Talk:John, King of England

Within "Successor: Position abolished (Normandy and Maine are formally annexed to the crown lands of France)", the link incorrectly goes to the U.S. state of Maine instead of the French/English province of Maine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maine_(province)). Schpuz (talk) 20:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

:Corrected. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

What is it I'm not understanding? Why is the interdict not considered appropriate enough for the lead despite its profound significance? GOLDIEM J (talk) 22:47, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

: The interdict is a consequence of the excommunication. We don't need to detail all the results of the excommunication given the already large size of the lead... it's undue detail for the lead. And, although this is a minor point, per WP:LEAD, leads should be at most four paragraphs. This was discussed last August and no consensus for inclusion was reached. Ealdgyth (talk) 23:01, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

::Agreed! Johnbod (talk) 03:38, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

::{{Re|Ealdgyth}} {{Re|Johnbod}} Let's put that to the test. Which event happened first? The excommunication or the interdict? GOLDIEM J (talk) 22:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

:Can I confer with someone please? Ealdgyth claims that the interdict was a consequence of the excommunication. I didn't know one thing could be a consequence of something else that hadn't happened yet, as the King was excommunicated in 1209, whereas the interdict had literally already began a year earlier. Tell me again that the interdict was a consequence of the excommunication. GOLDIEM J (talk) 21:26, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

::{{Re|Ealdgyth}} {{Re|Johnbod}} you available for input? GOLDIEM J (talk) 21:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

:::The lead is very long already. Does this work for all:

• "A dispute with the pope led to a Papal interdict on the whole kingdom in 1208, and John's excommunication the next year. His dispute with the Pope was settled in 1213."

:the trouble is, people know (or think they do) what excommunication means - but interdict is an unfamiliar concept to most. Johnbod (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

::So what? Are you saying that familiarity with what the act is is given more weight than the impact the act had in a given context? My point is that the interdict WAS NOT a consequence of the excommunication, as the former happened first. Now if we are to include either one or the other in the lead, answer me which one was more consequential, the excommunication or the interdict? For me, hands down church services all over the country being banned for six years. Think about the impact that with the church at the rotational centre of society. GOLDIEM J (talk) 00:00, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

::: This is an article about JOHN, not the kingdom. Granted, him being king does kinda mean that a lot of it does deal with ruling and such, but the interdict does not have the same impact on John as the excommunication would. Given that the lead is already bloated, we should stick to things that impacted John directly. (And I'm sorry I got the order of interdict/excommunication reversed - it was late and this really isn't my favorite period or reign so I don't have every detail at my fingertips when I'm rushed .. mea culpa). Ealdgyth (talk) 00:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

::::Thing is, though, it's not just about John, it's also about John's reign, and the interdict was a significant blow to his reign as he was responsible for England's well-being. In addition, the interdict is very much associated with him rather than just the country, so it's very much to do with him. I am starting to understand where you're coming from, though. GOLDIEM J (talk) 08:04, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Excuse the pun but I don't want to start a gold rush here, but the Article states that the estuary which was the scene of John's baggage train disaster has never been identified. Actually the medieval account of Matthew Paris in the Historia Anglorum definitively states the Wellstream (now the river Nene) as the scene and this is not contradicted by any other ancient sources but is supported by Ralph of Coggleshall in the Chronicon Anglicanum who wrote only 4 years after the event.

The traditional image is of an incoming tide which overwhelmed the baggage train, but in 1980 British researcher Alan Marshall carried out an extensive and detailed investigation and discovered, by studying the lay of the land over which the river once flowed, that an outgoing tidal surge had actually occurred and overwhelmed the train. This outgoing tide at the time of the disaster is actually confirmed by Coggleshall, who writes,

" Moreover the greatest distress troubled him, because on that journey he lost his chapel and all his relics, and some of his packhorses with diverse household effects at the Wellstream, and many members of his household were submerged in the waters of the sea, and sucked into the quicksand there, because they had set out incautiously before the tide had receded."

And again, this was written only 4 years later, well before any of the other accounts.

Marshall's exhaustive study can be seen here: www.desiderata-curiosa.co.uk/king john.htm (note the space between "king" and "john").

This is a very major episode in British history which I feel is under-represented in the Article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.36.129.181 (talk) 17:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

The article says that John's first wife, Isabella, Countess of Gloucester, was released from imprisonment in 2014, citing Vincent, p. 206 in Church ed., King John, 2007. However, ODNB on her says that her wardship ended by 2014, which sounds more likely. Does anyone have sources to say which is correct? Dudley Miles (talk) 22:52, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

The article confidently gives John's date of birth as 24 December 1166, for which it cites the Handbook of British Chronology. I don't have access to the 1996 edition, but the 1986 edition cites 1167. However, more broadly, I believe it is an error to cite a specific date, as we cannot be certain of one.

Stephen Church, a leading scholar on King John, covers the arguments in his 2020 paper "The date and place of King John's birth together with a codicil on his name," which can be found online through the UEA repository.

To summarise - scholars rarely use a specific date. Church cites for example Turner (firmly stating 1167 in 1994, later firmly stating 1166 in 2009) and Morris (unable to decide in 2015).

Church's own reading of the evidence, including of Eleanor of Aquitaine's movements and the traditions surrounding childbirth at the time, leads him to strongly state "the date of John's birth was Christmastide 1166-7," and the location as London.

The article should definitely reflect the traditional and ongoing uncertainty in scholarship as to the precise date of John's birth. It would be better to cite works on John himself for this, rather than something broader like the Handbook. Heavywick (talk) 10:48, 10 December 2024 (UTC)