Talk:Hubert de Burgh, Earl of Kent

Descendant?

A simply shared surname makes Chris de Burgh descendant of Hubert de Burgh? I don't think so. Where's the substantial ou research proofs to make a claim like that? I don't see none. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.216.236.75 (talk) 11:00, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

de Burgh and the blacksmith?

From Churchill's History of the English Speaking Peoples:

In 1232 he was driven from power by a small palace clique. Threatened in his life, he took sanctuary at Brentwood. He was dragged from this asylum, but the common, humble blacksmith who was ordered to put the fetters on him declared he would die any death rather than do so; and he is said to have used the words which historians have deemed to be the true monument of Hubert de Burgh: "Is he not that most faithful Hubert who so often saved England from the devastation of foreigners and restored England to England?"

Is this good history? Should it be in the article?Jbening (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Only after I wait a year and then add text to this effect to the article does Hchc2009 weigh in with, " Undue weight - and it Churchill a poor source for modern historical analysis (original story comes from Matthew Paris, btw)" and revert the edit. This article is light years away from being too long. Can we add that juicy anecdote based on the testimony of Matthew Paris, and other content to put a little flesh on the bones? It's worth noting that the episode is related in both Chisholm and Hunt--both of which are used as sources in this article. Anyone have a copy of the first Carpenter reference that I could look at?Jbening (talk) 23:42, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, my apologies for not spotting the item above on the talk page from last year; I can see why the timing would have irritated you. Churchill, though, is a very poor source for this period, and quoting a paragraph from him is giving undue weight to seriously outdated scholarship. I can't find any evidence of David Carpenter, for example, mentioning the incident in his "Minority of Henry III" or the relevant chapter of "The Reign of Henry III", nor is it mentioned in F. J. West's current ODBN entry for de Burgh, although in passing West does cast some general doubt over the accuracy of the St Albans accounts of this period of de Burgh's life. Both Chilsholm and Hunt are now very dated (1911 and 1886 respectively) and are no longer reliable secondary sources for this period. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:14, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. Given that, would you update the material that is based on Chisholm and Hunt so that it reflects the state of the art in the sources that are available to you? To a non-expert, this article reads like a series of barely connected glimpses into a life rather than a coherent account of the life of a man who was so prominent in his time. Jbening (talk) 04:48, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

I am on my second reading through a copy of F. J. West's entry on de Burgh in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, and will be making edits to this article in the next few days--probably not all at once. Jbening (talk) 20:53, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Was he Count of Mortain?

I'm pretty sure I'm right about this, but I'll quote the passage from the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, to be transparent: "On 8 February 1198 de Burgh witnessed a charter of John, as count of Mortain, at Tinchebrai in Normandy, and in another charter of the following 12 June he was styled chamberlain of John's household." That parallel construction to me indicates that we have one document from 1198 testifying to one office he held (count of Mortain), and another document from 1199 testifying to another office. I can't imagine why, in such a sentence, the author would have highlighted the fact that John was count of Mortain at the time de Burgh witnessed the 1198 document--especially since no information about de Burgh himself would thus be communicated in the first part of that sentence.

What this testimony implies is that John gave up the county of Mortain and conferred it on de Burgh a little over a year before he became king. If we accept that de Burgh became count in 1198, then the list of counts of Mortain article should be corrected, ending John's tenure in 1198 rather than 1199. As is, there's no source for the 1199 date claimed in that article. I don't personally know how lucrative a gift the county of Mortain would have been, and thus how plausible John's giving it up then would have been. But if we take the 1199 date in the list at face value, we have no explanation for why he would have lost it at a time that he was still enjoying success in Normandy, nor do we have any idea who held the office until 1204. All in all, the conclusion that de Burgh held it through that period seems the most parsimonious.

I looked at the DNB entry for John, and nothing is mentioned about the county of Mortain after his initially receiving it in 1189, including in the discussion of his reverses in Normandy around 1204. Anyone have any more detailed sources for that part of John's reign? Jbening (talk) 16:46, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

I am sure this is just unclear wording in ODNB. It means that John issued the charter as count of Mortain. If de Burgh had held such an important title it would be a major feature in his biography. The statement that he was count of Mortain should be deleted from this article and that on the count of Mortain. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:18, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional information. I'm still not buying that the DNB author means merely that John was Count of Mortain then, because that would make the sentence kind of asinine--communicating nothing but that Hubert witnessed a document, when the rest of the paragraph is about his accumulation of offices. Is it just a hunch on your part that Count of Mortain was so much more important an office than all of the other offices listed in that paragraph of this article? BTW, all of them came from the same paragraph of the DNB article. Jbening (talk) 23:17, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Never mind--it does seem a disproportionately large achievement, relative to de Burgh's scrambling for other titles over the next few years, none of which seem as lofty as a county. I'll delete it. Jbening (talk) 23:30, 30 November 2018 (UTC)