Humanities desk
< November 19	<< Oct \| November \| Dec >>	November 21 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 20[edit]

When was Matilda of Flanders regent?[edit]

Matilda of Flanders appears to have acted as the regent of Normandy when her husband was in England, but I have seen no specific years for her regency. I realize one cannot know the exact dates, but I was referring to at least years. Was she always regent in Normandy when her husband was in England? If that is known, then it would not be hard to determin years, as I assume it is known when king William was in England and when he was in Normandy. Is her years of regency known? --Aciram (talk) 13:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's a timeline here for William's rule. From there, we can piece together he was in England from 1066-1067, returned to Normandy for at least a year, but his regents in England were Odo of Bayeux and William FitzOsbern. He was likely back in England for Matilda's coronation in 1068, and Henry I was born in England later that year, making it likely that Matilda was definitely in England during most of 1068. It doesn't say when William returned to Normandy after that, but he must have, because it says he returned from Normandy to England in 1069-1070 to oversee the Harrying of the North. He was in Normandy from 1073-1076, in England from 1085-1086 (unknown where he was in between) and injured at Mantes, on the border of Normandy and France Proper, in July 1087. He would die of his wounds later that year. No idea when, and at what times, Matilda herself was regent for William in either Normandy or England when he was away at the other spots. Unfortunately, we can't learn much from her children's birthplaces, it looks like Henry was the youngest (his next oldest sibling, Adela, was born in Normandy in 1067, which may have been why she took almost 2 years to be crowned in England.) That at least gives us a few data points. --Jayron 32 15:29, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Matilda is reported as being appointed regent of Normandy in 1066 here (p. 90), and again in 1069 (p. 146) and 1074 (p. 163). It's not hard to find general statements in the academic literature that Matilda, in partnership with Robert Curthose, Roger de Beaumont and others, was usually William's regent when he was in England. All the same, there doesn't seem to be unanimity that her powers actually amounted to a regency. Here, for example, it's said that Matilda and Roger were "representatives, not proxies, and there is no evidence that they could supply an authority equivalent to William's own". As Jayron said yesterday, medieval history isn't the place to look for certainties. --Antiquary (talk) 16:04, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's alright, I found it: in 1066-1067, in 1067-1068, in 1069 (probably, but not as confirmed), in 1069-1072, in 1074, and in 1075-1076. That is from the reference: Tracy Joanne Borman: Queen of the Conqueror: The Life of Matilda, Wife of William I, Bantam Books, 2012. I tried to ad it, but I forgot the page numbers, so it was erased and I that erased my energy from going back and look up the page numbers (I know one should ad page numbers to the references, but saw it as the ideal, and not as something which could get the reference erased altogether. It is a reference for god's sake, it just doesn't have page numbers, that's not the same thing, so that was a little to rigid and strict in my eyes). But it should of course be there, it is of great interest to know I think, so perhaps someone else have more energy. Thank you for all replies!--Aciram (talk) 14:15, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where was Jean Berain the Elder born?[edit]

Our page for Jean Bérain the Elder says he was born in 1640 in Saint-Mihiel in the Austrian Netherlands, but according to the Austrian Netherlands page, they didn't exist until 1714. So would Saint-Mihiel have been part of somewhere else then? Or am I missing something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.44.199 (talk) 16:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saint-Mihiel was never even near enough of that referred country to justify the claim it seems. The allegation could come from some misreading of the fact that the factor's works were exported, and copied, particularly to and in Augsburg and to/in the Netherlands. --Askedonty (talk) 18:07, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm mistaken, (and unless there is a different Saint-Mihiel) in 1640, that place would have been part of France in 1640. It appears to be a historical part of the Duchy of Bar, Duchy of Lorraine, or maybe the Bishopric of Metz (looking at various maps, it gets a little squirrely in there), all of which were occupied by France during the Thirty Years War; in the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, France got the Three Bishhoprics (including Metz) while the HRE got Bar and the rest of Lorraine back, but at no time in 1640 was that place part of the Netherlands, near as I can tell. --Jayron 32 19:00, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HRE got Bar, that's right: 1712 born Prince Charles Alexander of Lorraine (Karl Alexander von Lothringen und Bar) became a governor of the Austrian Netherlands. Booted caricature heroes stepping all over maps of Europe, typical of the Age of Enlightenment. --Askedonty (talk) 20:27, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shortly thereafter, the Duchies of Lorraine and Bar were granted to Stanisław Leszczyński as a consolation for losing the Polish throne (twice!); he was the father-in-law of Louis XV of France. --Jayron 32 11:37, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was almost 15 years ago now, but it was added by Wetman (talk · contribs), who is still relatively active. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:25, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]