Talk:Mary de Bohun

Untitled
Sorry, but the picture is not Mary de Bohun. It's just an illustration from her Prayer Book, showing Abigail, the wife of King David... That's why she's kneeling in front of a group of soldiers ("Abigail attempted to stop David from taking revenge against Nabal", her first husband)... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.226.245.146 (talk) 13:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Monmouth
Ever since its first version in 2003 this article has said that Monmouth was "one of her father's possessions". Was it, though? I would have expected it to be one of her husband's possessions, inherited via his mother Blanche of Lancaster from his maternal grandfather Henry of Grosmont, 1st Duke of Lancaster, who is said to have partly rebuilt the castle. I haven't yet found confirmation online. Does anyone have a source? And rew D alby 20:33, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * According to Keith Kissack (The Lordship, Parish and Borough of Monmouth, p.68): "When Henry of Grosmont died he left his estates to his daughters, Maud of Bavaria, who received Monmouth, and Blanche, who had married John of Gaunt at the age of 12. Maud returned from abroad to take up her inheritance, but died on Palm Sunday in 1362 leaving her inheritance to John of Gaunt...... Blanche, like her sister, died young and on her death her great fortune passed to her husband who had been created Duke of Lancaster.... Blanche bore one son before she died, Henry Bolingbroke, earl of Derby.  In 1381 he married Mary de Bohun, joint heiress of the Earl of Hereford.  She inherited in 1384 and three years later gave birth in Monmouth Castle to the future Henry V.".  So, yes, it was one of Henry Bolingbroke's possessions, not that of her father. I'll correct it.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:36, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

this also showsher being crown queen postomusley
This is was painted during Henry IV Regin just shortly after he begin his regin and became king it also celebrates everything in her life and also shows her being crown queen by Henry IV and parliament postomusley in the painting it was also mass produced and the painting was second Edition adiition which added things. when he became king showing the crowning. Showing he made her queen postomusley.
 * Please stop adding unsourced assertions to this article, and if you do continue to contribute, please be more careful with grammar, spelling, and punctuation. Eric talk 22:19, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mary de Bohun. 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://web.archive.org/web/20070621173315/http://humanities.uwe.ac.uk/swhisnet/2005abstracts.doc to http://humanities.uwe.ac.uk/swhisnet/2005abstracts.doc

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) 12:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Unreliable sources
Is there any generally accepted advice regarding physical books printed with ISBN numbers by established publishers that are nevertheless regarded as 'unreliable'? I've been editing other Wikipedia articles to add references to books such as "Brewer's British Royalty" by David Williamson and "Britain's Royal Families: The Complete Genealogy" by Alison Weir, so I'm distressed to read in the history of this article that I may have been doing the wrong thing because apparently they belong to a class of blacklisted sources. Are such books devalued because of specific instances of inaccuracies (such as Weir listing Joan as Richard of York's first child?) or because the authors are regarded as 'unqualified'? I can appreciate, for instance, that an e-book I bought for 99p (The Wars Of The Roses: A Captivating Guide To The English Civil Wars) is not a publication deserving to be referenced on Wikipedia: it even has a disclaimer saying it is 'for entertainment purposes only'. And similarly no-one would quote the popular fictional novelisations. But where do you draw the line? Are Williamson and Weir's books also 'for entertainment purposes only'? MSOrschel (talk) 09:29, 14 February 2019 (UTC)