Talk:Margaret of Anjou

Disambiguation page

This is going to need a disambiguation page -- it's not an uncommon name. JHK

I don't disagree, but I think there's only the one who's historically significant, isn't there? Actually, I'm a bit concerned about the number of entries that are being created for minor English nobility at the moment - there are going to be a lot of similar problems if we go on at this rate. I've done three disambiguations pages today as a result. Up to now, I had been holding off creating articles for people whose contribution to history was not adequate to get them an entry in any dictionary of biography, but I suppose, given the space, there's no reason why they shouldn't be included. Deb

I heartily applaud your efforts to clear some of the dead wood. Please go with your first thought: Don't create links for every person whose name we know, whether there's any more to be said about them or not; of course there's room for everybody who needs a biography, but the links to them can be created after the article about them is. I consider what you did with Thomas Howard to be a model of the way it should be done -- it tells what needs to be told about each of the individuals but keeps them together so their relationship to each other is clear, instead of making a reader click back and forth between articles.

BTW, who are the other Margarets of Anjou that could even conceivably be included? I couldn't find any thru Google, but I could have missed anyone whose page mentioned this one to distinguish that one from this one. -- isis 1 Sep 2002

There's one in the late 13th c., neice of the French king. Definitely not as important, but don't forget that there are a few people here who choose biography as genealogy, and create linked pages for family members mentioned in one source for the 10th c. Personally, I think most of the genealogical stuff should be edited out, but that's because I think it is a distraction. Others don't feel the same. So, we'll have to consider a disambiguation page. JHK

French allies

Why did the Yorkist get so powerful?Most of all why did the Queen not gain French Commanders and soldiers for help, since she;s an allied of France?--Chrisle 31st, July,2006

Actually, the Yorkists had the stronger claim to the throne.Margaret did indeed try to get French help along with turn-coat Warwick. When Margaret's forces were defeated at Tewkesbury, she went back to France and lived as a sort of poor relation to the king of France.Poor Margaret,she was one of England's more interesting Queens.Had a powerful personality - to have led and commanded hardened English soldiers during the 15th century !! jeanne (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

"Mild-mannered"?

The article needs to cite evidence which shows Margaret to have been "mild-mannered" until Henry was threatened. Margaret would have had to have been extremely commanding in both personality and demeanor in order to head the Lancastrian contingent. I am talking about a Jeanne d'Arc type of personality as she commanded soldiers on the battlefield. Nobody transforms their character overnight. I don't see any proof that she ever had a mild character; on the contrary, I would describe her as strong-willed, aggressive and vindictive. (Read details of her behaviour after the Battle of Wakefield").jeanne (talk) 13:38, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Jeanne, I think the use of "mild-mannered" is erroneous. There are reports that confirm she was charming, intelligent, conversational and, indeed, beautiful. But you can be all of those whether you are mild-mannered or not. --Jim Hardie (talk) 21:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

.Oh, she was very beautiful,which probably helped her in raising armies.And intelligent.I also have read that Elizabeth Woodville was her lady-in-waiting.Is this true?jeanne (talk) 07:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The article needs to mention her relationship with Cardinal Beaufort.I believe it was her attachment to the Beauforts that caused Richard of York such consternation.jeanne (talk) 13:44, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

All, first, a heartfelt apology for being officious and for not having looked at this page first. I was very struck by the representation that Margaret was not overtly belligerent until well after her Prince of Wales was born, and then only because Richard of York intended to depose Henry VI. Both statements in that sentence need support, and in fact are directly contrary to Paul Murray Kendall's (admittedly Richard-friendly) conclusions in his "Richard the Third." I thought it surprising that, since Kendall had been so heavily cited up 'til that point, this departure from Kendall's view was offered without support. So here's where officious comes in -- I've never contributed to an article before and didn't realize there was an ongoing discussion, so I just supplied a lot more background on the Margaret/Richard conflict, all taken straight from Kendall. I don't think I did any violence to the existing language of the article except (1) indicating in the text that a citation was needed for the "mild mannered" proposition, and (2) modifying the sentence that read "Richard was a claimant to the throne and had a lot of nobles and family members backing him" to allow wiggle room for the view of many that Richard himself may very well have had no designs on the throne until very late in the game. If either is a gaffe, I apologize, as well as more generally for just diving in without consulting a group of people that clearly is more generally knowledgable about the period than I!Pmacbee (talk) 07:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

No apology is necessary. I have cited the pages which show Margaret's personal belief that the Duke of York had designs on the throne. Yes, it needed to be sourced. And no, you were not being officious just prudent. The Kendall book is very sympathetic to the Yorkists and in particular King Richard and his father; but seeing as it had some good information on Margaret and her character I haved cited his book freely. I myself am a Yorkist sympathiser but one who also happens to admire the courage and dramatic flair of Margaret of Anjou, who is one of the most underrated women in history. She should be a household name, but alas, she is not, so I'm trying my best to remedy the situation by adding as much sourced information as I can find on her. The book admits that she was a champion to the Crown which I added but the fact remains that her fiery nature was not roused until after the birth of Prince Edward. Thanks for your contributions to this article.Cheers.jeanne (talk) 08:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Jeanne, thanks very much for your response. I agree that she seems an extraordinary woman and am very surprised she is not better known. Beautiful, powerful, tactically successful warrior queens ought to excite wider literary, academic and popular interest than Margaret of Anjou seems to have done so far! I actually came to the site looking for a fuller and more balanced description of her than I thought Kendall could provide, so I applaud and encourage your efforts. Best regards. Pmacbee (talk) 16:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I just wish I could find a really good biography of Margaret of Anjou. The Kendall book is so readable, isn't it? jeanne (talk) 17:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

It is, indeed. Have you read the J.J. Bagley biography,Margaret of Anjou,Queen of England that Kendall references in his bibliography? Published in London in 1948, only 7 years before Kendall's. The only other one I have heard of (in all my three days of interest in the topic) is the fairly recent "Margaret of Anjou: Queenship and Power in Late Medieval England" by Helen E. Maurer (Boydell Press, 2003), which I believe is cited on the article page. Its critical reviews are very good. It is available on Amazon (as is Bagley's book, for $127--think I'll head to the library). Maybe even more interestingly, Amazon has a a recently published collection of Margaret's correspondence with Bishop Beckington, which could be really illuminating. Letters of Queen Margaret of Anjou and Bishop Beckington, Hardy Press, 2008. Best of luck. Pmacbee (talk) 17:51, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Hopefully Antonia Fraser will come out with a good bio on her. Now she is a good biographer; a lot of details, but never boring. Did you read her bio on Henry VIII's wives? Excellent.I have no books on Margaret alas. Never could find one. I'll have a look for the Bagley bio next time I'm in Ireland.jeanne (talk) 18:24, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I am really impressed by the work you've done on Margaret of Anjou. The text you added truly helps this article. There is another editor Jim Hardie who has also done excellent work here. I am a fan of Margaret but the article needed to be unbiased and you've achieved that by putting forward Richard of York's possible motives. Anyway, by right of birth the Yorkists were the true heirs to the throne as they were descended from Lionel of Clarence.jeanne (talk) 17:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

This is old but I am responding to it anyway.

Some quotes about Margaret of Anjou that affirm she was highly gifted diplomatically and inspired the following of the Lancastrian Armies. AndrewCumberland12 (talk) 02:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Queen consort of France

She is mentioned in the article of Queen consorts of France therefore she must have a title as such.Please dont revert.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 16:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Template

The template on the page was placed in February 2009, but I believe the article has been expanded and improved in the last 12 months. I propose that we remove it. Any comments?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Go ahead and remove it! Surtsicna (talk) 11:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I just did it. Thanks for your quick response, Surtsicna.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:17, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

Could we make this page more neutral? There are some biased statements/phrases within. Would anyone mind if we neutralised it? --Doris Lethbridge-Stewart —Preceding undated comment added 00:09, 27 February 2010 (UTC).

If you have reliable sources which counterbalance the statements you feel are biased and non-neutral, go ahead and made the changes. Nobody will object. We at Wikipedia strive for neutral, objective articles. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Image

I much prefer the contemporary image of Margaret for the infobox than the 19th century one which was previously used. I hope it doesn't get changed back.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:42, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Affairs

While I've read that the proof is scarce, I think some mention of Margeret of Anjou's supposed affairs with the Dukes of Somerset and others as well as the rumours (even if not based in fact) that her son Edward was a bastard.

The Duke of Somerset while in the custody of the Duke of Burgundy apparently bragged about mutual love with Margaret of Anjou. Its at least worth a mention, if I missed it & its already in I'm sorry. UFOash (talk) 20:09, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Rumours that her son was fathered by either the Duke of Somerset or James Butler, Earl of Wiltshire is in the article under the section Early life and marriage.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Year of birth

Margaret's year of birth is uncertain. Some sources say 1429 and others 1430 with no clear consensus. I believe the article needs to reflect this difference and somehow indicate that she was born on 23 March of either year. Does anyone know the site standard for this situation? There is no argument about 23 March or about her place of birth at Pont-à-Mousson in Lorraine. --Jim Hardie (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

It could not be 1429 as her sister Yolanda was born 2 November 1428. 23 March 1429 is impossible. She was obvioulsy born 23 March 1429/1430 as the new year began around Easter in 15th century France.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I changed it to this style 23 March 1429 or 1430, as it takes up less room & avoids repetition. GoodDay (talk) 05:28, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, GoodDay. I had it like that originally without being too sure of the format in general use. That's resolved, at least.

As for the New Year, Jeanne, I figured the variation was due to the old Julian/Gregorian question and so we need to establish how we illustrate this difference. Is it customary to put the Julian date and specify it as such; which is what I would do if writing privately? Or should we use the "1429 or 1430" option? Or should we use 1430 and specify it as a Gregorian date? I am loath to use the Gregorian date only. --Jim Hardie (talk) 06:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

It's okay, I've found the answer by reference to WP:DATE and Old Style and New Style dates. My interpretation is that we should use 1429 and clearly specify in a footnote that it is the Julian date as the New Year (1730) began on 25 March, only 2 days later. --Jim Hardie (talk) 06:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

That looks great, Jim Hardie. If we were to use the actual Gregorian date, we would have to give her a rectified birthdate of 1 April 1430.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:27, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Jeanne. I should have put the rectified date in the article but overlooked it. I seem to recall I had trouble with categories last time around so sorry for omitting to amend those! :-) --Jim Hardie (talk) 19:37, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

So was she 14 (as stated) or 15 when she was married and crowned? Maybe my maths is at fault but it looks like it should be 15 to me. Cassandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.5.100 (talk) 09:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Place of coronation

Where was Margaret's coronation? Westminster Abbey? The article and infobox both need to state this.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I have since added the information.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Impossible date

It is not possible that "Margaret appears in an illumination in the Books of the Skinners Company, 1422.", when she was not born until 1430. Something's gotta give. Chris the speller ^yack 17:30, 31 August 2018 (UTC)