Talk:Edward I of England/Archive 1

Archive 1

Category: Main Image

Have replaced image of York Minster statue with that of possible portait of Edward I in Westminster Abbey. The reason behind this is, of course, down to the obvious fact that this image is associated with Edward I much more strongly among the (British) public. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.8.0 (talk) 23:39, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Is a 'possibly of' image appropriate for a title infobox? If there are no reliable images then I don't think that including a 'possibly' image is appropriate. If there is no contemporaneous image of someone then I don't think it is appropriate to include a 'maybe' image instead. On a secondary topic the face on this painting looks like it was redone by a 10 year old. Even it it was genuine at some point clearly it is no longer original. Mtpaley (talk) 21:19, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

It's an image that's commonly used in publications about Edward, including English Heritage and other quasi-governmental institutions. Hchc2009 (talk) 05:42, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

OK I admit that if this is the widely recognized picture then wikipedia should use it. I still have to point out that the face is clearly done later so the chances of it being contemporaneous are minimal but it is not Wikipedias role to worry about such stuff. Mtpaley (talk) 22:13, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I admit that if this is the generally accepted image it should be used but there is still the obvious fact that the painting has been vandalised/tweaked/contemporised or whatever phrase you choose to use. The face is obviously painted over the original, surely nobody could deny that. It seems unreasonable that wikipedia should show this painting without prominent text saying that it is almost certainly incorrect or at least heavily tweaked to fit later preconceptions. Mtpaley (talk) 20:57, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Any manuscript image (for that matter any contemporary image) isn't going to be true to life ... the idea just didn't exist in the period. So talking about "incorrect" is a bit of an anachronism. And what evidence is there that it's been painted over? I've yet to see any evidence of that fact. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:21, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Category: Pertinence

"He was voted the 94th greatest Briton in the 2002 poll of 100 Greatest Britons." - is this an encyclopaedia entry or a page in Q magazine? This is such a trivial piece of information to be displayed in the opening paragraph of the entry I feel. 64.228.30.134 18:43, 28 January 2003 (UTC)

Category:Antisemitism (People)

It has been proposed that the category Category:Antisemitism_(People) be deleted. Since it has been proposed to add this article to that category, please consider voting on it at: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Antisemitism (People)--CTSWyneken 21:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I came across an article on (Edward I) and his persecution of the Jews.Presumably Edward borrowed money from the Jewish money lenders, as Christians were prohibited to lend money. When his debt became too enormous, he gathered the Jewish money lenders in a synagogue and set it on fire. I can not recall where I saw the article. Has anyone else come across this story? 70.231.231.17 07:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The synagogue story is almost certainly a fabrication. Prestwich devotes three pages to the expulsion, and says it "was not the occasion for massacres, as it might well have been", the average Englishman hating Jews as much or more than Edward; Edward gave them royal safe-passage out of the country. The only horror story recorded was where a shipowner persuaded the Jews on board (they had paid to cross the Channel) to take a walk on the sands when the ship grounded in the Thames estuary, and he left them to drown when the tide came in. Prestwich considers that the expulsion was as much political as financial, the records showing that the Jews' assets had been mostly vacuumed out by taxation already. Stan 17:58, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone knows why Edward I of england was deleted form the category "Anti-Semitic people"? - Roger_Smith 83.77.83.32 14:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Why bother putting medieval people in that category? It would be more noteworthy if they *weren't* anti-Semitic. Adam Bishop 14:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

So why is Agobard on the category "anti-Semitic people"? - Roger_Smith 62.203.130.101 17:42, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I've been deleting Edward I from the anti-Semitic category, because placing him there is contradictory to the reasoning given by this article for his treatment of the Jews. There is no evidence, to my knowledge, that Edward had any personal animosity for the Jews. Even if he killed many for financial reasons, does that mean he was anti-Semitic? -Whitebengal 21:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Bush genealogy

I came across a thing of the Bush Family's Geneology, and it says in the 24 generation, he was related to King edward 1. Should it be mentioned? the url is http://www.svu2000.org/genealogy/George_W.pdf Seamus215 01:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Please say its not true, im related to longshanks aswell, I REALLY DO NOT WANT TO BE RELATED TO GEORGE BUSH —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.216.134.34 (talk) 15:15, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Any person in the 24th generation has 2^24 = 16 million ancestors (assuming no in-breeding at all, which is impossible) considering that, it should not be regarded as notable. 198.54.202.242 (talk) 10:39, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Very improbable perhaps, maybe even astronomically unlikely; but impossible? The world population 24 generations ago (say 600 years) was between 310 million and 791 million (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population ). That's enough to allow for about 20 to 50 individuals today that have ancestors who haven't inbred since. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.140.235 (talk) 04:31, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

which means of course that most people are very inbred. I am also a descendant of Longshanks (as are several U.S. Presidents, Brad Pitt and Elizabeth Taylor). The amount of 3rd and 4th cousin marriage on all these lines is a bit shocking by today's standards, and then there's the occasional first and second cousin marriage as well - not to mention, of course, a resetting of part of the lineage clock with even 5-10th cousins marrying. When I look at where these people lived and their modes of transportation, it's not too surprising that only the King's female children and a few other high born kids got out of their immediate gene pool. And of course every descendant from any form of peerage made, for generations, attempts to "stay within their own kind," even if titles and styles were not inherited and they were all second, third, fourth and fifth born kids of some aristocrat. Edward's story (and the story of his children and grandchildren) make it clear how perilous bloodlines were even if one were King. He had what, 5 sons with Wife 1 and only 1 survived to adulthood? Amazing story - I wish sometimes that Wikipedia pulled out those kinds of details a bit more. 69.108.25.223 (talk) 04:53, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

In general, Longshanks is well known in the genealogy community for being an ancestor in many, many people's lineages. Seems like that might be worth a mention in the article (more so than a link to Bush or any other celebrity). M-1 (talk) 02:48, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Edward and the Great Cause

Among the lasting misconceptions concerning Edward's involvement in the question over the vacant Scottish throne is that he deliberately chose John Balliol as the creature of his ambitions. In 1290 the Scots, unable to settle the question of the succession by any internal process, invited Edward's arbitration to prevent the outbreak of a dynastic war. Although Edward insisted that he be recognized as the feudal superior of Scotland before giving the matter his full attention, the whole process that followed was both exhaustive and scrupulously fair. Edward did not 'pick' John Balliol; he emerged as the strongest candidate, being senior in descent from a former Scottish king. He was selected by a panel of arbiters, appointed by the leading candidates. Edward then gave formal judgement in his favour. These simple truths should not detract from Edward's later misuse of the feudal concessions he had gained. Rcpaterson 02:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC) Not quite so...Edward was asked to administer the court, not to arbitrate. This is an important distinction. John Balliol was certainly the correct legal heir and the decision was made by the jurors, not Edward.

Persecution of Scots and Jews

Doubt this goes here but here goes: I didn't see any mention whatsoever of how Longshankes captured Scottish Royal females & friends fo the Scottish Royal family; and had them imprisoned. Though this may not be something very important, or out of the ordinary; but it would be if three of the Scottish females were locked up in an actual cage! One Scottish female who was locked in a cage, happend to be the sole heir to the Scottish throne, who happend to be barely tweleve years of age! Something this huge should be mentioned in his article.

The additional information concerning the persecution and murder of Jews in England by Edward I, was taken from the Government of Ontario, Canada television service, TVO. The weekly series, made in Britain, is title A History of Britain. For more information see the following external link: [2]

I believe that no less an authority than Winston Churchill wrote in "Birth of Britain" that Edward II borrowed money from the Jewish money lenders and expelled them to avoid paying it back. I do not believe it was taxation, according to Churchill. 12.201.78.219 02:29, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Issue

Updated his issue according to these sites: 1 and 2.

Both of them mention two daughters, Beatrice and Blanche, born between 1986 and 1290 (Eleanor's death). They also mention Juliana (or Katherine), born in Palestine circa 1271, as well as Alice (1278-79) and a second Elizabeth (in one of them listed as being born in 1292, which is impossible since the queen had died 2 years earlier, and in the other one listed as born in the same year as Alice - twins?). The first Katherine (twin to Eleanor) is not menioned anywhere, probably due to an early death or confusion with the younger Katherine (called Juliana). 82.154.43.195 20:25, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Edward and the Jews

The section about the Expulsion on this page indicates that the reasons for the Expulsion had nothing to do with finances. While finances were not the only reason, they did play a factor. As this section lacks any citations, I'll be rewriting it once I get a hold of my books on the English Jewry. --Sidhebolg 20:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Number of childeren with Eleanor listed

My question is the number of children listed in the article. Why so many? I just read in The Times Kings & Queens of The British Isles, by Thomas Cussans ISBN 0-0071-4195-5 (page 86), where it states Edward (age 15) & Eleanor (age 13) when they were married went on to have 15 children of which 9 died. The article says they had 16 and the number of kids listed in the article is 17. The numbers dont add up! Dthem 2000 08:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Patrick mcgoohan.jpg

Image:Patrick mcgoohan.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 07:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Longshanks

Does anyone know why he was called Longshanks? 147.114.226.173 12:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

If you click the note at the beginning of the article, it says "Because of his 6 foot 2 inch (1.88 m) frame." Adam Bishop 00:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

He wore long trowsers; it was a nickname if you will, it's like calling him "neddy long trousers". 172.216.134.34 15:13, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

About his hight has anything been verified ???? i mean in modes times and not 237 hundred years ago! how reliable is an 18th century english account that reported that his body had been well preserved ?, and measured the king's body to be 6 feet 2 inches ??? (perhaps exaggerated)?? and is the value of fete still the same as in the 18th century ?? and finally could this prove that william wallace or robert the bruce (about an inch or two shorter but never mentioned for his hight) were exceptionally tall too --Cormag100 (talk) 22:25, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

It is well documented that the tomb of Edward I in Westminster Abbey was opened in the 18th Century and the remains of the King inspected and measured. I think we may be assured that there was sufficient technology available to measure the height of the King. Please also ber aware that the Plantagenets were inavariably very tall in comparsion to many of their conrempraries. Edward IV, for instance, was reputed to be 6' 4" tall, which must have been very impressive for the late 15th Century.Ds1994 (talk) 15:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

From WP:RD/H

Copied from Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2007 August 31. --Ghirla^-трёп- 21:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

As you clearly have discovered, the Wikipedia page on Edward I does not really do proper justice to a seminal reign (Why, I would have to ask, is there such a large section on contact with the Mongols, a minor episode, out of all proportion?! And the picture of Patrick McGoohan as the absurd 'Longshanks' from Braveheart is grossly out of place!) The real point to hold in mind here is that Edward was a complex man. Do not, I urge you, fall into the trap opened by the question you face; for Edward was both law-maker and law-breaker; Justinian and Joshua! He was certainly a 'bully' when it came to dealing with the Welsh and the Scots, jealous in every way of his imperial and feudal rights. But he could also be quite overbearing when it came to his own subjects. At the beginning of his reign, determined to restore some of the rights of the crown eroded during the reign of Henry III, his politically inept father, he instituted a series of legal inquiries, known as Quo Warranto. By this he challenged holders of liberties, particularly those with jurisdictions, like that enjoyed by the Palatinate of Durham, to prove that they held these by legal title. These investigations were a source of much friction, and Edward was compelled to modify his legal offensive in 1290 under political pressure from his barons. But it also provides an insight into the lawyer-like and nit-picking mentality with which Edward doggedly pursued the prerogatives of the crown, a clue to his later attitude towards his feudal superiority over Scotland.

So, yes, something of a single-minded bully, without a great deal of interest in constitutional niceties. Yet consider this: in 1275, not long after the beginning of his reign, he wrote to the Pope, explaining that he could do nothing concerning the power of the crown without "consulting the magnates and the prelates." It was during his reign that Parliament began to be a regular feature of the English political landscape. In the summons for that of 1295 it was announced that "What touches all should be approved by all.", meaning that taxation could only be granted by consent, one of the great founding principles of English constitutional law. It was during this time that the census known as the Hundred Rolls was taken, the first comprehensive survey of English property rights since the earlier Domesday Book. As a result, the law was further refined in the Stute of Westminster, and other law codes issue subsequent to this document. So, here is your English Justinian!

In ever sense, therfore, Edward was the perfect feudal lawyer; therin lies his strength, and therin lies his weakness. For his notions of what was right were often so narrowly defined and pursued with a single-minded purpose, regardless of the political damage caused, and with hidden costs to the crown. Unlike his father, he was a good soldier; but his conquest of Wales, and the attendant castle building, was ruinously expensive. It would have been wise to consolidate and pause for reflection, but the vacancy of the Scottish crown following the death in 1290 of Margaret opened what was to be known as the Great Cause. It was, perhaps, the defining moment of Edward's reign, confirming that jealousy of privilege and title that marked the outset of his reign in England. He came to Scotland as a lawyer, and as a bully; and he fought his wars in Scotland as a lawyer, and as a bully. You see-and this is a point that is often overlooked-Edward never, at any point claimed the crown of Scotland for himself: he simply fought to maintain his position as feudal overlord, granted to him by the Scots in 1292. Even in 1305, when the conquest seemed to be complete, Edward produced Ordinances for the government of Scotland, of which he is Lord, not King. Clio the Muse 01:41, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia List of Parliaments of England #Parliaments_of_Edward_I says that Edward had representatives from Scotland in his parliaments in 1292. That seems to indicate that he DID incorporate Scotland into England. 24.108.58.1 (talk) 04:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Tone

The tone of some of this piece is doubtful. Language under the image of Edward's US Congress Portrait is particularly doubtful. Claiming that Edward began the parliamentary system borders on ludicrous. This should be discussed and ammended accordingly. Zach Beauvais 19:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Picture

Why is the picture at the very top left hand side of this page the same as the Edward II page? shouldnt there be diferent pictures? Lovingnews1989 (talk) 04:14, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of information on the Mongols

I dispute the complete deletion of any mention of the relations of Edwards I with the Mongols [3]. This is a well-known and important part of Edward's life, which, in my opinion fully deserves representation in an Encyclopedia claiming to be "the sum of all knowledge". Deleting such important and referenced information seems quite incredible and unjustified. Deleted paragraphs:

As soon as Edward arrived in Acre, he sent an embassy to the Mongol ruler of Persia Abagha, an enemy of the Muslims. The embassy was led by Reginald Rossel, Godefroi of Waus and John of Parker, and its mission was to obtain military support from the Mongols. In an answer dated September 4, 1271, Abagha agreed for cooperation and asked at what date the concerted attack on the Mamluks should take place.

The arrival of the additional forces of Hugh III of Cyprus further emboldened Edward, who engaged in a raid on the town of Qaqun. At the end of October 1271, the Mongol troops requested by Edward arrived in Syria and ravaged the land from Aleppo southward. Abagha, occupied by other conflicts in Turkestan could only send 10,000 Mongol horsemen under general Samagar from the occupation army in Seljuk Anatolia, plus auxiliary Seljukid troops, but they triggered an exodus of Muslim populations (who remembered the previous campaigns of Kithuqa) as far south as Cairo.

When Baibars mounted a counter-offensive from Egypt on November 12th, the Mongols had already retreated beyond the Euphrates, but these unsettling events allowed Edward to negotiate a ten year peace treaty with the Mamluks.

At this point Edward was forced to return to England, having heard of his father's death. He remained in communication with the Mongols, and when a delegation was sent by Abagha to the Second Council of Lyons in 1274, the Mongol embassy visited Edward after the Council on January 28, 1275. A letter from Edward is known, in which he acknowledges Abagha's promise to fight together with the Crusaders.

Overall, Edward's crusade was rather insignificant and only gave the city of Acre a reprieve of ten years. However, Edward's reputation was greatly enhanced by his participation in the crusade and was hailed by some contemporary commentators as a new Richard the Lionheart. Furthermore, some historians believe Edward was inspired by the design of the castles he saw while on crusade, such as Krak des Chevaliers, and incorporated similar features into the castles he built to secure portions of Wales, such as Caernarfon Castle.

Later contacts with the Mongols

The Mongol ruler Arghun sent several embassies to European rulers from 1287, to invite them to join in combined operations against the Mamluks in the Holy Land. In 1287, he sent the Nestorian Rabban Bar Sauma, with the objective of contracting a military alliance to fight the Muslims in the Middle-East, and take the city of Jerusalem. Sauma returned in 1288 with positive letters from Pope Nicholas IV, Edward I of England, and Philip IV the Fair of France whom he had all visited. He met with Edward in the city of Bordeaux:.

"King Edward rejoiced greatly, and he was especially glad when Rabban Sauma talked about the matter of Jerusalem. And he said "We the kings of these cities bear upon our bodies the sign of the Cross, and we have no subject of thought except this matter. And my mind is relieved on the subject about which I have been thinking, when I hear that King Arghun thinketh as I think"

— Account of the travels of Rabban Bar Sauma, Chap. VII.

In 1289, Arghun sent a third mission to Europe, in the person of Buscarel of Gisolfe, a Genoese who had settled in Persia. The objective of the mission was to determine at what date concerted Christian and Mongol efforts could start. Arghun committed to march his troops as soon as the Crusaders had disambarked at Saint-Jean-d'Acre. Buscarel was in Rome between July 15th and September 30th 1289. He was in Paris in November-December 1289. Buscarel then went to England to bring Arghun's message to Edward I. He arrived in London January 5, 1290. Edward, whose answer has been preserved, answered enthusiastically to the project but remained evasive and failed to make a clear commitment, probably because of the difficult internal situation with the Welsh and the Scots. Edward sent a prominent English notable, Sir Geoffrey de Langley, to accompany Buscarel back to Persia.
Arghun then sent a fourth mission to European courts in 1290, led by a certain Chagan or Khagan, who was accompanied by Buscarel of Gisolfe and a Christian named Sabadin. Arghun's death on March 10, 1290, deprived the plan of a motivating force. On May 18, 1291, Saint-Jean-d'Acre was conquered by the Mamluks following a six week siege.
These attempts to mount a combined offensive had mainly failed because of the internal conflicts which preoccupied the European monarchs and this pattern was to continue.
In March 1302, Edward I would again respond to Mongol proposals (this time from Ghazan), explaining that he supported combined action but that he was obliged to give priority to challenges from nearby states:

"The wars that trouble Christiandom have blocked us for a long time from taking, as we would like, resolutions regarding the Holy Land. But when the Pope will have established favourable conditions, we will gladly commit all our forces to this enterprise, for which we wish a successful outcome, more than anything in the world."

— Letter from Edward I to Ghazan, 12 March 1302, Westminster.

Comments welcome. PHG (talk) 17:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I will repeat what I said about this on the Franco-Mongol alliance article. This is not a "well known and important part of Edward's life. Once more, in Prestwich's biography of Edward, which is comprehensive, there are seven pages in the index listed with a mention of Mongols. The main text of the book is over 500 pages. Arghun gets a mention on three of those pages. We don't mention every detail of every embassy sent by Edward, as we shouldn't, as we are writing in a "summary style" which means we aren't supposed to go into the detail you would in a comprehensive biography or historical monograph. Of course, I welcome any comments from other contributors to the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:06, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Articles on Wikipedia are not supposed to be written in "summary style" at all: actually that would "defeat the purpose of the contributions" (See Wikipedia:Summary style). In short, it is improper to delete important referenced information from an article, except if you provide a link to a more detailed sub-article somewhere else. One way or another, this information is proper and therefore should be reinstated. That some authors do not talk about it is irrelevant, because many others do indeed, in quite a lot of details. PHG (talk) 09:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

This is another article where undue weight was a problem. When the Mongol section, which gets a full sentence or two in most historical works, takes up a fourth of an article on the subject, something is wrong. Shortening this is perfectly acceptable. Unfortunately, even if the information that was removed is actually representative of the sources being used, once you remove the large and unnecessary quote sections, there's not really enough there for an entire article. Writing on Wikipedia should be clear and concise; I think Ealdgyth has done an excellent job copyediting here.

It's worth a sentence or two...not half the article. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Summary style, the solution is not to delete: "This information should not be removed from Wikipedia: that would defeat the purpose of the contributions. So we must create new articles to hold the excised information." If you consider that one fourth of the article for the Mongols is too much, then we should create a sub-article, such as Edward I and the Mongols, but deleting such proper and referenced information on the relations of Edward I with the Mongols is, I am afraid, improper and contrary to the aim of Wikipedia of being "the sum of all knowledge". Regards PHG (talk) 12:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I took an interest in this article when it was mentioned in a discussion on a talk page and discovered that it needed some copyediting. What I knew about Edward I before reading this article could have been written on the back of a postage stamp in inch-high letters. Personally, as an objective reader of the article, I found the material on relations with the Mongols very interesting. It wouldn't have occurred to me that English Kings were on speaking terms with Mongol Khans or prepared to ally with them. (I'd always thought that Mongols and Europeans got on like sodium metal and water.) Perhaps the disproportionate appearance of the space given to the Mongols in the article indicates that other parts should be added or expanded. Retarius | Talk 02:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Retarius for your comment. This is indeed important, if little-known, material. I would suggest that either we reinstate it in the article, if necessary in a slightly condensed form, or, if a two-line summary is preferred, create the Edward I and the Mongols as the main article for this subject. Regards PHG (talk) 09:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The criterion for including material in an article is not whether it's interesting or informative, but whether it's important to the subject. I'm no expert on medieval history, but even I can see that relations with the Mongols were not an important part of Edward's life or foreign policy. As Adam Bishop says, a sentence or so is sufficient, and in proportion with the treatment given by the biography mentioned by Ealdgyth. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:47, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to put detailed information about the Mongols into this biography of Edward I. Especially because this information is already covered in the article about the Ninth Crusade. I did go ahead and add a link to that article, in the "Crusade" section of the Edward biography here, and that should be all that's needed. I definitely do not see a need for an independent "Edward I and the Mongols" article, as that would definitely give undue weight to the contacts. PHG, I understand that you are fascinated by any connections between Asian and European culture, but that doesn't mean that each such contact is notable enough for its own article. If there were multiple published books and articles about "Edward and the Mongols", then a Wikipedia article might be appropriate. But as it is, we should keep things in context. Edward, as a major monarch of his time, communicated with a lot of people about a lot of different things. The Mongol communications were only a tiny portion of that. There's no need to go into any further detail. --Elonka 16:25, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

References

The Edict of Expulsion

I did some copyediting on this topic and added a reference note a while back. I've just noticed the following on the Humanities Ref Desk:

Edward I and the Edict of Expulsion

In your page on Edward I of England there is a section on the 1290 expulsion of the Jews. Some possible reasons are given for King Edward's decision, though nothing very specific. I would be grateful for any info on the reasons behind the precise timing of this measure. Thanks. Dora Kaplan (talk) 13:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

In truth, no-one really knows, although plenty speculate. Our article dismisses the usury angle because there was little for the crown to gain, but I think there's a good chance it may be relevant, particularly from the angle of baronial pressure for expulsion of those who were owed substantial moneys. Edward needed to keep his barons on-side and he'd rather they paid him any available cash to finance his ambitious wars, than any Jewish money-lenders. But, I'm speculating. The timing is odd, as it doesn't really coincide with any time of political weakness, but perhaps it's in an unusual lull in foreign martial exploits, so Edward was able to turn his attention to domestic affairs for once? --Dweller (talk) 15:50, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, we do know quite a lot about the precise timing of the Edict of Expulsion: the Wikipedia article here has clearly not yet caught up with the latest scholarship on the subject. Certainly Edward's decision was based on a long tradition of anti-Semitism, and the precedent of more limited expulsion, including one initiated by Simon de Montfort, who had expelled the Jews from Leicester early in his career. But in 1290 Edward needed money, which could only be obtained by a new Parliamentary grant of taxation. When Parliament was assembled, the knights of the shires demanded the expulsion of the Jews as a condition of such a grant. And so it followed. The measure was so popular that Edward received the biggest tax grant of the Middle Ages. Clio the Muse (talk) 21:16, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll see if I can obtain the reference for this from Clio and amend the section accordingly. Retarius | Talk 04:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Copied from the answer to my enquiry on Clio's talk page:

...the book you should look for is A Great and Terrible King: Edward I and the Forging of Britain by Marc Morris, published in England earlier this month by Hutchison. I took the specific reference from his article, Edward I: Best of Kings, Worst of Kings?, which appeared in the March 2008 issue of the monthly periodical History Today, p. 57. Clio the Muse (talk) 00:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to use this to improve the section on the Edict of Expulsion. Retarius | Talk 06:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Edward I and the Conquest of Wales

It is generally accepted, and stated in this article, that Edward was the monarch who conquered Wales. But is that actually true?

As I understand it, it was only the Principality of Wales that was made part of the Kingdom of England by the Statute of Rhuddlan, enacted on 3 March 1284, not the whole of Wales. The Principality comprised just two thirds of Wales, mainly in the north.

These territories did not include a substantial swathe of land from Pembrokeshire through south Wales to the Welsh Borders which was largely in the hands of the Marcher Lords and were not subject to English law.

So, is it correct to say that Edward 'conquered Wales'? Jongleur100 (talk) 11:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

As there has been no response to my question I propose to alter the sentence to read '....conquered large parts of Wales.'

Any objections? Jongleur100 (talk) 08:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't the south already held by the Marcher Lords who were loyal to the English Crown?76.104.225.168 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The Marcher lords were largely autonomous and Welsh law was frequently used in the Marches in preference to English law. as they were not legally part of the realm of England. Some of the lords paid lip service to the Crown, but even if they had been loyal the words 'Edward conquered Wales' would still have been wrong. ♦ Jongleur100 ♦ ^talk 10:41, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

By 1283 however all of Wales was conquered, and was under English rule for a further 120 od years before the rise of Glyndwr, but yeah, it was more the marcher lords (with some reinforcements sent by Edward) who conquered Wales rather than Edward himself.--81.151.118.233 (talk) 19:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Later career and death section.

A note, it does not actually say were or how he died? Celtic Muffin&Co. (talk) 17:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

"In 1307 he died at Burgh-by-Sands, Cumberland on the Scottish border, while on his way to wage another campaign against the Scots"

Not sure how he died though.--81.132.194.202 (talk) 00:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Childhood and marriages mismatch.

Guys, in this section it sais that "From 1239 to 1246 Edward was in the care of Hugh Giffard (the son of Godfrey Giffard) and his wife, Sybil", while on the page on Godfrey Giffard it says "Giffard was the son of Hugh Giffard of Boyton in Wiltshire,[1] a royal justice, and of his wife Sibyl". Considering that the years are right and Edward was born in 1239 and Godfrey in 1235, Hugh should be the father of Godfrey, but could someone having a reliable source double check and correct the Edward-page? RaulOancea 08:58, 21 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by RaulOancea (talk • contribs)

Done, cheers! Lampman (talk) 12:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

POV + Reference Please

Under 'Scottish Wars' section:

"Eventually, after weeks of English machination and intimidation," please would you reference it or remove it, many thanks Twobells (talk) 22:10, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't write this, but it's an interesting question; it depends on which authority you consult. Barrow (pp. 85-6) seems to think Edward used "excessive force", while Prestwich (p. 365) disagrees. I am currently undergoing a rewrite of the whole page, and hopefully I'll be able to deal with this issue in time. Lampman (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Coinage

File:Groat of Edward I 4 pences.jpg File:Edward_I_penny.jpg File:Edward_I_farthing_quarter_of_a_penny.jpg Edward I issued the first English Groats. From PHG (talk) 19:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Replaced the 1902 engraving with the pic, thanks PHG! Ealdgyth - Talk 19:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Also a penny and a farthing. You're welcome.PHG (talk) 19:53, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems one of the images has been included on the page. I remove the images here while maintaining the links, since they distort and confuse the talk page a bit. All images can be found on Commons. Lampman (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

New file

Recently the file File:King Edward I from memoranda roll.jpg (left) 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. This is a contemporary image of King Edward I from a memoranda roll. Dcoetzee 21:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, it's a good image and I might try to incorporate it into the article. I removed it from here though, as it distorts the talk page discussion a bit. All images can be found on Commons. Lampman (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Government of England between 1272 and 1274

Who was governing England between Henry III's death and Edward I's return to England? john k (talk) 03:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

A council, including Robert Burnell. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:19, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...the article on Walter de Merton states that he was "regent in all but name" during this period. Some discussion of the issue in this article would seem in order. john k (talk) 19:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Just a note that the Merton article is probably mostly lifted from the 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia, so it's probably outdated. The Rochester bishops are on my list, but a bit further down than where I currently am working (Lincoln) Ealdgyth - Talk 19:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Just some questions before the GA review...

1. Lead

• Lead is poorly worded in some areas. Edward submitted Wales to English rule...???? Wales submitted to English rule, or to Edward's rule. I changed it to English rule, but this is the sort of thing I mean. In another part... Initially brought in to arbitrate over a succession dispute, Edward claimed feudal suzerainty over the kingdom. In the war that followed, the English seemed victorious at several points, but Scottish resistance persevered." Initially asked to arbitrate a succession dispute, Edward claimed feudal suzerainty. In the ..... that followed, the Scots ...
  • Should have been "subjected" of course, that might have gone a bit fast. I tried to change the other part as you indicate.
• "... restoring royal authority after the reign of Henry III..." Most readers won't know what you're talking about.
  • The first paragraph deals almost entirely with the civil war of Henry III's reign; I figured this would explain it.

1. First Section:

• why start with name and epithets? Why not include that later?
  • I was in a lot of doubt about this, and decided to put it at the top simply because this seems to be what most people are concerned with (and indeed, it took up most of the lead section before I rewrote it). I'm happy to move it down though.

let's wait and see.

• "English Justitian".Do you mean Justinian?
  • Typo...

good, I thought I was clueless, I am sometimes, but this would have been an entirely new term.

1. Childhood and marriage

• some explanation of such an early marriage would probably be a good thing.
  • Well, at 15 it's really not that early. This would take a longer digression on marriage patterns in the medieval aristocracy to explain.

see my tweak to check for accuracy.

1. Generally, your prose uses weak verbs and gerunds, which deflects its power. I've inserted a couple of changes, to show you where and how you might strengthen this. Drop me a note when you have time to take a look. Auntieruth55 (talk) 23:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

• I know my language is sometimes criticized as overly vague due to such things as light verbs, gerunds and subjunctive. This is largely a matter of stylistic choice, because 1.) writing about the highly uncertain facts of medieval history, and 2.) trying to force a huge subject into a few paragraphs, I try not to use too bombastic language. Still, I know I can often make poor choices of words, and be sloppy (as demonstrated above...), so I'll be happy to receive input on this. Lampman (talk) 22:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

In this paragraph, for example:

Back in England, early in 1262, Edward fell out with some of his former (which-- Luisignan?) allies over financial matters. A year later (for his father?) he led a campaign in Wales against Llywelyn ap Gruffudd, with limited results (?).[19] Around the same time, Simon de Montfort, who had been out of the country (exiled??) since 1261, returned to England and re-ignited the baronial reform movement (Oxford? or Magna carte?).[20] The king (following his usually astute policy of mediation?) gave in (acceded?) to the barons’ demands, but Edward – who was now firmly on the side of his father – held out. He reunited with some of the men he had alienated the year before – among them his childhood friend, Henry of Almain, and John de Warenne, Earl of Surrey – and retook Windsor Castle from the rebels.[21] Through the arbitration of King Louis IX of France, known as Saint Louis, the two parties agreed to the an agreement was made between the two parties. This so-called Mise of Amiens, was largely favourable to the royalist side, but which laid the seeds for further conflict.[22]

I think what might make sense here is not necessarily to focus on the chronology, but to use the chronology to illustrate his learning curve. He was a smart man and arguably one of England's "better" Plantagenet kings. How did he learn his smarts, what kinds of trials and errors did he make, and how did he improve the condition of kingship in England? If you try to focus on Edward did first this and then that, and then something, else, you'll just have confusion. Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the "learning curve" as you call it is important, and I could probably emphasise this more. I agree that this part is a bit too much chronology without context. I'll see if I can rewrite it. Lampman (talk) 16:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Further thoughts of Edward's young adulthood.

Henry sought to stay above local conflicts between and among barons. It was part of his success, something he learned during the civil war. Although he was quite willing to exploit the Baron's conficts with one another, he best alternative to was to appear to them as a fair and impartial mediator of their disputes, and once he got that figured out, his problems with the Barons receded (they didn't go away, they just became less in his face). Edward didn't learn that for a while (if he ever really did). His policy was often to force his will, right? He did learn some political manuvering, but largely his ability to field a decent army and lead it to victory, or to persuade his opponents to hand over a key instigator (such as Wallace), was key to his success? Am I right about this? So Henry's watchword was finesse, and Edward's was force, then finesse.  ?? Auntieruth55 (talk) 00:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

No, this is not the historical consensus. Henry is generally seen as a failed king: he was very insistent on the royal prerogative, but was too weak and fearful to manage to enforce it. His reign was largely a failure, depending too much on unpopular courtiers, and the victory in the Barons' War and the stability of the last years of his reign was mostly due to the forceful intervention of Edward (and partly also others, like Richard of Cornwall and Gloucester). I haven't gone too much into the character of Henry III, since the article is not about him, but I could perhaps say more about what a failure his reign was, to emphasise Edward's task of restoring royal authority. As for Edward, that analyses is more correct: he got his way mostly through coercion - military political or judicial - but he lacked the ability for cooperation and compromise. This I get into more depth on in the "Character and assessment" section at the bottom. Lampman (talk) 16:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it needs some sort of analytical summary of the historiography, something to pull it together, otherwise it is one darn thing after another, and what's the point of that. He did a lot of toing and froing, and raising armies and such, but so what? Auntieruth55 (talk) 21:21, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I see you're working on it. That's good. One phrase jumped off the screen at me: Even though he managed to kill the assassin, he was struck in the arm by a dagger feared to be poisoned, and became strongly weakened over the next months --- Strongly weakened? Interesting juxtaposition. Auntieruth55 (talk) 01:00, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Funny you should mention that; I just noticed it with a "did I write that"-reaction...changed to "severely". Anyway, I've made some changes now to add some more context and analysis to his early life. Also added some more pictures. Lampman (talk) 04:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• • it's strange how we construct these statements, isn't it? Drop me a line on my talk page when you're ready. Ruth Auntieruth55 (talk) 18:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Lead

The lead is clearly underwritten in respect to Edward's later life, as the last date it mentions is the year of his coronation with nothing regarding his time as king. Can someone knowledgeable flesh it out?  Mbinebri  ^{talk ←} 22:00, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Opening of tomb in 1774

Was the opening of the tomb in May or January 1774? This article disagrees with 1774 in Great Britain. Drutt (talk) 10:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It was in May. I have changed the other article. Drutt (talk) 13:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Edward II and Caernarfon Castle

Regarding this edit, althoughGlanmor (talk · contribs) doesn't provide a source, they are correct. According to the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography "On 7 February 1301 Edward, now almost seventeen, was created prince of Wales and earl of Chester at the Lincoln parliament (although the title of prince was not used in official documents until May 1301)". Nev1 (talk) 16:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Then add it! (pokes Nev). Ealdgyth - Talk 17:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I wasn't sure how much to add as this article is about Edward I rather than his son but how's this? The way it was before made sense as there was a link through Caernarfon (although it was incorrect) whereas now I'm wondering if it still works. Nev1 (talk) 17:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I only watchlist this to keep an eye out for obvious vandalism. If it's close to what the source says, it's probably good. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

John Botetourt

The reference to John Botetourt at the end of the "Issue" section needs a citation.

To my understanding, it is not generally accepted by the historical community that Botetourt was the illegitimate son of the king. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.193.41 (talk) 21:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

A look at the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography suggests you're correct and I've made this change. Do you think that's ok? Nev1 (talk) 21:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.193.41 (talk) 00:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Issue section discontinuity

All of of a sudden, it says "By Margaret..." Margaret who? He loved his first wife, it says - and then all of sudden, is this a second wife with no relationship to him other than breeding with him? Why is Margaret neglected in this section? I realize for balance that Eleanor should get more words (more kids) but surely we should be reminded who Margaret is before we delve into her progeny at that point.69.108.25.223 (talk) 04:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

She's introduced at the bottom of the "Diplomacy and war on the Continent" section, above. --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Juliana...

Hello, Hchc2009! I want to greet you and explain something about Edward I’s family. I deleted Juliana’s name from the table of his issue because there is no evidence he had daughter Juliana. If Eleanor bore him a daughter at the time, there is still no contemporary source for her name. You can see this, where John Carmi Parsons wrote about names in Edward’s family. (My talk) 14:12, 28 March 2014

It's probably worth starting a thread on the talk page of Edward I, Mychele; if you like I can copy and paste this over? Hchc2009 (talk) 15:03, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, off course! Just go ahead; I will join discussion tomorrow! (original unsigned)

(Copied across from my talk page.) Hchc2009 (talk) 16:04, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Best source would be Prestwich's bio of Edward - the new edition from 1997. There is an excellent genealogical chart in the back. I have a copy of Parson's article on Eleanor, but it predates Prestwich's bio. Unfortunately, Medieval Studies isn't in JSTOR. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed tweak to bibliography...

If folks are content, I'm going to add the "ref = harv" label to the bibliographic templates, which should then allow the short citations to link directly to the volume in the bibliography if clicked on. It shouldn't change the visual appearance on the article page at all. Hopefully uncontroversial, but given WP:CITE, I think still worth asking first. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to propose a minor change to the citation style, separating descriptive footnotes (e.g. "As the sources give the time simply as the night between the 17 and 18 June, we can not know the exact date of Edward's birth.") into a separate section called "notes", distinct from the references - see William the Conqueror as an example of this in action. This would make it easier to see when a footnote is pointing to a citation, and when it is providing additional information to the reader. It is a minor change, but, as per WP:CITEVAR, this does require prior discussion on the talk page. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed change to pp page numbering...

I'd like to propose a (v.) minor change to the citation style. Multiple pages are currently numbered as (e.g.) pp.88-9. I'd like to alter this style to (e.g.) pp.88-89, which I think is easier to read on the screen / less easy to make minor mistakes with. WP:CITEVAR applies, though, thus this note. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:50, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:21, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Accession date

What exactly is the bases for the November 21 (or 20?) accession date? His father died on November 16, and since he himself was in the Holy Land, he can't even have found out that he was king until some months later, and he wasn't crowned until a few years later. So where does this date come from? What does it actually indicate? john k (talk) 07:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I think under English law a monarch succeeds immediately upon the death or abdication of his or her predecessor. Edward would have become king the moment Henry died, whether he knew about it or not. BTLizard (talk) 11:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Changed it back to November 16th, also somebody had changed Henry VIII's accession date (I've since fixed that aswell). The King/Queen is dead, long live the King/Queen (weither the new monarch knows about it or not). GoodDay (talk) 14:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I was just wondering where in the world November 21 came from - either he succeeds on his father's death, or at some other point, but given the circumstances November 21 made no possible sense as that other point, since Edward wasn't even in England then. john k (talk) 03:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Previously, English monarchs had reckoned their reigns from coronation. However, Edward was away when his father died, so the authorities decided to proclaim him king immediately after the funeral. Subsequent monarchs were proclaimed immediately after the death of their predecessor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.164.229 (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

We might question as well the section heading "Early reign, 1274–96". Was the period November 16, 1272, to August 19, 1274, not part of the "Early reign". I was not aware that the English had an Interregnum in their constitution! Also, if he met Pope Gregory X and if he met him in Rome, it would have to have been before the Pope left for Orvieto in June 1272. Pope Gregory X left Orvieto for Lyons on June 5, 1273. Where was Edward I between June 5, 1273, and his return to England on August 2, 1274? And what was he doing? A number of these dates must be wrong. Vicedomino (talk) 06:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Most historians don't talk about Edward "reigning" until his return and his actual coronation (either in practical or symbolic terms). In terms of movements, if memory serves Edward is in Scily in November 1272, Rome in February 1273, followed by Savoy, then Paris in summer 1273, then Gascony, and then finally back to England in August 1274. A fairly leisurely return. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

English kings from 1066 to 1216 dated their accession from the moment of their coronation. This meant that in this period there was always a short interregnum of a few days or weeks between consecutive reigns. In 1272, owing to the absence of Edward I in the Holy Land, which would have created an intolerably long interregnum, this practice changed. Edward's rule was proclaimed on the day after his father's death, and the magnates swore fealty to him on 20 November, the day of Henry's funeral. EDWARD HIMSELF dated his reign from 20 November. English royal documents - letters, charters, writs, etc - are always dated by regnal years, and 20 November is the date on which Edward's regnal year began, according to his own chancery. See Cheney, Handbook of Dates, pp. 18-20, and, for fuller explanation of the historical context, http://www.marcmorris.org.uk/2015/10/the-death-of-king-john-and-later.html (Dr Marc Morris) 12:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Please don't edit as both an IP and as two other accounts on the same page. See Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. It's alright on this talk page because you have self-identified (I added the citation to Cheney's Handbook of Datesaddingcitation) but you shouldn't make identical edits from different accounts/IPs ([4][5][6][7]). Celia Homeford (talk) 15:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The Handbook of British Chronology, 3rd edition, which is cited for the accession date in the infobox gives 20 November 1272 as the accession date. So changing it to 16 November is wrong. But the body of the article gives 16 November as the death date of Henry III, so it's somewhat confusing to have a different date cited in the infobox. Obviously, there is disagreement in the sources so it probably needs explication in the body text - not edit warring and information that is cited to a source that doesn't support the information. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:15, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Does this mean that The king is dead, long live the king doesn't apply here? Was the throne actually vacant for 4 days? Remember, proclamations don't have to occur on the same day the previous monarch died. Elizabeth II was only proclaimed on February 7, 1952. GoodDay (talk) 14:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary, the HBC gives three dates, one of which is the 16th, and the second source only gives the 16th. So, your claim that I'm edit warring against the sources is wrong. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The Royal Council in 1272 declared "The throne shall never be empty. The country shall never be without a monarch". GoodDay (talk) 14:34, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

1272 was indeed a pivotal moment, in that Edward I's reign began before his coronation, unlike all previous reigns back as far as 1066. But, as above, his reign was reckoned *at the time* to have begun on 20 November, when the assembled magnates at Westminster swore fealty to him. As for the proclamation of 'the royal council' in 1272, I can find no source for this quote, and it isn't contemporary.

Yes, the throne was vacant for 4 days in 1272 - just as it was vacant for 9 days in 1216, 7 weeks in 1199, 6 weeks in 1189, etc. HBC gives the date of Edward's *accession* as 20 November, for the good reason set out previously, that Edward's own chancery, and every other branch of royal government, dated his accession from that moment. This is why I added the citation to Cheney's Handbook of Dates, which lists the dates for all regnal years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RogerBigod (talk • contribs) 14:53, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The Handbook says "Edward I, s. of Henry III and Eleanor of Provence; b. 17-18 June 1239; acc. 20 Nov 1272; d. 7 July 1307. " then on page 39 "Regnal years: Henry III died 16 Nov 1272; the peace of K. Edward was proclaimed in London, 17 Nov. and on 20 Nov 1272 (day of the funeral of Henry III) the magnates swore fealty to K. Edward. Coronation 19 Aug. 1274. Regnal years dated from 20 Nov. 1272." That's pretty clear that his reign dates from 20 November 1272, according to the Handbook. It definitely does NOT support an "accession" field date for 16 November. Scans of page available if needed. The HBC date clearly only supports the 16 Nov date for Henry's death, it is never connected to the accession in the text from the HBC. It's pretty obvious that we need more explication of this dating issue in the body of the article ... so then we can put a range in the infobox. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Charles II's regnal years were dated from 30 January 1649, but his infobox does not use this date (nor should it). The dates in the reign section of the infobox are not meant to be regnal dates: they are the dates of the reign as seen retrospectively from the modern day. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

We cannot say that the HBC says the accession date is 16 November though - it VERY clearly says "acc. 20 Nov 1272". Just because there are other dates they list does not mean that "acc. 20 November 1272" actually supports our infobox saying 16 November and using the HBC as a citation. It's pretty clear. If other sources (say Prestwich or other biographers) use the start of the reign as 16 November, then use THOSE sources in the infobox. I really don't care what date is in the infobox, but we cannot say the HBC supports the 16th... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The royal council in 1272, declared that the throne can never be empty. GoodDay (talk) 15:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Source please? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

It's in the article The king is dead, long live the king!. -- GoodDay (talk) 15:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Where it has no source. Wikipedia sources are not reliable sources for other Wikipedia articles. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

What a stinker this is. I can't find the source in that article. Perhaps a citation tag here & there, is required. GoodDay (talk) 15:58, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

"The dates of the reign as seen retrospectively from the modern day" is a slippery slope, in that it involves disregarding contemporary opinion and substituting your own belief that reigns should form a seamless continuum. People in the period 1066-1272 didn't think that was the case. Prior to the reign of Edward I, contemporaries believed that kingship was conferred at the moment the new king was anointed during his coronation ceremony. The first full description we have of an English coronation ceremony is that of Richard I in 1189, written by a witness, Roger of Howden, and he pointedly refers to Richard as 'the duke' up to the moment of unction. Edward I, his chancery clerks, his judges, his sheriffs, his foresters - in short, all of his subjects - dated his reign from 20 November 1272.

Re: 'the throne can never be empty': call off the search, it's not a contemporary quote. I went through all the available contemporary evidence for Edward's accession when I wrote 'A Great and Terrible King'. (Marc Morris) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.78.152 (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to change reign dates

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject English Royalty#Reign_dates Jhood1 (talk) 17:12, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Here are some sources for the reign dates of Edward I being (20 Nov 1272 - 7 Jul 1307):

• Handbook of British Chronology (Fryde et al) p.38
• Handbook of Dates (Cheney) p. 33
• A Great and Terrible King (Marc Morris) p.104
• Here is a quote from the Handbook of British Chronology: ‘On his father’s death, Edward I was far distant and the time of his return uncertain. Special measures were therefore obviously necessary to secure an orderly succession. The conception expressed in the maxim ‘le roi est mort, vive le roi’ had, however, not yet been reached, for there was an interregnum of four days before the new king’s peace was proclaimed and his reign was regarded as having begun.’ p.31

Jhood1 (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Rice ap Meredith

One of the characters in the George Peele play is a Welsh ally of Lluellen called Rice ap Meredith. The introduction states that Rice attacked in 1287 and was captured the next year. It says that the play compresses the three Welsh rebellions into one even though it was five years later, and Lluellen and his brother, David, were already dead at this point. There is no article on Rice ap Meredith at the present time, which I find utterly baffling if this is a real person. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 23:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

This seems to be article you're after: Rhys ap Maredudd.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 00:55, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Beatrice of Geneva

Watson (1895) says Beatrice of Savoy's mother was Beatrice of Geneva. The article had said that it was Marguerite of Geneva and claimed that this information was cited in Davin (1963). But Davin seems to say on page 177 that it's more likely that Beatrice of Savoy's mother was Thomas of Savoy's first wife (Beatrice of Geneva) not his second wife (Marguerite of Faucigny), although admitting that it is debatable. The best summary of this problem that I've found is on the French wikipedia at fr:Thomas Ier de Savoie#Famille et descendance, which discusses the confusion. There's another great summary at http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/burgkgenev.htm#BeatrixMargueriteGeneveMThomasISavoie. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:14, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Timeline of issue

I'd like to have a timeline of him, his wives and his descent to see how long (or short) they lived and if they coincided. I was going to add it myself by after reading Help:EasyTimeline_syntax and Wikipedia:Timeline, it seems complicated:

a complicated graphical timeline is a non-trivial affair. A simple timeline may take half an hour to compose (or even less, when a suitable example is taken as a basis). Large timelines may take a few hours for composition and fine-tuning.

Can you do it? --Error (talk) 14:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

″ In 1306 he banned the burning of coal ″

is there any known source for this text? ″... as a final measure, the King installed the death penalty in an attempt to shock the people into changing their ways and stop burning coal″ sounds pretty freakish to me, but this isn't a fringe webpage.--Chianti (talk) 14:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

There seem to be almost no reliable sources for this, but [8] says that he banned sea coal. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 11 June 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move. The comments are evenly split between supporters and opposers, with one side arguing for conciseness and common name and the other for consistency and clarity. In the absence of a clear consensus, the current article titles are retained. (non-admin closure) Celia Homeford (talk) 07:49, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

---

• Edward I of England → Edward I
• Edward II of England → Edward II
• Edward III of England → Edward III

– All biographies of Edward I, Edward II and Edward III cited in this article and found by me on Google Books call them Edward I, Edward II, and Edward III in the title, respectively. Examples include Prestwich's Edward I, Phillips' Edward II, and Ormrod's Edward III, all comprehensive biographies. They are virtually never called "of England" in reliable sources, and the reason might be that there is no need to label them as such. Indeed, Edward I, Edward II, and Edward III already redirect to Edward I of England, Edward II of England, and Edward III of England. Therefore I suggest that Wikipedia use the names that are overwhelmingly more common in reliable sources (per WP:COMMONNAME policy) and that are precise and concise (per WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE policies). WP:NCROY guideline has moved on from prescribing unnecessary disambiguation too. We have had George VI and James VI and I for a decade and Elizabeth I and Henry VIII for a year; the universe has not imploded. Surtsicna (talk) 10:05, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Support. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)#Sovereign applies: "If the regnal name and number are unambiguous, use them: Louis XVIII, Edward VIII, Alfonso XII, Gustaf VI Adolf. Adding a country to the article title, when there is no other country with a monarch of that name, goes against WP:PRECISION." Dudley Miles (talk) 10:58, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Support. They are far better known than all the others Edward I, Edward II or Edward III. --Edouard2 (talk) 16:38, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. There was no consensus to move Harald V of Norway or Franz Joseph I of Austria last year. When a monarchs in a line of succession (a) draw their names from a common name fund and (b) distinguish like-named individuals by ordinal, then the [Name] [Ordinal] of [Country] format is ideal for the entire succession (exceptions, perhaps, at constitutional inflection points). The old system was fine and the new system is no system at all, leading to ugly and needless inconsistency. Now we'll have John, King of England followed by Henry III of England followed by Edward I. What's worse: NCROY seems to only work for British and near-British monarchs. Even "Franz Joseph I" is apparently too exotic and unrecognizable to Wikipedia's editors. Srnec (talk) 03:14, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

The new system is to use common names, names used in reliable sources; it is a policy, hardly no system at all. That the old system was not fine is exemplified precisely by John, King of England, which used to be at John of England, and by countless exceptions, including Byzantine, Holy Roman and German emperors, Polish kings, etc. Surtsicna (talk) 13:50, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

But I wouldn't agree that the current title isn't the common name. It is the common name plus a disambiguator. Certainly John (king of England) → Henry III (king of England) → Edward I makes more sense than John, King of England → Henry III of England → Edward I and is a more standard form of disambiguation. The reason such titles have never caught on is that they can never be used in prose as is, making every link either a redirect or a pipe. The fact is that English-language biographical titles are not a good guide to how we title our articles. Even very ambiguous royal names, like Henry IV, are often used as titles for such biographies. Srnec (talk) 16:00, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

But there is nothing wrong with redirects. Having to link via redirects is no obstacle to using the most sensible and most common form of disambiguation. Surtsicna (talk) 17:32, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:NATURALDIS. Srnec (talk) 22:53, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per Srnec. Those other moves broke a perfectly fine guideline for no good reason. We should not make it worse. Egsan Bacon (talk) 03:58, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I can understand not agreeing with a proposal, but how is usage in reliable sources "no good reason"? Surtsicna (talk) 13:50, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support, per this ngram. So there is a bias for the English monarchy, per Srnec. Articles with wide readership should be at the most familiar form of the subject's name. This move doesn't stop Franz Joseph I of Austria from being moved to "Franz Joseph." 99to99 (talk) 11:12, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, as these bios should all be reverted back to Name # of country form. PS - I acknowledge though, that 'no doubt' that won't happen & more monarch bio articles will be nominated for/moved to Name form only. Just like a few years ago, many monarch articles were moved to Nickname forms, like Frederick II of Prussia to Frederick the Great. All very frustrating, but then that's Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 16:32, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support, my impression is that these are by far the most famous Edward I, Edward II, and Edward III. Векочел (talk) 02:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with GoodDay that all articles should be restored to Name # of country form. Wikipedia is getting rapidly worse in disambiguating articles. Dimadick (talk) 20:05, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I think the vast majority of people who search Google for Edward I have in mind the English king. And the same can be said about the other two Edwards. If Norway suddenly produces kings named Edward, we can have a second look. But as it stands now there is only one ruler of a major European state who is numbered Edward I or II or III. Векочел (talk) 03:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per Surtsicna's valid point ~ there is nothing wrong with redirects: The proposed titles here already point to the intended articles, so that vast majority of people searching for the Longshanks via Edward I will find him, which is what we want, yet leaving the titles as they are retains a small measure of consistency in our titling; happy days, Lindsay^Hello 07:49, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Dudley Miles. COMMONNAME, PRECISION, PRIMARYTOPIC and NCROY all support this move. I see no policy basis to oppose, and no IAR argument either. And no, consistency does not apply here; we do not try to make titles not requiring disambiguation to be consistent with titles that do. All !votes arguments should be weighted according to how well they are supported by policy. Accordingly, the opposition here should be pretty much ignored when determining community consensus regarding this proposal. —В²C ☎ 06:36, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • The problem with unnecessarily disambiguated titles like these is they imply other articles with similar titles exist. For example, Edward I of England implies we have at least one more article titled Edward I of NotEngland. But of course we don't. It's misleading. --В²C ☎ 21:05, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Do Anaheim, California, Jersey City, New Jersey, and East Rutherford, New Jersey rather than just Anaheim, Jersey City, and East Rutherford imply that we have articles titled Anaheim, SomeOtherPlace, Jersey City, SomeOtherPlace, and East Rutherford, SomeOtherPlace? Egsan Bacon (talk) 21:23, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
      • Yes they do, and it’s one of the reasons I have long opposed the discordant US city naming policy. And more than a decade ago I argued by allowing unnecessary disambiguation for US cities editors will use it as a precedent to argue for unnecessary disambiguation in other categories of articles (and here we are). But the argument that including the state for US cities (except the most well-known ones on the AP list) is part of the most common name and not disambiguation at all prevailed, unfortunately. I hold out hope reason will eventually prevail there too. We’ll see. —В²C ☎ 06:21, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
        • Then we agree that your initial arguments are out of step with the very widespread (and very frequently discussed) naming convention WP:USPLACE. If the community consensus interpretation of policy was as you say, USPLACE would not be as it is. As such, the closer should be sure to take that into account when determining who (if anyone) should have their arguments be, as you said, pretty much ignored when determining community consensus. Egsan Bacon (talk) 03:48, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
          • No. The argument accepted by community consensus (with which I disagree, but that’s beside the point) at USPLACE is that the city, state form is the most common name for the given city. That’s not the argument here for the name ordinate of country form. —В²C ☎ 05:05, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Born2cycle.  Mysterymanblue  21:14, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Given that "Edward I" is the common name, the function of "of England" is natural disambiguation. The question then is whether the English king is the primary topic for "Edward I", such that the disambiguation becomes unnecessary. He is the primary topic, so I support the move. Similarly for Edwards II–VIII. Adumbrativus (talk) 04:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

• Edwards IV–VI have not been RM'd yet. Srnec (talk) 22:53, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• Since Born2cycle asked, here is the IAR argument. Applying policy as he would produces strange and incomprehensible results: John, King of England followed by Henry III of England followed by Edward I. Moreover, Wikipedians are not apparently interested in it: see Harald V of Norway or Franz Joseph I of Austria. We have similar sorts of guidelines for popes and Holy Roman emperors. Is Pope Gregory VII the common name, maximally precise? Frederick I, Holy Roman Emperor? Click on Conrad III, Sancho VII or Baldwin IV to see what the primary topic is and ask: would the encyclopedia be improved if we removed "of [country]" from the title? And I'm only scratching the surface of monarchs' page that could be moved. The hodgepodge of titles that would result is not an improvement. The old NCROY guidance was not created for every monarchy (hence Ramesses II and Charles the Bald), but is intended for those drawing from a common fund of names and relying on ordinals to distinguish individuals. For such monarchies, it produced consistent, predictable and easily recognizable titles at minimum cost. It has been chipped away at mainly for British and French monarchs precisely because there does not appear to be actual consensus for its broad application. Or so I read the failure of the Harald and Franz Joseph RMs. Srnec (talk) 22:53, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

  I disagree those are strange and incomprehensible results. It’s not for us to judge how or why the real world refers to the topics we cover; it’s our job to reflect that usage, even if it results in apparent inconsistencies. And the encyclopedia is better for doing so. —В²C ☎ 15:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

  The real world does not have disambiguation rules. The "real world" does not have an opinion on "John, King of England" versus "Henry III of England" and our choice here does not reflect anything but our rules. The inconsistency does not stem from "out there". A real world encyclopedia like the Britannica treats John, Henry III and Edward I the same way, i.e. consistently. Srnec (talk) 00:46, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per Srnec. I would add that we should avoid rules which we don't need. Medieval institutions and names changed over time, as has modern English terminology. So these names often require case by case discussion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:11, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Srnec above, et al. It's not clear what benefit we would get (or that we would expect the reader to get) by removing the clarifier, but it seems clear that one cost would indeed be the loss of consistency with a majority of the surrounding peer articles — and despite some earlier suggestions to the contrary, giving consideration to such consistency is not contrary to policy and should not be ignored. (Unlike, say, a parenthetical disambiguator, the existing form of the title is not unnatural or uncommon.) ╠╣uw [talk] 18:53, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. The current titles are perfectly good. "of England" is both COMMONNAME and natural disambiguation. Books are unreliable indicators of COMMONNAME introduction, because famous person historical biographies are not written as introductory, but as additions to a large number of pre-existing biographies, the new book intended audience is the existing audience of the preceding biographies, and most commonly every new biography seeks to claim a new familiarity. There is no advantage to any reader of these shortenings. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:00, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support per WP:SOVEREIGN which states that "If the regnal name and number are unambiguous, use them: Louis XVIII, Edward VIII, Alfonso XII, Gustaf VI Adolf. Adding a country to the article title, when there is no other country with a monarch of that name, goes against WP:PRECISION." Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 09:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

SOMETHING VERY IMPORTANT!

SOMETHING VERY IMPORTANT! I am introducing this matter here only to both get help and because it is significant. I greatly enjoy Wiki and use it often but very rarely comment.However I have been reading on wiki quite a lot about the early -post Norman Conquest -Kings of England.Now I fully realise that in the popular sense these were and are recognised as ^English^ but this term is totally deceptive in any general sense. In 1066 Saxon England was totally defeated and taken over completely by the French Normans.From that momentand for around 350 years, England became a French speaking nation. Its law were written in French and all the political or military conflicts that followed were planned created and carried out by people we would instantly call French. Ufortunately this fact is never clearly mentioned There are simply continuous references to England and the English .One aspect of this is that it allows every kind of nonsense to be stirred up by nationalist forces.There is of course nothing intrinsically wrong with nationalism but when every kind of historical event is distorted as the use of English and England distorts then it becomes a serious matter.I put a lengthy introduction to the Edward first article and found to my amazement a message saying iy had been removed by some robotic scanner as vandalism.If anything it was the article that should have been removed or rewritten — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.99.11.150 (talk • contribs) 24 June 2011

I agree that the word "English" should receive some disambiguation here, when we speak of the Norman French Kings. However, the Anglo Saxon Kings aren't Bretish - and Saxon was as important in emerging ENglish as Angle-speak. Over the years, Angle, Saxon, Jut and indigeneous Bretish had combined into English - and under the Normans, the language was about to change (radically) again. At some point (certainly by Edward III) the "French" spoken In England was regarded back in Paris as not the real deal. Indeed, the Normans themselves had a different dialect than the French court - hence the phrase "Norman-English." All of this could be worked into this artlcle, but not by a swift, minor edit, going to take some work.69.108.25.223 (talk) 04:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a second and equally important point here too: 'Scotland' and 'the Scots' were also not the same thing back then as they were later. The use of the word 'Scotland' is therefore misleading since back then the word referred to the Kingdom of the Scots - solely a highland entity, whilst the 'Scottish' lowlands were back then English. Similarly the 'Scottish' nobilty were, just as in England, mostly Norman French and would not have considered themslves either Scots or English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.13.74 (talk) 10:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC) This is simply wrong. English and Scottish people most certainly did see themselves as English and Scots, and that includes the lords. Many (though not all) English and Scottish lords had French surnames but since more than 200 years had elapsed since the Norman conquest of England we should not think of them as being 'French' any more than we should think of David Cameron as being Scottish or Bill Clinton as being English. Robert I - for example - had much more Gael, Norse and Irish ancestry than Norman...he just happened to have a Norman name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.209.243 (talk) 14:54, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I have been trying to find the language used by the court of Edward I of England. He was only 200 years after the Norman conquest and this puts him in the Norman vs Saxon era but so far I have not been able to find which language was used by those in power. Mtpaley (talk) 22:24, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Edward mainly spoke Anglo-Norman French, but could also speak English and Latin. The formal language of his the court was French. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:09, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Just as did the 'Scots' kings and aristocracy. The ruling class in both kingdoms still all described themselves as 'French' in this period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.38.110 (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Reliable Source(s) that back up such a statement^ about being French? 50.111.61.101 (talk) 15:43, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

The old cage myth

"Edward responded with severe brutality against Bruce's allies and supporters. Bruce's sister, Mary, was suspended in a cage outside of Roxburgh for four years. Isabella MacDuff, Countess of Buchan, who had crowned Bruce, was suspended in a cage outside of Berwick Castle for four years."

This old myth just refuses to die. First off, there is no official source (same source as in the articles), so I would expect the sources in the articles for the people in question to be the sources backing this, problem is that those sources don't say that these women were held in cages outside.

Now, I have read that Edward apparently wanted large cages to be built inside these castles, and the sources seem to support this.

So, should this be removed until actual sources are provided? Chronicler87 (talk) 00:54, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Can any one find the basis of the claims of Education Scotland btw? Historians like Michael Prestwich have debunked this myth. Chronicler87 (talk) 01:08, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Prestwich (Plantagenet England, p. 239) and Cornell in the citation both say that the women were imprisoned in specially constructed cages attached castle walls with latticed sides so that they were permanently open to public view. The historians do not say whether it was inside or outside the castles and that was correctly deleted, but the new version is too bland. Cornell could be quoted saying that "they were handed punishments of the most debasing cruelty". Dudley Miles (talk) 10:22, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

To be imprisoned in "public view" does not mean that the cages are necessarily outside or exposed to the elements. "Cage" in this sense is also misleading, because were are talking something more prison-like than the cage that's often depicted in pictures, Edward even left instructions for how they had to have a built privy etc. Anyhow, the myth that Prestwich mainly debunked was the whole cages hanging on the outside (on the battlements). It doesn't take a genius to figure out that most ppl would not survive that kind of exposure (which is why it never happened). This myth has been built up for a long time, but we can agreed the cages/prison existed, but they were inside not outside (which was all I wanted deleted). Chronicler87 (talk) 01:59, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure what you mean with "too bland", in my opinion this Wikipedia article overemphasize Edwards supposed cruelty, which is partially a myth in itself, this article is very biased against Edward. The only reason I pointed to this specific thing (there are more), is because I was curious to see what "myths" are repeated on Wikipedia. Chronicler87 (talk) 02:08, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't know about that - the tradition in Scotland, or Ed's reputation in Scotland, of being a cruel bastard had to have a basis in reality somewhere to be so widespread up to the 20th century.50.111.61.101 (talk) 15:49, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Btw, let me clarify, my understanding with you citing that quote by Cronell, it that you seem to want to emphasize Edwards cruelty. I mean Cornell is applying a modern standard on the past, there are probably other historians who would not consider this cruelty or extraordinary, especially not in light of the next paragraph which states that Edward saw this as putting down a rebellion as in disloyal subjects. Chronicler87 (talk) 02:33, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Mankind knew of 'cruelty' by at least 1800 B.C. in western Asia, so, while it is easy for some historians to "classify" such behavior as not out of the ordinary for the time, it's still morally horrific; you can find many RS's that take this point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.61.101 (talk) 16:11, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Plagiarism?

Large portions of the entry on Edward I are taken from Encyclopedia Britannica's > website verbatim without attribution. See > https://www.britannica.com/biography/Edward-I-king-of-England > James Hercules Sutton 01:40, 14 August 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesSutton (talk • contribs)

King Edward's Chair

Why is there an image of King Edward's Chair on this page? The linked page says that the chair is not named after Edward I but Edward the Confessor; Edward I is barely mentioned on the linked page. Didn't want to remove without discussion, in case there's something I'm missing here that isn't well explained on the page. 2604:2D80:9F0B:A400:B5C7:C76D:528:9700 (talk) 00:44, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

The Coronation Chair was commissioned by Edward I. According to Westminster Abbey at [9] it is uncertain whether there is a connection with Edward the Confessor. I will amend the caption to clarify. Dudley Miles (talk) 06:59, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Edward the First?

The article says:

He initially intended to call himself Edward IV, recognising the three Saxon kings of England of that name. However, for reasons unknown he was called Edward I instead... How can this be? The first monarch to bear a name is not given a numeral after his or her name. We don't refer to King John I of England or Queen Victoria I of the United Kingdom, for example. If there was another King John or Queen Victoria only then would we need a way to distinguish the two, in the same way that Queen Elizabeth I was not called this until 1952, when Elizabeth II became queen.

THREE Saxon kings? Edward the Elder, Edward the Confessor...who else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.153.230.66 (talk) 04:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Never heard of Edward the Martyr? Jess Cully (talk) 22:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that he did not call himself anything but Edward, and that he became Edward I only when Edward II became king. --Jumbo 14:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it is unlikely Edward intended to call himself anything apart from Edward, but I think your reasoning is flawed. You are using current practice and modern custom to reflect medieval intentions. Medieval kings did not tend to refer to themselves in succession, though I am sure they were aware of past monarch's titles. I have heard, though have no source to hand, that medieval kings of England tended to be called by their origin. The Black Prince was known in his time as Edward of Woodstock, and Edward III as Edward of Winchester. It is helpful, from our perspective, to continue to use the numerical system and I think the title of pages in Wikipedia should reflect this for ease of finding if nothing else. Zach Beauvais 19:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

He actually called himself "Edward the First after the Conquest".

The kings before the conquest didn't count. They belonged to the defeated Anglo-Saxons. It was kind of a damnatio memoriae. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.16.153.89 (talk) 05:00, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I heard this from a scholar at U of T that this came about as a combination of the usual way kings were described and sheer laziness... when kings were addressed or referred to in the day it was along the lines of "Henry, son of John.." so when it came to Edward I it was "Edward, son of Henry," Edward II "Edward son of Edward," but Edward III was also "Edward, son of Edward," so to distinguish Edward II and Edward III, the numerals were used. So, I, II, III, without any regard to previous Edwards, as this was somewhat informal use, but it stuck. Somewhat like the two George Bushes calling themselves "41" and "43," without the suggestion that that is an official title. The "post-Conquest" argument I am pretty sure is a post hoc explanation, the reality is there wasn't any particular concern to any "official" numbering in the mid-14th century when the numbering scheme came up, as kings had typically been referred to with a cognomen, such as "Rufus," "Beaclerc," "The Conqueror," etc., and rarely, if at all, referred to by a numeral. Canada Jack (talk) 16:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

It was not a specific insult against the Anglo-Saxon kings, more that 1066 became a kind of 'year zero' as far as the early Norman monarchs were concerned. By Edward's time this wouldn't really have been an issue. Alooulla (talk) 03:28, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Hatnote purposal

I need a propose for a redirect hatnote, by accompanying with WP:ITHAT and other uses (if none).

Purpose 1:

"Edward I" and "Hammer of the Scots" redirect here. For the board game, see Hammer of the Scots (board game). For other uses, see Edward I.

Purpose 2:

"Edward I" redirects here. For other uses, see Edward I (disambiguation).

"Hammer of the Scots" redirects here. For the board game, see Hammer of the Scots (board game).

Surveyor Mount (talk) 22:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I do not consider this to be a major issue; thus I have no opinion. At my time at the FA nomination, no one raised any objections to the current formatting, but on my other FA, the formatting is similar to Purpose 2. I will just go along with whatever the MOS says or whatever consensus is built. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Hatnote#Length and number. There should only be one hatnote. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:48, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Not in favour of this. Ceoil (talk) 12:00, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2023

Edward I, King of England and Lord of Ireland is his correct title. The first Ebglish king to be given a numeral was Edward III. Edward I was known as 'Edward son of King Henry'. Dr Paul Booth (talk) 17:00, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Callmemirela 🍁 18:14, 6 May 2023 (UTC)