Talk:Brunhilda of Austrasia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.

Middle Ages Low‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women's History Mid‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography assessment rating comment[edit]

WikiProject Biography Assessment

Narrowly a B. An infobox, perhaps a more contemporary picture of her, and some consistency in the references would be helpful.

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 03:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

If Brunhilda of Austrasia was born in 534 she would be older than her mid-sixties at the time of her death in 613. The spread in years would make her 79.

Her death in 613 seems to be well documented, but I believe that it is less certain that her birth was in 534. Also, her marriage to Sigebert I of Austrasia is usually said to have been around 565-567. If Brunhilda had been born in 534, this would have made her thirty-one to thirty-three years of age at the time of her marriage (old indeed for a bride in that era).

It is often said that Brunhilda was born in 534 and it is said just as often that she died in her mid-sixties in the year 613. But the math does not add up, and this discrepancy should be noted until accurate dates can be verified.

She is usually said to have died in her eighties. Srnec 20:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Marrying old could tie in with the legendary figure that refused to marry any man that could not defeat her in battle.2601:806:4301:C100:8CF1:2EBE:2D65:3557 (talk) 02:53, 9 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup[edit]

This article needs to be cleaned up a bit and given some more details. I'll do what I can. Srnec 05:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. -- Stbalbach 05:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll second that, though the section "In legend" doesn't assort with. Wikipedia's article Burgundians which has the following text: "The destruction of Worms and the Burgundian kingdom by the Huns became the subject of heroic legends that were afterwards incorporated in the Nibelungenlied—on which Wagner based his Ring Cycle—where King Gunther (Gundahar) and Queen Brünhild hold their court at Worms, and Siegfried comes to woo Kriemhild. (In Old Norse sources the names are Gunnar, Brynhild, and Gudrún as normally rendered in English.) In fact, the Atli of the Nibelungenlied is based on Attila the Hun.'" I'm partly responsible for that text: if it's misleading, please cut it or amend it. --Wetman 09:03, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ingunde was NOT Brunhilda's mother, but her mother-in-law[edit]

Ingonde was not Athanagild's wife, but Clothar's, the Frankish king, and she was not Brunhilda's mother, but her mother-in-law.

Here's the source:[http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/gregory-hist.html#book4 Medieval Sourcebook: Gregory of Tours (539-594):History of the Franks: Books I-X], In the part IV, 3, it says:

The king (referring to Clothar) had seven sons by several wives; namely, by Ingunda, Gunthar, Childeric, Charibert, Gunthram, Sigibert, and a daughter Chlotsinda; by Aregunda...

I shall change the stub according to this.--Maduixa 16:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He who wrote this article, does not know to sum! How can Brunhilda be 26 in 595, if she is born in 543? And above all, at he age of 26, she is alreadz double Grandma! This is ridiculous!!!! I will remove this ridiculous sentence.--81.184.161.63 21:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frank?[edit]

I thought she was a Visigoth. Srnec 05:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She is certainly a Visigoth, there is no question about it. The reason I categorized her as Frank/Frankish women is that she married one and we know of her because of the Franks. Furthermore Frankish queen consorts often played a vital role in politics and categorizing her this way provides easy and useful navigation for those interested in those queenconsorts and in the remarkable unfeminine role of Frankish women (there is no woman comparable in Visigothia or Ostrogothia). If I had known how to categorize her as Visigoth I would have done that too. Stricly speaking: at the time ethnicity and clan loyalty were focused on the male line. A woman was OWNED by her man, so she became a Frank by her marriage. johanthon 18:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(I would dispute that women were owned by their husbands under canon law, but I suppose that tribal custom and canon law were in a sort of competition at that time.) I understand and I don't dispute it really, but I thought it odd that you would argue for such an expansive definition of ethnicity. I think somebody is going to have to create some more Goth-related categories now. Srnec 19:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:44, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brunhilda of Austrasia → Brunhilda — It already redirects here, and I doubt the Austrasian disambiguator is helping anybody get cleared up. Srnec (talk) 22:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

Revert to disambiguation page I'm surprised it isn't a disambiguation page. Otherwise it should redirect to the mythic figure. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 04:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirecting it there would work for me, but I am not willing to go and fix all the incoming links, which are mainly meant for the queen. Srnec (talk) 05:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative solution -- I would regard the Wagnerian character as primary for Brunhilda. However the relevant article is at Brynhildr, apparently as the correct spelling for the mythical character on whom he was based. Accordingly, Brunhilda should redirect there, but that article should have a redirects here hatnote dealing with Brunhilda of Austrasia. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Brynhildr already has the appropriate hatnote, but almost all the links to Brunhilda are intended for Brunhilda of Austrasia. If you want to fix them, feel free to close this move request and change the redirect. Srnec (talk) 19:13, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I agree that the Wagnerian character is more prominent (though I find it unhelpful to appeal to the doctrine of "primary topic"); so dropping the qualifier in this case would misdirect some readers without any compensating advantage. Let's see a more considered proposal for all affected articles, rather than just one in isolation. Noetica^Tea? 22:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree Brynhildr is the primary topic for Brunhilda. So I would decline this move request, fix the links [I've made a start], and then redirect Brunhilda to Brynhildr.--Kotniski (talk) 10:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I believe I've fixed all the links in article space (there's one article - this one - still showing up on the What Links Here list, but I don't know why since it doesn't seem to contain any links to Brunhilda).--Kotniski (talk) 13:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

Any additional comments:

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

watch your appositives[edit]

"Galswintha was strangled to death in her bed as she slept by an unknown assailant and Chilperic married Fredegund." She wasn't sleeping with the assailant; he didn't kill her so she couldn't tell who he was. Appositives are tricky; upgrade your English. 100.15.120.162 (talk) 18:53, 19 February 2016 (UTC) Done[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Brunhilda of Austrasia. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080921232251/http://www.bu.edu:80/english/levine/grch4+5.htm to http://www.bu.edu/english/levine/grch4+5.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 19:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]