Jump to content

Talk:John of Lancaster, Duke of Bedford

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:John Platagenet)

Joan of Arc

[edit]

Which was the role played by John, Duke of Bedford, in the Joan of Arc trial ? Did he meet her ? Did he witness the execution ? What about the friendship between the Duke of Bedford and the musician John Dunstable ? Any information about a planned "New Order in Europe" ? The preceeding unsigned comment was left by IP: 213.45.189.125

References

[edit]

I would consider the available references to possibly be accurate but not of a truly credible source as they are personal websites maintained by an individual and not an institutiion. For now I am going to label this article as unreferenced until more suitable references can support many of the facts about John Lancaster. Mkdwtalk 03:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John of Lancaster, 1st Duke of Bedford. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:53, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rouen Castle

[edit]

The castle's name in the article, Joyeux Repos, turns up in few places, and, notably, is not present in either the English or the French article for the building. To my knowledge, the name means literally "Happy Rest". Would it be possible that it results from an error in translation, referring originally to the circumstances of Duke of Bedford's death? Avec yl' Ches (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why was he created Duke of Bedford twice?

[edit]

Why was he created Duke of Bedford twice? I have searched the article for a reason but I am either missing it or it's not given.2600:8804:8C40:401:1C64:8308:33BC:E2D6 (talk) 05:00, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson[reply]

What makes you think it happened twice? I can't see that in the article. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:02, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really telling me anything to say "I can't see that in the article" in response to my quandary over being unable to see it in the article. Do you work at my pharmacist's? I visited them and complained about how their computer doesn't do something it can easily be tweaked to do, and was told "Well, our computer doesn't do that", where "that" referred to the thing that I was reporting the computer not doing. But anyway, once again I am acting on the naive and foolish assumption that Wikipedia has some rule against its articles contradicting each other, and that people will stop telling me "You can't use Wikipedia as a source for Wikipedia". But the article on just "Duke of Bedford" says that this article's subject was created Duke of Bedford in 1414, and surrendered the title in 1433, and was re-granted it. THIS article says he was created Duke of Bedford ONLY in 1414. I can GUESS that the reason for the surrender-and-regrant (I suspect they were minutes apart?) was to gerrymander the succession. The original charter might have said "with remainder to heirs male of his body born legitimate" or something, and the 2nd charter might have said "with remainder to heirs male of his body born legitimate or made legitimate later than birth", for the title did descend to his son out of wedlock. But that's a GUESS, and this re-grant occurred in 1433 while the son wasn't legitimized until 1434. So, it's vague. I was hoping someone with knowledge could nail down EXACTLY happened. Or did I miss an attainder and/or other kind of forfeiture that got repealed later?2600:1700:6759:B000:E894:BFCC:705D:880 (talk) 09:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson[reply]
I'm not a mind reader; how am I supposed to know you are talking about content from a different article? You will not get anywhere either here or at your pharmacist's by being rude. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The initial creation was for life; the regrant was with the standard remainder to the heirs male of his body. The regrant was shortly after his marriage to Jacquetta of Luxembourg, so that may have had something to do with it. I don't know why you think "the title did descend to his son out of wedlock": it did not, but instead became extinct on his death. Proteus (Talk) 14:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Finding sources

[edit]

I am looking for sources to remove the section level "more references" tags. I couldn't easily find a source for

  • "His birthplace is unknown but some historians speculate that he was born in Kenilworth Castle, Warwickshire." That was in the Birth and family section.
  • "Between 1403 and 1405, grants of the forfeited lands from the House of Percy and of the alien priory of Ogbourne, Wiltshire, considerably increased his income. " That was in the Birth and family section.
There is now mention that he received castles that had belonged to Henry Percy in the "Warden of the East March" section.–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:48, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I removed the uncited content from the Arms section. It seems most of it didn't apply specifically to John.

–CaroleHenson (talk) 01:11, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedic Tone

[edit]

The source "Chisolm" may well be cited for a date, such as hypothetically "occurred on July 1, 1415", with a footnote pointing to Chisolm. But a statement of the form (which, today, does exist in this article, in a vein similar to too many similar statements in too many other Wikipedia articles in sections subtitled "Assesment")

"Bedford was a man of considerable administrative ability, brave and humane in war, wise and unselfish in peace. He was not responsible for the misfortunes of the English in France, and his courage in the face of failure was as admirable as his continued endeavour to make the people under his rule contented and prosperous."

should not merely be credited to Chisolm via a footnote, but should be rephrased as (assuming "Chisholm" is an acknowledged expert on this article's subject)

"Bedford's leading biographer Chisolm says that 'Bedford was a man of considerable administrative ability, brave and humane in war, wise and unselfish in peace. He was not responsible for the misfortunes of the English in France, and his courage in the face of failure was as admirable as his continued endeavour to make the people under his rule contented and prosperous'"

because a date is an objective encyclopedic fact on which someone with the standing of Chisolm can be trusted, with only the footnote. But the answers to questions such as "What was his character?", and "What does his life all mean, anyway, in the context of British humanity between Homo Antecessor's occupation of Happisburgh in Norfolk over 800,000 years ago and today?", and "Who, really, WAS this man, the interior monologist that we call John Of Lancaster, Duke Of Bedord, and what innermost yearnings drove his soul's thoughts on his epic journey through life?" are never going to be FACTS that one should put into an encyclopedia. If Chisolm purports to have answers to these questions, the fact that Chisolm purports to HAVE such answers IS encyclopedic, and that's why I'd not quibble with the rephrased hypothetical sentence I supplied above. But while the fact that he OFFERS these answers IS encyclopedic, the answers themselves, unlike Chisolm's dates, are NOT encyclopedic. This source seems to date from 1911 anyway. People DID used to write their musings down like that and call it "history". I don't think that flies in academe today. Today a publisher would call it "docu-fiction" or "a historical novel. "Just the facts, ma'am." I originally typed that last sentence in jest, but, when you think about it, it's in earnest: A historian's standards SHOULD be Detective Sergeant Joe Friday's. Only something that passes a bar to be admissible in a Court of Law to obtain a conviction is something Friday (like me) wants to know. No impressions. No feelings of vague unease generated by the way someone dressed or wore their hair. No character-assessments. Nothing subjective. Just the facts, ma'am.2600:1700:6759:B000:E894:BFCC:705D:880 (talk) 09:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Christopher Lawrence Simpson[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_of_Lancaster,_Duke_of_Bedford&oldid=1234668155"