Thomas Neville (died 1460)

Thomas Neville (died 1460) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Featured article candidates/Thomas Neville (died 1460)/archive1

Nominator(s): ——Serial Number 54129 19:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

According to Sharon Penman, on 30 December 1460, '...Thomas Neville, devoured a heaping plateful of cold roast capon and pompron buried in butter [and] signalled to a page for a third refill of his ale tankard'. As they say, an army marches on its stomach. But dies on its feet. Almost to a man. In snow. Outnumbered three to one. The cry would have been Á sarum! Á Sarum! Á York!.

Lots of Nevilles in this one—a Hutton of Nevilles, is that?—both individually and collectively, hence Thomas. Any thoughts on this article's improvement will be gratefully received.

Let your cry be Á FAC! Á FAC! ——Serial Number 54129 19:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Perhaps not, for those of us old enough to recall Johnners' "And now it will be Afaq to Knight at the Nursery end". Tim riley talk 14:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Classic! Too young to remember his full glory of course, but what a wit! Spontaneous and right on the nose. ——Serial Number 54129 14:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Image review

• Suggest adding alt text. Nikkimaria ( talk) 05:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Of course. Thanks Nikkimaria, done. ——Serial Number 54129 12:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Too minor for words

• I don't know if it is just me but the caption and alt-text which currently read The site of the Battle of Stamford Bridge in 2006 are causing me inappropriate hilarity which is unworthy of the dignity of the Nevilles. Can I respectfully request that you consider rewording it in order to stop me giggling like a helpless infant? The site of the Battle of Stamford Bridge pictured in 2006 would do it, as would The site of the Battle of Stamford Bridge, 2006 photo or The site of the Battle of Stamford Bridge (2006 photo) or like whatevs. Indeed one could go for the big one and just say The site of the Battle of Stamford Bridge because no sane person, or even an editor here, can or should care when that photo was taken, unless it was from 1454 which would certainly be interesting. I certainly don't care – I can see plenty of places on Wikipedia where the date of a photo matters a lot (here is the current petrol station when it was still a turkey farm) but I honestly do not think this is one of those places. It simply does not matter: it adds nothing that we need. Having said my bit I will now stfu as I understand the young people charmingly put it. I will almost certainly not resort to fisticuffs nor a three-year edit war over this matter. Best to all, DBaK ( talk) 17:56, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

DBAK Thanks! I think. Yes, I see what you mean... I've kept it simple in the caption but added your suggested , 2006 photo for the alt for the benefit of the screen reader. Apologies for triggering both the OCD and the funny bone in the space of a few hours!

Thinking about it, wasn't the Battle of Stamford Bridge in 2006 after all... when Chelsea entertained West Ham at home. Thanks for looking in, though; it's easy to get sloppy about Alt text, etc., which is a disservice to outer readers who need it. ——Serial Number 54129 18:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Absolutely brilliant, thank you very much. I feel a warm glow of post-OCD happiness now. Cheers DBaK ( talk) 19:44, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Comments Support from Tim riley

From a first canter-through looking for typos:

• "combatative and landless" – combative?

I knew that if anyone was going to pick up on it...! But yes. It's verbatim and faithful to the source. Honest guv. A direct quote. I left it like that deliberately, for opinion (and in case it was an EngVar thing, although I believe Friedrichs is as English as Queen Victoria). Thoughts? Use {{ sic}}?

Yes, I think a "sic" is in order. Neither Chambers nor the OED recognises "combatative". How sad that the beloved Brian Boulton is no longer with us: he loved "sic"s and would, I am sure, have applauded your suggestion. Tim riley talk 12:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Honoured to have Brian mentioned at one of my FACs. Vale Royal Abbey will remain forever GA in his memory. ——Serial Number 54129 14:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• saw Thomas"in the thick of the fighting" – space
• Bourgchier or the more usual Bourchier? – we have both
• ransonms
• Released into te temporary
• "shortlived" – the OED hyphenates the word
• "Thomas' marriage" – and all possessives for names ending in s. This is what the current edition of Fowler has to say on the point:

Names ending in -s. Use 's for the possessive case in names and surnames whenever possible; in other words, whenever you would tend to pronounce the possessive form of the name with an extra iz sound, e.g. Charles's brother, St James's Square, Thomas's niece, Zacharias's car.

More later after a proper read-through. Tim riley talk 12:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Done, although I thought s's was an AmEng and now I'm more confused than ever (says Baldrick).

It would not be altogether accurate of me to say that ess-apostrophe is standard American and ess-apostrophe-ess is standard English, but as a rule of thumb it will serve. Tim riley talk 12:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Second and concluding batch

• Lead

• "became a significant player" – what did he signify? You mean "leading" or "important", I think.

Good one!

• "alongside his father and uncle, his head was impaled" – presumably just their heads too, although this seems to say father and uncle were impaled in their entirety.

True.

• Early career, knighthood and marriage

• "earned himself the moniker "Kingmaker"" – Chambers marks "moniker" as slang. Nickname or sobriquet might be preferable.

Sobriety is a much more elegant word.

• "of genuinely comital proportions" – a word new to me: an explanatory note or link to Wiktionary would be a kindness.

Explanatory note regarding the actual amount itself and wikt. link for the dicdef.

• "They they both inscribed as marginalia" – too many "they".

Done.

• Feud with the Percy family

• "who were also responsible for its escalation" – not sure why "also".

removed.

• "the Nevilles would have had a substantial retune with them" – a splendid image, but I imagine you mean retinue.

As opposed to an Old Blind Piano Retainer  :)

• "the estates of Percy loyalist Sir William Plumpton" – clunky false title

Tweaked sentence.

• "The crown tried to settle the feud" – but you capitalise Crown elsewhere (rightly, I think).

Done.

• Final years

• "whom Hicks speculates may have been involved in piracy" – who, not whom wanted here.

Of course, changed.

• "Calais—which the latter was now captain of" – not wrong but a bit inelegant. Perhaps "Calais – of which the latter was now captain"?

Absolutely fair enough.

• "gathered for an upcoming parliament" – "upcoming" makes me want to upthrow and outwalk. What's wrong with the normal English "forthcoming"?

Clever  :) itdone.

• "probably the largest and bloodiest battle on English soil" – is that the largest etc to that date or at any time throughout English history?

Pretty much the GOAT as the yoot of today says. I've added a footnote with some quotes to show it's a generally accepted position.

Wow! Excellent note. Makes one shudder to read it. Tim riley talk 12:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• "The remains of Thomas Neville and the other dead of Wakefield removed from the Micklegate Bar" – were removed, unless they toddled off of their own volition.

Done.

• "the recent death and burial there of his mother Alice in December the previous year" – I'm not sure we need both "recent" and "in December.

Lost recent.

• "In a chariot drawn by six horses" – "chariot" comes as a surprise. I associate the term with Ancient Egypt and Rome, but am quite prepared to be told I'm wrong.

Well, I wanted to keep the wording of the original source just to avoid confusion with the modern sense of a hearse. But what I've done is a add a (perhaps slightly massive?) quotebox showing how the procedure became codified in later royal household ordinances—chariots included—that OK?

I like it very much, and if other readers are not interested they don't have to read it and can stick with the main text. Tim riley talk 12:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Yes, it was good fun doing, although, as usual, it took ages. ——Serial Number 54129 14:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• "Sir Robert Welles support" – Welles's?

Done, per your comment above.

• Notes

• "Not completely the same office as today" – that gives the reader all help short of actual assistance – either explain the difference or omit the note would be my advice

Apologies. Yes, it is a bit bizarre. I remember I was looking for a source on the history of the Mews, which would have been perfect, but couldn't find one. Which was annoying. Of course, I then forgot about this fag-end of a half-arsed footnote and left it hanging. Still, now gone for good.

• "And replaced, entre-nous, by Lancastrian heads" – entre nous? This is an encyclopaedia article, not a confidential chat.

Done!

• "The heraldist Anthony Wagner" – might be better to link to Heraldry rather than to Herald (although Sir AW was a herald, I know).

A personal friend of yours, perhaps also I hope?  :) So I've linked to heraldry but called him a heraldist.

I never met AW, though I worked for a short while alongside two of his staff, who clearly found him formidable. Tim riley talk 12:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I hope these comments are of use. Tim riley talk 13:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• All fantastic stuff, Tim riley, as always, completely embarrassed about the schoolboy typos—believe it or not, I can generally spell, but perhaps, distance and concentration lapse first. I've replied more fully to a couple of your points, mostly in explanation or where I've changed stuff. Apologies for the delay in finishing up here—I would've been done a while ago, but someone got in the way. If you've got any further advice or suggestions, please do so. Thank you very much, again. ——Serial Number 54129 19:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I'll have one last read-through and return to – I confidently hope – support. Tim riley talk 12:40, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Meanwhile, if you feel like getting a bit of your own back you can have a pop at me in another current FAC, here. Tim riley talk 12:53, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply

You still haven't decided whether the name is Bourchier or Bourgchier. Tim riley talk 12:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Resolved as g-less. ——Serial Number 54129 14:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Regardless of that point, after a last perusal I am happy to support the elevation of this article to FA. Tim riley talk 13:47, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Much appreciated Tim. See you there. ——Serial Number 54129 14:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Comments by Dudley

Inline quotes

*"in loans to Salisbury: "the price the Nevilles could extract was a measure of Cromwell's desperation"". Wikipedia:Quotations says that quotations should be attributed inline, not just in a citation.

• "an estate "of genuinely comital proportions"" Ditto.
• "Thomas has been called "combatative [sic] and landless" by one historian,[10] and "vigorous and youthful"[34] by another". Ditto.
• "as part of a Neville "show of force" in January 1454" Ditto.

To be fair, didn't require a quote at all; rephrased.

*"To purvey the king's right prises of falcons, goshawks, sakers, sakerets, 'laners', lanerets and gyrfalcons for sale through the realm, paying 20s for a falcon, 10s for a tercel gentle, 13s. 1 d for a goshawk, and 6s 5d each for the tercel of a goshawk, saker, laners and laneret." Source should be inline.

• "in what has been described as "probably the largest and bloodiest battle on English soil"" Inline citation.
• "A "rich, pageant-filled affair"" Ditto.
• Note 16. Ditto.

Couldn't see this... Nichols is already cited inline?

• It is now note 17. Dudley Miles ( talk) 16:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Of course. OK, tweaked; it was a bit tricky as I didn't want to keep repeating 'the historian' etc, but I think it's covered no Dudley Miles. Cheers, ——Serial Number 54129 16:48, 28 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Thanks Dudley, all attended to except one, plus a comment. Hope you don't mind me dividing the review up like this—it was easier for my eyes to have the technical adjusts separate from the narrative concerns.

Narrative/contextual points

• "the second son of Richard Neville, 5th Earl of Salisbury, a major nobleman and magnate in the north of England during the fifteenth-century Wars of the Roses, and a younger brother to the more famous Richard Neville, Earl of Warwick, the 'Kingmaker'". I was unsure at first whether Thomas or father Richard was the brother of the Kingmaker. I suggest clarifying.

Tweaked.

• "His wedding in August 1453 is said to have marked the beginning of the armed feud between both houses". This is not helpful without context and I am not sure it belongs in the lead as it is said below to be a suggestion of one historian.

Removed the hypothetical but clarified a bit more about the feud (which was probably understated in the lead, considering the importance it played in the last few years of his life!)

• "He was probably born soon after his elder brother Richard in 1428, and certainly by 1431, by when his parents had had two more sons, John, and George." By 1431 is odd if his parents had had two more sons by then. I suggest before. Also, ODNB on George says he was born 1432.

Tweaked to 1432, sourced to ODNB.

• "In 1439, Maud, Countess of Cambridge, reported Thomas to the royal council for attacking her house" When he was ten years old?

Indeed! I wondered who'd notice first...

• "he attended Cromwell's funeral. The complexity of his affairs led to many legal machinations". Thomas's affairs or Cromwell's?

Clarified Crumb's.

• Who benefited from the revised will?

Added a chunk explaining in more detail, A bit complex as it was't so much the amounts involved but the loosening of the ties that bound his executors that altered the balance.

• "Although Thomas's feud with the Percy sons was not directly connected to the Battle of St Albans in May 1455, it was considered part of the general disorder." You need a few words to explain the battle.

Tricky to reduce such a complicated period down to a few words! A small paragraph explaining the king;'s illness/recovery/battle is OK?

• "Edward of March". You should explain who he was here, not at second mention.

Done.

• "According to P. A. Johnson, both York's eldest son, Edward of March, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Bourchier". presumably "and the Archbishop".

Well caught, done.

• "but Thomas's death at effectively freed the crown". This is ungrammatical. Dudley Miles ( talk) 16:16, 27 April 2024 (UTC) reply

"...at Wakefield", less so. ——Serial Number 54129 15:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Thanks for your points Dudley Miles, always appreciated. I'm kicking myself over the inline cites, as I generally always followed that, and then recently someone said it wasn't always necessary. So I stopped. Anyway, see what you think of my suggestions for your contextual concerns. Have a good Sunday. ——Serial Number 54129

• Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles ( talk) 18:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC) reply

• Thanks Dudley Miles, that's appreciated. Just an FYI, but I've got something up my sleeve regarding his preteen assaults on Aunty Cambridge's deer park... just waiting for a source. I expected more questioning over it to be honest  :) as I know how bizarre it sounds, I did a double-take when I came across it, too. Anyway, I'll give you a ping in future if that's OK. Cheers, ——Serial Number 54129 18:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC) reply
• Also thanks for that edit to the footnote: it reads much easier now. I'd forgotten the unfalse title can be a collective one, of course. Cheers, ——Serial Number 54129 18:31, 28 April 2024 (UTC) reply