House of Plantagenet

House of Plantagenet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about the family that ruled England from the 12th to the 15th centuries—a period that changed and shaped a nation from what had become an Anglo-Norman colony. The article failed a FAC back in 2013, largely due to attempting to act as a general history of the period and a history of the Plantagenets (including the Angevin, Yorkist and Lancastrian periods). Since then it has been split with the general history moved to England in the Late Middle Ages and a greater emphasis on the family added here. Since then it has undergone two peer reviews, a copy edit from GOCE and a successful Milhist A class review. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 15:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

red squires are crucial battles - added to key. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:40, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Comments

This article seems to me of FA quality. A few quibbles about prose before I sign on the dotted line:

That's all I can find to grumble about. The article is thorough but not excessively detailed. A huge amount of information is packed into 8,000 words – very impressive. – Tim riley talk 10:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now happily adding support. I think this is a very fine piece of work, and meets all the FA criteria. Tim riley talk 23:12, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Almost support--minor quibbles




Thank you for your kind words, you did suggest the split and I am very glad you think it has worked well. Your comments leave me a bit more than I expected but I will crack with trying to answer them Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Oppose Some minor bits for now, and I'll have a look through the earlier sections tomorrow in more detail.

I think the MOS says that's fine, but you should do it with some consistency if you do it. Johnbod (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Found it... "As much as possible, avoid linking from within quotes, which may clutter the quotation, violate the principle of leaving quotations unchanged, and mislead or confuse the reader." Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Linking. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say "Norman Conquest" but "conquest of England" Johnbod (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's from the Museum of London on the image file, which I don't think needs a ref. Annoyingly, they don't specify that it is a livery badge, which might be added. Johnbod (talk) 20:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd normally expect it to be referenced directly in the article itself, e.g. to https://finds.org.uk/database/artefacts/record/id/530737, where the information comes from. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:30, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd argue that the article (particularly given the broad temporal period concerned) should focus on highlighting the major issues raised by historians etc., rather than focusing on facts that aren't prominent in the literature. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Try Barrett's "The Revenues of King John and Philip Augustus Revisited" in King John: New Interpretations, which you'll probably find visible on Google books. He summarises the argument pretty well. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ta. Might also be worth having a look at the collapsed "Reigns of the Plantagenet monarchs of England" and "Timeline" section. The latter seems to be a duplicate of the information in the first. The "Reigns..." contains some rather judgemental language, though, and a rather odd selection of images... ;) Hchc2009 (talk) 18:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ealdgyth (talk · contribs)

  • "Henry I refused to relinquish any power to Geoffrey and Matilda that would be necessary for them to ensure the succession prompting a quarrel." With my background, I eventually figured out what you meant with this sentence, but it is very confusing. Suggest "In order to secure an orderly succession, Geoffrey and Matilda sought more power from Henry I, but the king refused and the two sides quarreled."
  • "even his favourite son, John, had rebelled" - but Geoffrey (archbishop of York), Henry's illegitimate son stayed loyal. He also played a big part in defeating the 1173-74 revolt.
  • I'm unable to find a single review of Jones' work - which you're using to support "Contemporary opinions of Richard were mixed. Although he was respected for his military leadership and courtly manners, he had rejected and humiliated the sister of the king of France, deposed the king of Cyprus and later sold the island, refused to give spoils from the Third Crusade to nobles such as Leopold V, Duke of Austria, and was rumoured to have arranged the assassination of Conrad of Montferrat. His cruelty was demonstrated by his massacre of 2,600 prisoners in Acre." The problem I have with this is in a couple parts. One - you say "mixed" but the emphasis is on "bad" stuff - it greatly outnumbers the "good". I would also be curious as to who the various opinions that go into Jones' statement are. The biographers of Richard, as well as other historians are pretty clear that contemporary opinion, while finding fault with Richard, usually considered him praiseworthy. Gillingham's article in the ODNB on Richard says "Inevitably historians attached to the courts of Philip Augustus and his allies took a hostile view, but not even Philip's panegyrist conceals his underlying admiration for Richard. According to Guillaume le Breton, had Richard been more God-fearing, and had he not fought against his lord, Philip of France, England would never have had a better king. Some English historians such as Coggeshall and William of Newburgh mix praise with criticism. Newburgh disapproves of Longchamp and thinks Richard overgenerous to John. A German contemporary, Walther von der Vogelweide, believes that it was precisely Richard's generosity that made his subjects willing to raise a king's ransom on his behalf. Richard's reputation, above all as a crusader, meant that the tone of contemporaries and near contemporaries, whether writing in the West or the Middle East, was overwhelmingly favourable. According to Baha ad-Din, Richard was a man of wisdom, experience, courage, and energy. Ibn al-Athir judges him the most remarkable ruler of his time for courage, shrewdness, energy, and patience. In France St Louis's biographer Joinville portrays Richard as a model for St Louis to follow. In England he became a standard by which later kings were judged. Even in Scotland, thanks to the quitclaim of Canterbury, he won a high place in historical tradition; according to John Fordun, he was ‘that noble king so friendly to the Scots’ (Chronica gentis Scottorum, 2.271)."
  • I've got a copy of Jones in front of me now (the revised 2013 edition) and there is nothing on page 128 (or in any of the coverage of Richard) that says anything about contemporary opinions of Richard. So where did this opinion come from? I checked the index and there is no entry on Richard's contemporary opinion. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Richard was captured by Leopold while returning from crusade and passed to Henry the Lion." - you mean "his custody passed", right?
  • There is no discussion of William earl of Salisbury? Or Geoffrey, Archbishop of York? Or the other of Henry's illegitimate offspring? They would be considered Plantagenets also (Weir lists them in her various sections).
  • "It was rumoured that Arthur was murdered by John himself," while that is one rumor - there are others that John ordered him drowned, but did not do the deed himself. Turner's biography of John says (p. 91) that Arthur either died at John's hand or at his orders.
  • "The battle greatly contributed to the formation of the absolute monarchy in France." is cited to a 1836 work. I do not think it's safe to say such a bald statement of causation of absolute monarchy based on an almost two hundred year old work. Especially as the article linked to ...Absolute monarchy in France ... itself says that absolute monarchy slowly emerged in the 16th century and was firmly established in the 17th.
  • "his son, King Henry III, maintained the claim to the empire until 1259." ... no, Henry maintained his claim to the continental lands. Given that earlier in the article you are equivical about there being such a thing as the Angevin Empire. I note this is sourced to Jones also...
  • "As a result of John's actions, French barons supported Philip." something is missing in this sentence - do you mean that all of the French barons or some of them or many of them? And yes, English historiography uses "barons" as a synonym for "leading nobles" but it's very jarring to see "barons" used in a French context as there is no rank of "baron" or such a thing as the "barony" in France. "Lords" or "Nobles" is what you use in to refer to the French equivalent of barons.
  • "The official website of the British Monarchy presents John's death as the end of the Angevin dynasty and the beginning of the Plantagenet dynasty." but other sources don't - including ones you use such as Weir. Cover both sides or drop the statement.
  • "The Marshal Protectorate issued an amended Magna Carta as a basis for future government." - i've never seen that period of Henry III's minority called the "Marshal Protectorate" - I checked the source 1215 p. 271 and there is nothing on that page about the information in that sentence. This is also not the greatest source to be using - it's very much a popular history (even if Gillingham helped). It's possible that the page numbers differ a bit (I have the 2005 Touchstone edition) but I checked pages around and nothing there. Nor is there an entry for "Marshal Protectorate" in the index.
  • Why "Bartholomew and [probably] Philip" but "and probably Isabel" in the same sentence?
  • the paragraph on Henry relies a lot on Jones again. ANd it's very disjointed .. we hear that Henry identified with Edward the Confessor because of the struggle with the nobility, but we've not yet heard that Henry had difficulties with the nobility - that comes later in the paragraph, after the bit about naming his son Edward and building a shrine to Edward.
  • Looking at the revised edition of Jones (2013) I found the section on Henry III and Edward the Confessor on pages 200-201. In the article, this set of sentences is sourced to Jones pp. 234-235: "Despite the Treaty of Lambeth, hostilities continued and Henry was forced to compromise with the newly crowned Louis VIII of France and Henry's stepfather, Hugh X of Lusignan. They both overran much of Henry's remaining continental lands, further eroding the Angevins' power on the continent. Henry perceived many similarities between himself and England's patron saint, Edward the Confessor, including his struggle with the nobility." But... the revised edition pp. 200-201 (which does discuss Henry's devotion to Edward) does NOT say anything about the Treaty of Lambeth, Hugh X of Lusignan. Nor does it back up "...including his struggle with the nobility." Jones draws a parallel with Edward's struggles with his ministers and having come to the throne in a time of civil disorder. The phrasing of Jones, however, says nothing to draw a parallel with Henry's troubles with his nobility. Jones is discussing the early part of Henry's reign - when his troubles were mainly with his ministers. I don't think you can say "struggle with the nobility" here. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "adding the earldoms of Lincoln and Salisbury to the kingdom through his marriage" uh. No. Edmund's son Thomas did NOT add those earldoms to the kingdom - they were already IN the kingdom. Yes, eventually, they passed to the royal estate ... WAY down the road. Again - this is sourced to Jones - does Jones REALLY say that Thomas' marriage added the earldoms of Lincoln and Salisbury to the kingdom? If he does, wow. You need to NOT be using him as a source, as that's so wrong it's breathtaking.
  • Yes, I object to Jones, having now had a chance to see it. There are no footnotes. There are not even attempts to say where he's getting his information. It's not just a popular history (ala Weir) but it's almost a novelization at times. As an example - p. 112 of the revised edition (2013) starts the chapter with "Geoffrey archbishop of York stared up, like every other visitor to Dover, at the great castle being built above the harbor. It was September 1191 and work had progressed since the late King Louis VII had toured the building site with Henry II. Now Geoffrey could look up at its imposing square keep and think of his father..." That reads like a bad soap opera. Or later in the same paragraph where Jones baldly states that Geoffrey was the son of Ykenai, which I know from my own work on Geoffrey's article is not a settled fact for historians. But Jones says its a fact. This is the problem with using popular histories instead of actual historians. You end up stating things that are not accepted by actual historians. I would not consider it nearly as reliable as other sources and given the problems I've run into with it, I'd suggest someone with access to a copy of the 2012 HarperCollins edition audit every citation to it. You'd be better off using Desmond Seward's The Demon's Brood which DOES have endnotes so you can at least track down where he got his information. Other good sources would be Bartlett's England Under the Norman and Angevin Kings, Prestwich's Plantagenet England (which is used slightly, but should see a lot more use - but why are you using TWO different editions? Use one, the most recent one.), the Yale University bios of the various kings, Clanchy's England and its Rulers, and others. There are too many good academic works out there to be relying on a book with no footnotes/endnotes. Ealdgyth - Talk
  • "He was bankrupted by his military expenses" - who was? The last person referred to in the previous sentence is Edmund Crouchback.
  • " in which Henry acknowledged the loss of the Duchy of Normandy, Maine, Anjou and Poitou, although he retained the Channel Islands." uh. Gascony was kept. It remained in English hands for quite a bit longer - until the 100 years war was ending up, in fact. And this is sourced to a UN document? Can't we find something ... more academic and rigourous? is this the document in question? If so, it does not support the full text that's subscribed to it - "The pope offered Henry's brother Richard the Kingdom of Sicily, but the cost of making the claim good was prohibitive. Matthew Paris wrote that Richard stated: "You might as well say, 'I make you a present of the moon—step up to the sky and take it down'." Henry purchased the kingdom for his son Edmund, which angered many powerful barons. He was bankrupted by his military expenses, and barons led by Henry's brother-in-law Simon de Montfort forced him to agree to the Provisions of Oxford, under which his debts were paid in exchange for substantial reforms. He was also forced by Louis IX of France to agree to the Treaty of Paris, in which Henry acknowledged the loss of the Duchy of Normandy, Maine, Anjou and Poitou, although he retained the Channel Islands. The treaty stated that Henry would retain "islands (if any) which [he] should hold ... as peer of France and Duke of Aquitaine"." I'm pretty sure that the UN judgement only has any bearing on the last bits and thus the whole earlier section of that statement is unsourced.
  • Source added for the previous bit. As for the latter I don't know if you are aware that the Channel Islands are not part of the UK. This often ignored in more academic works as is the fact that they remain part of the Duchy of Normandy. They have a status as a crown dependency on the basis that they are "governed" by the Duke of Normandy, presently this is QEII. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not. I read it as saying that among her 11 children were several that were earls of Hereford, several that were earls of Essex, several that were earls of Northampton, several that were countesses of Ormond and several that were countesses of Devon. In fact, two of her sons were Earl of Hereford AND Essex in succession and a third son was created earl of Northampton. One daughter married the earl of Ormond, and another married the earl of Devon - but none of this is clear from the article text - which lumps the five children who held titles into some sort of mass that's hard to distinguish. 16:58, 30 September 2015 (UTC)Ealdgyth - Talk
  • "who was executed by order of Mortimer and Queen Isabella" -but we don't know who Queen Isabella IS yet. Confusing.
  • "His military campaigns left him in debt, and to enable him to raise more taxes through the frequently summoned Parliaments, he tried to gain support for his policies among the lesser landowners and merchants". Several problems here. The preceding sentence is "Because of his legal reforms, Edward is sometimes called "The English Justinian", but whether he was a reformer or an autocrat responding to events is a matter of debate." which doesn't really mesh with the bit about military campaigns and leaves the whole debate undebated. The military campaign sentence is also confusing - switching tenses and leaving subjects dangling. What were his attempts to gain support with the lesser landowners and merchants and why are they connected to his attempts to raise money? Totally lacking in context.
  • " Llywelyn ap Gruffudd ruled North Wales as a subordinate of the English king. Llywelyn maintained that he was "entirely separate from" England and Edward considered him to be "a rebel and disturber of the peace"." ... okay. First you state baldly that Llewelyn was a subordinate of the English king, then the next sentence it comes out that well, Llewelyn didn't think he was subordinate... which is it? If Llewelyn objected, it's pretty clear there was some dispute and the first sentence is not quite true. And why use "a subordinate" here... there are better terms. Again, you're relying on Jones when you should probably be using the various biographies of Llewelyn and Edward available.

More:

  • "Louis VII of France divorced Eleanor of Aquitaine on 18 March 1152, and she married Henry (who would become Henry II) on 18 May 1152. Henry consequently acquired the Duchy of Aquitaine, greatly increasing his resources and power." Weir pp. 60-61 does not say a thing about "greatly increasing his resources and power". There is also some lost nuance here - as Weir points out that Henry only became Duke of Aquitaine in right of his wife, which probably needs to be made plainer as this fact has a bit of importance later.
  • "Of Henry's siblings, William died as a child and Geoffrey died unmarried and childless,..." William was born 1136 and died 1164 - at age 28. This isn't a child. Nor does Weir (p. 60) say William was a child. And you list 8 children - but Weir gives 9 (8 sure, one possible). Handbook of British Chronology (3rd ed.) gives only 8, however. (Note that Weir is the only place I see the existence of Philip, son of Henry II and Eleanor, even mentioned.)
  • "John's defeat weakened his authority in England, and his barons forced him to agree to the Magna Carta, which limited royal power. John failed to abide by the terms of the Magna Carta, leading to the First Barons' War, in which rebellious barons invited Prince Louis, the husband of Blanche, Henry II's granddaughter, to invade England. Louis did so and John died in October 1216, before the conflict was conclusively ended." is all sourced to Weir p. 74. The only thing that Weir p. 74 actually sources here though is "John died in October 1216"... the rest is not supported by Weir p. 74. Weir is merely a genealogical account - she does not give much chronological data ... so we have a pretty big issue of unsourced material here.
  • "Eleanor – wife of William Marshal's son (also named William), and later the English rebel Simon de Montfort" is sourced to Carpenter 2004 p. 306. But this only says that Eleanor married William Marshal, son of William Marshal. No mention of her marrying Simon de Montfort.
  • Small issue - the correct citation for current citation 44 "Richardson 2004 p. 9" is more like "Richardson 2004 pp. 9-13" as all the illegit offspring given are actually ennumerated on pages 11-13. A nitpick - Philip is given as "possibly" John's but Isabel is just listed as "alleged". Note also that Charles Given-Wilson and Alice Curteis Royal Bastards of Medieval England p. 179 gives as sure bastards of John "Joan, Oliver, Geoffrey, Richard de Dover, Osbert Giffard, John, Henry". Possible bastards are "Richard and Eudo (or Ivo)". Doubtful offspring are given as "Isabel la Blanche". Handbook of British Chronology (3rd ed) gives only Joan and Richard de Warenne, lord of Chilham, but they don't list all bastards.
  • "Joan was the best known of these, since she married Prince Llewelyn the Great of Wales." is sourced to Carpenter 2004 p. 328. But p. 328 discusses Joan, Henry III's younger FULL sister, who married Alexander II of Scotland, not Joan, Henry III's older half sister, who married Llewelyn the Great. Source does not support the statement given for it.
  • "Margaret of England (1240–1275). Her three children predeceased her husband, Alexander III of Scotland; consequently, the crown of Scotland became vacant when their only grandchild, Margaret, Maid of Norway, drowned in 1290" is sourced to Weir 2008 p. 203 - but that page does not support the statement at all. All it supports is that Margaret (who is usually known as "The Maid of Norway" not plain "Maid of Norway") died in 1290 while on board a ship to Scotland. Nothing about drowning, being the only grandchild of Margaret of England and Alexander III, etc.
  • "Edmund Crouchback (1245–1296), who inherited the titles and estates of Simon de Montfort, 6th Earl of Leicester and the earldom of Leicester after Henry defeated Montfort in the Second Barons' War. Henry later granted Edmund the earldoms of Lancaster and Ferrers. From 1276, through his wife, Edmund was Count of Champagne and Brie." is sourced to Weir 2008 p. 75. But this source does not say anything about Edmund inheriting the titles and estates of Simon de Montfort after Montfort's defeat. Weir says Edmund was created Earl of Leicester on 26 October 1265 and Earl of Lancaster on 30 June 1267. Being created as an earl is not the same as inheriting it. Henry III granted Edmund the lands and honours of Montfort. Weir also notes that it was Edmund's second marriage that gained him Champagne and Brie.
  • Is Prestwich 2007 the paperback edition of Plantagenet England? I ask because the current citation 60 goes to Prestwich 2007 p. 101 - but this does not appear to fully support the information given there (it appears to be the start of the section discussing the events leading up to Evesham, which if this is a different edition, makes sense that the numbering of pages would be off).
  • The entire third paragraph staring "Fighting in the Hundred Years War spilled from the French and Plantagenet..." is sourced to Weir 2008 p. 102, but the only thing in that paragraph that p. 102 supports is the part "and John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster, the Black Prince's brother, married Peter's daughter Constance". The rest is not supported by that page of Weir (not even the bit about John of Castile's son marrying Catherine of Lancaster because Weir only says that Katherine, daughter of John of Gaunt and Constance of Castile, married Henry III of Castile. Weir doesn't say who Katherine's father in law was.
  • "Henry married his Plantagenet cousin Mary de Bohun, who was paternally descended from Edward I and maternally from Edmund Crouchback. They had seven children:" is sourced to Weir 2008 pp. 124-130. The children numbers are correct, as is Henry's marriage to Mary de Bohun, but Weir just says that Mary was the daughter of Humphrey de Bohun by Joan, daughter of Richard FitzAlan, a descendant of Henry III.
  • "By the mid-1470s, the victorious House of York looked safely established, with seven living male princes. Edward and Elizabeth Woodville themselves had ten children, seven of whom survived him" is sourced to Weir 2008 pp. 139-145, but this does not support the first sentence.
  • "Richard seized the throne, and the Princes in the Tower were never seen again. Richard's son predeceased him and Richard was killed in 1485 after an invasion of foreign mercenaries led by Henry Tudor, who claimed the throne through his mother Margaret Beaufort. He assumed the throne as Henry VII, founding the Tudor dynasty and bringing the Plantagenet line of kings to an end." is sourced to Weir 2008 p. 145 but the only thing that page supports is "Richard was killed in 1485" and "Richard's son predeceased him"
  • "When Henry Tudor seized the throne there were eighteen Plantagenet descendants who might today be thought to have a stronger hereditary claim, and by 1510 this number had been increased further by the birth of sixteen Yorkist children." is sourced to Weir 2008 p. 75 - but there is NOTHING on that page relating to Yorkists or Tudors.
  • "Warwick was implicated by two further failed invasions supported by Margaret using Perkin Warbeck pretending to be Edward IV's son Richard of Shrewsbury, and Warbeck's later planned escape for them both; Warwick was executed in 1499. Edward's execution may simply have been a precondition for the marriage of Arthur, Prince of Wales to Katherine of Aragon in 1501." is sourced to Carpenter 2004 p. 1, but nothing on Carpenter 2004 p. 1 supports this at all. All Carpenter 2004 p. 1 talks about is the background and development of the term Britain as a geographical term for historians prior to and around the Norman Conquest.
  • You addressed the specifics, but I still think the article needs a complete source check ... which I'm not able to do at this moment. Too many issues I found with things not matching what they were sourced to. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:23, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More