Talk:Royal forest

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Forest Law

Quotes —

• "William the Conqueror, a great lover of hunting, established the system of forest law"
• "William I, original enactor of the Forest Law,"

Does this not refer to just England, or was he leading Europe? (RJP 08:39, 8 October 2005 (UTC))

It's a good point. I am the person who originally created the article, and I confess I wrote it from a completely Anglocentric point of view (although I didn't add the quotes above), and the best I could manage to generalise it a bit was "The practice of reserving areas of land for the sole use of the aristocracy was common throughout Europe during the mediaeval period." It would be great if someone who is familiar with the European aspect of Royal forests could add to/edit the article. --Lancevortex 10:44, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I have put in an introductory note to draw attention to the wealth of possibility for expansion into the rest of the world. If anyone feels strongly that it should not be there, it is easily removed. (RJP 08:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC))

Are the following places royal forest or have they ever been such?
Bere Alice Holt Wolmer Chute Clarendon
I think some at least, are crown property, in the hands of the Forestry Commission and managed by Forest Enterprise but have they been royal forests in the medieval meaning of the term? (RJP 10:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC))

The notion is rather confused, apparently; see [1]. I've left them there for now; hopefully the author of the aforementioned will publish something definitive in the near future. Choess 01:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Notion of William the Bastard being the instigator..pschaaa!

Forest law existed within these isles for long before the Norman usurper decided to come here. It was only twisted to keep the robber Barons happy. HOWEVER, Saxon kings were just as bad. Brendandh 23:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Introductory Definition

It seems that the initial blurb related to the term at hand should encapsulate the definition rather than referencing it's historical context. The explicit meaning is not noted until the second paragraph and thus interferes with easy lookup. Does anyone agree?Proveyrhuman (talk) 04:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Amended as suggested. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)