Knowledge (XXG):Featured article candidates/John de Mowbray, 3rd Duke of Norfolk/archive1

2812:

Mowbray's father had only died five years earlier so there wasn't a particularly long period when Mowbray was under the minority. And Mowbray's coming of age coincides, more or less, with Henry's personal rule. The rules of behaviour, for example, must have been imposed on M. between the ages of 17 and 21 (1432x1436); true that for the the earlier end of the range the regency council was firmly in control, but by the end of it, far less so; and something like immoral behaviour has (someone else rather than me!) pointed out, very much the kind of thing that a young—and very religious—Henry might insist on dealing with himself. But perhaps a couple of sentences clarifying the division of labour between Bedford, Gloucester and the regency council in the early 1430s might be in order. (I think, since Mowbray didn't attend Henry's Paris coronation, a degree of background detail can probably be ommitted?).

910:, if I could find sourcing for the claims to be waxed lyrical over...? On the assumption that I could find them of course. Just a word to explain my own reasoning for titling him so; throughout the article I referred to "Historian X" (or some such form of words) as a means of verifying the credentials for those giving the opinion, and I thought—consitency again—that I should clarify (not only as Iridescent says that he is qualified to comment) that he is specifically 2156:"Their alliance could have also been abandoned by York, perhaps embarrassed by Mowbray's violent behaviour in East Anglia. York was, after all, presenting himself as the candidate of law and order." Slightly confused wording: I suggest "York may have abandoned the alliance because of his objection to Mowbray's violent behaviour in East Anglia, as York was, after all, presenting himself as the candidate of law and order." 2826:

last night, because it's all waaay too complicated. I hope to get back here to continue reading this evening. One quick comment while I'm here: how do you feel about having a single color for all of the text boxes? Some are a little bright (migraine sufferer here, sensitive to some screen colors) and it might be slightly less distracting. Only a preference though, not actionable, so it's your call. Back later.

2431:

improvements were called for, and edited accordingly. Given the calibre of the reviewers who've looked at this, I think it'd be worth someone just going over the prose as it stands and polishing where possible. I'm no expert on this subject but as the heavy lifting re. sourcing and comprehensiveness appears to have been done I'd be happy to recuse as coord and do it myself if no-one has any objections. Cheers,

2118:: I'm finding a worrying number of prose points which I think should have been spotted by the several supporting editors who claim to have copy-edited or read through the article. They should have gone to Specsavers. Some of these issues might be considered as matters of style, but some are downright errors. I've got as as far as the end of the "Wars of the Roses" section, and that's all I can do today. 1253:: "Such hope have all the line of John of Gaunt!", "We’ll all assist you. He that flies shall die.", and "And I to Norfolk with my followers." Other characters refer to him only twice, as I recall, and only incidentally. If I find anything I'll drop it on the talk page, since I'm starting to feel I'm blundering around making a mess of Tim's section of comments here (sorry about that Tim!). -- 1934:"In 1435, some Mowbray retainers (led by Robert Wingfield, Mowbray's steward of Framlingham Castle) murdered one of de la Pole 's (James Andrew)". Again, somewhat clumsy and over-bracketed. Perhaps "In 1435, Robert Wingfield, Mowbray's steward of Framlingham, led a group of Mowbray retainers who murdered James Andrew, one of de la Pole's men" – or some such. 1694:"Mowbray was instrumental in helping Edward win the Battle of Towton by his late arrival with reinforcements in April 1461." I'd be inclined to reconstruct this, by bringing the date to the start of the sentence, and adding a comma: "In April 1461 Mowbray was instrumental in helping Edward win the Battle of Towton, by his late arrival with reinforcements". 1193:, that's reallly useful. I've ODNB up so I'll look into your suggestions: this is a Good Thing, because I was slightly ashamed of the "Cultral depictions" section, which is a testimony to my ignorance of all things Shakespeare/ean. It looks a little throw-away at the moment, so what you've suggested should allow for a little expansion. 2467:, anything you see ft to do is OK by me; unfortunately I did not receive feedback on my alterations so minor qualifications were probably inevitable. Incidentally, I wasn't trying to rush the thing—I just assumed that would fail at that point. I'm kind of glad now I didn't provoke you into doing so! ;) Cheers, 1339:: "Mowbray did not live long enough to benefit from the Yorkist victory. On 2 November 1461, Howard was arrested by the new Yorkist regime. Mowbray died four days later on 6 November 1461." Mowbray was presumably not so attached to Howard that the latter's arrest caused the former to suffer an apoplexy? 1334:

Having given the article one last read-through I'm now happy to support its promotion to FA. Two final points, neither of them terribly important. First "archenemy" should be hyphenated according to the OED (though if you counter with archbishop and archfiend I shall not fight to the death in defence

1035:

For whatever it's worth, I can confirm that W. W. Greg is a Big Deal™ in Shakespeare studies (anybody familiar with the field will instantly recognize the name), and that "Shakespeare scholar" is, presumably due to the more than usually multi-disciplinary nature of it, a common way to refer to people

222:

She means, she feels it's unnecessary duplication for the infobox to include his father and son, and his predecessor and successor, since they're one and the same. I disagree in this particular case; while in this instance they're identical because he succeeded his father on the latter's death rather

2989:

I tried to recast this sentence & might give it another shot, but there's a lot in it. De Vere is also de la Pole's enemy, seeks an alliance with Mowbray, the two collaborate in Suffolk (assuming the American reader understand Suffolk is in East Anglia) trying to decide whether to participate in

2713:

I had to wonder the same about the behavioral issues; the boy king, who spent quite a lot of time in France in an attempt to secure the crown there, I have to assume would have followed Bedford's advice. Not sure how important this is, but I'm curious whether the sources mention Bedford or say Henry

387:

and everything was addressed. (I'd lose the collapsible infobox—it screws things up for anyone with poor motor skills or trying to print a hard copy of the article, and this page doesn't suffer from clutter to such a degree that the box needs to be minimized—but that's just me.) The usual disclaimed

302:, this is all most interesting: I've changed to the |upright parameter. Is that so he imaget stays in proportion to the rest of the page regardless of screen resolution? I think 1.8 was a sufficient increase to easily see the details without overtaking the section; but please say if you don't agree. 2869:

Yes, I agree that it's stuffed. I'll put back the section header called "Crime and disorder" just above the paragraph that begins with, "Mowbray's personal and political situation did not improve over the following decade ... ", if that works?? Re text boxes - very nice! I'm not one to talk, having

2825:

Big changes that I do quickly, in minutes, I'll always revert and let the nominator decide. I've not really looked again, but if you (and others) think it works, then my sense is that it straightens out the organization. As for Henry & Bedford, yes, I agree with you. I almost struck my comments

1345:

That was a laugh-out-loud moment! I see, it does rather imply cause and effect doesn't it (incidentally, I agree about "Arch- and have adjusted accordingly, thank you). As you say, they might have been close, but not that close :) the reason I meantioned it was because it tied in with not getting

703:

You are inconsistent in whether to include the ornamental large quotation marks. The first has them, the second doesn't, the third and fourth do, and the fifth doesn't. I rather like them, though some editors whom I greatly respect can't be having with them at any price. But either way, I think you

324:

It's so the image stays in proportion to what you've set as your default image size. If you've never set one (or are not logged in), that will be 220px, so times 1.8 would give a display size of 396px - someone who'd set a smaller default would see a display smaller than that, and someone who'd set

262:

is to look at similar articles and be consistent with what they do—most people reading an article this niche will likely be surfing through a whole batch of Wars of the Roses articles, and consequently it's a service for everything to be where they expect to find it. Take this with a pinch of salt,

1645:

Well; in the fifteenth century they weren't necessarilly synonymous; a magnate could quite easily take the law into his own hands without necessarilly breaking the King's peace (crushing rebellions, etc., spring to mind: pardons after the fact were a fact of politics, as, indeed, were applying for

121:

be gentle!John de Mowbray is one of those medieval characters of whom—while we know very little, if anything, of their personal or private lives—reveals a lot about themselves by their reaction to events and treatment (including mistreatment!) of political rivals. Mowbray has much that personifies

2811:

your version with a (hopefully!) amusing edit-summary :) regarding your other points: I deliberately tried to avoid getting too bogged down in the adminstrative details of Henry's minority and the regency, on the grounds that he had come of age (or at least, begun his personal rule) by 1437, and

881:

I'd be a bit cautious about this. I doubt if avoiding a journalese false title by the simple addition of a definite article would mislead anyone. "The actor Boris Karloff" or "the singer Peter Pears" for instance, would, I think, be unlikely to be taken as implying that either was the only or the

2349:

Ian, I have no wish to hold up the promotion of this article, which in general is in excellent shape. I have, however, been concerned by the rather large number of small prose errors or malformations that I've discovered, long after many editors have registered their supports saying that they've

2128:

The first paragraph is cluttered with names (Mowbray is mentioned over and over again) and you might try a little rephrasing to reduce this. For example, the sentence "York canvassed Mowbray for support against Somerset, as Mowbray was one of the few nobles willing to outrightly criticise the

1226:

It occured to me, do have any good sources regarding Norfolk in Shakespeare? It seems ironic that now, the paragraph about his possible characterization in an incomplete anonymous play is twice the size of the one about his definite, etc., appearance in Shakespeare-! Any suggestions gratefuly

196:

Thank you very much for kickstarting this. Right—I think I've addressed the image issues. Towton now 500px; pd-old and us-pd for the coat of arms (was originally published in 1901, author died in 1919, note left to that effect); also us-pd on the Calais siege. I edited the Commons page by the

2430:

The review has not yet been open a month, so given the depth of the article I don't think the duration is excessive. Per my recent edit/summary on the article page, I had a look at the text changes over the last couple of weeks and could see some obvious typos and a few places I felt other

1966:"Mowbray’s situation did improvement..." Assuming you mean "improve", how is this improvement evident in what follows - a catalogue of imprisonments, fights, bindings-over for vast sums, lost arbitrations and law cases, and assaults and murder of his followers? Improvement is hard to find! 2392:

Tbh, I think half the time pings don't seem to work nowadays: there were a few recently where I only know I was pinged because I saw the email alert—seems hit and miss, bizarre. I'm not sure of the etiquette here, but is there anything you think I should be looking at / getting on with?

1170:

Duke of Norfolk? Bromley provides a good overview that can be briefly summarised (I'm thinking specifically on the contemporary associations of the title, and the poaching theme).And you're very welcome, and I hope my comments may be of some use. Feel free to ping me if something

967:

In youth Greg was unusually handsome and in old age he remained an impressive figure. Redoubtable in print, he was sometimes so in person, if angered by pretence or arrogance or slipshod writing. But he was friendly and accessible to younger scholars, and always a punctual

2307:

I found the last paragraph, beginning "The precise cause of Mowbray's change of loyalties..." muddled and hard to follow. No context is given for the Battle of Northampton, and what follows is a very confusing account. This paragraph needs to be rewritten for clarity.

2206:"Mowbray either arrived after the skirmish or was in the area while the battle took place". Well, yes, that's rather like saying he was either there or he wasn't. Besides which, was it a "skirmish" or a battle? The OED definition of skirmish suggests it was a battle. 2844:, that's appreciated. I like your changes; can't imagine anyone finding particular umbrage with them. The only thing I would ask (I meant to ^^^earlier, but totally forgot) is whether you think its possible to sub-section or in another way slightly break up the " 2726:

The section is quite stuffed (quite long) and it might work better to shove some of the text up to the "Background and youth" section, i.,e the issue of encumbrance seems to belong to background, and then consider starting that section with "Claim to the earldom

2698:

I think there are some organization issues and maybe a few issues of context. First, Henry VI was only a boy in 1432, had spent the better part of the late 1420/early 1430s with Bedford in Burgundy and France in hopes of securing the French crown (per agreement

134:

battle in English history, with decisive results. All round, an interesting if not always pleasant man—but no less the product of his age than anyone else. That, however, is another question. All comments and commentators are extremely welcome. Thank you.

2350:

copyedited etc., which is a fault of the reviewers as much as of the nominator. I have the final sections still to read through, but I am quite happy to do this after promotion, should you feel inclined to do that, rather than your having to wait on me.

2231:

There's a lot of uncertainty here: "may have", "more than likely that", "probably", "may have gone", "It is also possible" – it's like trying to catch snowflakes. Could we have a few "Sources suggest that" or similar constructions to vary the tone?

2656:'s observations to heart, this was slack, there should be learnings, and will resume over the weekend, weather permitting (ie if it finally stops bloody raining I will head for the coast and delayed until the weekend after). Will update anyhow. 1926:"Their feud was often violent, and encouraged their retainers to fight". I'd word this slightly differently: "Their feud was often violent, and their retainers were encouraged to fight". Also you have "retainers ... retainers" in the line. 2225:

it was certainly no such thing. Michael Hicks has described it as less of a battle and more a quick series of assassinations (Somerset & Northumberland), after which the battle such as it was immediately stopped.) Anyway: got rid of

2766:

Stopping here. I think the article could do with some re-organization and even renaming of sections. If you don't mind, I could have a go at it. I think it would help straighten the chronology and help with the flow. More later.

3113:

That's all from me. Most are minor quibbles, nothing terribly important. It's a nicely researched article and, I think, does a good job of summarizing what seems to be a complicated person during a complicated period. Nice work!

2198:"Civil war erupted in May 1455, when York and his allies ambushed the King at the first Battle of St Albans." This wasn't a case of civil war "erupting", but a planned attack. We need to know, briefly, why York laid the ambush. 672:

I fear I too often overlook things during PR that I only spot at FAC, which is annoying, and I apologise. A few quick and rather random points for now; I'll give the text a properly close scrutiny a.s.a.p and report back here.

3148:

Sorry, not able to do much today. Your fixes look good and I've moved to support. I might have another minor comment or two when I'm feeling better, but doubt it. I see that Ceoil's on the job copyediting, so that's good.

1161:

in the ODNB. If you have OUP access you might want to check these for a direct attribution of this identification to Greg.And while you're futzing around with this section, it could stand a bit more context: what does it

2164:

The parenthetical insertion ("the loss of two so noble Duchies as Normandy and Guyenne") disturbs the flow somewhat. I'd say " attacking his failure to prevent the loss of the duchies of Normandy and Guyenne in France".

1848:

Mmmm fair point; changed to "Claim to the earldom of Arundel, royal service and local rivalries." Is this still too bulky? Can't really think of an all inclusive short phrase that covers things as diverse as the section

1732:

Some of these glitches appear to have entered the article after this FAC began. It may be useful to check the rest of the prose, to see if other minor errors have inadvertently been introduced. Meantime I'm reading on.

2221:, I thikn I've clarified that per your criticism—better? Also, I removed mention of "ambush" as being misleading (although to clarify, historians really label it a battle for convenience; compared to the—for example— 2703:

made with his father, Henry V), none of which is necessarily relevant here, but I'm wondering whether the sources mention whether the granting of estates during his minority was at Bedford's behest (he was married to

2901:

Yes, that's better. I snuck it in quickly so as not to interrupt the copyediting, and then thought I should have made it a level three instead of level two header. Do you think it should go down another paragraph?

2848:" section at all, possibly around the Storey quote? It might just be me, but does it now look slightly solid, if you know what i mean? As for the quotebox colours—it's funny you should mention that. It came up at 914:

a historian unlike everyone else previously mentioned. I think it likely that without some sort of qualifier, the reader will (understandably if incorrectly) assume that he too is an historian. But, what say you?

1655:"Such tactics were also employed by his enemies..." It's not clear what you mean by "such tactics"; the preceding sentence reads: "He was bound over for massive sums and imprisoned twice in the Tower of London". 871:

might work; this would also make it clear to the reader that Greg is someone worth listening to on this point and not a junior lecturer at a community college in the middle of nowhere, who happens to have a pet

1350:

was in the previous section, I've moved Howard's arrest there. Although, thinking about it, if you questioned its entire relevance, I'm beginning to wonder myself... Thank you very much for the support though

589:

opening parag jumps around chronologically, which affects the reader's response to his 'treacherous' switch to York. Drop the first mention of the Wars of the Roses, move the wikilink and it'll all flow better

2368:

I don't mind waiting at all personally, as I would rather the ship was launched with all its paddles in the water. But, most importantly—I think—have I addressed your previous concerns satisfactorily? Cheers,

2028:"Scrope had petitioned King Henry that Mowbray's proceedings were "inaccurate and inherently malicious," who ordered the cessation of proceedings against Scrope's men". Grammatically dodgy, needs recasting. 1623:"He also fought in Calais in 1436, and from1437 to 1438 he served a year's term as warden of the east march on the Anglo-Scottish border. That year he then returned to the fighting in Calais again"—any good? 781:

Always a matter of judgment, admittedly, but to my mind nobody reading this article is going to want a link to gentry, favourite, estate, court, royal favourite, factional (second link, at least) and gentry

2870:

littered the project with articles filled with text boxes, some quite bright. It does look better with a single color though - at least to me. I've been sidetracked, so will get back to this tomorrow.

1444:

Err: sorry about this—but I've gone and added a few more sources which of course has screwed up the numbering—would you be able to re-identify the one you meant please? I'm afraid I can't see it (cf.,

2987:"John de Vere, the Earl of Oxford, another enemy of de la Pole, sought Mowbray's "good Lordship", and in 1451 they collaborated in Suffolk investigating participation in Jack Cade's Rebellion." : --> 2746:

It might be useful to sneak in a sentence somewhere explaining that Calais was under British control, not French, for the uninitiated who might wonder why Mowbray was strengthening defenses in France

937:

It isn't for me to lay down the law about your drafting. Having given my comments I leave them to you to act on or not as you think best. More comments, as promised, in the next few days, I hope.

236:

point below, of course I couldn't see that...because the box is collapsed! Somewhat QED eh). Right: I'm easy on this. What's the strategy? Perhaps wait for a consensus of more editors to emerge?

2168:

Well, it's quoting a contemporary description (hence why their loss was so keenly felt), but I've kept a small bit of the quote and made it part of the sentence rather than bracketed—how's that?

2031:

Perhaps, "Scrope had petitioned King Henry that Mowbray's proceedings were "inaccurate and inherently malicious," and as a result, the King ordered that proceedings against Scrope's men cease"?

2129:

court" could be "York canvassed Mowbray for support, as one of the few nobles willing to outrightly criticise the court". I also think "openly" is a little more elegant than "outrightly".

2708:'s sister; Humphrey married to Philip's cousin Jacqueline, to confuse things more. In the least, the regency & Bedford should be mentioned. (Sorry, I know a little about this period). 2217:!)—What I was trying to say here is that Mowbray is known to have been in the area, but it is uncertain whether he was close enough to actually take part, or did he hang back? Anyway, 2994:

Split it into two sentences, which then allows (hopefully!) to clarify that they weren't participating at all—they were bringing the previous year's rebels to justice for the King :)

1442:

I think I've rumbled it—you meant 100-10 rather than 100-110, for example? Ah ha! I've changed to three-digit ranges throughout the refs in the body too. If so, ignore this---: -->

1646:

pardons in advance!), so I thought it ought to be emphasised that this was not such and occasion. However: "often violently taking the law into his own hands" if you think better?

1886:

Right: How bout "The choice of making East Anglia the locus of his landed authority was somewhat forced upon him by the fact that this was where the bulk of his estates were."

200:

Regarding your first point— could you clarify slightly? I'm not sure what the lead template is, and specifically what father/son, heir/successor means?! Sorry! Thanks again,

1072:, both themselves familiar names in the field. And if it reads kinda chummy it's presumably an artefact of Shakespeare studies in general being a bit like the cliché of old 2941:

Storey quote: not a big deal, but it's not only two lines, the block quote interferes a bit with the image below (on my monitor) and I wondered if has to be a block quote?

1761:

I think it's contrary to MoS to include birth–death year ranges for blue-linked individuals. I can't lay my hands on the specific guideline but perhaps someone else can.

1413:

The 13-digit ISBN formats ought to be standardised. The form normally employed is 978-x-xxxxx-xxx-x. There are also a few 10-digit versions which ought to be converted.

2449:

was involved with editing the article prior to FAC but hasn't stopped by here -- would you like the opportunity to comment on the current state of the article? Cheers,

1502:—I have got a couple of queries I'm afraid, and it's not that I'm not going to address your remaining points, ust need a touch of (re-)clarifyication first :) Cheers, 2945:

As you say, no big deal; I got rid of the block quote and made it a sentence. That then made the whole sentence v long and unwieldy, so I split it up—I think it works?

793:

I bow to your better judgement; I have a bad habit of automatically linking and thus eventually overlinking. I obviously don't trust my own ability to explain things.

882:

preeminent actor/singer, and the same seems to me to apply to Mr Greg; and waxing eloquent about Greg's qualifications would itself call for citations to justify it.

130:, roadside trysts with his wife, and finally, in the last months of his, literally changing the course of history by being late. What he was late to, though, was the 1969:

Heh :) Indeed, I think I missed out a pretty fundamental word there. How's "Mowbray’s personal and political situation did not improve over the following decade"—?

1831:

Specified "but Mowbray's mother survived"; also adjusted the earlier erroneous mention of her death in 1484 (it was the prevoius year, just after RIII's coronation.

1153:), and then draws the conclusions about Mowbray itself. I don't currently have access to Fiehler 1949, which might make this attribution, but Bromley cites Greg in 3135:—and, thank you too, for the copyediting, which I see no problems with whaaatsover :) Let me know if there's anything else you can think of, of course. Cheers! 2688:, if I disappear for a few days please ping me back. In the meantime, I'm working my way through, will make small copyedits as I go, and post comments as I go. 40: 1457:

Indeed, certainly the same firm, but I think they must have changed their imprint in that two-year gap, as those are the actual publishers given in the front?

1828:"Constance died in 1437, but his mother survived until 1483" – "his" needs defining. Also, in the previous section you give the mother's death year as 1484. 3332: 3275: 3258: 3244: 3191: 3175: 3158: 3143: 3123: 3045: 3025: 2911: 2896: 2879: 2864: 2835: 2820: 2795: 2776: 2665: 2647: 2627: 2607: 2589: 2559: 2541: 2521: 2508: 2475: 2458: 2440: 2425: 2401: 2377: 2359: 2344: 2325: 2240:"civil war again broke out between September and October" That sounds as though the two months were fighting each other. Maybe replace "between" with "in"? 2107: 2078: 2015: 1906: 1742: 1724: 1575: 1547: 1519: 1492: 1399: 1372: 1328: 1282: 1262: 1244: 1214: 1184: 1124: 1091: 1028: 999: 974: 952: 932: 897: 876: 846: 657: 612: 608: 570: 544: 518: 444: 415: 392: 360: 334: 319: 293: 267: 253: 227: 217: 184: 152: 98: 2807:

Many thanks for your review Victoria (apologies for the outrageous informality though). I like the structural changes you made—I can wear that, so I have

961:, which if accurate implies that his opinions are particularly important when it comes to Shakespeare. The sourcing on his WP biography is dreadful, but 2888:, I appreciate your work. If it's OK with you, I made that section a sub-header of the feud section—based on how close they are as subjects? That OK? 2098: 1715: 1566: 1510: 1363: 1319: 1235: 1205: 1115: 1019: 990: 923: 648: 561: 509: 430:

Very comprehensive and readable, and reviewed elsewhere by better editors than I. The following are more to show I've read it than serious criticisms

406: 351: 310: 244: 208: 143: 114: 89: 3302: 3225: 2335:, I realise you're probably a bit pressed for time so if you could just let us know at your earliest how things look now, that'd be great. Cheers, 117:, as well as a thorough copyediting by some of the best brains in the business, as it were. This is my first attempt at the FAR process, so please 30: 17: 1064:'s slightly peacocky suggestion above might also work, since the plaudits are actually merited in Greg's case.And Greg's ODNB entry is written by 3249:

Well I did end up making a few edits, but not enough I think to require recusing from closing this -- thanks all for your participation. Cheers,

2210: 979:

Idea—would depersonalisation remove the fake title? Something like, "one scholar of Shakespeare's plays, W. W. Greg, has suggested that..."?

965:

does appear to back this up, albeit reading like something written by the man himself or a family friend, rather than an impartial analysis. (

3313: 2951:

This sentence confused me: "Wingfield had received Hoo from the second duke, but the third duke wanted it returned to his possession" : -->

2845: 72: 1060:

of work on bibliography, textual provenance, and Early Modern English theatre in general; as well as other playwrights than Shakespeare).

2762:

The next two paragraphs seem to repeat the de la Pole feud from the previous section. Somehow all these issues need to be woven together.

2638:

Comment: Have started to give this one another look over. I do think its in good shape and am encouraged to see the watchful eye below.

3167:, nice one. Very sorry to hear you haven't been well—not SerialNumberAndMowbrayItis, I hope?! ;) seriously, hope you are better soon. 1477:

What ones? The "short histor of..."? Changed to just "Short history"—it's the name of the series. Or is it something else I've missed?

1175:

pops up. I'm by no means an expert, but I have some superficial familiarity with the area and would be happy to help when I'm able. --

1937:

Thanks for that; used your phrasing, also turned the next sentence about the aldermen into a separate sentence to shorten it overall.

1036:

like Greg. It's not an actual title anywhere so far as I'm aware, but it is commonly used where one in neighbouring fields might use

2741:"On 13 September ... " without comma, next sentence is "In 1437, " with comma. These constructions need to be consistent throughout. 634:

Any suggestions are always welcome, even if it does mean dragging you from the comfort of the "Sunshine Home for the Wiki-aged" ;)

2963:"This may have been the only occasion on which Mowbray personally sat on a local King's Bench commission as the hearing J.P." : --> 172:

File:Coat_of_Arms_of_Sir_John_Mowbray,_3rd_Duke_of_Norfolk,_KG.png should include an explicit copyright tag for the original design

2135:

OK (I was trying to avoid my perennial problem of too many "he"s), I think I've reduced them, also taken that suggestion on board.

1929:"Their feud was often violent, and this encouraged clashes between their respective followers. In 1435, some Mowbray retainers..." 1056:, etc. That is, the original phrasing was correct, and the current phrasing suggests that Greg just read a lot of plays (he did a 2140:"where John Paston was ordered to meet him" – who ordered Paston? Should it be "having ordered John Paston to meet him there"? 680:

It looks to me as though in the first line of the lead you have an unspaced em dash rather than the prescribed spaced en-dash.

624:

who, despite having a relatively short political career, played a significant role in the early years of the Wars of the Roses

2311:

Yes, I agree: this was (hopefully) re-written as part of that section juggling I mentioned just up^^^there —a litle clearer?

1950:

What's a "Paston letter"? Ah, I see it linked at a later mention. That link needs to be transferred to first mention, here.

1883:

it means he had no choice for his power base other than East Anglia, but I'm not sure. It needs to be more clearly stated.

470:

How about, "Richard, Duke of York, who by the 1450s was feeling excluded from government, became increasingly belligerent"?

2105: 1722: 1573: 1517: 1370: 1326: 1242: 1212: 1122: 1026: 997: 930: 655: 568: 516: 413: 358: 317: 251: 215: 150: 96: 957:

Don't take my word for it on his qualifications; I've never heard of him and am taking my proposed wording verbatim from

3267:, it was epic :) Barnstars all round! (If that's not against etiquette) And thanks for your last run through. Cheers, 1982:"In June 1446 one of his father’s retainers..." First mention of a person in a paragraph should be by name not pronoun. 109:, I expanded it and gave it a thorough re-write, and it has most recently undergone an extremely thorough (if informal) 2580:, do you still want another set of eyes here? If so, I'll take a read through, but it'll take a few days if that's ok? 531:

Read, copy-edited and reviewed this closely in the last few weeks. What a strange man and wonderful article. Happy to

398:

OK: Thought it was getting in the way of the quote box beneath. Many thanks, also for the picking of nits out of him.

691:

Indeed; I've been proactive and gone through the article inserting ' – ' where necessary. Don't think I missed m/any?

869:

It has been suggested by W. W. Greg, one of the leading bibliographers and Shakespeare scholars of the 20th century…

3069:

Still complicated, no matter how many times I read about it! You've handled it well. I made a few minor copyedits

2299:"Norfolk remained in London" – that's Mowbray, I assume, but changing the nme mid-sentence doesn't help readers 1249:

I'll have a look and see what I can find. But I wouldn't expect too much since Norfolk has all of three lines in

223:

than by means of attainder etc, and he only had one child, I think it's important the infobox make this clear. ‑

3268: 3237: 3168: 3136: 3038: 2889: 2857: 2813: 2685: 2534: 2501: 2468: 2418: 2394: 2370: 2091: 1776:

I removed "personal" so as to keep who had imposed them ("council-imposed restrictions being placed upon him").

1708: 1559: 1503: 1356: 1312: 1228: 1198: 1108: 1012: 983: 916: 641: 554: 502: 399: 344: 303: 237: 201: 136: 82: 1335:

of the OED's version). Secondly, as we round into the home straight I can't find any way of seeing this as a

3187: 3154: 3119: 3021: 2907: 2875: 2849: 2831: 2791: 2772: 2623: 2585: 1632:"often taking the law into his own hands—and often breaking it". Surely, taking the law into your own hands 1141:.BTW, Bromley 2011 doesn't attribute the identification of Mowbray with the "Duke of Norfolk" character in 629:

I've broken up that first para and moved the relevant elements to their respective chronological positions.

2853: 2808: 2355: 2321: 2074: 2011: 1902: 1738: 1488: 1138: 1104: 263:

as I'm fairly hardline "box unless there's a specific reason not to" when it comes to the Infobox Wars. ‑

106: 1535: 2248:"York and their supporters" → "York and his supporters"? Either way, comma required after "supporters" 776: 3182:

No, not MowbrayItis. It's looking good. I've struck everything, so the coords know I've seen it all.

1150: 867:; to me, the latter suggests that he's the only one, or at least the pre-eminent one. Something like 330: 289: 180: 2981:

In brackets; this did occur to me, but I wondered whether it verged on OR (being my interpretation).

2965:

tiny brain here - I couldn't make out what J.P stood for. Did figure it out, but suggest linking it.

277: 276:

Yes, editing the Commons pages is correct. The one issue with what you've done is the scaling - per

3007: 1454:

Boardman 1996 and 1998: Are the respective publishers "Alan Sutton" and "Sutton" one and the same?

1392: 1275: 1146: 945: 890: 839: 437: 3306: 3328: 3254: 3183: 3164: 3150: 3132: 3115: 3034: 3017: 2903: 2885: 2871: 2841: 2827: 2802: 2787: 2768: 2700: 2619: 2603: 2595: 2581: 2555: 2518: 2454: 2436: 2340: 2273: 2251:

Okay—I'd already mentioned Salisbury as being with York, so assumed the 3rd pers. plural applied.

1543: 1380:

Glancing below, I see you ask BB about how to convert 10-digit ISBNs: this link is all you need:

2758:

First paragraph seems to me to either belong to the "Background" or to the "Inheritance" section

1534:

from me on prose. I'm not an expert in the field, or even remotely well-read on the subject, so

2302:

Bizarre; it's the only time in the entire thing that I don't call him Mowbray! Changed, thanks.

3231: 2782:

I've tried some text shoving/re-organization, only experimented, and reverted. Something like

2653: 2365: 2351: 2332: 2317: 2218: 2090:, have a look at a couple of these points if you would, just for clarification. Thanks again! 2087: 2070: 2007: 1898: 1765: 1734: 1704: 1499: 1484: 1437: 602: 593:"short career" bit in Lead is at best PEACOCK and at worst POV. Either way, kill it with fire. 123: 2852:

I've got on the boil, and I have to say, as I did there, I totally agree—perhaps the yellow?(

1961:

A very nice lady :) but also one whom I didn't realise we already had an article on. Linked.

1845:

Inappropriate section heading. The claim is not referred to after the first short paragraph.

1172: 3233: 2786:

might flow better. Skimming through the rest of the article, I see fewer issues to address.

2286:

I've tweaked the whole section quite heavilly, incl. moving chunks from one para to another.

2222: 2214: 1793:

Changed to "inherited the office of Earl Marshal, but not yet his father's lands or titles."

1311:

Thanks for commenting here Tim, I really appreciate it, as, I hope, I always do your input.

1069: 131: 61: 2705: 2661: 2643: 1977:

Clarify, "Wingfield deserted Mowbray over the latter's continuing attacks on him over Hoo"

1258: 1180: 1107:, I take it? Thanks very uch for talking the time to comment, Xover, greatly appreciated. 1087: 1061: 971: 903: 873: 540: 389: 326: 299: 285: 264: 233: 224: 191: 176: 127: 110: 3305:

has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see

325:

larger a larger display. The scaling you've used seems fine, at least with my settings.

3006:

I can't link that, because it's mentioned in the previous para, but did link that one (

1773:

The phrase "being placed upon him" seems redundant as you say "personal" restrictions.

1423: 1387: 1352: 1270: 1006: 940: 907: 885: 834: 498: 431: 2060:"that defeated him against de la Pole" → " that had defeated him against de la Pole"? 3324: 3264: 3250: 3229: 2615: 2599: 2577: 2551: 2547: 2528: 2514: 2497: 2464: 2450: 2446: 2432: 2412: 2387: 2336: 1555: 1539: 1011:

I've just tweaked the wording per my comment above—what say you to how it reads now?

175:

File:Vigiles_de_Charles_VII,_fol._90v,_Siège_de_Calais_(1436).jpg needs a US PD tag.

53: 2513:

It'd be Wednesday before I could possibly comment... I'm swamped in non-Wiki world.

2047:

Swapped around. Name & title linked first time, title alone unlinked the second.

1076:

academia: I'm guessing Wilson originally wrote it and treated it essentially like a

812:

You write "rear-guard", but link to "rearguard". The dictionaries favour the latter.

166:

Advise against having both father/son and predecessor/successor in the lead template

1065: 619: 598: 340: 2856:) More understated, less garish, but still effectively adds colour to the text? 2714:

was making decisions himself? If Bedford, a sentence to clarify might be in order.

1871:"was thus unable to ever establish" is clumsy. "was thus never able to establish" 3000:"Mowbray spent much of the early 1450s hunting down de la Pole's affinity." : --> 1154: 486:

Please check whether all uses of "however" and leading "although" are necessary

3320: 3235: 2598:, I'd be more than happy for you to go through it if you have time. Tks/cheers, 1807: 1682: 1590:

I've started a careful readthrough, and found the following issues in the lead:

1432:

Page range formats: Ref 16 differs from your standard (see e.g. 58, 86, 92 etc}

1078: 796: 728: 57: 2657: 2639: 2052:"The Duke himself fell from power in 1450" – The Duke of Suffolk, presumably. 1790:"but not the rest of his inheritance" – somwhat vague: wahat was this "rest"? 1445: 1254: 1221: 1190: 1176: 1098: 1083: 958: 551: 536: 1614:"and in 1438 he again led a force to Calais". Again? When was the first time? 2283:

Beginning a paragraph with "Yet" is somewhat non-neutral, so I'd delete it.

1707:—I've ½"-d your construction. Many thanks for picking up on those details. 465:

felt increasingly excluded from government became increasingly belligerent.

1483:

The sources themselves appear to be of excellent quality and reliability.

2652:

Update, have done a top to bottom copy edit, but am not finished. I take

1073: 962: 2977:

not at all actionable, but maybe put a translation in parenthesis after?

1158: 640:

Thanks very much for your involvement, it's greatly apprecited as ever.

585:

from me. Anything that appears below is trivial - unless I strike this!

2201:

Provided some background: less of an eruption than a slow descent into.

1818: 1145:

to Greg. It only says Greg argued the play was set during the reign of

597:

More maybe. Or maybe not. I am semi-retired y'know, grumble grumble. --

1462:

Goodman: is it possible to specify location more precisely than "US"?

1381: 550:

Wonderful comment! Thanks for everything you have done to get it here

719:

that last one is quoting a poem. Not sure of that makes a difference?

497:

now-how's that? Thanks very much for your comments and support here,

39:

Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in

2533:

Well; things certainly seem to have quietened down—what's the SP?

1897:

OK, but I'd replace "by the fact that" with "since" or "because".

1879:"East Anglia was forced upon him..." Slightly confusing phrase. I 478:—singular "letter", surely, even if linked to the Paston Letters? 343:, and it fits quite snuggly next to the whole paragraph. Cheers! 2953:

does it refer to Mowbray (3rd duke) & his father (2nd duke)?

1942:

Robert Wingfield should be linked on first, not second mention.

1863:

I think "ancestors" would be a better term than "predecessors".

733:

There is a clunky one in the second para of Cultural depictions.

2264:"He was received a number of royal commissions" – delete "was" 2036:"requested a commission of" → "requested that a commission of" 105:

I'm nominating Mowbray for Featured Article status; originally

859:

On the false title, on this particular occasion I'd consider

2975:"princypall rewle and governance throw all this schir" : --> 1664:

Becomes "Violent tactics were also employed by his enemies"?

1267:

That's most courteous! But apologies are really not needed.

1465:

Ah!—New York, acc. Worldcat; but, honestly, the actual bok

232:

I see; yes, actually I can see their point (ironically—re.

1798:

Suggest remove non-encyclopaedic interpolation "in fact".

3059:

I made a few copyedits. Feel free to revert. No quibbles.

2916:

Let's see; I've moved it down a paragraph—an improvement?

1596:"Mowbray command the defence of England's possessions..." 2957:

Yep, replace with "Mowbray's dad" & Mowbray himself.

2783: 384: 65: 2044:

The Earl of Oxford should be linked at first mention.

388:

that I haven't performed any kind of source review. ‑

2209:

Well, no: some people were absolutely not there (the

1768:, and removed from his mother and father accordingly. 981:

Yeah nice advert that :) G11-worthy stuff from ODNB.

2445:

Sorry, before we get to a final polish, I know that

1474:

Grummitt: som eextra words appear to have crept in.

385:

already nitpicked this one to pieces on the talkpage

715:

Well spotted; I've inserted quotes where necessary—

1082:, and Woudhuysen has only minimally updated it. -- 126:, private feuds and killings, imprisonment in the 3340:The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 756:"(theoretically, at east)" – at best or at least? 454:William de la Pole, Earl (later Duke) of Suffolk 383:from me. To save going over everything again, I 41:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured article candidates 1974:What was the reason for Wingfield's defection? 1554:Understood, and thanks very much for coming in 43:. No further edits should be made to this page. 2990:Jack Cade's rebellion - with or against Cade?? 2278:Linked. Odd it hasn't come up before actually. 2148:"for the duration": for the duration of what? 865:The Shakespearian scholar W. W. Greg suggests… 3346:No further edits should be made to this page. 3319:template in place on the talk page until the 1103:the "current phrasing" you refer to is as of 29:The following is an archived discussion of a 8: 2720:Inheritance, early career and royal service 1137:in my comment are the edits either side of 18:Knowledge (XXG):Featured article candidates 2546:Sorry I hadn't got back to this sooner -- 2294:York's second son: clarified & linked. 861:Shakespearian scholar W. W. Greg suggests… 2184:Historian, and linked to our article too. 1409:Just a few small presentational points: 339:Understood, thanks a lot. I went by the 3099:No quibbles; made a few minor copyedits 2550:, did you want to take a look? Cheers, 1346:the support of the new govt. But since 1129:Ah, yes, sorry for not being specific. 1194: 966: 868: 864: 860: 795:(Actually, I probably would have kept 623: 281: 7: 280:that should generally be done using 73:John de Mowbray, 3rd Duke of Norfolk 1382:https://www.isbn.org/ISBN_converter 906:'s proposed wording be acceptable, 3033:Hopefully addressed these points, 2123:Later career and political crisis' 2069:I'll try and finish it next pass. 1197:, as the feller said ;) cheers! 622:—starting from the bottom, would " 24: 2935:Crime and disorder in East Anglia 1993:Done; what about "8.0 km" though? 1857:Crime and disorder in East Anglia 852:"Shakesperian scholar" discussion 169:Suggest scaling up the Towton map 3220:Cheers Victoriaearle :) time to 1498:Thanks for this forensic touch, 1418:any means of converting the 10s? 1054:professor of Shakespeare studies 122:the "overmighty subject" of the 3002:don't know what affinity means? 2256:"for Coventry" → "at Coventry" 2006:I'd be inclined to leave that. 1839:Claim to the earldom of Arundel 1157:and David Kathman's article on 1673:"but often Mowbray was was..." 1: 3131:Thank you for the kind words 2417:Does this get archived then? 2243:Classic :D adjusted, thanks. 1748:Another slice of prose review 284:rather than a fixed px size. 3314:featured article candidates 1143:The Merry Devil of Edmonton 31:featured article nomination 3363: 3192:16:01, 29 April 2018 (UTC) 3176:22:30, 28 April 2018 (UTC) 3159:22:25, 28 April 2018 (UTC) 3144:09:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC) 3124:23:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC) 3046:09:44, 28 April 2018 (UTC) 3026:21:37, 27 April 2018 (UTC) 2912:21:37, 27 April 2018 (UTC) 2897:15:12, 27 April 2018 (UTC) 2880:23:21, 26 April 2018 (UTC) 2865:18:04, 26 April 2018 (UTC) 2836:16:39, 26 April 2018 (UTC) 2821:06:49, 26 April 2018 (UTC) 2796:23:54, 25 April 2018 (UTC) 2777:19:46, 25 April 2018 (UTC) 2666:23:46, 26 April 2018 (UTC) 2648:20:21, 26 April 2018 (UTC) 2628:19:46, 25 April 2018 (UTC) 2608:13:34, 25 April 2018 (UTC) 2590:23:53, 24 April 2018 (UTC) 2560:00:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC) 2476:10:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC) 2459:08:55, 28 March 2018 (UTC) 2441:08:29, 28 March 2018 (UTC) 2426:08:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC) 2402:10:50, 24 March 2018 (UTC) 2378:20:11, 24 March 2018 (UTC) 2360:19:20, 24 March 2018 (UTC) 2345:02:29, 24 March 2018 (UTC) 2326:19:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC) 2213:, for example, never left 2173:"Somerset's" → "Somerset" 2108:15:27, 16 March 2018 (UTC) 2079:19:18, 15 March 2018 (UTC) 2016:16:06, 16 March 2018 (UTC) 1907:16:06, 16 March 2018 (UTC) 1743:22:30, 13 March 2018 (UTC) 1725:10:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC) 1576:19:53, 11 March 2018 (UTC) 1548:17:56, 11 March 2018 (UTC) 1420:and converted all the 10s 1400:12:09, 11 March 2018 (UTC) 1373:12:33, 11 March 2018 (UTC) 1283:12:09, 11 March 2018 (UTC) 1263:09:46, 11 March 2018 (UTC) 1245:18:32, 10 March 2018 (UTC) 1215:16:21, 10 March 2018 (UTC) 1185:16:14, 10 March 2018 (UTC) 1125:15:26, 10 March 2018 (UTC) 1092:15:19, 10 March 2018 (UTC) 1029:12:43, 10 March 2018 (UTC) 863:is actually preferable to 3079:Nicely done! No quibbles. 3016:Back later this evening. 2542:13:10, 6 April 2018 (UTC) 2522:13:13, 1 April 2018 (UTC) 2509:13:11, 1 April 2018 (UTC) 2181:Who is "Ralph Griffiths" 2151:The parliament—clarified. 1520:15:19, 7 March 2018 (UTC) 1493:21:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC) 1329:12:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC) 1000:18:20, 7 March 2018 (UTC) 975:18:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC) 953:16:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC) 933:12:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC) 898:21:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC) 877:20:59, 6 March 2018 (UTC) 847:20:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC) 658:19:14, 6 March 2018 (UTC) 613:13:40, 6 March 2018 (UTC) 571:14:46, 4 March 2018 (UTC) 545:14:04, 4 March 2018 (UTC) 519:14:45, 4 March 2018 (UTC) 476:a Paston letters reports 445:14:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC) 416:11:59, 3 March 2018 (UTC) 393:11:43, 3 March 2018 (UTC) 361:14:12, 3 March 2018 (UTC) 335:14:03, 3 March 2018 (UTC) 320:13:56, 3 March 2018 (UTC) 294:13:17, 3 March 2018 (UTC) 268:12:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC) 254:11:59, 3 March 2018 (UTC) 228:11:43, 3 March 2018 (UTC) 218:10:28, 3 March 2018 (UTC) 185:02:05, 3 March 2018 (UTC) 153:20:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC) 99:20:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC) 3343:Please do not modify it. 2733:Claim to the earldom ... 36:Please do not modify it. 3333:14:02, 8 May 2018 (UTC) 3276:19:47, 8 May 2018 (UTC) 3259:14:01, 8 May 2018 (UTC) 3245:06:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC) 3089:Looks good. No quibbles 1958:Who is "Helen Castor"? 107:little more than a stub 2055:Clarified and sourced. 1426:for the help with that 1195:Some good I mean to do 459:Lost the def. article. 3064:The Wars of the Roses 3037:—see what you think. 2192:The Wars of the Roses 1990:"5" should be "five" 1526:Support from SchroCat 1097:Ah, a "Support" from 704:should be consistent. 132:biggest and bloodiest 3094:Character and legacy 2692:Background and youth 1755:Background and youth 1469:that vague. Bizarre. 1155:this journal article 1151:Henry VII of England 64:) 14:02, 8 May 2018 3104:Cultural depictions 3008:Affinity (medieval) 2738:2nd paragraph : --> 2686:Serial Number 54129 2211:Earl of Westmorland 1147:Henry VI of England 823:Absolutely, cheers. 753:Under the Yorkists 3271:—SerialNumber54129 3240:—SerialNumber54129 3171:—SerialNumber54129 3163:That's great news 3139:—SerialNumber54129 3084:Under the Yorkists 3041:—SerialNumber54129 2892:—SerialNumber54129 2884:Thanks very much, 2860:—SerialNumber54129 2816:—SerialNumber54129 2752:Crime and disorder 2701:Isabeau of Bavaria 2537:—SerialNumber54129 2504:—SerialNumber54129 2471:—SerialNumber54129 2421:—SerialNumber54129 2397:—SerialNumber54129 2373:—SerialNumber54129 2291:Who is "Rutland"? 1874:Thank you; stolen. 1416:Done all the 13s; 1227:received. Cheers! 581:First glance is a 3263:Thanks very much 3222:awaken the Kraken 2380: 2063:Of course—thanks. 1427: 1102: 982: 809:Battle of Towton 800: 639: 638: 618:Thanks very much 611: 197:way—that's right? 124:Wars of the Roses 120: 102: 3354: 3345: 3318: 3312: 3309:, and leave the 3273: 3242: 3226:FAC coordinators 3173: 3141: 3074:Battle of Towton 3043: 2894: 2862: 2818: 2806: 2539: 2532: 2506: 2473: 2423: 2416: 2399: 2391: 2375: 2364: 2223:Battle of Towton 2159:Thank you; used. 2103: 2096: 1720: 1713: 1703:Thanks for that 1571: 1564: 1536:my review caveat 1515: 1508: 1441: 1421: 1397: 1395: 1390: 1368: 1361: 1324: 1317: 1280: 1278: 1273: 1240: 1233: 1225: 1210: 1203: 1120: 1113: 1096: 1070:Henry Woudhuysen 1024: 1017: 1010: 995: 988: 980: 950: 948: 943: 928: 921: 895: 893: 888: 844: 842: 837: 794: 653: 646: 636: 635: 606: 566: 559: 514: 507: 467:—over-increased 442: 411: 404: 356: 349: 315: 308: 283: 260:personal opinion 249: 242: 213: 206: 195: 148: 141: 118: 94: 87: 79: 48:The article was 38: 3362: 3361: 3357: 3356: 3355: 3353: 3352: 3351: 3350: 3341: 3316: 3310: 3269: 3238: 3169: 3137: 3039: 2890: 2858: 2814: 2800: 2706:Philip the Good 2682: 2535: 2526: 2502: 2469: 2419: 2410: 2395: 2385: 2371: 2099: 2092: 1716: 1709: 1605:-ed, of course. 1588: 1567: 1560: 1528: 1511: 1506:...SerialNumber 1504: 1435: 1422:Many thanks to 1407: 1393: 1388: 1386: 1364: 1357: 1320: 1315:...SerialNumber 1313: 1276: 1271: 1269: 1236: 1229: 1219: 1206: 1199: 1116: 1109: 1042:historiographer 1020: 1013: 1004: 991: 984: 946: 941: 939: 924: 919:...SerialNumber 917: 891: 886: 884: 854: 840: 835: 833: 767:Least, changed. 744:(comment below) 670: 649: 644:...SerialNumber 642: 579: 562: 557:...SerialNumber 555: 529: 510: 505:...SerialNumber 503: 438: 428: 407: 402:...SerialNumber 400: 377: 352: 347:...SerialNumber 345: 311: 306:...SerialNumber 304: 245: 240:...SerialNumber 238: 209: 204:...SerialNumber 202: 189: 144: 139:...SerialNumber 137: 128:Tower of London 113:on the article 90: 85:...SerialNumber 83: 76: 34: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 3360: 3358: 3349: 3348: 3336: 3335: 3323:goes through. 3295: 3294: 3293: 3292: 3291: 3290: 3289: 3288: 3287: 3286: 3285: 3284: 3283: 3282: 3281: 3280: 3279: 3278: 3205: 3204: 3203: 3202: 3201: 3200: 3199: 3198: 3197: 3196: 3195: 3194: 3111: 3110: 3106: 3105: 3101: 3100: 3096: 3095: 3091: 3090: 3086: 3085: 3081: 3080: 3076: 3075: 3071: 3070: 3066: 3065: 3061: 3060: 3056: 3055: 3051: 3050: 3049: 3048: 3014: 3013: 3012: 3011: 2997: 2996: 2995: 2984: 2983: 2982: 2972: 2971: 2970: 2960: 2959: 2958: 2948: 2947: 2946: 2937: 2936: 2932: 2931: 2930: 2929: 2928: 2927: 2926: 2925: 2924: 2923: 2922: 2921: 2920: 2919: 2918: 2917: 2850:something else 2764: 2763: 2760: 2754: 2753: 2749: 2748: 2743: 2735: 2734: 2730: 2729: 2722: 2721: 2717: 2716: 2710: 2694: 2693: 2681: 2674: 2673: 2672: 2671: 2670: 2669: 2668: 2635: 2634: 2633: 2632: 2631: 2630: 2573: 2572: 2571: 2570: 2569: 2568: 2567: 2566: 2565: 2564: 2563: 2562: 2524: 2511: 2500:, fancy this? 2485: 2484: 2483: 2482: 2481: 2480: 2479: 2478: 2407: 2406: 2405: 2404: 2383: 2382: 2381: 2315: 2314: 2313: 2312: 2305: 2304: 2303: 2297: 2296: 2295: 2289: 2288: 2287: 2281: 2280: 2279: 2270: 2269: 2268: 2262: 2261: 2260: 2254: 2253: 2252: 2246: 2245: 2244: 2238: 2237: 2236: 2229: 2228: 2227: 2204: 2203: 2202: 2195: 2194: 2188: 2187: 2186: 2185: 2179: 2178: 2177: 2171: 2170: 2169: 2162: 2161: 2160: 2154: 2153: 2152: 2146: 2145: 2144: 2138: 2137: 2136: 2126: 2125: 2113: 2112: 2111: 2110: 2067: 2066: 2065: 2064: 2058: 2057: 2056: 2050: 2049: 2048: 2042: 2041: 2040: 2034: 2033: 2032: 2025: 2024: 2023: 2022: 2021: 2020: 2019: 2018: 1997: 1996: 1995: 1994: 1988: 1987: 1986: 1980: 1979: 1978: 1972: 1971: 1970: 1964: 1963: 1962: 1956: 1955: 1954: 1948: 1947: 1946: 1940: 1939: 1938: 1932: 1931: 1930: 1923: 1922: 1921: 1920: 1919: 1918: 1912: 1911: 1910: 1909: 1890: 1889: 1888: 1887: 1877: 1876: 1875: 1869: 1868: 1867: 1860: 1859: 1853: 1852: 1851: 1850: 1842: 1841: 1835: 1834: 1833: 1832: 1826: 1825: 1824: 1815: 1814: 1813: 1804: 1803: 1802: 1796: 1795: 1794: 1787: 1786: 1780: 1779: 1778: 1777: 1771: 1770: 1769: 1758: 1757: 1730: 1729: 1728: 1727: 1698: 1697: 1696: 1695: 1689: 1688: 1687: 1686: 1677: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1668: 1667: 1666: 1665: 1659: 1658: 1657: 1656: 1650: 1649: 1648: 1647: 1640: 1639: 1638: 1637: 1627: 1626: 1625: 1624: 1618: 1617: 1616: 1615: 1609: 1608: 1607: 1606: 1600: 1599: 1598: 1597: 1587: 1586:Prose comments 1584: 1583: 1582: 1581: 1580: 1579: 1578: 1527: 1524: 1523: 1522: 1481: 1480: 1479: 1478: 1472: 1471: 1470: 1460: 1459: 1458: 1452: 1451: 1450: 1430: 1429: 1428: 1406: 1405:Sources review 1403: 1378: 1377: 1376: 1375: 1332: 1331: 1308: 1307: 1306: 1305: 1304: 1303: 1302: 1301: 1300: 1299: 1298: 1297: 1296: 1295: 1294: 1293: 1292: 1291: 1290: 1289: 1288: 1287: 1286: 1285: 1217: 1166:if Mowbray is 1105:my latest edit 1033: 1032: 1031: 968:correspondent. 963:his ODNB entry 853: 850: 829: 828: 827: 826: 825: 824: 816: 815: 814: 813: 806: 805: 804: 803: 802: 801: 786: 785: 784: 783: 773: 772: 771: 770: 769: 768: 760: 759: 758: 757: 750: 749: 748: 747: 746: 745: 737: 736: 735: 734: 725: 724: 723: 722: 721: 720: 708: 707: 706: 705: 697: 696: 695: 694: 693: 692: 684: 683: 682: 681: 669: 668:from Tim riley 662: 661: 660: 631: 630: 627: 609:old fashioned! 595: 594: 591: 578: 575: 574: 573: 528: 525: 524: 523: 522: 521: 484: 483: 482: 473: 472: 471: 462: 461: 460: 427: 420: 419: 418: 376: 373: 372: 371: 370: 369: 368: 367: 366: 365: 364: 363: 296: 274: 273: 272: 271: 270: 198: 173: 170: 167: 104: 103: 81:Nominator(s): 75: 70: 69: 46: 45: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3359: 3347: 3344: 3338: 3337: 3334: 3330: 3326: 3322: 3315: 3308: 3304: 3300: 3297: 3296: 3277: 3274: 3272: 3266: 3262: 3261: 3260: 3256: 3252: 3248: 3247: 3246: 3243: 3241: 3236: 3234: 3232: 3230: 3227: 3223: 3219: 3218: 3217: 3216: 3215: 3214: 3213: 3212: 3211: 3210: 3209: 3208: 3207: 3206: 3193: 3189: 3185: 3184:Victoriaearle 3181: 3180: 3179: 3178: 3177: 3174: 3172: 3166: 3165:Victoriaearle 3162: 3161: 3160: 3156: 3152: 3151:Victoriaearle 3147: 3146: 3145: 3142: 3140: 3134: 3133:Victoriaearle 3130: 3129: 3128: 3127: 3126: 3125: 3121: 3117: 3116:Victoriaearle 3108: 3107: 3103: 3102: 3098: 3097: 3093: 3092: 3088: 3087: 3083: 3082: 3078: 3077: 3073: 3072: 3068: 3067: 3063: 3062: 3058: 3057: 3053: 3052: 3047: 3044: 3042: 3036: 3035:Victoriaearle 3032: 3031: 3030: 3029: 3028: 3027: 3023: 3019: 3018:Victoriaearle 3009: 3005: 3004: 3003: 2998: 2993: 2992: 2991: 2985: 2980: 2979: 2978: 2973: 2968: 2967: 2966: 2961: 2956: 2955: 2954: 2949: 2944: 2943: 2942: 2939: 2938: 2934: 2933: 2915: 2914: 2913: 2909: 2905: 2904:Victoriaearle 2900: 2899: 2898: 2895: 2893: 2887: 2886:Victoriaearle 2883: 2882: 2881: 2877: 2873: 2872:Victoriaearle 2868: 2867: 2866: 2863: 2861: 2855: 2851: 2847: 2843: 2842:Victoriaearle 2839: 2838: 2837: 2833: 2829: 2828:Victoriaearle 2824: 2823: 2822: 2819: 2817: 2810: 2804: 2803:Victoriaearle 2799: 2798: 2797: 2793: 2789: 2788:Victoriaearle 2785: 2781: 2780: 2779: 2778: 2774: 2770: 2769:Victoriaearle 2761: 2759: 2756: 2755: 2751: 2750: 2747: 2744: 2742: 2737: 2736: 2732: 2731: 2728: 2724: 2723: 2719: 2718: 2715: 2711: 2709: 2707: 2702: 2696: 2695: 2691: 2690: 2689: 2687: 2680:from Victoria 2679: 2675: 2667: 2663: 2659: 2655: 2651: 2650: 2649: 2645: 2641: 2637: 2636: 2629: 2625: 2621: 2620:Victoriaearle 2617: 2613: 2612: 2611: 2610: 2609: 2605: 2601: 2597: 2593: 2592: 2591: 2587: 2583: 2582:Victoriaearle 2579: 2575: 2574: 2561: 2557: 2553: 2549: 2545: 2544: 2543: 2540: 2538: 2530: 2525: 2523: 2520: 2516: 2512: 2510: 2507: 2505: 2499: 2495: 2494: 2493: 2492: 2491: 2490: 2489: 2488: 2487: 2486: 2477: 2474: 2472: 2466: 2462: 2461: 2460: 2456: 2452: 2448: 2444: 2443: 2442: 2438: 2434: 2429: 2428: 2427: 2424: 2422: 2414: 2409: 2408: 2403: 2400: 2398: 2389: 2384: 2379: 2376: 2374: 2367: 2363: 2362: 2361: 2357: 2353: 2348: 2347: 2346: 2342: 2338: 2334: 2330: 2329: 2328: 2327: 2323: 2319: 2310: 2309: 2306: 2301: 2300: 2298: 2293: 2292: 2290: 2285: 2284: 2282: 2277: 2276: 2275: 2271: 2266: 2265: 2263: 2258: 2257: 2255: 2250: 2249: 2247: 2242: 2241: 2239: 2234: 2233: 2230: 2224: 2220: 2216: 2212: 2208: 2207: 2205: 2200: 2199: 2197: 2196: 2193: 2190: 2189: 2183: 2182: 2180: 2175: 2174: 2172: 2167: 2166: 2163: 2158: 2157: 2155: 2150: 2149: 2147: 2142: 2141: 2139: 2134: 2133: 2132: 2131: 2130: 2124: 2121: 2120: 2119: 2117: 2109: 2106: 2104: 2102: 2097: 2095: 2094:—SerialNumber 2089: 2085: 2084: 2083: 2082: 2081: 2080: 2076: 2072: 2062: 2061: 2059: 2054: 2053: 2051: 2046: 2045: 2043: 2038: 2037: 2035: 2030: 2029: 2027: 2026: 2017: 2013: 2009: 2005: 2004: 2003: 2002: 2001: 2000: 1999: 1998: 1992: 1991: 1989: 1984: 1983: 1981: 1976: 1975: 1973: 1968: 1967: 1965: 1960: 1959: 1957: 1952: 1951: 1949: 1944: 1943: 1941: 1936: 1935: 1933: 1928: 1927: 1925: 1924: 1917:-OK, "since." 1916: 1915: 1914: 1913: 1908: 1904: 1900: 1896: 1895: 1894: 1893: 1892: 1891: 1885: 1884: 1882: 1878: 1873: 1872: 1870: 1865: 1864: 1862: 1861: 1858: 1855: 1854: 1847: 1846: 1844: 1843: 1840: 1837: 1836: 1830: 1829: 1827: 1822: 1821: 1820: 1816: 1811: 1810: 1809: 1805: 1800: 1799: 1797: 1792: 1791: 1789: 1788: 1785: 1782: 1781: 1775: 1774: 1772: 1767: 1763: 1762: 1760: 1759: 1756: 1753: 1752: 1751: 1749: 1745: 1744: 1740: 1736: 1726: 1723: 1721: 1719: 1714: 1712: 1711:—SerialNumber 1706: 1702: 1701: 1700: 1699: 1693: 1692: 1691: 1690: 1684: 1681: 1680: 1679: 1678: 1672: 1671: 1670: 1669: 1663: 1662: 1661: 1660: 1654: 1653: 1652: 1651: 1644: 1643: 1642: 1641: 1635: 1631: 1630: 1629: 1628: 1622: 1621: 1620: 1619: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1610: 1604: 1603: 1602: 1601: 1595: 1594: 1593: 1592: 1591: 1585: 1577: 1574: 1572: 1570: 1565: 1563: 1562:—SerialNumber 1557: 1553: 1552: 1551: 1550: 1549: 1545: 1541: 1537: 1533: 1530: 1529: 1525: 1521: 1518: 1516: 1514: 1509: 1507: 1501: 1497: 1496: 1495: 1494: 1490: 1486: 1476: 1475: 1473: 1468: 1464: 1463: 1461: 1456: 1455: 1453: 1449: 1447: 1439: 1434: 1433: 1431: 1425: 1419: 1415: 1414: 1412: 1411: 1410: 1404: 1402: 1401: 1398: 1396: 1391: 1383: 1374: 1371: 1369: 1367: 1362: 1360: 1359:—SerialNumber 1354: 1349: 1344: 1343: 1342: 1341: 1340: 1338: 1330: 1327: 1325: 1323: 1318: 1316: 1310: 1309: 1284: 1281: 1279: 1274: 1266: 1265: 1264: 1260: 1256: 1252: 1248: 1247: 1246: 1243: 1241: 1239: 1234: 1232: 1231:—SerialNumber 1223: 1218: 1216: 1213: 1211: 1209: 1204: 1202: 1201:—SerialNumber 1196: 1192: 1188: 1187: 1186: 1182: 1178: 1174: 1173:Shakespeare-y 1169: 1165: 1160: 1156: 1152: 1149:(rather than 1148: 1144: 1140: 1136: 1132: 1128: 1127: 1126: 1123: 1121: 1119: 1114: 1112: 1111:—SerialNumber 1106: 1100: 1095: 1094: 1093: 1089: 1085: 1081: 1080: 1075: 1071: 1067: 1063: 1059: 1055: 1051: 1047: 1046:lexicographer 1043: 1039: 1034: 1030: 1027: 1025: 1023: 1018: 1016: 1015:—SerialNumber 1008: 1003: 1002: 1001: 998: 996: 994: 989: 987: 986:—SerialNumber 978: 977: 976: 973: 969: 964: 960: 956: 955: 954: 951: 949: 944: 936: 935: 934: 931: 929: 927: 922: 920: 913: 909: 905: 901: 900: 899: 896: 894: 889: 880: 879: 878: 875: 870: 866: 862: 858: 857: 856: 855: 851: 849: 848: 845: 843: 838: 822: 821: 820: 819: 818: 817: 811: 810: 808: 807: 798: 792: 791: 790: 789: 788: 787: 780: 779: 778: 775: 774: 766: 765: 764: 763: 762: 761: 755: 754: 752: 751: 743: 742: 741: 740: 739: 738: 732: 731: 730: 727: 726: 718: 714: 713: 712: 711: 710: 709: 702: 701: 699: 698: 690: 689: 688: 687: 686: 685: 679: 678: 676: 675: 674: 667: 663: 659: 656: 654: 652: 647: 645: 633: 632: 628: 625: 621: 617: 616: 615: 614: 610: 604: 600: 592: 588: 587: 586: 584: 576: 572: 569: 567: 565: 560: 558: 553: 549: 548: 547: 546: 542: 538: 534: 526: 520: 517: 515: 513: 508: 506: 500: 496: 492: 488: 487: 485: 480: 479: 477: 474: 469: 468: 466: 463: 458: 457: 455: 453: 449: 448: 447: 446: 443: 441: 435: 434: 425: 421: 417: 414: 412: 410: 405: 403: 397: 396: 395: 394: 391: 386: 382: 374: 362: 359: 357: 355: 350: 348: 342: 338: 337: 336: 332: 328: 323: 322: 321: 318: 316: 314: 309: 307: 301: 297: 295: 291: 287: 279: 275: 269: 266: 261: 257: 256: 255: 252: 250: 248: 243: 241: 235: 231: 230: 229: 226: 221: 220: 219: 216: 214: 212: 207: 205: 199: 193: 188: 187: 186: 182: 178: 174: 171: 168: 165: 164: 163: 162: 158: 154: 151: 149: 147: 142: 140: 133: 129: 125: 116: 112: 108: 101: 100: 97: 95: 93: 88: 86: 78: 77: 74: 71: 68: 66: 63: 59: 55: 51: 44: 42: 37: 32: 27: 26: 19: 3342: 3339: 3299:Closing note 3298: 3270: 3239: 3221: 3170: 3138: 3112: 3109:No quibbles. 3054:Later career 3040: 3015: 2999: 2986: 2974: 2962: 2950: 2940: 2891: 2859: 2815: 2784:this version 2765: 2757: 2745: 2740: 2725: 2712: 2697: 2683: 2677: 2654:Brianboulton 2536: 2503: 2470: 2420: 2396: 2372: 2352:Brianboulton 2318:Brianboulton 2316: 2219:Brianboulton 2191: 2127: 2122: 2115: 2114: 2100: 2093: 2088:Brianboulton 2071:Brianboulton 2068: 2008:Brianboulton 1945:Thus linked. 1899:Brianboulton 1880: 1856: 1838: 1783: 1766:Brianboulton 1764:Believe you 1754: 1747: 1746: 1735:Brianboulton 1731: 1717: 1710: 1705:Brianboulton 1636:breaking it? 1633: 1589: 1568: 1561: 1531: 1512: 1505: 1500:Brianboulton 1485:Brianboulton 1482: 1466: 1448:, of course) 1443: 1438:Brianboulton 1417: 1408: 1385: 1379: 1365: 1358: 1347: 1336: 1333: 1321: 1314: 1268: 1250: 1237: 1230: 1207: 1200: 1167: 1163: 1159:Peter Fabell 1142: 1134: 1130: 1117: 1110: 1077: 1066:F. P. Wilson 1057: 1053: 1050:paleographer 1049: 1045: 1041: 1037: 1021: 1014: 992: 985: 938: 925: 918: 911: 902:Would using 883: 832: 830: 716: 700:Quote boxes 677:Date ranges 671: 665: 650: 643: 626:" be better? 596: 582: 580: 563: 556: 532: 530: 511: 504: 494: 490: 475: 464: 451: 450: 439: 432: 429: 424:and comments 423: 408: 401: 380: 378: 353: 346: 312: 305: 259: 246: 239: 210: 203: 161:image review 160: 156: 155: 145: 138: 91: 84: 80: 49: 47: 35: 28: 2840:Thank you, 2618:, will do. 2274:Lancastrian 1784:Inheritance 1683:Was not was 1538:applies. – 1079:Festschrift 831:More anon. 797:Royal court 777:WP:OVERLINK 729:False title 481:Absolutely. 440:talk to me? 341:mobile view 298:Thank you, 111:peer review 2463:Thank you 2272:Pipe-link 2235:Rephrased. 2116:Continuing 1849:covers...? 1808:encumbered 1806:Pipe link 1446:blind spot 1251:3 Henry VI 1062:Iridescent 972:Iridescent 959:W. W. Greg 904:Iridescent 874:Iridescent 872:theory. ‑ 390:Iridescent 375:Iridescent 327:Nikkimaria 300:Nikkimaria 286:Nikkimaria 278:WP:IMGSIZE 265:Iridescent 225:Iridescent 192:Nikkimaria 177:Nikkimaria 3307:WP:FAC/ar 3303:candidate 1424:Tim riley 1389:Tim riley 1353:Tim riley 1272:Tim riley 1189:Nice one 1139:your edit 1101:there ;) 1038:historian 1007:Tim riley 942:Tim riley 908:Tim riley 887:Tim riley 836:Tim riley 590:methinks. 499:Jimfbleak 495:althoughs 489:Only one 433:Jimfbleak 282:|upright= 115:talk page 3325:Ian Rose 3301:: This 3265:Ian Rose 3251:Ian Rose 2854:See here 2809:restored 2678:Comments 2676:Support 2600:Ian Rose 2596:Victoria 2552:Ian Rose 2548:Hchc2009 2529:Ian Rose 2515:Ealdgyth 2498:Ealdgyth 2496:Re-ping 2465:Ian Rose 2451:Ian Rose 2447:Ealdgyth 2433:Ian Rose 2413:Ian Rose 2388:Ian Rose 2337:Ian Rose 2267:Deleted. 1556:SchroCat 1540:SchroCat 1337:sequitur 1131:previous 1074:Oxbridge 782:(again). 717:although 666:Comments 493:and two 426:from Jim 422:Support 379:A brief 54:Ian Rose 50:promoted 2969:Linked. 2215:Penrith 2143:Xactly. 2086:Thanks 1819:dowager 1532:Support 1135:current 664:Support 620:Dweller 607:Become 599:Dweller 583:support 577:Dweller 533:Support 491:however 381:support 157:Comment 2594:Hello 1866:Agree. 637:Sorry! 58:FACBot 3001:: --> 2988:: --> 2976:: --> 2964:: --> 2952:: --> 2739:: --> 2658:Ceoil 2640:Ceoil 2333:Brian 2259:Done. 2176:Done. 2101:54129 1985:Done. 1953:Done. 1881:think 1823:Done. 1817:link 1812:Done. 1801:Done. 1718:54129 1569:54129 1513:54129 1366:54129 1322:54129 1255:Xover 1238:54129 1222:Xover 1208:54129 1191:Xover 1177:Xover 1118:54129 1099:Xover 1084:Xover 1022:54129 993:54129 926:54129 651:54129 564:54129 552:Ceoil 537:Ceoil 527:Ceoil 512:54129 409:54129 354:54129 313:54129 247:54129 211:54129 146:54129 119:don't 92:54129 16:< 3329:talk 3255:talk 2846:Feud 2727:..." 2662:talk 2644:talk 2604:talk 2556:talk 2519:Talk 2455:talk 2437:talk 2356:talk 2341:talk 2322:talk 2075:talk 2039:Yes. 2012:talk 1903:talk 1739:talk 1544:talk 1489:talk 1394:talk 1348:that 1277:talk 1259:talk 1181:talk 1168:that 1164:mean 1133:and 1088:talk 1068:and 970:) ‑ 947:talk 892:talk 841:talk 603:talk 541:talk 331:talk 290:talk 234:your 181:talk 159:and 62:talk 56:via 3321:bot 2684:Hi 2616:Ian 2614:Hi 2578:Ian 2576:Hi 2331:Hi 2226:it. 1058:lot 912:not 452:the 258:My 52:by 3331:) 3317:}} 3311:{{ 3257:) 3228:: 3190:) 3188:tk 3157:) 3155:tk 3122:) 3120:tk 3024:) 3022:tk 2910:) 2908:tk 2878:) 2876:tk 2834:) 2832:tk 2794:) 2792:tk 2775:) 2773:tk 2664:) 2646:) 2626:) 2624:tk 2606:) 2588:) 2586:tk 2558:) 2517:- 2457:) 2439:) 2358:) 2343:) 2324:) 2077:) 2014:) 1905:) 1750:: 1741:) 1634:is 1558:! 1546:) 1491:) 1467:is 1384:– 1355:! 1261:) 1183:) 1090:) 1052:, 1048:, 1044:, 1040:, 799:.) 605:) 543:) 535:. 501:! 456:? 436:- 333:) 292:) 183:) 67:. 33:. 3327:( 3253:( 3224:@ 3186:( 3153:( 3118:( 3020:( 3010:) 2906:( 2874:( 2830:( 2805:: 2801:@ 2790:( 2771:( 2660:( 2642:( 2622:( 2602:( 2584:( 2554:( 2531:: 2527:@ 2453:( 2435:( 2415:: 2411:@ 2390:: 2386:@ 2366: 2354:( 2339:( 2320:( 2073:( 2010:( 1901:( 1737:( 1685:! 1542:( 1487:( 1440:: 1436:@ 1257:( 1224:: 1220:@ 1179:( 1086:( 1009:: 1005:@ 601:( 539:( 329:( 288:( 194:: 190:@ 179:( 60:(

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge (XXG)

:Featured article candidates/John de Mowbray, 3rd Duke of Norfolk/archive1 - Knowledge (XXG)

Index