Talk:Simon de Montfort, 6th Earl of Leicester/Archive 1

Archive 1

Barons' Revolt

Erm, surely Baron's Revolt??? unsigned comment by anonymous user

No, it would be "Baron's" if only one rebelled. Grunners 16:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Burial

Was his body taken by the monks of Evesham Abbey and buried before the High Altar? I remember reading that somewhere a long time ago.

I seem to remember than the grave was desecrated many years later, possibly at the Reformation.

I have now visited the site again and the interpretation plaque suggests that he was buried in a tomb before the High Altar. There is an artist's interpretation of the view of the scene. I am reluctant to actually change what is written in the wikipedia page without discussion. Could this be reviewed please? Songwriter 06:28 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

There is conflicting testimony as to the disposition of his remains. Opus Chron. (Rolls Ser., no. 28), p. 18-20, says he was buried by the monks at Evesham, and that miracles were wrought at his tomb. Other chronicles state he was dismembered, with portions doled out to various places, his head (or head and hands) to the wife of Roger de Mortimer, then at Worcester Castle (Rishanger, Rolls Ser., p. 37). William de Newburgh (Rolls Ser., vol ii, p. 548) combined the stories, with the body cut up, dispersed, and all parts eventually returned to Evesham and miraculously rejoined, and then buried at Evesham. - Nunh-huh 18:33, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I believe what you are remembering is that he was decapitated (i think) and left to rot after the battle. it was the monks at the abbey who burried him. I also remember reading i can't remember if it was in J.R. Madicott's book, Simon de Montfort, or some other source that his body begame a place for pilgramages and there was a push by some to have him cannoized. I added it to the article as it was part of the whole mythos that surrounds him. If someone has access to the copy of that book could you look it up. I have to get my English history notebooks out and see if i wrote anything else about it down in class.FubarDac 16:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

On the cult of "St Simon" a good source is:[1] The Liber miraculorum of Simon de Montfort: Contested sanctity and contesting authority in late thirteenth-century England Jeremy (talk) 01:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Amaury

Whatever became of Simon's brother, Amaury? There is nothing anywhere that I can find about why he would have given up his rights in England, or where he went from there. Was he more interested in France and its politics at the time, as Simon was certainly more interested in England?

And why would Amaury renounce any English rights? Did his brother convice him that under Simon's care and guile the title of Earl of Leicester could finally be made official by King Henry III?

Anyone who knows of any sources that might explain these things, please leave a comment. Thank you.

Armaury gave up his rights to land because they were petty holdings. They were both dispersed and not really worthwhile for him to pay attention to them. Simon made some weilding and dealing to consolidate lands and eventually his marriage was his big gain. See the book Simon de Montfort that is listed at the end of the article for more details. FubarDac 16:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Amaury gave up his rights to the English lands due to his leige lord being the King of France. After the death of Richard the Lionheart and King John, the Angevine empire began crumbling and the property owners on both sides of the channel began choosing whether they wanted to focus their holdings in England or in France. As Simon was the youngest surviving son, he and his brother came to an agreement and Simon focused on reclaiming the English lands that were held by their father.

Amaury was killed during one of the crusades. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raine13 (talk • contribs)

Inbetween time

The article makes it sound as if he went immediatley from marrying the king's sister, to being hated by the King. If I am remembering correctly wasn't there a 6 year period or there abouts where he was governing in Gascony? And isn't that where a lot of his conflicts with the king came from? Can this be fixed by someone who has a source handy? FubarDac 16:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

De Montfort's marriage to Eleanor in 1238 provokes of course Henry III's anger and it was the beginning of the conflicts between them, but the essential cause for their animosity was Simon's service as royal lieutenant in Gascony (1248-1255)where he he ruled with cruelty. What is more, his activities there demanded extra money which were pumped from Henry's treasury. As a result, Henry had to spend excessive amounts of money for Simon de Montfort in Gascony and at the same time he was received complaints and grievances of his lieutenant's arbitrary methods. Ourania 16:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)RaniaOurania 16:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Simon was one of the greatest soldiers of his time. Henry III retained Simon as his representative in Gascony to quash the outlaws and rebellions that were taking place. Simon did as requested and a battle commander he was - a politician he may not have been. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raine13 (talk • contribs)

Wrong my friends, very very wrong

There is an error in the 'Battle of Evesham'. Simon's forces most certainly did not kill "three for every one of theirs". In fact, Robert of Gloucester called it "murder of Evesham for battle it was none". If you don't believe me, look up page 111 of Battle, by R.G. Grant. The Battle was a massacre for Simon's forces, which were not only outnumbered 3 : 1 but also forced to charge uphill. Tourskin.

So be bold and update the article, preferably citing your source Modest Genius ^talk 17:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Vow of chasity?

"Eleanor had previously been married to William Marshal, 2nd Earl of Pembroke, and she had sworn a vow of chastity on his death, when she was aged sixteen, which she broke by marrying de Montfort." Sex within a marriage is a form of chastity. Did she take a vow of celebacy or chastity? This needs to be cleared up? - 71.248.14.67 16:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)CourtDog

Eleanor took a vow of chastity after the death of her first husband. One of her ladies in waiting (older and widowed) compelled Eleanor at her young age to view at as a pious decision. Upon meeting Simon later, Eleanor realized she wanted a husband and children and Simon was willing to do whatever was necessary to sway the King and Pope to relieving her of the vow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raine13 (talk • contribs)

A book I read back in high school, do not remember the name, called it the Vow of Perpetual Widowhood, supposedly in her heartbreak at the death of her husband. Does any one know if there is such a thing?

No elected parliament in ancient Athens

Athenian democracy was direct, and any institutions were chosen by lot, not election. I will correct the introduction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Causantin (talk • contribs) 09:52, 24 May 2007

Hmm, true, though I can't think of a better way of phrasing it... Modest Genius ^talk 23:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Forty-shilling Freeholders: 1265 or 1430?

The article "De Monfort's Parliament" claims franchise was limited to forty-shilling freeholders only in 1430. On the other hand, the article "Simon de Montfort, 6th Earl of Leicester" mentions the 40 shillings already for de Monfort's parliament. Who is right?

Top.Squark 11:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The Welsh marcher lords and the alliance with Llywelyn ap Gruffydd

The article "Simon de Montfort, 6th Earl of Leicester" claims Simon lost the support of the Welsh marcher lords due to his alliance with Llywelyn ap Gruffydd: "The reaction against his government was baronial rather than popular; and the Welsh Marcher Lords particularly resented Montfort's alliance with Llywelyn ap Gruffydd, Prince of Wales. Little consideration for English interests is shown in the Treaty of Pipton which sealed that alliance on June 22, 1265."

On the other hand, the article "Battle of Evesham" claims the alliance was forged after the marcher lords switch side: "With the lords of the Welsh Marches now in rebellion, Montfort solicited the aid of Llywelyn ap Gruffyd, the Prince of Wales".

Who is right?

Top.Squark 17:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Regency of France?

The article claims that "The nobles of France offered him [de Montfort] the regency of the kingdom, vacant by the death of the Queen-mother Blanche of Castile, but he preferred to make his peace with Henry which he did in 1253..." However, according the article "Louis IX of France", Louis was born in 1215 hence in 1252 (the year Blanche of Castile died) he was 37, quite capable of ruling by himself. Moreover, the later article asserts that "His contemporaries viewed his reign as co-rule between the king and his mother, though historians generally view the year 1234 as the year in which Louis ruled as king with his mother assuming a more advisory role", that is, Louis became the de facto ruler 18 years before the supposed proposal to de Montfort. Maybe it was a different position, not that of a regent, which was offered? Or maybe France needed a regent because Louis IX was off on a crusade?

Top.Squark 17:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Louis was on crusade from 1248 to 1254. He initially turned the regency over to his mother, but she died in 1252, at which point, apparently, Louis' brothers took over. john k 18:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Simon de Montfort the younger's (fictitious?) nickname

I'm a great fan of Sharon Kay Penman's works, but I believe it was she who coined the name "Bran" for Simon de Montfort's second son, to avoid confusion between characters in her novels; therefore I doubt it's appropriate to refer Simon de Montfort the younger as "Bran" in this article. 76.24.28.94 23:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

J.R. Mardicott also says that Simon the Younger was called Bran in an article written in 1996 which is after Penman's book, but I doubt he'd publish it without harder evidence than a fictional novel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.50.97.160 (talk) 08:55, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a page number? Because citing Mardicott would be excellent. Modest Genius ^talk 20:42, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Death

This article seems to be romanticising de Montforts death almost glorifying it, and isn't written from a neutral viewpoint. I removed "Brave" from charge as this is wording more in line of an epic poem not a historical article. I also remember reading somewhere that Roger de'Mortimer killed Simon and sent his head back to his wife as a gift. Can anyone tell me if this is true?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.138.66 (talk) 02:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's true. Mortimer sent the head home as a gift to his wife, Maud. The head was displayed in the Great Hall of Wigmore Castle during a feast she gave to celebrate the victory.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:02, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Roger Godberd and Robin Hood

It probably should be mentioned that one of Simon's supporters was Roger Godberd, who survived Evesham and became a famous outlaw in Sherwood forest and thereabouts. He may well have been the "original" Robin Hood in the sense of being the model for the Robin Hood of the earliest known ballads.....(actually it is sort of obvious that he is, once it is accepted that the ballads are literature not history) I'll start an article on him when I can. Jeremy (talk) 02:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I did in fact add a bit about Godberd and the following was then added anonymously: Thomas Costain 's History of Plantagnets in volume II cites that the Legate of Pope who was arbitrating between Simon and Henry III had taken immense dislike for Simon especially as 123 English Church leaders and 7 main English Bishops supported this upstart in the legate's eyes. That legate became Pope in 1265 and prevented attempts to canonize Simon de Montford. Edward I was all for it according to Thomas Costain's histories. This history also mentions that Fulk Fitzwarrenne IV (Fulk Fitzwarrenne the II was the inspiration for Robin hood legend) died fighting in these battles and Richard Montford (5th son) or Henry Montford (eldest son) might have had a child outside marriage with a lady associated with Fitzwarrenne family and that child was the probable Robin Hood in Edward II 's reign. Historian did note that after legends become famous, suddenly connexions are found for them. There may be some stuff of value in this, but I think it needs to be kissed into shape a bit; tone, citations. My reference to the Godberd theory obviously was a red rag to a partisan of the Fulk theory...I tend to think that the Godberd theory is the only one relevant to an article on de Montfort.(Ie the Fulk theory even if true is not very relevant) Jeremy (talk) 05:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be best to simply state something like 'one of his supporters was Godberd who may have been connected to the Robin Hood legend' and leave it at a link to the discussion there? Modest Genius ^talk 17:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Modern view in Leicester

How is de Montfort viewed these days in Leicester? As I recall it they are less enthusiastic now, associating him with... I can't remember, was it anti-jewish behaviour? Anyone?

IceDragon64 (talk) 21:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Still POV?

Good morning,

His "Death" section has got the POV tag, perhaps because of the 'Brave' remark mentioned above. As it has been removed and I can't find any non-neutral wording in the section, I'd like to propose removing the POV tag. Cheers, 77.250.234.174 (talk) 07:57, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fair enough, I note the POV tag has now gone. It's still not ideal, but not worth worrying about. Modest Genius ^talk 21:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Earl of Gloucester

I have corrected a reference to the Earl in the Crusade section as it referred to a descendant who was not born at the time. However there is no mention on the page for Richard de Clare, 5th Earl of Hertford of his involvement in the Parliament at Oxford. In the next section there is a general link to the Earl of Gloucester rather than to Richard′s son Gilbert de Clare, 6th Earl of Hertford but there is no mention of this triumvirate on Gilbert′s page. I am not familiar with this subject so could someone else look at this and make any necessary corrections. Bill Oversixty (talk) 10:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Coat of arms

User:CJ DUB added an image of de Montfort's coat of arms, however this appears to contradict the set shown on Montfort-l'Amaury. Both appear to have been created for the relevant wikiproject on the French wikipedia. The latter of the two is more recent and also looks better, so I've changed to this image. Does anyone object? It would be nice to get an actual source for this, especially since de Montfort was a younger son and renounced his French lands (does this affect his entitlement to the arms?) Modest Genius ^talk 22:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

the coat of arms of the chief of the name and title de Montfort, as any French nobiliary would confirm are "de gueules, un lion d'argent langue d'or." which roughly translates as 'gules a lion argent tongued of gold'.

NB: the town of Montfort-l'Amaury added the hermines as a reference to the family's later connexion with Britanny. these however did not exist in Simon de Montfort's original arms. the connexion with Britanny dates from much later in the 16th century (and pertains to the cadet branch of the dukes of Britanny). although this connexion was later reinforced on the main branch with the lordship of the lands of La Marne and La Malloniere (from Louis XIV), this latter branch, stemming from Amaury de Montfort, has never bore hermines on their arms either. i hope this helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.195.72.2 (talk) 23:32, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I'm not familiar with the heraldic terms, does this mean we should use File:Blason Montfort-l'Amaury.svg or File:Armoiries seigneurs Montfort.png on this page? Modest Genius ^talk 15:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I switched to File:Armoiries seigneurs Montfort.svg, but please correct me if that's wrong. Modest Genius ^talk 21:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Obvious figureheads - matter of opinion and far from obvious!

"the establishment of a triumvirate (consisting of himself, the young Earl of Gloucester, and the Bishop of Chichester) in which his colleagues were obviously figureheads"

I've just been reading a history of this period - and given the fact that Gilbert of Clare's dissatisfaction with the prominence given to de Montford's sons and following, and his eventual defection to the royalist party were important factors in de Montford's eventual defeat, I think it's a difficult claim to stand up that his colleagues were only figureheads - especially if someone is going to make a strong claim that such an opinion is "obvious". -PaulHammond (talk) 23:07, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Clearly a {{EB1911}} artifact. I would remove it. 76.117.247.55 (talk) 12:10, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Coat of arms - Chartres

The coat of arms of Simon de Montfort was a red field with a white two-tailed (lion?) rampant. A television programme about stained glass windows was showing Chartres Cathedral and there seemed in one of the pictures to be a depiction of that coat of arms. Could someone possibly check on that if visiting Chartres Cathedral please?

The earliest records of the coat of arms of the de Montforts describe the arms as: "de gueules, un lion d'argent langué d'or". In other words, gules, a lion argent langued or. This is recorded in the armorial de France and the dictionnaire des familles nobles de France, and the noblesse de Bretagne, where the family also took root (later taking the name de Chardonnay, from the homonymous title bestowed upon the descendents by Louis XV). So the only thing missing from the shield we have on the page is the golden tongue.

Later depictions of the shield dating from the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries render the lion with a bifurcate tail. As was many times the case, this was not accompanied by the more modern heraldic descriptions. The more recent (18th and 19th century) accounts describe the arms of the Montforts (alias de Chardonnay de Bicherel, alias de la Marne de La Malloniere) also as: "de gueules, un lion d'argent lampassé d'or". Both heraldic terms "lampassé" and "langué" are synonymous, though "langué" is older. Unlike most modern coats of arms where the lion is "armé and lampassé" usually of the same "émaux" or metal, the Montforts' arms never included any distinction as to the lion's claws. (The lion is simply the traditional heraldic lion. It is not rampant, neither in heraldic depiction nor description.)

The reason for the later addition of the bifurcate tail is explained by the splitting of the Montfort family (alias de Chardonnay) into two branches in the course of the seventeenth century. The main branch inherited most of the lands in Brittany and became extinct in the course of the eighteenth century. The cadet branch went on to acquire more land namely in Machecoul (Britany) and the surrounding areas (La Marne, La Malloniere, etc.), and had their nobility confirmed for inheritance purposes in the late 18th C by the Parlement de Bretagne. But again, this later addition was never accompanied by the more modern heraldic descriptions in letters patent, and later confirmations of nobility, where the older description is used and no mention is made of the bifurcate tail. http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k1120033/f16.image.r=noblesse+chardonnay+montfort.langEN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.170.99.72 (talk) 14:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Secretly married

"Secretly married" here seems to imply that the King was not aware of the marriage until after the fact. Margaret Wade Labarge [Simon de Montfort, 1962] says that "the King arranged for the ceremony in his own private oratory"; a chapel adjoining his bedchamber. The wedding may have been a surprise to other nobles, but not to the King.

Mariage There seems to be a contradiction between this article and the one on the Barons' War.

The latter says "he [de Montfort] married Henry’s sister Eleanor without consulting Henry: a feud developed between the two". This one says "While this marriage took place with the king's approval, the act itself was performed secretly and without consulting the great barons, as a marriage of such importance warranted".

So was Henry consulted or not?

Baska436 (talk) 01:51, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Play

Please consider including as a reference the recent publication: "Simon de Montfort Earl of Leicester" A Play for the Theater, published in SCRIBD: https://www.scribd.com/doc/246391410/Simon-de-Montfort-Earl-of-Leicester 190.152.131.116 (talk) 15:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Please see WP:RS. That doesn't sound like a reliable source to me, especially as you haven't provided enough information for a reader to actually find it. Scribd appears to allow self publishing, never a hallmark of reliability. Which facts in the article do you think that source supports anyway? Modest Genius ^talk 00:05, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

War with the King

Big chunk deleted here -was that intended?

The war of Simon de Montfort against King Henry III and Edward Longshanks deserves great historical attention. The rather heroic battles of Lewes and Evesham are examples of the nature of the great knights of the XIII century! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.11.2.38 (talk) 20:30, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Seconded--Lewes was of historical importance and an example, militarily, of tactical prowess, while Evesham was an example both of a stunning reversal that finally restored to the royalty something approaching the level of power it had wielded before the death of John, and of a combination of both tactical and STRATEGIC expertise (maneuver prior to the battle, cutting off retreat and making multiple venues of approach) by the sixteen year old prince of a notoriously weak father.

Further, this is the most absurdly tilted article I've read in a while--the last two Simon de Montfort's in power are notorious in every history I've read as power-seekers notorious for massacres and Machiavellian tactics like using unjust crusades. The version of this article as of Jan 2015 simply glosses over its de Montfort's cruelties in Gascony, and chooses noble sounding quotes for his death at Evesham, rather than his famous quote, found elsewhere in this encyclopedia: "May the Lord have mercy upon our souls, as our bodies are theirs." It also ignores how quick nobles were to rise to aid Prince Edward in defeating him after his fifteen month attempt at becoming some sort of medieval Oliver Cromwell.

The article needs amendment by an author who's not a transparent fan of the late Simon and his alleged constitutional reforms (it gives no source, for example, for its assertion that the revolt against de Montfort, the French son of a mass-murderer who took power in a foreign country through battle after reneging on a settlement [with the aid of the French king] was 'baronial rather than popular.') The accounts of the battles of Evesham and Lewes alone yield a better picture of this article's subject than the article as presently written (apparently, he was a saint of some sort who just happened to break faith with his king-benefactor and have both that king and his son imprisoned--threatening to kill help the latter 'escape' the walls of his imprisonment by trebuchet). Minimal quality control, people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.248.77 (talk) 09:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Clarify, please

He 'received a sympathetic hearing from King Henry, who was about the same age and had a weakness for foreigners speaking French.'

'Had a weakness' means what? Valetude (talk) 09:34, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

It's an expression meaning "unduly liked", or "was biased in favour of", if that helps at all? Hchc2009 (talk) 12:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Correct: To add, the rebellion de Montfort led was largely inspired by domestic Anglo-Norman nobles' dislike for the king's favor of a number of French-born foreigners (some French had helped him win his first war of survival). That the upstart foreigner de Montfort ended up leading the opposition to such a grievance is an irony completely unmentioned in this article, I note. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.248.77 (talk) 09:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Birth date 23 May 1208 (?)

There are many ghits for this date, some with a question mark after, some unqualified. Does this have any support from reliable sources? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Coat of arms

The arms given appear to be wrong. A reliable contemporary and acquaintance, Matthew Paris, as reported by Maddicott for example (a strong secondary source for Montfort, already mentioned in our article), said the lion was red on a yellow background, and with a split double tail. (Indeed this appears reproduced on the cover of Maddicott.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:40, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

This is seemingly confirmed by the illustration (farther down the page) of his mutilation after Evesham. One must then ask, how sure are we that the stained glass at Chartres in the infobox illustration truly depicts Simon de Montfort? In the interim, I am going to remove the (unreferenced) depiction of his arms until this can be clarified. 50.37.126.124 (talk) 01:52, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I have subsequently found a contemporary record that gives him the arg. on gul. coat. Could he have changed the tinctures during his lifetime? 50.37.126.124 (talk) 20:57, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Coats of arms were much more fluid during this period - that sort of variation wouldn't surprise me at all. Hchc2009 (talk) 21:00, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Please name the contemporary source. Maybe relevant to mention that there was more than one Simon de Montfort. For this particular one I have only seen one coat of arms in good sources?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:07, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

This image looks to me like a photograph of the same stained glass depicted in our drawing. Our drawing (17th century, from a Bibliotheque Nationale collection) is identified on its original 17th century caption as "Simon de Montfort, brother of the constable [Amaury]". So that's what the 17th century antiquarian thought. But this photograph can be found on the web captioned as a depiction of Amaury. Hmm ... A relevant question might be, which of the brothers helped to finance the Chartres stained glass? Because that's why this series of portraits appears there. Andrew Dalby 13:17, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

That does not look like a strong source. And that source does not tell us about the Simon in England and we would have to research it ourselves to see who might be intended for that church. (Or find another source.) See no reason to think it would be the one in England though. By the way Constable of France was a very high position, so you could try looking into that out of interest. (But unfortunately this family also had many Aumaries.) Wikipedia itself seems to suggest this person who would fit your theory: Amaury VI of Montfort. Remember we do have a strong source (Maddicott) who gives us one set of arms for our Simon.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:52, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Glover's Roll - "Copy of an Ould Rolle of Armes in Parchment and in Blazon, Made and Written in the Reigne or Tyme of king H. 3, . . . . Le Conte de Leister, goules ung leon rampand d’argent, le cowe fourcllee. Et le Banner party endentee d’argent et de goules" [2] (admittedly not from a contemporary manuscript, but purporting to be a copy of one). Matthew Paris has two marginal illustrations depicting the death of Simon - one of him alone in Chronic Majora (CCCC 16, f. 60r) shows a red lion on what looks to me to be a gold background, but one source [3] has interpreted this as red on silver. Likewise his Historia Anglorum shows red lions for both brothers (since BL Digital site is down today, I can't confirm this) [4]. Also perhaps relevant, the Trinity Apocalypse (at 23r) shows among the troops of the Antichrist the silver lion on red with a forked tail, and this is suggested by Adrian Ailes to be an allusion to Montfort [5]. Sort of a mixed bag - I would vote to leave out an explicit depiction of 'The Arms of Simon de Montfort' and let the existing illustrations speak for themselves. 50.37.108.245 (talk) 19:14, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

The BL Historia Anglorum is now available, and on 105v it gives Simon a shield with a red lion, tail forked (background is not filled in), and a closer look at CCCC 16 suggests the same, and the same is true of the 13th century Evesham illustration from Cotton Nero D II (which as best I can determine on the fly is a copy of Matthew Paris, Flores Historiarum. Usually, the absence of a tincture implies argent rather than or. My gut tells me that Maddicott is wrong here, and that the two options are a red lion on silver (as interpreted by Lewis from Matthew Paris x3), or silver on red (Glover roll and Trinity Apocalypse) [or both]. 50.37.108.234 (talk) 03:49, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, but here we are mere Wikipedians. No matter if we are right and Maddicott wrong, he is the type of source we are supposed to defer to according to our mission. So without a strong source to correct Maddicott I think we have to work on the cautious side here.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

The cautious side is to not make any explicit statement, given that Lewis and Ailes both contradict Maddicott (and each other). 50.37.108.234 (talk) 10:27, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

If the sources contradict each other, then we should say that they do. One or two sentences saying that his coat of arms has been reported differently in different sources would be fine. It's not Wikipedia's job to determine which one is right, just offer our readers the information and citations to the sources where they can learn more. Modest Genius ^talk 12:38, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, that's one view. Another view is that it is our job to give the readers a well written biography, comprehensive while not being weighed down with detailed description of every minor issue. Based on a Google Books partial view, all I find in Maddicott's 432-page book is on the back cover: "Cover page: The shield bears the arms of Simon de Montfort, and was drawn by Matthew Paris, c. 1244 (British Library MS. Cotton Nero D. I, f. 177v, . . .)." The cover illustration shows the arms with a red lion on a goldish background that is really just the discolored vellum of the original and not a tincture at all. As far as I can tell the arms are never explicitly described anywhere in the work. Lewis only describes it as part of a cataloguing of all of Matthew's illustrations, not a comment specifically addressing Montfort. Ailes comes closest, but he is only using it as an example of early political usage of heraldry (while why Simon should be portrayed as a companion of the Antichrist is left implicit). Looks to me like any discussion of his arms would be decidedly WP:UNDUE. 50.37.96.201 (talk) 20:32, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I would say on this type of point WP has a clear policy. There are cases sometimes where we SHOULD write a messy article, but indeed I am not sure this is one. For now I think we are not finding good enough sources, and the sources we have are not clear enough. If our sources differ then we can choose to report the differences, or we can choose to report nothing (because for example not an important point), or we can as editors come to a consensus that a particular group of sources are superior, for example because they are newer or better qualified. (But even then, we often report older positions if they are well known.) Coming to Maddicott, the cover has a rather unusual amount of carefully written words on it, so we do need to be a bit cautious about ignoring that note? (I found it odd for another reason: the black lion version was surely a very famous coat of arms, associated with Flanders, a country associated with the mercenaries often associated with troubled times in England? But this is just me.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:22, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

One or two sentences would not be WP:UNDUE weight. An entire paragraph would be. Modest Genius ^talk 12:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Any proposals?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 12:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Simon de Montfort, 6th Earl of Leicester. 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/20100313225356/http://www.suttonvalence.org.uk/his/framehistsummary.html to http://www.suttonvalence.org.uk/his/framehistsummary.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:45, 5 December 2017 (UTC)