Talk:House of Plantagenet/GA1

GA Review

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.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Calvin999 (talk · contribs) 12:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC) I'm interested in English history and royalty and would like to review this. — AARON • ^TALK 12:34, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you give your initial view, I'll tidy that what I can Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:42, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will chip in where I think it helpful, or if asked. I am assuming the nominator will deal with most of the issues.--SabreBD (talk) 16:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SabreBD, I am planning to, time permitting of course Norfolkbigfish (talk) 19:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A comment from a third party... There are typically two definitions of the Plantagenet dynasty. One, as used in this article, starts with Henry II and runs through to 1377. The other treats the first three kings - Henry II, Richard and John - as the Angevins, and starts the Plantagenets with Henry III.

There's no "right" answer, of course, but I think that to meet the GA standards the article should also note the alternative definition - not least because it the one used by the British monarchy itself! Possible sources would include the Royal Household's website, here; J. S. Hamilton's "The Plantagenets: History of a Dynasty", introduction, para 1; "Angevins and Plantagenets" in John Cannon and Anne Hargreaves' "The Kings and Queens of Britain". Hchc2009 (talk) 07:16, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Only one alternative!! Good point, I'll try an add a little commentary Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

General

There is one dab link that needs fixing
I think I fixed this.--SabreBD (talk) 16:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Info box

King of Germany → Wasn't it Prussia before the 19th century?
Its the king or emperor of the Holy Roman Empire from 843 to 1806. King of the Germans is one shorthand for this.--SabreBD (talk) 16:48, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not a German expert but this refers to Richard of Cornwall being elected King of the Romans - corrected to this effect - de jure King of medieval Germany Norfolkbigfish (talk) 19:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay thanks for clarifying. — AARON • ^TALK 11:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have the founding date, but no the end date?
This has had a number of dates over time. 1540 for the xeceution of Margaret Pole, the last offspring of a Plantagenet male, 1499 for the execution of the last patrilineal male legitimate Plantagenet but I have changed to 1485 and the death of the last Plantagenet monarch and loss of power forever Norfolkbigfish (talk) 19:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I think that's best, it's clear when it officially ended that way. 1485 was when the Tudor's came in so it makes sense this way. Just a suggestion, how about a predessessor and successor bit? So the houses before and after the House of Plantagenet? — AARON • ^TALK 11:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why is one of the cadet branches indented? — AARON • ^TALK

I've removed this - it wasn't one of my contributions. House of Beaufort was an illegitimate branch of the House of Lancaster (which is why I think it was indented) descended from John of Gaunt that was later legitimised by the Pope but banned from the succession by Henry IV. I don't believe these warrant the description of cadet branch as this legitimised male line was extinguished within three generations by their habit of getting killed in the battles of the Wars of the Roses. It is important in that Henry VII's claim to the throne was through his mother Margaret Beaufort. A second line established via illigimate descent is currently personified by the Dukes of Beaufort. The Beauforts themselves are liberally referred to in the article. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:19, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

The name of the dynasty dates from the 15th century and comes from a 12th-century nickname of Geoffrey. → I don't really understand this bit, can you explain it to me? Why was it only called this in the 15th century onwards?
This has caused a number of editors much head scratching over a number of versions in who to explain. Putting it simply surnames/family names were not really used when the dynasty was founded. In this case the King was just known as the King, his childern would take the name of where they were born (e.g. John of Gaunt, Richard of Bordeaux, Edward of Caernarvon, Henry Bollingbroke) until they were ennobled when they would carry the title (e.g. Lancaster, York, Kent, Goucester, Clarance etc) and pass this onto their descendents. Some historians date the end of the dynasty to 1399 to be followed the Houses of Lancaster & York meaning that none of the "Plantagenets" would have known themselves as such, or at least there is no contemporary evidence. In the fifteenth century struggles Richard, Duke of York was looking to emphasise his royal descent (which was so obscure that he needed to present genealogical tables to parliament to prove) to improve his political standing and for some unknown reason picked on the nickname of Geoffrey of Anjou to show he was a direct patrilineal descendent. In adopting the name he then passed this to his sons, two of which became King (Richard & Edward) though confusingly though these had the name (the only 2 of the 13 crowned "Plantagenet" monarchs) some historians do not consider them part of the House of Plantagenet but rather the House of York. In Tudor times the name became used retrospectively to cover the male line descendents of Henry 2 and was popularised by Shakespeare in his history plays. Does that make more sense and should the lead be edited to make in plainer? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:23, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I understand now, thanks. History can be really confusing so I think it would help if you put it as plainly as possible but interesting at the same time. — AARON • ^TALK 11:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Plantagenets transformed England from little more than a colonised realm → Was it?!
Citation added - reasonable definition of a realm ruled by c10,000 Franco-Normans over 2-3 million Anglo Saxons Norfolkbigfish (talk) 19:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So it the past 700 years or so England's population has gone from 3 million to over 65 million. Wow. — AARON • ^TALK 11:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Explain who Churchill is. What is the significance of his quote?
Done, how does this work for you? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 19:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Probably best top say when he was PM, such as the time period he was PM for example. — AARON • ^TALK 11:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No royal dynasty was as successful in passing down the crown as the Plantagenets, from 1189 to 1377, but in 1399, as the dynasty splintered → No royal dynasty has been as successful in passing down the crown as the Plantagenets from 1189 to 1377. But in 1399, as the dynasty splintered
Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

as the dynasty splintered into two competing cadet branches, economic and social tumult led to the internecine strife later named the Wars of the Roses. → Can you explain this to me a bit more?
Done - what do you think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is clearer now, hopefully I will understand it more as I progress through the sections. — AARON • ^TALK 11:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

With this, the Middle Ages in England are considered to end with the death of the last Plantagenet king, Richard III, at the Battle of Bosworth Field in 1485. → Perhaps explain this a bit more and say why.
Done - again whats your view? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:33, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, better. — AARON • ^TALK 11:58, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

More to come...

Origins

No issues.

The Angevins come to England

How come Matilda wasn't styled as Queen?
In feudal society the monarch was expected to lead armies in battle so there was no precedent for a ruling queen rather than a queen consort. Reworded. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So I'm guessing it it were now, she would be Queen. — AARON • ^TALK 22:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why was he alarmed at his men being so successful at acquiring land?
Because they could use this as a power base to challenge him. Reworded. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am getting confused in the third paragraph, I don't know who is who or what they are trying to achieve.
Reworded - they wanted to please Henry by removing Beckett who opposed the King Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Was Henry the Young King not Henry III?
Henry was crowned co-regent to aid the succession but because he predeceased his father he never ruled so he isn't given a number and Henry III is his nephew. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Co-regnant with who? I am trying to understand lol. — AARON • ^TALK 22:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Link dysentery
Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Henry was forced to accept humiliating peace terms" Which Henry is this? I think anyone who has the same name needs to have their number after them to avoid confusion.
Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The picture is interesting, didn't realise how much France has grown.

:-)

So who are the Angevins? I don't think this is made clear.
This is above in the origins section - they were Counts of Anjou hence Angevin for from Anjou. Does this need to be clearer? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I get it now. The Angevins are the Counts of Anjou. — AARON • ^TALK 22:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aaron - I think I have addressed your points in this section, what do you think? Cheers Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Angevin decline

Contemporary opinion of Richard was critical. → Should this be "is critical" ?
That was meant to be contemporary to Richard, redrafted to make this clearer Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So the absolute monarchy in France was being formed in the 13th Century but was not initiated in the 16th century?
The Battle Bouvines is seen as an initiating event of a process that took until the 16th century complete and was an important nation building event. Before the battle the King only had direct control over the Ille de France with fairly independent nobles giving homage as vassals (including the Plantagenets) in a feudal manner. Victory led to a massive expansion in territory under direct control and an end to the Angevin Empire which was larger than the French King's lands. The process entended the Kings control to cover the boundaries of modern day France and required victory in the 100-years war and the expulsion of the Plantagenets. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay — AARON • ^TALK 22:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Magna Carta and the First Barons War

monarch,thus → Need a space
Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Second Barons War and the establishment of Parliament

Nothing needs correcting or explaining here.

:-) Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:33, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aaron - I think this is now up to date as far as the comments so far. What do you think and are there any more Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conquest of Wales

Can princedom be linked? I guess a more modern word for place like what existed then would be principalities, states, or regions?

More in the manner of Kingdom, Dukedom, Earldom etc but I have linked. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah so that's where the Prince of Wales originates from. :-)Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Constitutional change and the reform of feudalism

Put King Philip IV of France and link it instead of just Phillip IV
which prohibiting - should this be in the past tense? Doesn't make sense at the moment.
Magna Carta, reached - don't really need a comma there, it breaks unnecessarily

All done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anglo-Scottish wars

The King had general good - not really sure what you mean
I'm kinda lost what is going on now at the end of this section!

Re-edited, how about this? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Hundred Years' War

using the Parlement of Paris hear appeals the decisions of lower courts weakening the nobility's jurisdiction. - hear appeals? I don't think this flows properly, I don't really get what this sentence is trying to convey.
that son - that his son?
but this has no contemporary evidence for this. - but there is no contemporary evidence to suggest that this is true.

All done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hundred Years' War (1337–60) – The Edwardian phase

and Isabella on behalf - I think it's best to always state who the person is with their full title.
that followed the plague[87] - need a full stop
So Edward, the Black Prince, was the son of a King and the father of a King, but never became King himself? Yep, thats it - also added this Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
guaranteed by Valois family - guaranteed by the Valois family
The Planatagents continued - spelling mistake

All done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hundred Years' War (1369–89) – the Caroline phase

When the Black Prince refused a summons as Duke of Aquitaine Charles V of France resumed hostilities, setting out to reverse the territorial losses of the Treaty of Brétigny. - This sentence isn't constructed properly, read it out loud.
The Black Prince demonstrated the brutal character that some think is the cause of the title at the Siege of Limoges. - What title?
He promised clemency, but once he had re-established control pursued, captured and executed - ...control, he pursued,...

All done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

End of Plantagenet main line

Can Henry be linked?
Richard disinherited - which Richard? The 10 year old?

House of Lancaster

So who is the House of York and why didn't they depose Henry of House of Lancaster?

All done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hundred Years' War (1415–53) – the Lancastrian war

and succeeded secured the marriage to Catherine. - and succeeded in securing the marriage to Catherine. (link Catherine?)
in 1421.When Henry - need a space

All done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wars of the Roses

When you say York in this section, who are you referring to?: All done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

House of York

The execution of Edward of Westminster, Prince of Wales - When you click on his name, it says he died in battle. Died in battle and execution are two different things.

Well, yes and no. He wasn't killed fighting but captured. Then they executed him!

and the later murder - and later the murder
established, with seven - Don't need the comma
So within the Plantagenets, there was the House of Plantagenet, House of Lancaster and House of York? And the House of York only lasted about 10 years?

Well 24 really - 1461-1485 with the break c1471

All done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:55, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Status

I'm sorry this review has taken a long time to complete, it is a rather long article compared to what I'm used to reading and writing about on Wikipedia. It is also quite complex so I didn't want to just rush it. I've really enjoyed reviewing it, I hope it hasn't been too drawn out for you. It has been very interesting and I hope you do something similar for House of Tudor or other House's, if they have articles. Passing this for a GA now. Well done and thanks for all your hard work, before and during the review. — AARON • ^TALK 18:26, 12 June 2013 (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.