Talk:William IX, Count of Poitiers

ERROR IN TITLE
The first son of Henry II and Eleanor was The Count of Poitiers. His generational title would not have been IX but XI. Eleanor's father's was William X. Of course this William died too young to obtain a majority claim on this title. As reference I use Allison Weir who only referred to him as William Count of Poitiers. I move that he be retitled William, Count of Poitiers. Markbeaulieu (talk) 03:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

According to the German version of this article, the title "count" was never bestowed upon William due to his young age and early death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.135.167.150 (talk) 07:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Untitled
He was the grandson of Henry I, not the son. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.235.166 (talk) 02:40, 22 May 2012 (UTC) Is there an image to go with this article? If not, I'd like to suggest we move the whole text into the "Henry II" article. It's difficult to justify a separate article for a child who died in infancy, and I think people are more likely to look for him in the entry for his father - if at all. Deb


 * Anyone looking for him will probably be looking for him as archbishop, so this article needs to be here to correct that error (and explain how it arose) as well as to make the point that it is uncertain whether he was born within months of his parents' marriage and to anchor the link from Count of Poitiers. So he is of historical importance, not merely "a child who died in infancy". -- isis 10:11 Jan 30, 2003 (UTC)

Not reverting anymore
I've heard that there are more people in the family of William IX of Poitiers. Please stop reverting my edits. Here is the real ancestry:


 * Yes, he had these ancestors (or at least most of them). And you could add another generation and another one and another one, but to what end?  At its heart, Wikipedia is not intended to convey genealogical information, beyond what is necessary to understand the individual in question.  For some people, just the names of their parents suffices.  For others, several generations can be helpful to place them into the appropriate geo-political context.  However, with each generation the number of people grows in a logarithmic fashion, and the significance of each drops proportionally.  At some point, the information becomes of such low significance that it becomes nothing but trivia, beyond the purview of an encyclopedia.  Likewise, it is not uncommon to find a reliable source that names a person's grandparents, and maybe even notable great-grandparents, but you are not going to find reliable sources beyond that - my personal preference would be to pare down the pedigrees to 4 generation, not expand them to 6.  Again, the farther back you go, the more likely you are to include people of no notability whatsoever.  You learn nothing worth knowing about William IX by reading that his great-great-great-grandmother had the name of Suthen (about whom nothing but the name is known, and even that is of doubtful authenticity).  Or even that a great-great-great-grandfather was named Archimbaud Borel de Bueil.  Yet another reason for concern, the farther back you get from somebody important, the more dubious some of the genealogy becomes.  I don't think some of the material you added is even accurate.  Just for aesthetic reasons, when you add the sixth generation, you go from being able to see the whole pedigree in one screen-view to having to scroll up and down to see it all.  And I saved the best for last.  William IX died at the age of two and a half.  Other than his parents, and maybe his maternal grandfather (from whom he derived his title), nothing in the whole tree is anything but trivia.  He was not influenced in his life choices by his descents and his kinships, because the only life choices he made were when to suckle from his wet-nurse and which toy to pick up.  This biography shouldn't even have a pedigree because it tells us nothing useful about the infant subject. Agricolae (talk) 02:13, 2 May 2012 (UTC)