Talk:Richard II of England/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Appearance of Sub Names on various British monarchs pages

I have noticed a lot of rarely used sub names e.g. Richard II "Of Bordeaux" have been cropping up on many of the English Monarchs pages within the name box of the info column. In my opinion these shouldn't be placed in such a prominent position and could surely be quoted in a less important section of the article. Therefore I have just edited the name and removed the wording "of bordeaux" from the title.

In addition to this it may be confused with the kings title of "Richard II of England".

Discuss...

The names by which the individuals are known to history are often different from their contemporary appelation. In England, prior to Henry VIII the monarchs were rarely or intermittently known by their cardinal suffix. The common contemporary method of identification was by the individual's place of birth, hence of Bordeaux or of Caernarvon, etc. Similarly appelations such as Beauclerc, Curtmantle, Rufus etc. have a historical relevance in their bearers' identities. In my opinion it is as important to show the contemporary appelation as the historical one, in case the reader is under the mistaken impression that the historical and contemporary were identical. --JohnArmagh (talk) 07:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

You have a very valid point there. I will revert the article. --Rackellar (talk) 23:14, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

question

Why was Richard chosen to be king when both the Dukes of York and Lancaster were still alive at Edwards death?

He became king because that's the way the inheritance works. If Prince Charles dies today, and Queen Elizabeth II dies a week from now, it'll be Prince William that becomes king, not Charles's brother Andrew. If someone in the line of succession dies, his heirs take his place in line, they don't just get skipped. You don't exhaust one generation before proceding to the next... Hope that makes it a bit clearer... -- Someone else 00:53, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Yup. That's primogeniture. -- Royalist 12:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Prince of Wales, Duke of Cornwall

How come Richard could be created Prince of Wales and Duke of Cornwall? On Prince of Wales the title is stated as explicitly restricted to the eldest son of the sovereign. I would assume this rule was not yet in effect back then, but if so, Prince of Wales should really mention it, to avoid looking inconsistent.

Are you sure about that? For example George III was created Prince of Wales when his father died in 1751.

On the page it does not state that Richard was Duke of Cornwall; what gave you this idea? Also, consider that by the end of his life, after being decrowned, he still was royal: it _might_ be that he became Duke of Cornwall only then, as a consequence of being who he was but not king. -- NicApicella 13/Jun/2005

Kings/princes can hold duchys etc if they are part of their inheritance.

Also he was given the title of Prince of Wales following the death of his father the Black Prince (Prince of Wales) before the death of Edward III to ease tensions over who would be Edward's successor. (ie in 1376)

Officially, the heir to the throne is the Duke of Cornwall, by an Act of Parliament in the reign of Edward III; the title Prince of Wales is a courtesy title bestowed on the heir at some point. Richard would presumably have been Duke of Cornwall after his father died, and would have kept the title (and, I suppose, the duchy and its revenue) until he had an heir of his own. The title Prince of Wales would have lapsed when he became king. Moonraker12 12:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Handkerchief

Richard II did not invent the handkerchief like the article says; that was the Black Prince, his father

-Actually, it is widely agreed by scholars that Richard DID in fact invent the handkerchief. See the most recent biography, which received excellent reviews, by Nigel Saul (17/Jun/2005)

Saul says: "Richard II was almost certainly the first king to use a handkerchief" (my emphasis). If this is really important to someone, and they have no better use of their time, they can check out "Richard II and the Invention of the Pocket Handkerchief", Albion, xxvii (1995), 221-35. Lampman (talk) 19:24, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality

In its current form, this page portrays Richard II almost entirely negatively and Henry IV almost entirely positively. I think that scholars are actually much more divided on the two of them, and we should rewrite the page to bring more balance and state both sides (for example, Richard's peace with France was unpopular with the barons who stood to profit from war, but was it unpopular with the population in general?). David 01:56, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

I'm currently reading Simon Schama's "History of Britain" and I note that the article, in it's current form, reflects almost entirely the events and opinions put forward on Richard II by that author. I have another book on the Plantagenets at home which offers some different opinions - I'll edit the article and add the reference once I've had a chance to have a look.MattDP 18/July/2005

i agree that this article is far from neutral. i am just an amateur, and a lover of history, but from what i have recently heard, many of the traditional claims about richard ii are the product of smear campaigns from the reign of henry iv. check out the national archives podcast series-- a recently featured lecture by terry jones called "was richard ii mad?" gives many opinions that differ from those on this page. i know he is more of a popular historian, but he does reference the work of other historians in his talk. 24.91.163.239 (talk) 02:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Why not more discussion of Richard's homosexuality

The article discusses little about Richard's sexual orientation. If he was, in fact, gay, wouldn't that have been a significant factor in his personal history as well as the success or lack of success of his reign? If he was gay as a number of modern biographers, such as Alison Weir, (I've read her book but like her discussion of the Princes in the Tower better) and others suggest, and many of the other magnates thought ill of Richard's personal life, wouldn't the evidence for this be a topic for more elaboration within the article.

Given the medieval Catholic proscriptions against homosexuality, if Richard was, in fact, gay, this would have been negative "ammunition" to be used against him by his enemies among the British magnates. I've read a lot of books on him (and I mean this in no negative way), but Richard did seem to have that so-called "artsy-fartsy" artistic/music-loving decorator type temperment. Many gay men have incredible artistic gifts that can be seen in a host of fields where they contribute to society. Stereotypical analysis or supporting evidence for a gay king's artistic temperment? You be the judge. Richard certainly was a patron of the arts and spent lavishly on art-related projects. To what degree did his apparent homosexuality intefer with is role as a medieval monarch. Why did he leave no children? Was it related to his homosexuality or was he just unable to have children?

Exactly what historical evidence do we have for the claims of a homosexual affair with Robert de Vere and/or Michael de la Pole? How well was Henry IV able to use Richard's sexual orientation to marshall political and military opinion and force against his rival? Please no charges of homophobia, I just want this to be discussed. thanks. SimonATL 03:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

From my limited reading, there is some more we could say on this aspect of Richard's life; but there is more we could say about most aspects. I'm not sure now that we're all that lacking ... I think there was a reference to Richard being like Edward II of England which could be added. I'm not sure that it was the gayness, so much as the favouritism, which annoyed the other magnates. But I advise that we are maybe in a limited position to "discuss" the issue, for a number of reasons such as available space in the article; unwillingness to speculate; paucity of sources; and perhaps the need to move discussion of sexual orientation in the middle ages to a new article. --Tagishsimon (talk)

You raise good points. I'm not at all in favor of a "let's talk about Richard's gayness" but rather I'd like to know just what the magnates might have known about the extent of Richard's affairs. I mean was he just showing favoritism to which his medieval rival magnates attached the the "g" word, or was he openly flaunting his affairs with an "I'm the King - DEAL with it attitude, or was he being discrete or what." Unfortunately, for non-Latin speaking folks, the one on-line souce document that I located and added to the notes, Walsingham's Historia Anglicana is in Latin, but with English captions. I took 2 years of High School and 2 years of College Latin, so I'm wearily trying to find the parts referred to by Weir's Wars of the Roses book that I bought a couple years back and heavily made notes in the margins. Unfortunately, she didn't footnote the book, so I'm going to look at other sources. Personally, though a yank, I'm a real nut on British kings from Edward I through the Restoration of Charles, but so many of the modern books, like Weir's are more pop-history, like as opposed to being scholarly. Their's interesting, in that they often tell the story quite well. My other objection to a newcomer to this age is Weir constantly shifting her terms for the magnates. In one sentence she'll call a duke by his title, like Lancaster, and in the next sentence, she'll call him Henry, and then in the next sentence, she'll call him Derby, as in the Earl of Derby. While SHE may be familiar with all this, its like gobbly-gook to a newcomer. But back to Richard, bottom line for me, I'm just interested in what we "really" know about the man as opposed to bits and pieces, malicious gossip by the rival magnates, ect. I'll continue to wade through those 2 Latin PDF files looking for the Latin word "scelerus" which means obscene. Oh yes, those PDFs are actually scanned pages, so you can't search on an individual word, you just have to read thru it. It's actually well documented with marginal commentary and footnotes. If anyone can find an English translation, that would be great. SimonATL 16:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I, too, seem to be turning, if not into a king nut, at least into a anglophile late middle ages nut. At least I live in Northumbria, not some undiscovered soon to be colony across the atlantic :) There seems to be to be lots of info in Weir's book that could be decanted into various wiki articles; and yes, it's a shame about the lack of footnotes in her book. I hazard a guess that I'll go back through her book once I've finished it, and start making notes. I, too, was musing on whether there were any original texts online - well done on the PDF find; bad luck on the latin / scanned not OCRd problems. Trouble is, I now live in that 2% of the UK which does not have broadband (or, occasionally, running water) and so have much less time to play on the interweb than once I did. Suffice it to say that we should continue to add facts bit by bit & see what we come up with. Meanwhile quite what the magnates & others thought of homosexuality, and the sexuality of their kings, is a fascinating question. Someone must have covered it; let's hope they chip in sometime. Our homosexuality article has this to say at #Europe: "Throughout all of Europe, fierce conflicts, dating back to the early Middle Ages, raged between proponents and opponents of same sex love". I've left a note at Talk:Homosexuality on the off chance someone there has a clue. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Oh to live in northern England for a year! My daughter and I plan to walk the entire length of Hadrian's Wall in a couple years. Speaking of broadband, after 10 years of 56KB modems, but now switched to 8000k broadband, in the NORTHWEST USA, we were able to download a those 30 meg PDFs in less than a minute. Truly amazing for this kind of study and work! Over here in the primitive colonies, we no longer have to go to a university for this kind of research! Thanks for that info on the Wiki article on homosexuality. I mean what did those bigshoot aristocrats "really" think about those things? I mean, were they so dang powerful, arrogant and bullet-proof, (OK, English long bow arrow-proof) that they didn't even care about what others thought? Apparently, even a king like Edward II discovered, in the end, (no pun intended) that there were limits, in terms of acceptance by the magnates, to what even he, a king, could do. SimonATL 17:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I read the section in Weir's book this evening dealing with Margaret occupying, then losing, gaining & losing Dunstanburgh, Bamburgh, Norham, Alnwick, Warkworth ... all more or less my neck of the wood - the first one being a regularish cycling destination. Not that I want to rub it in or anything ;) I reckon Henry VI would have been well familiar with my route home as he tramped from one Northumbrian refuge to the next. So that's nice. And I have dialup! And that's nice too. But I suspect, sadly, that most of the primary sources listed in Weir'll not be avalable on the internet, which is a great pity. Maybe in ten years or so. --Tagishsimon (talk)

OK, OK, your beautiful northern England is rivalled only by green of the American North West and the local volcanos, Mt. Saint Helens, I can see, crowned with white snow and giving off steam as I watch it outside one office window, and Mt. Hood out the other window in Vancouver, WA - the "OTHER Vancouver" This is the view of Mt. St Helens from the shores of Vancouver Lake http://englishriverwebsite.com/LewisClarkColumbiaRiver/Images/vancouver_lake_mount_st_helens_2004.jpg and about 45 minutes from our offices, Mt. Hood from "Lost Lake." http://i1.trekearth.com/photos/1472/mthoodlostlakex800.jpg

Volcano schmalcano :) --Tagishsimon (talk)

Hi Tagishsimon. You were looking for some information about homosexuality during the Late Middle Ages. I am not an expert in that particular field, but perhaps the following might help a little bit :)

Apart from the interpretations of verses from the Old Testament (including the notorious Sodom exegesis) Christianity’s main theological argument against sexual relations between two men goes back to Paul’s Epistle to the Romans 1, 26 and 27 ("…change the natural use into that which is against nature"). By reference to Aristoltle the high and late mediaeval scholasticism understood nature to be an independent phenomenon which commits husband and wife to reproduce in order to contribute to the God-given process. So the mediaeval dichotomy naturaliter (according to nature) and contra naturam (against nature) doesn’t correspond to the modern dichotomy of gay and straight, i.e. no man was ever persecuted because he was a homosexual, but due to his acts aginst nature: Any extramarital sexual activity was considered a sin (peccatum contra naturam). As women were thought to be inferior and insatiably libidinous 1) a man was rather the victim of a seductress (see original sin) and 2) same-sex encounters between women were not defined as a crime, but rather seen as an expression of their inferiority. Thus Prostitution was widely tolerated, even (and especially) in Rome. Any other male form of nonprocreative sexuality was more problematic: According to Thomas Aquinas zoophilia (bestialitas), masturbation (immunditias) and sex between two men (peccatum sodomiticum) were severe crimes against nature, though generally the usage of peccatum sodomiticum could cover all varieties of "unnatural" sex. With the gradual reception of the Roman law and the Inquisition gaining power in 13th Century continental Europe (allowing torture since 1252) "sodomy" became a capital offence on principle again (as it was under Justinian I) and male "sodomites" were systematically persecuted ex officio by church or state. If found guilty, the poor sinner was exiled (mostly noblemen), bodily punished or burned at the stake in many (but by no means all) cases. In Venice a special collegium sodomitarum terrorised the male populace and thus the Signoria had a simple tool to tame the discontented ones. In Florence about 10,000 men were accused of sodomy from 1432 to 1503 and 2.000 were executed. It is needless to say that such accusations were often a very comfortable way to destroy someone’s reputation or even to get rid of unpleasant people (e.g. see Knights Templar). As the witchhunt was an existential menace for every woman the search for sodomites theoretically threatened every man’s life.

The case of Richard II seems problematic, but I am not at all familiar with the sources. However, though some of his behavior may unmask him as a homosexual in our eyes, we must not apply contemporary terms and ideas to historical societies (the concept of homosexuality originates in the 19th Century). The king’s intimacy with Robert de Vere is not necessarily an expression of "gay" love, but possibly a passionate form of friendship (amicitia) which was held in high esteem. Today’s avoidance of showing same-sex affection for a close friend is a modern reaction to the visible gay minority, because straight men want to distance themselves from gays for fear of being mistaken for gay. In contemporary homophobic societies (e.g. Islam, India) you can watch men walking hand in hand and being quite "touchy". No Western straight man would do that with his best buddy because such a display of affection is reserved for homosexuals. And as for his "artsy" ways, this could also be attributed to class distinction: the high nobility took pride in their highly refined way of life since this distinguished them from the lower ranks. So it is absolutely conceivable that his enemies launched sodomy rumors to sully his reputation.

I hope I could help out a bit. Teodorico 15:58, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The evidence for Richard's being a homosexual is slight at best. The only reference to it is from Walsingham, who can hardly be relied upon in his opinions of Richard. Let's not forget that Walsingham dedicated his Chronicle to Henry V, and a large part of what he was doing was justifying the Lancastrian occupation of the throne. In order to do that, he had to smear Richard as much as possible. Neither Walsingham nor Weir provide anything like proof. In fact, the fact that the charge was not made at the time, when Thomas of Woodstock (Gloucester) and Arundel were doing their best to strip Richard of all his power and friends suggests to me that there is nothing in it. The Appellants objected to the profligacy and influence of Richard's circle, not the fact that he might have been kissing them. --NathanielTapley 01:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I wish to add that Norman F. Cantor in "The Last Knight" (a study of John of Gaunt and his Age) states flatly that Richard II was homosexual and that his marriage to Anne of Bohemia 'probably' remained unconsummated. He refers to Richard (and Edward II) as being 'openly gay'. It is my impression in general that royalty in that era had as much difficulty in keeping their personal lives lives secret as film stars do in this age. Since, in addition, Richard was born to privilege, he may well have felt that he could do no wrong (as he seemed to feel in the political/government arena, therefore he may have made little effort to conceal his personal life. Cantor's purpose in discussing Richard's homosexuality is to illustrate his contention that the era that brought the beginnings of the Renaissance interest in the Classical Era, also brought a revulsion against those were 'different' - Jews, heretics and homosexuals, for instance. He contrasts the situation of Edward with that of William II (Rufus) who lived a couple of centuries earlier and made no bones about either his homsexuality or his atheism, and who did not suffer therefrom, in an age that was much less concerned with conformity. William's murder seems not to have been because of his sexual preference but politically motivated, possibly at the instigation of his brother who succeeded him as king. --24.214.77.226 23:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Personal attack removed. -- Vary | Talk 12:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC) Hasbro 09:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Just a little side note - It is generally considered that de Vere was not Richard's lover. Also he was exceptional promiscuous(with the ladies) and had a scandalous divorce and remarriage to a chambermaid of low standing. Not the actions of someone uninterested in women (although I will concede it is possible, though highly unlikely,, that he was bisexual) - SamF

Was Richard II militarily defeated in Ireland in 1399?

It seems his forces were on the way to victory over the Irish rebels when Richard II lost control of England.

Come on! Nobody has answers here?!

Richard was about to advance on the rebel Art McMurrough when he received news of York's surrender to Bolingbroke (McKisack (1959), p. 491.) Richard might have succeeded in defeating McMurrough, but it matters little. Military victory in Ireland was simple, but maintaining control was difficult (as the campaign of 1394-5 had shown), primarily because so few Englishmen wanted to settle permanently there, and those who did became absorbed into the Irish community. It was not until Henry VIII and even more Oliver Cromwell that Ireland was brought fully under English control. Lampman (talk) 17:59, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I made these three cuts

I did some routine copy-editing of the article; but I also made three cuts people may wish to discuss, change back, or whatever:

• "However, his tastes were before his time."

I didn't agree with that, having just read some of Froissart's Chronicles. But anyway, my point is that it's a value judgement.

• "Had this policy not been cut short by his usurpation, it is possible that Ireland might have been spared centuries of strife."

This is wild speculation. And it also ducks round the fact that he was usurped after his second, much less successful, visit to Ireland, not the first one mentioned (in rather idealistic terms) in this context.

• "After the death of his queen, Anne, in 1394, he became still more rigid. He commissioned the first royal portrait, a very solemn affair in which he looks downwards unsmiling."

In my opinion, cutting these sentences tightens the paragraph and removes the spurious linking of two uses of "downwards". But the real issue for me was that in the famous portrait of Richard at the top of the article he is neither looking downwards nor unduly solemn. However, intriguingly, there is to be found on the internet a portrait of Richard in which he is indeed looking downwards; to my eyes, this portrait is not contemporary — from Richard's crown and apparel it looks to me like a derivative of the famous portrait, which I'd always thought was the only one of Richard (not counting his depiction in the Wilton Diptych). If I'm right — and I may not be (please help) — then the conceit in this part of the article breaks down.--qp10qp 20:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Birth date of Richard's queen

Just noticed that there's a discrepancy; this page says 1387, her own article says 1389. I think 1389 is correct but I'm no historian. Can someone confirm this? 84.70.242.125 10:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

victim or villain

I'm writing a paper on whether or not Shakespeare's King Richard II was a victim or a villain. I can't find any information on this. But I'm leaning towards the idea that because of the stress and power he was given it caused him to be a victim of power itself. Was he, in fact a victim, or is he believed to be the villain of the story? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.185.89.60 (talk) 23:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC).

Possible survival in Scotland

I have just read one of Nigel Tranter's novel, "Lords of Misrule", which is concerned with the history of Scotland during the early years of the Stewart Dynasty. This one deals with the reigns of Robert II and Robert III. In it, a by-plot mentions a person who claimed to be Richard II of England in exile following his deposition, widely known as "the Mammet". In the novel, this claim is widely disbelieved, but accepted by Robert (III, I think), who protects him and keeps him in the Royal household.

Can anyone throw any more light on this episode? If it has some basis in history - and Nigel Tranter seems to be a careful historian in his backgrounds - then it should be in here.--APRCooper 16:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I have found this page (Islay Weblog) that give more details.--APRCooper 18:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Rumours persisted that Richard was alive, as was common with deposed and murdered kings. An impostor, Thomas Ward of Trumpington, claimed to be Richard II, and the Scots harboured him for years, obviously for political purposes (Saul (1997), p. 427.) These stories were not very believable, less so than those concerning Edward II, for instance. They circulated in popular belief, but among the informed classes they never took root, since Richard's body had in fact been paraded in London. I've given it a brief mention, but it deserves no more. Lampman (talk) 17:33, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Small concern

"However, Richard was more concerned with Gaunt's son and heir Henry Bolingbroke, whom he banished for ten years on a spurious pretext in 1399."

Is it not worth mentioning that Bolingbroke was an Appellant? This sentence makes it sound as if Richard had no reason for banishing him. Khyleth (talk) 04:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to make the connection clearer. Technically speaking, he was not banished in his capacity as an appellant - that is, it was not part of Richard's retaliatory actions against the appellants in 1397 - he was banished after a later episode. Henry played only a minor part in the actions of the appellants in 1387/8, Richard was probably more afraid of him as heir to Gaunt's enormous possessions. Lampman (talk) 20:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Anachronism

"by the time Richard finally arrived back on the mainland in Wales". That's using a contemporary term that refers to the relationship between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

194.46.181.184 (talk) 01:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Succession

Richard is also the last of the true kings of England. Yes, Richard was unpopular but the Mortimers were the next in line for the king, as they were the descendents of Lionel, the second son of Edward III through Phillipa, whereas Bolingbroke was the successor through the third son of Edward III through John of Gaunt.

The succession, had it proceeded without Bolingbroke's usurpation, would have gone to Edmund Mortimer, although he was just a child. Benkenobi18 (talk) 12:35, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Why was popular culture section moved?

Why was the section on popular culture moved to a separate article? The section is not enough by itself to portray a decent article and didn't clutter the original. Can this move be undone? Nengscoz416 (talk) 19:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

According to WP:IPC

"In popular culture" sections should be carefully maintained and contain sourced examples demonstrating a subject's cultural significance. Per Wikipedia's summary style, when sections grow excessively long they can be split into subarticles, but this should be done with caution.

In my opinion, only Shakespeare's play contributes significantly towards showing this "subject's cultural significance", and that play is treated in the article. The rest is just a list of obscure works, and who played Richard in various stagings of Shakespeare. For the moment the link to the subarticle works best. Lampman (talk) 20:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction with Henry IV of England

According to this article

In the King's absence, Bolingbroke, who was generally well-liked, was being urged to take the crown himself. It was at this time that he received some Byzantine emissaries who were supposed to be given 3,000 silver marks or £2,000 sterling.

Thus, the Byzantine visit happened before Richard's death in February 1400. However, according to Henry IV of England

Henry hosted the visit of Manuel II Palaiologos, the only Byzantine emperor ever to visit England, from December 1400 to January 1401

Top.Squark (talk) 18:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Two points, neither of which is a conclusive answer:

In the quote you've given, and in the article, the antecedant of "he" is Bolingbroke, as the sentences are structured; it may not be meant to be, but grammatically i think it has to be seen to be. That is also confusing, though, as Richard is still king in that paragraph, so it's not clear why Bolingbroke would be treating with the Byzantines.

It isn't clear that the dating in each article is correctly maintained, with that annoyance that February 1400 is sometimes after December 1400 and sometimes before it (sad, but true; i've seen both in this very Wikipedia); thus, if the articles are differently dated, there could be an overlap of time.

I know this isn't an answer, but at least a suggestion. Let's continue puzzling, Cheers, Lindsay 19:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

From what I've been able to gather, Manuel II Palaiologos spent the Christmas of 1400 in England,[1] while the Byzantine emissaries mentioned above visited court in 1402. We are in other words talking of two different episodes. In any case, both visits happened in Henry's reign, after Richard's death, so they have no relevance to this article. Lampman (talk) 20:00, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

"Gaunt"/Vandalism

Please, Ambrosius, educate yourself about the meaning of vandalism here at Wikipedia. It is uncivil to accuse editors making valid edits as engaging in vandalism, even if you happen to disagree with the edit in question.

Re Richard II, you are completely missing the point: even if all historians say nothing but Gaunt - which I think is not the case - that doesn't force WP to use Gaunt all the time. Some historians may use "Gaunt" for short but that is an anachronistic usage, mistakenly thinking that Gaunt is a surname and should be used just like, say, Blair. John of Gaunt didn't have a surname. There is no need to transport a modern practice (which is in itself ugly and demeaning) to medieval times.

The man's name is not Gaunt but "John of Gaunt" just as Richard II is not "of England". There is nothing wrong with my rectifying the usage of the name.

But again: even if you disagree with my reasoning, my edits are not vandalism but just plain normal content edits.

And as for edit warring: I am no more edit warring than you are, reverting my perfectly normal change. Please desist from that in the future. Str1977 ^(talk) 00:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Let's be clear on one thing: here on Wikipedia we do not deal with abstract concepts of what is "true" or "false", "right" or "wrong": we deal simply with verifiability. If external, reliable sources follow a practice, then that is the practice we should follow, no matter what you might feel in your heart to be right.

The practice of referring to John of Gaunt simply as "Gaunt" is followed by Saul, who wrote the authoritative biography on Richard II; Tuck, who wrote the contribution on Richard II in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography; and Harriss, who wrote the recent volume of Oxford History of England on the period. As well as many, many others. These are all quite clever men, who've studied for many years, I'm sure none of them are confused about the relation between medieval and modern naming practices. "Gaunt" is used for simplicity and variation, and therefore they don't use "Gaunt" "all the time", but alternate between "John of Gaunt", "Gaunt", and occasionally "Lancaster".

As for what constitutes vandalism (that is not, by the way, where WP:V leads), I'm not sure what to call it when someone repeatedly reverts well-sourced material based on what they believe to be right. It may or may not be vandalism, it's certainly bullheaded. Personally I'm not gonna put too much effort into this, as I believe there are more urgent issues with this article that need to be addressed. Lampman (talk) 19:17, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Depictions of Richard II

Following on from the conversation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Shakespeare#Depictions of Richard II of England, I think it would be unwise of me to edit this article myself while it's actually going through FAC. I wouldn't want to create instability on an article others have worked hard on, at a crucial moment. (On the other hand, if you think any of my material would help overcome any objections at the FAC, drop me a note and I will do what I can: but I warn you I'm having a busy week in the real world.) Here, anyway, are the sources regarding Shakespeare's play on screen that I promised to drop here:

• Douglas Brode "THE HOLLOW CROWN: Richard II, HenryIV, Parts I and II, Henry V" in "Shakespeare in the Movies: For the Silent Era to Today" (2000, Berkley Boulevard, ISBN 0425181766) pp.71-84
• Pamela Mason "Orson Welles and Filmed Shakespeare" in Russell Jackson (ed.) "The Cambidge Companion to Shakespeare on Film" (2000, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 0521639751) pp.183-198
• Luke McKernan and Olwen Terris "Richard II" in "Walking Shadows: Shakspeare in the National Film and Television Archive" (1994, British Film Institute, ISBN 0851704867) pp.132-135
• Charles R. Forker "Afterlife" in the introduction to "King Richard II" (2002, The Arden Shakespeare: Third Series, ISBN 1903436338) pp.90-111
• Emma Smith "Shakespeare Serialized: An Age of Kings" in Robert Shaugnessy (ed.) "The Cambridge Companion to Popular Culture" (2007, Cambridge University Press, ISBN 9780521605809) pp.134-149

AndyJones (talk) 06:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• PS I just searched this article for "Essex" and concluded you don't have anything on the Essex rebellion against Elizabeth, which would be another important thing to bring into any "depictions" section. AndyJones (talk) 07:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

That belongs under the play, or the the popular culture article. Johnbod (talk) 16:53, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

• I can only repeat my assertion, that these refs serve an important purpose, and that they should play an important part in the article titled "Richard II (play)". Lampman (talk) 01:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Ancestry

Ancestors of Richard II of England

16. Edward I Longshanks (=12)

8. Edward II of England

17. Eleanor of Castile

4. Edward III of England

18. Philip IV of France

9. Isabella of France

19. Joan I of Navarre

2. Edward, the Black Prince

20. John II, Count of Hainaut

10. William I, Count of Hainaut

21. Philippa of Luxembourg

5. Philippa of Hainault

22. Charles of Valois

11. Jeanne of Valois

23. Marguerite of Anjou and Maine

1. Richard II of England

24. Henry III of England

12. Edward I Longshanks

25. Eleanor of Provence

6. Edmund of Woodstock, 1st Earl of Kent

26. Philip III of France

13. Queen Marguerite

27. Maria of Brabant

3. Joan of Kent

28. Baldwin Wake, Lord of Bourne

14. John Wake, 1st Baron Wake of Liddell

29. Hawise/Margaret de Quincy

7. Margaret Wake, 3rd Baroness Wake of Liddell

15. Joan de Fiennes

-Royalist 11:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Pending changes

This article is one of a number (about 100) selected for the early stage of the trial of the Wikipedia:Pending Changes system on the English language Wikipedia. All the articles listed at Wikipedia:Pending changes/Queue are being considered for level 1 pending changes protection.

The following request appears on that page:

Comments on the suitability of theis page for "Penfding changes" would be appreciated.

Please update the Queue page as appropriate.

Note that I am not involved in this project any much more than any other editor, just posting these notes since it is quite a big change, potentially

Regards, Rich Farmbrough, 23:43, 16 June 2010 (UTC).

Richard's servant imprisoned by Henry IV for continuing to wear Richard's livery badge

Who was he? A foreigner I think. I had the reference but have lost it. Johnbod (talk) 04:52, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Not sure, but sounds right. Jmlk17 00:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there an error in the Early Life section?

I'm not an expert on this but I've been studying the life or Richard II and I think there may be a mistake. At the moment it reads:

"However, the king's councillors and friends, particularly Simon de Burley and Aubrey de Vere, increasingly gained control of royal affairs, and earned the mistrust of the Commons to the point where the councils were discontinued in 1380."

Everything I've come across says that Robert de Vere was a member of Richard's council. Apart from this reference I've not come across the name of Aubrey de Vere in relation to Richard's council. I've not checked the reference but it strikes me as a mistake.

Kotch5 (talk) 22:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

No, in this case it's Aubrey; I've checked it with a couple of sources to make sure. Lampman (talk) 14:41, 8 May 2012 (UTC)