Talk:Henry II of England/Archive 1

Archive 1

Comments without headings

All comments left at the top of this page without headings or sections have been placed in this section. Please avoid your comment being moved here by making a new section: you can click here or click the + to the right of 'Edit Page' on the tabs above. ~ Veledan • Talk 19:51, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Very nicely written, but "subverting feudal legislation" has to go -- it doesn't really make sense. If there was such a thing (whole different topic -- I don't think it's a valid expression), then baronial courts would have epitomized it, I'd have thought. The Barons were just abusing the hell out of their power, which had incresed dramatically as a result of the war between Stephen and Matilda. JHK

The point is that feudal legislation was the legislation of the time, ad hoc and rough justice that it was; I agree that the phrase is somewhat oxymoronic but what was going on here was a major shift in power between State (in the form of the King) and the Barony, and this is characterised in reversal by the radical reforms which Henry II introduced. This is a watershed phase in English history. The barons weren't just abusing their power, they were refocussing power to their own ends, a quiet revolution. Henry wasn't going to have that... But if you feel you have to rephrase it, please do. I couldn't think of a better way of explaining a fairly complex phenomenon without the aforementioned oxymoron... sjc

The point I'm trying to make is that I don't think there is such a thing as "feudal" legislation. There's just whatever existed at the time. Feudal implies something having to do with personal allegiance and oaths, but some of the people who benefited from Henry's changes wouldn't have had much to do with that. Plus, I'm pretty sure that, if you look at English vs. French vs. Imperial legislative and judicial systems (which many people would call feudal), you'd find that they were all dramatically different. <sigh> I'll sleep on it and see what I can come up with ... <the Carolingianist sighed again, wishing the Middle Ages weren't such a pain in the arse>. It's times like these that I just want to do bios on the Arsenal back four JHK

The Arsenal back four are certainly less complicated: but some of Eeyore's tackles are positively mediaeval in their lateness... :-) sjc

Hey <she said, chuckling mightily> -- Eeyore is one of my heroes! Anyway, it looks like Mr Campbell is getting set to inherit the nickname... and a certain other person who wears bright red boots seems to be making up for age and lack of speed with a Chelsea-like aggressiveness...JHK

---

Is it "Who will rid me of this turbulent priest" or "troublesome priest"? I thought the latter, but bouncing both of Google (a legitimate form of historical research, as I'm sure you all know) produces more of the former. Only by a margin of about 2:1, though. Come to think, it's rather remarkable that Henry II spoke modern English.

So what did he say? -- Paul Drye

Probably neither since Henry II's first language was French... sjc

Perhaps "turbulent" and "troublesome" are the same word in French?

Most likely he said "Go kill Tom Becket". What cop would believe that story? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lollipopfop (talk • contribs) 16:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

According to Simon Schama in A History of Britain, the actual quote was "What a parcel of fools and bastards have I nourished in my house that not one of them will avenge me of this one upstart clerk!". As Simon says, it was a roar of Plantagenet anger. - bruzie 10:14, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

According to Alison Weir in her book, Eleanor of Aquitaine. These were words were never recorded by a contemporary source, and have merely been attributed to him by future historians. hdstubbs

I am presently reading W.L. Warren's Henry II. The weight of the evidence is clearly that Henry II never spoke these words in any language. It would be more romantic if he did. Warren does mention on p.509 that John of Salisbury recorded an earlier occasion where Henry declared that all present "were traitors who could not summon up the zeal and loyalty to rid him of the harassment of one man." John of Salisbury correspondence with Bartholomex, bishop of Exeter. 75Janice (talk) 02:15, 26 November 2008 (UTC) 75Janice

---

The article says that Henry had his son Henry the Young King be crowned king in 1170, yet it also states that he continued to reign himself until 1189. So what is going on? Were they co-kings, did they govern different areas, or what?

They were sort of co-kings. It was an attempt to make sure that Henry's heir would suceed him, something he had no guarantee of when he was young. RickK 01:56, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Who were the five sons of Henry and Eleanor? I can only find four: Henry, Richard, Geoffrey, and John. Daughters were Matilda and Eleanor. RickK 01:56, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The 5th son was their eldest, William. He died at age 3, and therefore played little importance in the history of England.

Shouldn't then William be listed under "issue" on the right panel , regardless of how long he lived? 68.71.35.93 11:49, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Some kings had loads of kids. Edward I had 18, and that's only the legitimate ones. The infobox would be simply unmanageable if all the children should be included, so only the most important ones are there. Eixo 13:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC) ---

the following was posted in the Eleanor of Aquitaine discussion area: Italic textI am very dubious about the link concerning the tapestry designs from the Dame à la Licorne series. The formatting of the web page is a huge hindrance to readability. As I am not one to judge French visual puns I cannot make comment on the first half of the page where deciphering of the tapestries is described. However towards the end of the page the author begins to go off on a tangent concerning the ?sang réal", that is the myth that Christ bore heirs and that the ?blood? of Christ ran through the reigning houses of Europe. This coupled with a virtually Gnostic theory of history of the Italians leads me to doubt much of anything the author says about these tapestries. - Frank BurdettItalic text Someone with a bit more knowledge than I actually removed the link there, should it not also be removed here? --Frank Burdett 03:19, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

--- This is the new link to the abovementioned site for those interested in scholarship and not just conservatism ...

http://home.iprimus.com.au/ian_ison/Y%20Is%20I%20Web/la%20Dame%20à%20la%20Licorne%20Tapestries.html

---

I was under the impression that Beckett more likely *fled* england? -as

Er...when? When he left in 1164? Or do you mean was actually not killed but instead fled? Adam Bishop 15:24, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

William Marshal

There is an error here about William Marshal. It said during the rebellion that he stood by the side of Henry II, this is not true. He sided with Henry the Young King. In reply to the question above, "William" was the first child of Henry and Eleanor. Died around the age of 3 however. Henry(the young king), Matilda, Richard(coeur de lion), Geoffrey, Eleanor, Joan, and John(Lackland) were the following children, in order. -THM

Agreed, Marshal was the protector of the Young King and stood by the Young King, against Henry. Imagine haveing to choose sides, the father or the son: "Cursed be the day when the traitors schemed to embroil the father and the son" (William Marshal). --Stbalbach 20:07, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Assize of Northampton

I've created an article on the Assize of Northampton and added a reference to it on this page, I hope it fits in ok. I was just wondering really, when you've created a new page do I need to index it or something, or add it to a list, because it doesn't appear when I search for it. Thannks. --SFO 08:33, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No need to index it anywhere, it will show up in the search page eventually. Adding links to it from other articles is the best way to make it visible. Adam Bishop 15:54, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

1171 Invasion of Ireland

Can't quite see how to make this fit in. In 1171 he set sail to invade Ireland from Newnham on Severn: "One account of this event stated that Henry's invasion force consisted or 400 ships and some 5,000 men" (according to this).

Map Request

This article would be better with a map of the Angevin Empire. I am new to wikipedia. Does anyone know how to make this request? hdstubbs

Arms

This article appears to indicate the incorrect arms for Henry II. According to Burke's General Armory, Henry II had: "Gules, two lions passant gardant or" until he acquired Aquitaine then it became "Gules, three lions passant gardant or" which of course ultimately became part of the royal arms we see today.

Accession to the throne.

Unless I’m missing it somewhere this article needs a section on how Henry came to sit on the throne as it is my understanding it wasn’t a straight forward father to son accession. Dwp13 16:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

You're right - this is barely dealt with. Henry's mother Matilda and her cousin Stephen had fought a long dispute over who was to occupy the English throne after the death of Matilda's father Henry I in 1135. Eventually, Stephen was largely successful in holding England (after a serious scare in 1141), but Normandy was conquered by Matilda's husband Geoffrey of Anjou. Geoffrey gave Normandy to his and Matilda's son Henry in 1150 (iirc), then died the next year, leaving his son Anjou and Maine. Henry's marriage to Eleanor of Aquitaine the next year got him Aquitaine. Stephen was already feeling threatened by this immense acquisition of power on the part of his rival, but the key fact was that in 1153 his elder son, Eustace, died. Although Stephen still had another son, William, who was alive, he decided it was best to cut his losses and recognized Henry as his heir. He died the next year, and Henry succeeded without incident. john k 17:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the section needs writing. For many years before Henry's adoption neither side had had the military might to inflict defeat on the other: the civil war had fizzled out with lots of barons simply refusing to fight any more for either side. Some of the most interesting episodes of Henry's early life come from the period leading up to his being adopted as the heir: I'm thinking of his capture of some of Stephen's castles using mercenaries he couldn't pay for when he was only 14 years old and his subsequent cheeky appeal to Stephen to pay off those mercenaries after his mother the Empress and Robert of Gloucester had both refused to bail him out of the sticky situation! (Stephen did pay them off and sent Henry back to France); and his crowning in Carlisle 2 years later, followed by his escapes from Eustace's assassination attempts on his way back South ~ Veledan • Talk 20:10, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Not only this part is barely dealt with but it is poorly writen Henry's father, Geoffrey Plantagenet, held rich lands as a vassal from Louis VII of France. Maine and Anjou were therefore Henry's by birthright, amongst other lands in Eastern France.[2]... as far as I remember Anjou is in Western France and not Eastern France and all the lands Henry II were in the west. 81.80.19.3 (talk) 09:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Reference citations

The article would very much benefit from the inclusion of some reference citations. Badbilltucker 15:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

In my article on the Angevin Empire you'll find a lot of citations on his reign, if you aren't lazy just pick a look for I won't work on Henry II's page myself. Matthieu 20:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of Henry II of England

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 17:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

First legal textbook?

The article says about Henry II that "His reign saw the production of the first written legal textbook, providing the basis of today's Common Law." In what sense was it the "first"? Was it the first in England? Apparently not since, for instance, the doom book of Alfred the Great came first. Top.Squark 17:40, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I think they mean textbook, as in a tutorial of the Law. Not simply a book of codes. thats what I understood it to mean.

Maybe the first for English common law? I don't know, it's definitely not the first though. Adam Bishop 03:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

At the top of the page it says he's born on the 5th of March, and on the next paragraph it saying born on the 25th of March. Which is the correct date? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.129.40.168 (talk) 12:41, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

This has now been corrected to say 5th of March, but then at one point it adds "the first day of the traditional year". It was the 25th, not 5th March which was this day. Clarification is still needed. If the sources are contradictory, say so. PatGallacher 19:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Changed all to say 25th of March, as the source listed: The Plantagenets, Harvey gives this as Henry's date of birth. Studentchemist (talk) 22:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

W. L. Warren in Henry II (ISBN 0-520-03494-5) gives 4 March as the birthdate. (page 11). Richard Barber in Henry Plantagenet (ISBN 1-56619-363-X) gives 5 March (p. 22). The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography Online access here gives 5 March. I think we need to replace the sourcing here. Harvey's book was first published in 1948 I believe. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:04, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I am admittedly not an expert on this..I just happened to find Harvey's The Plantagenets on my parents old book shelve!! I would welcome a newer source. Studentchemist (talk) 23:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Illegitimate Children

This section has been added to the article i researched, which is great, except i can only find evidence on two of them. If there are decent references for the others it would be a great help, rather than just take them down straight away. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tefalstar (talk • contribs) 23:15, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

Crusade connections

Tefalstar, as I've said, this was a good rewrite, but now the article is missing his connection to the crusades. I guess that's a pretty minor aspect of his life overall, but he is still very important from the point of view of the Latin Orient - he was a cousin of the ruling dynasty, he promised to go on crusade as penance for Becket's murder, he kept a large treasury in Jerusalem (which was used to levy troops to defend against Saladin's invasion, and to ransom prisoners), he was even offered the kingdom himself at one point, and he levied the Saladin tithe which is notable in English history as well. Can we work this in somehow, or start a new section? Adam Bishop 22:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

The Lion in Winter?

Why isn't here anything in this article about the play The Lion in Winter or the film adaptations of it? It features Henry, Elanor, Geoffrey, John and Richard. henrymrx (talk) 19:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Henry II in Ireland

Please, try and avoid bias. Henry was not particularly interested in Ireland (agreed by most major historians eg. Warren, Flanagan, Gillingham) so to say that it was part of his ruthless expansion is a bit silly. I put in the important bit about Strongbow - the real reason he went there... 131.111.1.66 (talk) 11:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Plantagenet

I think the Admin/User Slysplace has not much knowledege about the history of the Plantagenet. That's sad for the reputation of Wikipedia. Though Wikipedia is a great site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.109.108.137 (talk) 21:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin and what does adding <br /> awhile to the end of dates continually have to do with "Plantagenet" or the house of, your edits added no quality to the article and fit the profile of test edits better suited for the Wikipedia:Sandbox next time try logging in to make serious contributions Slysplace ^{talk ♫} 21:52, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Ancestry

Removed as it isn't sourced and completely pointless.

Citing Harvey

I have to query citations in the article drawing information from John Harvey's book The Plantagenets, especially the description and section on character. Harvey's work is widely discounted in the academic community - dare I say even laughed at.... see Speculum, Vol. 23, No. 4 (Oct., 1948), pp. 699-701, and The Modern Language Review, Vol. 44, No. 1 (Jan., 1949), pp. 104-105. CanadrianUK (talk) 19:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I concur - Nitpyck (talk) 06:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Article lacks much

This article largely misses the tremendous significance of Henry's reign.

By bringing a central administration into permanent and regular connection with the native English local courts, and by instituting certain legal actions and forms which led to trial by jury, Henry laid the foundations for the great Anglo-American legal system known as the common law. He established a distribution of power that checked the growth of absolutism, yet kept good order. He planted the seeds that in the following centuries would grow into Parliamentary democracy. Henry solved problems of governance that had never been solved before, not even by the Romans. The effects of his work are still with us today. 76.199.67.92 (talk) 04:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Henry II and the University of Paris

I reckon Henry II banning his subjects from attending the University of Paris merits a mention (played a large part in the increase in importance of the University of Oxford). Maybe someone who knows a bit more about this decision could add it in? Thanks. Hadrian89 (talk) 15:18, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Subjective historical opinion from John Harvey

I have just removed "In a subjective historical opinion" to describe the material from John Harvey as, in itself, it's possibly subjective opinion: it wasn't cited or otherwise justified. The British Library, extending itself beyond its usual rôle of cataloguing books, writes: "Source details: Extract from 'The Plantagenets', by John Harvey published in 1959. Context: John Harvey was a professional historian. The book this extract comes from was a university level textbook."[1] Is there a source available to support the contrary, "subjective" contention? --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:53, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Names

Why is only Curtmantle listed here? I was looking for "FitzEmpress" and had to go elsewhere to find it:

According to Encylopedia Britannica, Henry was known as "Henry of Anjou, Henry Plantagenet, Henry FitzEmpress, or Henry Curtmantle (Short Mantle)".

68.20.25.152 (talk) 02:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Descendants

I'd like to suggest deletion of the descendants section. It is an incomplete list (the Lionheart is not there!) and while it could be expanded the information is already in the infobox anyway so why not remove it as duplication? Bagunceiro (talk) 14:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Concur. Its value is impaired if it can't be relied upon. --Old Moonraker (talk) 14:23, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Murder of Thomas Becket

This section seems to go out of its way to excuse Henry II of Becket's murder. I think it should take a more neutral POV. 79.11.131.178 (talk) 20:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Not least in the omission of any mention of it in the section Relations with the Church! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.28.152.72 (talk) 13:49, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

That's probably because it's got its own section: "Thomas Becket controversy". --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Henry's Youthful Attempt

In the Early life and descent section, I read that Henry made an attempt on England in 1147, without either of his parents' knowledge. Then in Taking the English throne, I read that in 1147 Henry accompanied Matilda on an invasion of England. If both these statements are true, could there be an explanation of how they are compatible?--Mona Williams (talk) 15:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

They're not compatible as far I'm aware. If memory serves, Matilda begins 1147 in England, coming back to Normandy in the autumn. Henry is usually described as having been "sent" by Geoffrey to England in the spring, where he then campaigns with his mercenary force and is ultimately bailed out by Stephen and returning to Normandy. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:13, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Early reign 1150-1162

I do not like this heading. True Henry became Duke of Normandy in 1150 but surely a duke does not reign. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not necessarily disagreeing... do you want to propose an alternative form of words? Hchc2009 (talk) 13:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Well it could be Early rule, but I would prefer a split into two main sections, Taking the English Throne 1150-1154 and Early reign 1154-1162. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Article expansion...

I've gone through and given the article a thorough scrub - I think everything's now referenced to up-date reliable academic sources. I've added a couple of maps, and gone for near contemporary pictures throughout where possible. It will need a decent copy-edit and check-ovr, however, I'm sure... Hchc2009 (talk) 10:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I've assessed it as a B for MILHIST, as a preliminary for it going through the higher processes. The C classifications of the other projects with which it was related I think predate the recent improvement and need to be reassessed.Monstrelet (talk) 10:55, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Is the overall structure right, though? I came to the section Relations with the Church looking for details of the Becket controversy and found nothing! That was surely not an insignificant detail of this section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.28.152.72 (talk) 14:14, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

John first expedition to Ireland and in france

I removed the part about John first expedition to Ireland that used the citation of W.L. Warren “King John” Page 36. The reason why is because there are no records of the events and it is just speculation by the author using the writings of Gerald of Wales who he admitted was not a reliable source on events.

I also changed the claims that John lost all the land in France because it was Richard who initially lost it and while John did regain and lose the land it was finaly given up by his son Henry III — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.23.237.125 (talk) 23:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

If you have a look at Warren, pages 35-36, I think you may have misread it slightly. Warren notes that most chroniclers did not record the events, but that it is not an "entirely impenetrable curtain, for Gerald of Wales was on the expedition". Warren notes that Gerald is not reliable for John's movements in Ireland, but that "we do get a good idea of what went wrong". Warren then goes on to list those events, using Gerald as a source. Warren isn't alone in using Gerald for this - David Carpenter and many other specialist historians of this period do. You would need to identify a specialist historian who disagreed these academics. Similarly, if you feel that John's continental empire didn't collapse - academics wouldn't disagree with you that Henry III later signs away legal ownership, but the overwhelming majority consider that the collapse occurs in 1204 under John when the Capetians seize all the lands; French historians would put it much more strongly, since it is only an English perspective that Henry III had the right to sign it away: the French considered the legal title to have transferred as well back under John (if I remember correctly, Arthur gets the other possessions in 1202, and the French king declares himself Duke of Normandy, effective immediately). If you're after some recommendations for further reading on the 1204 events, give me a shout and I can recommend a couple of good chapters/articles. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Roland the Farter and the Oxford University Press vs scions of Wikipedia

Right then the only thing that matter is that something is WP:verify and it comes reliable third party sources. If any you have actually read the article on Roland, you would actually know he was so well regarded by the king he was given a frekin' manor for his ribaldry. That's an important and unequivocal fact, the feudal king of England employed a man because his crude behaviour was of such a high calibre he was a lord of a manor. Jeez it is even notable enough to be referenced the Oxford University Press.

You lot, might think that you have got some higher here. But this is Wikipedia. Articles, and there are no limits cannot be held back because there are those who basically laugh in the face of WP:IDL.

This is staying in the article as it's a contribution to the historiography of the man. Stop being such a bunch of prudes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.158.255.215 (talk) 18:36, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

But Bartlett doesn't say that Roland got the land because Henry enjoyed his ribaldry - it says "Herbert, son of Roland, held thirty acres in Suffolk from Henry II in return for serving the king as a jester. Records from the thirteenth century show what this service consisted of, for in them the land is referred to as 'the sergeanty that used to belong to Roland the Farter... for which every Christmas he used to leap, whistle and fart before the king'." Your edit is synthesis and untrue to the source - Bartlett names Herbert as the jester to Henry II nor does Bartlett say anything about Henry enjoying ribaldry. And just because something is able to be sourced doesn't mean it must be added to an article - no where does WP:V say anything of the kind. I'm not being a "prude" .. I'm keeping out original research as this source doesn't discuss Henry's love of ribaldry at all - which is the only reason it would need to remain in the article, if it displayed something of Henry's character. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:47, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

There is a saying in Chinese that says only a dog returns to its own vomit. But lo I return and find that Roland has been removed on completely spurious grounds. And wow, no surprises, it is done by a Rules lawyer with book in hand. Yaddy yaddy yaddy....I have no idea what the argument is supposed to be against Roland being mentioned save the one that masks the pure and simple pettiness of WP:IDL. The age old infringement of Wikipedia's nod to behaving like a child wronged in a playground. Basically the King of England enjoyed a good old fart so much he gave the man a manor!! If that is not a lover of ribaldry, I don't know what else to say, except that Roland's exclusion is par for the course when there is a clash with someone who has too much unwarranted self-importance. If Henry was not a fan of amusing flatulence, why on earth did he go to all that trouble of giving his jester land to live on??? Saying there is no link to ribaldry (I mean what can be humour other than that which comes from a grown man farting??) is like taking the same fallacious logic and negating someone who collects pornography as a pervert? TBH though I am not surprised, why should I? The same reasons are promulgated every time, it can't be so because its not sourced, it's original research, it's a point of view, it's not what the source says. But really it's all just WP:IDL. It's all just a big coincidence that a man who farted for the king was rewarded with land, it's all a big coincidence that he received such an accolade (obviously he did something,) it's just a coincident that bawdy humour happens to be called ribaldry etc etc Do you see how moronic the above argument now seems? But it doesn't when the argument for exclusion is simply, "ooh how can we have something so frivolous, only I can decide what is added!" Yeah yeah yeah so Henry II gave the manor for another reason, he didn't like ribaldry he was just being generous!? Is that it? Just a complete historical irony then that a jester who made a career out of bottom toots got a manor, nothing to do with the king's amusement, he obviously got it for er, his role in the wars in France then? Pathetic. Truly pathetic. This point should be posted as a clear example as to why Wikipedia will never succeed because the strength in it lies with its weakest common denominator, and as I have so skilfully proved it's not hard to surpass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.150.44.43 (talk) 22:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Becket, The Lion in Winter and Peter O'Toole

With the popular culture section of the article suggesting that the best known cultural representations of Henry II are in the films Becket (1964) and The Lion in Winter (1968), should it not also be referenced that in both films, Henry II was portrayed by Peter O'Toole (with both performances earning him Academy Award nominations for Best Actor). This effectively makes Peter O'Toole the most enduring representation of Henry II.

What does the fact that a certain actor protrayed Henry II tell us about Henry though? It really doesn't. The fact that he's been depicted in film often does tell us something about Henry II, but the exact actor who did so doesn't really add to our knowledge of Henry. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

But there are articles on Wikipedia, for instance the ones about Richard I and Richard III, that mention the actors who have portrayed the kings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.71.193 (talk) 15:21, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

And it indicates what is the diminant popular image of what he was like. PhilomenaO'M (talk) 10:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Recent edit...

Laurel, I believe there are some problems with your last edit:

• WP:LEADLENGTH discourages leads of longer than four paragraphs. The edit generates five paragraphs unnecessarily.
• "By 1172, he now controlled England" - "now" isn't necessary in this phrasing.
• "his desire to impose royal control in that were previously the preserve of the Church" - this isn't really correct, and isn't supported by the cited texts in the body. It also wiki links to church on the second use, rather than the first.
• "the county become largely autonomous" - this isn't grammatical, and, as per the original text, it requires a "has" in it (or it needs to be "became largely autonomous").

Would you be content if I undid/made these changes? Hchc2009 (talk) 12:02, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry - only seeing this now. I've fixed "now". What part of "royal control" isn't correct? Yeah, put the "has" in county. I agree that the lead is bloated and needs at least 1 paragraph trimmed. Shoe-horning the Church controversy into a territorial aggregation paragraph is not the solution though. The two are different themes. Also, it is the event that defined his entire reign and deserves mention in its own right - probably in the lead paragraph itself. Hope this helps. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• Henry argued that custom was on his side in the dispute with Becket - i.e. it wasn't that the areas were previously the preserve of the Church, rather it was that they were traditionally the preserve of the King, and the Church was now encroaching on this. Reform, through the Constitutions, was therefore required to correct the problem. His opponents argued the reverse, citing ecclesiastical law, however, rather than customary practice, in their defence. James Alexander's article gives a good summary of the opinions of historians over the years on the rights and wrongs of the two arguments - it is a notoriously difficult area! The altered text implies that custom was against Henry, which isn't supported by current historical opinion (if anything, the balance is in favour of Henry on custom, against him on ecclesiastical legal grounds). The original text in the lead noted "his desire to reform England's relationship with the Church", which is a neutral phrasing.
• Fancy working on a revised, four-para version of the lead with me on the talk page here? Hchc2009 (talk) 14:49, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

• Trimmed a bit etc. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:59, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Wasn't the Beckett controversy just a late blooming of the larger Investiture Controversy? With each side claiming that either law or St Peter was on their side, it was just an old fashioned power grab. But anyway, I agree that the original text is more neutral but doesn't speak the full truth. Yes, I'd like to work on a revised four-para lead. My time is limited but I'll give it some thought. It should be quite Spartan - just a teaser for the main body. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:08, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Cheers! I'm never great at balancing the need for the lead to adequately reflect the contents of the article, with it also needing to read like a sharply written summary: my drafting invariably turns out too wordy! I'd argue that the investiture controversy certainly has common roots - the challenge of negotiating the contradictions of local Church theory and practice with the concept of the Gregorian changes, with, as you say, a healthy dose of politics thrown in! The role of the Church in the Empire, though, was different in many ways to its role in 11th/12th century England; I think you can feel the ghostly hand of the old Anglo-Saxon Church over a lot of the 12th century problems in England... :)

NB: will be editing off my iPhone as I travel about on work for the next couple of days, so any editing by me may be limited to short messages! Hchc2009 (talk) 06:58, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

I like the 1st lead paragraph of George I of Great Britain who also had a plethora of titles. I'll mock up something for it. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:44, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Becket's troubles were not really to do with the Investiture Controversy - that had been settled by 1107 or so in England - and Becket didn't dispute the settlement. Becket's issue was with criminous clerks basically - the idea that the royal courts could not try anyone who had taken any sort of clerical orders (which included a LOT more people than priests... probably one in five adult males in England were in clerical orders, most of them in the "minor" orders and were not ordained but were still considered by canon law (of recent date) to be outside of lay control. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Our Becket controversy article, although still needing some expansion and inclusion of other sources, is basically sound in outline and timeline. Eventually I'll get back to it... Ealdgyth - Talk 21:23, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Draft for 1st lead paragraph Henry II (5 March 1133 – 6 July 1189), also known as Henry Curtmantle, Henry FitzEmpress or Henry Plantagenet), was King of England from October 1154 until his death, Lord of Ireland (1171–1189), Duke of Normandy (1150-1189), Duke of Aquitaine (1152–89, in right of his wife), Count of Anjou (1151–1189), Count of Maine (1151–1189), Count of Nantes (1158 – 1189). At various times, he exercised control over large parts of Wales and the Duchy of Brittany. Henry was born in Le Mans, France, the son of Geoffrey Plantagenet, Count of Anjou and the Empress Matilda, who was the daughter of King Henry I of England. By the age of 14, Henry was actively involved by in his mother's efforts to claim the throne of England. With his marriage in 1151 to the wealthy heiress, Eleanor of Aquitaine, he got control of vast estates in south-west France. He led military expedition to England in 1153 to further the claims of the Empress. By the terms of the Treaty of Wallingford, he inherited the throne of England following the death of Stephen, King of England. During Henry's reign, the powers of the monarchy increased at the expense of the great barons and the Common Law was more firmly established. His achievements were impaired, however, by disputes with the Church, led by the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Becket and by revolts within his own family. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Lauren, thanks! I'm a little woozy from injections right now, but will write a proper reply tomorrow if that's okay - yellow fever vaccinations and wikiediting don't seem to be combining well... :( Hchc2009 (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Draft for 2nd lead paragraph The desire of the papacy for greater autonomy from royal authority for the clergy and more influence for the papacy clashed with Henry's desire to push back on papal influence, increasing his own local authority. This led to conflict with his former friend Thomas Becket, the Archbishop of Canterbury. This controversy lasted for much of the 1160s and resulted in Becket's court conviction and exile. A reconciliation was short-lived and when Becket was murdered in Canterbury Cathedral in 1170, public suspicions arose about the King's involvement. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:19, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I hope you sort this soon because the lead is far too long and dense. it feels like reading an actual entry rather being a short summary that enables people to pick out the msot significant facts very quickly (which is how I understand the role of the lead). PhilomenaO'M (talk) 10:40, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Laurel - was it just the first two paras you were working on? Happy to comment whenever you're ready. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:26, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm working on the third. But go ahead and comment on what you see so far. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:42, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Laurel. Thoughts on the first draft paragraph:

• I'm not convinced that adding the dates after each title helps the readibility, particularly since many of them are the same. It also sounds odd saying "until his death" in one instance, but not the others (it implies that he wasn't Count of Anjou etc. until his death). We also seem to have lost Scotland, which is cited in the main article.
• "he got control" felt a bit ugly
• " He led military expedition to England in 1153 to further the claims of the Empress." - not really true. By then he was claiming the crown for himself rather than simply expressing his mother's claims (Matilda had also changed her language by then as well)
• "the powers of the monarchy increased at the expense of the great barons" - I'm not convinced that this gloss is quite accurate. The judicial powers increased, but beyond that it is less clear how much was Henry's personality, and how much was the actual power of the monarch in a systematic sense.
• " the Common Law was more firmly established" - I don't think the Common Law is held to have existed before Henry II, so I don't think it can have become "more firmly established"
• "achievements were impaired" - this is a judgement, and many would find it a particular POV statement.

On para two, depends on what goes into paras three and four really - it makes a short paragraph, and there's quite a bit to fit into the remaining two if the lead is to fit with the MOS WP:LEAD. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:14, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Angevin or Plantagenet?

Now what should be done about the house in the infobox. Clearly as descendents of Geoffrey of Anjou they are Platagenets but the Monarchy clearly consider them as Angevins, in the same way that although the House of Lancaster are of agnatic descent they are considered a distinct House? The Official Website of the British Monarchy Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why anything needs be "done". "The Monarchy" is not at all more authoritative than historians cited in this article. Referring to Henry as a Plantagenet is as correct as referring to him as an Angevin, but clearer (less likely to be confused with Capetian Angevins) and more common. Surtsicna (talk) 15:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

None of the citations as far as I can see actually name Henry explicitly as a Plantagenet or an Angevin. There is nothing in what you have said that supports the assertion that it is "clearer" or more "common" and it certainly was not contemporary. A case could be made for it being a relative neologism but you didn't make that. It doesn't even agree with List of English monarchs.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Henry, John or Richard are termed by various historians as both Angevins and Plantagenets. Some argue that the Plantagenet dynasty starts with Henry II; others start it with Henry III, and term these three rulers Angevins. I'd argue that current specialist English works on this particular period tend towards the Angevin label(for Henry II, see Amt, many of the contributors to "New Interpretations", Warren etc.), but there are other respectable historians who'd use Plantagenet for the whole period, and indeed the whole idea of looking at "houses" of monarchs isn't as popular as it was a few years back. The rulers of the period didn't think of the world in these terms (and they certainly didn't have infoboxes!). It shouldn't be a huge deal...

Could I suggest an alternative? We could just list both in the infobox (and I'm happy to provide cites), e.g. "House of Plantangenet / Angevin". It would reflect the literature, and wouldn't take up much space. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

As ever an excellent suggestion Hchc2009 - the cites would be of interest and help as well. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Of course, that was an obvious solution. Thanks, Hchc2009! Surtsicna (talk) 16:02, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

No problem. I've added some draft text, and will fish out some references later on tonight. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:23, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Marvellous—and all is well with the world Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Secondary sources...

Reicastell, as per the discussions on Ealdgyth's and my talk pages - you need to be using reliable, secondary sources when editing articles, especially medieval articles. Please have look at WP:Reliable. Have a second look at who Gerald of Wales is, for example; are his 12th and 13th writings really "academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs" etc.? They're actually a contemporary chronicler account. I've given you a starting suggestion for a leading historian's account of Henry on my talk page. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:37, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Referencing and Citations

Sorry to be a pain but there seems to be a problem with the referencing in this article. While in the bibliography the references are marked up as using harvard notation 'none of the citation anchors are marked up as harvard. In addition, the citations to Gillingham's The Angevin Empire don't seem to match up to the facts they are supporting (or that may just be because my version is a 2nd edition.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:20, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Yep, the anchors weren't necessary; I've removed them. The edition of Gillingham referenced here is the first edition, so I think you're right, that's why the page numbers won't match up with your 2nd edition copy. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:34, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Change of date

An editor changed the date of succession from 19 December to 25 October. I looked at this and concluded that the change is correct. Stephen died on 25 October and Henry was crowned on 19 December, and the succession date is when the previous monarch died. Hchc I do not think the change should have been reverted. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:42, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure that he did succeed on the 25 October; in this period the succession was not automatic on the death of a previous monarch in the same way it would be today. Warren, for example notes that "in reality there was no ground for claiming that the English crown should pass descend by right to the nearest blood relative" - and Henry was certainly not the nearest blood relative, albeit empowered by the recent peace treaty - and that "an element of choice remained", albeit influenced by kinship. Warren observes that "for six weeks England was kingless" after Stephen's death. I'm wondering if we might do better to delete the field. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:00, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Ah I see that according to the Handbook of British Chronology English kings before Edward I did not adopt the royal style until they were crowned. I did not know that. (I assume they mean after the Conquest as before then the Handbook treats the accession and coronation as separate events.) Dudley Miles (talk) 22:23, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Is there such a thing as pre-Norman history? ;) Hchc2009 (talk) 14:37, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Picture, possibly of Eleanor of Aquitaine

I have several issues with the picture in the section of the article entitled "Final years (1175–89)".

• First and foremost, the other individuals in the picture, a crowned rider in front and two riders, one releasing a bird of prey in the rear have been cropped from the picture.

• Second no attribution of the picture as a mural at Chapelle Sainte Radegonde in Chinon, France has been noted.

• Finally, the French wikipedia page concerning the chapel describes the mural as illustrating a Royal Hunt, representing five riders. The first and third are crowned, while the fourth has on his gloved fist a bird of prey, probably a hawk."

While the caption in the Henry II article certainly is supportive of the content in the article, the caption appears to totally misrepresent what the picture is depicting. Furthermore, the picture, including two crowned individuals, if it belongs in the article at all, should be included in the article chronologically prior when King Henry II and his crowned son became estranged, i.e. definitely prior to the Great Revolt in 1173. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.241.75.249 (talk) 16:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Edits...

Laurel,

Can we discuss? There are issues around the following; claims in the proposed revision:

• "the Common Law was more firmly established" - not a claim made by the main text.
• "he got control of vast estates in south-west France" - NB: not great copyediting...
• "he led military expedition to England in 1153 to further the claims of the Empress." - grammar issues, and not a claim made by the main text.
• "His achievements were impaired..." - not a claim made by the main text. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm surprised to see you raise these points. Section 4.3 on the Law, while not using the exact words "more firmly established", clearly points to it. I don't think that it's a case of OR or syncreticism is come to that reasonable conclusion. Re "vast estates in south-west France", Im open to alternative wording. Re "military expedition to England", what about "military expeditions to England"? Re "His achievements were impaired...", is that an unreasonable conclusion? Could it really be classed as OR or syncreticism? Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

There's quite a lot to unpack here... I'll write a proper reply tomorrow. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:56, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

• "the Common Law was more firmly established" - The article notes only that he is considered to have "laid the basis for English Common Law".
• "he got control of vast estates in south-west France" - leaving aside the "got control of" language here, worth taking a look at how Aquitaine worked in this period - the Duke didn't control vast estates.
• "he led military expedition to England in 1153 to further the claims of the Empress." - the article doesn't argue that he led a military expedition in 1153 to further the Empress's claims - have a look at Chibnall (among others) for what had happened since 1148 in this regard.
• "His achievements were impaired..." - again, not mentioned in the text. Judgements require secondary citations etc. from high-quality sources etc.
• "the powers of the monarchy increased at the expense of the great barons" - gives the impression that these were general powers (the article only cites specific legal ones), and why "great barons"? Again, the text only mentions "barons". Hchc2009 (talk) 20:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

• Common Law - Common law#Medieval English common law says that he did not invent it. It exist before the Conquest. He cannot, therefore, "laid the basis for English Common Law". What he did was improve it, reform it, put it on a more regular footing; in short, by the time of Henry's death, "the Common Law was more firmly established" that it had been before his reign. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Hchc2009 here - the Common law article cites to the century-old Catholic Encyclopedia. Brand (cited as the basis for the statement "laid the basis for English Common Law") says (p. 215) "For most legal historians it [the reign of Henry II] is the period when it first becomes possible to recognise the exisitence of an English 'Common Law'". For other perspectives - under "Law" in The Middle Ages: A Concise Encyclopedia (ed. by H. R. Loyn, 1989 Thames and Hudson) p. 206 "in England Roman law remained of less practical influence, and the fabric of common law emerged in the hands of writers such as Glanville and Bracton" (i.e. in the reign of Henry II). Ealdgyth - Talk 23:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Linking Geoffrey

I didn't think I'd have top waste my time defending an minor, uncontroversial, and helpful edit, but I guess I have to. So I added a link to Geoffrey (archbishop of York), despite the fact that somewhere else in this 140,000 bit article that link is already hidden away somewhere. This is hardly overlinking, and, especially in a case like this, it is useful. The point of hypertext links is to make navigation between pages easier. In this case, if someone were not reading the entire article, but only certain sections, and they wanted to know more about Geoffrey (which is entirely reasonable and probable) they'd have to scroll several sections up and scan the rest of the article for that one link, which is hardly prominent. They can't even use the search box, since all they have to search for is "Geoffrey" which is hardly going to prove very useful. Even worse is the fact that Henry II had two sons name Geoffrey, so even if they limit their search they are quite like to come upon the wrong one, and maybe not even realize it. My edit makes their job a hundred times easier. The benefits of this link are so obvious that I'm surprised I even have defend it here. It's not like this is linked several times in the same section, or even anywhere near it within this very long article. Wikipedia is supposed to be a resource that gives readers relevant information in a easy to navigate manner. This additional link does that. I can see significant benefit and zero harm in adding this one additional link to the article. I really don't see what the fuss is about. -R. fiend (talk) 12:31, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

All of those arguments apply to any name in this long article. The link to Geoffrey isn't that far before this link. The first link makes it clear that there were two sons named Geoffrey - and on the second occurance the son is qualified as "illigitimate". (As an aside - can we not mark a re-revert of information as a minor edit - it's not minor if it needs discussion.) I don't see any need to link this. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

So I've made my argument in favor of this one additional link (it's helpful). What's the argument against? You haven't stated one. -R. fiend (talk) 13:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

The guideline at WP:LINK is that "generally, a link should appear only once in an article"; Geoffrey is already linked twice in the article, and I don't think it needs to be linked a third time. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:21, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

But this isn't a general situation. This is a very long article with a significant person, referred to very ambiguously, and who is basically impossible to search for independently. One additional link in a section far removed from any other link. It makes it clear who's being referred to, makes navigation between pages easier, and is overall potentially quite beneficial to a casual reader who wants to know more about a subject but doesn't want to spend 5 minutes looking for a random link hidden somewhere in the article. Is there a single reason why this should be removed? I can't think of one. -R. fiend (talk) 03:02, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how "in part due to the efforts of Henry's illegitimate son, Geoffrey" that is ambiguous in referring to Geoffrey. It should be very plain that this is not the legitimate son Geoffrey, but the other. As for the other argument - that the article is long and thus a link needs repeating for a third time - this also would apply to any person in the article mentioned more than once. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:47, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

You might have a point if the article were Geoffrey (illegitimate son of Henry II), but it's Geoffrey (archbishop of York), which isn't clear from reading this section. Believe me, if you're trying to find his article from this one it's needlessly difficult, and I know because it took me a while to do it and I was familiar with the subject and knew what I was looking for. I'm sure the person utterly ignorant of Henry's lineage (wikipedia's target audience) would have more trouble, and this simple link would help significantly. Your point about it applying to anyone mentioned in the article isn't terribly convincing because this is more confusing than most other links, and besides, having 2 links in the body of an article this long is hardly the end of the world, and could be quite useful for other subjects as well. I don't see the fuss; the pros outweigh the cons. Pro: helpful to readers. Con: um, I don't know, "I don't feel like it" I guess? -R. fiend (talk) 23:29, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Marriage and Family

There seems to be no mention of when King Henry II of England married Eleanor of Aquitaine or when their children were born, or whether King Henry II had children with Rosamund Clifford. There is also no mention of the siblings of Henry II, if any.

Vincentupsdellred (talk) 21:05, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

See the infobox, the summary at the top and the "Court and family" section. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:27, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081014050355/http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jmedhist to http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jmedhist

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Excommunication

The article includes the Category:People excommunicated by the Roman Catholic Church. However, I could not find any information about such an excommunication of king Henry himself. Can anybody resolve the matter? Kind regards,--Bloro (talk) 16:03, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

He wasn't; just his advisors (and those by Beckett). I'll remove the cat. Thanks @Bloro:. — fortunavelut luna 16:11, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much!--Bloro (talk) 16:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

No, thank you- you Improved The Encyclopaedia! :) — fortunavelut luna 16:14, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Reign and Coronation

In this period a person did not become king until their coronation: "Until, apparently, the reign of Edward I, no English king assumed the royal style before his coronation" p.30 (Handbook of British Chronology E B Pryde)

No reliable source dates the reign of Henry II from the 25 October. These sources date the reign from the 19th December:

Handbook of British Chronology p.36

Handbook of Dates (Cheney) p.32

Oxford Dictionary of National Biography 1

Warren (2000) does not provide dates for the reign but describes England as "kingless but at peace" in-between 25 October and 19 December p.53

Bartlett (2000) refers to this as an inter-regnal period. p.124

Does anyone know of another source? Jhood1 (talk) 16:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Why I undid your two reverts.

In the Cambridge dictionary:

• although is marked as B1
• albeit is marked as C2

There is a huge difference between these levels.

I also made some Google search (option "verbatim").
The results are shown in the following format:

• Searched phrase, All results, Results in books
  
  
• "albeit"   2.2m 831k
• "although"   120m 22m
  
  
• "insofar as"   59m 1.8m
• "as far as"   657k 5.6m 760m 5m

Have you ever heard of misplaced modifiers?

• "only coming to for a few"   6 1   (your phrase)
• "coming only for a few"   38k 8   (my phrase)

But let's forget the "only" for a moment:

• "coming to for a few"   0 0
• "coming for a few"   2.35m 24k
  

Vikom (talk) 03:09, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Vikom, surely "coming to" means to regain consciousness, which is what the sentence is referring to...? Hchc2009 (talk) 09:30, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

The "only coming to" is definitely referring to consciousness so that change was wrong. The other is a style issue. We're not writing for Simple Wikipedia - we don't need to dumb down the language. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:49, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I provided a link to an excellent explanation of notorious problems with misplaced modifiers.

The word "only" modifies the phrase "for a few moments", not "coming to", so this modifier is in the wrong place:

• only coming to for a few moments     (Bad)
• coming to only for a few moments    (Good, but there is still a problem with "coming to")

As for "coming to" I simply ignored the context. It was my fault. But why did it happen in the first place? Because of the poor readability. "come to" is simply ambiguous, so we can write:

• regaining consciousness only for a few moments

Maybe the emphasis is not necessary at all, so we could write:

• regaining consciousness for a few moments

To get back to the subject. Readability really matters, and that's why commonly used words are better, at least here, in Wikipedia. But if you have a blog, then feel free to use the most fancy and sophisticated words that you can find. Maybe you just want to sound smart and don't care how many readers you have. If you write: "He was too astute to acquiesce to the proffer", maybe you will seem smart to some people, but how many native speakers will understand you? You have every right to do so, but not here. Here you should write something like "He was too smart to accept the proposal". Is it bad English? No. While words like "albeit" and "insofar" are not as rare as those in my example, they are rare enough to decrease readability, especially for non-native speakers. It's not only "a style issue".

As for Simple Wikipedia: Plain English does not mean Basic English, recommended for using in Simple Wikipedia. I do not intend to convert any article to that standard. Vikom (talk) 23:14, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

It's not just that albeit and insofar are standard and common English words. They are better word choices for those sentences in terms of vocabulary and idiom. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:37, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Of course, non-standard and uncommon words do worsen readability, it's obvious, right? But given what you wrote in your edit summary, the contrary is true. So you contradict yourself.

You also wrote "They are better word choices for those sentences in terms of vocabulary and idiom." What a lame excuse. There is nothing special about those sentences. You have no arguments because I am stating facts. And because there are no arguments against facts, then you just ignore them. Google Search is not a very reliable tool, but when you use quotation marks and the "verbatim" option, the results cannot be ignored, especially when they are consistent with those from another source, like CoCA. You see, our intentions are completely different. While I want to improve readability, you want to worsen it, to sound smarter. Simple people will get fooled, but it is unfair to them. There are better ways to sound smart, for example by being logical and, at least, not contradicting oneself. Vikom (talk) 04:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I see from your page at the Polish wikipedia that you are not a native English speaker. I do not wish to worsen readability or sound smarter. I just think articles on the English wikipedia should be written in idiomatic English. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

• I see from your page at the Polish wikipedia that you are not a native English speaker.

Hmm... I must change it ;-) But seriously: So what of it? Do you feel embarrassed when a non-native speaker dares to edit "your" article. Don't I have right to correct your writing? Should I feel inferior to you? What if my English proves to outperform yours. Native speakers (often well educated) make lots of mistakes, e.g. "often times", "the reason is because", "didn't used to be". And misplaced modifiers, like "He only died last week", are very common. Besides, there are also illiterates, who are native English speakers. Whenever I have a problem with expressing my thoughts in English and ask a native speaker to help me, he usually has the same problem. I don't care who you are and what your mother tongue is. I see only what you write and try to improve it if necessary.

• I do not wish to worsen readability or sound smarter.

Ok, but regardless of what you wish, I see what you do, and you do worsen readability.

• I just think articles on the English wikipedia should be written in idiomatic English.

What do you mean by idiomatic? If you mean "containing expressions that are natural to a native speaker", then I am all for it. But if you mean "containing idioms", then I am strongly against it.

By the way, Wikipedia's Manual of Style states: The goal is to make using Wikipedia easier and more intuitive by promoting clarity and cohesion, while helping editors write articles with consistent and precise language, layout, and formatting. Plain English works best. Avoid ambiguity, jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording. Vikom (talk) 01:51, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I mean written in a way that is natural to a native speaker. These words are not ambiguous, jargon, vague or complex. They are plain, simple, easy, intuitive, clear, coherent, and precise. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

"plain, simple, easy" ? No, they are not, especially when compared with "although" and "as far as". My argument is supported by the Cambridge dictionary, and Google Search results. You have no real arguments. You wrote: These changes did not improve readability. If anything, they worsened it., which is absurd. So I will restore my version. I will also change the phrase: "only coming to for a few moments" Vikom (talk) 05:16, 15 March 2018 (UTC)