Talk:House of Plantagenet/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

The suggestion that the article "Plantagenet Kings of England" be merged into the article "House of Plantagenet" seems like a good one to me. The overall format could remain that of the "House of Plantagenet" with the extra section "Plantagenet Kings of England" placed between the two existing sections: "Angevin Origins of Geoffrey Plantagenet"; and, "Plantagenet descent". This would maintain the correct chronology. Mywikedit 13:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The content of the article "Plantagenet Kings of England" seems appropriate to the current article and does relate directly to the House of Plantagenet. It was, in part, what I was looking for when I ran a search for Plantagenet. Also, given the length of the article "Plantagenet Kings of England", it does not require a page of it's own.

Angelmorph 03:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Henry of Anjou is Henry III of France. Empress Matilda's son by Geoffrey Plantagenet is Henry II of England. I am changing a wikilink accordingly. ForDorothy 18:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The Last Plantagenets by: Thomas B. Costain

Need info about this book (like cliffsnotes) need the important ideas of the book In general ,it is a good book for detail on the period of Richard II thru Richard III. It describes the social, political, and economic infrastructure of England durring that time span. It is clear and to the point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.40.44.114 (talk) 14:53, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

There appears to be an inconsistency in the article. At the top, it states that they ruled "Kingdom of England (1154–1399)", which would imply the Plantagenet dynasty ended with Richard II in 1399, and was succeeded by the Lancastrian dynasty of Henry IV.

In the section "Plantagenet Kings of England", both Lancastrians and Yorkists, are listed as Plantagenets, with the dynasty then effectively coming to an end with Richard III in 1485.

My understanding of the historical convention is that the Lancastrians and Yorkists are not considered separate dynasties. In fact, as the article notes, it was the Yorkists who actually adopted the surname. The Tudors are considered a distinct dynasty, Henry VII not being in any male line descent.

I have therefore ammended the introduction to state "Kingdom of England (1154–1485)"

--Drojem (talk) 01:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

As the House of York is a cadet branch of the House of Plantagenet, and the Yorkist took the surname Plantagenet, is it correct to describe it separately to the House of Plantagenet, in the "Royal Houses" succession template?

The Yorkists are listed as part of the House of Plantagenet in the

page, not separately to it, and included in the list of Plantagenet Kings on this page.

Equivalent, related comments also raised for the House of York, House of Lancaster, and House of Tudor "Royal Houses" succession templates.

Drojem (talk) 02:59, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

From

:

It is typical historiographical usage, see any English work on the German or Italian Middle Ages. I can't recall every seeing "House of Hohenstaufen" in print. It would be like "House of Plantagenet", which I also do not recall ever seeing. Some dynasties are not named that way in practice. There are some at Wikipedia who think that every dynasty needs to be named as the "House of X", but this simply doesn't conform to how these dynasties are usually described. I would prefer Hohenstaufen dynasty to the current title. I have never seen "Hohenstaufs". Srnec (talk) 16:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

This appears to question the naming of this article, as well, on the simple grounds that the nominator hasn't personally seen the phrase used (except presumably at Wikipedia). I doubt that this nomination will succeed, but there are obviously wider issues if it does. Andrewa (talk) 21:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

"Henry had to deal with numerous rebellions in the Angevin Empire, in Wales under Owain Glyndŵr and in England, such as the Southampton Plot."

This sentence is talking about Henry IV, but according to the link the Southampton plot involved Henry V.

Could someone who knows their history please correct it? Jamo777 (talk) 04:35, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

congrats to the writers whom were sly enough to use every trick in the book to avoid mentioning the simple fact the the Plantagenet came from FRANCE. The clever use of obscure French provinces such as "Gâtinais", or omitting to mention that "Plantagenêt" is a French name by referring directly to its distant Latin origin is extremely well though through. You gotta say, perfidious is an adjective that suits them like a glove. "Honni soit qui mal y pense"... I wonder how you guys get around admitting that this is a French sentence when you write about it. You probably have some obscure nomenclature such as "old Frankish". Arrrrggh. Maudits rosbifs.

lol, I have the same impression ^_^.86.70.90.235 (talk) 13:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Don't be silly. It probably isn't mentioned because it's blindingly obvious to anyone with even the slightest awareness of english history. It's a popular view in England that we haven't had an English king since 1066. Trying to inject petty french nationalism into an article that doesn't warrant it is just sad. For the record, the medieval French regarded the plantagenet kings as English and foreigners, so why you should want to reclaim them now is beyond me. 86.28.197.238 (talk) 14:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)