Talk:Merovingian dynasty

message: "in order to gain power through the "spiritual" dynasty of Peter instead of the "holy blood" (i.e. Sangreal) of Mary Magdalene's descendants."
Peter? Don't you mean Paul?
Although I haven't read the book in question, If the "Roman Church" did anything to enhance a spiritual dynasty it would be the dynasy of Peter, not Paul.  They RC church claims Peter as the 1st Pope and claims the the Bishop of Rome is Peter's heir and has inherited the authority given to Peter by Christ. ("On this Rock...). Dsmdgold 02:30, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peter or Paul? 

message: Just wondering, but should we really have the entirely dubious pseudo-history of this book in what is otherwise a sensible article about a Frankish dynasty?  Why not just say something like "The Merovingian dynasty is at the center of the esoteric history of bla bla blas' book Holy Blood, Holy Grail," and then discuss the rest of the theory in an article on the book.  Given that absolutely no actual historians give any credence whatsoever to these nonsensical theories (whatever the fact that they are used in The Da Vinci Code), I don't think these theories ought to be written about in any detail on this page. john 05:47, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The difference is of course that Bram Stoker's book is openly fiction, while BLL's book claims scholarship and DaVinciCode is intentionally equivocal on that issue. But IMHO a very brief reference should be OK. Str1977 19:04, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Holy Blood, Holy Grail

message: Certainly (at the highest level of certainty a human being can have)the merovigians are not descendants of Christ or Mary Magdalene, but my question is, what did people at the time believed? Was at any century a sect that professed such ideas?
:Reply to above:  This so-called 'hoax' (nothing 'modern-day' about it), has come down in the history of MANY ancient and ennobled families ~ including mine, whose roots can be traced back to (circa) A.D. 417 by any member of the public with a computer; and prior to that ... well, unless you know, the sources are a little more 'exclusive' shall we say.;)   Did they (we) believe it ... YOUBETCHA!!!  And many can prove it. :)  So much for your 'certainties'.  And as for the historian's so-called facts, one must remember that this has been a secret ~ one very carefully and deliberately guarded for a long time, and with very good reason -- a secret known by many, but not 'publicly' as we would define the word.  That said, in many ways it's not been hidden at all ~ her song has been sung ... but the uninitiated couldn't hear it -- they didn't understand what they heard.  P.S. For a fascinating journey into symbol and allegory, learn about Heraldry -- it's real use, not that which is popularly believed ~ learn what it means, who can use the various symbols, how and why;  and that study might tell you what the so-called history books can't.  And never forget what Napoleon said about 'history' ~ it is but a lie agreed upon.  Find a good scan of Georges de la Tour's Magdalene with the night-light, for example, and you'll see that there's nothing new about this story ~ this rather luminous work was painted circa 1640.  Et cetera.  But as Leonardo himself said "O wretched mortals, open your eyes!"  To certain people, the only thing surprising about this latest chapter to her story, is that anyone finds it surprising.  xxx Glorious Goddess (talk) 15:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: errr. yeah. the merovingians themselves thought of themselves as sicambrians, which indicates that they were probably of gallo-celtic cultural background rather than germanic origin. their own foundational myths descended themselves from the trojan war via a migration of cimmerian tribes. this has been cited by legitimate scholars to possibly be an obscure memory of a central asian background for celts, which is widely agreed upon (although you have to go back several millenia). likewise, it could indicate that they had origins in a more recent migration by a wayward iranian tribe. the sea monster myth was a later invention by fredegar. while there have been many attempts to interpret this myth as a then contemporary parable, it is probably more likely something that was simply lifted from an earlier religious tradition, as evidenced by it's similarity to other indo-european myths. the way to understand this is to look at the stories of noah's ark as they came down to us in the bible. i think it's widely known that the stories in the bible have older sources, and that the story was merely transported from one tradition to another. likewise, the sea-monster story is probably nothing more than something that was stolen from virgil or homer. the jesus thing is a relatively modern invention. the church would have literally killed if you were walking around spouting those kinds of heresies in the dark ages.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.48.181.93 (talk) 21:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  I dont care about what happened, I want to know what people believed 

message: This article was cited in "Secrets of the Code: The Unauthorized Guide to Mysteries Behind the Da Vinci Code" by Dan Burstein p. 365 HC 1st Edition 2004, as some of you may know. But anyone reading the book's mention of wikipedia could never find the quote unless they searched way back to
 in the history. I believe this to be a flaw in wikipedia only because a vanishing source of information is unreliable and self-defeating. If the editors of the publication include wiki as source, the curious reader should have easy access. We tend to forget our freedom to edit over and over these articles seems to invalidate a printed source. If this makes sense, could you add some link to the history page listed above? On the lighter side, from the Twins in Matrix Reloaded:  we are getting aggravated, aren't we? yes we are. BF 18:18, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but this is the price we must pay for accuracy. Nonsense gets deleted at some time. Str1977 18:16, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

text: were the Merovingian kings all males? If so, this would be a blow to Dan Brown bedtime stories. Unfortunately, the gender bias does not appear clearly in the article.--Luci S 13:33, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes Luci, all Merovingian Kings were male. There were no reigning queens, though some Queen consorts´but even more so Queen mothers had profound influence (Chlothilde, Brunhilde, Fredegunde, Balthilde). Actually the law restricting succession to the French throne to the male line was later attributed to Pharamond. Though that was an anachronism, no woman has ever ruled the Franks. However, that was normal with other peoples too, so I don't know whether it needs to be included ... or how? Str1977 19:41, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation 

message: That the Merovingians in general lacked a sense of res publica is a fable derived from 19th century historiography. Some of course put their own whims first, but others clearly had a sense of res publica. Otherwise this entity would not have survived. This is why I deleted the phrase and this is why I will delete it again.
Str1977 18:16, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lacking ... 

message: You know, being in the apparently very small minority of people who haven't read the Da Vinci Code, I've just now learned its central premise (SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER), apparently cribbed from Holy Blood, Holy Grail, that the Merovingians were descended from Jesus and Mary Magdalen.  Which explains a lot of the activity on this page that has been so baffling to me.  Now of course the connection is complete nonsense, but since the Merovingians are a fairly obscure topic and the DVC is a very popular book, a lot of people might be wandering over here based on what they read in the DVC. (There's actually a link from The Da Vinci Code over to here.)  With that in mind, should we perhaps make a brief section at the end that takes on the claims of this book in more detail and presents the accepted scholarly reasons for why its bunk? --Jfruh 18:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holy Blood Holy Grail/Da Vinci Code connection 

message: ... what part of the speedy deletion policy were you invoking when you deleted List of Presidential gaffes? I noticed this on recent changes, found it quite amusing and was looking for it again to add to it and discovered it deleted. You are aware that you should have sent this to AfD? I have undeleted. I'm about to post this to WP:AN/I. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:49, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What the hell does this have to do with the Merovingians? --Jfruh 14:59, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Out of interest... 

message: The references to Belgium were removed because to include it leaves the question of why the Netherlands, Luxembourg,  and Switzerland are not also included.  The fact is that all these nations are essentially historical breakaways from a larger French or German state, thus, they are coverred by the understanding that, in this historical context, France and Germany are not used to mean the states exactly as they are today.  Furthermore, they are themselves largely the descendants of Merovingian polities and the term "frequently fluctuating" is added to make sure the idea that the borders of the Merovingian realm do not correspond even roughtly to those of any extant modern nation.  Srnec 20:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If there is one current country that can be seen as a direct descendant of the Merovingians and the Salian Franks it's Belgium, especially Flanders and Brabant and to a lesser extent Hainaut. There are no current successor states of the Salian Franks in Germany, Luxemburg and Switzerland (meaning that ethnically this countries had no Salian Franks living there). In the Netherlands the province of North-Brabant is Salian-Frankisch in origin, while Holland was heavily but indirectly influenced later on by large migrations of especially Flemish in the 13th and 14th century, when the Holland that we now know came into existence. In Northern France, the Northern departments directly south of southwest-Belgium (f.i. Nord and Picardy) are influenced in diverse ways by the Salian Franks. The Salian Franks were most likely a minority in those parts, reason why the Salian Frankisch language became extinct there and the French language came into existence as the Romance language that has the largest distance to Latin. JRB-Europe (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: References to Belgium

message: In regard to The Da Vinci Code, this article contains the highly fallacious and dogmatic comment, "Relying on conjecture and methodological fallacies to re-interpret historical sources, the theory says that the Merovingians were the descendants of Jesus Christ; it is seen as popular pseudohistory by academic historians."
First, The Da Vinci Code is a Novel. The last time I checked novels are not History Books.
Second, the ideas and hypotheses in Dan Brown's novel are NOT original to Dan Brown, nor are they original to Henry Lincoln et al in Holy Blood, Holy Grail.
Third, what are these supposed "methodological fallacies" used???
It is more fallacious to think that Jesus was God incarnate, the divine Son of God incarnate, the child of an immaculate virgin and the Logos, that he performed miracles, healed the sick, raised the dead, died for the "sins" of humanity, was resurrected, and for some strange reason remained unmarried in an ancient, or modern for that matter, traditional Jewish culture, than it is to think that he was married to Mary the Magdalene and probably had at least one child. 
What separates "history" from "pseudohistory" anyway??? 
History is, and always has been, written by the "victors." Where is the hard empirical, historical, and/or "scientific" "evidence" that Jesus ever even existed at all?!?!?!
In our presumptiously, self-righteous, and dogmatic modernity we hold ourselves and our "scientific" knowledges to be Absolutes and all other forms of knowledge to be 'fallacies' or "myths." Another problem is that "Myths" aren't "myths." We also mistakingly misuse words such as this. What historians have done, and are still doing, is find more and more "evidence" that humanity's "Myths" have more truth to them than some in our world would enjoy the humility to admit. No, that does not mean that Jesus was the son of God, nor Hercules or any other mythological character... What this does mean is that we do not know everything, (and surely the ancients knew much more than we do).
Anyone who thinks, claims, or just implies that he/she knows all, is probably the person who knows the least. To be purely empirical one must question all; remain skeptical of all, and that includes our so-called "claims" to knowledge.
Finally, {for people who are "hung up" over this whole idea on BOTH sides of the ARGUMENT}, - What exactly is the big deal whether or not Jesus and Mary the Magdalene had descendents?!?!?! Jesus was a man just like any other man. What he said or did, or didn't say or do would not, and does not have any special significance to any descendents. I (like many others I'm sure) am a descendent of many of these European kings and queens, I'm related to Robert E. Lee, I'm even a descendent of these Merovingians... What does that mean?... NOTHING!  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Carlon (talk • contribs) .
Holy cow.  I have a lot of trouble taking people who use multiple punctuation for a single sentence seriously.  S/he has one good point, though; both in general historical writing and in this article, there seems to me to be a lack of understanding of the distinction between accepted fact and actual fact--I would like to know how we came to know what we claim to know about the Merovingians, and if that information isn't available for this article, I'd like to see the facts denoted as conjectural, or strongly defensible (but not 100% certain), or whatever.  I took a history of science course in which the professor discussed in detail some historical methods, and one of his broader points was that assembling a plausible story makes it very, very easy to create general acceptance of a theory which has only skeletal evidence--essentially, it's difficult to pick out omissions in between elements of a set of compatible accepted facts.
Anyway, I realise doing this in great detail would be both quite a bit of work, and make the article quite a bit more difficult to read--I'd still like to see at least a nod in the direction of 'how sure we are that this is what happened' and 'why we think that this is what happened'.
Another point that bothers me--the tone of this article is generally neutral, but occasionally steps off into emotional/judgmental language: "...but showed that dangerous vice of personal aggrandisement..." "...an exemplar of all that was not admirable in the dynasty." ...and so on.
Anyway--someone let me know if it would be considered offensive to just jump in and make a few structural changes?  Because I don't really know that much about the Merovingians, but I'm generally a good writer and critical thinker. --Penumbra 2k 13:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What the hell was that rant all about? The Da Vinci Code is pseudohistory because its false (Greek pseudo). The claims are based on proven hoax: see the Pierre Plantard article. Srnec 04:55, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  On  - The Da Vinci Code comments. 

message: Out of interest, I don't suppose anyone knows if there is a 'genuine' continuance of descent from the Merovingians (by genuine I mean "quite possibly flawed and inaccurate, but nonetheless well attested and official", since it is of course impossible to be 100% accurate over a period of 1000+ years)? I can't find any claims to descent from them other than the dubious 'Sigisbert IV' descent, and all I can find via google are reiterations of that and bizarre references to serpents... Michaelsanders 23:56, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is possible (probable?) that there is Merovingian blood in every European alive today. The record-keeping of their time and place, however, was not of the highest calibre and it is impossible to know about all the Merovingian kings' descendants. Only those which succeeded to thrones in the last century of their rule can be confidently known, and sometimes not even their genealogy is sure (see Clotaire IV). There is, I think, some evidence that early dukes of Aquitaine and Gascony may have been Merovingian descendants, but sources are scant for those lightly populated regions in the eighth century. I tried to do research once to determine who the last absolutely known Merovingian of the male line was and I determined it to be Acfred II of Carcassone (early tenth century), but I believe this to be in error and I cannot remember how I came to that conclusion. There has been no serious (ie non-hoax) claim to Merovingian descent put forward by anybody that I'm aware of for hundreds of years and possible longer. An intersting subject to read up on, though, is the possible relations between the Carolingian and Merovingian houses. The sources say little, but the prosopography and onomastics of Charlemagne's family point to Merovingian relations: names like Louis and Lothair appear suddenly out of nowhere in his dynasty, though there were very common amongst the preceding dynasty. But Charlemagne may simply have desired to showcase the legitimacy of his family's rule by usurping the nomenclature of the Merovings. Srnec 05:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Michaelsanders 07:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Genuine Line of Descent?

message: The articles at Gaul and Roman Gaul adequately demonstrate that most of the Merovingian realm corresponded to something that was called Gaul at some time or other. As to the use of "Low Countries, France, and Germany", why should we exclude Switzerland, for one? I just don't want the list to get excessively long. The Low Countries formed the centre of many Merovingian administrations, but their whole territory extended over much land which today is not part of those three. Also, they ruled many lands tributarily, like Bavaria, the Slavic lands, and part of northern Italy. "Frequently fluctuating" coverred all the problems, but somebody just had to add the Low Countries. Srnec 18:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gaul

message: This is a nice long, thorough, detailed article, and I'm especially happy to see a historiography section. More articles should include that sort of thing. But, overall, this could probably afford to be longer. It's a pretty big topic, and a pretty important one, not only to French or Roman history, but to early medieval Europe as a whole. LordAmeth 00:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WPMILHIST Assessment 

message: Someone in the recent slew of edits changed the term describing the form of Christianity to which Clovis converted from "Nicene" to "Catholic".  I would respectfully suggest that this might not be the best wording.  While catholicos was among the adjectives the mainstream church used to describe itself in 511, the term "Catholic" as a proper noun evokes to modern readers the modern Catholic Church, defined in opposition to the Eastern Orthodox and various protestant churches -- both schisms that had yet to happen in 511.  The most important thing about Clovis' conversion was that he chose to adopt a faith based on the Nicene Creed, not the Arian beliefs (held by most other German Christians) that the Nicene Creed has been specifically formulated to exclude from heterodox Christian theology. --Jfruh (talk) 18:17, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "Catholic, that is, Nicene" or something? I think that so many history texts, scholarly and general, use the term "Catholic" in this context as a synonym of "Nicene" and opposed to "Arian" that it might be just as confusing to avoid it as to employ it unqualified. Srnec 05:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Catholic" vs. "Nicene" 

message: The recently added section on Merovingian sainthood (which I renamed to religion, though the section as it stands isn't quite that broad yet), states that a Merovingian was an "anointed king whose right to kingship was ratified by the worldly representatives of God himself." I am not sure about that. I am pretty certain that the only ceremony to a Merovingian's succession was his being raised on the shields of his warriors. I think that Pepin the Short's coronation was unique in that it involved an anointing. Also, I am not aware that the church took any real part in Merovingian successions. As far as I know, Merovings ruled by hereditary right, not divine right, and there is limited evidence that the Merovingians made much of any supposed pagan divine origin. Is there any source for the excised statement? Srnec 00:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The chrism for Pepin's anointing was used until Louis XVI's coronation, unique  only in being the first occasion. The theocratic kingship of the Merovingians and, later, its conscious transference to the Carolingians are commonplaces found in high-school surveys such as Norman F. Cantor, Civilization of the Middle Ages, which lists in the index "Theocratic monarchy" at numerous points- well worth reading- and includes this on p.175: "The elevation of Pepin to the Frankish throne in accordance with ecclesiastical law and papal sanction was effected through an elaborate, symbolical, and religious ceremony. St. Boniface, as the papal representative in France, anointed Pepin with holy oil in the same manner as bishops were elevated to the dignity of their offices and then crowned him king of the Franks". I really wouln't have added that to the article, except that I was reporting what I had read. It is never wise to delete material simply because one has "never heard" it. I shall correct the text, this time adding in the long quote, for which I'm sure you'll excuse me since I've been put to the trouble of transcribing it. --Wetman 05:43, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regrettably, Wetman, Pepin can't stand as an example of Merovingian practice, since he is part of the Carolingian dynasty, making conscious effort to differentiate himself from the Merovingians because he regarded them as the old guard. Merovingians ruled by the right of their bloodline, and since Pepin lacked this bloodline when he tried to seize the Frankish throne, he sought to replace that form of legitimacy with Christian legitimacy that you describe. Merovingians used monasteries and ecclesiastical officials for many purposes, but your additions tend to overstate Merovingian involvement in Christianity. I cast my vote with Srnec.brandon cohen 06:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As Brandon says, Pepin cannot stand as a Merovingian exemplar. Rather, he is, as I pointed out, the first "King of the Franks" to be anointed in a religious ceremony. Also, I could have just slapped a "citation needed" tag on it, but since I was most certain it was wrong and it is very difficult (though probably possible in this incidence) to source a negative ("The Merovingians were not anointed"), I just removed it and provided a justification here. Perhaps I should have searched for a source to back me up, but no extrapolation can be made from Pepin's coronation to those of earlier kings and it is not clear to me that Cantor even does so. Srnec 04:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course! Pepin's not very much of a Merovingian, is he? what was I thinking? That Cantor quote — which is excellent btw — just came too easily to hand... however, the connection between the Church and the Merovingian aristocracy, and the crowd of saints in the kinship group, still need to be characterized in the article, supported by refs. ...even if I'm not helping by writing "Pepin" and thinking "Clovis". --Wetman 05:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Accuracy

message: Irish monks were influential on the Merovingian dynasty but the lands the Merovingian dynasty ruled were already at least as Christian as Ireland, before any missionary, Irish or otherwise, arrived.  Clovis the first converted to Christianity in back 498AD long before any Irish missionary had even set foot in Britain let alone the realms of the Franks.  He was converted by indigenous Christian monks. There were around 200 monasteries in France before Columbanus arrived from Ireland.  Try reading the French Wikipedia article on Columbanus; I think that article puts the influence of Irish missionaries, like Columbanus, in much better and realistic context.  The Merovingian dynasty right from the start was the main centre of Christianity in Western Europe, always far, far more influential than Ireland ever was!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.110.191 (talk) 15:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I read the French Wikipedia article, as suggested above, and there is hardly any mention of material relative to the theme above TGcoa (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Christianity not brought by monks 

message: Aren't Merovingians descendants of Wodan/Odin?~~09  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.86.230.114 (talk) 14:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope and never claimed to be. They may have claimed descent from the Quinotaur, but I'm not sure I see evidence that they themselves made such claims or took them seriously. They also certainly never claimed descent from Jesus Christ as is believe by those sucked into the Pierre Plantard hoax and its derivatives. They claimed descent from Merovech, a mere mortal. Srnec (talk) 20:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I am unfamiliar with the Norse sagas, but if the Völsungs are based on the Merovingians, they are evidently treated in an ahistorical fashion (not surprisingly, the Merovingians are still treated that way, e.g. by Dan Brown). You might be interested in the article Frankish mythology, which even cites, to the reputable Wallace-Hadrill, the claim that the Merovingians did not claim descent from Wodan/Odin/Wuotan. Eliade is wrong on that point. We know very little about the pre-Christian Franks, so to call anything an "innovation" due to Christian/Greco-Roman influence is predicated on a whole bunch of premises about earlier pagan practices and beliefs with a much more limited archaeological or textual basis. As I said, I don't believe the Merovingians themselves ever claimed descent from the Quinotaur. That was a Fredegarian invention of the seventh century and not an early Merovingian argument for their kingship. Germanic sacral kingship is a contentious issue, again see Frankish mythology. Srnec (talk) 17:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

text: merovingians are definitely not volsungs. however, the saxons and most other west germanic tribes did indeed derive their aristocratic ancestry from odin. when history sets in, the franks are actually worshiping a variant of diana rather than a christian or german god. what this indicates is that they were actually predominantly celtic/gallic in origin, or at least that there was great continuity in religious matters (ie that the invaders adopted the religion of the villagers).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.48.181.93 (talk) 20:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  origin 

message: There is a contradiction between this article and Pepin I. Saint Ermelindis cannot at the same time live in the sixth century and descend from a person who is born in 580. (Theoretically she could, but I am sure that that is not what the author had in mind).--Lieven Smits (talk) 22:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed "descended from" into "related to" but it would be interesting if someone could quote directly from a reliable source. Some Internet sources put Ermelindis in the 7th century.--Lieven Smits (talk) 10:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dating a virgin 

message: Srnec, michaelsanders, I was wondering if one of Charlemagne's male ancestors married a Merovingian?--Blood3 (talk) 07:04, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably not, but see the article on Arnulf of Metz#Genealogy, there is a not so reliable genealogy that gives Chlotar I as an ancestor of Charlemagne eight generations in the past. JRB-Europe (talk) 18:49, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intermarriage 

message: The author of a portion of this article seems to have labored under the misapprehension that hagiographies were (and are) ordinarily written for some purpose other than those described here, and under other literary forms. Rather, the "Merovignian hagiography" sounds absolutely typical of Christian hagiographies, particularly of the time, and almost sound as if they had been written after Byzantine models. If the cites sources also suffer from this error, they've made a mistake. In any event it comes across as odd that a characteristically Christian literary genre should be presented as characteristically Merovingian instead. 192.91.171.42 (talk) 00:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vitae 

message: According to historian linguist Dr. Robert Duncan-Enzmann (iceagelanguage.com or enzmannstarship.com), the word Merovingian has the same root as the word Mermaid, mer meaning sea. Add rov as in roving or rover, therefore Merovingian would mean "those who rove (travel) the Sea." MichelleSnyderSymbologist (talk) 20:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Most likely the origin of the term "Merovingian" is related to the name of the currently Dutch delta river the Merwede (from the ancient Frankish 'Merwe' or 'Merowe', a word meaning "wide water"). "Van der Merwe" is still a not uncommon Dutch surname. So there is an indirect connection with the first syllable in Mermaids JRB-Europe (talk) 19:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meaning of Merovingian 

message: i know it's not as glamorous as descending from sea monsters, trojans or jesus, but ptolemy is very clear that there was a tribe of south (west) germans called the marvingi that lived near the confluence of the rhine and the main, pretty much perfectly positioning them to jump the river with the rest of the franks. remember that frank is an inexact ethnic term that translates to "free" (meaning not roman) and refers to a coalition of german, celtic, slavic, iranian and other peoples rather than a specific german tribe. ptolemy may have mistaken germans for celts - he wouldn't be the first southern geographer to do so. further, the connection is vague; as i'm presenting it to you right now, it's not in any better shape than the cimmerian suggestion (cimmerian looks like cimbri looks like sicambri). so, i'm not suggesting that ptolemy's map proves that the merovingians were of the marvingi tribe. yet, the geographic and chronological positioning - combined with the very down to earth nature of the idea - is quite enticing. it's something i'd like to present is an idea that requires further research. specifically: can we trace the merovingians to the confluence of the main and the rhine? because, if we can, ptolemy has a very simple and rational answer for us.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.48.181.93 (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Not so likely, The Merovingians were clearly Salian Franks. There is fair amount of knowledge which German tribes around 250 amalgated in the new  tribal alliance of the Salian Franks. These tribes were living in the Netherlands north of the Rhine, The northern Rhineland (rightbank) and Münsterland, where they were under pressure from the Saxons. If the Marvingi ended up a constituent part of the Franks at all, they most likely became part of the Ripuarian Franks. JRB-Europe (talk) 19:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  ptolemy 

message: For an article entitled "Merovingian dynasty", it seems strange to have a rather complete listing of the Merovingian saints, but no listing of the actual kings of that dynasty. After all, the Merovingian dynasty consists of, and is defined as, a line of kings. This article doesn't answer the fundamental question a reader might ask, i.e. who were the Merovingians? Tresmegistus (talk) 19:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merovingian saints? 

message: Starting with Clodian (428-448)
Then Merovee (??)
Childeric I (458-481)
Clovis I (481-511)
????
Clotaire (Lothaire) (558-561)
Chilperic I (561-584)
Clotaire II (584-629)
Dagobert (629-639)
Sigebert III (639-?)
Known as "les rois fainéants".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tresmegistus (talk • contribs) 04:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of the guys you mention were anything but "fainéants". JRB-Europe (talk) 19:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Over four years since this post, yet there is no listing nor enumeration of the Merovingian kings!! Is anyone able to provide such a list? As it stands, the article is woefully deficient. It does not provide the most basic information about the topic it purports to cover. That deficiency is magnificently highlighted by the inclusion of an extensive, but entirely superfluous listing of 37 Merovingian saints. Tresmegistus (talk) 00:35, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  The actual dynasty? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Merovingian dynasty. 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/20050526080741/http://www.j-paine.org/merovingian.html to http://www.j-paine.org/merovingian.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100117162942/http://www.museedestempsbarbares.fr/index_eng.html to http://www.museedestempsbarbares.fr/index_eng.html
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) 07:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018) 

message: It would be better to call the Merovingians the turban-headed kings. Seen far more likenesses of the aforesaid aweighed anext the one bit of stonework bearing a so-called Merovingian with long hair. Again, why did Merovingian-watchers in the past seem it fit to show them donned in turbans like jews and arabs of the time?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.5.237.140 (talk) 17:21, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Merovingian turban-headed kings. What's with the jewish turban depictions? 

message: Is it just me or do others also feel this map really maximizes the size of Austrasia, in a way which probably makes it a bit non typical? I do not doubt it comes from a publication, but is it really a map which represents a consensus? I would think for example that Roman Belgica II might have been part of Neustria? See the maps in Ian Woods for example.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 13:33, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  the first map Growth of Frankish Power, 481-814.jpg 

message: Actually the Franks were Christians before the Romans were, but they were not Catholics. The monks referred to are Catholic monks who were trying to convert the Christians of the area to become Catholics.
:It is not really clear exactly what happened but yes some of them may have already been Arian. The story of Clovis is often suspected of being simplified. In any case here on Wikipedia we can report whatever modern scholarship says, in a balanced way.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 14:38, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Religion 

message: There is something wrong with this map in the important Austrasian map. Austrasia is bulging westwards in the south almost touching Paris, but too narrow in the north. There is a major river south of the Rhine which is presumably meant to be the Maas, but the shape and position of it is entirely wrong.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:16, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I still really do not like that map. The boundaries and rivers in Austrasia are as central as can be in thois topic and they are clearly not important to whoever made that map.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 22:37, 3 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction map "Merovingian dynasty" 

message: Several sections of this article (as of time of writing, Feb 2024) appear to be rather lacking in citations. For example, the subsections "History -> Reunification of the kingdom" and "History -> Return to power" carry no citations at all, and others (f.ex. the summary/intro for the "History" section) say a great deal but cite very little. 192.88.140.10 (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing citations...?