Talk:Eleanor, Fair Maid of Brittany

Poorly written article

This is a very poorly written article. It reads like an undereducated high school history paper. Please address. Timber72 (talk) 12:55, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Would be glad to have someone improve it. Although I really have found a lot of details to fulfill the article, I have to admit that English is not my mother tongue.——Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 06:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

I'd be happy to help edit it for you. I'll tackle it when I have the chance. Timber72 (talk) 13:32, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, many thanks.——Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 16:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

About the section of Legend

I do not speak French, when I tried to get information from the French equivalent, I had to do online translation, but for this section, I could not ensure its accuracy. If the section added by me had faults, I would like someone who is good at French to correct it.Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 08:12, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

An inaccessible source to me

Eleanor of Brittany and her Treatment by King John and Henry III is an article by Gwen Seabourne, but it is currently inaccessible to me, so I can only get some trivial information from it by Google. As far as I am concerned the article is about the life of Eleanor and is much more detailed than any other English sources I can find up to now. I think it must contain much useful information to help readers know much more about the poor girl (although I am now convinced that she had been treated well by Henry III, but it is under no doubt that she was never released or permitted to marry).

So I am waiting for someone that is accessible to the article. Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 14:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Now I have downloaded its PDF.——Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 23:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Copy-edit...

As per our talk page discussion, I'll have a look over this properly over the next couple of days, but some thoughts in the meantime:

• Some of the references/citations need expanding slightly. For example, where you're citing "Eleanor of Brittany and her Treatment by King John and Henry III" by G. Seabourne, you'll need to explain what it is. In this case, it's an academic journal, so you might expand it to:

"Eleanor of Brittany and her Treatment by King John and Henry III," G. Seabourne. Nottingham Medieval Studies, Vol. LI (2007), pp. 73-110.

• ...here are various styles of doing this but you'll need to make clear in each case whether it's a book, or an article, etc. so that another editor could find it. Have a look at The History of Bristol, Civil and Ecclesiastical: Including Biographical Notices of Eminent and Distinguished Natives by John Corry and John Evans next, perhaps - if it's a book, where was it published and by who? What's the publication date? (I'm happy to help out as necessary!)
• Where you're citing a book or an article, you'll need to give the page number where the piece of information was. So, rather than just saying the information is in Seabourne, if it was on page 73 you'll need to say: "Seabourne, p.73." - or, if the information was spread over several pages, e.g. pages 73-4, "Seabourne, pp.73-4." This will help other editors find the relevant bit in a long volume.
• Where you're citing a web page, you'll need to include both the link and the title of the web page, as well as the date when you looked at it. So, for your reference to "British History Online" you might have:

"Houses of Benedictine nuns: Abbey, later priory, of Amesbury," British History On-Line. Accessed 10 January 2011.

• ...again, there is more than one way of doing it, but you'll need those three bits of information at the least.
• There's a fuller explanation on this at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources.
• Hchc2009 (talk) 11:11, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Hmm, as suggested above, I am inaccessible to "Eleanor of Brittany and her Treatment by King John and Henry III," G. Seabourne and I could only dig some information by Google without accurate pages. And I do not think I am able to get relevant physical books, let alone read them.... For some detailed editting jobs, I may not have enough time now, as I have my own jobs to do currently. After all, I am glad to see your help. Thank you again.Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 00:33, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

By the way, I have thought to combine "Imprisonment" and "Some Details", but failed to do so. I would be glad if the two sections can be combined.Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 13:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
Now accurate pages are written, except the inaccessible one.Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 13:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Semi-Captivity?

Though it is me who found the word from Internet and added to the article, I do not quite understand where does "semi" present here. As far as I am concerned, Eleanor was put under house arrest rather than in prison. She MIGHT be allowed to visit Woodstock; she was likely to be permitted to have a ride sometimes; she was exhibited to the public annually while at Bristol Castle. However, I also find that she was "closely guarded" even after child-bearing years, or "under strict custody", which suggested that she had little private freedom in her life, as King Henry III would never permit her to give birth to a child or flee or be rescued.... So what does "semi" present here?Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 03:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I suspect it is someone trying to communicate that she was not imprisoned in the sense of being locked in a gaol, but was still in captivity and not entirely free to travel. I think your current text communicates that sense quite well actually. Hchc2009 (talk) 18:26, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Now I think such descriptions on Internet rather than in books might not be so accurate, as in fact the expenses of Bristol Castle on locks and keys between 1225 and 1227 might suggest that Eleanor had been somehow locked in the tower or room, for reasons unclear, as I have not found if there had been turbulence around Gloucestershire, if irrelevant to Henry III's refusal to obey the charters.——Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 23:01, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

needs huge work

there are a number of nonsequiturs and unexplained comments in this article and in places it reads like a faulty translation. See the comments in << >> below Childhood Eleanor, closely resembling her father, with dark hair and eyes,[2] was brought up by her uncle Richard I and grandmother Eleanor of Aquitaine.[3] However, ¬<<why do you say however? That implies some kind of contradiction that you don’t explain. This is a chronic problem throughout the article.>> it also meant that she was under Angevin custody, and thus even her mother, Constance, never considered her a potential heir to Brittany, which weakened her later claim to the duchy.[4] As her younger brother Arthur was the heir apparent to England, she was one of the most sought after princesses at that time.[2] In 1190, when Richard failed to marry his younger sister Joan to Saphadin, brother of Saracen leader Saladin, he proposed that Eleanor should be the bride instead, but the negotiation was also in vain, as Saphadin showed no interest in Christianity.[5][6] In 1193, she was engaged to Frederick son of Leopold V, Duke of Austria. However, when she was still on the way there with Baldwin de Béthune <<who is this and why do we care?>> the next year, the duke died, so the marriage never took place,[3] and under order of the Pope she returned, accompanied by her grandmother Queen Eleanor.[6][2] In summer 1195, a marriage between her and Louis son of Philip II of France was suggested, but also failed. It is said <<citation needed>> that the Emperor opposed the marriage, and the failure was a sign <<how can it be a sign, a foreshadowing of this if the emperor opposed the marriage? it would be a sign if it was Richard who made it fail >> that Richard would replace Arthur with his only living brother, John. This soon led to the <<the is a definite article and should be used if this has been discussed before. Use the indefinite article “a”>> sudden deterioration between Richard and both Philip and Brittany. [2]In 1199 some thought Eleanor should be married to Odo Duke of Burgundy, but Philip ordered Odo not marry any female relatives of Richard.[7]

[edit] Imprisonment Upon the death of Richard I of England, a power struggle commenced between Eleanor's 12-year-old brother Arthur I, Duke of Brittany and King John of England. Between 1199 and 1200 Eleanor was likely to have appeared in England, probably already captured by John rather <<rather implies that she was captured somewhere else than Mirebeau and the rest of the sentence implies that happened in England. where was she captured?>> than at the Battle of Mirebeau along with Arthur and his knights. It was also said that Arthur had complained that John confined his sister before the battle, and when John declared his victory he never mentioned that he captured Eleanor.[7] Her brother Arthur disappeared mysteriously in 1203. However, as Eleanor was still a potential heiress to John, currently with no legitimate issue, at least preferable to later claimants to the throne such as Prince Louis of France, it was unlikely that John had already decided to confine his niece for life.[7]

On December 6 in the same year, John fled Normandy taking Eleanor as his captive. It was said that Eleanor was initially taken to North of England and then Bristol, guarded by 4 knights.[8] In spring 1204, Philip II of France demanded that Eleanor be released. In this year it was certain that Eleanor was imprisoned at Corfe Castle along with 25 French knights loyal to her. After an attempt to escape, 22 of them were recaptured and starved.[9] In 1208 the British bishops followed <<they could follow the deman if they took action to give her up. if they didn’t take such action, follow is the wrong verb.>> the demand of Philip II, when the death of Arthur became known to the public. In the same year, bishops of Nantes, Vannes and Cornouaille openly attempted to liberate Eleanor, only to be frustrated by John, and many of her supporters were punished.[3] Eleanor was forced to entrust Brittany and Richmond to John, who referred her as his "dearest niece" while communicating with Bretons.[7] As the eldest daughter of Constance, Eleanor should have been recognized as Duchess of Brittany after the death of her brother Arthur. But instead, the Breton barons (fearing King John's claims to rule Brittany in representation of Eleanor's rights or married her to a vassal loyal to England) made her younger half-sister Alix duchess instead. However, it was said Eleanor succeeded Arthur in Richmond and was thus styled 5th Countess of Richmond, and the Bretons, ignorant of her whereabouts, were always ready for the case if << I think “for the case” should be “in case” and how were they ready, ready to do what?>> she was found.[2] In fact John permitted her to use the titles of Brittany and Richmond, and he even talked with Breton nobles about letting her go. In May this year she was put << this isn’t good English. what was done that she ended up there>> at Salisbury.[7]

In 1213, John took Eleanor <<took her where?>> to blackmail Pierre I of Brittany husband and co-ruler of Alix and tempted him with Richmond, but Pierre kept loyal to France, even after the capture of his elder brother Robert in Nantes.[10] <<what does this capture have to do with anything? who captured him? >> In the same year John declared England as a papal fief, and Pope Innocent III thus <<non sequitur, how is the pope’s claim dependent on John’s declaration? you have to explain these things>> claimed himself guardian of Eleanor. <<citation needed>> In February 1214, John once had a campaign << “once had a campaign” is clumsy, should probably read “campaigned”>> in Aquitaine and Poitou with Eleanor, as well as his queen and Prince Richard,[7] to scheme << should probably take out “to scheme”>> against Alix, hoping to get Breton support and establish Eleanor as his puppet duchess, but only to be defeated at de La Roche-aux-Moines. In July, John withdrew to England, with Eleanor still in his hand. <<clumsy English, take out “his”. >> In the same year John once <<take out “once” it means one time only. If it means “I once had a friend,” that’s an indefinite time expression and it’s incompatible with “in the same year” >> talked with Breton nobles about the rights and freedom of Eleanor, but after this expedition English kings never supported Eleanor to be the duchess even in name.[7]

The tensions between John and barons finally began to spill over into war in 1215. When the Magna Carta was issued that year , it was demanded that all hostages held by John including Scottish princesses and Welsh and others << and others is redundant>> be released, however, it had nothing to do with Eleanor.[7] <<why not, did it explicitly leave her out?>> John died towards the end of the civil conflict in 1216; although according to the laws of primogeniture her claim was better, the English barons allowed King John's son, Henry. After John died, Peter de Maulay was in charge of her.[7]

As her claim to the throne of England was a threat to the reign of both John and the later Henry III, before his death John believed that Eleanor should never be released, which would be agreed by Henry III and his regents.[11] Thus, albeit never a rallying point for English discontent during the early part of Henry III's reign,[7] Eleanor was still put under semi-captivity.[5] In 1219, her earldom of Richmond was given to Pierre I of Brittany after the recognition of William Marshal the regent of Henry, <<what does this recognition have to do with the transfer of Richmond? >> and it would never be returned even after Pierre renounced it in 1235. From June 13, 1222, she was transferred between Gloucester (July 31, 1222 to July 20, 1223), Marlborough (August 20 to October 9, 1223 and January 1224) and Bristol (before Michaelmas 1224), finally settled at Bristol from June 1224 for a time.[7] She died testate <<testate means possessed of a will and testament. should either take that out or tell who inherited what under the will and testament >> as a nun in 1241 at Corfe Castle in prison,[12] and was buried at Amesbury Abbey. She also donated her body there.[13] It was also said that she died in Bristol and initially buried at St. James' Church.[14][15]

[edit] Lifestyle in imprisonmentThe 39 years of imprisonment of Eleanor was mysterious. Though never tried or sentenced,[16] she was viewed as a "state prisoner" and forbidden to marry (although John had promised her to) and guarded closely even after her child-bearing years,[11] while never locked in a cell.[17][2] She lived in the Gloriet Tower added <<added to what castle?>> in John's time, had meals in the Long Hall and was allowed to walk along the walls.[2] <<the outsides or the tops? >> Some reports indicate that she was living a relatively comfortable life, despite rumors that she was starved to death by orders of King John, as John predeceased her as long as 25 years.[18] <<what does this length of time have to do with her comfortable life in the meantime? >> While imprisoned at Bristol and closely watched by Henry III, she was found to live <<this reads like a faulty translation. Just say “lived”>> as a royal princess, and it was recorded that she received generous gifts from the royal family.[5] Sometimes certain noblewomen were permitted to visit her privately. Henry himself once sent her 50 yards of linen cloth, three wimples, 50 pounds of almonds and raisins respectively and a basket of figs.[19]

While imprisoned by her uncle John, Eleanor was allowed to have 3 maids, and was provided fabric for clothes and bedding, and pocket money as much as 5 mark per quarter.[20] <<this sentence belongs with her treatment by John. >> She also got a saddle with gilded reins and scarlet ornaments from John and another saddle from Henry III, which implied that she might be a horsewoman, and that she could not always be confined in her room. John also sent her figs and almonds, so these might be of her favor.[17] <<this sentence belongs with her treatment by John. >> A shopping list for Eleanor in captivity was recorded and it suggested the aristocratic diet at that time.[21] <<how? If irrelevant, take it out >> In 1209, William I of Scotland sent his daughters Margaret and Isobel to John as hostages, and they were also imprisoned at Corfe Castle along with Eleanor. <<this sentence should be in their life stories unless the three kept company together, which ought to be stated if true. >> In June 1213, John sent green robes, lambskin-trimmed cloaks, and summer slippers to the three noble ladies.[17] <<this sentence belongs with her treatment by John. >> The ladies were sometimes allowed to ride out under the strictest guard. For Eleanor herself, she got robes of dark green with capes of cambric and hats trimmed with miniver.[2]

In 1221, it was said that some people, maybe foreigners, planned to rescue Eleanor and deliver her to the King of France. In 1225, Peter de Maulay was accused of planning with the king of France to get a ship to spirit Eleanor away, and he subsequently fell out of favor. In fact the allegation might be false, only to descredit Peter and Peter des Roches, who also fell out of favor in spring 1234. <<this sentence belongs with the mention of Maulay previously. >> No matter whether the plot occurred or not, Eleanor was soon moved away from the coast. She once appeared in Woodstock, safe and sound to <<to is the wrong preposition except if she was a ghost>> Henry III in November 1237. While she was in Gloucester (1237 to Easter or November 1238), the sheriff there paid for her expenses. When the sheriff, John Fitz Geoffrey, <<if this is the sheriff who paid, these two sentences should be combined >> was given 100 shilling as payment, it was only for her expenses and maintenance rather than for the castle.[7] 4.249.63.86 (talk) 23:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry to reply so late, as I seldom watch its talk page.... From English to English there can be no faulty translation, I think, if there is some faults, maybe I have used some wrong verbs....

For "however", I mean Angevin custody effectively weakened Eleanor's claim to Brittany.

For Baldwin de Béthune, I only want to be as detailed as possible.

"the Emperor opposed the marriage" was mentioned in "Eleanor of Brittany and Her Treatment by King John and Henry III", but I am afraid that I cannot provide the accurate pages, see the title on this talk page above. "it would be a sign if it was Richard who made it fail", yes, it is.

<<rather implies that she was captured somewhere else than Mirebeau and the rest of the sentence implies that happened in England. where was she captured?>> I do not know. Maybe John kept her in Normandy/England, then returned her to Arthur (I really have googled it but do not think it is convincing), finally recaptured the siblings in Mirebeau?

<<they could follow the deman if they took action to give her up. if they didn’t take such action, follow is the wrong verb.>> I mean they also demanded the release of Eleanor. English is actually not my mother tongue, if I have used a wrong verb, I would like to be told and corrected.

"how were they ready, ready to do what?" In my opinion, according to Costain, the Bretons were ready for the case once Eleanor was found and able to act as their duchess.

<<took her where?>> Nowhere.... John wanted to blackmail Pierre by raising Eleanor's claim to Brittany, I think. <<what does this capture have to do with anything? who captured him? >> John did. Even after his brother was captured Pierre never submitted to John.

<<non sequitur, how is the pope’s claim dependent on John’s declaration? you have to explain these things>>: England belonged to John and John declared it fief of Pope.... I do not know much.

<<why not, did it explicitly leave her out?>> Quite some sources proved the rebel barons never, if sometimes, said anything for the freedom and rights of Eleanor during the First Barons' War. The Magna Carta never mentioned her. Some commented that it was a sign that female rights were somehow ignored at that time. At then the English might not be ready to accept a female monarch, perhaps.

<<what does this recognition have to do with the transfer of Richmond? >> In my opinion, after Arthur disappeared, Alix succeeded Brittany and Eleanor succeeded Richmond, but in 1219 William the Marshal recognized that Pierre husband of Alix as the Earl of Richmond, I think it meant that Eleanor lost her last (nominal) title.

<<testate means possessed of a will and testament. should either take that out or tell who inherited what under the will and testament >> I failed to find out whom and what.... In fact I am also curious about who could be the one that received her will.

<<added to what castle?>> Corfe.

<<the outsides or the tops? >> Inside the walls, surely. She was imprisoned.

<what does this length of time have to do with her comfortable life in the meantime? >> Here I mean that John could not have ordered her to be starved; nothing to do with her lifestyle.

As for the contents, I have tried to combine "Imprisonment" and "Lifestyle" but failed. I am sorry.

<<how? If irrelevant, take it out >> See the notes.

<<this sentence should be in their life stories unless the three kept company together, which ought to be stated if true. >> I think I am sure that they were in the same castle and always got together. Anything wrong?

Thanks for correcting. I would try my best to fix the article.Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 06:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The article is now re-organized in chronological sequence. But where could I put the conclusion? Is my current choice OK?Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 12:10, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

"William married Alice de Bethune, daughter of his father's friend Baldwin de Bethune, in September 1214." Here Baldwin appeared at the article of William Marshal, 2nd Earl of Pembroke.Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 12:07, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Now the article of Baldwin of Bethune was newly created.Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 18:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

1249, 8 years after her death, what did the king want to do for her?

I find one of my citing might be challenged for the strange year the event took place:

^ Bristol Castle:In a code of instructions signed at Berkeley, August 28th, 1249, the King enjoins the mayor and bailiff of Bristol "to lengthen three windows of his chapel, and to whitewash it throughout; also glass windows are ordered to be put in our hall at Bristol, a royal seat in the same hall, and dormant tables around the same, and block up the doors of the chapel beside our great hall there, and make a door in the chancel towards the hermitage; in that hermitage make an altar to St. Edward, and in the turret over that hermitage make a chamber for the clerk with appurtenances; also build a kitchen and a sewer beside the said hall, and find the wages of a certain chaplain whom we have ordered to celebrate divine service in the chapel of our tower there all the days of our life, for Eleanor of Brittany, our cousin, to wit, 50s. per annum."

If the instruction was signed in 1249, how could the late Eleanor "wit" it? In fact I have found sources saying that Henry III increased her apartment/household (during her lifetime, surely), but if he did this 8 years after her death, what did he want to do for her? For her soul to wit?Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 09:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Quote: Her Titles - England, Brittany and Richmond

Hello! There is certainly no doubt that both Arthur and Eleanor had better claim than John and Henry III according to today's standards. I removed the succession boxes because, as far as I know, Arthur never called himself king of England and Eleanor never called herself queen of England or duchess of Brittany. Now, they were the rightful heirs to both the kingdom and the duchy but I'm not sure we need those succession boxes. Eleanor especially didn't really claim either throne - she never formally renounced them but that doesn't give us a right to label her as a claimant. James Francis Edward is someone we can call a claimant because he actively claimed the crowns and the titles of his father - much unlike Arthur and Eleanor. Surtsicna (talk) 14:18, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

It might be difficult for the captive princess to claim her rights actively.... In 1214 she accompanied John during his campaign to France to scheme against Alix of Brittany, but I could not tell whether she was willing to do so. Whatever, I think I can be sure that she had been styled Countess of Richmond, at least. I found quite some sources referring to her as "Countess of Richmond" or simply "c. Richmond". If there was any doubt — did she use this title till 1219 1218 when it was granted to Pierre or some time before the year?Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 15:08, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

If she did not claim the titles of queen of England and duchess of Brittany, we shouldn't claim that she did claim them. As simple as that. Surtsicna (talk) 16:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem we have, as Surtsicna has pointed out, is that yes, both Arthur & Eleanor had a better "claim" to the throne than did either John or Henry III...by today's legal standards. However, in early 13th century England, the laws for succession simply did not exist, and would not exist for quite some time. It simply was a matter of who had the most political power at the time. As stated elsewhere, succession could be by inheritance, statute, election, right of conquest (as in the case of Henry VII, who had a weaker claim than his own wife, but who became king by virtue of his defeat of Richard III at Bosworth Field, the last English or British monarch to (successfully) lay such claim), nomination, etc. As there was no law governing succession, the monarchy had to rely on precedence. It had been shown within living memory that the English would not, for the most part, accept a queen regnant (Matilda), so Eleanor the Fair's claim was moot from the start. It had also been shown that primogeniture was not in effect, as William I willed England to his second son, Rufus, rather than his eldest, Robert, who received Normandy, just a bit more than 100 years previously. And upon the death of William Rufus, their still younger brother Henry I seized the throne, still over Robert's "claim." Then, not 35 years later, Stephen exerts a claim to the throne which...again, by modern understanding of succession...he simply did not have. As the son of a daughter of a monarch, he was lower in the line of succession than the daughter of a son, which Matilda was...which didn't stop him from ruling as the de facto king for nearly 20 years. After the line of succession was "restored" to Henry II, we have three of his five sons pre-deceasing him, and the other two both reigning as king. As Richard's designated heir-apparent, had Richard I lived longer, it is probable that Arthur would have been king, if he outlived Richard. But he was not old enough to be king at the time of Richard's death, and there was already another adult brother around: John. Richard proclaimed John heir on his deathbed, and in the absence of laws governing succession, this was all that was needed for John to legitimately claim the throne for himself, again with the precedent not 100 years earlier of Robert Curthose, Rufus, and Henry I. And in all cases, Arthur pre-deceased both John & Henry III, so the throne would have been John's anyway (yes, I realize that John may have been the cause of Arthur's disappearance; notwithstanding, Arthur was still gone before John died.) BUT...while Eleanor's claim HERSELF was moot, there was precedence for the SON of the daughter with a legitimate claim to the throne (for Geoffrey, had he lived, would have been the undisputed heir apparent to Richard I, and thus king upon Richard's death in 1199) to have a legitimate claim himself, in the form of Henry II. This is why, ignoring Eleanor the Fair's claim for HERSELF, that both John & Henry III kept a very close eye on her until her death, for fear that she would produce a son who, like Henry II, could lay a successful claim to the throne. Otherwise, according to the practice and precedent of the time, John was the legal heir to the throne of England, over and above either Arthur or Eleanor's claims (which, as has been noted before, they did not press very hard, in Arthur's case, or at all, in Eleanor's case.) Timber72 (talk) 13:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

To respond I need to get your opinion. If AGE had been a standard for kings, how could the 9-year-old Henry III become king while the 12-year-old Arthur could not? Why could not Arthur have regents as Henry III did? Had Geoffrey outlived Richard, he would become the next king, and certainly he would pass the throne to his own children. So I, as well as the modern standards, suggest that all Geoffrey's descendants had a better claim than John and those of him. However, as Geoffrey predeceased Richard, then the Norman succession law favored John while the Angevin favored Arthur. In your opinion, if Richard had designated Arthur and Arthur became a king de facto, Arthur would become LEGAL; but Richard designated John and John was powerful enough to reign as a king de facto, so John became LEGAL? And the former William II, Henry I and Stephen had also been LEGAL kings JUST for their POWER to maintain their EFFECTIVE reigns? Thus how could John be sometimes called a USURPER, e.g. by Charles Dickens? If I have not misunderstood, Henry de Bracton the jurist at that time also suggested that Arthur was more legal than John as the successor to Richard.

As for that of Eleanor, the ignorance of her claim was somehow due to her captivity, but her claim always EXISTED during her lifetime, as Tyrell suggested it as the reason that she was never released. Do you mean that Eleanor could not have an EFFECTIVE claim unless she got enough strength to EFFECTIVELY raise her case like Matilda? Yes, while Arthur was 12, John was 33; but when Henry III was 9, Eleanor was 32. Do you mean if Arthur was a son of Richard then his age would not be a problem? I have realized the weakness and dispute of female successions at that time, but that was no formal regulation which clearly stated that a princess like Eleanor could not become a Queen regnant HERSELF, as Matilda had been Lady of England (though unsuccessful), while it was certain that the French territories could be succeeded by women and their descendants (non-Salic law); so, with both Eleanor of Aquitaine and Arthur gone, the legal successor of Aquitaine and Anjou was also Eleanor, according to the Angevin succession law, while the only problem was that she could not have the power to inherit them in place of either John or the French. Finally, how could Annales Londonienses claim Eleanor as the RIGHTFUL heir of England during the reign of Henry III who succeeded the throne from his father John? Even if we ignored those books that also called Henry III a USURPER like his father, and the only reason was, undoutedly, the existence of Eleanor.——Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 06:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

About the Novel The Shimmering Sky

English is not my mother tongue, so I am not sure whether I got the story (see the link): Did the Pearl accept the fact that she lost the throne? What did the decision of the protectors about her final treatment, "theoretically confinement" mean, close/strict confinement, house arrest, or merely nominal confinement that in fact would set the Pearl free? How would the protectors employ Guy now lover of the Pearl? Would they be separated forever at last? Hoping somebody to explain to me.Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 09:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Correction: The POV of Pope on her English claim

Initially I thought Pope thought Eleanor had a better claim than Henry, and inferred the Pope was Honorius; but now I think he meant she had a better claim than Louis, her cousin-in-law. So the Pope might be more likely Innocent than Honorius.Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 02:07, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Now I am sure as I have read the full article of Gwen Seabourne.——Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 22:49, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

File:Below the Salt.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Below the Salt.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 10 October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:52, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Thomas Costain Below the Salt Cover.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Thomas Costain Below the Salt Cover.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale as of 12 October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:32, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Here Be Dragons

I could read little about it on Internet. In fact I only learned that Eleanor appeared captive in it and that someone in the novel said "I heard people call you 'Pearl of Brittany' and now I know why", implying she was still beautiful then, but no useful information else, so I failed to conclude how she was described there. So did that case of In the Midnight Shadow.Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 16:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Lanercost: citation needed?

I do not know why. I got "Eleanor was determined and tactful" by Google. I think the chronicle could be found and no one would cite it to reach a wrong assessment of her.Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 18:45, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Countess of Richmond

There's something I don't quite understand: Eleanor was styled Countess of Richmond from 1208 to 1219, and then the Earldom passed to Peter of Dreux, her half-sister Alix's husband.

But there are charters made by Alix and Peter before 1219, in which they use the titles comitissa/comes Richemundie (see Everard and Jones, The Charters of Duchess Constance of Brittany and Her Family (1171-1221), pp 169,170, 173). For instance, charter Ae5 dates back to July 1214, and charter Ae2 (dealing with the Earldom of Richmond) was made between 1203 and 1213, maybe before Alix's marriage since Peter (who acted as a regent for her between their wedding and her death) isn't mentioned in it.

So how could it be possible for Eleanor to be suo jure Countess of Richmond while her younger half-sister used this title at the same time? I think it might be more accurate to say that Eleanor was only titular Countess of Richmond (and even Duchess of Brittany, since John Lackland allowed her to use this title). Aziliz Breizh (talk) 15:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

After all Richmond is in England, so I do not think Pierre or Alix could administrate it. But John and Henry III could do this in the name of Eleanor the Countess.——Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 18:09, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

The year was 1218 rather than 1219 as I have corrected.——Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 19:01, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Edits

I made a little change to King Richard's name. Maymichael2 (talk) 18:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

However, it seems to have been considered unnecessary.——Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 14:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Eleanor, Fair Maid of Brittany. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110817224029/http://history-notes.co.uk/Kings%20and%20Queens/Henry%20III.html to http://history-notes.co.uk/Kings%20and%20Queens/Henry%20III.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Comma Chameleon

Hello Wikifolk,

I was wondering if the lack of a comma in the bolded usage of her name was intentional or if it was missing one. Pretty minor but it should be consistent with the article's title if the comma is indeed missing.

Be good people Seabass715 (talk) 23:53, 31 January 2022 (UTC)Seabass715

Does this doubt still exist?——Heinrich ⅩⅦ von Bayern (talk) 13:00, 27 January 2024 (UTC)