Talk:William V, Marquess of Montferrat
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ] | ||
To avoid further confusion: The page 'Rainier of Montferrat' is the father of William III, while the page 'Renier of Montferrat' is his son. Havard 23:41, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] ordinal
It is true that this William was fourth, or third, (or perhaps fifth) of his family to rule with that name. However it seems that for some reason, genealogists have long ago attached "fifth" to him. If the ordinals are now changed here, it means undesirable consequences for ordinals of his certain successors, who are established under ordinals that count him higher than third.
The background may be that they count some legendary ancestors, or like (not rare occurrence with medievals: Sweden has had apparently some six king Charleses somewhere in thin air). And it seems that before the 1st margrave of Montferrat, there was at least one ancestor William who was head of this family. 62.78.125.186 08:22, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
From what I understand, the ordinals are mostly from the fact that all members of the family are counted, and I agree it is confusing. I have also seen this William referred to as William VI. This is not helped by the fact that he seems to be referred to by his moniker ("the Old"), rather than ordinal in many cases. When I started with the rulers list I intended the ordinals to follow the numbering as marquesses after Aleramo, the first known marquess of Montferrat. This has slipped a bit allready with the co-ruler only Othon I numbered, and predeceased his father, while the later co-ruler only, William (brother of Renier), isn't.
Personally, I think the ordinals should be done following the title holders only, starting with Aleramo as the earliert definite ruler we know. That would mean this William is IVth though... Havard 16:59, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
- This William is generally counted as V these days, certainly in the Italian Dictionary of National Biography; there were some previous co-holders of the title. I refer you to the website Circolo Culturale I Marchesi del Monferrato, which has the link to the Dictionary of National Biography article and other dynastic material. The Circolo Culturale includes Prof. Haberstumpf, who has done extensive work on the dynasty. Silverwhistle 16:06, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
