Talk:William Marshal, 1st Earl of Pembroke/Archive 1

Archive 1

Chronica Major

The likes of Christopher Gravett (Knight: Noble Warrior of England 1200-1600), Suzanne Lewis (The Art of Matthew Paris in the Chronica Majora) and Matthew Strickland (War and Chivalry: The Conduct and Perception of War in England and Normandy) are all united in stating that the image of Marshal unhorsing Baldwin de Guisnes from the Chronica Majora relates to his son Richard Marshal at the Battle of Monmouth 1233, and not William Marshal. nick_hartl@hotmail.com

I have read that the threat was for William Marshal to be cast at the walls from a catapult. Do we have a citation that it was, in fact, hanging to be used to kill young William? (At the beginning, before his fathers "Hammer and Anvil Quote) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.74.192.233 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 16 March 2007 (UCT) (UTC)

Changes

Just wanted to say what I did. Based on what I've read, and without having sources at hand, I cleaned up the biography in terms of wording, making it more consistent in style and (I hope) easier to read. I put in the headings as well. I did change the description of the tournaments, much as Jane says below (I did it before I read Jane's bit, lol), but that's the only substantive change, I think. Don't know about the Third vs. First Earl of Pembroke bit. They restarted these things all the time, of course. Hope everything is all right. Lordjim13 14:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Now I've incorporated the biographical information from the Earl of Pembroke page, which was originally Encyclopedia Britannica 1911. Adds some good stuff. Lordjim13 01:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Flower of Chivalry

Removed the "flower of knighthood" bit. It ain't history, ain't really very informative, and it sounds very much like one of them icky 19th century romantic quotes. Sorry, but let's not confuse literature (including plays and film) with history. If this needs to be a stub, let it be an informative one. JHK

William Marshall: The Flower of Chivalry, by Georges Duby. I remember reading it in college history class. Rmhermen 09:37 Aug 12, 2002 (PDT)

I read it too: good book. Lordjim13 14:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

One of my favorite books too, but the original title in French is totally different Guillaume le Maréchal ou Le meilleur chevalier du monde "the best knight in the world" Nortmannus (talk) 05:15, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

From Jane: marytrary@hotmail.com:

I have made a few edits. Ist: amended William's title, and those of his sons. He was third Earl of Pembroke (not 1st or 4th) The title had been created for Strongbow's father and held by Strongbow. William Marshall was 3rd.

2nd: John Marshall changed sides only once, and this was not the reason that he had to give a hostage.

3rd: it is misleading to say that the Empress had asked John to hold Newbury for her. Newbury was probably in fact Hamstead Marshall, on John's estate a few miles from Newbury, but might have been a temporary fortification at Newbury (see David Crouch). Either way it was not one of the two castles, Marlborough and Ludgershall held for the Empress.

4th: it is also misleading to say that Isabel de Clare brought the title of Earl of Pembroke with her. Although Strongbow and his father had held the title, it was not automatic that William would get the title or all of Isabel's lands, which were in the grant of the king. In fact it was some years before the title was confirmed, and he never did get all of the de Clare inheritance.

5th: I have altered William's job description, when in the Young King's mesnie to tutor in chivalry (see Painter)

6th: I have deleted the reference to Eleanor being placed in William's custody by Henry. I am not aware of any source for this, and since William had been sponsored by Eleanor and had supported the Young King's rebellion, it is unlikely. If true, I think William's biographer's would have mentioned it.

I have left, but am not happy with, the description of the twelfth century tournament as 'bloody hand-to-hand combat'. This is not a good description of a melée. A melée was a mock battle. The main aim was to capture members of the other side (particularly the wealthy ones) so that you could take their armour and horse and ransom your captives. It was not in the knight's interests to injure his opponent, so although injuries and deaths did occur, 'bloody' is misleading.

Sources:

William Marshal, Knight-errant, Baron and Regent of England by Sidney Painter, John Hopkins Press 1933 (available as reprint from University of Toronto Press)

William Marshal, Court, Career and Chivalry in the Angevin Empire 1147-1219, by David Crouch, Longman 1990.

Henry II by W.L.Warren, Eyre Methuen 1973.

For a more sceptical view of William's career, see - William Marshal, King Henry II and the Honour of Chateauroux, by Nicholas Vincent,in The Journal of the British Record Association v.25 n.102 (2000) (this is available on the net - if you do a search - I've lost the url) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.64.167.121 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 11 January 2005 (UTC)

King Stephen

I read the accurate account of John Marshal's words regarding the capture of his son. I would like to propose that John Marshal knew that Stephen would not kill a child. An analysis of his reign shows him to be a gallant fighter, and a good military tactian, but alas, lacked the homicidal tendancies of his brethen Kings, although his son Eustace surely did not. Just my opinion. Mugginsx (talk) 11:45, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Missing Decades

Anyone know what William was up to from 1168-1185? As it stands, the article has him being captured by Guy de Lusignan and ransomed by Eleanor of Aquitane in 1168. We are then given an account of his entry to the world of tournaments. The next section then begins: "Upon his return in 1185, he rejoined the court of Henry II". The "Death" section also mentions his being initiated into the Order of the Knights Templar, "fulfilling a promise he made on Crusade". The article makes no mention of his ever going on Crusade, since he surely remained in England while Richard was away.207.6.223.31 (talk) 17:03, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

I just checked Wikisource, and there is information in Kingsford that is missing from the article. First, it mentions that Marshal went to the Holy Land after the death of Henry I. I'm not sure what protocol is in a situation like this: is it correct to describe him as being "on Crusade" when his trip took place outside of any of the numbered Crusades? At any rate,the "Royal Favour" section begins with him returning to the court in 1185. Henry I, whose death precipitated Marshal's voyage, died in 1185. Kingsford has Marshal leaving in 1185 and remaining in the Levant for two years. I am not by any stretch an experienced editor, but I would appreciate it if somebody who is would attend to these errors in continuity. Thank you.207.6.223.31 (talk) 17:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Pardon? Which Henry I? Not of England, or France, or Germany, because none of those died in 1185. Henry I of England died in 1135, and Henry II in 1189. Zoetropo (talk) 00:29, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Coat of arms...

13th century depiction of the 2nd William Marshal's shield (left) and the modern version used in the article (right)

I've two concerns here.

Firstly, the cited quote doesn't talk about this William Marshal having a shield of this description; it only notes that "Le Conte de PENNBROK, Party d'or e de vert, a un lion rampant, party de or e de goules en lung--Another roll, temp. HEN. III." Henry III ruled from 1216-1272, and there is no particular reason to suppose that this roll - or the reference to the Count of Pembroke - is about this William Marshal (d.1219), as opposed to one of his sons. The historian David Crouch notes that this William Marshal had a banner with red lion on a green and yellow background, but makes no reference to this appearing on any shields. Adrian Ailes, in Medieval Knighthood IV: Papers from the Fifth Strawberry Hill Conference 1990, notes that this William Marshal used other devices, such as the Tancarville arms, on his shield in battle, at least earlier in his career, but makes no references to later shield designs.

Secondly, I'm not at all sure about the appearance of the lion on the image added into the article. We have a rare, contemporary image of how the shield of William's son - another William Marshal - appeared, drawn by Matthew Paris at the time in the 13th century. This contemporary depiction is far less elaborate than ours, with a very different tail, differently placed feet, no tongue and with no frilly fur. To be honest, the one on the right looks like a very modern interpretation of a medeival coat of arms. Now, I wouldn't argue that you could guarantee that Paris' drawing was 100% accurate either, but I'd really like to see a reliable reference that William Marshal's shield looked more like the one on the right rather than the one on the left if we're going to use it in the article. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Heraldry is not standardised. As long as it follows the blazon it is still the same arms, regardless of the art style. If you really wanted I could change the lion to look more mediæval, but as it is, this version is still undeniably correct. Zacwill16 (talk) 18:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not at all convinced that the new version is correct - or at least that it accurately looks like whatever went on the shield of William Marshal in the 12th/13th century. As a compromise, would you be up for us replacing the modern version with the contemporary version? Hchc2009 (talk) 18:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

As far as heraldry is concerned, it is correct: it still follows the blazon party per per pale Or and vert, a lion rampant gules, i.e. a red lion rampant on a field split in half vertically gold and green. I guess using the contemporary version is a fair compromise though. Zacwill16 (talk) 19:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Let's give it a day or so see if there are any other voices weighing in from either perspective, but not, let's go for that then. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Replaced arms of son William 2nd Earl's image with earlier inverted shield of William Marshal 1st Earl signifying his death illustrated by Matthew Paris. - Athrash | ^Talk 16:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Consanguinity between William Marshal and William II de Tancarville?

Does anyone know the exact blood relationship between William Marshal and the man who trained and knighted him, William II de Tancarville? (In my investigations so far, I haven't found any common ancestors.) Zoetropo (talk) 00:31, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

The relationship is detailed in Crouch, William Marshal, 22 and n, and derived from William's mother, Sybil of Salisbury, whose grandfather, Edward of Salisbury married into the Tancarville family.

Potential Conflict

This article seems to be in conflict with the Wikipedia article on Richard FitzGilbert de Clare, 2nd Earl of Pembroke and the Wikipedia article Gilbert Fitzgilbert de Clare, 1st Earl of Pembroke who were both known by the nick-name of "Strongbow". Isabel de Clare was a daughter of Richard, and by this lineage William Marshall is the 4th Earl of Pembroke. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.177.25.210 (talk) 13:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

They were both first earl - William Marshall by the second creation. See Earl of Pembroke. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:53, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on William Marshal, 1st Earl of Pembroke. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071117025154/http://carlowtown.com/info_tosee.asp to http://www.carlowtown.com/info_tosee.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Return from where?

There seems to be a big gap in the article from 1168 to 1185. Apparently he fell out of royal favour during that time? And now he was returning? CrinklyCrunk (talk) 19:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

During most of that time he served Henry "The Young King", losing favor with Henry II when Henry the Young attempted a coup during which he (the Young) died in 1183. As a way to both buy time and as a genuine religious concern, from 1183-1185 he traveled to Jerusalem on crusade. I'm at a public terminal now but I have sources at home to fill all this in with and will do so when I get back. (Vyselink, unlogged in) 82.203.24.1 (talk) 14:39, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

CrinklyCrunk: It took me a few months to remember to do this, but I have added the information. Vyselink (talk) 20:00, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

David Crouch

I'm sorry to bother everyone, but the link to David Crouch is wrong. The current link sends the reader to David Crouch, a conservative MP ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Crouch ) instead of to David Crouch, the medieval historian ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Crouch_(historian) ). Unfortunately, I don't know how to change this, and I would be very grateful if someone could teach me how.Gregorybard (talk) 02:08, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Fixed. All you have to do is go to edit mode, highlight the words, click the "Link" button up top, and find the correct page. And please start a new section at the bottom of the talk page when you use it.Vyselink (talk) 02:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

knight errant?

I notice our lead emphasizes quite strongly that the Marshal was a real-life knight errant. Is that really a common way to talk about real medieval knights, let alone such a well-established one as this one?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:42, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

What is your suggested change? Knight errant fits Marshal to a t (so to speak). Vyselink (talk) 00:52, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Anglo-Norman or English?

Was William Marshall himself Norman? His ancestry doesn't go back far enough in historical record as far as I can tell to illicit descent from Normandy. It's quite possible he was English and that his family was raised to nobility because of their military prowess, as this was one of the main ways one could do so at this period. Is there any evidence to suggest he was Norman instead of English? If not, would it make sense to change Anglo-Norman to English?

If I'm wrong, please do correct me with the relevant sources. 86.5.160.43 (talk) 00:56, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Anglo-Norman doesn't mean "Normandy", at least not solely, especially in medieval times. Norman meant those who lived in Northern France in the Duchy of Normandy, and also came to include Bretons and Anglo-Saxons after 1066. The ruling class were Anglo-Normans (although eventually English persons would rise to rule as you pointed out). Marshall served Angevin Kings (although by the end of his life their land had been reduced to almost exclusively England). Vyselink (talk) 04:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Took me a few days, but I found the source I was thinking of, The Greatest Knight by Thomas Asbridge (pg. 35 in the edition I have, which is 2015 paperback edition by ECCO), where Asbridge states "despite his upbringing [i.e. in England], there is little chance that he [Marshal] thought of himself - in terms of culture, identity, and loyalty - as English. By birth, Marshal was a Norman. Certainly his first language would have been a Norman dialect of medieval northern French, though it is possible that his West Country heritage left a mark on his accent". Vyselink (talk) 16:18, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Excellent book; i agree with you (and Asbridge!) that the Marshall is not to be correctly described as English but Anglo-Norman. There was a user a few months back who made the change, but it was disputed and changed back ~ just to be clear, i'm not suggesting that IP 85.5... is that user, just that the question has been raised and resolved previously. Happy days ~ Lindsay^Hello 16:56, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree he was Anglo-Norman, and not seen as English. This does not mean he had no English ancestors, but he lived as an Anglo-Norman, and personally lived in France for many years. His paternal family's title (marshall) insists that they had a traditional link to the Norman Duke (English King), and his grandfather is now believed to have used the surname Giffard. His mother's paternal grandfather may well have been a English but if so he integrated himself into the new culture.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:16, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Marshall's marriage

I added a couple brief sentences about Marshall's marriage to Isabel. My wording said "While the marriage was initially one of political gamesmanship,....". Dudley Miles changed it to "Even though the marriage was a reward for his political and military services,...". Now, while I agree that Dudley's version does indeed seem more "neutral", in this case it is wrong to word it as such, as Asbridge (which is the ref I used) directly states that the marriage "to begin with, at least,...was simply a political match". I suppose "gamesmanship" is the wrong word to use, but I think it needs to be highlighted that it was a political match at first (plus I believe that Dudley's word choice reduces Isabel to a "prize" or property far more than "political match" does.) Vyselink (talk) 00:59, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Honestly that reasoning is not very convincing. Asbridge's book (which I own) is a book written in a "popular" way. There is no problem with that, but our task here is clearly different. We do not need to copy style? OTOH maybe you are questioning whether the proposed version changed the meaning? I'm not sure I see that. A marriage which starts as a "reward for services" is clearly not one which started as a love match. Gamesmanship on the other hand does go too far because it implies a trick. William and his contemporaries would not have seen anything tricky about it. Heiresses had to be bought or earned.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:57, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with reducing Isabel to a "prize" or property because that is what she was. She was given to Marshall as a reward by the king and she would have had no say in the matter. There are cases of widows making large payments to the king in return for the right not to be remarried against their will. We should not write as if women in the medieval period had the rights they have today. Dudley Miles (talk) 11:26, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

There is no doubt that Isobel was a "reward" to William. Of course, it was not just her, but her lands and title that were the reward. It wasn't "political gamesmanship" but pure and simple "political match". Changing it to "political gamesmanship" implies something different than "political match"... so I prefer Dudley's wording Ealdgyth (talk) 13:45, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I also prefer Dudley's wording if it is a choice out of the two, and I think it is clear that "gamesmanship" goes too far. (Concerning the wording here on this talk page, I think we should be cautious about implying that such an heiress always had nothing to say, or that she was simply "property", given all the things this entails in our modern capitalist system. She was still part of a powerful family, and property and rights could be fuzzy at this level, close to the monarch. Political match is indeed in the right direction. There would have been a lot of discussion going on, but I think historians all agree that William was seen as having earned this.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:59, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Personally, "political match" to me makes sense, and my use of gamesmanship initially was one of a too clever thought of trying to avoid a direct quote. And while women of the time certainly had far fewer rights, they were not "property" as Dudley asserts on this talk page, indeed Isabel would have been considered his superior socially (and realistically economically as well). Anyway, I suggest that a better wording would be "While the marriage was arranged as a strategic political match...." and then the rest, which appears to be unchallenged. Vyselink (talk) 00:49, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

The current wording is "Even though the marriage was a reward for his political and military services, and despite the twenty-six year age difference, the couple appear to have developed a real love and affection for each other. It is also notable that there is no evidence that Marshall ever took a mistress, which was commonplace for nobles and often widely discussed and reported." Looking at this again, there are several things wrong with it. My wording is not quite right. The ODNB article on Marshal at [1] implies that Henry gave him Isabel as a reward, but Richard confirmed it to secure Marshal's loyalty. Political marriage is superfluous as almost all noble marriages were political. The age difference is too exact. According to ODNB on Isabel at [2] her birth can only be dated to 1171/6. Saying that the couple appear to have had love for each other is legitimate speculation in a biography, but not in Wikipedia. I would delete the sentence. The statement that Marshal is not known to have had a mistress could be mentioned when giving the number of their children, but its significance is unclear as it presumably applies also to the 42 years before he married. Dudley Miles (talk) 10:01, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Using your logic we might as well delete most of the page then, as 90% of what is here is speculation because other than the History exceptionally little is known about Marshall (and even that is tainted as it was written after his death by someone hired by the family). Even scholars such as Asbridge and Crouch use it for most of their information. Wikipedia is also not the be all end all of what is/is not true. Wikipedia reports what WP:RS's have concluded, and Asbridge is a WP:RS. While it is not a perfect match as it mostly relates to future predictions, WP:CRYSTAL says "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view." As my additions do not give undue-weight, the "speculation" part of your argument appears to fall flat unless you can show why, by WP policy, it should be removed. Also the idea of a mistress in the context of a marriage is an exceptionally well known term, especially during this time period, of a woman who has a romantic/sexual relationship with a man who is married to someone else, so by definition I don't understand how you can think it would apply to any of his prior relationships before he was married. As a side note, your comment on "Henry gave but Richard confirmed" is actually already noted in the paragraph, indeed it is the first two sentences, so I think that your wording (if it stays) is fine as it is regarding that point. Vyselink (talk) 17:58, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Speculation about personal feelings between husband and wife is different from historians' judgements about which statements in a biassed source are to be accepted. As to your point about a mistress, are you saying that only relationships after marriage were the subject of gossip? Do you have a source for this claim? Dudley Miles (talk) 20:20, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

I must admit I fail to understand how you are not comprehending what I'm saying. The sentence is "It is also notable that there is no evidence that Marshall ever took a mistress, which was commonplace for nobles and often widely discussed and reported." The definition of mistress, when used in the context of a sexual/romantic relationship (as compared to use as a title, for instance the "mistress" of a school) is, according to Merriam-Webster "a woman other than his wife with whom a married man has a continuing sexual relationship". The fact that there appears to be no evidence he ever took a mistress during his marriage, when it was otherwise widely done by others, is notable and goes with the "speculation" about his relationship with his wife. Vyselink (talk) 01:00, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Maybe that is US usage. OED defines it as "A woman other than his wife with whom a man has a long-lasting sexual relationship." It does not specify that the man is married. That is my understanding of the word and an article on an English noble should go by British usage. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:48, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Really? "A woman other than his wife" implies he's married at the time of the relationship. Vyselink (talk) 06:11, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Maybe it is helpful to cite what Crouch says (p.69) about his "life as a married man". We have little knowledge of the nature of that life. We know his wife was still very young when they married (she could not have been older than twenty), and that he was uxorious (they produced ten children in all, and she was pregnant before 1189 was out). It may be that William had looked for sexual satisfaction before his marriage among the prostitutes who had a prominent place in contemporary court life [...] The alleged liaison with the Young King's wife certainly hints that the Marshal was known to be a man not unattracted by women. But since he produced no bastards that he acknowledged in the later part of his career, it may well be that he had until 1189 either kept a rein on his sexuality or, perhaps, patronised the more careful women of the court - who were, incidentally, under supervision of the Marshal's department. Bastards were a great asset for a baron: girls could be used to form alliances with lesser families; boys could be made knights, clerks or stewards whose loyalty to their fathers had to be total. If William Marshal had been a man like his elder brother and had openly taken a mistress, we would know about it. Our day and age, cursed by Freud, has a tendency to underestimate the extent to which a willing celibacy could be a feature of life in the Middle Ages.

My own impression is that such historians are telling that we have should probably give him the benefit of the doubt concerning his faithfulness to his wife, but we don't have strong evidence either way. What we have is the lack of evidence for any other women (or indeed male sexual partners) in his life - including mistresses or prostitutes or any other types of sexual liaison. Being a busy couple who managed to produce 10 children would in any case make you wonder when they would ever find time for a fling! :) --Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:39, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I would leave out speculation on the subject in the absence of better evidence, but if other editors disagree that is fine. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:23, 28 December 2022 (UTC)