Talk:Joan of England, Queen of Sicily

Biography: Royalty and Nobility Start‑class

	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
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.

Sicily Start‑class High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sicily, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Sicily 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.SicilyWikipedia:WikiProject SicilyTemplate:WikiProject SicilySicily articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Middle Ages: Crusades Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Crusades task force.

English Royalty Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women's History Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sicily project[edit]

I have copied the project tag here from the dab page. I suspect it should be removed from the dab page, but I will leave that to someone from the project. John (Jwy) 18:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Robert of Torigny and 1181 birth of Bohemond[edit]

"According to Robert of Torigny, they had one son, Bohemond, who was born in 1181 but died in infancy; however, as there is no indication of him ever existing in any other source of the time, Torigny's words are tainted by invention or misconception, not to mention that Joanna would have been 14 or 15 at this time and therefore too young for a legal conception.[2] "

I challenge this bizarre statement on these grounds:

— The author of this sentence was not logged in as a Wikipedia editor, and I consider that suspicious for such a substantive change. The edit was made at midnight between 30 and 31 May 2014: • (cur | prev) 00:00, 31 May 2014‎ ‪90.244.143.202‬ (talk)‎ . . (12,021 bytes) ‪(+297)‬‎ . . (→‎‪Queen consort of Sicily‬) (undo) • https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:90.244.143.202&action=edit&redlink=1

— The author refers to Robert de Torigny by his place name on second reference as if it were a surname. This may seem a minor point, but it reveals the author's modern bias and lack of knowledge about the MA.

— Joan was born in October 1165 and would have been 15 or 16 when her son was born, not 14 or 15. This is plain math. Moreover, it also speaks to the author's modern bias. The author is applying modern standards of behavior that don't signify here. What is meant by "legal conception"? Joan married at age 11 and would have been 14 or 15 when her son was conceived. Bohemond's conception was legal. My own grandmother married at 14 and had my half-uncle Jack at 15 & 5 months.

— Robert de Torigny was godfather to Joan's next older sister Eleanor (born in 1161), and would have had inside information on the royal family. Moreover, the charge that his accounts were "tainted by invention or misconception" is also odd. My understanding — from his Wikipedia article — is that he was a Dragnet kind of guy who reported the facts without analysis or speculation, didn't have much of a political agenda, and that such modern charges stem from misinterpretation by modern scholars of his narrative style.

I would like to know exactly what Robert de Torigny said about Joan's son, and exactly how the cited reference interpreted it.

Feedback please? If there are no objections, I intend to undo the edit.

Dee Fraser 22:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment as stated, on all points. The proximity and access that Robert de Torigny had to the family gives his word the weight necessary for his chronicle to be valid. Mention of Bohemond is made in The Chronicle of Robert of Torigni, Abbot of the Monastery of St Michael-in-Peril-of-the-Sea (Volume 4 of Chronicles of the Reigns of Stephen, Henry II and Richard I). On what evidence does Alison Weir discredit de Torigny? From the preface to the chronicle, pg. xix - "Robert of Torigni's chronicles is not one of those works which bring us into personal contact with the author. He never writes to us about things, but he enters facts to us on a record, for our use..." De Torigny is a primary source and Weir is not. I approve of undoing the edit.

Elizabeth Churchill (talk) 00:59, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I second that agreement. I also approve of undoing the edit. Paula Jane Mildenhall

I also agree that this article should be corrected, whether reverted to an earlier version or the offending passage excised. I agree with all points, and also was especially confused by the phrase "legal conception." "Conception" is a physical happening, not a legal term. In legal terms, 12 was the age of consent for girls at this time; of course, many girls were married younger with the consent of their parents. Usually intercourse would be delayed until a girl was older--but to speak of "legal conception" is nonsense. If she had started her menses, she was physically capable of conceiving and even today girls can conceive at age 14 or 15 or even younger (leaving aside any argument of the wisdom of such a thing). Did Weir really use that idiotic phrase, or was it the nameless editor? Either way, it is ridiculous, and the basis for Robert of Torigny to have the information that he reports seems sound, and no evidence for dismissing his information has been presented--I certainly wouldn't dismiss it on the basis of a comment by Weir, who no matter how respected a writer she may be is at best a secondary and probably a tertiary source (I don't have her book to check and see what *her* sources were or even if she had any).Tiggywinkle25 (talk) 05:23, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]