Talk:Edmund Rich
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | ||
 |
Edmund Rich is part of the WikiProject Saints, an effort to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Saints on Wikipedia. This includes but is not limited to saints as well as those not so affiliated, country and region-specific topics, and anything else related to saints. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. |
[edit] ER
This is a very nice example of incoherent 19th century nationalism. The entry depicts Edmund as a member of a "national party" in ecclesiastical politics. He was so offended at giving benefices to "Romans" that he does what? Retires to a monastery in France! GOSH the English could be self-deceiving! O.K. - there WAS no such thing as a 'national' party. The benefices were not being given to native Roman clergymen, but to members of the papal administration and Edmund was offended not as an Englishman against Italians but as a local archbishop against the central administration. I find it interesting to imagine shipping the cash from the 300 benefices from England to Rome in the 13th century - something the author of the entry elides. Oh, well. I'm going to leave this up for a little bit before revising so that others can see my rant. -—The preceding unsigned comment was added by MichaelTinkler (talk • contribs).
[edit] Monied classes
I think that category has to go. --evrik 22:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Title
I'm not sure why the article is called Edmund Rich, as he is universally known as Edmund of Abingdon, and even the article itself says "Rich" was never applied to him and his siblings. Don't we name according to the most commonly used non-ambiguous name? Lindsay 13:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
