Talk:De Clare

message: The German and French wikipedias have a long article on this family. I'm sure this can be done here too. --PurpleHz 13:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone looking may be interested their coat of arms is used in the arms of Richard Neville, 16th Earl of Warwick, the 'kingmaker'. Jarry1250 (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation ? 

message: This article should be titled "de Clare" instead of "De Clare".  I do not know how to change a heading, but I wondered if someone could accomplish that.  There is no occasion where it should be "De Clare". Mugginsx (talk) 10:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Done using the  template.  -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 15:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lowercase "de" in title 

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

message: : Richard fitz Gilbert was appointed co-régent (joint) (Chief Justiciar) by King William in his absence from the Kingdom ...
I changed "in his absence" to "for his absence", because with in the most natural reading (imho) is that William was absent when he made the appointment, which seems a bit unlikely.  One can read it the other way, but why invite misunderstanding?
The parenthetical words don't illuminate much, and it's weird to have two parentheses in a row like that. Explain? —Tamfang (talk) 07:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Another way would be to re-word as such:  "Richard fitz Gilbert was appointed by King William to be co-régent (joint) (Chief Justiciar) during his absence.   He helped -----------------------------------.  It really does not matter to me which is used unless we are trying to say that it was during this time that the revolt was suppressed which may or may not be true.  Mugginsx (talk) 18:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

text: I had assumed that the "(joint)" was explaining the first part of "co-régent" and "(Chief Justiciar)" the second; it is very clumsy, however, and surely not needed ("co-" is obvious, and "Justiciar" is no explanation of "régent" for most people).  The other oddity i find is, Why the acute accent?  Regent, in English, has no accent. Cheers, LindsayHi 08:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  If the word has senses in French that it lacks in English, and is used here in one such sense, then I'd say the accent is appropriate.  Did Richard and the other co-régent (whoever that was) exercise all the functions of the absent king? If not, I don't think they'd be called regent in English. —Tamfang (talk) 06:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  regency: wording 

message: * Biographies et généalogies des Clare (Hertford, Pembroke, Gloucester) sur Medieval Lands eng. Biographies and genealogies of Clare (Hertford, Pembroke, Gloucester) on Medieval Lands.
Is this a reference to a website (or something) whose name is Medieval Lands though its content is in French?  Punctuation could be improved. —Tamfang (talk) 20:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe the name of the reference is "Biographies and Genealogies in the Clares (Hertford, Pembroke, Gloucester) on Medieval Lands".  I copied it exactly as it appeared on the French Wiki website Famille de Clare under External Links.  I can inquire there if you wish, or Bibliothèque nationale de France. Thanks for the punctuation improvements. Mugginsx (talk) 05:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Additionally, PurpleHz might know, if he is willing to help, since he is multi-lingual and is the major contributor to the French article.  His work is scholarly. He is active on many articles (both French and English) on the Clare Family. I am confident he can answer all of these questions which you have asked. Mugginsx (talk) 05:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Found the website and it is copyrighted, therefore I took it out.  It is on the French site, though possibly with permission. Mugginsx (talk) 11:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, err, what is copyrighted ? A genealogy ? PurpleHz (talk) 01:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medieval Lands 

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

message: : Richard Bienfaite and Orbec, and Baldwin Le Sap and Meules (ib,) Ordericus (ii. 121) mentions the two brothers as among the leading men in Normandy on the eve of the (Norman) conquest.
I don't understand the first half of this sentence, if it is a sentence.  Richard and Baldwin apparently are the names of Gilbert's sons, okay.  Are Bienfaite, Orbec, Le Sap and Meules their estates?  Or is Meules the author of a work titled Ordericus?  Does "(ib,)" mean ibidem or something else? —Tamfang (talk) 21:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You will have to do some medieval research to learn that.  It takes too long to explain here and I do not know all of the answers to tell you.  I had to take out one paragraph that is NOT in the reference you attribute it to.  Placed it below the reference.  Good work!  Got to go now, have other work to do which is much more compelling to me.  Good work! Mugginsx (talk) 22:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wonder whether there's a template for "The reader may need to do some medieval research in order to make any sense of some of the wording in this article."  —Tamfang (talk) 23:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

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

message: The article had these two sentences in separate paragraphs:
:Baldwin's brother Richard de Bienfaite was given Clare in Suffolk, where he built a castle, and adopted the name Richard de Clare.
: Richard fitz Gilbert (of Tonbridge) is once referred to as Richard of Clare in the Suffolk return of the Domesday Book. Suffolk return of the Domesday Survey (c. 1086) (ed. A. Rumble, Suffolk, 2 vols (Chichester, 1986), 67 ~ 1
I combined them:
: Richard was given Clare and Tonbridge, where he built castles, and adopted the surname de Clare.So called in the Suffolk return of the Domesday Survey (c. 1086) (ed. A. Rumble, Suffolk, 2 vols (Chichester, 1986), 67 ~ 1
Someone (it doesn't matter who, since no one has a monopoly on editing the article) then removed the reference with the comment
: cannot "wish" a sentence into a reference. It would be nice if one could.
Can someone (it doesn't matter who, since no one has a monopoly) make that comment clearer?  When does a valid reference for a fact become an invalid reference for the same fact?  One might object that the Domesday footnote does not cover the whole of the sentence to which I attached it; that's why I added the words So called, meaning that the footer supports only that Richard had that surname.  Perhaps I've confused Richard fitz Gilbert with Richard fitz Gilbert?  —Tamfang (talk) 00:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Domesday 

message: From an edit summary:
: self-assumed is your personal "made" up word. The correct term is "styled" Such words dumb-down an article.
At least five online dictionaries (including Webster 1828) list the "'made' up word".  There are about half as many Google hits for "styled title" as for "self-assumed title", but at first glance the top few dozen don't seem to imply anything improper about a "styled" title.  (This is as I expected: The Countess Mountbatten of Burma is styled Lady Mountbatten....)  — I used google.co.uk rather than its California sibling, but I guess these are merely different faces for the same servers!
If dumb-down means "make comprehensible to those too lazy to have studied Norman history in English schools", I plead nolo contendere. —Tamfang (talk) 07:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please drop this provocative way of going on. You can make your points without directing them against another editor. You have been asked politely, twice. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I removed the (anonymously) personal language. —Tamfang (talk) 18:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

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

message: There was a sentence about
: ... William II who became Duke of Normandy as a child in 1035.
Someone "corrected william II to william 1" (though this unworthy person is under the impression that he was not William I of Normandy) – and later removed the numeral and the link, saying, "he was not yet William I and confuses the issue at this point in the narrative. Also, not part of the reference given".  What's wrong with referring to him at that point as William II, duke of Normandy?  If it's so vital to avoid even tacitly hinting at a spoiler not provided in the passage cited (by linking to his WP article, whose title is a style that he had not yet acquired), we could create a redirect from William II of Normandy if it did not already exist. —Tamfang (talk) 19:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  William the Nothing Yet 

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

message: The recently added statement that " William himself was not considered a bastard by the Normans" is, i would say, very questionable.  It is tagged with a citation request, but i don't think that goes far enough (besides, i read that template request as regarding the whole of the preceding sentences about bigamy and illegitimacy).  I won't take it out right now, but i would suggest that someone else chime in and give an opinion (or, preferably, a citation, if one exists).  A quick glance at William the Conqueror does not seem to justify the implication that his illegitimacy wasn't a problem for the Normans.  Cheers, LindsayHello 04:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You have to look more carefully at the nobility of Normandy from the ninth through eleventh centuries. Many so-called illegitimately born individuals rose to great prominence. Remember it was the Church which viewed bastardy as something counter to its beliefs—and not for the reasons you'd think. The custom of the Normans was More danico, or marriage in the Danish manner (Danish here meaning Viking or Norse). Marriages were either more danico or more Christiano (marriage in the Christian manner). While technically, from the time of Rollo, the Normans were Christian. But paganism still co-existed in Normandy and did for some time afterwards. Pagan and Christian customs were intermixed in early Normandy and still were to some degree 117 years later when William was born. So, his father’s marriage more danico to Herleve was not seen as out of the ordinary in early eleventh century Normandy. The change in attitudes took place in the late eleventh century and had more to do with property inheritance than rank. William's contemporaries would hardly have made an issue of his birth status. Put another way, if William were to have actually been called a bastard, so were at least half the nobility of Normandy at the time. Then, the highest ranking church official in Normandy, Archbishop Robert, was himself the product of a Danish marriage, as was his successor. I agree, this should be cited. But does this belong in the lead where we summarize the article? I’d like to see this either moved to the body of the article where citations are appropriate (we don’t normally cite statements in the lead section) or changed to an explanatory footnote with a citation or citations. Bearpatch (talk) 17:10, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious