Talk:William Marshal, 1st Earl of Pembroke

References

The reference '2.' is to and is used seven times. However, it does not link to any source, and a Google search for "Kingsford 1893" gives no helpful results. Could it be removed, pending more information? 2A00:23C8:3B02:4E01:8CFF:8667:5B6F:8E0D (talk) 13:09, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Yo anon! 1893 was the date of the publication of the Dictionary of National Biography vol. 36 (Malthus–Mason), for which Kingsford wrote the entry (pp. 225–233) for one William Marshal, 1st earl of Pembroke... SN54129 13:38, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

References

The Young King was never king of England

He died in 1183, six years before his father, and thus never assumed the throne. (I changed it in William Marshal’s Wikipedia) 62.107.173.13 (talk) 18:53, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

It's the second and third sentences of our very own article on Henry the Young King: In 1170, he became titular King of England, Duke of Normandy, Count of Anjou and Maine. Henry the Young King was the only English king since the Norman Conquest to be crowned during his father's reign. Checking that would have shown you that he was King of England, in title, at least. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 19:39, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Sir William Marshal, 3rd Earl of Pembroke

Sir William Marshal was the third Earl of Pembroke. His wife's grandfather Gilbert de Clare was 1st Earl of Pembroke. Her father Richard de Clare "Strongbow" was 2nd Earl of Pembroke. Sir William was 3rd Earl of Pembroke. See page 191 Ancestors of American Presidents, Gary Boyd Roberts, 1995, New England Historic Genealogical Society, Boston, Massachusetts. See also The Magna Carta Sureties 1215 by Frederick Lewis Weis Th.D., fifth edition, 1999, Line 145-1. Webecca (talk) 20:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Except that Encyclopedia Britannica has him as 1st Earl of Pembroke.

I could use some help here. First, is there agreement it should say 3rd Earl of Pembroke? Second, I started to edit the page, and stopped when I saw I had broken an image link. Is there a more experienced editor who can help or give me some direction? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webecca (talk • contribs) 20:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

These numbers on titles can be confusing because Earldoms could be created more than once, so you could have the first Earl of the second creation or something like that. In most cases the second edition of Complete Peerage is the standard. I am presuming that this is what our editors used to make Earl of Pembroke which shows more detail for this case.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Four or five English Kings

This should probably be quickly discussed. An IP changed the line from "He served five English kings—Henry II, his sons the "Young King" Henry, Richard I, and John, and finally John's son Henry III." to "He served four English kings—Henry II, his sons Richard I and John, and John's son Henry III." I changed it back, as Young King Henry was recognized in his life, officially if not in reality, as co-ruler with his father Henry II. It was changed back to "four English kings..." by Dudley Miles here with the explanation of "The Young Henry was a nominal not a real king". I would argue that while most historians nowadays don't recognize Young Henry's reign (as he predeceased his father) at the time he was referred to and regarded as "King Henry" regardless of his actual power, which was nothing. However, that discussion is not relevant here, as Marshall served Young Henry and would have seen him and referred to him as "King", as would everyone else at the time. I have a couple RS quote to back up my claim from Asbridge:

the Preface (xx), where he states "It also stands that Marshal, as he stood at the right hand of five kings..." the sentence continues, but it's superfluous to my argument here.

page 95-96 Asbridge recounts the two years that Henry II was gone during the crisis brought on by Thomas Becket and his subsequent murder from 1170-1172. Specifically: "All of this meant that Henry II did not return to England until the summer of 1172 and, throughout this extended period, the Young King ruled in his stead without apparent difficulty."

If he ruled while Henry II was gone, then it makes sense to say that Marshall served five Kings, regardless of Young Henry's subsequent removal from power and history (indeed, on page 95 Asbridge describes him as "...England's forgotten King".

I suggest a slight compromise. Change the sentence to "He served five English kings- Henry II and the titular Young King Henry, Richard I, John, and finally John's song Henry III". Young King Henry was king, whether "nominally" or not, and Marshall served him. Vyselink (talk) 19:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Vyselink ~ as may be guessed as i reverted a similar IP edit some months back and commented on it a couple of sections up. In mine own opinion, i don't think it's necessary to modify the Young King with titular, i.e., i wouldn't in writing of mine own, but i agree that it might make it clearer for readers who are unaware of the specifics of the time and relationships. For full clarity, i came here after a message on my talk page from Vyselink ~ no idea who else he has messaged ~ so if that be deemed canvassing mine opinion can be devalued. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 19:39, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

No intention of canvassing. I alerted you as I saw you had responded to a similar post earlier, and the only other person I notified was Dudley Miles. Vyselink (talk) 20:13, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. It is misleading to say that he served five kings as it implicitly puts the Young Henry's nominal title on a par with that of kings who had the real power of monarchs. It will confuse any reader who knows about the "real" kings of England but not YH's nominal title and lack of any real power. I suggest for clarity: "He served four English monarchs, Henry II, his sons Richard I and John, and John's son Henry III, and also Henry's eldest son, the Young Henry, who was crowned joint king in his father's lifetime but had no real power." Dudley Miles (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with Vyselink's argumentation. The young king had the title, and having the title is a big part of what makes you a king. Counter arguments might involve saying that the young king had no independent power, but clearly in this case it is not quite so simple. I think we also realize that looking for what historians say will find mixed results? Anyway, more importantly a compromise would not seem to have a downside? I don't have a problem with adding a qualifier. I would prefer NOT to switch to a simple four, because our subject here is William Marshall, and this is one of his claims to fame, so to speak.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Far too wordy and confusing a sentence. Also the way you have it written Young Henry may be confused as being Henry III's son. MANY "kings" have not had actual power while on the throne, so are we to discount their titles/reigns as well? What are we to call the current King Charles? He has no power, and yet is still King of England. Your lack of actual power argument is a good one when talking about de facto control and rule. But we are talking about de jure titles here. Young King Henry was de jure co-King of England from 1170 until his death in 1183 (with the arguable exception I suppose of his rebellions). That brings the number of Kings that Marshal served to five.

After looking at the Young King's actual page, there are several RS sources there that repeatedly refer to YH as "king", even though they acknowledge his lack of regnal power. Mathew Strickland's "Henry the Young King: 155-1183" where in the first paragraph of the Preface alone he says: ""Young Henry was the first - and last - king of England since the Norman Conquest to be crowned in the lifetime of his father"; "titular co-ruler"; "...king without a kingdom". His kingship is not in question, nor his is lack of power. Laura Ashe refers to YH as "... the only crowned associate king in post-Conquest England". Again, title not in dispute, nor is his regnal impotence.

I shall leave my arguments there for now. I have so far provided 3 RS's to confirm YH's title as "King" and to have the number in the opening set as "five". I make another suggestion to help explain YH's lack of power: "He served five English kings- Henry II and his son and de jure co-ruler Young King Henry, Richard I, John, and finally John's son Henry III". Vyselink (talk) 23:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

This has been under discussion for several days with only one editor saying that "five" is not better; in addition, i checked back up to five or six years in the history, and it has consistently been "five", so i suggest that the change to "four" is a BOLD move which should be reverted until this discussion is complete (if it isn't now). Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 17:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't have time to check properly but I also have a feeling that this remark might be influenced by something Crouch wrote. (If he is the source we should perhaps make it more clear.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:44, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Though I fail to find a place to insert information about Eleanor, Fair Maid of Brittany

I would like to emphasize that when he escorted Henry III from Corfe Castle, the Fair Maid was at the same castle rather than Bristol (described by Dickens) where she would be after 1224, thus he was intentionally ignoring her preferential claim to the throne (finally assured by Annales Londonienses after her death in 1241 and even Henry III himself in 1268) as Dickens had described; he did nothing to end her unjust imprisonment by the late King John; furthermore, he deprived her Earldom of Richmond in 1218, which John had permitted her to inherit.

And The Knight's Declaration read,

I will be kind to the weak.

I will fight all who do wrong.

I will help those who call me for help.

I will harm no woman.

Did he really comply to his declaration? ——Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 22:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Are you making a suggestion to add/delete from the article or just monologuing? Vyselink (talk) 01:35, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

If possible, I want to add such information (but a simple transfer of an earldom might not be so important for his regency), or make it a part of his assessment (but might lack supporting academic articles). It is so sarcastic that so famed a knight instead of supporting or rescuing an innocent princess, he deprived her of her earldom. In my opinion, his such actions had severely disobeyed The Knight's Declaration, as well as the knighthood.——Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 16:22, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

If you lack RS support then the answer is no as it would be WP:OR at best. However, if you do have some sources, you still have not written here exactly WHAT you would like to add, i.e. write a sentence or two that you want to put into the article and let us know where. Vyselink (talk) 19:31, 6 July 2024 (UTC)