Talk:Edward III of England

message: This view has turned, and modern historiography credits him with many significant achievements. 
This is referenced, and may quote the source exactly. Regardless of that, I don't believe that "modern historiography" can credit Edward III with anything. 
On the other hand, historiography could reveal facts, scholarship or changing attitudes that caused scholars or modern historians to credit Edward with many significant achievements. 
It needs rewording.  Amandajm (talk) 06:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Please feel free to reword. Lampman (talk) 12:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Expression

message: :File:Edward III.jpg is not Edward the Third. It is of his son, Edward of Woodstock, the Black Prince. See http://prodigi.bl.uk/illcat/record.asp?MSID=765&CollID=21&NStart=594  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.255.1.126 (talk) 07:14, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow. Good eye! What made you suspicious in the first place? I think usually people review the images in featured articles. I wonder how this slipped through. The source of the pic in question is just a free webhost. Here's the right Edward -> .--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 09:07, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

text: I'm gonna upload the right pic and replace it. Just gimme about 3 mins.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 09:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks to whoever noticed this. Things were going a bit fast yesterday as I was preparing the article for TFA, and the picture was categorised as Edward III, but I should of course have caught it. Lampman (talk) 12:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big mistake in portraits 

message: Shouldn't this article at least mention the questions over his paternity? There is serious doubt in many quarters that Edward II was his father, since supposed he would have had to have conceived him ten months before he was born. (He was away in France, while his mother was in England).--MacRusgail (talk) 16:22, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Source? To the best of my knowledge, Edward II spent the early months of 1312 in the north of England, trying to protect Piers Gaveston. I can’t find anywhere that he visited France between 1308 and 1313. Lampman (talk) 17:13, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paternity? 

message: The article states that he had no known illegitimate children, but this is contradicted by the Wikipedia and ODNB articles on Alice Perrers. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:34, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll remove it, don't know when that got in there. Lampman (talk) 17:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  No illegitimate children 

message: I have the impression of a predominance of western oriented/ Anglo-Saxon entries making the featured article level. Frankly I disapprove of the English kings and so despise this tendency.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hdeasy (talk • contribs) 17:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: So improve some articles on non-Anglo-Saxon kings to FA status. Brutannica (talk) 22:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objection to number of Anglo-saxon entries 

message: I think there is an error in both the article lead and main page capsule -- they state that Roger Mortimer was regent during Edward's early years.  Although Mortimer was clearly the de facto ruler, I believe the official regent was actually Edward's mother Isabella.  Do I have this wrong? Looie496 (talk) 21:08, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Historian P. Doherty definitely has Isabella as the official regent after Edward II is deposed by Parliament in Jan 1327. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:28, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. I was going for brevity in the lead, but it might have been a bit imprecise. It's better now, thanks! Lampman (talk) 06:54, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regent? 

message: I wonder if it would be worthwhile to mention that Edward borrowed much money from Florentine bankers to finance the French campaign, failed to repay it, and caused the bankruptcy of several Italian banks in the 1340s. AxelBoldt (talk) 17:17, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:   Bankruptcy of Florentine bankers in 1340s 

message: I've reverted the last change as it just didn't make sense to me. ("The following years  he saw more direct involvement in the Breton War of Succession by supporting Joanna of Brittany, and by supporting English armies at the Battle of Auberoche, but also this proved fruitless at first.") Firstly, I don't think that Edward III can be said to have "supported" English armies at the battle of Auberoche, since it was fought between his own forces and the French. The battle was also fought in Gascony, not Brittany. Secondly, you may also want to double check that Fowler, the source being cited to support the claim in the current draft, actually makes reference to Joanna of Flanders on pages 58-9. Happy to be corrected if he does, of course. I can't find my copy of it to check, but I think you would find that Ian Mortimer refers to Edward supporting her in his biography of the king. If I can find it tomorrow, I'll look it up. (Incidentally, a while back I considered reworking Joanna's article after reading Mortimer's snippet on her, but gave up due to the sheer paucity of decent sources. If you can find a decent text on her, I'd be very interested in getting the details of it). 19:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, found it. Mortimer talks about Jeanne and Edward's support for her in 1342 on pages 204-5 in "The Perfect King. The Earl of Lancaster's 1345 expedition and Auberoche occur in Gascony, rather further south than Brittany, and aren't described as being in direct response to the Breton war, at least in Mortimer's account (p.219). It might be worth adding a sentence in on the Breton situation, referenced to Mortimer or similar, but the existing footnote captures Auberoche perfectly well, in my opinion.Hchc2009 (talk) 20:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brittany and Battle of Auberoche... 

message: No mention of "the ninth"  ? also related topics the "english wool company" . Also the Bardi family, the Peruzzi, William de la Pole (maybe others too) as financiers should also be namechecked and linked, (easily verified via a google search). The significance of these can be easily checked. The act of "farming out" taxes to raise more revunue might be more explicity described too.Oranjblud (talk) 00:17, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Tax

message: I couldn't find anything in the article on his relations with the Catholic Church. Did I miss it or is it there?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.119.151.233 (talk) 05:20, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  relationship with the Church 

message: The following message appeared on my talk page after this edit...
:Ian
:Edward III was one of only 5 monarchs to reign for more than 50 years in England or its successor states (The United Kingdom). (Elizabeth II, Victoria, Edward III George III and Henry III). I presume the confusion is James VI of Scotland who only reigned in England for 22 years though he did reign as King of Scotland for more than 50 years. But Scotland is not a successor kingdom of England. Hence I suggest either insert '5' or alternatively reword the sentence to something along the lines of 'the United Kingdom or its predecessor kingdoms' though as Edward iii reigned only England for more than 50 years that would  appear to be less relevant.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.152.245.226 (talk) 14:24, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There've been similar discussions elsewhere and is complicated by the challenge of how you define the question and avoiding OR. Using a "British" definition isn't necessarily always the case; the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, for example, talks about the "Xth longest reigning monarch in English history" in some of their articles, in which they exclude James VI. My usual position would be to seek a high-quality secondary source, and use that as the basis both for making the claim (which in one sense is straightforward to verify once you've agreed the definition about British/English/successor states) but more importantly, for justifying why the claim is important (i.e. we should only be citing the length of reign as important - particularly putting it in the lead - if academics and others give the fact similar precedence and priority). 08:47, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

text: I think it's fine as five, for the reasons given in both comments above. But if not, it could be re-worded to something like "His reign of 50 years was one of the longest in England and its successor states." Or remove the sentence entirely, and replace "His reign ..." in the preceding sentence with "His reign of 50 years ... " DrKay (talk) 08:52, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I'm happy to leave it in your capable hands now I know you have visibility of it -- tks guys. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:03, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  One of five or six British monarchs to rule more than 50 years? 

message: What is the appropriate place to put Edward III's three illegitimate children by Alice Perrers? I had added them in the infobox a while back, but they were later removed and are now unmentioned in the article. Looking at some of the other monarchs with known illegitimate issue, it seems there is no consistency in how they are mentioned in their respective articles. Henry II's illegitimate son William Longespee is listed in the infobox after his legitimate children, as is also the case for Edward II's son Adam; Richard I's son Philip is in the infobox, tagged as illegitimate; John's several illegitimate children are left out of the infobox entirely, as are those of Edward IV. However, even for John and Edward IV, the children are mentioned in the personal life/family section, while Edward III's are absent entirely, which doesn't seem quite right.PohranicniStraze (talk) 02:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Being a descendant of an illegitimate daughter of James IV of Scotland this interests me. But not because of any pedigree. When I tell people that I'm descended from royalty (and... keep in mind... if you're descended from one king or queen you're also descended from many more -- his or her ancestors, and so on) I like to tell them "you probably are too." I recall reading that a vast majority of all people with British Isles ancestry can trace descent from one of the Henrys. I cannot rediscover that article, but I found this one that makes the same point regarding Edward III: http://community.dur.ac.uk/a.r.millard/genealogy/EdwardIIIDescent.php. When you get right down to it I wonder why the situation wouldn't be the same for any monarch (or other figure) who survived to produce descendants, and who lived sufficiently long ago for the generations to have expanded since. Long story short - I wonder if this merits mention in the articles about these folks. I couldn't care less about royalty, but I like the point it makes about interconnectedness.PurpleChez (talk) 19:35, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Illegitimate Issue 

message: Why do the De Burgh arms (a red cross on gold) prominently appear on Edward's tomb in Westminster Abbey? Elizabeth de Burgh was one of his daughters-in-law but that doesn't seem like much of a reason to display them. Zacwill (talk) 13:27, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I would assume they were the arms of England, but the silver has tarnished with time. DrKay (talk) 13:59, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I considered that too, but I'm fairly certain it's gold. Here's a closeup. Zacwill (talk) 19:20, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  De Burgh arms 

message: This article almost reads like a hagiography to the king than an objective review of facts and his life.
For example:
"Much has been made of Edward's sexual licentiousness, but there is no evidence of any infidelity on the king's part before Alice Perrers became his lover, and by that time the queen was already terminally ill.[122][123] "
Can someone clean this up -- it's pretty bad. 50.178.158.68 (talk) 06:48, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hagiography 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Edward I of England which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 10:31, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress 

message: This article lacks any non-Scotland related content between Edward's coup in 1330 to the start of the 100-years' war in 1337. In reality, the "personal rule" section is really about Mortimer's reign and Edward's coup. I have renamed it to reflect this and moved the personal rule section lower on the article. The personal rule section is empty at the moment.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  00:05, 2 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Early reign' section changes 

message: * I'll start working on the citations / references, see my progress above and in the articles edit history. —GoldRingChip 20:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Solving 

message: Said to be a descendant of the Roman Emperor Romanos III. 
I am not experienced in genealogical research to provide all the details.
Middle More Rider (talk) 05:02, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Descendant of a Roman Emperor 

message: The lead currently reads "He is noted for his military success and for restoring royal authority after the disastrous and unorthodox reign of his father, Edward II." I think the word "disastrous" is a slight violation of WP:NPOV. I changed it to "tumultuous and unorthodox", but this was reverted. Thoughts? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:40, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Leave it - "tumultuous" is more WP:WEASEL. Johnbod (talk) 19:47, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted as describing his reign as disastrous reflects the consensus of reliable sources. "Tumultuous and unorthodox" is ambiguous. It could be used to describe a king who carried through reforms which were ultimately successful.  Dudley Miles (talk) 19:57, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. I still think it should be changed to a different word. Not sure what that word should be, though. Unsuccessful? Ineffectual? Floccinaucinihilipilificated? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 22:37, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a question of what best reflects the sources. Disastrous seems a fair summary, even generous, from my passing knowledge of them. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:14, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disastrous or tumultuous?  

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Edward I of England which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 17:46, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress