Talk:Judith of Flanders (died 1095)

Article's name

Should the article's name include Countess of Northumbria, or Duchess of Bavaria; or else just her name with her relevant dates, like this: Judith of Flanders (1035- 1094)? Comments and opinions are being sought.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I am pretty much neutral on the issue; I'll let other editors decide.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

To be honest I think she should be called Duchess of Bavaria because it's a far more notable title, but it may be better to use her date of birth and death like Judith (??-??)--David (talk) 20:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Daaviiid; the ducal title is both of higher rank and of greater significance. However, she does seem to be mentioned as "Judith of Flanders, Countess of Northumbria" as well (by at least one notable historian). Therefore, I am not opposed to the current title either. Surtsicna (talk) 22:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not certain how it's done for royal ranks below 'Heads of state'. I do know that consorts articles tend to go by their birth-names. For example: Princess Maud of Wales, instead of Queen Maud of Norway. With this in mind, I'd opted for Judith of Flanders. GoodDay (talk) 23:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

But she is not the only Judith of Flanders. In fact, the other one seems to be more notable. I believe that disambiguation by marital title is better than disambiguation by years, because it is easier for a reader to understand who is the article about when the article is titled Joan of Navarre, Queen of England than when it is titled Joan of Navarre (1370-1437). Surtsicna (talk) 23:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

If you use a marital title, use her most recent. GoodDay (talk) 00:02, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I need to add why I originally opted for the Countess of Northumbria rather than her ducal title; in the Pierpont Morgan Library her books are entitled Gospels of Countess Judith. I do think this should have some bearing on the article's name; however, if there's consensus to go with Duchess of Bavaria, I will offer no objections. I'm interested in accuracy and disambiguity. I really don't like dates in articles' names.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I suspect this title is anachronistic, I doubt if the title of countess was used in England prior to the Norman conquest. I realise it may be difficult to disambiguate her from the earlier Judith of Flanders. PatGallacher (talk) 13:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

It sounds anachronistic, but an editor has pointed out above that Barlow's Edward the Confessor has 'Judith of Flanders, countess of Northumbria'. ODNB at [1] has her as Duchess of Bavaria. Stafford's Queen Emma and Queen Edith has 'Judith, wife of Tostig', Williams's The English and the Norman Conquest, 'Judith, wife of earl Tostig'. Giving her title or the name of her husband only covers one period in her life. I suggest 'Judith of Flanders, d. 1094'. Dudley Miles (talk) 19:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 25 October 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to Judith of Flanders (died 1095) Andrewa (talk) 09:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

---

Judith of Flanders, Countess of Northumbria → Judith of Flanders, d. 1095 – As I have argued above, the title is anglocentric, covering only one period in her life, which may not have been the most important as she was later Duchess of Bavaria.Her Oxford Dictionary of National Biography entry at [2] shows her as 'Judith of Flanders, duchess of Bavaria (1030x35–1095)'. The title needs to distinguish her from the earlier Judith of Flanders, and giving her death date does so in a neutral way. Dudley Miles (talk) 13:40, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

• I think "Judith of Flanders (died 1095)" would be the normal format. However I would support "Judith of Flanders, Duchess of Bavaria" on the grounds that use of dates for disambiguation is a last resort, the title of duchess is senior to countess, and countess is probably anachronistic in this context. PatGallacher (talk) 16:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

• It is anachronistic to say that duchess is senior to countess. At that time earl was the highest (male) rank below the king in England (e.g. Earl Harold Godwinson), and duke was a continental title. Duke as a higher English rank dates to after the Norman Conquest. According to Judith's article in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography she was remembered at Weingarten Abbey, where she was buried, as the widowed queen of England, so it seems that even in Bavaria the claim of her first husband to the English throne was considered the most important thing about her. I see that you are correct that the usual format is Judith of Flanders (died 1095). Dudley Miles (talk) 20:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

• I disagree that it is anachronistic to say that duchess is senior to countess. It is universal. The title dux (ruler, leader) always comes before comes (companion [of the leader]). In Anglo-Saxon England, dux was used as a synonym for ealdorman/earl. It was impolitic to make the Conqueror's companions equal in rank to him as duke of Normandy and so dux became comes in Norman England. There is also, of course, no doubt that the duke of Bavaria was a more powerful man than the earl of Northumbria. In short, I think "Judith of Flanders, Duchess of Bavaria" is also an acceptable (and better) title. Srnec (talk) 01:22, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

• Support "Judith of Flanders (died 1095)". Srnec (talk) 01:22, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
• Support "Judith of Flanders (died 1095)" per nom. Let's not get into arguments about whether dukes of one country outrank counts of another (which sounds like comparing apples to oranges to me), and instead use the universally recognized death date format.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:54, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

---

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

Death--never a queen

"where she was remembered as a widowed queen of England" Why would she be remembered as a "queen" of England? She was never a queen of any place. 76.202.192.102 (talk) 01:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

I have added "wrongly". The source comments that the incorrect view by people in Weingarten of her former English status is "an important testimony to Tostig's one-time closeness to the English throne". Did she claim in Weingarten to have once been queen? We will probably never know. Dudley Miles (talk) 22:06, 24 April 2022 (UTC)