Talk:Eleanor of Aquitaine

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Eleanor of Aquitaine article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1

France High‑importance

	France portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Biography / European / French / Middle East / Medieval / Crusades C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military biography task force
	European military history task force
	French military history task force
	Middle Eastern military history task force
	Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500)
	Crusades task force

Biography: Military / Royalty and Nobility

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (assessed as Low-importance).

Middle Ages: Crusades Top‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Crusades task force.

English Royalty High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject English Royalty. For more information, visit the project page.English RoyaltyWikipedia:WikiProject English RoyaltyTemplate:WikiProject English RoyaltyEnglish royalty articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women's History High‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Divorce

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

This is great, thank you! — aoyma3 (talk) 09:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Style

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)[reply]

There is far too much ut dicebatur (it was said). See Sullivan 2023. Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 03:56, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Unverified material

"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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Weir cites it but gives four authors for the quote, but no citation Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 02:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC) Newburgh gives: "united by the conjugal tie, which was solemnized not very splendidly, in proportion to their rank" or in another translation, cited by Sullivan p. 36, "less solemnly than respect for their persons justified", so I have restored this quote Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 18:54, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

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)[reply]

Tasks

Continue making family trees to show relationships (done)
Bring bibliography up to GA standards (done)
Fact check and add references (done)
remove unencylopedic language (done)
Rewrite (done)
Copyedit

Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 19:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC) Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 17:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Popular Culture is rather long and could possibly be spun off Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 17:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Birthplace

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Art

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)[reply]

"Black legend"

@Michael Goodyear:, you recently added "Although Richard of Devizes admired Eleanor's perseverance in supporting her son Richard, all of them expressed negative views about women in power and hinted at some darker attributes that eventually led to the "Black Legend" that became associated with her." But "black legend" isn't mentioned anywhere else in the article. Is that something that could be expanded on? It's an intriguing teaser. Even if it were linked to black legend, that target article doesn't satisfy the reader's curiousity about how it relates to Eleanor. Schazjmd (talk) 14:36, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Black legends are typically negative and propagandistic depictions of "persons, nations or institutions". So her "black legend" seems to be her generally negative portrayal of Eleanor in traditional historiography. Compare to the Tudor myth. Which translates to providing extremely negative portrayals of both Richard II of England and Richard III of England, in order to contrast them with the supposedly superior Henry VII of England.Dimadick (talk) 16:40, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually "Black legend" is mentioned on the page, and occurs frequently in the scholarly literature. See Note (b), and the article by Turner (2008) that specifically addresses this. Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 00:02, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. The articles by Martin Aurell corroborate this further, but they are in French! I have the French originals and translated in English but not sure how to/if it is appropriate to add those to the article, as they are not published translations (finding the articles themselves was an arduous task itself...)

Linking to foreign language texts is not a problem, if appropriate. And it is here, since Eleanor was French. Linkage to unpublished translation would not be appropriate, since it would be difficult to verify. On the other hand, it is appropriate to add a translation to any quotes. Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 20:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the French version of this article draws heavily on the work of Martin Aurell. Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 20:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do however believe that the 'Golden myth' that Evans writes of in Inventing Eleanor (ch.2) will need explicit references to highlight where this has been the case, because that isn't explicitly mentioned again the article (though implied through references of the romanticisation) — aoyma3 (talk) 22:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have added a direct link to Evan's discussion, and an explicit reference in the discussion of Courtly Love. But see also Fiona Tolhurst's essay in "Medieval Women on Film: Essays on Gender, Cinema and History". I will add that in due course. Michael Goodyear ✐ ✉ 21:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Birthdate (again)

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)[reply]

Longest-serving consort

Her tenure of forty-four years would make her by far the longest-serving English royal consort before the Acts of Union. Is this worth mentioning? Robin S. Taylor (talk) 18:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]