Talk:Tour de Nesle affair

Initial page created

I've gone through and created a first draft of this; no doubt it will benefit from suitable copy editing! Hchc2009 (talk) 16:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Courtly love

I think the following paragraph is not quite correct:

There was a tradition of staged romantic "courtly love" in North-Western Europe during the period, but it did not extend as far as adultery itself. Indeed, adultery remained a particularly serious offence because of the impact it could have on the legitimacy of heirs to the throne; even the suggestion of illegitimacy could have a political impact.[17]

I've always thought that "courtly love" had by and large included actual sex. Looking up the article in wikipedia now I see that there is a controversy among scholars about it. In any case, it'd be wrong, I think, to so unequivocally state here what seems to be just one view on the matter.

Furthermore, the question of legitimacy of heirs seems to be a different one - perhaps the "codes" of "courtly love" made some special reference to the case when the lady is of royal family.

So, to sum up, I think the summary of the matter here is inadequate. Bazuz (talk) 08:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

If there are additional scholarly sources on the Tour de Nesle affair we should be building in here, then we should do so. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps I haven't made my point clearly enough: I'm not suggesting new sources on the TdN affar. What I am saying is that this article presupposes a certain interpretation of courtly love and applies it to the TdN affair without an afterthought, whereas this interpretation is far from universally accepted (I personally find it almost ludicrous but obviously some scholars espouse it, so it can't be dismissed out of hand). Note also that the reference given (de Pizan) is to a primary source, not a secondary.

Perhaps I can just make a bold edit and we'll see how that works out? Bazuz (talk) 12:41, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

A primary source tag might be the best way to go then? Hchc2009 (talk) 13:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Looking at the ebook equivalent, the page ref looks like it was one of the editor, Sarah Lawson's, footnotes to the text. Perhaps a "dubious" tag, therefore, to note that additional viewpoints are necessary? Hchc2009 (talk)

Come to think of it - I think the whole paragraph may be just deleted! The relation to "courtly love" is treated again, and much better, in the 'Aftermath and Legacy' section, so this paragraph does little more than confuse the reader. What do you think? Bazuz (talk) 16:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Provided we ensure that courtly love is wikilinked somewhere later, that sounds like a good idea. It means that any academic contention gets picked up in the main article, and keeps the focus here on the affair itself. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

It is indeed wikilinked, so I'm removing the paragraph. Thanks for the discussion. Bazuz (talk) 17:49, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Death of Margaret of Burgundy

See Talk:Margaret of Burgundy, Queen of France#Death for a discussion on the cause of death. Huon (talk) 13:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)