Edward I : New interpretations
- Submitting institution
-
University of Southampton
- Unit of assessment
- 28 - History
- Output identifier
- 67492740
- Type
- B - Edited book
- DOI
-
10.2307/j.ctvnwbzrz
- Publisher
- York Medieval Press
- ISBN
- 9781903153727
- Open access status
- -
- Month of publication
- February
- Year of publication
- 2020
- URL
-
-
- Supplementary information
-
-
- Request cross-referral to
- -
- Output has been delayed by COVID-19
- No
- COVID-19 affected output statement
- -
- Forensic science
- No
- Criminology
- No
- Interdisciplinary
- No
- Number of additional authors
-
1
- Research group(s)
-
-
- Proposed double-weighted
- No
- Reserve for an output with double weighting
- No
- Additional information
- The basic research questions lying behind the conceptualisation of the volume concerned Edward I’s skills of political management within the political and social framework of the various domains which he ruled (the volume includes essays on Edward’s rule in Scotland and Gascony). The essays also addressed the question of Edward’s personal agency within the governance carried out in his name, an issue which is currently the subject of considerable debate in the scholarly examination of medieval and early modern monarchy.
The Introduction (4,350 words) takes the form of a review and examination of the development and shifting emphases of the historiography of Edward I’s reign, in the light of developing historiographical fields such as British history, the history of queenship, the ceremony of kingship, etc.; and of the position of the volume and the individual essays of the contributors within that continuing development. It was written entirely collaboratively, with both me and my co-author having an equal input in its research and composition.
The conceptualisation of the overall volume, the editing of the individual papers, and other editorial work, such as indexing and checking footnotes for consistency, was entirely a joint effort. My input for the ‘Introduction’, and the volume as a whole (apart from my own essay) should therefore be quantified, in crude percentage terms, as 50%.
However, regarding my own paper ‘Crisis? What crisis? 1297 and the Civil War that never was’ (12,100 words), this was entirely researched and written by me, bar some editorial suggestions and comments from my co-editor. In crude percentage terms, my input for my paper should be rated at 100%.
- Author contribution statement
- -
- Non-English
- No
- English abstract
- -