Talk:Margaret of York

This article is rated Start-class on Wik.ipedia.Pro's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Biography: Peerage and Baronetage This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wik.ipedia.Pro's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWik.ipedia.Pro:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage. Hampshire Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hampshire, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Hampshire on Wik.ipedia.Pro. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HampshireWik.ipedia.Pro:WikiProject HampshireTemplate:WikiProject HampshireHampshire articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Middle Ages Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wik.ipedia.Pro. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWik.ipedia.Pro:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Belgium Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belgium, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belgium on Wik.ipedia.Pro. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BelgiumWik.ipedia.Pro:WikiProject BelgiumTemplate:WikiProject BelgiumBelgium-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Women's History Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wik.ipedia.Pro. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWik.ipedia.Pro:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

I would be happier with this placement if there were more English sources referring to its subject as Margaret of York; this looks like another example of following supposed policy off a cliff. Septentrionalis 22:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minor nit-pick: Her place of birth was "Fotheringhay Castle" - not "Fotheringay". Her brothers Richard III & William (b. 7 Jul. 1447, d. young) were also born there.

Reference: Paget, Gerald, _The Lineage and Ancestry of H.R.H. Prince Charles, Prince of Wales_, Charles Skilton Ltd., London, 1977, p. 25.

See: http://www.castleuk.net/castle_lists_midlands/142/fotheringhaycastle.htm for a picture of the ruins & a minimal history/description.

Regards, curt_hofemannATyahoo.com chofemanATportoakland.com To reply, replace "AT" with the sign.

A couple of quibbles. The Duke of York died at Wakefield in 1460--NOT '61. And Lord Rivers was Edward IV's father in law, not his brother in law...Bkhaip (talk) 00:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2605:A000:140D:A065:2438:6A7B:1F9:DBA6 (talk) 21:59, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article says Margaret's crown is in Aachen Cathedral and the only British Medieval crown to survive. This is not so. In Munich there is Anne of Bohemia's crown, which is older (it went to Germany when Henry Iv's daughter(I believe) married. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.50.191 (talk) 18:33, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same thought. The distinction is that Princess Blanche's crown is thought to have come to England with Anne of Bohemia and therefore was not made in England. Margaret of York's crown is the oldest crown of English origin that survives today. History Lunatic (talk) 16:48, 17 January 2016 (UTC)History Lunatic[reply]

This crown is referenced in the catalog for the exhibit on Charles the Bold that was shown in Belgium, Switzerland, and Austria in 2009. There it says it was made for Margaret in 1474, when she was Duchess of Burgundy, in Northern France/Southern Netherlands which corresponded at the time to the southern Low Countries, i.e. Burgundian Netherlands. This contradicts that this was a crown of English make. Would you please cite where the 1461 date and English production is found?2605:A000:140D:A065:2438:6A7B:1F9:DBA6 (talk) 21:59, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out. I could not find any solid reference to the date; apparently it has not been proven absolutely. While the crown was presented to Aachen Cathedral in 1474, there is no evidence I could find that it was made specifically for this purpose. John Ashdown-Hill wrote a well-sourced paper about M of Y's jewelery that discusses the crown (http://www.richardiii.net/downloads/Ricardian/2007_vol17_ashdown_hill_jewellery.pdf). As he points out, had the crown been made in 1461 it would have had to be much modified later to include Burgundian references. JA-H and others have pointed out that the 1461 presumption is based on the idea that the crown's small size must mean it was made for a child's brow, yet the 15-year-old Margaret (presumably well on her way to her adult height of nearly 6 feet) could not have worn this 12 cm crown on her brow any more than the adult Margaret could have. Conversely, the 1474 presumption is based on the idea that the size meant it could not be worn on the brow and therefore must have been made specifically for this votive offering, but there are plenty of examples of small 15th century crowns being worn round a hennin.

The most often quoted date I find is 1468, when Margaret married, and it is assumed that this is the crown she brought with her and wore at her entry into Bruges. The inclusion of lovers' knots is a good indication that it was made specifically for her marriage. Regardless, there is no solid source I could find for a conclusive date of 1461 or 1474, so I have removed the date of make reference entirely. History Lunatic (talk) 15:57, 20 June 2017 (UTC)History Lunatic[reply]

The negotiators listed as "Lords Scales and Rivers" are the same person, Anthony Woodville (or Wydville). He acquired the forst title through marrrying Elizabeth, Lady Scales. It was superceded by his inheritance from his father of the Earldom of Rivers; he thus became the second Earl Rivers. Numerous sources including "Anthony Woodville," Wik.ipedia.Pro, s.v., which has it right. SCBAtkinson (talk) 14:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC) SCBAtkinson[reply]

The negotiators of 1467 were Richard and Anthony Woodville/Wydvill, father and son. In 1467 Anthony's title was Lord Scales while his father's title was Earl Rivers. Anthony would not be referred to as Rivers until his father's death in 1469. I have edited to reflect the correct titles and linked both men to their Wik.ipedia.Pro articles. History Lunatic (talk) 17:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)History Lunatic[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Aachen Germany Domschatz Crown-Margaret-of-York-01.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:07, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can we be sure that the allegations made by Louis, that she was not a virgin and had had a bastard son, were false? Could this son even, as a few people have suggested, have grown up to become Perkin Warbeck? PatGallacher (talk) 13:08, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't heard this one. Can you provide a source for the allegations so I can read up on it? Thanks. History Lunatic (talk) 10:17, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of slander was routine tactics in late 15th-century politics, & historians usually don't take it seriously. Who are the "few people"? Johnbod (talk) 14:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]