Talk:Ranulf le Meschin, 3rd Earl of Chester

Wife's birthdate

I see Lucy's date of birth is given here as c. 1079. I've never heard it placed so late. I know that there had recently been a shift from the traditional pre-Conquest date, perhaps c. 1060, to c. 1070: but it has generally been assumed that Ranulf's wife was the Lucy who had previously been married to Ivo Taillebois. A 1079 birthdate would make her much too young for that, so we'd need two Lucies.89.240.57.104 (talk) 11:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Reference to William Malet

It is unclear which of the three William Malets is referred to in this article. Could someone familiar with the subject please review this and correct the link to avoid the disambiguity? Chromaticity 01:12, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

It's the one who died in 1071. Though I don't know why there's the "either/or" approach: there's no reason not to believe that Turold married William's daughter and Lucy was their child.89.240.57.104 (talk) 11:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

"First Earl"

At first glance, the title of this article, "Ranulph le Meschin, 1st Earl of Chester", conflicts with another article, "Hugh d'Avranches, 1st Earl of Chester". This is explained at "Earl of Chester" by the fact that there were several creations of the Earldom, and so Ranulph le Meschin was the first Earl of the Second Creation and Hugh d'Avranches the first Earl of the First Creation. But, to an ignoramus like me, it is confusing. It would help greatly if an expert on this area could consider how this could be clarified - for instance, do we need anything more than the person's name in the article title, and could there be better linking and more explanation in the article itself. Obviously these questions apply to other similar articles, not just this one. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:51, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks like this has been fixed, both here and on the Earl of Chester page; Ranulf is now the third earl of the second creation...Inflation, hey? Swanny18 (talk) 17:33, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Notes

Notes:

• Lead:
  • Did Ranulf himself originate in Normandy or was he born in England from Norman parents? You never clarify, but the lead says "Originating in.. " which implies he was born in Bessin.
• Family:
  • Were both of R's parents tied to Henry or was it their families? It's unclear.
  • Ranulf the Elder or Ranulf the elder? Pick one... And stick with it. Don't confuse by using Ranulf junior along with all the others. Because of all the ranulf's running around in this article, it's important to stick with ONE style for each ranulf so they are easier to figure out. I realise you're trying to avoid repetition, but given that not being clear is just going to lead to confusion, you're better off sticking with one style for each person.
  • "His father was RAnluf de Briquessart.." is this "his" Ranulf le Meschin or Ranulf's father? This whole sentence just reads .. oddly.
  • I'd reorganize this a bit. Put the bit about Meschin's name first, then when he was born, where. Then a paragraph on his father and his ancestry (include the bit about Hollister thinking the elder Ranulf was a close companion of Henry I), then a paragraph on his mother and her ancestry. Finish the section with the paragraph on his siblings.
• Early career:
  • The last sentence of hte first paragraph fits very badly with the rest of the content. I suggested above that the stuff about meschin's father go in one paragraph in the family, the rest of this paragraph would be good with the stuff in that paragraph, and that would allow you to combine the bits about Mescin with the following paragraph on when Meschin inherited.
  • "In the foundation charter of Chester Abbey granted by his uncle Hugh Lupus, earl of Chester, and purportedly issued in 1093, Ranulf le Meschin is listed as a witness." I'd flip this sentence around, to avoid losing the reader in all the various clauses before hitting the meat of the sentence.
  • Date on Earl Ranulf II?
• Lord:
  • First paragraph, suggest switching the order around a bit... Put the bit about ranulf possessing the power of a semi-independent earl first, then show the reasons why this was.
  • What is the point of most of the second paragraph of this section? It doesn't seem to tie in to Ranulf much at all, nor shed much light on him.
  • "Another historian, Richard Sharpe, has recently attacked this view and argued that it probably came in or soon after 1098." Clarify what "It" is here?
  • Explain how taking evidence from county jurors shows that Ranulf had authority over Cumbria? Also, if York had authority over Cumbria, how does that show that Ranulf had palatinate authority in Cumbria? Wouldn't it show he didn't since York was meddling?
  • "Ranulf likewise distributed land to the church..." Huh? I think you need to drop the "likewise" or something as we have lost the connection that likewise is implying.
  • "This had occurred by 1112,.." Need to clarify what this is, as what I think you mean (the founding of Wetheral) is separated by a whole nother thought about Ivo.
  • "He appears to have attempted to give the large compact barony of Gilsland to his brother William, but failed to dislogdge the native lord, the eponymous "Gille" son of Boite; later the lordship of Allerdale (including Copeland), even larger than Gilsland stretching along the coast from the river Ellen to the river Esk, was given to William." this is a bit twisty and long, suggest breaking it up.
• Earl:
  • context for the Historium Regum? Where was it written, and when?
  • You're going to need to explain to the non-historians that county=earl=count(sorta).
  • Okay, I suggest you move the third paragraph of earl down to right above the last paragraph, as it doesn't fit that well chronologicall where it is.
  • Going to need to explain what you mean by "... but for much of Henry's reign the English king tried to keep the neighboring Welsh princes under his peace."
  • "... though direct evidence for this beyond convenient timing is lacking." is opaque to the non-specialist. Perhaps "...but no direct evidence states this, and the only basis for thinking this was the case is the convenient timing of (whatever it is that is convieniently timed, since you don't really spell this out... maybe you should?)."
• This is it for now, I'm going to poke around in my sources and see if I see anything you missed. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

More stuff:

• Barlow William Rufus p. 172 claims that Rufus gave Lucy to Ranulf. You even say that it probably happened in 1098, and imply that the patronage of king was important there, and discuss how early a supporter of Henry Ranulf was.... but .... Rufus was king until 2 August 1100, and if the marriage DID happen in 1098, it was Rufus' patronage that would have been the royal patronage, and only he could have given Ranulf Lucy. (coughs) I think you've got some expanding to do here! (Too much Hollister, not enough Rufus! Go Rufus!)
• Do you want a genealogical table? I just recently picked up a .svg editor, and can make you a simplified table if you'd like.
• Again, the slighting of Rufus. Barlow William Rufus p. 298 "William granted the lordship of Carlisle or Cumberland, which also became an episcopal diocese in 1133, to Ranul le Meschin of Bricquessart, son of Ranulf vicomte of Bayeux and Margaret sister of Hugh of Avranches, earl of Chester." There is more there too.
• Green Government of England pp. 24-25. calls him Ranulf of Bayeux, by the way. She also says that in the battle was at Bourghteroulde and that it was in march 1124.
• Green Government p. 180 discusses the fact that Lucy gave up her paternal inheritance when Ranulf became e. of Chester, but that some of the lands went to William de Roumare, son of her second marriage, not to the king. There is also a statement that after RAnulf's death, Lucy tried to recover more of her lands for her and Ranulf's son.
• A bit more context of Tinechbrai might be helpful, as our article... sucks.
• Prestwich Armies and Warfare in the Middle Ages p. 216 says "In 1123, the defeat of the rebels in Normandy at Bourgtheroulde was achieved because the earl of Chester employed spies who were able to discover the movements of the rebel forces."
• Does Saunders mention anything about his various baronies?
• You have Holt "Politics and Property in Early Medieval England" Past & Present Nov. 1972? He discusses the issue of whether Ranulf actually gave up Cumbria/Carlisle when he succeeded to Chester on pages 51 and 52. The discussion in the article might be fleshed out a bit more from some of the information given there.
• Prestwich implies that Ranulf was a member of the military household and that is why he was allowed to succeed to Chester, He's arguing against Chibnall's "Mercenaries and the Familia Regis under Henry I" History 1977, where Chibnall's apparantly arguing that it was the holding of the Bessin which got Ranulf perferrment (I haven't read the Chibnall ..)
• Map? There is one in Barrow "The Pattern of Lordship and feudal settlement in Cumbria" Journal of Medieval History 1975.

that should be it. Unless we know of any other battles Ranulf took part in... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

• Cheers Ealdgyth. I'll address this is in a bit. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:37, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Succession

I've changed the succession box here to match the others in the Earls of Chester sequence; I trust that's OK with everyone. Swanny18 (talk) 17:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

the others should use the "new" format that the succession boxes use, just like this article did (and now does). The old "start box" "succession box" is outdated and depreciated. I apologize for the confusion with the edits! Ealdgyth - Talk 17:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah! Seems I can't do right for doing wrong! Though (to be pedantic) doesn't this title pre-date the Peerage of England? I thought that only started in the 14th or 15th century. Swanny18 (talk) 18:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

That I have no idea on and I leave that to the primary author, Deacon, to answer. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:13, 16 December 2010 (UTC)