![]() | William de Longchamp is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 12, 2011. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
"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)
I've just been through Gillingham's Richard I again, as well as a number of taxation/administration books on my shelves, and nothing in them ties Longchamp to the massacre at York nor to the payments by Jews for the ransom. It's possible that somewhere there is primary source material on this, but the big problem here is that no one has written a biography of Longchamp. The RHS bibliography lists five works, one of which is from 1885 and in French (which I have not consulted), another is episcopal acta (from Coventry and Lichfield, which was not his see, but whatever), and one work I've been totally unable to acquire through ILL (the 2003 work). Given that Turner's ONDB article was revised in May 2007, and doesn't mention the Strickland article, I'm guessing it's not that relevant. Turner's comment on York is "He took firm steps to restore order and do justice at York, following the massacre of the Jewish community there." I could include this, but it seemed kinda trivial to me, he basically cracked heads afterwards. If he'd instigated the massacre, I could easily see mentioning it. However, it's easy enough to source. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
In 1191, after the consecration, Geoffrey attempted to go to his province in York, but was met at [[Dover]] by agents of the chancellor, [[William Longchamp]], who was Richard's regent in England. Even though Geoffrey took refuge in the [[Dover Priory|priory of St. Martin in Dover]], he was dragged from [[sanctuary]] and imprisoned in [[Dover Castle]].<ref name=John42>Warren ''King John'' p. 42</ref> Longchamp claimed that Geoffrey had not sworn [[fealty]] to Richard, but this was likely just an excuse to eliminate a rival.<ref name=Lyon233/> The archbishop was soon released, and took part in a council held at Loddon Bridge between [[Reading, Berkshire|Reading]] and [[Windsor, Berkshire|Windsor]]. This council excommunicated Longchamp and led to the deposition of Longchamp from the chancellorship.<ref name=Powell98>Powell ''The House of Lords'' p. 98–99</ref>
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Thanks. Another point is that the second para of 'Chancellor and Justiciar' differs from the DNB version and seems to me less clear. The Wiki version has Longchamp and Hugh de Poiset appointed Chief Justiciars, with other men as associates. I think it would be clearer if the associates were left out, or at least it was made clear that they were junior. In March 1990 authority was divided between the two men, and by June Longchamp had forced de Poiset out.
According to DNB, Richard appointed de Poiset and William de Mandeville co-Justiciars, but de Mandeville almost immediately died and Longchamp was appointed in his place. In March 1990 Richard appointed Longchamp chief justiciar, with de Poiset's authority confined to the north, and this plus Longchamp's custody of the king's seal as chancellor made his paramount authority clear. A new commission for Longchamp in June failed to define any role for de Poiset, and Longchamp barred him from any role in central government. Dudley Miles ( talk) 23:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry I confused you by mis-spelling de Puiset. You will have understood that I know nothing about Longchamp and have only read the article because it is an interesting article of the day.
I do not understand the logic of leaving out de Mandeville and leaving in the associates. The fact that he was only appointed because the first appointee died throws light on his status at the start of Richard's reign, whereas the associates are just a confusing detail.
There also seem to be differences of fact in the Wiki and ODNB versions. Wiki has the two appointed chief justiciars in Dec 89, and separated between north and south in March 90, with Longchamp only after this pushing de Puiset out. ODNB has them appointed co-justiciars in Dec 89 and Longchamp chief justiciar in March 90 with paramount authority. The commission in June confirmed his superiority. If most historians adopt the Wiki version, I think the article should indicate that there is a difference of opionion.
On points of detail, I would like to see the associates specified as junior, Longchamp and de Puiset instead of 'the two bishops' to make it easier to follow, and the sentence Longchamp eased de Puiset out and was made a papal legate as two sentences to make clear that the two were not connected. Dudley Miles ( talk) 01:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I find it clearer now. Dudley Miles ( talk) 18:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
![]() | William de Longchamp is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 12, 2011. | |||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Current status: Featured article |
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
"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)
I've just been through Gillingham's Richard I again, as well as a number of taxation/administration books on my shelves, and nothing in them ties Longchamp to the massacre at York nor to the payments by Jews for the ransom. It's possible that somewhere there is primary source material on this, but the big problem here is that no one has written a biography of Longchamp. The RHS bibliography lists five works, one of which is from 1885 and in French (which I have not consulted), another is episcopal acta (from Coventry and Lichfield, which was not his see, but whatever), and one work I've been totally unable to acquire through ILL (the 2003 work). Given that Turner's ONDB article was revised in May 2007, and doesn't mention the Strickland article, I'm guessing it's not that relevant. Turner's comment on York is "He took firm steps to restore order and do justice at York, following the massacre of the Jewish community there." I could include this, but it seemed kinda trivial to me, he basically cracked heads afterwards. If he'd instigated the massacre, I could easily see mentioning it. However, it's easy enough to source. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
In 1191, after the consecration, Geoffrey attempted to go to his province in York, but was met at [[Dover]] by agents of the chancellor, [[William Longchamp]], who was Richard's regent in England. Even though Geoffrey took refuge in the [[Dover Priory|priory of St. Martin in Dover]], he was dragged from [[sanctuary]] and imprisoned in [[Dover Castle]].<ref name=John42>Warren ''King John'' p. 42</ref> Longchamp claimed that Geoffrey had not sworn [[fealty]] to Richard, but this was likely just an excuse to eliminate a rival.<ref name=Lyon233/> The archbishop was soon released, and took part in a council held at Loddon Bridge between [[Reading, Berkshire|Reading]] and [[Windsor, Berkshire|Windsor]]. This council excommunicated Longchamp and led to the deposition of Longchamp from the chancellorship.<ref name=Powell98>Powell ''The House of Lords'' p. 98–99</ref>
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Thanks. Another point is that the second para of 'Chancellor and Justiciar' differs from the DNB version and seems to me less clear. The Wiki version has Longchamp and Hugh de Poiset appointed Chief Justiciars, with other men as associates. I think it would be clearer if the associates were left out, or at least it was made clear that they were junior. In March 1990 authority was divided between the two men, and by June Longchamp had forced de Poiset out.
According to DNB, Richard appointed de Poiset and William de Mandeville co-Justiciars, but de Mandeville almost immediately died and Longchamp was appointed in his place. In March 1990 Richard appointed Longchamp chief justiciar, with de Poiset's authority confined to the north, and this plus Longchamp's custody of the king's seal as chancellor made his paramount authority clear. A new commission for Longchamp in June failed to define any role for de Poiset, and Longchamp barred him from any role in central government. Dudley Miles ( talk) 23:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry I confused you by mis-spelling de Puiset. You will have understood that I know nothing about Longchamp and have only read the article because it is an interesting article of the day.
I do not understand the logic of leaving out de Mandeville and leaving in the associates. The fact that he was only appointed because the first appointee died throws light on his status at the start of Richard's reign, whereas the associates are just a confusing detail.
There also seem to be differences of fact in the Wiki and ODNB versions. Wiki has the two appointed chief justiciars in Dec 89, and separated between north and south in March 90, with Longchamp only after this pushing de Puiset out. ODNB has them appointed co-justiciars in Dec 89 and Longchamp chief justiciar in March 90 with paramount authority. The commission in June confirmed his superiority. If most historians adopt the Wiki version, I think the article should indicate that there is a difference of opionion.
On points of detail, I would like to see the associates specified as junior, Longchamp and de Puiset instead of 'the two bishops' to make it easier to follow, and the sentence Longchamp eased de Puiset out and was made a papal legate as two sentences to make clear that the two were not connected. Dudley Miles ( talk) 01:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I find it clearer now. Dudley Miles ( talk) 18:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)