Talk:Edmund of Langley, 1st Duke of York

Inaccuracies
While the main text lists Edmund of Langley as being a son of Edward III the column giving family information lists Edmund of Langley as being the grandfather of Henry IV. Henry the IV's father was John Gaunt whose own father was Edward III. Henry's grandfather was Edward III and Edmund was his uncle. I would remove the entry but I have no idea how to edit that column. --Kro666 20:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the "grand-children" in the infobox refers to the grand-children of Edward III, not Edmund of Langley; so best left. Moonraker12 16:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Terrible image
What a worthless image this is. A purely invented "portrait" in a wholly inauthentic outfit, from a series of popular engravings of "Kings of England", likely dating to the 1840s. Much worse than no image, because it is misleading.--Wetman (talk) 23:45, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Edmund of Langley
It seems very little of sources just call him "Edmund, 1st Duke of York" while most sources call him "Edmund of Langley, 1st Duke of York". Also Edmund, Duke of York vs. Edmund of Langley, Duke of York. The territorial designation in his name is part of his name used widely in sources as with other Plantagenet princes not serving as disambiguation.--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 07:18, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I got different results: 13 for "Edmund, 1st Duke of York", 17 for "Edmund of Langley, 1st Duke of York" (the present title), 57 for "Edmund of Langley", 62 for "Edmund of Langley, Duke of York", and 70 for "Edmund, Duke of York". It is hard to believe that most sources use the longest and the most cumbersome of all possible names; and apparently, they don't.
 * The results when searching for references to his son: "33 for "Edward, 2nd Duke of York", 20 for "Edward of Norwich, 2nd Duke of York", 12 for "Edward of Norwich", 22 for "Edward of Norwich, Duke of York", and 134 for "Edward, Duke of York".
 * Finally, 26 hits for "Richard, 3rd Duke of York" and 3 for "Richard of York, 3rd Duke of York". (All other variations may be ambigious.)
 * The present title is analogous to having Sigismund of Luxembourg, Holy Roman Emperor rather than either Sigismund of Luxembourg or Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor. Edmund was not christened as "Edmund of Langley", so the territorial designation is only a byname. It is certainly not indispensable in that sense. Surtsicna (talk) 11:03, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Depends on what your comparing it to. Sigismund is a bad example. His Plantagenet relatives: Henry of Grosmont, 1st Duke of Lancaster, Geoffrey Plantagenet, Count of Anjou, Thomas of Lancaster, 1st Duke of Clarence, Thomas of Woodstock, 1st Duke of Gloucester are examples of usages of territorial designations with titles because common usage of the bynames in sources.--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 19:13, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Why is Sigismund a bad example? Because we have the good sense not to do that in his case, while we do do that when it comes to Plantagenets? It is obviously the same issue: double disambiguation. Surtsicna (talk) 19:20, 24 May 2015 (UTC)