Talk:Earl of Clare/Archive 1

Note ~ this talk page was edited prior to archiving, resulting in the loss of some material from the conversations. For completeness' sake, here are links to the missing material: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, & 7. There were other edits, mostly formatting, or one person refactoring their own remarks; i have ignored all except those which seem to affect meaning, flow of discussion, or actual deletion of others' comments. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 07:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

section break

It seems to me that the Earls of Clare in the Peerage of Ireland and the Marquesses of Clare in the Peerages of either England or the U.K. got mixed up in this page....

--Robert Prummel 23:20, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This article states that the first creation was in 1624, but Gilbert de Clare, 5th Earl of Hertford (fl. ~1200) is in his article stated also to have been Earl of Clare. I guess this means that the 'first creation' was not the first at all, but the second at best. - Andre Engels 07:57, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Mmm, the assorted Gilberts and Richards were not really Earls of Clare, though they were called that; they took thei name from Clare, in Suffolk, and were called Earl, sometimes as a courtesy, because they were powerful, and sometimes as a title, from Gloucester, Hertford, and/or Pembroke. Clearer? Cheers, Lindsay 15:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Corrected Hereford to Hertford; don't know what i was thinking....Lindsay 10:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

EARLY EARLS OF CLARE: Dear Lindsey and Mr. Prummel and others : I would respectfully disagree with you that the early Earls of Clare were not actual Earls of Clare , but rather that they "called themselves the Earls of Clare". I believe the later Earls have documents which the early Earls did not have or that, more likely, its "medieval equivalent did not survive". But "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Carl Sagan. The early Earls of Clare are mentioned in medieval chronicles in more than one place. These chroniclers were some of the most educated men in their day. The Chronicler Gerald of Wales was a clerk to Henry II. I do not think he would make such a mistake and it not be corrected. Yet, to date, I have not found such a correction by this Chronicler or any other. If one had to weigh the statements, I think there is more reason to believe that the early Earls were, in fact, appointed by at least one King. Also, I have quoted the texts correctly as they were spelled in the individual texts.--Mugginsx (talk) 00:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC) It would be improper for me to quote a text and not quote it exactly as it appeared on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.183.194.228 (talk) 15:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC) I now have a Talk page. Unfortunately, I am learning to use the web and Wikipedia as I go along. I apologize for not signing my statements. At this time, I believe that I know how to accomplish that, however, I am still somewhat of an internet illiterate. mugginsx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.183.194.228 (talk) 16:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

As to the veracity of the early Earls of Clare there is a further indication, though admittedly not definitive, that Richard de Clare was known in his time as the Earl of Clare can be found in the "Annals of Tewkesbury", Author: Blunt, John Henry, 1823-1884 Subject: Tewkesbury Abbey Publisher: London : Smpkin, Marshall, (available to read online): It's preface states: The materials for the history of Tewkesbury Abbey are but scanty in quantity. They consist chiefly of an early Register and Cartulary, and of a small compilation written in the latter half of the fifteenth century, and also entitled a Register.

The first of these Registers has been published among the ' Chronicles and Memorials of Great Britain and Ireland during the Middle Ages ' which are printed by the authority of the Master of the Rolls ; and it forms the second portion of the first volume of the 'Annales Monastic!,' edited by the Rev. H. R. Luard, under the title ' Annales de Theokes- beria.' The original manuscript from which it is printed is preserved in the Library of the British Museum [Cleo- patra A. vii.], and consists of about 180 small quarto pages, written in various hands of the thirteenth century ; 120 pages being occupied with the Annals, and the remainder with the Cartulary. These ' Annals of Tewkesbury ' give a short memorandum for each year of occurrences connected with the Monastery, or effecting its interests ; and many of the memoranda are of further interest as bearing 011 national history. The work begins with the Conquest, in 1066, and breaks off abruptly in 1263 ten years before Edward I.

It states:

48 LORDS OF TEWKESBURY, AND THE DE CLARES.

Two daughters of William, the second Earl of Gloucester, having thus failed to provide a line of succession for the lands and title, both fell to the third daughter, Amice, who had married Richard de Clare, earl of Hertford. 1 Thus the golden shield of the Clares, with its three red chevrons, was first seen among the lords of Tewkesbury, Gilbert, the son of Amice, coming in as the lineal successor of Fitz- Hamon, But the earldom of Gloucester mostly descended by the female side, and the name of Clare was exchanged for that of Despencer in about three quarters of a century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mugginsx (talk • contribs) 16:36, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

OK. I think that you have misunderstood or misread what i, at least, wrote, Mugginsx. I did not say that the Clares were not earls, but that they were not Earls of Clare. They were earls, Earls of Gloucester, Pembroke, and Hertford. They were sometimes called Earl of Clare or Earl Clare, but that was a courtesy, not a title.

Please note that when you make a comment on a talk page, like this one, or a User's talk page, as you have on mine, you ought to "sign" those comments, so we can track who has said what in the future. You sign by typing ~~~~ that is, four tildes in a row, as i am about to: Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 08:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Lindsey: I fear I did not make myself clear in my response to you for which I again apologize. I believe that the "Early Clares" were actually Earls of Clares in addition to the other titles they possessed and for which they were certainly better known. I believe that the Dictionary of National Biography specifically cites that they were not just "styled earls of clare". I do, however, agree that to date, there is no specific proof, but only indirectly indicated. I thank you for your response and I will pursue my research in that direction and we will respectfully agree to disagree on that point. I hope too, that I am getting better in the editing department and thank you also for your insight in that direction. Insert non-formatted text here mugginsx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mugginsx (talk • contribs) 11:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Clare et al.

No matter who the Earls of Clare were, this article needs drastic pruning and revision. It's impossible to wade through. No matter what the salient points are about the family, they're certainly not made here. I will try to get to this at some point, but this is an important early Anglo-Norman family and this piece doesn't begin to explicate them. The disagreements about their ancestry can be incorporated in the text. But that doesn't preclude it being understandable. MarmadukePercy (talk) 08:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Holy cow, you're right! It's weeks since i've looked here; i ought to have been more on the ball. Muggins has added a huge amount, which is fantastic, but it does need pruning & editing. I'll have a shot in a couple of days, unless someone beats me to it. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 10:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

No worries, I just thought things might read a bit more cleanly. Yes, all additions are most welcome, as you say, but it can be tricky (as I'm sure you know) blending them with existing text. Thanks for your response. I'm sure you'll get to this before I will. Good luck and regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 20:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

RE: PRUNING AND EDITING EARL OF CLARE SITE

I agree that since I have added much text to this page, it may have confused the "misinformation" added concerning "the later earls of clare". Since I am new to Wikipedia, I did not feel that I could edit their contributions other than to add the formerly absent "early earls of clare". If you feel you can edit the "later earls of clare" to make the article more coherent and complete, by all means do so with my blessing, but do so at their INDIVIDUAL WEBSITES. Mugginsx (talk) 12:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

As to your comment that "No matter what the salient points are about the family, they're certainly not made here. I will try to get to that at some point, but this is an important early Anglo-Norman family and this piece doesn't begin to explicate them" I would suggest that you make these points on the individual sites of each "Earl of Clare". This page is meant to give an overall view of the Earls. It would take volumes to explain each one and their individual accomplishments, I am sure that you can see that it is better added to their INDIVIDUAL sites. Mugginsx (talk) 14:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC) Mugginsx (talk) 14:34, 10 October 2009 (UTC)Mugginsx (talk) 15:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

One final comment: Since you are not listed as an Administrator, it is my understanding that you cannot just "prune" or "edit" without good reason. I would hope that you would live up to the standards of Wikipedia as you would have others. Mugginsx (talk) 16:15, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I think, Mugginsx, that you may have a misconception (fairly common among newish contributers) about the function and importance of administrators. Anyone, you, me, an administrator, or an anonymous reader, can edit just about any page, and that includes pruning and editing, tidying and correcting, adding and subtracting information, to make each article as good as it can be. Administrators are given a few tools which help them to make the place run smoothly; they nave no extra authority in terms of content or style or formatting or anything else about the articles. May i suggest, as you've mentioned a couple of times being new, one or two places you might like to read and find out more about contributing and so forth? This is a page about administrators; this page has a huge amount of information about editing and formatting; and this one is a great handy little reference card.

As far as the pruning and editing itself goes, i haven't read the Earls of Clare page recently in detail, since you added information, but a brief look suggests that an overwhelming amount of information is presented, which needs to be formatted and, perhaps, reduced/moved. I shall take a look, as will many other editors over time, and do what i think right; but remember, none of us is the final arbiter, none of us is all right or all wrong ~ this is a collaborative work in progress. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 02:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Editing and Pruning Continued

Lindsey: If by "formatting" you mean to correct the spellings or punctuation, I have already explained that within the direct quotations I have spelled and/or punctuated exactly the way it is shown in the direct quote. I cannot change that because it would go against proper research and copying procedure. If you find any other spelling or punctuation in the general body of the work which is incorrect, then I would, of course, welcome your corrections. The work and research is itself completely accurate and has survived many academics throughout hundreds of years. I would not accept any deletion or change in that regard. I will also accept your advice and continue to study the Wikipedia sites on procedure, etc., that you have recommended as I have already been doing as time permits. 69.183.179.172 (talk) 19:57, 11 October 2009 (UTC)Mugginsx (talk) 20:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Future Shape

OK, i have taken some time to read and think about the shape of this page, what it should look like (my opinion only), and how to get there. Let me offer a few thoughts:

1. There is some indication of copyright material in there; that has to come out. For WP my understanding is that that is a non-negotiable, as this page explains;
2. A lot of the information before the table of contents (TOC) really doesn't belong here at all; i think that it would find a better home in de Clare, as it is about the family, rather than the (putative, at that stage) earldom;
3. Some of the material before the TOC simply duplicates or even expands on what comes after; that is backwards, as the introductory paragraph (see here) is mean to provide a brief introduction to the subject, which can be developed under the assorted headings of the sections;
4. I'm uncomfortable with having an empty section where the very title, ("Early Earls of Clare [exact creation date is yet unknown]"), indicates the unlikelihood of it being filled;
5. I also think it is wrong that, at a guess, three quarters of the page is given to a family whose possession of the title is, at best, disputed; i'm not entering that dispute at this instant, as i think it may resolve naturally if the questionable material goes to de Clare, as suggested above.

Finally, a word on the "formatting": The new, above TOC, material is not formatted at all according to WP standards; there are no wlinks (links to other articles), the bolding of the article title in the first sentence has been lost, the reference citations are not according to WP preferences; these sorts of things are what i was referring to. It is important to note, however, that this is, as i indicated earlier, a collaborative effort, and your statement I would not accept any deletion or change in that regard sounds rather as though you haven't grasped this yet, Mugginsx. I want to assume good faith, though, so i suggest that you hadn't realised how it sounded and really didn't mean it that way. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 05:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Finally finally, may i point out that you have mis-spelled my name at least twice, Mugginsx? Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 05:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Lindsay - as to Your latest message: First of all, I apologize for misspelling your name. There is no excuse for it, I was a little miffed at the time, not so much at you but the other person who identifies him or herself as Marmaduke Percy. I became careless in my state of agitation, so truly, I am sorry about the misspelling of your name. As to the editing and shortening of the direct quotes, that is where I stated It would be improper research copying. Your are quite correct that the initial paragraph is still in copyright and I will remove it as soon as I can find and cite the same information in Uncopyrighted form. I have found most of it but it will take a little time to put it together and then to insert it.

Secondly: I know you still do not believe in these early Earls of Clare but, please research the chroniclers and try to evaluate THEIR competency (not mine or yours) as to who was and was not a proper Earl of Clare. Take, for instance the citations in The Chronicle of the Princes. Llywelyn ab Iorwerth, Llywelyn the Great, Llywelyn Fawr, all the same person, was versed in several languages, was himself literate and composed many messages to the King of England and others himself and in his own hand. Further of course, you might reason that because he was given the illegitimate daughter of King John, at least he (King John) thought him intelligent as well as powerful. As cruel as he was to others, he was known to dote even on his illegimate daughter Joan. One cannot just dismiss these chronicles by saying, "Well, I do not think they were really Earls of Clare". This belief would tend to defy logic and a researcher must not only be an educated person but also a logical person in evaluating the words and motives of these chroniclers. I believe you to be both educated and logical, but if you require more proof than the contemporaneous chroniclers, I think you aim too high. I will try to obtain more proof but in the end, as you yourself has stated to someone else, (I will paraphrase you,) When you are dealing with something that occurred several hundred years ago, who really knows? I think the continued evidence and continuity must allow someone to make a leap of faith, otherwise how is ANY history really considered history? Incidentally, as to the individual "Clare" sites they are fraught with errors.Mugginsx (talk) 21:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Finally: As to to "highlighting" "linking" and styling changes, Highlight! Link! and by all means "Style! make it prettier by all means! I trust you to do far better than I in that regard.Mugginsx (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

A WP point first. Mugginsx, there is no need to answer me here and on my talk page. One place for this discussion is all that is necessary; here is the best one, because this is a permanent record of what we discussed, if there are questions in the future, or by other editors; my talk page may well be edited, archived, or even blanked if i feel like it, and other editors in the future would have no idea of what we had said.

Second, the copyright paragraph needs to be out, not when it's convenient or a substitute is ready; WP is clear about that; i'll check it and take it out once i finish this post.

Third, i'm not certain you quite understand the nature of this project, Mugginsx, in that we aren't here to make leaps of faith, nor to be researchers. We are here to report what others have researched & discovered, possibly the leaps they have made. So, for example, i can tell you that the best book i know of on the Clares, Michael Altschul's A Baronial Family in Medieval England: The Clares, 1217-1314, makes no mention of the Earldom of Clare; what i can't, or won't, do is go and read a whole bunch of chroniclers, collate the mentions they make of Gloucester, Pembroke, Clare, and Hertford, and then infer that the head of the family was earl of all of these places at different points in history. If you like, in view of your penultimate sentence above, one might say that WP doesn't do history, it reports how it has been done by others.

Lastly, you made no comment on my suggestion that the majority of the material you added really belongs with the de Clare family rather than here; i'll wait a little, then will assume silence indicates consent, and move it. If that is an incorrect assumption, please say so here, so i'll hold off for further discussion. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 04:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Lindsay: The copyrighted material is out. I have so much uncopyrighted material on the early earls of clare it would take volumes to put it all in Wikipedia. It is based on first and second hand material. The best. If you wish to cling to some other belief, I cannot and will not waste anymore time trying to point you to real research as opposed to some book you are reading which may or may not be well researched. I can tell you I have been in touch with descendants of the Clare family who shared with me some of their indisputable material. It is sad to note that one of them will have nothing to do with Wikipedia for the reason that he sees that anyone can put anything in here and call it "research and history". I defended Wiki to him and for my part I now wonder why I am spending so much time defending the truth. Is not Wiki about the truth? Has it become too lenient in what information it allows? These are things I do not yet accept, though the thinking process of some members seems to be more about conflict and discourse rather than real research and educated reporting. I could spend hours defending better scholars than you or I could ever be, but I find it also to be a waste of time. You may, of course, think what you wish, but do not casually dismiss some of the greatest scholars of their time. That is just foolish and I do not believe you are a foolish man. Mugginsx (talk) 13:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Rereading this, i see there are a couple of points perhaps i ought to reply to, as i don't want to appear rude. No, surprisingly, WP is not about truth; it is about verifiability (read WP:V to see the difference). Altschul is not just "some book", but is the first and best source i turned to when recently researching an MA dissertation on the Clare family; he is the authority. Without trying to be argumentative, the Clare family has no current members; sadly, the last in the main male line (how families are defined) died at Bannockburn, the cadet branches were finished by 1330. I agree that there does seem to be conflict, but i assure you that isn't my goal nor, i assume, is it yours; via that conflict/discussion, however, we are able to arrive at agreement and consensus. Finally, i hope i'm not foolish; if dismissing great scholars is the sign of it, then i agree with you, i'm not, as i haven't dismissed any. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 13:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Wrong again.

Action.

OK, i have been bold and taken action, going back to a similar page to that which was here previously; i think it is important, as i said above, that we focus on the Earldom, as that is the subject of the article. The information i removed (not lost, of course, as nothing is lost in WP), belongs to de Clare, and i shall make an effort to put it there shortly. At this instant, however, my attention is called elsewhere. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 13:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Lindsay: I think you are a tyrant who knows nothing about real research and does not care about anything but having your own way. Any Administrator who reads you remarks with, I think, agree with me. Indescriminate deletion of bonfide research cannot be allowed if there is to be any integrity at all in this project. I am sorry for you that you have your friend, who even admits on his own page that he has no interest in history have apparently joined together to "play" with history for your own amusement. Mugginsx (talk) 18:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Further, if you and Marmaduke persist, I will report you as vandals. This is a concerted effort by the both of you and your actions are despictable. Mugginsx (talk) 18:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Look, i'm really trying here. Please, please read the pages i have pointed you towards. Or don't. If you want to report me as a vandal, please feel free, as i think you'll be told in clear terms that i'm not. But, for the sake of the project and, yes, the research you have made, please read this and this and this. Now, you're going to be reverted again, the page will go to a version talking about the Earls of Clare, not the Clare family; a friendly warning is: Don't you revert it again, as that will be four (i think) within an hour or two, and three in twentyfour hours is against the rules. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 19:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

How do you plan to put my direct quotes on the Earls of Clare in the Clare page? Is that what you really said? What do you plan to do with the word "Earl of Clare" when it appears in my medieval and other centuries old research - Just edit out the words of Earl? Maybe it would be more pleasing to your eyes? How can you say they were not "earls of clare" and then put my research that says they were earls in the Clare in another page? Obviously you do not know the rules of research or you would know that was impossible to do.Mugginsx (talk) 19:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

So now, to avoid the reversion rule you add you little friends to play this game. Really, that is too bad of you. 14 October 2009 (UTC) Mugginsx (talk) 15:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if I understand 3RR correctly, I was in violation... I reverted my revert. Please avoid personal attacks, by the way.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 19:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The page is now fully protected in the hope that this dispute can be solved here without further edit warring, and please heed Unionhawk's advice about laying off the insults and personal attacks, they do nothing to further your cause, quite the opposite. Please consider some form of dispute resolution if you can't quickly come to some sort of consensus here. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:07, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The contributions from Mugginsx need to be reverted, as nothing he has provided comes close to being a reliable source. This is a family extensively studied and written about, and not a single credible scholar of whom I'm aware has suggested the family, whose original Anglo-Norman name was FitzGilbert, were *ever* the Earls of Clare. They had several other titles, and they have a college named for them at Oxford. But there's not a shred of evidence they were the Earls of Clare, as Muggins would have it. His confusion apparently derives from a mistaken belief that anyone named Clare must have an earldom carrying their surname. I would also ask that this user be warned about the 3x revert rule, as he has already been warned about personal attacks. And, incidentally, I have no dog in this fight, as I haven't contributed to this article, but simply do not wish to see a wikipedia piece reduced to rubble thanks to wrongheaded assumptions. Thank you. MarmadukePercy (talk) 21:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I have asked the members of the royalty and nobility work group to look this over and comment here, hopefully that will help resolve these issues. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not one of those, but I glanced at the Oxford DNB index and it seems to describe these people like: "Clare, Gilbert de (called Gilbert the Red), seventh earl of Gloucester and sixth earl of Hertford (1243–1295), magnate". No sign of "nth earl of Clare". Searching for "earl of Clare" on Google books and limiting the results to books published after 2000, they all seem to refer to the modern earls apart from reprints of old books and medieval writings.

Now the fact that the compilers of the Brut Y Tywysogion or Gerald the Welshman described someone(s) as earl of Clare is a curiosity which is probably best kept in the biographies of the appropriate people. If it must appear here, and I don't see why that would be, it should mentioned in passing, or even in a footnote, and no more.

It can seem like Wikipedia has a policy or guideline for every occasion, but some are taken more seriously than others. This policy is non-negotiable and it's worth a look. In short, yes, Wikipedia editors have to do research - otherwise how could ever hope to meet the standards set out in Wikipedia:Verifiability - but this is only research in the sense of looking up what experts said already and summarising, condensing and paraphrasing the views of these experts to make a fair representation of the current state of knowledge. New discoveries and novel theories are not what Wikipedia is for.

Are there modern books which say that the de Clares were earls of Clare as well as Gloucester and Hereford? My failure to find any may be down to laziness and incompetence on my part. Or it may be because there aren't any. But if there aren't any, and world+dog think that the medieval de Clares were not earl of Clare, that's what Wikipedia must say. Or rather, we can't say that they were and won't mention the unsupported theory. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for a couple of voices of sanity; i was beginning to worry that i was actually a despicable tyrant, bent on mine own way, though i think, on rereading the history and comments after a night's sleep the record does show i have tried hard to be open and accomodating. It's a shame that the "wrong" version is protected, but i understand how these things go.

To answer Angus's questions, the modern authority on the Clare family (Michael Altschul) doesn't even mention the Earldom of Clare in the index (by contrast, those of Gloucester, Hertford, and Pembroke, not to mention Lancaster, Cornwall, and Hereford, are all mentioned, as a redirect if nothing else). My personal opinion is that the fact needs to be mentioned that the Clares were occasionally called Earl of Clare, but it was, as indicated further up this page, and as i think it said in the other version, it was a style used for convenience by the chroniclers, the head of the house was an earl and held the honor of Clare, rather than an indication of having been created that earl. The family was such a powerful one (Gilbert Goch was, by some measures, the second most powerful man in the kingdom for a number of years) that Clare itself gained prestige; i believe that is why it was used as a title when James wanted to honour one of his men.

I trust this can be resolved, though not by me, as i'm going on holiday in two days, once protection expires. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 03:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It's an egregious oversight that the wrong version – that with poor sourcing and worse grammar – was protected. Hopefully, someone knowledgeable will step in and correct the oversight. The claims made in the current version are rubbish and without substantiation. MarmadukePercy (talk) 03:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not an "egregious oversight." The big fat tag "disputed" tag at the top of the page clearly states that this is not an endorsement of the current version, and I have deliberately not taken a stand in this dispute. My only goal here is to stop the edit warring. If you have specific things you would like edited during the protection period, post them here in a new section with {{editprotected}} at the top, or make a request at WP:RPP in the section for requesting edits to a protected page. It is usually only appropriate for the protecting admin to revert when protecting if there is blatant vandalism, and despite all the arguing, it's clear that none of you are here because you wish to destroy this article, rather you are having a dispute about it's factual accuracy, and I frankly don't have any idea which one of you is correct. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

To Beeblebox - No matter what the final outcome, thank you for a temporary protection and thank you for your welcome. As far as the disputes are concerned I have always admitted the style on this page is wrong. I am new and not well versed in style but will try my best. I would welcome any of your help you would care to give. The dispute with Lindsay and Marmaduke is that they do not believe that these men, who are mentioned in so much text as being Earls of Clare and that they simply will not accept. They also critized the spelling and punctuation within the quotes to which I have repeatedly explained that I cannot changed the spelling and/or punctuation of the medieval chroniclers or their translators. I am not sure why that is not easily understood. As to the claims of "wrong history" - who is wrong? Gerald, clerk to Henry II, or is it Llywelyn ab Iorwerth, or perhaps the editors of the Dictionary of American Biography, or even the authors of the Magna Carta? Why don't we just rewite Plato? Does anyone who knows about medieval history really think that a family could, for centuries, sign official royal charters and documents stating they were earls of clare, if, at least one king had not made them so? It is stated that the Fitz Gilberts were illegimately related to William I and given the territory and the earldom of clare. As far as being a "self-styled earl" it defies logic. William Marshal is said to have had the permission of two kings, Henry II and his son Richard before he was known as Earl. He is also said to have worn a special belt that signified his status. Before that he had no title of any kind. I do not wish to argue anymore. I consider myself a serious researcher and would not add frivilous information to any site because it would be dishonest, both to Wiki and myself. I cannot, as someone suggested, put the information stating these men were in fact earls of clare in their Individual website and just take it out of the site it most belongs in. You can see how contradictory that would look. I fear I am slowly learning to style, as I was not born to computers they way younger people have and therefore must catch up. If you wish to style or help me style, I would be most appreciative, as I have said before. As to the lack of styling, that has never been in dispute. It has always been the editing in dispute. If you have any suggestions, or wish to style yourself, I will be most happy and I mean that sincerely.Mugginsx (talk) 17:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC) Mugginsx (talk) 12:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you to the WikiProject Royalty and Nobility for your support. Mugginsx (talk) 13:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'm glad everyone is talking here, sometimes in these cases the edit warriors go away while the article is protected to grind their axes and wait to get back to it, and all that leads to is users getting blocked. However, I'm not seeing much in the way of forward progress. I suggest that you initiate a request for comment on this matter in order to solicit more outside opinion and seek consensus in this matter. Even after the protection has expired, it would be good if no major edits were made without clear consensus established here first. Clean up the style, grammar etc all you want, but major content changes should not be made until it is clear they will not simply set off another round of unproductive edit warring. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

== To Beeblebrox and other interested persons: ==A proposed style change according to the suggestion

These are some preliminary changes below that I am proposing. I still have to properly format. That will take a little time but I wanted you to know I am working on this to the best of my ability. I have tried to pattern this in the style of the article of Earl of Pembroke. I welcome comments.

                                                +++++++++++++++++++++++++++

HISTORY OF THE EARLDOM OF CLARE The Earldom of Clare, is associated with Clare Castle in the small town of Clare in Suffolk, England . The line has become extinct several times, and the Earldom has been re-created, starting the count over again with a new first Earl. It is implied, in the * Lords' Reports ' (iii. 124) and elsewhere, that they were styled earls of Clare before they were earls of Hertford, but investigation disproves this. By the death of the other coheirs of William, earl of Gloucester (d. 1173), the succession to that earldom, with the honour of Gloucester and lordship of Glamorgan, opened (1217-20) to Gilbert de Clare, earl of Hertford or Clare (d, 1230).In the Dictionary of National Biography, Author: Stephen, Leslie, Sir, 1832-1904, Contents [hide] • 1 History of Clare, associated with the Earldom • 2 The Origin and Founder of the Clare Family • 3 The children of the first Earl and their successors • 4. The Earls of Clare in Wales • 5 The Earls of Clare and the Magna Carta • 6 The Red Earl • 7 Earl of Clare creation 1624 • 8 Earl of Clare creation 1714 • 9 Earls of Clare creation 1795

THE ORIGIN AND FOUNDER OF THE CLARE FAMILY "The powerful and illustrious family of De Clare, * a house which played so great a part alike in England, Wales, and Ireland ' (Freeman, Norm, Conq, V. 212), descended directly from Count Godfrey, the eldest of the illegitimate sons of Richard the Fearless, duke of Normandy Richard de Clare and his brother. National Biography, Author: Stephen, Leslie, Sir, 1832-1904, [from old catalog] ed Publisher: London, Smith, Elder, & co. Year: 1887 Possible copyright status: NOT IN COPYRIGHT Collection: americana. The First Earl of Clare, the founder of the family, was Richard Fitzgilbert, a knight who accompanied William the Conqueror on the Norman invasion of England in 1066 THE CHILDREN OF THE FIRST EARL AND THEIR SUCCESSORS On the death of Richard Fitzgilbert, the founder of the house, his English estates passed to his son Gilbert (d. 1115?) [q- vj, who acquired by conquest possessions in Wales. Of his children, Richard, the eldest son, was the ancestor of the elder line, the earls of Hertford and Gloucester [see Clare, Richard Richard de Clare, 6th Earl of Clare (d. 1217), and his son Gilbert de Clare, 7th Earl of Clare (fl. 1215–30), Author: Stephen, Leslie, Sir, 1832-1904, [from old catalog] ed Publisher: London, Smith, Elder, & co. Year: 1887 Possible copyright status: NOT IN COPYRIGHT Collection: americana THE EARLS OF CLARE IN WALES An early mention of the Earl of Clare is found in the "Itinerary Through Wales and the Description of Wales" by Giraldus Cambrensis, London: Published by J.M. Dent & Co. and in New York by E.P. Dutton & Co. (Copyright-evidence-operator: lexw@archive.org Copyright-region: US Copyright-evidence: Evidence reported by lexw@archive.org for item itinerarythroug00girauoft on November 21, 2007: no visible notice of copyright; exact publication date unknown. Copyright-evidence-date: 20071121140507.)Gerald the Welsman-Giraldus Cambrensis was born on or near the year 1147 in the County of Pembroke. He became a royal clerk and chaplain to King Henry II of England in 1184. In CHAPTER XI- of Haverford and Ros on Pg 77 – paragraph 3 it states the following: "A circumstance happened in the castle of Haverford during our time, which ought not to be omitted. A famous robber was fettered and confined in one of its towers, and was often visited by three boys, the son of the earl of Clare, and two others, one of whom was son of the lord of the castle, and the other his grandson, sent thither for their education, and who applied to him for which he used to supply them. One day, at the request of the children, the robber, being brought from his dungeon, took advantage of the absence of the gaoler, closed the door, and shut himself up with the boys..." Another early mention of the Earl of Clare (Richard de Clare, father of Maud or Margaret de Clare) is in "The Chronicle of Ystrad Fflur" BrutYTwysogion Or The Chronicle Of The Princes. It states for the year 1219 - "1219 In this year Rhys Gryg took the daughter of the earl of Clare for his wedded wife and John de Breos took Margaret, daughter of the Lord Llywelyn, for his wedded wife." The second mention of the Earl of Clare (Gilbert de Clare, 9th Earl of Clare, 7th Earl of Hertford) in "The Chronicle of Ystrad Fflur" states for the year 1267 - "1267 In this year Llywelyn ap Gruffudd made a pact with the earl of Clare. And after that the earl gathered a mighty host and made for the city of London; and forthwith through the deceit and treachery of the burgesses he took the city. And king Henry and Edward, his son, forced the earl to submit. And peace and concord were arranged between Henry, king of England, and the Lord Llywelyn, prince of Wales, with Ottobon, the Pope's legate, as mediator between them, at Baldwin's Castle. . . . “ THE EARLS OF CLARE AND THE MAGNA CARTA Richard de Clare, 6th Earl of Clare (d. 1217), and his son Gilbert de Clare, 7th Earl of Clare (fl. 1215–30) were leaders of the barons who forced King John to sign the Magna Carta in 1215.de, d, 1136 ?]; Author: Stephen, Leslie, Sir, 1832-1904, [from old catalog] ed Publisher: London, Smith, Elder, & co. Year: 1887 Possible copyright status: NOT IN COPYRIGHT Collection: americana. The Signature, History and Notes on the Magna Carta and in particular, Richard, Earl of Clare is reproduced in Richard Thomson’s: An Historical Essay on the Magna Charta of King John, London, 1829. On pages 43, 102, 270, and many other pages is mentioned "Richard de Clare, Earl of Clare." Evidence reported by Alyson-Wieczorek for item historicalessayo00thom on July 11, 2008: no visible notice of copyright; stated date is 1829. Copyright-evidence-date: 20080711192011 Scanningcenter: la Mediatype: texts Collection-library: SRLF_UCLA Identifier-bib: LAGE-3179101 Identifier: historicalessayo00thom Ppi: 400 Camera: Canon 5D Operator: scanner-steven-drew@...Scanner: scribe6.la.archive.org Scandate: 20080712024225 Imagecount: 662 Identifier-access: ://www.archive.org/details/historicalessayo00thom Identifier-ark: ark:/13960/t3mw2k82h Gilbert, the younger brother of Richard, the founder, established himself in Wales, acquired the earldom of Pembroke, and was father of the famous Strongbow, the conqueror of Ireland see Clare, Richard de, d. 1176]. With him this line came to an end, his vast Irish and Welsh possessions passing to his daughter Isabel, who left by her husband, William Marshal, five daughters and coheiresses. The elder line obtained (from Stephen probably) the earldom of Hertford, and were thenceforth known as earls of Hertford or of Clare, just as the younger line were known as earls of Pembroke or of Striguil. By the death of the other coheirs of William, earl of Gloucester (d. 1173), the succession to that earldom, with the honour of Gloucester and lordship of Glamorgan, opened (1217-20) to Gilbert de Clare, earl of Hertford or Clare (d, 1230)." In the Dictionary of National Biography, Author: Stephen, Leslie, Sir, 1832-1904, [from old catalog] ed Publisher: London, Smith, Elder, & co. Year: 1887 Possible copyright status: NOT IN COPYRIGHT Collection: americana THE RED EARL

One of the greatest of the Clares was Gilbert de Clare, 9th Earl of Clare, 7th Earl of Hertford, and 6th Earl of Gloucester (1243–95), known as the Red Earl. A leader of the barons in the early stages of the Barons’ War against King Henry III, he deserted the baronial side in 1265, thus helping to ensure a royal victory at the Battle of Evesham. Two years later he changed sides again, captured London, and forced the king to accept a negotiated settlement. In 1290 he married Joan of Acre (1272–1307), a daughter of Henry’s successor, King Edward I. When Gilbert de Clare, 10th Earl of Clare (1291–1314), died childless, the male line of the Clares came to an end. His sister, Elizabeth de Clare (1291?–1360), founded Clare College at the University of Cambridge. Earl of Clare, creation (1624) The title Earl of Clare was re-created in the Peerage of England in 1624 for John Holles, 1st Baron Haughton. For more information on this creation, see the Duke of Newcastle-upon-Tyne (1694 creation). Earls of Clare, creation (1694) The title Earl of Clare was revived for a time in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries, when it was held by the Holles family. See the Duke of Newcastle-upon-Tyne (1694 creation) Earls of Clare, creation (1714) The title also appears in the Peerage of Great Britain in 1714 for Thomas Pelham-Holles, 2nd Baron Pelham. For more information on this creation, see the Duke of Newcastle-upon-Tyne (1715 creation) and also the Earl of Chichester. Earl of Clare, creation (1795) The title was again created in the Peerage of Ireland in 1795 for John FitzGibbon, 1st Viscount FitzGibbon, the Lord Chancellor of Ireland. He had already been created Baron FitzGibbon, of Lower Connello in the County of Limerick, in 1789, and Viscount FitzGibbon, of Limerick in the County of Limerick, in 1793. These titles were also in the Peerage of Ireland. In 1799 he was made Baron FitzGibbon, of Sidbury in the County of Devon, in the Peerage of Great Britain. He was succeeded by his eldest son, the second Earl. He served as Governor of Bombay from 1830 to 1834. He died childless and was succeeded by his younger brother, the third Earl. He represented County Limerick in the House of Commons and served as Lord Lieutenant of County Limerick. Lord Clare's only son, the Hon. John Charles Henry Fitzgibbon, had been married in a clandestine ceremony in 1854 but this marriage was not recognized. He was killed in action during the Battle of Balaclava where he charged with the 8th King's Royal Irish Hussars the following year. On Lord Clare's death in 1864 the peerages became extinct as was not allowed to inherit the titles.William John Gerald FitzGibbon (posthumous son of the Hon. was not allowed to inherit the titles.John Charles Henry Fitzgibbon) • John FitzGibbon, 1st Earl of Clare (1748–1802) • John FitzGibbon, 2nd Earl of Clare (1792–1851) • Richard Hobart FitzGibbon, 3rd Earl of Clare (1793–1864)

See also • Viscount Clare References [hide] 1 Dictionary of National Biography, Author: Stephen, Leslie, Sir, 1832-1904, [from old catalog] ed Publisher: London, Smith, Elder, & co. Year: 1887 Possible copyright status: NOT IN COPYRIGHT Collection: americana.

2 Richard Thomson’s: An Historical Essay on the Magna Charta of King John, London, 1829. On pages 43, 102, 270, and many other pages is mentioned "Richard de Clare, Earl of Clare." Evidence reported by Alyson-Wieczorek for item historicalessayo00thom on July 11, 2008: no visible notice of copyright; stated date is 1829. Copyright-evidence-date: 20080711192011 Scanningcenter: la Mediatype: texts Collection-library: SRLF_UCLA Identifier-bib: LAGE-3179101 Identifier: historicalessayo00thom Ppi: 400 Camera: Canon 5D Operator: scanner-steven-drew@...Scanner: scribe6.la.archive.org Scandate: 20080712024225 Imagecount: 662 Identifier-access: ://www.archive.org/details/historicalessayo00thom Identifier-ark: ark:/13960/t3mw2k82h

3 "Itinerary Through Wales and the Description of Wales" by Giraldus Cambrensis, London: Published by J.M. Dent & Co. and in New York by E.P. Dutton & Co. (Copyright-evidence-operator: lexw@archive.org Copyright-region: US Copyright-evidence: Evidence reported by lexw@archive.org for item itinerarythroug00girauoft on November 21, 2007: no visible notice of copyright; exact publication date unknown. Copyright-evidence-date: 20071121140507.)

4 "The Chronicle of Ystrad Fflur" BrutYTwysogion Or The Chronicle Of The Princes.

5 Kidd, Charles, Williamson, David (editors). Debrett's Peerage and Baronetage (1990 edition). New York: St Martin's Press, 1990.

6. Leigh Rayment's Peerage Page

7. www.thepeerage.com

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Postscript for Angus and Lindsay: research is looking for OTHER PEOPLE'S WRITINGS - that is researching history before sound recordings. How else do we know about anyone that lived before us? And as to "the modern authority on the Clare family (Michael Altschul)" - there are many descendants of these early families who have their history online and most assuredly they do mentioned these early earls of clare. Check them out and you will see. Perhaps the later Earls do not wish themselve to be associated with the early Clares. I do not know their minds. Taken to the extreme, there are some people who still maintain the Holocaust did not happen. As to casually dismissing the medieval chroniclers, I cannot understanding how one could do that. They were some of the most educated men of their day, and some (Gerald) worked as clerk and pastor to Henry II. Can you imagine him telling the King, The Earls of Clare were really Earls of Clare if the King did not know it to be true himself? It is impossible to study medieval history and believe such a thing possible. Mugginsx (talk) 19:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that to be supported by the WikiProject for Royalty and Nobility should carry some weight in and of itself. Mugginsx (talk) 20:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I still think you could profitably spend some time looking at Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Medieval sources, like Gerald the Welshman, or the Brut, or the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, or whatever else it may be, are primary sources. We can report what they say, usually in a form resembling "According to Gerald, blah". However, we can not use them as them as if they were the writings of a modern expert. If Gerald says X, that is not proof that X was the case. If enough modern experts writing in textbooks, monographs or journals say X then this is, for Wikipedia's purposes, proof that X was the case. If the historians are wrong, we are wrong too. That's how we work. No doubt this can be irksome when historians appear to be wrong, but Wikipedia is not the place to work on putting the record straight. If you can persuade the historians to change their minds, in print, then we can change our articles.

Perhaps what Gerald or the Brut say could usefully be added to the articles on the relevant de Clares, but phrased to show that this is Gerald's claim, not ours. An article like Wilfrid will give you an idea of our best practice in using medieval primary sources. [Perhaps it goes too far in avoiding them. I prefer the way Constantine II of Scotland does things. But I would do, wouldn't I?] The same is often true of C19th sources, which did not have the benefit of all the decades of study of primary sources which inform modern works, and also of non-academic works (web pages, Debrett's, Burke's). We can not treat them the same way as we'd treat a serious modern work of history. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Confusion

The confusion of Muggins over the correct title of the Earls of Clare stems from the fact that they were often referred to offhandedly as the 'earls of Clare.' See this history by Barlett of England under the Norman and Angevin Kings. [1] Although the family was sometimes referred to as such, their titles did not incorporate the Clare name, as Bartlett also makes clear. They were often styled in shorthand, as Barlett points out, "Earl Richard of Clare." The correct titles of their earldoms, however, were Earl of Hereford, Earl of Pembroke and Earl of Gloucester. There was no Earl of Clare at this early date. The early Clares were lords of the honour of Clare, as Richard Mortimer makes clear in his study of the family. [2] Regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 21:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The process of styling a family as such wasn't uncommon. The Earls of Derby, of the Anglo-Norman Ferrers family, were frequently referred to offhandedly as the 'Earls Ferrer' after their surname. But make no mistake: the Clares were among the most powerful noble families in England for generations. That's why it's important this entry be correct: it is an intrinsic piece of English history on wikipedia. MarmadukePercy (talk) 22:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Notice how John Horace Round, one of England's best-known chroniclers of the Anglo-Norman aristocracy, refers to one of the earliest family members: "Richard (FitzGilbert) de Clare." [3] The cognomen embraces the family's supposed Norman name (Fitzgilbert), as well as its new English territorial name (de Clare), deriving from its lordship of that honour, but carries no designation of earl Clare. In fact, Round later disproved the notion that the early Clares were Earls of Clare. MarmadukePercy (talk) 22:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

In one of his earliest accountings of the family, J. Horace Round compiled this list of the family's earliest earldoms: there are two, and neither is Earl of Clare.[4] Given sourcing, I'd put my money on Round. MarmadukePercy (talk) 22:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I know of no researcher who considers modern sources as better than primary and/or contemporaneous sources. Gerald's position as a clerk and pastor to Henry II meant that he was very close to the King, knowledgeable of his charters, proclamations, calls to arms, disputes, etc., would have know all the Earls (there were not that many) including the Earls of Clare personally. He helped to prepare messages, as well as many other documents coming directly from the King. As a pastor he was his confidant. Kings knew their Earls personally and well. The Earls were the leaders of the men who defended the King and kept him in power. They were loaners of money to the King. The Kings travelled with their clerks everywhere, that includes visiting with the Earls at their homes, hunting with them, etc. These were personal relationships as well as "business" relationships. Almost all of these matters and incidences generated documents. They had frequent contact with the Gerald. The idea that either Gerald, who not only lived contemporaneously with the Earl or Earls of Clare, and probably knew them personally, is not a better souce than any modern source is simply absurd. It could not happen in those times. Beware of modern sources and authors who contradict contemporaneous sources. If one relies too much on modern sources of claims to a nych earlier period they are putting the cart before the horse in their education. They must always be read with caution. We can all find modern sources that even claim that UFOs landed in Egypt and Aliens helped build the pyramids, the Holocaust never happeed and Elvis still lives and is seen in Las Vegas from time to time. This is true and I am informed that at least two of these books were best sellers! Mugginsx (talk) 01:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Muggins, I know you're trying in good faith to contribute. But sometimes you have to pick your battles. In this case, what you're arguing constitutes original research. There's nothing wrong with original research, but wikipedia isn't the place for it, as other editors have indicated. This is a collaborative endeavor. And sometimes one simply gets outvoted. It's okay: it's happened to all of us. Best, MarmadukePercy (talk) 01:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Marmaduke, you are incorrect that Wikipedia is not the place for original research. All information comes from original research at some point or another. Yes, it is a collaboration but it must be one of good faith. You seem to make it clear that you will never believe the arguments from me, nor respect that fact that I received the support of the members of the WikiProject for Royalty and Nobility. I really do not know what else to say. Mugginsx (talk) 02:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Mugginsx, why won't you listen to people who are trying to advise and help you. What we are involved in here, on Wikipedia, is different from what you are talking about. Yes, primary sources are the best sources for research. Wikipedia is not about research; it is about reporting other people's research results. Thus modern historians are where we turn: They have done the research, the synthesis, the understanding of Geraldus, the evaluating of whether he meant Earl of Clare or an earl called Clare. We report on what they discover. But you are currently trying to do research, to do history. This is the wrong place for it. Now i'm sorry you're frustrated, and i'm making allowances for that, but enough voices are telling you you are wrong so that you should listen. And, to forestall the accusation you've made several times and may well make again, they are not my friends (i don't think i've had any interaction with Marmaduke nor Angus nor Beeblebrox previously), they are disinterested editors who are trying to make the place better.

And, a minor point, the fact that it says "This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility" at the top of the page doesn't mean that they have read it and affirm the value of the current version; it means that the article subject, the Earldom of Clare, falls within the area of knowledge they have an interest in. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 02:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Compromise: I would be willing to add a sentence, quoting a book mentioned by Marmaduke, that he will be willing to provide the author, page and verse, that states that there is some controversy as to whether or not these early earls were in fact earls of clare. However, I would put in the same paragraph where the authors of the Dictionary of National Biography states that their investigation states "they were not styled earls of clare". See the quote in the present version. This is a concession to a suggestion of Marmaduke. To put anything more than that statement would be dishonest of me and would throw the entire article into the realm of the absurd as any serious medieval historian would know that this was impossible in the early centuries that are disputed. For heaven's sake these earls could not even get married without the King's permission. It was all about money, position and power and the King was in charge. The Magna Carta was the result of the frustration over the tremendous control the King had on his Earls. Some Kings even claimed privileges with the wives of these men. I state this to enable you all to try to imagine the atmosphere of the time. The idea that a man could "pretend" an earldom is just preposterous. Mugginsx (talk) 10:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC) Mugginsx (talk) 10:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Once again Mugginsx is missing the point. I won't comment on the "proposed compromise" as it is aimed in completely the wrong direction; i am going on holiday, for a fortnight, i explicitly mention this so that my silence is not taken as consent. I shall look with interest on what has happened here when i return. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 11:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

My apologies; i retract the hasty and possibly personal response, unreservedly and completely. I shouldn't like it to be the last thing i leave here. And now, i'm outta here ~ Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 11:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I have proposed styling changes, according to suggestions, and patterned after the Earl of Pembroke article. I have proposed a compromise by adding a line as to the dispute as to the early earls of clare. I think I have shown good faith while keeping to the personal integrity of the research and the guidelines of Wiki. Anythings else would be dishonest and false. It would also be disloyal to the descendents of the Clare family. 69.183.161.37 (talk) 12:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)69.183.161.37 (talk) 12:12, 16 October 2009 (UTC) 69.183.161.37 (talk) 12:11, 16 October 2009 (UTC) Mugginsx (talk) 12:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

The English author and expert on such matters, Arthur Charles Fox-Davies, addressed the points you have attempted to make, when he referred to "the ancient Earls of Hereford, who were, from thence, though very improperly, called Earls of Clare, in the same manner as the Earls of Pembroke were often named Earls of Strigoil and Chepstow; the Earl of Hampshire, Earl of Winchester; the Earl of Derby, Earl of Tuttebury; the Earl of Sussex, Earl of Chichester; etc." [5] Fox-Davies' point is that these various earldoms were often – incorrectly – referred to by other nicknames. Those nicknames don't exist as independent earldoms. The same is true of the Clares. You've provided nothing substantive to back up your arguments, aside from some medieval chroniclers. I've provided a number of sources refuting your points, including one of England's foremost genealogists and heraldry experts. This article needs to be reverted to its state before you began your changes. There is no compromise to be reached with a falsehood, no matter how much you wish to believe it. MarmadukePercy (talk) 12:55, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Your are not proposing a compromise, you are proposing complete capitulation. I would agree to putting your Fox-Davies quote in exactly as you presented it here. This is an honest attempt at compromise as was requested by the Administrator. You had, at one time, offered this kind of compromise but now you have rescinded it. THAT IS NOT GOOD FAITH. Mugginsx (talk) 14:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

To Beeblebrox I have offered both styling changes and a compromise. The styling was not even commented upon, and the compromise has only been on my part. At least two out of three of the people protesting the early earls of clare will offer no compromise of any sort. What do we now do? Mugginsx (talk) 14:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

In another "good faith" effort, I have solicited other persons to enter the discussion. Thus far, I can see no progress presently. There is a complete indifference to my attempts to style and my good faith compromise. Mugginsx (talk) 16:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Reference cleanup

{{editprotected}} Requesting removal of the really unnecessary "NOT IN COPYRIGHT" indications on the sources. Perhaps a reference cleanup as well (as in, using <ref> tags).--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 17:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Unionhawk: Thanks you for your input! I am not sure how to accomplish this request for edit while under protection. Would you do so for me, if you have not already done so. Once again, thankyou! I will also put this message on your page. I am new to computer editing, and to Wiki, but I do know my research, so I am grateful for your help and guidance! Mugginsx (talk) 18:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC) I have proposed a revision as to the styling, using the Earl of Pembroke article for reference. It is above, though it is not formatted, you can get the general idea. Mugginsx (talk) 18:21, 16 October 2009 (UTC):

The sourcing of this article, as well as the 'presentation,' are not up to wikipedia's usual high standards. It will be a travesty if the original research by this new user is allowed to stand. He has not made a convincing case, and has wrongly claimed endorsement by the royalty and nobility work group. MarmadukePercy (talk) 19:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted the article to a different version. I would like to stress that this is not an endorsement of this version's content, this was done because frankly it looks a lot more like a proper Wikipedia article. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe you're correct in that. A footnote can be added to this piece addressing claims there was an earlier creation of Clare, a concept now dismissed by scholars. Regards, MarmadukePercy (talk) 20:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Dougweller (talk) 21:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

One final comment Beeblebrox: I tried to show you a newer version with styling amd sectioning according to article Earl of Pembroke and asked for comment. It was ignored. I tried to compromise adding a quote which was presented in one of their remarks. It was ignored, whereas before Marmaduke seemed to say he would consider it. I presented a "Sectioned" version on the discussion page as was suggested and would have put it on the main page as soon as the prohibition was lifted but did not get a chance. I contacted three members of the WikiProject Biography/Members, all of whom specialize in Medieval research, One has a PhD. I also contacted a prominent author who also has a PhD in medieval research to ask his opinion. Since I just did this today, I had not had a chance to receive any input It seems that in this case those who are the most persistent get their way no matter how shallow their arguments. That is too bad. I do not have the time or the inclination to stay online all day as some of these men seem to have, so I cannot compete, nor do I at present have any desire to do so.

You need to take out the first three references. They represent my research which refers to the validity of the medieval earls of clare and contradict the version you now have reverted to. Thank you. Mugginsx (talk) 00:28, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Muggins, will you kindly read the comments relating to this entry? There is nothing to substantiate your wild assertions. Out of courtesy, I added a line referencing your discredited claims, as well as a footnote showing that credible English historians and heraldry experts have dismissed the assertions you continue to make. Will you kindly learn to follow wikipedia policy? Thank you. MarmadukePercy (talk) 21:42, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, Muggins, the dead giveaway is your statement: "The first creation which has survived its paperwork is the creation in 1624." This means you have no paper, no sources, no proof whatever there was a previous earl of clare. What you are doing is original research, and wikipedia, as many others have tried to tell you, is no place for that. End of story. MarmadukePercy (talk) 21:51, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Please produce for me the source of documents of ANY of the medieval earls. You cannot. As to policy, I am learning it quite fast. The information presents a valid view by many scholars both modern and medieval. The only earls that are verifiable today are those from the 1600's to present. Check Wiki Peerage Page. If you wish this removed, than ALL the medieval earls much be removed. The only kind that might have documents that indirectly indicate their status that may have survived are those whose titles were inherited through marriage. By your standards, not mine, they have only the same kind of proof, i.e. medieval documents where the names appear in various ways. Mugginsx (talk) 22:35, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, you are very confused. You say: "The only earls that are verifiable today are those from the 1600's to present." That is precisely the case. Your fictional 'earls of clare' from medieval times cannot be verified. Hence, no paper trail. Hence, no sources. Hence, original research. You have just disproved your own assertions. I was assuming good faith, but your confusion, your disruptive edits and your poor sourcing are leading me to believe otherwise. MarmadukePercy (talk) 22:40, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, for the authentic medieval earldoms (like the three held by the de Clare family), there are literally thousands of sources. The reason why you can't find sources for your supposed medieval 'earls of clare' is simple: they don't exist. MarmadukePercy (talk) 22:46, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Please cite them. No modern authors please. Then, please look up the Wiki definition of original research. 69.183.159.106 (talk) 22:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

No modern authors please LOL MarmadukePercy (talk) 22:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

MARMADUKE: I challenged you to find me a source of proof of ANY MEDIEVAL EARL and you could not do it. The only NEW SOURCE you use is a book on the Magna Carta. That is quite humerous because The Magna Carta was signed by RICHARD DE CLARE, EARL OF CLARE. You use a reference which actually states the OPPOSITE of your point of view. Perhaps King John, as well as Henry II also did not know the Earls were not Earls of Clare, as well as the Clerk to Henry II, the authors of the Chronicle of the Princes, etc., The author of Tweksbury Annals, etc. all of my sources. Are they indirect sources, yes. They are however contemporaneous sources. You would have to be a TIME TRAVELER to get the kind of definitive proof that you demand. You do not get research and I can't teach you here what it takes years to learn. I asked you to show me the proof of ANY MEDIEVAL EARL and you could not do it. You must understand the 11th, 12th, 13th, and 14th centuries to know that not everything was written down the way you expect it to be today. Please, by all means go up the chain as you have threatened. Perhaps there is a medieval scholar out there who wishes to comment on this. I hope so because I do not have the time to waste on this everyday and several times a day as you seem to be able to do. Mugginsx (talk) 11:07, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I told you on your talk page to learn to listen to what other editors tell you. You arrived here and have done nothing but disrupt this entry. You're getting tiresome. You've already said yourself there is no proof of what you're saying. (See my italics above.) If there's no proof to what you're saying, it doesn't belong on wikipedia. End of story. MarmadukePercy (talk) 11:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I HAVE REQUEST PAGE PROTECTION. PLEASE DO NOT BREAK THE REVERSION RULE. Mugginsx (talk) 11:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I've never broken the reversion rule since arriving here. However, you're testing my patience as you, with your constant disruption here and inability to listen to others, ruin what was a decent entry. So I'm reverting you for the second time. As I've said before, one cannot reach a compromise with a fiction – which is all you have. MarmadukePercy (talk) 11:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I am just trying to be courteous and remind you. You have now made your third reversion. Mugginsx (talk) 12:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted you twice. You are a disruption here. Again, read what you've written. "It is implied, in the * Lords' Reports." You've already stated you have no 'paper proof.' Then you state that something is implied: i.e., clearly not stated anywhere. You're imagining your earlier Earls of Clare. Again, you have abused this process, while claiming – falsely – that your work was sanctioned by the royalty and nobility work group. You have also left messages on my talk page questioning my credentials. MarmadukePercy (talk) 12:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Since I do not know what your credentials are, it would be impossible for me to comment on them. What you cite as sources would tend to indicate that you do not understand basic research. You never quote page or bibliography. I have cited exact sources, page and verse. This research, in some cases have survived centuries. The authors of the Dictionary of National Biography are considered by serious academics as unimpeachable. Mugginsx (talk) 12:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Though you try to call it something else in "history", the fact is that you have reverted my material THREE times. Mugginsx (talk) 12:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

You have abused this process since you arrived here. Other editors, including Lindsay, have requested that you familiarize yourself with wikipedia policy. You have not done that. Moreover, you have misrepresented the nature of your contributions. And you concede the edits you have made are not backed up by 'paper' proof. So what you've done is violate a cardinal rule of wikipedia: no original research. You've gotten this notion into your head and you're adding material on a family which is not the family who were the Earls of Clare. I added a sentence referencing your claims, which is all that was required as this entry is not about the family you keep inserting. It is users like you who don't bother to learn wikipedia policies who will be the death of this place. MarmadukePercy (talk) 12:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Every source I have given is backed up by "paper proof". If you look them up you will find them. I have even given you the page and/or year numbers (according to how the source is written and identifies itself) to make it easy for you. Please no more personal attacks. Mugginsx (talk) 12:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, Muggles, what you've written disproves your point. You wrote: ""It is implied, in the * Lords' Reports ' (iii. 124) and elsewhere, that they were styled earls of Clare before they were Earls of Hertford, but investigation disproves this." Precisely. Investigation disproves they were the Earls of Clare. So they do not belong in this piece. MarmadukePercy (talk) 13:30, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Marmaduke: Please re-read what you have said and I have said, in particular the words "styled earls of clare". Mugginsx (talk) 13:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Is information on the de Clare family relevant

Is the information added several times in assorted formats about the de Clare family relevant to an article about the Earls of Clare? Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 12:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Not relevant - Unless a small footnote about the confusion is worthwhile. Complete Peerage gives the first mention of "Earl of Clare" as in 1624. It mentions that the earls of Hertford were sometimes mistakenly titled "Earls of Clare" but that since they were created Earls of Hertford, the style "Earl of Clare" is incorrect in this case. There is a barony by writ from 1309 to 1318 for a member of the de Clare family, but that barony died out in 1321. Note that this is volume III pp. 242-248. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

EALDGYTH - I respect the work you have cited, and that you have added vol and page, (which no one but you and myself has done before this, but I wondered if you do not think that the source I used is not just as acceptable, or perhaps both could be used. For your convenience I will repeat it here: "It is implied, in the * Lords' Reports ' (iii. 124) and elsewhere, that they were styled earls of Clare before they were Earls of Hertford, but investigation disproves this. By the death of the other coheirs of William, earl of Gloucester (d. 1173), the succession to that earldom, with the honour of Gloucester and lordship of Glamorgan, opened (1217-20) to Gilbert de Clare, Earl of Hertford or Clare (d, 1230). Dictionary of National Biography, Author: Stephen, Leslie, Sir, 1832-1904 p 375 col.2. This is certainly a respected source. I have taken out the many other sources, medieval chroniclers, clerk to Henry II, the Magna Carta, with the signature of Richard de Clare, Earl of Clare, etc., all of the other places they are cited and just left in this one paragraph to show what I think is a legimate and scholarly source. I have put the relevant words in bold because their comments show they do not understand the quote. Mugginsx (talk) 17:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The 16th, 17th later earls have never been disputed. Lindsay and Marmaduke have contributed nothing to the original article, The "history" section will show that all they have done is edit and revert any and all content on the Early Earls of Clare. Lindsay has claimed that he has contributed to this article but the records prove that not to be the case. They are only interesting in obstructionism and Lindsay has even called me "Crazy Clare" on his individual talk pages. This is not about the truth as the history of this page and the general "history" section will clearly show. It is about obstructionism, nasty and insulting comments and I do not believe that they should be allowed to obstruct a page that they have not contributed to and clearly have no research experience. I have given up all of my other work on this page, which they now say they may put in the Clare page (and I guess try to get credit for). They, unfortunately do not understand medieval history as I think you do, and even less about properly citing a page. They are so inexperienced that they think they can take my material which calls the earls of clare "earls" and put in on another page-taking the word "earl" out. It means nothing to them that you can't just take a quote and change it to suit your own needs! Mugginsx (talk) 17:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The Complete Peerage is a more recent work than the OLD dictionary of National Biography, which has been superceded by the newer Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Which volume of the DNB are you citing, by the way? The author of what you're citing died in 1904, so newer historical works would disprove this. Note that your source, if I'm understanding what you're quoting, says "they were styled earls of Clare" before they were Earls of Hertford, "but investigation disproves this"". That "investigation disproves it" means that no, they were not earls of clare. And please indent by using colons in order to make it clear who/what is being responded to. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)]

I've found the work, and it dates from 1887. It should be considered superceded by later historians works, including the CP. See here on Googgle books. At best, a footnote is needed to explain the confusion. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

EALDGYTH - Your Google link is the same as I have indicated. Look on pg 375 col 2 toward the end of the page. I do not know if I can access the your Oxford source online without paying a subscriber fee - but I will look and get back to you.Mugginsx (talk) 19:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, so I went to the Oxford online website and I cannot access that information without being a subscriber. Mugginsx (talk) 19:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a note, expanded upon on your talk page, Mugginsx, asking you to stay on topic, please. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 18:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

The source is the older version I obtained on INTERNET ARCHIVE SITE - I will try to provide you with a link it is Vol X. It states: "It is implied, in the * Lords' Reports ' (iii. 124) and elsewhere, that they were styled earls of Clare before they were Earls of Hertford, 'but investigation disproves this'. in other words they were not JUST STYLED EARLS OF CLARE BUT IN FACT EARLS OF CLARE. That is the way I read it and I have consulted with another historian who agreed with me. The Vol X Chamber-Clarkson is edited by Leslie Stephens.Mugginsx (talk) 18:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

OK - You go to the online INTERNET ARCHIVE - put in the search engine Dictionary of National Biography - the pages are not ALL marked as to volume so you will find in on the first page - and the final line states "163 downloads". Unfortunately, it was not that easy to find due to the way it was indexed but it is there. Mugginsx (talk) 18:35, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Mugginsx, please learn how to use a talk page, and how to indent your replies for easier use for others. If you need help, Wikipedia:Talk page#Indentation will get you started. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:25, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

EALDGYTH: Since I cannot access the information you suggested, and because I respect your expertise, I will agree to any footnote or any other change you recommend. I no longer want to pursue this. This is a game to others that I will no longer play. I will absolutely agree to the footnote that you choose. I think that, at least, a fair mention of the medieval earls, even though they are disputed, will be represented here. That is all I ever wanted. Would you please undertake this for me. It would mean alot and then I could be done with it. Mugginsx (talk) 19:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I had incorporated mention of the medieval earl dispute in the last version of this before Muggins before changing it again. I would suggest simply reverting to that version. MarmadukePercy (talk) 20:49, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I just came by because it was a history RfC that was looking for outside opinions. I have given it, and honestly, this is outside my area of historical interest, so I'll leave it to others to implement something that gains consensus. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I understand 'investigation disproves this' to mean that they were not called Earls of Clare before they were Earls of Hertford. Now that may be incorrect, but I think it is the most reasonable interpretation of the passage. I also note that I could find nothing about this in the current ODNB. Dougweller (talk) 18:54, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

For the Record

Following the RfC requested by Lindsay, and an impartial opinion by Ealdgyth, the user Mugginsx has continued to disrupt the editing of this piece, reinserting information that other editors have deemed erroneous and extraneous. Because of Mugginsx's false claims to have been endorsed by the royalty and nobility work group, as well as his insults to fellow editors, I consider the user Mugginsx now a vandal, or certainly someone incapable of reaching compromise or listening to others, and will take appropriate measures. MarmadukePercy (talk) 23:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

I have sent a message to the MEDIATION COMMITTEE. Mugginsx (talk) 23:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Mugginsx, i now consider that you are editing without good faith, an assumption i am reluctant to make but feel forced to because you have repeatedly and wantonly continued after being given advice and help. Please change your combative editing style and try to work within consensus and a collaborative, friendly framework. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 01:41, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

EALDGYTH, See, I'm slowly learning the process of styling, etc. I wanted to thank you for your help. I also wanted you to know that I may be able to access the Oxford DNB information you suggested through a third person. You see, I have contacted an author who has a PhD in medieval history, He has responded that if Richard de Clare signed the Magna Carta, Richard de Clare, Earl of Clare, he would agree that this title was probably valid and recognized by the Crown at that time. In addition, a early medieval scholar will also get back to me. Naturally, I will take their opinions as "the last word" on the subject but I wanted you to know that I did listen to your advice and asked them for the specific research you indicated, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, and will avail myself of this and any other material available through these gentlemen. Thank you for your help and suggestions! Mugginsx (talk) 01:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems that Lindsay is cutting and pasting or otherwise putting my remarks together and misleading any reader as to where and when and to what response it was said whether here or elsewhere. When you look up the history to see what has been edited you get a message that it has been deleted, etc. Ah, a different kind of valdalism. I a learning well what vandals are capable of doing when they think they are clever enough. How sad these conversations CAN NOT BE ABOUT THE HISTORY. The history is quite fascinating and important. Mugginsx (talk) 11:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)1

You have both been warned many times. I have now reported you both as vandals. I am sorry but I did not know what else to do. Nothing else worked. Mugginsx (talk) 01:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

And your request has been now been denied by two administrators. You need to stop disrupting Wikipedia to make a point if you don't wish to be blocked yourself. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

At this point, all I want is one paragraph, the second, stating an alternative view that the medieval earls of clare were, actually, earls of clare. That is less that 20% percent of my original article. This would present a fair and balanced point of view held by many scholars, both medieval and modern. I think that is fair. Mugginsx (talk) 16:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I have returned this piece to close to its original state, before it was extensively altered. (And before I made any contributions.) I have done this because the piece involves the Earls of Clare and not the Clare famiy. Best to keep the piece on topic. I have moved mention of the Clare family, and its supposed holding of an early earldom, to a footnote. MarmadukePercy (talk) 17:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It is my understanding that the Mediation Committee will help to make a decision on this. I will defer to their opinion Your contribution of a footnote has not been touched. The rest of the material put in by the original authors, John Kenny and others, none of whom were you or Lindsay, has never been edited.Mugginsx (talk) 18:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I would note that your source for the information you reinserted is, as another user has pointed out, an outdated one and has been supplanted by more recent and more in-depth scholarship. MarmadukePercy (talk) 18:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, if you review the page you will see that the "Google" source he suggested turned out to say the same as the older source I used. His second suggestion, the newer Oxford Dictionary of National Biography could not be accessed by either himself or me because it requires a subscription to Oxford Library to see it online. I then made an inqury to someone in UK who would be able to access that source, but have not heard back yet. It would be compared to see if there is a difference as was his suggestion. Mugginsx (talk) 19:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

If you'll look at the comment above by Dougweller, he examined the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Apparently it makes no mention of the 'earlier Earls of Clare.' MarmadukePercy (talk) 19:10, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Dougweller does not say that. He only said that he understood the phrase differently than I. He never mentions DNB. The quote in DNB was mentioned by Ealdgyth in which he refers to "styled earls of clare" meaning, not really earls. He took it to mean real earls. You can clearly see it in his comment. Perhaps I am missing another comment he made, perhaps on another page? Mugginsx (talk) 19:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought you were talking about Ealdgyth not Dougweller, Sorry. Mugginsx (talk) 19:22, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

For the record, Muggins, your singleminded quest is becoming disruptive, as one admin has noted. If you are trying to contribute in a meaningful way, it would be advisable to slow down, read carefully what has been posted here, and listen to your fellow editors. MarmadukePercy (talk) 19:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

It was you that iniitated the question and comment, I answered it in a polite way. That is not disruptive. We have been encouraged to have polite discussions and that is what I am determined to do no matter what happens. Meanwhile, as I have said before, I am hoping the Mediation Committee will propose a final solution, to which I will defer. Mugginsx (talk) 19:45, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

• I suspect that the problem arises because the family becasme Earls so early, when creation was not by letters patent. The Earls of Arundel claimed to be earls by tenure of the honour of Arundel. I suspect that the usage of "Earl of Clare" may derive from soemthing similar. There is a difficulty over cases determined by the Lords, that sometimes an element of anachronism crept into their decisions in the 17th to 19th centuries. GEC Complete Peerage is a highly reputable work. If it even indicates that the title has been used, even if only by historians and incorrectly, the article should contain a section (before the First Creation) discussing this. I have checked several de Clare, earls of Gloucester and Hertford in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, and none seemed to mention the title, but searching for "Earl of Clare", brings up search results including "Clare, Gilbert de [called Gilbert the Red], seventh earl of Gloucester and sixth earl of Hertford (1243–1295), magnate". This suggests to me that the title does have some basis (even if only a spurious one). I would suggest a paragraph explaining this (with full citations), with a link to the articles Earl of Gloucester and Earl of Hertford, but treating it as if the zero-th creation. ODNB should be accessible to most British residents via the website of their local library, if registered with one. I am an English historian, but this is not precisely my area of expertise. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
• On further investigation Gerald of Wales DOES use the term "Earl of Clare": Gerald of Wales, The journey through Wales, trans. Lewis Thorpe (Penguin Classics, 1978), p. 142. The translator (in a footnote) suggests that the reference is to William de Clare, Earl of Gloucester, but "it is impossible to be precise". This clearly measn that the subject needs to be referred to in the article. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your opinion. You've raised some valid points. This was definitely my thinking. I had earlier incorporated the thoughts about the 'de Clare' family and the earldom, but as you say, treating it as the 'zero' creation. I do think it needs to be noted in the entry that there have been these claims. What I object to is the statement of fact that muggins keeps inserting, especially because (as now written) it says that 'investigation disproves this.' I had earlier moved the information to a footnote, but I agree with your thoughts about a paragraph of explanation with footnotes. What I hesitate to do, though, is write that paragraph, if muggins is coming to come along and simply reinsert his old 'tired' paragraph underneath it. If we can get some collaboration here, this entry would be easy to straighten out. Thanks for your thoughts. MarmadukePercy (talk) 20:48, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I have replaced what was in the article with a short statement concerning the problem (in dispute here). This adopts the view of ODNB on the titles, while acknowledging the existence of the older view. I note that the ODNB article, which I have cited is a new article, not a revision of the old article. but its author will have had the old one available. I hope what I have done is sufficiently WP:NPOV on the issue. I would thereofre call for this RFC to be closed. If some one can add a citation of GEC, Complete Peerage, which presumably addresses the issue or some academic article on the subject, that would be very useful. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Marmaduke: This new section POSSIBLE MEDIEVAL EARLS looks very good and if you want to add any more of my references, I was advised that the Magna Carta history is THE prime source as Richard de Clare, Earl of Clare appears in many of the documents with his title and he was one of the 25 Sureties (defenders of the document). Depending upon how long you want to make this section you can also use any other sources I have stated, especially Gerald. I noticed that he is mentioned in at least two other Wikipedia articles, one on the de Clare family. He carries special importance because he was clerk to Henry II. Mugginsx (talk) 23:31, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Muggins. With Peterkingiron's help, this section now looks good and is probably sufficient to clarify the matter. MarmadukePercy (talk) 23:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree, many thanks to you Peterkingiron as well! Mugginsx (talk) 00:01, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

MARMADUKE: I did not notice this before, but your last two sentences in the MEDIEVEL EARLS section say exactly the same thing. the last sentence not so well worded. Re-read it and see if you agree. Mugginsx (talk) 21:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

The sentences are not redundant. MarmadukePercy (talk) 23:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I was in the middle of editing what I said when my browser went down for a few hours. I think the words "the modern view" which you said in your previous sentence is far better to say than "the best view". Mugginsx (talk) 00:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

For the record, i think a good job has been done by all with the article now; i'm pleased to see the dispute resolved. Cheers, Lindsay^Hi 15:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)