Talk:Judith of Flanders

Untitled

This article should be renamed for this Judith is not called Martel. Since Wikipedia has allready an article over an other "Judith", I propose "Judith of Flanders" for this article. However I don't know how to change this article's name. Is there someone more knowledgable out there? johanthon 09:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't it have been better to rename her as "Judith of France"? After all Flanders is the lands of her third husband and "France" also seem to be an accepted designation for her in other sources.--Caranorn 16:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The names of queens and the like appears to be a particularly thorny aspect of Wikipedia naming conventions. However, there is just about a consensus to go for the maiden name in the absence of a specific reason to the contrary. The trouble is, what was her maiden name? Judit Martel was not a very good choice, since I am not aware that Martel was ever a surname rather than the cognomen of a specific ruler. Judith the Bald is theoretically possible, but I think most people would agree would be a bad choice. Judith of France is possible, but raises the issue of whether France existed as a nation or state in her day. I therefore propose Judith of the Franks as the least problematic title, the article should be moved there if nobody objects. If we refer to her by a married name, why not Judith of Wessex, since you could argue her time as queen of Wessex was more important than as countess of Flanders? PatGallacher 16:56, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Too late :-) The page is moved to "Judith of Flanders". I don't think "Judith of France" is a good idea because of the reason PatGallacher gives. I have tought about "Judith of West-Francia", for this is technically correct, but I guess nobody will search on this. For the same reason I think "Judith of the Franks" is not a good idea for their is more than one Judith in the Carolingian Family and Franks is much to vague here. "Judith of Wessex" is technically a possibility, however her first marriage was never consumed because of her age. I have chosen Flanders above Wessex, because first of all the county of Flanders was politically more important and more powerfull than the kingdom of Wessex and secondly this marriage was consumated and it did have children. Finally the ultimate reason: Judith was a Frank. Flanders is in Francia. Judith had a political role in Flanders, not in the politics of Wessex. It would be very strange to call her "of Wessex" while she spend only a few years there and had a whole life between the Franks. In Flanders Judith is still remembered and a little bit considered as 'mother of Flanders'. But who in Wessex ever heard of Judith? Anyway: The change is done now. I've worked myself through quite a lot pages to fix all links to this page. If somebody else wants to spend his time on this dirty slavework I wish him luck! :-) johanthon 18:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Judith's children

According to French article, Judith might have had a son with her second husband Ethelbald : Archibald ("Archibald le Jeune") BTH (talk) 21:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed she might, a point which is made by Alfred Smyth if I remember correctly. But none of the usual suspects - charters, the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, Byrhtferth, Æthelweard, John of Worcester, Henry of Huntingdon, William of Malmesbury, Asser (or even Pseudo-Asser if you prefer) - mention any such progeny. Then there's the fact that Archibald seems an unlikely name. You always could ask fr:Utilisateur:Papydenis where he got that piece of (dis)information from. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

In fiction

My deletion of the 'In fiction' section was reversed as a section of a subject's coverage in fiction can be encylopedic. However, WP:IPC makes clear that this refers to a sourced discussion which throws light on the subject (such as Henry II of England#Popular culture), not a list without discussion. I cannot find any significant sources which discuss the fiction. Dudley Miles (talk) 00:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the point here is to discourage large sections containing a lot of trivia, not brief sections like this. PatGallacher (talk) 01:44, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

WP:IPC states that such sections should detail a topic's impact on popular culture and be properly sourced, and this section does not meet either criterion. The two item list in Robert Curthose was deleted on the ground that it tells us nothing about Robert himself, and the same applies to this list. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2012 (UTC)