![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
jeanne ( talk) 11:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
This is completely rediculous! IP Address 20:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
This is a myth: Queen Philippa was not at Neville's Cross, and never exercised any kind of military command. The army that defeated David II was commanded by William de la Zouche, Archbishop of York. Rcpaterson 07:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
This is interesting, but where is the evidence that she was black? Were there even any black people in her ancestry? -- Stewcarr 13:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
This is truly ridiculous! Why is Philippa a 'great' Black Briton? Because her son was called the Black Prince. Why was he so called? Because he wore dark armour!!!!! Thus the absurdity of all political correctness. Rcpaterson 00:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
The suggestion is of course ridiculous. "Black", "Red" and "Fair" are usually references to hair colour, and in medieval Europe never a reference to skin colour. Trade and contact with sub-saharan Africa was so sporadic and so extremely indirect, that the number of black people who set foot in medieval France or England could probably be counted on one hand. Just to reassure the clueless, there is no debate amongst historians about the "blackness" of this queen or the son of Edward III. Seems to be a product of that website, or at least its badly informed source. Calgacus ( ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Another way to find out if something was so is to see what their enemies would say. England had a lot of enemies, Scotland and France. So if Edward III’s wife was suspected of being illegitimate or if she was significantly dark to make that accusation, then enemies of Edward III in Scotland or France would have made something of it. But they didn’t. Chwyatt 08:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Chiming in almost fourteen years later: Today I hastily used RedWarn's vandalism button to revert this addition by BourgeoisPanda:
After taking a second look, I realized that the edit might not have been the joke it had appeared to be. When I went to make not of this, I saw that GrindtXX had already undone my revert. I suppose the WP article on the list ranking black Britons counts as substantiation of the first sentence, but I would think both the first and the second might want some sourcing. The WP article provides no source supporting Philippa's inclusion on the list, which may be standard procedure in the presentation of such rankings; I wouldn't know. It does provide two sources refuting "black" ancestry. Does anyone else think the above statements could use some sourcing? Eric talk 15:33, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
The picture of Philippa in the article is highly fanciful and romanticised and I don't beleieve it is suitable for an encylopeda article. Compare it with this image held by the National Portrait Gallery: http://www.npg.org.uk/live/search/portrait.asp?search=ss&sText=hainault&LinkID=mp03536&rNo=1&role=sit
Grant | Talk 15:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
The front image is the best know stylised version of her, even if it was made by someone who clearly had no real idea what she looked like. The National Portrait Gallery image was also made several hundred years after her, again by someone who had no real idea what she looked like. The only thing either artist would have to go on is her tomb effigy, which was commissioned in her life time, and neither engraving looks like, although the National Portrait Gallery image is closer, imo. Chwyatt 08:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
The suggestion that Philippa was visibly African in appearance, that is. Her ancestry is known for many generations back, and there is no trace of African in it. Her father had several daughters for the later Edward III to choose from, and it is fairly well attested that while for reasons of alliance he had to pick one of them, Philippa he found personally sympathetic and she was his preference. If there had been doubts about her parentage, or if she had been of what at the time would certainly have been seen as a peculiar appearance, he would have been warned off her and directed to another daughter (he was only 13 at the time, and firmly under his mother's tutelage).
Nevertheless, since others have raised these concerns before and let what I can only see as an absurdity stand, I will do the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.188.54 ( talk) 08:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia's own page on Elizabeth of Bosnia, she was not "a daughter of the Khan of the Cumens and his wife, Galicie of Halicz". Rootsweb is not a reliable source because anyone can create a database and fill it with whatever they please. I will revert the edits by Jeanne Boleyn. Jugbo ( talk) 01:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
The Elizabeth you were searching is Elizabeth the Cuman, daughter of Köten. Her daughter is under Maria of Hungary (1257-1323). Her granddaughter under Marguerite of Anjou and Maine. Her great-granddaughter under Joan of Valois (1294-1352). Her fourth-generation descendant is covered in this article. The lineage is not exactly a new subject for Wikipedia.
Where did you find the information on the maternal ancestry of Elizabeth? Most genealogies have it as uncertain Dimadick ( talk) 11:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I realise that Kuthen and Kotia/Koten are same names but that article on Mstislav isn't sourced.Kuthen (father of Elizabeth was married to the daughter of Rurikide" Mstislav" Jaroslawitsch,Prince de Halicz.Has the author of article been queried as to his referances? jeanne ( talk) 09:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I think I've figured it out now.Galicie(mother of Elizabeth) was the GRANDDAUGHTER, not daughter of Mstislav.Her mother was his daughter!!Now it's falling into place.I've asked Ezhiki for help-am waiting for his reply.But jeanne ( talk) 13:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)this makes sense.Kuthen and "Galicie" were cousins, hence the confusion.
The entire Life section of the article is a complete mess. It really needs to be improved and brought up to Wikipedia standards. At the moment the prose looks awful and the section contains nothing but quotes and descriptions.-- Jeanne Boleyn ( talk) 17:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Exactly when was she regent? In which years?-- 85.226.45.47 ( talk) 23:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
The Issue section seems confusing. It says there were 14 children; but lists 12 of them and adds "Another three sons and two daughters died in infancy". I make that 17 children in all. Astronaut ( talk) 14:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
The modern French (Belgian) spelling is Hainaut; the more archaic spelling is Hainault. However, in English-language sources, the county (and Philippa in particular) are almost always spelt Hainault. I've compromised by changing" all references to Philippa to Hainault, but leaving references to the county as Hainaut. It's not ideal, so if anyone wants to improve on it, please do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrindtXX ( talk • contribs) 15:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
The article states that she was regent in England during the absence of her spouse. Exactly which years was she regent? Should it not be written in the article? It is highly relevant facts.-- 85.226.41.14 ( talk) 18:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
@ Edouard2:, please stop changing her coronation date to 18 February 1330 without explanation, discussion or sources. (I see you virtually never provide edit summaries. PLEASE LEARN TO DO SO. It takes seconds, and is an act of basic courtesy to other editors.) We have a citation of a reliable source – Juliet Vale in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography – saying that "it was ... on 25 February 1330 that Philippa was crowned in Westminster Abbey". The article in the old Dictionary of National Biography by William Hunt (published 1895) – see wikisource – says "She was crowned at Westminster on 4 March 1330". The difference between Old Style and New Style dates in the 14th century would have been 7 days (and there is 7 days between 18 Feb and 25 Feb, and again between 25 Feb and 4 March). It may be, therefore, that Vale was using the Old Style (Julian) calendar in use at the time, whereas Hunt converted his date to the New Style (Gregorian) calendar. Alternatively, it may be that Vale was using New Style, and you have a source that uses Old Style: if so, please tell us what it is. Or the explanation may be something else entirely. But we will get nowhere if you won't explain yourself. For now, I am reverting to 25 February, as we have a reliable modern source that explicitly says that. GrindtXX ( talk) 20:11, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
The recent move of this article from "Philippa of Hainault" to "Philippa of Hainaut", made by No such user at the instigation of Andrew Lancaster as an "uncontroversial technical request" on the grounds that it "seems to be an old misunderstanding", should not have been undertaken without prior discussion on this page. I for one find it highly controversial. Yes "Hainaut" is the modern Belgian/French spelling for the medieval county and the modern province, while "Hainault" is an archaic form; but in English-language medieval historiography, and particularly with regard to Philippa, it remains the form almost invariably used. It is the form used in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography article on Philippa (2004/2010); in a full-length biography by Kathryn Warner published in 2019; and in countless other scholarly and popular sources. A search on Google for "Philippa of Hainault" gives me 90,200 hits; a search for "Philippa of Hainaut" gives me 8,890 hits. This move should be reverted immediately. GrindtXX ( talk) 14:56, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Well GrindtXX if you feel strongly about it then although I don't prefer it, I clearly misunderstood the strength of the case and it seems I have no really good argument to remove the L, so you could move it back as far as I am concerned. -- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 06:19, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
jeanne ( talk) 11:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
This is completely rediculous! IP Address 20:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
This is a myth: Queen Philippa was not at Neville's Cross, and never exercised any kind of military command. The army that defeated David II was commanded by William de la Zouche, Archbishop of York. Rcpaterson 07:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
This is interesting, but where is the evidence that she was black? Were there even any black people in her ancestry? -- Stewcarr 13:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
This is truly ridiculous! Why is Philippa a 'great' Black Briton? Because her son was called the Black Prince. Why was he so called? Because he wore dark armour!!!!! Thus the absurdity of all political correctness. Rcpaterson 00:12, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
The suggestion is of course ridiculous. "Black", "Red" and "Fair" are usually references to hair colour, and in medieval Europe never a reference to skin colour. Trade and contact with sub-saharan Africa was so sporadic and so extremely indirect, that the number of black people who set foot in medieval France or England could probably be counted on one hand. Just to reassure the clueless, there is no debate amongst historians about the "blackness" of this queen or the son of Edward III. Seems to be a product of that website, or at least its badly informed source. Calgacus ( ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 00:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Another way to find out if something was so is to see what their enemies would say. England had a lot of enemies, Scotland and France. So if Edward III’s wife was suspected of being illegitimate or if she was significantly dark to make that accusation, then enemies of Edward III in Scotland or France would have made something of it. But they didn’t. Chwyatt 08:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Chiming in almost fourteen years later: Today I hastily used RedWarn's vandalism button to revert this addition by BourgeoisPanda:
After taking a second look, I realized that the edit might not have been the joke it had appeared to be. When I went to make not of this, I saw that GrindtXX had already undone my revert. I suppose the WP article on the list ranking black Britons counts as substantiation of the first sentence, but I would think both the first and the second might want some sourcing. The WP article provides no source supporting Philippa's inclusion on the list, which may be standard procedure in the presentation of such rankings; I wouldn't know. It does provide two sources refuting "black" ancestry. Does anyone else think the above statements could use some sourcing? Eric talk 15:33, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
The picture of Philippa in the article is highly fanciful and romanticised and I don't beleieve it is suitable for an encylopeda article. Compare it with this image held by the National Portrait Gallery: http://www.npg.org.uk/live/search/portrait.asp?search=ss&sText=hainault&LinkID=mp03536&rNo=1&role=sit
Grant | Talk 15:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
The front image is the best know stylised version of her, even if it was made by someone who clearly had no real idea what she looked like. The National Portrait Gallery image was also made several hundred years after her, again by someone who had no real idea what she looked like. The only thing either artist would have to go on is her tomb effigy, which was commissioned in her life time, and neither engraving looks like, although the National Portrait Gallery image is closer, imo. Chwyatt 08:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
The suggestion that Philippa was visibly African in appearance, that is. Her ancestry is known for many generations back, and there is no trace of African in it. Her father had several daughters for the later Edward III to choose from, and it is fairly well attested that while for reasons of alliance he had to pick one of them, Philippa he found personally sympathetic and she was his preference. If there had been doubts about her parentage, or if she had been of what at the time would certainly have been seen as a peculiar appearance, he would have been warned off her and directed to another daughter (he was only 13 at the time, and firmly under his mother's tutelage).
Nevertheless, since others have raised these concerns before and let what I can only see as an absurdity stand, I will do the same. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.144.188.54 ( talk) 08:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia's own page on Elizabeth of Bosnia, she was not "a daughter of the Khan of the Cumens and his wife, Galicie of Halicz". Rootsweb is not a reliable source because anyone can create a database and fill it with whatever they please. I will revert the edits by Jeanne Boleyn. Jugbo ( talk) 01:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
The Elizabeth you were searching is Elizabeth the Cuman, daughter of Köten. Her daughter is under Maria of Hungary (1257-1323). Her granddaughter under Marguerite of Anjou and Maine. Her great-granddaughter under Joan of Valois (1294-1352). Her fourth-generation descendant is covered in this article. The lineage is not exactly a new subject for Wikipedia.
Where did you find the information on the maternal ancestry of Elizabeth? Most genealogies have it as uncertain Dimadick ( talk) 11:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
I realise that Kuthen and Kotia/Koten are same names but that article on Mstislav isn't sourced.Kuthen (father of Elizabeth was married to the daughter of Rurikide" Mstislav" Jaroslawitsch,Prince de Halicz.Has the author of article been queried as to his referances? jeanne ( talk) 09:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
I think I've figured it out now.Galicie(mother of Elizabeth) was the GRANDDAUGHTER, not daughter of Mstislav.Her mother was his daughter!!Now it's falling into place.I've asked Ezhiki for help-am waiting for his reply.But jeanne ( talk) 13:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)this makes sense.Kuthen and "Galicie" were cousins, hence the confusion.
The entire Life section of the article is a complete mess. It really needs to be improved and brought up to Wikipedia standards. At the moment the prose looks awful and the section contains nothing but quotes and descriptions.-- Jeanne Boleyn ( talk) 17:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Exactly when was she regent? In which years?-- 85.226.45.47 ( talk) 23:00, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
The Issue section seems confusing. It says there were 14 children; but lists 12 of them and adds "Another three sons and two daughters died in infancy". I make that 17 children in all. Astronaut ( talk) 14:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
The modern French (Belgian) spelling is Hainaut; the more archaic spelling is Hainault. However, in English-language sources, the county (and Philippa in particular) are almost always spelt Hainault. I've compromised by changing" all references to Philippa to Hainault, but leaving references to the county as Hainaut. It's not ideal, so if anyone wants to improve on it, please do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrindtXX ( talk • contribs) 15:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
The article states that she was regent in England during the absence of her spouse. Exactly which years was she regent? Should it not be written in the article? It is highly relevant facts.-- 85.226.41.14 ( talk) 18:08, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
@ Edouard2:, please stop changing her coronation date to 18 February 1330 without explanation, discussion or sources. (I see you virtually never provide edit summaries. PLEASE LEARN TO DO SO. It takes seconds, and is an act of basic courtesy to other editors.) We have a citation of a reliable source – Juliet Vale in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography – saying that "it was ... on 25 February 1330 that Philippa was crowned in Westminster Abbey". The article in the old Dictionary of National Biography by William Hunt (published 1895) – see wikisource – says "She was crowned at Westminster on 4 March 1330". The difference between Old Style and New Style dates in the 14th century would have been 7 days (and there is 7 days between 18 Feb and 25 Feb, and again between 25 Feb and 4 March). It may be, therefore, that Vale was using the Old Style (Julian) calendar in use at the time, whereas Hunt converted his date to the New Style (Gregorian) calendar. Alternatively, it may be that Vale was using New Style, and you have a source that uses Old Style: if so, please tell us what it is. Or the explanation may be something else entirely. But we will get nowhere if you won't explain yourself. For now, I am reverting to 25 February, as we have a reliable modern source that explicitly says that. GrindtXX ( talk) 20:11, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
The recent move of this article from "Philippa of Hainault" to "Philippa of Hainaut", made by No such user at the instigation of Andrew Lancaster as an "uncontroversial technical request" on the grounds that it "seems to be an old misunderstanding", should not have been undertaken without prior discussion on this page. I for one find it highly controversial. Yes "Hainaut" is the modern Belgian/French spelling for the medieval county and the modern province, while "Hainault" is an archaic form; but in English-language medieval historiography, and particularly with regard to Philippa, it remains the form almost invariably used. It is the form used in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography article on Philippa (2004/2010); in a full-length biography by Kathryn Warner published in 2019; and in countless other scholarly and popular sources. A search on Google for "Philippa of Hainault" gives me 90,200 hits; a search for "Philippa of Hainaut" gives me 8,890 hits. This move should be reverted immediately. GrindtXX ( talk) 14:56, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Well GrindtXX if you feel strongly about it then although I don't prefer it, I clearly misunderstood the strength of the case and it seems I have no really good argument to remove the L, so you could move it back as far as I am concerned. -- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 06:19, 2 September 2021 (UTC)