This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia'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.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject English Royalty. For more information, visit the project page.English RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject English RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject English RoyaltyEnglish royalty articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. 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 AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
The article is being reassessed here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Richard_III_of_England/GA4#GA_Reassessment
and it has been pointed out that the "King of England" section only addresses Richard of Gloucester's rise to the throne and the opposition he later met, but fails to point out what he actually did during his reign. I think this is a valid point, especially because some interesting things can be said about his achievements during his reign, despite having a single parliamentary session, like perfecting the system of bail, starting to issue laws in English instead of Latin to make sure the common people could understand them, lowering taxes on imported books, which ultimately led to a wider distribution of knowledge, etc. Would anyone like to help out setting up a subsection like "Achievements" or "Reforms"? There certainly is plenty of literature out there to reference. Isananni (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I am not an editor of Wikipedia or formally a Richard III scholar. I study human remains from archaeological sites though and forensic biohistory, though and have been interested in the case since his remains were found. I just wanted to comment that this page seems to be the product of a surprisingly strong Ricardian revisionism, which is to say an attempt to rehabilitate Richard III legacy. As is noted by Richard Toon and Laurie Stone, and their book chapter Ga
Game of Thrones: Richard III and the Creation of heritage HAll of the recent attempts to rehabilitate Richard the thirds legacy and dismiss previous centuries criticisms of Richard as "Tudor propaganda" ignore the fact The primary sources that we have now are the same by enlarge as those that were available earlier. There really is no cogent argument that earlier depiction of him are incorrect. Thank you., eritage 2601:845:C100:7560:E340:B713:1756:D741 (talk) 23:15, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Page has been vandalised. Does anyone have the correct dates/a cached page to restore it? Can this page be protected somehow? It's hardly an evolving topic 146.198.57.231 (talk) 06:51, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When a married woman conceives a child, that child is presumed a child of the husband unless otherwise proved; apart from that, there were no doubts raised of Richard’s being the duke of York’s son; apparently his colouring and build were the same as the duke’s. 79.51.184.168 (talk) 06:53, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a late reply but there isn't much reason to doubt the father of Richard III. False paternity events are uncommon, about 1 to 2% of every birth. Statistically speaking it is more likely to have occurred some time in the ancestry of the current Duke of Beaufort simply because more generations have passed. Foxhound03 (talk) 14:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Richard's grandfather on the York side was commonly held not to be really the duke of York's child, but the product of his mother's adultery. This, if true, wouldn't affect Richard's claim to the throne, however, because that came of his father's Mortimer inheritance through his mother. 93.36.216.248 (talk) 15:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg)
