Talk:Appia Annia Regilla

Rome
I have made two edits to correct inaccurate info. First the Tomb of Rediculum is generally regarded as the tomb of Annia Regilla and is certainly not the tomb of Cecillia Metella, which is a much larger edifice on the Appian Way. Second, the name "Capo di Bove" was only applied to her property in the Middle Ages and not when she was living. Roundtheworld (talk) 06:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Disappointment
This article could have been much better written. There is a fascinating story here -- a political marriage, details of the life of the rich & influential of the Later Roman Empire, & a murder trial -- but very little is brought out. All this article provides is a dry genealogical account & a list of some statuary she & her husband had created -- & by the way, she was murdered, her brother sued her husband over her death & the future emperor Marcus Aurelius successfully defended the husband. Those last three statements -- murder, court trial, Marcus Aurelius was a lawyer in the case -- draws any sympathetic reader to want to know more. What were the circumstances of their marriage: was it entirely out of politics, or was there any affection between the two? How did the law case proceed? (Roman Law is very different from Modern Law, especially criminal law.) Why did Marcus Aurelius take a part in this: did he have any motivations beyond loyalty to his old teacher? While it would be tempting to paraphrase Sarah Pomeroy's book on this case, there is enough information on Roman Law -- & the social history of the 2nd century AD -- that any account of the trial could be expanded beyond her account. -- llywrch (talk) 20:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Aspasia Annia Regilla. 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://archive.is/20130415223443/http://pleiades.stoa.org/places/96965149 to http://pleiades.stoa.org/places/96965149

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Unbalanced tag
There is a lot of garish publicity over the murder of Regilla, which moderns generate somewhat unprofessionally. The problems I see with this article are mainly in the name. It contradicts the professionals, and the sources are either websites giving unprofessional opinions, or books without relevant page numbers. First of all, at that date a 6-word female name is ridiculous and pretentious, more in the line of modern empress names. Aspasia Annia Regilla belonged to the family of the Annii Regilli. Women get the feminine of the clan name, which led to a certain problem is distinguishing clan females. Julia, for example, of the JUlii. The number of Julias may well be uncountable. The Annii Regilli are an old clan, started by an Annus who merited the name Regillus. This is all explained under WP Roman naming conventions, which in my view happens to be pretty good. But, it isn't a source. The Annii were long diluted away as a distant branch of the family. Thus they cannot have been Regilla's immediate family and she cannot have been a straight out-and-out Annia. That is why the ancient sources call her Regilla and not Annia. Appia? Good L., are we to go back to Appius Claudius at that late date? She cannot have been named after the Appii, if they even still existed. She took on a Greek name, Aspasia, probably after her marriage to a Greek. As for the other 3 names, that is her mother's name. No one ancient is named her name and her mother's name. Since women changed names at marriage, and the mother had a totally different name, we have to leave the mother out of it. As far as I know, no ancient Roman woman was so pretentious and powerful as to start their own clan names. Powerful though they might be, they had to use the male family names, as they had a patrilineal system. So, we need to face this article. Any modern can be a properly published source if he or she is a properly published person. But what good is that when amateurs interested in garish murders dabble in matters they know nothing about for the money? A proper balanced presentation would be best.Botteville (talk) 05:17, 17 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Not sure why this tag is appropriate for the lead, as it refers to a section, and the lead is hardly sensationalized or unprofessional. In fact, the article doesn't seem to reflect "garish publicity" at all—and however "moderns" (precisely who is meant is unclear) may regard it seems irrelevant to both the tag and the criticism given here, which apparently is all about Regilla's name.  However, her aristocratic polyonymous name is well-attested and not the product of websites giving unprofessional opinions that contradict professionals—vague claims for which no sources are cited.  PIR mentions this exact name in 1898, PW uses it decades later.  I know of no reason why aristocratic women of the early empire should not have had polyonymous names like those of their male contemporaries.  Does hers allude to the Claudii?  Perhaps indirectly, but if the editor were familiar with the Annia gens, he might note that several of them used the praenomen Appius in imperial times.  And this Regilla doesn't seem to be exceptional even in her own family—PW shows that she had two daughters: Appia Annia Claudia Atilia Regilla Elpinice Agrippina Atria Polla, and Marcia Annia Claudia Alcia Athenais Gavidia Latiaris—nine and seven names respectively; their brothers included Tiberius Claudius Marcus Appius Atilius Bradua Regillus Atticus and Tiberius Claudius Herodes Lucius Vibullius Regillus.  What this shows is that Roman aristocrats of this period accumulated names from both sides of their family.  In this case we can see traces of several noble Roman families: the Annii Regilli, the Atilii Braduae, the Claudii Attici, and the Vibulii Rufi.  Some of the other names belonged to one or another of these families, or from other ancestors.  I can find no coherent argument for this tag besides a vague but unfounded suspicion regarding the name, so I am removing it.  P Aculeius (talk) 05:02, 6 May 2022 (UTC)