Talk:Margaret I, Countess of Burgundy

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.

Women's History

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article needs major work

There are many grammatical errors in this article and the sentence structure is poor.--jeanne (talk) 07:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boxes

Aciram, you must be aware of how weak your arguments are. "The succession boxes are widely used for queens consorts." Margaret was not a queen. "The consort of a ruler of a state regardless of her title is essentially as a queen consort and a first lady as she had the same social role..." A countess is essentially a queen? Simply saying that I disagree with this assertion does not convey my bewilderedness by it. "... which is a phenomena recognized in historical research." Such as? Being countess of one's husband's county is a phenomenon recognized in what historical research? Queenship is a theme discussed by historians; the position of a count's wife is not. If your assertion that "the social position is the same" were true, there would surely be scholarly works about countesses consort. I am yet to find one. The position of a countess consort is, in fact, of such interest to historians that the phrase "countess consort" has been used in merely two books since the 19th century.

If historians do not say that A was succeeded by B in a certain capacity, there is no need for a box to illustrate that succession. If you do not accept a solution based on sources, what would you like us to do? Should everyone be able to add whatever she or he considers "interesting"? The fact that my arguments are based on sources, while yours boil down to what you find interesting, makes it so much more insulting when you claim that this is about my "personal subjective tastes". Surtsicna (talk) 12:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]