Talk:Richard I of England/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Treasure Trove

I suggest the author of this page take a look at the fine work by John Gillingham on Richard I. It is seen as the definitve modern interpretation. Take a look at the Yale English Monarch Series: ISBN 0300094043. In this Gillingham concludes both that there is no evidence for his Richard's alleged homosexuality and also that the 'treasure trove' story is also probably a myth created by biased sources. The fact this latter incident is stated as fact in the article should be reconsidered.

Gillingham was boring ... that's all I have to say. It's not a modern interpretation, it's laying everything out on the table and Johnny deciding what he thinks is true. Technically, that's what historians do, but Gillingham isn't the final word on the life of Richard I. He isn't God. The treasure trove part is fine as it is because it is the current belief. Besides, it's only a little bit. - Augustulus ps. Gillingham, Gillingham, Gillingham ...

If you're prepared to dismiss serious scholarship just because you find it "boring", you're the kind of contributor that gives Wikipedia a bad name. Silverwhistle`
Actually, the whole fact that it's an encyclopedia on the internet that anyone can edit (therefore has questionable reliability) gives Wikipedia a bad name. But enough. When I said 'boring' I was using it as a derogatory term in general. Although he is boring, I was attacking him because I don't buy his theories because I think he presents them in an unintelligent light. I didn't take it very seriously because I don't think it was written seriously (although he was thorough, I'll give him that). And the first person who posted here, please sign your name, not to mention read all the stuff I've written in the homosexuality section.
Anyway, I think the treasure trove part, unless it is proven to be false, works fine because that is the current theory. Any objections? Augustulus 00:33, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
It isn't the current theory, and has been discredited by numerous scholars as a bit of fanciful story-telling of the kind that mediæval chroniclers (usually looking to point a moral) were fond of using. Don't know who the first person was - that's been there for ages. Silverwhistle 09:26, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll find him. Augustulus 21:31, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Edits, Section headings

I thought Missi had a point in that the article seems it could use a little attention. I started off by trying to seperate out some of the different themes and give them their own section headings to make it easier to access specific material from the table of contents. I focused on the first part of the article; I think the Crusade could use a similar job, but I need to read up a little before I tackle it. (I'd be thrilled if someone beat me to it.)

I also changed a couple of sentences; see discussion above about the Alys one. I also made a statement about Richard being Eleanor's favorite son a little less forceful - it seems generally accepted and quite likely that he was, but since it's an issue of what a person thought and felt it seems like it would be hard to prove it enough to make quite such a positive statement.

I'm intending to do more clean-up on the article in the near future - I'd like to get it more concise, I spotted a couple redundancies, etc. - and if anyone has any comments and advice, I'd be grateful. I'm completely new at this and doing my best to Be Bold. Candle-ends 05:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I have done some tidying up and editing on this page. Hope that's OK. As you say, there were some repetitions and redundancies. Silverwhistle 10:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Arms of Richard I illustration

I am sceptical of this: what is the source? As far as I have been able to tell, he used a variety of permutations during his reign, including 2 lions facing each other. I don't know of the source for the motto. Silverwhistle 12:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Regarding fiction

I am currently reading, and thoroughly enjoying, Jack Whyte's second book of the "Templar Trilogy," "Standard of Honor," in which Jack portrays Richard in all his strengths and flaws, including his powerful capacity to draw the loyalty of his subordinates, his homosexuality, and his antisemitism. I thought I might check some of Jack's claims about Richard and, when I found the Wikipedia article, I noticed the "Later Literature" section and decided that I might as well add the fact that Jack's book exists. I've never attempted to add to Wikepedia before. When I returned to the article today, I felt shocked that somebody had deleted my small contribution. I don't know why.24.207.38.181 00:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Julian Glover has actually played Richard twice. Someone forgot to mention his appearance in the TV-version of "Ivanhoe" (1982). Check Glover's filmography on imdb.com for more details.

Reference added. Yes, I saw that version of Ivanhoe when it was first on TV... I was just getting interested in the 12C in those days. Silverwhistle 23:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

Should probably review WP:MOS, especially the relevant section on wikilinking. Isopropyl 16:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Why? Adam Bishop 18:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, why? -Augustulus

Richard the Lionheart?

Isn't it supposed to be Richard the Lionhearted? I've always seen it that way. Maybe there's just a mistake. → JARED (t)  18:32, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a translation from French: Coeur-de-Lion. Lionheart is a closer translation and certainly the one I've encountered most often. Silverwhistle 23:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

'Lionheart' sounds better. -Augustulus

The page needs serious cleanup

Who has made all of the changes that makes the page look like a piece of crap? Who removed the picture? Undo these changes immediately. Augustulus 14:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Augustulus 14:40, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Richard's sexuality

If you are going to state that many modern histories view Richard's sexuality as a given, it is only fair to also mention that many other histories view the interpretation that he was homosexual as unfounded, and many others are agnostic on the issue. Otherwise unfair emphasis is being given to one point of view: the current passage implies that only a few old-fashioned scholars are not of the view that Richard was homosexual, which is overstating the case.--Stonemad GB 08:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I have edited this to make it clearer that this is not a cut-and-dried issue and that there is a difference between academic and popular historians on this. Silverwhistle 09:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

That's fine, but 'popular' and 'academic' makes our side seem like a lot of liberal hippies. Sorry, Stonemad GB, I didn't mean to be out of neutral point of view there. Augustulus 01:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC) ps. Since this is such a huge issue for some of us, should we discuss ALL the pros and cons of the theories in the article? It just seems to me that we're fighting on many fronts across the article. Could we funnel it into one section called 'sexual orientation'?

I could write the pro and Marianne can write the con. Is this not fair? Please answer because I am not the most patient person on the planet. Augustulus 00:58, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
It seems to me that if there is going to be any mention of 'some historians say...' there should at least be a citation. I see many allusions saying 'some historians' interpret various passages as implying Richard was homosexual or bisexual or whatnot. Yet I do not see any citations. At the very least, if these passages aren't culled due to a lack of a citation, there should be a 'citation needed' link added.Mrcooker (talk) 20:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Its like this because the sexuality row was such a pain because there has been so much comment that there were too many points of view in it. Saying that historians disagree is accurate and appropriate, considering the how important Richard's sexuality was in comparison with his Crusade, dynastic warfare and legacy as the most famous King of England, the gay row doesn't need to be huge.

regards --Tefalstar (talk) 20:45, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Illegitimate child(ren)

Please can we stop the edit wars over the mere existence Philip of Cognac? He's in contemporary records. Roger of Hoveden, vol. 4, p. 97, says for 1199:

Eodem anno Philippus filius Ricardi regis Angliæ nothus, cui prædictus rex pater suus dederat castellum et honorem de Cuinac, interfecit memoratum vicecomitum de Limoges in vindictam patris sui.
(That year Philip, illegitimate son of King Richard of England, to whom the aforesaid king his father had granted the castle and honour of Cognac, slew the previously mentioned Viscount of Limoges in vengeance for his father.)

He last appears 2 years later (in 1201), in the Pipe Rolls of John: "Et Philippo f. R. Ricardi 1 m. de dono R." ("King John gave one mark to Philip son of King Richard"). (Thanks to Mississippienne for finding that one.) He had been married to Amelia of Cognac. He now has his own page, anyway. Missi also mentions Henry, d. 1245, to whom John refers as "Henry, who says he is my son but who is truly my nephew". The evidence suggests he was born in the 1190s, after the deaths of Young Henry and Geoffrey, so his father is either Richard or one of Henry II's illegitimate sons. Silverwhistle 09:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

You mentioned 'Henry' before, and I don't buy it. If indeed your evidence is wrong, might be Henry the Young King's, William Longsword's, or Henry II's.

As for Philip, I know even Reston admits to his existence, but the fact is that he was named 'Philip'. Why would Richard name his son 'Philip'? Philip Augustus, perhaps? An old lover long lost ... ? But if Cognac was slaying people in 1199 he was born before Richard and Philip were lovers (or really good friends) It doesn't add up. And besides, that is the only evidence that the Viscount of Limoges was murdered. Augustulus 00:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Henry was sent to be educated in 1207. This suggests an 1190s birthdate. Young Henry and Geoffrey died in the '80s. John calls him his nephew: if he were Henry II's, he'd be his brother. Whether or not Aimar of Limoges was actually murdered, Roger's mentioning of this story suggests he knew Philip was old enough to bear arms, otherwise it wouldn't be plausible. As to calling him Philip, if he were born in 1180, the year Philip II succeeded, he may have been called after him for that reason. Also, since we don't know who his mother was, it's also possible it may have been a name from her family. Silverwhistle 09:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Philip was crowned in September 1179, if I recall correctly. Or was that Louis's death? And it seems extreme that he would name his own son after a total stranger who he hadn't even allied with yet. Although your mother point is good, her lack of existence in the primary sources gives me doubts ... Augustulus 00:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Hardly a total stranger, given Richard's betrothal to Alice, and the relations between Louis and Henry! Bastard children were often named by the mother. It's often luck as to whether references to their mothers by name survive; she may not have been of sufficiently high social status in her own right to be considered worth mentioning. Silverwhistle 00:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Philip was crowned in November 1179, and Louis finally died in September 1180. Adam Bishop 00:25, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Forgive my strange speech - stranger as in he didn't know him. I know I read too much of the Bible, but bear with me. I also think that if Richard truly went about reproducing with peasants out of wedlock, Cognac would have been kept under wraps because of the shame involved. And Robert of Normandy made William the Conqueror with a tanner's daughter very specifically ... we know almost everything about that. Didn't he see her in a pond or something and fall in love? Surely the mother would have been better known ... and nephew can refer to most lower and indirect kinsmen.
But I am fine with the edits now in place, so there really is no point arguing further. I still think, however, we should avoid pointless yammering by creating a short 'Sexual Orientation' section in the article. Augustulus 02:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Regardless of who their mothers were (and it's generally just luck as to whether any information about 12C women survives), bastards were useful in the marriage market, as Philip obviously was, in being married off to the heiress of Cognac. Limited though it is in some cases, we're lucky to have the amount of material we do have about 12C people. Silverwhistle 16:51, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Marraige market. I like that term.

Anyway, Richard seems flamboyant enough to be remembered for his love-life. Augustulus 03:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Disney?

Would Disney's Robin Hood w/ a lion as Richard be necessary to include?


Captivity and return 

Disguised as a Knight Templar, Richard sailed from Corfu with four attendants.

There is not much writen evidence abouth Richard return, however i'd like to point out of one, namely letter of archbishop Adalbert of Salzburg to pope Coelestine III from the year 1194.


From that letter we know that was on 29. of july 1193 in Worms signed contract between Kaiser Heinrich VI. and Richard I. Of England.

To be released Richard must pay to Kaiser Heinrich 100.000 Mark of silver from which half goes to Duke Leopold.

The most interesting part is nexst Richard must namely also pay aditional 50.000 Mark of silver for releasing of hostages

He payed 30.000 mark of silver to kaiser Heimrich for releasing of 60 hostages (crew of the ship?) and 20. 000 Mark of silver to Duke leopold to relesase 7 hostages.(sourde genealogie mittelalter, Leopold.V.)

The only logical conclusion would be that we talk about two capturing and that was Richard and 66 men first captured on the territory og Hily german empire(probably by Duke Berthild of Andech-Meran who amnanged to arrive to Aka with wounded kaisers son and fourth of german army) and then obviously seven men escaped, probably Richard, Roger of Howden and five knights or nobles which was captured on the territory of Duke Leopold.(my guess woukd be on the border between Carniola and Styria).

It exsist namelx the second writen source - the EMM (exspositio pappe mundi) , map which author is probably Roeger of Howden and there is of course Hereford map. If you take closer look you will suprisingly find out that city of Viena is not on the map, which is quite sauprisingly.


Greg

Richard's nickname

I have read somewhere that he was called the Lionhearted for his cruelty in putting down a revolt. Is this true? Thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Xanon (talk • contribs) 08:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC).

This is true, I don't know why this hasn't been changed. firemaker113

Richard's royal title

Is Richard's royal title "King of the English" or "King of England" ?

[[User:Siyac|Siyac

im not an expert but in lessons we use King of England but that might just be because we are english

  • King of England is the standard yes. King of the English is more associated with Saxon Kings like Offa and Alfred. --Tefalstar (talk) 18:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Revolt against Henry II - Too Many "Henry ?s"

This section is very ambiguous and confusing. We have "Henry II" being King of England, while "Henry III", who is "Henry the Young King" ("to avoid confusion" with yet another Henry III - obviously, the English are also confused) being crowned King of England while their own king Henry II still is king, then opposed by his father Henry ?. This is confusing enough, but subsequent references to "Henry" fail to identify which Henry is being discussed, while Richard variously contends with or pledges fealty to Henry ?, without any clear indication of which Henry ? is being pledged or fought. The final result is an utter anarchy of Henrys. This section is totally unintelligible to a simple American who knows not the intricacies of royal families - and I thought our politicians were devious! Topnife 22:47, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Total Re-write

Would anybody be averse to me tearing this thing down, keeping everything that is well referenced, organizing it into chronological headings that actually make sense to read and basing the rest on proper sources and direct quotes. I'll do my best to give us a good article to squabble over at least.

I'll leave this a few days before starting some research to hear all the objections. Look at Henry II of England which bar a few small changes, i wrote from scratch, just keeping the good tid-bits the old article had to offer, which were few. If you think that's decent ill do the same with this if anybody is up for it. Cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tefalstar (talk • contribs) 23:31, August 27, 2007 (UTC)

That's a good idea...your Henry II re-write was great, and Richard deserves a better article! Adam Bishop 01:11, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I would be happy to see it improved all at once, but I would also like to be assured that absolutely no accurate information in the current article will be lost by a rewrite. (And Henry does look like a big improvement.) Srnec 04:25, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Go for it. 24.60.239.47 (talk) 02:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

As to the matter of Total Rewrites This is not particularly personal to you, however, it seems to include you. I am talking about the idea that an editor can decide that he will come in and do a total rewrite on an existing article and let the other editors who perhaps contributed small edits that they undoubtedly worked hard on and are rightfully proud of- bedamned. As to styling, that is a matter of reason and taste. There is no secret to it. Anyone can do it. I protest it and I think it goes against WIKI policy, if not in the letter, definitely in the spirit. I also think it can be a subtle form of bullying. I think you should re-think this article-invasion idea and instead use your considerable expertise, to "creating articles" that you are particularly knowledgable about, while respecfully editing others that are already in progress. Wiki was created for everyone, just a few. Mugginsx (talk) 18:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Logic error

The article says that Richard was shot by a sniper from the walls of a castle he was besieging, and that he had the man brought to him.

Presumably he captured the castle first? 129.230.248.1 16:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

  • He was shot by a child, under 18, as vengeance for some perceived wrong Richard had done his family. The killer wasn't an active soldier, so its likely he lived and was apprehended outside the walls. Richard often didn't wear armor and he failed to pay the assailant enough attention, thinking he was safe at that distance. At least one source says he saw the bolt in the air and waved his hat to his attacker before dodging it, a move he made a split second to late.

He had the boy bought to him, where he gave him several pieces of gold and sent him on his way. After the king died, the boy was again found and put to death against Richard's wishes. Skinned alive to be precise. The siege was over such a trivial matter it would be laughable, had it not robbed the greatest western warrior of an age, buts thats aside. Hope thats helpful anyway. --Tefalstar 22:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikiprojects

I have removed this article from WikiProject Judaism because it makes no sense here. Richard was not Jewish, nor is he notably and particularly renowned for his attitudes towards the Jewish people. If we're going to include people in this category simply because, at some point in their public careers, they said or did something that had to do with Jews, then virtually every major public figure in Western society will be under the aegis of this WikiProject, and that is absurd. 76.97.163.77 02:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

  • First of all, it's considered very rude to remove other editors' comments from talk pages without their permission, as you did in your last revert. Please don't do it again.
  • Secondly, I reiterate: this article has nothing to do with Judaism. Yes, there were pogroms against Jews during Richard's reign. But, sadly, there were pogroms against Jews all throughout the Middle Ages. Again, if we include WikiProject Judaism here, we would have to include it on every medieval monarch. I notice that WikiProject Judaism is not included on Edward I of England, even though he actually officially expelled the Jews from the country - a far more historically significant event than the brief antisemitic persecution led by mobs during Richard's administration. I also notice that WikiProject Islam is not included on this article, even though Richard is primarily known to history as a crusader and in that capacity he devoted much of his adult life to warring against Islam. (He also massacred a few thousand Islamic prisoners at Acre as described in the article, and, unlike the pogrom following his coronation, there is no question that this mass murder was specifically ordered by him.) There certainly would be much more justification for including that.
  • Again, it certainly makes sense to include WikiProject Judaism on the articles of people who are specifically and prominently known as anti-Semites, such as the Nazi leadership or Tomas de Torquemada. But Richard doesn't fall into that category. He faced a situation where he made boilerplate statements about defending the Christian faith and a bunch of crazed religious fanatics (spurred in many cases by personal greed) took that as an excuse to engage in persecution and murder. I wish that was an unusual situation during the Dark Ages and Middle Ages, but it wasn't. Everyone in the Christian world during the medieval era was an anti-Semite by modern standards. 76.97.163.77 02:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Richard was actually horrified by the actions agains the Jews -

"The act committed at York was soon reported to the king beyond the seas, who, after the commotion at London, had granted peace and legal security to the Jews within his realm. He was indignant and enraged, not only on account of the treason against his royal majesty, but for the great injury his revenue had sustained -- for whatever the Jews, who are the king's farmers, possess in goods, appertains to the treasury." Chapter 11: Book IV: William of Newburgh —Preceding unsigned comment added by CharlieRCD (talk • contribs) 16:57, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Sexuality - again..

I'm removing the LGBT category. Unless there are reliable sources added to the article, it can't be there. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 23:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a minor revert battle going on over a section describing Philip as Richard's "longtime lover", with some attempts, which I agree with, to alter this to "alleged homosexual lover (see below)". This seems a pretty clear issue to me; as it stands the article assumes a theory, that of the Richard/Philip relationship, which lacks broad historical consensus. It also does so in language both unencyclopaedic and anachronistic ("longtime lover" makes no sense in a mediaeval context, sounding instead a bit Barbara Cartland). Yet when I attempted to undo the reversion to the original version my action was marked by an admin as unconstructive...so I thought I'd take it up here
I have no settled opinion on the question of Richard's sexuality myself, but I think a balance should be reflected in the article rather than the current assumption of the more 'colourful' version Jaguarjaguar (talk) 13:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Jaguarjaguar; as it stands it makes an unwarranted assertion that, at the very least, needs some kind of evidence cited. Cheers, Lindsay 16:07, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Even a tad further down in the article, the bets are hedged, as their actions taken by "some historians...to imply a homosexual relationship"; so i slightly weakened the "longtime" to reflect the uncertainty. Cheers, Lindsay 16:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I also agree. There is no source cited. To make that kind of assertion, with no source, is poor practice at best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.7.246.108 (talk) 23:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
It should at least be mentioned! 71.66.230.44 (talk) 04:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Britannica

The evidence that he was a homosexual seems persuasive but has been strongly challenged. Richard had no children by Queen Berengaria, with whom his relations seem to have been merely formal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enciclope2009 (talk • contribs) 11:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Historian John Boswell has written a very well-known book called "Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality", where he argues for the homosexuality of Richard I. I don't have the book any longer, but anyone interested should look up the reference. Google books one of the relevant passages here: http://books.google.com/books?id=v-MR5_AdG68C&pg=PA231&lpg=PA231&dq=%22john+boswell%22+richard+lion+heart&source=bl&ots=uNM3vzgJP6&sig=YYuttfp6d8KlOh45CW_PKfZ8CEw&hl=da&ei=pxIkSqv9KYiZjAfIrf20Bg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPA231,M1 128.232.231.16 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC).
I have the book1 Ill look into this tonight!!!12.235.214.66 (talk) 07:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I've just acquired the excellent biography "Richard Coeur de Lion" by Jean Flori. He argues convincigly that the two public confessions and penances could only refer to homosexual activity and that Richard was likely bi-sexual. This is a very reliable reference, so I would propose to add a short section on this topic. I suppose that it should be a new section "Sexuality"? Flori also discusses relations with women.--Gautier lebon (talk) 10:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

Requested move POLL
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no move. DrKiernan (talk) 14:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Richard I of England → Richard the Lionheart — Per WP:NCNT If a monarch or prince is overwhelmingly known, in English, by a cognomen, it may be used, and there is then no need to disambiguate by adding Country. —Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support as nom. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support, common names are preferable. Kbthompson (talk) 18:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose this one. I spell it Lionhearted, and the incomplete citation of the present guidelines disturbs me. It is possible they should be changed; but for now they add that nicknames should only be done when consensus so strong that it would be surprising to omit the epithet, using this case as an example. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:36, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Lionhearted sounds clumsy to me, and if it means anything google has 4 times the support for "Richard the Lionheart" as "Richard the Lionhearted". Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Raw Google means nothing, and Lionhearted better represents the force of Coeur-de-Lion, which is probably more common than either; Lionheart is bad grammar in English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Not of itself, but he is known as "the Lionheart" rather than "Lionhearted" or "Heart of the Lion". BTW, I'd recommend you do some work on English grammar, "Richard the Lionheart" is perfectly good English grammar. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose all post-Norman Conquest monarchs should be 'name-numeral of England'. GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • support Most common name. Gwinva (talk) 19:16, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Using google books a quick check gave me huge support for Richard I and roughly comparable support for Richard the Lionheart and Richard the Lionhearted, but even adding Lionheart and Lionhearted together didn't give me the total that used Richard I. Yet again I vote against what I'd actually wish to. Irritating. Narson (talk) 19:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose simply because it will lead to innumerable pointless edit wars over "Lionheart" and "Lionhearted". Adam Bishop (talk) 19:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - too many orthographical variations to move as yet. I'd prefer "Coeur de Lion," personally. john k (talk) 20:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment' I'd prefer that too, but it'd never wash with the UEers; and with those allied to the numeralists, it'd be dead before it began. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I don't know, I think I'm an advocate of UE, though more on a 'I hate it when I told I'm wrong for using the English'. On this one, Coeur de Lyon or Coeur de Lion would acctually be my preferred. Possibly my semi-franglais upbringing shining through though. Narson (talk) 23:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Conditional Support: There is no doubt that in Britain/the English-speaking world he has always been known as Richard The Lionheart. But changing this article's title should not be a pretext for changing other monarch's article pages where, say, as in the case of Polish or French monarchs the average English-speaker has barely heard of the king (as in, say, a Louis) let alone heard that his own people called him 'The Bold' or 'The Fat'. So changing the obvious here should not be a pretext for changing the obscure. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support "Richard the Lionheart" as per the nomination. I doubt that, without consulting a reference, many people would otherwise know the difference between "Richard I of England" and "Richard II of England." As with similar other cases, I might in the future be open to considering "Richard I the Lionheart." Nihil novi (talk) 22:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - per John K Ealdgyth | Talk 03:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per john k and Adam Bishop, and his ordinal is well-established. Srnec (talk) 06:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose, in agreement with the very guideline cited in the nomination, which goes on to say, "But there must be consensus so strong that it would be surprising to omit the epithet; and the name must actually be unambiguous. For example, although Richard the Lionheart is often used, Richard I is not unusual, so he is at Richard I of England;...". The sundry forms of the nickname also pose a problem. -- Lonewolf BC (talk) 06:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Lonewolf BC. I well understand the supporting argument but have to lean to the oppose for consistency and to minimise ambiguity. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per Nihil novi. Lionhearted is also fine with me. Space Cadet (talk) 15:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support As long as it doesn't constantly have to be reverted from Lionhearted. Saying Richard I is like saying Aethelred II, many people don't know who it is. Regards --Tefalstar (talk) 15:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - he is commonly known as Richard I of England. If you want to use a nickname, "Coeur de Lion" is equally common, even in English. Deb (talk) 19:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Really WP:NCNT is pretty clear, using Richard himself as an example. There isn't a post-conquest monarch of England, GB, or the UK for whom the ordinal is less recognisable than the epithet, so all of the current crop of move requests should be turned down. Not only that, but i agree with John K, Adam Bishop, and others, there are too many possible epithets in use for Richard. Cheers, Lindsay (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - better recognition and greater contemporary resonance; the ordinal convention seems arbitrary and anachronistic in this case. Lionheart is a more usual English translation than Lhearted, by the way, and I believe better known, so I'd rather have that Jaguarjaguar (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support. We should use whatever name is most common among reliable sources. I don't know if that is Richard the Lionheart, Richard the Lion-Hearted, or Richard Cœur de Leon. I am fairly confident, however, that it is not "Richard I of England." *** Crotalus *** 01:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per my comment at Talk:Casimir I of Poland.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The merits may be fine but this volume of requests should be dealt with wholesale, maybe with a change of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles). — AjaxSmack 03:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per opposers. Johnbod (talk) 04:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose This is pretty anal, guys.
Is every historical figure going to be known by their epithet? Coeur de Lion? OK, so does that mean Louis the Fat will be known as le Grosse? There are more important things to get excited about.--Gazzster (talk) 21:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. While his nickname is really well known, it also has several divergent renditions. His regnal number is also known well enough, and helps avoid those problems. I favor systematics (= regnal ordinal) for this case. Shilkanni (talk) 23:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. His ordinal is far more consistant than his nickname and its numerous variations. Dimadick (talk) 14:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose EB and Encarta use Richard I, so I feel we ought to as well. Tim! (talk) 17:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per GoodDay. Nicknames inevitably inject POV and lead to arguments as to which ones to use. Current title puts the subject in historical context. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Every other English/British king is under their regnal number. The other is just a nickname - he is known to most serious historians as Richard I. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Serious historians do not shy away from his nickname. Srnec (talk) 21:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I would rather have consistency in the naming of monarchs, in the format of "monarch name (ordinal) of country". As Richard the Lionheart redirects to Richard I of England, I really don't see a problem with the current name. – Axman (☏) 16:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose - While indeed Richard is known as Lionheart in some contexts, they are flamboyant contexts and usually not encyclopaedic. Also keep consistency with other British monarchs. Parable1991 (talk) 19:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Not encyclopaedic perhaps, but rarely flamboyant. His nickname is scholarly currency. Srnec (talk) 21:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:
  • I cannot honestly believe anyone objecting to Richard the Lionheart which is all this king was ever known as even in his own time and not just in England. Its ludicrous. David Lauder (talk) 10:54, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Some apparently believe it to be against the holy and sacred guidelines, even though these guidelines have no living consensus; the sentence in question is IMHO controversial and should be removed. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Well, they weren't going to call him "Richard I" in his own lifetime, obviously... Adam Bishop (talk) 12:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
      • My main objection is that there is not consensus between "Lionheart" or "Lionhearted". If we must use ordinals, I prefer "Name Ordinal, Monarch of Country", but it's not something I'll get that worked up about either.Ealdgyth | Talk 15:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm baffled by the agonizing over "so many versions" of Richard I's cognomen: "Coeur de Lion," "the Lionhearted," "the Lionheart." He was an English king—why insist on using the French version ("Coeur de Lion")? "The Lionheart" is equally correct as "the Lionhearted"—why not dispense with the extra syllable? "The Lionheart" will do perfectly. (I personally would go with "Richard I the Lionheart," so as not to lose what value there is in the ordinal—which is pretty little, without the cognomen.) Nihil novi (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Richard was actually French; he prolly didn't speak a word of English, though for the tiny amount of time he ever spent in England that wouldn't have mattered as England was run by people of French speech. According to Gerald of Wales, his father, the great Henry II, needed a translator to converse with the English. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 01:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Better yet, since there's a Richard II of England and a Richard III of England, why not leave this article as is. GoodDay (talk) 01:29, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
        • I remember people better by name and descriptor than by serial number. (Though, as I said above, I would include the ordinal—the serial number—as well, for the limited information it does provide.) Nihil novi (talk) 02:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
        • David Lauder says he cannot believe how people can object to Richard the Lionheart (Lionhearted, Coeur de Lion, whatever). I don't believe anyone is. It's one of the iconic names in Anglo-Celtic culture. Rather I can't believe that some people think it's an issue to get bothered about. I haven't checked, but I wouldn't mind betting it's a redirect anyway. Another possible candidate for Wikipedia:lamest edit wars? --Gazzster (talk) 01:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Nickname test cases - this is one of them. Andrewa (talk) 16:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Richard the Lionheart move 2

I would just like to say that even the Arabs call Richard "Heart of Lion" - Qalbel Asad. Yes it is an issue, this man was a great military leader. I'm pointing out the obvious because the move is so obvious. Tourskin (talk) 23:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

First you demonstrate that the nickname is flattering and violates NPOV and then you consider the move obvious? Dimadick (talk) 10:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I suppose Alexander the Great, Antiochus III the Great, Ashoka the Great, Charles the Bald, Charles the Fat, Charles the Simple and so on does not violate NPOV then hmmm?Tourskin (talk) 05:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Everybody calls him "Richard the Lionheart." He is known by that name everywhere in the world. I have never seen him referred to simply as "Richard I of England" anywhere but here, and most people wouldn't even recognize that name as referring to the leader of the Third Crusade without thinking about it. We might as well refer to his great rival Saladin as "Yusuf ibn Ayyub," his given name. Or, for that matter, Suleiman the Magnificent as Solomon I of the Ottoman Empire. Jsc1973 (talk) 17:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I propose Richard IV of Normandy, because he considered himself as a Norman first. 'just joking.

Nortmannus (talk) 11:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Moat around Acre

My primary interests are Richard's "return and captivity" so I would like for the start and for the sake of discussion comment following passage from the main article:

“Richard quarrelled with Leopold V of Austria over the deposition of Isaac Komnenos (related to Leopold's Byzantine mother) and his position within the Crusade. Leopold's banner had been raised alongside the English and French standards. This was interpreted as arrogance by both Richard and Philip, as Leopold was a vassal of the Holy Roman Emperor (although he was the highest-ranking surviving leader of the imperial forces). Richard's men tore the flag down and threw it in the moat of Acre. Leopold left the Crusade immediately.”

In the abovementioned paragraph “Richard in the Holy Land” we have at least three doubtful statements.

For the time being I will put aside real nature of the quarrel between Richard I. and Leopold V. of Austria but the fact is:

ad 1. That Leopold V. of Austria wasn’t the highest-ranking surviving leader of the(german) imperial forces. The highest German noble after the dead of Barbarossa’s son Friedrich VI. Duke of Schwabia was Berthold VI. Count of Andechs (1138-12.8.1204 ) Margrave of Istria and Duke of Merania and Dalmatia who accompanied Duke of Schwabia after death of his father and certainly arrived at Acon with him. Sources as Genealogie mittelalter states that »his bravery if described in court songs«.

Berthold was as head of house of the ANDECHS-MERANIEN and one of the richest in Germany his property stretches from Franconia and Bavaria over Tyrol, Carinthia and Carniola to shores of Adriatic Sea namely his last property Istria. About his status whiteness marriages of his children. His daughter Agnes Marie married Philipp August King of France and his second daughter Gertrud married King Andrew II. of Hungary.


Ad 2. The statement that Richard's men tore theLeopld’s flag down and threw it in the moat of Acre is highly doubtifull.

The Itinerarium Peregrinorum et Gesta Regis Ricardi in the “The Siege and Capture of Acre, 1191” says:

»His (Richard’s) miners also made an underground passage to the tower at which his siege engines were firing. The miners sought out the foundations of the tower and hacked out part of it. They filled up the hole with timbers which they set afire. Then the repeated hits of the stone missiles suddenly knocked the tower to bits.«

»The King ordered the criers to proclaim that anyone who removed a stone from the wall next to the aforesaid tower would receive two pieces of gold from the King. Later he promised three gold pieces and then four, so that however many stones anyone removed, he received a payment of four gold pieces for each. Then you could see the young men rush forward and the courageous followers swarm to the wall. When the stones were taken out they would go on eagerly, greedy for praise as well as for payment.«

It is highly unlike that abovementioned brave young men swim with the stones in their shoulders across the moat around Acre. But there is more. In the "Richard the Lionheart in the Holy Land (1191-1192)" from from “Codice diplomatico della Repubblica de Genova” the final passage says (Richard’s own words):

»After the king of the Franks had returned to his own lands and the ruined and broken walls of the city of Acre had been repaired and the city fully fortified by ditches and a wall, we set off to go to Jaffa so as to further the affairs of Christendom and achieve the intention of our vow.« Witnessed by myself at Jaffa, on the first day of October [1191].”

In short, from aforementioned passages we can conclude that Acre at the time of the siege and in the moment of his fall probably didn’t have a moat.

Greg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harrisonfried (talk • contribs) 21:45, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.107.194.213 (talk) 15:14, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Rebellion

There's a discrepancy between the opening paragraph and the "Life" section. The intro says "At only 16, Richard was commanding his own army, putting down rebellions in Poitou against his father" The later section says he was part of the revolt. Can an expert correct one or the other? Rojomoke (talk) 10:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Diet at Hagenau

These two Victorian histories give roughly the same version of events:

  • The dukes of Normandy, from the times of Rolls to the expulsion of king John, by Jonathan Duncan, 1839. p. 290
  • John Cassell's Illustrated History of England, by John Frederick Smith, William Howitt, John Cassell, Published by W. Kent and Co., 1857. p. 237

But the former quotes Richards speech while the latter says it does not exist which is correct?

Also Smith relates:

It is related by Hoveden that Richard did homage to the emperor for the crown of England. This act of vassalage, if it really took place, was but an acknowledgment of the pretensions of the ancient emperors of Germany to the feudal superiority of Europe as heirs of the Roman Caesars. It is probable, however, that there is some mistake here, and that the act of homage referred to the imaginary crown of Provence, or Aries, which Henry at this time conferred upon his prisoner.

What is the position of more recent historians did he or did he not pay homage to Henry, because if Richard did then his opening sentence to the diet, "I am born of a rank which recognizes no superior but God" was mere rhetoric and needs balancing with a mention of the act of homage. --PBS (talk) 12:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Gillingham's Richard I doesn't mention a "diet" at Hagenau. He only mentions Hagenau once, on page 239 "Longchamp persuaded Henry VI to allow Richard to return to the imperial court, which by now had moved on to the palace at Hagenau, and he also negotiated a date for the king's release: as soon as 70,000 marks had been paid and hostages for the rest handed over." Nothing is said about homage in connection with this, and the next few pages discuss King Philip of France and Prince John's attempts to get Richard kept in captivity as well as conquer lands on the Continent. Homage to Henry is only mentioned on pages 247-248, where Gillingham says about a gathering of princes at Wurzburg "Hence a coalition of German princes was already in place to persuade the emperor to reject the advances made by Philip and John. Even so, Henry VI succeeded in further tightening the screws on Richard. On his mother's advice, Richard resigned the kingdom of England to Henry VI in order to receive it back as a fief of the empire." Ealdgyth - Talk 16:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

After crusade.

After the crusades, how long did Richard live in England and France. Can someone give me a webpage that discribes his live after the Crusades clearly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.130.224.189 (talk) 06:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Richard_I_of_England/Archive_2&oldid=1190135126"