Talk:Duchess of Normandy

Missing?

Should Adela of France, Countess of Flanders, be here also? --Aciram (talk) 00:38, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Well her article say she and Robert III were married while his article state they were betrothed but never actually married. So I don't know.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 04:40, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

His short article here has almost no references. His referenced article in French language wikipedia is larger. There, he is stated to have been married to her. --Aciram (talk) 16:45, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

One to much?

Was the duke actually married to Poppa of Envermeu? French language Wikipedia say that they were married "a la danoise", withouth the recognition of the curch, so she would not have been duchess consort that case. --Aciram (talk) 16:49, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

The marriage was More danico according to French language Wikipedia, and thereby not acknowledged by the church as legal.--Aciram (talk) 22:05, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Poppa of Bayeux

Poppa of Bayeux was also married to the duke by More danico. Perhaps she should be removed as well? --Aciram (talk) 15:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

This is not a productive path to follow. The fact that French Wikipedia uses this designation reflects nothing more than a whim of a particular editor (note that most of these pages in French Wikipedia are themselves unreferenced). This whole list has original research problems without making arbitrary decisions about which marriages 'count' and which ones don't. Agricolae (talk)

I see no reason to why the French Wikipedia article should be considered to be influenced more by whims than the English article, if they both lack references. It is just as logical that the less developed English article should suffer from a translating problem and a negligence to specify the more detailed information in the French one. It would not be in any way surprising that this was More danico. It would not be productive to take for granted that it was not. It is an important fact, that if the marriage was More danico, then it was not regarded to be legal. It is of course not a question of values. A list of this kind is only important if it depicts the consorts in their capacity of duchess, which was a formal position such as that of a queen. If they were not married, they do not belong here. Of course, it should be clarified. I search on the net should be able to clarify weather if was More danico or not. I agree that it should be referenced. --Aciram (talk) 20:47, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I do not which to cause an argument, but I have noticed from your edits, that you seem to deny that More danico ever existed in any case what so ever in regard to this family. You have erased that any one of the members of the ducal family of Normandy have ever been married More danico, and instead written that they were simply married. I do not now the reason for this, of course, but it is not in any way productive to ignore the historical fact that a More danico marriage was not considered to be legal. This is a fact, not a question of personal values, and it is important for the neutrality of Wikipedia that we do not hide, but acknowledge this fact. Neutrality is important for the credibility of any encyclopedia. I am very sorry to say - and I do not in any way which to give offence - that these edits creates a bad impression in regard to the question of neutrality. It is very hard to have a constructive discussion with some one not neutral, and I therefore feel that it is perhaps best to let you do as you please, what ever is correct in this matter. I do hope this will be sorted out eventually. Again, no offence intended. I am sure this can be sorted out with the help of references, which can prevent any further edits of this kind. My best greetings--Aciram (talk) 21:15, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

If you didn't want to give offence perhaps you should not have attacked my motivations, editing history, neutrality, etc. Let's be clear on a few things: 1) Poppa - the historical record is insufficient to determine the nature of their relationship, other than that it involved the production of progeny (and even for that there is conflicting data). It is first known from a source significantly later, who is thought to have massaged the truth a bit (he probably invented the marriage to Gisela), so we just don't know. In such a circumstance, pigeonholing the nature of the relationship is unwise. 2) Papia is a different story. This seems to have been called a marriage by more danico solely because her name is unusual. One of her sons became an Archbishop, entirely impossible (at the time) were the parents not married in the eyes of the church (note that Richard I eventually married Gunnor because he had to in order to allow his son to similarly take a see). The other son unsuccessfully claimed Normandy as heir to Robert I in preference to the illegitimate William II, which would be hard to explain if he himself came from an irregular union. 3) The concept of consorts as "Duchesses", as opposed to simply being the spouses of Dukes, is anachronistic. What their role was in the duchy cannot be implied based on the fact that the church did or did not sanction their marriage. 4) As to 'legal' marriage, that too is anachronistic. The concepts of social marriage, religious marriage and legal marriage have very different histories, and applying a modern legal concept to medieval social and religious ones is problematic. More importantly, don't put this on me - you are the one suggesting changes meant to force this concept onto the existing pages, with nothing but unsourced French Wikipedia to support you. The burden for changing an interpretation falls on the person suggesting the change, and lecturing me on the virtues of neutrality is a poor substitute for supplying a supporting reliable source. Agricolae (talk) 06:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Pipera (talk) 01:38, 3 January 2024 (UTC) 01:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC) Up until Gunnora they were countess not Dutchess see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duke_of_Normandy