Talk:Charles I of Anjou

Charles the ? of ??
OK, royalty/nobility experts, this is technically off-topic but since you're gathered here, I need some advice about what seems to me to be a more serious naming convention issue than the above. There is an article called Charles I of Sicily. The bold first mention is "Charles of Anjou . . . also Charles I of Sicily." So far so good. It also says, however, that "he was King of Sicily 1262–1282 (and under that title, King of Naples 1282–1285)." And, among other things, count of Anjou.

Charles I's successor has an article called Charles II of Naples. Are we getting worried yet? The intro says he was king of Naples and Sicily, as well as count of Anjou, but apparently he was never crowned King of Sicily (and the info box at the end doesn't mention Sicily). In the article on Kings of Sicily, however, it says that the Kingdom of Naples was actually an informal name and that the Kingdom of Sicily was the official name even though it didn't include Sicily anymore. (For more than a century there was another King of Sicily who actually ruled Sicily.) There is also a Charles III of the Neapolitan Sicily, whose article is titled Charles III of Naples.

Charles II's successor as count of Anjou is listed in the info box as Charles III. Charles III has an article called Charles of Valois. The bold first mention is "Charles III of Valois," but Valois didn't even enter the picture with respect to Charles I or II. In fact, he was the first count of Valois. He seems to have been the third Charles to be count of Anjou.

Charles III's nephew was Charles IV of France, but this is merely coincidence, as Charles III of France is from the 800s.

Anybody want to jump in here? It appears to me that Charles of Valois should be bold-first-mentioned as "Charles of Valois" and "Charles III, count of Anjou". I'm not sure what to do about Naples and Sicily.Aldrichio 15:57, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I edited leads at Charles I of Sicily and Charles of Valois. Does that clear it up? Srnec 16:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I think so. Nicely done.Aldrichio 16:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I've moved Charles I of Sicily to Charles I of Naples. Although he and his heirs claimed to be Kings of 'Sicily', common practice is to denote them as Kings of 'Naples': Charles I was King of Sicily for most of his life, but he was not King of what is now termed the post vespers Kingdom of Sicily when he died. That, and the continuity between him and his heirs (Charles II, Charles III), means the article should be under Charles I of Naples). Michael Sanders 16:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a big move to make unilaterally. But I don't oppose it. Who's going to fix the redirects? Srnec 16:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

It makes sense to me. Readers will be less confused.Eldredo19:51, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not a big fan of the move, but whatever. Why are we discussing this here? john k 20:38, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Hum. Like John, I can't say I approve of the move. Charles, after all, did reign over both Sicily and Naples, the only one of his house to do so. The fact that Sicily was in revolt at the time of his death, a situation later recognized by the Treaty of Caltabellotta, doesn't diminish that. Edward VIII of the United Kingdom is where he is, not at "Edward, Duke of Windsor". Choess 03:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Because Edward didn't continue to reign as a monarch ("Former or deposed monarchs should be referred to by their previous monarchical title with the exception of those who are still alive and are most commonly referred to by a non-monarchical title; all former or deposed monarchs should revert to their previous monarchical title upon death"). Although the naming conventions don't specifically address the issue of monarchs who were booted off one throne but retained another, Naming conventions (names and titles) tells us to "Take care to use the correct name of the state at the time when a monarch reigned" and that "if an obscure official name of a state exists alongside a clearly understood one, it is fine to use the more widely known version. For example, Kings of Greece rather than the technically correct Kings of the Hellenes." Although the Angevin realm in Southern Italy was formally called the 'Kingdom of Sicily', the post-vespers realm is historically termed the 'Kingdom of Naples' - thus, using a 'clearly understood' name alongside 'an obscure official one' (obscure because readers expect 'the Kingdom of Sicily' to refer to the co-existent 'Kingdom of Trinacria'). In this case, Charles had been ousted entirely from the island, and another man crowned king and ruling in his place; whilst he continued his pretensions after 1282, by the time of his death he was definitely not 'King of Sicily' in the sense understood by modern readers, but only in the sense that his son was also 'King of Sicily' - and Charles II is termed 'King of Naples' to the modern reader. I also fail to see the relevance of Charles reigning over both Naples and Sicily (and the fact that he was the only one of his house to do so is supremely irrelevant, since we are not writing to glorify the House of Anjou), since he was not doing so at the time of his death. Michael Sanders 08:14, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Describing Charles as "booted off one throne but retaining another" is inaccurate. In 1130 the  Kingdom of Sicily was created.  It contained both the island of Sicily  and all of Italy south  of the Papal States.  This entire kingdom was granted by the Pope to Charles of Anjou in 1262, conquered by him in 126, and held by him against Conradin's challenge in 1268.  In 1282, one particular portion of his kingdom, the island of Sicily, rebelled against him, overthrew his rule, and brought in the King of Aragon to be king.  The situation after 1282, then, is not that Charles was booted from his throne.  It is that Charles was expelled from part of his kingdom, which then set up its own, new, kingship under the House  of Aragon.  The throne t hat Charles held after 1282 was precisely the same one he had held before 1282, he just didn't control the whole territory that he claimed, and, confusingly, the particularly area that he didn't control happened to be the one for which the kingdom was named.  Because of this  confusion, Charles's successors came to be known informally as "Kings of Naples," so as to distinguish the continental Kingdom of Sicily from the insular Kingdom of Sicily.  But, nonetheless, Charles was expelled from no thrones, and he and his successors remained properly Kings of Sicily down to the creation of the unified Kingdom of the Two Sicilies in 1816 (with the exception of the period of rule of Joseph Bonaparte and Joachim Murat in Naples, who were formally called "King of Naples," a title which was also formally given, I believe, to the future Philip II of Spain immediately before his marriage to Mary Tudor.)  Anyway, the basic  point is that there were not two crowns in southern Italy until the Sicilians offered a new Sicilian crown to Pedro of Aragon.  Certainly, use of "King of Naples" before the Angevins actually recognized the independence of the island in 1302 seems inappropriate.  Using 1302, rather than 1282, as the breaking point seems appropriate here, and would result in the old article title locations - Charles I of Sicily is followed by Charles II of Naples. john k 16:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's also worth noting that, at the time, the kings of insular Sicily were generally called Kings of Trinacria, and that "King of Sicily" continued to generally be assumed to refer to the monarch ruling in Naples for some time after 1302. john k 16:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Nonetheless, the Kingdom north of the Straits is commonly described as the 'Kingdom of Naples'. It is true that, technically, the Angevins were named 'King of Sicily' and the Aragonese named 'King of Trinacria'; however, the division between the two is made at the division of one into two crowns, when Charles I - by modern standards - ceased to be 'King of the island of Sicily', and remained only 'King of the mainland around Naples'. Michael Sanders 17:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't claim any special knowledge of royalty nomenclature, but my two cents, for whatever it's worth, is that, unless there's a good reason not to, it's preferable to have all the King Charleses (or Jameses or Richards or whoever) who are in the same line of I, II, III, etc. to have the same title. Otherwise, the average reader will go, as I did, "What the heck is going on here?" At the same time, I recognize that there are situations where that doesn't necessarily work. The current situation could be one of them. Or it might make more sense to call them all Kings of Sicily, and then explain why there are two simultaneous Kings of Sicily, like popes and antipopes. Or maybe it makes sense to keep calling all of them Kings of Naples, based on the idea that that's how they became informally known and that, even though the first one didn't actually use that title even informally, it's OK from a realist perspective to give it to him. All I'm saying is that if the consensus is that there's a decent rationale for going with all-Naples or all-Sicily, it seems to me that the one-name-fits-all solution is substantially preferable to mixing them up.Eldredo01:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it makes more sense to refer to all of the Angevin Neopolitans as 'King of Naples' - that is what the post-1282 Kingdom is called, and the Manual of Style quite specifically advocates an understandable style over a 'correct' but unfamiliar or confusing style (e.g. 'King of Greece' over 'King of the Hellenes'). In this case, the peninsular kingdom is always termed 'Kingdom of Naples', so readers will expect to see the Kings listed under there; it will moreover be fantastically confusing to anyone if there are two co-existant sets of 'Kings of Sicily', with one set not even ruling in what is commonly termed the 'Kingdom of Sicily'. It's bad enough that there are two sets of Kings of Naples. Michael Sanders 11:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Certainly from Charles II onwards we should use "of Naples." For Charles I, who did  rule Sicily for most  of his reign, and who never recognized his loss of that island, which was not clearly permanent at the time of his death, I'd prefer to use "of Sicily."  And  it's not always possible to number the same way.  In this case, I'd prefer to stick with "of Sicily". I agree with Michael that using "of Sicily" for everyone would be deeply confusing.  john k 15:15, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see it as particularly relevant either that he did not recognise his deposition on the Island of Sicily (clarity there), or that it was not clearly permanent at that time - the point remains that it was permanent, and that when he died he was King only of what is today termed the "Kingdom of Naples". That, and simple encyclopaedic pragmatism (Charles I of Naples succeeded by Charles II of Naples), suggests that 'Charles I of Naples' is the better article title. Alternatively, is he more commonly known by either of those titles, or as "Charles of Anjou"? Michael Sanders 16:02, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "Charles of Anjou" is certainly the name by which he is most commonly known. john k 16:12, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * BTW, as far as precedence for deposed monarchs who continue to also be monarchs goes, we do have Francis II, Holy Roman Emperor. That would seem a fairly clear  precedent for Charles I of Sicily.  Charles was King of Sicily for 16 years.   He ruled over just the mainland for only 3.  There seems a fairly strong case for putting the title he actually used throughout his reign, and which actually matched his real power for the longest period, as well. john k 16:14, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The reasoning for Francis II appears from his discussion page to be that if he was referred to as 'Francis I of Austria', the readers would get him confused with his grandfather, the Holy Roman Emperor Francis I who was also married to the monarch of Austria. The same cannot be said here - indeed, the precedent set by Francis II/I appears to be "go with the simplest and least confusing title" - which, here, is "Charles I of Naples" rather than "Charles I of Sicily", since the latter entails long and complex explanations about the complexities of south Italian history.


 * Possibly it would be simplest to survey a move to "Charles of Anjou", if that is the most common name. Michael Sanders 16:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Charles of Anjou is, on the other hand, mildly ambiguous and also against naming conventions. But it still might be the best title.  I'm not sure. john k 19:39, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I could go for that. Anjou was a rather minor title for the second and third Charleses, and the fourth seems usually to be known by his previous title, the Count of Maine. (And you cannot imagine how aggrieved mortified I am to have been tagged as a Guelph.) Choess 04:11, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Charles of Anjou sounds good to me. It has the virtue of not leading the reader to look for that next numeral in the series and being disappointed when he doesn't find one that matches up. (Not that I would insist that this should be avoided in every case, but if it can, that's a point in favor of the solution.) Eldredo18:49, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Regent of France?
The article claims that "In November 1252, the death of his mother Blanche of Castile caused him [Charles] to go north to Paris and assume the joint regency of the kingdom with his brother Alphonse." However, according the article "Louis IX of France", Louis was born in 1215 hence in 1252 he was 37, quite capable of ruling by himself. Moreover, the later article asserts that "His contemporaries viewed his reign as co-rule between the king and his mother, though historians generally view the year 1234 as the year in which Louis ruled as king with his mother assuming a more advisory role", that is, Louis became the de facto ruler 18 years before the supposed regency of Charles.

A similar problem is present in the article "Simon de Monfort" (see the talk page there)

Maybe France needed a regent because Louis IX was off on a crusade?

Top.Squark 16:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Louis IX was off on crusade until 1254. john k 18:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Seal
Here's a seal of Charles, king of Sicily. Feel free to insert it in the article. PHG (talk) 19:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

gabelles, alberga, cavalcata and quista
The text refers to "revenues on the gabelles (mainly salt), from alberga (commutation of gîte) and cavalcata (commutation of the duties of military service) and quista ("aids") (Baratier 1969)"

From the context, I assume these were various forms of taxes that were owed to a feudal liege by his subjects. I was trying to find out more information about the history of these obligations. The names are now so obscure that they do not seem to appear in English language dictionaries, and Google results are dominated by references to holiday homes called gites in France and modern foreign language references to alberga and cavalcata.

Does anyone have more information on the meanings and usage of these words in a feudal context? It would be great to add a footnote or even add an explanation to the Wikipedia articles about various types of feudal obligations. Tpkaplan (talk) 16:31, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Charles I of Naples. 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/20050228083343/http://etext.lib.virginia.edu:80/etcbin/toccer-new?id=WedLord&tag=public&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&part=0 to http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new?id=WedLord&tag=public&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&part=0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:12, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 29 August 2017

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Move. We have consensus that the Anjou connection is more common. Cúchullain t/ c 18:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Charles I of Naples → Charles I of Anjou – The present title of the article is an invention which cannot be verified by reliable sources, in clear contradiction to WP:NOR and WP:NAME. Charles I of Anjou is his most common name. Borsoka (talk) 04:22, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * "Charles I of Naples" is not his name. It just a form of disambiguation. His names was Charles, his number was "I" and his kingdom was (after 1282) Naples. "Charles I of Sicily" might be better, since that was the actual name of the kingdom at the time. The proposed title is the title of a recent biography, so it makes sense, but the rationale is wrong. "Charles I of Naples" is just a short form of "Charles I (king of Naples)", common Wikipedia. Srnec (talk) 16:00, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comment. He was never styled King of Naples. He was king of Sicily. Could you refer to reliable sources verifying the use of the form "Charles I of Naples"? Or alternatively, could you refer to academic sources which refer to him as "Charles I of Sicily"? Borsoka (talk) 16:08, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know about the title. As I said, "the actual name of the kingdom at the time" was Sicily. But the rump kingdom over which he ruled after 1282 is commonly called the kingdom of Naples and he is known retrospectively as king of Naples (see, e.g., Britannica). We are free to choose the form of disambiguation, so no source is needed for the exact title "Charles I of Naples" or "Charles I of Sicily". Srnec (talk) 17:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I do not understand your above remark. According to WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, "Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject. There is often more than one appropriate title for an article. In that case, editors choose the best title by consensus based on the considerations that this page explains." Neither Charles I of Naples, nor Charles I of Sicily have been so far verified. For the time being, there seems to be a single version (Charles I of Anjou) which is in ine with the relevant WP policy. Borsoka (talk) 18:04, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The present title is in line with our guidelines; see WP:SOVEREIGN. It is not an "invention", but a perfectly reasonable abbreviation of, e.g., Charles I. (King of Naples), i.e. disambiguation of the ambiguous name "Charles I". —Srnec (talk) 22:26, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I still think that "Charles I of Naples" is clearly an invention. All publications using it are based on this article: . The policy you referred to also says that "It is generally advisable to use the most common form of the name used in reliable sources in English ("common name" in the case of royalty and nobility may also include a person's title), but there are other things which should be considered: ease of use, precision, concision, and consistency among article titles." "Some monarchs have a name by which they are clearly most commonly known (in English), such as a cognomen, patronym, their first name, or some other name, and which identifies them unambiguously; in such cases this name is usually chosen as the article title." Borsoka (talk) 01:36, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It can certainly be verified. See here. —Srnec (talk) 01:08, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your list. Yes, it clearly verifies the use of the name. Borsoka (talk) 01:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:NCROY: "Where a monarch has reigned over a number of states, use the most commonly associated ordinal and state. [...]". His title of King of Sicily/Naples was definitely more important than his dignity of Count of Anjou. "of Naples" is a a form of disambiguation, not a part of his name. --Norden1990 (talk) 22:19, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. I find this a difficult case. Borsoka is definitely correct in stating that this man's most common name is "Charles I of Anjou". That is plain and obvious with and without the recent biography. Yet Srnec correctly notes that "of Naples" is a disambiguator; after all, the most common name for Henry VII of England is just "Henry VII". We even go a step further and use the disambiguator where it's not needed for the sake of a consistency, ending up with titles such as Henry VIII of England and Louis XIV of France. I would also add that Charles I of Naples' ruling male-line descendants are generally known as "[Name] of Anjou". Robert of Anjou and Jadwiga of Anjou are referred to as such at least as much as they are called Robert of Naples and Jadwiga of Poland. Or more often. I cannot say for certain, but I doubt the title Louis I of Hungary reflects common usage. I am not sure what we can make of all this. Surtsicna (talk) 20:32, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, WP commonly ignores WP:Name when naming articles about royals. I have experienced several times that a significant number of editors sharply oppose the using of cognomens ("Louis the Great", "Philip the Fair", etc.). I think there was a period when most articles about monarchs were renamed to create a "neutral" system: "Name Number of Country" or "Name Number, Title of Country". I think this is acceptable, even if it diminishes the cultural level of WP, because any change could lead to edit wars. Borsoka (talk) 04:30, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Support - the scholar link supplied by Srnec above, when flipped to use "of Anjou" instead of "of Naples" shows around ten times as many results. All the evidence suggests that the "of Anjou" title is indeed more common. Norden1990 above quotes WP:NCROY, which advises us to use "the most commonly associated ordinal and state", but they then go on to say we should use Naples because it is "more important", whatever that means. By the letter of NCROY we should go with the actual title most commonly associated, which is apparently Anjou. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 14:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Date of birth - known or unknown?
''The date of his birth was not recorded. He was most probably a posthumous son, born in early 1227, months after his father died in November 1226.''
 * Yet, we have the date 21 March 1226 shown without qualification in the lede and the infobox.

We must stop speaking with a forked tongue, and tell the same story - whatever the true version is - in all places. --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  18:24, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The article is in the middle of expansion. The date is a leftover from an unsourced version soon to be replaced. Surtsicna (talk) 22:38, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your message. The date was replaced. Borsoka (talk) 05:43, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Too much detail?
Borsoka is doing a great job expanding this article, but I feel it goes into too much detail in some places. Borsoka is still expanding the article but it's already quite long. Too long, I'd say, especially when bearing in mind that it doesn't yet contain as many images as it could (and should). Could we cut back on some detail? For example, Conrad of Antioch. If he had been mentioned earlier in the text as a significant supporter of Conradin, the epilogue of his story might be pertinent, but this way it just seems like a very interesting piece of... trivia. Margaret II's family dispute might also be explained more succintly. The murder of Henry of Almain is not tied to any previous or subsequent event, and Charles's role in the event is minimal and obvious. Removing excess detail would improve both the flow and layout, in my opinion. Surtsicna (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that it should be shortened in several places. However, before shortening it, it should be completed. :) Borsoka (talk) 01:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course. As far as I know, Conrad of Antioch might resurface later on! :D Surtsicna (talk) 10:25, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Alas, Conrad of Antioch did not resurface (but Srnec did pleasantly surprise us with an article about him). Does this mean we can now start cutting out some pieces? Surtsicna (talk) 21:43, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Why do you think we should? He was Conradin's only retainer to be released and only because his wife blackmailed the king. Borsoka (talk) 00:40, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I tried to explain why in my first comment. It's far from indispensible to the biography (an interesting piece of trivia, I'd say), and we now even have an article about him where the info is more pertinent. Perhaps keeping it here would not be an overkill if we delegated it to a note. My concern is that the article is now too long, unwieldy actually, due to excessive detail. Is the murder of Henry of Almain indispensible to the biography? Surtsicna (talk) 10:11, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The murder of Henry of Almain is not mentioned in the article. :) I think the reference to Conrad of Antioch is not a trivia: Charles, who had been lenient towards his opponents in 1266, spared the life of one staunch supporter of Conradin in 1268 only under duress. It is a quite remarkable difference. Of course, this article could be shortened - even if there are much longer royalty FAs (for instance, Henry I of England, Edward VI of England). Borsoka (talk) 10:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I see. There are far longer FAs than the ones you mentioned, actually. Some are so long they have been split into articles such as Early life of Pedro II of Brazil. I am of the opinion that articles are more useful when they are easier to navigate (i.e. not cluttered with details). I will try shortening the Hainaut episode. Revert if you disagree. Surtsicna (talk) 11:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * According to the relevant WP policy, the prose size of the article is "readable" (48 kB, 8107 words). Do you suggest that the policy should be modified? Borsoka (talk) 12:53, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I suggest that we improve this article by cutting out unnecessary details. This is the third time I'm saying that, and not once have I mentioned a policy. Surtsicna (talk) 13:06, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, unnecessary details should be deleted. Borsoka (talk) 13:43, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Alright. I will make some cuts. Feel free to restore content if I take out too much, of course. Surtsicna (talk) 13:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your assistance. Borsoka (talk) 13:53, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Title change and lead
The lead used to start "Charles I of Anjou..."; then the page was re-titled to "Charles I of Anjou" and the opening line was changed to just say "Charles I..."! I find this bizarre. The only reason to accept a title change was the the specific sequence of words "Charles [I] of Anjou" was far more common than "Charles I of Naples". If "of Anjou" is just a disambiguator, we are not constrained to worry about how outside sources might choose to disambiguate. We could have left it as it was ("of Naples" as disambiguator), which was more consistent with other articles. Srnec (talk) 02:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I do not understand your above remarks. What is bizarre? Are you suggesting a move? Borsoka (talk) 02:42, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Beatrice II of Forcalquier?
Was Beatrice of Savoy really the ruling Countess of Forcalquier? Was she the one to whom Forcalquier owed allegiance? I thought she only enjoyed the usufruct as her dower, while Charles and his wife still held the title. Surtsicna (talk) 11:46, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * According to the cited source, Charles "was to make a compromise with his mother-in-law, allowing her Forcelquier and a third of the Provencal revenues" (Runciman, 1958, p. 73.). Do you think this refer to the usufruct of Provence? Borsoka (talk) 12:50, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Possibly. Forcelquier was, for what it's worth, originally a chunk of Provence. Could it mean all revenues from Forcalquier and a third from Provence (i.e. that "Forcalquier" is an adjective there and not a noun)? Does the cited source (or any other) say what authority Beatrice of Savoy exercised in Forcalquier? Or is there a list of counts of Forcalquier that lists her as the titleholder? Surtsicna (talk) 13:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
 * According to an other source (Dunbabin (1998) p. 16.), "In arbitrating between Charles and his mother-in-law Beatrice of Savoy in 1256, [Louis IX of France] the king substantially enhanced his brother's political power in Provence by obtaining for him the county of Forcalquier, in return for a pension to Beatrice...". I think the text suggests that Beatrice of Savoy ruled Forcelquier before it was returned to Charles. Borsoka (talk) 13:48, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Copy edit
Greetings and others. I am here from GOCE to copy edit this rather fine looking article. If I do anything you don't like, or don't understand, feel free to flag it up here.

My first query:
 * Would you like the article copy editing into British English or American English? Or even Oxford English? (At a push I can do Canadian, but I don't think that will be needed here.) If there is no consensus or no response then I get to use my judgement. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:38, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Feel free to use any variant. I cannot distinguish them, although I think I tend to use British English. :) Borsoka (talk) 02:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)


 * To me the lengthy quote near the start beginning "During our six days' voyage..." seems unnecessary. I don't see that it adds to the article and I am inclined to delete it. Thoughts?
 * Removed


 * Any guidance as to what this is supposed to mean? "Charles abolished local tools..." Gog the Mild (talk) 10:15, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Mispelling, I tried to fix it:.
 * Thanks. (I should have realised that.)


 * "He was installed as senator on 21June and four cardinals invested him with the kingdom a week later." A sentence later " Five cardinals crowned him king on 5January 1266". I assume that one of these refers to Sicily[?] Can anyone tell me which. And which kingdom does the other refer to? Thanks.
 * I tried to fix it:.
 * Good. Thanks.


 * "He marched to southern Italy and laid siege to Lucera, but he had to hurry to the north to prevent Conradin's invasion of Apulia in late August." Lucera is in Apulia. Do the sources give a fuller explanation of why the siege was abandoned?
 * Sorry, I do not understand your above remark.
 * OK. I have made a change which seems sensible to me.


 * "The widowed Charles married Margaret of Nevers in November 1268." When, and possivbly how, did Beatrice die? Did they have any children?
 * Their children are listed under the subsection "Family".
 * Sorry, I had spotted that and meant to delete the query.


 * "Charles sent Philip and Guy of Montfort to Sicily to force the rioters into submission" from August 1269 comes a bit out of nowhere. Is it misplaced, or is there a sentence missing?
 * Sorry, I do not understand your above remark. The context is the rebellion in Sicily.
 * Thanks.


 * Re Aquinas, could someone check the wording of this quote "there is no evidence for supporting that the great doctor's death was not natural". (Runciman p 161.) It is not like Runciman to be so ungrammatical. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:53, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I fixed the sentence.
 * That's better. Thanks.
 * , thank you for your thorough copyedit. Please find my remarks above. Borsoka (talk) 12:45, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Lol. And thank you. That was just the start of the copy edit. Getting the obvious bits out of the way. I will have another run through later today or tomorrow. Thanks for your responses above, I will have a look at them. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:02, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Second run through done. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:08, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
 * , thank you for your hard work. I made some smaller edits. I would be grateful if you had time to check them . Borsoka (talk) 02:12, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Those are fine. And thanks for correcting the grammatical error I missed. You have a good article here. A lot of work has obviously gone into it. I am impressed by the density of the referencing. Gog the Mild (talk) 08:56, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Great-great-grandparents
I did not expect an objection from you, Borsoka. I honestly do not see the relevance of Matilda of Carinthia, Alfonso VII of León, Matilda of England, William X of Aquitaine, and other great-great-grandparents, nor do I understand why three great-great-grandparents are left out (Alice of Namur, García Ramírez of Navarre, and Margaret of L'Aigle). Surely Alfonso is no more relevant than García, and either all should be listed or none should be. Surtsicna (talk) 15:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Customary law. For years, this has been the form used. Nobody has so far objected it. Why should we change it? Borsoka (talk) 15:29, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * People have indeed objected to these ahnentafels, which were added unilaterally, for over a decade. We should change it because the aforementioned people are not relevant to the topic of this article. Correct me if I am wrong, but I do not think that any biographer of Charles mentions Alfonso, William, Matilda, etc. Surtsicna (talk) 16:17, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I have not so far experienced that these ahnentafels are objected. They provide a genealogical context. Borsoka (talk) 02:05, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree, but they should be checked for accuracy and potential omissions. Dimadick (talk) 09:18, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I would think that great-grandparents show more than enough genealogical context for Charles. They show his relation to the royal houses of France, England, and Castile, and the comital houses of Flanders and Hainaut, i.e. all those mentioned in the text. We do not lose any context by removing great-great-grandparents, not all of which are listed anyway. Surtsicna (talk) 10:49, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * There is a status quo. Why should we change it? Borsoka (talk) 16:33, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Because the status quo is unreasonable. Why should we keep the names of Matilda of Carinthia and Alfonso VII of Castile? Surtsicna (talk) 16:40, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
 * No, the status quo exists and there has been no objections for more than a decade. Would we improve WP if we change it? For instance, for the article Jadwiga of Poland, I could find a reliable source (Halecki's book) which present even farer ancestors. Could/Should we only present those ancestors only in the article dedicated to Jadwiga? Or could we only mention grandparents of a certain monarch if we find a book which mention them? I think the present status quo is a not irrational, so we should not change it. Of course, ahnentafels, like any other content, should be verified. Borsoka (talk) 03:18, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I am perplexed by your argument. Status quo should not be changed because it is status quo? How is anything in Wikipedia improved without changing status quo? Did anyone object to the state of the article before you expanded it? Yes, we we would improve this article by shaving off the 5th generation because the 5th generation is incomplete and irrelevant to the topic; it does not give any context that the 4th generation does not provide. Surtsicna (talk) 09:31, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think status quo is to be respected if there is no convincing arguments against it. For the time being, I have not read any convincing objection. Please read my above message again, the reference to status quo was not my only argument. I think we should not continue this debate because we presented all our arguments. Borsoka (talk) 10:30, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I am afraid I did not understand your other arguments. How does Jadwiga of Poland tie into this? Obviously, if a biographer of hers believes 5 or 6 generations are relevant and presents them all in his or her book, we have reason to follow. But which biographer of Charles I names his great-great-grandparents? If none does, that is an indicator that the information is gratuitous. The sources compiled for the ahnentafel do not even mention Charles, let alone present an ahnentafel, which makes our ahnentafel a classic example of original research by synthesis. Surtsicna (talk) 14:24, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we treat the ahnentafel in different ways: you treat it as a part of the text, I treat it as an addition, similar to a picture. Should we delete the picture about the popes' palace at Viterbo unless we cannot prove that it is depicted in a book dedicated to Charles I's life? I think the answer is a clear "No", because the Viterbo Palace is an important venue of Charles' life. Are Charles' ancestors connected to him? Yes. Why should we present his great-great-grandparents? Because great-great-grandparents of monarchs have been presented for more than a decade and it does not hurt the vast majority of editors. Its deletion would not improve the article, but it could give rise to edit wars. I think this is not an issue we should discuss. So, I stop discussing it. Borsoka (talk) 15:01, 31 March 2019 (UTC) Just a last sentence, after my last last sentence. Featured articles also contain a similar ahnentafel: Anne, Queen of Great Britain, Pedro I of Brazil, Cleopatra Selene of Syria. We can conclude that this is a well-established, consensually accepted custom. Borsoka (talk) 15:07, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * If only we treated the ahnentafel as we treat the picture of Viterbo! Viterbo is mentioned eight times in the text, so the image is relevant. None of Charles I's great-great-grandparents are mentioned in the text, so they are not relevant enough to be featured in any chart. I have always known you to be a reasonable editor, which is why the argumentum ad antiquitatem and refusal to discuss leave me dumbfounded. What confuses me even more is that you removed, without any argumentation, three great-great-grandparents (despite them having been in the chart for more than a decade) but you oppose my removal of the rest of them (due to them being there for over a decade). As for FAs with unsourced ahnentafeln, that specific issue was brought up last year by Howcheng, and the apparent consensus was that ahnentafeln could not be considered exceptions to basic Wikipedia policies. Surtsicna (talk) 16:43, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see an issue with going back that many generations. It may be cruft, but since the the afnentafel is hidden by default it doesn't take up any extra space in the page and 5 generations is pretty standard for a lot of articles. However, I am in agreement with in that is odd that these three specific people are omitted. From my experience, the only time you would leave anyone out is if the relationship is disputed/apocryphal. Since that's not the case with these three, they should be included in the chart, or that entire generation should be deleted. — howcheng   {chat} 15:48, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It is also odd that the sources used for the ahnentafel (presumably for the fifth generation) do not mention the subject of the article at all. That is a major verifiability and original research concern. Surtsicna (talk) 16:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * (1) The three persons were deleted because the cited sources do not verify their place. (2) Do what you want. Sorry, I do not have time to debate such an issue. If you think the deletion of ahnentafeln improves WP, do it. Borsoka (talk) 16:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's really a problem. Verifiability is established indirectly: we have a source to show that A is the child of B, another to show that B is the child of C, and so forth. If you do that all the way up the chain, then at no point does a WP editor hazard a guess to say "E is probably the parent of D", which would qualify as original research. Even in cases where the relationship is not 100% known, but if the sources say "E is probably the parent of D" then you can append "(probable)" after the name. As long as we are not inserting our own judgement, it's OK. Regardless, the question of whether to go back 3, 4, or 5 generations is an editorial one. — howcheng  {chat} 15:47, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I find that to be a very liberal interpretation of the policy. WP:V explicitly states that verifiability cannot be established indirectly: "Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made." Besides, if there is no RS about an individual that discusses the individual's ancestry up to a certain generation, then the relevance of that genealogy is dubious. Surtsicna (talk) 16:06, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If source 1 verifies the claim A is the parent of B, and source 2 verifies the claim that B is the parent of C, isn't that following WP:V to the letter? Source 2 doesn't need to specifically state that A is the grandparent of C because it's common knowledge that the parent of one's parent is one's grandparent. — howcheng  {chat} 05:54, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Naples vs Sicily
I thought I'd add a comment, since this seems to have generated some reverts just now. Obviously, in retrospect, we make a distinction between the mainland Regno (unofficially the "Kingdom of Naples") and the island Kingdom of Sicily, and we might well say that the Sicilian Vespers marked the effective administrative separation of the two Kingdoms. It was not at all clear at the time that this would be the case—obviously, Charles thought of himself simply as "King of Sicily" all his life and presumed he would eventually recover the island, and the de facto separation did not become de jure until the Peace of Caltabellotta in 1302. I think it's better to simply refer to him as "King of Sicily" in the lead and explain the division of the kingdom in course of the article rather than try to treat "King of Sicily" and "King of Naples" as separate titles here. Choess (talk) 04:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree, but we could perhaps move mention of the Kingdom of Naples (i.e., the rump kingdom he ruled after 1282) up from the last paragraph of the lead to the first, for clarity. Srnec (talk) 00:25, 30 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I think there is no point in moving. He ruled 6 realms and all this realms are mentioned in the first paragraph. Borsoka (talk) 01:15, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Eastern Mediterraneum
"Among modern historians, Runciman says that Charles tried to build an empire in the eastern Mediterraneum..." p. 255 of Runciman does not even use the term "Mediterraneum" (not Mediterranean) and can someone point out where it says that he tried to build an empire in the east of anywhere? I can't find anything useful elsewhere for Charles' supposed attempted conquest of the "eastern Mediterraneum". Is this a glaring typo or am I just missing something? Kingoflettuce (talk) 20:28, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Margaret/Marguerite of Bourgogne-Tonnerre (not Nevers)
Marguerite de Bourgogne is the accepted name of the second wife of Charles I of Anjou. Though her father was Count of Nevers, she was not. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_of_Burgundy,_Queen_of_Sicily, French https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marguerite_de_Bourgogne-Tonnerre. The various pages referring to her and to doings (i.e., her spouse, etc.) need to be in agreement so as not to create confusion. Either say, "daughter of Count of Nevers, Countess of Bourgogne-Tonnerre" or clarify the "Nevers" reference in another way. Thank you. FrankieItalo (talk) 16:21, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Regno?
Why is this article using the term "Regno" to refer to the Kingdom of Sicily? Regno simply means "Kingdom", and could refer to any Kingdom, so it appears to me inappropriate in this context. I would suggest to replace it throughout the article with the term "Kingdom of Sicily" (which included Southern Italy). FRZH (talk) 10:34, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Reliable sources customarily use the term in reference to the Sicilian kingdom, so we should not change it. For instance, everybody knows what the White House means, although there are tens of millions of white houses all over the world. Borsoka (talk) 12:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * What are these reliable sources? FRZH (talk) 10:14, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Sources cited in the article. Borsoka (talk) 12:32, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Picture in the infobox
thank you for the new image in the infobox. I think both its copyright status and source are unclear. Could you fix the problems? Borsoka (talk) 03:17, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * There are no "problems". There is a large commons category for this very famous museum image I'm amazed you didn't have it, but the article doesn't seem to be very high quality. Johnbod (talk) 03:58, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * can I seek your advice? I am not an copyright expert but I think a reference to a commons category for verification is quite unusual. Borsoka (talk) 04:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)


 * The category itself is not verification, but something in it may - could you clarify which image we're talking about and what your concerns are? Nikkimaria (talk) 04:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the following picture lacks a proper PD tag taking into account the freedom of panorama restrictions in Italy, and it is also unsourced. Borsoka (talk) 05:29, 27 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Not seeing unsourced, there appears to be appropriate attribution included. The freedom of panorama issues specific to Italy are non-copyright restrictions, and from my understanding Commons ignores those. The image should technically include a PD tag for the original work, although there's no doubt given the age it's out of copyright. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:27, 28 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your answer. I understand that our position on freedom of panorama issues has changed since the same picture was discussed during this article's FA candidature . I am notifying because he suggested the same picture but his suggestion was rejected. I also understand that a reference to "some old guy" is enough to identify him as Charles I of Anjou because WP commons identifies him as such. Borsoka (talk) 01:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I added a source that identifies the sculpture. could you add the PD tag for the original work. As you can read above WP position on freedom of panorama issues has changed since the same picture was rejected during the FA candidature. Again, thank you for suggesting it. Borsoka (talk) 01:39, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Done that, I think. Johnbod (talk) 03:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Borsoka (talk) 03:38, 28 November 2023 (UTC)