Talk:Isabella of Angoulême

message: People have been reverting this back and forth without arguments. Perhaps it would be nice to have some justification for both positions here in the talk page? Causantin 23:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Her former fiance was Hugh X of Lusignan and not Hugh IX of Lusignan.
Hugh IX, father of Hugh X of Lusignan, was already married with MATHILDE d'Angoulême. See Généalogie des comtes de Lusignan http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilisateur:Papydenis Papydenis 16:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Confusion between father and son. In his book Histoire de la France et des Français au jour le jour (page 33 tome 2 de 987 à 1240), the French historian Alain Decaux says this : "Certains historians claimed without certainty, that Isabella of Angoulême, become widowed of John of England, married Hugh X of Lusignan the son of her former fiance, Hugh IX of Lusignan. Others maintained this incredible legend". No sure and reliable source comes to support it. It is Hugues X, the son of Hugues IX, who was promised in marriage in 1200 and who married to Isabelle when she became widowed of John, her kidnapper. Excuse my bad English Papydenis 09:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was Hugh X to whom Isabella was engaged in 1200.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:10, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: We shall have to get this matter sorted out as the article keeps switching from Hugh IX to Hugh X and vice-versa. Which Hugh was she engaged to at the time King John abducted her? Let's have some debate here-with sources, please.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:08, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This might be an issue that's not completely clear in the sources.  I'd like to see what sources besides Decaux say - in particular, some sources that are more specific than a general history of 250 years of French history.  I'm not sure why it's an "incredible legend" that she would have been engaged to the father and later married the son. john k (talk) 16:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Engaged to Hugh X or Hugh IX?

message: the anon editor of the Jan 4 edit, what is the deal, changing of's and de's seemingly randomly? I would not normally have as bad an issue with this anon edit, if the editor had been consistent with his edits. Does anyone else think the same way I do on this? 
Line 27, he/she changed DE to OF. If this is a French city the mentioned person is from, then it should either stay "de", or all the references should have been anglicized.
Line 33, once again, a french name converted to English form.
Line 54 same French form to English form, But here is where the editor switches sides, as he/she then converted the anglicized Hugh X "of" Lusignan, to Hugh X "de" Lusignan.
Line 66 again, Quasi-English to Quasi-French form
Line 87 English Peter to French Pierre (with English suffix "of France")
Now granted, anglicized and/or original versions should both be acceptable, especially on the English Wiki, but to actually edit with no consistency?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Collision-Shift (talk • contribs) 20:07, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. We need to be consistent.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 20:40, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consistant, this is not..... 

message: You need to give the publisher and publication year on Fougere's work.
4.249.63.191 (talk) 21:22, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Do it yourself, mate! --OhNoPeedyPeebles (talk) 20:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  bad reference 

message: Marriage to a Norman does not make you Norman. It DOES make you whatever consort of whatever title that spouse might have, but it does NOT make you Norman. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: She was not Norman...