Talk:Joanna I of Naples

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


The genealogy is wrong - see [1] for instance - and the article is written like a Danielle Steel novel. muriel@pt 17:31, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • I decided to cut the thing down. Previous text is in History, if someone cares to have a look... muriel@pt 16:32, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)


For more details on her brothel see Paul LaCroix's "A history of Prostitution" (1926)--Irishpunktom\talk 10:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The mention here of the brothel, which makes Joan sound like a glorified madam, doesn't make much sense to me (in fact, I don't know if it deserves a mention at all in this article). What the text says is that "on August 8, 1347 she opened a large brothel on the property in Avignon . . . She later sold all the property in Avignon to Pope Clement VI, effectively ending the prostitution trade in Avignon".
To my reckoning, she sold Avignon to Clement VI in 1348; that would make the brothel so short-lived as to be historically negligible, surely. On the other hand, I suspect that not only were there brothels in Avignon before this but that — human nature being what it is — they continued to operate under Clement VI (the chances of the prostitution trade in Avignon having been suddenly ended by Clement VI, of all people, seem to me laughable).
And what is meant by "the property" in one sentence, as opposed to "all the property" in the next? Is it the palace, the town, or the whole domain sold by Joan? It's not clear. OK, it's possible that if Clement VI moved into the very building where a brothel was in full swing, the old boy, notoriously corrupt though he was, may indeed have sent the prostitutes packing with a papal flea in their ears - but they'd probably just have shifted along the road.
On the face of it, Joan's sale of Avignon seems an impetuous and irresponsible act. It is partly explained by her need for the antipope's support; but I wonder how much effect the Black Death was having at this moment, in 1348. Perhaps Avignon had simply turned into a hell-hole; maybe Joan's income there had entirely dried up.

--qp10qp 18:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I had the same thoughts regarding the brothel. In general, I would like to find a very good scholarly work on the Angevin Family in Naples during this period, or on Joan I of Naples. I would really like to track down the correspondence of Joan of Naples to the Pope. I am sure that many actual documents were lost in WWII, but diplomatic editions must exist. I will write again as soon as I find anything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 14:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Name correction and missing history[edit]

The correct name should be "Joanna" as is listed in all references and documents of antiquity that I am familiar with for this queen. She also had several other titles some inherited by way of marriage.

. While this is not a bad article on Queen Joanna I of Napples, it lacks much important data on her life that well supported by historical evidences and documentation She was a very religious person and while it is true she did not always like the man, she respected his calling as Pope and was a great aid to the papacy during her many years of reign. During this time there were in fact several different popes, and a great controversy involving the rightful calling of one, due to threats made on the cardinals. Joanna helped to correct the error of the wrong man stepping into the robes of the pope. To all the other Popes, She was a great support to the them and his inner circle. She had personal interaction with the popes by way of visits and letters. She gave suggestions and support, great amounts of financial aid and donations especially in the Popes time of need. Along with this she also provided military aid, even transportation via her ships and men to help get the Pope out of Rome a few problem times. She restationed Pope in France possibly more than once hoping to move the church headquarters ther.

Her relationships with her family, especially that of her husbands is sketchy in your work, and important pieces of her history. supporting data is missing, but does exist. Her deep concern to produce an heir was paramount and yet with great diplomacy she did many great works during her reighn during those dark ages when horrible plagues, poverty, and evil pursued. She was noted for helping the people of her country as well as the building of churches. One such church or rather monestary she commissioned is still standing today and now used as a museum of fine arts and history as well as performances. This is the Certosa of Capi, on the isle of Capri. Queen Joanna commissioned San Giacomo Arcucci as architect, a man also noted as being one of her close footmen or ambassadors. A beautiful fresco still exists in an arched alcove above the Certosa chapel doors. It shows a beautiful Queen Joanna kneeling on the right side of the Madonna sitting on a grand throne, and holding a standing Christ child. To the Holy Family's left kneels San Giacomo Arcucci, extending a model like Certosa to The Mother and Child for acceptance. Around the throne are also two saints, I believe both James and John, and above them all is the Holy Spirit as well as angels.

My interests and research in these matters have been raised due to the fact that I am a direct ancestor of San Giacomo Arcucci, who was bequeathed the Isle of Capri by his queen for his good works which included the Certosa. While I am not a historian proper, I would be happy to be of assistance in helping to supply documentation and other needs to bring this page up to date. Today I write all this from my iPad, which makes it hard for me to copy and paste, flip from one screen to another with out losing data on this page. Working from my computer would be much easier, but is not possible right now. I felt it important however, to make these lengthybnotations as tey are, hoping to bring interest in making coections and enhancing this page. If not done today i feared i would later forget. Please forgive my bloopers and if I have not followed protocol. Your details of protocol etc. Are extremely lengthy and difficult to follow. I do enjoy the access to Wikipedia and the valuable information it supplies for free. Thank you for this wonderful service. Having quality and true information is of extreme importance in the continuation of wikipedia. Thank you, Smilenhappy (talk) 18:39, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Requested move[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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Jafeluv (talk) 12:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

– More sources use the name Joanna than Joan.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 00:14, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Support. That is my sense, as well. john k (talk) 14:10, 24 August 2012 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Final resting place[edit]

How did her remains get from the well to the ossuary of the Church as mentioned here?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 03:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Which event came first?[edit]


This wedding was opposed by her former brother-in-law and Margaret's stepfather Philip II, Prince of Taranto; when he died in November 1374, he bequeathed his claims to his brother-in-law Francis of Baux, Duke of Andria, and his son James. François laid claim by force the property of the deceased, who had been reverted to the crown. Joanna then confiscated his property by grounds of lèse-majesté on 8 April 1374.

Does it mean that Joanna cofiscated François' property prior to Philip's death? If Philip lived, what is "the deceased" here referred to?——Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 08:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

MY mistake, was a problem in the traduction from the French article, I corrected now, I hope you like. Thanks a lot!!! Aldebaran69 (talk) 23:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Not at all. Also thank you for telling me so much about the Queen.——Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 01:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This review is transcluded from Talk:Joanna I of Naples/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Calvin999 (talk · contribs) 09:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Info box
  • For the Born and Died parameters, you need to list the country in addition to the city. Also the place (building) too if possible.
  • What was her religion?
  • She also reigned as Princess of Achaea → reigned implies that she was Princess regnant?
  • During her long reign → During her 39 year reign
  • The lead feels far too short. It doesn't cover anything she did in her life apart from being married four times, and even then, it doesn't say who. For an article of this length and detail, I'd expect to see perhaps three paragraphs of about 4 sentences each. I'd follow Elizabeth I of England as an example of this.
  • a sister of King → Younger? Elder?
  • so at birth she was the second in line to the throne after her father, → meaning that she was second in line to the throne at the time of her birth after her father,
  • had predeceased her, so at birth she was the second in line to the throne after her father, who died on 9 November 1328,[2] leaving his wife pregnant with their fifth child, who was another daughter, Maria, born in May 1329. → This is quite a difficult sentence to read because there are so many commas breaking it up.
  • Where did her father die and why?
  • Marie of Valois also died → remove 'also'. Unless she also died at that Pilgrimage?
  • With the death of his only surviving son (his second son Louis, was already dead in 1310), King Robert faced the serious problem of his succession: → Who was the only surviving son?
  • I'm losing track of who is who. I think you are best to list all of the children first, and then when they died. It's really hard to keep up with who is who and when they died.
  • to chose between → typo, should be 'choose'
  • The second paragraph is completely unsourced (and is the third)
  • decided to impose his direct rule by sending a Legate, Cardinal Aimery de Châtelus. → What is this?
  • This section could be just three paragraphs. Four and five could be merged as one.
Murder of Andrew of Hungary
  • Formatting is quite bad. There are one/two sentence paragraphs. Paragraphs should be about 4, maybe 5, sentences long.
  • Almost immediately, → immediately after what?
  • Pretty much all of this section is unsourced. Several paragraphs have no citations at all.
  • I'm actually finding this really difficult to read. It hasn't been written clearly and it's hard to know what is happening.

The flow of this article is really bad. It's difficult to read and for me at least, it's not clear. I'm confused and what is happening when and where. The are major sourcing issues. Pretty much all of the paragraphs have no citations at all, whereas there should be citations at the end of every sentence really. It makes it look like a lot of it is [{WP:OR]]. Formatting wise, there are so many breaks and pauses because the paragraphs are so short, one or two sentences in a lot of cases. Paragraphs should be four of five sentences long. It makes the entire article look disjointed and unnecessarily long. The article length could be reduced by half if it was just formatted properly paragraph wise, then a load of white and blank space could be removed. Also, there are far too many sub sections and sub-sub sections, and they are really short. There is no need here for a section within a sub section within a section. Keep sub sections to a minimum if possible, because otherwise it ends up having so many bolded section titles and it's disjointing.

I've stopped reviewing half way through the Murder of Andrew of Hungary of section because there are just so many issues, a lot of them occur throughout the article. This article needs major work. It definitely has the information and scope to be a great article, but it is nowhere hear there yet. I really do think you should use Elizabeth I of England, which is an FA, as a guide to formatting and structuring. When you are done, I would recommend listing it for a Peer Review, so that other editors (who may or may not have an interest in royal or historical figures), can help you with suggestions and ideas further. Until then, I'm afraid I'm failing the article on the grounds of inefficient sourcing, poor formatting, awkward structure and lack of clarity. I wish you luck with it though, it has great potential.  — ₳aron 17:41, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.