To my knowledge, a modern biography of King William titled "William the Conqueror: the Norman Impact upon England." does not evaluate a pivotal event in 1070. The event is the historical basis for the English common law when King William established English courts and vowed to follow the legal precedents of Edward the Confessor. The chronology in the back of the book notes the deposing of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the later naming of another. Pages 206, 247,& 252 make reference to the site of the event, Berkhampstead. See the chronology in the appendix. The event, however, is reported by Roger of Howden who lived in the century after the event. The unknown English author of the same period "The Litchfield Chronicle" reported the event: "most of these Lords presently after came in upon publick faith given them, and were conducted to Berkhamsted by the Abbot Frederick, who upon their submission, and oath of Allegiance re-taken, had their pardon and restituti∣on to grace, granted by the King, believing it his own concern so much, to quiet them, that he again took his personal oath, before the Archbishop Lanfranc and the Lords, To observe the ANTIENT LAWS of the Realm, established by his noble predecess•rs the Kings of England; and especially those of Edward the Confessor. Thus we plainly see the Laws that were continued and confirmed, were the old Saxon Laws, as we have it in this decree of William the Conqueror..." Writing for the general reader in this online encyclopedia, must I produce scholarship from ancient to modern? Rather than a Wikipedia editor, must I also be a specialist in historiography?Church of the Rain (talk) 20:19, 1 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
- There are a couple of reasons why I undid the material you added. Wikipedia articles are best written with recent secondary sources (see here for the relevant guideline). You can see there's nothing older than 1964 cited in this article. In this article's case there's another consideration: so much has been written about William that we need to pick and choose among the recent scholarship as to what is worth saying. That's why I suggested in my edit summary that we would need to see modern secondary sources treating this as significant, not just verifiable. Finally, this article is a featured article, meaning that it's been through a review process with multiple editors evaluating it. That doesn't mean it can't be improved -- of course it can -- it just means that there's a good chance that consideration has already been given to some possible changes. For a featured article, for significant changes or additions, it's worth posting a note to the talk page to see if anyone watching that article has comments before you make the edit. I suggest we wait and see if others comment on your edit. This is your change, for reference. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:39, 1 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
- I've never heard of a Litchfield Chronicle as a post-Conquest primary source for this period. The link given for it is to a 1663 book purporting to have a "short history of William the Conqueror by an anonymous author in the time of Henry the first" - but as I pointed out above, there is no such source accepted by modern historians, at least under the name of Litchfield Chronicle. Nor does Douglas use such as a source, at least according to his Bibliography or Index. I checked Douglas thoroughly and there is no mention of such a meeting at Berkhampstead in 1070. The event in 1070 happened in Winchester, not Berkhampstead, which is indeed mentioned in the article in connection with Lanfranc's elevation to Canterbury. The only time Berkhampstead hosted a meeting was between Hastings and William's coronation, when Morcar and other English notables met William and submitted. William only agreed to be a "good lord" to the English, he does not appear to have sworn to uphold all English customs or laws then. About Abbot Frederick (presumably the abbot of St Albans around 1072 to 1075 about which we know very little), there were several fictitious episodes attached to his name in later chronicles and anything written about him before modern historians should be checked against modern histories. This is why we rely on secondary sources for the basis of our articles - modern historians are trained to evaluate primary sources and if they ignore some purported history from a 1663 book, so should we. Ealdgyth (talk) 22:50, 1 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
- Douglas apparently does not use Roger of Hoveden as a source. Roger Hoveden is certainly a source of many historians of the period. Is Hoveden not included in Vol II of English Historical Documents? When chronicling the Norman impact on England why would Hoveden not be referenced? When legal historians are examining the first English legal texts, they refer to him. See Pollock & Maitland. I propose my edit stands on Hoveden rather than Douglas. Others should provide modern scholarship that refutes Hoveden rather than simply passing on hi:m as a source. History is firstly, a dialectic and narrative art, not a silence. Church of the Rain (talk) 19:42, 2 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
- Roger of Howden is mainly a source for Stephen through the early part of John's reign, not for William. Hagger says in his biography of William that the main chronicles/accounts of William are William of Jumieges, Orderic Vitalis, Robert of Torigny, William of Poitiers, Wace, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, John of Worcester, William of Malmesbury, with some side information in the chronicles of Evesham and Abingdon. Bates adds the Bayeux Tapestry, Eadmer, and the Vita Edwardi. I'd add the Carmen de Hastingae Poelio, but historians are definitely still debating how useful the Carmen is. Merely being in Vol. II of English Historical Documents doesn't mean Howden is useful for William's reign, since that volume covers 1042 to 1189. None of this is actually germane, though, as we are not historians producing histories. We are writing an encyclopedia and we use modern secondary sources, not medieval primary sources, for the facts of our articles. It is up to the historians to decide whether or not Howden is useful for William's biographies - we just base our article on the scholarly modern works - in this case, Douglas and Bates. I have Hagger's bio and it's in my "read and update the article as I get a chance" to-do list. Ealdgyth (talk) 20:29, 2 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
- The legal treatise(Pearce, 1855) referenced in my edit was to Sir Matthew Hale's The history of the common law of England p. 150 where Hoveden & the Litchfield Chronicle report the 1070 event of a compromise of sorts being made by the newly minted King William the Conqueror at Berkhamsted in the new Archbishop of Canterbury's presence. If it occurred I must find a historian of late that concurs. It is a shame that Hale and Hoveden are viewed as antiquarian. In the introduction of the Univ of Chicago edition of Hale, Charles Gray writes much about the antiquarian tendency. He says "Hale's main point is the transition to the Norman dynasty was in no way a constitutional break. William came as a claimant not a conqueror..." My failed edit illustrates that point perfectly. Church of the Rain (talk) 04:28, 3 January 2026 (UTC)Reply
level-4 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg)
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 03:21, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. However, please note that "Nicea" is a valid alternate spelling. Day Creature (talk) 22:53, 1 November 2025 (UTC)