Talk:Giles Mompesson

Untitled

No time to upload now, but there's an engraving at [1], discussed at [2] that might be nice here. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Fantastic! I knew that the "description" was in the National Portrait Gallery, but they're unfree and try to hold their thumbnails hidden. If you've found a free source, that would be great. He's a pretty notorious guy. Geogre 21:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll regret this (I always do), but I listed this one on the DYK suggestions. Thanks for the image, Bunchofgrapes. It's high resolution, too, which makes it all the better. I read about the print in the DNB, and that's why I altered the caption somewhat. Geogre 03:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Huh?

The last sentance of the article reads His own will was proved on August 3, 1663.. Does this mean "he died on..."? Or something else? Maury 13:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

If that's ambiguous, I'll change it. It means that we don't know when he died, but his will was passed by a court (proved) on that date, so he died before that. He probably died between a week and a month before that, as his family was rich, and his estate was worth a bundle. Consequently, they would not have taken long to go to court to test the will. Geogre 13:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Click here

The reason I had a "click for detail" message in the image caption is threefold:

1. The scan itself is high definition. Despite everyone's preference, that's not the case with most Wikipedia images, so this one will expand to fill the screen.
2. The image is a print that contains a great many words. These are hardly visible at 250 pixels, but they're actually legible at a high resolution, and the reader of the article may well wish to see the satire of Mompesson.
3. The image is discussed in the text in a quick reference. Readers should know that, unlike most cases with images, they can learn more about this one by a click.

I absolutely agree that "click here" is stupid, and I virtually never do it, but I thought this one needed some hint to the reader. Better phrasing would be welcomed. Geogre 15:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, let me try making a better "click here" line. :-) — Kimchi.sg | Talk 16:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 16:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. I don't really mind how we say it, so long as we let them know. Besides, the scan is lovely. Geogre 17:51, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Misleading edit summary

For my money, unlinking every single year, unlinking a great many nouns, and unlinking every date while in the process of a single disambiguation is not really a "minor edit." Seems fairly substantive to me, especially because the year links were within the MOS guidelines (birth and death years, occurrences that mark a major development in history; the trial of Mompesson was part of a general corruption purge that occurred in 1621...if readers went to the article on the year, they might in fact see that the English Civil War was preparing as the "long parliament" began; it is much easier to link the year than to try to argue about Mompesson's detailed standing in the rise of the Puritain Common). Geogre 04:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Contradictory evidence of the end of his career

This article states that Mompesson was in retirement in Wiltshire after the late 1620s when he returned having fled justice ("The House of Commons ordered him out of the country on 8 February 1624, but he was back in the country soon after. He lived in Wiltshire in retirement for the rest of his life.").

From a book by Buchanan Sharp , Mompesson is mentioned as working for Barbara Villiers in the Forest of Dean in 1630-31. Here's the summary I made on Western Rising page:

The object of the Crown was not complete disafforestation in the Forest of Dean, as both timber and iron ore could be exploited for the Crown's profit without leasing the lands. During James I and Charles I's reigns, sales of wood for use in iron works were increased. Some land was enclosed in order for ore to be dug. Around 3,000 acres were however granted to "courtiers and government officials" with the intention that they exploit the lands for grazing, iron and coal mining and charcoal production. 17,000 acres was to be left to be worked by those claiming common land rights.

Riots ensued. In March 1631, the enclosures were destroyed. An assembly of 500 men, "with two drummers, two coulers and one fife in a warlike and outrageous manner did assemble themselves together armed with gunnes, pokes, halberds and other weapons". They destroyed enclosures granted to Tristram Flower in the Snead, then onto lands granted in 1625 to Sir Edward Villiers, the half brother of Buckingham. Villier's widow Lady Barbara Villiers's agent Robert Bridges was shot at and threatened, iron ore pits filled in and enclosures broken. An effigy of Lady Villier's agent Sir Giles Mompesson was thrown into the pits and buried.

In April 1631, 3,000 rioters with banners and drums removed most of the remaining enclosures elsewhere in the forest and attacked houses of the improvers. By the end of the month, all of the 1628 enclosures had been removed. Over the next two years, the rioters attempted to destroy enclosures as they were put back in place.

Interesting! This seems to contradict the story of his retirement to Wiltshire somewhat. His local popularity with the Dean commoners seems in character. Jim Killock (talk) 13:15, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

References