Talk:Henry Stafford, 2nd Duke of Buckingham

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Henry Stafford, 2nd Duke of Buckingham article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Biography: Peerage and Baronetage / Politics and Government

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage.
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group.

Wrong link

The link to Henry's mother is incorrect. It links to another Margaret that is in fact not his mother, but another Margaret Beaufort. Hrichter 08:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)hrichter[reply]

This has been corrected. History Lunatic (talk) 07:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)History Lunatic[reply]

Another Wrong Link

The link in the ancestry table to Anne Neville is also incorrect - the link is to the Anne Neville mentioned in the text as the wife of Richard III - the Anne Neville in the tanle is a relative of this Queen and does not have a page. Great Article though.

This has been corrected. Anne Neville, Countess of Stafford, now has a page. Cheers. History Lunatic (talk) 07:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)History Lunatic[reply]

Descendants of Edward III

If you're going to have this list either take out Eleanor Beauchamp or change the title completely. It's actually not needed because he has a chart at the bottom of the page, people can see for themselves. -- Lady Meg (talk) 19:44, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong image

I don't think that the 18th century portrait is supposed to represent Henry Stafford. According to the website of the National Portrait Gallery, it represents his son, Edward Stafford, 3rd Duke of Buckingham. http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw124905/Edward-Stafford-3rd-Duke-of-Buckingham TimeTravellingBunny (talk) 21:45, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One thing I have noticed in studying this family: No Stafford ever revolted for other than himself.

Yep, agreed. I'll look for another one. That image has been in my head for years as the baddy who killed the princes in the tower! Menswear (talk) 19:26, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also agree. I see this image all over the place, as well as the portrait listed for his son, labelled as either man. Looking at both, it seems obvious that the engraving is based on the portrait, or on a similar portrait. From the clothes, it's a good bet that the sitter was Edward.

I have been scouring the internet for several months looking for an alternative image of either duke to no avail, but I haven't given up yet. History Lunatic (talk) 07:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)History Lunatic[reply]

Princes in the Tower

Buckingham is also one of the primary suspects in the disappearance... of the Princes in the Tower.

What was his part in the plot? Valetude (talk) 18:24, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The theory is explained later in this article under the heading The Princes in The Tower. History Lunatic (talk) 07:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC)History Lunatic[reply]

Misspelling

Reference 9 contains a mispelling, In "(Codice 443 da Coleccao Pombalina da B.N.L.)", "Coleccao" should be spelled "Colecção." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pascalulu88 (talk • contribs) 14:34, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Corrected by another editor. Wire723 (talk) 10:29, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Skeleton

In his book The Wars of the Roses, Dan Jones mentions a headless skeleton discovered at the site said to be that of Buckingham's execution and that when touched, the bones immediately turned to dust. As to when this happened, Jones says only that it was "many centuries later." It seems to me like that might be worth mentioning if someone can find some sources. Beetfarm Louie (talk) 10:30, 22 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]