Talk:Matilda of Flanders

Untitled
Surely she did not marry in 1152, nearly 70 years after her death.

Where was she buried? The infobox and the article give different churches. m.e. 04:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The Artical says "Matilda was a seventh generation direct descendent of Alfred the Great. Her marriage to William strengthened his claim to the throne. All sovereigns of England, Great Britain and the United Kingdom are directly descended continuously from her, including Queen Elizabeth II." Does this mean that they were all descended from William? Did the line go through Henry I's daughter Matilda? and does this include the Tudors and Stuarts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Holt100 (talk • contribs) 16:14, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Unlikely George I and the rest of the Hanover kings were decendents.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 02:06, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
 * They were descendants. The current queen's claim depends on descent going back to George I, who was descended from James I, who was descended from Henry VII, who was descended from William and Matilda. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Regent
Exactly when was she regent? The periods of her regency is highly relevant and should be listed. --Aciram (talk) 19:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Historical fiction...
Bookbard, I've reverted on the basis that the section isn't supported by secondary sources. What I mean by that is that while The Conqueror's Wife, for example, may feature Matilda, there's no supporting citation to show that other writers consider it relevant to understanding or interpreting her life. What I'd usually be expecting to see is something such as, for example, a biographer noting that "our modern interpretation of Matilda is shaped by The Conqueror's Wife..." or an academic article explaining how the book and Matilda are intertwined, etc. An example I sometimes use is the battle of Agincourt. It appears in lots of books, but the article only examines those examples in which there is substantial secondary discussion of it (e.g. how it plays out in Shakespeare's Henry V, a topic covered by many writers). Give me a shout if you need advice on where to look for this sort of material. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Carolingian descent
. . . is relevant. . . why? More precisely, why is the descent from the Carolingians via Robert of France more relevant than the descent from the Carolinians via the Flanders root, or the descent from the Carolingians via the Italians, or the descent from the Carolingians via the Bosonids? I has been broadly suggested that part of what made her an attractive spouse for William was her descent from Alfred. It would be counter-intuitive to say that her descent from Charlemagne had the same importance for their marriage because William himself had such a descent. Why, with all her and her husband's irrelevant descents from Charlemagne is this the one that is somehow most worth mentioning? Agricolae (talk) 17:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Obviously there are several things you’re unaware of and also I would very much like to see a list of citations of those who “broadly suggested” it was her descent from Alfred that was her primary attraction to William. Please, if you can, give them as complete source citations including page numbers so I or anyone else can verify each one.


 * Matilda was a member of the aristocracy, a granddaughter of Robert II, King of France via her mother and of several kings tracing back to Charlemagne on both sides of her family. Obviously Matilda’s family identified with Robert II as he was her most immediate royal ancestor. Robert II himself claimed descent from Charlemagne through his great-grandmother Beatrice of Vermandois.


 * Her descent from Alfred would be desirable if William knew in 1049 that he needed a wife with Anglo-Saxon royal blood and it presupposes he had that knowledge regarding Matilda. That was not her primary identity. She was part of the high aristocracy of continental Europe, a royal-kin network of branches stemming from the Carolingian family tree. While the Carolinian dynasty was no longer the power it once was and had been displaced by other royal families, many tenth century kings sought the status of Carolingian wives (including Robert II). It wasn't long before the aristocracy of tenth and eleventh century Europe was also touting Carolingian descent through female lines. It was part and parcel of the feudal transformation. By the eleventh century, female ancestry was as important as male, especially if her family had a more distinguished pedigree, as was the case with William and Matilda. William was seen as the bastard son of a Norman count while Matilda was descended from royalty, and closely related to most of the royal families in Europe. She didn't bring large landed estates to the marriage; she brought the prestige of her heritage. It’s the one thing an illegitimate count who later usurped a kingdom could not bring to the court of England, a royal pedigree (despite his having royalty in his tree there is little evidence it was known at the time or was not overshadowed by his illegitimacy). Matilda was the first English queen to be titled “Regina”. In Charters she is titled "Regina" and regina Anglorum et comitissa Normannorum et Cenomannorum (i.e. queen of England and countess of Normandy and Maine. It is abundantly evident she was the legitimizing element in William’s reigns as both count and king. I can and would be happy to provide you with a reading list that will help you understand her Carolinian identity and what that meant to an illegitimate Norman count still struggling to maintain his tenuous hold over Normandy in the late 1040s. All you need do is ask.  Bear♦patch   talk  16:46, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * And when you get to the part I am unaware of, I will ask. Do, please, show me the record in which Robert II himself claims descent from Charlemagne via his great-grandmother.  And with Matilda being the first queen called Regina, I seem to recall a rather important change in the English social structure that corresponded with her becoming queen, some sort of conquest or other, that might have been as important in determining the nature of subsequent writings as the fact that her maternal grandfather was descended from Charlemagne. Am I remembering that wrong, or did the structure of the English royalty and nobility undergo changes that had nothing to do with Carolingian descent?  And I have yet to see anyone claim WIlliam was able to solidify his hold on Normandy because his wife was a Carolingian.  It is a nice little narrative you have constructed, but that is all it is. Agricolae (talk) 20:31, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you but I can’t take credit for most of it. It came from a number of sources. To further work on what you seem to be unaware of, here are several sources regarding your questions. As to the reference to “Robert the Pious claimed descent from the Carolingians through his great-grandmother Beatrice of Vermandois” see: Régine Le Jan, 'Continuity and Change in the Tenth-Century Nobility', Nobles and Nobility in Medieval Europe: Concepts, Origins, Transformations, ed. Anne J. Duggan (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2002), pp. 56, n. 14, 57.

For Matilda being called Regina see:
 * Tracy Joanne Borman, Queen of the Conqueror: The Life of Matilda, Wife of William I (New York: Bantam Books, 2011), p. 160
 * Agnes Strickland, Lives of the queens of England, from the Norman Conquest, Vol. I (London: Henry Colburn, 1844), pp. 1-2
 * Francis Lancelott, The Queens of England and Their Times, Vol. I (New York: D. Appleton & co., 1890), p. 12.

To learn more about the importance of Carolingian descent to French and Anglo-Norman nobles, see:
 * Andrew Wareham, Lords and Communities in Early Medieval East Anglia (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2005), p. 3
 * Régine Le Jan, 'Continuity and Change in the Tenth-Century Nobility', Nobles and nobility in medieval Europe: concepts, origins, transformations, ed. Anne J Duggan (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2002), pp. 53-68
 * Jane Martindale, 'The French Aristocracy in the Early Middle Ages: A Reappraisal, Past and Present 75 (1977), pp. 5-45
 * C. B. Bouchard, Family structure and Family consciousness among the Aristocracy in the Ninth to Eleventh Centuries, Fancia XIV, (1986) pp. 639-58
 * Bernard S. Bachrach, 'Some Observations on the Medieval Nobility: A Review Essay, Medieval Prosopography, 1 (1980), 15-33 (on order, have not yet read other than synop.)
 * Constance B. Bouchard, 'The Origins of the French Nobility: A Reassessment,' American Historical Review, 86 (1981), 501-32
 * Andrew Wareham, Lords and Communities in Early Medieval East Anglia (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2005), p. 3

As to Matilda being a legitimizing element in William’s reigns both as count and king, please see: Tracy Joanne Borman, Queen of the Conqueror: The Life of Matilda, Wife of William I (New York: Bantam Books, 2011), p. 160.

This is a good part of the reading list I offered, now would you be so kind as to share the information you claimed to have? A list of citations of those who “broadly suggested” it was her descent from Alfred that was her primary attraction to William. Thank you. Bear♦patch  talk  03:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Her link to fame is definitely because of her grandfather being King of France not because she was a descendant of Charlemagne. --The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 06:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Well while I'm waiting on his verification perhaps you have a couple showing her descent from Robert II was the sole reason for her 'fame' and that her descent from Charlemagne was not a factor. And again, as I did, please provide a complete source citations. But just to entice you to read some of the above articles and books and to show they're not there as decorations, I'll copy a bit for you. See if it gets you interested in learning more. I'll set up the context for you:


 * "A century and a half later, around 1025, Adalbero, the aged bishop of Laon, who is often seen as a product of Carolingian tradition and who himself descended from an illustrious family related to the Carolingians, Identified himself with the spirit of 888: 'What ancestry confers, no act of will can break. Noble lineages descend from royal blood. For kings and princes [alike], praise of their high qualities is fitting.' Here we can see the development of an idea, in part, but only in part, derived from ninth-century ideology: the idea of a high nobility allied to the royal family, closely linked with the king, and justifying its superiority in terms of birth. Yet Adalbero was also a man of his own time; it was no longer the age of a single royal family but an age of princes. The Carolingian dynasty had been replaced by a number of royal families. Tenth-century kings all attached themselves to the Carolingians through women,14 nor did they fail to exploit their distinguished origins when necessary...
 * 14. Robert the pious claimed descent from the Carolingians through his great-grandmother Beatrice of Vermandois, daughter of...


 * ...The princes were not far behind. Witger, a monk of St-Bertin, wrote a genealogy of the counts of Flanders, in which he grafted the descent-line of the Marquis Arnulf onto that of the Carolingians in order to underline the royal origins of the Flemish comital dynasty. In a cognatic kingship system, marital alliances were essential: it was through these that all the princely and ducal dynasties of the eleventh century could boast of belonging to one of the stirpes regiae. Régine Le Jan, 'Continuity and Change in the Tenth-Century Nobility', Nobles and Nobility in Medieval Europe: Concepts, Origins, Transformations, ed. Anne J. Duggan (Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2002), pp. 56, 56 n. 14, 57


 * To keep this down in size I deleted a few parts; you can read them when you verify the above. Thanks Bear♦patch   talk  00:29, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Did the concept of a Carolingian dynasty and claiming descent from a distinct family existed in the early part of the Middle Ages here in question. Did Robert II personally even cared or openly claimed fame and recognition from his great grandmother's descents from the Carolingians? If anything Robert or his great grandmother would only know or care that she came from the family of the ruling counts of Vermandois. --The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 00:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC)


 * I answered the questions earlier and it was characterized as a nice little narrative. But you can read several of the sources yourself. I can’t draw you a better map to the information than I already have and it not only answers your questions but explains how and why. The short answer is yes, you’ll find they knew a good deal more than was previously thought. Descent from Charlemagne was important to the Carolingians; they not only knew who they were, they needed those around them to know as well. But don’t settle for the short answer, read the materials and learn for yourself. The references above are all readily available and I don’t believe any of the articles are much over twenty-five pages long. I’d start with Bouchard’s article 'Origins of the French Nobility'; Martindale’s 'The French Aristocracy in the Early Middle Ages: A Reappraisal'; and Bachrach's, 'Some Observations on the Medieval Nobility: A Review Essay' is excellent as well. Be sure you understand the significance of a liber memorialis, not just a translation but what it contains. One more and it shouldn't prove a burden, see Constance B. Bouchard, 'Consanguinity and Noble Marriages in the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries', Speculum, Vol. 56, No. 2 (Apr., 1981), p. 272. Specifically note the information concerning the Synod of Ingelheim in 948 directing Christians to prepare a scripta genealogia.  Bear♦patch   talk  19:49, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

William is also a descendant of Charlemagne
I have to agree with a statement above that got slammed and I want to redirect it to this one point. The article's Notes say "Matilda’s principal attribute was her descent from Charlemagne" which is obviously false. Perhaps her other ancestors were her principal attribute, but not Charlemagne. If William was also a descendant, which he is factually known to be, then that attribute is completely moot. Now do not misunderstand me, I do not disagree that she was of a higher station than William, but I think the validation is incorrect and needs fixing. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 06:49, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Consanguinity needs expansion
There is a claim in the Marriage section that the pope objected to her marriage due to consanguinity. There is a citation, granted, but there is no further information. That really needs to be addressed. Why? Via what part of the family? If it's going to be mentioned, it needs to be fully explained. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 07:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

She was not Norman...
Marriage to a Norman does not make you Norman. It DOES make you whatever consort of whatever title that spouse might have, but it does NOT make you Norman. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:07, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Matilda's years of regency in Normandy
I added the fact that Matilda acted as regent in Normandy in 1066-1067, in 1067-1068, in (probably, but not as confirmed) 1069, in 1069-1072, in 1074, and in 1075-1076. The reference is: Tracy Joanne Borman: Queen of the Conqueror: The Life of Matilda, Wife of William I, Bantam Books, 2012. This is of course valid information which should be in the article. It was however erased from the article because I forgot the page numbers. I may be mistaken, but although page numbers are the ideal, references without page numbers are, after all, still references, and to erase them can be seen as a bit to rigid and strict. I, for one, do not have the energy to go back to the library and look up the page numbers after adding information which does have a reference, just not page numbers. Its a shame if this information will continue to be unknown in wikipedia because of that. I will mention it here, if someone else have more energy - or ar simply interested to know the years and to the back of the article to ask for them, as I was about to once. Well, here they are. --Aciram (talk) 14:23, 22 November 2020 (UTC)