Talk:William I of England/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Isis, as far as I can tell from the Lexikon des Mittelalters, Alfonso was the son of Ferdinand I (who was actually from Castile-Navarra) married the sister of the King of Leon. When they inherited, F. became King of Castile and Leon. His son Sancho (later murdered) inherited Castile, Alfonso inherited Leon, and Garcia inherited Galicia.

If anyone disagrees, I'll make further checks, but this source is generally pretty accurate. JHK

Agree plus more details. The Alfonso was Alphonso VI the Brave of Castile, Ferdinand as Ferdinand the Great of Leon, Sancho as Sancho II of Castile, and Garcia as Garcia II of Galicia.

Contents

William, Duke of Normandy redirect?

Just to see if it would redirect to William's article I searched for 'William, Duke of Normandy' but no search results come up with his name - the closest thing is his father, Robert the Magnificent. I just find this a little strange? I am willing to bet that he is the best known Duke of Normandy (not suggesting that anything should be changed, of course) but maybe a redirect from that particular style? Just wondering. ---- Lyly-Kim, January 23 2006

Well why don't you make one? Adam Bishop 02:22, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Since it hadn't been done, I took it upon myself to be bold. :D ^^ Done. --ViolinGirl♪ 01:04, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I have made these changes to William's family out of deference to the work of Alison Weir and her well researched work on the royal families of the British Isles.

According to her, Gundred (or Gundrede) never existed - the limited details of her existance are based on spurious (or unreliable) sources.

Matilda is also so obscure that she seems unlikely have existed. Weir accepted her existance, but I am not so sure about her. Can anyone state an original and reliable source of information as regards her?

Adeliza's existance is also very questionable - it is pretty much based on one dubious account that gives the details of Harold's accidental imprisonment by William - the one where he swears on the saint's bones. Little else is added. Though thumbnail accounts in encyclopedias and the like have given the year of the incident as 1064 as a matter of proven fact, the original account does not say this. It gives no year at all. Historians have simply placed it there themselves, on the basis that Harold's whereabouts are not known in that year. He may well have been an unwilling "guest" in Normandy. On the other hand, he may also have spent that year hunting deer in England. We just do not know.

Another problem with Adeliza is that her name seems very similar to Adela,her sister. Perhaps they were the same??? Be that as it may, since this last bt especially is speculation rather than fact, Adeliza merits a mention in the article.

Arno


I have no idea why the below was in the first line, but I've moved it here:

Authority: King of England and Duke of Normandy

Also, I changed him from King of Britain to King of England. -- Zoe

Also, is there a standard Wiki-way to refer to his father? This page has him as "Robert the Magnificent": I've seen him more often as "Robert the Devil": in any case, I can't find an article in here on him under any name. -- Someone else 04:39 Mar 26, 2003 (UTC)
He was known by both these names. He was a strong ruler, hence the Magnificent name, but he gained power by killing his brother, hence the Devil name. Arno
But what to call him here?? Robert II, Duke of Normandy? -- Someone else 07:07 Mar 26, 2003 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea to me! Arno 07:18 Mar 26, 2003 (UTC)

The picture is almost certainly just an illustration from some later work. Short of an authentic coin, we don't have the primary sources for his image. PML.

Useful image, even if we don't have any evidence that that is what he looked like. (Darn it, why couldn't someone have invented photography a thousand years earlier!!!) If it is just a later impression of how he looked, rather than a contemporary drawing, add the fact into the caption. I've moved the picture down a bit and indented it in the text. The text of the article should go first, then an illustration. Otherwise, good work. STÓD/ÉÍRE 05:04 Mar 26, 2003 (UTC)

What concerns me is a story I once heard, that someone in the 1960s who was responsible for presenting a sort of pageant style representation of Kings of England - you know, down the ages - was able to find examples back to William Rufus (Curthose), but was stumped at William the Conqueror. He improvised: he used his own picture.

Si no e vero e ben trovato. But the problem is, does everything trace back to a genuine picture of someone else, a true instance of suggestio falsi? I don't know the answer, but it's a real concern. PML.


Even coin images in the 11th century were more 'king-icons' than what we'd consider attempts at realistic portraiture. Aside from some tomb figures, isn't the first credible royal portrait in England of Richard II (a connoisseur of paintings himself)?

I wish a sentence like this could be improved: Even if this story is true, however, Harold made the promise under duress and was so free to break it. Is this history? Wetman 05:29, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

What's your problem with it? Arno
I suspect mainly that it's a complaint that it's informal? Could be replaced by something like, "Some have held that this was a pledge made under duress and was therefore neither morally nor legally binding." The importance of the promise was its help in rallying the troops: it was the big army that made William king, not nomination by his predecessor. -- Someone else 10:00, 20 Nov 2003 (UTC)
The bottom line is that the entire story of Harold being William's prisoner is in doubt - based as it is on one source of dubious reliability ( see discussion above). Arno

My problem was simply that whether we feel he was free to break a promise made under duress is irrelevant. Wetman 11:17, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It is a legal principle that was recognised in Harold's time - if you make an agreement under duress , and provably so, then you are not bound by it. That is still true today under contract law in many countries.
The circumstances of Harold's agreement with William - by the Normans' own account - was very much one that involved duress. Harold was unable to leave William's captivity until he agreed that William could have the English throne. Furthermore he was tricked into saying this whilst holding a saint's bones (something which in his day definitely gave any legitimate agreement extra weight). The duress and trickery that was involved here definitely meant that Harold was not bound by what he 'agreed' to do for William.

This is exactly what history is! It is also absolutely relevant and correct to make the point about swearing opaths under duress invalidating them. You could even go one step further and draw in the Anglo-Saxon legal tradition that a death bed bequest supercedes all previous bequests and that, therefore, if Harold had been promised the throne by Edward on his death bed, then he was entirely entitled to that throne irrespective of any previous promise to William. It is also worht noting that William was not the choice of Witan (who ultimately had the legal right to appoint the king) and the evidence of Harold's dealings in Normandy all come from Norman sources dating from after the conquest. Valiant Son 00:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Arno 22:50, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

"rôles" v "roles" in Early Life

Why is the word roles being spelt with the accent Noticed User:Jdforrester reverted back to continental spelling. Surely this is not English . Lumos3 07:55, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I usually spell it without the accent, however i beleive it is correct to spell it with it (although I'm not completley sure) Sotakeit 16:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Exploding after death

Why is there no mention that his corpse infact exploded during his funeral? Even if this only mentions that this report is possibly urban legend. I'd write about it myself, but i dont know enough on the subject.

This is a largely accepted fact. William was both taller than usual for his time and had grown somewhat corpulent in later life. His grave was prepared without taking this into account and therefore when they came to bury the body it didn't fit and had to be forced in. The end result was one burst body! Valiant Son 00:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
It was my understanding that the body ruptured ("exploded" sounds a little dramatic . . .) because of gaseous expansion during the journey from Rouen to Caen. The body had been inexpertly prepared (sort of mummy-wrapped in cowhides) and the weather was hot. I read this maybe twenty years ago in several scholarly sources but I can't remember what they were now. --Michael K. Smith 03:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
It was most likely a combination of both factors. William's physical size was unusual and the grave was too small, but likewise the body had been poorly prepared. Valiant Son 17:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Deliberate mistakes

William I (c. 1027–September 9, 3087) - 3087? I think not

was King of Ireland. No.

Known alternatively as William, god of Normandy, No.

William the Conqueror and William the Mustard Rubbish.

, he was the illegitimate and only son of Robert the lameNo.

, Cook of Normandy, and Herleva, the daughter of a tanner. Born in Falaise, Normandy, now in France, William succeeded to the throne of England by right of conquest by winning the Battle of Hastings in 1266 No.

in what has become known as the Morman Conquest. Rubbish.

Someone's obviously interfered with this, anyone find out who it was? Bear with me while I sort out the damage.

Mostly fair criticism, although William claimed overlordship of Ireland so the "King of Ireland" part has some merit (IMO not enough to be included). Valiant Son 17:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Nobles submitting to William

It was Beorcham not Berkhamstead where the nobles of London submitted to William. This was between Waltham and Binfield in Berkshire and adjoined where the Royal workshops were that made the crowns and regalia. It was also good hunting country and belonged to a relative of Wigod. William had come from Wigod in Wallingford.

Do you have a source for this. All written material I have seen says it was Berkhampstead including The Columbia encyclopedia [1] Lumos3 18:19, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Beorcham

My source is the A/S chronicles. Look at the original. Berkhampstead is a bad translation. For the location of Beorcham and the the Royal gold workshops I have used charters from the 8th to 14th c and manor court rolls and maps.Charter BCS 895 for Beorcham 952 ce ( S559 ) is a starting point but it needs to be used with other 10th and 11th c charters to show that it is not Barkham. For the ownership of the land I have used mainly charters and the Domesday Book. I can give more details if you wish but it would fill several pages.

Is this unpublished research ? If it has not yet been published elsewhere then I don’t think Wikipedia is the place to do it for the first time as its an encyclopædia which reports existing facts and opinions. If it is published then it could be added as a difference of opinion on the subject 193.113.57.165 12:32, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Beorcham

It got a mention in a couple of local newspapers during a Motorway Service Enquiry, otherwise unpublished but will be soon. This doesn't alter the facts that 1) Beorcham is the word used in the A/S chronicles 2)Beorcham can be shown to have existed in the 10th c 3)The Domesday book spelling of Berkhamstead is Berchamstede or Berchehamstede. 4)Beorcham was a far more logical place for William to go to after Wallingford than Berkhamstead. 5)There was a nearby workshop making the Royal crowns and Regalia 6) This included high quality embroidery and Turold who is suggested as the designer of the Bayeux Tapestry held land in the next parish. You are right about Wikipedia, I just didn't see why the Berkhamstead error should be perpetuated.

Which recension of the chronicles are you referring to hear? It is not an issue that I have ever come across in my research. Also it should be noted that spelling was far from being standardised and giving reference to Domesday Book as a comparison is exceptionally dubious on the grounds that it contains a variety of odd spellings that reflect its origins as an Anglo-Norman work rather than an Anglo-Saxon one. I don't see what the origins of the Bayeux Tapestry have to do with this issue either. The tapestry was commissioned some time after William's coronation and most likely by his half-brother Odo of Bayeux. What has this to do with where the English nobles and Edgar the atheling submitted to William? Off the top of my head here is one reference which supports the Berkhamstead idead - Brown, R. Allen. The Normans and the Norman Conquest. (Woodbridge, 1985). Oh, not to mention the renowned Marjorie Chibnall - Chibnall, M. Anglo-Norman England 1066-1166. (Oxford, 1996) Valiant Son 00:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon Slaves in Umayyd Spain

"William is said to have deported large numbers of the old landed classes into slavery through Bristol. Many of the latter ending up in Umayyad Spain and Moorish lands, converting and taking high positions in the state."

I am drawing attention to these two lines not because I dispute them - sounds depressingly like the Bastard ... - but because I find them incredibly intrigueing. Anyone got a source for this? Cheers. Fergananim

I'm with you, but I cannot find a reference so far. This doesn't mean that it's not true, but I've searched and searched, and still nothing. I ended up requesting for a citation because it's a pretty strong statement to make and probably should have one. Am I wrong? MagnoliaSouth 07:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
As I understand it, one of the first laws William made upon becoming king of England was one banning slavery (and replacing it with serfdom). I understand that William occasionally had a 'do as I say, not as I do' attitude towards ruling, but I'm not sure if such a huge departure from enacted law would be contemplated. Mon Vier 15:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The reasons for move copied from the entry on the WP:RM page:

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~
  • support --Francis Schonken 22:47, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. He is more widely known as The Conqueror. Abstain. This is part of a larger debate elsewhere which I'm not involved in or know much about. --Stbalbach 22:55, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose pointless proposal. That is covered in redirects. Monarchs with ordinals should have their page at the ordinal name, with their general names referred to in the article. FearÉIREANNImage:Ireland coa.png\(caint) 22:59, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Proposed change would produce an inconsistency issue with the naming of biographical articles sitewide. In addition, "the Conqueror" was never an official title, and claims of the popularity of that unofficial title are irrelevant. Consider this: should we also rename George W. Bush to one of the many names given him by his opponents? I think George W. Bush is more widely known as "Satan" in the Middle East. By the way, Rule #2 does not apply. Adraeus 23:38, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Current name is adequately within the naming conventions and less confusing. James F. (talk) 00:01, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Craigy (talk) 00:02, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose Jooler 06:57, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Let's however keep some systematics in the naming. Arrigo 11:12, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Philip Baird Shearer 12:19, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. john k 16:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, and oppose for all the other moves that are being made too. In this case, why not move it to William the Bastard? Adam Bishop 17:53, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, otherwise we'll have to start all over again with the naming conventions. Deb 18:37, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. – AxSkov (☏) 16:37, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Use common name.Dejvid 21:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. Dragons flight 19:44, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

Pointless proposal. That is covered in redirects. Monarchs with ordinals should have their page at the ordinal name, with their general names referred to in the article. FearÉIREANNImage:Ireland coa.png\(caint) 22:59, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

    • Your right of course, but Wikipedia has established naming conventions. They are open to change, but this is not a vote to change the established conventions. It seems like a pretty clear cut case according to the rules of the convention. Stbalbach 23:04, 29 August 2005 (UTC)
      • I know all about the conventions. I wrote many of them and edited others to achieve a consensus behind them. This is not an article covered by the convention you mention. It was agreed at the time that given that he is part of a sequence, and that the Conqueror is not an official title but a POV definition of him, he should be listed by ordinal, not by "conqueror". FearÉIREANNImage:Ireland coa.png\(caint) 01:12, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Editors have the right to rely on conventions as they are written, not on what may (or may not) have been slurring in the head(s) of writers at the time. All in all, poorly written conventions, a shame to anyone who even pretends to know how enactments take place. Perhaps enforcement is the more familiar method than enactment... Arrigo 01:51, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Search engine results

  • Google
  • "William I of England" = 9,100 hits
  • "William the Conqueror" = 228,000 hits
  • A9.com (across books only)
  • "William I of England" = 29 hits [2]
  • "William the Conqueror" = 4,327 hits [3]

--Stbalbach 00:39, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Irrelevant. The sources are mainly looking at him in isolation. Wikipedia is dealing with him as part of a list of English kings. There is no justification for moving him out of sequence by removing the ordinal from the page. A redirect enables people to find him if they look using the conqueror. FearÉIREANNImage:Ireland coa.png\(caint) 01:08, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

That's an interesting argument, but I'm not sure its supported anywhere, unlike Exception #2 which has consensus (for reasons outlined below). As a counter-argument to your argument, Wikipedia is open source, articles are meant to stand in isolation, stand on their own, and not be contingent on other articles. For print media for example, or whatever the end user may use it for. So there is no sequence being brokwn. Article names are irrelevant except for the end users ability to find them and easily understand what the article is about. Thats why there is an Exception #2. Stbalbach 01:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Hi Stbalbach, if your little search engine test applied the usual precautions as explained in wikipedia:google test, it is relevant. This is further discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(names_and_titles)#Addition_proposed --Francis Schonken 09:41, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
A9 is the better result since it searches citable published works. In the end its brain dead obvious to say most people known him as The Conqueror, the search results just confirm it. Stbalbach 17:03, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
Article names are irrelevant except for the end users ability to find them and easily understand what the article is about.
Stbalbach, I think you're confusing something here. Wikipedia is based on facts and is not based on a popularity contest. Titles are in no way "irrelevant," as the title of any article must be correct. If we adopt your irrelevant philosophy, then feasibly we could title an article on Shakespeare as King of the Bees. The title of any article is a direct statement of the subject.
As for the Google Test, it is only a test to see if there is an interest in the subject at hand, not a test to see if it's found easier. The fact is that the proper title is King William I of England and William the Conqueror is simply a nickname. A nickname is appropriate for redirects, but is not a name. I understand that a vote was taken and the issue is now dead, but I just wanted to respond to what was said. MagnoliaSouth 06:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the application of Monarchical Names Rule #2

Rule #2: Where there has only been one holder of a specific monarchical name in a state, the ordinal is used only when the ordinal was in official use. For example, Victoria of the United Kingdom, not Victoria I of the United Kingdom; Juan Carlos I of Spain, not Juan Carlos of Spain. [4]
This rule does not apply to this case, and thus, cannot be used to support the request to move William I of England to William the Conqueror. According to the rule, a specific monarchical name regards names such as "Victoria", "Juan Carlos", and "William". IF only a single holder of a specific monarchical name existed in a state, then the second clause of the rule comes into play. The application of the second clause would apply to William I of England if William II of England and William III of England did not exist. Since there is more than a single holder of a specific monarchical name, the ordinal is used regardless of the periodic officiality of ordinal usage. For example, if there were a Victoria II of the United Kingdom, then Victoria of the United Kingdom would be legitimately removed to Victoria I of the United Kingdom. The usage of ordinals where there has been more than a single holder of a specific monarchical name is correct and appropriate. Adraeus 23:54, August 29, 2005 (UTC)
Exception #2, not Rule #2. I made the same mistake at first. Stbalbach 23:56, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the application of Monarchical Names Exception #2

Exception #2: If a person is best known by a cognomen, or by a name that doesn't exactly fit the guidelines above, revert to the base rule: use the most common English name. Examples: Alfred the Great, Charlemagne, Louis the Pious, Henry the Lion, etc... [5]
Who defines what's "most common"? The exception is subjective, and thus, lacks my support. I refer to my opposition statement above. Consider this: should we also rename George W. Bush to one of the many names given him by his opponents? I think George W. Bush is more widely known as "Satan" in the Middle East. Adraeus 00:05, August 30, 2005 (UTC)
To address your GWB example, it's done on a case by case basis, thats why its called "exception"; this is the English Wikipedia, not Islamic Fundamentalist Wikipedia. Im fairly certain Google would support Conqueror as being more common. For a more academic view, A9.com could be searched across books. Stbalbach 00:32, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Naming George W Bush here is not governed by our rules for monarchs, since (despite what is said of their dynasty), he is not commonly recognized as a monarch. Still, a funny thought to have George Bush II the Satan or George Bush the Stupider, monarch of America, here :))) Arrigo 00:38, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

I find that the above attempt to apply the wording of exception 2 to certain monarchs and submonarchs by Francis is going too far, and therefore I have proposed an amendment of that clause at Talkpage of NC titles. I have proposed a wording "overwhelmingly best known as". Go there to support it. Arrigo 00:38, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Simply because you've proposed your own ideas doesn't give you free reign to go around spitting on others. Adraeus 01:46, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
Whoa. Where does spitting come into it? I would note that Arrigo's proposed modification would make the wording of Exception #2 come into closer line with the interpretation which everyone has always given it until now. john k 02:07, 31 August 2005 (UTC)


Monarch infoboxes

I thought I'd write this here as it's more likely that people will see it than if I put it as Talk:William II of England.

What's with these infoboxes? Look at William II of England The infobox produces the following result

Reign 9 Sep1087 – 2 Aug1100
Coronation 26 Sep1087
Queen Never married
Issue Died without posterity
Royal House {{{royal house}}}
Father William I (c. 1028-1087)
Mother Matilda of Flanders (1031-1083)
Born {{{date of birth}}}
{{{place of birth}}}
Died {{{date of death}}}
{{{place of death}}}
Buried {{{place of burial}}}
Is there some way to cut out the bits that have no information? - it is pure ugly to have something like :Born {{{date of birth}}} - I know that this is because someone hasn't bothered or got around to filling it in, but the field shouldn't come up if no one has entered the data, it's so unprofessional. Personally I detest most of these infoboxes anyway Jooler 09:40, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Image from Bayeaux Tapestry

A romantic nineteenth century artists impression of King William I of England
A romantic nineteenth century artists impression of King William I of England

I approve of the replacement of the nineteenth century print of William with the one from the Bayeaux Tapestry which at least dates from his own time. For the record here is the image used in the article from 2003 to 2005.

In it he is shown wearing plate armour which was not in general use at the time of his reign. Lumos3 11:01, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Given that Wiki allows for different points of view (as long a it is stated as such), I would move to include both. While there is little room for acceptance that this is William's true likeness, it does allow for another point of view and in the end, the article is about William. I would say inclusion of both is fine, but it should be stated that the portrait by Vertue was thought to be imaginitive. The caption is well done, in my opinion. MagnoliaSouth 06:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

William's name in his own French

If the name William is Norman French, why does this article state that the subject of this article "as Guillaume II was Duke of Normandy from 1035 to 1087"? The Normans brought their "W" French words with them (war, warranty, William), so I doubt they were using the "Gu" forms (guerre, guarantee, Guillaume). -Acjelen 22:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

If the name William is Norman French, why does this article state that the subject of this article "as Guillaume II was Duke of Normandy from 1035 to 1087"?
Well... because it's true as the Encyclopedia Britannica states: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9077028 Perhaps your understanding of French doesn't have anything to do with the name. MagnoliaSouth 06:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
"Guillaume" is his name in modern French. I have no idea what his name was in medieval Norman French, but it seems rather unlikely to me that it was "Guillaume". john k 22:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
That could very well be and I don't have an answer to that either. I myself didn't know about it until I came here and read it, and to dispel the theory I did a search and to my surprise I found the above link. You're probably very right about the medieval name, but perhaps the Encyclopedia Britannica uses it because that would be his name today, much like the original William probably wasn't spelled that way either. Just a guess. MagnoliaSouth | Talk 00:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
He wrote his name in Latin as "Willelmus", if that helps. Adam Bishop 06:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Aha! Yes it does... and very much so, I might add. Thank you for that. :) MagnoliaSouth | Talk 15:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Paramahansa Yogananda claimed to be William 1

A hindu guru (died 1952) Paramahansa Yogananda claimed to have been William 1 in one of his past lives. The guru (founder of Self-Realization Fellowship) who is the author of "Autobiography of a Yogi" said that he could remember almost all of his past incarnations. He also claimed to be Arjuna in a former incarnation. Any comments? Siva1979Talk to me 15:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what to comment on. It's not unusual for people to claim being an incarnate of another and even further, has nothing at all to do with the article, of which the Talk Page is supposed to be about. However, if you're posting this here as a suggestion for inclusion into the article, then what if I said I was Matilda reincarnated? Should that qualify? I don't mean to sound rude, really I don't, but I personally don't believe it has anything to do with King William. MagnoliaSouth 06:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, with all due respects to you, my dear friend, the person saying such a statement should be taken into strong consideration. For example, Paramahansa Yogananda was and still is a highly respected individual even within high society in America. His influence and teachings have reached people in all six continents in the globe. However, he did not explicitly proclaim he was William in any of his writings but he did state that he was a Himalayan yogi in his most immediate past life in his autobiography. But he did mention this in small talk with his close diciples. Shouldn't this be taken into consideration? I am also aware that such statements are difficult to prove (but not impossible among people who are highly spiriyually developed) among ordinary people. --Siva1979Talk to me 04:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
It is impossible to prove, and completely irrelevant. Adam Bishop 04:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Exploding Animals

Is this article intended to be in the Category for exploding animals? •••••• 04:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

now that's funny. sadly removed. -- Stbalbach 04:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Edgar Aetheling

I have never seen Edgar Aetheling in a list of English kings, and I'm not sure why he should be listed as William's predecessor and Harold's successor. As a matter of practical effect, William was Harold's successor, and every list of English kings I've ever seen states as much. That some of the Saxon nobles proclaimed Edgar is, of course, true, but does not seem to me to be sufficient for us to include him in our quasi-official listing. john k 22:49, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

The method of legal succession at the time was via election by the whitten. Those saxon lords as remained in London (So, Earls Morcar and Edwin and the arch bishop whose name escapes me right now) voted for Edgar as king. He is often forgotten but that does not negate his existance. Narson 13:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of William I of England

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 17:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

More on William's reign as king?

There is plenty on the Norman conquest, but I notice that William's reign only gets two paragraphs, despite his reigning as king for 21 years (supposedly - I'm a northerner so we dispute that somewhat!). The article explains that many castles etc were ordered, and surely his reign had a major impact on the country - so doesn't this need a bit more detail? Didn't he put in lots of his cronies as the new aristocracy - I'd like to learn about that. I'm a chemist rather than a historian, or I'd fix it myself. Thanks! Walkerma 03:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

surname

Believe it or not, he has a direct male line of descendants, and my cousin is going out with one of them. I met him, and according to him, the surname was Boynton, but when they moved to America, the name was changed to Boyington. Should this be mentioned, or does it not matter? Cao Wei 05:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Not a very exclusive club, since Alan Freer has over 400,000 descendants of the Conqueror in his William I genealogical database. William's living descendants are doubtless innumerable. (For comparison, Charlemagne's living descendants have been estimated at between 100,000,000 and 1,000,000,000.) If any is worthy of mention, try Direct descent from William I to Elizabeth II.
--Ziusudra 16:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Heh, well alright, but I mean should his last name be mentioned in the article? I didn't see it. --Cao Wei 05:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

He didn't have a surname. How could it have been Boynton? Adam Bishop 07:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Hearsay isn't permitted in court...but is it in wikipedia? My cousin's boyfriend, a direct descendant, said so, that's all I know. --Cao Wei 02:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no line of direct male descent from William the Conqueror that I am aware of. He had three sons who survived to adulthood. Robert Curthose had only one son, William Clito, who died childless. William Rufus was unmarried and probably homosexual, and, at any rate, had no known bastards. Henry Beauclerc had but one illegitimate son, William, who died at age 18 with no sons. He had several bastards, but none of the male lines seem to have gone on for more than a couple of generations. At any rate, none of these lines actually appear to have produced the surname "Boynton" - I see "Fitzroy," "Fitzhenry," "de Tracy," "de Dunstanville," and "FitzRobert". The Fitzrobert and Dunstanville lines appear to have lasted longest, but both became extinct within a couple of generations. There is, so far as I am aware, no attested male line descent of William the Conqueror. Even if there was, this would not demonstrate that William himself had a surname. john k 06:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Direct descent pleonasm

Sooo...what would "indirect descent" be? Something along the lines of Jurassic Park?

--Ziusudra 01:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I've often wondered about this. I think that a "direct descendant" is often used to mean "male line descendant," but that there's no real consistency to this. john k 06:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Nomenclature

I don't have a problem with the article's name, but to put all the more familiar names at the bottom of the lead seems confusing. "William the Conqueror" is what he's known as and it should appear pretty straightforwardly right at the top. I also see no need for any French names, as these are almost unheard of in the English literature. Furthermore, wouldn't it make more sense to tie in the ordinals I and II to the titles when they first appear in the first line, instead of leaving the uninformed reader to the last paragraph of the lead to realise he is not universally William I? Finally, to embolden "William I of England" at the top of the page in a sentence which says "ruled as ... king of England" seems redundant to me. Srnec 18:46, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not a unique situation having multiple names, how do featured articles of English royalty handle it? I do know for sure the bold name in the first sentence has to match the article title. I think its better to explain his names, as it does currently, rather than just plainly list them. Giving his French name is relevant because he was French (Norman). -- Stbalbach 19:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I thought the way I handled it was pretty wise. And I don't think modern French names add anything to our knowledge about him. Does the bold name have to match the article title always? I think not: otherwise we'd have to have titles like Margaret of Navarre (Sicilian queen), clearly silly. Anyways, I certainly won't begin any argument over it, but I think I presented cogent reasons (above) why a change of format from the current is due. Perhaps something like "William I (birth–death), called the Conqueror, was ..." Srnec 19:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to register agreement with what Srnec suggests. Also, I'd like to ask why this article is at William I of England (as opposed to William the Conqueror, presumably his more familiar name nowadays) while other, similar articles are at, for instance, Alfred the Great, Edward the Confessor (William's contemporary) and Alexander the Great. Shouldn't these be at Alfred of England, Edward of England (would need a parenthetical to disambiguate this one, I suppose, though I can't imagine what it would be) and Alexander III of Macedon? I'm not advocating a change in the article's title or anything (though, again, I do think "the Conqueror" should be mentioned sooner), I'm just wondering why there's a discrepency (or an apparent one to my eyes, anyway). Thanks for your time. 64.252.169.228 03:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

William and Matilda

William and Matilda are one of the great love stories of all time. It seems a shame that this always seems to be left out when talking about him.

William went looking for a wife and Matilda was eligible and of the right blood line. However, William - duke or no - was illegitimate. Nowdays, this doesn't carry the stigma that it did in his time. The Catholic church still rules that bastard children will go hell and this is the 21st century. Imagine what it was like in 11th century when people were a lot less enlightned. So Matilda turned him down, sight unseen. She made some rude comments about his parentage and sent the delegation packing. He heard about her comments and decided to confront her. He rode into town and arrived on a feast day. Getting one of the locals to point her out in the procession heading to the church, he mounts his horse, rides up to her, snatches her bodily out of the carriage. He proceeds to dump her in the gutter, which in those days was mostly an open sewer and roll her around in the muck. He gives her a good tongue lashing about her manners and big mouth, gets on his horse and rides off. At this point, he's the most handsome man she's seen and she pesters her father until he sends a delegation to William to see if he will accept her.

When he finally does, they're married but their married life is as turbulent as their courtship. One of his sons rebels and Matilda gives him all of her jewlery to finance the rebellion but remains otherwise loyal to her husband. She loves them both and steadfastly refuses to choose sides between her husband and her son.

I have no citations for any of this other than my great grandparents, who always told me family stories.

71.252.152.69 21:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

SevenOfNine