Talk:Guntram

Name Meaning

Amending my former post of "bold raven" to "war raven." gun= war in norse, chramn= raven in old frankish. cheers. 24.102.211.198 (talk) 03:19, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Spelling

Given the number of variant spellings for almost all names in this period, a little name confusion is understandable. In this case the article was pointing to the modern town of of Brunehaut, not the person meant (Brunhilda of Austrasia; going through a couple of the cross-links here on Wikipedia should be sufficient to show that she is indeed the proper person).

At any rate, to reduce confusion among people seeing different spellings in other sources, would it be a good idea to mention alternate spellings of the name in the respective entry?--Rindis 07:04, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is a Wikipedia policy to mention variant spellings in the first line (if there is a reasonably small number of them). And I think there are a lot of links pointing to some Brunhilda or another...it seems like every Germanic woman had that name at this period! Adam Bishop 07:42, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Opera

Is the opera about Guntram? Srnec 18:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Canonisation

Provide a source, that's all I'll say. Srnec 03:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

See: "March 28: Saint Guntram, King": http://www.saintpatrickdc.org/ss/0328.htm#gont DominvsVobiscvm 03:21, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Not a good enough source. It gives no date for his canonisation. He may have been considered a saint by the people, but that doesn't count for much. Srnec 03:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

For centuries, until well within the first millenium, canonizations were not a strictly a papal matter, but were done on a local level.

The vast majority of popular canonization of the early centuries were retained by the Catholic Church when it shifted to a more formal process. Guntram is one of these cases, along with the more famous ones, like the Twelve Apostles, the early martyrs of the Church, the sainted Church Fathers, et al., none of whom were ever canonized by the Pope on a particular date.

That modern Catholicism considers Guntram a saint (and has done so for centuries) is documented by several sources cited in the link above: D. Attwater's "Penguin Dictionary of Saints"; "The Book of Saints: A Dictionary of Persons Canonized or Beatified by the Catholic Church" by the Benedictine Monks of St. Augustine Abbey, Ramsgate; The Rev. F. C. Husenbeth's "Emblems of Saints in Works of Art"; and Helen Roeder's "Saints and Their Attributes: With a Guide to Localities and Patronage".

For contemporary documentation, I'd check out the most current edition of Butler's Lives of the Saints, as well as the Roman Martyrology (one of the Catholic Church's official compendium of saints), wherein Guntram is listed for March 28.DominvsVobiscvm 11:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Why is it never mentioned in any history books? Or any websites for that matter (try a Google search for "Saint Guntram")? If you could, please add a reference to the feast day from the best of your sources. I modified the format of the artilce, but removed nothing. Srnec 17:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the bulk of this conversation is on Talk:Constantine I (emperor). Part of the problem is that while the majority of English-speaking people expect "Catholic" to mean "Roman Catholic", DominvsVobiscvm often really means Eastern Rite Catholics...it's pretty sneaky actually. I don't know about Guntram though. Adam Bishop 02:06, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Why would the Eastern Catholic churches (which are Roman Catholic, just not Western) venerate Guntram? Nevertheless, it is pretty sneaky, and very annoying to have to have these types of debates in the first place—with people with an agendum other than the simple truth. Srnec 03:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Ha, yes, that's what meant and what I was going to say ("I don't know why Eastern Catholics would consider Guntram a saint") but I was too lazy to finish my thought :) But I just wanted to point out that DVC has had these issues on various other articles. Adam Bishop 03:46, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Let me just state that I am not an Eastern Catholic. I'm just a Roman Catholic seminarian who happens to take an interest in secular history and hagiography. :-) I really don't have an agenda; I just tire of the inaccuracies and lack of nuance which tends to prevail in secular treatments of religion or religious figures.

I have no idea why there's not as much information about Guntram's sanctity on the web, but this lack really means nothing. So much of what's out there is bunk anyway; but there are several print sources which confirm his canonization and his sanctity, including official Catholic liturgical sources which are named above.DominvsVobiscvm 07:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

You will also find more results on this is you google the spelling "Saint Guntramnus." "Saint Gontran" and other variants also bring up several foreign-language results which clerarly refer to him as Saint. DominvsVobiscvm 07:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

In addition to all the sources cited above, here's another online: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/wace/biodict.Guntramnus_2.html

Inaccuracies and lack of nuance? How is it really more accurate to call him a saint when I am pretty sure his feast day is never actually "celebrated" and he was never officially canonised? Your additions, stating his "sanctity" categorically, were far from nuanced. Having read Gregory of Tours, Guntram may have been an unusually good man (king especially) for his time, but he had more than just a "period of intemperance," he had several incidences of violence associated with his name up until the end of his reign. Guntram is indeed an admirable figure for his age, but your statement lacked some nuance and balance. I amended it earlier to read "according to Gregory." Anyways, I think this debate is happily settled. Srnec 17:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Smec: My comments regarding nuance were not directed towards you personally, but were a general observation.

I looked up the entry in the Roman Martyrology for March 28, and Guntram is one of the saints listed: The Tewnty-Eighth Day of March: . . . At Chalons in France, the death of King Saint Guntram, who devoted himself to exercises of piety, despising the ostentation of the world, and who bestowed his treasures on the Church and the poor.

Again, Guntram was "officially" canonized, as his entry in the Martyology shows; canonizations were simply conducted differently in the 6th century than they are today. If a cult was given the approval of the local bishop, that was sufficient. Guntram is as much an official saint of the Church as any of the Apostles (although the latter are far more widely esteemed and venerated).DominvsVobiscvm 04:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The article resided happily at Guntram for a long time until somebody got into a dispute over whether he should be called a "saint". Now the page has a grammatically incorrect title which is inconsistent with the titles of so many other saints and all other Merovingian kings, which are titled simply by their name and ordinal: so, Guntram (what other Guntram is their?). Srnec 04:22, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

There however is the opera "Guntram", wherefore we need a disambiguation page anyway. And Guntram is a male first name, such tend to have a page where some etymology and some list of notable namesakes reported. Kings tend to be under format FIRSTNAME(S) + ORDNAL + OF + KINGDOM whoch would be Guntram of Burgundy in this case. I favor that as the new location for this article. Marrtel 12:51, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Srnec, he is the only noteworthy Guntram, his contemporary Guntram-Boso being easily distinguished. "Pre-emptively disambiguate the names of monarchs, of modern countries" can hardly apply here as Burgundy is not a modern country and disambiguation is not required. Strauss's opera is Guntram (opera), or would be if there were an article on it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Support. Move back to Guntram. --Matthead 22:26, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Support. I support Smec; why not just change it back to "Saint Guntram"?. DominvsVobiscvm 04:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Support per rationale about kingdoms. Marrtel was correct about naming conventions, but if there's ambiguity, Srnec's option works. Irrespective of that, "Saint" should note be in the article name, just as "Sir" and equivalent titles aren't. Jibbajabba 23:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

With Merovingian monarchs, deciding which kingdom(s) they ruled is difficult and anachronistic, so, for titling purposes, only their names and ordinals are used. Why make Guntram an exception? Srnec 17:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

He was (apparently) a saint, but I am quite certain that the prefix "Saint" is not a necessary prefix in his name for people to recognize him. Actually, he is probably as well or better known as king. For naming convention of saints: "Saints go by their most common English name, minus the "Saint", unless they are only recognisable by its inclusion. For example, Paul of Tarsus, Ulrich of Augsburg but Saint Patrick." Marrtel 15:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

So, can somebody with the proper powers move this page to "Guntram" again? Srnec 18:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Done, but someone with more time than me will have to fix the redirects. Adam Bishop 05:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. —Nightstallion (?) 08:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Strange wording

He had something of that fraternal love which his brothers lacked and the preeminent chronicler of the period

That is some really strange wording, not sure how to fix it, just really wish it were fixed.

--Cthugha (talk) 23:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Personal Life Section

the second half of this section has a weirdly lofty and romantic tone to it. it reads like it was written by a Christian, pro-guntram person. in fact it has striking similarity to the quote presented above it. so either this was copy pasted from a source that the editor failed to cite properly, or they wrote it in this biased tone themself. either way, it should be reworked.

IAmSeamonkey (talk) 10:58, 8 January 2022 (UTC)