Talk:England in the Middle Ages

message: "Mediæval Britain" is a term used to suggest that there is a unity to the history of Great Britain
*What does "unity to the history of Great Britain" mean? This seems kind of POV'ish. Don't people use the term simply as a neutral descriptor of convience marking a passage of time?  "Crossbows were in common use in late Medieval Britain" --Stbalbach 20:57, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Old talk page post

message: This articles existence is unfortunate as it repeats exactly what is already in other articles, in more and better detail. However the term "Medieval Britain" is certainly valid. Would anyone be opposed to basically deleting this articles content and making it a disambiguation page pointing to the other articles which cover this period? Or is this a valid article, and if so, why? Stbalbach 15:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Making this page a disambiguation page 

message: I've changed all the references to "mediaeval" and "Mediaeval" to "medieval" (except obviously where ordinary capitalisation rules apply).
"Mediaeval" was obviously used as being more British than medieval. Whilst it is true that mediaeval is relatively more common in the UK than the US, it is still far less common than medieval in both countries. Furthermore, a great many formal British institutions - The Institute for Medieval Studies, University of Leeds for example - use the simpler, more modern spelling of medieval.
In other words, medieval is:
* Significantly more common than mediaeval in the UK (factor of 10); and
* Fully acceptable in formal and scientific language.
(Incidentally, the use of mediæval - with the a/e ligature - really isn't acceptable in modern English.) El T 08:55, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it should be Mediæval. That is the traditional, British spelling of the word. Just because the world has become Americanised, that's no reason to ignore the original spelling. EuroSong talk 14:21, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing "Mediaeval" to "medieval" 

message: I think it wrong to talk of John Knox's Reformation in Scotland.  He was an important figure, certainly; but he would have got absolutely nowhere if it had not been for the hunger for church land, extending from great noblemen to minor barons.
It is also wrong to say that Orkney and Shetland were 'returned' to Scotland in 1471 for the simple reason that they had never been part of the Kingdom of Scotland in the first place.  The earlier Pictish settlers were displaced, from the eighth century onwards, by a Norse influx.  In the fifteenth century the islands belonged to the Kingdom of Denmark, and were pledged to Scotland in lieu of a dowry payment.
Rcpaterson 02:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Knox, Reformation and Land 

message: I really don't think it's appropriate to have medieval England and England in the Middle Ages redirect here. England, Wales and Scotland had quite separate histories. They deserve their own articles.
Peter Isotalo 08:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please split them up 

message: Most uses of the term "Medieval Britain" restrict its use to the post Norman Conquest period. Both the start and end dates of the period vary in different applications. Therefore I tried to add an explanation to this effect to the article but this has been deleted.  The reverted article only gives one of the ways of using the term and is unsatisfaactory. Adresia (talk) 21:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted because I don't believe the term is used mainly in that way, do you have a source saying that? "Medieval Britain" refers to Britain during the Medieval period, which is variously defined, but I don't think the Norman Conquest is an acceptable cutoff point.--Cúchullain t/c 06:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Do you have sources to back that up? I've done quite a bit of research on this topic, and I've never heard "Middle Ages" referring only to the later medieval period and not the rest of it. At any rate this article is intended to discuss British history through the entire period, and provide links to other, more specific articles, like Scotland in the High Middle Ages and History of Anglo-Saxon England. If you want to suggest a better title, go ahead, but I can't imagine a more appropriate one for this subject.--Cúchullain t/c 19:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I can't find what you're referring to, as you didn't post it as a link. At any rate, I don't think one BBC link establishes that this use is common among scholars. There are plenty of others who use "Middle Ages" in the usual way - that is, for the whole Middle Ages. And again, whatever we call it, this article is meant to cover the entire period, and  I don't think there can be a more appropriate title than the one we already have.--Cúchullain t/c 21:45, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dates for Period

message: Is this page really necessary? I'm not really sure what function it's currently playing, other than to duplicate other content in a small way. If it was about a theory of medieval history using "Britain" as a geographical approach, then fair enough, but I'm not sure this really exists, and there's certainly nothing in the article hinting in that direction. It would anyways be the British Isles rather than "Britain". Is England that's actually intended? That at least is what the interwikis are about. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:45, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Deacon of Pndapetzim, I tend to agree with you when you ask "is this page really necesary?" but would also ask why you didn't thoroughly revise the text and change the categories after moving the article? Due to the change of name the subject was changed and yet it still read like a description of medieval Britain rather than England alone and gave the impression that Wales and Scotland were part of England. I just hope it didn't get too many hits before my revision; there are enough people who think England is just another name for Britain as it is! Enaidmawr (talk) 19:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Necessary? 

message: Yorkshirian recently added this new version of an old map to this article; it was removed by Deacon of Pndapetzim and re-added by Yorkshirian.  I'd like to replace it with this map instead, which doesn't use boundaries.    The changes were made to several articles, so to centralize discussion, please post at Talk:Mercia#Map if you have an opinion. Mike Christie (talk) 02:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The previous map was incorrect as it shows Cornwall as included in Wessex - this map indicates that this was not the case in 1035.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:EmpireNorth.JPG  -- William of Malmesbury, writing around 1120, says that King Athelstan of England fixed Cornwall's eastern boundary at the Tamar in 936 after the remaining Cornish had been evicted from Exeter and the rest of Devon in 927 - "Exeter was cleansed of its defilement by wiping out that filthy race". (ref: Professor Philip Payton - (1996). Cornwall. Fowey: Alexander Associates). In 944 Athelstan's successor, Edmund I of England, styled himself 'King of the English and ruler of this province of the Britons' (ref: Malcolm Todd -- The South West to AD 1000 - 1987), an indication of how that accommodation was understood at the time.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.145.175.157 (talk) 18:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map discussion 

message: I've just made an edit to get rid of the worst of the opening: end of the anglo-saxon period is NOT 1500AD, there has never been a Kingdom of Wales etc. It's still pretty horrible - and without citation. Whole article needs to be re-written or deleted but unfortunately I don't have the time...DeCausa (talk) 14:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: 1st Para was gobbledegook

message: I've taken a stab at expanding the article, following the model at Scotland in the Middle Ages and similar "..in the Middle Ages" articles. I think I've covered most of the bases, and I *think* I've caught references for everything stated, but I might well have missed something. It could do with a decent copyedit and check over for balance, etc. I've tried to get a range of pictures into the article, balanced across the period. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:09, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job. I will take a look and ce when I am actually awake. Excellent work.--SabreBD (talk) 19:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Just gave it a quick read - it looks like a nice job on a page that really needed it, and I like the methodical sourcing. All too rare on WP. I'll give it a careful read in slower time. DeCausa (talk) 20:12, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Expansion... 

message: Langbarthr, you couldn't point us in the direction of the current literature that lay behind the last edit, could you? Hchc2009 (talk) 17:22, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent literature... 

message: Why does this article take 600AD as the start point for "medieval England"?  In an English context, I've seen "medieval" defined as starting at either: the end of Roman rule (410), the Fall of Rome (476), or the Norman Conquest (1066).  600AD also significantly pre-dates the establishment of "England" as a kingdom, but also significantly post-dates the arrival of the "English" or the establishment of the first Anglo-Saxon kingdoms.  In short: there are lots of dates that could be taken as the start of "medieval" "England", but 600AD doesn't seem to fit any of them.  Iapetus (talk) 14:39, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of the specialist literature on medieval England starts at 600 AD, rather than at 410 or 476, which is why I originally went for it, but you're right, there's no magic number. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates - what's significant about 600AD? 

message: The spelling of "Sweyn Forkbeard" is changed in the next sentence to "Swein." Should this be changed or is it correct? Mulstev (talk) 17:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling controversies: 

message: A missing aspect of this topic is the knowledge/perception of the wider world by people in medieval England.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:DC87:4001:A495:DE17:1A5E:AB43 (talk) 23:49, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Knowledge of wider world 

message: The full citation of the reference number 335 (Mers) is missing in the bibliography. Taddah (talk) 14:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose it's actually the same as the previous citation (Myers). I think just the letter y is missing there. So, I'll fix it. Taddah (talk) 14:42, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  One source is missing