Talk:William II of England

Comments
Is there any doubt as to William's homosexuality, or is this only speculation? RickK 01:58, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)


 * Although not directly stated in historical documents (it very rarely is, historians are traditionally heterosexist) William II was famous for his debauchery and his long standing disagreement with Archbishop Anselm for the latter's suggestion that sodomy be made illegal. Anselm attacked William's courtiers for their practice of sodomy and for wearing their hair long, we are meant to take this as an attack on the king because if Anselm had attacked the king directly he would have been executed for treason.  Unfortunately clear as mud.  Graham  :) 02:12, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Very few things are clear at a remove of 900 years. The homosexuality issue is at least worth a reference, hence the edit. In any case the original reference was removed by a (no doubt homophobic) user who has since been banned. Rollo 01:48, 30 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Bribing the English
I noted the recent change which reverted the text which read William, however, bribed enough Norman nobles and English folk to help defeat the rebellion back to read William, however, managed to rally the English and defeat the rebellion

I did at first also intend reverting it - it was fairly robustly worded and anonymous - however, after a bit of research in other sources I decided that the text referring to bribery was more likely to be correct, so I left it as it stood. I'd be in favour of putting something similar back in unless anyone has any good reason why not. Naturenet 16:46, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Bartlett (2000) talks about William promising the English "the best law there had ever been in this land" and calling those who wouldn't fight for him cowards&mdash;"nithing". Seems closer to rally than bribe? Everyking 18:57, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * The first part is from the ASC, by way of elaboration: he "sent for English men and announced his need to them, and begged their support, and promised them the best law there ever was in this land; and forbade every unjust tax, and granted men their woods and coursing&mdash;but it did not last long. But nevertheless the English men came to the support of the king their lord..." I guess you could really call that rallying or bribing, couldn't you? Rallying their support, but doing it with promises of good government that were effectively bribes. Everyking 19:04, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I think you're right, there's a bit of both. In The History of England, Volume I by David Hume we find The king, sensible of his perilous situation, endeavoured to engage the affections of the native English. ...they zealously embraced William's cause, upon receiving general promises of good treatment, and of enjoying the license of hunting in the royal forests.. Perhaps a slightly fuller sentence might do justice to it. Naturenet 21:47, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I took a stab at it, pretty minimal, but I guess it's still better than what was there before. Everyking 22:07, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, "won with promises" is deinitely better than "bribed". -- Francs2000 | Talk 01:40, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please forgive me for not knowing where or how to enter the following comments, for I am a novice. The article fails to mention that in the year 1100, a document of unprecedented political character -- the Charter of Liberties -- was enacted by the then King of England under circumstances of great agitation, primarily for the purpose of setting aright the legion of abuses, corrupt financial policies, and gratuitous disruption of settled law that William II had visited upon his country. In fact, the Charter of Liberties specifically and repeatedly refers to William II and his many abuses. I cannot accept the notion that W2's domestic enemnity came mostly from the clergy, as this article suggests, repeatedly, and with scant support. In fact, one gets the impression that the article is trying to make a point, not merely provide facts. It begins by saying that W2 was branded as an evildoer by the Church, either out of clerical selfishness or, even worse, because he was perhaps gay (or was he?). The article then seems to try to show, in almost every succeeding paragraph, that W2 wasn't all that bad, really, and one is left to conclude that W2's history has been rewritten in very biased script by ecuminical fiat, and for merely polemical and self-serving reasons. The histories of W2's successors, and those of his contemporaries, suggest otherwise. By the way, I do not belong to any form of organized religion, and I have no desire to defend the clergies of England, Rome, or anywhere else. Paul L. Ness, B.A., J.D. paullness@aol.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul Leland Ness, B.A., J.D. (talk • contribs) 03:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Looks good to me, a suitable compromise which expresses the consensus succinctly. Naturenet 08:31, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * After all, would anyone even dream of accusing Tony Blair of bribing the British electorate, with promises of better health, education, weather, etc.? (A cynical --Orelstrigo 23:06, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC) )


 * No, they would not, if they wanted to retain a NPOV. But that's no reason not to mention it in slightly more neutral tones. Good analogy!! :) Naturenet 19:34, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Infobox

 * Just look at that "info"box! So much space, so little information! What an unattractive presence. Doesn't it really belong at Simple Wikipedia? There's a whole class of Wikipedians who invent these because their leisure outruns their information. A better designer could pack this information in a box the quarter this size. --Wetman 22:16, 10 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I disagree. However, I am aware that there is a whole class of Wikipedians who spend editing time complaining peevishly about perceived defects which they are allowed, nay, encouraged, to take action to fix themselves. I'm sure that you're not one of those. Why not have a go and see if you can improve it? Naturenet | Talk 11:24, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't much like bio-infoboxes in general; it seems silly to have all that info sitting there when it's mostly duplicated in the text right there to the side in the intro. But nevertheless, infoboxes are popular and if we removed it from just this article we'd be inconsistent with the articles on William's predecessor and successor, just to start with. Everyking 11:31, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The purpose of the infoboxes is to give the most essential information at a glance; by making information easier accessible, the site will be more attractive to use. I think we sometimes need to remind ourselves that Wikipedia exists for the users, not for the editors. As for the information here, and on the other kings, much of it cannot be found in the intro, on the page, or anywhere on Wikipedia. It should also be said that the current infobox replaces the infobox Normans, which took up the same amount of space, but contributed little of value about the king, only on the royal family to which he belonged.


 * I would also appreciate it if everyone could refrain from resorting to unconstructive criticism and unfounded personal attacks. I believe I have personally contributed several fairly informative articles, but I don’t think that is in any way mutually exclusive with making Wikipedia more user-friendly. Constructive suggestions for improvements are of course welcome. Eixo 18:03, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I think between info boxes, navigation templates, History of England, History of Europe.. etc.. etc.. articles start appearing like multi-colored jigsaw puzzles of "essential info". Real estate is limited in the opening sections and you want to emphesis the article contents, to draw readers in so they have a summary of what the article contains, per the style and guidelines of how to create a good article. The "essential info" templates can esily be relegated to the bottom of the article using a different format template. Stbalbach 18:49, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Excellent. Even I would find these aggressively inflated templates with that "baseball-card" look quite innocuous if they were at the bottom of articles. --Wetman 20:45, 11 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Only that would not correspond with the standard for biography infoboxes, such as the ones for presidents, prime ministers, popes, saints, or just plain biographies. I don't see why monarchs should differ greatly from these; you're talking about a reform proposal that would affect all of Wikipedia. I think it would be more fruitful to discuss if the box could perhaps be made shorter and slimmer. Eixo 22:18, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Fakelore?

 * "An alternative Legend suggests that William Rufus' murderer was actually a local poacher. In this version Walter Tirel, who may have witnessed the murder, choses to save himself instead of avenging the murder of his king.   The song, "who killed Cock Robin", is an account of the murder, being based on a play of words as the murderer's name was Jack Sparrow."

"Who killed Cock Robin" first appears 500 or 600 years afterwards. The coincidence of "Jack Sparrow" make it less rather than more likely. An article Cock Robin should tell the origin, first printing and associations, genuine or spurious, of this nursery rhyme. Anyone ready to write the article? --Wetman 22:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)--Wetman 22:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Third son?
The article (twice) describes William II as the third son of William I. I can only find one prior son in any of my sources. William II appears to be the third child, the second son. Am I missing something? Mark Durst 18:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


 * There was a son, Richard, who died c.1081, thus taking himself out of the succession. I know this is a few months late for you, but maybe it'll help....  Cheers, Lindsay 18:34, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Not history
I moved this here: ''Margaret Murray theorised that William was actually a member of a witch cult, and his death a pagan sacrifice - a view still popular in pagan circles despite the paucity of supporting evidence. (William's favourite oath, "by the holy face of Lucca", previously mistranslated as referring to St Luke, is argued by Murray to have referred to Loki, thus reinforcing the view that William was a pagan. However, there is at Lucca a crucifix known as the "Holy Face", and there is no reason not to suppose that this was what was meant.)''

There's no authentic report that William Rufus swore by the Volto Santo of Lucca (see here) for a start. Margaret Murray was not a historian (see Margaret Murray). --Wetman 15:46, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * No authentic report? Sorry, but what could be more authentic than a report by William II's contemporary, William of Malmesbury? See William of Malmesbury, A History Of The Norman Kings (1066 - 1125), Llanerch, 1989, p.63. Nortonius (talk) 21:22, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Malmesbury is only a near-contemporary, really. His description of Willaim Rufus' features, for example, are suspect. That said, Murray's claim of the 'face of Loki' is at best Murray grasping at straws. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.49.190 (talk) 02:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Murray sees witchcraft everywhere, from ancient Egypt to the New World. If alive, she would be working for Rupert Murdoch. As for W2 being gay, proof is needed, such as medieval x-xay or ultrasound images to view something where it shouldn't be! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.244.86.109 (talk) 04:14, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Also Questionable
I'm moving this here: ''Lammas, the festival of the First Fruits of the Harvest, is the first festival of the Waning Year. It is celebrated on July 31, while the climate (in the United States) is essentially still Summer. Never-the-less, technically, Lammas is the first day of Autumn (fall). Lammas was a time of sacrifice. Sacrifices at Lammas were made to thank the Deities for the First Fruits and to guarantee an abundant Harvest. The victim was often the king, who was God Incarnate to his people. Sometimes a substitute king, a fool or "scapegoat", was sacrificed in the king's stead. King William II rejected the relatively new Christian beliefs, and openly declared himself Pagan. His death in a "hunting accident" on August 2, 1100 c.e., is believed by some writers to have been a case of the traditional sacrifice being disguised for the sake of the Christian priests.''

It may (just) be true; certainly as it stands it needs to be referenced ~ who are these writers? ~ and shown to be a viable historiography. I personally don't believe it ~ apart from anything else the dates don't match, Christianity wasn't relatively new by 1100, and i'm not sure how open his paganism was, even if it was the kind which celebrated Lammas-day sacrifices ~ but my belief is not the point. We need to prove what we write. Cheers, Lindsay 19:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was no move. DrKiernan (talk) 14:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

William II of England → William Rufus — Per WP:NCNT If a monarch or prince is overwhelmingly known, in English, by a cognomen, it may be used, and there is then no need to disambiguate by adding Country. —Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 18:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * WP:NCNT says this only applies if the sources present a consensus so strong that it would be surprising to omit the epithet, as with Charlemagne or Edward the Confessor.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * And this is the case as far as I'm concerned. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 19:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Survey

 * Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with  or Dimadick (talk) 14:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC) , then sign your comment with  . Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.


 * Support as nom. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 18:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support, common names are preferable. Kbthompson (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * support This comes, I believe, under the exception, and it is also possible that present guidelines should be tweaked. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose All post-Norman Conquest monarchs should be 'name-numeral of England'. GoodDay (talk) 19:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Gwinva (talk) 19:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC) Common names should be first choice. I always use William Rufus, and most of the books I've studied do also.
 * Speedy close. Conducted in bad faith, as this repeated refactoring shows. If, however, this is only a momentary blip in courtesy, and the full text of the policy stands, I shall restore my !vote. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak support, but only as part of a general revision of the guidelines. john k (talk) 20:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * See Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles). Andrewa (talk) 16:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support This one I believe is one where the subject is overwhelmingly known by his cognomen. Narson (talk) 20:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Conditional Support: Firstly, there is no doubt that in Britain/the English-speaking world he was always known as William Rufus. But changing this article's title should not be a pretext for changing other monarch's article pages where, say, as in the case of Polish or French monarchs the average English-speaker has barely heard of the king (as in, say, a Louis) let alone heard that his own people called him 'The Bold' or 'The Fat'. So changing the obvious here should not be a pretext for changing the obscure. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 21:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Generally known as "William Rufus." Better yet:  "William II Rufus," as the best of both worlds?  Nihil novi (talk) 22:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support It's the common name. Ealdgyth | Talk 03:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support per those above, although it seems odd to have Willian Rufus, but not William the Conqueror! Note that (as they are not kings) the Dukes of Burgundy have long been sensibly named. Johnbod (talk) 03:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose per GoodDay. Cheers, Lindsay (talk) 05:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose per GoodDay and Lindsay. Monarchs in a succession should be titled consistenly unless the consistency breeds an unfamiliar form. William II is well-established and hardly unfamiliar. Srnec (talk) 06:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. What evidence is there that he's well known as Willian Rufus? I'd have thought William II was far more common. Andrewa (talk) 11:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support. Evidence he's well-know as William Rufus? Barlow's biography of the man is called William Rufus while Freeman's book is The Reign of William Rufus. And can somebody please move Robert Curthose. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeedie. I moved it back. Not sure when the WP:RM obligation comes in ... what time lag between moves ... but seems uncontroversial given the reason for the move was a misunderstanding of the guidelines. Anyone is free to revert me and a WP:RM can be held. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 12:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Consistency. Space Cadet (talk) 15:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Consistency with what? Certainly not the other monarchs of England. Srnec (talk) 19:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, consistency, as Srnec points out above, is served by leaving it as it is; consistency with each other, with common usage.... Speaking with historians, i'd most likely say 'Rufus', not even using his given name, but for anyone who may not be familiar with the nicknames rulers get, surely i'd say William II.  Cheers, Lindsay (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose - for crying out loud, I can't believe this one is serious. William the Conqueror I can understand, but this one?  You have to be joking. Deb (talk) 19:35, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose William I and Richard I are understandable changes, but Rufus is one too far. Outside of specific historical knowledge, many people will not recognise this name. --Tefalstar (talk) 20:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Just commenting on this, not trying to be snarky or anything, but the main reason most folks won't recognize the name is that most folks wouldn't know he existed. This particular king is pretty much only discussed in historian circles (or in wild fringe theories that he was killed for some pagan ruler sacrifice) he's not exactly common knowledge among the non-historians. Ealdgyth | Talk 20:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know where you are writing from but i would say he is known by people with even a brief knowledge of history in England. As the Norman dynasty had such a profound and lasting affect on us, the 4 King's are reasonably famous. I would just suggest that the name Rufus is associated with him in only academic or interested circles, certainly there is no argument at all for the article to be moved. Regards --Tefalstar (talk) 18:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Support. If major biographies use William Rufus instead of William II, that's strong evidence that this is the name that should be used here. *** Crotalus *** 01:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The merits may be fine but this volume of requests should be dealt with wholesale, maybe with a change of Naming conventions (names and titles). —   AjaxSmack   03:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This nickname is not at all so overwhelmingly well known that it would be justified in sense the Wikipedia conventions require. Systematical name, William II, is much better for this use. Shilkanni (talk) 22:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. William Whofus? As with other recent move requests, see Talk:Casimir I of Poland. -- Matthead Discuß   00:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose An obscure nickname remembered by few does not belong in titles. Try footnotes. Dimadick (talk) 14:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I oppose this move, too, but the nickname is hardly obscure. It is as common as mention of him. Srnec (talk) 00:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Oppose, he is well known as William II, likely more so or at least as much as the nickname. And the whole notion of having to go with minimalist titles which are undecipherable in such things as category listings is nonsense. The existing redirect from William Rufus will suffice. Gene Nygaard (talk) 16:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose EB and Encarta use William II, so I feel we ought to as well. Tim! (talk) 17:53, 29 January 2008
 * Oppose I haven't seen any argument for William Rufus beyond 'we can do it, so we ought to'. It's a redirect anyway, so what's the big deal?--Gazzster (talk) 08:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose per GoodDay. Current title puts the subject in historical context.  --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I would rather have consistency in the naming of monarchs, in the format of "monarch name (ordinal) of country".  As William Rufus redirects to William II of England, I really don't see a problem with the current name. – Axman (☏) 16:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - He is known by both names in English. But to keep consistency and be more encyclopaedic, retain the status quo. Parable1991 (talk) 19:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose - As an American, I have to dive into a history book (or possibly a tourist guidebook) to remember who William Rufus was, but William II of England is completely clear, not to mention unambiguous. --Orlady (talk) 14:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose This would be a slippery slope as numerous monarchs had nicknames. We should keep the roman numeral numbering system to avoid confusion. Gustav von Humpelschmumpel (talk) 17:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose Naming conventions (names and titles). "If a monarch or prince is overwhelmingly known, in English, by a cognomen, it may be used, ... But there must be consensus so strong that it would be surprising to omit the epithet". This proposal fails that test at both the simple Google search and also in reliable sources. Further a mass proposal like this should have been discussed on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles) to see if there was a consensus before a mass WP:RM was made. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Any additional comments:
 * Disingenuous. WP:NCNT says this only applies if the sources present a consensus so strong that it would be surprising to omit the epithet, as with Charlemagne or Edward the Confessor.Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:52, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I find your interpretation of the above very odd, but please Assume good faith. Regards,Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 19:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I was part of the consensus who came up with the present phrasing. Since it goes on to include Richard I of England as an example of what we should use, I find the omission of the clause peculiar. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It reads as it stands. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 19:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * As long as William Rufus redirects here, the Wikipedia reader is served. --Wetman (talk) 22:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * True. And because of this, there's an element of nitpicking in many if not most naming discussions. It's good to get the best possible names for articles. The problem really arises when there are obvious political overtones to whichever name is selected, and there are plenty of royal titles which still do have current political overtones, and implications as to the rights and wrongs of territorial disputes etc.. But maybe this isn't one of them. Andrewa (talk) 21:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You could call it Aricle no. 187311412 on that logic. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 21:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm... It wouldn't be the best name IMO. Surely you're not suggesting that it is? Andrewa (talk) 21:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

From the Survey above: the main reason most folks won't recognize the name is that most folks wouldn't know he existed. Agree. Many more would know of William III of England and would assume that there was a William II, even if they didn't know anything else about him. On the other hand, these same people would not know whether William Rufus was a King, a wrestling pseudonym, or a computer program. Andrewa (talk) 21:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Again, concerning the English monarchs, Post-Norman Conquest monarchs are numbered. GoodDay (talk) 21:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Are they? Naming conventions (names and titles) doesn't mention this. Andrewa (talk) 06:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It ought to. GoodDay (talk) 14:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The only consistency with naming conventions is that there is no consistency. Anglo Saxon kings all had nicknames, but scholars and laymen refer to them by number as well, im reading Aethelred II right now! And unfortunately, monarchs and their subjects after the conquest never considered Wikipedia while assigning names. The fact of the matter is we have to name articles according to what people on the street understand most readily. Many will have no clue what Richard I did, but will know the Lionheart was a famous crusader and warrior King. Same with William I. I have no interest in writing an online encyclopedia for Historians, and they are the people who will use Rufus most often. There is no reason for 'II' to be changed for 'Rufus'. regards --Tefalstar (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The consistency is not perfect (like WIkipedia), but the theory is expressed in WP:NC, and (again like WIkipedia) works remarkably well (but not perfectly). Andrewa (talk) 18:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It ought to? Why? Andrewa (talk) 18:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * All i mean is that there is such a gulf between the obscure "Rufus" and the famous "Lionheart" or "Conqueror" that this sort of suggestion should be ignored. Those are names with huge meaning and recognizability, whereas Rufus is a more elitist and scholarly knowledge. --Tefalstar (talk) 18:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There seems some confusion here over the indenting convention. Which suggestion do you mean? Andrewa (talk) 02:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles). Andrewa (talk) 16:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

William II's relations with the church & his political nous
I'm a newbie editor, so forgive me if I've stepped on anyone's toes with my edit to the sub-heading and info at 'Relations with the church', but I believe I've added useful stuff.

Also, under the sub-heading 'War and rebellion', it says that William II 'was less effective than his father in channeling the Norman lords' propensity for rebellion and violence'. But the example immediately following seems to demonstrate that in fact he was extremely effective, both in its details and in its outcome. Perhaps the observation is wrong, or a better example is needed? The observation also appears directly to contradict what is said previously, under the sub-heading 'England and France'. Nortonius (talk) 21:29, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Was William II gay?
Before adding an LGBT royalty link to the page for William II of England, as some have lately done, I think it would be good to add some evidence. I refer to the reason given for DrKiernan’s deletion of this link on 11 April 2008: ‘not shown conclusively - only alleged by some, disputed by some, rubbished by some’. As it stands, the footnote at the end of the sentence which mentions William II’s ‘numerous homosexual liaisons’ cites only modern historiography; apart, that is, from the subsequent mentions of William of Malmesbury and Orderic Vitalis, which in themselves are indeed only mentions, not citations, and might indicate only that William II was, perhaps, the victim of a smear campaign worthy of a modern, tabloid newspaper, in a society which viewed non-heterosexual orientation as dangerous and unhealthy.

I would think that the sort of evidence to be cited would need to be at least on a par with Suetonius’ report of the Roman emperor Gaius Caligula’s apparently bisexual behaviour, in e.g. Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus, The Twelve Caesars (tr. Robert Graves, revised edition), Penguin, 1979, p. 172. I imagine that many would accept such a report as useful, though it is strictly hearsay.

Until such evidence is cited, I would say that wanting William II to be gay or bisexual doesn’t make him so. Cite the evidence, and my own objections will evaporate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nortonius (talk • contribs) 18:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * As far as I know, the best treatment of the subject is Barlow's discussion in William Rufus on page 102 and following. It breaks down to:
 * Eadmer, the earliest writer, is very hostile to Rufus, and only discusses two things that MIGHT allude to homosexuality. The first is that in 1092, Anselm of Canterbury took Rufus aside to investigate unspecified rumors circulating about the king. The second is that the courtiers of Rufus' grew their hair long like girls, and that Anselm tried to enlist Rufus' help in holding a church council condemning sodomy, but Rufus was offended (of course, at this point, Rufus was just plain offended at everything Anselm did) and Anselm had to wait to until Henry's reign.
 * William of Malmesbury, who used Eadmer as a source at times, mainly elaborates on the elaborate fashions of the court and courtiers and that the courtiers "chose to remain weak and effiminate" and that a "flock of harlots" and a "band of effeminates" followed the court. (Phrases are Barlow's, p. 104).
 * Orderic Vitalis claimed that the king was lustful and shameless. He also complained that the courtiers wore their hair long, wore shoes with long curling pointed toes, and wore "improper fashions" such as tight shirts and tunics with full sleeves that were voluminous.
 * As you can see, the charges aren't very specific. A Welsh chronicle of the time (Brut y Tywysogion) even claimed that the Rufus used concubines, which led to his death without children. Barlow, seems to think he was bisexual, mainly because he had no children. But it's still only his opinion, and he very carefully says that it is his opinion, not a fact. Emma Mason, writing a bit later then Barlow (who wrote in 1983) seems to give the impression we just can't know, because the sources don't tell us enough. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Exactly; and thanks for the detail - I was too lazy to dig my copy of Barlow out of the attic! In fact, I was also bothered by the very sentence containing the words 'numerous homosexual liaisons': certainly these aspects of William II's reign are of interest, as reported, but to speak of 'numerous homosexual liaisons' seems to require an imaginative leap which goes well beyond the evidence. I think the sentence needs editing. Nortonius (talk) 21:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This article has been on my "Someday" list for forever, but it'll probably stay there for a long time. I do highly recommend Mason's William II: Rufus, the Red King which came out in 2005. ISBN is 0-7524-3528-0. It's pretty good, from someone a bit more "pro-Rufus" than Barlow is. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem has always been that the family was Norman. William's father and two older brothers are mentioned as having long hair at times, as well as their courtiers etc. It's just that William was unpopular in my opinion. People like Edward II are remembered as gay because they weren't liked, whereas with the likes of Richard I the issues are not common knowledge. Also, we all know to be careful with church sources on the Norman dynasty, because the two did not get along. Appears mainly to be gossip, I've yet to see anything concrete --Tefalstar (talk) 21:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In my opinion (and that's what it is, so it shouldn't creep into the article) Rufus got horrible press. Eadmer hated him, and William of M pulled a bunch from Eadmer, so... that's two biased sources right there. Orderic is a bit more objective, and his entries seem to be the least inclined to believe Rufus was homosexual. If I'd stuck with medieval history, I'd probably have already written another biography of Rufus, but I changed careers... so... ya'll are missing my brilliant opinion as a WP source. I think it's probably okay to say that Barlow thought he was bisexual, but that's just Barlow's opinion, and if you read what he bases it on, it's clearly a lot of "gut instinct". Ealdgyth - Talk 21:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reference, Ealdgyth, but I’m afraid my days of rooting in academic libraries or buying books like that are long over! I did stick with medieval history, for a long time, but I’m no expert on William II either - I just wound up reading his Wikipedia page after following a thread started by a BBC News piece on the Turin Shroud, oddly enough, which led me to notice that someone had mistakenly attributed his reported oath involving the Holy Face of Lucca to Henry III! But, expert or not, evidence is evidence, and there doesn’t seem to be any here. And yes, Ealdgyth and Tefalstar, you both mention things which reflect what I had in mind when I compared William II’s press to a tabloid smear campaign.


 * I’d be delighted if there were more evidence for this period and earlier - my interest is mainly Anglo-Saxon - and I know very well that, in the face of inadequate evidence, we are often left to offer little more than opinion, having balanced what evidence there is; but it seems clear to me that this mention of ‘numerous homosexual liaisons’ is tantamount to weasel words (see Avoid weasel words).


 * So, I still think that sentence needs editing, perhaps along the following lines: ‘William was roundly denounced in his time and after his death for presiding over what was held to be a dissolute court.’ Obviously the footnote would need commensurate editing, too. I’ll have a stab at it, if no-one else wants to, and if no-one comes up with a good objection. Nortonius (talk) 21:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * None from me. Someday, I'll rewrite this article, but I've got a big pile of bishops to work through first. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've done an edit - any useful comments welcome, obviously! Nortonius (talk) 01:43, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hm, saying Flambard was his 'favourite' really kinda implies much more than really was there. Flambard was very definitely heterosexual (he made passes at religious hermit, for heavens sake). Flambard was Rufus' chief minister and regent, but I'm not sure that "close companion" or "best friend" really fits. (Warning, I just finished revising Flambard's article to get it up at GAN, on its way to FAC so I'm eyeball deep in Flambard research). Let's stick with 'chief minister' which fits the sources better. We really should mention that some folks have considered him homosexual, but I suppose it can wait a while until I have time to dig into the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok - the word 'favourite' was already there in the article, and I didn't feel qualified to change it. I'm not sure that it necessarily implies sexual relations, but I agree 'chief minister' fits better: 'favourite' does carry pejorative connotations, which needn't be fair, and, given what you say about your own research, I bow to your judgement! When you say, 'Flambard was very definitely heterosexual (he made passes at religious hermit...)', you do mean the hermit was female? And, when you say, 'We really should mention that some folks have considered him homosexual', are you referring to Flambard, or William? If William, I did preserve reference to discussion of his sexuality, in the footnote. Sorry, just want to be clear, having just stuck my head over the parapet with that edit! Thanks. Nortonius (talk) 02:05, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * LOL.. sorry. This is a case of being so far into the sources, that I'm not being clear. Flambard made passes at Christina of Markyate, who was definitely female. The "We really should mention that some folks.. " part meant Rufus, not Flambard. I really should move this article up on my "need to do list"... Ealdgyth - Talk 02:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Great! Yes, Christina of Markyate was definitely female! I'll see if I can't squeeze in some clearer reference to the sexuality question. And I'll go ahead and change 'favourite' to 'chief minister'. Then we'll just have to see what input others might have, until William gets on top of your pile of bishops (ugh!). Thanks for being so quick coming back on this! Nortonius (talk) 02:17, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No worries. Anything to distract my mind from the current task (updating references to use a new version of the British Handbook of Chronology... whee.) And thanks for doing the editing! Ealdgyth - Talk 02:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * My pleasure! I suppose I'm using the editing to distract myself from other things, too...! I know what you mean about being so far into the sources, and making tedious updates... Cheers! Nortonius (talk) 02:27, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Obviously the discussion on this page didn't persuade someone. Now you see why I haven't bothered editing this article. Scholarly references don't hold up against H. Montgomery Hyde, in The Love That Dared not Speak its Name. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:58, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes indeed - I had noticed that the question first arose nearly five years ago, and that it hadn't been touched since, so I had some idea of what might occur. I've invited BoBo to check the edit, and to come here for the discussion. Nortonius (talk) 03:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I just did an edit for which I gave the summary as Citations added for source of nickname 'Rufus', question of William II's sexuality, and his 'customary oath': I should also have mentioned that I changed the quotation from William of Malmesbury, given under the sub-heading 'Appearance' - sorry! I did this because the previous version of this quotation differs markedly from what I found Wm. of M. to say. If the previous version is from a text by Wm. of M. which is unknown to me, then apologies (just covering my bases here!) - but, if not, then the information removed by me would have to be viewed as a fantastical distortion (I love the part about his 'eyes of changeable colour, speckled with flecks of light'!), and tendentious with regard to William II's sexuality. Though the previous version of this quotation was added by Mississippienne, in edit 11104317 of 23:10, 7 March 2005, I suspect that this may in fact have been a confused, but innocent, quotation of H. Montgomery Hyde's The Love That Dared not Speak its Name: anyone? I know I should check it myself, but this would be unusually difficult, for reasons that I won't bore you with... Nortonius (talk) 12:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Anselm asked Billy II to attend a conference on condemning sodomy. Was the invitation itself a bit outrageous for the day? A deliberate provocation by the church? Consider the implications if the current Archbishop of Canterbury asked Betty II to chair a conference on idiot racism husbands. Would not the invitation itself be a criticism?220.244.72.9 (talk) 05:06, 14 June 2014 (UTC)


 * All references to this theory now seem to have been removed from the article. Why? I absolutely agree we have no way of knowing whether the suggestions were accurate, but the fact there has been so much speculation amongst respected historians is in itself notable. It's also notable that the second monarch in a by no means secure new dynasty chose not to marry and produce an heir - hell, that's highly unusual even in a well-established dynasty. Given the feuding between Robert, William and Henry, plus the fact that Saxon heirs were still alive and a potential focus for a rebellion, it seems incredible that a king who died at the age of 44 had made no attempt to produce an heir. Again, I'm NOT saying this is conclusive proof of his homosexuality, but it's certainly worthy of comment. Smurfmeister (talk) 12:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact that William II didn't marry and produce an heir doesn't really have much traction as neither of his brothers were married for most of his reign. (Robert only married on his way back from Crusade in 1099-1100ish). Henry only married because he took the throne. There is a famous passage in one of the chroniclers describing Rufus going to the convent where Edith-Matilda was and EM's aunt (who was the abbess) putting a veil on the girl - perhaps to protect her from marriage to Rufus. This later came up when Henry married EM, as they had to show that EM did not take nun's vows, and was thus eligible for marriage. William's lack of marriage may have been due to a lack of marriage partners that were suitable - Robert found his wife in southern Italy, and Henry married EM, after dealing with the nun issue. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Then why if Henry married when he took the throne would William not do the same during a 21-year reign? It seems unlikely that in 21 years, when the succession of a throne his father had fought a war to gain was at stake, that he didn't find a single 'suitable' candidate for marriage. Smurfmeister (talk) 14:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Probably because he had two brothers as heirs - William and Robert signed a treaty to be each other's heirs at one point. If the story of Rufus visiting the nunnery where EM was is true - he probably was seeing if she was suitable as a bride and was frustrated by the veil (Barlow discusses this at pp. 310-316 - and Mason also discusses it). EM was probably 12 or so in 1093, and would have been considered a bit young for marriage, and her younger sister (who might have been considered as a replacement bride if EM was thought to be a nun) was even younger and not ready for marriage until close to the end of Rufus' reign. Mason also points out that Wiliam may have considered that the best option was to have only one son of the Conqueror have legitimate sons so that all the lands held by his father could be consolidated once more. THe treaty with Robert would bear that out, also. Mason opines that Rufus did intend to marry EM, but was thwarted by the fact it was believed that she was a nun (and after her marriage she and Henry did have to deal with that story again and it went all the way to Anselm before being held to be not true (which may have owed more to political necessity than actual truth that she had never been a nun). Rufus' other options for a bride would need to be investigated by a historian (because of course, we don't put in original research, we reflect what the secondary sources say - i.e. the historians) before going in here, but when I was at college, I did some digging and there weren't many available options during Rufus' reign, as I recall. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

New file File:File:William Rufus engraving detail.jpg|File:William Rufus engraving detail.jpg}}
Recently the file : was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. Dcoetzee 12:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * now included Tom B (talk) 16:34, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Rufus Stone photo
I have in my hand a piece of card. (Salmon Cameracolour post card 2-57-01-13 in fact.) It has a photo of the Rufus Stone, the face in sunlight is a very pale grey. All the photos we have seem to have the stone in shadow. Any volunteers? Rich Farmbrough, 00:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC).

Kings and kings..
...WP:JOBTITLES covers the MOS guidance on this, if that helps at all. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:29, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * That is interesting – but it's WP's MOS, and I've never followed that rule IRL as I recall, it seems rather too specific to me. For example, we might talk about Ealdorman Thingummybob, but surely then "the ealdorman", not "the Ealdorman"; ditto with bishops etc., especially in a historical context, rather than e.g. the MOS's "the Queen" for the present Queen Elizabeth. Anyway, like "Big Chap" Bardrick, I'm not going to fight over it; but in the meantime it occurs to me that "the king" looks a little awkward there – I think "William" might be better:

William went hunting on 2 August 1100 in the New Forest, probably near Brockenhurst. He was killed by an arrow through the lung, but the circumstances remain unclear. The arrow was shot by a nobleman named Walter Tirel, and, although the description of events was later embroidered with more information,[16] the earliest statement of the event was in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, which noted that William was "shot by an arrow by one of his own men".[17] Later chroniclers added the name of the killer – Walter Tirel – and a number of other details which may or may not be true.[16] The first mention of any location more exact than the New Forest comes from John Leland writing in 1530 who stated that William died at Thorougham, a placename which has since fallen into disuse but was probably located at what is now Park Farm on the Beaulieu estates.[18][19] William's body was abandoned by the nobles at the place where he fell. His younger brother, Henry, hastened to Winchester to secure the royal treasury, then to London, where he was crowned within days, before either archbishop could arrive. William of Malmesbury in his account of William's death stated that the body was taken to Winchester Cathedral by a few countrymen.[20]
 * I've italicised changes I've suggested there, make of those what you will; but I've also replaced the comma after "Walter Tirel" with a spaced en dash, to match the one before. Nortonius (talk) 18:50, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'd agree, the MOS guidance on this one can produce some slightly odd results. Hchc "medium sized" 2009 (talk) 20:39, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've made those changes. "fairly normal sized" Nortonius (talk) 10:19, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Someone forgot Constantinople
In section England_and_France there is a lot of talk about how Rufus had the best royal institutions in Europe and the most powerful kingdom. I am pretty sure that Komnenian East Rome still was in much better shape than Rufus's kingdom, while the papal chancery was at higher levels of efficiency. If the answer is that these are no kingdoms but a papal monarchy and an empire, it is worth noticing that the paragraph explicitly refers to the Salian Empire (all the Salian kings were also emperors, the Byzantine's emperor title in Greek, basileus, translated to king, and the pope was a recognized top-level monarch anyway, although not an official rex), and is anyway misleading, if it attempts to exclude from the statement states which weren't officially kingdoms. The fact that this whole part is unsourced makes it even more suspect to me.

78.34.36.166 (talk) 15:18, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Reign start date
I'm changing the start dates of the reigns of the Norman and Angevin kings to match with their coronations. My source for this is Bartlett (2000) England under the Norman and Angevin Kings which has a section on the Interregnal Period. "The Norman and Angevin kings did not claim to succeed to the royal title immediately upon the death of their predecessor, as was the case in later English history. It was coronation that made a king and kings dated their regnal years from the day of that ceremony" p.123 To use the earlier date therefore misses the particular significance of the coronation ceremony in this period even if in cases where the monarch is de facto king --Jhood1 (talk) 13:51, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

This discussion is now taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject English RoyaltyJhood1 (talk) 17:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon bureaucracy superior to the Byzantine Empire's bureaucracy?
I dispute the following statement:

William Rufus inherited the Anglo-Norman settlement detailed in the Domesday Book, a survey undertaken at his father's command, essentially for the purposes of taxation, which could not have been undertaken anywhere else in Europe at that time,[dubious – discuss] and is a sign of the control of the English monarchy [Bold mine].

Although, post-conquest Anglo-Saxon bureaucracy may have been well established, and even superior to Norman bureaucracy, I seriously doubt that it would have been on par with Byzantine bureaucracy, which had a several century head-start on the Normans. Comments? Dinky town  talk  14:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and changed the issue. Dinky town   talk  00:07, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Coronation and reign date
In this period a person did not become king until their coronation: "Until, apparently, the reign of Edward I, no English king assumed the royal style before his coronation" p.30 (Handbook of British Chronology E B Pryde)

No reliable source dates the reign of William II from the 9th September. These sources date the reign from the 26th September:

Handbook of British Chronology p.35

Handbook of Dates (Cheney) p.32

Oxford Dictionary of National Biography 1

Bartlett (2000) refers to this as an inter-regnal period p.124

Barlow (2000) does address the issue in his biography, but expresses agnosticism. The question at what moment in September 1087 legally became king cannot be answered p.58. I would therefore suggest that the reign should be dated using the authoritative sources above.

Does anyone know of another source? Jhood1 (talk) 20:15, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Possible homosexuality
"The debate about Williams’s sexuality is all in all a futile one, with little evidence to support either side of the discussion. These accusations of sodomy would however have been particularly beneficial to a Church that was deeply angered and upset by William’s rule."[https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofEngland/William-Rufus/ Cripps, Thomas. "William Rufus", Historic UK] ...The above referenced quote has been reverted now twice and I fail to see what is so controversial. The first edit summary states that's it's POV. If so, it is the POV of the author of the article, and not unique to him. The second edit summary says "one person's opinion, presented without contextualizing". Well, so is the rest of that section. Mason says "Modern historians cannot state with certainty whether William was homosexual or not..." and then gives supposed reasons why he probably was. Most of the so-called reasons proffered have been discusses at length in section 10 on this very Talk page 10 years ago. If Mason says that William's sexuality cannot be stated with certainty, why is Cripps saying virtually the same thing so problematic? As for context, there is an entire section devoted to the king's conflicts with the church, and Anselm's biographer can hardly be said to be disinterested. Mannanan51 (talk) 23:05, 25 July 2018 (UTC)


 * One reason Cripp's opinion is not worth as much as Mason's has to do with the nature of the source. It is found on the web site for a travel accommodation guide, and the provided author's background indicates he is a recent school grad and amateur historian.  That makes his opinion something less than the scholarly consensus it is presented as representing.  By contextualizing, I mean you can't just throw out a bare quote from such an author as, literally, the final word on the subject. Agricolae (talk) 23:22, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Religion...
Of relevance - Village pump (policy)/Archive_126 which is pretty clear - his religion is not significant to his notability. --Ealdgyth (talk) 13:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Concur. Agricolae (talk) 13:45, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Roman numerals
– You've just reverted my changes (without the courtesy of an edit summary). Perhaps you would care to explain why you think roman numerals should not be displayed with the rn template which formats them nicely and stops them looking like text? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 13:32, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I find them dreadful with the template. It is a different font size and I am quite sure the template was not intended to be used like that. I also do not see why we should stop the Roman numerals looking like text when they literally are made of letters. Surtsicna (talk) 21:42, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I find using sans fonts horrible. Using a different font show that you are referring to Henry  and not Henry Ill (poor fellow, he must have been sick for ages).  Using the same font forces you to break your reading scan, and retrack.  The point is that they are not text, they are numerals.  After all we use slightly different symbols for I/l/1 and for 0/O.  The former is interesting, "1" has serifs to show it is a number, not text, just like ! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If I have ever seen an academic text in which Roman numerals are in a font different from the one used in the rest of the text, it must have been done much more subtly than this template does it because I do not remember it. I do not like the template creep either. If you insist on it, a wider discussion might be in order. Surtsicna (talk) 22:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have seen it in very specialized uses but not for the numerals of monarchs, and I find the font-switch here to be unnecessary, jarring and more trouble than it is worth. Agricolae (talk) 22:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
 * - The replies you've gotten adequately explain my reasoning for reverting the use of rn. It is non-standard, is an eyesore, and unnecessary. Bowwow828 (talk) 00:18, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Well we clearly disagree. I find the use of sans Roman numerals breaks up reading, can be confusing, looks wrong and is a distraction to understanding.  It's not so bad when the main font is a serif font.  We have to accept that for displays, unlike print, a sans font is preferred however we come back to the fact that roman numerals are not text, but numbers.  Would you be happy with O, I, 2, 3 ... as in old typescript?  So far consensus is against me, so in the spirit of BRD I'll let things alone for a while and see if other's care to comment. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 06:26, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I created rn for use at Roman numerals where I and X and more are used frequently, and where it can be hard to see the meaning without the template. However, I agree that in article like this, should not be used as there is no risk of confusion and the different styling is unnecessary and obtrusive. Johnuniq (talk) 09:55, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Sexuality
Dudley Miles - I find your wholescale overturning of my edits disrespectful. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. It is not about using your preferred form of words. If there are errors or problems then raise them. I'd rather we avoid edit warring so can we have a conversation here and decide how to handle. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 21:20, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is indeed collaborative, but anyone who won't let me unilaterally decide what the article should say is being disrespectful is not really what collaborative means. You were Bold - really bold, rewriting major swaths of the most controversial aspect of the article - it was then Reverted, so now is the time for you to Talk to other editors about why you think your version was better, rather than just putting it back again and browbeating the reverting editor. That is the best way to avoid an edit war - to achieve consensus first, and only then make the edits again. Agricolae (talk) 22:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not about my preferred form of words but about correctly summarising the sources. As I explained in my edit summary, it was about changing referenced text, which always carries the danger of no longer reflecting the sources. If you have access to the sources and you have checked that your edits reflect them (for example referring to long hair), then say so and other editors can discuss the changes. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The edits seem good to me, and the section reads better. Changing the details and emphasis by digging into the sources is a tricky operation, so it's probably best to post the proposed changes here and, absent any objection, then execute them.Shtove (talk) 09:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That sounds fine providing someone who has access to the sources can confirm. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:40, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Link to Encyclopaedia Britannica
Dudley Miles

You have deleted the link to an article in EB1911. You refer to it being an out of date article which I find puzzling. It is a (then) contemporary article written by Henry William Carless Davis, described as an Oxford Regius Professor of Modern History. As with most EB1911 articles, one can expect it to reflect some of the underlying conventions, assumptions and thoughts of the time. On the other hand, the final paragraph in particular seems to me to be forceful, balanced and attractively readable, not what one might expect of a stuffy Victorian bore.

I can see from your User Page that you likely know more about history than I do. I note too that the Author:Henry William Carless Davis wrote a goodly number of articles about historical figures. I expect you'll have come across him before. Do you have a problem with him? What is out-of-date about the article?

Please reconsider your reversion. ArbieP (talk) 09:17, 20 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I do not think that EB1911 should always be ruled out as a source. The article could, for instance, have a paragraph about the historical view of William, and this could include "In 1911, Henry William Carless Davis wrote....". However, I do not think it is helpful to include it in the further information section. Any source that old is likely to include statements of fact that have since been disproved or disputed and will confuse readers. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)