Jump to content

Talk:Henry I of England

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Children of Heny I King of England

[edit]

Talk page...

[edit]

I cannot understand why, with this edit, large chunks of ... something (article text? Old article text? references? Something?) have been added to the talk page. It's extremely disruptive and not helpful to figuring out what is trying to be communicated. It wastes other editor's time and is disrepectful of them. The reason the additions keep getting removed is:

  1. we do not include category links in the body of articles as a general rule, and including them under a heading of "synopsis" is misleading to the readers - a category listing of children of Henry I is NOT a synopsis, it's just a listing that repeats what's in this article, so it's useless.
  2. Weir was removed because she's not an academic historian and we already have a perfectly good academic source (Thompson) for this information.
  3. Wikitree is NOT a reliable source and should not be used for this article. (This has been repeatedly pointed out previously.)
  4. The Henry II project is certainly laudable, but again, it's not an academic source, and we don't need it when we have Thompson. (This has been repeatedly pointed out previously.) If other recent academic sources disagree with Thompson, then we can explicate those sources, but we do not include non-reliable sources in a WP:Featured Article, which this is.
  5. we don't consult the original primary sources (such as Orderic or Robert of Torigni) because we are not academic historians, but instead editors of an encyclopedia. We summarize secondary academic works. (This has been repeatedly pointed out previously.)
  6. We do not need three different family charts that repeat pretty much the same information, that wastes reader's time
  7. And for what feels like the hundredth time - we do not insert spaces between punctuation/text/references and the (next) reference. This is fast approaching the point where it is so disruptive that it may need to be reported to a noticeboard.

And that is just the start of all the problems that keep being introduced. Ealdgyth (talk) 20:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  1. we do not include category links in the body of articles as a general rule, and including them under a heading of "synopsis" is misleading to the readers - a category listing of children of Henry I is NOT a synopsis, it's just a listing that repeats what's in this article, so it's useless.
So where does this get mentioned in any part of the article, there is no breakup of any of these children and mistresses.
Further, Weir, WikiTree and The Henry Project strongly disagree with you.
  1. Weir was removed because she's not an academic historian and we already have a perfectly good academic source (Thompson) for this information.
Alison Weir (née Matthews) is a British author and public historian. She primarily writes about the history of English royal women and families, in the form of biographies that explore their historical setting. She has also written numerous works of historical fiction.[1]
Her first work, Britain's Royal Families (published in 1989), was a genealogical overview of the British royal family. She subsequently wrote biographies of Eleanor of Aquitaine, Isabella of France, Katherine Swynford, Elizabeth of York, and the Princes in the Tower. Other focuses have included Henry VIII and his family and England's Medieval Queens. Weir has published historical overviews of the Wars of the Roses and royal weddings, as well as historical fiction novels on English queens, including each wife of Henry VIII.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alison_Weir
That is factually incorrect
  1. Wikitree is NOT a reliable source and should not be used for this article. (This has been repeatedly pointed out previously.)
That sis factually incorrect, and is your stated personal opinion , they represent what was stated by the Henry Project and Weir which you rolled back and censored me in removing her as a source when she is clearly a noted author.
  1. The Henry II project is certainly laudable, but again, it's not an academic source, and we don't need it when we have Thompson. (This has been repeatedly pointed out previously.) If other recent academic sources disagree with Thompson, then we can explicate those sources, but we do not include non-reliable sources in a WP:Featured Article, which this is.
That is your personal opinion, Baldwin is a noted author.
The American Society of Genealogists https://fasg.org/
Stewart Baldwin https://fasg.org/fellows/stewart-baldwin/
See: Principal genealogical publications:
  1. we don't consult the original primary sources (such as Orderic or Robert of Torigni) because we are not academic historians, but instead editors of an encyclopedia. We summarize secondary academic works. (This has been repeatedly pointed out previously.)
In your opinion which is not in step with major authors of genealogy and other histyoric works.
Robert of Torigni
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_of_Torigni
Robert of Torigni or Torigny (French: Robert de Torigni; c. 1110–1186), also known as Robert of the Mont (Latin: Robertus de Monte; French: Robert de Monte; also Robertus de Monte Sancti Michaelis, in reference to the abbey of Mont Saint-Michel), was a Norman monk, prior, and abbot. He is most remembered for his chronicles detailing English history of his era.
https://entities.oclc.org/worldcat/entity/E39PBJxhgfHcDqQdqcGCG7gh73.html
https://viaf.org/viaf/51662293/
Featured in multi-language sites here at Wikipedia. So, you need to retract that argument.
  1. We do not need three different family charts that repeat pretty much the same information, that wastes reader's time
The charts removed are in other Wikipedia articles, and they support what is here anyway so what is the issue.
  1. And for what feels like the hundredth time - we do not insert spaces between punctuation/text/references and the (next) reference. This is fast approaching the point where it is so disruptive that it may need to be reported to a noticeboard.
Most of what is said is refuted in what I have answered above. Pipera (talk) 18:50, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
= Robert of Torigni =
Robert of Torigni was born at Torigni-sur-Vire in central Normandy, at an unknown date. Entered the monastery of Le Bec in 1128. Became prior there in c. 1149. Elected abbot of Mont-Saint-Michel in 1154. Died on 23 or 24 June (29 May) 1186. Robert was an "avid reader" and collected religious and "profane" books. As prior and abbot, he was far more involved in the outside world than either of the two co-authors of the Gesta Normannorum Ducum, Orderic Vitalis and William of Jumièges. Robert's revision of the GND dates from 1139 and was his first substantial work. He wrote additions and appendices to the Chronicle of Sigebert of Gembloux, covering the period A.D. 385-1100; and the GND is a continuation of Sigebert, extending from 1100 to 1186. It is for continental affairs between 1154 to 1170 that his information is valuable.
== Sources ==
  • Encyclopædia Britannica, fourteenth edition, in the public domain.
  • The Gesta Normannorum Ducum of William of Jumièges, Orderic Vitalis and Robert of Torigni edited and translated by Elisabeth M. C. Van Houts. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1995.
Note:
  • The Gesta Normannorum Ducum of William of Jumièges, Orderic Vitalis and Robert of Torigni edited and translated by Elisabeth M. C. Van Houts. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1995.
https://www.1066.co.nz/Mosaic%20DVD/whoswho/text/Robert_of_Torigni[1].htm
Orderic Vitalis
Orderic Vitalis (1075 – c. 1142) was an English chronicler who wrote one of the great contemporary chronicles of 11th and 12th century Normandy and England.
https://www.1066.co.nz/Mosaic%20DVD/whoswho/text/Orderic_Vitalis[1].htm
See entry On Henry I excerpts translated by David Burr.
Gesta Normannorum Ducum
Gesta Normannorum Ducum (Deeds of the Norman Dukes) is a written work originally created by the monk William of Jumièges just before 1060. In 1070 William I had William of Jumièges extend the work to detail his rights to the throne of England. In later times, Orderic Vitalis (d. c. 1142) and Robert of Torigni (d. 1186), extended the volumes to include history up until Henry I.
https://www.1066.co.nz/Mosaic%20DVD/whoswho/text/Gesta_Normannorum_Ducum[1].htm
  • The Gesta Normannorum Ducum of William of Jumièges, Orderic Vitalis and Robert of Torigni edited and translated by Elisabeth M. C. Van Houts. Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1995.
The above are why we use their works in genealogy on ALL reliable sites. Pipera (talk) 18:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The memory of Robert of Torigni from the twelfth century to the present day =
La mémoire de Robert de Torigni du XIIe siècle à nos jours
Benjamin Pohl
https://books.openedition.org/puc/30622?lang=en
Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 November 2013
Edited by
Richard Howlett
{| class="wikitable"
|
== Robert of Torigni's Chronicle ==
11/6/2018
Patrick C. DeBrosse|}
https://www.angevinempire.org/sources/robert-of-torignis-chronicle
{| class="wikitable"
|
== Robert of Torigni's Chronicle ==
11/6/2018
Patrick C. DeBrosse
Avranches, Bibliothèque Municipale, MS. 159, f. 205r
From Pohl, "Date and Context," p. 11.
Manuscripts
Avranches, Bibliothèque Municipale, Ms. 159. [Robert's working copy]
While Robert's working copy of the Chronicle survives, the subsequent manuscript tradition is complicated by the fact that some copies seem to have been made at intermediate stages during Robert's composition. An overview of the 18 surviving "core" manuscripts and their relationship to one another is in Delisle, "Préface," liii-lv. Howlett, "Preface," pp. xxxvii-lxv, offers somewhat different conclusions about these same 18 manuscripts. Benjamin Pohl reevaluated and revised some of Delisle and Howlett's conclusions in Pohl, "Date and Context," 1-18.  
Modern Editions and Translations
Robert of Torigni. Roberti de Monte Cronica. In G. H. Pertz (ed.), Monumenta Germaniae
historica inde ab anno Christi quingentensimo usque ad annum millesimum et quingentesimum: Scriptorum; Tomus VI, edited by C. Berthmann, 475-535. Hanover: Impensis Bibliopolii, 1844.
_____. Chronique de Robert de Torigni, abbé du Mont-Saint-Michel. 2 volumes. Edited by
Léopold Delisle. Rouen: A. Le Brumentm 1872-3.
_____. Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II., and Richard I.: Vol. IV; The Chronicle of
Robert of Torigni, Abbot of the Monastery of St. Michael-in-Peril-of-the-Sea. Edited by Richard Howlett. London: HMSO, 1889.
_____. The Chronicles of Robert de Monte. In The Church Historians of England: vol. IV; Part
II. Translated by Joseph Stevenson. London: Seeleys, 1856. [partial English translation].
Description
Robert of Torigni, monk of Bec and subsequently (from 1154) abbot of Mont-Saint-Michel, was a prolific writer, whose first major project was a continuation of the Gesta Normannorum Ducum. Robert's Chronicle, was his ambitious follow-up: a world history, which sought to narrate events from the time of Abraham to Robert's own lifetime, with a particular emphasis on events within Normandy and England. Robert copied the bulk of the pre-1100 portion of his Chronicle from Sigebert of Gembloux, but interpolated material from other authors freely. For the period between 1100 and 1147, Robert relied upon Henry of Huntingdon's Historia Anglorum, though Robert altered the text of the Historia substantially in places. From 1147 Robert's Chronicle becomes original. Robert seems to have created an initial draft that ended in 1150, but gradually expanded the Chronicle to cover events through 1186, the year of Robert's death. The Chronicle owes much to annalistic writing in terms of style, and tends to offer few authorial judgments of the events described. Robert does, however, offer occasional comments about events that he witnessed in person. Throughout the sections original to Robert, he pays particular attention to local Church affairs, such as the succession of Norman abbots and bishops.
Importance for the study of Angevin History
The Chronicle is distinct as a work begun at the very start of Henry II's reign, written in a style which had become old-fashioned by the end of Henry's reign (in contrast to the forms of history-writing pioneered by secular clerics at Henry's court). Robert's Chronicle, unlike many histories from the Angevin period, was completed before the death of Henry II, the events of the Third Crusade, and the Loss of Normandy, so it does not look forward to these events as later histories often do. Though the Chronicle has received less scholarly attention than other works of the Angevin period, Robert's status as a powerful abbot has led to scholarly discussion of his relationship with Henry II, and of how history-writing figured into that relationship. Scholars such as Elisabeth van Houts see in Robert an opportunistic author, who was able to use history-writing to gain promotion and concessions from Henry II by praising Matilda's faction in his passages on the Anarchy, extolling the genealogy of the dukes of the Normans, and sticking to a conventional, accessible, and inoffensive form of annalistic writing. Robert's pro-Henry II stance is evident from the fact that he seems to have presented a copy of the Chronicle to Henry. More generally, David Bates sees in Robert a devotee of "Normanitas" who suppressed material critical of the Norman people and who sought out books about Normans from far-away places such as Sicily. Equally important for Bates, Robert displays an intense interest in the history of England, suggesting that Robert felt a sense of unified cross-Channel identity. Finally, as the scholarly debates over the date at which Robert acquired Henry of Huntingdon's Historia and over Robert's scribal practices indicate, the Chronicle allows us to peak into the twelfth-century intellectual and social spheres that fostered history-writing. It is clear from Robert's incorporation of the Historia into his Chronicle and from the copies had had made of the Chronicle that there was an intense demand for history-writing during the Angevin period, and that there was a strong, self-conscious dialogue between monastic scholars of different parts of the Angevin Empire.
Bibliography
Bates, David. "Robert of Torigni and the Historia Anglorum." In The English and Their Legacy:
900-1200: Essays in Honour of Ann Williams, edited by David Roffe, 175-84. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2012.
Delisle, Léopold. "Préface," In Chronique de Robert de Torigni, abbé du Mont-Saint-Michel, 2
volumes, edited by Léopold Delisle, i-lxv. Rouen: A. Le Brumentm 1872-3.
Howlett, Richard. "Preface." Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II., and Richard I.: Vol.
IV; The Chronicle of Robert of Torigni, Abbot of the Monastery of St. Michael-in-Peril- of-the-Sea, edited by Richard Howlett, vii-lxix. London: HMSO, 1889.
Pohl, Benjamin. "Abbas qui et scriptor? The Handwriting of Robert of Torigni and His Scribal
Activity As Abbot of Mont-Saint-Michel (1154-1186)." Traditio 69 (2014): 45-86.
_____. "The Date and Context of Robert of Torigni’s Chronica in London, British Library,
Cotton MS. Domitian A. VIII, ff. 71r-94v." Electronic British Library Journal (2016): http://www.bl.uk/eblj/2016articles/article1.html.
Van Houts, Elisabeth. "Latin and French as Languages of the Past in Normandy during the Reign
of Henry II: Robert of Torigny, Stephen of Rouen, and Wace." In Writers of the Reign of Henry II: Twelve Essays, edited by Ruth Kennedy and Simon Meecham-Jones, 53-78. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2006.
_____. "Robert of Torigni As Genealogist." In Studies in Medieval History Presented to R. Allen
Brown, edited by Christopher Harper-Bill, Christopher J. Holdsworth, and Janet L. Nelson, 215-34. Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 1989.
_____. "Le roi et son historien: Henri II Plantagenêt et Robert de Torigni, abbé du Saint-Michel."
Cahiers de Civilisation Médiévale 37, no. 145-1 (1994): 115-8.
|} Pipera (talk) 19:02, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. "there is no breakup of any of these children and mistresses", yes, there is. There is a list in this article of his children with their mothers. Each of those children who has an article has a link to that article. There is nothing in the category links that adds anything to what is already in the article. Thus, we do not need duplicate links through a category with a misleading heading that implies that there is more information for the reader in the category listing. There is not.
  2. Weir - I didn't say or argue that she's not a historian; I said "she's not an academic historian, and we already have a perfectly good academic source (Thompson) for this information". I.e., the cites to Weir don't provide anything that Thompson doesn't already, so there is no need for them. Please engage with the actual arguments, and do not add a whole bunch of unnecessary information about Weir when no one said she's not a historian, just that in a WP:Featured Article, we try to rely on the highest quality sources, such as academic sources, like Thompson. So Weir is unneeded, and since she doesn't cite her own sources (yes, I have Weir's book and consulted it to be doubly sure), we are better off going with a source that does cite their sources.
  3. Wikitree is a user-generated site. See WP:UGC, which states, "Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is generally unacceptable. Sites with user-generated content include...most wikis and other collaboratively created websites." Thus, being user-generated, it's unreliable here.
  4. Henry II project - again, not arguing that Baldwin is not a noted author, but it is not an academic source and, as above, we do not need it since we have Thompson. Please engage with the actual reasons provided.
  5. About primary sources, such as Robert of Torigni, see WP:RSPRIMARY. We avoid the use of primary sources. The rest of the information you gave is just useless and makes it harder for other editors to engage with you, by wasting our time reading through a pile of links. And I will not retract this argument because it's foundational to what we do here - we summarize secondary sources.
  6. The issue with three family charts on the same thing is the same reason you don't write "The sky is blue. Blue is the sky. Skies are blue. Blue is the color of the sky." in an encyclopedia article on the atmosphere. It is redundant.
  7. And then you again add utterly unnecessary information to the post you make, wasting other editor's time by having to read through a bunch of information not related to the arguments (such as the information on Robert of Torigni (some of which repeats stuff just above), Orderic Vitalis, or the Gesta Normanum Ducum).
  8. "The above is why we use their works in genealogy on ALL reliable sites." This is the crux of the problem. We are NOT a genealogical site. We are an encyclopedia. See WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Trying to make articles on this site into genealogical entries is not helpful and disruptive when you've been repeatedly told that it is not what our purpose is. Nor are we academic researchers writing scholarly monographs. Ealdgyth (talk) 19:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. there is no breakup of any of these children and mistresses", yes, there is. There is a list in this article of his children with their mothers. Each of those children who has an article has a link to that article. There is nothing in the category links that adds anything to what is already in the article. Thus, we do not need duplicate links through a category with a misleading heading that implies that there is more information for the reader in the category listing. There is not.
There should be, and that is the custom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlemagne
Wives, concubines, and children
Example, so this is the way it is for many of these types of entries, it gives the article clarity, instead now we have second guessing and this is taken to assignment work quoting this entry, which is historically incorrect.
  1. Weir - I didn't say or argue that she's not a historian; I said "she's not an academic historian, and we already have a perfectly good academic source (Thompson) for this information". I.e., the cites to Weir don't provide anything that Thompson doesn't already, so there is no need for them. Please engage with the actual arguments, and do not add a whole bunch of unnecessary information about Weir when no one said she's not a historian, just that in a WP:Featured Article, we try to rely on the highest quality sources, such as academic sources, like Thompson. So Weir is unneeded, and since she doesn't cite her own sources (yes, I have Weir's book and consulted it to be doubly sure), we are better off going with a source that does cite their sources.
In your opinion, others disagree with your analogy.
  1. Wikitree is a user-generated site. See WP:UGC, which states, "Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is generally unacceptable. Sites with user-generated content include...most wikis and other collaboratively created websites." Thus, being user-generated, it's unreliable here.
This site is user generated, so this is a non-valid argument. Essentially, you are saying that this article is unreliable.  
  1. Henry II project - again, not arguing that Baldwin is not a noted author, but it is not an academic source and, as above, we do not need it since we have Thompson. Please engage with the actual reasons provided.
In your opinion, the site has never been a source here, and the site has academic credential, the details there are more technical the Latin language aside, which if anyone in doing history in this time period needs to be able to read Latin, German and French.
  1. About primary sources, such as Robert of Torigni, see WP:RSPRIMARY. We avoid the use of primary sources. The rest of the information you gave is just useless and makes it harder for other editors to engage with you, by wasting our time reading through a pile of links. And I will not retract this argument because it's foundational to what we do here - we summarize secondary sources.
He is extended above a primary source, every aspect of this period in history in EVERY textbook, and the materials here comes from his work, he actually was around back then, The above is in your opinion.
  1. The issue with three family charts on the same thing is the same reason you don't write "The sky is blue. Blue is the sky. Skies are blue. Blue is the color of the sky." in an encyclopedia article on the atmosphere. It is redundant.
In relation to the charts etc they come from other articles here so there is no viewpoint to be examined here.
  1. And then you again add utterly unnecessary information to the post you make, wasting other editor's time by having to read through a bunch of information not related to the arguments (such as the information on Robert of Torigni (some of which repeats stuff just above), Orderic Vitalis, or the Gesta Normanum Ducum).
In your opinion, academics like me would argue that their work trumps what this article is lacking.
  1. "The above is why we use their works in genealogy on ALL reliable sites." This is the crux of the problem. We are NOT a genealogical site. We are an encyclopedia. See WP:NOTGENEALOGY. Trying to make articles on this site into genealogical entries is not helpful and disruptive when you've been repeatedly told that it is not what our purpose is. Nor are we academic researchers writing scholarly monographs. Ealdgyth (talk) 19:20, 8 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There is no user page for WP:NOTGENEALOGY. It goes to a redirect.
4. Genealogical entries. Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic. This is a notable toipic. Pipera (talk) 01:11, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robert of Torigni

[edit]

Robert of Torigni

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_of_Torigni

Works

[edit]

[edit]

Robert is best known as the last of the three contributors to the Gesta Normannorum Ducum ('Deeds of the Norman Dukes'), a chronicle originally written by William of Jumièges, appended to by Orderic Vitalis and lastly Robert de Torigni, who brought the history up to the time of Henry I. Robert relied more on Orderic's work than that of William of Jumièges and added information regarding the reign of William the Conqueror, a history of Bec, and a volume on Henry I. Another source he used was Henry of Huntingdon's Historia Anglorum. Henry, the Archdeacon of Huntingdon, had visited Bec in 1139 and during his stay there provided Robert with much of the information regarding the reign of Henry I which Robert used in his own chronicles. Robert, in turn, introduced Henry to a new work by Geoffrey of Monmouth, the Historia Regum Britanniae, a copy of which first reached Bec about 1138.

Notes

[edit]

[edit]

  1. ^ Elisabeth van Houts in her article ('Robert of Torigni as Genealogist', Studies in Medieval History presented to R. Allen Brown, Boydell Press, 1989, p. 222) suggests that not all the mistakes in Robert de Torigni's Chronicles are his own, that a few are attributable to modern historians who have difficulty with his narrative-style genealogies.
  2. ^ Dr. James Bruce analyzed the writing style of these two romances compared to the writings of Robert de Torigni. His opinion was they did not match, and also pointed out how Bale made the mistake of attributing these romances to Robert based on an incorrect assumption. Additional evidence shows these romances to be the products of thirteenth century writers, not twelfth. See: Two Arthurian Romances of the XIIIth Century in Latin Prose, ed. J. Douglas Bruce (Johns Hopkins Press, 1913), pp. x-xv, sub: "II. Bale's ascription of the romances to Robert de Torigni". Also see: Mildred Leake Day, Latin Arthurian literature (Cambridge: Brewer, 2005), pp. 3–11 for more discussion.

25 sourced articles. Pipera (talk) 01:31, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Henry_I_of_England&oldid=1275684604"