Talk:Fulk IV, Count of Anjou

Birthyear
His birthyear is unknown. He was born *by* 1043, not *in* that year.Wjhonson (talk) 20:37, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * What source are you citing for a birth of "by 1043"? The only problem I saw was the last time I was here I failed to add his DOB into the body of the text and cite a source. I have three that say he was born in 1043 although only one is necessary. Thanks for pointing it out though. Bearpatch (talk) 20:55, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Added DOB, checked & covered by same source; ES II, 82. Bearpatch (talk) 21:11, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * A guess not supported by any contemporary source however.Wjhonson (talk) 03:59, 25 December 2012 (UTC)


 * OK I checked again and will post the source for "age 17" on Pentecost 1060.Wjhonson (talk) 04:03, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Nickname Le Réchin.
When I tried this in French to English on a translator it came up with kidney, which does have a some significance in the Jewish religion as source of inner feelings, among other things. But when I put kidney in English to French it came up with rein, which could be a diminution over time. However, there was a sub reference to Romania and in that language rechin means shark, which seems more likely given the description. The Romance languages do have common roots, so I tried again and Wiktionary came up with the fact that rechin is from French réquin, and further 'Normand reflex of Old French reschin (12th c.), deverbal from reschignier (“to grimace while baring teeth”), rekigner (“to make an ugly face”), from Frankish *kīnan (“to split open”). So for me, Fulk was likened to a shark. Carol Weaver. 2A02:C7F:D047:A100:EDBE:FD35:7243:810E (talk) 16:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems more likely the people in France were speaking French than Romanian, though, doesn't it? If you're at a total loss, see what the other English sources gloss it as. I'm seeing the Surly, the Rude, and the Sour-Faced. — Llywelyn II   23:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Worth noting
This guy's Wikidata entry has a completely different order for the wives right now: 1st Ermengarde de Bourbon c. 1070, 2nd Orengarde de Chatelaillon 21 January 1076, 3rd Bertrade of Montfort c. 1089 with the others unsorted.


 * ...there is some doubt regarding the exact number or how many he repudiated.

Then the phrasing should clarify or reflect that, instead of just including (potentially dubious) sourcing and baldly stating that he did in fact marry exactly these 5 women in exactly this order in exactly these years. — Llywelyn II   23:30, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Sources for future expansion
There's obviously more in the edition of Orderic provided, which should be used in combination with modern scholarship. There's also more at — Llywelyn II   03:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC)