Talk:Edward I of England

Edward the First?

The article says:

He initially intended to call himself Edward IV, recognising the three Saxon kings of England of that name. However, for reasons unknown he was called Edward I instead... How can this be? The first monarch to bear a name is not given a numeral after his or her name. We don't refer to King John I of England or Queen Victoria I of the United Kingdom, for example. If there was another King John or Queen Victoria only then would we need a way to distinguish the two, in the same way that Queen Elizabeth I was not called this until 1952, when Elizabeth II became queen.

THREE Saxon kings? Edward the Elder, Edward the Confessor...who else? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.153.230.66 (talk) 04:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Never heard of Edward the Martyr? Jess Cully (talk) 22:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that he did not call himself anything but Edward, and that he became Edward I only when Edward II became king. --Jumbo 14:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it is unlikely Edward intended to call himself anything apart from Edward, but I think your reasoning is flawed. You are using current practice and modern custom to reflect medieval intentions. Medieval kings did not tend to refer to themselves in succession, though I am sure they were aware of past monarch's titles. I have heard, though have no source to hand, that medieval kings of England tended to be called by their origin. The Black Prince was known in his time as Edward of Woodstock, and Edward III as Edward of Winchester. It is helpful, from our perspective, to continue to use the numerical system and I think the title of pages in Wikipedia should reflect this for ease of finding if nothing else. Zach Beauvais 19:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

He actually called himself "Edward the First after the Conquest".

The kings before the conquest didn't count. They belonged to the defeated Anglo-Saxons. It was kind of a damnatio memoriae. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.16.153.89 (talk) 05:00, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I heard this from a scholar at U of T that this came about as a combination of the usual way kings were described and sheer laziness... when kings were addressed or referred to in the day it was along the lines of "Henry, son of John.." so when it came to Edward I it was "Edward, son of Henry," Edward II "Edward son of Edward," but Edward III was also "Edward, son of Edward," so to distinguish Edward II and Edward III, the numerals were used. So, I, II, III, without any regard to previous Edwards, as this was somewhat informal use, but it stuck. Somewhat like the two George Bushes calling themselves "41" and "43," without the suggestion that that is an official title. The "post-Conquest" argument I am pretty sure is a post hoc explanation, the reality is there wasn't any particular concern to any "official" numbering in the mid-14th century when the numbering scheme came up, as kings had typically been referred to with a cognomen, such as "Rufus," "Beaclerc," "The Conqueror," etc., and rarely, if at all, referred to by a numeral. Canada Jack (talk) 16:50, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

It was not a specific insult against the Anglo-Saxon kings, more that 1066 became a kind of 'year zero' as far as the early Norman monarchs were concerned. By Edward's time this wouldn't really have been an issue. Alooulla (talk) 03:28, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Accession date

What exactly is the bases for the November 21 (or 20?) accession date? His father died on November 16, and since he himself was in the Holy Land, he can't even have found out that he was king until some months later, and he wasn't crowned until a few years later. So where does this date come from? What does it actually indicate? john k (talk) 07:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I think under English law a monarch succeeds immediately upon the death or abdication of his or her predecessor. Edward would have become king the moment Henry died, whether he knew about it or not. BTLizard (talk) 11:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Changed it back to November 16th, also somebody had changed Henry VIII's accession date (I've since fixed that aswell). The King/Queen is dead, long live the King/Queen (weither the new monarch knows about it or not). GoodDay (talk) 14:59, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I was just wondering where in the world November 21 came from - either he succeeds on his father's death, or at some other point, but given the circumstances November 21 made no possible sense as that other point, since Edward wasn't even in England then. john k (talk) 03:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Previously, English monarchs had reckoned their reigns from coronation. However, Edward was away when his father died, so the authorities decided to proclaim him king immediately after the funeral. Subsequent monarchs were proclaimed immediately after the death of their predecessor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.111.164.229 (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

We might question as well the section heading "Early reign, 1274–96". Was the period November 16, 1272, to August 19, 1274, not part of the "Early reign". I was not aware that the English had an Interregnum in their constitution! Also, if he met Pope Gregory X and if he met him in Rome, it would have to have been before the Pope left for Orvieto in June 1272. Pope Gregory X left Orvieto for Lyons on June 5, 1273. Where was Edward I between June 5, 1273, and his return to England on August 2, 1274? And what was he doing? A number of these dates must be wrong. Vicedomino (talk) 06:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Most historians don't talk about Edward "reigning" until his return and his actual coronation (either in practical or symbolic terms). In terms of movements, if memory serves Edward is in Scily in November 1272, Rome in February 1273, followed by Savoy, then Paris in summer 1273, then Gascony, and then finally back to England in August 1274. A fairly leisurely return. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

English kings from 1066 to 1216 dated their accession from the moment of their coronation. This meant that in this period there was always a short interregnum of a few days or weeks between consecutive reigns. In 1272, owing to the absence of Edward I in the Holy Land, which would have created an intolerably long interregnum, this practice changed. Edward's rule was proclaimed on the day after his father's death, and the magnates swore fealty to him on 20 November, the day of Henry's funeral. EDWARD HIMSELF dated his reign from 20 November. English royal documents - letters, charters, writs, etc - are always dated by regnal years, and 20 November is the date on which Edward's regnal year began, according to his own chancery. See Cheney, Handbook of Dates, pp. 18-20, and, for fuller explanation of the historical context, http://www.marcmorris.org.uk/2015/10/the-death-of-king-john-and-later.html (Dr Marc Morris) 12:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Please don't edit as both an IP and as two other accounts on the same page. See Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. It's alright on this talk page because you have self-identified (I added the citation to Cheney's Handbook of Datesaddingcitation) but you shouldn't make identical edits from different accounts/IPs ([1][2][3][4]). Celia Homeford (talk) 15:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The Handbook of British Chronology, 3rd edition, which is cited for the accession date in the infobox gives 20 November 1272 as the accession date. So changing it to 16 November is wrong. But the body of the article gives 16 November as the death date of Henry III, so it's somewhat confusing to have a different date cited in the infobox. Obviously, there is disagreement in the sources so it probably needs explication in the body text - not edit warring and information that is cited to a source that doesn't support the information. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:15, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Does this mean that The king is dead, long live the king doesn't apply here? Was the throne actually vacant for 4 days? Remember, proclamations don't have to occur on the same day the previous monarch died. Elizabeth II was only proclaimed on February 7, 1952. GoodDay (talk) 14:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary, the HBC gives three dates, one of which is the 16th, and the second source only gives the 16th. So, your claim that I'm edit warring against the sources is wrong. Celia Homeford (talk) 14:24, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The Royal Council in 1272 declared "The throne shall never be empty. The country shall never be without a monarch". GoodDay (talk) 14:34, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

1272 was indeed a pivotal moment, in that Edward I's reign began before his coronation, unlike all previous reigns back as far as 1066. But, as above, his reign was reckoned *at the time* to have begun on 20 November, when the assembled magnates at Westminster swore fealty to him. As for the proclamation of 'the royal council' in 1272, I can find no source for this quote, and it isn't contemporary.

Yes, the throne was vacant for 4 days in 1272 - just as it was vacant for 9 days in 1216, 7 weeks in 1199, 6 weeks in 1189, etc. HBC gives the date of Edward's *accession* as 20 November, for the good reason set out previously, that Edward's own chancery, and every other branch of royal government, dated his accession from that moment. This is why I added the citation to Cheney's Handbook of Dates, which lists the dates for all regnal years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RogerBigod (talk • contribs) 14:53, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The Handbook says "Edward I, s. of Henry III and Eleanor of Provence; b. 17-18 June 1239; acc. 20 Nov 1272; d. 7 July 1307. " then on page 39 "Regnal years: Henry III died 16 Nov 1272; the peace of K. Edward was proclaimed in London, 17 Nov. and on 20 Nov 1272 (day of the funeral of Henry III) the magnates swore fealty to K. Edward. Coronation 19 Aug. 1274. Regnal years dated from 20 Nov. 1272." That's pretty clear that his reign dates from 20 November 1272, according to the Handbook. It definitely does NOT support an "accession" field date for 16 November. Scans of page available if needed. The HBC date clearly only supports the 16 Nov date for Henry's death, it is never connected to the accession in the text from the HBC. It's pretty obvious that we need more explication of this dating issue in the body of the article ... so then we can put a range in the infobox. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Charles II's regnal years were dated from 30 January 1649, but his infobox does not use this date (nor should it). The dates in the reign section of the infobox are not meant to be regnal dates: they are the dates of the reign as seen retrospectively from the modern day. Celia Homeford (talk) 15:42, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

We cannot say that the HBC says the accession date is 16 November though - it VERY clearly says "acc. 20 Nov 1272". Just because there are other dates they list does not mean that "acc. 20 November 1272" actually supports our infobox saying 16 November and using the HBC as a citation. It's pretty clear. If other sources (say Prestwich or other biographers) use the start of the reign as 16 November, then use THOSE sources in the infobox. I really don't care what date is in the infobox, but we cannot say the HBC supports the 16th... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

The royal council in 1272, declared that the throne can never be empty. GoodDay (talk) 15:14, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Source please? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:16, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

It's in the article The king is dead, long live the king!. -- GoodDay (talk) 15:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Where it has no source. Wikipedia sources are not reliable sources for other Wikipedia articles. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

What a stinker this is. I can't find the source in that article. Perhaps a citation tag here & there, is required. GoodDay (talk) 15:58, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

"The dates of the reign as seen retrospectively from the modern day" is a slippery slope, in that it involves disregarding contemporary opinion and substituting your own belief that reigns should form a seamless continuum. People in the period 1066-1272 didn't think that was the case. Prior to the reign of Edward I, contemporaries believed that kingship was conferred at the moment the new king was anointed during his coronation ceremony. The first full description we have of an English coronation ceremony is that of Richard I in 1189, written by a witness, Roger of Howden, and he pointedly refers to Richard as 'the duke' up to the moment of unction. Edward I, his chancery clerks, his judges, his sheriffs, his foresters - in short, all of his subjects - dated his reign from 20 November 1272.

Re: 'the throne can never be empty': call off the search, it's not a contemporary quote. I went through all the available contemporary evidence for Edward's accession when I wrote 'A Great and Terrible King'. (Marc Morris) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.78.152 (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Opening of tomb in 1774

Was the opening of the tomb in May or January 1774? This article disagrees with 1774 in Great Britain. Drutt (talk) 10:54, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

It was in May. I have changed the other article. Drutt (talk) 13:27, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Edward II and Caernarfon Castle

Regarding this edit, althoughGlanmor (talk · contribs) doesn't provide a source, they are correct. According to the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography "On 7 February 1301 Edward, now almost seventeen, was created prince of Wales and earl of Chester at the Lincoln parliament (although the title of prince was not used in official documents until May 1301)". Nev1 (talk) 16:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Then add it! (pokes Nev). Ealdgyth - Talk 17:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I wasn't sure how much to add as this article is about Edward I rather than his son but how's this? The way it was before made sense as there was a link through Caernarfon (although it was incorrect) whereas now I'm wondering if it still works. Nev1 (talk) 17:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I only watchlist this to keep an eye out for obvious vandalism. If it's close to what the source says, it's probably good. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

John Botetourt

The reference to John Botetourt at the end of the "Issue" section needs a citation.

To my understanding, it is not generally accepted by the historical community that Botetourt was the illegitimate son of the king. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.193.41 (talk) 21:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

A look at the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography suggests you're correct and I've made this change. Do you think that's ok? Nev1 (talk) 21:41, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.193.41 (talk) 00:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

SOMETHING VERY IMPORTANT!

SOMETHING VERY IMPORTANT! I am introducing this matter here only to both get help and because it is significant. I greatly enjoy Wiki and use it often but very rarely comment.However I have been reading on wiki quite a lot about the early -post Norman Conquest -Kings of England.Now I fully realise that in the popular sense these were and are recognised as ^English^ but this term is totally deceptive in any general sense. In 1066 Saxon England was totally defeated and taken over completely by the French Normans.From that momentand for around 350 years, England became a French speaking nation. Its law were written in French and all the political or military conflicts that followed were planned created and carried out by people we would instantly call French. Ufortunately this fact is never clearly mentioned There are simply continuous references to England and the English .One aspect of this is that it allows every kind of nonsense to be stirred up by nationalist forces.There is of course nothing intrinsically wrong with nationalism but when every kind of historical event is distorted as the use of English and England distorts then it becomes a serious matter.I put a lengthy introduction to the Edward first article and found to my amazement a message saying iy had been removed by some robotic scanner as vandalism.If anything it was the article that should have been removed or rewritten — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.99.11.150 (talk • contribs) 24 June 2011

I agree that the word "English" should receive some disambiguation here, when we speak of the Norman French Kings. However, the Anglo Saxon Kings aren't Bretish - and Saxon was as important in emerging ENglish as Angle-speak. Over the years, Angle, Saxon, Jut and indigeneous Bretish had combined into English - and under the Normans, the language was about to change (radically) again. At some point (certainly by Edward III) the "French" spoken In England was regarded back in Paris as not the real deal. Indeed, the Normans themselves had a different dialect than the French court - hence the phrase "Norman-English." All of this could be worked into this artlcle, but not by a swift, minor edit, going to take some work.69.108.25.223 (talk) 04:35, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

There is a second and equally important point here too: 'Scotland' and 'the Scots' were also not the same thing back then as they were later. The use of the word 'Scotland' is therefore misleading since back then the word referred to the Kingdom of the Scots - solely a highland entity, whilst the 'Scottish' lowlands were back then English. Similarly the 'Scottish' nobilty were, just as in England, mostly Norman French and would not have considered themslves either Scots or English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.13.74 (talk) 10:05, 23 September 2012 (UTC) This is simply wrong. English and Scottish people most certainly did see themselves as English and Scots, and that includes the lords. Many (though not all) English and Scottish lords had French surnames but since more than 200 years had elapsed since the Norman conquest of England we should not think of them as being 'French' any more than we should think of David Cameron as being Scottish or Bill Clinton as being English. Robert I - for example - had much more Gael, Norse and Irish ancestry than Norman...he just happened to have a Norman name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.209.243 (talk) 14:54, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I have been trying to find the language used by the court of Edward I of England. He was only 200 years after the Norman conquest and this puts him in the Norman vs Saxon era but so far I have not been able to find which language was used by those in power. Mtpaley (talk) 22:24, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Edward mainly spoke Anglo-Norman French, but could also speak English and Latin. The formal language of his the court was French. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:09, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Just as did the 'Scots' kings and aristocracy. The ruling class in both kingdoms still all described themselves as 'French' in this period. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.150.38.110 (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Reliable Source(s) that back up such a statement^ about being French? 50.111.61.101 (talk) 15:43, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Issue section discontinuity

All of of a sudden, it says "By Margaret..." Margaret who? He loved his first wife, it says - and then all of sudden, is this a second wife with no relationship to him other than breeding with him? Why is Margaret neglected in this section? I realize for balance that Eleanor should get more words (more kids) but surely we should be reminded who Margaret is before we delve into her progeny at that point.69.108.25.223 (talk) 04:32, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

She's introduced at the bottom of the "Diplomacy and war on the Continent" section, above. --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:22, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

Juliana...

Hello, Hchc2009! I want to greet you and explain something about Edward I’s family. I deleted Juliana’s name from the table of his issue because there is no evidence he had daughter Juliana. If Eleanor bore him a daughter at the time, there is still no contemporary source for her name. You can see this, where John Carmi Parsons wrote about names in Edward’s family. (My talk) 14:12, 28 March 2014

It's probably worth starting a thread on the talk page of Edward I, Mychele; if you like I can copy and paste this over? Hchc2009 (talk) 15:03, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, off course! Just go ahead; I will join discussion tomorrow! (original unsigned)

(Copied across from my talk page.) Hchc2009 (talk) 16:04, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Best source would be Prestwich's bio of Edward - the new edition from 1997. There is an excellent genealogical chart in the back. I have a copy of Parson's article on Eleanor, but it predates Prestwich's bio. Unfortunately, Medieval Studies isn't in JSTOR. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposed tweak to bibliography...

If folks are content, I'm going to add the "ref = harv" label to the bibliographic templates, which should then allow the short citations to link directly to the volume in the bibliography if clicked on. It shouldn't change the visual appearance on the article page at all. Hopefully uncontroversial, but given WP:CITE, I think still worth asking first. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:47, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to propose a minor change to the citation style, separating descriptive footnotes (e.g. "As the sources give the time simply as the night between the 17 and 18 June, we can not know the exact date of Edward's birth.") into a separate section called "notes", distinct from the references - see William the Conqueror as an example of this in action. This would make it easier to see when a footnote is pointing to a citation, and when it is providing additional information to the reader. It is a minor change, but, as per WP:CITEVAR, this does require prior discussion on the talk page. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:44, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed change to pp page numbering...

I'd like to propose a (v.) minor change to the citation style. Multiple pages are currently numbered as (e.g.) pp.88-9. I'd like to alter this style to (e.g.) pp.88-89, which I think is easier to read on the screen / less easy to make minor mistakes with. WP:CITEVAR applies, though, thus this note. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:50, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Done. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:21, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Edward I 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/20150711203416/http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/scotlandshistory/warsofindependence/elizabethdeburgh/index.asp to http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/scotlandshistory/warsofindependence/elizabethdeburgh/index.asp

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 23:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to change reign dates

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject English Royalty#Reign_dates Jhood1 (talk) 17:12, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Here are some sources for the reign dates of Edward I being (20 Nov 1272 - 7 Jul 1307):

• Handbook of British Chronology (Fryde et al) p.38
• Handbook of Dates (Cheney) p. 33
• A Great and Terrible King (Marc Morris) p.104
• Here is a quote from the Handbook of British Chronology: ‘On his father’s death, Edward I was far distant and the time of his return uncertain. Special measures were therefore obviously necessary to secure an orderly succession. The conception expressed in the maxim ‘le roi est mort, vive le roi’ had, however, not yet been reached, for there was an interregnum of four days before the new king’s peace was proclaimed and his reign was regarded as having begun.’ p.31

Jhood1 (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Rice ap Meredith

One of the characters in the George Peele play is a Welsh ally of Lluellen called Rice ap Meredith. The introduction states that Rice attacked in 1287 and was captured the next year. It says that the play compresses the three Welsh rebellions into one even though it was five years later, and Lluellen and his brother, David, were already dead at this point. There is no article on Rice ap Meredith at the present time, which I find utterly baffling if this is a real person. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 23:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

This seems to be article you're after: Rhys ap Maredudd.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 00:55, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Beatrice of Geneva

Watson (1895) says Beatrice of Savoy's mother was Beatrice of Geneva. The article had said that it was Marguerite of Geneva and claimed that this information was cited in Davin (1963). But Davin seems to say on page 177 that it's more likely that Beatrice of Savoy's mother was Thomas of Savoy's first wife (Beatrice of Geneva) not his second wife (Marguerite of Faucigny), although admitting that it is debatable. The best summary of this problem that I've found is on the French wikipedia at fr:Thomas Ier de Savoie#Famille et descendance, which discusses the confusion. There's another great summary at http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/burgkgenev.htm#BeatrixMargueriteGeneveMThomasISavoie. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:14, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

The old cage myth

"Edward responded with severe brutality against Bruce's allies and supporters. Bruce's sister, Mary, was suspended in a cage outside of Roxburgh for four years. Isabella MacDuff, Countess of Buchan, who had crowned Bruce, was suspended in a cage outside of Berwick Castle for four years."

This old myth just refuses to die. First off, there is no official source (same source as in the articles), so I would expect the sources in the articles for the people in question to be the sources backing this, problem is that those sources don't say that these women were held in cages outside.

Now, I have read that Edward apparently wanted large cages to be built inside these castles, and the sources seem to support this.

So, should this be removed until actual sources are provided? Chronicler87 (talk) 00:54, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Can any one find the basis of the claims of Education Scotland btw? Historians like Michael Prestwich have debunked this myth. Chronicler87 (talk) 01:08, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Prestwich (Plantagenet England, p. 239) and Cornell in the citation both say that the women were imprisoned in specially constructed cages attached castle walls with latticed sides so that they were permanently open to public view. The historians do not say whether it was inside or outside the castles and that was correctly deleted, but the new version is too bland. Cornell could be quoted saying that "they were handed punishments of the most debasing cruelty". Dudley Miles (talk) 10:22, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

To be imprisoned in "public view" does not mean that the cages are necessarily outside or exposed to the elements. "Cage" in this sense is also misleading, because were are talking something more prison-like than the cage that's often depicted in pictures, Edward even left instructions for how they had to have a built privy etc. Anyhow, the myth that Prestwich mainly debunked was the whole cages hanging on the outside (on the battlements). It doesn't take a genius to figure out that most ppl would not survive that kind of exposure (which is why it never happened). This myth has been built up for a long time, but we can agreed the cages/prison existed, but they were inside not outside (which was all I wanted deleted). Chronicler87 (talk) 01:59, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure what you mean with "too bland", in my opinion this Wikipedia article overemphasize Edwards supposed cruelty, which is partially a myth in itself, this article is very biased against Edward. The only reason I pointed to this specific thing (there are more), is because I was curious to see what "myths" are repeated on Wikipedia. Chronicler87 (talk) 02:08, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't know about that - the tradition in Scotland, or Ed's reputation in Scotland, of being a cruel bastard had to have a basis in reality somewhere to be so widespread up to the 20th century.50.111.61.101 (talk) 15:49, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Btw, let me clarify, my understanding with you citing that quote by Cronell, it that you seem to want to emphasize Edwards cruelty. I mean Cornell is applying a modern standard on the past, there are probably other historians who would not consider this cruelty or extraordinary, especially not in light of the next paragraph which states that Edward saw this as putting down a rebellion as in disloyal subjects. Chronicler87 (talk) 02:33, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Mankind knew of 'cruelty' by at least 1800 B.C. in western Asia, so, while it is easy for some historians to "classify" such behavior as not out of the ordinary for the time, it's still morally horrific; you can find many RS's that take this point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.111.61.101 (talk) 16:11, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Timeline of issue

I'd like to have a timeline of him, his wives and his descent to see how long (or short) they lived and if they coincided. I was going to add it myself by after reading Help:EasyTimeline_syntax and Wikipedia:Timeline, it seems complicated:

a complicated graphical timeline is a non-trivial affair. A simple timeline may take half an hour to compose (or even less, when a suitable example is taken as a basis). Large timelines may take a few hours for composition and fine-tuning.

Can you do it? --Error (talk) 14:36, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

″ In 1306 he banned the burning of coal ″

is there any known source for this text? ″... as a final measure, the King installed the death penalty in an attempt to shock the people into changing their ways and stop burning coal″ sounds pretty freakish to me, but this isn't a fringe webpage.--Chianti (talk) 14:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

There seem to be almost no reliable sources for this, but [5] says that he banned sea coal. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 11 June 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move. The comments are evenly split between supporters and opposers, with one side arguing for conciseness and common name and the other for consistency and clarity. In the absence of a clear consensus, the current article titles are retained. (non-admin closure) Celia Homeford (talk) 07:49, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

---

• Edward I of England → Edward I
• Edward II of England → Edward II
• Edward III of England → Edward III

– All biographies of Edward I, Edward II and Edward III cited in this article and found by me on Google Books call them Edward I, Edward II, and Edward III in the title, respectively. Examples include Prestwich's Edward I, Phillips' Edward II, and Ormrod's Edward III, all comprehensive biographies. They are virtually never called "of England" in reliable sources, and the reason might be that there is no need to label them as such. Indeed, Edward I, Edward II, and Edward III already redirect to Edward I of England, Edward II of England, and Edward III of England. Therefore I suggest that Wikipedia use the names that are overwhelmingly more common in reliable sources (per WP:COMMONNAME policy) and that are precise and concise (per WP:CONCISE and WP:PRECISE policies). WP:NCROY guideline has moved on from prescribing unnecessary disambiguation too. We have had George VI and James VI and I for a decade and Elizabeth I and Henry VIII for a year; the universe has not imploded. Surtsicna (talk) 10:05, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Support. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)#Sovereign applies: "If the regnal name and number are unambiguous, use them: Louis XVIII, Edward VIII, Alfonso XII, Gustaf VI Adolf. Adding a country to the article title, when there is no other country with a monarch of that name, goes against WP:PRECISION." Dudley Miles (talk) 10:58, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Support. They are far better known than all the others Edward I, Edward II or Edward III. --Edouard2 (talk) 16:38, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. There was no consensus to move Harald V of Norway or Franz Joseph I of Austria last year. When a monarchs in a line of succession (a) draw their names from a common name fund and (b) distinguish like-named individuals by ordinal, then the [Name] [Ordinal] of [Country] format is ideal for the entire succession (exceptions, perhaps, at constitutional inflection points). The old system was fine and the new system is no system at all, leading to ugly and needless inconsistency. Now we'll have John, King of England followed by Henry III of England followed by Edward I. What's worse: NCROY seems to only work for British and near-British monarchs. Even "Franz Joseph I" is apparently too exotic and unrecognizable to Wikipedia's editors. Srnec (talk) 03:14, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

The new system is to use common names, names used in reliable sources; it is a policy, hardly no system at all. That the old system was not fine is exemplified precisely by John, King of England, which used to be at John of England, and by countless exceptions, including Byzantine, Holy Roman and German emperors, Polish kings, etc. Surtsicna (talk) 13:50, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

But I wouldn't agree that the current title isn't the common name. It is the common name plus a disambiguator. Certainly John (king of England) → Henry III (king of England) → Edward I makes more sense than John, King of England → Henry III of England → Edward I and is a more standard form of disambiguation. The reason such titles have never caught on is that they can never be used in prose as is, making every link either a redirect or a pipe. The fact is that English-language biographical titles are not a good guide to how we title our articles. Even very ambiguous royal names, like Henry IV, are often used as titles for such biographies. Srnec (talk) 16:00, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

But there is nothing wrong with redirects. Having to link via redirects is no obstacle to using the most sensible and most common form of disambiguation. Surtsicna (talk) 17:32, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:NATURALDIS. Srnec (talk) 22:53, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per Srnec. Those other moves broke a perfectly fine guideline for no good reason. We should not make it worse. Egsan Bacon (talk) 03:58, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I can understand not agreeing with a proposal, but how is usage in reliable sources "no good reason"? Surtsicna (talk) 13:50, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

• Support, per this ngram. So there is a bias for the English monarchy, per Srnec. Articles with wide readership should be at the most familiar form of the subject's name. This move doesn't stop Franz Joseph I of Austria from being moved to "Franz Joseph." 99to99 (talk) 11:12, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose, as these bios should all be reverted back to Name # of country form. PS - I acknowledge though, that 'no doubt' that won't happen & more monarch bio articles will be nominated for/moved to Name form only. Just like a few years ago, many monarch articles were moved to Nickname forms, like Frederick II of Prussia to Frederick the Great. All very frustrating, but then that's Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 16:32, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support, my impression is that these are by far the most famous Edward I, Edward II, and Edward III. Векочел (talk) 02:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with GoodDay that all articles should be restored to Name # of country form. Wikipedia is getting rapidly worse in disambiguating articles. Dimadick (talk) 20:05, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

I think the vast majority of people who search Google for Edward I have in mind the English king. And the same can be said about the other two Edwards. If Norway suddenly produces kings named Edward, we can have a second look. But as it stands now there is only one ruler of a major European state who is numbered Edward I or II or III. Векочел (talk) 03:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per Surtsicna's valid point ~ there is nothing wrong with redirects: The proposed titles here already point to the intended articles, so that vast majority of people searching for the Longshanks via Edward I will find him, which is what we want, yet leaving the titles as they are retains a small measure of consistency in our titling; happy days, Lindsay^Hello 07:49, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Dudley Miles. COMMONNAME, PRECISION, PRIMARYTOPIC and NCROY all support this move. I see no policy basis to oppose, and no IAR argument either. And no, consistency does not apply here; we do not try to make titles not requiring disambiguation to be consistent with titles that do. All !votes arguments should be weighted according to how well they are supported by policy. Accordingly, the opposition here should be pretty much ignored when determining community consensus regarding this proposal. —В²C ☎ 06:36, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • The problem with unnecessarily disambiguated titles like these is they imply other articles with similar titles exist. For example, Edward I of England implies we have at least one more article titled Edward I of NotEngland. But of course we don't. It's misleading. --В²C ☎ 21:05, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Do Anaheim, California, Jersey City, New Jersey, and East Rutherford, New Jersey rather than just Anaheim, Jersey City, and East Rutherford imply that we have articles titled Anaheim, SomeOtherPlace, Jersey City, SomeOtherPlace, and East Rutherford, SomeOtherPlace? Egsan Bacon (talk) 21:23, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
      • Yes they do, and it’s one of the reasons I have long opposed the discordant US city naming policy. And more than a decade ago I argued by allowing unnecessary disambiguation for US cities editors will use it as a precedent to argue for unnecessary disambiguation in other categories of articles (and here we are). But the argument that including the state for US cities (except the most well-known ones on the AP list) is part of the most common name and not disambiguation at all prevailed, unfortunately. I hold out hope reason will eventually prevail there too. We’ll see. —В²C ☎ 06:21, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
        • Then we agree that your initial arguments are out of step with the very widespread (and very frequently discussed) naming convention WP:USPLACE. If the community consensus interpretation of policy was as you say, USPLACE would not be as it is. As such, the closer should be sure to take that into account when determining who (if anyone) should have their arguments be, as you said, pretty much ignored when determining community consensus. Egsan Bacon (talk) 03:48, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
          • No. The argument accepted by community consensus (with which I disagree, but that’s beside the point) at USPLACE is that the city, state form is the most common name for the given city. That’s not the argument here for the name ordinate of country form. —В²C ☎ 05:05, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support per Born2cycle.  Mysterymanblue  21:14, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support. Given that "Edward I" is the common name, the function of "of England" is natural disambiguation. The question then is whether the English king is the primary topic for "Edward I", such that the disambiguation becomes unnecessary. He is the primary topic, so I support the move. Similarly for Edwards II–VIII. Adumbrativus (talk) 04:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

• Edwards IV–VI have not been RM'd yet. Srnec (talk) 22:53, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

• Since Born2cycle asked, here is the IAR argument. Applying policy as he would produces strange and incomprehensible results: John, King of England followed by Henry III of England followed by Edward I. Moreover, Wikipedians are not apparently interested in it: see Harald V of Norway or Franz Joseph I of Austria. We have similar sorts of guidelines for popes and Holy Roman emperors. Is Pope Gregory VII the common name, maximally precise? Frederick I, Holy Roman Emperor? Click on Conrad III, Sancho VII or Baldwin IV to see what the primary topic is and ask: would the encyclopedia be improved if we removed "of [country]" from the title? And I'm only scratching the surface of monarchs' page that could be moved. The hodgepodge of titles that would result is not an improvement. The old NCROY guidance was not created for every monarchy (hence Ramesses II and Charles the Bald), but is intended for those drawing from a common fund of names and relying on ordinals to distinguish individuals. For such monarchies, it produced consistent, predictable and easily recognizable titles at minimum cost. It has been chipped away at mainly for British and French monarchs precisely because there does not appear to be actual consensus for its broad application. Or so I read the failure of the Harald and Franz Joseph RMs. Srnec (talk) 22:53, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

  I disagree those are strange and incomprehensible results. It’s not for us to judge how or why the real world refers to the topics we cover; it’s our job to reflect that usage, even if it results in apparent inconsistencies. And the encyclopedia is better for doing so. —В²C ☎ 15:16, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

  The real world does not have disambiguation rules. The "real world" does not have an opinion on "John, King of England" versus "Henry III of England" and our choice here does not reflect anything but our rules. The inconsistency does not stem from "out there". A real world encyclopedia like the Britannica treats John, Henry III and Edward I the same way, i.e. consistently. Srnec (talk) 00:46, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per Srnec. I would add that we should avoid rules which we don't need. Medieval institutions and names changed over time, as has modern English terminology. So these names often require case by case discussion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 07:11, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose per Srnec above, et al. It's not clear what benefit we would get (or that we would expect the reader to get) by removing the clarifier, but it seems clear that one cost would indeed be the loss of consistency with a majority of the surrounding peer articles — and despite some earlier suggestions to the contrary, giving consideration to such consistency is not contrary to policy and should not be ignored. (Unlike, say, a parenthetical disambiguator, the existing form of the title is not unnatural or uncommon.) ╠╣uw [talk] 18:53, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose. The current titles are perfectly good. "of England" is both COMMONNAME and natural disambiguation. Books are unreliable indicators of COMMONNAME introduction, because famous person historical biographies are not written as introductory, but as additions to a large number of pre-existing biographies, the new book intended audience is the existing audience of the preceding biographies, and most commonly every new biography seeks to claim a new familiarity. There is no advantage to any reader of these shortenings. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:00, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
• Support per WP:SOVEREIGN which states that "If the regnal name and number are unambiguous, use them: Louis XVIII, Edward VIII, Alfonso XII, Gustaf VI Adolf. Adding a country to the article title, when there is no other country with a monarch of that name, goes against WP:PRECISION." Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 09:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

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.

Plagiarism?

Large portions of the entry on Edward I are taken from Encyclopedia Britannica's > website verbatim without attribution. See > https://www.britannica.com/biography/Edward-I-king-of-England > James Hercules Sutton 01:40, 14 August 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesSutton (talk • contribs)

King Edward's Chair

Why is there an image of King Edward's Chair on this page? The linked page says that the chair is not named after Edward I but Edward the Confessor; Edward I is barely mentioned on the linked page. Didn't want to remove without discussion, in case there's something I'm missing here that isn't well explained on the page. 2604:2D80:9F0B:A400:B5C7:C76D:528:9700 (talk) 00:44, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

The Coronation Chair was commissioned by Edward I. According to Westminster Abbey at [6] it is uncertain whether there is a connection with Edward the Confessor. I will amend the caption to clarify. Dudley Miles (talk) 06:59, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Hatnote purposal

I need a propose for a redirect hatnote, by accompanying with WP:ITHAT and other uses (if none).

Purpose 1:

"Edward I" and "Hammer of the Scots" redirect here. For the board game, see Hammer of the Scots (board game). For other uses, see Edward I.

Purpose 2:

"Edward I" redirects here. For other uses, see Edward I (disambiguation).

"Hammer of the Scots" redirects here. For the board game, see Hammer of the Scots (board game).

Surveyor Mount (talk) 22:55, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I do not consider this to be a major issue; thus I have no opinion. At my time at the FA nomination, no one raised any objections to the current formatting, but on my other FA, the formatting is similar to Purpose 2. I will just go along with whatever the MOS says or whatever consensus is built. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Hatnote#Length and number. There should only be one hatnote. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:48, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Not in favour of this. Ceoil (talk) 12:00, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2023

Edward I, King of England and Lord of Ireland is his correct title. The first Ebglish king to be given a numeral was Edward III. Edward I was known as 'Edward son of King Henry'. Dr Paul Booth (talk) 17:00, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Callmemirela 🍁 18:14, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Royal itinerary

There's a gif-image that shows Edward I's movements across England and Scotland over most of his reign File:King Edward I's itinerary.gif - Wikimedia Commons I wondered about integrating this into the article, to help readers visualise the king's movements? (disclaimer - I was involved in the research that lies behind the gif!) Charleslincolnshire (talk) 20:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

It looks useful to me, but Wikipedia has strict rules about using copyright material. See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. If other editors agree with incorporating the image, it would have to be done using the correct procedure. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:53, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Massacre at Berwick

The important fact that Edward slew perhaps seven thousands, and likely more, at Berwick is obscured by a reference in a link to a particular bloody attack. Many articles in wikipedia include such facts in biographies, like that of pope Benedict VII of Avignon who only helped slay five thousand at Cesenai (when he was a cardinal). Edward's article might also mention his singular achievement of killing off the biggest burgh in Scotland and add it to his proud death toll. 1f2 (talk) 12:04, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Sack of Berwick (1296) says that estimates of deaths are from 4000 to 17000 and some sources say all were massacred and others that women were spared. There do not seem to be reliable sources for a definite estimate. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:28, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 5 November 2023

• Edward I of England → Edward I
• Edward II of England → Edward II
• Edward III of England → Edward III
• Richard II of England → Richard II
• Edward IV of England → Edward IV
• Edward V of England → Edward V
• Richard III of England → Richard III

– A proposal to bring the articles in line with WP:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility): "Only use a territorial designation (e.g. country) when disambiguation is needed." No disambiguation is needed in these cases.

The concise titles reflect common usage, which is a policy requirement (WP:COMMONNAME). All biographies of Edward I, Edward II, Edward III, etc cited in our article call them simply Edward I, Edward II, Edward III, etc. Examples include Prestwich's Edward I, Phillips' Edward II, and Ormrod's Edward III. They perfectly fit WP:RECOGNIZABILITY too, which requires titles to be recognizable to people who are familiar with the subject area; everyone familiar with Edward V will recognize that the article titled Edward V is about Edward V.

The proposed moves are also in line with WP:CONSISTENT, which says: Wikipedians have consistently shown that consistency does not control: Disambiguation. For instance, just because Georgia (country) exists, there is no reason to have articles titled, for instance, Azerbaijan (country), Armenia (country), etc. This applies to natural disambiguation, as well; the existence of Querétaro City and Chihuahua City does not mean we have to retitle Guadalajara to Guadalajara City (emphasis in original).

We already have pre-Conqueror kings under concise names (e.g. Edmund I) as well as the Tudors Henry VIII, Edward VI, and Elizabeth I; the Stuart James VI and I; and the post-Union George III, George IV, William IV, Edward VII, George V, Edward VIII, George VI, Elizabeth II, and now Charles III. Surtsicna (talk) 17:21, 5 November 2023 (UTC) — Relisting. Polyamorph (talk) 18:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)— Relisting. —usernamekiran (talk) 03:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support - as much as my personal preference is in opposition to this, that's now how !votes should be cast and consensus made. Our policies and guidelines as they stand now are in clear support of this, and I must be as well. estar8806 (talk) ★ 17:45, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Estar8806 is referring to the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) that resulted in the consensus to endorse the use of concise titles/titles without unnecessary disambiguation. Surtsicna (talk) 19:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose This was never their common name, and most of them have popular theatrical plays under that name, written by the literary hack William Shakespeare. Wikipedia keeps getting worse policies. Dimadick (talk) 17:53, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

The vast majority of sources referring to them without the appendage suggests that these are, indeed, their common names. The plays (which are not primary meanings) will be as unaffected as they are now when these short titles redirect to the long ones. In fact, the plays are an argument in favor of the move: everyone who knows about Richard III thanks to the play will expect to find the article about him at Richard III, not Richard III of England, as neither Shakespeare nor Shakespeare scholars call him Richard III of England. Surtsicna (talk) 18:20, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

It's their most common name in the English language at the present time, and the current most-common name is what we use to determine what an article's title is, not what their most common name was hundreds of years ago when they were alive. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:09, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Strongly oppose - bringing up the bios doesn't help, as in context, the shorter version will always be "widely used": in context, "Cameron" is the WP:COMMONNAME for David Cameron, but that does not make it a suitable title. "of England" does nothing to harm the titles. It makes them WP:RECOGNIZABLE. It makes them WP:PRECISE. It makes them the WP:COMMONNAME. And, it also respects WP:NCROY, which says article titles are normally in the form "{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}. It makes extremely little sense to have Henry I of England, William II of England and Henry V of England right next to the ones which have the kingdom bluntly hacked off their titles. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:55, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

"Cameron" is not a suitable title because it is not precise. That is why it does not redirect to David Cameron. Edward I is precise. That is why it redirects to Edward I of England. Appending "of England" does not do anything for recognizability; nobody familiar with Edward I will fail to recognize the name Edward I. Similarly, appending "of France" does not do anything for the recognizability of the name Emmanuel Macron. Obviously appending "of England" does not "make them WP:COMMONNAME"; they are not called that in published sources. And you are purposefully misquoting WP:NCROY, which says what you say it says only for monarchs "whose common name is ambiguous or not the primary meaning". Surtsicna (talk) 18:12, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

"Purposefully misquoting" - no, not really. Maybe apply a tiny bit of WP:AGF next time. And don't give me lectures on WP:PRECISE when you are now seeking to make seven titles less so. Best, Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:31, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

The sentence you quoted says, in full: "In the case of kings ... whose common name is ambiguous or not the primary meaning, article titles are normally in the form "{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}." The previous sentence says: "Only use a territorial designation (e.g. country) when disambiguation is needed." If you somehow missed this when you quoted the latter part of the sentence, I apologize (though I will be surprised because you took part in the discussion that led to this wording).
It is worth underlining that WP:PRECISE says that article titles "should be no more precise than" what is needed to unambiguously define the subject. Edward III unambiguously defines Edward III; titles such as Edward III of England, Edward III, king of England, Edward III, king of England and duke of Aquitaine, etc, are what WP:PRECISE calls "too precise". Surtsicna (talk) 18:51, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - For goodness sake, it's helpful to see which country the monarch is reigning over or primarily reigning over, by reading the article title. GoodDay (talk) 18:01, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

It is not the job of article titles to define the subject. That is why we do not have titles such as Barrack Obama of the United States or Ernest Rutherford (New Zealand physicist). Surtsicna (talk) 18:15, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

We'll have to disagree, where monarch bios are concerned. GoodDay (talk) 18:21, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Surtsicna: We also don't title the article simply "Obama", even though we clearly could. If we were to count all the instances where that surname is used by itself to refer the president in reliable sources, we'd find that it greatly outweighs any other form... but it's still not the form we use. ╠╣uw [talk] 11:43, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I really don't think it's too much effort to just read the first sentence of the article to see which country the monarch is reigning over. Rreagan007 (talk) 05:07, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• Clearly oppose; Tim O'Doherty and GoodDay both make good and succinct and accurate points. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 18:55, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support per nominator. I'll add that the names of Shakespeare's plays favor the proposed move, NOT keeping the current titles. Killuminator (talk) 06:53, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME, WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:CONCISE, and WP:NCROY. All of our article naming policies and guidelines support these moves. There is simply no good policy-based justification for inserting a natural disambiguation into an article title when it is clearly not needed. Rreagan007 (talk) 04:58, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  inserting a natural disambiguation into an article title when it is clearly not needed is bog standard with biographies. See Leibniz, Hitler, Gorbachev, Reagan, Obama, Oprah, Stalin. Why don't titles like "Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart" and "Pablo Picasso" bother people? Shakespeare's been mentioned by three editors in this discussion and only one used his full name. His article could certainly be moved to a more concise title that is also satisfies common name. Srnec (talk) 21:21, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support - has clarity and brevity, and conformity with historical and academic conventions (ODNB, Brittanica Library and numerous peer-reviewed publications). Bill Reid | (talk) 10:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support per brevity, since all of the proposed titles redirect to the nominated titles. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:31, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. The change to NCROY to prefer short titles was just made and I disagree with it. If I had known about the proposal to modify the wording, I'd have opposed it. Regardless, the policy page should just be a summary of the consensus from community discussions; we'll see how this RM goes, but if there's sufficient community opposition, I'd consider that cause to reconsider this recent change to NCROY and potentially revert it. Anyway, getting back to the merits... the shortest name is not always the best. Sometimes the additional clarification is helpful, and worth paying a slight cost in concision. Monarchs who aren't commonly referred to with last names are a classic case where just their first name is not necessarily enough. SnowFire (talk) 15:55, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

  +1 Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:19, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose. SnowFire says it pretty well. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:16, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
• Support In probably all of these cases, the English monarch is the primary topic. Why distinguish them from minor counts and dukes who are not nearly as notable? Векочел (talk) 19:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
• Comment - if this were really that big an issue and just that detrimental to the quality of those articles, wouldn't they have been raised at, er, the articles' FACs? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:39, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The article title has nothing to do with the quality of an article's content. These are two distinct issues, and FAC isn't the forum for discussing an article's title. That is done through WP:RM. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:44, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

No—FAC deals with every aspect of the article, which obviously includes the title. A few weeks ago regarding an FAC-hopeful at PR, I asked the nom if the page should be moved as I believed it was against a guideline. By your logic of "the forums are different", no progress would be made outside the very limited bubble of FAC, including requests for copyediting by GOCE for the professional writing criterion, Commons requests for the image criterion, and source and comprehensiveness checks using Earwig and TWL as tools. RM is just another venue to improve articles, and FAC reviewers aren't barred from ... well, suggesting improvements, which would then go through RM. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 23:15, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) has been updated since all of the FAC for these articles. And are you trying to argue that Featured Article titles should never be changed because any objection to the article title should have been brought up at the FAC? Speak now, or forever hold your peace? Rreagan007 (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Nope. Try again. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:37, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, for the same reasons already clearly elaborated above by SnowFire and Tim O'Doherty. ╠╣uw [talk] 11:25, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose for consistency and recognizability and for the reasons I've laid out in past RMs. If this move goes through, it means going from John, King of England to Henry III of England to Edward I. Such an approach is confusing, not clarifying. I see virtually no cost to having "of England" in these titles. It is perfectly natural. Just because some particular combination of name and numeral has a primary topic is not a good reason to reduce the title anymore than the fact that some surnames have a primary topic is a good reason to go around lopping first names of article titles (see my comment above). Srnec (talk) 21:21, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose there were multiple monarchs with these names. adding "of England" clarifies which one the article is about. SKAG123 (talk) 18:54, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

No, there were not; and even if there were (which there were not), these here would be WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Surtsicna (talk) 18:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose per above. I, unlike some, apparently, don't assume that "Edward I" automatically refers to the English version. Happy editing, SilverTiger12 (talk) 17:04, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Edward I already redirects here, and always has, so the assumption is long-standing and very well grounded. Surtsicna (talk) 18:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support, per nom. Like Estar8806, this is not my personal preference, but who cares about that; it is what policy clearly requires. I assume that the closer will ignore all !votes based on personal preference, this is not a vote. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:05, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

  There are five basic criteria for article titles and I think the current title is better by three (recognizability, precision, consistency), neutral by one (naturalness) and inferior by one (concision). That naming the kingdom increases recognizability should, I think, be uncontroversial. Not everybody will know that there was no Richard II of Scotland. That it increases precision is also obvious, since, strictly speaking, even "Edward I" is ambiguous. Because of the changes to NCROY and the inconsistent outcomes of various RMs in recent years, it is not as obviously more consistent than it would have been in the past, but I still think that, given the continued preference for the "[name] [numeral] of [kingdom]" format (per NATURALDIS) across western European monarchies and the unavailability of undisambiguated titles for many kings (e.g., John, Henry V, Philip IV), the preemptively disambiguated forms can be used consistently in a way that the short forms (alongside the current NATURALDIS format) can't be. As for naturalness, I think both forms are equally natural in prose or speech. It all depends on context (whether the kingdom must be named or not). The proposal, however, is certainly more concise. Editors do not agree on how to weigh these in every given case. I put a lot more emphasis on consistency and a lot less on concision than most editors who support these moves. Srnec (talk) 01:39, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

No, Srnec. Your interpretation of "recognizability" is incorrect. It is not the job of the article title to define the subject. If it were, then the title of this article should be Edward I, king of England, not just Edward I of England. Please see how recognizability is defined at WP:RECOGNIZABILITY so that we can finally stop misinterpreting it (though I have already underlined it in the opening comment). "Edward III" is recognizable because a person who is familiar with Edward III will recognize that the article titled Edward III is about Edward III. A title such as Charles Philip Arthur George Mountbatten-Windsor would not be recognizable because a person who has only heard about Charles III would not know that the article is about Charles III. Likewise, consistency: it has been noted both in the WP:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) RfC and in the opening comment of this request that the WP:CONSISTENT policy explicitly excludes disambiguation. That we have Republic of Ireland is no reason to have Republic of Croatia instead of just Croatia; and so having Henry II of England is no reason to have George VI of the United Kingdom instead of just George VI. Surtsicna (talk) 18:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Pageviews for these various Edwards. Killuminator (talk) 18:09, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Gog, policy is ambiguous. People disagree for a reason. You're allowed to too: the diktat of the recent NCROY RfC doesn't make null and void all other viewpoints. Otherwise, this page would be moved without discussion, or this RM would be completely unanimous. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 17:39, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Comment: the books given as examples for WP:COMMONNAME purposes are all part of the Yale English Monarchs series, so it's arguable that they're already disambiguated. It would be prudent to cast a wider net, just to be sure. A.D.Hope (talk) 23:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Oppose per Tim O'Doherty's sensible and policy-based comments above. Zacwill (talk) 13:51, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Zacwill, Tim O'Doherty's comments are not policy-based. Policy has been cited to refute them. The WP:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility) guideline has recently been amended, after a long and thorough discussion, to embrace these proposed titles precisely in order to bring the guideline in line with policy. Therefore, the current titles are against the policy and the guideline and the proposed titles are in line with them. Surtsicna (talk) 18:04, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Tim O'Doherty's comments are policy based, unless you've invested yourself with the power to discredit WP:AT (that is, when it suits you, of course). And WP:NCROY is not policy anyway. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:37, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

No, your comments contravene WP:AT policy. It has been explained how: your interpretation of WP:RECOGNIZABLE does not match what WP:RECOGNIZABLE says. WP:RECOGNIZABLE is about readers familiar with the subject recognizing that the article is about that subject. It is not about defining the subject to a person who knows nothing about it. You have not disputed that explanation. Surtsicna (talk) 23:41, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Surtsicna: If the amendment to the guideline yields RMs that are too contentious to muster clear support, then I'd take that as a sign that the amendment may need to be revisited. Guidelines are most successful when they build upward from what we agree works best, and in this case I'm not seeing a lot of agreement that removing the "of England" works best. ╠╣uw [talk] 19:53, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Huwmanbeing, the amendment to the guideline is the result of an RfC that was explicitly based on the RMs that have taken place over the past decade, that have led to titles such as Elizabeth I, Edward VI, Henry VIII, Elizabeth II, etc; Louis XIV, Louis XV, Louis XVI, etc; Carl XVI Gustaf, Gustaf V, etc; Juan Carlos I, Alfonso XII, Felipe VI, etc; and, just this month, Wilhelm II and Harald V, Olav V, Haakon VII, etc. The guideline is being built upward from over a decade of community consensus. And I can guarantee to you that these articles are never going back to the lengthy form. Once you chop off the unnecessary disambiguation, it is difficult to convince people to put it back in. It does not even matter whether the moves proposed here succeed now; the policy is constant and the trend of matching royal biographies with it is steady. They will get there now or soon enough. Surtsicna (talk) 23:41, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: relisting for clearer consensus, notifying wikiprojects Polyamorph (talk) 18:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Vital articles has been notified of this discussion. Polyamorph (talk) 18:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Biography has been notified of this discussion. Polyamorph (talk) 18:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject England has been notified of this discussion. Polyamorph (talk) 18:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Military history has been notified of this discussion. Polyamorph (talk) 18:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Politics has been notified of this discussion. Polyamorph (talk) 18:44, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject London has been notified of this discussion. Polyamorph (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

• relisting comment currently this is in the waters of "no consensus". relisting second time (after first relisting by Polyamorph) to achieve clear consensus. Regards, —usernamekiran (talk) 03:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:RECOGNIZABLE and WP:CONSISTENT. Vpab15 (talk) 11:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Both WP:RECOGNIZABLE and WP:CONSISTENT are addressed in the opening comment. Surtsicna (talk) 23:41, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

• Support (procedural)– WP:LOCALCONSENSUS! The recent WP:NCROY policy change is very clear here that the correct format is not including a country when disambiguation is not needed- all of the Oppose voters are arguing for why they oppose the recent change to policy. My preferred article title if it were not for policy saying otherwise would be King Edward I of England, with both the country and the title included in the article, but WP:NCROY is also clear in not supporting the regular use of "King" or "Queen" in article titles. If any of the oppose voters were to open a discussion on modifying WP:NCROY, I would welcome that, but this RM is very much not the right place for expressing discontent with policy by trying to ignore its existence. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 08:23, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

NCROY is not policy. ╠╣uw [talk] 13:27, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

NCROY is a guideline which defines how the policy WP:TITLE should be applied in relation to royalty and nobility. It should be followed unless there's a good reason not to do so. A.D.Hope (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

A.D.Hope: Yes, it's a guideline. That's important to emphasize because others have repeatedly and wrongly asserted above that it's policy. Guidelines can be helpful and we should attempt to follow them, but only where it makes sense and leads to titles that we agree better meet our WP:CRITERIA — and in this case I just don't see that it does. ╠╣uw [talk] 16:51, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm aware the guideline wording has recently been changed after a long discussion. Nevertheless, it represents the current consensus and so shouldn't be disregarded unless there is a good, specific reason to do so. What is that reason in this case? A.D.Hope (talk) 16:58, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

To be clear here- are you proposing keeping the articles in this RM at their current titles whilst also leaving WP:NCROY unchanged? Because as far as I can tell, that would result in WP:NCROY being completely meaningless, if one of its core points is not being followed by a large number of articles. I'm failing to see the advantage in abolishing standardized naming policy. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 16:08, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm not proposing anything, I just don't support the moves proposed by Surtsicna. If it turns out that some RMs prompted by the amended NCROY fail to muster consensus, then yes, that might mean the guideline should be revisited, but that would be a separate discussion. (And to be clear, this would in no way mean abolishing standardized naming.) ╠╣uw [talk] 20:13, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I think multiple RMs failing to reach consensus would be a good indication that the new NCROY guideline isn't working in practice. It's only chance that this RM hasn't yet failed – there's clearly no consensus and it's been well over seven days. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:52, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

It's clear in this RM that there is widespread opposition to the new guideline (half of the support votes are purely on policy grounds rather than down to any belief that the proposed titles are better) and so regardless of the way it is closed, there is absolutely demand for revisiting WP:NCROY. I'm just not convinced that outright ignoring it in an RM is the best way of showing discontent with it: hypothetically if this RM were closed as "no consensus", but then a discussion of changing the WP:NCROY policy also ended in "no consensus", you'd be left stuck with a status quo of conflicting consensuses at different places meaning that a guideline which exists is being widely ignored. I don't see how this is at all good for Wikipedia. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 03:11, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

It seems entirely possible that the LOCALCONSENSUS was the decision to update NCROY. One of the ways the community sends feedback that a policy isn't working is via consensus discussions like these. Otherwise it's a chicken-and-the-egg issue - I would be inclined to revisit at the NCROY talk page but only after we have prominent no-consensus results in discussions like this as evidence the change isn't working, which can't happen if we "procedurally" keep moving in favor of the new version. SnowFire (talk) 01:04, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose per Tim and SnowFire—blindlynx 16:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

• Provisional support. Using Google Scholar, '"Edward I"' returns 123,000 results and '"Edward I of England"' returns 4,020 results, and a glance at the first few pages of both results suggests that almost all are about the English monarch. The nature of the results in both cases appears to be similar – journal articles, some books, etc. To narrow the results, the bibliography of the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography article on Edward I is useful. The sources used in the article can be safely assumed to represent a good number of the core works on the Edward I, and none of their titles use a territorial designation. It's clear that academics are comfortable using 'Edward I' without qualification in their titles in works about the king.

Given the above, 'Edward I' does not need to be further disambiguated with a territorial designation according to WP:NCROY, as it is the WP:COMMONNAME, WP:RECOGNIZABLE, and WP:PRECISE. If the same is true of the other articles listed then they should be moved. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:32, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

The ODNB uses plain "Edward I" because it focusses solely on historical figures from the UK, though, which would be reflected in using - well - British sources. What we want here is a WP:WORLDVIEW. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 19:55, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

The titles of the sources in the ODNB bibliography were created independently of the context of the dictionary, so their exclusive use of ‘Edward I’ without territorial designation is quite persuasive. A.D.Hope (talk) 23:24, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

To add to the above, the 'additional reading' in the Encyclopedia Britannica article is much the same, and a Jstor search produces many 'Edward I' articles but far fewer with 'Edward I of England' in the title. It's possible that there are thousands of sources which use 'of England' that I'm not picking up on, but I don't think it's very likely. A.D.Hope (talk) 00:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)