Jump to content

Talk:Edward the Black Prince

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 67.207.132.184 (talk) at 07:21, 4 February 2008 (→Movie link). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Lord of Biscay?

He was Lord of Biscay, wasn't he? -- Error

He was 60.229.172.114 03:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes

Ich dien

The famous "Ich dien" motto is not German (where it would be "Ich diene"), but Welsh for something like "here is the boy" isn't it?

"Ich Dien" is definately not Welsh!! I think you'll find it is Germanic - Rhys Griffiths (Freeman of Llantrisant, decendent of the Llantrisant Bowmen who were granted freeman status for their roles in Crecy and Agincourt!!)

"Ich dien" is just a short form of the german "Ich diene". Anyway it is german from the year 13xx, so you cannot compare it with today's german.
It is in Middle Dutch. No-one is sure why.mais (talk) 01:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black?

Was he black?

No, Edward was white, Black Prince was a nickname he posthumusly got. Rumours for it is that he wore Black armour. Mightberight/wrong 16:00, 28 October 2005

Was the 1st season of blackadder based on edward?

No

Ethnicity...

http://www.100greatblackbritons.com/bios/queen_phillipa.html

This alludes to a mixed ancestry. Any thoughts?

This is based on a reference to Queen Philippa's dark complexion in 'Michael Packe's book on Edward III' according to the Black britons site. Needless to say none of her Great Great Grand parents was black, and I couldn't be bothered to go back any futher back. The must obvious source of the 'Black Prince'nickname must surely be his black 'arms of peace' which alternate with his quartered Lions/Fleurs de lys on his tomb.

Chris Gidlow

That website is a joke. Philippa and Edward were white. That website tries to prove that there were black people in Britain since ancient times, which I find funny to say the least. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Energyfreezer (talk • contribs) 16:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

What did Edward die of?

What did the Black Prince die of? My quess is cancer. I'd like to see other theories on his demise, posted. Mightberight/wrong 16:04, 28 October 2005. He also might have died of natural causes, but who knows for sure?

  • Isn't dying of natural causes at age 46 a bit strange (even in the year 1376)? Mightberight/wrong 17:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC).
Well, disease would certainly do it, but the Black Prince seemed to have a long, wasting disease. The ODNB entry on him provides no clue as to what he died of. I've heard somewhere that the campaign in Spain (in 1367) ruined his health, and that he got some long, wasting, infectious disease while there. But I'm not really sure. john k 19:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Looking around, some of the guesses as to his illness include amoebic dysentery, malaria, and cirrhosis (brought on by hepatitis?) Choess 04:04, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Dropsy is generally accepted and he was actually 45,but close to turning 46.

After looking it over, Richard Barber also statesw that it was almost certainly dysentry. Becauser of source conflict, we may never know. By the way, the dictionary of ancient and medieval warfare stated dropsy without doubt in its summary.

And now for my 3rd staement; as said by Tuchman, infactious dysentery turned into dropsy.

Anyway, there's nothing about his death in the article, and there needs to be. If he died of illness, let it be said.81.157.63.35 19:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good gracious!

This page needs to be edited. Stat. The grammar in the latter half of the entry is atrocious -- I can barely make out half of the sentences. I'll do my part to clean it up wherever I can, but I do think that someone with a deeper historical background (I'm but a novice) ought to check up on this page and verify some of the information (and the tone in which it's) presented.

Firebreeze 18:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

not to mention the ridiculous amount of parentheses, making the whole article look like it's a clumsily annotated first draft. -supine 02:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
sorted some of the grammar and fixed the article's spelling, but it still needs a lot of clean-up in fact I might tag it as such... Trent 900 08:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK I've gone through it, fixed spelling and grammar, cleaned up a load of (parentheses) by either using subordinate clauses or breaking sentences into more manageable chunks, and merged the list of military activities with the descriptions of their significance to make it more readable. This last section I've also waded through the sentences to try to extract the meaning, if you disagree with my interpretation of the original text or know better please, please feel free change it, this article while at least it now makes sense is still badly in need of sources and citations which I, as a mere passer-by, am unable to give. That was a big job. Trent 900 10:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for that! It really needed it. -- (James McNally)  (talkpage)  09:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Im the anonymous writer of most of this article, including the complete latter half....and may I say, thanks for clearing up the grammar. I admit I wrote it in draft fashion, and did not check its quality after finshing. But I dont know why you would question it; it is not farfetched in any way (what I wrote). As for the citations, here you are:

  • Richard Barber's "The Black Prince" (published by Sutton)
  • David Nicolle's "Crecy 1346" (published by osprey)
  • David Nicolle's "Poitiers 1356" (published by osprey)

Also, that was a good rewriting (if that is a word), but you badly misinterpreted the Najera campaign and fair bit of the chivalry section, but I have fixed that. It should be in better grammar now.

The tag is probably is no longer need, but then again you may as well check the books for accuracy.

Here is another source; Robert Hardy's "Longbow"


Near the bottom there is a word I don't get. "revelealed" Revealed? If I knew what was meant, I would fix it. leesonma 19 June 2006

Could not be anything but revealed.

OK, I fixed that, and a couple of other quibbles. I'm still not clear what this means... "demonstrated via the massed use of infantry strongholds" ... in that same last paragraph. It may be a perfectly clear use of the terms, IF I knew what "infantry strongholds" were. Does he mean "massive"? Leesonma 01:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


What I trying to make out is an explanation in summary of David Nicolle.

The French used massed heavy cavalry, dismounted men-at-arms and crossbowmen; charging them aimlessly to their 'chivalric' deaths like soldiers of the somme. The English used peasents and dismounted men-at arms as closely linked 'battles' (battalions), with strong communication, cannons, longbows, stakes in the ground, flank protecting obstacles of carts (as an example), hedgehog balls, ditches, natural cover like hedges, potholes, natural obstacles like hills, marshes and small gaps in the woods, etc.

What Im saying is that the English were symbollically like machine gunners in trenches on bayonets. They were massed infantry being very successful against the supposed superior knights.

Tag?

Why is the tag still here, I thought everything has now being justified.

Stick the books mentioned above in the article then, and remove the tag. Fine by me. Trent 900 11:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do I remove the tag? im not good with these things.

Actually, I think I have got the hang of it.

Leeds

why is the black prince synomonous with Leeds?

What do you mean?60.229.237.50 05:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See here. [1] Neddyseagoon - talk 10:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Date of birth

From a cursory reading of the article, one would take the dates at the top as birth and death, which doesn't really make sense if he was taking part in negotiations with the papacy in 1337. Is there a mistake here? --Slashme 09:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Date of birth seems to be right, so papacy one is probably the one at fault. Any idea where the error could have slipped in, and where we could find the right date? Neddyseagoon - talk 10:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I have no idea. I guess someone with a knowledge of history should look in some reputable source.--Slashme 14:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Im not sure what your problem with the dates is, but he was born in 1330, and as the symbollic regent did the negotiations with the papacy in 1337 (yes he was 7). "The Black Prince" Richard Barber. 60.229.172.114 03:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Someone still doesn't believe me. Read the source= 1337 NOT 1347! Yes, he was the head of the negotiations, but like his leadership of the vanguard at Crecy, it was probably more symbollic. 60.229.172.114 03:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edward the Black Prince

I know that one is supposed to presume "good faith" and "courtesy" on this site but, I must ask, what is the matter with the stupid, horrible prejudiced person/people who cannot cope with the fact that Edward's mother had skin that was "brown all over" and a nose that was flat and broad, hair that was "blue black" and eyes that were "blackish brown".

Outrage! OMG!! How could anyone say that about an English prince?!

What I find offensive is not just that this accurately quoted description written by the Bishop of Exeter sent to the court of Hainault specifically for the purpose of describing the girl, has been twice deleted, but that the person/people who delete it would rather have the appellation "Black" put down to the man's brutality than his parentage!!

So on Wikipedia, it's better to practice "Crimes against Humanity" than to inherit brown skin, is it?

All I can say is, thank God that colour and race were not of prime concern in the heart of Edward III and his father.

--Amandajm 05:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accurate, but with words used in a different context from their use now, see the post further up the page. David Underdown 10:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the physical description of Philippa of Hainault for the very simple reason that it belongs on the page for Philippa of Hainault. Your assertion that Edward "may have inherited his mother's dark or 'black' complexion and become known as the Black Prince this way," is totally unsupported. You fail even to establish that Edward did have a dark complexion. If you have a sourced physical description of Edward (not Philippa) that would support your claim, please, by all means, cite it. Without establishing this fact, the further inference that Edward was named for his imaginary dark complexion is pure, idle speculation.
So, in short, your quote is on the wrong page, and the conclusion you draw from the quote is speculation and fantasy. This is the only explanation I will offer. I am frankly loath to enagage in any type of interaction with you, inasmuch as you have already characterized me as the "stupid, horrible prejudiced person/people who cannot cope with the fact that Edward's mother had skin that was 'brown all over'...." If you continue to attack me in this manner, I will refer you to the Administrator's board for appropriate action. Whatever childish rant you make in response to this message will also be reported. M Van Houten 20:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The conclusion that he was "black" in the modern sense is indeed speculative, but ignoring Amanda's hyperbole, the quote itself seems useful to me, and the conclusion that a (relatively) dark complexion could have come from his mother a reasonable application of genetics. I probably shouldn't have used popups to revert your edit, but you didn't use an edit summary (and you deleted more than just the quote in any case), and I managed to overlook your talkpage edit when I first checked. David Underdown 09:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello David, I see that you managed not to call me a "stupid horrible prejudiced" bigot, so I appreciate that. Here is my basic problem with this quote and claim.
1. The quote is in the wrong place. It is informative and relevant---to Philippa of Hainault. The quote should go on her page.
2. Both you and that other person refer to this quote as "useful." How precisely? Useful to the study of Philippa of Hainault? I agree. Useful to determining why Edward is called the Black Prince? I don't see how. To be useful, the quote must establish a) the fact of Edward's physical appearance and b) a causal connection between appearance and the moniker. The quote does not establish either. Wikipedia requires that "All articles must follow our no original research policy and strive for accuracy; Wikipedia is not the place to insert personal opinions, experiences, or arguments. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information."
3. You state that "conclusion that a (relatively) dark complexion could have come from his mother a reasonable application of genetics." I agree. But how is that a fact? Are we now free to fill Wikipedia with reasonable possibilities and plausible guesses? Edward could have been exceedingly pale. That is also a reasonable application of genetics.
4. Bottom line, the quoted material (Philippa's appearance) does not support the ultimate conclusion (Edward's moniker is a result of his own physical appearance). The probative value of the former to the later is almost nil. Is there documentation that Edward actually had a dark complexion? By documentation, I mean something besides hysterical ranting and childish name-calling.
illustration
The contemporary illustration in the article certainly doesn't suggest it. How about Edward's siblings, were they also dark? Why do his siblings not have similar monikers? How about Richard II? Is there documentation that "black" and "brown" were used interchangeably in Edward's time?
And finally, why must we resort to this pitiful guesswork? Where is documentation for the ultimate fact that people referred to Edward as the Black Prince as a direct result of his physical appearance? That is the ultimate fact in question, and there is no support for that fact.
I will therefore reedit the article. As you noted, last time I removed more than I should have. M Van Houten 18:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The problem as I see it, with this theory is that it is being put forth by a wikipedian. We are not here to put forth theories. We are reporters of what other people say. To say that he may have been called black because his mother was black, is a theory that needs a non-wikipedian citation. If you can't find one, than it's your theory, which is original research. Wjhonson 07:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Secondly

I have been through the article and marked a great deal of material which quotes "legends", "stories", "theories" and "it is said". Every one of these needs citation, or rewording.

Something like "The following theories are discussed in So-and-so" will take care of a lot of problems, provided the source is properly referenced at the bottom of the section.


--Amandajm 05:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Tuchman in "Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th Century" (1978) refers to Edward as the "Black Prince" so this article's reference to the first written usage of the sobriquet being a 1985 Encyclopedia Brittanica article is not possible.

Also, the debate about Edward being literally black is anachronistic. The term used in those days was Moor. So, were he literally black, he would've been called "Edward the Moor". WikiPicky 00:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)TRH[reply]


He was dead. I believe the most salient point in this line of discussion is that the first known printed reference identifying Edward of Woodstock, as he was known in life, as the “Black Prince” was published many years after his death. This fact alone argues it is improbable the sobriquet referred to his physical appearance. From my research on this subject, I have discovered the quote is from a work credited to Richard Grafton, who published works regarding the history of England during the period of 1563 – 1568. This is a time period between 187 and 192 years after Edward of Woodstock’s death.
Discussion:
The citation in the Wikipedia article we are discussing that points to the 1985 Encyclopedia Britannica is simply meant to state that, in the opinion of the Encyclopedia Britannica, the first known printed reference identifying Edward of Woodstock, as the “Black Prince” was first published in Richard Grafton's Chronicle of England. The Wikipedia article is confusing, as it does not state the date Richard Grafton published Chronicle of England, and there is some question in my mind as to which of Richard Grafton’s works the Encyclopedia Britannica refers. I added (1568) to the Encyclopedia Britannica cite on the Wikipedia page because that is the date Encyclopedia Britannica states Chronical of England was published.
The actual quote from the Britannica website is found here: http://www.britannica.com/eb/topic-240704/Richard-Grafton
I didn’t find any references anywhere to the actual text of Grafton's work published in the 14th century which refers to Edward of Woodstock as the "Black Prince." One hopes someone at the Encyclopedia Britannica has read the original Grafton work cited, and concluded the sobriquet refers to the color of Edward’s armor (or as they state, amour.) Admittedly, I did not spend much time looking for the actual text of Grafton’s work.
In my research on this citation I have discovered, according to Richard Grafton’s Wikipedia page, he published Abridgment of the Chronicles of England (1563,) and A Chronicle at Large (1568.) It further states "neither holds a high place as authorities, as they lack original material." It is not explained whether the author of Richard Grafton's page intends to indicate by the use of the words "original material" that Grafton's sources were dubious, or that Grafton was merely quoting material that had been previously published and, therefore, not "original material." Richard Grafton’s Wikipedia page is devoid of citations. It is impossible to know where the author of that page got this information. As the titles of these works differ from the Encyclopedia Britannica citation, it is impossible to be certain to which Grafton work the Britannica article refers. The first record I can find of a Grafton work in print is the 1563 Abridgment of the Chronicles of England, (from Grafton's Wikipedia page) which may indicate Grafton had produced a more voluminous earlier edition he later abridged, or he abridged the work of another earlier author or publisher. There is a reference on Grafton's Wikipedia page of a running battle with John Stow, an English historian, antiquarian, and a contemporary of Grafton's, who accused Grafton of plagiarism. It is apparent none of Stow's earlier works survived if Grafton's work is cited as the earliest printed record of Edward's sobriquet "Black Prince."
I have also found on Amazon.com, a reference to a work published by Johnson in 1809 entitled Chronicle; or, History of England;: To which is added his table of the bailiffs, sheriffs & mayors of the city of London from 1189 to 1558 inclusive, which identifies Richard Grafton as the author. It is probably a later reprinting of the earlier Grafton work, and does little to clarify the discrepancies in the titles of Grafton's cited works on Wikipedia or elsewhere. The book is not available as of this writing and would probably be expensive. http://www.amazon.com/Chronicle-History-England-bailiffs-inclusive/dp/B000880TMS/ref=sr_1_3/002-9386460-9303212?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1186009665&sr=1-3
Jsternsp 00:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In addition: The only evidence I can find that Philippa of Hainault was dark is to look at the painting of her son, John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster ,who appears quite dark.
I have tried to follow the links on the Wikipedia page of Philippa of Hainault to research her ancenstry, but I am finding it very difficult as there are a lot of paternal errors. William I, Duke of Bavaria keeps cropping up where he does not belong. (He was credited with being Philippa's father when he was really her nephew, which I corrected. He is also credited with being his own mother's father and the son Phillipa's grandfather John II, Count of Holland , a man who died 26 years before he was born.) It's almost 3 a.m. and I don't know if I have enough brain cells awake to try to take on the task of straightening that mess out by paying attention to the everyone's date of birth to see where they are supposed to fit in. William I, Duke of Bavaria also carried the title William V, Count of Holland and William III, Count of Hainaut. He is being confused with William I, Count of Hainaut who also carried the title Count William III of Holland. Whooo hooo!! Lots of Wikifun there!!
Following the maternal line of Philippa of Hainault seems to work and I find nary a Moor among them.
A more interesting link to "darkness" in the lineage of Edward, the Black Prince is his great-grandmother Joan I of Navarre , who is said to have had "Arabic" features. Joan I of Navarre was the mother of Isabella of France , who was said to have inherited the blond hair of her father, Philip IV of France , and the "Arabic" features of her mother. Isabella of France was Edward, the Black Prince 's grandmother. Navarre is what is now the Basque region of Northern Spain. The cite for the facial features of Joan I of Navarre and Isabella of France is Isabella and the Strange Death of Edward II (2003) by Paul Doherty, page 11.
Jsternsp 10:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it's all good now. I think I put William I, Duke of Bavaria in his proper place. Checking the ancestry of Philippa of Hainault is now easier. The closest I can come in her ancestry to a Moorish connection is Baldwin I of Constantinople , (July 1172 – 1205), the first emperor of the Latin Empire of Constantinople, born in Bulgaria of parents of Dutch/French extraction. His father was Baldwin V, Count of Hainaut . His mother was Margaret I, Countess of Flanders. It looks like Philippa had a Dutch, Belgian, French, German thing going on, not Moorish.
Jsternsp 10:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Excrescence of Citation Needed Tags

The haphazardly organized placement of citation needed tags takes away from the overall flow and construction of the article. If it's essential that there be a tag for every single statement to this gross extent, then it would make much more sense to attach a citation needed tag to the end of the paragraph in question. As it stands now, it's just plain sloppy and unsightly. I've attempted to remedy the worst of it, but my efforts were deleted without dialogue. Auror 12 March, 2007

If we remove the tag, we should also remove the statement that it tags as well. Do you agree? Wjhonson 00:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No: It would make much more practical sense if a citation needed tag was simply placed at the end of of the paragraph in question instead of every single solitary sentence. As it stands now, it impedes a reasonable reading and makes it look wholly unprofessional. A crusade for citations is perfectly acceptable if not encouraged, but let's not let it detract from the information the article is trying to explain. If the explanation is muddled as it is now, it significantly affects the readibility and cognition of the text. I'm not particularly fussy, but it is aggravating to see a tag literally every few words. I propose the practical route: at the end of the paragraph. Auror 13 March 2007
The fact tag is typically put on the particular statement to which it refers. If the entire paragraph is not in doubt, but only one sentence in it, it would be confusing to tag the whole paragraph. Since these tags date back to February, I've removed the tags along with the statements with which they are associated. Wjhonson 03:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Death

Out of curiosity, what did he die of? Hey jude, don't let me down 18:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the above discussion, "What did Edward die of?". GoodDay 20:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robber

I heard he was a robber. Is this true? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.149.37.254 (talk) 22:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Besides robbing French land, no. And their is nothing wrong with robbing French land anyway. 60.229.172.114 03:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Racist.

Horse racing?

The article suggests the Prince was a character in a Movie called Lionheat "Edward was portrayed by Gabriel Byrne in the film Lionheart (1987)." Given that this appears to be Richard the Lionheart I assume this must have been "another" Black Prince but not having seen the movie I haven't deleted it. 202.4.78.29 01:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plays

I added to Cultural References references to Edward in Shakespeare's Henry V, at least as notable, I would think as his appearance in Novels and Movies.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Edward_the_Black_Prince&oldid=188981137"