Charles I of Anjou is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 7, 2023. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
OK, royalty/nobility experts, this is technically off-topic but since you're gathered here, I need some advice about what seems to me to be a more serious naming convention issue than the above. There is an article called Charles I of Sicily. The bold first mention is "Charles of Anjou . . . also Charles I of Sicily." So far so good. It also says, however, that "he was King of Sicily 1262–1282 (and under that title, King of Naples 1282–1285)." And, among other things, count of Anjou.
Charles I's successor has an article called Charles II of Naples. Are we getting worried yet? The intro says he was king of Naples and Sicily, as well as count of Anjou, but apparently he was never crowned King of Sicily (and the info box at the end doesn't mention Sicily). In the article on Kings of Sicily, however, it says that the Kingdom of Naples was actually an informal name and that the Kingdom of Sicily was the official name even though it didn't include Sicily anymore. (For more than a century there was another King of Sicily who actually ruled Sicily.) There is also a Charles III of the Neapolitan Sicily, whose article is titled Charles III of Naples .
Charles II's successor as count of Anjou is listed in the info box as Charles III. Charles III has an article called Charles of Valois. The bold first mention is "Charles III of Valois," but Valois didn't even enter the picture with respect to Charles I or II. In fact, he was the first count of Valois. He seems to have been the third Charles to be count of Anjou.
Charles III's nephew was Charles IV of France, but this is merely coincidence, as Charles III of France is from the 800s.
Anybody want to jump in here? It appears to me that Charles of Valois should be bold-first-mentioned as "Charles of Valois" and "Charles III, count of Anjou". I'm not sure what to do about Naples and Sicily. Aldrichio 15:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I think so. Nicely done. Aldrichio 16:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
It makes sense to me. Readers will be less confused. Eldredo19:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't claim any special knowledge of royalty nomenclature, but my two cents, for whatever it's worth, is that, unless there's a good reason not to, it's preferable to have all the King Charleses (or Jameses or Richards or whoever) who are in the same line of I, II, III, etc. to have the same title. Otherwise, the average reader will go, as I did, "What the heck is going on here?" At the same time, I recognize that there are situations where that doesn't necessarily work. The current situation could be one of them. Or it might make more sense to call them all Kings of Sicily, and then explain why there are two simultaneous Kings of Sicily, like popes and antipopes. Or maybe it makes sense to keep calling all of them Kings of Naples, based on the idea that that's how they became informally known and that, even though the first one didn't actually use that title even informally, it's OK from a realist perspective to give it to him. All I'm saying is that if the consensus is that there's a decent rationale for going with all-Naples or all-Sicily, it seems to me that the one-name-fits-all solution is substantially preferable to mixing them up. Eldredo01:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Charles of Anjou sounds good to me. It has the virtue of not leading the reader to look for that next numeral in the series and being disappointed when he doesn't find one that matches up. (Not that I would insist that this should be avoided in every case, but if it can, that's a point in favor of the solution.) Eldredo18:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
The article claims that "In November 1252, the death of his mother Blanche of Castile caused him [Charles] to go north to Paris and assume the joint regency of the kingdom with his brother Alphonse." However, according the article "Louis IX of France", Louis was born in 1215 hence in 1252 he was 37, quite capable of ruling by himself. Moreover, the later article asserts that "His contemporaries viewed his reign as co-rule between the king and his mother, though historians generally view the year 1234 as the year in which Louis ruled as king with his mother assuming a more advisory role", that is, Louis became the de facto ruler 18 years before the supposed regency of Charles.
A similar problem is present in the article " Simon de Monfort" (see the talk page there)
Maybe France needed a regent because Louis IX was off on a crusade?
Top.Squark 16:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Louis IX was off on crusade until 1254. john k 18:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Here's a seal of Charles, king of Sicily. Feel free to insert it in the article. PHG ( talk) 19:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
The text refers to "revenues on the gabelles (mainly salt), from alberga (commutation of gîte) and cavalcata (commutation of the duties of military service) and quista ("aids") (Baratier 1969)"
From the context, I assume these were various forms of taxes that were owed to a feudal liege by his subjects. I was trying to find out more information about the history of these obligations. The names are now so obscure that they do not seem to appear in English language dictionaries, and Google results are dominated by references to holiday homes called gites in France and modern foreign language references to alberga and cavalcata.
Does anyone have more information on the meanings and usage of these words in a feudal context? It would be great to add a footnote or even add an explanation to the Wikipedia articles about various types of feudal obligations. Tpkaplan ( talk) 16:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Charles I of Naples. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:12, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Move. We have consensus that the Anjou connection is more common. Cúchullain t/ c 18:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Charles I of Naples →
Charles I of Anjou – The present title of the article is an invention which cannot be verified by reliable sources, in clear contradiction to WP:NOR and WP:NAME. Charles I of Anjou is his most common name.
Borsoka (
talk) 04:22, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
The date of his birth was not recorded. He was most probably a posthumous son, born in early 1227, months after his father died in November 1226.
We must stop speaking with a forked tongue, and tell the same story - whatever the true version is - in all places. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 18:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Borsoka is doing a great job expanding this article, but I feel it goes into too much detail in some places. Borsoka is still expanding the article but it's already quite long. Too long, I'd say, especially when bearing in mind that it doesn't yet contain as many images as it could (and should). Could we cut back on some detail? For example, Conrad of Antioch. If he had been mentioned earlier in the text as a significant supporter of Conradin, the epilogue of his story might be pertinent, but this way it just seems like a very interesting piece of... trivia. Margaret II's family dispute might also be explained more succintly. The murder of Henry of Almain is not tied to any previous or subsequent event, and Charles's role in the event is minimal and obvious. Removing excess detail would improve both the flow and layout, in my opinion. Surtsicna ( talk) 20:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
The lead used to start "Charles I of Anjou..."; then the page was re-titled to "Charles I of Anjou" and the opening line was changed to just say "Charles I..."! I find this bizarre. The only reason to accept a title change was the the specific sequence of words "Charles [I] of Anjou" was far more common than "Charles I of Naples". If "of Anjou" is just a disambiguator, we are not constrained to worry about how outside sources might choose to disambiguate. We could have left it as it was ("of Naples" as disambiguator), which was more consistent with other articles. Srnec ( talk) 02:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Was Beatrice of Savoy really the ruling Countess of Forcalquier? Was she the one to whom Forcalquier owed allegiance? I thought she only enjoyed the usufruct as her dower, while Charles and his wife still held the title. Surtsicna ( talk) 11:46, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Greetings Borsoka and others. I am here from GOCE to copy edit this rather fine looking article. If I do anything you don't like, or don't understand, feel free to flag it up here.
My first query:
Removed
Thanks. (I should have realised that.)
Good. Thanks.
OK. I have made a change which seems sensible to me.
Sorry, I had spotted that and meant to delete the query.
Thanks.
That's better. Thanks.
There is a lot of mention of the Regno, but it is only defined or described in brackets in the lead. Given its importance, it may be useful to include a description of what the term means at first mention in the main article.
I have had an attempt at this. See what you think.
The images seem a little small to me. You may want to consider increasing them to 300px.
Gog the Mild (
talk) 14:53, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Iazyges ( talk · contribs) 00:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Will start soon. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
GA Criteria
|
---|
GA Criteria:
|
Please note that all of these are suggestions, and can be implemented or ignored at your discretion.
I did not expect an objection from you, Borsoka. I honestly do not see the relevance of Matilda of Carinthia, Alfonso VII of León, Matilda of England, William X of Aquitaine, and other great-great-grandparents, nor do I understand why three great-great-grandparents are left out ( Alice of Namur, García Ramírez of Navarre, and Margaret of L'Aigle). Surely Alfonso is no more relevant than García, and either all should be listed or none should be. Surtsicna ( talk) 15:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
I thought I'd add a comment, since this seems to have generated some reverts just now. Obviously, in retrospect, we make a distinction between the mainland Regno (unofficially the "Kingdom of Naples") and the island Kingdom of Sicily, and we might well say that the Sicilian Vespers marked the effective administrative separation of the two Kingdoms. It was not at all clear at the time that this would be the case—obviously, Charles thought of himself simply as "King of Sicily" all his life and presumed he would eventually recover the island, and the de facto separation did not become de jure until the Peace of Caltabellotta in 1302. I think it's better to simply refer to him as "King of Sicily" in the lead and explain the division of the kingdom in course of the article rather than try to treat "King of Sicily" and "King of Naples" as separate titles here. Choess ( talk) 04:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
"Among modern historians, Runciman says that Charles tried to build an empire in the eastern Mediterraneum..." p. 255 of Runciman does not even use the term "Mediterraneum" (not Mediterranean) and can someone point out where it says that he tried to build an empire in the east of anywhere? I can't find anything useful elsewhere for Charles' supposed attempted conquest of the "eastern Mediterraneum". Is this a glaring typo or am I just missing something? Kingoflettuce ( talk) 20:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Marguerite de Bourgogne is the accepted name of the second wife of Charles I of Anjou. Though her father was Count of Nevers, she was not. See /info/en/?search=Margaret_of_Burgundy,_Queen_of_Sicily, French https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marguerite_de_Bourgogne-Tonnerre. The various pages referring to her and to doings (i.e., her spouse, etc.) need to be in agreement so as not to create confusion. Either say, "daughter of Count of Nevers, Countess of Bourgogne-Tonnerre" or clarify the "Nevers" reference in another way. Thank you. FrankieItalo ( talk) 16:21, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Why is this article using the term "Regno" to refer to the Kingdom of Sicily? Regno simply means "Kingdom", and could refer to any Kingdom, so it appears to me inappropriate in this context. I would suggest to replace it throughout the article with the term "Kingdom of Sicily" (which included Southern Italy). FRZH ( talk) 10:34, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
@ Johnbod: thank you for the new image in the infobox. I think both its copyright status and source are unclear. Could you fix the problems? Borsoka ( talk) 03:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
Charles I of Anjou is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 7, 2023. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
OK, royalty/nobility experts, this is technically off-topic but since you're gathered here, I need some advice about what seems to me to be a more serious naming convention issue than the above. There is an article called Charles I of Sicily. The bold first mention is "Charles of Anjou . . . also Charles I of Sicily." So far so good. It also says, however, that "he was King of Sicily 1262–1282 (and under that title, King of Naples 1282–1285)." And, among other things, count of Anjou.
Charles I's successor has an article called Charles II of Naples. Are we getting worried yet? The intro says he was king of Naples and Sicily, as well as count of Anjou, but apparently he was never crowned King of Sicily (and the info box at the end doesn't mention Sicily). In the article on Kings of Sicily, however, it says that the Kingdom of Naples was actually an informal name and that the Kingdom of Sicily was the official name even though it didn't include Sicily anymore. (For more than a century there was another King of Sicily who actually ruled Sicily.) There is also a Charles III of the Neapolitan Sicily, whose article is titled Charles III of Naples .
Charles II's successor as count of Anjou is listed in the info box as Charles III. Charles III has an article called Charles of Valois. The bold first mention is "Charles III of Valois," but Valois didn't even enter the picture with respect to Charles I or II. In fact, he was the first count of Valois. He seems to have been the third Charles to be count of Anjou.
Charles III's nephew was Charles IV of France, but this is merely coincidence, as Charles III of France is from the 800s.
Anybody want to jump in here? It appears to me that Charles of Valois should be bold-first-mentioned as "Charles of Valois" and "Charles III, count of Anjou". I'm not sure what to do about Naples and Sicily. Aldrichio 15:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I think so. Nicely done. Aldrichio 16:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
It makes sense to me. Readers will be less confused. Eldredo19:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't claim any special knowledge of royalty nomenclature, but my two cents, for whatever it's worth, is that, unless there's a good reason not to, it's preferable to have all the King Charleses (or Jameses or Richards or whoever) who are in the same line of I, II, III, etc. to have the same title. Otherwise, the average reader will go, as I did, "What the heck is going on here?" At the same time, I recognize that there are situations where that doesn't necessarily work. The current situation could be one of them. Or it might make more sense to call them all Kings of Sicily, and then explain why there are two simultaneous Kings of Sicily, like popes and antipopes. Or maybe it makes sense to keep calling all of them Kings of Naples, based on the idea that that's how they became informally known and that, even though the first one didn't actually use that title even informally, it's OK from a realist perspective to give it to him. All I'm saying is that if the consensus is that there's a decent rationale for going with all-Naples or all-Sicily, it seems to me that the one-name-fits-all solution is substantially preferable to mixing them up. Eldredo01:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Charles of Anjou sounds good to me. It has the virtue of not leading the reader to look for that next numeral in the series and being disappointed when he doesn't find one that matches up. (Not that I would insist that this should be avoided in every case, but if it can, that's a point in favor of the solution.) Eldredo18:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
The article claims that "In November 1252, the death of his mother Blanche of Castile caused him [Charles] to go north to Paris and assume the joint regency of the kingdom with his brother Alphonse." However, according the article "Louis IX of France", Louis was born in 1215 hence in 1252 he was 37, quite capable of ruling by himself. Moreover, the later article asserts that "His contemporaries viewed his reign as co-rule between the king and his mother, though historians generally view the year 1234 as the year in which Louis ruled as king with his mother assuming a more advisory role", that is, Louis became the de facto ruler 18 years before the supposed regency of Charles.
A similar problem is present in the article " Simon de Monfort" (see the talk page there)
Maybe France needed a regent because Louis IX was off on a crusade?
Top.Squark 16:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Louis IX was off on crusade until 1254. john k 18:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Here's a seal of Charles, king of Sicily. Feel free to insert it in the article. PHG ( talk) 19:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
The text refers to "revenues on the gabelles (mainly salt), from alberga (commutation of gîte) and cavalcata (commutation of the duties of military service) and quista ("aids") (Baratier 1969)"
From the context, I assume these were various forms of taxes that were owed to a feudal liege by his subjects. I was trying to find out more information about the history of these obligations. The names are now so obscure that they do not seem to appear in English language dictionaries, and Google results are dominated by references to holiday homes called gites in France and modern foreign language references to alberga and cavalcata.
Does anyone have more information on the meanings and usage of these words in a feudal context? It would be great to add a footnote or even add an explanation to the Wikipedia articles about various types of feudal obligations. Tpkaplan ( talk) 16:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Charles I of Naples. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:12, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Move. We have consensus that the Anjou connection is more common. Cúchullain t/ c 18:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Charles I of Naples →
Charles I of Anjou – The present title of the article is an invention which cannot be verified by reliable sources, in clear contradiction to WP:NOR and WP:NAME. Charles I of Anjou is his most common name.
Borsoka (
talk) 04:22, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
The date of his birth was not recorded. He was most probably a posthumous son, born in early 1227, months after his father died in November 1226.
We must stop speaking with a forked tongue, and tell the same story - whatever the true version is - in all places. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 18:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
Borsoka is doing a great job expanding this article, but I feel it goes into too much detail in some places. Borsoka is still expanding the article but it's already quite long. Too long, I'd say, especially when bearing in mind that it doesn't yet contain as many images as it could (and should). Could we cut back on some detail? For example, Conrad of Antioch. If he had been mentioned earlier in the text as a significant supporter of Conradin, the epilogue of his story might be pertinent, but this way it just seems like a very interesting piece of... trivia. Margaret II's family dispute might also be explained more succintly. The murder of Henry of Almain is not tied to any previous or subsequent event, and Charles's role in the event is minimal and obvious. Removing excess detail would improve both the flow and layout, in my opinion. Surtsicna ( talk) 20:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
The lead used to start "Charles I of Anjou..."; then the page was re-titled to "Charles I of Anjou" and the opening line was changed to just say "Charles I..."! I find this bizarre. The only reason to accept a title change was the the specific sequence of words "Charles [I] of Anjou" was far more common than "Charles I of Naples". If "of Anjou" is just a disambiguator, we are not constrained to worry about how outside sources might choose to disambiguate. We could have left it as it was ("of Naples" as disambiguator), which was more consistent with other articles. Srnec ( talk) 02:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Was Beatrice of Savoy really the ruling Countess of Forcalquier? Was she the one to whom Forcalquier owed allegiance? I thought she only enjoyed the usufruct as her dower, while Charles and his wife still held the title. Surtsicna ( talk) 11:46, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
Greetings Borsoka and others. I am here from GOCE to copy edit this rather fine looking article. If I do anything you don't like, or don't understand, feel free to flag it up here.
My first query:
Removed
Thanks. (I should have realised that.)
Good. Thanks.
OK. I have made a change which seems sensible to me.
Sorry, I had spotted that and meant to delete the query.
Thanks.
That's better. Thanks.
There is a lot of mention of the Regno, but it is only defined or described in brackets in the lead. Given its importance, it may be useful to include a description of what the term means at first mention in the main article.
I have had an attempt at this. See what you think.
The images seem a little small to me. You may want to consider increasing them to 300px.
Gog the Mild (
talk) 14:53, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Iazyges ( talk · contribs) 00:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Will start soon. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
GA Criteria
|
---|
GA Criteria:
|
Please note that all of these are suggestions, and can be implemented or ignored at your discretion.
I did not expect an objection from you, Borsoka. I honestly do not see the relevance of Matilda of Carinthia, Alfonso VII of León, Matilda of England, William X of Aquitaine, and other great-great-grandparents, nor do I understand why three great-great-grandparents are left out ( Alice of Namur, García Ramírez of Navarre, and Margaret of L'Aigle). Surely Alfonso is no more relevant than García, and either all should be listed or none should be. Surtsicna ( talk) 15:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
I thought I'd add a comment, since this seems to have generated some reverts just now. Obviously, in retrospect, we make a distinction between the mainland Regno (unofficially the "Kingdom of Naples") and the island Kingdom of Sicily, and we might well say that the Sicilian Vespers marked the effective administrative separation of the two Kingdoms. It was not at all clear at the time that this would be the case—obviously, Charles thought of himself simply as "King of Sicily" all his life and presumed he would eventually recover the island, and the de facto separation did not become de jure until the Peace of Caltabellotta in 1302. I think it's better to simply refer to him as "King of Sicily" in the lead and explain the division of the kingdom in course of the article rather than try to treat "King of Sicily" and "King of Naples" as separate titles here. Choess ( talk) 04:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
"Among modern historians, Runciman says that Charles tried to build an empire in the eastern Mediterraneum..." p. 255 of Runciman does not even use the term "Mediterraneum" (not Mediterranean) and can someone point out where it says that he tried to build an empire in the east of anywhere? I can't find anything useful elsewhere for Charles' supposed attempted conquest of the "eastern Mediterraneum". Is this a glaring typo or am I just missing something? Kingoflettuce ( talk) 20:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Marguerite de Bourgogne is the accepted name of the second wife of Charles I of Anjou. Though her father was Count of Nevers, she was not. See /info/en/?search=Margaret_of_Burgundy,_Queen_of_Sicily, French https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marguerite_de_Bourgogne-Tonnerre. The various pages referring to her and to doings (i.e., her spouse, etc.) need to be in agreement so as not to create confusion. Either say, "daughter of Count of Nevers, Countess of Bourgogne-Tonnerre" or clarify the "Nevers" reference in another way. Thank you. FrankieItalo ( talk) 16:21, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Why is this article using the term "Regno" to refer to the Kingdom of Sicily? Regno simply means "Kingdom", and could refer to any Kingdom, so it appears to me inappropriate in this context. I would suggest to replace it throughout the article with the term "Kingdom of Sicily" (which included Southern Italy). FRZH ( talk) 10:34, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
@ Johnbod: thank you for the new image in the infobox. I think both its copyright status and source are unclear. Could you fix the problems? Borsoka ( talk) 03:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)