Talk:Lordship of Bowland

Assessment

 * I have amended the lists which were prepared on the basis that "Lord of Bowland" is a peerage: it is not and never has been. The Lordship is in the nature of a manor.  Accordingly the title is not "created".  I have grave doubts as to whether the lordship had much real existence as distinct from the Earldom and then Duchy of Lancaster: it was merely the mechanism through whcih the Duchy managed its local estates.
 * The post 1661 owners have links to the article on the peerage. Many of them will have biographic articles; these are the proper links, but I leave some one else to correct that.  Peterkingiron (talk) 21:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Placed on Peterkingiron's talk page:
 * LORDSHIP OF BOWLAND Peter, you are misreading the Lordship of Bowland - it was never a mechanism of the Duchy of Lancaster, as you call it.  I urge you to visit to look at the monograph I co-authored where you will see the history examined in detail.  It is referenced as the Cambridge History of the Lordship of Bowland on the Wiki page.  If you have any queries, I suggest you contact me at swjolly@btinternet.com before further editing.
 * As it happens, I approve of your editing of the page to date but might I suggest you bring the contents box into conformity with the subheads? Stephen Jolly

Fellow, Clare College University of Cambridge —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.95.218 (talk) 21:58, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not sure whether I missed the reference. I have amended the citation of this, to reflect more accurately where it is published.  "Cambridge History" usually refers to a work of great authority published by Cambridge University Press.  The Escutcheon is a publication that I have not come across before (which may be my loss).  I have thus not clear how authorative it is.  You will find I have made one other minor change whcih I hope you will not find controversial.
 * It always helps other editors, if editors making substantial changes log in. This means that you have a talk page and the rest of us can identify you.  Much of the editing done to WP by unlogged in editors is at best unhelpful, and often plain vandalism.  Setting up an account is not difficult.
 * I did wonder whether descibing the lordship as a "mechanism" was going to get me into hot water. My understanding is that a lordship in this context is a superior kind of manor.  My familiarity with the administrative arrnagements for the Duchy of Lancaster is inadequate to enable me to comment on its relationship to the Honor of Clitheroe or the Duchy itself.  My reason for altering the structure of the article is that it appeared to be claiming the lordship was a peerage (which it never was).  The contents box in an article is constructed by WP automatically from the headings and subheadings, so that there should be nothing to change.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:14, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Peter, the Lordship of Bowland was indeed never a title of nobility. However, it predated the Duchy of Lancaster by some three centuries. The Honor of Clitheroe was similarly a later creation. I can only suggest you read the monograph I co-authored - easily found at www.forestofbowland.com/node/1864. This should end your confusion on the matter. Stephen Jolly, Fellow, Clare College, Cambridge —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.191.151 (talk) 23:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

KINGS AS LORDS OF BOWLAND Peter, this is wholly incorrect as a header. Monarchs who were lords of Bowland were known as "Lord Kings of Bowland". You are corrupting the historical record with these uninformed amendments. Please read the monograph I referred to before tinkering. The research took me and my colleagues at Cambridge almost a year to complete. Please show a modicum of respect for our hard work! Stephen Jolly, Fellow, Clare College, Cambridge —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.191.151 (talk) 23:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Twenty-eight manors contained within Honor of Clitheroe
I'm no expert, but there where (in total) more the 28 manors in Blackburnshire alone at the time of domesday (See: Extract from 'A History of the County of Lancaster: Volume 6'). So the Honor of Clitheroe would of contained significantly more (especially by 1311). --Trappedinburnley (talk) 15:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

You are failing to understand the nature of an honor. By definition, it was a disparate set of landholdings. You cannot equate Blackburnshire directly with the Honor of Clitheroe. Stephen Jolly, Clare College, Cambridge —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.191.151 (talk) 23:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Whilst me and my copy of the Rev. Whittaker’s book can see a debate could be had over this, I wouldn’t care for it. My only interests in this page relate to the history of Burnley (as it was part of both Blackburnshire and the honor of Clitheroe). What I’d like is to replace the Honor of Clitheroe redirect with a full page (its a bit pointless as it stands right now), but at the moment I am undecided as to whether it would be better incorporated into the Blackburnshire or Clitheroe Castle pages.

I’ve also put in links to few more pages, including the bio’s of most of the post crown holders (Henry James Montagu-Scott and the Towneleys have yet to be deemed worthy of a page, although I’m working on the Towneleys, your input would be welcomed).

Finally I’d also highly recommend getting yourself a username (and highly not recommend publishing your e-mail address so freely unless you like spam), you can do so here. --Trappedinburnley (talk) 22:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I see reason why Honor of Clitheroe should not become a substantive page in its own right. An Honor is a grouping of manors, usually held by a tenant in chief and with some coherence.  Blackburnshire is (I presume) a division of Lancashire, a hundred (county subdivision), and thus concerned with civil (rather than feudal) administration.  A substantive article on this would also be useful.  Peterkingiron (talk) 21:20, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Blackburnshire was indeed a hundred, and already has its own article.--  Dr Greg   talk  21:33, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The de Lacys are the link. Henry de Lacy was Baron of Pontefract, Lord of Bowland and of Blackburnshire. His son Robert inherited all these and probably built Clitheroe Castle and was therefore the first lord of the Honor of Clitheroe. It seems to me that the redirect could be moved to Clitheroe castle and info about the honor added there, but I’m not a historian and I did just read it in a book, so I’m a little wary. --Trappedinburnley (talk) 22:01, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Trappedinburnley, well done on the Towneley family page. I have added a section on the Lords O'Hagan, descendants of Alice Towneley. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manorial (talk • contribs) 08:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Status of this article and article on William Bowland, 16th Lord of Bowland
I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage, for want of a better location. 45ossington (talk) 09:03, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well done, the article as it stands is almost certainly fictitious, relying on reference to a historical barony, which is itself alone worthy of an article. I propose to delete all the text about the person who has been foolish enough to pay good money to buy a purported certificate granting this meaningless "title" who has then tried to give it credibility by writing about it here. I also copy below the text from your above generated discussion page.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 15:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC))

Lordship of Bowland and William Bowland, 16th Lord of Bowland
I am not sure whether this is necessarily quite the right place to launch this discussion, since the article on the Lordship of Bowland does not purport to suggest that it is a peerage title. But I have concerns about the notability (indeed, the reality) of these two articles. Does the pseudonymous bearer of what is (at most) apparently some kind of manorial title merit an article? And is WP:NOTYOU applicable? The Lordship of Bowland has now been embedded into a number of other articles, but did (for example) the Dukes of Buccleuch either know or care that they were "Lords of Bowland"?45ossington (talk) 09:01, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Ossington, I think you underestimate the importance of this lordship on three counts. Firstly, if you visit www.forestofbowland.com/lordship you can see that Lancashire County Council and their officers in the Forest of Bowland promote the lordship as a plank in their promotional/management strategy for the Forest. The Lord of Bowland has appointed a high-profile local landowner as his Bowbearer and the former steward to Lord Clitheroe and Sir Simon Towneley as his chief steward of the Forest. Monies are being raised for good causes and there are strong links to the local Slaidburn Archive. This Lordship is anchored firmly in its local community. Secondly, a scholarly monograph on the Lordship was published by the Cambridge University Heraldic & Genealogical Society in 2010. This piece of research was co-authored by a Cambridge don and a local Bowland historian and sets out in detail the long and fascinating history of this lordship. A PDF version of the monograph can be found at www.forestofbowland.com/lordship. Thirdly, you question whether or not the Buccleuchs cared about the lordship of Bowland. The answer is a definitive YES. The Dukes needed to appoint Bowbearers, Chief Stewards and officers in their Forest Courts (swainmote and woodmote) to effect the day-to-day business in their Forest. There is documentary evidence - again cited in the monograph - showing how up until the early C19th the Buccleuchs played an active, inded personal role in such appointments. After the acquisition of the Forest by the Towneley family, the Forest courts did fall into disuse but there was a Bowbearer right up until the late C19th. These two articles whose validity you query make no claim to this Lordship being anything other than feudal/manorial but I think it would be misguided to make assumptions about this historic lordship because it is not a peerage and therefore in some sense not "real". It is very real and I would argue important. If you have any doubt, talk to Jenny Bradley at the Slaidburn Archive or Tony Kitto at Towneley Hall and see how they respond to your suggestion that this Lordship is not "real"! Let me know if I can be of further assistance. Manorial Manorial (talk) 12:55, 17 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. But are (1) User:Manorial, (2) Stephen Jolly and (3) William Bowland, 16th Lord of Bowland all really one and the same person? If so, wouldn't it be better (a) to record Stephen Jolly's (no doubt important) manorial rights as part of his article (rather than to create a fictional persona with a separate article), and (b) for the content of any article on Stephen Jolly to be determined in the future by editors other than User:Manorial? I'm not saying that Stephen Jolly does not merit an article (any Fellow of a Cambridge College would pass the notability test, in my book), but see WP:NOTYOU). I'm conscious I may be straying rather off-topic for this page and any (polite) suggestion for an alternative location for the discussion would be gratefully received. 45ossington (talk) 17:58, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Since I can see a succession box on William Bowland, 16th Lord of Bowland which gives the impression this is a peerage it looks like it has crossed into our area. Garlicplanting (talk) 13:41, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The lordship of Bowland is an empty title, which seems to have been sold by a landed estate that once owned land there. Being lord of the manor confers no great dignity: it is NOT a peerage; I have therefore deleted the succession box.  We have had a lot of pushing of this subject in WP, probably all by the man who bought the title, and wants to pretend that it confers some dignity, but that is totally spurious.  The Cambridge don may merit an article; not all do.  I would be happy to see the article on the 16th lord deleted, personally.  If he is Stephen Jolly, a brief summary might be merged to his article, but we would need to be very sure.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Article stubified
For all the above reasons, I have stubified this article. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 15:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC))


 * @Lobsterthermidor
 * I agree with @45ossington comments regarding WP:NOTYOU, and would not dispute the removal of the William Bowland article. However I feel that the “stubification” of this one has been less than ideal. You’ve effectively deleted it, bypassing AFD.
 * I’ve previously “helped” @manorial with some of this content, although not particularly this article. I did so in exchange for his contributions to the related Honour of Clitheroe article. I’ve also talked directly to people involved and (unlike @Peterkingiron) feel it has been revived mainly to promote tourism in the area. Which I believe would be warmly welcomed and greatly beneficial.
 * Like most other articles with issues I’d prefer to see the article improved (shorter is OK) rather than binned. Although I’m ridiculously busy at the moment I’m willing to spend some time on this if there are other potential contributors?--Trappedinburnley (talk) 17:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I have long been unhappy with this article and had tried to remove its worst excesses. I think that the present stub is too brief.  The section on the descent of the lordship was accurate, but is largely the same as that of the Honour of Clitheroe. Since the lordship is not a peerage, it is not appropriate to have the list of numbered lords.  This might be appropriate for the descent of honours and feudal baronies (or castles at their core), but not for a mere manor, which is what we are dealing with here.  The problem is of a user putting in his own POV, probably to aggrandise his purchase of what is now an empty title.  The lordship of most manors is now an empty title. The exceptions are where there are commons or where the lord of a manor has registered his title to mines or other manorial rights, which had to be done by last October.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. It seems clear to me that the originator of this article/group of articles is not a good faith editor. As with hoax editors in general, their hoaxes are well embedded and huge amounts of time are needed to sort fact from fiction. This is not a good use of the time of good faith editors. Better to scrap it and start again entirely, based on reputable sources written by historians, not based on articles in local papers desperate to fill space free of charge which lap-up press releases submitted by members of the public, probably in this case written by "his lordship" himself. I've encountered something very similar before, namely Barony of Moor (deleted in 2012), written up and aggrandized by someone who reckoned he'd bought a title and who wanted to use WP to promote himself. The following text in Stephen Jolly is a clue: Jolly has a research interest in black propaganda.  (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 18:18, 2 March 2014 (UTC))
 * In the period since I wrote the above comment, I have reinstated the article, starting with a version from last August. However I have pruned it very considerably to leave only a summary of its history.  I hope that I have removed the material  derived from the lord's WP:OR without a good independent source.  This bears in mind that local newspapers may be printing press releases, and thus not be independent sources.  I do not know enough of the subject to know whether or how far this could be merged to Forest of Bowland.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Your pruning is a good start, thanks. There is still not a single authoritative source quoted in the whole article. The "Official website of the Forest of Bowland" is worthless. I suggest starting again from a standard history of the Duchy of Lancaster, written by a solid Victorian academic. I suspect if this lordship did exist it was an English feudal barony within the Duchy. Still not happy with most of the content. (Lobsterthermidor (talk) 18:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC))
 * Thanks Peter, I think that is a good start. I agree that @Manorial has been guilty of "bigging up" the importance of his lordship. @Lobsterthermidor I think the baronies involved would have been Pontefract and then Clitheroe, Clitheroe (and maybe Pontefract) becoming part of the Earldom and then Duchy of Lancaster. A reasonable amount is available in the Lancs VCH, that the honour of clitheroe article is mainly based on. However I also have little experience with this stuff and have stuggled to make sense of it.--Trappedinburnley (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lordship of Bowland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120402182233/http://www.lancashire.gov.uk/environment/documents/historictowns/ClitheroeComplete_LowRes.pdf to http://www.lancashire.gov.uk/environment/documents/historictowns/ClitheroeComplete_LowRes.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:22, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Extremely confusing for lay readers
What happened between 1885 and 1938? At present the article states that the barony "disappeared" in 1885, but then claims that it was believed to have been sold in 1938. What does "disappeared" mean in this context?

The article also needs to explain why a barony, which was originally a form of land tenure, was considered by all concerned to have been "lost" and could be "rediscovered". It sounds as though the title was simply unused (by any particular individual) between 1885 and 1938, but this is not clear.

Grant &#124;  Talk  10:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)


 * There is a fair amount in here that is confusing to people with expertise! I was involved a little when this article was created, at that time I had very little understanding, just an interest in local history. My knowledgebase has expanded since then, and I've been meaning to come back to this (along with many other articles). The following is my understanding and would require work to correctly source. It was not a barony (I think Clitheroe is the relevant barony), merely a fiefdom. This is still a form of land tenure, but by the C19th the Towneley's would have had the freehold title(s), in addition to the title to the lordship. So when the land was sold to create the Whitewell Estate in 1938, the freehold title(s) were transferred, but not (apparently) the lordship. As with many Lord of the manor titles, it was not seen having any remaining value until more recently. As Strachey is not a descendant of the daughter who received that land in 1885, it is unclear how he came to control the mentioned family trust. My understanding is that you don't need paperwork as proof of ownership, but logically if nobody else has a reasonable claim to it, as a Towneley he must. I expect that a representative of the industry that trades in these titles contacted him one day and said something like "if you add some legitimacy to some titles we can sell for you, there is money for nothing in it". And the rest is history as they say.
 * The question is what to do? This is closely related to Forest of Bowland and Honour of Clitheroe, and as I have written this my view has swung away from expansion toward a merger. Are you willing to get involved, or was this more of a drive-by? TiB  chat  17:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I feel that I lack the necessary knowledge of medieval law and local knowledge to do very much.

With regard to your comments, I think the present-day, everyday meaning of terms needs to be borne in mind.

I think the key to improving the article is clarifying the distinction in definition/usage here of "title" and "lordship". The exact nature, implications and relevance of this distinction are not at all clear to me nor, I suspect, most readers. That is to say, both of these words can mean: (i.) a specific area of land, (ii.) a purely ceremonial position, or (iii.) both.

Also, if both title and lordship, regardless of meaning, are normally transferred together, why did this not occur automatically? Was it a technical error, such as an omission of specific words in the paperwork?

Grant &#124;  Talk  05:00, 20 June 2021 (UTC)