Talk:Thomas Howard, 4th Duke of Norfolk

Citation to Add

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)

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)HammerFilmFan

Also, I'm pretty sure the Gibbon reference is actually to the relevant Norfolk's father, Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey, who was executed for treason, and was young, militaristic and hotheaded enough that such a judgement on his 'trial by combat' would be relevant. It also explains why he is called 'Earl of Surrey', as Henry Howard never became Duke of Norfolk. Though in fairness to the original point, Robert Hutchinson thinks that Norfolk was arguably more stupid than malicious in his plotting. Nototter (talk) 14:24, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Norfolk was a Catholic, disguised as a Protestant so as not to attract the attention of the authorities, but he professed the Roman faith. That he was involved in the plot, I also doubt it, but the marriage with María I Estuardo did want it to materialize. Leito.Cmj (talk) 20:30, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Said and done one of the empty spaces in the graves of Howard's wives (Mary Fitzalan, Margaret Audley and Elizabeth Leyburne) in Framlingham Church is believed to have been intended for Mary Queen of the Scots. Leito.Cmj (talk) 20:38, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Norfolk was a Catholic, disguised as a Protestant so as not to attract the attention of the authorities, but he professed the Roman faith. That he was involved in the plot, I also doubt it, but the marriage with Mary, Queen of Scots did want it to materialize. Leito.Cmj (talk) 00:48, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 04:14, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Thomas Howard edition citation copyright.

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)

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)

I will take that information into account and thanks for the warning. Leito.Cmj (talk) 11:52, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Religion of Duke of Norfolk

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)

One of the many pieces of evidence showing that the Duke of Norfolk was a Catholic was the fact that he had to apply to the Holy See for a dispensation to marry Margaret Audley, which according to canon law was necessary because Audley was Mary's first cousin. Fitzalan, the Duke's first wife. Leito.Cmj (talk) 07:06, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Aren't those proofs more than enough that Norfolk was a Catholic? Leito.Cmj (talk) 07:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

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)

Norfolk negó ser católico en el momento en que estuvo a punto de ser ejecutado although clearly that has been a last act of defense and innocence before suffering his final fate. Leito.Cmj (talk) 09:19, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, the translator is wrong and what I wrote in my language (Spanish) and what I wrote in English was mixed up. Leito.Cmj (talk) 09:20, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

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)

If you have to correct any information, welcome. I added the Duke's religion to the main information. I put information in the main template |religion: Roman Catholic. Leito.Cmj (talk) 09:29, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

I think the same as you, apart from the fact that the denial of their religion could have been a last act of defense and innocence, it could also have been a last act to save their children from greater political and religious repression than they were already suffering. by the authorities. Leito.Cmj (talk) 09:50, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Hello people, I have just added the information that Norfolk had to apply for a dispensation to marry Audley to Pope Pius IV. Leito.Cmj (talk) 18:28, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Although it was quite common for the Holy See to issue marriage dispensations, the delay in obtaining said authorization could also have been aggravated by the fact that during that time the Pope and the majority of the ecclesiastical leadership were not in Rome. if not in Trent, celebrating the Council. Leito.Cmj (talk) 18:33, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant to say that during that time delays on the part of the Holy See in issuing marriage dispensations were quite common. Leito.Cmj (talk) 18:34, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

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)

Hello @Sbishop it would be necessary to add the religion info in the infobox template since it is more than well known that Norfolk was Catholic. Leito.Cmj (talk) 16:35, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Good evening people, I'm new to Wikipedia. Looking at the article about the 4th Duke of Norfolk, I think the information that Howard was a Roman Catholic should be added to the template. At the time he was about to be executed, he denied it but that Howard was a Catholic, he was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LuisCanelo.MJ (talk • contribs) 01:03, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

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)

{{Edit template-protected}} LuisCanelo.MJ (talk) 21:52, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Brothers of the Duke of Norfolk.

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)

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)

Some sources state that Margaret was born earlier, in 1543 but other sources give that she was born in 1547 shortly after Surrey's execution. Leito.Cmj (talk) 16:37, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

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

Corrections

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)

They became engaged in early 1558, and Norfolk immediately sent his lawyers (some of whom already had experience negotiating with ecclesiastical authorities) to Rome to negotiate the dispensation. What I wanted to add is a little more detailed information on the subject. Leito.Cmj (talk) 16:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

It was in December 1558 or January 1559 that the marriage took place, since it occurred during the governmental transition (Mary I died in November 1558 and Elizabeth I ascended the throne in January 1559). Leito.Cmj (talk) 16:30, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

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)

Hello good people and happy new year. Regarding the last correction that I had made and that was removed, regarding the actual Plantagenet ancestry that the Howards had, there is plenty of evidence to see that this is true. Leito.Cmj (talk) 21:36, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

All Howards are descended from Thomas de Mowbray, 1st Duke of Norfolk and his wife Elizabeth Segrave, the daughter and heiress of John Segrave, 4th Baron Segrave by his wife Margaret, Duchess of Norfolk, daughter and heiress of Thomas of Brotherton, 1st Earl of Norfolk, the fifth son of King Edward I. Leito.Cmj (talk) 21:40, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, the Howards' royal Plantagenet ancestry is traced back to Elizabeth Segrave, wife of John de Mowbray, 4th Baron Mowbray and daughter and heiress of Margaret de Brotherton, granddaughter of Edward I. Leito.Cmj (talk) 03:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

In short: the 4th Duke did have royal ancestry, descending from Edward I through his ancestors from the House of Mowbray. Leito.Cmj (talk) 04:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

The part about Norfolk being a descendant of Edward III and that is the other thing they objected to me, they were right to object to. The ancestry of his grandmother Elizabeth Stafford and the father of the latter, Edward Stafford, Duke of Buckingham, must be traced a lot. Leito.Cmj (talk) 04:08, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

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)

It's true, encyclopedias should be guided by good facts. Happy New Year and have a good start to 2023. Leito.Cmj (talk) 12:42, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello people, good morning, I was reading the last correction you made and I think it is worth putting in that corrected place, not the age of the third duke since it is not relevant, but that he was already old at the time of the liberation of the Tower and that he withdraws guardianship of Foxe from his grandchildren. Leito.Cmj (talk) 13:54, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

No one knows if the adolescent Norfolk, then Earl of Surrey, accompanied his grandfather on his last great service to the Crown, which was the suppression of Wyatt's Rebellion. I am researching that since, in addition to being a Wikipedian, I am a historian and a history teacher. Leito.Cmj (talk) 14:08, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

If I get that information that the young Norfolk accompanied his grandfather in the suppression of the Wyatt Rebellion from any of the academic sources I work with, I will put it here on the discussion table to evaluate whether to add said information in this article. 4th Duke. Leito.Cmj (talk) 14:10, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

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)

Hello people, good afternoon, why did you object to my last edition??? Despite Foxe's Protestant upbringing, it is well known that the 4th Duke was Catholic like almost everyone else in his family, who like many other noble families kept the flame of Catholicism alive in those years of religious turbulence caused by the Reformation. Leito.Cmj (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Howard was a Catholic, he was hiding it, yes, but he was, he was. Only in his later years did he become more active in trying to restore Roman religion to England, and it was this that led to his death in 1572. Leito.Cmj (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello good people, I have just added in the information about the Political / Military Career of Norfolk that he, in his role as Earl Marshal, was in charge of the preparations for the Coronation of Elizabeth I in January 1559 and the celebrations after said event . Leito.Cmj (talk) 03:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

It is the same task that his descendants have continued today, for example Bernard Marmaduke Fitzalan-Howard organized the coronation of Elizabeth II in 1953 and now his cousin Edward Fitzalan-Howard, also in his role as Earl Marshal, was in charge of the funeral. of Isabel II and is preparing for the coronation of Carlos III. I know that I've already gone a long way from the main theme of Thomas Howard but I wanted to exemplify the theme of the task in charge of the Earl Marshal. Leito.Cmj (talk) 03:29, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Corrections

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)

That is why I added that in the text of the first part, about the life of the 4th Duke, that he and his brothers grew up when they were children in the midst of those intrigues in which their family had been submerged. Leito.Cmj (talk) 17:16, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant that when he and his brothers, when they were children, grew up in the midst of those intrigues in which his family had been submerged. Leito.Cmj (talk) 17:18, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

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)

Hello people, regarding the last correction regarding the verbal assurances Norfolk gave Ridolfi during the negotiations for the Duke to participate in the plot, the assurance he gave Ridolfi that he was a Catholic was true. Norfolk was a Catholic, and there is ample evidence that he was. Leito.Cmj (talk) 17:46, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

He was disguised as a Protestant (Anglican) to avoid having problems with the authorities, but since Norfolk was Catholic, he was. Leito.Cmj (talk) 17:48, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

I have just removed the photo of William Howard as it does not correspond to William son of the Duke with Margaret Audley, he is Lord William Howard great-great-grandson of the Duke (great-grandson of Philip, Earl of Arundel) and who was executed during the anti-Catholic riots of Titus Oates. Leito.Cmj (talk) 03:13, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello people, I have just placed the photos of Norfolk's wives and some of the photos of his children within the main article of "Marriage and Issues" since incorrectly, all that photographic material was found within the sub-article referring to Howard's first wife. Leito.Cmj (talk) 19:31, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

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)

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)

Very good explanation then. Greetings and have a good weekend. Leito.Cmj (talk) 10:29, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

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)

Any correction you have to make is welcome. Leito.Cmj (talk) 10:39, 13 May 2023 (UTC)