Talk:Queen Marcia
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Queen Marcia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
[Untitled]
[edit]Hi, just a note that I've removed this article from "British queen consorts" for a couple of reasons.
The sources I've found indicate that this is an article about a mythical queen of England, not a verifiable consort of a legitimate king. See King of the Britons: "Most modern historians consider the Kings of Briton to be genealogical and historical myths with no solid basis in fact," and "...it is obvious that Geoffrey [of Monmouth's] version of history is quite at odds with other versions." [1]. If there is other material besides Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regum Britanniae, by all means, please cite it.
Secondly, the inclusion sticks out like a sore thumb in the list of "British" (i.e., United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland) consorts. While Marcia was a Briton, that doesn't mean she was "British" in latter, post-Queen Anne, sense. Queen Gwendolen, for one, is not in the category. Same with Guinevere (who is listed as a queen consort). This is a lesser rationale than the fact that she is mythical, but it was the first thing I noticed. I suggest if we do decide to include mythical consorts, which is not the case now, we list all known Briton queens. Until then, perhaps "queen consort" would be a more fitting category. --Marysunshine 03:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
- Great points! I've got to run and I'll read this again when I have more time to concentrate. I made some edits based on similar comments to Sisillius II. I think I'm getting closer - but hear that "Briton" and "British need to change - oh, to "England". I'll come back to this. Any thoughts about the recent edits + making the change to England? Will we be good then? --CaroleHenson (talk) 20:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
- Ok, I get your points about the categories! Makes tons of sense!
- I'm trying to figure out if the terminology within the article needs to change. My understanding of the use of terminology pretty much matches what I thought, but British Isles, Great Britain, UK, British, etc. are definitely not a strongest suit. I think use of Britain and Briton within the article are correct - but again I'm a bit out of my element on this, especially as the understanding of those terms and borders might have changed throughout history.
- Can someone weigh in whether any changes needed to the article? Thanks so much!
- Then I'm happy to tackle other articles within this chain of articles.--CaroleHenson (talk) 02:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)