Talk:John Hastings, 2nd Earl of Pembroke

Is his birth date correct?

It states in this article that he was born 29 August 1347 and married in 1359. It further states that he served with the Black Prince in 1367. Was he really married when he was 12 years old? Serving with the Black Prince it seems likely that he could also be the man mentioned (possibly mistakenly) by Froissart as serving under the Black Prince at Poitiers as "Richard" of Pembroke. It also states of his father Lawrence that he died in 1348. Mugginsx (talk) 19:48, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

@Mugginsx 5.209.222.61 (talk) 21:14, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

He was betrothed - engaged - in 1359. The marriage never took place. He wasn't at at Poitiers. I urge you to take anything Froissart wrote with a tun of salt. Yes, John Hastings died on 29 August 1348. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:41, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Hastings, 2nd Earl of Pembroke. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20021223152838/http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/browse-mixed-new?id=FroChro&tag=public&images=images%2Fmodeng&data=%2Ftexts%2Fenglish%2Fmodeng%2Fparsed to http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/browse-mixed-new?id=FroChro&tag=public&images=images%2Fmodeng&data=%2Ftexts%2Fenglish%2Fmodeng%2Fparsed

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:John Hastings, 2nd Earl of Pembroke/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Iazyges (talk · contribs) 16:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Will start soon. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Criteria

GA Criteria
GA Criteria: 1 1.a Y 1.b Y 2 2.a Y 2.b Y 2.c Y 2.d Y (14.5% is highest, due to incidental mirroring of a few phrases.) 3 3.a Y 3.b Y 4 4.a Y 5 5.a Y 6 6.a Y 6.b Y

• No DAB links Y
• No Dead links Y
• Images appropriately licensed Y
• Passing now, will add prose suggestions at a later date. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:54, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Prose Suggestions

• apparently under the nose of a local French commander suggest apparently escaping the notice of a local French commander
• as Jonathon Sumption put it, Pembroke "may have had the grander name but his inexperience showed suggest linking Jonathan Sumption.
• @Serial Number 54129: That is all my suggestions. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:51, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
• Many Thanks again, Iazyges, good advice as ever, and all taken. Take care! ...SerialNumber54129^{...speculates} 14:22, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Queries

• Does "She died around 1 October 1361, probably of plague." mean the Black Death? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:43, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

  Not really, she died c. eight years after the Black Death had ended in Europe. ——Serial 16:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

While Wikipedia is, of course, notoriously unreliable, from our Black Death, "the plague was present somewhere in Europe in every year between 1346 and 1671 ... The second pandemic was particularly widespread in the following years: 1360–63 ..."

Indeed, the plague' itself—pneumonic, bubonic—was present forever (the Congo and Lousiana even today?!) but I think we'd be hard-pressed to find references to the Black Death of (e.g) 1452, or 1665, etc.

Nah, they mean the Black Death, which the journal article it quotes would, I assume, only know was widespread because it was frequently specified as a cause of death. But if it wasn't in this case, so be it.

• "In revenge", says Cokayne in his Complete Peerage, he attacked the town again". Attacked where.

  Yeah, cock up-he re-raided Anjou, not that small village.

• "before being despatched to relieve Belleperche. Is it known despatched by whom?

  Fraid not, except that per GEC it was "with Cambridge", which I've added.

• "left able to make peace between England and France". True, but there is no context given. It either needs this, or deleting. (I lean to the latter.)

  Ah!—let us place under consideration!

• "Walter, Baron Manny, Pembroke's father-in-law. Mauny had already been". The spelling should be standardised.Gog the Mild (talk) 17:38, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I've actioned those things above, but, Sorry Gog, this article is an absolute fucking embarrassment. Don't let it ruin your holiday! I don't think I've looked at it since 2018 *facepalm* ——Serial 18:25, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Nah, it's ok. It's a sound basis for a FAC. Let me have a few runs at it, including a couple with my sources to hand. And I was intending to action the points above once you had answered them.

So just relax, get some pop corn and chill, 'tis the season to chill. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:35, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

...something a bit stronger than popcorn I think Gog  ;) thanks for that though! ——Serial 19:38, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Mince pies? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:05, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

• "military prodigy in the style of the 1330s". Is that quote right? There were no English military prodigies in the 1330s.

  I wouldn't know I'm afraid (you should of course!), but it's a direct quote from Cushaway's War at sea—have you got it? (Just that you used it for your seminal Battle of Sluys.)

Well he's talking nonsense. The war 1338-40 was such am unmitigated cock up for the English that they needed 5 years to recover before they could even send Derby off with 2,000 men to Gascony. I'll paraphrase.

• "Not only did he carry with him extra troops". Extra to the 160?

  Can't find the "extra" sourced to either GEC or R. I Jack, so best removed?

• "which was, tactically, being despatched prematurely." I can guess what that means, but it either needs expanding or deleting. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:43, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

  add ...as so far only fourteen to seventeen ships—"all but three of which were less than fifty tuns in size" comments Cushway—had been collected to sail with him?

• "accompanied only by his personal retinue of 160 men ... many of his retinue were killed ... Pembroke was taken to Castile, along with about 160 of his men" ?

  Ugh, yeah, the math. It's cited, within Ambuhl, to a contemporary chronicler, Le chronique deas reign de etc, so usual habit of inflating/guessing the numbers by contemporaries that we will have to explain. Perhaps a footnote pointing out that contempt. figures are notoriously unreliable" or something? Shouldn't be too difficult getting that together, what with, err, it being true :D (Or of course, we just remove it as unnecessarily complicating things!)

Or "retinue" meant knights/men at arms and each would have a suire plus an archer or two with them. OK, I'll see what I can blag.

• "bound with chains ... or ... in irons." Looks like duplication to me.

  Ahh. I assumed that "bound [<--operative word] with chains" meant tied up with, wrapped-around in chains, whereas compared to that, leg irons distinctly constrains one a different way.

Without wishing to "do a Tim", not necessarily.

• "Their treatment". Should that be 'Pembroke's treatment' or 'The treatment by the Castillians'? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:47, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

  "The treatment meted out to Pembroke and his men appalled..." is intended

• The link Solemnization is a dead end. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  !!! Which it was not when I actually first used the word in 2017; the article was erased by a redirect-bandit last year. Perhaps link solemnization instead?

Yep.

• Good work Gog, apologies for my tardiness! SN54129 16:57, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

No probs. I've been sitting on it. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:15, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Take 2

• @Serial Number 54129: "following his intervention in the war of Castilian succession". Well yeess, but we haven't mentioned the 100 YW not the French. Oops. Maybe I could replace this with 'following his intervention in the war of Castilian succession and the French reopening the Hundred Years' War in 1369.'
• Would it be helpful to stick in the standard Treaty of Bretigny map to help people orient themselves?

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:20, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

• Both excellent suggestions Gog, and the thing could do with a bit of colour. We medievalists are deprived of images, particularly in variety. SN54129 20:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

  By the way, let me know when you want the extra 94 footnotes added. SN54129 20:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Only 94? There is no need to hold back on my account.

• With phrases such as "that the Earl donate" and "received word that the earl had died" are we going for an upper or lower case e/E?
• Are we referring to Grey of Ruthin as "Grey" or "Ruthin"?

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:36, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

• H'mmm. We should probably capitalise Earl as someone—anyone—at FAC will suggest it anyway. I can't see the article at the moment, but if we are consistent in referring to Pembroke by his title rather than as Hastings, we should probably do the same for other Lords? Although I don't particularly mind if you prefer Grey over Ruthin. SN54129 14:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

• Seward is not used. Should we remove it? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:04, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. Move Seward seaward! SN54129 18:33, 21 February 2022 (UTC)