Talk:William the Conqueror/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 → Archive 5

comments

Isis, as far as I can tell from the Lexikon des Mittelalters, Alfonso was the son of Ferdinand I (who was actually from Castile-Navarra) married the sister of the King of Leon. When they inherited, F. became King of Castile and Leon. His son Sancho (later murdered) inherited Castile, Alfonso inherited Leon, and Garcia inherited Galicia.

If anyone disagrees, I'll make further checks, but this source is generally pretty accurate. JHK

Agree plus more details. The Alfonso was Alphonso VI the Brave of Castile, Ferdinand as Ferdinand the Great of Leon, Sancho as Sancho II of Castile, and Garcia as Garcia II of Galicia.

William, Duke of Normandy redirect?

Just to see if it would redirect to William's article I searched for 'William, Duke of Normandy' but no search results come up with his name - the closest thing is his father, Robert the Magnificent. I just find this a little strange? I am willing to bet that he is the best known Duke of Normandy (not suggesting that anything should be changed, of course) but maybe a redirect from that particular style? Just wondering. ---- Lyly-Kim, January 23 2006

Well why don't you make one? Adam Bishop 02:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Since it hadn't been done, I took it upon myself to be bold. :D ^^ Done. --ViolinGirl♪ 01:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I have made these changes to William's family out of deference to the work of Alison Weir and her well researched work on the royal families of the British Isles.

According to her, Gundred (or Gundrede) never existed - the limited details of her existance are based on spurious (or unreliable) sources.

Matilda is also so obscure that she seems unlikely have existed. Weir accepted her existance, but I am not so sure about her. Can anyone state an original and reliable source of information as regards her?

Adeliza's existance is also very questionable - it is pretty much based on one dubious account that gives the details of Harold's accidental imprisonment by William - the one where he swears on the saint's bones. Little else is added. Though thumbnail accounts in encyclopedias and the like have given the year of the incident as 1064 as a matter of proven fact, the original account does not say this. It gives no year at all. Historians have simply placed it there themselves, on the basis that Harold's whereabouts are not known in that year. He may well have been an unwilling "guest" in Normandy. On the other hand, he may also have spent that year hunting deer in England. We just do not know.

Another problem with Adeliza is that her name seems very similar to Adela,her sister. Perhaps they were the same??? Be that as it may, since this last bt especially is speculation rather than fact, Adeliza merits a mention in the article.

Arno


I have no idea why the below was in the first line, but I've moved it here:

Authority: King of England and Duke of Normandy

Also, I changed him from King of Britain to King of England. -- Zoe

Also, is there a standard Wiki-way to refer to his father? This page has him as "Robert the Magnificent": I've seen him more often as "Robert the Devil": in any case, I can't find an article in here on him under any name. -- Someone else 04:39 Mar 26, 2003 (UTC)
He was known by both these names. He was a strong ruler, hence the Magnificent name, but he gained power by killing his brother, hence the Devil name. Arno
But what to call him here?? Robert II, Duke of Normandy? -- Someone else 07:07 Mar 26, 2003 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea to me! Arno 07:18 Mar 26, 2003 (UTC)

The picture is almost certainly just an illustration from some later work. Short of an authentic coin, we don't have the primary sources for his image. PML.

Useful image, even if we don't have any evidence that that is what he looked like. (Darn it, why couldn't someone have invented photography a thousand years earlier!!!) If it is just a later impression of how he looked, rather than a contemporary drawing, add the fact into the caption. I've moved the picture down a bit and indented it in the text. The text of the article should go first, then an illustration. Otherwise, good work. STÓD/ÉÍRE 05:04 Mar 26, 2003 (UTC)

What concerns me is a story I once heard, that someone in the 1960s who was responsible for presenting a sort of pageant style representation of Kings of England - you know, down the ages - was able to find examples back to William Rufus (Curthose), but was stumped at William the Conqueror. He improvised: he used his own picture.

Si no e vero e ben trovato. But the problem is, does everything trace back to a genuine picture of someone else, a true instance of suggestio falsi? I don't know the answer, but it's a real concern. PML.


Even coin images in the 11th century were more 'king-icons' than what we'd consider attempts at realistic portraiture. Aside from some tomb figures, isn't the first credible royal portrait in England of Richard II (a connoisseur of paintings himself)?

I wish a sentence like this could be improved: Even if this story is true, however, Harold made the promise under duress and was so free to break it. Is this history? Wetman 05:29, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

What's your problem with it? Arno
I suspect mainly that it's a complaint that it's informal? Could be replaced by something like, "Some have held that this was a pledge made under duress and was therefore neither morally nor legally binding." The importance of the promise was its help in rallying the troops: it was the big army that made William king, not nomination by his predecessor. -- Someone else 10:00, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
The bottom line is that the entire story of Harold being William's prisoner is in doubt - based as it is on one source of dubious reliability ( see discussion above). Arno

My problem was simply that whether we feel he was free to break a promise made under duress is irrelevant. Wetman 11:17, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It is a legal principle that was recognised in Harold's time - if you make an agreement under duress , and provably so, then you are not bound by it. That is still true today under contract law in many countries.
The circumstances of Harold's agreement with William - by the Normans' own account - was very much one that involved duress. Harold was unable to leave William's captivity until he agreed that William could have the English throne. Furthermore he was tricked into saying this whilst holding a saint's bones (something which in his day definitely gave any legitimate agreement extra weight). The duress and trickery that was involved here definitely meant that Harold was not bound by what he 'agreed' to do for William.

This is exactly what history is! It is also absolutely relevant and correct to make the point about swearing opaths under duress invalidating them. You could even go one step further and draw in the Anglo-Saxon legal tradition that a death bed bequest supercedes all previous bequests and that, therefore, if Harold had been promised the throne by Edward on his death bed, then he was entirely entitled to that throne irrespective of any previous promise to William. It is also worht noting that William was not the choice of Witan (who ultimately had the legal right to appoint the king) and the evidence of Harold's dealings in Normandy all come from Norman sources dating from after the conquest. Valiant Son 00:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Arno 22:50, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

"rôles" v "roles" in Early Life

Why is the word roles being spelt with the accent Noticed User:Jdforrester reverted back to continental spelling. Surely this is not English . Lumos3 07:55, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I usually spell it without the accent, however i beleive it is correct to spell it with it (although I'm not completley sure) Sotakeit 16:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Exploding after death

Why is there no mention that his corpse infact exploded during his funeral? Even if this only mentions that this report is possibly urban legend. I'd write about it myself, but i dont know enough on the subject.

This is a largely accepted fact. William was both taller than usual for his time and had grown somewhat corpulent in later life. His grave was prepared without taking this into account and therefore when they came to bury the body it didn't fit and had to be forced in. The end result was one burst body! Valiant Son 00:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
It was my understanding that the body ruptured ("exploded" sounds a little dramatic . . .) because of gaseous expansion during the journey from Rouen to Caen. The body had been inexpertly prepared (sort of mummy-wrapped in cowhides) and the weather was hot. I read this maybe twenty years ago in several scholarly sources but I can't remember what they were now. --Michael K. Smith 03:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
It was most likely a combination of both factors. William's physical size was unusual and the grave was too small, but likewise the body had been poorly prepared. Valiant Son 17:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Deliberate mistakes

William I (c. 1027–September 9, 3087) - 3087? I think not

was King of Ireland. No.

Known alternatively as William, god of Normandy, No.

William the Conqueror and William the Mustard Rubbish.

, he was the illegitimate and only son of Robert the lameNo.

, Cook of Normandy, and Herleva, the daughter of a tanner. Born in Falaise, Normandy, now in France, William succeeded to the throne of England by right of conquest by winning the Battle of Hastings in 1266 No. 

in what has become known as the Morman Conquest. Rubbish.

Someone's obviously interfered with this, anyone find out who it was? Bear with me while I sort out the damage.

Mostly fair criticism, although William claimed overlordship of Ireland so the "King of Ireland" part has some merit (IMO not enough to be included). Valiant Son 17:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Nobles submitting to William

It was Beorcham not Berkhamstead where the nobles of London submitted to William. This was between Waltham and Binfield in Berkshire and adjoined where the Royal workshops were that made the crowns and regalia. It was also good hunting country and belonged to a relative of Wigod. William had come from Wigod in Wallingford.

Do you have a source for this. All written material I have seen says it was Berkhampstead including The Columbia encyclopedia [1] Lumos3 18:19, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Beorcham

My source is the A/S chronicles. Look at the original. Berkhampstead is a bad translation. For the location of Beorcham and the the Royal gold workshops I have used charters from the 8th to 14th c and manor court rolls and maps.Charter BCS 895 for Beorcham 952 ce ( S559 ) is a starting point but it needs to be used with other 10th and 11th c charters to show that it is not Barkham. For the ownership of the land I have used mainly charters and the Domesday Book. I can give more details if you wish but it would fill several pages.

Is this unpublished research ? If it has not yet been published elsewhere then I don’t think Wikipedia is the place to do it for the first time as its an encyclopædia which reports existing facts and opinions. If it is published then it could be added as a difference of opinion on the subject 193.113.57.165 12:32, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Beorcham

It got a mention in a couple of local newspapers during a Motorway Service Enquiry, otherwise unpublished but will be soon. This doesn't alter the facts that 1) Beorcham is the word used in the A/S chronicles 2)Beorcham can be shown to have existed in the 10th c 3)The Domesday book spelling of Berkhamstead is Berchamstede or Berchehamstede. 4)Beorcham was a far more logical place for William to go to after Wallingford than Berkhamstead. 5)There was a nearby workshop making the Royal crowns and Regalia 6) This included high quality embroidery and Turold who is suggested as the designer of the Bayeux Tapestry held land in the next parish. You are right about Wikipedia, I just didn't see why the Berkhamstead error should be perpetuated.

Which recension of the chronicles are you referring to hear? It is not an issue that I have ever come across in my research. Also it should be noted that spelling was far from being standardised and giving reference to Domesday Book as a comparison is exceptionally dubious on the grounds that it contains a variety of odd spellings that reflect its origins as an Anglo-Norman work rather than an Anglo-Saxon one. I don't see what the origins of the Bayeux Tapestry have to do with this issue either. The tapestry was commissioned some time after William's coronation and most likely by his half-brother Odo of Bayeux. What has this to do with where the English nobles and Edgar the atheling submitted to William? Off the top of my head here is one reference which supports the Berkhamstead idead - Brown, R. Allen. The Normans and the Norman Conquest. (Woodbridge, 1985). Oh, not to mention the renowned Marjorie Chibnall - Chibnall, M. Anglo-Norman England 1066-1166. (Oxford, 1996) Valiant Son 00:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon Slaves in Umayyd Spain

"William is said to have deported large numbers of the old landed classes into slavery through Bristol. Many of the latter ending up in Umayyad Spain and Moorish lands, converting and taking high positions in the state."

I am drawing attention to these two lines not because I dispute them - sounds depressingly like the Bastard ... - but because I find them incredibly intrigueing. Anyone got a source for this? Cheers. Fergananim

I'm with you, but I cannot find a reference so far. This doesn't mean that it's not true, but I've searched and searched, and still nothing. I ended up requesting for a citation because it's a pretty strong statement to make and probably should have one. Am I wrong? MagnoliaSouth 07:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
As I understand it, one of the first laws William made upon becoming king of England was one banning slavery (and replacing it with serfdom). I understand that William occasionally had a 'do as I say, not as I do' attitude towards ruling, but I'm not sure if such a huge departure from enacted law would be contemplated. Mon Vier 15:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The reasons for move copied from the entry on the WP:RM page:

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
  • support --Francis Schonken 22:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. He is more widely known as The Conqueror. Abstain. This is part of a larger debate elsewhere which I'm not involved in or know much about. --Stbalbach 22:55, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose pointless proposal. That is covered in redirects. Monarchs with ordinals should have their page at the ordinal name, with their general names referred to in the article. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:59, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Proposed change would produce an inconsistency issue with the naming of biographical articles sitewide. In addition, "the Conqueror" was never an official title, and claims of the popularity of that unofficial title are irrelevant. Consider this: should we also rename George W. Bush to one of the many names given him by his opponents? I think George W. Bush is more widely known as "Satan" in the Middle East. By the way, Rule #2 does not apply. Adraeus 23:38, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Current name is adequately within the naming conventions and less confusing. James F. (talk) 00:01, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Craigy (talk) 00:02, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose Jooler 06:57, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Let's however keep some systematics in the naming. Arrigo 11:12, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Philip Baird Shearer 12:19, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. john k 16:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, and oppose for all the other moves that are being made too. In this case, why not move it to William the Bastard? Adam Bishop 17:53, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, otherwise we'll have to start all over again with the naming conventions. Deb 18:37, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. – AxSkov (☏) 16:37, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Use common name.Dejvid 21:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. Dragons flight 19:44, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

Pointless proposal. That is covered in redirects. Monarchs with ordinals should have their page at the ordinal name, with their general names referred to in the article. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 22:59, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

    • Your right of course, but Wikipedia has established naming conventions. They are open to change, but this is not a vote to change the established conventions. It seems like a pretty clear cut case according to the rules of the convention. Stbalbach 23:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I know all about the conventions. I wrote many of them and edited others to achieve a consensus behind them. This is not an article covered by the convention you mention. It was agreed at the time that given that he is part of a sequence, and that the Conqueror is not an official title but a POV definition of him, he should be listed by ordinal, not by "conqueror". FearÉIREANN\(caint) 01:12, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Editors have the right to rely on conventions as they are written, not on what may (or may not) have been slurring in the head(s) of writers at the time. All in all, poorly written conventions, a shame to anyone who even pretends to know how enactments take place. Perhaps enforcement is the more familiar method than enactment... Arrigo 01:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Search engine results

  • Google
  • "William I of England" = 9,100 hits
  • "William the Conqueror" = 228,000 hits
  • A9.com (across books only)
  • "William I of England" = 29 hits [2]
  • "William the Conqueror" = 4,327 hits [3]

--Stbalbach 00:39, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Irrelevant. The sources are mainly looking at him in isolation. Wikipedia is dealing with him as part of a list of English kings. There is no justification for moving him out of sequence by removing the ordinal from the page. A redirect enables people to find him if they look using the conqueror. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 01:08, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

That's an interesting argument, but I'm not sure its supported anywhere, unlike Exception #2 which has consensus (for reasons outlined below). As a counter-argument to your argument, Wikipedia is open source, articles are meant to stand in isolation, stand on their own, and not be contingent on other articles. For print media for example, or whatever the end user may use it for. So there is no sequence being brokwn. Article names are irrelevant except for the end users ability to find them and easily understand what the article is about. Thats why there is an Exception #2. Stbalbach 01:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi Stbalbach, if your little search engine test applied the usual precautions as explained in wikipedia:google test, it is relevant. This is further discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(names_and_titles)#Addition_proposed --Francis Schonken 09:41, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
A9 is the better result since it searches citable published works. In the end its brain dead obvious to say most people known him as The Conqueror, the search results just confirm it. Stbalbach 17:03, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Article names are irrelevant except for the end users ability to find them and easily understand what the article is about.
Stbalbach, I think you're confusing something here. Wikipedia is based on facts and is not based on a popularity contest. Titles are in no way "irrelevant," as the title of any article must be correct. If we adopt your irrelevant philosophy, then feasibly we could title an article on Shakespeare as King of the Bees. The title of any article is a direct statement of the subject.
As for the Google Test, it is only a test to see if there is an interest in the subject at hand, not a test to see if it's found easier. The fact is that the proper title is King William I of England and William the Conqueror is simply a nickname. A nickname is appropriate for redirects, but is not a name. I understand that a vote was taken and the issue is now dead, but I just wanted to respond to what was said. MagnoliaSouth 06:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the application of Monarchical Names Rule #2

Rule #2: Where there has only been one holder of a specific monarchical name in a state, the ordinal is used only when the ordinal was in official use. For example, Victoria of the United Kingdom, not Victoria I of the United Kingdom; Juan Carlos I of Spain, not Juan Carlos of Spain. [4]
This rule does not apply to this case, and thus, cannot be used to support the request to move William I of England to William the Conqueror. According to the rule, a specific monarchical name regards names such as "Victoria", "Juan Carlos", and "William". IF only a single holder of a specific monarchical name existed in a state, then the second clause of the rule comes into play. The application of the second clause would apply to William I of England if William II of England and William III of England did not exist. Since there is more than a single holder of a specific monarchical name, the ordinal is used regardless of the periodic officiality of ordinal usage. For example, if there were a Victoria II of the United Kingdom, then Victoria of the United Kingdom would be legitimately removed to Victoria I of the United Kingdom. The usage of ordinals where there has been more than a single holder of a specific monarchical name is correct and appropriate. Adraeus 23:54, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Exception #2, not Rule #2. I made the same mistake at first. Stbalbach 23:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the application of Monarchical Names Exception #2

Exception #2: If a person is best known by a cognomen, or by a name that doesn't exactly fit the guidelines above, revert to the base rule: use the most common English name. Examples: Alfred the Great, Charlemagne, Louis the Pious, Henry the Lion, etc... [5]
Who defines what's "most common"? The exception is subjective, and thus, lacks my support. I refer to my opposition statement above. Consider this: should we also rename George W. Bush to one of the many names given him by his opponents? I think George W. Bush is more widely known as "Satan" in the Middle East. Adraeus 00:05, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
To address your GWB example, it's done on a case by case basis, thats why its called "exception"; this is the English Wikipedia, not Islamic Fundamentalist Wikipedia. Im fairly certain Google would support Conqueror as being more common. For a more academic view, A9.com could be searched across books. Stbalbach 00:32, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Naming George W Bush here is not governed by our rules for monarchs, since (despite what is said of their dynasty), he is not commonly recognized as a monarch. Still, a funny thought to have George Bush II the Satan or George Bush the Stupider, monarch of America, here :))) Arrigo 00:38, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I find that the above attempt to apply the wording of exception 2 to certain monarchs and submonarchs by Francis is going too far, and therefore I have proposed an amendment of that clause at Talkpage of NC titles. I have proposed a wording "overwhelmingly best known as". Go there to support it. Arrigo 00:38, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Simply because you've proposed your own ideas doesn't give you free reign to go around spitting on others. Adraeus 01:46, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Whoa. Where does spitting come into it? I would note that Arrigo's proposed modification would make the wording of Exception #2 come into closer line with the interpretation which everyone has always given it until now. john k 02:07, 31 August 2005 (UTC)


Monarch infoboxes

I thought I'd write this here as it's more likely that people will see it than if I put it as Talk:William II of England.

What's with these infoboxes? Look at William II of England The infobox produces the following result

Reign 9 Sep1087 – 2 Aug1100
Coronation 26 Sep1087
Queen Never married
Issue Died without posterity
Royal House {{{royal house}}}
Father William I (c. 1028-1087)
Mother Matilda of Flanders (1031-1083)
Born {{{date of birth}}}
{{{place of birth}}}
Died {{{date of death}}}
{{{place of death}}}
Buried {{{place of burial}}}
Is there some way to cut out the bits that have no information? - it is pure ugly to have something like :Born {{{date of birth}}} - I know that this is because someone hasn't bothered or got around to filling it in, but the field shouldn't come up if no one has entered the data, it's so unprofessional. Personally I detest most of these infoboxes anyway Jooler 09:40, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Image from Bayeaux Tapestry

A romantic nineteenth century artists impression of King William I of England

I approve of the replacement of the nineteenth century print of William with the one from the Bayeaux Tapestry which at least dates from his own time. For the record here is the image used in the article from 2003 to 2005.

In it he is shown wearing plate armour which was not in general use at the time of his reign. Lumos3 11:01, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Given that Wiki allows for different points of view (as long a it is stated as such), I would move to include both. While there is little room for acceptance that this is William's true likeness, it does allow for another point of view and in the end, the article is about William. I would say inclusion of both is fine, but it should be stated that the portrait by Vertue was thought to be imaginitive. The caption is well done, in my opinion. MagnoliaSouth 06:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

William's name in his own French

If the name William is Norman French, why does this article state that the subject of this article "as Guillaume II was Duke of Normandy from 1035 to 1087"? The Normans brought their "W" French words with them (war, warranty, William), so I doubt they were using the "Gu" forms (guerre, guarantee, Guillaume). -Acjelen 22:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

If the name William is Norman French, why does this article state that the subject of this article "as Guillaume II was Duke of Normandy from 1035 to 1087"?
Well... because it's true as the Encyclopedia Britannica states: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9077028 Perhaps your understanding of French doesn't have anything to do with the name. MagnoliaSouth 06:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
"Guillaume" is his name in modern French. I have no idea what his name was in medieval Norman French, but it seems rather unlikely to me that it was "Guillaume". john k 22:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
That could very well be and I don't have an answer to that either. I myself didn't know about it until I came here and read it, and to dispel the theory I did a search and to my surprise I found the above link. You're probably very right about the medieval name, but perhaps the Encyclopedia Britannica uses it because that would be his name today, much like the original William probably wasn't spelled that way either. Just a guess. MagnoliaSouth | Talk 00:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
He wrote his name in Latin as "Willelmus", if that helps. Adam Bishop 06:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Aha! Yes it does... and very much so, I might add. Thank you for that. :) MagnoliaSouth | Talk 15:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Paramahansa Yogananda claimed to be William 1

A hindu guru (died 1952) Paramahansa Yogananda claimed to have been William 1 in one of his past lives. The guru (founder of Self-Realization Fellowship) who is the author of "Autobiography of a Yogi" said that he could remember almost all of his past incarnations. He also claimed to be Arjuna in a former incarnation. Any comments? Siva1979Talk to me 15:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what to comment on. It's not unusual for people to claim being an incarnate of another and even further, has nothing at all to do with the article, of which the Talk Page is supposed to be about. However, if you're posting this here as a suggestion for inclusion into the article, then what if I said I was Matilda reincarnated? Should that qualify? I don't mean to sound rude, really I don't, but I personally don't believe it has anything to do with King William. MagnoliaSouth 06:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, with all due respects to you, my dear friend, the person saying such a statement should be taken into strong consideration. For example, Paramahansa Yogananda was and still is a highly respected individual even within high society in America. His influence and teachings have reached people in all six continents in the globe. However, he did not explicitly proclaim he was William in any of his writings but he did state that he was a Himalayan yogi in his most immediate past life in his autobiography. But he did mention this in small talk with his close diciples. Shouldn't this be taken into consideration? I am also aware that such statements are difficult to prove (but not impossible among people who are highly spiriyually developed) among ordinary people. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
It is impossible to prove, and completely irrelevant. Adam Bishop 04:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Exploding Animals

Is this article intended to be in the Category for exploding animals? •••••• 04:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

now that's funny. sadly removed. -- Stbalbach 04:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Edgar Aetheling

I have never seen Edgar Aetheling in a list of English kings, and I'm not sure why he should be listed as William's predecessor and Harold's successor. As a matter of practical effect, William was Harold's successor, and every list of English kings I've ever seen states as much. That some of the Saxon nobles proclaimed Edgar is, of course, true, but does not seem to me to be sufficient for us to include him in our quasi-official listing. john k 22:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The method of legal succession at the time was via election by the whitten. Those saxon lords as remained in London (So, Earls Morcar and Edwin and the arch bishop whose name escapes me right now) voted for Edgar as king. He is often forgotten but that does not negate his existance. Narson 13:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of William I of England

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 17:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

More on William's reign as king?

There is plenty on the Norman conquest, but I notice that William's reign only gets two paragraphs, despite his reigning as king for 21 years (supposedly - I'm a northerner so we dispute that somewhat!). The article explains that many castles etc were ordered, and surely his reign had a major impact on the country - so doesn't this need a bit more detail? Didn't he put in lots of his cronies as the new aristocracy - I'd like to learn about that. I'm a chemist rather than a historian, or I'd fix it myself. Thanks! Walkerma 03:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

surname

Believe it or not, he has a direct male line of descendants, and my cousin is going out with one of them. I met him, and according to him, the surname was Boynton, but when they moved to America, the name was changed to Boyington. Should this be mentioned, or does it not matter? Cao Wei 05:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Not a very exclusive club, since Alan Freer has over 400,000 descendants of the Conqueror in his William I genealogical database. William's living descendants are doubtless innumerable. (For comparison, Charlemagne's living descendants have been estimated at between 100,000,000 and 1,000,000,000.) If any is worthy of mention, try Direct descent from William I to Elizabeth II.
--Ziusudra 16:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Heh, well alright, but I mean should his last name be mentioned in the article? I didn't see it. --Cao Wei 05:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

He didn't have a surname. How could it have been Boynton? Adam Bishop 07:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Hearsay isn't permitted in court...but is it in wikipedia? My cousin's boyfriend, a direct descendant, said so, that's all I know. --Cao Wei 02:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no line of direct male descent from William the Conqueror that I am aware of. He had three sons who survived to adulthood. Robert Curthose had only one son, William Clito, who died childless. William Rufus was unmarried and probably homosexual, and, at any rate, had no known bastards. Henry Beauclerc had but one illegitimate son, William, who died at age 18 with no sons. He had several bastards, but none of the male lines seem to have gone on for more than a couple of generations. At any rate, none of these lines actually appear to have produced the surname "Boynton" - I see "Fitzroy," "Fitzhenry," "de Tracy," "de Dunstanville," and "FitzRobert". The Fitzrobert and Dunstanville lines appear to have lasted longest, but both became extinct within a couple of generations. There is, so far as I am aware, no attested male line descent of William the Conqueror. Even if there was, this would not demonstrate that William himself had a surname. john k 06:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Direct descent pleonasm

Sooo...what would "indirect descent" be? Something along the lines of Jurassic Park?

--Ziusudra 01:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I've often wondered about this. I think that a "direct descendant" is often used to mean "male line descendant," but that there's no real consistency to this. john k 06:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Nomenclature

I don't have a problem with the article's name, but to put all the more familiar names at the bottom of the lead seems confusing. "William the Conqueror" is what he's known as and it should appear pretty straightforwardly right at the top. I also see no need for any French names, as these are almost unheard of in the English literature. Furthermore, wouldn't it make more sense to tie in the ordinals I and II to the titles when they first appear in the first line, instead of leaving the uninformed reader to the last paragraph of the lead to realise he is not universally William I? Finally, to embolden "William I of England" at the top of the page in a sentence which says "ruled as ... king of England" seems redundant to me. Srnec 18:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not a unique situation having multiple names, how do featured articles of English royalty handle it? I do know for sure the bold name in the first sentence has to match the article title. I think its better to explain his names, as it does currently, rather than just plainly list them. Giving his French name is relevant because he was French (Norman). -- Stbalbach 19:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I thought the way I handled it was pretty wise. And I don't think modern French names add anything to our knowledge about him. Does the bold name have to match the article title always? I think not: otherwise we'd have to have titles like Margaret of Navarre (Sicilian queen), clearly silly. Anyways, I certainly won't begin any argument over it, but I think I presented cogent reasons (above) why a change of format from the current is due. Perhaps something like "William I (birth–death), called the Conqueror, was ..." Srnec 19:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to register agreement with what Srnec suggests. Also, I'd like to ask why this article is at William I of England (as opposed to William the Conqueror, presumably his more familiar name nowadays) while other, similar articles are at, for instance, Alfred the Great, Edward the Confessor (William's contemporary) and Alexander the Great. Shouldn't these be at Alfred of England, Edward of England (would need a parenthetical to disambiguate this one, I suppose, though I can't imagine what it would be) and Alexander III of Macedon? I'm not advocating a change in the article's title or anything (though, again, I do think "the Conqueror" should be mentioned sooner), I'm just wondering why there's a discrepency (or an apparent one to my eyes, anyway). Thanks for your time. 64.252.169.228 03:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

William and Matilda

William and Matilda are one of the great love stories of all time. It seems a shame that this always seems to be left out when talking about him.

William went looking for a wife and Matilda was eligible and of the right blood line. However, William - duke or no - was illegitimate. Nowdays, this doesn't carry the stigma that it did in his time. The Catholic church still rules that bastard children will go hell and this is the 21st century. Imagine what it was like in 11th century when people were a lot less enlightned. So Matilda turned him down, sight unseen. She made some rude comments about his parentage and sent the delegation packing. He heard about her comments and decided to confront her. He rode into town and arrived on a feast day. Getting one of the locals to point her out in the procession heading to the church, he mounts his horse, rides up to her, snatches her bodily out of the carriage. He proceeds to dump her in the gutter, which in those days was mostly an open sewer and roll her around in the muck. He gives her a good tongue lashing about her manners and big mouth, gets on his horse and rides off. At this point, he's the most handsome man she's seen and she pesters her father until he sends a delegation to William to see if he will accept her.

When he finally does, they're married but their married life is as turbulent as their courtship. One of his sons rebels and Matilda gives him all of her jewlery to finance the rebellion but remains otherwise loyal to her husband. She loves them both and steadfastly refuses to choose sides between her husband and her son.

I have no citations for any of this other than my great grandparents, who always told me family stories.

71.252.152.69 21:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

SevenOfNine

Spotlight

Question: I have read his horse shied and caused him to come down hard on his pommel which resulted in his internal injuries, but I have not been able to read that he FELL from his horse but instead fell onto the pommel heavily. Can someone find a citation that actually states he FELL OFF his horse, as I think that it is stated incorrectly in the article. I have not found a reputable source that states he "fell off", only that his horse shied and on the horses descent he landed on the pommel of the saddle (which was still on the horse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.48.176.220 (talk) 22:18, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Possible sources for how many kids William had

I don't seem to see any secondary sources for this, unless you can count the last one as a secondary source. We need to find sources that discuss the problem of how many kids this guy had. They need to compare the number 9 and 10 kids. —— Eagle101Need help? 20:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Above references in the citation templates:
  • "William the Conqueror". Spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk. Retrieved 2007-07-19.
  • Freeman, Edward A. (2004) [1888]. William the Conqueror (PDF). Batoche Books. Retrieved 2007-07-19. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  • And I don't see how to do the last one...
Sorry, made a mess of that. J Milburn 00:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Gundred was not a daughter of William. See the extensive discussion in her article. That myth may explain the discrepancy. I'm removing her from the list of his children. Also, for a general discussion of his children, see Douglas, David C. (1964). William the Conqueror. ISBN 0300078846. pp. 393-395. Doubtless Bates' biography discusses the matter as well. Loren Rosen 22:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Willy

i'm curious to learn when he switched his christian name from Guillaume to William... isn't a posthumous name by any chance? BTW does anyone knows his family name? Paris By Night 13:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

It's the same name, Guillaume is the French equivilent to the English name William. As for the family name, he didn't really have a "last name" or surname as such. He was Duke of Normandy of the house of Rollo. That's about all you can say. Otheriwse he was known by his nicknames like "the Norman", "the Bastard" or "the Conqueror". Josh 13:24, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
In old french, Guillaume was pronounced G(w)illaume. The english name is use in english books.Night17:49, 8 may 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.130.56.50 (talk)
Not at all, Willia(u)me is the Norman and Picard spelling for Guillaume in Central French, that gave birth to English William. Both phonetical characteristics are well known by the linguists. The northern French dialects kept the Germanic /w/ intact, when in Central French it turned to /gw/ and finally /g/. It explains why the English language keeps etymological twins such as warrant / garant; wallop / gallop, etc. all borrowed to different "French" dialects. and variant Norman forms : war / Fr. guerre; wait / Old Fr. guaitter (mod. guetter). The Old French -ea(l)- > -eau- corresponds to the Norman -ia(l)- > -ia(u)-. For example water : F. eau / N. iau, birds : F oiseaux / N osiâs. Nortmannus (talk) 22:49, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

To Nortmannus:Good job.... In old central french it was (G(U)illaume) or phonetically G(W)illa(u)me, in Norman and Picard it was Willia(u)me. The Oil-Norman language has is own distinction from the central-french. Frankish zone (zone francique) Picard, Walloon, Lorrain, Norman (north of the ligne Joret), eastern Champenois are close in their Oil-french language. ;-)

"He thereby became the first in line of English monarchs THAT CONTINUES UNBROKEN TO THIS DAY."

The confusion to which this Section pertained has been reconciled.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


There was one mistake in this article that I noticed. Second paragraph, last sentence. 'He thereby became the first in a line of English monarchs that continues unbroken to this day. But the line of monarchs HAS been broken by Oliver Cromwell from 1649-1660 (11 years). 70.66.3.38 23:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT :) Wizardman 23:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

not to mention the fact that William's direct line died out after Henry Beauclerc. edwards mother was also related to william. And that there were kings of England before William. Josh 12:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
That doesn't change the fact that there is a line through to Elizabeth II. The line does not necessarily mean that she is a direct descendant. Valiant Son (talk) 00:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Here is another thing. The numbering scheme of British monarchs does in fact start with William. That is because the earlier kings were NOT King of England. They were Anglo-Saxon Kings. Some were King of Wessex, others King of Kent, King of Sussex, and so forth. Those were independent countries. Very rarely was there an arguable King of Anglo-Saxony who held overwhelming military dominance over the other kings. King Alfred the Great of Wessex was one such, but old Anglo-Saxony was back to its fragmented business as usual after that. Some relatively influential Anglo-Saxon Kings did call themselves "King of the English," a title not to be confused with King of England. There's a nuance in that. At any rate, what is now England was several separate countries in Anglo-Saxon times. So, the state of England, of which the UK is a continuation albeit with England itself as a mere province, was founded by William of Normandy when he was crowned, a few months after the Battle of Hastings itself, on Christmas Day of 1066. -The Mysterious El Willstro 209.183.184.247 (talk) 06:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Good spot that should not be there. Every King or Queen could be found to have some link with the current monarchy, but we don't say it on their page. We have a hereditary monarchy, so obviously the line should be unbroken. Anyway, Henry I of England's wife had Anglo Saxon heritage, so we could say that King Offa in the 700s started an unbroken line of English royals that continues to this day! regards --Tefalstar (talk) 00:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not going to revert the removal, but I thought I'd explain that I added that sentence to add more context to the preamble following a discussion about adding it on Wikipedia:Spotlight.
I thought that it was significant to mention at the top the previously buried fact that the current monarchy are descended from him (and, for that matter, as part of a a series of lawful handovers). I mentioned on Spotlight that Cromwell might be seen to contradict my proposed statement, but I decided that, in the context of the concise preamble, mentioning Cromwell would be needlessly confusing, and technically one could argue I was correct in saying the line of English monarchs is unbroken because Cromwell never claimed to be a monarch.
Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib 19:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Rework of lead section

The lead section seemed too long and seemed to lack focus, so I've cleaned it up. Hope I haven't stepped on any toes. Let me know what you think. Josh 14:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

New ancestors section

Do people like the new ancestors section? It's the first article in Wikipedia to use the new functionality of the {{ahnentafel-compact5}} template (specifically to collapse missing branches of the tree), so any feedback, positive or negative, would be appreciated. — ras52 11:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I like it. It's easy to read and informative. My only complaints (and they are minor ones) are that the colors of the boxes are a bit weird for an article such as this one and it takes up a lot of space. Josh 13:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
The amount of space it takes up will vary from browser to browser and depend on screen resolution, etc. On my computer it takes up about the same amount of space as the old version (the simple table). Re colours, I'm a little dubious too, but I followed the convention used in George VI's ancestors. (The big difference between this tree and George VI's is that there are missing ancestors on this one; I've been experimenting getting the template to support that cleanly.) If you want to change / remove the colours, that's as simple as changing / removing the five lines reading "|boxstyle_X=blackground-color: #XXX;". — ras52 14:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
It is probably excessive for the article to have three different pedigrees of William, once in Ancestry, once in Descendants, and once at the bottom under Family Information. Agricolae (talk) 06:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

GA review comments

It's been a while coming I know, but here are my initial comments when reviewing this article for GA status.

  • Physical appearance section is out of place - you're talking about him being muscular then balding and fat but we haven't even discussed his birth etc. This probably doesn't need a unique section.
  • Perhaps use something different for subsequent in the lead, it's used in two consecutive sentences so makes for awkward reading.
  • I can't be sure but I would think WP:LEAD would suggest just two paragraphs for an article of this length.
  • "...Herleva (among other names),..." - not sure I like that, can it be expanded and cited?
  • "...young age..." - point-of-view, just stick with the facts.
  • "Plots to usurp his place cost William three guardians, though not Count Alan of Brittany, who was a later guardian." - this needs expansion for the non-expert, and possibly citation as well.
  • "consanguine marriage (as in "same blood")" - don't like that - either wiktionary link to consanguine if a definition exists there, or just leave without the (as in..) bit.
  • "...played significant roles in his life." - not sure you can just state that and leave it hanging... even just a summary would be useful.
  • "...and openly began assembling an army ..." - who did, William or the Pope? It's unclear.
  • "..it looked as if he might fair little better than Tostig." - a little colloquial and point-of-view. I know it has a citation so perhaps look for a quote or something, or reword.
  • "channel" should probably always be "Channel".
  • "13 of October" - see WP:DATE - make it a full wikilinked date in the correct format.
  • Either Christmas day or 25 December, no real need for both (unless this is particularly significant).
  • Last para of Conquest of England has no citation.
  • Shouldn't "...harrying of the North..." be capitlalised and in quotes?
  • "maximize" - please stick with British English, so "maximise". Ditto for "rumors" = "rumours".
  • The image is of the Accord of Winchester but this is not mentioned anywhere in the article. What is its context? Is it just an image for an image's sake?
  • "Whether or not it burst after some unsuccessful prodding by the assembled bishops, filling the chapel with a foul smell and dispersing the mourners is a matter of some speculation. [9]"
    • Move the citation per WP:CITE i.e. remove the space between it and the full stop.
    • I'd like a rephrase, not sure how yet, but it doesn't quite read encylopaedic to me...
  • Last two paragraphs of "Death, burial, and succession" section uncited.
  • Ancestors section could do with a brief introduction so it's not just a picture.
  • Not sure of the use of the Family tree here, it doesn't show all his offspring. Plus it repeats information in the ancestory image in the preceding section.
  • Check page ranges use the en-dash, not the hyphen, as per WP:DASH.

I'll put the article on hold and gladly discuss any of the above points. All the best! The Rambling Man 14:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

These comments understate the work to be done. The coverage of William's two decades as king is very sketchy. The referencing is simply not up to scratch. Given the vast array of reliable material on the subject - see the further reading section - there is no need to reference self-made history websites, unsigned web "magazine" articles, and random genealogy websites. For example, William of Malmesbury's history is available on Google books and can be cited directly. Finally, why does the article include his name in modern French? I'm quite sure that nobody in 1066 called him [gi'jom]. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree absolutely; under no circumstances should the article be promoted in its current state. The two main problems are the balance of the coverage of various topics - too much on the Battle of Hastings, too little on the reign - and the lack of reliable citations. Bates and Douglas should be used extensively (I can also recommend Bates' article in the Oxford DNB, a shorter but comprehensive summary). Lampman 00:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Well fine! I was reviewing the article on its current merits. Anyway, no stress. The Rambling Man 00:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
As someone who has done some recent work on the article I would agree that it is not anywhere near the "good article" category yet. I have been rather lacking in boldness for fear of getting my head bitten off, as I have when been bold in the past, but when I get time to edit this article again, I'll ramp up the boldness. thanks for the critiques. Josh 21:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Please fix the birth year in the side bar. "10|14 - 28" is not a year. 157.174.221.167 16:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Good article. My only 'gripe' would be that the family tree part seemed to put forth as fact that there was no illegitimate children, despite there being evidence to suggest that there were. I edited the article only to add that at least one man is still widely accepted as being the illegitimate son, I would hope the wording I used wouldn't lead to a dispute. Ophaniel (talk) 11:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Overuse of parentheses

Please try to avoid using parentheses all over the article, it makes the reading difficult and certainly unsuitable for GA or FA. The Rambling Man 17:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree (with reservations) that (under most circumstances) paraentheses (or brackets) should be used conservatively (i.e. sparingly).67.38.27.118 (talk) 02:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Style of written English

I find it astonishing that this article is published in wikipedia when the stlye of English used is appalling. It appears to be have been written by by a schoolchild. It is incredibly difficult to read - and a lot of it does not make sense.

Could it be re-written in a user-friendly way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zatsoblue (talk • contribs) 00:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

sorry you don't like it. feel free to rewrite it to your liking. Josh (talk) 23:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

You misspelled "style" as "stlye". People who live in glass houses probably shouldn't throw stones. Rather than criticize in a hypocritical manner, go ahead and fix the problems you see. Just watch your spelling. And please sign your comments. RockStarSheister (talk) 06:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Bad things about Harold Godwinson

hi ppl do u know any bad things about harold godwinson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.117.169 (talk) 18:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

A guy who had less than a year to establish himself as King but still held off an entire invasion from the North and nearly succeeded in holding back the full might of the Norman army. A man from one of the most noble families of the Saxon era. No not really. Look on google for your homework anyway mate
--Tefalstar (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
His father Godwin always struck me as kind of a jerk, though I didn't know the man personally. That's the best I can do. They have these new things called books you might want to check out. Good luck with your paper, sonny. Josh (talk) 15:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

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

The result of the proposal was no consensus. DrKiernan (talk) 14:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

William I of England → William the Conqueror — Per WP:NCNT If a monarch or prince is overwhelmingly known, in English, by a cognomen, it may be used, and there is then no need to disambiguate by adding Country. —Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:NCNT says this only applies if the sources present a consensus so strong that it would be surprising to omit the epithet, as with Charlemagne or Edward the Confessor.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
As this is the case as far I can see. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
See also Talk:William I of England/Archive 1#Requested move

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support as nom. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, common names are preferable. Kbthompson (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Very weak support It is possible that this move comes under the condition I quote above, and also possible the guideline should be changed. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support I always hear of this king as William the Conqueror. Charles 19:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose All post-Norman Conquest monarchs should be 'regnal name (name & numeral) of England'. GoodDay (talk) 19:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support Gwinva (talk) 19:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC) Certainly the most common name; I would suggest most people will not even know the ordinal. Intuitive and conforms to Wikipedia policy to choose the most common name when nameing an article.
  • Oppose I want to support this, I acctually really /really/ want to support this, its what I think he should be named. However, it states in the naming convention that But there must be consensus so strong that it would be surprising to omit the epithet; and the name must actually be unambiguous. For example, although Richard the Lionheart is often used, Richard I is not unusual, so he is at Richard I of England;. I was checking google books for a quick check and William I was not appreciably behind William The Conqueror. If someone can correct me, I'd love that so I can support it. Narson (talk) 19:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
    • This is in part a test to see whether the convention should be changed; it would have been nice if Deacon had admitted this and quoted the convention in full. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I just go by encyclopedias, which tend to have post-Norman Conquest monarchs as 'Name numeral of England' or 'Name numeral'. I shudder to think of how changes will be decided at William III of England. GoodDay (talk) 19:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I think guidelines/conventions/policies should be hashed out on the policy pages, PMA. We shouldn't crap where we eat, so to speak, by trying to make up precedents on article space on such a wide front, though, I think I can see Deacon's point. And, well, if he proposed the move of William III to William of Orange, I would definatly support that one based on what I know. Certainly a well known cognomen. I've been trying to think about it, in my mind, I think I decided that cognomens are likely appropiate in the ones where you have to think for a moment for the regnal order. I do think that if we go down this route we need some better guidelines to decide between nicknames and real cognomens are just daft little nicknames. I wouldn't propose we move Robert I to Braveheart, I would however support moving him to Robert the Bruce (Speaking of, why /isn't/ he there?) Narson (talk) 23:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak support - I agree with much of what Septentrionalis has said. I support changing this, but only as part of a broader revision of naming conventions. GoodDay - I don't think anyone has proposed moving William III to William of Orange, so why do you keep bringing this up? john k (talk) 20:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I keep bringing it up as an example of why I prefer 'numerals' over 'nicknames' for monarch article titles; nothing more. GoodDay (talk) 20:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support: There is no doubt that in Britain/the English-speaking world he was known as William the Conqueror (or even William of Normandy). Few references refer to him as William I. But changing this article's title should not be a pretext for changing other monarch's article pages where, say, as in the case of Polish or French monarchs the average English-speaker has barely heard of the king (as in, say, a Louis) let alone heard that his own people called him 'The Bold' or 'The Fat'. So changing the obvious here should not be a pretext for changing the obscure. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 21:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, definitely, for the "support" reasons given above. In future, I might be induced to consider "William I the Conqueror," as perhaps the best of both worlds. Nihil novi (talk) 22:18, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, I prefer either William the Conqueror, or William I, King of England. William I of England is just ... messy to my mind. Ealdgyth | Talk 03:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose because the ordinal is well-established, see WP guidelines. Besides, "William of Normandy", "William the Bastard", and simply "the Conqueror" are as likely to appear in prose as either William I or Wm the Conqueror. Srnec (talk) 06:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Every schoolchild knows of William the Conqueror, 1066, and all that, but many would have no idea whether he was the first, second or seventeenth. Andrewa (talk) 11:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. I've given reasons elsewhere & long before (e.g. Talk:William I of England/Archive/1#Requested move). --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. I've just finished reading David Bates's book, William I of England. Err, no, actually it's called William the Conqueror, just as this article should be. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Redirect from the needlessly pedantic old title, the way Alexander III of Macedon redirects to Alexander the Great. --Ziusudra (talk) 14:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Pedantic? Old? Just like Britannica, Columbia, and Encarta. Besides, few even know that Alexander was king of Macedon or that there was a Macedonian succession, but the English throne and William's holding of it are very well-known. Invalid comparison. Srnec (talk) 19:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Howso? He was the first William who ruled England. Seems pretty accurate to me. "the Conqueror", with all its implications of martial glory, may be misleading: William's generalship post-Hastings is not, to my knowledge, much above average. Srnec (talk) 19:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - he is commonly known as William I of England. Anyone who doesn't know that he was William I will find out when they look for him under William the Conqueror and are redirected. If we want to use a nickname, why not "William the Bastard" by which he was known in his time? Deb (talk) 19:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • This is 2008, not his time in 1066, that's why. Charles 20:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Srnec. per consistency. And, per Deb, 'cause he certainly is called 'The Bastard' in 2008, especially when i'm particularly annoyed with what he did to certain Anglo-Saxons he ran across. Cheers, Lindsay (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is a nickname. Use redirects to direct alternative namings to the page and name the article according to the system of post Norman monarchs. See Richard the Lionheart and William Rufus Lumos3 (talk) 20:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong support Everyone of England knows who the Conqueror is. William I is very ambiguous, william the conquerer is not, there are few williams who conquered as he did. Tourskin (talk) 00:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. Everyone else calls him William the Conqueror; so should we. I think that our existing naming system for monarchs borders on original research and is inappropriate and unencyclopedic. We should use the names people actually expect to find. *** Crotalus *** 01:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
"William I of England" is not OR; and Britannica, Encarta, and Columbia all use some form of William I with ref. to England in the title of their articles. Srnec (talk) 05:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
"William I of England" is also unambiguous. Srnec (talk) 05:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Current title is common scholarly use, unambiguous, logical, and consistent. Target title is a redirect anyway DBD 10:56, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Nicknames could be POV, as in this case they are. Systematics is better for systematical reasons, and for preserving NPOV. Shilkanni (talk) 21:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Numerals are more consistent and less likely to be POV. I don't see anyone wanting to call him "William the Bastard" which is also common for him. Dimadick (talk) 14:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose EB and Encarta use William I, so I feel we ought to as well. Tim! (talk) 17:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per GoodDay. Nicknames inevitably inject POV and lead to arguments as to which ones to use. Current title puts the subject in historical context. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Moderate oppose Although I agree that he is far more often known as William the Conqueror than William I of England, I'm not persuaded that, to quote the appropriate policy at WP:NCNT#Monarchical titles (which, indeed, uses this article's current title as an example of good practice), that the "consensus [is] so strong that it would be surprising to omit the epithet" as is the case with Alfred the Great.
Whatsmore, I think virtually everyone who has heard of William also knows that he is an English monarch formally referred to as William I—unlike Alfred the Great who many don't know was King of Wessex.
Most importantly, there are obviously some serious issues of a non-NPOV (i.e.: AFAICC he believed he was the lawful heir rather than a conqueror when he invaded), Anglocentrism and Recentism (the epithet was born centuries after William's death) with the proposed name—as well as the previously mentioned consistency. —Joe Llywelyn Griffith Blakesley talk contrib 18:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Every other British/English king is known by their regnal number. Every serious historian knows him as William I. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
    But surely Wikipedia is not designed for "serious historians" who presumably know all about him and don't need to look here!. It is a general encyclopaedia for all comers, and it is slightly crazy to suggest that he is better known as William I when every schoolboy knows him as William The Conqueror. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 19:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
    Wikipedia is a serious encyclopaedia. It's not designed to make schoolboys happy! Use common name is indeed our policy, but there are limits. How about renaming the Elizabeth I article to "Good Queen Bess"? Or Margaret Thatcher to "Maggie Thatcher". We only use nicknames when that really is the commonest name used. "William the Conqueror" is indeed common, but anyone making a serious study of the subject would use "William I" and we are not aiming at the lowest common denominator. A redirect is fine. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I would rather have consistency in the naming of monarchs, in the format of "monarch name (ordinal) of country". As William the Conqueror redirects to William I of England, I really don't see a problem with the current name. – Axman (☏) 16:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - While I believe that surely many monarchs that have had a great effect on history go by some epithet, William the Conqueror and "Longshanks" are somewhat non-encyclopaedic. Especially when there is a perfectly good name, number, and country that is still quite prevalent in the vernacular. Parable1991 (talk) 19:24, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose No change in the guidelines over this since the last time this requested move was rejected in August 2005 --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:
Disingenuous. WP:NCNT says this only applies if the sources present a consensus so strong that it would be surprising to omit the epithet, as with Charlemagne or Edward the Confessor.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I find your interpretation of the above very odd, but please Assume good faith. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I was part of the consensus which came up with the present phrasing; and it has always been so read; please note that it includes Richard I of England as an example of what we ought to do. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
It reads as it stands. And stop placing your comments below the nomination. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
The high burden for use of nickname was in great part to pre-empt national and other warfare over what nickname to use. Here, there are the options of "the Bastard" and "the Conqueror". Either of them would support one POV. The standard format without nicknames avoids such battles, which usually is better for maintaining NPOV. Shilkanni (talk) 21:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
If the guideline says that we should use Richard I of England instead of Richard the Lionheart, then the guideline is stupid and should be changed or gotten rid of. *** Crotalus *** 01:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, everyone, surely there's no need to change: look at this link, then click it William the Conqueror. Where's the problem? DBD 01:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
And, if this move goes ahead, there will then be a similar redirect from William I of England to William the Conqueror. The question still is, which is the preferred title for the article? Agree it's no big deal, but if there's a consensus that the better title is William the Conqueror, then it should be moved. Andrewa (talk) 06:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
You're assuming that it's only an indexing issue, such as in a book where the author writes the work and then someone else indexes it. Here, however, we have a body of opinion that holds that if X is indexed as X, then X must always be referred to as X in the article and redirects or piped links may not be used from article Y to article X. Therefore, experience tells me that it does matter. An article called "William I of England" seemingly requires that the subject is called "William I" and nothing else. To do otherwise produces, or so I heard, shoddy, amateurish material which looks like it's been vandalised. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I see what Angus is getting at. But should that really be a constraint? Why cannot we just right a section to the style guideline whereby the title of an article is not to be its preferred usage in all instances in article texts? I find it incredible (though I do believe it) that some would feel like the Conqueror must always be referred to as "William I of England"! Is there a phobia of piped links and redirects? I prefer the current nomenclature of titles b/c it is consistent w/ room for exceptions, but I would hate to see any style guideline brought into existence that tells us how to refer to figures in article bodies. If Angus fears that the current guidelines are misinterpreted that way by a strong "body of opinion", I can see his concern, but I would rather counteract it without creating a "hodgepodge" of titles. Srnec (talk) 20:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Nickname test cases. Andrewa (talk) 16:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC) william is a nice man —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.214.217.29 (talk) 08:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Illigitimate

How did William become the Duke of Normandy if he was born illigitimate? I thought that illigitimate children were always disinherited, even if the parents got married (which William's didn't). Emperor001 (talk) 18:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

William was named 'heir-apparent' in his father's will (it's all there in the article). GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

William the Bastard?

This is real?--78.180.6.33 (talk) 16:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That he was a bastard? Or that he was called that? Both are true. Ealdgyth | Talk 16:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I am from Normandy and, on this side of the Channel, he was and is still called "Guillaume le Batard". 1) If you read the Norwegian sagas, succession was often settled by fights between all the sons of royal blood, bastard or not. 2) This was in part a term of endearment from the Norman people, i.e.: "this means that he is one of us (the people)". To be fair, William did things such as setting up a system of trials by jury in Normandy: this was a major change since prior to his reforms, local lords or the Church dispensed "justice" i.e. what served their interests. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbriens (talk • contribs) 20:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Protect this article.

It's being defaced about 5 times a day by unregistered users. Yes, I understand the irony of saying that as an unregistered user, but check the edit history. --70.131.249.172 (talk) 07:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

And being caught and reverted that many times a day, too. Protection is for times that the vandalism either can't be kept up with, or is positively malignant (i.e. WP:BLP violations, or some such); that's my understanding, anyway. Cheers, Lindsay 17:02, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
Well,...It seems many anti-vandal patrollers find their avocation diverting and rewarding. Perhaps it is only a matter of perceptions. Alas, I do not find it so.
Also, many Wikipedians seem to interpret the dictum "anyone can edit" to be the equivalent of a First Amendment right, and they resist on principle any constraints, even though there are many obvious limitations (sock puppets, libel--the list goes on).
It has been further argued that the aggregate contribution of constructive IP editors outweighs the contribution of vandalistic IP editors, but I find such statistics misleading. The case of reverting bald obscenities is simple.
How then does one quantify the effort required to identify and re-verify the multiple factual changes of a serial vandal, especially when the changes are often interleaved with well-meaning, but incomplete reversions? I have on occasion run across (and fixed) little coprolites of vandalism which had lain undetected in an article for half a year.
Finally, it is important to consider Wikipedia from the point of view of the user, especially the new one, and not just from the point of view of editors. If this article is vandalized five times a day, or even every other day, this means that the probability that a new user looking up this page for the first time will find it in a vandalized state is very high. I personally have had the experience of encouraging someone to look up something in Wikipedia, telling them what a wealth of knowledge there is to be found, only to have them encounter some preposterous vandalism, slam their browser shut, and vow never to use WP again (since it is obviously ugly and unreliable).
Just my two bits worth of dogmeat, but I think Wikipedia has far more to gain by semiprotecting articles such as this than by leaving them fully open to the forces of chaos.
—Ziusudra (talk) 20:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Photos?

Are there any photos of Willian the Conquer anywhere?

--Skunk-Fu! (talk) 14:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Photography was invented in the mid 1800's. William died in 1087. I'm thinking no photos. There may be some portraits, but few are going to be accurate likenesses. I believe his tomb is still extant, so it's possible a photo of the tomb might be available. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
but not his original tomb, destroyed by the huguenots, just an ugly classical replica

Nortmannus (talk) 15:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Number of ships vs. invasion force?

"...considerable invasion force of 600 ships and 7,000 men" means 11.6 men per ship. That seems like a small number. At least one of the two quoted numbers seems wrong. Lou (talk) 06:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

perhaps they were really just boats. after all they would just be crossing the English Channel. plus horses and supplies, etc. I am not sure where you are getting the number 7,000. The number given for the battle of Hastings is 7,000 to 8,000 suggesting that is the number of ground troops. There certainly would have been more men involved in operating the ships and providing support. 98.206.155.53 (talk) 16:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Ruptured stomach

There is no mention of the fact that, upon trying to get his body back into its coffin after the fire, his stomach ruptured. There is a contemporary account of this:

From postmortem decay the abscess had turgidly putrefied, bloating the corpse and expanding its girth. A group of bishops applied pressure on the king's abdomen to force the body downward (in the coffin) but it moved only inches; the lid still would not shut. Again they pushed, and the abdominal wall, already under intense internal pressure, burst. Pus and putrefaction drenched the king's death garb and seeped throughout the coffin. The stench so overpowered chapel mourners that, hands to noses, many raced for the doors.[1]

Danny (talk) 09:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ The Browser's Book of Endings: The End of Practically Everything and Everybody, Charles Panati, Penguin (Non-Classics); Reissue edition (December 1, 1999), ISBN-10: 014028690X

Local legend

According to a local legend in Wallonie/Belgium, Arlette or Herleva, William's mother, was born in Huy where her parents lived in the beginning of the 11th century.-(see the annotations which the monk Maurice de Neufmoustier brought in the 13th century to the texts written by Alberic de Troisfontaines).[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freddy de Hosdent (talk • contribs) 21:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Freddy Van Daele Arlette, daughter of Huy,legendary novel edited by Alfred Van Daele/ Hosdent-sur-Mehaigne 2004

Bibliography

Freddy Van Daele Arlette, daughter of Huy, legendary novel, edited by Alfred Van Daele, Hosdent-sur-Mehaigne/2004 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freddy de Hosdent (talk • contribs) 21:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction

This article (in the Reforms subsection) claims that 36 acres of the New Forest area were forcibly cleared by William, yet the New Forest article which it links to claims that this is a myth (in its history section). Is anyone able to shed any light either way? Tafkam (talk) 20:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

A bit more than 36 acres: 36 parishes. Richard New Forest (talk) 21:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Oops - yes! Well spotted. Makes it all the more pressing a clarification! Tafkam (talk) 23:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, David Douglas William the Conqueror says on page 371 "The amount of devastation which was in fact invovled has perhaps been exageratted but certainly many villages were depopulated and there was doubtless some destruction of church property." David Bates in William the Conqueror p. 118-119 says "Modern studies of the New Forest in Domesday Book cannot avoid the conclusion that depopulation and destruction did take place, although they show that William of Malmesbury certainly exaggerated its severity; the area had always been infertile and the population recorded there before the Normans came was a small one." Ealdgyth - Talk 17:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Added information that shows that the information from W of M was exageratted, along with the citation. Also threw the citation at the New Forest article, so I took the tags off both articles. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Name of the enemy

About this distinction between English and Saxon or Anglo-Saxon, it is a pointless distinction and the latter are less accurate descriptions. Harold's army was likely made up of people of Anglo-Saxon descent, people of British descent, people of Viking descent, and I know of one case of a person of Norman descent described as fighting in Harold's army, and what they all had in common is that they were in the army of the Kingdom of the English, and hence it is entirely appropriate to refer to it as the English army, in fact, more appropriate than to use an ethnic designation that would not likely have applied to the majority of the common troops. Agricolae (talk) 22:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I entirely concur. England was unified by Athelstan around 927 I believe, so this WAS an English army. We don't call Williams army the Breton-Norman one do we? User Ippikin seems to have created his account for the sole purpose of distinguishing Anglo-Saxon from English. White43 (talk) 13:09, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't concur at all! I do agree that its easier to read and understand for most people just to say that the 'English' army was defeated, and that it's 'technically' correct (eg England was united in 927). But really, the very meaning of 'English' today was created in the centuries following the conquest!!!! I don't think that calling the people who lived in England 1000 years ago 'English' is at all meaningful.
Anyway, just my tuppence worth, I have no intention of modifying the text of the article!! --BodegasAmbite (talk) 10:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Enormity??

Hi there,

I've changed 'enormity (of the change)' to 'enormousness', as enormity is an "act of extreme evil or wickedness". Perhaps 'gravity' would be better in this context.

I think the entire sentense would benefit from refrazing; you could read it as impact and enormouseness/gravity of the changes are debatable.

What do you reckon?

Regards

Burzyn (talk) 10:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Image

Recently File:King William I ('The Conqueror') from NPG.jpg (right) was uploaded. It's a 17th-century artist's impression of King William I and is not historically accurate, but might be good for a legacy or impact section. Dcoetzee 11:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Awesome quality. I wish we had high quality images of the tapestry. The one image we've got in the infobox is so fuzzy in comparison with this painting. The tapestry is so famous, you'd think there'd HQ pics of it somewhere on the net.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 07:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Please notice

I've noticed a mistake. The passage: According to some sources, the commotion so alarmed the Norman guards stationed outside that they set fire to the neighbouring houses. A Norman monk later wrote "As the fire spread rapidly, the people in the church were thrown into confusion and crowds of them rushed outside, some to fight the flames, others to take the chance to go looting." refers, as far as I know to the crowning ceremony, not the burial. See: Kenneth O. Morgan, The Oxford History of Britain, OUP, 1993, p. 120. Therefore, I've moved the passage to another place. Deelu (talk) 14:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Requested move February 2010

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

The result of the move request was: page moved.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

William I of England → William the Conqueror — As with Mary I of Scotland, this monarch should go by his most commonly used name, William the Conqueror. Aiken ♫ 13:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Support. It's stunning that there's any controversy, although sadly not surprising any longer. Powers T 17:39, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Support, as it is the name by which he is most commonly known. However, the stuffy conservative folks at WP English Royalty (or whatever) will make appeals to tradition and declare, "But this is how we do things! Name, number, nation! No exceptions!" Good luck anyway. — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 23:30, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Support if Mary Queen of Scots gets moved; this is a similar, though perhaps not as clear-cut, case. Ucucha 23:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose. This discussion is very different from move discussion for Mary, Queen of Scots. For one, Queen of Scots is still a title, just presented in an amended form. William the Conqueror is a full move towards a cognomen. There is no evidence, sources or other supporting documentation presented with this move, so it's near impossible to assess if there is any indication that there is a reason to reconsider the decision of 2008.--Labattblueboy (talk) 02:47, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    19,400 hits for William I of England; 639,000 hits for William Conqueror; 681 hits on WI on books; 8,421 for WtC on books. Just some idea of how vastly more common the title is, rather than the number. Aiken ♫ 19:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I actually favor the WC title, but those hits on the Google books for WC are misleading, as there are two hits right on the first page to the same book. Also, on that same first page you have 1902, 1967, 1877, 2000 (one of the doubles), 1992, 2008 (second version of the 2000), 1903, 1958, 1998 (but a juvenile), 1961. Limiting down by publication date doesn't help much, as it's still going to pick up reprints of older works. How do the academics refer to him? I know Bates' recent biography is WtC, and of course Douglas' is WtC, which is persuasive. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose I quote WP:NCROY: "If a monarch or prince is overwhelmingly known, in English, by a cognomen, it may be used. Examples: Alfred the Great, Charlemagne, Louis the Pious, Henry the Lion, Skanderbeg, etc.... But there must be consensus among the reliable sources so strong that it would be surprising to omit the epithet; and the name must actually be unambiguous. For example, although Richard the Lionheart is often used, Richard I is not unusual, so he is at Richard I of England;" I supported the move to Mary, Queen of Scots, as she is overwhelmingly known by this name, but the issues with William are not quite the same. He is often known as William the Conqueror, but William I is not that unusual, the case for departing from Wikipedia naming conventions with a monarch has to be quite a strong one, it has not been met in this case. PatGallacher (talk) 21:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Support If you ask the average English-speaker who William the Conqueror is, they will be able to give you an answer. The same does not hold true for "William I of England". -Rrius (talk) 20:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose I agree with Powers above, it is amazing there's still controversy, this has been gone over and over previously, hasn't it? This is at least the third time, that i remember, and i've not been around for more than half of WP's lifetime. Clearly there are good reasons, other than Twas Now's sarcastic ones, to leave it where it is. First among them, perhaps, is that given by PatGallacher, that it would not be surprising to omit the epithet. Let's put this to bed once and for all. Cheers, LindsayHi 21:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I think for the average person, it would be surprising. Powers T 18:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment It looks like we will once again mindlessly follow a guideline that has no obvious basis and provides no explanation to cure itself of that failing. -Rrius (talk) 03:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support My old history lessons always referred to William the Conqueror, not William I. It's one of those small bits of history that most English people will remember - thus I believe that it fully satifies WP:COMMONNAME 174.96.141.55 (talk) 00:56, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose Published lists of English monarchs, encyclopedias and websites such as the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography and the Official British monarchy website use "William I" and then put something like "known as William the Conqueror" afterwards. So, I prefer the article and the first name for the individual given in the article to be "William I". As there are other William I's, diambiguation is necessary in the title, and disambiguation by kingdom seems no better or worse than any other means of disambiguation. 137.205.183.12 (talk) 10:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Wouldn't disambiguating by using "William the Conqueror" be better? Powers T 11:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
No; because it would be inconsistent. And anyway, doesn't William the Conqueror just come here? Is there any reason that someone who's only ever heard of him with the epithet would not find who they were looking for ~ and learn something immediately, as they see the title of the article they've arrived as? Cheers, LindsayHi 17:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
That's no reason not to have the article title at the most common name. Powers T 23:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
You're right. On the other hand, "disambiguating" to a name which already points to the correct man, and would be against the accepted naming convention, isn't a reason to change, either. "Pre-emptively disambiguate the names of kings...in the format '{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}'....This is an exception to the general rule of most common English name." Cheers, LindsayHi 06:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
But the rule right before that says to use cognomens when they're overwhelmingly used, so the preemptive disambiguation is a moot point. Powers T 15:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. I have always seen him referred to as William the Conqueror. It may be correct to refer to him in lists of kings of England as William I, but William the Conqueror is much more widely used in general writing. There are over 500 pages that link to the redirect pages for William the Conqueror/conqueror and many of the pages that link to William I still use the name William the Conqueror in the actual article, eg Buckingham Palace. As has been said above, it fully satifies WP:COMMONNAME. Cjc13 (talk) 15:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Support: simple, unambiguous and common. Good enough for Bates too. And while "William I of England" is unambiguous, it's not especially simple (for readers) or especially common (usually just-William I). The good guidance in WP:NAME surely trumps the poorly considered and internally inconsistent WP:NCROY. Had Billy boy never been king of England, he wouldn't be William II of Normandy, he'd be William II, Duke of Normandy. Bizarre. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I struck out my oppose after the close, because it looks fine now that it's done. 137.205.183.12 (talk) 08:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Unrigorous personnal thoughts

"some might argue, continued as far as the Battle of Waterloo of 1815" What is this joke? No any source for that thinking that looks more personnal and biased than anything, wikipedia and a such important historical article should never be a place for this type of non-sense remarks. Let's keep to historical facts and rigour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.86.32.36 (talk) 02:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Charlemagne's descendants

Other than Cromwell, since the Maud of Flanders is the mother of William II, Henry II and grandmother of Matilda and Stephen; doesn't this mean that all of the monarch afterwards are descendants of Charlemagne? Since Maud is descended from Hugh Capet, who is a Caroliginian through his paternal grandmother Beatrice and Henry Fowler, his maternal grandfather. So does that mean that other then Cromwell all the heads of State (Lord Protectorate, Emperor, Empress, King and Queen) of England from WIlliam II and Henry I onwards come from Charlemagne. So since this is the case with the Bourbon, Valois and many of the Hapsburgs and Oldenburg, does that not mean that through the matrineal line Charlemagne's family goes on? --Blood3 (talk) 01:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Hugh Capet's Carolingian descents are doubtful, but William I himself descended from Charlemagne. So did Maud through the early Flanders/Carolingian marriage. So did Cromwell. So does most of the population of England. So do I. So what? Agricolae (talk) 02:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

But William's claim comes from Henry of Franconia, an ancestor of the Capets who married the granddaughter of Charlemagne's son Louis the Pious (making her his great granddaughter). And it is still unconfirmed if Berengar was the son of Ingeltrude and Henry. --Blood3 (talk) 02:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a whole lot unconfirmed about that line - it's probably bogus. William has a solid one though, (not that he would have known it, so it is hardly relevant) - he was son of Rbt, son Jud, dau Erm, dau Adele of Vermandois, and from her back the male line. Agricolae (talk) 05:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Beatrice of Vermandois was the mother of Hugh the Great. She was the daughter of Herbert I of Vermandois. Doesn't that mean that Hugh Capet has matrineal links to Charlemagne?--I am the Blood 10:40, 9 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blood3 (talk • contribs)

That Beatrice was daughter of Heribert I is widely reported, even representing published consensus by Wikipedia standards, but the evidence is of a late date and not necessarily trustworthy (from a time when the Capets would have had every reason to create such a descent if they didn't have one already), such that there are experts that view it with extreme skepticism. (Wikipedia's standards are perhaps not the best for dealing with such complex genealogical debates.) Agricolae (talk) 15:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Why is this even being discussed on William the Conqueror's talk page? Hugh Capet's mother Hedwige of Saxony was the daughter Henry I the Fowler, the son of Hedwiga of Franconia, daughter of Ingeltrude of Friuli, daugher of Gisela of Francia, daughter of Louis the Pious, son of Charlemagne. And Hugh Capet's paternal grandmother was Beatrice of Vermandois. The Historia Francorum Senonensis records that "sororem Herberti" was the wife of "Robertus princeps" who rebelled against Charles III "le Simple" King of France. Hugh Capet wouldn't have to claim descent from Charlemagne since France was not a hereditary monarchy at the time; it was the nobles choice who gets to be king. Descendants of Charlemagne were numerous and not significant. Less than one hundred year after his death most of the major power in Europe were descended from him. All the Kings of France save a few were his descendants, all the Kings of Italy, all the Holy Roman Emperor (except Lothair III), most of the Kings of Germany, the Counts of Flanders, the Counts of Vermandois, the Dukes of Aquitaine, the Dukes of Normandy and etc. Then through marriages with these nations, the rest of Europe's monarchs descends from Charlemagne. Some of his descendants' descendants married commoners and spread his blood to most of Europe.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 02:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

It is being discussed here because it was raised here. You have accurately repeated the line that has been speculated for Capet's mother, but that this represent authentic genealogy is a different story. It was first proposed a couple of decades ago and now is broadly distributed, but it cannot be demonstrated by actual documentation to be authentic. As to the Historia Francorum Senonensis, it was, as I indicated, composed later during the reign of Robert II by which time the Capets may have massaged their pedigree (and in claiming they would not have felt the need for a Carolingian claim is to fly in the face of several historians who attribute the marriage strategy of the Capetian monarchy to just such urges). The relationship in Historia Francorum Senonensis between Herbert and Robert has also been suggested to be a confused rendering of the better-documented marriage of Heribert II to Robert's daughter (if you follow the relationships shown on this set of Wikipedia pages, it suggests he married his niece, a degree of relationship that was anathema to the church of the time). Yes, if you follow the various writings of various historians on each individual relationship this is the result you get, the historical consensus, but it is a case of the product being less than the sum of its parts and one of the reasons Wikipedia does not lend itself to genealogical complexities (and also why putting a genealogical table containing information ranging from directly documented by contemporary sources to outright guesswork at the end of every possible Wikipedia page about a royal or noble personage is not necessarily a good idea). Agricolae (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
A note on the notability of Carolinian descent. It is commonly argued that it is not notable because it is common today. However, the closer in time you get to Charlemagne the more unique it becomes. I don't think it is relevant to William I, because it is not part of his claim to the throne. It seems to me a sort of fun fact, but trivial here. Of course one may also ask why descent from Charlemagne is more important than descent from Charles Martel, or descent from Louis the Pious? 98.206.155.53 (talk) 16:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

the Conqueror?

An anon user is persistently trying to add the unsourced claim that he was already known as the Conqueror because of conquests in Brittany. I am sceptical, I remember reading in an Observer article on him that this sobriquet only arose some time after his death, in his time he was usually known as William the Bastard, although towards the end some were calling him William the Great. Any comments? PatGallacher (talk) 16:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC) I was under the impression that he propagated the name himself. As such, why is the article called 'William the Conqueror' rather than 'William the Bastard' which is also widely used and would be at least as appropriate? In my opinion it should be renamed to a factual and neutral William I. Is anyone else of the same opinion? Purestgreen (talk) 09:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Think it would be fair to rename the entry William I in keeping with other monarchs. My one complaint is that at present most readers identify William by the name accorded him by historians which is "The Conqueror." Although this is easily solved by a redirect. You're 100% correct in asserting that most in his time would have called him "the Bastard." Actually given his actions suppressing rebellions and the present connotation of that word it might well be perfect!--Factchk (talk) 17:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Missing reference to doomsday book

From watching BBC FOUR recently as part of their ongoing series "The Normans", I have found out about the so called "doomsday book", which was a major accomplishment for William I to define ownership in England. There is an article about this book an Wikipedia. This article should have a short reference to that other article, explaining the overall impact of William I by this major act imposed by him on English people. 84.163.141.14 (talk) 09:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC) Sorry, there is a reference to Domesday book. What is the correct term? Doomsday or Domesday? 84.163.141.14 (talk) 10:03, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Stepfather's ghost bearing caskets?

Under "Death, Burial..." it states that William's stepfather, Herluin, helped bear William's casket. When you click on the link it shows Herluin as having died in 1066. Something doesn't add up. Jrule (talk) 07:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

claimants to the Duchy

who were these people trying to assassinate young William? Did he have some uncle or cousin with a claim on inheritance? 98.206.155.53 (talk) 16:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:William_the_Conqueror/Archive_1&oldid=1176029199"