Talk:William de la Pole, 1st Duke of Suffolk

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.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Middle Ages Low‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages 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.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Biography / British / European / Medieval Start‑class

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

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

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 not met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military biography task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500)

East Anglia Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject East Anglia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of East Anglia 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.East AngliaWikipedia:WikiProject East AngliaTemplate:WikiProject East AngliaEast Anglia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled

"It was suspected" that Suffolk's arch enemy, Richard of York, was behind his execution? Can someone provide a source for this, and indicated who suspected it? At the time of Suffolk's banishment and murder, Richard of York was in residence as governor of Ireland and didn't return to England until late summer or early fall of 1450. Given the history between the two there is plenty of reason to think that they were rivals and even enemies, but I'm not aware of any sources that show a connection between Richard and the murder. As my knowledge of the period is quite limited, however, I'd appreciate being pointed to a reference. Thanks. Pmacbee (talk) 18:49, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A very detailed academic analysis of the circumstances, and of the documentary evidence, relating to Suffolk's death can be found at http://www.wikitree.com/photo.php/4/4f/Pole-26.pdf Having read through it there seem to have been plenty of posible suspects, but despite the known facts no certain answer. It might perhaps even have been just a freak combination of 'piracy' and bad luck. Cassandra — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.5.100 (talk) 10:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Date of marriage

This article has him imprisoned in France from 1429 to 1431 but has him marrying Alice Chaucer in 1430. How did he marry her if he is imprisoned in France? Kevin Rector (talk) 14:49, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jackanapes

The suggestion that William de la Pole was considered an upstart because "he was one of first nouveau riche nobles, risen from the merchant class" is a bit disingenuous. William was the son and grandson of de la Pole earls of Suffolk and as the second earl of the third generation could hardly be called "nouveau riche"; he came into his wealth the old fashioned way - by inheriting it. While the first earl, his grandfather Michael, was the son of a "mere" wool merchant the family by that time was already extraordinarily wealthy; the first earl's father, Sir William de la Pole, was Edward III's chief financier and chief Baron of the Exchequer. It is more likely that the younger William was considered an upstart because Henry VI promoted him to duke even though he was in no way related to the English royal family unlike most if not all of his contemporary dukes, however tangentially. Donmaps (talk) 02:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The claim that "the family used a collar and chain on its coat of arms' which reminded people of monkey leashes is patently untrue. The de la Pole coat of arms is azure a fess and three leopards' heads gold and William differenced that by quartering it with silver on a bend gules three pairs of wings silver for Wingfield Castle, the de la Pole family estate. The only "collar" on the arms is the garter of the Order of the Garter, added by William on his investiture into the order and unlikely to have been mistaken by any loyal Englishman for a collar. Donmaps (talk) 02:13, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Chamberlain

"In short order he was appointed Chamberlain, Admiral of England, and to several other important offices."

He doesn't appear to be mentioned at Lord Great Chamberlain nor at Lord Chamberlain. Is some other office meant? Harfarhs (talk) 22:41, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://archive.org/stream/encyclopediabrit26ed11arch/encyclopediabrit26ed11arch_djvu.txt. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Citrivescence (talk) 05:32, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Citrivescence: thanks for your proactive patrolling of copyright on Wikipedia! But I've restored the material and removed the revdel template. The 1911 EB is okay legally, esp. with attribution. Happy holidays! ——SN 54129 10:28, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...and incidentally, that cool quote on your user page? Without attribution to the writers of Clueless, it's actually more of a copyright issue than anything in this article :) ——SN 54129 10:34, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Serial Number 54129: Thank you for letting me know. I must be mistaken about the policy as I was under the impression that verbatim text requires attribution via the usage of quotation marks. Anyway, I appreciate the reply. Citrivescence (talk) 03:29, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Feud

Nothing here of his feud with John Mowbray, 3rd Duke of Norfolk. Thanks. Spicemix (talk) 08:36, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Spicemix! It looks like you're right. I think that's because this is a pretty crappy article written by non-experts, whereas Mowbray is a Featured Article written par moi :)

In the spirit of WP:BOLD and WP:SOFIXIT, and with close adherence to WP:CWW, feel free to move some stuff from there to here. All the best! SN54129 11:05, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to emend my edit, SN54129. Cheers Spicemix (talk) 13:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]