CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
EN/FR
Search
Menu
Research dossier · General Reference

Thomas Peverel

Bishop of Leighlin; Bishop of Llandaff; Bishop of Worcester

Cross-disciplinary reference desk with index cards, atlas, dictionary and catalogue
General referenceInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionJun 4, 2026
Entity authorityQ7793136 ↗
Source-derived summary

Thomas Peverel (died 1419) was a medieval prelate who was successively bishop of Ossory, Llandaff, and Worcester.

Peverel was appointed the Bishop of Ossory by papal provision on 25 October 1395, and was translated to Llandaff on 12 July 1398. He was translated again to Worcester on 4 July 1407.

Peverel died in office on 1 or 2 March 1419.

Editorial summary

This brief starts where responsible research should: with the source description of “Thomas Peverel” as bishop of Leighlin; Bishop of Llandaff; Bishop of Worcester. Everything that follows is an evidence route, not borrowed authority.

Editorial reviewA practical starting point whose main value is the path it opens into stronger specialist and primary sources. The current lead gives the account dated anchors—1419, 1395, 1398, 1407—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. The account is most persuasive where Thomas, Peverel and Bishop can be independently traced.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

The subject matters to the general reference register because the source frames it as bishop of Leighlin; Bishop of Llandaff; Bishop of Worcester. Its deeper value depends on whether names, dates, institutions and citations support that framing.

Evidence profile

Named sources, stable identifiers and responsible institutions provide the strongest route from overview to verifiable evidence. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jun 4, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q7793136. VIAF identifies the subject as 298963910. 1 of 1 selected statements include explicit references; 0 carry qualifiers and 0 use preferred rank. The first chronological checks are 1419, 1395, 1398 and 1407.

Critical limits

The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.

Best used for
  • Subject orientation
  • Search vocabulary
  • Locating named sources
Verify next

The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “Thomas Peverel”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow Thomas Peverel primary sources, Thomas Peverel archive and Thomas research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Thomas Peverel”?
  2. Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
  3. Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from “Thomas Peverel” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.