Talk:Mary of Burgundy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Mary didn't "pick" Maximilian--her father and step-mother had been working on him for years as a possible match for her, as well as to keep the French away. Why are you using the 1911 encyclopedia as a reference for this?


Does anyone know where the lady lived about the time when her father died? I am extensively researching her.


The Dutch & Flemish articles have two very good pics which aren't yet on commons. I'm no good on pics - can someone put them there & here? Thanks Johnbod 17:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC) Done now Johnbod 00:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have a sideboard cabinet purchased from an antique store (originally shipped here to states from Paris) .. with brass pictures on it (3 D). Under Mary and Maximillian's it has their names. It also shows some other ancestors (Durk 1V, and V11). And 4 others. Along with this it shows 2 castles. I cannot read the names, since they have been polished almost off. Does anyone have photo's to the castles where she was born? It shows a 3D picture of Mary and Maximillian exchanging I assume the two castles are family residences. It also shows family crest over each castle.

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mary of Burgundy. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:57, 20 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bart Van Loo[edit]

Just because someone is not a trained historian, that does not mean they don't meet the requirements of Wikipedia, which does accept even journalists's works and commentaries. I don't see anywhere the requirement that one must only cite trained historians. If we had a lot of sources on the subject to choose from, and the writer in question happened to have a controversial opinion, I would agree that we should move to a better choice. Van Loo's work definitely has an unorthodox, unacademic structure, but I don't hear anywhere that the basic events he describes are contested. Hans Cools, who is certainly a serious historian, thinks that the work does a good job in providing a Netherlandish/Flemings' take on the stature of its dukes, rather than the more known but propaganda-influenced of French (great!) historians like Jules Michelet, and that it provides good psychological portraits of personalities involved. I think the work is notable enough. --Deamonpen (talk) 16:13, 10 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Then take it to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:27, 10 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will. And here, regarding this author, you just simply deleted him without bothering to explain your reasoning on this Talk page or linking to any previous discussions.Deamonpen (talk) 17:55, 10 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Why do we have to make this complicate? I did not just simply reverse the other edit - I choose a middle road. My opinion is that we should just change it to "pregnant" without specific details (third time or fourth time; it was likely not one nor the other). In that way, it does not contradict the source given by the article or other sources, nor will it contradict the apparent fact that this could not have been her third child.Deamonpen (talk) 17:15, 10 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, the third child was not referenced, as far as I could tell, and the source for that sentence stated pregnant with her third child. Instead of deleting it and ignoring a reliable source, you could have added a note stating Jansen's view with a contradicting view, say from Joni M. Hand. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:18, 10 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did not "delete it", I kept the basic information and changed the other editor's wording to make it approach a safer, more general fact. I will give references to the third child.Deamonpen (talk) 17:21, 10 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You did not delete "with her third child"? Sure looks like it. I have already made a note and added a reference. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:24, 10 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You said "delete it" as if I deleted the whole thing or something. Just because a source lists all the intricate details, that does not mean you have copy every single detail from it. Even without reference, the third child had existed in this article before my edits. Adding contradictorial materials that make the article incoherent and confuse readers, without going to the roots of the matter and clarifying, does not help anyone.--Deamonpen (talk) 17:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Adding contradictorial materials that make the article incoherent and confuse readers.."
And unsourced information lends nothing to an article either. As I said, there was a way to address this issue and I did that. Deleting even part of referenced information can be seen as disruptive editing, especially when relying on unsourced information. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Information on Wikipedia should not appear just because it is "cited". "Third time" or "fourth time" is a minor detail, that would not make a huge difference on Mary as a historical character, and consequently no author, that I know, make a big matter out of it. And you didn't seem to hold yourself to the same standard when you deleted Bart van Loo (providing a source that says that he is not reliable).Deamonpen (talk) 18:03, 10 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "And you didn't seem to hold yourself to the same standard when you deleted Bart van Loo (providing a source that says that he is not reliable)."
Bart van Loo is not an historian. Fact. His book does not appear on google scholar. Fact.
Per WP:RS;
  • "The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings:
  • "The piece of work itself (the article, book)"
  • "The creator of the work (the writer, journalist)"
  • "The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press)"
  • "Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people."
I am not required to provide any source for your unreliable source. I see nothing that indicates said book should be considered a reliable source. If you think it is a reliable source take it to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:17, 10 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not every scholarly source appears on Google scholar. By the way, just as said, I don't see WP:RS mentions anything about not citing authors who are not ("trained") historians or not appearing on Google scholar. But you were talking about behaviours and you were emphasizing "cited" sources, then you should demonstrate it yourself. That he is not a historian, is your opinion, not FACT (which you never bothered explaining before you deleted him). He is referred to as a historian on popular media. The concept "historian" is not limited to people with a degree - that is called a "trained historian".Deamonpen (talk) 18:28, 10 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why the needless reference to Mary of Burgundy’s headwear?[edit]

Under the a portrait painting of Mary of Burgundy it is written “Mary of Burgundy wearing a hennin, portrait possibly painted by Michael Pacher, c. 1490.”

Why on earth is it important to state that Mary of Burgundy is wearing something said to be called an “hennin”? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:9C97:5D01:584F:7A87:56A9:F548 (talk) 04:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know the reason why the user who wrote that line (User:Excommunicato) did so. I know though that some authors draw attention to the hennin as a notable feature in Mary's portrayal. But imho that suits the art section or any article talking about such matter, and not the profile image. So I've removed that part. Thanks for pointing out the matter.Deamonpen (talk) 13:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
People like to know these things. If you don't know what a hennin is, read the article. I've put it back. Deamonpen, please try to avoid false title in your contributions, especially in Br En articles. Johnbod (talk) 14:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC).Reply[reply]
I know what a hennin is. I think the other user makes a reasonable request. The thing is that the article (arts section) already mentions the hennin matter. I think that people do not go to this article to explore what a hennin is. There is a whole article about it, and there are other women who wear such headdresses. Should the profile picture's descriptions of all such pages mention the hennin, or other clothing items? Don't get me wrong, I like to read about clothing items. But the profile picture and description should highlight the person, not the clothing, except if the person is famous for the clothing.
Anyway Mary of Burgundy wears the hennin in many portrayals, but not always. It should not be considered an essential feature of hers. She was portrayed without a hennin (bare-headed or with a crown) during her own time too (likely more often than with a hennin), especially in more official settings like on a coin. In the reign of Maximilian, on the other hand, the emperor liked to make it look like she and Bianca Maria had the same imperial status, but Mary was never his queen or empress. The hennin was a nice way to avoid the matter of ducal/archducal/royal/imperial crown (later when Wohlhaupter painted this couple in the 18th century for Fulda in Germany, he could only put the archducal crown on them too; and in modern commemoration events, if they celebrate Emperor Maximilian and his empress in Germany and Austria, that will always be Bianca, even though they know Mary was his preferred consort. Novels, poems, romantic paintings... on the other hand is a totally different matter.). In imaginary/spiritual settings such as Mary as Queen Ehrenreich or Mary as Queen of Heaven, he would not hesitate putting a queen's/empress's crown on her head though. Paintings by important painters like Striegel or Dürer don't show the hennin. And in the work that likely reached the largest number of vỉewers/readers, aka the Theuerdank, she mostly wears a crown. All of these are works that were produced during the later part of his reign.Deamonpen (talk) 14:38, 23 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't believe the Durer painting is contemporary, however, it's important to differentiate a representation of Mary (i.e Durer uses her likeness to represent the Virgin Mary whose hair was typically not covered in this type of painting) vs. a contemperaneous portrait which depicts her wearing the ubiquitious headdress which denotes her status and wealth. There are many such portraits, i.e Portrait of Isabella of Portugal (van der Weyden), Portrait of a Lady (van der Weyden), to name two. In my view, there's no reason not to mention the hennin. Philip the Good's caption mentions his gold collar of the Order of the Golden Fleece - emblematic of his status and wealth. Both Mary and Philip were noble but neither were royal; the hennin does not denote a crown.
A separate point re images: the main image in the infobox should be swapped for another the faces the text per MOS:IMAGE. Also the image placement can improved to avoid clutter and text squashing. Thoughts? Victoria (tk) 23:03, 25 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The bemuddling uncitationed wording “now mainly in France” should be taken out.[edit]

It misbemuddles: “reigned over the Burgundian State, now mainly in France—with the exception of the Duchy of Burgundy returned to the Kingdom of France (1477)—and the Low Countries, from 1477 until her death in a riding accident at the age of 25”

The whole aforshown wording both of and around “now mainly in France” is bemuddling and from what one can eyeball- it is not right to peddle that the aforesaid “Burgundian State” now lies mainly France whatever the percentage of that uncitationed claim.

It is as if to make up some excuse/agenda to write the word “France” as many a times as possible at the beginning of the herein article. Why not also claim said Burgundian State wherever it once lied has spent less time being thought of as France than in it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:9C97:5D01:F5DA:ADA6:7D3B:FDAE (talk) 22:49, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are debates about the status of the Burgundian territories as states or state, so different sources might present different definitions. The previous version/its editor seems to differentiate between the Duchy of Burgundy proper (and perhaps some other French fiefs, that are collectively labelled the Burgundian state) and the "Burgundian Low Countries/Netherlands". Anyway, I have changed it and added some sources.Deamonpen (talk) 14:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't know that there are now "debates" - certainly there once were wars, which rather settled the matter. "Burgundian State" is best avoided I think - "Burgundian territories" will do most of the time. Johnbod (talk) 14:26, 25 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There have always been debates. The main article about these territories still calls them the Burgundian State. There are scholars who recognize the problematic side but still use the term out of convenience.
This is the term used by Huizinga, Pirenne and Schnerb:
The two notable recent works (with English versions) on this matter are those of Robert Stein and Lecuppre-Desjardin. Robert Stein prefers to use the term "composite monarchy" while Lecuppre-Desjardin (with a viewpoint that she herself calls "[..]viewed from France") dubs it "Grand Principality of Burgundy" but emphasizes that the "Burgundian political experiment"/(state building) project failed with Charles the Bold.
This is also somewhat related to this article's subject and (apparently sensitive) debates such as "who held the real power during Mary of Burgundy's reign?". Nevertheless there is a growing body of research dealing with Mary, Maximilian, their son Philip the Fair and the state building process that happened during their reigns. My impression is, like almost everywhere else, the formation of early modern states in this region was a painful process. That Maximilian, who actually did quite a lot of things in this process, was a "foreigner" who left the Netherlands (also problematic term in its own way) the moment he gained the imperial crown, seems to add to the sensitivity of the matter as well. Philip on the hand was a "native" but like his mother (also, there are more evidences for his political activities/initiatives), he died quite young. Deamonpen (talk) 15:49, 25 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Burgundian Netherlands is generally the term used. Though good in some respects, Huizinga is dated in others. If the concept of a "state" is explored that should be done elsewhere, not in this article as it's beyond the topic here. Victoria (tk) 23:03, 25 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The realm ruled by the Burgundian dynasty went beyond the Netherlands, though (including, well, Burgundy), which is the problem. It's an issue because there was no single "official" name for it used by contemporaries. But it's good to have a short version, if such a thing exists in the scholarship. --Jfruh (talk) 01:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't see anyone with the intent of explaining the concept in depth in the lede (although I might add to the article later regarding the problem of state building, because it's a matter relevant to the reign of Mary of Burgundy). The lede is talking about the land(s) Mary of Burgundy inherited at the point of her father's death - that was the the Burgundian State (and it is still commonly called so by many scholars, not just Huizinga.) including the duchy of Burgundy, even if it was lost soon afterwards. As for Huizinga being "dated" regarding this matter, he thinks that a true Burgundian state existed between 1477-1579. According to modern historian Jean-Marie Cauchies, the state formed in the course of Mary and Maximilian's joint rule and later Maximilian's sole rule. I have the impression that some strands of British publications or education lean towards the French side of the debate, for whatever reason, but if even many French scholars use the term État bourguignon (the French article still calls it as such) even if the same people (like Lecuppre-Desjardin) also tend to balk at the idea that it was possible to build a "proper" state (let alone that it actually existed), I don't see it as a matter that needs to be "rectified" quickly. If you guys rely on other scholars who have different ideas, please name some of them.
There are also a German side (although traditionally less "interventionist" than the French side) and an Austrian side (closer to the Belgian or Dutch line of thinking) of the debate. Lately they seem increasingly concern themselves with Maximilian's later (and failed) project of a shared Austrian-Burgundian state.Deamonpen (talk)

Categories: Duchess and Duke[edit]

I recognize that Mary herself did some masculine posturing in her lifetime. She appears on one of her coins as Dux and not Ducissa. However, moving her from the category of "Duchesses" to "Dukes" (and "Countesses" to "Counts") implies that the term "Duchess" in English cannot imply power or rights possessed by a suo jure ruler. That is simply not right. The article itself calls her "duchess" and modern accounts of her life and deeds call her as such too. Including her in "Dukes of..." categories makes as much sense as including Philip II of Spain in a category called "Queens of England".

A solution is that you might create new categories of Duchesses regnant and Countesses regnant for these territories, and then put her in those categories.

A similar matter has been discussed extensively in Talk:Jadwiga of Poland (Jadwiga or Hedwig was even crowned with a "male" title). She is still "queen".

The move is also degrading towards the consorts of Medieval and Early Modern Europe. Generally, by traditions, they were also considered monarches, sovereigns and co-rulers (unlike modern First ladies and First Gentlemen). There were changes towards the negative in the early modern/modern time period, but at least the style survived. And in both Medieval and Early Modern/Modern time, there were consorts who did the ruling part more than the "natural" rulers. -Deamonpen (talk) 12:52, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Aciram, please reply me here. We have terms for female rulers in their own right. They are called queens regnant and duchesses regnant:
1.the female ruler of an independent state that has a royal family
2.(also queen consort) the wife of a king
"Queen", by Oxford Advanced American Dictionary
Which dictionary says that only "male" titles imply honour, power and rights possessed by suo jure rulers?
Which professional historian says that the true titles for queens regnant and duchesses regnant are kings and dukes?
If certain users can move pages about female rulers (some of those pages are read by maybe ten or twenty people a day) into those categories without opposition, that does not mean it is a recommendable practice. I suggest people to look at similar cases, that have been discussed extensively, like Talk:Jadwiga of Poland (a major ruler).
A possible model is Category:Queens regnant of England (sub-category of Category:English monarchs) versus Category:English royal consorts, or Category:Regents of England (also listed under Category:Heads of state of England).
This is understandable, for Chinese wikipedia for example, because in that language, an empress regnant like Wu Zetian is "huangdi" (皇帝), just like the male emperors. Same with some other Asian languages. European languages are different, and this is English Wikipedia.
-Deamonpen (talk) 17:01, 13 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]