GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2006-02 > 1139340738


From: "CED" <>
Subject: Re: Geoffrey Plantagenet's name
Date: 7 Feb 2006 11:32:18 -0800
References: <23f.67a27aa.311a36d2@aol.com>
In-Reply-To: <23f.67a27aa.311a36d2@aol.com>


wrote:
> In a message dated 2/7/2006 9:10:59 AM Pacific Standard Time,
> writes:
>
> This is certainly a sensible (but not historically accurate) way to refer to
> him since that's what he's commonly known as now, regardless of what his
> contemporaries called him.
>
>
> What did his contemporaries call him?
>
> Should we continue to use nomenclature invented by Victorian, patriarchal
> snobs when we could just call someone Geoffrey, Count of Anjou (or whatever he
> was called)?

Will:

The question I raised was not about Geoffrey, count of Anjou, the
father of Henry II. It was about Geoffrey, duke of Brittany, the son
of Henry II, whom Richardson calls "Geoffrey Plantagenet."

In normal parlance, the use of a surname where none ever existed maybe
acceptable; but in using an anachronistic surname as part of a source
reference (without explanation) is unprofessional and misleading. That
was the reason for raising the question.

Best wishes

CED

>
> Will Johnson

This thread: