Talk:Thomas Stanley, 1st Earl of Derby

Untitled

The article claims that Stanley:

inherited his father's titles, including that of king of the Isle of Man, in 1459.

Erm, what exactly were these titles? Surely not the title of earl of Derby, which he received only after Richard was killed. --Saforrest 01:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

He succeded his father as 2nd Baron Stanley, a title created in 1456. This title became abeyant after the death of the 5th Earl of Derby in 1594. Greetings Phoe 07:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite?

This guy is one of the most critical historical characters of the late 15th and early 16th century in English history. It is not unreasonable to claim that were it not for him and his family the Tudors would never have gained the throne. This article is short and unreferenced, does anyone fancy doing a proper job, cf. Warwick the Kingmaker? I will if pushed, but not any time soon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lonstan (talk • contribs) 20:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, well I've given it a go over the last couple of weeks or so. Hope I haven't trodden on any toes but, naturally, feel free to hack it about. Some pictures - Henry VI, Edward IV, Richard III, Lady Margaret Beaufort perhaps would be good if anyone could oblige.Lonstan (talk) 12:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Mother Joan Goushill

Why is she linked? There is no article for her. Her link just redirects to her husband, this Thomas' father, Thomas Stanley, 1st Baron Stanley. When you search Wikipedia for "Joan Goushill," you don't get her name in a search listing under Thomas Stanley, 1st Baron Stanley's article, you get redirected back to Thomas Stanley, 1st Baron Stanley. It would be less confusing for those searching for Joan Goushill to find her listed in Thomas Stanley's article or give her an article of her own. History Lunatic (talk) 21:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)History Lunatic

The same happens with Eleanor Neville. Smlark (talk) 14:26, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Incorrect Portrait

The portrait on this page is clearly not Thomas, 1st Earl of Derby, being obviously later 16C, given the costume and beard. It looks far more like Edward, the 3rd Earl (just possibly Henry, 4th Earl): long beards were not worn in Thomas's time. The style and features most strongl resemble Edward. A better picture for Thomas would be the effigy at Ormskirk, which is believed to be his tomb. Silverwhistle (talk) 11:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Reference to a novel?!

And can we get rid of a footnote reference to Josephine Tey's 'Daughter of Time'? Her work was a novel based on what even then was an outdated work by a non-historian (Markham). It damages credibility. Silverwhistle (talk) 12:02, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Timing

His wife, Margaret Beaufort, was a key conspirator, having brokered the marriage alliance between Edward IV’s daughter Elizabeth of York and her son Henry Tudor. Indeed, it was only by giving a solemn undertaking to Richard to keep his wife in custody and to end her intrigues that Stanley saved her from attainder and disgrace and presumably his own position at the same time.

Henry Tudor did not marry Elizabeth of York until 1486. Was his mother planning for this as early as 1483? Valetude (talk) 18:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Please note that the Princes were not Bold textconfined in the Tower - it was a royal residence and it was traditional for the new king/queen to reside there prior to procession from the Tower to Westminster Abbey for their Coronation - this was still in place even at the time of Anne Boleyn's coronation.

Secondly, Edward had (from April 1483 when his father, Edward IV died) had been treated as King Edward V (for example Richard Duke of Gloucester holding a funeral mass for his brother, Edward IV, and ensuring the nobility took an Oath of Allegiance to Edward V). It is simply a matter of common sense of not having 2 kings with the same title (certainly not to make Richard III look like a usurper) hence Henry VIII's son was titled Edward VI . — Preceding unsigned comment added by MABHanbury (talk • contribs) 14:49, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Sorry MABHanbury, but you seem to be answering someone else's question. I don't see how the above relates to my own. Valetude (talk) 00:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Involvement with the Princes in the Tower section

The "Involvement with the Princes in the Tower" section reads a bit awkwardly to me. The first paragraph starts by implicating him, but then mid sentence changes tack suggests that he was not involved as the Princes were likely dead when he became Constable of the Tower. I am not saying these points should not be made, but I wonder if they could be worded more effectively. The second paragraph, which again argues against Derby's involvement in the disappearance as the Buckingham seems to have known of their deaths when he rebelled earlier in 1483. This is certainly a view, but it could do with a citation to a historian who has made the case otherwise it looks like original research. Equally it could do with being made clear this is only a line of argument, not something conclusive. While I think the argument is very plausible, it is possible to speculate Buckingham may have had other motives for switching his backing to Henry Tudor rather than the Princes in the Tower rather than knowing they were dead. Indeed I know that a key objection to him having this knowledge when he was Constable is why he and the Tudors did not actively say they knew the Princes were dead and blame Richard III to win support from Yorkists rather than rely on rumour. However that debate is beyond the scope of this article. Dunarc (talk) 21:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

morty

rick and morty was charming is adult klasky csupo pibby dreamed tree, taco, 4 and × nightmare 219.73.88.235 (talk) 11:37, 25 July 2022 (UTC)