Wikipedia:Featured article review/Edward I of England/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edward I of England[edit]

Edward I of England (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

As of 20 April 2024, 12:31 (UTC), this page is active and open for discussion. A FAR coordinator will advance or close this nomination when consensus is reached.
Toolbox
Notified: Unlimitedlead, Dudley Miles, Ealdgyth, Usernamesarebunk, Lampman, Hchc2009, GoldRingChip, Gog the Mild, Surtsicna, Nev1, Mike Christie England, WikiProject Wales, WikiProject Scotland, Ireland, Jewish history, Middle Ages, Military history WikiProject English Royalty diff for talk page notification

I am nominating this featured article for review because, during the FA process the article went through, three large areas of historical research were omitted. Thus currently it does not meet the criteria that the article needs to be:

  • 1.b comprehensive: it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context and
  • 1.c well-researched: it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature

I have since addressed one of those, but had no feedback. I intend to address the other two but would like to ensure my work is reviewed as I do so.

The areas that were not addressed during the FAC process were

  1. Anglo-Jewish historical research: Edward's actions are a large subject of discussion in this literature, which contends that he has particular significance for the history of antisemitism and for English identity, which incorporated an antisemitic element as a result of the expulsion. (These topics were notably missed in Prestwich.) These issues have now been addressed to a minimum level by myself but need a check for FA standards.
  2. Welsh history: Edward I is of particular significance to Welsh history. Edward is typically seen by Welsh medievalists as a coloniser, someone who did immense damage to Welsh society, culture and self-confidence, which produced a lasting anger. These items need expanding in the "Legacy" section at least. The literature on Edward I from a Welsh perspective was unfortunately contended not to exist during FA review.
  3. Irish history: The literature on Ireland was not consulted; Ireland is not covered in the article at all, except to mention Edward governed it and it provided him income. Themes include the early takeover by Edward and some squabbling with his father; Edward treating Ireland as a revenue source and little else; corruption and incompetence in the administrators Edward appointed and repeatedly sacked; over-taxation to meet his war demands; speculation over food exports during the Welsh and Gascon wars; problems emerging from the Edwardian weak administration including a revival of the fortunes of the Gaelic areas' leadership, leading to regular wars in the period and following centuries. Thus although an absentee landlord, current Irish historical research sees him as signficant for the difficulties of Ireland that continued in the centuries following.

Additionally, a check should be made regarding Scottish sources and perspectives.

These areas should also be looked at:

  • Religious views: the article may not fully capture the nature of Edward's devotion. It covers his piety as actions, rather than as a belief system. There is commentary about his and Eleanor's piety giving them a sense that they were doing God's work, which makes sense as Crusaders, and explains better his sense of certainty while doing morally reprehensible things.
  • Relations with Eleanor: particularly, the support of and the psychological impact of the loss of Eleanor and some of Edward's key advisors around 1290 is often held to have impacted the latter part of his reign. This doesn't seem to be discussed. Also, Edward encouraged Eleanor to accumulate land wealth to reduce the call on his own funds, which was an important change for future queens but impacted a lot on domestic relations with the landed classes who were being dispossessed; it limited what he could do with taxation and was a driver in his policies towards the Jews. This is now touched on this but it could do with discussion earlier.

The reasons for several of these areas being missed appear to include an over-reliance on Michael Prestwich's biography. It received significant academic criticism for missing several of these areas, and being overly concerned with war administration and finance; which I have noted on his Wikipedia page.

Key texts that need consulting include:

  • For Wales, "The Age of Conquest: Wales 1063-1415" by RR Davies from 2001, and A History of Wales by John Davies.
  • For Ireland, "A new history of Ireland Volume II 1169-1534", which contains a dedicated chapter on Edward's Lordship, "The years of Crisis, 1254-1315" and a further chapter on the wars that were provoked in the period "A Land of War", both by James Lydon. There is by Robin Frame, "Ireland and Britain 1170 to 1450", and other works

As mentioned, I would not like to see this article demoted and I am willing to do the work on Wales and Ireland particularly, and anything further on Anglo-Jewish matters. There is a question on structure for that section also. A point may emerge around article length and there may need to be cuts to meet FA criteria. This I would certainly need help with.

If it is better that I simply work on these areas, complete that and bring the article back to FAR afterwards I can do that. But I haven't got much feedback on the page and feel reluctant to do more work without a little guidance.

Jim Killock (talk) 21:05, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by KJP1[edit]

My view is that a FAR, a year after the article's promotion, is not needed. If I can try and summarise, you think there are three areas where something/more needs to be said;

  • Edward and the Jews;
  • Edward and Wales;
  • Edward and Ireland;

and two areas that may need a bit more coverage:

  • Edward's religiosity;
  • Edward and Eleanor.

My suggestion would be that you write brief, sourced, paragraphs on each of these, covering the additional points you think need to be made, and place them on the article Talkpage. Then, see what other involved/interested editors think. I stress brief for two reasons - firstly, your comments to date are rather long and this may discourage editors from engaging with them; secondly, there are always challenges around what to include, and not include, in an FA. Edward reigned for 35 years and packed a lot in, as well as being quite busy before his accession. Therefore, you're never going to be able to cover everything. Indeed, we already have spin-offs, e.g. Conquest of Wales by Edward I, Edict of Expulsion etc. and it may well be that further spin-offs, Edward and the Jews / Edward in Ireland etc. could be an answer. KJP1 (talk) 08:33, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with that but I'd note the main reason for non-engagement AFAICT is probably that the main editor is in semi-retirement and no longer working on the page. There will be existing pages for all these topics, but for an FA standard, the page has to reasonably represent all the relevant literatures, AIUI, ie, other parts might need trimming, if it came to a question of overall length. As now the article arguably violates NPOV, through omission of some of the more uncomfortable aspects of his reign.Jim Killock (talk) 08:57, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect that the OP has found sufficient deficiencies in the article to justify a trip to FAR. Per policy, if they attempted any major changes they could be reverted, while the talk page is quiet enough to suggest it would be an unprofitable exercise.
    In the meantime they have built a solid case. They have identified fundamental omissions which don't only breach WP:FA? but Wikipedia policy and pillar also.
    More broadly, it highlights the problem with a lack of expertise at FAC. There may not be always much we can do about that, but we must accept the consequences of it all the same. While the review of this article received an at first glance thorough examination, with the exception of a couple, most of the reviews were for prose and spelling and the source review lightweight. The latter, at least, could have e highlighted gaps in the scholarship.
    Still, it's not too late. I'm sure we're all grateful to JimKillock for highlighting these issues and for expressing willingness to step up to the mark and address them. Cheers! ——Serial 12:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, FAR or Talkpage, it would be immensely helpful if JimK could provide suggested paragraphs for inclusion, which would look to address the said omissions. I think that would greatly assist other editors in assessing the issues, and how they might be addressed in the article, having regard to weight, length etc. KJP1 (talk) 15:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will crack on with this for sure. It may take me a few days to find time to start; altogether I would think probably 3-4 weeks are needed for me to find spare time to look at all the things I've mentioned. The Wales paras are the easiest for me. Jim Killock (talk) 16:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No hurry and no problem! Edward I is not my period, but I do have some experience of compressing prose into tight, FA, pargraphs. If I can help at all in terms of reviewing the prose, I'd be delighted. Serial is your man for reviewing the content. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks both of you for the kind words and offers of (potential!) help. Jim Killock (talk) 22:07, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KJP1@Serial Number 54129Ping in case you are able to help: I've linked to the work I have already done for checking re Anglo-Jewish policies, and drafted the changes regarding Wales from Welsh sources below. Jim Killock (talk) 18:45, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JimKillock - Not forgotten this, just busy irl this week. Will take a look at the weekend. KJP1 (talk) 08:30, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Edward's Jewish policies: text check[edit]

Could I suggest that @Serial or others take a look at the content I added about Edward's Jewish policies as a first step? These are to be found at:

  • Edward I of England#Diplomacy and war on the Continent: short sentences about his fall and the expulsion in Gascony. (On Easter Sunday 1287, Edward was standing in a tower when the floor collapsed. He fell 80 feet, broke his collarbone, and was confined to bed for several months. Several others died. Soon after he regained his health, he ordered the local Jews expelled from Gascony,seemingly as a "thank-offering" for his recovery.)
  • Edward I of England#Finances, the expulsion of Jews, and Parliament: the two enlarged paragraphs on his Jewish policies. The prior version can be read here. As well as underplaying the issues, there were some factual / inferential errors I noted on the talk page.
  • Edward I of England#Legacy: here I added a paragraph setting out views of Edward from an Anglo-Jewish studies perspective.

There are also some efn's I added where the material didn't belong in the main text, eg regarding Jews being banned from the new towns in Wales. I'm happy to help with any source checking needed. A lot of it should be easy to access and is frequently available online, eg with Stacey's articles.

Some quick notes on the emphasis: I think the section on Edward's Jewish policies would sit better under its own heading. It is strange to read about these events in between currency reform and how good Edward was at setting up Parliaments.
The Edict of Expulsion seems to run as the destination of about a significant group of the readers of the Edward I page (the figures track that way at least) and is the most popular Edward I related page after the main page - it is a topic that people seem to want to find out about from this page and regard as important.
The Henry III of England page has much more content on his Jewish policies, and its own section, for comparison.
I am starting work on the other additions here. I've identified some other missing information regarding Edward's character that needs to be looked at later. Jim Killock (talk) 22:05, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure page views a good guide to what is WP:DUE—we would usually look at coverage of Edward I eg. in reliable sources, especially those focused on him personally. One might also consider that the number of Jews expelled was a few thousand, compared to the population under Edward's rule—as many as five million (according to England in the Middle Ages). (t · c) buidhe 05:57, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, except:
    • The Jewish policies dominated Parliamentary politics to 1290 so were clearly a major concern of the time
    • There is a similar level of concern and activity in the Church (see John Peckham, Thomas de Cantilupe, Richard Swinefield) much directed of it at Edward.
    • The impact of these policies was to make England a nation with a consciously antisemitic identity for several centuries (the unique nation that is unique because it is free of Jews)
    • Edward's impact on anti-Jewish sentiment included giving decisive credibiity to blood libel and setting a precedent for the later Spanish expulsions
    • There is a large historiography which points out that the older mainstream sources on Edward has consistently underestimated the importance of these matters (see review summary at Michael Prestwich#Biography of Edward I).
    • Newer sources are rebalancing the emphasis
    This is outlined at Edward I of England#Legacy. Assuming that Prestwich or biogs in general get the balance right is perilous, the minimum that needs to be done is to check other relevance literatures to see if they agree. Prestwich got a lot of criticism for the things he left out, and concentrating too much on admin and warfare. Morris' more recent work is closer to the mark, but according to the FAC checks said little from the perspective of Wales, and none of the biographies seem have looked at the Irish literature at all.
    From a WP:DUE policy perspective it is quite simple: "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources". Biographies of English Kings are not the only potential reliable sources for English Kings. Anglo-Jewish, Irish, Welsh and Scottish sources are also important and may reflect a different emphasis on what is relevant.
    On the other hand, taking English biographers views as a definitive guide to what is important to emphasise about an English King, could understandably lead to a rather English and NNPOV - which arguably is what we currently have in this article. Jim Killock (talk) 06:40, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wales I: Edward I of England#Conquest of Wales[edit]

Hi there, here's my first suggestions for amendments, regarding the section "Conquest of Wales". I've included notes from the sources to help show why I've selected what I have and to help with any source checking anyone wants to do. --Jim Killock (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Paragraph Three[edit]
  • current text: "For the Welsh, this war was over national identity, enjoying wide support, provoked particularly by attempts to impose English law on Welsh subjects.[1]"
Notes from sources: See endnote.[a]
Suggest: "For the Welsh, this war was over national identity and the right to traditional Welsh law, enjoying wide support, provoked by attempts to abuse the English legal system to dispossess prominent Welsh landowners, many of whom were Edward's former opponents.[2]"
--Jim Killock (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • current text: "For Edward, it became a war of conquest rather than simply a punitive expedition, like the former campaign.[3]"
Notes from sources: See endnote.[b]
Suggest:"For Edward, it became a war of conquest aimed to "put an end finally to … the malice of the Welsh"."[4]
--Jim Killock (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Paragraph Three and Four[edit]
  • current text: Further rebellions occurred in 1287–88 and, more seriously, in 1294, under the leadership of Madog ap Llywelyn, a distant relative of Llywelyn ap Gruffudd.[5] This last conflict demanded the King's own attention, but in both cases the rebellions were put down.[6][7]
Notes from sources: See endnote.[c]
suggest: Move this sentence to after the legal reforms and admin paragraph four. Add to that paragraph: The Welsh aristocracy were nearly wholly dispossessed of their lands.[8] Edward was the greatest beneficiary of this process.[9] and then place afterwards: Further rebellions occurred in 1287–88 and, more seriously, in 1294, under the leadership of Madog ap Llywelyn, a distant relative of Llywelyn ap Gruffudd.[10] The causes included deep resentment at the occupation, poor, colonial-style governance, and very heavy taxation.[11] This last conflict demanded the King's own attention, but in both cases the rebellions were put down.[12]
--Jim Killock (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Paragraph Five: on castles[edit]
Notes from sources: See end note.[d]
Suggest: These included the Beaumaris, Caernarfon, Conwy and Harlech castles, intended to act as fortresses, royal palaces and as the new centres of civilian and judicial administration.[14]
--Jim Killock (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Aftermath: missing content[edit]
  • current text: Nothing substantial after the revolt, except in the final paragraph regarding making Edward II Prince of Wales; The King seems to have hoped that this would help in the pacification of the region. (This is clarified as heading a system of patronage rather than symbolic act in the Welsh history sources, as below.)
Notes from sources: See end note.[e]
Suggest: After the section on the revolts: The revolt was followed by immediate punitive measures including taking 200 hostages.[15] Measures to stop the Welsh from bearing arms or residing in the new boroughs probably date from this time, and the Welsh administration continued to be nearly wholly imported.[16]
Suggest: At the end of the Conquest section, after the detail about Edward II as PoWales: Edward began a more concilatory policy to rebuild systems of patronage and service, particularly through his son as Prince of Wales, but Wales remained politically volatile, and a deep divide and distrust remained between the English settlers and the Welsh.[17]
Suggest: In the para here about Edward II as PoWales: cut "The King seems to have hoped that this would help in the pacification of the region, and that it would give his son more financial independence"; replace with hoping to give his son more financial independence attached to prior sentence.
NB I moved David Powel, a 16th-century clergyman, suggested that the baby was offered to the Welsh as a prince "that was borne in Wales and could speake never a word of English", but there is no evidence to support this widely reported account.[122] to an endnote.
--Jim Killock (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wales II: Edward I of England#Legacy[edit]

This short section on Wales needs replacing. No other part of this section refers to contemporary views, so that should go. Morris is a general medieval not a Welsh historian, although presumably he has family connections; his views are not relevant to Welsh historiography. Whether the conquest was "justified" isn't a discussion point in the Welsh literature; it is rather why and how it was done, and the consequences of it that are discussed.

  • Current text: Modern commentators have conflicting opinions on whether Edward's conquest of Wales was warranted. Contemporary English historians were firmly in favour of the King's campaigns there. Morris takes the position that the poor condition of Wales would have allowed England to dominate it at some point or another, whether by direct conquest or through natural deterioration.
Notes from sources: Taking queues from the commentary in endnotes especially[a][c][e]
  • Suggested text: Welsh historians see Edward's reign and conquest as a disaster for Welsh national confidence and culture. R. R. Davies finds Edward to engage in the "gratuitous belittling of his opponents", being "one of the most consistent and unattractive features of his character as King", and views his methods in Wales as essentially colonialist,[18] creating deep resentment and an "apartheid-like" social structure.[19] John Davies noted the "anti-Welsh fanaticism" of the English colonists introduced by Edward's conquest.[20] They acknowledge Edward's eventual attempts to rebuild some kind of co-operation with native Welsh society, but state that this was insufficient to heal the trauma of conquest.[21]
--Jim Killock (talk) 19:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ireland[edit]

Next steps[edit]

I will try to write up the section on Ireland next, once I have Davies 1998 British Isles book. I have access to the two volumes on Ireland, Frame 1998 and Lydon 2008 mentioned. --Jim Killock (talk) 19:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Questions arising[edit]

  • There is a strand of literature looking at the history of the "British Isles" in this period (as with others, cf the revaluation of the English Civil Wars as the "Wars of the Three Kingdoms". With Edward I this would draw the threads together of the commonalities between the England to Ireland, Scotland and Wales relationships. Needs a check starting with Barrow 1976, Davies 1998 and Frame 1995.
  • Some of the positive assessments in the "Legacy" section belong to a group of authors (Spencer and Burt) whose work focuses narrowly on Edward from an English law and administration perspective, their conclusions are notably in tension with the authors from the "four nations / British Isles" perspective. This could do with sourcing and commentary.
  • The "character as King" section will need rewriting to take account of the more negative perspectives, regarding abuse of law, going back on his word, acts of petty vengeance, contempt for the Welsh, for example

Comments from KJP1[edit]

With apologies for the delay in getting to this, a few comments. A caveat to start, Edwardian history is definitely not my period, and thus what I'm not able to judge is the weight that would be appropriate to give to the differing views on the Jewish and Welsh (and subsequently Irish) issues. That said:

  • In general, the suggested additions to the Jewish/Welsh issues seem quite reasonable.
  • In relation to the Jewish issue, we now have two, well-sourced, paragraphs, featuring a range of views. These seem reasonable. I'm not myself quite clear on the connection that is being drawn between the tomb of Little St Hugh and the Eleanor Crosses. The text says "is likely to have been an attempt by Edward"; it seems to be suggesting more than just a stylistic similarity, but some form of connected political aim. Is it possible to make it clearer?
    • The background is that they were built in the same style by the same craftsmen working for the Royal household. This has led historians to pick up on a linked political purpose, as both are political objects. Since Eleanor had an "unsavoury" reputation regarding Jewish loans and land seizures, it is most likely that she was being associated with the cult of St Hugh, in order to "clean up" her reputation, as someone who venerated a Christian child supposedly ritually murdered by Jews. However, although the evidence is quite clear, it is also historians making educated calculations, not a matter of simple fact. At the same time, Edward's promotion of the cult is absolutely established and his purpose entirely clear. I'll take another look as the point re Eleanor is a difficult point to convey. --Jim Killock (talk) 09:35, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Checking, I had placed this information into an end note, regarding the link between the Eleanor crosses and the tomb design. I could edit the main body, to say something like "creating a visual association" or "probably to associate Eleanor's memory with the cult". --Jim Killock (talk) 12:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I can't judge is whether the emphasis given to this issue by historians would warrant it being a separate section. It would, of necessity, still be quite brief. That said, a 4.4. would not seem too problematic?
  • Wales - moving the coverage of the 1287/1294 rebellions further down seems reasonable, and creates a better chronology. The other changes don't seem controversial to me.
  • Legacy - losing the sentence on contemporary English views of the Welsh campaigns again doesn't seem controversial, it's not directly sourced. Where I would diverge from JimK is in ditching Morris and having only the views of Welsh historians, Davies/Davies. Include them, certainly, but not exclusively.
    • Just quickly on this: the current "Legacy" structure is "views on Edward, from an older English; modern English; Scottish; Welsh; Ango-Jewish perspective", rather than dealing with aspects of his reign.
    • I think more fruitful that pro contra on each aspect may be to bring the question of Edward and the English Crown as either an English or British phenomenon, and the associated power dynamics into focus, as this has been an area of active discussion (there's 3-4 histories written like this, not yet consulted, noted below). The question raised by Morris (was it justified) isn't really discussed in the literature (much?) AFAICT, it was just used as a proxy answer to "Do we have information about Welsh historians' view of Edward?" as a reviewer noted this was missing. --Jim Killock (talk) 09:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I would tweak the clause "R. R. Davies finds Edward to engage in the 'gratuitous belittling of his opponents', being 'one of the most consistent and unattractive features of his character as King'" to read something like "R. R. Davies considered Edward's repeated and 'gratuitous belittling of his opponents', to have been 'one of the most consistent and unattractive features of his character as king'".
  • Character - following on from the above, it would seem reasonable to reflect something of this in the "Character" section. It doesn't currently have anything on how he was/is seem from a Scottish/Welsh/Irish perspective, and that would be useful to have. But it would again need to be quite brief.

I hope that editors with much greater knowledge of Edward will be able to chip in, particularly on the issue of DUE which buidhe notes above. KJP1 (talk) 07:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for this @KJP1. I'll wait some further feedback before making edits. Jim Killock (talk) 09:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could we get an update on status here? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:03, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Endnotes[edit]

  1. ^ a b R Davies explains this rather differently: Edward "made a mockery" of the law to dispossess properties from Welsh landowners and engaged in the "gratuitous belittling of his opponents", "one of the most consistent and unattractive features of his character as King" (other examples taking place in Scotland for example) p346-7. Morris makes similar points more gently pages 174-6. J Davies makes brief points regarding legal conflict over territories on p153-4 Prestwich includes legal attacks on Welsh estates as an important factor in the cause of the war, but places blame for the legal conflicts more at the hands of Edward's underlings. p185-88
  2. ^ Justifying his actions, Edward refers to the need to "put and end finally to … the malice of the Welsh" and is several times recorded as wanting to end the "malice of the Welsh". This ought to be quoted as the official reasoning in Edward's own words. Davies in general emphasises Edward's dislike of the Welsh. See Davies p346-7. Morris emphasises the impact of what Edward saw as treachery at p178, and mentions that Edward and English rulers were "conditioned" to see the Welsh as an inferior race (p175). Prestwich makes no mention of Edward's personal attitudes, except to say it was a war of conquest, p188-9.
  3. ^ a b Davies explains that Edward rapidly changed the nature of governance and political power in Wales. There was a "massive programme of disinheritance" of the former Welsh aristocracy, (p361) and the grestest beneficiary from this was Edward p362-3. The administration was for a generation or so that of a civilian end of a military occupation, p365 and had a ""distinctively colonial flavour". p366. Taxation and revenues were collected with "ruthless … efficiency". p367. English law was imposed in most matters. p367-8. The conquest left a "deep legacy of despair and bitterness" p379. Day to day grievances accumulated and did not have an outlet, p379-80, Edward had not learnt the need to work with the existing local structures and communities and failed to restrain the "greed and zeal" of his officials causing further rebellions. The second which, heavy taxation placed a big role in causing p382. It drew on "deep resentment of alien rule" and was a "classic anti-colonial revolt" p383. John Davies notes the active colonisation of the boroughs and some rural areas, at a smaller scale than the Normans but nonetheless causing resentment; Caernarvon was targeted in the rebellion p168-9 Morris mentions dispossession of arisocrats p 196. Prestwich p216-22 broadly agrees with the points above regarding administration but does not touch on the mood of the Welsh, characterises it as "hardly surprising" that the Welsh were badly treated and "hardly surprising" that they revolted, rather than framing Wales' post Conquest governance as a colonial enterprise. He says at p232 clearly Edward got something wrong because the revolt took place. Uniting his enemies in the prior period Llywelyn and Dafydd ws particularly "inept". He remarks that Edward can be criticised for the conquest of course but in the end Edward was successful.
  4. ^ R Davies says they were also civilian, "quasi-imperial" and "the headquarters of a new administrative, financial and judicial dispensation" p360
  5. ^ a b R Davies notes that the revolt sparked punitive action from Edward, whose pride was hurt by it. left Wales in a state of apartheid-like tension, with high levels of mutual suspicion He took 200 hostages (p384) further castle building was undertaken (p385) orders to keep stop the Welsh being armed in boroughs or living within them rpobably issued at this time (p385); confirmed settler fears (p386); however systems of patronage and service were set up to fill the political and social vacuum left after the initial conquest. John Davies makes similar observations, notes that some Welsh were ready to co-operate, but the settlers had an "anti-Welsh fanaticism"; notes that there were prohibitions on Welsh having office and the administration was nearly wholly imported officials p173-5 Prestwich does not comment on the situation after 1295. Mostly he talks about the war administration (already covered in the WP article) Morris has nothing substantial in this period AFAICT.

Sources for convenience[edit]

  • Prestwich, Michael (1997) [1988]. Edward I. English Monarchs (Revised Second ed.). Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-3000-7209-9. OL 704063M.
  • Davies, John (2007) [1990]. A History of Wales (Revised ed.). Penguin Books. ISBN 9780140284751. OL 7352278M.
  • Davies, R. R. (2000) [1987]. The Age of Conquest: Wales, 1063–1415. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-1982-0878-2.
  • Morris, Marc (2009). A Great and Terrible King: Edward I and the Forging of Britain. London: Windmill Books. ISBN 978-0-0994-8175-1.

Not yet consulted

not consulted in this round

Citations

  1. ^ Davies 1984, pp. 51–69
  2. ^ Davies 1984, pp. 51–69, Davies 2000, pp. 346–7, Morris 2009, pp. 175, 178, Davies 2007, pp. 153–4, Prestwich 1997, pp. 185–88
  3. ^ Prestwich 1997, p. 188.
  4. ^ Davies 2000, pp. 346–7, Morris 2009, pp. 175, 178, Prestwich 1997, pp. 188–9
  5. ^ Prestwich 1997, pp. 218–220.
  6. ^ Prestwich 1997, pp. 221–225.
  7. ^ Hamilton 2010, p. 71.
  8. ^ Davies 2000, pp. 361
  9. ^ Davies 2000, pp. 362–3
  10. ^ Prestwich 1997, pp. 218–220.
  11. ^ Davies 2000, pp. 367, 382–3, Prestwich 1997, pp. 216–22, 232, Davies 2007, pp. 168–9 Morris 2009, p. 196
  12. ^ Prestwich 1997, pp. 221–225, Hamilton 2010, p. 71.
  13. ^ Prestwich 1997, p. 160; Brears 2010, p. 86.
  14. ^ Prestwich 1997, p. 160; Brears 2010, p. 86; Davies 2000, p. 360.
  15. ^ Davies 2000, p. 384
  16. ^ Davies 2000, p. 385, Davies 2007, pp. 173–5
  17. ^ Davies 2000, pp. 384, 382–3, Davies 2007, pp. 173–5
  18. ^ Davies 2000, pp. 346–7, 366, 383 Quotes at p. 347
  19. ^ Davies 2000, p. 384
  20. ^ Davies 2007, pp. 173–5, quote p. 174.
  21. ^ Davies 2000, p. 384-5, Davies 2007, pp. 173–5
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Edward_I_of_England/archive1&oldid=1219837481"