Talk:Richard of Conisburgh, 3rd Earl of Cambridge

Richard of Conisburgh, 3rd Earl of Cambridge
I linked this page to the Wikipedia article Earl of Cambridge, and notice that on that page he is described as Richard of Conisburgh, 1st Earl of Cambridge. Does anyone have a suggestion as to what could be done to rectify the inconsistency?

The spelling of Conisburgh also seems inconsistent, since the Wikipedia article on the family seat is entitled Conisbrough Castle, and Conisbrough seems to be the spelling used on modern maps etc. Again, are there suggestions as to what could be done to rectify the inconsistency? NinaGreen (talk) 18:04, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Alleged daughter of Richard of Conisburgh and Maud Clifford?
Hi 82.24.167.50,

I notice you added the statement that Richard of Conisburgh and his second wife, Maud Clifford, had a daughter, Alice Plantagenet, who married Sir Thomas Musgrave: "After Anne Mortimer's death Richard married Maud Clifford, the divorced wife of John Neville, 6th Baron Latimer, and daughter of Thomas de Clifford, 6th Baron de Clifford, they had one daughter Alice Plantagenet who married Sir Tomas Musgrave."

The cited source, Richardson, doesn't support that statement, so I've deleted it. If there's a reliable source which states that Richard and Maud had a daughter, Alice, could you provide it here, and the statement can then be added back to the article with a source which supports it? Thanks. NinaGreen (talk) 18:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi 217.42.11.240,


 * I notice you've added back the statement that Richard of Conisburgh and his second wife, Maud Clifford, had a daughter, Alice Plantagenet, who married Sir Thomas Musgrave:


 * "The issue of this marriage was Alice who married Thomas Musgrave."


 * You've left the citation from Richardson to follow that statement, as though Richardson supports it. However Richardson does not mention any issue of Maud Clifford's marriage to Richard of Conisburgh, so the citation as it stands is misleading.


 * As I mentioned in my earlier message above, a citation is needed for Alice Plantagenet's alleged parents and marriage. I know of no reliable source which names Alice as a daughter of Richard of Conisburgh and Maud Clifford, so I'll move the Richardson citation to follow the facts which Richardson actually supports, and add a citation needed tag to the claim that Alice Plantagenet was the daughter of Richard of Conisburgh and Maud Clifford. If you can provide a citation for that statement, please do that. NinaGreen (talk) 19:25, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

First or Third?
The Earl of Cambridge article calls Richard the 1st Earl, as his was a new creation of the title. Should this article be renamed? Rojomoke (talk) 07:26, 7 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry it took nine years ... You are assuming that Earl-counting would start at 1 (in its ordinal form: 1st), and proceed monotonically in increments of 1 (2nd, 3rd, 4th, and so on). That assumption is incorrect, at least when it comes to Earls-of-Cambridge-counting. Furthermore, there wasn't just one Earldom that got passed along from generation to generation. There were SEVEN DIFFERENT Earldoms of Cambridge created between 1340 and 1664, with twelve different people held that title before it got upgraded to Marquis and eventually Duke of Cambridge. The title must be re-created when there is no heir, e.g. when it passes from brother to brother, rather than father to son, as in this case, and again in 1667.
 * Behind the veil of bizarre numbering, two things are certain.
 * Richard of Conisburgh (~1385-1414) was NOT the FIRST person to hold the title Earl of Cambridge.
 * He was NOT the THIRD person to hold the title either.
 * He was the FIRST person to hold its THIRD creation and the FOURTH person to hold the title overall. Perhaps he got to be called the Third Earl of Cambridge because he was the third English-born person to hold the title. His English-born predecessors were his brother and his father. The very first holder of the title was a German nobleman, William V, Duke of Julich (1299-1361). The most that can be said for the entitlement of this first claimant is succinctly stated in his article:
 * He seems to have held the title of Earl of Cambridge from 1340 to his death.
 * In that context, restricting the Earl-counting to English-born holders doesn't seem quite so unusual. That would mean (ta.da) Richard of Conisburgh was the THIRD Earl of Cambridge.
 * You were probably expecting a one-word response about nine years ago. I hope all these extra words were worth the wait.  ChrisJBenson (talk) 13:22, 8 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The subject of this article is most definitely the 1st Earl of Cambridge, not the 3rd. It says in the article that he was CREATED Earl, and did not inherit the Earldom. Since he's referred to as "Richard of Conisburgh", there's no ambiguity. In the list at the article on "Earl of Cambridge", Conisburgh is called the 1st Earl. I think it would be great to re-title this article "Richard of Conisburgh, Earl of Cambridge" or "Richard of Conisburgh, 1st (or 3rd) Earl of Cambridge" and then say something about rival schemes for counting him IN THE ARTICLE. What should NOT be done is to deem it as settled fact that he was 3rd Earl when there's no way that can be true. Perhaps put in a few words about why previous historians get it wrong.
 * In at least one of the various articles on various Beauforts who were Dukes of Somerset, the mistakes in counting are addressed IN THE ARTICLE. There was a man "John Beaufort" who inherited "Earl of Somerset" from a male-to-male ancestor. He was later CREATED Duke of Somerset. The creation had a succession-line that was boilerplate (without any "special remainders" for heirs-male of his FATHER'S body, only his own). So, when that man John Beaufort died without a male heir, his brother (Edmund), as the next male-to-male descendant of the long-past 1st Earl, became the next Earl. But that brother Edmund did NOT inherit the Dukedom, not being a "male heir of the body" of his older brother John. To keep the Dukedom and the Earldom together, Edmund was CREATED "Duke of Somerset", and was thus the 1st Duke (of the X+1thc Creation, "xth Creation" being his dead older brother). But he's often called the 2nd Duke as if he INHERITED the title from his older brother, which is just wrong.. In compounding the error, EDMUND'S son is often called the 3rd Duke when he was only the 2nd. But the confusion is all spelled out in the Beaufort/Sommerset article that I read.2600:1700:6759:B000:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 07:04, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson
 * In at least one of the various articles on various Beauforts who were Dukes of Somerset, the mistakes in counting are addressed IN THE ARTICLE. There was a man "John Beaufort" who inherited "Earl of Somerset" from a male-to-male ancestor. He was later CREATED Duke of Somerset. The creation had a succession-line that was boilerplate (without any "special remainders" for heirs-male of his FATHER'S body, only his own). So, when that man John Beaufort died without a male heir, his brother (Edmund), as the next male-to-male descendant of the long-past 1st Earl, became the next Earl. But that brother Edmund did NOT inherit the Dukedom, not being a "male heir of the body" of his older brother John. To keep the Dukedom and the Earldom together, Edmund was CREATED "Duke of Somerset", and was thus the 1st Duke (of the X+1thc Creation, "xth Creation" being his dead older brother). But he's often called the 2nd Duke as if he INHERITED the title from his older brother, which is just wrong.. In compounding the error, EDMUND'S son is often called the 3rd Duke when he was only the 2nd. But the confusion is all spelled out in the Beaufort/Sommerset article that I read.2600:1700:6759:B000:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 07:04, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson

Issue of Isabel of Cambridge and Sir Thomas Grey
Hi Vigosky,

If you have a source which states that Isabel of Cambridge and Sir Thomas Grey 'had one son', could you cite it? I reverted your recent edit because it was very misleading, as you changed the text to state that they 'had one son', but the two sources already cited state that they had no issue. NinaGreen (talk) 16:57, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Date of birth
The article says that "Richard of York was born about 20 July 1385 " The date of 1375 is also given by Genealogics. What does the current ODNB say? Alekksandr (talk) 18:43, 25 June 2021 (UTC)