Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry of Normandy
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was redirect to Robert Curthose. Delete and then redirect but no objections to someone making this a dab if they prefer Spartaz Humbug! 16:35, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Henry of Normandy[edit]
- Henry of Normandy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
- An article had been created by myself and then doubted and deleted. See the discussion on Talk:Robert Curthose#Henry of Normandy, which leads to the conclusion that such a prince never existed.Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 03:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep & rewrite on the basis of the talk p. mentioned. The most impt authority for the period, Orderic Vitalis, is the source, and there seems to be no academic source refuting him, only the unsourced statement of a popular writer who gives a different birth order. DGG ( talk ) 07:23, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:31, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - there is no need to have a separate listing for the controversy about whether he existed or not. His likely non-existence should be covered at Robert Curthose's page, which is sufficient coverage. And Orderic isn't the most important source for the period, just one of several, and the only one that mentions him. David's biography of Curthose does not mention him, and in fact clearly states that Sibyl only had once child (and sources this to Orderic and Wace) so while David is somewhat older, he's pretty much the only biographer besides Lack. Thompson's biography in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (here but needs UK library access or subscription) doesn't mention a son Henry, although she does mention illegitimate sons Richard and William as well as one attested illegitimate daughter and one possible illegitimate daughter. (The statements there about children from Sibyl are "Then in Lent 1103 Duchess Sibyl died, probably as a result of poor nursing after the birth of her son, William Clito, on 25 October 1102." The only other statement there about other children is "Robert's two illegitimate sons Richard and William met early deaths, Richard in the New Forest in 1100, and William in the Holy Land in the 1110s. Nothing is known of his daughter, the wife of Elias de St Saëns. Robert probably had a second illegitimate daughter, since Henry I made provision for his niece Sibyl of Falaise."). The proper place any mention of him is in Robert's article, along with the note that modern historians have not found the evidence of his existence convincing. I've also acquired Weir's book since the previous talk page, and she does not give any sources whatsover for her statements - and if Lack is disqualified by being a popular writer, then Weir should likewise, as she is also a popular writer. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- A further bit. David, does specifically impeach Orderic, as he states "Soon after the birth of her [Sibyl] only child, William Clito, she died at Rouen, and was buried..." (Charles David Robert Curthose Harvard University Press 1920 p. 146) Ealdgyth - Talk 14:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the bit below from Oderic, I now think the best thing is to delete this article, redirect the title to Robert's article, and insert a footnote stating that Weir's named this person, but does not give a source, and the other sources do not agree there was such a person, thus covering us against recreation. Thanks for finding that Deacon, Im' still trying to find my copy of Orderic that's somewhere in a box... somewhere. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not convinced keeping this as a redirect is even wise. Surely Henry of Normandy should redirect to Henry I of England? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:53, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the bit below from Oderic, I now think the best thing is to delete this article, redirect the title to Robert's article, and insert a footnote stating that Weir's named this person, but does not give a source, and the other sources do not agree there was such a person, thus covering us against recreation. Thanks for finding that Deacon, Im' still trying to find my copy of Orderic that's somewhere in a box... somewhere. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through Aird on gbooks, Sibyl and Robert had one son, and Robert had two known bastards. Alison Weir is not a reliable source. Maybe she made a mistake, or is confused. I seriously doubt she was conducting original research on the matter. Definite delete. If a reliable source comes up mentioning Henry, then we can recreate the article. I'll try to check out the OV reference in fmg.ac, but that isn't a reliable source either. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per Ealdgyth. If the only thing known is that he might, or might not, have existed, then a separate article is not justified. Johnbod (talk) 16:44, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]In September Duke Robert arrived in Normandy and, after being received by his people, went with his wife Sibyl to Mont Saint-Michel in peril of the sea. There he gave thanks to God for his safe return from his long pilgrimage, and afterwards consummated his marriage with the daughter of Geoffrey of Conversano. Next year she bore him a son, and Archbishop William baptized the child, giving him his own name. Duke Robert recovered his duchy without opposition, and held it for about eight years in name only ... (OV, X.17)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Monty845 02:34, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —Agricolae (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or maybe Merge, but definitely not Keep. Judging the evidence independently, this looks like nothing but a mistake, someone who never existed. It looks to me like someone has accidentally created a new child by combining a confused and ambiguous reference to the birth of Clito with a similar reference to the death of illegitimate son Richard. That being siad, even if such a child of Curthose did exist, he would abysmally fail WP:NOTABILITY, receiving no reliable coverage in the depth necessary to qualify. Looking at the existing page, there is nothing of value that one would want to Merge, and any comment on Curthose's page should be limited to a footnote, and contain text of an entirely different nature. Finally, the name Henry of Normandy probably shouldn't redirect to Curthose anyhow, as the name would be much more commonly used to refer to Henry II of England prior to succession, so I don't see there being any benefit to a merge. I go with the original nomination and with Ealdgyth's revised opinion (delete and add footnote to Curthose) - it would be best to simply uncreate the page. Agricolae (talk) 15:42, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely it'd be Henry I rather than Henry II? Henry's agnatic line--his dynasty--is usually styled "Of Normandy", whereas Henry II's is "Of Anjou". Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely not. Henry I of England later became Duke of Normandy. Henry II of Normandy later became King of England. Agricolae (talk) 02:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You've misunderstood. Henry I's male ancestors were a family called "of Normandy" (William the Conqueror, etc); Henry II's were called "of Anjou". Henry I is hence "Henry of Normandy", Henry II "Henry of Anjou". Whether or not one was Duke of Normandy before being King of England isn't of much comparative relevance. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I haven't misunderstood. I just don't agree that patrilineal ancestry is the sole, or even best, standard for naming people. Whether one was from Normandy is absolutely relevant, even if one's father came from elsewhere. This reflects actual usage of long standing: Henry II is commonly called Henry of Normandy prior to his succession - search Google Scholar or Google Books for "Henry of Normandy" and the matches are mostly to the future Henry II, not Henry I. I think, though, we are in agreement that Henry of Normandy most certainly should not redirect to Robert Curthose? Agricolae (talk) 02:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't agree much of this, but I never said patrilineal ancestry is the sole, or even best, standard for naming people. I will add, though, that "Henry of Normandy" for Henry II might come across as simply factually incorrect on the basis of 12th-century French naming practices. Usually I'd be more interested in what is perceived by experts to be factually correct than what the out-of-date and trashy books on gbooks say. That's just me though ... Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For all the calling of those Google matches out-of-date and trashy and factually incorrect, you are bringing nothing to the table but personal opinion. However you characterize the Google Books matches (and, oddly, ignore the Google Scholar matches) where are your corresponding scholarly references to Henry I being "of Normandy" in preference to Henry II? You may not have said that patronymic ancestry is the best criterion, but you seem to be taking it for granted at the expense of actual past usage. In discussions of the reign of Stephen and the marriage to Eleanor of Aquitaine, references to 'Henry of Normandy, later Henry II of England' are all over the place. At the time of his marriage and at the time of his success in the war with Stephen, Henry was 'of Normandy'. He has been called this repeatedly and I don't see why we should ignore it just because Henry II's father came from Anjou and Henry I's father came from Normandy. This as all a distraction, though, from the question of whether the current Henry of Normandy page should exist or be merged or deleted. We can always make Henry of Normandy a disambiguation page. We don't want to have a pointless merge simply because we can't agree to which Henry it should really redirect. Agricolae (talk) 13:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I find this really puzzling. You have spend some time making an argument to me in which I have no interest in. I merely pointed out that Henry I is the one with "of Normandy" as a kindred name. This is just a fact. If Henry II is also called "Henry of Normandy" in some modern texts ... great. Congratulations to him. As you realise in those texts Henry I is already dead so it's not a means of disambiguating H II from H I, though were it ever used as such anyone who knows much about the period would guess it referred to H I (my point). Incidentally, usually when I say references are out of date or trashy, they are. I regard my own personal opinion as having weight, as I'm sure others do ... but it's up to each individual I guess. Absolutely sick of being told on these threads to respect printed works because they got published in whatever century by whatever amateur enthusiast and are now visible to the undiscerning masses on gbooks. Irrelevant! A work has authority if and only if it is reliable, not because it merely exists! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You may have no interest in the argument, yet you keep arguing - puzzle that for a while. You have pointed out that based on your own criteria, "surely" Henry of Normandy should refer to Henry I rather than Henry II. I have pointed you to hundreds of occurrences where Henry II is called Henry of Normandy. I too know a scholarly contemporary source when I see one. I too would have thought that anyone who knows anything of the period would hold my view, an opinion which I too think has weight ... but which also has all of those inconvenient citations to back it up, from scholars like Crouch, Keats-Rohan, Barrow, Freeman, King, Painter, Archer ... amateur enthusiasts and hacks all, I'm sure. But you just dismiss these all out of hand in favor of your personal preference, in part because Henry I was dead already (as you so succinctly say, Irrelevant!) but mainly just because. Obviously we are not going to agree here on who "Henry of Normandy" 'should' refer to. We are also not going to agree on the status of "of Normandy" as a so-called "kindred name" of scholarly standing. A disambiguation page would seem to be in order. Agricolae (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Almost all the hits on you're referring to on gbooks are for Duke 'Henry of Normandy' and such like anyway, and those don't support what you are saying. But point taken, no more 'arguing'. Should be a dab page. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 20:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You may have no interest in the argument, yet you keep arguing - puzzle that for a while. You have pointed out that based on your own criteria, "surely" Henry of Normandy should refer to Henry I rather than Henry II. I have pointed you to hundreds of occurrences where Henry II is called Henry of Normandy. I too know a scholarly contemporary source when I see one. I too would have thought that anyone who knows anything of the period would hold my view, an opinion which I too think has weight ... but which also has all of those inconvenient citations to back it up, from scholars like Crouch, Keats-Rohan, Barrow, Freeman, King, Painter, Archer ... amateur enthusiasts and hacks all, I'm sure. But you just dismiss these all out of hand in favor of your personal preference, in part because Henry I was dead already (as you so succinctly say, Irrelevant!) but mainly just because. Obviously we are not going to agree here on who "Henry of Normandy" 'should' refer to. We are also not going to agree on the status of "of Normandy" as a so-called "kindred name" of scholarly standing. A disambiguation page would seem to be in order. Agricolae (talk) 18:35, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I find this really puzzling. You have spend some time making an argument to me in which I have no interest in. I merely pointed out that Henry I is the one with "of Normandy" as a kindred name. This is just a fact. If Henry II is also called "Henry of Normandy" in some modern texts ... great. Congratulations to him. As you realise in those texts Henry I is already dead so it's not a means of disambiguating H II from H I, though were it ever used as such anyone who knows much about the period would guess it referred to H I (my point). Incidentally, usually when I say references are out of date or trashy, they are. I regard my own personal opinion as having weight, as I'm sure others do ... but it's up to each individual I guess. Absolutely sick of being told on these threads to respect printed works because they got published in whatever century by whatever amateur enthusiast and are now visible to the undiscerning masses on gbooks. Irrelevant! A work has authority if and only if it is reliable, not because it merely exists! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- For all the calling of those Google matches out-of-date and trashy and factually incorrect, you are bringing nothing to the table but personal opinion. However you characterize the Google Books matches (and, oddly, ignore the Google Scholar matches) where are your corresponding scholarly references to Henry I being "of Normandy" in preference to Henry II? You may not have said that patronymic ancestry is the best criterion, but you seem to be taking it for granted at the expense of actual past usage. In discussions of the reign of Stephen and the marriage to Eleanor of Aquitaine, references to 'Henry of Normandy, later Henry II of England' are all over the place. At the time of his marriage and at the time of his success in the war with Stephen, Henry was 'of Normandy'. He has been called this repeatedly and I don't see why we should ignore it just because Henry II's father came from Anjou and Henry I's father came from Normandy. This as all a distraction, though, from the question of whether the current Henry of Normandy page should exist or be merged or deleted. We can always make Henry of Normandy a disambiguation page. We don't want to have a pointless merge simply because we can't agree to which Henry it should really redirect. Agricolae (talk) 13:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't agree much of this, but I never said patrilineal ancestry is the sole, or even best, standard for naming people. I will add, though, that "Henry of Normandy" for Henry II might come across as simply factually incorrect on the basis of 12th-century French naming practices. Usually I'd be more interested in what is perceived by experts to be factually correct than what the out-of-date and trashy books on gbooks say. That's just me though ... Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 11:27, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No, I haven't misunderstood. I just don't agree that patrilineal ancestry is the sole, or even best, standard for naming people. Whether one was from Normandy is absolutely relevant, even if one's father came from elsewhere. This reflects actual usage of long standing: Henry II is commonly called Henry of Normandy prior to his succession - search Google Scholar or Google Books for "Henry of Normandy" and the matches are mostly to the future Henry II, not Henry I. I think, though, we are in agreement that Henry of Normandy most certainly should not redirect to Robert Curthose? Agricolae (talk) 02:51, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You've misunderstood. Henry I's male ancestors were a family called "of Normandy" (William the Conqueror, etc); Henry II's were called "of Anjou". Henry I is hence "Henry of Normandy", Henry II "Henry of Anjou". Whether or not one was Duke of Normandy before being King of England isn't of much comparative relevance. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:37, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely not. Henry I of England later became Duke of Normandy. Henry II of Normandy later became King of England. Agricolae (talk) 02:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely it'd be Henry I rather than Henry II? Henry's agnatic line--his dynasty--is usually styled "Of Normandy", whereas Henry II's is "Of Anjou". Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 15:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.