Talk:Edward III of England

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleEdward 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.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 9, 2011, and on May 17, 2017.
Article milestones
October 19, 2006Featured article candidatePromoted
June 14, 2007Featured topic candidateNot promoted
On this day...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

Featured article status and references...[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

There's even more impetus to fix up its issues as it's listed for TFA on 9 May (I received notification because, perversely, I'm down as its main contributor in number of edits, though I think all I've ever done is revert vandalism!) Although I'm no expert on this era, I'd be happy to help out where I can -- if we don't think it can be tightened up by the TFA date, we'd better let Raul know shortly so he can push it back. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm. It's not far away. I can help with his early life and the economic aspects, but I'm far less sound on his later years. Still, the earlier bits are where the most unreferenced editing has occurred. I've gone through and removed the Victorian depictions as a first start though. Let me see which volumes I've got to hand this evening, and I'll post again tomorrow. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, here are what I think the main bits of work need to involve:
  • Early life - needs some work on the language, and its currently overly using Mortimer as a source at the end, which needs some balancing out with other writers.
  • Early reign - needs some serious referencing. I'm not certain if this bit still reflects current scholarship or not, to be honest. it also probably needs to explain a little more about the context to Edward's actions - it takes for granted a lot of knowledge about England, France and the various landholdings.
  • Fortunes of war - feels a little thin, from what I've read of Edward's mid-career.
  • Later reign - Strange that Alice Perrers doesn't get a mention, as I'm sure recent biographies have noted that her role with Edward led to some political tensions.
  • Fictional portrayals - unreferenced.
  • Footnotes - now inconsistent, would need some tidying up.
To be honest, I'm not entirely confident we can tighten this up sufficiently by the 9 May - what do you think? Hchc2009 (talk) 10:52, 29 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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:

  • "Early reign" – this has been expanded quite a bit, but most of it is unreferenced. It's also become a bit too focused on Scotland, with too much irrelevant information. I'll try to make a serious rewrite of this.
  • "Fictional portrayals" – there are no references, but more seriously, there is no assertion of the cultural significance of any of these portrayals. As far as I can see, Edward III is not as significant in terms of cultural legacy as e.g. Henry V or Richard III. I think this section can easily be excluded altogether, or integrated into the "Historical assessment" section ("Fictional portrayals" sections are like weed: pull them out and they grow right back.)
  • "Titles, styles, honours and arms" – also this section I see as mostly trivia for those with special interests. What is of most interest here is the quartering with France, but that can be integrated into the relevant section.

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)Reply[reply]

Thanks, sounds like a good plan - will help out if I can.Hchc2009 (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, sounds good. If you're okay with the referencing perhaps I can just help out with copyediting. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It would be great if someone could go over and copyedit what I write; I can often be sloppy. I've done "Early life" now, which needed a complete rewrite. Lampman (talk) 00:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've had a quick look over it and made some tweaks. Two more substantive bits I noted:
  • "To build up diplomatic support for the venture, Isabella had Prince Edward engaged to the twelve-year-old Philippa of Hainault." - it was more than just diplomatic support, as the dowry also provided Isabella with eight warships and money that paid for the mercenary army. (Weir 2006, pp.221-3.)
  • "subjected Edward to constant disrespect and humiliation" - I'm not certain that the usual sources would support "constant" - might be worth checking, as whilst there were episodes like this, they seem to have built up Edward's frustration over time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hchc2009 (talkcontribs) 16:40, 3 May 2011
  • That seems reasonable, I've made the changes. I've gone through "Early reign" as well now – I rewrote a lot here too, and put in references. Lampman (talk) 20:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I should be able to go through and copyedit tonight (Australian time) or tomorrow. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

"Later reign" done, minor changes + referencing. The following sections seem decent. Lampman (talk) 16:06, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Parliament and taxation" done, had to cut a bit that I just couldn't support. Lampman (talk) 18:50, 8 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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)Reply[reply]

Please feel free to reword. Lampman (talk) 12:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Big mistake in portraits[edit]

File:Edward III.jpg is not Edward the Third. It is of his son, Edward of Woodstock, the Black Prince. See —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow. Good eye! What made you suspicious in the first place? I think usually people review the images in featured articles. I wonder how this slipped through. The source of the pic in question is just a free webhost. Here's the right Edward -> [1][2].--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 09:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm gonna upload the right pic and replace it. Just gimme about 3 mins.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 09:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks to whoever noticed this. Things were going a bit fast yesterday as I was preparing the article for TFA, and the picture was categorised as Edward III, but I should of course have caught it. Lampman (talk) 12:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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)Reply[reply]

Source? To the best of my knowledge, Edward II spent the early months of 1312 in the north of England, trying to protect Piers Gaveston. I can’t find anywhere that he visited France between 1308 and 1313. Lampman (talk) 17:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Okay, I think I know what's happened here, I am getting Edwards confused here...--MacRusgail (talk) 17:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No illegitimate children[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

I'll remove it, don't know when that got in there. Lampman (talk) 17:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Objection to number of Anglo-saxon entries[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 17:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So improve some articles on non-Anglo-Saxon kings to FA status. Brutannica (talk) 22:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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)Reply[reply]

Historian P. Doherty definitely has Isabella as the official regent after Edward II is deposed by Parliament in Jan 1327. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're right. I was going for brevity in the lead, but it might have been a bit imprecise. It's better now, thanks! Lampman (talk) 06:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bankruptcy of Florentine bankers in 1340s[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Brittany and Battle of Auberoche...[edit]

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)

Yep, found it. Mortimer talks about Jeanne and Edward's support for her in 1342 on pages 204-5 in "The Perfect King. The Earl of Lancaster's 1345 expedition and Auberoche occur in Gascony, rather further south than Brittany, and aren't described as being in direct response to the Breton war, at least in Mortimer's account (p.219). It might be worth adding a sentence in on the Breton situation, referenced to Mortimer or similar, but the existing footnote captures Auberoche perfectly well, in my opinion.Hchc2009 (talk) 20:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thank you,I appreciate your support on Joanna of Flanders, however, keep investigating and if you found any source available, please contact me so I can make an arrangement to edit the short sentence of the Breton War of Succession involving her, again, many thanks.--Corusant (talk) 03:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]

French claim[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

According to the 14th century chronicler Jean Froissart, a letter from Edward III to Philip VI at the beginning of the Hundred Years' War in 1337 read that the right to the French throne belonging to Edward and not Philip had been pointed out many times before. Here's a quotation from the source:
"Edward, by the grace of God King of England and Ireland, writes to Philip of Valois: Since it falls out that, in succession to our beloved uncle the Lord Charles, King of France, we are heir to the realm and crown of France by a much closer degree of kinship than yourself, who have entered into possession of our heritage and are holding and desire to hold it by force, although we have several times pointed this out to you and have had it again pointed out by such worthy and eminent advisers as those of the Church and the Holy College of Rome, in agreement with the noble Emperor, head of all adjudications; to which matters and demands you have never been willing to listen, but have held and still hold to your unjustly founded opinion..." (Froissart, translated by Geoffrey Brereton (ed.), Froissart Chronicles, Penguin Classics (1978), p.59.)
Froissart says that he took this letter's contents, as they were read out loud, from a witness he says was there, the Lord of Saint-Venant (Ibid., p.59). It's possible there were pre-existent claims. Edward III had to do homage to Philip VI in 1329, which he was reluctant to do, and was trying to find out if he had to do everything as if he were a duke or baron and not a king. Froissart records that Philip VI was understanding in that Edward was young and unsure of proper ritual. But in all honesty, in my opinion the war obviously started because of the Scottish-French alliance as well as the occasional attack of the fleet of Normandy, as Froissart says, having ended many Englishmen's lives. And the explanation using Salic Law clearly disqualifies Edward III from the claim to the French throne. Cornelius (talk) 02:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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)Reply[reply]

relationship with the Church[edit]

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 (talk) 05:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

One of five or six British monarchs to rule more than 50 years?[edit]

The following message appeared on my talk page after this edit...

Edward III was one of only 5 monarchs to reign for more than 50 years in England or its successor states (The United Kingdom). (Elizabeth II, Victoria, Edward III George III and Henry III). I presume the confusion is James VI of Scotland who only reigned in England for 22 years though he did reign as King of Scotland for more than 50 years. But Scotland is not a successor kingdom of England. Hence I suggest either insert '5' or alternatively reword the sentence to something along the lines of 'the United Kingdom or its predecessor kingdoms' though as Edward iii reigned only England for more than 50 years that would appear to be less relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

There've been similar discussions elsewhere and is complicated by the challenge of how you define the question and avoiding OR. Using a "British" definition isn't necessarily always the case; the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, for example, talks about the "Xth longest reigning monarch in English history" in some of their articles, in which they exclude James VI. My usual position would be to seek a high-quality secondary source, and use that as the basis both for making the claim (which in one sense is straightforward to verify once you've agreed the definition about British/English/successor states) but more importantly, for justifying why the claim is important (i.e. we should only be citing the length of reign as important - particularly putting it in the lead - if academics and others give the fact similar precedence and priority). 08:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
I think it's fine as five, for the reasons given in both comments above. But if not, it could be re-worded to something like "His reign of 50 years was one of the longest in England and its successor states." Or remove the sentence entirely, and replace "His reign ..." in the preceding sentence with "His reign of 50 years ... " DrKay (talk) 08:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well I'm happy to leave it in your capable hands now I know you have visibility of it -- tks guys. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Illegitimate Issue[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Being a descendant of an illegitimate daughter of James IV of Scotland this interests me. But not because of any pedigree. When I tell people that I'm descended from royalty (and... keep in mind... if you're descended from one king or queen you're also descended from many more -- his or her ancestors, and so on) I like to tell them "you probably are too." I recall reading that a vast majority of all people with British Isles ancestry can trace descent from one of the Henrys. I cannot rediscover that article, but I found this one that makes the same point regarding Edward III: When you get right down to it I wonder why the situation wouldn't be the same for any monarch (or other figure) who survived to produce descendants, and who lived sufficiently long ago for the generations to have expanded since. Long story short - I wonder if this merits mention in the articles about these folks. I couldn't care less about royalty, but I like the point it makes about interconnectedness.PurpleChez (talk) 19:35, 5 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

De Burgh arms[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

I would assume they were the arms of England, but the silver has tarnished with time. DrKay (talk) 13:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I considered that too, but I'm fairly certain it's gold. Here's a closeup. Zacwill (talk) 19:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]


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. (talk) 06:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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)Reply[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

'Early reign' section changes[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

  • "The Whig historians of a later age". Which age? Much is made in both the lead and "Legacy" of the opinion of a single historian writing a general history in the 19th century. This seems disproportionate and I don't personally see why any weight should be given to them.
  • "Gaunt was forced to give in to the demands of parliament, but at its next convocation, in 1377, most of the achievements of the Good Parliament were reversed." With the footnote "The earlier belief that Gaunt "packed" the 1377 parliament with his own supporters is no longer widely held." This is cited to a single source from 1930. 1. If the text is accurate, surely there is a more recent source? 2. One article from a century ago cannot establish that a view is "no longer widely held." 3. If the belief was overturned in 1930 then, frankly, who cares?
  • A lot of detail on Edward's children when there is already an article dedicated to them.
  • There is a lot of referencing to the 1959 edition of the Oxford History of England. [?]
  • "General and cited sources" includes sources not used, but it is not readily possible to discern which they are.
  • A lot of the sourcing seems dated. Not necessarily a problem, but it is difficult to see how "it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature".
  • There are numerous other issues with the bibliography. Eg spot two different books by Ormrod both called Edward III. (Hint, one of them isn't called that.)
    • They both seem to be called that. Can you give me another hint, please? —GoldRingChip 12:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Thank you. I think it's another title (dated 2015), however, that was intended and I've updated the reference.
  • Some of the prose is both tendentious and incorrect. Eg "Instead of seeking a peaceful resolution to the conflict by paying homage to the French king, as his father had done, Edward responded by laying claim to the French crown as the grandson of Philip IV." The cite itself then contradicts this!! "Edward did not officially assume the title "King of England and France" until 1340." This all we have on how the English crown's claim on the French crown, which continued for 450 years, originated. Or "It was not Edward's initial intention to engage the French army"; Rogers for one has pretty convincingly argued that it was, and I would be inclined to see that as the modern consensus. Possibly an over reliance on older sources?
  • Footnotes are conflated with citations, eg see "cite" 95.
  • The day-to-day affairs of the state had less appeal to Edward than military campaigning, so during the 1360s ..." I can't find this in the source given. (Not to my surprise, England was at peace from 1360-1369.)
  • "With his northern borders secured, Edward felt free to continue his major offensive against France, laying siege to the town of Calais." This is cited to the wrong page of the source. It also misrepresents what the source states.
  • Standard information is often missing. Eg there are three sentences on Lionel's campaign in Ireland, but no dates.
  • "In 1348, the Black Death struck England with full force, killing a third or more of the country's population." Leaving aside the unencyclopedic language, the claim is not actually cited. The "cite" invites a reader to "For more on the debate over mortality rates, see ..." and gives a 45 year old text. (The 2005 study by Benedictow gives a death rate of 62.5%.)

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)Reply[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Given the extensive concerns you have highlighted above, can this be considered an official notice, per step 1 of WP:FAR? If so, and if no one responds to the concerns in a couple weeks, would you be willing to bring this to FAR? Z1720 (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ouch. I didn't really sign up to be part of demoting articles, but yeah, I guess so. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Listed at WP:FARGIVEN. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  • I'll start working on the citations / references, see my progress above and in the articles edit history. —GoldRingChip 20:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Descendant of a Roman Emperor[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Disastrous or tumultuous?[edit]

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)Reply[reply]

Leave it - "tumultuous" is more WP:WEASEL. Johnbod (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I reverted as describing his reign as disastrous reflects the consensus of reliable sources. "Tumultuous and unorthodox" is ambiguous. It could be used to describe a king who carried through reforms which were ultimately successful. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:57, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fair enough. I still think it should be changed to a different word. Not sure what that word should be, though. Unsuccessful? Ineffectual? Floccinaucinihilipilificated? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:37, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is a question of what best reflects the sources. Disastrous seems a fair summary, even generous, from my passing knowledge of them. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:14, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

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)Reply[reply]