Talk:Richard I of England
|
|
An event mentioned in this article is a September 3 selected anniversary.
On his return to Europe in the autumn of 1192, Richard was captured by Duke Leopold -whom he had publicly insulted in the course of the crusade - and was handed over as a prisoner to the Emperor Henry VI. Although the circumstances of his captivity were not severe, he was frustrated by his inability to travel freely. The imprisonment gave rise to the legend of Blondel. On payment of a ransom of 150,000 marks, which left England destitute for years, he was released and returned to England in 1194. Once again repenting of his sins, he underwent a second coronation. Nevertheless, he spent the remainder of his reign attempting to regain the territory he had lost in France. After his departure in May 1194, he never returned to England.
| Contents |
What incident?
The article says:
- As a result of an incident during Richard's coronation celebrations, great persecution of the Jews took place throughout the county.
Presumably this should say country, but what incident is this? Details! Don't leave us in suspense! --Phil | Talk 08:53, May 26, 2004 (UTC)
Homosexuality
Sorry to overrule a point, but there is no creditable way to suggest that Richard was not homosexual, despite the fact that the category 'homosexual' did not exist in the middle ages. He had sex with men, many times, and showed almost no interest in women. Any respectable biography will say the same. I felt it was important to make this point, and have changed a sentence or two to reflect this, but not made a large deal out of it (for instance, not created a separate section). -Ft Louie
- This is, IMO, a good point. There were a couple of lines devoted to this, as well as King Rick's inclusion in the GLBTQ article category, which were reverted by an anon as 'anon vandalism' (bizarre, no?). This should be restored, as there is at least excellent anecdotal evidence that Richard did indeed have a predominating interest in men. Wally 16:39, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Again, Richard being a bisexual or gay, met a person in denial (or person in some other way disturbed by the fact that there have been non-heterosexuals also in history as well as there are today), who on 29.5.2005 vandalized this article by removals. This time, the vandal used the username Alphax. As above indicated, previous similar vandal attempts occurred in March 2005 and December 2004. Hopefully the vandal or vandals are enjoined from such future activity. 62.78.104.34 07:04, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
- Alphax wasn't vandalizing, don't be ridiculous. He was removing what appears to be extreme speculation, written in poor English. You make a number of claims that would benefit from a source - where does Richard confess to being homosexual? Note also that the IP you were using to add the material the first time also added similar nonsense to Humphrey and Isabella's articles, including "Category:Faghags" to Isabella. Adam Bishop 14:53, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
I think you Adam should not be ridiculous. If you look carefully at the edit history of this article, you see that most of those texts were added by other editors months ago. And you have the basic reference: the biographer mentioned by that editor and listed in the references, obviously has answered your question. Please read it (I haven't - I trust on the previous editor - and I have not time to seek all books).
As to Alphax, since that person clearly did not read this talk page, nor offered here the reasons for removal, before removals, it is regarded as act of vandalism. 62.78.106.213 16:30, 31 May 2005 (UTC)
Duplicates
The 'Early life' and 'Reign' sections have been duplicated for some reason so obviously this needs correcting (i tried removing them but there was an error and i am not really experienced enough, it might be something to do with the contents box which lists the duplicated sections).
Who shot King Richard?
In the "Death" section, the crossbowman who killed King Richard was named Bertram de Gurdun; but in the "Overall assessment," his name is Pierre Basile. Anybody know which one is right? The text should at least be consistent. If there are sources for both names, it would be better to acknowlege both versions at once. Reuben 02:19, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- The name Bertram de Gurdun is given by Roger of Hoveden. I don't know the source for the Pierre Basile name. Missi
- That was irritating me too during the rewrite but the 1911 Britannica indicates that it was Basile. I could find no other online reference to Bertram de Gurdun except Wikipedia. --Wgfinley 20:23, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Roger of Hoveden states: "When the king [Richard] was in despair of surviving, he order Bertram de Gurdun, who wounded him, to come into his presence..." What source does Hewlett and the 1911 Britannica give for this Basile? Missi
Another rewrite?
I found this article hard to read. The language did not flow, there were too many (slightly irrelevant) names mentioned, chronological order does not seem to hold all the time, abrupt changes from paragraph to paragraph without leads, ...
Since I am not a historian I don't feel comfortable doing changes on the actual page, so I'll try to point out some confusing pieces that will hopefully be fixed:
"This was his consolation prize for the fact that his eldest surviving brother, Henry the Young King, was simultaneously crowned as his father's successor." What do you mean consolation prize? Nothing so far has explained why it would be a consolation prize.
"Richard and his other brother, Geoffrey, duke of Brittany, thus learned how to defend their property while still teenagers." What do you mean learned to defend their properties? There have been no conflicts mentioned.
"They were planning to dethrone their father and leave the Young King as the only king of England." What? Wasn't Henry the Young Kind crowned 3 years earlier? So their father could not have remained king? Or did the father retake the crown?
"Henry II invaded Aquitaine twice." Uh, now we are jumping to the father? What does this piece of information do here?
"At the age of seventeen, Richard was the last of the brothers to hold out against Henry". Henry who?
"The Young King's death on June 11, 1183, ended the revolt, and Richard remained on his throne." Which throne, I thought Richard was not yet king?
"Young Henry's death left Richard as the eldest surviving son and the natural heir when the old King died." Again it's confusing that a king died, but the kings father king... You see my point?
"On July 6, 1189 Henry II died in Chinon," Uh, you mentioned in the beginning of the paragraph that Henry II died.
Is "holocaustum" somehow linked to WW II holocoust? Why mention the word when it's not linked to any explanation about the rousing word. Makes one lose concentration of this article and start thinking about other things.
- If I'm not mistaken, Richard's use of "holocaustum" was the first recorded usage of the term. It's historically interesting, if nothing else. The massacre of the Jews after his coronation is certainly a notable event. Missi
"Richard has been criticised for doing little for England, siphoning the kingdom's resources by appointing Jewish moneylenders to support his journeys away on Crusade in the Holy Land," Hey, you did not explain he had been crusading yet!
"Richard had one major reason for discontent with his father." The father has been killed twice already! Give it up!
"Princess Alys (not the same Alix as Richard's half-sister)" Huh, Alys is not Alix, I can see that, why mention it at all?
- People are easily confused, and no one wants to go away thinking that Richard was engaged to his own half-sister. Missi
"Soon after his accession to the throne, he decided to join the Third Crusade, inspired by the loss of Jerusalem to the "infidels" under the command of Saladin." Was Richard inspired by the infidels or did the loss of Jerusalem make him angry?
"Richard tried to persuade Philip to join the Crusade as well. Philip agreed and both gave" Easier on the tongue would be something like: "Richard successfully persuaded Philip to join the Crusade"
I don't get any feeling of how much is 10,000 marks or 100,000 marks from the article, so a brief qualifier would be in order.
...skipping a big hunk of text...
"On his return to Europe, shortly before Christmas 1192, Richard was captured only a few miles from the Moravian border by Leopold V of Austria. Richard and his retainers had been traveling disguised as pilgrims, complete with flowing beards and tattered clothes." Why were they captured? Why were they traveling in disguise? Where was the army?
- Richard and his retainers were traveling incognito because Richard had offended Leopold V during the Crusade. He knew Leopold would imprison him given the chance -- which of course he did. Missi
I think it would make it easier to read the article if, after having introduced the father as Henry II, you would stick with the term "father" from there on. Also might be easier if, after having introduced his brother Henry the Young King, talk just about his "brother Henry", or "Henry brother".
PS. I find it really hard to believe Richard was so tall. All castles, museums etc. have really small doors and beds, and I seem to recall that the average height of people has grown a lot since then. Would be good to be able to point to some reference where Richard's measures are verified (or at least backed up more than here).
- I believe Richard's skeleton was exhumed during the Victorian period and measured. I know that King Edward I certainly was, and he measured 6 feet 2 inches, if I'm not mistaken. The Plantagenets were a tall, powerfully-built lot as a rule. It's a myth, by the way, that medieval people were tiny compared to the modern day. The average height may have been a few inches shorter, but they were hardly midgets. Doors and ceilings were built low to conserve heat and building materials. Missi