Talk:Grimoald, King of the Lombards

Untitled
His capture of Forlì was shameful, however, for he took it on Easter Day, slaughtering worshippers during the festivities.

Isn't this just a bit NPOV. . . ? --Michael K. Smith (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

As a king is more important than a duke, I suggest that he should be moved to "Grimoald of the Lombards" or something similar, see WP:NCROY. PatGallacher (talk) 18:55, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Confusing paragraph about succession
He died in 671 after concluding a treaty with the Franks and was succeeded by Perctarit, whom he had exiled. [...] and his son Garibald was not elected to succeed him on account of his youth and was deposed by the adherents of Perctarit's cause in three months time.

This paragraph is confusing and contradictory. According to Paul the Deacon in his History of the Lombards (Book V, Chapter XXXIII), Grimoald was succeeded by his young son Garibald as King of the Lombards. When Perctarit returned from exile three months later, Garibald was driven out of the kingdom and Perctarit was accepted as king. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stuart de Haan (talk • contribs) 09:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)