User talk:Mississippienne

Hi! I'm sure someone will come by and leave a more "official" welcome message for you, but I just wanted to say thanks for the stuff you've been writing lately. I saw you working on some crusade and other medieval articles, and its always nice to have more people interested in medieval topics! Adam Bishop 05:51, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Welcome
Hi! welcome to Wikipedia!

Hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. Be bold in editing pages. Here are some links that you might find useful:


 * Try the Tutorial. If you have less time, try How to edit a page.
 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, Articles for deletion page etc.) use 	 ~ (four tildes). This will insert your name and timestamp. To insert just your name, type (3 tildes).
 * You can experiment in the test area.
 * You can get help at the Help Desk
 * Some other pages that will help you know more about Wikipedia: Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines, Neutral point of view, Civility, What Wikipedia is not
 * If you made IP edits before creating a user account, you can attribute your IP edits to your account at Changing attribution for an edit.

I hope you stick around and keep contributing to Wikipedia. Drop a note at New user log.

-- Utcursch | Talk to me

You could help solving the MESS prevailing at Safavids
Having just spotted your concise and pointed revision on Ismail I I could imagine you bringing reliable order to the Safavids article. Real nice to have you around! --Pantherarosa 22:53, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Midevial Women
Greetings. Adam Bishop suggested I contact you regurding this topic. I am currently researching the dynamic women played in the middle ages in relation to their rights to property and their ability (or inability) to excercise authority over their property and inheritance, indepnedant from their husbands or other male relations interferance.

To this end, I have uncovered many examples of women who inherited as Queens by right of heriditary and civil law, in each case being designated their fathers successor. Melisende of Jerusalem, Empress Maude, and Eleanor of Aqutaine are the most well known, but I am finding more. In each case, under salic law as then most common, each inheritance would have gone to a male relitive. Instead, the father designated the daughter to succed in his place. A commonality I have noticed is each of the examples I have given come from largely Cathar regions of France, The Aqutaine held its own culture and language, and suported Cathar Christianity. The Franskish dynasty that ruled over the Crusader state of Jerusalem was from Boulonge, France, a Cathar strong hold. Adam Bishop does not particularly trust over estimation of Cathar influence in these regions, but author and historian Alison Wier, in her 1999 biograqphy of Eleanor of Aqutaine, wrote that Aqutaine laws were favorable to women, and they could inherit and administer their inheritance and land independantly from their husbands. And this was so until the Albiginian Crusades.

What are your thoughts? In the end, women as rulers would be elimanted with the distruction of the Cathars until the 16th century.

Any help you can offer in directing me will be appreciatedDrachenfyre

Empress Maude and female succession
Porphyrogenitus, that would make more sense. I understand this. From my studies of inheritance laws of norther France and England, they practiced salic primogenture. Anglo-Saxon England had no tradition or precidence for female rulership, though there is plenty of occasions where women would inherit and administer their own lands within the realm itself. Norman England and the Royal Demise of France followed Salic primogenture, actively excluding women from succession- though many dynasties defaulted to semi-salic (tracing inheritance through women, but not giving them power) only in extrem cases, though royal France never allowed any thing less then strict salic.

So Henry I actually had a male heir with a technically better claim via salic primogenture in William Clito (why was he known as William Clito?), and Stephen de Blois had a technically better claim under semi-salic primogenture (his mother was Henry I's sister). Both were Henry I's nephews, dispite their detractions as your rightly point out. Henry I's decision is even more unique then I origionally thought. Even though Maude was born 'in the purple', He seems to have taken almost excessive steps to be sure his daughter became queen and his heir. Recalling Maude from morning in Germany- where she would have remained quite comfortably as the dowager-empress, and activly campaigning for Maude over William Clito and Stephen, AND setting a precidence by nominating a women to reign after him, exclusivly by her right alone. It seems even more interesting in light that even after Maude delivered a male heir that Henry I did not then alter the successon once again and make the infant Henry FitzEmpress his direct heir, with Maude as regent for him. Had Henry I any doubts of his daughters ability to rule one might have imagined he would have set her aside once she produced his male grandson, even an infant, as there was more precidence for an infant male successor then a women successor. He could have intrusted the realm to Geffery (though I suspect that was going too far, even for Henry, iven the animosity between Angivines and Normans. What are your thoughts on this?

Why was Henry I's son William known as Willaim Adilin?

Reguarding dynasty names: there was no formal dynasty name as we would recognize today. Oft people were known as 'of here' or 'of there', usually after ones largest holdings. Additionally, one might tok the patronomic of who your parent was. There was an additionally precidence in that Maude's son took the patronomic FitzEmpress, over FitzGeoffery. I know this was part politic- as he was securing his claim to the throne. But would this also not reflect a shift in how claimes were held? Henry II was known as FitzEmpress until he became king, and he waited behind his mother's claim untle she abdicated that in 1150's. From my observations this is additional this is also a break with custom, as Henry II consiously placed his mothers position above that of his fathers. Highly unusual for this time frame.

By having Maude married to Geffery, do you think Henry I was concern his royal boold was being diluted? That his dynasty would end with Maude and taken up by the Angivines? I am unsure as dynasty names as such were not established, my impression is that Geffery was simply a stud to the Royal Mare (as it were) and his powerful military and land connections were added bonuses. My impression is that Henry and Maude and Henry FitzEmpress all knew who the real dynasty was, and only later historians super-imposed the "Plantagenet' name on them. What are your thoughst on this?

Additionally, do you study this formally?Drachenfyre

In my knowledge, the medieval feudal law allowed succession by females and sucesion through females, a bit differently in different places, but overall so. Very few places disallowed succession through females, though in some places and cases male line was preferred. I believe that the biggest reason for allowing females was practical: child mortality was high, average lifespan not very high, males were more subject to violence and earlier deaths. The family succession would have ended to no heirs, had females not allowed. As feudal lords were originally and also mostly military protectors, males were preferred in succession. I believe that so-called agnatic seniority was the most usual form of succession in Europe in early medieval centuries. This was quite typical for Germanic peoples. In those circumstances, it meant brother succeeding brother, and deaths came typically when in thorties (around twenties-fourties), so sons were not usually old enough or mature enough to succeed when father died. (Of course, a trouble often arose when one of uncles ruled and first nephews became old enough. And, those uncles often favored their own sons to nephews, be nephews sons of elder brothers, thus the succession from generation to next was typically causing disputes.) This old tradition of particularly Germans but also of most other regions was the factual basis on which the later construct of Salic Law apparently was based and drew its case examples. However, Salic Law may have meant succession where females were accepted as links of succession. Grandfather succeeded by grandson, uncle by sister's son, etc. Quite often, the pure male line died out sooner or later, and female who had produced children, were practically regarded somehow as "dead honorary males" in succession. Very few rulers wished to leave succession to a distant male relative, even to as close as a first cousin. Own immediate family - nephews, grandsons - seem to have closer to succeed than a cousin of pure male line. In those times, succession was not usually governed by specific rules, much was dependent on the wishes of the person to be succeeded. Only later (I believe mostly after Middle Ages), precise and formal rules of succession developed into full use.

In medieval times, there was practically no practice of lordships reverting to the crown. Lordships werre mostly regarded as family possessions, not received from kings. And historically, this was quite often true: a family had taken an area, king or other only confirming. Sometimes, it was an estate owned by earlier generations, and perhaps enlarged by peasants joining the protection of a bigger peasant or sth. Sometimes, the lordship came from a tribal chieftainship inheritance. The tribe had perhaps only reluctantly recognized any overlord, and there was an idea that the crown or other overlord will certainly never touch the possessions of those. Thus, all property tended to have an heir. Sometimes it happened that the only member of the family surviving was a daughter or sister, and for example so young that had not yet produced children. The family succession had no one else than the girl, thus no use to disallow her succession. Usually, family must have provided some dowry to its girl. Sometimes, it took the form of estates. Also, husbands of females of families of other lord often coveted the addition of wife's family possessions. All in all, the tradition gradually enhanced the idea of heiress and the desirablity of heiresses existing, to provide marital catches. It was not fully in interests of other lords to guarantee that only males could have succeeded. On the other hand, in their own succession they wanted to prefer immediate male relatives, but they left close females in better position than distant males. On the other hand, most other lords wanted to have heiresses, to marry himself and to sons etc. Those lords themzselves formed the courts or arbitration panels, and increasingly cases left much space for females succeeding. In areas having strong Roman influence in history (such as Spain, southern France etc) females had higher possibilities and rights in succession than in Germanic central Europe.

Asd feudal practices have, for these several reasons, allowed succession by females, Aquitaine, England and Jerusalem whoch found themselves in position where a female was closest legitimate, followed these prescripts. I cannot see anything highly odd in these cases. They were the ones succeedung in very high titles, but there had been much more succeeding as countesses, baronesses etc. And do not forget queen Petronila of Aragon, queen Urraca of Castile, queen Berenguela of Castile, margravine Matilda of Tuscany, countess Kunigunda Welf, queen Gruoch of Scotland, Philippa of Toulouse, queen Adelheid of Italy, the mother of Louis III the Blind, countess Margaret of Flanders, duchess Constance of Brittany, queen Constance of Sicily. In medieval England, daughters inherited even earldoms quite often. It is not so easy to observe, as the husband exercised the position, but there were females in most cases.

I believe that the practice later known as Salic Law was very rare. And Semi-Salic (&likes) were not very common. The most common was, I believe, the male-preference succession. Even a brother succeeding instead of daughter was, I think, a bit rarer case than the daughter or daughter's son succeeding.

The position of a female was undeniably stronger if the father designated the daughter to succeed in his place. Afte all, in these times, the testament (if made in favor of a relative) was meaningful, contrary to modern centuries when the succession was geberally not alterable by an indiviual monarch - at whim at least.

As female successors were overall, I cannot give much credence to hypothesis of significance of Cathar - Albigensian factor. After all, apparently they just followed the typical succession pattern of Romanized regions. Perhaps Cathar and Albigensian males, due to crisades and likes, lost their lives more often and females were needed to inherit more often, but I cannot see any other big impact there. I agree that Aquitaine laws were favorable to women. Roman law already held good rights to females to inherit and administer their inheritance and land, even rather independently of their husbands.

Porphyrogenitus was not very successful claim in West. It is basically a Byzantine idea. In West, practical considerations usually won: need of having an adulkt to succeed, rather than an infant who happened to have been born in the parent's very recent reign. High birth was important. I have heard of examples where a claimant used the argument "I am a son of king, he is son of a count/duke", but there the actual date of the birth was not important: it was sufficient that the father later succeeded as king. This was used as a restriction in some succwessions by agnatic seniority: sons of those brothers who died before their turn to succeed, were ineligible or less entitled. I repeat: it was useful to be a child of a king, compared to cousins born as children of non-king dynasts. But to be born during the reign of parent did (in my knowledge) never solve the succession in favor of younger against the elder sibling in medieval Western Europe. Please feel free to give counter-examples.

England did not use Salic primogeniture. It used usually male-preference succession, most often primogeniture, but sometimes proximity or seniority. Northern France was not a region for pure salic law.

Anglo-Saxon England may have had no tradition or precedent for female rulership, though there are plenty of occasions where women inherited and administered estates. The kingship was basically elective, and elections in those times (as often today) resulted in favor of males. Norman England did not follow Salic primogeniture. It followed usually male-preference primogeniture. The Royal Domain of France is a bad example. It had a succession of available sons from 987 to 1316, thus no other need was tested. At the successions of 1316 and 1328, Salic Law as term was apparently not known. The cases ended in that result mostly by case circumstances, the choice both times being such that the better alternative was thje male-line heir over a female's role. And never earlier had a female been needed, thus to choose a male was not against any precedent in that title - thogh all those "electors", important feudal lords, knew from their own that women could succeed. Those two cases initiated a tradition which later was explained by the so-called Salic Law. Vassals of French royal domain were succeeded also by females.

Henry I had male heirs, but both of them were not his own descendants. William Clito was his nephew, the heir of the branch from which Henry himself had taken everything away. Stephen on the other hand was not even primogeniture heir (he was the scond son of his mother). Stephen's succession cannot be explained by any of the conventional rukes. He pleaded himself a testament of Henry I. He succeeded by being speedy, and by taking armed forces.

Henry I's decision was not very unique. However he took big steps to ensure his daughter became queen and his heir.

Maude had not very good living in Germany, being childless widow and the new rulers being distant in all ways. And the father anyway wanted to utilize Maud, who was "vacant", as marriage pawn, as almost every father in those eras did. We do not know whether Henry yet thought Maud as inevitable successor when marrying her tonAnjou - the king himself took the next wife and embarked to attempts to sire children.

Maud and William wwére Athelings, "royal children", as children of Edith = Matilfa, Henry's first wife. Who was descendant of Anglosaxon kings, whose children used Atheling. William's great-uncle was Edgar Atheling.

Henry may have preferred an adult as monarch than indirect and problematic positioning of regency and the uncertainty of leaving an infant as official successor.

They bdid not have dynasty names at that point usually. Their names are later inventions.

As Henry knew that he left himself no legitimate sons, I think that it was rather unimportant to him what "surname" the future successors got, or whether blood was diluted. Please remember that blood dilutes always: your grandkids have only a fourth of your blood, whereas your kids a half. Etc.

At that time, patronymics were not very usual nor consistently used in W.Europe.

The only trouble e Angevin was the animosity between Normans and Angevins which could influence the  loyalty towards Geoffrey. Otherwise, he was of good descent and had extensive fiefs, in neighborhood of Henry's, thus a good marriage.

It is certain that Plantagenet only much later came into use as surname. 62.78.104.52 22:44, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Roman legions
Moved to Talk:List of Roman legions --Panairjdde 17:00, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Willaim the Athling
"Why was Henry I's son William known as Willaim Adilin" The exact title was Athling, which meant heir to the Anglo-Saxon, (English) throne. Fergananim

Re: Medieval Women
Seeing as you seem to have Continental Europe pretty much down, why not try widening your scope a little? Ever hear of Grace O Malley, the Irish pirate? Fergananim

I've heard of Grace O'Malley, but as an Elizabethan-era individual she's somewhat outside my focus time period, plus I have no sources relating to Irish history. Missi

Here's a few sources for your edification, even if only for passing the time. http://www.rencentral.com/oct_nov_vol1/graceomalley.shtml Granuaile, the Life and Times of Grace O'Malley by Anne Chambers ISBN 0 86327 631 8, Fergananim

Leo II of Armenia
OK, so it's been a while since I read Rudt-Collenberg, but I don't think his usurpation was coupled to the crowning. He was already established as "Lord of the Mountains" well before then; as I explained later in the article, he spent several years lobbying the Pope and the Emperor to obtain the title of King. (Incidentally, if you do have Rudt-Collenberg on hand, do you think you could double-check some of the other Lords of the Mountains? I've been starting to fill them in, historically, but my notes aren't always complete...and then there's his transliteration of the Armenian baronies, which can be hard to figure out, like "Goromosol".) Choess 06:03, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)

Frederick II, HRE
At Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor, I'm guessing you have a citation for that remark by Sibt Ibn al-Jawzi; could you add it to the article's references? Thanks. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:57, July 16, 2005 (UTC)

Anne of Kiev
Anna_de_Yaroslavna dupes Anne_of_Kiev and the former should be merged into the latter (i.e., any new information should be edited into Anne of Kiev with a redirect left at the other). See note at Duplicate_articles. If not you, then someone else in your cohort should do the job. --FourthAve 22:07, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Irene Ducaena
Hi, I just posted Irene Ducaena, and I was wondering if you still have access to the "Byzantine Empresses" book. It's currently checked out of the library here and won't be back for a month, so unfortunately most of the information comes from Anna Comnena, who is of course extremely biased! I assume "Byzantine Empresses" has some more neutral information. If there's anything you can add it would be greatly appreciated. Adam Bishop 00:52, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Isabella of Jerusalem
(copied from Talk:Isabella of Jerusalem) Hi, Missi! Good to see you here! The comment being discussed on Isabella's page was made by me when not signed in. There is no reference in the Itinerarium, Roger of Howden & c to Maria being born in her father's lifetime (and as Isabella was the heiress to the kingdom, you would think it was an important enough event to be noted). Imad ad-Din and Old French Continuation of William of Tyre both say Isabella was pregnant when she married Henry. Conrad and Isabella were only married for 17 months, during which time he was often off campaigning (Baha al-Din also says he was wounded in battle 9 days before the wedding, so am not sure how well he'd have been feeling for a while!), so one pregnancy in that time is reasonable. I'm not sure why 217.140.193.123 thought it out of order to remark on issues re: reliability of sources. I would now say - and have re-edited the page to clarify this point - that there's no question that Maria was a posthumous child. I've done a lot of work on the Montferrat family, and it's clear from that side of things that she was not born in her father's lifetime. Silverwhistle 19:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Survey on the use of Latinized/Greek names for Byzantine rulers
Hi. There is a survey on the names of Byzantine rulers at Talk:Constantine XI. Maybe you are interested in.--Panairjdde 17:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Middle Ages did not call younger members of royal families as princes and princesses
please check the ongoing discussion about "princess" title on Talk:Margaret of Connaught - it will have implications that many medieval women will soon get the courtesy prefix "princess" before their names in article names. ObRoy 21:40, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Question
Can you remember where you found the information on the 1147 charter witnessed by Maud, 2nd Countess of Huntingdon ? I appreciate that the info was added over a year ago, and that you may not recall, but I thought I'd ask anyway. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Need help on Categories
What would be good Categories for my article Letter to Posterity that was written by Petrarch in 1372? --Doug talk 16:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

AIMA
Hey...I noticed that you were the one that started the AIMA prophecy article...so...do you have any knowledge of who initialy made it? AdrianCo (talk) 17:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Mississippienne! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created  is an  Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current Category:All_unreferenced_BLPs article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the unreferencedBLP tag. Here is the article:

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) Laura Ponte -

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)