Talk:Edward the Black Prince/Archive 1

Archive 1

Lord of Biscay?

He was Lord of Biscay, wasn't he? -- Error

He was 60.229.172.114 03:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes

Video Games

Do we really need that picture of a video game character? Just asking. 134.106.199.13 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC) I agree that it should be removed as it is in no way an accurate representation of HRH.(Morcus (talk) 02:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC))

Ich dien

The famous "Ich dien" motto is not German (where it would be "Ich diene"), but Welsh for something like "here is the boy" isn't it?

"Ich Dien" is definately not Welsh!! I think you'll find it is Germanic - Rhys Griffiths (Freeman of Llantrisant, decendent of the Llantrisant Bowmen who were granted freeman status for their roles in Crecy and Agincourt!!)

"Ich dien" is just a short form of the german "Ich diene". Anyway it is german from the year 13xx, so you cannot compare it with today's german.

It is in Middle Dutch. No-one is sure why.mais ^(talk) 01:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Black?

Was he black?

No, Edward was white, Black Prince was a nickname he posthumusly got. Rumours for it is that he wore Black armour. Mightberight/wrong 16:00, 28 October 2005

Yes he was a man of color. His mother is described as being brown skin not white skin he was not white, furthermore his mother was a second cousin to his father -alluding to his father the king also being a man of color. This is based on the factual evidence presented by the article. The Genetics of two people of color have never produced so call white skin" offspring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:2C7:C000:C94F:5D34:CDDF:D742:A2DB (talk) 15:20, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Was the 1st season of blackadder based on edward?

No

• There is no mention of the origin of the nickname in the article. Is there no verifible, credible source regarding it? Rhodesisland (talk) 01:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Look again! There is an entire section on The name "Black Prince". GrindtXX (talk) 11:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Ethnicity...

http://www.100greatblackbritons.com/bios/queen_phillipa.html

This alludes to a mixed ancestry. Any thoughts?

This is based on a reference to Queen Philippa's dark complexion in 'Michael Packe's book on Edward III' according to the Black britons site. Needless to say none of her Great Great Grand parents was black, and I couldn't be bothered to go back any futher back. The must obvious source of the 'Black Prince'nickname must surely be his black 'arms of peace' which alternate with his quartered Lions/Fleurs de lys on his tomb.

Chris Gidlow

That website is a joke. Philippa and Edward were white. That website tries to prove that there were black people in Britain since ancient times, which I find funny to say the least. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Energyfreezer (talk • contribs) 16:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

---

Ad hominem (website) arguments aside: With other coat of arms having a black background and the discrediting of some references referring to his viciousness as being the source of his name, it makes sense that any characteristic complexion difference would have been downplayed during the period, or in Edward's case, referenced with a clearly ambiguous moniker. Either Edward's mother, Queen Philippa, or her older sister Margaret was described as dark complected, with Historians still in disagreement. Does this supposition make it fact? No, but genetics can lend further clarity, just as it corroborated Richard III's unmarked grave.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.31.151.91 (talk) 12:36, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Armenian Ancestry...

Queen Philipa wasn't black nor African. Phillipa had Armenian ancestry on her dad's side. She was a descendant of the Armenian Princess Morphia of Melitene, Phillipa's 'dark' coloring is from her Armenian ancestry given Armenians are usually darker/olive complexion in coloring then your typical fair coloring English person. (Angar432 (talk) 02:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC))

What did Edward die of?

What did the Black Prince die of? My quess is cancer. I'd like to see other theories on his demise, posted. Mightberight/wrong 16:04, 28 October 2005. He also might have died of natural causes, but who knows for sure?

• Isn't dying of natural causes at age 46 a bit strange (even in the year 1376)? Mightberight/wrong 17:49, 13 November 2005 (UTC).

Well, disease would certainly do it, but the Black Prince seemed to have a long, wasting disease. The ODNB entry on him provides no clue as to what he died of. I've heard somewhere that the campaign in Spain (in 1367) ruined his health, and that he got some long, wasting, infectious disease while there. But I'm not really sure. john k 19:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Looking around, some of the guesses as to his illness include amoebic dysentery, malaria, and cirrhosis (brought on by hepatitis?) Choess 04:04, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

That was probably beyond the average life expectancy of a person in the year 1376. No one would have thought it unusual that a person would die at 45 or 46. In 1376, you were lucky to live to adulthood. 71.52.128.216 (talk) 01:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Dropsy is generally accepted and he was actually 45,but close to turning 46.

After looking it over, Richard Barber also statesw that it was almost certainly dysentry. Becauser of source conflict, we may never know. By the way, the dictionary of ancient and medieval warfare stated dropsy without doubt in its summary.

And now for my 3rd staement; as said by Tuchman, infactious dysentery turned into dropsy.

Anyway, there's nothing about his death in the article, and there needs to be. If he died of illness, let it be said.81.157.63.35 19:46, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Good gracious!

This page needs to be edited. Stat. The grammar in the latter half of the entry is atrocious -- I can barely make out half of the sentences. I'll do my part to clean it up wherever I can, but I do think that someone with a deeper historical background (I'm but a novice) ought to check up on this page and verify some of the information (and the tone in which it's) presented.

Firebreeze 18:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

not to mention the ridiculous amount of parentheses, making the whole article look like it's a clumsily annotated first draft. -supine 02:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

sorted some of the grammar and fixed the article's spelling, but it still needs a lot of clean-up in fact I might tag it as such... Trent 900 08:26, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

OK I've gone through it, fixed spelling and grammar, cleaned up a load of (parentheses) by either using subordinate clauses or breaking sentences into more manageable chunks, and merged the list of military activities with the descriptions of their significance to make it more readable. This last section I've also waded through the sentences to try to extract the meaning, if you disagree with my interpretation of the original text or know better please, please feel free change it, this article while at least it now makes sense is still badly in need of sources and citations which I, as a mere passer-by, am unable to give. That was a big job. Trent 900 10:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

thanks for that! It really needed it. -- (James McNally)  (talkpage)  09:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Im the anonymous writer of most of this article, including the complete latter half....and may I say, thanks for clearing up the grammar. I admit I wrote it in draft fashion, and did not check its quality after finshing. But I dont know why you would question it; it is not farfetched in any way (what I wrote). As for the citations, here you are:

• Richard Barber's "The Black Prince" (published by Sutton)
• David Nicolle's "Crecy 1346" (published by osprey)
• David Nicolle's "Poitiers 1356" (published by osprey)

Also, that was a good rewriting (if that is a word), but you badly misinterpreted the Najera campaign and fair bit of the chivalry section, but I have fixed that. It should be in better grammar now.

The tag is probably is no longer need, but then again you may as well check the books for accuracy.

Here is another source; Robert Hardy's "Longbow"

Near the bottom there is a word I don't get. "revelealed" Revealed? If I knew what was meant, I would fix it. leesonma 19 June 2006

Could not be anything but revealed.

OK, I fixed that, and a couple of other quibbles. I'm still not clear what this means... "demonstrated via the massed use of infantry strongholds" ... in that same last paragraph. It may be a perfectly clear use of the terms, IF I knew what "infantry strongholds" were. Does he mean "massive"? Leesonma 01:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

What I trying to make out is an explanation in summary of David Nicolle.

The French used massed heavy cavalry, dismounted men-at-arms and crossbowmen; charging them aimlessly to their 'chivalric' deaths like soldiers of the somme. The English used peasents and dismounted men-at arms as closely linked 'battles' (battalions), with strong communication, cannons, longbows, stakes in the ground, flank protecting obstacles of carts (as an example), hedgehog balls, ditches, natural cover like hedges, potholes, natural obstacles like hills, marshes and small gaps in the woods, etc.

What Im saying is that the English were symbollically like machine gunners in trenches on bayonets. They were massed infantry being very successful against the supposed superior knights.

Tag?

Why is the tag still here, I thought everything has now being justified.

Stick the books mentioned above in the article then, and remove the tag. Fine by me. Trent 900 11:06, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

How do I remove the tag? im not good with these things.

Actually, I think I have got the hang of it.

Leeds

why is the black prince synomonous with Leeds?

What do you mean?60.229.237.50 05:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

See here. [1] Neddyseagoon - talk 10:52, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Date of birth

From a cursory reading of the article, one would take the dates at the top as birth and death, which doesn't really make sense if he was taking part in negotiations with the papacy in 1337. Is there a mistake here? --Slashme 09:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Date of birth seems to be right, so papacy one is probably the one at fault. Any idea where the error could have slipped in, and where we could find the right date? Neddyseagoon - talk 10:58, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I have no idea. I guess someone with a knowledge of history should look in some reputable source.--Slashme 14:54, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Im not sure what your problem with the dates is, but he was born in 1330, and as the symbollic regent did the negotiations with the papacy in 1337 (yes he was 7). "The Black Prince" Richard Barber. 60.229.172.114 03:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone still doesn't believe me. Read the source= 1337 NOT 1347! Yes, he was the head of the negotiations, but like his leadership of the vanguard at Crecy, it was probably more symbollic. 60.229.172.114 03:26, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Edward the Black Prince

I know that one is supposed to presume "good faith" and "courtesy" on this site but, I must ask, what is the matter with the stupid, horrible prejudiced person/people who cannot cope with the fact that Edward's mother had skin that was "brown all over" and a nose that was flat and broad, hair that was "blue black" and eyes that were "blackish brown".

Outrage! OMG!! How could anyone say that about an English prince?!

What I find offensive is not just that this accurately quoted description written by the Bishop of Exeter sent to the court of Hainault specifically for the purpose of describing the girl, has been twice deleted, but that the person/people who delete it would rather have the appellation "Black" put down to the man's brutality than his parentage!!

So on Wikipedia, it's better to practice "Crimes against Humanity" than to inherit brown skin, is it?

All I can say is, thank God that colour and race were not of prime concern in the heart of Edward III and his father.

--Amandajm 05:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Let's turn it around: would you think it realistic if someone were to start theorizing about white princesses in medieval sub-sahara africa? (not just 'one-drop' european heritage or 'a white-looking arab' but 'blond and blue-eyed'). Or would you laugh it off as a stupid racist fantasy? Selena1981 (talk) 14:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Accurate, but with words used in a different context from their use now, see the post further up the page. David Underdown 10:30, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed the physical description of Philippa of Hainault for the very simple reason that it belongs on the page for Philippa of Hainault. Your assertion that Edward "may have inherited his mother's dark or 'black' complexion and become known as the Black Prince this way," is totally unsupported. You fail even to establish that Edward did have a dark complexion. If you have a sourced physical description of Edward (not Philippa) that would support your claim, please, by all means, cite it. Without establishing this fact, the further inference that Edward was named for his imaginary dark complexion is pure, idle speculation.

So, in short, your quote is on the wrong page, and the conclusion you draw from the quote is speculation and fantasy. This is the only explanation I will offer. I am frankly loath to enagage in any type of interaction with you, inasmuch as you have already characterized me as the "stupid, horrible prejudiced person/people who cannot cope with the fact that Edward's mother had skin that was 'brown all over'...." If you continue to attack me in this manner, I will refer you to the Administrator's board for appropriate action. Whatever childish rant you make in response to this message will also be reported. M Van Houten 20:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

The conclusion that he was "black" in the modern sense is indeed speculative, but ignoring Amanda's hyperbole, the quote itself seems useful to me, and the conclusion that a (relatively) dark complexion could have come from his mother a reasonable application of genetics. I probably shouldn't have used popups to revert your edit, but you didn't use an edit summary (and you deleted more than just the quote in any case), and I managed to overlook your talkpage edit when I first checked. David Underdown 09:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello David, I see that you managed not to call me a "stupid horrible prejudiced" bigot, so I appreciate that. Here is my basic problem with this quote and claim.

1. The quote is in the wrong place. It is informative and relevant---to Philippa of Hainault. The quote should go on her page.

2. Both you and that other person refer to this quote as "useful." How precisely? Useful to the study of Philippa of Hainault? I agree. Useful to determining why Edward is called the Black Prince? I don't see how. To be useful, the quote must establish a) the fact of Edward's physical appearance and b) a causal connection between appearance and the moniker. The quote does not establish either. Wikipedia requires that "All articles must follow our no original research policy and strive for accuracy; Wikipedia is not the place to insert personal opinions, experiences, or arguments. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information."

3. You state that "conclusion that a (relatively) dark complexion could have come from his mother a reasonable application of genetics." I agree. But how is that a fact? Are we now free to fill Wikipedia with reasonable possibilities and plausible guesses? Edward could have been exceedingly pale. That is also a reasonable application of genetics.

4. Bottom line, the quoted material (Philippa's appearance) does not support the ultimate conclusion (Edward's moniker is a result of his own physical appearance). The probative value of the former to the later is almost nil. Is there documentation that Edward actually had a dark complexion? By documentation, I mean something besides hysterical ranting and childish name-calling.

The contemporary illustration in the article certainly doesn't suggest it. How about Edward's siblings, were they also dark? Why do his siblings not have similar monikers? How about Richard II? Is there documentation that "black" and "brown" were used interchangeably in Edward's time?

And finally, why must we resort to this pitiful guesswork? Where is documentation for the ultimate fact that people referred to Edward as the Black Prince as a direct result of his physical appearance? That is the ultimate fact in question, and there is no support for that fact.

I will therefore reedit the article. As you noted, last time I removed more than I should have. M Van Houten 18:49, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem as I see it, with this theory is that it is being put forth by a wikipedian. We are not here to put forth theories. We are reporters of what other people say. To say that he may have been called black because his mother was black, is a theory that needs a non-wikipedian citation. If you can't find one, than it's your theory, which is original research. Wjhonson 07:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Secondly

I have been through the article and marked a great deal of material which quotes "legends", "stories", "theories" and "it is said". Every one of these needs citation, or rewording.

Something like "The following theories are discussed in So-and-so" will take care of a lot of problems, provided the source is properly referenced at the bottom of the section.

--Amandajm 05:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Barbara Tuchman in "Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th Century" (1978) refers to Edward as the "Black Prince" so this article's reference to the first written usage of the sobriquet being a 1985 Encyclopedia Brittanica article is not possible.

Also, the debate about Edward being literally black is anachronistic. The term used in those days was Moor. So, were he literally black, he would've been called "Edward the Moor". WikiPicky 00:26, 12 February 2007 (UTC)TRH

He was dead. I believe the most salient point in this line of discussion is that the first known printed reference identifying Edward of Woodstock, as he was known in life, as the “Black Prince” was published many years after his death. This fact alone argues it is improbable the sobriquet referred to his physical appearance. From my research on this subject, I have discovered the quote is from a work credited to Richard Grafton, who published works regarding the history of England during the period of 1563 – 1568. This is a time period between 187 and 192 years after Edward of Woodstock’s death.

Discussion:

The citation in the Wikipedia article we are discussing that points to the 1985 Encyclopedia Britannica is simply meant to state that, in the opinion of the Encyclopedia Britannica, the first known printed reference identifying Edward of Woodstock, as the “Black Prince” was first published in Richard Grafton's Chronicle of England. The Wikipedia article is confusing, as it does not state the date Richard Grafton published Chronicle of England, and there is some question in my mind as to which of Richard Grafton’s works the Encyclopedia Britannica refers. I added (1568) to the Encyclopedia Britannica cite on the Wikipedia page because that is the date Encyclopedia Britannica states Chronical of England was published.

The actual quote from the Britannica website is found here: http://www.britannica.com/eb/topic-240704/Richard-Grafton

I didn’t find any references anywhere to the actual text of Grafton's work published in the 14th century which refers to Edward of Woodstock as the "Black Prince." One hopes someone at the Encyclopedia Britannica has read the original Grafton work cited, and concluded the sobriquet refers to the color of Edward’s armor (or as they state, amour.) Admittedly, I did not spend much time looking for the actual text of Grafton’s work.

In my research on this citation I have discovered, according to Richard Grafton’s Wikipedia page, he published Abridgment of the Chronicles of England (1563,) and A Chronicle at Large (1568.) It further states "neither holds a high place as authorities, as they lack original material." It is not explained whether the author of Richard Grafton's page intends to indicate by the use of the words "original material" that Grafton's sources were dubious, or that Grafton was merely quoting material that had been previously published and, therefore, not "original material." Richard Grafton’s Wikipedia page is devoid of citations. It is impossible to know where the author of that page got this information. As the titles of these works differ from the Encyclopedia Britannica citation, it is impossible to be certain to which Grafton work the Britannica article refers. The first record I can find of a Grafton work in print is the 1563 Abridgment of the Chronicles of England, (from Grafton's Wikipedia page) which may indicate Grafton had produced a more voluminous earlier edition he later abridged, or he abridged the work of another earlier author or publisher. There is a reference on Grafton's Wikipedia page of a running battle with John Stow, an English historian, antiquarian, and a contemporary of Grafton's, who accused Grafton of plagiarism. It is apparent none of Stow's earlier works survived if Grafton's work is cited as the earliest printed record of Edward's sobriquet "Black Prince."

I have also found on Amazon.com, a reference to a work published by Johnson in 1809 entitled Chronicle; or, History of England;: To which is added his table of the bailiffs, sheriffs & mayors of the city of London from 1189 to 1558 inclusive, which identifies Richard Grafton as the author. It is probably a later reprinting of the earlier Grafton work, and does little to clarify the discrepancies in the titles of Grafton's cited works on Wikipedia or elsewhere. The book is not available as of this writing and would probably be expensive. http://www.amazon.com/Chronicle-History-England-bailiffs-inclusive/dp/B000880TMS/ref=sr_1_3/002-9386460-9303212?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1186009665&sr=1-3

Jsternsp 00:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

In addition: The only evidence I can find that Philippa of Hainault was dark is to look at the painting of her son, John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster ,who appears quite dark.

I have tried to follow the links on the Wikipedia page of Philippa of Hainault to research her ancenstry, but I am finding it very difficult as there are a lot of paternal errors. William I, Duke of Bavaria keeps cropping up where he does not belong. (He was credited with being Philippa's father when he was really her nephew, which I corrected. He is also credited with being his own mother's father and the son Phillipa's grandfather John II, Count of Holland , a man who died 26 years before he was born.) It's almost 3 a.m. and I don't know if I have enough brain cells awake to try to take on the task of straightening that mess out by paying attention to the everyone's date of birth to see where they are supposed to fit in. William I, Duke of Bavaria also carried the title William V, Count of Holland and William III, Count of Hainaut. He is being confused with William I, Count of Hainaut who also carried the title Count William III of Holland. Whooo hooo!! Lots of Wikifun there!!

Following the maternal line of Philippa of Hainault seems to work and I find nary a Moor among them.

A more interesting link to "darkness" in the lineage of Edward, the Black Prince is his great-grandmother Joan I of Navarre , who is said to have had "Arabic" features. Joan I of Navarre was the mother of Isabella of France , who was said to have inherited the blond hair of her father, Philip IV of France , and the "Arabic" features of her mother. Isabella of France was Edward, the Black Prince 's grandmother. Navarre is what is now the Basque region of Northern Spain. The cite for the facial features of Joan I of Navarre and Isabella of France is Isabella and the Strange Death of Edward II (2003) by Paul Doherty, page 11.

Jsternsp 10:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, it's all good now. I think I put William I, Duke of Bavaria in his proper place. Checking the ancestry of Philippa of Hainault is now easier. The closest I can come in her ancestry to a Moorish connection is Baldwin I of Constantinople , (July 1172 – 1205), the first emperor of the Latin Empire of Constantinople, born in Bulgaria of parents of Dutch/French extraction. His father was Baldwin V, Count of Hainaut . His mother was Margaret I, Countess of Flanders. It looks like Philippa had a Dutch, Belgian, French, German thing going on, not Moorish.

Jsternsp 10:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

yo the dudes a white guy. why is he called black prince? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddie Wood (talk • contribs) 22:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

He was known as The Black Prince during his lifetime because he had blackened steel armour manufactured especially for himself, although there may be no written record of the time unless one could search the records in France, for they were the ones that coined the name. Edward was pleased with the name. Once Upon a Time, Edward single handedly captured the King of France and took him home to England (alive) strapped to the back of a horse to his Father. Edward was given the lands in France for capturing the King and keeping him safe of harm. Edward dwelled in south-central-eastern France for a period of time, not really kowing what he should do with his Life nor what to do with Himself. He had a herd of sheep grazing in amongst the grape vines until he became bored and moved to the north of France where he met a woman and Fathered his son Edward, slightly illegitimate at that Time, although they did quickly marry before his son was born (which was not adequate for succession according to Royal Law). His son, Edward was somewhat Heartbroken at his disposition of birth but graciously helped to raise his younger Brother Richard (Richard was very intent at his warring studies, but was persuaded to also persue other avenues) to be a Good King.

Just for the record: as a matter of a Mean Time, Muhhamad or one of his dwelt in the Fatherland for a period of Time. He had entered from the Hinterlands. He knew not of Winter nor snow and was ill prepared for such travels. He came across a band of young men that were residing in the Fatherland and they tried to learn more of the foreigner and what his purposes were for straying so far from his home. Most people that strayed so far in such Times from out of the Hinterlands were most likely Banished from their homelands, although some were honest explorers. We shall call him Muhhamad. He was a peculiar fella that always desired to battle on the left side and had a white on black "\" shield that, from Time to Time, may be considered Sinister or Bend and now known as Bend Sinister. At that Mean Time it was known as Sinister. The fellas tried to keep him on the right flank, but he always fought over to the left. The fellas wanted Victory "\/" but with his fighting, they wondered if he was trying to obtain a Home "/\". During the battle, Muhhamad died, but the fellas were Victorious; the Silver King was forbid entry into the Fatherland for his hunting excursion for fresh venison. The fellas coaxed the dead Muhhamad, albeit it took a very long time, to Forgive his slayer. Muhhamad raised from the Dead in his Forgiveness, just what the fellas desired, and was allowed to reside in the Fatherland in a Mean Time. After the Winter came and ceased he was known to leave into the Hinterlands through a Holy Barrier by the thrusting of his sword through the belly of his horse while riding it into the barrier.

The reason he shall be called Muhhamad: it was by this same manner that Muhhamad rose from the Mount of the Rock in Jerusalem up into Heaven by the slaying of his horse. So, yes, there could be such blood in the veins of European stock. Muhhamad dwelt there. Gnostics (talk) 04:11, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I have just largely rewritten the The name "Black Prince" section, and in the process have completely removed the long discussion of his possibly having been dark-skinned through his ancestry. I have done this, not because I am "stupid, horrible prejudiced" (see above), but because, having looked into this, I can find no evidence that anyone has ever suggested this as the origin of the name outside Wikipedia: it therefore falls clearly under the WP:NOR policy, and has no place here. There were previously ten sources cited for the various theories on the name's origins (all bunched together, rather unhelpfully): four websites and six books. The four websites were all fairly brief and lightweight accounts of the prince, which referred in passing to the "black armour" theory of the name: I have copied them all to the External Links (the ones that weren't already there), but have removed them from this section as they didn't really add much to the discussion. The books included two (different) editions of Chandos Herald's Life of the prince, which uses the sobriquet "Black Prince" in its modern title, but not in the original text: however, neither of them include any discussion of the name, so I've removed them (they're in the bibliography). There were also two scholarly books which seemed to have been inserted to bolster the "black skin" theory: Rene Grousset, The Empire of the Steppes (1970); and Istvan Vasary, Cumans and Tatars (2005): unfortunately, neither of them so much as mention Edward, the Black Prince, his mother, Philippa of Hainault, or even, as far as I can see, the skin-tones of the Mongols, the Cumans or the Tatars. Theye are therefore completely irrelevant, and I have deleted them. That left two books, Barber's Edward Prince of Wales, and Harvey's Black Prince and His Age, and those have formed the basis for my rewrite. If anyone can provide any sound documentation for the "dark skin" theory, feel free to put it back. GrindtXX (talk) 21:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

You clearly are in violation of wikipedia's obligatory multicultural references policy. Failure to write about historical events through the prism of contemporary social agendas is not tolerated. Further violations of this policy may result in suspension of your editorial privileges. 222.230.88.218 (talk) 14:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)Equalux

The Excrescence of Citation Needed Tags

The haphazardly organized placement of citation needed tags takes away from the overall flow and construction of the article. If it's essential that there be a tag for every single statement to this gross extent, then it would make much more sense to attach a citation needed tag to the end of the paragraph in question. As it stands now, it's just plain sloppy and unsightly. I've attempted to remedy the worst of it, but my efforts were deleted without dialogue. Auror 12 March, 2007

If we remove the tag, we should also remove the statement that it tags as well. Do you agree? Wjhonson 00:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

No: It would make much more practical sense if a citation needed tag was simply placed at the end of of the paragraph in question instead of every single solitary sentence. As it stands now, it impedes a reasonable reading and makes it look wholly unprofessional. A crusade for citations is perfectly acceptable if not encouraged, but let's not let it detract from the information the article is trying to explain. If the explanation is muddled as it is now, it significantly affects the readibility and cognition of the text. I'm not particularly fussy, but it is aggravating to see a tag literally every few words. I propose the practical route: at the end of the paragraph. Auror 13 March 2007

The fact tag is typically put on the particular statement to which it refers. If the entire paragraph is not in doubt, but only one sentence in it, it would be confusing to tag the whole paragraph. Since these tags date back to February, I've removed the tags along with the statements with which they are associated. Wjhonson 03:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Death

Out of curiosity, what did he die of? Hey jude, don't let me down 18:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

See the above discussion, "What did Edward die of?". GoodDay 20:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Robber

I heard he was a robber. Is this true? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.149.37.254 (talk) 22:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

Besides robbing French land, no. And their is nothing wrong with robbing French land anyway. 60.229.172.114 03:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Racist.

Horse racing?

Eddy was French. The Black Prince wasn't a Robber and would have had no call to be. (Morcus (talk) 02:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC))

Movie link

The article suggests the Prince was a character in a Movie called Lionheat "Edward was portrayed by Gabriel Byrne in the film Lionheart (1987)." Given that this appears to be Richard the Lionheart I assume this must have been "another" Black Prince but not having seen the movie I haven't deleted it. 202.4.78.29 01:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Plays

I added to Cultural References references to Edward in Shakespeare's Henry V, at least as notable, I would think as his appearance in Novels and Movies.67.207.132.184 (talk) 07:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The Picture of his Burial.

The picture sugests that his effigy is stood up. Forgive me if I'm wrong but I'm sertain that its him lying down (Or at least was last time i saw it).(Morcus (talk) 02:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC))

His entire life is "Early Life"

 Hello most-decent and devoted people,

As a visitor I just like to point out that Edward's entire life seems to take place under the heading of "Early Life", with the exception of his battles, which seem to be in an awkward note form. I don't want to step on any toes, as I'm sure some hard work has gone into it here, but there it is. Thx. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.244.148.222 (talk) 07:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Move to Eddie, the Black Prince

"Edward" is just way too formal for referring to such a great and illustrious English royal. It's already a crying shame that he's stuck with that "Black Prince" moniker, which makes him sound scary and evil. He was only scary to the Froggies he kept kicking butt on. Let's call this good Englishman Eddie instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.148.45.37 (talk) 15:20, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Good luck with that.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 06:55, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. This great man would be better served with the moniker of Eddie, the Black Prince. 71.23.117.168 (talk) 13:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Concur. It's a shame he never became king. We wouldn't have to deal with France today because he would have conquered all of it. All hail Eddie, the Black Prince! 71.52.128.216 (talk) 21:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Still doesn't do him justice. This man was awesome. He kicked more French butt than any man before Heinz Guderian. He's not just Eddie, the Black Prince. He's Eddie the Great, the Black Prince! 184.3.254.112 (talk) 00:10, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Edward, The Black Prince — is best. Let the name stand, to his honor. .!. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:14, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

He was English. Shouldn't it stand to his honour? In any case, if we must call him Edward, all hail Edward the Great, the Black Prince, All-Highest Kicker of Frenchie Butt! 71.23.117.168 (talk) 00:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

New article needed

The Cultural References section is so large, maybe a new article should be created from it? What does everyone think? Ruby2010 (talk) 16:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it's an approach that works, just take a look at Guy Fawkes and Guy Fawkes in popular culture or Tower of London and its pop culture article to see how it can be done. When "popular culture" starts dominating an article it becomes appropriate to move the information elsewhere and I think that stage has been reached here. Nev1 (talk) 21:56, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd agree - it could do with being broken out. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:41, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

File:Coin of Edward the Black Prince.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Coin of Edward the Black Prince.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:19, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Tomb Effigy Picture

The picture is the wrong way round.

It is a photograph of a tomb and should be rotated through 90 deg anti-clockwise.

I do not know how to make that change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.3.51 (talk) 08:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Although you are technically correct, there's a long tradition of turning photos (and before that engravings) of medieval tomb effigies through 90 degrees, and using them as if they were portraits of the living person. There is some justification for it, in that the medieval sculptors themselves were often ambiguous as to what they were showing: although the effigies were laid horizontally, their clothing was often shown "hanging" as if they were standing upright. GrindtXX (talk) 22:39, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

"First English Duke" and "First English Prince of Wales not to become King"

Taken together, the wording of these two bits is a little confusing. Were there prior English Prince(s) of Wales who did go on to become King but who did not happen to have been Dukes either before or after they became King? I'm not an expert on this, but it seems unlikely, don't Kings get a bunch of titles with a Duke thrown in? 68.174.97.122 (talk) 16:20, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

While earlier English Kings had been dukes of places in France, the first time and English King awarded the title of "Duke" to someone was when Edward III did it for his eldest son in 1337. Thus, the Black Prince was the "first English Duke", even though previous English kings had been French dukes. Edward was also the first English heir given the title of "Prince of Wales" who did not become King, although he was only the second English heir to be created Prince of Wales (Edward III was never made Prince of Wales). john k (talk) 06:07, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 27 August 2017

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved  — Amakuru (talk) 15:12, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

---

Edward, the Black Prince → Edward the Black Prince – As evidenced by List of monarchs by nickname, royalty known by their nickname do not have a comma in their article title – Henry the Young King, not "Henry, the Young King"; William the Conqueror, not "William, the Conqueror". Based on our standards the comma implies "Black Prince" is a title (such as with Charles, Prince of Wales, etc.). Other encyclopedias also appear to favour this usage. [2] Ivar the Boneful (talk) 05:43, 27 August 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. —usernamekiran(talk) 20:11, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• Support move per nominator.  ONR  (talk)  05:51, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support move The Raincloud Kid (talk) 17:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

What is in a name

@user:Srnec you made this edit with the comment "cleanup lead, restore alt. nickname", there is a footnote at the end of the sentence that includes:

Edwards was Duke of Cornwall (from 1337), the Prince of Wales (from 1343) and the Prince of Aquitaine (1362–1372). He sometimes called Edward of Woodstock (Hunt 1889, p. 90 cites le Baker Chronicle) and also sometimes Edward IV (Hunt 1889, p. 90 cites Walsingham Eulogium).

Why did you place "Edward of Woodstock" into the first sentence as it is an alternative in the footnote?

-- PBS (talk) 17:20, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

• Because I didn't read the footnote. I only compared the earlier version with the later and the nickname was gone from the lead. The information in the footnote belongs in the first paragraph (except the Edward IV stuff). Srnec (talk) 21:19, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Siege of Limoges

I am noting here that the section on the Siege of Limoges in the article is a direct quote from a 19th century copy of the DNB. Not only is the language non-encyclopaedic by modern standards, it also contrasts strongly with the more up-to-date scholarship referenced in the main article. I do not wish to alter it without giving a chance for regular page editors to make their own changes in light of this. Monstrelet (talk) 15:59, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

In this edit in November 2017, User:PBS replaced almost the whole of the existing article with the text from the 1889 DNB article, which has subsequently received only some very light housekeeping-style edits. PBS's edit made the article considerably longer and more comprehensive, but also wildly out of date in numerous respects, and it needs a great deal more work to bring it into line with current scholarship. If you can do that with regard to the Siege of Limoges (or anything else), please be bold. I also have considerable reservations, incidentally, about the large number of imaginative, romanticised and frankly misleading 19th-century images now illustrating the article, and would like to see most of those replaced, although I appreciate that finding authentic medieval imagery may be difficult. GrindtXX (talk) 17:24, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

@GrindtXX its just eye candy to break up the text (many people read by pictures). Until the advent of photography nearly every battle scene we have is an icon not an accurate pictorial representation of the battle. I would agree that the images ought to be replaced, with more authentic medieval imagery, but I used what was available on commons. -- PBS (talk) 20:31, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I've made an edit and, after a bit of effort, sorted the citation to make it conform to the article's style. I also clarified the two works by authors called Jones while there. I think the article struggles with its level of detail of events(for example the Battles of Crecy and Poitiers, which have serviceable coverage in their own articles using more modern scholarship) and generally in heavy reliance on quoting from a single source nearly 130 years old. If anyone decides to organise a task group to improve the article, please declare it on the talk page and I'll return to help out. Monstrelet (talk) 18:59, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

If you make edits like this please do not remove citations from the end of paragraphs.

There is a problem with adding "According to Jean Froissart," because is that much of the text is based on "according to Froissart" (as one of the primary sources), so it put undue emphasis on this paragraph being from Froissart implies that none of the rest of the text is based on that primary source. It would be better to write something like this: "William Hunt,(DNB 1889) citing Froissart as a source states that .... However more recent research by xyz questions that account and concludes ...". The ODNB uses that format:

Froissart paints a black picture of their ensuing actions, claiming that they massacred the inhabitants; he regards this as a stain on the prince's character, and attributes it to his sense of betrayal at the hands of the bishop. Local historians, however, contradict this account, showing only that the numbers of casualties correspond to the likely numbers of the garrison: there is no firm evidence for any killing of civilians, though the city was systematically devastated. Tactically, however, this was not sufficient to frighten other cities into submission.

-- PBS (talk) 20:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that, and sorting the refs. For the record, the "According to Froissart" is connected to the quote at the end of the sentence - without sourcing, it just seems like more Victorian theatrics. As I've said, happy to join any task team working on updating. I quite like Hunt's style (with perhaps updating some obsolete expressions and his love of long, multiclause sentences) but the accounts of the major battles could reflect more recent scholarship. When I have a minute, I'll at least correct a couple of errors I've spotted in the Crecy account, but will hang fire on more major work until regular editors are happy to proceed. Thanks again. Monstrelet (talk) 09:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

"Tactically, however, this was not sufficient to frighten other cities into submission." think Oliver Cromwell's justification for the massacre during the storming of Drogheda in 1649, "I am persuaded that this is a righteous judgment of God upon these barbarous wretches, who have imbrued their hands in so much innocent blood; and that it will tend to prevent the effusion of blood for the future. (Cromwell's letter to William Lenthall, Speaker of the House of Commons). -- PBS (talk) 16:53, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I think we need to be careful with these edits - how much detail about the sourcing is needed in this paragraph, when the sources are in line cited anyway? It's pretty clunky now. Also, while I see where you are going with the contrasting two versions of the DNB, the key modern source is Jones' 2017 biography, which treats the evidence, including that post Barber, in more detail. Monstrelet (talk) 21:38, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Sort it out as you will. I think it is an improvement to break out the historical narrative so that what is not disputed is clearly demarcated from that which is. I compared the two DNBs because they are an easy NPOV way to make a comparison of sources that in their day carried similar weight (by that I mean all bullet points listed in WP:SOURCE). If you think that Jones's 2017 biography adds significantly to what Richard Barber wrote in 2008 then by all means drop Barber and use Jones inline.

Usually I would say drop the 100 year old history completely, but it is needed to explain one reason why Edward may have been called the Black Prince. If it were to be taken out of this section then it will have to be reintroduced into the section/note on his name. The other option is to take the old history and place it into a footnote. So that the article reads something like this:

Extended content

When the Black Prince heard of the surrender of Limoges to the French, he swore "by the soul of his father" that he would have the place again and would make the inhabitants pay dearly for their treachery. He set out from Cognac with an army of about 4,000 men. Due to his sickness he was unable to mount his horse, and was carried in a litter. During the siege of Limoges the prince determined to take the town ordered the undermining the walls. On 19 September, his miners succeeded in demolishing a large piece of wall which filled the ditches with its ruins. The town was then stormed, and the garrison and some civilians were killed (about 300 in total). References

-- PBS (talk) 23:23, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Names again

The appearance of a sentence on the name Black prince, partially summarising information given in more detail in note C, does raise the issue of whether the explanation of Edward's commonly recognised modern name should not be given more prominence. I would propose moving the footnote into a section in the latter half of the article, giving it more prominence but avoiding disruption of the historical narrative and allowing the sentence in the lead to be dispensed with. As several editors are working on the aerticle at present, I'm opening to comment rather than just proceeding with a bold edit. Monstrelet (talk) 11:26, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

The most recent edit that introduced that material into the lead was made by a sock puppet of a blocked user, so I wouldn't worry too much about treading on toes. See Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Edits by and on behalf of blocked editors: Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a block. Celia Homeford (talk) 11:34, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I entirely agree with Monstrelet's proposal to restore a dedicated section on the name to the article. The matter is clearly of interest to readers (witness the various past attempts that have been made to assign Edward "black" ethnicity), and it would be useful to have a clear and (as far as the evidence goes) definitive statement. I would propose restoring the section The name "Black Prince", deleted by PBS in Nov 2017 but copied above – which at least has the advantage of citing modern scholarship – and modifying with some of the material from current note C. PBS's comment that it was "crazy" that this was the largest section in the article may have been valid at the time, but the section would not be disproportionately long in the present expanded version. As it is, even after Monstrelet's recent deletion of one reference to the name from the lede, it is still claimed that "He was named the Black Prince after the battle of Crécy, at which he was possibly accoutred in black armour", which – quite apart from the confusing syntax – is highly misleading: the Black Prince name doesn't appear until the C16, and the "black armour" derivation is merely one unsubstantiated theory. I don't have time to work on this at the moment, but – unless there are objections, or unless somebody else wants to volunteer – may have a go later. GrindtXX (talk) 14:39, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

The offending line is removed. Text of an article should not contradict itself and the footnote is cited content. User:GrindtXX by all means draft a section and we can go from there. Monstrelet (talk) 14:57, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

1. The text we are discussing is currently on this talk page in a section called #The name "Black Prince".
2. A major problem with the previous text is that there is a lot of speculation in the text that has no in-line attribution to any expert (or in many cases a citation) as such it breaches WP:NOR. Any text that is restored should not[only] include sourced speculation.
   • "Although Edward is often referred to as the 'Black Prince', there is no record of this name being used during his lifetime, nor for more than 150 years after his death. He was instead known as Edward of Woodstock (after his place of birth), or by one of his titles." says who?
   • "The name's earliest known appearance in print is" says who?
   • "this name would obviously have become confusing when the actual Edward IV succeeded in 1461, and this may have been the period when an alternative had to be found." is this Richard Barber's speculation?
   • "Edward's brutality in France is also well documented, and this may be where the title had its origins." says Who? The name of something can have two different meanings in two languages. For example what Saddam Hussein meant with "The mother of all battles" does not necessarily translate directly into English although the phrase was adopted into English--when a GIs said was the "Mother of all battles" they was probably truncating a well known two word American profanity that starts with "mother"). This could just as easily be an adoption by the French of an English nickname with their own interpretation. The text goes on to contradict the statement "brutality in France is also well documented" so says who?
   • "King of France to "that black name, Edward, Black Prince of Wales" suggests that the playwright may have interpreted the name in this way" No it does not. It means that Shakespeare thought that the French interpreted it that way (putting the words in the French king's mouth) and it may just have been a play on words. So the speculation that "[Shakespeare] interpreted the name in this way" needs an expert source draws that meaning from the bards words.
   • "However a more contemporary document written by Edward himself was recently discovered in a Spanish archive." It does not say by whom or give a source.
   • "In France Edward is seen as a villainous invader who ruled the occupied territories with an iron fist." Almost certainly give what Charles de Gaulle thought of Eisenhower, let alone what the French thought of the Germans, but such a statement needs a source to back it up, because in the Middle Ages the French population did not necessarily see themselves as belonging to a French national state, and their allegiance to a noble, did not necessarily mean that what we would call today "a foreigner" would be perceived that way--Any more than French speaking people like Richard I or John were seen as "villainous invader[s]" (though the latter certainly was seen as villainous in England). Most of the areas that the Black Prince "invaded" had been at one time or another in his family's possession since the time of Henry II of England & Eleanor of Aquitaine.
3. I see no reason to include the speculation about the name in a section. This is about a cognomen and while its disputed origins are noteworthy, they are not part of the biography, so why not leave the speculation as a footnote?

-- PBS (talk) 12:59, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks PBS for that useful critique. If GrindtXX does wish to rewrite this section, then these will need to be borne in mind. To answer the last question, if the cognomen is a key part of the title, this gives a reason to give it some prominence in the text. As there is actually no consensus as to the origin and meaning of the term (the armour idea, the heraldic idea, the evil nature idea) it can't just be dismissed in a line. IMO, the current placing this information in a footnote is insufficiently prominent. My own (minimal) edit suggestion is to advance the footnote to main text and allow any who wish to update the debate with referenced content.Monstrelet (talk) 13:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

I have now restored the section, basing it on that previously deleted (with numerous modifications); and have removed the existing footnote. Others will no doubt wish to adjust further, but I hope this is at least a starting point. In my view, there is certainly a strong case for including such a section rather than leaving the material tucked away in a footnote: the nickname is included in the article title, its origins are clearly a matter of curiosity to many readers, and it is common practice for Wikipedia articles to conclude with a "Legacy" section (or similar) that includes this sort of material. This article isn't (or shouldn't be) solely solely concerned with Edward's biography: it should also consider his reputation – contemporary and posthumous – and the cognomen is part of that. Barber (1978) includes his discussion within a concluding chapter titled "The Legend". I have, however, excluded the discussion of whether or not Edward's reputation for brutality was justified or not: there may be a place for such a discussion somewhere in this article, but not in this section.

For the record, here is Barber's 1978 discussion in full:

Barber's 1978 discussion in full

[The Black Prince name] was first used by John Leland in his Collectanea, a manuscript anthology of earlier writers on British history dating from the 1530s and 1540s, but not later than 1548. Leland, in summarizing a chronicle by John Warkworth of Peterhouse, Cambridge, refers to how "the blake prince wan a feld of the frenchmen by Chaveney", and he also gives the name in Latin when summarizing the Eulogium Historiarum: Ibidem compare Itinerarium Edwardi Principis cog: Nigri. Neither the Eulogium nor the manuscript of Warkworth's chronicle contain the words "the black prince", nor does Caxton's Chronicle from which Warkworth was copying. Many guesses have been made as to the origin of the name, chiefly centring on black armour. All that can be said for certain is that it was sufficiently current in Leland's time for him to recognize it as the usual way of referring to the prince. I would suggest that its true origin may be in pageantry, in that a tradition had grown up of representing the prince in black armour. Furthermore, the likely period for the general use of such name to become established would be under Edward IV. Chronicles contemporary with the prince, including the Eulogium, often refer to him as Edward the Fourth, anticipating his succession to the throne. With the coronation of Edward IV, this name became confusing, and another had to be found. He is also, but less commonly, called Edward of Woodstock in contemporary works, and this evidently failed to catch on. Leland's sources were primarily English, so that the suggestion that the French called him le neoir seems unlikely. [Citations: Leland, 1774, II, p. 479; Bodleian MS. Gen. top. C. 1 f. 689; Cambridge UL, Peterhouse MS. 190; Caxton, William, The Chronicles of England, 1480; Eulogium, II, p. 215 (in one MS. quarti is erased); Barnes, p. 363.]

GrindtXX (talk) 14:39, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit using WP:V ("The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing an inline citation" WP:BURDEN) , because I think it is premature as you have left lots of unattributed statement in the text. eg "Although Edward is often referred to as the "Black Prince", no reliable record is known of this name being used during his lifetime, nor for more than 150 years after his death. He was instead referred to by one of his titles, or as "Edward of Woodstock" (after his place of birth)." Says who? -- PBS (talk) 15:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Let me try to explain a bit further the is a fundamental difference between "no reliable record is known of this name being used during his lifetime" and "was first used by John Leland in his Collectanea, a manuscript anthology of earlier writers on British history dating from the 1530s and 1540s". To use the latter to support the former is a form of "WP:SYNTH". I think that the wording in the footnote is in many regards superior to this text, as it highlights the problems with many of the interpretations eg "The first recorded notices of the appellation seem to be given by Leland Collectanea in a heading to the "Itinerary' extracted from 'Eulogium". The "Black Prince", however, is not in the "Eulogium" of the Rolls Series, except in the editor's marginal notes." -- PBS (talk) 15:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I think you do need to explain a bit further. As far as I can see, it is not synthesis, it is paraphrase. Both Hunt 1889 and Barber 1978 clearly state that the earliest known appearance of the Black Prince name is in Leland, while allowing that Leland may have been drawing on an older tradition. My proposed wording says precisely the same thing, except that for the sake of clarification I have emphasised that Leland was writing 150+ years after Edward's death. What is this "fundamental difference" you speak of? By all means adjust the wording, but to delete the entire section is draconian over-reaction and smacks of WP:OWNERSHIP. The views of other editors would be appreciated. GrindtXX (talk) 18:51, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

(1) "no reliable record" so does that mean there "unreliable records"?

(2) There is a further problem because the discussion sources covers stuff written before that date which mention connections. For example you mention a source (Philippe de Mézières) that call him a "the greatest of the black boars", if a he was greatest of the black pigs then was he a prince of black pigs? (using prince as per Elizabeth's "Tilbury Speech")?

(3) "He was instead referred to" who says?

I am going to revert my revert and then hack the first couple of sentences around. I still think this is only worthy of a footnote, but I will leave it in the section you have placed it, but with a not that links to the section.

-- PBS (talk) 14:57, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I have converted the citations from long in-line CS1s to short inline with CS2 citations in the references section.

I think that this section is way too long and detailed. For example the ODNB simply sums it up in one sentence (my emphasis):

The first historian to attempt a serious assessment of his career was Joshua Barnes in his History of Edward III (1688); military historians have of course treated him as a major figure, but neither his household nor his period of government in Gascony has been fully studied. Even his sobriquet, the Black Prince, which is not found until the Tudor period, is as obscure as his character; it has been variously attributed to his black armour and to French hatred of him. Rightly or wrongly, it is Froissart's depiction of him that has fired the imagination of succeeding centuries, for whom he embodies a golden age of English military feats and of chivalry.

-- PBS (talk) 16:16, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

In answer to your first question, there are indeed "unreliable records": they include Leland's paraphrases of (and arguably quotations from) the Eulogium and Warkworth, and Barnes' apparent citation of a record of 1378–9, all of which look plausible, but none of which can now be verified. However, I'm quite content with your modest adjustments of my submission, and hope we can now let this particular issue rest. Third-party views, of course, remain welcome. GrindtXX (talk) 19:07, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Florid Language?

I'm not necessarily complaining, just asking- why is the language of this whole article so florid and old fashioned that it looks like it was written in about 1900? It is not necessarily wrong, but I feel it might not be considered very encyclopedic. Was it perhaps translated from another language or something? IceDragon64 (talk) 23:45, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

The current article is still heavily dependent (in both content and wording) on the 1889 Dictionary of National Biography article by William Hunt. It has been updated in places, but there's still a lot more that could be done. GrindtXX (talk) 00:13, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I had the same observation. In particular, between the footnote marks 71 & 72, "The knights of Castile pressed his van sorely, but the wings of Henry's army behaved ill..." I am an unapologetic anglophile and fan of history, but that's a bit much. It's flowery enough that I'm not certain enough about what they meant to rewrite it myself. Help? Last1in (talk) 19:08, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

It's the peril of mass import of Victorian originals. I've tidied that paragraph and hopefully, the meaning is clearer. Monstrelet (talk) 08:45, 26 November 2019 (UTC)