Talk:Guinevere

American/British English

I reverted the good faith spelling changes because I don't agree Guinevere or the Arthurian legend is specifically an "English" legend. The story is known in all Western countries and appeared in written form for many years in other languages before the first English versions. Because American English has been used in this article for so long, it should stay the way it is.--Cúchullain ^t/c 19:47, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice work, Arcturus!--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I think we should always go for neutral words to avoid reverts - where possible. I did struggle with armour/armor and I'm not 100% certain that chainmail fits. Maybe you could look at this? Arcturus 22:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm wondering if there should be any references to Guinevere's character as portrayed in Launfal, where it's stated that:

But Syr Launfal lykede her noght, Ne other knyghtes that wer hende; For the lady bar los of swych word That sche hadde lemmannys under her lord, So fele ther nas noon ende.

But Sir Launfal liked her naught Nor did other knights that were well-bred For the lady bore such reputation that she had so many lovers other than her lord That there was no end

See: Sir Launfal and also Launfal

--Bardicknight 20:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I added it in under the "Character" section.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Etymology

These etymological notes are pretty suspect. Siabraid might be an old Irish form, but it is certainly not proto-Celtic; And proto-Brythonic ought to have been something like *windosēbarā, -irā, if memory serves me well, Welsh -wy- generally coming from ē (as does Old Irish -ia-, IIRC).RandomCritic 14:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I've always thought they were suspect. Perhaps it's time to remove them.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, yes, old as it is, McBain's Etymological Dictionary of the Gaelic Language explicitly lists the element -hwyfar in Gwenhwyfar = Guinevere as a cognate of "Irish siabhra, Early Irish siabrae, siabur, fairy, ghost" and I'm inclined to trust this source as rather learned at the least. It's enough to make me consider finally registering with this site, honestly. All the time I've been trying to keep these articles up to standard anonymously is starting to tax my nerves. Either way, I'm going to go edit the article now. --Goueznou, 69.248.140.84 03:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible that you don't understand the difference between "Early Irish" and "Proto-Celtic"? RandomCritic 13:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)#

The current PC etymology seems fairly watertight to me and the -seibrā element is cited in MacBain. However, the Brythonic element is totally spurious so I've deleted it. There's no way *vino-hibirā could have arisen from the cited PC or have given the Welsh Gwenhwyfar (it would give **Gwynhefer or similar), and besides vino- meant 'wine'. The PC *vindo-seibrā > late Brythonic *vinno-hēbra > Welsh **Gwynhwyfr. The y > e would have occured by analogy as the name is feminine and final a is probably epenthetic. Psammead (talk) 20:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The *Uindo-se:bara: etymology (alternately, *Uendu-se:bara:, since uendu- is an attested Celtic root, likely with the same, or similar meaning as *uindo- "white, fair") seems to be sound. The final -a- in Gwenhwyfar is not necessarily epenthetic, seeing that we have attested -bara names in Celtic-speaking areas (Labara & Talabara - both found in Latin inscriptions from Spain).Cagwinn (talk) 05:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Marvin Borrower's The Queen's Knight

I've googled for this book, searched Amazon, and searched my public library's website. The only mention of such a book by Marvin Borrower is this Wikipedia entry. --Arthaey 08:03, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I removed it. Thanks for catching that.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:34, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Somebody has blundered

Sorry, but The Queen's Knight is a real book. But it is not written by Marvin Borrower. It is written by by another man named Marvin Borowsky. The a rather decent read and novel is available on amazon.com for prices ranging from $3.50 to $250.98. Next time check your sources better.

Feminist Perspectives on Guinevere

I find it somewhat perplexing that at least two other very detailed pages on Arthurian legend contain more discussion and literary dispute over Guinevere's character than her own page does. In particular, segments of Le Morte d'Arthur take the time to discuss differing interpretations of whether or not she is sympathetic, or what motives she has; it also discusses various literary and academic reactions to how she is treated in different stories. While this page discusses her different behaviors, I feel a big section on academic/literary interpretations and criticisms of how Guinevere appears in the various tales is necessary. Perspectives on her character, motives, and behaviors vary wildly, and while this page discusses that briefly I don't think this page covers that in enough detail. Inter something 13:13, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Wrong Painting

As far as I know the painting by W. Morris is not Guenevere, but Iseult. This was confirmed by this comment:

"La Belle Iseult," also known as "Queen Guenevere." (At one time many people mistook the subject of this painting to be Guenevere, but the hound sleeping on the bed identifies her as Iseult.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.251.31.122 (talk) 18:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Camelot stage play

Perhaps it would be appropriate to include a reference to the Lerner and Lowe Broadway play from the early 60's, and subsequent film, I personally don't know how to upload a link to various websites that refer to it. Closedthursday (talk) 19:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Titles and styles

I removed the titles and styles bit because not only are there no references for it, but some of the styles used didn't exist back then (Royal Highness, for example). - Iamthecheese44 (talk) 17:21, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Fate/stay night

Guinevere doesn't appear in the visual novel Fate/stay night and as far as I recall is never even mentioned. There have been a few mentions of her elsewhere in the extensive Fate/ franchise, but I don't recognize the information given here. It's possible that it's from a supplementary text (like, I don't know, a fanbook or something) or from an installment of the franchise that I'm not familiar with, but in that case the actual source of the information should be given rather than it being attributed to the game Fate/stay night, which is absolutely not the actual source. (Unless I guess it was bonus information included in a port/remake or something?)2601:184:4780:8E98:9803:1E42:B231:7550 (talk) 23:54, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. I nixed this and another mention in that section. Eric ^talk 04:09, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

The categories are all like for a historical figure

Shouldn't they be rather all for a fictional character? --94.246.150.68 (talk) 11:43, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Actually I'll just go ahead and recategorize the article already. It used to be 5th-century women6th-century womenArthurian charactersBritish traditional historyCornish peopleBurials at Glastonbury AbbeyCharacters in works by Geoffrey of MonmouthMedieval legendsQueens consort. --94.246.150.68 (talk) 12:06, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Inconsistent pronunciation

The pronunciation of the name is given in the IPA with the stress on the first syllable (shown by the vertical mark before the 'g'), but in the Anglicised version with the stress on the second syllable (shown by the 'NI' in capitals). I don't know for certain which is right, but I've only ever heard people say 'GWIN-i-veer', with the stress on the first syllable.213.127.210.95 (talk) 17:12, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I fixed it - probably some troll did that. Cagwinn (talk) 18:33, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Correcting some information

I am trying to make some edits to this page, without being tagged as vandalism, and so will try to justificate why in the following discussion. Let me know if this is ok, or if I have made mistakes.

The edits concern the “significant other” section.

Firstly adding King Arthur|Arthur: Originally King Arthur and Guinevere - still written as Gwenhwyfar then, are depicted as a strong couple (even with children). One of the first stories concerning them is “Culhwch and Olwen” - therefore this is proven by literature. This story is one of the bases of the Arthurian stories that came after it.

Secondly editing out Yder: There is no story explicitly mentioning that Guinevere/Gwenhwyfar was in love with him, only speculations from what I’ve found.

Finally, Mordred: There is a version of the legend that has Guinevere allying herself with Mordred, maybe out of love. But this isn’t a popular version. And it is to be believed that it only came to fruition because in the older stories [re: Culhwch and Olwen], Guinevere/Gwenhwyfar had a sister Gwenhwyfach that was married to Mordred and got confused or fused as being Guinevere/Gwenhwyfar.

However since it is a version of the legends, just like the added Sir Lancelot romance, I do agree on keeping it. Adding [King Arthur, or Lancelot or Morded]; making it more clear that this is an option because of adaptations. And removing Yder if there is no further proof given about him.

There is no justification in adding Mordred in that section and not Arthur—if we’re going with multiple versions of the legends—in my opinion.

Please let me know if this is alright and correct and if we can add these edits to this page, thank you. AngelCoulbyArmy (talk) 16:09, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Arthur is her husband. That is, a spouse. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 17:39, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

• We don't add Arthur as a 'significant other', since he's already in the infobox as 'spouse.' On Yder we have [1]; [2] (Gosengos added here); [3]; [4]. I don't know whether these refer to popular versions, but these do reference texts from the 12th or 13th centuries. It also was not explained why you removed Gwendolen as the spouse from the article on Merlin [5], other than 'fixed content.' Taken altogther, the edits did not look constructive. If, however, you can gain consensus here from others better acquainted with Arthurian matters than I am, go right ahead. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 17:55, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
• Whoa. That's exciting. Ha, another case where the succinctness of the infobox becomes the enemy of content. I wonder if User:Serial Number 54129 is interesting in this topic. Drmies (talk) 22:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)