Talk:House of Plantagenet/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Make this more about the family

I am going to have a go to make this more about the family now Sabre has stripped out the history. All advice, opinions and especially help are welcome.

I have started by borrowing some content I wrote in the Angevin article to help.

Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Guys @Johnbod:@Sabrebd: - I've working through attempting to put the "family" at the centre of this now the history has beened pruned. I would appreciate if you could give it a quick look and give a view of whether you think it is working. Cheers Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I have had a quick look and it looks good in general, much more focused and distinct from the period articles we created. I will try to remember to have a look in detail later and make any suggestions I can think of for improvement. Thanks for all the effort here.--SabreBD (talk) 22:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, it is not finished but would like to know I am on the right track before I expend too much effort Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:57, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

What are these WikiLinks?

And yet time hath his revolutions; there must be a period and an end to all temporal things—finis rerum—an end of names and dignities, and whatsoever is terrene; and why not of de Vere? For where is Bohun? Where is Mowbray? Where is Mortimer? Nay, which is more, and most of all, where is Plantagenet? They are entombed in the urns and sepulchres of mortality! yet let the name of de Vere stand so long as it pleaseth God.

This is a fine quotation at the end of the article, but the links to Bohun and Mowbray should be more clearly linked to families, or perhaps clarified by footnotes. The quoted text cannot be changed, but I would want more clarity.--DThomsen8 (talk) 01:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

• Thanks @Dthomsen8:— I have added a footnote for Mowbray and link Bohun to the 6th creation of the Earldom of Hereford (and all its Bohun members. What do you think?Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The Magna Carta is not a "weakness" per this Wikipedia article's support of monarchy as a historical precedent.

The Magna Carta was not a "weakness" per this Wikipedia article's support of monarchy as a historical precedent, so stop pretending their is no bias in these historical generalizations about the Plantagenet royal line. Centralized authority in the monarchy does mean a country is sovereign or that it is more civilized than collectivist forms of government.

I think the point being made is that it was John's (and his successors) political vulnerability that was the motivation behind the monarch agreeing and sealing of the various versions of Magna Carta rather than any motivation to share power. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Copy edit, June 2015

Hi. I'll use this to note possibly controversial things and to ask questions. Please thread to each bullet.

• Arrival in England, para 2: "Matilda invaded England in 1139, initiating the civil war known as The Anarchy." But that article says that the Anarchy started in 1135. --Stfg (talk) 15:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Yep, very confusingly written - have separated these to show cause (Stephen's accession rather than Matilda's invasion) and effect (Matilda's invasions). What do you think @Stfg: Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, good now. --Stfg (talk) 10:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• Arrival in England: need to sort out the younger Geoffrey. Para 1 links him to Geoffrey, Count of Nantes, and that article says that he died in 1158. But the first bullet says he died in 1154. --Stfg (talk) 16:07, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Simple error - source says he died in 1158, txt corrected to match. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:59, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

OK. --Stfg (talk) 10:03, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

• Angevin zenith, para 3: "This fate was viewed as retribution for the murder of Becket." Viewed by whom? --Stfg (talk) 16:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

added from source french and english contemporary moralists. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• Expansion in Britain, last para: "With the English heir in her power, Isabella refused to return to England unless Edward II dismissed his favourites and also formed a relationship with Roger Mortimer." This is ambiguous as to whether Isabella formed a relationship with Mortimer or made Edward's forming such a relationship a condition of her return to England. I've assumed it's meant to refer to the fact that she became his mistress in that year. Is that right? --Stfg (talk) 18:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. --Stfg (talk) 19:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• House of Lancaster, last para: "The refusal to renounce the Plantagenet claim to the French crown ...". Better to spell out whose refusal. --Stfg (talk) 19:35, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Added English delegation Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• House of York, para 2: "A point he emphasised by—from 1148— being the first to assume the Plantagenet surname." Please clarify. I thought we were talking about a 15th-century Richard. --Stfg (talk) 20:05, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

date error corrected, should have been 1448, corrected Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• House of York, para after the first list: "When Richard joined them, ...". Which of the three Richards involved in this paragraph? --Stfg (talk) 20:17, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

added ....of York. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• Tudor: I'm wondering what "notional" means in the first sentence? --Stfg (talk) 21:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I think it is meant to infer these succession lines are purely conjectural combining assumptions around proximity and primogeniture that are not legally clear now and wouldn't have been at the time. A case could be made but it's success would most likely rest on other factors as is illustrated in the para on the Elizabethan succession. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:36, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Ah, thank you, I see. It might be difficult for most readers to get that from the current wording, and the sentence needs tweaking anyway because "claim to have a stronger hereditary claim" is awkward. What would you think of replacing "... who by notional modern standards could claim to have a stronger hereditary claim ..." with "... who might today be thought to have a stronger hereditary claim ..." (or change "thought" to "suspected" if you prefer)? --Stfg (talk) 09:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I think thought works wonderfully well. I'll amend. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

• A punctuation detail that arose often: lest anyone worry about inconsistent punctuation in a phrase like "He fled with his brother Richard, while their remaining brother, William, was imprisoned in the Tower" (no comma before Richard, but commas around William), the reason is the rule described in Apposition#Restrictive versus non-restrictive. That is, Richard is restrictive because we need it to understand which brother is referred to, while William is non-restrictive because "their remaining brother" already makes it clear who we're talking about. This issue arises quite often in this article. --Stfg (talk) 21:46, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

• Pole, para 2: "In 1538 her sons, Geoffrey Pole and Henry Pole, 1st Baron Montagu, Henry's wife, brother-in-law—Edward Neville — were arrested following the discovery that he had been in communication with Reginald ...". I'm sorry, I can't figure out what this means. Which wife? Whose brother-in-law? The discovery that who had been in communication with Reginald? --Stfg (talk) 21:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

reworked phrasing to attempt to make it read better. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I have now rephrased this.....does it make more sense @Stfg:? Thanks Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, all clear now, thanks. --Stfg (talk) 12:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• @Stfg: thanks for all your efforts. I think I have answered all of these points. What do you think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

• Indeed you have. It's been a pleasure working with you. Best regards, --Stfg (talk) 12:34, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Copyedit

Hello. I'm going to go over the article over the next few days and copyedit as much as I can. I'll probably leave some notes either here or on the MILHIST A-Class review page. Thank you, --ceradon (talk • contribs) 18:25, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Ceradon. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:31, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Ceradon

• "This was not necessarily due to the conscious intentions of the Plantagenets" in the lede. What does that mean? The Plantagenets did nothing, but England developed on its own, or the Plantagenets instituted some rules that, without their intentions to do so, brough about these developments? --ceradon (talk • contribs) 20:02, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

• I think the intention of the sentence in to indicate a bit of both. They did make conscious and successful reforms but the overall result was also due to unintended consequences as well those developments forced upon them. The long development of English law from Magna Carta is probably a good example. Should anyone be able to articulate this better I think they should feel free to do so. Cheers Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:14, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

The Plantagenets' broom badge

Hchc2009, can you explain why you object to the addition of the broom badge, which was used by several members of the House of Plantagenet (Henry II, Richard I, Henry III, Richard II) and probably also gave them their name? Zacwill16 (talk) 21:42, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

There are a couple of issues here, as also highlighted earlier by User:Mywikedit.

The first, in response to the point you've made above, is that the Victorian beliefs concerning the broom badge and the surname "Plantagenet" are not generally upheld by modern historians. The works already cited in the article here give a good background to this discussion: there is no particular evidence that Geoffrey II's descendants (Henry II, Richard I or Henry III) used the name "Plantagenet" or indeed the planta as a badge - this was a claim made popular in the 19th century, but since largely been challenged by medieval specialists (see, for example, the critique by John Gillingham). Richard II did adopt the name and the symbol, for various reasons, but not until around 1460. It is also unclear if even Geoffrey II used it as a badge, or if he became associated with the name of the plant because of his love of hunting - an ambiguity reflected in this article's current text.

The second is that material in the wiki needs to be verifiable and, where challenged, cited to a source. If we are suggesting to readers that Richard II's use of theplanta as a bage looked like the image in the picture, this needs a source like any other claim. If we are claiming a particular design without references to reliable sources, then we are engaging in WP:Original Research - and there are serious issues with that. Hchc2009 (talk) 23:04, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

As would be expected I agree entirely with Hchc2009 although would I be correct in thinking instead of Richard II he means Richard of York, 3rd Duke of York? Apart, as he says, I am not aware of any evidence of the broom as a badge or use of the name before the 15th-century.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:49, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Broom slips appear on either side of the throne in the first seal of Richard I, and also form part of the decoration on Geoffrey V's tomb. Zacwill16 (talk) 10:07, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

PS: do either of you have sources for your claim that the early Plantagenets did not use the broom badge? So far I seem to be the only one that has cited my statements, though Hchc2009 vaguely mentions a "critique by John Gillingham". Zacwill16 (talk) 10:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Gillingham Richard I p. 25 footnote 4 "Although there is near-contemporary warrant for the name 'Plantagenet' applied to Geoffrey [Geoffrey the father of Henry II] ... its use as a family name goes back no further than the fifteenth century, and the story of the 'sprig of broom' is much later still". Ealdgyth - Talk 12:22, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Barlow Feudal Kingdom of England (4th ed.) p. 199 "The device of Geoffrey's son, King Henry II of England is not known; but his grandson, King Richard I, like William fitzEmpress, bore a single lion on his shield at the beginning of his reign and later three of the beasts walking. This coat of arms, gules three leopards, was worn unchanged by his successors until 1340, when Edward III quartered the Plantagenet lions with the fleurs-de-lis of France." which would seem to state that no, the "broom" badge was not used by several members of this house. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:33, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

This is discussing coats of arms, which are not the same things as badges. The monarchs of England used a great many badges (a list can be found in this article) but as your source states, their arms were only changed a handful of times. For example, Richard III's adopted the personal badge of a boar, but his arms were still the lions of England and fleurs-de-lis of France. Zacwill16 (talk) 12:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

And of course, as Hchc2009 pointed out, this work, which is cited in the article, also points out that there is no contemporary use of the Plantagenet name for any of Geoffrey's descendants until 1460. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:44, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

That's besides the point. I agree that the early Plantagenet monarchs didn't use "Plantagenet" as their surname; what I don't agree with is that they didn't use the broom badge. Zacwill16 (talk) 12:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

@Zacwill, my "vague mention" of the critique is cited prominently in the works mentioned in the article - Angevin Empire, 2nd edition, p.3. For a discussion of the Richard I seal, it's worth taking a look at "Seals and their Context in the Middle Ages", by Schofield, who highlights the key problem with that solitary example - it is very hard to tell if it is actually supposed to be planta on the seal, not least because other people used similar vegetation on their seals at around the same time which was almost certainly not intended to represent planta. @Norfolk - yep, my mistake! Hchc2009 (talk) 13:17, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Regardless, I still think a depiction of the badge belongs in the article. We know as fact that later monarchs used it, and it's quite possible (though as you say, not certain) that the early monarchs used it as well. A contemporary illustration would be ideal, but as, to my knowledge, there isn't one available on Commons, a modern illustration will have to do. Zacwill16 (talk) 13:53, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Provided the representation is sourced, I wouldn't object to it being used to illustrate the badge used in the 15th century. But if the depiction isn't reliably sourced, and is just our editorial imagination, then I would have a problem with that, since it would be Original Research. Hchc2009 (talk) 13:55, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

The illustration I added previously matched that given in Montagu's Guide to the Study of Heraldry, which was stated to be taken from Richard II's monumental effigy in Westminster Abbey. Zacwill16 (talk) 15:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

They're not identical; Montagu has drawn a branch with four pods, and two flowers; the wiki drawing has five pods and three flowers... Hchc2009 (talk) 15:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Things like that have never been standardised. A badge is not like a corporate logo, the appearance of which is rigidly set down. If one were to collect all contemporary depictions of the badge, some would have four pods and two flowers, some would have five pods and three flowers, some would have three pods and one flower, some might have no flowers and just pods, &c., &c. Zacwill16 (talk) 15:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

If the source we're citing describes/illustrates it in a particular way, we should follow that description/illustration. Montagu doesn't say anything about Richard's tomb varying from other contemporary descriptions of the badge etc. - he simply claims to have copied the image on the tomb. Altering it without a suitable reference is, again, OR. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:56, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

If you think the illustration of the badge is wrong, I recommend you take it up with Sodacan, the person who made it. I'm sure he was working from a source, even if he hasn't added it to the file page. Zacwill16 (talk) 07:59, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I think I understand your frustration on this matter Zacwill16 as I have experienced similar in the past and while it is irritating that editors object to what seems a good sourced idea that does not necessarily make it wrong. All your sources follow a particular paradigm of Victorian triumphalism in which the eventual success of crown, parliament and Protestantism was thought to be inevitable and traceable back to the Norman conquest. Thinking has moved on since then. There is nothing before or since that you refer to. As you acknowledge this family had many badges - this article covers more than 3 centuries are we to add every badge used. This argument is very similar to the one we have about Roses—again no doubt that Lancaster and York used them but it wasn't the major badge of either, or thought significant at the time and was then applied retrospectively for a variety of reasons. The Rose problem also shares the use of Victorian imagery as if it was a medieval symbolism. Unless you can find an sourced image that addresses these points I don't think you can expect to add it to this article and have a consensus accept it. Sorry. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 06:23, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Removal of sections

Any objection to the removal of two of the collapsed sections? Namely the timeline and reign ones? They don't seem to add anything of value and would need serious improvement if the article is to pass FAC. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:56, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

• No comment, so I'll remove. Hope no one has late issues. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:15, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• Also removed the Titles section. Very much a subset of the titles held (i.e. not even including the duchies of York and Lancaster!!). Hope this sin't an issue. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:18, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Dodgy family tree

In the expandable family tree, the first two earls of Lancaster and the first duke of Lancaster, who died in 1361, are called "The House of Lancaster"", and coloured in pink. This is wrong. The "House of Lancaster", as generally understood, starts with Henry born in 1340, who was created first Duke of Lancaster some time after his third cousin, the first duke of Lancaster, died presumably without an heir. The appointment of this second Henry as first Duke of Lancaster was not an inheritance from the previous first duke of Lancaster, it was a new creation of the title, and this second Henry was the founder of the "House of Lancaster" which produced Kings Henry IV, V and VI.Lathamibird (talk) 13:43, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

You presume incorrectly. The first Duke, Henry Grosmont's had two heirs: his daughters. John of Gaunt married Blanche and it is through this that he claimed the privileges of Lancaster by which he was created Duke of Lancaster for the second creation. Their son, Henry (IV) Bollingbroke inherited from his mother and later used this descent from Crouchback as one of his spurious claims to the throne.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:57, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Slight inconsistency

In the article on common broom, which is linked from this article's "Terminology" section, it says "The name of the House of Plantagenet, rulers of England in the Middle Ages, was derived from common broom ...". This is stated as if it were a definite fact, yet in this article it is said to be merely "one of many popular theories". Since I have no knowledge of this topic I do not intend to change anything myself. 86.171.43.59 (talk) 02:20, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

The version in this article is correct - there are various theories out there... Hchc2009 (talk) 07:00, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. Johnbod (talk) 13:25, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

• What theories and why are we not detailing them? So far, I have seen three:

1. That it started with Fulk I, Count of Anjou, who scourged himself with broom and then took the name
2. That it started with Geoffrey Plantagenet, Count of Anjou who put a spring of broom in his cap and took it as an emblem
3. That it started with Geofffrey who planted broom in his hunting reserves

Are there any more? Andrew D. (talk) 16:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

We have a disputed paragraph in the lead:

Under the Plantagenets, England was transformed, although this was only partly intentional. The Plantagenet kings were often forced to negotiate compromises such as Magna Carta. These constrained royal power in return for financial and military support. The king was no longer just the most powerful man in the nation, holding the prerogative of judgement, feudal tribute and warfare. He now had defined duties to the realm, underpinned by a sophisticated justice system. A distinct national identity was shaped by conflict with the French, Scots, Welsh and Irish, and the establishment of English as the primary language.

I see nothing in the body of the article which directly supports these statements and so removed it all: "Remove paragraph from lead which has no references and does not seem supported by the body of the article". I advised Norfolkbigfish of relevant discussion but he just reverted. Andrew D. (talk) 16:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Let's see - the sections on Magna Carta seem to be covered by the article - the "negotiate compromises" is covered by the Magna Carta and the Provisions of Oxford stuff. I didn't see anything about the English language on a quick glance - but it's easy enough to find sources for this information if it is indeed missing from the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

• Also touched on with the (cited) coronation oath of Edward II and the legal debates around the accession of HIV.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

• The first sentence about transformation seems rather hand-waving. We're talking about a period of 330 years here. Obviously there were changes of various sorts. How is this a useful statement about the Plantagenet dynasty? Then, for compromises we are told these happened "often". Two compromises in over 300 years does not seem to warrant such language. Where are the sources for such sweeping statements, please? Andrew D. (talk) 16:54, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

• I have added a cited source for the adoption of English and a national identity and removed the cn tag. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
• To be clear, the dispute comes from Davidson and Davidson alone. The FAC review passed the very paragraph being questioned by him and him alone. Just FYI. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Duke of York

At the beginning of the "House of York" section the article says "Edward III made his fourth son Edmund the first duke of York in 1385." But Edward III died in 1377. Brutannica (talk) 02:43, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

• Good Spot, should have been 1362.....I have corrected. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:06, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Re revert of Jbeans 1226 08 June 2016

Pls let's discuss; I respect any editor's concern if attribution isn't made; but specifics of the complaint were lacking. (A) Ealdgyth please indicate the "...part of one paragraph [that] was copied without attribution". Jbeans (talk) 02:06, 9 June 2016 (UTC) [INSERT: see SUMMARY below] Jbeans (talk) 00:45, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Your addition "The Norman conquest (1066) saw the introduction of Anglo-Norman French as the language of the new ruling classes in England, displacing Old English. It is not known how much use of French spread among the native and lower classes, but the demands of trade and basic communication probably meant that at least some Normans and native English were bilingual, especially around market-towns.<ref name=Conquest323>Huscroft ''Norman Conquest'' pp. 323–324</ref> Nevertheless, for perhaps as long as three centuries, the English language was not used, or not well understood, by the rulers of the realm.<ref>Crystal "Story of Middle English" ''English Language''</ref> Still, the dynastic period of the Plantagenets saw the development of successor English languages, one of which eventually replaced the usurper Norman French." compare that to the Norman conquest of England article (section Norman conquest of England#Language - "One of the most obvious effects of the conquest was the introduction of Anglo-Norman, a northern dialect of Old French, as the language of the ruling classes in England, displacing Old English. French words entered the English language, and a further sign of the shift was the usage of names common in France instead of Anglo-Saxon names. Male names such as William, Robert and Richard soon became common; female names changed more slowly. The Norman invasion had little impact on placenames, which had changed significantly after earlier Scandinavian invasions. It is not known precisely how much English the Norman invaders learned, nor how much the knowledge of French spread among the lower classes, but the demands of trade and basic communication probably meant that at least some of the Normans and native English were bilingual.<ref name=Conquest323>Huscroft ''Norman Conquest'' pp. 323–324</ref> Nevertheless, William the Conqueror never developed a working knowledge of English and for centuries afterwards English was not well understood by the nobility.<ref>Crystal "Story of Middle English" ''English Language''</ref>" - you even copied the exact form of the references! (which is how I figured out it came from an article I worked on - I am one of the few editors who use that exact form of references). You need to attribute text that is copied between articles in Wikipedia (leaving aside the issue that you did not import the full references for the short citations). The big concern with your edit, however, was the large amount of information you added that was not sourced. Some of it also is quite POV - look above "Still, the dynastic period of the Plantagenets saw the development of successor English languages, one of which eventually replaced the usurper Norman French." "Usurper" is quite POV and very much not encyclopedic. Or "Here the use of English was symbolic of the Anglicisation of the government of England and an antidote to the Francization which had taken place in the decades immediately before."? Antidote? And another problem is most of this is NOT related to the dynasty/house but is instead pure history. It really has no need to be so detailed here. And "During the 14th century a new style of literature emerged with the works of John Wycliffe and Geoffrey Chaucer" ... Wycliffe was a theologian. Chaucer wrote works of fiction. I'm not sure how the two combined to form a "new style of literature" Too much unsourced and too much not relevant to an article on the dynastic house, which is what this article is about. The history of the medieval English language belongs elsewhere. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:43, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

• The key is Ealdgyth's comment "too much not relevant to an article on the dynastic house, which is what this article is about". A lot of work was done on this article to remove periodic history and focus this article on the family, their actions and their impact. The general history went into England in the Late Middle Ages—I think you may have edited the wrong article. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:56, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, but England in the Late Middle Ages already has a more concise para on this. Johnbod (talk) 12:53, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Ealdgyth and Norfolkbigfish: thank you both for responding; I am learning much---as there is much there to assimilate. Please believe I shall be mindful of your concerns even on those points where we disagree; I hope you will feel the same. I seek a mutual exchange of discussion in good faith---and for the possibilities of learning and common ground.

First, to respond, it is important for me to understand you---when you said "...part of one paragraph was copied without attribution". You said "part of", but your response identified a complete paragraph (my lede paragraph re "Norman conquest of England" - see above). (B) So, please, which is it? Do you mean that the whole paragraph is without attribution? - or only a part? - if the latter, pls clarify which part; then I can reply accurately. Thank you. Jbeans (talk) 00:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

It's in the part I put above - you can compare the two bits in quotations - one is the edit you made (the first quoted bit) and the second is the paragraph from the Norman conquest article (which I handily linked to the relevant section that was borrowed from). Your edit clearly incorporates several sentences from the Norman conquest article - thus "part of one paragraph" (i.e. part of a paragraph you put in this article). When you copy ANY text from another Wikipedia article you must say in your edit summary that you are taking information from another wikipedia article. See Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. In this case "attribution" doesn't mean citing a source in the article - it means that you took sentence you did not write and by incorporating them into a paragraph you put here, you were in effect claiming that YOU composed those words. Clearly, this isn't the case (since you also copied the rather unique citation format I use). But THAT is only a very small part of the problem with your edits. I detailed most of them above also. You need to take on board those problems also. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:54, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Ealdgyth, thank you for your response, but still: you haven't identified that "...part of one paragraph [that] was copied without attribution"---which is in your stated complaint as posted. I have read your 2nd response (and the 1st again) several times now and cannot spot where you mean the offending flaw is located. OTOH You obviously know which phrase (or phrases) you meant; (C) so this is request, again, that you simply point out the phrase that was "..copied without attribution".

Here is a suggestion to make it easy: below is the paragraph you have complained of (which I proposed for the lede paragraph of a short subsection on the emergence of "Middle English" under the reign of the Plantagenets). I have 'box'-numbered each sentence to facilitate your fingering---precisely---the flawed part.

Block-A begin

---

---Middle English---

[1] The Norman conquest (1066) saw the introduction of Anglo-Norman French as the language of the new ruling classes in England, displacing Old English. [2] It is not known how much use of French spread among the native and lower classes, but the demands of trade and basic communication probably meant that at least some Normans and native English were bilingual, especially around market-towns. [3] Nevertheless, for perhaps as long as three centuries, the English language was not used, or not well understood, by the rulers of the realm. [4] Still, the dynastic period of the Plantagenets saw the development of successor English languages, one of which eventually replaced the usurper Norman French.

And for ease off comparing, here is the paragraph in the article Norman conquest of England, qv:

---Language---

[5] One of the most obvious effects of the conquest was the introduction of Anglo-Norman, a northern dialect of Old French, as the language of the ruling classes in England, displacing Old English. [6] French words entered the English language, and a further sign of the shift was the usage of names common in France instead of Anglo-Saxon names. [7] Male names such as William, Robert and Richard soon became common; female names changed more slowly. [8] The Norman invasion had little impact on placenames, which had changed significantly after earlier Scandinavian invasions. [9] It is not known precisely how much English the Norman invaders learned, nor how much the knowledge of French spread among the lower classes, but the demands of trade and basic communication probably meant that at least some of the Normans and native English were bilingual. [10] Nevertheless, William the Conqueror never developed a working knowledge of English and for centuries afterwards English was not well understood by the nobility.

---

end Block-A

(D) Please, Ealdgyth, this is to again request of you: which of the numbered sentences [1], [2], [3], or [4] is the one (or more) you feel is ".. copied without attribution"? Thank you. Jbeans (talk) 20:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth: (E) it been some time now since my (above) post to you---with no response from you. Please, in good faith, answer the repeated requests (above): that you specifically identify the one or more sentences(s) that you find are "... copied without attribution". Jbeans (talk) 02:55, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

• I think Ealdgyth may think she has already answered you question once and doesn't feel inclined to enter a dialog on this. But all of this content dates prior to when the Plantagenets came to England—therefore it has no place in this article Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:43, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

But, Norfolkbigfish: Ealdgyth has not answered my question, even "once" - indeed, she has not answered the (same, repeated) question now four times. And the question doesn't require a (lengthy) "dialog" of her; actually, the opposite is true. This question/request asks simply that she back-up her claim, which is: "...at least part of one paragraph was copied without attribution from Norman conquest of England" (see Revision History, 8 June 2016 Ealdgyth).

• The request, from the very beginning, has been that she point out the specific sentence, or sentences, whereby she makes her claim.

• She is merely being asked to point to the specifics of her claim.

• (F) And, if @Ealdgyth cares to (finally) answer, this is the fifth request. Jbeans (talk) 22:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

• I have already answered twice. No need to keep repeating myself. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth: I agree: you have "already answered twice";

• But, I also disagree:
• Much more important than the question of 'repeating yourself'(?) is the fact that you certainly appear committed to avoiding the question asked of you:
• 1) Yes, you have already answered twice, but on neither occasion did you answer the question asked of you; instead, you have certainly avoided it---five times now! 2) Indeed, it 'appears' you have replaced it with a substitute question, re-framed to read perhaps: "What can be said that avoids answering the actual question asked, and thereby will enable one to avoid having to discuss the claims one has made---or having to account for them?

I said 'appears' because of course because I may have wrongly guessed your intent; I hope so! (But it certainly appears that you are trying to avoid discussing the claims you have made.) (G) Now I request of you to own your obligation as a Wikipedia editor "in good faith" to discuss the work made in good faith by another editor; and specifically to answer the questions where? and why? of your claims, especially if you continue to post reckless broadsides and claims that disparage another editor's work.

Ealdgyth: I do not presume to know or publish your reasons or intentions---nor do I need to; I believe you yourself will disclose that information by your acts. And this time---trust you'll be pleased to know---is the last time I will ask you to identify the sentences, specifically, that caused your claims of "... copied without attribution"; if you choose to continue your refusal to identify the sources of your claims and to discuss, then so be it.

Immediately below is the new section---comprising four five short paragraphs---that I originally proposed for this page, and which you immediately attacked. (H) Please identify the individual sentences you found that are "... copied without attribution"; and from there we can discuss the particulars and other details of your concern.

|Block-B begin

---

---Middle English---

The Norman conquest (1066) saw the introduction of Anglo-Norman French as the language of the new ruling classes in England, displacing Old English. It is not known how much use of French spread among the native and lower classes, but the demands of trade and basic communication probably meant that at least some Normans and native English were bilingual, especially around market-towns. Nevertheless, for perhaps as long as three centuries, the English language was not used, or not well understood, by the rulers of the realm. Still, the dynastic period of the Plantagenets saw the development of successor English languages, one of which eventually replaced the usurper Norman French.

The Oxford English Dictionary identifies Middle English (ME) as one of the varieties of English that developed after the Norman Conquest displaced Old English; ME was spoken during the period 1150 to 1500. It developed out of Late Old English, introducing dramatic changes in grammar, pronunciation and orthography. Everyday vocabulary remained mostly Germanic, enhanced with Old Norse influence, but pronunciation absorbed significant changes in the Late Middle English period, as English began to undergo the Great Vowel Shift.

After the Provisions of Oxford were ratified in 1258, record copies of the agreement were drafted in Latin, French and, significantly, Middle English and were sent to sheriffs of all the shires in England. Here the use of English was symbolic of the Anglicisation of the government of England and an antidote to the Francization which had taken place in the decades immediately before. The Provisions were the first government documents to be published in English since the Norman Conquest two hundred years before.

During the 14th century a new style of literature emerged with the works of John Wycliffe and Geoffrey Chaucer, whose "Canterbury Tales" remains the most studied and read work of the period. Poets wrote both in the vernacular and courtly English. Official documents began to appear in English, in lieu of French, from about 1430.

The Chancery Standard of written Late Middle English began to emerge: it was based, as was the language of Chaucer, on the East Midlands-influenced London speech. By the mid-15th century, Chancery Standard was used for most official purposes except by the Church, which adhered to Latin, and for some legal legacies in Latin or French law. It was disseminated around England by bureaucrats on official business and slowly gained prestige. [End of proposed section.]

---

end Block-B

References

Ealdgyth, I welcome the opportunity to discuss with you the details that concern you, to revise those the details where I can agree with your explication or can compromise to it, and to explicate my own views---and generally to proceed in good faith and with mutual respect for each other and for each other's work---towards finding common ground in editing Wikipedia. Jbeans (talk) 02:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth:: (I) It has been a week now since my sixth (and final) request of you: to identify those specific sentences that were "... copied without attribution ..." - as you claimed on 8 June 2016 against my edit of that date. As of today, you continue to refuse to answer this question asked of you for some time now; (J) in fact, you have avoided this (same) question now for three weeks since my original request of you on 09 June 2016; (see lede, this section, above).

Therefore, I can reasonably interpret that you will not answer this question (meaning 'the question asked' , not a substitute question), because you cannot; that is, your claim is baseless, it was made recklessly, with no specific evidence to support such a view. (It may be that you made an honest mistake---which I can accept if you can acknowledge.)

(K) Now I will address your other claims against my edit, including, "... addition of unsourced information ...". To do so, I must again seek your willingness to specify your vague claim, and to discuss the details it with me .

Therefore, from the copy (of the reverted edit) reproduced above - beginning at "Middle English" - (L) please specifically identify those sentences you believe are 'unsourced' but should be. I welcome an opportunity to discuss problems, and repair them as needed, if you will point them out. Jbeans (talk) 03:53, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Well "It developed out of Late Old English, introducing dramatic changes in grammar, pronunciation and orthography. Everyday vocabulary remained mostly Germanic, enhanced with Old Norse influence, but pronunciation absorbed significant changes in the Late Middle English period, as English began to undergo the Great Vowel Shift." this sentence is without a source. Also "Still, the dynastic period of the Plantagenets saw the development of successor English languages, one of which eventually replaced the usurper Norman French." But that still does not address the main problem, which is the fact that the information added is not directly about the Plantagenet dynasty, rather it is about the English language during the period. It doesn't belong here (as several other editors have also pointed out. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:46, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Ealdgyth, for your response. My first reaction---to your naming the two sentences above---is: Why do you feel either sentence needs sourcing? There are no facts or themes presented (in either) that are contradicted elsewhere; there are none (facts/themes) that are controversial or opposed by dissenting groups of historians or scholars. Ealdgyth, pls open the links provided in the sentences: they connect the reader to background and collateral information (already existing on other Wp pages) that support the sentence narratives.

Your phrase, "this sentence is without a source", is insufficient. Probably 99.99+ percent of sentences in Wp are "... without a source". Sentences that actually need sourcing are actually very rare---and are not merely arbitrary. The question for you is: why does this sentence need a source? Jbeans (talk) 05:16, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

This is a featured article - every sentence should be sourced. This can be a source after a series of sentences (when the source then covers all the preceeding sentences) but those sentences actually DO need a source. Most folks reading this will not have a clue whether it's factual or not. By providing a source, you allow the reader to follow up and see that it is trustworthy. And whether or not the information is sourced in linked articles, it needs sourcing at the article it is contained in. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't mean that you shouldn't provide sources for information you add. But all this is really peripheral to the fact that the information doesn't relate to the family/dynasty of the Plantagenets - they didn't enforce or require changes in the language so it's not part of the topic of the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:30, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I do not disagree, Ealdgyth, with (the first) two themes you mention, but I am concerned with how "stickily" or arbitrarily they may be applied to edits that were (arbitrarily) dismissed at the get-go---or, so I believe. Both sentences are properly sourced because such is the constraint I have always endeavoured to keep in my years of copy-editing and revising at Wp. But now I am obliged to retrace my work-up of this edit---to recover the connections to source articles---that I (routinely) perform in my work. I shall commence tonight and bring the results back here, I hope, by tomorrow---certainly by the day after.

(Now, let me clarify my intentions re the third point you & others mention frequently: I don't agree with you, and I intend to engage this matter. But, I am no longer---if ever I was---a multi-tasker! So, while I shall not object if you continue to repeat "my-mind-is-already-set" warning---still I cannot engage the matter right now.) Jbeans (talk) 00:09, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

|Block-C begin

---

(M) Ealdgyth: re the first pair of sentences you designated: Sentences[1], (see below), does not require attribution, per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. This editing guideline points out where attribution is not needed: as when text is "content rewritten", which is the case here. It reads:

"Not everything copied from one Wikipedia page to another requires attribution. If the re-user is the sole contributor of the text at the other page, attribution is not necessary. Content rewritten in one's own words does not require attribution."---[excepting against material that is creative /copyrightable]; and,

"... even though attribution is not required in these cases, including a link is often useful."

In the present context, Sentences[1] (see below), is not "copy", or "copying", but instead is "content rewritten" per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. I summarized and rewrote this text from narrative found in the lede of the article Middle English, (see below)---which (narrative) is sourced to the body of the article (see section History):

Sentences[1]> "It developed out of Late Old English, introducing dramatic changes in grammar, pronunciation and orthography. Everyday vocabulary remained mostly Germanic, enhanced with Old Norse influence, but pronunciation absorbed significant changes in the Late Middle English period, as English began to undergo the Great Vowel Shift."

---------------------

[Article]> Middle English (ME) refers to the varieties of the English language spoken after the Norman Conquest (1066) until the late 15th century; scholarly opinion varies but the Oxford English Dictionary specifies the period of 1150 to 1500. This stage of the development of the English language roughly followed the High to the Late Middle Ages.

[cf]> Middle English developed out of Late Old English, seeing many dramatic changes in its grammar, pronunciation and orthography. Writing customs during Middle English times varied widely, but by the end of the period, about 1470, aided by the invention of the printing press, a standard based on the London dialect (Chancery Standard) had become established. This largely forms the basis for Modern English spelling, although pronunciation has changed considerably since that time. Middle English was succeeded in England by the era of Early Modern English, which lasted until about 1650. By that time, a variant of the Northumbrian dialect (prevalent in northern England and spoken in southeast Scotland) was developing into the Scots language.

During the Middle English period many Old English grammatical features were simplified or disappeared. This includes the reduction (and eventual elimination) of most grammatical cases, and the simplification of noun, adjective and verb inflection. Middle English also saw a mass adoption of Norman French vocabulary, especially in areas such as politics, law, the arts, religion and other courtly language. [cf]> Everyday English vocabulary remained mostly Germanic, with Old Norse influence becoming apparent. Significant changes in pronunciation took place, especially in the case of long vowels and diphthongs, which in the later Middle English period began to undergo the Great Vowel Shift. [end]

One can (deliberatively) read both items above, and can see that Sentences[1] is summarized "content rewritten" of existing Wikipedia narrative that is itself properly sourced. Thus, Sentences[1] is correct here---as unsourced---per the "content rewritten" guide, Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. It does not require attribution here. The links provide the reader a "follow-up" connection to the sources, and other background material as well; I am agreeable to adding more links, or modifying them for consensus.

Ealdgyth, clearly, in the context of providing attribution to "creative /copyrightable" work this guideline intends to distinguish between "creative /copyrightable" work vs. material that need not be sourced, (eg, "content rewritten"). Do you agree with this point, or no? Please reply, specifically referring to the terms of Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Jbeans (talk) 07:16, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

---

end Block-C

References

@Ealdgyth:: (N) now it is more than a week since you were given the above question; pls respond. Jbeans (talk) 03:09, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth:: (O) another week+ and still no response re my request of you for specific discussion of your claim of "... unsourced information" .. against my original edit (of 12:26 08 June) ------as you are perhaps aware, it is difficult to achieve good-faith discussion of differences when one editor refuses to respond to difficult questions.

If you have no objection: I will now suspend my unsuccessful efforts pressing you to defend your baseless claims---which efforts would include a detailed discussion with you of your first two broadsides (of 02:43 09 June, and 00:54 10 June) that---instead of providing specific answers to my specific questions---instead just offered additional baseless criticism. And still you cannot respond simply to name the sentences you claim were ".. copied without attribution"! But pls be advised: As my circumstances will permit, I plan to return here (soon) and post a summary report of your performance in defense of your baseless claims against my original edit - perhaps in a few days - or I hope, certainly within a week. Jbeans (talk) 06:01, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Interruption, pls pardon---re doctor orders: to stop reading, writing, wikipedia-ing, etc;; &minions---my own family---enforcing agin me, (but I shall return soon.) (Ealdgyth, you are still invited to respond to above discussion). Jbeans (talk) 21:26, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

• @Jbeans:—you still need to consider that your edits had nothing to do with the Plantagenets as individuals or a family. This article failed its initial attempt at reaching FA status on the grounds of having too much general history and not enough family. @Sabrebd: did an immense amount or work stripping the general out into the other article and this one subsequently made FA. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:22, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree, regardless of any other problems, this article should not go back to a general one about the period, but needs to stay focused on the house.--SabreBD (talk) 14:16, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Johnbod (talk) 12:53, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Summary (by Jbeans) re the above thread:

N.B.: This thread to date is summarized below re two issues: "... addition of unsourced informaiton", and "... part of one paragraph was copied without attribution"; these two are the only issues covered here. Note the following changes---all on Jbeans' edits---are made to the thread: (1) added narrative-divider lines (=====), as directly above, and below; and (++++++, --------). (2) isolated three existing blocks of narrative: Block-A, Block-B, Block-C, for ease of locating same. (3) bolded, for emphasis, 15 existing statements by Jbeans, and marked: {*A}, {*B}, etc.
[Note: the above formatting was reverted by me because it made the page completely unreradable Scolaire (talk) 19:00, 15 April 2018 (UTC)]

• 1. 12:26, 06 June 2016 (see> Article.): editor Jbeans (Jb) posted a new sub-section, "Middle English", to article House of Plantagenet (HP); see> Block-B above;

• 2. 12:35, 06 June 2016 (see> Article.): editor Ealdgyth (Ea) reverted, leaving this message: "(revert addition of unsourced informaiton - also at least part of one paragraph was copied without attribution from Norman conquest of England)";

• 3. 09 June 2016 (see> Talk--and the same hereinafter): Jb requests that Ea specify: the "...part of one paragraph [that] was copied without attribution". (see> (A), above).

• 4. 09 June 2016: Ea replies at length, but does not identify any specific phrase or sentence that "...was copied without attribution".

• 5. 10 June 2016: Jb again requests that Ea identify a specific part, or such a phrase or sentence, or "...whole paragraph".(see> B).

• 6. 10 June 2016: Ea replies: "In this case "attribution" doesn't mean citing a source in the article - it means that you took sentence you did not write and by incorporating them into a paragraph you put here, you were in effect claiming that YOU composed those words." Ea implies that Jb is, in effect, plagiarizing.

Ea still avoids identifying specific phrase(s) or sentence(s) that "... was copied without attribution".

• 7. 11 June 2016: Jb provides a copy of the offending paragraph, with sentences numbered (see> Block-A above), again requesting that Ea simply identify the phrases or sentences she sees and claims are flawed (see> D).

Ea ignores responding. Jb repeats the request twice more.

• 8. 16 June 2016: Ea posts that she has no more to say re this matter.

• 9. 30 June 2016: After pressing Ea to identify the flawed sentences, Jb writes: "Therefore, I can reasonably interpret that you will not answer this question ... because you cannot; that is, your claim is baseless ..."; (see> immediately above line-mark ++++++6.1).

• 10. 4 July 2018: Jb turns to Ea's second claim---re "...addition of unsourced information"---and requests Ea specify what she claims. (see> K and L). Useful dialog ensues; however, both Jb and Ea appear to sometimes use the word "sourcing" when they may have in mind the activity "attribution".

• 11. 5 July 2016: Jb notes that when narrative is "content rewritten", as is the case of of his edit (see> Block-B above), then attribution is not needed---per Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Where attribution is not needed, which states:

"Not everything copied from one Wikipedia page to another requires attribution. If the re-user is the sole contributor of the text at the other page, attribution is not necessary. Content rewritten in one's own words does not require attribution." [emphasis added]; (see> (M) above).

Jb requests if Ea agrees that his post is not "copying" that needs attribution, but is "content rewritten" that does not need attribution; (see> Block-C, immediately above ++++++10). Ea ignores responding.

• 12. 13 July 2016: Jb presses Ea for reply (see> N); Ea ignores responding.

• 13. 24 July 2016: Jb final request for reply (see> O); Ea ignores responding to date.

@Ealdgyth: Please reply below; pls do not interweave your comments into mine above---which are list-numbered for ease of reference to them; thank you. Jbeans (talk) 00:38, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth:---Sorry; I had intended to ping-notice you with the above posting. Jbeans (talk) 17:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

You've already pinged me several times with the above. I've already stated all I'm going to. Please do not ping me again about this or take up more of the talk page with this issue. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:37, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

King John Lackland

The Angevin zenith section refers to Henry II's youngest son as "King John Lackland". This is not historically correct. He was "John Lackland" when his father was alive and he had three older brothers and no lands; he was "King John" when he ascended the throne. The article needs to decide which of the two is appropriate here. Scolaire (talk) 19:09, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

For that matter, neither is "King Richard the Lionheart" historically correct. It's "King Richard I" or "Richard the Lionheart". Also, I see no reason to pipe "William IX, Count of Poitiers" to "William, Count of Poitiers", or "Geoffrey II, Duke of Brittany" to "Geoffrey, Duke of Brittany". I'm changing them now. Scolaire (talk) 12:57, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

Wow. I had no idea that anyone took this stuff that seriously. I am impressed. 73.6.96.168 (talk) 10:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

any male lines left?

are there any direct male lines left? no matter how low ranked or directly distant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.129.148.223 (talk) 16:38, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

No. Stacks of descendents but all via mixed male and female lines. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:52, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Not as straightforward as this. There are male-line descents on paper (via two out-of-wedlock births), but their Y-DNA does not match that of Richard III, so somewhere along the line there is a break in the chain. There likewise are other historical families of known illegitimate male-line descent at earlier times that were obscure enough that they likely spawned younger sons whose lines could persist but are unidentified. If one restricts to legitimate lines, then none survive. Agricolae (talk) 11:10, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I am intrigued Agricolae, what are those two lines of illegitimate descent (just for my own interest)? Also, geneticists have greatly diappointed genealogists wit asserting that practicarly 100% of the English speaking world is descende from Edward III is some way or another. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:54, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

It is one line with two illegitimate links. The Beaufort Dukes of Somerset descend, on paper, in the male line from John of Gaunt, but as I said they don't match Richard III's Y-DNA (nor do all of the Beauforts match each others). The more cryptic illegitmate lines I had in mind that might have spawned obscure descent are via Richard of Cornwall's bastard sons, who are poorly documented but could in theory have given rise to a Cornwall/Cornwell line seen later, and the Warennes/Warrens of Poynton who descend through two bastard links from Geoffrey Plantagenet. There are a number of Warren families throughout the English diaspora who claim, based on surname alone, to be of the Plantagenet male line through this route but none of them have any actual evidence. Then of course there were certainly any number of bastards born to lowly mothers and never formally acknowledged by their fathers, any of whom could have living male line descendants, but we would never know. As to everyone descending from Edward III, that is a statistical argument not a genealogical one, and it is based on some assumptions that may not be valid, but even if you roll it back and say Henry I, the point remains - unlike the big deal they made of it in Victorian times, descent from English royalty is nothing special at all (which is why I routinely remove claims in articles about people or families descending from remote monarchs unless the descent has particular relevance to their status or they make it a significant aspect of their self-identity). Agricolae (talk) 13:26, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Agricolae—very interesting, particularly the bit about the Beauforts and Richard III not being male line relatives, despite what the genealogical tables claim. On further question which Geoffrey were the Poynton Warrens supposed descendants? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:50, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Geoffrey Plantagenet, Count of Anjou, father of Henry II of England. Hamelin de Warenne, Earl of Surrey, Geoffrey's illegitimate son, was married to an heiress, and Hamelin took his wife's "family name". Ealdgyth (talk) 15:59, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Ealdgyth. Looks a big stretch for this to lead to a male line Plantagenet heir, particularly considering what the guys at Leicester University wrote about there being 1-2% false paternity events per generation. Btw I am happy to consider them entombed in the urns and sepulchres of mortality. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 22:50, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Hold on. Nobody is talking about an heir. The Warennes of Poynton line weren't even heirs of Hamelin, being descended from an illegitimate son of the 8th earl (this number may vary depending on who one counts). That being said, 1-2% means one FPE in 50-100 generations. Hamelin is closer than that to the present, so there is no reason a DNA descent shouldn't exist. The problem is that the senior line died out, and the paper trail (or, I guess, vellum trail) is too limited to identify potential younger sons and descents. Agricolae (talk) 01:20, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Heir is just me being loose with my language, I was just taking an intellectual interest in the original question. De facto and de jure the question is irrelevent as is the focus on male line descent considering modern socio-scientific ideas (and laws). For me it attempts to distort genealogy (for which you say there is little evidence) and the science of genetics in order to give meaning to th existance of some who are alive today that isn't true and/or important. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:42, 25 October 2021 (UTC)