Talk:Lady Margaret Beaufort

Untitled
Can anyone tell me why images that are placed on the right of the page are overwriting the text in my browser? I don't believe I can be the only person experiencing this problem.Deb


 * I'm not having this ptoblem on this article, but it has happened to me on other articles. I'd say it was because the text and image can't both fit on the screen at once, but that's why we have things like word wrap and horizontal scrollbars. — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 13:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Descent from John of Gaunt and Katherine Swynford
"though every monarch since Henry VII is their descendant." Actually that is every monarch since Edward IV of England. He was son to Cecily Neville, grandson to Joan Beaufort, great-grandson to John of Gaunt and Katherine Swynford. User:Dimadick
 * I think the above statement in the article is somewhat obvious and shallow since Edward IV and his father were, more importantly, (in law anyway) descended from a more senior line of John's elder brother Lionel of Antwerp and so was also Henry VIII and all the other subsequent monarchs (only Henry VII was not). The line of John of Gaunt already led through his son Henry IV of England. I propose to remove this line.--Muzhank (talk) 21:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree--Tigranis (talk) 10:02, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

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


 * I think she was something like 13 when her son (later Henry VII) was born. Granted, this isn't a date of marriage, and I'm not certain I'm right, but it would probably help detirmine a ballpark figure. — AnnaKucsma   (Talk to me!) 18:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

There are conflicting opinions on the marriage date, some people think it was in early May 1455, however Elizabeth Norton thinks it was after her 12th Birthday (31 May 1855), and yet others think it was as late as 1 Nov 1455 Tbirduk (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Dates of Birth & Death (my edit)
The original text for the parentetical dats read, "born May 31, 1443 at the Kingston Lacy estate in Dorset – June 29, 1509." I changed to the present version (only the dates). This is a little more "standard" and much more easily readable. — AnnaKucsma  (Talk to me!) 21:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

St John's College, Cambridge
The Margaret Beaufort article says she founded St John's College. However, the College article says there was no mention of it in her will - although the foundation was suggested by her chaplain. Would it be better to amend this article to match the St John's college article? Thewiltog 11:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The "Margaret R" discussion
quoth the article:

''Margaret sometimes signed herself Margaret R, the form of signature used by English queens regnant to indicate the title "Regina," the feminine form of "Rex." This referenced Margaret's own potential claim to the English throne, which would have had precedence over her son's claim, though she never asserted it. Had she successfully done so, she would have been a queen regnant — ruling in her own right, not through marriage — and entitled her to sign documents with the suffix "Regina."''

Can we get a source on whether anyone thinks this is actually some kind of assertion of queenship, rather than what looks like speculation? It's kind of hard to argue that she's asserting her rights as queen because she's signing like English queens regnant do, because at this point there hadn't been any English queens regnant. Even Maude had only use the title "Lady of the English." --Jfruh (talk) 01:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I think it is indeed speculation and there is an alternative theory that Margaret R was for Margaret (of) R(ichmond). I would also ask if anyone can provide a source confirming the theory published here that she acted as Regent? I have never seen a list of English Regents that include her, Henry was proclaimed King at the Windsor Garter meeting of 23 April 1509 with no mention of a regency and it appears Margaret was in very poor health as she drew up her will before Henry VIII's coronation. Tbirduk (talk) 16:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Portrait of Thomas, Lord Stanley
Should this be included, as it's not remotely authentic? It's definitely of a late 16C man, from the style of the clothes and beard. There is a more authentic, if damaged, tomb effigy. Silverwhistle (talk) 22:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Please improve the article if you can. If there is a better image of him, feel free to replace the current one. Surtsicna (talk) 13:22, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Relation between Margaret and John de la Pole?
Papal dispensation was granted on 18 August 1450 because the spouses were too closely related.

What is the blood relationship between them? Failed to find it out.Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 15:08, 3 April 2011 (UTC)


 * John de la Pole's mother was Alice Chaucer. Her grandmother was Phillipa de Roet, sister of Katherine Swynford (nee de Roet) . This would make Margaret and John 3rd cousins, sharing great-great-grandparents. 69.42.34.188 (talk) 02:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)HistoryLunatic


 * That makes them first cousins thrice removed, which is against the historical laws of consanguity. Third cousins would have been acceptable under Canon Law, as that would be the grandchild of first cousin, with only one line of connection, whereas first cousins have two automatically.Moonraker55 (talk) 23:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Many people who don't work with genealogy often get this confused. If your great-grandparent was 1st cousin to someone then your grandparent would be 1st cousin once removed, your parent would be 1st cousin twice removed, and you would be first cousin thrice removed. (For an example within the modern Royal Family, Prince George of Cambridge would be first cousin thrice removed of any of Queen Elizabeth II's first cousins.)


 * Canon law of the time prohibited marriage within the 4th degree of consanguinity. Siblings would be 1st degree, 1st cousins would be 2nd degree, 2nd cousins would be 3rd degree, and 3rd cousins would be 4th degree.  (This is not the only relationship to qualify for 3rd degree consanguinity, but it is the relationship pertinent here.)  The children of the de Roet sisters are 1st cousins, their children would be 2nd cousins, and their children would be 3rd cousins.  This is the case with Margaret Beaufort and John de la Pole.


 * Another example of these relationships and Canon law: Catherine of Aragon was 3rd cousin to Henry VII of England. This made her the 3rd cousin once removed of Henry's son Prince Arthur of Wales; thus, Catherine and Arthur did not require a Papal dispensation for marriage as they were 1 step outside the forbidden degree, though they did get a dispensation when betrothed against the possibility that they would marry before the age of consent.  History Lunatic (talk) 14:57, 6 April 2014 (UTC)History Lunatic

Page move
I moved this page to make the title consistent with the articles on Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Stafford and Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Devon. Richard75 (talk) 21:24, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * She wasn't the 'Countess of Richmond and Derby'. Articles should be at the common name where possible. See Article titles. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:46, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The ODNB title is 'Beaufort, Margaret [known as Lady Margaret Beaufort], countess of Richmond and Derby', so her common name was Lady Margaret Beaufort, but she was also Countess of Richmond and Derby. One of the 5 characteristics of a good article title in Article titles is precision: "The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects." Both the Countess of Stafford and the Countess of Devon are linked to from other pages in Wikipedia by the text 'Lady Margaret Beaufort' - for instance, the Spouse(s) field in the infobox for Humphrey Stafford, Earl of Stafford (and perhaps these references should be clarified too!) - so it would be ambiguous for just one of the 3 ladies to be called THE Lady Margaret Beaufort. MSOrschel (talk) 21:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , this page move is controversial and should have been discussed. Deb (talk) 23:08, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
 * sorry, yes of course discussion is always good... I see though that Margaret styled herself Countess of Richmond and Derby, so moving the page back to the title it had had between 2012 and 2018 isn't unreasonable. Cokayne, Collins and others call her such, and thousands of Google search results indicate it's a style she's very well recognised by. Her will begins [sic] "In the name of ALMIGHTY GOD, Amen. We Margarete Countes of Richmond and Derby, Moder to the most excellent Prince King Henry the VIIth..." MSOrschel (talk) 20:42, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

File:Lady Margaret Beaufort from NPG.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Lady Margaret Beaufort from NPG.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on August 22, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-08-22. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! — howcheng  {chat} 00:44, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Death
I think that this section is clumsily written: "She is buried in the Henry VII Lady Chapel of the Abbey, in a black marble tomb topped with a bronze gilded effigy and canopy, between the graves of William and Mary and the tomb of Mary, Queen of Scots." It would be more accurate to say: "She is buried in the Henry VII Lady Chapel of the Abbey, in a black marble tomb topped with a bronze gilded effigy and canopy, and can today be found between the graves of William and Mary and the tomb of Mary, Queen of Scots." Clearly she was not buried between those people since Mary, Queen of Scots was Margaret Beaufort's great-great granddaughter and was buried a considerable time later, and William and Mary even later still!. They may be said to have been buried near to Margaret Beaufort, as she was already in her grave.Moonraker55 (talk) 22:59, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Marriage to Sir Henry Stafford (c.1425-1471)
Wikipedia should create a page to "Sir Henry Stafford (c.1425-1471). The page should indlude the following history and reference, and should be used in the false hyperlink listed for Henry Stafford in the section "Third Marriage":  http://www.bucks-retinue.org.uk/content/view/302/330/

Lord Henry Stafford (c.1425-1471)

Second Son to Henry Stafford, 1st Duke of Buckingham

Henry married the 15 year old Margaret Beaufort (1443-1509) on 3 January 1458 at Maxstoke Castle, Margaret was the daughter of John Beaufort, 1st Duke of Somerset (killed at St Albans in 1455), widow of Edmund Tudor (killed at Mortimer’s Cross in 1460) and mother to the infant Henry Tudor, later Henry VII. Household accounts and personal letters indicate that the marriage was a happy one with the couple rarely apart and unusually for the period they always celebrated their wedding anniversary. They lived initially at Bourne Castle in Lincolnshire.

Henry fought at the Battle of Towton on the Lancastrian side but survived and was later pardoned by Edward IV on 25 June 1461.

Shortly afterwards, Edward IV purchased Henry Tudor’s wardship for £1000.00 and placed him in the Household of William Herbert, Earl of Pembroke, a staunch Yorkist.

In 1466, and to celebrate the marriage of Henry Stafford, 2nd Duke of Buckingham to the Queen’s sister, Edward IV presented Henry and Margaret with Woking Old Hall, a palatial house in Surrey which became their principle residence. His brother John, with whom he remained close, was a regular visitor at Woking Old Hall “to hunt and play cards”. Their staff included fifty servants, many of them “gentle born” including their Receiver-General Reginald Bray (d.1503) who went on to fight for Henry Tudor at Bosworth in 1485.

In May 1467 Henry was summoned to attend the Royal Council at Mortlake Palace and in May 1468 Henry and Margaret were again in London, staying at the Mitre Inn in Cheapside to hear the Kings public announcement of his intention to invade France, an invasion that was subsequently postponed until 1475.

In 1468 he attended Lord Scales at the Grand Tournament against the Bastard of Burgundy along with his young nephew, Henry, Duke of Buckingham.

On 20 December 1468 later Edward IV paid the couple the ultimate compliment of visiting Old Woking Hall to attend a hunt and afterwards dined with them at their hunting lodge at Brookwood. Household Accounts show that they ate in a tent of purple sarsenet serenaded by the royal minstrels. Conger eel, lamprey and 700 oysters were served off a pewter dinner service bought specially for the occasion

Although unwell, Henry is believed to have suffered from the skin disease “St Anthony’s Fire”, erysipelas (believed at the time to be a form of leprosy), he was with Edward IV on 12 March 1470 at the Battle of Losecoat Field where the rebel forces of Sir Robert, Lord Wells (Margaret Beaufort’s stepbrother) were defeated. Papers found on the battle provided clear evidence at to Warwick and Clarence’s involvement in the Lanacastrian uprising and Henry rode with the King throughout April during the pursuit of Warwick and Clarence which culminated in their flight to Calais. Shortly afterwards Henry visited Maxley to advise Margaret’s mother, Lady Wells, the news of her son’s execution.

In September 1470, Warwick and Clarence were once more on English soil. Edward, caught out by the speed of their invasion, was forced to flee into exile. Henry Stafford though initially arrested was released shortly afterwards following petition from his wife. On 27 October, Henry, Margaret, Henry Tudor and his uncle, Jasper attended the redemption of Henry VII at Westminster and dined at the palace. Margaret suddenly found herself part of the Royal Family and henceforth she would dedicate herself to the Lancastrian cause and the enhancement of her son, Henry Tudor.

On 24 March, the Duke of Somerset visited Henry and Margaret, his first cousin, at Woking Old Hall in an attempt to persuade Henry to join the Lancastrian army being mustered to defend against Edward’s inevitable return. Henry was in no mood to commit and subsequently sent retainers to Somerset’s headquarters, with instruction to discuss matters for as long as possible and delay the issue.

However on April 12 he was in London to greet Edward on his triumphant entry into the city and had by then made up his mind to join him, accompanied by the Steward of his Household, John Gilpyn, and other retainers. He was so unprepared for campaign that not only was his harness incomplete, having to send for the chain mail gussets that protected the vulnerable joints; he also had to purchase a horse for Gilypn. Mindful of his narrow escape from Towton he ordered ten of his men to wait for him at Kingston-upon-Thames to ensure, that should things go badly, he was assured of being able to cross Kingston Bridge in a hurry.

Although choosing the winning side, Henry was so badly wounded at Barnet that he never recovered and died in his bed on 14 October 1471. In his will he bequeathed thirty shillings to the Parish Church at Old Woking, a set of velvet horse trappings to his stepson, Henry Tudor, a bay courser to his brother, the Earl of Wiltshire, another horse to his receiver-general, Reginald Bray and £160 for a chantry priest to sing Masses for the repose of his soul. The rest of his estate went to “my beloved Margaret”.

John Gilpyn also survived Barnet and continued serving at Woking Old Hall until his death in 1500. Many other Stafford retainers, including John and Richard Harper and John Kymer, also remained loyal to Margaret. John Kymer and John Harper both were involved in the Exeter rising in support of the 1483 rebellion (see 2nd Duke of Buckingham) and both later went on to fight under Sir Reginald Bray at Bosworth in 1485.

Margaret Beaufort’, whose son was now the only surviving Lancastrian claimant to the throne, sent her son into exile in France and in 1472 she married Thomas, Lord Stanley.

reference: http://www.bucks-retinue.org.uk/content/view/302/330/ 153.31.113.27 (talk) 15:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)Dan Kerns153.31.113.27 (talk) 15:02, 19 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the work you have done on this. Like you, I was sad to find a red link on the name of this interesting man, having seen the portrayal of him on television by Michael Maloney. If I can find the time in the next few weeks, I could take this material and incorporate it into a new article, adding plenty of blue links. If I do, I shall have to be careful to distinguish between the various Henry Staffords and Margaret Beauforts!


 * Of course, if there is someone else out there who would like to do this, please do not worry about treading on my toes. My health is not good and I may take a while to get round to it.


 * LynwoodF (talk) 17:01, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Pronunciation of surname
The pronunciation of the surname is given as:


 * (Br [ˈbɛʊfɨt] )

I tried to pronounce this as shown and it sounded like the way posh people talked when I was a lad. I notice that the dictionary referred to is nearly as old as I am, and so I thought I would substitute a pronunciation in current RP.

LynwoodF (talk) 16:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there can be one correct pronunciation. Byew-fet/byou-fet (as close as I can get) is so rarely used nowadays. With the White Queen TV series being on, there have been a lot of documentaries about the Tudor period on the BBC, and she is universally called Beau/Bow-fert. A 70 year old American dictionary is probably not the best source for such a thing. Historically we have no way to prove how she pronounced it (she probably never used it anyway, as she would have taken her surname from her father's and then her own titles, rather than a family name). I'm not saying its "wrong", but I think its wrong to present it as a singular correct pronunciation. I've added both pronunciations and converted them to the IPA pronunciation thing that wikipedia likes.

--Rushton2010 (talk) 19:49, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with the general thrust of what you are saying and I was in two minds whether to give the "Byew-" pronunciation as an alternative. However, it is so rare that I decided not to bother with it. I am not keen on the way WP wants me to spell English in IPA, so I go my own way, following what Oxford says, but I am not going to undo your good work. I just felt that the pronunciation given was so ridiculous to the modern ear that I must change it.


 * LynwoodF (talk) 21:04, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Incidentally, where did you get the "-fet" pronunciation from? As far as I am aware, the alternation in current RP is between /bəʊfət/ and /bjuːfət/.


 * LynwoodF (talk) 10:10, 18 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry its as close as I could get I could get it at the time. Its a tricky one to spell out using either English or the IPA because its basically non-standard pronunciation. Fet and Fert are too long because the "eh"/"er" is too pronounced -it should be a short and minor sound. Its closer to a short "foot" ("FT") or "FUT" Bow-Fut Byew-Fut. The "BYEW" doesn't quite get the singular sound of that first syllable either. Feel free to fiddle, but I don't think there's anyway to get it perfect. --Rushton2010 (talk) 18:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the above. My problem with WP's pronunciation scheme is that it is a compromise which attempts to accommodate all the major varieties of English. I prefer the Oxford attitude; they give separate British and US pronunciations. That said, I propose to bring the whole thing in line with the WP scheme. In particular, as the second syllable is unstressed, we need to bring the schwa symbol into play in both the IPA and respelt versions.


 * LynwoodF (talk) 22:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

A note on Philippa Gregory
Okay, she has a degree in history but her Ph.D is in 18th century literature, which is in no way relevant to the content of her historical novels, so referring to her as "Dr" Philippa Gregory in this article is in no way indicative of specialist knowledge or research on the subject. In her TV documentary series "The Real White Queen and her Rivals", she presents certain facts but also adds her own interpretation of them, eg. referring to Margaret Beaufort as "cunning" is not a fact, it is simply her opinion based on such facts as she knows. Likewise, her suggestion that Beaufort was responsible for the deaths of the Princes in the Tower, whilst a valid theory, is not a fact, nor did she present it as such in the documentary.

Gregory's novels are fiction, and as such are not valid references for this or any other article on history, except in the "Popular Culture" section. They are simply one individual's interpretation of the known facts (which are few) and are deliberately embroidered on for the purposes of making her novels more interesting to the reader. I would suggest that anyone who comes here thinking they know what happened because they have read the novels (which I enjoyed) or watched the TV series (which I also enjoyed) are on the wrong track. Those who have watched the documentary are better-equipped to recognise the difference between fact and fiction but should also recognise that Gregory does not claim to be correct in every detail of her interpretation: she simply says "I believe" that this is what happened.Deb (talk) 09:11, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't confuse where the information came from. NONE of the information came from or has been referenced to a fictions novel. The information added came from a BBC documentary; a reputable and reliable source. The BBC aren't in the habit of pouring out un-researched historical documentaries after all. You also over-egg the influence of Gregory. The documentary is one of a number that have been on in the recent period to coincide with the White Queen TV series. The documentary in question featured a number of historians and was very clear between what was their "opinion" and historical fact. Margaret Beaufort is named a suspect in the princes in the tower mystery in many places. for example. The article did not state she was guilty of the murders; just that she is regarded suspect. She had access to the tower (as many other nobles did; not least when their husband's controlled access.). Access to the tower is a very different thing to access to the princes; hence why the article should state she had access to the tower and not to the boys. Another fact verified in the documentary.

--Rushton2010 (talk) 18:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC)


 * The article by Baldwin which you cite was written to coincide with the showing of the documentary, not, as you imply, one of "many places" where she is suggested as a suspect. Baldwin himself is such an eminent historian he doesn't even have his own wikipedia article.  As to the BBC not being in the habit of pouring out un-researched historical documentaries, I'm afraid their standards are not high, particularly when it comes to anything relating to women or involving the bedroom habits of the monarchy.  Naturally, this is my own judgement and I cannot make use of that to disprove anything that was said, but there were certainly factual errors.  Moreover, statements like "Anne made a calculated, hard-headed decision" are so subjective that they would never be allowed in a wikipedia article except in quotation marks as something that Philippa Gregory said, which most historians would find debatable at the very least, yet this was made to sound like a known fact.  Amy License, another eminent historian, made similarly sweeping statements that were not backed up. Deb (talk) 19:40, 18 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Outside of 'X in the media', why would we want to use anything else than reputable academic historians for history articles? And any sweeping statements about the personality of a historical character absolutely have to be attributed and if there are other views those need inclusion. Deb, not having an article isn't that important (although no article and no mention in other reliable sources would be, but I don't think that's the case here) Dougweller (talk) 14:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, David Baldwin (historian) does now have an article, and rather a good one, written by none other than User:Rushton2010! Deb (talk) 14:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Richmond and Derby. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20121208155920/http://link.library.utoronto.ca/reed/patron.cfm?PeopleListID=652 to http://link.library.utoronto.ca/reed/patron.cfm?PeopleListID=652

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:58, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Heraldry
Do we know Margaret's coat of arms. I assume she would have used the arms of the Duke of Somerset impaled with those of her various husbands. Robin S. Taylor (talk) 21:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Style in Later Life
Is there evidence for her being called "My Lady the King's Grandmother" in her final weeks? Robin S. Taylor (talk) 19:09, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 4 March 2019

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) B dash (talk) 13:49, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Richmond and Derby → Lady Margaret Beaufort – It's the common name and very clear primary topic, as proven by web searches, examining any books on the topic, all the citations in the article, and |Margaret_Beaufort,_Countess_of_Devon|Margaret_Beaufort,_Countess_of_Stafford|Margaret_Beaufort,_Countess_of_Somerset page views. Current title is deprecated by Naming conventions (royalty and nobility), which says using a maiden name with married titles is an 'anachronism' and 'honorific prefixes such as Lord or Lady... should be included in the article title if the person is far better recognised with the title than without'. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:29, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - not an easy one to call, but I agree with CH's reasoning. Deb (talk) 12:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Support but Oppose "Lady" as a prefix, courtesy titles should be avoided, and is pretty obviously ambiguous with the two other Lady Margaret Beauforts on the DAB page. The current title is correct, and was her name in her lifetime.
 * I would support Margaret Beaufort, matriarch of the House of Tudor, which has plenty of support in the literature, and far better reflects her significance. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:24, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I understand why you oppose "Lady", but you should note that it is specifically allowed under Naming_conventions_(royalty_and_nobility) where appropriate, e.g. "if the person is far better recognised with the title than without". Deb (talk) 13:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, allowed, usually avoided, and I don’t think “far better” applies to this case. If in the context of Tudor, she is immediately recognised as Margaret Beaufort, and if not in context, there are three Lady Margaret Beauforts, and out of context, the best help in recognizability is to include “Tudor”, and my suggestion comes from what many do.  Literature, books, the article lede already. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:03, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The only place I've ever seen the phrase "Margaret Beaufort, matriarch of the House of Tudor" is in a single book title, and I've never seen "matriarch" in the title of an article about a person.Deb (talk) 14:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, looking again, I guess I was over-influenced by the term in the lede, and many ghits all derived from the one book. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:35, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Still oppose "Lady Margaret Beaufort". There is something wrong with using Lady, but not Countess.  She was Countess in her own right, until she lost it, to her husband.  This "Lady" prefix is quite complicated.  She does not appear to be known as "Lady Margaret" once she was the king's mother.
 * If she is PRIMARTOPIC for "Lady Margaret Beaufort", she is PRIMARYTOPIC for "Margaret Beaufort". No need for the complicated "Lady"
 * If not PRIMARYTOPIC, I suggest considering Margaret Beaufort (Tudor matriarch). I think there is no doubt that the epitaph "matriarch" applies, from the time when she supported her son's claim to the throne over her own and negotiated his marriage, to her death.
 * Repeat that the current title is OK, but I think both Margaret Beaufort and Margaret Beaufort (Tudor matriarch) are both better. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:35, 4 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support How she is usually called - COMMONNAME trumps the counter-arguments, and the other ones are far more obscure. Johnbod (talk) 14:37, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I reluctantly oppose. The word "Lady" does not do anything to disambiguate this person from her namesakes, while the comital title does. At the same time, the comital title does nothing to diminish the prominence of her first name and her last name. I have seen no indication that she ever changed her last name. Was that even a custom at that time? ODNB names the article about her Beaufort, Margaret (known as Lady Margaret Beaufort), countess of Richmond and Derby. Britannica calls her just Margaret Beaufort. Surtsicna (talk) 09:55, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Good point! There seems to be little definitive about this on the internet, but Christof Rolker's paper 'Me, myself and my name: Naming and identity in the late Middle Ages' suggests it would have been a personal choice for a married English woman in the Middle Ages either to continue to use her maiden name or to adopt the family name of her husband. She could use one name in one context and the other name in a different context; the law apparently didn't mind what name she called herself because her legal identity was not as an individual in her own right but as the wife of her husband. So we cannot assume Margaret Beaufort ever became Margaret de la Pole, Margaret Tudor, Margaret Stafford or Margaret Stanley. It follows that it is not anachronistic to use a maiden name with a married title (at least for a married English woman in the Middle Ages), so there is nothing inherently wrong with calling her "Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Richmond and Derby" - just as historians do (e.g. Halsted, Cooper, Domvile, Routh, Jones, Underwood) MSOrschel (talk) 20:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Simple "Margaret Beaufort" would do for me, but I think a close examination of the mentions of her in sources - including academic works - would conclude that she is more often known as "Lady Margaret Beaufort".Deb (talk) 10:01, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * And the ODNB title can be interpreted to that effect as well. Hence my reluctance. Can we get a close examination? Surtsicna (talk) 10:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Some name changing is discussed at Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Richmond and Derby, “M. Richmond for years, since the 1460s. In 1499, she changed her signature to Margaret R.“ Before becoming King, her son was called Richmond.  Her tomb names her Countess of Richmond, no mention of Derby.   —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:04, 5 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support. Common name. Lady Margaret Beaufort already redirects here and the disambiguation page can be linked with a hatnote. We do use "Lady" as part of the article title for daughters of earls, dukes and marquesses if they are commonly known using their title. See WP:NCPEER #5. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Disambiguation is an important point! "Margaret Beaufort" takes you to the disambiguation page and - in my opinion - "Lady Margaret Beaufort" should also take you to disambiguation. But it redirects here instead because it's a former title of this article - whose history says it was actually named "Margaret Beaufort" from its creation in 2002 till 30 September 2006 when it was first renamed (possibly in anticipation of the forthcoming articles on "Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Stafford" and "Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Devon"?) It was then titled "Lady Margaret Beaufort" (30 September 2006 - 22 January 2012), "Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Richmond and Derby" (22 January 2012 - 1 September 2018), then back to "Lady Margaret Beaufort" (1 September 2018 - 1 March 2019). If Lady Stafford or Lady Devon had had their article created first, before Countess Richmond's, then who knows? MSOrschel (talk) 17:48, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Out of interest, regarding honorific prefixes that "should be included in the article title if the person is far better recognised with the [courtesy title] than without", are there some examples to hand of countesses whose article names begin "Lady"? MSOrschel (talk) 17:48, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * We have policies on how disambiguation works with "ambiguous" titles. You need to read them and address the relative views in terms of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. This Lady Margaret gets colossal views, averaging over 1,000 views per day since 2015. The others just get handfulls in comparison, 74 avge pd for Stafford, 27 pd for Devon. That line of argument doesn't work. SmokeyJoe and Surtsicna should also consider why WP:PRIMARYTOPIC should be ignored here. Johnbod (talk) 17:57, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Johnbod, why should I do what? I do not agree that either COMMONNAME nor Primarytopic gives preference to Lady Margaret Beaufort over Margaret Beaufort. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:25, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Johnbod, I am opposing Lady Margaret Beaufort in favour of Margaret Beaufort. Google ngram is not a slam dunk, but why include "Lady" when it is not needed, and it omitted more than included?  I don't see this as a COMMONNAME or PRIMARYTOPIC issue.  I think you are challenging the notion of disambiguating from the other two LMBs.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:55, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, why on earth not? This Lady M gets 10 times more views than the others, & there are ghits at the top which are equally conclusive. I'm on page 3 of this search before there's anything referring to one of the others. Johnbod (talk) 20:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't we regularly set aside WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in favor of NCROY (according to which the present title is the correct one)? Isn't John Churchill, 1st Duke of Marlborough the best known John Churchill? Isn't Elizabeth I of England the best known (if not the only) Elizabeth I? When I suggested shortening such titles by removing unnecessary disambiguation, few people rushed to support the proposal. Surtsicna (talk) 22:42, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Johnbod, hopefully we're just talking at cross-purposes here :o) I'm not saying this page needs to be pedantically more precise, I'm saying that other pages would unfortunately become less precise because Lady Devon and Lady Stafford share the same common name - see Thomas Courtenay, 6th/14th Earl of Devon, Henry Stafford, 2nd Duke of Buckingham, and who knows how many others. The drawbacks of this rename - the impact of introducing ambiguity and doubt elsewhere - surely must be weighed against any benefits, by which I don't mean fulfilling procedures and guidelines but actually improving the user experience. (Of course each countess is properly referred to by her common name in context, and this Margaret is pre-eminent, but crowning her THE Lady Margaret Beaufort would mean rewrites are needed elsewhere, and the extent of the work required hasn't yet been established.) MSOrschel (talk) 09:10, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The articles Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Devon and Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Stafford are both marked ...but this one isn't. Is there a reason? MSOrschel (talk) 00:47, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The viewing statistics are illuminating. Most readers will probably not even be aware of the other Margaret Beauforts. Most will read this page now titled "Lady Margaret Beaufort" and think nothing of it. This is Margaret Beaufort, that woman we saw in The White Queen on the telly. Oh, the Princes in the Tower, yes, Margaret had a conversation with Buckingham - that bloke who was forced to marry a Woodville as a kid - who was he again...? Oh, right, Henry Stafford, 2nd Duke of Buckingham, whose mother was... Margaret Beaufort. Yes, Margaret was married to a Stafford. Ah, and Buckingham's father was Humphrey Stafford, Earl of Stafford, and Wikipedia clearly says his spouse was Lady Margaret Beaufort. That's cleared that one up then! MSOrschel (talk) 00:11, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes. Three Lady Margaret Beauforts, nearly co-temporary.  PRIMARYTOPIC is not a terrible thing, but sometimes there can be exceptions, sometimes PRECISE better serves the readers.  There is plenty of room in the reserved title space at the top of the document, so I think Margaret Beaufort (Tudor matriarch) should be seriously considered.  "Lady" is a red herring, they were all ladies.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:49, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The trouble is that "Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Richmond and Derby" won't be recognised by the vast majority of readers, as Lady Margaret Beaufort will be. So you are trying to trump both WP:COMMONNAME and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the very dubious WP:PRECISE. It doesn't work. Johnbod (talk) 04:09, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Whatever the merits of the common name policy, the fact that the Stafford brothers were both married to a Margaret Beaufort makes this a special case. MSOrschel (talk) 10:16, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Is it a requirement that an article title should be recognised by the vast majority of readers? Compare, for instance, Richard I of England. I doubt the vast majority of readers have ever heard him called that. MSOrschel (talk) 09:29, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Just for your benefit, see Talk:Richard_I_of_England/Archive_2. Deb (talk) 10:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Interesting and instructive, thanks! Academics may title the kings of England as being "of England" but - speaking personally as a British non-academic - I'd never come across this naming convention before the invention of the internet. And no king who was "first of that name" would have been known in his lifetime as "the first", surely? (Even William II of England wasn't known as William the second until after he was dead.) But, for me, consistency is neat and good even if the "common name" policy doesn't win the day. (Then again, William the Conqueror is a one-off who doesn't follow the pattern of all the other kings, as clearly that is his common name!) Similarly, isn't consistency among countesses equally good? Would Margaret be the one-off countess, the only one with an article title that doesn't match the general pattern Name Family, Countess of Place? If not, then naming some of those countesses might swing my vote. MSOrschel (talk) 15:48, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Lettice Knollys, Anne Woodville, Bess of Hardwick, Mary Sidney, Jamila M'Barek. Not that this really helps. Deb (talk) 16:17, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * It helps because you have taught some of us something we didn't know before, that a rename would not be setting a precedent. MSOrschel (talk) 22:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * What I meant was that there might be other factors in those cases. :-) Deb (talk) 09:12, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed :o) ...not least would be the consideration that they didn't have near-contemporaries with exactly the same common name, so weren't controversial?
 * Yes, it's one of the core points of Article titles. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:10, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Regarding the characteristic of Recognizability, I'd say "someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in" Margaret might know that she held dear the name of Richmond. MSOrschel (talk) 23:00, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree. If recognizably is the concern, if Margaret Beaufort is not good enough, the answer is either "Richmond" (her lifetime, she was Margaret Richmond) or "Tudor" (historical perspective, creator and matriarch of the house of Tudor), not "Lady".  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I like to think I know quite a lot about it, and I've never heard her called that before now. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:21, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Celia Homeford, you never heard her called Margaret Richmond? She signed her name M Richmond and Margaret R. Reviewing, I agree she was never called “Richmond and Derby”, and I support the move off that title (swapping the bold !vote).  I prefer to drop the “Lady” because I think it does nothing to help.  Many historically obscure and unimportant people were called Lady.
 * Forgive me, but that's a bit like saying Elizabeth I of England should be renamed "Elizabeth R". If you google on "Margaret Richmond", you only get one result for this article on the first page and none on the second. Deb (talk) 09:06, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * SmokeyJoe, as I say, she called  herself "Countess of Richmond and Derby" in her will, see above. (Way above! The threads in the discussion are so interwoven, we're probably missing replies within replies...) MSOrschel (talk) 09:19, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Regarding viewing statistics, the overwhelming majority of people looking for "Margaret Beaufort" want to view this page. If they search for her in Wikipedia, they won't be taken straight here unless they include the word "Lady". (Are there statistics available to compare the text people use in Wiki searches?) The disambiguation page lists this Margaret first (describing her as the mother of Henry VII) making her easy to find. (Additionally describing her there "Countess of Richmond and Derby" isn't going to throw them off the scent.) If they use a search engine instead, typically the first few pages of results exclusively list this Margaret, so she is still easy to find whatever the title of this article. Moreover, several search engines display an extract from this page including the first line of text and a picture. So, notwithstanding procedures and guidelines (and speaking forbearingly as those who know to those who genuinely don't), what are the benefits of renaming this article? MSOrschel (talk) 08:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
 * MSOrschel, you have now posted 9943 bytes to this thread, circling round the same points. Please stop WP:FILLIBUSTERing! Johnbod (talk) 13:33, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I feel I have to defend MSOrschel on this. Wikipedia's naming conventions have been discussed and changed many times in the past and I think this new user is just trying to get his head around it all. Deb (talk) 14:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure, but he can get his head round talk page conventions too, including Heckler's veto. And his first edit was over a year ago.  Johnbod (talk) 15:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Touché MSOrschel (talk) 13:24, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose : There are obvious drawbacks but no apparent benefits. Current name fits nobility naming conventions, not anachronistic in 15th C, not far better recognised with title than without; title used by M herself; common & primary yes, but equally true of namesakes; renaming introduces unnecessary ambiguity elsewhere. MSOrschel (talk) 08:45, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
 * This oppose vote doesn't make any logical sense. If she is 'not ... recognised with [the] title', then that is an argument for removing the title. If she is primary, which she is, then that cannot be 'equally true of namesakes'. Renaming introduces no ambiguity anywhere, whether at this article or elsewhere. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:26, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Sorry, my typo, attempting to be brief, while directly addressing your original proposal, weighing both points of view. This Margaret is primary (supports proposal), but all of them share the same common name (opposes proposal); unnecessary 'title' refers to both "Countess of Richmond and Derby" (supports) and "Lady" (opposes), so a balanced argument. Re evidence of 'current title is not deprecated' and 'ambiguity elsewhere' (the clincher) please see detailed comments above. These arguments are currently refuted only with statements of belief based on interpretations of procedures and guidelines, rather than proofs and examples. I'll stop now :o) MSOrschel (talk) 09:32, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * That still doesn't make sense. You seem to have misread the guidelines. If a subject is the primary topic, then common name only applies to the primary topic. Articles on secondary topics with the same common name are disambiguated. See Disambiguation: 'Although a word, name, or phrase may refer to more than one topic, sometimes one of these topics can be identified as the term's primary topic. This is the topic to which the term should lead, serving as the title of (or a redirect to) the relevant article.' Celia Homeford (talk) 14:06, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
 * My mistakes unfortunately undermine my message and distract from salient points, so let me speak one last time plainly in good faith. The critical argument for change is that the current article name is deprecated, but this not true. Using a maiden name with a married title is not anachronistic for women in England before the time of Henry VIII. Also, it is disputable to say Margaret is far better recognised with the title "Lady" than without. That leaves the common name and primary topic argument, with which the majority concur. As yet unchallenged counter-arguments include: (a) Margaret saw her Richmond title as central to who she was, for she included it in her signature and will. (b) Two Margaret Beauforts were cousins (who shared an aunt called Margaret Beaufort) and they married the Stafford brothers; the proposed change might exacerbate rather than ameliorate any unavoidable hesitation in understanding which is which. (c) The change has no apparent benefits, or none that can be explained in plain language. To prove good faith, I redact my vote and retire from the fray. But I must say it's a rum debate where participants vote before listening to both sides, and don't give novices the benefit of the doubt. "Sentence first - verdict afterwards" MSOrschel (talk) 20:53, 12 March 2019 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Meynnart Wewyck
The St John's College painting has now been pretty firmly re-attributed to this guy, previously just a name in court records, which means lopping nearly a century off its date, and makes it "the oldest large-scale portrait of an English woman". It now seems to be painted within a year after her death, and becomes very much the prime version of all the paintings. I've updated the article, but using it in the lead, rather than the poor copy now there, should be considered - it doesn't have to be in the infobox. Johnbod (talk) 03:51, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Painted a year after her death, in the first year of Henry VIII, I think it does very well illustrating the Legacy section.  Does this painting predate the sculpture on her tomb?  —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:14, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Vow of chastity
Why did married people take this?

Also, should it not be called `vow of celibacy'? More info needed. 2A00:23C7:E287:1900:CD8:C7E2:4F5B:5457 (talk) 00:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)


 * There was a recent New York Times article on Josephite marriage... AnonMoos (talk) 08:05, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Marriage to Humphrey, Duke of Buckingham
the Margaret Beaufort who married the Duke of Buckingham, was this Margaret's cousin, and moter of Henry, 2nd Duke of Buckingham, he of Buckinham's rebellion. This Margaret Beaufort, mother of Henryv11, married 3 times, 2nd to Henryvll, dad, and 3rd to Thomas Stanley, betrayor of Richard III at Bosworth. An interesting thought - if either or neither of these women had been born, would we be living in a Plantagenet England now? 82.69.4.43 (talk) 08:54, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think you have got this quite right. However, you are right that the Margaret Beaufort who was the mother of a Duke of Buckingham was not the subject of this article, but Margaret Beaufort, Countess of Stafford. Where you have gone wrong is to ignore this Margaret's third marriage to Sir Henry Stafford. The big problem with this period is that it has too many Margarets, Humphreys and Henrys, who had some complicated relationships! Btw Thomas Stanley was Margaret's fourth husband. LynwoodF (talk) 09:47, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Swynford?
I'm not a deep English history buff, but this caught my eye:

"She [Margaret Beaufort] was the daughter and sole heiress of John Beaufort, Duke of Somerset (1404–1444), a legitimised grandson of John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster (third surviving son of King Edward III), by his mistress Katherine Swynford, whom he married."

Now, her father was John Beaufort alright, but her mother was Margaret Beauchamp. Katherine Swynford (nee de Roelt)(1349-1403) was the wife of Duke John's grandfather, John of Gaunt.

later: OK, I see what the passage was trying to say. All the embellishment was appropos to John of Gaunt, not John Beaufort. I edited it anyway for clarity. SkoreKeep (talk) 07:45, 26 September 2023 (UTC)