Talk:Annery, Monkleigh

Original research

Like a number of similar articles that I've checked recently, I've had to flag up some apparent original research here. "It appears that...", "He appears to have been..." and "was possibly..." are OK to use only if that's what the source says, but in two of these cases there is no clear source cited, and in the third it's not at all clear that it accurately reflects the source.  —SMALLJIM  17:55, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Great catch and tag! Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:50, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I left those {{OR}} tags for User:Lobsterthermidor as another follow-up to the message I posted on his/her talk page a few days ago. But no matter, if they're resolved by removal, they're still resolved!  —SMALLJIM  22:57, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Uncited information

I'm unable to find citations for:

• The estate was sold after her death in 1912 to Mr Bayly.
• Mr Bayly was a famous polo player. He and his wife modernised the house and installed an electricity generation plant. He died of meningitis soon after moving in, and his widow sold off parts of the estate piecemeal to the occupying tenants, retaining only the lodges and home farm.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:08, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't know at present - perhaps User:Lobsterthermidor can help with these. —SMALLJIM  22:55, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

The text is sourced from exactly where I said: the (short) article by Rosemary Lauder. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 20:40, 25 June 2013 (UTC))

If you look at this version (before I started major edits), you'll see that there were no citations provided. Would you please provide page numbers / citation info for each of the 3 sentences? Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

The information was found in the Lauder book and added back to the article.--CaroleHenson (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Fleming

I found one source for this information at http://www.wearegiffard.info/history/story-of-weare-giffard/WG-Building-Buildings-of-Interest.pdf It's a site about Weare Giffard village, but it's not clear if it's a municipal site or someone's personal site.

• Miss Lilias Fleming (1855–1941) was the purchaser of Annery, where she lived with her adopted daughter Crystal Frazer. The house quickly became dilapidated after her death.

Any opinions about whether this is a reliable site? Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:17, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

I'd say that although not independent it's reliable enough for this material - WP:SELFSOURCE probably applies. This page on the website says the pdfs are a direct conversion from the printed book The Story of Weare Giffard which was written by the community. That book is mentioned as further reading for the Weare Giffard entry in my favourite overview book on Devon parishes:

• Harris, Helen (2004). A Handbook of Devon Parishes. Tiverton: Halsgrove. ISBN 1-84114-314-6.

which I cite all the time.  —SMALLJIM  22:52, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Lovely! Thanks so much!--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:27, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Edits

Moved from User talk:CaroleHenson to keep in the relevant place:

• I'm not happy with your edits to this article. An estate is not "a house" as you imply in your new intro. What do you mean by "The Annery"? I despair. You've done some superficial research and waded right in! All the ISBN's are great, but your text is embarassingly awful and naive. Please tell me where Annery was mentioned in the Domesday Book. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 19:43, 25 June 2013 (UTC))

Response:

• My mistake, I corrected a typo for a sentence that started out "The Annery"
• As cited, the information regarding the Domesday information came from here, on page 19.
• See page 4 of the same link for "Annery House"
• I am sorry that you feel that the text is awful and naive. The point was the focus on the subject of the article, which is the Annery estate. As I have seen posted on your website, it appears that there seems to be a disconnect about Wikipedia guidelines - particularly about including geneological and biological information that is not directly related to the subject of the article. The comments have been made by several people - and if it helps, I'm happy to point them out.

What do you think can be done with the current article, in accordance with WP guidelines, to make it better?--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:55, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

1. Carole, I'm sorry but I'm going to be direct. This article was intended to be about the estate of Annery, not specifically the house.
2. I'm not sure you are aware of that (you mention there being a "post-mediaeval hedge", which suggests a misunderstanding, as on the several 100 acre estate there would have been many dozen hedges, mediaeval and post, not noteworthy and somewhat absurd). This is a key feature of English local and parochial history, and articles on descents of estates or manors are valid for WP.
3. I have just had a long discussion about the matter on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements, under the last section "manorial histories". Please read it and see if it suggests some of your removals of text were heavy-handed.
4. As I said before, there are problems with many of your edits, for example you have discarded as a source Lauder, who is probably the leading expert on this subject, and is herself a source for the one you substituted. You removed my source to the North Devon Journal and replaced it by a more general source. Curious. Why? You removed one of my page numbers to Lauder. Why? Examples of some of your inexplicable edits. You are still at it with "updating sources": you replaced my "Debrett 1968 p.365" with "Debrett 1836 p.365". Please stop doing this. The 1836 edition is totally different. I quote from editions I have actually used. You have likewise casually rejected John Prince (biographer) as a source. Why?
5. You have removed all my carefully sourced blazons from the captions of coat of arms, why?
6. You have replaced some of these good sources with text copied word for word from an architect's report. Annery is not mentioned in the Domesday Book, but you have blindly copied this text from the architect's report.
7. You have removed some of my text as un-notable but have then added that "19th & 20th century pottery has been found on the site".
8. Is that really worth mentioning? You have introduced some ridiculous wording into the article such as "The esquires X & Y did...", "it was described as a messuage..." which make the article seem as if written by someone without any basic understanding of the topic area.
9. I don't think in my 3 years on WP I've ever seen such a bad, inconsistent, hypocritical, long-winded and careless edit. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 23:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC))

Cough. I shall assume we edit-conflicted - [1].  —SMALLJIM  23:29, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

1. I agree.
2. It's wasn't about a "hedge" it was about a "hedgebank". It was just a descriptive feature of the property. There would generally have been stables, too, right? I don't have any problem removing that. Done
3. I took a glance at the material, and based on the return comments to your comments, I don't see anything I disagree with.
4. I didn't intentionally remove any sources. If the source information was lacking entirely, I searched until I came up with citations. (I think you sometimes think text is cited when it isn't.) If there were incomplete citations and I wasn't able to find a source, I also looked for a source. If we can get complete source information and where it applies, I'm happy to go update the article.  Done
5. See WP:Captions. I don't remember, though, how long the citation text was in this case. I'm sure that there's a way that we can resolve this.  Done, in this case the captions weren't overly long.
6. See above. Regarding Domesday, I'll check on the Open Domesday site, which I see that you reference as well. Once thing I've noticed, though, is that there is a spelling discrepancy at times about the place names attributed to Domesday. And, it was not likely called Annery or Upannery at that time - so we'd have to backtrack to the historical info provided. Done, information removed, comment below.
7. Agreed. I'll take it out. Done
8. Edit suggestions would be helpful! I totally agree that you're an expert on the subject.
9. I'm not quite sure what your objective is when your language is attacking in nature. It's much more of a reflection on you than it is on me - and I'm not quite sure how you think that's going to make me more likely to cooperate. I choose not to respond to anything else from you that is attacking in nature. We can reach out for third-party resolution if needed.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:00, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

P.S. I have had a brain injury - and my words get jumbled some times.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding 6. I checked the Domesday site by checking people's names and came up with nothing, but this book Report & Transactions... mentions a Wrdieta in the Domesday book, index number 231 - but not in the "Testa de Nevill". There's also something in here. Still no direct tie, though. I don't have a problem removing that information since there's nothing to back it up.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:36, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Regarding item #4, citations:

• I've added back the Prince citation.
• You don't need to say "Obituary, North Devon Journal 30 June 1853, quoted in Scrutton, p.87" I had the Scrutton, p. 87. citation. If you want a note added that the information came from the obituary, that's fine, but it's not really needed.
• I've added back the one Lauder citation.
• I have added the Debrett citation for 1968, but also kept the one I used to verify the information. Somehow I had put the wrong page # in that citation.

As to why this happens: This happens because after seeing a pattern when editing articles you've worked on, I do the searches first to find the information in published sources, and then verify that there are sources for all the content. This is completely opposite of the way I consistently work. If citations were consistently applied to only the information that came from the source, I wouldn't need to do that. It's been a case of wanting to verify the information with my own eyes. Unable to see what you had seen, I didn't always know how much of the text your citation applied to.

One tool someone shared with me makes formatting citations a breeze, you might like it: http://reftag.appspot.com/ You just need to copy in the url from google books and it makes a complete, properly formatted citation. I hope that things will go much smoother from here.--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Revert to clean start

Carole, here's what I'd like to do: There have been some serious problems with your edits on a number of fronts. I feel these were done too hastily, without properly researching the subject or the article type. I'd like you to start again at your 2nd edit, in a considered fashion, discussing your proposed changes here first. Your first edit was simply to delete Category:Monkleigh, to which the proper collaborative action should simply have been to create the category, but let's leave that now and start from Smalljim 17:38 24 June 2013, just before your second edit. Some of your additions were good, i.e. Annery in fiction, but some were not, and many of your deletions and removals need to be discussed here, should you still wish to effect them. Thanks. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 12:58, 26 June 2013 (UTC))

This new version has very little new content. Here's a summary of the changes:

1. Completed incomplete citations
2. Added citations to uncited material
3. Removed geneaological and biographical information that was not in keeping the the subject of the article. See WP:Detail, WP:Original research, WP:UNDUE
4. There's much less new content than you think:

• A deerpark may have been in place as early as 1422, but is known to have been in existence about 1540.[3] During the reign of Richard II (1377-1399), there was a fishery on River Torridge and a dovecote.[3]
• neo-Classical building
• Thomasin Stapledon married "Sir Richard Hankford."
• Prust: "Their father was Joseph Prust.[11]"
• Arscott: "John's daughter and sole heiress married a man from London named Johnson.[11][17]"
• St Leger daughter :Eudlia or Ulalia on 7 October 1583. She was the widow of Edmund Tremayne of Callacome.[15][nb 3]" Note: "Arscott's wife was also recorded to have been Elizabeth.[16]"
• Tardrew: "By 1822 the house had been rebuilt.[3][2]"
• Before 1800, a long gallery used to contain alcoves for beds. There were 30 alcoves on each side of the gallery, which provided some privacy to the occupants.[11]
• Maria Somes (1816–1911), "a philanthropist,"[5] remained at Annery at least until 1879. At that time Annery was owned by J.P. Ley and John Saltren Willet and Mrs. Somes.[26] When it was advertised for sale in 1912, it was described as having woodlands, shady walks, glass-houses, and 19th century kitchen garden walls.[3]
• Annerey is said to be the location of a duel scene between Don Guzman and Will Carey in Charles Kingsley's novel, Westward Ho!.[3][5] It also reportedly mentions the estate's deerpark and a banquet given by Sir James St. Leger in Annery's great hall.[3]--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

If you question the addition of any of this new material, I am happy to remove it.--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Citation information

Most of the work was the addition and expansion of citation information.

new citation infomration

^ a b c d e "Monkleigh". Devon County Council. Retrieved 23 June 2013. ^ a b c d "Annery House". English Heritage. Retrieved 24 June 2013. ^ a b c d e f g h "Annery House". Archaeology Data Service. 2 March 2006. Retrieved 24 June 2013. ^ a b c d e f g h i Tristram Risdon (1811). The chorographical description or survey of the county of Devon: Printed from a genuine copy of the original manuscript, with considerable additions. Printed for Rees and Curtis, Plymouth. pp. 276–277. Retrieved 23 June 2013. ^ a b c d "Mrs. Maria Somes - Founder of the Somes Scholarships". The Press. Papers Past. 29 September 1911. p. 9. Retrieved 24 June 2013. ^ Prince, John (1810). The Worthies of Devon. p. 722. ^ Peter Fabyan Sparke Amery; John S. Amery; Joshua Brooking Rowe (1903). Devon Notes and Queries. J. G. Commin. p. 161. Retrieved 24 June 2013. ^ a b Devonshire Association for the Advancement of Science, Literature and Art (1876). Report & Transactions. p. 442. Retrieved 24 June 2013. ^ Devonshire Association for the Advancement of Science, Literature and Art (1876). Report & Transactions. pp. 450–52. Retrieved 24 June 2013. ^ The note-book of Tristram Risdon, 1608-1629. London: Elliot Stock. 1897. Retrieved 24 June 2013. ^ a b c d e f Samuel Lysons (1822). Magna Britannia: Being a Concise Topographical Account of the Several Counties of Great Britain. Containing Devonshire. Cadell. p. 353. Retrieved 24 June 2013. ^ John Debrett (1836). Debrett's Peerage of England, Scotland, and Ireland. [Another]. p. 521. Retrieved 24 June 2013. ^ P. W. Montague-Smith (1968). Debrett's Peerage, Baronetage, Knightage and Companionage 1968: With Her Majesty's Royal Warrent Holders : Comprises Information Concerning Thepeerage, Privy Councillors, Baronets, Knights, and Companions of Orders. Kelly's directories. p. 365. ^ a b Samuel Lysons (1822). Magna Britannia: Being a Concise Topographical Account of the Several Counties of Great Britain. Containing Devonshire. Cadell. p. cixx, ccxiv. Retrieved 24 June 2013. ^ a b College of Arms (Great Britain) (1895). The Visitations of the County of Devon: Comprising the Herald's Visitations of 1531, 1564, & 1620. For the author, by H. S. Eland. pp. 20,731. Retrieved 24 June 2013. ^ Sir Henry Saint-George; Sir Henry St. George; Sampson Lennard; William Camden (1872). The Visitation of the County of Devon in the Year 1620. Harleian Society. p. 10. Retrieved 24 June 2013. ^ John Lodge; Mervyn Archdall (1789). The Peerage Of Ireland: Or,A Genealogical History Of The Present Nobility Of That Kingdom: With Engravings Of Their Paternal Coats Of Arms : Collected from Public Records, Authentic Manuscripts, Approved Historians, Well-attested Pedigrees and Personal Information. Moore. p. 95. Retrieved 24 June 2013. ^ College of Arms (Great Britain) (1895). The Visitations of the County of Devon: Comprising the Herald's Visitations of 1531, 1564, & 1620. For the author, by H. S. Eland. p. 629. Retrieved 24 June 2013. ^ Tristram Risdon (1811). The chorographical description or survey of the county of Devon: Printed from a genuine copy of the original manuscript, with considerable additions. Printed for Rees and Curtis, Plymouth. p. 422. Retrieved 23 June 2013. ^ a b c Susan Scrutton (2006). Lord Rolle's Canal. Great Torrington or Hartland: Susan Scrutton, Jamaica Press. p. 87. ^ Susan Scrutton (2006). Lord Rolle's Canal. Great Torrington or Hartland: Susan Scrutton, Jamaica Press. p. 19. ^ Susan Scrutton (2006). Lord Rolle's Canal. Great Torrington or Hartland: Susan Scrutton, Jamaica Press. p. 22. ^ Susan Scrutton (2006). Lord Rolle's Canal. Great Torrington or Hartland: Susan Scrutton, Jamaica Press. pp. 69–71. ^ "Somes, Joseph, 1787-1845 (biography)". National Library of New Zealand. Retrieved 24 June 2013. ^ Rosemary Anne Lauder (1 April 2002). Devon Families. Halsgrove Press. p. 23. ISBN 978-1-84114-140-4. ^ William White (of Sheffield.) (1879). History, Gazetteer and Directory of the County of Devon: Including the City of Exeter, and Comprising a General Survey of the County .... White. p. 550. Retrieved 24 June 2013. ^ "Other Buildings of Interest - Annery House". Weare Giffard. p. 12. Retrieved 24 June 2013.

citations information before I started working on the article

^ Risdon, p.276 ^ Prince, biography of Walter Stapledon, p.722 ^ Tristram Risdon's Notebook ^ www.Tudorplace.com.ar/BUTLER ^ Bruce, p. 11 ^ Debrett's Peerage, 1968, p.365 (Viscounts Doneraile) ^ Vivian, 1895, p.731M ^ Risdon, p.276 ^ Vivian, Heralds' Visitations of Devon, 1895, p.629 ^ Risdon, p.422 ^ Obituary, North Devon Journal 30 June 1853, quoted in Scrutton, p.87 ^ Scrutton, p.22 ^ "Tardrew ships for coal" are mentioned in a poem composed in honour of the 21st birthday of Hon Mark Rolle, quoted in Scrutton, p.81 ^ Scrutton, p.19 ^ Scrutton, Susan, Lord Rolle's Canal, Great Torrington, 2006, p.87 ^ Scrutton, p.22 ^ Scrutton, pp.69-71 ^ Lauder, p.23 ^ http://www.stevensbooks.co.uk/todd_grey_books/DCHG.html Sources Pevsner, Nikolaus & Cherry, Bridget, The Buildings of England: Devon, London, 2004 Lauder, Rosemary, Vanished Houses of North Devon, Tiverton, 2005 Prince, John, The Worthies of Devon, 1810 edition Hoskins, W.G., A New Survey of England: Devon, London, 1959 (first published 1954) Risdon, Tristram (died 1640), Survey of Devon, 1810 edition, London, 1810 Vivian, Lt.Col. J.L., (Ed.) The Visitation of the County of Devon: Comprising the Heralds' Visitations of 1531, 1564 & 1620, Exeter, 1895. Polwhele, History of Devon (1797)

A great deal of the article was uncited material. See: [2]

Too much detail

The rest of the changes are deletions of biographical / geneaological information that are side discussions of this article, WP:Detail - and do not have citations.--16:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Information removed - strike out through info that remained in the article

===Hankford=== Do you have a source for: secondly, "either to Anne Montacute, daughter of John Montacute, Earl of Salisbury?" Sir William Hankford (died 1422), KB, Lord Chief Justice of England. The most famous member of the Hankford family of Annery. His Easter Sepulchre tomb exists in the Annery Chapel, in the south aisle of Monkleigh Church. His son was Richard I Hankford who predeceased his father. Sir Richard II Hankford (grandson), who married twice: Firstly to Elizabeth FitzWarin, 8th Baroness FitzWarin (c. 1404 – c. 1427), sister and heir of Fulk FitzWarin, 7th Baron FitzWarin (1406–1420). By her he had two daughters, Thomasine Hankford and Elizabeth Hankford (died 1433). Upon the death of Elizabeth FitzWarin the barony went into abeyance between her daughters. On the death of Elizabeth Hankford in 1433, the barony was inherited by her sister Thomasine Hankford, the wife of William Bourchier, who was summoned to Parliament as Lord FitzWarin in her right. Her descendant was John Bourchier, 11th Baron FitzWarin (1470–1539) of Tawstock, created Earl of Bath in 1536. Secondly, either to Anne Montacute, daughter of John Montacute, Earl of Salisbury or according to Tristram Risdon, to Anne Nevill, daughter of Lord Nevill. By his second wife Sir Richard II Hankford left a daughter as his sole heiress, Anne Hankford (c. 1431 – 1485), who married Thomas Boteler, 7th Earl of Ormond. Anne and her husband inherited Annery. ===Boteler=== - changed name to Butler, based upon surname of the article on Thomas Butler, 7th Earl of Ormond - Tudorplace is an unreliable source, did not use that info. - If you have the source information for "Bruce, p. 11" (re: Butler's land holdings), I'm happy to add that. Thomas Boteler, 7th Earl of Ormond was the youngest son of James Butler, 4th Earl of Ormond and Joan de Beauchamp. The Irish called him The Wool Earl, due to his being one of the wealthiest of the King's subjects in the realm.<ref>www.Tudorplace.com.ar/BUTLER</ref> In addition to the possession of major lands in the Irish counties of Kilkenny and Tipperary, he owned 72 manors in England.<ref>Bruce, p. 11</ref> Thomas Boteler and Anne Hankford had two daughters: Margaret Butler (c. 1454 – 1539), who married Sir William Boleyn, by whom she had issue, including Thomas Boleyn, 1st Earl of Wiltshire, the father of Queen Anne Boleyn, Mary Boleyn, and George Boleyn, by his wife Elizabeth Howard. Anne Butler (born c. 1455), who inherited Annery, married Sir James St. Leger, by whom she had issue. Anne Butler (born c. 1455) (daughter and co-heiress), married Sir James St. Leger ===St Ledger=== James St Ledger (d.8 February 1509/10) married Anne Butler (born c. 1455), heiress of Annery. His grave stone inset with two small monumental brasses survives in the Annery Chapel of Monkleigh Church, set into the floor immediateley in front of the Hankford Easter Sepulchre. The top (westernmost) brass consists of a rectangular brass about 1 ft wide by 3 inches deep displaying an insribed scroll held at each end by a winged angel, with Latin inscription in Gothic black letter script: Orate pro a(n)i(m)a Jacobie Seyntleg(er)b Armig(eri) qui obiit viii0 die me(n)sis Februarii Anno D(o)m(ino) MCCCCC0 IX0 cui(us) a(n)i(mae) p(rop)iciet(ur) De(us) Amen ("Pray ye for the soul of James St Ledger, Esquire, who died on the 8th day of the month of February in the year of Our Lord 1500th and 9th of whose soul may God look upon with favour Amen") Below is a very worn brass of an escutcheon showing the arms of St Ledger: Azure fretty argent, a chief or Sir George St Ledger (son) Sir John St Ledger, married Katherine Nevill, daughter of George Nevill, 5th Baron Bergavenny (c.1469-1536). He had the following progeny, 2 sons and 3 daughters: John St Ledger, died without issue Dudley St Ledger, died without issue Mary St Ledger, married Sir Richard Grenville, lord of the manor of Bideford and of Stowe in Cornwall. Frances St Ledger, who married, as his 1st wife, John Stucley (1551–1611) of Affeton Eulalia St Ledger, who married twice, firstly in 1576 Edmund Tremain (died 1582) of Collacombe, Lamerton, Clerk of the Privy Council and secondly in 1583 to Tristram Arscott (died 1621) of Launcells, Cornwall Sir John St Ledger sold Annery to his son-in-law Tristram Arscott. ===Arscott=== Tristram Arscott (died 1621) of Launcells, Cornwall, who purchased Annery from his father-in-law Sir John St Ledger. John Arscott Esq., of Annery, whom Tristram Risdon (died 1640) descreibed as "now lord thereof" ===Prust=== I could not find any connection between High Prust and Annery Do you have citations for info about Henry, Joseph, John? Info I found says Joseph and John's father was Joseph It appears that[original research?] Annery was purchased from the Arscotts by Hugh Prust (died 1666), who was buried at Monkleigh. He married in 1625/8, as her 2nd husband, Elizabeth Hurding (died 1668), whose 1st husband had been John Coffin (1593–1622) of Portledge, lord of the manor of Monkleigh. Lt.Col. Joseph Prust (1620–1677) of Annery, was the 2nd son of Hugh Prust (died 1666) by his wife Elizabeth Hurding. His ledger stone survives in the floor of the Annery Chapel in Monkleigh Church. Its inscription reveals that he was a Lt.Col. in Sir Thomas Stucley's Regiment of Horse and that he lost a hand during combat in the Civil War at Plymouth. He married Anne Keynes (1630–1660), by whom he had three sons, the youngest of whom was Capt. John Prust (1660–1695), of Annery. Capt. John Prust (1660–1695), of Annery (3rd son). He married Mary Leigh (1672–1711), by whom he had three sons who died young and a daughter and heiress Anne Prust (1694–1741), who married in 1715 Richard Annesley, 6th Earl of Anglesey (c. 1693 – 1761), an Irish peer and governor of Wexford. Her husband deserted her almost immediately and entered into a further bigamous marriage. Anne Prust died without issue and was buried in August 1741 as Countess of Anglesey. ===Tardrew=== The descent of Annery is unclear between about 1741 and 1800. The 1810 edition of Tristram Risdon's Survey of Devon states that "The estate of Annery has of late years passed through secveral hands and now belongs to Mr Tardrew of Bideford". William Tardrew (1772–1853), JP, DL, a ship-owner and builder from Bideford. He operated a ship yard from an inlet of the River Torridge next to Annery kiln, but moved it to the canal sea-lock after the latter's construction. He appears to have been in the business of importing coal from Wales. His brother was Henry Tardrew who ran an iron-foundry and bar-iron warehose in Bideford. In 1829 he renovated the Annery Chapel in Monkleigh Church as is recorded on a stone tablet in the Chapel, where he was buried. He sold part of the estate on the left bank of the River Torridge to Lord Rolle for the building of the Rolle Canal. The Annery land included Beacon Down Marsh in the parishes of Landcross, Monkleigh and Weare Giffard, in which was built the sea-lock, the start of the canal. He provided ships for the canal. He was one of the investors who in 1835 built "Half-Penny Bridge", a toll-bridge over the River Torridge at Annery Kiln linking Monkleigh and Weare Giffard parishes. In 1836 Lord Rolle leased his Rolle Canal to a partnership of four men, one of whom was William Tardrew of Annery, who held 6 of the 14 shares, representing an interest of 43%. In 1846 a new partnership was formed comprising William Tardrew and George Bragington, an original investor and Lord Rolle's former canal agent. Tardrew is said not to have contributed to the business his share of new capital agreed, and soon the business failed. Annery featured in Westward Ho! by Charles Kingsley. He spent a considerable sum on improving the house, and was possibly the builder of the Georgian house which survived until 1958. He was a Justice of the Peace for Devon and a Deputy Lieutenant and a major in the North Devon Yeomanry Cavalry. His wife was Louisa (1779–1871), who survived him but expended much of her fortune on pursuing debts due to her from the Rolle Canal Company. The Annery Estate comprising 243 acres was sold at auction in 1872. ===Somes=== Annery was purchased by Joseph Somes (died 1845) of Blackwall, MP for Dartmouth, a large ship owner and former Governor of the New Zealand Company. From his ship The Tory was declared Queen Victoria's sovereignty over New Zealand. His widow Maria Somes (1816–1912) remained on at Annery for many years, and the estate was sold after her death in 1912 to Mr Bayly. ===Bayly=== Per an earlier talk page post, I could not find this info Mr Bayly was a famous polo player. He and his wife modernised the house and installed an electricity generation plant. He died of meningitis soon after moving in, and his widow sold off parts of the estate piecemeal to the occupying tenants, retaining only the lodges and home farm. ===Fleming=== other info wasn't added because I couldnt' find a source for it Miss Lilias Fleming (1855–1941) was the purchaser of Annery, where she lived with her adopted daughter Crystal Frazer. The house quickly became dilapidated after her death.

Don't replace cited content with uncited content

Uncited content should not replace cited content. I've seen this lots of times, if you want links, I'll find them.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

If you have citation information for any of the information that directly related to the Annery, I'm happy to put it in. I didn't find it.--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:21, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I started a conversation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements#Advise please: Annery, Monkleigh.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:32, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

References

Comments on the revert

I agree with CaroleHenson's (CH) revert back to her version, and had I been around yesterday I would have done the same myself. As she has since eloquently but tactfully pointed out, Lobsterthermidor's (Lt) version contained much information that was uncited; the citations that were provided were of a very cursory nature (I still don't know what "Bruce, p. 11" refers to); and there was a lot of extraneous information included (yes this is the most debatable point, but the consensus at WT:UKCITIES#Manorial histories – although not strictly relevant as Annery is not a village – was clearly in favour of the principles set out in WP:DETAIL and WP:Summary style). In addition, there was an amount of original research present, some of which I flagged in this edit (under Prust and Tardrew) and mentioned above, but the full extent of which is still, I think, undetermined.

Furthermore, CH explained all her original edits in edit summaries, and then she responded in full to the (9) points in Lt's follow-up post (which ended with a most incivil comment). She admitted to making some mistakes, and changed several items back to Lt's version. Yet despite this, Lt's next action was to revert the whole lot back to what is substantially his (I'll assume "he", unless contradicted) own version. The reasons given are vague, not persuasive and peremptory ("serious problems with your edits on a number of fronts", "done too hastily, without properly researching the subject", "I'd like you to start again ... in a considered fashion"): this smacks of trying to enforce ownership. On top of Lt's previous two messages to CH ([3], [4]), this sudden revert and its accompanying commentary is another incivil act, when CH's work has clearly all been performed with the greatest good faith. Sure, there are a number of issues that still need ironing out – there's some lack of clarity, for instance, and I do think that CH's removal of "extraneous detail" has gone a bit too far – but her version is clearly a superior foundation on which to continue building the article.

I'm going to post a further message on Lt's talk page about his behaviour.  —SMALLJIM  10:08, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, and I'm happy to put back some of the information if we can get citations for it. It seems counter-productive to put information back that is uncited. If you can point out some of the kind of information to return (i.e., more background about the people that inherited the property, summary info about siblings of the people that owned Annery, etc.), though, I'm happy to search for citations.--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

And, I am happy to help clarify information where needed (to the best of my ability), LT's input would likely be much more helpful.--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:11, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

You've been working at a severe disadvantage, not having a copy of Lauder's Vanished Houses of North Devon which contains a lot more info about the house. I've sent you a copy of the text on the 8 relevant pages (OK under fair use).  —SMALLJIM  12:27, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Wonderful! Thanks!--CaroleHenson (talk) 13:07, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Saved me having to add it ;-)  —SMALLJIM  15:24, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Edits based upon Lauder book

The Lauder book was incredibly helpful and I made the resulting (total) edits. I could add more descriptive information about outbuildings, manor amenities, enhancements over the years, and similar information if you think it would help the article. Perhaps, putting that information in notes.

Anyone think that would be a good idea? Or, does that step into too much WP:Detail?--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

One could argue that it depends on what the article is actually about: if it's about the physical structure of the place, then it couldn't be too much detail (unless there was an inordinate amount of referenced information about one outdoor toilet, for instance!). But if it's really about the people who owned the estate, (as Lt originally intended) then it may be. See Talk:Orleigh Court where a similar issue arose last year.

In this case, I think a balance between the two aspects would be appropriate and since there is still more "Descent" info than "Structure" info, and the addition of more of the latter wouldn't make the article too long, I'd go ahead and add it.  —SMALLJIM  15:40, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok, sounds good!--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

@CaroleHenson You've mixed up your Lauder refs somewhere today. Devon Families is now wrongly cited everywhere, and Vanished Houses has, well, vanished!  —SMALLJIM  18:22, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll fix it. There were two Lauder books, and I gave them both ref name=Lauder.--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:35, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

 Done Fixed Lauder, Devon Families to this version for the Somes info. All the rest of the Lauder citations point to the Vanished Houses citations, including the bit about 1958, which is explained better in the Vanished Houses book. So glad you caught that!--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:45, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Proposed expansion

This article was intended by its creator to be mainly on the estate not the house, as I attempted to make clear in the intro. Thus manorial history type text is relevant here. I have read all the comments above and it seems the main problem perceived is one of sources. I will therefore re-introduce piece-meal the text removed to talk, with a reasonable level of sources provided in accordance with WP:CITE, which does not require an editor to make an in-line citation for every single fact and statement, but only for those in the editor's experience (see further below) with a chance of over 50% of being challenged. By all means then add cn tags to the restored text and make any specific challenges you wish, in accordance with WP policy (which is not, by the way to remove bona fide text to talk, as was done here, unless sourcing doubts exist in biogs. of living persons). In my 3 years experience and almost 15,000 edits I have encountered very few challenges to my text, well over 95% of which challenges have originated from just one user. Please note that monumental inscriptions in churches specifically qualify as valid sources under Wikipedia:Verifiability: "Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form". (Footnote attached:) "This includes material such as documents in publicly-accessible archives, inscriptions on monuments, gravestones, etc., that are available for anyone to see" (end of footnote). This last point is relevant to the work I will be doing in restoring much of the text deleted to the articles Abbots Bickington and Monkleigh, but split to new articles on the manors, per the guideline at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements. As a FYI I have proposed a Wikiproject "Manorial histories" to help create a way forward for this type of article, and have invited participation of anyone interested in taking it forward. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 10:59, 6 July 2013 (UTC))

My cautionary note on using inscriptions, Lobster, is that, although they are published, they often aren't reliable secondary sources (with some exceptions) - it depends on who produced the inscription, and whether that person is a reliable secondary source, with "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." Hchc2009 (talk) 11:12, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

The inscriptions are mainly epitaphs commissioned presumably by surviving family members, often named on the monument, ("his grieving son erected this on x date") who presumably gave a text to the stonemason, (I'm allowed to do OR here on talk!) recording such basic details as date of death, wife's name & childrens' names, with a bit of 17th.c poetry at the bottom. Pretty much all factual from the deceased's own next-of-kin, and I think prima facie reliable. But I understand your point. I don't think anything controversial has been used by me from this source, just plain genealogical facts & a bit of florid poetry. Have a read and tell me if there's anything specific that worries you. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 22:05, 7 July 2013 (UTC))

Forgot to add also that primary sources aren't banned as such under WP:Guidelines, but I take your point that secondary sources are preferable. About to add biographical text from ledger stone of Joseph Prust (d.1677). Several of the facts are also given/confirmed in Vivian, p.630, a good secondary source. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 15:48, 9 July 2013 (UTC))

Lots of biographical info duplicated in articles about towns, villages and manors

I reverted the edits that had WP:Detail, uncited information, most of which gets off-track with the subject of the article.

Rather than pasting biographical and genealogical information in many articles about the same person, it's best to have articles about the subject. That way the biographical information does not overtake the article's subject.

I am doing so much cleaning up of uncited, detailed and original research information that I will be extra vigilant regarding articles that are cleaned up. Have you thought about adding an article about Joseph Prust, if there isn't one already?--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Seriously, User:Lobsterthermidor, have you thought about setting up your own web sites where you can include all the information you want, without having to be constrained by WP guidelines and policies?--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:40, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Please, the concept of estate/manorial histories has to be understood and discussed before you make such reverts. It is a valid topic to be covered by WP. This article was established by me as about the estate of Annery, not about the house, about which you contributed much useful text. It was intended moreover not to be just about the topographical featutres of the estate, i.e. describing hedgerows which existed, but more importantly a history of ownership & descent. To do that you need to discuss the people. Where these people are WP:Notable, such as Stapledon, yes they can have their own articles. Joseph I Prust is not notable enough to have his own article, but he was important to the estate of Annery, and indeed to the county of Devon, he was a Lt Col, a rank which denotes command of a regt. It is indeed dubious whether an article on the house alone (grade II only, not very notable) would have qualified as WP:Notable. It is the rich history of this estate which makes the topic notable. I do not understand why you are trying to curtail this article or to turn it into a superficial summary. You appear to believe that WP articles should be "Crisp", your word whatever that means, that's fine as a personal style for articles you create, but not one you can impose on WP articles unless it's in a guideline. You cannot justifiably prevent the natural development of a fuller article on this topic. It's still only a couple of pages long, and there's more to say of relevance, and more illustrations to be added. Please don't revert again before discussing your objections here. Thanks. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 17:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC))

Please see conversations about adding to much detail at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK geography/How to write about settlements#Manorial histories. I can get other places where you were warned about too much detail, if you need them.--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:21, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

removed mostly uncited, detailed info

His ledger stone survives in the Annery Chapel of Monkleigh Church, with the following biographical inscription: "Here lieth interred Joseph Prust of Annerie gent. sometime leiutent colon'l of horse to sr. Thomas Stuckley in his Maj'ties service of blessed memory Charles the First in which he lost one of his hands in fight before Plimouth. Joseph Prust, obiit Oct 17 77 (arms of Prust sculpted in relief) anno aetat. 57. Anagr. He is support. How law, religion, loyalty did fall, How first we lost the king & church then all, Experience shews 'twas because few at need, Who much pr'tended proud th'r freinds indeed, Here's one stood firme & gave his hand to own, Wr to but name at length was treason grown, Rebellions like the Hydra's heads doe grow, One cut of here & two rise up below, His hand such monsters knew how to suppress, Briareus' hundred hands can't soe redress, Oh Heaven's grant we nere may see again, The raging dogstar o'retop Charles his wain, Nor yet the wolfe usurp the lion's crown, Rebellion rampant & allegiance down, But if the Fates such times should have decreed, How much such hands as his was shall we need". Joseph I Prust left at his death two surviving sons, Joseph II Prust (1658-1692), second but eldest surviving son, who died without issue leaving as heir to his father's estate<ref>Per inscription on the joint jedger stone of both brothers in the Annery Chapel of Monkleigh Church "and leavinge noe issue the younger broth'r succeeded as heir to the fath'rs estate..."</ref> his younger brother John Prust (1660-1695), a captain in the army.<ref>Vivian, p.630</ref> Joseph II was buried in his mother's grave and John in that of his father.<ref>Per inscription on their joint ledger stone</ref>

This is not too much detail.

1. It is perfectly proper, indeed essential, in an article on an estate history to explain to the reader in some detail who the owners/occupants actually were and to give some biographical detail. A name in isolation is totally useless and meaningless to the reader who wants to be informed about the history of the estate.
2. This article is not about a hedge being present on the estate and the fact that nectarines were grown in the greenhouses, which was the information added by you which really was too much detail, a statement of the obvious and truly not relevant.
3. It is about the history of the estate which means the people. You clearly are not interested in the subject of these type of articles and I cannot understand why you want to edit them. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 17:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC))

adding #s to address each item.

1. Are you saying that it is essential to an article about an estate to provide tombstone information about one of the owners of the estate?
2. Agreed, as I did earlier - and took the info about the archaeological hedgebank out of the article.
3. Struck out uncivil comments, based upon numerous requests to keep it civil. No comments of my own.--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Verifiability, the guideline says that the information must be from "previously published information" - in bold letters. It also said that there should not be original research, which is what this appears to be.

The footnote you refer to says that the information must come from a published source "Base articles on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form"" Footnote: This includes material such as documents in publicly-accessible archives, inscriptions on monuments, gravestones, etc., that are available for anyone to see.--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:38, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm really glad we're talking about this issue calmly without engaging in reverts. Let's continue.

This is not just a "tombstone" you might find in a graveyard of joe bloggs. It is effectively the biography of a person who was not only important to the estate of Annery, but to the county of Devon itself, as he commanded a regiment at the siege of Plymouth in the Civil War. (that's what Lt. Cols do, but I haven't gone so far as to suggest that in the article to avoid OR). It's a primary source yes but not prohibited by WP guidelines if used with care, which it has been. But he's still not WP:Notable enough to have his own article, in my opinion at least. It would be a perma-stub. He wasn't MP or Sheriff etc. as far as I know. I certainly would not add text or images of a monument unless it was important to the story - and if it's an architecturally important one, e.g. mentioned by Pevsner (not in this case) even more reason to include it. The poetry is also important as it shows how strongly royalist the Prusts were, and makes several references to Joseph's hand being cut off. It is not mere detail, it adds greatly to the article for readers who want to be informed about Annery. Quotations are allowed by WP, and this is not particularly long.

Inscriptions on monuments are specifically allowed as published sources by WP:Verifiability (footnote 6) and although they are primary sources, no ban exists on the use of primary sources, although secondary sources are preferred. This primary source is selectively used and is just a part of this article and I believe adds much to the usefulness to the reader. Another one exists for his sons, but I deemed that not necessary for inclusion. If you strip out all the detail from an article it becomes just a summary, I don't think thats what WP is about, it does allow subjects to be dealt with in some detail. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 19:30, 9 July 2013 (UTC)) Forgot to add in response to your other point it is clearly cited in the text itself, which is allowed as an option to in-line citation, cited as to its physical location within the church, an appropriate citation for a monumental inscription. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 19:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC))

Quoting the tombstone at length does seem odd to me; what is the extended quote trying to tell us? Hchc2009 (talk) 19:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I assume by extended quote you mean the verse. This supplies an indication of how bitterly the Prust family suffered during the Civil War, how Joseph felt that he had made a highly principled and courageous stand for his principles, when all around him were peeling-off, despite having professed loyalty to Church and King. When it came to the crunch, they took the easy way out (Devon was overwhelmingly pro-Parliament, so supporting the king was extremely brave): "Experience shews 'twas because few at need, Who much pr'tended prov'd thr freinds indeed" (I think I put proud in error for prov'd) "He stood firme & gave his hand" for the cause. His hand "such monsters knew how to suppress", his hand was powerful, he was effective in opposing the Roundheads. Indicates his personal prowess. The author closes by saying if civil war should break out again, Joseph Prust is just the sort of man who would be needed to repress it: "But if the Fates such times should have decreed, How much such hands as his was shall we need". It's a eulogy to the man, composed so far as I know in original verse, and certainly notable in his biog. section in this article. How many people get verse eulogies written on them? Of course due to the OR policy I don't propose to add a textual analysis, or add any comment, but to let the reader glimpse a bit more into the personality of Joseph Prust, and indeed into the enduring bitterness towards the Roundheads on the part of his sons, even 17 years after the Restoration, who presumably commissioned, maybe even wrote the verse. It's all left to the reader to absorb. Not excessively long either I don't think. It's also useful in that it gives a good bedding of text in which to place the image, which would otherwise slip down into the next section on the next family, but that's a by-product. There's also an anagram hidden in it, which is unusual and of interest. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 12:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC))

This context makes sense for an article about Joseph Prust. I am trying to understand how this furthers the understanding of Annery, Monkleigh.--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:23, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the tombstone information.--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:41, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

References