Talk:Agnes of France (empress)

Untitled

Where has this come from? Did someone do all this in one edit? Has it been copied from another Wikipedia article? --Silversmith 14:21, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I wrote this text myself based on information generally available. I decided not to save it before its completion, thus the single edit. No it is not copied but Agness and her life have been mentioned in several Wikipedia articles. I decided a central article on her might proove useful. User:Dimadick

I've just discovered that the new (21 May 2006) expanded version of Agnes of France (on which I had begun a little editing to damp down the wilder flights of fancy and indicate alternative interpretations, and User:Dimadick has also been working) is actually lifted wholesale from the signed and copyrighted page at [1]. I wish the anonymous contributor, or cut-and-paster, had admitted this ... I propose now to try to revert the article to an unplagiarised state, while not losing the work we have put into it. Andrew Dalby 14:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Apologies, Dimadick, for missing the fact that you had written the paragraph on andronikos's relationships. Andrew Dalby 20:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

This is a rather bombastic title...is there something shorter we can use? Why not just "Agnes of France (Byzantine empress)"? Adam Bishop 21:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

By all means. I just used the designations that appeared in the earlier Agnes of France article. I agree it's unnecessarily long. Change it if you like. Andrew Dalby 22:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Citations wanted

A couple of facts were marked 'citation needed'. Since both of these were really relevant to other people rather than to Agnes, I have added new citations at Alexios II Komnenos, and supplied cross-references in the footnotes here to that article and to Maria of Antioch. OK? Andrew Dalby 16:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

A question

Since Agnes was supposed to marry the Bizantine emperor so French-Bizantine relations would improve, have French-Bizantine relations gone bad when her husband was deposed, tortured and killed? A.Z. 04:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

It's a very good question. Her brother, Philip II of France, was king during the period when her betrothed (or first husband) Alexios II Komnenos was killed, and when old Andronikos I Komnenos married her instead, and when Andronikos himself was (as you say) deposed, tortured and killed. So far as I can discover, and strange as it may seem, there was no official French reaction to any of these events (although they were widely reported). Later, when Philip sailed east on the Third Crusade, no communication between him and his sister is recorded. Andrew Dalby 12:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Anna of France

Would it be better if this was moved to Anna of France since she would be the only Anna of France and there would be no need for disambiguation.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 00:35, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

It might look odd, since she didn't get the name Anna till she left France. Anna wasn't a French name. [But then Agnes isn't a Byzantine name, so you might as well say it looks odd now!]

I've just added a sentence about her supposed date of death, with a citation of Medlands. I notice that Medlands calls her "Agnes of France". But this is not meant as opposition to your suggestion, QELS: simpler is often better. Andrew Dalby 09:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I was kind thinking of making all foreign born Byzantine Empresses similar to foreign born Russian Empresses minus the parenthesis. They all had to convert to Orthoxody and change their name. Agnes of France was never Empress Agnes but Empress Anna.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 04:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's true. No objection. Andrew Dalby 20:00, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Religious category

Category:Converts to Eastern Orthodoxy from Catholicism: Hmm, I feel uncertain about that. Presumably, after being renamed and betrothed and then married (so, during the period 1180-1185), she took part in Eastern Church rituals: there would hardly have been any other option. But in 1204 she was married under Western supremacy and at the Latin emperor's persuasion: and the child of that marriage also married a Westerner. So, is either of those events a "conversion", and tangible enough for a Wikipedia category? Andrew Dalby 16:55, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes I see your point. She might have "converted" back.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 17:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

All citations must be questioned.

I would, as an out side observer, question the sources for all if the above remarks. I would tend to to think that most all of the sources are suspectBut it would behove anyone with power on this site to make a staement questioning the source(s)!

Other wise, it is full of "What if"s"!

Regards,

Ron

Do you mean remarks on this talk page (above), or historical details in the article? As to the talk page, people may write what they think, and others may comment. You have as much power as anyone else on this site to ask questions. Andrew Dalby 12:49, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Marriage at 8 years of age

I removed the following edit:

Marriage at such a young age, such as 8 years old, was not uncommon during these times. Marriage was often rushed due to various factors, such as an inheritance, or for reasons of safety. Athough children were married at a young age, the actual wedding night did not occur until the bride had started her menses (approx 11-13 year of age).

Three reasons: (1) if this is true, it would be a good idea to add references or actual cases to support it. The existing footnote wasn't altered, and the cases it cites don't support this claim. (2) The "inheritance" and "safety" examples don't seem relevant to this case (or, if they are, we'd need an explanation of how they are relevant). (3) the question of when the "actual wedding night" takes place is more of a general issue regarding medieval and dynastic marriages: in this particular case there's no evidence at all about it. Andrew Dalby 13:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)