Talk:House of Plantagenet/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

GA Review

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

this article is a good start, but it lacks the broad, thorough, and focused content that is essential to GAs. Other major problems include short, choppy paragraphs, a prevalence of lists, and a complete lack of citation beyond the first section. In short, this article does not do a good job of informing about the impact, history, and importance of the House of Plantagenet; to be a GA, it must do more than just provide a family tree of who is related to whom.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   Do not wlink years (only day-month-year dates are wlinked). Also, as stated above, the prose should provide details, analysis, wide coverage of info, and importance; to do this, the paragraphs should be reasonably lengthy. Also, minimize the use of lists.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   A greater diversity of sources are needed, as well as citations for the rest of the article.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

   The main points I got from this article were 1) how the name is derived and 2) who was in this family. A GA should provide more: how the family came to prominence, how did it interact with its peer families, what did it do, what are its lasting historical impacts, etc.

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

   GAs also need images (beyond the lead image). This could include images of Plantagenet kings, their individual coats of arms, pictures of Plantagenet castles, etc.

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

--Malachirality (talk) 02:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Background

I have made a sizable edit to the background section (several times, as anyone watching the history now knows). This is not, as it has been called, vandalism. The material in this section, by my estimation, was poorly presented. It was (in my opinion) unfocused or mis-focused. Without going through it line by line, over all, it reads like some of the romantic-historical writings of the 19th century, but which hasn't been seen in scholarship for over a half-century. Just some examples of problems: it refers to one house being "technically" an extension of another, as if there were some technical manual defining such things. It suggests that paternal lineage is important, but then ignores the true paternal lineage of the family, and it includes ancient foundation legends that are uniformly dismissed by historians. It makes a big deal about the relationship to the Kings of Jerusalem, but I am unaware of any modern historian that seems to think this has the slightest political significance for the Plantagenets. It talks of them being of Western-European ethnicity, which reflects the non-existent Eastern Europe/Western Europe division of the 19th century ethnic racism, (and no, I am not calling the editor who contributed this a racist, just pointing out that this way of viewing the medieval world is completely out of favor) or an anachronistic Cold-War-Era division of Europe.

Then, of course, there is the ethnicity section. The only sources cited were simply internet pedigrees of Henry II. Setting aside the major problem that internet pedigrees do not fulfill the verification standards of Wikipedia (to be blunt, most are bunk), these pedigrees neither identify (explicitly) the ethnicity of the individuals in question, nor do they in any manner relate this ethnicity to, specifically, the house of Plantagenet and it's founder. In short, this ethnicity section is all Original Research, some by Synthesis, some just flat out. It is also selective - it calls Henry's maternal grandfather Anglo-Saxon, presumably because his great-great-great-great-great-great-great-(I kid you not)grandmother was English, while his Flemish great-grandfather is ignored, and there is even a King of Italy closer than the English connection. 'Viking' is named, while the just-as-close Breton is not. The lack of information on the paternal grandmother (likely all French) is highlighted, but there is a huge gap in the pedigree of the paternal grandmother that may include Rus or Hungarian or Bulgarian and Greek. It all simply represents POV, first as to which ethnicities are worth reporting and second, that you can learn anything about the Plantagenets knowing that a 7-great-grandmother happened to be English, or even that a great-grandfather happened to be Scottish, particularly given that the ethnicity of the Plantagenets changed with every generation, as marriages brought in everything from French to Spanish to Savoyard to Polish to Flemish, German, Byzantine, Basques, and on and on and on. What is relevant is where they got their power, and this was from the Angevins, and from Henry's maternal grandfather being King of England. Agricolae (talk) 17:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Some ancestors are far more notable than others, especially when put into the context of a royal house. The fact that the house has ancestry from Alfred the Great is of paramount importance when put into context. The entire reason why William II married Matilda of Flanders in the first place was to restore within the ruling family of England, the bloodline of Alfred, so as to avoid rebellion. This line carried on through the Plantagenets, so why shouldn't we comment on the continuity of that here? Its surely relevent.

The fact that the Plantagenets made a claim to Scotland much later on, in relation to the Dunkeld Sucession Crisis, also suggests that Henry's close descent (his grandmother) from the Dunkeld dynasty is of a historical significance. While "race" in the way of which we think of it today may not have been as important, high born bloodlines, royal castes certainly were. More often than not, that was the very basis of the vast majority of royal marriages, along with political alliances. To deny this is to revise history and look at it through the bias eyes of the Enlightenment, Freemasonry and egalitarianism, which would be completely alien to the thought pattern of these Middle Ages people.

That the dynasty was of mostly Frankish stock, culturally is of relevence, when we view the political climate of the day; namely the Hundred Year's War and the struggle for the control of France. Do you deny that they were mostly Frankish? If not, then why remove it. Why should we cover up parts of North-Western European history like this? :$ - Secret Smoke 1 (talk) 19:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Where to start? Oh, I know. I will start by saying that, as Secret Smoke 1 is a sock puppet of a banned/blocked user, any subsequent contributions from Secret Smoke 1 or any of his other puppets are subject to immediate revert, and no further reason need be given, as per banning policy. I will not continue to discuss with someone who has no business editing to begin with.

That being said, I will respond to this, and this post only, since on its surface it would appear to justify restoration of some of the deleted material. Claim the First: William II married Matilda of Flanders to restore to the ruling family of England the bloodline of Alfred the Great. Except, . . . oops, William I married her when he had yet to take the crown, so it had nothing to do with anything within the royal family of England, just within the Ducal family of Normandy. Likewise, when Henry I married the great-granddaughter of Edmund Ironside, it made any such claim to descend from Alfred the Great via Flanders moot. And all of this before the Plantagenets ever came to be. If you think otherwise, show me the evidence that the Plantagenets did claim their right to rule because Henry's mother's father's mother's father's father's father's father's father's mother's father was Alfred the Great. That they had such a descent, and that they claimed the crown, cannot be combined to suggest that they claimed the crown because of such a descent. They actually claimed the crown as heirs of Henry I, (who, by the way, was not heir to Matilda of Flanders anyhow, his older brother Robert was).

Claim the Second: The Plantagenets claimed Scotland due to Henry's mother's mother's father. No. One specific Plantagenet, and only one, made this claim, pro forma, and only briefly. Thus it may be relevant to Edward I, and to the Scottish Succession Crisis, but not to the Plantagenets as a whole. (Oh, and ethnically, that same Edward I was Provencal, Aragonese, Basque, Savoyard, Portuguese, Castilian, and even had some Polish thrown in for good measure, all in greater quantities than any Scottish blood - so much for ethnicity, and in particular, so much for this supposed North-Western European ethnicity.)

Claim the Third: That kings base their right to rule on descent from other kings. So what, that need not require a list of famous kings. The Plantagenets did not base their claim on descent from Charlemagne or Hugh Capet - they based it on descent from Henry I, who based his on beating out his brother, who based his on being son of the guy who overran the country. Claim the Fourth: The claims that started the 100 Years War had to do with the Plantagenets being Frankish. Not so. It had nothing to do with the ethnicity of the Plantagenets. They had everything to do with the fact that Edward III was grandson of a specific King of France, and, well, he and his successors just thought they might pull it off. Finally, the twice asked "why not include it?" Because Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Agricolae (talk) 07:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Was Bordeaux English?

Hope someone can clear up a statement in the Bordeaux article. At the moment it says "From the 12th to the 15th century, Bordeaux regained importance as part of the English realm..." Someone else has questioned this at Talk:Bordeaux#History misconception. I know almost nothing of this period of history and I can't easily judge whether that is a reasonable interpretation.--A bit iffy (talk) 08:09, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

No. Since England was French. All English kings descend from French forefathers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.58.144.199 (talk) 21:27, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've now simply removed the "English realm" assertion.--A bit iffy (talk) 08:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ. England was not 'French' under the Plantagenets. It is true that the Plantagenet kings of England were French in origin, and due to their holdings in France they were French vassals of the King of France, but that did not make England 'French'. England was a sovereign country quite separate from France, just as Great Britain is separate from France today. Following from this logic we can safely say that England was not 'Welsh' with the accession of Henry VII, nor 'Scottish' with the accession of James VI & I, nor 'Dutch' with the accession of William III, nor 'German' with the accession of George I. Nationality or 'persuasion' of the person wearing the crown does not make the crown itself 'foreign', and by inference neither the sovereign state. Ds1994 (talk) 19:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Current head (in sidebar)

There is none. Further, just because the Dukes of Somerset descend from the Plantagenets wouldn't make them the heads of the family anyhow. Likewise, they do not just descend from an illegitimate link since legitimated, but also a second illegitimate link that has never been. Finally, they may not be the only descendants of the Plantagenet male line through illegitimate connections. All of this is pointless detail, however, since the last head of the Plantagenets was the Earl of Warwick. By any rational definition, the family has no head, nor has it for over 500 years. Agricolae (talk) 03:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Margaret Pole, 8th Countess of Salisbury, Warwick's sister, was the last head of the House of Plantagenet. Edward Plantagenet, 17th Earl of Warwick, was the last legitimate, male head.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's one point of view. The issue, however, was whether there was a current head. Agricolae (talk) 08:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

No, there isn't a current head as far as I know. However, it's not POV on my part to say that Margaret was the last legitimate head seeing as Salic Law was not applied in England, and she was the daughter of the Duke of Clarence.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is POV. That there even was such a thing as a legitimate 'Head of the House of Plantagenet' based on some sort of formal rules of succession is completely anachronistic. There was no particular basis for legitimacy, as proven again and again. John and Arthur, Henry IV and Richard II, Richard and Henry VI, Edward IV and Henry VI, Richard III and Edward V - not only was there no Salic Law, there was hardly any Law at all. The House of York first based their claim on a maternal descent from the elder brother, which if applied in the 16th century would have made Henry VIII the 'legitimate' head of the house. Sure, you can frame the argument to give you the desired result, just as they did then, but it is just begging the question. Exactly which other members of the House of Plantagenet recognized Margaret as their head? Agricolae (talk) 13:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

In point of fact, when Richard III was killed at Bosworth, the next monarch, by right of descent, was Elizabeth of York, whom Henry Tudor cleverly married. He no more than a usurper, because if his wife was illegitimate as Richard had claimed for the children of Edward IV, then Richard had been the legitimate king. Either way one looks at it, Henry Tudor usurped the English throne. Most historians consider Margaret Pole to have been the last Plantagent head.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Making Elizabeth "monarch, by right of descent" is to invent a 'right' vested in female members of the family that had no precedent among the Plantagenets, and hence is nothing but POV. As to Margaret, again I ask what other Plantagenets regarded her as their head? Look, I get where you are coming from, but in making bold assertions of anachronistic rights and titles you are really just begging the question. Agricolae (talk) 16:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

There was no precedent for a female monarch as Matilda's rights were passed over to Stephen following a civil war (but she was not a Plantagenet, so not relevant here). There is no dispute, however that Elizabeth of York was the daughter of Edward IV, hence by right of succession she came before Henry VII. That she did not make a bid for the throne is also a fact. That the House of York derived their claim from a female descendant of a second son is also fact. But we could go on and on debating. I think we can both agree to agree that there is no current head of the House of Plantagenet. The Tudors' rather efficatious methods of eliminating or intimidating Yorkist claimants made sure of that.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

"For where is Bohun? Where is Mowbray? Where is Mortimer? Nay, and which is more and most of all, where is Plantagenet? They are entombed in the urns and sepulcres of mortality." Moonraker2 (talk) 18:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Lovely line by Sir Ranulph Crewe.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, Crewe. Poor Crewe. Moonraker2 (talk) 19:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as English noble families go, I've always been fascinated by the Mortimers and Fitzalans. The de Bohuns were interesting as well. A pity that, like the Plantagenets, the legitimate male lines all eventually became extinct.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 20:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Henry VI

Hello everybody I think the section on the plantagement claim to France be extended because it already mentions there was later de facto kingship as king of france.A simple note on expanstion may redirect to the article of Henry VI and so the claim could be understood.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 15:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's not forget, the claim in question was disputed. GoodDay (talk) 15:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The claim was disputed but the treaty of Troyes has to be mentioned on how the English had the de facto soveriegnty in France.Henry by the way was only in dispute outside his French realm not in his own since that is was where his legitimacy was recognized.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 15:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Anyway it is just a simple note in basic words.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 15:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Rise of Henry II and his sons section

1. At the end of the second paragraph, you mention "His excommunication ws rescinded." Why and when was he excommunicated?

2. Also in the second paragraph, in the middle, you have "...Cumbria from the control od Scotland(insert comma here) who had earlier..." Who is who, Henry or someone else?

3. In the third paragraph about 1/3 way through, "Each would preside over a separate monarchy." Should monarchy be country?

Bettymnz4 (talk) 04:17, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Royal line of Jerusalem

Since Agricolae removed instead of helping me to integrate properly the addition I made regarding the junior branch of the Plantagenet dynasty through Geoffrey of Anjou's father Fulk, how and where would be the appropriate place in the article to discuss the direct connections between the main Plantagenet line and the royal house of the Kingdom of Jerusalem? I believe that the connection is pertinent enough to the subject to warrant at least a sentence mentioning it; I placed the connection which Richard I's section as John Gillingham in the work I cited and in "The Art of Kingship: Richard I, 1189–99". History Today. 1985. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) argues that half the reason Richard went on the Third Crusade was following the general Angevin trend since Geoffrey Greymantle of looking out for family interests first with any political move and that the early Plantagenet kings thought of the Kingdom of Jerusalem as a "family inheritance". -- Sabre (talk) 17:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Hundred Years' War begins

reword 2nd sentence to: Philip IV of France had three sons, all of whom who had died without issue; his son Louis X's son, John I of France, who lived for only 5 days. Bettymnz4 (talk) 23:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I rewrote it to say "died without having produced male issue", seeing as Philip V had three daughters.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Lancastrians crowned, rebellion section

I have no questions!! Bettymnz4 (talk) 00:09, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I finished what I intended to do for this article, mainly copyediting. Good luck with the rest of your peer review and eventual feature article. Bettymnz4 (talk) 19:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Family tree

I've added the family tree. I hope it will help the readers understand exactly how all those men belonged to the House of Plantagenet. Someone should check the years though; I might've made a mistake somewhere. Surtsicna (talk) 14:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Etymology

The common broom is nowadays regarded as a species from the genus Cytisus, not Genista. Does the Latin name reflect a historical state of knowledge, or is the Planta genista in fact a real Genista? --Hodsha (talk) 18:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Correction Please

Hi, "Henry VI,King of England" date of rule is incorrect. Could someone please fix it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.90.15.153 (talk) 12:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I have tried to find a way to tell the fate of the Pearl, the rightful heiress, as well as Geoffrey's line

Now I manage to make her mentioned in the article, but I really find some difficulty expressing the following information in the article with as little disturbance of its original structure as possible:

She had a better claim but gained little if any baronial support despite that she was grown and Henry III was so young, and was kept in prison/under house arrest till her death in 1241 (unmarried and issueless), thus Geoffrey's line died out and descendants of John's became rightful heirs.

Though the concept of "better claim" seems anachronistic due to the incompletion of succession law and female rights at that time, according to modern succession law, the Pearl was rightful heiress rather than John and Henry just as what Annales Londonienses had mentioned, or the kings, who treated her well, would not be so careful to prevent her liberation or production. All I have done was only aiming to tell her eventual fate and the extinction of Geoffrey's line.

After my edition was reverted again, I had considered to add words like this, but I could not tell whether it would be appropriate:

.... Eleanor imprisoned (till her death in 1241, and Geoffrey's line died out), ....

but words in brackets do not seem so concordant in the article;

.... Eleanor imprisoned for life, ....

but that seems incorrect as John did not see her whole lifelong imprisonment, though he finally decided to do so.

So I temporarily gave up.Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 19:20, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with mentioning that she ended up being imprisoned for life, but there should be no representation of a right of Eleanor to succeed. While there is some history among scholars of asserting that John usurped the rights of Arthur, there is no such tradition with respect to Eleanor, except more generically as him depriving the children of his brother. When it came down to it, Eleanor was not heiress of a king, just of a guy in a tower who had been put there by his relative the king (it might not have been rightful by our modern conceptions, but they really didn't care what we would think of it all). This is all the more the case with the succession of Henry III. That the eldest son and heir of the sitting monarch is chosen to succeed should not be portrayed as a deprivation of another line, as if there was some sort of tanistry in effect. When Henry IV deprived the line of Lionel, we mention it there, we don't then report that Henry V succeeded in spite of the rightful claims of Lionel's line, nor that Henry VI succeeded in spite of such a 'rightful claim'.

That Eleanor had any rightful claim at the time of Henry's succession is doubly dubious: England already had a female being unsuccessful in establishing her right to succeed (Matilda vs Stephen) and in the senior primogeniture representative being unable to succeed in preference to the king's own son (AEthelwold vs Edward). Eleanor comes down on the losing side of both precedents. It tells you something that with all of the animosity toward John, nobody rose in support of Eleanor as the legitimate ruler - her contemporaries did not view her as such. And while we are at it, why is Eleanor the 'rightful' heiress, rather than a descendant of Stephen, or Curthose, or Harold, or Edmund Ironside (or Svein or AEthelred I . . . ) for that matter)?

You have put a lot of effort into compiling an article on Eleanor, a perfect place for anyone all that interested in her to go look (although it too could stand with some POV adjustment). Let's face it though. In the grand scheme of things, she was a historical irrelevancy - just another princess that didn't get to be queen. It really isn't necessary to mention on the pages of every castle where she may once have been held that she had the better claim (says who?, based on what assumptions?) or was the rightful heiress. In fact, that she was held in a particular castle may not be of historical notability in the centuries-long history of that fortress. That you are doing this and continually referring to her as to 'the Pearl' makes me wonder if you aren't a bit too invested in this person. Agricolae (talk) 01:27, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Considering your opinion I would rethink of my concepts about "rightful" or "better claim" and correct my edits elsewhere in another more appropriate way, though I would still realize her as heiress-general of former monarchs up to William I according to non-Salic succession law and with a better claim than her paternal uncle or younger male cousin(s). I have found some sources citing that the captive Eleanor never gave up her claim/rights just based on the example of Matilda. I have found a book citing Matilda, Eleanor and Elizabeth of York as the three legitimate heiresses to England who failed to ascend.

I have quite learnt something about the Pearl for some days, initially only out of curiosity how she lived through her long imprisonment, but finally concluded that she was really a determined and courageous one, so I could not help admiring her; and that she was treated as well as a princess rather than cruelly locked in a small cell all the time, despite particularly prevented from liberation or marriage, and that seemed she was under house arrest rather than a harsh imprisonment. During that time, I expanded her article a lot. (As mentioned I would still like the grammatical problems there to be corrected, if any, as English is not my mother tongue.) As for her claim/rights, though seeming deserted by English barons, was always remembered by the kings and others (see below). I think I can take it for granted that she was the last prisoner that Henry III would liberate, in spite of his very generosity towards her; her case reminded me of that of Robert Curthose. How strict prisons should be used to accommodate such an honorable state prisoner? I do not think that is of little historical meaning. For example, Corfe Castle and Bristol Castle are strong enough. After her death Annales Londonienses commented she was the rightful heiress; Lanercost Chronicle said Henry III was so remorseful that he gave her the crown before her death, a legend I would like to believe but actually not so convincing; and quite some books say the crown/throne/lands should be Eleanor's, based on primogeniture, when describing her imprisonment.

Different POVs lead to different conclusions, so I can only hold my own.

In fact despite my own sympathy for the Breton siblings, now I personally do not resent John very much.

BTW, I do not know where was the line of Curthose, as it should already be extinct after his death in 1134 for his only legitimate son had predeceased him without issue; the claim/rights of Lionel's line was once deprived but finally restored (by Edward IV), and deprived again (by Henry VII), then restored again (by Henry VIII) and continued from then on; even the line of Edmund II (so I favor Edward the Exile and his descendants than the Confessor) was restored when James Stuart the Scottish king succeeded; heirs-general of Stephen, whose claim was actually weaker than Matilda (at least weaker than his own elder brothers), never actively fought for English throne, if not counting the king consort Philip II of Spain (queen of Edward III was not Stephen's heiress-general). All these lines are different from Geoffrey's, which died out entirely passively without abdication.Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 08:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Now I think I am content with the current article. Thank you.Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 08:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Henry the Young King - birthdate probably incorrect

In the table of Plantagenet kings, Henry the Young King' has a birthdate of 1170. That makes him 13 when he died. This birthdate doesn't match the page on Henry, or make sense if he was co-regent at 15 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hinney (talk • contribs) 11:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The only occurrence of "1170" I can find in the article is in the section "Reigns of the Plantagenet monarchs of England". The table gives the dates of his reign (1170 to 1183) rather than his birth date, unless I'm missing where the article talks about his birth? Nev1 (talk) 11:35, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

House of Lancaster a junior branch?

The introduction says:

After that a junior branch, the House of Lancaster, ruled for some fifty years

But it's not clear from the page what makes it a Junior branch. Can anyone shed light here, and then possible on the main page

OptimisticRyan (talk) 00:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Edward III of England had several sons. The "senior" line of the dynasty descended from his eldest son Edward, the Black Prince. Dying out with Richard II of England in 1400. The House of Lancaster descended from third son John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster. Thus "junior" to the senior line. The House of York descended from both second son Lionel of Antwerp, 1st Duke of Clarence and fourth son Edmund of Langley, 1st Duke of York. They were also a "junior" line, but held a superior claim to the Lancasters. Dimadick (talk) 13:39, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Introduction

The proposed version of the lede glosses over or ignores significant aspects of this family's history. How can you summarize this dynasty that in their later years embroiled England in one internecine struggle after another until they wiped themselves out without even mentioning the Wars of the Roses or the Houses of York and Lancaster? These are fundamental to the history of the dynasty, the subject of the article, no matter what you think their relevance is to the history of England. Agricolae (talk) 23:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree. The Wars of the Roses sounded the death knell to the Plantagenet royal dynasty, and not to mention this in the lead is glaring negligence.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Fully agree as well. The version before the changes were made was far superior; this one, especially the first two paragraphs, are just poorly written all round. And its bad form to have the opening paragraph contain this random bit about the name being popularised by Shakespeare when that isn't referenced or even mentioned anywhere in the article. -- Sabre (talk) 09:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

King Stephen

I don't see any justification for choosing one person and insisting that the French form of the name be used for him, when we don't (and shouldn't) use the French forms for Henry or William or Fulk. That this is the form his contemporaries would have used is not clear to me - William I's contemporaries used a form that differs both from modern French and modern English, Willelm. However, it doesn't matter. This encyclopedia isn't being read by his contemporaries. We even call the French kings by their English forms so to do otherwise for this one man is unsupportable. Agricolae (talk) 23:44, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

And can we please knock off this ridiculous obsession with singling out King Stephen and referring to him by a French name. It is simply silly. This is the English Wikipedia, so we take our stylistic cues from English historiography and secondary literature, which near unanimously uses "Stephen". This latest reason, that "it remains to be said that Stephen wasn't his name and was only applied retrospectively" is not only original research, but also, frankly, complete bollocks. -- Sabre (talk) 22:55, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

So now we've had a reference to cite Norman Davies, a non-medievalist historian who uses French names throughout the medieval section of his general history of over 10 years ago. His introduction states that its to avoid anachronisms, but it is self-evident that this thinking has not gained acceptance given the constant stream of later publications that still favour Stephen, William, Henry, Matilda, etc over Etienne, Guillaume, Henri, Mathilde. Its not a matter of piling in footnotes to the odd usage such as Davies that bucks the established trend, its a simple matter of what is current practice in modern historiography.

One only needs to look at the journal articles on JSTOR, the entries on Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, or the medieval biography section of a library to see that Stephen was used before Norman Davies, and Stephen is still used long after by medieval specialists such as Judith Green, Edmund King, R.H.C. Davis, Nicholas Vincent, J. Bradbury, David Carpenter, John Gillingham, and so many others it would be pointless to attempt a comprehensive list. Its equally used in translated works by French historians such as Martin Aurell and Francois Neveux. The same is true of translations of relevant chronicles, which were in Latin, not French—if you want to get rid of anachronisms of modern naming conventions then "Stephani regis Anglie" or "Stephanus Blesensis" would be far more accurate than using the modern French name "Etienne". Common sense demands then that the accepted term in the English language for the nephew of Henry I, who was born in Blois, beat his cousin to the claiming the English throne and spent most of the rest of his reign trying to hold onto said throne, is "Stephen". And as this is the English Wikipedia, that is what should be used.

Wikipedia is not the place to attempt to change the practice based on what you think it should be, it should be based on what is already practice. There is, for instance, probably a substantial argument in favour of using "Giraldus Cambrensis" instead of "Gerald of Wales" on this site; both are very commonly used in modern English historiography. The same cannot be said for using "Etienne" over "Stephen". The stupidest part of this is that this article isn't even focused on Stephen, and its only a single usage being changed. -- Sabre (talk) 13:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

(ec) If even the edit says "better known in English textbooks as Stephen" then that's the name we should use, not the French name. I also note that all the major biographies of Stephen use ... "Stephen", not Etienne. I've changed it back to Stephen. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

As the proponent seems unwilling to discuss it here, you can see their reasoning on my Talk page. Agricolae (talk) 14:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Guys......I bow to your arguments, apologies for the upset Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Introduction

The proposed version of the lede glosses over or ignores significant aspects of this family's history. How can you summarize this dynasty that in their later years embroiled England in one internecine struggle after another until they wiped themselves out without even mentioning the Wars of the Roses or the Houses of York and Lancaster? These are fundamental to the history of the dynasty, the subject of the article, no matter what you think their relevance is to the history of England. Agricolae (talk) 23:52, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree. The Wars of the Roses sounded the death knell to the Plantagenet royal dynasty, and not to mention this in the lead is glaring negligence.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Fully agree as well. The version before the changes were made was far superior; this one, especially the first two paragraphs, are just poorly written all round. And its bad form to have the opening paragraph contain this random bit about the name being popularised by Shakespeare when that isn't referenced or even mentioned anywhere in the article. -- Sabre (talk) 09:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Beginning and end of a dynasty

When Henry Tudor seized the throne through right of conquest there were 18 Plantagenets with a better right to it including both his wife and mother. By 1510 this figure had increased by the birth of 16 further Yorkists. .. Yorkists continued to be imprisoned up to the reign of Queen Elizabeth and the Tudors undertook a murderous campaign to extinguish rival claims to the throne. Many retired from public life and were not molested. In 2004 Channel 4's programme Britain's Real Monarch raised the question that if Edward IV had been illegitimate as supposed then by lineal descent from George Plantagenet, 1st Duke of ClarenceSimon Abney-Hasting, 15th Earl of Loudoun was the Plantagenet heir and rightful King.

So when did the dynasty end? Not with the Earl of Warwick, that much is certain. Some have this at 1299 and the death of Richard 2.

And when does it really start......some have this as an Angevin dynasty up until Henry 3 - the first King born in England since Harold.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

A touch more nuance is required here. Henry did not seize the throne by right of conquest, at least in his eyes. He was reclaiming the legitimate Lancastrian birthright. That there were 18 with a better right (itself a dubious statistic given that the succession had never been formalized in law, and therefor what determined the better right was part of what they were fighting over) is not necessarily relevant. That, de facto, it amounts to the same thing does not override the need to be more neutral than this. Those statistics also bring up the issue of what constitutes a Plantagenet - the legitimate male line, the legitimized male line, the male line irrespective of legitimacy (in which case there are probably people alive today with the names of Warren and Cornwall who are part of this continuing dynasty), or are you going to include descendants through daughters, like the Poles, who were clearly Yorkists, but were they Plantagenets? If you stretch it that far, then there are millions of Plantagenets including the current monarch, and the whole term loses its meaning. As to when the dynasty ended, that depends on the definition of the dynasty. Fortunately, we don't have to make these decisions - we have scholars to do it for us. The overall consensus is that, in spite of the certainty expressed above to the contrary, it was the Earl of Warwick.

When did it start - again, we have the benefit of scholarship that seems to almost universally agree that it starts with Geoffrey and Henry II. It is completely arbitrary to decide that birth in England is a prerequisite for being a member of a dynasty.

As to the Channel 4 program, that is pure WP:FRINGE, and does not merit this level of detail. Some lone wolf arbitrarily set his own 'real' rules of succession when none existed at the time, then used them to determine who 'should' be king. It has no basis in the scholarly consensus, and to mention it like this in a mainstream general article is to give it WP:UNDUE weight. (Not to mention that the statement is patently false: the Channel 4 show never concluded that the 15th Earl of Loudon was the rightful king. It just ain't so.) Agricolae (talk) 01:01, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

As for the Angevins, there is overlap. Its fairly common to see Henry II, Richard I, John and occasionally Henry III referred to as the "Angevin kings" due to their concurrent rule as counts of Anjou and kings of England, but the Plantagenet name is basically interchangeable with that in the secondary literature (though no-one refers to any Angevin count earlier than Geoffrey as a Plantagenet). As Agricolae mentions, the royal dynasty starts with Geoffrey and Henry II. The Angevin label falls away depending on whether any given historian wants to use the de facto loss of Anjou and Normandy in 1203-4 or the 1259 treaty of Paris as the cut off. That's why Henry III's inclusion into this is variable—its nothing to do with having been born in England.

I'm going to take this opportunity of dealing with Angevins to object to the removal of links pertaining to the Angevin Empire. Its a major part of the early Plantagenet kings, the battleground for their feud with the Capetians just as later parts of the dynasty are defined by their involvement in the Hundred Years War or the War of the Roses. Yes, there are issues with the nomenclature. We know it doesn't fit the conventional definition of an empire. We know it was an assemblance of dissimiliar territories held together solely by strength of the guy at the top, with various parts of it in a very complex feudal relationship with the Capetians. That is all acknowledged in the modern historiography. But the term is still in use. It's not unusual to see it qualified in its usage these days, but its still the common way to refer to those lands held by the Plantagenets held between 1154 and 1204 due to the lack of another term gaining widespread acceptance to replace it. The article should be linked to from this page, and it is in that article that the problems with the term's accuracy should be (and are) dealt with. As with the Stephen issue, its not for us to attempt to alter the trend, merely to reflect it. -- Sabre (talk) 10:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I had to stop before I dealt with that out of 3RR concerns. It seems the major stated objection with Angevin Empire is one of semantics, so perhaps this can be assuaged by something like 'the so-called Angevin Empire' or 'that came to be called the Angevin Empire', thus making it clear we are reflecting usage but not necessarily the traditional meaning of empire. That will have to do until the competing terms, the Angevin Thingamajig and the Angevin Whoosiewhatsit become more common, but it has to be mentioned and linked to the Wikipedia page that seems perfectly happy being called Angevin Empire. Agricolae (talk) 13:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

A touch more nuance is required here. Henry did not seize the throne by right of conquest, at least in his eyes – are you quoting a source here or claiming to know what was in Henry’s mind????

It's not like I made this up. He wasn't simply some Welsh guy who was just sitting around one day and thought, hmm, maybe I should conquer England and make myself king. It wasn't like some random group of followers decided to join the Welsh guy because they didn't have anything better to do. It is not like you have to read his mind when he was leading the Lancastrian army and restored the Lancastrian gentry to the lands they held under Henry VI but of which they had been deprived by Edward after Towton. It takes willful blindness to claim that Henry VII wasn't basing his claim a Lancastrian right.

His claim superceded all others by his victories although further legitimacy remains and remained questionable. You said "in his eyes" without a secondary source implying you knew what he thought.

Yes, and you also have said a lot of things here without citing a secondary source, implying that we are having a discussion, not trying to score debate points. Agricolae (talk) 17:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

He was reclaiming the legitimate Lancastrian birth right – and yet you say that are no rules applying to inheritance to be considered here. The single determining factor in Henry Tudor’s accession is his military victory. In addition if we were looking for rules wouldn’t Henry IV’s bar on Beaufort succession apply here?

Again nuance - no, there were no rules or, rather, each one brought his own rules to the table, but that doesn't mean they (and their followers) weren't motivated by a sense of legitimacy. Yes, the single determining factor in Henry Tudor's accession was military victory, but the same is true of Edward IV and William III. Are you saying they were ruling solely by right of conquest?

Ultimately, yes. As you put well and frequently there were no laws and rules to which I am agreeing. Legitimacy was the rationale of de facto political situations. Once in place laws of treason could be applied to enforece the status quo

That there were 18 with a better right also bring up the issue of what constitutes a Plantagenet - - the legitimate male line, the legitimized male line, the male line irrespective of legitimacy – again you are starting to state rules where you insist non exist – what do you sources say – if it was down to what they called themselves this would make the entire dynasty consist of Richard of York, Edward IV & Richard III.

No, I am not starting to state rules, just the opposite as was perfectly obvious. I pointed out that in saying there were 18 better Plantagenets, someone else is making an arbitrary decision of what constitutes 'better' and 'Plantagenet'.

I was using this to illustrate the contradiction of your assertion that the Earl of Warwick was the last legitimate claiment (based on your rules defined on male descent) when Richard III had nominated the De La Pole's as heirs (not Plantagenet by your definition) as the EoW was a simpleton totally unfit to be King.

Ah, I think I see the problem here. I didn't say he was the last legitimate claimant. I said he was the last legitimate Plantagenet, the last member of the family descended from Geoffrey Plantagenet in the male line by legitimate birth. I was saying nothing about the legitimacy of succession, only legitimacy of birth. Remember, this is an article about a dynasty, not about a kingdom. Had the Poles succeeded, we would be talking about them as the Poles, just like we talk about the Tudors, and not as additional Plantagenets (unless they only managed to hold it for one generation, in which case they may be treated as an addendum to the Plantagenets, just as Stephen is sometimes grouped with the Normans and Harold with the House of Wessex). Agricolae (talk) 17:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

who were clearly Yorkists, but were they Plantagenets? If you stretch it that far, then there are millions of Plantagenets including the current monarch, and the whole term loses its meaning. – what meaning does the term have according to your sources if any?

Well, a number of scholarly sources limit the term to male-line legitimate descendants of Geoffrey Plantagenet. That is a pretty precise meaning.

Seems to work!

As to when the dynasty ended, that depends on the definition of the dynasty. Fortunately, we don't have to make these decisions - we have scholars to do it for us. The overall consensus is that, in spite of the certainty expressed above to the contrary, it was the Earl of Warwick – utter hogwash as no such consensus exists – a significant number of historians end the dynasty in 1399 with Richard II, followed by the Houses of Lancaster & York. Equally specialists have the House of York continuing in body if not in power well into the 16th century. You take you pick, others take theirs, not much of a consensus though.

Ah, so Richard Plantagenet was not a Plantagenet. He seems to have thought differently (but maybe that is just me reading minds again and he ended up with the name entirely by coincidence). You seem to have accepted in your last set of edits that Richard III was the last Plantagenet king, and now you argue that Richard II was.

Richard, Duke of York was the first to call himself a Platagenet but what does that mean for all the family members from Geoffrey back who didn't (though whether he thought he was a Plantagenet is down to your mind reading, yes). The test you keep throughing at me is sources - many of which end the dynasty at RII. I don't share your interest in the numbing Wars of the Roses but find your definition of male lineal descent from HII quite acceptable if used carefully (like the Angevin Empire) to reflect contrary sources and the lack of contempory primary and secondary sources i.e. that Plantagenet wasn't a surname as understood today and would not have been understood by the "Plantagenets" themselves until the 15th Century.

Nobody is saying it was a surname (until the very end), but it shows that Richard considered himself a member of the dynasty we are talking about. Agricolae (talk) 17:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

As for the Angevins, there is overlap. Its fairly common to see Henry II, Richard I, John and occasionally Henry III referred to as the "Angevin kings" due to their concurrent rule as counts of Anjou and kings of England, but the Plantagenet name is basically interchangeable with that in the secondary literature (though no-one refers to any Angevin count earlier than Geoffrey as a Plantagenet). As Agricolae mentions, the royal dynasty starts with Geoffrey and Henry II. The Angevin label falls away depending on whether any given historian wants to use the de facto loss of Anjou and Normandy in 1203-4 or the 1259 treaty of Paris as the cut off - and this should be refected in this article.

It seems the major stated objection with Angevin Empire is one of semantics – no its not, it is historical accuracy – there was one Empire in Christian Europe at the time that took precedence, this is a 19th century term not used in many serious histories at all. Read its Wikipedia article for all the reasons it is not an Empire.

Yes, as I said - it doesn't satisfy some definition of what you think an empire should be, so you would set aside the established term. Semantics. The funny think about the Wikipedia page you mention is that for all of the reasons it gives for it not being an empire, look at the name of the page.

Just because a term exists doesn't mean we should use it or at least care should not be taken in its use to avoid stating something in an article that is in fact incorrect.

Nothing that the article stated was incorrect. Just because you don't think it should be called an empire can't make the established usage go away, and we never described it as having the characteristics you associate with an empire. Agricolae (talk) 17:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

so perhaps this can be assuaged by something like 'the so-called Angevin Empire' – this would work well perhaps with the derivation of the term

'that came to be called the Angevin Empire', thus making it clear we are reflecting usage but not necessarily the traditional meaning of empire. – doesn’t work as anything can come to known as – doesn’t make it right.

Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:44, 1 September 2012 (UTC)Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't give a toss about 'right', simply verifiablility. Agricolae (talk) 16:41, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I had written a far longer response, but ultimately it boils down to Agricolae's statement above; I don't really need to add much to that. We don't go by what you think is right, Norfolk, we go by what it says in the secondary literature. And one doesn't need to go much further than the works of John Gillingham and Martin Aurell to find that the term Angevin empire is still alive into the 21st century, albeit used carefully to show it neither fitted the mould of a conventional empire nor was a contemporary term. -- Sabre (talk) 17:23, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

I think that we can agree on that but also that the reference in this article wasn't used carefully to reflect it neither fitted the mould of a conventional empire nor was a contempory term. I tried to amend to fit this but Agricolae undid this for being verbose. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:31, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

No, we can't agree on your addition, but there is no sense in debating what the article used to say. Why I took out your description is that this is not the place to spend a paragraph making sure that everybody knows the exact nature of the feudal arrangements that bound all of the holdings that came to be called the Angevin Empire. That level of detail will simply distract from the narrative and is unnecessary when we have an entire page with all those details that is just one mouse-click away. That's one of the benefits of the internal linkages in Wikipedia. Agricolae (talk) 17:17, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Deposed House

The following sentence: "Yorkists continued to be imprisoned up to the reign of Queen Elizabeth and the Tudors undertook a murderous campaign to extinguish rival claims to the throne." seems one-sided to me. It is true that the Tudors imprisoned and executed Yorkists, but Yorkists had this annoying habit of denying the right of the Tudors to rule, which tended to get you imprisoned and executed in medieval times. Agricolae (talk) 17:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

A true and fair point Agricolae Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:00, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

• The discussion above (section #Beginning and end of a dynasty) is very interesting. I agree that there is stuff of interest, worth saying, beyond the current text.

Deposed house When Henry Tudor seized the throne there were 18 Plantagenet descendants with a better right to it including both his mother and future wife. By 1510 this figure had increased by the birth of 16 further Yorkists.[78] Yorkists continued to be imprisoned or executed up to the reign of Queen Elizabeth, the Tudors using the slightest pretext to extinguish rival claims to the throne. Those Yorkists who retired from public life and did not challenge the Tudors' right to rule were not molested.

• Who were the 18 with a better right? The reference is not acessible to me, but I find the claim hard to accept. Does it include people with claims decidedly inferior to Elizabeth of York, and thus inferior to her (soon) husband, Henry Tudor?

Well, that depends on what you think the rules were (which was my point). There was no tradition of king-by-marriage until Mary I, so it is not a given that Henry had the better claim after the marriage. If, as a Yorkist, you were doing this, you would count the 4 surviving daughters of Edward IV and the two children of Clarence. Next would come their sisters and their children (depending on how you count them, some where in the neighborhood of 10). Then presumably would come the Bourchier descendants, (and you are already over 18, so maybe they were excluding the Poles that had taken holy orders). Then things get tricky - you can take the original Yorkist claim of descended from the senior son, Lionel, and look to the Mortimers, or the later Yorkist claim to be male line descendants and go to the Nevilles. Presumably the person who was doing the tabulation decided to only include sisters of kings and not aunts so they didn't count either of these. Then comes Margaret Beaufort as daughter of the senior line of Beauforts. I have my doubts as to whether this number really belongs in the article, because it is based on one author's arbitrary decision of what is 'better'. We certainly don't want to name the people and enshrine that arbitrary decision. Agricolae (talk) 01:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

If you accept that Edward IV was rightful King, and dispute Richard III and Titulus Regius, does this not make Elizabeth of York the rightful Queen?

On the number, it sounds like “18” should be changed to “multiple”. As I said, the a precise number begs for more information, and as you say the information is not definitive. Similarly, delete “16” in the following sentence. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Multiple works far better - the point is by both the standards of the time and certainly now HVII calim was incredibly tenuous - an illegitimate line, through a woman & explicitly discounted by Henry IV. In fact it wasn't even the strongest (allowing for there being no rules) Lancastrian claim. John, King of Portugal, was a direct EIII legitimate descendent via John of Gaunt all be it via a daughter.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe but maybe not. There yet to be a Queen regnant, rightful or otherwise, in the history of the English crown. The king was both head of government and commander in chief, and a woman could not perform the latter role (it was believed). When given the opportunity a few hundred years before, the English had sided with a nephew instead. It is far from certain that Elizabeth or any woman would have been deemed a viable candidate at the time unless there were no alternatives, and there are almost always alternatives. That is why the tabulation is problematic - it takes some modern concept of royal inheritance and applies it to a period in which they thought very differently about things, and further, it bases this tabulation on the assumption that the Yorkist succession was superior to the Lancastrian. Agricolae (talk) 10:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Matilda made such a bad fist of being "Lady of the English" that late medieval England would find female rule unacceptable for the reasons Agricolae mentions. He also says there were no rules that would stand at the time.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• I don't have references at hand, but to my memory, possibly from unreliable sources, Henry Tudor asserted his right by conquest. But this was inextricably interwoven with the claims of both his mother and Elizabeth of York, because it was (surely, at least in large part) his association with these claims that Henry Tudor received material support (and reduced his opponent's support), that enabled his conquest.

My guess would be that Henry simply proclaimed himself king and executed anyone who disagreed. That saves a lot of discussion over rights and claims. The right on which he based his proclamation might be a subject for academic discussion now, but then it was not exactly the free marketplace of ideas. Agricolae (talk) 01:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I have read in places of active scheming by Margaret Beaufort, with Elizabeth Woodville, to match Henry with Elizabeth to build a claim to to beat Richard III. Henry_VII_of_England#Rise_to_the_throne speaks of active promotion by his mother. There were logistics to pay for, armies to assemble, promises made, and sympathies exploited. I don’t think it is realistic to think that Henry claimed the crown without having had a plan, without having a claim to win his supporters. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:52, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say he claimed it without a plan. I was talking about once he had it. Anyhow, I suspect that both before and after he played to his audience, claiming to represent the legitimate Lancastrian succession when addressing Lancastrians, portraying himself as a conqueror when addressing his mercenaries and Yorkists. Still, it would be counterproductive for him to get into a legal discussion over the exact right he was ruling under - that he was ruling and had the power to suppress anyone who questioned it was enough. Agricolae (talk) 10:00, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

This just about sums it up. The plan was the typical late medieval one of asserting a claim or claims to have the throne by right so there could be some basis for legitimisation later over other claims (in this case descent from EIII via John of Gaunt & marriage to a descendent of EIII via Lionel of Antwerp), building a coalition of the disaffected, disinherited and frightened and then defeating the incumbent (all the better if you could kill them as well). As Agricolae says there were no clear rules but more importantly no way of enforcing the rules if there were.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• The mention of post-Tudor Yorkist executions, and or Yorkists who retired from public life begs for more information (on some other page?) about at least some of these people. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:29, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Not on this page. You can't assume everything that came after Bosworth was just a continuation of the same struggle. An example would be the Yorkist descendant who he let his tongue run loose regarding Henry VIII's divorce and said something about having a different monarch. Henry shortened him. Was this part of the repression of the Yorkists, or simply because he shot his mouth off and said something about having a different monarch? Henry took a dim view of such musings whether they came from a Yorkist or not. Agricolae (talk) 01:49, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

It depends on your definition of what the struggle was. It was a continuation of the same struggle (but doesn't meet your criteria of this article being about the male descent from Geoffrey & Matilda) in that it is about descendents of EIII fighting for the crown but at the same time it is not if the struggle is about the politics of fighting France for the Plantagenet lands of HII.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Origins

I am a newcomer to this part of history (and also, full disclosure, effectively a newcomer to Wikipedia), and while I followed the lead just fine, I found the "Origins" section very confusing. I'd like to see it tightened up:

"by Shakespeare for bastards in King John, Richard Plantagenet of York and by 1605...": What is meant by "bastard in"? Do we mean "bastard of"? Do we mean a hereditary bastard or just an unsavory character? Does the comma here mean "and"? Is there a citation we are following here?

I have attempted to cut this back and removed the Shakespeare reference on the basis that it was without citation and nor particularly relevant. Hopefully the Origins serves two purposes now: 1) Describes the origanation of the familly from the breakdown of Carolingian society and the respective rise of the Dukes of Normandy & Counts of Anjou; 2) Makes it clear that the name was never as a contemporary surname and describes how it became applied i.e. from the House of York forward. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

"The Angevins became..." The shift from "origin of the term" to "family origins", from Plantagenets to Angevins, and from England to France, was very abrupt, and threw me for a loop. I think it could work better if the Angevin para. is moved into the "The Angevins come to England" (possibly adjusting the title of that section), and in that case "Origins" would be better named, say, "Origins of the Plantagenet Name". In any case, I'd like the jump into discussing the Angevins to be better-motivated, and I think the term "Angevins" has to be defined or linked before we start using it. Ods94043 (talk) 21:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

The section verges on gibberish in parts. This article seems to have suffered from much instability/edit warring etc over the last year or so. I suspect its current state is reflection of that. It used to be divided between "etymology" and "background", a helpful division that is now lost. The second para is way too long and confused and should be cut right back. On the "bastards" reference: I had a quick look back over the history and the sentence never made much sense, but I think it's even more garbled than it originally was. I think it was trying to say that the name was used by Shakespeare in two instances: (1) for Plantagenet bastards (illegitimate offspring) in the play King John and (2) for Richard of York, 3rd Duke of York. But that's a guess at unpicking gibberish. DeCausa (talk) 23:06, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with DeCausa's analysis of how it got in this state, what the various editors are trying to impart but disagree that the etymology/back ground split was more helpful. All did was encourage editors to wax on about the source of the name in disproportionate detail. There is a lot of flowery romanticism about the Plantagenet name - the simple reality is the the Duke of York adopted a nickname of an ancient ancestor to bolster his standing, it was only used as a surname for a couple of generations and from Tudor times it began to be used by some to cover all Henry II male descendents. I suggest it is edited right back to reflect this, particularly as the article is already too long. What do you think?Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Which British English?

Clearly this article should be marked as in British English, but should it be in the "-ise" or "-ize" (Oxford) version? It is currently a hybrid, which reads awkwardly. I have a preference but I hope we can do better than WP:IDONTLIKEIT? I am not sure that I am up for a full analysis of the history ... Cheers 138.37.199.206 (talk) 16:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I always understood that the modern English spelling is "-ise" however later I recall reading that "-ize" was the old English usage. I am not sure it helps and I don't have the interest in investigating further - can anyone help? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:37, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't help, but thanks, in that that's not quite it. "-ize" is a perfectly legitimate and current English spelling - see our article Oxford spelling or indeed plenty of BrE sources. But this is the debate I was hoping to avoid - whether or not "-ize" is a real thing. I am perfectly aware that some think it isn't, or mistakenly think that it is an Americanism. But I think those people have got it wrong, just like they think I've got it wrong. I'd still like to know if people think this should be in en-GB-oed or en-GB, but if they don't know that en-GB-oed is a thing then it's probably not the most pointful debate ever! Thanks and best wishes 138.37.199.206 (talk) 14:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

It is a vexed question and unlikely to be resolved here, but you are quite correct, both -ise and -ize are "British" spellings (in fact the Greek and Latin origins of most words may be most important). Generally speaking I resolve this irresolvable problem by sticking to -ise for most British related articles, not because it is "right" but because it is easier to be consistent. Not a great solution and not one I am prepared to fight about very much, but it does sort of work.--SabreBD (talk) 14:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Size matters

As a number of editors have pointed out (and tried to rectify) this article is just too long and very unfocused. It is in fact more than three times the size recommended at WP:TOOBIG. One issue is that this is not an article about the Plantagenets, but about Britain and France for most of the Middle Ages, so I would suggest that removing those sections not strongly connected to the dynasty is one way of improving the article. Given that almost every section already has a main article target I also suggest thinking in terms of cutting these down to summaries, as per WP:SUMMARY, in the knowledge that readers can find more details by clicking on links.--SabreBD (talk) 09:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

The history of the Platagenets in very much the history of England & France in the middle ages which in some ways explains the themes drawn out. Why the Planatgenets were important is reflected in their influence on the wider history, and the wider history has impacted on them. Excessive pruning might lead the article to read as a historical romance. That said as Sabrebd puts it many of the sections already have main articles and should be cut back to summaries - when that is done we may be closer to the recommended size.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:43, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, with consensus the option to restrict this article to the main House could be taken (i.e. ending in 1399) and forking the rest of the content into the House of Lancaster & House of York articles would go some way to treating this problem.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:43, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree with this at all. The very use of the name for the dynasty dates from its use by the later competitors claiming very much to be the rightful inheritors of the family. If the article needs to be shorter (and I agree that it does, this should be accomplished by being more succinct and focusing on the family, and not, as suggested above, on everything that happened in Britain and France during the time that they reigned. Agricolae (talk) 00:06, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Completely agree with Agricolae and Sabrebd. The problem is that there are huge chunks of general history of England and France during the period in the article. It needs to be an account of the dynasty not its realms. A lot of the House of... articles fall into this trap (although this is probably one of the worst). Although not a particularly good article, House of Habsburg, for example, does at least attempt to be a history of the family. There's no sense of that from this article.

There are whole sections of this article that should be cut out - particularly egregious examples of sections that just shouldn't be here at all are: the Black Death, Jack Cade's rebellion & John and William Merfold, and the Great Famine of 1315–1317. But there are plenty of others. I estimate that about a half to a third of the article is inappropriate on an article about the Plantagenet family. But the conflicting claims of York and Lancaster absolutely needs to be covered because that is clearly a dynastic issue, in fact the major dynastic issue for the Plantagenets. But it needs to be written differently: instead of being an account of the battles of the wars of the Roses etc it needs to focus on how the dynastic claims came about and their various strengths etc. That's actually not particularly clear here. DeCausa (talk) 12:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

While it is clear that there is significant superflous information in this article it is important that the baby doesn't get thrown out with the bath water. The Plantagenets are important as a result of their impact on France, England & Britain which was largely driven by their personal ambitions and expectations. Other events are important because of their impact on the Plantagenets. The Wars of the Roses is a good example. It only became a dynastic struggle after a political conflict not the other way round and social unrest typified by Cade & the Merfolds demonstrate this. That said the wars would never have happened if Henry VI hadn't been mentally unstable. Same with the Black Death without which Edward III wouldn't have enacted the statute of labourers, there would not have been a Peasants Revolt with its impact on Richard II's personality, the Great Famine prompted unrest that untimately brought down EII. The is a happy medium but this is far better than a Janet & John based version of history where we start talking of rightful kings, cousins, feamle line descent as if they were historically significant. 193.109.254.21 (talk) 14:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but this should be an article about a dynasty/family. It is not "England under the House of Plantagenet". So, the political background for the wars of the Roses is best dealt with in Wars of the Roses, to do it here is just duplication. Your reference to what's "historically significant" is the problem. Of course, the Black Death etc is more historically significant than "cousins, female line descent", but that's not the issue. One issue is in-scope for this article and one is out of scope. Simple as that. DeCausa (talk) 15:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

With that I can both agree and disagree. As Sabrebd put it there are a number of sections in here that can be summarised elsewhere & the political background to the Wars of the Roses comes into that category - but to not mention it all is negligent and would make this article of little more worth than the List of members of the House of Plantagenet. The idea that a "cousins, female line descent" based article is all that is in scope is frankly historically illiterate.193.109.254.21 (talk) 15:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Agricolae and DeCausa - this article has lost focus. It should focus on the dynasty - not on general medieval English history. As an example - "In 1290, King Edward I issued an edict expelling all Jews from England; it would be over 350 years until it was formally overturned. The edict was the culmination of over 200 years of Plantagenet conflict on the matters of usury. Every successive King from William the Conqueror formally reviewed the royal charter granting Jews the right to remain in England but Jews had been excluded from the guarantees of Magna Carta[44] of 1215. Economically, Jews had played a key role in the country. The church at the time strictly forbade the lending of money for profit. This created a vacuum in the economy of Europe that only Jews were able to fill (canon law was not considered to apply to Jews, and Judaism permits loans with interest between Jews and non-Jews)." - totally irrelevant to the dynasty - as it doesn't tell us a thing about the dynasty. While some of the information in this paragraph might have bearing on the dynasty - it is way too detailed for the dynasty article. OR "Edward bore down on the Barons and Roman Catholic Church establishing the rights of the Crown at the expense of traditional feudal privileges, promoting the uniform administration of justice, raising income and to codifying the legal system. His methods emphasised the role of Parliament and the common law. With his Chancellor Robert Burnell, Bishop of Bath and Wells Edward enacted significant new legislation. First he commissioned a thorough survey of local government called the Hundred Rolls." - again way over detailed - we should merely be told that Edward made such-and-such reforms - who his chancellor was, what the exact details were, etc needs to be in those articles. We're not writing a book-length work on the subject, but an encyclopedia article. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

You've missed the point - no one is arguing that there isn't too much detail in this article - it is clearly a factor of 2 or 3 times too long. The question is what content is relevant to the Planatgenets. The examples used are good, inclusion of both is sensible but the detail is way too much.193.109.254.21 (talk) 17:05, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what this article is for. Essentially the same point has been made now by four different editors, and you show no signs of getting it. DeCausa (talk) 18:43, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Good point, well made as ever Mr Agricolae - no short cut to being succinct Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Excellent work of the Origin section btw Agricolae - that is the best it has ever read Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

There has been some chipping away at the length of the article, commendable as I think everyone who has contributed here would agree, but it has only gone down from about 150,000 to about 130,000, and is still more than twice the suggested size (and I note that other editors have started re-added to the size despite all that). Commendable as this is I think the major point is in danger of being overlooked, that the article lacks focus on the main topic. For the record I am not in favour of removing the Lancastrian and Yorkist sections, although the Lancastrian sections could be a lot shorter. Just to be clear, as DeCausa suggested, the main problems are in the very general sections, like anti-semitism, the Black Death and Bastard Feudalism. These need a lot more than just a bit of careful whittling. For example on the Black Death, I would take this down to the first two sentences as these are the only ones that actually tell us about the Plantagenets and that approach needs to be applied elsewhere. This is not because I don't think these things are important, but because this article can not be significantly improved without some fairly clear and drastic action.--SabreBD (talk) 22:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Well say what you think about the content but it looks like we have got the size back to acceptable limits according to Wikipedia:Article size - all be it at the top end of the recommendations.

Prose size (including all HTML code): 98 kB

References (including all HTML code): 12 kB

Wiki text: 108 kB

Prose size (text only): 53 kB (8943 words) "readable prose size"

References (text only): 843 B

Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:07, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes its now there or thereabouts on size. Obviously there now needs to be a lot of clearing up and sorting out, which you have already started. I am happy to help, but since I have lots to do I am also very happy if you keep up the good work. Thanks.--SabreBD (talk) 16:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Sabrebd, will do. Very helpful interjection on the size, I for one have learnt a lot from this exercise. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Copy editing has reduced the size of this article by another 900+ words.....

File size: 572 kB

Prose size (including all HTML code): 88 kB

References (including all HTML code): 9800 B

Wiki text: 99 kB

Prose size (text only): 48 kB (8002 words) "readable prose size"

References (text only): 601 B

Images: 1071 kB Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:46, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Picture re-arrangement

I have completed an attempt to apply MOS:IMAGE to the reduced article. I think I managed to do this without losing too many pics (those that I had to remove were very similar or the same subject as existing ones). I am not particularly committed to every picture, but this is probably about the most images (or boxes) the article can hold, so it is probably a matter of swaping, rather than adding. If anyone has alternative suggestions, by all means do put them forward.--SabreBD (talk) 20:19, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Merger

There is an article "List of the members of the House of Plantagenet" that would make more sense to be included hidden with the Further Information in this article. It was proposed before but failed due this article being oversized. Now this has been resolved and including in this way would not increase the visible text size it would be worth discussing again. 86.158.153.246 (talk) 11:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

• Support A list om the members of the House of Plantagenet would be useful here but only if hidden so not to increase the visible page size beyond good practice. It would help answer the question of how do you tell them apart. Might be useful to include significant female members in the list as well. The source page itself doesn't really add value on its own and the content is better within the context give by this article. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
• Suggestion: If a way can found so that the list does not dominate the article then I see no reason for it not to be included. However, lists like this can overwhelm an article both in terms of readable text and wikicode and so an alternative solution is the one I used at Battle of the Nile, where I hived off Order of battle at the Battle of the Nile into a separate article with plenty of space of its own. By prominently linking the order of battle from the main article, the family tree is given the space it needs to be presented and interpreted properly and the main article doesn't get too unwieldy. It has the minor added advantage that you don't suddenly need to so a lot of fresh work to the article once the merge has gone ahead, but can develop the family tree in your own time while the main article is traveling along the GA, FAC process (assuming that is where you are going). The family tree can then be submitted separately to FLC. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 16:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - I think it would look messy. A proper list could be made out of this.  — AARON • ^TALK 12:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Looks like the general view is indifference and then against - I will close & remove. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:05, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Topics in lead

A number of topics are in the lead that are not mentioned in the text, such as patronage of art, literature and building. I am reluctant to suggest any increase in the size of the article, it just having seen it get down to a reasonable size, but it might be worth having more than just a narrative of events and putting a section or perhaps two on this lines into the article, or we could just remove them from the lead. Opinions welcome.--SabreBD (talk) 23:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps the detail could be moved into a summarising paragraph or two at the end of the article without significantly increasing the size. There appears some more detail in the lead rather than in the body which obscures the points where art, literature (or rather the readoption of English by EIII) and building (such as EI's castles) are covered. So for me, cut back the detail at the lead and move to conclude the article. But to be blunt the Plantagents weren't really great patrons of the arts beyond that you would expect from a medieval monarch.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I've moved Henry's building and Edward's impact on the language from lead into body, not sure they justify a section on their own? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:33, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Probably not. It looks more balanced now. Good job.--SabreBD (talk) 16:35, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

GA nomination

I have taken off the GA nomination. This article is nowhere near ready for GA review. We are getting there, but there is a lot of work to do.--SabreBD (talk) 23:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sabrebd, I getting to the point where I can't see the wood for the trees on this one. What further work is needed here? Cheers Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

You've done a great job adding the citations, plus all the other stuff. I think the only really obvious issue is the lack of consistency in the citation system. The logical thing would be to covert them all to harvnb. A bit of a chore I fear, but probably necessary. After that and a few checks I think I would be willing to try a GA review.--SabreBD (talk) 16:42, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Well Sabrebd, I think the references are now all consistent, I also found a number that were missing and have now reinstated these. Again at the limit of my experience, so what do you think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:41, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Go for it. I have done quite a few of these so I will help within any issues that might arise like copyright.--SabreBD (talk) 13:48, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks & here goes Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:House of Plantagenet/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Calvin999 (talk · contribs) 12:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC) I'm interested in English history and royalty and would like to review this.  — AARON • ^TALK 12:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

If you give your initial view, I'll tidy that what I can Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I will chip in where I think it helpful, or if asked. I am assuming the nominator will deal with most of the issues.--SabreBD (talk) 16:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks SabreBD, I am planning to, time permitting of course Norfolkbigfish (talk) 19:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

A comment from a third party... There are typically two definitions of the Plantagenet dynasty. One, as used in this article, starts with Henry II and runs through to 1377. The other treats the first three kings - Henry II, Richard and John - as the Angevins, and starts the Plantagenets with Henry III.

There's no "right" answer, of course, but I think that to meet the GA standards the article should also note the alternative definition - not least because it the one used by the British monarchy itself! Possible sources would include the Royal Household's website, here; J. S. Hamilton's "The Plantagenets: History of a Dynasty", introduction, para 1; "Angevins and Plantagenets" in John Cannon and Anne Hargreaves' "The Kings and Queens of Britain". Hchc2009 (talk) 07:16, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Only one alternative!! Good point, I'll try an add a little commentary Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

General

• There is one dab link that needs fixing

  I think I fixed this.--SabreBD (talk) 16:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Info box

• King of Germany → Wasn't it Prussia before the 19th century?

  Its the king or emperor of the Holy Roman Empire from 843 to 1806. King of the Germans is one shorthand for this.--SabreBD (talk) 16:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

  Not a German expert but this refers to Richard of Cornwall being elected King of the Romans - corrected to this effect - de jure King of medieval Germany Norfolkbigfish (talk) 19:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

  Okay thanks for clarifying.  — AARON • ^TALK 11:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• You have the founding date, but no the end date?

  This has had a number of dates over time. 1540 for the xeceution of Margaret Pole, the last offspring of a Plantagenet male, 1499 for the execution of the last patrilineal male legitimate Plantagenet but I have changed to 1485 and the death of the last Plantagenet monarch and loss of power forever Norfolkbigfish (talk) 19:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

  Yeah I think that's best, it's clear when it officially ended that way. 1485 was when the Tudor's came in so it makes sense this way. Just a suggestion, how about a predessessor and successor bit? So the houses before and after the House of Plantagenet?  — AARON • ^TALK 11:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Why is one of the cadet branches indented?  — AARON • ^TALK

I've removed this - it wasn't one of my contributions. House of Beaufort was an illegitimate branch of the House of Lancaster (which is why I think it was indented) descended from John of Gaunt that was later legitimised by the Pope but banned from the succession by Henry IV. I don't believe these warrant the description of cadet branch as this legitimised male line was extinguished within three generations by their habit of getting killed in the battles of the Wars of the Roses. It is important in that Henry VII's claim to the throne was through his mother Margaret Beaufort. A second line established via illigimate descent is currently personified by the Dukes of Beaufort. The Beauforts themselves are liberally referred to in the article. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Lead

• The name of the dynasty dates from the 15th century and comes from a 12th-century nickname of Geoffrey. → I don't really understand this bit, can you explain it to me? Why was it only called this in the 15th century onwards?

  This has caused a number of editors much head scratching over a number of versions in who to explain. Putting it simply surnames/family names were not really used when the dynasty was founded. In this case the King was just known as the King, his childern would take the name of where they were born (e.g. John of Gaunt, Richard of Bordeaux, Edward of Caernarvon, Henry Bollingbroke) until they were ennobled when they would carry the title (e.g. Lancaster, York, Kent, Goucester, Clarance etc) and pass this onto their descendents. Some historians date the end of the dynasty to 1399 to be followed the Houses of Lancaster & York meaning that none of the "Plantagenets" would have known themselves as such, or at least there is no contemporary evidence. In the fifteenth century struggles Richard, Duke of York was looking to emphasise his royal descent (which was so obscure that he needed to present genealogical tables to parliament to prove) to improve his political standing and for some unknown reason picked on the nickname of Geoffrey of Anjou to show he was a direct patrilineal descendent. In adopting the name he then passed this to his sons, two of which became King (Richard & Edward) though confusingly though these had the name (the only 2 of the 13 crowned "Plantagenet" monarchs) some historians do not consider them part of the House of Plantagenet but rather the House of York. In Tudor times the name became used retrospectively to cover the male line descendents of Henry 2 and was popularised by Shakespeare in his history plays. Does that make more sense and should the lead be edited to make in plainer? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

  Yes I understand now, thanks. History can be really confusing so I think it would help if you put it as plainly as possible but interesting at the same time.  — AARON • ^TALK 11:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• The Plantagenets transformed England from little more than a colonised realm → Was it?!

  Citation added - reasonable definition of a realm ruled by c10,000 Franco-Normans over 2-3 million Anglo Saxons Norfolkbigfish (talk) 19:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

  So it the past 700 years or so England's population has gone from 3 million to over 65 million. Wow.  — AARON • ^TALK 11:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• Explain who Churchill is. What is the significance of his quote?

  Done, how does this work for you? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 19:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

  Probably best top say when he was PM, such as the time period he was PM for example.  — AARON • ^TALK 11:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• No royal dynasty was as successful in passing down the crown as the Plantagenets, from 1189 to 1377, but in 1399, as the dynasty splintered → No royal dynasty has been as successful in passing down the crown as the Plantagenets from 1189 to 1377. But in 1399, as the dynasty splintered

  Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

• as the dynasty splintered into two competing cadet branches, economic and social tumult led to the internecine strife later named the Wars of the Roses. → Can you explain this to me a bit more?

  Done - what do you think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

  Is clearer now, hopefully I will understand it more as I progress through the sections.  — AARON • ^TALK 11:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

• With this, the Middle Ages in England are considered to end with the death of the last Plantagenet king, Richard III, at the Battle of Bosworth Field in 1485. → Perhaps explain this a bit more and say why.

  Done - again whats your view? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

  Yep, better.  — AARON • ^TALK 11:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

More to come...

Origins

• No issues.

The Angevins come to England

• How come Matilda wasn't styled as Queen?

  In feudal society the monarch was expected to lead armies in battle so there was no precedent for a ruling queen rather than a queen consort. Reworded. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

  So I'm guessing it it were now, she would be Queen.  — AARON • ^TALK 22:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Why was he alarmed at his men being so successful at acquiring land?

  Because they could use this as a power base to challenge him. Reworded. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• I am getting confused in the third paragraph, I don't know who is who or what they are trying to achieve.

  Reworded - they wanted to please Henry by removing Beckett who opposed the King Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• Was Henry the Young King not Henry III?

  Henry was crowned co-regent to aid the succession but because he predeceased his father he never ruled so he isn't given a number and Henry III is his nephew. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

  Co-regnant with who? I am trying to understand lol.  — AARON • ^TALK 22:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• Link dysentery

  Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• "Henry was forced to accept humiliating peace terms" Which Henry is this? I think anyone who has the same name needs to have their number after them to avoid confusion.

  Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• The picture is interesting, didn't realise how much France has grown.

:-)

• So who are the Angevins? I don't think this is made clear.

  This is above in the origins section - they were Counts of Anjou hence Angevin for from Anjou. Does this need to be clearer? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

  Okay, I get it now. The Angevins are the Counts of Anjou.  — AARON • ^TALK 22:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Aaron - I think I have addressed your points in this section, what do you think? Cheers Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Angevin decline

• Contemporary opinion of Richard was critical. → Should this be "is critical" ?

  That was meant to be contemporary to Richard, redrafted to make this clearer Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

• So the absolute monarchy in France was being formed in the 13th Century but was not initiated in the 16th century?

  The Battle Bouvines is seen as an initiating event of a process that took until the 16th century complete and was an important nation building event. Before the battle the King only had direct control over the Ille de France with fairly independent nobles giving homage as vassals (including the Plantagenets) in a feudal manner. Victory led to a massive expansion in territory under direct control and an end to the Angevin Empire which was larger than the French King's lands. The process entended the Kings control to cover the boundaries of modern day France and required victory in the 100-years war and the expulsion of the Plantagenets. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

  Okay  — AARON • ^TALK 22:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Magna Carta and the First Barons War

• monarch,thus → Need a space

  Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Second Barons War and the establishment of Parliament

• Nothing needs correcting or explaining here.

:-) Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Aaron - I think this is now up to date as far as the comments so far. What do you think and are there any more Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Conquest of Wales

• Can princedom be linked? I guess a more modern word for place like what existed then would be principalities, states, or regions?

More in the manner of Kingdom, Dukedom, Earldom etc but I have linked. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• Ah so that's where the Prince of Wales originates from. :-)Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Constitutional change and the reform of feudalism

• Put King Philip IV of France and link it instead of just Phillip IV
• which prohibiting - should this be in the past tense? Doesn't make sense at the moment.
• Magna Carta, reached - don't really need a comma there, it breaks unnecessarily

All done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Anglo-Scottish wars

• The King had general good - not really sure what you mean
• I'm kinda lost what is going on now at the end of this section!

Re-edited, how about this? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The Hundred Years' War

• using the Parlement of Paris hear appeals the decisions of lower courts weakening the nobility's jurisdiction. - hear appeals? I don't think this flows properly, I don't really get what this sentence is trying to convey.
• that son - that his son?
• but this has no contemporary evidence for this. - but there is no contemporary evidence to suggest that this is true.

All done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Hundred Years' War (1337–60) – The Edwardian phase

• and Isabella on behalf - I think it's best to always state who the person is with their full title.
• that followed the plague[87] - need a full stop
• So Edward, the Black Prince, was the son of a King and the father of a King, but never became King himself? Yep, thats it - also added this Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
• guaranteed by Valois family - guaranteed by the Valois family
• The Planatagents continued - spelling mistake

All done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Hundred Years' War (1369–89) – the Caroline phase

• When the Black Prince refused a summons as Duke of Aquitaine Charles V of France resumed hostilities, setting out to reverse the territorial losses of the Treaty of Brétigny. - This sentence isn't constructed properly, read it out loud.
• The Black Prince demonstrated the brutal character that some think is the cause of the title at the Siege of Limoges. - What title?
• He promised clemency, but once he had re-established control pursued, captured and executed - ...control, he pursued,...

All done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

End of Plantagenet main line

• Can Henry be linked?
• Richard disinherited - which Richard? The 10 year old?

House of Lancaster

• So who is the House of York and why didn't they depose Henry of House of Lancaster?

All done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Hundred Years' War (1415–53) – the Lancastrian war

• and succeeded secured the marriage to Catherine. - and succeeded in securing the marriage to Catherine. (link Catherine?)
• in 1421.When Henry - need a space

All done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Wars of the Roses

• When you say York in this section, who are you referring to?: All done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

House of York

• The execution of Edward of Westminster, Prince of Wales - When you click on his name, it says he died in battle. Died in battle and execution are two different things.

Well, yes and no. He wasn't killed fighting but captured. Then they executed him!

• and the later murder - and later the murder
• established, with seven - Don't need the comma
• So within the Plantagenets, there was the House of Plantagenet, House of Lancaster and House of York? And the House of York only lasted about 10 years?

Well 24 really - 1461-1485 with the break c1471

All done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Status

I'm sorry this review has taken a long time to complete, it is a rather long article compared to what I'm used to reading and writing about on Wikipedia. It is also quite complex so I didn't want to just rush it. I've really enjoyed reviewing it, I hope it hasn't been too drawn out for you. It has been very interesting and I hope you do something similar for House of Tudor or other House's, if they have articles. Passing this for a GA now. Well done and thanks for all your hard work, before and during the review.  — AARON • ^TALK 18:26, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Split Article

In both the FAC and Peer review editors have suggested that this article be split between a dynastic article and a "England under the Plantagenets" article. Does this have consensus?Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure. Will it be easy to split these two things out, they look pretty integrated to me?--SabreBD (talk) 19:58, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you Sabrebd and cannot see why this article doesn't stand on its own. Also, it is pretty integrated and would require a near total restructure. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC) For info the respective comments are......

*I don't know about this article. It seems to function as the main summary article on English history over the period when the Plantagenets ruled, and therefore attempts to both cover the dynasty itself and the general history of England. This is a far from ideal way of doing things, which no doubt the nominator inherited. Both aspects of the article suffer from the inappropriate dual function. In an ideal world we would have a history article England under the Plantagenets - not an unreasonable periodization - that covered the history properly, rather than just wars, dynastic politics, and some other stuff like the Black Death. Then this article could cover better the full ramifications of the family, including the few left after 1485. The history side seems to be almost entirely restricted to the 100 Years War once that gets going, and rather peter out after 1389, except for the Wars of the Roses - nothing else seems to have happened in England 1389-1485. Some of the sources used are rather embarrassing, & not acceptable at FA level, although the article is so summarized I doubt the actual text would need changing if for example a better source than "Morris, John E (1910). Great Britain and Ireland: A History for Lower Forms. Cambridge University Press" was used for "In 1296 Edward invaded Scotland, deposing and exiling Balliol"! "Marshall, H.E. (2006). Our Island Story: A History of England for Boys and Girls. Yesterday's Classics" - a reprint of an ancient childrens' book, is used once & should go too. Most sources used are fine. As things are I can't see myself supporting this at FA, not least because while it functions as a general period article it is uneven and too narrow in that role, though I appreciate the work the nominator has put in. I'd advise splitting it into two, and building those up. Sorry! As a GA I think it is fine. Johnbod (talk) 20:36, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

*I've read through a few more sections fairly closely and skimmed the entire article to the end and I think it needs some sort of restructuring. I have to agree with this comment from the FA. My suggestion might be to focus more on the personalities of the members of the House of Plantagenet and less on the history - which in the Hundred Years War sections strays quite a bit. I see potential here for a focused article about the House of Plantagenet, but think it needs trimming in parts and build up in other parts. The comments above should give some sense of how to build up the house members more and carry that throughout to the end. I hope this is helpful. Victoria (tk) 19:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. If we were to split them I would be more inclined to go for England in the Late Middle Ages, rather than England under the Plantagenets, as the emphasis is more general. It would be pretty easy to pull together such a general article from existing text. What I am trying to get my head around what this article would look like with the non-dynastic bits missing, and whether it would make sense to the general reader.--SabreBD (talk) 12:29, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I commented at the PR. What I would do is keep the dynastic part but develop those much more from top to bottom (in other words really blow it up so there's a mini summary about each member of the dynasty) which will create a great big huge page. Then I'd start cutting back anything not to do with dynastic bits to get to the meat of the matter. Either way some parts need more development (as I mentioned on the PR) and other parts need pruning. So maybe not a split but a restructuring would be a better way to look at it? There's really no way of knowing without trying but it might work better to play around in draft or user space. Victoria (tk) 21:41, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I still think it should be split, but it is certainly a lot of work for someone, not least filling in the missing bits, especially in the history one. I'm not saying all the history here should go - there isn't so much in the first place except for the 100 Yrs War, much of which isn't terribly relevant to the dynasty. Indeed much for both parts could be borrowed from the bios of individual kings, or milhist articles, which are generally our best efforts in this area. Might make the history one very long though. Johnbod (talk) 21:55, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for taking the time to explain this. I think what I will do is try to put something together in a sandbox for England in the late Middle Ages, which will probably start with material from here and England in the Middle Ages. I wonder if Norfolkbigfish would be interested in looking at re-editing this article to remove the non-dynastic stuff sometime in the near future?--SabreBD (talk) 09:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Johnbod - quick question on why you think the 100-years war isn't of dynastic relevance. For me it is very much about creating a personal empire for the Plantagenets based on EIII's claim. Sure, it created a sense of national identity in both France and England but this was more of an unintentional consequence. If SabreBD kindly sorted the history I would probably be tempted to cut this back to/build up the dynasty aspect. It does raise the issue for SabreBD about matching periodisation: a lot of the sources (including the monarchy's official website) tend to split the dynasty something like 1155-1215 Angevin, 1215-1399 Plantagenet, 1399-1460 Lancaster, 1460-1485 York whereas England in the Middle Ages has the Late Middle Ages starting in 1272. Whilst I am here I have been trying to get this page to achive but the code at the top doesn't seem to work - can someone who knows what they are doing archive this? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't deny that at all, but once that's said all the twists and turns don't have immediate dynastic relevance the way the disputes in Henry II's family do, for example, or the Wars of the Roses. Johnbod (talk) 11:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Aha, Now I understand your point Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

OK I have put together material for an article on Late Medieval England at User:Sabrebd/Sandbox3 if anyone has any comments. I will probably check it over for a couple of days and post it towards the end of the weekend. That does mean that there will be a bit of a content fork until this article is edited down. It has also struck me that perhaps we should be taking the sections from here on the Angevins (which were a bit too early for the later medieval) to Angevins, which says very little about the dynasty and the English crown.--SabreBD (talk) 14:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Looking good Sabrebd! Probably teaching you to suck eggs (in which case, apologies in advance!), but when you're re-using material from an existing wiki-article, do make sure that it gets noted on the talk page of the new/receiving article - it means the attribution of the original text can be traced back to the contributing editor on the other article page, and complies with the legal guidelines etc. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:32, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I would have done this anyway to explain why a redirect is becoming an article, but I do not mind the reminder.--SabreBD (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Splendid work Sabrebd, well done. I'd also thought the the same about the Angevin bit. If no one else does the cut down of this article I'll do that at the same time when I get the chance. Some of the hravard citations don't match up, if you don't get to it I'll pick this up, if you like? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:14, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

OK it is posted. Sometime we might want to take it to GA status, which shouldn't be too hard since it is largely based on two GA articles. Now I have to lie down in a darkened room for a bit.--SabreBD (talk) 18:28, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Epic work - well done! England in the Late Middle Ages is the link. Johnbod (talk) 09:31, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I took the Angevin sections of this article as a starting place for an article at England in the High Middle Ages. Like the late medieval article it needs a bit of expansion in areas like the arts, so any help there would be much appreciated. This means that most of the text here will be gainfully used somewhere and fills in the obvious gap in coverage. I have also been looking for dynastic articles that might be a useful model for reshaping this one, but the best I can find are for the House of Hapsburg and House of Bourbon articles, which are rated B Class (although I am not sure either of them are that good). Does anyone know of any better ones? I didn't have the mental strength to look at them all.--SabreBD (talk) 10:18, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I tried doing something with the House of Lancaster to see if I could learn how to resolve the issues that this one has thrown up. Currently. it is GA and undergoing an A-class review. Idea was the scope was smaller, there was a bit of an overlap with this one and the original article was very sketchy. Have a look and comment. I haven't seen a single "House of" article that works largely due to the conflict between the personal and the political. Honestly think that this is the best cahnce of an exemplar (largely due to your fine work on the other articles). Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Nice work so far @SabreBD: - I have been meaning to get back to the one for some time but have been distracted by life. House of Lancaster made it to Milhist A-Class but still falls short of FAC on a number of points suggested by @Hchc2009: whom experience tells me may have some usful input on building this back—after you have edited this back to the dynastic—if he has the time. Cheers Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Norfolkbigfish, that is useful advice. I will take another look at House of Lancaster. I think this will take a lot finessing to make sure it all makes sense. What I have been reminded off is that is is a lot easier to create a new article than shorten an existing one.--SabreBD (talk) 15:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, I have run through the article and tried to cut down the narrative, although it quite difficult. I was also thinking about headings and wondering if we should go for reigns, since it removed the focus from events.--SabreBD (talk) 23:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Well that would be quite traditional. Without looking more closely at the article again I don't know if that would make for a variety in section length or risk losing Plantagenets who didn't rule but are important (Richard of Cornwall, John of Gaunt, Henry V's brothers, Richard of York, Henry Grosmont etc). What do you guys think @Johnbod:@Hchc2009:. Good work btw, this has always been an article that was difficult to scope. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:45, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe. There are still a lot of events, and most non-ruling members get little mention. Would it be a good idea to have a list/bullet point summary at every generation with dates and a line or so for a larger group of family members? Perhaps cannibalizing the list section way down at the bottom (which as a whole could be split off? I'd like to see more on the sons of Ed III::, and the rather grisly round up of distant cousins 1450-1550. All a lot of work I know, and I appreciate what has already been done. Johnbod (talk) 11:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

It's a difficult one. I'd be inclined to stay with the current sections titles, but perhaps work on exactly where they start and end, so that the rulers were clearer. For example, if Second Barons War and the establishment of Parliament ended with Henry's death in its final sentence, and Conquest of Wales started with Edward being declared king as its first sentence, you could read through that section of the article quite quickly, picking out where the kings changed over in the dynasty. The same approach might work well elsewhere in the article. I'd echo Johnbod's words on the amount of work that has gone into this - nicely done. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)