Talk:List of members of the House of Plantagenet/Archive 1

Surname
It includes only those who were members of the male-line descent from King Henry II, and consequently bore his "surname", Plantagenet.

As far as I remember it was Henry II's father who had the "Plantagenet" sobriquet and Henry II, as well as his descendents, took it from him. Matthieu (talk) 11:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Geoffrey had it as a nickname, and it was never used again until Richard, Duke of York, put forward his claim to the throne as male-line representative. Thus it shouldn't be used for anyone except Geoffrey before this time. Agricolae (talk) 16:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Adam "Plantagenet" Fitzroy
An anonymous contributor seems to think that Edward II's illegitimate son should be included in the list. Given the number of other acknowledged illegitimate sons of the Plantagenet family, it needs to be agreed whether they should be included. RGCorris (talk) 19:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Er, no. http://www.thepeerage.com/p10313.htm#i103123 41.133.47.252 (talk) 12:28, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Note also that the article on wikipedia has been tagged for over two-and-a-half-years because it does not cite any references or sources. Meanwhile thepeerage.com gives two respected sources for stating that Adam was the son of King Edward and his wife Isabella. Typing "Adam Fitzroy" into Google, the only references to him being called such are the Wikipedia article(without any references or sources), and mirrors of the Wikipedia article. I'd take the word of the peerage and their respected sources, over an unsourced edit any day. 41.133.47.252 (talk) 12:33, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * From "Edward III" by Paul Johnson - "On 13 November 1312, the future Edward III was born at Windsor Castle. His mother, Queen Isabella, daughter of Philip IV of France, was aged sixteen and had married the King four years before: Edward of Windsor was his first-born." RGCorris (talk) 13:14, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Also note that one of the sources quoted by the peerage does not claim he was legitimate -http://www3.dcs.hull.ac.uk/cgi-bin/gedlkup/n=royal?royal00286 RGCorris (talk) 13:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)


 * But neither does it claim that he was illegitimate. Since he died young, predeceasing his father, the future Edward III was Edward II"s heir. Had Adam been alive in 1327, would Prince Edward still have become King? Does anyone have the relevant passages from the Weir book? 41.133.47.252 (talk) 19:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick Google check provided these(amongst many others. Reliability?)

http://wwww.gurganus.org/ourfamily/browse.cfm/Adam-Plantagenet/p194843

http://www.geni.com/people/Adam-Plantagenet/6000000001544613200

http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/users/v/e/h/Ronald-E-Vehlow-CA/WEBSITE-0001/UHP-0582.html

and on and on and on.....

Meanwhile as noted, typing in "Adam Fitzroy" gives us only the unsourced Wikipedia article calling him such. 41.133.47.252 (talk) 19:23, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You are at liberty to re-edit the Adam FitzRoy page with appropriate references if you disagree with it. Why don't you create a Wikipedia username so that you can be addressed on your own talk page ? RGCorris (talk) 10:11, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note that http://www.geni.com/people/Adam-Plantagenet/6000000001544613200 has Adam as both brother and half-brother of Edward III, making it hardly a definitive source on the identity of his mother. I have added references on the Adam FitzRoy page - it appears that his existence is only known from a single source, Edward II's wardrobe accounts for the 1322 Scottish campaign during which Adam died, and that reference clearly states that he was the King's bastard son. RGCorris (talk) 10:29, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I would note that http://www.thepeerage.com/p10313.htm#i103123 (cited above) cites http://www3.dcs.hull.ac.uk/genealogy/royal/ as its source for Adam. http://www3.dcs.hull.ac.uk/cgi-bin/gedlkup/n=royal?royal21962 lists only Adam's father (Edward II). http://www3.dcs.hull.ac.uk/cgi-bin/gedlkup/n=royal?royal00127 does not list Adam as a son of Isabella. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Beauforts
. 41.133.0.18 (talk) 07:51, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Merger
This article doesn't really add much that wouldn't be more comprehensively dealt with on the House of Plantagenet article so I propose they merge. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

A anonymous contributor seems to object to the merger even to the point of undoing without giving a reason - anyone want to comment. Not much point in this article from my view, low qulaity list.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

This isn't your point of view, it is Wikipedia. A consensus must be reached. You can't just go around merging articles without a proper consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.133.1.212 (talk) 13:38, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I oppose merger. It may also have been a better idea to have proposed merger at a time when people weren't all off on Holiday leave, and weren't online. Just saying.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.133.1.212 (talk) 13:41, 3 January 2013 (UTC)


 * If you intend to have a conversation on the merits or not of this proposal it would be better if it came from a registered account rather than a anonymous IP address in an African range. Just saying....

Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:38, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Why should this article exist. In the categories it is referenced it is scored C for quality and is only a list that is duplicated in the more logical House of Plantagenet article. It wasn't veven accurate in that it refers to Plantagenet as a family name when all sources indicate it wasn't used until 1460 and then only by a Cadet branch for 39 years. It is not as if anyone but the anonymous user at 41.133.1.212 ever comes here - just look at the stats??Key questions:


 * What does having this a separate page achieve that the redirect does not?
 * Where is the entymology?
 * Where is the context i.e. Why is this list important?
 * What about the female members who were born PLantagenet & historically important i.e. Blanche of Lancaster, Joan of Kent, Phillipa of Clarance
 * Why exclude the Beauforts, legitimised by the Pope and part of the House Of Lancaster
 * Where is the differation between the main line, House of Lancaster & House of York
 * Oh, and what is the point of this page

Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Support -  Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - on condition that all the relevant information remains, there isn't a "pruning". 137.158.153.203 (talk) 08:22, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Agree with the above RGCorris (talk) 18:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Wot he said, good point about not redacting it; also agree with earlier point actually about adding female line. Which of course would expand it... H'mmm...  Basket Feudalist 20:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - as per 137.158.153.203 - HoP overlaps this information entirely as a result of the previous undone merge so this can be completed on the condition there is no further editing on merge 81.148.244.213 (talk) 08:57, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Support - with a suggestion that it has a 'show / hide', for reasons of length / bulk etc? Basket Feudalist 17:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose - the main article is already too long. -- Hazhk Talk to me 18:57, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Does the fact that the main article is too long alter the fact that this one should be merged in. BTW is there a standard for the length of a article......it does cover three and half centuries? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 19:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I should think that the length of the main article does alter the proposal. It's recommended that long articles should be forked off (see WP:TLDR). Therefore it seems strange that you're proposing to actually merge into this article. -- Hazhk Talk to me 19:56, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I am not sure this is a valid objection, WP:TLDR is more about general wordiness & if the main article is too wordy that is the place to discuss. The question is what to do about this article which is solely a list of men from the middle ages without any real context or explanation. It is also duplicated in the other article. Maybe it should be marked for deletion instead but other views are that it should merge with no redaction with a Hide/Show option. Is it really so strange that this is proposed to merge when there is so little to recommend it remains?217.43.117.80 (talk) 08:45, 21 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Support for 'show / hide' as above and some work on the length of the other article 217.43.117.80 (talk) 14:13, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Hazhk is correct in asserting the main article is too large so I have removed the Merger mark up from the articles Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Merger Debate re-opened

 * The destination article is now reduced in size and the Merger debate has reopenedNorfolkbigfish (talk) 15:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Definitely Support, as the article is now substantially shorter; some people may come to the article purely for a list of monarchs rather than their lives & times, etc. Basket Feudalist 14:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Support - on condition that all the relevant information remains, there isn't a "pruning". RGCorris (talk) 15:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Editors have proposed splitting the House of Plantagenet article into a dynasty article and a "England under the Platagenets" article. HoP is a Good Article so it makes even more sense to merge this one in there. I'll add the tags again. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)