Teogunda - Sources?

I'm not sure where Cawley gets off assuming that Theo had only one wife at a time, when his younger half-brother Clothar (Clotaire) was notoriously polygamous even though nominally "Christian".

It would be centuries before the bishops finally persuaded the kings that polygamy was Not Done.

Clotaire looks like he was a right awful man in the way he treated the women and people around him :-)

I don't see Cawley saying Theodoric was monogamous?

I just have to make a point about Theodoric (Thierry) who was not a half Brother of Clothiar The Old, but indeed a Brother look at the tablaue i put under media of Clovis I.
I also see that you once again relay on Gregory of Tours, Settipani and fredegonde.
I just have to say that all the priests and bishops in these days did deliver their notes to the local pope (and there where a lot of them), they did send all their notes to the Vatican.
Just saying the Three People you blindly trust is not the only records to be found.
That itself does not excuse how they treated their women , but the Kings, Counts and dukes have been like this up to the 18 Century.
The one who had real Power in those days where the women, cause most of the nobility to the men in Europe was through marriage and WARs.

What table; where? Very happy to discuss other primary sources if you have them - I'm not invested in these; but ONLY primary sources.

Oh, I see it. No Sources at all, Tor.
If you find primary Sources, do post them in the Discussion.

Go to Clovis The Great look under media you will find it, but perhaps from Your answer, it does not matter, becouse you have Gregory of Tours to Relay on who lived about 250 years after these events, but the official lines of the french kings is not to be trusted.
Feel that there is something thats wrong.

Am very happy to discuss other Sources you may have; but, with respect, I'm not happy to have to convince people that Sources are a requirement for historical validity.

Sharon (several messages back): Cawley sort of implied monogamy when he claimed that Theoderich "must have repudiated his first wife before marrying the Burgundian king’s daughter". But that's the imposition of modern moral values on a Late Migration Period society - and the distinction between "wives" and "concubines" remained fuzzy right down to Big Charlie himself.

I'd also like to take issue with M. Settipani over Theoderich's name - it may not have had as much to do with Austrasian Franks as with that Theodoric king of the Visigoths who fought alongside the Romans, Salian Franks, Burgundians et al against Attila and the Hunnic allies. It's quite noticeable that before 451 AD the name "Theodoric" is very rare - but in the following several generations there were scads of 'em.

:-)