Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Stephen, King of England/archive1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archived comments from Ealdgyth[edit]

  • Sourcing:
    • Which edition of Davis are you using?
1st - have noted now in the biblio. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Green - Anglo-Norman Studies should be italicised.
    • Which edition of Feudal Kingdom are you using? Should specify.
    • Generally, I'd prefer to see * Bennett, Matthew. (2000) "The Impact of 'Foreign' Troops in the Civil Wars of Stephen's Reign," in Dunn, Diana E. S. (ed) (2000) ''[http://bks9.books.google.co.uk/books?id=7Jx4x1WRdYwC&printsec=frontcover&img=1&zoom=5&edge=curl War and society in medieval and early modern Britain.]'' Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. ISBN 9780853238850. so that the reader doesn't have to go look elsewhere in the bibliography... in other words, provide full bibliographical information in each citation.
    • Year of publication for the Duby? (and I strongly recommend Hallam's Capetian France 2nd edition for a balancing account).
  • Do you have a copy of Hallam? I'm happy to provide a balancing reference, but don't have access to it.Hchc2009 (talk) 05:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Date added. Have ordered a copy of Hallam from Amazon.Hchc2009 (talk) 11:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • All power to J. H. Round, but surely you can find something more modern than his studies of Danegeld and Domesday? Domesday studies have advanced greatly since Round's time... Round is still useful on peerage subjects, but I would want a newer perspective on taxation. (Mitchell's Taxation in Medieval England is on my shelves, if you want me to check it for you...)
  • They're in the Historiography section where it explains the Victorian attitudes to the subject, including Round, and his invention of the term "the Anarchy" in the 1880s to describe Stephen's reign - I agree, I wouldn't otherwise be using it. Hchc2009 (talk) 05:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ouch. And Stubbs too? What are you citing to Stubbs?
  • Again, its in the Historiography section, describing Victorian historical attitudes to Stephen.Hchc2009 (talk) 05:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


  • Lead:
    • first paragraph - The second, third, and fourth sentences start "He", "His" and "He" which is repetitious.
  • Broken up slightly - see what you think.Hchc2009 (talk) 11:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Suggest "his brother Henry of Blois, a powerful ecclesiastic," to make it clearer what Henry's role was.
    • "disarming of a number of bishops" ... err... no. Disarming is going to suggest to readers literal disarming, which isn't what happened. They were deprived of the custody of royal castles and arrested. Suggest "including arresting a number of bishops" or "arresting a powerful family of bishops". I prefer the later, actually.
  • Your version sounds much better - have changed accordingly. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't we capitalize "Battle of Lincoln"?
  • A lot of the military historians in the literature don't, and I've fallen into the same habit; if you'd prefer I do, I'm happy to. Hchc2009 (talk) 05:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you did that you'd probably have to change other cases such as battle of Ramla. I think as long as you're consistent in whether you use "Battle of..." or "battle of..." it doesn't matter especially. Nev1 (talk) 14:08, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • brief explanation of William of Ypres? Perhaps "after his wife and William of Ypres, one of his military commanders, ..."
    • Ouch. "FitzEmpress" is better, "fitzEmpress" or "fitz Empress" would be better.
    • I would think that pointing out that Stephen had one other son still living at the Treaty of Wallingford would help make folks understand why it was needed for a treaty to regulate the succession.
  • Childhood:
    • I would think that pointing out that Stephen-Henry was basically forced to return to the Crusade by his wife would help illustrate how strongly Adela was able to influence events...
  • I've found a choice quote for a footnote - see if you like it! Hchc2009 (talk) 08:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've always liked Tyerman's use of language. My professor in college used to call Adela "The Shrew"... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "controlled by his eldest brother, Robert of Normandy" would be better... and you may need to explain a bit more to give background on why Stephen's seizure of the throne wasn't so strange to the English .. given that every other transfer of power since Harold had been a bit irregular. Also, you say "Robert of Normandy" but give nicknames for "William Rufus" and "William Clito" .. suggest going with "Robert Curthose"
  • Have changed as per your proposal.Hchc2009 (talk) 08:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cover a bit of the seizure of the throne background in the next section - do you think I need more there? Hchc2009 (talk) 08:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I wrote this, I hadn't hit the next section yet.. as a person familiar with the period, it struck me as possibly an omission, but it's not given the added information later. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Battle of Tinchebray"...
  • As per above, I'm keen to stick with the lower case style unless there's a wider guideline.Hchc2009 (talk) 08:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Henry had confiscated the title of the Count of Mortain, previously owned by William"... this could be confusing to readers - suggest "Henry confiscated the County of Mortain from William, the count,..." or something similar. Right now, the bare piped link to William is confusing to readers, given the number of William's floating around in the narrative.
  • No imagination, those Normans... :) Changed! Hchc2009 (talk) 08:18, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, gods, everyone is named William, Henry, Robert, Matilda or Joan... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relationship with Henry I:
    • A bit of POV "but unfortunately the local Normans revolted" ... drop the "unfortunately" and it'll read more neutral.
  • Sorted. (Normally I manage to do that when talking about English revolts, so it makes a change!) Hchc2009 (talk) 07:59, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Battle of Alencon"? And link?
  • Link added (albeit red at the moment). Hchc2009 (talk) 14:52, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Count of Boulogne" but "count of Flanders"? I think "Count of Flanders" to be consistent.
    • Hm... "Honour of Eye" and "Honour of Lancaster" ... "honours" as such are a bit anachronistic in this time frame, aren't they? Try "lordship", I don't think the word "honour" is often used in relation to these lands during Stephen's reign...
  • I'm aware of the debate over the "honour" term, but Edmund King, the latest biographer of Stephen (2010), uses the term, as do most of his other biographers, and (whatever my own views!) I think I'm followed the academic consensus in "honour" rather than "lordship".Hchc2009 (talk) 05:21, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wasn't sure how to deal with this, that is, how to make it more accessable to a general readership. If "Lordship" is reasonably close to the meaning, then I'd suggest "Honour (Lordship)" at the first occurrence (but no parenthetical comments inside a link, please). - Dank (push to talk) 14:28, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a little bit of wording in that should do this - see what you think. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:59, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • White Ship:
    • Need to state any speculations on why the White Ship sank - especially after mentioning "overcrowding".
  • Done. I haven't included a certain novelist's suggestion that Stephen had them murdered though! :) Hchc2009 (talk) 18:00, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You used "William Rufus" earlier, stick with it, don't use "William II" which will just confuse readers. Also, that would get rid of the need to relink the various claimants here when they are linked in "Childhood" or "Relationship with Henry I"
    • None of the nobles could have made an oath to recognize Henry fitzEmpress as Matilda's successor in 1127, 1128 or 1131, as Henry wasn't born until 1133.
    • Give Matilda and Geoffrey's marriage date? You also need to point out that William Adelin and Matilda's mother had died in 1118, but that Henry remarried immediately after the White Ship, but never had another legitimate child (although he did have large numbers of illigitimate children).
  • Marriage date in. The article now mentioned the Henry's second wife - do you still reckon we need more in this section? Hchc2009 (talk) 06:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Succession:
    • "Henry of Blois" or "Henry of Winchester"? Suggest sticking with Henry of Blois.
    • "The combined revenues of the two positions made Henry of Winchester the second-richest man in England after the king. The Norman kings had traditionally exercised a great deal of power and autonomy over the church within their territories. From the 1040s onwards, however, successive popes had put forward a reforming message that emphasised the importance of the church being "governed more coherently and more hierarchically from the centre" and established "its own sphere of authority and jurisdiction, separate from and independent of that of the lay ruler", in the words of historian Richard Huscroft. Henry of Winchester was a major advocate of this principle and keen to reverse what he perceived as encroachment by the Norman kings on the rights of the church." reads somewhat disjointed. Suggest reordering to "The combined revenues of the two positions made Henry of Winchester the second-richest man in England after the king. Henry of Winchester was a major advocate of this principle and keen to reverse what he perceived as encroachment by the Norman kings on the rights of the church. The Norman kings had traditionally exercised a great deal of power and autonomy over the church within their territories. From the 1040s onwards, however, successive popes had put forward a reforming message that emphasised the importance of the church being "governed more coherently and more hierarchically from the centre" and established "its own sphere of authority and jurisdiction, separate from and independent of that of the lay ruler", in the words of historian Richard Huscroft." which ties the bits about the papal position to Henry a bit more seamlessly.
  • Have gone for a slightly tweaked version of your words - see what you think.Hchc2009 (talk) 08:26, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "religious oath" is redundant and a bit confusing. All oaths were religious - normally "religious oath" is used for things like vows made when joining a monastery, etc. Plain "oath" is fine here.
  • Changed, and linked just in case. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:23, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Stephen's coronation was held a week later at Westminster Abbey." give the date.
    • "...argue that Theobald and Stephen had probably already made a private deal to seize the throne if Henry died." IF he died? I mean, yeah, Henry I lived forever it seemed, but ... really, he was going to die sometime. Let's go with "when Henry died."
    • "His brother, Henry of Winchester, delivered him the support of the church in England..." is awkward ... suggest "Henry of Blois delivered the support of the church to Stephen ..."
    • "....where Roger, who was both the Bishop of Salisbury and the Lord Chancellor, instructed the royal treasury to be handed over to him." THe him is ambiguous here - last male mentioned is Roger...
    • King (p. 46) doesn't quite say that Henry wrote Stephen's coronation proclamation - the statement is "On Sunday, 15 December or in the days that followed Henry worked on an agreed text that promised to put an end..." This is a bit more nuanced and less dogmatic than the text in the article.
    • Hugh Bigod did not become Earl of Norfolk until 1140 or 1141, after Stephen seized the throne, need to fix this.
  • Initial years:
    • Blech. "Norman invasion of England" is way too PC here.. invasion implies that they might not have succeeded. Call it what it was ... "Norman conquest" .. which indeed is the common way to refer to it.
    • "South Wales" but "east Glamorgan"? and then "south Wales" later on in the same sentence... consistency.
    • "...Stephen instead supported Theobald of Bec, who was eventually appointed, while Henry was given the role of papal legate instead." This implies that Stephen gave Henry the papal legate. And "role" isn't quite right, here either. Try "Stephen instead supported Theobald of Bec, who was eventually appointed, while the papacy named Henry papal legate, possibly as consolation for not receiving Canterbury."
  • Initial phase:
    • Okay, the Queen Adeliza is going to come at readers completely out of the blue unless you explain who she is earlier in the context of the White Ship..and "Dowager Queen" would be better..
    • Okay, inconsistency in linking counties - the third paragraph, you have a pile of counties that aren't linked, then you link Wiltshire? Why?
    • "Ranulf of Chester continued to rankle over Stephen's gift of the north of England to Prince Henry." "continued to rankle" is a very odd phrasing... suggest "Ranulf of Chester remained upset about ..."
    • "formed a truce"? Again, just reads weird. Suggest "agreed to a truce" or something similar.
    • "Stephen issued a new royal charter, confirming the promises he had made to the church, promising to reverse Henry's policies on the royal forests and to reform any abuses of the royal legal system." Carpenter does not tie this charter to the Easter court specifically, he just states it was issued in April 1136. This is the Oxford charter of liberties and King states (pp. 62-63) that it was issued at Oxford, not York, and was in April 1136. King specifically does not tie it to the Easter court. This needs fixing.
    • "In 1136, Archbishop of Canterbury William de Corbeil died. Stephen responded by seizing his personal wealth, which caused some discontent amongst the senior clergy, but it also raised the question of his successor." The way this is phrased, it implies that Stephen's seizure of William's wealth was what brought up the question of a new ABC... i know that's not the case, but it is implied to other readers who may not know the period as well.
  • Trimmed down a bit - see what you think; I'm not sure I've got the right verb in "succeed" though.Hchc2009 (talk) 18:12, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Defending the kingdom:
    • "David of Scotland also invaded the north of England once again, announcing that he was supporting the claim of his niece the Empress Matilda to the throne..." Suggest some explanation for how Matilda was David's niece would be in order.
  • Second phase:
    • "No help was forthcoming from Theobald this time either..." clarify that this is Stephen's brother, not the Archbishop, who happens to be the last mentioned Theobald.
    • "After their disagreement, Robert of Gloucester and the Empress besieged Henry in the city of Winchester in July." What disagreement? I don't own Bradbury ... you've never mentioned any such disagreement between Robert and Matilda ... and I'm not seeing anything in Chibnall's Empress Matilda that suggests any such disagreement.
  • Very poorly worded by me - I was trying to refer to Henry and Matilda, in a (much) earlier version of the paragraph. I've deleted, as the narrative doesn't need it now. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:03, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Was the delegation led by Theobald to Stephen at Bristol purely clerical or was it mixed with some laypeople?
  • Stalemate:
    • "In the north, Stephen came to a fresh agreement with Ranulph of Chester..." but earlier you use "Ranulf"... be consistent.
  • Have changed and stuck with Ranulf. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:14, 26 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Final phases:
    • The last paragraph is jarring ... we discuss the two sons, and then suddenly we're discussing the abbey he founded, can we join these thoughts together somewhat better?
    • "...while new voices such as the Cistercians had gained precedence within the monastic orders, eclipsing " precendence has unfortunate connotations here, suggesting heirarchies and smacks of nobility. Suggest "prestige" or something similar.
  • Argument:
    • Davis in the third edition never calls Henry of Blois a "former member of Cluny" ... in fact, he states (p. 98) "Henry was the very type of man whom Bernard hated - a nepotist, pluralist, and Cluniac monk who had deserted his cloister, who built castles, took part in war, made a display of his wealth..." As far as I know, Henry never left the Cluniac order.
  • You're absolutely right - a clear mistake by me, sorry! Hchc2009 (talk) 18:44, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Since the only person who could crown Eustace was the exiled Archbishop Theobald, who refused to do so without agreement from the current pope, Eugene III, the matter reached an impasse." Theobald wasn't in exile very long, but saying "exiled" implies that he had been in exile a long time. Actually, at this point, he had only been in exile a couple of months, he had refused to crown Eustace before he got himself exiled (which happened because he defied the king and went to the Council of Reims in 1148. Check Theobald's (FA!) article for details.)
  • It probably felt longer to Theobald! :) I've removed the first mention of exile, as you're right, it sends the wrong impression, and we mention the exiling again later.Hchc2009 (talk) 06:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "At the end of 1148, Stephen and Theobald came to a temporary compromise that allowed Theobald to return to England, where he was appointed a papal legate in 1151, adding to his authority." The implication is that Stephen got Theobald appointed papal legate .. this is not the case.
  • Good point. I've broken the sentence in two as a way of avoiding this interpretation.Hchc2009 (talk) 06:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "When Theobald refused yet again, Stephen and Eustace imprisoned both him and the bishops and refused to release them until they agreed." Agreed to what?
First round. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Second round Ealdgyth - Talk 14:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Third round Ealdgyth - Talk 14:22, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates/Stephen,_King_of_England/archive1&oldid=454075253"