Talk:Joan II of Navarre

Untitled
Snapdragonfly altered Henry II to Henry IV. Incorrect. It seems that the longer explanation is needed. "She thus lost France. But her descent returned to the throne of France when Henry II of France inherited the crown two centuries later, in 1549, and from that onwards, all Kings of France have been carrying also Joan's blood. (Henry II was Joan's issue in 8th generation, through for example his maternal great-grandmother Margaret of Foix-Navarre, duchess consort of Brittany, and through Margaret's husband's great-grandmother Joan of Navarre, queen of England and also duchess consort of Brittany, who herself was Joan's granddaughter.)"

Nov 16 edits to Reign section
Could you enlighten the rest of us by elaborating a bit on your edit summary for this edit, which reads simply "POV"? Eric talk 03:56, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * "These changes may have reflected a disagreement with Philip over administration of Navarre" > "These changes may have reflected a disagreement with Philip over administration of Navarre, according to W." Borsoka (talk) 04:01, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Eric talk 12:00, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Ahnentafel
Yes, the ahnentafel has been in the article unchallenged since 2009. This is how the article looked in 2009, and it went on to look like that until Borsoka revamped it in 2016. I then chimmed in, added bits here and there, including the family tree, which rendered the ahnentafel superfluous. The next logical step in improving the article was removing the collapsed, superseded and hardly useful chart. Yes, the article should have a chart because, as Place Clichy says, ancestry and heritage are important in biographies such as this one. But we do not need two charts, especially when one of those charts lists obscure and irrelevant people instead of those who actually had an impact on the subject's life. I would appreciate it if Place Clichy could explain why Maria of Swabia should be mentioned in the article, or why Alice of Forez is relevant, or Andrew II of Hungary, or Hugh of Vergy, or Eleanor of Saint-Valery, etc. No biographer of Joan ever mentioned her relation to any of them. The ahnentafel is thus trivia, if not (as Borsoka said) outright original research. Surtsicna (talk) 02:49, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, texts that cannot be verified should be deleted from articles. Ancestor charts are also covered by WP:NOR. Borsoka (talk) 03:44, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If the trouble is that the current version of the ancestry table lists too many people that go back too far in the past, I fully understand this argument and I think that we can consider removing the last level, which would cut half the people mentioned in the chart and remove all names cited by Surtsicna.
 * Aside of that, I think that ancestry charts in this format perfectly have their place in Wikipedia articles, and that removing them is not an issue specific to the Joan II of Navarre article, but should be argued and discussed in a place such as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility. I think that the other format suggested, which hand-picks a handful of selected relatives, also brings a lot of problems of WP:NPOV, whereas using the standard ancestry chart format avoids giving undue weight to such or such bias. The "family tree" suggested in this version also include names not mentioned at all in the article, such as Robert II of Burgundy, Isabella of Aragon or Louis of Évreux, or mentioned once in a very anecdotal way, such as Charles of Valois, Marie of Brabant or Isabella of France. Also, I do not think that one format can be accused of WP:OR more than the other. As an example previously cited, Alice of Forez is mentioned as the mother of Margaret of Bourbon, Queen of Navarre with link to this article, which is in turn sourced by "" so it perfectly fits Verifiability. Therefore, this is all very much a matter of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
 * In short, the ancestry chart gives valuable and indispensable information that cannot be replaced by the "family tree" suggested. It is also conveniently presented in a drop-down list so that only those interested will even see it. Therefore, removing it altogether should be the topic of a larger discussion not specific to this article. Place Clichy (talk) 23:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I must agree with User:Place Clichy on this matter, but also because the original purpose of the extant genealogy has been lost. User:Surtsicna has expanded it not realising that the original purpose of that genealogy was to depict the successions of 1316 and 1328, in which Joan played a key part, first as a deprived heir and later as the recipient of Navarre. That was always the reason for that specific genealogy, but it has since been expanded out of confusion. Edward III of England, on the other hand, still has the original successions genealogy in the minimalist form that is preferred (although Joan is conspicuously absent). Furthermore, following the precedent established for this specific succession, it should be the custom genealogy and not the ahnentafel that should be removed, although I feel both are important for different reasons (perhaps the subject of the custom genealogy should be made more clear).


 * Concerning the second point that ahnentafel charts are OR, I agree with Place Clichy that the vast abundance of royalty and aristocracy articles include such charts so writing them off in this one instance is inconsistent with Wikipedia as a whole. If the issue needs to be addressed, then it should be addressed at a better place than a single article on which it appears. Many of these genealogies are established within the linked articles, so while they may not be cited on a per-page basis, they are on a linked basis. And from a strictly informational standpoint, while including Alix de Forez may not be important to you, that does not mean it is not important to other people. This specific ahnentafel tells me many things, such as that Joan was very imbred (which was unusual for Capetians at this time); that she has Capetian, Burgundian, Champenois, and Dreux descent; and that she is well connected to many important Western European dynasties. However, I agree that this ahnentafel goes one generation too far. Most only go four degrees back (to person #31) yet this inexplicably doubles that number unnecessarily. I am okay with reducing it, but not deleting it. Just because there are currently redlinks does not mean those will not change, too. I often translate French aristocratic articles into English when I run across them in my research.


 * I think that's all my points for the moment but I'll keep following this conversation. I second the opinion that if one is to remove ahnentafel charts wholesale from royalty and aristocracy articles, it should be discussed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility first. – Whaleyland ( Talk •  Contributions ) 08:17, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

I have removed 30 of the least relevant chart entries, but that did not include all the people I cited as irrelevant to this biography. Eleanor of Saint-Valery is still there, for example, but I'd say that virtually none of her great-great-grandparents is relevant here. Why is Ramon Berenguer IV of Provence relevant? Which biographer of Joan (or any historian, for that matter) mentions her descent from Ramon Berenguer IV of Provence? Or from James I of Aragon? Why should Violant of Hungary, Alice of Vergy and Matilda of Brabant be mentioned? The issue of verifiability here is not proving their existence or their genealogical relation to Joan, but their relevance to this biography. We can find information about Barack Obama's height, but it is still not relevant enough to be mentioned in the article about him.

Some people not mentioned in the article have to be in the tree because they are links to relevant people. We cannot illustrate Joan's relation to her husband if we omit his father; we can, however, omit his mother. The relatives mentioned in the family tree are definitely not hand-picked. I kindly ask you to read the article; people mentioned in the tree are those mentioned in the text and in the sources, which is obviously in compliance with WP:V and not biased in any way. Joan's maternal grandfather, though not mentioned in the text, was added to appease the pro-ahnentafel faction. He is mentioned in the sources but "negotiable", for what that is worth :) Place Clichy, can you please tell me how you can claim that filling the tree with relatives mentioned in the text results in an undue weight issue, while filling an ahnentafel with obscure and irrelevant relatives does not?

We are currently trying to improve this specific article. What brings no benefit here may be useful elsewhere and vice versa. The article about Beethoven has an infobox; the one about Mozart does not, per talk page consensus. Besides, when was the addition of the ahnentafel discussed at the wikiproject talk page or this talk page or any other?

Whaleyland, what you gather from the ahnentafel is all nice and dandy, but does any biographer or a general historian say that about Joan? We could include a letter written by her for readers to interpret, but if Joan's biographers do not cite this letter, should we? I am honestly not convinced. Surtsicna (talk) 15:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Just looking at the page as it currently stands, the ugliest aspect of it is the unnecessarily sprawling genealogy. Most of the information that has been added works much better in the ahnentafel chart, leaving the original purpose of the genealogy preserved. I don't consider expanding the horizontal genealogy to be a compromise option. I consider it unnecessary bloat. I suggest returning that genealogy to a simplified state, perhaps removing the Évreux line entirely and just keeping Joan II and Charles II of Navarre as descendants of Louis X. The current bloat makes the page too wide and ungainly. The point of that genealogy is not to serve as an ahnentafel but rather to show the successions which deprived Joan of her titles. The ahnentafel, in contrast, is meant to show her ancestry to four generations, and its collapsible nature pretty much cancels out most of your complaints. Many of her ancestors are important, and that is the message I was trying to get across. Who cares if she has some random ancestors on that chart as well? Most of the royal and aristocratic genealogies have them. It doesn't hurt anyone to have them on there and later research may show them to be more important than they appear. Her descent from Joan I of Navarre is certainly important, while her descent from Agnes of France is notable (hence why you added it to the other genealogy). Most biographers do not show ahnentafel charts, but most Wikipedia articles on royals and nobles do, so that argument does not hold up. Again, if you want to debate the idea of including ahnentafel charts on royal and noble articles, it needs to be discussed somewhere else, not here. Your comparison to Obama's height is irrelevant to this argument, and there is an entire article on his family, Family of Barack Obama, much of which is equally unimportant to understanding the man and probably has no place on Wikipedia according to your statements above.


 * You say "We are currently trying to improve this specific article," but to whose standards? Yours. Who is "we"? Not me. Not Elena Woodacre whose book is so frequently cited and sitting on my desk right now. Not me, who is writing a thesis on this very topic. Just because you see no benefit to the ahnentafel chart on this page does not mean it serves no purpose. I use the ahnentafel charts on Wikipedia daily in my research. I use them for navigational aides and track relationships to them. And while some people certainly will never be relevant, their entry on the chart does not hurt the integrity of the page. In a way, you are unjustly targeting female ancestors since they are much more likely to "bring no benefit" to the article, even though they are ancestors themselves and spouses of oft-times more important people. Aénor of Saint-Valery may not be important, but her husband Robert III tells me that Joan has a more remote Capetian ancestry through the Dreux line. Alice de Vergy may be boring, but her husband Odo III of Burgundy is certainly an important ancestor and another Capetian link. By targeting unimportant ancestors, you are almost exclusively targeting often red-linked women but not targeting their husbands. But if we keep one, we should keep the other, and the ahnentafel allows for this. In contrast, the massive sprawling genealogy that is not collapsible picks and chooses sometimes arbitrary relatives simply because somebody claims they are important. Using your own logic, why is Robert II of Burgundy important to Joan? He was dead before she was even born. Why is Charles IV of France important? He just succeeded his brother – he didn't have anything to do with her really. Why are Isabella of Aragon or Marie of Brabant important? They are just wives of Philip III. Why are Isabella and Edward III on this genealogy? Edward didn't assert his claim to the throne until 1340, long after Joan had given up her own claim. And why is Louis of Évreux important? Who cares about his ancestry? What's important is that Philippe III is co-ruler of Navarre with her. Now, I am not actually saying none of these people are important, only that importance is arbitrary. You could just as easily take the ahnentafel and just remove the "unimportant" ancestors leaving a spotty genealogy full of arbitrary decisions. But that isn't very academic.


 * Leave the ahnentafel as it currently is, reduce the size of the current sprawling mess of a genealogy back to its original size, and work on improving the rest of the article. It still has a ways to go and arguing over the little collapsed genealogy at the end is not going to make or break its Good Article status. – Whaleyland ( Talk •  Contributions ) 21:37, 12 December 2016 (UTC)


 * It seems that we have a fundamental disagreement here. Obviously, the information presented in the family tree cannot possibly be presented in the ahnentafel. The ahnentafel's collapsible nature makes it even less useful, the way I see it; if it were a useful chart rather than a piece of trivia, we definitely would not hide it. As to "who cares", it seems that at least two users here, one of whom made the greatest impact on this article since Srnec, care about not cluttering the charts with irrelevant people. Irrelevant, not unimportant; for although James I of Aragon and Andrew II of Hungary are important people n European history, both are entirely irrelevant to this biography. The arguments that Joan's descent from James and Andrew may somehow turn up to be important in the future or that the presence of ahnentafel in other articles testifies to their utility are the weakest I have seen in this discussion.
 * "Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for random information." "Wikipedia articles are not genealogical entries. Family histories should be presented only where appropriate to support the reader's understanding of a notable topic." (WP:NOTGENEALOGY)
 * Again I invoke the simple and paramount principle of verifiability. The biographies of Joan and her husband commonly illustrate their relation, their common descent, not least because it strengthened both their claims to the French throne. The fact that Philip was her cousin, a fellow Capetian, a fellow male-line descendant of Philip III of France, and how their marriage affected their chances of securing the French crown receive huge attention from Woodacre as well as others. Her relation to Edward, Charles and Robert is also mentioned in secondary sources. On the other hand, no biographer of hers shows her entire ancestry to four generations or mention the irrelevant people. Yet you would like to see the family tree simplified and the ahnentafel kept. Your priorities are thus not grounded in secondary sources but in your personal preferences.
 * What do you mean when you say that this article is not being improved to Elena Woodacre's standards? Does she mention James I of Aragon, Andrew II of Hungary, Alice de Vergy and others? Does she include an ahnentafel in her work?
 * I should also note that I resent your claim that I "almost exclusively target often red-linked women". It is a blatant untruth and easily checked. In the comments preceding this one, I named six women and four men. Surtsicna (talk) 14:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * To answer Surtsicna's question, an example of how the mere presentation of a family chart can, even accidentally, convey bias or prejudice is the very peculiar choice of placing Isabella & Edward on the left in this version of the chart. This gives in my opinion a disproportionate position to the person of Edward III over people with more seniority, some of whom do not even appear on any version of the proposed chart, such as the children and grandchildren of Philip V and Charles IV (see Joan III of Burgundy, Margaret I, Countess of Burgundy, Philip I, Count of Auvergne). For instance, a very different way of presenting the exact same information in principle is found at fr:Loi salique. Also, mentioning the Burgundy connection of Joan II's mother is a bit weird if you don't also mention the same connection for Joan II, Countess of Burgundy (Philip V's wife), Blanche of Burgundy (Charles IV's wife) and Joan the Lame (Philip VI's wife).
 * What I mean is that as you can't show everybody in a family chart, picking some and leaving out others, and placing them left, right, high or low always carries a meaning, and even a point of view. There's no way around it. This is why such tables are good to illustrate a specific point (such as the succession situation in 1317, the succession situation in 1328, the Navarre succession etc.) but not the genealogy of a person in general. For this, you can't beat the "ahnentafel" ancestry chart, because it's a standard format, and it is used on every royalty article.
 * Also, the way I understand WP:NOTGENEALOGY is that articles should not be created for otherwise non-notable persons for the sole purpose of filling a hole or a red link in a genealogical table, not that genealogy or ancestry should be removed from articles otherwise satisying WP:Notability, especially when genealogy has so much relevance to the topic as royal/dynasty articles. Also, regarding relevance, I notice from articles Quarters of nobility and Seize Quartiers that ancestry in all lines seemed to be a bigger issue in continental European nobility than in the British Isles (sound a bit weird to me seen the importance that British royals seem to have given to marrying Germans, but anyway...) Place Clichy (talk) 19:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I should clarify that I do not mean you specifically target red-linked women, but rather they are the immediate and most likely victims of any cutting of ahnentafel charts. But I agree that point gets away from what I have been trying to argue.


 * As of yet, you have not responded to two of my main issues. First, my complaint that your currently-proposed genealogical chart is unwieldy and bloated and that it has lost its original purpose. Again, the purpose of that genealogy was to demonstrate specifically the successions of 1316-1328. It was never meant to show the Burgundian ancestry of Joan, nor is there a need to show Louis X's or Philippe III's two wives. That is unnecessary information for the purpose of that chart. Why the chart appears at the end of the genealogy is beyond me. It should appear at a higher point, probably somewhere in "Extinction of the main Capet line" or "Accession and coronation". As it looks now, it is too wide for a Wikipedia article (especially a Good or Featured Article) and it renders terribly on mobile devices.


 * My other issue remains the widespread use of ahnentafel charts across Wikipedia. Despite your argument that WP:Other stuff exists and WP:NOTGENEALOGY, these ahnentafel charts do not qualify under either rule. When more than 50% of the royalty and nobility articles contain something, that is no longer "other crap", that is precedent and an established rule. They should not simply be discarded as "other crap". And your "NOTGENEALOGY" argument implies "family history", but this is dynastic history and the vast majority of the people under discussion are more than simply "family". I have no familial stake in these names – I am trying to defend the ahnentafel charts because they provide further material in the article that I consider worthy of inclusion. When I see the ahnentafel, it helps me further understand and visualise a person, who they are and where they come from, which according to your own quotation is precisely why genealogical information should be retained. And while some of these genealogies do have unverified information (as does much of Wikipedia unfortunately), that does not mean it should be removed – it means it should be verified. Many genealogies are easy to verify within Wikipedia itself because pages exist recording the parent-child relationships. When those don't exist, they should be verified and I have never advocated that they shouldn't be. Verification is key for Wikipedia to become a respected service among academics. But one cannot wholesale dismiss ahnentafel charts simply because they sometimes have unverified people. Those people should be verified, not thrown out with the bathwater.


 * I agree entirely with User:Place Clichy, adding that an ahnentafel chart is the least biased way of presenting genealogical information of a royal or noble person. Were the simple chart I proposed (and that originally existed) retained, it could be used for a very specific, targeted purpose that matches numerous print genealogies. Currently it is trying to serve too many purposes and is failing all of them. – Whaleyland ( Talk •  Contributions ) 19:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Whaleyland, how can you tell what I intended when I added the family tree? How can you tell what purpose I had in mind and what I meant for it to show? Whatever the answer, no, that was not the purpose of the chart I added. Did you add Henry I of Navarre to the family tree of Philip III of Navarre in order to illustrate the 1328 French succession?

The chart does not seem wide to me at all. Far wider charts can be found in FA-ranked royalty articles (such as Mary, Queen of Scots and Elizabeth I of England).

Edward and Isabella were placed to the left in order to have all the relevant grandchildren of Philip IV in the same row. The drawback was giving the impression that Isabella was older than her brothers. You fixed that, didn't you, Place Clichy? The children and grandchildren of Joan's uncles do not appear in the family tree because they are not prominent in the article or generally given much attention in biographies of Joan (unlike Edward, with whom she shared a claim to France and with whom she interacted as Queen of Navarre during the Hundred Years' War). If someone can show that they are relevant to this biography, including them too is quite easy.

Now, I honestly do not follow Place Clichy's point. How is listing Joan's maternal grandparents in her family tree weirder than listing them, and the great-grandparents and great-great-grandparents, in the ahnentafel? And why should the tree mention the Burgundies connection of people who are part of neither this article nor the tree? I agree, picking some and leaving out others does carry a meaning. But I believe that all content should be meaningful, and that meaningless craft should not be part of an encyclopedia.

And again, I am not convinced by the argument that the presence of ahnentafel in "every royalty article" is grounds for its inclusion in a specific article if it cannot be shown to contribute useful information. It is not even true that ahnentafels can be found in "every royalty article"; plenty of FA-ranked royalty articles do just fine without them. Stephen I of Hungary, for example, contains only the family tree, which lists everyone relevant. You made no effort to explain why the names of Joan's great-great-grandparents are useful information. Does any biographer of Joan present this ahnentafel? Any historian? Does any of them mention these 30 people as her great-great-grandparents? Stopping at great-grandparents would be a reasonable step, for what that's worth. (And as it happens, great-grandparents can easily fit into the family tree chart, but hey, we can also keep them tucked away and hidden from view.) Surtsicna (talk) 20:44, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I think very slowly we are coming to an agreement here, despite how messy this conversation has become. First, I apologise. I did not realise you were the author of those genealogies. That being said, I am sure you know and intended their original purpose to display Joan's succession history. It is really the only logical reason for including two genealogies on the page. To answer your question, though, I did actually include Henry I of Navarre to illustrate the succession since the ahnentafel was missing from that page. Adding Henry did not change the size of the chart in any meaningful way and I felt it was important to show where the French received their Navarrese title since female royal succession was rather rare at that time. There was space, so I added it. I would not have done so had there been an ahnentafel on the page.


 * Regarding wide charts, I will use your own argument against that: WP:Other crap exists. Having viewed the two genealogies you referenced above, I can without hesitation state that they are excessively wide and detailed for what they are, especially since ahnentafel charts are also included on both pages. While I understand the charts perfectly, their details is unnecessary for getting their purpose across. The entire Guise and Hamilton genealogies are hardly necessary for an article about Mary, Queen of Scots. For her especially the ahnentafel would tell most of those details in a better way. Similarly, I hardly think Mary Boleyn or her children, Jane Grey, or Margaret Douglas and her son are necessary for a genealogy on Elizabeth I of England. Even Stephen I of Hungary's page seems excessive. Who cares about a bunch of nameless siblings? Again, I think an ahnentafel would work just as well here and remove some of the bloat. Overall, these FA-approved pages may have good content, but the genealogies are ugly and unnecessarily bloated. But I digress.


 * I think your solution of reducing the ahnentafel to only great-grandparents is acceptable and may be better for many Wiki articles. It is not uncommon, either, although I think great-great-grandparents is still the standard. Regarding your final argument, however, I argue that the ahnentafels are important on their own merit. While they are an infobox technically, I believe they are important exactly because they present new information that oft-times does not fit elsewhere in the article. They are not just a condensation of information, but they provide another level of detail. Historians writing books are usually a) not genealogists (and often get genealogical information wrong) and b) find the more traditional genealogies you are arguing for more useful for their arguments. But Wikipedia is not about original research or arguments, it is about aggregating information in an encyclopedic form for consumption. And there isn't enough space in print encyclopedias for these types of charts. Thus, Wikipedia provides a solution that has clearly been a popular addition since ahnentafels began appearing across the site. The information is based (or should be) on the secondary sources, either found on that page or on the linked pages, and it organises that data into a format that is easily accessible so that people who are writing the argumentative, academic papers (like myself) have something to look at and use, even if the charts themselves do not appear in their publications. So again, I agree with your suggested compromise of great-grandparents only on ahnentafel charts, although I hope that also means you will reduce the size of the current genealogy accordingly. I think we can both get our ways and the article will be better for it. – Whaleyland ( Talk •  Contributions ) 21:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Poorly worded addition, outdated unreliable source, et.al.
The IP142.183.21.97 has added(at least for the moment):
 * "Philip de Valois, in the assembly of Puente la Reina on the 13th of March 1328, decided in favour of his right against Edward the third, disclaimed all pretensions of Navarre, which he acknowledged to belong to Philip count of Evreux, his brother-in law, in right of his consort. But the states of Navarre did not either wait for or take notice of this, but proclaimed her queen immediately, appointing Don Juan Cordoban de Lehet, and Don Juan Martinez de Medrano, lord of Arroniz, to administer public affairs in her name, with the title of regents. A solemn embassy was also sent to Rome, in the name of the queen, which was extremely well received."

This information already appears in the article, albeit in the perspective of Joan II of Navarre( the subject of the article ). The IP's addition is written in a broken perspective that fails to even mention Joan( the subject of the article )...at all! The previous versions added by the IP were even more illegible and this addition is unneeded and clearly not an improvement.

The other issue is the references: Is unauthored and is dated from 1760. Clearly should not be considered or used as a source.
 * L'Hifstoire du Royaume de Navarre, Ferreras, Mayerne Turquet. Page 464, the Modern Part of a Universal History, From the Earliest Account of Time: The History of Navarre

I am guessing this was published in 1328 which makes it a primary source and also outdated.
 * Moret: Anales de Nabarra, ano.1328

Some obscure website, that appears you simply translated then shoved into the article.
 * https://dbe.rah.es/biografias/57535/juan-martinez-de-medrano

No clue what this means. Kansas Bear (talk) 02:56, 20 August 2022 (UTC)
 * (Idem id., cajon 6, nums 18 y 60.

Regency of Navarre 1328
SOURCES: Bibl.: J. Y anguas y Miranda, “Medrano, Juan Martín de”, en Diccionario de Antigüedades del Reino de Navarra, Pamplona, Imprenta de José Imaz y Gadea, 1940; J. M. Lacarra, El juramento de los reyes de Navarra (1234-1329), Madrid, Real Academia de la Historia, 1972, págs. 84-92; “Las Cortes de Olite de 1329 y la sucesión al reino de Navarra”, en Cuadernos de Historia de España, 65-66 (1972), pág. 309; Historia política del Reino de Navarra desde sus orígenes hasta su incorporación a Castilla, vol. III, Pamplona, Caja de Ahorros de Navarra, 1973, págs. 17, 21 y 28; J. Zabalo Zabalegui, La administración del reino de Navarra en el siglo XIV, Pamplona, Universidad de Navarra, 1973, págs. 37, 53, 55-56, 210 y 323; “Juan Martínez de Medrano ‘el Mayor’”, en Gran Enciclopedia Navarra, vol. VII, Pamplona, Caja de Ahorros de Navarra, 1990, pág. 310; A. J. Martín Duque y E. Ramírez Vaquero, “El reino de Navarra (1217-1350)”, en Historia de España Menéndez Pidal, vol. 13-2, Madrid, Espasa Calpe, 1990, pág. 76; B. Leroy, “Les débuts de la dynastie d’Evreux en Navarre: des expériences mutuelles, de novuelles situations”, en En la España Medieval, 17 (1994), págs. 20-22; J. J. Martinena Ruiz, Castillos reales de Navarra (siglos XIII al XVI), Pamplona, Gobierno de Navarra, 1994, pág. 725; F. Miranda García, Felipe III y Juana II de Evreux, Pamplona, Mintzoa, 1994, págs. 56, 62, 145, 148, 156, 164, 180, 243 y 246; R. Ciganda Elizondo, “El honor de las armas y el servicio del rey: la carrera política de Fernando de Ayanz (c. 1353-1393)”, en Grupos Sociales en la Historia de Navara: relaciones y derechos. Quinto Congreso de Historia de Navarra, vol. I, Pamplona, Eunate, 2002, págs. 55 y 66; F. Segura Urra, ‘Fazer justicia’. Fuero, poder público y delito en Navarra (siglos XIII-XIV), Pamplona, Gobierno de Navarra, 2005, págs. 39, 173, 313, 321 y 388; I. Mugueta Moreno, El dinero de los Evreux. Hacienda y fiscalidad en el reino de Navarra. 1328-1349, Pamplona, Gobierno de Navarra, 2007, págs. 28, 116, 223, 319, 323, 333, 334, 373, 485-488, 583 y 600.

Félix Segura Urra 142.183.21.97 (talk) 04:58, 20 August 2022 (UTC)