Jump to content

Talk:Stephen, King of England

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleStephen, King of England is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 5, 2019.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 2, 2011Good article nomineeListed
August 18, 2011WikiProject A-class reviewApproved
October 15, 2011Featured article candidatePromoted
On this day... Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on November 1, 2013, November 1, 2015, November 1, 2016, February 2, 2017, November 1, 2018, and November 1, 2021.
Current status: Featured article

Anarchy

[edit]

The section on the Anarchy states the Henry II entered the fray with few soldiers and was latter defeated, it then states that Stephen assisted him. This makes littles sense as it sounds as though Henry would be fighting against Stephen (and in turn support his mother) and yet Stephen assits him. Some clarification is needed. Sovereignlance (talk) 02:26, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Untitled

[edit]

Why is this page "Stephen I"? There was only one. -- Zoe

"The majority of the barons of England swore to support Matilda," but in the next sentence, "Stephen's claim was supported by the majority of the barons." What gives? Did people change allegiance or were the barons giving 110%? JHCC 18:43, 24 Aug 2004 (UTC)

It wasn't that the barons were giving 110%, the fact was that Henry I had forced them into swearing an oath to be faithful in seeing Matilda to the throne upon his death. However, upon Henry's death, Stephen moved for the throne with great speed, and managed to win the support of many of the barons due to the fact that he had more to offer them than Matilda. He was a strong male baron in Europe at the time, held extensive lands in England, and had the support of the Church. Matilda's husband was Geoffrey of Anjou, who was an Angevin and not liked by many of the lords who held lands in both Normandy and England, and who would be opposed to an Angevin king, so when Stephen was crowned, they instantly lent their support, hoping that they may benefit from his reign more so than Matilda's. However, the issue as a whole of the anarchy that ensued following his succession is much more complex than this, but I hope what I can give helps! a lot of this is subject to debate, and are covered in 'King Stephen' by RHC Davis and 'The Reign of Stephen' by K Stringer

image

[edit]

is the statue pictured a statue of the kind in this article or is it a statue of some other king with the same of name (and if so king of where when). (when information is found the image should be placed in an approprote place on the commons and removed from commons:Commons:Really unused

That looks like a statue of King Stephen I of Hungary Missi

Claims

[edit]

In the article it states, " Empress Maud, Henry's daughter, and her claim to the throne. However, Stephen of Blois, who was a grandson of William the Conqueror through his mother, Adela..."

Matilda (Maud) was also The Conqueror's grandchild through her father, so had at least an equal claim to the throne. Should her relationship to William not also be cited? One of the reasons why neither Matilda's nor Stephen's claim to the throne was ironclad was that the application of Salic Law had not been resolved in England, and wasn't until Mary. Both Matilda and Stephen were descended from William in the female line. Duckecho (Talk) 4 July 2005 16:47 (UTC)

I edited to accommodate the above concerns. Duckecho (Talk) 6 July 2005 17:53 (UTC)

Pronounciation

[edit]

Is it pronouced Steven or Stefan? I always wonder when I see "King Stephen". Sotakeit 19:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's pronounced Étienne since he was French, but Steven for the english pronunciation. Ciriii 00:22, 3 April 2006 (UTC) and people also say that he is looking reem — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.216.55.128 (talk) 19:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As the renowned canon name tag has taught most people this gendered variant as STEV-en with ph it is also liberally usable pronounced as spelled which would be also pronounce as STeF-ən I am a bearer of the spelling and had social reminders of this fact.

last Norman King of England?

[edit]

How on earth was Stephen any more a Norman king of England than Henry II? Both of them had a mother from the House of Normandy and a father from another northern French dynasty. I'm going to change this. john k 22:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Stephen is considered to be the last king of the Norman dynasty. Henry is considered the first king of the House of Plantagenet. RockStarSheister (talk) 06:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also do not understand why Stephen is considered a Norman King of England. If Henry II is considered the first Plantagenet King of England because his paternal descent was from the House of Plantagenet, why would Stephen be any different as a paternal descendant of the House of Blois? Chell484 (talk) 23:29, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a historian's convention. Stephen was pretty much raised at his uncle's court, and no one denies that his mother was definitely the dominant influence between his parents. Don't forget that Stephen's father was ... henpecked... and sent back to the Crusades in disgrace by his wife where he died. Stephen didn't control Blois or Chartres, he held a Norman county before seizing the throne, so rather than have a "house of blois" of one member, most historians lump Stephen in with the Normans. If Eustace had lived, things might have turned out differently with this, but Stephen was not successful in founding a dynasty. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see some sources for this supposed historian's convention. john k (talk) 04:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would also have to add that Stephen's lack of success was due to the support Matilda received from her half-brother Robert of Gloucester, not to mention his own laxity in dealing with his unruly barons. Stephen fathered several children besides Eustace; in fact his granddaughter Matilda, one of the daughters of Marie of Blois, married into the House of Brabant.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:31, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the best source for being considered "Norman" would have to be the British Monarchy themselves, as Stephen (and Matilda) are listed under the "Norman Dynasty" on their website: The Normans. Frank Barlow (historian) lists Stephen in his genealogical chart of the Norman Dynasty (Barlow Feudal Kingdom of England pp. 452-453). Robert Bartlett wrote England Under the Norman and Angevin Kings covering the period 1075 to 1225. Note he didn't write on the Norman, Blois, and Angevin kings. Richard Huscroft, in Ruling England 1042-1217 lumps Stephen's reign into the "Anglo-Norman" period, which goes until 1154. Note that I didn't write the section on him being the "last Norman king", I'm just pointing out that many consider him such, and trying to explain why. Ealdgyth - Talk 10:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The British Monarchy website is not as reliable as people think it is. If we considered it the best source, we could say that the United Kingdom suddenly came to exist in 1603. Surtsicna (talk) 12:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The British Monarchy website is awful. It should be used sparingly, at best. john k (talk) 05:23, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've found : S. Morillo, Warfare under the Anglo-Norman kings, 1066–1135 (1994). I've searched through David Crouch's King Stephen, and found nothing to support either claims. Regards. PurpleHz (talk) 16:19, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems pointless to have a historical convention that is historically inaccurate. It should be of note that the box at the bottom of the article lists Stephen as a member of the House of Blois, while the "English Royalty" sidebox in the article lists him and his issue as members of the House of Normandy. Why not simply change the sentence in the article's introduction to: "He was King of England from 1135 to his death, and also the Count of Boulogne jure uxoris." Chell484 (talk) 18:33, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If Henry II is not "Norman dynasty", then Stephen isn't either. He's of the Blois dynasty. I'm tired of the argument that we must accept historical nonsense regarding dynasties just because the high visibility of a lot of websites give it the appearance of "being established". This means getting rid of "dynasties" themselves ... these are things that developed in this form only later, but have been imposed on this period from that period. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The division of monarchs into dynasties can be somewhat schematic, but this is the normal division. It might be worth saying this in the article. PatGallacher (talk) 23:52, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

His grandfather was William the Conqueror. You can't get any more Norman than that! His claim to the throne was obviously based on his mother's ancestry so it doesn't seem unreasonable to class him as a Norman king. TheMathemagician (talk) 13:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

personal heraldry

[edit]

[1] ha an image that is supposedly his personal coat of arms, a liontaur passant on a red field. Does anyone have a reliable cite to conform this? Rhialto 23:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Description by Walter Map

[edit]

I gave a precise reference for this and had a go at translating it accurately. But I'm not sure what Walter meant by idiota. Perhaps someone who has a better idea will correct my version. Andrew Dalby 15:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recent??

[edit]

Is it true that Stephen has only recently been accepted as a King in English history? I'm sure I read that somewhere... If true, should this be mentioned in the article? --El Pollo Diablo (Talk) 10:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard of anything to suggest he wasn't always considered a King of England. A quick search on google books will find books from 200 years ago or more that mention him as king. 86.21.225.156 (talk) 17:40, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Foggy history

[edit]

Was King Stephen's reign 1135-54 or 1135-41, 1141-54. Was Matilda Queen regnant of England in 1141? GoodDay (talk) 20:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

English Royal descent

[edit]

This section, included by Andrei Iosifovich, has been proven incorrect in that there is a traceable line from Stephen to Elizabeth. Still, it's some nice info, so I'll include it here. Andrei Iosifovich (talk) 14:51, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

English Royal descendents

[edit]

Through his granddaughter Maud of Boulogne, who married Henry I, Duke of Brabant, Stephen is the ancestor of English royals, but no line leads directly to the current monarch. Through a marriage of Louis d'Évreux, a descendent of the Brabant line, to the Queen of Navarre, Stephen is an ancestor of some monarchs of France and Navarre, including Marguerite of France, second wife of King Edward I of England; however, Edward's heir was already born to a previous wife. Edward and Marguerite's descendents include Joan of Kent, first Princess of Wales and mother of King Richard II of England; but Richard had no children and the throne passed to his cousin Henry IV. Henry married Joanna of Navarre, another descendent of King Stephen's, but they had no children together.

The Navarrese monarchs also became Kings of France when Henri III of Navarre became King Henry IV of France. His daughter Henrietta Marie married King Charles I of England and Scotland, and thus became ancestor to the rulers of England and Scotland from 1660 to 1714; but following the Act of Settlement 1701 the throne passed to descendents of Charles I's sister Elizabeth, and no further British monarchs can claim descent from Stephen. However, Stephen is an ancestor to the Jacobite pretenders and their successors to the present day.

This is the descent of the House of Stuart and subsequent Jacobite claimants from Stephen:

  1. Stephen
  2. Marie of Boulogne
  3. Maud of Boulogne
  4. Henry II, Duke of Brabant
  5. Henry III, Duke of Brabant
  6. Maria of Brabant
  7. Louis d'Évreux
  8. Philip III of Navarre
  9. Charles II of Navarre
  10. Charles III of Navarre
  11. Blanche I of Navarre
  12. Eleanor of Navarre
  13. Gaston of Foix, Prince of Viana
  14. Catherine of Navarre
  15. Henry II of Navarre
  16. Jeanne III of Navarre
  17. Henry IV of France
  18. Henrietta Maria of France
  19. Henrietta Anne Stuart
  20. Anne Marie of Orléans
  21. Charles Emmanuel III of Sardinia
  22. Victor Amadeus III of Sardinia
  23. Victor Emmanuel I of Sardinia
  24. Maria Beatrice of Savoy
  25. Archduke Ferdinand Karl Viktor of Austria-Este
  26. Maria Theresia of Austria-Este
  27. Rupprecht, Crown Prince of Bavaria
  28. Albrecht, Duke of Bavaria
  29. Franz, Duke of Bavaria

Stephen helping Henry????

[edit]

The following confuses me:

"Desperately, and in secret, the boy then asked Stephen for help. According to the Gesta Stephani, "On receiving the message, the king...hearkened to the young man..." and bestowed upon him money and other support."

"The boy" being Maud's son Henry, the future Henry II, who was fighting AGAINST Stephen. Why on earth would Stephen help him?

Stephen did indeed assist the future Henry II. It was this sort of behaviour that drove his supporters to despair and allowed Matilda to be as strong as she was. Paul75 (talk) 05:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In 1147, Stephen bought the young Henry out since he couldn't pay his mercenaries. The ODNB says : 'It was Stephen, ‘always full of pity and compassion’ (Gesta Stephani, 206–7), who sent Henry the money to pay off his troops and return home. ' For Baldwin de Reviers, he didn't pardon him, but exiled him. Baldwin soon joined the angevin court. Regards, PurpleHz (talk) 18:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall, he did the same with Baldwin de Redvers - after defeating and capturing him, Stephen promptly forgave him and released him, only for Baldwin to immediately take up arms against him once again. My understanding is that Stephen was chivalrous to a fault, and lacked the ruthlessness required of a king in that age. 86.21.225.156 (talk) 21:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duke of Normandy?

[edit]

I have read that Matilda was able to take Normandy fairly early, and was the "Duke of Normandy". Why is she not listed as the duke?173.137.205.77 (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mathilda didn't took over the Normandy, but her husband did. So she was the duchess, but not the ruler of the duchy. Geoffrey did hommage for the duchy to the King of France in 1144, but he had his control since 1141/1142. Regards, PurpleHz (talk) 18:26, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Heirs General

[edit]
  1. William I, Count of Boulogne, only son outlived Stephen as William III
  2. Marie I, Countess of Boulogne, elder-sister of William as Mary I
  3. Ida, Countess of Boulogne, eldest daughter of Marie
  4. Matilda II, Countess of Boulogne, daughter of Ida
  5. Albert, Count of Clermont, only son of Matilda
  6. Henry III, Duke of Brabant, eldest paternal grandson of Mathilde of Flanders younger sister of Ida, Countess of Boulogne as Henry II
  7. Henry IV, Duke of Brabant, eldest son of Henry II as Henry III
  8. John I, Duke of Brabant, younger brother of Henry III as John I
  9. John II, Duke of Brabant, only son of John I as John II
  10. John III, Duke of Brabant, only son of John II as John III
  11. Joanna, Duchess of Brabant, eldest daughter of John III
  12. John the Fearless, eldest maternal grandson of Margaret of Brabant, Countess of Flanders younger sister of Joanna as John IV
  13. Philip the Good, only son of John IV as Philip I
  14. Charles the Bold, only son of Philip as Charles I
  15. Mary of Burgundy, only daughter of Charles as Mary II
  16. Philip I of Castile, only son of Mary II as Philip II
  17. Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, eldest son of Philip II as Charles II
  18. Philip II of Spain, eldest son of Charles II as Philip III
  19. Philip III of Spain, only son outlived Philip III as Philip IV
  20. Philip IV of Spain, eldest son of Philip IV as Philip V
  21. Charles II of Spain, only legitimate son of Philip V as Charles III
  22. Louis, Grand Dauphin, only son of Maria Theresa of Spain eldest sister of Charles III as Louis I
  23. Louis, Duke of Burgundy (1682–1712), eldest son of Louis I as Louis II
  24. Louis, Duke of Brittany (1707–1712), eldest son of Louis II as Louis III
  25. Louis XV of France, younger brother of Louis III as Louis IV
  26. Louis XVI of France, eldest paternal grandson of Louis IV as Louis V
  27. Louis XVII of France, only son outlived Louis V as Louis VI
  28. Marie Thérèse of France, eldest sister of Louis VI as Mary III
  29. Henry, Count of Chambord, grandson of Charles X of France youngest brother of Louis V as Henry IV
  30. Robert I, Duke of Parma, eldest son of Louise Marie Thérèse d'Artois only sister of Henry IV as Robert I
  31. Henry, Duke of Parma, eldest son of Robert I as Henry V
  32. Joseph, Duke of Parma, younger brother of Henry V
  33. Elias, Duke of Parma, younger brother of Joseph
  34. Robert II, Duke of Parma, son of Elias as Robert II
  35. Infanta Alicia, Dowager Duchess of Calabria, younger sister of Robert II as Mary IV

Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 15:42, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Current picture same as that of Henry II

[edit]

This current picture is the same as that of the page about Henry II. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plinythemodern (talk • contribs) 21:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Similar, but not the same at all. PurpleHz (talk) 13:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion...

[edit]

I've gone through and given the article a proper scrub over and general expansion; in doing so, I'll guarantee various typos and errors etc. will have crept in, and it will no doubt benefit from both copy-editing and a once-over from experts in the period. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Stephen, King of England/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Will get to work on this; looks great though!
Reviewer: Lampman (talk) 19:41, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links fine, a certain number of dablinks: [2] Lampman (talk) 19:45, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think all the DABs are now fixed. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:53, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Early life

[edit]
  • "William probably had mental difficulties..." - don't we all? The wording is a bit vague; contemporaries would probably use the word "idiot", though that wouldn't go down too well today. Perhaps "mental retardation" is better, but according to Davies, the case is not quite so clear-cut?
  • "Honour of Lancaster" - in lack of a better link, you might want to link this to Lancaster Castle, which was the centre of the honour.
  • "still a potential claimant to the English throne" - the word "still" is a bit misplaced; this has not been mentioned earlier. All we've been told is that he was a contender for the Duchy of Normandy.
  • "hereditary succession, in which the eldest child would inherit a title, was becoming more popular." - I have a couple of issues with this statement. First of all, it's not hereditary succession which is the new thing, but the principle of primogeniture. Secondly, by "primogeniture" is implicitly meant "male primogeniture", so that it is the eldest (legitimate) male child who inherits, not simply the eldest child. I would suggest using the word primogeniture and wikilinking it, unless I am missing something here?
  • "the most important part" - again we have the issue of primogeniture. The essence of inheritance by primogeniture was that the patrimony should pass intact from one generation to the other. Land the lord had acquired during his lifetime, however, through marriage or conquest, he was free to dispose of as he chose. Hence it was not "the most important part" that passed to the eldest son (though this was normally the case), but the patrimony. This is exactly the reason why the Conqueror could pass the largest part of his inheritance to his younger son William, while Robert was left with a much smaller part of the inheritance. Lampman (talk) 00:05, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was abbreviating too much I think; the patrimony, from my reading, was usually considered the most important, for exactly the reasons you describe. I've expanded a bit in the text - see what you think. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:36, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Early reign

[edit]
  • Note 6: could you say a bit more in the note about the nature of the historiographical debate? (Carpenter doesn't seem to quite buy the harmonious version.)
  • "a useful balance to Angevin power in the region" - which region are you talking about here?
  • "Stephen's personal qualities as a military leader..." - this sentence seems a little bit out of place; it doesn't have much relevance to what goes directly before it.

Cheers! - will work through these ones in a little bit. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Civil war

[edit]
  • "Stephen had disliked the baron for several years..." - this sentence is a bit long; it should probably be split up.
  • "Geoffrey's rebellion continued until September 1144..." - you should make it clear that you're talking about de Mandeville, since the last paragraph was about Geoffrey of Anjou.
  • "the Anarchy" - you say later that this phrase was coined by Round; maybe you should mention this briefly in a footnote also here (with a "see below").

Legacy

[edit]
  • Was not Round Stubbs' student? Shouldn't this be mentioned?

Ancestors

[edit]
  • It would be better if this was collapsed by default, so that the readers can decide themselves if they want to see this rather large graphical element.

General

[edit]
  • You should provide links also to modern historians, at least those with articles (Davis and Carpenter, for instance). You could do this the first time they're mentioned in the text, and then again in the bibliography section. Lampman (talk) 10:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks excellent; I'm happy to promote it! If I was a bit tough, it's because I expect you'll move on to an FA nomination pretty soon. If you do, you should probably add ALT texts to the images. Also, be a bit more careful with the difference between hyphens and dashes; there are some sticklers for that on FAR (I think I got all of these while copyediting). In any case, a great article, and even more impressive since you're a relative newcomer to Wikipedia. You show a better understanding of the project than a lot of editors who have been around for years. Lampman (talk) 19:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


I have once more altered the entry relating to Henry's death, so that the correct location is depicted. Would whoever altered the original correction, please leave the present link...he did not die at Lyon! Train guard (talk) 09:12, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Image in infobox

[edit]

Does anyone know for certain the names of the documents in which Mathew Paris' illustrations of Stephen appear (like maybe Chronica Majora or something else)? Maybe the names could be added to some of the image captions throughout the article. The image in the infobox doesn't have a caption, and I was about to add one, and it made me wonder if anyone knew. I wonder now though if the infobox is getting too long to add a caption; is that the reason why it doesn't currently have one?--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 08:23, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not personally in favour of adding the names of painters etc to the captions throughout the article (in this instance, I don't think they're particularly relevant to what the images are being used for, and someone could always click on the image if they wanted more). I like the idea of adding it to the infobox: the picture is from Historia Anglorum.Hchc2009 (talk) 18:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heraldry

[edit]

This image is supposedly Stephen's coat of arms, and it appears in a couple of articles. Does anyone know if these arms were historically borne by Stephen, or are they just an example of attributed arms?--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 12:43, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The period of Stephen's reign is a bit early for formal heraldry - I've never seen a set of arms attributed to Stephen in any scholarly history of his reign. Matthew says of the growth of heraldry in Stephen's reign that "The impetus for personal heraldry came form noble families themselves, not from the king." Ealdgyth - Talk 14:11, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm aware, it's just a much later invention. Like Ealdgyth says, it would be the wrong period for something like this, and I haven't seen anything in the histories of Stephen. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:57, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Henry II first of the Angevin kings?

[edit]

The intro refers to Henry II as "the first of the Angevin kings." This is confusing to those of us who learned of him as "the first of the Plantagenet kings." (Even the link on "Angevin" redirects to "House of Plantagenet".) Does not "Angevin" refer to the empire and "Plantagenet" to Henry's lineage? The article "House of Plantagenet" states that "Henry accumulated a vast and complex feudal holding that was later called the Angevin Empire." (Emphasis added.)

It seems to me that the intro should clarify this: Henry II was the first of the Plantagenet kings; "Angevin" refers to the empire he built.

Cheers, Rico402 (talk) 15:17, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a fair point to raise, but it's a bit more complex than that. There are two different ways to describe the Plantagenet dynasty; one starts with Henry II, the other with Henry III. There's a fuller discussion of this in our wiki Plantagenet article's good article review, but both are legitimate perspectives. The British monarchy - for example - considers Henry II, Richard and John to be the Angevin kings, followed by Henry III as the first Plantagenet, as do many good historians; plenty of other equally good historians start that Plantagenet list with Henry II. I've seen some that argue in favour of Henry III being an Angevin too, but that's rarer. Contemporaries didn't use either phrase quite as we do; Plantagenet is not really a term they used at all, and they wrote about "the Angevins" rather than a dynasty. The "Angevin empire", as you say, is a much later, 19th century term, that has had its fashionable and less fashionable moments over the last century. Historians focusing on Stephen, and the 12th-13th centuries in England more generally, typically use the "Angevin kings" phrase rather than "Plantagenet" (see Robert Bartlett's "England Under the Norman and Angevin Kings: 1075 - 1225" as an accessible example of this trend, but Church, Everard or Warren would be equally good examples of historians who use the term), and so I went for this in the article. I'm happy to add a footnote explaining it further with a few references if you'd like. In the longer term, I'd like to get round to writing a proper Angevin article, as the current redirect isn't perfect! (NB: and let's not open the can of worms as to whether Stephen was a member of the Norman Kings! :) ) Hchc2009 (talk) 16:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Illegitimate formatting

[edit]

There is a serious issue in Wikipedia's designation in the sidebar of illegitimate children! We must clear up the appearance because the illegitimate title flows to legitimates. This problem appears here and on King Henry II and I’m sure other pages. Markbeaulieu (talk) 17:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm not sure I quite follow you Mark - could you explain what the "flows to" bit meant? Hchc2009 (talk) 17:36, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think I see what Mark means. There is an italic heading "illegitimate children" in the infobox next to the list of legitimate children. As all the children are legitimate so far as I can see, presumably the solution is just to delete the 'illegitimate' heading. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, see what you mean. Yep, sounds sensible. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Coronation

[edit]

All the sources agree that it was the 22nd, not the 26th. Not sure when/where 26th crept in. Besides King p. 47 and Crouch p. 37, Davis King Stephen (3rd ed) p. 16 says "Consequently the archbishop anointed Stephen king on 22 December 1135...". Chibnall The Empress Matilda p. 65 says of Stephen "ON 22 December he was anointed king.". Green Henry I p. 222 says of Stephen "On 22 December he was crowned by the archbishop of Canterbury." Ealdgyth - Talk 23:25, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. Hchc2009 (talk) 23:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

TFA

[edit]

Hchc2009 I was surprised to see that this has never been a TFA and read through it with a view to nominating it. It is in very good shape for a 5 year old FA, but I have a few queries, which I hope you can help with.

  • "Stephen had at least four brothers" Which son was he - third or fourth?
  • As per the rest of the paragraph... we know that he had three older brothers and one younger - but he may have had more, records not being great at this time, so we don't know if he was actually a fourth son. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:17, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Other supporters of the Empress were restored in their former strongholds, such as Bishop Nigel of Ely, and others still received new earldoms in the west of England." "others still" sounds odd to me "still others"?
  • "With all of his other problems and with Hugh Bigod still in open revolt in Norfolk" It has not previously been stated that Bigod was in revolt.
  • "Although still young, Henry was increasingly gaining a reputation" It would be helpful to give his age.
  • "Although Stephen's son William was young and unprepared to challenge Henry for the throne in 1153" Ditto.
  • "Keith Stringer and Judith Green capture the current consensus that the degree of delegated powers followed the degree of threat." What threat?
  • "Edmund King disagrees about that the Empress received an invitation to Arundel, arguing that she appeared unexpectedly." Grammar has gone wrong.
Yep, should be able to deal with those, but not until next weekend I think. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 15 September 2017

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn. I have since familiarised myself with WP:SOVEREIGN. --Nevé–selbert 09:21, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

– No need to disambiguate. --Nevé–selbert 07:12, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

"... succeeded Stephen as ..."

[edit]

@Ian Rose: To "succeed someone as [something]" means that both the first and the second person fit the description - maybe not invariably, but nearly so. (Elizabeth II is the successor of George VI, but it doesn't really work to say she succeeded him *as queen*, because he was never the queen.) The way I edited it could surely be improved, but still, what I had was better than the original. TooManyFingers (talk) 06:55, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New chart ....

[edit]

It's not an improvement. It's managed to cram a whole bunch of folks who were born after Stephen's death into it ... folks that aren't important to his life. But yet it leaves OFF his two brothers - Theobald II, Count of Champagne and Henry of Blois. (And if you don't think Henry of Blois is important to not only Stephen's reign, but to the preceeding and suceeding ones, then read the articles and know the topic area before deciding what is important in a relationship chart). I'm not sure why this templated charts is being spammed into a bunch of articles, replacing the relatively clean and simple line chart that was here before - but for all the additional information, this new chart is actually less informative. Can we go back to the simple chart - here at at King Henry I? A lot of times, fancier isn't better. Ealdgyth (talk) 20:53, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lands granted to Stephen in 1113 - did he hold Robert Malet's title and lands or not? contradictory Wikipedia articles

[edit]

This is extremely unclear, to me, at least, particularly given this is a Featured Article. The article claims that "Following the battle of Tinchebray in 1106, Henry confiscated the County of Mortain from his cousin William, and the Honour of Eye, a large lordship previously owned by Robert Malet. In 1113, Stephen was granted both the title and the honour, although without the lands previously held by William in England." Yet when I click on the link to Robert Malet, it states that Robert Malet had regained his land after William II's death and "It was thought that Malet had some quarrel with the king, and again lost his lands, on the basis of some statements by Orderic Vitalis, but most historians now think Orderic confused Malet with his successor, William Malet. However it appears that Robert Malet remained in the king's confidence and held his lands until his death" his death being stated as 1130. So how could Stephen have been granted the title and honour in 1113? One article or the other is wrong. I am new to reading about the history of England and was hoping Wikipedia would give me a good overview, yet this is the third article I have found in reading about this subject where information in one Wikipedia article directly contradicts that contained in another (another of which is also a Featured Article). Billy Tallent (talk) 20:17, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You will always find contradictions. If you read a book of essays by historians on a particular subject you will find contradictions betweeen the articles as different historians interpret the evidence differently, and there will be far greater contradictions between separate books by different experts. In the case of the Wiki articles, you need to look at the sourcing. The Robert Malet article is an unreferenced stub so not reliable and you should go by the Stephen article, which is a fully referenced FA. Sorry if that sounds discouraging but the quality of Wikipedia articles is very variable and you need to make a judgement on how reliable each article is. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:05, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 December 2022

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: withdrawn by request of the nominator. (non-admin closure) ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 21:14, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen, King of England → Stephen of Blois – This is the WP:COMMONNAME. It is used as the title in the Wikipedia infobox as well as Britannica. Interstellarity (talk) 00:00, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Any editor is free to close this nomination as withdrawn. I can’t do it myself since I’m on mobile. Thank you, Interstellarity (talk) 20:26, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stephen,_King_of_England&oldid=1193673216"