Talk:Osbert fitzHervey/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) 16:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Lead

• The lead seems a little on the short side to me. That he was a member of a group who were the first stirrings of a professional judiciary seems important enough to include, for instance.
  • Added. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• "... Osbert served three kings of England as a judge". As we've just been told that he was a royal judge, do we really need to repeat "judge" again in this sentence?
  • Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Background and early life

• "The eldest brother, Theobald Walter and Hubert ...". This reads a little odly to me, starting a sit does with the singular "The eldest brother" and then listing two brothers. Probably "Hubert and the eldest brother, Theobald Walter ..." would be better, but I'm a little cautious about stating so definitively that Theobald was the eldest brother when there seems to be substantial doubt on the matter.
  • Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Career

• "Osbert's royal service was confined to judicial matters, as no other evidence of any other offices has surfaced." That doesn't quite follow. Might it be better to say something like "It appears that Osbert's royal service ..."?
  • Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• " In 1194 Osbert was one of the collectors of the carucage in the eastern section of England ...". I'm not at all fond of that "section. Could we not just say "in the east of England", or was England at the time officially divided into sections?
  • Fixed. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Later life and death

• "After his death, William of Huntingfield offered King John a fine for the right to the custody of Osbert's heir and lands, the fine amounting to 200 marks and two palfreys." This would be better written as "... offered King John a fine of 200 marks and two palfreys for ...". I'd change it myself, but I'm uncertain what's covered by the two sources used to cite this sentence. Did King John accept?
  • Can't separate the two ... the bits are from two different sources. First part source says "William offered a fine for the custody of Osbert's heir" and the second source says "Custody of Osbert's heir was given for a fine of 200 marks and 2 palfreys." The first doesn't mention the amount and the second doesn't give the name of who offered. Fun! Ealdgyth - Talk 20:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
• "Osbert paid the king 20 pounds for the right to marry Margaret." Why did he have to pay the king anything?
  • The king had the right to approve your marriage - and this usually took the form of requiring a payment. The Angevins were notoriously greedy about setting the amount of the fine that was owing for marriages - in fact it was one of the things regulated in Magna Carta - how much the king could demand. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:51, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

• Can you just clarify for me what this means: "Osbert held some of his lands of the Count of Perche." Malleus Fatuorum 21:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
  • The Count of Perche was his overlord - or feudal lord - for those lands (no, I'm not sure what exact lands they were...source doesn't say). Ealdgyth - Talk 21:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

    It's the "his lands of the Count of Perche" I can't quite parse. But it's a small thing, so if you say that's the normal way to express the relationship that's fine by me. Malleus Fatuorum 21:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

    Yes, it is. We could use "from" too, if that works better for you. Historian shorthand can be a bit odd at times. I suspect I used "of" instead of "from" in order to reword it from the source material - nope, just checked, the source uses "of" instead of "from" so if you'd rather see "from" that's fine. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

    I've made a little tweak, but if you don't like it for whatever reason then just revert it. Either way, I think we can close this now. Malleus Fatuorum 22:27, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.