Talk:Frankpledge

Merge to Frith-borh
I just noticed that someone recreated this redirect without doing anything about the target article, which is located at Frith-borh. Thus, we have two entries for the same concept under the two historical names used to refer to it. I don't really mind whether "frankpledge" or "frith-borh" is taken as the destination - though I personally favour "frith-borh", despite what Google tells us about frequency. I'll undertake the merge provided no one gives reasons for maintaining two. Thanks, -- Aryaman (talk) 13:05, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No objection to the merge from me, though on balance I'd prefer "frankpledge", as I think it's found more commonly in 2ary sources, e.g. in the expression "view of frankpledge" - probably this is also why it shows up more on Google, as it's a pretty obscure subject for the average Joe; but "frith-borh" obviously has historical priority, so I really don't mind - re-directing "frankpledge" to "frith-borh" would be fine by me, so long as there was something like "later known as frankpledge" in the opening summary, if not the first sentence.


 * While I'm here, I was surprised to see the statement "Frankpledge can be traced back to King Canute … who declared that every man, serf or free, must be part of a hundred" (in which "Canute" is now a re-direct btw, the page having been moved to "Cnut the Great") - hundreds and their rules of jurisdiction were created long before Cnut had anything to do with them, wasn't he just re-affirming existing law? Another funny aspect is the observation that frankpledge was more common in the Danelaw - where there were wapentakes, not hundreds! All a bit peculiar. Dunno though, I've long since forgotten any detail about this sort of stuff, really I'm just posing the query, though I just might do some research... Nortonius (talk) 15:04, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The Frith-borh article could certainly do with some references from more recent literature. When I wrote it, I was unable to make it to the library, so I used what I could find in the way of RS online. If you have the time/interest, I'm sure it could be improved with some educated commentary from modern scholars. Cheers, -- Aryaman (talk) 15:40, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem - though, come think think of it, maybe WP:PRIMARYTOPIC sort of applies here? Though really we're talking about different names for essentially the same topic, the main thrust of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC seems to me to be about what people expect to find when they enter a simple search, in this instance either "frankpledge" or "frith-borh": I've just had a look at last month's viewing statistics for both articles, and, while Frith-borh got 119 hits, Frankpledge got 662! If that all adds up – and there may well be another, more relevant bit of WP policy that I've missed – I'd say it means really the merged article should be "Frankpledge", not "Frith-borh"...? Your view may differ, etc.! Cheers. Nortonius (talk) 18:09, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I am sure Frankpledge is the correct encyclopedic title and is correct per Wikipedia's naming convention. If Frith-borh is exactly the same concept (which seems uncertain?) I should not mind a merger to Frankpledge. If not, then I see no harm in two cross-referenced articles. Moonraker2 (talk) 21:19, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * ✅ by Fences and windows, merging Frith-borh to Frankpledge. Nortonius (talk) 23:33, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

To say in the 15th century frankpledge died out is contradicted by historic documentation.
Please see http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=66175 where it says "His son Miles settled the manor, with view of frankpledge, and the advowson of Morborne, in 1611, on the marriage of his son, Sir Anthony, who was knighted in 1604, with Rebecca Hampson."

This suggests that in the early 17th century, frankpledge was still active in England.

Citation: 'Parishes: Morborne', A History of the County of Huntingdon: Volume 3 (1936), pp. 188-190. URL: http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=66175

Further research is required before the assertions on the web page should be accepted as fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.57.66.152 (talk) 10:04, 17 September 2012 (UTC)