Talk:William Stanley (died 1495)

	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.

A son?

Shakespeare's play Richard III features Stanley's son (George?) as a hostage in the King's camp. When Richard learns that Stanley has decided to throw in his lot with Henry Tudor, he shouts "Off with his head!"

But he is told "My Lord, the enemy is past the marsh. After the battle, let young Stanley die."

Was there a son in real life? (He would have to be very young.) If so, do we know what happened to him? 86.144.199.31 (talk) 23:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're confusing William Stanley, traitor at Bosworth, with his elder brother, Thomas, Lord Constable under Richard and step-father to Henry Tudor. At Bosworth, he held his troops aloof, stating that he was ill. His son was George Stanley, 9th Baron Strange, who as you can see was not a little boy in 1485 but a man of 25 years - only eight years younger than King Richard himself. He was a hostage to his father's loyalty, when Thomas asked to leave court and see his wife, the mother of Henry Tudor, who had previously instigated revolt against Richard. Whether Richard really ordered his execution (only to postpone it) is questionable. Deposuit (talk) 15:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on William Stanley (Battle of Bosworth). 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080703184751/http://www.richard111.com/william_stanley__a_yorkist.htm to http://www.richard111.com/william_stanley__a_yorkist.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:01, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it part of the title?

Why is "(Battle of Bosworth)" part of this man's name? Yes, he played a rather significant part in the battle, but it is not his name or title. Shouldn't this be "Sir William Stanley" or "William Stanley, Knight"? History Lunatic (talk) 08:03, 23 July 2018 (UTC)History Lunatic[reply]

I would tend to agree. I think if something needs to be added to the title to disambiguate then perhaps something like "William Stanley (died 1495)" or "William Stanley (Lord Chamberlain)" would be a better option. The former would fit in with the pattern adopted for the notable English individualsm all called Humphrey Stafford who lived in about this era (see for example This is a good article (see for instance Humphrey Stafford (died 1442) and Humphrey Stafford (died 1486)). In terms of the latter the post of Lord Chamberlain was a highly significant one. Equally I would tend to agree that including Battle of Bosworth is rather odd. Yes Stanley played an important role as noted, but he is hardly the person most associated with that battle and it was only a part of his career. Indeed his role as Chamberlain, and his eventual downfall due to his supposed support for Warbeck were equally significant in historical terms. Indeed I wonder if including Bosworth in the title is unintentionally leading the article in a certain direction. Dunarc (talk) 20:04, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Came here with the same question. This is the most ridiculous article title I've ever seen on Wikipedia. 78.33.29.98 (talk) 18:00, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

why is he so important in the battle of bosworth

Why Blemil21 (talk) 17:01, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone know Blemil21 (talk) 17:01, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is explained in the article under "Career." Cheers. History Lunatic (talk) 21:15, 3 October 2019 (UTC)History Lunatic[reply]

The hostage son

You say: Stanley is best known for his action at the Battle of Bosworth, where he decisively attacked the Yorkists under Richard, helping to secure Henry VII's victory. This was in contrast to the non-committal attitude of his elder brother [Thomas, Lord Stanley], Henry's stepfather, who was inhibited by the fact that Richard held his son hostage.

On Thomas’s Wiki page, it says: Lord Stanley's response to Richard's threat was reportedly laconic: "Sire, I have other sons". Valetude (talk) 16:29, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]