Talk:Jean de Montagu

Date of birth?

Explain on talk page how Jean "born ca.1363" was an advisor to Charles V who reigned 8 April 1364 – 16 September 1380!!!

Lucien Merlet is not a reliable source? LMAO. Compared to François Alexandre Aubert de La Chenaye-Desbois who appears to have only been a written, not an academic historian.

This type of changing information to fit your already pre-determined narrative is POV editing.

Also, this is the second accusation of vandalism. I would suggest you drop the vandalism accusations.--Kansas Bear (talk) 17:06, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Kansas Bear, I see that your most recent edit to the article has the edit summary "restored referenced information ...", when in fact you removed two references and added none. That's not vandalism, but it does look dishonest. Maproom (talk) 07:04, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Well excuse me all to hell. I made a mistake there. Your explanation for this edit? Considering I have show Lucien Merlet to be an academic historian? I see a third accusation of vandalism with no reaction from anyone. So far, all you can find to address is my mistake compared to blatant edit warring and PA's from user:JLavigne508. So are you here to continue JLavigne508's continued PA's in an attempt to run me off or cover up their lack of talk page use? --Kansas Bear (talk) 13:49, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

• "but it does look dishonest"

How about the removal of a reference and quote stating, "Please respect and do not leave false and unfounded comments about referencing", that edit removed a university source. Which user:JLavigne508 stated later(logged out..dishonest??), "That is a modern and inaccurate commentary (one of many), I listed an old, reliable, and highly detailed source (one of many). You are about to be flagged a vandal."

So do not accuse me of dishonesty when this issue consists of a logged out user, three accusations of vandalism and unreliable sources. --Kansas Bear (talk) 14:03, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Post French-Revolution Nineteenth Century Historians Not A Reliable Source On Jean de Montagu

I see there are at least several editors that keep citing in this Wikipedia article what is admittedly one of the most comprehensive works done on Jean de Montagu by French archivist and historian Lucien Merlet in France in 1852. Yes Lucien Merlet was a historian and archivist, and yes he did write the definitive biography on Jean de Montagu. Unfortunately for this article and subject matter, Merlet, like virtually all of the other leading academics in France after the subsequent Revolutions of 1830 and 1848, were extremely biased towards all figures throughout history who had rebelled and in fact betrayed the French Crown (such as the Constable de Bourbon and Jean de Montagu's mortal enemy the Duke of Burgundy), and extremely biased against the figures who saved and preserved the Capet French Crown (such as Jean de Montagu, the Armagnacs, etc.) because France was still very likely to go back to a monarchy under the last living Bourbons (Henri de Chambord), and every work written between 1800-1870 (when the Count of Chambord turned down the crown and the French Republic was established for good), was more a propaganda tool meant for the growing literate population of XXIV Century France than any historical work for posterity, in order to help make sure that the Bourbon survivors never retook the throne again as Louis XVIII had after Napoleon's abdication in 1815.

Jean de Montagu was the most responsible for keeping the mad King Charles VI crown and government intact after the assassination of the Duke of Orleans (whose memory that group also further defiled to meet their political aims), so degrading and belittling Jean de Montagu's background was an underhanded way of helping to undermine the still relevant French Royal Family and Crown in the eyes of the French public, which was very much an ongoing real threat to the progressives, academics, and politicians in the mid 1800s. Napoleon III ruled France as a constitutional empire at that time after 1848, and the vast majority of elites wanted to keep a constitutional government and undermine and keep out any monarchical government with the Bourbons, so conversely every work they did about the Bonapartes and the Revolutionaries was extremely supportive and positive, and even bolstered and embellished their memory at times. Some of these French authors in the mid 1800s went so far as to ridiculously insult Montagu as a "lowly secretary" right in their own works, when obviously he became much more than that by any measure.

Therefore the historical record and recounting of the life (and death) and events surrounding Jean de Montagu were secondary during this period, and works like this were ultimately tailored to fit a political narrative that was used as a tool towards their own personal ends in this case (to maintain a non-royal government), and sadly it has left a major tarnish on the memory of this man and several other key figures in the French royal government that should try to be avoided here. The confusion is very understandable as again these were professionals and leading historians in that period who in other subjects and areas were extremely useful and objective. Yes Lucien Merlet, Alfred Rambaud, Victor Hugo, etc. etc., were leading academics of the time in France, but the time and place was not conducive to an objective and analytical account of Jean de Montagu, his family, and the few other historical figures that were in similar extraordinary circumstances who happened to be on the side of the Capets and preserving the status-quo for the French Crown, in fact quite the opposite, they are authors that should be looked at as very problematic as it relates to this subject and avoided.

--JLavigne508 (talk) 13:02, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Reference verifiability

Per Ducoudray, Gustave (1902). Les origines du Parlement de Paris et la justice aux XIIIe et XIVe siècles. p. 137;

• "Un Gerard de Montagu, pretre, chanoine, est avocat du roi en 1332. Mais la maison de Montagu ou Montaigu, est issue de Gerard, seigneur de montagu, notaire et secretaire du roi, anobli par Jean le Bon (1363)..."
  

This has nothing to do with Jean de Montagu. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:03, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

– Thank you I put the wrong source by mistake (see edit history for article). Yes most sources push the father being Gerard de Montagu for various reasons, he seems to never have been legitimized by Charles before he died in 1380, however see:

Jean de Montagu- Officiellement fils de Gérard de Montagu, en fait batard du Roi Charles V. Sa naissance est située vers 1349 par d'autres sources. Né en 1363, il parait quand même bien jeune pour être ministre de son père naturel. Nous suivons ici l'opinion de Gaston Sirjean et des Cahiers de Saint-Louis. Seigneur de Montagu & Marcoussis, Ministre de Charles V, Surintendant des Finances de Charles VI en 1388, Vidame de Laon après son oncle Ferry Cassinel en 1390, Chambellan de Charles VI et Capitaine de la Bastille après 1393, Grand-Maître d'Hôtel du Roi de France en 1401. Il fut l'un des Marmousets (anciens ministres de Charles V rappelés par Charles VI pour contrer l'influence de ses oncles). Attesté, dans les Chroniques de Jean Froissart, le lundi 21 août 1389 auprès du roi Charles VI, lors de l'entrée solennelle d'Isabeau de Bavière à Paris. Lors de la folie du Roi en 1392, il s'enfuit à Avignon. Ami du Duc d'Orléans (assassiné en 1407), il était odieux au Duc de Bourgogne, Jean Sans Peur, qui, pendant un accès de folie du Roi, le fit arrêter et décapiter aux Halles, sous prétexte de malversations. Charles VI fit réhabiliter sa mémoire en 1412. --site carné

1.- http://dynastie.capetienne.free.fr/Fichier_de_personnages/27eme_generation/27011_26002.html

2.- -Europäische Stammtafeln III tableau 305

-and speaking to the affair between Charles and Biette;

"Biette Cassinel aimée du dauphin Charles, depuis roi sous le nom Charles VI (should say Charles V). Ses amours s'affichérent bientot publiquement, et le dauphin avait alors pris pour emblème la lettre K, un cygne et la lettre L (Cascyneel), faisant ainsi savoir à tous le nom de celle qui était sa maitresse."

- "Mémoires de la Société de l'histoire de Paris et de l'Ile-de-France" Champion, H. Paris. 1875-1930. p. 220

So the dauphin Charles wore the letter K on this sur-coat in public for the archaic spelling of Cassinel, which was "Kassinel" in the 1300s, which was how chivalrous romance was carried out at that time.

Furthermore, they had another child also named Jean de Montagu, and in French a younger child was almost never given the exact same name as a sibling and when they were, they were called "le Jeune" (the Younger) in the name itself, we do not see that here, which is another indicator that they had different fathers. Merlet and these writers knew these things and purposely ignored and covered them up, they should be ashamed of themselves.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by JLavigne508 (talk • contribs) 01:19, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

This does not appear to be a reliable source by any sense of the word and those two other French sources rely on Gilles Corrozet, a 16th century French writer. Who does Europaische Stammtafeln cite? At least Lucien Merlet is an historian. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:56, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

– Yes that is right, an actual French writer from the 16th century versus an 1800s revolutionary propagandist, and Stammfelten are world renowned and held in the highest regard. Lucien Merlet claims the whole basis for his statement on the parentage of Jean de Montagu is some clumsy nonsensical and unsubstantiated statement saying that the godfather to Montagu was John II of France when he was Duke of Normandy, so it had to be before 1350. That could mean a thousand different things and is the most confusing, disorganized, and ridiculous assertion of all in the six hundred years people have been writing about this subject(The source for that is no where clear and is the epitome of bad scholarship on such a bold assertion as Royal birth). You do understand that wouldn't even qualify as a tertiary source? Contrary to that are valid clear cut circumstantial pieces of evidence from PRIMARY sources that contradict Merlet and the like who were no more than anti-royal propagandists. This is now all explained in detail on this talk page and I would suggest you might want to go edit elsewhere (your behavior and editing history in here do not reflect well upon yourself.)

--JLavigne508 (talk) 07:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Instead of edit warring, I strongly suggest you take your concerns about all these sources to the Reliable sources noticeboard. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

• "(your behavior and editing history in here do not reflect well upon yourself.)"

I would also suggest you read WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NPA. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:13, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Original research

This appears to be original research.

• de Belleval, René (1865). Azincourt. Paris. p. 215. Gérard de Montagu , notaire et secrétaire du roi , bourgeois de Paris , anobli en décembre 1363

Does not state that Jean de Montaigu was born in 1363. AND...

• Adams, Tracy and Christine (2020). "1". The Creation of the French Royal Mistress: From Agnès Sorel to Madame Du Barry. Pennsylvania State University Press. p. 27. ISBN 9780271086422. True, several french kings fathered illegitimate children by unknown woman, and the names of a handful of mistresses have survived, Marie de Breuillet for Louis VI, Biette Cassinel for Charles V..."

Makes no mention of Jean or Gerard and does not establish paternity. More WP:OR. As such this original research will be removed. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:36, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

That addition could have been too cluttered and conflated in the beginning, and if you do not understand that the Cassinel family was legally ennobled and Biette would not legally have been able to marry Gerard de Montagu before being ennobled in December 1363 as indicated in secondary sources that is fine (although for purposes here that could be disputed), but Jean de Montagu is very clearly implied in the latter statement as well as that given timeline of events for that, and if you are unable to see at least that much in such a clearly laid out statement then this is quite obviously a continuing pattern of Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. --JLavigne508 (talk) 18:18, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Removed original research again. Adams & Adams make no mention of Jean or 1363. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:27, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Kansas Bear it is so obviously implied there but yes the year is not spelled out in the sentence just like many others on here, I will find yet another source when I have the time.--JLavigne508 (talk) 20:13, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

From WP:OR, "...The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:35, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Right, you mean "imply", like claiming King John was the godfather for Jean de Montagu when he was Duke of Normandy, contradicting the few primary sources and all of the circumstantial evidence that actually does exist, and subsequently trying to change his originally accepted illegitimacy, with out any supporting material provided for that assertion in six hundred years lol. This is an endless circle of a debate I'm not going to keep having with anyone, we can debate something else if you want lol. Talk to ya later.--JLavigne508 (talk) 20:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)