This article is undergoing a
featured article review. A featured article should exemplify Wikipedia's very best work, and is therefore expected to
meet the criteria.
Please feel free to If the article has been moved from its initial review period to the Featured Article Removal Candidate (FARC) section, you may support or contest its removal. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Edward III of England article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
Edward III of England is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 9, 2011, and on May 17, 2017. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on January 25, 2005, January 25, 2006, January 25, 2007, January 25, 2008, January 25, 2009, February 1, 2012, February 1, 2016, February 1, 2017, February 1, 2018, February 1, 2022, and February 1, 2023. | |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This
level-4 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
On 5 November 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Edward III. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
Although this article is currently listed as a Featured Article, some parts of it aren't in a great state any more. Large chunks lack references, and the layout and number of images in places looks a bit dodgy. I've a couple of volumes on Edward III, but not a huge number - does anyone else fancy helping give this article a scrub over in the coming weeks? It would be nice for it to maintain its FA status. Hchc2009 ( talk) 09:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I was the one who originally got this to FA (under a different user name). This was way back in 2006, when requirements were more lax, and I was also less experienced. I will do my best over the next few days to get this up to an acceptable standard, I'll put in some more references and expand a bit here and there. At first glance there are some major things I'd like to address, mostly material added after it passed as FA:
I'll get to work on this, and hopefully I'll get it ready in time. If anyone has objections to the above suggestions, or has any other input, please comment here so we can discuss it. Many thanks! Lampman ( talk) 13:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
I've gone through "Fortunes of war" too now. A complete rewrite wasn't necessary, but I changed the layout, removed some bits of trivia or material I couldn't find references for, and – of course – added references throughout. Lampman ( talk) 19:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
This view has turned, and modern historiography credits him with many significant achievements.
This is referenced, and may quote the source exactly. Regardless of that, I don't believe that "modern historiography" can credit Edward III with anything. On the other hand, historiography could reveal facts, scholarship or changing attitudes that caused scholars or modern historians to credit Edward with many significant achievements.
It needs rewording. Amandajm ( talk) 06:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
File:Edward III.jpg is not Edward the Third. It is of his son, Edward of Woodstock, the Black Prince. See http://prodigi.bl.uk/illcat/record.asp?MSID=765&CollID=21&NStart=594 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.1.126 ( talk) 07:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't this article at least mention the questions over his paternity? There is serious doubt in many quarters that Edward II was his father, since supposed he would have had to have conceived him ten months before he was born. (He was away in France, while his mother was in England).-- MacRusgail ( talk) 16:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I think I know what's happened here, I am getting Edwards confused here...-- MacRusgail ( talk) 17:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
The article states that he had no known illegitimate children, but this is contradicted by the Wikipedia and ODNB articles on Alice Perrers. Dudley Miles ( talk) 16:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I have the impression of a predominance of western oriented/ Anglo-Saxon entries making the featured article level. Frankly I disapprove of the English kings and so despise this tendency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hdeasy ( talk • contribs) 17:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I think there is an error in both the article lead and main page capsule -- they state that Roger Mortimer was regent during Edward's early years. Although Mortimer was clearly the de facto ruler, I believe the official regent was actually Edward's mother Isabella. Do I have this wrong? Looie496 ( talk) 21:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I wonder if it would be worthwhile to mention that Edward borrowed much money from Florentine bankers to finance the French campaign, failed to repay it, and caused the bankruptcy of several Italian banks in the 1340s. [3] AxelBoldt ( talk) 17:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I've reverted the last change as it just didn't make sense to me. ("The following years he saw more direct involvement in the Breton War of Succession by supporting Joanna of Brittany, and by supporting English armies at the Battle of Auberoche, but also this proved fruitless at first.") Firstly, I don't think that Edward III can be said to have "supported" English armies at the battle of Auberoche, since it was fought between his own forces and the French. The battle was also fought in Gascony, not Brittany. Secondly, you may also want to double check that Fowler, the source being cited to support the claim in the current draft, actually makes reference to Joanna of Flanders on pages 58-9. Happy to be corrected if he does, of course. I can't find my copy of it to check, but I think you would find that Ian Mortimer refers to Edward supporting her in his biography of the king. If I can find it tomorrow, I'll look it up. (Incidentally, a while back I considered reworking Joanna's article after reading Mortimer's snippet on her, but gave up due to the sheer paucity of decent sources. If you can find a decent text on her, I'd be very interested in getting the details of it). 19:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I think the article has to be revised on this point. When did Edward actually claim the title of the King of France? Was it in 1328, when his uncle died, or in 1337, when relations between England and France broke down? Or did he claim it at both times? If so, this has to be mentioned in the article. Also, Edward III was not the senior cognatic male descendant of Philip IV during both times; he was simply the most powerful. In 1328, the most senior cognatic male descendant of Philip IV was Philip II, Count of Auvergne, grandson of Philip V of France; in 1337, it was Charles II of Navarre, grandson of Louis X of France. Emerson 07 ( talk) 10:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
No mention of "the ninth" [4] ? also related topics the "english wool company" [5]. Also the Bardi family, the Peruzzi, William de la Pole (maybe others too) as financiers should also be namechecked and linked, (easily verified via a google search). The significance of these can be easily checked. The act of "farming out" taxes to raise more revunue might be more explicity described too. Oranjblud ( talk) 00:17, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
I couldn't find anything in the article on his relations with the Catholic Church. Did I miss it or is it there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.119.151.233 ( talk) 05:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
The following message appeared on my talk page after this edit...
Now I'm not an expert on the British monarchy but it seemed to me that a figure of six had consensus -- I wonder if DrKay and Hchc2009, as two of WP's prominent editors of such articles, can comment, as well as any other interested parties? Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 08:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
What is the appropriate place to put Edward III's three illegitimate children by Alice Perrers? I had added them in the infobox a while back, but they were later removed and are now unmentioned in the article. Looking at some of the other monarchs with known illegitimate issue, it seems there is no consistency in how they are mentioned in their respective articles. Henry II's illegitimate son William Longespee is listed in the infobox after his legitimate children, as is also the case for Edward II's son Adam; Richard I's son Philip is in the infobox, tagged as illegitimate; John's several illegitimate children are left out of the infobox entirely, as are those of Edward IV. However, even for John and Edward IV, the children are mentioned in the personal life/family section, while Edward III's are absent entirely, which doesn't seem quite right. PohranicniStraze ( talk) 02:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Why do the De Burgh arms (a red cross on gold) prominently appear on Edward's tomb in Westminster Abbey? Elizabeth de Burgh was one of his daughters-in-law but that doesn't seem like much of a reason to display them. Zacwill ( talk) 13:27, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
This article almost reads like a hagiography to the king than an objective review of facts and his life.
For example: "Much has been made of Edward's sexual licentiousness, but there is no evidence of any infidelity on the king's part before Alice Perrers became his lover, and by that time the queen was already terminally ill.[122][123] "
Can someone clean this up -- it's pretty bad. 50.178.158.68 ( talk) 06:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I tend to agree. This man started a hundred-plus years long war that ultimately failed, just so he could try to push an illegitimate claim to the crown of France. Most of his achievements seem military, attacking France, burning fields, laying siege, etc. Certainly there's some French view of him that isn't so favorable? Palehose5 ( talk) 02:40, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Edward I of England which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 10:31, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
This article lacks any non-Scotland related content between Edward's coup in 1330 to the start of the 100-years' war in 1337. In reality, the "personal rule" section is really about Mortimer's reign and Edward's coup. I have renamed it to reflect this and moved the personal rule section lower on the article. The personal rule section is empty at the moment. — Mr. Guye ( talk) ( contribs) 00:05, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
This didn't seem too bad when I started, but I now feel that almost every word and every detail needs checking.
Researching further, the original FAC attracted several "Objects", which were not resolved. The last Object was on 15 October 2006 and starts "Needs a prose-audit throughout, for logic, flow, control of the level of detail, and referencing." On the 18th the reviewer commented "Thanks for your fixes of my points above; however, a copy-edit is required throughout." The next day the article was promoted [7], without any note on the FAC and without the FAC being formally closed. This is probably covered by the statute of limitations, but the article may never have been properly promoted. Gog the Mild ( talk) 15:48, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Said to be a descendant of the Roman Emperor Romanos III. I am not experienced in genealogical research to provide all the details. Middle More Rider ( talk) 05:02, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
The lead currently reads "He is noted for his military success and for restoring royal authority after the disastrous and unorthodox reign of his father, Edward II." I think the word "disastrous" is a slight violation of WP:NPOV. I changed it to "tumultuous and unorthodox", but this was reverted. Thoughts? Tim O'Doherty ( talk) 18:40, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Edward I of England which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 17:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
This article is undergoing a
featured article review. A featured article should exemplify Wikipedia's very best work, and is therefore expected to
meet the criteria.
Please feel free to If the article has been moved from its initial review period to the Featured Article Removal Candidate (FARC) section, you may support or contest its removal. |
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Edward III of England article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
Edward III of England is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 9, 2011, and on May 17, 2017. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " On this day..." column on January 25, 2005, January 25, 2006, January 25, 2007, January 25, 2008, January 25, 2009, February 1, 2012, February 1, 2016, February 1, 2017, February 1, 2018, February 1, 2022, and February 1, 2023. | |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
This
level-4 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
On 5 November 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Edward III. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
Although this article is currently listed as a Featured Article, some parts of it aren't in a great state any more. Large chunks lack references, and the layout and number of images in places looks a bit dodgy. I've a couple of volumes on Edward III, but not a huge number - does anyone else fancy helping give this article a scrub over in the coming weeks? It would be nice for it to maintain its FA status. Hchc2009 ( talk) 09:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi, I was the one who originally got this to FA (under a different user name). This was way back in 2006, when requirements were more lax, and I was also less experienced. I will do my best over the next few days to get this up to an acceptable standard, I'll put in some more references and expand a bit here and there. At first glance there are some major things I'd like to address, mostly material added after it passed as FA:
I'll get to work on this, and hopefully I'll get it ready in time. If anyone has objections to the above suggestions, or has any other input, please comment here so we can discuss it. Many thanks! Lampman ( talk) 13:32, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
I've gone through "Fortunes of war" too now. A complete rewrite wasn't necessary, but I changed the layout, removed some bits of trivia or material I couldn't find references for, and – of course – added references throughout. Lampman ( talk) 19:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
This view has turned, and modern historiography credits him with many significant achievements.
This is referenced, and may quote the source exactly. Regardless of that, I don't believe that "modern historiography" can credit Edward III with anything. On the other hand, historiography could reveal facts, scholarship or changing attitudes that caused scholars or modern historians to credit Edward with many significant achievements.
It needs rewording. Amandajm ( talk) 06:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
File:Edward III.jpg is not Edward the Third. It is of his son, Edward of Woodstock, the Black Prince. See http://prodigi.bl.uk/illcat/record.asp?MSID=765&CollID=21&NStart=594 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.1.126 ( talk) 07:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Shouldn't this article at least mention the questions over his paternity? There is serious doubt in many quarters that Edward II was his father, since supposed he would have had to have conceived him ten months before he was born. (He was away in France, while his mother was in England).-- MacRusgail ( talk) 16:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I think I know what's happened here, I am getting Edwards confused here...-- MacRusgail ( talk) 17:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
The article states that he had no known illegitimate children, but this is contradicted by the Wikipedia and ODNB articles on Alice Perrers. Dudley Miles ( talk) 16:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I have the impression of a predominance of western oriented/ Anglo-Saxon entries making the featured article level. Frankly I disapprove of the English kings and so despise this tendency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hdeasy ( talk • contribs) 17:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I think there is an error in both the article lead and main page capsule -- they state that Roger Mortimer was regent during Edward's early years. Although Mortimer was clearly the de facto ruler, I believe the official regent was actually Edward's mother Isabella. Do I have this wrong? Looie496 ( talk) 21:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I wonder if it would be worthwhile to mention that Edward borrowed much money from Florentine bankers to finance the French campaign, failed to repay it, and caused the bankruptcy of several Italian banks in the 1340s. [3] AxelBoldt ( talk) 17:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
I've reverted the last change as it just didn't make sense to me. ("The following years he saw more direct involvement in the Breton War of Succession by supporting Joanna of Brittany, and by supporting English armies at the Battle of Auberoche, but also this proved fruitless at first.") Firstly, I don't think that Edward III can be said to have "supported" English armies at the battle of Auberoche, since it was fought between his own forces and the French. The battle was also fought in Gascony, not Brittany. Secondly, you may also want to double check that Fowler, the source being cited to support the claim in the current draft, actually makes reference to Joanna of Flanders on pages 58-9. Happy to be corrected if he does, of course. I can't find my copy of it to check, but I think you would find that Ian Mortimer refers to Edward supporting her in his biography of the king. If I can find it tomorrow, I'll look it up. (Incidentally, a while back I considered reworking Joanna's article after reading Mortimer's snippet on her, but gave up due to the sheer paucity of decent sources. If you can find a decent text on her, I'd be very interested in getting the details of it). 19:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
I think the article has to be revised on this point. When did Edward actually claim the title of the King of France? Was it in 1328, when his uncle died, or in 1337, when relations between England and France broke down? Or did he claim it at both times? If so, this has to be mentioned in the article. Also, Edward III was not the senior cognatic male descendant of Philip IV during both times; he was simply the most powerful. In 1328, the most senior cognatic male descendant of Philip IV was Philip II, Count of Auvergne, grandson of Philip V of France; in 1337, it was Charles II of Navarre, grandson of Louis X of France. Emerson 07 ( talk) 10:06, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
No mention of "the ninth" [4] ? also related topics the "english wool company" [5]. Also the Bardi family, the Peruzzi, William de la Pole (maybe others too) as financiers should also be namechecked and linked, (easily verified via a google search). The significance of these can be easily checked. The act of "farming out" taxes to raise more revunue might be more explicity described too. Oranjblud ( talk) 00:17, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
I couldn't find anything in the article on his relations with the Catholic Church. Did I miss it or is it there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.119.151.233 ( talk) 05:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
The following message appeared on my talk page after this edit...
Now I'm not an expert on the British monarchy but it seemed to me that a figure of six had consensus -- I wonder if DrKay and Hchc2009, as two of WP's prominent editors of such articles, can comment, as well as any other interested parties? Cheers, Ian Rose ( talk) 08:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
What is the appropriate place to put Edward III's three illegitimate children by Alice Perrers? I had added them in the infobox a while back, but they were later removed and are now unmentioned in the article. Looking at some of the other monarchs with known illegitimate issue, it seems there is no consistency in how they are mentioned in their respective articles. Henry II's illegitimate son William Longespee is listed in the infobox after his legitimate children, as is also the case for Edward II's son Adam; Richard I's son Philip is in the infobox, tagged as illegitimate; John's several illegitimate children are left out of the infobox entirely, as are those of Edward IV. However, even for John and Edward IV, the children are mentioned in the personal life/family section, while Edward III's are absent entirely, which doesn't seem quite right. PohranicniStraze ( talk) 02:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Why do the De Burgh arms (a red cross on gold) prominently appear on Edward's tomb in Westminster Abbey? Elizabeth de Burgh was one of his daughters-in-law but that doesn't seem like much of a reason to display them. Zacwill ( talk) 13:27, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
This article almost reads like a hagiography to the king than an objective review of facts and his life.
For example: "Much has been made of Edward's sexual licentiousness, but there is no evidence of any infidelity on the king's part before Alice Perrers became his lover, and by that time the queen was already terminally ill.[122][123] "
Can someone clean this up -- it's pretty bad. 50.178.158.68 ( talk) 06:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
I tend to agree. This man started a hundred-plus years long war that ultimately failed, just so he could try to push an illegitimate claim to the crown of France. Most of his achievements seem military, attacking France, burning fields, laying siege, etc. Certainly there's some French view of him that isn't so favorable? Palehose5 ( talk) 02:40, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Edward I of England which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 10:31, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
This article lacks any non-Scotland related content between Edward's coup in 1330 to the start of the 100-years' war in 1337. In reality, the "personal rule" section is really about Mortimer's reign and Edward's coup. I have renamed it to reflect this and moved the personal rule section lower on the article. The personal rule section is empty at the moment. — Mr. Guye ( talk) ( contribs) 00:05, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
This didn't seem too bad when I started, but I now feel that almost every word and every detail needs checking.
Researching further, the original FAC attracted several "Objects", which were not resolved. The last Object was on 15 October 2006 and starts "Needs a prose-audit throughout, for logic, flow, control of the level of detail, and referencing." On the 18th the reviewer commented "Thanks for your fixes of my points above; however, a copy-edit is required throughout." The next day the article was promoted [7], without any note on the FAC and without the FAC being formally closed. This is probably covered by the statute of limitations, but the article may never have been properly promoted. Gog the Mild ( talk) 15:48, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Said to be a descendant of the Roman Emperor Romanos III. I am not experienced in genealogical research to provide all the details. Middle More Rider ( talk) 05:02, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
The lead currently reads "He is noted for his military success and for restoring royal authority after the disastrous and unorthodox reign of his father, Edward II." I think the word "disastrous" is a slight violation of WP:NPOV. I changed it to "tumultuous and unorthodox", but this was reverted. Thoughts? Tim O'Doherty ( talk) 18:40, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Edward I of England which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 17:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC)