Talk:Gundred, Countess of Surrey

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Parents[edit]

Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Parentage_of_Gundrada,_The_English_Historical_Review_1888.pdf

Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gundrada_in_Dictionary_of_National_Biography.pdf

Some authors in the United States state that Gundred was not a daughter of William The Conqueror. See The Magna Charta Sureties 1215, (by Fredk. Lewis Weis, et al, 5th edition, Baltimore, 2002, p.188), where she is described as daughter of "Gherbod the Fleming". David Lauder 09:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This issue has been closed for some time, it is just unfortunate that there are sources that are over 100 years out of date. Stapleton in 1846 first showed that Orderic Vitalis explicitly calls Gundred sister of Gerbod the Fleming, and in 1888, Edmund Freeman wrote a summary of the situation that made the issue clear (Edward A. Freeman, "The parentage of Gundrada, wife of William of Warren", English Historical Review 3 (1888):680-701). Specifically, he says, "As the evidence now stands, there is really no ground either for the old belief that Gundrada was the daughter of King William and Queen Matilda, or . . . that she was daughter of Matilda but not the daughter of William", and, "We may say without any kind of doubt that Gundrada was not the daughter of William." Basically, in the original document in which William is shown as father of Gundred, no such relationship was given, but a later hand added "my daughter" into it. In a known authentic document, William names Gundred without any indication of relationship. The documents that show Gundred as daughter of Matilda ware from the 15th century, and cannot be taken as authentic. Particularly persuasive, when William de Warenne, son of Gundred, was to marry a daughter of Henry I, the marriage was prohibited by Anselm, archbishop of Canterbury, because they were related via four generations on one side, six on the other. Had Gundred been daughter of William, she would have been sibling of Henry I, and the proposed bride and groom first cousins. The same ground was covered by Clay, in Early Yorkshire Charters, VIII: 50-6, who reached the same conclusion. (See also http://sbaldw.home.mindspring.com/hproject/prov/matil000.htm which summarizes the question, and http://www.medievalgenealogy.org.uk/families/gundred/gundocs.shtml which provides primary source material.) It should also be noted that the traditional chronology is problematic - Reynold de Warenne appears to have been commanding troops in 1090, making a 1083 birth unlikely (see Freeman). Agricolae 17:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just how does a source become "over 100 years out of date"? In addition, is Vitalis correct here? He gives Agatha (Malcolm III's mother) as a daughter of the Hungarian King and this is now stated to be wrong by many so-called modern experts. I have no idea who Edward A. Freeman is or why his personal opinion should take precedence over established famous scholars, and I really would like it explained to me why 15th century sources are worthless. In addition I can cite umpteen instances of Papal Dispensations being issued to permit 1st cousins to marry so it is beyond me (again) why this seems to fantastic. I get a little rattled when acknowledged experts of the past are trashed by today's superior people. David Lauder 08:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Orderic's reliability has been questioned, as has the Hyde chronicle, but the two are clearly independent of each other, and as such appear to confirm each other. It is, of course, possible that they are based on the same bad informant, but all things being equal, information appearing in two near-contemporary sources is more likely to be authentic than information not appearing anywhere until over 300 years later. Further, even were we to set these early items aside, there is still reason to reject that Gundred was daughter of William. As to Freeman, I guess I should have linked it: Edward Augustus Freeman was an established famous scholar (not that it is about whose historian is more famous, either).
In this case, the 15th century material is of reduced value because the documents are copies made several centuries after the events they are reporting and they were not compiled written by disinterested parties, but by parties who might see a benefit to linking their foundation to the royal family, and the critical information was, in one case, not in the original but has been added by a later hand, and in the other case subject to alternativereading. Also, they conflict with various aspects of the contemporary record. They are at odds with Orderic and the Hyde chronicle. The information fails to appear in the works of other Norman genealogists and chroniclers such as Robert of Torigni and Florence of Worcester. In an authentic document William the Conqueror fails to refer to Gundred as his daughter in a context in which this would have been expected. Most importantly the purported relationship conflicts with a direct relational statement by a contemporary - that a proposed marriage shouldn't happen because Gundred's son was 3rd cousin, twice removed to the daughter of Henry I, when if the Lewes documents were correct they would have been first cousins - as close as you can get to direct contemporary testimony that they were not first cousins. Note that the issue on this last is not one of the granting (or not) of a dispensation, but of direct testimony of what their relationship really was (i.e. something very much more distant than first cousin). Agricolae 21:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed this to use separate notes and references sections, since I think that's easier to follow when the same references are used repetitively. But I don't feel all that strongly about it.Loren Rosen 21:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC) Czwolff (talk) 08:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


ACTUALLY, NO

There are many many sources refuting the idea that Gundreda was NOT the daughter of William "the Conqueror".

If you read Observations on the Parentage of Gundreda, The Daughter of William Duke of Normandy, And Wife of William de Warenne By Sir George Duckett, Bart, FSA (1877) you will see that this theory is in fact not correct. Gundreda WAS the daughter of William the Conqueror. This text sites several period sources (contemporary with her life and death) including her own tombstone.

Some extracts of this book can be found at http://web.archive.org/web/20050206222901/http://oldbooksoncd.com/gundreda_book.htm

For example:

Sir H Ellis, in his "Introduction to Domesday" (i.507), observes; "Gundreda was really a daughter of the Conqueror. William de Warenne's second charter of foundation, granted to Lewes Priory in the reign of Rufus, states this fact distinctly:- Volo ergo quod sciant qui sunt et qui futuri sunt, quod ego Willielmus de Warenna Surreiae comes, donavi et confirmavi Deo et Sancto Pancratio, et monachis Cluniascensibus, quicumque in ipsa ecclesia Sancti Pancratii Deo servient in perpetuum; donavi pro salute animae meae, et animae Gundredae uxoris meae, et pro anima domini mei Willielmi regis, qui me in Anglecam terram adduxit, et per cujus licentiam monachos venire feci, et qui meam prioreum donationem confirmavit, et pro salute dominae meae Matildis reginae, matris uxoris meae, et pro salute domini mei Willielmi regis, filii sui, post cujus adventum in Anglicam terram hanc cartam feci, et qui me comitem Surregiae fecit." (Cott. MS. Vesp. F. XV; Lappenberg, p 216.)

Gundreda is also acknowledged by the Conqueror himself as his daughter. The charter, by which the King gave the manor of Walton, in Norfolk, to the same Priory, on its first foundation by W. de Warenne and his wife,5 distinctly styles her his daughter. He gives it, "pro anima domini et antecessoris mei Regis Edwardi ... et pro anima Gulielmi de Warenna, et uxoris suae Gundredae filiae meae et haeredum suorum." (Intro. Domesd. I. 507.)

Again, in the Ledger Book of Lewes are these words:- "Iste (William de Warenne), primo non vocabatur nisi solummodo, Willielmus de Warenna, postea vero processu temporis a Willielmo Rege et Conquestore Angeliae, cujus filiam desponsavit, plurium honoratus est," etc. (Watson's Memoirs, i. 36.)


and again:

"The Genealogie of the Countes of Guarine, alias Surreie:"

"William the firste Counte Guarine married Gndreda, the Doughter of King William Conquerour."

Benolte, also, who was Clarenceux from 1516 to 1534, in his Visitation, in remarking on the tombs existing in his day," in the Chapter House of Lewes Priory, observes:- "Willyam the firste Erle Waryne and Surrey, furste founder of the howse of Saynt pancrase, assituate within the towne of Lewys, in the countye of Sussex, wiche Willyam and Gondrede, his wyffe, lieth buryede in the Chapytre of the same howse, wich Gondrede was dawghter unto Willyam the Conquerour." (MS. D. 13. Col. Arm.) (Suss. Arch. Coll., iii, 187.)

Again, dating back to an early part of the same reign, we find in one of the Harleian MSS. some remarkable portraits or sketches,7 though somewhat rude, of William of Normandy, his Queen, and three sons, with three only of his six daughters, to the exclusion, namely, of Cecilia (the abbess of Caen); Adeliza (a nun); and Agatha (who died, betrothed to the King of Galicia). Inasmuch as the three therein depicted Princesses are partly robed in the Royal purple, and partly display the heraldic ensigns of their respective husbands, embroidered on their mantles, that of Gundreda having the Checky or. and az. Coat of Warenne,8 the inference is clear, that the excluded sisters, being dead to the world, needed no portraying or worldly vestments, according to the artist's view, and that the remaining daughters, of whom the wife of William de Warenne was one, were well-known and acknowledged daughters of the Conqueror at that date. In addition to these instances, Ralph Brooke, York Herald, [in his "Catalogue of the Earls of Surrey," Ed. 1619]; and Vincent, Rouge Croix [in his "Discoverie of Brooke's Errours," Ed. 1622]"

There is more in this book explaining how the confusion possibly came about and further refuting the idea of Mathilda having a previous marriage.

Czwolff (talk) 08:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Freeman and Clay both studied these arguments after Duckett and Ellis and reject their argument convincingly. Agricolae (talk) 19:35, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment[edit]

Clearly, the parentage of Gundred is a subject of debate. However, I have provided numerous citations to support the position that Gundred is the daughter of William the Conqueror and Matilda of Flanders. I have added these sources while still stating that the parentage is debated. I believe this to be the most neutral viewpoint. User:Ealdgyth reverted these edits and I fear that this will result in an editing war. Clearly, the most neutral stance would be to offer both viewpoints and allow the reader to pick a side by viewing the evidence presented. 71.100.1.129 (talk) 16:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You realise that the Milles book is just a reprint of an original 1610 work, right? See here where the original publication date is given as 1610. It's seriously outdated and does not count as a "reliable" source. Also the Osgood source is originally from 1907 and thus also is outdated - see here. And the Rixford source was originally published in 1933 - see here. So all of the sources given are older and out of date compared to the newer historical sources listed below. Note also that there are plenty of other sources - both historians and genealogists - that reject the claim that Gundred was the daughter of either William OR Matilda - see Handbook of British Chronology (3rd ed. 1993) pp. 34-35 where Gundred is not listed with the other issue of William and Matilda. Nor is she listed as an illigitimate daughter of either. Douglas' biography of William has an appendix on Matilda and William's marriage where he lists the children - and does not include Gundred. And he specifically discredits the idea that Gundred was the daughter of Matilda by a previous marriage or that Gundred was the daugher of William. The exact quote is "There is no reason to suppose that Gundrada was the daughter of either William or Matilda." (p. 392 Douglas William the Conqueror 1964). Gundred's biography in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (2004 revised in 2007 - see here) states that "Warenne, Gundrada de (d. 1085), noblewoman, was the daughter of Gerbod, head of a noble Flemish family who was hereditary advocate of the important monastery of St Bertin." No mention is made of the idea that she might be the daughter of William or Matilda. Nor does Matilda's biography in the ODNB (see here 2004, revised 2008) mention Gundred in the listing of Matilda and William's children - although all the other children are enumerated. Nor does Alison Weir in Britain's Royal Families (first published 1989, my edition 2008) mention Gundred as a daughter of either William or Matilda. As for purely genealogical sources - Stuart's Royalty for Commoners (revised second edition 1995) states several times that Gundred was the sister of Gerbod - NOT that she was the daughter of William or Matilda. Call's Royal Ancestry Bible volume 3 (2005) chart 2553 gives Gundred's ancestry - which is not the daughter of Matilda and William, rather listing her as the daughter of Gerbod. That's besides all the other sources listed in the article that support the non-William or non-Matilda ancestry of Gundred. The fact that an ancestry society and some outdated sources are presented does not trump the recent historical and genealogical works which reject the idea that Gundred was the daughter of William and/or Matilda. So, yes, it IS a fringe theory and placing that information as prominently is giving undue weight. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly how does a source become "out of date"? Surely, older sources in this case would be more reliable as they were closer to the actual life and times of Gundred. Further, even if false, isn't the mere idea that Gundred has such prominent parents notable enough to include in this article, particularly when sources are provided? It can never be satisfactorily proven one way or another without DNA testing, but with the lack of said testing we can only go by published sources, and just because two sources conflict does not mean that one is right and the other is wrong. Perhaps you have a personal vendetta in this matter? Either way, I think an administrative comment is appropriate in this mater. 71.100.1.129 (talk) 17:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said at the RfC: :When the "sides" are: a) All mainstream academic historians, and b) a bunch of obscure amateur? genealogical societies and writers, all apparently American, that is not the way to do it. The view that she is William's daughter has been WP:FRINGE (or failure to keep up with scholarship) for well over a century now. I have mentioned the "dispute" more prominently, but that is at least as much as it deserves, maybe more. If you want anything more prominent, find a reputable academic historian from the last few decades who supports the view. Johnbod (talk) 17:43, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Johnbod. The way it currently reads is the most neutral it has been. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 19:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure, and thank you for saying so! If Ealdgyth and everyone else agrees, we can all go about our business. Johnbod (talk) 21:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think Johnbod's edit summarises the situation well. I think the theory deserves a mention as a historical theory that won some acceptance at the time but is now discredited. The fact that it was widely believed at one time isn't entirely irrelevant. In that way, it's a bit like the stories that crop up in the lives of saints. Kafka Liz (talk) 00:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:HISTRS and the common principles behind it repeatedly put at WP:RS/N apply: primary sources should not be used for history articles; non-scholarly sources should not be used for history articles; history articles should be based on current scholarly research by historians (or their equivalent professional peers in related fields such as historical sociology or anthropology) where that currency is field dependent, dependent on acceptable theory and method, and on the findings being accepted by the particular scholarly community. Johnbod says it, and says it well. Editors who are not able to comprehend that this is the practice after being repeatedly instructed in the matter may need to be removed from the editing area due to "I don't hear that" type disruption of the encyclopaedia. Fifelfoo (talk) 22:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment II[edit]

Since the source for citation #7, the Wikipedia article International Society of the Descendants of Charlemagne has been deleted, the source citation needs to be deleted as well. It’s not critical to the Gundred, Countess of Surrey page, nor to the mention of alternative theories of her parentage. Bearpatch (talk) 18:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, the source is the linked minutes (the pdf file). The article on the society has been deleted, but linked file is a valid source for the beliefs of the society itself. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:18, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The minutes of July 13, 2011 stated that the executive board voted unanimously on the issue of Gundrada’s parentage. On the website the executive board consists of Keith, Robert, and Megan Koehler. But nowhere, either in the .pdf file or their website, did I see what sources were used to justify this decision. Note that the Wikipedia:Verifiability policy states: “The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think unsourced material is true.” There's nothing on ISDC's website that allows anyone to determine whether it is or is not a reliable source. As this citation stands, I just don’t understand how it can be verified. Is there a part of this website I'm not seeing? Bearpatch (talk) 00:48, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's supporting the fact that the society voted that way, not that they were right. (which, I must admit, they weren't). The fact that the pdf doesn't show it's sources is immaterial to the fact that it's supporting. The fact is that some international genealogical societies still hold this (wrong) position. That's what the pdf is sourcing - the fact that the society holds the position, so the fact of whether or not the pdf is reliable for the fact of Gundrada's parentage (it's not) but it is reliable for the opinion held by the society itself, which is all we're interested in here. The sentence in question is "The early 19th-century writer Thomas Stapleton argued that she was a daughter of Matilda, born prior to her marriage to William. Edmond Chester Waters and Edward Augustus Freeman showed that this too could not be supported though some genealogical sources continue to make the assertion that she was William's daughter." which is supported by the pdf- the society does assert that Gundrada's dad was William the Conqueror. Does that make better sense? If not, I'll try to get someone else in to explain it better... Ealdgyth - Talk 00:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, Bearpatch, we're citing the society for their own expressed opinion, rather than for any historically accurate fact. That's an acceptable use of this type of source. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:36, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But why? What has their opinion, especially when based on a disproved theory, have to do with an authoritative article on Gundred? In addition, it goes without saying we don’t vote on who historical figures were, we research and evaluate valid sources for that information. So including a reference to this society also sets a bad example of how not to do historical and genealogical research. They aren’t showing any sources and we have no idea what they based their executive decree on. There simply cannot be a good reason to keep this source.
The fact is, these theories, which used cartulary evidences, have actually disproved themselves. Certainly, William de Warenne did not admit, in writing, in a charter to Lewes Priory sent to Cluny, that he and his wife were engaged in a consanguineous marriage and/or affinal marriage (depending on which charter is used). Further, William the Conqueror surely did not admit in a charter to the same ecclesiastical house that he both knew and approved of his second cousin, William I de Warenne, and a so-called daughter of his were flaunting church authority by remaining in a 3rd degree consanguineous marriage at a time when 7 degrees were prohibited. That’s not even considering the rash of consanguineous and affinal marriages that would have been caused if Gundrada were a daughter of either the Conqueror or Matilda of Flanders; extending even to her grandchildren. The theories are themselves baseless.
Mixing good well-sourced information with these old theories, which can’t be proved, is the main reason this remains an ambiguous article. A good precedent is the Wikipedia Spherical Earth article. It states that the concept of a spherical Earth displaced earlier beliefs in a flat Earth. It’s an effective way to make mention of an older disproved theory and move on. At the very least Gundred’s page deserves the same treatment. But watering down good information with bad in an attempt to show balance had bad idea written all over it. Can’t we put a few heads together and come up with a better way to handle this? And can’t we use better sources than, for example, Burke, Bannerman and Dunbar, especially when better ones are available? Bearpatch (talk) 03:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are no sources for the first cousin relationship and I have never seen it in medieval articles. Please state examples. It is an extraordinary claim and needs a source. There are many third and fourth and fifth cousin marriages, but even in royalty I do not recall any first cousin marriages. There may be some, but as I say it should be sourced.
The reference International Society of the Descendants of Charlemagne cites NO sources. If that reference was able to be used only on the basis that "it is a respected society", then we could revised hundreds of articles who have deleted references because the work does not cite its sources. I kept it in but noted the society mentions no sources for its claims. It has to source just like every other report of every other society. The Interpretation of the "Verifiability, not truth" guideline has, it seems, once again been misunderstood here and that is why it is the most disputed guideline in wiki. See Jimbo Wales page (and elsewhere). It is full of controversy over this particular guideline. Thank you.Mugginsx (talk) 13:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't need to source its own opinion, which is what we are citing to it. This has nothing to do with the dispute you mention. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Also, to whomever removed Orderic Vitalis The Ecclesiastical History of England and Normandy, Translated by Thomas Forester, Volume II, 1854), it is NOT a primary source It is a secondary source according to Wikipedia guidelines. Please read the explanation of secondary sources at Wikipedia:No original research. Thanks. Mugginsx (talk) 16:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria: To assert that ALL historians agree on something you have to prove it, you know that. I refer you to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view where it states: Editing from a neutral point of view (NPOV) means representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view. NPOV is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia and of other Wikimedia projects. This policy is non-negotiable and all editors and articles must follow it. You cannot infer that "modern historian believe ... you are infering that ALL modern historians believe that. It is not provable and therefore violates the above guideline because it is not a NEUTRAL statement. Mugginsx (talk) 17:24, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not make unfounded accusations in the edit history. I did discuss the historian edit with you here on the talk page where it is supposed to be done. You did not see it. That is not edit warring but any definition.
I've amended the article's phrasing, but disagreeing with the way a sentence is worded does not give you license to edit-war. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

editing conflict - reinstated my answer where it was originally said.

As for the other, the study not needing to be referenced, I disagreed and that is why I removed it. In fact, it was removed in another edit made elsewhere for similar reasons. All academic articles, including reports made by societies which make claims, whether we agree with the report or not it should nevetheless, be referenced. If they are not then they are not worthy of inclusion into Wikipedia by my understanding of the rules of inclusion. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources That they may support another valid reference that in place in not sufficient to keep them in and of itself. I understand this reference has been reverted a number of times and do not wish to break the 3 RR rule, so as an administrator, I would ask you to remove it yourself as a violation of Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. If you do not, then I would ask another Administrator to do so. I really do not believe it should be in there. Any organization can say anything. It was not published in any journal, it was not referenced. I feel it should be removed on that basis. Thank you. Mugginsx (talk) 17:54, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You are welcome to disagree, but you are incorrect. The source is currently used to support the statement "some genealogical sources continue to make the assertion that she was William's daughter". The report is evidence that this society makes that claim. It need not provide references because we are not using it as evidence that the claim is true, but simply that the claim is made. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You may be correct. We will see, but it seems to me that, using your rationale, if the reference can be used in the one place, it can be used in the other. You have not shown me any Wp:Guidelines to support your view whereas, I believe that I have shown WP:Guidelines to support my position. Let us see. I am willing to go with an administrator whom I consider an expert in these matters and since he has a PhD I will do whatever he says.Mugginsx (talk) 18:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"if the reference can be used in the one place, it can be used in the other" - absolutely not. "The reliability of a source depends on context", per the page you cited. See also WP:RSOPINION for why this particular use of this source is acceptable. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The minor edits just done are definitely a step in the right direction. It’s in the spirit of compromise and it shows clearly we’re not at war here. It’s just a discussion and I’m trying to make positive edits without eliciting a redaction war. I assume we’re still all welcome here aren’t we? Personally, I still believe the note regarding this society has no place in a biographical article like this one. And BTW, WP:NPOV also says it means “representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources.” The disproved theories are not significant, and in fact are still WP:FRINGE. But, leaving that alone for the time being and moving on; does everyone understand that the Orderic citation was not to an original source? WP:CITE states that we should not cite original sources and use published sources instead. An original source and a primary source are not the same thing. The same WP policy mentions primary sources only once: “don’t add the full text of primary sources.” Neither the citation to Orderic or the citation to the Hyde chronicle [Trans: Edwards, 1866] were to original sources. Then, I think Burke, Bannerman, and Dunbar should be replaced with more modern sources reflecting up-to-date research on Gundred and her family. It makes for a much better article. Other authoritative sources can be added. Lastly, I need to ask are there any other parts of this page that can’t be touched? I’m just asking. Bearpatch (talk) 19:40, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since there was no consensus on any point in this article, I do not know of any reason why this page cannot be edited anywhere. I did not count the number of times a particular edit was reverted, so I think, with regard to the particular edit which seemed in dispute before I entered this discussion. it would be the only problematic one. You would have to check that against the three revert rule and see how many times it was reverted.
Also, at a quick glance at all of the discussions on this page, I have seen no WP:Guidelines mentioned except the ones I mentioned and until that is done by the editors who may have disagreed with you or other editors here, It looks to me to be a matter of a difference of opinion. Editors can say anything, it has to be backed up by guidleines.Mugginsx (talk) 21:46, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Mugginsx, I think more than a quick glance is needed, and perhaps you might want to read the guideline you cited in its entirety. Nikkimaria (talk) 22:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria: I have read it through. It also states under WP:RS Scholarship Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been at least preliminarily vetted by one or more other scholars'

Basic Disagreement:

This reference was used by one editor and then reverted and ultimately used by the editor/administrator who reverted it to prove the opposing editor's opposite point of view. This editor/administrator is now claiming it is valid to use to prove the (opposing) viewpoint:


http://deadendinternet.com/charlemagne/minutes/2011-07-13.pdf Minutes of the meeting of the Executive Board of the International Society of the Descendants of Charlemagne held on July 13, 2011: "It was then and there decreed by the Executive Board as follows: Gundred, also known as Gundreda, wife of William de Warrenne, Earl of Surrey, was the daughter of William "the Conqueror", King of England, and his wife, Matilda de la Flandre, and that Gundred is deemed to be a direct descendant of Charlemagne [...]"


It should be noted that this report contains no references and has not been published or peer reviewed. It is simply the minutes of a meeting of an organization that has been put on the internet as thousands of organizations of all types do. I an asking you as an expert to look at it. Thanks. Mugginsx (talk) 02:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nikimaria: If and when the other administrator responds, I will defer to him. I don't mind being wrong, if I am wrong I just like to be certain, as I am sure you do as well. Thanks. Mugginsx (talk) 22:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

my opinion was asked. Old fashioned pseudo-geneological sources can be used, but only with extreme caution, as represting traditional views, not as representing anything on part with modern historians. History is not a matter of personal preference, but a sophisticated academic subject. The traditional local legends and just that, a curious collection of facts interested more for anthropological and psychological rather than historical purposes, as indicating what a community believes, usually for ratification of its own importance. It sometime happens they may be correct, but at most they're usually suggestive. The "vote" ofa local history society is utterly worthless as history. The material can stay in Wikipedia, but I'd separate these off as "legend". It's not a matter of NPOV, but the relative reliability of sources. DGG ( talk ) 13:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you DGG for your help and expert advice. I have removed it as a "reference". I have not started a Legend section and will let the other editors decide if they wish to create one. Mugginsx (talk) 14:13, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am a little late coming to this discussion, but I have problems with the use of the ISDC material, because of WP:UNDUE - the 'genealogical society' in question is basically nothing but a family-run club that has been around in its current iteration for all of one year. To quote from their own web site - "The first ISDC was founded in 1984 by Rev. Lowell Barker. After many years of inactivity, the society was re-launched in 2011 by the Koehler family of Tampa, Florida." The opinions of the executive board (the members of which share the same surname) of this particular newly-reformed club deserve no weight at all. While it might be worth indicating the beliefs of a substantial community of genealogist (that have been around since before last year), this is nothing but non-expert personal opinion given false-respectability because they call themselves a 'Society'. Agricolae (talk) 18:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Again, why is the opinion of this self-styled society worthy of encyclopedic notice? How is this source any more worth mentioning than were I to invent my own 'society' and put my personal opinion on a web page? Agricolae (talk) 20:58, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
And again, what makes the self-published opinion of this family-run, one-year-old 'society' worthy of special note? Agricolae (talk) 23:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To whomever the IP was that stated this in their edit history: (Removal of this source not appropriate in light of previous discussions. One poster's unanswered claims that source should be removed insufficient to remove source.) (undo) - This reference has been discredited numerous times, the last time was by Administrator DGG, a PhD. and a Librarian, an expert on sources. It is ludicrous that it is still being inserted and tends to makes the editor or editors look foolish who do so. 15:41, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Gundred, Countess of Surrey. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:40, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for proposed parentage[edit]

According to the following sources, Gundred was the daughter of William the Conqueror and Matilda of Flanders.

Despite the above, as stated in the article, many modern historians and scholars do not accept this proposed parentage. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 17:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(revised consistent with below comment by Agricolae on 31 Dec 2020) Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 16:05, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Four of these are very old sources (1610, 1885, 1932, plus the 1966 is actually a reprint from 1920), while the fifth is just an self-published work of an over-eager ancestor-collecting hobbyist. They do not represent modern thinking on the question. The purported parentage is clearly a forgery in the Lewes priory documents done at a much later date in order to flatter their patron family, and is both implicitly and explicitly contradicted by primary sources much closer to the relevant time. Current scholarly opinion dismisses it out of hand, and in this article we already give too much attention to what hasn't been a scholarly controversy for a century. Yes, sloppy or biased sources still repeat the desirable but false claimed parentage, but no scholar of Norman England does. Agricolae (talk) 18:14, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add, the Schmuhl work claims to trace: "Ancestry to Adam of some leaders of the Mormon Church in the 19th and 20th centuries". There are no such lines. This is not a work Wikipedia should be citing anywhere for anything. Agricolae (talk) 18:35, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gundred,_Countess_of_Surrey&oldid=1207335101"