Talk:William de Longchamp

Devereux-Longchamp Connection

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)

Royal we

"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)

yes. May I steal your phrasing? Ealdgyth - Talk 00:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course. Johnbod (talk) 00:05, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• massacre of the Jews of York in 1190 is worth linking, if it is not already. Johnbod (talk) 00:11, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Problem is that nothing in that article is cited "During Richard's absence in the Holy Land and during his captivity, the Jews of England were harassed by William de Longchamp. The Jewish community was forced to contribute toward the king's ransom 5,000 marks, more than three times as much as the contribution of the City of London." is not cited, and nothing I've run across relating to Longchamp says that he specifically persecuted the Jews. I'll dig a little tonight and see what I can turn up, but in this time frame, the Jews were considered "royal property" and being forced to contribute towards taxes wasn't anything that outlandish for them. 5000 marks for the entire population of Jews in England wasn't that bad, quite honestly, compared to some of the other times they were required to cough up. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Bring back Longchamp to deal with them bankers, that's what I say :) Johnbod (talk) 00:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, no, if we want bad boy bishops to deal with bankers, i say we do Ranulf Flambard. He was a much... quicker worker. Or, heck, Hubert Walter still managed to get money to Richard without causing the whole country to riot. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, you should know. The current lot would be no use - Rowan can't even manage to tell the Pope to keep his hands off his clergy. On the other, there's a more detailed unrefed account at York Castle. Johnbod (talk) 00:37, 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)

I just think when the massacre is mentioned & we have material on it, we should link it rather than leave it hanging. York castle doesn't mention WL. Johnbod (talk) 00:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Heh. It is in there. I've been working on Mellitus too much... linking. Feel free to whap me when it appears that I'm not getting what you're trying to tell me.... Linking now. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:58, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Geoffrey, Archbishop of York info

• The article on Geoffrey, Archbishop of York sheds a great deal more light on the problem between him and Longchamp. Strongly suggest copy/pasting text from one article to the other, after fully verifying all sources and cites of course:

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>

• Ling.Nut (talk) 07:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Ling, the only thing that is in that but not in this article is the bit about Longchamp's claiming that Geoffrey hadn't sworn fealty to Richard and a possible reason why. If you really think that's important here (it's in Geoffrey's article because it relates to Geoffrey), I can add it. Don't even have to verify, as i wrote both articles, which should have been obvious to you! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• Yes. That was in fact the main sticking point. I know it's about G. not L., but it's distracting. Suddenly someone is being arrested by L.'s henchman... huh? why? ... it should be clear that this is definitely fallout from the power struggle between John and Richard, and the charge should be clear, and the allegiances should be clear. Was Nonant John's man? Were most folks at Lodden John's men? I think it's also telling that G. showed up to vote at Lodden. To my mind, the very fact that he was in attendance kinda indicates the way the winds were blowing at that particular meeting.Oh...the article doesn't say G. was going to his own province in York ; it just says he was arrested at Dover...again, distracting. I don't know why G. was traveling to Dover etc.
• While I'm here, the article mentions L's lack of judiciary knowledge before informing us that he became Chief Justiciar ("Although named to the justiciarship..."). Was he some sort of regular justiciar before becoming chief? Ling.Nut (talk)

• Not that I'm aware of right off the top of my head. Justiciar wasn't a real "judicial" post at the time, it's more a "chief henchman" type of post. It's more that there is no system of regular justices yet, that comes under Hubert Walter, who was justiciar shortly after Longchamp, and started the practice of more professional rotating judges. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
• And part of the reason I didn't put much detail in this article is that Geoffrey's article, for a change, isn't in that bad of shape, and I was trying to avoid bogging this article down, when it would be relatively simple to go to Geoffrey's article for fuller details. However, if you're objecting, I can add the information ... Ealdgyth - Talk 02:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
• Yes. Sorry. I'm objecting. I understand you point. But this article should stand alone, without any distracting or incomplete passages. Ling.Nut (talk) 02:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• I'll work it over in the morning, when I'm more awake and less likely to make major errors! Ealdgyth - Talk 02:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

• I've worked in a bit more on Geoffrey, as well as adding in a bit about the Justiciar's office not being a judicial office alone. That work? Ealdgyth - Talk 16:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Several changes; self-reverted

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)

Pipewell

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)

I don't have a source that specifically states that, no. Ealdgyth - Talk 03:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

"wrote a treatise on law" but "aroused much hostility among his contemporaries"

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)

Malleus Fatuorum's edit addresses the issue. I have the sense that there is a better way to present this information but, for now, the resolution of the non sequitur problem is adequate. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 19:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't all that happy with it myself, particularly that "his actions" bit, so I've slightly reworked it. Malleus Fatuorum 20:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Much better. That was more or less what I had in mind but I hesitated to make any edits due to my abject ignorance of the subject. --Pseudo-Richard (talk) 20:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Trust me. Your ignorance of the subject can be no more abject than my own. Malleus Fatuorum 20:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Problems with John.

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)

The discussion in this paragraph referred to starts "Longchamp's relations with the English people were made more difficult because he was a native of Normandy, and often insensitive to English customs." so this isn't just John and the nobles we're referring to, it's the whole of the people, including the native clergy who would have staffed his cathedral. But I've added a bit to the sentence to make it clear that the problems with not speaking English would have been with the his flock not necessarily John or the nobles. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Contradictions

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)

I've fixed the lead, probably occured during copyediting, so the lead now says "Longchamp's father of being the son a peasant". I've reorderd the second problem to better explicate the time frame. Thanks for catching those. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:40, 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)

Are you looking at the OLD Dictionary of National Biography? Or the newer one? The newer one supercedes the old one, which really should not be consulted. If the new ODNB contradicts the old DNB, the newer one should be considered as the authoratative one. Likewise, anything newer than the old DNB would be that. I ask because of how you're spelling Puiset - that spelling is pretty much confined to older writings. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I see now where you're discussing in the ODNB, but ... the information in the article is explicating a very confusing situation - Richard was doing strange things with the justiciarship and West and Gillingham have additional details not contained in the ODNB, so while the ODNB may be simpler, it's not the full story - Longchamp didn't have quite the same authority as say Roger of Salisbury. I'm open to suggestions on wording that might make the information clearer, but I'm not comfortable with leaving out the fact that there were associates in the office, and I left out Mandeville in the interests of clarity - trying to keep out yet one more name, that in the end didn't really impinge that much. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:42, 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)

I think you're confused and seeing a contradiction where there isn't one. Both ONDB and the wiki article agree that they were co-justiciars in Dec 89. Whether Longchamp was "chief" in March 90 is really the only issue here - as they were still co-justiciars in Mar 90 and their authority was split then too. Gillingham does NOT see Longchamp as "chief" from March to June 90, so that may need to be made clearer, that there is disagreement between Gillingham and Turner (who wrote the ONDB article) on this point. It should be noted that the ONDB entry for Puiset doesn't mention Longchamp as "chief" justiciar either. Turner's perhaps a bit more forceful that most other historians in seeing Longchamp as "chief", no one else explicity calls him that - most emphasize that he acted that way, but he also held the king's seal, which accounted for his ability to manuever Puiset out of power, and he likely did not need any "chief justiciar" title over Puiset to ensure his dominance of the government. I've dealt with the issues also, thanks for pointing out points where things aren't clear - it's very easy when you've buried yourself in this information to just "know" what's behind things and why and fill in details that are actually missing. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:57, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I find it clearer now. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Family name

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)

Oxford Dictionary of National Biography uses "de" but the Handbook of British Chronology doesn't. I believe I just left it where it was when I started editing - it's a pretty even split in the sources, as I recall. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:42, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Argenton-Notre-Dame

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)

THe ODNB says "Longchamp, William de (d. 1197), administrator and bishop of Ely, probably born near Argenton, Normandy," ... which is all I can access since my ODNB access through Wiki has lapsed and no one seems able to figure out how to renew it. The linking of the village - no clue. I've clarified it a bit - I suspect there was some "help" when this was on the main page. Often we get told in the sources that so-and-so was from some village but are unable to locate that village in modern times... it's just how it goes. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:57, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I've got restored ODNB access and it indeed states: "Longchamp, William de (d. 1197), administrator and bishop of Ely, probably born near Argenton, Normandy, was a son of Hugh de Longchamp, who was a servant of Henry II, farmer of the revenues of the honour of Conches, Normandy, at the time of his death (probably in 1187). Hugh held land in Herefordshire, including a knight's fee of Hugh de Lacy's honour, the marriage portion of his wife. Apparently, her father was a tenant of the Lacys." See ODNB entry. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:48, 12 June 2018 (UTC)