 978-0-520-05075-4. OCLC 1194906330 – via Internet Archive.

If you need help with citations, including the shortened footnotes that English Wikipedia uses in place of Harvard citations, please see:

• Help:Shortened footnotes
• Wikipedia:Citation templates

Finally, you began with Ignoring the personal abuse, ... I am puzzled by this, because my criticism was of the 109.146.233.172 editor's actions, & not toward the character. Please clarify this. Peaceray (talk) 23:25, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

Misleading use of 'when'

Hi all. It would be great if a relevant historian could verify/correct the following sentence;

• 'Clarence had actively supported his elder brother's claim to the throne, but when his father-in-law (known as "the Kingmaker") deserted Edward IV to ally with Margaret of Anjou, consort of the deposed King Henry, Clarence supported him and was deprived of his office as Lord Lieutenant'.

The word 'when' seems misleading given that Clarence and Warwick teamed up to try to get rid of Edward much before Warwick starting liaising with Margaret. In fact, Warwick's deal with Margaret (to try to get her and his kids on the throne) is what pushed Clarence away from Warwick. Michelle Kemp (talk) 20:09, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Brother Edmund

The article currently states that George "was the third of the four sons of Richard and Cecily who survived to adulthood." His brother Edmund died at aged 17. The sentence is a bit misleading. He was not a part of the battle of the three brothers for the crown. Anna (talk) 22:49, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I can see your point, but it is a bit of a thorny issue. Although 17 Edmund was considered enough of an adult to be fighting with his father at the Battle of Wakefield where he died. Shakespeare of course portrayed him as a child who was unjustly executed, but that was dramatic licence (especially as he also implies he was younger than Richard!). His death did mean he was not caught up in the later struggles between the brothers, but he was a significant figure at the time of his death, and with both his oldest brother (commanding the Yorkist forces in Wales) and father fighting the Lancastrian forces, could easily have become the Yorkist claimant to the throne, and so was seen as a problem to the Lancastrians. Dunarc (talk) 19:22, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not saying it's inaccurate, just potentially misleading. Better to rephrase to be clear. Anna (talk) 02:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Would something like "was the second of the three sons of Richard and Cecily who survived their father and became a potential claimant for the crown" be a better fit do you think? Dunarc (talk) 22:52, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, excellent. Thanks Anna (talk) 16:18, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks - I have gone ahead and made the change. Dunarc (talk) 20:42, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

"Survived to adulthood" should be stricken because it's vague. Adulthood as defined by 21st-century law or medieval law? It's not in the article now, and that's good, but how sure are we that Edmund outlived the father of himself and this article's subject? They were killed on the same day. What were clocks like at the time? I don't think they were good until later. Was it a morning/afternoon issue? The sentence could be rewritten as "Of the sons of Richard 3rd Duke of York remaining alive after the death of the 3rd Duke and his son Edmund on the same day in battle at Wakefield, George was the 2nd-oldest".2600:1700:6759:B000:E894:BFCC:705D:880 (talk) 01:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson

Typical Wikipedia, Was he SIXTH or NINTH child of his father?

This article says that its subject was the SIXTH CHILD of Richard 3rd Duke Of York. The article on Richard 3rd Duke Of York says that this article's subject was the NINTH child. I'm so sick and tired of this, Wikipedia! Your articles don't even agree with each other! I come here to look up things quickly and go away. I don't have TIME to double-check every $%#%^@$% fact in every @$#%@$ article against every OTHER %^^U&%$^ article. You're a cancer on the body of humanity, Wikipedia! You are a DRAIN on the time of people trying to get educations! Think of how many students taking exams get test-questions wrong because they look on Wikipedia! You're holding the world back! There should be LAWS about this! People should be FINED for the maintaining the PRETENSE that Wikipedia is useful when I can't just look up a fact and leave and spend less than 60 seconds on it! Maybe change the sentence to "Within a margin of error of plus or minus two, he was the 7th child of his father. It's hard to count children, because when they're running around playing outside they give the appearance of being twice as many as they really are." Or 8th child.2600:1700:6759:B000:E894:BFCC:705D:880 (talk) 01:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson

He's also #6 in his father's infobox. The difference arises because the full list there includes 3 who "died young" - ie as babies. You're getting test-questions on this stuff??? Johnbod (talk)