Talk:Eleanor of Aquitaine

message: D. L. D'Avray, professor of history at University College, London, gives a translation of John of Salisbury's account of the divorce in his Dissolving Royal Marriages: A Documentary History 860-1600, pp. 50-52. He describes Alison Weir's account as "completely misleading", and says that the best account is in John Baldwin, Masters, Princes and Merchants, note 182 to pp. 255-6. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:33, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Amy Kelly's and Marion Meade's works are overly credulous and prone to fictionalizing without sources; Alison Weir's and Douglas Boyd's largely retread the same ground and should be read with care. I will try to find Baldwin in the university library to see how it compares but chapter 4 of Raplh V. Turner’s Queen of France, Queen of England (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2009) should go into much more detail than a footnote can, and be more credible than Weir. — aoyma3 (talk) 08:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: All sources should be read with care, and are only as good as their primary sources, which are themselves prone to pushing an agenda. At its time, Weir was the best secondary source though in places poorly sourced. Actually it is more carefully written than Kelly and Meade, and more sceptical of their sources and accounts. Turner remains the most modern and thorough accounts but contains some errors and also falls into the trap of speculation (see the list of reviews I included). I have tried to base this article on a reading of both Weir and Turner, supplemented where appropriate by primary sources and scholarly articles. The bottom line is that we actually know very little about Eleanor, and generally only as a footnote to the accounts of the men of her time. Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉  15:28, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The only confusion or controversy relates to the matter of canonical law at the time as it relates to consanguinity. D'Avray cites both Bouchard and Baldwin. I had consulted and cited Bouchard on this matter. For your interest I have added d'Avray and Baldwin, so the reader can ascertain the matter to themselves.  Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉  16:46, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: This is great, thank you! — aoyma3 (talk) 09:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Divorce 

message: The style is popularist rather than encyclopaedic. This has been a problem that has plagued biographies of Eleanor, where, faced with a paucity of information, the void has been filled with myth, legend and speculation. See, for example Wheeler's review of Turner.  Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉  03:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: There is far too much ut dicebatur (it was said). See Sullivan 2023. Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉  03:56, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Consequently, the article was tagged "This article is written like a story. Please help rewrite this article to introduce an encyclopedic style and a neutral point of view." Subsequently the article is being rewritten line by line to conform with WP MOS. Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉  03:33, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  There has been a tendency to delete the speculative language - but a major point of the article is to draw attention as to how her life has been romanticised by biographers, by adding speculation where the record is blank. However, it is important to make a distinction between the two - often relegated to notes, less they become copied into numerous other articles Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉  18:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style 

message: "without the pomp and ceremony that befitted their rank", Chronique de Touraine.
Only one of the standard biographies gives this as a source and none use this quotation. Kelly (1950; p. 104) gives the Chroniques (1894 ed.(p. 135)) as a source for the wedding being furtive. I have removed it unless it can somehow be verified. It had previously been tagged Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉  20:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It could, however be misattributed, for instance William of Newburgh wrote something fairly similar - cited by Sullivan (Chapter: The King of England). Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉  18:14, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Weir cites it but gives four authors for the quote, but no citation Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉  02:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unverified material 

message: The article appears to rely heavily on the romanticised version of Weir, rather than later critical scholarly sources Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉  16:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: * Continue making family trees to show relationships
* Bring bibliography up to GA standards (done)
* Fact check and add references
* remove unencylopedic language
* Rewrite
Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉  19:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tasks 

message: The infobox lists Eleanor's birthplace as Bordeaux, but many other places say she was born in Poitiers. 70.50.199.125 (talk) 16:06, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Based on what is  currently the definitive biography, by Turner. Actually nobody knows exactly where she was born - the infobox matches the discussion on this in the text. Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉  02:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birthplace 

message: Recent deletions miss the point that there have been numerous claims about the depiction of Eleanor, but there is no basis for any of them. She has also been depicted numerous times in art in fanciful ways. These topics are well discussed at length in the literature and discussed in the text. The examples provide evidence for that discussion. The edits have therefore ben reverted. Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉  03:20, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Art 

message: After 20 years of discussion here, people are still changing the birthdate. The concensus of sources now is 1124, and we should stick to that - this is discussed in the text. I will revert any attempts to change that back to 1122. Michael Goodyear ✐  ✉  15:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birthdate (again)