Talk:Angevins/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1

Descendents of Edward IV and Henry VII

What sort of social rank would one have to bear in their family, in order to be a descendent of either?

How far up the totem pole, would you say?

This is intended to have broad answers and based on gradients of time and population, not going into specifics about exact descendents. About how common is their descent in the English or British genepool today?

I've noticed that American Presidents don't descend from either king, but the most common recent royal ancestor shared by many of us is Edward III. How common is it for anybody in the English or British genepool, to have a Protestant royal ancestor?

There is a general cutoff, isn't there?

Is it because of fratricide in the Wars of the Roses, the Tudors' "new men", or the Union of the Crowns, or the parliamentary union under Queen Anne (I can't think of any non-royal family descent from the Hanoverians within the UK)?

I'm thinking that there is a big difference between Plantagenet and Tudor descents, that the commons in all likelihood have the former and the latter is held by the lords. (just generally speaking) Then again, Tudor descent in the Welsh must be higher in general. I am further curious about pre-Royal Tudor blood in Anglo-British people today, since the status and/or concept of Welsh royalty/nobility is rather hazy in my mind. I found the Blevins aka Ap Bleddyn family of Powys in my ancestry, but have no real idea on what to make of it--or any other Welsh "native aristocracy". I might be able to find Stewart descent somewhere, from way back when. What percentage of Hanoverian background do you think that German colonists had in America?

On the British side, I have to go as far back as Welf himself...but any recent genetic relationship with the Hanoverians or the counts of Nassau are completely obscure. How does one research those other colonial people, such as the Hessians?

UK genealogy is relatively easy when focusing on English (and French) ancestries. What would a "national person" of Jerusalem (or Antioch, for example) in Crusader times be known as?

We say "American" for those Founders, but was there such a nationality-term for the Crusaders in their own domains?

I guess the term is supposed to be Levantine/Outremer, or "Crusader" as our national heritage says "Colonist"...

IP Address 12:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

vowels

I changed "[ˈæn.dʒə.vən]" to "[ˈæn.dʒɛ.vɪn]". If your dialect reduces unstressed vowels to a uniform schwa, no harm done, you'll pronounce it the same either way. —Tamfang 21:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks like Aeusoes1 wasn't convinced by that argument, or perhaps has a stronger argument supporting schwa. I turned to my dictionaries. In French it's /ãʒəvẽ/, but one English dictionary (Webster's New International 2d ed.) shows the same vowel for the middle syllable as in the first syllable of event. —Tamfang 04:15, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
While on the subject of pronounciation, I'd much appreciate it if somebody could add the IPA for Plantagenet.--Turbothy 19:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

the arms

Somewhere (possibly only in French Wikipédie) there is a chart of the coats of arms used by Capetian cadets, but I can't remember what it's called. That's where I'd look for the arms of the first house of Anjou (kings of Naples). —Tamfang 17:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Opening comment

How can the Angevins be the same thing as the Plantaganets-any more than than the Plantaganets were the same as the Yorkists. Yes, all Plataganets but it doesn't make them the same thing. -Adrian

I strongly agree. Angevin and Plantagenet are clearly NOT the same subject. Plantagenet is most notable in that it refers to an English royal dynasty descended from a single individual. These should be separate articles.

  • Well, as far as I remember, Plantagenets is a nickname for the Angevin Kings and I've never heard of it applied to Yorkist and Lancastrian branches, if you did please point it out. Matthieu 17:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • As a matter of fact, Geoffrey Plantagenet (emphasis intended), the father of Henry II of England, was a member of the House of Ingelgar, the forbear of the Counts of Anjou. He married into the English royal family, by marrying Matilda, amidst her dispute over succession with her cousin, Stephen of Blois. Hence it is safe to say, the House of Plantagenet- the descendants of Henry II -were agnatically members of the House of Ingelgar, also called the first House of Anjou, as they ruled over Anjou. Its the same thing as saying that theBourbons were agnatically belonging to the House of Capet. Nirvaan 20:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:House of Anjou vs. Category:Capetian dynasty vs. Category:Capetian House of Anjou

Category:Capetian House of Anjou is itself a category within Category:Capetian dynasty and Category:House of Anjou. — Robert Greer (talk) 14:11, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

House of Chateaudun?

This is a neologism - no historians call them this. Further this attempt to recast the page creates a conflict, the intro claiming a different origin than the History section, which spends a good bit of time talking about people rendered irrelevant by the change of focus. I realize you were trying to get around two houses of Anjou, but this is not the solution. Agricolae (talk)

This came up before: User_talk:Stijn_Calle/2007#Chateaudun. Is it necessary to even have articles on the different families who held the County of Anjou? We already have articles on the Plantagenets, the Capetians, and the Valois. What we really need is an article on the County of Anjou, not just a list of counts and dukes. —Srnec (talk) 21:49, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Two separate questions really: do we need a page for the family, separate from those for their holdings; and what do we call it. I suspect that there has been enough written about the clan that they could merit a page. Certainly, though, not as it now appears. We don't want a page that tries to be both family and title, when the two did not overlap. As to the whole "House of ______" construct, I find it an artificial one, not used by historians or scholars in English, except in a small number of exceptional cases, and it sounds more like the name of a pretentious antique shop than a family. I haven't done an actual survey, but my impression would be that by far the most common name for this family in the period prior to their acquisition of royal titles, is the Angevins, just as people call their scions the Plantagenets, not the House of Plantagenet. Still, the argument is out there that every family should be referred to the same way, and if we call one family the "House of _____" then we should refer to all of them that way. I think it was Ralph Waldo Emerson who commented that foolish consistency was the hobgoblin of Wikipedia editors. Still I have neither the time nor the motivation for a full-scale renaming debate right now, so I will be happy for the time being to address this particular abomination on its own. Agricolae (talk) 05:05, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
I agree entirely. I lost a battle over at Talk:House of Hohenstaufen a couple years back. I am opening a move request to Angevins, and we'll see what others bring to the table. —Srnec (talk) 02:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Aervanath (talk) 12:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)



House of ChâteaudunAngevins — See previous section. It is the more widely used term in medieval scholarship. Currently redirects to House of Anjou, a dab page. This page was previously moved without discussion. —Srnec (talk) 02:51, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Support See above. Current name is a neologism unique to Wikipedia. Google search shows current title to only be used by Wikipedia mirrors and irrelevant sources. Google Books shows only one occurrence, and none in Google Scholar. Agricolae (talk) 13:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Support per UCN. Flamarande (talk) 21:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Support per both. Johnbod (talk) 13:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Casatus refers to Paolo Casati which is clearly not the case. Someone who knows its meaning should either write a new article or explain the term inside this one. Or, well, substitute it with another word. --Oop (talk) 13:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Anjou and Angers

I added in the very first part of the article that it refers to the resident of Anjou and Angers. Which was missing.

  • Undated comment above several years old so probably obsolete Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Grammar

Some of the grammar used here makes the story hard to follow. Too many pronouns, in some cases, refer to ambiguous antecedents and cause the outcome to be ambiguous. I can't edit because I can't deduce the real intent at times. Someone who knows the history here should review and edit for clarity.

  • Undated comment above several years old so probably obsolete Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

GA Review

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

Reviewer: Sotakeit (talk · contribs) 08:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


Comments by Sotakeit

Generally, it is well written and complies 'with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation'. However, there are several glaring grammar iissues throughout, mainly to do with comma use (see here): * The line When the male line of Ingelger became extinct in 1060 cognatic descent continued in 'Origins' section - I would suggest a comma after '1060' to separate the two clauses.

  • The line Territorial ambitions to expand the Angevin holdings prompted power struggles with neighbouring provinces such as Normandy and Brittany leading to influence extending into Maine and Touraine in 'Origins' section - Again, I would suggest a comma between 'Brittany' and 'leading'.
  • The line Matilda's father Henry I of England named her as heir to his large holdings in what are now France and England. in the 'Angevin arrival in England' section - I would suggest commas either side of Henry I of England, as has been done in the previous section (Fulk married his son and heir, Geoffrey, to Henry's daughter and only surviving).
  • Henry saw an opportunity to re-establish what he saw as his rights over the Church in England by reasserting the privileges held by Henry I when Theobald, Archbishop of Canterbury, died, by appointing his friend, Thomas Becket to the post - There could be confusion because of the wording here as to whether the friend was Henry II's or Henry I's. I would suggest rewording to When Theobald, Archbishop of Canterbury died, by appointing his friend, Thomas Becket, to the post, Henry II saw an opportunity to re-establish what he saw as his rights over the church, as held by Henry I.
  • When Dermot died in 1171 Strongbow, as his son-in-law, seized significant territory. This line needs a comma after 1171.
  • Richard the Duchy of Aquitaine; Geoffrey Brittany - There needs to be commas after both Richard and Geoffrey, as at the moment it looks like they are Aquitaine and Brittany.
  • Richard and Philip II of France took advantage of a sickening Henry II with more success - I understand what is meant by 'sickening' here, but I would use 'sickly' or add a clause such as '...advantage of Henry II, whose health was worsening, with more success...'.
  • The line Quickly putting the affairs of the Angevin Empire in order he departed on Crusade to the Middle East in early 1190. in the section 'Angevin decline' - Again, a comma after Empire.

I think the content is broad in its coverage, whilst staying on point. However, there are points where I think some explanation would be useful:

  • 'Custody was passed to Henry the Lion and a tax of 25% of movables and income was required to pay the ransom of 100,000 marks, with a promise of 50,000 more.' - A tax on whom?
  • 'When Arthur's forces threatened his mother, John won a significant victory, capturing the entire rebel leadership at the Battle of Mirebeau.' - Whose mother? John's or Arthur's
  • In the 'Historiography' section, there are several phrases such as 'He was a bad king' and he was no Englishman' that have no place here unless caveated with 'Some think...' etc., and then followed by a relevant reference.

It generally seems well referenced, with a good range of sources used. I would raise a couple of small issues:

  • The whole second paragraph of the 'Angevin decline' section has only one reference, but makes several seemingly separate points. More references need to be added, especially after 'But, on his return to England, Richard forgave John and re-established his control.'.
  • What is reference number 81 meant to be referencing? The whole section? If so, I think that this is unnecessary and should be attached to the actual points in the section rather than the whole.
  • I think 'Current head: Extinct' in the infobox needs a reference.

On the whole, besides the minor grammar points, there don't seem to be a great deal of issues and they can certainly be easily fixed. I would give conditional support if these changes are met. Sotakeit (talk) 08:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

* I have looked at the Grammer points and think I have covered all of them. What do you think? Will look at the references in that paragraph tomorrow - thx Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Great. Very interesting article - especially the Legacy section. Once the referencing points have been looked at I'd be happy to give my full support. Sotakeit (talk) 12:23, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
** I think I've covered the ref questions, what do you think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:11, 25 June

2014 (UTC)

Looking good. Great article. Well referenced. Well written. Broad in its coverage. Well illustrated. Support. Sotakeit (talk) 09:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Sorry! :p pass. All updated, just waiting for the bot to get around to updating the article page. Sotakeit (talk) 08:58, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Duplicate Image

I was curious about why this image appears twice in the article?

One of only four surviving exemplifications

Kyle(talk) 19:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

  • Simple mistake on my part when moving text about, really. Duplicate removed. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)