Talk:Odet de Coligny

message: In the Protestantism section, anonymous persons are quoted (though the link is broken, so the actual statement can't be checked): "some said it to be little surprise since his long church career was more motivated by ambition than piety."  Now, first of all, are ambition and piety bipolar opposites, so that one can use a sliding scale to determine Chatillon's position?  Secondly, Chatillon didn't really have a church career;  he obtained sources of income (benefices), every one of them, including the Cardinalate, at the hands of the King of France.  He was a courtier, with a political career.  Thirdly, what would be his ambition directed toward, for him to abandon all his wealth and his social position?  To be the Supreme Protestant of France?  The quotation seems to me to be POV anti-Calvinist. --Vicedomino (talk) 01:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Ambition and piety

message: The last sentence in the text reads: "One conspiracy theory relates that since Coligny not being high-ranking enough for permanent burial in this important part of the cathedral, the tomb in fact contains the hidden relics of Thomas Becket from his nearby shrine (dissolved 40 years earlier), Coligny's body having been returned to France or never in fact laid to rest here. This theory is not, however, accepted by historians."  The fact is that Chatillon's body was not intended for permanent burial in Trinity Chapel, but was to be returned to France when circumstances permitted (i.e when the Wars of Religion were done).  That he wasn't of sufficiently high rank is absurd.  The text is unsourced.  It appears (so far as I can find) to derive from an attempted burglary of Canterbury Cathedral in 1990, and comes from the mouths of the burglars.  They were looking for Becket's bones in Coligny's tomb because they knew that Coligny had not died in England but had returned to France secretly.  Such a statement is completely contrary to the documentary evidence.  Since the theory is not accepted by historians, is contrary to the facts, is dotty even for conspiracy theories, and is unsourced, I propose to delete it entirely.  --Vicedomino (talk) 23:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: August 2016.  No one has replied or commented.  I am still considering deletion. --Vicedomino (talk) 07:52, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: October 2016.  Two more months having passed without reply or comment, I have deleted the passage.  I note again that it is unsourced, and that it contradicts known facts.  --Vicedomino (talk) 16:22, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Becket's bones

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Odet de Coligny. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061019103911/http://www.digiserve.com/peter/b-odet.htm to http://www.digiserve.com/peter/b-odet.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified