Talk:Josce de Dinan

The Anarchy
When describing the civil war between King Stephen and Matilda, The Anarchy needs to be mentioned just to give proper context to the period in which de Dinan lived.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Most historians now do not use the term "The Anarchy" - they generally call it a civil war or if they use the anarchy term - put it in quotation marks - I'm following their practice here. We could pipelink the "civil war" phrase if you insist. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I was not aware that historians no longer use the term "The Anarchy"! I think your suggestion of the pipelink is a good one.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:37, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I notice Wikipedia's article uses the alternative Nineteeen-Year Winter to describe the civil war.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:41, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I've never seen that phrase used by a historian - I note the whole article is lacking citations. Maybe I'll get to it someday! Ealdgyth - Talk 18:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Like you, I am fascinated by the period of King Stephen's reign. I recall you gave me some excellent advice when I was getting Sibyl de Neufmarché to GA Class. Happily, it passed!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, my main interest has always been Rufus' reign - I find it fascinating. I just edit a lot of areas! Ealdgyth - Talk 18:54, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh really, that is interesting. I know practically nothing about Rufus. I find the Welsh Marcher lords equally fascinating-they ruled as quasi-kings in their domains.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The term is sometimes used, but in modern writing almost always with scare quotes as Ealdgyth says or with an immediate qualification. The Anarchy of King Stephen's Reign (1994) edited by Edmund King uses "the anarchy" (always lower case I think) several times throughout the book, but the introduction explains something of the historiography of the term and the first chapter discusses whether it really was anarchy. C. Warren Hollister wrote the first chapter and notes that "Most people have ... concluded that Round's 'anarchy' is a fantasy propagated by a few doom-crying churchmen generalizing wildly from local and temporary conditions. I am among the minority, however, who continue to see the reign as 'a true and terrible anarchy'". I think the term is sometimes used not because it is considered accurate but because previous authors have used it and it is understood to refer to a particular period, and changing the meaning behind words is a slow and ponderous process. There's a partial preview on Google books if you're interested, but it's more tantalising than informative. Nev1 (talk) 20:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd agree that I don't think its as clear cut as historians simply not using the term - it's a useful way for many to identify which civil war they're talking about, even if they're arguing there wasn't an anarchy, but it's often worth a footnote in a wiki article explaining the origins and nature of the term. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions
I noticed the GA review, and read the article. I don't want to do a full review myself, but did notice the following: That's all the comments I could come up with. I enjoyed reading the article. Thanks for writing it. Carcharoth (talk) 05:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 'Fouke le Fitz Waryn' is described as 'late medieval' - I read a bit about how the textual history of that work is murky, but is it possible to at least date the surviving work more precisely, as not everyone will know what 'late medieval' means? I noticed this in the lead, but detail probably belongs in the main body of the article.
 * You link 'Dinan' to an article which states it is in Brittany, so the 'Breton extraction' point is being made there as well (this is in response to the comment I saw about 'Breton extraction' not being obvious to all readers).
 * The paragraph ending 'While in the Marches he joined King Stephen's household' is followed by the paragraph starting 'Following King Henry I's death in 1135'. It should maybe be made clearer that you are here going back in time a little to explain how Stephen became king, as I'm assuming from the end of the first paragraph that Josce arrives on the scene after Stephen became king? Or is the dating uncertain enough that Josce might have been in Monmouth before Stephen became king? Or did he join the household of the future King Stephen?
 * "but was not settled until 1138 - seems to be a missing "but the area was not settled" (also, is 'pacified' a better word? 'settled' can mean other things as well). Maybe "dispute was not settled"? Anyway, not sure what is missing here, but something is needed.
 * Since Pain fitzJohn died in 1137, only two years before the siege in 1139, giving that date of death here is useful context (i.e. she hadn't been a widow for decades). Is the marriage the first certain mention of Josce in the historical record? Also, is it worth noting here that Sybil had been granted the castle and that Pain fitzJohn had married her in what sounds like a very similar situation to this one?
 * In footnote 'd', I think the spelling should be 'utensils'.
 * Is it known what happened to Sybil? When I read that Josce had lost Ludlow to Walter de Lacy, I found myself wondering what had happened to Sybil? Even if nothing more is known, it would be better I think to say that, than fall silent.
 * I see that the redlink to Fulk FitzWarin is different from the blue link to Fulk FitzWarin, but to ascertain that, a reader needs to click through to the blue linked article. Better to state in this article that they are different, I think, either with numerals or birth and death years where known.
 * Going back to the lead, "lived during the early years of the civil war" implied to me that he died before the civil war ended. He clearly lives on after the civil war. I think something better than "lived" could be used here. Also, as the marriage was 1139 or later, that might be worth putting in the lead?
 * The lead contains the context that Henry II became king in 1154, but this year is omitted from the main body of the article. Specifically these two sentences: "Matilda gave Josce some lands around Lambourn after Ludlow's fall as compensation. Later, he was given land in Berkshire by King Henry II, Matilda's son, as further recompense for the loss of Ludlow." are bounded by the years 1150 and 1156, but was the land from Matilda before 1154, and why not state here that the land grant from Henry II was in or after 1154? Or is that uncertain as well?
 * In the 'family' section, why not merge the first two sentences (from the same source) and start off with when he died, followed by details of his daughters?
 * For what it is worth, Ludlow Castle contains nothing on Josce de Dinan, but probably should. It might be worth stating in this article that Ludlow Castle dates from the 11th century (i.e. built a few generations earlier than this period).


 * Thanks, Carcharoth, for looking at this. I decided to go ahead and fix all of your concerns before renoming at GA - just seemed like a good idea. I've clarified the dates of Fouke in the body, went ahead and cleared up the confusion of "breton". I moved the "background" paragraph up in the first section, and retitled the section "Background and early life" which should fix the chronological issues. I added "but the revolt was not settled until 1138" - I think I was avoiding pacified because the source used pacified. I haven't dug into the charters to find out when the earliest charter mention is of him. From Keats-Rohan's listing at Josce's entry - they mostly appear to be post 1135 (Most of them are from RRAN III - the listing of royal charters from Stephen's reign, but there are a few listed from other sources that I don't have access to easily.) I'm generally relunctant to dig in charter evidence, that's getting a bit too close to actual historical research for my comfort. I'm not sure that Sybil actually was granted the castle in her own right - from my reading of the various sources (and from my own knowledge of the time), it's quite likely that the castle was just assumed to go along with her marriage - or it was an oral grant or it could be something else. The documentary records from this time are full of holes, quite honestly. Spelling fixed. More to follow. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:35, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, I think I dealt with the rest. As for Sybil - there isn't anything I can find on her death or anything. Keats-Rohan's entry on her only gives her ancestry, the fact that she was fitzJohn's wife and mother of Cecily, the countess of Hereford. There only appear to be two or three charter references to her, so we don't have a good handle on her life (and this is why I haven't written an article on her). Ludlow's all Nev1's baby - he does much better with castle articles than I ever could. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:03, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I happened upon this as well and something stood out for me that didn't seem to make sense. It is stated that Mortimer was imprisoned in Ludlow, but de Lacy captured the castle whilst this was going on. Is that right? Polequant (talk) 16:16, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * As I recall, the chronology is slightly confused in the secondary sources. My preference would be dropping Pettifer as a reference in this case because, while a very handy source, it is a general gazetteer type work whereas Coplestone-Crow was writing in a book focused on Ludlow Castle and its history. Nev1 (talk) 16:27, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've dropped the informtaion about Mortimer from the reference - given that it conflicts with more scholarly sources, better to drop the bit. It's clear that the castle was captured by Lacy while Josce was gone, but the chronology is very confused. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Going back to what is known about Sybil, I can see from the Pain fitzJohn article that it is as clear as mud who Sybil was, but what confused me was the way it is presented in the Ludlow Castle article. It says there that "Roger and Hugh had a sister, Agnes, and King Henry I chose to give the property to her daughter, Sybil. The king made her marry Pain fitzJohn [...]" That is the 'niece' theory. That's not so important for this article, but later on in the Ludlow Castle article it says "The following year the two daughters Josce de Dinan had with Sybil de Lacy petitioned the king regarding the ownership of the town and castle of Ludlow but were turned down." This is sourced to Coplestone-Crow, which Nev1 mentions above. So is this the same Sybil, the mother of the two daughters? I'm guessing the answer is no-one knows for sure. The real trouble I'm having is that I can't really match up anything said in this article with what is said in the Ludlow Castle article (in particular: "In December 1137, Stephen issued a charter confirming that the property would remain with Cecily, Pain fitzJohn and Sybils first Daughter, until she married Roger fitzMiles, which had been arranged while Pain was still alive. It is likely that with peaceful means of taking the barony closed to him, de Lacy took Ludlow Castle himself the following spring" - is that before Josce de Dinan arrives on the scene?). It is almost as if the two articles are telling two different stories, or (I'm hoping) that the "de Dinan period" is missing entirely from the Ludlow Castle article. Carcharoth (talk) 20:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Pain died in 1137 and Josce didn't marry Sybil until 1139 - so it appears that the de Lacy event referred to in the Ludlow castle article predates Josce's arrival on the scene. Yes, Josce's history with Ludlow isn't in the Ludlow article yet - as I mentioned above, I've left that to Nev1 who's been working on the Ludlow article on and off. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

When did Sibil die
We have her dying in 1137 and then active in 1139?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 17:55, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Pain died in 1137. I've clarified. --Ealdgyth (talk) 18:05, 25 October 2020 (UTC)