Talk:Isabella of Aragon, Duchess of Milan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

First image[edit]

Isabella of Aragon, princess of Naples.

I've put this on the discussion page instead of removing the link completely. I don't see any evidence *at all* given *anywhere* that this is Isabella of Aragon/Naples, or at least not *this* Isabella . The "source" given on the Commons page is this article! Until there's some actual proof from a reliable third party that this is a picture of this Isabella, it should not be on the article.

Extensive searches online have not found evidence either. Does it exist outside of the assertion of someone who uploaded it to Commons? --NellieBly (talk) 21:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I found the source of the image, and I have restored it. I could not find any source for the second image - allegedly by Raphael - and since no reference was given , I removed it. I also refurbished that whole paragraph. HollyML14 (talk) 09:13, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


May be the science the winner[edit]

Who is responsible for this page and who is responsible for this commentary "First image"? I never get used to the fact that the people on Wikipedia are afraid to put their real names on the website. My name is Maike Vogt-Lüerssen. I am a Historian and not an art historian. The art historians are responsible for the mess we have regarding the famous lady at the Louvre and Leonardo da Vinci (for the last hundreds years). It is a great pity that we have also so many people who are repeating their nonsense. Did the writers above ever had a closer look into the very important contemporary source of the 16th century, written by Agostino Vespucci? Did they ever read the source? Agostino Vespucci wrote in October 1503: Leonardo da Vinci was working on the head of Lisa del Giocondo (not Lisa Gherardini). Do you really think that this source once and for all confirms that the famous lady at the Louvre can only be the merchant's wife? There is only the mentioning of the head without the description of the facial features of this woman. There is only the mentioning of a head, not a figure, no description of her dress, the chair and the interesting background! Leonardo da Vinci made a lot of portraits of women. Don't forget, he was the court painter of the Visconti-Sforza for at least 16 years, and this dynasty had a lot of women. By the way no woman in the 16th century gave up her birth name, when she got married. Lisa Gherardini was born as Lisa Gherardini, she was still Lisa Gherardini when she married Francesco del Giocondo, and she was still Lisa Gherardini when she died. Not one woman had to give up her name. Not even the wives of the famous reformators! Therefore is the question who is Lisa del Giocondo. If you have like me a family tree the problem can be easily solved. The picture on this page is not showing Isabella of Aragon. The depicted is one of her granddaughters. Please, correct these mistakes. Maike Vogt-Lüerssen —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maike24 (talkcontribs) 22:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to move this page[edit]

The title of this page is Isabella of Naples. That is an incorrect name for the person it is about. Her official name is Isabella of Aragon. The Neapolitan rulers of her time were the Aragonese and none of them was referred to as "of Naples". The page should be renamed/moved to Isabella of Aragon. Since there is more than one Isabella of Aragon, it would be appropriate to call the new page "Isabella of Aragon (Duchess of Milan)". That page does already exist and contains only a redirect to this page. If there are no objections I am going to move this page after a week. HollyML14 (talk) 04:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I have moved the page now. HollyML14 (talk) 00:54, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Move request[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:48, 4 October 2011 (UTC)



Isabella of Aragon, Duchess of MilanIsabella of Naples

There was nothing incorrect about the former title. She was the daughter of a king of Naples, not of a king of Aragon. She doesn't have an "official name", being a princess who lived five centuries ago. The "Neapolotan rulers of her time" belonged to the House of Aragon, just like Catherine of Aragon, a daughter of a king of Aragon, belonged to the House of Trastamara. Yet we don't call her Catherine of Trastamara, do we? Margaret of Austria is not called Margaret of Habsburg here and Maria Carolina of Austria is not called Maria Carolina of Lorraine. Besides, the old (and newly proposed) title was much more concise. Surtsicna (talk) 21:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Requested move (2013)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was moved. --BDD (talk) 22:11, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Isabella of NaplesIsabella of Aragon, Duchess of Milan – She is more commonly referred to as Isabella of Aragon, especially in the context of being a candidate for the woman behind the Mona Lisa . We do have instances where we use house names over native country name for royal women like the Spanish Anne of Austria or the Austrian Elisabeth of Habsburg (1436–1505). Also is Isabella of Aragon, Queen of France really the primary topic for the name Isabella of Aragon? --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 18:15, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.