Talk:Pope Adrian IV

The copy begins "Nicholas' father was Robert, who later... " This is very poor writing because the article is about Nicholas and it is unclear what clause is about Robert and when we are talking about Nicholas again. Ought to be rewritten Hmcst1 (talk) 12:38, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

:Indeed. So it begins... ——SN54129 23:23, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

Again, congratulations on such an impressive expansion. I had completely forgotten about MoS advising that the portrayed people should face the text. Still, I am not sure the way Adrian faces should disqualify the Benedictine illustration from being used as the lead image. It is the only contemporary depiction of Adrian that we have, the only clue to how he was perceived in his time, which suggests representativeness under WP:LEADIMAGE. The Nuremberg Chronicle image might fit better into Pope Adrian IV#Legacy and assessment, which discusses how Adrian was perceived by posterity.

That aside, I am curious as to why Adrian's predecessor is called Eugene in the boxes and Eugenius in the prose. Which is the more common name? Surtsicna (talk) 18:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

He was schooled in Arles, then travelled to Avignon, in the south. In fact, he was already in the south of France at Arles, which is to the south of Avignon. This needs tidying. Lutyensfan (talk) 15:12, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

:Thanks for that {{u|Lutyensfan}}, see what you think now. SN54129 15:25, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

::That’s better, in both places. Thank you. Lutyensfan (talk) 15:47, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

In the space of a few lines in the "Retranslation" section, Barbarossa's archchancellor's name is spelled three different ways: Rainald, Reinauld, and Rainauld. No doubt all are attested medieval variations, but must we?

I suggest settling on "Rainald," with a link to the main article on the man: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainald_of_Dassel. Otterswimshome (talk) 17:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

This article doesn't seem to be written in the normal style of wikipedia entries especially with adverb usage and uses language that lacks neutrality.

"Rome, which at the time was a den of 'heresy' and republicanism. "

"Relations with the newly crowned Holy Roman emperor, Frederick I—started off badly and got progressively worse. Each party, as a result of a particular aggravating incident, found something to condemn the other for. "

"Adrian decisively restored the papal authority"

" he was very much acclaimed by the people"

etc. 216.194.108.168 (talk) 20:31, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Albeit the English language at the time was Middle English, Pope Adrian IV was one of only two Popes who grew up speaking English as his native language. The other is Pope Leo XIV, the current Pope, nearly 9 centuries later. As long as we acknowledge that Adrian IV was the only Englishman ever elected Pope--and we already acknowledge that--why shouldn't we acknowledge the language thing, too?

All Popes are multilingual to be sure, but again, first native language growing up. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 21:06, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

:Please provide your source that he spoke English, rather than Norman-French or Latin. Or do you suggest he was born a serf? Servus servorum dei —Fortuna, imperatrix 21:52, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

This article is too long and inconsistent with the rest of Wikipedia. It reads like it's trying to synthesize a lot of scholarly perspectives on Adrian IV into a narrative. That is laudable, but the narrative is too long. For example, I removed a bunch of stuff about when Adrian IV was in Catalonia. The timing of when he was in Catalonia is enough. If readers are interested in his roles in any specific events in Catalonia, I think those can go on those pages (different sieges or battles, for example). Especially since his presence at those events is speculative, with only a scholar or two commenting on them.

It is a bummer to remove some of this material from Wikipedia because it is really good work. But I don't think it's the right place for it. GoldCoastPrior (talk) 20:13, 22 May 2025 (UTC)