Talk:Hugh Bigod, 1st Earl of Norfolk

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 WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by WikiProject Peerage.

Contents

[edit] Hugh Bigod's Sons

It appears that there is a lot misleading content released in the internet concerning the mother of Hugh Bigod's successor - Roger Bigod. He married his two wives only a few years apart. I am concluding his successor was born out of his first marriage due to:

  • Most sources, including genealogy information sites point to this conclusion.
  • It makes sense that he would name his first born 'Roger' after his father - Roger Bigod, as it was customary at the time. Thus Roger Bigod was born out of his marriage to his first wife - Juliane de Vere (c.1129 - 1199).

--Eestevez 17:45, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There is no question that Juliana was the mother of Roger Bigod, second earl of Norfolk. He names his parents in a charter (Bodl. Lib. Tanner MS. 425, fo. 44v: "pro salute...animabus comitis Hugonis patris mei et comitisse Juliane matris mee"; also BM Cott. Ms. Vesp. E14, fo. 44-44v; PRO Anc. Deed A14361).Dearagon 03:58, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] During the Reign of King Stephen

Some stories mention a certain visit of Hugh Bigod to the Archbishop in London as the cause for the success of Stephen of Blois over Empress Maud, where he made an oath that the dying king Henry I had left the throne to Stephen of Blois over a quarrel with his daughter. Although I have not found more than one source for such a story, the known quarrel between Stephen and Empress Maud going on for some time before the death of Henry I of England could make this story irrelevant, but it may have been the catalyst for the conflict.
--Eestevez 22:52, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The relationship of Stephen of Blois and Empress Matilda was complicated. They were first cousins and Stephen had taken two oaths to support her claim to the English throne when her father King Henry I should die. As Matilda and her husband Geoffrey of Anjou were engaged in a quarrel with the king when he died in 1135, they were not with the king. Stephen learned of his uncle's death and immediately sailed for England where, aided by his brother Henry, bishop of Winchester, he seized the treasury. Later, Hugh Bigod's testimony (if that story is true) may have swayed some to support Stephen as king. It certainly didn't start the quarrel between Stephen and Matilda.DeAragon 04:03, 27 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dearagon (talk • contribs)

[edit] Year of death

I do not understand the reasoning in the Final days section. Wasn't March the last month of the year at this time? Did it really take more than eleven months to travel from Palestine to England? I think that the Julian calendar was in use at this time and the distance between England and Palestine is less than 2500 miles so the journey is unlikely to take more than 250 days. On this basis, Bigod's family could hear of his death in 1177 and act on it by early March. Could someone please clarify this? --Theo (Talk) 11:16, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

March (or some portion of it) was the first month of the Julian calendar -- March 25 was New Year's Day in the Renaissance and later, but I don't know if that exact date pertained in the 12th century. And I believe three to six months' travel time for a small, armed party between Palestine and England would be about right at this period, depending on the season, and even allowing for travel by ship from the Levant to (say) Marseilles. --Michael K. Smith 17:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

In 1177 the year started on 25 March, a convention introduced c 525. It seems to me that the analysis in ==Final days== is mistaken. —Theo (Talk) 01:48, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

The Handbook of Dates for Students of English History (Royal Historical Soc. Guides & Handbooks #4) says that Anglo-Saxon and Norman kings of England followed the proposal of the Venerable Bede and dated the new year from Christmas day, Dec. 25th. "Benedictine writers, with characteristic conservatism, still employed it after it had been abandoned in most quarters of Plantagenet England." (p. 4) March 25, Lady Day (feast of the Annunciation) was not considered the beginning of the new year in England nor, apparently, northern French regions. (p.5)Dearagon 02:29, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Derivation of name

Hence the words bigot and bigotry.
I deleted this sentence as folk etymology. The OED says the probable origin of the word "bigot" is Old French and derives from "goth"; it was a sneering term used by the French concerning the Normans. The family apparently adopted it as a "Yankee-Doodle-fication." --Michael K. Smith 17:26, 18 August 2005 (UTC)