Talk:Edmund Tudor, 1st Earl of Richmond

Marriage Date?
Can anybody help me find out when exactly (year would be enough) Margaret Beaufort was married to Edmund Tudor? Hints appreciated!

-- NicApicella; 27/May/2005

Arms
As I asked in Jasper Tudor, if Tudor's father's arms were as shown in Owen Tudor how did Owen's sons use "the arms of the kingdom..."? Avalon (talk) 11:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

"brought them to Henry VI's notice"
I don't quite get this line-why would Edmund and Jasper Tudor need to be brought to Henry VI's notice considering that they were Henry's half brothers? Its not like Henry would not have known his mother had other kids. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.127.106 (talk) 19:31, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Date of birth
Where does Edmund's precise date of birth come from? The ODNB only gives "c.1430". – Swa cwæð Ælfgar (talk) 10:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I'd like to know the answer to this as well. History Lunatic (talk) 09:03, 28 January 2018 (UTC)History Lunatic

Assessment
This was on the list of open tasks and I've assessed it as C, largely because it only uses one reference source; I also think the language is clunky and it could be substantially shorter and equally useful. I'm not suggesting the detail is irrelevant but this is an encyclopaedia - so sometimes less is more :).

eg ''Both Edmund and Jasper were among a small group of personal advisers to the King by 1452, representing the only blood relations in court.[4] However, neither was skilled at matters of state within England, and instead they were primarily given the task of ensuring the authority of the King within Wales.[5] This resulted in a long held affection for the family in that country.[4] The formal investiture of the duo took place in the Tower of London on 5 January 1453. Later that year on 6 March, they took their seats in the Parliament of England as the head of all the Earls in the court. After a petition by the House of Commons of England, both Jasper and Edmund were recognised officially as legitimate half-brothers of the King and the statutory disabilities attributed with being considered Welsh were removed. Throughout 1452 and 1453, they were given large monetary grants from the King, while Edmund was also given property in Westmorland and Lancashire. Edmund ran a profitable estate and invested in the wool industry based out of Boston, Lincolnshire. The King also granted him the medieval palace of Baynard's Castle, near to the Thames river in London.[6]''

Replace with; By 1452, Edmund and Jasper formed part of the small group of advisors around the King, with primary responsibility for Royal policy in Wales. They were legally recognised as Henry's half-brothers, ranked first among all other Earls and received substantial grants of money and land. Edmund himself was given lands in Westmorland and Lancashire, as well as Baynard's Castle, a substantial property on the Thames in London.

Robinvp11 (talk) 17:47, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


 * I agree this passage appears wordy, but its details as written are important to this subject; they would be less so in the Henry VI article. The Tudor brother were the only blood relatives left at court by 1452, all royal family of Henry VI (English and French) were dead or abroad by that time. The fact that their appointment to oversee Wales and the affection their rule engendered is important for understanding why Wales followed the Tudors so absolutely in the Wars of the Roses. The January date of investiture seems to contradict the previous section, so that needs to be nailed down.


 * But the following sentence is important as the Welsh were treated legally as less than the English - almost like foreign nationals while under English authority; Owen Tudor as well was eventually granted rights as an Englishman to counteract this and legally this was a major concession, comparable to American former slaves being given the right to vote. It was also a first step towards potential plans to make these uterine brothers Henry VI's heirs in case his queen remained barren, and was much resented in certain quarters, not least by Margaret of Anjou herself.


 * Some of this paragraph are facts repeated elsewhere in this article but including important detail that should not be missed. Perhaps a better solution would be to rewrite/combine this with the previous section and include the details here.  Cheers. History Lunatic (talk) 11:55, 30 March 2018 (UTC)History Lunatic

"remarried to Edmund"
Edmun had the wardship of nine-year-old Margaret Beaufort. Thus the annullment of her Beaufort marriage "enable[d] her to be [married] to Edmund" not remarried. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.147.110.36 (talk) 15:49, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Title should be changed to 'Edmund Tudor, Earl of Richmond'
He was not the first Earl of Richmond. He was the first earl of the seventh creation of the title. See the wikipedia article Earl of Richmond. The current title is misleading. Gwedi elwch (talk) 19:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Naming conventions for British peers can be found here: WP:NCBRITPEER. Personally, I'd find crowding the article names more confusing but if it needs discussion that's the place since if we change one such case, we'd need to change them all for consistency's sake.


 * Contemporary resources are often far worse. Most of the time you just see "Richmond" with no christian name, no surname, just the title with no numerical distinction. Cheers. History Lunatic (talk) 05:58, 22 December 2020 (UTC)History Lunatic

Many thanks for the link to the naming conventions for British peers. The relevant passage I think is this :

"The use of 1st, 2nd, 3rd... Earl or Baron is a matter of convenience. It is often useful disambiguation (for example, Archibald Kennedy, Marquess of Ailsa could be six of the eight holders of the title); it sometimes identifies a single peer who is called by different first names. When, however, as with some very early earldoms, the numbering is disputed (in the case of the first Scots earldoms, it is artificial) it is acceptable to omit the number or disambiguate by other means. In such cases, redirects or disambiguations from forms with any frequently used numberings are encouraged."

The disambiguation reason for using 1st, 2nd etc applies when a title has been held by two or more people of the same name - an example would be William Marshal, Earl of Pembroke - the title was held by the father and the son of that name : here disambiguation requires use of '1st' and '2nd'.

In the case of Edmund Tudor there is no reason to use 1st for disambiguation purposes - he was the only Edmund Tudor to be Earl of Richmond. The only other Tudor to be Earl of Richmond was his son Henry Tudor, and when Henry became king in 1485 the Tudor Earldom of Richmond merged in the crown. There has been no further creation of the earldom of Pembroke since 1485 - it has been replaced by the title Duke of Richmond which has itself been created 4 times. There is no need to disambiguate any of these Dukes of Richmond from Edmund Tudor.

What I think we are left with is (1) there is no need to use '1st' to disambiguate but (2) using '1st' is very likely to mislead. Some readers will very probably think it means that Edmund Tudor was the 'very first' Earl of Richmond - that, after all, is the ordinary English language meaning of the word.

I agree with you that '1st Earl of the seventh creation' is appallingly cumbersome in an article title. Or even, probably, in the first paragraph / introduction. It could possibly be added as a minor sentence in the text, but I don't feel there is any need - the cross link to the article on 'Earl of Richmond' will be useful for anyone who actually does know the title was created a number of times and wants to explore that issue.

I think the title of this article, to avoid misleading, should be "Edmund Tudor, Earl of Richmond".

Or possibly just "Edmund Tudor"? That would parallel his brother Jasper Tudor - neither of Jasper's titles (Earl of Pembroke, Duke of Bedford) are (now)in the title of the wikipedia article on him.

But there is one disambiguation reason for keeping 'Earl of Richmond' in the title of the article on Edmund Tudor. There is another (much less well known Edmund Tudor) - Edmund Tudor, the sixth child of Henry VII, who died aged about 16 months (he was a grandson of our Edmund Tudor, Earl of Richmond). The wikipedia article on him is headed Edmund Tudor, Duke of Somerset. There is some disambiguation merit in heading one article 'Edmund Tudor, Earl of Richmond' and the other 'Edmund Tudor, Duke of Somerset'. Gwedi elwch (talk) 13:00, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Birth background paragraph
After doing some research on the interesting background of his birth, would other users be happy to include the following paragraph that I drafted? Thanks

"After the death of Henry V, Queen dowager Catherine of Valois had an affair in 1427 with Edmund Beaufort. This led to a parliamentary statute to regulate the remarriage of queens of England. Catherine then secretly married Owen Tudor to avoid breaking the statutes of 1227/8. Her relationship with Beaufort thus came to an end, although it is possible that Edmund Tudor was the biological son of Beaufort. The exact dates of Edmund Tudor's birth and marriage of Catherine and Owen are not known. Some historians have suggested that Edmund Tudor was named after Edmund Beaufort and historian John Ashton-Hill states that the coat of arms later used by Edmund and Jasper Tudor were in fact derived from that of Edmund Beaufort. "

References Titus Gold (talk) 00:45, 23 November 2023 (UTC)