Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/John Hastings, 2nd Earl of Pembroke/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Hog Farm via FACBot (talk) 24 March 2022 [1].

---

John Hastings, 2nd Earl of Pembroke

Nominator(s): Gog the Mild and SN54129 on 21 February 2022 (UTC)

A joint nomination between myself and Gog on one of the many curious individuals populating late-medieval England. This chap starts off as a bit of an arse, frankly—a plutocrat forced to work with men of greater ability though less lineage, and who clearly can't decide whether he prefers fighting the French or cutting off relatives, as he spends his time doing both in almost equal portions. But—but—whose story ends with, really, some poignancy.

This started off with me piling in my editorial size nine boots some years ago, throwing in everything I had on him, following which it was reviewed for GA by Iazyges of this parish (shout out!). More recently Gog has shown me how it's done—as usual—with a fantastic copy edit. Anything of any good you find is his; you know who to blame for the rest. We look forward to your comments and suggestions on promoting old Pembroke further. SN54129 20:04, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

• Image licensing looks ok (t · c) buidhe 20:43, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for this. The simpleness of the review is reflection on the dearth of decent images available—although obviously appreciated all the same—for medieval stuff, either you can get hold of an document and photograph it, it which case {{PD-scan}} is my friend, or dessicated remains of old graves, etc., CC-BY-SA'd by some bod on Flikr. Talk about gutting :( SN54129 21:42, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Comments from Mike Christie

• Not necessarily an issue for this article, but I see our article on Lord Mauny prefers the spelling Manny for the title; is there a reason to prefer one spelling over the other? The same goes for Anne Mauny/Manny. And I see further down the article you use "Baron Manny" instead.

The RSs refer to him as "Mauny", so I thought that we had standardised on that. Thanks for picking up the ones which slipped through. Fixed.

• "he was responsible for forcing them from power and their being replaced by laymen": "their being replaced" is a little awkward, but do we need it in the lead? Just "forcing them from power" would do, unless the fact that their replacements were laymen is the key point. Looking at this episode in the body of the article, it seems less definite than the wording in the lead -- we get "some chroniclers portray", and "have been described". And if he was responsible for the dismissal of the ecclesiastics, is it also clear he was responsible for the appointment of laymen, rather than other ecclesiastics?

Ho, hum, I think you have the right of it. Trimmed.

• "intending to raise a new army once in Aquitaine": I don't think you need "once".

Removed.

• I don't think the wiktionary link to solemnization is helpful -- it just talks about the performance of a ceremony, but there was a ceremony of some kind on 19 May 1359, it appears, so it's not clear what the omitted ceremony was.

Ha. We have debated this one. Serial Number 54129 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:08, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Ha indeed  :) the consensus is yours, sirs! Delinked. SN54129 19:34, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

OK -- I am still curious what the additional ceremony would have been given that there had been one and another never happened. Were marriages typically conducted with two separate ceremonies? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: Briefly—yes and no. Two sets of arrangements, only one wedding. It was common, esp. among the nobility, to contract for marriage before going through with it, especially in where the parties were below the legal age of marriage (12 for girls, 14 for boys, IIRC). More importantly, it meant that while the political alliance that the marriage was intended to cement came into immediate effect, the actual handing over of daughters (and, again, importantly) money, was put off until the actual wedding; that is, the religious ceremony. I've clarified this in the text, and check out fn. 2 for a sourced/encyclopedically-toned version of this^  :) SN54129 18:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Struck; the fact that the first ceremony was the betrothal was what I was missing. The extra note is interesting but given that you now say "betrothal" I think it's optional. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:54, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• "In 1369 he entailed and enfeoffed part of his earldom, with the reversion going to the King; these were granted to his feoffees who granted them back to him for five years." This is a bit too technical for a general reader. Similarly for "Much of the Hastings estates had been enfeoffed in 1369 and returned to him. Now, in April 1372, Pembroke quitclaimed them back to the feoffees again."

Another for our land tenure expert methinks. Unless they would rather I ruthlessly turn it into modern English?

Hmm. A footnote could expand on what he was doing, but what I'd like to say is "This means that Pembroke...", but that would be my OR of course. So one has to discuss the generalities of the tricks the nobility of the time had for protecting their patrimonies. And very very for the record, the problem with turning near-obsolete legal terminologies into modern English is that it will almost certainly change the sense of what they were doing. It's not just that we call things by newer words; rather, we don't recognise the concepts they represent anymore; it would be a bit like saying that the medieval nobility owned land, for instance.

I'll sleep on this and see what we can do tomorrow UTC. SN54129 19:34, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

@Mike Christie: I've clarified that the arrangements were by way of creating the form of a trust, although our article on that topic—particularly the feudal origins—is woefully lacking source. SN54129 15:10, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

That's a big help. I think something similar is needed for the second sentence I listed above, starting "Much of the Hastings estates...". Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Done, Mike Christie. SN54129 10:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

• "which had suffered setbacks following his intervention": on first reading it appears the referent of "his" is "which", it took me a second to parse this as referring to the prince. Suggest "which had suffered setbacks following the Prince's intervention".

Done.

• "Pembroke and Cambridge landed at St Malo—apparently escaping the notice of a local French commander, and marched...": I'd either use two dashes or two commas.

Commas. Done.

• You have an unspaced em dash in "Pembroke and Cambridge landed at St Malo[4]—apparently escaping..." and elsewhere, and spaced en dashes in the definition of chevauchée and elsewhere; MoS says you have to pick one or the other.

It does. I think we have different preferences. Ems were very much in the minority, so I have replaced them.

• I think your in-text link to Cokayne must be going to the wrong person -- you link to a genealogist who died in 1911, but the book was published in 1945.

Nope. It was published in 1945, but if you look further along the details of the source you will find " (14 volumes 1910–1959, 2nd ed.)".

OK, that clears that up. I've used 19th-century historians in articles I've worked on, so I know they can be reliable, but has nobody more recent covered the points you use him for? Or is he still considered reliable by modern historians? And I see he's described as a genealogist, not a historian, which might make the peerage a reliable source for the genealogical data of the peerage, but doesn't automatically make Cokayne's opinions of the peers and their actions reliable. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:46, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Couple of points, if I can? Firstly, yes, the CP is still extensively used by historians: the most basic evidence is a Google books search (starting at page two, as page one is modern reprints) and it gives a sense of the sheer breadth of scholarship referencing it. History, literature, architecture, churches, research methods, theses, biographies, political culture, and, of course, genealogy. It is, in fact, a standard source. Secondly, while the first edition of the CP is wholly 18th century, here, I'm using the second edition, which was extensively augmented and revised by Vicary Gibbs (GEC is only original author), who was trained much later, and whose work demonstrates his understanding of the historical method. (For clarity, it is the 2nd ed. that has become the "standard source" I referred to above, due to his major rewriting and corrections.) Hope this clarifies things—of course, it is complicated by the fact that even a work published in 1945 will still be referred to in short citations as Cokayne, or, even more frequently, GEC: Gibbs not even getting a look-in!). SN54129 19:34, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

• "When Pembroke returned to France on campaign again in 1372 he travelled with Beauchamp. On at least one occasion they shared a bed. Not in a modern sense of the phrase; it was common at the time for apprentices, students and soldiers to sleep together and travellers would often share a bed at an inn." Suggest "When Pembroke returned to France on campaign again in 1372 he travelled with Beauchamp. On at least one occasion they shared a bed: it was common at the time for apprentices, students and soldiers to sleep together and travellers would often share a bed at an inn." I think the immediate clarification means you can dispense with the disclaimer.

Good point. Thanks. Done.

• "The government was aware that both the French and Castilian fleets were at sea and liable to be in the area Pembroke was sailing to. Perhaps Pembroke expected to only encounter pirates." You don't connect these two statements, which seems odd -- did the government not inform Pembroke? I would have thought "...sailing to, but Pembroke may have expected..." to be a natural conjunction.

As you wish.

• "A fellow prisoner, Sir John Trailly reported Pembroke's reaction to an inquiry in 1407": according to the linked article, Sir John died in 1400, so I don't understand this.

Ouija? Serial Number 54129 ? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:08, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Heh. A confusion as to who Trailly reported to; a parson not an enquiry (there was an enquiry into the affair in 1407, and the parson did submit a deposition, which presumably was the info from Trailly, but that's all a bit SYNTHy). In any case, a commission over 30 years later is wholly irrelevant, so I've noted the parson and Taken Out The Commission. SN54129 19:34, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

• "despite Pembroke's supposed close connections at court and with the King": why "supposed"? These connections were real, weren't they?

Very true.

• "outlived her husband until 1384": suggest "outlived her husband, dying in 1384".

Done.

• "Another contemporary chronicler described him as": coming after the quote from Cokayne, this makes Cokayne sound like a contemporary chronicler.

Fixed.

-- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:20, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Support. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:29, 9 March 2022 (UTC)q

Source review

Spotchecks not done. Version reviewed

• The lead says he was 28 at death, while infobox says 27 - which is correct?

  Changed to 27, which is the more accurate.

• "perhaps exasperated by the political failures of the King's ecclesiastical ministers" - source? What's in the text seems more like an objection to their self-indulgence

  True, but I've hedged our bets a bit in the lead now.

• "Pembroke was buried in Hereford in spring 1375" - text says only after April, is it known to have been spring?

  Not in Australia, I guess :) removed per MOS:REALTIME.

• "note the English ships are deliberately illustrated as being lower than the Castilian" - source?

  Added source, but removed the "Note that..." per editorializing.

• See MOS:PAGERANGE

  Think I caught them all, also some ISBNs.

• Be consistent in how you format citations to ODNB

  Done.

  Not quite - one has a location, others don't. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:15, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• Classen: where in Illinois?

  Urbana.

• Why are series titles sometimes in parentheses?

  The bot, probably. Fixed.

• Prestwich: can you verify title? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:34, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

  Added ~50 years.

  I was actually looking at a more basic error - is it really War add State? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:15, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

  I'll deal with these; thanks, NM. Gog, not ignoring your queries above either. At the moment, I do dwell in Cheshire  :) SN54129 16:38, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks, Nikkimaria, think I've caught everything here. Some errors more basic than others, it must be said  :) SN54129 09:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• Hasted is missing location
• Sherborne title should use endash. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:15, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
• Thaaaanks Nikkimaria :) think I've finally managed it! SN54129 14:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments by Wehwalt

• "commenced the career in royal service that was to consume the rest of his life." Given that this career was only six years, and the life only 27 years, I might say "commenced the royal service that he continued in until his death" or some such.

Tweaked.

• "Hastings proved his age on 12 September 1368" This is an obscure phrasing, to me, anyway, and is a double redirect, with proof of age leading to "Identity document", which is surely not intended.

SN?

I see that's been rectified.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:52, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

• "His first active service came in the same year, when he accompanied the much-delayed King's son, Edmund, Earl of Cambridge, to Aquitaine in south-west France[19] with a force of 400 men-at-arms." The "much--delayed King's son" reads oddly. Can we not say the expedition under the King's son was much-delayed or some such?

Tweaked.

• "Earls of Pembroke and Cambridge" per the MOS's title guidance, I suspect "Earls" should be lower case.

That's not my reading of the MoS. The word is not "used generically" and the "title is used to refer to a specific person as a substitute for their name during their time in office" so the MoS would seem to require an upper case E. Obviously I am open to being taught better.

That's fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:52, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

• "This was a strategically important French-held enclaves inside English France" should "enclaves" be singular?

Yes. Done.

• " Indeed, it maybe that was refused entry to the King's chambers by the royal chamberlain, Lord Latimer. " ?

Oops. Now in English.

• You have "Garter Feasts" and "Garter feast".

Nice spot. Standardised.

• "whose death, along with that of Edward, Lord Despenser the same year and Humphrey, Earl of Hereford two years previously erased at a stroke two of England's most aspiring commanders.[86]" I count three.

D'oh! Fixed.

That's it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:27, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Wehwalt, much appreciated. SN, one for your thoughts on above. Let me know if you would like me to apply my customary ruthlessness. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:44, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks very much, as ever, Wehwalt. SN54129 17:46, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Support--Wehwalt (talk) 19:52, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Comments Support from Tim riley

Only a few, and very minor, cavils from me. No complaints or queries about the substance of the article, but a few little points about the prose:

• Lead

• I am probably wrong, but although Pembroke was a knight of the Garter it looks odd to me to give him the postnominal KG – seems a jarringly modern style for a mediaeval subject. (If you assure me I am wrong, I may have to go and add the postnoms to John Falstaff's article.)

• Removed...as an anachronism?

• "The following year Pembroke commenced the career" – what a prissy verb! (What Fowler calls a "genteelism"). What's wrong with a plain "started" or "began"?

• Excellent choice.

• Background and youth

• "a ward of the king … the King's midwinter revels" – upper or lower case?

• Upper, and caught another too.

• "in Queen's Chapel, Palace of Westminster.[11][10]" – citations would be better in numerical order; and according to the only book I have to hand that mentions it, the chapel had a definite article.

• I agree, and annoyingly it's the sort of thing I point out myself!

• Marriages

• "The marriage was never solemnized" – the –ize ending is not wrong, but looks odd in modern BrE. And, if I may say so, your rationale for adding or withholding blue-links escapes me: you link words like "heir" and "Ireland" that don't in the least need a link, but you don't link an unusual term like "solemnised". Likewise, later, you link "Rome", "robe" and "archers" (unnecessarily, meseems) but leave a hard word like "matrilineal" unlinked.

• H'mm, this is a little tricky. There was previously a Wiktionary link to solemnization (see above discussion with Mike Christie), which was removed as being not particularly helpful. I couldn't find an on-wiki page to link to Solemnization, and -ise brought up even less. Do you have any suggestions? (For what it's worth, I've gone through and delinked some obvious words as well!)

• I see. Well, it would hardly be a shocking dereliction to leave the word unlinked. You could recast the sentence on the lines of "the marriage ceremony never took place", but on the whole I'd be inclined to leave things as they are. Tim riley talk 15:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• "His second marriage to a cousin of the King" – The MoS does not demand it (and for my part I think it a silly convention) but it now seems to be pretty much de rigueur in Wikipedia, though nowhere else I can think of, to use the name rather than a pronoun at anyone's first mention in any paragraph. I just mention it.

• No problem.

• Campaigning in France

• "….these were granted to his feoffees" – what are "these"? There is no plural noun to relate back to.

• Singularised.

• "the estate would return intact to the King. His first active service…" – your meaning is clear enough, but syntactically "his" here refers back to the nearest mentioned person, viz the King. Might be as well to replace "his" with "Pembroke's"

• Done.

• "attempting to join the Duke of Anjou and the Earls of Pembroke and Cambridge" – this needed a second reading before it was clear to me that he wasn't attempting to join the Duke of Anjou and the Earls of Pembroke and Cambridge. I suggest a semicolon instead of the first "and".

• Good spot, it did read oddly.

• "and putting inhabitants to the sword" – this picturesque phrase is something of a euphemism for "killing inhabitants", it seems to me.

• Indeed.

• "says historian R. I. Jack" – this would do in The Sun, but for an encyclopaedia article something a little less tabloidese would be preferable, such as "according to the historian R. I. Jack".

• False titles.

• "one of his closest advisors" – strange and not particularly welcome use of the AmE "advisor" instead of the traditional English "adviser".

• Changed, of course.

• Feud with Lord Grey of Ruthin

• "Thomas, Earl of Warwick, who had died of plague in 1369, and so was a cousin to Pembroke" – not clear how dying of plague makes one anybody's cousin. The sentence would work if you used dashes rather than commas after "Warwick" and before "and so…"

• Done.

• Defeat at La Rochelle

• "the subject of criticism by several historians…" – you have generally used the present tense when reporting the words of historians, but here you report Ramsay, Jacob and Steel in the past tense.

• Brought each into the present tense.

• Legacy

• Seems rather an odd header. You don't really mention any legacy, and perhaps "Reputation" might be a more accurate heading.

• Ah ha!

That's all from me. I enjoyed this article, which has been a pleasure to review. – Tim riley talk 13:40, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks very much Tim, I just hope you didn't feel any pressure to review. But am v glad you did! There's just one thing I'd appreciate you commenting on above, everything else has been actioned, hopefully according to your suggestions. Cheers! SN54129 14:35, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

PS, if my partner in crime has any views on these changes, they can go pound sand are welcome to tweak them, of course. But I believe they are at the top of a hill at the moment. SN54129 14:35, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I have descended, after a few days of mixed weather, in order to watch the rugby. You seem to be dealing admirably with Mr riley's even more admirable suggestions. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:45, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

You have descended, as if from Olympus  :) SN54129 14:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

All my minor quibbles have been attended to, and I am happy to add my support. The article is an excellent read; widely and, as far as I can tell, well sourced; evidently comprehensive; and admirably illustrated. It seems to me to meet all the FA criteria. – Tim riley talk 15:34, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

• Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Hog Farm _Talk 13:35, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.