Talk:Reginald de Warenne

Origins -
No, it is not. First - listing by bullet points gives the wrong impression that they were born in that order and that the possible illegitimate sibling actually WAS a sibling. It is not clearer. You were reverted, it's better to discuss than to re-revert. Prose is preferred here - we aren't a genealogical listing but a prose encyclopedia. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:56, 31 October 2015 (UTC) Also - the bullet pointed listing has no citations with it nor is there need for citations in the lead when the information in the body is sourced. ALso, this is a good article - kindly conform any additional citations to the form already in the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:01, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Apologies to you and to hchc2009, hadn't realised taken to talk, not clear (to me at least - better to say "see talk" in edit summary) from edit summary. To address your points: Bullet points are a tool provided by WP to be used, and they are used here in a way almost standard in other WP biog articles. WP can mix prose and bullet points. They do not necessarily imply any order of birth. That would be an over-interpretation: WP has numbered bullet points for that specific purpose, which are not used here. Just because the article is a "good article" does not mean there is not room for change and improvement.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 18:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)) Your point re uncertainty of sibling: the text makes that quite clear: "Reginald de Warenne, possibly an illegitimate half-brother". As this relates to the matter of siblings, it properly belongs in the "Siblings" section, with the appropriate qualification "possibly" in the text, as exists. No room for confusion surely?(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 18:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC))


 * There is no need for bullet points though.. they aren't standard at all. Lots of articles do not use bullet points for offspring (and even less for siblings, which is decidely unstandard). I did not just "revert" your changes, I kept some and removed the incorrect listing of the other Reginald as an assured sibling, which a bullet point listing does definitely imply because he's listed under "siblings" - and please do not now insert a "possible sibling" subheading either... that's way undue. Prose works best. There is no need to give such prominence to his siblings by listing them in bullet point form. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Bullet points are not necessarily used to give prominence, but rather to give clarity. Understanding the present paragraph (before my edit) is a bit like trying to untangle spaghetti. That is why it is a good candidate for bullet points.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 19:02, 31 October 2015 (UTC)) Manual of Style/Embedded lists, section ""Children" (i.e., Indentation)" seems to be relevant here.(Lobsterthermidor (talk) 00:37, 1 November 2015 (UTC))
 * Note the "may be considered". There is no necessity for it and given the small number of people we're talking about, I do not think bulleted lists are appropriate. Whether they are meant to give prominence or not, they do by their very nature ... they stand out... which is not good for something that is tangental to the subject of the article. They stand out especially in a short article - giving more prominence than is needed. Bulleted lists for something like William the Conqueror where there is plenty of other article before the list. Here, it is too much. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Serjeant-at-law
I realize this claim is reliably sourced, but I think it would be better to remove it. I recently ordered a copy of J.H. Baker's "The Order of Serjeants at Law" (1984) with the idea of working on the subject eventually, and here's what he says about the development of the serjeants from the countors or narratores: "No English reference to a countor has been found before the thirteenth century...the first clear allusion to a body of professional countors in the Common Bench occurs in Mathew Paris's Chronicle, writtein in about 1239...it is unlikely that very much more information could be found concerning this body [the countors in the Common Pleas, later serjeants] before the time of Edward I, since the countors rarely appear by that name in the records and it is impossible to establish the identities of more than a few of them." (pp. 9–10). Foss's "Judges of England" says that de Warenne was employed as a justice itinerant from 1168 to 1177, and several of the individuals named by Warren seem to have held similar appointments. Since Baker is more or less the definitive reference on the order of serjeants, I think I would prefer to omit Warenne's supposed membership in the order of serjeants. Choess (talk) 01:08, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm out of town today, but I suspect we'll be best to go with something on the order of "warren writing into the (dates) considered Reginald to be (claim), but baker in (work) does not consider him as such." I'm on a tablet so editing is a pain... Ealdgyth - Talk 14:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Warren doesn't explicitly cite a source for his list of serjeants summoned by Henry II, but elsewhere he cites Serjeant Pulling, The Order of the Coif, and the dates in his list seem to correspond with those from Pulling's list. Baker pretty explicitly disavows Pulling: "The Order of the Coif, however, turned out to be the only major book on the history of serjeants and it perpetuated several misconceptions on the subject...the author confessed his own want of inclination to investigate the earlier history of the order...Pulling was almost equally careless in his treatment of earlier history. He failed to perceive the distinction between immemorial antiquity as a matter of law and as a matter of fact..." (pp. 3–4) And Warren doesn't appear to have been doing original research, but reviewing the materials he had to hand at Harvard. My feeling is that the fallacious association of de Warenne with serjeants-at-law is sufficiently obscure that we're better off omitting than playing cite-and-refute, but YMMV. Choess (talk) 02:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I've moved it all to a footnote. Can you double check that I got the citation details correct for Baker? Ealdgyth - Talk 13:04, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Wording
Can this be rephrased so that the women is more than a passive object of marriage ? Split in two? All of these dashes ... Mixing spelled out number with digit? Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:54, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * William's daughter Isabel, whom King Stephen of England married to the king's second son, William
 * Reginald was granted the castles of Bellencombre and Mortemer in the charter of Westminster in 1153 which settled the rights that William, the surviving son of King Stephen, received for not contesting the crown of England going to Henry of Anjou after Stephen's death,[7] and was also a witness to the charter.
 * Working with Reginald were Roger de Pont L'Évêque – the Archbishop of York, Gilbert Foliot – the Bishop of London, Josceline de Bohon – the Bishop of Salisbury, Gervase de Cornhill – the Sheriff of Kent, and Ranulf de Broc.
 * assessed at 14 and a quarter

Copy edit
Hi Ealdgyth. I am taking your request as one for a pre-FAC copy edit. As usual, feel free to revert anything you don't like, and/or query it here. There is usually a reason; not necessarily a good one, but a reason. Similarly, I shall post any queries I have here. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:03, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * , could you help with mine (above)? Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure. But do both bear in mind that my copy edits are worth slightly less than what I charge for them. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The article is partially written in US English and I have left it as such. Let me know if you would like it standardising as British English?
 * "Reginald was one of the main administrators of his elder brother's estates" Taking the singular possessive as accurate, do we know which brother's estates he administered?
 * Added. It was William at that point. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "his brother's honour in Norfolk and Sussex" You need a different word to "honour" (or a bracketed or footnoted explanation as second best). Maybe 'inheritance'? Or 'holdings'?
 * Strictly speaking "honour" here means "lands" so that's what I've gone with. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:50, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I have made a token start. See what you think. I will get back to it tomorrow. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:25, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
 * please DO standardize on Brit English...I am very much Yankee...the most recent immigrant ancestor I have is from 1860, and she was German. The entire rest of my ancestry predates the revolution...and was mainly Scotch-Irish to boot...heh. Ealdgyth - Talk 22:28, 26 January 2020 (UTC)


 * "Reginald first appears in the historical record around 1138" Is there not a specific charter with a specific date? Rather than the "around".
 * I believe Yom got this... Ealdgyth - Talk 19:33, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "In 1157 Reginald was one of the justices present when" It has not prior to this point been mentioned that Reginald was a justice. Do we know when he became one? Or when he was first mentioned as one?
 * Heh. Oh, ye-who-research-the-later-Middle-Ages... no, we do not appear to know when he became a justice... because at this point in time, it's not really a long term office, but rather ad-hoc ... one of the big things about Reginald is that he's part of the beginning of the process where the ad-hoc nature changes more into a true office someone is appointed to. At this time, its still not considered an office. This is likely his first appearance as a justice in any cases... but there's always the possibility that he was earlier and we just don't have the documentation for it. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:33, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Oh, yeah, sure. Replete with sources. Mostly talking about God. And contradicting each other. (Or for Froissart, his other redactions.) OK; point taken.


 * "by his excommunication of the three ecclesiastics" This rather begs the question of at least who they were, and (or, possibly, or) why Becket had excommunicated them.
 * Yom's got them covered. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:33, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "This lordship was assessed at fourteen and a quarter knight's fees" Optional: A footnote explaining what this meant?
 * I'm not clear what you're wanting a footnote on - the meaning of knight's fee? Not objecting, just want to make sure I get the content you're desiring. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:33, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It's "your" article. For goodness sake don't include anything just because I suggest it. Yes; a vanishingly small proportion of readers will understand what a "knight's fee" was and/or implied. You have Wikilinked it, and many editors would consider that sufficient. I would be inclined to work an overview into the article, but I marked it as "Optional" in case you aren't.
 * Is it known when Reginald married Alice?
 * Nope. We're lucky to know her name... considering the time period.
 * One can hope.

Ealdgyth - Talk 19:33, 28 January 2020 (UTC)


 * I have had a first run through. It is now in pre-revolutionary Scots-Irish . I shall have another look with fresh eyes tomorrow.


 * Gog the Mild (talk) 17:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Feel free to bring up ANY questions or areas where things are unclear... i'm often so subsumed in the time period that I don't recognize when I'm assuming the reader understands all that I do. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:33, 28 January 2020 (UTC)


 * "In 1157 Reginald was one of the justices", which seems to match royal justice - fine. "At that time, Reginald was a royal justiciar" In 1170, Richard de Luci was the justicar. Earlier (as I understand it) all members of the Curia Regis were known as justicars - I hadn't realised that this convention was still in use. In any case, I have switched it to the more readily understandable, and hopefully still accurate 'At that time, Reginald was a member of the King's Council, or curia regis.' Obviously, feel free to revert or amend.
 * Footnotes a and b. IMO putting a footnote inside a footnote does't work. You may differ, so I have left it. But recommend either just leaving "a" as straight text at the end of "b", or similarly, but bracketing it.

IMO it is looking pretty good. This copy edit is proffered with no warranty, express or implied. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:55, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Retirement
Vincent says he retired in 1176 after which the Exchequer started putting the screws on him, but you say he retired and became a monk late 1178/early 1179. I think you've got that from the ODNB which says he retired from worldly life and became a monk in late 1178/early 1179. Worldly isn't the same as public so you can reconcile the two accounts, but the ODNB could have made that clearer. Bloody writers, trying to convey ideas in an engaging manner! We require facts, no conjunctions, no adjectives. Does not compute. Does...not...compute. Bzzt Yomangani talk 13:38, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this... I'll get to it this afternoon. I have a "crisis" to take care of at FAC, it appears. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:18, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You've likely got it right on how I screwed that up. Its so easy to get too deep into the sources.... Ealdgyth - Talk 19:34, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Just an aside...
Are there any images pertaining to this person? Any surviving castles/castle-ruins, or maybe stained-glass windows/church-fonts/whatever that he or the family sponsored? There's nothing on Commons under "Reginald de Warenne" but an image or two might not be a bad thing. Interesting subject, well-written. Shearonink (talk) 19:31, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Not that I know of. He was castellan of Hastings Castle, but King John ordered that castle destroyed so the ruins at Hastings are for a different fortification. While he held Wormegay...he does not appear to have held the castle there, which seems to have been in another families hands until 1166 at least. He gave some gifts to various religious foundations but not apparently any buildings or surviving items. Welcome to the joys of 12th century biography...Ealdgyth - Talk 20:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Last check-in ...
- I think I'm over the worst of the crud - how are we looking? Have I overlooked any comments that need addressing? Otherwise, I think I'll probably try to drop this into the FAC queue reasonably soon... --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:08, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:12, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I remember seeing there was someone - not on Wikipedia, but one of the sources - disputing whether Gundrada married William of Lancaster or whether that was her daughter. I don't know whether that is a minority opinion. It's William Farrer apparently (now I've read my own link) from 1900, so probably not a modern view. Anyway, apart from that (if that is important), it's fine. Yomangani talk 15:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Also there's no photo or link to his website. Obvious Fail. Yomangani talk 00:48, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Pre-FAC review
, per your comments at Sandy's talk page, I'll plan on taking a look at this some time in the next few days if you have no objections. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:24, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * None at all. I will be touching up the ref formats probably ... but I think he's substantially done. As far as I know, nothing new has come out on him in the last few years. Ealdgyth (talk) 23:29, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Since you don't use sfn, do you mind if I add "ref=none" to the sources? That will eliminate some errors that show up for people with certain scripts installed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 23:38, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll add questions here as I go through. -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 21:52, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm removing the mention of William's title from the "Origins" section because we say it again in the "Early career" section, which seems redundant; it makes more sense to mention it when the succession happens. I'd also like to make his brothers just "William and Ralph", linking William to the article on the third earl.  Is there some reason you gave them both their full names, with "de Warenne"?  Was it sometimes the case at this date that some family members would not inherit the surname?
 * I see you use "William of Lancaster"; our article has "William de Lancaster" -- is the use of "of" inconsistent with the use of "de" for the de Warennes?
 * I've gone ahead and changed your citations to "ref=none" as you don't use sfn.
 * YOu can go with the first names, yeah. There are cases where siblings did not have the same 'surname' in this period. Urse d'Abetot and his brother Robert Despenser are a slightly earlier example. Another example is Richard Basset, one of who's sons took the name "Geoffrey Ridel" in honor of his mother's family - while his brothers kept "Basset". And in Reginald's family - his brother William de Warenne, 3rd Earl of Surrey left an heiress, and the fifth earl was the son of the heiress... William de Warenne, 5th Earl of Surrey, using his mother's surname (His father had taken "de Warenne" upon marriage to the heiress). Ealdgyth (talk) 22:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * William of Lancaster is what my source uses. He's not in the ODNB, but Domesday Descendants has him as "de Lancastria, Willelm Fillius Gilbert" and then "William of Lancaster, also known as William Taillebois" (the heading entry in DD is always in Latin). As I noted above, names are... fluid.. in this period. Our article on William of Lancaster is clearly an import from either the old DNB or from the 1911 EB... so it's going to be a bit out of date. As for using "de Warenne" - I usually go with what the ODNB uses, as that's the best guide I've found. Ealdgyth (talk) 22:25, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds good -- I was just concerned we were being internally inconsistent, but if it's good enough for the ODNB it's good enough for us. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:14, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

That's it for a first pass. Once the above are dealt with I'll read through again. I think the lead could be expanded a little and will look at doing that. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:03, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Not an issue for this article, but should Charter of Westminster exist as a redirect to Treaty of Wallingford?
 * I'd have to go digging to see if folks use that term for the Treaty of Wallingford - off the top of my head its not ringing any bells (but I'm getting old and decrepit...) Ealdgyth (talk) 16:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I ask because that's what you call it in this article -- I assumed it was a common name for it. Should we make it "Treaty of Wallingford" in the text instead of "charter of Westminster"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 11:59, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe I had "charter of Westminster" - King (the source here) doesn't capitalize Charter, so we shouldn't either. It was .. part of the whole "Treaty of Wallingford" which actually was a rather drawn out process - not just the charter but several actual ceremonies, including some of homage, and the ritual exchange of the kiss of peace. Strictly speaking, we're only talking about the charter that was issued at Westminster - the kiss of peace/homage ceremonies took place at Winchester in NOvember after the original efforts at a peace took pace in June 1153 in Wallingford. We don't know if Reginald was at the Wallingford or the Winchester events. So, we should follow the source and just stick to charter (and I'm deliberately using lower case too) here. (Our article on Treaty of Wallingford is ... suboptimal but I'm not sure I'm up to dealing with it.. I've never liked Stephen's reign at all. If I'm going to dig into obscure historical events, I'd rather dig in Billy the Bastard's reign or Rufus', quite honestly.). Ealdgyth (talk) 14:02, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, I think I get it. What was confusing me was that "charter of Westminster" in the article is linked to Treaty of Wallingford; I assumed they were one and the same thing.  If that's not really the case, then I guess we should remove the link?  The next sentence says "This charter, which Reginald was a witness to..." but isn't the definition given there the definition of the Treaty of Wallingford?  So I am still confused. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 14:21, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I've changed the "charter" link to a section of Henry's article that gives the full process. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:37, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think "eyre" would benefit from an explanatory footnote -- I know it's linked, but being able to figure it out without leaving the page is a good thing.
 * See how you like the one I put in? Ealdgyth (talk) 16:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I reworded a bit -- I wanted to get a clear noun as the first part of the definition rather than "was when the king..."; please check I didn't screw up the meaning. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:59, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason to mention that Reginald was a member of the curia regis in the middle of the paragraph about Becket? Does it relate to those events particularly?  If not, I'd like to move it to the end of the previous paragraph, which lists other roles of Reginald's.
 * Not really that I can think of. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, I moved it. You had "At that time", so I just said he was a member of the curia regis in 1170; can we extend the date in either direction? Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:02, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Would the source support "complained to the archbishop that he was sowing dissension" instead of the less direct current phrasing, "complained that the archbishop was sowing dissension"?
 * Barlow's words are "Gervase complained that, instead of peace, he [Becket] had brought fire and sword into the kingdom, that he wanted to un-crown the new king and had punished all the bishops only for doing their duty to the monarch." I've double checked Duggan's bio of Becket (which I did not have when doing the original research for Reginald) and it doesn't shed any further light. Ealdgyth (talk) 16:57, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we have to leave it as is then. It would be nice if the sources made clear that Gervase's complaints were made to Becket in person, because it would make it more interesting to read, but if the sources won't support we can't. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:04, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * In the interests of readability for a layperson, could we make it "Reginald paid the King just over 466 pounds for the right to inherit his father-in-law's lands", and link "right" to Fine on alienation? Or, perhaps better than the link, add a footnote explaining the payment, and include the link there?  I would reword the subsequent sentence about his debt to match.
 * ARGH! that link came in here but it's to an article with no sources, and the definition given in that other article isn't supported by the source (Sanders) who says "Reginald de Warenne was charged 466 pounds 13 shillings 4 pence for William's lands". So... trout to for that... Reginald was fined to take up an inheritance, not charged to alienate (i.e. give away) land Reginald already controlled. So it's PROBABLY a feudal relief, but I'm hesitant to link there because ... well... Sanders doesn't say "feudal relief" and in this period, the whole system isn't ... systematized. Reginald is NOT listed on pages 132-133 of Keefe's Feudal Assessments and the Political Community under Henry II and His Sons - where Keefe is discussing feudal reliefs for inheritance. The ODNB calls the payment/debt a "fine" but not a "feudal relief" or a "fine of alienation". Likely it was just ... Henry II trying to snatch as much money as he could in a somewhat irregular way without really having a firm "legal" reason except that the king had traditionally some rights to get some money from folks who inherited something, and that custom sorta allowed for a bigger fine/payment/extortion when it wasn't a direct descent but rather someone more distant who was trying to claim the lands. Ah, the joys of medieval life! Ealdgyth (talk) 17:31, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually that's helpful. How about a footnote saying something like "The fine may have been a feudal relief, which was [brief definition], but the sources do not specify." -- or add fine on alienation to the footnote if there's any chance that it was that?  What I think would be helpful is saying in the footnote that we're not being specific because we can't. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:12, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, the problem is I can't source anything beyond something like "The sources do not define the exact basis for the king imposing this fine." .. which would go to Sanders and the ODNB. The rest of the above is me knowing the context and speculating on my own about perhaps why the sources don't get more specific. Ealdgyth (talk) 13:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Even that would be good, I think. Just "The sources do not define the exact basis for the king imposing this fine" tells the reader exactly what we want them to know. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 14:21, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:37, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Do we know enough about the date of the marriage to state definitely that it was before or after William de Wormegay's death? At the moment the "had" in "had died" implies it was after, but if we know I'd like to make it clearer.
 * We do not know the date of the marriage. Sanders just says Alice married Reginald. And that William II died 1166. The ODNB isn't much help - Chandler says "Early in his [Reginald's] career he married Alice, daughter and heir of William of Wormegay, whose Norfolk barony came to her on his death, c. 1166. Warenne was shown in the pipe rolls to have owed a fine of over 466 pounds for the inheritance, a large sum of which was still owed at his death." The implication of both is that the marriage preceded William's death but... Ealdgyth (talk) 18:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * OK. I made a small copyedit, but I think we just leave it then.  If it comes up at FAC it might be worth putting a footnote in to clarify that we don't know if the marriage was before or after her father's death. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:45, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Is Avice de Rumilly's name important? That's a long list of names, and I'd like to make that bit "then to William de Courcy, son of William de Courcy and the grandson of William Meschin" if her name can be omitted.
 * We can probably just link the first William de Courcy. I suspect the long line of names dates from me trying to keep all the freaking relationships correct with the stupid William de Courcys. So combining this with the below, we can just go "then to William de Courcy and finally to Geoffrey Hose." I'll probably try to get something on Geoffrey if I can get enough together but ... it'll be a while. Ealdgyth (talk) 18:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * OK, done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:15, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Similarly is Henry Hose important? Geoffrey Hose is unlinked so I'm guessing not.
 * The William de Courcy sequence is confusing. Here's what I think it's saying, just so I know if I try to copyedit: Gundrada's second marriage was to William de Courcy (d. 1171), who was the son of William de Courcy (d. before 1130), who was the son of William de Courcy (d. c. 1114), who was the son of Richard de Courcy.  If that's right, how much of this is important to mention here?  If the descent from Richard is what's important, for example, we could make this "...then to William de Courcy, the great-grandson of Richard de Courcy".
 * Is there any reason to have a footnote have a footnote? If not I will merge the text of [a] into [b].
 * Other than I giggle at the thought of footnotes on footnotes, no. Ealdgyth (talk) 18:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Combined, I'm afraid! You might like this, then. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 12:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll read through again today and work on expanding the lead. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:46, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Update: I've expanded the lead; please check and see everything there looks OK. I think the only points outstanding from above are whether we should change "charter of Westminster" to "Treaty of Wallingford", and a possible footnote explaining what the fine was, or wasn't. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:57, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I've tweaked it - we can't really say he was a witness to the Treaty of Wallingford - as that implies he was at Wallingford for the ceremonies there and we don't know that. We know he was at Westminster later when the charter was promulgated but... Unfortunately for us, medieval people rarely did big peace conferences like those in the 20th century so .. we're kinda hampered in what we can say or imply. I've replied above about the other two points.... where again I get to be wishy-washy. Heh. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:13, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Two more replies above. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:21, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I read through one more time, and made a couple of final tweaks. I think this is ready for FAC. Let me know if you'd like me to look at any of the other articles you mentioned. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:20, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * There is no hurry, but I think Peter de Maulay is after Reginald. And tell me what you think of Josef Glazman... Ealdgyth (talk) 16:29, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Will take a look. I have a promised FAC review to do next, and I really should be working on Combe Hill, but reviews are a good way to procrastinate. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 16:38, 25 March 2022 (UTC)