Talk:William de Longchamp

message: I hope this is helpful. In my ongoing revisions to the Devereux pages I reviewed the original charter by Stephen de Longchamp granting Frome Herbert to Stephen Devereux in 1205.  Longchamp is identified as "avunculus suus," which is "his uncle," and more specifically "mother's brother." This reinforces other charters showing that Stephen Devereux's wife was Isabel de Cantilupe, and his mother was a Longchamp. Below is the reference and link:
Rotuli Chartarum In Turri Londinensi Asservati: Pars 1. Ab anno MCXCIX ad annum MCCXVI, volume 1. Thoma Duffus Hardy. Printed by Command of His Majesty King William IV. 1837, page 156, Carta Stephano Ebroicis
https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=-9UsAQAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&output=reader&authuser=0&hl=en&pg=GBS.PT221
Appreciate your great page, and your patience as I learn how to use these pages.
Arcussenilis   — Preceding undated comment added 19:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Devereux-Longchamp Connection

message: "One of Longchamp's innovations as chancellor was the replacement of the first person singular previously used to refer to the king with a first person plural ("I" versus "we")." - does this mean "One of Longchamp's innovations as chancellor was the replacement of the first person singular previously used in documents drafted in the king's name with the majestic plural or "royal we"."? That's an article that could be easily improved. Johnbod (talk) 00:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: yes. May I steal your phrasing? Ealdgyth - Talk 00:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course. Johnbod (talk) 00:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

text:  Problem is that nothing in that article is cited "During Richard's absence in the Holy Land and during his captivity, the Jews of England were harassed by William de Longchamp. The Jewish community was forced to contribute toward the king's ransom 5,000 marks, more than three times as much as the contribution of the City of London." is not cited, and nothing I've run across relating to Longchamp says that he specifically persecuted the Jews. I'll dig a little tonight and see what I can turn up, but in this time frame, the Jews were considered "royal property" and being forced to contribute towards taxes wasn't anything that outlandish for them. 5000 marks for the entire population of Jews in England wasn't that bad, quite honestly, compared to some of the other times they were required to cough up.  Ealdgyth - Talk 00:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Bring back Longchamp to deal with them bankers, that's what I say :) Johnbod (talk) 00:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh, no, if we want bad boy bishops to deal with bankers, i say we do Ranulf Flambard. He was a much... quicker worker. Or, heck, Hubert Walter still managed to get money to Richard without causing the whole country to riot. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, you should know. The current lot would be no use - Rowan can't even manage to tell the Pope to keep his hands off his clergy. On the other, there's a more detailed unrefed account at York Castle. Johnbod (talk) 00:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

text: I just think when the massacre is mentioned & we have material on it, we should link it rather than leave it hanging. York castle doesn't mention WL. Johnbod (talk) 00:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Heh. It is in there. I've been working on Mellitus too much... linking. Feel free to whap me when it appears that I'm not getting what you're trying to tell me.... Linking now. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Royal we 

message: It's easier to change the article than to talk about what I think needs to be changed, so that's what I did. Since the article is in FAC and the changes are nontrivial, I immediately self-reverted.  I stand by my changes; however, I feel more strongly about some of them than others. A  diff for comparison between versions: here. Info in the R.C. Hoare cite needs to be carefully verified. I couldn't verify date of publication, forex, or location... Ling.Nut (talk) 04:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Several changes; self-reverted 

message: Is the Pipewell mentioned as a council place the same as the Pipewell with that name now? If so, we should have a link. --DThomsen8 (talk) 02:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't have a source that specifically states that, no. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pipewell 

message: The last sentence of the lead reads " Longchamp wrote a treatise on the law, which remained well known throughout the later Middle Ages, but he aroused much hostility among his contemporaries."  What is the connection between the two parts of this sentence viz. what does "writing a treatise on law" have to do with "arousing much hostility among his contemporaries"?  Did writing the treatise arouse hostility among Longchamp's contemporaries?  I doubt it but I reserve judgment since I don't know anything about the subject.  It seems that two unrelated ideas are being conjoined with the word "but" thus resulting in a non sequitur. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 08:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Malleus Fatuorum's edit addresses the issue.  I have the sense that there is a better way to present this information but, for now, the resolution of the non sequitur problem is adequate. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 19:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't all that happy with it myself, particularly that "his actions" bit, so I've slightly reworked it. Malleus Fatuorum 20:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Much better.  That was more or less what I had in mind but I hesitated to make any edits due to my abject ignorance of the subject. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Trust me. Your ignorance of the subject can be no more abject than my own. Malleus Fatuorum 20:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "wrote a treatise on law" but "aroused much hostility among his contemporaries" 

message: It is used as an "example" that Longchamp did not speak English.  Nobody spoke English, least of all John.  As late as Chaucer's time, these nobles spoke Norman-French, especially when in France.  It was Edward III who decreed that English would be used in court.  Sorry I don't have a reference book to hand, but try the references in the Wikipedia article, English language.  It would be better to find some other example of the difficulties Longchamp was having with John.  It will be hard to convince me that John gave a hoot about the sensitivities of the Saxon peasants.  Funding Richard's crusading and ransoming him was the basic political struggle in which Longchamp was engaged and this taxation was the overarching issue.Plexica (talk) 20:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion in this paragraph referred to starts "Longchamp's relations with the English people were made more difficult because he was a native of Normandy, and often insensitive to English customs." so this isn't just John and the nobles we're referring to, it's the whole of the people, including the native clergy who would have staffed his cathedral. But I've added a bit to the sentence to make it clear that the problems with not speaking English would have been with the his flock not necessarily John or the nobles. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems with John.   

message: There seem to be a couple of contradictions. The introduction says that Longchamp was accused of being the son of a peasant, but later it is stated that he was accused of being the grandson of a peasant by Hugh Nonant, which is the version in the online DNB article on Longchamp.
Also it is stated that he first entered public life as an official of Geoffrey and switched to Richard, but then it says that he served in King Henry's chancery before entering Richard's service, which is out of order chronologically and puzzling in view of the previous statements. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've fixed the lead, probably occured during copyediting, so the lead now says "Longchamp's father of being the son a peasant". I've reorderd the second problem to better explicate the time frame. Thanks for catching those. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Are you looking at the OLD Dictionary of National Biography? Or the newer one? The newer one supercedes the old one, which really should not be consulted. If the new ODNB contradicts the old DNB, the newer one should be considered as the authoratative one. Likewise, anything newer than the old DNB would be that. I ask because of how you're spelling Puiset - that spelling is pretty much confined to older writings. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see now where you're discussing in the ODNB, but ... the information in the article is explicating a very confusing situation - Richard was doing strange things with the justiciarship and West and Gillingham have additional details not contained in the ODNB, so while the ODNB may be simpler, it's not the full story - Longchamp didn't have quite the same authority as say Roger of Salisbury. I'm open to suggestions on wording that might make the information clearer, but I'm not comfortable with leaving out the fact that there were associates in the office, and I left out Mandeville in the interests of clarity - trying to keep out yet one more name, that in the end didn't really impinge that much. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

text: I think you're confused and seeing a contradiction where there isn't one. Both ONDB and the wiki article agree that they were co-justiciars in Dec 89. Whether Longchamp was "chief" in March 90 is really the only issue here - as they were still co-justiciars in Mar 90 and their authority was split then too. Gillingham does NOT see Longchamp as "chief" from March to June 90, so that may need to be made clearer, that there is disagreement between Gillingham and Turner (who wrote the ONDB article) on this point. It should be noted that the ONDB entry for Puiset doesn't mention Longchamp as "chief" justiciar either. Turner's perhaps a bit more forceful that most other historians in seeing Longchamp as "chief", no one else explicity calls him that - most emphasize that he acted that way, but he also held the king's seal, which accounted for his ability to manuever Puiset out of power, and he likely did not need any "chief justiciar" title over Puiset to ensure his dominance of the government. I've dealt with the issues also, thanks for pointing out points where things aren't clear - it's very easy when you've buried yourself in this information to just "know" what's behind things and why and fill in details that are actually missing. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictions 

message: Our articles on Henry de Longchamp and Osbert de Longchamp use de, while here we omit it. Personally, I prefer the French preposition, but I defer to editors who actually edit in this area. I do think that the three brothers should all use the same format. Srnec (talk) 00:10, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Oxford Dictionary of National Biography uses "de" but the Handbook of British Chronology doesn't. I believe I just left it where it was when I started editing - it's a pretty even split in the sources, as I recall. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:42, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Family name 

message: There is no place called Argenton in Normandy and Argenton-Notre-Dame is located and was always located in the county of Maine, today included in the Pays de Loire region, 90 km straight south from the border with Normandy ! Argenton could be a misspelling of the Norman town Argentan ? But I did not find any trace of a hamlet called Longchamp near Argentan. I found a rue de Longchamp in Maine at Ernée (70 km north of Argenton-Notre-Dame, but too far and this Longchamp here could be something else. Nortmannus (talk) 07:51, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: THe ODNB says "Longchamp, William de (d. 1197), administrator and bishop of Ely, probably born near Argenton, Normandy," ... which is all I can access since my ODNB access through Wiki has lapsed and no one seems able to figure out how to renew it. The linking of the village - no clue. I've clarified it a bit - I suspect there was some "help" when this was on the main page. Often we get told in the sources that so-and-so was from some village but are unable to locate that village in modern times... it's just how it goes. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:57, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've got restored ODNB access and it indeed states: "Longchamp, William de (d. 1197), administrator and bishop of Ely, probably born near Argenton, Normandy, was a son of Hugh de Longchamp, who was a servant of Henry II, farmer of the revenues of the honour of Conches, Normandy, at the time of his death (probably in 1187). Hugh held land in Herefordshire, including a knight's fee of Hugh de Lacy's honour, the marriage portion of his wife. Apparently, her father was a tenant of the Lacys." See ODNB entry. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Argenton-Notre-Dame