Talk:Robert I, Duke of Normandy

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 moved to Robert the Magnificent DrKiernan (talk) 14:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

this article has been incorrectly identified with Robert II, when it should be Robert I. (Robert II is the son of William the Conqueror and, therefore, Robert I's (illegitimate) grandson.) i changed the text within the article, but for the life of me, i cannot figure out how to change the title. i already tried to move it, but that didn't work. thanks. Vinacava 20:00, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The opinion of Vinacava agrees with french Wikipedia, Image:Cronological tree william I.svg and the disambiguation page Robert I. If no reason to keep the present name is given, I suport renaming this article and the article of the next Robert (Robert III should be renamed Robert II).--Pere prlpz 12:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

As above, this should probably be moved to Robert I of Normandy, although if there is doubt about the numbering, or the nickname is overwhelming common, Robert the Magnificent is possible. So is Robert the Devil. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Survey

 * Robert I of Normandy Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The only real question about Robert the Magnificent is neutrality, but I would be willing to waive that rather than see this unmoved. It's my second choice; Robert the Devil a close third. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree and support Robert I of Normandy. – Axman (☏) 07:05, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak oppose. Robert I is ambiguous, see under discussion below.  Gene Nygaard (talk) 11:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Then what title would you prefer? Robert II is even more ambiguous, and several major sources, including John Le Patourel's Norman Empire, call him Robert I. (My objective here is to move the article to any better title, not necessarily my first choice.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It seems that "Robert the Magnificent" is well known, and as far as I know not ambiguous. I think "Robert the Devil" is problematic because of a blending of fact and fiction. I can see that the current title is problematic, and even trying to determine the extent to which Robert II is used for him, especially on the internet, suffers from the taint of Wikipedia usage, as so often happens with discussions of usage.  At least in this case, unlike some I've run into, the Robert II usage long predates the existence of Wikipedia.  Gene Nygaard (talk) 18:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Robert the Magnificent. All Norman dukes after him are not named after Normandy, so it is hardly inconsistent. Robert I and Robert II are both ambiguous and I would not know except from context who was being referred to. Robert the Devil is largely legendary. Meanwhile I have moved all the pre-Robert the Magnificent articles in line with each other (name + ordinal, Duke of Normandy), but I would propose moving Rollo of Normandy to just plain Rollo rather than Rollo, Duke of Normandy. Srnec (talk) 22:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Concur about Rollo. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support Robert the Magnificent or (second) Robert I, Duke of Normandy. Strong Oppose Robert I of Normandy. And goodness gracious, closing admin, no-one thinks the name should remain here!!! Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 16:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Support as Robert II, Duke of Normandy is William I of England's eldest son. GoodDay (talk) 17:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * PS- It should be moved to Robert I, Duke of Normandy. GoodDay (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Prefer Robert the Magnificent, no problem with Robert I, Duke of Normandy, Robert the Devil is not so great, but anything but is better than this. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

 * He is known as both Robert I of Normandy and as Robert II of Normandy. That needs to be explained in the article, no matter what the article's name is.
 * I don't know for sure why this is. This doesn't seem to be a case where it is a different ordinal number in different jurisdictions (e.g. James VI of Scotland).  I think it is because some count Rollo, the Viking who started Normandy, as Robert I: as that article says, "He is also in some sources known as Robert of Normandy, using his baptismal name."  Gene Nygaard (talk) 11:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That is confirmed in someone else's listing at the disambiguation page Robert of Normandy.
 * Since Robert Curthose is called "Robert III" or "Robert II", and Robert III of Normandy redirects to Curthose, I'd say that while the "Robert I" designation is ambiguous and can refer to either the subject of this article or his great-great-grandfather, there is also some ambiguity in the "Robert II" designation.
 * However, anybody looking for a Robert with a numeral is probably looking for Robert the Magnificent.  Gene Nygaard (talk) 11:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I suspect the dab page reflects the article Rollo of Normandy. I can't find any sources that do, and am about to add who. If the sources in question actually call Rollo Duke Robert, for example, with no numeral, we should not be calling him Robert I, even as a redirect (although we should have a dab header). Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:28, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know how many sources actually do call Rollo by the name Robert, but it is quite clear that many do call the subject of this article Robert the Second because some did call Rollo the first Robert.  I think it likely that more call this article's subject Robert II than Robert I. That's the way I have him in my genealogy program, though I take with a big grain of salt the connections showing him as my 30-greats uncle, or even more so my 18th cousin 35 times removed. And it is quite legitimate to use the I as an ordinal designation, whether it is for Rollo or for Robert the Magnificent.  Gene Nygaard (talk) 18:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If the name is ambiguous, we would be better off finding another. Do you prefer Robert the Magnificent, which Le Patourel also uses? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I take genealogy programs with several grains of salt, especially on questions like this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:07, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The program only has the data I entered into it. There was some reason for me entering it that way. I wasn't always so careful in entering my sources, and don't have them listed there, but can find many of them.
 * Here's one that wasn't my source, http://www.englishmonarchs.co.uk/dukes_of_normandy.htm English Monarchs, which lists him as "Robert II the Magnificent", and also discusses the baptismal name of Rollo as Robert. Gene Nygaard (talk) 18:18, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The source you provide is a website operated by a private person who does not list his or her sources for the information provided. That does not make the information automatically wrong, but it does not make it very useful when trying to write a factual article that will stand up to impartial scrutiny. imars (talk) 08:48, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The standard Library of Congress (& British Library) subject heading is "Robert I, Duke of Normandy, ca. 1010-1035" giving the authority as Encyclopedia Brittanica, 1982. so this is the accepted scholarly use. The others can redirect. Personally, I'd keep the dates in the headings, because dates are the clearest way to distinguish, but I know its not the style here, so it would be Robert I, Duke of Normandy. There are other Robert I's, so I think it needs "of Normandy" . The allusive titles Robert the Devil, Robert le Diable, Robert the Magnificent, are none of them historically standard, though they are  useful redirects. LC uses "Robert II, Duke of Normandy, 1054?-1134". for Robert Curthose again on the authority of EB,  so we should change that also.  Neither EB nor LC use Robert for the name of Rollo  in the heading. DGG (talk) 21:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It is agreed that "Robert I" is more common for this guy and "Robert II" for Curthose, but the fact is that they are ambiguous in the end analysis and since the Norman dukes already lack (of necessity) any consistency after this guy, I think we can stand for a nickname, of which "Magnificent" is the best option: it's bound to appear in any study of this figure. Srnec (talk) 01:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not a question or more or less common, its a question of one use being fringe and erratic and not supported by current authoritative sources. But, as another matter,obviously no contemporary source will call somebody duke ABC I. That won;t happen at the earliest till his successor  of the same name comes along.  DGG (talk) 21:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * All these forms are erratic to some degree, but "Robert II" is not fringe, just see this, which is well-sourced and scholarly and hardly fringe. Srnec (talk) 00:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * another defeat for professionalism, but I suppose it isn't inappropiate & I'm not complaining. :) DGG (talk) 02:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * By coincidence, I've been discussing this move since 30 January with Victuallers and Clio the Muse. The upshot is that I've moved Robert II, Duke of Normandy to Robert the Magnificent, with redirects from Robert I, Duke of Normandy and Robert I of Normandy. I've also added a disambiguation note at the head of the article Robert the Devil. I don't, of course, suggest there's anything final about these moves, but it really was a nonsense to have our article on Robert the Devil/the Magnificent at Robert II, Duke of Normandy. Earlier today the Robert I redirects were pointing to Rollo of Normandy, which made no sense. I checked all the links which were thus redirected to Rollo, and not one of them referred to Rollo, all referred to Robert the father of William the Conqueror.
 * On Robert Curthose, I certainly agree that he is usually numbered Robert II, but I would suggest leaving him at Robert Curthose, which is entirely unambiguous, just as Robert the Magnificent is. Xn4  13:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I rather Robert I, Duke of Normandy, guess it's just the numeralist in me. GoodDay (talk) 17:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Robert I and II are ambiguous, since Rollo was baptised Robert. Yes there is a preponderance of usage one way (Magnificent=Robert I), but I myself made the mistake of referring to this guy as Robert II at Norman conquest of southern Italy and was mis-corrected by Xn4 recently. Srnec (talk) 17:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry about that mistake, Smec. Perhaps it shows the benefits of seeking to avoid these numbers, which of course weren't used at the time. On Rollo, is it Wace who says he was baptized as Robert when he converted to christianity? If he was, it doesn't seem to have caught on. Forgive me if I'm out of date on this, but I thought the christian name Robert for him was still uncertain. Xn4  05:13, 8 February 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.

Move?

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was no move. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 10:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Robert I, Duke of Normandy → Robert the Magnificent —
 * No consensus was obtained for a prior move, see Talk:Robert I, Duke of Normandy for the consensus.  Srnec (talk) 04:22, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a reversal of a recently requested move: see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Robert_I,_Duke_of_Normandy&action=history . There are likely many Roberts who have behaved to various degrees magnificently; his formal reigning name "Robert I, Duke of Normandy" is clearer. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:34, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I assume that move was requested as "uncontroversial"? See above discussion. There is more than one candidate for "Robert I, Duke of Normandy", but I have never heard another man called "Robert the Magnificent". And his only formal reigning name was just "Robert" (sans numeral), he was called, I believe, both dux and comes Normannorum (of the Normans). Srnec (talk) 19:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose IMO, the titular name is clearer. --Labattblueboy (talk) 05:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

Date of birth
There has to be a problem with the date of birth, either in this article or on at least one other. This article gives him as born in 1000. His elder brother Richard III who preceded him as duke of Normandy was, according to his own article, born in 1001 which would mean the eldest brother was born second. Then on their father's page it says Richard was born c 1002/04 and Robert was born c 1005/07. This does not compute and is not encyclopedic.  Cottonshirt  τ   16:59, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Sybil of Falsise
The page for her husband Baldwin_de_Boulers questions whether she was Henry I's daughter and Henry I [] postulates that Robert of Normandy was her father. Does anyone have additional support? Cosumel (talk) 17:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Issue / Successor
I noticed that the successor is listed as William II, but links to William the Conqueror, who seems to have been William I. Illusio80 (talk) 00:22, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's because William I of England was William II of Normandy. Surtsicna (talk) 16:30, 20 May 2020 (UTC)