Talk:Cadfael

How does one pronounce the good brother's name?

It would be great if someone could provide information about the proper way to pronounce the Welsh name Cadfael. I've heard both "Cadvael", "Cavael", and "Cafael". --Oz1cz 7 July 2005 06:34 (UTC)

A "Books on tape" series that I was listening to was read by a speaker who seemed to speak appropriately Welsh-accented English. His pronounciation was distinctly "CAD-fay-el". (Not quit "fail", but very close to that as well.)

By comparison, everyone on the TV series seems to pronounce it "CAD-file".

Atlant 7 July 2005 11:35 (UTC)

In Welsh, "f" is pronounced as "v" is pronounced in English.

Whether the "ael" is one syllable or two probably just depends on how quickly you say the word, so it would be "Cad-vi-el" if pronounced carefully, or "Cad-vile" if said quickly.

Gary Barnes, Shrewsbury 23 November 2005

Pronunciation added. garik 17:04, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Latin pronunciation

The pronunciation of Cadfael as CAD-file is in line with classical Latin pronuncation.

What makes you think the name's supposed to be Latin? garik 16:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

It isn't, it's Welsh, pronounced CAD-vy-el.

Full Name?

I'm not sure it's correct to state that "his full name is Cadfael ap (son of) Meilyr ap Dafydd". I believe the only name he has is Cadfael -- the other names are the names of his paternal ancestors. He would use them in identifying himself (and, if necessary, he could probably go back several more generations) but I don't think they were on a par with what we would now consider a surname. It's a small matter, certainly, but I thought it was worth at least a note on the talk page.

Ellis Peters makes several references to origins of surnames as occupations (Courvoiser, Aurifaber) or patronyms (FitzRobert). I think she was reminding us that this was a time when many, if not most, people only had a single name and it was usual to distinguish one "John" from another by adding some distinctive identifier. True surnames came later. Of course many surnames were created from these identifiers -- trades such as, Baker, Smith, Wright, etc.; places such as Lincoln or Greenwood; and many variations of "son of" -- Anderson, MacDonald, Bin Laden, etc. But it was just plain Cadfael.--andersonpd 20:45, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you and have made a change in the article to indicate that this is a patronymic, not a "full name". --MelanieN (talk) 16:15, 6 July 2009 (UTC)MelanieN

Spoilers in the Article?

In this article there is talk of euthanasia in "The Rose Rent." First of all, having just finished the book, I haven't found any of that in it. Maybe it was the TV series?

Second, it might be nice to avoid these spoilers. I stumbled on this page being ill and having been given a couple of Cadfael novels to bide the time. Finding it nice to have a map of the area written about, I searched for one here (might be a nice addition to this page or the Shrewsbury one), and arrrgh, found something about the book I was just reading.

This is Wikipedia, so you know what to do: be bold! If you think this needs a spoiler tag, by all means, add one! But that brief phrase is a pretty mild spoiler.

In answer to your specific question about Cadfael and euthanasia, I definitely remember him wrestling with the question, but I can't remember whether it was in a TV episode, a novel, or both, and a quick look through Brother Cadfael's Herb Garden (ISBN 0-8212-2387-9) doesn't jog my memory sufficiently.

Atlant 00:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Update: Yeah, it's the first minute or so of The Rose Rent TV episode and it's Cadfael's poppy juice + hemlock. Now I'll have to go and read the novel again ;-), but I'll imagine the answer is that you're absolutely correct and it doesn't appear in the novel since Herb Garden doesn't mention it.

Atlant 00:09, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

In actual fact, euthanasia is mentioned in one of the other novels. The Potter's Field. The method considered was extract of hemlock, which Cadfael will not use as medicine as its effects are too unpredictable in his opinion.Unfortunately, with the television screenplays, parts of several novels end up being mixed together. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.245.181.18 (talk) 07:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The incident in The Potter's Field was not euthanasia; it was suicide. In other words it was self-administered, not prescribed by anyone or even done with anyone else's knowledge. Cadfael (as portrayed in the books) would never have sanctioned either euthanasia or suicide, and I was shocked to learn that the TV show producers would so misunderstand the character as to have him carry it out. --MelanieN (talk) 15:50, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Melanie, please read the novel again: I said euthanasia WAS mentioned and it was. Euthanasia (from the Greek εὐθανασία meaning "good death": εὖ, eu (well or good) + θάνατος, thanatos (death)) refers to the practice of ending a life in a manner which relieves pain and suffering. It says nothing to who administers the substance, though in these modern times we more often use the word to refer to such a death administered by another because the victim can not do it him/herself.In The Potter's Field, Lady Blount tells Radulfus, Cadfael and Beringar of obtaining the hemlock to silence the pain and suffering forever if she ever decided it was too much to bear(hence the euthanasia reference). However, it was used in the suicide pact between Lady Blount and Brother Ruald's wife, Generys. As I already related, Cadfael opposed the use of hemlock, for even when it is used carefully for good to relieve pain, it is too unpredictable and often brings death. Cadfael, in the novel, showed that he understood Lady Blount's feelings.... NOT that he approved them. As I said, many aspects of novels often get trampled when made into screenplays..... and this is one of the aspects of the Cadfael novels that is poorly handled.

--99.245.181.18 (talk) 03:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

If that's the definition of euthanasia, then it was indeed mentioned (though not carried out exactly). She did consider suicide to relieve her suffering. But I think most of us think of euthanasia more specifically, as something administered by a third party such as a physician. That's pretty much what Google finds - that it is a synonym for mercy killing. And that did NOT happen nor get considered anywhere in the Cadfael books. --MelanieN (talk) 04:29, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, do add it in with a ref if you feel it important. Span (talk) 03:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Bad move!

This page should not have been moved and it certainly shouldn't have been moved without discussion.

1. The lede and, indeed, most of the article discusses the character, not the TV series and not the titles of the books. The character's common name is Brother Cadfael.

1. Even if one were to accept the argument that the article should be named after one of the cannon works, there's no evidence that the TV series is the right choice. After all, doesn't Pargeter call the collection The Cadfael Chronicles?

I think the move(s) should be undone.

Your thoughts?

Atlant 17:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly. Is it too late for some sanity to reign? 74.51.90.224 (talk) 14:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Portrayal of Class

The article states: However, in none of the cases is the problem a significant difference in social status between the two. In this series, aristocratic boys always fall in love with aristocratic girls, prosperous artisans fall for the daughters of artisans, and a lowly wandering juggler is charmed beyond measure by a lowly kitchen maid. But in A Morbid Taste for Bones doesn't the Welsh heiress fall in love with the outlander? Granted, this may be an exception, since I am only at the beginning of the books. L Hamm 03:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and just got bold on that nonsense. In St. Peter's Fair, Emma Vernold falls for Ivo Corbiere, yet it's her mercantile caste which prompts him to not treat her seriously. Sure, he's got ulterior motives (Hey, it's a mystery novel!), but, significantly, is immune to her charms. His mission, and his class, are both obstacles to their union--67.166.42.95 10:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC).

The outlander in A Morbid Taste for Bones is the son of a lord of an English manor. Thus he does not yet have status in Wales, but is of similar status over the border in his home country. He expects to inherit as soon as his taking of so much deer is forgotten. Emma Vernold does not end up with Corbiere, but with someone of her own class. Prairieplant (talk) 02:12, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Hugh?

A section on Hugh Beringar would be beneficial would it not?

This is Wikipedia, so please feel free to be bold and add some information about the good sheriff.

Atlant 23:35, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Chronological order of books

Just a small thing: I note that the chronology of "A Rare Benedictine" spans well into the chronological order of books 4 through 6 in the regular series. Perhaps someone who has read them could insert a mention in the list as to where the third part of "A Rare Benedictine" fits in the chronology of books 4 through 6? 65.189.146.128 (talk) 03:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation, round 3

With the pronunciation issue arising once again [1], I've brought the argument to the article. [2] There's now a few sources to back up "f" as "v", including an interview with Peters/Pargeter that suggests "CAD-vel". --Mrwojo (talk) 22:15, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Cadfael was NOT born a villein!

I disagree with the following statement in the article:

he was born in May 1080 to a villein (serf) family

I don't believe he was a villein or serf; he was a peasant. As he relates to Brother Mark in The Summer of the Danes, he was free to leave when he "became a man" and was offered a plot of land in accordance with custom. He didn't have to escape or get an overlord's permission to leave.

I'm no expert but I don't think villeinage even existed in Wales at that time. As pointed out elsewhere in the article, Wales was more tribal than feudal.

I will change this to say "peasant" instead of "villein (serf)" unless someone provides contrary evidence in the next few weeks. (I'm holding off for now, rather than "being bold," simply because I have no expertise in this area and will defer to anyone who does.)

MelanieN (talk) 16:06, 6 July 2009 (UTC)MelanieN

Since no-one has objected, I will make the change. --MelanieN (talk) 06:58, 16 July 2009 (UTC)MelanieN

Later: I was mistaken about this. Cadfael clearly states, in The Summer of the Danes, that he was born into a villein tref. The article has been changed back to saying "villein" based on that quote. Although clearly his kind of villeinage, in Wales, was different from that in England, where villeins were "unfree" and were the property of a lord, unable to leave except by escape or manumission. --MelanieN (talk) 17:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The Feudal system had not completely taken root at the time of Cadfael's birth. Whereas in Norman France, there was a clear distinction between the slave, the serf and the freeman, such was not the case in England and even less so in Wales where there were often complex relationships between levels of society and it was not always clear whether a person was unfree. When the Doomsday survey was carried out, those of uncertain status were listed as villeins but this did not necessarily imply that they were tied to the land in the manner of a serf. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.193.105 (talk) 22:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You do know that Cadfael is fictional and as a result it might not tie in with real history? Carl Sixsmith (talk) 05:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

PoVstorm

An enjoyable article, entertaining and obviously something everyone has enjoyed contributing to. Also, unfortunately, one of the most PoV (WP:NPOV) articles I have ever seen on WP, if you count 'most' as most occurrences of fairly mild PoV. I am not saying this to discuss whether this material is PoV, I am saying it to warn you, this article will soon be going through some changes. And it can't be reverted to an earlier version, either, it seems. Looking back quite a way, this is for all the world like some little parallel universe where people who wanted to be film critics or medieval roleplaying guides or historical writers came and inserted their little version of what the Cadfael series is, and no one ever questioned it. Anarchangel (talk) 04:31, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
For instance, what do you suppose the chances are that a sentence beginning with the word "Arguably," might contain a PoV statement?
Some of it is OR, and just wrong, too.

“ Cadfael (as all other characters) never casts any doubt on the morality of carving out a Christian kingdom in the Muslim East and maintaining it by force; indeed, it would have been anachronistic to have him express such doubts. ”

The first part of this sentence is effectively unprovable, because it talks about a negative. Phrasing it another way: "Each and every episode does not contain a dialogue between Cadfael and another character in which he casts doubt on the morality...etc"; you can see that it requires citations for each and every episode. Or the testimony of an expert, like a producer who had worked on every episode. The second part is WP:OR. It is original research about the historical period, opinion that does not have a consensus among historical experts, that is not given by an expert or attributed to one.
I'm not an expert. I can 'prove it wrong'...
-When slavery was the norm, what made it change to being unacceptable? What changed it from being unacceptable to being banned? People that thought differently from everyone else.
Or I could dispute it:
-That's Cadfael's character. That's why he is so popular; he is the voice of our age, looking back at the past. The fact that it is anachronistic is irrelevant to its artistic value.
However:

• I am not a historian.
• I am not a literary critic.
• I am not a reliable source.

Consequently, neither of the above opinions should be on a Wikipedia mainspace page. The comments that have been added are thoughtful and interesting. They deserve more than just a WP rule acronym; they deserve an example. But whether they or what I wrote is right or wrong, whether one refutes or is refuted by the other, or is better written or worse, is not the point. The point is, they are made up. They are the opinions of non-notable people. Conversely, if I were a notable movie critic, it still would not matter if my opinion was wrong, it could be cited and quoted in the article. Seems dumb? Well, welcome to Wikipedia. But the one thing it does stop is what the main article has become; a Cadfael forum separated into paragraphs. Anarchangel (talk) 06:26, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

As I think you have pointed out, Cadfael is a 20th century creation, and really not a medieval figure, though we like to assume he is. He is "us" somehoe transported back to a wistful setting. In reality, this time was one which was boring 97% or the time and terrifying 3%. We would, in truth, hate it!

Because most of the characters are fictional, we "know" because Peters tells us, what is going on in their heads. In the case of Cadfael and Beringar, not much different than what is going on inside ours.

And very unlike Roger de Clinton, Stephen, and other real-world figures who are sometimes allowed access to "our" characters and interact with them. We know (because Peters tell us) a very limited subset of what goes on inside their heads because they are confined to the situation and what is generally known about these real people. And yes, I would have to use a footnote if I were to say what they think about establishing a colony in the Middle East.

Radulfus is in a peculiar category since he really existed but we will never know anything much about his life or thinking, so we can guess what he thinks as well, unlike better-known real people.

All this, BTW, is true for any novel. The author has usually told us everything we need to know. We can deduce some of the rest. Only when the characters are "deep", like Shakespeare, or other serious writers, do I need to retrieve expert opinion when writing about them. On the other hand, if it goes too far afield, other editors can certainly restrain extravagant guesses about behavior or thinking. And perhaps the speculation on what is thought about a mid-east kingdom is in that category!

Just my opinion. Student7 (talk) 20:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

On the anachronism - while it is a big deal to mention the crusaders maintaining a kingdom in Asia, it should be mentioned in this talk section, if not the article, that the thugs running everything in those days, on both sides, thought nothing of putting a kingdom by force anyplace and maintaining it by force. That is what they all did for a living! It just seemed somewhat more praiseworthy do establish one in the Holy Land. Or maybe less blameworthy than their usual escapades! Student7 (talk) 21:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Cadfael considers the Crusade a just and holy cause - if the execution sometimes fell short - and says so. And he's got a point considering that the Levant belonged to the Classical world for five centuries and was officially Christian for at least two before the Arabs swept out of their penisula bearing fire and sword and the Koran. 65.33.254.28 (talk)Roxana

Is it just me or does anyone else start off reading these books, because they seem interesting, but get really boring towards the middle till you give up caring what happens? In the Middle Ages, wouldn't they sort all this out by asking the suspect to pick up some white hot iron and seeing if the wound went septic then poke out their eyes if it did?--Streona (talk) 08:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

It's just you! :-) --MelanieN (talk) 16:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that someone has already pointed out that Cadfael is a modern sleuth, looking for the truth in modern ways. So no one gets thrown into the drink to see if they sink. Not modern. Aquinas hadn't even documented a way of thinking yet. So, yes, anachronistic. Most historical tecs are that way. Two set in Ancient Rome, for example, have sleuths working in the same way. The results are less anachronistic there since the nobles usually get away with literal murder. Student7 (talk) 14:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Hugh Beringar in the TV movies

The "Differences between books and films" section declares "In the movies, Hugh is the sheriff who sometimes helps, sometimes hinders Cadfael, but does not appear to be on close terms with him. In the books, despite the more than thirty years difference in their ages, Hugh and Cadfael are best friends."

In MHO this statement manifestly misrepresents the TV movies! I have not read the books, but I have seen three of the four seasons of the TV series and in my opinion Beringar and Cadefael are clearly friends, although whether they are BEST friends may well be a debatable point. In fact in one of the episodes Beringar saves Cadfael's life under circumstances where he might well have just stood by and let Cadfael be killed; and had it been anyone else but Cadfael he might well have. To compound it, shortly afterwards Cadfael does something for which he might well have been arrested for treason. Instead Beringar does little more than grimace. 129.78.64.103 (talk) 07:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC) Stephen

If you have not read the books, how can you comment on the differences between the live action series and the books? Carl Sixsmith (talk) 12:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Questions that need to be answered

Two questions that need to be answered in the Cadfael article:

(1) "Cadfael was not born a villein." I don't remember, anywhere in the whole series,any characterization of the social status of his family, other than his statement, several times, that when he grew to manhood (aged 14 in Wales at that time) he found that a life of tilling the soil and animal husbandry did not appeal to him, so he was apprenticed -- in which trade it did not say -- in Shrewsbury. Can someone please clarify the point?

(2) The biographical summary box lists a "date of death" as 1150-1155. Since the last novel, "Brother Cadfael's penance" is set in 1145 -- deduced from the statement in it that he is 65 -- the death date seems pure speculation and should be better replaced with the word "unknown." Besides, how long was Cadfael going to either live, or stay around and not depart for another Benedictine Abbey once Robert Pennant really does become abbot in 1148 or 1150?

Mark Gruenberg, Washington DC

63.215.28.173 (talk) 05:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. I was the one who posted the objection "Cadfael was not born a villein", some time ago - but I was mistaken. It clearly states in The Summer of the Danes that he was born into a villein tref. That information is now in the article. (I don't think being a villein in Wales meant the same as in England - clearly he was able to depart at will, he did not "belong" to any lord - but the plain language of the book takes precedence over my imperfect understanding of the situation.)

You are absolutely right about the date of death, and I see that it has already been changed. LOL about him departing for another Abbey when Pennant became Abbot! Do you think Pennant would nominate Brother Jerome as prior? That could have been the death of Cadfael right there! --MelanieN (talk) 16:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

List of books

This article seems very swayed towards the TV series. It needs a simple, easy to visually scan, numbered list of the books in published order and, if possible, an indication of the time period the books cover. That would make it a very useful reference for anyone wanting to actually READ the books! 74.51.90.224 (talk) 14:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. There used to be such a list, but it was removed in September 2009 when the template at the bottom was added. I would be in favor of restoring the list, what do the rest of you think? You can see it in the history, in page versions prior to early September 2009. It lists each book in order, complete with the time frame covered, as well as the short stories. I personally found the list a useful reference, and while the template is also useful, it did not really replace the information contained in the list. Would anyone object if I simply copied that list into the current page? --MelanieN (talk) 14:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I created the template as a way of putting a common linkage at the bottom of each cadfael article, but I have no objections to the list being re-added as well. Having that and the template shouldn't cause any problems. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 17:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

IMO, which is seldom humble (!), I would prefer that "bibliography" be confined to Pargeter herself. Else we are stuck furnishing a list for each of the other major characters, maybe, when or if documented? Some of which are real people! Personally I like the template which is equally appropriate for all the other fictional characters (but definitely not the real ones!). Real ones tend to predominate in this article. Student7 (talk) 22:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The difference is anyone looking for information on the Cadfael series will be brought to this article, there isn't a seperate Cadfael series article is there? Carl Sixsmith (talk) 06:15, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is, now. In the template of all the Cadfael Chronicles novels and short stories, there is a link to The Cadfael Chronicles. It was split from this article 1 October 2010, and includes the list of the novels by year of publication and historical time covered, a section comparing the television adaptations to the novels, and more. I have more than once revised a wiki ref to Cadfael Chronicles from Cadfael, when the novel series is what is meant, since the newer article was posted. Prairieplant (talk) 01:59, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

not a stub

Hi Sadads,

I think you may have gone overboard on the 'stub' tags. Cadfael is a 34kb page with 22 sections. It does need an overhaul, but it really isn't a stub. Best wishes Spanglej (talk) 17:31, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Sadads added it back again, but then reverted. Please let's not get in an edit war over this; I don't think many people would consider such a fully developed article to be a stub. --MelanieN (talk) 20:53, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

It turns out that the article's assessment as a stub (top of the talk page) had never been amended by anyone so an automatic 'stub' was added. All is well. Spanglej (talk) 23:10, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Ah - the revenge of the bots! Thanks for figuring that out. --MelanieN (talk) 00:34, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

LOL!  :) Student7 (talk) 19:00, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

in desperate need of inline references to advance. Accotink2 talk 03:55, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Split proposal

This article needs a hell of a lot of work, it's very in universe and seems to be confused between being an article on the character of Brother Cadfael and a recounting of the generalities of the Cadfael novels. I would suggest splitting this work in two would be a good place to start, with the possibility that this article be renamed Brother Cadfael and deal with the character with the none-character specific text moving to the new article. Carl Sixsmith (talk) 19:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I agree, although both would need to have citation added and need major overhaul. The page content hasn't been much touched for two or three years, which is why it's in this state. I'm happy to help with a reworking. Spanglej (talk) 20:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

ok i've split the article, cutting and pasting those parts referring to the books. if anyone has objections, i will undo, or cleanup. Accotink2 talk 13:10, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Great, both look good. Thanks for doing it. Span (talk) 18:46, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

ok, removed split header; enough material for 2 notable articles Accotink2 talk 23:36, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with renaming this article to "Brother Cadfael". Even though honorifics are not generally used in Wikipedia articles, his honorific of "Brother" is basically part of his name. Would you then leave "Cadfael" as a redirect to this article? --MelanieN (talk) 22:56, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Cadfael is almost never referred to in the chronicles as "Brother Cadfael" either by the narrator or other characters. It is not an article title anyone would search under to find him. So I'd say stick with "Cadfael" - the first sentence of the article "Brother Cadfael is the fictional main character..." clarifies the situation well enough. Span (talk) 04:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

"...not an article title anyone would search under?" Actually "Brother Cadfael" would be a very common search term - which is why it exists on Wikipedia as a redirect to this article. In fact it was the original name of this page, before it was changed to Cadfael in 2006. So I concede that a rename to Brother Cadfael isn't totally necessary, since "Brother Cadfael" leads to this page anyhow. --MelanieN (talk) 06:56, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem

This article has been reverted by a bot to this version as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) This has been done to remove User:Accotink2's contributions as they have a history of extensive copyright violation and so it is assumed that all of their major contributions are copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. VWBot (talk) 14:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I have undone the above reversion by a bot, because it eliminated two months worth of editing and improvement to the article by users other than Accotink2. I then looked for Acctink2's contributions to remove them individually, but there is no copyvio problem with any of them. Accotink2 was the editor who split the article into two, but that did not involve adding any material to this article. The rest of Accotink2's input here was minor editing such as adding wikilinks, moving paragraphs around, etc. --MelanieN (talk) 17:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Grammatical error

This sentence at the beginning of the article makes no sense: "He is a skillful observer of human nature, a talented herbalist, which skill he learned in the Holy Lands and while a prisoner of the Muslims." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.104.73.235 (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The general idea is that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. I'd encourage you to go for it. Span (talk) 04:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Good suggestion. Unfortunately, I just edited it before reading the above remark. Student7 (talk) 21:58, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

conflict between sources on start of the book series

This source says that A Morbid Taste for Bones was written as a stand alone book, then Cadfael was seen as a good central character in the second book (One Corpse Too Many) --- Martin Edwards, article from Mystery Scene re-posted here: http://www.martinedwardsbooks.com/borderlands.htm. In a parenthetical comment in the last paragraph of the Relationships section, Anita Vickers is credited with saying that some other book was meant to be the first of the series. There is no page number for the source of that sentence. As much of that article I can see on google books, that seems an unlikely remark from Anita Vickers. I rephrased the remark, relying on the Martin Edwards article, which makes a clear statement on how it went from one book to a series. If someone has the actual quote from Anita Vickers,that might make the cite to her clearer.Prairieplant (talk) 08:28, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cadfael. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081216092400/http://www.cs.cf.ac.uk/fun/welsh/Lesson01.html to http://www.cs.cf.ac.uk/fun/welsh/Lesson01.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Removed Background Note

Removed note 1 in "Background": "This may be incorrect. Judith Green gives the dates of Henry's war to secure Normandy as 1104–1107." in context: "Cadfael became a man-at-arms (foot soldier) in the war waged by Henry I of England to secure the union with Normandy,<ref group=Note>This may be incorrect. Judith Green gives the dates of Henry's war to secure Normandy as 1104–1107." Green is probably referring to an earlier rebellion--there were several in Normandy during the first quarter of the 12th century. The (relevant) second Norman rebellion took place 1117-1119. The last major engagement was the Battle of Bremuleé and in 1020 a declaration by Pope Calixtus II at the Council of Rheims secured Normandy for King Henry. ref:"The Earl, the Kings, and the Chronicler: Robert Earl of Gloucester and the Reigns of Henry I and Stephen"; Robert B. Patterson, Oxford University Press, 2019, pg-25-27. The 1120 date aligns accurately with Cadfael's timeline as given in "A light on the Road to Woodstock", the first story in "A Rare Benedictine" which has him crossing the channel to England in mid November 1120, just prior to Henry's return, and the unfortunate loss of Henry's heir, William, upon the same voyage. --192.173.175.131 (talk) 08:01, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I reverted this change, not seeing that it was discussed on this Talk page. The explanation above by the IP may be correct, but no replacement citation was put in the text to support the change in the text. If someone who has access to the sources can resolve the point with another reference in the article, then that would work out better. --Prairieplant (talk) 04:04, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

References