Talk:John II of France

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

John vs. Jean[edit]

Can someone explain to me why the name of Jean II is "translated" or anglicized for the title of this article? If his name was Jean, would it not make more sense to simply leave it "as is"? PGNormand 17:41, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It isn't just anglicized. He is known in the English speaking world as John II, not Jean II. Since this is an English article, it should be John throughout. marnues (talk) 07:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)


This article seems awfully short for a biographical article on a King of France. I think it's worthy of being labeled a stub. Are there any objections to this? RobertM525 04:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Guess not. A stub it is. (I'm using the French nobility stub because I can't find a French royalty stub, but if there is one, it should be used instead.) RobertM525 09:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Count of Auvergne?[edit]

I arrived at this article following the counts of Auvergne in the Rulers of Auvergne page, but here I finfd no evidence of him being count of Auvergne.

His second wife was the countess of Auvergne and Boulogne. I've added her to the page. Choess 15:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Decision to return to England?[edit]

The article is a bit biased in saying John sacrificed himself to return to England. France was devestated by years of war and the black plague, while England had all sorts of good things for Jean.

Royal privileges?[edit]

I have added a {{Fact}} tag to the following paragraph, as it isn't consistent with the preceding one which says that he was held captive at a variety of locations. Can someone verify this? --MichaelMaggs 11:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

*As a prisoner of the English, the King of France was granted royal privileges, permitted to travel about, and to enjoy a regal lifestyle. At a time when law and order was breaking down in France and the government was having a hard time raising money for the defense of the realm, his account books during his captivity show that he was purchasing horses, pets and clothes while maintaining an astrologer and a court band.

Contradition with Treaty of Mantes[edit]

In "Treaty of Mantes" it is written that "By the treaty, ... but the peace he desired was not sustained and Charles... assassinated his constable, Charles de la Cerda, later that year." Thus the treaty was before the assassination.

On the other hand, this article says "...Charles II of Navarre... was implicated in the assassination of the Constable of France, Charles de la Cerda. Nevertheless... John signed the Treaty of Mantes with Charles." Thus the assassination happened before the treaty.

What is correct?

Top.Squark (talk) 14:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I quickly checked one of the references on Treaty of Mantes (Zacour), and he makes it clear that the treaty followed the assassination. Choess (talk) 14:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
If so, I suggest you correct the article and place the appropriate reference. Top.Squark (talk) 18:35, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


I'm happy to consider whether the text on sexuality is phrased correctly or whether the sources are the right ones. But I would rather engage in a discussion first please before removing such a large piece of text (which is dealt with by mainstream academics in a fairly straightforward way). Proper objections would be welcome. Contaldo80 (talk) 18:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The piece of text sucks on several levels, and the approach to the subject is terrible. Yes i used the word "sucks". How can anybody come out and say "Like all sodomites in the middle ages...Jean le Bon... was a bisexual" First off, nobody uses the word "sodomites" anymore in serious discourse, so forget that. Second, a huge leap is made to make homosexuals=bisexuals simply because they lived at that time, not to mention talks about it as though it were proven fact...Preposterous assumptions. Finally is the citation: please don't tell me some new book says he was gay in one little paragraph. Come on, its like 3rd or 4th hand information from a paperback book with a obvious agenda to sensationalize and sell books. So we've got what? rumour? speculation? Not good enough for an encyopedic entry. In short, the passage is not acceptable. I hope nobody takes my history so lightly when I die, like assuming i was gay because i have close guy friends or work for some guy, who knew a guy, who was gay. CJ DUB (talk) 00:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


Like many sodomites in the Middle Ages or ancien regime, John was more of a bisexual than a homosexual in the modern sense of the word; he took a wife Bonne of Luxembourg, and fathered 10 children, in eleven years. Yet the love of his life was Charles de la Cerda, a childhood friend. La Cerda was given various honours and appointed to the high position of connetable when John became king; he accompanied the king on all his official journeys to the provinces. La Cerda's rise at court excited the jealousy of the French barons, several of whom stabbed him to death in 1354 [1]. La Cerda's fate paralleled that of Edward II's Piers Gaveston in England, and John II of Castile's Alvaro de Luna in Spain; the position of a royal favourite was a dangerous one.

John's grief on La Cerda's death was overt and public, producing episodes of fury and despair - the king's feelings, as was often true in the case of similar liaisons in early modern Europe, were well known.[2]

You need to sign your posts please. I happen to agree partly with you - the opening of the paragraph is poor and needs rephrasing and causes confusion (although arguably 'sodomite' is the term that would have best been understood during the medieval period). I do not, however, agree that there should be no inclusion of the issue - I think it's of interest and relevant to the topic. Improvement rather than removal is the key here. I've had a go at fixing the article so hopefully better addresses the points raised - the original source is actually Jean le Bon by Jean Deviosse, Paris, 1985 (this is what's quoted in the Aldrich & Wotherspoon book). Therefore a valid academic resource. I'm not sure I agree with your assertion that there is an 'agenda to sensationalise', however, which suggests there is a lack of objectivity. I haven't found that myself after looking at the source. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Please come up with a better ref, that book is not legit. It cites some other recent book? And where does Devoisse get his references from? lol. How about find and read a reference that specifically mentions either a) a primary reference where some close contemporary stated or remarked that he was "gay" or the equivalent, or b) a weight of evidence citing specific primary reference examples of behaviour of Jean le Bon consistent with actual homosexuality. Anyting else and you are making bold speculations about a guy that lived six hundred years ago. CJ DUB (talk) 00:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but do you know better or something - you seem very confident? The Aldrich & Wotherspoon book is absolutely legitimate - not that it's even been cited anymore. You're jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions by arguing it is non-objective. For wikipedia purposes it is sufficient to reference the Devoisse book (as an academic source) and to set out the view of a historian - I don't need to start digging up primary sources but I will if I have to. If you have another historian you would like to quote then please go ahead and do so. Contaldo80 (talk) 10:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Why does EVERY article I come to have a long, long doscussion on sex?? This is very strange. Is all of wikipedia like thatt? -Bolinda (talk) 04:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)Bolinda

Does it have anything to do with the fact that you're stalking me and have decided to go systematically through my comments? Contaldo80 (talk) 15:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Name the source if you wish to claim homo/bisexuality[edit]

I have searched through my copy of Jean Deviosse's book on Jean le Bon, but have not been able to find any sentence in which the author suggests a romantic relationship between king Jean and La Cerda. I have therefore adapted the sentence in question in this article to match the French wiki-page as well as the view in several academic books: that rumors were spread of an alledged affair between the two by Charles II of Navarre, as part of his slander campaign against king Jean. If you wish to include a statement that some historians think Jean le Bon was bi/homosexual, please include specific references, to the exact page of the book where it can be found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:58, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

jure uxoris[edit]

What does this mean? Bolinda (talk) 04:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

By right of the wife. It means that the wife is the one with a claim to rule. See jure uxoris for more. -Rrius (talk) 04:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


Jean II, "denier d'Or aux fleurs de lys", 1351.

Here's a denier of Jean II. Feel free to insert it in the article. Cheers PHG (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


So according to this article and the articles for his two wives, in chrono order:

  • Bona's last kid was born in October 1349,
  • Jean married Joanna in Feb. 1349,
  • Bona died in Sept. 1349,
  • Joanna's first kid was born in 1350.

This is obviously wrong. Can someone with access to a brick and mortar book please correct the record here? -- Y not? 15:15, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, here's what Leo van de Pas' genealogy site says:
  • Bona's (called here "Judith," for some reason) last child born October 1348
  • Bona dies September 1349
  • Jean II marries Jeanne February 1350
I assume the "February 1349" comes from the old civil calendar that started on March 25, so that the marriage occured in February 1349/50. Looking at the article, it also says Bona's last kid was born in October 1348, not 1349. john k (talk) 15:55, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
OK, thanks, that's all fixed now (at least in this article). Now, did he marry Joanna on 13 February or on 19 February? We have both dates in the article. -- Y not? 16:13, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Adding sexual orientation category to this biography may be a WP:CAT/R#Sexuality violation[edit]

WP:CAT/R#Sexuality For a dead person, there must be a verified consensus of reliable published sources that the description is appropriate. For example, while some sources have claimed that William Shakespeare was gay or bisexual, there is not a sufficient consensus among scholars to support categorizing him as such. Similarly, a living person who is caught in a gay prostitution scandal, but continues to assert their heterosexuality, can not be categorized as gay. Categories that make allegations about sexuality – such as "closeted homosexuals" or "people suspected to be gay" – are not acceptable under any circumstances. If such a category is created, it should be immediately depopulated and deleted. Note that as similar categories of this type have actually been attempted in the past, they may be speedily deleted (as a G4) and do not require another debate at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion. User: Pgarret (talk) 06:36, 12 November 2012 (UTC).

We need reliable sources for category claims. It may well be that such sources are indeed available and you can list them in the article - but if not, then who is saying that these people fit the bill? Just deciding that you think they fit the description is Original Research - and that's not allowed here. I need to see a few reliable little blue number in each categorization that links to a reference document that can be examined to confirm Basic Academic rigour

Most people that are listed in the misleading LGBT categorization can also be connected with the following:
-Heteroflexibility -is a form of a sexual orientation or situational sexual behavior characterized by minimal homosexual activity despite a primarily heterosexual sexual :orientation that is considered to distinguish it from bisexuality.
-Pansexual- A person who is fluid in sexual orientation and/or gender or sex identity.
-Polyamory- is the practice of having multiple open, honest love relationships.
-Affectional orientation - To holders of this view, one's orientation is defined by whom one is predisposed to fall in love with, whether or not one desires that person sexually
-MSM- are male persons who engage in sexual activity with members of the same sex, regardless of how they identify themselves; many men choose not to (or cannot for other reasons) accept sexual identities of homosexual or bisexual.
-Situational sexual behaviour is sexual behavior of a kind that is different from that which the person normally exhibits, due to a social environment that in :some way permits, encourages, or compels those acts.
Many people change their sexual behavior depending on the situation or at different points in their life.[3] For example, men and women in a university may engage in bisexual activities, but only in that environment. Experimentation of this sort is more common among adolescents (or just after), both male and female. Some colloquialisms for this trend include "heteroflexible",[4] "BUG" (Bisexual Until Graduation), or "LUG" (Lesbian Until Graduation).[5]
Sexual orientation
A report from the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health states, "For some people, sexual orientation is continuous and fixed throughout their lives. For others, sexual orientation may be fluid and change over time".[6] "There . . . [was, as of 1995,] essentially no research on the longitudinal stability of sexual orientation over the adult life span. . . . [I]t [was] . . . still an unanswered question whether . . . [the] measure [of "the complex components of sexual orientation as differentiated from other aspects of sexual identity at one point in time"] will predict future behavior or orientation. Certainly, it [was] . . . not a good predictor of past behavior and self-identity, given the developmental process common to most gay men and lesbians (i.e., denial of homosexual interests and heterosexual experimentation prior to the coming-out process)."[7]
Kinsey scale
Heterosexual-Homosexual Rating Scale,[8] attempts to describe a person's sexual history or episodes of his or her sexual activity at a given time. Ituses a scale from 0, meaning exclusively heterosexual, to 6, meaning exclusively homosexual.


  1. ^ J. Deviosse, Jean Le Bon, Paris, 1985
  2. ^ Didier Godard in Who's who in gay and lesbian history, London, 1990 (Ed Wotherspoon and Aldrich)
  3. ^ Rosario, M., Schrimshaw, E., Hunter, J., & Braun, L. (2006, February). Sexual identity development among lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths: Consistency and change over time. Journal of Sex Research, 43(1), 46–58. Retrieved February 8, 2011.
  4. ^ Thompson, E.M.; Morgan, E.M. (2008). ""Mostly straight" young women: Variations in sexual behavior and identity development". Developmental Psychology. 44 (1): 15–21. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.44.1.15. PMID 18194001. 
  5. ^ See for instance "Campus Lesbians Step Into Unfamiliar Light" New York Times, June 5, 1993
  6. ^ "ARQ2: Question A2 – Sexual Orientation". Centre for Addiction and Mental Health. Retrieved 2007-08-28. 
  7. ^ Gonsiorek, John C., Randall L Sell, & James D. Weinrich, Definition and Measurement of Sexual Orientation (feature), in Suicide & Life – Threatening Behavior (N.Y.: Guilford (ISSN 03630234)), vol. 25 (prob Suppl), 1995, p. 40 or 40 ff. (prob. pp. 40–51) ((ProQuest (ProQuest document ID 7736731) (Text Only)) (Full Text), as accessed Mar. 20, 2010 (alternative document URL (prob. also in PsycINFO) (abstract <>, as accessed Mar. 17, 2010, or
  8. ^ "Kinsey's Heterosexual-Homosexual Rating :Scale". The Kinsey Institute. Retrieved 8 September 2011. 

User: Pgarret (talk) 09:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC).

I have taken the article out of the list of "LGBT history prior to the 19th century" for the simple reason that the discussion above about his alledged bi/homo-sexuality seemed to be based on a reference to a book that never says he is either of these things. In fact, the book of Devoisse only mentions the rumours spread by their political opponent in order to discredit John and La Cerda. As the LGBT lists are not meant for lists of people rumoured to be LGBT, John II of France does not belong on this list. Gadifere (talk) 11:47, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
I've reverted this. While I accept that categorising John himself as LGBT is difficult (although there is plenty of evidence to suggest such a category may be workable). That is nevertheless distinct from 'LGBT history' where the category is a marker indicating to readers articles of general potential interest. Precisely because identification of homosexuality prior to the 19th century is not easy readers will come across articles where it is not black and white. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:05, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I support Gadifere's point of view. There is no reason to label John II as a homosexual. These were only rumors to defame him. By the way, to paraphrase your argumentation here, I should challenge your "LGBT history prior to the 19th century" category, as LGBT theories emerged only in the late 20th century, therefore applying its concepts to history is misleading and anachronistic. Blaue Max (talk) 09:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
to Contaldo80:Where are your sources? you do say to have "plenty of evidence". I certainly never came accross reliable sources that give credit to this rumour spread by a political (and highly unreliable) opponent, Charles II of Navarre - and please list them before putting the article back on the LGBT list, thank you! Gadifere (talk) 10:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
John II is mentioned in Aldrich and Wotherspoon's, Who's who in gay and lesbian history. That would seem to me sufficient to register the article as of interest to pre-19th century LGBT history. LGBT history is not simply about identifying who and who is not homosexual, because that is hard to do in historical periods when homosexuals were persecuted. And I'm not arguing that we categorise John as homosexual (or LGBT). Instead the intention is to flag issues, people, events of interest to those studying the history of homosexuality. Gadifere - you may well be an expert on John II and say that you've never come across any evidence; but I think if you're going to make that argument you'd need to reassure me that you've read a wide number of reliable and objective sources. The key point is that rumours were spread that John enyoyed a homosexual relationship with Charles de la Cedre - this tells us something about how the issue of homosexuality was viewed/ treated before the 19th century (ie with suspicion and grave consequences). On the separate issue of roman catholicism, the inclusion is sheer nonsense. One cannot be a roman catholic before the reformation as they did not exist; just as it would be odd to label someone living in the 6th century a lutheran or whatever. Until someone can provide a clear source that says John II was a roman catholic then we need to take this out. Contaldo80 (talk) 09:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for responding. I've checked Who's who in gay and lesbian history and quite frankly, I'm not impressed. The entry (p. 228, see google books) lists Devoisse's biography on John II as source. So I checked the google books version of Devoisse's book and searched through it, trying to find a passage where it is said that John II and La Cerda were indeed, according to Devoisse, in a amorous and/or sexual relationship. Nothing of the sort. In fact, he states that it was a political slander campaign by Charles of Navarre which gave birth to this rumour - clearly no grounds to give it any credit.
* Furthermore, the entry in Who's who in gay and lesbian history is extremely vague and over-simplistic about every other aspect of John II's life (he did not get captured in 1356 and die right after that in imprisonment, for instance).
* Moreover, that his relationship with La Cerda could also be explained as a typical relationship between a king and his favorite is not explored at all. If we're going to label every king (or any high nobleman for that matter) and his favorite as falling somewhere in the LGBT catagory simply because it follows the pattern of "favorite getting insane amount of favours --> rest of aristocracy jealous --> favorite murdered --> king goes into public mourning" the list will be loooooong. Favorites often than not were the closest friend a king had. Going into mourning for a friend is natural enough and does not necessarily imply homo/bisexuality. The entry on John II in the book Who's who in gay and lesbian history is simply a jumping to conclusions and a result of poor research - and thus not a reliable source.
* Next to Devoisse's biography, I've checked the German academic work on John II's life: Thomas Heinz, Johann II. 1350-1364. in: Die französischen Könige des Mittelalters 888 - 1498: Von Odo bis Karl VIII (1996) (see google books: - once again: no allusion to homosexuality. Only a discussion of the rivalry between La Cerda and Charles of Navarre and the subsequent murder of the favourite. So that's why I feel we should ignore what Who's who in gay and lesbian history claims, as two throroughly researched biographies do not support this.
I understand your argument of wanting to include John II's article because of the rumours spread by Charles II of Navarra and the light it sheds on the attitude towards homosexuality in France of that time. However, viewing the Category: LGBT history prior to the 19th century, it's not entirely clear to me what is or isn't included in this catagory? There are even articles in there that have no mention of homosexuality (or any link to LGBT history) in the texts, but somehow ended up on the list (for instance: Walter Hungerford, 1st Baron Hungerford of Heytesbury). If anything, that catagory needs a massive clean-up or a clearer definition of what is or isn't included. Furthermore, I feel a discussion of (false) accusations of homosexuality in the Middle Ages belongs in the topic of the History of homosexuality, or the not yet existing topic of Homosexuality in the middle ages, in which, of course, can be referred to such a case as John II and La Cerda. Simply putting the article on a confusing catagory list isn't going to serve people searching for related articles... Gadifere (talk) 11:58, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
Nice and thorough reasoning. I think you've made the argument well and accept we should drop the category. Thanks. Contaldo80 (talk) 13:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC)