Talk:Margaret de Clare, Baroness Badlesmere

Lancaster's refusal to help Margaret
The Earl of Lancaster's decision to remain aloof from the siege of Leeds Castle is a mystery. Margaret's own decision to remain behind and defend the castle rather than flee was because she had expected Lancaster to come to her assistance. His refusal to do so likely cost him his life in 1322. Had he brought his troops to Leeds he might have defeated the King's forces there and then. In the wake of the King's victory at Leeds, the baronial hegemony split in two, with many joining the King's side. It was this triumph that enabled Edward to defy the Ordainers and recall the Despensers.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:31, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The earl may have been another boyfriend of Edward's. Either that or he was hansomely payed off. GoodDay (talk) 08:25, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It was more likely family pride as he was Isabella's half-uncle. Besides, he personally disliked Baron Badlesmere. Nevertheless, his decision not to help defend Leeds soon cost him his life.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Isabella's pilgrimage a ruse?
Did Margaret de Clare fall into a trap set by the King in sending Isabella to Leeds on purpose? Historian Paul C. Doherty suggests that was the case. I have added this speculation as a footnote at the bottom of the article's page.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:03, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This is possible. GoodDay (talk) 08:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It is possible but of course can never be proven without documents staing the King planned it and that Isabella was part of it. However, Isabella might have gone along with it but to obtain her own ends rather than her husband's. My main objections to it having been a ruse are: Nobody could know for certain that Margaret would indeed refuse; also it could have backfired with Isabella having been shot dead in the hailstorm of arrows. There's no record of her having worn body armour? Then again, Edward could have been hoping for this outcome as he preferred his friends the Despensers to her!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:26, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You'll need a source to back it up, though. GoodDay (talk) 08:30, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I know. I have added historian Doherty's suggestion as a footnote only; however, I cannot add my personal speculations as to possible motives seeing as they are very much OR on my part!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 08:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Margaret's daughter Margery's husband
Margery de Badlesmere (1308/1309- 18 October 1363), married before 25 November 1316 William de Ros, 3rd Baron de Ros of Hamlake, by whom she had six children.

Somehow this doesn't add up. Supposedly she married the 3rd Baron de Ros. According to the linked Wiki page he wasn't born until 1329.

It seems it should be the 2nd Baron that she was married to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_de_Ros,_2nd_Baron_de_Ros

79.225.5.166 (talk) 11:17, 20 January 2013 (UTC)Rhonda
 * Thank you for pointing out my error. It has just been changed to the correct 2nd Baron de Ros. Cheers!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

The First Woman to be imprisoned in the Tower of London?
There seems to be no evidence to support this claim. The idea would be difficult to prove (except as being untrue), as the Tower of London was built in the 11th century and there does not appear to be a comprehensive register of its early prisoners. Therefore, it is appropriate to delete the statement that Margaret de Clare was the first woman to be imprisoned there. Brixtonhill (talk) 22:06, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I have already provided two sources which affirm this. The onus was on me to back up the ststement which I did; your opinion that it's unbelievable remains that: your opinion. However I will add "recorded" as there is the possibility there were other female prisoners sent there whose names were never documented.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Apologies for missing the references in the body of text. Incidentally, I do not think that the possibility is unbelievable, just not capable of verification (except as a negative). Brixtonhill (talk) 10:18, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think adding "first recorded woman" covers all possibilities. Oh by the way, thanks for pointing out that Bunratty was never established as her birthplace. I did research and came upon a document which states that her parents spent their marriage in both Ireland and England. Had the Four Courts not been blown up during the Irish Civil War, it's possible we would have the information.

--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

The fate of Margaret's husband.
As there is a separate article about Bartholomew de Badlesmere, it could be argued that we do not need much detail about his death in the article about his wife too. However, if it is to be included here, the details do need to be consistent. The current text (after my correction was reverted) has errors in that Bartholomew was not captured when the battle ended but until he had reached Lincolnshire. Nor is there any evidence that he was "quartered". I suggest that on Margaret's page we simply say: "Badlesmere was captured after taking part in the Battle of Boroughbridge and, following trial at Canterbury, was executed at Blean on 14 April 1322.[19]" Anyone who wants fuller details can find them on Bartholomew's own page. Brixtonhill (talk) 22:24, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I support your suggestion being that it is as you say Margaret's page and not her husband's.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Use of peerage titles
In general, it would be more customary to write "Lord" and "Lady", not "Baron" and "Baroness". But in this case, it's anachronistic. The notion that a writ of summons created a hereditary peerage title wasn't developed until the time of Richard II. Once developed, it was applied retrospectively, back to 1295. This means that dozens of people summoned to Parliament in the early 14th century are now legally recognized as having been peers, for what that's worth, but were never recognized as such in their own lifetimes. There seems no need to drag in these abstract legal fictions when writing history. RevWilliamCollins (talk) 04:11, 9 December 2020 (UTC)