Talk:White Ship/Archive 1

Archive 1

Initial comments

at least one of Henry's 20-plus acknowledged bastards, Richard.

This could be considered offensive, but I thought I'd say something before deleting it. I do know that this is the technical meaning of bastards, but it still could offend. - Pingveno 22:53, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

It's not offensive used in the factual genealogical sense. --Wetman 6 July 2005 06:11 (UTC)

There is a factual discrepancy between this article and Henry I of England: Henry I of England describes Richard as legitimate while this article says the opposite. I don't know which one is correct, so I don't think I should change it myself. - rsutphin 00:46, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Richard was definitely illegitimate. See for example C. Warren Hollister, Henry I, index, p. 548, 'Richard, Henry's bastard'. Ascelin Goel (talk) 13:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Could we remove the jarring usage of "ironic"? --Wetman 6 July 2005 06:11 (UTC)

Is the White Ship a name or a description?

White Ship and the English Reformation

Surely it goes too far to call the sinking of the White Ship a "root cause" of the English Reformation. It was certainly a contributing factor, since the Anarchy that followed the death of Henry I was an exemplar to Henry VIII and his advisors of the dissensions that could accompany female rule. However, a general attitude among the medieval nobility meant that they would only submit to the rule of a strong male (an attitude enshrined in the Salic Law in France), and this attitude carried over into the time of Henry VIII. Indeed, this attitude, rather than the sinking of the White Ship, can be called the cause of the Anarchy after 1135 — a wider symptom of the perils of feudal devolution of power. It is somewhat ironic that, out of Henry VIII's three successors (all his children), it was the male, Edward VI, who proved weakest.

Anyhow, I'll dilute that last claim if no-one can convince me otherwise.--Iacobus 03:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Done.--Iacobus 00:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Conflict

Think there was a Matilda (or Maud) of Normandy, Countess of Perche on board, just not the same Matilda as MAtilda of England. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.12.169.166 (talk) 14:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

This from this article

"Those drowned included ...Matilda the Countess of Perche, the king's daughter".

conflicts with this from the article on Matilda's life

"Empress Matilda, also known as Matilda of England or Maude (c. 7 February 1102 – 10 September 1167) was the daughter and heir of King Henry I of England."

Of the two, it's highly likely this is the wrong article. So I have removed the above reference to Matilda dying on the White Ship. Anthony (talk) 11:22, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

As already stated above, Matilda, countess of Perche, was not the same person as Empress Matilda, but her illegitime half-sister. As Mathilda, countess of Perche did die in the White Ship disaster, the reference should be reinstalled, though it would be useful to indicate that she was the king's illegitimate daughter. Ascelin Goel (talk) 13:16, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

External Link T. Brett-Jones

The link is broken and my search for the article (at least I assume it is an article) has just proved fruitless. Has anybody any information about this? Ascelin Goel (talk) 13:21, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I removed the link. Every single result I could find for "T Brett-Jones" was a mirror of our article with the external link in it, and the article itself didn't turn up anywhere. We don't need broken links like that in the external links section. — Gavia immer (talk) 19:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I read the article online c10 years ago. Research this week shows:

Google Scholar has the article as Runyan, Timothy J (1986). "THE WHITE SHIP". American Neptune. 46. Although TJR appears to know a lot about Anglo-Norman naval matters, there is no such article. (By personal inspection of the original printed volumes 45-47.)

The actual real article is Brett-Jones, Tony (Winter 1999). "The White Ship Disaster". Historian. 64: 23-26. There are many periodicals entitled "Historian". This one is published by "The Historical Association". who claim that it isn't online because it has not yet been digitised! I have a photocopy of the article.

Roger (talk) 01:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The rock - still there

Somebody removed the interesting fact that the rock on which the ship foundered is still there, and can still be identified. Might be worth re-inserting. 86.183.205.154 (talk) 22:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Grammatical quibble

"...although some had disembarked before the ship sailed due to the excessive drinking" reads as if the ship sailed due because it had drunk excessively. This should be rewritten as "...although some had disembarked due to the excessive drinking before the ship sailed," making it clear that it was the *people* who had been drinking.173.53.71.65 (talk) 14:34, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Taken together with the previous sentence it seemed clear enough that anyone's leaving would be over concerns of the crew's fitness to sail, as the passengers did not usually operate the ship. Even though it closely paraphrases the sources (Orderic is the original source), if you think it necessary you could add 'by the crew'. That would not break the source citation. If you'd like to see the source citation before editing and decide for yourself how best to reword it, I can help to quickly locate a digital copy. Let me know. Bearpatch (talk) 18:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Italics?

Was this ship really christened the White Ship? Sure it's not The White Ship, or HMS White Ship? jnestorius^(talk) 16:46, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I can't tell you whether it was christened or not, but it's likely that it was. Romans, Greeks, and Egyptians all had ceremonies when initially launching a ship asking for blessings on all who sailed in her. This was a privately owned ship operating from a Norman port and named "la Blanche-Nef". Translated from French, that is "the white ship" (feminine case). I only edited here and didn't name the article, but ship names are based on the guideline WP:NC-SHIP. So the WP article is named White Ship, not the ship itself. Designations of HMS (English: His Majesty's Ship, later His/Her) would not come into usage in England until about 1660. I hope this helps. Bearpatch (talk) 18:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

One problem is that at the time there was neither English nor French language. The English were the underdogs, having been beaten by the Normans. Those English spoke "old English" which is a different language from English and is also known as "Anglo-Saxon". The Normans spoke a language now called Norman-French which looks like bad French with strange words. (The Normans ended up as rulers of what became France, so their language is the origin of modern French.) In Norman-French the ship appears to have been called "Blanche Nef". "White Ship" is just a modern English translation of the Norman-French. (Norman-French is still written and (more rarely) spoken today. The UK's parliament and crown use it for special purposes.) Roger (talk) 02:08, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Father of Thomas FitzStephen

Under "Shipwreck," line 1: Changed Thomas FitzStephen's father from "Stephen FitzAirard" to "Airard FitzStephen," which agrees with all sources of which I am aware. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stev3454 (talk • contribs) 02:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

First, you should never 'break' a source citation with an edit—that is, to put words into the mouth, so to speak, of the author who's work is cited. That statement was verified by a valid inline source citation. The cited work stated Thomas fitz (son of) Stephen, son of Stephen fitz (son of) Aliard. Second, Keats-Rohan was correct, at least according to Orderic Vitalis who in book IV (Forester translation) wrote: "Thomas, the son of Stephen, had obtained an audience of the king, and offering him a gold mark, said to him, 'Stephen, the son of Airard, was my father, and during his whole life he was in your father's service as a mariner. He it was who conveyed your father to England in his own ship, when he crossed the sea to make war on Harold.' [Ecclesiastical History of England (1856), IV, 33]. A possible source of making Thomas a son of Airard may be from the Domesday book and assumes it is the same person described as a tenant in capite in Berkshire called Stefanus, Eirardi filius the Latin filius meaning either son or male descendant. Hence as the grandson of Airard calling Stephen filius would have been equally correct although a narrow interpretation may be the source of them being called father and son in some sources. If you'd like to share the sources you referred to I'll be glad to take a look and see what they're based on. Bearpatch (talk) 15:59, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Was it white in color?

I am wondering if it was painted, white-washed, made of some sort of white wood, or what? Terry Thorgaard (talk) 15:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the chronicler sources say much about that, but others may know more. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

The author of the ballad was mistaken, evidently, as to William's age

"... The Prince was a lawless shameless youth; From his father's loins he sprang without ruth: Eighteen years till then he had seen, And the devil's dues in him were eighteen ...." http://www.rossettiarchive.org/docs/1-1878.tinkerms.rad.html page 4

the article on William Adelin indicates he was born in 1103 and died in 1120 (5 August 1103 – 25 November 1120) He would have been only 17. Terry Thorgaard (talk) 16:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)