# Talk:Robert Winchelsey

Is Robert Winchelsey the same as Robert of Winchelsea? User:Dimadick .

Merge Robert of Winchelsea info into this article ASAP Walgamanus 13:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Another nice article. Just a few small things that need a bit of attention I think:

This sentence from Exile and return makes no sense to me: "Edward then sent two envoys, Langon Henry Lacy to the pope where the envoys claimed that the archbishop was plotting against the king, Clement suspended the archbishop on 12 February 1306".
I found the account of the refusal to make payments in Disputes with Edward to be a bit confusing. We read that the clergy of York paid their one fifth in tax, but later it suggests that the northern clergy (would that not have included York?) had only offered to pay, and that they were fined one fifth.
Should it be Archdeacon of Essex, at the end of Early life?
"Winchelsey vigorously asserted his authority over his suffragans ..." I've go no idea what a "suffragan" is.
Left-aligned images shouldn't appear immediately below a subsection header, as in Disputes with Edward I.
That's it as far as I'm concerned. I'll put the article on hold for now. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 16:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think I got them all. Please let me know if the changes made things make more sense? Jargon is a real issue with these sorts of articles. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Probably if I took more interest in religion I'd have known what a suffragan was, but I'm a confirmed antitheist. I'm not quite sure why, but I find these articles on medieval clerics quite interesting. Perhaps it's the challenge of trying to bring a subject that could easily be exceedingly dry to life. Anyway, I digress. GA passed! --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

What is this "Christian" nonsense. That's a weasel word. Is an encylopedia supposed to be politically correct and worry about offending people? He was a medieval Catholic prelate. Just call him what he was- a Catholic.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.238.10.164 (talk) 18:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC) 

I read somewhere that the Prince of Wales being quite liberal with his expenses, and this resulted in treasonous conspiracy type charges being put against the Archbishop of Canterbury.  The article did not name which Archbishop, but the timeframe suggests this Winchelsey.  Does anyone have a source to confirm or contradict this suggestion? It should be added to the article or to some other suitable article.  I will not record the source I read this in, because it is quite imprecise, and not only omits citation of any references, but was also a reprint, of an article elsewhere which I have not time to trace.