This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
I notice Field of the Cloth of Gold redirects here...but shouldn't "the" be in the title? That's how I've always heard it, and Google agrees 2600 to 791. I'm not entirely sure though (maybe the name is originally a translation from French?) Adam Bishop 22:58, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Cloth of Gold is a fabric. If the fabric referred to were, say, silk no-one would want to write "Field of the Silk" so why write "Field of the Cloth of Gold"? The title of the article should be correct. Hymers2 ( talk) 10:28, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I just changed the name of this page back to its correct form. The reason is as follows. At this particular meeting place of the Kings of England and France there was a perceived preponderance of tents etc made from a material called "cloth of gold". It was not a particular piece of cloth but a material. Suppose everything had been made of denim would we say field of denim or field of the denim? The former. But it wasn't "denim" it was "cloth of gold". Therefore the correct term is "The Field of Cloth of Gold".
It is field of the cloth of gold it has been in use 100s of years — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blemil21 ( talk • contribs) 12:25, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
It's had centuries to become an English proper noun, whether the original translation is correct or not. Chronodm 13:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
While I think the whole debate over "the" is a little pedantic, I did want to point out that "The Field of Cloth-of-Gold" is the name as given by J. Ridley in The Statesman and the Fanatic, Pollard in Wolsey, and Gwyn in The King's Cardinal. While I can't find a reference in Cavendish, every time he mentions 'cloth of gold', he doesn't use 'the'. Not a big deal, but I don't think there's much of a scholarly basis for including 'the'. In any case, it's a bit of a silly argument. Whelk bucket ( talk) 18:14, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
As no specific piece of cloth-of-gold fabric is being referenced, the use of 'the' is unnecessary and incorrect. The above denim example is spot-on and can be further enlarged to include examples such as 'the field of wheat' rather than 'the field of the wheat'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.21.124 ( talk) 16:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Although I meant earlier to change the article's title back I actually didn't succeed. (Serves me right for trying to do something without having the instructions open in front of me.) I don't really regret this as it occurs to me what is precisely lacking is a history of the term "The Field of (the) Cloth of Gold" who called it that and when? Presumably it is not something like Wars of the Roses which (I believe) is a much later coinage. What I'd really like would be some juicy quotations of the period using the phrase. Stroika 19:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
The Eighteenth-Century Engravings for the Society of Antiquaries of London are based on oil paintings now in the Queen's collection at Hampton Court which are of or uncertain date but are verifiabley pre 1588-9 when they were recorded as being cleaned. One is titled The Field of the Cloth of Gold. This puts the use of this name into the sixteenth century. See the notes by Bernard Nurse, Librarian for the Society of Antiquaries of London [3]. Lumos3 10:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Performing topic necromancy here, but, from Edmund Bohun's 1694 Geographical Dictionary [1]: "Ardres, Ardra, is a little, but well fortified, Town in the County of Guienne in Picardy in France: it stands in the Marshes, in the Borders of Artois, three Leagues from Calis toward the South, and a little more from Gravelin. Francis I. and Henry VIII. King of England, had an enterview with each other near this Town, in 1520. Both Courts appearing so magnifi∣cent, that they call'd the place, a Field of Cloth of Gold. In 1596 Cardinal Albret took it for the Spaniards, who did not keep it long. § Also the Name of a King∣dom and City in Guiney in Africa." ProcrastinatingHistorian ( talk) 20:36, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
References
"…a temporary palace covering an area of nearly 12,000 square yards (about 1,100 square metres)": Since a meter is only about 10% longer than a yard, these two numbers should be about the same order of magnitude. Clearly one or the other is wrong: which is it? Also, even after adjusting the numbers to the same magnitude, the conversion is still incorrect: 12,000 square yards is not 11,000 square meters but only about 10,000 (to be precise, 10,033)—or alternatively, 11,000 square meters is equivalent to over 13,000 square yards, not 12,000. Evidently whoever wrote this simply used a conversion factor of about 1.09 m/yd, neglecting to square it (1.19 sq m/sq yd) for areas. Can someone supply the correct numbers here? — Dodiad 18:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Inthe following, introduction to this site, is the following account;
"Background
Cardinal WolseyTwo entities had started to emerge as powers in Western Europe at this time: France, under Francis I, and the Habsburg Empire, under Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor. The Kingdom of England, still a lesser power, was being courted as an ally by the two major powers. The 1518 Treaty of London, a non-aggression pact between major European powers to help resist the Ottoman expansion into southeastern Europe, had just been signed. Henry also held meetings with Charles V a month before the Field of Cloth of Gold in the Netherlands and again afterwards at Calais, Henry's only possession in the Continent."
What a remarkable stupid opening statement! Just what is any student or scholar to thing of this opening? No where in the above is any mention of the King of England, other than this, "Henry also held meetings with Charles V a month before the Field of Cloth of Gold in the Netherlands and again afterwards at Calais, Henry's only possession in the Continent."
Just how is anyone to know that the "Henry" mentioned above could be Henry VIII, unless they were already familar with the subject material?
It is rough, and ungainly for any source of any respect! 69.92.23.64 ( talk) 03:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes
"The meeting
Henry VIII of England, copy after Holbein Francis I of FranceEach king tried to outshine the other, with dazzling tents and clothes, huge feasts, music, jousting, and games. The tents and the costumes displayed so much cloth of gold, an expensive fabric woven with silk and gold thread, that the site of the meeting was named after it."
I would just suggest that the words above could easily and correctly describe another segment of our past, that is "The Golden Fleece!" Of what fabric were the above tents, clothes, etc., imbeded with goldend threads, imbeded within? It is most obvious that "Wool", might well be the most common and correct answer! Thus in ancient parlance "The Golden Fleece!" 69.92.23.64 ( talk) 03:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes
http://www.greydragon.org/pavilions/othertents.html 69.92.23.64 ( talk) 03:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)Ronald L. Hughes
I hesitate to re-open old wounds here, but I can't help but noticed that the article title and its bold title don't match; clearly the two should be the same, whichever is chosen (whether the other form is also used as an alt-title, or just discussed elsewhere in the article). The article seems to be in its current form in part due to the over-zealous effort of one anon editor about a year ago, who expunged "the"s so thoroughly that they did it in filenames, interwiki links, and a sentence originally specifically about the "the" usage, now contradictorily making the same statement about the other form. 84.203.39.72 ( talk) 02:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
Inviting contributors to expand the article using the following accounts from the State Papers of Henry VIII, plus an account from the Venetian archive:
-- Bhogrok ( talk) 09:27, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
I removed "also known as the Field of Golden Cloth", which had been in the first sentence, unsourced, for three years; and the crumpets and pots of strawberry jam, which had been in the text for two years. And rew D alby 18:04, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
I also did a small bit of housecleaning. Deleted a single sentence saying something about how the phrase "field of the cloth of gold" has been in common use since at least the 18th century, sandwiched in between two statements pertaining to the 15th century. The fact didn't belong in the lede to begin with, much less inserted in such a clumsy way, so I deleted it and things look much better now. Jonny Quick ( talk) 18:31, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
If Henry VIII met Francis I, then Victoria cannot have met Louis Philippe - she must have met Lewis Philip. 88.167.22.75 ( talk) 09:11, 22 June 2013 (UTC)
The long "excerpt" from Edward Hall's Chronicle is so shortened, paraphrased, and synthesized that it bears little relationship to what Hall actually says. (As one example, Hall specifically calls into question the parity of the two forces on the field, and it's quite an important point. See, for example, via the page's own "External Links" citation to Hall, pg. 609. Or consider, as another example, the claim that heralds called for silence when the kings met, when in fact Hall doesn't mention that at all, but instead specifies an enormously loud set of fanfares, pg. 610.) It's striking that whoever added this "excerpt" didn't provide a simple click-through citation. It looks to me like a combination and pastiche of various sources, rather than a reliable quotation from Edward Hall's history. As such, it probably shouldn't be indented and treated as something exact. I am not a Tudor specialist, however, so I wouldn't want to meddle with the text myself. 70.20.52.54 ( talk) 21:33, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Field of the Cloth of Gold. 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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:55, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
the citation for citation #10 links to a page which give a page not found error — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.101.119.215 ( talk) 17:18, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
The article is not actually about a field or location but an event--the meeting. Historians use the term to refer to this famous meeting, and its lavishness. Rjensen ( talk) 16:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Regarding the location of the palace, this article needs to be consulted and cited: Julian Munby (2014) The Field of Cloth of Gold: Guînes and the Calais Pale Revisited, English Heritage Historical Review, 9:1, 30-63, DOI:10.1179/1752016915Z.00000000026 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1179/1752016915Z.00000000026
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.161.16.2 ( talk) 11:43, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Were Anne and Mary Boleyn there? What about Mary Brandon, Duchess of Suffolk? Because Thomas Boleyn was there, and Charles Brandon. Oric22 ( talk) 14:44, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Just fyi, Thomas Boleyn and Lord Edmund Howard were not Barons. Lady Meg ( talk) 02:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)