Talk:House of Lancaster/Archive 1

Untitled
Should we link to the cities of Lancaster and York? They seem to me to be red herrings; anybody that follows their links will be going the wrong way. We should instead link to the counties. Of course, we do link to the counties, so the thing to do is simply to delink the cities.

BTW, we don't actually link to the city of Lancaster. Lancaster is a disambiguation page &mdash; one of whose pointers is to this very article!

&mdash; Toby 10:42 Sep 24, 2002 (UTC)

"....and their great grandson founded the House of Stuart, James I of England."

This statement is obviously wrong. The "House of Stuart" was ruling in Scotland for about 200 years before James I of England. And Henry VII daughter Margaret is not "found" the House of Stuart, she married into it. Eregli bob 12:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Royal House template
As the House of Lancaster is a cadet branch of the House of Plantagenet, is it correct to describe it separately to the House of Plantagenet, in the "Royal Houses" succession template?

The Lancastrians are listed as part of the House of Plantagenet in the List of monarchs of England page, not separately to it, and included in the list of Plantagenet Kings in the House of Plantagenet page.

Equivalent, related comments also raised for the House of Plantagenet, House of York, and House of Tudor "Royal Houses" succession templates.

--Drojem (talk) 02:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)--Drojem (talk) 02:49, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Category:House of Plantagenet vs. Category:House of Lancaster
Category:House of Lancaster is itself a category within Category:House of Plantagenet. — Robert Greer (talk) 23:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Henry VI unnumberd of France.
Henry VI is unnumberd in the regnal templates therefore it should be mentioned as such,not Henry VI as this is not the entry.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 00:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Bad Links
I am sorry, I am new to wikipedia, and I tried to make comments, I didn't realize there is a separate talk page The links are bad, ( named lion points to cow, named boar points to octopus, among others) I think there is a lot of inaccurate information in this article, I will try to google alternative sourced and do a check when I have free time. Sorry again, I thought comments were part of the main article but not visible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.22.91.208 (talk) 21:26, 27 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I've restored the article to a previous, non-vandalized, version. It should be okay now.  Yinta n   21:36, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Good Article (or not?)
This article is a bit or a back water when it comes to visitor numbers but I have given it a bit of a tidy. In the absence of other editors I think it is close to a Good Article but as that is only one person's opinion the best way to check is just to give it a go (or maybe not?) Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Sure, go ahead. The worst that can happen is that it fails and we get suggestions about how to make it better.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 13:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

ACR or FA?
Hi HC, on the Milhist ACR review you said there's a little bit more work to do before FA, but I feel that it's meet ACR standards. It would be really helpful if you could add some detail/advice/help for filling the gap - I don't have the knowledge/experience but would like to give it a go. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:01, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course - will try to pull some thoughts together tomorrow. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:14, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you may have forgotton this one or should I just nominate and see what the process throughs up? Cheers Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * My apologies - you're absolutely right (!), I'd been travelling and had forgotten. I'd recommend looking through some of the following, which will pull out some of the themes around kingship and power in these rulers:
 * "The Reign of King Henry VI: The Exercise of Royal Authority, 1422-1461", by Ralph Griffiths. The chapter on propaganda would be useful.
 * Lucy Brown's chapter in "Conflicts, Consequences and the Crown in the Late Middle Ages", edited by Linda Clark
 * A. Goodman, "John of Gaunt: The Exercise of Princely Power in Fourteenth-Century Europe", a classic text on John that I'd expect to see referenced in an article like this
 * English Heritage's most recent guide to "Dunstanburgh Castle" by Oswald and Ashbee would give you some potential insights into how two of the Lancastrians managed symbolism and power.
 * "Richard II, Edward II, and the Lancastrian Inheritance", by C. Given-Wilson, in the English Historical Review, Vol. 109, No. 432 (Jun., 1994), pp. 553-571, would also continue this same theme.
 * At FA, I'd also be expecting an historiography section - how have the views of historians on the Lancastrians changed over the years? Hchc2009 (talk) 14:59, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Coat of arms
Why the lack of parallelism between the House of York article? Specifically, the inclusion of the coat of arms of one particular Earl, rather than the heraldic rose? The articles used to both use the rose of their respective families until some idiot decided to make this change and disrupt the most obvious symbolic representations of these families and their dynastic struggle.74.215.242.83 (talk) 22:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not an expert on this period of history, so there may be a perfectly good case for changing the infobox image, but I note that it's been accepted at formal reviews earlier this year. Pls follow WP process, which is that such a change is discussed and a consensus reached before altering the article (if at all). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:42, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Easy to explain the difference between this and the York article - this one has been updated and put through review but the York article is a start class article from the dark ages of Wikipedia. Second point is that the rose removed is not an heraldic rose that was used by the Lancastrians; if anything the York article should change the hearaldry to something that was used by the dynasty. Where there is evidence that roses where used as minor symbols the use of roses for the dynasties are largely considered a Victorian affectation. Furthermore the current heraldry is not for one Earl only but all the Lancastrian Earls before they gained the throne when they then quartered the lillies and the lions.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:44, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Did another very quick dig - seems like the House of York largely used the quartered lillies of France and lions of England—to mark their descent from Edward III— differenced in a variety of minor ways to mark their more junior status.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:06, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Reference errors
There ara some problems in the references' tags, could somebody fix it? Thank you, Aris de Methymna (talk) 22:51, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Part of the content, including named references, was transcluded from List of coats of arms of the House of Plantagenet - but only part of that page's content, without the code that actually defined those references. Another part of the coat of arms content was half-translated from the French Wikipedia, I believe, again leaving this article with references where the code that defined them wasn't copied along. I don't think we need to show every single Lancaster's personal coat of arms in this article; thus I have removed that content and just left a main link in the "Coat of arms" section, fixing the reference errors in the process. Huon (talk) 00:07, 12 July 2017 (UTC)