Talk:Lionel of Antwerp, Duke of Clarence

Representing his father where?
Wasn't Lionel his father representative in Ireland not England? GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Written from a Modern perspective that holds no historical value.
Belgium didn't exist back then (as his place of birth should state Brabant, and then the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation), and Brabant wasn't flemish, that's a modern term for what we today call Belgophone (Dutch-Speaking) Belgium, it's like writing about someone from Utrecht and claiming he was from Holland (a Hollander/Holandic), or stating that a Scotsman is English because it belongs to the United Kingdom of Great-Britain & Northern-Ireland, I suggest that Flemish and Belgian be replaced with Brabantic, and that the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation be added where it belongs. --1.55.1.245 (talk) 02:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

stature
I don't care if it's referenced, the assertion about Lionel Of Antwerp's stature is highly questionable. Perhaps it would be more accurate to state that "it has been suggested that ... " or "such and such a source has stated that ..." rather than stating plainly that he "grew to be nearly seven feet in height". If anyone has measured his skeleton and can verify this assertion then fair enough, but otherwise it is certainly subject to doubt! The text to me reads like something out of a primary school children's book. John2o2o2o (talk) 21:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Please see the essay, Verifiability, not truth. Peaceray (talk) 20:39, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Title
As Lionel is a Royal Duke, son of Edward III, shouldn't his title be simply Lionel of Antwerp, Duke of Clarence? The 1st in his title suggests he is non-royal.

For example: Prince George, Duke of Kent, son of George V; as distinct from John Howard, 1st Duke of Norfolk, a non-royal duke.

Agreed. I have never seen him referred to as "1st" Duke. For those of you who need a book (you know who you are Wikipedants), Alison Weir in her book on the genealogy of Britains Royal families (called Britains Royal Families) refers to him on p95/96 as "Duke of Clarence" with no number. John2o2o2o (talk) 21:21, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * What, do you folks have a problem with Lionel of Antwerp, 1st Duke of Clarence, Thomas of Lancaster, 1st Duke of Clarence, & George Plantagenet, 1st Duke of Clarence all being the 1st Duke of Clarence?


 * I find it terribly confusing myself, but I do think that it bears more research to determine what the contemporary & historical designations were & are.


 * Peaceray (talk) 21:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

More source material at Wikisource:Lionel of Antwerp (DNB00)
There is a lot more material in wikisource:Lionel of Antwerp (DNB00) than can be incorporated into this article. Peaceray (talk) 20:42, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Death date
This is a bit confusing since the 1911 Britannica gives it at 7th Oct, as does the 1893 DNB link. I don't have easy access to the modern ODNB link. However, "A collection of all the wills, now known to be extant, of the kings and queens of England, princes and princesses of Wales, and every branch of the blood royal, from the reign of William the Conqueror to that of Henry the Seventh exclusive : with explanatory notes, and a glossary" gives it as the 17th, "having made this will not a fortnight earlier". So I think the 17th is probably correct. http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/ENGLAND,%20Kings%201066-1603.htm#Lioneldied1368 also gives it as the 17th. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I've got a friend to check the ODNB and it also gives the 17th. Pinkbeast (talk) 15:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)