Talk:Rohese Giffard

DYK nom
Template:Did you know nominations/Rohese Giffard Ealdgyth - Talk 15:03, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Context
So just how unusual was it for a woman to be a landowner in her own right at this time? I would expect someone has done a breakdown of landowners in the DB, setting forth statistics about male/female ownership, ethnic background (e.g., Norman French vs. native Anglo-Saxon), information about how ownership was achieved (e.g. in this case Rohese Giffard inherited the title), etc. Otherwise, this article reads more like a genealogical piece -- there is far more information about her lineage & family members than Rohese -- than an article about the person herself & her possible importance in history. -- llywrch (talk) 16:51, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Pretty unusual. I don't have the stats at my fingertips from Domesday but at a guess we're talking about less than 5% were female. Keats-Rohan, in her introduction to Domesday People says that while there are some preliminary studies done, "the subject of tenure by women needs further study" (p. 26 footnote 57). K-R does note the great rarity of women holding in their own right as opposed to widows holding their husband's lands. She specifically mentions Rohese as one of the rare ones who had a living husband but still was listed as controlling their own lands. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If this google book link works for you, it appears to say there were only around 20 some female tenants-in-chief. It's not clear from this whether that includes widows or not. Rohese is definitely listed in her entry in DB as the wife of Richard fitzGilbert but that the land (in Eynesbury) were hers, not his. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Source ...
pp. 29, 46, 64 - PhD thesis -- Ealdgyth (talk) 22:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:BIO
I noticed this article among the GANs. After reading it, I am wondering whether she was notable enough to have a separate article. Our relevant guideline says that "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." The article does not contain much information about Rohese Giffard. We are informed about her father and his Normandian estates, about her grandfather, about her husband, father-in-law and her husband's estates in England, furthermore we are informed about her children and their possessions and marriages. The only specific information about Rohese Giffard is that she was one of the few women owning landed property of her time. Our guideline emphasizes that "That person A has a relationship with well-known person B, such as being a spouse or child, is not a reason for a standalone article on A (unless significant coverage can be found on A)." Borsoka (talk) 02:25, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Most of what we know about the lower nobility in this period is .. who they were related to and what they owned. Are you saying that her being a mother to named children is not specific to Rohese? And the fact that she was one of the few landholding women in her own right in Domesday is pretty clear and makes her notable. She's discussed in the various works cited as being unusual for her mentions in Domesday in her own right (rather than as a widow). Ealdgyth (talk) 11:48, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Setting aside the GA discussion about the article, this period in time was highly hostile towards the recording of women in general. Even among the nobles it is rare to have much if any recorded information about a woman. The fact that we can confirm she was a land owner is significant in itself to warrant notability, imo. However, even if you discount that this appears to be a justified reason to invoke IAR. It should be rarely spoken or used but I can't think of any better reason than in the case of a woman from this time period. A very good friend,, has been writing about the current nationality laws from around the world. Some are very archaic and hearken back to this time period and before in which women themselves were viewed as property. Now, there is no way to right that wrong and we shouldn't try to but we can take notice when a woman was able to rise above that and have her name mentioned in historical documents. -- A Rose Wolf  13:46, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I see two claims of notability here beyond who she was related to - being a landowner in her own right and donating land to a monastery. For anyone in the 11th or 12th century, that's a lot. For a woman - given the status of women at the time - I think it's enough to meet our guidelines. Guettarda (talk) 15:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not fully understand your arguments because more than 50% of the article's text contains information about Rohese's mainly male kinsmen (her father, grandfather, husband, sons and grandsons) and their property. However, I am not an expert in the field of notability. Borsoka (talk) 15:53, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * , that is biographical information which is okay to include and even use primary sources to do so. If her only notability was the accomplishments or titles of these kinsmen then I would agree that she may not should be included. However, that isn't her claim of notability as pointed out so excellently by @Guettarda. -- A Rose Wolf  16:12, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, I will create an article about the Hungarian Lady Színes ("Coloured") who granted a village to the Pannonhalma Archabbey in 1146. I have not so far thought that she could be notable. Borsoka (talk) 16:32, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

As I was pinged, I have read the article and concur with Ealdgyth, ARoseWolf, and Guettarda. Specifically, land ownership originally was tied to military service, thus precluded women entirely. Over time, it became inheritable and a few women were able to inherit. That she was one of those few women and we know about it is remarkable. A review of sources, though I am not a specialist of the period and would defer to an editor who has more experience in this time frame, notes that there are quite a few other sources available. Birth and death noted here (reliant upon what sources I do not see in the volume). She, mentioned specifically, was part of a lineage second only to the king in power and wealth. [https://archive.org/details/shullburdsallsto00amer/page/349/mode/1up? This] indicates her mother was “Ermengarde, daughter of Gerald Flaitel and sister of William, Bishop of Evreux” p 349. (again, I am no expert and am unsure of what sources were used). There are numerous and multiple hits regarding her descendants and this makes it clear that she not only was the benefactoress (per ONDB for Clare, Richard de she gave an endowment), but also the founder of St Neot. But, bottom line, we have 3 claims of notability and sufficient information in multiple sources over time to give a reasonably complete biography of the subject even given her era. SusunW (talk) 16:59, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I would say that if she was the benefactoress of Pannonhalma Archabbey in her own right, then yes, Lady Színes is notable. SusunW (talk) 17:07, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * As an aside - this source is published by lulu.com, which is a self-publishing company - and to top that, it's a genealogical work so it's not going to be considered reliable. I"m going to guess that he got the dates from something online (where precise dates for medieval ancestors multiply like mushrooms in the dark corners of the internet - not that they are reliable). Ealdgyth (talk) 17:14, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Exactly! and why I said the period needs experts with a good grasp of weeding through the chaff. Nonetheless, there are definitely enough RS to confirm her notability in her own right. SusunW (talk) 17:39, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll admit I myself think that this article and many of these similar articles by Ealdgyth don't meet the WP:SIGCOV guidelines for notability, but I've never been tempted to AfD any of them because I think that would really be missing the point of the whole Wikipedia project. Ealdgyth has been adding clear value here by bringing together these different sources into one place, so they seem useful (if niche) rather than indiscriminate. Guidelines like WP:NOTGENEALOGY and WP:NOTMEMORIAL were surely not created with Norman noblewomen in mind. I figure Wikipedia has enough of a presentist bias already; we don't really need to be making it worse by culling well-sourced (if sparse) medieval biographies. -- asilvering (talk) 20:51, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I do not create articles on any landholder - they generally need to at least be considered a feudal baron or have an entry in ODNB or something similar. Or, as in this case, be something that is clearly above the usual landholder (a female landholder in her own right in Domesday). Yeah, they wouldn't be notable if they were in the 20th or 19th century, but when you're talking the 11th... Ealdgyth (talk) 21:09, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There's a similar situation with 17th-18th century slave women in the Caribbean. They may or may not meet the WP:SIGCOV guidelines of notability, but if they have an article in the Oxford Dictionary of Caribbean and Afro–Latin American Biography or they clearly demonstrate that their story is atypical of the usual slave manumission story (say they were able to accumulate a plantation or business in their own right), I'm usually willing to write an article. Context matters. Different periods of history and different types of subjects are likely to have fewer sources available. That is one of the main reasons that sigcov cannot ever be equated to a specific number of words or pages. The question for me boils down to is the coverage of this person in the time that they lived, significantly more than other similar persons in their demographic. SusunW (talk) 21:44, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Side note: Lady Színes is the first Hungarian woman whose last testament has survived, I think she is clearly notable. --Norden1990 (talk) 20:29, 7 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Agree RG is notable. Johnbod (talk) 15:08, 9 May 2022 (UTC)