Talk:Earl of Richmond

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

It's not very clear what's going on here. The title "Earl of Richmond" refers to Richmond in Yorkshire. The title "Duke of Richmond" refers to Richmond in Surrey. Perhaps worth adding a note to this effect.

The changes made by User:ScapegoatVandal don't mesh with our usual sources on the peerage dignity Earl of Richmond, so I've reverted to the earlier version. See [1]. Mackensen (talk) 13:38, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

How is the link I gave wrong and yours so much better? Can you read French?
I can read a little French, not much. I prefer the link I posted because the author worked from sources on the British peerage, which is what this page is about. Mackensen (talk) 14:16, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
But the link I posted even had coats of arms and you don't think that is good enough knowledge on the issue?
The differences aren't that major, are they?One gives the husband of Constance of Brittany, the other gives Constance herself. That's the only notable difference that I saw. The Earls of Richmond are not normally called "Earls of Richmondshire," so I'm not sure how that fits in. The intro introduced by ScapegoatVandal (umm...you might want to change your user name - calling yourself a "vandal" is bound to make people think worse of you, even in spite of themselves, as a visceral reaction to the name) seems wrong - the raising of the title to a dukedom had nothing to do, so far as I am aware, with the incorporation of Brittany into France - at the time that happened, the Duke of Brittany had not been Earl of Richmond for more than a hundred years. john k 15:14, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Oh yeah I see about the confusion between Richmond and Richmondshire, although the Duke of York is technically the Lord of Yorkshire. The county town is the residential title, with the feudal underlings below them in the shire country. At least, this was the way it had been structured in those times. Perhaps I got a mixup over the annexation of Brittany. It was the other way around. Brittany was joined to the French Throne because its English holdings did not provide any buoyancy since the time they were given away by order of the English Crown. My mistake, however the connections to the rulers of Brittany did not vanish with this change. After all, things returned more in that direction with Charles Lennox the first Duke of Richmond and Lennox having a Breton mother. ScapegoatVandal 15:28, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I don't think it necessarily has to do with the County town or feudal underlings. In the middle ages some comital titles derived from the county name (Kent, Suffolk, Norfolk, Surrey, Cornwall), and others derived from the county town (Shrewsbury, Lincoln, York, Lancaster, Leicester). It just depended. I have no idea what you mean about "technically the lord of Yorkshire." Since the Conquest, British noble titles have never implied direct control over the county which they are named for. The earls did get a certain amount of the taxes collected for that county (I don't remember the term for this, but it was some number of pennies, or possibly a half-penny), but the area was not administered by them unless it was a palatine county, like Chester, Durham (which was ruled by the Bishop), Lancashire, and a few others, as well as the marcher areas in Wales and the western Midlands (and perhaps Northumberland, as well). But there was certainly no "official lord" of Yorkshire, and, indeed, the Duke of York was weak in Yorkshire during the Wars of the Roses - his area of strength was the south. In terms of Brittany being joined to France, I think you really have no idea what you are talking about. The Dukes of Brittany lost their English titles in 1399. In 1492, the Duchess of Brittany married the King of France. When they failed to produce an heir and he died, she married his successor, Louis XII. They had a daughter, Claude, who succeeded her mother as duchess in 1514. She married Louis's heir, Francis of Angouleme, who became Francis I of France. Francis incorporated Brittany into France in 1524 in order to centralize his control of France. It had nothing to do with the long defunct English holdings. In terms of the first Lennox Duke of Richmond's Breton mother, it is possible that this Breton history was being recalled by Charles's choice of title for his bastard, but that doesn't have any real meaning, it's just an interesting fact. john k 04:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Well, there has always been a top-down relationship between the peerage and the commoners. The nobility would command respect and loyalty far greater from the commoners than the king could muster, until the late middle ages eroded their power with monarchical absolutism. I used the Yorkist title as a comparison, but perhaps the Nevilles of Westmorland or Percys of Northumberland would have been better choices for you to see what I meant. As for the Breton holdings in England and the return of Brittany to France, I already knew about what you've just said. It is all detailed here at Wikipedia and elsewhere online. No need to get haughty with me sir, I am not looking for an argument. Although English and French antagonisms had broken the links several times, reconnection had been attempted throughout the Hundred Years' War and after. What you fail to realise however it seems by your calling me ignorant, is that the Breton power structure had also little room for independence because of the French king's expansion. There was little to gain from the avoidance of union, since there were no independent sources of income for the ruling people in Brittany. Their Norman Conquest holdings weren't providing them any distance from relying on the closest power next to them, which brought the "voluntary" marriage with the French Crown. Yes, I have thought the same of King Charlie's bastard issue. It still doesn't erase the jist of what I have said here. Perhaps you don't see the meaning of my points with the way I describe them, but I'm not bullshitting anybody here. The Breton inheritance is still present in Great Britain. Besides the Duke of Richmond, there is also the Duke of Norfolk and other bastards of the House of Stuart(and legit Stewarts of lower birth) with these origins and might I remind you they also have been the most Catholic of all British lordly families. This isn't going away any time soon. It would be in error to say that the Nevilles and Percys just disappeared after their power was broken, or that the old Anglo-French connection evaporated because of Robespierre, Bonaparte and King George III's decision to renounce his claim. The Jacobites continued their claim, but it was not only them. My family were/are Anglo-French gentry; little else. ScapegoatVandal 06:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
In addition, Richmond had become a royal treasure since the Tudors' rise to power. There was little chance of the land getting back to the Breton House. Orientation changed. ScapegoatVandal 12:50, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Okay, fair enough - I will hold to the fact that the way you made your comments made it seem like you were talking nonsense. So, before I misunderstand you again, are you saying that the Dukes of Norfolk are bastard Stuarts? Or that any of the bastard Stuart families is Catholic? And what is the connection of the Dukes of Norfolk, Grafton, Saint Albans, and Buccleuch to Brittany? At any rate, your point about the importance of the Richmond titles to Anne's ultimate marriage to Charles VIII seems questionable, or at least exaggerated. The reason for the marriage derive out of the extinction of the Breton ducal house on the death of Duke Francis and the fact that the French had the power to force the marriage on the Breton rulers. I've no idea how this would have been different in case of the Dukes of Brittany not losing their English lands and titles. As it was, there was a strong English vested interest in maintaining the independence of Brittany. john k 14:37, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
The Howard (family) is already written down on the Wiki as being the second family of England and social leader of Catholics, beside their ancestry originally of the FitzAlan clan that produced the Stuarts as well. The Stuarts(FitzFlaald etc) came anciently from Brittany. Also, Richmondshire during the Pilgrimage of Grace was filled with Catholics(from where came Baron Baltimore to Maryland), although one of the 3rd creation Dukes protested Empancipation(I know the Gordons aren't Catholic). Of course, not ALL Stuarts were Catholics. Many converted to keep their power(despite Fawkes plotting against Stuart, etc) or were raised that way to be protected, like Queen Mary and Queen Anne. England could have gotten Brittany a suitable spouse, if they really had the resources to protect the duchy. Brittany has always vacillated between both kingdoms anyways, with the Wars of the Roses not providing any help to Brittany. France always blocked English efforts to control English soil on the Continent. Both of what you said about dynastic inheritance and what I said are equally relevant. I never said they were mutually exclusive. ScapegoatVandal 15:11, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I had forgotten about the FitzAlan's having a common male ancestor with the Stewarts. That said, the Howards are not FitzAlan's - the 4th Duke of Norfolk married the daughter of the last FitzAlan Earl of Arundel. The Howard family has different origins. At any rate, I am highly doubtful that the purported Breton origins of the Stuart/FitzAlan clan had much of anything to do with anything. Obviously, the English did not have the resources to protect the duchy, and neither did Maximilian in Brussels, despite the fact that Maximilian wanted to marry Anne, and neither of them wanted Brittany going to the French. But I don't see what that has to do with anything. Beyond that, I am no longer sure what your argument is here. john k 17:55, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The argument deteriorated into you flouting knowledge and me trying to get you to see that I know things too, whether you happen to see the point of that or not. Do you remember the first dispute? It was about the structure of the article, which I believe could be fused together from Mackensen's and my own happy-go-lucky websites that are equally useful. ScapegoatVandal 18:09, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to "flout" knowledge - you seemed to be saying things that didn't make sense to me. At any rate, I would suggest that for the list of earlier earls, Complete Peerage would be comprehensive...we could just lie back and rely on that, eh? john k 17:05, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Creation of Richmond earldom[edit]

Read in a french book about William the Conqueror :

« In 1068, William created a small earldom around Richmond to isolate Northumbria. He named Brian de Penthievre, a brittain auxiliary to manage this earldom. In 1072, Alan (Alain) de Penthievre succeeded his brother in the Richmond earldom. In 1080, this earldom was one of the five earldoms remaining in the kingdom. » PurpleHz 18:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

could you provide the citation for this book so I can read it ? Thanks 96.224.67.52 (talk) 17:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The author is Paul Zumthor, the book Guillaume le Conquérant et la civilisation de son temps (1964). I don't think this is a worthy reference. David C. Douglas, in his William the Conqueror (1964 too), doesn't mention him as earl of Richmond, but "perhaps as earl of Cornwall". He says that he didn't stay long in England and went back quickly to Brittany. Regards, PurpleHz (talk) 17:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicting sources for succession of the earldom:[edit]

I am willing to bet that the coa, 1911, genuki and fotw have the most accurate information. As it stands now, the listing of Richmond's lords is rather vague and non sequitur. For instance, Wikipedia's Earl of Richmond article lists Peter of Savoy as Earl of Richmond, but not Ralph de Neville, 1st Earl of Westmorland. Neither man was holder of the Peerage, but instead holder of the Honour. While the Richmond Herald article lists George Plantagenet, 1st Duke of Clarence as Earl (holder of the Honour in other words, at least...), this Earl of Richmond article does not. Whoever thought that "angeltowns" is a be-all, end-all reputable source must have their head a little loose on their shoulders. That's a private webpage, like geocities! Rhode Islander 20:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article status mid February 2013 has been updated to follow the progression of the title and the ownership of the Honour when held separate from the title as well as the titular use of Earl of Richmond by the House of Montfort in Brittany. This seems an acceptable current reflection of available research. 71.167.64.218 (talk) 05:15, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggesting a merger and rename[edit]

I suggest a merger of this article with the Duke of Richmond article and flesh out the differences between the Lordships, Earldoms and Dukedoms of Richmond in their relationship with the capital district of Richmondshire as well as the total Honour of Richmond. Throughout the Rennes dynasty and until the Angevins, they were not officially earls but actually more or less just lords of the honour. After all, most histories of Brittany make note of the rise of feudalism in Brittany having been started with the rule of Henry II of England. This was also the first time when an outsider dynasty ruled over the region. Beforehand, the rulers of Brittany were local Breton and Gallo speakers from Western and Eastern Brittany. Les Invisibles 16:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

With the substantial updates from Jan and Febr 2013 this article EARL OF RICHMOND now stands well on its own and clearly makes the delineation of the EARLDOM versus the DUKEDOM. The earldom should remain a separate article. Also now there is a separate article on the Honour of richmond that was also updated during the same time frame. And it should stand on its won. The Earldom and Honour articles are now carefully interlinked. Further changes should be to add to the history of the Earldom and / or Honour and to provide additional sources71.167.64.218 (talk) 05:11, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

last Breton earl[edit]

Whatever reason John (V) de Montfort was the last Breton duke to be earl of Richmond, it was not because he did not leave any heirs - he had a son who succeeded him in Brittany. This ought to be corrected, preferably with accurate information. john k (talk) 07:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons for the Dukes of Brittany losing the Earldom are complicated in the War of the Roses, etc. The article has been improved using Breton history summaries to note that after John V the Breton Dukes retained the title as a titulary and the line of titular counts is listed with links for their particular articles and histories. This completes the story for the time being. 71.167.64.218 (talk) 05:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Breton Earls of Richmond[edit]

This article is being updated in Jan 2013 in connection with concurrent work on the article Duchy of Brittany. As part of that I have removed the parenthetical comment that the Dukes of Brittany were (a pariah in England). This is an unsubstantiated remark toned towards a slanderous accusation, without proof, documentation, explanatory footnote or documented references. It is removed to bring the history of the Earls of Richmond into a more objective focus across the timeline of the legally granted title. (Readers are free to think what they will about the Bretons, and the English and French and all other 'groups' as well, but those thoughts rarely belong in wikipedia articles without objective historical support.) Kenavo all. 96.224.67.52 (talk) 14:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Rufus wasn't succeeded by his brother Stephen, but by his brother Alan the Black (d. 1098). Stephen succeeded to the second Alan (see fr:Alain le Roux on wiki-fr for more)
ref : Frank Barlow, The Godwins, Pearson Education, 2003, p. 162-163. (ISBN 0-582-78440-9).
Regards, PurpleHz (talk) 02:13, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very little info extant on this Alan the Black who died same year as Alan Rufus apparently. I've replaced his name in the article, it is now clear he is not the same Alan the Black as the fourth Earl, the one created by Stephen (that was not clear in an earlier draft of the article from Jan 213 or Dec 2012). Thanks. If others find this is entirely in error and the first Alan the Black does not exist then please delete, and if others find any other corroborating info on him please supplyBreizhtalk (talk) 06:42, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rufus died in 1093, and The Black in 1098. The other Alan the Black is a completly different person, since he was an ally of King Stephen during The Anarchy. Never heard anybody mistaken one for another. See fr:Alain le Noir to expand the current (poor) article. PurpleHz (talk) 18:56, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Earl_of_Richmond&oldid=1196057653"