Talk:Despenser War

War in Glamorgan

I actually found out about the War in Glamorgan on the external link, but i accidentally put the link's location at the wrong area. I actually spent two hours on this article, and i dont want to lose it after i actually put in the reference. That link covers mostly all of the Despenser Wars info, but the page Isabella of France told me about the wars if you look at the "Rise of Power" section. i dont want to lose my work, and if you have the forgiveness to look at the reference's upper parts of the pages, you can find all of the info that i put into the doc.

-Bakeysaur99

-P.S, it is not my fault that it is a "Despenser War". Another user weirdly put down Despenser War in Glamorgan on my Campaignbox for the Despenser wars. I had no intention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bakeysaur99 (talk • contribs) 23:02, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understand. I added the PROD (proposed deletion) tag because I cannot find a single source that uses the term "Despenser war" to refer to any other war than that mainly fought in Glamorgan in 1321–22. That means that there should be an article on the Despenser War that is only about the war in Glamorgan in 1321–22, since there is no other war called by that name. The War of Saint-Sardos in 1324 is not commonly called a "Despenser war", nor is the invasion of England in 1326. These can be—and currently are—covered by separate articles, but they cannot be lumped together with the war in Glamorgan as the "Despenser wars" unless a reliable source says so. I can't find any that do, and you haven't cited any. That is the whole issue. Now that you've removed the PROD tag, I cannot re-add it and so, if I still think this page should be deleted, then I must propose it for deletion through Articles for Deletion.

Now I see that while I was writing this you created an article on the Glamorgan war. I now propose that that page be moved to Despenser War and this page be redirected there, since that war is in fact the only Despenser War. —Srnec (talk) 23:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm having trouble finding RS about this too. Also the Google Book you provided dosen't use the term "Despenser wars" in it. Also the writing style of Despenser War in Glamorgan felt more like vandalism then a real article. (Sorry if that is very confusing) I'm very sorry if i was a fairly bitey and acted in bad faith. --Guerillero | My Talk 23:42, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Barkeysaur is confused. He seems to think that I object to the war in Glamorgan being called a Despenser war, when in fact I am saying that only the war in Glamorgan is a Despenser war and so is the only article that should bear that title. The other two wars involved Despensers, but were not "Despenser wars". Srnec (talk) 00:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

This article is missing so much information

The article has precious little information about a very turbulent period in England's history. It needs to explain that the Marchers revolted on account of Despenser having grabbed up so much land which traditionally belonged to the Marchers. It does not mention the recall to England of the banished Despensers, nor does it include the names of other Lords such as the Earl of Hereford. It also fails to mention Mortimer's surrender at Shrewsbury on 22 January 1322.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I have since added Mortimer's surrender, but the article really does need a lot of work.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:44, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I've gone through and cleaned it up a bit and put in a number of citations. I'm struggling to find references to the Welsh uprising (although I note that something has turned up on the page below a moment ago!) and the link for that reference was working, so I've taken it out for now. I can't find any references for how many forces were involved, however, making the figures in the infobox questionable at the moment (but not unbelievable). Hchc2009 (talk) 18:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

"Five Days' Raid"

Just passing through here. John Davies' A History of Wales (ISBN 0-140-28475-3, p.177) says:

"Gruffudd [Llwyd of Tregarnedd, Anglesey] was imprisoned from 1316 to 1318, and in 1322 he led an armed attack which was once considered to be a Welsh revolt. It is now believed that it was an important contribution to the success of the king in defeating the reform party, a party which included almost all of the Marcher Lords. Following that success, the earl of Lancaster (lord of Denbigh and leader of the reform party) was executed, Roger Mortimer of Chirk and his nephew, Roger Mortimer of Wigmore, were imprisoned and the influence of the Despensers was restored. A parliament was held at York in 1322. It included forty-eight representatives from Wales, and its members endorsed an extreme interpretation of the authority of the crown."

Does this help anyone? Ghmyrtle (talk) 11:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Just saw this. A good reference - I'm happy to work it in, unless you want to? Hchc2009 (talk) 18:04, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but the chronolgy is off. Mortimer surrendeered on 22 January 1322 whereas Lancaster was executed in March 1322 following his defeat on 16 March. Thus, the surrender and imprisonment of Mortimer needs to come before Lancaster's execution.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:29, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, I see in the article the chronology is right after all. Looks good.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Number of forces at Leeds

Is 30,000 an accurate number of the King's troops besieging Leeds Castle? It seems rather high, especially as Margaret de Clare, Baroness Badlesmere and her garrison managed to hold out for over five days (15 days according to Roy Martin Haines).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I've checked back, and it's coming from one of chroniclers. I've added a clarification to the text. Hchc2009 (talk) 09:13, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

That looks fine.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Lancaster did not support the Marchers

The article needs to mention that the Marcher Lords' insurrection failed because Lancaster refused to leave Pontefract and come to their assistance. The Earl of Hereford joined Lancaster at the Battle of Boroughbridge in March, but the Marcher rebellion had been quelled by then with the two Mortimers ensconced in the Tower.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:46, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Needs an image

Roger Mortimer and Queen Isabella

Which image should be used for the article? Something geographic? An image of Roger Mortimer or the execution of Hugh Despenser?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:54, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

This image could be used in the Aftermath section as it also shows the execution of Hugh Despenser in the background.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Seems a good choice. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

It's the only image of Mortimer I have ever found. We might use an image of the battle areas. I added one of Caerphilly Castle.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Reference missing

This article needs the following source:

J. Conway Davies, "The Despenser War in Glamorgan", Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, Third Series, Vol. 9, (1915), pp. 21–64.

Available through JSTOR. I'll do what I can when I have the time. Srnec (talk) 02:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Section needs expanding

The section Causes of the war needs to be expanded. As it now stands, it contains just a couple of sentences.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:21, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The fate of Hugh Despenser

Dr Mary Lewis, Senior Lecturer in Biological Anthropology at the University of Reading, makes the case that a dismembered skeleton found at Hulton Abbey near Stoke on Trent is not only the only known skeleton of a victim of hanging, drawing and quartering, but is that of Hugh Despenser (the Younger) himself. I attended a lecture given by her to the South Oxfordshire Archaeology Group (SOAG) at the end of 2011, to which she brought the skeleton. The bone pathology was visible and convincing, and the argument she made for the victim's identity compelling. See Lewis, M. E. (2008) A traitor's death? The identity of a drawn, hanged and quartered man from Hulton Abbey, Staffordshire. Antiquity, 82 (315). pp. 113-124. ISSN 0003-598X.

FiftusTheSixth (talk) 13:28, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

What was the compelling argument she put forward leading to the conclusion that the skeleton was that of Hugh Despenser the Younger? He was not the only victim of that cruel and unusual punishment.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

The paper I cited says it all, but its starting point was that HD&Q was an unusual fate, and that most victims had the social profile for there to be documentation of the sentence being carried out. There was (arguably circumstantial) evidence from the list of missing body parts at Hulton matching the documented body parts Dispenser's wife was able to reclaim after he'd been scattered across the country. Radio-carbon dating was a good match, and Hulton was associated with his family, though their dislike for him might explain the fact of his bones being chucked in a corner. I'd have to check my notes to remember the rest of the argument. FiftusTheSixth (talk) 15:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Is there an online link to that paper?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Try: http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/3748/ FiftusTheSixth (talk) 15:28, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. This can be accepted as a Reliable Source. Go ahead and add it to the article, but remember to state that Dr Mary Lewis is putting the case forward that it was Despenser. It hasn't yet been established as a fact.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)