This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Kent, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the county of Kent in South East England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.KentWikipedia:WikiProject KentTemplate:WikiProject KentKent-related articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject English Royalty. For more information, visit the project page.English RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject English RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject English RoyaltyEnglish royalty articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
Why are we using Plantagenet for him? My understanding was that this name was used by Henry II's father, and then not used again until Richard, duke of York revived it. john k (talk) 13:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We can always change it to read as John, 3rd Earl of Kent. However, Plantagenet was his surname, and it describes him better than merely John, 3rd Earl of Kent. Let's get some feedback from other editors before we move it.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:42, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, Plantagenet was not his surname. You can't just give someone a surname based on the fact that people related to them used it as a surname a century later, and that one ancestor had it as a cognomen. I agree we should wait to hear other opinions, but unless someone can point to prominent instances of him being known as "Plantagenet," I don't think that's an acceptable title. john k (talk) 02:55, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The only alternative is just John, 3rd Earl of Kent as he had no other suitable titles or nicknames by which he was known such as Edmund of Woodstock, 1st Earl of Kent or Joan, Maid of Kent, etc. I am aware that Plantagenet was never used in the lifetime of the royal Plantagenets until Richard, Duke of York used it, and that was many years after the death of John. However, the Royal Family of England from the reign of Henry II to Richard II is listed as the House of Plantagenet, so even if it was not technically his surname he was part of the Plantagenet dynasty. Let's wait until we hear from other editors; if nobody replies on this page, we'll go ahead and move the article to John, 3rd Earl of Kent.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 03:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds fine. My basic issue is that being a member of the house of Plantagenet does not mean that your surname is "Plantagenet" - the two are distinct, although related, concepts. This is especially so given that, as I understand it, the idea of a "House of Plantagenet" is one which also essentially appeared retroactively, and was not used contemporaneously. john k (talk) 04:07, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
His sister's article is named Joan of Kent, so I think we could go ahead and use the simple but indisputably accurate John, 3rd Earl of Kent. Let's leave it for another 24 hours and if nobody offers any objections here, we can move it.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mission completed. Plantagenet has now been removed from the article's title. A pity, as I quite like that surname. John, you were right in pointing out my mistake. An historian would have noticed it sooner or later and called me on it. Thanks.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you are right to point out errors. That's being observant, not nit-picky. I had made a mistake, I'm glad it was you who politely pointed it out to me instead of some scornful academic. Thanks again, John.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
