Biography: Military / Peerage and Baronetage

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage (assessed as Low-importance).

Military history: British / European

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	British military history task force
	European military history task force

England Low‑importance

	England portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

I really like the Wikipedia feature of three-column tables in the biography articles summarizing the careers of the articles' subjects, but is there a reason why there are two tables here, instead of one? I'd like to change it, but I don't want to mess with it if there's a good reason why it's that way. — Del C 21:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dates?

25 June 1483, Parliament declared the Princes illegitimate and asked the Duke of Gloucester/Richard to become King.

On 28th June 1483, Richard created John Howard the Duke of Norfolk.

Richard Duke of Shrewsbury was still alive as of July 6, 1483 when his uncle Richard was crowned Richard III.

The reports of the death of the princes began to circulate in late summer of 1483. Roz

==

John Howard couldn't possibly have been born in 1430 if his mother died in 1425. ====dates and more... ...i'll let you folks edit and update with this info..i'm braindead with computers etc. douglas richardson is a dedicated medieval genealogist and has co-authored medieval to colonial descent genealogical books, and is the sole author of others. google him or his email address...he should have a wikipage if you don't already have one on him. ..okay..let the info editing begin..

jock/john, d. of norfolk's mother, margaret mowbray died circa 1459..here is some supporting evidence. also, jock was made d. of norfolk BEFORE the princes of the tower went missing.. his son thomas d. 1524 made a deathbed confession to being responsible for the deaths of the princes in the tower.

the john de grey margaret mowbray married was husband of constance de holand. constance died circa nov. 14, 1437. therefore the window for the marriage date shrinks even further.

john de grey is the first born son of reynold/reginald de grey, baron of ruthin/ruthyn wales. mx2. reynold aka reginald m. first margaret de ros. m. second joan de asteley. joan is the mother of edward de grey b. circa 1415 m. elizabeth ferrers. elizabeth is the dau. of henry ferrers and isabel mowbray, sister of margaret.

edward, lord ferrers is the father of john de grey m. elizabeth woodville. he is also the father of edward de grey m. elizabeth talbot. elizabeth talbot is neice of eleanor boteler nee talbot named in titlus regis...the document that allowed richard iii to declare edward v kingship invalid.

On Friday, June 27, 2003 2:25 PM, Douglas Richardson [SMTP:royalancestry@msn.com] wrote:

I've checked.

The documentation for Margaret Mowbray's marriage to Sir John Grey can be found in the book, Household Books of John Howard 1462–1471, 1481–1483 (1992), by A. Crawford, pp. xiii, xvi, xxxviii. This book consists of published transcripts of the household books of Lady Margaret's son, Sir John Howard.

The author includes a list dated c. 1455 which specifically refers to Margaret Mowbray as Lady Grey:

"My lady Margaret Grey, John Howard the foreseid her sone, …").

The author states in her preface that Margaret's husband was Sir John Grey, of Ruthin, and I believe she is correct. However, I haven't yet found any other confirmation of this marriage, which was evidently very brief. Sir Robert Howard died in 1436, and Sir John Grey died in 1439.

Elsewhere I've located a record which shows that Margaret received a papal indult for a portable altar in 1446 [Reference: Papal Regs.: Letters 9 (1912): 587]. In that record, she is simply styled aunt of the Duke of Norfolk, and is not given any surname.

For interest sake, I've included below a list of colonial immigrants who descend from Margaret (Mowbray) (Howard) Grey.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

E-mail: royalancestry@msn.com == everything i've stated is available for verification on line via reputable sources/citing the complete peerage etc.

one of these days i'll figure out how to properly sign up/join wikipedia and really be able to contribute. i've been studying/researching the de grey and associated families for over a decade. cheers roz24.207.124.2 22:02, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "Jockey of Norfolk" quote is in Shakespeare (Richard III, I believe). It is quite possible Shakespeare drew it from one of his sources who, in turn, had it from someone who knew that it occurred in real life. But do we know that? Or is it just a plausible fiction made up by Shakespeare for his play? Tommymic999 (talk) 04:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barony of Mowbray

The page shows him as Baron Mowbray from 1476 - the date of death of the 4th Duke of Norfolk of the previous creation. However, that duke left a daughter, Anne, and according to her wiki page she became Baroness Mowbray suo jure until her death in 1481 (though, to confuse matters further, her page says that she held that and other titles from birth, not from her father's death). Her page says that that title was then 'In abeyance - Title next held by John Howard'. And the page for the Barony itself says that it was 'called out of abeyance c. 1484, forfeit 1485'. Burke's peerage also says that the barony was called out of abeyance by Richard III. I therefore propose to amend this page to show him as Baron Mowbray from c 1484. Alekksandr (talk) 21:25, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now done Alekksandr (talk) 17:39, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Red links vs links which go to another person

Hi Surtsicna,

Fair enough about the red links. I've wondered about them because I think it's frustrating for readers to click on them and then not find a corresponding Wikipedia article. But as you say, red links do provide suggestions for the creation of new articles.

However this link isn't a red link. It goes to an article for a different person, not to Margaret de Mowbray, so I'm wondering whether it wouldn't be best to delete it. NinaGreen (talk) 19:44, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I'm sorry, I hadn't noticed that. In that case, I think it would be best to disambiguate it, e.g. Margaret de Mowbray (1388–1459). Do you have a better suggestion for the disambiguation? Why does Margaret de Mowbray lead to an article about a completely different person anyway? Surtsicna (talk) 19:51, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems it goes to a different person because there's a redirect. See [1]. Perhaps the first thing would be to get rid of the redirect? I don't know how to do that. If you do, could you go ahead? NinaGreen (talk) 20:07, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It can only be done by requesting a deletion or by redirecting it to another article. Surtsicna (talk) 20:52, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged illegitimate descent from Joan of Cornwall

I've deleted the portion in italics from the article:

His paternal grandparents were Sir John Howard of Wiggenhall, Norfolk, and Alice Tendring, daughter of Sir William Tendring, through whom he was descended from Richard, 1st Earl of Cornwall, through his illegitimate daughter, Joan of Cornwall.

The cited reference, Douglas Richardson's Plantagenet Ancestry (2005), pp. 232-3, doesn't support this. It appears the error has been carried over into other related Wikipedia articles, so I thought it would be useful to leave a note here. NinaGreen (talk) 00:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Usurpation

"He supported Richard III's usurpation of the throne from King Edward V,..." Richard III was invited on to the throne by both Houses of Parliament. Henry VII took the throne by winning a battle. Which one is the usurper? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.25.230.141 (talk) 02:39, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The rhyme

Would it have been 'Jack' - as this would give only 8 syllables to the line when the other has 9. Jackiespeel (talk) 21:37, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

== Heir to the "Ducky" of Norfolk?

If he was an MP, constituency please (section Career)

I note that it states "He had been elected to Parliament in 1449", implicitly to the House of Commons, long before he became Duke. It is part of a sentence without a citation. It would be helpful if the seat could be named, if he was already knighted, he would be returned for a county seat as 'Knight of the Shire'. However he is not mentioned in the list of MPs in the article Norfolk (UK Parliament constituency) - if not Norfolk, where else?Cloptonson (talk) 19:15, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]