Talk:Urse d'Abetot

Copyedit

Sheriff

"However, the archbishop's curse did little to hinder Urse's career, and it had little effect on the castle also." Shouldn't this be rephrased as "The archbishop's curse had no discernible effect on Urse's career, or the castle." ? Ning-ning (talk) 18:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Works for me. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Worcester Castle

According to non-reliable Worcester source, this was a motte and bailey- I checked because I couldn't remember a hill being to the south of the cathedral. It might be that the hill mentioned is a motte, removed in the early 19th century, and Urse's bailey encroached on the cemetery. Ning-ning (talk) 18:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't have the sources to write the Worcester Castle article yet, so I've left it a redlink for a reason (grins). I may never get to it, but I figure it's there for whoever wants to. --Ealdgyth - Talk 19:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

From various web sources. It was a motte and bailey, with the motte close to the River Severn. Urse built an inner and an outer bailey, the division between the two apparently running along the southern line of the old town wall (it appears uncertain whether there was an actual wall, either Roman or Saxon in existence at that time). Urse's castle was thus half in and half out of the city- it was the outer bailey which was built on the graveyard. Ning-ning (talk) 20:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Deacon's thoughts

Textual points:

• 1) :Urse was known for his acquisitiveness, and during William II's reign was considered second only to Ranulf Flambard in his rapacity. Dodgy. Is some kind of discourse community doing the considering, is it one literary source, or is it dare I ask some Worcester-based source?
• 2) Urse complained that this immunity reduced his income, but this did not affect the outcome. Although Wulfstan claimed that the immunity dated prior to the Conquest, it actually owed its existence to the ability of the bishop to fill the shire court with his supporters and control what the court claimed. I can't make sense of what you're trying to say here in both these sentences.
• 3) Urse may have arrived in England after Hastings, and it is unknown if his brother Robert arrived with him or separately It has already been said that there's no evidence he fought at Hastings. Not sure we should be making as much of that as this. How many French who fought at Hastings can we name? A dozen or so? Chances are if his lord did, Urse would have been doing something in the invasion, but he's too lowly to get noted for this is literary sources. That's unless they explicitly state that he didn't, which the article doesn't indicate.

See also some comments I left in the text.

General points.

• 1) The narrative in parts of the article is a bit choppy. Makes it grating to read sometimes. I tried to fix some of this. This is a very hard problem to solve, one that naturally arises when trying to reconstruct figures only patchily documented. Thing is, the reader doesn't know this is the case, and will just think it's badly researched. It's also one that indicates this article is still early in its path towards FA. You build the article from different sources, and it is hard to present a distinct flowing piece without extensive re-editing.
• 2) From this, there needs to be more on sources, per my usual comments. A section at the top would be useful, giving an overview of what information is available, questions like what kind of evidence tells what (narrative histories tell of his avarice I'd imagine, charters tell of his appearances at court, and so on), how useful it is, how representative it might be, how tendentious it might be. This helps the reader and writer master the material, and the rest becomes easier to write and read. Better all round as a result. We're aiming for an FA here after all.
• 3) I don't think the article communicates very well the role of the sheriff. What's the difference between the sheriff and the earl for instance. Did Worcester county have an earl?
• 4) It's not true that Urse had no predecessor. Green, Sheriffs of England p. 87, lists two certain sheriffs along with another possible known sheriff. Kineward (recte Cineweard), sheriff at some stage before 1086, and Leofric 1017 x 1030; there's an Aevic during the reign of Cnut who is a sheriff in a document relating to Worcester Cathedral, but it's not certain he was sheriff of Worcester
• 5) Need more background beyond simply narrating the conquest, particularly about Worcestershire and Urse's landholdings. You have used Fleming, and the take on the matter propounded by this historian (namely the "lots of mini Norman conquests" part) will help you construct a flowing narrative in this regard. I didn't know anything about Urse before I came here, but the Sheriff section seemed to fit right in with that. I think an FA on a TRW baron needs to say a bit on his land-holdings, his antecessors, and so on. I'd guess this would be most easy if you had access to Alecto county tome on Worcestershire, which should have some big essays on the topic and perhaps some interesting stuff on Urse.

There were numerous other little things I noticed, but I've forgotten now. I'll probably need to re-review it once it has received more work.

Good job so far btw! :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

LOL.. do not have ready access to the Alecto. Part of the problem is that the ONDB entry is just a revision of Round's original DNB entry so it's ... sparse. I'm really working on teasing out information here, and sometimes that's hard. I'll work on the rest when I get back from a convention this weekend. Guess I'll throw up the fall-back article and keep working on poor Urse. I like the idea of such an obscure (but obviously powerful and important) personage getting some time in the sun. I replied to a few of your points in the text, and changed a section title to be a bit less POV (while he was a land-grabber, saying so in a heading is probably going to raise eyebrows at FAC). Ealdgyth - Talk 23:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Maybe if I can find the time I'll see if I can find anything. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Vicecomitissa

I still have a problem with this note. There was no such thing as a viscount in 11th-century England. Vicecomes is a Franco-Latin word for a "position" that existed in Normandy. These clerks decided this would be the word for sheriff too. Compare this to eorl. There was no such thing as an eorl in Normandy, the equivalent cunte in Normandy was not particularly similar; the pre-conquest Latin word for it was dux, which was mischievously changed to comes by the immigrant Norman French. Now to the point. There was no such thing as a female earl in Anglo-Saxon England (English borrowed the French word); Mason is over-reading what in most probability is an innovative way to style a sheriff's wife, perhaps by the writer perhaps more generally, that didn't stick. Meanwhile, 11th-century French sheriffs probably did think of themselves as viscounts, but Anglicization and the recovery of royal autocracy re-Englished the role. So I'm gonna edit to note to take the gloss of it. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:23, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

No problems. There's a reason the information is in the explanatory notes section, and not in the body. Hey, it's Mason, she likes to go out on limbs... (I happen to think most times, she's probably right, I am very much in her camp as far as Rufus goes..) Ealdgyth - Talk 23:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Death and legacy

This sction just doesn't work at all for me. For instance, it starts off: "Urse himself died sometime in 1108. His wife was named Alice. Urse was suceeded as sheriff by his son Roger d'Abetot, who was exiled around 1110 and lost the office of sheriff. Roger's successor Osbert d'Abetot was probably a brother of Urse. Urse also had a daughter, probably named Emmeline, who married Walter de Beauchamp. If we don't know enough about Urse to be able to have a personal or early life section (which I suspect is the case), then this material has to be made to at least look as if it's integrated. For instance, if they did, what about something like "Urse died some time in 1108, leaving behind his wife Alice and a daughter probably named Emmeline. ..."? --Malleus Fatuorum 12:27, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

We don't know if Alice survived him though... the joys of writing about guys with little known about them. At least with bishops, they don't usually have wives... Ealdgyth - Talk 13:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Urse Knighthood for fighting at Battle of Hastings

I dont know about their sources but this makes an interesting read ... http://members.cox.net/roywashburn/d130.html

Also - is this any good? http://books.google.com.au/books?id=qrEhOoNUUQkC&pg=PA228&lpg=PA228&dq=Almericus+d%27abitot&source=bl&ots=wOmzUhXxqw&sig=CogSJ0xDfnpvHpZBADd_9xbulBA&hl=en&ei=NceQSqOFCov4sQOgn6QM&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2#v=onepage&q=Almericus%20d%27abitot&f=false

or these? http://www.barlowgenealogy.com/england/SirMontague/BFR-CH01.pdf

http://www.barlowgenealogy.com/england/SirMontague/coatofarmsindex.htm Granitethighs (talk) 04:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't consider any of them reliable. The First book is a reprint of a much older book, so not published in 2001. As is the second book. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

More queries

I am researching the history of the family name Spencer as it relates to Robert le Dispencier and brother Urse. A couple of observations on which I would like your comment. Firstly there is a Barlow family history on-line with quite a lot of source information to Urse and the d'Abetots and their various connections; it is not listed in your account and may be of interest:

• Barlow, Montague 1935. Barlow Family Records. London: Bemrose. Retrieved 2009-08-22.

There are references to Roger's sister, Emmeline, who married Walter de Beauchamp and more - especially in the footnote references ....

Secondly, there is a plaque in the church at Dives-sur-Mer, Normandy, France, where William the Conqueror and his knights said mass before setting sail to invade England in 1066. It lists all the knights who took part in the invasion and includes Robert Dispencier and his brother Urse (which is written as Oure d'Addetot). Yes, I know the authenticity of this list is in question but there is little doubt that Robert's and Urse's services to William were rewarded which does give some credibility to the idea that they were knights at the Battle. Do you know of any good sources for Robert Dispencier apart from those listed in the WP article about him?

Also maybe of some interest:

• R. Planché. The Conqueror and His Companions. Somerset Herald.London: Tinsley Brothers, 1874

http://cseweb.ucsd.edu/~wgg/Genealogy/Conqueror.pdf Granitethighs (talk) 23:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I would start by consulting the most recent works on the Conquest... none of the works you're listing above are recent and have been superceded. The most recent works on people in Domesday are the Keats-Rohan works which I used heavily for both Robert and Urse. They use contemporary records to figure out the genealogical relationships. Keats-Rohan doesn't agree at all with any of those sources you're listing above, and I would take that as the definitive answer, not things from 1935 or 1874. Note the planche says "The name of “Dabitott” appears in the Roll of Battle Abbey, and although not mentioned by Wace and the other chroniclers of the eleventh and twelfth centuries..." which is pretty damning evidence that he was not at Hastings. Urse and Robert ARE mentioned in other contexts and chronicles, so it's likely they were either too young for Hastings or did not participate, for whatever reason. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, I suspected as much. One last question (for the time-being). The opening to the article asserts "... he came to England shortly after the Norman Conquest of England" - where is the conclusive evidence for this statement about Urse? Minor quibbles - it is Ian Sanders and John H. (Horace) Round in Biblio. Granitethighs (talk) 22:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Of interest E? Useful sources for Hindlip, Coombe and Ridmarley re the D’Abitot family. D’Abbetots at Hindlip Redmarley D’Abitot Also Redmarley d'Abitot and Coombe d'Abitot have separate articles - good historical sources. Granitethighs (talk) 10:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

References

Suggestions

Could I suggest a couple of areas that could be extended in the article - Urse’s ancestry, and a little more detail on the land and properties granted to the d’Abetots (other than the counties where they occurred). I am not a(n) historian so there may be good reasons why this information has been omitted – perhaps the literature is iffy. Readers would be interested in Viking origins and the Lords of Tankarville (part of the d’Abetot line?) seem to be fairly securely related back to at least Tancred and possibly further in major Viking lineage - no? – seems worth a mention. It could include at least Urse’s nearest ancestors. Ralph Fitz Gerald (Chamberlain of Tankerville) was the elder brother of Aumary d’Abetot. Their father was Gerold (husband of Helisendis) Sire de Tankerville with the hereditary office of chamberlain to the Dukes of Normandy. His younger son, Aumary, inherited the fiefs of Abetot and had two sons, Urso and Robert “Despencer”. [1]

There is good history on properties and land at Redmarley d’Abitot, Hindlip, Clopton, Acton Beauchamp, Croome d’Abitot may be worth a mention or are these just a few of hundreds of areas and sites under his jurisdiction when Sheriff? They do seem to have strong d’Abitot family links … – and the reference to the d’Abitot family dying out at the end of the 18th century is of interest isn’t it? Anyway – just suggestions. Its really coming on - could you extend the Robert Despenser article next? By the way - are you a historian, student ... have a casual interest in the family ...? I'm interested in the context in which the article is being written?Granitethighs 23:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

We don't know Urse's ancestry. The pdf you link to is a personal genealogy and is based on an outdated work. Keats-Rohan doesn't give any parents for Urse in Domesday People. Nor does the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography entry on Urse give any ancestry, so any guesses that he's related to the Lords of Tancarville is just that, guesses. And going into details on what exact lands he held is really more than is needed, and unnecessary detail. As for my interest, I studied the time frame in college, was training as a medievalist before I got sidetracked into another career. I picked up Urse because of the work I'm doing on Wikipedia's medieval English bishops, he was a redlink in Ealdred's article that just kinda kept growing and growing. Robert Despencer's article is probably about as far expanded as possible, he's a less colorful person than his brother and all his lands ended up in Urse's heirs hands. I'm afraid all that information you have in Spencer (surname) on Urse and Robert is from outdated sources and would not pass muster with any historian. Nor is there such a thing as the "Despenser Coat of Arms"... arms are specific to the person they are granted to, and although relatives often use much the same arms, the idea of a family having arms is wrong. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks E, that's all very helful. I will make appropriate adjustments to Spencer (surname). As an outsider (I'm a scientist) I'm interested in the point at which a historian decides that information is unreliable. The detail given by Planche on Urse's ancestry seems written with great confidence - are you saying that he must have obtained his information from unreliable sources because the only reliable ones, the primary sources, do not give this kind of detail? Where did e.g. Planche get his information? Did he make it up. Not fair questions I suppose but I'm interested in the historical methodology here as the casual reader can pick up vast amounts of apparent nonesense. Also if there is systemic doubt about all this stuff there must be places where all the information is "debunked" - presumably just dismissing it all holus bolus is not productive either without evidence. I've found some debunking of the Battle Rolls: apparently a reliable source that says only one knight can be definitely linked to William and the Norman conquest. But that too is surely a nonsense - all common sense says he would have taken at least a proportion (if not all) of his favourite knights along for the fray (it seems we are talking about probabilities here not just the absence of totally convincing evidence) - and why were the d'Abitots so well rewarded by William. Were they mates with William in Normandy - or did he shower largesse on every Norman that braved their way across the Channel? And wouldn't a hypothesis like that need some justification too? Could it be that the "Battle Rolls" on both sidees of the channel were belittled because of the possible repercussions with a disgruntled populace if family connections were more robust? I wont keep pestering you - I'm just interested in the historical method which would have developed policies on all this sort of thing many moons ago - if you could just spare a couple of sentences of explanation ... essentially to save me wasting hours doing historical research into what has been well established as fiction. Oh ... and would it be OK to say the Robert Despenser coat of arms?Granitethighs 03:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The thing is... Urse and Robert weren't THAT well rewarded. Yeah, they did good compared to what they had in Normandy, but nothing outstanding. Urse got his lands over a LONG career. He got the sheriffdom around 1069, with some lands probably, then he helped put down the 1075 rebelllion, which probably netted him some more lands, and he got some after Domesday Book. Planche didn't make the information up, he just was using non-reliable sources, probably late medieval stuff. Keep in mind that the later medieval period (14th, 15th, 16th centuries) saw an explosion of writing about nobles ancestors, much of it by families trying to "puff up" their ancestry. This is the time frame where the story got started that Gundred, Countess of Surrey was really a daughter of William the Conqueror, which was later debunked but still floats around in some genealogical circles. You want to look at information that comes from contemporary sources to the people, not something that's a couple of centuries later. As a general rule, the more modern the historian, the more I'm likely to trust them. This doesn't mean that I think the late Victorian historians were wrong, it's just that we've learned a lot about sources since they wrote as well as having access to technological things that help a bunch with determining forgeries. So I'm inclined to trust the ODNB entry (from 2004) before something based on Planche (1874). This is similar to stuff in the sciences, where Darwin, although excellent for his time, isn't relied on for scientific stuff now, you'd use a more modern scientist if you were writing the Evolution article. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience E - that is certainly a help. Granitethighs 23:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

No worries at all. History is just like any other subject, you have to be trained in the techniques. They just are a lot more... gray than something like chemistry. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The names of the counties on the map are inconsistent in style, e.g. Devon is referred to as the possibly incorrect Devonshire whilst Leicestershire is referred to as the definitely incorrect Leicester. Maybe the names could be replaced with abbreviations e.g. Oxon, Leics, Bucks, Salop, Wilts etc. Ning-ning (talk) 09:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Fitz Urse

Reginald Fitzurse and his father Richard were only a few generations away from Urse himself. Ealdgyth, have you ever come across any historical connections between Urse and this surname and family line (as you will know, Fitzurse translates to "Son of Urse")? At face value this is an interesting line of research. Granitethighs 10:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

No, I haven't, but I can look once I get home to my books (I'm on the road for probably another week...) Ealdgyth - Talk 13:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Seems there was a Urse de Berseres on the scene. I have a copy of Lewis C Loyd's "The origins of some anglo-norman families". It says Urse was first recorded in England in 1067 (Davis Regesta no. 10) - I dont see this mentioned in the article. Also it suggest "Roberti filii Ursi" may be the Robert de Abetot whose wife Lesza gave land to the priory of Ste-Barbe- etc.(Cal Docs France, no. 568, ed Round).Granitethighs 08:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the Davis edition of the Regesta has been superceded (although I'd need to be home to double check) by Bates' edition, and it's possible that that particular document has been deemed spurious - the general consenus of most historians is that we're not sure exactly when Urse arrived in England but that it was shortly after Hastings, so I stuck with that. Mason's ODNB entry (which is a revision of Round's DNB entry) basically sticks to that, rather than go with 1067. Keats-Rohan also concurs with sticking with a less specific date. As both of these are much newer than Loyd (which I also have a copy of), I generally have stuck with the newer sources, especially as the article text doesn't directly contradict Loyd (as "shortly after Hastings" can include 1067). Ealdgyth - Talk 14:57, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Urse d'Abetot. 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/20121016155450/http://www.bl.uk/catalogues/manuscripts/HITS0001.ASP?VPath=html%2F15274.htm&Search=Add.+28024&Highlight=F to http://www.bl.uk/catalogues/manuscripts/HITS0001.ASP?VPath=html%2F15274.htm&Search=Add.+28024&Highlight=F

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 17:08, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Link to History of Worcestershire#Medieval

I think it would be helpful to link to History of Worcestershire#Medieval, as there is useful general information about the economic background, Norman Conquest etc building up there, for instance as:

See also: History of Worcestershire § Medieval

or similar; but I don't want to just dive in and make that change. Please let me know what would be best. Jim Killock (talk) 20:49, 26 November 2018 (UTC)