Talk:Honour of Richmond

"most often not taught"
The article says that this is stuff is "most often not taught". It all sounds a bit strange, for example someone describing himself as being nicknamed "the Bastard". And what is the date on this charter? /Pieter Kuiper 07:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Cambro-Breton history tends to be overlooked, in the favour of Anglo-Norman history. The issue has been dealt with. The statement was copied, word for word and the date was 1071. Regiment 22:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That is an old source, Bulmer's History and Directory of North Yorkshire (1890). Yes, I see that it mentions 1071, but not as the date the charter was given. Surely, if Bulmer is reliable here, there must be a better source? /Pieter Kuiper 22:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

''In 1071 Edwin, the Earl of Mercia, died and his lands in Yorkshire were granted to Alan the Red, Count of Penthievre, in Brittany and nephew of William the Conqueror. Although a 12th century poem states that William himself built the castle in 1068, it is more likely that Count Alan built the castle in the early 1070s.'' - http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A2350126 Regiment 23:05, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Anybody could write on h2g2, that is not a good source. The whole charter with "I, William, surnamed the Bastard, do give and grant to thee, Alan" is so utterly improbable when one reads the lead of the article about William. /Pieter Kuiper 23:14, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

If you are so unsatisfied, why not challenge the source with a counter-source? I guarantee that your pedantic opposition holds no water. Regiment 23:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)


 * According to the article William I of England, William was so touchy about him being illegitimate, that he punished the citizens of Alençon who had taunted him with his birth. He just cannot have written "I, William, surnamed the Bastard". Whatever Bulmer said in 1890. /Pieter Kuiper 17:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt that Count Alan had lands in Richmondshire. However, he may not have got them in 1071, but in 1073 (thus Dalton, P., Conquest Anarchy and Lordship (Cambridge, 1994), p. 71; or so it seems to say in this thesis.). The charter quoted is self-evidently fake, the correct formula being the predictable "Ego Willelmus, d. g., r. A.". There seems to be a book specifically about this subject, cited as a reference. That would look to be the best source for the article surely. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's see all of that word for word, just as I myself provided. Regiment 05:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Regiment has not provided a verifiable source for "1071". Bulmer's text is based on an obvious fake, and I will tag it again. /Pieter Kuiper 07:45, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

It is the date most often seen in British sources and majority means what Wikipedia accepts, right or wrong. You should admit that you yourself have no clue and that this is merely wasting everybody's time, ignorantly causing trouble when you can provide nothing yourself. Only add that tag again when I have been proven wrong. You are agitating without proof of the data being wrong. Your suspicion without countering information is dubious in and of itself. Think more logically, please. I am still waiting on McLellan, but you sir, have not contributed an iota of work to this article, only attacked it. How do you go about attacking Bulmer? You are not British, that's why? Bulmer is obviously a highly respected historical source, that has nothing to do with either Holland or Sweden. You do not know this, but you don't care either. The British don't know anything themselves, so you must tell them they are wrong? Give us a break. Regiment 09:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello all. I'm writing the french article for Alan Rufus (soon to be available here fr:Alain le Roux), and i've have some good sources to right it (Google Books helps, but there aren't a lot of material about him), but i'm totally unable to even have a *reliable* source of a modern historian involving Alan in the Harrying of the North. So that text about a grant made during the York siege is of course a fake. Anyway, it's totaly insane to write history articles based on 19th century sources. I did do it, and i had to ate my hat. If someone has a source about his participation, please notice it to me. Regards, PurpleHz (talk) 20:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

McLellan's separate dispute
McLellan, the Cambro-Breton (and Cumbrian) focus centres on these factors:


 * Being a fief of Brittany for some 330+ years; England was/is for Normandy (the Queen is "Duke of Normandy")
 * Two Richmond Bretons associated with the ducal house of Rennes were earls of Cornwall (Brian and Alan)
 * Having an archdeaconry (once held by a Welsh-descended de la Pole of Suffolk, which was a county chiefly held by the Richmonds) which stretched into Cumberland, Westmorland and northern Lancashire
 * The Pennine Dales, like the Lake District, in which Richmond's local extent has been verified, is a geological appendix to the parental Mount Snowdon in Wales.
 * An original component of the Diocese of Chester, which included parts of today's Cumbria
 * Currently being on the border of today's Cumbria
 * Catherine Parr was born in Cumbria, with a Fitz Hugh (Richmondshire) grandparent and her first husband was a Neville from Richmondshire
 * The Neville dominance in Richmondshire, although based in Cumbria
 * One "Richmond Fee" consisted of the Kendal Barony (the other I could find online is Boston)
 * Being held as the chief estate of the Tudors and united by them into the Crown along with Wales
 * Having the subsidiary title "Earl of March" (Wales version)
 * Being featured opposite of Wales in the supporters of the Royal Arms instead of England
 * Being held by the same person as he who held Lennox, which was the focal point of Strathclyde
 * Being the location of the Battle of Catraeth and home of Urien
 * Having a local Arthurian legend
 * The Welsh-descended Oliver Cromwell's family was in the Richmond area of East Anglia (the Richmonds' title to the region was "Prince [unofficial?] of the East Angles")
 * By indirect connexion: The Duke of Bedford (Henry VI's Regent in France) was Earl of Richmond and Kendal; Jasper Tudor was also Duke of Bedford and Earl of Pembroke
 * Being held by the Duke of Somerset, which is a county considered to have heavily Arthurian British centres such as Glastonbury and focused on the west coast with the Bristol Channel across from Monmouth and Wales
 * The Baltimore Barons came from here; they founded the colony called Avalon (another nod to Arthur) in North America
 * The Germanic presence in Richmondshire as a cultural or historical factor is quite weak, compared to the rest of England, as it consists of Gilling as a property of Morcar and a battleground between the Bernicians and Deirans, as well as the plundering of an obscure Anglo-Saxon monastery by the Danes, prompting the sanctification of Alkelda and the later assassination of Eric Bloodaxe, with hardly anything else Germanic apart from place names, at least nothing since the Harrying of the North, which completely returned the area to a British identity.

All this may seem like an unrelated assortment of facts, unless one looks at the ties that bind. Who cares if the subject matter is obscure, because public education doesn't care to focus on it and never had? They are all rather ignorant of the North, instead preferring to stereotype and not be bothered with. So, it takes interested parties such as myself to help the struggling authors and hobbyists out there, get the word out on what their life is about, which is obviously recognised by all parties but foreigners, as different from the South.

Regiment 10:31, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

This article had been deleted
The article had been deleted because of "spurious content". Now all this has resurfaced, but not the edit history and not the talk page, where I had critisized the ubsurdities. /Pieter Kuiper (talk) 13:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Redirect and protect
Since this article was deleted in good grounds, but gets linked (see what links here), I've redirected it to Earl of Richmond and protected it so the hoax material isn't reinserted. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 00:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Completely new article subject and text
The new article is about the territory of the Honour. Facts with accurate citations only, please.--Harkey (talk) 15:12, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Is Its List Not Equivalent to Earls of Richmond?
What are the differences?——Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 02:51, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Extra Yorkshire
I have found a reference to the manor and soke of Gayton (Gayton le Wold) in Lindsey, Lincolnshire, comprising also Grimoldsby, Manby, and three Saltfleebys, as being a parcel of the Honour of Richmond Fee. This looks like it could be a demesme of the Honour of Richmond outside Yorkshire. The article here doesn't mention any extra lands beyond Yorkshire, so I'm wondering if there are any other examples of this elsewhere, or whether or not it is just a single isolated example. Acabashi (talk) 00:10, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Lady Margaret Beaufort Tudor, 'Countess of Richmond' and 'Countess of Derby'
Hello, I was looking for information on the location of Richmond, and happened to realize on the Wikipedia page for the Honour of Richmond that Lady Margaret Beaufort Tudor was missing. When she married Edmund Tudor, of Hadham, he was only 'Earl of Richmond' for a short period then after his death Margaret held the title, passing this to her son Henry VII, Tudor who became 'King of England'. I was looking for the where of the transfer of the title of the Honour of Richmond came to Edmund Tudor from the Nevilles, but could not discern that so I was not sure if he came to the marriage with the title of Earl of Richmond or if it was Margarets through her father or mother.

Several lines were entered for Ralph Neville and the dates overlap the period of time Margaret, Edmund and Henry were holding these titles and the Castle.

I did not see where the 'reverting to the crown' to place where Henry VII Tudor relinquished the Honour of Richmond to Edward IV.Jodi Rae (talk) 02:42, 6 May 2022 (UTC)Jodi Rae

'sometime from after the Domesday Book of 1068 to just after the earls death in 1071'
Something has become garbled here date-wise! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faust.TSFL (talk • contribs) 18:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)