Talk:Jasper Tudor

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Page name[edit]

At what point does it become appropriate to revert to 'Jasper Tudor' as the title of this article ? Most of the contributors to this discussion favour this. Gwedi elwch (talk) 12:39, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia:Requested moves#Undiscussed moves, User:Zacwill shouldn't have moved the article without discussion in 2015 because there had been previous discussion. However, it's too late now to undo that move, because the title has been in place for a long time. To move it now, you'd need to request a single page move. Please note that talk page threads are supposed to thread in date order, new comments should go at the bottom of the thread, not the top. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the discussion below, I cannot understand how the article on Jasper Tudor is still entitled - Jasper Tudor, 1st Duke of Bedford. Like many of the contributors below I consider it preferable to entitle the article simply 'Jasper Tudor'. Adding 'Duke of Bedford' suffers from the defect identified by Loren below - he is almost never referred to as 'Duke of Bedford' in the secondary sources. Adding 'Earl of Pembroke' suffers from the defect that he was ultimately promoted to Duke of Bedford. Of course these titles should be referred to in the article, but there is no reason why they should be referred to in the title of the article. Gwedi elwch (talk) 17:19, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jasper Tudor is more commonly referred to as Earl of Pembroke, probably because he didn't receive the dukedom until late in life and well after the major accomplishments of his life. So I wonder if would be better to list him that way? -- Loren
For what it's worth, I'd rather see him back at Jasper Tudor, where he started. There's no rule that says peerages have to be included in an article's title, not if the person is better known just by their name. Deb 11:55 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)
I've moved him back to plain old Jasper Tudor, simply because there were so many links to him by this name, and none at all under "Jasper Tudor, Duke of Bedford". Deb 19:09 24 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Jasper Tudor is just about never referred to as "Jasper Tudor, Ist Duke of Bedford." As stated above, if a title has to be included than "Earl of Pembroke" is the usual choice, although "Jasper Tudor" would be preferable, more conventional, and in line with wikipedia's naming policy of using the most familiar name. Would there be any strong objections to renaming the article accordingly? Enaidmawr 19:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Moved without discussion - moved back. WP:COMMONNAMES gives precedence to common usage over standardization. If you think Jasper Tudor is not common enough to qualify, then make your argument. Agricolae (talk) 19:11, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
People with titles, specially high titles, should be, and allways are, referred to with them next to their names. I tried to move it to Jasper Tudor, 1st Duke of Bedford, but it can't be done. LoveActresses (talk) 18:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did you bother even to read what I said? They are NOT always referred to with their title, unless "the Conqueror" is the title of the first Norman king of England. As to whether the SHOULD, that is a separate question, but the current naming standards say otherwise. Go Read the Cited Page WP:COMMONNAME. Please EDUCATE YOURSELF rather than just presenting your personal opinion as the way things should or are done. Agricolae (talk) 21:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
YOU educate yourself, and got talk like that to your mother: I've never seen a holder of a title not be mentioned with it, and I've seen dozens. LoveActresses (talk) 14:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What? Having seen important people makes your opinion more valid? I don't care if you once stood 6 feet away from the Queen of Denmark, your opinions are still just your opinions. I don't care what you've seen: this is not a ballroom, it's an encyclopedia. Agricolae (talk) 19:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No!... How can you interpret what I said that way? When I said I've seen dozens I wasn't referrinf to the holders themselves but to thr articles about them, I've seen them, lot's of them!... LoveActresses (talk) 14:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and the mentioned "ten commandments" say nothing about titles of nobility, so, it's just YOUR personal opinion. And, if you don't have the sense or the sensibility to know how things go better and stick to rules like a nobrainer, too bad. How can / how could wikipedia exclude titles and high titles? Do that to people in my country and you'll see what's better. LoveActresses (talk) 14:56, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see, William the Conqueror; Cnut the Great; Edward, the Black Prince (by the way, ODNB just names his article Edward - no titles at all: this is not a practice unique to Wikipedia, nor unknown in a title-conscious nation); Lord Byron; Margaret Thatcher; William Pitt the Younger; I could go on. "It is generally advisable to use the most common form of the name used in reliable sources in English." (from WP:NCROY). How could Wikipedia exclude high titles? By not using them - it is that simple, no trick to it, you just leave them out. What would happen in your country is entirely irrelevant because Wikipedia need not conform to the obscure social norms of every country where it can be read.
Just to be clear, there are two issues here. The first is whether the name of Jasper Tudor is common enough to override the formulaic naming you prefer. That is the kind of thing that can be discussed here. You can even make a formal request for a move to formalize the process. A separate issue is that this had already been discussed here, and a consensus reached that the name should be just Jasper Tudor. To then ignore this consensus and change the page name without further discussion, based on your own preference, is entirely inappropriate. Any controversial page move should be discussed first. The fact that it had been discussed and decided differently makes your change inherently controversial. It is incumbent on you to respect other editors enough to not assume your personal opinions are more important that a consensus already reached. I reverted it, not because you were clearly wrong in your opinion (I think you are, but could perhaps be convinced otherwise), but because you ignored a consensus already reached and just changed the name. Agricolae (talk) 19:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't ignore the consensus because I didn't know there was one in the first place, I couldn't have known about a previous discussion, and checking every single discussion page is rather unusual. I didn't know, but now I do. As for the above mentioned cases, they're simply exceptions to the generality of the cases. Why? Because, due to their celebrity they became known by some names instead of the formal titles, as it's mentioned on WP:COMMONNAME. I can even provide you another, Dai Llewellyn, more famous as such as a socialite than as the Baronet he was. Only then titles are ignored, by not being forbidden and for being the use of articles and editors. Jasper Tudor isn't better known as "the" Jasper Tudor, he's not that big. LoveActresses (talk) 14:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any time you change the name of a page you should check whether the name has been discussed. Look, I know you are new at this and that there is a rather steep learning curve, but that is no excuse for running roughshod over policies and established consensus. That it never occurred to you to look IS the problem, "I couldn't have known about the previous discussion" is just wrong. Had you investigated the policies regarding moving pages before you did it, you would have known to look. As to the specific question at issue, your own definition of what constitutes a special case seems to be at odds with the that of others. This is not a question unique to this page - there are those who favor standardization at the expense of convenience, and those who favor convenience at the expense of standardization. The result is an uncomfortable mix, with both sides not liking some of the outcomes. The other perspective is, how likely is someone to be looking for a man named Jasper Tudor who is not "the" Jasper Tudor? If someone is the only notable person of that name, why is it necessary to specify that it is the Jasper Tudor who was Earl of Whatnot, rather than some other hypothetical Jasper Tudor nobody is going to search for anyhow? Had I gone to Wikipedia looking for this particular guy, I would have typed two words in the search window - Jasper Tudor: not his title, not his other title, not that he was 1st or 22nd or whatever he was, but Jasper Tudor, full stop. Agricolae (talk) 17:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In any moves I've made I've allways taken in consideration similar pages, allways. Less to none possibility to mistake. But sometimes it happens. LoveActresses (talk) 17:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC) Beside, when we move we see the talk page, and I've rarelly seen anything on it. Unless it's the new talk page. LoveActresses (talk) 17:57, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I know, in most cases nothing has been discussed. It tends to lull one into not checking, but you should always check, even if the move seems obvious to you. The fact is, you never know when someone is going to disagree with anything you do here. It is best to be proactive, look before you leap, prepare your arguments to make them well, based on policy and not just personal opinion, and not to take offense when contradicted. Agricolae (talk) 19:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]


In terms of the Bosworth material here, I've always heard that it was the Earl of Oxford who was responsible for the Lancastrian victory there. Does anyone else have any idea? john k 18:49, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Illegitimate children section[edit]

ADDITIONAL NOTE ON WELSH GENEALOGIES. The AHRC Project on P.C. Bartrum’s Welsh Genealogies (2010): Marchudd 13 & Marchudd 13A, Welsh Department, Aberystwyth University. This genealogical table shows Jasper Tudor with one illegitimate daughter, Helen, who married William Gardiner of London. It does not show any children for Helen and it does not show any other illegitimate child of Jasper Tudor. If this Bartram table rests on Welsh sources independent of Tonge and Dugdale these may provide further support for Jasper's paternity of Ellen / Helen. Gwedi elwch (talk) 05:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have now redrafted this section so that it reflects the sources. As a result of considering Tonge's 1530 Visitation of the North, I consider that there is a reliable source for claiming Ellen as an illegitimate child of Jasper Tudor. The Visitation was carried out under a warrant of King Henry VIII and it would have been a rather brave Prior who asserted, without a fair degree of confidence, descent from a bastard child of Jasper Tudor, the King's great-uncle - and as a result claimed to be entitled to impale Jasper's arms (albeit with a bend sinister to denote bastardy), in particular since Jasper's own arms incorporated the royal arms of England. My next comment is now of historical interest only. Gwedi elwch (talk) 03:55, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section is seriously defective.

(1) For the supposed illegitimate daughter JOAN, there is NO reliable / verifiable source. The only cited "source" is (footnote 21) the website 'Find a Grave' , which itself cites no sources. This is hopeless. Footnote 20 correctly states that William Dugdale's Baronage of England page 242 only lists Helen as an illegitimate daughter and fails to mention Joan.

(2) For the supposed illegitimate daughter Helen, it would be possible to cite William Dugdale’s Baronage of England as a source. But note that (a) this dates only to 1676 - there is no earlier source; (b) Jasper Tudor's will makes no mention of any illegitimate daughters; (c) even Dugdale does not mention the supposed mother Myfanwy ferch Dafydd. Dugdale simply reports Jasper as ‘leaving no other issue than one illegitimate Daughter, called Ellen, who became the Wife of William Gardner, Citizen of London’, a statement based on a book of a contemporary of Dugdale’s.Dugdale is not a very secure source - but even based on Dugdale this section requires serious pruning.

Gwedi elwch (talk) 00:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This section needs to be cleaned up. There are far too many dates which clutter the sentences and confuse the reader.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:11, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The changes by user:LoveActresses turn out to have been made by a sockpuppet of user:G.-M. Cupertino. As the edit were added with only one unreliable source I have reverted out the changes. -- PBS (talk) 10:06, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added back in the reference to both Jasper Tudor's daughters. Until someone can find evidence that refutes the claim simply stating, "It is unsupportable" is not enough for a removal. Virgosky (talk) 23:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Legitimate Children[edit]

As far as I know he had no children by marriage, though it says differently here. If he had had a son by his wife during the marriage (as the page says), this son would at least have inherited his father's earldom if not the dukedom.-- (talk) 18:41, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]


"Jasper Tudor bore the arms of the kingdom, with the addition of...". Given that his father's arms are at Owen Tudor on what basis did Jasper Tudor use the arms of the kingdom? Avalon (talk) 23:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

as one of the half-brothers of King Henry VI. I think it was granted to him by the king.-- (talk) 18:38, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This needs serious sourcing.[edit]

It provides very few indeed.

For example the unsubstantiated claims that he had 'considerable military expertise' and 'tactical awareness' etc. Of course he may well done; but who says/

Basket Feudalist 15:53, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]