Jump to content

Talk:Richard Williams (alias Cromwell)

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wbkelley (talk | contribs) at 00:06, 4 April 2015 (Plagiarism needs rewriting). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Death

@Pete Hobbs you made the following change from

The will was proved 28 November 1546.[1]

to

Sir Richard then died in 1545 and the will was proved on 28 November 1546.[2]
  1. ^ Noble 1787, p. 17 notes: Sir Richard Williams, alias Cromwell's will, is very long, covering four folio pages of parchment closely written (Prerogative-office, London, Allan 20). It is remarkable, that of the many wills of this family registered in the prerogative-office, there is not one that specifies any particular place for the interment of the testator.
  2. ^ Noble 1787, p. 17 notes: Sir Richard Williams, alias Cromwell's will, is very long, covering four folio pages of parchment closely written (Prerogative-office, London, Allan 20). It is remarkable, that of the many wills of this family registered in the prerogative-office, there is not one that specifies any particular place for the interment of the testator.

The page number we cite is wrong it is page 18 that it is stated when the will is proven. However on the page before 17 Noble covers when it was written "Sir Rich. made his will so early as june 25, 1545" ... "which will was proved nov. 28, 1546".

What is the source you are using for his death in 1545? -- PBS (talk) 15:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@PBS - Strange query. The opening sentence of the article already stated "1502 – 1545", it's been that way for months or years. I "sourced" nothing, nor did I alter any refs. I merely inserted into the "Later Life" narrative the fact that he had died, repeating the Lede year to save readers scrolling back to the top. It was to aid easier/clearer reading, otherwise some might not understand that "the will was proved" indicated he must have died - some might think it just meant the lawyers had finished legalising it and sent back to him.
But since you asked, and have done good admin on the article several times recently, let me ask you in turn: Isn't the "Later Life" subtitle misleading? Surely better to title it "Final years" (as the period it covers is just two years, the final two years of his life). I recall when I first read the article, the unexpected will-making and estate passed on made me think "Eh? What? Has he died or something? That's hardly any later life at all!"
Lastly, since you raised the subject, let me also ask this (and this one's difficult) - did he die in 1545 or 1544? Almost all of the articles refs seem to be "Noble 1787" which I've no reason to doubt as reliable, and your query seems to suggest Noble gave no death date (ie. just a will made 1545, proved 1546). But www.historyofparliamentonline.org/volume/1509-1558/member/cromwell-richard-1512-44 [[1]] carries the subject's entry published in The History of Parliament: the House of Commons 1509-1558, ed. S.T. Bindoff, 1982, available from Boydell and Brewer. Allow me to quote: "... in the summer of 1544 he accompanied the King’s expedition to France. He was in ‘most health’ when before his departure he made his will on 20 June, and his death on the following 20 Oct. was probably the result of the campaign which had ended a month earlier.". The authoritative Parliamentary source appears to say he made his will on 20 June 1544 (not 25 June 1545) and died on 20 October 1544. So which one is correct? Noble or the Parliamentary record?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pete Hobbs (talkcontribs) 06:14, 28 February 2015‎
I don't mind which header is used and I am happy to go along with your suggestion. The DOD was added to the lead without a citation to a source (Revision 12:03, 22 April 2013 ). Good, you have found a modern authoritative source. Obviously we use that (See: Criticism of Noble) -- PBS (talk) 15:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism

This article needs to be entirely rewritten. It seems to be merely a plagiarism of the 1787 work on which it admits to being based. The antique language is obviously from 1787 and is not suited to a modern encyclopedia. Wbkelley (talk)