Wikipedia:Peer review/Gilbert Foliot/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gilbert Foliot

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch peer review

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've listed this article for peer review because…I'd like to take this article to FAC and would appreciate help on prose and how understandable it is for a non-historian.

Thanks, Ealdgyth - Talk 15:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Brianboulton comments: This is a longer than usual episode of life with the bishops, so my review will be in instalments over a few days.

Mainly I will comment on prose, but there is one background issue which I think needs to be clarifed, concerning the rival claims to the English throne of Stephen and Matilda. It would help to know that Stephen came to the throne in 1835, that his claim was weak (he wasn't in the direct line of succession) and that he owed his position to support from a party of strong barons rather than by right. The sections of the article I have so far read (to the end of "Abbot") don't really reflect the chaos that engulfed England after Stephen's questionable accession.

Thing is.. recent historiography is downplaying the "The Anarchy" topos. And the "direct line of sucession" isn't really important, as NO king of England since before Edward the Confessor had been in "direct line". Harold took the throne when strictly speaking the Aetheling had a MUCH stronger claim, William conquererd, William II was the second son, Henry was the third son (and William II had signed a treaty with their eldest brother that either would inherit the opposites realm if they died without an heir..) so Stephen just followed Henry I's precedent and seized control. Stephen didn't really have issues until he stupidly arrested Roger of Salisbury, and even then he managed to hold on until he got his behind captured at the Battle of Lincoln... Stephen had about as much right as anyone else did, and the "chaos" of the Anarchy isn't accepted wisdom anymore in the historiography. There was some, yes, but it's not what was once thought. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So I wonder if, in the Early life section, you could insert a bit of context information, just before the third paragraph? I'm not suggesting a detailed history, just something along the lines of: "After the disputed succession of Stephen of Blois to the English throne in 1135, England was plunged into civil strife that lasted many years, between Stephen's supporters and those of the Empress Matilda, Henry II's daughter and a rival claimant to the throne." A sentence something like that would be very useful as background - by all means choose a better wording. My general review:-

See above for why I don't feel comfortable saying that. Stephen's reign is one of those "growth industries" in the historians field....Ealdgyth - Talk 23:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm not up to speed on this (still remember the "years that Christ slept" assumptions). As long as the article covers that there were rival claimants to the throne, and that this rivalry persisted for a good many years, all should be clear. Brianboulton (talk) 11:32, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added in "Matilda was the daughter, and only surviving legitimate child of King Henry I of England, but when her father died in late 1135, her cousin, Stephen, who was the son of Henry's sister, took the throne of England. By 1139, Matilda had gathered supporters and was contesting Stephen's right to the throne." after the bit about the lateran council in 1139, and then broke to a new paragraph discussing Foliot's letters. Does that work? Ealdgyth - Talk 15:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lead
    • "some time around age 20" sounds rather casual phrasing. Could it become "when aged about 20"?
took out the "sometime" so it's now "around age 20." I dislike "aged about (blah)" as a personal pet peeve. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Likewise, I find "a couple of posts" too informal. From the text I gather that these were posts as prior. So why not say: "After holding two posts as a prior in the Cluniac order..."?
done Ealdgyth - Talk 15:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • For consistency, abbot should be linked, as prior is, later
done Ealdgyth - Talk 15:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "another relative": Miles is the first indivdual relative we meet, and was presumably one of those mentioned as being ecclesiastics, so I'd just say "his relative, Miles of Gloucester"
Actually, no Miles isn't one of the ecclesiastics. He's an Earl. Changed to "He owed his abbacy to a non-ecclesiastical relative..." Ealdgyth - Talk 15:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the benefit of non-historians, rather than "the cause of the Empress Matilda", I'd say "the claim to the throne of the Empress Matilda".
Good point. Changed. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is "forge" used here in the counterfeiting sense rather than in the "forge links" sense? It might be as well to make this clear.
Changed to "... may have helped forge charters, the written records of land grants, to help the abbey..." Ealdgyth - Talk 15:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • To those unversed in ecclesiastical language, "...appointed to the see of Hereford" won't convey that he was appointed bishop. Could you not say "appointed Bishop of Hereford"?
Changed to "and while there was appointed bishop in the see, or bishopric, of Hereford by Pope Eugene III." I want to introduce the synonym see as quickly as possibly so that I can use it in place of "bishopric" as a bit of variety later on. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Same point really; "translated to the see of London" = "appointed Bishop of London"
hopefully the change above makes this clear. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Last paragraph, repetition: "Afterwards....afterwards" in quick succession
changed the second afterwards to thereafter Ealdgyth - Talk 15:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "episcopal functions" - again, the language point. "Duties as bishop" would do just as well.
this is a bit of a nuance thing though. It's not just duties that a bishop performs, it's liturgy and other things. I greatly prefer episcopal functions to duties, as it gives more the correct feel to what he was doing, which are mainly liturgical and judicial, not really obligations. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but why not pipe-link "episcopal functions to "Bishop", thus: episcopal functions?
LOL... I can do that. I am firmly in the "link as little as possible crowd" though. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • (last line): "couple" - why not say two?
done. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Early life
    • I suggest that "David" should come before, rather than after, "earl of Huntingdon". It sounds awfully odd otherwise.
done. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...apart from which, this sentence needs further attention. It has "who was the" three times, after the initial "Foliot was...", and is otherwise crammed with information so as to make it hard to follow. My best shot: "Foliot was probably the son of Robert Foliot, steward to David, earl of Huntingdon and heir to the Scottish throne; and Robert's wife Agnes, sister of Robert de Chesney who was Bishop of Lincoln."
fixed Ealdgyth - Talk 16:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What office, bishop or otherwise, did William of Chesney hold?
He was a layman and leading power in Oxfordshire. Now reads ... "... and another uncle was William de Chesney, who was a partisan of Stephen's and a leading layman in Oxfordshire." (My journal source there calls William de Chesny Foliot's "wicked uncle"...) Heh. Add another to my list of redlinks to work on...Ealdgyth - Talk 16:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found a good snippet about Wm of Ch: "Gilbert tried to encourage William to do good works, warning his uncle that when he died he would have to leave his castles behind him, but that his sins would follow him to heaven. It is not clear that the bishop's exhortations had any effect." (Jim Bradbury, Stephen and Matilda, Sutton Publishing, Stroud (Gloucestershire) 2005 p. 194)
    • "rhetoric" and "liberal arts" should each be linked.
fixed Ealdgyth - Talk 16:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "...heard an appeal from the Empress Matilda over Stephen's claim to the English throne." I presume her appeal was primarily on behalf of her own claim, and it might be clearer to say: "heard an appeal from the Empress Matilda over her claim to the English throne."
done Ealdgyth - Talk 16:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "over whether or not" - "or not" is implied in "whether", and should be deleted.
fixed Ealdgyth - Talk 16:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Foliot seems to have had some qualms about the validity of the marriage in 1139, but by 1143 or so he had been persuaded to the belief that Matilda was the legitimate heiress, and thus supporting the Angevin, or Matilda's, cause." Several issues here.
      • "1143 or so" - is "or so" really necessary?
nope. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • "he had been persuaded to the belief that" seems very wordy. "he had come to believe that"?
fixed Ealdgyth - Talk 16:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The end of the sentence doesn't make clear that the Angevin cause was Matilda's cause. The way it's worded, they could be alternatives - he was supporting one or the other. Needs rewording for clarity.
I'm not entirely happy with my wording but it's now "... and thus supporting the Angevin, another name for Matilda's, cause." Ealdgyth - Talk 16:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Linked to House of Plantagenet Ealdgyth - Talk 16:27, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abbot
    • "The appointment had been pushed through by Miles of Gloucester, the Earl of Hereford and a relative of Foliot's." The relationship has been mentioned previously, though not that Miles was Earl of Hereford. How about: "The appointment had been pushed through by Foliot's relative, Miles of Gloucester, who was now the Earl of Hereford.?
fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The line "although he seems to have been a supporter of Matilda previously" is a bit confusing since we have just read that "by 1143 or so he had been persuaded to the belief that Matilda was the legitimate heiress", which implies he thought differently before then. Was he simply chronically indecisive, or a fair-weather friend, a Vicar of Bray, or what?
I think I've fixed the problem with a copyedit to the previous section to make that sentence "... but before he wrote the letter in 1143, he had come to believe that Matilda was the legitimate heiress." which hopefully clarifies what I'm trying to get across. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry to keep niggling the point, but here we have him in 1141 as one of Matilda's leading supporters. I think it's that 1843 sentence that's the problem here.
see above. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What does "Gloucester abbey owed no military service" mean? Did abbeys generally have obligations to provide soldiers, etc? And how does this fact support Matthews's argument that Foliot was only a weak adherent to Matilda?
Most abbeys did in fact have to provide a feudal levy. Honestly? I don't buy Matthew's arguments, and they seem very .. confused me me. I've changed it to "... In support, Matthew points out that Gloucester Abbey owed no military service in a feudal levy, which allowed him to avoid choosing sides irrevokably." which is what I THINK he's getting at with this bit. The exact bit from the source is "Since his abbey owed no military service to the crown, he had no obligation to provide troops; after 1141 he witnessed only one of Matilda's charters and his presence at her court did not as such brand him as a supporter." Let me know if you think what' I've got matches enough with the source... (which is arguing a particualrly weak argument in my mind... but that's neither here nor there...) Ealdgyth - Talk 17:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "While abbot, and afterwards, he..." New paragraph, so "Foliot", not "he".
fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's it, for the moment, but more will surely follow. Brianboulton (talk) 22:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whoo! Done! Ealdgyth - Talk 17:01, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I will resume soon. Brianboulton (talk) 22:04, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing:-

  • Bishop of Hereford
    • Comma confusion: I'm not sure whether Robert de Bethune died at the Council of Reims, or whether Gilbert was appointed bishop at the Council, or both.
It's not known on what date Gilbert was nominated, so whether it took place at the council or after is unknown. I've added a note and clarified it a bit, I hope. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Give the year of Henry II's accession
done Ealdgyth - Talk 01:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "... although Foliot was a Cluniac monk, he was still a Benedictine and thus the cathedral chapter at Canterbury would have had no objections to him on that score." Can you clarify on what score the Canterbury chapter would have had no objection? Did they object to Cluniac monks but not Benedictines? That is the sense that follows from "although".
Changed to "Traditionally, the see of Canterbury had been held by a monk, at least since the replacement of Stigand by Lanfranc in 1070. Although Foliot was a Cluniac monk, they were still a subset of the Benedictine Order and thus the cathedral chapter at Canterbury, which was Benedictine but not Cluniac, would have had no objections to him on that score." which hopefully explains it a bit better?
    • Suggest the last words be changed from "wanted the office" to "desired it", thereby avoiding the "office" repetition.
Done. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bishop of London
    • Do we know the pope's response to Henry's request for Gilbert to be king's confessor?
As far as I know, it was approved. Let me dig. Nothing I can read (I have Foliot's letters, but they aren't translated from Latin so I can't be sure) says that the pope said no, so I'm guessing it was a go. Put in an explantory note that we just don't know for sure. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Beckett was unable to attend Foliot's enthronement" - a bit tantalising, that. Any reason known?
I have the original Latin letter, but I can't tell why. My guess is, it doesn't say, other than "I might not make it, if I don't, I'm sorry." The header on the letter in my edition says that becket said if he couldn't make it, some other bishops should act in his place, so my guess is the vagaries of travel or something. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Foliot supported Becket, however, in Becket's attempt to prevent the archbishop of York from having his archiepiscopal cross borne before Roger when he was in the province of Canterbury." Very confusing. Roger is (I think) the Archbishop of York, but the sentence reads like he was someone else entirely. Suggest: "Foliot supported Becket, however, in Becket's attempt to prevent the archbishop of York from having his archiepiscopal cross borne in procession before him, when he was in the province of Canterbury."
Sounds good. (I have a whole article on the Canterbury-York dispute... I need to keep adding to it. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No "the" required before Pope Alexander
In my defense, this section (on the marriage) wasn't added by me. (in fact, it was added by someone I suspect was the author of the article being cited, but since it's a peer reviewed journal, I've not had issues with it.) THe one concern I have is if it's a bit undue weight there, since we don't discuss any of the OTHER cases Foliot decided. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Conflict with Becket
    • The conflict in question is between King Henry and Becket. There is very little of Foliot in this section, though he is presumably one of the bishops that are mentioned from time to time en bloc. I wonder how much of this detail is relevant to an article in which Foliot, not the king or Becket, is the subject? I would seriously consider editing out much of this material, and refocussing on Foliot's role, such as it was, in the quarrel.
The problem is.. when it's NOT there, folks were unhappy that they didn't see the big picture. Suggestions are welcome on what to cut, but the conflict is very complex and convoluted, and there is a limit on how much simplification can take place before folks get lost. It's a fine balance between what is context to Foliot and what is too much. I'd rather err on the side of too much extra, because unfortunately, most folks nowadays don't learn much about Becket. (And the number of folks who have SEEN the film is probably even smaller... ) Ealdgyth - Talk 00:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Similarly, the image of Henry's tomb seems only tangentially relevant to an article about Foliot.
easy to cut. Will do. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Becket's exile
    • "Foliot replied back..." - "back" is unnecessary
duh. cut. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Foliot said further that the king said..." Clumsy. Perhaps: "Foliot wrote that the king had said Becket was free..." etc
Sounds better to me. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The contraction "he'd" should be written out in full
ARGH! Gah, I missed that at least three times... Ealdgyth - Talk 01:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "to not impose" → "not to impose"
done Ealdgyth - Talk 01:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "at London" → "in London"
done Ealdgyth - Talk 01:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "But, by the end of 1166, Foliot managed to resign his custody of the confiscated Canterbury benefices." I'm not sure why this is a "but" sentence. The wording seems strange - he "managed to resign"? Had he been trying to for some time? Some clarification needed.
Added a bit and took out the but. Basically, this was a fly in the ointment between Foliot and Becket, and Foliot hadn't wanted to have custody and had been trying to get free of the duty for a while. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Foliot was summoned to Normandy, also ruled by Henry II, in November 1167..." Phrasing is in the wrong sequence. Suggest: "In November 1167 Foliot was summoned to Normandy, also ruled by Henry II, ..." etc
Works for me. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "...on the subject of the Constitutions" - presumably, the Constitutions of Clarendon? Better say so, we need reminding.
Okies. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will finish off later Brianboulton (talk) 00:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Think I got all of that round. Feel free to do things like the "to not impose" and "in london" change yourself. I only get worried when things might truly change the meaning of the prose, copyedits like that are not going to bother me. (I'm not tied to my prose. Meaning, yes, prose, no.) Ealdgyth - Talk 01:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On the question of the Conflict with Becket section (see my comments above), I believe the title should be "King's conflict with Becket", since Foliot was at odds with Becket mainly as an agent of the king. As to how the section might be abbreviated, please see my tentative effort on User:Brianboulton/Sandbox2#Foliot/conflict section. My object is to indicate the nub of the quarrel between the king and Becket, and concentrate on Foliot's role in the subsequent stand-off. For you to consider. Brianboulton (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I"ve added a bit to that, that introduces the quarrel a bit better (which my section didn't do either.) How does that look? Ealdgyth - Talk 19:37, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The version in my sandbox looks good. I suggest three tiny amendments: 1) a paragraph break at "However, in January 1164..." - this will increase readability as big blocks of print are off-putting, 2) in the final sentence say "Foliot's delegation" rather than "the royal delegation", so we don't lose sight of him, and 3) a semicolon, not a comma, after "more success at the papal court" on the last line. Oh, and will you consider the suggested revised section title? Brianboulton (talk) 23:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Will do those changes and the title was fine. Sorry I didn't reply to it directly! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Went with "Henry's conflict with Becket" as a title. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good title. But...I've just noticed we now have two consecutive sentences beginning with "However..." (last of first para, first of second para. I am taking the liberty of removing the second of these. This does not affect the meaning. Brianboulton (talk) 01:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concluding: My comments on the last few sections:-

  • Death of Becket
    • "One possible reason for the excommunications was that the three ecclesiastics had electors from the various vacant bishoprics with them, and were escorting those electors to the king on the continent in order to reward a number of royal clerks with the long vacant bishoprics."
      • This sentence is based on a supposition, needs a reference.
It is referenced, the next reference (#85) which covers both sentences. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • They had electors "with them"? Seems an odd way of putting it.
See below. Because the electors never reached the king, I've got a bit of a sticky problem describing things. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Who is the "king on the continent"? I assume it's Henry, but it is ambiguous. And is "on the continent" necessary?
Yes, it's Henry. It's mainly important that he was on his continental possessions because it added one extra layer of bother on the situation, with messengers going around and around with problems. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • The sentence is wordy and needs simplifying.
So: "One possible reason for the excommunications was that the three ecclesiastics had brought electors from various vacant bishoprics to the king, in order to reward a number of royal clerks with the long-vacant bishoprics."
That, however, is not a correct statement. The electors were going to the king, but had not yet reached the king when Becket excommunicated the bishops (In fact they never reached the king because Becket got chopped to bits and all hell broke loose.)I'm not sure they ever reached the continent with the electors, but they never reached the king, that is sure. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • More confusion: "to go to the king in Normandy and appeal to Henry". Again, don't know if Normandy is significant; otherwise why not "...to appeal to the king"?
I changed it to "appeal to the king, who was in Normandy." It's important to try and make folks aware of how much traveling was involved in these things, and the fact that Henry was in Normandy while most of this stuff was playing out in england makes it clear that Henry wasn't totally in charge of things, that the distances worked against him. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Colloquial? "Up until 1163, Foliot and Becket seem to have gotten along well..." It sounds like informal speech; how does the source word it?
"... the two men seem, at least until 1163, to have been on excellent terms."
    • The second part of the sentence seems to be saying the same as the first, i.e. they got along well before 1i63 and after 1163 they didn't.
LOL. And what is wrong with the making it explicit that they didn't get along. The first source only says they got along until 1163. The second makes it explicit that Foliot didn't like Becket after that date. This is where this whole "lets pare stuff down to the bare minimum" drives me batty. What's basically meant is that they didn't just tolerate each other, but got on decently. Afterwards, they did not. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The sentiment was returned..." Who did the returning? Wasn't the falling-out mutual?
changed to "Becket returned the sentiment, and in 1167..." I think it was more Foliot got mad first, then later Becket got mad. It's hard to say because the sources are a bit muddled (You have that whole hagiography thing going with Becket, so a lot of our information on Becket traces to laudatory writings by his supporters after his death). Ealdgyth - Talk 23:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Becket's change of behavior after his election - meaning Becket's election as Archbishop?
Yes, clarified. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Foliot was mainly a force for moderation in the quarrel..." Now, you're back with Becket v. the king. This sentence should really start a fresh paragraph, and should include the additional words "between Becket and the king".
fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "His rhetoric..." Foliot's rhetoric?
clarified. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "...ridiculed by his opponents" Who does "his" refer to?
Foliots. Clarified to "Although Foliot's tactic of ad cautelam was ridiculed by his opponents..." Ealdgyth - Talk 23:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wonder if the last, brief paragraph is rightly placed in this section?
YOu mean the one about his nephew? I prefer to keep the bits about family and nepotism in the legacy sections, actually. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Writings
    • "by another person" reads oddly. Could you not say his letters were later collected into a book.
Added a bit and now reads "Foliot was well known as a letter writer, and his letters were later collected as a book. The main manuscript for this collection is now held by the Bodelian Library, and its modern editors argue that it originated in Foliot's own writing office." Ealdgyth - Talk 23:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Give a date for the CUP publication
Done Ealdgyth - Talk 23:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a thought. It seems that most of Foliot's legacy is represented by his writings, which leaves you nothing of significance to say in the final section. Perhaps combine the last two sections?
I'm more inclined to leave the writings alone and move the last three paragraphs of Death of Becket to the legacy. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And that, I believe, is my last word on the subject of Gilbert. Hope it all helps. Brianboulton (talk) 14:51, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Peer_review/Gilbert_Foliot/archive1&oldid=280616095"