Talk:Richard III of England

No such thing as 'Plantagenet dynasty'

There was never such a dynasty. It's a later invention. None of those royals ever called themselves 'Plantagenets'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.103.107.57 (talk) 12:13, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

While it may be the later-invented designation of historians, so too are many other recognised dynasties throughout World history. The term does not imply that to be judged "the X dynasty" requires that it was so called at the time. In general, many things have existed before a particular modern term or name was coined for them – see for example Genocide. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 94.8.123.129 (talk) 11:43, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Richard's achievements during his short reign

The article is being reassessed here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Richard_III_of_England/GA4#GA_Reassessment and it has been pointed out that the "King of England" section only addresses Richard of Gloucester's rise to the throne and the opposition he later met, but fails to point out what he actually did during his reign. I think this is a valid point, especially because some interesting things can be said about his achievements during his reign, despite having a single parliamentary session, like perfecting the system of bail, starting to issue laws in English instead of Latin to make sure the common people could understand them, lowering taxes on imported books, which ultimately led to a wider distribution of knowledge, etc. Would anyone like to help out setting up a subsection like "Achievements" or "Reforms"? There certainly is plenty of literature out there to reference. Isananni (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi. I am not an editor of Wikipedia or formally a Richard III scholar. I study human remains from archaeological sites though and forensic biohistory, though and have been interested in the case since his remains were found. I just wanted to comment that this page seems to be the product of a surprisingly strong Ricardian revisionism, which is to say an attempt to rehabilitate Richard III legacy. As is noted by Richard Toon and Laurie Stone, and their book chapter Ga

Game of Thrones: Richard III and the Creation of heritage HAll of the recent attempts to rehabilitate Richard the thirds legacy and dismiss previous centuries criticisms of Richard as "Tudor propaganda" ignore the fact The primary sources that we have now are the same by enlarge as those that were available earlier. There really is no cogent argument that earlier depiction of him are incorrect. Thank you., eritage 2601:845:C100:7560:E340:B713:1756:D741 (talk) 23:15, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

There really is. Shakespeare's play is pure Tudor propaganda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.103.107.57 (talk) 12:15, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 30 January 2025

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Supporters of the move argued for conciseness and common name, but other editors opposed on the basis of clarity and consistency. Both sides used primary topic as rationales. In the absence of clear consensus for a move, the current article title is retained. (closed by non-admin page mover) Celia Homeford (talk) 12:10, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

---

Richard III of England → Richard IIIRichard III – I'd argue that, much like Henry VIII and Elizabeth I, Richard III doesn't need the "of England" in the title. He's an infamous historical person in that saying "Richard III" would conjure up an image of the man in most people - whether it be the Shakespearean play or the relatively recent rediscovery of his remains and reburial. This would fall under WP:COMMONNAME. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2025 (UTC) — Relisting.  ASUKITE 15:13, 8 February 2025 (UTC)— Relisting. Sophisticatedevening ^(talk) 17:22, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support per nominator. Killuminator (talk) 20:09, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Just to note there were three others, none of whom were kings:

• Richard III, Duke of Normandy (997–1027)
• Richard III of Capua (died 1120)
• Richard III of Gaeta (died 1140)

Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:13, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. No need to be inconsistent with Richard II of England and Henry VII of England. Or even to decide that he is the primary topic as opposed to Richard III (play). —Srnec (talk) 03:15, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

  I should clarify that the play was just was one of many examples, and I gave it because of how well known it is compared to other of Shakespeare's history plays; I think Henry V (play) rivals it only. Beyond that, he's far more better known today than any other English monarch - pre-Union of the Crowns that is - safe for Henry VIII and Elizabeth I. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:55, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

  It's actually called The Tragedy of Richard the Third, but I think we know what you mean. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:02, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

  Indeed that is the full name of the play. Omnis Scientia (talk) 11:55, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

  Considering the guidance for non-determinative but significant factors in WP:DPT, should we really be privileging the play vis-à-vis the figure in this instance? Remsense ‥ 论 03:15, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support in line with WP:SOVEREIGN point 3: "of England" is not needed as the king is the clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Richard III (disambiguation) lists only various eponymous works and the minor nobility mentioned above, which don't even come close to meeting the primary topic criteria. Template:-r has been the uncontested WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT since 2012. Rosbif73 (talk) 10:25, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Relisting comment: The argument brought for moving is compelling, relisted in case of any additional input. The play is already disambiguated, and likely wouldn't trump its own subject matter in terms of recognizability, but there is also consistency to consider. ASUKITE 15:13, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Consistency shouldn't be a factor here: in accordance with the first bullet in WP:CONSISTENT, the existence of a disambiguating term, here "of England", in some titles and not others is considered perfectly normal. Of the two articles specifically mentioned as candidates for consistency, Richard II is also a long-uncontested primary redirect and could also be moved to the shorter title (and arguably should be, per WP:SOVEREIGN); conversely there are multiple Henry VIIs with no clear primary topic. Rosbif73 (talk) 10:07, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Royalty and Nobility, WikiProject English Royalty, and WikiProject Middle Ages have been notified of this discussion. ASUKITE 15:19, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Pageviews shows longterm stability as by far the most viewed Richard III article. Richard III is already a redirect to this article which is also consistent with the king being considered the primary topic.--MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 02:40, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
• Support per above comments, common name, and the fact that the proposed title already redirects to this page. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:57, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. Getting so sick of this dumbing down. I'd be surprised if the primary topic for Richard III isn't the play, and we should be redirecting to that if anything. The fact that the redirect has been uncontested since 2012 is irrelevant, since the current page title has been around for 20 years without any evidence of a problem. Deb (talk) 14:22, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Deb Its one thing to oppose, which is understandable (hence RM), but please kindly refrain from using ableist language like "dumbing down," especially when its not really about that at all. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:30, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

  That's your opinion. Would it be more acceptable if I said "parochialism", which is what it certainly is - an assumption that "everyone knows" Richard III means the King of England. They certainly don't, which is why we put it in the title. Deb (talk) 14:38, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

  It's not parochialism either, it's simply avoiding WP:OVERPRECISION. Things that we cannot assume "everyone knows" should be explained in the actual article, not in the title. Rosbif73 (talk) 15:41, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

  Just asking you to convey your opinion with more appropriate and kinder language. That is all. You may disagree with it but I just think that WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is pretty obvious here and many English monarchs don't have the "of England" in cases they are the primary topic. There is nothing more to this RM. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:42, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

  I agree and support you on this. Language is important, as is being civil and respectful. Rafts of Calm (talk) 11:58, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

  The fact that the page has been at the current title for 20 years is irrelevant, in that for 19 of those 20 years it was aligned with the relevant naming conventions, which have now changed. And FWIW, the monarch gets approximately 20 times as many views as the play.[1] Rosbif73 (talk) 14:30, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

  That's because people can currently tell which is which. Deb (talk) 14:39, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per Deb. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 15:17, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per Deb. Serial (speculates here) 15:19, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per Deb. Dimadick (talk) 17:07, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose. Per Deb. SpartanMazda (talk) 10:08, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Support per nom. "Richard III" already redirects here, and per @Martinevans123, the other Richard III's aren't popular enough to challenge WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Jeffrey34555 (talk) 12:58, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

As per Deb, I'm not convinced it's an improvement. But don't feel strongly enough to go either way. Martinevans123 (talk) 09:04, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose; as per the above. Snowstormfigorion (talk) 08:55, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

• Support As common name and as primary topic, although I agree the play is also commonly known as Richard III and is also of high importance, albeit secondary to the king. Rafts of Calm (talk) 12:00, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose and move Richard III (disambiguation) to Richard III. My reasoning is as follows. Although the play by Shakespeare is based on the historical figure, it takes deliberate liberties with the historical account for political purposes specific to Shakespeare's day. Various well-known adaptations of Shakespeare's play go much further, with the 1995 Ian McKellan film titled Richard III setting the story in the 1930s, and the 2007 film titled Richard III set in contemporary Hollywood. In short, adaptations have strayed so far from the historical figure as to make the historical figure obsolete to their calculations. BD2412 T 03:29, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

  Just to note that I'd somewhat agree pre-2012, before his remains were found and he became a world wide sensation. Additionally, another person here made the point that the play can't overshadow its subject. Omnis Scientia (talk) 03:36, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

  Really? Like Timon of Athens, you mean? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:09, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

  Or that famous 11th-century Scottish king...? Fortuna, Imperatrix Mundi 11:13, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

  I hear he was big in Arden. But not so hot at Dunsinane... Martinevans123 (talk) 11:23, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

  @Martinevans123 @Fortuna imperatrix mundi, lol, fair enough, I stand corrected. It should be "In MOST cases, the play can't overshadow its subject." I think that's fair to say. Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

  "Template:Tq" Martinevans123 (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose Richard III is undoubtedly the common name, which belongs to the play, no matter how much some later-day fans of the king might not like it. Nor does it matter whether this is about dumbing down, it is dumbing down regardless, whether the supporters mean it to be or not. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:09, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Comment: The statement by Alanscottwalker that "Richard III is undoubtedly the common name" seems like an expression of support, but opposition was expressed. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 17:26, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

No, absolutely not. You failed to read that phrase in context. Read it again, in full. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:29, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

That's now The Tragedy of King Richard the Third, so you might have a few words to say over there. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:33, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I have moved it back for consistency with his other plays. Srnec (talk) 04:53, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

I see, so Alanscottwalker seems to be suggesting to retarget Template:-r to the play. It has been a redirect to the article about the king since 2012. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:07, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

That's not how one makes a suggestion, here. And, as title policy suggests, most move discussions are just a waste of time, but interesting that happened in 2012, and it is easy to create a redirect, even with little thought. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:30, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

The redirect wasn't created casually. It was the result of a formal RM proposal, recorded at Talk:Richard III (disambiguation)#Requested move. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:47, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

That does not evidence much thought. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:01, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Again, please don't use that language. I don't mind about disagreements but at least be careful with the wording since it is ableist. Much appreciated. Also, I would not that I'm not a supporter/"fan" (can you really be a fan of medival kings in general? not a very nice group, to say the least) - I just think that he is "Richard III" when I think of Richard III; not the play or any other person but the King. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:48, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

'Dumbing down' is not abelist, so you are also wrong there. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:55, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I see Simple Wikipedia calls him errrr, Richard III of England. But I guess that's not dumb, just simple. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:00, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

It is to anyone who is neurodivergent, as I am, or is dyslexic and/or has learning difficulties - and others like people with stammers - and do actually need things which are simplified to help them out. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:30, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

No. It is not. It is a critique of manner of trying to change something that serves no good purpose. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:37, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

"Is this too diffcult to understand, would you like me to dumb it down for you?" is an actual thing someone said to my face in a mocking tone. And I hope I don't have to repeatedly ask you to stop saying/justifying your use of it. I only ask you to use kinder language. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:51, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I have refused your request, as not well made, so you don't again, need do anything. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:58, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Um... K? Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:03, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I was adding before the interruption, in case you are unaware, there is a loud and organized fan club for this king, which is decidedly anti-that-play. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:04, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Ah yes, the Richard III of England Society. Didn't one of them lot used to be a Wikipedia editor? Martinevans123 (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Oh I know them yes. Recently discovered them via the film The Lost King. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:31, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

So, as I said, they don't seem to like when Richard III refers to the play. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:40, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose per Deb. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:50, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
• Comment Honestly at this point we should move Henry VIII and Elizabeth I back to their former titles. The whole thing has resulted in a lot of inconsistency. Why do we have Mary I of England in between them and then the territorial designation is dropped for the previous and next monarchs? There seems to be no logic here. Keivan.f^Talk 16:05, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

  Also, I have noted since I opened this, for Edward IV, Edward V, and Edward VI. It's an odd collection of kings not to have the territorial designation. *shrugs* Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:10, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

  WP:SOVEREIGN tells us that the territorial designation should only be included in the title if necessary for disambiguation purposes (i.e. when we have more than one monarch with the same name and regnal number, but no primary topic). I'm well aware that this has been a matter of dispute, but the latest RfC on the topic concluded that there was no consensus to revert the November 2023 change to the naming guidelines. And WP:CONSISTENT tells us that the consistency criterion does not apply in cases where the inconsistency is only for disambiguation purposes. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:16, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.