Talk:Manor of Monkleigh

Uncited information

The following is uncited information

• bottom of the 2nd paragraph of the Descent section: "in Somerset. Canonsleigh Abbey, Devon, was also originally known as "Leigh", which acquired the prefix "Canons" after it was donated as a religious foundation to the Augustinian Canons Regular."
• bottom of the 4th paragraph in the Coffin section: "A mural monument exists in Monkleigh Church, in the north transept, to his eldest daughter Jane Coffin (1593-1646), who in 1645, aged 26, married in Monkleigh Church to Hugh Prust (1614-1650) of Annery, within the parish of Monkleigh. She died the next year, as her mural monument records, and her husband died five years later without progeny, when his heir to Annery became his younger brother Lt-Col.Joseph Prust (1620-1677)of Annery."

Is there a source for this info + connection to the manor?--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:24, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Carole, hi again. Could you use a cn tag next time please rather than removing text to talk? Thanks. For what follows please note that monumental inscriptions & gravestones are valid sources under WP:Verify (hidden in a footnote). The article already contains a photo of Jane Prust's monument with full transcript. I will be adding transcript from Joseph's ledger stone to Annery article. It's interesting as you'll see later. I remember you saying you couldn't find any sources for Prust of Annery, watch the article for my forthcoming additions. Answers:

• • Ref for Canonsleigh was given in that WP article, but will repeat it here: Thorn, part 2, 24,15 and I'll quote it for your assurance as I'm not sure you have access to the source: "DB" (Domesday Book) "Leige...c 1170...priory for Augustinian canons ...established there; henceforth Leigh was called Canonsleigh". (DB "Leige" (sic), next "Leigh" spelling as given) Hope that's ok.
  • "A mural monument exists in Monkleigh Church, in the north transept, to his eldest daughter Jane Coffin (1593-1646), who in 1645, aged 26, married in Monkleigh Church to Hugh Prust (1614-1650) of Annery, within the parish of Monkleigh. She died the next year, as her mural monument records, and her husband died five years later without progeny, when his heir to Annery became his younger brother Lt-Col.Joseph Prust (1620-1677) of Annery."

I'll replace the new text with refs in the article, anything you still don't like tag, and I'll attend to it. I suspect you're going to beat me up about Hugh Prust (d.1650) not proved to be "of Annery". I can order up the will if you like. Regards. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 02:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC))

1. Yes, the information in an article is supposed to be cited, so you did exactly the right thing getting the information from that source and adding it as a citation here.

2. Great, I think there's at least one place where there's information that's not truly a citation, and there's extra notes that aren't needed so I will just do a little tidying.

It's great! to know that you'll work on citation needed tags. the Joseph Watson, 1st Baron Manton article has some citation needed tags, so that would be wonderful to clean them up.--CaroleHenson (talk) 04:15, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I returned citation needed tags for #4 and 5. They aren't citations. Do you have Vivian page number for one - National Archives citation info for the other?--CaroleHenson (talk)

Recent comments

Posted on User Talk:CaroleHenson: I have had to correct two shocking examples of an almost cavalier disregard for detail following your edits to Manor of Monkleigh. These concern highly material issues to the history of this manor, and I cannot understand how they could be treated so carelessly. The edits concerned are

• 23:15 7 July 2013, where you changed the existing "Alfred could not be identified as the same person as Alfred the Butler" to "Alfred was identified as Alfred the Butler" (both quotes paraphrased by me to emphasise sense given to reader)
• 04:34 8 July 2013, where you changed "Monkleigh was given to Montacute Priory" to "Monkleigh was given to Montacute Priory and Canonsleigh Abbey". ((both quotes paraphrased by me to emphasise sense given to reader)

1. See Domesday for Monkleigh: "Lord in 1086: Alfred the butler." It look like I forgot to add that source, which you have used in your articles as well. I don't have access to the Thorn book. Please also see: "During the reign of King Stephen (1135-1154) the manor of Monkleigh was held by Alueredus Pincerna ("Alfred the Butler"), formerly the butler of the Count of Mortain, his overlord. It is not certain whether the two Alfreds of 1086 were the same person, but in 1086 Alfred the Butler held the nearby manor of Little Torrington from the Count, as listed in the Exon Domesday Book. During the reign of King Stephen (1135-1154) Alfred the Butler granted Monkleigh, together with his other estates of Frizenham (in the parish of Little Torrington.) and Densham (in the parish of Woolfardisworthy), to Montacute Priory"
2. Regarding Canonsleigh Abbey, if you look at the July 7 version, I did not have Canonsleigh Abbey in the article. It said: "During the reign of King Stephen (1135-1154) Alfred the Butler granted Monkleigh, together with his other estates of Frizenham (in the parish of Little Torrington.) and Densham (in the parish of Woolfardisworthy), to Montacute Priory You added it at this version

I am extremely confused by this attack.--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Let's try to get to the facts calmly so the article can be the best it can. Here goes: Domesday Book itself says "Alured ten de co. Lege" as given by Thorne, part 1, 15,9, left hand page. Right hand page opposite translated by Thorn says "Alfred holds Monkleigh from the count". No mention of "Alfred the Butler". full stop.

Interpreting DB is not simple. It requires access to the best and most authoritative sources and some experience on the part of the editor in using those sources. You can't edit DB articles authoritatively without good sources, not just on-line summaries, as you relied on. It's not just something you can jump into with no experience whatsoever and expect not to slip up. Yes, it was held in the reign of King Stephen (1135-1154) by "Alfred the Butler", as I quoted from Thorn, but that is 49 years after DB at the closest, 68 years at the furthest, in other words possibly two generations away. This sort of pitfall Domesday Book is full of, and no assumptions should ever be made when using it. This is basic methodology for students of English history - if you don't have a historical background it makes it difficult editing articles on this sort of topic.

As for Canonsleigh you did add the text "and" before "Canonsleigh Abbey", please go back and check the last version before my correction. This was a highly material edit done without due care. I know I've had my own serious problems with editing, but attention to detail has not been one of them. An article with such errors as the two above, even if the refs and notes are attractively formatted, is worse than useless to the reader. It is also extremely frustrating to the person who took extreme care to get the details correct, only to have all garbled in a whirlwind edit of form over substance. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 18:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC))

I really like your idea of taking this calmly

• I have several other potential comments to your response, but the crux of the issue is: Since "Alfred the butler" is referred to in the next paragraph and I said "The Doomsday Book online version states that it was "Alfred the Butler", I'm a bit confused about why we cannot make a tie between the two Alfreds.
• Yes, if you'd like to fault me for adding "and" before I had done the research and been unable to find (and thus discounted/removed) Canonsleigh, I'll accept it.--CaroleHenson (talk) 18:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the second issue, it might be best if I put up "in use" or "under construction" tags so that it's clear that it's a work in progress. I'll do that for the Siston article, which is a work in progress.--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Alfred, there's what appears to be an updated version of Thorn vol 2 on the internet here - see the last two sentences on that page. Looks reliable? The content is accessible from the Download Dataset link on the right. It's in rtf format - any word-processor should open it OK. I'll let you two decide what to do upon reading the content in 15,9 and 15,16.  —SMALLJIM  19:14, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

What do you think, LT?--CaroleHenson (talk) 19:49, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm really glad we're talking constructively. This isn't meant to be about blame, rather on getting the detail in the article right. Thank you for accepting the error on Canonsleigh which is now fine in the text. "I'm a bit confused about why we cannot make a tie between the two Alfreds". You just can't do that, golden rule in Domesday Book alalysis. I can go into it in detail if you want, but it would turn into a basic lesson on historical methodology, which in any case I'm not qualified to do. As for your other point of using "in use" or "under construction" tags, great, but all of Wikipedia is "under construction", see WP:Imperfect! I think that's an important point and why I like articles to be free to develop rather than having their lids screwed down and being put on the shelves for storage. That's how I feel about Manor of Monkleigh at the moment. Thanks for having slowed down a bit, much appreciated, there's no hurry to finish this, let's get it right and talk about disagreements. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 20:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC))

Someone help! I can't believe you've just done that Carole! (added in to the text "The Doomsday Book online version states that it was "Alred the Butler"). I'll come back tomorrow to discuss further. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 20:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC))

edit conflict - where I had thanked you for being calm. I didn't "just do" anything. I made that edit earlier and had mentioned it in this discussion. Is it possible to stay calm? I'm looking for your input.

What is your suggestion?--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

It appears that he has missed my comment.  —SMALLJIM  20:36, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

That may be. If it helps to summarise, Smalljim provided a link to the Thorn book in rtf format. It shows on 15,9 that the Alfred in question for Monkleigh is "Alfred the butler", as it does on the online version.--CaroleHenson (talk) 20:44, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not quite that simple, Carole, since the butler bit is only included in the Exon Domesday, and then only in other entries (15,16-19 etc). The 15,9 note says that it's not clear that this is the same guy.  —SMALLJIM  21:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok. How about if I just take out the butler part where LT was questioning it. It's still in the next paragraph - but that's for a later time - and LT's not questioning that part.--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I do think Lt had it right in the first paragraph, though if he had cited it properly this confusion wouldn't have arisen. If his reference 1 in this version (a note actually) wasn't OR, he must have seen the Hull document (or something else that came to the same conclusion) because what he says in that note is not mentioned in the paper edition. Unfortunate readers (like me) assuming that it would be in the paper edition of Thorn (because that's the only cited ref that appears to cover this material) were set to be disappointed, leading in my case to a waste of my time in finding where it did come from.  —SMALLJIM  22:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

You may be surprised to hear that Lt seems to have made a mistake in the 1st sentence of the 2nd paragraph, though. According to my reading, the Exon Alueredus Pincerna who was the Count of Mortain's butler (in 15,16) was not the same person who held the manor during Stephen's reign: "a later Alfred, called 'the butler'" (in 15,9 under Monkleigh). Perhaps you could check that to see if you agree.  —SMALLJIM  23:07, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I cut and pasted the referenced info here to help make it clearer - and I agree with you.

Thorn, Domesday - 15,9 and 15,16

15,9 [Exon 210a4] ALFRED [* THE BUTLER *]. An Alfred, called 'the butler' in Exon, was the count's tenant in 15,16-19;32-33;55. However, he may also have another Alfred as his tenant; see 15,60 Alfred note. The identification with Alfred the butler is therefore not clear-cut. MONKLEIGH. Domesday Lege. Later a parish in Shebbear Hundred, the successor to Merton Hundred. This holding was granted with Frizenham (15,32) and Densham (15,31) to Montacute Priory in the reign of King Stephen by a later Alfred, called 'the butler'. In Taxatio Ecclesiastica, p. 152b the prior of Montacute holds Monklegh'; see Monasticon Anglicanum, v. pp. 163, 166; Maxwell Lyte and others, Bruton and Montacute Cartularies, nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9 pp. 119-125, no. 113 p. 158, no. 161 p. 181, no. 169 p. 185 and Reichel, 'Tiverton Hundred', pp. 539, 569. ORDWULF <OF ALWINGTON>. See 1,56 Ordwulf note. 15,16 [Exon 212a1; Terrae Occupatae 497b3] ALFRED [!1! THE BUTLER !1!]. Exon Alueredus Pincerna. He was the Count of Mortain's butler (Regesta Regum Anglo-Normannorum, i. p. xxvii) and held land from him in other counties in Domesday. LITTLE TORRINGTON. Domesday Liteltorelande, now Little Torrington parish in Shebbear Hundred, the successor to Merton Hundred. It appears that Toritone and perhaps Torilande (see 34,9 Torrington note) can both stand for Great Torrington and Little Torrington; see also 1,31 Torrington note and 16,34 Torrington note and compare Beldrendiland for Barlington (3,15) and Birland for Bere, that is, Bere Ferrers (15,46). In Exon order this entry falls in the middle of a Shebbear Hundred group and the preceding entry in Domesday, Smytham, lay in this parish, but conclusive evidence for the identification is lacking. Reichel's identification with Woodland (VCH Devon, i. p. 539 note 4 and Reichel, 'Shebbear Hundred', pp. 541, 571) does not convince. Abbreviated details of this manor, which has been 'added to the lands of Edmer Ator', appear in the Terrae Occupatae. ALWARD [!1! RUFUS !1!]. Exon Eluuardus rufus ('Alward the red'), perhaps a relation of Aelmer Rufus (15,33; see 15,33 Edmer note), the T.R.E. tenant of the next entry in Exon. HE COULD GO WHERE HE WOULD. The corresponding entry in Exon has '... he could go with this land to whichever lord he would'. The Terrae Occupatae entry has 'which a thane held jointly in 1066', neither his name nor his freedom to choose a lord being mentioned. 1 VILLAGER, 1 SMALLHOLDER ... 1 PLOUGH. The corresponding entry in Exon has 'Alfred has 1 villager who has 1 plough and Alfred has 1 smallholder ...'. See 1,9 villagers note. 15,60 [Exon 214a2] ALFRED [* THE BRETON *] ALSO. The corresponding entry in Exon has 'Alfred', with no idem, so not necessarily the same man as the subtenant of 15,59; see 15,21 Bretel note. Nonetheless, he is possibly Alfred the Breton (see DEV 39) who has 1 virgate lordship in the Tax Return for Silverton Hundred, though the main Exon gives his lordship as 1 ½ virgates (see {Appendix: Lordship and Villagers' Table}). There may have been a change in the distribution of lordship and villagers' holding between the dates of the Tax Returns and the main Exon returns, or one figure may be an error or a correction. This is the only holding of an Alfred in this hundred. See 39,10 Larkbeare note. CHITTERLEY. In Bickleigh parish, Hayridge Hundred, the successor to Silverton Hundred. See 15,60 Alfred note for the possible Tax Return evidence. HADEMAR. See 15,2 Hademar note.

Thanks for your watchful eye!--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:32, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Who are you thanking for his watchful eye? I'll intrude myself into the warm glow of your approbation too! But seriously, Brilliant! I think we've got it right now!

SJ expounded the point I was going to make, concerning the different texts of the Exchequer Domesday and Exon Domesday. Whilst Exc for Little Torrington says held by "Alfred", Exon adds "the Butler", shown (with all other Exon additions) by Thorn in smaller text. Thus we can be certain that "Alfred" here was "Alfred the Butler". But, in the case of Monkleigh, both Exch and Exon merely state "Alfred", as indicated by the lack of any smaller text additions to the entry given in Thorn. Thus we cannot assume, as we did with Little Torrington, that the Alfred who held Monkleigh was "Alfred the Butler", however likeley it probably was. Well done SJ I think your forensic skills have been well applied here, as elsewhere of course.

The reason I added a note saying that the source offered no proof that he was A the B, was to discourage future editors from making such change without due consideration, effectively a "not to be confused with" warning. But I think the text is fine now.

SJ is quite correct to say the source identified two "Alfred the Butlers", one living in 1086, who held Little Torrington as listed in Exon Domesday, and one poss 2 generations later ("in the reign of Stephen" (1035-1189)), who is identified by Thorn as "a later A the B" (from sources not given, but that's OK) in Part 2, chap 15,9. If I hadn't made that clear, apologies I think it is now.

This issue has fundamentally arisen due to reliance on the on-line Domesday Book web-site, which is great for images of the original DB, but which contains only summarised data on holders etc, which misses significant nuances, unlike Thorn which is more thorough.

I can virtually guarantee that within a few months someone will add "the Butler" to the text. Does anyone think it would be a good idea or acceptable to add after "Alfred" a cautionary note to editors, saying "not to be confused with "Alfred the Butler"?(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 08:53, 10 July 2013 (UTC))

It's my watchful eye. It's nothing to do with the first paragraph. Carole and I agreed above that the first sentence of the second paragraph is wrong, would you explain that, please?  —SMALLJIM  10:26, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Quite right, I see exactly what you mean. I withdraw any claim to credit for watchful eyes. I hope you think I have corrected this adequately in my last post. In fact no mention of the Latinised name, or the parish of Little Torrington is needed at all. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 11:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC))

References

Leigh/Monkleigh

Technically the manor was called "Leigh" (or "Lege" as the DB scribe spelled it) until it was given to the monks of Montacute, when it became presumably "Monk's Leigh". (That's just my speculation off mainspace). Thorn (part 2, 24,15)provides confirmation that this happened in the case of "Canons' Leigh". Are we correct in talking about "Monkleigh" in the Domesday Book section? DB made no mention of this name. Is it anachronistic? Comments please. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 09:05, 10 July 2013 (UTC))

Doesn't "The Domesday Book of 1086 records Monkleigh as Lege," cover it? Or, do you think more needs to be done?--CaroleHenson (talk) 15:18, 10 July 2013 (UTC)