Talk:Edward III of England

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Edward III of England is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 9, 2011.

older entries[edit]

It should be noted in some way that the real reason for the Hundred Years War was Aquitaine and Edward's claim on France was just a bargain counter. Fornadan 17:11, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)


I made the change but it needs to be improved FubarDac 21:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


Descendants of Edward III[edit]

For future reference:

http://www.compapp.dcu.ie/~humphrys/FamTree/Royal/famous.descents.html
Edward III is "often described as the ancestor of the British upper-middle class"
Number of estimated descendants of Edward III - I have seen 80 percent of the population of England quoted, which would conflict with the estimate for William the Conqueror above (it would imply that perhaps 75 percent of the population of Britain descend from William the Conqueror). Roderick W. Stuart claims millions of descendants of Edward III in America alone: "Edward III is the latest king from whom a large number of Americans and Europeans can claim descent. His American posterity numbers in the millions." [Stuart, 1998].

I just deleted a reference in the Audrey Hepburn article to her descent from Edward III. Descent from Edward is so common as to be irrelevant for most biographies of people since the 16th Century. I don't know if there's any reason to put this in the article itself. -Willmcw 21:45, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It might be "irrelevant" with regard to who Audrey Hepburn was as a person (also "irrelevant" might be a mention of her favorite food), and genealogical ties to royalty (or Mayflower ancestors, or famous people, or rich people) provides us only bragging rights, but it IS interesting to know that a descent has been proved. I descend from both William the Conqueror and Edward III, a number of times each, and sometimes when I see that a person I respect has traced back to a common ancestor, I like to have a look at the genealogy. (If Audrey and I both descend from Edward III, I might want to see who are actual closest relation was...) So, what one considers "irrelevant", some of us might find at least "interesting".

--ScottyFLL 04:03, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

It says that Edward used his mother as a "sexual plaything" - are there sources to back that up, because the article on Isabella itself does not mention it, but refers to her "doting on her grandchildren" and frequently visiting. Wee Jimmy 22:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC) Frodowilson 02:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC) I made a slight addition to this page that from books I've read seemed rather significant of Edward III's life. It was simply a little side not under domestic issues where I included that he was responsible for serious changes to Windsor Castle and he was principle in its transformation to be an incredibly important,and thus famous, castle. If the editors desire to delete I understand because I am a bit new to the system and I can admit that that information may not seem very interesting. I'll be watching this page. If an editor does delete it please give me a reason on the discussion page. For my own sake if nothing else so I can improve my skills. User:Frodowilson 21:17, 17 July 2006

I have to agree. It is very interesting to read about people's ancestry. Especially, if that person has the same relatives as you do. I myself, as the person above said, not to brag, but I am a direct descendent several times of Edward III and not just him but mostly all the Plantagenets through one line or another from both sides of my family. However, it took me seven years to find this information, and I only found most of it because I had the time and several of my ancestors were notable people in history so ther records were easy to find, which leads to my next point. I would also stress to be very careful when reading websites that deal with people's ancestry because the sites do not always do extensive research and many times can have incorrect information. The reason for this is because to do it the right way, it takes a long time, it is very expensive, and it depends on one's ancestors. Even when you get that information to find the connection you want, you will run into a lot of dead ends from relatives who were not so notable. As I would disagree with any sort of numbers calculating the percent of how many in a population are descended from a certain person, especially someone who only lived seven hundred years ago, just because you are born in the country they lived that does automatically mean you are descended from them. Also, the number of people who can prove it is extremely small compared to the number of people who can not. The only number I kinda agree with is that only 1% of the world's population is descended from any kind o European Royalty. RosePlantagenet 17:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not a calculation. It's an estimate. And your "only" seven hundred years ago is thirty generations. Given someone like Edward who had a lot of children, many of them bastards, it's not remarkable in the least for many, many people to claim descent from him.

Rose Plantagenet, out of interest, who are the more recent notable people in history who you're descended from?

I also find this emphasis on "proven" genealogy to be odd, since it smacks of elitism and also sort of misses the point.--71.36.43.16 00:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

King of France[edit]

The title 'King of France' was finally abandoned by the English crown under the terms of the Treaty of Amiens in 1802, not the Act of Union in 1801. Rcpaterson 08:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I read a book from the library in Abilene, Texas that reported Edward III had a 13th child, a girl, who married a commoner named, John Lawrence.

Black Death[edit]

I removed the one reference I saw but not sure if i missed any. For future reference though bubonic plague is not the proper name for the epidemic, this is conjecture, the name is Black Death if you are writing about it. FubarDac 16:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Conjecture? I have never heard the Black Death described as being anything other than bubonic plague. john k 22:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Its been a long standing theory, very popular to teach kids it, hence why you heard it described as such. it makes a nice story to tell kids, rats brought by traders had flees which caused the plague. Recent studies have revealed that its questionable being a massive bubonic plague outbreak. The science just doesn't match. The rate of transmission, areas of transmition, means of transmition all don't really match bubonic plague. Look at the article on the Black Death they do a fairly good job of explaining it. The point really is there is no proof that it was bubonic pleague and the proper name to give the epedemic is Black Death. FubarDac 21:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

There's enough genetic proof from gravesites that Y. pestis was the cause at least of the disease that put so many in mass graves. In addition to descriptions of the epidemic from those who lived it. "It makes a nice story to tell kids" is really not a good argument that what hit Europe wasn't the disease caused by Yersinia pestis. In addition, plague can become pneumonic which spreads it on an epidemic level, eliminating the need for the flea to transmit it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.119.151.233 (talk) 05:18, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Corrections, amendments and crowns.[edit]

I've removed some very clumsy, garbled and repetitive amendments. Also some minor corrections of fact. The main points are;

1. Edward was not born in France but at Windsor Castle: hence Edward of Windsor.

2. His father was murdered at Berkeley Castle sometime in 1327; that much we know, and very little besides. I'm sorry to disappoint lovers of the ghoulish and the gruesome but the 'hot poker theory' is a much later invention, not taking its final form until the sixteenth century. The suggestion that Isabella and Mortimer ordered this method of execution is laughably absurd. It is also absurd to propose that screams, no matter how loud, could be heard through the thick walls of Berkeley.

I also take issue with the suggestion that Edward had a 'good claim' to the throne of France. Even if the Salic Law was set aside by the time the claim was made Charles the Bad of Navarre, grandson of Louis X, had a superior right in terms of the law of primogeniture. Rcpaterson 07:58, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Arguably Edward had a good claim in 1328, by 1337, I agree, Charles the Bad had a superior claim, and Edward no longer has much of one. As far as I can tell, the English claim to the French throne was as much pretext as anything else. The main English goal was to gain sovereignty over Guyenne, and perhaps regain some of the other Angevin territories, if possible. john k 19:12, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course; and Edward was happy to drop the claim in 1360 for a much bigger slice of the French cake. I do, however, also believe that issues of title and succession should never be viewed in the abstract, divorced, that is, from considerations of national politics. Even without the Salic law I cannot conceive of any circumstances in which the French would have accepted the rule of an English king. Rcpaterson 22:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, the Salic Law in its final form was more or less made up in 1328 to justify the exclusion of Edward. Louis X's daughter's exclusion in 1316 was arguably as much because it was thought that she was probably illegitimate (her mother had been executed for adultery, iirc) as because of any Salic Law. And certainly there was no hint of Salic Law before 1316. john k 23:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

~ At he beginning of the conflict, the 100 Years' War was more akin to a revolt or attempted revolution by the English (as Edward was a subject of the French King) rather than a 'conventional' war between nations. However, Philip's alliance with the Scots was always going to worry Edward due to the possibility of a war on two fronts. Whether or not Edward was the 'rightful' heir was never really the point. Edward certainly did not have a strictly legal entitlement to the succession of the French throne (no more than Charles the Bad did) but the growing division between the nationalities in western Europe was always likely to spark some sort of general conflict where one faction would emerge dominant upon the continent. Indeed, the relative strength of the English forces to those of the French were negligible, and the English were entirely dependent upon their alliances with Brittany, Flanders and Naverre (during Edward's reign) in order to wage war effectively (although the English forces were always tactically superior to the French when in pitched battle - I personally believe due to the lessons learned against William Wallace and the limits of chivalric combat). Henry V's distinct English nationalism (in opposition to French identity) would quite possibly have been abhorrent to Edward III, but by that late stage in the conflict the division between what could be considered the French 'nation' and English 'nation' had become quite indelible.

It is quite telling that Aquitaine was reluctant to fight on behalf of the English crown - but they were even less willing to be ruled by the French Crown. Like many of the small duchies and nations in the region in France and Britain, they primarily wanted independence and peace. The domination of the French Crown in France and English Crown in Britain promoted hegemonies which developed into countries (interestingly even as recently as WW2 a fascist aligned group in Brittany emerged in order to promote independence for the nation of Brittany) --AnAbsolutelyOriginalUsername42 (talk) 14:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Revision[edit]

I have undertaken an extensive revision of this page. I found that the best way to do it was by a complete rewrite, and little of the old text has been preserved. Apologies to other editors, but I felt that this was the only way I could do it. These are the things I have deleted with extreme prejudice:

  • Connections between Edward III and the Wars of the Roses. As I have outlined in the article, stressing this connection implicitly misrepresents both the history of the Wars of the Roses and Edward’s policies. The long section on Edward’s sons and their relation to the civil wars of the next century has no place here, and I’ve delegated it to a separate article.
  • Information about how everybody in the Anglo-Saxon world descends from Edward III. With his many children it would have been peculiar if, after 700 years, they didn’t. This is useless trivia.
  • Anecdotal/false pieces of trivia. From the patently untrue story about Alice Perrers stealing Edward’s rings at his deathbed, to the lengthy speculations about the true owner of the original garter: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.

I would be happy to receive further suggestions for improvement. I do, however, believe this represents a significant improvement, and I will now set the article on the track to Features Article status. Eixo 00:46, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Aristocracy nationalised[edit]

Not a big issue, so I'll bring this up here instead of continuing on the FAC page. "the fear of a French invasion helped strengthen a sense of national unity, and nationalise the aristocracy that had been largely Anglo-French since the Norman conquest." What does it mean to "nationalise the aristocracy"? Did the aristocracy suddenly become English? Were they given documents saying they were English citizens? Was it just a mental shift? Was it a demographic change? I'm unsure how any of these (with the possible exception of the third) could be the direct result of "the fear of a French invasion". Am I missing something here? --Spangineeres (háblame) 15:52, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a matter of a mental shift. We're talking about the process whereby an external enemy generates national unity, and the clearest expression of this is the adoption of English as a spoken and written language by the aristocracy. As I've pointed out, however, this was a gradual process, and was by no means complete by the end of Edward III's reign. An equally important event was the loss of all French possessions (except Calais) in the 1450s, which made the English nobility territorially confined to the British Isles. Hope that helps! Eixo 12:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Hundred Years War family tree.png[edit]

I've replaced this image with templated familytree. It seems to be better for providing links etc. If anyone thinks it does not fit the page, he can revert. --Ugur Basak 23:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Changes suggested by Tony[edit]

Thanks for your suggestions, I think they were highly useful. This is what I've done:

  • 50 year reign: I've changed the prose to try to make it both economical and correct.
  • Restoration of royal authority: I've changed this, but I'm trying to avoid to many sentences starting with "He..." Some might object to the passive.
  • I've changed "force" to "power". I believe this can be used for a country, as in calling the United States a superpower. I wish to retain the word "England", rather than changing it to something like "the English army", as one of the points I've tried to get across in the article is that success in war was due not only to military factors, but to the harvesting of all national resources.
  • "credited with the birth of the English nation": It can seem sweeping, so I've supported it with a reference. I will try to provide a page number as soon as possible. I think it deserves inclusion though, as it is in fact the central thesis of the latest authoritative, academic work on Edward.
  • Change "the king's" to "his": Done.
  • I've changed "oversaw" to "saw", which I think implies less of an active involvement.
  • As for the last paragraph, I agree that this might seem vague, POV and unreferenced by itself. But I've tried to follow WP:LEAD in providing "an overview of the main points", and the last paragraph of the introduction is a summery of the "Assessment and character" part, which is well referenced, neutral and elaborate. I'm not quite sure how I could have done this differently.

Eixo 12:24, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The Scots[edit]

I have removed a contradiction in the article. In the summary it used to say "after subjugating the Scots" but in the more detailed section on "Early Reign" it is made clear that he failed in this enterprise, so I have changed the initial summary accordingly. caca —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.213.153.161 (talk) 02:53, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

Cultural influence section[edit]

The reference to the game, and the picture of the game, are not sufficiently notable to be included. Edward III has appeared in countless fictional contexts and there is nothing remarkable about this one. Mike Christie (talk) 13:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, the issue here is that no fictional context is discussed by any means in this article. Even though the image representing him as a video game character is nothing remarkable in its general importance, it still portrayals an element of the cultural influence that has taken place within Japan and the United States, and therefore it can be seen as vital. I don't really see any means of detriment that adding this image could place upon the article: there isn't any current need for restraint on image quantity and it will be justifiably the only fictional reference noted. Obviously having a category that denotes the influence on culture that this king has created is more beneficial than not having one altogether. Therefore, I can't see any rational means behind why this image should be removed, including its respective category within the article, unless other cultural references oust its propriety. Ultimately, you will need better reasoning than statements that don't have evidence to back their argument. User:Exiled Ambition 18 January 2008 (EST)
I indented your comment above; hope you don't mind. Here's my view: I think a notable fictional appearance would be worth including; for example Shakespeare. I take your point that cultural influence can be notable, but I don't think the existence of a character in a fictional game context is sufficient to demonstrate that notability. Military games with historical background usually do use real historical figures, after all, so the existence of a game that mentions Edward doesn't demonstrate anything. If you can find reliable sources discussing the image of Edward which include mention of his appearance in games, that would at least be a start. If you can find sources that assert that this particular game's character of Edward is remarkable within the wider military gaming context -- perhaps it stands out or is famous for some reason -- then that might pass muster, though I think it would be more likely to lead to a mention in the article on the game.
Anyway, I've reverted you once, as has another editor. I don't want to edit war, so if you add it a third time I won't revert you again. However, I suggest the best approach is to try to get consensus here. Let's wait and see if others post here; if you find most other editors agreeing with you then perhaps the consensus will go your way, and some form of your edit will go in. Mike Christie (talk) 20:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Mike and Angus here, I see no reason given why the usage of Edward III in this particular game is significant to Edward III and the article on him. It's not a particularly significant game, and the actual information entered doesn't assert why this particular usage is considered important on Edward's life. It certainly doesn't assert that the fact that some artist's conception of him from the 21st century is important in the article. I could see a "Cultural influence" section that discussed the fact that Edward is well known enough that many computer games use him as a character, as part of a larger and broader coverage of Edward's appearance in literature, movies, games, comics, art, and music. One random fact however, isn't very useful and smacks of WP:Trivia, which is discouraged in WP:Featured Articles.Ealdgyth | Talk 20:19, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
According to the website for the game, there's no "Edward III" character in the game, just a "King of England". In a game that puts the Black Prince and the future Henry V together the king could be anyone. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:37, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
As for the image, I believe that it and the other images from the game are being used in a way which is contrary to Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria and Wikipedia:Non-free content and have tagged (some of) them (and will do the rest later) as disputed fair use. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Even if you consistently tag these images as having a "disputed fair use," it won't change the circumstances: they are appropriate to the articles that I deem them to, and shall remain in like manner. Don't get carried away by the fact that the image of Edward III does not directly represent this article by means of content to support its importance, for I agree that it does seem random in the context at which it was placed, considering that the cultural influence is not even mentioned within the article, so obviously it is information that would be seen as harming the propriety, for it doesn't have any expanded justification. This is acceptable and I shall let it pass, but with other respective articles that I equip with images, such circumstances can be ammended easily: more information is needed to expand the context, nothing else.User:Exiled Ambition 18 January 2008 (EST)

The question of what is included in an article is determined by consensus among the article's editors. If your arguments are good, you are likely to be able to convince other good-faith editors. However, I think your comment above is not so much an argument as an assertion that you're right. Three editors here don't agree with you; please try to convince us if you want this section to stay. Mike Christie (talk) 01:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Edward III[edit]

to any contributors of Edward III article: I must do report on value of Wikipedia/EdwardIII site

any information you could share with me as to why you edited info and who you are would be GREATLY appreciated. this is for college course in Methods of Doing History

please please reponse at slwiltjmj@comcast.net thank you, sharon 71.207.98.186 (talk) 22:04, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Edward III was 14 when he was crowned King and assumed government in his own right in 1330. In 1337, Edward created the Duchy of Cornwall to provide the heir to the throne with an income independent of the sovereign or the state. An able soldier, and an inspiring leader, Edward founded the Order of the Garter in 1348.

At the beginning of the Hundred Years War in 1337, actual campaigning started when the King invaded France in 1339 and laid claim to the throne of France. Following a sea victory at Sluys in 1340, Edward overran Brittany in 1342 and in 1346 he landed in Normandy, defeating the French King, Philip VI, at the Battle of Crécy and his son Edward (the Black Prince) repeated his success at Poitiers (1356).

By 1360 Edward controlled over a quarter of France. His successes consolidated the support of the nobles, lessened criticism of the taxes, and improved relations with Parliament.

However, under the 1375 Treaty of Bruges the French King, Charles V, reversed most of the English conquests; Calais and a coastal strip near Bordeaux were Edward's only lasting gain.

Failure abroad provoked criticism at home. The Black Death plague outbreaks of 1348-9, 1361-2 and 1369 inflicted severe social dislocation (the King lost a daughter to the plague) and caused deflation; severe laws were introduced to attempt to fix wages and prices.

In 1376, the 'Good Parliament' (which saw the election of the first Speaker to represent the Commons) attacked the high taxes and criticised the King's advisers. The ageing King withdrew to Windsor for the rest of his reign, eventually dying at Sheen Palace, Surrey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.132.51 (talk) 13:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Prince of Wales[edit]

Edward was one of the very few English heir apparents not to have this title. Does anyone know why his father choose not to grant it to him? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.227.70.212 (talk) 05:44, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I've heard that his father, who was the first English Prince of Wales, regarded the title as belonging to him for life. Apparently, even when he was forced to abdicate, he never gave it up.125.239.169.215 (talk) 09:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Ancestry[edit]

The article says, in a percentage-wise breakdown of his ancestry, that he is only 50% French. That needs to be placed higher as Eleanor of Castile had a French mother, Jeanne, Countess of Ponthieu. Also, where does the 6% English blood come from? Is this Saxon blood the article is referring to?--jeanne (talk) 09:20, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

New file File:King Edward III from NPG.jpg[edit]

King Edward III from NPG.jpg

Recently the file File:King Edward III from NPG.jpg (right) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. Dcoetzee 10:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

A supporter of military technology[edit]

This big English King was a supporter of military technology. He was the first militay commander to use Ribauldequin. In fact, he was the first English leader to use fire weapons in war, at least in large scale.Agre22 (talk) 01:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)agre22

Featured article status and references...[edit]

Although this article is currently listed as a Featured Article, some parts of it aren't in a great state any more. Large chunks lack references, and the layout and number of images in places looks a bit dodgy. I've a couple of volumes on Edward III, but not a huge number - does anyone else fancy helping give this article a scrub over in the coming weeks? It would be nice for it to maintain its FA status. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

There's even more impetus to fix up its issues as it's listed for TFA on 9 May (I received notification because, perversely, I'm down as its main contributor in number of edits, though I think all I've ever done is revert vandalism!) Although I'm no expert on this era, I'd be happy to help out where I can -- if we don't think it can be tightened up by the TFA date, we'd better let Raul know shortly so he can push it back. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Hmm. It's not far away. I can help with his early life and the economic aspects, but I'm far less sound on his later years. Still, the earlier bits are where the most unreferenced editing has occurred. I've gone through and removed the Victorian depictions as a first start though. Let me see which volumes I've got to hand this evening, and I'll post again tomorrow. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Okay, here are what I think the main bits of work need to involve:
  • Early life - needs some work on the language, and its currently overly using Mortimer as a source at the end, which needs some balancing out with other writers.
  • Early reign - needs some serious referencing. I'm not certain if this bit still reflects current scholarship or not, to be honest. it also probably needs to explain a little more about the context to Edward's actions - it takes for granted a lot of knowledge about England, France and the various landholdings.
  • Fortunes of war - feels a little thin, from what I've read of Edward's mid-career.
  • Later reign - Strange that Alice Perrers doesn't get a mention, as I'm sure recent biographies have noted that her role with Edward led to some political tensions.
  • Fictional portrayals - unreferenced.
  • Footnotes - now inconsistent, would need some tidying up.
To be honest, I'm not entirely confident we can tighten this up sufficiently by the 9 May - what do you think? Hchc2009 (talk) 10:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I was the one who originally got this to FA (under a different user name). This was way back in 2006, when requirements were more lax, and I was also less experienced. I will do my best over the next few days to get this up to an acceptable standard, I'll put in some more references and expand a bit here and there. At first glance there are some major things I'd like to address, mostly material added after it passed as FA:

  • "Early reign" – this has been expanded quite a bit, but most of it is unreferenced. It's also become a bit too focused on Scotland, with too much irrelevant information. I'll try to make a serious rewrite of this.
  • "Fictional portrayals" – there are no references, but more seriously, there is no assertion of the cultural significance of any of these portrayals. As far as I can see, Edward III is not as significant in terms of cultural legacy as e.g. Henry V or Richard III. I think this section can easily be excluded altogether, or integrated into the "Historical assessment" section ("Fictional portrayals" sections are like weed: pull them out and they grow right back.)
  • "Titles, styles, honours and arms" – also this section I see as mostly trivia for those with special interests. What is of most interest here is the quartering with France, but that can be integrated into the relevant section.

I'll get to work on this, and hopefully I'll get it ready in time. If anyone has objections to the above suggestions, or has any other input, please comment here so we can discuss it. Many thanks! Lampman (talk) 13:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, sounds like a good plan - will help out if I can.Hchc2009 (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, sounds good. If you're okay with the referencing perhaps I can just help out with copyediting. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
It would be great if someone could go over and copyedit what I write; I can often be sloppy. I've done "Early life" now, which needed a complete rewrite. Lampman (talk) 00:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
I've had a quick look over it and made some tweaks. Two more substantive bits I noted:
  • "To build up diplomatic support for the venture, Isabella had Prince Edward engaged to the twelve-year-old Philippa of Hainault." - it was more than just diplomatic support, as the dowry also provided Isabella with eight warships and money that paid for the mercenary army. (Weir 2006, pp.221-3.)
  • "subjected Edward to constant disrespect and humiliation" - I'm not certain that the usual sources would support "constant" - might be worth checking, as whilst there were episodes like this, they seem to have built up Edward's frustration over time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hchc2009 (talkcontribs) 16:40, 3 May 2011
  • That seems reasonable, I've made the changes. I've gone through "Early reign" as well now – I rewrote a lot here too, and put in references. Lampman (talk) 20:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I should be able to go through and copyedit tonight (Australian time) or tomorrow. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I've gone through "Fortunes of war" too now. A complete rewrite wasn't necessary, but I changed the layout, removed some bits of trivia or material I couldn't find references for, and – of course – added references throughout. Lampman (talk) 19:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

"Later reign" done, minor changes + referencing. The following sections seem decent. Lampman (talk) 16:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
"Parliament and taxation" done, had to cut a bit that I just couldn't support. Lampman (talk) 18:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Expression[edit]

This view has turned, and modern historiography credits him with many significant achievements.

This is referenced, and may quote the source exactly. Regardless of that, I don't believe that "modern historiography" can credit Edward III with anything. On the other hand, historiography could reveal facts, scholarship or changing attitudes that caused scholars or modern historians to credit Edward with many significant achievements.

It needs rewording. Amandajm (talk) 06:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Please feel free to reword. Lampman (talk) 12:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Big mistake in portraits[edit]

File:Edward III.jpg is not Edward the Third. It is of his son, Edward of Woodstock, the Black Prince. See http://prodigi.bl.uk/illcat/record.asp?MSID=765&CollID=21&NStart=594 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.1.126 (talk) 07:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Good eye! What made you suspicious in the first place? I think usually people review the images in featured articles. I wonder how this slipped through. The source of the pic in question is just a free webhost. Here's the right Edward -> [1][2].--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 09:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm gonna upload the right pic and replace it. Just gimme about 3 mins.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 09:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Thanks to whoever noticed this. Things were going a bit fast yesterday as I was preparing the article for TFA, and the picture was categorised as Edward III, but I should of course have caught it. Lampman (talk) 12:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Paternity?[edit]

Shouldn't this article at least mention the questions over his paternity? There is serious doubt in many quarters that Edward II was his father, since supposed he would have had to have conceived him ten months before he was born. (He was away in France, while his mother was in England).--MacRusgail (talk) 16:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Source? To the best of my knowledge, Edward II spent the early months of 1312 in the north of England, trying to protect Piers Gaveston. I can’t find anywhere that he visited France between 1308 and 1313. Lampman (talk) 17:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I think I know what's happened here, I am getting Edwards confused here...--MacRusgail (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

No illegitimate children[edit]

The article states that he had no known illegitimate children, but this is contradicted by the Wikipedia and ODNB articles on Alice Perrers. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll remove it, don't know when that got in there. Lampman (talk) 17:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Objection to number of Anglo-saxon entries[edit]

I have the impression of a predominance of western oriented/ Anglo-Saxon entries making the featured article level. Frankly I disapprove of the English kings and so despise this tendency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hdeasy (talkcontribs) 17:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

So improve some articles on non-Anglo-Saxon kings to FA status. Brutannica (talk) 22:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Regent?[edit]

I think there is an error in both the article lead and main page capsule -- they state that Roger Mortimer was regent during Edward's early years. Although Mortimer was clearly the de facto ruler, I believe the official regent was actually Edward's mother Isabella. Do I have this wrong? Looie496 (talk) 21:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Historian P. Doherty definitely has Isabella as the official regent after Edward II is deposed by Parliament in Jan 1327. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
You're right. I was going for brevity in the lead, but it might have been a bit imprecise. It's better now, thanks! Lampman (talk) 06:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Bankruptcy of Florentine bankers in 1340s[edit]

I wonder if it would be worthwhile to mention that Edward borrowed much money from Florentine bankers to finance the French campaign, failed to repay it, and caused the bankruptcy of several Italian banks in the 1340s.[3] AxelBoldt (talk) 17:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Brittany and Battle of Auberoche...[edit]

I've reverted the last change as it just didn't make sense to me. ("The following years he saw more direct involvement in the Breton War of Succession by supporting Joanna of Brittany, and by supporting English armies at the Battle of Auberoche, but also this proved fruitless at first.") Firstly, I don't think that Edward III can be said to have "supported" English armies at the battle of Auberoche, since it was fought between his own forces and the French. The battle was also fought in Gascony, not Brittany. Secondly, you may also want to double check that Fowler, the source being cited to support the claim in the current draft, actually makes reference to Joanna of Flanders on pages 58-9. Happy to be corrected if he does, of course. I can't find my copy of it to check, but I think you would find that Ian Mortimer refers to Edward supporting her in his biography of the king. If I can find it tomorrow, I'll look it up. (Incidentally, a while back I considered reworking Joanna's article after reading Mortimer's snippet on her, but gave up due to the sheer paucity of decent sources. If you can find a decent text on her, I'd be very interested in getting the details of it). 19:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Yep, found it. Mortimer talks about Jeanne and Edward's support for her in 1342 on pages 204-5 in "The Perfect King. The Earl of Lancaster's 1345 expedition and Auberoche occur in Gascony, rather further south than Brittany, and aren't described as being in direct response to the Breton war, at least in Mortimer's account (p.219). It might be worth adding a sentence in on the Breton situation, referenced to Mortimer or similar, but the existing footnote captures Auberoche perfectly well, in my opinion.Hchc2009 (talk) 20:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
  • Thank you,I appreciate your support on Joanna of Flanders, however, keep investigating and if you found any source available, please contact me so I can make an arrangement to edit the short sentence of the Breton War of Succession involving her, again, many thanks.--Corusant (talk) 03:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

French claim[edit]

I think the article has to be revised on this point. When did Edward actually claim the title of the King of France? Was it in 1328, when his uncle died, or in 1337, when relations between England and France broke down? Or did he claim it at both times? If so, this has to be mentioned in the article. Also, Edward III was not the senior cognatic male descendant of Philip IV during both times; he was simply the most powerful. In 1328, the most senior cognatic male descendant of Philip IV was Philip II, Count of Auvergne, grandson of Philip V of France; in 1337, it was Charles II of Navarre, grandson of Louis X of France. Emerson 07 (talk) 10:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

According to the 14th century chronicler Jean Froissart, a letter from Edward III to Philip VI at the beginning of the Hundred Years' War in 1337 read that the right to the French throne belonging to Edward and not Philip had been pointed out many times before. Here's a quotation from the source:
"Edward, by the grace of God King of England and Ireland, writes to Philip of Valois: Since it falls out that, in succession to our beloved uncle the Lord Charles, King of France, we are heir to the realm and crown of France by a much closer degree of kinship than yourself, who have entered into possession of our heritage and are holding and desire to hold it by force, although we have several times pointed this out to you and have had it again pointed out by such worthy and eminent advisers as those of the Church and the Holy College of Rome, in agreement with the noble Emperor, head of all adjudications; to which matters and demands you have never been willing to listen, but have held and still hold to your unjustly founded opinion..." (Froissart, translated by Geoffrey Brereton (ed.), Froissart Chronicles, Penguin Classics (1978), p.59.)
Froissart says that he took this letter's contents, as they were read out loud, from a witness he says was there, the Lord of Saint-Venant (Ibid., p.59). It's possible there were pre-existent claims. Edward III had to do homage to Philip VI in 1329, which he was reluctant to do, and was trying to find out if he had to do everything as if he were a duke or baron and not a king. Froissart records that Philip VI was understanding in that Edward was young and unsure of proper ritual. But in all honesty, in my opinion the war obviously started because of the Scottish-French alliance as well as the occasional attack of the fleet of Normandy, as Froissart says, having ended many Englishmen's lives. And the explanation using Salic Law clearly disqualifies Edward III from the claim to the French throne. Cornelius (talk) 02:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Tax[edit]

No mention of "the ninth" [4] ? also related topics the "english wool company" [5]. Also the Bardi family, the Peruzzi, William de la Pole (maybe others too) as financiers should also be namechecked and linked, (easily verified via a google search). The significance of these can be easily checked. The act of "farming out" taxes to raise more revunue might be more explicity described too.Oranjblud (talk) 00:17, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

relationship with the Church[edit]

I couldn't find anything in the article on his relations with the Catholic Church. Did I miss it or is it there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.119.151.233 (talk) 05:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)