Talk:Thomas Becket

message: I have removed this: "While the three bishops fled to the king in Normandy, Becket continued to excommunicate his opponents in the church."
I find no evidence in any of the sources cited or outside sources that Becket was willy-nilly and unfairly excommunicating "his opponents in the church."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.59.37 (talk) 20:33, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal

message: There is an area in Worthing named after Thomas a Becket. He allegedly passed through at some point. Wondered if this had been mentioned or warrants mention. 86.7.231.165 (talk) 13:23, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Worthing has a pub, Thomas A Becket, at 146 Rectory Road, Worthing, and also 3/4 mile south of it a separate Becket Road, and there's also the Thomas A Becket School (or schools - First and Middle) in Glebe Avenue. But no apparent references to a "Becket" area (as far as I can find from a quick search online). Seems a high incidence of the name thereabouts, but I doubt that it'll ever be relevant/useful for the article unless he's known to have had a specific association with the area (eg. by a visit). Pete Hobbs (talk) 17:40, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Worthing

message: My source for the legends connected with Becket is Folklore, Myths and Legends of Britain (London: The Reader’s Digest Association, 1973), p. 205 (Otford); p. 208 (Strood).  Not sure if I need to put this on the page of the main article. --Polylerus 06:10, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Source

message: I don't think that the debate over it's title needs to be in the introduction/summary paragraph at the beginning.  It's more trivia than useful information about Becket, and it dominates the first paragraph, which should be an overview of Becket (not just his name).M4bwav (talk) 14:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move title debate down 

message: A previous version of the article said "gay, pleasure-loving courtier".  The meaning "gay" = "homosexual" is a quite new, and old text obviously used it as "merry", a meaning that is rapidly falling out of use due of the conflict with the new one.
I've done some quick web research, and it seems clear to me that indeed Thomas Becket was a homosexual, but outside from Google, my knowledge is nil.  Can an expert comment?
: I would be staggered if anyone could come up with any conclusive evidence concerning Becket's sexuality. But if it exists, let's by all means see it Fergus Wilde (talk) 09:56, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Especially when it comes to kissing the Bishop's ring :) Dainamo 10:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gay or merry? 

message: The details of the assasination are very sketchy, and I am amazed that there is no mention at all of Edward Grim, because he was one of 5 witness to the murder, and so is a central figure to historians enterpreting (sp?) his murder. And would some one PLEASE write an article on him! --Flintwill 11:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edward Grim & Assasination 

message: The article jumps from Becket in Sens locked in conflict with Henry II in the 'Becket leaves England' section to his murder in Canterbury Cathedral in 'Assassination' but doesn't explain the conditions that allowed him to return to England.
:Good point! There needs to a section added. I'll take a look at Barlow and see what I can do. Bpmullins 19:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continuity between Exile and Assassination. 

message: So what became of the fundamental struggle between church and state? Did Thomas accomplish in death what he sacrificed himself for?  Was Henry's contrition sincere?  Inquiring minds -- oops, that's copyrighted.    Moioci 23:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aftermath 

message: Good article - but on reading through it, it doesn't say when Becket returned to England. We have "Becket leaves England" and then in the next section he is assassinated in Canterbury. Could add details of his return to Canterbury? Gebjon 00:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Return to England? 

message: Did Thomas (á) Becket have any significant writings?  Any books, or treatises?  Cheers, --222.155.213.36 02:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Works 

message: What on earth does schism mean?
Couldn't you use easier language?
Schism is terminology rather than jargon. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schism_%28religion%29 Le poulet noir 16:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schism 

message: "In late 2005, Thomas Becket was selected as one of the ten "Worst Britons," in a poll by the BBC History Magazine." Could someone add as to why he was chosen for this dubious honour given that he is regarded as a saint? The context as to why he was selected needs to be mentioned for someone who is not well versed with this subject. Idleguy 12:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Founding gesture politics and being a hypocrite! BBC News: Saint or sinner? Timrollpickering 23:43, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the 1100s, I would've thought the war between Stephen and Maud was just as avoidable and far worse for Britain than the crisis between Henry II and Becket.  But of course IANAH.  18.252.5.164 00:11, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I only found the above request (for some addition re the 2006 poll) after independently reading the whole article and finding the 2006 poll result rather odd - ie. I improved the 2006 poll description before reading the talk page. Oops, as they say, but glad my rewording for greater clarity and contextual understanding is effectively pre-supported by others! Pete Hobbs (talk) 15:31, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Context 

message: An entire entry dedicated to Becket, yet he is not mentioned once in the article!  what's up with that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 170.148.10.46 (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where's Becket? 

message: This article does not contain sufficient references to meet the GA criteria. There are lots of unsupported statements. Random example: "Later that would be one of the reasons his son would turn against him." StAnselm 00:49, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed GA nomination 

message: The wiki definition of Danegeld does not agree with its usage in this article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.188.89 (talk) 18:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Danegeld" has a specific meaning, and this wasn't it. Removed. Thanks for pointing this out, and don't be afraid to be WP:BOLD in the future! --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Danegeld 

message: A lot of sources say this - here's a Google search.  Is there any reason to doubt them?  If so, we should say something about these reservations in the article.   --  JackofOz (talk) 06:30, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what the article text says, but there's nothing in the lede or the infobox about the specific date 21 December.  Is there general acceptance that the day is correct but the year is uncertain?  If so, we should tell readers upfront what we are at least sure of.  I mean, 21 December in either 1118 or 1120 narrows it down to only 2 possibilities, whereas "c. 1118" is terribly vague and could include about 1,000 possible dates.  --  Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 01:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Born 21 December 1118?

message: Becket was born about 1118, or in 1120 according to later tradition. He was born in Cheapside, London, on 21 December, which was the feast day of St Thomas the Apostle.
: That's what the article text says, but there's nothing in the lede or the infobox about the specific date 21 December.  Is there general acceptance that the day is correct but the year is uncertain?  If so, we should tell readers upfront what we are at least sure of.  I mean, 21 December in either 1118 or 1120 narrows it down to only 2 possibilities, whereas "c. 1118" is terribly vague and could include about 1,000 possible dates.  --  Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 01:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Revisited

message: As I recall one of the main points of contention for Becket was that during his exile, Henry II  had his son the Young King Henry crowned (in order to ease future succession disputes). This was controversial because the crowning of the King was the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury, a point agreed by the Pope, yet in Becket's absence the coronation was carried out by Roger of York and Gilbert of London. Naturally this infuriated Becket who saw it as an attack on the rights of the Archbishop of Canterbury, leading to the agreement of the Pope that those involved should be excommunicated. 
It would be nice to see something on this added.(Valmecias (talk) 00:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Crowning of Young King Henry

message: I'm thinking of putting this series of three together in a <gallery>. --Old Moonraker (talk) 19:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Given it a try. Works for me, but please RV if it gives problems on other browsers. The width is specified in order to stop the caption flowing. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:55, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nottingham alabaster images 

message: Some of the statements in this article are horribly outdated, especially those concerning Henry II and his designs.
For example: "Henry desired to be absolute ruler of his dominions, both Church and State, and could find precedents in the traditions of the throne when he planned to do away with the special privileges of the English clergy, which he regarded as fetters on his authority."
Henry's "desire" was not so much absolute rule but to rule in the state of his grandfather, with all the rights and privileges granted to the English monarch before the time of Steven. The disagreements with the church had more to do with changes in the church and how it viewed its prerogatives in the late 12th century as opposed to the early part of the century. And even in the context of these competing historical shifts, Henry was the more compromising figure, whereas Beckett was shifting, unstable, at times arbitrarily rigid or conciliatory. If it was simply a church versus state issue, then why did Henry have such better relationships with pretty much every major church figure not named Beckett. Archbishop Theobold, the Pope, Hugh Bigod, nondescript priest guy in funny hat in the background in that scene from Lion in Winter -- not a one of them had the kinds of problems that Beckett did. Misopogon (talk) 04:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Source it and add it in then. I just try to keep the obvious vandalism out of this article, I've got enough on my plate with the other medieval archbishops and bishops, Becket's never appealed to me at all, so I've never been greatly motivated to edit in the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 05:05, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article does not reflect current historical interpretations 

message: There isn't enough on this, in particular why the pilgrimage took off at all and what it means for the foundation of English literature - I've added something. 79.75.31.166 (talk) 09:42, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cult and  Pilgrimage 

message: Thanks, User:81.151.61.243, for trimming this cumbersome list. It still seems too long, and only one of the remaining versions has a citation. What about restricting the list to versions for which a authoritative source can be found? --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No kidding, I agree as well.  Some of them seem like variations in the translation of a possibly-identical original as well.  Tb (talk) 17:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK: I'll give it a try at some stage. --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:03, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --Old Moonraker (talk) 12:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assassination and Henry's instructions 

message: Since, according to the article, the Oxford Dictionary of English, the New Oxford Dictionary for Writers and Editors, and Chambers Biographical Dictionary all prefer the spelling "St. Thomas à Becket", would it make sense to change "erroneously" in the opening sentence to "originally erroneously"? Or are we saying that all those publications (and plenty more, no doubt) are wrong? 86.134.9.139 (talk) 00:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed "erroneously" from the lead for now (the issue is more fully explained in the section immediately after the lead, so it's no big loss). According to Frank Barlow in Thomas Becket (1986), à was not originally part of his name and was a post-reformation addition, but it is very widespread. Perhaps erroneously should be added back in? Nev1 (talk) 01:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps "called after his lifetime" or "called after the Reformation"... Ealdgyth - Talk 01:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed the opening sentence so it now reads "Thomas Becket (1118[1] – 29 December 1170), later also known as Thomas à Becket, was Archbishop of Canterbury from 1162 to his death". Nev1 (talk) 01:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Name 

message: Becket is a saint, but he has also been named the second-worst person in English history.  This is confusing.  The article would benefit from a section discussing how Becket is viewed in modern times, and why.  John M Baker (talk) 16:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw that poll as well, but IMO it has to be a simple case of one poll being tremendously skewed, even though the BBC is pretty reputable.  More specifically, how would we approach a section describing how Becket is viewed in modern times?  Becket means a different things to a lot of different people.  For instance, the Catholics venerate him for different reasons than the Anglicans. I think the article as it is could definitely be improved, but I think any kind of definitive section about how Becket is viewed would either have to be very very long and divided up into many subsections, or would be hopelessly slanted and unacceptable for WP --Ella Plantagenet (talk) 23:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

text: No. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legacy 

message: Thomas Becket is also commonly known as "Thomas à Becket", although this form seems not to have been contemporaneous but a post-Reformation adornment, possibly in imitation of Thomas à Kempis.
This statement couldnt possibly be true since...
1) The 95 theses was published in 1517.
2)Thomas a Kempis is (c.1380-25 July 1471)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.191.65.79 (talk) 17:04, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm guessing that they don't mean Becket himself was trying to imitate Kempis and probably never referred to himself as "Thomas à Becket." I think it means that people who much later on used the alternate name were influenced by Kempis' name. -- Fyrefly  (talk) 17:17, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Factual Error 

message: Here's what the article says: "Becket's last public act of defiance was a sermon to the Augustinian foundation at St Mary's Priory at Southwark on 23 December, now the Cathedral. He then left for Canterbury by the principal route to Kent from there, now the A2 road. The pilgrimage started shortly after the murder, encouraged by the Augustinian orders at both Southwark and Canterbury, as a retracing of Becket's last journey. This was given added impetus with Becket's canonisation in 1173."
How was this Becket's last act of defiance? Wasn't that his excommunication of three bishops on Christmas Day? I have not been able to find any reference that any sermon was given to St. Mary's Priory or that Becket was anywhere in particular on December 23. I have found nothing stating that the Augustinians helped to popularize the pilgrimage, either. There is no mention anywhere of Becket's "last journey" in any source that I can find. Someone needs to cite sources here, and if they can't find it this passage should be removed. I'm sincerely interested in whether this is true, but can't find a whole lot of evidence to back it up.
--75.15.87.99 (talk) 04:17, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last Act of Defiance? 

message: it will be better to say how they thougt to take him more then 100 km to this meeting if they ever did. 129.143.71.39 (talk) 09:31, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  The knights informed Becket he was to go to Winchester  

message: I am removing "Eastern Orthodox" from the infobox, as he is a post-1054 Western saint. I realize the adherence to orthodoxy in various Western localities after the official date of the Schism is an open question in the Orthodox Church, and individuals are free to privately venerate whomever they wish, but to my knowledge St. Thomas Becket is not listed on the calendar of any local Orthodox Church. Unless proven otherwise, he should not be listed as a saint of the Orthodox Church. 99.24.170.188 (talk) 01:32, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eastern Orthodox veneration 

message: Were the four knights who killed Thomas drunk? Or is this only in Eliot's Murder in the Cathedral? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Pretty sure it's just Eliot ... never seen anything suggesting that. Barlow says "All the leaders, and especially the visitors, [the four barons who eventually murdered Becket] who had been travelling almost non-stop for at least three days and nights, must have been extremely tired, so fatigued that they appeared to be drunk."  There is no mention of drunkeness or similar behavior in Grim's primary source account of the event ... nor in fitzStephen's account of the events directly preceeding the martyrdom. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:02, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Four knights drunk? 

message: I know you guys aren't using the  template but whichever you opt for, you should include the period during which the cult was suppressed at its major shrines in England. At least during the latter half of Henry VIII's reign. When was it reintroduced? Under Mary? Did Elizabeth suppress it again or just leave it alone? — LlywelynII 01:31, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I only got as far as removing extraneous junk in this article ... and then I started sourcing down to about Assassination (and I left that off in 2011... yikes). It's an incredibly ... large .. topic to deal with, and a lot of specialized studies. And frankly, I find Becket to be one of the less pleasant personalities of the English Middle Ages... but to address the infobox - the section on sainthood should allow for more details on the cult - I just didn't have those details so I didn't fill them in. See Template:Infobox Christian leader - the "| suppressed_date  = " should work. Might be a bit complex.... but that's nothing new with English saints. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:03, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Suppression of the Cult

message: User:Ealdgyth, you reverted probably an hour's worth of my work, spent in improving the references to this article. I refer to WP:CITESHORT, speficially "templates should not be added without consensus to an article that already uses a consistent referencing style".
It is clear that the referencing style is far from consistent in this article, some examples:
#The "Staunton Lives of Thomas Becket p. 29" citation doesn't refer to any book in the list of references.
#The "Kristopher James (4 May 2014). Ultimate Guide to...Canterbury Tales: General Prologue" is a full reference in the list of citations, which are mostly (but not uniformly) shortform notes.
# The "Stanley pp. 53–55" doesn't inlcude either the date or the the title, most of the citations are title-type citations
# The "William Page & J. Horace Round, ed. (1907). 'Houses of Benedictine nuns: Abbey of Barking', A History of the County of Essex: Volume 2 . pp. 115–122." is a full reference in the citation list (as mentioned above the citations are mostly, but not exclusively short)
And as one moves on down the list of citations it gets more chaotic.  I was trying to improve the citation style of the article by making the style uniform and consistent. Since the referencing style is currently far from consistent, I believed no discussion was needed as I was boldly making an unambiguous improvement to an article that needed it. Wayne Jayes (talk) 19:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm the one who is slowly revising the article. The style used in the beginning of the article is the style that I am attempting to standardize on. SFN is a big change in style - moving away from using, as you point out, "title-type citations". I'm sorry that you feel you wasted time editing, but it was a radical change that probably would be best asked about before investing the time. I've added in the Lives reference. The reason it gets more chaotic is that I got pulled away in mid article and haven't made it back. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:07, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference Style 

message: At some point, somebody seems to have changed the famous quote from "Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?" to "Who will rid me of this troublesome priest?", from an IP address with no other edits, with no explanation: diff here
Now, if you Google for 'turbulent priest', you end up on this page, but the phrase is never actually mentioned.
Does that feel like a candidate for reversion?
Cammy (talk) 19:03, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: BBC seems to have the "troublesome" version but "turbulent" is widely used as a quick search of Google Books will show Seraphimsystem (talk) 12:00, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I note with this edit has the edit summary "knowles uses "turbulent" instead of "troublesome" so I've changed the quote to match the citation" - I have to ask - was Elizabeth Knowles the editor of Oxford Dictionary of Quotations" meant or was it David Knowles, the author of Episcopal Colleagues of Thomas Becket? I will have to go to the library to double check the quotation, but I believe it was checked against Elizabeth's Knowles' work to make sure that it was correctly quoting what the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations said. It is difficult to keep random people from changing the quotation to whatever they think it SHOULD say, I will admit. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:32, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  I checked the source Oxford Dictionary of Quotations and it uses turbulent (in the version I found via Google Books) and references G. Lyttelton 'one turbulent priest' as a source for the oral tradition Seraphimsystem (talk) 12:39, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Was the exact edition used for the citation checked? If it was some other edition, the citation needs updating - as it is specifically the fifth edition from 1999 being quoted. I'm just being careful here, as I cannot access the local library's copy until tomorrow as they are closed today. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:44, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

text:  Yes, it is the 5th edition (first published 1999, reprinted with corrections 2001). I think someone may have changed the quotation from an unregistered account as Cammy  noted above. Seraphimsystem (talk) 12:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  'turbulent' vs 'troublesome' 

message: I propose merging the Becket Controversy page into this page - both articles are fairly short and the content of Becket Controversy is appropriate to expand the main article. Seraphimsystem (talk) 11:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No. The Becket controversy covers a good bit more than Becket's life. The main reason this article is short is that a while back I removed all the unsourced accretions that added themselves over the years. There is plenty to put in, as long as it is sourced to good quality sources. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:11, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Does that mean you would prefer not expanding the section of this article that deals with the Becket controversy? Personally, I found the subheading "Constitutions of Clarendon" to be quite confusing, and it took some guesswork to find what I was looking for Seraphimsystem (talk) 12:46, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

text: I am withdrawing proposed merger, as I agree with Ealdgyth that the Becket Controversy is notable enough and could be expanded to cover more then Becket's life. Seraphimsystem (talk) 12:55, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  (ec) I would be perfectly fine if someone takes the time to master the sources and began editing in information from reliable sources. The main problem is ... there are a LOT of sources to master (which, as I pointed out above, is one reason I've not got back to this article). Becket is a well-covered figure. I started the Becket Controversy article because I was working on Gilbert Foliot and needed the background of the whole controversy without overburdening this article or Foliot's. It's also useful to keep from overloading Henry II of England's article. When a specific event is covered so much, it is very useful to have a separate article on the event so that other articles don't get overwhelmed with details. That's one of the joys of wikipedia - we're able to set out detailed articles on specific events so they don't overwhelm other articles. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Propose Merger from Becket Controversy

message: This article and the one on Henry II refers to a "famous" change in demeanour and lifestyle by Becket upon his ascension to the archbishopric. It would be useful for this article to expand on the details of this - there is very little about his earlier life (even as Lord Chancellor) so the extent and significance of the change is not apparent. 92.17.144.186 (talk) 14:02, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lifestyle change? 

message: For the title of Becket's death, I think we should use Murder instead of Assassination. Assassination refers to more planned attacks, Beckets murder was just carried out on the spot. Thanks for reading! Great article by the way!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ooh Saad (talk • contribs) 13:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assasination use 

message: In historic literature, in German he is called Thomas von Candelberg, and Thomas Cantuarensis in Latin sources.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:C0:DF0F:CC00:3CFF:B4FB:B08F:8B27 (talk) 21:57, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just for fact 

message: Hello. I have recently come across a near-contemporary illustration of the assassination of Becket in a manuscript that may be more appropriate than the current image used of a 19th century depiction of him in a stained glass window. Given the semi-recent purge of English king's lead images from their imaginary 16th-17th century depictions to their near and contemporary portraits in illuminated manuscripts (see Henry VI of England, Henry V of England and Edward V of England) I think it only fitting that Becket's lead image (with his death taking place in 1170) be replaced with an image of him created in  1200. I apologise if this point has already been put forth and no doubt somebody is going to drag up an old post making this exact argument from the archives, but I do hope that it is considered. Again, if the majority of people think that the 13th century image is inferior or inappropriate then I shall leave this alone.
Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  19th century window v. 13th century manuscript