![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on May 4, 2004, May 4, 2005, May 4, 2006, May 4, 2007, and May 4, 2011. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
the link to the contemporary account is broken
This article is supposed to be about the battle of Tewkesbury, not the whole Wars of the Roses. Five major headings before the Tewkesbury campaign is clearly excessive. The article needs drastic trimming. There should be no more than onne Background heading, and possibly a separate heading on the battle of Barnet, before proceeding to the battle of Tewkesbury itself. Pirate Dan ( talk) 16:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
As with many articles concerning the War of the Roses, this is very difficult to understand due to the confusion between Lancastrian Prince Edward and Yorkist King Edward IV. Please, please, please, can editors ensure that any use of the name "Edward" is clearly distinguished, ideally by using consistent prefixes "King" or "Prince". Unfortunately I don't have enough historical knowledge to go through the article myself and add these distinctions. It would be helpful if Wikipedia historians could agree a consensus on a consistent naming convention for all the major actors in the War of the Roses, as we have several Henrys and Richards too - it is currently very difficult to track one Edward, Henry or Richard between one article and another linked article. Andrew Oakley ( talk) 10:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
HLGallon, is there a reason you reverted my edit? If you go here and here, you will see that the numbers in the article should be a range rather than exact. Thank you. Bill the Cat 7 ( talk) 12:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Tewkesbury. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:35, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Under “Aftermath of the battle”:
“The Prince of Wales was found in a grove by some of Clarence's men. He was summarily executed, despite pleading for his life to Clarence, who had sworn allegiance to him in France barely a year before.”
In the article Edward of Westminster, Price of Wales, under “Battles of Barnett and Tewkesbury”::
“According to some accounts, shortly after the rout of the Lancastrians at Tewkesbury, a small contingent of men under the Duke of Clarence found the grieving prince near a grove, and immediately beheaded him on a makeshift block, despite his pleas. Paul Murray Kendall, a biographer of Richard III, accepts this version of events." But then continues: “However, none of these accounts [includes an another aforementioned version of Edward's ending] appear in any of the contemporaneous sources, which all report that Edward died in battle.”
/info/en/?search=Edward_of_Westminster,_Prince_of_Wales
Shouldn’t these two versions of Edward’s death be reconciled within the same encyclopedia, perhaps lifting the passages and sources from the latter article along with its conclusion? HistoryBuff14 ( talk) 21:22, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
![]() | It is requested that a photograph of
Battle of Tewkesbury monument be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
Wikipedians in Gloucestershire may be able to help! The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on May 4, 2004, May 4, 2005, May 4, 2006, May 4, 2007, and May 4, 2011. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
the link to the contemporary account is broken
This article is supposed to be about the battle of Tewkesbury, not the whole Wars of the Roses. Five major headings before the Tewkesbury campaign is clearly excessive. The article needs drastic trimming. There should be no more than onne Background heading, and possibly a separate heading on the battle of Barnet, before proceeding to the battle of Tewkesbury itself. Pirate Dan ( talk) 16:55, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
As with many articles concerning the War of the Roses, this is very difficult to understand due to the confusion between Lancastrian Prince Edward and Yorkist King Edward IV. Please, please, please, can editors ensure that any use of the name "Edward" is clearly distinguished, ideally by using consistent prefixes "King" or "Prince". Unfortunately I don't have enough historical knowledge to go through the article myself and add these distinctions. It would be helpful if Wikipedia historians could agree a consensus on a consistent naming convention for all the major actors in the War of the Roses, as we have several Henrys and Richards too - it is currently very difficult to track one Edward, Henry or Richard between one article and another linked article. Andrew Oakley ( talk) 10:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
HLGallon, is there a reason you reverted my edit? If you go here and here, you will see that the numbers in the article should be a range rather than exact. Thank you. Bill the Cat 7 ( talk) 12:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Tewkesbury. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:35, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Under “Aftermath of the battle”:
“The Prince of Wales was found in a grove by some of Clarence's men. He was summarily executed, despite pleading for his life to Clarence, who had sworn allegiance to him in France barely a year before.”
In the article Edward of Westminster, Price of Wales, under “Battles of Barnett and Tewkesbury”::
“According to some accounts, shortly after the rout of the Lancastrians at Tewkesbury, a small contingent of men under the Duke of Clarence found the grieving prince near a grove, and immediately beheaded him on a makeshift block, despite his pleas. Paul Murray Kendall, a biographer of Richard III, accepts this version of events." But then continues: “However, none of these accounts [includes an another aforementioned version of Edward's ending] appear in any of the contemporaneous sources, which all report that Edward died in battle.”
/info/en/?search=Edward_of_Westminster,_Prince_of_Wales
Shouldn’t these two versions of Edward’s death be reconciled within the same encyclopedia, perhaps lifting the passages and sources from the latter article along with its conclusion? HistoryBuff14 ( talk) 21:22, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
![]() | It is requested that a photograph of
Battle of Tewkesbury monument be
included in this article to
improve its quality.
Wikipedians in Gloucestershire may be able to help! The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |