text:
Witness Lee

Witness Lee (September 5, 1905 – June 9, 1997) was a Chinese Christian preacher and hymnist belonging to the Christian group known as the local churches (or Local Church) in Taiwan and the United States. He was also the founder of Living Stream Ministry. Lee was born in 1905 in the city of Yantai, Shandong, China, to a Southern Baptist family. He became a Christian in 1925 after hearing the preaching of an evangelist named Peace Wang and later joined the Christian work started by Watchman Nee. Like Nee, Lee emphasized what he considered the believers' subjective experience and enjoyment of Christ as life for the building up of the church, not as an organization, but as the Body of Christ.

Early years
Witness Lee was born in 1905 in Shandong Province in China. Lee's great-grandfather was a Southern Baptist who brought Lee's mother into Christianity. Lee's mother studied in an American Southern Baptist mission school and was baptized as a teenager at a Southern Baptist church. She sold her inheritance to provide her children with an education in Chinese and English. Lee's father was a farmer who died in 1923.

Lee was brought into contact with his mother's Baptist Church in Yantai where he studied at a Southern Baptist elementary school and later at a mission college operated by American Presbyterians. Although Lee attended Southern Baptist services and Sunday school in his youth, he was never converted nor baptized by them. After her conversion, Lee's second sister began to pray for him and introduced him to a Chinese pastor who encouraged him to attend his Sunday morning services. Inspired by the preaching of Peace Wang, Lee dedicated himself to serve God for the rest of his life in April 1925 at the age of 19.

Through Watchman Nee's teaching Lee began to believe that denominationalism was unscriptural. In 1927, when elected to the board of the Chinese Independent Church, he declined the position and left the denomination. Lee then began to meet with the Benjamin Newton branch of the Plymouth Brethren where he remained for seven and a half years and was baptized in the sea by a local Brethren leader, Mr. Burnett, in 1930.

Ministry with Watchman Nee
Soon after Lee's conversion to Christianity, he began to study various Christian teachers and discovered the writings of Watchman Nee in two periodicals, The Morning Star and The Christian. Lee began to correspond with Nee to seek his guidance for a better understanding of the Bible. In 1932 Nee visited Yantai, and the two met for the first time. During the visit, Lee felt that his relationship with God and his understanding of how to study the Bible were revolutionized.

During this time, Lee began to feel that God was calling him to quit his job and serve as a full-time minister, which he did in August 1933. Soon afterward, he received a letter from Watchman Nee that read, “Brother Witness, as for your future, I feel that you should serve the Lord with your full time. How do you feel? May the Lord lead you.” Lee felt this letter strongly confirmed his decision. From that point onward, Lee began to work closely with Nee.

In 1934, Lee moved his family to Shanghai as editor of Nee's magazine The Christian. The following year, he began to travel throughout China giving messages to Christians and helping to establish local churches;  many churches were established in Zhejiang Province as well as in Beijing and Tianjin. He also traveled to the northwestern provinces of Suiyuan, Shanxi, and Shaanxi to preach the gospel and edify Christians there prior to the Japanese invasion in 1937.

With the war beginning, Lee returned to Yantai caring for churches in Yantai and Qingdao. At the end of 1942 a revival broke out in Yantai, and the church met continuously for one hundred days. Under suspicion of espionage due to his experimentation with evangelism by migration, Lee was arrested by the Imperial Japanese Army in May 1943 and underwent a month's interrogation through flogging and water torture. His health was greatly weakened by this imprisonment and he developed tuberculosis. In order to rest and recuperate, he moved to Qingdao in 1944 for two years. Following the end of the war, brought great uncertainty for Nee's ministry. In 1949, Nee and his co-workers sent Witness Lee to Taiwan in order to continue Nee's work free from the threat of government persecution under Chinese communism.

Watchman Nee and Witness Lee met for the last time in Hong Kong in 1950. For over a month they spoke together and helped bring about a revival in the church in Hong Kong. Nee charged Lee to instruct, teach, and lead the elders and to make arrangements concerning the church services, as well as the purchase of land for the building of a new meeting place. Nee then returned to mainland China where, in 1952, he was imprisoned for the remaining twenty years of his life by the CCP. The two were never able to communicate again.

Ministry in Taiwan
When Witness Lee moved to Taiwan in May 1949 he began his work with a few believers and churches already present there. Within five to six years, the number of Christians under his leadership increased from five hundred to over fifty thousand. Lee began to conduct conferences and trainings for the churches on a yearly basis and beginning in 1951 a formal training for his ministry co-workers. Lee also began to publish books through his publishing company, The Taiwan Gospel Book Room, as well as The Ministry of the Word magazine published from 1950 until 1986 in 415 issues.

Going west
Lee's work in the West was initiated with invitations to conduct conferences in London, England and Copenhagen, Denmark in 1958. Between 1958 and 1961, he also visited the United States three times. In 1962 he moved to Los Angeles and held his first conference there. Messages from that conference were later published as a book entitled The All-Inclusive Christ. In the ensuing years, Lee was invited to speak to Christian groups throughout the United States. His messages delivered during shorter conferences and longer trainings were printed in The Stream magazine, published by The Stream Publishers (later renamed Living Stream Ministry).

Throughout the 1960s and 1970s Lee traveled extensively throughout the United States, Canada, and the Far East, and elsewhere. In 1974 he moved to Anaheim, California where he began a book-by-book exposition of the Bible with the Life-study of Genesis. His entire Life-study of the Bible was completed in December 1994. Lee also wrote extensive outlines, footnotes, and cross references for the entire New Testament; these were eventually incorporated into a new translation of the New Testament, the Recovery Version, published in English in 1985. A translation into Chinese appeared in 1987, with various other languages following it since Lee's death.

"God-Ordained Way"
Beginning in the mid-1980s, Witness Lee felt that the rate of growth was too slow in the local churches. Eventually, he returned to Taiwan and determined that there was a need for a shift away from large meetings with one speaker to small group meetings in homes. In his ministry he began to refer to this emphasis as the "God-ordained way." Lee believed that by practicing the God-ordained way, churches could be saved from oldness and degradation and be brought back to a biblical pattern. The God-ordained way consists of four major steps:

"The first step of the God-ordained way is to fulfill the New Testament priesthood of the gospel to seek, visit, and contact sinners for God's salvation to make the sinners organic members of the Body of Christ and offer them to God as the New Testament sacrifice (Rom. 15:16; 1 Pet. 2:5, 9). The second step is to nourish and cherish the newborn babes in Christ in home meetings as nursing mothers (1 Thes. 2:7). The third step is to perfect the saints by mutual teaching in group meetings for the work of the ministry to build up the organic Body of Christ (Eph. 4:12-13). Finally, the fourth step of the God-ordained way is the prophesying by all the saints in the church meetings for the direct and organic building up of the Body of Christ as the organism of the processed Triune God (1 Cor. 14:1–5, 23–26, 31, 39a)."

Later ministry
In February 1994 Lee began to deliver messages on subjects he referred to as "the high peak of the divine revelation." The focus of his  messages was "God’s economy to make the believers God in life and nature but not in the Godhead." He also spoke on topics like "the New Jerusalem, the complete salvation of God with its judicial and organic aspects, the full ministry of Christ in His three divine and mystical stages, and the incorporation of the believers with the consummated Triune God." He also began a series of Bible expositions known as "Crystallization-studies." He continued to encourage the practice of the "God-ordained way."

Witness Lee gave his last conference in February 1997. Three months later he was hospitalized with complications due to prostate cancer. He died on June 9, 1997.

Witness Lee's view of Christendom
Witness Lee was critical of Christendom as a system while stressing the need to accept all believers based on what he taught was the common faith (Tit. 1:4, Jude 3).

"This degraded religious system [of Christendom] takes the natural, human, traditional, cultural, and religious way. Humanly speaking, religion is a good thing, but spiritually speaking it is something against God's economy. God does not want a religion, but He surely wants to see His economy accomplished. We are not here for religion but for God's economy, which is to propagate His completed Christ to produce the church as the Body of such a Christ."

"The church includes all those who share the common faith that saves us, the one faith spoken of in Ephesians 4:5. This faith is held in common by all who are saved (2 Pet. 1:1). This faith causes the believers to be one and does not divide them. Any creed or system of teaching that goes beyond the common faith divides the believers."

Witness Lee taught that certain practices in Christendom were unscriptural, such as the use of denominating names and the clergy-laity system. Nevertheless, he often emphasized the need for oneness among all Christians.

Publications
Many of Witness Lee's spoken messages have been published in over 400 books translated into more than fourteen different languages. His largest written work is The Life-study of the Bible, comprising over 25,000 pages of commentary on every book of the Bible from the perspective of the believers' enjoyment and experience of God's divine life in Christ through the Holy Spirit. A radio broadcast called Life-study of the Bible with Witness Lee was later produced from these spoken messages. Following the Life-study Lee began a focused Crystallization-study to look at high points, or "crystals," of each book of the Bible. However, he died before completing this work.

He was also the chief editor of a new translation of the New Testament into English and Chinese called the Recovery Version.

In addition, Witness Lee wrote, collected, and translated Christian hymns. In 1963 and 1964, he wrote the lyrics to approximately 200 new hymns that he compiled together with hymns from other authors. These were then categorized by topic for Hymns, with a total of 1,080 songs, published by Living Stream Ministry.

title: Witness Lee


text:
Edition (printmaking)

In printmaking, an edition is a number of prints struck from one plate, usually at the same time. This may be a limited edition, with a fixed number of impressions produced on the understanding that no further impressions (copies) will be produced later, or an open edition limited only by the number that can be sold or produced before the plate wears. Most modern artists produce only limited editions, normally signed by the artist in pencil, and numbered as say 67/100 to show the unique number of that impression and the total edition size.

Original or reproduction?
An important and often confused distinction is that between editions of original prints, produced in the same medium as the artist worked (e.g., etching, or lithography), and reproduction prints (or paintings), which are photographic reproductions of the original work, essentially in the same category as a picture in a book or magazine, though better printed and on better paper. These may be marketed as "limited editions" with investment potential (which is rarely realized), and even signed and numbered by the artist. Some knowledge is often required to tell the difference.

Development of the concept

One of the main reasons for the development of printmaking was the desire of artists to make more money from their work by selling multiple copies; printmaking satisfies this motive. The production of multiple copies also tends to reduce production costs and market price when compared to a single or unique image. Until the 19th century, in the period of the Old master print the concept of an edition did not really apply to prints, unlike books. Prints were often run off as demand allowed, and often worn-out plates were reworked by the original artist or another, to produce a new state. The art market attempts to distinguish between "lifetime impressions" and "late impressions", which were produced after the death of the artist. This can be done to some extent by the study of the paper involved, and its watermark, and the condition of the plate as revealed by the printed image. But it remains a difficult area. The aquatints of Goya, which are done in a technique that wears out quickly on the plate, were the first important prints to be published initially in limited editions, which however were not signed or numbered. In fact the plates survived, and since Goya's death several further editions have been published, showing a progressive and drastic decline in quality of the image, despite some rework. Because of this and other cases, "posthumous editions" produced after the death of an artist, and obviously not signed by him, are usually far less sought after. The plates of later prints are often "cancelled" by defacing the image, with a couple of impressions of the cancelled plate taken to document it. This is now expected by collectors and investors, who want the prints they buy to retain their value.

Modern practice
Prints by artists today may potentially retain their financial value as art (i.e., as an appreciating investment) because they are created by an artistic process rather than by a strictly mechanical one, and may become scarce because the number of multiples is limited. In Rembrandt's time, the limit on the size of an edition was practical: a plate degrades through use, putting an upper limit on the number of images to be struck. Plates can be reworked and restored to some degree, but it is generally not possible to create more than a thousand prints from any process except lithography or woodcut. A few hundred is a more practical upper limit, and even that allows for significant variation in the quality of the image. In drypoint, 10 or 20 may be the maximum number of top-quality impressions possible.

Today, artists will sometimes refer to a print as a "one-off," meaning that the artist has made a unique print and no reproductions of it from the original matrix, often not even a proof. In this category one sometimes finds monotypes, monoprints, collagraphs, altered prints with collage or chine colle additions, or even hand-colored prints. There remain artists who are strong advocates of "artist's prints" which are conceived, printed, signed, and given the edition number 1/1 by the artist.

Numbering
Because of the variation in quality, lower-numbered prints in an edition are sometimes favored as superior, especially with older works where the image was struck until the plate wore out. However the numbering of impressions in fact may well not equate at all to the sequence in which they were printed, and may often be the reverse of it.

In later times, printmakers recognized the value of limiting the size of an edition and including the volume of the edition in the print number (e.g., "15/30" for the 15th print in an edition of 30). Tight controls on the process to limit or eliminate variation in quality have become the norm. In monotyping, a technique where only two impressions at most can be taken, prints may be numbered 1/1, or marked "unique". Artists usually print an edition much smaller than the plate allows, both for marketing reasons and to keep the edition comfortably within the lifespan of the plate. Specific steps may also be taken to strengthen the plate, such as electroplating intaglio images, which uses an electric process to put a very thin coat of a stronger metal onto a plate of a weaker metal.

The conventions for numbering prints are well-established, a limited edition is normally hand signed and numbered by the artist, typically in pencil, in the form (e.g.): 14/100. The first number is the number of the print itself. The second number is the number of overall prints the artist will print of that image. The lower the second number is, the more valuable and collectible the limited editions are likely to be, within whatever their price range is. Other marks may indicate that a print has been made in addition to the numbered prints of an edition. Artist's proofs are marked "A. P." or "P/A", sometimes E. A. or E. d'A. (épreuve d'artiste); monoprints and uniquely hand-altered prints are marked "unique"; prints that are given to someone or are for some reason unsuitable for sale are marked "H. C." or "H/C", meaning "hors de commerce", not for sale. These are usually prints reserved for the publisher, like Artist's Proofs. The printer is also often allowed to retain some proof impressions; these are marked "P. P." Finally, a master image may be printed against which the members of the edition are compared for quality: these are marked as "bon à tirer" or "BAT" ("good to print" in French). In all, the number of the main edition can represent 50% or less of the total number of good impressions taken.

Professional artist printmakers will sometimes limit an edition to several artist's proof copies, including a "bon a tirer" print and then one unique copy designated as a "one-off" or "1/1" or "one/off".

Consumer protection laws
In the United States limited editions are regulated under state consumer protections laws. California became the first state to regulate the sale of limited edition art prints with the "California Print Law" of 1971. The state of Illinois later expanded on the California statute. However, it was not until 1986 that more comprehensive provisions, still in place today, were enacted with the passage of the "Georgia Print Law". That law became the template for statutes subsequently enacted by other states. The Georgia Print Law written by (former) State Representative Chesley V. Morton, became effective July 1, 1986. The law requires art dealers, artists, or auctioneers to supply information to prospective purchasers about the nature of the print, the number of prints and editions (including HC editions) produced, and the involvement (if any) of the artist in the creation of the print. The penalty for violation of the law ranges from simple reimbursement to treble damages, in the case of a willful violation. Those found to be in violation of the law are also liable for court costs, expenses, and attorney fees. The law applies to works of art valued at more than $100.00 (not including frame). Charitable organizations are specifically exempt from the provision of the law. The statute of limitations is one year after discovery, and, if discovery of the violation is not made within three years of the sale, then the purchaser’s remedies are extinguished.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Edition (printmaking)


text:
Andy Rooney

Andrew Aitken Rooney (January 14, 1919 – November 4, 2011) was an American radio and television writer who was best known for his weekly broadcast "A Few Minutes with Andy Rooney", a part of the CBS News program 60 Minutes from 1978 to 2011. His final regular appearance on 60 Minutes aired on October 2, 2011; he died a month later at the age of 92.

Early life and education
Andrew Aitken Rooney was born in Albany, New York, the son of Walter Scott Rooney (1888–1959) and Ellinor (Reynolds) Rooney (1886–1980). He attended The Albany Academy, and later attended Colgate University in Hamilton in central New York, where he was initiated into the Sigma Chi fraternity, before he was drafted into the United States Army in August 1941.

World War II
Rooney began his career in newspapers in 1942 while in the Army where he began writing for Stars and Stripes in London. He was one of six correspondents who flew on the second American bombing raid over Germany in February 1943, flying with the Eighth Air Force. He was the first journalist to reach the Ludendorff Bridge after the 9th Armored Division captured it on March 7, 1945. He was 32 km to the west when he heard that the bridge had been captured. "It was a reporter's dream," he wrote. "One of the great stories of the war had fallen into my lap." The bridge capture was front-page news in America. Rooney rated the capture of the bridge as one of the top five events of the entire European war, alongside D-Day.

He was one of the first American journalists to visit the Nazi concentration camps near the end of World War II, and one of the first to write about them. During a segment on Tom Brokaw's The Greatest Generation, Rooney stated that he had been opposed to World War II because he was a pacifist. He recounted that what he saw in those concentration camps made him ashamed that he had opposed the war and permanently changed his opinions about whether "just wars" exist.

Rooney was decorated with the Bronze Star Medal and Air Medal for his service as a war correspondent in combat zones during the war. His 1995 memoir My War chronicles his war reporting and recounts several notable historical events and people from a first-hand view, including the entry into Paris and the Nazi concentration camps. He describes how it shaped his experience both as a writer and reporter.

Career
Rooney joined CBS in 1949 as a writer for Arthur Godfrey's Talent Scouts, when Godfrey was at his peak on CBS radio and TV. It opened the show up to a variety of viewers. The program was a hit, reaching number one in 1952 during Rooney's tenure. It was the beginning of a close lifelong friendship between Rooney and Godfrey. He wrote for Godfrey's daytime radio and TV show Arthur Godfrey Time. He later moved on to The Garry Moore Show which became a hit program. During the same period, he wrote public affairs programs for CBS News, such as The Twentieth Century.

Rooney wrote his first television essay in 1964 called "An Essay on Doors", "a longer-length precursor of the type" that he did on 60 Minutes, according to CBS News's biography of him. From 1962 to 1968, he collaborated with CBS News correspondent Harry Reasoner, Rooney writing and producing and Reasoner narrating. They wrote on CBS News specials such as "An Essay on Bridges" (1965), "An Essay on Hotels" (1966), "An Essay on Women" (1967), and "The Strange Case of the English Language" (1968). In 1968, he wrote two episodes of the CBS News documentary series Of Black America, and his script for "Black History: Lost, Stolen, or Strayed" won him his first Emmy.

CBS refused to broadcast his World War II memoir titled "An Essay on War" in 1970, so Rooney quit CBS and read the opinion himself on PBS, which was his first appearance on television. That show in 1971 won him his third Writers Guild Award. He rejoined CBS in 1973 to write and produce special programs. He also wrote the script for the 1975 documentary FDR: The Man Who Changed America.

After his return to the network, Rooney wrote and appeared in several primetime specials for CBS, including In Praise of New York City (1974), the Peabody Award-winning Mr. Rooney Goes to Washington (1975), Mr. Rooney Goes to Dinner (1978), and Mr. Rooney Goes to Work (1977). Transcripts of these specials are contained in the book A Few Minutes with Andy Rooney, as well as of some of the earlier collaborations with Reasoner.

"A Few Minutes with Andy Rooney"
Rooney's "end-of-show" segment on 60 Minutes, "A Few Minutes with Andy Rooney" (originally "Three Minutes or So With Andy Rooney" ), began in 1978, as a summer replacement for the debate segment "Point/Counterpoint" featuring Shana Alexander and James Kilpatrick. The segment proved popular enough with viewers that beginning in the fall of 1978, it was seen in alternate weeks with the debate segment. At the end of the 1978–1979 season, "Point/Counterpoint" was dropped altogether.

In the segment, Rooney typically offered satire on a trivial everyday issue, such as the cost of groceries, annoying relatives, or faulty Christmas presents. Rooney's appearances on "A Few Minutes with Andy Rooney" often included whimsical lists, such as types of milk, bottled water brands, car brands, and sports mascots. In later years, his segments became more political as well. Despite being best known for his television presence on 60 Minutes, Rooney always considered himself a writer who incidentally appeared on television behind his famous walnut table, which he had made himself.

Controversies
Rooney made a number of comments which elicited strong reactions from fans and producers alike.

Comments on race
In February 1990, CBS's 60 Minutes suspended Rooney for three months in part because it was alleged that he had suggested that black people were less intelligent because they "watered down their genes". After the program's ratings dropped significantly, Rooney was let back on in March. Rooney vehemently disputed this in a 1999 interview, claiming he was instead referring to lower-income people more broadly.

Rooney wrote a column in 1992 that posited that it was "silly" for Native Americans to complain about team names like the Redskins, in which he wrote in part, "The real problem is, we took the country away from the Indians, they want it back and we're not going to give it to them. We feel guilty and we'll do what we can for them within reason, but they can't have their country back. Next question." After receiving many letters from Native Americans he wrote, "when so many people complain about one thing, you have to assume you may have been wrong".

In a 2007 column for Tribune media services, he wrote, "I know all about Babe Ruth and Lou Gehrig, but today's baseball stars are all guys named Rodriguez to me." Rooney later commented, "Yeah, I probably shouldn't have said it, [but] it's a name that seems common in baseball now. I certainly didn't think of it in any derogatory sense."

Comments on same-sex unions
In 1990, Rooney was suspended without pay for three months by then-CBS News President David Burke, because of the negative publicity around his saying that "too much alcohol, too much food, drugs, homosexual unions, cigarettes [are] all known to lead to premature death." He wrote an explanatory letter to a gay organization after being ordered not to do so. After only four weeks without Rooney, 60 Minutes lost 20% of its audience. CBS management then decided that it was in the best interest of the network to have Rooney return immediately.

After Rooney's reinstatement, he made his remorse public:

"There was never a writer who didn't hope that in some small way he was doing good with the words he put down on paper, and while I know it's presumptuous, I've always had in my mind that I was doing some little bit of good. Now, I was to be known for having done, not good, but bad. I'd be known for the rest of my life as a racist bigot and as someone who had made life a little more difficult for homosexuals. I felt terrible about that and I've learned a lot."

Remarks on Kurt Cobain's suicide
In a 1994 segment, Rooney attracted controversy with his remarks on Kurt Cobain's suicide. He expressed his dismay that the death of Richard Nixon was overshadowed by Cobain's suicide, stating that he had never heard of Cobain or his band, Nirvana. He went on to say that Cobain's suicide made him angry. "A lot of people would like to have the years left that he threw away," Rooney said. "What's all this nonsense about how terrible life is?" he asked, adding rhetorically to a young woman who had wept at the suicide, "I'd love to relieve the pain you're going through by switching my age for yours." In addition, he asked "What would all these young people be doing if they had real problems like a Depression, World War II, or Vietnam?" and commented, "If [Cobain] applied the same brain to his music that he applied to his drug-infested life, it's reasonable to think that his music may not have made much sense, either."

On the following Sunday's show, he apologized on the air, saying he should have taken Cobain's depression into account. He also read only critical feedback from listeners without interjecting any commentary of his own.

Collections and retirement
Rooney's shorter television essays have been archived in numerous books, such as Common Nonsense, which came out in 2002, and Years of Minutes, probably his best-known work, released in 2003. He penned a regular syndicated column for Tribune Media Services that ran in many newspapers in the United States, and which has been collected in book form. He won three Emmy Awards for his essays, which numbered over 1,000. He was awarded a Lifetime Achievement Emmy in 2003. Rooney's renown made him a frequent target of parodies and impersonations by a diverse group of comic figures, including Frank Caliendo, Rich Little and Beavis.

In 1993, CBS released a two-volume VHS tape set of the best of Rooney's commentaries and field reports, called "The Andy Rooney Television Collection — His Best Minutes." In 2006, CBS released three DVDs of his more recent commentaries, Andy Rooney On Almost Everything, Things That Bother Andy Rooney, and Andy Rooney's Solutions.

Rooney's final regular appearance on 60 Minutes was on October 2, 2011, after 33 years on the show. It was his 1,097th commentary.

Views
Rooney claimed on Larry King Live to have a liberal bias, stating, "There is just no question that I, among others, have a liberal bias. I mean, I'm consistently liberal in my opinions." In a controversial 1999 book, Rooney self-identified as agnostic, but by 2004 he was calling himself an atheist. He reaffirmed this in 2008. Over the years, many of his editorials poked fun at the concept of God and organized religion. Increased speculation on this was brought to a head by a series of comments he made regarding Mel Gibson's film The Passion of the Christ (2004).

Though Rooney has been called Irish-American, he once said "I'm proud of my Irish heritage, but I'm not Irish. I'm not even Irish-American. I am American, period."

In 2005, when four people were fired at CBS News perhaps because of the Killian documents controversy, Rooney said, "The people on the front lines got fired while the people most instrumental in getting the broadcast on escaped." Others at CBS had "kept mum" about the controversy.

Personal life
Rooney was married to Marguerite "Margie" Rooney (née Howard) for 62 years, until she died of heart failure in 2004. He later wrote, "her name does not appear as often as it originally did [in my essays] because it hurts too much to write it." They had four children: Ellen, Emily, Martha, and Brian. His daughter Emily Rooney is a TV talk show host and former ABC News producer who went on to host a nightly Boston-area public affairs program, Greater Boston, on WGBH. Emily's identical twin, Martha Fishel, became chief of the Public Services Division at the National Library of Medicine in Bethesda, Maryland; her son Justin works as a producer for ABC News. His first daughter, Ellen Rooney, is a former film editor at ABC News and is now a travel and garden photographer based in London. His son, Brian Rooney, has been a correspondent for ABC since the 1980s and lives in Los Angeles.

Rooney also had a sister, Nancy Reynolds Rooney (1915–2007).

Rooney lived in the Rowayton section of Norwalk, Connecticut, and in Rensselaerville, New York, and was a longtime season ticket holder for the New York Giants.

Death
Rooney was hospitalized on October 25, 2011, after developing postoperative complications from an undisclosed surgical procedure, and died on November 4, 2011, at the age of 92, less than five weeks after his last appearance on 60 Minutes.

Awards

 * 2001 – Emperor Has No Clothes Award from the Freedom From Religion Foundation.
 * 2003 – Walter Cronkite Award for Excellence in Journalism.

Books
Books written by Rooney:
 * Conquerors' Peace; report to the American stockholders, by Oram C. Hutton and Andrew A. Rooney. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1947.
 * A Few Minutes With Andy Rooney, 1981 (ISBN 0-689-11194-0)
 * And More by Andy Rooney, 1982 (ISBN 0-517-40622-5)
 * Pieces of My Mind, 1984 (ISBN 0-689-11492-3)
 * The Most of Andy Rooney, 1986 (ISBN 0-689-11864-3)
 * Word for Word, 1988 (ISBN 0-399-13200-7)
 * Not That You Asked ..., 1989 (ISBN 0-394-57837-6)
 * Most of Andy Rooney, 1990 (ISBN 0-88365-765-1)
 * Sweet and Sour, 1992 (ISBN 0-399-13774-2)
 * My War, 1995 (ISBN 0-517-17986-5)
 * Sincerely, Andy Rooney, 1999 (ISBN 1-891620-34-7)
 * The Complete Andy Rooney, 2000 (ISBN 0-446-11219-4)
 * Common Nonsense, 2002, (ISBN 1-586482-00-9)
 * Years of Minutes, 2003 (ISBN 1-58648-211-4)
 * Out of My Mind, 2006 (ISBN 1-58648-416-8)
 * 60 Years of Wisdom and Wit, 2009 (ISBN 1-58648-773-6)

title: Andy Rooney


text:
Talk:Folkestone

Daniel Defoe
used information from http://www.fantasyfacup.com/matthew/essays/folk.htm which i wrote.

I have no expertise whatsoever in regarding Folkestone, but I'd like to politely point out one small but significant factual error. Daniel Defoe is quoted as writing about Folkestone during the Napoleonic Wars, but he was long dead by Napoleon's era (Defoe, born 1660, died 1731).

I'm speculating, but perhaps the article is meant to say that the first quote is from Defoe's 'Tour Through...' and the quote following, regarding smuggling gold to French soldiers during the Napoleonic Wars, came from Edward Hasted, who is mentioned right afterwards and was apparently alive during the appropriate time period.

Other than that, thanks for an interesting article that piqued my interest in several things. If I ever get the chance to travel through England, a stop there will be on my list. (Anon.)

 * Hasted's Kent was in its 2nd edition in 1793 and Hasted died in 1812, so the quote about the Napoleonic War is not likely from Hasted either. --Wetman 08:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Links to forum communities: It's come to my attention that a forum has readded their link to the wiki under a slightly different and misleading title. "Online Community Featuring Photographs". I believe this should be removed as other rival forums have been. 19:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

The links to several forum communities have now been removed from the main content of the article. 86.164.59.117 (talk) 20:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation
The pronunciation was contradictory: a secondary stress mark, but then a superscript schwa, indicating no stress. Please correct me if I interpreted it incorrectly. The IPA link takes you to a key. kwami 05:25, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Just heard on a local radio a couple of times: two times the first syllable got pronounced like fulk rather than folk. Is it a variant or had I just injured my ear somehow? 95.73.81.43 (talk), Josh — Preceding undated comment added 15:06, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Places of worship in folkestone
Would it be worth noting all the places of worship in folkestone? i think it would be of significant interest given that there is a list of schools? a discussion perhaps and a draft list of all the places of worship?... 217.33.150.4 (talk) 17:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Schools in folkestone
Personally I don't believe a private foriegn language school and private sixth form should be in the schools section on this article as they stand to make money from being there, unlike the other entries. I have removed them from the article as I feel they constitute an advert rather than valid information. 86.164.59.117 (talk) 20:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Main comment on article
The main fault with this article is doesn't follow the Wiki Geography Project guidelines, using this article. Here are some of the main points made in those guidelines, not followed here;
 * the lead paragraph should be an overview of the whole article, and should not introduce particular facts, as this one does, and with three unlinked references
 * there is no geography section as such
 * the History paragraph wanders into areas that could more properly be included under other headings: the Harbour, Railways, Schools. Wiki recommends not dividing the section unless absolutely necessary. Little about the fishing fraternity, nor the Pent River used by them to shelter boats. Plans for a harbour at Folestone were first mooted in 1541 and eventually came toi fruition the following century - not mentioned here.
 * there is no heading for Economy - it isn't just industry; and there should be Demography section
 * lists are frowned upon by the guidelines: the text should be in prose. The Schools section has two glaring errors: both schools referred to are in the West Midlands; and another has a recommended MERGE on it.
 * a Leisure section can include all the bits about the Creative Quarter (now under History), Theatre etc.
 * the transport section ignores roads; and long distance footpaths
 * no religious section.
 * far too many external links - also frowned upon by the guidelines

I'm looking to have a go at this article over the next few days - watch this space! Peter Shearan (talk) 19:40, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There are some 65 people who are shown on the "What links here" in the toolbox on the left of this box. See Dover as an example: it is necessary to have a separate article for List of people from Folkestone which I am now preparing. Peter Shearan (talk) 08:27, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * people article complete. I cannot find reference to Pepper Hayes; Manid Hayes; orGracie Wells. Who are they?Peter Shearan (talk) 14:32, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Education
There was no need for the list of schools (which in any case were not in alphabetical order; and some were missing!). The complete list is at the article referred to, and thus obviates the need for a list. Peter Shearan (talk) 09:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

History
I had a great deal to do with tidying up the Dover article, and in doing so realised that there was enough material in in its history to warrant a separare article altogether. I am therefore proposing to do that here. The present paras, which often include considerable detail, and therefore add to the length of the town article (33 kilobytes long), can be much better contained in that separate article. Even Folkestone Harbour has much more to say, and might even warrant another article, but certainly it needs separating from the general history, since it covers almost the entire historical spectrum. And Creative Quarter and Museums (which are in most cases outside the town proper anyway) belong outside History. I am hoping that someone might be commenting soon!!! Peter Shearan (talk) 14:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Culture
I have edited the Culture section principly as it contained far too many external links, lists, showed a distinct bias in its language, and more largely constituted a vulgar advertisement for Arts community rather than providing any useful information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felttipben (talk • contribs) 10:42, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Significance of sandy beach and North London?
The article currently claims "Currently Folkestone has the only sandy beach and coastal park within an hour of north London."

Questions about this:
 * Why "currently"? Does this change often?
 * Why "north London"? Are there other sandy beaches closer to other parts of London?
 * Why do we care about this at all?

Dharris (talk) 15:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Population
I have changed the population figure in the infobox. Previously, it quoted a population figure of 53,411 and the reference stated that came from the ONS' "Total of 11 wards in census 2001." This is an error, since Folkestone only contains 9 wards. The ONS quotes data for the 9 current wards, plus the two wards that existed prior to the 2003 boundary changes. Harvey and Central wards were abolished and replaced by Harvey West and Harvey Central. Adding the 9 current wards adds up to 45,273, which is also the number quoted by the ONS for Folkestone as a whole, as shown in the new reference. Danfolkestone (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC).

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Folkestone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110716160901/http://www.martello-towers.co.uk/south-coast/towers/3.htm to http://www.martello-towers.co.uk/south-coast/towers/3.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130530080909/http://www.canterbury.ac.uk/AboutUs/CampusesAndFacilities/Folkestone.aspx to http://www.canterbury.ac.uk/AboutUs/CampusesAndFacilities/Folkestone.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 15:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

School merge
I have suggested that Sandgate Primary School should be merged to here as a non-notable primary as per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Any comments appreciated. CalzGuy (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Folkestone. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722042510/http://www.shepway.gov.uk/content/category/1/200038/1748/ to http://www.shepway.gov.uk/content/category/1/200038/1748/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110722042510/http://www.shepway.gov.uk/content/category/1/200038/1748/ to http://www.shepway.gov.uk/content/category/1/200038/1748/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090404080114/http://radiotoday.co.uk/news.php?extend.4579 to http://radiotoday.co.uk/news.php?extend.4579

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:29, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

title: Talk:Folkestone


text:
Bogy

Bogy (Bògi) is a commune of the Ardèche department in southern France.

Geography
Bogy is located 10 km from Annonay, and 50 km from Valence.

Population
The inhabitants are called Boginois.

title: Bogy


text: User talk:64.203.44.179

title: User talk:64.203.44.179


text:
Bat Boy (character)

Bat Boy is a fictional creature who made numerous appearances in the American supermarket tabloid Weekly World News, beginning with a front page story in 1992. The character became a pop-culture icon. In 1997, the story of Bat Boy was turned into an Off-Broadway musical, Bat Boy: The Musical.

History
Weekly World News is a tabloid newspaper that publishes patently fabricated stories which were purported to be factual. Within the pages of the paper, Bat Boy is described as a creature who is "half human and half bat". His pursuers, according to Weekly World News, are scientists and United States government officials; he is frequently captured, then later makes a daring escape. The original scientist who found him was named Dr. Ron Dillon. Another character, Matthew Daemon, S.O.S. (Seeker of Obscure Supernaturals), crossed paths with him in several stories.

Bat Boy was created by former Weekly World News editor Dick Kulpa. Writer Bob Lind was assigned the story six weeks later. He debuted as a cover story on June 23, 1992. The original front-page photo of Bat Boy, showing his grotesque screaming face, was the second-best selling issue in the tabloid's history, and he has since evolved into a pop-culture icon. He became the tabloid's de facto mascot of sorts.

Adventures of Batboy cartoon
Cartoonist Peter Bagge originally penned the "Adventures of Batboy" for the Weekly World News. According to the cartoon, Bat Boy is currently hitchhiking with a typical American family after resigning from being the President of the United States (and King), has placed Weekly World News columnist Ed Anger under arrest and saying goodbyes to Beyoncé, a half sasquatch (with whom he was romantically involved), and Dr. Ron. In the strip, Bat Boy joins a death metal/thrash metal band as their lead singer. Cartoonist Danielle Corsetto, creator of webcomic Girls with Slingshots, took over from Bagge in 2005 and drew the strip until the WWN ceased publication in 2007.

Bat Boy: The Musical
A musical based on the Bat Boy character premiered at Tim Robbins' Actors Gang Theatre on Halloween, 1997 and has since been produced Off Broadway, in London's West End, and in scores of productions throughout the world. Music and lyrics are by Laurence O'Keefe, with a book by Brian Flemming and Keythe Farley.

Other usage
Bat Boy served as the inspiration for the album cover of Escape Plan/Mafia by American rapper Travis Scott.

title: Bat Boy (character)


text:
Earl of Chester

The Earldom of Chester was one of the most powerful earldoms in medieval England, extending principally over the counties of Cheshire and Flintshire. Since 1301 the title has generally been granted to heirs apparent to the English throne, and after 1707 the British throne. From the late 14th century, it has been given only in conjunction with that of Prince of Wales.

Honour of Chester and County Palatinate
The County of Cheshire was held by the powerful Earls (or "Counts" from the Norman-French) of Chester from the late eleventh century, and they held land all over England, comprising "the honour of Chester". By the late twelfth century (if not earlier) the earls had established a position of power as quasi-princely rulers of Cheshire that led to the later establishment of the County Palatine of Chester and Flint. Such was their power that Magna Carta set down by King John did not apply to Cheshire and the sixth earl was compelled to issue his own version.

County palatine
The earldom passed to the Crown by escheat in 1237 on the death of John the Scot, Earl of Huntingdon, seventh and last of the Earls. William III de Forz, 4th Earl of Albemarle, claimed the earldom as husband of Christina, the senior co-heir, but the king persuaded them to quitclaim their rights in 1241 in exchange for modest lands elsewhere. The other co-heiresses did likewise. It was annexed to the Crown in 1246. King Henry III then passed the Lordship of Chester, but not the title of Earl, to his son, the Lord Edward, in 1254; as King Edward I, this son in turn conferred the title and lands of the Earldom on his son, Edward, the first English Prince of Wales. By that time, the Earldom of Chester consisted of two counties: Cheshire and Flintshire.

The establishment of royal control of the Earldom of Chester made possible King Edward I's conquest of north Wales, and Chester played a vital part as a supply base during the Welsh Wars (1275–84), so the separate organisation of a county palatine was preserved. This continued until the time of King Henry VIII. Since 1301, the Earldom of Chester has always been conferred on the Princes of Wales.

Briefly promoted to a principality in 1398 by King Richard II, who titled himself "Prince of Chester", it was reduced to an earldom again in 1399 by King Henry IV. Whereas the Sovereign's eldest son is automatically Duke of Cornwall, he must be made or created Earl of Chester as well as Prince of Wales.

The independent palatinate jurisdiction of Chester survived until the time of King Henry VIII (1536), when the earldom was brought more directly under the control of the Crown. The palatinate courts of Great Sessions and Exchequer survived until the reforms of 1830.

The importance of the County Palatinate of Chester is shown by the survival of Chester Herald in the College of Arms for some six hundred years. The office has anciently been nominally under the jurisdiction of Norroy King of Arms.

Revenues
In the year 1377, the revenues of the Earldom were recorded as follows:

County of Chester

 * Fee-Farm of city of Chester – £22 2 4 1/2,
 * Escheated lands of said city – £0 7 0,
 * Rents of the Manor of Dracklow and Rudeheath – £26 2 6,
 * Farm of Medywick – £21 6 0,
 * Profits of Mara and Modren – £34 0 9,
 * Profits of Shotwick Manor and Park – £23 19 0,
 * Mills upon River Dee – £11 0 0,
 * Annual profits of Fordham Manor – £48 0 0,
 * Profits of Macklefield Hundred – £6 1 8,
 * Farm of Macklefield Borough – £16 1 3,
 * Profits of the forest of Macklefield £85 12 11 3/4,
 * Profits of escheater of Chester – £24 19 0,
 * Profits of the sheriff of said county – £43 12 3,
 * Profits of the Chamberlain of county – £55 14 0.

County of Flint

 * Yearly value of Ellow – £20 8 0,
 * Farm of the town of Flint – £33 19 4,
 * Farm of Cayrouse – £7 2 4,
 * Castle of Ruthlam – £5 12 10,
 * Rents and profits of Mosten – £7 0 0,
 * Rents and profits of Colshil – £54 16 0,
 * Rents of Ruthlam town – £44 17 6,
 * Lands of Englefield (yearly) – £23 10 0,
 * Profits of Vayvol – £5 9 0,
 * Profits of the office of escheator – £6 11 9,
 * Mines of Cole and Wood within Manor of Mosten – £0 10 0,
 * Office of the sheriff in rents and casualties – £120 0 0,
 * Mines and profits of the Fairs of Northope – £3 9 2,
 * Casualties was lastly – £37 0 8.

Total income was £418 1 2 3/4 from Cheshire and £181 6 0 from Flintshire.

First Creation (1067–1070)

 * Gerbod the Fleming, 1st Earl of Chester

Second Creation (1071)
(dates above are approximate)
 * 1071–1101 Hugh d'Avranches, 1st Earl of Chester (died 1101)
 * 1101–1120 Richard d'Avranches, 2nd Earl of Chester (1094–1120)
 * 1120–1129 Ranulf le Meschin, 3rd Earl of Chester (died c. 1129)
 * 1129–1153 Ranulf de Gernon, 4th Earl of Chester (died c. 1153)
 * 1153–1181 Hugh de Kevelioc, 5th Earl of Chester (1147–1181)
 * 1181–1232 Ranulf de Blondeville, 6th Earl of Chester (c. 1172–1232)
 * 1232–1232 Matilda of Chester, Countess of Chester suo jure (1171–1233) (Inherited Oct 1232 inter vivos gift to son Nov 1232)
 * 1232–1237 John of Scotland, 7th Earl of Chester (c. 1207–1237)

Third Creation (1254)

 * Edward, Lord of Chester, but without the title of earl (1239–1307) (became King Edward I in 1272)

Fourth Creation (1264)

 * Simon de Montfort, 6th Earl of Leicester, 1st Earl of Chester (1208–1265) (forfeit 1265)

(There is no evidence that Alphonso, elder son of Edward I, was created earl of Chester, although he was styled as such)

Fifth Creation (1301)

 * Edward of Caernarvon, Earl of Chester (1284–1327) (became King Edward II in 1307)

Sixth Creation (1312)

 * Edward Plantagenet, Earl of Chester (1312–1377) (became King Edward III in 1327)

''Thereafter, the Earldom of Chester was created in conjunction with the Principality of Wales. See Prince of Wales for further earls of Chester.''

Other associations

 * Earl of Chester was one of the GWR 3031 Class locomotives that were built for and ran on the Great Western Railway between 1891 and 1915.

title: Earl of Chester


text:
Talk:Duke of Normandy

Merged with the British crown?
Isn't the title merged with the British crown? This information could be incorporated into the article:. I believe all this would be better placed at Duke of Normandy --Jiang 01:11 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * (1) No, any claims to be "Duke of Normandy" were given up by the Treaty of Paris in 1295 1259. (2) If a title merges with the Crown, it ceases to exist until it is regranted. And, no, before you ask, Queen Elizabeth is not the Duke of Normandy, no matter how she is toasted in the Channel Islands. -- Someone else

 * Why then does the official royal website continually state that she is Duke of Normandy? Here is the specific question answered in the royal magazine: --Jiang 02:28 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * Because they're wrong. It's not the only mistake on the official royal website, either! -- Someone else 02:43 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * The English monarch is the Duke or Duchess of Normandy only in his or her own kingdom, now. I.e. only in the Channel Islands. There is no Duke of Normandy in continental Normandy. Ideportal (talk) 17:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

 * To answer the original question: no, because it's not a British title; the theory behind "merging" is that the monarch cannot be his own vassal. If it survived 1259 then it merged into the French crown in 1340. —Tamfang (talk) 02:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The Treaty was in 1259, not 1295, but otherwise, Someone else is correct, I believe. Perhaps that should be listed in the article, and John and Henry III listed as titular dukes up to 1259? john 04:02 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

 * I think that's probably a good idea. Anything to prevent bad corrections. (I'm (non-tacitly) changing the date above, acknowledging the error yet "subtly" preventing its repetition...) -- Someone else 04:23 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Moving
I'm moving this to Duke of Normandy. --Jiang

 * ... where, indeed, I have now moved it back to, and made List of Dukes of Normandy and Dukes of Normandy redirects. Given that this is the only talk page of the three, I will move this, too.
 * James F. (talk) 18:49, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

Duke of Normandy and Duchy of Normandy
I've tried to sort out the material on the two pages to keep the list of Dukes (and info about the claims to the title) separate from Duchy of Normandy, which I think is a better place for the history and culture of the Duchy. Hope this is useful. Man vyi 13:03, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

Correction
The Treaty of Paris of 1259 had nothing to do with the title "Duke of Normandy." The treaty recognised that mainland Normandy and certain other territories were no longer the property of the Henry III in his capacity as Duke of Normandy but now belonged to the King of France, while insular Normandy (today, the bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey) remained under the Duke of Normandy - who, from 1066 to 1707 (except for 1649-1660) was also King or Queen Regnant of England, then subsequently of Great Britain (1707-1801) and United Kingdom (since 1801). The Treaty also provided that Henry III could keep the Acquitaine and some other French territory, but only as vassal to the King of France.

The title "Duke of Normandy" has never been abandoned by any monarch. Like "Duke of Lancaster," it is personal to the sovereign and may not be borne by anyone else. The two titles together are so strongly tied to the historic right of the bearer to the English/British crown, that the sex is never changed for a queen regnant. Elizabeth II, like Victoria, Anne, Mary II, Elizabeth I, Mary I, and (for those who include her) Jane before her, is a female Duke of Normandy and Duke of Lancaster. This is because the British Constitution, while recognising Queens Regnant, has only recognised "duchess" as indicating the wife of a duke. So, if she were the Duchess of Normandy or Lancaster, that would mean Philip was the Duke -- which would suggest he had a bizarrely abstract right to be king, by virtue of being the Duke of Normandy and the Duke of Lancaster - because those titles are personal to the sovereign. So, to avoid any question among the really die-hard traditionalists (e.g., people like the ones who signed the Scottish "National Covenant" in their own blood), the Queen is "Duke" of Normandy and Lancaster, instead of "Duchess."

Beyond its historic ceremonial value, of course, "Duke of Normandy" is still an active title -- because, although mainland Normandy was lost to France in 1259, the British monarch is still the personal sovereign of INSULAR (island) Normandy, namely Jersey and Guernsey. Duke of Lancaster is also still an active title, because it's still an active dukedom (or duchy). As Duke of Lancaster, the Queen owns land in Lacashire and London (the latter including the land on which the Savoy Hotel sits), and uses the income from the Dukedom of Lancaster to buy her clothes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.200.116.6 (talk • contribs) 14:01, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

 * Britain has had several Duchesses in their own right, starting from Margaret, Duchess of Norfolk. Nowhere there has been any hesitation them to be Duchess, so Duke as masculine form applied specifically to those females has not been in done in those cases. Marrtel 09:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

 * Using List of dukedoms in the peerages of the British Isles, I tracked down all the duchesses in their own right:
 * Margaret, Duchess of Norfolk, created 1397, died 1399
 * Anne Hamilton, 3rd Duchess of Hamilton, succeeded 1651, died 1698
 * Anne Scott, 1st Duchess of Buccleuch, created 1663, died 1732
 * Barbara Palmer, 1st Duchess of Cleveland, created 1670, died 1709
 * Louise de Kérouaille, Duchess of Portsmouth, created 1673, died 1734
 * Melusine von der Schulenburg, Duchess of Kendal and Munster, created 1719 and 1716 respectively, died 1743
 * Henrietta Godolphin, 2nd Duchess of Marlborough, succeeded 1722, died 1733
 * Cecilia Underwood, 1st Duchess of Inverness, created 1840, died 1873
 * Princess Alexandra, Duchess of Fife, succeeded 1912, died 1959
 * —Tamfang (talk) 19:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

rolled back some changes
Please see ... if article regulars agree that the removed material was POV please feel free to revert my reversion. ++Lar: t/c 01:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Executed 100 Christians after his death
CAN SOMEONE EXPLAIN HOW ROLLO "EXECUTED 100 CHRISTIANS UPON HIS DEATH"? HOW DOES SOMEONE EXECUTE ANYTHING AFTER HE DIES? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.205.40.3 (talk • contribs) 20:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Nothing on Rollo's page and title's page mentions this. After more research, it appears it's been a loose belief that he ordered it on his deathbed. But if we remember that he himself was a former pagan and foreigner to France - his court most likely did not carry out the order. This is all speculation though. GeoMedrek (talk) 02:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

newbie question
Why is the current holder of this title, Queen Elizabeth II, styled as the Duke of Normandy instead of the Duchess of Normandy? Ronnotel (talk) 15:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * never mind - I read the paragraph above. Ronnotel (talk) 15:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Which is nonsense, but never mind ... —Tamfang (talk) 05:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

James II
Can someone please provide a source for the assertion that James II was created Duke of Normandy by the King of France? Opera hat (talk) 14:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Image of Queen Elizabeth
Although Queen Elizabeth is the current Duke of Normandy, she is not a person that readers would commonly associate with the title, since the title was of far greater significance 800 or 1000 years ago than it is today, and the article text (as opposed to the lists) deals with the history of the Dukes from 911 to 1660. I propose to return to the image Image:Rollo statue in falaise.JPG, which was at the top of the article until recently. The image Image:William I, Lichfield Cathedral.jpg would be an acceptable alternative. Scolaire (talk) 08:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It is an unwritten rule to have the current holder of the title at the top of the page. I agree that it would be a good idea to have a historic image also. Perhaps further down would be a good idea? --Cameron* 17:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * But even if it is a current title, it is really only of historical interest. I'd be more in favour of having the historic image at the top and the picture of the Queen further down.  Also, although it is a lovely photograph, I find it somewhat out of keeping with the subject of the article.  Image:Elizabeth II, Buckingham Palace, 07 Mar 2006 crop.jpeg, though it is of far inferior quality, has much more of a "current holder of the title" feel to it.  Scolaire (talk) 18:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The same could be said for most titles. ;) --Cameron* 15:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I have no idea what you mean by that! Monarchy of the United Kingdom is an article about the current status of the monarchy, with an added history section; the same is true of President of the United States, and any other article about a position or title that is likely to be in the news on a regular basis.  This here is a history article, which effectively ends in 1660, with a very brief mention in the lead that the title still exists and Queen Elizabeth is the current holder.  The same can't be said of any other article I can think of.  Scolaire (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, I agree with what you've said there. But do you find this article any more history orientated than, say, List of English monarchs? --Cameron* 19:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Now here's something I didn't know. The British monarchs continue to hold the title Duke of Normandy, interesting. GoodDay (talk) 19:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

 * Cameron, again I'm not sure what you're trying to say there. List of English monarchs is a history article and it doesn't have anybody's picture on the top.  Maybe this one shouldn't either?  Does the Duke of Normandy have his/her own coat of arms?  Maybe that's what belongs there.  At any rate, GoodDay just made my point for me there - the great majority of readers don't associate "Duke of Normandy" with Queen Elizabeth.  Scolaire (talk) 06:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I've found the arms of the Duchy at Image:Blason duche fr Normandie.svg. Per your comments below I'm being bold and adding it. Scolaire (talk) 07:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

List of English & British Dukes?
That section, should be divided into List of English Dukes of Normandy & List of British Dukes of Normandy, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 19:51, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Done! ;) Next time, be bold! :) Best, --Cameron* 19:55, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I feared, my republicanism might've made me suspect. GoodDay (talk) 20:01, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Seems to me that anyone who wants a list of kings of England (and Britain) since 1259 can readily find one, so why duplicate it here? If this article does list them, it ought to say why the present duke is not named François or Michel. —Tamfang (talk) 20:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Valentine Heywood

 * "The equally widely-held belief that [the British monarch] is Duke of Normandy is even more fantastic [than that of Lancaster]. All claims to that style on the part of the English Crown were surrendered when, by the Treaty of Paris in 1259, Henry III recognised the French conquest of the Duchy, and they have never been resumed. Even had the title of Duke of Normandy survived apart from actual possession and sovereignty of the Duchy, there could be no lineal claim to it by the present Royal House. The vicissitudes of the descent of the English Crown have been such that any such shadowy claim would lie elsewhere than in this Royal House.
 * "Patriotic inhabitants of the Channel Islands – or the Norman Isles, as that stalwart islander the late Lord Portsea preferred to call them – will stoutly resist this doctrine, but I fear their case is hopeless. The Channel Isles are an apanage of the English and not of the Norman ducal Crown. They are a remnant of the Duchy retained by the English Crown when the sovereignty of the mainland portion of the Duchy was conceded to France, but their retention implies no right or claim to the ducal style."
 * —British Titles by Valentine Heywood, 1951; pp.5–6
 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamfang (talk • contribs) 04:09, 18 November 2008

Nice one, Tamfang. Can you summarise/paraphrase that and add it to the article? Scolaire (talk) 21:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

 * I don't see a good way to make it concise without throwing away what makes it convincing; perhaps someone else can. One might add (if not for WP:OR) that if the ducal title survived 1259 then it merged into the French royal title in 1340. —Tamfang (talk) 21:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Appanage
I have expanded the Duchy of Normandy article adding, inter alia, everything that's in the Appanage section. Since the title "Duke of Normandy" had different meanings in France and in England after 1259, and since this article is primarily about the English title, I propose to delete the Appanage section from this article. Scolaire (talk) 21:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Done... ;) --Cameron* 22:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent :-) Scolaire (talk) 22:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Gender Confusion
Since Elizabeth II is a woman, shouldn't she be titled as the "Duchess" of Normandy, and not the "Duke" of Normandy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.109.152.109 (talk) 03:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

 * No. Even though Elizabeth II is a women all monarchs who hold the Duchy of Normany are styled Duke (I'm not sure why but thats how it is). The Quill (talk) 18:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

 * It's equally daft either way. —Tamfang (talk) 02:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaedia. It's supposed to contain facts and accurate information. Whether you think a tradition is "daft" or not is irrelevant, but displays P.O.V. bias.142.167.102.186 (talk) 23:05, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

 * The question was not whether the tradition exists, but whether it shouldn't be something slightly different. —Tamfang (talk) 05:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

If Elizabeth is a duke, what does that make her husband? (Quiet, please - I'm trying to be serious.) --Wikiain (talk) 02:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

-Well; she isn't a 'Duke' because Henry III of England gave up the title of Duke of Normandy in 1259 and none of his successors have used the title since. Since the cessation of Normandy to the Kings of France, several junior members of the French Royal Family were granted the Duchy of Normandy before the abolition of the monarchy there. At any rate; we have that lovely word for a female Duke in the English language: 'Duchess' for women who hold a duchy or dukedom in their own right (rather than just by being married to a Duke). That and the fact that inheritance of the Duchy was governed by Salic Law (because it was part of France)-i.e. that a woman cannot inherit titles or land, nor can a man inherit lands or titles through a woman either- means that even were the Duchy to still exist, HM the Queen could not possibly hold it. (and neither for that matter could Henry VII, Mary I, Elizabeth I, James I, Mary II, William III, Anne, George I, or Victoria for that matter-or in fact any of the English/British monarchs from Henry VII onwards.)

At no time between 1259 and the present day have the Channel Islands constituted a notional 'Duchy of Normandy' either. (unless you want to talk about the period during the hundred years war when Normandy was a notional part of the English monarch's theoretical French realm-something theoretically valid until the renunciation of the title 'King of France' by George III in 1801.) They are simply the Bailiwick of Jersey and the Bailiwick of Guernsey, and the Queen has no separate title for either entity. The idea that the monarch is also 'Duke of Normandy' is a common misconception (even erroneously repeated on the royal website-although it doesn't actually say that they actually hold the title-which is a fair point because they don't) that has absolutely no legal basis. The Duchy and title were renounced in 1259. End of story. Even if they had, the fact that in the eyes of English law, after 1340 the King of England was also King of France would mean that the Duchy of Normandy would have become merged in the crown, meaning the notional 'King of England and France' was no longer Duke of Normandy because it is impossible for a monarch to hold a title from himself-a monarch cannot be his own feudal inferior and any lesser title is replaced by the the grander title of 'King'-to give a parallel, there were several members of the French Royal family who held Duchies under the French crown that ceased to use those particular titles when they inherited the crown (the Dukes of Valois, Vendome, Bourbon, Orleans and Angouleme amongst others).

As regards HRH the Duke of Edinburgh, the only state of which the Queen is Head of State of that he has a title in relation to is the UK. The Queen is quite separately Queen of Canada and Queen of Australia, for example, as regards those countries and she bears those titles (legally and officially by Act of Parliament-the Royal Titles Act) as she does in relation to a total of 16 separate sovereign states in addition to the UK. In none of those countries does HRH the Duke of Edinburgh, nor HRH the Prince of Wales nor any other member of the Royal family for that matter have a particular title assigned to them in right of that country; only the Queen herself as she is the sovereign of each particular country. JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 03:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

 * Henry VII onwards? Try Henry II, the first to inherit the crown of England through his mother. —Tamfang (talk) 01:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

But Henry II's mother, Matilda, was never accepted by the nobles of Normandy as Duchess (in fact only the lords of the border districts did so) and instead proclaimed Stephen as Duke. Henry II's father, Geoffrey of Anjou, conquered Normandy in 1141 and was accepted there as Duke of Normandy, thus becoming Duke by right of conquest (which trumps any rights by inheritance.) Thus Henry II technically inherited Normandy through his father, not his mother (as she was never Duchess herself), though Henry's descent from her was of course of great importance.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 21:10, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

 * A correction, absolutely none of the french medieval peerages were governed by Salic law. Every single one of them passed to women at least once, multiple times in the cases of Toulouse and Brittany, with the sole exception of Normandy because Henry I's succession was a complete clusterfuck. 74.56.208.54 (talk) 07:36, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

oh come now
It would be nice if those who are so firm in the conviction that the Queen is Duke of Normandy would dispute the counterarguments rather than ignoring them. For example:
 * cite the clause of the treaty of 1259 that allowed Henry to keep the style;
 * explain how the ducal title was not merged into the (titular) crown of France after 1340;
 * explain the amazing coincidence by which the ducal succession went through exactly the same irregularities as the royal succession of England; or, if the ducal title is attached to the English crown rather than descending independently, explain why this article should repeat what amounts to a list of the monarchs of England in full numbing detail when it's readily available elsewhere.

Somewhere or other I've seen the full styles of Queen Mary (Tudor) and King Philip (Habsburg); I think it's in Fox-Davies The Art of Heraldry but couldn't find it through the index. I do remember that the list includes "erles of Tirol", so if Mary claimed dukeship of Normandy it ought to be in there; if it's not, will anyone's mind be changed? —Tamfang (talk) 07:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

 * Aha! Found it in Philip II of Spain: "Their joint royal style after Philip ascended the Spanish throne in 1556 was: Philip and Mary, by the Grace of God King and Queen of England, Spain, France, Jerusalem, both the Sicilies and Ireland, Defenders of the Faith, Archdukes of Austria, Dukes of Burgundy, Milan and Brabant, Counts of Habsburg, Flanders and Tirol." —Tamfang (talk) 17:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

 * These styles are also recited in Style of the British Sovereign; which also mentions: In 1204, England lost both Normandy and Anjou. Nevertheless, they did not renounce the associated titles until 1259. —Tamfang (talk) 05:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

No takers in seven weeks. Can't say I'm terribly surprised. So eventually I'll get around to deleting the popular nonsense again, and someone will immediately go "is too!!!1!". —Tamfang (talk) 16:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It occurs to me that the Queen must occasionally sign something relating to the islands, and at least some such documents must be in the public record. How would one go about finding the text thereof? Either it contains some formula such as "In the name of Her Majesty the Duke" or it doesn't. —Tamfang (talk) 20:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

If this agreement was with the French Monarch
And the French Monarch was overthrown then how could this still remain active??? Did the new French Republic recognise this agreement? Even Squatters rights would have kicked in by now. This claim sounds to me to be as frivolous as Russia's claim on Alaska. CaribDigita (talk) 14:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

 * It's not entirely clear what you mean by this agreement. You might consider, for comparison, the principalities of Monaco and Andorra. —Tamfang (talk) 16:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

kings of France

 * In 1204, the King of France confiscated the Duchy of Normandy and subsumed it into the crown lands of France. The followings Kings of France ruled as Dukes of Normandy:

Wrong. No one was ever simultaneously duke of Normandy and king of France: the king cannot be his own vassal. Accordingly, none of the articles on the kings mention their holding such a title. The article Philip VI of France refers to his son the future king as duke of Normandy, but John II of France does not!

A few kings of France may have been simultaneously dukes of Brittany, before Brittany (like French Navarre a bit later) was annexed to the kingdom proper; but I don't think the kings of France ever denied that Normandy was part of their kingdom. —Tamfang (talk) 20:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

" However King of France was the de jure overlord of local duchies since Capetian era, even though King didn't have de facto control over duchies, he should not be able to become duke of any ancient provinces. " Am I correct ? —Siyac (talk) 19:01, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

 * Yes. What are you quoting? —Tamfang (talk) 20:12, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Marie Antoinette's Dad
Wasn't Marie Antoinette's father a Duke of Normandy? I think I read something about that in Kathryn Lasky's "Royal Diaries" about her, but, then again, it is historical fiction, so I could be wrong. (Read the book! It is sooo good!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.33.132.202 (talk) 20:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

 * According to her article, she was "the youngest daughter of Emperor Francis I and Empress Maria Theresa of the Holy Roman Empire." That's a long way from Normandy!  Scolaire (talk) 21:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

 * He was formerly duke of Lorraine (and gave it up in the settlement of 1735, in exchange for Tuscany). Lorraine is (now) in northern France, so is that close enough? —Tamfang (talk) 04:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

-Marie Antoinette's son; Louis Charles (the future titular Louis XVII of France) was styled Duke of Normandy between 1785 and 1789.JWULTRABLIZZARD (talk) 21:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Queen Elizabeth II
There is not much on HM in this article... Flosssock1 (talk) 20:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

 * That's because her ancestor gave up the English claim to the title in 1259 (see previous discussion). If you want info on the present head of the Commonwealth, I see that there is an article Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom. —Tamfang (talk) 04:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I confused by this but what I think I'm getting is that because the Jersey Islands are still apart of the United Kingdom they consider her the Duke of Normandy. I would like to see this elaborated on.--129.130.209.245 (talk) 01:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The Letters Patent of 1565 by Elizabeth I, gifting the island of Sark to Helier de Carteret clearly says in the second paragraph WHEREAS our Island of Sark, situate near our Islands of Guernsey and Jersey, within our Duchy of Normandy. See here If Elizabeth I still recognised herself as having a Duchy of Normandy in 1565 long after the treaty of Paris in 1259 it must have still existed, if only as a name to call the territory. Furthermore on the British royal website regarding the Channel Islands it says that They are dependent territories of the English Crown, as successor to the Dukes of Normandy, it go's on to say that ...they owe allegiance to The Queen in her role as Duke of Normandy see here. It looks as if the issue is that the role and title has continued as there was nothing else to call them, after all the islands are/have never been not part of the old Kingdom of England or of the UK today, so no other titles the Queen has covers that territory. ThinkingTwice ''contribs 10:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And isn't their toast on the islands to "The Queen, Our Duke? The C of E (talk) 13:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Toasts don't have much force of law. —Tamfang (talk) 23:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Seems to me the royal website contradicts itself: "the English Crown, as successor to the Dukes of Normandy" does not say the English monarch is a Duke of Normandy, it says she is the successor-in-interest to the Dukes (who no longer exist). It's exactly like saying "The President of the French Republic is a co-prince of Andorra, as successor to the Kings of France."
 * The 1565 usage is interesting. (I'd say "claimed" rather than "recognised herself as having".)  The question remains, why wasn't Normandy mentioned among the styles of her predecessors Mary & Philip (quoted above)? —Tamfang (talk) 23:31, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

 * Elizabeth I claimed to be Queen of France, so "our Duchy" likely means only "our province" rather than "the duchy of which we are Duke". The ducal title, if it survived after 1259, would have merged in the French crown in 1340. —Tamfang (talk) 00:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Excuse the late arrival into the conversation, however, does www.royal.gov.uk not state clearly that "In fulfilling its responsibilities to the Islands, the Crown acts through the Privy Council. The Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor is the Privy Counsellor primarily concerned with the affairs of the Channel Islands." She is, therefore, still the crown and the new notes reflect this - they show Her Majesty with her crown rather than Duke of Normandy garb. The site does go on to acknowledge that "In the Channel Islands The Queen is known as The Duke of Normandy. At official functions, islanders raise the loyal toast to 'The Duke of Normandy, our Queen'." This is merely a quirky bit of fun - NOT a reflection of the true legal and constitutional position of Her Majesty.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.20.179.100 (talk • contribs) 04:17, 28 July 2012

Reigning Duchess of Normandy
The article Empress Matilda seem to say, as far as I understand, that she was reigning duchess of the Duchy of Normandy jointly with her spouse from 1144 until 1149. Is this correct? If so, then should she not have an sucessionbox which states this, and should she not also be included in the List of rulers of the Duke of Normandy? It should also be stated exactly which years she ruled Normandy in the absence of her son. --Aciram (talk) 12:31, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It seems that Geoffrey Plantagenet was Duke of Normandy by the right of conquest.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 20:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Is King Charles is now Duke of Norandy?
Someone with abit more knowledge than I might like to update this page. Shipsview (talk) 08:16, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
 * This is already in the article: "In the Channel Islands, the British monarch is known informally as the "Duke of Normandy", irrespective of whether or not the holder is male" Dimadick (talk) 08:56, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid there is nothing to update, the title of duke of Normandy was surrendered with all the continental holdings when Henry III signed or sealed the treaty of Paris of 1259. A little funny fact is the Anglo-Norman Islands were considered by the treaty to be part of the duchy of Aquitaine (later called Guyenne) as it was the largest holding under French suzerainty that belonged to Henry III.
 * The islands' status changed at the treaty of Brétigny in 1360, they would no longer be part of the duchy of Aquitaine nor under the suzerainty of the king of France which also meant any claims of an eventual title of duke of Normandy weren't raised as this title and the vast majority of the lands of Normandy were still part of the French King' suzerainty. All in all the idea of the British monarch being the duke of Normandy seems pretty and truly medieval, but it is a myth as strong as the one he is also the duke of Lancaster.
 * Some islanders in the Pacific said one day that Philip, late husband of Elizabeth II, was a living god. it didn't make true because they said it, that's the same with the loyal toasts made in the Channel Islands, it's not because they say "our duke" that the British monarch is duke of Normandy.
 * There is an interesting article from the Bailiwick express on that topic https://www.bailiwickexpress.com/jsy/news/charles-iii-our-duke/ 2A01:CB15:806A:1E00:30D9:F7DA:1F10:B467 (talk) 14:57, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
 * ... it didn't make true because they said it, that's the same with the loyal toasts made in the Channel Islands, it's not because they say "our duke" that the British monarch is duke of Normandy...
 * Even if Philip were a living god, the rest of this is certainly true. Afaik, there have even been 20th century international court cases that have held as much, while still upholding English rule over the Channel Islands despite the loss of the previously associated duchy. See
 * for more. — Llywelyn II   00:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
 * for more. — Llywelyn II   00:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:BIAS: King John wasn't the sole legal claimant & that was the whole problem
I get that it's normally English language and Euro-American bias versus other languages and cultures, but this article seems a rather silly example of English bias against the French. Philip Augustus didn't 'declare the title forfeit' out of the ether: John wasn't the sole legitimate claimant and went out of his way to (possibly personally) murder the other guy. That should at least be mentioned in the article and the list as the basis (along with John's refusal to appear before Philip to even answer to the charges) for the French seizure, if nothing else. — Llywelyn II   00:43, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Duke of Normandy


text:
Puffing Billy

Puffing Billy may refer to:

 * Puffing Billy Railway, a narrow-gauge heritage tourist railway near Melbourne, Australia
 * Puffing Billy (locomotive), an early steam locomotive
 * Puffing Billy Tournament, a board game convention focusing on train games
 * Puffin' Billy, a famous piece of light music by Edward White
 * Puffing Billy, military jargon for the M67 Immersion Heater
 * Puffing Billy, a short lived comic strip in The Beano about a fat boy called Billy
 * Puffing Billy, a vacuum cleaner constructed by Hubert Cecil Booth.

title: Puffing Billy