Talk:William of Wrotham

Wife
The History of the Parish of Hailsham, The Abbey of Otham and the Priory of Michelham p202 states that Joan de Kelle was the wife of William of Wrotham. Mjroots (talk) 20:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * However, more recent sources do not mention this and in fact, I believe this is a totally different William of Wrotham - since it mentions that the record of the wife is found in the Hundred Rolls, which are from the later 13th century. They are at least 50 years past the death date of the subject of this article. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:53, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Role as a Naval Administrator link to Lord High Admiral or Clerk of the Acts
Posting here for clarification of the connection of between his role as a Naval Administrator and tile Keeper of the Kings Ports and Galleys is directly linked to the office of clerk of the acts: According to Michael Oppenheim in his book The Administration of the Navy: Chapter 1, page 3. states the following "During the reign of John we meet the first sign of a naval administration in the official action of William of Wrotham, like many of his successors a cleric, and the first known 'Keeper of the king's ships.' This office, possibly in its original form of very much earlier date and only reconstituted or enlarged in function by John, and now represented in descent by the Secretaryship of the Admiralty, is the oldest administrative employment in connection with the Navy. At first called ' Keeper and Governor ' of the king's ships, later, ' Clerk of the king's ships,' this official held, sometimes really and sometimes nominally, the control of naval organisation until the formation of the Navy Board in 1546" and on page 4 states "In the course of centuries the title changed its form. In the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries the officer is called 'clerk of marine causes,' and 'clerk of the navy ; 'in the seventeenth century, 'clerk of the acts.' Although Pepys was not the last clerk of the acts, the functions associated with the office, which were the remains of the larger powers once belonging to the ' Keeper and Governor,' were carried up by him to the higher post of Secretary of the Admiralty". In William Laird Clowes book A History of the Royal Navy from Earliest Times to present Volume 1. Chapter VII The Angevin Age page 115 " The management of John's navy was largely in the hands of priests, and of these William de Wrotham, Archdeacon of Taunton, and Keeper of the King's Ships, No commission is known to have been issued to him, so that his functions cannot be exactly defined; but they appear to have been largely administrative". Until the creation of the office of the Lord High Admiral of England the role of the clerk was chief civil administrator of the English Navy, the office later became a subordinate of the Lord Admiral but continued in the same role. Nicholas A. M. Rodger,in his 2008 "A Guide to the Naval Records in the National Archives of the UK" section: Medieval Government, Administration page 23. states "Among the Wardrobe and Chamber clerks of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries were some named as Clerks of the King’s Ships" and "The Lord Admiral of England was a great officer of state, who might on occasion exercise actual command of fleets at sea, but who had no administrative functions. His principal responsibility was the High Court of Admiralty". Rodger's statement about the administrative role of the Lord Admiral actually reinforces the view put forward by the two earlier authors. If we are saying Wrothams role and his successors was running the Navy before the creation of the Lord High Admirals office was formed yes that's correct, were both offices therefore the same role no they were not as confirmed by Rodger link to Rodgers article here:https://humanities.exeter.ac.uk/media/universityofexeter/collegeofhumanities/history/researchcentres/centreformaritimehistoricalstudies/Naval_Records.pdf In Susan Rose's book (2013) England's Medieval Navy 1066-1509: Ships, Men & Warfare on page 44 states "Cornhill and Wrotham were two of the more experienced servants of the crown at this period with their activities extending to many other areas of royal business;  the fact that administration of the kings ships was entrusted to them is a measure of the importance with which the task was regarded" she again mentions keepers of the kings ships and form of administration on page 47 further down on page 47 she mentions officials now called Clerks of the Kings Ships from 1344 to 1497 and names them up to page 53 she does not however indicate any connection between Keepers or Clerks of when referring to administration of the navy under different monarchs and does not link Wrotham's role to the Lord High Admirals role she is therefore reinforcing Rodgers view about the Lord Admirals function.--Navops47 (talk) 17:39, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * All this is pretty much speculation to tie Wrotham to a title that most readers won't have any clue about and that didn't exist until much after him. Oppenheim and Clowes are close to 100 years ago - their views are pretty much superceded by the two more recent works you list which do NOT name the office as "clerk of the acts". The point of Bartlett's quote isn't to say that Wrotham WAS a lord of admiralty - but that it is similar to an office that readers will understand. Frankly, I'm not seeing that the title of "keeper of ports" or "keeper of galleys" being the predecessor of the "clerk of the acts" in the 17th century. We have nothing that ties Wrotham to the title/article you keep trying to link to... that's my point. Bartlett doesn't make the connection, and the above looks a lot like a string of speculation to me. I see nothing in Rodger mentioning Wrotham... he's talking about the 14th and 15th centuries. Rose doesn't tie Wrotham to the article you're trying to link to either. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:06, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you explain this then reprint 1983 by University of California Press, https://books.google.lk/books?id=xrB2qol5kE8C&pg=PA291&dq=clerk+of+the+kings+ships+became+clerk+of+the+acts&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiruajvk4LWAhXCu48KHaVKC_oQ6AEIOzAE#v=onepage&q=clerk%20of%20the%20kings%20ships%20became%20clerk%20of%20the%20acts&f=false if the office of clerk of the ships or clerk of the kings ships is traceable back to the reign of John which official is he talking about. More recent sources connecting the clerk of the ships to the clerk of acts as stated here: https://books.google.lk/books?id=9wXWCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA32&dq=keeper+of+the+kings+ships+function&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwinlsWGkoLWAhXCvo8KHWKsAxo4FBDoAQhDMAc#v=onepage&q=keeper%20of%20the%20kings%20ships%20function&f=false and here https://books.google.lk/books?id=e896FFNQ7lcC&pg=PA179&dq=keeper+of+the+kings+ships+function&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwinlsWGkoLWAhXCvo8KHWKsAxo4FBDoAQgmMAE#v=onepage&q=keeper%20of%20the%20kings%20ships%20function&f=false and here where it states clerk later keeper of the kings ships from 1330 https://books.google.lk/books?id=YVbAwbQrJtAC&pg=PA74&dq=keeper+of+the+kings+ships+function&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi26e6wkILWAhWJNo8KHSlDC4EQ6AEIJDAA#v=onepage&q=keeper%20of%20the%20kings%20ships%20function&f=false forgive me but where are they not connected if Pepys is telling us his office is traceable back to King John who was he is talking about?--Navops47 (talk) 19:25, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The first is Pepys' diary - a 16th century primary source ... so . The second one is discussing not the period of Wrotham, but Henry VIII, considerably after Wrotham (and the subject of the work is the Navy in the age of Walpole, REALLY far after Wrotham). The third ... the first mention of a date is 1545 (and the subject of the work is the navy during the reign of William III). And the last one is dating to the 1330s... again, over a hundred years AFTER Wrotham. The article is about Wrotham... we can't do WP:SYNTH and piece together various bits from a number of different sources to come up with something new. The reason we can mention Bartlett's bit is that he ties it directly to Wrotham. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:41, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * With all due respect I think Mr Pepys who was actually clerk of the acts probably knew what he taking about when he said that his office is traceable back to John when it was exercised by one official (now who would that be?) Pepys claim is acknowledged by Oppenheim he says its Wrotham  (Oppenheim btw is still used as source see the footnotes in the Princeton book I linked so clearly good enough for an Ivy League University good enough for me) and I have asked you to tell me which official in relation to the navy is a talking about which you have failed to do. The reason the later sources are there regardless of what periods they cover link the clerk of ships through different name changes to the clerk of the acts. I have not seen any link directly to Bartlett's page and or book that I can read so that proves nothing to me either I'll put this up RFC tomorrow.--Navops47 (talk) 20:24, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, we generally don't trust 17th century historians - which would be the best that Pepys would be. I can't understand what you're asking when you say "I have asked you to tell me which official in relation to the navy is a talking about which you have failed to do" so the reason I've not answered is that I don't understand the question. I'd be happy to reply to a coherent question phrased as one but your posts are extremely long and convoluted. They also intersperse links without much regard for readability. A hint - periods and shorter sentences will be helpful in getting your questions answered. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:49, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The statement is referenced as Turner p.96. You cannot revise the text to say he was Clerk of the Acts as it is not in the source cited. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Spent a bit of time finding a source that says exactly I am saying here: page 42 it states "Johns Keeper of the Kings Ships was William de Wrotham who's office was continued until the creation of the Navy Board in 1546 through to the Secretary of the Admiralty". The author's background here: https://www.seahistory.org/about/our-crew/trustees/timothy-j-runyan/ Navops47 (talk) 07:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Another source here Indiana University Press 2004: page 134 that links the Navy Board founding date 1546 it states "The Clerk of the Ships evolved into the Clerk of the Acts principally a secretarial position".--Navops47 (talk) 08:08, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Another source here Routledge 2003: page 112 "Up to 1546 English Naval administration had consisted solely of the Clerk of the Ships". the only other offices created after 1512 were the Clerk Comptroller of the Navy and in 1524 the Keeper of the Storehouses they had different roles.--Navops47 (talk) 08:23, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Another source here CUP 2012 : page 179 the "Clerk of the Ships became Clerk of the Acts".--Navops47 (talk) 08:30, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I also dug out a book that I have that was stored away by Nicholas A. M. Rodger this one here: The Admiralty Offices of State. in Chapter 1 The Office of the Admiralty on page 3 it says "Insofar as mediaeval Kings of England possessed a permanent administrator of their navies, he was the 'Clerk of the Kings Ships'. On page 4. The post first appears in a distinct form under King John when William de Wrotham was Keeper of the Kings Ports and Galleys, the Clerk of the Kings Ships was not a one man department of state but a permanent agent of the crown".--Navops47 (talk) 11:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * all of those are fine sources for what the office evolved into, but that is long after Wrotham's time. The point there is it evolved into a secretarial position. It wasn't one in Wrotham's time...he was more than a clerk which is why turner etc are saying it was equivalent to a lord of admiralty. Nothing in those sources you give says that Wrotham's was clerk of the acts. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:17, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Your defending a position when you have not provided no further sources yourself that confirm's Wrothams office has evolved by decent to the First Lord of Admiralty (not Lord High Admiral) you can see why his office was established here and I cant find any book sources on line confirming Turners claim so I would appreciate if you could provide a link or links to other appropriate supporting sources. All the sources I have provided from top to bottom confirm a clear a link from his office, through to the clerk of the ships through to the clerk of the acts (the first source confirms his office descended down till the creation of Navy Board in 1546. Rodger categorically confirms it as plain as daylight, and Ralph Turner is not a specialist Naval Historian he's wrote 4 books that I can find 2 dealing English Law and 2 Biography's of English Monarchs none on Naval Administration or anything solely to do with Naval History.--Navops47 (talk) 18:38, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Turner is not saying that the office turned into the first lord of admiralty. He is saying that the office Wrotham's held was similar or, as the article says, was equal to the later office of first lord of the admiralty. I'm not defending anything other than the fact that Turner gives us a handy analogy for what the office in Wrotham's's time did. The fact that the office later evolved into something else does not change the fact that what Turner is saying is an Analogy, designed to let the reader have some scope for the duties and role that Wrotham's discharged. Analogy. Not evolution. Turner is not saying the office Wrotham's held evolved into the first lord of admiralty and our article does not say he states this. Please stop saying that the article says this. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:34, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I've been asked to provide a third opinion by NavOps47. History is not an exact thing and we have to remember that we are the re-transcripters, effectively, and cannot make judgments about ambiguous situations. That does verge into WP:Original Research. I applaud NavOps47's efforts to trace the origins of the office of the First Lord, but if the sources aren't clear we shouldn't try to fill things in to make everything neat. This was not an era when everything was neat, tidy, and exact, as the notes about the scarcity of exact information make clear.

So, in my considered judgment, linking 'clerk of the acts' to 'keeper of the king's ships' is indeed a wiki-ism or WP:SYNTH. We need also to be especially careful to make sure that all information in Featured Articles is of the highest possible standard.

What I would suggest to NavOps47 is further research on holders of the title, Keeper of the King's Ships or a related title, or suchlike. If there is enough specific information about a number of holders who each can be specifically proven in WP:RS to each have held the title Keeper of the King's Ships, an article could be created at that title. Finally, thank you NavOps47 for seeking a third opinion - exactly what you should have done in the dispute resolution process. Buckshot06 (talk) 12:13, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


 * There are two points here, as I see it. The first, which I stated above, is that the edit by NavOps47 attributes to Turner what he did not say, that keeper of ports is the same as Clerk of the Acts. We should never make edits which alter the meaning of the source. The second is whether we can say that the first is an early name for the second. So far as I can see we cannot, as no RS says so, and as stated above deducing that they are would be WP:SYNTH. It also seems that William's powers and responsibilities were much greater than those of the later Clerk of the Acts.


 * The comparison with the First Lord of the Admiralty is clearly just a comparison, not saying that one evolved into the other. I do not have access to Turner, but the wording does seem a bit strong. I would prefer "was similar to" rather than "equates with". Dudley Miles (talk) 19:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Thank you everyone for the further feedback. I agree its just a comparison but it adds no more weight from the other sources I have provided and further sources I have found who do not support Turners view, I would be much happier for a more balanced description to be written in that section on the line's of "His office, role and responsibilities are viewed by some sources to be similar to......, however other sources consider it to have been similar to..... what is evident here is that his exact role and what it developed into is not entirely clear. I don't have Turner's book, but I have managed to find a paragraph its taken in his book here on page 128 to quote "It might almost be said that the history of the British navy begins with King John. ... of administration, played a prominent part as 'keeper of ports' or 'keeper of galleys', titles which are rough medieval equivalents for First Lord of the Admiralty" another opposite view from Arbuckle (2005) page 155 "King John in (1205) who had four ships, appointed administrators who were referred to as 'custodes' or 'keepers' of the galleys, ships and ports, at the end of that century an amalgamation of the two offices resulted in the creation of an office similar to 'Lord High Admiral" . Murray (1965), page 79 "In 1204 Keepers of the Kings Galleys with the title 'Capitales Custodes Portuum' in the function of these 'custodes' Mr Brooks sees the early germ of the office of Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports (this view is supported by Ehrman). Lloyd AUP (1970) chapter The Medieval Mariner page 17 "John, hence the first to appoint a clerk of the ships under the title of keeper of the kings ports and galleys in the person of William de Wrotham. This key administrative post later became known as the Clerk of the Acts and in the days of Pepys and was virtually amalgamated with that of Secretary of the Admiralty" a view Runyan has put forward later.--Navops47 (talk) 07:32, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

William of Wrotham scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the William of Wrotham article has been scheduled as today's featured article for January 7, 2018. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Today's featured article/January 7, 2018, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks!

Birth year?
Not sure if the year 1168 or around then has any significance, but a quick Google search got me this. Don't have a lot of confidence in this but it's worth a shot.  HapHaxion  (talk / contribs) 03:30, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The source they are calling "Oxford Dictionary of National Biography" is actually the OLD DNB, which is pretty much outdated. Unfortunately, I'm getting an Apache error trying to access the new ONDB... not sure why. But I wouldn't place much stock in anything from the old DNB, given more recent scholarship. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:21, 7 January 2018 (UTC)