Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Angevin kings of England

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No consensus to promote at this time - Ian Rose (talk) MilHistBot (talk) 12:20, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Angevin kings of England edit

Nominator(s): Norfolkbigfish (talk)


I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I have improved it as far as I think I can without feedback and would like to move it forwards towards FAC.


Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose at this stage:

Can you give me a bit of help on this one @Hchc2009: - what is the best method of doing this? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There's some formal guidance somewhere (which I can never find...!), but I think that the way that SabreBD did it in a note in England in the Late Middle Ages's talk page might be fine. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:05, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some glitches have appeared with the editing and the cut and pasting, e.g.
  • "Eighteenth-century historian David Hume wrote that the Angevins were pivotal in creating a genuinely English monarchy and, ultimately, a unified Britain" - the cited source doesn't say the Angevins, but simply talks about Henry II.
  • "Henry's role in Thomas Becket's death and his disputes with the French were considered praiseworthy by contemporary Protestant historians." - there were no Protestant historians at the time...! The original article had this placed in the 18th century.
  • Some of the bibliography still has the original alphanumeric lettering in from the source article, e.g. "Gillingham, John (2007a)" - if you're only using one item by Gillingham in 2007, though, you don't need the "a", it can just be "2007",
  • I think the two books by Turner are the same volume, by the way, just republished by different publishing houses.
  • Generally, I'm not convinced that the article covers the core issues around the Angevin kings. The "Angevin empire" is mentioned occasionally, but never really explained; the unusual circumstances of having a sequence of monarchs whose ancestral home was in Anjou, and lived much of their lives on the continent, travelling around a vast area of personal possessions, linked by rivers and the Atlantic sea routes, doesn't come across. There isn't any reference to Fontevraud Abbey, the family abbey and mausoleum, etc. I'd definitely recommend reading Gillingham's "Angevin Empire" as a starting point for all of this.
Thanks, will do Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another serious gap is the role of Richard in popular culture... out of all of the three kings considered here, he's surely had the most substantial impact, given the Robin Hood genre?
  • Separated out the Robin Hood bits though Richard is largely a character in absentia and originally the king was called Edward. There appears to be surprisingly little significant literature based on him.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • While they weren't great palace builders, all three did a lot of work on castles... Goodall, John (2011). The English Castle has a chapter, I think, called "Angevin castles", covering their architecture etc.
  • Seems like they didn't have a great architectual impact - I have added para to mention this.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:41, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not entirely sold on the title of the article - would "Angevin kings of England" or something like that be more accurate, as it doesn't really cover the Angevin rulers of Anjou? Also, if it genuinely is about the Angevins, as opposed to the Angevin kings, it needs a bit more on Geoffrey, Young Henry etc., who don't get much of a look in at the moment.
  • "This article is about the English royal house of the 12th century" - 12th-13th century?
DoneNorfolkbigfish (talk) 10:23, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Worth checking the material in the lead is all in the main body of the article; some of it doesn't seem to be.
  • "The Angevins were a family of Frankish origin..." A little bit confusing, as it sounds as though Henry, Richard et al were a family of Frankish origin, which isn't really the case.
DoneNorfolkbigfish (talk) 10:23, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Angevins struggled successfully for regional power with neighbouring provinces such as Normandy and Brittany," - they didn't really struggle with the provinces, but rather the Duke and Count respectively.
Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Finally, Fulk married his son and heir (Geoffrey) to Henry's daughter—and only surviving legitimate child—Matilda, beginning the Plantagenet dynasty." - or rather, surely more pertinent in this context, the Angevins? NB: this end bit is missing a reference.
  • "Matilda's father (Henry I of England) named her as heir to his large holdings in what are now France and England" - they were called France and England in the 12th century as well.
  • "Although Geoffrey had little interest in England, he supported Matilda by entering Normandy to claim her inheritance" - Geoffrey was, however, very interested in Normandy - he wasn't supporting Matilda in Normandy, he was taking what he regarded as his own property.
  • "Matilda landed in England to challenge Stephen, and was declared "Lady of the English"; this resulted in the civil war known as the Anarchy. " - the sequencing is wrong here - the civil war had begun well before she was declared Lady of the English.
  • "Matilda was never crowned, since the English conflict was inconclusive, " - not really... She wasn't crowned as she was forced out of London by the crowds, before she could be crowned at Westminster in 1141.
  • "Three of Henry's men murdered Becket in Canterbury Cathedral (probably by misadventure)" - you can't really murder someone by misadventure (murder typically has to be deliberate). Barlow's authoritative book on Becket would be a much more reliable source than Schama here, by the way.
  • "he was forced to walk barefoot " - not exactly forced... Probably also worth noting how Henry then used the cult of Becket for his own purposes.
  • "The knights assumed the role of colonisers, accruing autonomous power (which concerned Henry)." - the bracketing here doesn't help the flow, and could probably be removed.
  • "When Henry II tried to give his landless youngest son John a wedding gift of three castles," - on its own this doesn't make much sense; the key point was that they actually belonged to Young Henry, not Henry II...
  • "Louis VII encouraged the elder sons to destabilise his mightiest subject" - the article doesn't really explain previously that Henry was Louis's subject, which makes this odd for the casual reader.
  • "Henry was reluctant to have a sole heir" - I'm not sure this fits with the specialist literature on Henry II, and Jones isn't a great source for an exceptional statement (I'd use Warren in the first instance for Henry II).
  • " When he died shortly afterwards, his last words to Richard were said to be: "God grant that I may not die until I have my revenge on you" - as written, this sounds like it was probably true; it's not taken that seriously by Henry's current biographers though, from what I recall. Again, Jones isn't a great source for this period.
  • Some duplicate references present (e.g. refs 83, 84 and 85)
  • (NB: I've paused at "Decline") Hchc2009 (talk) 14:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: G'day, interesting article. Thanks for your work on this. I only had a quick look, but I have a couple of suggestions (mainly focusing on references/formating): AustralianRupert (talk) 21:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • in the lead, "Many historians consider the Angevins..." --> this construction may be contrary to the guidance at WP:WEASEL. Is there a different way to say this?
    • Done - is this better? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Getting there, most certainly, but I think that the second sentence now needs a little tweak. Currently it says "These historians..." but I don't think it has been defined who "These historians are" due to the earlier change. This is potentially going to be a difficult issue to deal with. This isn't a subject I know anything about, so I can't speak with any authority I'm afraid (and I hope I'm not giving you bad advice here), but my suggestion is that if there is a way to define which historians think this then I'd use that. For example is it possible to mention in the lead which historian first wrote that they were a distinct royal house? If this is known, then perhaps the first paragraph could go something like this: "The Angevins /ændʒvɪns/("from Anjou") were a family of Frankish origin descended from Ingelger, a ninth-century noble. According to the chronicler Joe Bloggs the Angevins were a distinct royal house and the word has been used collectively for the three English monarchs—Henry II, Richard I and John—but within historical accounts there is disagreement over whether the Angevins were separate from the Plantagents. Historians who have agreed with Bloggs record John's son (Henry III) as the first Plantagenet king of England, while historians who do not distinguish between the Angevins and the Plantagenets consider Henry II the first English king..." AustralianRupert (talk) 20:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternatively, you could safely avoid the point about differences in the first paragraph - it's not the most important aspect of the Angevins. You could go for "The Angevins /ændʒvɪns/("from Anjou") were a royal house of England in the 12th and 13th centuries, and comprised King Henry II, Richard I and John. The Angevin family line was descended from Ingelger, a ninth-century noble, and took its name from the County of Anjou, which Henry inherited from his father in..." - and then note that some people prefer the term Plantagenet, and that some people use the term Angevin to talk about the entire Anjou dynasty, in para 2 or 3. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:17, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you both - I have tried to go with Hchc2009's suggestion (sorry Rupert) as his knowledge of the period seems exemplary as ever. What do you both think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No worries. I made a slight tweak. I think you need to be careful with using the term "some people" though. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • listed as a short citation, but not in the Bibliography: Dyer, Coss, Duffy, Martinson, and Palmer
  • additionally, the above should use the same format as the other short citations (e.g. use of the "harvnb" template);
  • "Anouilh, p. xxiv." --> is this from the same work as "Anouilh 2005, p. xxiv"? If so, it should be presented the same
  • check the alphabetical order of the works in the Bibliography, for instance Elliott shouldn't come before Contramine; Flori shouldn't come before Danziger; Gillingham shouldn't come before Favier etc. (there may be other instances as well);
  • in the Bibliography, are there page numbers for the Barratt chapter within the Harper-Bill and Vincent book?
  • same as above for Bevington, Brand, Curren-Aquino, Maley etc.
  • in the Bibliography, some works have places of publication and others don't. For instance compare Brand (2007) with Carlton (2003).
  • Good luck with taking the article further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 21:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Many thanks Rupert, positive and supported as ever. Regards Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • No worries at all. Happy to help where I can. Sorry I can't do more, but my knowledge gap is huge with this one. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:36, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • G'day again, I've had another look. I believe you've addressed my comments, so I'd be happy to support promotion once the issues raised by the others are resolved. In the meantime, I've marked a couple of places where I think citations are needed. Could you please add these in? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:56, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Rupert, I have brought the two bits that need citation together and used the Oxford English Dictionary as well as linking to two other dysnasties that are sometimes called Angevin. Does this do the trick @AustralianRupert:? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • G'day, I'd suggest making the OED ref into an inline citation, but otherwise these fixes look good. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:19, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • sorry, I just had another quick look and found somethingelse that needs clarification: Something appears to be missing in this sentence: "Henry became a pariah in Christian Europe where the opinion was that he was complicit in the and he walked barefoot into the cathedral where he was scourged by monks as a penance" (complicit in the and...) Could you please adjust as necessary? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problems Rupert, I was embarrassed I missed this one, I think it now reads much better. On the OED citation I used the oed template as I thought that was correct, happy to change but could please advise on the best way to make this both inline and harvard. @AustralianRupert: Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • G'day, I had a go at putting it into an inline citation. The style probably isn't quite right, but is probably good enough for A-class. At FAC it would probably be best to convert it to the {{cite web}} template. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Copyediting comments per standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk)

  • Regarding WEASEL above, note from Weasel word#Origin that the original reference was to the "egg-eating habits of weasels", rather than weasely behavior :)
  • "consider that": Avoid this ambiguous phrase. It's meaningless in American English, and in British English, it seems to be used in place of "considered ... to be", "decided", and "supposed", at a minimum.
  • I'll stop there for the moment, and come back after this one is a little farther along. - Dank (push to talk) 14:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • I apologise for coming in at such a late stage, but I do not think Angevins as the title of an article about the Angevin kings make sense. 'Angevin' is commonly used to mean inhabitants of Anjou, and also to mean the house of Anjou including Henry's father and his other sons (as Hchc pointed out). There is already an article about the Angevin Empire, which seems to me a much better title. I would suggest you merge your material into that article and then nominate it for A-Class. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:02, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No reason to apologise @Dudley Miles:, whatever happens this one is still a bit short. Although, I don't agree with your point I understand what you mean. Angevin is also a term used for the coinage of Anjou and at least two other dynasties and this is mentioned in the article. The "Angevin Empire" article doesn't work for me because although it is largely based on Gillingham's book of the same name it ignores his reporting of a strong current opinion that the empire didn't exist in any truely constituitional or historical way. However, Angevin does exist as an important periodisation in the history of the monarchy with both Gillingham and the official website of the monarchy. Gillingham notes that the period was fundamentally different from the Normans before and the Platntagenets after. Hchc also notes the perculiar nature of the period when England was ruled by monarchs largely from abroad. Would welcome a view if this changes your original comment Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:15, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I take your point about Angiven Empire but I still think Angevins is far too general for the title of an article about the Angevin kings of England. How about Angevin Dynasty? This is currently a disambig. It could be moved to Angevin Dynasty (disambiguation), and this article moved to Angevin Dynasty with a hatnote pointing to the disambig. What does @Hchc2009: think? Dudley Miles (talk) 18:41, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That seems perfectly logical to me, interesting to see what hchc thinks but there looks an like an answer here. Cheers. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:46, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies for the delay - have been travelling about. For me, Angevin Dynasty would still feel wider (more like the Angevins); how about Angevin royal dynasty? Makes it more specific, and it would be clear then not to expect the pre-royal dynasty in there. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hchc2009 and Dudley Miles: Take both your points but after thinking about it I believe hchc2009 original suggestion of the Angevin kings of England fits better solely on the basis that it then differentiates them from the Angevin Kings of Naples and Sicily, Hungary etc. What do you think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Not sure where this ACR is now - I think I have addressed Hchc2009's points as far as he got and there is the question of renaming the article? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, I'm not offering an opinion on the article per se, more an uninvolved coordinator's take on where the review is, especially given the length of time it's been active. If all that's needed to drop the extant opposes is changing the article name, then once that's agreed the review may be worth continuing. OTOH if there's still actionable issues, or changing to the most appropriate name may still require significant changes to the article, I think we'd best close as no consensus and work on it outside the ACR process, before returning for another try. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have come to this article late because Nofolkbigfish did not seem to be replying to hchc's comments, and I see that some comments in July did not get replies until October. Looking at it now, I am not clear about its focus. I would prefer a shorter article, focused on what made the Angevin period distinct, with a title (yet another suggestion) such as Angevin English Dynasty, and with less details about the individual kings. I am not sure of the point of an article which is mainly a precis of the articles about the separate kings. However hchc - who of course knows vastly more about the period than me - seems to be going in a different direction, suggesting more about popular culture such as Robin Hood. The article also looks as if needs considerable copy editing. It gives two different dates, 1151 and 1154, for the death of Henry's brother Geoffrey, while Geoffrey's own article says 1158. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Count Geoffrey died in 1151, you are right that Henry's brother Geoffrey died in 1158—I've corrected the date and tried to clarify the differentiation between the two men. FWIW Angevin English Dynasty is an oxymoron and cuts across one of the key differentiaters of this article in the point is that they came from and lived in a French tradition—they were not English.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It took longer than expected to address @Hchc2009: comments due to either or both of us being away but I believe this has now been done but knowing hchc2009 I suspect he may well come back with more when he gets the chance to give these another look. It does look like there is consensus that the article needs a more appropriate name with Angevin kings of England suggested by hchc2009 being the one makes sense to me —but I don't think that what it is is particularly important as long as it distinguishes between the half a dozen or so other dynasties called Angevin. As an article it was when I picked it up and remains of a piece with other dynasty articles and shares the pros and cons that they all seem to have.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 20:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough on the title. I withdraw my oppose and will try to look at the article in more detail. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:25, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • "For Richard, England's importance was as a source of revenue to support his military adventures including the Third Crusade." Was it not equally important as the source of his title of king, and thus the equal of the king of France?
  • Rechecked sources and this now seems an outdated view so removedNorfolkbigfish (talk) 13:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The adjective Angevin is especially used in English history to refer to the Plantagenet kings —beginning with Henry II" This is confusing. The premise of the article, as stated in the paragraph above, is that the Angevins were a separate dynasty before the Plantegenets.
  • "The line of the Count of Anjou that the Angevins form part of descend from Geoffrey II, Count of Gâtinais and Ermengarde of Anjou (daughter of Fulk III of Anjou) who inherited the title in 1060 via cognatic kinship when an older line dating from 870 and descending from a noble called Ingelger ended." This is a bit clumsy. It could do with being split into separate sentences and being set out more simply.
  • "In the 11th-century growing prosperity and stability led to developments in inheritance custom that allowed daughters to succeed in the absence of sons." This is a non-sequitur.
  • "However, it is unknown whether King Henry intended to make Geoffrey his heir but it is known that the threat presented by William Clito made his negotiating position very weak." Weak in what way? Did Henry agree to the marriage to secure Fulk's agreement to the annulment of Clito's marriage with Fulk's daughter?
  • I am doubtful about how much of this and the following paragraph are relevant. It is largely speculation about possible consequences of events which did not occur, and also confusing as the two Geoffreys are not distinguished.
  • Important in regards to the fact it illustrates the uncertainty of the outcomes of the period and the number of counterfactuals that could have occurred that the actors would have been aware of. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:01, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The custom of partible inheritance would lead to political fragmentation." Was it a custom of Anjou or Norman? Presumably not English.
  • "For example in 1173 and 1183 Henry tried to force Richard owed allegiance to his older brother" This is ungrammatical and unclear.
  • "This was complicated by the Angevins being subjects of the kings of France who felt these rights more legally belonged to them." What rights?
  • "More by accident than design this meant that the two partition plans that came to pass was that John would have Ireland, Arthur Brittany and the rest would fall to Richard." This is ungrammatical and unclear.

Further comments

  • "She captured but was forced to release Stephen—in a hostage exchange for her half-brother Robert, 1st Earl of Gloucester—who was re-crowned." I had to read this several times to work out that you mean Stephen was re-crowned, even though you have not said that he was crowned. I would leave it out and say above that he had himself crowned (not proclaimed) king.
  • "After skilful negotiation with King Stephen and the war-weary English barons," The article on Stephen attributes to the two sides fighting each other to a standstill rather than any skilfull negotiations. It is cited to Mike Ashley, who does not appear to be a WP:RS source for this subject.
  • "When Theobald, Archbishop of Canterbury died, Henry II appointed his friend Thomas Becket" You jump to this from the Treaty of Wallingford. I would give the date of Henry's succession and appointment of Becket.
  • "to reassert privileges held by his father-in-law." I do not understand this.
  • "Becket opposed Henry's Constitutions of Clarendon" This needs explaining.
  • "but to defuse the controversy surrounding Becket's murder Henry re-established all fiefs in Ireland." I do not understand this.
  • "Henry II tried to give his landless youngest son John a wedding gift" Date?
  • You do not mention Henry's death.
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:14, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note -- as per this, closing as no consensus. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:17, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Angevin_kings_of_England&oldid=632879852"