This article is within the scope of WikiProject Normandy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Normandy 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.NormandyWikipedia:WikiProject NormandyTemplate:WikiProject NormandyNormandy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France 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.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Rivers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Rivers 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.RiversWikipedia:WikiProject RiversTemplate:WikiProject RiversRiver articles
As a non-French, I don't initally get why the fact that the Mont Saint-Michel being in Normandy instead of Brittany is all that remarkable. From the Mont Saint Michel page, it seems that one reason might be that the river shifts from one side of the Mont to the other, changing which region the Mont is in. From the current Couesnon page I don't get that, and am left unsure as to what a "historically irregular course" means. Upon first reading, I thought it meant a very meandering (but rather constant) course, which is well noted in historical contexts, as illustrated by the phrase (which probably be given in the original French, as well as in translation). -- 19:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Well I for one am to non-French and I really don't understand it as well. Can't someone figure this out for "us"(everyone)? IThink4u 21:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The area near the mouth is very marshy, and as I understand it, with every new flood, the river course changed quite violently over the centuries, constantly moving the border of the historical duchies. When the border between Normandy and Britanny was finally fixed however, the mont happened to be on the Normandy side of the mouth. So it's a bit of a historical artefact that it ended up like that - had the border been fixed in a different year, it could have been in Britanny. There's still a fair bit of good natured rivalry over the fact it's in Normandy.
This is all just vague "understanding" though - I should probably research it properly. Stevage 16:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
