This article is within the scope of WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the history of Europe on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wales, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Wales on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of defunct states and territories (and their subdivisions). If you would like to participate, please join the project.
The Magna Carta is not a "weakness" per this Wikipedia article's support of monarchy as a historical precedent.
The Magna Carta was not a "weakness" per this Wikipedia article's support of monarchy as a historical precedent, so stop pretending their is no bias in these historical generalizations about the Plantagenet royal line. Centralized authority in the monarchy does mean a country is sovereign or that it is more civilized than collectivist forms of government.
I think the point being made is that it was John's (and his successors) political vulnerability that was the motivation behind the monarch agreeing and sealing of the various versions of Magna Carta rather than any motivation to share power. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I'll use this to note possibly controversial things and to ask questions. Please thread to each bullet.
Arrival in England, para 2: "Matilda invaded England in 1139, initiating the civil war known as The Anarchy." But that article says that the Anarchy started in 1135. --Stfg (talk) 15:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Yep, very confusingly written - have separated these to show cause (Stephen's accession rather than Matilda's invasion) and effect (Matilda's invasions). What do you think @Stfg:Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, good now. --Stfg (talk) 10:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Arrival in England: need to sort out the younger Geoffrey. Para 1 links him to Geoffrey, Count of Nantes, and that article says that he died in 1158. But the first bullet says he died in 1154. --Stfg (talk) 16:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Simple error - source says he died in 1158, txt corrected to match. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
Angevin zenith, para 3: "This fate was viewed as retribution for the murder of Becket." Viewed by whom? --Stfg (talk) 16:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
added from source french and english contemporary moralists. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Expansion in Britain, last para: "With the English heir in her power, Isabella refused to return to England unless Edward II dismissed his favourites and also formed a relationship with Roger Mortimer." This is ambiguous as to whether Isabella formed a relationship with Mortimer or made Edward's forming such a relationship a condition of her return to England. I've assumed it's meant to refer to the fact that she became his mistress in that year. Is that right? --Stfg (talk) 18:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
House of York, para 2: "A point he emphasised by—from 1148— being the first to assume the Plantagenet surname." Please clarify. I thought we were talking about a 15th-century Richard. --Stfg (talk) 20:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
date error corrected, should have been 1448, corrected Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
House of York, para after the first list: "When Richard joined them, ...". Which of the three Richards involved in this paragraph? --Stfg (talk) 20:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Tudor: I'm wondering what "notional" means in the first sentence? --Stfg (talk) 21:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
I think it is meant to infer these succession lines are purely conjectural combining assumptions around proximity and primogeniture that are not legally clear now and wouldn't have been at the time. A case could be made but it's success would most likely rest on other factors as is illustrated in the para on the Elizabethan succession. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
Ah, thank you, I see. It might be difficult for most readers to get that from the current wording, and the sentence needs tweaking anyway because "claim to have a stronger hereditary claim" is awkward. What would you think of replacing "... who by notional modern standards could claim to have a stronger hereditary claim ..." with "... who might today be thought to have a stronger hereditary claim ..." (or change "thought" to "suspected" if you prefer)? --Stfg (talk) 09:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
I think thought works wonderfully well. I'll amend. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
A punctuation detail that arose often: lest anyone worry about inconsistent punctuation in a phrase like "He fled with his brother Richard, while their remaining brother, William, was imprisoned in the Tower" (no comma before Richard, but commas around William), the reason is the rule described in Apposition#Restrictive versus non-restrictive. That is, Richard is restrictive because we need it to understand which brother is referred to, while William is non-restrictive because "their remaining brother" already makes it clear who we're talking about. This issue arises quite often in this article. --Stfg (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Pole, para 2: "In 1538 her sons, Geoffrey Pole and Henry Pole, 1st Baron Montagu, Henry's wife, brother-in-law—Edward Neville — were arrested following the discovery that he had been in communication with Reginald ...". I'm sorry, I can't figure out what this means. Which wife? Whose brother-in-law? The discovery that who had been in communication with Reginald? --Stfg (talk) 21:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
reworked phrasing to attempt to make it read better. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I have now rephrased this.....does it make more sense @Stfg:? Thanks Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Yes, all clear now, thanks. --Stfg (talk) 12:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
@Stfg: thanks for all your efforts. I think I have answered all of these points. What do you think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Indeed you have. It's been a pleasure working with you. Best regards, --Stfg (talk) 12:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Hchc2009, can you explain why you object to the addition of the broom badge, which was used by several members of the House of Plantagenet (Henry II, Richard I, Henry III, Richard II) and probably also gave them their name? Zacwill16 (talk) 21:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
There are a couple of issues here, as also highlighted earlier by User:Mywikedit.
The first, in response to the point you've made above, is that the Victorian beliefs concerning the broom badge and the surname "Plantagenet" are not generally upheld by modern historians. The works already cited in the article here give a good background to this discussion: there is no particular evidence that Geoffrey II's descendants (Henry II, Richard I or Henry III) used the name "Plantagenet" or indeed the planta as a badge - this was a claim made popular in the 19th century, but since largely been challenged by medieval specialists (see, for example, the critique by John Gillingham). Richard II did adopt the name and the symbol, for various reasons, but not until around 1460. It is also unclear if even Geoffrey II used it as a badge, or if he became associated with the name of the plant because of his love of hunting - an ambiguity reflected in this article's current text.
The second is that material in the wiki needs to be verifiable and, where challenged, cited to a source. If we are suggesting to readers that Richard II's use of theplanta as a bage looked like the image in the picture, this needs a source like any other claim. If we are claiming a particular design without references to reliable sources, then we are engaging in WP:Original Research - and there are serious issues with that. Hchc2009 (talk) 23:04, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
As would be expected I agree entirely with Hchc2009 although would I be correct in thinking instead of Richard II he means Richard of York, 3rd Duke of York? Apart, as he says, I am not aware of any evidence of the broom as a badge or use of the name before the 15th-century.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:49, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Broom slips appear on either side of the throne in the first seal of Richard I, and also form part of the decoration on Geoffrey V's tomb.Zacwill16 (talk) 10:07, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
PS: do either of you have sources for your claim that the early Plantagenets did not use the broom badge? So far I seem to be the only one that has cited my statements, though Hchc2009 vaguely mentions a "critique by John Gillingham". Zacwill16 (talk) 10:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Gillingham Richard I p. 25 footnote 4 "Although there is near-contemporary warrant for the name 'Plantagenet' applied to Geoffrey [Geoffrey the father of Henry II] ... its use as a family name goes back no further than the fifteenth century, and the story of the 'sprig of broom' is much later still". Ealdgyth - Talk 12:22, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Barlow Feudal Kingdom of England (4th ed.) p. 199 "The device of Geoffrey's son, King Henry II of England is not known; but his grandson, King Richard I, like William fitzEmpress, bore a single lion on his shield at the beginning of his reign and later three of the beasts walking. This coat of arms, gules three leopards, was worn unchanged by his successors until 1340, when Edward III quartered the Plantagenet lions with the fleurs-de-lis of France." which would seem to state that no, the "broom" badge was not used by several members of this house. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:33, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
This is discussing coats of arms, which are not the same things as badges. The monarchs of England used a great many badges (a list can be found in this article) but as your source states, their arms were only changed a handful of times. For example, Richard III's adopted the personal badge of a boar, but his arms were still the lions of England and fleurs-de-lis of France. Zacwill16 (talk) 12:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
And of course, as Hchc2009 pointed out, this work, which is cited in the article, also points out that there is no contemporary use of the Plantagenet name for any of Geoffrey's descendants until 1460. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
That's besides the point. I agree that the early Plantagenet monarchs didn't use "Plantagenet" as their surname; what I don't agree with is that they didn't use the broom badge. Zacwill16 (talk) 12:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
@Zacwill, my "vague mention" of the critique is cited prominently in the works mentioned in the article - Angevin Empire, 2nd edition, p.3. For a discussion of the Richard I seal, it's worth taking a look at "Seals and their Context in the Middle Ages", by Schofield, who highlights the key problem with that solitary example - it is very hard to tell if it is actually supposed to be planta on the seal, not least because other people used similar vegetation on their seals at around the same time which was almost certainly not intended to represent planta. @Norfolk - yep, my mistake! Hchc2009 (talk) 13:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Regardless, I still think a depiction of the badge belongs in the article. We know as fact that later monarchs used it, and it's quite possible (though as you say, not certain) that the early monarchs used it as well. A contemporary illustration would be ideal, but as, to my knowledge, there isn't one available on Commons, a modern illustration will have to do. Zacwill16 (talk) 13:53, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Provided the representation is sourced, I wouldn't object to it being used to illustrate the badge used in the 15th century. But if the depiction isn't reliably sourced, and is just our editorial imagination, then I would have a problem with that, since it would be Original Research. Hchc2009 (talk) 13:55, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
The illustration I added previously matched that given in Montagu's Guide to the Study of Heraldry, which was stated to be taken from Richard II's monumental effigy in Westminster Abbey. Zacwill16 (talk) 15:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
They're not identical; Montagu has drawn a branch with four pods, and two flowers; the wiki drawing has five pods and three flowers... Hchc2009 (talk) 15:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Things like that have never been standardised. A badge is not like a corporate logo, the appearance of which is rigidly set down. If one were to collect all contemporary depictions of the badge, some would have four pods and two flowers, some would have five pods and three flowers, some would have three pods and one flower, some might have no flowers and just pods, &c., &c. Zacwill16 (talk) 15:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
If the source we're citing describes/illustrates it in a particular way, we should follow that description/illustration. Montagu doesn't say anything about Richard's tomb varying from other contemporary descriptions of the badge etc. - he simply claims to have copied the image on the tomb. Altering it without a suitable reference is, again, OR. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:56, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
If you think the illustration of the badge is wrong, I recommend you take it up with Sodacan, the person who made it. I'm sure he was working from a source, even if he hasn't added it to the file page. Zacwill16 (talk) 07:59, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I think I understand your frustration on this matter Zacwill16 as I have experienced similar in the past and while it is irritating that editors object to what seems a good sourced idea that does not necessarily make it wrong. All your sources follow a particular paradigm of Victorian triumphalism in which the eventual success of crown, parliament and Protestantism was thought to be inevitable and traceable back to the Norman conquest. Thinking has moved on since then. There is nothing before or since that you refer to. As you acknowledge this family had many badges - this article covers more than 3 centuries are we to add every badge used. This argument is very similar to the one we have about Roses—again no doubt that Lancaster and York used them but it wasn't the major badge of either, or thought significant at the time and was then applied retrospectively for a variety of reasons. The Rose problem also shares the use of Victorian imagery as if it was a medieval symbolism. Unless you can find an sourced image that addresses these points I don't think you can expect to add it to this article and have a consensus accept it. Sorry. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 06:23, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I'm going to go over the article over the next few days and copyedit as much as I can. I'll probably leave some notes either here or on the MILHIST A-Class review page. Thank you, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 18:25, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
"This was not necessarily due to the conscious intentions of the Plantagenets" in the lede. What does that mean? The Plantagenets did nothing, but England developed on its own, or the Plantagenets instituted some rules that, without their intentions to do so, brough about these developments? --ceradon (talk • contribs) 20:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
I think the intention of the sentence in to indicate a bit of both. They did make conscious and successful reforms but the overall result was also due to unintended consequences as well those developments forced upon them. The long development of English law from Magna Carta is probably a good example. Should anyone be able to articulate this better I think they should feel free to do so. Cheers Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)