Talk:Angevin kings of England

Latest comment: 3 years ago by Agricolae in topic Russian translation
Good articleAngevin kings of England has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
June 26, 2014Good article nomineeListed
November 7, 2014WikiProject A-class reviewNot approved
November 7, 2014WikiProject A-class reviewNot approved
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on July 5, 2014.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that the Angevins are considered by many historians to be the distinct Royal House that provided the English monarchs Henry II, Richard I and King John?
Current status: Good article

Russian translation edit

Hi there. These days I've translated the article into Russian. Immediately a was kicked around and the translation was nominated for deletion. The core of disagreement is: a) Angevin kings are simply another name for Plantagenets and as such do not deserve separate article; b) Angevin kings of England are a separate historical entity and the article is valid.

Where actually had Angevins ended and Plantagenets started, if ever? Pls advise. From Russia with love. Ashec (talk) 12:55, 23 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Ashec, Angevin literally means from Anjou, and is used for the the Angevin kings because they were also counts of Anjou. Anjou was lost by King John to the French in the early 13th century so it is common practice to consider his son, Henry III, the first Plantagenet monarch. Plantagenet wasn't actually used at all until Richard of York in the 15th century, but it has been applied retrospectively. English WP also has articles for Plantagent branches such as the House of Lancaster (Henry IV, Henry V and Henry VI) and House of York (Edward IV, Edward V and Richard III). All of them are actually the same family, the House of Plantagenet article covers it all well. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:53, 30 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
Also, sometimes different communities of historians divide things up differently. If it is typical for Russian-language historians to group all of the kings from Henry II to Richard III into a single grouping (or even to Richard II, then York and Lancaster) then that is the grouping that should probably be followed on Russian Wikipedia, independent of how it is covered on English Wikipedia - they need not be sliced and diced into smaller pieces the same way if there are different historiographic traditions in the two language communities. From an English perspective the loss of most of the French lands by John is an important point of division, but as seen from a Russian perspective where there were not infrequent gains and losses, it may not be seen as a notable division point. Agricolae (talk) 22:41, 30 March 2021 (UTC)Reply