Talk:Thomas de Cantilupe

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is highly implausible that he had a major conflict with Gilbert de Clare in 1290 eight years after his own death in 1282. Even more worrying there is a reference to a supporting text for this 'fact'. We must be concerned about the quality of the text. Can a bishop whose activities keep him away from his bishopric much of the time be considered to be exemplary? Is the fact that he visited Hereford from time to time so remarkable, when he had a job there? Optymystic (talk) 21:46, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Worryingly, the 'ditch dispute' is also mentioned in de Clare's own article with an implied date of 1290 and cited to the same source.
I suspect his (claimed) diligence in carrying out his Bishop's duties personally contrasts with the frequency in that era of such appointments being political sinecures, with the actual work carried out by subordinates. The general tone probably carries over from some of the original sources, such as the Catholic Encyclopedia, which include generous helpings of hagiography. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 90.197.27.112 (talk) 09:06, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The hunting dispute / ditch incident is mentioned a few times in relation to the Hereford Mappa Mundi, and it may even be referred to on the map itself, in a hunting scene. So I should be able to get a date and better reference for that.
On his actual career and behaviour, there is an excellent discussion of the evidence provided to the canonization inquiry in Vauchez (see sources). I'll be adding an outline of that in the coming days. There are also discussions of his sexism and anti-semitism (both a sign of his holiness, apparently) in the official presentation made kicking off the process. Some of that I've already added. Jim Killock (talk) 16:54, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Thomas de Cantilupe. 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:

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) 07:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources format[edit]

I think it's time to move this article off the original format of references including full citations. I will start moving the citations to a list of sources unless there is an objection to this. Jim Killock (talk) 16:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]