Talk:Anne of Cyprus
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Twins
edit- Judging by the dates of birth for Anne's children, at least some of them appear to have been twins. Her mother Charlotte de Bourbon-La Marche had twins, so it did run in her family.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
Marriage Date
editThe marriage date that is cited uses a dubious or unreliable source since it only list 10 children. If it only lists surviving children than by its very reportage it highly questionable as a reliable source of research. Plus the source appears to be of the homespun variety. However, checking other dates & I find both 1431 and 1433 in a variety of legitimate, albeit old historical sources... Stevenmitchell (talk) 13:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Charles Cawley in his Medieval Lands gives the date for the marriage contract as 1 January 1432 (in Chambéry), with the actual marriage having taken place in Chambéry on 12 February 1434. Cawley's source is the State Archives Volume 102, p.88. Anne's first child was born in February 1435. I think Cawley's source carries more weight than Miroslav Marek's website.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- I would agree. I just came back here to post what I had found through a search and I see your comments here. The only scholarly source that I can find is an article on JSTOR that provides corroboration of the same year that you cite, 1434, without an actual date, on the first article page, 207... So I think the 2 scholarly corroborations should preempt the garage-band website that currently serves as the "reference".
Sts. Nereus and Achilleus in the Fifteenth Century Eleanor P. Spencer and Wolfgang Stechow The Art Bulletin Vol. 48, No. 2 (Jun., 1966), pp. 207-209 (article consists of 4 pages) Published by: College Art Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3048365
Best regards, Steve... Stevenmitchell (talk) 14:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you Steve for pointing out that error and the source from which it derived. I have since fixed it. We need myriad pairs of sharp eyes around here as academics just love to discover flaws such as this one, which leads to the undermining of the truly good, well-sourced articles we do have at Wikipedia.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)