Talk:Matilda I, Countess of Boulogne

Biography assessment rating comment
WikiProject Biography Assessment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 14:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion
Barely a Start class. Hey I am going to add some information I have collected over the past few months in my History class. I believe it gives a added element of information that someone who views this article may use in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarterW17 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Title
Shouldn't this article's title be Matilda I of Boulogne? There was another sovereign countess of Boluogne called Matilda (please correct me if I am wrong)87.250.113.209 (talk) 18:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was no consensus. JPG-GR (talk) 04:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Matilda of Boulogne → Matilda I, Countess of Boulogne - (Discuss) - per Naming conventions (names and titles) - Surtsicna (talk) 14:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Survey
Move or Don't move followed by reason and ~


 * Move Queen Matilda was Matilda I of Boulogne because one of her successors was Matilda II of Boulogne. Surtsicna (talk) 14:05, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't move. This Matilda was Queen of England, and if we are going to use a title, we should use that one; but she was called Matilda of Boulogne, in distinction from the Empress. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Move Matilda of Boulogne is fine for her status as a Queen consort but the renaming clarifies she was also a sovereign. Dimadick (talk) 12:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Dont move Commonly used name. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Septentrionalis, the conventions say that deceased female royal consorts should be called " of  ". That's why Henry VIII's first wife is called Katherine of Aragon, not Queen Katherine of England. This woman, however, was a monarch (not just a consort).
 * If you had read more carefully what I helped to write, you would have found that the "maiden name rule", that rule of thumb, is not consensus, and there are many arguments against it; it should not be followed against usage, as WP:NCNT also says. Still less should this new conjectural rule be imposed against usage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In particular Katherine of Aragon is what English-speakers usually call her. The maiden name rule is an effort to generalize that (and other examples of usage) to make a consistent system; there has never been consensus how far to extend this generalization. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll quote the conventions: "European monarchs whose rank was below that of King (e.g., Grand Dukes, Electors, Dukes, Princes), should be at the location "{Monarch's first name and ordinal}, {Title} of {Country}". Examples: Maximilian I, Elector of Bavaria, Jean, Grand Duke of Luxembourg." Other examples: Jeanne II, Countess of Burgundy, and Albert II, Prince of Monaco. I don't like this rule - I think we should treat all monarchs equally, but I respect the coventions.

Since this woman was merely a queen consort due to her marriage to Stephen of England, we can't call her "Queen Matilda of England". It's also incorrect to call her simply "Matilda of Boulogne", because she was a sovereign countess of Boulogne whose successor was Matilda II. Surtsicna (talk) 11:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I did a quick check of my books on the time frame, and how they index her.
 * Oxford Dictionary of National Biography - Matilda or Matilda of Boulogne
 * Huscroft's Ruling England - Matilda of Boulogne
 * Chibnall's Anglo-Norman England - Matilda, wife of Stephen
 * Bartlett's England Under the Norman and Angevin Kings - Matilda of Boulogne
 * Matthew's King Stephen - oddly, she's not listed in the index, but looking up "Stephen, family of" got me Matilda of Boulogne on page 81.
 * Crouchs' The Reign of King Stephen - Matilda, countess of Boulogne and Lens, queen of England.
 * Davis' King Stephen (3rd ed) - Matilda of Boulogne
 * Poole's Domesday Book to Magna Carta - Matilda of Boulogne
 * Barlow's Feudal Kingdom of England - Matilda of Boulogne
 * Appleby's The Troubled Reign of King Stephen - Matilda of Boulogne
 * Ealdgyth - Talk 13:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Napoleon is commonly reffered to as either Napoleon or Napoleon Bonaparte. However, en.wiki calls him Napoleon I of France, according to the conventions. Surtsicna (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And it is very likely that we should not. That decision has been, and should be, controversial; compare WP:OTHERSTUFF. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.

Wiki Education assignment: The Middle Ages
— Assignment last updated by CarterW17 (talk) 14:12, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Recent addition
This edit is completely unsourced and contains opinions that are not attributed to scholars or other sources. Statements like "While Matilda is not as well-known as other medieval figures or leaders, her story is still a valuable part of the Middle Ages and medieval England and France." is a value judgement that needs attribution. "It is important to note that the historiography of Matilda I is very limited compared to more famous Middle Age figures." is in direct contravention of MOS:NOTED. "Matilda is a representation for female lordship in the Middle Ages and is a great example of how a Queen ruled in the absence of a male figure." is just puffery and not useful - what is "a representation for female lordship" anyway? "The Historiography of Matilda I, provides powerful information on complexities of researching the lives of medieval noblewomen." reads like a book report, not an encyclopedia article.

"Matilda’s power of being a dominant feudal landholder gained popularity with the locals and also being married to the anointed king Stephen." makes no sense - how was she a dominant feudal landholder and how did that power gain her popularity? "The 12th century also started the second Crusade, which were a series of multiple religious and military campaigns to the Holy Land. These campaigns had significant political and social impacts across the middle and Southern parts of Europe, including the region under Matilda I's rule." is just fluff - what were these impacts and how did they affect Matilda - but this edit doesn't give examples so it's just unsourced/unattributed opinion. "In a patriarchal, male dominated society, this gives major credit and recognition to Matilda for having the ability to wield power even when threatened by gender norms in the 12th Century." is once more opinion - and doesn't make any sense - what is the "this" that gives major credit and recognition?

"The historical context during Matilda I's rule was noticeable by her involvement and use of English politics during the Anarchy provided an extra layer of complexity to her rule." what is this trying to say ... it's incoherent and without any supporting evidence. "Another large area Matilda had to navigate was the Feudal System. The Feudal System was the social, political, and economic structure during Matilda's time and reign." not only Matilda but every single person alive had to "navigate the feudal system" so this is useless information without further (sourced) information. "Matilda involved and used a hierarchical arrangement of lords, vassals, and serfs, as well as land ownership as the basis of power and influence." what does "involved and used a hierarchical arrangement" mean? It sounds like more unsourced/unattributed opinion.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a college/journal publisher. We distill secondary sources into concise articles that relate the major aspects of a subject. We don't write college papers or book reports or even journal articles for academic needs. The additions in this edit read more like a college term paper or book report than what a wikipedia article should contain. Ealdgyth (talk) 23:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)