Talk:Queen Marcia

[Untitled]
Hi, just a note that I've removed this article from "British queen consorts" for a couple of reasons.

The sources I've found indicate that this is an article about a mythical queen of England, not a verifiable consort of a legitimate king. See King of the Britons: "Most modern historians consider the Kings of Briton to be genealogical and historical myths with no solid basis in fact," and "...it is obvious that Geoffrey [of Monmouth's] version of history is quite at odds with other versions." . If there is other material besides Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regum Britanniae, by all means, please cite it.

Secondly, the inclusion sticks out like a sore thumb in the list of "British" (i.e., United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland) consorts. While Marcia was a Briton, that doesn't mean she was "British" in latter, post-Queen Anne, sense. Queen Gwendolen, for one, is not in the category. Same with Guinevere (who is listed as a queen consort). This is a lesser rationale than the fact that she is mythical, but it was the first thing I noticed. I suggest if we do decide to include mythical consorts, which is not the case now, we list all known Briton queens. Until then, perhaps "queen consort" would be a more fitting category. --Marysunshine 03:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Great points! I've got to run and I'll read this again when I have more time to concentrate.  I made some edits based on similar comments to Sisillius II‎.  I think I'm getting closer - but hear that "Briton" and "British need to change - oh, to "England".  I'll come back to this.  Any thoughts about the recent edits + making the change to England?  Will we be good then? --CaroleHenson (talk) 20:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, I get your points about the categories! Makes tons of sense!
 * I'm trying to figure out if the terminology within the article needs to change. My understanding of the use of terminology pretty much matches what I thought, but British Isles, Great Britain, UK, British, etc. are definitely not a strongest suit.  I think use of Britain and Briton within the article are correct - but again I'm a bit out of my element on this, especially as the understanding of those terms and borders might have changed throughout history.
 * Can someone weigh in whether any changes needed to the article? Thanks so much!
 * Then I'm happy to tackle other articles within this chain of articles.--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)