Talk:Matilda of Scotland

Matilda/Edith
"When she was about six-years-old Matilda and her sister, Mary, were sent to Romsey, " - no, Edith and her sister Mary. She wasn't called Matilda at that point. "During her stay at Romsey and Wilton, Matilda was much sought-after as a bride" - no, Edith was a much sought-after bride, because she wasn't called Matilda at that time. Edith was her 'real' name - she was only renamed Matilda when she married. The beginning "Matilda of Scotland (baptized as Edith)," - is deceptive. It implies that Matilda was her real name, and that she was given a baptismal name of Edith. Whereas, her only name was Edith, until she was crowned Queen, at which point she was given a new name. Please don't revert again (3RR rule). Michael Sanders 15:16, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * How do you know? I've never come across any evidence that she changed her name to Edith on marriage. She was baptized as Edith, but when she changed her name is a mystery. Her modern biographer, and her article contributor in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography writes:
 * Matilda [Edith, Mold, Matilda of Scotland] (1080–1118), queen of England, first consort of Henry I, was a daughter of Malcolm III, king of Scots, and his wife, Margaret, granddaughter of Edmund Ironside (d. 1016). She was born probably in the late summer or autumn of 1080, as her godfather, Robert Curthose (d. 1134), the eldest son of William I, was in Scotland then, but so far as is known at no other time. She was baptized Edith, but contemporaries knew her only as Matilda (or one of its variants). ... Before the end of the year ... Donald (d. c.1099), the new king of the Scots, drove most of Margaret's children out of his realm. Matilda found shelter in England with the help of King William and of her uncle, her mother's brother Edgar Ætheling ... Matilda's whereabouts from 1093 to late 1100 ascertainable.

So don't see why wikipedia should depart from modern experts on the topic. Anyways, the article title is Maltida of Scotland ... this should always be in the opening line, no matter how she is referred to elsewhere. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 15:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)r
 * Oh, I see you waited until the discussion was finished to edit. Terrible! You've violated WP:3RR, and I've half a mind to report you there. However, as you are possibly not aware of the rule, I will do no more than inform you this time. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 15:24, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * This article says that she was crowned as Matilda, 'a fashionable Norman name'. Her husband's article says she was renamed Matilda to satisfy the Norman barons. Chibnall, I seem to recall (few months since I read Empress Matilda) says that her name was changed only on marriage. Indeed, google gives more results for "Edith of Scotland" (12600) than "Matilda of Scotland" (571) or "Mathilda of Scotland" (307). So it's hardly her most common name, and we definitively don't name people according to their 'royal names'- thus, Bertha of Sulzbach, not Empress Eirene of Constantinople. What justification, then, is there for even keeping this woman under this article title? Michael Sanders 15:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Matilda is her most important name and how all scholars refer to her. No I've heard the "name-change on marriage" thing too, but it does not seem to be true, or at least it is not supported by the sources. I will have to dig out her biography and get back to you on that though. Anyways, the article title is Maltida of Scotland ... this should always be in the opening line, no matter how she is referred to elsewhere. So please insert Matilda back in. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 15:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * You can fix the opening line when the 24 hrs are up - that way, neither of us are in danger of violating any rules. On an unrelated point, why is there no mention of her being driven out of her father's kingdom before she was a year old in this article? Michael Sanders 15:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think reverts to oneself count as reverts. Regarding your point, the article - which I'm not responsible for - is obviously not very comprehensive. Feel free to improve it. I've been contemplating brining this article up in quality, but have had other priorities. Am going to read Honeycutt's biography on the plane when I go on wikibreak in the next couple of days. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 15:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * How about this as the opener, then: "Matilda of Scotland or Edith of Scotland", and then a footnote explaining the name situation? And we can decide what name to use in the main body when we've sorted that out. Michael Sanders 17:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)


 * That's fine. I'll come back on this point when I've done more research on the evidence for the name Edith, and found out why Honeycutt is so dismissive of the name. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 17:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

''' William was born on 5 August 1103 or November 1103??? You are so precise!!!''' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.247.153.85 (talk) 20:54, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Years of regency
The article states that she was regent in England during the absence of her spouse. Exactly which years was she regent? Should it not be written in the article? It is highly relevant facts. --85.226.41.14 (talk) 18:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 23:26, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Matilda of Scotland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706185217/http://mw.mcmaster.ca/scriptorium/margaret.html to http://mw.mcmaster.ca/scriptorium/margaret.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110706185217/http://mw.mcmaster.ca/scriptorium/margaret.html to http://mw.mcmaster.ca/scriptorium/margaret.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:48, 31 December 2017 (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 14:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Duchess Consort of Normandy
it is true that the date of 1106 is not supported in the article, but she surely cannot have been Duchess Consort of Normandy before Henry became the duke 1106? It seems to me that it is the "c." in "c.1106" that is wrong. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * We could probably just remove the whole "duchess consort" bit in the infobox - it's not exactly a ...important ... position. -- Ealdgyth (talk) 13:39, 13 December 2020 (UTC)