Talk:Richard I of England/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Popular Culture

This may fit more with the Final Fantasy VIII section, but I was wondering if Squall's last name Leonhart was a reference to King Richard I's title "Lion Heart", especially since Leo is the name for Leo the Lion, an astrological star sign and one of the songs in the game is "Maybe I'm a Lion."

I thought this or a Final Fantasy VIII-related page would need this reference.

- TetsujinSaiki (December 11, 2009) (6:33 PM) Central Time, U.S.

I really don't think it's worth including in this article, especially since it's just speculation and not significant. Even it could be proven, it's not something you'd find in a serious article on the subject but thanks for your interest. Nev1 (talk) 20:33, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, whether the speculation proves accurate or not, it belongs in the whatever-it-is page, and neither here, nor in the article on Richard the Lion-Hearted. Perhaps it belongs on a page devoted to *rumored trivia* about that "Fantasy" thing. Unfree (talk) 02:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Another thing: whoever put "an astrological star sign", probably because he forgot "zodiac", after "Leo the Lion", as if that *actually* meant it, rather than that it means *whatever it means* in the context in which it is used, is misleading and probably misled. Unfree (talk) 03:04, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

King of Cyprus?

Several sources claim that Richard was crowned King of Cyprus and that his wife was crowned Queen of England and Cyprus in the same ceremony. Yet this article claims that he was merely Lord of Cyprus and the List of English consorts claims that Berengaria was never crowned at all.

Some of the sources which claim that Richard was King of Cyprus or that he was crowned King of Cyprus after the marriage ceremony (presumably on the same day?) are:

• Richard I; by Jacob Abbott, 2009
• Lives of the queens of England, from the Norman conquest; by Agnes Strickland and Elizabeth Strickland, 1867
• Blood royal: issue of the kings and queens of medieval England, 1066-1399 : the Normans and Plantagenets; by Thelma Anna Leese, 1996
• Crowns and coronations: a history of regalia; by Thelma Anna Leese, 1902
• Burke's genealogical and heraldic history of peerage, baronetage and knightage; by John Burke, 1914

Surtsicna (talk) 10:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, Gillingham's Richard I says (p. 149) that Berengaria was crowned in Limassol, Cyrprus on the same day she was married. The coronation was performed by John, bishop of Evereux. Doesn't say anything about Richard being crowned king of Cyprus. I'd not trust the Burke or the Strickland, neither are exactly current. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Blood royal: issue of the kings and queens of medieval England, 1066-1399: the Normans and Plantagenets also mentions that Berengaria was crowned queen of Cyprus. If Berengaria was queen of Cyprus, isn't it safe to assume that Richard was king of Cyprus? Surtsicna (talk) 12:26, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

She was crowned quuen of England while they happened to be in Cyprus, which Richard happened to have accidentally conquered from its rebellious Byzantine lord. He never had any title on Cyprus; he sold the island to the Templars, who sold it to Guy of Lusignan, who ruled it as "lord". Guy's brother Amalric was eventually raised to king by the Holy Roman Emperor; that was the origin of the Emperor's claim to suzerainty over Cyrpus and Jerusalem. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

(By the way, Abbot's book is from 1901, not 2009. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC))

So, should we just ignore the books which claim that Berengaria was crowned "queen of England and Cyprus"? Regarding Abbot's book, the edition I found was published in 2009. Surtsicna (talk) 13:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Given that all the works which say this are apparently quite old, I'd say so. john k (talk) 13:37, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure what that reprint is from...I think it's an online thing, an old book is given a fancy new cover, I see it often on Google Books. It's strange...you can tell right away from the typeface and layout that it's actually very old. For the purposes of Wikipedia, yes, anything like that should be avoided. Someone somewhere along the line must have misinterpreted a primary source. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Who do you people think you are, making "decisions" like this? And what's all this talk suggesting not only that our times simply must the best of all times, but that the times closest to the events must be the least reliable, as if old were unacceptable and newly invented is best? What if somebody else had considered such a thing before? Evidently, once upon a time, somebody took such a decision, leaving the issue as perplexing as we now find it! Are we writing Disney cartoons here?! Unfree (talk) 02:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Modern academic opinion takes precedence as new facts come to light, changing analysis of history, old theories are weighed and evaluated, and older theories become outdated and from a distance obviously biased. Modern literature is inherently based on the old stuff, except that the crap gets weeded out. That's not to say that today's stuff is perfect. On the contrary, in 20 or 30 years there's plenty of stuff that will seem ridiculous, but for now the most up to date sources should obviously be used. That's not "our" decision, that's how the world works. If you were to write a serious reference piece without referencing the modern literature on the subject it would be worthless. Nev1 (talk) 03:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

May I recommend spell-checking to you? I'm using Firefox somehow, and all dubious spellings are underlined in red. What you're sure of can easily be added to the "dictionary" of perfectly acceptable spellings. Now, we were discussing what belongs in this encyclopedia called "Wikipedia", if I recall correctly, and you opened with "modern academic opinion", which you apparently hold in high regard. Don't you think that belongs in the article? The modern academic opinion itself? AND less modern academic opinion, AND modern, less academic opinion, AND less modern, less academic opinion, AND all that which is relevant to the subject of the article, and especially that which is not opinion? I think an encyclopedia should be encyclopedic, and well-written, and authoritative, thorough, valuable, and so on. We are not authors of interesting "theories" (As if "theory" simply meant "hunch"!), but reporters of genuine theories, wherever we find them, not just last Tuesday's, or last century's, or even those of the last two or three millennia, as long as they meet the standards for inclusion. I'm not worried about "weeding out". What worries me is "creeping in", of amateurish, unattributed notions from ignoramuses such as we are. Don't fool yourself, thinking you're the authority. You're not, unless so proven. (What's this "obviously biased" nonsense? It's illegitimate decision-making on somebody's part that's obvious! I can imagine you saying, "Obviously Shakespeare was wrong when he spelled "haw" with an a, we simply must correct it, because we know what is obvious to all, and isn't that really what matters?") Unfree (talk) 03:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Submitted for your consideration, with apologies to Rod Serling: What do you think of the modern (2005 printing of what has stood, apparently unchallenged since it's 1996 copyright date) book, Adventures in Reading, published by Holt, Reinhart, and Winston, Inc.? Do you find the "shard: a hard or brittle fragment--here, a bullet from the 'reeking tube' of a gun." convincing? Consider that the line including "shard" reads "In reeking tube and iron shard,". How authoritative is this modern academic opinion, never mentioned before, as far as I know, which is little, to be sure, but I suspect one who reads earlier books of literature will so discover. Was it written by a British veteran of the kind Kipling was writing about? It appears as a footnote, intended to explain what a "shard", obviously a piece of shrapnel, is, to people presumably less ignorant than experts of English literature who publish bestselling nationally-published textbooks to high school students. It is supposed to get them closer to the truth, but out of sheer lack of accuracy, not to mention footnotes in more authoritative textbooks from, say, Oxford or Cambridge Universities, who are probably still using textbooks from the Victorian Age, when the poem was written and any such veteran would have scoffed at the mistake. How did such a blatant error creep in? Here's a hunch, what might be called by careless, ignorant people a "theory", but is actually nothing of the sort. Somebody had an "Oh, I know what that must mean" moment, apparently a Holt, Reinhart... employee, chosen for his excellency in "lit", not soldiering, and didn't bother to find out what it actually did mean, which any schoolboy would have done, if worth his salt. But why seek the truth? Who cares if Holt et al. become a laughing-stock? It's only for kids, right? They don't have to be taught what a shard is, do they? Or what Kipling really meant, as opposed to what the expert divined. (I've hardly looked at the book, and stumbled upon this immediately.) Unfree (talk) 04:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

You must really enjoy the sound of your own typing. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'm sorry, that was uncalled for. But we don't have any idea what you're talking about. Do you have a specific complaint about the article? Adam Bishop (talk) 04:52, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The article is currently being rewritten with reference to eminent historians John Gillingham and Jean Flori, who are prominent and well respected within the field of medieval history. Reference is being made to what Richard's contemporaries thought of him, and later there'll be information on how Richard was seen by later generations, but all historians are biased, it's just that because we're so close to the modern crop that we can't really see what their biases are. For example, the interpretation of Richard's rule ha fluctuated massively; in the 19th century Richard was a hero of chivalry, but over time it became fashionable to portray him as a "bad king" because he spent so little time in Britain. Not all modern academic work is equal, and some old works stand the test of time; a good way to assess what sources should be used in an article is to read about the sources first (perhaps read a couple of books on the subject and see if the bibliography has any common names). An example of historians imposing their personal bias on their subject without realising it is in the area of castle studies: it really took off in the mid-20th century when the popular image of them as primarily military institutions emerged, yet today there is equal emphasis on their roles in society as symbols of power etc. This has been attributed to the original castle crop of castle historians being influenced by their military background; Allen Brown, who was writing in the 1950s and metaphorically and literally wrote the book on castles in England (Allen Brown's English Castles is referenced by almost every credible work on castles in England) was an officer in the Second World War and viewed castles as mainly military and did not look at their aspects of display. So in conclusion, you have nothing to worry about, the article is being improved with regard to the sources. Nev1 (talk) 11:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Oc e no

I have removed the following from the article:

Other nicknames are oc e no (yes and no in lange d'òc) because of his frequent changes of mood,<ref>Jean Flori, [http://books.google.fr/books?lr=lang_fr&id=mXVnAAAAMAAJ&dq=%22oc+e+no%22+Richard&q=%22oc+e+no%22+&pgis=1 ''Richard Coeur de Lion''], 1999, p. 49</ref>

I've got the English translation of Flori's work, and that's not what he says. On page 41 of Flori's Richard the Lionheart (1999), he says that the nickname "oc e no" was made up by Bertran de Born. He goes on to say that there's been a lot of speculation amongst historians as to what it could mean: some have taken it as proof of Richard's indecisiveness and that he was disloyal, while others have suggested it refers to his forcefulness (ie: decisiveness) and terse replies. Flori also notes that Bertran's other nicknames for Henry II's sons are equally inpenetrable and dismisses the importance of the name. To quote Flori, "Bertran de Born's nickname for Richard may well be highly subjective and lacking in any real basis". Richard was known as Lionheart because of his military reputation, and the Muslim names for him in the article are straightforward translations of "King Richard" or "King of England"; "oc e no" has no importance and does not appear to be a name he is well known by today, and perhaps wasn't at the time. As such, I don't think it's worth mentioning in the article (at the very least, certainly not the lead) as it's such a minor point. Nev1 (talk) 16:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Survey, Move, Lion-Hearted, etc.

I think that survey was just silly, and so is the issue of where the article is plunked down, considering that Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia, but something far greater, far lesser, or neither, but something new, which never existed before. The whole issue is nothing but what I consider a filename convention, of no more interest than what happens to be, not the contents of file number "so-and-so" but what's an attribute to be used as one trivial way, among a plethora of ways, mostly better ones, of locating it. Far more significant is our editorial opinion on whether the editorial "board" -- consisting of us, the editors -- agrees on using the traditional "Richard the Lion-Hearted", or putting out false information for all the world to see and make fun of. I, personally, side with publishing the truth. My name is Marshall Price, I live in Miami, FL, and I'm proud of standing up for accuracy above all. Unfree (talk) 02:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

So...what are you saying, exactly? Adam Bishop (talk) 02:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm saying that this encyclopedia-writing business ought to get down to business. The facts should be presented in the article and everything speculative must be strictly ruled out. Quote what's written, cite the citations, and to heck with this notion that we amateurs will get to "truth" by speculating about it. If you have information, it belongs in the article, and weeding through it is the job of the encyclopedia's readers. Can I say that more clearly? Yes. Stop interfering with serious people's rightful, soundly attributable authority, and just put what you've found in the article -- not on a talk page! Or, even more briefly: Report, don't opinionize! Thank you very much for asking, Adam. Unfree (talk) 03:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in the article and your opinion. Nev1 (talk) 03:24, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I thank you, Sir or Madame, but list, for there's more! For, you see, only minutes ago.. (Guess what I heard! I am eager to blurt it!), and it was Greer Garson herself, in the very person of "Mrs. Miniver" (she after whom that red, beautiful, beautiful rose, "Mrs. Miniver" was, and most pleasingly to her person it was, yclept, you'll recall!), who said it: "Richard, the Lion-Hearted"! Not, mind you, as "Lion Hearted", but brief and succinctly, a word quite, quite hyphenated! Clearly! And so, you see, it is hardly a thing, nevermore, for contention! I am so, so thrilled, to announce, this most brilliant, illumining news, which is great!, to all of our most helpful participants, and in the presence of all of our witnesses, here assembled! And you needn't, no none, Dearests, even thank me at all, so very, very pleased to contribute, this fact, am I, above all of you! Donations are not requested of you, no, not at all, but shall be most gratefully received, if we can find a door: thereat. I thank you, most sincerely. If this weren't so momentous an occasion, I should affix hereto, my customarily cute smiley, but you see, it is such, now, isn't it?! That most ultimate stamp of exalted Hollywood's approval, and the pronouncement of 1923's most ascertained consensus, upon the delicate matter at hand, now most evidently, and satisfactorily, settled, once and for all. I thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Unfree (talk) 05:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

And another thing. For those of you smiling, and you who applaud, I persist, never cease, to enthrall you. Far be it from me, you see, glad to delight, to abandon or fail to please, all you. For this rather peculiar, sweet lilt in my phrase, a delight to you all here before me, will never dissever the thrill, if you will, nor disclose, not a hint, that you bore me. For as long as you tolerate, tacit or not-ly, these quaint cogitations and wordings, I shall go on and go on, as long as we care, uh, wait a minute, uh, no, this isn't going to work at all, is it? Sorry. Unfree (talk) 05:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The "Quite-Suddenly-Flat-On-Your-Face" Fall. Unfree (talk) 06:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Prisoner in Dürnstein

i changed the link from Burg Dürnstein in Styria, to the town and castle of Dürnstein in Lower Austria, which is the correct one, as far as i know. 80.109.127.218 (talk) 23:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like you're right, thanks for fixing that. Nev1 (talk) 23:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Hoveden Material

This edit removed cited material from Hoveden. This might suggest a bias away from the possibility that there was a homosexual connection between Richard and Philip. I have re-instated the material for now. I think that it’s removal is controversial and should be discussed here so that a consensus can be arrived at. — SpikeToronto 21:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I agree with Mugginsx edit; as it was written, the quote was taken out of context. I'll sort out that section tomorrow by adding references and context, although I do recommend reverting to Mugginsx's edit. Nev1 (talk) 21:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Mugginsx' edit is good. Sorry, ST, we're not supposed to cite primary sources directly, per WP:NOR. Unless you (I mean "one") are a historian, you (again) don't have the skill to do it properly. It's perfectly obvious to me the passage may just be saying they were at that point very close friends (remember genderisation is very different back then), but that's just as irrelevant, as the only things we should be citing are reliable sources discussing the Hoveden passage. As far as we're concerned, the Hoveden passage doesn't exist until unless RSs discuss it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

It actually doesn’t matter to me one way or the other. Too often I see editors revert any suggestion that a historical figure may have had, or actually did have, a homosexual proclivity because of that wikieditor’s own beliefs vis-à-vis that subject area. Of course, I assume nothing but good faith with Mugginsx’ edit. But, given the controversial nature of the edit, and given that the material had been in the wikiarticle for some time (I think), I thought it best that it be discussed here first.

While am aware of the Wikipedia guidelines regarding primary sources, original research, and reliable sources, I was not aware that Hoveden was a primary source. Thus, my transgression, if any there was, is more a case of what we call in law, ingnorance of fact and not ignorance of the law: I had thought that Hoveden was himself a historian, a translation of which (by Riley) was used for this article. I thought this because many of the histories of the ancient world come to us via first-hand observers and raconteurs of oral traditions (e.g., Herodotus, etc.).

I truly look forward to Nev1’s re-write of the secton! In the meantime, I’ll revert my revert. — SpikeToronto 22:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

As I am Muggins, let me say that my reason for the edit of the mention of Richard and Philip's possible homosexuality or bisexuality based upon this historian's weak reference, was that, to my mind, His conclusion was highly, if not totally speculative and grasping. The sentence after that was of a historian who knew the middle ages and their times and customs. The incident recorded is hardly the first time two kings slept in the same bed from ancient history down through the late middle ages. I believe that anyone who has read substantial ancient or medieval, or more recent world history knows that for persons of the same sex to sleep in the same bed, whether it be two knights, two kings, two ladies or two peasants of either sex, was sometimes custom, sometimes necessity, or sometimes to signify to others close friendship. More often it was to protect from the cold and other elements, other times, simply because there was not enough blankets, straw, beds or heat source. But let us have a little more proof that one observation. In the time of Jesus, it is recorded that men (or women) of all classes sometimes kissed on the lips and/or held hands in public and slept together. In pre-Vietnam War Vietnam and other countries, before the Western Influence took hold, men were still holding hands and kissing on the lips. In that and other countries it was considered a greeting and show of affection and nothing more. Was their homosexuality in the time of Richard and Phillip? Of course, as well as throughout all history; but this is supposed to be somewhat of a historic article, and my opinion is that there is far too little evidence here in this instance for even the most imaginative minds. If it is your consensus that you want to keep the sentence in, so be it; but to anyone who has seriously studied world history down through the ages, this historian's one mention and his conclusion based upon that one mention will be found weak, wanting and grasping. It's really a silly statement for him to have made. Mugginsx (talk) 23:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I think Muggins that you are right, that in the 21st Century, we often suffer from presentism, interpreting past events through the prism of today. I see this more now than ever before, so your point is well taken. This is why I look forward to seeing what User:Nev1 proposes for the section.

Also, in case you missed it, with this edit, I put your edit back in. — SpikeToronto 00:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your support SpikeToronto. It is a great article and I think that all editors did a great job Hey does anyone agree with me that "The Devil is Loose" is one of the best quotes of all time? What a chilling message. Can you imagine how P--- Richard was and how scared John was. Phillip really knew how to play them both. This is why I love the Middle Ages! Mugginsx (talk) 01:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, the article is far from great and needs a lot of work. I have no more than a passing familiarity with Richardbut it's clear even to me that there are gaps. For example the most famous and advanced castle of its age, Château-Gaillard, was built by Richard and it was an important event and the only mention of it in the article is in an image caption. And easily the best quote is when Richard boasted that he could hold the walls of Château-Gaillard even if they were made of butter ;-) Nev1 (talk) 16:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like you could add alot to those particular areas. I, myself, never seriously studied Richard I, being more interested in William Mashal, Geoffroi de Charny and others. I see I have left a serious gap in my studies in that regard. Mugginsx (talk) 17:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

True Spirit of Wiki

Answer to Nev1 and all the editors: I never thought it was complete. That is the beauty of Wiki, a collaboration of people with perhaps limited information, coming together to make it more detailed. What I do NOT like, (my own opinion), is people coming in to say they will "rewrite the entire article" and let the other editors hope their little bit of information, for which they are proud of and worked hard for, survived. It is getting more and more prevalent and it is bullying, albiet skillful and tactful; but bullying nevertheless. If yours or mine or anyone else's information on Richard may be less than someone else, it is not any less important. As to styling, that is a matter of reason and taste. There is no secret to it. Anyone can do it. I realized I repeated this, almost exactly, under the Rewrite section since it seems to be where the opinion is asked for. Mugginsx (talk) — Preceding undated comment added at 17:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

In fairness, people who embark on total rewrites are usually doing so to improve the article. With some articles, the principle of collaboration doesn't work; this can be for a variety of reasons: not enough people interested, lots of people interested but no one with the sources, very few sources available, too much time and attention being spent on non-core parts of articles, that kind of stuff. Looking through the archives here for instance, a lot of time was spent discussing Richard's sexuality. The principle of collaboration is admirable, but sometimes it takes a bold action to make an article better.

People should be proud of their contributions, but realistic at the same time. Wikipedia strives to be sourced and verifiable, so if someone adds unsourced information it's likely to be removed. But even if an edit is sourced, that's no guarantee that it won't be changed; with thousands of people visiting this article everyday for instance, it's likely that someone will read a bit and think "I can say it better than that". Wikipedia's been around for nearly 10 years. It's unrealistic that any article will be the same in the next 10 years; that's not bullying. Over time, everything will be totally rewritten. Change is the true spirit of Wikipedia. Nev1 (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

What you are talking about is simple editing. I am talking about a total rewrite. To my mind they are totally different. If something is unsourced, they should be given a chance to insert it - then, if they don't or can't source it, of course it should be deleted. That is what I always thought the discussion page was for. If someone can write a sentence better or correct grammatical errors, again, go for it. It's the total rewrite, all at once, by one person, that I am talking about. Different altogether to my mind. What you say is true that after some period, almost every article will be rewritten; but it is the arbitrary act of "taking" over an article already well begun, that rubs me the wrong way. Mugginsx (talk) 20:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I suppose we differ in that respect. I for one have no qualms about someone making extensive changes to an article if it clearly needs them (there are very few that don't) and it's an obvious improvement. There's a saying that the camel is a horse designed by a committee. Sometimes there will be a better outcome if one person takes the initiative and others have their input. Then the changes should be discussed on the talk page, perhaps reverted if they're controversial, and then followed by fine tuning. Nev1 (talk) 21:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't want to beat this to death and I respect your opinion but wouldn't it be just as effective to do the changes gradually, even if it turns out that, in the end, that you have basically re-written the article. I cannot explain it further except there is something about the total revision annoucement (at the top of this page, for instance) that rubs me the wrong way. Perhaps it's just me. Mugginsx (talk) 08:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

There are extreme cases that support Muggins. For instance, I recall one wikiarticle where one of its editors insisted that no other wikieditor could make changes to the article without first running it by him. But, there are wikipolicies that are intended to deal with such behaviour, WP:OWN among others. That particular editor eventually ended up with a ban.

However, Muggins, the thread above to which you are referring, Total Re-write, I do not think was an instance of such behaviour. That thread ocurred almost 2½ years ago. This was the state of the article on the day that that thread was begun. If you review the history here, you will see that the editor who posted that thread never did the total re-write. S/he did particiapte in future editing, but the cut-and-paste of a total re-write never seemed to have occurred. That wikieditor’s next edit didn’t occur for another three months and subsequent edits seemed to be minor.

If you want to see a good example of a major re-write done collegially, look at T. E. Lawrence where one editor proposed a major re-write of a section and then posted his draft first in his own username space and then on the article’s talk page for comments from other editors. Eventually, it got cut-and-pasted into the main article where it is still undergoing fine-tuning. — SpikeToronto 06:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

You both bring up very good points and give me much to think about. Thanks. Mugginsx (talk) 10:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

A scholarly book on theories discussed here and my own observations

Would recommend "Inventing the Middle Ages" by Norman F. Cantor, to editors debating veracity of new sources over old and contemperaneous ones. This is not just particular to this article, and NOT an attack on any editor who subscribes to any particular point of view, but rather to the arrogance of many of the new historians in their belief that they are a better source than the contemporaneous chroniclers. While it is true that time and dates may be better known today, due to the lack of modern technology in the middle ages, (Florence notwithstanding his or her astrological observations); The actual content is, it seems to me, hard to misunderstand, once the language translation is made. Academics have never been accused of excessive humility, though in fairness, most of their pride is well deserved, but this seems to me to be their biggest boast yet. By the way, I think you are all doing a great job here. I wish I knew more on Richard 1, meanwhile, I am happy to read and learn about him here. Also, in my opinion, for what it is worth, you should all be congratulated on your courtesy to one another. I think this is a model for all discussion pages. (Is there a banner for that?) As an aside, I am writing this with a damaged shoulder and a damaged Dell keyboard. The latter not a good reference for DELL since it is only six months old. Regards to all! Can't wait to read more here about Richard 1 here! Mugginsx (talk) 21:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

I would like to set up automatic archiving for this talk page. There are discussion threads here that are years old.

I propose setting up the algorithm so that threads are archived once they are 45 or 60 days past their last comment. Before doing so, I would like to establish a consensus on whether 45 days or 60 is preferable. Thus, it would be greatly appreciated if contributors could !vote below. I’ll tally up the straw vote on March 23, 2010. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 05:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Note: I should note that this page was manually archived in January 2008. I would like to make that occur automatically (as stated above). Plus, I would add auto-indexing to the archives so that the various concepts contained therein are tracked in a sort of subject index. Of course, there would continue to be an archive search box for free-text searching. To see an example all of this in operation, go to Talk:T. E. Lawrence. An example of the archive index can be found at Talk:T. E. Lawrence/Archive index. Thanks! — SpikeToronto 17:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

---

• My !vote is for 60 days — SpikeToronto 05:22, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

60 days sounds reasonable to me. The talk page is fairly long and there's not much point in having stale threads from two years ago hanging round. Nev1 (talk) 17:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I've set up the archiving bot, it should get rid of threads older than 90; although 60 was agreed above, I thought we'd start with 90 and see if the page is still too long. An index should be created when User:HBC Archive Indexerbot runs at 23:23 UTC. Nev1 (talk) 12:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

You kind of jumped the gun, Nev1. I suggested in the opening to this thread to give people until March 23, 2010, to comment and to !vote. I kind of feel that a promise is a promise and that we should have waited until then, even though I predict that no one else would have commented between then and now. In any event, thanks for doing the yeoman’s job of setting up the works! — SpikeToronto 17:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

It's not controversial, plenty of pages have archives and use bots, but you're right I probably should have waited. I was archiving the page as it was too long anyway and it seemed like the right time to list the bot, sorry if I stepped on anyone's toes. On the upside, I doubt there'll be objections, but if there are I'll tidy up after myself. Nev1 (talk) 17:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I would have preferred 60 days. But, 90 does not seem to have left the page too long. If we find the page growing later we might trying reducing the algo parameter to old(60d). Thanks! — SpikeToronto 17:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Charroux Abbey

Richard's brain at Charroux abbey, what a laugh ! Another legend probably. Nortmannus (talk) 22:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, that does sound somewhat dubious. I don't have the books, but Richard's Oxford Dictionary of National Biography entry (written by Gillingham) doesn't mention it, and a quick Google books search doesn't turn up much. Nev1 (talk) 23:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

According to Flori, the body went to Fontevraud, the heart to Rouen, and the viscrea remained at Chalus, where he died.--Gautier lebon (talk) 13:14, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

With a page number, that would make a good addition to the article (the stuff about his body and Rouen is already there, but not the viscrea). Nev1 (talk) 15:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have added the detailed reference.--Gautier lebon (talk) 16:27, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Gautier must be right. That's what I read very often in different books : Richard's viscrea were probably buried in the castle chapel of Châlus-Chabrol : "he would have wanted it as a sign of dispise for the Limousin people" but I have doubts about this interpretation. It was necessary to take out the viscrea to conserve the body better in order to transport it to Fontevrault. Nortmannus (talk) 18:35, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it seems obvious to me that the viscera were removed in order to permit transport of the body.--Gautier lebon (talk) 09:51, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Infernal blood?

Dear All, I am a newbie contributor, so please forgive me and gently guide me if I violate some wikipedia etiquette/policy. This article actually inspired me to finally join, but, by way of introduction, I am a professional scientist and only a hobby history buff (mostly pan-Germanic middle-ages stuff). Here is what caught my eye. There is a mention that some legends hold that Richard I was a possible descendant of the devil, and from what I can tell this sort of pseudohistory has no place in this article. I would agree if such a legend were held in the time of Richard I himself, but it appears not to be the case and had no bearing on his life, nor has it yet shaped any historical perception of him (and I don't think that is our goal here either). It seems that all of this sort of talk descends from a 1982 book The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail whose pseudohistorical content (it pretends to be verifiable fact) forms the base of the contemporary popular fiction series that includes The DaVinci Code. How the devil (as opposed to Jesus) got mixed up in all this is beyond me, because I haven't read either book, admittedly. To fill in those that might be in the dark, one of the most ancient post-Roman ruling houses in European history was the Merovingian dynasty of the Salian Frankish Kingdom (kingdoms, depending on how you look at it). The Merovingians were usurped by the Carolingians (Charlemagne and company), but of course the Merovingian blood is well integrated into all the present-day ruling houses and aristocracy (though the exact lineages can be disputed), and Richard I apparently had some Merovingian ancestry. The The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail contends that the Merovingian dynasty can be traced directly to the children of Jesus Christ and Mary Magdalene who apparently fled to France, but there is simply no evidence for this and likely never will be. By the way, the words "infernal blood" were used so casually that I thought they must be some entrenched academic term, but a raw google search turns up only rock bands and some pop fiction. If this concept is in fact older and more grounded, those words absolutely must be referenced.

The discussion about rewrites is also interesting. I love wikipedia and want to help it in my own way. There is so much completely wrong stuff on various advanced physics topics, making it overly mystical, or sometimes just hopelessly disorganized so that no outsider/beginner could ever get anything useful from it. I'm not sure when I might get time, but I was thinking some articles just need to be rewritten (I'll gain practice by filling gaps first, until I get how this all works as a social backend). Can anyone direct me to a more general discussion of this topic? It seems like this must come up a lot and that there ought to be well-defined policies and well-known etiquette. Pages need to be stable, but they also need to be right. Ego should always take a back seat, but how do you know when? It goes both way; you have to be willing to see your article taken down for the greater good, but on the other hand, you can't go around thinking your writing is so good you can just tear down everyone else's pages and give us all your spin/prioritization all the time. There must be arbitration policies, but how to those policies include review of technical/factual content by people who should know? QuantumOfHistory (talk) 09:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, I hope you enjoy editing. I'll post some useful links on your talk page rather than here. There is a bewildering array of policies, but you seem to have plenty of common sense which is the most important thing for getting on here. Getting hang of all the code can be tricky, but looking at good articles is helpful, and of course learning through doing.

As for the "infernal blood", that is taken from a source. The first section or so is based mostly on the works of Jean Flori and John Gillingham. Flori is a leading medieval historian, and Gillingham is an authority on Richard. I doubt they'd be taken in by populist history, especially as Gillingham challenges the modern view of Richard as a "bad" king. I'm not sure if infernal blood was the term used in the book, I would have to double check. As to the relevance, I think it lends colour to the article and makes it interesting. It was a legend about the Angevins and may well have affected how Richard's contemporaries viewed him. Nev1 (talk) 14:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

In short, thanks! Both for clearing up the question at hand and the welcome (and now I know what the "talk" link does). As for the subject of infernal blood, it would be really interesting if someone who knows would write even just a stub on the subject of this Angevin infernal blood legend. At the very least, it would provide some accurate info on an interesting but apparently obscure topic, much more interesting to me than death metal, well, now that I am older (puts an extra flavor into the way religion weaves into the middle ages that is very different from all the other flavors). QuantumOfHistory (talk) 21:01, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

We have an article about Melusine, from whom the Angevins were supposed to have been descended (although the article is not that great at the moment). Adam Bishop (talk) 22:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I've found a good explanation of all this in Flori's book. I will add a suitable citation.--Gautier lebon (talk) 15:08, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Reducing vandalism

I have noticed that this article reguarly gets vandalized. I was just looking at a page on a completely different topic and learned that it is "semi-protected" which means that only established users can edit it. Anonymous IP users cannot edit. Should we put this page in the same semi-protected status? If so, who can do it? I presume special priviliges are required?--Gautier lebon (talk) 06:38, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protection means that unregistered users and new accounts (ie: a few days old) are unable to edit the article. It would pretty much the vandalism to a stop. If people here think it's worthwhile, I'd be happy to make a request at the appropriate place. Nev1 (talk) 12:18, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I do. Just do it.

Dear Nev1: considering the latest vandalism, I would encourage you to make the request. Apparently you should specify a time period for the semi-protection. Would 30 days seem appropriate?--Gautier lebon (talk) 09:55, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Personally, i disagree. I believe that protection, semi- or otherwise, creates a barrier to idea of "anybody can edit", a barrier which may intimidate or put off potentially useful future editors. In mine opinion it is worth watching and reverting vandalism, which i and many others do, to stay open and welcoming. I would not recommend requesting it. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 10:33, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

I also don't think this is really a problem. Very few of the latest 50 edits have been vandalism; if the page was being attacked dozens of times a day, then protection would be useful, but in this case we can handle it ourselves. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, I yield to your greater experience and withdraw my suggestion.--Gautier lebon (talk) 13:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Sexuality

The article now has a section on Richard's sexuality. A quick glance through the archives shows that this has been a bone of contention before, so the approach towards the subject needs to be discussed. Given that a significant amount of literature has been devoted to speculation on Richard's sexuality, it's only right to discuss the matter in the article, but I am unsure how. Is a separate section giving it too much weight? Could it be better addressed in an integrated way, or are the particular incidents too far apart chronologically? Events such as Richard sharing a bed with Philip may be unusual to the modern mind, so needs explaining immediately; with a separate section for sexuality this may lead to repetition and retreading of ground. However, the approach that Flori takes in Richard the Lionheart: Knight and King is to have a distinct chapter on it. I think this is probably the best model to follow. I had hoped that the article would be more developed before this issue arose so I'd have a better idea of how the literature approached this, regardless I think it needs to be decided how much should be said on the matter. Is the current section enough? I think it's a good start, but also that some of the most important evidence that has provoked the speculation in the first place should be laid out with explanations of how scholars have approached it. However, this may lead to a rather bloated section. From what I remember of Flori's book, he does not present his discussion on Richard's sexuality as definitive, more a summary of what has gone before with his own spin, but his conclusion that Richard may have been bisexual sits in the middle ground between the revisionists and the reactionary Gillingham who outright rejects the possibility. I think Flori is a good source to work from in this instance, and perhaps the section could be rounded off with a comment that it is mostly speculation and there is little certainty involved. The books I had for this article (the English version of Flori and Gillingham's 1999 book) were recalled by the library a while ago so I may be misremembering things. Unfortunately, as this is a time when students are desperately trying to finish dissertations I am loathe to call them back in case they're needed for something important. Nev1 (talk) 12:50, 12 March 2010 (UTC)'

Indeed, there has been a lot of previous discussion on this topic. If you look in the archives, you will see that I added a post proposing a new section. There was no reaction, so I went ahead. SpikeToronto had a good comment on improving the citations, so I took care of that. Here are my more specific responses to your post:

• I concurr with Flori's approach: a separate section is better, because this is a specialized and sensitive topic, and the casual reader should not be hammered with it if he or she doesn't care about it.
• Flori's treatment is very exhaustive: 15 pages. He reviews all relevant contemporanous accounts, the way that they have been interpreted in the past, and his interpretation. Of course he is cautious and avoides being definitive, but his work seems pretty solid to me. In particular, the public confessions are hard to discard. Gillingham takes the view that the sins referred to in the confessions need not have been sodomy in the literal sense, but Flori convincingly (at least for me) argues otherwise. Flori mentions bisexuality because, according to contemporaneous accounts, Richard did have relations with women, including in forms akin to rape. But I have no objection to your adding some caveats, if you wish.
• Regarding going into more detail, in particular the stories of sharing the same bed with Philip, I think that that would be overkill. We give the references, anybody who wants the gory details can easily read Flori. I don't think that this is a key feature of Richard, but it did disturb me that it was not mentioned at all. I have no objections to a more detailed account, and would be willing to contribute to it (since I have a copy of Flori's book (in the French original), but I won't do that unless there is a consensus to expand the section.--Gautier lebon (talk) 14:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the best approach is as Nev 1 has suggested: i.e., to have a distinct chapter on it. I think this is probably the best model to follow. Nev1 has certainly done his "due diligence" on the subject, having read extensively the various sources. The other editors, Spike and other have done so as well and are all to be commended. For what it is worth, I do think that Richard I, was at the very least, bixsexual, and, considering the treatment of his Queen, and the fact that we see no reports of his sexual exploits with woman as we do with his father or brother, he was probably homosexual. Taking all of this into consideration, and as it does seem to touch on his history, I do think it deserves mention in the way and manner Nev1 suggests. Mugginsx (talk) 16:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I think that a separate section is very much called for. My primary reason for this is cognitive, how one goes about acquiring knowledge. I think that many a secondary school student, especially ones interested in the sexuality of historical figures, do not have the patience (read, attention span) to wade through a lengthy article to find what they want. Hiving Richard’s sexuality off to a separate section allows Wikipedians to click directly to it from the table of contents. Also, I think that it is a significant enough aspect of Richard’s history that it deserves the greater detail that separate treatment would permit it. For instance, anyone coming to this article from a recent viewing of say, The Lion in Winter, would appreciate the quick and easy access and clarification provided by a separate section. However, I agree with Nev1 that there are instances elsewhere in the wikiarticle text where the issue will also need to be dealt with, such as Richard sharing a bed with a young Timothy Dalton … er … Philip of France. (By the way Muggins, my contribution to this article has been little to none and so does not merit specific mention as above; but, thanks anyway.) — SpikeToronto 17:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Certainly Nev1 did a tremendous amount of work on this article as did other editors, but my personal opinion is that all the work is important, whether the edits are technical or historical, or a mixture of both, and when it works, its like a beautiful piece of tapestry. And, like tapestry, every stitch is important, because without it the final work is visably flawed. I congratulate ALL of the editors for their hard work! Mugginsx (talk) 23:35, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it's okay to have a section like this - that's probably what a large number of people are looking for, and what better place to discuss it than Wikipedia? I just think it's worded strangely right now...first no one, then everyone, oh except Gillingham. Well, what changed? What do the actual sources say? Why caused Richard's confessions? The paragraph is currently very vague about this. And do we need to say that Gillingham and Flori are "equally reputable"? Adam Bishop (talk) 23:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

According to Flori, "what changed" was greater social acceptance of homosexuality, as compared to the Victorian age. The actual sources, as cited by Flori, say that Richard shared a bed with Philip, but, according to both Flori and Gillingham, that means nothing, because it was a common practice in the Middle Ages and did not imply sex. The sources also clearly say that Richard publicly confessed to a serious sin. According to everybody except Gillingham, that could only refer to sodomy, because of the actual wording of the confession. Who knows what caused the confessions, but real contrition is a likely explanation. I put in that Flori is equally reputable because anglophones might know that Gillingham is a very serious scholar, but not know that Flori (who writes in French) is at the same level. But I don't insist on that bit.--Gautier lebon (talk) 09:34, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

How about prefacing the first mention of Flori’s name in the section with something like, “Noted French scholar, Flori … ”? Or would the use of the word noted be either puffery or peacock? Thanks! — SpikeToronto 19:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The first time Flori is mentioned in the article, he is described as "an historian who specialises in the medieval period". This is because we should assume that someone coming to the article is someone interested in the subject, but who may not have more than a basic understanding of it. Unfortunately, I neglected to explain who Gillingham was when he was first mentioned. I'm usually against repetition, but as the sexuality section will likely gain a lot of attention, perhaps without people reading the rest of the article, I think it's necessary to explain who Flori and Gillingham are. As a result of editing Wikipedia, I dislike the word "notable" and it's variations; simply stating that someone is an expert or specialist is sufficient and sounds much more authoritative. Nev1 (talk) 01:50, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I think Nev1’s hit the nail on the head! We should operate on the assumption that the person reading the sexuality section may not read any other part of the article. (Thanks also for the clarification re: notable.) — SpikeToronto 04:36, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the recent anoymous edits to the Sexuality section. The new material is unreferenced. Could Nev1 or one of the other main editors have a look and, if appropriate, revert back to the previous version?--Gautier lebon (talk) 12:18, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Good catch. I've removed the stuff as it was poorly sourced. Some information on the historiography of Richard and how different interpretations have been applies at different times might be useful, but the Radio Times isn't a good source, even if it did have an interview with Gillingham. Nev1 (talk) 12:47, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Is the suggestion here that Radio Times does not correctly quote its interview subjects? Of course, Radio Times is not a reliable source in and of itself on the topic of Richard I. But, Gillingham is. So, if Gillingham is quoted as saying something relevant to this article in the interview, and we have no reason to doubt the veracity of Radio Times in accurately and correctly quoting its interview subjects, then Gillingham’s comments contained therein can be safely used in wikiarticles, where appropriate. — SpikeToronto 03:56, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

I have never been involved in the editing of wikipedia articles before, but I am considering getting involved now because of this new stub to the Richard the Lionheart article. I am a graduate student in medieval history, and I have spent a great deal of time studying the life of Richard the Lionheart. I can tell you right now the idea that he was a homosexual is absurd modern nonsense. There is no evidence in the medieval sources to indicate such a thing. Gillingham, who I have met several times, knows more about this man than probably any living human being, and his analysis of the issue is without flaw. -perhaps soon to be wikipedia contributer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.251.180.50 (talk) 04:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

As the article states, this is indeed Gillingham's view, but he is in a minority. Flori (cited in the article) discusses Gillingham's arguments in great detail and refutes them. Flori is one of the leading French historians of this period, and it is his view that Gillingham's analysis is flawed. Since the article reports both views, and gives references to both views, I don't think that any change would be justified.--Gautier lebon (talk) 15:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

A couple of things to note here. First, the concept (as opposed to the fact) of homosexuality has only existed since the end of the nineteenth century. Homosexuality would, before then, be culturally absurd. It was acknowledged that many married and single men engaged in sexuality activity with other men. But this was called sodomy, and the idea that a man could, by nature, be attracted to another man was not considered. So looking back from our time, speculating about the homosexuality of a historical personage is unhelpful. Secondly, same-sex sexuality activity is not, in itself, evidence of what we now call homosexuality or bisexuality. Heterosexual men may engage in sexual activity with other males in situations where women may not be present (eg, prisons, armed services) for a limited period, and otherwise be attracted only to women. So it would not have been unusual for great men, kings even, to request the 'services' of men while on campaign, for instance. We can certainly note the controversy about Richard's sexuality, as long as we aware that it is pure speculation.Gazzster (talk) 04:35, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a very good point. If you can find some citations to the fact that the concept of homosexuality (as opposed to same-gender sodomy) is recent, we could add that to the article. As you say, it was probably pretty common in armies of the time (as it was in navies in the 18th and 19th century) so what may be remarkable is that Richard publicly confessed. But I'm not aware of any citations indicating that sodomy was common in the armies of the time, so I don't see how we can include that in the article, unless you can provide the citations.--Gautier lebon (talk) 15:16, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting we include what I've said in the article. Only that, in context, the issue has no importance, and the section about Richard's sexuality should reflect that. As for the frequency of sodomy, it has been common enough throughout history.Gazzster (talk) 21:50, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I would agree to add something to that effect, but you will need a citation before you can do that. What is there now comes from the citations. Unfortunately they don't make the point that you make, which seems very valid to me. But we cannot include in Wikipedia material that is not supported by a citation, so maybe you can find a suitable citation?--Gautier lebon (talk) 10:56, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I remembered that I have a good book on the history of sex, 'Sex in History' by Reay Tannahill (1980). It does include material on homosexuality through the ages. On page 159, she says that from the sixth to the early eleventh centuries, homosexuality was no worse than contraception. Then it started to be stigmatized and was increasingly harshly repressed. But I'm not sure that we can integrate anything like that into the article. Since the article faithfully summarizes what is in the sources, it might be better not to change it.--Gautier lebon (talk) 13:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I’ve watched the additions and subtractions to the Sexuality section over the past few months, and read the justifications here with interest. If i may throw in a couple of cents’ worth...i quite understand why a couple of IPs have modified the text recently, to be corrected with reference to following the cite (the text should match the citation -> please do not change this again): I don’t currently have access to the reference, so i can’t verify what it says, but what is being reported as its contents is not quite the same as what is written in the section. To be exact, Flori is cited as a reference to prove that (all) contemporary historians reckon Richard was homosexual. Immediately following that is a sentence fragment about a contemporary historian who completely denies that perspective. Then is are a few words about Richard’s obvious relations with women, and finally Flori is said to have deduced that Richard was bisexual. Clearly there is some ambiguity, some confusion, in the writing of this section, as well as disagreement among historians ~ including within Flori's own writing. Perhaps we can allow that ambiguity to be allowed to show instead of insisting that (all) “contemporary historians quite generally accept that Richard was homosexual” period. D’you see? Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 16:59, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Let's cite a broader range of opinions. What we're doing now is allowing Flori to reference himself in stating that contemporary historians agree about Richard's sexuality. How many historians are there with an opinion on it? We're relying on Flori to know them all.The reference to Gillingham is ambiguous. Does it mean that he disagrees with Flori that contemporary historians say Richard was homosexual/bisexual, or that he (Gillingham) himself disagrees?Gazzster (talk) 22:54, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Flori does not say that all contemporary historians say that Richard was homosexual. What Flori says is (my translation) "This [Richard's homosexuality] is however quite generally accepted at present by contemporary historians, in line with fashion" (the French original is "Celle-ci est pourtant assez généralement acceptée aujourd'hui par les historiens contemporains, la mode aidant"). Flori provides a footnote for this statement, with references to several authors. Since this article very carefully documents its sources, with citations to specific pages, it still seems to that the text in the article should correspond to the citation. Gillingham says that the other historians are wrong, Flori disagrees with Gillingham. Your are correct to note that the text was ambigous, I have now corrected it.--Gautier lebon (talk) 12:28, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I think, however, i may not have been clear enough in what i meant. What if the text were to read something like this?

Before 1948, no historian appears to have clearly affirmed that Richard was homosexual. Jean Flori, however, has analysed contemporary historians, and reports that quite generally they accept that Richard was homosexual. There are those who disagree, though, as Richard's homosexuality was disputed by historian John Gillingham. Flori analyses the available contemporaneous evidence in great detail, and concludes that Richard's two public confessions and penitences (in 1191 and 1195) must have referred to the sin of sodomy. There are contemporaneous accounts of Richard's relations with women, and Richard acknowledged one illegitimate son, Philip of Cognac. Flori thus concludes that Richard was probably bisexual. Flori thus disagrees with Gillingham, although he does agree with Gillingham that the contemporaneous accounts do not support the allegation that Richard had a homosexual relationship with King Philip Augustus.

The point i was trying to make was that the writing seemed clumsy in stating that contemporary historians reckon he was homosexual immediately followed by pointing out one who didn't. Clearer? Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 12:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is much clearer. I will edit as you propose. Thank you.--Gautier lebon (talk) 13:08, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks good , thanks. This is the best of WP ~ collegiality, friendliness, and making the whole thing as strong as possible. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 13:47, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, very well done!Gazzster (talk) 23:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Yet Another Article On England Corrupted By Ideological/Nationalist Imbalance

This is just like the Battle Of Agincourt article, along comes some editor and gives great weight to one point of view (ie some French historian suggests one of England's greatest champions was gay as well as another editor (French) denying their own historical records on the numbers at Agincourt to suit their contemporary world view) while the majority academic view is reduced to what seems insignificance. The whole homosexual black propaganda was created by Richard's enemies when he and the King Of France slept in the same bed to display filial friendship between France & England. To promote one of Flori's views over the entire width and breadth of Crusade historians seems somewhat grasping and need's addressing. How is it that one historians pov gets so much coverage in the article? It suggests imbalance. And where is the section On King Phillip II's sexuality? It was his idea to share the bed.

See: Lionhearts: Richard I, Saladin, and the Era of the Third Crusade by Geoffrey Regan and The New Knighthood: A History of the Order of the Temple by Malcolm Barber BOTH contemporary historians (well after '45) and neither suggest Richard enjoyed musical theatre, so PLEASE put the whole gay nonsense into perspective, yes mention that his enemies tried to demonize him by suggesting homosexuality but offer some more balance.Twobells (talk) 21:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Slow down, that's quite a number of assumptions you've made there. First of all, what evidence do you have the the editor who added Flori is French? The version they used is in French, but there are plenty of people not from France who can speak the language. Ascribing an ulterior motive to any editor without evidence is a bad idea, and something you should certainly reconsider. Flori is a well respected medieval historian, and claiming otherwise is a dead end. The article does need more sources, Gillingham in particular and I think Turner's book looks well worth investigating, something I intend to do. The issue of Richard's sexuality is a thorny subject, even amongst academics. But I believe the article deals with the subject in a sombre, unsensational way. Flori actually does a good job of summarising the opposing views and striking a middle ground between the hardline positions. Exactly what about that do you find objectionable? Also, is that the only bit you have a problem with, because that's all you've mentioned. Nev1 (talk) 21:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I was born in Italy of an American father and Italian mother. I have lived extensive periods in the USA (East and West coasts), Italy, and Switzerland. My mother tongues are Italian and English. I am fluent in French and chose to use the original French version of Flory's work. I am a citizen of the US, Italy, and Switerland. So I am in no way French. Flory extensively discusses Gillingham's analysis and refutes it, in my opinion convincigly.--Gautier lebon (talk) 09:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify: your only gripe is that the article currently says historians disagree about Richard's sexuality, and that the truth probably lies in the middle ground? Nev1 (talk) 21:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Slow, what do you mean? There are not any assumptions made just facts, check the Agincourt entry. It lays out the entire sad and sorry mess. And it seems from the 'sexuality' entry that the same thing is happening here. There are far more eminent historians who suggest that Richard was not gay, what I find objectionable is the lack of objectivity and balance. Wasn't the motive behind slandering Richard with homosexuality to promote John's ambition to become king furthered along by King Philip and his bishop regarding the two so-called 'confessions'?

Please cite historians other than Gillingham who deny that Richard probably engaged in sodomy. The main evidence cited by Flory are the two public confessions by Richard. Although Richard did not explicitly state that the sin that he was confessing was "sodomy", Flory explains convincingly why it is hard to conclude that anything else could have been intended, given the context and text of the confessions. Flory explicly states that the episode of sleeping in the same bed as Philip cannot be taken to be evidence of homosexuality, so Philip's sexual preferences and habits are not relevant to the question of Richard's homosexuality.--Gautier lebon (talk) 09:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Update: I edited the initial entry to read as it was meant rather than the assumption you made, I meant that the Agincourt entry was written by a Frenchman.Twobells (talk) 22:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

ps: Did you know that Flori never actually communicated with these 'contemporary historians' and ask their opinion but read their work (none of which suggested Richard was gay) then declared Richard a homosexual?Twobells (talk) 22:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I asked you to slow down because you jumped to unsubstantiated conclusions about editors' motives. And frankly what happens on the article about the Battle of Agincourt is of no concern here. Objectivity involves weighing arguments dispassionately, something you seem to be failing to do. There is disagreement on the subject of Richard's sexuality so the article needs to reflect that. Nev1 (talk) 21:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The Agincourt entry has great concern here as it seems a reflection regarding imbalance with far too much weight given to one hypothesis blown out of the water by most contemporary historians. It is true I AM passionate, passionate about Wiki articles being factual and not platforms promoting one view over the consensus, especially when that particular academic is in the minority.Twobells (talk) 22:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Flori is not in the minority on this topic. It is Gillingham who is in the minority. The section, as written, correctly reflects what reliable sources say, and that is what Wikipedia is supposed to do. Please recall that "factual" in the Wkipedia context means accurately reflecting reliable sources, no more, no less.--Gautier lebon (talk) 09:43, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

We should remind Twobells that Geoffrey Regan is not an historian. Malcolm Barber is, and The New Knighthood is otherwise an important book, but it's not about Richard at all. He is mentioned only a few times in its over 400 pages. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, Richard I was rather more "French" than he was "English". He probably didn't even speak the English language with any competence. So I don't think we can blame the French for some sort of anti-English vendetta against him. The idea that the charge of homosexuality was some sort of smear at the time is absurd. The concept of 'homosexuality' did not exist. Indeed the problem is that medival ideas of sexual norms were very very different from our own. Paul B (talk) 18:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Paul B is correct. Regarding sexual norms, I reproduce here what I posted earlier: "I remembered that I have a good book on the history of sex, 'Sex in History' by Reay Tannahill (1980). It does include material on homosexuality through the ages. On page 159, she says that from the sixth to the early eleventh centuries, homosexuality was no worse than contraception. Then it started to be stigmatized and was increasingly harshly repressed. But I'm not sure that we can integrate anything like that into the article."--Gautier lebon (talk) 11:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Who killed Richard?

The article mentions these people in connection with Richard's death (some of these may be the same person):

1. Man with crossbow and frying pan, whom Richard laughed at
2. Man who shot Richard
3. "The crossbowman", sometimes called Peter Basile, whom Richard pardoned.

Since Richard pardoned Person #3, it's implied that Person #3 is the same as Person #2. But that's not entirely clear, as Person #3 is described as "the crossbowman", and Person #1 also had a crossbow, and it's conceivable that this man was pardoned for his role in distracting Richard. In any case, we're told that Person #1 is not the same as Person #2, because while Richard laughs at #1 he is shot by "another" crossbowman. However, the Pierre Basile article contradicts this, saying that Basile (Person #3) was the boy who shot Richard (Person #2), and also he was armed with a frying pan (Person #1, unless we want to suppose that there were two crossbowmen with frying pans).

So...what's going on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.106.128.79 (talk) 12:51, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

You are correct, the story is unclear. The problem is that the contemporaneous sources (chroniclers) give very different accounts. What is there is an attempt to synthetize what was reported by the contemporaneous sources, as summarized in the cited references. It might be possible to present this more clearly, but I don't have any ideas. Does anybody wish to propose new text? I think it might be better to do that on this discussion page and only update the article after we agree.--Gautier lebon (talk) 15:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism by 203.45.21.183

Can we get an Admin to either lock editing by unregistered users or ban 203.45.21.183. This person has severely messed up the content of this article over multiple edits. Also, I'm not knowledgeable enough to revert these mutliple edits by this person. 67.187.109.3 (talk) 05:09, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem, all fixed now. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:41, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

'Sexuality'

I have removed this entry after reviewing other historical figures on wikipedia of which none have their sexual preferences listed. That it was listed at all is worrying in that I believe it to be a sly attempt at broadcasting homophobia.Twobells (talk) 13:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC) Most reports suggest that Richard was heterosexual with bisexual leanings as was the want at that time amongst the nobility, I made a referenced argument for this last year which was ignored. We all know that the Bishop of Paris was biased and politically motivtaed in his ramblings about Richard's confessionals.Twobells (talk) 13:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Exactly how would it "broadcast homophobia"? Nev1 (talk) 13:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Because there is no legitimate need to define his sexuality and the entry is rather strange in that no other major historical figure has a 'sexuality' entry.

To suggest that not including someone's sexuality is 'censorship' is plainly ludicrous, however I thank you for the info on other entry I will now review that with a view to edit.Twobells (talk) 14:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Debate about Richard's sexuality is covered in multiple reliable sources, so not covering it amounts to censorship of a section of the scholarship on Richard. I'm not about to get into an edit war, but you can't just remove a huge chunk of information sourced to academic writers because other articles don't discuss things! And it's not true that other articles don't - check out Edward II of England, another English king who's sexuality is a subject of controversy, you'll find it discussed in his article. LIkewise James I of Great Britain. In fact, James has entire article devoted to the subject - Personal relationships of James I of England. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Notice that any mention of sexuality is written into the main body of the article which is wiki best practice and received the attention it deserved.Twobells (talk) 22:24, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

The article should be comprehensive; as relevant works address Richard's sexuality, so should Wikipedia. Last time you raised this issue consensus was clearly for keeping the section in the article. If you continue to edit war you risk being blocked. Nev1 (talk) 14:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I do find it fascinating that it is only English historical figures seem to have been singled out for this bizarre 'sexuality' entry

As for the threat of being blocked I find that both transparent and worrying that a closed mind automatically tries to bar editors with a different approach.Twobells (talk) 14:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC) I have attempted to collaborate previously with other biased editors here to no avail, its your way or the highway irrespective of the facts.Twobells (talk) 14:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC) Subsequent to the block threat I have received I am approaching the med cabal for resolution.Twobells (talk) 14:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

(outdent)Dear Twobells: from my point of view, the material belongs in the article because many modern fictional works where Richard appears mention his alleged homosexuality. And the serious biographies do also, as you can see from the citations in the section. Richard's sexuality is of more interest that that of some other historical figures beacause of Richard's importance as an icon of chivalry and because of his undoubted military prowess. I agree with the comment above that not mentioning Richard's sexuality would amount to censorship. Regarding your actions, I think that it would have been more appropriate for you to raise the matter on the talk page, rather than deleleting the section, and this in particular because that section has been subject to a great deal of scrutiny, as you can see from the archives. Your outright deletion of consensus material, without prior discussion on the talk page, can indeed be considered as a step that might lead to an edit war, so it seems to me that Nev1 appropriately restated Wikipedia policy, namely that those who engage in edit wars risk blocking. I don't consider myself to be biased, so I do not consider myself to be a target of your ad hominem attacks, but it does seem to me that such comments are not appropriate in Wikipedia, where we all assume that all editors are working in good faith to create the best possible summary of existing knowledge.--Gautier lebon (talk) 14:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

::This going from bad to worse, now we (wikipedia) are going to reflect what fictional novels say? I did try to collaborate with editors on the talk page last year but their views seem blinkered by a need to be right irrespective of opposing views, that any entry needs a 'sexuality' entry is suspect, no more no less in an enlightened world.

I do find it very interesting that there is no sexuality entry for Philip_II_of_France who was said to have been the lover of Richard, why is that exactly?

Or Marcel_Proust a great lover of homosexuality?

No, like any GOOD wiki entry the mention is in the body of work and does not have its own entry.

Or Jean Cocteau a great promoter of homosexuality.

or Roland Barthes a devout homosexual yet NO mention.

or Jean Genet no entry.

or Marie Antoinette where are all these entries?

They do not exist because they are written into the body of the main article, that is why.Twobells (talk) 15:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The secttion in question does not reflect what fictional novels say, on the contrary, it clarifies the situation, thus correcting what is found in some novels. My point was that the topic is of sufficient interest to appear in both fiction novels and serious biographies, so it deserves to be properly summarized in Wikipedia, which is what the section does. There is no reason to mention Philip's supposed homosexual relation with Richard in the article on Philip because (as the section we are discussing makes clear) there is no reliable evidence of such a relation.--Gautier lebon (talk) 16:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The solution is NOT to outright delete the information, however. You need to discuss, and not by pointing to other articles, why the information is .. whatever you object to. I'm not sure what you're objecting to, quite honestly. Is it the title of the section? Is it that it's in its own section? If the later, it can be shown that the question of his sexuality does indeed get quite enough coverage to warrant its own section. Whether other articles do something or not is somehting that needs discussing at THOSE articles, they have no bearing on what happens here. And here, most biographies of Richard discuss his sexuality and modern theories about whether or not he was homosexual. Flinging around accusations of biased editors isn't going to help your case, try to discuss the exact problem you have, rather than just blanket deleting. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I would like to see best practice in that the elements of Richards sexuality worked into the main article anything else could leave an editor open to accusations of criticism and biasTwobells (talk) 16:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

However, that was discussed in the past, and consensus was that it was best discussed in its own section. This is no different than if it was decided to discuss George III of Great Britain's mental disorder or madness in its own section - it's an editorial decision that the coverage of an incident is best discussed in its own section, in order to fully explicate the issues. It's the same sort of editorial decision that puts a "legacy" or "historiography" section in some articles. Or similar to "writings" or "bibliography" section for authors - some aspects of biographies are best described in separate sections rather than spread throughout the chronological ordering of the article. See Henry I of England where there is a separate section on his activities as king, separate from his chronological life sections. LOok at Richard's father - where there is a "character" section and two sections on religious policy and domestic policy. This is an editorial decision, that needs to be decided on the talk page by consenus. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

True. Further, you (Twobells) could indicate on this talk page exactly what edits you propose. Maybe we will all agree with them. So far, all you have done is to (1) accuse others of being biased and (2) deleted outright material which was well researched and referenced. Regarding accusations of bias, I'm not sure that I understand you. Some time ago, you seemed to be suggesting that is was a slur on Richard to mention that he might have been homosexual. Now, you seem to be suggesting that the current text might be homophobic. Personally, I prefer to avoid value-judgements regarding sexual preference. It is a fact that some people are homosexual, and that does not affect other characteristics such as military prowess or political astuteness or whatever. So a section on Richard's sexuality should not, in my view, be considered as either "negative" or "positive".--Gautier lebon (talk) 16:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems we are a impasse here, I suggest that you have given too much weight to one particular historian against all contemporary evidence, if we cannot come to terms I will have to cite undue weight. My belief on whether Richard had a gay relationship with [Phillip Of France] is neither here nor there, I follow the evidence and to create an entry based on one historians view looks suspect and potentially biased. Also, I believe that sexuality does not need its own entry and is completely opposite to wiki best practice in that any such evidence needs to be entered in the main body of the article. I cannot seem to understand why two editors have such opposition to wiki best practice and recommend that you move Flori's view into the main article as per said practice. Comical is the only expression I can give when you compare one Richards one highly suspect gay encounter with George III mental state and how it affected world politics on a major scale But Flori analyses the available contemporaneous evidence in great detail 'undue weight, Gillingham is considered the preeminent Richard historian who also analysed the contemporaneous evidence and found that Richard was not gay. Historian Jean Flori, however, has analysed the work of contemporary historians, and reports that they quite generally accept that Richard was homosexual, none of the contemporary historians you cite were consulted and actually refused to acknowledge her view; again undue weight. Finally, and concludes that Richard's two public confessions and penitences (in 1191 and 1195) must have referred to the "sin of sodomy" must have, why? there is nothing in her research referred to here that suggests anything of the sort.Twobells (talk) 22:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear Twobells: I don't understand why you seem to be painting yourself into a corner. My previous post suggested that you propose specific edits. Instead of doing that, first you complain about a supposed impasse. But an invitation to propose edits is exactly the opposite of an impasse. Then you complain because the current text relies excessively on Flori. But, if you read the citations, you will see that Flori went to the trouble of reading what everybody else had said and that Flori summarizes what others said. So Flori provides the best overall summary of the available research and commentary on the topic. Thus, it is logical that the section is based largely on what Flori says. Again, I have no objections to possible edits, so you could propose additions based on what somebody else says. Regarding removing the section and incorporating the work in the main text, I can only repeat my previous proposal: please indicate the exact edits that you propose, so that we can discuss them. You are correct that Gillingham and Flori disagree, and the text says that. Flori wrote his (yes, he is male, not female) analysis after Gillingham's and he specifically cites Gillingham and explains why he disagrees with him. Regarding why Flori reaches his conclusion regarding the confessions, please read his analysis, which is very learned and based on the original medieval sources. Basically, according to Flori, the terms of the confessions are such that they could only have referred to some sexually related sin, and neither adulterly nor fornication were considered at the time serious enough to warrant a public confession by a king. Finally, for the record, can you please provide evidence to support your allegation that none of the contemporary historian cited by Flori agree with his summary of what they wrote?--Gautier lebon (talk) 08:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Quick thoughts from me. I've read other works on Richard but not Flori's, however, although I'm aware of the historian's good reputation. I'd agree that this topic needs to be in the article, either as a separate section such as this, or as part of an historiography. It isn't going to be an easy paragraph, as there appears to be a clear split in opinion between the current leading biographers of Richard (amongst which I'd certainly place Gillingham and Flori). I think the current wording of the paragraph probably gives undue weight to Flori's recent work though. Could I suggest an alternative wording? (NB: I haven't added the references into this, but of course we'd need to) Something like:

"Modern historians have extensively debated the issue of Richard's sexuality. Victorian and Edwardian historians had rarely addressed this question, but in 1948 historian John Harvey challenged what he perceived as "the conspiracy of silence" surrounding Richard's homosexuality. This argument drew primarily on available chronicler accounts of Richard's behaviour, chronicler records of Richard's two public confessions and penitences, and Richard's childless marriage with Berengaria. This material is complicated by accounts of Richard having had at least one illegitimate child, and allegations that Richard sexually exploited local women on his campaigns. Harvey's argument has gained considerable support; some writers even concluded that Richard and Philip II had engaged in a sexual relationship, although this suggestion is now dismissed by most scholars. Leading historians remain divided on the question of Richard's sexuality. Jean Flori, for example, uses Richard's confessions of 1191 and 1195 to present a detailed analysis suggesting that the king was probably bisexual. John Gillingham, by contrast, draws on other chronicler accounts to argue that Richard was probably heterosexual."

Not perfect, but see what you think. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Dear Hchc: thank you for this constructive suggestion. The text you propose would be fine for me, because it corresponds to what has been written. But (1) I don't know whether everybody (and in particular Twobells) would agree to it and (2) as you say, you would have to add the detailed citations. The original version of the text that is there now actually had a specific citation for each individual sentence, given the sensitivity of the topic. The citations were later combined as you see them now. I would suggest that we only go down the path that you propose if you can provide detailed citations to support each individual statement in your text, otherwise we will have people complaining that the material is not sufficently well sourced.--Gautier lebon (talk) 11:01, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I've taken a quick stab at doing a version with references added, both from the existing article paragraph, a bit from Burgwinkle's Cambridge University Press book, and I've also added a couple of lines from McLynn's slightly more popular account.

"Modern historians have extensively debated the issue of Richard's sexuality. Victorian and Edwardian historians had rarely addressed this question, but in 1948 historian John Harvey challenged what he perceived as "the conspiracy of silence" surrounding Richard's homosexuality. This argument drew primarily on available chronicler accounts of Richard's behaviour, chronicler records of Richard's two public confessions and penitences, and Richard's childless marriage with Berengaria. This material is complicated by accounts of Richard having had at least one illegitimate child, and allegations that Richard sexually exploited local women on his campaigns. Harvey's argument has gained considerable support; some writers even concluded that Richard and Philip II had engaged in a sexual relationship, although this suggestion is now dismissed by most scholars. Leading historians remain divided on the question of Richard's sexuality. Jean Flori, for example, uses Richard's confessions of 1191 and 1195 to present a detailed analysis suggesting that the king was probably bisexual. John Gillingham, by contrast, draws on other chronicler accounts to argue that Richard was probably heterosexual. "

Hchc2009 (talk) 17:54, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for this. I didn't check the references, I trust you. I would suggest to add a specific reference for the statement "Victorian and Edwardian historians had rarely addressed this question," unless that is already covered by the reference to Harvey. For the bit "Richard sexually exploited local women on his campaigns" you can add in the <ref> clause "and {{harvnb|Flori|1999 (french)|p=464.}}". Your proposed text is fine with me, let's see what others think, in particular TwoBells.--Gautier lebon (talk) 10:05, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted a change by Gaius Octavius which was far too drastic. We didn't get any comments regarding Hchc2009's proposal above. Can other editors please comment?--Gautier lebon (talk) 14:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Relatively new editor here, but I have a copy of the Harvey in front of me and have read the Flori and the Gillingham (I just went in and updated the citations on the Harvey with page numbers and citation information, hope nobody minds.) I think Hchc2009's proposal is an good one given the available material. But honestly, I don't think the Harvey is that great a source except for the degree to which Gillingham takes it seriously as an opposing view. It's a pop-culture book on the Plantagenets which skims and has a very high ratio of editorializing to verifiable facts, and its bibliography is scanty at best. Gillingham's argument against Richards alleged homosexuality provide a lot more detail on the substance of the debate than Harvey does, on both the pro and con sides. (It is *possible* to take from the Harvey that Victorian and Edwardian authors hadn't addressed the issue, inasmuch as he says 'It is easy to class the unpopular and unsuccessful, such as Edward II and James I, as "degenerates", but a change of heart may be induced by breaking the conspiracy of silence surrounding the popular Richard.' [p. 66]. I just wouldn't advise doing so because he offers no other data on the "conspiracy.") Cyril montmorency (talk) 06:28, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not wild about Harvey either, other than that he does get cited a lot later (and so becomes part of the academic story). I'd agree that the later authors do a much better academic job on this issue than Harvey! Hchc2009 (talk) 07:56, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

How about retaining your text, which is excellent, but working the academic references into it so as to avoid too much reliance on Harvey?--Gautier lebon (talk) 20:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Outdent. Deposuit has just undertaken a major re-write of the section on sexuality. On the whole, I don't have problems with it, but he has introduced some inaccuracies which I will correct.--Gautier lebon (talk) 07:36, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

In fiction

Listening to the radio today, I learned that Haendel has written an opera on Richard. So I thought of adding that to the page and discovered that there isn't a section on Richard in fiction. So I've started it, but surely it needs to be completed.--Gautier lebon (talk) 08:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Heiress of France?

It might be common sense to think that annulment, which cancels a marriage as if it never happened, would likewise affect the legitimacy of children. Annulment among royalty however, does not have this effect. Even after their annulment, the children of Louis and Eleanor were declared legitimate, with custody of them awarded to Louis. Emerson 07 (talk) 00:20, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Religion

I added religion into his infobox, it is an important part of him, as he embarked on the Crusades to defend Christian influence from the Saracens. TheFortunateSon (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Language

The assertion that Richard spoke no English should be modified. He was born in England and lived there until he was nine years old, that he had no contact with English speakers (certainly most outdoor servants and some indoor would have been English speakers) in this time is untenable. There is also a record in an old book of Richard swearing in English at Isaac of Cyprus - Jacob Abbott (1857) History of King Richard I of England: Makers of History Reprinted: Cosimo, Inc., 31 Oct 2009, pp. 174-175. Urselius (talk) 11:34, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

But that also notes that this was the only time in his life he ever said anything in English. Adam Bishop (talk) 11:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

A single instance is enough to make the present wording in the article inaccurate. He also put down a bishop who had little learning by making a joke at his expense in Latin. Richard was therefore also a speaker of Latin. The wording needs modification. Even Henry II is recorded as being able to understand English, though he did not habitually speak it, and he did not spend his childhood in England.

It is another stick to beat Richard I with. Not only did he not spend much time in his kingdom, but he couldn't speak its language either - what a poor excuse for a king he was! He didn't write in English because, at the time, it wasn't a literary language and he didn't speak it very much as most of the people he spoke to understood French (of oc or oil) or Latin. Strangely, his subjects thought that he did what they expected a king to do quite effectively. Urselius (talk) 19:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Richard's ancestry

There has been some debate about the importance of aspects of Richard's ancestry. A historian, I forget which - possibly John of Worcester, wrote of a dream where England is a great tree, but the crown of the tree is lopped off. This stood for the Norman take-over of 1066. England would not prosper until the tree was restored. The restoration he ascribed to the accession of Henry II, who was the first monarch since 1066 to have any English royal blood. Therefore, English opinion at the time put some importance on Henry's and, by extension, Richard's English ancestry. Also there was considerable kudos attached to English Cerdicing ancestry. Henry II was the first Angevin king of any sort, and of course the Norman kingship only dated back to 1066. However, the first Cerdicing king flourished c. 500 AD. This royal ancestry therefore was more prestigous than Richard's Angevin, Norman, or Aquitainian ancestry, and was older by far than the Capetian or Hauhenstaufen monarchs could boast. Richard blamed his own and his family's tendency to infighting and quick temper to his diabolic ancestry. The Angevins claimed that an early count had married Melusine the daughter of Satan. Melusine's nature only became apparent when she was forced to remain in church at the Elevation of the Host - at which point she flew away though a church window. Urselius (talk) 09:28, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Alright, but is a reader supposed to know why such distant ancestry is important enough to be mentioned right away? Why shouldn't it be explained that his distant descent from William the Conqueror and Alfred the Great is relevant because [...]? More importantly, why shouldn't it be explained that his fictive descent from the Satan, the Biblical Noah and the pagan Wōden is relevant because [...]? Surtsicna (talk) 14:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

King Richard's Birthday

It says "Bert was born November 8th, 1992" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.46.133 (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Cheers; that vandalism has been fixed. Govgovgov (talk) 18:27, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Date of coronation

This article states that Richard was coronated on 3 September 1189. However, List of British coronations says it was 2 September, so which is the correct date and could someone who knows correct the incorrect one? /Ludde23 ^{Talk Contrib} 14:31, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Gillingham (1979) has it on Sunday September 13th, citing Roger of Howden - just to muddy the waters further! Presumably a typo as other souces give the 3rd. Urselius (talk) 15:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

"Saracens"

Consider replacing "Saracens" in the introduction with "Muslims" instead. They referred to themselves as Muslims and are now more commonly known as Muslims. The word "Saracen" has also acquired a negative connotation as of late. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.186.178.36 (talk) 18:28, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

The term has a long history, the Greeks used "Sarakenos", Latinised to "Saracenus", for their eastern neighbours from an early date. The term is derived from the Arabic "Sharqiyyon" meaning "Easterners". It is more particular than "Muslim", which encompasses many peoples from Morocco to Indonesia, as it refers to the Arab and culturally Arabised peoples of the Middle East. I don't think it is any more negative than "Feringhee-Faranji" and it is much less so than "kaffir". Urselius (talk) 10:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Marriage and sexuality section

The Marriage and sexuality section comes as a tangential interruption in the historical narrative. The marriage is discussed at its proper point in the narrative, but the discussion focuses on the circumstances of the wedding and then the sexuality issue. (It also assumes knowledge of Richard's return from crusade, out of sequence.) It works as a stand alone section, so I'm moving it to the end of the historical narrative. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 02:11, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree with splitting this into separate sections. The Marriage section still assumes knowledge of Richard's return out of sequence; the sexuality section references his childless marriage. The issues are related and are better treated together. And his marriage wasn't a prominent aspect of his role as "King and Crusader," so it still comes off as a tangent in that section. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 18:03, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, you're right about the chronological order, but I'm still against mixing his life record with a much later historiography discussion. I don't have the knowledge to fix the issues so I'll leave this to other editors. Ruddah (talk) 02:47, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

As written, the sexuality section seems focused on the historiography of Richard's sexuality, rather than Richard's sexuality itself, which may be part of the problem. I'd be inclined to examine refocusing the wording slightly, to present the same discussion, but focused on Richard rather than the historians. Section 2 is also very long; I reckon taking 2.7 and 2.8 and turning it into a "Later years" section would probably make it easier to navigate. Hchc2009 (talk) 05:42, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The marriage section is not in a section on his life record, it is in "King and Crusader." He spends little time with his wife and doesn't even see her after returning from crusade. That is more relevant to the discussion of his sexuality than to his time as king. And inserting the sexuality issue into a section on his depiction in folklore and fiction is awkward as well. Splitting the section creates more problems than simply treating these topics together in their own separate section. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 15:20, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd agree that the current split doesn't work well; I'd recommend recombining, and removing the "historiography" tone of the sexuality paragraph (although still noting the different historical views etc.) Hchc2009 (talk) 07:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Count of Nantes

Was Richard Count of Nantes? I thought he was called "Overlord of Brittany", while Constance was Duchess of Brittany and Countess of Richmond, Nantes, and Rennes. Articles from Wikipedia in French as well as in other languages state that Constance included her son in the government of the Duchy in 1196 and that he became Earl of Richmond and Count of Nantes and Rennes from this date until he disappeared in 1203.Aziliz Breizh (talk) 13:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The Counties of Nantes and Rennes usually went with the title (count or duke) of Brittany. So I would amend the article. If you could find a relevant reference that would be even better. Urselius (talk) 13:48, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know, Richard didn't rule Brittany. Geoffrey did rule as Duke jure uxoris, being Constance's husband. I read once (a long time ago and I don't remember where) that Henry II only assumed the title of Overlord of Brittany but didn't rule the Duchy after he married Constance to his son in 1181. Concerning Constance, I know she used the titles « ducissa Brittanie et comitissa Richemundie » (Duchess of Brittany and Countess of Richmond) from 1181 to her death in 1201. It seems that Richard had assumed his father's title of "Overlord" of Brittany after Geoffrey's death but didn't actually rule the Duchy. Aziliz Breizh (talk) 12:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree, but a supporting reference - for Constance's titulature or Richard's relationship to the governance of Brittany - would be good to have. Urselius (talk) 14:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Intro

The piece in the intro about his preference to use England as a source of revenue is rather bald. He spent little time in England as king because it was relatively peaceful, whereas his continental lands were under continual threat from Philip of France and rebellious vasssals. It is a testament to the stability of England that Richard could spend little time there; had a major rebellion, or Scottish invasion happened he would have spent more time there, because he would have had to. Urselius (talk) 09:51, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Let's see that in another way. Was England quite peaceful during his reign ? Yes it was, no real treat around and almost all the nobility in France. What part of the Angevin Empire was the most important to Richard and to his nobility (almost of them being "French" which means Angevin, Poitevin, Aquitain or Norman) ? Definitely the French part because it was the wealthy one. So did Richard used England as a source of revenue for the defence of his continental lands and eventually for a crusade ? Yes he did. 90.42.109.122 (talk) 05:24, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

There are a number of contemporary continental sources which ascribe to England almost legendary richness; this is largely because England had a unified law allowing efficient taxation, unlike the regionally diverse systems of rights and customs in France, and its coinage - uniquely in western Europe - was stable and was re-issued at regular intervals. But this is not the real point, Richard used England as a source of revenue to support his campaigns elsewhere because it was rich and stable, not because it was unimportant to him, as is implied by the present wording. His father had campaigned in England on a number of occasions, while the succession was in dispute, and Henry II lived there as much as he lived anywhere else in his dominions. England was also important to Richard because it was a kingdom, it was the only one of his possessions which gave him parity with the King of France.

Other kings faced threats abroad and had stability at home, but Richard was unique in spending so little time in England, and the statement is factually accurate. I agree that the wording is misleading in implying that he saw England as merely a source of revenue, because it was crucial to his status as a king. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I realize my own wording wasn't clear enough, I didn't say England was unimportant to Richard or his father, I just stated that to his (Angevin) eyes, his duchies and counties of France were more important. Why ? Because during the Middle Ages the Kingdom of France had a higher status that the one of England. It was more prestigious (Merovingians dynasty, Carolingians dynasty, elder daughter of the Church, already a counter power of the Holy Roman Empire, etc.). Until William conquered England, the contemporary sources viewed England as a quite uncivilized if not barbarian island. So technically yes the both were kings, but a hierarchy did exist and was reinforced by the fact that Richard was a vassal of Philip for his lands in France. For me the wording is fine and as you say it's just its interpretation that can mislead the reader, depending of his/her point of view of course. 90.42.109.122 (talk) 11:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

That really was not the case. Before the Norman Conquest England was involved, alongside and under the tutelage of the Irish, in the evangelisation of Germany (St Boniface/Wilfrid) and the preservation of many elements of Classical civilization. The greatest Latin author between Boethius and the twelfth century, possibly the Renaissance, was Bede, an Englishman; also the chief cultural and spiritual advisor of Charlemagne was Alcuin of York. Immediately before the Conquest English styles of book illumination, metalwork and tapestry were exported to the Continent. The only cultural sphere the English did not excel at was monumental building, though if we still had Edward the Confessor's Westminster Abbey even this may be moot. If you read Ordericus Vitalis, born in England of an English mother and French father and identifying as English, then you will find England described as a rich and cultured land, with the Normans characterised as thuggish robbers. Urselius (talk) 17:29, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

It's certainly poorly cited; there has been a wealth of literature on Richard and the Angevins since John Harvey's The Plantagenets, which is cited here in support of the sentence, and I don't think we should be relying on it for this particular statement. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Again a question of perception and interpretation, you give me fine examples of Saxon civilization, I gave you a general perception of England before the Norman Conquest as it was seen by the majority on the continent. Just to add, I was talking about England seen as quite uncivilized just before the Normans arrived, an era of some anarchy and Vikings raids. I don't think this is relevant to go back as far as to the 7th and the 8th century.

• The evangelisation of Germany was made by a lot of people and we will never know all the names.
• Never heard of Isidore of Seville ? To say that Bede was the greatest is sujectivity at its best.
• The Classical civilization was at first preversed at Constantinople, then diffused in Europe partly thanks to the Arabs in Andalucia. Other elements were preserved in all the abbeys and monasteries of Europe.
• Talking about Ordericus Vitalis and without even going about its objectivity, reinforces the main point of this discussion as it is after the Norman Conquest (so England as a source of revenue for the first Plantagenêt Kings). Ordericus Vitalis even try to justify the Norman Conquest because according to him, the Saxon clergy needed a reform, the Normans seen as thuggish robbers were the ones who didn't respected the Church and its possessions like Robert de Bellême.
• The Import/Export were going in the both ways, well this is the matter of trade after all.

It seems to me that this discussion is starting to be endless. 90.42.109.122 (talk) 00:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe Ordericus characterised the Conquest as a whole as a "vast robbery". The Byzantine/Arab route of Classical survival was not very important before c. 1075, before that, and especially the Carolingian Renaissance, western European civilisation was firmly based on the elements of classical thought preserved in Ireland and England.

However, the intro as it stands confuses Richard's life history to an unacceptable extent. For the first 7-8 years of his life he seems to have lived in England, as a young man especially after he was invested with control of his mother's lands in Aquitaine he mostly lived in SW France, as king he was on crusade and in captivity for a number of years and in his final half decade he was mostly in Northern or Central France defending his continental lands against Philip of France. The intro as it stands does not make this clear, either all reference to where he lived should be removed from the intro, or it should be clarified. Urselius (talk) 11:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

• As a cleric, Vitalis had the point of view of the Church and when some Normans were nice with the Church, he wrote nicely about them (William Rufus and his chief minister Ranulf Flambard per example). And yes, he did try to even justify the Norman Conquest for a reform of the Saxon clergy. In some points, his writings show he hold a grudge against some Normans Barons (Montgomery/Bellême family) because they were robbing the Church. It does say a lot about Vitalis' objectivity and dualist thought.
• "western European civilisation was firmly based on the elements of classical thought preserved in Ireland and England", you know that's only part of the truth, you are intentionally putting in a first place equal to none all the clergy of the British Islands (when it should be solely the Irish one) and ignoring the scholars of the continent.
• I think on the contrary and accordindly to the Dudley Miles contribution in this discussion, the particuliar life of Richard as King who spent so little time in England should be specified in the intro, he makes him more unique among all the Kings of England. 90.42.47.183 (talk) 12:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

There is a none-too-subtle double standard at work in regard to Richard and England. The nearest parallel for Richard (and his father for that matter) is in the leader of a multi-national empire, not in any of the other kings of England. Just because the Angevin lands were not a formally constituted empire does not detract from the fact that they formed was a multi-national and multi-cultural state (albeit in personal union). I hear little criticism made of Frederick II Hauhenstaufen for not spending all of his time in Sicily, though he was king of that island. Bede, Boniface and Alcuin were not Irish - at the time Ireland and England were part of a cultural continuum, even the art-style of the period, found throughout the islands, is called Hiberno-Saxon.Urselius (talk) 10:14, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

There are little criticism made of Frederick II von Hohenstaufen (please don't mutilate his name) because he effectively spent almost of his life in Sicily, The critics should have come from the Holy Roman Empire, not the Kingdom of Sicily. However even in the Empire they were happy to know him far away, they were free to do what they wanted. "not in any of the other kings of England", even when in some parts of the Hundred Years War, some Plantagenêt Kings did occupy at least half of France after Agincourt in 1415 ? For the Hiberno-Saxon cultural continuum, I believe this book is helpful "The Aristotle Adventure a Guide to the Greek, Arabic, and Latin Scholars Who Transmitted Aristotle's Logic to the Renaissance" of Burgess Laughlin. Anyway, I said it earlier I feared that this discussion would become endless and this is why that was my last message, this is going too far off topic from Richard Lionheart's introduction. 90.42.47.183 (talk) 11:30, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a natural feel for German word construction, how kind of you to correct me. Frederick spent some years in Germany and on crusade, but he is recorded as asserting an Apulian identity. He spent the greater part of his adult life on mainland Italy not on the Island of Sicily where he spent his childhood. The same could be said for Charles V, he was King of Spain, King of Sicily Duke of Milan and Holy Roman Emperor, he could not function as a sovereign if he spent all his time in any one of his possessions. The same applies to Richard. Richard's brother, John, spent most of his reign in England, because he had no choice. John ruled more directly and legislated far more than Richard, but was not considered a better king by his contemporaries - quite the opposite. Yes, Arab translations and Byzantine Greek scholarship were very important in the rediscovery of Classical scholarship by the West. But only after the effective start of the Reconquista in Iberia, the Norman intervention in Greco-Arab Sicily, and the contacts of Westerners with Byzantium and the Islamic Levant caused by the crusades. All of these contacts post-dated the Norman Conquest of England. Before then, the Irish and English scholars and evangelists were pre-eminent in the preservation and re-introduction of Classical scholarship. Urselius (talk) 14:06, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

New Evidence Suggests That Richard Was Not Homosexual

A Guardian piece on the king's biographer Professor John Gillingham points out that Richard was not homosexual, the evidence has always been very flimsy and this new biography puts the rumour to bed. Twobells (talk) 20:08, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Did you actually look at the dateline on that? There is no "new evidence" there... it's all the same evidence (and there is also the confession that Richard made about a great sin ...). Ealdgyth - Talk 20:12, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

(ec) The Guardian article oversimplifies things. The Wikipedia article currently states that opinion is divided over Richard's sexuality; it's not as if Gillingham's argument has won unanimous support. I don't think the article needs to be changed at the moment as it reflect the current state of opinion. Nev1 (talk) 20:14, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I have edited Richard I of England. Maymichael2 (talk) 01:17, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

I have added Arms to this page! Hoping that it will look good. Besides, I believe this page used to have a coat of arms before. Maymichael2 (talk) 00:21, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Roger of ?

Every mention of Roger of Howden in the article itself spells his name as "Howden" however all of the references spell his name as "Hoveden". For the sake of consistency and clarity, I think it is better to change all instances to be "Hoveden" despite the birthplace he is the namesake of being "Howden". I was wondering whether this can be agreed upon and therefore changed? SamWilson989 (talk) 20:27, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

The page previously used both Howden and Hoveden. The page Roger of Hoveden indicates that both forms are in use and primarily cites sources using Howden. I made the spelling consistent here and chose Howden because it is an English subject and the name derives from his birth in Howden. If the other spelling is preferred, I do not object, but the page is already consistent and this spelling is apparently used in sources as well. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 20:49, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Although I would agree that the main text in the article is consistent, if you look in the reference section and the first external link, the name "Hoveden" appears to be the only one used, "Howden" doesn't feature at all. However I do agree that it appears most historians are content using "Howden". I would say that it is quite trivial and therefore is probably find as is but I thought it deserved some discussion. SamWilson989 (talk) 22:39, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

English language

There is a book published in 1857 which claims that in an outburst of rage Richard I swore at Isaac of Cyprus in the English language, p. 175:

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/26939/26939-h/26939-h.htm#Chapter_X

In the book this is remarked upon because Richard did not normally use English, but a modern audience might find it more remarkable that Richard resorted to English when enraged - he would, presumably, have been exposed to English in his boyhood.

Richard has been bedevilled, more than most Medieval monarchs, by modern biographers who sell books by having axes to grind and who assess the man by modern standards: bad son, bad brother, bad king, bad administrator, not to mention a war criminal. In a Wikipedia article we can at least illuminate such a contentious subject matter by presenting an impartial selection of material from various sources. One theme that is used to denigrate Richard I is that, though he was 'King of the English,' he "could not speak his subjects' language". When I came to this article this was baldly stated as a fact, and indeed some historians and biographers have stated the same. Discounting the 1837 reference above, we have no direct information on the subject, no contemporary or near-contemporary seems to have made much comment on the matter. In the absence of direct information I have tried to use indirect means to contextualise the matter by looking at any contemporary information which might shed some light on this subject. I introduced the matter of Richard having lived his childhood, up to 7 or 8 years of age, in England. That the authority and legitimacy of his chancellor, Longchamp, was attacked on the grounds that he could not speak English. And, most recently, that Richard's father, though he did not come to England before he was 9 years old and spent little time there in his formative years, could understand English although he did not use it. The latter has been challenged as possibly being "own research", which I do not understand. The assertion is taken from a secondary source and is baldly presented. I have not claimed that because Henry understood English Richard could also, that would be incorrect. However, it does help to contextualise claims that Richard was ignorant of English and the reader of the article can at least construct a more informed idea of the relative likelihood of Richard having some knowledge of the English language. Urselius (talk) 16:43, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

It's worth taking a look at WP:SYNTH, part of the OR policy, and the first example it gives of original synthesis. The sentence that's now in the article says "There are no contemporary accounts that state that Richard was ignorant of the language and it was noted that his father, Henry II, understood English, though he did not speak it." This is suggesting the argument in favour of Richard being able to understand English is strengthened by the fact that his father understood it. The source being cited, though, makes no reference to Richard at all, and also doesn't seem to say anything about contemporary accounts of Richard - it only discusses Henry II. Making this sort of link what is called original synthesis - the link being made between the two halves of the sentence is original research.

The reason this being important is that it prevents us from carrying out Original Research through the wiki; imagine if I was to introduce an alternative sentence, saying that "There are no contemporary accounts that state that Richard was able to speak English, and it was noted that his father, Henry II, did not speak English." Again, both halves might be true and cited, but you'd go away with a sense that the two halves of the argument were linked, and that the latter half supported the former - which, of course, they wouldn't be, except in so far as I'd have pulled them together for the wiki article. I should only do this if reliable secondary sources themselves made this argument, citing the historians etc. accordingly.

In terms of the 1857 work, I would not normally be using medieval studies from the mid-Victorian period in a serious article (unless to cite a Victorian opinion); historiography has moved on a great deal in the last 160-odd years, and if a claim based on chroniclers is still valid, it will have been used by a modern historian in a work on Richard, and should be cited from that. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I have rewritten the assertion in even more bald terms, decoupling it from the previous assertion directly relative to Richard. I think the "OR" flag is no longer entirely appropriate . The 1800's book seems to show up the limitations of modern scholarship, which tends to lose sight of narrative sources whilst looking for trends and themes. Urselius (talk) 17:37, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

There remains an OR problem, as the author being cited makes no comment about Richard I; suggesting that his dad's or mum's use of English is relevant to the likelihood of Richard understanding or using English, is OR/synthesis, unless there is an example we can cite of an historian who does make the comparison. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:52, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I echo HcHc2009's concern here. Right now all of these sentences "While a number of authors have speculated that Richard did not know the English language, the evidence available to historians does not provide a definitive case for this assumption. There are no contemporary accounts that state that Richard was ignorant of the language. His father, Henry II, understood English, though he did not speak it, whilst his mother, Eleanor had no knowledge of English." are cited to "Hogg, R and Denison, D. (2006) A History of the English Language , Cambridge University Press, p. 247" - I don't have that book so I can't check the fullness of the citation, but from the sounds of it, the citation only supports the information on Henry II? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:58, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

A google books search for Richard I in the Hogg source shows no mentions of him at all. Thus, there is definitely an OR problem with the current sentences. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The Google Books version states "Thus Henry II understood English but did not speak it, whereas his wife, Eleanor of Aquitaine, did not understand English at all and always needed an interpeter." I can't see any reference to Richard at all. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

"Ware, ware, Hugh de Morley, Lithulf heth his swerd adrege!" There is plenty of evidence that, by the latter half of the 12th century, English was widely known and used in the upper reaches of Anglo-Norman society. This is relevant to Richard, as is the knowledge of and use, or lack, of English in his immediate family, as is the attitude of contemporaries to people in positions of authority in England who were ignorant of English. How do you prove a negative? Because there is a lack of direct comment about Richard's abilities in the English language by contemporaries there has arisen disinformation that Richard had no ability in English. It is an argument from a lack of evidence, that a number of historians have used it does not make it accurate. It is because of this lacuna that indirect evidence becomes important. Urselius (talk) 18:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Urselius, the wiki works from us using reliable, secondary sources - for example, a modern historical biography of Richard. It isn't about editors putting forward their own arguments or independent analysis (although there's nothing to stop us going out and publishing in conventional academic journals etc.!). My advice would be to take a look at an historian like Jean Flori, for example, and see what they say about Richard's use of language, then cite that. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I have Gillingham and Doomsday Book to Magna Carta and quite a few others. Richard has been the subject of a great deal of sloppy published writing. Numerous historical and biographical works have taken the 6 months spent in England during his reign and converted this into 6 months spent in England during his entire life, ignoring that he spent his childhood there. Gillingham ignores the question of English, merely stating that Richard spoke oc and oil. I believe Flori states that Richard spoke no English, but does not produce any evidence to support the assertion! We are not arguing sources here, my sources are fine, we are arguing relevance. In the absence of direct evidence, indirect evidence becomes relevant. We know that Richard spent his childhood in England, that contemporary English-born Anglo-Norman aristocrats knew and used English, we know that Henry II understood English, we know that Richard's brother John used Longchamp's lack of English as a political weapon. Taken together these facts make any statement that Richard had no knowledge of English very unsound. Unsupported statements, whatever their origin in modern scholarship, should not be given credence, or at least should be challenged. Urselius (talk) 20:05, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I haven't read Flori, but if, as you say, a major biographer like Flori explicitly states that he did not speak English, and another heavy-weight like Gillingham makes no reference to Richard speaking English, then it is definitely Original Research for us as editors to come to our own, different, conclusions using our own historical judgement. The policy on the wiki is pretty clear on this, noting that "The phrase "original research" is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." Unless the historian we're citing is discussing which languages Richard spoke, understood or didn't understand, we shouldn't be using them to support a claim about Richard's use of language in the article. Hchc2009 (talk) 07:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Interesting info needs sourcing

A May 28, 2015 edit in the lead section, by User:Zacwill16, adds an interesting assertion, which I cite-tagged because it's not mentioned later in the article, and also because I've never heard it before. The added text (here in italics) says "He was known as Richard Cœur de Lion...also because of the three lions on his coat of arms". A follow-up edit note (not added to the article), says: "Richard was the first king to use the symbol of the three lions. The oldest depiction we have of them is on his great seal". That's also interesting enough to be included in the article, if properly sourced. WCCasey (talk) 20:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

The seal is shown in the article; one lion rampant can be seen. A 13th century manuscript depicting Richard with the three lions of Engand is also shown, which is consistent with Richard's great seal from the latter part of his reign. However, I have removed the insertion because while it is relatively easy to find depictions/descriptions of Richard's arms, it is not so easy to link those arms with the epithet in the way that the insertion did. A source that says specifically that the epithet derives from the arms is required. DrKiernan (talk) 21:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Richard I of England. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110612160441/http://www.historynet.com/magazines/military_history/3717336.html?page=4&c=y to http://www.historynet.com/magazines/military_history/3717336.html?page=4&c=y
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111210051618/http://www.crusades-encyclopedia.com:80/jonathanphillips.html to http://www.crusades-encyclopedia.com/jonathanphillips.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Richard 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/03/18/dl1803.xml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Still Far Too Much Weight Given To Flori

The Sexuality section needs more work, in that far too much weight has been given to Flori. Also, Flori's premise has been described within the section as fact rather than theory, best wishes. Twobells (talk) 14:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the sexuality section is given too much prominence in the article. Whatever may have been Richard's sexual preferences, sex as such does not appear to have been of great importance to him. He was far more interested in, and motivated by, his fame, honour, personal martial prowess, power, land and soldiering than sex. Urselius (talk) 07:42, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Reign start date

I'm changing the start dates of the reigns of the Norman and Angevin kings to match with their coronations. My source for this is Bartlett (2000) England under the Norman and Angevin Kings which has a section on the Interregnal Period. "The Norman and Angevin kings did not claim to succeed to the royal title immediately upon the death of their predecessor, as was the case in later English history. It was coronation that made a king and kings dated their regnal years from the day of that ceremony" p.123 To use the earlier date therefore misses the particular significance of the coronation ceremony in this period even if in cases where the monarch is de facto king --Jhood1 (talk) 13:56, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Debatable. It is arguable that the specific - the Angevin period - should be treated as subordinate to the general - the practise at other times in the long history of English/British monarchy. The coronation was of importance, especially when more than one claim might be thought legitimate, but the heir apparent usually held substantive power as the "Lord of England" until he was crowned. It could also be argued that the crowning was of lesser importance to the anointing.

It is usual to propose a change, then wait for feedback before enacting it, especially on articles with plenty of 'traffic'.Urselius (talk) 14:58, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, this discussion should probably be moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject English Royalty Jhood1 (talk) 16:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Richard 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fopinion%2F2008%2F03%2F18%2Fdl1803.xml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070312064731/http://www.nls.uk/auchinleck/mss/richard.html to http://www.nls.uk/auchinleck/mss/richard.html

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) 03:09, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Coronation and reign date

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

No reliable source dates the reign of Richard I from the 6th July. These sources date the reign from the 3rd September:

Handbook of British Chronology p.36

Handbook of Dates (Cheney) p.32

Oxford Dictionary of National Biography 1

Bartlett (2000) refers to this as an inter-regnal period and notes Richard issued charters under the title "Lord of England/the English" p.124

On the contrary, Gillingham (ODNB 2004) speaks of how "Richard's reign began in the abbey church of Fontevrault where ... he immediately tackled the business of patronage". I think this should be taken as a loose use of the word reign to mean control of government and does not contradict the sources above.

Does anyone know of another source? Jhood1 (talk) 19:50, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Crossbowman Who Hit Richard

Part of the way through the description of Richard's death, one paragraph details his pardon of the crossbowman who hit him. The final paragraph of this portion says, "It is unclear whether the King's pardon was upheld following his death."

The next paragraph says, "According to one chronicler, Richard's last act of chivalry proved fruitless when the infamous mercenary captain Mercadier had the crossbowman flayed alive and hanged as soon as Richard died."

Should there not be some attempt at reconciling these two diametrically opposed statements? /Bruce/ [aka Slasher] (talk) 17:43, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

"It is unclear" is entirely consistent with "one chronicler". If there were agreement, it wouldn't have said "one chronicler". It would have just said that he did it. The fact that it singles out only one chronicler indicates that it is NOT other chroniclers, which means there is a disagreement.--Jayron32 18:25, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Is the single chronicler correct? That is the question, and there is no way of arriving at an answer. The two statements are logically consistent with each other. Urselius (talk) 20:32, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Indeed. The text of the Wikipedia article does not say that he is or he isn't. Just that he wrote it. Which is fine. We aren't making a judgement here; where just reporting the lack of clarity due to the conflicting reports. --Jayron32 15:07, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Richard Löwenhez, Salbung zum König.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 13:53, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Error found

Under Sexuality you find: Richard had a sexual relationship with King Philip II

Impossible because Philip II was born in the 1500s and Richard in the 1100s

I do not know the answer but that is an error. CM GCr (talk) 14:10, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

The king Philip II is King Philip II of France, not King Philip II of Spain. Philip II of France was contemporary with Richard I. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:41, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Recent edit

Dr. Grampinator the link to Order of Assassins (Hashshashin) looks to me correct. Why did you delete it? Dudley Miles (talk) 21:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 June 2020

46.123.255.166 (talk) 22:54, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

I would just like to correct the fact that he was captured by the Lords of Ptuj, who then sold him to the King of Austria. They captured him 20 km southwest of the Slovenian city of Ptuj. From the 12th to the beginning of the 15th century, the lords of Ptuj were an extremely important ministerial family of the Archdiocese of Salzburg, which was primarily strongly established in the town of Ptuj and its immediate surroundings. Initially, "only" the Salzburg ministers gained influence in the decades before his death, placing them second only to the Counts of Celje. The expansion of their estates east of Ptuj, and in the west all the way to the Savinjska and Šaleška valleys, where they were displaced by the local counts of Celje, testifies to their important strategic function - the defense of the border along Hungary. Important women in the Ptuj family and their heritage in the Ehrneški, Dravsko / Šoštanjski and Orti led to the possession of important estates and consequently to the extraordinary influence of this ministerial family. Gaining the power of the Ptuj family through skilful marriages, participation in wars and fajds, and hereditary connections with other noble families brought ownership of important allods, feuds, and princely feuds, from which they benefited innumerable. Especially in their "expansion" to the west, the role of seniors and many feuds and allods brought them a connection with relatives Kunšperški and Orti, and in the area east of Ptuj they acquired many estates as fighters of German King Rudolf of Habsburg and loyal companions of Hungarian King Bela IV. The flags of castles and estates of some important noble families in the hands of the Ptuj family (eg the flag of Lemberg Hartnid Guštanjski, who was the provincial judge for the Savinjska region) still bring a complicated interpretation in the process of acquiring property. The consequences and benefits of owning Ptujski's property are related to the allocation of market and city rights, defense and legal duties, the renunciation of property in favor of the Archdiocese of Salzburg, as well as construction activities.

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  Darth Flappy ^«Talk» 23:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

Citations

 Note: Missing bibliography items (= invalid corresponding harvnb links).--Hildeoc (talk) 02:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 January 2021

“Quor de lion ” should be changed to”cœur de lion”.. quor is not a word at all. Cœur in French means heart 2601:586:580:E5D0:1467:73E4:F56E:EE6D (talk) 01:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

'Cœur' is modern French, 'quor' is Medieval Norman French. Languages evolve over time. 'Cœur de Lion' is also used in the text. You seem to have no argument here. Urselius (talk) 09:12, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

You can find this spelling if you poke around in Google Books for "quor de lion". Here's one example, in which the authors discuss spelling and word origins in one of their sources. Eric ^talk 15:01, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

death embellished

the story about who shot him sounds like romantic embellishment... Maybe one author thought it was best to discourage assassinations and embellished. He went there in march to put down a rebellion and gets seriously sick in march . He got injured during a battle and the injury takes weeks to get seriously infected 27.96.199.11 (talk) 03:23, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I cannot make out your point. The death of such a major figure on the European stage attracted much attention and we can be sure that the report that he was wounded by a crossbow bolt is accurate. As is pointed out in the text the identity of the arbalester is uncertain, as is his fate. Urselius (talk) 08:50, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 February 2019 and 17 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MelRel.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2022

Change " In June 1172, at age 12," to "In June 1172, at age 14," DavidRoy66066 (talk) 16:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

King John by W.L. Warren, pg 28: "Her inheritance, [Eleanor's duchy of Aquitaine] it was proposed, should go to their second surviving son, Richard, and in 1172 when he was fourteen he was solemnly installed in the church of St Hilary in Poiters."

Richard was also born in 1157, something the article directly states; it's impossible for Richard to have been twelve in 1172 DavidRoy66066 (talk) 04:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Richard I by John Gillingham, pg 40 (Listed Source on Actual Article): "And at last, in June 1172, when he was fourteen years old, the great day came when Richard was installed as duke of Aquitaine." DavidRoy66066 (talk) 04:36, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done -MPGuy2824 (talk) 11:03, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2023

Please delete this rogue punctuation that is disrupting the formatting: Special:diff/1168128164 82.132.186.175 (talk) 00:15, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done Hyphenation Expert (talk) 00:25, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2023

Delete "King Richard I of England is present in a scene in the film about Joachim of Fiore "Joachim and the Apocalypse" by Jordan River. Playing Richard the Lionheart is the American actor Nikolay Moss.[167]" the final sentence of the legacy section of the article. It is not relevant to the article and bizarre given the numerous more famous media adaptions of Richard the Lionheart not mentioned. Matthew0517 (talk) 13:22, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Done. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:06, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move 24 February 2024

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: Withdrawn. Three days in and unanimous opposition, it is clear that this RM will fail. (non-admin closure) UmbrellaTheLeef (talk) 22:23, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

---

Richard I of England → Richard the Lionheart – Per WP:SOVEREIGN and WP:COMMONNAME. "Use the most common, unambiguous name: Carl XVI Gustaf, Elizabeth II, Alfonso XII, Louis XIV, William the Conqueror, John Balliol, Mary, Queen of Scots, Eric of Pomerania, Charlemagne. This is in line with WP:COMMONNAME." Richard the Lionheart is clearly the most commonly used name for this monarch. UmbrellaTheLeef (talk) 17:45, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose strongly 1) Because his regnal number places him accurately and unambiguously in the chronology of English monarchs. 2) The name 'Coeur de Lion' has more or less equal usage as 'Lionheart', even in English language sources. Urselius (talk) 19:42, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. There was an unsuccessful requested move back in 2008 and we should not keep chopping and changing. Also, quick google search suggests that Richard I is more common. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:34, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

  Comment - Google gives his name as "Richard the Lionheart", not "Richard I". UmbrellaTheLeef (talk) 21:53, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

  Google is not RS. Srnec (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

  Comment - I know that, but OP said that a "quick google search" "suggests that Richard I is more common" I was pointing out that wasn't true. UmbrellaTheLeef (talk) 22:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

  "Richard I" gets over 6,100,000 hits on google compared with 810,000 for "Richard the Lionheart", so it is more common. Dudley Miles (talk) 23:53, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

• The problem with any nickname in this case is that there isn't a definitive one. He used to be "the Lion-hearted" before he was "(the) Lionheart" and some prefer the French Coeur de Lion (which was once the norm). See this ngram. "Richard I" is steady, but the preferred form of the nickname varies. The prominence of "the Lionheart" is a comparatively recent phenomenon. Srnec (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose for the same reason we don't use Henry Curtmantle, John Lackland, etc. Redirects work perfectly fine. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:42, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

  Comment - I don't support those moves because those aren't their common names. No one calls them "Henry Curtmantle" or "John Lackland" UmbrellaTheLeef (talk) 07:47, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose - As it would make the bio title inconsistent with Richard II of England & Richard III of England. -- GoodDay (talk) 15:12, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

  Comment - The same way William the Conqueror is inconsistent with William II of England and William III of England? UmbrellaTheLeef (talk) 17:42, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

  That should be under William I too, frankly. But that's a different battle. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:15, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  William the Conqueror should be moved back to William I of England. Indeed many other monarch titles that are in nickname form, should be moved back to "Monarch # of country" form. GoodDay (talk) 16:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Better known as 'Coeur de Lion' than "Lionheart". Dimadick (talk) 23:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME: Richard I is more prevalent in reliable sources than Richard the Lionheart. Furthermore, Richard I of England is the primary topic and primary redirect for Richard I, so the correct title per WP:NCROY is Richard I and I would support a move to that title. Rosbif73 (talk) 09:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Unlike "Frederick the Great" and "Constantine the Great", Richard the Lionheart is not the definitive epithet of Richard I. As others have pointed out, he has also been "The Lionhearted" and the "Coeur de Lion". If it was the definitive I'd be in favour, as it is useful for articles to use the common name for the sake of accessibility. As it stands though, there are too many variants of his epithet to justify retitling the article as "Richard the Lionheart." Notwithstanding that in reliable sources he is most commonly known as Richard I. Even in the aforementioned examples I have listed, the primary reason they use their epithet is because their is an abundance of figures that share their sovereign name.

Chariotsacha (talk) 21:34, 27 February 2024 (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.

Change date on Treaty of Louviers

The page on Richard I shows the Treaty of Louviers as being Dec. 1195. The page for the Treaty of Louviers shows it occurred Jan. 1196.

Richard I page: War against Philip of France says Under the terms of the Treaty of Louviers (December 1195) Treaty of Louviers page: The Treaty of Louviers was signed in January 1196 and The treaty confirmed the Treaty of Issoudon signed by Richard and Philip in December 1195 CMMahan (talk) 00:04, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Richard I main photo

I think it should be changed from the tomb image to the painting image.

RicLightning (talk) 03:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

We don't use fictional depictions as the main image. Celia Homeford (talk) 07:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I would clarify - if contemporary or near contemporary images are available. I think, if no such images are available, a later image from the imagination of an artist or illustrator would be acceptable as 'better than nothing'. Urselius (talk) 12:36, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Well said. RicLightning (talk) 22:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)