Talk:Richard of Cornwall

Untitled

I AM SORRY if I'm putting this in the wrong place. The final sentence of the "Early Life" paragraph does not make sense. "As the second son .......... he had to wait to be crowned king." This implies that in due course he would become king, which is incorrect. He would not as a matter of course become king, but only if his brother died without a suitable heir. In fact Henry iii was succeeded by Edward i.

Untitled

Please tell me why this man is claimed to have been a contender for Holy Roman Emperor in the List of German Kings and Emperors interregnum period (if those two concepts are not mutually exclusive)?

Similarly (and the one might imagine that the explanation will be the same) why is he referred to as 'King of the Romans'?

He was the richest man in Europe. He bought the title. RickK | Talk 16:01, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

More detail is available here and the relevant time period begins in 1256.

The office of Roman King or Emperor was elective. Seven regional princes were responsible for choosing the German Monarch: the archbishop of Mainz, Cologne and Trèves, count Palatine of the Rhine, the count of Bohemia, the duke of Saxony and the marquis of Brandenburg. Once King, the monarch had to persuade the Pope to be crowned as Emperor, preferably in Rome, although this did not always happen, in particular when the Pope opposed the election. Richard of Cornwall bribed the seven electors for the total sum of 28,000 marks (Nancy Goldstone, Four Queens, p. 212).

He seems to have corrupted 3 of 7 Kurfürsten (Köln, Mainz, Pfalz). "Rival king to Alfonso of Castile; held no real authority." 78.50.234.90 (talk) 20:40, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The title Emperor of the Romans, which had lapsed in Western Europe in the late 5th century, was revived in 800 by Pope Leo III and conferred on Charlemagne. Jopses (talk) 10:50, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed the English Royalty tag -- King of the Romans is not English Royalty Jameslwoodward (talk) 16:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

tHE SON OF ELENORE OF AQUATAINE AND THE KING OF ENGLAND RICHARD (COUER DE LEON)

JUNE 14, 2012

DEAR EDITOR,

LET HISTORY NOT BE ERASED. PLEASE PUBLISH BY REQUEST THE STORY OF THE CRUSADES AND THE LIFE OF RICHARD THE 1ST. PUBLISH HIS PHOTO AND DO NOT REVEAL THE PLACE OF HIS BURIAL.

THANK YOU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.9.12.65 (talk) 00:52, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Question about Article Title

Richard was the only legitimately elected King of the Romans during the Interregnum of 1254 to 1273. He reigned officially from 1257 to 1272. Why is his article the only German king's that is not formatted Richard of Germany? Contemporaries, except for those who supported Alfonso X of Castile all recognized his title, and all of his children were surnamed "of Germany" in recognition of their father's position. Not everybody recognized a lot of German kings, but their articles are all properly titled "X of Germany" (or Holy Roman Emperor if they received that dignity). Richard's is the only exception. It doesn't matter that he bribed the electors for his title or that he did not actively reign within Germany, that same thing can be said of virtually all of the later Habsburgs who lived in Austria and rarely had any authority within Germany or Italy. Richard's article needs to be changed to match the other articles on German kings.
–Darius von Whaleyland, Great Khan of the Barbarian Horde 00:38, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Whaleyland, I would suggest you put in for a Requested Move on this suggestion. It's bound to cause some discussion, as most royal moves do. 1bandsaw (talk) 20:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 31 December 2018

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 section.

The result of the move request was: moved (closed by non-admin page mover) SITH (talk) 14:33, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

---

Richard, 1st Earl of Cornwall → Richard of Cornwall – No need to specify that he was earl since the only justification for "Cornwall" in the title is that he is commonly known as "Richard of Cornwall". That he was King of Germany is, after all, more important than that he was Earl of Cornwall. Srnec (talk) 19:03, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Support per nom.--Ermenrich (talk) 19:23, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Support suggestion, or Richard, Earl of Cornwall. See the citations in the article, the only one using the current title is a self-published website. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:28, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm ambivalent for two reasons. The first is that, for better or worse, this is the style that has been adopted on Wikipedia to refer to Earls, and I am not sure 'Richard of Cornwall' is so overwhelmingly common as to merit overriding this practice in this one case, and second, I seem to see him as frequently referred to as King of Germany or some variant in scholarly histories, so I am not sure that Richard of Cornwall is the preferred alternative. (As an aside, based on the footnotes our article seems to over-rely on Richardson's self-published work, where the naming may reflect the author's whim.) Agricolae (talk) 17:27, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@Agricolae: The term is certainly in use outside of this one work in English. Check out this search at Regesta Imperii of just titles. Now obviously all of these aren't about this Richard of Cornwall (some are about Richard Rufus of Cornwall and some are just random junk) but there are certainly enough to make it clear that this is a term commonly used in English. Compare that to this search with only three hits for "Richard Earl of Cornwall", with the most recent from 1934.--Ermenrich (talk) 17:40, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Agricolae, are you thinking "Richard, King of Germany" as a title? That would be the correct style per WP:NCROY, since he was a king. Srnec (talk) 18:53, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Wouldn't convention call for simply 'Richard of Germany'? - we don't use 'King' for most kings. I am not fond of that form, but that would I think best match convention for royals, and it is already a redirect to this article. As to Ermenrich's comment, I am not questioning that it is 'a' form commonly used for him. Is it the best version given both scholarly practice and typical usage here? What do the current EncBrit and ODNB and similar use? Agricolae (talk) 21:59, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Our crazy convention calls for "Name # of Country" unless there is no #, then it's "Name, King of Country". Although, as it says, "exceptions can be made on a case-by-case basis". The kings of Germany not crowned emperor are not all consistent. Sometimes we ignore their royal title (William II of Holland, Jobst of Moravia, Philip of Swabia, Günther von Schwarzburg), sometimes we do as you suggest (Adolf of Germany), sometimes we do as the convention suggests (Rupert, King of Germany) and other times we sidestep it (Frederick the Fair, Wenceslaus IV of Bohemia). Probably we could make it a little more consistent. I see no reason Philip and Jobst couldn't be renamed.
The ODNB uses "Richard, first earl of Cornwall and king of Germany". Britannica uses "Richard, English claimant to the Holy Roman Empire". German sources appear to favour "Richard von Cornwall". The Oxford Dictionary of the Middle Ages uses "Richard, earl of Cornwall", while Oxford's Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages uses "Richard of Cornwall".
My initial concern was twofold (a) I think "1st" is confusing unless you know the convention and (b) we are elevating his comital title above his royal one, which is a bit misleading. Srnec (talk) 01:04, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Comment: Despite flaws in my recommendation above, I think this article needs to be renamed either Richard of Germany or Richard, King of Germany. Another solution could be Richard of Cornwall, King of Germany. The current preference to just give him his peerage title is misleading and does not reflect history. While he ultimately failed in his bid to functionally becoming king, he was crowned and used the title throughout his life, and his contemporaries throughout most of Europe recognised this fact. Regardless, there is really no reason to call him "1st" and I've never read him referred to as such in any academic text. – Whaleyland (Talk • Contributions) 05:46, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• Support. "Richard of Cornwall" is the common name.[1][2][3]--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:45, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
• Support. A reasonable proposal. Surtsicna (talk) 14:29, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Rudolf

I am puzzled by the argument that we ought to refer to people/list people by the names of the articles about them. We do not normally do that in Infobox royalty anyway; see virtually any article about an English king. The predecessor and successor are always listed without "of England", the children are nearly always listed with titles that do not appear in the names of the articles about them, the mother is listed without her marital title even if one is included in the article title, etc. In text we refer to people by whatever name is convenient. If we can agree that "William II of Holland" + "Rudolf I of Habsburg" in this infobox makes more sense than "William II of Holland" + "Rudolf I of Germany", then we are in no way obligated to use the latter. And indeed, "Rudolf I of Habsburg" is natural, common and perfectly consistent with both "William II of Holland" and "Richard of Cornwall". Surtsicna (talk) 10:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

As I noted before, the names "William II of Holland" and "Richard of Cornwall" are both the names of their respective Wikipedia articles. I think you ought to take up this at Rudolf I of Germany, which is certainly not his common name.--Ermenrich (talk) 00:08, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

And as I explained in great detail, we are not bound to use the exact names of Wikipedia articles. Pipes exist. Redirects exist. Surtsicna (talk) 00:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I fail to see how saying Rudolf I of Habsburg is more consistent than just keeping the current name, which is, like the other names you're citing to try to prove that Rudolf of Habsburg would be more consistent, the name of his article. They are thus all three consistent with the names of their articles, and I think this makes more sense than that we say "of Holland" and "of Cornwall" - of course we do, those are the names of the Wikipedia articles! Whether we are "bound" to use them is an entirely different issue than whether this change improves the article, which I don't think it does.--Ermenrich (talk) 13:09, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

It's more consistent because Richard of Cornwall and William II of Holland were also kings of Germany. The practice for that parameter is to do away with the definer for the Holy Roman Empire and use the name of the person before they became King of Germany. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:23, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

If that's the practice. It probably isn't worth arguing over anymore anyway. As I've said before, we should probably change Rudolf von Habsburg to his more common name, though...--Ermenrich (talk) 15:15, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Seal images

Do we really need both images of the verso side of his seal: the seal itself and an artist's interpretation of it? Could we just move the seal to the infobox, or is it unclear enough that we need the artist's rendering? Were these both in the body, a side-by-side would be an alternative, but that doesn't really work when one is the infobox image. Agricolae (talk) 14:38, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Wives and progeny

"Isabel of Cornwall, who received a grant from King Henry III in which she was called "niece". - It has been found that this child has been incorrectly attributed and is in fact the daughter of Isabel (wife of John I) and Hugh De Brun).[22]"

Okay, so if she's not Richard's daughter, why is she still here? This should be deleted. 2600:1700:BC01:9B0:544F:E012:2320:EFE4 (talk) 16:41, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Claimed illegitimate son Lawrence

A son Lawrence keeps being put in among Richard's illegitimate children. The claimed basis is an unpublished charter executed by 'King Richard' and witnessed by 'Laurence son of Richard'. WP:NOR prohibits editors from reaching novel conclusions not found in a reliable source, and while WP:PRIMARY sources can be used with care in very limited circumstances, this certainly doesn't extend to drawing novel conclusions from an archive's online catalogue entry for an unpublished primary historical document. As to the claim itself, the document only refers to a Laurence son of (some person named) Richard, but whereas when referring to the Earl it calls this person 'King Richard', in the case of the witness there is no indication given that the man's father Richard was the grantor, and there were any number of people named Richard in England at the time, any of whom could just as well have been the father of 'Laurence son of Richard'. Further, it would be rather unlikely for someone with a personal, biological connection to the grantor to appear so low in a witness list - 11th witness. Finally, there has been a scholarly study that explicitly addressed the question of whether Laurence 'of Ulverston' was the son of Earl Richard, and it concluded not only was the evidence was insufficient to conclude this was the case, but likewise it is uncertain that the 'Ulverston' Laurence was the same man as the one who appears in Cornwall, and that the Cornish Laurence had a brother Andrew who was already active as an adult in 1226, making him (and by implication Laurence) of the same generation as Richard, not his son. This is complex, with no definitive answer, and certainly too complex for editors to be putting their own conclusions into the article based solely on their reading of a single unpublished primary document. Agricolae (talk) 20:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)