Talk:Charles I of Anjou

message: 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)
thread_title:  Regent of France? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Seal

message: 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)
thread_title:  gabelles, alberga, cavalcata and quista 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050228083343/http://etext.lib.virginia.edu:80/etcbin/toccer-new?id=WedLord&tag=public&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&part=0 to http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new?id=WedLord&tag=public&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&part=0
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:12, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
* Yet, we have the date 21 March 1226 shown without qualification in the lede and the infobox.
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)
replies: text: The article is in the middle of expansion. The date is a leftover from an unsourced version soon to be replaced. Surtsicna (talk) 22:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your message. The date was replaced. Borsoka (talk) 05:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Date of birth - known or unknown?

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes, I agree that it should be shortened in several places. However, before shortening it, it should be completed. :) Borsoka (talk) 01:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course. As far as I know, Conrad of Antioch might resurface later on! :D Surtsicna (talk) 10:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

text: Alas, Conrad of Antioch did not resurface (but Srnec did pleasantly surprise us with an article about him). Does this mean we can now start cutting out some pieces? Surtsicna (talk) 21:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you think we should? He was Conradin's only retainer to be released and only because his wife blackmailed the king. Borsoka (talk) 00:40, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried to explain why in my first comment. It's far from indispensible to the biography (an interesting piece of trivia, I'd say), and we now even have an article about him where the info is more pertinent. Perhaps keeping it here would not be an overkill if we delegated it to a note. My concern is that the article is now too long, unwieldy actually, due to excessive detail. Is the murder of Henry of Almain indispensible to the biography? Surtsicna (talk) 10:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The murder of Henry of Almain is not mentioned in the article. :) I think the reference to Conrad of Antioch is not a trivia: Charles, who had been lenient towards his opponents in 1266, spared the life of one staunch supporter of Conradin in 1268 only under duress. It is a quite remarkable difference. Of course, this article could be shortened - even if there are much longer royalty FAs (for instance, Henry I of England, Edward VI of England). Borsoka (talk) 10:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I see. There are far longer FAs than the ones you mentioned, actually. Some are so long they have been split into articles such as Early life of Pedro II of Brazil. I am of the opinion that articles are more useful when they are easier to navigate (i.e. not cluttered with details). I will try shortening the Hainaut episode. Revert if you disagree. Surtsicna (talk) 11:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the relevant WP policy, the prose size of the article is "readable" (48 kB, 8107 words). Do you suggest that the policy should be modified? Borsoka (talk) 12:53, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I suggest that we improve this article by cutting out unnecessary details. This is the third time I'm saying that, and not once have I mentioned a policy. Surtsicna (talk) 13:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, unnecessary details should be deleted. Borsoka (talk) 13:43, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright. I will make some cuts. Feel free to restore content if I take out too much, of course. Surtsicna (talk) 13:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your assistance. Borsoka (talk) 13:53, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much detail? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Sorry, I do not understand your above remarks. What is bizarre? Are you suggesting a move? Borsoka (talk) 02:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title change and lead 

message: 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)
replies: text: According to the cited source, Charles "was to make a compromise with his mother-in-law, allowing her Forcelquier and a third of the Provencal revenues" (Runciman, 1958, p. 73.). Do you think this refer to the usufruct of Provence? Borsoka (talk) 12:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Possibly. Forcelquier was, for what it's worth, originally a chunk of Provence. Could it mean all revenues from Forcalquier and a third from Provence (i.e. that "Forcalquier" is an adjective there and not a noun)? Does the cited source (or any other) say what authority Beatrice of Savoy exercised in Forcalquier? Or is there a list of counts of Forcalquier that lists her as the titleholder? Surtsicna (talk) 13:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: According to an other source (Dunbabin (1998) p. 16.), "In arbitrating between Charles and his mother-in-law Beatrice of Savoy in 1256, [Louis IX of France] the king substantially enhanced his brother's political power in Provence by obtaining for him the county of Forcalquier, in return for a pension to Beatrice...". I think the text suggests that Beatrice of Savoy ruled Forcelquier before it was returned to Charles. Borsoka (talk) 13:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beatrice II of Forcalquier? 

message: 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.
:
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)
thread_title: Notes

message: 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)
replies: text: Customary law. For years, this has been the form used. Nobody has so far objected it. Why should we change it?  Borsoka (talk) 15:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: People have indeed objected to these ahnentafels, which were added unilaterally, for over a decade. We should change it because the aforementioned people are not relevant to the topic of this article. Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not think that any biographer of Charles mentions Alfonso, William, Matilda, etc. Surtsicna (talk) 16:17, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I have not so far experienced that these ahnentafels are objected. They provide a genealogical context. Borsoka (talk) 02:05, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, but they should be checked for accuracy and potential omissions. Dimadick (talk) 09:18, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think that great-grandparents show more than enough genealogical context for Charles. They show his relation to the royal houses of France, England, and Castile, and the comital houses of Flanders and Hainaut, i.e. all those mentioned in the text. We do not lose any context by removing great-great-grandparents, not all of which are listed anyway. Surtsicna (talk) 10:49, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a status quo. Why should we change it? Borsoka (talk) 16:33, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the status quo is unreasonable. Why should we keep the names of Matilda of Carinthia and Alfonso VII of Castile? Surtsicna (talk) 16:40, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the status quo exists and there has been no objections for more than a decade. Would we improve WP if we change it? For instance, for the article Jadwiga of Poland, I could find a reliable source (Halecki's book) which present even farer ancestors. Could/Should we only present those ancestors only in the article dedicated to Jadwiga? Or could we only mention grandparents of a certain monarch if we find a book which mention them? I think the present status quo is a not irrational, so we should not change it. Of course, ahnentafels, like any other content, should be verified. Borsoka (talk) 03:18, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I am perplexed by your argument. Status quo should not be changed because it is status quo? How is anything in Wikipedia improved without changing status quo? Did anyone object to the state of the article before you expanded it? Yes, we we would improve this article by shaving off the 5th generation because the 5th generation is incomplete and irrelevant to the topic; it does not give any context that the 4th generation does not provide. Surtsicna (talk) 09:31, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think status quo is to be respected if there is no convincing arguments against it. For the time being, I have not read any convincing objection. Please read my above message again, the reference to status quo was not my only argument. I think we should not continue this debate because we presented all our arguments. Borsoka (talk) 10:30, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I am afraid I did not understand your other arguments. How does Jadwiga of Poland tie into this? Obviously, if a biographer of hers believes 5 or 6 generations are relevant and presents them all in his or her book, we have reason to follow. But which biographer of Charles I names his great-great-grandparents? If none does, that is an indicator that the information is gratuitous. The sources compiled for the ahnentafel do not even mention Charles, let alone present an ahnentafel, which makes our ahnentafel a classic example of original research by synthesis. Surtsicna (talk) 14:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we treat the ahnentafel in different ways: you treat it as a part of the text, I treat it as an addition, similar to a picture. Should we delete the picture about the popes' palace at Viterbo unless we cannot prove that it is depicted in a book dedicated to Charles I's life? I think the answer is a clear "No", because the Viterbo Palace is an important venue of Charles' life. Are Charles' ancestors connected to him? Yes. Why should we present his great-great-grandparents? Because great-great-grandparents of monarchs have been presented for more than a decade and it does not hurt the vast majority of editors. Its deletion would not improve the article, but it could give rise to edit wars. I think this is not an issue we should discuss. So, I stop discussing it. Borsoka (talk) 15:01, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: If only we treated the ahnentafel as we treat the picture of Viterbo! Viterbo is mentioned eight times in the text, so the image is relevant. None of Charles I's great-great-grandparents are mentioned in the text, so they are not relevant enough to be featured in any chart. I have always known you to be a reasonable editor, which is why the argumentum ad antiquitatem and refusal to discuss leave me dumbfounded. What confuses me even more is that you removed, without any argumentation, three great-great-grandparents (despite them having been in the chart for more than a decade) but you oppose my removal of the rest of them (due to them being there for over a decade). As for FAs with unsourced ahnentafeln, that specific issue was brought up last year by Howcheng, and the apparent consensus was that ahnentafeln could not be considered exceptions to basic Wikipedia policies. Surtsicna (talk) 16:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

text: I don't see an issue with going back that many generations. It may be cruft, but since the the afnentafel is hidden by default it doesn't take up any extra space in the page and 5 generations is pretty standard for a lot of articles. However, I am in agreement with  in that is odd that these three specific people are omitted. From my experience, the only time you would leave anyone out is if the relationship is disputed/apocryphal. Since that's not the case with these three, they should be included in the chart, or that entire generation should be deleted. —howcheng  {chat} 15:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: It is also odd that the sources used for the ahnentafel (presumably for the fifth generation) do not mention the subject of the article at all. That is a major verifiability and original research concern.  Surtsicna (talk) 16:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: (1) The three persons were deleted because the cited sources do not verify their place. (2) Do what you want. Sorry, I do not have time to debate such an issue. If you think the deletion of ahnentafeln improves WP, do it. Borsoka (talk) 16:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think that's really a problem. Verifiability is established indirectly: we have a source to show that A is the child of B, another to show that B is the child of C, and so forth. If you do that all the way up the chain, then at no point does a WP editor hazard a guess to say "E is probably the parent of D", which would qualify as original research. Even in cases where the relationship is not 100% known, but if the sources say "E is probably the parent of D" then you can append "(probable)" after the name. As long as we are not inserting our own judgement, it's OK. Regardless, the question of whether to go back 3, 4, or 5 generations is an editorial one. —howcheng  {chat} 15:47, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I find that to be a very liberal interpretation of the policy. WP:V explicitly states that verifiability cannot be established indirectly: "Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made." Besides, if there is no RS about an individual that discusses the individual's ancestry up to a certain generation, then the relevance of that genealogy is dubious. Surtsicna (talk) 16:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: If source 1 verifies the claim A is the parent of B, and source 2 verifies the claim that B is the parent of C, isn't that following WP:V to the letter? Source 2 doesn't need to specifically state that A is the grandparent of C because it's common knowledge that the parent of one's parent is one's grandparent. —howcheng  {chat} 05:54, 6 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great-great-grandparents 

message: 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)
replies: text: I agree, but we could perhaps move mention of the Kingdom of Naples (i.e., the rump kingdom he ruled after 1282) up from the last paragraph of the lead to the first, for clarity. Srnec (talk) 00:25, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. I think there is no point in moving. He ruled 6 realms and all this realms are mentioned in the first paragraph. Borsoka (talk) 01:15, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naples vs Sicily 

message: "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)
thread_title: Eastern Mediterraneum

message: 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)
thread_title:  Margaret/Marguerite of Bourgogne-Tonnerre (not Nevers) 

message: 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)
replies: text: Reliable sources customarily use the term in reference to the Sicilian kingdom, so we should not change it. For instance, everybody knows what the White House means, although there are tens of millions of white houses all over the world. Borsoka (talk) 12:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: What are these reliable sources? FRZH (talk) 10:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Sources cited in the article. Borsoka (talk) 12:32, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regno? 

message: 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)
replies: text: There are no "problems". There is a large commons category for this very famous museum image  I'm amazed you didn't have it, but the article doesn't seem to be very high quality. Johnbod (talk) 03:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  can I seek your advice? I am not an copyright expert but I think a reference to a commons category for verification is quite unusual. Borsoka (talk) 04:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The category itself is not verification, but something in it may - could you clarify which image we're talking about and what your concerns are? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the following picture lacks a proper PD tag taking into account the freedom of panorama restrictions in Italy, and it is also unsourced. Borsoka (talk) 05:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Not seeing unsourced, there appears to be appropriate attribution included. The freedom of panorama issues specific to Italy are non-copyright restrictions, and from my understanding Commons ignores those. The image should technically include a PD tag for the original work, although there's no doubt given the age it's out of copyright. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you very much for your answer. I understand that our position on freedom of panorama issues has changed since the same picture was discussed during this article's FA candidature (). I am notifying  because he suggested the same picture but his suggestion was rejected. I also understand that a reference to "some old guy" is enough to identify him as Charles I of Anjou because WP commons identifies him as such. Borsoka (talk) 01:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a source that identifies the sculpture.  could you add the PD tag for the original work. As you can read above WP position on freedom of panorama issues has changed since the same picture was rejected during the FA candidature. Again, thank you for suggesting it. Borsoka (talk) 01:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

text: Done that, I think. Johnbod (talk) 03:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Borsoka (talk) 03:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture in the infobox