# Talk:Sibyl de Neufmarché

Should her name have an accented "e" - de Neufmarché...?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:14, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Many of the documents indeed list her as such. I wouldn't object to re-naming article to show the accented é.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
It would go with the "de". Makes sense. Daicaregos (talk) 08:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
What about the accented "e" as is shown in many documents: Neufmarché? Should the article's name be changed?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:32, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
It can easily be moved again - it would be consistent with the article on her father. Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
I believe we have consensus to move it.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:39, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
If only all WP decisions could be this easy!  (See Talk:Ed Miliband, if you must...)  Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Less people to please, I guess. It looks quite popular there. Daicaregos (talk) 09:20, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I have uploaded some relevant images to the article. Any suggestions or comments?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

What was wrong with the coat of arms? Daicaregos (talk) 09:21, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Should I replace the castle with it?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Try the family crest at the intro, top right (It is the family coat of arms, isn't it, not just Bernard's?). Then the castle where it was, in the family section, I reckon. Daicaregos (talk) 09:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
One of these images could be uploaded to Commons and used, if you prefer - but there's not much left to see there.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the castle close-ups are lovely. Can they be freely uploaded to Commons?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:45, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes - shall I upload this one?  Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)  Done. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:56, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Ghmyrtle, that looks great.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Copied from User talk:Daicaregos
Everything in the lead needs to be in the main text, and referenced. So to take the first sentence, for example: "Sibyl de Neufmarché, Countess of Hereford, Lady of Brecknock, Lady Abergavenny (c.1104 – after 1143), was a Cambro-Norman heiress, described as having been one of the wealthiest in south Wales."

Countess of Hereford is noted in 'The Anarchy' section, and (presumably) referenced by G. E. Cokayne. The Complete Peerage. So that's fine.
Her titles 'Lady of Brecknock' and 'Lady Abergavenny' are mentioned only in the lead (and probably not referenced).
Her dob is in the 'Family inheritance' section, but not referenced.
Her dod is noted in the 'Widowhood and death' section as not known. That's O.K.
That she was a Cambro-Norman heiress is a summary of part of the  'Family inheritance' section. But a reference describing her as Cambro-Norman would be good.
And lastly, who described her as “having been one of the wealthiest in south Wales”? Again, that should be in the text, and referenced.Phew! And that's just one sentence. After we bulk out the article by adding information to the main text from that given in the lead, we can look at the article again and see what the main points are, and summarise them. Daicaregos (talk) 18:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I have removed her DOB as it appears to have been arbitrarily assigned. I have seen DOBs 1093, 1096, 1100, etc. also given. I feel it more prudent to say her DOB was unknown. I think the points in the lead have now been added to the main body. What do you think?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
From MOS:DOB it looks as if a best guess should be given. It doesn't matter if someone's guessed at a date (we can say according to so&so she was born in … ) as long as they are a source. If it turns out we have to guess, perhaps we should work back from the date she married. How young/old were they at marriage? If, say, 17, the we could take 17 years off 1121 to arrive at 1104; giving (c. 1104 –after 1143). If we have sources giving dobs of 1093, 1096, 1100, I think we should say " ... was born between 1093 and 1100" in the body text providing each source, and give the dob in the lead as  (c. 1096 – after 1143) being the average. Do you have a source saying she was born in the castle? Who described her “as having been one of the wealthiest in south Wales”?Also, can you provide me with the URL for the pages you are using as references on 'The Complete Peerage” and I'll add references to the article. I've found the site, but can't find my way around it.  A URL (uniform resource locator) is a page's web address. You will find it at the top left of the screen. It begins with //http.www etc (for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Url). Each page will be unique, enabling each source to be verified by the reader. Thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 10:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
All the DOBs come from various self-published genealogy sites, so cannot be used. The only URL I can locate for the Complete Peerage is from the Peerage.com.Let me see if I can get the URL for that.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Here it is: www.thepeerage.com/p10257--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:22, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
That gave me the error massage '404 not found'. Can you copy the entire address (for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Url) and paste it her? Daicaregos (talk) 13:40, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
http://www.thepeerage.com/p10257.htm I hope this works. I still cannot locate the ref about her being then greatest  or wealthiest heiress. I'll keep looking.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:08, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
That link worked Jeanne, thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 15:09, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
It's most likely on the missing pages of the King Stephen book.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:21, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I got a little curious and had a look around to see if I could come up with anything for you. I came up with[1], which appears to say that she, as well as her brother, was illegitimate. A busy lot, weren't they! Jack forbes(talk) 15:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Good find Jack. Thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 15:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Henry, a clever and devious man wasn't he. I can imagine him twisting the mothers arm to say that her son was illegitimate to enable his own man to inherit the estates. Jack forbes (talk) 16:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually, Jennifer Ward opines on page 25 of her Women in England in the Middle Ages that King Henry pressurised the Neufmarches to disinherit Mahel by inventing that tale of adultery. If Nest had really cheated on Bernard, you think he'd have let her live to tell the tale?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:01, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Re the scurrilous stories of infidelity: history is written by the winners. In this case by Gerallt Cymro, Gerald of Wales. He was another Cambro-Norman. I don't know, (and haven't checked) but I'll bet he was related to Miles' side, rather than Bernard' side. I think all the theories should be included, and attributed, so the readers can make up their own minds.Daicaregos (talk) 18:02, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
The ref for Sibyl's dob (Ancestral roots of certain American colonists who came to America before … By Frederick Lewis Weis, Walter Lee Sheppard, David Faris) also has 177, which notes “Nesta, m Bernard de Neufmarche, d 1093 … Two questions: 1. I couldn't find a reference to Sibyl's dob, which page/line is it on? 2. Not sure if they are saying Nesta or Bernard died in 1093 (think it's Nesta) but either way it's unlikely Sibyl was born three years after the death of one of her parents. Thoughts?

Best remove her DOB entirely. As I said before I believe they are just shots in the dark. Cawley doesn't give a DOB which can only mean there are no primary sources which give one. We can always add a DOB once we find a source which pins one of them down. IMO, I go for the 1104 DOB. I think it highly unlikely that such a wealthy heiress would have remained unmarried until well into her mid or late 20s.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:31, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Further thoughts: Bernard's article has him dying around 1125. And Nest was around long enough to attest Mahel was a bastard, so something's wrong with the date. As I said earlier, MOS:BIO suggests we need to make an informed guess. I would be happy to go with date of marriage less 17. You?
Let's go with c.1104! I'll change it now.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:42, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I found a couple of sources that back up the 1093 death of Bernard. [2][3] Jack forbes (talk) 12:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
He couldn't have died in 1093 as Henry I's charter for Sibyl's marriage in 1121 has both Bernard and Nest alive and flourishing.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:17, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Oh in 1093 Bernard led the Norman forces against the Welsh at the Battle of Brecon which resulted in the death of Rhys Twdyr, hence the confusion. Bernard was not killed however.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:21, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
If only it had been the other way 'round. Still, that explains it. I've found a real, live reliable source for 'c. 1100'. I'll add it now. Daicaregos (talk) 12:26, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Who are these people writing those books? Here I am searching for info only to find they aren't doing their homework! :) Jack forbes (talk) 12:30, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
That's why we have to be careful about DOBs and DODs. Actually 1100 for Sibyl's DOB makes sense as I believe 21 was the age in which an heir reached his or her majority. An 1100 birth would make her 21 at the time of her marriage in spring 1121.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:34, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Dai, I notice the source you use for her date of birth also gives Bernards death year as 1093. Why on earth would the author not notice the discrepancy between his death and her birth?  Jack forbes (talk) 14:18, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
PS. I'm not saying that she wasn't born in 1100. I'm just curious as to know why so many authors have made the same mistake. Of course, Jeanne has already explained why they probably made that mistake, but so many? Perhaps there was a lot of copying from other work(s) that made the error. Jack forbes (talk) 14:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I'm sounding a little pedantic over this guys. Part of the intro reads "Sibyl passed most of these estates on to her husband,Miles de Gloucester, 1st Earl of Hereford following their marriage in the spring of 1121, which had been personally arranged by King Henry I of England." I may be reading it wrong, but to my eyes this sentence appears to saying that Miles took possesion of the estate immediately after marriage, which couldn't have been the case if Bernard were still alive, and I'm sure he was. Dai, if you want to cut and paste my comments over to the article talk page please do so. Your talk page is getting a little full on this subject, mainly due to me butting in :). Jack forbes (talk) 15:03, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Hardly butting in. Any way, some of it would have been dowry. Some of it inheritance. We may never know the composition of each tranche. What we do know is that on Bernard's death, the entire fortune became Milo's. I guess it should say that. Daicaregos (talk) 15:33, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Her dowry or marriage portion was extremely large. Even Bernard's tenants were made to swear fealty to Miles upon his marriage to Sibyl.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
That would explain the sentence then. Miles got his hands on most of it before old Bernard shuffled off then. Jack forbes (talk) 15:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Would you be able to clarify that in the article Jeanne? Daicaregos (talk) 15:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Dai, Woodward's 19th century version will have to be amended as it confuses the reader into thinking Bernard died before Mahel was didinherited which could not have been the case judging by the words in King Henry's charter.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Quite so. How about adding: However, Bernard was still alive when Henry arranged the marriage charter, the Bernard Bolingbroke Woodward version of the story does not correspond with the known facts. Daicaregos (talk) 15:53, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I added your suggestion. How does it look?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:57, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
Good. I just made some minor copy edit changes. If you know of any other theories, or versions, they should be added too.Daicaregos (talk) 17:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
I absolutely agree. That way the readers will be informed of the varying stories and then can make up their own minds as to the veracity of each particular theory or rumour.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Jack you are right, the sentence reads much better without mentioning the author. As you correctly pointed out, the ref cites her name. Looks much better this way.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:44, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

This is why a theory's author is usually named. Daicaregos (talk) 07:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
So should I mention Jennifer Ward in the sentence?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:21, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes. That it is her theory, not ours, should be noted - so it should be attributed to her. Although 'suggests' reads better than 'asserts'; it isn't so pushy. Daicaregos (talk) 07:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I've changed it to include Ward's name. You're right: suggest is more subtle and has less thrust than asserts which is a wee bit in your face.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:30, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I checked and discovered that armorial bearings were first used on the battlefield in the mid-12th century, so they would have been anachronistic to Sibyl as well as to her father. Therefore they cannot be in the article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:46, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I am curious as to why the arms were created posthumously for Bernard? I wonder if Sibyl's brother Mahel left descendants and they used the coat-of-arms?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Shall I add one?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Mission accomplished.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:41, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

I presume the language written in Henry's charter was Latin. We should confirm this and then add it to the article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

It appears from searching the Web that all of Henry's charters were in Latin. Cawley shows that Sibyl and Miles' Latin names were used.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:15, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Jeanne, do you know if there is a translation on the web of Henry's charter concerning the marriage of Sibyl and Miles? Jack forbes (talk) 12:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
There is indeed. I came across it the other day, but am having no luck in locating it again. Sometimes sites available one day have suddenly disappeared. It might be found in one of the sources given at the bottom of the article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:22, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Eureka! The charter is in Jennifer Ward's Women of the English nobility and gentry, p.26.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Jeanne. I was going through the sources one by one and still missed it. Do you think it would be a good idea to have a source for this sentence: "However, it is clear from the maritagiem (marriage charter), arranged by King Henry in 1121, that Bernard was still alive when it was written; showing Bernard Bolingbroke Woodward's version of the story to diverge from the known facts". I'm not certain Jennifer Ward's source exactly proves that Bernard was still alive, though I may be mistaken in that. I've proved already that I can read something incorrectly in a statement. Jack forbes (talk) 13:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
The wording in the charter proves he was still alive by the King saying that the properties were to be transferred after their (Bernard's and Nest's) deaths or  earlier during their lifetimes if they so wish.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:06, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Jack, your suggestion for adding a source at the end of that sentence is a good one. I have just added Ward's.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
Jeanne, you're going to want to strangle me now. lol. When I look at the source I can't see any wording from the King concerning the transfer of the estates after Bernard's and Nest's death, etc. I'm certain like you that he was still alive but I can't see it in this particular source. Jack forbes (talk) 13:19, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
You'll need to read the charter in its entirety. Do a Google search with these keys words and it'll come up: Henry I maritagieum Sibyl.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:25, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
This is the reference. It's also a cite for the sentence: "However, it is clear from the maritagiem (marriage charter), arranged by King Henry in 1121, that Bernard was still alive when it was written; showing Bernard Bolingbroke Woodward's version of the story to diverge from the known facts". The charter says:   "Know that I [King Henry I]  have given and firmly granted to Miles of Gloucester Sibyl, daughter of Bernard de Neufmarché, together with all the lands of Bernard her father and of her mother after their deaths … ". The last words “after their deaths … " imply that neither parent is dead at the time the charter was written. According to his article, Bernard de Neufmarché  died in 1125. Daicaregos (talk) 13:43, 31 October 2010 (UTC)The maritagiem goes on to say: "And all the tenants of the whole land of Bernard should similarly do him liege homage as their lord, saving fealy to me and to Bernard for as long as he wishes to hold the land." He is certainly still alive when this was written. Daicaregos (talk) 13:59, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
A charter written by Henry I in 1121 carries more weight than a piece written in the 19th century. I think it's been confirmed that Bernard did not die in 1093 and was definitely alive in 1121. His death most likely occurred in 1125 or shortly afterward.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
This is all my fault guys. I should have clicked on to the main text of the source and didn't. Sorry for all the wasted words on this when other things could have been done. A lesson learned for me I reckon. Jack forbes (talk) 15:37, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

No problem. It's what this talk page is for.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:40, 31 October 2010 (UTC)
No worries. Daicaregos (talk) 16:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Sybyl was styled Coutess of Hereford until Miles death. She was also titled Lady Abergavenny and Lady Brecknock. Did she retain these two titles or lose them also? Jack forbes (talk) 13:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

She retained them. Countess was of higher rank than Lady so would have taken precedence over the others.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
So she entered religious life retaining two of her titles. Thanks, Jeanne. I'd rather not jump in but maybe a mention of that in the section concerning Miles death and her loss of the title Countess of Hereford? Jack forbes (talk) 14:25, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
Wait a minute. Her title Lady of Brecknock was one she held suo jure, but Lady Abergavenny was her husband's title. Her daughter-in-law Cecily FitzJohn would have become the new Lady Abergavenny as well as Countess of Hereford when Miles died in 1143. As we don't know Sibyl's date of death, we cannot be sure which of her sons succeeded to the Brecknock title. They would have used Lord of Brecknock as a courtesy title, even during Sibyl's lifetime seeing as the Brecknock honour was granted to Miles.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:38, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Would you normally expect to see a couple's children noted in chronological order? If so, this source (p 2) places the order as: Margaret, Roger, Walter, Henry, Mabel, Bertha, Lucy. They confirm that Margaret de Bohun was the eldest child, are unsure of the position of the other daughters and note that William is only mentioned by Giraldus Cambrensis. Does this information agree with your sources? Daicaregos (talk) 14:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

When birth order is not firmly established (as in the case of royal offspring), it's probably safer to put the males before the females. As for William, Cawley does not list him. For a GA article we should note that William is a possible child according to Gerald. I'll get onto it now.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
OK, Thanks Daicaregos (talk) 15:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Actually Cawley does list William as their child so I replaced him. There are eight children in all according to Cawley: Five sons, three daughters.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I believe the children's birth order has been established therefore I moved Margaret to the top of the list.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I am curious as to the choice of name for their firstborn child and daughter. Margaret was obviously named after Saint Margaret the Virgin, as Miles' mother was Bertha after whom their second daughter was named. I cannot put this into the article as its OR on my part. I was merely curious as to where Margaret came from as Sibyl's family  show no such name nor does Miles'.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:04, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

According to Charles Cawley, Eleanor de Braose married the son of the 2nd Earl of Hereford, not his grandson. Her son succeeded as the 3rd Earl of Hereford. An intersting fact is that while the de Braoses eased to be a power, the de Bohuns rose to become the most powerful family in western England, with several de Bohuns marrying members of the English Royal Family.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Oops. You're quite right. Would you like to make to amendments. I can't seem to get my head around Cawley. Daicaregos (talk) 12:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I'm used to his method by now. I'll fix it ASAP. A pity medieval parents weren't more creative when it came to naming their offspring! A Richard, John or William would not have gone amiss in the de Bohun family.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:32, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Yep, not a very imaginative bunch, were they? I think I really confused myself. It currently says: “Eleanor, a descendant of Sibyl's through Bertha of Hereford, married Humphrey de Bohun, son of the 2nd Earl of Hereford. Humphrey succeeded his grandfather (also named Humphrey de Bohun, as was his father) to the titles in 1275.” I think it should say something like: “Eleanor, a descendant of Sibyl's through Bertha of Hereford, married Humphrey de Bohun, son of the 2nd Earl of Hereford. Eleanor and Humphrey's son, Humphrey de Bohun, succeeded his grandfather (also named Humphrey de Bohun, as was his father) to the titles in 1275.” I just noticed though, in the Humphrey de Bohun, 3rd Earl of Hereford article that it says: “Humphrey technically regained his lordship from Clare in 1270, but by this time these lands had effectively been taken over by the Welsh prince Llywelyn ap Gruffudd, who had taken advantage of the previous decade's political chaos in England to extend his territory into the Marches.” Does this mean title to the Lordship of Brecon effectively died out for the de Bohuns? Daicaregos (talk) 12:53, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
According to Cawley, the succeeding generations of de Bohuns styled themselves as Lord of Brecknock until William de Bohun, 1st Earl of Northampton, who does not have Lord of Brecknock listed among his titles. His father Humphrey de Bohun, 4th Earl of Hereford used the title, but after Llywelyn assumed control in the Marches, the title was likely an empty one anyway.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
What do you think of the suggested change: “Eleanor, a descendant of Sibyl's through Bertha of Hereford, married Humphrey de Bohun, son of the 2nd Earl of Hereford. Eleanor and Humphrey's son, Humphrey de Bohun, succeeded his grandfather (also named Humphrey de Bohun, as was his father) to the titles in 1275.” ? Any clearer? Actually I think the note in parentheses "(also named Humphrey de Bohun, as was his father)" makes it even less clear. Thoughts? Daicaregos (talk) 15:54, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
There's no need to add Humphrey de Bohun in parentheses as we've already explained that Eleanor married, Humphrey de Bohun, the son of the 2nd Earl of Hereford. The article should then say that her son, Humphrey succeeded his grandfather as the 3rd Earl of Hereford in 1275. What do you think?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
It was more the wikilinks that looked a bit odd. I'll make the changes (removing the parentheses). Let me know if you disagree. Daicaregos (talk) 17:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

What you have listed as "Harper-Bill, Christopher (2003). Anglo-Norman Studies 21: Proceedings of the Battle Conference 1998. London: Boydell & Brewer. pp. 42–43. ISBN 0 8511 5745 0. Retrieved 22 October 2010. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: checksum (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)" is actually Davies, John Reuben (2003). "The Book of Llandaf: A Twelfth Century Perspective". In Harper-Bill, Christopher (ed.). Anglo-Norman Studies 21: Proceedings of the Battle Conference 1998. London: Boydell & Brewer. pp. 42–43. ISBN 0 8511 5745 0. Retrieved 22 October 2010. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Check |isbn= value: checksum (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= (help) Ealdgyth - Talk 16:13, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 Done John Reuben Davies attributed for his work. Daicaregos (talk) 17:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
This http://www.castles99.ukprint.com/Essays/lhereford.html source isn't a very reliable source. (It's also not formatted with a publisher or an accessdate which it should have for GA status). Ealdgyth - Talk 16:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Should I remove it from the article?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:12, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 Done I've gone ahead and removed it from the article as the author is self-published and he does not give sources for his information.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:28, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
By the way, don't take the above as criticism... the article is very nice! Ealdgyth - Talk 17:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I respect your opinion as I've seen the good work you do here at Wikipedia.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
None taken. Any constructive criticism is welcome. It can only lead to improvements in the article - which is the idea after all. I think Jeanne and I had just about exhausted our ideas, and had taken it about as far as we could (excepting images/maritagium text). So if you have any ideas, but without the time to implement them yourself, please feel free. Daicaregos (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
One thing I did with Urse was to put in a "sources" section, in order to lay out just how little we do know about him. That might be the only thing I'd change, as well as a bit more on her descendents, the fact that her daughters married into a number of important noble families is worth noting, I'd think. No need to go overboard on every descendent, but broad "families" might be helpful. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:55, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Walker, David (1990). Medieval Wales. Cambridge Medieval Textbooks. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. p. 41. ISBN 0-521-31153-5. says "His family [Walter of Gloucester, Miles' father] was enriched in 1121 when Henry I gave the heiress of Bernard of Neufmarche to Walter's son Miles of Gloucester, with all her father's possessions. That included the lordship of Brecknock." Ealdgyth - Talk 18:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Davies, R. R. (1992). The Age of Conquest: Wales, 1063–1415. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 41. ISBN 0-19-820198-2. says "Marriage was another perogative of the feudal overlord and Henry I used it to good advantage to enrich his own dependants and create his own Marcher baronage. [omitted bit about FitzHamo]; Sibyl, daughter of Bernard of Neufmarche and heiress of the vast lordship of Brecon, was given in marriage, by Henry and during her parents' lifetime, to one of the king's "new men", Miles of Gloucester; [omit bit on Payn fitz John]."  Ealdgyth - Talk 18:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I added a paragraph about Sibyl's notable descendants. I listed a few of the royal ones as well as some of the noble families. How does it look?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Urf, disagreement here... Green, Judith A. (2006). Henry I: King of England and Duke of Normandy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 174. ISBN 978-0-521-59131-7. says of Miles "His bride was the daughter of Bernard of Neufmarche, lord of Brecknock, who is 1121 resigned his lands into the king's hands, whereupon Henry granted them to Miles, confirming the grant by charter." Green cites this to the Round version of the charter, so obviously it's not been reprinted ... Ealdgyth - Talk 18:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Sanders, I. J. (1960). English Baronies: A Study of Their Origin and Descent 1086–1327. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press. pp. 6–7. OCLC 931660. says (in bits and pieces) "Bernard de Newmarch conquered the ancient Welsh realm of Brychan of which Talgarth was the capital. Thence he occupied Brycheiniog of which he made Brecon the head. He died 1125, when his heir was his daughter Sybil." and "Sybil, m. in 1121 Miles son of Walter of Gloucester, d. 1129. The estates of the husband and wife were joined to form one honour. Furthermore, circa 1140-1, Queen Maud granted to Miles the castle of St Briavels and the Forest of Dean and created him Earl of Hereford. In the same or in the following year, Brian fitz Count was aloowed to enfeoff Miles with the castle and honour of Abergavenny for the service of 3 knights' fees. This holding became a permanent possession of Miles' heirs as Brian fitz count d.s.p. ante 1154. Thus Miles of Gloucester had acquired from his wife an estate consisting of Talgarth, the castellany of Hay, the forest of Ystradwy which was in hte district o Crickhowell, the lordship of Brecon. To this he added his father's lands in Gloucestershire and the Forest of Dean, St Briavels castles, the castle and honour of Abergavenny which came from the grants of Queen Maud. Miles d. 1143 leaving Roger, s. and h., d.s.p. 1155. Walter br. and h., was followed by his brother Henry who was followed by his brother Mahel. The dates of the death of these brothers is not known, but the estate had passed from their hands in 1166. The heirs were their sisters Margaret, Bertha and Lucy." Ealdgyth - Talk 18:33, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I have checked; Henry VII was not her descendant; however, his son Henry VIII was through his mother, Elizabeth of York. I don't think it's necessary to mention the European royal families who are, by dint of descent from Mary, Queen of Scots (Elizabeth of York's great-granddaughter), Sibyl's descendants as well. Thoughts?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't hurt to mention it. Though I would miss out the part about them being a bunch of in-breds. However, the section could do with some sources. Daicaregos (talk) 10:23, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Do you have a URL for the Cawley ref? I'll expand it to a Wiki citation. Daicaregos (talk) 11:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes. http://www.fmg.ac/Project/MedLands/ENGLAND,%20Kings%201066-1603.htmI hope I got this right!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Didn't work for me. Try clicking on it. Did you copy & paste from the web address a the top of the page? Daicaregos (talk) 14:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I copied it from the top of the page.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
What is the page title? I'll google it (other web browsers are available). Daicaregos (talk) 14:41, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
England, Kings, 1066-1603--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:50, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Got it: http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/ENGLAND,%20Kings%201066-1603.htm. It's easier to 'right click' copy, then 'right click' paste, than to copy it down. Thanks. Daicaregos (talk) 14:57, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
Voila! I checked it out. It does work. Thanks, Dai.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
No worries. Daicaregos (talk) 18:01, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

From Sibyl's legacy: "The Brecknock lordship would eventually go to the de Bohuns, by way of Eleanor de Braose. Eleanor, a descendant of Sibyl's through Bertha of Hereford, married Humphrey de Bohun, son of the 2nd Earl of Hereford." How is Eleanor de Braose descended from Sibyl? Daicaregos (talk) 10:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Sibyl's second daugher, Bertha of Hereford married William de Braose, 3rd Lord of Bramber. William, their son became the 4th Lord of Bramber and the husband of the legendary Maud de Braose. Together the 4th Lord of Bramber and Maud had a son Reginald de Braose, who in turn had a son William de Braose who was hanged by Llewelyn the Great for allegedly having an affair with his wife, Joan. William had four daughters: Isabella, Maud, Eleanor de Braose, and Eva. The eldest married Welsh royalty, Maud married into the Mortimer family, Eleanor was the third, who married Humphrey de Bohun, and the youngest was Eva who married into the de Cantelou family.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
So it goes: Sibyl; Sibyl's daughter, Bertha of Hereford; Sibyl's grandson (William de Braose, 4th Lord of Bramber); Sibyl's great grandson (Reginald de Braose); Sibyl's great great grandson (William de Braose);  Sibyl's great great great granddaughter (Eleanor de Braose)?Have I read this right then? Margaret's son (and Sibyl's grandson) Humphrey II de Bohun married Sibyl's great great great granddaughter Eleanor de Braose. Daicaregos (talk) 11:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
The part about Eleanor de Braose is Correct; however, it was Sibyl's great-great-great-grandosn who married Eleanor.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:38, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if we could discover how her surname was pronounced, then add it to the article in the lead?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

"Walter died in the Holy Land"
The term "Holy Land" is often regarded as POV. Maybe consideration should be given to using the term "the Levant" which is a non-contentious description of the same region often used in books on medieval topics. Doug (talk) 23:58, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Why is it POV? Muslims, Jews and Christians all happen to regard the region in question as sacred, hence the description Holy Land.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
As an atheist, it isn't holy to me. Nor would it be to the followers of non-Mediterranean religions worldwide. The expression itself, however, doesn't bother or offend me at all. And I know where is meant by it. On the other hand, until just now I had not heard of "the Levant" (although in the context of the crusade I would have made an reasonable guess). The most important point, however, is that the statement is unsourced. My view is that unless a source is found, the statement should be removed. If a source is found, the location of his death should follow the source. Daicaregos (talk) 15:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
OK I'll hunt down a source, and if I cannot find one we'll zap it from the article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:46, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Bingo! Cawley says he died in Palestine after Michaelmas 1159. Notice that he says Palestine so I have since switched Holy Land to the more specific Palestine!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Upon another perusal of the source, Cawley says he left for Palestine at Michaelmas 1159, dying soon after. Not that he died in Palestine. He could have died anywhere en route, especially seeing as it took a long time to travel from England to the Levant.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

"Matilda also granted Miles the title Lord Abergavenny, making Sibyl Lady Abergavenny"
The source given (Keats-Rohan) states in her article (p16) that Brien fitzCount granted Abergavenny to Miles, not Matilda.
Doug (talk) 18:17, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The name Brian does indeed ring a bell. Let me check it out.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Doug for pointing out the error. Brien did indeed give Abergavenny to Miles.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
The article has been changed to show this. I  cannot get the ref to show page 16, however. It just says p.14.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:11, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

When I first came to this article a few days ago, I was considering starting the GA review process. I have since decided that there are two major problems with it.
Firstly the article cannot yet be regarded as stable. With over 500 revisions in the last month it must be regarded as still a work in progress so the application is premature.
An even greater problem is the question of whether Sibyl is notable enough to justify the article at all. Wikipedia's standard of notability  usually means that the subject must have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. It is hard to find this coverage of Sibyl.
I have searched through the article for facts about Sibyl. All I came up with was:

1. Sibyl inherited the titles and lands of her father,
2. Sibyl entered a religious life at Llanthony Secunda Priory, Gloucestershire, England, which she had endowed up to six years previously.
3. Sibyl is buried at the priory,
4. Sibyl was born in about 1100 in Brecon Castle,
5. Sometime in April or May 1121, Sibyl married Miles (or Milo) FitzWalter de Gloucester
The rest of the article is about her father, her husband or a background to the history of the period. It is a very interesting essay but not really an encyclopedia piece about Sibyl de Neufmarché.   Most of the work would make a good article entitled Miles of Gloucester. (He only has a very brief article at present yet he is a distincfly notable character written about in many secondary sources!)
GA criteria demand that “It keeps focused on the topic” and I would expect it to fail on this.

Doug (talk) 13:13, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
One of the keys to her notability is the fact that she succeeded in place of her brother, who was disinherited to make way for her to inherit a vast section of territory crucial to King Henry's southern Welsh policy. It was likely the first time in English history after the Norman Conquest that a brother was passed over in favour of a sister. The Brecknock holdings were enormous and strategically important. Sibyl was not your ordinary, run-of-the-mill medieval heiress.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
I have no doubt that the subject is notable. It is certainly problematic that there are so  few contemporaneous sources discussing Sibyl, but numerous historians note her and, clearly, they consider her notable enough to include her in their work. It is not unusual for historical subjects to have similar sourcing problems, but that hasn't prevented them from being promoted to WP:GA or even WP:FA, Urse d'Abetot for example. In my opinion context is vitally important. Having re-read the article I failed to find anything mentioned that would not have had a direct effect on the subject personally. The argument that an article is unstable because it has been improved recently is surely one that would effect 99% of articles nominated. Should anyone decide to improve other articles (including Miles de Gloucester) I am unaware of anything preventing that from happenning. My understanding of 'stability' is that there are no current edit wars, or unresolved issues, neither problem applies to this article. Daicaregos (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
The point about stability is that it's not really possible to review an article which is changing at the rate that this one is.
Regarding notability - Yes. She's of imterest to me because I'm particularly interested in that period and that group of families. However the Wikepedia criterion is the significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. You must see that the article is really about Bernard and Miles and events concerning them. If the relevant paragraphs were transferred to their articles where they are clearly relevant would it be right to duplicate them on a page about Sybil? It would seem preferable to me that a short article about Sibyl would refer to more expanded ones about Bernard and Miles. - Doug (talk) 14:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Doug, as regards stability: when you drew our attention to errors within the article, I was compelled to make the necessary corrections, but I do not see the article as changing at an alarming rate. Could you please elaborate on this?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Doug, I have just checked its edit history. Prior to your edit on 21 November, the article had not been edited once since 10 November. How is this then changing at an alarming rate?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:50, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
As mentioned previously, there is nothing stopping you from expanding other articles. But they are not relevant to this one.Have you read WP:Notability? WP:BASIC says: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Sibyl de Neufmarché at least meets the basic notability criteria. Please link to where it says the Wikepedia criterion is the significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, which I assume you didn't just make up yourself. Thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 15:49, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
There are many instances at Wikiepdia where the wives have lengthier and better-detailed articles than their spouses. Anne Boleyn is one example. Her article is GA class, whereas Henry VIII needs a lot of work to even approach the quality of the former.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Dai, On the page Wikepedia, under Rules and laws governing content you will find “A topic should also meet Wikipedia's standards of "notability", which usually means that it must have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources”. But note that I am not suggesting that Sybil is not notable enough for an article. I am suggesting that the article is out of proportion to her notability,  and does not meet the GA criterion demand that “It keeps focused on the topic”.
Jeanne,    " changing at an alarming rate " - where did that come from? Not me.  But more than 500 revisions in the past month is fairly unstable despite a ten day gap. That would just mean leaving the review on hold for a bit to see if it stays stable.
But the point about notability is more serious. I agree that there is nothing wrong with a wife’s article being more developed than her husband’s. The example of Ann Boleyn is a good case in point. But the article is about her – not about Henry. The same is not true of the Sibyl article.  Examine the paragraph named “Anarchy”. Mentions of Miles = 20. Mentions of Sibyl  = 5.  I realise that you and Dai would feel mighty upset if someone copied huge chunks of the Sibyl article into the Miles de Gloucester article and others to the Bernard de Neufmarché article. And then they might delete it from Sibyl's page since the references to Miles and Bernard would be enough. That would leave a brief article which might be what Sibyl merits. You might feel upset at your work disappearing but the end result on Wikepedia would be an improvement. All that writing about Miles and Bernard in their articles would be a good addition. This could happen by good-faith editing at any time. Could you justify a reversion?
I congratulate you on the good work you have done but I will bow out of this thread now and just leave you with my thoughts to consider cooly over a period of time. Why not invite comment from some other members of the WikiProject Biography or WikiProject Wales? Then you could test a consensus view.  - Doug (talk) 17:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. WP:GNG defines "Significant coverage". It: "means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." The sources do address the subject directly in detail. There is no original research. And there is more than a trivial mention of the subject of this article in those sources. Several points have been made above that have been ignored. I will reiterate them:
Numerous historians note her and, clearly, they consider her notable enough to include her in their work.
It is not unusual for historical subjects to have similar sourcing problems, but that hasn't prevented them from being promoted to WP:GA or even WP:FA, Urse d'Abetot for example.
Context is vitally important. Having re-read the article I failed to find anything mentioned that would not have had a direct effect on the subject personally.
The argument that an article is unstable because it has been improved recently is surely one that would effect 99% of articles nominated. My understanding of 'stability' is that there are no current edit wars, or unresolved issues, neither problem applies to this article.
I would welcome your response to these points. Daicaregos (talk) 18:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations to Jeanne and Dai for getting this interesting article to a state worthy of GA status. Doug (at Wiki) 17:34, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Thanks. Daicaregos (talk) 19:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

There are quite a few tags in the references section. Could one of the regular editors hae a look into fixing them. AIRcorn (talk) 10:47, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

At the time myself and another editor worked our collective backsides off to get this article up to GA Class, the sources which we provided passed muster. They were only tagged recently after another editor decided they weren't "reliable".--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
November 2010 is not really recent. However, if they are reliable then just remove the tags. I must admit that The Foundtion for Medieval Genealogy does not look the best when looking at the linked page. Found this Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 77#Foundations - Journal of the Foundation for Medieval Genealogy, which is the closest to a discussion on it. AIRcorn (talk) 08:27, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
As I said before they were deemed reliable at the time we worked weeks flat out getting this article up to GA. I suppose a lot can change in two yeras time.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
I do not see any mention of this site specifically at the review and it is possible that the reviewer did not give them much notice. Either way they have been brought up now. I have started a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#The Foundtion for Medieval Genealogy so we can sort it out. Worst case scenario we look for better sources. AIRcorn (talk) 10:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
The claim that there have been tags on this article since November 2010 asking for more reliable sources regarding websites run by Charles Cawley does not appear to be supported by the article's history and they were not there when I assessed the article in December 2010. The tags seem to have been added in this edit on 27th August 2012. Pyrotec (talk) 21:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm. If you hold the mouse over the tags it says from November 2010 and it is listed in Category:Wikipedia articles needing factual verification from November 2010, but you are right looking at the article in December 2010 there are no tags. The tags were added in the next diff and say August 2012. Something has gone wrong, I will investigate further. AIRcorn (talk) 23:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Okay the problem is that the tag is added using the {{Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley}} template and the person adding it backdated it to when the source was added. I left a note asking them to stop doing this there. I will strike references to November 210 as that is clearly wrong, sorry about that. AIRcorn (talk) 23:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)


### going through the examples
Copied from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 135#The Foundation for Medieval Genealogy. AIRcorn (talk) 01:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
Maybe this should be copied to the article talk page, but for more general interest here are some notes about the 7 uses of this source on the article mentioned:-
1. Note b says that Richard Fitz Pons was brother-in-law of Miles FitzWalter de Gloucester, being the husband of his sister, Matilda. It references Charles Cawley, Medieval Lands, English earls 1067-112. But the English earls link is not included and is here: http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/ENGLISH%20NOBILITY%20MEDIEVAL.htm#_Toc321390470 . Note that specifically it is in the section concerning the Earls of Hereford. The relevant passage about Mathilda gives as its source 

Ancient Charters (Round), Part I, pp. 21-2, citing Cotton Charter, XI, 60, and Regesta Regem Anglo-Normannorum (1956), Vol. II, Appendix, CXXXIV, p. 341.
2. Footnote 15 refers to the same Cawley URL and is actually a footnote for 5 places in the article. 
The sentences in our article which link to this:-

(1.) "the outcome of Nest's declaration was that Sibyl (whom Nest acknowledged as Bernard's child) became the sole lawful heiress to the vast lordship of Brecon, one of the most important and substantial fiefs in the Welsh Marches"
(2.) "Henry's maritagium referred specifically to Sibyl's parents' lands as "comprising Talgarth, the forest of Ystradwy, the castle of Hay, the whole land of Brecknock, up to the boundaries of the land of Richard Fitz Pons,[b] namely up to Brecon and Much Cowarne, a vill in England"; the fees and services of several named individuals were also granted as part of the dowry."
(3.) Sometime in April or May 1121, Sibyl married Miles (or Milo) FitzWalter de Gloucester, Sheriff of Gloucester and Constable of England.
(4.) The listing of Sibyl's 8 children. This listing also shows other sourcing for the first 3 children and 7 of these children have their own WP articles.
(5.) In about 1136, Stephen granted Sibyl's husband the entire honour of Gloucester and Brecknock; afterward appointing him Constable of England, whereby Miles became known as one of Stephen's "henchmen".
The first three above are about Sybil's inheritance and marriage. Cawley cites these sources for this:

Dugdale Monasticon III, Brecknock Priory I, Quædam de Loco, et Dominis eius Historica, p. 263.
Dugdale Monasticon IV, Priory of Bergavenny or Abergavenny in Monmouthshire, Cartæ I, p. 615.
Ancient Charters (Round), Part I, 6, p. 8.
Dugdale Monasticon VI, Lanthony Abbey, Gloucestershire, III, p. 136.
Collectanea Topographica et Genealogica, Vol. I (1834), XX, p. 168.
These same sentences are also already backed up in our article by two other sources, currently 13, 14 and 16. These back up Cawley but Cawley gives a reader a more complete list of primary sources. I think that is something we do not want to delete.

Ward, Jennifer C (2006). Women in England in the Middle Ages. London: Continuum International Publishing Group. pp. 26–27. ISBN 1-85285-346-4. Retrieved 25 October 2010. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: checksum (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
Ward, Jennifer C (2006). Women in England in the Middle Ages. London: Continuum International Publishing Group. p. 25. ISBN 1-85285-346-4. Retrieved 25 October 2010. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: checksum (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
Foliot, Gilbert (1965). Gilbert Foliot and His Letters. London: Cambridge University Press. p. 37. Retrieved 28 October 2010. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
Concerning the listing of children, 2 have other sources already attached in order to back Cawley up, (footnote 26 cites Cawley again, see below 3.) and 7 have their own Wikipedia article. NOTE: I am not going to list all the dozens of sources given for these children, just for practical reasons. There are all here: http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/ENGLISH%20NOBILITY%20MEDIEVAL.htm#_Toc321390470 
The last use of footnote 15 is also backed up by another source already, although once again Cawley gives a much more complete biography of the true sources. NOTE: but I see no source for the word "henchmen".

Matthew, Donald (2002). King Stephen. London: Continuum International Publishing Group. p. 96. ISBN 1-85285-272-0. Retrieved 22 October 2010. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
3. Footnote 26 is an incompletely finished reference to Cawley, but in a section (the listing of children) which already cites him. It appears to be intended to be a citation for "Walter [of Hereford, so on Sybil] departed for Palestine on Michaelmas 1159,[26] and died shortly afterwards without leaving legitimate issue.". Cawley gives a citation for this to Keats-Rohan Domesday Descendants, p. 512. Keats-Rohan is probably the strongest source we could ask for in modern academic medieval genealogy. But the bigger listing of information by Cawley adds a lot of colour not yet reflected in our article.
4. Footnote 32. Used to source "Sometime after 1137, Sibyl, together with her husband, made a further endowment to Llanthony Secunda." It cites Wales Lords of Brecknock, October 2010 {{citation}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help); Unknown parameter |title-date= ignored (help). Cawley in turn cites 

Dugdale Monasticon VI, Lanthony Abbey, Gloucestershire, III, p. 136.
But once again Cawley gives interested readers a lot more information and other sources.
5. Footnote 34. Used to source "Matilda [the Empress] gave her permission for the transfer" of "the honour of Abergavenny from Brien FitzCount, the (likely illegitimate) son of Duke Alan IV of Brittany". The URL should be added, which would be http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/BRITTANY.htm#_Toc284059583 . However I do not immediately see the right information there. Perhaps better is the Hereford URL again where Cawley gives the following sources:

CP VI 453. (Concerning Mathilda's grant to Miles.)
CP I 20. But Cawley notes of this source that "it is said that the relationship between Brien FitzCount, or his wife, and Earl Miles (if any) has not been proved."
Note that according to Cawley's Bibliography, CP stands for 

The Complete Peerage (Cokayne, G. E. revised and edited White, G. H. (1959) The Complete Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom, extant, extinct and dormant by G. E. C, revised edition 1910-59, Vols. I to XIII (microprint edition, Alan Sutton, 1982)
6. Footnote 41. Used to source "Eleanor and Humphrey's son, Humphrey de Bohun, succeeded his grandfather to the titles in 1275" This Humphrey has his own Wikipedia article with its own sourcing. The URL given is http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/ENGLISH%20NOBILITY%20MEDIEVAL.htm#HumphreyBohunHereforddied1298A. What Cawley supplies here is a record that Humphrey was indeed heir to these titles in 1266/67, but apparently he was too young to take up the titles at that time. Reference he gives is a primary document:

Inquisitions Post Mortem, Vol. I, Henry III, 654, p. 205.
I would suggest looking to Humphrey's own article for a source for 1275, but I see no big reason to remove reference to the further information in Cawley. 
7. Footnote 42. Used to source "By way of Edward's daughter, Elizabeth of York, every monarch of England and, subsequently, the United Kingdom, from Henry VIII up to and including Elizabeth II, descended in a direct line from Sibyl de Neufmarché, as did the various royal sovereigns of Europe who shared a common descent from Mary, Queen of Scots." The URL given is http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/ENGLAND,%20Kings%201066-1603.htm
Maybe a more exact URL would be http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/ENGLAND,%20Kings%201066-1603.htm#_Toc321390528
The basic point being made here is about Elizabeth of York, a member of the royal family. Elizabeth married Henry VII of England, the founder of the Tudor dynasty. Often such information is not even sourced, because it is widely known, uncontroversial, and easy to check if anyone has a concern.
Overall the sourcing seems good. Simple improvements should be made, but deleting a source which gives readers more leads would not seem to be a way of improving WP?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

I have just added two sources used by Cawley per request.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:09, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

There have now been four conversations at WP:RSN about FMG/Charles Cawley that I know of:

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 77#Foundations - Journal of the Foundation for Medieval Genealogy (September 2010)
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 115#Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley (February 2012)
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 131#Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley (2) ( August/September 2012)
Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 135#The Foundation for Medieval Genealogy (October-November 2012)
I was involved in conversations 2 and 3 and in my opinion the consensus is that Charles Cawley is not a reliable source. I ran AWB over hundreds of articles which cite his pages and most of them simply cite one of his pages with a general reference or sometimes an inline citation. None of these are laid out in such a way that they meet Wikipedia reliable sources (See for example three of the biography pages of descendants of Sibyl linked to this article (Walter de Hereford and  [Bertha of Hereford and Eleanor de Briouse). 
Bad citation style like this can be fixed by citing Cawley and then citing his sources WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT. If he cites a secondary source (then eventually an editor can read that secondary sources, verify the information and remove the Cawley source.
Problems arise though when Cawley cites a primary source, as we are taking his word on the interpretation and linkage. Just because a man called John Smith married Mary Taylor which is recorded in a parish register does not necessaries mean that it is the John Smith about whom we are writing and Cawley has provide a link. This is a fairly common mistake that occurs in the DNB and is picked up in the ONDB written 100 years later. There is no way for us to judge how often Cawley makes such a mistakes, if he were a recognised academic publishing in a peer reviewed journal, then this would be a minor issue, but as he is not then by relying on his research on primary sources we can not confidently assume that the information he provides is correct.
There are two other problems with Cawley. The first is when he states something without a source to back it up. The third--of which there is a good example in his Syble entry -- is where he synthesise information in a way that is also quite common on Wikiepdia. The current article says "Together Sibyl and Miles had eight children" (this is done by counting the list and concluding it is complete and all the entries are correct). Cawley states "Earl Miles & his wife had seven children:" without citing a source.[4]
Daryl Lundy (another unreliable source) states "Children of Sybil de Neufmarché and Miles of Gloucester" and lists six[5] but lists seven for Miles of Gloucester[6] (Lundy lists one child of Miles which was not Syble's). For all the children Lundy lists he cites G.E. Cokayne (reprint 2000) as his source. I think that the wording that Lundy uses is superior to that in the current Wikipedia article or Cawley because it does not draw conclusions about the number of children from the number in the list (see WP:SYN). While Cawley is free to draw any conclusions he wishes, because he is not a reliable source, Wikipia articles should not include his conclusions as if they were established facts.
The edits I made to this article 14:24, 17 November 2012‎ was intended to clean up the Cawley citations by changing then were possible to WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT and that is what most of the edit was about. But there were some other specific points:

The ancestry table does not contain any sources so I have tagged it as an unreferenced section.
In a few places I have removed the Cawley citation as the information it covered was also covered in a more reliable source.
I have added a few sources to cover material that was not directly covered by the current sources.
Many of the cited books who's references I have altered contained errors of one type or another in the citations, either the Google book link and/or the ISBN etc. In other cases the spread of pages listed for specific in-line citation was too large. Eg the quote "comprising Talgarth..." appears on one page not two in the cited source, while the earlier citation of the whole passage does indeed span two pages so it was necessary to break down the initial repeated inline citation into two separate inline citations.
-- PBS (talk) 00:41, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that the paragraphs that start:

The Brecknock lordship...
Through the advantageous marriages of her daughters...
should be removed.
The first I am not so fussed about, but I do not see the relevance of it.
The second because it is a synthesis.

"Through the advantageous marriages of her daughters" who says that they were advantageous and what sort of advantages were obtained?
"Sibyl was an ancestress of many of England and Ireland's noblest families" The sentence and the rest of the the paragraph implies that she somehow founded a dynasty. She was just one of hundreds of men and women for whom similar claims could be made. Go back far enough and everyone is descended from a common ancestor. Given the relative small numbers of Anglo-Normans and their tendency to marry for dynastic advantage it is inevitable that many will have a tenuous but direct genetic link to the British royal family. As to the Irish connection. The Anglo-Normans who invaded Ireland were largely drawn from the Welsh Marches, so again it is not surprising that "Sibyl was an ancestress of many of ... Ireland's noblest families", but I think emphasising it this way breaks WP:UNDUE as she is but one of many. -- PBS (talk) 00:59, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

This information regarding her daughters descendants was not deemed irrelevant at the time of the GA review and in fact it was encouraged. I also think any information regarding her legacy is useful to readers. At Wikipedia there seems to be a tendency to disparage ancestry but remember that back in the Middle Ages, a woman's primary function was dynastic.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:49, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Mentioning descendants perhaps to the third generation is not unreasonable for the reasons you suggest, but much more than that and the influence of family is of little consequence and I think gives the issue undue weight.  Unless some reliable secondary source has already done so, it makes it very difficult to source accurately without a SYN. If no reliable secondary source has bothered to document it then this is an indication that presenting such a paragraph here borders on OR giving undue weight to the issue (pun intended). -- PBS (talk) 11:13, 18 November 2012 (UTC)