Talk:Hugh d'Avranches, Earl of Chester

Harrying of the North
I have a source which states Chester was the impetus behind the devastation in Northern England post 1066, but there is strangely nothing about it in this article. Brendandh (talk) 13:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)


 * d'Avranches was made Earl of Chester in 1071, just after the harrying (iirc...). So if it were a reward of some kind that would make sense perhaps. I can't find any specific reference in the stuff I have - although I can find reference to his holdings on the Welsh border being waste at the time he received them in the 1070s. If the source is good then I wouldn't think it would be too problematic to add it - you might want to do so at The Harrying of the North as well - and/or ask there. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Hugh d'Avranches, 1st Earl of Chester. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111002174259/http://familytrees.genopro.com/Azrael/dAvranches-Hugh-ind06869.htm to http://familytrees.genopro.com/Azrael/dAvranches-Hugh-ind06869.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Predecessor
Hugh seems to have had land across England: Chester, Northamptonshire, and elsewhere?

source: http://www.roffe.co.uk/tnp.htm

What is known of a predecessor recorded as Aksell? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0.0.0.0 (talk) 00:59, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Children of Hugh and Ermentrude
The History of Cheshire by George Ormerod points out that if Richard d'Avranches had a sister alive at his death, her husband and son's would have taken precedence over Richard's aunt's descendants. Therefore, any information on the d'Avranches from the 'Peerage' site must be taken with a grain of salt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjmos (talk • contribs) 02:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Succession in the early Norman era was not strictly hereditary, so the fact that it went to a cousin is not probative, but also bear in mind that Hugh fathered numerous illegitimate children. Without a full citation (vol., page) to what Ormerod said, it cannot be assumed his reference was to a full-sister. Agricolae (talk) 14:16, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Attributed arms
I know you don't like attributed arms, but they are a fact of life, they are an existing phenomenon - developed many centuries ago - that cannot be wished away! I think that so long as there is a mention that they are attributed, with a link to the article, that is a sufficient caveat. Attributed arms appear in many historic images, on architecture, in stained glass windows, etc, for example in the lead image here (1656 engraving by Wenceslaus Hollar) so the topic surely has to be dealt with, however much heraldic purists like you and me may disapprove! By the way, do you think it would be a good idea to change the page name to include "1st Earl", to conform with page titles of his successors?Lobsterthermidor (talk) 18:14, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Not all facts are worth reporting. That is not wishing it away, it is concluding that what amounts to anachronistic heraldic fan-fiction is not sufficiently noteworthy to illustrate. With attributed arms it is a real problem because most naive readers don't understand that they are a complete fantasy (and won't be bothered to follow the link that explains).  Do you have a biography of Hugh Lupus written anytime in the last century (i.e. by someone with modern scholarly sensibilities that we should be trying to emulate) where the author thought that these bogus arms were worth mentioning and describing, or is their inclusion simply reflecting your own sensibilities?
 * As to '1st Earl' I am not the person to ask - I am opposed to the use of the entire style, however much it seems to be convention here. I find it obsessive and pointless,and the kind of thing where a simple error or difference of opinion can affect the naming of a whole sequence of pages. It was not too long ago I had to go through more than 15 generations of a particular peerage and do page moves to renumber them because the person who created the series mistakenly overlooked the actual second Baron and hence misnumbered all that followed. Were it up to me, I would remove them all. Agricolae (talk) 18:33, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Agricolae. --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:00, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * An added note on why I don't like the style - with scholarly disagreements and odd vicissitudes of the peerage, this style also forces abominations such as Hugh de Courtenay, 2nd/10th Earl of Devon. Agricolae (talk) 14:23, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Relationship to William I
The article notes that Hugh of Chester was traditionally thought to be a nephew of William the Conqueror, but says that this is now questioned for lack of evidence. I can only say that in the ranking of tenants-in-chief in Domesday Book, by number of places held, Earl Hugh comes 4th, after Robert of Mortain (half-brother of William), Alan of Brittany (son-in-law of William), and Odo of Bayeux (half-brother of William). If William wasn't related to Hugh, he must have been very fond of him!2A00:23C5:6492:8D01:6CA9:3590:FF50:97CD (talk) 23:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)