Talk:Geoffrey Plantagenet, Count of Anjou

message: There is no explanation as to what plantagenet means.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.208.242.8 (talk) 14:59, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: What does his nickname mean?

message: Shouldnt this article really be called Geoffrey, Duke of Normandy? Duke is a higher title than Count? The Quill (talk) 12:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it should not! And why did you ask when you unilaterally moved it anyway? Str1977 (talk) 21:57, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Move to Geoffrey, Duke of Normandy?

message: In the 2000 publication The Plantagenet Chronicles, they give 1128 not 1129 as the year of Geoffrey's birth. Is there any way to verify which is correct?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.178.25.55 (talk) 16:45, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Date of his birth 

message: Geoffry was two times ´King of Jerusalem´ (before his son and behind) - He is THE primogenitor of Europe. He was a HERO. There is existing a wonderfull drawing of him! (without name) For this famous detection, I want the title ´SIR´ from the Queen.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.128.208.56 (talk) 16:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  supplementation 

message: I removed the word "teenager" and a potted bio of William Longespée, 3rd Earl of Salisbury from the "Early Heraldry" section. It was reverted with this edit summary: "well the entire term "Dark Ages" is a pejorative and outdated misnomer based on old lack of info of the period, anyway don't push POV".
This seems to make no sense whatsoever. I only used the expression "Dark Ages" in my edit summary, and regardless of what one calls the period, the word "teenager" conveys an impression of a social status between child and adult which only emerged in the 1920s. It is not remotely sensible to use it about a 12th century nobleman.
I also don't see how I'm "pushing a POV" when I remove some detail which is in my view unnecessary. The point of the section is that Geoffrey Plantagenet's badge was used by his descendants, not to tell the reader all about those descendants. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: I'm not going to just revert this out without discussion now it's cited, but I think the recent edit re the paternity of his descendants is pretty pointless. There were illegitimate children in the Middle Ages - this is about as notable as the news that the Sun rises in the East. Furthermore, the connection of this result to Geoffrey Plantagenet seems tenuous at best, since the cite initially places the break somewhere after Edward III (not that this should be taken as endorsement of putting this on any later Plantagenet's page) and then says actually we don't even know that.
I would say it certainly doesn't belong in the lead, but I don't want to imply it belongs anywhere else in the article. The result that Richard III's corpse was actually Richard III's corpse was interesting; that some illegitimate children occur between  1133 and the present day would be meaningless trivia apart from the convention that trivia is typically in some way surprising. Pinkbeast (talk) 17:54, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I am going to revert it. Looking at the original press release,  the problem immediately become apparent - someone came to them claiming "I descend from Geoffrey Plantagenet."  They tested him and he didn't match either Richard III or the Beauforts.  One interpretation certainly is that there was further infidelity in the royal line, but the truth of the matter is that the problem lies elsewhere.  I recognize the name of the claimant, and he is not any part of the 'official male-line descendants' (is there such a thing?).  He belongs to a branch of an Irish Warenne family that can't legitimately trace back to within centuries of the the Plantagenet-related Warenne family.  They just decided that was where they fit in.  There were Warenne families that descended from Geoffrey's illegitimate son Hamelin, who married a Warenne and took her name, but there were also Warenne families that trace to that wife's male line, the 'first house of Warenne' if you will, and then there are Warennes like the family from Whitchurch and Ightfield that appear to trace all the way to Domesday without ever connecting to either the Plantagenet Warennes or the 'first house' (they are speculated to have been related back in Normandy, but may instead have just come from the same place).  Of course the pedigree forgers are going to pick the royal line to connect to.  To claim this as a case of false-paternity, you need a pedigree that is fully documented, generation by generation, which does not exist for the Irish family, just a completely unsupported claim.  Rather than false-paternity, this is highly likely to be a case of false-genealogy.  Anyhow, along the lines of what Pinkbeast is saying, since nobody is suggesting that the break must have happened by Geoffrey himself being cuckolded, the fact that somewhere in the pedigree this happened at least once is completely irrelevant. (and if you test three people and they don't match, that doesn't add up to four male lines. Agricolae (talk) 19:17, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genetic testing 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:53, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion