Talk:Field of the Cloth of Gold

"Field of Cloth of Gold" or "Field of the Cloth of Gold"?

I notice Field of the Cloth of Gold redirects here...but shouldn't "the" be in the title? That's how I've always heard it, and Google agrees 2600 to 791. I'm not entirely sure though (maybe the name is originally a translation from French?) Adam Bishop 22:58, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I'd certainly agree that it should be 'the'. -- Necrothesp 15:08, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I am afraid you are both wrong. The correct form is "Field of Cloth of Gold". "Field of the cloth of Gold" is a solecism. Note the title of one of the books cited as a source! A google search of "camp de drap d'or" (...of cloth of...) brings up far more French web sites than "Camp du drap d'or" (...of the cloth of...) I am going to change the title of this page in a few days unless good arguments against become clear. Stroika 12:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it a solecism and not just a mistranslation? There's nothing ungrammatical about it; it just specifies a (nonexistent) particular object rather than a material. Chronodm 13:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cloth of Gold is a fabric. If the fabric referred to were, say, silk no-one would want to write "Field of the Silk" so why write "Field of the Cloth of Gold"? The title of the article should be correct.Hymers2 (talk) 10:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm posting because I also was puzzled by the use of the word "solecism". They might say "Field of the Silk Cloth", and they also might say "Field of the Gold Cloth", which IMO feels more natural. I assume we are not translating to 21st century english on purpose.Jonny Quick (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

...or simply Field of Gold Cloth. I find all three versions in texts at archive.org, and suggest all three be accepted, also with the 'original' French, though I doubt there is any authoritative original at all. The event took place, and the name came because the French had decorated with a lot of gold cloth. It was not a case of, as far as I know, Louis sending Hank a card saying, 'come over to mine for a Gold Cloth event on thurs.'

The earliest version I found in a very cursory query at archive.org was 1701, for Field of Cloth of Gold. The historian author provides no indication of his derivation.

The Field of Gold Cloth option is supported at least as far back as 1818. This version has the fewest supporters though.

By far the greatest number matches the current commercial shill book-of-the-day which supporters here are promoting, but that is not a reason to block it.

Someone has posted (somewhere, I think here) a french version, which unusually omits any 'la' etc which usually the French are keen on. So perhaps the Anglicised version adds more 'the' than necessary just to be contrary? or actually a bad French for perhaps the same reason, or more often, poor academic research?

[If wikipedia publish my IP they must pay EFF an unbounded amount of money to be determined by legal negotitations yet to be decided. Please do not publish my IP. Please do not force me to provide a password to participate or to correct the nonsense usually encountered at this site.] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.23.96 (talk) 17:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No legal threats is a policy here. It is imperative that when and by whom a comment was made is publicly recorded; I will therefore show your request the same amount of respect that your choice not to create an account shows to the general Wikipedia community. Wikipedia is bigger than one person. Graham87 (talk) 06:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Change of Name

I just changed the name of this page back to its correct form. The reason is as follows. At this particular meeting place of the Kings of England and France there was a perceived preponderance of tents etc made from a material called "cloth of gold". It was not a particular piece of cloth but a material. Suppose everything had been made of denim would we say field of denim or field of the denim? The former. But it wasn't "denim" it was "cloth of gold". Therefore the correct term is "The Field of Cloth of Gold".

Google gives 22100 hits for "Field of the Cloth of Gold" [1] and only 665 for "Field of Cloth of Gold" [2]. Whatever the linguistic sense it has clearly come into general use as The Field of the Cloth of Gold and this should be the title. It is not Wkipedia's purpose to correct people's mistakes especially if they have now taken on historical momentum. We should simply report the situation. I propose it is moved back to the form generally used in English. Lumos3 12:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page's title was changed ten days after I originally suggested moving it. I invited objections and none came. Why should we rely on Google? Google is a picture of the web. The web is not the only place English is written. Also note the title of one of the books cited as a source. "The Field of the Cloth of Gold" is simply wrong. It suggests that there was a field which contained a particular piece of golden cloth. That is not the point of the name. The name indicated that a particular kind of cloth was used. If they had used Damask it would be "The Field of Damask". Stroika 13:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore Lumos3 says "It is not Wkipedia's purpose to correct people's mistakes". Au contraire. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. That's what they do: provide knowledge and thereby correct mistakes. The point of redirects is to allow mistaken versions of a title to find the correct title. I am grateful for redirects every time I use wikipedia. Stroika 14:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is, rightly or wrongly, the name Field of the Cloth of Gold has been in use for hundreds of years in English and that should be accepted. Stop trying to change things just report it, with maybe the observation that its mistaken. I will be changing it back. Lumos3 09:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is a divergent form that grew up (I reckon) for one particular reason. The phrase "Field of Cloth of Gold" looks like it refers to a specific piece of cloth (say the Turin Shroud) and therfore needs a definite article. But "cloth of gold" is the name of a material like "denim" "linen" or "Damask". We would not say "Field of the Denim" if they were all wearing 501s, we would say "Field of Denim". The prevalence of a divergent form ("Field of the Cloth of Gold") is not significant if, as I have, you can show why there are special reasons for that divergence which show that it is a mistake pure and simple. Discuss before you change please. Stroika 10:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An accepted form that has been in use for nearly 500 years and mentioned in English documents over the whole of that time is not about to change because a Wikipedia article thinks it should . We report the world as it is. The English speaking world uses this form and that is what they will look up.

Its also possible that because of its value and rarity it was originally given the definite article in Tudor English. The rules of English were not always as they are now. Lumos3 12:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First to deal with Lumos3's last point that owing to its value "cloth of gold" (referring to the kind of material) might have been called "the cloth of gold". This is demonstrably false. The OED (both editions) has five quotations for "cloth of gold" (begininning with Chaucer's Knight's Tale line 1710) and two more quotations for "cloth of silver". The form "the cloth of gold" is not found. I accept Lumos3's point that we must not assume the definite article has always been used exactly as now. In this case I think there is no significant difference.

It is field of the cloth of gold it has been in use 100s of years — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blemil21 (talk • contribs) 12:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me the case for both sides could be made as follows. I have put the case for retaining the definite article first at each point which I hope gives it an advantage.

1 Supporting the form "The Field of the Cloth of Gold": the title in the 1911 Encylopedia Brittanica article from which the present WP article is derived.

1 Supporting the form "The Field of Cloth of Gold": the title of the book cited in the references.

2 Supporting the form "The Field of the Cloth of Gold": this is the more common form on google.

2 Supporting the form "The Field of Cloth of Gold": Google only tells us what is on the web it does not tell us how to weigh what we find. Slipping a definite article in is natural to English speakers who do not necessarily realise that "cloth of gold" is a kind of material and not a particular piece of cloth (or several particular pieces). For all we know many of these references could be a direct copy of the WP article.

3 Supporting the form "The Field of the Cloth of Gold": this is the most natural form for the actual words in English.

3 Supporting the form "The Field of Cloth of Gold": once it is explained that the phrase "cloth of gold" refers to a kind of material (such as "denim" etc) and not to a particular piece of cloth and that 'therefore' "cloth of gold" serves a different grammatical function it becomes natural to drop the definite article. In any case that is what redirects are for.

4 Supporting the form "The Field of the Cloth of Gold": this form has a long history.

4 Supporting the form "The Field of Cloth of Gold": again simply due to a misunderstanding of the term cloth of gold (see 3 above) and in any case only within the last 200 years.

(Reversing the order in which points are made)

5 Supporting the form "The Field of Cloth of Gold": This is the form in Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase and Fable.

5 Supporting the form "The Field of the Cloth of Gold": Which is supposed to outweigh the form in EB 1911?

I think that because it is the correct form "The Field of Cloth of Gold" is to be preferred as the title for this article. Am I right to assume that as far as Lumos3 is concerned "The Field of Cloth of Gold" is the correct form but "The Field of the Cloth of Gold" is to be preferred as being the more expected form? If so how do we resolve our difference? (I won't be able to respond to any replies for several days) Stroika 19:54, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's had centuries to become an English proper noun, whether the original translation is correct or not. Chronodm 13:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While I think the whole debate over "the" is a little pedantic, I did want to point out that "The Field of Cloth-of-Gold" is the name as given by J. Ridley in The Statesman and the Fanatic, Pollard in Wolsey, and Gwyn in The King's Cardinal. While I can't find a reference in Cavendish, every time he mentions 'cloth of gold', he doesn't use 'the'. Not a big deal, but I don't think there's much of a scholarly basis for including 'the'. In any case, it's a bit of a silly argument. Whelk bucket (talk) 18:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As no specific piece of cloth-of-gold fabric is being referenced, the use of 'the' is unnecessary and incorrect. The above denim example is spot-on and can be further enlarged to include examples such as 'the field of wheat' rather than 'the field of the wheat'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.21.124 (talk) 16:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is nothing wrong with the field of the wheat, even if a particular piece of wheat is not being referenced. I take no position on where the article should be, but the term solecism in the lead was wrong, and I have removed it; the form with the extra the is perfectly grammatical English, even for the intended meaning. --Trovatore (talk) 21:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone know anything about the history of the term?

Although I meant earlier to change the article's title back I actually didn't succeed. (Serves me right for trying to do something without having the instructions open in front of me.) I don't really regret this as it occurs to me what is precisely lacking is a history of the term "The Field of (the) Cloth of Gold" who called it that and when? Presumably it is not something like Wars of the Roses which (I believe) is a much later coinage. What I'd really like would be some juicy quotations of the period using the phrase. Stroika 19:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Eighteenth-Century Engravings for the Society of Antiquaries of London are based on oil paintings now in the Queen's collection at Hampton Court which are of or uncertain date but are verifiabley pre 1588-9 when they were recorded as being cleaned. One is titled The Field of the Cloth of Gold. This puts the use of this name into the sixteenth century. See the notes by Bernard Nurse, Librarian for the Society of Antiquaries of London [3]. Lumos3 10:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Performing topic necromancy here, but, from Edmund Bohun's 1694 Geographical Dictionary^[1]: "Ardres, Ardra, is a little, but well fortified, Town in the County of Guienne in Picardy in France: it stands in the Marshes, in the Borders of Artois, three Leagues from Calis toward the South, and a little more from Gravelin. Francis I. and Henry VIII. King of England, had an enterview with each other near this Town, in 1520. Both Courts appearing so magnifi∣cent, that they call'd the place, a Field of Cloth of Gold. In 1596 Cardinal Albret took it for the Spaniards, who did not keep it long. § Also the Name of a King∣dom and City in Guiney in Africa." ProcrastinatingHistorian (talk) 20:36, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A28561.0001.001/1:5?ALLSELECTED=1;c=eebo;c=eebo2;g=eebogroup;rgn=div1;singlegenre=All;sort=occur;subview=detail;type=simple;view=fulltext;xc=1;q1=field+of+cloth+of+gold

Something doesn't add up

"…a temporary palace covering an area of nearly 12,000 square yards (about 1,100 square metres)": Since a meter is only about 10% longer than a yard, these two numbers should be about the same order of magnitude. Clearly one or the other is wrong: which is it? Also, even after adjusting the numbers to the same magnitude, the conversion is still incorrect: 12,000 square yards is not 11,000 square meters but only about 10,000 (to be precise, 10,033)—or alternatively, 11,000 square meters is equivalent to over 13,000 square yards, not 12,000. Evidently whoever wrote this simply used a conversion factor of about 1.09 m/yd, neglecting to square it (1.19 sq m/sq yd) for areas. Can someone supply the correct numbers here? —Dodiad 18:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just why is Henry VII not mentioned?

Inthe following, introduction to this site, is the following account;

"Background

Cardinal WolseyTwo entities had started to emerge as powers in Western Europe at this time: France, under Francis I, and the Habsburg Empire, under Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor. The Kingdom of England, still a lesser power, was being courted as an ally by the two major powers. The 1518 Treaty of London, a non-aggression pact between major European powers to help resist the Ottoman expansion into southeastern Europe, had just been signed. Henry also held meetings with Charles V a month before the Field of Cloth of Gold in the Netherlands and again afterwards at Calais, Henry's only possession in the Continent."

What a remarkable stupid opening statement! Just what is any student or scholar to thing of this opening? No where in the above is any mention of the King of England, other than this, "Henry also held meetings with Charles V a month before the Field of Cloth of Gold in the Netherlands and again afterwards at Calais, Henry's only possession in the Continent."

Just how is anyone to know that the "Henry" mentioned above could be Henry VIII, unless they were already familar with the subject material?

It is rough, and ungainly for any source of any respect!69.92.23.64 (talk) 03:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes[reply]

The Meeting, and the Cloth!

"The meeting

Henry VIII of England, copy after Holbein Francis I of FranceEach king tried to outshine the other, with dazzling tents and clothes, huge feasts, music, jousting, and games. The tents and the costumes displayed so much cloth of gold, an expensive fabric woven with silk and gold thread, that the site of the meeting was named after it."

I would just suggest that the words above could easily and correctly describe another segment of our past, that is "The Golden Fleece!" Of what fabric were the above tents, clothes, etc., imbeded with goldend threads, imbeded within? It is most obvious that "Wool", might well be the most common and correct answer! Thus in ancient parlance "The Golden Fleece!"69.92.23.64 (talk) 03:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes[reply]

Perhaps some discussion of the Tents involved needs some discussion or at least a link?

http://www.greydragon.org/pavilions/othertents.html 69.92.23.64 (talk) 03:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes[reply]

The "the"

I hesitate to re-open old wounds here, but I can't help but noticed that the article title and its bold title don't match; clearly the two should be the same, whichever is chosen (whether the other form is also used as an alt-title, or just discussed elsewhere in the article). The article seems to be in its current form in part due to the over-zealous effort of one anon editor about a year ago, who expunged "the"s so thoroughly that they did it in filenames, interwiki links, and a sentence originally specifically about the "the" usage, now contradictorily making the same statement about the other form. 84.203.39.72 (talk) 02:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested historical reference material / external link

Inviting contributors to expand the article using the following accounts from the State Papers of Henry VIII, plus an account from the Venetian archive:

'Henry VIII: June 1520', Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII, Volume 3: 1519-1523 (1867), pp. 299-319. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=91050
'Henry VIII: April 1520, 2-15', Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII, Volume 3: 1519-1523 (1867), pp. 249-264. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=91046
'Henry VIII: May 1520, 16-30', Letters and Papers, Foreign and Domestic, Henry VIII, Volume 3: 1519-1523 (1867), pp. 285-299. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=91049
'Venice: May 1520, 21-25', Calendar of State Papers Relating to English Affairs in the Archives of Venice, Volume 3: 1520-1526 (1869), pp. 14-34. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=94318

--Bhogrok (talk) 09:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaned up a little

I removed "also known as the Field of Golden Cloth", which had been in the first sentence, unsourced, for three years; and the crumpets and pots of strawberry jam, which had been in the text for two years. Andrew Dalby 18:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I also did a small bit of housecleaning. Deleted a single sentence saying something about how the phrase "field of the cloth of gold" has been in common use since at least the 18th century, sandwiched in between two statements pertaining to the 15th century. The fact didn't belong in the lede to begin with, much less inserted in such a clumsy way, so I deleted it and things look much better now.Jonny Quick (talk) 18:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Names of French Kings

If Henry VIII met Francis I, then Victoria cannot have met Louis Philippe - she must have met Lewis Philip.88.167.22.75 (talk) 09:11, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We use whichever is most commonly used. Historians usually refer to Francis I and Louis Philippe I so that's what we use. Retroplum (talk) 14:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Excerpts from Hall's Chronicle."

The long "excerpt" from Edward Hall's Chronicle is so shortened, paraphrased, and synthesized that it bears little relationship to what Hall actually says. (As one example, Hall specifically calls into question the parity of the two forces on the field, and it's quite an important point. See, for example, via the page's own "External Links" citation to Hall, pg. 609. Or consider, as another example, the claim that heralds called for silence when the kings met, when in fact Hall doesn't mention that at all, but instead specifies an enormously loud set of fanfares, pg. 610.) It's striking that whoever added this "excerpt" didn't provide a simple click-through citation. It looks to me like a combination and pastiche of various sources, rather than a reliable quotation from Edward Hall's history. As such, it probably shouldn't be indented and treated as something exact. I am not a Tudor specialist, however, so I wouldn't want to meddle with the text myself. 70.20.52.54 (talk) 21:33, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Field of the Cloth of Gold. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060301144649/http://www.alectouk.com/The%20Field%20of%20the%20Cloth%20of%20Gold.htm to http://www.alectouk.com/The%20Field%20of%20the%20Cloth%20of%20Gold.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Out of date citation

the citation for citation #10 links to a page which give a page not found error — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.101.119.215 (talk) 17:18, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dealt with. Thanks for pointing this out.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Location

Regarding the location of the palace, this article needs to be consulted and cited: Julian Munby (2014) The Field of Cloth of Gold: Guînes and the Calais Pale Revisited, English Heritage Historical Review, 9:1, 30-63, DOI:10.1179/1752016915Z.00000000026 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1179/1752016915Z.00000000026

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.16.2 (talk) 11:43, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Who was there

Were Anne and Mary Boleyn there? What about Mary Brandon, Duchess of Suffolk? Because Thomas Boleyn was there, and Charles Brandon. Oric22 (talk) 14:44, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Elizabeth Boleyn was there for sure as a lady to the Queen of England. It's thought that Mary Boleyn was also there. Thomas Boleyn was a knight at this point in time but in the circle of the King, like the father of the future Queen Kateryn Parr had been until his death in 1517. Parr's mother, Lady Maud, was in attendance upon the English queen, Katherine of Aragon. Lady Meg (talk) 02:50, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Barons at the Embracing of the Two Kings

Just fyi, Thomas Boleyn and Lord Edmund Howard were not Barons. Lady Meg (talk) 02:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] ttps://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/eebo/A28561.0001.001/1:5?ALLSELECTED=1;c=eebo;c=eebo2;g=eebogroup;rgn=div1;singlegenre=All;sort=occur;subview=detail;type=simple;view=fulltext;xc=1;q1=field+of+cloth+of+gold

[1]