Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Murder of William de Cantilupe/archive1

Murder of William de Cantilupe

 * Nominator(s): ——  SN  54129  18:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Presenting, "Murder of a Watermelon",(©, ) also known as "The Cook, the Chamberlain, the Wife and her Lover", a medieval murder mystery that Christie would be pleased with. In this case, almost literally, the butler did do it.Although it's amusing to joke about it 600 years later, it's a bit of a sordid story really—as I suppose, actually, it would be today. On a lighter note, this received a thorough GA review recently from the Lady Ealdgyth, of this parish, so as they say, any remaining errors are my own. Looking forward to straightforward comments and criticism: although a relatively short article, some of the legal machinery seems may seem byzantine, so a non-expert opinion would be welcome.Stay safe everyone, and good luck. —— SN  54129  18:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)Forgot to mention—remissly, I apologize—it received a thorough GA review by, who was kind enough to travel many centuries forward through time to do so :)   serial   # 15:37, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Image review
Everything else looks fine licence and source wise. Use is OK too and ALT is OKish. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:23, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * File:Seal of the Lords de Cantilupe; c.1301. Red Wax; the National Archives, UK. PRO 23-926.png: I am a little wary of the licence - an ancient seal is obviously not copyrighted but the photography of a 3D object can be copyrighted, and this file looks like the photo of a 3D object. I think it needs to be clarified what the copyright status of the file is.
 * Thanks JJE; I've removed them as not being worth the doubtless lengthy debate that would ensue otherwise :) out of curiosity, what if I had taken the photograph? I ask because, although I didn't, I could at some point in the future (although now much further into the future than expected!)  ——  SN  54129  18:38, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Then you'd need to give the (pro forma, as it's obviously PD) licence for the object and select a licence for the photograph. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Right, so the object would be PD, but the photo would be "own work"? ——  SN  54129  19:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:10, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

==== Source review (coming) ====


 * I'm a bit worried by the heavy reliance on a handful of sources. In particular, page 54 from Bellamy 1973 is cited 12 times, p. lxxii from Sillem 1936 16 times, same with Platts 1985 (also re Pedersen 2016b). I don't have time to do spotchecks for CP now, but tomorrow I will. Looking forward to reading the entire article through, it definitely looks … curious. Eisfbnore  (会話) 13:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Naturally you will find that reliance, per the requirement to comprehensiveness. Here, "being reliant" on four sources is synonymous utilising on the gamut of sources. ——  SN  54129  13:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Well it's nearly three weeks, and my erstwhile source reviewer hasn't edited for the last seven days. I wonder if would mind taking over the source review? Apologies for the ping—I know you've semi-retired from FAC due to all-pervading, semi-permenant arsehattery in recent times, but perhaps as a one off—?  serial   # 15:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi SN, yes, I'd Ben delighted to do a one-off review for you. I'll be on this shortly. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:48, 9 May 2020 (UTC)


 * SC's SR
 * Eisfbnore's concern regarding the reliance on a limited of sources. Although there are some that appear frequently (Bellamy, Sillem, Platts and Pedersen being the key ones), there is nothing intrinsically wrong in such a concentration, as long as these are the best sources to use in respect of the information they are seeking to support. In this case all four sources are certainly reliable, and all appear to be sound. Spot checks were made on some of the citations to see if the information could be better sourced, but without finding anything superior to those used.
 * Reliability. The sources are all reliable for the information they supporting. (Forgot to complete this bit earlier, even though I'd done the work) - SchroCat (talk) 15:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Spot checks were made on information supported through sources available online: all the information was supported and no examples of close paraphrasing were located.
 * Additional sources. Searches have been made as far as possible for any sources that may have been missed, but nothing new was found that is better than the sources used.
 * Formatting: nearly all consistently done and in line with the MoS. The only wrinkles are:
 * You have some located to "London: Public Record Office" and others to "London: PRO", "Kew: PRO, The National Archives" or "Kew: The National Archives". All can be located to London, and I'm not about "PRO, The National Archives": my recollection was that it is one or the other – four organisations were merged to form The National Archives at the same time, so there was no overlap. PRO should be given as Public Record Office
 * Check. I think I've caught all these; Kew is now in London, no short-formed PROs, everything cited to HMSO. Does that cover each of your concerns for this section? (In case I've misunderstood you.)


 * Check the US states. Pick a format from CT or D.C.
 * No periods. Or whatever they call them!


 * Arnold 1987, pp. 83–84: You have Arnold showing as the editor of the work. Did he write the information on these pages? You may need to tweak to show it a little more cleanly.
 * Ah, this is slightly tricky: obviously, its a selection of records, so a primary source (except for Arnold's introduction, which I don't use). So pp 83–84 is a document. But Arnold provides a substantial gloss by way of introducing each record, which is what I'm using here, so I have credited Arnold rather than the King's Bench Roll.

Let me know when you're sorted looking at these. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 14:34, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks ; can you look at what I've done.  serial   # 15:42, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

That's all good. Pass the source review. - SchroCat (talk) 15:54, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Appreciate that, glad I did right by that. On a lighter note, it occurs to me that you missed a trick titling your section; SC's SR to SN's BS has a certain scansion :)  serial   # 16:29, 10 May 2020 (UTC)

The Mystery of the Murdered Melon

 * "The usual suspects in such cases were felons and petty criminals." Optional: This seems a bit random in the lead to me. Suggest deleting from the lead.
 * Yeah, got shot.


 * "Multiple people were indicted for the crime, although only two were later executed for it." Is "later" necessary?
 * No, gone.


 * "although the case had long-term consequences. Although no motive"
 * Rm second.


 * "a long-established Lincolnshire family" It seems a little odd that you then go on to state that 2 of their 3 "principal estates" were in Nottinghamshire. And later that "family's main residence" was in Nottinghamshire. This is not a (necessarily) actionable comment.
 * Yeah, well caught; I've tweaked the sentence, hopefully, to cover Notts/Derbys too.


 * "a young man of 30 at the time of his death" "young" seems PoV. Suggest deleting and allowing readers to decide for themselves what being 30 years old means.
 * Done.


 * "Richard Gyse, the squire" "the" seems odd in this context.
 * Perhaps; I guess he only had one. Removed.


 * What (if anything) does "minutely-planned" mean?
 * Umm, "in great detail"? See my go-to style guide, The Jakarta Post (para 11), for example.
 * OK. I guess WP:IDONTLIKEIT so I'll just lump it.


 * "each offered dates varying from 13 February to 11 April 1375" I don't think that you mean that they each offered.
 * Ah. Removed.
 * Ah. Removed.


 * Is there a link for "sessions of the peace"?
 * Of course, that'll be the 1/4 Sessions.


 * Optional: I am not, personally, a fan of the multiplicity of one-paragraph sub sections.
 * I know what you mean, and me neither, normally. But without them, it was a nightmare of people related to each other, people accusing and being accused, cases moving here there and everywhere...


 * "although he has also been described as something of a "loose cannon"." By whom?
 * Pedersen, and noted why.


 * Link "accessory"; Wiktionary link "instigator".
 * Both good, done.


 * Link "aiding and abetting" - both in the lead and the article.
 * Done.


 * "The juries presenting to the peace commission" And a "peace commission" is?
 * Wot the JPs headed. But removed it—here's enough bloody sessions and commissions already.


 * "to accuse the whole household of different crimes." This is a little confusing. Perhaps "different" → 'various'?
 * Thanks!


 * "Maud accused sixteen men and women, for her husband's murder" Suggest 'Maud accused sixteen men and women of her husband's murder'? No comma.
 * Cheers, that was a hangover from where it originally said "appealed...for", rather than "accused...of".


 * "Lincolnshire county Court" → 'County'.
 * Done.


 * "Pedersen argues that, "given her almost certain complicity in the murder it must have come as a surprise to the two assassins, William’s squire, Robert Gyse, and Roger the Cook, that Maud named them as the murderers"." A complex sentence. Perhaps 'Pedersen argues that, "given her almost certain complicity in the murder it must have come as a surprise to the two assassins – William’s squire, Robert Gyse, and Roger the Cook – that Maud named them as the murderers".'?
 * That does read better, but this is a direct quote?
 * Damn!


 * "Conversely, Bellamy suggests ... " I don't get "Conversely", suggest deleting.
 * Gonversely.
 * Don't give up the day job.
 * My comedy career's in furlough ;)


 * "The court of King's Bench" You sure about that lower case c? And isn't it the King's Bench?
 * Well, the terms are interchangeable; I went with just "CoKB" rather than "CotKB" because our article on the thing is at the former rather than the latter.


 * "Maud's appeal from June" What appeal? What was she appealing for? Or against? (*Rhetorical question alert*)
 * Uuugh, changed to "Maud's June allegations".


 * " Whereas the juries which presented to the peace commission" It may help a reader to insert 'their conclusions' or similar.
 * Done.


 * "When the case was eventually heard, it was not as murder, but as petty treason" I think that a further explanation of this at this point, in at least as much detail as in the lead, would be appropriate. (And pull forward the sentence on it from the following paragraph.)
 * Right. I moved the line up about the first time it was used, etc., since 1351?


 * "All of which, suggests Sillem, to observers this" You need a word before "to". 'suggested' is the obvious choice, but ...
 * ...but I already use "suggests". Swap out for "argues".


 * "he was additionally charged with murder, as had Maud." Either "had" → 'was'; or "had Maud" to 'Maud had been'.
 * ..."as Maud had been".


 * "were by outlawed as felons"?
 * Your brevity leaves me at a loss :)  but have linked outlaw, felon, and added a footnote as to the legal mechanics of each?
 * To be less terse, delete "by".
 * Must've been blind. Cheers! So in fact, you wanted to lose to letters, and I added ~40 words!


 * "He was then not tried for another six months. Then ... " Delete the first "then"?
 * Done.


 * "he was released nisi prius" The link is not very helpful; could we have an in line explanation?
 * Indeed: added a pretty comprehensive footnote.


 * "before Paynel's term as sheriff had expired, he was acquitted" Is it known when either of these things happened?
 * No secondary source for his acquittal, but generally shrieval terms equated to the legal year, so the end of Sept → beginning of Oct, although not precisely the 30th/1st. Clarified this; the reader will doubtless draw the conclusion that it was sometime in the summer.


 * "Furthermore, he also presented a letter" From who?
 * The new King as well as the old. A bit tricky this; I haven't got a source that says in so many words why he did this, but *OR TIME*, it was pretty common to request reiteration of grants, pardons etc., from an incoming regime of those granted under the previous, as it (was intended to) prevented any legal difficulties in the face of a disputed claim.


 * "sedicioni precogitale...interfecerunt et murdraverunt ("killed and murdered")" Could we have a full translation?
 * Well yes; per Captain Bligh, 'tis my own so ye know it to be a good one. But it's a bit ORish.
 * That's fine. Yours are better than most RSs.


 * "hanged and drawn" 'drawn and hanged' is more usual. (And represents the chronology.)
 * Done.


 * "and their families, suggests Pedersen, "looked after"." This reads as if this is the only part of this sentence which Pederson suggests.
 * Right, expanded.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:25, 24 April 2020 (UTC)


 * "But others motives are more obscure" → 'But the others' motives are more obscure'.
 * Check.


 * "all—including Paynel—were all acquitted" Too many alls.
 * Tweaked.


 * "the infamy the case had engineered" I don't think that "engineered" is the right word. 'engendered'?
 * Poo brain at me there. Cheers!


 * "Their marriage was to be short-lived, however," Why?
 * Don't actually know, I'm afraid, except that he's dead (a very primary source shows me that he was dead, but doesn't say precisely when or how. Or why, for that matter).


 * "There being no remaining male heirs, the de Cantilupe estates were broken up between two senior branches of the family, represented by the de Cantilupe brothers' cousins, William, Lord de la Zouche and John Hastings, who was then a minor" This sentence would fit more naturally immediately after "On his death de Cantilupe was the last of his line, and the family died out."
 * Excellent point, moved.


 * Note 12: "and taken refuge in their master's house." 'had taken'.
 * Done.


 * Note 14 contains either a surplus comma or a missing figure.
 * Removed the space and comma.


 * Note 15: "JPs" And they would be?
 * Well,

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much, for looking over this. I always appreciate your reviews, as they kick things off nicely. Apologies for being so belated on this one, but what with one thing and another I had forgotten this. Talking about FACs yesterday reminded me though; better late than never, hopefully. Take care!  serial  # 16:00, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


 * No worries, Wikipedia isn't going anywhere. And, in the current circumstances, neither am I.
 * All good stuff. A couple of thoughts above.
 * Your diagram in Notes really messes up the display. Move it into the main article? Or at least put a under it.
 * Good catch the clear template; I originally put it in the body, but it looked out of place a little, considering the footnote explains NP in greater detail.

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:18, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks again GtM. Have clarified some of my balls-ups further :) serial   # 11:23, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Looks pretty good to me. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Nb: I intend to claim points in the WikiCup for this review. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments Support from KJP1
Will be in batches, I'm afraid, but hope to get it done over the weekend. KJP1 (talk) 14:17, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Lead
 * The Note, at the very beginning of the lead, jars visually for me. Could it drop to the start of Background?
 * Fair point, moved.
 * "Saint Thomas de Cantilupe" - I don't know the MoS for saints, but St Thomas de Cantilupe looks "better" to my eyes, but ignore me if the convention is to spell it in full. Actually, looking at the Category:English RC saints, the convention seems not to have Saint at all.
 * Actually, I think you're right!
 * "as well as his entire household" - the "his" threw me, given we've two other guys interposing. Perhaps, "as well as de Cantilupe's entire household"?
 * Done.
 * "Maud's husband was frequently absent" - this threw me. We mean William. So, "for many years; it is possible that Maud was conducting an affair with Kydale, during her husband's frequent absences on service in France"?
 * Thanks a lot, used! (And can I thank you in advance for all the suggestions you have carefuly thought out for me in the following, and the which I have shamelessly stolen?!)
 * " with de Cantilupe's wife, their neighbour, the cook and her lover, with a mixture of motives including love and revenge" - and here I got totally lost, although I can see what you're trying to do. The cook's lover! Perhaps - "with de Cantilupe's wife, her lover, the cook and their neighbor"?
 * Done, although using the Anglicised neighbour :)
 * Background
 * "They were also a major landholder the Midlands" - typo, "They were also a major landholder in the Midlands".
 * Done.
 * "Not only were they lords of the realm" - I am likely showing my ignorance of the period, but they were lords of where? From the family tree, they look like baronets, who aren't peers?
 * In the early days of what was becoming the English peerage—i.e. when gt-gt-gt-gt-grandad de Cantiloup was raised to it, many baronies were created by writs of summons, which meant they were summoned as "Lord XYZ" without necessarily having been endowed, hence baronies by writ rather than endowment. Although for what it's worth—and to confuse the thing further—various ancestors were called Dominus Ravensthorpe.
 * "main residence was Greasley Castle, Nottinghamshire" - this is a duplink, taking me to the same page as Greasley in the para. above.
 * Delinked.
 * Caption under John of Gaunt "both Willima de Cantilupe and his local rival, Sir Ralph Paynel was retained" - unless he's had a sex change, I think Willima de Cantilupe is a typo. And I think it should be "were retained".
 * Heh :) check.
 * Death of de Cantilupe
 * "they "dried out with heated-up water" - appreciate that this is a contemporary quote, so may be unclear in itself, but I'm not quite getting whether they dried/washed themselves or the body? Both presumably would have been pretty bloody. And does the quote need a source, or is it in Pedersen?
 * I've tweaked the sentence: "they washed his corpse "with heated-up water..."" is more clear? And I've directly cited the quote just to be sure.
 * Escape
 * "Paynel's having been summoned a number of times to answer allegations of excess" - excess of what? Lechery/gluttony/poor behaviour? Are the sources any clearer?
 * I'm afraid they're annoyingly imprecise: "excesses" is te word Pedersen uses, and it turns out that's the word the original writs used! So although I can't draw any conclusions, I've added a footnte quoting from the primary sources showing what they said, if not why they said it.
 * Indictments, trials and convictions
 * "under the direction of William's wife, Maud Nevill" - I appreciate it'll be one of those medieval variants, but in the family tree, her father's Sir Philip Nevil, with a single "l", while in Household, he's got a double l and an e, Neville. We should probably be internally consistent.
 * Good spot, I think I caught them all, there were a few.
 * Sessions of the Peace
 * "They established few details of the crime, but were the first juries to accuse the whole household of various crimes" - the double "crime" confused me. Particularly as there's really one crime, the murder, and various charges, aiding and abetting/conspiracy etc. Perhaps, "They established few details of the crime, but were the first juries to level charges against the whole household"? Or something similar.
 * Stolen again.
 * King's Bench sessions
 * "the accusations against 15 members of de Cantilupe's household, Maud herself and an important local figure such as Sir Ralph Paynel was an exceptional occurrence" - I think we've got a plural/singular clash. Perhaps, "the accusations against 15 members of de Cantilupe's household, Maud herself and an important local figure such as Sir Ralph Paynel were exceptional"?
 * Ditto :)
 * "tradiciose, false et sediciose, seditacione precogitata: Treason, lies and sedition, seditious aforethought" - should Treason be capitalised?
 * I thought there was a MOS thing about capitalising after a colon? Perhaps not; lower-cased.
 * "Maud withdrew her appeal" - you are better acquainted with medieval legalese than I, but was it an "appeal"? I thought, from the paragraph above, it was more by way of an accusation/charge? Oddly, Gog seems to have raised this above. Has it been changed and changed back?
 * I've got no idea what's going on! I wish I'd never used the word in the first place now. But the source did, so did: it's this, #6 (obsolete) version, to appeal someone=to accuse them.
 * Kydale, Paynel and Lovel
 * "adjudge Maud's guilt or innocence" - "adjudge" is a bit archaic. "decide/determine"?
 * Agree.
 * "right up to his death in 1383".[14]|group=note}}" - something's awry with the note here.
 * Somewhere lost the
 * "Furthermore, he also presented a letter from the dead Edward III—dated the 8th of the same month—which instructed the hearing justices to obey the terms of Edward's pardon" - Not quite getting this. Bate also has a letter from the dead Edward III, which is/contains a pardon? Perhaps, "Furthermore, he presented a second pardon, dated the 8th of the same month, from the late king, Edward III"?
 * Stole.
 * Motive
 * "it is possible that Maud and Kydale had become friendly in his absence" - "friendly seems a little coy, as you've talked of "romantic involvement" and "an affair" earlier. Perhaps, "become close/begun an affair" or some such?
 * Better than my first choice of "it is possible that, by then, Kydale had begun giving Maud one" ;)
 * Historiography
 * "She highlighted how the case not only demonstrated contemporary approaches to crime and petty treason but also provides a wealth of information" - past tense / past tense / present tense. "provided"?
 * Provided.
 * Notes
 * Diagram - I'm with Gog, something needs to be done!
 * I think Gog's template has sorted it, and see my explanation to him for the reasons?
 * Note 20 - "on the rarity for a woman to be appealed"? "imprisoned"?
 * Uugh! Accused, see above :)
 * Note 23 - "as the Paynels and de Cantilupe's" - don't think we need the apostrophe.
 * Done.
 * Note 28 - "such as the de Cantlupes" - but I do think we need an "i", de Cantilupes".
 * Sources
 * Order - generally alphabetic. Any reason why the HMSOs aren't grouped together.
 * Cheers, alphabetised.
 * Pedersen - F. for his 2000 volume, F. J. G. for the other two.
 * Done.

That's my nit-picky run-through. A gripping tale indeed, which I'll be pleased to support when you've had a chance to review the above. KJP1 (talk) 08:46, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Cheers for looking in, appreciate it! I've taken in all your suggestions in a couple of sweeps; I don't think there was anything that wasn't helpful or went unused. Thank you! serial   # 13:34, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley

 * "De Cantilupe's murder was the first since the passing of the Statute of Treasons of 1351, which codified the murder of a husband by his wife—or by his servants—as petty treason." I have read this several times and I still cannot make sense of it. It says that there were no murders in England between 1351 and 1375, which cannot be true. If the comma after 1351 were removed, I would take it to mean that it was the first of several murders which codified the murder of a husband by his wife, which does not make sense to me.
 * Ha! Thanks for this. Absolutely rotten sentence. I've tweaked it, and vut it in two; hopefuly makes some sense now.


 * "Multiple people were indicted for the crime, although only two were executed for it." I think you should say here how many were convicted as well as executed.
 * Done (although its the same number); also added who was charged but outlawed.


 * "No motive has been established for de Cantilupe's killing, historians consider it most likely that responsibility rested with de Cantilupe's wife". This is ungrammatical. I think you need either a semicolon or an extra word after "killing".
 * Comma'd.


 * "They were also a major landholder in the Midlands" "They" requires plural "landholders".
 * Done.


 * "as both dates given are a week before and after the Feast of the Annunciation" They cannot have been both before and after. Do you mean that one was before and the other after? But then they would be two weeks apart, and you give dates for the murder one week apart.
 * True. What was meant was that each Friday preceded and followed the Annunciation. See what I mean? I'm still not too happy with it, as it goes.


 * "It was probably the maid, Lovel, who gave Cooke and Gyse access to the house" So Cooke and Gyse were members of the household but not allowed in the house? Clarification would be helpful.
 * Pederson does not seem to me logical on the household's guilt. On his timescale most of the household may not have known about the murder because they were in bed asleep, but you have to go by the sources.
 * That's a good point. I guess he thinks that the household wasn't a big one, and so that all those he names as being involved were either boiling water, carrying it, opening doors or killing the man!


 * "Between the peace session in the summer and the King's Bench in autumn, Maud accused sixteen men and women of her husband's murder, in the Lincolnshire County Court on 25 June." This is confusing. In the previous paragraph you say above that the case came up on 25 June without referring to a peace session and you do not refer to the autumn session until the next paragraph. Here you refer to an intermediate session on the same day as the first one.
 * Yes, indeed, it read as though there were three courts. I've clarified that it was on the summer (June) appearance that Maud was both accused at and made her accusations.


 * "under the 1352 act" Elsewhere you refer to it as the 1351 act.
 * Typo, fixed.


 * "Their marriage was to be short-lived" I would say because Kydale died in 1381.
 * Of course, done, plus source.


 * "with the assistance of a young lover" This is not following Sillem, as you say, but suggesting a young lover in the household.
 * I know what you mean. "Following Silliem" is sourced to Pedersen; I think he means generally, rather than in every detail. So, of course, Rawcliffe changing the lover to a household man rather than the sheriff should be accounted for, but can I say "following Silliem generally, although the sources are confused as to details"? (With no source?)


 * You are inconsistent whether Roger was a cook or his surname was Cooke. If both, you should clarify.
 * Err. Silliem calls him the "botiller", but Pedersen calls him "Roger the Shrubber Cook"?


 * Richard Gyse, squire. Squire would normally imply a young man of good family training to be a knight. Is nothing known of him?
 * Nothing whatsoever.


 * This is an interesting article, but sometimes confusing. There seems to be a good deal of speculation without evidence by historians, but as I say above, you have to go by the sources. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * And frankly, the sources stink, . All the more reason, though, for thanking you for looking in on this and helping out. Can you see what I've done, and let me know wot you dis/approve of. ——  Serial # 16:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


 * If I understand correctly, you sometimes refer to the second killer as Robert Cooke, sometimes as Roger the Cook. You need to be consistent.
 * H'mm; "the Cooke" appears in a quotation, so I can't change that; howver, I clarified when he first gets mentioned that—yes!—he was actually the cook as well (and relegated Silliems's opinion wrt botiller to parentheses).


 * Rawcliffe appears to have a different theory about Maud - that she was having an affair with Gyse? This should be spelled out. Dudley Miles (talk) 18:20, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Well: I wouldn't call it a very different theory (still Maud+household=dead husband), but I've added a line indicating that the lack of evidence as to most of the individual's' roles means that there are variations upon the theme. Rawcliffe, for example, suggests that Maud's lover was within the household—and so not Kydale—and that: (then block quote).
 * What say you, ? ——  Serial # 15:55, 22 May 2020 (UTC)


 * There is still confusion over names. One suspect is named variously as "Robert (sometimes Coke), the cook", "Roger the Cook", "Cooke", "Cook", and "the cook". Gyse is sometimes Richard and sometimes Robert. The chamberlain (not Gyse) is named in the lead as a main suspect but not thereafter. You need to sort out the names as readers cannot know who you are talking about. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't see where I've written Robert (sometimes Coke), the cook"? Was that an old version?His name was Cooke (now standardised), but his profession was "the cook".No, Gyse was Robert on a single occasion and that was within a quote. That was Pedersen confusing the two himself. Sources eh. Anyway, I redux'd the quote so as to eliminate any need to embarrass him.Yeah, the chamberlain is now swapped out for the squire; the confusion probably stems from the fact that the Chamberlain was one of those subsequently charged with A&A.
 * Glad that's all sorted, ; by the way, any reason we're not indenting? This is all really much the same discussion. All the best! ——  Serial # 17:08, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I should have clarified. "sometimes Coke" was in a note, not the main text. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Looks fine now. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:23, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Coord note
Hi, admittedly I didn't dig very far but it wasn't obvious to me where all the info in the Relationship between de Cantilupe/Paynel/Kydale hierarchy, names and death dates, was cited. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:20, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * yes it was a bit "spot the ball" wasn't it :) it was inside Cantilupe's own (red) box. The problem is that if you put the ref outside the table, it floats around at bottom left. So I put it in the section heading. But I don't think MOS is going to like that either...anyway, see this discussion for background.  ——  Serial # 14:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it doesn't look too pretty but unless you can think of something worthwhile to write as a sentence under the heading with the note at the end of it... Anyway I'll leave for you to decide, I won't hold up promotion over it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Ian Rose (talk) 09:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)}}