Talk:Bastard feudalism

Question
From article: "Although both Edward IV attempted to limit "retaining", he was largely unsuccessful." Both Edward IV and whom? Is this merely a typo? In any case, could someone more familiar on this subject fix this? Thank you,Hawkrawkr (talk) 17:50, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Weak King
'Under a weak king, such as Henry VI', '(particularly the failings of Henry VI)' and 'Under an inadequate king like Henry VI' are all completely unjustified. Henry VI's inadequacy is a matter of opinion, and should be justified as such! Who's opinion is it anyway? 185.41.44.249 (talk) 08:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ...ah- perhaps you've been reading Bertram Wolffe?! I wouldn't say that they are completely unjustified; but it's certiainly a rather simplistic and outdated interpretation of the few facts that we have. Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi  10:24, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 9 July 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Bastard feudalism → Livery and maintenance – Livery and maintenance currently redirects here. Bastard feudalism is a controversial term, it should be a section of the main article which is Livery and maintenance. I'm not sure there is any justification for two separate articles at this point, but am open to comments Seraphim System  ( talk ) 01:19, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose completely. Livery and maintenance might better redirect to Affinity (medieval), which covers it better. This article, which nb really only relates to England, should be kept but ideally sorted out by someone up to date with the arguments. Johnbod (talk) 18:35, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You are mostly right, I guess I can just create a "History of Feudalism in England" article and then reconsider whether this should be merged into it. It is very much lacking context right now, including the broader article, which should have been created first. Livery and maintenance probably shouldn't redirect here as you said, and affinity might be be a better article. (I will change that now as it is likely uncontroversial). There could also be a "Livery and Maintenance in England" article, which would resolve my problem. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 21:23, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
 * At the moment it is mainly a historiography article, which is I think right for this title. Johnbod (talk) 00:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * At the moment it is a largely unsourced article from which very little is salvageable, unless it is ref improved first. The section is called historiography but it doesn't say much about historiography, unfortunately. That would involve a detailed discussion of the sources that were used, and we don't have anything of the sort here. This is just a broad overview of the history of a jargon term. A historiography article for Medieval England is not a bad idea, but I still think this article belongs either in "History of Feudalism in England" or as a spinout from that article with a main article link. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 02:26, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Anyway, instead of moving it, I will try to work on it first and then see if this title or another is more appropriate. You're initial comment was correct that Livery and Maintenance is too broad, but my guess is the correct title for this is "Livery and Maintenance in England". This is just a POV from that article (ie Livery and Maintenance is bad) with more content from McFarlane reinterpreting the term. I'm still not persuaded that's an appropriate WP:NPOV title for an article. Seraphim System  ( talk ) 02:38, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Well since we agree it is an improvement, I have changed the redirect to go to affinity. That could do with a better section on Livery and maintenance than is currently here. Otherwise I don't agree at all. Livery and maintenance is a much narrower concept than either Bastard feudalism or affinity (I don't understand what you say about my "initial comment"). This article has plenty of refs at the end, but hardly any inline cites from them. Sorting that out would be helpful, and reveal if there is actually a serious problem here, which I rather doubt.  Johnbod (talk) 11:36, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose L&M is an aspect, a sub-sector, of bF, not the converse. It is also not a controversial term; at least, I would like to know who finds it so? &mdash; fortuna  velut luna  11:45, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You know changing your display name is very confusing in the early hours of the day. But, thanks, I wasn't sure about that, but I think you're probably right—any thoughts on "History of Feudalism in England" then? Should they be separate articles? I'm a little concerned about a term when I look through three different books, and it seems to mean three different things, like a catch-all jargon term for everyone's personal theory of feudalism, and of course some people now say Domesday wasn't all that. There seems to be something inherently ... oversimplified about it, like Edward I became king and everything went wrong, its awkward because at its heart, its basically about the Magna Carta (and like the proverbial elephant in the room, it makes everything I've read uncomfortably opaque and awkward also). Anyway I'm for running through the thing chronologically, because it makes a lot more sense to not just skip John and Henry III, and its rather disingenuous to do so. There's been, I think, quite a bit of controversy about it but you it will take some deciphering because the topic veers into some uncomfortable areas. Its intensely controversial, because basically what it adds up to is a defense of the powers of the king before the Magna Carta, and as nice as it is to blame the Wars of the Roses on it, this is actually not a very popular position (in general). Seraphim System  ( talk ) 12:06, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * H'mmm: My sig waz changed eleven days ago. Ketchup! I agree that bf is ill-defined. This, I guess, is down it being a social construct, which we have to artificially recreate in order to understand it. It's worth rememevring that ultimately it is just a label granted the era by historians to make it easy for us to understand what it is we are discussing. It provides an accepted parameter of terms and broad definitions, if you like. The problem of course is that that inevitably means that everyone has their own precise evaluation of what they mean by the term. Our article certaily doesn't help in that historiography  ;) I agree it's shite. For real fun, have a butcher's at Susan Reynolds' Fiefs and Vassals in which she argues- not incogently- that even feudalism never avtually existed.  So presumably, very little after it! As it happens, I've been meaning to do something about the bf article for some time- it's been in my andbox for over a year! D'oh. &mdash;  fortuna  velut luna  12:21, 10 July 2017 (UTC)


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