# Talk:Hugh Bardulf

I think he was High Sheriff of Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and the Royal Forests as Derbys and Notts didnt have seperate sheriffs (I think) until 15C. Victuallers (talk) 15:33, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:43, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Hugh Bardulf/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: hamiltonstone (talk) 03:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
As usual, this article is neutral, stable, well written and referenced. Specific comments:

Under early life: "Hugh acquired land at Waddington,..." which Hugh? The father I assume - isn't the 1140s a little early to be acquiring land for someone who dies c. 1203?
No, it's the younger, according to Keats-Rohan. He was a elderly man when he died, and if he acquired the land as a teenager (or possibly younger) it's easily believable. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
"Bardulf was a royal justice almost annually". This passage may be too hard to explain more fully, but I thought I'd mention that my reaction to this was along the lines of 'huh? aren't judges are appointed permanently?'. That left me unsure what a royal justice was.
At this time, justices weren't appointed for life. They were sent out on rounds and each time a group was sent out ... the appointments were made again, and might or might not include those appointed before. I think Ironholds is planning on writing an article on royal justices in this time frame, and he's much better suited to the intricacies of the situation. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
"along with the Philip of Poitou..." - is that a surplus "the"?
fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
"when Bardulf was known to be dead" - I know what is meant, but it's an odd turn of phrase - any chance of expanding it slightly to something like "when records show Bardulf had died", or something? Not sure myself.
Changed to "when records show that Bardulf was known to be deceased." Ealdgyth - Talk 13:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
"He remained on such good terms with Hubert Walter, that when Walter..." and thereafter: I just didn't follow this. Maybe I wasn't reading the article carefully enough to that point, but this passage didn't make sense. To clarify: the written text is grammatically clear, I just didn't get the point. Why would one need to be on especially good terms, or why was this remarkable?
It's one of those "bon mots" that's known in the medieval history field, a phrase that's memorable. I've expanded a bit, and hopefully it is clearer that it was Bardulf teasing Walter. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:23, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Otherwise excellent. Will keep an eye out. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ealdgyth, all good. hamiltonstone (talk) 22:37, 13 August 2010 (UTC)