Talk:Edward I

Edward and Wales

The entire section on Edward I and Wales needs to be rewritten, imo. At the moment it is based almost exclusively on RR Davies; a great historian, but very much a 20th century nationalist working off the earlier narratives of JE Lloyd. Davies's version has since been challenged by the likes of David Stephenson and Paul Martin Remfry (his former students), AD Carr, Glyn Roberts, Ben Guy et al. In particular the support Edward enjoyed from the Welsh clergy and gentry/landholding class should be incorporated, however unpopular that might be. Davidpilling56 (talk) 12:40, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Apologies that I did not reply earlier, happy to help as you go along. Jim Killock (talk) 11:52, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Edward and Wales (again)

I recently suggested major edits to the section on Wales. There was no response - perhaps I'm posting in the wrong place, or is there no appetite for edits on this page any more? Would appreciate a reply from someone, please. Davidpilling56 (talk) 11:06, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Pinging Unlimitedlead. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:36, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

Apologies. I haven't been keeping tabs on this article since its FA nomination. I'm more than happy to work on the section if someone could recommend some good sources. But as I am quite busy, I might need to rely on @Davidpilling56 to work with me during the editing process. Unlimitedlead (talk) 13:39, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

I would be more than happy to - I am the author of a full-length textbook on Edward I & Wales as well as several published articles etc, so would be keen to contribute to this. Davidpilling56 (talk) 15:59, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

So, should I start making some suggested edits and send them to you for suggestions/improvements, or...? Davidpilling56 (talk) 10:48, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

(Butting in). Unlimitedlead is currently the main Wikipedia expert on Edward I and successfully nominated the article for the top level, WP:FA two years ago, but he has apologised for slowness in dealing with queries elsewhere as he has recently started a degree course at Yale. Davidpilling56 you can upload drafts here but do not expect a quick response. Alternatively, you can upload direct to the article if you are happy that you understand the Wikipedia rules - edits should be from a neutral viewpoint, supported by citations to reliable sources and proportional in length compared with other aspects of Edward's career. I think it is acceptable to cite your own writing provided you do not give it undue weight. Nikkimaria is this correct? The article uses the Template:Harvard citation no brackets citation style (I think, but I do not use it and am not familiar with it), so you would need to reference edits in that style. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:59, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. I should stress that I have no intention of quoting my own work - I just mentioned that I have authored a book etc to show I know a bit about the subject. Edward and Wales in particular is a very nuanced topic and there has been a lot of scholarship on it in recent decades. Perhaps the best thing is if I upload drafts here for review, as and when Unlimitedlead and others have time to take a look. Davidpilling56 (talk) 13:22, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

If you do end up wanting to cite yourself, the relevant guideline to review is WP:SELFCITE. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:22, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Ok so I have re-jigged the opening paras of the conquest of Wales section. I appreciate the references need cleaning up and conforming to standard, this is just a rough draft. What I want to do here is flesh out the context of the Welsh wars, without confronting the reader with too much detail. It is important, imo, to highlight the internal tensions in Wales and Llywelyn's questionable political decisions after 1267:

'Llywelyn ap Gruffudd enjoyed a temporary advantage after the Barons' War. The 1267 Treaty of Montgomery recognised his ownership of land he had conquered in the Four Cantrefs of Perfeddwlad and his title of Prince of Wales.[92] However, his administration was heavy-handed and unpopular, especially among Welshmen on the Marches, where Llywelyn resorted to hostage-taking and intimidation to retain loyalty.[93] He also entered into a damaging conflict with the Welsh church, further undermining his authority.[94]

Armed conflicts continued on the March. In 1272 Llywelyn suffered a major defeat to the Earl of Gloucester, Gilbert de Clare, and was forced to evacuate south-east Wales.[95] This setback triggered a failed attempt to assassinate the prince, exposing divisions in his principality. The chief suspects, his younger brother Dafydd and Gruffudd ap Gwenwynwyn of Powys, fled to take refuge at the English court.[96] Citing ongoing hostilities and Edward's harbouring of his enemies, Llywelyn refused to do homage to the King.[97] For Edward, a further provocation came from Llywelyn's planned marriage to Eleanor, daughter of Simon de Montfort the Elder.[98] Llywelyn was also suspected of planting a Montfortian spy, Nicholas Waltham, at Edward’s court, and intriguing with Eleanor’s brothers, Simon the Younger and Guy.[99]'

[93] Stephenson, David (2019) pp114-118. Rethinking the History of Wales, Medieval Wales c.1050-1332 Centuries of Ambiguity.

[94] Stephenson, David (2014) pp114-181. Political Power in Medieval Gwynedd, Governance and the Welsh Princes.

[95] Smith, J.B. (1998). Llywelyn ap Gruffudd, Prince of Wales, pp178-190

[96] Stephenson, David (2016) pp144-151. Medieval Powys, Kingdom, Principality and Lordships 1132-1293.

[99] Rogers, J.E. Thorold (1891). Oxford City Documents: 1268-1665, p205; Smith, Llywelyn ap Gruffudd, p393, quoting the Liber Epistolaris of Richard of Bury. Davidpilling56 (talk) 08:24, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

These look fine to me. @Dudley Miles this addition from @Davidpilling56 is a left over from the recent and long FA Review; it was noted there that there was still some work to do on the Wales perspective, so really David should be free and confident to add these changes now. Jim Killock (talk) 11:47, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I have a few minor comments on the wording. 1. "loyalty" seems an odd word in "hostage-taking and intimidation to retain loyalty". Maybe "domination"? 2. I would have "the principality" rather than "his principality". 3. You refer to 1272 and then later developments as if they followed shortly afterwards, but they must have been later as Edward did not return to England until 1274. I think you need to clarify the dating. Dudley Miles (talk) 12:30, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, I can clarify the dating. Perhaps 'control' would be better than domination? Power and control is what it was really all about, of course. Davidpilling56 (talk) 12:41, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Given you have other additions to make, please do go ahead. We can clean up anything minor later. Jim Killock (talk) 20:49, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Jim :) Davidpilling56 (talk) 12:42, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

@Davidpilling56 I've added the sources above into the article with the correct formatting; for your article additions, you will need to add the citations like this:

<ref>{{Harvnb|Stephenson|2019|pp=114-118}}</ref>

<ref>{{Harvnb|Stephenson|2014|pp=114-181}}</ref> NB: this should be narrowed down to a few pages

<ref>{{Harvnb|Smith|1998|pp=178-190}}</ref>

<ref>{{Harvnb|Stephenson|2016|pp=144-151}}</ref>

<ref>{{Harvnb|Rogers|1891|p=205}}, {{Harvnb|Smith|1998|p=393}}, quoting the {{langx|la|Liber Epistolaris}} of [[Richard of Bury]].</ref>

This may be easiest done in the wiki markup view rather than the visual editor. Jim Killock (talk) 20:22, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

@Davidpilling56 Here is the markup you need, including the references you retained; please transpose to the main page so you retain credit:

Llywelyn ap Gruffudd enjoyed a temporary advantage after the Barons' War. The 1267 Treaty of Montgomery recognised his ownership of land he had conquered in the Four Cantrefs of Perfeddwlad and his title of Prince of Wales.<ref>{{Harvnb|Carpenter|2004|p=386}}; {{Harvnb|Morris|2009|p=132}}.</ref> However, his administration was heavy-handed and unpopular, especially among Welshmen on the Marches, where Llywelyn resorted to hostage-taking and intimidation to retain his domination.<ref>{{Harvnb|Stephenson|2019|pp=114-118}}</ref> He also entered into a damaging conflict with the Welsh church, further undermining his authority.<ref>{{Harvnb|Stephenson|2014|pp=114-181}}</ref> Armed conflicts continued on the March. In 1272 Llywelyn suffered a major defeat to the Earl of Gloucester, Gilbert de Clare, and was forced to evacuate south-east Wales.<ref>{{Harvnb|Smith|1998|pp=178-190}}</ref> This setback triggered a failed attempt to assassinate the prince, exposing divisions in his principality. The chief suspects, his younger brother Dafydd and Gruffudd ap Gwenwynwyn of Powys, fled to take refuge at the English court.<ref>{{Harvnb|Stephenson|2016|pp=144-151}}</ref> Citing ongoing hostilities and Edward's harbouring of his enemies, Llywelyn refused to do homage to the King.<ref>{{Harvnb|Prestwich|1997|pp=174–175}}.</ref> For Edward, a further provocation came from Llywelyn's planned marriage to Eleanor, daughter of Simon de Montfort the Elder.[98] Llywelyn was also suspected of planting a Montfortian spy, Nicholas Waltham, at Edward’s court, and intriguing with Eleanor’s brothers, Simon the Younger and Guy.<ref>{{Harvnb|Rogers|1891|p=205}}, {{Harvnb|Smith|1998|p=393}}, quoting the {{langx|la|Liber Epistolaris}} of [[Richard of Bury]].</ref> Jim Killock (talk) 17:04, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, Jim - sorry for the late response, v busy here. Will add this to the main Wales text and then make further suggestions asap. Davidpilling56 (talk) 12:10, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

Antisemitism

There is no mention of the fact that he expelled all the Jews from England. How can this be overlooked? 2600:4041:7B2E:9200:988E:2F65:D5FE:1BAD (talk) 13:26, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the lead section, and correspondingly at some length in the body itself. What are you talking about? Remsense 🌈 论 13:28, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Reverted typo

@Dudley Miles: can you you explain why you reverted this edit? "Reverted typo" is unhelpful. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 16:12, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

The expulsion of the Jews took place in 1290, not 1209. And I'm not seeing that it's a great improvement in the wording either way... Ealdgyth (talk) 16:27, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

It's not about the wording, it's about providing proper link text. You need to make it clear what the reader will learn if they click on the link. Isaac Rabinovitch (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Requested move 2 January 2026

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) TarnishedPath^talk 03:28, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

---

• Edward I of England → Edward I
• Edward II of England → Edward II
• Edward III of England → Edward III

– Per WP:SOVEREIGN as in line with WP:COMMONNAME, after a previous move from 5 November 2023, there was no consensus. Absolutiva 01:28, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Support. We evidently have a consensus that the kings meet WP:PRIMARYMEANING because the proposed titles already redirect to the articles about the kings and appear to have always redirect there. WP:AT policy and WP:SOVEREIGN guideline both say that we should not have disambiguation where no disambiguation is necessary. This will also make the articles consistent with Edward IV, Edward V, Edward VI, Edward VII and Edward VIII. Surtsicna (talk) 01:47, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Support The precedent for dropping territorial designations has already been set by pages like Edward IV, Edward V, Edward VI, Edward VII, Edward VIII, Henry VIII, Elizabeth I, James VI and I, Mary II, George III, George IV, William IV, etc. And the kings in this instance are the primary topics. Keivan.f^Talk 03:05, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

• Support per above. Mellk (talk) 15:37, 2 January 2026 (UTC)
• Support per Britannica even though in the URL the longer name is used the shorter name is used at the top of the article. Crouch, Swale (talk) 20:42, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

  Strong support ~2025-33878-06 (talk) 15:09, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

• Oppose. I do not regard "of England" as a disambiguator. WP:SOVEREIGN is based on a misunderstanding of how name-and-numeral combinations work in general, especially for pre-modern monarchs where the numeral is often assigned by historians and where names are typically anglicized. There are exceptions, when names are diagnostic in themselves, like Tiglath-Pileser. But the general rule is that the number only makes sense in combination with a principality. A few monarchs have unique name-and-numeral combinations that are instantly recognizable on their own (Louis XIV), but so what? As has been pointed out repeatedly we do not normally shorten personal names just for the sake of it (because we can). The article is not at Picasso, Hitler or Churchill. This is why WP:COMMONNAME is also irrelevant. If we just count instances, of course the shorter form dominates, as will, e.g., Mozart. The question is how often you encounter "Edward I" without any reference to England. Srnec (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

  It is per WP:SOVEREIGN, we do not need "of England" in the line of WP:COMMONNAME. Absolutiva 23:54, 4 January 2026 (UTC)

  The question is how often you encounter "Edward I" without any reference to England. The answer to that question is in the Edward I of England#Bibliography section. Surtsicna (talk) 10:35, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

  You mean titles? If you go by English-language book titles, every English monarch is the primary topic. Srnec (talk) 14:59, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

  Well, I do not know what else you mean. How often do you encounter "Barack Obama" without any reference to the United States? Surtsicna (talk) 15:17, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

Oppose. Ambiguous titles benefit no reader. The title is already concise. The change necessitates hatnotes, clutter in the prime real estate of the article, to rescue readers who did not want this page. Title minimisation makes Wikipedia worse. SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:21, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

The title is not as concise as it can be. The article already contains hatnotes because Edward I already redirects here. No new hatnotes will be needed. Should Edward I not redirect here? Surtsicna (talk) 10:32, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

The whole problem is that "concise as it can be" is a ridiculous standard, which everybody recognizes if you suggest moving Adolf Hitler to just Hitler. Or would you support such a move? Srnec (talk) 14:59, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

WP:CONCISE: "Given names and family names are usually not omitted or abbreviated for the purposes of concision." Surtsicna (talk) 15:21, 5 January 2026 (UTC)

It is essential to mention England because it is what gives meaning to the numeral. "Edward I" is not his name. His name was just Edward. "The First" is something we've added to it help it make sense. As with most such numerals, it only makes sense if you know what it is in reference to. That is why we do not call it Edward I's crusade but Lord Edward's crusade. He can't be Edward the First until he's Edward of something. I would perhaps be more sanguine about particularly famous and relatively unique name-and-numeral combinations (like Edward I or Richard III) if I didn't think it was a very general problem. You think 'Edward III of England' is like 'John Tyler of the United States', but I think 'Edward III' is like 'Eisenhower'. Comprehensible and concise, yes, but weirdly amputated. Srnec (talk) 03:06, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

Edward I is a particularly poor example for arguing that the territory is needed to interpret the numeral because he was not, in fact, the first King Edward of England. Surtsicna (talk) 11:07, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

No. Edward I Should not redirect here, because it is ambiguous, and the redirect helps no reader. The reader wanting Edward I of England will easily and surely be able to navigate to Edward I of England at the top of the drop-down list, if they are using the Wikipedia search box. “The redirect already leads here” is a very weak argument because redirects get little regard. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:39, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

The title is already concise. You don’t improve concision by throwing away essential information. That, is brevity. SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:41, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

If I understand correctly, it is essential to mention England in the title of the article about Edward. Is it essential to mention the United States in the title of the article about John Tyler? John Tyler of the United States? Surtsicna (talk) 22:24, 7 January 2026 (UTC)

Not “Essential”, “better”.

Not “of the United States” unless you mean to imply he was a King.

Now (since 2003) that wikilinks can be piped, it is no longer needed for titles to match preferred linking terms. John Tyler, 10th US President would help readers, and hurt no reader.

If the redirect necessitates a hatnote, it is too ambiguous and should instead go to a disambiguation page. SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:46, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

(Name) of (Place) format does not signify or imply kingship. I understand your preference to define the subject in the article title, but that has been against policy for at least the 18 years that I have been here. It was recently made obsolete by the addition of short description because the search box results now defines Edward I as king of England in the drop-down list. Surtsicna (talk) 11:02, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

• Support per this and past discussions. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:54, 5 January 2026 (UTC)
• Support Normally I would disagree with such naming changes, but since the redirect already leads here, I am inclined to concur with the above discussion. Unlimitedlead (talk) 15:21, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
• Oppose - I'd rather we stick with what once was standard for all article titles of monarch bios. GoodDay (talk) 22:56, 7 January 2026 (UTC)
• Support If only because the article is written in British English and as such this is the usual usage You may ask yourself (talk) 13:07, 8 January 2026 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.