Talk:Simon de Montfort, 6th Earl of Leicester
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, now in the public domain. |
 |
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. | ||||||||||||||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage. | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Military work group. | ||
 |
Simon de Montfort, 6th Earl of Leicester is part of WikiProject Middle Ages, a project for the community of Wikipedians who are interested in the Middle Ages. For more information, see the project page and the newest articles. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
|
Article Grading: |
|||
|
WikiProject Middle Ages To do:
|
|||
[edit] Barons' Revolt
Erm, surely Baron's Revolt??? unsigned comment by anonymous user
- No, it would be "Baron's" if only one rebelled. Grunners 16:18, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Burial
Was his body taken by the monks of Evesham Abbey and buried before the High Altar? I remember reading that somewhere a long time ago.
I seem to remember than the grave was desecrated many years later, possibly at the Reformation.
I have now visited the site again and the interpretation plaque suggests that he was buried in a tomb before the High Altar. There is an artist's interpretation of the view of the scene. I am reluctant to actually change what is written in the wikipedia page without discussion. Could this be reviewed please? Songwriter 06:28 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)
There is conflicting testimony as to the disposition of his remains. Opus Chron. (Rolls Ser., no. 28), p. 18-20, says he was buried by the monks at Evesham, and that miracles were wrought at his tomb. Other chronicles state he was dismembered, with portions doled out to various places, his head (or head and hands) to the wife of Roger de Mortimer, then at Worcester Castle (Rishanger, Rolls Ser., p. 37). William de Newburgh (Rolls Ser., vol ii, p. 548) combined the stories, with the body cut up, dispersed, and all parts eventually returned to Evesham and miraculously rejoined, and then buried at Evesham. - Nunh-huh 18:33, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I believe what you are remembering is that he was decapitated (i think) and left to rot after the battle. it was the monks at the abbey who burried him. I also remember reading i can't remember if it was in J.R. Madicott's book, Simon de Montfort, or some other source that his body begame a place for pilgramages and there was a push by some to have him cannoized. I added it to the article as it was part of the whole mythos that surrounds him. If someone has access to the copy of that book could you look it up. I have to get my English history notebooks out and see if i wrote anything else about it down in class.FubarDac 16:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
On the cult of "St Simon" a good source is:[1] The Liber miraculorum of Simon de Montfort: Contested sanctity and contesting authority in late thirteenth-century England Jeremy (talk) 01:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Coat of arms - Chartres
The coat of arms of Simon de Montfort was a red field with a white two-tailed (lion?) rampant. A television programme about stained glass windows was showing Chartres Cathedral and there seemed in one of the pictures to be a depiction of that coat of arms. Could someone possibly check on that if visiting Chartres Cathedral please?
[edit] Secretly married
"Secretly married" here seems to imply that the King was not aware of the marriage until after the fact. Margaret Wade Labarge [Simon de Montfort, 1962] says that "the King arranged for the ceremony in his own private oratory"; a chapel adjoining his bedchamber. The wedding may have been a surprise to other nobles, but not to the King.
[edit] Amaury
Whatever became of Simon's brother, Amaury? There is nothing anywhere that I can find about why he would have given up his rights in England, or where he went from there. Was he more interested in France and its politics at the time, as Simon was certainly more interested in England?
And why would Amaury renounce any English rights? Did his brother convice him that under Simon's care and guile the title of Earl of Leicester could finally be made official by King Henry III?
Anyone who knows of any sources that might explain these things, please leave a comment. Thank you.
- Armaury gave up his rights to land because they were petty holdings. They were both dispersed and not really worthwhile for him to pay attention to them. Simon made some weilding and dealing to consolidate lands and eventually his marriage was his big gain. See the book Simon de Montfort that is listed at the end of the article for more details. FubarDac 16:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Amaury gave up his rights to the English lands due to his leige lord being the King of France. After the death of Richard the Lionheart and King John, the Angevine empire began crumbling and the property owners on both sides of the channel began choosing whether they wanted to focus their holdings in England or in France. As Simon was the youngest surviving son, he and his brother came to an agreement and Simon focused on reclaiming the English lands that were held by their father.
- Amaury was killed during one of the crusades. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raine13 (talk • contribs)
[edit] "Falls the Shadow" by Sharon Penman
<advertising here removed>
[edit] War with the King
Big chunk deleted here -was that intended?
[edit] Amaury's Claim - an opinion.
The law at the time gave all of the father's titles and lands to the eldest son, in this case to Amaury. He was well set up in france. Pursuing a rather tenuous claim to an English Earldom (having a claim was a requirement for the earldom, not necessarily a right)would have been a waste of time to him as he could not swear fealty to the kings of both England and France.
Simon would have offered his holdings in France in exchange for the elder sons claim to the English earldom. That would have made sense to Amaury as he was trading something he had no practical use for in return for something tangible.
For Simon, that was the easy bit. The hard work was still to follow. The earldom of Leicester had been given to another english Baron,(I believe it was the earl of Pembroke ?) who had several titles, the earldom of Leicester being a relatively insignificant one to him. Simon had to pursuade him to reliquish the title (probably in return for a large sum of money)leaving the claim vacant, and himself as a genuine contender. He then had to pursuade the king of England that his claim was the strongest and get the king to endow the title and its priveleges upon him. (More money involved)
Simon got what he wanted, he was a land holding earl in the English court. This was a huge achievement for someone who was not an eldest son. But the financial dealings inolved indebted him heavily and this dogged him for the rest of his life. A lot of his problems throughout his life were money related.
This is an educated opinion, it was long ago that I read Simon de Montforts biography but I think this sums it up pretty well.
[edit] Repitition
I have edited out a repition in the text in the section "War against the king", but (for some reason) was unable to login. If this was done in error, apologies. jim jacobs
[edit] Inbetween time
The article makes it sound as if he went immediatley from marrying the king's sister, to being hated by the King. If I am remembering correctly wasn't there a 6 year period or there abouts where he was governing in Gascony? And isn't that where a lot of his conflicts with the king came from? Can this be fixed by someone who has a source handy? FubarDac 16:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- De Montfort's marriage to Eleanor in 1238 provokes of course Henry III's anger and it was the beginning of the conflicts between them, but the essential cause for their animosity was Simon's service as royal lieutenant in Gascony (1248-1255)where he he ruled with cruelty. What is more, his activities there demanded extra money which were pumped from Henry's treasury. As a result, Henry had to spend excessive amounts of money for Simon de Montfort in Gascony and at the same time he was received complaints and grievances of his lieutenant's arbitrary methods. Ourania 16:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)RaniaOurania 16:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
- Simon was one of the greatest soldiers of his time. Henry III retained Simon as his representative in Gascony to quash the outlaws and rebellions that were taking place. Simon did as requested and a battle commander he was - a politician he may not have been. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raine13 (talk • contribs)
[edit] Wrong my friends, very very wrong
There is an error in the 'Battle of Evesham'. Simon's forces most certainly did not kill "three for every one of theirs". In fact, Robert of Gloucester called it "murder of Evesham for battle it was none". If you don't believe me, look up page 111 of Battle, by R.G. Grant. The Battle was a massacre for Simon's forces, which were not only outnumbered 3 : 1 but also forced to charge uphill. Tourskin.
- So be bold and update the article, preferably citing your source Modest Genius talk 17:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Vow of chasity?
"Eleanor had previously been married to William Marshal, 2nd Earl of Pembroke, and she had sworn a vow of chastity on his death, when she was aged sixteen, which she broke by marrying de Montfort." Sex within a marriage is a form of chastity. Did she take a vow of celebacy or chastity? This needs to be cleared up? - 71.248.14.67 16:14, 24 March 2007 (UTC)CourtDog
- Eleanor took a vow of chastity after the death of her first husband. One of her ladies in waiting (older and widowed) compelled Eleanor at her young age to view at as a pious decision. Upon meeting Simon later, Eleanor realized she wanted a husband and children and Simon was willing to do whatever was necessary to sway the King and Pope to relieving her of the vow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raine13 (talk • contribs)
A book I read back in high school, do not remember the name, called it the Vow of Perpetual Widowhood, supposedly in her heartbreak at the death of her husband. Does any one know if there is such a thing?
[edit] No elected parliament in ancient Athens
Athenian democracy was direct, and any institutions were chosen by lot, not election. I will correct the introduction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Causantin (talk • contribs) 09:52, 24 May 2007
- Hmm, true, though I can't think of a better way of phrasing it... Modest Genius talk 23:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Forty-shilling Freeholders: 1265 or 1430?
The article "De Monfort's Parliament" claims franchise was limited to forty-shilling freeholders only in 1430. On the other hand, the article "Simon de Montfort, 6th Earl of Leicester" mentions the 40 shillings already for de Monfort's parliament. Who is right?
Top.Squark 11:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] The Welsh marcher lords and the alliance with Llywelyn ap Gruffydd
The article "Simon de Montfort, 6th Earl of Leicester" claims Simon lost the support of the Welsh marcher lords due to his alliance with Llywelyn ap Gruffydd: "The reaction against his government was baronial rather than popular; and the Welsh Marcher Lords particularly resented Montfort's alliance with Llywelyn ap Gruffydd, Prince of Wales. Little consideration for English interests is shown in the Treaty of Pipton which sealed that alliance on June 22, 1265."
On the other hand, the article "Battle of Evesham" claims the alliance was forged after the marcher lords switch side: "With the lords of the Welsh Marches now in rebellion, Montfort solicited the aid of Llywelyn ap Gruffyd, the Prince of Wales".
Who is right?
Top.Squark 17:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Regency of France?
The article claims that "The nobles of France offered him [de Montfort] the regency of the kingdom, vacant by the death of the Queen-mother Blanche of Castile, but he preferred to make his peace with Henry which he did in 1253..." However, according the article "Louis IX of France", Louis was born in 1215 hence in 1252 (the year Blanche of Castile died) he was 37, quite capable of ruling by himself. Moreover, the later article asserts that "His contemporaries viewed his reign as co-rule between the king and his mother, though historians generally view the year 1234 as the year in which Louis ruled as king with his mother assuming a more advisory role", that is, Louis became the de facto ruler 18 years before the supposed proposal to de Montfort. Maybe it was a different position, not that of a regent, which was offered? Or maybe France needed a regent because Louis IX was off on a crusade?
Top.Squark 17:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Louis was on crusade from 1248 to 1254. He initially turned the regency over to his mother, but she died in 1252, at which point, apparently, Louis' brothers took over. john k 18:23, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Simon de Montfort the younger's (fictitious?) nickname
I'm a great fan of Sharon Kay Penman's works, but I believe it was she who coined the name "Bran" for Simon de Montfort's second son, to avoid confusion between characters in her novels; therefore I doubt it's appropriate to refer Simon de Montfort the younger as "Bran" in this article. 76.24.28.94 23:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Death
This article seems to be romanticising de Montforts death almost glorifying it, and isn't written from a neutral viewpoint. I removed "Brave" from charge as this is wording more in line of an epic poem not a historical article. I also remember reading somewhere that Roger de'Mortimer killed Simon and sent his head back to his wife as a gift. Can anyone tell me if this is true?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.138.66 (talk) 02:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Roger Godberd and Robin Hood
It probably should be mentioned that one of Simon's supporters was Roger Godberd, who survived Evesham and became a famous outlaw in Sherwood forest and thereabouts. He may well have been the "original" Robin Hood in the sense of being the model for the Robin Hood of the earliest known ballads.....(actually it is sort of obvious that he is, once it is accepted that the ballads are literature not history) I'll start an article on him when I can. Jeremy (talk) 02:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I did in fact add a bit about Godberd and the following was then added anonymously: Thomas Costain 's History of Plantagnets in volume II cites that the Legate of Pope who was arbitrating between Simon and Henry III had taken immense dislike for Simon especially as 123 English Church leaders and 7 main English Bishops supported this upstart in the legate's eyes. That legate became Pope in 1265 and prevented attempts to canonize Simon de Montford. Edward I was all for it according to Thomas Costain's histories. This history also mentions that Fulk Fitzwarrenne IV (Fulk Fitzwarrenne the II was the inspiration for Robin hood legend) died fighting in these battles and Richard Montford (5th son) or Henry Montford (eldest son) might have had a child outside marriage with a lady associated with Fitzwarrenne family and that child was the probable Robin Hood in Edward II 's reign. Historian did note that after legends become famous, suddenly connexions are found for them. There may be some stuff of value in this, but I think it needs to be kissed into shape a bit; tone, citations. My reference to the Godberd theory obviously was a red rag to a partisan of the Fulk theory...I tend to think that the Godberd theory is the only one relevant to an article on de Montfort.(Ie the Fulk theory even if true is not very relevant) Jeremy (talk) 05:18, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
- Perhaps it would be best to simply state something like 'one of his supporters was Godberd who may have been connected to the Robin Hood legend' and leave it at a link to the discussion there? Modest Genius talk 17:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Modern view in Leicester
How is de Montfort viewed these days in Leicester? As I recall it they are less enthusiastic now, associating him with... I can't remember, was it anti-jewish behaviour? Anyone?
IceDragon64 (talk) 21:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Coat of arms
User:CJ DUB added an image of de Montfort's coat of arms, however this appears to contradict the set shown on Montfort-l'Amaury. Both appear to have been created for the relevant wikiproject on the French wikipedia. The latter of the two is more recent and also looks better, so I've changed to this image. Does anyone object? It would be nice to get an actual source for this, especially since de Montfort was a younger son and renounced his French lands (does this affect his entitlement to the arms?) Modest Genius talk 22:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
