Talk:William Marshal, 1st Earl of Pembroke

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)

References

The reference '2.' is to and is used seven times. However, it does not link to any source, and a Google search for "Kingsford 1893" gives no helpful results. Could it be removed, pending more information? 2A00:23C8:3B02:4E01:8CFF:8667:5B6F:8E0D (talk) 13:09, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Yo anon! 1893 was the date of the publication of the Dictionary of National Biography vol. 36 (Malthus–Mason), for which Kingsford wrote the entry (pp. 225–233) for one William Marshal, 1st earl of Pembroke... SN54129 13:38, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

References

The Young King was never king of England

He died in 1183, six years before his father, and thus never assumed the throne. (I changed it in William Marshal’s Wikipedia) 62.107.173.13 (talk) 18:53, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

It's the second and third sentences of our very own article on Henry the Young King: In 1170, he became titular King of England, Duke of Normandy, Count of Anjou and Maine. Henry the Young King was the only English king since the Norman Conquest to be crowned during his father's reign. Checking that would have shown you that he was King of England, in title, at least. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 19:39, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Sir William Marshal, 3rd Earl of Pembroke

Sir William Marshal was the third Earl of Pembroke. His wife's grandfather Gilbert de Clare was 1st Earl of Pembroke. Her father Richard de Clare "Strongbow" was 2nd Earl of Pembroke. Sir William was 3rd Earl of Pembroke. See page 191 Ancestors of American Presidents, Gary Boyd Roberts, 1995, New England Historic Genealogical Society, Boston, Massachusetts. See also The Magna Carta Sureties 1215 by Frederick Lewis Weis Th.D., fifth edition, 1999, Line 145-1. Webecca (talk) 20:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Except that Encyclopedia Britannica has him as 1st Earl of Pembroke.

I could use some help here. First, is there agreement it should say 3rd Earl of Pembroke? Second, I started to edit the page, and stopped when I saw I had broken an image link. Is there a more experienced editor who can help or give me some direction? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webecca (talk • contribs) 20:33, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

These numbers on titles can be confusing because Earldoms could be created more than once, so you could have the first Earl of the second creation or something like that. In most cases the second edition of Complete Peerage is the standard. I am presuming that this is what our editors used to make Earl of Pembroke which shows more detail for this case.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 21:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Four or five English Kings

This should probably be quickly discussed. An IP changed the line from "He served five English kings—Henry II, his sons the "Young King" Henry, Richard I, and John, and finally John's son Henry III." to "He served four English kings—Henry II, his sons Richard I and John, and John's son Henry III." I changed it back, as Young King Henry was recognized in his life, officially if not in reality, as co-ruler with his father Henry II. It was changed back to "four English kings..." by Dudley Miles here with the explanation of "The Young Henry was a nominal not a real king". I would argue that while most historians nowadays don't recognize Young Henry's reign (as he predeceased his father) at the time he was referred to and regarded as "King Henry" regardless of his actual power, which was nothing. However, that discussion is not relevant here, as Marshall served Young Henry and would have seen him and referred to him as "King", as would everyone else at the time. I have a couple RS quote to back up my claim from Asbridge:

the Preface (xx), where he states "It also stands that Marshal, as he stood at the right hand of five kings..." the sentence continues, but it's superfluous to my argument here.

page 95-96 Asbridge recounts the two years that Henry II was gone during the crisis brought on by Thomas Becket and his subsequent murder from 1170-1172. Specifically: "All of this meant that Henry II did not return to England until the summer of 1172 and, throughout this extended period, the Young King ruled in his stead without apparent difficulty."

If he ruled while Henry II was gone, then it makes sense to say that Marshall served five Kings, regardless of Young Henry's subsequent removal from power and history (indeed, on page 95 Asbridge describes him as "...England's forgotten King".

I suggest a slight compromise. Change the sentence to "He served five English kings- Henry II and the titular Young King Henry, Richard I, John, and finally John's song Henry III". Young King Henry was king, whether "nominally" or not, and Marshall served him. Vyselink (talk) 19:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Vyselink ~ as may be guessed as i reverted a similar IP edit some months back and commented on it a couple of sections up. In mine own opinion, i don't think it's necessary to modify the Young King with titular, i.e., i wouldn't in writing of mine own, but i agree that it might make it clearer for readers who are unaware of the specifics of the time and relationships. For full clarity, i came here after a message on my talk page from Vyselink ~ no idea who else he has messaged ~ so if that be deemed canvassing mine opinion can be devalued. Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 19:39, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

No intention of canvassing. I alerted you as I saw you had responded to a similar post earlier, and the only other person I notified was Dudley Miles. Vyselink (talk) 20:13, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. It is misleading to say that he served five kings as it implicitly puts the Young Henry's nominal title on a par with that of kings who had the real power of monarchs. It will confuse any reader who knows about the "real" kings of England but not YH's nominal title and lack of any real power. I suggest for clarity: "He served four English monarchs, Henry II, his sons Richard I and John, and John's son Henry III, and also Henry's eldest son, the Young Henry, who was crowned joint king in his father's lifetime but had no real power." Dudley Miles (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with Vyselink's argumentation. The young king had the title, and having the title is a big part of what makes you a king. Counter arguments might involve saying that the young king had no independent power, but clearly in this case it is not quite so simple. I think we also realize that looking for what historians say will find mixed results? Anyway, more importantly a compromise would not seem to have a downside? I don't have a problem with adding a qualifier. I would prefer NOT to switch to a simple four, because our subject here is William Marshall, and this is one of his claims to fame, so to speak.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Far too wordy and confusing a sentence. Also the way you have it written Young Henry may be confused as being Henry III's son. MANY "kings" have not had actual power while on the throne, so are we to discount their titles/reigns as well? What are we to call the current King Charles? He has no power, and yet is still King of England. Your lack of actual power argument is a good one when talking about de facto control and rule. But we are talking about de jure titles here. Young King Henry was de jure co-King of England from 1170 until his death in 1183 (with the arguable exception I suppose of his rebellions). That brings the number of Kings that Marshal served to five.

After looking at the Young King's actual page, there are several RS sources there that repeatedly refer to YH as "king", even though they acknowledge his lack of regnal power. Mathew Strickland's "Henry the Young King: 155-1183" where in the first paragraph of the Preface alone he says: ""Young Henry was the first - and last - king of England since the Norman Conquest to be crowned in the lifetime of his father"; "titular co-ruler"; "...king without a kingdom". His kingship is not in question, nor his is lack of power. Laura Ashe refers to YH as "... the only crowned associate king in post-Conquest England". Again, title not in dispute, nor is his regnal impotence.

I shall leave my arguments there for now. I have so far provided 3 RS's to confirm YH's title as "King" and to have the number in the opening set as "five". I make another suggestion to help explain YH's lack of power: "He served five English kings- Henry II and his son and de jure co-ruler Young King Henry, Richard I, John, and finally John's son Henry III". Vyselink (talk) 23:14, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

This has been under discussion for several days with only one editor saying that "five" is not better; in addition, i checked back up to five or six years in the history, and it has consistently been "five", so i suggest that the change to "four" is a BOLD move which should be reverted until this discussion is complete (if it isn't now). Happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 17:12, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't have time to check properly but I also have a feeling that this remark might be influenced by something Crouch wrote. (If he is the source we should perhaps make it more clear.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:44, 14 February 2024 (UTC)