Talk:de Clare

Translation ?

The German and French wikipedias have a long article on this family. I'm sure this can be done here too. --PurpleHz 13:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Anyone looking may be interested their coat of arms is used in the arms of Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick, the 'kingmaker'. Jarry1250 (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Lowercase "de" in title

This article should be titled "de Clare" instead of "De Clare". I do not know how to change a heading, but I wondered if someone could accomplish that. There is no occasion where it should be "De Clare". Mugginsx (talk) 10:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Done using the {{Lowercase}} template. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 15:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and thanks from the French editors I'm sure. Mugginsx (talk) 11:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Lindsay: I re-checked and my account is accurate. Let's not fight over Gerald of Wales again. Peterkingiron has already settled the matter as to Gerald of Wales accuracy in the Earl of Clare article. He was clerk to Henry II. The Clare Geneology webpages, as you often like to use as your references, contradict themselves as well as the medieval historians in many dates. We just have to do the best we can. Mugginsx (talk) 19:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

PurpleHz Thanks for your editing in the de Clare article. Most especially, thanks to your suggestion that we look at the French article to which you seem to be the main editor. Due to your hard work on the french article, we finally now have a correct geneology of the family! If you see any more corrections to the geneology section I copied and "translated", please edit by all means. Mugginsx (talk) 23:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Lewis Loyd and David C. Douglas

It might be nice if someone would incorporate some of the observations of the foremost scholars on the Anglo-Normans – Lewis C. Loyd and David C. Douglas, authors of The Origins of Some Anglo-Norman Families – into the text. MarmadukePercy (talk) 23:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

regency: wording

Richard fitz Gilbert was appointed co-régent (joint) (Chief Justiciar) by King William in his absence from the Kingdom ...

I changed "in his absence" to "for his absence", because with in the most natural reading (imho) is that William was absent when he made the appointment, which seems a bit unlikely. One can read it the other way, but why invite misunderstanding?

The parenthetical words don't illuminate much, and it's weird to have two parentheses in a row like that. Explain? —Tamfang (talk) 07:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Another way would be to re-word as such: "Richard fitz Gilbert was appointed by King William to be co-régent (joint) (Chief Justiciar) during his absence. He helped -----------------------------------. It really does not matter to me which is used unless we are trying to say that it was during this time that the revolt was suppressed which may or may not be true. Mugginsx (talk) 18:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Meanwhile, what does "(joint) (Chief Justiciar)" mean? —Tamfang (talk) 21:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I had assumed that the "(joint)" was explaining the first part of "co-régent" and "(Chief Justiciar)" the second; it is very clumsy, however, and surely not needed ("co-" is obvious, and "Justiciar" is no explanation of "régent" for most people). The other oddity i find is, Why the acute accent? Regent, in English, has no accent. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 08:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

If the word has senses in French that it lacks in English, and is used here in one such sense, then I'd say the accent is appropriate. Did Richard and the other co-régent (whoever that was) exercise all the functions of the absent king? If not, I don't think they'd be called regent in English. —Tamfang (talk) 06:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, as I stated below, I would refer you to PurpleHz. His work is extensive and scholarly and he is active on French site as well as English Wiki. I translated it but do not know the answer to the intricate question you asked. Hope this helps. Mugginsx (talk) 16:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Medieval Lands

• Biographies et généalogies des Clare (Hertford, Pembroke, Gloucester) sur Medieval Lands eng. Biographies and genealogies of Clare (Hertford, Pembroke, Gloucester) on Medieval Lands.

Is this a reference to a website (or something) whose name is Medieval Lands though its content is in French? Punctuation could be improved. —Tamfang (talk) 20:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe the name of the reference is "Biographies and Genealogies in the Clares (Hertford, Pembroke, Gloucester) on Medieval Lands". I copied it exactly as it appeared on the French Wiki website Famille de Clare under External Links. I can inquire there if you wish, or Bibliothèque nationale de France. Thanks for the punctuation improvements. Mugginsx (talk) 05:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, PurpleHz might know, if he is willing to help, since he is multi-lingual and is the major contributor to the French article. His work is scholarly. He is active on many articles (both French and English) on the Clare Family. I am confident he can answer all of these questions which you have asked. Mugginsx (talk) 05:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Found the website and it is copyrighted, therefore I took it out. It is on the French site, though possibly with permission. Mugginsx (talk) 11:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, err, what is copyrighted ? A genealogy ? PurpleHz (talk) 01:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Adjective overflow

This is a well-known family. The many adjectives – ranging from 'great' to 'vast' and so on – should be trimmed from the text. They are unnecessary. The family's history speaks for itself and needs no embellishment. MarmadukePercy (talk) 13:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Re-structure of introduction

Much of the article was uncited or the citations used did not exactly represent the forthcoming statements. There has been recent and varied requests for citations throughout the article. I therefore restructured the introductory paragraph using the citations listed and emcompassing the information, where possible, formerly left uncited by other editors. I did so without embellishment. I followed the style of the French article with regard to their titles. The french article uses the french titles when writing the Normandy history and the English titles in the writing of the English history. It seemed to me to be to have been written in the most comprehensive way and I imitated it. As a bonus, in doing so, it provide direct links to the persons mentioned. No personal adjective have been added by any editor. The descriptive word "vast" is only mentioned once for the edification of the reader by the AUTHOR of the source, not by any editor. The word "great" is used by the author to mean "large" and is also a direct quote of the source. The other has been removed.Mugginsx (talk) 15:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

From what did you scan this passage? Is it in the public domain? The style is deplorable. —Tamfang (talk) 00:46, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The Clare family was one of the most powerful and illustrious families of the middle ages.

Show don't tell.

The house which played so great a part alike in England, Wales, and Ireland ' (Freeman, Norm, Conq, V. 212),

Is this a quotation? No need for it.

descended directly from Count Godfrey, (see category listing),

Is the parenthesis copied from the DNB, or does it refer us to Category:De Clare family, or something else?

the eldest of the illegitimate sons of Richard the Fearless, Richard I, Duke of Normandy who was Gilbert, Count of Brionne, surnamed Crispin. (Will. Jum. vii. 2)

I'll assume that the two Richards are the same. (It would be more usual, and more concise, to write Richard I the Fearless, Duke.) But who was Gilbert? Neither Godfrey, the eldest illegitimate son, who was Gilbert nor Richard who was Gilbert makes obvious sense. And if Gilbert is not Godfrey (nor Richard), then which one was the eldest bastard, and how does the other one fit in? — Ah, I see that Gilbert was a son of Godfrey son of Richard.

The young duke was conunitted by his father ....

A word unknown to me (and I know an awful lot of words). Does it perhaps mean he was made joint duke (like Henry the Young King)? Ah, you've corrected that.

The Clare family takes its name from a city which served as headquarters for the honour received by Richard de Bienfaite, (Richard fitz Gilbert) of Clare in Suffolk, after the conquest of England.

The phrase "of Clare in Suffolk" is not firmly attached to anything. I know (though not from reading this passage) that it means either the honour of Clare or the city of Clare, but a novice probably would not. I'll rewrite the sentence. — Clare isn't what would usually be described as a city, is it?

His English estates then passed to his son Gilbert Fitz Richard d. 1114/7, who acquired by conquest, possessions in Wales.

In context, "then" seems to mean "after the conquest of England"; I'd drop the word at least.

Of his children, Richard, the eldest son, was the ancestor of the elder line, the earls of Hertford and Gloucester [see: Richard Fitz Gilbert de Clare d, approx. 1136]; while Gilbert, a younger brother, establishing himself in Wales, acquired the earldom of Pembroke, and was father of the famous Strongbow, the conqueror of Ireland [see: Richard de Clare, 2nd Earl of Pembroke d. 1176].

Was this scanned from the Dictionary of National Biography? The usual Web style, of course, would be more like this: "His eldest son Richard (d. approx. 1136) was ..."

With him this line came to an end, his vast Irish and Welsh possessions passing to his daughter Isabel, who was left by her husband, William Marshal, five daughters and coheiresses.

Who is 'he' here? Gilbert or Strongbow, or someone else? Was Strongbow the second earl of Pembroke, or someone else mentioned in the latter's article? — Did Isabel inherit children and coheiresses from her husband?!

The elder line obtained (from Stephen probably) the earldom of Hertford,

King Stephen of England, or some other Stephen?

and were thenceforth known as earls of Hertford or of Clare, just as the younger line were known as earls of Pembroke or of Striguil.

What's Striguil?

It is implied, in the * Lords' Reports ' (iii. 124)

Ought I to have heard of these Reports?

and elsewhere, that they were "styled earls of Clare" before they were earls of Hertford. This is still highly disputed by modern scholars and the prominent view is that these earls of Clare were indeed "styled titles". (See: Style (manner of address)

Something tells me that Style (manner of address) isn't gonna help me understand what "styled titles" means here.

(EDITORS NOTE) Where the Normandy history is mentioned, the term "Count" is used for the clarity and editorial correctness of the narrative. As their history in England evolves, the title earl is used. See also the French Wiki article "famille de Clare".

I see no need for this NOTE, which is jarringly unusual here. —Tamfang (talk) 01:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC) — some comments partly rewritten, Tamfang (talk) 21:06, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Excellent summary of the many issues this piece raises. The entire section on Normandy roots is a mess. And I endorse your reversion to the previous lede, which was more than sufficient. MarmadukePercy (talk) 01:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

At one point in the very recent past, the introduction seemed to be a paraphrase or rewrite based on the Dictionary of National Biography (1885, public domain). See http://books.google.com/books?id=Wy0JAAAAIAAJ&q=Clare&source=gbs_word_cloud_r&cad=3#v=snippet&q=Clare&f=false Studerby (talk) 00:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Your comments to recent changes

Tamfang, Please make whatever changes you want to the article. You will need to cite them of course, which should not be a problem for you. I deleted "Editors Comment" and added "King" to Stephen. It was rewritten because many individual paragraphs were unsourced and citations were asked for. I was trying to prevent the information from being deleted altogether on that basis. If you can do better, by all means, do so. As for the titles of the individuals, I was trying to pattern after the French article. Their article seems to flow better. The source for the introductory paragraphs is the same as it was before - DNB. If you can source the other information in the article where ciations are asked for, that would be great. Thanks for your help! Mugginsx (talk) 11:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm willing to change the text so that it says more clearly what I think it's trying to say, but I hate to leap to conclusions about that. —Tamfang (talk) 20:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

As to what does "styled title" mean? It is an English term. Americans might say "self-styled". In other words the family GAVE itself the title but there is no surviving direct evidence and that it was not accompanied by usual "letters patent". There is a link to an article if you are confused. It is mentioned in the "Earl of Clare" article. It was put in at the direction of an administrator after a long disagreement over whether or not the early earls of clare were "really earls". Your friend Marmaduke is very familiar with it. It is understood by most familiar with researching English titles in the middle ages, It is part of the DNB article so whether or not you take it out will compromise the source is something to think about. The term is mentioned in many articles about many different titled people in Wikipedia, especially those in the middle ages. Stephen refers, of course, to King Stephen. Mugginsx (talk) 11:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I suggest assumed title. — What Marmaduke (with whom I am not acquainted) may know is irrelevant to what others can reasonably be expected to know. I'm very familiar with the word styled in connexion with titles, but in the few books I've read on the history of the peerage it does not imply that the bearer has no right to such a style, and they never used the phrase styled title. —Tamfang (talk) 20:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The Lords Report are reports of the House of Lords. See their website if you wish to familize youself with who they are and what they do. Mugginsx (talk) 17:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I've heard of the House of Lords. (I see we have no article on Lords' Reports, Lords Report, Lords Reports, Lords' Report.) Can you point to a page on their website that describes the Reports series? I hope such a page would tell me whether these are reports to the House by employees, or by committees thereof, or reports to the Crown made in the name of the whole House, or something else; and when they began, i.e., how old is volume iii likely to be? —Tamfang (talk) 20:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

As to your other questions, I do not even understand some of them so I do not know how to give you the answers. The narrative was presented, as you read it, by historians and scholars, and much of it has been reprinted in the updated DNB at Oxford. There is no doubt that it is complicated. If you do not understand it perhaps a basic reading of medieval historical material and its terminology might help. Hope this answered most of your questions. Good Luck! Mugginsx (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I imagine that the writers of the DNB were acutely conscious of a need to save paper, which need not concern us here; and assumed much more knowledge on the part of the reader than Wikipedia, with its worldwide audience, ought to assume. The ambiguities that leap out at me may be invisible to you because you already know the history (from better books!). Even with all that, though, why would any editor more than half-awake allow that sentence about "Godfrey son of Richard, Richard who was Gilbert, surnamed Crispin"? But I'll try to make some of my questions clearer. (Heaven knows I often underestimate others' ability to misunderstand me.) —Tamfang (talk) 20:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Why indeed! I totally agree with you. I will one further. Why would anyone want to understand why Baldwin le Sap and Baldwin de Meules who is really Baldwin fitz Gilbert (being illegitimate using the first name of his father) and also know as Baldwin de Meules (because that was where he was from in Normandy) later known as Baldwin of Exerter or Baldwin the Sheriff? After you have figured that out why was Richard Bienfaite and Orbec, (same reason as Baldwin), also known as Richard fitz Gilbert (same reason as Baldwin) also be later known as Richard de Clare? I am not being sarcastic, I really think it is mind-boggling - but there you have it. That's the middle ages for you!

Seriously though, if you can find a way to convey the information in that sentence that you mentioned a clearer way, I have no objection, in fact, I would be happy if you would do so! I certainly have no monopoloy on this article. I labored countless hours translating the genealogy and researching and adding the Domesday information about Richard. I also labored many hours trying to make the paragraph you refer to readable without making it Original research, therefore not subject to deletion. Have a go at the article, if you want, with my blessing. To tell the truth I am getting tired of the Clare family and all of the hours of work that goes along with making an accurate article out of any member of that family.

Oh, I'm not a bit bothered by one man having three surnames. — I've done what I could with the material on hand, but there's room for improvement in distinguishing men with the same name in different branches and generations. —Tamfang (talk) 21:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

more mysteries

Richard Bienfaite and Orbec, and Baldwin Le Sap and Meules (ib,) Ordericus (ii. 121) mentions the two brothers as among the leading men in Normandy on the eve of the (Norman) conquest.

I don't understand the first half of this sentence, if it is a sentence. Richard and Baldwin apparently are the names of Gilbert's sons, okay. Are Bienfaite, Orbec, Le Sap and Meules their estates? Or is Meules the author of a work titled Ordericus? Does "(ib,)" mean ibidem or something else? —Tamfang (talk) 21:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

You will have to do some medieval research to learn that. It takes too long to explain here and I do not know all of the answers to tell you. I had to take out one paragraph that is NOT in the reference you attribute it to. Placed it below the reference. Good work! Got to go now, have other work to do which is much more compelling to me. Good work! Mugginsx (talk) 22:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I wonder whether there's a template for "The reader may need to do some medieval research in order to make any sense of some of the wording in this article." —Tamfang (talk) 23:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The article ought to be arranged for its own coherence, regardless of what's referenced where; references can be repeated if necessary (by naming them). —Tamfang (talk) 23:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Please do not rearrange your paragraphs within the discussion page

Please do not rearrange your paragraphs within the discussion page. It is not supposed to be done. It sometimes (inadvertently, I'm sure) changes the nature and flow of the discussion as it was originally discussed, not to mention that it makes the other editor have to waste their time finding your latest statements. Mugginsx (talk) 13:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Puzzled by this complaint, I've just gone through the entire history of the page without finding where anyone ever moved pre-existing material in such a way as to alter the flow of discussion – though both Mugginsx and I have often altered passages of our own to which no one had yet responded; and here I removed one unnecessary level of indentation.

Perhaps Mugginsx is not entirely at ease with the custom of responding immediately below the relevant passage – which would explain the anomalous placement of responses in new sections! – or with the diff feature. —Tamfang (talk) 21:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Tamfang, it seems that no matter how polite I am to you, you come back with something unfriendly. I cannot help you any further. I cannot figure out it you are asking these questions because you want me to do your research for you or explain things that should be obvious. As I have said, I have no monopoly on this article. There are other editors. I suggest you address your questions to them. As I have said at least three times with sincerely, I wish you good luck and I mean that! I am off to other things non-Wiki. Mugginsx (talk) 14:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Given that you have no monopoly on editing the article, what makes you think all questions on this page are necessarily directed to you? —Tamfang (talk) 23:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Someone (it doesn't matter who, since no one has a monopoly) replaced most of a fairly readable article with something that I'd be embarrassed to see a teenager hand in, so I criticized it. Politeness to me wouldn't turn that pig's ear into silk. —Tamfang (talk) 00:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I've learned by sad experience to be very cautious in judging that something "should be obvious". (And I still sometimes find that I haven't been cautious enough.) —Tamfang (talk) 00:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Domesday

The article had these two sentences in separate paragraphs:

Baldwin's brother Richard de Bienfaite was given Clare in Suffolk, where he built a castle, and adopted the name Richard de Clare.

Richard fitz Gilbert (of Tonbridge) is once referred to as Richard of Clare in the Suffolk return of the Domesday Book. <ref>Suffolk return of the Domesday Survey (c. 1086) (ed. A. Rumble, Suffolk, 2 vols (Chichester, 1986), 67 ~ 1</ref>

I combined them:

Richard was given Clare and Tonbridge, where he built castles, and adopted the surname de Clare.<ref>So called in the Suffolk return of the Domesday Survey (c. 1086) (ed. A. Rumble, Suffolk, 2 vols (Chichester, 1986), 67 ~ 1</ref>

Someone (it doesn't matter who, since no one has a monopoly on editing the article) then removed the reference with the comment

cannot "wish" a sentence into a reference. It would be nice if one could.

Can someone (it doesn't matter who, since no one has a monopoly) make that comment clearer? When does a valid reference for a fact become an invalid reference for the same fact? One might object that the Domesday footnote does not cover the whole of the sentence to which I attached it; that's why I added the words So called, meaning that the footer supports only that Richard had that surname. Perhaps I've confused Richard fitz Gilbert with Richard fitz Gilbert? —Tamfang (talk) 00:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Answer

Wikipedia: No Original Research Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked. To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must be able to cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented. The sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that citations must be added for any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations.

I am sorry, I have tried to encourage you but you don't seem to get it. You are also ucivil. Since you seem to be a new editor, I will give you the benefit of the doubt but suggest you study Wikipedia:Civility. If you want to put in facts you have to back them up! If you want to use that particular citation in the Domesday Book than you have to put in the words it states - not the words you wished it stated! To add more is "original research". If you are trying to save yourself some work, you might be better off going to a less complicated article. So far, you have done no research on your own. You have re-phrased my research which is fine and I commended you for it many times but now you are going one step farther and creating information that is not in the references. It is one thing to re-phrase, another thing to create. Another example is the use of the word "styled". If you do not like the word "styled", look it up and put a reference to the article that explains it the way every one else does. That is the purpose of the reference! You don't dumb down the article using a word or term you made up. It is a frequent and accepted word in this and many other articles dealing with the middle ages and their nobility. I am sorry you do not know what it means but almost everyone else does and those that do not usually research it under Style (manner of address). That is the proper procedure. Leading them to further knowledge. That is why this is called an enclycopedia. Mugginsx (talk) 07:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, next time someone asks me for clarification or complains that I've introduced an ambiguity, I guess the civil thing to do will be to say "Do your own research, you meanie."

I really don't think it's Wikipedia policy to insist on the same words used in the source; we try to write in modern idiomatic English here, not the language of the Domesday Book. (Or does the DB contain the words "Richard fitz Gilbert (of Tonbridge) is once referred to as Richard of Clare"?) — I still wish you'd specify what substantive difference you see between what you (or the DNB) said the DB says and what I said it says, rather than merely insisting that there is one.

I asked what "styled title" means not because I preferred some other phrase but because I DID NOT KNOW WHAT IT MEANS, and therefore consider it likely that some others trying to read the article might also not understand it. The obvious meaning of the phrase is courtesy title, but that doesn't fit here. The phrase does not appear in Style (manner of address). In retrospect I suppose I could have dug out my OED; likely I'd then come up with two or three candidate meanings, and then still have to ask which one was meant. I don't know if there's an explicit WP policy to this effect but I think keeping the reader in mind is important to the function of an encyclopedia. That's my role in this increasingly peevish exchange: to speak for those who read the article not as editors but because they do not already know the material. —Tamfang (talk) 22:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC) I undid Mugginsx's addition of a spurious colon which misleadingly put my three related paragraphs on two levels. I don't know what standard Mx applied here, but it's not the one that almost everyone else uses. —Tamfang (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Well you got one thing right, you don't know the material. I have been cleaning up after your "re-phrasing". There were several errors both in style in content. You are very quick with sarcasm but slow with understanding what you're editing. You must think everyone who reads Wiki articles is dumb because you put any old thing in where you want, regardless of what the research states, or the Wiki editing procedure rules, you dumb down the phrases because you still do not understand them, and then have the temerity to criticize others who have done the hard and time-consuming work of research and actually understand what they are reading. You embarass yourself every time you write something here and show your ignorance both to the material and to the procedure. Your lucky I am the only one who responded to you because the others would have crucified you with their words if they were not laughing so hard. Incidentally, you were supposed to put two colons to separate yours from my paragraph. Don't worry, I fixed that for you too. Finally, before you bring your friends over here to take you side, tell them I'm not interested in their words either.Mugginsx (talk) 23:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Mugginsx, once again your editing of a Clare family piece is proving disruptive. There are now editors who won't work on these pieces because of your incivility. You would do well to study the wikipedia guidelines relating to same. Enough said. MarmadukePercy (talk) 23:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Gottcha, knew you would be here. (see above) Always following. You are so obvious! I can't stop laughing. You know I think someone should look into who these people who claim are? Are the same people with different User IDs? Might be interesting to find out. Mugginsx (talk) 01:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Muggsy, your powers of observation are keen. For your information, editor Tamfang, admin BrownHairedGirl, whom you recently excoriated, and I are all the same person. Bravo for your detective work. MarmadukePercy (talk) 03:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Mommuluke, I have found no editors that refuse to work with me, quite the contrary. As to who the troublemaker is, it is your pattern that is a matter of record, and now that someone has trusted you enough with roll-back rights, you would think that you would have more important and more dignified things to do than to initiate this kind of trouble. I complimented Tamfang and I encouraged yet he or she continued with insulting and "cute" remarks preceeded and followed-up by your remarks. You think too little of the editors and readers of this page and too highly of yourself if you think it appears otherwise. This seemingly angry and vindicative attitude of yours may someday be your downfall. Mugginsx (talk) 11:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Hee hee. Yes, we're a brown-haired girl with a copper beard. But when I'm pretending to be Tamfang, I also pretend to have little ability or desire to keep track of who's who around here, so I disclaim knowledge of who Mx thinks my "friends" are. —Tamfang (talk) 20:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

If you feel cheated because you gave me a compliment and I haven't given you one, then here: You did a fine job of cleaning up the scanning errors in the DNB passage.

It's good that you're keeping an eye on errors that I may introduce in my attempts to make the language clearer. (The authors of the DNB entry may be great historians and detectives, certainly they did work that I'd never do, but they were not good writers.) I admit freely and without shame that I don't know the history (I might be less "slow with understanding" if there were someone around who didn't take my requests for clarification as personal insults), but I do know good clear English prose. If no expert will try to make the article comprehensible to laymen, then I will. —Tamfang (talk) 20:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Please observe the talk page guidelines. I have posted the standard header reminding everyone what those are. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

"styled"

From an edit summary:

self-assumed is your personal "made" up word. The correct term is "styled" Such words dumb-down an article.

At least five online dictionaries (including Webster 1828) list the "'made' up word". There are about half as many Google hits for "styled title" as for "self-assumed title", but at first glance the top few dozen don't seem to imply anything improper about a "styled" title. (This is as I expected: The Countess Mountbatten of Burma is styled Lady Mountbatten....) — I used google.co.uk rather than its California sibling, but I guess these are merely different faces for the same servers!

If dumb-down means "make comprehensible to those too lazy to have studied Norman history in English schools", I plead nolo contendere. —Tamfang (talk) 07:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Please drop this provocative way of going on. You can make your points without directing them against another editor. You have been asked politely, twice. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I removed the (anonymously) personal language. —Tamfang (talk) 18:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

While we're up, what's the difference between a "leading view" and a "predominant view"? (I forget who prefers which.) Might "prevailing" be somewhat better as implying numbers rather than rank? —Tamfang (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Not much. It would be better to cite some authorities. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

William the Nothing Yet

There was a sentence about

... William II who became Duke of Normandy as a child in 1035.

Someone "corrected william II to william 1"[1] (though this unworthy person is under the impression that he was not William I of Normandy) – and later removed the numeral and the link, saying, "he was not yet William I and confuses the issue at this point in the narrative. Also, not part of the reference given".[2] What's wrong with referring to him at that point as William II, duke of Normandy? If it's so vital to avoid even tacitly hinting at a spoiler not provided in the passage cited (by linking to his WP article, whose title is a style that he had not yet acquired), we could create a redirect from William II of Normandy if it did not already exist. —Tamfang (talk) 19:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

the coat of arms

m (took out coat of arms which were not used until at least the generation of Gilbert, 1st earl of Pembroke, but not these arms, they were a later creation)

That's not a minor (technical, uncontroversial) edit.

Does "but not these arms" mean that earlier Clares used some other coat? I'd doubt that, as conventional wisdom says coats-of-arms as we know them were (to a first approximation) not used at all until about the time of the Third Crusade.

If it's wrong to show a coat of arms not used by the first generations, perhaps it's wrong to include the biographies of the ancestors of the first one to use the name de Clare.

I'd put the shield back, adding to the caption that it was not used by the first generations – but someone might then (paradoxically) delete it again because I can't footnote that statement. —Tamfang (talk) 07:15, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. That was certainly not a minor edit. As I understand it, the coat-of-arms shown was used by at least one branch of the family. It should be restored, at least until the deletion is discussed on these pages. Tomorrow I will go googling for supporting evidence. For now, I am restoring the arms as they were shown. MarmadukePercy (talk) 07:30, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

This page [3] contains discussion of the coat-of-arms of the de Clare family. At issue is whether the shield carried six chevrons, or three, and there is apparently some indication that the coat-of-arms shown on the wikipedia page was first borne by Strongbow. "This may indicate that Strongbow was the first of the de Clare's to assume the arms of or, three chevrons goules [a shield of gold with three red chevrons] (Wagner, "A Seal" 130)." In any case, the coat-of-arms appears to have been borne by at least some members of the family and should remain until the issue is discussed and resolved. MarmadukePercy (talk) 07:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Can, not should. A supporting footnote would be appreciated. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

As can be seen from the illustrations from Tewkesbury Abbey of Gilbert de Clare [4] [5] [6] [7], as well as the illustration of Elizabeth de Clare now on the page [8], the arms as illustrated were at least used by some members of the family. I will search for text sources tomorrow. MarmadukePercy (talk) 09:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Charles Matthews - A footnote which argues against this shield being used in the early de Clare history is as follows: (http://books.google.com/books?id=yZg8AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA48) Agricolae (talk) 16:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC). It is in the British Archaeological Association, Royal Archaeological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland. I believe the pertinent information begins at page 48, "An introduction to the use of Armorial Bearings into England". A detailed discussion by Agricolae is found memoralized on my talk page. Perhaps a compromise could be that this shield is shown and indicated as a later shield with the early shields (if any) being also shown and referenced, since it is a primary introduction article to the de Clare Family. As an aside, I went to the Tweksbury Abbey website www.tewkesburyabbey.org.uk and viewed the stain glass, and did not find the pic used in this article, although I did find one entitled "ROBERT FITZHAMON THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY HUGH DESPENSER"(1950), (an odd combination to be sure but an example that these stain glass windows are not to be taken as literal proof of anything). Of course, it may be from some other source.Mugginsx (talk) 09:29, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Which Gilbert is represented in the window? It's quite common for such displays to represent historic figures with arms not yet adopted! On another hand, it does illustrate that the three chevrons device was understood retrospectively as representing that same house. —Tamfang (talk) 23:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

To all editors: Could we, in the interests of accuracy, add something to indicate that these arms were probably used only in Gilbert's time and after? The pictures are beautiful and I do think they enhance the article, but a reference as to when the shield was probably used would, it seems to me, to be in order as the articles mentions many de Clares, both early and later. I would also remind the editors that the shield has been taken out many de Clare articles by others and this reference might avoid other future deletions of it and keep the article from being town apart and the pictures possibily lost forever. (made earlier but signed by mistake as a "minor edit") Mugginsx (talk) 16:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Since there has been no response, I have insert one sentence which, since at least two editors agree, from two different sources, seems to be some kind of consenses. Both sources agree that it was Gilbert de Clare (1st earl of Hertford). The caption under the stain glass window also depicts Gilbert wearing the shield. Inserting this brief sentence will show that it represents the de Clares, but not the earliest de Clares. This agrees with the notable sources and should keep it from being deleted by another editor. I welcome any discussion. Mugginsx (talk) 22:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I have received an offer of another source by an editor not listed on this discussion page but who is interested in this subject. When I received it I will read and cite it for any of above editors to read and evaluate. Mugginsx (talk) 10:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Marmaduke: You reference to the Earl of Pembroke describes similar but different coat of arms, Your source states: "Richard Strongbow de Clare's seal/coat of arms as well as of his father Gilbert fitz Gilbert de Clare, first earl of Pembroke. Gilbert's and two of Strongbow's seals show a knighted figure with six chevronels[inverted "v"] on the shield." The earlier, used by Gilbert, 1st earl of Hertford, also shown in your picture of the stain glass shows three chevrons. Mugginsx (talk) 11:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

What I have done is to try to provide some real-life examples of the De Clare arms, other than simply a recreation. Granted, some of these are after the fact, but the illustration of the Founders' book from Tewkesbury Abbey certainly gives an idea of what arms the family was using by that time (early 16th century). It is clear that at some point the arms of the family changed, given what other editors have posted. I suggest we go with what we have, and simply make a note in the text as to when the arms as we know them were first adopted, as best as can be figured. MarmadukePercy (talk) 18:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Have also received this response from Tewkesbury Abbey. It reads as follows: Archive" <Archive@tewkesburyabbey.org.uk> "Thank you for your email regarding the de Clare depicted in one of the Abbey windows. Unfortunately we do not know which of the de Clares this represents, but the Guide Book to the stained glass in the Abbey suggests that it is either Gilbert I (died 1230) or Gilbert III (killed 1314), who were respectively the first and last de Clare lords to be buried in the chancel of Tewkesbury Abbey. This panel is one of four figures in a window on the north side of the Quire, and the matching window on the south side contains three de Clare figures, thought to be Richard II (died 1262), Gilbert II (died 1295) and either Gilbert I or Gilbert II. The quire of the Abbey was remodeled c 1320-50, and I understand that the heraldic evidence suggests that the windows were made and inserted between 1337 and 1340. This is all that I can tell you about the window, but I hope that it is of interest to you. Yours sincerely, Patrick Webley Honorary Abbey Registrar." Mugginsx (talk) 11:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

There are really two issues here. The first is historical. The first Earl of Pembroke used a different arms than those used by subsequent generations, one which is usually depicted as 6 chevrons (although I am not convinced it wasn't just 'chevronelly', a continuing field of of alternating colors in a chevron pattern, and they happened to illustrate 6 of them). This coat was also used by his niece, and if your description above is accurate, by his son (although others say Strongbow used the three-chevron coat - anyone have illustrations handy of the Strongbow seals?). Certainly the first Earl of Hereford used the three-chevron coat, as did subsequent generations. This fits into a general pattern of simplification and specified representation of what had originally been geometric patterns - the French royal arms went through a similar process, going from semi-de-lis to a simple three fluer-de-lis coat. Even if the stained glass showed the Earl of Pembroke with a 3-chevron coat, such glasses, being non-contemporary, bear no weight.

The second issue is representation. Can we show a coat only used by later generations, when the first generations used different arms? I have no problem with this. Show the three-chevron arms with a note identifying them as the "arms of the Clare family from the end of the 12th century". It may be a little vague, but short of a detailed description of the development of Clare arms in the context of the larger development of English arms, which is much more detail than is appropriate, this leaves clear that this only represents those of later generations. Further, these are the arms which came to be representative of the family, and they should be in an article on the family. If you want, someone can throw together the six-chevron coat and show that too, as being the original arms, or simply include the illustration of the Earl of Pembroke's seal to show that the earliest generation used something different, but I would say not only can we, but we should feature the three-chevron coat prominently in the article. Just my opinion. Agricolae (talk) 16:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution Agricolae.I knew I could count on you for a scholarly answer. I am grateful that you answered my request. You are a walking encyclopedia on things medieval. I have taken your suggestion and have edited the section according to your wording. If you think it could use more of the information you gathered, perhaps you would like to lengthen the section? Mugginsx (talk) 18:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The piece as now written contains this wording: "According to Patrick Webley Honorary Abbey Registrar at Tewksbury Abbey, the coat of arms with the three chevrons, illustrated in the stained glass window above, is either Gilbert I (died 1230) or Gilbert III (killed 1314). They were respectively the first and last de Clare lords to be buried in the chancel of Tewkesbury Abbey. The coat and shield with the three chevrons was probably first used at the end of the 12th century." Footnotes for the statements of the Tewkesbury Abbey registrar apparently reference a private email correspondence; another footnote simply states that the British Archaeological Journal can be found at googlebooks. Neither footnote is sufficient, and hopefully an editor can supply a direct source. Editor Agricolae is obviously very familiar with the material, and will likely be able to furnish an excellent citeable source.MarmadukePercy (talk) 17:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Since I got the reference from him, I believe he will cite it as well. And since when is the British Archaeological Journal not a sufficient source? Perhaps we should use the de Clare website, as you have had no problem with in the past when others used it numerous times? Mugginsx (talk) 17:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

In addition, I have e-mailed Patrick Webley, Honorary Abbey Registrar, Tewkesbury Abbey to obtain permission to use his information in the de Clare article as stated in his e-mail to me and reprinted on the talk page. Though, it does not have to be done as it is an e-mail to me and not copyrighted, I am always willing to go the extra mile for Wiki. Mugginsx (talk) 18:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

To avoid any other conflict, I have asked for other help to resolve this issue. Mugginsx (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Mugginsx, there is no conflict. I am the person who provided several of the images to confirm the family's coat-of-arms, which you had earlier deleted from this piece. I subscribe to the thoughts that Agricolae posted here, and believe he is correct. I was simply asking for a citeable source, rather than the two vague sources you provided, in the interests of the general readership who will want to know the sourcing. MarmadukePercy (talk) 21:01, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I have enhanced on the references, putting website as to the Journal article and number. I also provided the detailed e-mail for you and all to see. I hope that is sufficient. I think it should be. Mugginsx (talk) 21:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

• I am not an expert in heraldry. A personal communication is for WP purposes not WP:RS, however eminent the correspondent. The "Honorary Abbey Registrar" may be a local historian, even a very knowledgeable one, but his opinion as much as the editor's own counts as WP:OR. If he has a source for his statements, perhaps in a book on heraldry, his source should be cited. Mugginsx asked me to intervene in this dispute, but I regret that I lack the detailed knowledge to do so. Where a published source is cited, it is always much better to cite the source precisely, according to the normal method for published works. If it is also available on Googlebooks, adding a link to that is even better. I would ask you all to be polite. If a reference is not good enough, tag it {{cn}}; if you think it wrong tag it {{dubious}}. When I intervened in a dispute about the article Earl of Clare, I was primarily supporting recent historians' work as to be preferred to older work, which they are likely to have considered and rejected. As I say, I lack the expertise to add much that will be useful here. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:21, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I have edited the article, just to make sure it doesn't assert too much. I think the likely facts have been illuminated by now, but there is no need to say everything there. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the edit and the thought. Just as an interesting aside, this from a volume entitled Life in a Medieval Castle, in which the authors assert that "in about 1140 Gilbert de Clare adopted three chevrons, similar to those later used in military insignia."[9] In any case, the edits now should resolve the issue as much as it can be. Thanks. MarmadukePercy (talk) 22:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Tewkesbury Abbey is a parish church. The abbey was dissolved (like all other English monasteries) at the Reformation. It will not have pre-reformation archives to quote from. It may have a library of published works relating to the church. It is likely to have a published guide book, but that is likely to be a derivative source, and thus not the best WP:RS. The registrar will have a source for his statement, almost certainly a published one, and that is what should be cited, not his statement. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for resolving the problem. Mugginsx (talk) 21:52, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Marmaduke, I would like to just point out that I did not, as you said, delete your images, only your coat of arms, in fact, if you look above as a reminder, I said your images were beautiful, and they are. Mugginsx (talk) 23:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, muggins. Enjoy your weekend. MarmadukePercy (talk) 23:55, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Marmaduke: There is an image of a seal here [10] used by Gilbert de Clare Earl of Hertford. I have checked and it is not on any de Clare site. You may be interested in capturing it for this or Gilbert's site or both. One thing, when you get to the Google site, it will say page 48, you must use right arrow approximately 15 times before you get to the page with the image on it. The google page will still say page 48. Mugginsx (talk) 10:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Your welcome. It looks beautiful. Incidentally, there's plenty of room for it in the article Gilbert de Clare, 1st Earl of Hertford. Right now, it's only a stub. The credit ultimately goes to Agricolae, I noticed it paging through his source. He really is amazing in his knowledge of things medieval. I would love to hold that seal in my hands to see if I could feel the history as a scholar from England once told me he could do. Mugginsx (talk) 11:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Formal permission obtained from Abbey Registrar to use Abbey website information

Marmaduke: I received a belated e-mail from the Abbey Registrar giving Wiki formal permission to use information on their website. If you think permission is needed, as Peterkingiron seemed to indicate, I will be happy to enable e-mail for you and send e-mail in its entirety for your convenience to use in the future in this or any other Clare website you may be working on. I am off to other articles (none de Clare) and have no need for it. Mugginsx (talk) 10:58, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Dubious

The recently added statement that " William himself was not considered a bastard by the Normans" is, i would say, very questionable. It is tagged with a citation request, but i don't think that goes far enough (besides, i read that template request as regarding the whole of the preceding sentences about bigamy and illegitimacy). I won't take it out right now, but i would suggest that someone else chime in and give an opinion (or, preferably, a citation, if one exists). A quick glance at William the Conqueror does not seem to justify the implication that his illegitimacy wasn't a problem for the Normans. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 04:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

You have to look more carefully at the nobility of Normandy from the ninth through eleventh centuries. Many so-called illegitimately born individuals rose to great prominence. Remember it was the Church which viewed bastardy as something counter to its beliefs—and not for the reasons you'd think. The custom of the Normans was More danico, or marriage in the Danish manner (Danish here meaning Viking or Norse). Marriages were either more danico or more Christiano (marriage in the Christian manner). While technically, from the time of Rollo, the Normans were Christian. But paganism still co-existed in Normandy and did for some time afterwards. Pagan and Christian customs were intermixed in early Normandy and still were to some degree 117 years later when William was born. So, his father’s marriage more danico to Herleve was not seen as out of the ordinary in early eleventh century Normandy. The change in attitudes took place in the late eleventh century and had more to do with property inheritance than rank. William's contemporaries would hardly have made an issue of his birth status. Put another way, if William were to have actually been called a bastard, so were at least half the nobility of Normandy at the time. Then, the highest ranking church official in Normandy, Archbishop Robert, was himself the product of a Danish marriage, as was his successor. I agree, this should be cited. But does this belong in the lead where we summarize the article? I’d like to see this either moved to the body of the article where citations are appropriate (we don’t normally cite statements in the lead section) or changed to an explanatory footnote with a citation or citations. Bearpatch (talk) 17:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)