Wikipedia:Peer review/Henry II of England/archive1

Henry II of England

I've just finished up Edward I, and it seems to being going through FA pretty smoothly so far, so I'm planning to take up Henry II in the next month or so. I've made several edits last year, and I think with a bit more cleaning and trimming, this article could be ready for FA, too. My main concern is the length. I'd like to retain as much information as possible, but unfortunately, that's not going to be able to happen. Thanks everyone, Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:12, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

STANDARD NOTE: I have added this PR to the Template:FAC peer review sidebar to get quicker and more responses. When this PR is closed, please remove it from the list. Also, consider adding the sidebar to your userpage to help others discover pre-FAC PRs, and please review other articles in that template. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 16:52, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Comment from Tim riley

I'm not sure how much help my comments are going to be at this stage. I had jotted down these thoughts:

This article seems to me simply too long, at 77 kB/12,795 words. An encyclopaedia article should be succinct and easily digestible for non-expert visitors. See WP guideline. In my view you need to get it down to under 10,000 words, and preferably fewer. Hiving discrete sections off into spin-off articles is possibly the right approach. There is at least one such already: we have a 3,000-word article on the Becket murder and so do we need a 700-odd-word section on it here? Boil it down to a couple of pithy paragraphs here, I suggest. Et cetera.

But then I checked the article in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, which weighs in at just under 14,000 words. So I shall wait to see what other reviewers think about the question of the length, and add my detailed comments if the consensus is that the present text is not overlong. Tim riley talk 15:11, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I was thinking the exact same thing. Regardless of the consensus reached here, I'm still going to try to eliminate a couple hundred words at the very least, especially in the lead. The article has passed both GA and A-class, so I'd hate to do a complete overhaul of an article that's already been improved and polished by experienced editors such as Hchc2009. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:43, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

@Tim riley: Hello, good sir. I am nearly finished with Dudley's comments and am about to begin Borsoka's. At this stage, do you have any brief comments to offer? A full review would be far too generous and time-consuming, but if you do not mind, I would like to garner an outside perspective on the article's length, sources, readability, and other such topics. Many thanks, Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:14, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Detailed comments

I'll comment on the length when I have finished reviewing the text. My comments below are mostly be to do with the prose, as I know little about the subject. Given the size of the article it will take me more than one go. Here is the first, down to the end of Economy and finance:

• "Often he was scruffily dressed" – the adverb seems a little slangy for an encyclopaedia article, but I confess I can't think of a better one. Not important, but you may like to ponder.

I likewise cannot think of an appropriate synonym.

• "reignited Henry's tensions with Louis" – does one ignite tensions?

Changed to revived, although I am sure that better words exist out there.

• "not to mention that the marriage " – but you are mentioning it. A simple "and" would be preferable I think.

Changed.

• "commenced rebuilding the kingdom" – "commence" is a rather prissy word; "begin" or "start" would be stronger as well as shorter.

Changed to began.

• "Henry had a problematic relationship with Louis VII " – careful with "problematic": it can mean "full of problems" as I think you mean here, but it can also mean "possible but unlikely" (as in The Importance of Being Earnest: "if you ever get married, which seems to me extremely problematic, you will be very glad to know Bunbury"). One can usually find another word, and I try to do so.

Changed to "difficult".

• "capitalising on his reputation as a crusader" – ambiguous: clearer if you added "own" before "reputation".

Ah, good spot. Fixed.

• "has led historian Jean Dunbabin " – clunky false title

Darn. Thanks for catching that. Fixed.

• "also cunningly implied " – a bit editorial

I have deleted "cunningly".

• "threatened to invade himself" – how do you invade yourself? (cf one of my favourite press cuttings which reads "Lampard twice had chances straight after to double the lead, first dragging a left-foot shot wide then failing to find Rooney in the box when he should have shot himself".)

It sounds strange in writing, but read aloud it makes more sense. Henry threatened to invade himself. It is like saying, "Fine, I'll do it myself".

Quite so. I knew what you meant but thought I'd just mention the matter − one is here to pick nits, after all − and I don't press the point. Tim riley talk 14:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• "Indeed, royal patronage within the Church " – "Indeed" here is not only editorial but unnecessary.

Fixed.

• "In Aquitaine, ducal authority remained very limited, despite increasing significantly during Henry's reign, largely due to Richard's efforts in the late 1170s" – two things here. First, you are fond of the word "significant" or "significantly". It occurs eight times in the article. This, from Plain Words, seems to me to be wise advice: [Significant] is a good and useful word, but it has a special flavour of its own and it should not be thoughtlessly used as a mere variant of important, considerable, appreciable, or quite large ... it ought to be used only where there is a ready answer to the reader's unspoken question 'Significant, is it? And what does it signify?' Secondly, although in AmE "due to" is accepted as a compound preposition on a par with "owing to", but in BrE it is not universally so regarded. "Owing to" or, better, "because of" is safer in the context here.

Both fixed.

• "as historian John Gillingham describes it" – another false title

Fixed.

• "the succession might have proven much smoother" – in standard BrE the past tense of "prove" is "proved". ("Proven" crops up in Scottish law, and in AmE, but is not wanted here.)

Fixed.

• "fell by 46 percent" – "per cent" is traditionally written as two words in BrE.

Fixed.

More anon. – Tim riley talk 10:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@Tim riley: Thank you for your comments thus far; I have addressed all of them. Seems like a big problem with the article is that I am a Yank! The conventions of British English continue to fascinate me. Unlimitedlead (talk) 11:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I sympathise. When I have worked on articles about American subjects (e.g. Cole Porter or Alfred Lunt) I have had the good luck to have a valued American colleague to keep me on the straight and narrow and to save me from inadvertent Anglicisms. One of the advantages of taking an article to PR, as you have prudently done, is that conflicts between BrE and AmE, among much else, can be sorted out in relative quiet before the rigo(u)rs of FAC. Tim riley talk 14:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Concluding batch

• "but needed Henry's support in dealing with Frederick I, Holy Roman Emperor, so he repeatedly sought a negotiated solution" – although "so" is much used in speech as a conjunction − I do it myself − it shouldn't, in my view, be forced into that role in print. What I suggest here is "and so" or even just "and".

Changed to "and so".

• "massacring many of them and pushing them back across the border" – reads rather oddly: he pushed them across the border after massacring them? Perhaps replace the second "them" with "the survivors" or some such?

Done.

• "a royal army defeated a superior force of rebel and Flemish reinforcements – not all that superior if they lost. Possibly "defeated a larger force..."?

Done.

• "took appropriate penance" – most of the examples quoted in the OED have "do" as the verb before penance.

Fixed.

• "Berry, a prosperous region ... parts of the Berry" – with or without the definite article?

Without. Fixed.

• "Henry forced Richard to give homage" – I notice that throughout you have various verbs with "homage": "do homage", "pay homage" and "give homage". The OED favours the first for the acknowledgement of a feudal superior and reserves the second for the extended modern use of the term, meaning to declare reverence, dutiful respect, or honour to somebody one admires. Nowhere does the OED mention "give homage". It looks to me as though you'd be better off with "do/did homage" passim.

Fixed.

• "he held it by marriage, so Henry's favourite son John would become the Duke" – another "so" press-ganged into serving as a conjunction.

Done.

• "French King, Philip II Augustus, who had come to power in 1180" – slightly unexpected way of putting it, unless there was a coup d'etat. Succeeded to the throne might be a more usual way of phrasing it.

Fixed.

• "With the death of Geoffrey, the relationship between Henry and Philip broke down" – You sometimes give the French king both his names and sometimes just the one. This looks a bit odd, and I wonder if calling him "Philip Augustus" throughout" – or alternatively, after first mention, just "Philip" − might make the prose flow more smoothly.

Switched to Philip Augustus in the article.

• "Gerald of Wales, a contemporary chronicler usually unsympathetic to the Angevins, wrote somewhat flatteringly of Henry in Topographia Hibernica" – but if, as our Wikipedia article on Gerald states, Topographia Hibernica was Gerald's first book, shouldn't "usually unsympathetic" be "later usually unsympathetic"?

Fixed.

• "His legal changes are generally considered to have laid the basis for English Common Law" – I seem to remember from my schooldays that our man was known as "Henry the Law Giver". If so, and if the sources mention it, it might be worth mention here. Or perhaps not – I leave the matter with you.

I have not heard this name before in my readings; in the interest of keeping the article concise and academic, I will not include this tidbit.

• "the Exchequer court being a forerunner of the later Common Bench" – I am probably showing my ignorance, but the Court of the Exchequer was still going strong in the latter half of the 19th century (W. S. Gilbert mentions it in Trial by Jury and Iolanthe) rather than being superseded by the Common Bench, as this sentence implies.

Changed to "precursor".

• "in regards to Henry II and his sons" – according to Fowler the standard phrasing is "with regard [singular] to"

Fixed.

• "Historian John Gillingham – another false title.

Fixed.

• "The term "the Anarchy" as a label for this conflict originates with the Victorian scholar John Horace Round" – he (born 1854) must have been an infant prodigy if so, as the OED cites William Stubbs's Early Plantagenets (1876): "Accession of Stephen—Arrest of the Bishops—Election of Matilda—The Anarchy—The Pacification"

Fixed.

That's all from me. Having expressed doubts, above, about the length of the article I must in all honesty say that I have found no hardship in reading through it in its entirety for a second time, and have greatly enjoyed it. If − or I hope when − I have to read it a third time when you take it to FAC I shall not repine. Please be sure to ping me at the FAC stage. Tim riley talk 14:05, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@Tim riley Thank you for your helpful review and kind words. I am relieved that the length has not posed a major issue, and I will be sure to summon you at the FA nomination later this year. Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

• I will try to do a full review, but on a quick look, two things strike me, excessive length, as discussed above, and the citation of unreliable sources, as with Edward I. It is interesting that the length goes back to when hchc put it through A-Class in 2012 (then 12,300 words}, but the most dubious sources, Costain and Weir, have been added since hchc stopped editing. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:47, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks Dudley. It appears the Costain citation is just to back up something he said himself, and unfortunately I was compelled to add Weir as a temporary source to fill in some citation needed tags. Apologies, Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

• ", and as such, was the first Angevin king of England. King Louis VII of France made him Duke of Normandy in 1150. Henry became Count of Anjou and Maine upon the death of his father, Count Geoffrey V, in 1151. His marriage in 1152 to Eleanor of Aquitaine, former spouse of Louis VII, made him Duke of Aquitaine. He became Count of Nantes by treaty in 1158." First Angevin king is not supported in the main text so far as I can see and it will mean little to the reader. The whole passage is too detailed for the lead. I would delete. (This would necessitate some changes below, for expample to explain Eleanor.)
• "partially controlled Scotland and the Duchy of Brittany". What does partially controlled mean? Maybe controlled parts of or strong influence in.
• "Stephen agreed to a peace treaty". For clarity, I would say that Stephen agreed that Henry would be his successor.
• " restore the lands and privileges of his grandfather Henry I" Maybe " restore the royal lands and privileges of his grandfather Henry I".
• "restored the royal administration in England," Maybe add "which had almost collapsed during Stephen's reign".
• "Three of his sons would be king, though Henry the Young King was named his father's co-ruler rather than a stand-alone king." Three is dubious. The Young Henry's rule was only nominal even as co-ruler.
• ""Young Henry", rebelled in protest". You need to say what he was protesting against.
• "Young Henry and Geoffrey revolted again in 1183, resulting in Young Henry's death". Resulting? He died of dysentery.
• "Henry struggled to find ways to satisfy all his sons' desires for land and immediate power." This should be at the beginning of the section on his sons to explain his problems.
• "Philip successfully played on Richard's fears that Henry II would make John king, leading to a final rebellion". I do not remember the details of the final rebellion, but I do remember that John supported Richard at the end, so it must have been more complex than Richard's suspicion of him.
• "Nevertheless, Henry has drawn continual interest from academic and popular historians." Many kings draw interest. I would delete.
• More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:37, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

• Unlimitedlead have you seen these comments? Dudley Miles (talk) 23:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

  Hi @Dudley Miles: yes I have. Unfortunately, I've been quite occupied with school, so I haven't been able to look at them yet. I'll try to get to them soon. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:24, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

  All done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 03:09, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

• "and the Angevin rulers" "and its Angevin rulers"?
• "After her father's death in 1135, Matilda hoped to claim the English throne, but instead her cousin Stephen of Blois was crowned king". I think it is important to say that Henry I had designated Matilda as his heir and the nobility, including Stephen, had pledged fealty to her.
• "The war, termed the Anarchy by Victorian historians, dragged on and degenerated into stalemate." I would leave out "Victorian". It is still called that.
• "accompanied by Robert of Gloucester." Robert needs explaining. Maybe "accompanied by Matilda's powerful illegitimate half-brother, Robert of Gloucester."
• "with an intellectually bent mind" "with an intellectual bent of mind"?
• Maybe mention that Eleanor was eleven years older than Henry?
• "it was considered an insult, it ran counter to feudal practice, as Henry had "stolen" Louis' wife". This does not seem quite right. Warren says that it was an insult because Louis had had the marriage annulled on the ground of consanguinity and Henry was as closely related to Eleanor as Louis, and because as an heiress of a fief of the French crown she should not have married without Louis's consent.
• "leaving Henry's position remarkably secure". I would delete "rmarkably".
• "The royal forest law had collapsed in large parts of the country." What does this mean - that royal forest rights had become null?
• "Henry set about reversing this trend". "reversing these losses"?
• "settling himself with ravaging the surrounding county". "settling himself" does not make sense.
• "Henry reacted angrily; the King had custody of both Young Henry and Margaret" "the King" does not make clear which king. Maybe "Henry, who had custody of both Young Henry and Margaret, reacted angrily"
• "Henry's seizure of the Vexin proved to be a second long-running dispute between him and the kings of France." Maybe "started a second long-running dispute".
• More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:52, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Dudley Miles All done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:40, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

• "Henry controlled more of France than any ruler since the Carolingians". I would add "in the ninth century".
• "Vincent (2007b), pp. 304–205" This page range does not make sense.
• "His travels coincided with regional governmental reforms and other local administrative business, although messengers connected him to his possession wherever he went." This sentence does not make sense.
• "Using his powers of patronage, he was very effective at finding and keeping competent officials, including within the Church, in the 12th century a key part of royal administration". This sentence is confused.

If it is an issue of wording, I have changed it. Just in case, I have requested access to the pages at Wikipedia:REREQ in order to make sure my new wording is factually correct. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

All good. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:10, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

• "In Normandy, the links between the two halves of the Anglo-Norman nobility had weakened during the first half of the 12th century". It is unclear what the two halves refer to. If it is between the nobles resident in England and France, why did the links only weaken in Normandy?

Clarified.

• You discuss the rise of 'new men' twice.

The first mention is in regards to how the new men were used in England, whereas the second mention is in regards to Normandy.

• "Henry's rule was a harsh one." It is ambiguous whether you are referring to Mormandy or generally. You need to clarify. It presumably does not apply in areas where his power was weak, as you imply in the next sentences. The comment would be better in the legacy section, where it could be put in context.

Removed: the statement, while possibly true, lacks a citation at the moment and sounds non-POV.

• "his recognition of Raymond of Toulouse in 1173". You do not explain Raymond.

Done.

• "or his harsh temper". "and his harsh temper".

Done.

• "He had several long-term mistresses, including Annabel de Balliol and Rosamund Clifford.[169][nb 20]" Mentioning this in the context of his quarrel with Eleanor implies a connection, which as you say in the note is not believed by historians. I would move the sentence to the recreation paragraph.

Done.

• "either through granting lands to his sons or marrying his daughters well" Not either..or.

Fixed.

• "marrying his daughters well". This raises an interesting question, to which I do not know the answer. Was a nunnery not considered suitable for a king's daughter in this period? None seem to have been nuns between the daughters of William I and Edward I, but it seems unlikely that this was ruled out in Henry II's time.

I likewise do not have the answer at the top of my head, but although a religious future would be tolerable (especially during such a religious era), I am sure that a monarch would much rather marry off his daughters to ensure peace and progeny.

• Note: "For a contrasting, earlier view, see historian W. Warren's argument". I would not relegate Warren to a note as an earlier (implied old fashioned) view. He is an authoritative modern source.

Fixed.

• "Meanwhile, in neighbouring Normandy" I would delete "neighbouring".

Done.

• "The 12th century saw a reforming movement within the Church, advocating greater autonomy from royal authority for the clergy and more influence for the papacy.[201]" I am not an expert on this, but implying that the movement started in the 12th century seems dubious and the source is dated. The Investiture Controversy goes back to the 11th century.

How does "The 12th century saw the continuation of the reform movement within the Church, advocating greater clerical autonomy from royal authority and more influence for the papacy" sound?

• More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:43, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Dudley Miles I'm going to be held up for quite some time; I will not be able to address all your comments for another few weeks. Feel free to continue giving your feedback and I will get to it at some point. Thanks, Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  As a side note, both Costain and Weir have been removed from the article. Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:31, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

• I would rather wait until you are able to deal with comments. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:43, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

  That is alright with me, but it may take a week or two. Apologies for any inconvenience; hopefully this will free up some time for you to work on your own projects Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:52, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

@Dudley Miles: All adressed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

• "Henry restored many of the old financial institutions of his grandfather". "old" is ambiguous. It may mean in Henry II's time or in Henry I's time. The latter may not be correct. I wouold delete "old".

Deleted.

• "the old financial institutions of his grandfather Henry I". You mention his grandfather 6 times, and in 5 you add Henry I. I don't think you need to keep repeating Henry I.

Deleted.

• "a team of royal officials called "the chamber" that followed the King's travels". I would say "who followed the king on his travels", but some may disagree.

Changed.

• Economy and finance section. I think you need to look at this. The arrangement is confused.

I have moved the paragraphs around. Is it better now?

• "the King campaigned there personally in 1161". It is ambiguous which king you mean. Assuming it is Henry, I would say "the English King campaigned there personally in 1161"

Done.

• "and encouraged Alfonso II of Aragon in his attacks". What attacks?

Reworded.

• "the rumour comes from prejudiced sources and is not supported in French chronicles" What "prejudiced sources"? This could do with clarification.

Source is vague: "Rumour said that Richard would not marry her because his father had made her his mistress; but the rumour comes from prejudiced sources and finds no support in French chronicles. It is more probable that Richard simply had no desire to marry her and maintained his reluctance with his customary obstinacy."

• "Both Henry's mother and wife appear to have had doubts about the appointment, but nevertheless he continued." I think "went ahead" would be better than "continued".

Done.

• "The legal argument was complex at the time and remains contentious." What does "remains contentious" mean here? The details of the argument or who was right?

Correct; note 27 elaborates on this,

• "Henry was stubborn and bore grudges, while Becket was vain, ambitious and overly political; neither man was willing to back down." This is POV and better attributed inline.

Fixed.

• "in which the King swore to go on crusade as well as effectively overturned the more controversial clauses of the Constitutions of Clarendon[" The grammar gets lost her.

Fixed.

• "In the coming years, although Henry never actually went on crusade, he exploited the growing "cult of Becket" for his own ends." "although" does not make sense here.

Deleted.

• "Mainstream Europeans regarded the Irish as relatively barbarous and backward." Relatively to who? Maybe delete the word.

Deleted.

• "The critical factor though appears to have been Henry's concern that his nobles in the Welsh Marches would acquire independent territories of their own in Ireland". I would delete "though".

Deleted.

• "Henry's intervention was successful". What settlement did he impose? Did he allow de Clare to keep his Irish possessions?

Addressed.

• "Henry undertook a wave of castle-building". "wave" is an odd word here. Maybe "extensive programme".

Done.

• More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

  I am in the middle of restructuring the entire formatting system in the article, so there may be a delay in addressing the comments. Cheers, Unlimitedlead (talk) 17:14, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

@Dudley Miles: All done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:09, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

• "Meanwhile, local barons unhappy with Henry's rule". What does "local" mean here? A non-local baron does not make sense.

Fixed.

• "Richard was encouraged to join the revolt as well by Eleanor, whose relationship with Henry had disintegrated." Is there any information available beyond this vague statement? The quarrel between Henry and Eleanor has long puzzled me.

The quarrel is detailed in the Court and family section.

• "Henry secretly travelled back to England to order an offensive on the rebels". You have not said that he had left England, unless I have missed it.

Oops. Clarified.

• "on his return counter-attacked Louis's army, massacring many of them and pushing them back across the border". You refer to several armies. Which one and which border?

Clarified.

• "Eleanor was kept under effective house arrest until the 1180s." This could imply she was released by Henry. You should say until his death.

Fixed.

• "This collapse had various causes, including long-term changes in economic power, growing cultural differences between England and Normandy but, in particular, the fragile, familial nature of Henry's empire.[" I thought that an important reason for the collapse was John's military incompetence. Is this not correct?

Added.

• In some cases, you refer to historians with initials for their first name, e.g R. Davus and W. Warren. I think it is better to give their first names.

Fixed.

• I think it would be better to end the article with the views of academic rather than popular historians, although this is a matter of personal preference.

I think discussing popular histories before academic ones would be slightly awkward.

Dudley Miles (talk) 15:19, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

@Dudley Miles Thank you for your helpful review; all comments have now been addressed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

@Dudley Miles Sorry to bother, but would you mind briefly commenting on the quality of the sources used in this article? I would like to avoid the debacle that was the Bibliography section of Edward I of England. Many thanks, Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

• I do not see any that seem obviously wrong. On a quick look, the 19th century ones seem to be in a valid historiographical context, but I will try to look more closely at FAC. There are quite a number of error messages. See User:Trappist the monk/HarvErrors.js for a script which displays harv errors. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:05, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Refs/WP:RX

FTR, It's acceptable per V to use different versions of the same book as long as they support the material cited, without having to go through swapping every other Warren ref. The trick would be yer differentials: e.g. {{sfn|Warren|1973|p=123}}^{Available here} or {{sfn|Warren|2000|p=321}}. SN54129 13:50, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129 Thank you for the input. I tried doing that, but it did not appear to work? Would you mind clarifying the process? Thanks, Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:18, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Comments by Borsoka

• ...her half-brother, Robert, Earl of Gloucester and Matilda's powerful illegitimate half-brother, Robert of Gloucester Robert should be introduced only once (as her illegitimate half-brother).

Fixed.

• ...accompanied Matilda to Normandy in the late 1130s We were previously informed that 1. Stephen was recognized as Duke of Normandy; 2. Matilda was left in England; 3. Geoffrey attacked Normandy. I think we should be informed that Geoffrey (?) had occupied Normandy and Matilda moved to the duchy in the late 1130s before stating that Henry accompanied his mother to Normandy.

Done.

• Sorry, it is still unclear. Stephen was recognized as Duke of Burgundy but Henry II accompanied his mother (Stephen's opponent) to Normandy in the 1130s before his father took Normandy in the 1140s. Borsoka (talk) 17:05, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Now reads: "In the late 1130s, he accompanied Matilda to Normandy, which would only be fully taken by Geoffrey around 1144." Unlimitedlead (talk) 17:10, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

• ...In late 1142, Geoffrey decided to send the nine-year-old to Bristol I assume he sent Henry to Bristol.

Correct.

• In this case, this should be mentioned: "In late 1142, Geoffrey decided to send sent the nine-year old Henry to Bristol".

Done.

• ...Geoffrey was coming under criticism... By whom?

Fixed.

• ...Henry's great-uncle... Perhaps "his great-uncle"?

Done.

• Introduce Ralph of Diceto.

Done.

• ... the marriage between Henry and Eleanor was just as consanguineous as that of her and Louis Perhaps an explanation in a footnote?

An explanation would entail a lengthy genealogical tangent, which I personally feel would not be beneficial to this article.

• Link Neufmarché-sur-Epte to Neuf-Marché.

Done.

• (Montsoreau) Do we need the brackets?

Removed.

• Introduce Hugh Bigod.

Not sure what sort of introduction you are looking for? He and Ranulf of Chester were just men in England who supported Henry.

• Perhaps "two local aristocrats/two powerful aristocrats/two warlike aristocrats"?

Done.

• ...Henry decided to return to Normandy for a period Based on the first sentence of the following section, I understand he did return to Normandy.

This needs to be said. Henry left England for Normandy, only to return a short time later. Deleting this part would be confusing because it would sound like he returned to England from England.

• I did not suggest that the sentence should be deleted. It should be shortened to make it clear that he did return to Normandy: "Henry decided to returned to Normandy for a period"

Ah, apologies for the miscommunication. Fixed.

• Henry spent six and a half years out of the first eight years of his reign in France... Do we know who administered England in his absence? That he could reign as an absent king in England does not inditate that his rule was quite solid? Borsoka (talk) 05:21, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

The three sources I have checked do not specify.

• @Borsoka Thank you for your comments, and apologies for not responding until now. I will address yours once I get through Dudley's. Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:25, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

• ...circulating rumours about his rival's behaviour and character Do you know examples?

Certainly, but I believe such information is trivial and would make this long article even longer.

• They may indicate what contemporaneous people thought of Henry.

@Borsoka: Here is an excerpt from Warren 1973: "I heard that when the king was at Caen and was vigorously debating the matter of the king of Scotland, he broke out in abusive language against Richard du Hommet for seeming to speak somewhat in the king of Scotland’s favour, calling him a manifest traitor. And the king, flying into his usual temper, flung his cap from his head, pulled off his belt, threw off his cloak and clothes, grabbed the silken coverlet off the couch, and sitting as it might be on a dung heap started chewing pieces of straw". Shall I just summarize this anecdote? Unlimitedlead (talk) 17:15, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

• Obviously not :):). However, the text in the article could be more specific: for instance, "circulating malicious rumours about his rival's ungovernable temper".

Done.

• On his return to the continent from England,... Why not the Continent? When did he return to the Continent?

Fixed.

• The Vernon and the Neuf-Marché?

Deleted.

• Henry had not given homage to Louis... Why past perfect?

At this point in time (at the time of this treaty's ratification), Henry had not yet paid homage to Louis.

• Toulouse, while technically part of the Duchy of Aquitaine,... The cited source dos not verify the statement. Warren writes: "The dukes of Aquitaine were unable to prevent the defection of Toulouse, but they had some hope of gaining control of it by hereditary right."

Updated citation to support the statement.

• My concern is that the new edition of Warren's book does not verify the statement. I think the article could mention that Henry renewed his Aquitanian ancestors' weak claim to the County of Toulouse.

Gotcha. Now reads: "Henry hoped to take a similar approach to regaining control of Toulouse in southern France.[130] Toulouse, while traditionally tied to the Duchy of Aquitaine, had become increasingly independent and was now ruled by Count Raymond V.[131] Henry hoped to claim the county on Eleanor's behalf by hereditary right,[132] and encouraged by her, Henry first allied himself with Raymond's enemy Raymond Berenguer of Barcelona and then in 1159 threatened to invade himself to depose the Count of Toulouse." Unlimitedlead (talk) 17:19, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Actually, I have updated it to say: "Henry hoped to take a similar approach to regaining control of Toulouse in southern France. Toulouse, while traditionally tied to the Duchy of Aquitaine, had become increasingly independent and was now ruled by Count Raymond V. The rulers of Aquitaine had made tenuous claims on the county by hereditary right; Henry now hoped to claim it on Eleanor's behalf, and encouraged by her, Henry first allied himself with Raymond's enemy Raymond Berenguer of Barcelona and then in 1159 threatened to invade himself to depose the Count of Toulouse." Unlimitedlead (talk) 17:22, 31 March 2023 (UTC) Unlimitedlead (talk) 17:22, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

• Count Raymond V, who had only a weak claim to the lands... The cited source says that the Aquitanian dukes' claim to Toulouse was weak. Warren writes that the Aquitanian dukes' claim "was not the kind of claim which carried much weight in the south of France".

Removed.

• Why "the French King's support" instead of "the French king's support"?

Referring specifically to Louis, not French kings in general

• Link Touraine.

Done.

• ...he successfully took Theobald's castle... Is "successfully" necessary?

Not particularly, so removed.

• ...in a notable siege Notable? Why?

Excised.

• ...these lands, combined with his possessions in ... Ireland... His possessions in Ireland are not mentioned in the previous sections.

The sentence is somewhat anachronistically placed; the Irish posessions refer to the lands he took control of in the Arrival in Ireland section. I have tweaked the sentence to try to make it make more sense.

• I would place "nb 14" at the end of the previous sentence.

I am not opposed to this, but I personally feel like the information fits better in a note as it is ever so slightly off-topic.

• I would integrate "nb 17" into the main text and would mention some example of officials turned bishops in a footnote.

Done; added new note, which coincidentally is now note 17

• By the 1180s this new class of royal administrators was predominant in England, supported by various illegitimate members of Henry's family. Could you give some examples in a footnote?

Done in (what is now) note 18.

• The links between the nobility in Normandy and England had weakened during the first half of the 12th century, and continued to do so under Henry. For me, this is a quite uninformative sentence.

May I ask why? I may be able to revise it.

• I need some explanation or some example.

Now explained by note 19.

• Henry drew his close advisers from the ranks of the Norman bishops... Perhaps "In Normandy, Henry drew his close advisers from the ranks of the local bishops..."? If you accept this solution, you can delete the reference to Normandy in the second part of the sentence.

Not necessarily: "Henry drew his close advisers from the ranks of the Norman bishops..." could mean that Henry's advisors (in regards to the Kingdom of England) were drawn from Normandy.

• Indeed. Borsoka (talk) 04:07, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

• Are the terms ministeriales, amici and familiares regis necessery? If yes, use brackets. I assume amici regis is the exact term.

Bracketed.

• Young Henry is already linked.

Delinked.

• Why is not "treatise of Glanvill" italicized? Why not "Treatise of Glanvill"?

Done.

• Indeed, in most cases he was probably not personally responsible for creating the new processes, but he was greatly interested in the law, seeing the delivery of justice as one of the key tasks for a king and carefully appointing good administrators to conduct the reforms. Based on "note 23", I understand that this is not a fact but a scholarly view. In this case, it should be presented as such.

Done.

• A link to "seignorial courts"? For me, the term suggests a local court run by aristocrats.

I agree that a link would be helpful here, but am unable to locate an appropriate one.

• I doubt that seignorial courts could deal with conflicts relating to lands lost by religious houses or to lands seized unlawfully by barons (these examples are mentioned in the previous sentences).

The text says, "In these circumstances, seignorial courts – or in appropriate cases ecclesiastical, shire or hundred courts – frequently offered the best prospects for the peaceful resolution of disputes...". The article says, "Henry relied on traditional, local courts—such as the shire courts, hundred courts and in particular seignorial courts—to deal with most of these cases...", which implies (to me, at least) that any one of these three aformentioned courts could take on cases for the King; thus conflicts relating to lands lost by religious houses or to lands seized unlawfully by barons could be taken on by other types of courts.

• Link Midlands.

This has already been linked above.

• ...began to take wider civil cases on behalf of the King "On behalf of" or "in the name of"? Borsoka (talk) 02:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Text says: "...the exchequer began to hear civil suits unconnected with finance, so becoming, in effect, the king’s court based at Westminster, and that arrangements for the prosecution of crown pleas by appeal underwent some reform." This leaves the matter somewhat vague; what do you interpret this as?

• I cannot anwer this question so I accept your preferred wording. Borsoka (talk) 04:07, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

• There were also long-running concerns over the legal treatment of members of the clergy. Could you provide us some examples?

The source simply says, "...at Westminster the King claimed the right to punish clerical malefactors after their trial and deposition by ecclesiastical authorities... The issue of the criminous clerks had become the bete noire of relations between crown and miter in England."; no examples were given.

• I think a reference to the claim to royal jurisdiction could help: "There were also long-running concerns over royal jurisdiction over members of the clergy.", or something similar

Done.

• ...generally enjoyed very good relations with the Norman bishops... Is the adjective "Norman" necessary?

Rephrased.

• ...over the local church..., ...over the church in England...., ...church rights... Perhaps Church?

Done.

• ...religious charters... Religious charters, or royal charters to religious institutions?

The latter; done.

• ...established few new monasteries..., ...he built ... various monasteries in France... Could some of them be mentioned in a footnote?

Done for the former, albeit not in a footnote. In regards to the latter, the source does not mention any French monestaries specifically.

• ...religious hospitals... Is the adjective necessary? Were there secular hospitals?

I think it is important to note that these hospitals were run and staffed by the religious. I am sure that secular hospitals had some sort of presence during this time, but in regards to this section, I think the "religious" part is useful to mention.

• The link to "auguries" is not helpful because the linked article covers the Roman priestly class.

Delinked.

• Henry's movements may also have been planned to take advantage of saints' days and other fortuitous occasions. Could this PoV be attributed to a scholar?

Done.

• ...Henry's continental possessions... Why not Continental?

Fixed.

• Perhaps a link to amercements?

Done.

• Inflation is mentioned twice in section "Economy and finance".

Fixed.

• The four closing sentences in section "Economy and finance" could better serve as introductory sentences because they contain general statements whereas previous sections are quite specific.

Moved said sentences to the beginning of the section.

• ...openly allied himself with the French king, ...much to the anger of the French king I think these are the correct forms but earlier you used "the French King" form when referring to Louis VII.

I have decapitalized all instances of "French King".

• ...the English King... Again, I think that "the English king" is the correct form.

I have decapitalized all instances of "English King".

• ...probably believing that Becket ... would be politically weakened within the Church because of his former role as Chancellor, and would therefore have to rely on Henry's support Could this PoV be attributed to a scholar?

Done.

• The pope supported Becket's case..., The pope authorised Becket... Perhaps "The Pope"?

Fixed.

• ...the Norman church also intervened to try to assist Henry in finding a solution Perhaps "...the Norman Church also intervened to try to assist Henry in finding a solution"

Done.

• ..."What miserable drones and traitors have I nourished and promoted in my household, who let their lord be treated with such shameful contempt by a low-born clerk!" Could this quote be attributed to a primary source? (We do not know what Henry actually said, we only know what a chronicler/hagiographer thought that Henry had said.) Borsoka (talk) 16:27, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

The citation notes that Edward Grim, who was present during the Becket murder, was the one who reported this statement.

• I think a reference to Edward Grim as an eyewitness could help. Borsoka (talk) 01:49, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Done.

@Borsoka: All comments addressed. Unlimitedlead (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

• Some of the Irish lords appealed to Henry to protect them from the Anglo-Norman invaders, while de Clare offered to submit to him if allowed to retain his new possessions. I assume this sentence could be the closing sentence of the previous paragraph.

Unfortunately not: it does not fit chronologically.

• Why "Irish church" instead of "Irish Church"?

Fixed.

• ...near Fornham All Saints... Is this necessary?

I would think so as it provides a location; I can excise it if you feel strongly about it.

• I think the link to the battle is sufficient.

Done.

• ...William of Scotland attacked the south of England... Are you sure that he attacked the south? Borsoka (talk) 12:43, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Fixed.

@Borsoka: All done. Unlimitedlead (talk) 13:57, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

• The rebel castles... Were the castles rebel?

I believe that is a common mannerism; no others have pointed this out so I thought it was alright to say. Do you feel strongly about adjusting it?

• ...the existing inhabitants... Henry's representatives and the new settlers were not existing inhabitants? I assume the text refers to the natives.

Fixed.

• ...Philip II Augustus, who succeeded to the throne in 1180. Why not past perfect?

You are correct; adjusted.

• Despite attempts to divide the two,... By whom?

Fixed.

• ...or return Margaret's dowry Perhaps "or return the widowed Margaret's dowry"?

Done.

• In 1187 Jerusalem surrendered to Saladin and calls for a new crusade swept Europe. Link Siege of Jerusalem (1187) instead of Jerusalem, and link Audita tremendi to "new crusade".

Done.

• Eleanor was released from house arrest... Perhaps "The widowed Eleanor..."

Done.

• Henry's intervention in Brittany, Wales and Scotland also had a long-term impact on the development of their societies and governmental systems. No impact on Scotland is mentioned in the article. Why is Ireland ignored?

It is funny that you mention that: the cited section actually only mentions Brittany, Wales, and Scotland; it also completely ignores Scotland and Ireland after briefly mentioning them.

The main text of the article refers to the beginnings of the Normann conquest of Ireland. In the sentence's context, a reference to Brittany and Scotland without mentioning Ireland would be unusual. I will probably raise the same question during FAC review, but this should not prevent you from nominating the article. Borsoka (talk) 16:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

While I would love to include the aforementioned states, that is simply not possible to me at the moment with my current array of sources. Should I just remove this sentence? It seems rather important, yet it does not take into account a wide range of places.

@Borsoka: This seems to be the last unresolved comment. Any thoughts? Unlimitedlead (talk) 18:07, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

This is an exceptionally well researched and nicely written article so I think it is ready for FAC. I will probably raise the issue but this could be solved during the review. Borsoka (talk) 01:42, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your extensive and thorough review. I do not plan on nominating this article until around September, but I will be sure to ping you then. Cheers, Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:00, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

• The first three sentences of the second paragraph in section "Legacy" would fit better in section "Historiography".

Moved.

• Why is "Historiography" a sub-section of "Legacy"?

The Legacy section discusses the immediate aftermath of Henry's death, as well as the consequences of the events of his reign, whereas the Historiography section is oriented towards the opinions and statements of Henry's biographers.

• Sorry, I do not understand. Do you say that the "Legacy" section also presents scholarly PoVs but the scholars are not mentioned? Borsoka (talk) 03:03, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

I suppose one could interpret it that way.

I will likely raise the same question during the FAC review, but I think the article is ready for a FAC review.

• Why is the 20th-century W. L. Warren mentioned before the 18th-century David Hume and historians of the Victorian period?

Moved.

• ...Protestant historians of the period... Which period?

The 18th century, as mentioned in the preceding sentences.

• It is unclear. Was Hume a Catholic/Atheist in contrast with the Protestent historians?

Clarified; regarding the point about Hume's religious beliefs, they were pretty strange and I do not believe they are relevant to this article.

No, his religious beliefs should obviously not mentioned in the article.

• Link the Victorian period. Borsoka (talk) 02:44, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Done.

• Are you thinking of inserting a "Family" section?

Not at the moment: the Court and family details pretty much all there is to know regarding this matter.

• The origins of his names Henry Curtmantle and Henry FitzEmpress are not mentioned in the main text. Is he mentioned as Henry Plantagenet in English literature?

To answer your second question, no, that is what he is commonly called in French literature (which is quite extensive, by the way), and to answer your first, I suppose I could squeeze them in somewhere, although I am not sure where they would best fit.

If he is mainly mentioned as Henry Plantagenet in French literature, this version could be deleted from the lead.

I would rather not: French academic analysis of Henry II is vast and of high quality, and I would go so far as to argue that it is more extensive than many other historical figures. Additionally, the hatnote would look strange since it states that Henry II is called Henry Plantagenet, but the article does not mention it. I will revisit the issue at FA if anyone else brings it up; or id you feel strongly, I can make adjustments now.

• He was not only king of England, but also Duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, and Count of Anjou and Maine.

The lead, especially the first sentence, should only mention very important titles. I do take your point though, and have mentioned those territories in the first paragraph (except for Maine, which I unfortunately find pretty irrelevant).

• The second sentence is misleading: it suggests that he did not control England and large parts of France permanently, and Normandy is located in northern France.

I an not sure I find this misleading; neither did any other reviewers. Any suggestions on a change in wording? As for the Normandy concern, I have reworded.

• The new text fully addressed the issue. Borsoka (talk) 16:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

• ...privileges of his grandfather Henry I Do a king have privileges? Why not prerogatives or strong position/unquestioned authority?

Changed.

• In contrast with the lead, the main text suggests that Henry consolidated his rule in Anjou and Maine before ascending the English throne.

Fixed.

• His attempts to reform the English Church are not mentioned in the main text. His attempts to control the English Church led to the conflict according to the main text.

Changed.

• Why not Louis VII of France? Perhaps a reference to Henry's status as Louis's vassal?

Done.

• If Henry the Young is taken into account, three of his sons ruled as kings.

Done.

• ...rebelled in protest against his father... Can anybody rebel not in protest?

Deleted.

• ...his youngest son John... In context, it is unclear that John was not Young Henry's son. Perhaps a reference to the fact that John was Henry II's favorite son?

The favoritism part may be a bit much for the lead; I have reworded and tried to make it clearer. Since Henry the Young King is only called "Young Henry" in the lead, hopefully there is no ambiguity on who I am talking about.

• That his interventions in Scotland "shaped the development" of its society and governmental system is not mentioned in the main text.

The last sentence of the Legacy section mentions it.

• Why is the "more" pipe when his title of king of England is mentioned in the infobox? It is not helpful.

Seems to be a traditional formality on this site: all English/British monarchs have it. I don't particularly feel strongly about its inclusion or removal.

• Why is his rule in Anjou, Maine and Aquitaine not mentioned in the infobox?

See next point below:

• Why is the first day of his rule in Normandy not mentioned in the infobox?

I have just removed everything in the main infobox that is not "King of England". Hchc was of the mind that this is the most relevant title of Henry, and I tend to agree. Everything else would just be clutter: Henry controlled many territories during his lifetime!

• That Henry was succeeded as Count of Nantes by Geoffrey is only mentioned in the succession box, but not in the main text.

Removed.

• File:Henry II of England cropped.jpg: a US tag and a source are missing and the "PD-Art" template has no licence parameter.
• File:Matilda.JPG: a US tag is missing.
• File:Chateau de Montsoreau Museum of contemporary art.jpg: When was the castle captured?

Added.

• File:Political map of England 1153.PNG: Scotland should be mentioned ("A political map of England, Wales and Scotland...)

Done.

• File:Eleonora Jindra2.jpg: a US tag is missing.
• File:France 1154-en (Angevin Empire).svg: unsourced. Why "Henry's claims" instead of "Henry's lands"? Henry and the Count of Toulouse were also the French king's vassal (not only the counts of Champagne, Bloi, Flanders, etc. whose territories are marked with green.)

@Borsoka: I have a source that practically matches the map in the article (Hallam p. 163). Should I just make a request to make the edits you have recommended, or should I ask for a completely new map to be made?

• File:Coronation of Henry the Young King - Becket Leaves (c.1220-1240), f. 3r - BL Loan MS 88-2.jpg: a US tag is missing, and I think the source should be more specific.

Replaced with File:BL MS Royal 14 C VII f.9 (Henry jr).jpg.

• File:The Children of Henry2 England.jpg: US tag is missing.
• File:Henry II Penny.jpg: I think the source does not verify the picture.

Fixed. This is an excellent observation. Very eagle-eyed.

• File:Ireland 1173.jpg: unsourced.

Sourced.

• File:Alienor-d-aquitaine et jean sans terre.jpg: US tag is missing and the source should be specified (author, title, year of publication, publisher, ISBN, page).

• The caption contradicts the sources cited in WikimediaCommons. I think the picture is not relevant in the article's context. Borsoka (talk) 02:59, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Image removed.

• File:Peter of Capua mediating between Philip Augustus and Richard I of England, from Chroniques de France ou de St Denis, 14th century (22702900162).jpg: no reliable source verifies the picture.

I have found this: http://www.bl.uk/catalogues/illuminatedmanuscripts/ILLUMIN.ASP?Size=mid&IllID=43704

I added it to the file at WikiCommons. Borsoka (talk) 01:00, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

• File:Philippe2+Henri2+Cross.jpg: US tag is missing.
• File:Henry II Final Campaign.png: the source should be specified (author, title, year of publication, publisher, ISBN, page).

• This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons

• WikimediaCommons is not a reliable source. The summary at WikimediaCommons indicates that Warren's book is the source, but I do not know which edition. (I assume it is the Yale edition, so it should be mentioned in the "Summary" part at WikimediaCommons.) Borsoka (talk) 02:59, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Fixed.

• File:Henry Curtmantle Illumination.png: I think the source is missing. Borsoka (talk) 03:03, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

• This is a detail from "File:The Children of Henry2 England.jpg: US tag is missing." To avoid repetition, this picture should be deleted. Borsoka (talk) 02:59, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

Deleted.

@Borsoka: Thank you for your generous and extensive review. Unfortunately, I am going away for a few days, so I will resume responses to this review on Monday; hopefully I can finish by the end of the month. Cheers,

• No problem. In the meantime, I will add the missing US tags and sources to the pictures. Borsoka (talk) 13:19, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Unlimitedlead (talk) 13:05, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

References

Ceoil

Placeholder....very, very impressive work. Minor gripes to follow. Ceoil (talk) 15:49, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I absolutely adore minor gripes. Bring it on. Unlimitedlead (talk) 17:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Since you asked, with apologies for the pedantry:)

• "Henry returned to England in 1147, when he was fourteen.[18] Taking his immediate household and a few mercenaries, he left Normandy"- tense issues here.

Not sure I see an issue here. The usage of participle clauses is quite common in the English language.

Its exceedingly minor, but to my ears the sentance should be re-gigedd so that its "he took", rather than "taking his". However, this is not a matter I am prepared go to war over at this tim,e.

• "Surprisingly, Henry instead" - wrong registar, bit too fireside chat for here

I am afraid I do not understand what you are getting at. May I ask you to rephrase your request?

"Surprisingly" introduces an editorial voice. Ceoil (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Ah. Removed.

• Don't like "....after Stephen marched rapidly north to York". Does "Henry returned to Normandy" mean withdrew? A know nothing like me assumes so.

Removed "rapidly". I likewise agree that "returned" means "withdrew", although with the intention of staying true to the cited sources, I would rather not change the wording.

Fine. Its implied anyway. Ceoil (talk) 21:29, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• Henry was said by chroniclers to be good-looking chroniclers describe...handsome not good looking.

Ditto; I would like to stay as close to the source material as possible.

Grand :) Ceoil (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

• In his youth Henry enjoyed warfare'...its possible, but this implies active participation, was it more playacting, talking about of strategizing?

Let me get access to the citation at REX and I will get back to this. Please remind me if I have forgotten. Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:37, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

It refers to active participation. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:05, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Jesus. Expand please. Ceoil (talk) 21:31, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Deep apologies! I thought it was just a personal query. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:38, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

No probs - as a Paddy wouldn't know such details, but its certainly interesting and would like to read more.