Talk:Abbot of Glastonbury

Should this linked be linked to List of Bishops of Bath and Wells and precursor offices which already includes Diocese of Bath & Glastonbury - or would it be better to add this data to that list?— Rod ^talk 09:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Is the "Jocelyn of Wells" listed the same as Jocelin of Wells ?— Rod ^talk 20:09, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, see below. Ealdgyth | Talk 20:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge

Jocelin of Wells tried to take over Glastonbury, but he was unsucessful. The only time the two offices of Bishop of Bath and Abbot of Glastonbury overlapped was during his time in office. To quote The Heads of Religious Houses: England & Wales II 1216-1377 under Abbots of Glastonbury about Jocelin:

Jocelin of Wells 1213-1219. Bp [Bishop] of Bath 1206-1242, took the title of Bath and Glastonbury in 1213 and abandoned it in 1219; the royal chancery conceded it to him in Nov. 1214; the papacy never [...] but in 1218-1219 a compromise was reached [...] and William of St. Vigor was el. [elected] abb.[abbot].

That's from page 46.

For that matter, Henry of Blois held Glastonbury alongside being Bishop of Winchester for a long stretch in the 12th century. In neither case are the two offices considered to have merged. The lists need to be separate. Ealdgyth | Talk 20:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

? correct links

Can someone confirm the following from the list are the same as the articles linked to, as names & dates have differences:

• St Benignus 472 & Benignus of Armagh
  • Probably not. Benignus of Armagh was an irish chieftan
• Ealdberht 709-719 & Aldberht
  • No, dates are all wrong (Aldberht is about 777ish and died in the 780's)
• Ecgfrith 718 & Ecgfrith of Mercia
  • No. Ecgfrith of Mercia is a royal prince and died in 796
• Wealhstod 729 & Walchstod
  • Almost assuredly not. No secondary source I have links the two. PASE entry for Walchstod doesn't list him as a monk, much less an abbot
• Tunberht 737 & Tunbriht
  • No. Tunbriht died in around 850.
• Ælfric & any of those listed at Ælfric
  • No, and the current scholarship is that the AELfric that appears in the abbot list is a later insertion, and the current article says that he's probably spurious.
• Ælfweard 975 & Elfward
  • No. Heads of Religious Houses doesn't link the two, and that's pretty much the definitive listing of abbots.
• Brihtred (Beorhtred) from 1009 & Bertwald of Ramsbury
  • Heads doesn't link them, and PASE entry doesn't either.
• Æthelweard (Aegelweard) 1024–1053 & Elfward
  • No, Elfward died in 1044.
• Æthelnoth 1053 & Aethelnoth
  • Two different people. St. Aethelnoth of Canterbury died in 1038. The abbot was deposed in 1078, and died sometime after that.
• Thurstan 1077 & Thurstan
  • No. Just .. no. Thurstan archbishop of York died in 1140. The abbot Thurstan was a different person entirely (He'll get his own article at some point, he was quite the scandal and caused a ruckus at Glastonbury when he was forced into the house as abbot)
• Herluin 1100 & Herluin de Conteville or one of his sons
  • No. Herluin de Conteville was William the Conqueror's stepfather, not a monk. His two sons are Odo of Bayeux and Robert, Count of Mortain. Neither became abbot at Glastonbury.
• Robert of Bath 1223 & Robert of Bath
  • Robert of Bath the bishop died in 1166. The abbot died in 1235.

If they are can we link to their existing articles from this list & possibly add a bit about their connections to Glastonbury in their articles?— Rod ^talk 15:01, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

When I filled in the abbot list from 940 to 1377 I double checked for existant articles, and linked to any that existed. Some of these abbots will get articles at some point (Thurstan, Herluin, AEthelnoth, maybe a few others) but I've got a lot on my plate and didn't feel like just creating redlinks for articles that are probably a year off. Thanks for double checking though! Ealdgyth - Talk 15:40, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for checking all of those - but please tell me I was right to link Richard Whiting (the Blessed Richard Whiting)— Rod ^talk 16:07, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, you were correct (grins) I figured the big phrase at the top of Richard Whiting's article "Last abbot of Glastonbury" kinda clinched it... Ealdgyth - Talk 16:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

"List" in title

I changed the title of this article to "List of Abbots of Glastonbury" as set out at Wikipedia:Lists_(stand-alone_lists)#Naming_conventions. I feel it is clearly a list and the title should reflect this per the naming guidelines, however Deacon of Pndapetzim disagrees. As a result of discussions on talk page, I'd like to establish the consensus of other editors before further changes.— Rod ^talk 14:11, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

copied from User talk:Deacon of Pndapetzim

That guideline page wouldn't reflect the reality of wikipedia practice if that's what it recommended, and would have no authority. But Abbot of Glastonbury is the natural title, the one that would be excepted from the list. Unlike, say, "Scottish inventors" or "Men in space", there are no resultant problems of ambiguity from using such a title. The article should go back to Abbot of Glastonbury. It is more intuitive, can be searched more easily, can be linked more easily, and is indeed the article's primary title, which is not ambiguous. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 13:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I don't understand why it wouldn't reflect practice or have authority. It is clearly a list & several other articles I've worked on have been changed to reflect the list nature in the title. A similar example would be List of Bishops of Bath and Wells and precursor offices. I certainly don't find it more intuitive - if was about the role/functions of the abbot then I could go with that. I'll start a discussion on the talk page & perhaps we could continue this discussion there.— Rod ^talk 14:10, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Just check the cats for this very page. As this isn't full, check others like Category:English_abbots or Category:Scottish_abbots. The English bishop-lists are abnormal. In a way, that's ok, because the title itself still exists and other details are primary. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll repeat what I wrote at Deacon's page, I slightly prefer the plain title, as it allows expansion about the role of the abbot, etc. As for the English bishops' lists, I'd prefer them at "Bishop of ..." but since I have enough on my plate, I've not been bothered to move them. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think many prefer typing say List of bishops of Lincoln and precursor offices to Bishop of Lincoln. The English Bishop of ... articles are usually pretty useless, duplicating content from [or that could be from] Diocese of ; I'd think the vast majority of people would be interested in the list, not the info on those pages. The current system for English bishops means they have to click several times, assuming they can find the list page. :) Stuff about the role of bishop, and certainly about abbots, can easily and more usefully be fitted on the same page as the list. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

In my ignorance I can't see why Abbots (& possibly Bishops) should be different to all the thousands of lists of wp? If there is a reasons for them to be different perhaps it should be added as an exemption to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (long lists) where there is a clear guide ""List of foos" is preferred, sometimes with a redirect to it from "Foos" if that main article does not exist." Obviously I'll go with the consensus view but it reduces consistency in cats such as Category:List-Class Somerset articles & local people might be as interested in local history as those who specialise in early clerics.— Rod ^talk 14:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, the pages are not necessarily merely lists. Like the guideline page says, Dodge Chargers are at Dodge Charger, not List of cars named Dodge Charger. Likewise, almost all [pages containing] lists of earls, dukes, and indeed abbots, are in this form. Remember too, articl traffic depends on ability to link and so on; a page like Abbot of Glastonbury naturally links (e.g. "it was at that time that John, Abbot of Glastonbury, visited the king"). If apparent guidelines make it harder for editors and readers (like I said, I don't think the guidelines actually ever have recommended List of for abbots and bishops), then we make wikipedia a better encylopedia by altering them. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:54, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I took a quick look at WP:FL and I can't see any examples where "list of" is excluded (except discophraphies which seem to imply list of) and the nearest one I could see to this article related to the Archbishop of Canterbury where we get List of Archbishops of Canterbury. Can you suggest other lists in a similar vein to this article which have got to FL without "List of" in the title? Are you suggesting there should be two articles: one describing what the office holder does, & another with the list of names?— Rod ^talk 16:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what abbot articles are FLs and what aren't. Would depend if on the propensity of a creator to nom them, rather than anything else. And yeah, I'd personally prefer the stuff about the title in the same article as the list. The history stuff should be either in the diocese article (bishops) or the monastic house article (abbots and priors), and without that there's very little content of distinct merit that needs to go in the list/title article.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Saint Gildas

According to Clay, Rotha Mary., (1914). "The Hermits and Anchorites of England" (PDF). Methuen & Co. London. p. 9. Retrieved 23 January 2010.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Gildas left Steep Holm to become Abbot of Glastonbury. Should this be included in the list?— Rod ^talk 19:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography article on Gildas (fee required but I can email it to you if you'd like) from 2004 says "Gildas reappeared in British literature early in the twelfth century, in the work of William of Malmesbury and in Geoffrey of Monmouth's influential, if legendary, elaboration of the Arthurian story. Roughly contemporaneously with the latter, and probably in the same context, a second, entirely fictional, life was written by Caradog of Llancarfan or one of his school, designed solely to associate Gildas with Glastonbury Abbey." which would seem to say, no, he was not abbot of Glastonbury. The source you're citing is over 100 years old and would be considered out of date by most historians. Neither does the entry for Gildas in Walsh, Michael A New Dictionary of Saints, East and West London: Burns & Oates 2007 p. 237 mention anything at all about Glastonbury. Nor is any conncection with Glastonbury mentioned in the entry on Gildas by Michael Lapidge in The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Anglo-Saxon England ed. Michael Lapidge, et al. London: Blackwell, 1999 p. 204. It's worth noting that the entry on Glastonbury Abbey in the Blackwell Encyclopaedia (pp. 206-207) state that excavations at the abbey's site haven't turned up anything firmly datable before the 8th century, and that historical traditions state that Ine built a minster at Glastonbury in the late 7th or early 8th century, both of which long postdate the time of Gildas, who is 6th century. Note also that the Victoria County History of Somerset from 1911 doesn't mention Gildas either, although it does (rather credulously, I think) believe that Arthur was buried in the abbey. Nothing surely historical ties Gildas to Glastonbury, and it's not even sure he was a monk. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:19, 23 January 2010 (UTC)