Talk:Gundred, Countess of Surrey

message: Clearly, the parentage of Gundred is a subject of debate. However, I have provided numerous citations to support the position that Gundred is the daughter of William the Conqueror and Matilda of Flanders. I have added these sources while still stating that the parentage is debated. I believe this to be the most neutral viewpoint. User:Ealdgyth reverted these edits and I fear that this will result in an editing war. Clearly, the most neutral stance would be to offer both viewpoints and allow the reader to pick a side by viewing the evidence presented. 71.100.1.129 (talk) 16:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: You realise that the Milles book is just a reprint of an original 1610 work, right? See here where the original publication date is given as 1610. It's seriously outdated and does not count as a "reliable" source. Also the Osgood source is originally from 1907 and thus also is outdated - see here. And the Rixford source was originally published in 1933 - see here. So all of the sources given are older and out of date compared to the newer historical sources listed below. Note also that there are plenty of other sources - both historians and genealogists - that reject the claim that Gundred was the daughter of either William OR Matilda - see Handbook of British Chronology (3rd ed. 1993) pp. 34-35 where Gundred is not listed with the other issue of William and Matilda. Nor is she listed as an illigitimate daughter of either. Douglas' biography of William has an appendix on Matilda and William's marriage where he lists the children - and does not include Gundred. And he specifically discredits the idea that Gundred was the daughter of Matilda by a previous marriage or that Gundred was the daugher of William. The exact quote is "There is no reason to suppose that Gundrada was the daughter of either William or Matilda." (p. 392 Douglas William the Conqueror 1964). Gundred's biography in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (2004 revised in 2007 - see here) states that "Warenne, Gundrada de (d. 1085), noblewoman, was the daughter of Gerbod, head of a noble Flemish family who was hereditary advocate of the important monastery of St Bertin." No mention is made of the idea that she might be the daughter of William or Matilda.  Nor does Matilda's biography in the ODNB (see here 2004, revised 2008) mention Gundred in the listing of Matilda and William's children - although all the other children are enumerated. Nor does Alison Weir in Britain's Royal Families (first published 1989, my edition 2008) mention Gundred as a daughter of either William or Matilda. As for purely genealogical sources - Stuart's Royalty for Commoners (revised second edition 1995) states several times that Gundred was the sister of Gerbod - NOT that she was the daughter of William or Matilda. Call's Royal Ancestry Bible volume 3 (2005) chart 2553  gives Gundred's ancestry - which is not the daughter of Matilda and William, rather listing her as the daughter of Gerbod. That's besides all the other sources listed in the article that support the non-William or non-Matilda ancestry of Gundred. The fact that an ancestry society and some outdated sources are presented does not trump the recent historical and genealogical works which reject the idea that Gundred was the daughter of William and/or Matilda. So, yes, it IS a fringe theory and placing that information as prominently is giving undue weight. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly how does a source become "out of date"? Surely, older sources in this case would be more reliable as they were closer to the actual life and times of Gundred. Further, even if false, isn't the mere idea that Gundred has such prominent parents notable enough to include in this article, particularly when sources are provided? It can never be satisfactorily proven one way or another without DNA testing, but with the lack of said testing we can only go by published sources, and just because two sources conflict does not mean that one is right and the other is wrong. Perhaps you have a personal vendetta in this matter? Either way, I think an administrative comment is appropriate in this mater. 71.100.1.129 (talk) 17:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

text: Thank you Johnbod. The way it currently reads is the most neutral it has been. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 19:10, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: My pleasure, and thank you for saying so! If Ealdgyth and everyone else agrees, we can all go about our business. Johnbod (talk) 21:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Johnbod's edit summarises the situation well. I think the theory deserves a mention as a historical theory that won some acceptance at the time but is now discredited. The fact that it was widely believed at one time isn't entirely irrelevant. In that way, it's a bit like the stories that crop up in the lives of saints. Kafka Liz (talk) 00:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gundred, Countess of Surrey. 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/20130709233709/http://www.southover.org.uk/history/gundrada.htm to http://www.southover.org.uk/history/gundrada.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) 17:40, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: According to the following sources, Gundred was the daughter of William the Conqueror and Matilda of Flanders. 
*Iaggard, William. A Catalogue of the Kinges of England: ever since it was so called. London: 1610. p62
*Leach Rixford, Elizabeth M. Families Directly Descended from All the Royal Families in Europe (495 to 1932): and Mayflower Descendants bound with Supplement. Burlington, Vt.: 1932. pp140-142, 158-159
*Mackenzie, George Norbury, LL.B., and Nelson Osgood Rhoades. Colonial Families of the United States of America, Vol. VII. Baltimore: 1912. pp319-320, 347
*Duckett, George Floyd. "Observations on the Parentage of Gundreda, Countess of Warenne". The Yorkshire Archaeological and Topographical Journal, Vol. ix, Part xxxiii (1885).
Despite the above, as stated in the article, many modern historians and scholars do not accept this proposed parentage. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 17:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: (revised consistent with below comment by Agricolae on 31 Dec 2020) Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 16:05, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

text: Four of these are very old sources (1610, 1885, 1932, plus the 1966 is actually a reprint from 1920), while the fifth is just an self-published work of an over-eager ancestor-collecting hobbyist.  They do not represent modern thinking on the question. The purported parentage is clearly a forgery in the Lewes priory documents done at a much later date in order to flatter their patron family, and is both implicitly and explicitly contradicted by primary sources much closer to the relevant time. Current scholarly opinion dismisses it out of hand, and in this article we already give too much attention to what hasn't been a scholarly controversy for a century. Yes, sloppy or biased sources still repeat the desirable but false claimed parentage, but no scholar of Norman England does. Agricolae (talk) 18:14, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to add, the Schmuhl work claims to trace: "Ancestry to Adam of some leaders of the Mormon Church in the 19th and 20th centuries".  There are no such lines.  This is not a work Wikipedia should be citing anywhere for anything. Agricolae (talk) 18:35, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources for proposed parentage