Talk:Anne Neville

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

parasitic?[edit]

is it really okay to refer to the Woodvilles as "parasitic" ?18.173.1.125 (talk) 19:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Worked in a London cook shop[edit]

The article doesn't mention this popular theory that Richard found Anne hiding in a London cook shop where she was employed as a servant. Whether it's true or not it should be mentioned.jeanne (talk) 15:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have since added it.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

citation?[edit]

What is the citation for the date and place of Anne's marriage to Richard, Duke of Gloucester? I have been unable to find that information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chuckw-nj (talk • contribs) 08:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Died at Westminster[edit]

The box implies that she died in Westminster Abbey. Is this in the historical record? Torontonian1 (talk) 14:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone had created a false link - I've fixed it now. Thanks for pointing it out. Deb (talk) 12:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I am sure this is wrong[edit]

The article (as of 30 Mar 2011) states: QUOTE: At fourteen, Anne was betrothed by her father to Richard (later Richard III of England) brother of Edward, Prince of Wales, heir to Henry VI of England. UNQUOTE

The sentence is mixing up two different Edwards. One of these Edwards is Edward of Westminster, Prince of Wales (Lancaster/red-rose in the Wars of the Roses), heir apparent to King Henry VI (also Lancaster/red-rose). THIS Edward died before his father Henry VI and so never made it to the throne. THIS Edward was NOT the brother of the future Richard III (a Yorkist/white-rose). THIS Edward was not the brother of any male, being Henry VI's only son. The DIFFERENT Edward being mixed up in this sentence is Edward, Duke of York (York/white-rose), son of Richard, 3rd Duke of York (also York/white-rose). THIS Edward, (the Duke of York and later King Edward IV), was never Prince of Wales. Also, is it really true that when 14 she was betrothed to the white-rosed future Richard III, when it was also while she was 14 that she was betrothed to the red-rosed Prince of Wales?69.86.131.64 (talk) 07:22, 31 March 2011 (UTC)Christopher L. Simpson[reply]

Thank you for pointing out these glaring errors. They have since been corrected.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Betrothal to Richard Before Edward?[edit]

Some person put similar statements back in that Anne was betrothed as a young girl to Richard. In the Early Life section they put the date of 1470. Anne married Edward, Prince of Wales, the Lancastrian heir, in 1470! I have taken out these statements and replaced them with the correct information and a valid source to back them. -- Lady Meg (talk) 02:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead Photo[edit]

I am wondering why the lead picture was replaced with a Victorian interpretation of Anne? -- Lady Meg (talk) 19:15, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The same thing happened to the featured article about Isabeau of Bavaria and in a number of articles about popes. I doubt it's a coincidence. Surtsicna (talk) 19:22, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Widowed and orphaned?[edit]

"Anne, now widowed and orphaned, became the subject of some dispute between George of Clarence and his brother Richard of Gloucester, who still wanted to marry her. Anne Neville and her sister, the Duchess of Clarence, were heiresses to their parents' vast estates. Clarence, anxious to secure the whole inheritance, treated her as his ward and opposed her getting married, which would strengthen her position to claim a share."

Anne Neville was not orphaned in 1471, in fact she was not 'orphaned' at all, as her mother outlived her by 7 years (also outliving her other daughter, her husband and all her sons-in-law). Clarence and Gloucester were in dispute about who would inherit the titles and estates of the 16th Countess of Warwick upon her death.31.49.108.32 (talk) 00:06, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anne's father Richard Neville Earl of Warwick died at the battle of Barnet on April 16 1471, so she was in fact made partly orphan, on her father's side, the sentence can live without that detail, even though I personally find it very relevant since it was not over Richard Neville's lands that the younger York brothers struggled in terms of "inheritance" because they were forfeit on the ground of treason and the estates of Middleham, Penrith and Sheriff Hutton were given to Richard in late June 1471, almost one year before his wedding with Anne, while the Welsh estates and other lands were given to Clarence or retained by the king their brother. Is there a specific English word to indicate that Anne's father was dead by then? The act of Parliament dated May 1474 settled the dispute between George of Clarence and his brother (and by then also Anne's second husband) Richard of Gloucester" over the dowager Countess' estates dividing her properties between her two daughters and respective husbands "as if the Countess were dead". Anne of Beauchamp seems never to have complained about this settlement, she had already joined Richard's and Anne's household in June 1473 and enjoyed a personal budget for her expenses which Richard found sometimes excessively high (one of his complaints is on record, as is the dowager Countess' answer that she would do as she pleased, in a nutshell). Anne Beauchamp went to court against Henry VII to get her properties back after Anne's and Richard's death, won after years of legal struggle but decided to renounce her properties to the crown barely days after the judicial review, most historians think she was forced into it.Isananni (talk) 19:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The definition of the word 'orphan' is one who has lost one or both parents. Since Warwick was dead at this point, Anne and her sister Isabel both qualify as orphans. History Lunatic (talk) 20:01, 6 December 2020 (UTC)History Lunatic[reply]

Date of death[edit]

As England, at that time, did not start the new year until March 25th, she actually died on 16 March 1484. Nine days later on the 25th, it became 1485. The English did not recognize January 1st as the start of the new year until 1752.2602:306:340A:E680:1122:141A:C0B0:41DC (talk) 06:26, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting. However, since all historical events in all articles are dated according to our modern system, it would be misleading to change the date of death only and only in this specific article, and I am not sure how this information would add value to the overall account of events rather than take it away. It might be wiser to start a new article on the specific topic of the English calendar if it is not already present. Isananni (talk) 07:01, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah right Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 11:10, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Issananni wrote, "since all historical events in all articles are dated according to our modern system, it would be misleading to change the date of death only and only in this specific article". Horse hockey! This would NOT be the only article to to have the historically correct date because of when England had their New Year's Day in the 16th century. The article on Sir Christopher Wren has the correct year listed for his date of death based on the English calendar then in use. Are we going to use the historically correct dates on articles of this type, or lie about it because some people can't understand that things were not always as they are today? I would certainly hope not! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:340A:E680:AC0B:359C:6F15:FDAD (talk) 06:28, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Horse hockey = classic! Muffled Pocketed 06:55, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Date of death = (eclipse) https://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEsearch/SEsearchmap.php?Ecl=14850316 eclipse: in 1485 March 16 --Methodios (talk) 08:14, 26 February 2017 (UTC) Obviously NASA was using the current calendar system for the date of the eclipse instead of the calendar system then in use in England. In the book "The Last Days of Richard III and the fate of his DNA" by John Ashdown-Hill, it is stated that on Wednesday, March 16, just over a week before the new year, there was a solar eclipse and that the royal chaplains "intoned the Litany and murmured the prayers for a passing soul over Anne Neville's frail, wasted body."[reply]

This has been argued before, but it is sensible to leave Anne's death year as 1485. Otherwise you end up with Anne dying in March 1484 and her son dying in April 1484, which makes discussions of Anne's deep grief over her son's death seem nonsensical. Listing her death rate by the modern calendar avoids confusion. History Lunatic (talk) 20:08, 6 December 2020 (UTC)History Lunatic[reply]

Wrong, wrong, wrong! The fix is simple. A quick statement of fact that at the time, March 16, 1484 came eleven months AFTER April 1484 because the English New Year started on March 25th of each year explains the problem. To think that modern day readers could not understand that fact after a quick explanation of the facts of the English calendar in use at the time gives short shrift to the intellect of modern readers. Yes you will always have some people who could never figure it out, but the vast majority would be able to figure it out with the explanation provided. The world did not start on the date of our birth and things have not always been the way they are now. To think otherwise is, as I stated five years ago in the history of this discussion, HORSE HOCKEY! (Col. Potter's favorite expletive on the TV show of M*A*S*H). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:A9B0:527F:C512:24A0:1F1C:867D (talk) 06:33, 11 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Heir Presumptives[edit]

This article states that Edward Earl of Warwick and John Earl of Lincoln were named heirs presumptive by Richard III, whereas I understood that he did not make any formal proclamation on the matter between the death of his son and his own death at Bosworth. RGCorris (talk) 14:57, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RGCorris: indeed, see Hicks, [1]. Hstoriographically, the presumption stems from (WP:OR alert) the fact that, as his heir had been (nominally) head of the Council of the North, by appointing Lincoln to the same office, Richard was seen as placing him where his heir would be. ——SN54129 15:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I misread the article (and your remark). Lincoln is founded in probability, but there are no grounds for the suggestion that Warwick was ever heir (see [2]). Removed, tagged. ——SN54129 15:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dispensation[edit]

The article states Anne married Richard Duke of Gloucester "after a dispensation to marry was issued from Rome on 22 April 1472. This dispensed the impediment of affinity created when Anne married Edward of Lancaster, who was Richard's blood cousin."

Can someone with access to The Ricardian check this? Anne's own blood relation to Richard was even closer, since Anne was Richard's 1st cousin once removed while Edward of Lancaster was Richard's 2nd cousin once removed. For that matter, Anne herself had a blood affinity to Edward--she was his 3rd cousin--which is why their marriage required a dispensation as well. Then there's the affinity created by the marriage of Anne's sister Isabel to Richard's brother George, which is obviously a closer affinity than that created by Anne's 1st marriage. (I dearly love royal genealogy.) So it's hard to believe dispensation was required for Richard and Anne based solely on affinity by her marriage to Prince Edward. History Lunatic (talk) 18:41, 12 May 2020 (UTC)History Lunatic[reply]

Indeed, it seems the blood relationship between Richard and Anne had been understated in the application for the dispensation, so that Richard worried henceforward that their marriage could be declared null. Their marriage contract allowed him to keep her lands even in case their marriage was voided. Later, when he became King, Richard took good care that in his Titulus Regius their son Edward was explicitly indicated as heir to the throne, and additionally, that the succession after Richard should rest "in his heirs of his Body begotten", without the usual qualification "lawfully begotten", which is, on the contrary, specified regarding the eventual successors to Edward. After Edward died before his father, however, because of the little word "lawfully" omitted, the Titulus Regius made Richard's bastard Lord John of Gloucester the heir to the throne; I often wonder if that had any part in Henry's determination to have the Titulus Regius repealed without reading and every copy destroyed. John survived Bosworth, but soon after records of him cease. 93.36.218.51 (talk) 16:17, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anne_Neville&oldid=1207172863"