![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| Guild of Copy Editors | |||
|
The article reads: Eventually she was executed—on May 27 1541 in the Tower of London—by Henry VIII in continuation of his father's program of eliminating possible contenders for the throne.. Is this right? A more probable reason was because her Cardinal son would not recognise Henry's marriages.
In addition, Her brother Edward had succeeded as 17th Earl of Warwick and 7th Earl of Salisbury, but, as he had a better claim to the throne than King Henry VII, he was attainted and executed on 28 November 1499 after being caught up in the Perkin Warbeck controversy. is simply dishonest. The "Warbeck controversy" was a claim to the throne by someone who didn't occupy it; supporting it was treason and cause for execution (as had been done repeatedly in the previous half-century to many noblemen - including the few not related to the Plantagenets), unless the King choose to forgive. It is true that Henry VII rarely forgave (especially potential claimants) - but this is not how to make that point. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't have time to fix this piece of polemic; massive reversion would be called for, but it would leave a mere stub. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be some sort of note on her being "Blessed Margaret Pole", on account of her being beatified? - 16:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I can't believe that she was dragged to the block and struggled... As far as I know, during her time it was a question of honour to die bravely.
The account is debated a lot. The general consensus seems to be that the axeman had difficulty aiming and applying proper force. The 'struggle' may well have been violent movements due to pain - entirely understandable.
The story of her execution is true, and many people were appalled by the spectacle. She likely fought back because she considered the charges ridiculous and that no one had the right to execute her. 68.72.107.16 18:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
An observation regarding her death date: I've been to the Tower in 1996 and have a photo of a sign listing people who where executed at that spot. It says 27th May, which I especially noted because that's my birthday. Now I've been there again last weekend and was quite perplexed to find this sign giving 28th May now as the date of her execution (I have a photo of that, too). Does anyone know how this happened? Is this official enough to be changed here in wikipedia? 91.64.155.30 10:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
in the second paragraph of the "life" section, it reads that Margaret returned to the court after the fall of Anne (which was in 1536) but then mentions Reginald Pole's book re: Henry's policies in 1530; should this be presented a bit more clearly? someone who does not know the timeline might be confused by this. 18.173.1.125 ( talk) 20:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Was Margaret ever known by the style HRH, as indicated in the statistics box? I've never heard that before. Under the circumstances, it seems strange that she would have been given a royal style. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.47.42.32 ( talk) 08:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Are the banners at the top of the article about disputes of neutrality and factual accuracy still needed?— Rod talk 18:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I would say so, certainly the pov tag. I've gone through the article and added (bracketed out) pov where I think it makes the statements that most show a lack of neutrality. The main source for this article is the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1913, which seems to be a biased account, as Margaret was considered a Catholic martyr. I think it needs quite a rewrite by someone who really knows their stuff on her; I'll contribute but don't feel I know enough on her to deal with it fully. Boleyn ( talk) 10:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
For reasons explained in the new section, her number as Countess of Salisbury is disputed. Since she is also the only Countess of Salisbury (in her own right, as distinct from being an Earl's wife, like some of her Montagu ancestresses), calling her "8th countess" is also likely to confuse the lay reader, without being useful for disambiguation. I have therefore ventured to remove the number as unhelpful. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for all the great work on this article over the last week or so. Has it now reached a point where the banners at the top of the article about disputes of neutrality and factual accuracy could now be removed?— Rod talk 21:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
This is incorrect as there were at least four peeresses in their own right in 16th century England. In addition to Margaret Pole and Anne Boleyn, there were Cecily Bonville, 7th Baroness Harington and Anne Bourchier, 7th Baroness Bourchier.-- Jeanne Boleyn ( talk) 15:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
The statement in the first sentence of the lede could not be verified in the ODNB and is almost certainly incorrect. Elizabeth Grey (1504/5–1519), suo jure 5th Baroness Lisle and sole heir to John Grey, 2nd Viscount Lisle, assumed the title at the age of 8 weeks. In 1513 she was contracted in marriage to her guardian Charles Brandon, who, in anticipation of their marriage, was accorded the title Viscount Lisle by Henry VII. The contract was annulled when she came of age. A year before her death, Elizabeth Grey became Countess of Devon on her marriage to Henry Courtenay, then 2nd Earl of Devon, a marriage that was never consummated. Brandon relinquished the title of Viscount Lisle on her death. Her successor, the suo jure 6th Baroness Lisle, was her aunt, also Elizabeth Grey (1482–1525/6), widow of Edmund Dudley and mother of John Dudley, who later as Lord Protector with Edward Seymour saw his daughter-in-law Lady Jane Grey declared successor to Edward VI. In 1511 Elizabeth Grey's aunt had taken as second husband Arthur Plantagenet, illegitimate son of Edward IV; he assumed the title Viscount Lisle in 1523.
More care is needed about statements of this kind, particularly if asserted so prominently and authoritatively in the lede. Most of this information can be found in the ODNB as well as numerous other sources: it is a particularly well-documented part of English history. Mathsci ( talk) 11:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
One of the more tendentious claims in this article asserts that the Tudors had a long-standing and continuous policy of killing off claimants to the throne. This is a POV - and certainly an attested one - but it should not be claimed as though it were consensus of scholarship; it is asserted by power-worshippers and by those who dislike the Tudors for other reasons, who do not, even together, make up a majority.
For one thing, it is contradicted by the rest of this article. Margaret Pole lived for fifty years under Tudor rule before she was touched; she was arrested and executed for communicating with an English subject who was actively engaged in deposing the monarch.
There is a contradiction now between the two so I have indicated that in the section on "numbering". Mathsci ( talk) 22:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately the official biographers of Lady Margaret Beaufort refer to her as Margaret Plantagenet. [1] These are professional historians/archivists with special access to original documents and whose biography has been published by Cambridge University Press. Are you suggesting that this source does not qualify as as a WP:RS, that these authors "revel in anachronism"? Is there a problem with the book? Reviews seem quite positive, [2] Mathsci ( talk) 00:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
There are still has neutrality and accuracy banners on the execution section after a year. Is there any way the knowledgeable editors of this article could agree a form of words which would allow these to be removed?— Rod talk 20:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
"her brother's lands of the earldom of Salisbury (only), for which she paid 5000 marks (£2666.13s.4d)" Is this amount in lsd an exact amount mentioned at the time? Or a modern equivalence? -- Richardson mcphillips ( talk) 10:47, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
The article is a mess. It needs full citations and clarification for this important historical figure. It's a shame to see the write up in a bad way. Anna ( talk) 23:33, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Didn’t realize it was so congested. Hardly any sources. Sigh! Lady Meg ( talk) 08:06, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
The article came within the remit of GOCE, probably following the comments above by Anna and Meg. I've copyedited it as best as I can but the lack of sources remains a major issue and, as the other banner says, the content needs thorough vetting by a royalty/nobility specialist. I think it is less of a mess now, and so I've removed the copyedit banner, but I'm not at all sure that it's a reliable article. PearlyGigs ( talk) 21:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
| Guild of Copy Editors | |||
|
The article reads: Eventually she was executed—on May 27 1541 in the Tower of London—by Henry VIII in continuation of his father's program of eliminating possible contenders for the throne.. Is this right? A more probable reason was because her Cardinal son would not recognise Henry's marriages.
In addition, Her brother Edward had succeeded as 17th Earl of Warwick and 7th Earl of Salisbury, but, as he had a better claim to the throne than King Henry VII, he was attainted and executed on 28 November 1499 after being caught up in the Perkin Warbeck controversy. is simply dishonest. The "Warbeck controversy" was a claim to the throne by someone who didn't occupy it; supporting it was treason and cause for execution (as had been done repeatedly in the previous half-century to many noblemen - including the few not related to the Plantagenets), unless the King choose to forgive. It is true that Henry VII rarely forgave (especially potential claimants) - but this is not how to make that point. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
I don't have time to fix this piece of polemic; massive reversion would be called for, but it would leave a mere stub. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be some sort of note on her being "Blessed Margaret Pole", on account of her being beatified? - 16:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I can't believe that she was dragged to the block and struggled... As far as I know, during her time it was a question of honour to die bravely.
The account is debated a lot. The general consensus seems to be that the axeman had difficulty aiming and applying proper force. The 'struggle' may well have been violent movements due to pain - entirely understandable.
The story of her execution is true, and many people were appalled by the spectacle. She likely fought back because she considered the charges ridiculous and that no one had the right to execute her. 68.72.107.16 18:29, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
An observation regarding her death date: I've been to the Tower in 1996 and have a photo of a sign listing people who where executed at that spot. It says 27th May, which I especially noted because that's my birthday. Now I've been there again last weekend and was quite perplexed to find this sign giving 28th May now as the date of her execution (I have a photo of that, too). Does anyone know how this happened? Is this official enough to be changed here in wikipedia? 91.64.155.30 10:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
in the second paragraph of the "life" section, it reads that Margaret returned to the court after the fall of Anne (which was in 1536) but then mentions Reginald Pole's book re: Henry's policies in 1530; should this be presented a bit more clearly? someone who does not know the timeline might be confused by this. 18.173.1.125 ( talk) 20:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Was Margaret ever known by the style HRH, as indicated in the statistics box? I've never heard that before. Under the circumstances, it seems strange that she would have been given a royal style. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.47.42.32 ( talk) 08:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Are the banners at the top of the article about disputes of neutrality and factual accuracy still needed?— Rod talk 18:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
I would say so, certainly the pov tag. I've gone through the article and added (bracketed out) pov where I think it makes the statements that most show a lack of neutrality. The main source for this article is the Catholic Encyclopedia of 1913, which seems to be a biased account, as Margaret was considered a Catholic martyr. I think it needs quite a rewrite by someone who really knows their stuff on her; I'll contribute but don't feel I know enough on her to deal with it fully. Boleyn ( talk) 10:30, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
For reasons explained in the new section, her number as Countess of Salisbury is disputed. Since she is also the only Countess of Salisbury (in her own right, as distinct from being an Earl's wife, like some of her Montagu ancestresses), calling her "8th countess" is also likely to confuse the lay reader, without being useful for disambiguation. I have therefore ventured to remove the number as unhelpful. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:32, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for all the great work on this article over the last week or so. Has it now reached a point where the banners at the top of the article about disputes of neutrality and factual accuracy could now be removed?— Rod talk 21:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
This is incorrect as there were at least four peeresses in their own right in 16th century England. In addition to Margaret Pole and Anne Boleyn, there were Cecily Bonville, 7th Baroness Harington and Anne Bourchier, 7th Baroness Bourchier.-- Jeanne Boleyn ( talk) 15:43, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
The statement in the first sentence of the lede could not be verified in the ODNB and is almost certainly incorrect. Elizabeth Grey (1504/5–1519), suo jure 5th Baroness Lisle and sole heir to John Grey, 2nd Viscount Lisle, assumed the title at the age of 8 weeks. In 1513 she was contracted in marriage to her guardian Charles Brandon, who, in anticipation of their marriage, was accorded the title Viscount Lisle by Henry VII. The contract was annulled when she came of age. A year before her death, Elizabeth Grey became Countess of Devon on her marriage to Henry Courtenay, then 2nd Earl of Devon, a marriage that was never consummated. Brandon relinquished the title of Viscount Lisle on her death. Her successor, the suo jure 6th Baroness Lisle, was her aunt, also Elizabeth Grey (1482–1525/6), widow of Edmund Dudley and mother of John Dudley, who later as Lord Protector with Edward Seymour saw his daughter-in-law Lady Jane Grey declared successor to Edward VI. In 1511 Elizabeth Grey's aunt had taken as second husband Arthur Plantagenet, illegitimate son of Edward IV; he assumed the title Viscount Lisle in 1523.
More care is needed about statements of this kind, particularly if asserted so prominently and authoritatively in the lede. Most of this information can be found in the ODNB as well as numerous other sources: it is a particularly well-documented part of English history. Mathsci ( talk) 11:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
One of the more tendentious claims in this article asserts that the Tudors had a long-standing and continuous policy of killing off claimants to the throne. This is a POV - and certainly an attested one - but it should not be claimed as though it were consensus of scholarship; it is asserted by power-worshippers and by those who dislike the Tudors for other reasons, who do not, even together, make up a majority.
For one thing, it is contradicted by the rest of this article. Margaret Pole lived for fifty years under Tudor rule before she was touched; she was arrested and executed for communicating with an English subject who was actively engaged in deposing the monarch.
There is a contradiction now between the two so I have indicated that in the section on "numbering". Mathsci ( talk) 22:04, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately the official biographers of Lady Margaret Beaufort refer to her as Margaret Plantagenet. [1] These are professional historians/archivists with special access to original documents and whose biography has been published by Cambridge University Press. Are you suggesting that this source does not qualify as as a WP:RS, that these authors "revel in anachronism"? Is there a problem with the book? Reviews seem quite positive, [2] Mathsci ( talk) 00:47, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
There are still has neutrality and accuracy banners on the execution section after a year. Is there any way the knowledgeable editors of this article could agree a form of words which would allow these to be removed?— Rod talk 20:09, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
"her brother's lands of the earldom of Salisbury (only), for which she paid 5000 marks (£2666.13s.4d)" Is this amount in lsd an exact amount mentioned at the time? Or a modern equivalence? -- Richardson mcphillips ( talk) 10:47, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
The article is a mess. It needs full citations and clarification for this important historical figure. It's a shame to see the write up in a bad way. Anna ( talk) 23:33, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
Didn’t realize it was so congested. Hardly any sources. Sigh! Lady Meg ( talk) 08:06, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
The article came within the remit of GOCE, probably following the comments above by Anna and Meg. I've copyedited it as best as I can but the lack of sources remains a major issue and, as the other banner says, the content needs thorough vetting by a royalty/nobility specialist. I think it is less of a mess now, and so I've removed the copyedit banner, but I'm not at all sure that it's a reliable article. PearlyGigs ( talk) 21:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)