Talk:House of Lancaster

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleHouse of Lancaster has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 12, 2013Good article nomineeListed
January 28, 2014Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 8, 2014WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
Current status: Good article

Infobox merge?[edit]

It appears that there are two of the same infobox in the lead with similar information, and it seems there’s no indication as to why. I suggest that we tweak and merge these infoboxes into one to fix already present issues and prevent confusion. Luckily, I have gone through the effort. I present to you a fully merged infobox:

House of Lancaster

First house[a]


Second house[b]
Parent houseHouse of Plantagenet
Country
Founded1267; 757 years ago (1267)
FounderEdmund Crouchback, 1st Earl of Lancaster and Leicester (first house)
John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster (second house)
Current headExtinct
Final rulerHenry of Grosmont, 1st Duke of Lancaster (first house)
Henry VI of England (second house)
Estate(s)England
Dissolution1361 (last unbroken male heir)
1471 (extinction)
Cadet branches

Any critiques? — Mugtheboss (talk) 17:03, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. It's MUCH too long, far longer than both the existing ones - "noble" and "royal" house. Cut the titles, and put the heraldry stuff in a note. Johnbod (talk) 17:22, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I created a note for both escutcheons, but what do you mean by “cut the titles” if you don’t mind me asking? — Mugtheboss (talk) 18:09, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - I mean cut the lists of titles. They are much too long, and have no real connection to the Lancastrian line. For example, what is Earl Ferrers (created 1711 or something) doing there at all? Certainly not infobox material. Johnbod (talk) 18:16, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just arranged all the titles alphabetically, piped a bunch of them to make it shorter and removed ferrers. — Mugtheboss (talk) 18:41, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Should I transfer it to the article? — Mugtheboss (talk) 09:24, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think they should all be cut - why is Earl of Shrewsbury there or Derby etc etc? Johnbod (talk) 12:22, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I get what you mean, and I’m trying to shorten the infobox as much as possible, but at the same time I’m trying to retain as much verifiable information as possible, as to not make the infobox lose its prior purpose. As a sort-of half-compromise, I just looked through the two sections listing earls and dukes on this article as well as all the pages for each title and removed the titles from the infobox not held by anybody Plantagenet. — Mugtheboss (talk) 14:03, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:IB says: "When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored, with exceptions noted below). The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content." We are not there yet. Johnbod (talk) 14:32, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On that note, the infobox now only includes titles the body of this article has stated that at least one House of Lancaster family member had, in an effort to “summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article”. These titles are definitely key facts as they determined practically everything the house did before claiming the throne, why they did it, where, when and how. — Mugtheboss (talk) 18:01, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thing is @Mugtheboss I don't think these are either 100% variable or relevant. Some like Salisbury & Paris would appear to be plain wrong for a start. Prince of Wales is largely honourific. The claims to Castille and France were largely notional and just that, claims. The gathering of titles by the early Earls is interesting but less significant than their Plantagent descent. Once Henry IV became king every title derived from that, not any dynastic development of Lancaster. The journey was son of a king>>Earl>>Duke>>heiress marrying a king's son>>Royal Duke>>King. Infobox wise everyrhing else is just clutter. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:57, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I removed Paris (I agree that it makes no sense, it shouldn’t be there in the first place) and kept Salisbury as it’s referred to as being owned by members of the house three times in the course of the article. Also, while “Prince of Wales” has been honorific since the Acts of Union 1707, at this time Plantagenet had just conquered wales and power would’ve definitely needed to be established over it as I’m sure the Welsh were still very angry at the English. As for Lancaster being cyclical, every European person descends from Charlemagne, does that make every political title gained by said people null? Of course not, see how this makes no sense? — Mugtheboss (talk) 18:01, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
THe thing is @Mugtheboss the inclusion of titles in the Infobox implies certainty, which in the text can be nuanced, where none exists and also gives weight to relatively insignificant facts. The Earl of Salisbury reference is a classic example, on the WP page there is no reference to this being held by the House of Lancaster at any point of time. This is with good reason. It wasn't. I reread the Jones page this was cited to and I think I understand the confusion. Alice de Lacy, Countess of Lincoln was suo jure Countess of Salisbury (and Lincoln for that matter) for an 11 year period before the execution of her husband Thomas, 2nd Earl of Lancaster. As such imho this means its inclusion on the Infobox is an error. As for while “Prince of Wales” has been honorific since the Acts of Union 1707, at this time Plantagenet had just conquered wales and power would’ve definitely needed to be established over it as I’m sure the Welsh were still very angry at the English this being WP you would need to source this. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:03, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
”The Earl of Salisbury reference is a classic example, on the WP page there is no reference to this being held by the House of Lancaster at any point of time. This is with good reason. It wasn't.” In Origin of the Earls of Lancaster, it states that “Edmund's son Thomas became the most powerful nobleman in England, gaining the Earldoms of Lincoln and Salisbury through marriage to the heiress of Henry de Lacy, 3rd Earl of Lincoln. His income was £11,000 per annum—double that of the next wealthiest earl.[3]” as we all know by now, when people married in the medieval age, they shared a title and the perks that came with it. Otherwise, John of Gaunt wouldn’t have been able to be a Duke as the male line had been broken when Henry of Grosmont died. We also know that Edmund was the first in line that all of the House of Lancaster males descended from in the first house, now I’m going to go out on a limb here and assume that his son — Thomas — was Lancaster.
”this being WP you would need to source this.” The part where I said that the title wasn’t honorific, the part where I said that it was important, or the part where I said the Welsh were still angry at the English? — Mugtheboss (talk) 10:32, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the WP article Earl of Salisbury there is not a single reference to this title ever being held by any member of the House of Lancaster. If you look at the WP article suo jure it will give a clue why. It also explains why when the couple divorced she kept the title, not Thomas.
Furthermore, the John of Gaunt argument is just nonsense. This was a new creation rather than a continuation. All of Edward III sons were given Ducal titles, bringing the concept (Royal Dukes) into the English peerage.
On Prince of Wales, any kind of source would be an improvement.
The main point I think is that the title section lacks any coherence or rationale for selection. It includes claims to Castile and France that were never achieved but omits the similar claim to the Kingdom of Sicily. The titles of Prince/Lord/Duke of Aquitaine and later Gascony that they did actually hold for some time are completely omitted for no obvious reason but titles given to royal sons that died in a single generation are included.
If you removed the titles completed you would, I am sure, have consensus for change. Without doing that you will need to painstakingly justify every title and cross reference to the article. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:44, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
”If you look at the WP article Earl of Salisbury there is not a single reference to this title ever being held by any member of the House of Lancaster. If you look at the WP article suo jure it will give a clue why. It also explains why when the couple divorced she kept the title, not Thomas.” I tried to tell something similar to Johnbod, but he insisted that I follow MOS:IB — he included the part that states “When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article” — and when I was about to do so as a compromise, you came and presented your view. I apologise that I can’t make everyone happy.
”Furthermore, the John of Gaunt argument is just nonsense. This was a new creation rather than a continuation.” Well — once again — Johnbod wants me to follow that MOS article to a T, I once again can’t make everyone happy.
“On Prince of Wales, any kind of source would be an improvement.” Working on it.
”The main point I think is that the title section lacks any coherence or rationale for selection. It includes claims to Castile and France that were never achieved but omits the similar claim to the Kingdom of Sicily. The titles of Prince/Lord/Duke of Aquitaine and later Gascony that they did actually hold for some time are completely omitted for no obvious reason but titles given to royal sons that died in a single generation are included. If you removed the titles completed you would, I am sure, have consensus for change. Without doing that you will need to painstakingly justify every title and cross reference to the article.” It’s not my job to do so, all I proposed was a merge and then people got onto my case about the titles even though the title sections on the already used infoboxes are much worse. The titles have been this messed up for years and I’ve done all I can to fix those issues, trying to make everyone happy and heard in the process. Why am I suddenly responsible for making changes you two could’ve made to the pre-existing infoboxes before I even proposed the merge? — Mugtheboss (talk) 13:56, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I quite like the work you have done on the merge, but you did ask for a critique @Mugtheboss. It is the WP way that any old crap can sit there undisturbed for years and then someone tries to make an improvement and it becomes obvious that it is surrounded by crap. @Johnbod often writes a lot of sense, although it is not always welcomed but it is worth taking into account. I'll remove the titles from the proposal and we can see if that meets with consensual approval. Does that work for you? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:39, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You know what, why not. As WP:DISCUSSCONSENSUS states, “Consensus is an ongoing process on Wikipedia; it is often better to accept a less-than-perfect compromise—with the understanding that the page is gradually improving—than to try to fight to implement a particular preferred version immediately.” Shall I implement the infobox in its current state? — Mugtheboss (talk) 15:19, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have tweaked it a bit more, removing Castille & Portugal which weren't significant. If @Johnbod is happy, so am I. Well done, good work. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:50, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks both. Johnbod (talk) 16:05, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The infobox has now been moved to the article. — Mugtheboss (talk) 16:14, 27 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nice one @Mugtheboss Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:52, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Norfolkbigfish: although consensus has been reached, I would like to deliver on a statement of yours. You pointed out that my claim of the title of “Prince of Wales” being used as an object of power prior to the Acts of Union 1707 was not referenced. Now I’m coming through.

Owain ap Gruffudd, king of Gwynedd from 1137 until his death in 1170, was the first man to be styled as “Prince of Wales”.[1] Owain — fighting a brutal war with King Henry II — claimed himself to be “princeps Wallensium” (literally “prince of the Welsh”) as an expression of his claim to sole legitimate leadership over Gwynedd,[2] unwittingly creating — in my eyes — one of the most misunderstood and overused titles of the medieval age and beyond.

Fast-forwarding past many other claimants of the title, insurrections and wars against various English kings, Llywelyn ap Gruffudd — yet another claimant — realised that centuries of warfare against the English was not sustainable if he wanted Gwynedd to survive, this culminated in Llywelyn negotiating the Treaty of Montgomery with King Henry III in 1267, which in turn led to Llywelyn agreeing to submit homage to the king.[3] This was the first time a holder of the title of “Prince of Wales” agreed to be made subservient to the English monarch, and — although this agreement didn’t last long — it paved the way for the title’s modern usage.

Fast-forwarding again, something strange happened. In 1301, the Welsh-born Edward II — then still heir apparent — was granted the title “Prince of Wales”,[4] thus begun the long line of English monarchal descendants bearing the title.

Now, I really hope this brief (and criminally lacking) timeline helps you see the bigger picture of how this title was used to instil power over Wales before the Acts of Union 1707, which saw Wales’ semi-emancipation from England.

Good day and good night. Mugtheboss (talk) 22:24, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice try, and not wanting to enter a long argument but Principality of Wales puts it well The use of the term to refer to the territory of Wales should be distinguished from its use to refer to the title of Prince of Wales, which has been traditionally granted (together with the title Duke of Cornwall and various Scottish titles) to the heir apparent of the reigning British monarch. It confers no responsibility for government in Wales,[5] and has no constitutional meaning.. The key to me is no responsibility for government. It is a meaningless title, a mere bauble, and as such not really worthy of inclusion in the the Infobox. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 23:14, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
“Nice try” ???
“The key to me is no responsibility for government. It is a meaningless title, a mere bauble, and as such not really worthy of inclusion in the the Infobox.” Oh I see, you saw me tying up loose ends and thought I was trying to create new ones, I’m afraid not. Norfolkbigtrout? — Mugtheboss (talk) 23:42, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
-) np, not at all @Mugtheboss
Norfolkbigfish (talk) 00:34, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  1. ^ As descendants of the sovereign in the male line, the earls of Lancaster bore the arms of the kingdom differenced by a label azure of three points each charged with three fleurs de lys Or. The last male of this family — Henry of Grosmont — was granted a dukedom, which was then re-created for the second house.
  2. ^ Arms of John of Gaunt, founder of the second house. The arms of the kingdom differenced by a label ermine. His royal descendants bore the arms undifferenced.

References

  1. ^ Davies, John; Jenkins, Nigel; Baines, Menna; Lynch, Peredur I., eds. (2008). "Owain Gwynedd". The Welsh Academy Encyclopaedia of Wales. Cardiff: University of Wales Press. p. 636. ISBN 978-0-7083-1953-6.
  2. ^ Davies, John (1994). A History of Wales. Penguin Books. p. 128. ISBN 978-0-14-014581-6.
  3. ^ Fritze, Ronald H.; Robison, William Baxter (2002). Historical Dictionary of Late Medieval England, 1272-1485. Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 574. ISBN 978-0-313-29124-1.
  4. ^ Phillips, Seymour (2011). Edward II. Yale University Press. pp. 85–87. ISBN 978-0-300-17802-9.
  5. ^ Jenkins, Geraint H (1997). A concise history of Wales. Cambridge University Press. p. 103. ISBN 978-0-521-82367-8.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:House_of_Lancaster&oldid=1218260544"