Talk:Margaret I, Countess of Burgundy

This article needs major work
There are many grammatical errors in this article and the sentence structure is poor.--jeanne (talk) 07:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Boxes
Aciram, you must be aware of how weak your arguments are. "The succession boxes are widely used for queens consorts." Margaret was not a queen. "The consort of a ruler of a state regardless of her title is essentially as a queen consort and a first lady as she had the same social role..." A countess is essentially a queen? Simply saying that I disagree with this assertion does not convey my bewilderedness by it. "... which is a phenomena recognized in historical research." Such as? Being countess of one's husband's county is a phenomenon recognized in what historical research? Queenship is a theme discussed by historians; the position of a count's wife is not. If your assertion that "the social position is the same" were true, there would surely be scholarly works about countesses consort. I am yet to find one. The position of a countess consort is, in fact, of such interest to historians that the phrase "countess consort" has been used in merely two books since the 19th century.

If historians do not say that A was succeeded by B in a certain capacity, there is no need for a box to illustrate that succession. If you do not accept a solution based on sources, what would you like us to do? Should everyone be able to add whatever she or he considers "interesting"? The fact that my arguments are based on sources, while yours boil down to what you find interesting, makes it so much more insulting when you claim that this is about my "personal subjective tastes". Surtsicna (talk) 12:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)