Talk:William Marshal, 1st Earl of Pembroke

message: The reference '2.' is to  and is used seven times.
However, it does not link to any source, and a Google search for "Kingsford 1893" gives no helpful results.
Could it be removed, pending more information? 2A00:23C8:3B02:4E01:8CFF:8667:5B6F:8E0D (talk) 13:09, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Yo anon! 1893 was the date of the publication of the Dictionary of National Biography vol. 36 (Malthus–Mason), for which Kingsford wrote the entry (pp. 225–233) for one William Marshal, 1st earl of Pembroke...  SN54129 13:38, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: He died in 1183, six years before his father, and thus never assumed the throne.
(I changed it in William Marshal’s Wikipedia) 62.107.173.13 (talk) 18:53, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: It's the second and third sentences of our very own article on Henry the Young King:    Checking that would have shown you that he was King of England, in title, at least. Happy days, ~ LindsayHello 19:39, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Young King was never king of England 

message: This should probably be quickly discussed. An IP changed the line from "He served five English kings—Henry II, his sons the "Young King" Henry, Richard I, and John, and finally John's son Henry III." to "He served four English kings—Henry II, his sons Richard I and John, and John's son Henry III." I changed it back, as Young King Henry was recognized in his life, officially if not in reality, as co-ruler with his father Henry II. It was changed back to "four English kings..." by Dudley Miles here with the explanation of "The Young Henry was a nominal not a real king". I would argue that while most historians nowadays don't recognize Young Henry's reign (as he predeceased his father) at the time he was referred to and regarded as "King Henry" regardless of his actual power, which was nothing. However, that discussion is not relevant here, as Marshall served Young Henry and would have seen him and referred to him as "King", as would everyone else at the time. I have a couple RS quote to back up my claim from Asbridge:
:the Preface (xx), where he states "It also stands that Marshal, as he stood at the right hand of five kings..." the sentence continues, but it's superfluous to my argument here.
:page 95-96 Asbridge recounts the two years that Henry II was gone during the crisis brought on by Thomas Becket and his subsequent murder from 1170-1172. Specifically: "All of this meant that Henry II did not return to England until the summer of 1172 and, throughout this extended period, the Young King ruled in his stead without apparent difficulty."
If he ruled  while Henry II was gone, then it makes sense to say that Marshall served five Kings, regardless of Young Henry's subsequent removal from power and history (indeed, on page 95 Asbridge describes him as "...England's forgotten King". 
I suggest a slight compromise. Change the sentence to "He served five English kings- Henry II and the titular Young King Henry, Richard I, John, and finally John's song Henry III". Young King Henry was king, whether "nominally" or not, and Marshall served him. Vyselink (talk) 19:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with  ~ as may be guessed as i reverted a similar IP edit some months back and commented on it a couple of sections up.  In mine own opinion, i don't think it's necessary to modify the Young King with titular, i.e., i wouldn't in writing of mine own, but i agree that it might make it clearer for readers who are unaware of the specifics of the time and relationships. For full clarity, i came here after a message on my talk page from Vyselink ~ no idea who else he has messaged ~ so if that be deemed canvassing mine opinion can be devalued. Happy days, ~ LindsayHello 19:39, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  No intention of canvassing. I alerted you as I saw you had responded to a similar post earlier, and the only other person I notified was Dudley Miles. Vyselink (talk) 20:13, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. It is misleading to say that he served five kings as it implicitly puts the Young Henry's nominal title on a par with that of kings who had the real power of monarchs. It will confuse any reader who knows about the "real" kings of England but not YH's nominal title and lack of any real power. I suggest for clarity: "He served four English monarchs, Henry II, his sons Richard I and John, and John's son Henry III, and also Henry's eldest son, the Young Henry, who was crowned joint king in his father's lifetime but had no real power." Dudley Miles (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I see nothing wrong with Vyselink's argumentation. The young king had the title, and having the title is a big part of what makes you a king. Counter arguments might involve saying that the young king had no independent power, but clearly in this case it is not quite so simple. I think we also realize that looking for what historians say will find mixed results? Anyway, more importantly a compromise would not seem to have a downside? I don't have a problem with adding a qualifier. I would prefer NOT to switch to a simple four, because our subject here is William Marshall, and this is one of his claims to fame, so to speak.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

text: I don't have time to check properly but I also have a feeling that this remark might be influenced by something Crouch wrote. (If he is the source we should perhaps make it more clear.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:44, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Four or five English Kings 

message: I would like to emphasize that when he escorted Henry III from Corfe Castle, the Fair Maid was at the same castle rather than Bristol (described by Dickens) where she would be after 1224, thus he was intentionally ignoring her preferential claim to the throne (finally assured by Annales Londonienses after her death in 1241 and even Henry III himself in 1268) as Dickens had described; he did nothing to end her unjust imprisonment by the late King John; furthermore, he deprived her Earldom of Richmond in 1218, which John had permitted her to inherit. 
And The Knight's Declaration read,
I will be kind to the weak.
I will fight all who do wrong.
I will help those who call me for help.
I will harm no woman.
Did he really comply to his declaration? ——Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 22:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Though I fail to find a place to insert information about [[Eleanor, Fair Maid of Brittany]]