Talk:House of Normandy

pre 1066
Can anybody add in the info about the Norman dynasty prior to 1066? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk • contribs)


 * The dynasty didn't exist until 1066. If you were referring to the Normans in Noramdy, the information should be on Duchy of Normandy.-- OsirisV (talk) 21:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * No it was founded by Rollo the Viking. The definition of a dynasy is a succession of rulers from the same family or line. And all the dukes of Normandy were from the same male line descent from Rollo. This article is too anglocentric.--Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 02:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The article split is based on title - a duke becoming king of some other country was considered enough to separate the two house articles. I suppose the information could be merged, given that it seems to be only based on title.-- OsirisV (talk) 17:30, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Move to House of Normandy

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved per discussion. This was a tricky one, as there is no strong consensus for the old title or the new one. Having to pick one, I read all the arguments here and looked at other articles. All in all, OCNative's argument for consistency seemed to be strong, and links such as this are also telling. - GTBacchus(talk) 14:11, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Norman dynasty → House of Normandy –
 * All English, Scottish and British Royal Houses use House of (family) as the standard format. The term dynasty is not commonly used in the UK in reference to ruling families (Houses). There is clear precedence of House of (Family) to be used on Wikipedia. Shatter Resistance (talk) 11:48, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Voting procedure: Vote with either Support or Oppose below this explanation. Please place vote at the bottom of the list please along with a small justification. Any larger comments for debate should be placed in the sub-section provided. Shatter Resistance (talk) 11:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Support - Nominator Shatter Resistance (talk) 11:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support "House of XYZ" implies an article about the extended royal family, as this article is. Britannica uses "House of Normandy" Kauffner (talk) 00:07, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support this article covers more than just the period where the Normans ruled England, therefore it is a house article and not a dynasty article. 65.95.13.213 (talk) 07:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Support - Being a direct male line from Rollo to Henry I of England shows that this is all one house as opposed to one being a sub-house.-- OsirisV (talk) 15:30, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. I would actually support deleting this article or merging it somewhere. I can't see what purpose it serves. Srnec (talk) 18:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose on the whole. "House of Normandy" is distinctly less common, and the whole Salic mindset that the war between Henry I's daughter and his nephew marked the end of a "House" is an anachronism. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:15, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you mean patrilineal rather than Salic. Either way, isn't the same rule followed for every historical dynasty? However, it seems that they won't follow the patrilinear rule when Charles becomes king, i.e. he'll be House of Windsor even though his father's family name is Mountbatten (or Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Glücksburg). Kauffner (talk) 00:13, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I mean Salic; both Matilda's claim and Stephen's are patrilineal, after all. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought we were talking about royal houses, and who was in which one. That doesn't have anything to do with Salic Law. As far as succession goes, Stephen's claim was through his mother. So no, not patrilinear. By the patrilinear rule, he would be a one man dynasty, a House of Blois. Kauffner (talk) 13:48, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose Norman dynasty is the more usual term. The Proffesor (talk) 23:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose "Houses" tend to be associated with a family name (e.g. "House of Bourbon", "House of Plantagenet", "House of Romanov", etc, whereas a "Dynasty" may refer to nationality (e.g. "French dynasty", "Scottish dynasty", "Russian dynasty"). FactStraight (talk) 04:51, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support Let's be consistent with House of Plantagenet, House of Lancaster, House of York, House of Stuart, House of Hanover, House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, and House of Windsor. Why should this be odd man out? OCNative (talk) 08:15, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Comments/debate

 * Comment I'm staying neutral on this one. But whatever the result someone needs to create a category for either Norman dynasty or House of Normandy.--Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 04:42, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The British royalty posesses a website detailing royal history. If anyone can remember the name of the site, could they provide us with the name they have given to the rulers from William I to Henry I?-- OsirisV (talk) 10:06, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The Royal website is particularly unhelpful referring to the rulers during this point as "The Normans" - here is the link. Shatter Resistance (talk) 11:27, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Norman kings of England would be a reasonable descriptive title. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:30, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * That would mean reverting Spy's recent addition of earlier members of the same family and leaving nowhere to put them... Again. I suppert 'House' because it shows both that it is the same family (as opposed to a sub-house) and involves more than just England.-- OsirisV (talk) 21:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't Norman dynasty and House of Normandy be both referring to the family?--Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 23:53, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry - bad wording. I meant that calling it "House of Normandy" would show that the Kings of England at the time were directly related (potentially-synonymous) with the Dukes of Normandy and English history researchers would see the relation right away. The downside of using "Norman dynasty" is that it doesn't show a relation with Normandy itself - it could be that a random Norman villager living in Sicily became king.-- OsirisV (talk) 00:05, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Viscounts Devereux
Source for the descent of the Viscounts Devereux from Rollo. I cannot find Agnatic or Cognatic connections. EdgarÆtheling 25 (talk) 23:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)