Talk:Statue of James II, Trafalgar Square

DYK nomination

I've nominated this article for DYK, to run on April Fool's Day next year - see Template:Did you know nominations/Statue of James II, Trafalgar Square. Prioryman (talk) 22:54, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The Times and Hansard

Posting these links here for future reference:

• Footnote 1 of this article from 1951: "In spite of vigorous protests, the statue was placed in front of the National Gallery. See The Times for 28 October, 25, 28 and 29 November, and 6, 8 and 16 December 1947."
• A House of Lords debate on the siting of the statue from 1958

Ham II (talk) 20:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing. This article might be worth keeping in mind when we decide another GA is worth placing on WPLon's mantle. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 21:13, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Title?

@Neve-selbert: I am curious why you moved this page, given the parent article about the depicted subject is James II of England (not "King James II"). ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:17, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ham II: Curious if you have an opinion about the article's title. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:17, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I prefer the concision of omitting "King". WP:NAMINGCRITERIA says that "a good Wikipedia article title ... is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects". Ham II (talk) 18:45, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree. I don't think "King" is necessary. I'd like to hear from User:Neve-selbert or a third editor to determine if we should move the article back. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:58, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Let's take this discussion to User talk:Neve-selbert rather than split it across this page and Talk:Statue of King Charles II, Soho Square. Ham II (talk) 06:42, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for any inconvenience. Please see my comments at Talk:Statue of King Charles II, Soho Square.--Nevé–selbert 10:03, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@Prioryman: Also pinging you, as the primary contributor to this article. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:17, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

@Neve-selbert: I moved this article back as well. Please feel free to open an RfC re: the title of this article and others. For now, though, there is not consensus to move the page. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 22:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

"Other statues"

I removed the content about "other statues" since this article is about a specific statue. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 20:51, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Illustrations

This is a great article, and I enjoy the many illustrations, but the same time a few are quite similar. Also, I thought Gallery sections were generally discouraged. Should we remove a few images, or do editors have other thoughts on ideal image display? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:50, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Replying to myself here, but I was bold and swapped two images, so now the 3 images of engravings are displayed as a gallery and I've removed the "Gallery" section header. This looks much cleaner to me, but ping me if you disagree. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:56, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello Another Believer, I was unaware that galleries were discouraged so thanks for pointing that out. I think the changes you made are an improvement regardless of that guideline ! --Brookford (talk) 17:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Brookford, Thanks! And just for future reference, there's more at WP:GALLERY. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:09, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Edits by Zimdada

Hello Zimdada,
First of all my apologies for not explaining my edit, I pressed enter too quickly. The only source you have added which I have access to is the V and A and that is focused on another topic. Could you please comment any interesting passages from the other sources that pertain to this discussion? Also, while some sources may regard Quellin as the primary artist, not nearly all do. The most relevant source regarding this in my mind is Vertue. I would agree to adding more mentions of Quellin, but I believe the way you have done it is quite biased, and is taking it too far in the opposite direction. Also, removing the sketch of the statue was unnecessary, as it is very likely a study for it. Regards, --Brookford (talk) 22:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC) EDIT: I am also notifying Another Believer who I believe could add to this discussion. --Brookford (talk) 22:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Brookford, I've made a few edits to this article, but User:Prioryman did most of the early expansion. User:Ham II might also be interested in this London statue. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Chilvers (2009). The Oxford Dictionary of Art and Artists. Oxford University Press. p. 508 states that "he drop in quality of Gibbons's large-scale figure work (not his forte) after Quellin's death indicates that the latter was probably the dominant personality in producing such fine statues as the bronze James II". Margaret Whinney, Sculpture in Britain, discusses at length the collaboration between Gibbons and Quellin. The gist of it is that there is a group of works of royal figures made in the Gibbons workshop were actually the work of Quellin. There is a reference to Vertue stating that for copyright reasons the statue of Charles II made for the Royal Exchange (now lost) was stated to be by Gibbons was actually made by Quellin and that the type of the Roman victor used in that sculpture is the same as that for the James II statue for Whitehall. Thus it is assumed that Quellin was the actual maker. Further it is stated that Vertue's reference to payments to Dievoet and Van der Meulen for modelling and making it do not exclude that the design of the work was by Quellin.

All in all it seems that the relationship between Gibbons and the various Flemish artists working with or for him is still unclear but that Quellin is regarded as one of his key partners during the time the James II statue was made. Zimdada (talk)

Thank you for providing these excerpts from those sources. I have no doubt that Quellin was a major associate of Gibbons. However, I think that the phrasing you used should be changed a little bit to give more balance to the other possibility. I will modify it a little bit and add back the drawing attributed to Dievoet. Please let me know what you think once I have made my edits. --Brookford (talk) 08:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

The statue of the protestant king Charles II made for the Royal Exchange (now lost) stated to be by Gibbons was made by Quellin. Margaret Whinney writes p. 55 : "At the same time Quellin was also collaborating with Gibbons. In 1684 a statue of Charles II was erected in the middle of the Royal Exchange by the Merchant Adventurers, of which Vertue records that, though a special copyright forbidding its reproduction in engraving without permission was granted to Gibbons, the statue 'was actually the work of Quelline' ".
But according to the same testimony of Vertue (which you accept regarding the attribution of the statue of Charles II) the statue of the catholic James II was made by the catholic sculptors Dievoot of Brussels and Laurens of Mechlin. The contemporanean archives quote only her names. In addition your quote from Margaret Whinney's book is wrong, she does not speak of Artus (Arnold) Quellin page 118 (page 118 she speaks mainly of the sculptor Rysbrack who "inherited also something of the tradition of Antwerp", but don't speaks there of Quellin), she writes on the contrary page 55: " « the James is beautifully poised, looking down towards his baton, the line of which plays a great part in the design, and would compare most favourably with any Continental work. And indeed it is Continental and not English work ; for though it was ordered from Gibbons for £300 by Tobias Rustat, Yeoman of the Robes, and set up in the Palace of Whitehall at the end of 1686, two Flemings, Laurens of Malines and Dievot of Brussels, were employed to 'model and make' it » (Margaret Whinney, Sculpture in Britain 1530-1830, London, 1964, p. 55 and 249, quote 37 : Vertue i, 61, 106 ; iv, 50).--Bruxellensis (talk) 06:38, 2 October 2020 (UTC)