User:Eebahgum/Vortex 3

The following article by User:Eebahgum was reverted in entirety on 12 December 2017 (diff), resulting in the exchanges in Article Page Talk which are reproduced below.

Hamo de Crevecoeur

Hamo de Crevecoeur (also de Crevequer, de Creuker; de Crepito Corde in Latin) (died 1263) was an Anglo-Norman nobleman of Kent who held the office of Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports. He bore for arms "Or, a cross voided gules".

Origins

Hamo de Crevecoeur, Lord of the Barony of Chatham, Kent, with its appurtenant capital manors of Leeds, and of Bockingford, Farleigh and Teston (near Maidstone), Kent, and (by his marriage to Matilda (Maud) de Averenches, Lady of Folkestone) progenitor of the heirs to the Kentish Barony of Averenches, died in 1263. He was the father of a younger Hamo ("junior"), who died shortly before his father, and was less notable. They were descended from Robert de Crevecoeur who founded Leeds Priory in Kent in 1119, and it is in the continuing patronage of that family towards the Priory in successive charters, reviewed in confirmations by Edward I in 1285 and Edward III in 1367, that their descent is shown.

The recurrence of the name Hamo commemorated their forebears Hamon Dentatus and his son Hamo Dapifer, who was steward to both William I and William Rufus, and a Justiciar and Sheriff of Kent. The name Crevecoeur is said to derive from the latter's title Sire de Cregrave-Vecœur. Crevecoeur power was originally centred upon the manor of Chatham, beside Rochester, held from the king in capite, by barony, but the seat was removed to Leeds in Kent, where Leeds Castle became the principal residence. The manor of Leeds was also held in capite, but pertained to the Barony of Chatham. Robert the founder of Leeds Priory was not Hamo's distinguished son Robert fitz Hamon, founder of Tewkesbury Abbey, since fitzHamon died in 1107 leaving only one son. FitzHamon had a brother Hamo who inherited his father's lands in England, and J.R. Planché thought him likely to be the father of Robert of Leeds.

Robert de Crevecoeur founded Leeds Priory with his son Adam. He also had a daughter Gunnora, and (by his wife Rohais) sons Elias and Daniel. Elias was lord of the manor of Sarre, in Thanet. The patronage of Leeds Priory continued notably in the family of Daniel (died 1177), created Lord and Baron of Leeds by Henry II, in Daniel and Isabella's son Robert, and in Robert's son Hamo, the subject of this article. Grants were made out of the estates of Chatham. The manor of Leeds and Leeds Castle descended in this branch of the family. Étard de Crevecoeur, active at the end of the 12th century, also had a son named Hamo (known as "Hamo de Blean" or "Hamo filius Etardi") who made grants to the Eastbridge Hospital of St Thomas the Martyr, Canterbury.

Early career

Rochester Castle from the Medway Following the signing of Magna Carta at Runnymede in 1215, the barons of Kent held Rochester Castle against King John. The king laid siege to them, and eventually about 100 knights, among them William d'Aubigny, William de Averenches, Reginald de Cornhill (the High Sheriff of Kent), Robert de Auberville, Thomas de Moletun and Osbert Giffard, were captured and taken prisoner. A truce or Treuga was formed.

Robert de Crevecoeur and his son Hamo were implicated by fiefdom, if not among the rebels, for on 26 October 1215 King John wrote to the Sheriff of Kent that all the lands which belonged to the barons who had opposed him, within the fee of Robert de Crevecoeur, were now granted to Goldewin de Doe. In March and April 1216 a similar mandate was sent to the Sheriffs of Leicestershire, Kent, Essex and Bedford, and to the bailiffs of the Honour of Hastings, that the lands and fees of all the king's enemies who held from Robert de Crevecoeur were granted fully to Goldewin. A manor at Quendon in Essex was assigned to Robert.

Following the death of King John, Hamo returned to his loyal service to the king, and on 23 June 1217 the young King Henry gave instructions to Hubert de Burgh, his regent and Chief Justiciar, to restore to Hamo what was his and to release his men who had been captured. Hubert issued notices to the sheriffs on 15 September. Not until November 1218 was the payment of 50 marks by Robert de Bray for the redemption of Robert de Crevecoeur recorded, together with a sum for Croxton Abbey where King John's heart was buried, and a reckoning of dues from Goldewin. Robert apparently remained in Essex, for the King sent him gifts of dry oaks from the woods at Writtle for firewood in 1222 and 1224.

Coming into his estate Hamo made his first marriage (his wife's name not certainly known). The age of his sons given in his inquisition post mortem in 1263 suggest that the eldest was Hamo junior (born probably before 1220), the second Matthew ("40") and Robert ("30"). Meanwhile in April 1223 he was granted letters of protection until November of that year for a journey abroad to "Sanctus Jacobus". The age of Robert may be conservative, since there is evidence to suggest that Hamo had remarried before 1233. In April 1230 the King allowed to Hamo that his market at Brenchley formerly held each Sunday in the churchyard should in future be held on Wednesdays on his own land, and granted him a perpetual three-day feast on the eve, day and morrow of All Saints (November 1st). In June 1233 it was readjusted to Saturday.

Marriage to Matilda d'Averenches

Simon d'Averenches held the Barony of Folkestone in or before 1190, and was dead by 1203 leaving a widow Cecilia. Their son William succeeded, was granted a fair at Folkestone in 1214, and in the following year was prominent among the barons besieged by King John in Rochester Castle. Cecily sold her manor of Sutton by Seaford to Robertsbridge Abbey to ransom William from the king's prison, but his daughter Matilda was retained as a hostage until 1221. Having claimed the manor of Averenches against Hugh Bigod, 3rd Earl of Norfolk, in 1224, he was Constable of Dover Castle and (with Turgisius) held authority of the Cinque Ports in 1225-26. His estates were much enlarged by marriage to Maud, daughter and co-heir of William de Bucland and Maud de Say (sister and heiress of Hawise, wife of John de Bovill). At his death William left a young son William, whose wardship and marriage was purchased by Hubert de Burgh (for 500 marks) in 1230, and again by William Briwere, Bishop of Exeter (for 2000 marks) in 1233. William d'Averenches the younger married but died without issue in 1236, whereupon his sister Matilda (Maud) d'Averenches became heir to the entire Barony of Folkestone.

Hamo de Crevecoeur married secondly Matilda d'Averenches, by whom he had four daughters, Agnes, Ysolda, Eleanor and Isabella, all of whom married, and three of whom survived him. The second, Ysolda (who married Nicholas de Lenham), had a son John who was aged 14 in 1263, which places her own birth and that of her elder sister Agnes (and the date of Hamo's second marriage) before the death of William d'Averenches in 1236. The marriage may have been so early as 1229. This diplomatic union brought together the baronies of Crevecoeur and Averenches, as they are described in the list of knights' fees prepared for the King's expedition of 1242 and in other materials collected under the name of the Testa de Nevill. In February 1235/6 the king sent notice to the sheriffs of Sussex, Kent, Berkshire, Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire, that despite William d'Averenches's death in the bishop's custody, Hamo was not to take the goods and crops from those lands, also held in wardship, and must make good any such trespass.

Military affairs

Bristol 1233

The Honour of Gloucester, which included Bristol Castle, had descended to Richard de Clare from the right of Robert fitz Hamon. Late in 1233 the king wrote to Ralph Neville from Hereford that he had sent Hamo de Crevecoeur and Rannulf de Hurle to him at Bristol to supervise the ships and galleys which he had commanded to be furnished there, and that they were to be obeyed. Funds were sent to Ralph de Bray and Ralph Alis, Constable of Bristol Castle, for the maintenance of the masters and mariners manning and arming the ships, and two or three of Nevill's men, with Eymeric de Sacy, were assigned to accompany Crevecoeur and Hurle in royal service in this matter. In December a thousand crossbow quarrels were ordered from St Briavels Castle for Bristol Castle, and a thousand for Hamo and Rannulf. Robert Selyman, whom they seized as an enemy of the king, gave surety and was ordered to be freed.

In December, with all shipping in that region under lockdown, special orders came to Hamo for the king's wines to be carried from Bristol via Gloucester to Newnham on Severn, and to permit grain to be brought from Bridgwater, on the river Parrett, to the Hospital at Bristol. But he was to permit no-one but his own men to navigate beyond the river Severn. All were to be assisting when Henry de Trubleville made his sea-journey on the king's business, and the Justiciar of Ireland (Maurice FitzGerald), all bailiffs and the citizens of Dublin to assist and prepare their new galley for Henry. Hamo was to restore the men and goods of Peter de Rivallis, which the men of Bristol had captured, and to release the goods of John the cellarer from the ship of the abbot of Morgan (?Margam Abbey) but to retain the rest.

Keeper of the coast 1235-1236

A year later, in February 1235, Hamo and Walerand Teutonicus were appointed to the Wardenship of the Cinque Ports, and on the following day the king extended this to include all the adjacent coast and the coasts of Essex, Suffolk and Norfolk. Soon the barons of the Cinque Ports were ordered to restore to the ship- or cargo-owners of Barbefle in Brittany the ships and their contents which had been seized off the Brittany coast by Hamo de Crevecoeur, John his brother, and others including the Alard family of Winchelsea. The men had been violently ejected from their ships, their letters of safe conduct snatched out of their hands, and their cargoes of wine, goods and merchandize appropriated. One, Ralph de Mesnyl, was the representative of the Provost of Barbefle, and had been forced to write a letter offering them 40 livres tournois to release his master's ship and goods. The king sent strict instructions that everything, including this letter and the letters of safe conduct, were to be restored, and no more harm was to be done to them. Very soon afterwards the Cinque Port barons received licence to recover damages from the men of the Count of Brittany for cargo taken from Geoffrey of Glamorgan. In May 1236 custody of the Cinque Ports was transferred to Bertram de Criol during the king's pleasure.

Domestic affairs

In February 1235 de Crevecoeur purchased for a fine of 600 marks the wardship of the lands and heirs of Thomas de Camville, who had held in chief from the king, allowing reasonable dower to the widow. Payment of the fine was however deferred. In the following year (which was the year of the king's marriage to Eleanor of Provence, and of her coronation), it was necessary for the king to remind him that it had not been his intention that the dower of Agnes de Camville, the widow, should be in any way diminished, and that he must ensure that her lands and tenements were not lacking therein. This may corroborate the statement that de Camville's son had married a daughter of Hamo's first marriage.

On 11 January 1235/6 the king received homage of Hamo for the lands of William de Averenches, deceased, which now descended to Matilda by hereditary right, and took £100 as security, whereby Hamo obtained seisin of the lands and estates in Kent, Berkshire, Bedfordshire and Herefordshire. Soon afterwards Henry sent to him Thomas Buschard with the king's goshawk, requiring Hamo to assist him in finding a replacement, for which he should receive his special thanks.

Poitou (1242) and Scotland (1244)

In early July 1242 Hamo acted as a royal emissary. Henry, who was at Saintes, sent Letters of credence to all ship-masters and mariners of England, that Hamo was to speak with them on urgent business of the king. This was at the height of the Saintonge War in the prelude to the Battle of Taillebourg, and no doubt gave order for their action in the event of victory or defeat.

In May 1244 he was again appointed to the Keeping of the Coast, with Reginald de Berneval. The king's galley, which was in the safekeeping of the barons of the port of Romney, was delivered to them, and the Constable of the Tower of London (Peter de Rivallis) was instructed to release to them five coats of body armour (loricae), five helmets (capella ferrea) and two thousand quarells to go about their purpose. At the same time he sent them two vessels of wine as a gift. The five were granted special protection, and exemption from lawsuits, in May 1244, going on the King's service for the defence of the sea with his knights, serjeants, and mariners, £200 being provided for all to have livery. A similar order of protection extended to 20 knights, including Walerand Teutonicus, going into Scotland and Wales. In November, Hamo having returned from his expedition for the king's war in Scotland after peace was made at the Treaty of Newcastle, was to deliver four of the helmets to the new Constable at the Tower.

The third marriage

Matilda was still living in 1249, when she and Hamo failed to perform a warranty which they had undertaken concerning a land transaction at Brandeston in Suffolk. His wife "Matillida" is reported to be dead in March 1252 when Hamo protested to the king that, notwithstanding the fact that he had a son by her who was still living and married, the Escheator of Kent, Aufred de Dene, had taken all the lands and tenements of her inheritance in Kent into the King's hands, and refused to grant them to Hamo (the complainant), as if his son had not been born of the said wife. This being unjust and against the law of the kingdom (the roll records), the abbot of Pershore should, if it be true, restore full seisin to Hamo. (Colin Flight refers to this son as "Willelm".) An agreement recorded on 10 May 1263 by Robert de Crevecoeur (son of Hamo junior), then aged 24, shows, moreover, that Hamo his grandfather had a third wife, who survived him, and was named Alicia. The Extents and partition of estates of Maud d'Averenches of 1271 were made long after her death.

De Crevecoeur was frequently in debt to the king, who indulgently permitted deferral of payments owing. In 1244-45 goods or livestock were seized on two occasions, and ordered to be restored to him: he was to compound at £50 a year for £200 of the £358 owing, the remainder to be paid at the King's pleasure. Despite further deferral (in which he is called "beloved and faithful"), in April 1249 he owed the king £360 for which he was permitted to compound at 50 marks per annum. The king allocated £20 to Hamo at Easter 1252, and in July 1253 it is noted that he is to render £20 per annum at the Exchequer until all his debts to the king, including those attermined at £40 per annum, are paid. In August 1252 he appeared at Woodstock Palace seeking replevin of land at Morton forfeit on account of a supposed default made in a matter concerning Richard de Clare, but by the following June he had licence for an agreement with him. A suit came against him for a property called La Haye, and he received a commission for gaol delivery.

Campaigns: Gascony and Wales

In response to the violent revolt in Gascony against the governance of Simon de Montfort, Henry led a campaign in which Hamo, Hamo son of Hamo, and Robert de Crevecoeur were called to service among his barons and knights in May 1253. Through the campaign the business of government continued, and in October he was with the Bishop of Hereford, the Earl Marshal, the Earl of Leicester, the Earl of Hereford and Essex, and others in the camp at Benagues to witness the grant of a market at the manor of Sandling in Kent. (Such grants confirmed the fee status of their recipients.) On December 28 he was at Bazas to witness the inspeximus and confirmation of the Bishop of Hereford's charter, and a market award to John Tregoz. In March 1254 he was at Meilhan with the Earl of Warwick, Geoffrey (son of Hugh) de Lusignan, William de Cantilupe and others for similar grants.

Hamo was summoned by the king by special mandate to the royal residence and hunting lodge at Clyve (King's Cliffe), in Northamptonshire, in mid 1255. The king's mandate to the itinerant justices of Kent, that Hamo should not suffer any penalty for absence during his visit, was given on 16 July from Croxton in Leicestershire, where he had buried King John's heart in the Abbey church. He had granted the manor to Bertram de Criol, Keeper of Dover Castle, in 1242, and had granted a market there to the royal servant Nicholas de Crioll four years later. Bertram (died 1256) was now preparing for the arrival and reception of Eleanor of Castile, Prince Edward's intended bride, at Dover. Nicholas (who by marriage to the de Auberville heiress Joan, daughter of the younger William de Auberville, invested the fiefdom of Westenhanger, Kent, upon his descendants, and by 1263 held 5 knights' fees in the barony of Averenches), had also been in the Gascon campaign. Bertram de Criol's grandson, Sir Bertram son of Sir John de Criol, was before 1261 married to Hamo's daughter Eleanor de Crevecoeur, one of the Averenches heiresses.

The king relieved Hamo's debt to him by the purchase of oak trees from his woods at Bockingford, for the use of Master Alexander, the King's Carpenter, in his works on the church at Westminster. In June 1256 Hamo received an allocation of £40 for 100 oaks, and again, in September 1259, 60 of his oaks were to be delivered to Westminster by the Sheriff of Kent, lest through lack of them the work should remain undone.

Meanwhile, facing the rebellion of Llywelyn ap Gruffudd and following the defeat of Stephen Bauzan at the Battle of Cadfan, a fresh military summons arose in August 1257. On 9 August Robert de Crevecoeur and Hamo son of Hamo de Crevecoeur were listed in a summons to Chester, in a list headed by Nicholas de Crioll, and on the following day the name of Hamo himself appears in the list of the army to be led by Henry and Edward his son. Despite the fealty of Maredudd the attack which was made was unsuccessful and was driven back. In March 1258 Hamo was called again for a further expedition in Wales. Perhaps at this time Hamo quitclaimed the advowson of the church of Alkham and its chapel of Manrege (Capel-le-Ferne), Kent, to St Radegund's Abbey at Bradsole, for his soul and that of his wife Matilda de Averenches.

The last years

Hamo de Crevecoeur's last years were those of great constitutional crisis. Simon and Peter de Montfort, Roger and Hugh Bigod, Peter of Savoy, John FitzGeoffrey and Richard de Clare formed an alliance to remove the Lusignan influence from court and to oblige Henry to rule through a council. Roger Bigod's intervention in late April 1258 led to the June parliament under the Provisions of Oxford and, with the support of Prince Edward, to its reformation under the Provisions of Westminster. The king, having travelled to Paris to settle peace negotiations late in 1259, remained until late March 1260, when he wrote from Saint-Omer to his Chief Justiciar Hugh le Bigod ordering him to summon the barons to London to render service to him three weeks after Easter. This was accordingly done, and Hamo de Crevecoeur was among those summoned. As conflicts arose between de Montfort and de Clare, in August Henry announced a general military summons to Shropshire to campaign against Llywelyn, who had recently destroyed Builth Castle in Powys: to this expedition Hamo was also summoned.

By June 1261 Henry, now with the support of Edward his son, set aside the Provisions of Oxford and reasserted his authority, recovering control of his castles and dismissing the officers of hostile barons. De Montfort and de Clare attempted to establish a rival government, but Richard de Clare died in 1262, reputedly in the residence of Sir John de Criol at Bletchingley. In October the king called a further great summons to his barons in London, Hamo de Crevecoeur among them, to attend with their horses, arms and their force, and with the prospect of open hostilities Simon de Montfort exiled himself in France. Henry's authority was again collapsing by early 1263. Hamo the younger seems to have survived all these events, for in an undated Fine of 1263 he gave 1 mark for the taking of an assize before William de Wilton in Sussex. In early May of that year, both he and his father were dead.

Family and estate

A writ was issued on 3 April 1263 to William de Weyland for an inquisition into how much land Hamo de Crevecoeur held in his own right in chief from the king. There were four separate juries, one for the manor of Chatham, one for Leeds, one for Bockingford, and one for Farleigh and Terston. All found that his grandson Robert de Crevecoeur (upwards of 24 years old) was his next heir, and the Bockingford jury helpfully recorded his male descendants (by his first wife, name unknown) as follows:

• Hamo de Crevecoeur junior (who married Joan), father of
  • Robert de Crevecoeur ("age 24"), heir to Hamo the elder.
  • John de Crevecoeur
  • Thomas de Crevecoeur
• Matthew de Crevecoeur ("age 40")
• Robert de Crevecoeur ("age 30")

The daughter reputed to have married the son of Thomas de Camville, and any other daughters of the first marriage, are not mentioned. As Hamo junior did not inherit, Robert was the heir to his grandfather Hamo "who last died".

On 6 May it was recorded that homage had been taken from Robert for the lands which Hamo held by his own heredity, and they had been returned to him. A security of £100 was required of him to have full seisin, saving what should be due to Alicia, wife of the said Hamo, in right of dower. On 10 May an agreement was sealed between Robert de Crevecoeur and Alicia, widow of his grandfather, by which it was agreed she should receive the manors of Farleigh and Teston, the New Park, the Frith, the fishpond under Leeds Castle, and an annual rent from Leeds, for the term of her life in name of dower. This was on condition that if Alice were to be impleaded for reasonable dower by Joan, the widow of Hamo junior and Robert's mother, Robert should not be bound to warrant those lands to Alicia.

Meanwhile, on 7 May a writ was issued to Henry de Burne and Robert de Hardres to make an extent of the lands which Hamo held of inheritance from Maud de Averinges, late his wife, in Essex, Hertfordshire, Sussex, Kent, Bedfordshire and Berkshire, and to decide to whom they should belong by hereditary right. This was held on the Monday next after the quindene of Easter, and renders her name Averenches in the barbarous form "Haureng". Their heirs are shown as follows:

• Agnes, the eldest, who married John de Sandwich (full age in 1263)
• Ysouda, the second, who married Nicholas de Lenham. Ysouda being dead in 1263, the heir was their son (John) aged 12.
• Elionore, the third, who married Bertram son of John de Criol (full age in 1263)
• Isabella, the fourth, who married Henry de Gandavo (Gaunt) (full age in 1263)

(All these marriages had occurred before 1263.) They concluded that the lands and tenements which belonged to Matilda de Haveringes ought to belong to the said four daughters and their heirs.

This inquisition is attached to another, into the extent of the manor of Folkestone, taken before Nicholas de Ludeham, with a jury led by Sir Henry de Everinge on 3 June 1263. It adds the information that Maud was the sister and heir of William de Avranches, and gives the christian name of John de Lenham. It concludes that the three daughters, and John son of Ysouda, are the next heirs of Matilda, and ought to hold all of the manor of Folkestone with its appurtenances in chief by barony.

Original research

Though in general, it is better to fix than delete material, the detailed account of Hamo is heavily derived from Original Research in Primary sources, so much so that I can't tell what can be supported from legitimate sources. The following all represent primary sources and deriving material only from these sources is illegitimate: Rolls of arms of the Reigns of Henry III and Edward III; Three Rolls of Arms of the Latter Part of the Thirteenth Century; Inquisitions post mortem; Calendar of the Charter Rolls; The Cartulary of Leeds Priory; Registrum Roffense; National Archives (UK), Discovery Catalogue (this isn't even a real source); The Gesta Regum with its continuation; Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum; Patent Rolls of the Reign of Henry III; Close Rolls of the Reign of Henry III; The Great Roll of the Pipe; Rotuli Chartarum in Turri Londinensi Asservati; Henry III Fine Rolls Project; The Survey of Kent (e.g. Kent Domesday); Testa de Nevill; Calendar of Liberate Rolls; 'Annales de Dunstaplia', in Annales Monastici. Wikipedia is not the place to publish original scholarship. User:Agricolae|Agricolae 15:58, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Why, then, have you substituted for it a former draft of the article which has (a) no inline citations at all (and was tagged as such since 2009), (b) does include references within the text all of which are of the kind you object to? The logic of your objection should lead you to remove what you have just posted also. So far as those references in the version to which you have gone back are concerned, all I had done was to convert them into proper bibliographical form and to render them as numbered references, with links to editions at the locations cited. That is to say, you have left in the monastic chronicles which you object to. So far as the new references I introduced are concerned, I offer the following comments:

• The calendar, patent, fine, pipe and similar rolls are official government records, as published over the past 200 years by Her Majesty's Stationery Office. They represent an approved and received form of this information in the hands of expert editors and it is quite usual to refer to them in this way. I have not introduced secondary or interpretative comments on those pieces of information (which would be argumentative) but have drawn them together.
• The Inquisitions post mortem referred to are published and discussed in the articles in County Archaeological Journals. I am sorry I could not find them in a more popularist source, but that was hardly to be expected: but, while the scholarship is old, it is secondary and contains its own scholarly infrastructure. I don't think you can maintain that reference to articles in the County Archaeological Journals is "primary" or original research. If so you close off the possibility of all but the popularist digests, which often express things in unverifiable ways.
• I don't understand your objection to the UK National Archives Discovery Catalogue. It is the Official Online Catalogue of the UK National Archives online, a British Government resource, and is in itself a perfectly respectable official published secondary source describing the collections of documentary materials, based upon the work of generations of archivists. References to this or any other Catalogue are not references direct to manuscripts, but to modern legitimate sources describing them. If you wished to refer to a portrait in the National Portrait Gallery, for example, it would be perfectly legitimate and correct to refer to the Catalogue of the National Portrait Gallery, or in the case of a book in the British Library, to the British Library Catalogue. It is an absolutely real and important secondary resource, as much as if it were printed on paper. It is not the same as referring to, say, information in an unpublished letter by an artist, perhaps in private hands, which was entirely uncatalogued and so unverifiable.
• The monastic chronicles which you describe as illegitimate were all given with reference to secondary scholarly published editions. You have in any case gone back to an old recension of the article which still includes them. I should not have found them if they were not referred to as citations by more modern writers whose works are perfectly legitimate as sources, and it seems only helpful to support and clarify their references, by backing them up with precise location references to the published places which the modern sources mention. As for referring to them at all, if a modern writer says "X did such and such a thing in such and such a year" without giving a precise citation, then supplying the precise source of that information here goes towards the principle of verification. And if it is true that Registrum Roffense, or Testa de Nevill, or the Annals of Dunstaple, refer to Hamo de Crevecoeur, and these texts exist in scholarly printed editions, it is not original research to follow the modern sources in saying so, and to point to the correct place. A footnote in a modern published article (secondary source) is as much part of the secondary source as the text it supports, and it may need verification.
• Verifiability. The process of verification of secondary scholarly citations is essential, since even modern scholars can sometimes give inaccurate citations, and verifiability is expressly part of Wikipedia policy. The fact that some of them are in Latin does not violate wp policy, which does not require sources for verifiability to be in English nor that they should be visible online, though it seems useful to direct readers to visible online places where possible.
• Secondary sources. I cited several of these with full bibliographical references and linkage where available, on the basis of which the additional supporting material was given, and you have deleted them all, for reasons which are unexplained.

Those are my comments. The full article remains in the page history, 29 November 2017 for anyone who wants to read it.Eebahgum (talk) 20:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

A lot here to address. Why did I substitute an older version that included primary references? because it didn't include as many primary references, it wasn't as bad, and there was so much illegitimate material that I couldn't sort out the few appropriately-documented items. A catalogue is never a source. It is a finding aid, that is all. It helps you find primary sources, which themselves are not legitimate sources for Wikipedia. A scholarly published edition is still a primary source, no matter how carefully it was edited. Sources don't have to be in English, but sources in Latin are invariably primary sources, which should be avoided. Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own research, which with the heavy reliance on primary sources is clearly what you are doing. User:Agricolae 04:01, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Evidently our understandings as to what constitutes "original" research are very divergent. The compilation of any Wikipedia article involves research in the assembling of source materials, the verification of the materials cited, and their presentation in a coherent form with adequate and correct reference. That does not constitute original research, though to do this work thoroughly is good scholarly practise. Your use of the term "illegitimate material" is a very sweeping and downright condemnation which doesn't bear the test of scrutiny. Wikipedia does not forbid reference to primary sources, but states that they must be used with great care, working from reputably published editions, which I attempted to do, and that they should be supported where possible with reference to secondary sources, which I also attempted to do. Also you have not addressed the matter of verifiability, which is paramount, either in your first edit above, or in your reply. To say that you could not sort out the few "appropriately-documented items" suggests that you have not followed the links which I provided to the secondary sources (I mean the sources which you would accept as "legitimate") and verified for yourself what they say. In fact you have deleted them wholesale, though they were cited correctly, which is contrary to Wikipedia policy.

The suggestion that anything written in Latin is invariably a primary source is extremely wayward. I take an example at random. You are familiar with Early Medieval scholarship. You will know therefore that Casimir Oudin's (Latin) essay (published 1722, cf. 'Dissertatio de Scriptis Venerabilis Bedae Presbyteri, et Monachi', in Casimiri Oudini Commentarius De Scriptoribus Ecclesiae Antiquis, 3 vols (Maur. Georg. Weidmanni, Francofurti ad Moenum 1722), I, columns 1681-1712) on the authenticity of the attributions of texts in the earlier attempted "Collected Works" of the Venerable Bede (Hervagius 1562, Hieratus & Gymnicus 1612, Friessem 1688) was influential in persuading J-P Migne to substitute the correct Commentaries on the Pauline epistles in the Patrologia Latina (rather than those of Florus of Lyon, which were wrongly included in those old editions), to the extent that Migne in 1850 reproduced the whole of Oudin's essay among his own (Latin) introductory materials to his editions of Bede's works (Patrologia Latina, Vols 90-94, 1850: Vol. 90, Cols. 71-102). If the subject is Casimir Oudin, then Oudin's essay is a primary source. But if the subject is Bede's Commentaries, Oudin's essay is an entirely secondary source, and one of the greatest importance, and Migne's introduction is also a secondary source which, in quoting Oudin, becomes a tertiary source. There is plenty of good secondary scholarship in Latin from ancient times down to the present day. Just because something was written more than 200 years ago, and in Latin, doesn't make it a primary source.

I see that at the same time as writing your second comment above you have also taken out the references in the text to which you had reverted, realizing that they were by your standards 'inappropriate'. The problem there is that you have not also removed the information that was supported by those inappropriate references, but have left the text, with all its inaccuracies and irrelevancies, standing naked of all reference whatever. You would have done the readership of Wikipedia a better favour by removing most of it altogether. The fact that the sequence box at the bottom states that Hamo was Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports (a title which did not even exist in his time) in 1263 (considering that he was dead by February of that year), and was (according to official records republished in reputably published sources) overseeing the ports in c. 1235, is of itself a nonsense which you have substituted for my verified correction. Surely the policy of Wikipedia is not intentionally to keep restoring incorrect, unverified information, when correct and verifiable information is available? But that is what you have done.

I believe that you are failing to distinguish between three different things: (a) Scholarship, (b) research, and (c) "original" research. Wikipedia has no injunction against scholarship, and can do with as much of it as it can get. Scholarship involves the careful and considered approach to sources, which often begins with verification of references. That means, reading what somebody else has said and checking that what they have said is what their source does actually say, and that they have given the reference correctly. Some research is involved, but it is not original research, because the person whose work is under review has already done it, although perhaps inaccurately. That is the point of checking or verifying. Having provided a full and correct bibliographical reference to their source there is nothing in Wikipedia policy which forbids its inclusion for verification. There is a great deal of research, or searching and checking, to be done, which is scholarly but not under the category of "original research", and which is necessary for the maintenance of correct information. To argue against it is to support the perpetuation of the sort of chinese whispers of repetitive mistakes which arise from so-called "secondary scholarship", which is really no sort of scholarship at all. Secondary sources by all means, but "secondary scholarship", never. Otherwise one may merely be repeating "unreliable sources".

What then is "original research"? Something which, drawing upon primary sources, synthesizes them or uses them in an argumentative or interpretative way to make them reach a conclusion which is beyond the meaning of the sources themselves. That is by no means the same thing as the exclusion of all primary sources as "illegitimate". Or "original research" may simply be digging into newly-discovered or long-buried, probably altogether unpublished primary sources which are not available for anyone else to verify them. Reputably published sources are reputably published sources, and looking something up in them in the normal course of study does not constitute original research. And when they are perfectly good secondary sources you need a better explanation than you have yet given for deleting them. Your assertion that I am using Wikipedia to publish my own research, you make this mistake: it is not "my" research, but verifiable information which is out there in reputably published sources for anyone to verify, if they take the trouble to follow the links which I provide. Eebahgum (talk) 04:56, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia uses secondary sources in the production of its biographical articles. A scholar is expected to use primary sources to compile a novel account of an individual, but a Wikipedia editor is to paraphrase/summarize that secondary account (preferably merge multiple secondary accounts). Wikipedia counts on the process of scholarly publication for its expertise, verifiability and to distinguish what constitutes due weight (as opposed to trivia), rather than depending on the opinions or supposed expertise of Wikipedia editors in interpreting primary records. A Wikipedia contributor is an editor who summarizes accounts published by scholars, not a scholar who summarizes primary documents. If you think information in the article that is without reference is not valid, remove it or flag it as needing a source; if you have a secondary source that draws a different conclusion, then add it in, but this does not represent carte blanche to present your own conclusions based on your own scholarship using primary sources. User:Agricolae 13:41, 24 December 2017 (UTC)