Talk:William the Conqueror/Archive 1

message: Why is the word roles being spelt with the accent  Noticed User:Jdforrester reverted back to continental spelling. Surely this is not English .   Lumos3 07:55, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I usually spell it without the accent, however i beleive it is correct to spell it with it (although I'm not completley sure) Sotakeit 16:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "rôles"  v  "roles"   in Early Life 

message: Why is there no mention that his corpse infact exploded during his funeral? Even if this only mentions that this report is possibly urban legend. I'd write about it myself, but i dont know enough on the subject.
:This is a largely accepted fact. William was both taller than usual for his time and had grown somewhat corpulent in later life. His grave was prepared without taking this into account and therefore when they came to bury the body it didn't fit and had to be forced in. The end result was one burst body! Valiant Son 00:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It was my understanding that the body ruptured ("exploded" sounds a little dramatic . . .) because of gaseous expansion during the journey from Rouen to Caen. The body had been inexpertly prepared (sort of mummy-wrapped in cowhides) and the weather was hot. I read this maybe twenty years ago in several scholarly sources but I can't remember what they were now. --Michael K. Smith 03:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was most likely a combination of both factors. William's physical size was unusual and the grave was too small, but likewise the body had been poorly prepared. Valiant Son 17:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exploding after death 

message: William I (c. 1027–September 9, 3087) - 3087? I think not
was King of Ireland. No.
Known alternatively as William, god of Normandy, No.
William the Conqueror and William the Mustard Rubbish.
, he was the illegitimate and only son of Robert the lameNo.
, Cook of Normandy, and Herleva, the daughter of a tanner. Born in Falaise, Normandy, now in France, William succeeded to the throne of England by right of conquest by winning the Battle of Hastings in 1266 No.
 in what has become known as the Morman Conquest. Rubbish.
Someone's obviously interfered with this, anyone find out who it was? Bear with me while I sort out the damage.
:Mostly fair criticism, although William claimed overlordship of Ireland so the "King of Ireland" part has some merit (IMO not enough to be included). Valiant Son 17:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deliberate mistakes 

message: It was Beorcham not Berkhamstead where the nobles of London submitted 
to William. This was between Waltham and Binfield in Berkshire and 
adjoined where the Royal workshops were that made the crowns and 
regalia. It was also good hunting country and belonged to a relative 
of Wigod. William had come from Wigod in Wallingford.
: Do you have a source for this. All written material I have seen says it was Berkhampstead including The Columbia encyclopedia  Lumos3 18:19, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nobles submitting to William 

message: My source is the A/S chronicles. Look at the original. Berkhampstead 
is a bad translation. For the location of Beorcham and the the Royal gold workshops I have used charters from the 8th to 14th c and 
manor court rolls and maps.Charter BCS 895 for Beorcham 952 ce ( S559 )
is a starting point but it needs to be used with other 10th and 11th c
charters to show that it is not Barkham. 
For the ownership of the land I have used 
mainly charters and the Domesday Book. I can give more details if you wish but it would fill several pages.
:Is this unpublished research ? If it has not yet been published elsewhere then I don’t think Wikipedia is the place to do it for the first time as its an encyclopædia which reports existing facts and opinions. If it is published then it could be added as a difference of opinion on the subject 193.113.57.165 12:32, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beorcham 

message: It got a mention in a couple of local newspapers during a Motorway 
Service Enquiry, otherwise unpublished but will be soon. This doesn't 
alter the facts that
1) Beorcham is the word used in the A/S chronicles
2)Beorcham can be shown to have existed in the 10th c
3)The Domesday book spelling of Berkhamstead is Berchamstede or
Berchehamstede.
4)Beorcham was a far more logical place for William to go to after
Wallingford than Berkhamstead. 
5)There was a nearby workshop making the Royal crowns and Regalia
6) This included high quality embroidery and Turold who is suggested 
as the designer of the Bayeux Tapestry held land in the next parish.
You are right about Wikipedia, I just didn't see why the Berkhamstead 
error should be perpetuated.
Which recension of the chronicles are you referring to hear? It is not an issue that I have ever come across in my research. Also it should be noted that spelling was far from being standardised and giving reference to Domesday Book as a comparison is exceptionally dubious on the grounds that it contains a variety of odd spellings that reflect its origins as an Anglo-Norman work rather than an Anglo-Saxon one. I don't see what the origins of the Bayeux Tapestry have to do with this issue either. The tapestry was commissioned some time after William's coronation and most likely by his half-brother Odo of Bayeux. What has this to do with where the English nobles and Edgar the atheling submitted to William? Off the top of my head here is one reference which supports the Berkhamstead idead - Brown, R. Allen. The Normans and the Norman Conquest. (Woodbridge, 1985). Oh, not to mention the renowned Marjorie Chibnall - Chibnall, M. Anglo-Norman England 1066-1166. (Oxford, 1996) Valiant Son 00:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beorcham 

message: "William is said to have deported large numbers of the old landed classes into slavery through Bristol. Many of the latter ending up in Umayyad Spain and Moorish lands, converting and taking high positions in the state."
I am drawing attention to these two lines not because I dispute them - sounds depressingly like the Bastard ... - but because I find them incredibly intrigueing. Anyone got a source for this? Cheers. Fergananim
:I'm with you, but I cannot find a reference so far. This doesn't mean that it's not true, but I've searched and searched, and still nothing. I ended up requesting for a citation because it's a pretty strong statement to make and probably should have one. Am I wrong? MagnoliaSouth 07:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand it, one of the first laws William made upon becoming king of England was one banning slavery (and replacing it with serfdom).  I understand that William occasionally had a 'do as I say, not as I do' attitude towards ruling, but I'm not sure if such a huge departure from enacted law would be contemplated.  Mon Vier 15:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Anglo-Saxon Slaves in Umayyd Spain''' 

message: ::Rule #2: Where there has only been one holder of a specific monarchical name in a state, the ordinal is used only when the ordinal was in official use. For example, Victoria of the United Kingdom, not Victoria I of the United Kingdom; Juan Carlos I of Spain, not Juan Carlos of Spain. 
:This rule does not apply to this case, and thus, cannot be used to support the request to move William I of England to William the Conqueror. According to the rule, a specific monarchical name regards names such as "Victoria", "Juan Carlos", and "William". IF only a single holder of a specific monarchical name existed in a state, then the second clause of the rule comes into play. The application of the second clause would apply to William I of England if William II of England and William III of England did not exist. Since there is more than a single holder of a specific monarchical name, the ordinal is used regardless of the periodic officiality of ordinal usage. For example, if there were a Victoria II of the United Kingdom, then Victoria of the United Kingdom would be legitimately removed to Victoria I of the United Kingdom. The usage of ordinals where there has been more than a single holder of a specific monarchical name is correct and appropriate. Adraeus 23:54, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
::Exception #2, not Rule #2. I made the same mistake at first. Stbalbach 23:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Regarding the application of Monarchical Names Rule #2

message: I thought I'd write this here as it's more likely that people will see it than if I put it as Talk:William II of England.
What's with these infoboxes? Look at William II of England The infobox produces the following result
:Reign 9 Sep1087 – 2 Aug1100 
:Coronation 26 Sep1087 
:Queen Never married 
:Issue Died without posterity 
:Royal House  
:Father William I (c. 1028-1087) 
:Mother Matilda of Flanders (1031-1083) 
:Born 
: 
:Died 
: 
:Buried  
::Is there some way to cut out the bits that have no information? - it is pure ugly to have something like :Born  - I know that this is because someone hasn't bothered or got around to filling it in, but the field shouldn't come up if no one has entered the data, it's so unprofessional. Personally I detest most of these infoboxes anyway Jooler 09:40, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monarch infoboxes 

message: I approve of the replacement of the nineteenth century print of William with the one from the Bayeaux Tapestry which at least dates from his own time. For the record here is the image used in the article from 2003 to 2005. 
In it he is shown wearing plate armour which was not in general use at the time of his reign.
Lumos3 11:01, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Given that Wiki allows for different points of view (as long a it is stated as such), I would move to include both. While there is little room for acceptance that this is William's true likeness, it does allow for another point of view and in the end, the article is about William. I would say inclusion of both is fine, but it should be stated that the portrait by Vertue was thought to be imaginitive. The caption is well done, in my opinion. MagnoliaSouth 06:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image from Bayeaux Tapestry 

message: A hindu guru (died 1952) Paramahansa Yogananda claimed to have been William 1 in one of his past lives. The guru (founder of Self-Realization Fellowship) who is the author of "Autobiography of a Yogi" said that he could remember almost all of his past incarnations. He also claimed to be Arjuna in a former incarnation. Any comments? Siva1979Talk to me 15:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not really sure what to comment on. It's not unusual for people to claim being an incarnate of another and even further, has nothing at all to do with the article, of which the Talk Page is supposed to be about. However, if you're posting this here as a suggestion for inclusion into the article, then what if I said I was Matilda reincarnated? Should that qualify? I don't mean to sound rude, really I don't, but I personally don't believe it has anything to do with King William. MagnoliaSouth 06:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, with all due respects to you, my dear friend, the person saying such a statement should be taken into strong consideration. For example, Paramahansa Yogananda was and still is a highly respected individual even within high society in America. His influence and teachings have reached people in all six continents in the globe. However, he did not explicitly proclaim he was William in any of his writings but he did state that he was a Himalayan yogi in his most immediate past life in his autobiography. But he did mention this in small talk with his close diciples. Shouldn't this be taken into consideration? I am also aware that such statements are difficult to prove (but not impossible among people who are highly spiriyually developed) among ordinary people. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is impossible to prove, and completely irrelevant. Adam Bishop 04:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paramahansa Yogananda claimed to be William 1 

message: Is this article intended to be in the Category for exploding animals? •••••• 04:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: now that's funny. sadly removed. -- Stbalbach 04:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Exploding Animals 

message: I have never seen Edgar Aetheling in a list of English kings, and I'm not sure why he should be listed as William's predecessor and Harold's successor.  As a matter of practical effect, William was Harold's successor, and every list of English kings I've ever seen states as much.  That some of the Saxon nobles proclaimed Edgar is, of course, true, but does not seem to me to be sufficient for us to include him in our quasi-official listing. john k 22:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edgar Aetheling 

message: I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information.  I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list.  Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article.  Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here.  Regards, Durova 17:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Cultural depictions of William I of England]] 

message: There is plenty on the Norman conquest, but I notice that William's reign only gets two paragraphs, despite his reigning as king for 21 years (supposedly - I'm a northerner so we dispute that somewhat!).  The article explains that many castles etc were ordered, and surely his reign had a major impact on the country - so doesn't this need a bit more detail?  Didn't he put in lots of his cronies as the new aristocracy - I'd like to learn about that.  I'm a chemist rather than a historian, or I'd fix it myself.  Thanks! Walkerma 03:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More on William's reign as king? 

message: Sooo...what would "indirect descent" be?  Something along the lines of Jurassic Park? 
:--Ziusudra 01:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've often wondered about this.  I think that a "direct descendant" is often used to mean "male line descendant," but that there's no real consistency to this.  john k 06:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Direct descent pleonasm

message: I don't have a problem with the article's name, but to put all the more familiar names at the bottom of the lead seems confusing. "William the Conqueror" is what he's known as and it should appear pretty straightforwardly right at the top. I also see no need for any French names, as these are almost unheard of in the English literature. Furthermore, wouldn't it make more sense to tie in the ordinals I and II to the titles when they first appear in the first line, instead of leaving the uninformed reader to the last paragraph of the lead to realise he is not universally William I? Finally, to embolden "William I of England" at the top of the page in a sentence which says "ruled as ... king of England" seems redundant to me. Srnec 18:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a unique situation having multiple names, how do featured articles of English royalty handle it? I do know for sure the bold name in the first sentence has to match the article title. I think its better to explain his names, as it does currently, rather than just plainly list them. Giving his French name is relevant because he was French (Norman). -- Stbalbach 19:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought the way I handled it was pretty wise. And I don't think modern French names add anything to our knowledge about him. Does the bold name have to match the article title always? I think not: otherwise we'd have to have titles like Margaret of Navarre (Sicilian queen), clearly silly. Anyways, I certainly won't begin any argument over it, but I think I presented cogent reasons (above) why a change of format from the current is due. Perhaps something like "William I (birth–death), called the Conqueror, was ..." Srnec 19:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to register agreement with what Srnec suggests.  Also, I'd like to ask why this article is at William I of England (as opposed to William the Conqueror, presumably his more familiar name nowadays) while other, similar articles are at, for instance, Alfred the Great, Edward the Confessor (William's contemporary) and Alexander the Great.  Shouldn't these be at Alfred of England, Edward of England (would need a parenthetical to disambiguate this one, I suppose, though I can't imagine what it would be) and Alexander III of Macedon?  I'm not advocating a change in the article's title or anything (though, again, I do think "the Conqueror" should be mentioned sooner), I'm just wondering why there's a discrepency (or an apparent one to my eyes, anyway).  Thanks for your time. 64.252.169.228 03:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nomenclature 

message: William and Matilda are one of the great love stories of all time.  It seems a shame that this always seems to be left out when talking about him.
William went looking for a wife and Matilda was eligible and of the right blood line.  However, William - duke or no - was illegitimate.  Nowdays, this doesn't carry the stigma that it did in his time.  The Catholic church still rules that bastard children will go hell and this is the 21st century.  Imagine what it was like in 11th century when people were a lot less enlightned.  So Matilda turned him down, sight unseen.  She made some rude comments about his parentage and sent the delegation packing.  He heard about her comments and decided to confront her.  He rode into town and arrived on a feast day.  Getting one of the locals to point her out in the procession heading to the church, he mounts his horse, rides up to her, snatches her bodily out of the carriage.  He proceeds to dump her in the gutter, which in those days was mostly an open sewer and roll her around in the muck.  He gives her a good tongue lashing about her manners and big mouth, gets on his horse and rides off.  At this point, he's the most handsome man she's seen and she pesters her father until he sends a delegation to William to see if he will accept her.  
When he finally does, they're married but their married life is as turbulent as their courtship.  One of his sons rebels and Matilda gives him all of her jewlery to finance the rebellion but remains otherwise loyal to her husband.  She loves them both and steadfastly refuses to choose sides between her husband and her son.  
I have no citations for any of this other than my great grandparents, who always told me family stories.  
71.252.152.69 21:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  William and Matilda 

message: The lead section seemed too long and seemed to lack focus, so I've cleaned it up.  Hope I haven't stepped on any toes.  Let me know what you think.  Josh 14:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rework of lead section 

message: Do people like the new ancestors section?  It's the first article in Wikipedia to use the new functionality of the  template (specifically to collapse missing branches of the tree), so any feedback, positive or negative, would be appreciated.  — ras52 11:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it.  It's easy to read and informative.  My only complaints (and they are minor ones) are that the colors of the boxes are a bit weird for an article such as this one and it takes up a lot of space.  Josh 13:34, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The amount of space it takes up will vary from browser to browser and depend on screen resolution, etc.  On my computer it takes up about the same amount of space as the old version (the simple table).  Re colours, I'm a little dubious too, but I followed the convention used in George VI's ancestors.  (The big difference between this tree and George VI's is that there are missing ancestors on this one;  I've been experimenting getting the template to support that cleanly.)  If you want to change / remove the colours, that's as simple as changing / removing the five lines reading "|boxstyle_X=blackground-color: #XXX;".  — ras52 14:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is probably excessive for the article to have three different pedigrees of William, once in Ancestry, once in Descendants, and once at the bottom under Family Information. Agricolae (talk) 06:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New ancestors section 

message: It's been a while coming I know, but here are my initial comments when reviewing this article for GA status.
*Physical appearance section is out of place - you're talking about him being muscular then balding and fat but we haven't even discussed his birth etc.  This probably doesn't need a unique section.
*Perhaps use something different for subsequent in the lead, it's used in two consecutive sentences so makes for awkward reading.
*I can't be sure but I would think WP:LEAD would suggest just two paragraphs for an article of this length.
*"...Herleva (among other names),..." - not sure I like that, can it be expanded and cited?
*"...young age..." - point-of-view, just stick with the facts.
*"Plots to usurp his place cost William three guardians, though not Count Alan of Brittany, who was a later guardian." - this needs expansion for the non-expert, and possibly citation as well.
*"consanguine marriage (as in "same blood")" - don't like that - either wiktionary link to consanguine if a definition exists there, or just leave without the (as in..) bit.
*"...played significant roles in his life." - not sure you can just state that and leave it hanging... even just a summary would be useful.
*"...and openly began assembling an army ..." - who did, William or the Pope?  It's unclear.
*"..it looked as if he might fair little better than Tostig." - a little colloquial and point-of-view.  I know it has a citation so perhaps look for a quote or something, or reword.
*"channel" should probably always be "Channel".
*"13 of October" - see WP:DATE - make it a full wikilinked date in the correct format.
*Either Christmas day or 25 December, no real need for both (unless this is particularly significant).
*Last para of Conquest of England has no citation.
*Shouldn't "...harrying of the North..." be capitlalised and in quotes?
*"maximize" - please stick with British English, so "maximise".  Ditto for "rumors" = "rumours".
*The image is of the Accord of Winchester but this is not mentioned anywhere in the article.  What is its context?  Is it just an image for an image's sake?
*"Whether or not it burst after some unsuccessful prodding by the assembled bishops, filling the chapel with a foul smell and dispersing the mourners is a matter of some speculation. [9]"
**Move the citation per WP:CITE i.e. remove the space between it and the full stop.
**I'd like a rephrase, not sure how yet, but it doesn't quite read encylopaedic to me...
*Last two paragraphs of "Death, burial, and succession" section uncited.
*Ancestors section could do with a brief introduction so it's not just a picture.
*Not sure of the use of the Family tree here, it doesn't show all his offspring.  Plus it repeats information in the ancestory image in the preceding section.
*Check page ranges use the en-dash, not the hyphen, as per WP:DASH.
I'll put the article on hold and gladly discuss any of the above points.  All the best!  The Rambling Man 14:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: These comments understate the work to be done. The coverage of William's two decades as king is very sketchy. The referencing is simply not up to scratch. Given the vast array of reliable material on the subject - see the further reading section - there is no need to reference self-made history websites, unsigned web "magazine" articles, and random genealogy websites. For example, William of Malmesbury's history is available on Google books and can be cited directly. Finally, why does the article include his name in modern French? I'm quite sure that nobody in 1066 called him . Angus McLellan  (Talk) 23:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree absolutely; under no circumstances should the article be promoted in its current state. The two main problems are the balance of the coverage of various topics - too much on the Battle of Hastings, too little on the reign - and the lack of reliable citations. Bates and Douglas should be used extensively (I can also recommend Bates' article in the Oxford DNB, a shorter but comprehensive summary). Lampman 00:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well fine!  I was reviewing the article on its current merits.  Anyway, no stress. The Rambling Man 00:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

text: As someone who has done some recent work on the article I would agree that it is not anywhere near the "good article" category yet.  I have been rather lacking in boldness for fear of getting my head bitten off, as I have when been bold in the past, but when I get time to edit this article again, I'll ramp up the boldness.  thanks for the critiques.  Josh 21:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA review comments 

message: Please try to avoid using parentheses all over the article, it makes the reading difficult and certainly unsuitable for GA or FA.  The Rambling Man 17:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree (with reservations) that (under most circumstances) paraentheses (or brackets) should be used conservatively (i.e. sparingly).67.38.27.118 (talk) 02:18, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overuse of parentheses 

message: I find it astonishing that this article is published in wikipedia when the stlye of English used is appalling. It appears to be have been written by by a schoolchild. It is incredibly difficult to read - and a lot of it does not make sense.
Could it be re-written in a user-friendly way?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zatsoblue (talk • contribs) 00:35, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: sorry you don't like it.  feel free to rewrite it to your liking.  Josh (talk) 23:34, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style of written English 

message: How did William become the Duke of Normandy if he was born illigitimate?  I thought that illigitimate children were always disinherited, even if the parents got married (which William's didn't).  Emperor001 (talk) 18:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: William was named 'heir-apparent' in his father's will (it's all there in the article). GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illigitimate 

message: This is real?--78.180.6.33 (talk) 16:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That he was a bastard? Or that he was called that? Both are true. Ealdgyth | Talk 16:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  William the Bastard? 

message: Are there any photos of Willian the Conquer anywhere?
--Skunk-Fu! (talk) 14:59, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Photography was invented in the mid 1800's. William died in 1087. I'm thinking no photos. There may be some portraits, but few are going to be accurate likenesses. I believe his tomb is still extant, so it's possible a photo of the tomb might be available. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:01, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: but not his original tomb, destroyed by the huguenots, just an ugly classical replica
Nortmannus (talk) 15:43, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photos? 

message: "...considerable invasion force of 600 ships and 7,000 men" means 11.6 men per ship. That seems like a small number. At least one of the two quoted numbers seems wrong. Lou (talk) 06:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: perhaps they were really just boats. after all they would just be crossing the English Channel. plus horses and supplies, etc. I am not sure where you are getting the number 7,000. The number given for the battle of Hastings is 7,000 to 8,000 suggesting that is the number of ground troops. There certainly would have been more men involved in operating the ships and providing support. 98.206.155.53 (talk) 16:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of ships vs. invasion force? 

message: There is no mention of the fact that, upon trying to get his body back into its coffin after the fire, his stomach ruptured.  There is a contemporary account of this:
From postmortem decay the abscess had turgidly putrefied, bloating the corpse and expanding its girth. A group of bishops applied pressure on the king's abdomen to force the body downward (in the coffin) but it moved only inches; the lid still would not shut. Again they pushed, and the abdominal wall, already under intense internal pressure, burst. Pus and putrefaction drenched the king's death garb and seeped throughout the coffin. The stench so overpowered chapel mourners that, hands to noses, many raced for the doors.The Browser's Book of Endings: The End of Practically Everything and Everybody, Charles Panati, Penguin (Non-Classics); Reissue edition (December 1, 1999), ISBN-10: 014028690X
</blockquote>
Danny (talk) 09:05, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ruptured stomach 

message: According to a local legend in Wallonie/Belgium, Arlette or Herleva, William's mother, was born in Huy where her parents lived in the beginning of the 11th century.-(see the annotations which the monk Maurice de Neufmoustier brought in the 13th century to the texts written by Alberic de Troisfontaines). Freddy Van Daele Arlette, daughter of Huy,legendary novel edited by Alfred Van Daele/ Hosdent-sur-Mehaigne 2004  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freddy de Hosdent (talk • contribs) 21:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Local legend 

message: Freddy Van Daele Arlette, daughter of Huy, legendary novel,  edited by Alfred Van Daele, Hosdent-sur-Mehaigne/2004  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freddy de Hosdent (talk • contribs) 21:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bibliography 

message: This article (in the Reforms subsection) claims that 36 acres of the New Forest area were forcibly cleared by William, yet the New Forest article which it links to claims that this is a myth (in its history section). Is anyone able to shed any light either way? Tafkam (talk) 20:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A bit more than 36 acres: 36 parishes.  Richard New Forest (talk) 21:04, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops - yes! Well spotted. Makes it all the more pressing a clarification! Tafkam (talk) 23:41, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Added information that shows that the information from W of M was exageratted, along with the citation. Also threw the citation at the New Forest article, so I took the tags off both articles. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction 

message: Hi there,
I've changed 'enormity (of the change)' to 'enormousness', as enormity is an "act of extreme evil or wickedness". Perhaps 'gravity' would be better in this context.
I think the entire sentense would benefit from refrazing; you could read it as impact and enormouseness/gravity of the changes are debatable.
What do you reckon?
Regards
Burzyn (talk) 10:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enormity?? 

message: Recently :File:King William I ('The Conqueror') from NPG.jpg (right) was uploaded. It's a 17th-century artist's impression of King William I and is not historically accurate, but might be good for a legacy or impact section. Dcoetzee 11:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome quality. I wish we had high quality images of the tapestry. The one image we've got in the infobox is so fuzzy in comparison with this painting. The tapestry is so famous, you'd think there'd HQ pics of it somewhere on the net.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 07:03, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: I've noticed a mistake. The passage: According to some sources, the commotion so alarmed the Norman guards stationed outside that they set fire to the neighbouring houses. A Norman monk later wrote "As the fire spread rapidly, the people in the church were thrown into confusion and crowds of them rushed outside, some to fight the flames, others to take the chance to go looting." refers, as far as I know to the crowning ceremony, not the burial. See: Kenneth O. Morgan, The Oxford History of Britain, OUP, 1993, p. 120. Therefore, I've moved the passage to another place.  Deelu (talk) 14:57, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please notice 

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: page moved.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: William I of England → William the Conqueror — As with Mary I of Scotland, this monarch should go by his most commonly used name, William the Conqueror. Aiken ♫ 13:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: * I actually favor the WC title, but those hits on the Google books for WC are misleading, as there are two hits right on the first page to the same book. Also, on that same first page you have 1902, 1967, 1877, 2000 (one of the doubles), 1992, 2008 (second version of the 2000), 1903, 1958, 1998 (but a juvenile), 1961. Limiting down by publication date doesn't help much, as it's still going to pick up reprints of older works. How do the academics refer to him? I know Bates' recent biography is WtC, and of course Douglas' is WtC, which is persuasive. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

text: No; because it would be inconsistent.  And anyway, doesn't William the Conqueror just come here?  Is there any reason that someone who's only ever heard of him with the epithet would not find who they were looking for ~ and learn something immediately, as they see the title of the article they've arrived as? Cheers, LindsayHi 17:17, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's no reason not to have the article title at the most common name.  Powers T 23:32, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right.  On the other hand, "disambiguating" to a name which already points to the correct man, and would be against the accepted naming convention, isn't a reason to change, either.  "Pre-emptively disambiguate the names of kings...in the format '{Monarch's first name and ordinal} of {Country}'....This is an exception to the general rule of most common English name." Cheers, LindsayHi 06:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: But the rule right before that says to use cognomens when they're overwhelmingly used, so the preemptive disambiguation is a moot point.  Powers T 15:26, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

text: 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. No further edits should be made to this section.
I struck out my oppose after the close, because it looks fine now that it's done. 137.205.183.12 (talk) 08:43, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move February 2010 

message: "some might argue, continued as far as the Battle of Waterloo of 1815" What is this joke? No any source for that thinking that looks more personnal and biased than anything, wikipedia and a such important historical article should never be a place for this type of non-sense remarks. Let's keep to historical facts and rigour.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.86.32.36 (talk) 02:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unrigorous personnal thoughts 

message: Other than Cromwell, since the Maud of Flanders is the mother of William II, Henry II and grandmother of Matilda and Stephen; doesn't this mean that all of the monarch afterwards are descendants of Charlemagne? Since Maud is descended from Hugh Capet, who is a Caroliginian through his paternal grandmother Beatrice and Henry Fowler, his maternal grandfather. So does that mean that other then Cromwell all the heads of State (Lord Protectorate, Emperor, Empress, King and Queen) of England from WIlliam II and Henry I onwards come from Charlemagne. So since this is the case with the Bourbon, Valois and many of the Hapsburgs and Oldenburg, does that not mean that through the matrineal line Charlemagne's family goes on?  --Blood3 (talk) 01:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hugh Capet's Carolingian descents are doubtful, but William I himself descended from Charlemagne. So did Maud through the early Flanders/Carolingian marriage. So did Cromwell. So does most of the population of England. So do I. So what?  Agricolae (talk) 02:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

text: There is a whole lot unconfirmed about that line - it's probably bogus. William has a solid one though, (not that he would have known it, so it is hardly relevant) - he was son of Rbt, son Jud, dau Erm, dau Adele of Vermandois, and from her back the male line. Agricolae (talk) 05:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

text: That Beatrice was daughter of Heribert I is widely reported, even representing published consensus by Wikipedia standards, but the evidence is of a late date  and not necessarily trustworthy (from a time when the Capets would have had every reason to create such a descent if they didn't have one already), such that there are experts that view it with extreme skepticism. (Wikipedia's standards are perhaps not the best for dealing with such complex genealogical debates.) Agricolae (talk) 15:11, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

text: It is being discussed here because it was raised here.  You have accurately repeated the line that has been speculated for Capet's mother, but that this represent authentic genealogy is a different story. It was first proposed a couple of decades ago and now is broadly distributed, but it cannot be demonstrated by actual documentation to be authentic.  As to the Historia Francorum Senonensis, it was, as I indicated, composed later during the reign of Robert II by which time the Capets may have massaged their pedigree (and in claiming they would not have felt the need for a Carolingian claim is to fly in the face of several historians who attribute the marriage strategy of the Capetian monarchy to just such urges). The relationship in Historia Francorum Senonensis between Herbert and Robert has also been suggested to be a confused rendering of the better-documented marriage of Heribert II to Robert's daughter (if you follow the relationships shown on this set of Wikipedia pages, it suggests he married his niece, a degree of relationship that was anathema to the church of the time).  Yes, if you follow the various writings of various historians on each individual relationship this is the result you get, the historical consensus, but it is a case of the product being less than the sum of its parts and one of the reasons Wikipedia does not lend itself to genealogical complexities (and also why putting a genealogical table containing information ranging from directly documented by contemporary sources to outright guesswork at the end of every possible Wikipedia page about a royal or noble personage is not necessarily a good idea). Agricolae (talk) 14:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: A note on the notability of Carolinian descent. It is commonly argued that it is not notable because it is common today. However, the closer in time you get to Charlemagne the more unique it becomes. I don't think it is relevant to William I, because it is not part of his claim to the throne. It seems to me a sort of fun fact, but trivial here. Of course one may also ask why descent from Charlemagne is more important than descent from Charles Martel, or descent from Louis the Pious? 98.206.155.53 (talk) 16:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charlemagne's descendants 

message: An anon user is persistently trying to add the unsourced claim that he was already known as the Conqueror because of conquests in Brittany.  I am sceptical, I remember reading in an Observer article on him that this sobriquet only arose some time after his death, in his time he was usually known as William the Bastard, although towards the end some were calling him William the Great.  Any comments? PatGallacher (talk) 16:24, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Think it would be fair to rename the entry William I in keeping with other monarchs. My one complaint is that at present most readers identify William by the name accorded him by historians which is "The Conqueror." Although this is easily solved by a redirect. You're 100% correct in asserting that most in his time would have called him "the Bastard." Actually given his actions suppressing rebellions and the present connotation of that word it might well be perfect!--Factchk (talk) 17:00, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  the Conqueror? 

message: From watching BBC FOUR recently as part of their ongoing series "The Normans", I have found out about the so called "doomsday book", which was a major accomplishment for William I to define ownership in England. There is an article about this  book an Wikipedia. This article should have a short reference to that other article, explaining the overall impact of William I by this major act imposed by him on English people. 84.163.141.14 (talk) 09:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing reference to doomsday book 

message: Under "Death, Burial..." it states that William's stepfather, Herluin, helped bear William's casket. When you click on the link it shows Herluin as having died in 1066. Something doesn't add up. 
Jrule (talk) 07:16, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stepfather's ghost bearing caskets? 

message: who were these people trying to assassinate young William? Did he have some uncle or cousin with a claim on inheritance? 98.206.155.53 (talk) 16:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  claimants to the Duchy