Talk:Empress Matilda

Biography assessment rating comment

WikiProject Biography Assessment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 04:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

In google it says that she is a king and it says it got it from wikipedia! is there a way to fix or did google just mahe that up? Oliverrushton (talk) 16:11, 22 April 2015 (UTC) What does this mean?

brother William Adelin had perished several years before in the wreck of the White Ship, leaving Matilda the only legitimate heir to the English throne, a fact that King Henry II may have had contrary evidence to.

This seems to imply Henry II had some evidence about his mother not being the only legitimate heir. I have not read anything elsewhere that would shed light on this. This seems confusing, and if it cannot be verified perhaps it should be deleted.

---

Why is she called a queen regnant and a monarch of England when she never was truly queen? Most lists of English monarchs include Stephen and Henry II but do not include her as an actual monarch. Shouldn't she be removed as a monarch? Even she never called herself queen, not even during the few months when she held advantage over Stephen.

the circumstances of her escape were the stuff of fiction - could someone elaborate? RickK 02:07, 22 Sep 2003 (UTC) <ScoobyDoo>Yeh-yeh-yeh</ScoobyDoo> Phil 18:13, Jan 21, 2004 (UTC)

I don't find any mention of tthis in Cross' history. The struggle between Stephen and Matilda was an on-going back-and-forth affair. Perhaps the wording could changed. It might be better to mention what the "fiction" is, before discrediting it. Decumanus 18:39, 21 Jan 2004 (UTC)

==

Maud was besieged at Oxford; the circumstances of her escape were the stuff of fiction.

changed to

Maud was besieged at Oxford, but escaped.

Also, it seems to me that the first paragraph is a bit of a mess

Empress Maud (February 7, 1102 - September 10, 1169) is the title by which Matilda the daughter and dispossessed heir of King Henry I of England and his wife Maud of Scotland (herself daughter of Malcolm III Canmore and St. Margaret of Scotland), is known, in order to differentiate her from the many other Matildas of the period.

Think that maybe this could be separate and restated?

Empress Maud (February 7, 1102 - September 10, 1169) is the title by which Matilda, the daughter and dispossessed heir of King Henry I of England, is known, in order to differentiate her from the many other Matildas of the period. She was the daughter of Henry and his wife Maud of Scotland (who was herself daughter of Malcolm III Canmore and St. Margaret of Scotland),

Or something like that? -- St. Weasel

-- St. Weasel

Something is obviously wrong with the math here if she was 7 in 1111 and 23 in 1125... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.40.108.244 (talk) 19:15, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I am new to the wikipedia thing and was doing research on female rulership in the early middle ages and had this question:

Is there a reference as to what inspired Henry I to recall his daughter Maud, the dowager Empress of Holy Roman Empire, and install her as his single legitimate heir over other male canidates? As far as I can see, with the exception of a few Spanish Visgothic kingdoms there was no precident for designnating a female heir to rule as Queen Regnant in her own right. Eleanor of Aquataine is the next closest example and her father willed her the succession with an independant duchy. But this would not be for a few years yet.

According to the wiki article on The Anarchy (as the period of civil war is known) "On Henry's death in 1135, Stephen rushed to England," yet according to this article "Stephen of Blois, a nephew of Henry I, usurped the throne ... An immediate reason for this was that Stephen was in England, whilst Matilda was in Anjou." Which is correct? Or possibly it just needs expanding to show that he rushed to England whilst she was still in Anjou? 88.105.2.120 (talk) 06:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)TheDixieFlatline

Maud/Matilda

Is there a particular reason why this article focuses on (and is titled for) the name Maud? I don't pretend to be a great authority on British history, but in all the reading I had done of the period, I never encountered the name Maud until this Wikipedia article. I did some searches (and I'm not the best internet searcher) and while I did occasionally find hits on Maud, it seemed like a lot of them just came back to this article—there were far more to Empress Matilda. Duckecho (Talk) 4 July 2005 22:14 (UTC)

This odd Maud/Matilda business has been around for a long time, it was like that when I was a little kid and long time ago. It certainly hasn't just been made up recently.Eregli bob (talk) 07:45, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I understand the concern for ambiguity due to the proliferation of Matildas at the time; her grandmother, Stephen's wife, and a couple of others, but from her marriage to Emporer Henry V, she became styled as Empress Matilda, which would seem to erase any confusion (such as with her grandmother Queen Matilda, and her cousin Countess Matilda, Stephen's wife). Duckecho (Talk) 4 July 2005 22:14 (UTC)

Moreover, there at least a couple of Wiki articles I've seen that refer to her as Matilda in the text even though the wikifying text is forced to be to Empress Maud. Duckecho (Talk) 4 July 2005 22:14 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that Maud was a name commonly used for her in her time? Is there any interest in renaming the article Empress Matilda? Is there any strong sentiment for leaving it alone? Duckecho (Talk) 4 July 2005 22:14 (UTC)

Manual move

User:Duckecho (since he has now left I guess I can point him out specifically) manually moved this back in July, so I deleted that and moved the article properly. There were some edits made in the past five months that have been lost, but nothing major I hope. (If so, too bad, blame Duckecho.) Adam Bishop 15:29, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Name info

There is more info available at Find-A-Grave. Lincher 16:00, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Foggy history

Was Mitilda Queen regnant of England in 1141? Isn't Mary I of England viewed as England's 'first female monarch'? GoodDay (talk) 20:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The title of this section says it all. However, I concluded from the text that we should treat Matilda as Queen regnant for the period she held actual power, and, thus, Stephen as not-King DBD 21:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The title of this section says it all. Mary I is the first woman to have been unquestionably Queen regnant of England. However, Jane Grey's claims are sometimes recognised, and Matilda is also sometimes recognised. Michael Sanders 16:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Undisputed reign?

The article says her temporary reign in 1141, wihch is wrong, it was still disputed by Stephen (the true King) and his barons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.124.149.222 (talk) 19:06, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Visit to Italy

this sentence is unclear: 'in march 1116 Henry and matilda visited rome and tuscany, and she acted as regent in his abscence.' ?? were they together? how did she act as regent if she was in italy with him? clarification is in order.Toyokuni3 (talk) 04:20, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Could not the Matilda who went to Rome be Matilda, the wife of Henry rather than Empress Matilda, daughter of Henry? I've no idea on the matter myself, but this seems a plauable explanation as to why a Matilda can both go to Rome and stay behind to be regent. Evil Eye (talk) 23:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Queen of England

There seems to be no consensus on whether or not Matilda is Queen of England. This is important as it effects the name and angle of the article. As the first line of the article is "Matilda of England" that does suggest that she was monarchs of England and so should be treated accordingly. The Quill (talk) 17:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

No, it doesn't suggest that she was a monarh of England. Was Catherine of Aragon monarch of Aragon? It doesn't matter what you and me think. Consensus has to be reached among the historians. Anyway, I do not object to moving this article to Matilda of England. She is entitled to that name as an imperial and royal consort, if not as a monarch. Surtsicna (talk) 17:39, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank You for agreeing to a page move it means alot to me! The Quill (talk) 17:50, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The UK Royal website has the period between 1135 and 1154 as the period of reign of Stephen and Matilda. [1]. At the bottom, you will notice that she is classed as Queen Matilda. Whether or not she used the title seems to be neither here nor there. I would say that their use is sufficient for it to be accepted. She was the legitimate heir; Stephen, himself had sworn an oath to this effect, yet broke his oath as soon as he could. As an aside, they also include Lady Jane Grey in their list of English monarchs up to 1603 [2].Baldwin Clere (talk) 18:56, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

I think it's a typo; no other source describes her as queen. Hchc2009 (talk) 19:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Part II

Know that the first issue has been dealt with a consensus needs to be reached on whether or not we can calim Matilda as Queen of England. I know that lists don't usually show Matilda as being monarch however other monarchs such as Lady Jane Grey are often missed of lists however are considered a true monarch by Wikipedia. Jane Grey held a bitterly disputed title for 9 days and is considered a Queen yet Matilda held the title for a number of months and is excluded. I don't want to make any edits of such a controversial nature until we have a consensus. The Quill (talk) 19:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

We cannot decide to call her Queen of England because: 1. she never claimed that title (she preffered Lady of the English, since queen was the title of the king's wife) 2. historians haven't agreed whether she was a monarch. We should include both Matilda and Jane in the lists of English monarch with a note that their status is not quite certain. Have you noticed that English (after Mary I) and British monarchs rarely named their daughters Matilda or Jane? That's because they were not sure whether Empress Matilda and Lady Jane Grey should be included in the numbering of monarchs. It's not up to us to decide. Surtsicna (talk) 18:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

To counter your first point I was using the word queen as a matter of convinence. How she titled herself as monarch would of course be how she would be reffered to in the article (possibly with a sidenote explaining what Queen meant at that time. For your second point I agree with you about how we can't claim Matilda to be a monarch without an element of doubt however I do believe that more recognition of her title to be shown. The Quill (talk) 19:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Though this is quite an old conversation, in her main summary area I put at the end "Though her title disputed, she is widely known as being the first queen regnant of England."
BettyCrocker321 (talk) 01:27, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

It seems to me that Maude/Matilda was a reigning Queen of England, in the sense that all the pre-qualificiations were in place: Her father's designation and sworn fealty of the nobility. Her cousin Stephen usurped the crown primarily with the aide of his brother... who was a leading prelate. What is interesting in the artical is the absence of her sucesses in Normandy and Anjou.... which were the central spears of power in the Norman world. England was very important, but secondary in many ways to Normandy and Anjou, as later Plantaganet rulers demonstrated. Additionally, following 1136, Matilda enjoyed wide suport and popularity by the Marcher lords occupying Wales who viewed Matilda favorably (according to historian John Davies)♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 06:51, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

To me this seems compelling enough evidence to say that she was indeed Queen of England. Unless anyone has any opposistion then I will begin to change the article to show this. The Quill (talk) 09:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

It's already stated in the article that she was de jure heiress to the thrones, but she was never crowned (which was very important at that time, symbolizing the legitimacy of the new monarch). Stephen, on the other hand, was crowned and enjoyed the support of the majority of the barons. Even the Pope acknowledged Stephen as the rightful monarch of England. I am trying to maintain NPOV - I too believe that Matilda was the righful heiress, but that's my POV. Our POV does not belong to Wikipedia. I will strongly oppose claiming that she was undoubtly monarch of England. I will also oppose refering to her as Queen of England in any context because she herself believed that the title of queen belongs only to the wife of king and therefore believed that the title of queen would degrade her. We are entitled to our POV, but the article needs to retain NPOV. Surtsicna (talk) 14:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

From know on we can refer to her as Lady if it makes you better. Stephen isn't recognised between April and November 1141. If you look carefully she can see that I always refer to her as disputed monarch. The Quill (talk) 19:25, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to use Infobox German Royalty (at least until we combine all infoboxes into one), since Matilda gained her highest title and rank through her first marriage (that's why we use Infobox British Royalty for Aexandra of Denmark who was Danish by birth, but held a higher title through marriage). Matilda was known as Empress Matilda and styled herself that way even after remarriage (which was not uncommon: Katherine Parr also kept her royal title after remarriage, as did many dowager duchesses who married earls). We've almost reached a consensus. Surtsicna (talk) 20:32, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

As is have explained before if a person is of noble heritage of a country then that infobox shoudl be used that that of the title they held. Anyway Matilda was never actually Empress she was never crowned the highest title she actually ever held was Queen of the Romans. The Quill (talk) 20:42, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I will not oppose using Infobox British Royalty if you successfully replace Infobox British Royalty with Infobox Danish Royalty in this article (if nobody opposes the replacement). As for Matilda's highest title, even if you don't consider her imperial title (which she did use) to be valid, the title of German Queen is still her highest title. Anyway, her right to use the imperial title is disputed, but more historians recognize her as empress than as monarch of England. Surtsicna (talk) 20:55, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanky You for letting me use Infobox British Royalty. I do accept that German Queen is her highest title and that Lady of the English is diputed. However, she hever held the title Holy Roman Empress offically she asked historians to record her as being crowned but wasn't actauuly. The Quill (talk) 16:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I said: I will not oppose using Infobox British Royalty if you successfully replace Infobox British Royalty with Infobox Danish Royalty in this article (if nobody opposes the replacement). But this is a pointless discussion anyway, so I don't care which infobox is used. There are bigger issues we should be discussing about. For example, you cannot assert that she wasn't Holy Roman Empress because she wasn't crowned (she wasn't crowned monarch of England either and you don't mind that). She was spouse of an Emperor who had been recognized and crowned by the Pope. Maria Theresa, Archduchess of Austria was crowned only Queen [regnant] of Hungary, but nobody disputes that she was also Queen [regnant] of Croatia and Bohemia, as well as Queen [consort] of the Romans and Holy Roman Empress. Surtsicna (talk) 20:11, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

This isn't a negotiation page you can't bargin one infobox for another. I can assert that she was regent of England because 1. She was de jure monarch. 2. The Privy Council were on her side (originally). She wasn't Holy Roman Empress because she proclaimed herself as Empress, the only evidence that she was Empress she forced people to write or was written after she was dead and was sourced from the histories she forced people to write. The Quill (talk) 16:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I am not bargaining. You said that if a person is of noble heritage of a country then that infobox shoudl be used that that of the title they held. I'm sure that all members of WikiProject British Royalty would disagree with you on this statement and your edit would be reverted very quickly. So, if Alexandra of Denmark article uses IBR, then this article should use IGR. But this is irrelevant because (hopefully) we'll get a universal infobox. Anyway, I don't care for your point of view, just like I don't care for my own point of view when it comes to writing and editing articles. First of all, a regent is a person who acts as head of state when the monarch is unable to perform his/her duties. Thus, Matilda was definitely never a regent. By the way, I have no idea what you meant to say about her imperial title. To counter your points: 1. she was de jure heiress, but not de jure monarch, although she was de facto head of state for few months; 2. the Privy Council supported her while she was the heiress presumptive, but not after her father's death. Another important fact is that she was never crowned and that the Pope never recognized her as a monarch. I will not oppose your edits as long as you don't break NPOV. The article is currently very neutral. Surtsicna (talk) 19:35, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the claim that Matilda was not empress. One generally did not become Empress of the Holy Roman Empire by being crowned by the pope - I'm not sure if any of the empresses was ever crowned by the pope, although perhaps a couple were. One became Empress by one's husband being crowned Emperor in Rome. Which Matilda's husband was - Heinrich V was crowned twice, in 1111 and 1116. Although he was not crowned by the pope, I don't think this makes a difference - several emperors were crowned by personages other than the pope, including both Heinrich V's own father and the later ruler Ludwig IV. john k (talk) 03:44, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Whether all members of WikiProject BRoy agree with me or not it is the current status quo. In the UK the term Queen Regent is used to for monarchs who are the actual head of state to distuinguish them from consorts who may (rather illogically) hold the title king or queen but don't hold any actualy power. The term heir(ess) is always de jure it is impossible not to be de jure a successor and a heir are completely different things. Matilda was de jure successor but not de facto successor. Also being de facto head of state actually makes her a monarch (as England was a monarchy). The fact that the pope didn't support her is irrelevant the pope had no actual legal authority to decide who was monarch of another country. The Pope recognising you is nice but not required. The articel is really that neutral at the moment is it? It hardly informative enoguh to be anything. The Quill (talk) 12:57, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, dear. In the UK and elsewhere the term queen regnant is used to describe a female monarch of a kingdom. Regent and regnant are clearly not the same thing. You can understand this just by reading Wikipedia articles on regent and queen regnant. Thank you for explaining it to me, but I know that heir and successor are different terms. A successor is a person who has succeeded and we cannot claim that Matilda succeeded to the English crown because Stephen was proclaimed king immediately after Henry II's death (since succession to the Crown was not yet carved in stone in 12th century). Please stop saying nonsense, you are not going to convince anyone by saying that "being de facto head of state makes her a monarch". Marie de' Medici was de facto head of state of France, yet nobody considers her to be a monarch of France. Margaret of Anjou was also de facto head of state of England, yet nobody considers her to be a monarch of England. Don't you realise that the English Reformation took place because of the Pope's vast authority over the King of England? The King couldn't even handle his own marriage without the Pope's consent. Papal approval was very, very important in 12th century and Stephen was the one whose accession the Pope approved. The article gives facts, not opinions, and that's what makes it neutral. You can't say that it's not informative enough just because it doesn't contain various theories. Surtsicna (talk) 19:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

The Pope dealt with marriage in the name of God. Henry was the representative of God when it came to ruling the land. (As it is believed). The Popes approval was important but it wasn't actually neccessary. The Quill (talk) 13:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a discussion of what actual historians studying the period and studying Matilda/Stephen might be in order, rather than theoretical arguments based on later time periods. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we went off topic. My point is that we should maintain the neutral point of view (which user The Quill doesn't [want to] respect). Wikipedia must not fight for the rights of disputed monarchs. A user's point of view and original research do not belong to Wikipedia. If scholars cannot agree that she was a monarch, then Wikipedia should not claim that she was. Surtsicna (talk) 15:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, a quick look at The Handbook of British Chronology shows that they don't list her as monarch. The Official British Monarchy Page on the Norman Monarchs doesn't list her either (you need to do the pull down menu there). The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography doesn't list her as an English Monarch either, looking at this list (need a subscription to see it). Ealdgyth - Talk 15:16, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly my point, yet The Quill insists on treating her as a monarch. Surtsicna (talk) 15:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Getting Matilda recognised as a monarch is just one of my many goals. It isn't the most important and isn't the one that I am currently trying to achieve. If you look carefully at my arguments and edits you will see that I am trying to get her recognised as a legitiment heir(ess) who didn't get her crown. Many people at the time considered her to be the true moanrch, I know this doesn't make her a monarch but it does make her a calimant. The Quill (talk) 20:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

We're, however, writing an encyclopedia, where we sumarize what reliable secondary sources (i.e. historians) write about the subject. If most of the historians don't call her the "legitimate monarch" then we can't say that in the infobox or the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

One again you have completely ignored what I have just said. I didn't said that she is a "legitimate monarch" but a "claiment monarch" who had a strong claim to the throne and was recognised by many people at the time. The Quill (talk) 09:45, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I would go along with you, Quill on this one as I believe Matilda should be recognised as a monarch and the article needs to be moved to Queen Matilda of England. I know we disagreed on Jane Grey, but here I fully support your move.--jeanne (talk) 06:28, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

I suppose you mean Matilda of England? Queen Matilda of England would make no sense for two reasons: 1) she herself never used that title; 2) it would create inconsistency with other monarchs of England (if she is to be put among them). I do not object moving this article to Matilda of England, as she was (unlike Lady Jane Grey) daughter of an English monarch. We should not let our POV affect the article's neutrality. I would be thrilled if all the scholars agree that she was the rightful monarch, but until such thing happens, our opinion means nothing and we cannot claim that she was a monarch when scholars dispute her status. We have no right to fill the articles with our POV and we don't have right to do original research. Wikipedia is not supposed to publish original thought. Surtsicna (talk) 10:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Part of the problem here is that under the later-developed doctrine of the succession to the Crown of England, Matilda would clearly have qualified as the legitimate Monarch, unlike in France, where the so-called Salic Law excluded females from the line of succession. But in the 12th century these doctrines were still fluid, so there was scope for genuine disagreement and uncertainty. It is impossible to say that Matilda was or was not the de jure Monarch at a time when the law of succession had not been firmly settled. When that law *was* settled in the 14th century, partly as a consequence of the English claim to the Crown of France, it was necessary to maintain the legal fiction that the law had always permitted a female succession, so that Matilda was the rightful Monarch and Stephen a usurper.86.135.4.52 (talk) 22:50, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Second Marriage to ....

Second Marriage to Geoffery reads like it is her second marriage to the same man. I recommend changing it simply to Marriage to Geoffery of Anjou. ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 07:00, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Page move

I have restored this article to its title prior to the highly controversial move of 30 November. I have protected it to allow for a debate to take place on the title. If you wish to rename it, please follow the procedure described in paragraph 3 of Wikipedia:Requested moves. Deb (talk) 19:03, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Why have you done this knowone has disputed the name of the article. If you had an issue then you should have made your views known on the talk page first. You are abusing your positison as an admin to prevent anyone reverting the page back to how it was before you moved the page as would be standard procedure. The Quill (talk) 19:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

I approve the move back to common usage:Empress Mathilda. The Quill's reocurse is WP:RM; but I shall oppose the request. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I tend to favor Matilda of England also, given that she was designated by her father and was ratified by the nobles as his successor, she was Queen by hereditary and civil right, though England itself was occupied by a usurper. Using the name of the artical as Empress Matilda is more akin to using Richard the Lionheart for that artical, rather then Richard I of England. ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 09:51, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, that in the scholarly literature she's usually known as the Empress Matilda, to distinquish her from her mother and various other relatives who were also Matilda's. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

She isn't known as Empress Matilda to distinguish her but because she threatened people if they didin't use the word Empress even though she wasn't actually am Empress she was never crowned! 19:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

She threatened people? Oh, please. She was a princess married to an emperor - therefore an empress. Coronation represents recognition of a person's right to rule. Matilda was merely an empress consort and couldn't rule as such, therefore coronation was neccessary. However, one of the factors that make her status as a monarch of England disputable is the lack of coronation. Surtsicna (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Æðelic

The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle entry for 1127, the only time it gives a name to Matilda / Maud / The Empress, calls her Æðelic. Æðelic was presumably her name amongst the English, and Matilda her name amongst the French, just as her mother had been Eadgyð in Scotland but suddenly had to be Matilda at the Norman court.

Howard Alexander (talk) 21:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

That's interesting. Do you have a source? Surtsicna (talk) 22:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The actual text, from the Laud Chronicle is:

Ðis gear heald se kyng Heanri his hird æt Cristes mæsse on Windlesoure. Þær wæs se Scotte kyng Dauid. 7 eall ða heaued læred 7 læuued þæt wæs on Engleland. 7 þær he let sweren ercebiscopes 7 biscopes 7 abbotes 7 eorles 7 ealle þa ðeines ða þær wæron his dohter Æðelic Englaland 7 Normandi to hande æfter his dæi. þe ær wæs þes Caseres wif of Sexlande

The latter section reads (quickly word for word translated) "and there he made swear archbishops and bishops and abbots and earls and all the thanes (barons) who were there, his daughter Æðelic England and Normandy to hand after his day, who before was the Emperor of Germany's wife"

Howard Alexander (talk) 21:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that the similarity of "Æðelic" to Aetheling/Adelin is too great to be coincidental. DrKay (talk) 12:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

A queen regnant? A successor of Henry I?

I've reverted PatGallacher's edit so that we can discuss it. Matilda never took the title of queen of England. She planned to do so after coronation, as was customary at the time and meanwhile she used the title Lady of the English (her grandsons were styled Lord of England/the English until their coronations), so I am not sure that it is appropriate to put her into Category:Queens regnant of England (she simply wasn't a queen of England). Matilda could be regarded as a monarch for several months in 1141, from the moment she deposed her crowned cousin until the moment she was deposed - thus, if she was a legitimate monarch, she succeeded Stephen (not Henry I) and was succeeded by Stephen. Surtsicna (talk) 14:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

If she had succeeded in her campaign, she would have been regarded as having succeeded her father Henry I, not her cousin the usurper Stephen. Just as Charles II regarded himself as having succeeded his father Charles I, not Cromwell.Eregli bob (talk) 07:51, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I havent read Maude's bio in a long while, but wasn't she able to assert her control in Normandy even after 1141? So while Stephan ruled in England Maude ruled in Normandy?♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 18:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Correction to myself, it seems after 1141 she stayed in England until 1148, when she returned to Anjou, and according to the current text of the artical, Geoffery of Anjou conqured Normandy in 1148 and gave it to their son Henry II to rule over. But I could swear that I had read she was administering Normandy by right herself. I'll have to research that point.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 18:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

As I recall, Geoffrey always held that he'd conquered Normanday, not that it'd passed to her by sucession necessarily. But I'm on the road, and not where I can get to books. But I do agree with Surtsicna that calling her a queen of England is not correct, especially as she never claimed the title herself. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Dynasty

Currently Maude is tagged to the Plantagent dynasty, shouldn't she instead be tagged to the Norman dynasty?♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 12:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Hm. Yes, daughter of a Norman, but mother of a Plantegenet, so probably Norman.--Harkey (talk) 12:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Baptised as Adelaide?

I was browsing thepeerage.com when I noticed that it claims that Matilda was baptised as Adelaide. A quick Google Book Search shows that there are secondary sources which confirm this claim. For example, The Angevin empire: or The three reigns of Henry II, Richard I, and John (A.D. 1154-1216) claims that she was "baptised as Adelaide" and that she changed her name to Matilda when she married the Emperor. This is an important information, if true. Does anyone have anything against including this information? Surtsicna (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, Chibnall says "Nothing is known of Matilda's childhood and early education..." (p. 9) Nor does Chibnall in The Empress Matilda give a secure birth date. Ramsey's writing in 1903, and tracing his reasoning to Foundations Volume II p. 267 I see he's basing it on John of Hexham, who is not considered a very reliable source. I'd go with Chibnall, personally, who does not mention any such "fact". Ealdgyth - Talk 22:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

You are right, her biographer is certainly more reliable than a historian who merely mentions her. --Surtsicna (talk) 22:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to be doubly safe, I checked the account of Matilda's marriage to Henry in Hollister's Henry I, and nothing is mentioned there about her changing her name. Hollister consistently calls her Maud, which is his way of distinquishing her from her mother Matilda, her grandmother Matilda... and all the OTHER Matlidas... Ealdgyth - Talk 22:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Strikes me she is more likely to be called Adelaide after the death of Adelin rather than before. DrKay (talk) 12:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Empress

I have fact-tagged this :

Despite being popularly known as "Empress" from her first marriage, Matilda's right to the title was dubious. She was never crowned Holy Roman Empress by a legitimate Pope — which ceremony was normally required to achieve the title; although, in later years she encouraged chroniclers to believe she had been crowned by the Pope.

I'm skeptical that such a long string of claims can actually be supported.Wjhonson (talk) 13:42, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I am sure I read that somewhere so it's not OR. I'll try to find the reference. Anyway, rhis might be interesting. Surtsicna (talk) 14:28, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

A wife takes her husband's titles, surely? Her husband was emperor (crowned by the pope and everything), so she was empress. Hell, even some actual emperors were not crowned by the Pope himself, and are still considered emperors. Henry VII and Charles IV were both crowned by cardinals; Louis IV was crowned by Sciarra Colonna, the "captain of the Roman People"; Henry IV was crowned by an anti-pope. john k (talk) 15:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

If I recall correctly, the other book I was referring to claims that she was not crowned empress at all. Apparently, she was crowned Queen of the Romans before her marriage and used only that title on her seals though she preferred the imperial title in her charters. Surtsicna (talk) 15:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Empress or Countess

wouldn't the fact that she married a count make her a countess, not empress?ZFT (talk) 03:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

She claimed the title of Empress from her first marriage to the Holy Roman Emperor; she then married a count second time around. Hchc2009 (talk) 06:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Empress is rather more grand; doubtless why she claimed it. -- cheers, Michael C. Price ^talk 07:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Removal of grandparents

I don't care much (either) for ancestors or descendants that couldn't have known the person about whom the biography is constructed, but wouldn't some of those removed been alive when she was born? Student7 (talk) 16:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Greetings, Student7 --- Since your post is from the mists of times past, you will probably not see this message. Be that as it may. A family tree is enormously helpful for us mere mice to see the relationships between the people spoken of in this article. I argue that the next generation should have been included, too, at least Henry II. Consider this family tree as akin to going to a racetrack - you need a scorecard to keep all the horses straight.

Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 16:16, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Reigning Duchess of Normandy

The current article seem to say, as far as I understand, that she was reigning duchess of the Duchy of Normandy jointly with her spouse from 1144 until 1149. Is this correct? If so, then should she not have an sucessionbox which states this, and should she not also be included in the List of rulers of the Duke of Normandy? It should also be stated exactly which years she ruled Normandy in the absence of her son. --Aciram (talk) 12:29, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I would like to see a source that says that. It is my understanding that Geoffrey became duke of Normandy by conquest and that Matilda was only duchess as his spouse. I doubt she was even the duchy's de iure ruler. Surtsicna (talk) 15:42, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

It's unclear. Looking back through Chibnall's biography of Matilda, there is definite uncertainty on what Henry decreed on his death - in particular, whether he declared that Matilda and Geoffrey should rule jointly in England and Normandy, or just Matilda, or if he preferred Stephen. Matilda titled herself "empress", rather than countess or duchess, and occasionally "daughter of the king of the English" or, post-1141, "Lady of the English". Geoffrey begins to call himself "Duke of Normandy" after Jan 1144. Later, Matilda issues joint charters in Normandy with Henry, entitling themselves "the Empress Matilda, daughter of King Henry, and Henry, her son the Duke of Normandy". But I can't see anywhere where she calls herself the duchess - probably because as an Empress, she didn't feel she needed to. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, the issue is not so much the title so much as the position as such, that is to say: whether she was in fact formally and juridicially joint co-regent with her spouse in Normandy--Aciram (talk) 22:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

It's still not a question that's easy to answer. 12th century titles weren't as ordered and structured as in later centuries, and there wasn't a formal process for determining dukes and duchesses etc. Acts of homage, on occasion, gave an element of formality, as did the occasional Papal ruling, but I suspect the idea of someone being legally declared a joint co-regent would have quite alien. Geoffrey started to act as duke when he took over the capital, and then signed off charters etc. with that title; there aren't any primary records that I know of where anyone confirmed Matilda's status in the way one might a modern ruler. Modern historians don't typically talk about her as being a duchess of Normandy, if that helps at all. Hchc2009 (talk) 20:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

Expansion...

I've given the article a bit of an expansion, and I think everything should now be backed by current, high quality academic sources. I've reused some edited material from the Anarchy and Stephen of England articles. It will probably need a decent copyedit. Hchc2009 (talk) 11:56, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Empress Matilda/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Lankiveil (talk · contribs) 01:16, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Summary: Article is of a high quality and only needs a couple of minor adjustments to be passed. Below is an assessment against each of the Good Article criteria:

1) Well Written:

There were a few very minor copyediting issues which I have corrected. In general the article is well written, flows nicely for the most part, and doesn't have any serious grammar or style problems. See my comments below for further suggestions on this point.

2) Verifiable with no original research:

The article is extensively referenced and a comprehensive bibliography is provided. Not all sources are online (which is not usually a problem), but some are provided, especially Chibnall, which is used extensively.

3) Broad in its coverage:

The article is comprehensive, but not weighed down by unnecessary detail.

4) Neutral

There are no obvious POV problems. A summary of views of Matilda's reign, both positive and negative, and contemporary and modern, is provided.

5) Stable

Apart from the expansion by User:Hchc2009, the article has been stable for the best part of a year.

6) Illustrated, if possible, by images:

The article is well illustrated with free images. No fair use. Some of the images have technically incomplete {{PD-Art}} tags, but given their origin in the 12th century they are clearly now out of copyright.

Suggested Improvements:

As stated above, this article is already 99% of the way there. A few suggestions I'd like you to consider:

1. Henry V is referred to in many of the sources as "Heinrich V". While WP:COMMONNAME applies, it may be useful to mention that he's known by the other name somewhere to prevent confusion. There are already too many Henries in English history!
   • I'm not sure I agree with you on this one - he's wikilinked, and there are a lot of characters in this period with alternative spellings. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:44, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
2. The caption beginning "Political map of Wales and southern England" is a bit clunky. Could this be rewritten, either by getting rid of the equals signs, or adding line breaks? It would also be helpful for the reader to know what you mean by "indigenous Welsh" in this context.
   • Tweaked - see what you think. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:44, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
3. It might be a good idea to move the "Death" section immediately under "Later life". At present we move from a chronological history, then to an analysis, back to a chronological history for a bit, and then back to more analysis. Either the "Matilda as ruler" or "Death" sections should be moved to improve the flow.
   • Agree, a good idea. Changed accordingly. Hchc2009 (talk) 16:44, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
4. There are some circular redirects, please correct these.
   • I'm sure I can identify this - are you sure its not getting a false positive on the cite web title? Hchc2009 (talk) 14:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Once the above issues are resolved I think this is ready for GA. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC).

Cheers - will tackle these tomorrow night. Thanks Lankiveil. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

No worries. I see quite a bit of work has been done on the article already. I'll be away from the Internet until the middle of next week, but will catch up and re-look at this (and hopefully pass it) when I return. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 22:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC).

I'm back at home now, and thankyou for making these changes. I notice there's been a fair few new edits put onto the article since my review, I will re-review (hopefully tomorrow) to make sure that these are all acceptable and if so, tick this one off as completed. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC).

Thanks Laniveil. Hchc2009 (talk) 14:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I've had a look at the other changes made during this period and for the most part they're only copyedits and are fine. I would like to see a citation in the new and expanded "Family Tree" section though, which might be able to be reconstructed via original research but it would be preferable not to do this. There seems to be plenty of trees in Google Image Search which confirm what's in the article, but none of them seem to be from a reliable source. Once resolved, I will pass this article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC).

Reference added. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Was William Adelin married to Matilda of Anjou?

In Marriage to Geoffrey of Anjou, it is is said that William Adelin was due to marry Matilda of Anjou. The articles about the two of them state that they were betrothed in 1113 and that they did actually marry, each citing a different source but the same date and place - June 1119 in Lisieux. There is a slight inconsistency here. Wonderful article, by the way. I have been waiting to read up on Matilda for a long time. Surtsicna (talk) 09:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

My mistake - have checked back, and they had married shortly before his death. Will amend and reference in a moment... Thanks for the copyedit and the family tree, btw - looks good! Hchc2009 (talk) 16:14, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Citation format...

Kay, I've reverted, as the webpage citation of the ODNB was cited differently as its an electronic source (in this a webpage) rather than a written book or article. There's only only webpage cited in the article, so it stands out, but its similar to the approach used on other monarch articles in this period.

Thanks for sorting the succession box, btw! Hchc2009 (talk) 11:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

NB - Kay, I'm just about to catch a flight, so if I don't reply to any comments until tomorrow, that's not me being rude! Hchc2009 (talk) 12:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I never considered you rude! Quite the contrary in fact. DrKay (talk) 12:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Seal

Engraving

Photograph

There's an engraving of the seal that provides a clearer picture if you're interested in swapping out the photo of the original. DrKay (talk) 16:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Kay. It's certainly clearer, although I'm not sure how accurate the engraving is (and I will admit to a fondness for the original old seals!). Will give it a think - what do you reckon, though, any preference? Hchc2009 (talk) 15:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

No; I'm not advocating one or other, merely offering a choice! DrKay (talk) 12:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Picture

Is File:Matylda.jpg really depicting the subject of this article? Since it comes from the Gospels of Henry the Lion, I feel it would make more sense if it were a depiction of his wife Matilda of England, Duchess of Saxony (a granddaughter of the Empress, actually). This picture was cropped from this page of the Gospels, which is not clearly described on Commons (a curse on people who do not label their pictures adequately!), but according to the French Wikipedia, it is indeed a portrayal of Henry the Lion and his wife being led to the Virgin Mary by SS. Blaise and Ægidius. Ælfgar (talk) 02:28, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

She captured Stephen of Blois?

Noticed this article from the Featured Article of the Day. Shouldn't the statement that "She captured Stephen at the Battle of Lincoln" instead say: "Her forces captured Stephen at the Battle of Lincoln"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acefox (talk • contribs) 01:51, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Recent dispute

I have been trying to make some really inoffensive, indeed anodyne changes to this page, and I am being repeatedly thwarted by two users. One of them, SagaciousPhil, has just given me a "warning" threatening dire things if I dare to make any changes to the page. I think this is both excessive and mindless, and very far from sagacious.

In particular, I have been told to seek 'consensus' on this page or else seek 'dispute resolution.' It is my contention that the changes I have sought to make do not give rise to any dispute or "warring." Indeed my changes are most moderate and, in the real world, utterly non-controversial. If the sagacious guy named Phil has discerned a dispute, he should state what that dispute is, based on the content of what I have changed. If not, he should restore what I had written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.182.175.195 (talk) 19:08, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi 59.182.175.195. I am not in any way involved in this dispute, but I am sorry that you feel threatened for making your attempted improvements. I think the concern is that you are adding additional information in the middle of content that is cited to a particular source, and your information is not directly supported by those sources. As a result, unsourced content is being mixed with sourced content, and this is confusing for people who might try to read those sources for more information. This article is a featured article—FAs are the highest-quality articles on this website and go through a rigorous screening process. Therefore, to maintain FA quality, it is necessary that the clarity and verifiability of these articles be preserved. Do feel free to ask me any questions that you may have, and I appreciate your good-faith efforts to improve Wikipedia. Biblio (talk) WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia. 19:52, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Hatting off-topic opinion discussion which I started. Apologies for discussing this at an inappropriate venue. Biblio (talk) WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia. 02:13, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

To the experienced editors, please try not to discourage or frighten new editors who are simply trying to improve articles in good faith. We cannot reasonably expect them to be familiar with our extensive web of content policies—is it not true that none of us were when we started here? It is better to inform them so that they can improve their editing. Biblio (talk) WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia. 19:52, 9 July 2016 (UTC) Biblio - did you actually read the edit sumaries? I don't see how they could possibly be considered frightening or threatening. An edit warring notice is standard procedure when someone continues to edit war something into an article. It was the standard template, that's all. No additional threats/statements/whatever were issued with it. And, frankly, source integrity is very very important everywhere on Wikipedia - adding information that is not in a supported citation is a big deal. It isn't something we should encourage at all, whether or not the article is an FA or not. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:15, 9 July 2016 (UTC) I realize that adding unsourced information is a big deal, and I support high sourcing standards for our recognized content and our articles in general. I have personally applied high standards as well, having been extremely careful to meticulously source all articles I have worked on (four of which are GAs). My comment about "discourag[ing] or frigten[ing]" new editors was in reference to the template on the IP's talk page. It is indeed the standard template. But if I were a new user, I would be terribly frightened by a red "STOP!" hand attached to a bolded notice that I am in danger of being blocked, especially when I was just trying to improve an article and didn't understand why I was being continually reverted. I'm not trying to blame anyone, because I would have used the same templates in the past. But when dealing with new editors who are just trying to improve an article in good faith, I eventually concluded that it is better to calmly explain our policies to them instead of just posting templates. To us they may not look frightening at all, because we are so used to them, but they must be very frightening to new users who were just trying to help. We should reduce our use of imposing boilerplate templates and instead try to help good-faith new users become better editors. Biblio (talk) WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia. 22:49, 9 July 2016 (UTC) Then take your complaint to the editors of these templates. You've written four GAs? Congratulations! I lost count some time ago. Eric Corbett 19:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC) ... although I am able to check, and it appears to be thirty-two. Now stop taking the piss. Eric Corbett 19:41, 11 July 2016 (UTC) Eric, my intention is not to start a dispute with you or anyone else. I was simply recommending that we give friendly advice to new editors rather than place blaring, pre-packaged templates on their talk page. And as I said, I would have used those templates myself until recently. Obviously, I cannot do anything if someone chooses to continue using the standard templates—I have no right to impose my will on others. But I do have a right to voice my concerns about them and try to have them improved, just as you have a right to support them. And as for your many GAs and FAs, I congratulate you as well—I do not deny that you and many others can claim far more recognized content than I can. I have much respect for prolific content creation. My only point in citing my four GAs was to show that I personally take much care to source my writing. In any case, the IP has not returned, so there is no longer any need to continue this thread. Biblio (talk) WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia. 20:02, 11 July 2016 (UTC) If you want to deal with new editors who wreck articles, in a more gentle way, then maybe the Village Pump is the place to have that discussion. Eric Corbett 20:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC) To make my position clear, I am proposing "more gentle" treatment for new editors (obviously not including blatant vandals) who are merely unaware of our policies, as all of us were when we started editing. Of course, that emphatically does not mean that we should permit poorly formatted or unsourced content to remain at the expense of readers. In fact, I fully support increased quality standards and safeguards, such as expanded PC protection for articles of high quality or importance. But I am simply suggesting that it is best to calmly inform such editors of our policies and quality expectations before making use of standard warnings, etc.—as in other contexts, it is possible that simply informing someone will make them more productive, which would be good for everyone. However, it is obviously a completely different matter if someone rejects the information and continues to disturb article quality even after being told of the applicable policies. Biblio (talk) WikiProject Reforming Wikipedia. 20:58, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Marriage to the Emperor

It is stated that "In January 1114 Matilda was ready to be married to Henry, and their wedding was held at the city of Worms amid extravagant celebrations.[21]"

I don't have access to the source to know whether all aspects of this statement are covered there but this seems a strange thing to say of a young girl just approaching 12 years. I understand marriage at this age was not unusual. It may be that at that time she was "considered ready to marry". It may be that she had completed her education for the role. But can it be said she was "ready to be married".

I think this either needs to be expanded to explain what is meant or reduced to state that they were married on the date and in the circumstances described.

Any thoughts? JDE 79.78.218.203 (talk) 18:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

It follows the source. Four years after the initial betrothal, she was now sufficiently old enough to be married, and as the previous sentence explains, had been sufficiently educated and prepared for the role. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Salian

Empress Matilda was not a Salian. Including her in Category:Salian dynasty is an anachronism. It is based on an assumption that, just as modern women often change their last name upon marriage, medieval noblewomen swapped dynasties upon marriage. It's nonsense. What source justifies that? Nobody has ever referred to William the Conqueror's wife as Matilda of Normandy. She has always been known as Matilda of Flanders, a member of the House of Flanders. Likewise nobody has ever referred to Henry VI's mother as Catherine of Lancaster. Empress Matilda was a Salian as much as Emperor Henry was a Norman. Surtsicna (talk) 20:32, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

We need to see actual historians or similar who include Matilda in the Salian dynasty - not a wikipedia page which lists her as one of the consorts of a member of the Salian dynasty, and when even that wikipedia page doesn't give a source for listing her in a section of the Salian dynasty. Wives are not generally considered members of the dynasty of their spouse - we need something that sources an extraordinary claim. I agree with Surtsicna, this article should not be in the Salian dynasty category. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:25, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

The source that was just added does not support Matilda being counted in the Salian dynasty. It in fact states that Henry V was the "last member of the Salian dynasty" ... which since Matilda survived Henry's death in 1125 by over 40 years, directly contradicts that Matilda was a member of the Salian dynasty - since it died out on Henry's death and she survived him by 42 years. If she was a member of the dynasty - it would have died out on HER death in 1167. Please revert until a source that actually supports she herself as an explicit member of the Salian dynasty is produced. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:05, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I already added a source, and there are several more of them. Again dynasties do not only consist of descendants by blood. Surtsicna's argument is an anachronism. Also for a featured article, the article seems poorly written. "The match was attractive to the English King: his daughter would be marrying into one of the most prestigious dynasties in Europe" Yet it failed to name the dynasty?Dimadick (talk) 21:10, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Please see above - the source you added does not support the addition of the category because it explicity says the Salian dynasty ended with Henry V's death... and Matilda outlived Henry by 42 years. If the dynasty ended in 1125 and Matilda died in 1167 ... the source obviously does not consider Matilda part of the Salian dynasty. (Not to mention the source is a workbook for school children being homeschooled, and not an actual historian's secondary work....) Ealdgyth - Talk 21:19, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Here's the link to the only page in the source that mentions Salian dynasty where it says ""In 1125 Henry died, most likely from some form of cancer. Matilda and Henry produced no heirs and she had no other living children, which meant with Henry's death came the end of the Salian dynasty. With no reason to stay in Germany, Matilda went home to England." This does not support that Matilda is considered a member of the Salian dynasty at all. Ealdgyth - Talk 21:28, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

It certainly does not, and it is disturbing to see someone try to pass that off as supporting this claim. Surtsicna (talk) 22:13, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Married to the last Salian makes her a member of the dynasty, just as any other consort of the Salians. The marriage and its implications is also covered by "The Salian Century: Main Currents in an Age of Transition" (1999) by Stefan Weinfurter, and "The New Cambridge Medieval History: Volume 4, C.1024-c.1198", p. 754. The only "source" so far arguing against it is Wikipedia, and I am weary of OR. Dimadick (talk) 22:27, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Page 754 of The New Cambridge Medieval History is headed 'Salian and Hohenstaufen emperors and kings'. It does not say that consorts were Salians Dudley Miles (talk) 22:48, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

No, marriage to a Salian did not make her Salian. You are imposing modern conventions on a 12th century person. No historian in their right mind has ever called Matilda a member of the Salian dynasty. Or a Plantagenet, for that matter. She was a Norman through and through. Surtsicna (talk) 23:11, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Have any more sources been brought forward? otherwise, I think consensus is clear that the information added is not properly sourced and that the category is not supported. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:22, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

The match was attractive to the English King...

I understand editors are grappling with a 3/RR issue regrading Salian dynasty. I am curious what they think of this other (cited) passage that's been deleted in it's wake.

The match was attractive to the English King: his daughter would be marrying into one of the most prestigious dynasties in Europe, reaffirming his own, slightly questionable, status as the youngest son of a new royal house, and gaining him an ally in dealing with France. In return, Henry V would receive a dowry of 10,000 marks, which he needed to fund an expedition to Rome for his coronation as the Holy Roman Emperor. The final details of the deal were negotiated at Westminster in June 1109 and, as a result of her changing status, Matilda attended a royal council for the first time that October. She left England in February 1110 to make her way to Germany.

Work permit (talk) 23:03, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I double checked Chibnall's bio of Matilda on page 16 - it fully supports the information above that's sourced to it. It is in the article, it's not being removed in the edit wars, it's just being moved around. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:20, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Work permit (talk) 23:44, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Domina

I suspect adding the Latin once would add to the article for those who have some Latin, and take nothing away from them that don’t. As recently pointed out, it has meanings which “lady” has largely lost in colloquial English. Qwirkle (talk) 22:13, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

@Qwirkle: I suggest a mention of domina in the lead section is necessary for clarity with a pipe-link to Dominus (title), since the article is a long one, and further down I have added discussion of her various titles and the interpretation of the word domina. GPinkerton (talk) 23:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Teenager

Henry and Matilda marched over the Alps into Italy in early 1116, intent on settling matters permanently with the Pope.[26] Matilda was now playing a full part in the imperial government, sponsoring royal grants, dealing with petitioners and taking part in ceremonial occasions.[27] The rest of the year was spent establishing control of northern Italy, and in early 1117 the pair advanced on Rome itself.[28]

Shouldn't it be emphasised that she was 14 at the time? It may be normal that she was married by that age, but was it normal having such a role in government by that age? --Error (talk) 19:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Pretty normal for the period. Ealdgyth (talk) 19:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Missing 'House'

Simply, why is there no "House" (dynasty) section in 'infobox' at the beginning of article...

The two (or three) previous talk-topics raised seem to reach the conclusion that Matilda is from the "House of Normandy"... I find it baffling that this was (is) ever up for contention...

So despite being discussed on this talk page in 2009 and 2018, it wasn't until June 22 2020 that the 'House' section disappeared from the infobox, with the edit summary comment stating "Citation needed, uncorrect"

Basically, is there need for citation? Is referring to her dynasty as Norman even slightly dubious?

As previously stated under the 'Salian' talk topic: there is (as far as I'm aware) very little precedent to assign a female monarch their partner's (or children's) dynasty, Queen Victoria is always regarded as 'Hanover', Maria Theresa seems to always be regarded as 'Habsburg' (while her children Habsburg-Lorraine) Anne and Mary were both as 'Stuart'... Even consorts (seem to) retain their own dynasty, see Catherine de' Medici...

To be fair, there is one fairly notable example to the contrary in Catherine 'the Great' of Russia; who totally does seem to have 'adopted' her husbands last name (Holstein-Gottorp-Romanov)... Possibly worth considering however, she also completely changed her other two (first) names upon conversion to Eastern Orthodoxy... Not to mention the fact she also seized the throne from that same husband right before he 'mysteriously' died...

Clearly I'm no expert, surely there should be A house/dynasty section? And surely it's the norman dynasty... Guess I'm keen for another opinion before editing without a source... (even if I think it's ludicrous one is needed for something so blatant)

Stvys (talk) 19:00, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Article contains contradiction in Stephen's coronation date compared to date in article on Stephen

This article states "Stephen's coronation was held a week later at Westminster Abbey on 26 December", however Stephen's page says it was held on 22nd December. Further, the page 'List of English Monarchs' notes 22nd December as the first date of Stephen's rule. I therefore assume 22nd December is correct and Empress Matilda's article is wrong - but I am new to researching this subject and don't know for sure. Can someone clarify this? Billy Tallent (talk) 03:05, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

I have checked the source and 26 December is a typo. I have corrected. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:10, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Picture Change

I'm planning to change the portrait of her back to the 15th Century photo, it looks more royal/regal than the one currently.
If consensus agrees, go ahead and change it back.
BettyCrocker321 (talk) 13:43, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Later depictions can be included in later sections, in particular the 'Legacy' section, but I think the lead image should ideally be a contemporary or near-contemporary portrait. DrKay (talk) 14:29, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the infobox image should be as close to contemporary as we can manage. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

As DrKay and Ealdgyth have both pointed out, depictions closer to the period in which the person loved are preferable. While they are not meant to be realistic portraits, they are at least more likely to convey contemporary dress. Richard Nevell (talk) 16:44, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Source for File:Battle of Lincoln 1141.jpg

Do we have a source for File:Battle of Lincoln 1141.jpg by any chance? A455bcd9 (talk) 15:55, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

It says 'Jim Bradbury's "Stephen and Matilda", p.106' on the file page. Celia Homeford (talk) 13:18, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Celia Homeford. (I made it clearer in the "Source" field on Commons) A455bcd9 (talk) 13:34, 12 December 2022 (UTC)