Talk:Richard II of England/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Timeline

On 26 April, Mr Timeline (talk · contribs) added this timeline to the article. As this is a Featured Article, and about to go on the front page, I just removed it. I'm not opposed to the timeline as such, but do think it needs to be discussed on the talk page as it's a significant change and was not part of the article as promoted in 2008. Nev1 (talk) 21:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

'Personality disorders?'

Attributing 'personality disorders' to Richard II raises the question as to whether his particular brand of tyranny was significantly worse than more successful monarchs of the period, and therefore whether he is the victim of a very understandable, human but ultimately unacceptable after-the-fact partiality towards winners over losers?--194.83.172.121 (talk) 13:15, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

insanity versus Personality disorder

Regarding the line: "Though probably not insane, as earlier historians used to believe, he may have suffered from a personality disorder towards the end of his reign.", the qualifier "towards the end of his reign" cannot possibly be accurate.

I have not read any biographies of Richard II, so I'm not able to comment on the nature of his psychopathology, but, as a physician specializing in psychiatry, I can unequivocally state that no one develops a personality disorder late in life. By definition, a personality disorder is a pervasive relational disorder (a disordered way of relating to the world) that begins before adulthood, is manifested in several different areas of life, and generally persists well into late adulthood. The vast majority of people with personality disorders display signs throughout their adult lives, even though some symptoms may wax and wane throughout the life span.

quoting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personality_disorder

"The pattern must be stable and long-lasting, have started as early as at least adolescence or early adulthood."

If Richard II had a personality disorder, then he must have had it essentially his whole life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.116.204.19 (talk) 04:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Film

I wish there was mention of Richard II in film. According to his "cultural depictions" page, he's never been portrayed on film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.252.216.245 (talk) 00:48, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

comments

The section on Henry's invasion and Richard's deposition needs a good deal of revision. Below are a few statments which need revision, or removal by someone who has time.

Bolingbroke had originally just wanted his inheritance - This is a fairly large assumption. Also recent scholarly activity has suggested that Henry was not actually disinherited. For the precise sentence passed on Bollingbroke see 'Parliament Rolls of Medieval England, ed. C. Given-Wilson et al (Leicester , 2005), Parliament of September 1397, item 87)'

'Bolingbroke, who was generally well-liked, was being urged to take the crown himself' - This needs a reference. Was he really well liked? Think Thomas Mowbray may have said otherwise. Who was urging him to take the crown himself? Any evidence of Bollingbroke being 'urged' to take the crown was during Richard's apparent breif deposition in 1387, but due to Gloucester and Arundel disagrement, Richard was reinstated.

-'where crowds pelted him with rubbish' This needs a reference. I suspect it is Walsingham, who can hardly be trusted on such matters.

In The Plantagenets by Dan Jones it even states when the forces under Wat Tyler broke into the tower of London Henry was only survived by a servant hiding him in a cubboard which doesn't show him as being viewed favorably by most people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raifu (talk • contribs) 05:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

'Parliament then accepted Henry Bolingbroke (Henry IV) as the new king.' -Despite some efforts (See G.T. Lapsley, ‘Richard II’s Last Parliament’ EHR, (1938)), it has not been proven that such a convocation was in fact a parliament, stating it as a parliament is slightly misleading.

'land in Yorkshire with an army provided by the King of France to reclaim his father's lands' - This is complete nonsense. The king of france in no way supplied to army to Henry bollingbroke. Richard had only recently signed an agreement with Charles. Some support may have been provided by the king's uncles, Berry and Burgundy but this is speculative.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.0.172.32 (talk • contribs) February 22 2007.

Reformation

Given its importance in the development of the English Reformation, both this article and praemunire need to address this king's issuance of the 1392 Statute of Praemunire: what prompted it and what limits did it have prior to Henry VIII using it against the entire body of English clergy? — LlywelynII 13:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Edmund mortimer

It says Edmund Mortimer was the heir presumptive, this is incorrect. Edmund was married to Phillipa who was Lionel's daughter, therefore he would have any right to the throne. It also says Edmund was defended from Edwards iii son Lionel, this is another mistake, as I previously said he was only married to Lionel's daughter phillipa 2A02:C7D:5E29:7E00:D991:4196:768B:251A (talk) 20:11, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Robert de Vere

I just got done reading The Crucible trilogy written by Sara Douglass, (there is a lot of scence tweaked to suite her but...) there is a scence in the second book where Richard and De Vere fondle each other... So my question is was Richard heterosexual?

Alison Weir, in Lancaster & York - The War of the Roses says, of de Vere "there were strong indications that his relationship with Richard was of a homosexual nature" (and some contemporary quotes - "obscene"). We don't have good coverage of this in the article right nwo - indeed it points the other way by talking about his devotionto his first wife (which I don't dispute, but which tells perhaps halof the story. --Tagishsimon (talk)

The subject is an ongoing debate and will never be settled I'm afraid.

-- Signing old comments so they will archive. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:18, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Army?

Bolingbroke landed "with an army provided by the King of France to reclaim his father's lands"...

This seems somewhat misleading. The force with which Henry landed varies depending on the chronicle, however Nigel Saul (a man of superior knowledge in the subject than I) has accepted the figure is probably around 60. The army Henry fought with was largely provided by the earls of Northumberland and Westmorland (Percy and Neville)

Also

"Bolingbroke had originally just wanted his inheritance and a reimposition of the power of the Lords Appellant, accepting Richard's right to be king and March's right to succeed him. But by the time Richard finally arrived back on the mainland in Wales, a tide of discontent had swept England. "

this point is debated by scholars... some suggesting (plausibly) that power was Bolingbroke's aim all along. Also not sure about the Lords Appellant even if you do go with the argument, what with the 3 Appellant leaders dead (Gloucester, Arundel and Warwick)..

-- Signing old comments so they will archive. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:18, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Hawise de Quincy

There appears to have been an error linking an ancestor to the wrong article, so I removed it. Hawise de Quincy can not be the same person as Hawise of Chester, 1st Countess of Lincoln. Please comment here before reverting. Bearian (talk) 16:16, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120319150907/http://www.irishchancery.net/browse_CIRCLE.php to http://www.irishchancery.net/browse_CIRCLE.php

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) 04:41, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151106062324/http://standish.stanford.edu/bin/search/advanced/process%3Bjsessionid%3D59D8F43C7272104ED67F29E5CE1CF65C?sort=title&browse=1&clauseMapped(creatorBrowse)=Walsingham,+Thomas,+fl.+1360-1420. to http://standish.stanford.edu/bin/search/advanced/process%3Bjsessionid%3D59D8F43C7272104ED67F29E5CE1CF65C?sort=title&browse=1&clauseMapped%28creatorBrowse%29=Walsingham%2C+Thomas%2C+fl.+1360-1420.

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) 04:39, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to change reign dates

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_English_Royalty#Reign_dates Jhood1 (talk) 17:14, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Here are some sources for Richard II reign being (22 Jun 1377 - 29 Sep 1399):

• Handbook of British Chronology p.40 Ceased to reign 29 Sept
• Handbook of Dates (Cheney) p.35

Jhood1 (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

There are now three different dates given in the article. 29 September in the introduction, 30 September in the infobox and 1 October in the article body. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:11, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Religion

So I believe that we need to add King Richard II religion as Roman Catholicism in the description box. Several other kings contain the mention of religion in their description boxes. Considering the religious nature of Wilton Diptych I think it's necessary. Most importantly, I was interested, and when I could not find a mention of whether he was Catholic, I was disappointed. Why should we omit such a huge and interesting part of Richard's life. As I said, I felt disappointed when I could not find his religion. Thanks --76.64.129.14 (talk) 16:11, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

If you could not find his religion, how did you discover he was Catholic? Before you found this out, what religion did you think he was? Celia Homeford (talk) 16:16, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

From before the Norman Conquest until Henry VIII, all kings of England followed the church of Rome, although some had serious fall-outs with their contemporary popes. So Richard II's religion was not particularly notable. RGCorris (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Where can I find that information? Where can I find a reference to these kings being Catholic? --76.64.129.14 (talk) 17:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

If you had no citation, you should not have put it in the article. All information on wikipedia must be cited to reliable, secondary sources. Celia Homeford (talk) 08:25, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

English Reformation will give you the background to Henry VIII's split from Rome. However I doubt if there is an article or reference that specifically states that his predecessors followed the church of Rome, as at the time it was non-notable - pretty much every monarch in Western Europe did so. RGCorris (talk) 10:20, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The East–West Schism (1054) took place in the reign of Edward the Confessor (reign 1042-1066), previous monachs were still in communion with the Roman/Byzantine Church. Edward was crowned in Winchester Cathedral, and is mostly remembered for building an early version of Westminster Abbey. Very clearly a Christian. Among his predecessors:

• Harthacnut "played a leading role in the translation of the body of the martyr St Æelfheah from London to Canterbury, an occasion seen by Harthacnut's biographer, Ian Howard, as recognition of his position as Cnut's heir in England."
• Harold Harefoot was in political conflict with Æthelnoth, Archbishop of Canterbury, who refused to crown him as king. "The tale goes on that Harold failed to sway Æthelnoth, as both bribes and threats proved ineffectual. The despairing Harold reportedly rejected Christianity in protest. He refused to attend church services while uncrowned, preoccupying himself with hunting and trivial matters." He was initially buried in an early version of Westminster Abbey, but the corpse was later transferred to St Clement Danes. So, buried with Christian honors.
• Cnut the Great. "Harald Bluetooth, Gorm's son and Cnut's grandfather, was the Danish king at the time of the Christianization of Denmark; he became the first Scandinavian king to accept Christianity." Cnut was crowned King of England by "Lyfing, Archbishop of Canterbury, in London in 1017". Clearly a Christian in his own right.
• Edmund Ironside "was buried near his grandfather Edgar at Glastonbury Abbey in Somerset." So, buried with Christian rights.
• Æthelred the Unready's initial claim to the throne was supported by Bishop Æthelwold of Winchester, and opposed by Dunstan, the Archbishop of Canterbury and Oswald, the Archbishop of York. These two political opponents were forced to crown him, following the assassination of his half-brother Edward the Martyr. ... "Æthelred was buried in Old St Paul's Cathedral, London. " Clearly a Christian in his own right.
• Sweyn Forkbeard. "Sweyn's father, Harald Bluetooth, was the first of the reigning Scandinavian kings to be baptised, in the early or mid-960s. According to Adam of Bremen, Harald's son Sweyn was baptised "Otto" (in honour of German king Otto I)." ... "King Sweyn enlisted priests and bishops from England rather than from the Archbishopric of Bremen. This may have been a reason for Adam of Bremen's apparent hostility in his accounts. Numerous converted priests of Danish origin from the Danelaw lived in England, while Sweyn had few connections to Germany or its priests. By allowing English ecclesiastical influence in his kingdom, he was spurning the Hamburg-Bremen archbishop. Since German bishops were an integral part of the secular state, Sweyn's preference for the English church may have been a political move. He sought to pre-empt any threat against his independence posed by the German kings." A typical Christian monarch for his era.
• Edward the Martyr "was chosen as king and was crowned by his main clerical supporters, the archbishops Dunstan of Canterbury and Oswald of Worcester. The great nobles of the kingdom, ealdormen Ælfhere and Æthelwine, quarrelled, and civil war almost broke out. In the so-called anti-monastic reaction, the nobles took advantage of Edward's weakness to dispossess the Benedictine reformed monasteries of lands and other properties that King Edgar had granted to them. Edward's short reign was brought to an end by his murder at Corfe Castle in 978 in circumstances that are not altogether clear. His body was reburied with great ceremony at Shaftesbury Abbey early in 979. " So Edward was a Christian, and helped in the decline of the Benedictines during his reign.
• Edgar the Peaceful's "most trusted advisor was Dunstan, whom he recalled from exile and made Archbishop of Canterbury. The pinnacle of Edgar's reign was his coronation at Bath in 973, which was organised by Dunstan and forms the basis for the current coronation ceremony." ... "The Monastic Reform Movement that introduced the Benedictine Rule to England's monastic communities peaked during the era of Dunstan, Æthelwold, and Oswald (historians continue to debate the extent and significance of this movement)." ... Edgar was buried at Glastonbury Abbey. Christian king, known for particularly close relationship with the English church, and buried as a Christian.
• Eadwig was known for his disputes with "Archbishops Dunstan and Oda". "The contemporary record of the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle reports Eadwig's accession and Dunstan fleeing England, but does not explain why Dunstan fled. Thus this report of a feud between Eadwig and Dunstan could either have been based on a true incident of a political quarrel for power between a young king and powerful church officials who wished to control the king and who later spread this legend to blacken his reputation" "Eadwig died at a young age in 959, in circumstances which remain unknown, and was buried in the New Minster in Winchester." So buried with Christian rights, despite his quarrels with the Archbishops.
• Eadred "was consecrated by Archbishop Oda of Canterbury at Kingston upon Thames (Surrey, now Greater London)". ... "Eadred died at the age of 32 on 23 November (St. Clement's Day), 955, at Frome (Somerset), and was buried in the Old Minster at Winchester." So, buried as a Christian.
• Edmund I "was assassinated after six-and-a-half years as king, while attending Mass in Pucklechurch, Gloucestershire." So he lived and died as a Christian, assassinated within a church.
• Æthelstan "was one of the most pious West Saxon kings, and was known for collecting relics and founding churches. His household was the centre of English learning during his reign, and it laid the foundation for the Benedictine monastic reform later in the century." Very clearly a Christian.
• Ælfweard of Wessex "was buried at the New Minster, Winchester." So, buried as a Christian.
• Edward the Elder. "According to Asser in his Life of King Alfred, Edward and Ælfthryth were educated at court by male and female tutors, and read ecclesiastical and secular works in English, such as the Psalms and Old English poems. They were taught the courtly qualities of gentleness and humility, and Asser wrote that they were obedient to their father and friendly to visitors. This is the only known case of an Anglo-Saxon prince and princess receiving the same upbringing." ... "In 908, Plegmund conveyed the alms of the English king and people to the Pope, the first visit to Rome by an Archbishop of Canterbury for almost a century, and the journey may have been to seek papal approval for a proposed re-organisation of the West Saxon sees." Both a Christian and, unusualy, in contact with the bishop of Rome. Dimadick (talk) 13:15, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
• Alfred the Great started a program of religious revival in his kingdom. "This revival entailed the recruitment of clerical scholars from Mercia, Wales and abroad to enhance the tenor of the court and of the episcopacy; the establishment of a court school to educate his own children, the sons of his nobles, and intellectually promising boys of lesser birth; an attempt to require literacy in those who held offices of authority; a series of translations into the vernacular of Latin works the king deemed "most necessary for all men to know";} the compilation of a chronicle detailing the rise of Alfred's kingdom and house, with a genealogy that stretched back to Adam, thus giving the West Saxon kings a biblical ancestry. ... Very little is known of the church under Alfred. The Danish attacks had been particularly damaging to the monasteries. Although Alfred founded monasteries at Athelney and Shaftesbury, these were the first new monastic houses in Wessex since the beginning of the eighth century. According to Asser, Alfred enticed foreign monks to England for his monastery at Athelney as there was little interest for the locals to take up the monastic life." A Christian king, in a kingdom with a scarcity of monks. Dimadick (talk) 13:20, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Here is some information about Richard's religious convictions. Surtsicna (talk) 14:44, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Um, what's the point of all this? Celia Homeford (talk) 12:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Signature of Richard II

The signature has no citation. We don't know where it is from or if its even real. It should be removed unless it can be verified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SineofTan (talk • contribs) 01:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2022

Please add the category Category:Royal reburials. 67.173.23.66 (talk) 22:59, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:02, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Missing details

In the Deposition section, first paragraph, towards the end. These two lines:

He made his way to Conwy, where on 12 August he met with the Earl of Northumberland for negotiations. On 19 August, Richard surrendered to Henry Bolingbroke at Flint Castle, promising to abdicate if his life were spared.

Doesn't there seem to be a bit of big leap in the story here? If anyone has knowledge of these events, I think it would be a great improvement to detail how Richard came into the situation of surrendering to Bolingbroke. Uhtregorn (talk) 02:54, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Edward I of England which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 17:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Article is pro-monarchal and apologist in tone

For example, the article states that:

"A major challenge of the reign was the Peasants' Revolt in 1381, and the young king played a central part in the successful suppression of this crisis."

Characterizing Richard's actions as playing a central part in the "successful suppression of the crisis" is biased. Successful for whom? Certainly, it was successful for Richard, at least in the short term. It was not so successful for the peasants, or for the promotion of social equity or democracy generally.

Richard "successfully suppressed" the crisis through lies, deceit and brutality.

In general, Richard evinced a pathological attitude toward the peasants, otherwise known as his subjects. In the writings of Thomas Walsingham, Richard spoke of the peasants in the aftermath of the "crisis" as follows:

"Peasants you are, and peasants you will remain, in permanent bondage, not as you were before, but in an incomparably harsher state." (emphasis in bold and italics added).

The article also appears to incorrectly claim that Richard's objectionable behavior manifested at the end of his reign and minimizes his actions as possibly a later emerging "personality disorder."

His actions, even from his early teenage years, evinces psychopathology.

"Richard II appears to have been self-obsessed and aware only of his own needs and feelings. Any slight had to be avenged whilst the king's person sought constant praise, respect and even worship." (emphisis in bold and italics added)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/history/british/middle_ages/richardii_reign_01.shtml

Biolitblue (talk) 05:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm of two minds about this. Obviously, the form of society that Richard belonged to is in the dustbin of history where it belong—moreover, the tone of history is deeply important to what it teaches people about societies past and present. But with the specific examples you've given, I'm not sure what improvements are possible, or even needed?

Most of your examples are essentially very plain, material truths—seemingly their only flaw is not reflexively entering a parenthetical to tell the audience that the peasants were not doing well and that Richard was not on their side in all this. I don't think this is necessary or helpful.

Ultimately, this is a story of a man who was perceived a certain way at the time he was alive and for some time after, it seems a disservice to omit any tone that might make his actions and those of people around him make sense to us. History is challenging, a modern mind grappling with the worldview a majority used to have about the monarchy and class structure is a non-trivial exercise; trying to truly understand the subjectivity of figures is deeply difficult. (Unfortunately, of course, the most well-documented figures are almost exclusively the monarchs and ruling class, you won't catch me saying otherwise.)

But that's what makes a history worthwhile. If you just rinse and redress all the prose, then it will be impossible to learn anything or understand how human beings like ourselves got into a situation like this.

That's a bit of a ramble, but I hope it makes sense. If I've mischaracterized your proposal, please let me know, but I don't see what we're supposed to do other than give the reader significantly less credit for them to remember and contextualize the overarching themes in the story.
(Also, I almost forgot to mention—a major shift in tone requires a major shift in sources. I have no doubt that there are recent histories that take a tone you would prefer, but I hope you'd agree that it wouldn't be right to cite the existing sources as saying something they don't say, or totally gutting the bibliography to adopt what would be a very WP:recentist tone. That's another point, these qualms are very new, and when you focus on the very new, you're at risk of having the rug pulled out from underneath you as the bleeding edge moves on. I don't think historians will decide Richard was an angel again, but you get what I'm saying, I hope. You've been very broad in your criticism, so I'm very broad in my response. Remsense留 17:55, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I've also taken your banner off the article for now for the reasons stated. Strong claims require strong evidence, which you haven't provided yet, I'm afraid. Remsense留 18:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

"a modern mind grappling with the worldview a majority used to have about the monarchy" This would not be necessary. We have an entire List of peasant revolts, along with a listing of the recurring themes of these revolts. The peasants were protesting or rebelling due to:

• Tax resistance
• Social inequality
• Religious war
• Wars of national liberation
• Resistance against serfdom
• Demands for redistribution of land
• External factors such as plague and famine Dimadick (talk) 18:08, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
  • Dimadick, I was speaking more about the overarching, subjective metanarrative held by people, the divine right of kings and all that, which is very different and creates different tensions compared to how I presently see the world. This is, of course, central to the discussion as well. I'll try to be more clear in what exactly I'm talking about from here on, where we can hopefully drill down into specifics and cite sources. Remsense留 18:09, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Too many uses of names of towns to refer to people without links to the people

In the section marked 'second crisis', it is written that Richard II had "Gloucester, Arundel and Warwick" arrested. What - the whole towns? Well, no, but it's not explicit that this was not the case. As for 'Gloucester' I had to go way back in the article to find out who 'Gloucester' is: in the section 'Coming of Age' it is states that the unofficial leadership of growing dissent 'passed to Buckingham - who by now had been created Duke of Gloucester'

Oh, great, so Gloucester means Buckingham!

But I have to go even further back into the article to find out what 'Buckingham' means (and hence what 'Gloucester' means) : in the section 'Early Life" I find that 'Gaunt' [another town, but in this case *I* happen to know to whom this refers] had informal influence over government, together with 'Gaunt' 's brother Thomas of Woodstock, Duke of Gloucester.

So thus, it takes a lot of extra effort to find out who was arrested in 1397.

I therefore tried to improve the article by explicitly stating that the men arrested were the Earls of Arundel and Warwick, and the Duke of Gloucester, and noted the Duke of Gloucester's name 'Thomas of Woodstock'. I provided a link to the latter for the benefit of future readers who, like me, may have struggled to know who was arrested in 1397.

Immediately that I made this edit, my edit was reverted, with the notification that 'my edit does not improve the article'.

I contend that my edit DID indeed improve the article. I note that the article as it stands has many instances of the names of towns standing in for people, and this makes the sequence of events more difficult to understand than is necessary.

As such, I was surprised that this article has Featured Article status - it does not appear to me to be among the best written of Wikipedia articles. I wonder if the article would retain its Featured Article status, given the lack of clarity in the text, if its subject were not a king of England, and the pride of some editors in having Featured Article status for kings. Boleslaw (talk) 08:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

It is extremely typical to refer to figures of this period by their titles in this way: you are not the first to take issue with it, but it is not Wikipedia's problem to solve. It is generally good practice to reduce redundancy and repetition in such matters when writing at article-length: when done consistently, the natural impulse of the reader will be to trust that unexplained information had previously been properly introduced, so they can scroll up to locate it if need be. If information is repeated haphazardly, then there is not a clear indication of this and the narrative becomes less clear.

In any case, your latter remarks seem to be a non-sequitur—even if this were a structural problem with the article, it would not seem to amount to the general dismissal you make. Please do not cast aspersions against other editors like that; you're free to disagree with them or critique their work, but it is not conducive to collaboration to disparage their motivations. Remsense ‥ 论 08:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)