Talk:Philippa, 5th Countess of Ulster

Philippa of Clarence
"Philippa of Clarence" gets 229 hits. "Philippa Plantagenet" gets 234 but some books actually refer to Philippa of Lancaster, who was also a Plantagenet. Thus, I propose referring to this woman as "Philippa of Clarence" - since that's unambigious and probably more common. Besides, the construction itself is quite common - from Elizabeth of York and Philippa of Lancaster to Beatrice of York. Furthermore, the 3rd Duke of York was the first person to use the surname "Plantagenet" so it's anachronistic to call his ancestress "Philippa Plantagenet". Surtsicna (talk) 12:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not overly fussed either way; i reverted the previous move because Plantagenet was the previous name and not only had there been no discussion, but she had actually been moved to it previously, and stayed there stably for some time. I quite like (of the three most obviously available titles) Philippa, Countess of Ulster, as it is clear and unambiguous ~ especially if her ordinal is put in, which i see i missed out just then.  As far as i'm concerned, saying that "Plantagenet" wasn't used then isn't really a good reason for us not to; it is clear, which is what we look for in article titles; calling it anachronistic is along the lines of saying  this article is misnamed because Chaucer didn't use the adjective. ;) Cheers, LindsayHi 13:54, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Then we might also call her "Philippa Mortimer", right? After all, she used "Plantagenet" as much as she used "Mortimer" and from this persepctive, it's appropriate to use her husband's surname. Anyway, I agree - "Philippa, 5th Countess of Ulster" is simple and recognisable. However, when neccessary, we can refer to her as "Philippa of Clarence". Surtsicna (talk) 14:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Well yes, we might, i suppose, if we found the majority of historians do! Anyway, as you say, we're in agreement, and i'm glad that Carlos made the original move i reverted, if we end up at this good point.  Thanks, and Cheers, LindsayHi 06:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Still feeling my way round here, did partially address Philippa's naming quandary in comment below. Just wanted to add that the use of *Plantagenet* as a surname did not come into use until nearly the very end of the dynasty.  The first member of the extended royal family recorded as utilizing it was Richard, Duke of York.  So only the last 2 Plantagenet kings, Edward IV & Richard III, even used a *last name*.  It's convenient for historians to categorize the dynastic period, not the people.
 * But it's improper, modern usage to identify any Plantagenet prior to the mid-1400s with that surname; there's just that small Wars of the Roses window where it was applied & only by the Yorkist branch. They're always *of* something, whether it's their birthplace (John of Gaunt) or a title bestowed upon them (Duke of Lancaster).  WIth Edward IIIs domestic policy of marrying so many of his offspring into the English nobility to basically buy baronial loyalty & prevent rebellions whilst he was off starting the Hundred Years' War, generations further away from him did end up with surnames as they further intermarried in the nobility.  There were exceptions with foreign alliances; Gaunt's second daughter Philippa of Lancaster became Queen of Portugal & his third daughter Catherine of Lancaster became Queen of Castile, whilst his granddaughter, also Philippa of Lancaster to make it more confusing, became Queen of Denmark.  But his first daughter, Elizabeth of Lancaster, married John Holland, Duke of Exeter, so her offspring took their father's last name, just as Philippa's children became Mortimers.
 * Immediate members of the royal family, just like today, generally do not use a last name. Philippa *may* have been referred to as *Philippa of Clarence* or *Philippa of Eltham* before she was married (honestly, I've never seen either used, though I haven't read everything, obvs), but it's a safe bet that, after her mother's death, she was referred to simply as *Lady Ulster*.  Being a countess in her own right took precedence over her husband's title of Earl of March, so she was probably rarely if ever referred to as *Lady March* after her marriage.  As long as there's some sort of disambiguation or redirect in place for all the *Philippa Plantagenets*, I concur that calling her *Philippa, 5th Countess of Ulster* is the correct way to go here.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScarletRibbons (talk • contribs) 06:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Re-Organizing Article
This wants re-organizing. Bold italics indicate copied from the existing article:

Philippa of Clarence (16 August 1355 – 5 January 1382) was the Countess of Ulster suo jure.

Philippa married Edmund Mortimer, 3rd Earl of March in about 1368 at Reading Abbey,[2] forging an alliance that would have far-reaching consequences in English history.

Those 2 sentences should comprise an *introduction*.

Also, Philippa was suo jure Countess of Ulster, not just because she married some guy who was the Earl of Ulster. Lionel held Elizabeth's honors & titles as jure uxoris only, to be passed along to their offspring. While women generally took rank from fathers or husbands, in this case, as a countess in her own right, she should be called *Philippa, 5th Countess of of Ulster*, not *Philippa of Clarence*. Not sure how stuff works here yet; is there as disambiguation or redirect in place for *Philippa Plantagenet*? Seeing as there were several of them & all.

Then move along to a sub-heading of *family*:

'Philippa was born in Eltham Palace, Kent, England on 16 August 1355. She was the daughter and only child of Lionel of Antwerp, 1st Duke of Clarence and Elizabeth de Burgh, 4th Countess of Ulster.[1] Her father was the second son of King Edward III of England and Philippa of Hainault.'

And her mother was.....? Chopped liver? Doesn't deserve a mention other than that of *womb used by royalty*?

Elizabeth de Burgh was more than *a Norman-Irish noblewoman* (as her page here states). She was a full member of the royal family. Her maternal grandfather, Henry of Lancaster (father of Elizabeth's mother, Maud of Lancaster), was the son of Edmund Crouchback, so Elizabeth was therefore *of* the ruling royal house as a great-grandchild of Henry III, & was treated as such from birth.

Elizabeth's maternal uncle was also Henry of Grosmont, 1st Duke of Lancaster, & her maternal aunts were married into the greatest houses of the land: the Percys of Northumberland, the FitzAlans of Arundel, the Mowbrays of Norfolk. Pedigrees were not just for show. They determined status.

Maud de Burgh had to flee Ireland with her infant daughter in arms after the murder of William de Burgh, & was given succour at the royal court. Elizabeth was raised in the royal nursery & married to Lionel at age 10. He was 5.

Maud then remarried Edward IIIs Justiciar of Ireland & returned there, leaving her daughter behind in England, coming back 3 yrs later after his demise with another infant daughter. The de Vere Oxford line descended from Elizabeth's half-sister, Maud de Ufford.

Elizabeth (age 30) died in Ireland when Philippa was 8, & was buried in Suffolk, where Lionel (age 29) joined her 5 yrs later (so did the 5th Earl of Mortimer, down the road) after his death in Italy. Philippa's marriage to Edmund Mortimer took place the same yr her father died; she was 13 & Edmund was 16.

Let's NOT go all medieval here & marginalize females by ignoring them entirely. All of this info is easily sourced & indeed most of it already HAS been in the articles on the male royals. I don't think it's too hard to expand a *family* section to give the article more meat.

Also, no mention of Philippa's stepmother?

BTW almost all pages with *ordinal number mention* for Edward IIIs sons have it wrong; Lionel of Antwerp is the 3rd son, John of Gaunt is the 4th son, etc, not 2nd, 3rd, etc. William of Hatfield, who died as a small child, came between Edward's eldest daughter Isabella & Lionel in birth order.

'During her own lifetime, Philippa was the heiress presumptive to her first cousin Richard II, and would be displaced in the succession by any children of the king. After her death in 1382, her rights passed on to her son, Roger Mortimer, 4th Earl of March. When Richard resigned his crown without issue on 29 September 1399, the rightful heir was Edmund Mortimer, 5th Earl of March, whose father Roger had died the previous year. However, the throne was usurped by Richard and Philippa's first cousin, Henry Bolingbroke, an event that later precipitated the Wars of the Roses. As a result of her seniority in the line of succession to the throne of the Kingdom of England and her marriage into the powerful Mortimer family, her descendants eventually succeeded to the throne as the House of York under Edward IV.'

That bit should be in a separate heading titled *claim to the throne* or whatever. Also in more than one paragraph, breaking at the natural point of *However*. There's also some awkwardness in reading that.

Succession by ANY children of the king? Really? Well, I guess that explains why Henry IV was so paranoid about the legitimacy given his Beaufort half-siblings by Richard II, then, doesn't it? (Henry inserted excepta dignitate regali at least a decade or so later.) Although it doesn't explain why Henry I fretted over the demise of his only legitimate son in the wreck of the White Ship, when he had 25 other kids to choose from./s

That needs to read *legitimate issue*, NOT *any children*. Yes, there ARE people who DO think it's *any* & that little niceties like unreversed attainders (as in the modern Aussie pretenders) really don't count what with all this usurping & illegitimacy going on in the royal family tree.

Richard II hardly *resigned*; he was forced to abdicate by his cousin of Bolingbroke. That makes it sound as if he just got bored with the whole thing & wanted to run off with some chick like Edward VIII did.

Commas & semi-colons are your friends. *Resigned his crown without issue on...* makes it sound as if he had no probs with resigning & hey, it's a super-easy process!/s There's also waaay too much info being crammed into that sentence.

It should properly read something like *Richard's abdication of 29 September 1399 meant that, lacking legitimate heirs of his body, his heir presumptive was then the child Edmund Mortimer, 5th Earl of March; Philippa's son Roger had been killed in a skirmish in Ireland in 1398*. (Then go source that last bit.)

Henry OF Bolingbroke, Duke of Lancaster & Aquitaine, (Gaunt's dead by this point), Earl of Derby & Northampton, not merely *Henry Bolingbroke*. Who was more acceptable than a 6 yo child Mortimer king & a protracted regency, because Henry had 4 healthy sons aged approx. 9, 12, 13, & 15 at the time of the usurpation. (Edit: Forgot he was also Duke of Hereford at the time he was banished.)

She died, most likely of a fever

Source? That's the blanket answer for *ain't got a cause of death on file anywhere & they were always dying of fevers in those days, so WTH*.

BTW, this is one of the better-looking *issue* detailing I've seen on here yet, so props for that bit.

Read The Percys: A Power in the Land for an idea of JUST HOW MANY Henry Percys there have been over the last thousand yrs or so. A LOT.

So even though it is linked, people are lazy & likely will NOT click on some random Henry Percy. They likely WILL click on *Sir Henry 'Hotspur' Percy*, however (even more clicks if you added *of Alnwick* for the Harry Potter contingent), & that should be changed. Sir Edmund has a dreadfully unpunctuated sentence happening in his *notes* box as well.

(An unconfirmed son cited in some sources)

Then those sources ought to be cited or the kid vanishes.

This could be a much better article with a minimal amount of tweaking.ScarletRibbons (talk) 03:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

PS> Sorry for the length. I can run on & make eyes glaze over. Should I have done several smaller sections? Oh, & I don't want to edit things, not after the reception I got on my initial comment here! I'm just making suggestions that I think will improve the article. Do or don't implement them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScarletRibbons (talk • contribs) 07:00, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Surtsicna, I concur with your removal of the *succession tree*. It really was serving no purpose but to pad the article a bit.  Also, TYVM to whomever thought one thing I said was worth an edit, moving suo jure to before Philippa's title rather than after as it was.  That is its proper form.
 * I'm really not getting how this weird coding works at all! How is it that I could see Surtsicna's reason for editing on my watchlist, but there's no comment in here?  Hmmm.  I admit I did copy your name to make sure it was spelt correctly, but its link didn't transfer with it.  Hmmm.  I'd like to try to tinker with revamping this article, since there seems to be no objection put forward to creating sections & adding a bit more, but this is definitely NOT the HTML I learned. ScarletRibbons (talk) 07:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Haven't figured out how to separate the article with headings yet, but I ventured in & did some grammatical tidying. I'd REALLY appreciate it if someone would be so kind as to stop by my talk page & walk me through inserting a footnote, as the tut for it may as well be in Greek for all the sense it makes to me, & I want to source Roger Mortimer's death in Ireland.  That will entail changing the numerical order, as it will precede the last existing footnote, & I don't want to accidentally erase it.  TYVM if you can assist. ScarletRibbons (talk) 07:55, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Infobox Addition
Since there is no extant portrait of Philippa of Clarence, I added her arms in the infobox. The pic is from Wikimedia Commons. ScarletRibbons (talk) 05:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

When did she die? How about matching some dates here?
The article gives two (count 'em) death dates:
 * Before 7 January 1378
 * 5 January 1382 (also quoted in this Talk)

I'm going with 1382 from Sims Genealogy at http://www.the-sims-family.net/genealogy/sims/index.htm?http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~thesimsfamily/sims/tree/17317.htm.

203.161.102.82 (talk) 04:50, 11 March 2014 (UTC)