User talk:Jeanne boleyn/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

Positively 4th Street

Just a polite reminder that Wikipedia talk pages, even user ones, are not for chatting. Bullen2345 (talk) 20:15, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

But, I came here to meet men!!!!!!!--jeanne (talk) 06:06, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Nothing like a room with a view!

Thanks for the pixs! Don't recall these. I like the one of Frank. I downloaded and forwarded to big sis. Good pixs of the kids! --DASTEV (talk) 05:34, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Holidays & relatives kept me occupied, but I'm back. You've a gorgeous daugther. GoodDay (talk) 18:30, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Any comments about my clerical friends?--jeanne (talk) 18:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

They appear clerical. My athiest opinon: they appear as con-artists. GoodDay (talk) 18:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

But of course they do, GoodDay, it's all part of the magic show.--jeanne (talk) 20:38, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Tinfoil woowoo

Haha... I guess that's a compliment? As much as I would love to claim your reward, credit for the original "woo woo" must be given to James Randi, who often uses it to describe adherents to... certain scientifically dubious notions. According to Google Search, however, I suppose I could claim credit for the original marriage between woowoo and tinfoil conspiracy theorists who insist that the man whose gun matched CE 399 to the exclusion of all other bullets is an "alleged" assassin. Badger Drink (talk) 08:45, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course originality is a compliment. Without it, there would have been no human progress beyond the caves. We certainly would not have the medium of Internet through which we communicate. Honestly, I had thought woowoo was a reference to the background vocals on the Rolling Stones song Sympathy For The Devil.--jeanne (talk) 09:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Matilda & Jane

Interesting how these disputed Queen regnants of England, were on the opposite sides of usurpations. GoodDay (talk) 18:55, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Had Matilda been born 400 years later, nobody would have tried to dispossess her, however in the 12th century a monarch had to be a warlord so few men would have wished for a female ruler. Many nobles did support Matilda but it was a chaotic era and Stephen's reign was the most turbulent in the last thousand years. He was quite easy-going for a medieval ruler, ironically Matilda was far more militant!History is full of warlike women, just look at Margaret of Anjou or Caterina Sforza--jeanne (talk) 19:11, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

It's regrettable, that this men are better rulers attitude persists to this day. The Netherlands, Belgium, Norway, Sweden & Denmark have adopted equality in their successions rules. Atleast, it's a start. GoodDay (talk) 19:16, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

History is full of examples that women are not necessarily better than their male counterparts, but they are certainly no worse! For every Mary, Queens of Scots, there's a King Stephen to match.--jeanne (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep. GoodDay (talk) 19:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Your Talk: Race (classification of human beings) comment on African and American Indian ancestry

Jeanne, the U.S. government wanted to discourage interracial marriage and prevent any further offspring from a white and black/African-American parent by enacting blood quantum laws at the first place after the Reconstruction era as a result of the US civil war. The "one drop" rule is to punish individuals who would been legally "white" to end up becoming "black" to the eyes of the law.

True, more Caucasians want to have "American Indian" blood instead of African blood, unless the Caucasian such as myself actually has a (Native) American Indian grandparent on state and federal records, the evidence of non-white ancestry would become a huge socioeconomic and emotional problem in white-American Indian families for generations to come as it did to my Mother's side.

I'm surprised not alot of Caucasians in California where I also live in don't say "I'm part Mexican, Chinese, Japanese, Jewish, etc." if this is part of the multiculti diversity trend is for a white person to come out, claim non-white (mainly American Indian) blood without any knowledge of American Indian heritage and tries to make themselves look "cool", but never part-black and/or Asian?

And yes, according to most psychiatrists that study the issue of how humans react to each other in racial terms: children can identify groups of people, but never feel a person's race, color, ethnicity (or gender, disability and appearance) isn't a "threat" to them. Hate is taught by their parents or relatives who install prejudice in these children in an early age, which is what we need to prevent racism from growing in their minds or continuing onto the 21st century. + 71.102.36.5 (talk) 11:05, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

In California before the Hispanic race was created by the US Government, Mexicans considered themselves Spanish and therefore white. Many still do in Texas today. As far as American Indian blood, there was never a one-drop rule and not much stigma was attached to being Indian, possibly as a result of the fact that many old Virginia families were descendants of Pocahontas. My mother's uncle married an Indian woman (Creek and Chickasaw with some European ancestry), and had lots of kids. My mother's first cousins were about half-Indian and they were never mistreated or suffered any discrimination. This was in Oklahoma where Indian/white marriages were very common. On the other hand, when my mother was growing up in Texas, a beautiful young woman who lived in the same town (my mother didn't know her except by sight) killed herself because someone (most likely an envious female) had spread a rumour that her grandmother was part black. My mother never knew whether the rumour was true or not, but evidently the woman believed it, and could not cope with the possibilty so she hanged herself! This was the 1930s when people were stigmatised for black ancestry-no matter how remote.--jeanne (talk) 12:52, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey...thanks for the response and sharing your story on your grandmother's ambiguous racial identity. Race doesn't matter to me on how "nice" a person is, because they are people on the inside and human beings are a single species of homo sapiens modernus that every scientist will agree on. In California, the large Cherokee community experiences some issues about their race in a very diverse but racialized state they live in. Many of them arrived during the Great depression and Dust bowl eras between 1930 and 1945, the majority of Cherokee and other American Indians live in urban cities of the Los Angeles, San Francisco and Fresno areas. The Cherokee are said to been assimilated into the white majority, although to appear more "Indian than white" can turn heads and open way to racial dsicrimination in not-so-subtle or discreet ways, and some whites disbelieve that American Indians still exist (I have people ask me if I have Oriental/Asian in me) other than "gaming casinos the tribes get rich from" and other stereotypes.

Mexican-Americans in California and the western U.S. are indeed descendants of a large period of intermarriage by the Spanish settlers from the late 16th to 19th centuries. Due to living in a society that's race conscious and judged people by the color of skin or percentage of Caucasian blood, that was a disadvantage to Hispanics and Mexicans in many cases. Then again, you have illegal immigration (the majority of them are rural peasants, darker-skinned Mestizos or Indians who came to this country for available work) and the huge gap of cultural differences between Hispanics and Anglos who are in the dominant level of society. You may remember the "Chicano" movement we had in California, when mass protests took place like the UFW boycotts and the public pressure by Hispanics/Chicanos to advance them in politics, economics and culture. You wouldn't have bilingualism today in our state government, public schools and mass media (TV or radio) in the Spanish language, which is said to counter-revolt against America's long tradition of assimilation of ethnic groups (i.e. they became English speaking). + 71.102.36.5 (talk) 15:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about my grandmother, it was my mother's uncle's wife who was Indian. I have no Indian blood as far as I know.--jeanne (talk) 19:30, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Ethnically I am about 3/4 Irish, 1/8 French, 1/8 English with remote German strains. As for Mexicans, Mexico is just as race-conscious, hence the darker Indians being the poorest with the Spanish-descended Mexicans at the top rung of the socio-economic ladder. In Mexico, anyone less than 1/4 Indian was classified as Spanish. I knew Mexicans very well as they were my best friends in school. Some considered themselves Indians while many others such as my friend Patsy considered herself a Caucasian Mexican of Spanish ancestry.--jeanne (talk) 06:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

How much Indian are you, by the way? My mother's cousins who were roughly Half Creek-Chickasaw, never suffered discrimination , neither from their paternal white relatives nor their classmates at school. Then again, Oklahoma was used to Indian-white marriages. In all the Americas from Canada to Argentina, Indians and blacks were historically treated differently. Even the Catholic Church declared that Indians could not be enslaved yet had no such qualms about the enslavement of Africans. Did you read the story I wrote above about that tragic young woman who lived in the same town in Texas as my mother? A rumour was put out that her grandmother was part black so she hanged herself. As I said, my mother didn't know her personally but remembered that she was beautiful and popular. She once showed me the house where she had lived. That was the racial climate in America back in those days. The woman could have gone away where nobody knew her history but she obviously couldn't live with the fact that legally, due to the one-drop rule, she was black. It's hard to imagine such a thing nowadays with Obama as the President-elect, but back in the 1930s it was a big deal. Don't you recall Hollywood films such as Pinky and Imitation of Life? Remember the mixed-race girl in the latter movie, Sarah Jane, who spent her life passing as white? Indian blood, on the other hand, never caused such problems. Even Winston Churchill's mother Jennie Jerome had Indian blood and admitted it. As for Jewish ancestry, it is now fashionable for people to claim Sephardic Jewish or Crypto-Jewish ancestors. I've heard that the Roosevelts were Dutch Sephardic Jews. Most Indians resent whites who claim Indian ancestry. Activist Suzan Shown Harjo whom I greatly admire, is openly antagonistic to whites who insist they have a Cherokee grandmother. Indians are very strict about blood quantum when it comes to tribal membership.--jeanne (talk) 07:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I misread you about your maternal uncle's wife (should she be considered your aunt by marriage?) and my apologies about that. Your cousins are half-blood American Indians, but I guess it depends on how "white" they look as heredity does tricks. My brother is "dirt-blond" and blue eyed, while my hair is dark brown and unable to grow a full beard (has a mustache), a common characteristic in a large percentage of American Indian males but they are able to have beards depending on genetics. Maybe my discrimination could come from other factors I admit to have: autism, lower-income status and growing up in a community (Sou. Cal. east of Palm Springs) with large numbers of Hispanics, Blacks and Filipinos. The Palm Springs area has 8 local tribes of the Cahuilla, nearly all of them known to operate and maintain their own Indian gaming establishments. I'm afraid California has became more and more racially tense over the last few decades, we had the L.A. riots in 1992 in the mostly low-income black sections of South Los Angeles, being the epicenter of the anti-illegal immigration issue and the impact of economic problems when laid off American workers blame the Japanese, Chinese, etc. for lost jobs. I once thought my home state in comparison to other states more "tolerant" on other races living in such close proximity to each other, but what about New York, Chicago, Miami or Seattle as well? There's a strong racially votalite history in Oklahoma I was told by my maternal relatives, the KKK was quite powerful and influential in state politics during the 1920's and '30s. The Klan harassed several hundreds of American Indians as much they harmed or attacked Blacks, Jews and even Catholics at the time.

And how much American Indian I have? It's not completely known, prone to error and political maneuvering. My great-grandmother is "Full-blooded", married a 1/4th American Indian (more white than Indian) to have my grandfather (100-25=75 or the median should be 63rd of 100% if the equation is correct). None of them are really tribal members, but it's more of an ethnic identity the same way more and more Americans said they are "part-Jews", but never converted to Judaism nor have attended/visited a syangogue. It's like to be "African-American" without having any living relative in Africa for 400 years, a "Japanese-American" whose only great-grandparents came from Japan and the "Mexican-Americans" whose ancestors lived in California when the U.S. acquired the land from the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. So I guess my percentage of American Indian blood depends on the BIA, the tribes, the US census and California state law. + 71.102.36.5 (talk) 18:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Jeanne of Angouleme

A tag has been placed on Jeanne of Angouleme requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the article or have a copy emailed to you. Cerejota (talk) 07:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Its not about being gung-ho. In the future, you might want to create a complete article in your user space and then move it whole, so that RC patrolers don't tag it, or you put an {{in-use}} tag if you are just finishing it in a few minutes. However, any new article that meets CSD *will* be tagged, its the nature of the RC patrol :D--Cerejota (talk) 08:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks good!--Cerejota (talk) 09:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Cerejota!--jeanne (talk) 09:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello!

Hi, I've just joined Wikipedia,and I was looking at the Catherine of Aragon article and saw it was in a bit of a need of a tidy up, there is also some info. I think could be added, so I will be doing this throughout the next few days. I was looking through the Edit History seen as you've edited the article quite a lot, I thought I'd send you this message just to tell you. Hope you don't mind, forgive me if you though this message was a bit pointless :-) GranadasPomegranate (talk)

Hello, thank you for your friendly message. Actually, I rarely edit the Catherine of Aragon article. My focus of interest is in point of fact, Anne Boleyn whose article I frequently edit. Happy editing and welcome to Wikipedia!--jeanne (talk) 05:51, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

British Isles

Peace. If my comment offended, it was never my intention. I'm not sure if I caused offense in some way - your comments on the Talk page seem to imply that I did slight you. --HighKing (talk) 20:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not. I wasn't in the least offended. Cheers, High King! I just hesitate about getting involved in discussions on the British Isles talk page, emotions can run very high.--jeanne (talk) 21:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, emotions do get intense at that article. Particularly when ya mention Irish Sea, as I used to do. GoodDay (talk) 15:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Strange, nobody here gets upset when the Ionian Sea is mentioned.--jeanne (talk) 17:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been around UK & Ireland related articles, for quite awhile. It's good to see things have cooled down there (perhaps due to my absence). GoodDay (talk) 17:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

No, possibly due to the absence of our friend, Mr. Vert.--jeanne (talk) 18:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

The fella with the initials DG? GoodDay (talk) 18:05, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Uh......yep.--jeanne (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Charlotte Corday

I'm waiting for comments here. Titch, GoodDay, let's get the show on the road!--jeanne (talk) 07:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Charlotte Corday-Male Chauvinists BEWARE!

I'll start by saying that most Revolutionaries were and are misogynists. One ony has to read about the French Revolution and the Russian Revolution to see how the class liberators hated and mistreated women.--jeanne (talk) 13:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Email

I wanted to forward some emails to the aol address you gave me. How come you never check your emails? Or is there another one to use?--DASTEV (talk) 23:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't have the old one anymore. Here's the new one: Windows Live Messenger richard91@aol.it I lost mine when we reformatted the computer.--jeanne (talk) 06:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Lee Harvey Oswald

I see you're getting a rough ride there. Recommend, ya stay clear of the article-in-question, if ya has no reliable sources. Take it from a fella, who no longer ventures around the Scotland article. GoodDay (talk) 22:29, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I, just don't understand how so many young people can believe in a Government report. I mean, like who trusts their government?! I don't. Do you?--jeanne (talk) 06:16, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a tough situation. GoodDay (talk) 16:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Just curious

Do you & Titch, have each other on your watchlists? I don't have any editors on mine. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Neither do I. I just came here on the off chance you were going to post here. Titch Tucker (talk) 18:16, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Okie Dokie. GoodDay (talk) 18:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Aha! You must have Jeanne on your watchlist to know I posted here. Gotcha! Titch Tucker (talk) 18:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Nope, I merely typed out her Talkpage, at search (in anticipation of responses) 'or' merely check out my own contributions, to get her talkpage. I've currently 14 items on my watchlist; that's about my limit. GoodDay (talk) 18:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I believe you GoodDay. ;) Titch Tucker (talk) 18:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm flattered

I'm flattered to be on your watchlists. Ooh Baby, when you talk like that, you make a woman go mad, IPs don't lie!--jeanne (talk) 18:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Chief Justice Roberts & his date with History

How'd he say it? "...execute the office of President to the United States faithfully.." instead of "...faithfully execute the office of President of the United States...". Must of been all the excitement, I suppose. GoodDay (talk) 01:46, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Is he not the first president in history to mix up his oath of office? If so, it should be mentioned in his article. I felt that after all the anticipation of waiting for the Big Day, Obama's swearing-in was an anti-climax. He was tense, nervous and rushed through it. Contrast his behaviour with that of Bush and Clinton. To me, Obama lost his charisma yesterday and seemed to have aged. As I had expected, Michelle's outfit was awful. She looked like a giant lemon pie or an old grandmother at a wedding. Laura Bush loooked equally bad in that baggy grey suit. What taste! Or lack of it, I daresay--jeanne (talk) 05:33, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I think Obama was trying to correct the Chief Justice, but didn't wanna embarrass him too much. I betcha, Dan Quayle was chuckling to himself, over this one. GoodDay (talk) 18:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Is Obama going to lose his magic with the public or become another JFK?--jeanne (talk) 18:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

To the public at the moment, he's Elvis, JFK, and Diana all in one body.--jeanne (talk) 18:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

His honeymoon period, should last into late 2009 (at least). One would strongly recommend the US Congress not go against him, anytime soon. GoodDay (talk) 18:55, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

What about Michelle? Think she'll step on a lot of toes?--jeanne (talk) 18:57, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I hope so. GoodDay (talk) 19:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

By the way, did you know the Constitution doesn't require anybody to administer the presidential oath of office? All Obama had to do is simple say the words, on his own. GoodDay (talk) 19:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I've also been told he was President at exactly 12 noon, even though it ran late and he hadn't taken the oath by that time. Titch Tucker (talk) 19:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

'Tis true, Obama became President at Noon EST (oath or not). Notice though, the 20th Amendment says Noon, but doesn't designate the Time zone. GoodDay (talk) 19:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh alright. It's based always on the location of the American capital. GoodDay (talk) 19:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Jokin' Joe Biden

Vice Prez Biden (much to Prez Obama's annoyance), just had to say something about Chief Justice Roberts' blunder Tuesday, eh? GoodDay (talk) 18:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you think Roberts screwed up deliberatly? Italian TV is making a big deal about it. They keep showing Obama's rigid expression when Roberts tripped over the words. Michelle was fuming. At the end of the day, though, it doesn't matter as he's the most powerful man on the planet. I do know we'll be seeing less smiles from Barack and more wrinkles. Do you think people like Obama ever read their own articles on Wikipedia? If I were famous, I sure would. I'd check to see if they got my year of birth right and didn't make me a year older- LOL. Michelle looks like the type of woman who's quick to start a fight. What do you think, GoodDay?--jeanne (talk) 09:06, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, a certain Senator from Illinos (we ain't mentioning names) voted against Roberts confirmation for Chief Justice, in 2005. The President checking up on Wikipedia? for all we know, he might be an editor among us (movie critic Roger Ebert, is a Wikipedia editor). I'm near certain, the First Lady is feisty. GoodDay (talk) 00:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

2013

Strangely enough, if Obama gets to take the presidential oath in January 2013 & from Roberts. He'll be sworn in twice again - only this time 'privately' on January 20th (a Sunday) & 'publicly' on January 21st. Kinda a Twilight Zoneish, eh? GoodDay (talk) 02:50, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Why not Sunday? Forgive my ignorance.--jeanne (talk) 05:20, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

For some reason, a public ceremony on Sunday is blasphemis. Therefore on Sundays, the oath is taken privately. So much for seperation of Church & State, eh? GoodDay (talk) 16:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Maria Rasputin

I don't remember anymore whether her birth date was Old Style or New Style, since I wrote the article close to two years ago. I know that I found an obituary for her in some American publication that gave her dates of birth and death, which is probably what I used. I also had the books that I listed as sources. I'm not sure the style of her date of birth is all that significant. --Bookworm857158367 (talk) 14:53, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not. I'm just curious. Thanks for your prompt reply. It's probably New Style if it was an obituary as people adjusted their birthdates once Russia adopted the New Style.--jeanne (talk) 19:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Snowded's talkpage, Braveheart

Next thing your going to tell me is that William Wallace didn't look like Mel Gibson and talk with an American/Scots accent. :) Titch Tucker (talk) 11:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

No, in point of fact, he looked like Jan-Michael Vincent and spoke with a California surfer accent.--jeanne (talk) 12:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Braveheart claims Edward III is Wallace's bastard son. Wallace executed in 1305, Edward III born in 1312; artifical insemination? GoodDay (talk) 16:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Artificial insemination? Nah, artificial Hollywood. They have to have a bit of a romance, so they make it up no matter how ludicrous it is. Even though I sat watching the film knowing it wasn't historicaly accurate I still enjoyed it. If you ever come to Scotland GD you should visit the Wallace Monument, even though the sword on show isn't the genuine article (though I have read a recent book saying its possible though unlikely) it's still impressive. Titch Tucker (talk) 22:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Titch, I loved my holiday in Scotland back in 1979. I stayed in Edinburgh and then I went up to stay in Kyle of Loch Alsh in the Highlands near the Eilean Donan castle. Beautiful.--jeanne (talk) 05:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you enjoyed your time in Scotland, Jeanne. As you say, there are some beautiful sights. Although the weather and the Midges can be bothersome It wouldn't be Scotland without them. When you live in a city as I do it's great to have these beautiful places on you doorstep, for example, Loch Lomond is only a short drive away so if your stressed out at work or the city in general you can feel a million miles from it within a short space of time. I actualy scattered a family members ashes on Ben Lomond, its not meant to be a sad story, rather its uplifting to be able to do this in such a beautiful setting. When my time comes (not for a while yet I hope) I want my ashes scattered in the same place. I know it sounds soppy, but it would be nice to continue to be a part of Scotland even if I wasn't aware of it.Titch Tucker (talk) 14:34, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

When I went for walks near Eilean Donan castle, I said to myself that I wished my spirit would return to that spot and wander for eternity. I'd like to think of my ghost benignly haunting that beautiful, enchanting spot. I'd like to be buried in Ireland, however. I don't believe in cremation-too final.--jeanne (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

(res to Titch) Visit Scotland, UK? That would require taking either a plane or a boat. This would increase the risk of crashing or drowning, therefore I'd rather not. GoodDay (talk) 20:12, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I usualy leave out the words UK when I mention Scotland. Its not really needed. Looks like you'll have to wait till the invention of instantaneous transportation. Beam me across Scotty! Titch Tucker (talk) 20:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Giggle, giggle. I slipped the UK in, just to see if ya'd notice. GoodDay (talk) 20:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Triple giggle, I know you did. Titch Tucker (talk) 21:03, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

GoodDay, you can always astrally project yourself to Scotland.--jeanne (talk) 05:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm not that light, on my feet. GoodDay (talk) 15:10, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Charles VII of France

The anon editors (known as Henry V), mentions the Charles VII may have been a bastard. Jumping the fence or accusations of such, was very common for Royals, in those day. Jeepers, even today there's suggestion about Prince Harry's paternity (strange though, I find Harry looks like Prince Charles). GoodDay (talk) 13:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

He also looks like this guy. You'll also notice that he's not going bald like his brother and Prince Charles. I don't really care either way to be honest, but in my opinion Charles is never his biological father. Titch Tucker (talk) 13:39, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Nay! He's Charlie's boy. As for the lack-of-baldness? that (like the red hair) is likely a Spencer trait. GoodDay (talk) 13:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

His middle name should have been Hewitt. Hehe, Harry Hewitt. It does have a ring to it. Titch Tucker (talk) 14:03, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it does have a ring to it. GoodDay (talk) 15:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe it. Diana would not have been stupid enough to have had a child by another man, as she'd know he'd be barred from the throne, once DNA tests were performed. Trust me, Harry is Charles' son. Diana was a clever, shrewd woman. She would never risk losing her place in history as the mother of the King of England. No way, Jose.--jeanne (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

She would never have lost her place, she already had William. And no way would they risk the scandal of a DNA test, no matter how unsure they were. Titch Tucker (talk) 17:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. I just think Harry is Charles' son. Diana would have wanted to have had bargaining power and two sons are better than one.--jeanne (talk) 17:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Ya mean the mother of the King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. GoodDay (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I was quite happy for her to be called the Queen of England. ;) Titch Tucker (talk) 18:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It would've made Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland feel left out & angry. GoodDay (talk) 20:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Only some of them GD. Titch Tucker (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It's easier to call her Queen of England. Nothing political involved, however, one would have to be careful using that in certain areas in Northern Ireland!--jeanne (talk) 07:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

There are some who wouldn't like it in Glasgow either. As I said though, I'm not one of them. Titch Tucker (talk) 09:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Italian guys

Welcome... I think you choose three funny guys embodying typical mediocre Italian actors stereotypes: the sparkling, neurotic blonde, the fatal black-haired, the rough-though-good-hearted guy from Rome's outskirts. Ciao and good work. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 15:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I adore Ricky Memphis. I cried my eyes out when Mauro Belli was killed on Distretto di Polizia. Where in Rome is he from?--jeanne (talk) 15:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Obama and Clinton

Do I gather from our entries on the Irish American discussion page that you're happy to regard Bill Clinton as "Irish American" but not Barack Obama? Millbanks (talk) 22:53, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't consider Barack Obama to be an Irish-American because he is only 1/32 Irish. Bill Clinton, I wouldn't either unless he can prove recent Irish ancestry-at least an 1/8. His mother's Irish surname isn't enough. I, with 3/4 Irish ancestry, would qualify; much more than those two. Would you consider me a German-American, seeing as I've a remote ancestress from the Black Forest who married into the French side of my family? No, neither would I as it's too far back, ditto with Obama and Clinton. Obama is a Kenyan-American and English-American to be precise. The rest is just trivia same as my German ancestry. Clinton is English-American with most likely a large dollop of Scots-Irish.--jeanne (talk) 06:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

That's fair enough. But Obama doesn't call himself "Irish" (or even Irish American). Clinton does. Neither would call themselves English American (would they?). Millbanks (talk) 21:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

That's because the sinister PC movement has placed the English in the first place on their hate list. Thus it in't cool to be English. Clinton was chastised in the Dallas papers for not claiming his English ancestry in his inauguration speech. My mtDNA is English. My maternal grandmother, a beautiful, gracious lady, was primarily of English ancestry, and I would never deny my English blood. How could I, when my favourite historical personages, authors, and musical groups were/are English? Such as Anne Boleyn, Thomas Hardy, The Brontes, Rolling Stones, Bowie. The punk, glam rock and New Romantic movements were all started in England. Most good rock groups are English-yet having English blood is not hip. I personally believe the anti-English movement was based on envy.--jeanne (talk) 05:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Mind you, the anti-American movement is also based on envy. Millbanks (talk) 10:45, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, because of the high standard of living the Americans enjoyed just after WWII while Europe was in ruins. Even in the 1980s, the Americans' life-style surpassed the Europeans'--jeanne (talk) 19:09, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Why I hate the EU

Hi Jeanne, hope you're well. No offence or anything, Im just curious, why do you oppose the European Union and the Euro and think both should be immediately abolished? Im not trying to start an argument or anything, Im just curious why you think so. :) GranadasPomegranate (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC).

Read the Italian newspapers and see what is happening here in Italy. Every criminal is coming here thanks to the wonderful European Union--jeanne (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

But in Ireland, in spite of the Lisbon Treaty referendum result, most people are pro-EU and the euro. Read the Irish newspapers, at least The Irish Times and The Irish Independent. One significant advantage is that the EU and the euro have helped Ireland distance herself further from the baleful influence of Britain. Millbanks (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Most of the irish people, i know, including family members despise the EU and see it as far more baleful than Britain ever was. By the way, don't you think the time has come to move on fom this fanatic Brits out mentality. A bit passé, what? The EU is a sinister, Orwellian organisation run by faceless bankers designed to manipulate, exploit and finally destroy the individual nations that comprise the wonderful continent of Europe. Ireland will be among those wiped out. Read Taylor Caldwell's Captains and The Kings. The EU has been planned for over a hundred years.--jeanne (talk)

Well, obviously we must agree to differ. I actually live in Ireland and almost all the Irish people I know at least accept the EU, and are mostly in favour of it because of the benefits it has brought us. I am not anti-English; indeed as a Protestant I have on occasion been given a "West Brit" label, which is a bit unfair. But what I do feel is that Ireland is better off not being in the UK. Remember that whereas there was a referendum in Britain (as in Ireland) about joining the "Common Market" in 1973, there has never been one about joining or staying in the UK. Incidentally, in the UK large sectors of the population boo their own national anthem at sporting events, etc. 05:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Only six counties of Ireland are in the UK, Millbanks. The other 26 left the UK in 1921. I repeat what I have said before, I don't support nor do I trust the intentions of the EU, and the drawbacks far outweigh the benefits. I have stated on my user page my opinion on those who boo national anthems. It's not an insult against the government but against the nation itself which is comprised of the people.--jeanne (talk) 10:50, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I am of course fully aware that only six counties in Ireland are in the UK. Why did you feel the need to remind me? Also, where are your comments about booing national anthems? Incidentally, can you imagine an Irish American saying they hated the USA? Well, quite a few English born Oirish say that about the land of their birth. Millbanks (talk) 08:24, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply on my talk page. Millbanks (talk) 18:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Image

Hi, Jeanne. I notice you are looking for a photo of Peri Lister. If you go to Wikipedia:Requested pictures/People and follow the instructions you'll get your request out to a much wider audience. Titch Tucker (talk) 10:08, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Titch, I've just done it. You are such a big help to me. I hope someone does add a photo of Perri to the article. There are so many good pictures of her.--jeanne (talk) 10:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Fingers crossed. Titch Tucker (talk) 10:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Take a look at her on YouTube with Steve Strange miming Fade To Grey on Italian tv. God, she was georgeous, and had such attitude. I have always been of the opinion that the average English girl is a bit plain, and ordinary looking. However, when an English girl is beautiful, she is drop-dead georgeous such as Perri Lister, Kate Garner, Julie Christie, Charlotte Rampling, Diana Rigg, Keira Knightley, Saffron Burrows and Kate Bush. My maternal grandmother was mainly English, and she was considered beautiful in her day (1884-1920).--jeanne (talk) 10:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe you can add the request for her image manualy on the Wikipedia:Requested pictures/People page itself. It depends on which section you think she mainly belongs to, actor,singer or dancer. Titch Tucker (talk) 11:13, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Eilean Donan castle, Scottish Highlands

Dornie, Scottish Highlands

Mt. Etna, taken half an hour ago from my balcony

Scotland and Mount Etna

Titch, these are images of your beautiful country that will live in my mind forever.

Great pictures, Jeanne. Not the kind of view I get out my front window, but it's always good to know these kind of scenes are a short car journey away. Titch Tucker (talk) 14:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Lucky you. I must admit, I've a pretty impressing view from my windows as you can see here.--jeanne (talk) 14:35, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Show off! I can see snow from my window, no mountain though. Titch Tucker (talk) 14:44, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but you've got the Highlands just a few wee miles to the north. That ain't bad. You could be living on a prairie like I did for two years in Texas-no mountains or hills!--jeanne (talk) 14:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Temptation

Thanks for the message. Don't get pissed off. We're still friends. It's rather nice being described as tempting, not least because I'm sure you're every bit as good looking as you were in 1974. Millbanks (talk) 16:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Tell it to the guys at Commons who want to delete most of my photos!--jeanne (talk) 17:57, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Time is on my side, yes it is

If I could turn back time

Time is waiting in the wings

Time may change me, but I can't trace time

We fade to grey

Peek-a-boo

Hiya Jeanne. It's great to be back in the land of Wiki. GoodDay (talk) 18:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Good ole Titch

Our buddy Titch, is taking about a couple of weeks off. I fear it's his health. GoodDay (talk) 00:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh no, I hope it's not serious.--jeanne (talk) 05:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Having checked the history of his contributions, I'm concerned. GoodDay (talk) 14:35, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I certainly hope he recovers soon. I'm worried about him too.--jeanne (talk) 17:18, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, Jeanne. Felling a bit crap just now but thought I'd pop in and thank you for the good luck message. I'm as tough as old boots so it won't take me long before I'm back. Thanks again. Titch Tucker (talk) 13:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Robert Giguère

Hi, If you have an interest in this page (http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Robert_Gigu%C3%A8re) and similar pages, I strongly suggest you get acquainted (and eventually intervene) with this link: http://fr.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikip%C3%A9dia:Demande_de_restauration_de_page#Robert_Gigu.C3.A8re.C2.A0.28d.C2.A0.C2.B7.C2.A0h.C2.A0.C2.B7.C2.A0j_.C2.A0.C2.B7.C2.A0.E2.86.B5.29

In short, Utilisateur:LPLT in the French Wikipedia eliminated the french version of the page 3 hours after I posted the first draft of it.

What do you think if I cite page http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability ?

it is important to not just consider whether notability is established by the article, but whether it readily could be. Remember that all Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article can be notable if such sources exist even if they have not been added at present. Merely asserting that such sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially as time passes and actual proof does not surface. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate unless active effort has been made to find these sources. For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort.

This guy apparently has not read that, nor the french version. He is on a rampage to eliminate all biographical pages he judges are only of a genealogical nature and his list includes the English page on Robert Giguère, and possibly more pages YOU care about.

Thanks for your support, Alainr345 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alainr345 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

The article is very good, Alain. I have commented on it's talk page. No, it should definitely not be deleted. It's a well-written article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

British Isles and Battle of Evesham

The fun continues at that article's discussion page. We've a wee little edit war stirring up, which I'm sitting back & watching. GoodDay (talk) 19:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I have no intentions of getting caught up in that modern day Evesham. No way, Jose, I just might end up like Simon de Montfort, 6th Earl of Leicester!!!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Jeanne Boleyn at Talk:British Isles

I've had those experiences on the Scotland article. GoodDay (talk) 16:41, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll decline having more experiences. I've no wish to climb upon another hamster's wheel. Far better to stick to creating articles on medieval damsels such as my latest about the 13th century Morticia Adams--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:27, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if Lady Maud did look like Morticia?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

We'll never know. GoodDay (talk) 17:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

A pity they didn't have digital cameras and videos in those days. Just think her party could have been put on YouTube! Complete with Simon's head in the place of honour--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing, YouTube would've censure that video, quickly. GoodDay (talk) 18:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hee hee hee. And someone would quickly put it right back up.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Here Comes the Summer?

When will summer get here? I'm sick of winter

Comments, GoodDay?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Wowsers, she's a goddess. GoodDay (talk) 16:40, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Tatiana will be 14 in April. To me, she's a little girl still.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd guessed her as being 17. GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

No, it was taken last summer when she was only 13.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:35, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Wowsers, she must have the boys fighting over her. GoodDay (talk) 17:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

No, she was rated #4 out of the nine girls in her class. Her best friend was rated #1.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:39, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Fear not, she'll be getting alot of attention, in the coming years. GoodDay (talk) 17:47, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Believe me, I am not worried.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:48, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello Jeanne: Any Advice on the "British Isles" thing?

Howdy Jeanne.

I'd like to ask if you have any advice on how to deal with this "British Isles" thing.

You seem like a very open-minded person, and I am as well.

How do you see a solution to this "this row" coming about?

Any at all?

Take care eh, "Simpsons: Barney Gumble" Don

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 20:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for your message. Honestly, I think the dispute will have to be resolved by an administrator. The discussions keep going around in circles-as I said, like a hamster on its wheel. I take it by your uasge of eh that you are Canadian like GoodDay. From which province? I have only been to British Columbia.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Howdy Jeanne.

Thank you very much for your kind reply. I appreciate alot, indeed.

Yep, I'm Canadian (an "English-Speaking Canadian", i.e, "English-Canadian").

I'm also a 40 year-old Virgo, so I can get a wee-bit "fussy" eh. I like to be exact.

I'm from the ...

Dominion of Canada,

Province of Ontario,

County of Ottawa-Carleton,

City of Ottawa.

Yep, I know GoodDay very well, and he and I get along quite well, (when I don't insist that the long-form name of his Province is Province of Prince Edward Island, and not just Prince Edward Island, ... I am a wee-bit of a nutter eh. Hence I am like ole Barney Gumble).

It was very nice to make your acquiantence eh,

Take care, and best wishes eh, ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 20:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Was Anne Boleyn Henry's wife?

Hello, jeanne! Now I need your opinion! :) I was thinking about Anne Boleyn's marriage to Henry VIII and then it occured to me that the only church that recognized her as Henry's wife annulled her marriage in May 1536. Elizabeth I herself never claimed that she was legitimate and, unlike Mary I, she didn't retroactively validate her parents' marriage. Having all these facts in mind, do you think it's correct to refer to Anne Boleyn as Henry's wife? Surtsicna (talk) 22:29, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. Elizabeth could never have succeeded to the throne had her parents' marriage not been legal and valid. Cranmer had declared Henry's marriage to Anne valid on 28 May 1533, after annulling his marriage to Catherine five days earlier. --Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:35, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

But Cranmer pronounced Anne's marriage null and void on 17 May 1536, two days before Anne's execution, which means that the marriage has never existed in the eyes of the Church of England. As I said, Elizabeth I never claimed that she was legitimate - it's even explained here. Surtsicna (talk) 09:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Virtually all historians consider Anne Boleyn to have been Henry's second wife and a Queen consort of England, irregardless of Cranmer having declared the marriage null and void on 17 May 1536. If Anne was to be disregarded as Queen consort, then Catherine of Aragon would have to be as well, then we'd have to say that Jane Seymour was Henry's first Queen consort!!!! Henry VIII is famous for having had SIX wives, not four-oh, Anne of Cleves' marriage was also annulled-so three!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

No need for multiple exclamation marks, I haven't proposed omitting Anne Boleyn from the List of English consorts or anything like that ;) I just wanted to discuss this matter with you. Henry VIII is indeed famous for "having six wives" and I'm not saying we should change anything. However, the fact is that only Jane Seymour and Catherine Parr remain Henry's lawfully wedded wives in the eyes of the Church of England, while the Roman Catholic Church recognizes Catherine of Aragon alongside Seymour and Parr. Surtsicna (talk) 09:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I realise you weren't proposing anything so drastic, Surtsicna. I was putting the exclamation marks there because I was imagining the reactions from other editors were they to be omitted-LOL. The Wars of the Roses would be nothing compared to their responses. Yes, what you are saying is interesting, however.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:44, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

IPs

I enjoy deleting IP trollings from my talk-page. I always leave them with the following message (in my edit summary): "Create an account & sign in, then I'll respond via posting". GoodDay (talk) 18:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I have'nt had any ip trolling yet. where am I going wrong! I do know it makes them angrier if they are ignored, and they will eventually get bored and wander off to harass some other unsuspecting soul. Titch Tucker (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Charles VII of France

Jeanne: I believe the Hundred Years' War is over. Case close. Vive la France! FW

It sure is! Vive la Jeanne!

Frania W. (talk) 00:03, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Jeanne: A beautiful picture of Jeanne d'Arc - whoever she was, she was quite a woman!

Á la prochaine on wikiworld. Frania W. (talk) 20:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Edward Crouchback

Hello jeanne and gooday.I have a question to ask about edward crouchback younger brother of Edward I.Edward crouchback recieved the title earl of leicester and lancaster so the question is what is the difference between duke of lancaster and earl of lancaster.Unless there is any difference between the two wouldnt that make edward crouchback first earl(duke) OF LANCASTER and not john of Gaunt(of belgium).P.S.can you also answer my comment on your user page about Charles VII.THANKS VERY MUCH.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 03:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

A duke is of a higher rank than an earl, so John of Gaunt was the first Duke of Lancaster-the title of Lancaster having come from his 1st wife:Blanche of Lancaster--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:51, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Why are you not signed-in? GoodDay (talk) 23:46, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I am now. Why what's been goin on while I was dreaming of Agincourt and Henry V? Uh-oh, have I missed some drama here?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:48, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I meant IP.89.101.101.68, he's User:HENRY V OF ENGLAND. -- GoodDay (talk) 18:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh sorry you mean me.I forgot last time to sign in.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 21:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

JEANNE I gave a conclustion at the disscusion tab on Charles VII Article.Charles reign began in 1422 due to de fato soverirgnty and was anknwoledged as king in the south.goodbye.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 12:27, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Titch Tucker

Rest in peace, dear friend. Your friendship and many acts of kindness will not be forgotten. Goodbye Titch.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Scotland is a sadder place without you, Titch

Farewell to one of your courageous descendants. He will be missed

Hello Jeanne. My attention was drawn to the sad news reported on Titch Tucker's talk page today. We have certain procedures that we follow on events such as these, but first we try to verify the announcement. I know you and Titch corresponded regularly. If you have any information that could help, could you possibly email me at Rockpocket at gmail dot com. Thank you. Rockpocket 07:41, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

"Mull of Kintyre, the mist rolling in from the sea...". GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Titch liked this photo of the Scottish Highlands I've put here. Reminds me of him. I'm so sad GoodDay.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 20:55, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to ask but who is leaving.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 22:47, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Natale

Ciao! Where is the notability of mentioning that name? can the reader immediately associate something to it? Is there any reference to that name in this encyclopedia? That's why I deleted such a deep but (IMHO) useless info. Good work... --'''Attilios''' (talk) 00:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I had put it there because I had thought perhaps I should tell the readers which role he played, but if you don't think it's necessary, obviously other people won't either. I'll leave it out then. Thank you for your help. Ciao!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Articles on Tudor women

Hello, Jeanne. I thought I'd let you know I've created an article on another of Anne Boleyn's ladies-in-waiting, Lady Bridget Wingfield. It's a stub at the moment, but I'll be working on it over the next couple of weeks. Boleyn (talk) 10:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

HENRY VI

Hello jeanne.Sorry for bringing this up again but I really think The succestion box for Henry VI should state he was king in regnal from 1422 to 1429 since he was the legall king.I searched through various other websites about Charles VII and it said that the hrone didnt pass to him but Henry thus making HENRY VI king.However he inherited the remains of the throne and since he assumed the title and put it into practice his reign also begain in 1422 but was not de jure.Charles reign began in 1422 but his de jure reign began in 1429.Henrys title should also rightfully belong in the french kings article,the template of french kings and in the Henry VI article.In the Charles VI template it said he had two succesers Henry VI and Charles VII so he must be king.All historians accept that Henry asscende to the throne.I dont really see any appropriate reason that why wikiedia left out Henry VI as a king,I pressume because they were looking to much in the aftermath of his reign and thats why they changed his title in pretensce.In the start of your own article you respictivly said you were trying to correct many of the mistakes in wikipedia and I am trying to the same thing.Poor Henry V of England now feels he has accomplished nothing after Agincourt LOL.Jane gray is queen even without prigmoniture and so is Henry and I already explained how titles of heir apparent and rights to prigmoniture were very dodgy and seemed most of the time to justify the minor nobiliy or the commons or peasents.The Cardinal Martin himeself (later became pope in 1429) supported Henry V and regognized Henry VI.The papacy supported Henry until 1534 so France wasnt a seperate kingdom of chrisindom but instead was a realm of england from 1422 to 1429.In the Henry V article it says Henry was 4 weeks shy from bieng king(in regnal) so the question is whats wrong with the baby Henry for not recieving his right to a regnal title?In the article it says he succesfuly consilidated the monarchies of england and france to one person and the question is how is that possible if it was in pretensce istead of regnal?Again in the Henry V arcle it says he was ranked 72nd on the greates british poll,will I tell what I would give him zero since his sons title is so called in pretensce even though it was in regnal so there was basicly no difference from Edward III and Henry VI.Henry V was the prince of france so how can his sons title suddenly end up in pretensce in 1422 when the dauphine wasnt even called the king and wasnt even the legall king?The probably most important unasked question so far is HOW IS HE NOT KING OF FRANCE FROM 1422 TO 1429.

Jeanne this post might be a tiny bit rough but is not to get at you but just to get at other people to explain to me the geniuses who came up with the title for Henry IN PRETENSCE.Pretensce means a claimaint to the throne occupied by another person or a claimaint to an abolished throone.Again dont take offensce with this comment I am just trying to provoke other editors to give the reason why they put his title in pretensce.

I just explained how Henrys title cant possibely be in pretensce but I will Also explain how Charles VII title cant be in pretensce but regnal from 1422 to 1429.

• The throne didnt pass to Charles but inherited what was left of it i.e.south of the loire river.
• Charles might have assumed the title as king of france in claim but he also put it into practice begining his de facto reign.
• Soveriegnty can both be in practice(de facto) or in princple(de jure).Charles reign was de facto even without legall authority thus begining his reign in 1422.
• Charles de jure reign however as Charles VII however began in 1429 because the corination had itself allowed to strip pressent regnal titles thus ending Henrys reign.
• Henry might have still been the de facto of the north stll after 1429 but was in rapid decline thus ending his reign and accusations of land i france.
• Both Charles and Henrys reign began in 1422 in regnal.

Thank you jeanne for taking your time to read this post.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 15:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I changed some things in the Henry VI article by changing his title regnal.thanks.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 22:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

This discussion should be placed on the Henry VI talk page so that other editors will read it and then give their opinions and present their sources either to concur with your POV or refute it. BTW, Jane Grey was made queen by the Duke of Northumberland. Edward VI was compelled to sign away the rights of his half-sister Mary as had her own mother Frances, who actually came before her daughter in the line of succession. The English people had no wish to be ruled by Northumberland so supported Mary, even if she did prove to be a weak monarch who was prepared to make England an appendage of Spain following her unpopular marriage to Philip II.She burnt the Protestants ostensibly to please God, but it was really to placate her husband--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Why did goodday revert my edits.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 18:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Possibly because they were not first discussed on the Henry VI talk page.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Also, Henry's changes didn't show up on the Infobox (not sure why). GoodDay (talk) 19:08, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

I've never been a fan of de jure & de facto. Personally, I'd rather not recognize Henry VI as King of France. Same with Miguel of Portugal, Edward de Baliol of England etc. GoodDay (talk) 19:44, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Jeanne do you regognize Henry VI as king?(this is a personal oppinion not fact).--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 20:25, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

As King of England, yes, although I personally support the Yorkist faction, as they had the strongest claim to the English Crown. As King of France, I do not. Charles VII was the rightful King.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok then jeanne no problem,that is your oppinion and everyone has the right to there own.Prigminatuire is dodgy and there is no fact saying That Charles was the rightful king and is completely due to oppinion.Henry is also supported by law as bieng the rightfull king so was de jure while charles didnt have any legalal entitlement and thus wasnt coverd in the law as bieng the rightful king.Henry was king of france with all the privelagis to titles and was the soveriegn of france not charles.I would like to ask another personal oppinion.If Henry V was still alive from 1422 to 1429 as uncrowned and later won the war say in 1429 when would you think his title would be regnal in 1429(including corination) or 1422.

This is just a made up question to try to see where the actual difference would be between henry V and henry VI if he was in the same possition like Henry VI.thank you again.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 17:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Had Henry V lived, it's likely the history of France would have been completely different. Charles VII would have had a hard time regaining his throne, yet as to whether Henry would have conquered the whole of France, I think not. Too much manpower would have been required for that feat, not to mention money. Remember, France's population vastly outnumbered England's. They also had a larger and far more powerful nobility.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Jeanne Henry would have won.Burgundy counts part of france population and they are english allys.France didnt have a good army untill 1448 which orderd an ordinance of regular infantry made up of franc-archers.I will tell you one thing those archers were useless and only behaved well in formingny 1450 and caistillion 1453 and were innefective.They were a militia and urban trained and the longbow was only introduced then to the adult soldiers.Theyre skill was rubish,no wonder they lost at the battle of ravenna 1514.AS for the unit in the early rennaisence were innefective and so led to there disabandment in 1535.All the reforms of charles VII was to organize militia armies not to train them like english archers or english armys for that matter.I saw a documentry and during 1422 to patay 1 english archer was worth 5 french peasents.The english only lost the war due to there poor organization and with no organization like in the start of the english cival-war meant that there was no effective way of getting soldiors even though the english archers and army were still far better trained.It was morale and organization that lead to the french revival and the french arrmy in the hundred years war couldnt match up to the skill of the english.The scottish archers however were under strong early norman infleunce from england (normans) and king David didnt want to provoke a war with the normans so gave the normans estates and fiefs in scotland,and after a few hundred years at the time of Edward I the old norman setllers in scotland were called scootish noblemen.When scotland began to proffisionslize its army from primitive spears and highland shock troops they trained with the longbow but off course they wernt in large supply like the english archers and only some had the skill even though there are people that say archery practice was a law in scotland for a time.The english archers were peasents and the longbow was a symbol of brotherhood and an honest weapon for the common english/welsh/irish man.the irish also trained with the longbow,places such as tipperary where the old englsh were orderd by decree from richard II to continue english customs and esspecially archery.However as every body knows the old english started to mingle amongst the irish and comes the saying they became more irish then the irish themselves.Jeanne also english archers were raised in retinue to ther lord in service for the king,therefore they all know there mates LOL and thus discpline was much stronger it was just money and the lack to evelop in there armoury which uasually undermined the english political victories even though there alsost impossiable to beat in open pitched battles they constantly fail to capitilize on there victories and half of there victories had no massiive aftermath.By not developing there Armoury the english failed against powder.Jeanne it is never correct to say that the nobility in france is stronger then that of englands,Although it might have been through from Bouvinnes 1214 untill 1347, the enlish (Including those brave welsh and irish) had a much more effective or to be presscise stronger nobiliy then that of France.The black death wiped 1/3 of Europes population including jeanne who was supposed to be the future bethrow for PEDRRO of castile and wiped 1/2 of englands population.This was ONE OF THE BEST THINGS THAT HAPPEND TO ENGLAND IN MY OPPINION AND ILL EXPAIN HOW IT WAS.After the black death the feudel system almost callapsed due to the fact the nobility had no labour.In England the crown sought out employement heavilly for peasents.This means in england peasents employement was highly valued therefore wages,salleries and upkkep in england went higher so no matter how bad the black death was it was technicly a life-saviour for english peasents.The english peasent was no longer starving and could efford moderately higher life standerd.the french peasents in the other hand including other european countries had alot of starving and poor people.That is one of the reasons why the french disgusted the english because the parleimaint gave some power to peasents in the country due to a better law system,higher wage and standard of living.Magna cartier was also signed by king John which regognized the pope as his soveriegn,had to obey the law aswell,and the peasents were also allowed rights.It basicly means great charter and many cities in medieval times had charters which outlined the rights of the comman man.Income went much higher in england for the crown as there was a far reduced population and much more land avaliable which could hold more then a country of 2million people.As there is a smaller nobilty then there are much more powerfull titles and power who advised the king and had large retinues of private armies,in contrast with france there might be some powerful upper nobility holding titles as duke of burgundy ect. but there nobility was massive and the power was only limited for most of the lower nobility and couldnt barely raise men and was thus left to those higher nobility.They also didnt equip there commoners like the english so some of the nobility in france could only arm them with basic protecttion and what they needed to survive in a battle situation.The peasents in the french army were often looked down on and in the battle of Agincourt the nobility just taunted there peasents before the battle provoking them to leave,and the did therefore there was no didcipline or unity.The english nobility and crown armed there peasents very effectively and were heavily relied upon in battle situations.The crown could afford to give powerful or moderately powerfull possitions to there nobility in strict contrast.The nobilty in france wasnt really stronger then that of englands at all.Thank you and googbye.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 20:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

The English would never have gained a foothold in France without the support from thir allies, the Burgundians, who were as you probably know, mortal enemies of the family of Orléans and Armagnac. In point of fact, it was on account of their emnity towards the latter two, that Burgundy refused to fight alongside the French at Agincourt. Henry basically won the day at Agincourt due to the use of the longbow, plus the fact that the French archers (using the slower and unwieldy cross-bow) and infantry were bogged down in mud, and hemmed in by woods, while the wall of heavly-armoured noblemen and knights in the vanguard-effectively blocking the French archers and infantry- were sitting ducks for the rain of arrows fired by the English archers who were strategically placed on the flanks of the English Army and in the centre. Just take a look at the battle on YouTube with scenes from Branagh's brilliant Henry V film.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Lady Bridget Wingfield

I have occasionally seen your posts on User:Sarah777's page. Just a quick note by way of constructive criticism about Lady Bridget Wingfield which I happened to come across. Articles about people do not need to have a section entitled "Biography" because the whole article IS a biography, so if you can find a better way to divide the article it would be better for the flow. "Early life", "Career", or some such, etc., would be more appropriate though in this case "Early life" would be pretty useless. The other point is that you references are pretty useless. Your TudorHistory.org refs just leads me to a home page but not to any info about her and the intention of inline citations is that the links lead readers directly to a webpage, or book page, that support the specific information being referenced. I got the impression you were pretty well versed with such things but if you need some help getting it right I will be happy to assist. When I actually do a search for Lady Bridget Wingfield on the TudorHistory.org site all the returns are blog entries which are really not WP:RS. Perhaps some of these sources would be a better choice. Cheers ww2censor (talk) 23:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your help and advice. I have changed the section to Family and career. I have added one of the sources you mentioned and shall ask the editor who created the article to add a ref from the Eric Ives book as she owns a copy of said book (I do not). Thanks again for your help.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm retiring, errr no I'm not

Hiya Jeanne. I'm in the process of retiring from Wikipedia, effective 1 March 2009. As I'm currently in semi-retired mode, from now 'til March, I'll be on Wikipedia roughy 1-hour daily. If ya wanna good chuckle, see my reasons for my 'swong-song'. GoodDay (talk) 16:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Ya'll are a persuavie gang. I've postponded my retirement & chosen to simple remain semi-retired. A laptop for Christmas? GoodDay (talk) 18:16, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Encouraging remarks

Thank you for your encouraging words. I really enjoy working on these articles and although there are some bumps along the way; Elizabeth de Vere, Countess of Oxford it means a lot to hear from you. Your own work and dedicatiion is like a ray of light for which the way is lit. Again thank you. Daytrivia (talk) 23:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your praise. I have added an image to the Antoinette de Bourbon article, also some text which I sourced from Fraser's bio on Mary, Queen of Scots. I enjoyed the Elizabeth Vernon article. I'm glad you created it. Keep up the good work. Wikipedia needs more articles on noblewomen, not just their husbands!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Di Sanzo

I don't have the palest idea of who can he be... But why not? Ciao and good work. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 10:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Sovereignty vs nationality

Bonjour Jeanne, I have read all your comments on Charles VII talk page & cannot find one with which not to agree.

To your question *BTW, are you French?*: do you mean de jure or de facto???

Aurevoir! Frania W. (talk) 12:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I would presume from your surname that the answer is de facto. As you can probably guess from my first name, I have some French ancestry. Alas, it isn't much: my mother's paternal grandmother was French, making me just 1/8th. Is Wisniewska Polish?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Hiya Jeanne. I'm having a difficult time, following HENRY V's argument. It would be so much easier, if he'd simply agree with us. GoodDay (talk) 17:00, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Amen to that!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Bonjour Jeanne, A few hours ago, I left this note for GoodDay: GoodDay: Left a comment on Charles VII talk page. You should put the navbox as you prepared it: it says it all & that's all we need. Hoping no more ghosts will come back to haunt us! For me, the de jure/de facto argumentation is over. I fell upon it by chance & got involved, but am too busy otherwhere adding kilometers to a discussion to which someone is turning deaf ears.

Well, I'll let you hanging as to my nationality & family background, but will admit that I have a lot of "atomes crochus" with France & the French. Yes, Wisniewska (fem.)/Wisniewski (masc.) is Polish, one of the most, if not the most common surname in Poland. As for *Frania*, it is short for *Franciszka*.

On another subject, I'd love hearing your ideas on Jeanne d'Arc.

Aurevoir! Frania W. (talk) 14:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you used the correct Jeanne d'Arc and not the hideous English rendition, Joan of Arc. What truly amazes me about Jeanne is that despite her celebration as a French heroine and martyr, it took the Catholic church almost 500 years to make her a saint!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Bonjour Jeanne, this could be the subject of a long dissertation. There is something weird between Jeanne d'Arc, France & the catholic church. If you do not believe in voices & miracles, you ask yourself questions the catholic church does not want answered. And it is very difficult to research the matter 500 years plus tard. Frania W. (talk) 14:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

People with visions, voices and the stigmata have always been polemical for the Catholic church. Just take the examples of Bernadette of Lourdes and Padre Pio in addition to the case of Jeanne d'Arc. They both encountered fierce hostility and disbelief from the Vatican. Padre Pio is still (despite his sainthood), a controversal figure.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Jeanne, BTW, while English was my favourite matter in school, le français est ma langue maternelle. Frania W. (talk) 05:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

I would like to thank you personally for your kind words said about my dad Titch. Thanks. Little Tuck (talk) 20:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll be off now to find out how this place works. :) Little Tuck (talk) 21:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello Little Tuck and welcome to Wikipedia. Your father was a wonderful person and as you can see from other people's comments, he was a highly-respected editor. I miss him very much. He was such a kind, caring and humourous man. A true gentleman.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

War of Northern Aggression

Jeane, you mentioned (here) Civil War veterans' tombstones with "War of Northern Aggression" engraved on them. I know we have to avoid original research here, but am curious whether you could help me find a published photo of one of these tombstones. I am trying to find the earliest reliable source for the term, and so far can't find anything older than the last few decades. Grateful for any help. — ℜob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 23:05, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I know it was written on my maternal great-great-grandfather's tombstone, as he was wounded in the War of Northern Aggression. He died around 1920 and is buried somewhere in Oklahoma, but I don't have a photo of his grave. I would imagine you could find the expression written on many old tombstones in the southern USA. Good luck in your quest. I'm sorry I couldn't be of more help.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

CNN's coverage of Obama's Canadian visit

Jumpin' Junipers. CNN (and the other American news networks), showed pratically 'no interest & no coverage of Prez Obama's very first foreign trip. I wonder why? Could it be, because he was visiting Canada? GoodDay (talk) 16:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the media has broken off it's torrid love affair with Obama. Here, he's hardly ever mentioned anymore, whereas prior to his inauguration Obama was constantly seen on TV.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:34, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

In otherwords, No drama, Obama. GoodDay (talk) 16:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the media miss having Bush around to knock, especially the European media.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Hnery VI de jure king

hello jeanne.You misunderstood me by thinking that i wrote charles reign began in 1429 when it began in 1422.I told you i was complaning about henrys nav box not charles and I thought gooday was trying to suggest his nav box for henry not charles.In that fact I dont disagree with gooday I was complaning about Henrys nav box.Henrys nav box must be regnal king of france 1422 to 1429 predessced by Charles VI succeded by Charles VII.He should then have another nav box in pretensce predesced by Henry V and succuded by Charles VII.GOODBYE.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 01:58, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Who's Hnery V? GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

CRY GOD FOR HARRY!!!!!!That's who he is.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

2010s in fashion

Hi i think you might be intrested to know that i created the 2010s in fashion article and made it a redirect, i like your thoughts on how to start writing it. Pro66 (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Ireland naming question

You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Back-up procedure, a procedure has been developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB (talk) 18:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Rolling Stones logo

The original Rolling Stones logo:I Can't Get No Satisfaction!!

This is Richard. He has brown hair

Have tongue, will travel. MIAOW!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:38, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

or... how to wash yourself when you can't pay the water bill. Richard Cœur de Lion

Jeanne: Is this YOUR cat? If oui, please introduce him! Frania W. (talk) 03:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Ma oui, he is definitely my cat. His name is Tony and almost 3 years old.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Merci! I have one exactly the same, a bit older, and his tongue is... pinkier! He is past ten years old & his name is Richard Cœur de Lion (see 'water bill' comment signed by him). Frania W. (talk) 13:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I have a son named Richard.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Is he a redhead? Frania W. (talk) 23:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

He looks like royalty! Frania W. (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

He BEHAVES like he's royalty!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

HENRY VI

I have commented about a nav box for henry VI on the henry VI article.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 12:59, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

gooday Jeanne.Henry VI succeded to the french crown as Henry II of france with all the privelaiges of a geniune french king,the only difference between Henry VI and other french kings is that he wasnt properly crowned in a traditional coriantion ground i.e.Rheims.If you dont mind me asking how is he not a french king?--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 16:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

"Henry VI succeeded to the French crown as Henry II"? That would mean there was 2 Henry IIs of France (remember Henry II of France, reign 1547-59). GoodDay (talk) 17:02, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

NO.Henry VI succeded to the throne of france as henry of england and france or henry II of france.Once the french rebels crowned there king Charles VII was officialy legitimazed as well as bieng the new legal king(since the fact that charles rights were dissinherited and was claimed as a bastard).Once the english lost all of there possetions in 1453 the english didnt have any more rights to the french land.When Henry II of france i.e captured calais in 1558 was called Henry III of france then they would have provoked against there own legitimacy claiming forthemselves they were under the legal suzzerity of the kings/queens of england,thus Henry II of france wouldnt have the legitimacy to be called henry III of france ON BELHALF of henry vi of england.Under the provissions of the treaty of troyes Henry VI became henry II of france but was only such for a while until 1429 when charles styled himeself de jure Charles VII.Its a mouthful but Ill reprahse it if you cant understand gooday.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 17:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

We shall have to agree to disagree, HENRY. GoodDay (talk) 17:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Who were *the french rebels* ??? Was Jeanne d'Arc one of them? Frania W. (talk) 21:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Henry, I'm afaid you are venturing far into the realm of alternative history now. Let's just say that the crown of Charles VII was disputed by Henry VI from 1422-1429 and leave it at that. Why complicate life more than it already is?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:40, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not altering history.I agreed with the statement Henry VI was disputed with Charles VII.In fact that is my arguement.I have refs stating that Henry VI was styled as Henri II of France.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 17:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Your Ireland statement

1. There is no ambiguity with France and Italy. There is with Ireland.
2. The 26 county state was founded in 1922. Stuff prior to that should be in the Ireland or History of Ireland article.

Mooretwin (talk) 23:30, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

France and Italy are nevertheless republics-in point of fact, the former has been one from the 18th century onwards (with a few interims when the Bonapartes ruled and the Bourbons briefly regained power). What's more, my home state of California has California Republic on its flag; thus should the article on California be changed to Republic of California?!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

As I already said, there is no ambiguity with France and Italy, so it is sufficient simply to refer to France and Italy. Ireland is a different case, since the state has arrogated the name of an island with which it does not coincide. So referring to the state as "Ireland" is potentially very confusing to the reader. Mooretwin (talk) 10:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is any reader who would not know that the state of Ireland was located on the island of Ireland! When a person says they are from Ireland, nobody is in any doubt that they come from the island of Ireland. Here in Italy, they use Ireland and northern Ireland to differentiate between the two states; Republic of Ireland is never used.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Neither do I think that there is any reader who would not know that the state of Ireland was located on the island of Ireland. I'm unaware of anyone having made such a claim. Equally, I agree that when a person says they are from Ireland, nobody is in any doubt that they come from the island of Ireland. There is, however, much room for doubt as to whether they come from the Republic of Ireland or from Northern Ireland. That is the (surely rather obvious) point of ambiguity. Mooretwin (talk) 15:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Not really, Mooretwin. When an event occurs in Northern Ireland, journalists always say Northern Ireland; by the same token, if something happens in the 26 counties, journalists will just say Ireland. It's the same with people. Mooretwin, there's no ambiguity with Ireland anymore than there is with the two US states of Virginia and West Virginia. I see, however that nobody is clamouring for the former to be titled Commonwealth of Virginia in case readers might become confused.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

If someone says that he is from Ireland, it does not follow that he is from the Republic. He could be from Northern Ireland. If someone is described as being from Ireland, it does not follow that he is from the Republic. He could be from Northern Ireland. If someone asks "what is the second biggest city in Ireland?", they are likely to answer Belfast. If they ask how many counties in Ireland, they are likely to answer "32". Mooretwin (talk) 15:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Well you are right about the 32 county part. However, virtually all Northerners I've personally met have always specified that they are from the North of Ireland or Northern Ireland. You are also (obviously!) correct about Belfast being the second largest city in Ireland-and that when asked, most Irish people would reply to that effect. Despite the good and accurate points you have mentioned, I still think Ireland is a better name for the article than Republic of Ireland. I am not being stubborn, its just IMO.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

GoodDays page

I hope you took no offence at any of my comments. It's just my sense of humour. The more I think of it the more I think you wouldn't have, but I've written it anyway. Cheers. Jack forbes (talk) 16:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't in the least offended. I only wish more editors here had a sense of humour like you and GoodDay!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Glad to hear it. Jack forbes (talk) 17:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad nobody was offended by my mentioning of my medical mishap. GoodDay (talk) 18:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Girl in Dallas 1930s.jpg

Please note that this image needs source information. Given its age, I don't think you took the original photo yourself, so we need to know where it came from. --dave pape (talk) 15:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I added the source.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

A pic of Tony in a reflective mood

cats

Oh your tony has the same colouring as my parkin. [1] Less scrawny though:) How many cats do you have? I have three at the mo. That's more than enough in a flat lol:)Sticky Parkin 20:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Parkin isn't that orange, that's just the rubbish camera on the MAC. He's that ginger-oatmeal like Tony. Sticky Parkin 23:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Tony is my only cat, and believe me he's a handful (pun not intended!) Actually, I call Tony gold rather than orange. BTW, are you Canadian like GoodDay?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

He looks like a handful.:) I'm English.:) Sticky Parkin 09:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

He is. In this photo he looks deceptively benign!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I lived in both Lewes and Brighton in 1980.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem

Let's just hope it's not going to be removed since it's a screenshot, but considering I also gave an explanation....it might be safe. Alecsdaniel (talk) 16:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I hope it stays, it's a good image.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Sicilian Baroque

I have altered the placement of the image you have put into the above page because it's style dictates it need to be in Catania where the work was similar, and where indeed S Sebastiano is located, and secondly, because the progression of images towards the end of the article is showing the natural evolution of the style towards simplicity and neoclassicicsm, S Sebastiano does not not show that. Hope this explains my edits. Giano (talk) 17:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem at all. Thank you. I couldn't figure out where to place it. Grazie.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

File:Piazza duomo 004.jpg is not a good example of Baroque at all, the twin towers are in fact Romanesque. The images in the page have all been chosen to illustrate the facets of the style, and have been numbered to correspond with many references throughout the text. They are not just images picked ar random. There is a need for a page on Siciian Romanesque architecture as rebuilt the 18th century, but that pahe is about pure Baroque. The images are inthemselves telling the story of the birth, development and decline of the style. Giano (talk) 18:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I never realised the towers were in point of fact, Romanesque. Thanks for informing me. It's a beautiful cathedral, however, as the towers are adorned in mosiac. I took the photo yesterday. The photo of St. Sebastian's is definitly Baroque.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

The doorcase is Baroque, that is all, the rest of a mixture of Romanesque, gothic and Renaissance. While tour guides like to infer every other buildingn in Sicily is Baroque, we do have some older stuff too. We also have some newer buildings. This is for instance is 1920s (possibly late 19th cent) street architecture with Palladian and art nouveau influences. I could be wrong, it could be modified 17th century Palladian/Renaisaance, but looking at the condition of the stone carving and the acanthus releif panels, I doubt it. something is not right about the stone pillasters either, whatever it is not Baroque as the caption say. Don't worry, have a nice holiday. Giano (talk) 10:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Henry VI

HELLO jeanne.I would like to ask if you could give refference to some books which actually openly state that henry vi is not considerd a french monarch.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 13:55, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Do a Google search and see if any French sites list him as a king of France. I have no actual book that spells out Henry VI was not a king of France. Henry, I really think we have exhausted this subject. Nobody at Wikipedia would accept Henry VI as a French monarch, myself included.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Im very sorry for enoying you on this subject.In all the websites and books it says Henry succeded to Charles even in wikipedia itself in the french kings article it says henry vi succeded to the french throne as henry II of France.We all know charles had no right to alienate the throne but if charles succestion rights were disinherited then that is the aftermath so then henry becomes de jure or legal king of france in 1422 because charles rights to the throne were in practice removed and only inherited what was left of the throne andd so didnt have any more legal right to the throne even though he could style himeself rightful king.Most unbiased books dont also express in words that the treaty of troyes was illigial.In the styles of french soveriegns henry vi is mentioned as a king of france as lord of the dauphine as count of valentoise and diose 1422-1429.There is no appropriate reason why people removed him from the articles of king of france.Charles VII was also included in the french styles article as king 1422/1429-1461.Most people add 1429 to show when he became de jure or legal king of france.Henry VI mightend have been dauphine heir apperent to the french throne since he was heir prempusitively but he took charge as head of the dauphine provencies(in principle since there was no dauphine heir in legal context at that moment and didnt inherit the south)was made as dauphine count of valentoise and diose as lord.In the case of salic law it is made up of fase claims about its origins and terms.The so called salic law or cover up scene was simply made up by the french that no women could succeeded to the throne of france or through a female as a claimaint.There was many problems with this false theroy the two words are throne and women.As said before salic law applied to german lands on the river Sallbe as said in the Henry V play but this is all but a minor reason.The only true meaning of salic law was prigminatioure but in legal theroy could also include females since rights to prigminatioure solemly expressed inheitance to the oldest without taking in to consideration of minor siblings.In the 16 century salic law was later rediscoverd and it stated that the salic law only existed as commen law but its prigminatuire was for males only and as common law which was for the minor thus had nothing to do with heridilatery right or succestion to the french throne and this remains today an undisputable fact and so far remains unchallenged.Salic law is made up of complete falsehood and cover scenes which had no understanding therefore Edward III through all his heirs were the rightful kings of france no matter how futile there attempts to recover there just throne was.In coideration of the term that henry V usurped the throne that is false and as other unbiased books state it was by right of conquest.I would like your oppinion in the matter please.Goodbye.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 11:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I have already given you my opinion. Henry VI of England was NOT Henry II (or rather Henri II) of France. The only Henri II of France was the husband of Catherine de Medici a century later.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello jeanne.If henry succeded to the english throne he is styled as henry VI of england and when he succeded to the french throne he is thus styled Henry II of france.Henry was called henry of france and england thus it is the same stle of soveriegn.Queen Victoria was called victoria of england as queen regnant thus she is Victoria I of england and she automaticly has the right to style herself as such.As said before henry lost all his possetions in france in 1453.If the house valious which later won the war styled there future henry who married catherine de medici as the III then it would have undermined his own legitimacy to rule france thus declaring he is not the rightful king and the kings and queens of england were.In other words henry of france wouldnt have the legitimacy to rule france if he styled himeself as the III and therefore the french house of valious didnt take henry vi in regognition as king of france.In theroy though henry VI had legal entitlement as henry II of france.Henry did have right to II of france.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

History does not recognise Henry VI of England as Henri II of France. The only historically-accurate Henri II was the monarch who was killed in a joust in 1559. Henry, you could never change the Wikipedia article on Henri II naming him Henri III!!!!!!!BTW, there are some sites that claim Mary, Queen of Scots was Queen Mary II of England and Bonnie Prince Charlie was King Charles III, yet we cannot alter Wikipedia articles to that effect.--[[User:Jeanne

boleyn|Jeanne Boleyn]] (talk) 07:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

In fact, Salic Law should not have anything to do with this because king Charles VI of France acted illegally when he disinherited his son, the Dauphin of France, in favour of his not-yet-born grandson, the future Henry VI of England. Even if Isabeau de Bavière affirmed that Charles was not the son of the king, she would have had to prove it, and there was no DNA testing at the time. So, in all legitimity, her son Charles was the rightful heir to the throne of France and no one, not even the king, could deny him his right. On the other hand, it does not matter how many times Henry VI of England could have got himself anointed king of France, his sacre had no legitimity. Of course, historically speaking, nobody can deny his anointment as king Henri II of France in a ceremony in Paris - a part of France occupied by the English & where the Anglos could do whatever they wanted no matter what the French thought - but, to this day, that does not make said anointment a legal act in the eyes of the French. I rest my case. Frania W. (talk) 00:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Henry VI's right to the English throne was contested by the Yorkists, and in point of fact, he was eventually deposed. Remember his own grandfather, Henry IV usurped the throne held legally by Richard II, and in so doing bypassed the legitimate Mortimer claimants.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

HELLO jeanne.I get what you mean.However youre forgetting there are titles in pretencse and titles regnal.Remember,title in pretensce is a person who is a claimaint to a throne but is occupid by someone else i.e.Lambert,prince charles bonnie and edward III are all pretenders and are not regnal soveriegns.Regnal tiles refers to those who have soveriegnty and are pretraining as a soverign or monarch.If Lamberth was king de facto of england i.e.had access to all the country and claimed to be the king of england then he has a regnal title however in his case henry VII was the king and he only pretended to be a king.Louis VIII is also not a king of england even though he had de facto soveriegnty of half the country including London.After John died Henry III became king and the barons simply abondand louis.It wasnt as simple as Henry III just succeded the throne because Louis was technicly the king of england but this is were the treaty of kingston comes in.Louis admmited on his own he was never the legitimaized king and said he only pretended to be king for the previous 2 years.Louis therefore is not a king of england and thus his title is in pretensce,if he hadent signed the treaty then he would have been de jure king and would have had a regnal title as king.It dosent matter if prince charles Bonnie styled himeself Charles III it is only in pretensce therefore we only mention regnal monarchs in the articles for monarchs.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 11:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Louis would never have been the de jure king of England, treaty or no treaty. Henry III was the king, by right of primogeniture as John was before him.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Henry, as I read you, Henry VI of England was or should have been the king of France. Let's imagine that he was; then, do you mean king of only the part of France occupied by the English or, eventually, of the whole of France? Frania W. (talk) 13:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello Jeanne.I never said louis was king of england.If louis as i said hadent signed the treaty then he would be de jure or legal king however he didnt pursue the throne and in louis case he would have been a userper because he had no notable blood or law to support his claim while the english kings had strong blood relations with france and were in least ablE to debate the succestion error in 1328.You are right though by saying henry III would have been the rightful king if louis had still pursued the throne however henry III wouldnt have been de jure or legally louis would have believed it was a case of henry III bieng removed from succestion.Now to answer frania question.When I mean henry as bieng king of france I mean it as him bieng the legal monarch of the entire country even though it wasnt in practice since inhiretence in the south wasnt sure of,so in other words henry VI would have been like any other giniune king of france.Henry VI and Charles were both kings of france at the same time but henry was legally under law the king of france and was king de facto of the north of france while charles choose soveriegnty as king de facto of the south but not de jure(legal) king until 1429.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 14:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Truth be told, Henry VI was (at best) King of northern France. I've consider removing or curtailing mention of Henry as King of France at his article & requested opinons from Wikipedia:WikiProject Royalty. -- GoodDay (talk) 14:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Henry, thank you for your answer. You're making it clearer to me why Jeanne d'Arc came riding in! At least, she settled the whole mess, even if she did not live to see it. Frania W. (talk) 15:35, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello everybody.There is no reason why henry VI is not a king of france because he succeded to the throne.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 16:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

.Because if he was a legitimate king of France he would have been Henri II. So who is this guy?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Henry VI was called Henry of france aswell from 1422-1429 so its basicly the same as the title Henry II of france.Queen Victoria was called Victoria of england so its the exact same same as the title as Victoria I.goodbye.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 18:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Just a small point. Victoria was known as Victoria of the United Kingdom, not England. Jack forbes (talk) 19:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Henry & company: If you'll excuse me, fighting the Guerre de Cent Ans all over again is wearing me out to ashes, so I am retiring to the south of France... although I hear the Anglos have established tent cities there. Frania W. (talk) 23:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

"Montjoie! St. Denis!" "Cry God for Harry, England and St. George! Non Noblus Te Deum......."--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Requiescant in pace. Amen! Frania W. (talk) 14:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

hello everybody.So whats new with the Henry argument.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 20:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello jeane.If Louis continued to pursue the english throne then Henry III would have been the rightful or legitimate king but would have not been de jure because Louis would be de jure usurper of the throne.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 20:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Henry, Louis could not have been the de jure usurper as it's a contradiction in terms. De jure means by right in Latin. Louis had no legal rights to the English throne.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

By right of law or according to law.Its in contrast with de facto king and a rightful heir is not the same as bieng the legal heir.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 17:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello jeanne just to add.Louis never more pursued the english throne and you said henry wasnt styled henry ii of france because he wasnt the legitimized king but Henry IV of england succeded as de jure usurper to the throne and was styled Henry IV.The english regency government and estates general were the legal and legitimate administraters for the entire realm even though its de facto in the north and de jure in the south.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 17:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello Jeanne Can I now add Henry VI as a french king in the french kings article?Dont worry If you dont agree I will not impose the edit until further disscution and conclustion.Your say is required please.thankyou.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 20:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I have already said that I recognise only one King Henri II of France. He was married to Catherine de Medici and killed in a joust in 1559. Henry VI was a different person, from a different century and the sovereign of a different realm.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

No I dont mean it like that.Henrys title stats as Henry VI of England Im saying can I add him to the list of french kings in general with the title Henry VI of england.Its a fact henry was the only english king to become king of france in a personal union and the only french king to become king of england.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 10:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Sicily New Tourism Section

Hi Jeanne, what a coincidence, just yesterday I noticed that the "Sicily page" doesn't have a paragraf for tourism and as you already said the island definitely deserves a section on it and has tonns of material to be written about. Tomorrow am off to Sicily (Ragusa) for 5 days but when I come back (to the UK) I will definitely contribuite to the section. Thanks for keeping up the good work Jeanne! Salvo --Sal73x (talk) 22:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh Ragusa, how lovely! Montalbano territory! Be sure to take plenty of photos as Ragusa has lots of beautiful old buildings. Have a nice holiday. I'll help you with the section as I've many photos of Giardini Naxos and Taormina which show tourists.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jeanne, have added some info on the Tourism section but it needs your help since my english is not the best :p. Will work on the photos soon. Just noticed that you have been already in action :).--Sal73x (talk) 16:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually your English is excellent. I saw the beautiful photos you took in Ragusa. Complimenti.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:18, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Bingo

Come to my talkpage and see what PKM's found! qp10qp (talk) 03:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Rollback

Hello Jeanne boleyn, I have granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. Acalamari 23:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Acalamari for trusting me with rollback. I would never abuse the privilege. Thanks again.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

You're very welcome! :) Good luck and take care. Acalamari 15:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Ron Wood

I've been hearing rumours, that Wood might be given the boot from his fellow Rolling Stones. Is this true or merely a old threat? GoodDay (talk) 15:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Why bother sacking him at this late stage? Who are they gonna replace him with, Mick Taylor or conjure up the ghost of Brian Jones?!!!!!!LOL--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Howabout, Neil Young? -- GoodDay (talk) 14:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

He keeps me searching for this heart of gold (and I'm getting old).--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I reckon Ronnie Wood will remain, crazy hair & all. GoodDay (talk) 14:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

He's a damned good guitarist; did you ever hear him play when he was with the Faces?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, it's all so beautiful. GoodDay (talk) 14:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

We touched the sky... or In the morning don't say you love me, cause you know I'll only kick you out of the door.......--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:05, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the Stones will convince Bill Wyman to re-join them (even though he's 73). GoodDay (talk) 15:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Wyman should never have left. Went to a disco at Battersea, asked her to dance, and she danced with me--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Here comes your nineteenth nervous breakdown. GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Have you had another baby, standing in the shadow, I'm glad I opened your mi-i-ind...Tell me a story 'bout how you adore me.....--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Having looked at the List of French monarchs article lately, I'll need those tunes. GoodDay (talk) 15:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear If I don't get some shelter I'm gonna fade away....., Here it comes, here it comes, here comes your 19th nervous breakdown....,Look at me I'm in tatters, I'm Shattered, sha-dooby sha-dooby, sha-dooby--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:32, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll see ya tomorrow. GoodDay (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Ciao.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:04, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Janet Beaton

On March 24, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Janet Beaton, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion on Mary Boleyn

You deleted an addition on Mary Boleyn.

You show a knee jerk reaction to delete contributions for little reason.

Please in future, stop deleting things just because you dont like what is said. It is lazy cultural vandalism. If you think it can be improved, then do so - rather than immediate deletion. 80.200.129.250 (talk) 20:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I assume that this recent edit was the one 80.200.129.150 is referring. If so, then don't worry: they left a message on my talk page suggesting that I remove your rollback rights, but since you didn't use rollback, there's no reason to remove them or even warn you. I don't see anything wrong with your removal of that unsourced statement. Acalamari 23:40, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome: glad to help. Acalamari 15:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

---

Henry VI

I mentioned all I had to mention and gave you the oppinions of historions so why cant I edit Henry VI as a french king.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 17:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The House of Lancaster is not recognised by historians as a royal dynasty of France. If you listed Henry VI as a French king (Henri II), you would have to re-number all the other kings of France named Henri/Henry. Do you think that would be in the best interest of Wikipedia readers? I don't.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

You are right.Henry VI though I think was actually anknowledged as king of france for a while as Henry II even though its not corect because then if Henry II of france took the style as Henry III and other kings so on then they would have admitted they would have been usurpers and would have undermined the legitimacy of there right to rule.There is possibly no point to anknowledge him now as Henry II of france since he lost his throne in 1429.I strongly think though that henry should be mentioned as a french monarch since he was the first king as historians say of the "Double-Monarchy".--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 18:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

LOL Jeanne It dosent have to be word to word on cases of oppinion from Historions.If Historians describe Henry VI as the first king of the double monarchy then what house is it under or yet better phraesd what house is that king of England and france from?The answer is house of lancaster.Henry VI was called Henri II of france for a time but as I said in my previous comment He was expelld from france so therefore it is mooot.I hope you fidinly get my point Jeanne so Henry must be mentioned as a king of france.Gooday.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 21:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello Jeanne Historions do regognize lancaster as a ruling house of france.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 19:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, if you say so.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Now can I add Henry VI as king of France.Today.Please.Ok.lol just joking.Goodbye have a niece day.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 17:41, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Agnes and Agnes

I have put in a dual "Did You Know" nomination for Agnes Leslie, Countess of Morton and Agnes Douglas, Countess of Argyll. - PKM (talk) 03:08, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, thank you. Isn't that a lovely portrait of the Countess of Argyll? The Scottish noblewomen dressed far better than their English counterparts in the latter half of the 16th century. Elizabethan attire was so gaudy and overdone; the Scots dressed simpler and far more elegantly.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

illegitimate connections

Dear Jeanne, what do you have against "illegitimate connections" (see your correction at Henriette de France)? I thought that was kind of cute...  !

Frania W. (talk) 15:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry Frania, I just thought connections had rather shady connotations. I hope you're not offended.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 21:22, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Jeanne! Don't you know me by now ? ! I was in total agreement with you and even added "I thought that was kind of cute...!" so that you would understand I was joking. In fact, now I would even prefer: ***Finally, through the illegitimate connections and shady connotations of Charles I....***. Bon weekend ! Frania W. (talk) 22:04, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Did you mean that?

Hello Jeanne.

KGB style?

Did you mean that?

ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 09:02, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

I meant that checking up another editor's comments made 2 years ago is scary, and reminds me of police state/KGB tactics. I was not accusing you of having been in the KGB.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:09, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Your opinion of me matters to me a great deal. I'll take a break from the British Isles and Republic of Ireland pages for a while.

Take care eh ArmchairVexillologistDonLives! (talk) 09:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Henry VI

Hello Im back and I am going to add Henry VI AS A French monarch.I got a book called the reign of henry VI BY A.GRIFFITHS for my birthday and it mentions Henry as de jure(legal) king of france from 1422-1429.Ok then Goodbye Jeanne.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 17:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

O I Forgot please dont revert these changes but instead give me post.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 17:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Along with not understanding why HENRY leaves a huge gap, between the section heading & his postings; Why did he add Henry VI to the List of French monarchs, yet didn't add Margaret to the List of French consorts article? GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Henry could never get away with that one as King Henry married Margaret in 1445, long after Charles was firmly ensconced on the French throne.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

In point of fact, Margaret was born on 23 March 1430, so she wasn't even around when Henry was drooling under his paper crown.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I certainly messed up on the Queen Margaret thingy. I seem to recall, that HENRY argued about Charles VII's coronation not occurring until 1429, as reason for Henry having become 'King of France' in 1422. That argument would've been week, as Henry VI's coronation as 'King of France' didn't occure until 1431. GoodDay (talk) 16:16, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Thats not the reason how Henry VI became king of france.Charles was dissinherited and Henry V became heir so,upon there death Henry VI was succeser by virtue of treaty and as BOOKS RIGHTFULLY STATE:Henry VI became king of france upon Charles VI death.As jeanne rightfully states also Margerat of Anjou would not have been listed as a queen consort of France since it was well after Charles had been firmly ensconed into the french throne.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 16:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

To GoodDay who wrote ***Why did he add Henry VI to the List of French monarchs, yet didn't add Margaret to the List of French consorts article?*** Please don't give him ideas!!!

Left a comment on List of French Monarchs talk page. Frania W. (talk) 16:45, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

British Isles

I've just had a conversation on the BI talk page. I hope they take my advice and calm down with the too heated debate. No chance! I hear you say. :) Jack forbes (talk) 14:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

To be honest with you Jack, I've been too busy on a new article I have just created. I joined Wikipedia to help as part of the community, not waste precious time squabbling over the name of a geographical term. Honestly, I fail to understand how some people can enjoy spending so much time and energy just to endorse their own POV. I also think there should be less attacks on other's nationalities. I'll be perfectly frank in saying that all this Brit Imperialism nonsense is getting rather pathetic and is also a wee bit archaic. Sorry, but I had a boyfriend from one of the most infamous Nationalist estates in West Belfast and he never went on in that vein. My ex husband was from a Dublin Fianna Fail family with deeply-rooted Republican views and he never used those terms either. The genesis of the problem is the apple of discord which has been tossed into the midst of the talk page by a certain IP 86.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:22, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Jack forbes (talk) 15:26, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

This is one of the reason so many editors are leaving-and in droves!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:34, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

It must be the mischief in me. I was hoping somebody would suggest moving British Isles to Irish Isles. GoodDay (talk) 15:39, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

If you really want to make mischief, suggest the article be renamed the East Prince Edward Isles--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:44, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, wait a sec. My country is on a continent called North America, the outrage of it all. GoodDay (talk) 16:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:06, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Scottish noblewomen

Scottish women, they are all a feisty lot as I've discovered over many years. If you have a few minutes to spare you might want to have a look here and here at a discussion I came across concerning perceived nationalist editing on the Greek page which I commented on and ended up getting into rather a prolonged debate over. It's amazing what you get involved in without even trying to. Jack forbes (talk) 18:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I read those debates. I agree with you that it's not on to profile editors nationalities/ethnicities. I remember after I had edited the British Isles talk page, one editor (whose name I shan't mention), used the fact that I am a professed believer in astrology and a Tarot reader, to condescendingly dismiss my opinion; on the same page an IP called me an uncultured Yank!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Agnes Leslie, Countess of Morton

On April 3, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Agnes Leslie, Countess of Morton, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Agnes Douglas, Countess of Argyll

On April 3, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Agnes Douglas, Countess of Argyll, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:29, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

GD the movie critic

I saw (a few days ago) the 1966 movie Conclave, concering the election of Pope Pius II. Two immediate bloopers: 1) The would-be Pius II (played by Blessed of Blackadder fame) wore a beard; but in real-life Pius II did not wear a beard. 2) The King of England was mentioned in the movie (conclave took place in 1458), his name was mentioned as Edward (assumingly Edward IV); but in 1458, Henry VI was King of England. GoodDay (talk) 15:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I just wish screenwriters on historical films would take a few history lessons before writing their scripts. Remember The Tudors? Oh my God, I went berserk when I saw the millions of bloopers.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:44, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Tudors was a non-starter for me, when King Henry VIII appeared with black hair. These people must've gotten their accuracy lessons from Braveheart. -- GoodDay (talk) 16:03, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a pity they don't do a better job with accuracy, seeing as they spend so much money on the films. Oh, how did you like Kevin Costner, complete with American accent, as Robin Hood? Now I didn't expect him to have spoken medieval Norman French, however an English accent would have sufficed. It would be like Kenneth Branagh to have delivered his speeches in Henry V with a Belfast accent!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:08, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Kevin Costner, whatever happen to him. He used to make movie gems: Field of Dreams, Wyatt Earp, Dances With Wolves. Perhaps, he's suffered burn-out. GoodDay (talk) 16:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Henry VI

Historions do regognize Henry VI as once bieng for a time styled Henri II of France Here is some reference:http://books.google.com/books?id=kFSqKelemSMC&pg=PA23&dq=%22double+monarchy%22of+Henry+VI(HENRI+II)&as_brr=3&as_pt=ALLTYPES#PPA28,M1 You cant deny that history.The only reason The french styled there Henry II instead of The III was due to the important reason they were of descent of the Valious not Lancaster because if they styled there Henry III then they would have not have had the legitimacy to rule France.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 18:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Jeanne you are correct.But as it rightfully states in henry VI TITLE as king of france it was oonly regognized in the english-controlled areas,so there is not much harm at all or any confustion.Also I am starting to think as henry vi king of france from 1422-1453 as the other user rightfully states since he was de jure king from 1422-1429 and de facto king from 1429-1453.Dont worry I am not going to mention Margerat as queen consort of france because probebly the main reason is she was of the house of valious and s didnt anknowledge henrys rights strongly and she never took up the title queen consort of france.The years 1422-1453 seems to be more correct.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 11:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm no longer overly concerned with how Henry VI's French reign is shown, wether it's 1422-29 or 1422-50 or 1422-53. But whichever is chosen, it has to be applied consistantly to Henry VI of England, List of French monarchs & any other related articles. GoodDay (talk) 16:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I think pretender is a bit too weak given the facts of the matter, both regarding the English power in France and the legal basis for Henry's kingship. But it sure was disputed. Str1977 ^(talk) 19:48, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Henry VI REGNAL

Hello Jeanne How can Henry be a pretender???Henry succeded as legal soveriegn instead of Charles VII in 1422.Charles became king of france in 1422 as well by inheriting the south of the loire.If said Henry is a pretender then wouldnt that make charles a pretender as well since they both inherited approximinately half of france and to add CHARLES WAS DISSINGHERITED.pretender is wrong as Henry V was heir Henry VI became king of france as Henri II,also charles didnt call himeself Charles VII in public annonciations until his coroniation and he also inherited the south Illigialy since he was bannished in 1421 during Charles reign and so usurped legal authority twice.In Griffiths A.'S book it says Henry as king of france had subjects but were alien subjects in england since it was a personal union called the "DOUBLE-MONARCHY".It also mentiones him as said before de jure from 1422-1429 and de facto from 1429-1453.He was in fact king of france.P.S. I agree with GoodDay about reverting Henry VI as bieng Henri II of France(even though he was) since the numbering would have to be changed.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 11:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Archive

Hi Jeanne your talk page is in serious need of a clean up it is currently 299 kilobytes long. Where was the archive page you created before??? BigDunc^Talk 20:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

On top of the page just under the row of photos; it has archive one and two.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 21:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It's under the photo of Tatiana.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 21:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Took another chunk out hope you dont mind. BigDunc^Talk 21:38, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

You will have to decide what you want to do with the images maybe put them on your user page or you can transfer them to the archives. You should try MiszaBot for automatically archiving your page. BigDunc^Talk 22:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually the images are now messing with the format of the page do you want me to put them on the archive page??? BigDunc^Talk 22:10, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they can go into the archives. Thank you, Dunc, I appreciate your help.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I put MiszaBot on to your page it is set to archive after 48 hrs you can change that to what ever you want. BigDunc^Talk 15:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I also put a duplicate page up for deletion here just add that you want it deleted and then everything is sorted on your page. BigDunc^Talk 16:12, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Sicily

Hi Jeanne, restored the tourism paragraph but this guy (Conte di Cavour) must have some serious issues ha ha--Sal73x (talk) 07:58, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

he has done too many changes to "undo" them all but if I can i just wanted to say...he's an idiot!--Sal73x (talk) 08:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I have just sent him a message askig him not to delete images on the article. Thank you for your help, Sal. It's hard to undo all of his edits. Madonna mia.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Managed to save the "Climate" table. Thanks J. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sal73x (talk • contribs) 08:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It's so annoying when this happens. We have to do everything over again.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Too many Irelands

Jumpin' Junipers. Can you imagine life on Wikipedia, if Northern Ireland had chosen to be named Ireland? GoodDay (talk) 15:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Wiki-life would've been alot simplier, if the republic had chosen a different name. GoodDay (talk) 17:07, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Henry

Jeanne please understand that Henry was king of france not a pretender.Henry must be mentioned as a french soveriegn because if he is not you are denying history.Its like the treaty of troyes never happend.In 1422 historions say Henry VI succeded his father as king of england and his grand-father as king of france so he is a french king.And as all historions say most noteably Anne Curry that henry concilidated a "Double-Monarchy".And please check my comment on the french monarchs disscution.We cant alter history that happend.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 11:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

To Jeanne: I'm quite fatigued from these Henry VI arguements. I'm willing to accept him being listed at List of French monarchs, as long as Charles VII's reign continues to b shown as 1422 to 1461 (which is what I'm most anxious about) & Henry doesn't use the name Henry II of France. GoodDay (talk) 15:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I reckon Queen consort of France will be added to the Margaret of Anjou article, unless Henry's French reign is shortend (before 1445). GoodDay (talk) 17:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

On the path of one concession after another, we are walking in the direction of re-writing History, in which case, we should, beforehand, ask the advice of historians a bit more competent than we are. (No offence to us all here!) My opinion is that, before going any further, we should simply adopt the *disputed* mention as suggested by GoodDay & supported by most of us & leave it at that for the time being. Frania W. (talk) 20:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

No prob. GoodDay (talk) 14:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

We already were mentioning sources from historions.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 17:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Abruzzo earthquake

I just want to leave a comment here to express my shock and despair at the devastating earthquake which hit central Italy this morning, and so far has caused the deaths of over a hundred people. I offer my deepest condolences to the families of the victims. My teenage daughter is currently on holiday in Rome, which is not too far from the zone hit. I am praying that central Italy will not suffer anymore aftershocks, for the sake of my child, and the sake of the other people who are living in trepidation in that region. Hurry home to me, Tatiana. The world can be a capriciously cruel and dangerous place--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Hurry back home Tatiana

Tatiana at the Trevi fountain, Rome

Tatiana in Rome

With you for your daughter and the victims & survivors of this natural catastrophe. Frania W. (talk) 17:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Frania.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

She shall return, safe & sound. GoodDay (talk) 17:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm worried about her tonight. She returns tomorrow night after a 12 hour bus journey! This morning when the quake hit at 3:32 AM, it was felt in Rome, so the kids were sent to sleep for the rest of the night on the bus. She phoned me this morning at 6:30 to say what had happened. I hadn't yet switched on the news. Oh, I thank God it didn't occur in Rome. There are still students trapped in the rubble.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The sickening thing is that most of the deaths occured as a result of modern buildings having collapsed! Seeing as it was predicted that a major quake was due, surely public structures such as hospitals, schools, hotels, churches, etc. should have been checked beforehand to insure that they were structurally sound. The hotel where my daughhter slept that night would have most likely been levelled had the epicentre of the quake been in Rome. I have no intention of sending my kids on anymore school trips; that's putting their lives too much in the hands of other people. Rome is only 60 miles away from L'Aquila. The quake could just as easily hit there instead, and I could be mourning the loss of my only daughter. The Italian government should be totally ashamed of its lack of seismic-proof houses and public buildings!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Chère Jeanne, I hope you got your daughter back & that she is not too shaken up by her experience. Cordialement à vous deux. FW

http://www.lefigaro.fr/international/2009/04/07/01003-20090407ARTFIG00325-le-seisme-en-italie-etait-il-previsible-.php

Frania W. (talk) 13:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

She is still on the bus, somewhere in Calabria. She'll be home later this evening. Thank you for your kind words.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

My niece was in Italy last month (part of a High School tour). GoodDay (talk) 17:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Whereabouts in Italy did she visit?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Mainly Rome, Pisa & the Vatican (to my recollection). GoodDay (talk) 17:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I have been to Rome, th Vatican, but not to Pisa. A pity she didn't go to Venice. That's an exquisite jewel of a city.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:31, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe, she may have went there aswell. GoodDay (talk) 17:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Tatiana arrived safe and sound yesterday evening. Thank you Frania and GoodDay for your kind words and support.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

So happy for you! Je l'embrasse sur les deux joues! Amicalement, Frania W. (talk) 14:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I knew she'd return to ya. Thank goodness as there were aftershock latter. GoodDay (talk) 15:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Yesterday's aftershock was felt in Rome, but did no damage. What pisses me off is that houses collapsed, the hospital was damaged, but the prison was earthquake-proof, thus there were no injuries inside!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:03, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Today in Le Figaro: http://www.lefigaro.fr/international/2009/04/13/01003-20090413ARTFIG00189--l-aquila-apres-le-recueillement-la-polemique-.php Frania W. (talk) 16:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Pictures, for once!

Hi Jeanne, it is so rare for WPians to post their picture. I really don't like all of this anonymity—people hiding behind a username. And I was waiting for the pic of Anne Boleyn, too!

To get to the point of my message, I notice that you participated in an RFC late last year on date autoformatting, and wrote of clutter in edit-mode. I'm afraid this issue is the subject of another RFC, with a new proposal to add long template strings to edit-mode dates. The injunction will be in force until the matter is finally resolved at a current RFC. You may wish to make your views on autoformatting (Question 1) and year/month-day linking (Qs 2 and 3) known again, whatever your opinion now. It's open until Monday, I think.

WP:Date_formatting_and_linking_poll

PS I should warn that there's a temporary ArbCom injunction against the removal of the square brackets around dates; apparently it’s still OK to delink on an occasional basis, for example, in featured articles that you nominate, but caution may be the best approach for the moment.

Cheers Tony (talk) 05:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Margaret of Anjou

Margaret of Anjou, Queen of France or not Queen of France?, THAT is the question

Hello jeanne.Was it you who added reference saying she was queen consort of france in pretence(which is wrong).Anyway I reverted it and changed it back to its original form. P.S(I am NOT going to say Margerat was queen consort of france as I had kept to my word for GoodDay that I would not do so.)However that dosent mean anybody can call her A PRETENDER at the same time since Henry was REGNAL SOVERIEGN of france.You know it is clearly nonesensce to say she is a PRETENDER.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 17:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Here is a reference source:http://books.google.com/books?id=SJABAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA137&dq=Margerat+of+Anjou+queen+consort+of+france&as_brr=3

It states states she was queen consort for henrys anglo-french provences.It clearly states henry was king of france with his corination in 1431 as king of france.Last time I checked my history it states Henry was expelled in 1453 and not 1444.

Again I AS I SAID TO GoodDay I kept my word and I am finished with the henry VI debate.WE are not in the verge of changing any history because all that just happend is that we added Henry regnal king of france in to the french monarchs.As said in the article itself "Henry succeded his Grandfather Charles VI as king of France".That is by far not wrriting history as its the thruth and is not original research.To add we added the word disputed in both boxes for henry and charles which was also true and henry was regognized in only anglo held regions.I see no original research in that.Goodbye Jeanne.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 17:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I must thank you greatly for your note on the french consorts list.The word Disputed was the most perfect term used so far.Thanks.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 12:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

"Midnight at the Oasis"

Jeanne of Ponthieu

Bonjour Jeanne: RE the article you just created: would you mind if I went behind you & added the accents on... Vendôme??? And a question to you, in the English language wiki, does she have to be Jeanne *of* Ponthieu instead of Jeanne *de* Ponthieu, which is a surname & not following a title? 'cause in one sentence you have her daughter of Jean *of* Ponthieu & in another Jean *de* Ponthieu. Not a critic, only a question. Frania W. (talk) 11:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Frania, I would appreciate it greatly if you added the accents as I cannot locate them on my keyboard. I used of instead of de because I have noticed that most articles are titled with the English of rather than their correct forms. Thank you for your help, Frania.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The reason I mentioned the *of* vs *de* is because *de* indicates a surname while *of* is used after a title & you have done so in parts of the article, for instance: "... daughter of Renaud de Clermont, Count of Clermont-en-Beauvaisis" (which is correct as far as I am concerned), but did not follow throughout the article; then the use of *de* becomes normal as in: Jean de Nesle, Seigneur de Falvy et de La Hérelle-sur-Somme. What I propose to do is first take care of Vendôme which I will save; then I will put the names in what I think is correct, and if you do not agree, then you can reverse that version, this way, Vendôme will not lose its accent circonflexe - as you must have figured out, I use a French keyboard. Á plus tard! Frania W. (talk) 16:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Done! Jeanne de Wikipedia, Queen of Wikipedia, please tell me what you think. Frania W. (talk) 17:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Oops!!! Jeanne, the examples I gave above were of related article, that of Jeanne, Countess of Ponthieu; however, I brought changes to Jeanne of/de Ponthieu. Frania W. (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Merci beaucoup, Frania. The article looks good.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:55, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Just for fun, did the same to other article. Á une autre fois! Frania W. (talk) 19:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Jeanne of Artois' family

Hello Jeanne, thank you for your message! I was wondering, do you know much about Margaret of Artois, their mother Blanche of Brittany or their father, Philip of Artois? I have really enjoyed reading some of your articles: Jeanne of Artois, Henriette of Cleves, Taddea Visconti and Mary Stewart, Princess of Scotland. Well done!!!! --Daaviiid (talk) 19:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I would suggest that you check out Charles Cawley's Medieval Lands. He has lots of info derived from primary souces! You can do a Google search to find his site. Good luck.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:04, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Psycho II

Just curious: Mary Loomis must of been Lillie's adopted daugther, or Mary's father was an oriental. GoodDay (talk) 15:47, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I have never seen Psycho II. The last time I saw the original Psycho (with Anthony Perkins and Janet Leigh) was well over 20 years ago. Best shower scene along with American Werewolf in London and Dressed to Kill (1980 film)--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Henry VI

Hello jeanne you said something about the house of simmel.Remember WE already disscussed that and you know they are pretenders.I answerd this question already.You said that henry was a diputed de jure king.HOW IS THAT possible due to the fact you cant debate the law and it is clearly impossible to have 2 de jure kings.Henry was the legal succeser therefore de jure while charles went by inheritence of the south.Henry remained the legal king until 1429.Please look up english claims to the french throne as it clearly states charles became de jure in 1429 not in 1422.You also said that charles was the rightful king when both had an unquistionable claim and burgundians and northen frenchmen regognized the legitimacy of Henry not charles.It wasnt until the mid 1430s when there began a rise of french inscurtions.Both hade overlapping claims and they debated thereclaim not the legal position that standed.Remember the legal position was changed in 1429.Its not quite right to say charles was the only rightful king.Goodbye and have a nice day--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 11:41, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Now if parallel time existed we could have both Kings simultaneously ruling France. Ah...it's all too beautiful.....--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Louis VIII PRETENDER to England

Hello Jeanne and Gooday.I gave help to you in the Louis VIII talk page.You should have ADDED (mentioned) he was condemned in the treaty as a pretender and so effectively ended his claim and he accepted the international treaty.Goodbye and have a nice day--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 19:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Eleanor of Portugal (1434-1467)

Hi Jeanne, I was wondering if you could help expand the article, Eleanor of Portugal (1434-1467). I am now aware of Charles Cawley, Medieval Lands, thanks for that, but I believe that more could be added from other sites and sources, after seeing you helped expand her sister's article Joan of Portugal. I believe being a Holy Roman Emperess, she deserves more than a stub and seeing the number of artilcles you have expanded, I thought you could help. THANKS! --Daaviiid (talk) 19:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, what you did was a good improvement --Daaviiid (talk) 16:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I did the best I could. A pity there isn't more info on her--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Images

You can't add images to the ethnic pages without a source confirming they are "French Americans" not "Oh, oh some French descent." So far, only Lafitte is verifiable. If you don't like him, get rid of him. No problem. Bulldog123 20:00, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Kathleen Babineaux is of confirmed French descent; in fact, she constantly mentions her Cajun background; so was Micaela de Pontalba (her mother was Louise Delaronde of New Orleans, and definitely French), Angelina Jolie is partially French, Johnny Depp claims French descent; in fact, all the people whose images are represented have claimed French descent or are of documented French background such as Du Pont. It's an insult to have just a pirate represent French-Americans, same as it would be an insult to Italian-Americans to have just Lucky Luciano represent them, or for Jewish-Americans to represented solely by Jack Ruby.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

... or Bernie Maddock... FW

Arrêt sur image

http://www.lefigaro.fr/lefigaromagazine/2009/04/24/01006-20090424DIMWWW00430-arret-sur-image.php

Frania W. (talk) 12:34, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Double-Monarchy

Hello jeanne.I really need your help in the article I created.It was the first one I ever made and you made thousands so maybe you can help me get the jist of making an artile.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 13:40, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

I added more.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 15:53, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Forgive folks, but I think that article might be a candidate for deletion. GoodDay (talk) 15:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Henry, you need to add in-line citations, and place your list of refs at the bottom of the article, not each section.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello Jeanne.Sorry Jeanne can you do it.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 11:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Henry, you have the sources, I don't.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:48, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyway thanks Jeanne.Dual-Monarchy sounds better.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 19:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Reply

Hi Jeanne, I have read Anne Woodville and I think it is very good, very detailed. I have also seen than you have recently expanded Eleanor of Provence. I think that Eleanor's mother, Beatrice of Savoy needs more work, maybe to do with her relationship with her four daughters. I was wondering if you could help. Good work --Daaviiid (talk) 15:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry I see you have already expanded it, but if you find more sources please let me know. Cheers--Daaviiid (talk) 15:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the compliment. I love the peiod of the Wars of the Roses. Yes, I'll be glad to let you know if I locate more sources on Beatrice of Savoy. Cheers.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Jimbos page

Hi Jeanne. I notice you've been reverted on jimbo's talk page. You gotta be careful what you say over there. :) Jack forbes (talk) 12:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

It has been reverted back again, just so you know [2] Pedro :  Chat  12:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Yep, it was probably a mistake the first time. Jack forbes (talk) 12:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

.Yeah, I didn't understand why I was reverted as I didn't say anything controversial; I was talking in general, not specifying anyone in particular.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

The Real McCoy

Hello Jeanne.Your background is 10 times better then mine but I think the salic law should be taken out since the law itself didnt have really involvement in the treaty and was in itself debated by applying only to german lands and to private norm.It should also be more open on Henry VI bieng a french monarch in the intro because it is then giving the upper-hand to charles.I think the prigminatioure stuff about him bieng the legitimate king be removed since because both henry and charles were legitimate kings and really didnt have any effet on the legality of the treaty.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 16:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Salic Law needs to be mentioned as it was practised in France following the death of Philip IV.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

My comment left on Henry's page:

Henry, I do not agree with the changes you brought to the lead of the article as it had been set up by Jeanne. It was perfect!

1. the lead is not where various matters should be discussed, only introduced;
2. next comes the background;
3. then the different views of the parties involved must be developed in two separate sections; and it should be done without showing any bias toward one or the other, i.e. do not let your pro Henry VI view filter through the article;
4. it does not matter where the Salic law originated, it has to be mentioned in order to have the reader understand the argument utilised by the French side; again, whether you agree with its use by the French does not matter because it is your opinion; the fact is that it was one of the main arguments of the French, a position the French have held throughout the history of their kings to this day (even by today's pretender).

Frania W. (talk) 17:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Frania, I really think Salic Law needs to go back into the lead. I hope Henry listens to us, as we want to improve the article, not hopelessly confuse the reader. The lead, as it now stands, is hard to follow.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC).

OK,Then no problem but it should also state Henry bieng king of France more openly in stead of giving the advantage to charles by refusing the article to state henry was also king.Sorry actualy prigmintioure is important.Ill mention salic law now again.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 17:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Jeanne, Il est têtu ce mec !!!. Here is what I left on his page:

"Henry, please revert to what Jeanne had done & do not touch her edits. When the article is finished, then we can read thru it again & bring changes here & there, if necessary. Most important right now is to build the article, not start the Hundred Years War all over again."

Frania W. (talk) 18:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

P.S. I just read the lead as last revised by Jeanne: the main events up to the death of Charles VI are mentioned, Treaty of Troyes & Salic law included, so I suggest we leave it alone & go on with the rest. Henry, you should realise that Jeanne & I are trying to help you so that this article so dear to your heart does not get deleted. So, please do not throw banana peels on our path. If Jeanne judges the lead to be confusing, then it is, so let her handle it. Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 18:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Jeanne, in my opinion, your first blabla (to which *of France* should be added to Charles VII) was better than last version:

previous: The Dual-Monarchy of England and France occurred during the latter phase of the Hundred Years War between the years 1422 until 1453, when two kings disputed the crown of France. These were kings Charles VII and Henry VI of England.

last version: The Dual-Monarchy of England and France occurred during the latter phase of the Hundred Years War when Henry VI of England inherited the throne of France.

Frania W. (talk) 18:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

But thats not how the duel-monarchy came about when Henry VI became king of the double-monarchy not when Charles became king since he was never king of england and because henry inherited it dosent mean charles didnt.Sorry jeanne for contridecting.Ill add not to be BIASED that there were two disputed kings.But you must get my point that the dual-monarchy came about when henry became king not when carles became king.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 19:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Henry!!! Let the lead be right now as is, p l e a s e. If not, I am going to start praying for you to be en panne d'ordinateur = for your computer to break down!!! Frania W. (talk) 19:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

"Under dreaming spires"

Is there life on Mars?

Sorry Jeanne,I dont get what you mean by what I said bieng more cumbersome.The dual-monarchy came about when henry vi inherite,not when charles inherited.charles was never king of england so how can it be a dual-monarchy then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk • contribs) 18:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello Jeanne.Just tell me how is it too confusing then will I see your point.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 18:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Henry, you should know that people like Jeanne, Frania and GoodDay are trying to help you improve the article. You should also know that the moment you put the article in mainspace it does not actually belong to you but is there for everyone to edit. It's good to have an opinion but if other editors have a consensus with good refs on how the article should look then you should abide by their opinion. One day with others help it could be an article that everyone can look on with pride. Jack forbes (talk) 23:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The article had no lead, and was tagged with a template. I only added the lead as all Wikipedia articles require leads. Henry, a lead paragraph(s) does not have to give the entire background to the person or event, it just has to be a summary of the article, which is what I wrote. As I said before, it can be changed or expanded later, but it should remain as it is now until the entire article is completed. I am only trying to help, as are Frania, GoodDay, and Jack.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

And, if you will recall Henry, you did ask me for my help, which I gave.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I finished the sub-category on the English regency and I cut back and removed references.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 04:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello jeanne,henrys invastion was just and the french have nothing to contridect his claim.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 14:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Henry, that is your point of view that Henry's invasion was just. Wikipedia isn't intersted in our POVs, just our sources to back up our facts.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Henrys claimes were legal so it was a just cause.It dosent matter its irrelevent as you said.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 19:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Isabella of Valois, Duchess of Bourbon

Hello Jeanne. Thank you for you contributions to Isabella of Valois, Duchess of Bourbon. The article is mainly based only on her family, I was wondering if you knew anything more about her, her relationship with husband, siblings and children. I belive she had a close bond with her sister Blanche, but there is not references to back it up. Thank you --Daaviiid (talk) 12:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I discovered that she became a nun, which I have added. I also made a few corrections as to dates, such as she was married in 1336, not 1326--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 12:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

"When You're Hot, You're Hot"

Jeanne, what a wonderful spectacle it was for me, being a fly on the wall, witnessing your conversation with GoodDay, one who I've had significant experience with over the years, alongside TharkunColl and some others, with respect to similar issues. Forgive my dancing on the issues, but I e-mailed TharkunColl over the incident in which I lost my cool. As I understand it, you're one of those Irish who's not a rabid, foaming at the mouth anarcho-separatist. Perhaps this choice of words will ensure I never get a fair edit, but by previous experience of trying to be forthright and accurate, without regard for political correctness, teaches me that there is nothing to be really gained from the BI related articles. As long as they are under siege by the Irish who make other Irish look bad, then the future is pretty much lost. They think it is high and moral ambition, but it is not. I am much more interested in the Anglo-French thing as of late, upon which TharkunColl and I usually disagree, for a similar excuse that the French offend somehow. I take pride in being of primary English and minor French blood and prejudices. I would give about anything to see the two countries united under one ruler. To Hell with them, really (as with the god-awful Germans and sappy Spaniards). If that's arrogant, who cares? Not I. If I deem the "Celts" to be a wild and savage race, sub-par to the Channel hegemon, then they can cry themselves a larger Irish Sea and be swept away with St. Brendan. Or maybe Leprachauns will sadistically butcher me on account of my complaints? That's the Erse/Arse to a tee, Hollywood horror film being true fiction. Angelus Domini nuntiavit Mariae (talk) 12:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Do you have any sources for your assertions that the Celts/Irish are wild, savage, sub-par, arses and foam at the mouth? Nice post to someone with Irish blood in their veins. Jack forbes (talk) 13:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

It's only an exhibition on tit-for-tat and actually rather mocking the whole convention. Why is it acceptable to treat the English in such a disgusting manner, but if they respond in like terms, they are singled out as the worst ever people to experience upon the face of planet Earth? Angelus Domini nuntiavit Mariae (talk) 14:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I trimed the background.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 20:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Catterick, although my Californian birth may have somewhat diluted the rabid foam from my ire, I still possess the wild and savage nature of the true Celt. You have been forewarned, Catterick so en garde and tally ho! P.S., I have English mtDNA--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

All is farce with ye? You know I was being facetious in a sense, but as a mask for distress. A few weeks ago, when I was blocked, I went walking to a nice steakhouse (Texas Roadhouse) and was fuming half the way there. I was certain I could line up droves of IRA and execute them on site, if only because some number of people involved in the dispute began speculating as to my motives. I have no personal ties to Catterick Garrison, but my family's from the area and in the Domesday Book, their parish is listed as Catterick. Maybe that could mean a real war crime? For all the instigation of Irish loony toons, I could be incited to rape all the fine Gaelic lasses and breed them English, so sayeth the terms of "prima nocte", from the script of Braveheart (although Rob Roy is much more satisfying). Don't worry, I can confirm from family history that our local duties were in acting towards offensive war with the Scots. It was a fact of life. Even now, I have a Scotch wife. There, I spelt it "wrong". Some pantywaist "Celt" should sue me for not walking in goose-step to the march of their "arsehole drumming". I spit on them and take their daughter to wife, abducted from home to be mine. Ben Jonson would be proud, but Walt Scott would break down and cry. While all of this can be very personal, I only mean it against those who would subjugate me to their ignorance. I don't find that here. You're fine, Gryffindor! Angelus Domini nuntiavit Mariae (talk) 15:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Make that Ni Griobhtha, although, I must confess I do enjoy Harry Potter films, and I am always pleased to see the name Gryffindor in all of its medieval-sounding glory. BTW, my father was an Irish Catholic who took a Protestant to wife, hence making her offspring (including myself) IRISH. Call it Rob Roy's revenge, what?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC).

Well, I descend from "Papist" English on the paternal side (mostly Pennines, the full range from Trent to Borders), with "Reformed" on the maternal (many southern English links), but there are Frenchies in there too. I'm just a "wrong person", for having Catholic English and to boot, an Anglo-French inheritance independent of any Papal issue, being equally Catholic and Huguenot. Still though, you know, I don't deserve to have a voice, nor did those who suffered democide by the Tudor dynasty, all in the cause of uber-zealotry. Martin Luther is in Hell! If only my family was even more uniformly opposed to the Protestant World Order and all of their propagandas, revisionist histories and revolutionary establishmentarianisms. Angelus Domini nuntiavit Mariae (talk) 15:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC) Hello! Did I hear the all clear? Has the big bad Englishman gone away yet? ;) Jack forbes (talk) 15:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Wait a minute Jack, don't dismiss him lightly; he could be Steve Harley (sigh), Terence Stamp (sigh), or Keith Richards (sigh)-after all, they are all Englishmen. My first lover was a Englishman; in point of fact, a Sussex-man.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Forbes wouldn't like to know that my woman's blood comes with the "Doric" nickname...He'd fear for his life, but I don't come with the Butcher Cumberland. I prefer lamb or cattle roast, with neeps or tatties. Angelus Domini nuntiavit Mariae (talk) 15:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Jeanne, I have lots of respect for many English people, amongst them some of my family (oh! the shame!). As I always say, being Pro-Scottish does not equate to being anti-English. Nothing could be further from the truth in my case. Jack forbes (talk) 15:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

That's the lot of the Scotch, to which, the Irish taunt for lack of hate. Susceptibility to give in for show, is probably what I would think to happen in those situations. Angelus Domini nuntiavit Mariae (talk) 16:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I think someone has really rattled your cage Catterick. Why would I hate English people? When Scotland become independent it will matter not what English people do. Be careful though Catterick, if all Englishmen become like you they will be known only for their baleful cries of "nobody likes us, why don't people like us!". Continue to ask the question and you will receive a reply whether you agree with it or not. Jack forbes (talk) 16:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

You're forgetting that this is in the context of edit warring and entrenchment, with people using their hatreds as motives toward the tone and disposition of controversial articles, in which the English are whipping boys, without adequate acknowledgment that this behaviour must cease, according to Wikipedia guidelines. At any and all times, those who abuse the English in particular, are committed to their cause of POV pushing, with a megalomaniacal point of view, such as Sarah. It is due to this, that some articles get bogged down for months or years, over the same recycled bigotry. Say any "wrong thing" to the abusers and their masses will assemble to cut you down. I've seen this happen in many different articles with controversial subjects, but they aren't nearly as offensive, just challenges to ego. In fact, I did leave that open to interpretation, which is why you believed it worse for this particular article. I was referencing troubles with sectarian English editors here, in which you were never involved, nor were the majority here, but GoodDay and TharkunColl, as well as several other people without the same agendas here. I am sort of caught in between, for my personal circumstances are not exactly identical to some noxious Celticism or Anglo-Saxonism. It's apparently worse to not treasure the Reformation, Cromwell and Revolution. I stick with pre-Tudor idealism and old Merrie England. Who cares if the makers of Braveheart don't like it? Angelus Domini nuntiavit Mariae (talk) 16:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The Beatles are gear!

I have just one thing to say which sums up my opinion of the English:The Beatles are gear!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Margaret of Brabant

Hi Jeanne. I was hoping to expand the article of Margaret of Brabant. There is however little information of her on the internet. I have asked other users and they cannot seem to find much. There must be some more info on her somewhere, being mother to John of Bohemia and being a Queen of Germany. I was wondering if you knew anything about her? --Daaviiid (talk) 15:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I fixed up the article a bit, but I really don't know much about her except for what's already written in the article. I suppose we can add her grandparents, sibling's names, etc.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Do a google book search on her.Books on specific people are more vivid then a simple website or enclodopedia which only gives a basic overview.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 23:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Hatfield descendants

File:Jeanne B. 1988.jpg

Gryffindor trying to appear seductive but only succeeding in looking menacing. Oh well.....must be the DNA (see photo on the left)

Boleyn family reunion

Can anyone spot the Hatfield clan descendant?

I'm not sure I can make the identification. But, that's one sexy gal in black. GoodDay (talk) 13:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The pretty blonde girl in the photo on the left. She is my brother's ex-girlfriend, she comes from West Virginia, and is a direct descendant of the Hatfields.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I mean the gal on the right, dress in black. GoodDay (talk) 14:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, her. She's not a descendant of the Hatfields, sorry to say.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear, what can I do? Baby's in black & I'm feeling blue. GoodDay (talk) 14:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Jeanne Boylen, in one of your less menacing poses, you do look like Anne Boylen... Beware because with your first name of Jeanne & your last being Boylen... I refuse to finish my sentence. Sentence? Who is speaking of sentence? Frania W. (talk) 15:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Who knows, Frania, maybe I really am Anne Boleyn. After all, nobody said Wikipedia editors cannot be ghosts.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

I know. There is one amongst us already... Frania W. (talk) 01:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes.....--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Sibila of Fortia

The article seems very good Jeanne, I had never heard of Marguerite de Sable before. There seems to be a problem with the references, that red message you usually get at the bottom of the page has appeared. I do think it is important to have a paragraph about the family, it helps a reader to understand what the person's background is and what countries their ancestors were from.

I was wondering, there is a queen consort of Aragon, Sibila of Fortià, I have tried to make an article in my sandbox, but it is unfinished. I had tried to translate it from Castilian Spanish but I find it hard, I was wondering if you could help me. Cheers --Daaviiid (talk) 15:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

There is some info on her from Charles Cawley's Medieval Lands, Aragon Kings. Just do a Google search and the site will come up. Why not upload your article to Wikipedia with an under construction template, that way I can add the info from Cawley if you'd like me to.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Sibila died in November 1406. Her father was Bernat de Fortia, and she was the widow of Artal de Foces before she became King Pedro's mistress, then wife. They had three children according to Cawley, but two died young. Only Isabel (born 1380) survived into adulthood. Last year I created an article on Sibila's granddaughter, Isabella of Aragon, Countess of Urgel--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I have completed the article on Sibila of Fortia, what do you think Jeanne? It is one of the longest and most detailed ones I have created. Thanks for the advice! --Daaviiid (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Excellent article! My compliments to you. The image of her is good as well. I just made a few additions, such as her first husband, etc.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Francis Van der Delft

Hello, Jeanne. Just thought I'd let you know that I've created an article on van der Delft. It's very much a stub at the moment, buut I'm planning to expand it. I hope you're well, Boleyn (talk) 19:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and Rochford Hall Boleyn (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I added a bit to Rochford Hall. What do you think?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:29, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that looks great. I wish I could find an image, but Google didn't have any unfortunately. What a shame it's privately owned now, I'd love to wander in the grounds! I've been concentrating on other aspects of Wikipedia for ages, but want to concentrate more on Tudor articles, especially adding references and creating new articles, so if there's anything you think really needs looking at, let me know. Right now, I'm going through Women of the Tudor period and Tudor people and editing those which are marked as orphans or needing references in particular. I created articles on a couple of Tudor historians, e.g. Joanna Denny, Muriel St. Clare Byrne and Julia Fox and an article on the Lisle Letters. Thanks again, Boleyn (talk) 09:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

If you live in England, why not take a photo yourself? That way you'll own the copyright and can thus upload it to Commons without any problems. You have created lots of articles on Tudor-era women. I wonder if there's any info on Anne Boleyn's gaolers? IMO, those women would make interesting subjects for articles. Last week I added some stuff to the Anne Seymour, Duchess of Somerset article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:23, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I created articles on William Kingston and Anne Shelton (courtier), her aunt. The 'Lady Boleyn' I think was Elizabeth Boleyn, wife of Anne's uncle James Boleyn; this is according to Denny. I had always thought that it was her aunt Anne Boleyn, wife of Edward Boleyn, but Denny was the only book I could find which expanded on 'Lady Boleyn, aunt by marriage.' However, as she includes Lady Shelton as an aunt by marriage, and she was an aunt by blood, there may be a mistake there. 'Mrs. Stoner' is described by Denny as 'the wife of the King's sergeant-at-arms, but I think she had some role throughout Henry's reign in keeping maids-of-honour in line. I cannot find her first name. The last two were Mrs. Cosyns and Lady Kingston, again I couldn't find the first names. I'll look at creating stubs on them if I can find their first names. Boleyn (talk) 10:07, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I've just created Elizabeth Boleyn, Lady Boleyn and James Boleyn. I also created an article on the main witness, Elizabeth Somerset, Countess of Worcester (died 1565) a while back, I don't know if you've seen it. Boleyn (talk) 10:28, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have seen it. It's very good like your other articles. You've written quite a bit on various Tudor women during the Anne Boleyn era. I'm not sure of Mrs. Stoner's name but the name Elizabeth keeps coming into my head.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I think you're right, that was the name I was thinking of. Google didn't confirm it though, although it confirmed that there was an Elizabeth Stoner at the court who owed money and the name is followed by William Sergeant - I haven't heard of him, so perhaps William, the sergeant-at-arms, and thus possibly Mistress Stoner's husband? Not enough evidence, but a lead that we might be heading in the right direction. Boleyn (talk) 11:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

From what I can find, Anne's Master of the Horse was William Coffin, who doesn't have an article yet. Therefore it is probably Mrs. Coffin, rather than Mrs. Cosyns, but I haven't found a first name. I've created articles on William Askew and Edward Baynton; I'm basically working through my indexed alphabetically and adding anyone of interest. Boleyn (talk) 14:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I had always understood that Mrs. Coffin and Mrs. Cosyns were indeed the same person. In point of fact, Anne allegedly made a wry joke at the appropriateness of the name Coffin.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Jeanne boleyn. You have new messages at BigDunc's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

BigDunc^Talk 12:21, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Article improvement

I am going to make a simple overview of the phases from 1337-1420 in a few sentences and blue-linking it to the hundred years however I am leaving the house of lancaster section because it is impotant.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 19:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

You are doing a fine job there Jeanne and Henry. The only other help I could give is fixing typo's and sentences but Jeanne is doing a grand job there. Henry, I hope you take a little bit of my advice concerning the references. I'm sure all of you will finish with a great article and I wish you all the best. Jack forbes (talk) 13:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Jack. You're doing a lot of good work on the article as well. Cheers.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes thanks Jack and thanks for the advice(which was really helpful).Hello Jeanne,why did you delete the adjustment I made to the lead.It didnt mention on how Henry VI inherited the throne but rather in a vague sense the henry and his heirs were given france.No.1 Henry V didnt become king so Henry VI has to stand uniquely as the first and last king of the dual-monarchy.Also Frania said that arguments shouldnt be mentioned in the lead completely contridecting hereself in the start by saying salic law has to be mentioned because it is one of the main ARGUMENTS utilized by the french so thus in least a basic arguement on the english legitimacy gets to be utilized by the English.All is kept in balance that way so its NPOV.P.S thanks for adjusting the english regency section.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 16:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The lead was getting too cumbersome. You can add things such as Jean the Fearless's murder in the article's main body. As I said before, get the article written, then we can fine-tune everything, section by section, including the lead.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

OK.But leave the part I added about Henry VI bieng the first and in reality only king of both kingdoms.It has to mention how henry VI inherited the throne of France.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 23:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

HENRY, I really do not feel like arguing with you or repeat what I said previously about the mention of both the Treaty of Troyes & Salic law in the lead because you do not seem to understand what I (or others) are saying. And I am following the advice Jeanne is giving you, not touching the lead anymore until the article is finished, then fine-tuning can come in. However, my dear HENRY, you must realise that, in addition to the few of us who have been working with you on this Dual-Monarchy, *outsiders* may pop in at any time, bring changes & maybe even hack at the lead as it stands now.

P.S. What I mean about what goes in the lead: MENTION but NO ARGUMENTATION of events. When you take a stand for one in the lead, namely Henry VI of England, this is pure POV that is not leaving room for argumentation (by you) later on in the article because, in order to be true to your beliefs, you will have to demonstrate that the French who were not on the side of the English were wrong. I can hardly wait to read your treatment of Jeanne d'Arc !

Bringing this to your talk page. Bonne journée!

Frania W. (talk) 02:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello Frania and Jeanne

http://books.google.com/books?id=Qv9PlGCLy4YC&pg=PA235&dq=the+legality+of+the+treaty+of+troyes

This book provides the legality of the Treaty of Troyes and the legal dissinheritence of the dauphin.It also explains the legaliy of the treaty against salic Law.As fot your statement on henry IV,RICHARD II was removed in 1399 by an act of parliament before he was murderd and when Henry IV succeded then did he order the act of assasination.You must reliase that most of the legality to Charles dissinheritence was outside the treaty.Frania and Jeanne it all ends here if Charles was CONNFIRMED as incapable of succestion because of bieng guilty of lese-majesty and was further confirmed by a sentence at a formal lit de justice in 1421 how can Henry VI(Henri II of France) NOT be the legitimate king.This is why the treaty has been commonly misunderstood because French historions refuse to look at the later charges to Charles.Treaty or no Treaty Charles was incapable of succestion either way.As for what you people call Salic Law which is an ILlegal law.Read the terms of the treaty proparly dont just start making up your own terms.Henry V was adopted by Charles VI therefore making him his son.Strictyly by now there would be no absolute contridiction with Salic Law therefore Henry was capable of succeding as any of Charles sons although the actual text of Adopted-son was never used in the term it was explained.The Heir-Apparent was legaly confirmed as incapable of succestion by a lit-de justice so Charles VI next son(adopted) as legitimate Heir was Henry V.Henrys adoption is further enhanced in the treaty that Bravia and Charles be addresed as Father and Mother to Henry.Further more that gives Henry the legitimacy to adopt the title "Heir of France".Henry V also married Catherine which also made Henry,Charles son-in law.In order for the treaty to be confirmed legal there has to be ratification.As such,Both parties ratified the treaty in 1420.Most of the French arguements by now are overthrown.If Henry was just made heir with no reference to claim and without bieng enchanced then it would have been illegal and thus Charles can be accused of allienating the throne and treating the Kingdom as private land.Louis was incapable of succeding because he didnt profess his claim and was checked in England and to add he didnt have any title like heir prempusitive or apparent to the throne of France like Bedford therefore he wasnt strictly or legaly bound in the line of succestion to inherit.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 02:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Bonjour Jeanne: Où est passé notre cher Henry? Read your revisions on article. Merci 'team mate'! Will go thru it again (when time) and remove hidden comments not necessary anymore since you filled in with details. Hope you had a nice Mothers Day, if last Sunday was the date for it where you live. Aurevoir! Frania W. (talk) 13:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I did. Thank you. My daughter gave me a lovely potted plant.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:07, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Out of interest

Hello - out of interest - I was reading the talk page on Irish americans and saw your comment " I note that Obama also claims American Indian ancestry (Cherokee of course-what else?). It seems that those who claim remote Irish ancestry such as Obama, Clinton, etc. have the habit of saying they are part Native American as well. "

I'm not American, and was just wondering why "Cherokee of course-what else"? Is this a (relatively) common thing - is Cherokee regarded as a 'fashionable' tribe?...many thanks!Jandrews23jandrews23 (talk) 21:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I haven't a clue why so many non-Indians claim varying degrees of Cherokee Indian ancestry. I don't know why Cherokee is their tribe of choice; but I do know that it is the most popular tribe to claim descent from. Irish ancestry is also trendy, and as I mentioned, most Americans who claim remote Irish ancestry also insist that they are part-Cherokee as well. Bill Clinton is one of these people--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Everyone wants to join in the St. Patrick's day parade every March 17th in the US, and what do Irish-Americans call a participant who has NO or very little Irish blood? An "One-sixteenther", almost spoken of humorously and in the same fashion a Jewish person refers to an outsider a "Goyim".

But who wants to be a member of an oppressed non-Caucasian race in America? I mean, come on, my own mother knew this before it was a "trend" to be "multi-culti" or want to claim a stake in the "colored world" pardon the term. You have white people studying genetics, linguistics and world history of the various races, tribes, nations or ethnicities, like the debunked "Galician theory" of the origin of Cherokee Indians of North America, because they and the Galicians of northwest Spain have a similar self-name Cha-ra-gee or Tsa-la-gi for the Cherokee compared to Gallego and Galagee for the Galicians on the other side of the Atlantic ocean. Does it mean Cherokee Indians and Galicians in Europe may be the same people? Galicians claim to be Celtic more often, but have Iberian (related to Basques), Germanic (the Visi-Goths), Moorish (a little) and Roman (a lot) ancestors. The Cherokee are a branch of the Iroquoian or Algonkian family, but has origins father west or southwest of the Southern Appalachians of North America...and how many full-blooded Cherokee are mistaken for "black people" such as Barak Obama who's father is from Kenya, Africa but his mother's family lived in Wichita, Kansas; and in California, the assumptions of Cherokee were "long-lost Orientals" is not only offensive...but a white Californian who said he has "ethnic" looking features should do their genealogy: they could be 1/16th Chinese or 1/16 African-American instead. + 71.102.2.206 (talk) 11:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Ethnic features? What are ethnic features?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

HAPPY MOTHER'S DAY

Before I sign out (for the day), Happy Mama's Day Jeanne. GoodDay (talk) 16:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Why thank you, GoodDay.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello Jeanne

Hello Jeanne.Thanks for your message on my talk page.I will expand the article by Thurseday.As for your reply about the house of Lancaster bieng userpers is correct and I agree,there is absolutely no contridiction that Henry IV orderd the Private murder of Richard II in 1399.The valios however under philip were also userpers since they neglected Edward III legitimacy as king France.You mightend know this but in 1317 when the salic law was brought up during the reign of the last capet kings of france,the law actualy stated no women can succeded(although in itself is Ilegal) and never mentioned anything about Through women.In 1328 the meaning and law of salic law was further forged to disquailify Claims through women.Furthermore you should know that salic law was rediscoverd in the 16th century by a french monk and his discoveries were published during Elizibeth I reign in England.It only applied succestion for private norm or private land bi=ut to add not only was salic law wrong it only applied to Germany not France.The only-exception of the English renouncing the plantagement claim was Henry V in the treaty of Troyes when he got around the newly-established salic law by bieng adopted as SON by Charles VI and Isebaue of Bravia.P.S Jeanne,I THINK IN the lead about the stament of the treaty bieng against Salic law is false honesty in arguement.Salic Law could in no way attack the treaty for succestion through women but it actualy(AMAZINGLY) went with Traditional French Succestion from Father to son and since Henry was his son it could thus be proved legitimate.Charles however had no legitimacy at all as king of France since he was Foolish enough to commit Lese-Majesty in 1420 and was found guilty by a lit-de-justice in 1421.He is therefore Incapable of Succestion.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 22:19, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello Jeanne I think The arguement of Salic Law be removed for the reasons above I mentioned.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 15:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Help

Hi Jeanne, I am bored at the moment. I was wondering if you had noticed any articles I could help create or expand. Thanks --Daaviiid (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

You should search for articles that contain red-linked names, that could give you a few ideas. I recently created an article on Alice Comyn. Her son John de Beaumont, 2nd Lord Beaumont (1318- May 1342) doesn't have an article. He was the first husband of Eleanor of Lancaster. Then there's Peter of Luxembourg, Count of Saint-Pol (1390- 31 August 1433), husband of Margaret de Baux; he doesn't have his own article.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jeanne, I have taken your advice and have created Peter of Luxembourg, Count of Saint-Pol. Most of the information had come from articles you have created or expanded, I have added three more references. Feel free to expand or improve it. Thanks again --Daaviiid (talk) 16:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

It looks very good to me, Daviiid. Keep up the excellent work. I just created this article a few hours ago:Alianore Holland. What do you think? Do you think you could help expand it?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

You don't need to expand it Jeanne. You forgot to add categories, I have added her birth and death categories, but you may need to add more. There seems to be a problem with the references. Cheers --Daaviiid (talk) 20:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Jeanne I am removing the contridiction of salic law in the lead of the article.Its a false arguement,instead I am mentioning the contridiction of alienating the throne.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 22:17, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Agnes of Beaujeu

Hi Jeanne, I have read Elizabeth de Veele and like the rest of your articles, it is very good! I have just finished an article on Agnes of Beaujeu. I only really created it because she has some notable descendants, on many of the family trees, Agnes was the only red link. Cheers --Daaviiid (talk) 16:40, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Nice work, Daaviiid!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:48, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Treaty of Troyes

Hello Jeanne thanks for your message.I personaly got the terms of the treaty from which are mentioned in books but I didnt google search for every single clause of the treaty.Do a google search and you could get a list of all the clauses.Not to be rude Jeanne but why with that question.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 17:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Just a case of intellectual curiosity. I wonder if it is still in France--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:09, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Jeanne I tried a google book search but only clauses regarded as important are merntioned not the entire list of clauses.I am not sure if you can find all the clauses of the treaty in one website or book as you know,the treaty is a detailed complex piece of paper.I tried but I found a book that could explain some of its terms if thats ok.

[3]

P.S I provided reference on the treaty of troyes article,if you are free you could read some of the pages.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 17:44, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello Jeanne How do you answer a line-ciatation.If YOU know how do you link it to reference.Thanks Jeanne.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 19:43, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks jeanne for your comment,but you said the Beuforts were legitimized with the agreemeent they cant succeded.Thats different to Henrys case who was an adopted-son and succeded in the treaty.I would have to follow the example of Frania that the case would have to be investigated individualy and not in a one international law.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 00:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Palms article

Hi! Just finished reading your article on Palms, and was quite amazed with the amount of info! Didn't realize it was so old. Pix of the Iranian women was a site I don't recall ever seeing there. Only remember Mexicans and Cubans. I do remember the Destiny II Club, but don't recall seeing a mosque.

By the way, there's a movie called “Changeling“ you should see that shows the old Red Cars and the LA city hall in 1928 (without any high-rises nearby as today. Also the star works at Pacific Telephone Co. (my old employer). It's about old LA area history that I never heard about, called the Vineville chicken coop murders in 1928. Never heard parents or anyone ever talk about it, and neither does Judie! The town was renamed Mira Loma because of the murders. Check it out, I'm sure you'll like it. Take care!--DASTEV (talk) 04:23, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

"Parallels" article

Hi Jeanne, hope all it well with you! Just read your article--it was quite twisted (e.g: "Aunt Ruby's quilt"?) Also liked the family pix (located next to your cell phone #), which I hadn't spotted before. But was really surprised to see the pix (titled "1974 family group") of the girl sitting next to the young lad! That certainly brings back memories!!! Is the man "Ted the dope-runner"?--DASTEV (talk) 04:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

LOL, Aunt Ruby's quilt is a reference to the squares of grass on the quad an their different shades of green like a quilt-I added Aunt Ruby as a quirk. I knew that photo would bring back memories. No, the man is in the background is not Ted; it was one of Jude's post-Ted boyfriends. His name was Joe.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Queens of Bohemia

Hi Jeanne, how are you? Thanks for putting me on your favourite editors list. I listed you and other on my user page for helping me with certain articles. I have recently became more interested in the Monarchy of Bohemia. I have expanded Elisabeth I of Bohemia and have created an article on Judith of Habsburg and other consorts and princesses. I was wondering if you knew much more on any of them, such as Anna I, Anna of Bavaria, Sofia of Bavaria or Beatrice of Bourbon? Cheers--Daaviiid (talk) 17:56, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Another good article, Daaviiid. I'm afraid I really don't know too much about the Bohemian royals, apart from Anne of Bohemia, Queen consort of Richard II, and Bonne of Bohemia, first wife of King John II of France. I wish I did know more as they were an interesting family.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:14, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry Jeanne, I have just created an article on Anne of Bohemia (1323–1338), daughter of John and Elisabeth of Bohemia, what do you think? --Daaviiid (talk) 16:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Just a reminder

Im always very thankful for your help in the dual-monarchy article and I appreciate your edits.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 22:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, Henry.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:10, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Good Vibrations (neither Brian Wilson nor Mark Walhberg)

Jeanne, I really like your contributions and interest in things which Irish and feminists are often not believing important to be vocal about. Your approach is very reasonable and human. Your interest in Irish ethnicity does not take on nativist and/or obnoxious nationalist overtones. Your coverage of women is exactly what everybody would need to consider, if they were really concerned about women and their place in the world. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 08:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Catterick, you & editor HENRY V OF ENGLAND have never met. Catterick, this is HENRY; HENRY, this is Catterick. GoodDay (talk) 15:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, my talk page is becoming the joint where the hip people meet. Jeanne's talk page is gear.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

And I've got dodgy Hip joints, so here I am. Jack forbes (talk) 16:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I've got rythem. GoodDay (talk) 16:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't have the blues, although Snowded is convinced of this. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 05:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

And I've got a groovy Beach Boys record that'll cure Jack of arthritis: She's my Little Deuce Coupe......--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

My Wiki 2 hours are up. See ya tomorrow. GoodDay (talk) 17:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

And I've got the power!!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:49, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yet, I am the dancer! Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 05:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

A Cosmic Dancer perchance? Or you a danca (spoken with Brooklyn accent) of the Tony Manero genre?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Nay, I have the nation and even the curly hair, but not the same gender or "gray" coloured fraternal annoyance! Rhythmically dance to the rhythmic nation, for you have the power! Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 06:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Were you also born in Hackney?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Londonbeat had only one hit. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 06:55, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Who is Londonbeat? Excuse my appalling ignorance.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Y-suQWFOfg Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 06:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, now I remember who they were. Never made an impression on me, I'm afraid. Check my user page to see what kind of music I dig.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 06:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I was just connecting the inferences like dots. We did the Rhythm is a Dancer and I've Got the Power from Snap! and Rhythm Nation from Janet Jackson, after which, you said Hackney, so I connected the inferences to Londonbeat. I don't have any of these artists in my music collection. My music is country, bluegrass, national folk, marching band and some party time rock and roll, like Van Halen, Motley Crue, Def Leppard, Scorpions, Aerosmith, Deep Purple, Whitesnake, Rainbow, Black Sabbath, Ozzy, Led Zeppelin, etc. I can't stand any political music. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 07:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Then I can logically conclude that Billy Bragg is not exactly your cuppa.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Even though some of these guys are political activists, their music is fine: Don Henley, Peter Gabriel, U2, Phil Collins, Sting, Steve Miller, the Doors, Grand Funk Railroad, Steppenwolf, George Thoroughgood, Ted Nugent, KISS, Alice Cooper and so on. No Dead, except [Jack Straw], St. Stephen and Playing in the Band. Fuck Garcia with Yoko's body. On the other hand, I also very much treasure church organ hymns, Gregorian chants and middle ages or renaissance stuff, but must exit now. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 07:20, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Oops: Edgar Winter, Gerry Rafferty, Steely Dan, War, Foreigner, Hall & Oates, Boston, Journey, Styx, Slow Hand... Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 07:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

I notice there is no mention of The Greatest Rock and Roll Band in the World--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Goddamn, I forgot Tom Petty and Meat Loaf! Don't make me list them all, or I'll never get to bed. RE: David Bowie and Mick Jagger, fact or fiction? I no longer wear that black shirt with the Stones' fat lips and giant tongue. The washing machine didn't agree with it, lol. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 07:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

When I said country, it included Van Zant and the Allmans, but Cher and Anjelica Huston are not my type, really. Lita Ford and Joan Jett are more my wish, but Belinda not the least...Stevie Nicks is so-so. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 07:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Did I leave out Pat Benatar? For shame! Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 07:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Lita Ford is great in Kiss Me Deadly. As for David Bowie, ah....who could forget Major Tom, Starman, the Bewley Brothers, the diesel van driver, Lady Stardust, Time who flexes like a whore, Twig the Wonder Kid, the little bombadier, Ziggy Stardust, and all the rest of the brilliant characters he has created in his songs.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Marguerite de l'Aigle

Hi Jeanne, I have decided to create an article on Marguerite de l'Aigle, Queen of Navarre. She was married to the King of Navarre and had notable children. I think she should have an article because she had many lovers during her marriage and had a son, which the King refused to accept as his own. If you know of any facts, could you please let me know. Thank You--Daaviiid (talk) 16:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Marguerite definitely sounds like my type of medieval noblewoman, Daaviiid. I have, in point of fact, seen her name in royal genealogies. Go ahead and create the article. Tomorrow, I'll search around for some facts on her. Good Luck.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I finished it, I think more info could be added--Daaviiid (talk) 19:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

It looks fine.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 04:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

BI

Not crude at all. Wonderfully put and made me laugh out loud (really!). Best, Bill Reid | (talk) 14:40, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's alright then. I thought it might have been a wee bit over the top.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 18:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Treaty of Troyes

To the question on where to find the original of the Treaty of Troyes, this is the answer I recd from the CALAMES search group: Bonjour, En effectuant sur le catalogue Calames la recherche suivante: "Traité de Troyes", on obtient parmi les résultats l'intitulé suivant: "Traicté de Troyes, du mariage de madame Catherine de France, fille du roy Charles VI, et Henry d'Angleterre. 1420". Il s'agit de cet original, que vous trouverez à la bibliothèque de l'Institut de France. Pour connaître les modalités de consultation, vous pouvez prendre contact avec: Institut de France. Bibliothèque 23 quai de Conti 75006 Paris tél. 01 44 41 44 10 bibliotheque@bif.univ-paris5.fr Cordialement, la cellule assistance. Cordialement, Frania W. (talk) 18:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

I didn't mean to disturb you on Ela, Countess of Salisbury, just trying to clean up the refs... If you want to reference the Cawley, all you'll need to do is use <ref name=Cawley/>. Ask me if you have any questions about the syntax. - Nunh-huh 08:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Articles are messed up

Hello Jeanne.I really quickly need a consenus from you about the margerate of Anjou article.In the articles of Queen consort of France it mentions Margerat of Anjou.Therefore Margerat of Anjou must have a regnal template as Queen consort of France unless you wont the article to make no sence.I will add more reference about her bieng a queen consort of France before we imply these changes.Furthermore Henry VI descent as bieng wholly Lancastrian is sillyness at its best.He was king of England and France(never mind possetion or dispites).He is half french and English.His cadet branch should not be Lancater by birth only but rather Valios-Lancater.I can give a truck of reference if you wont,merly ask.The Treaty if you remeber didnt make Henry V king of France thereby overthrowing Charles VI(its nonscence).Henry had to renounce his claim before the treaty of bieng the legitimate king through Edward III.Therefore in order to inherit he must appear to Charles as his heir(not his soveriegn).By becoming Heir this in effect has to be interpted as giving legitimacy to Charles VI and so the Valois House.Henry had to be adopted in to that house by bieng adopted to Charles VI and to strengthen goodwill by marrying Catherine.Henry v THEREFORE was a valouis-Lancastrian King of England and Heir of France at this point.Henry VI continued the title as Heir of France at the death of his father and recognized the same way the legitimacy of The Valouis house or he couldnt be king.I also need a xonsenus to change Henrys cadet branch.The Treaty of Troyes article makes no sence without the edit.--HENRY V OF ENGLAND (talk) 22:36, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Another time dimension

Don't worry people, I haven't been trapped in another time dimension, nor have I been kidnapped by aliens; my computer is being upgraded, so have to wait a few days for it to be ready. I'm on a borrowed computer at the moment just checking out my messages.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 09:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

John Plantagenent, 3rd Earl of Kent

Hi Jeanne, I was wondering if you get a minute, would you mind creating an article on Edward, 3rd Earl of Kent? He was uncle to Richard II of England and married Isabella, daughter of Joanna of Hainaut. Joanna was sister of Queen Philippa. I think you may known of more information that me. Thank you! --Daaviiid (talk) 16:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Jeanne it looks great! I have adjusted it a bit, added a succession box and categories. Thanks again--Daaviiid (talk) 10:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Found them all!

I've finally found the five who attended Anne in the Tower and have just written an article on Lady Mary Kingston. I'll rewrite Mistress Stoner's article based on tudorhistory.org's suggestion that I've wrongly identified her (if you're interested, see https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=16981893&postID=1153406732222717640). I couldn't find a single book which listed all of them; no one seems to have thought this time important enough. Someone added to Alison Weir's article that she was starting a book on the final weeks of Anne Boleyn's life, but Weir's website says she's working on fiction at the moment. A book on this time would probably be the only thing left to say about Anne Boleyn, unless new information turns up; there's not yet been any as good as Ives, and recent books just re-hash the same old story.

Thanks for editing some of the articles I've created recently, I keep adding them to my user page. I've been trying to add more about various castles at the time as well. Anything else you think we're really missing? Boleyn (talk) 10:41, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

You have really been making great discoveries, Boleyn. I agree with you that Ives has probably written the definative biography on Anne Boleyn. I just wish the debate as to her DOB would be resolved. I personally back the 1501 date.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

LOL, a real mad on for the Great Whore. That's not very nice to say, when Elizabeth is the greatest thing to come to grace the planet, huh? Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 10:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

What makes you think Anne Boleyn was a whore? She refused to become Henry's mistress for 7 years! That's not sluttish behaviour in my opinion. Anyroad, words like whore, slag, etc. are only sexist labels to divide women into two categories: namely the whore or Madonna. The former are for screwing, the latter for marrying (Oh happy days)--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I rather tire of Elizabethan crap. To hell with a barren bitch who gave away my country to the Auld Enemy! Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 09:27, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Are you sure she was barren? After all, she did play Lolita to this guy. King James VI of Scotland was the true successor to Elizabeth, she really had no choice but to name him her heir.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

She failed in her primary purpose and she was from an usurping dynasty anyways. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 19:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

BTW, what have you got against the Scots? Didn't they give us telephones, trains, TV, and the Bay City Rollers?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Centuries of dumbassery and assfacery do not make for "happy happy". I am with the Plotters on this one: When asked by one of the Scottish lords what he had intended to do with so much gunpowder, Fawkes answered him, "To blow you Scotch beggars back to your own native mountains!" Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 19:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't you like anyone?!!!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 07:59, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure I do, but not on a Hippie level. I like people in the context of what they're good for. I don't nakedly invite felonious morons to disrupt my life and make my loved ones pay the price, for their own apathetic mishandling of my people. BTW, I do watch "The Tudors" from Showtime (have season 3 on pre-order from Amazon). I have watched many a Tudor film (Fire Over England, Elizabeth and Essex, Elizabeth, Elizabeth: the Golden Age, Shakespeare in Love) and read many a Tudor book. My mother in law has a mad on for the Great Bastard and celebrates her every birthday. I prefer the legitimate heir, if there is such a thing as legitimacy among the Tudors, or even the Lancastrians on a whole, lol. I shan't tarry much on the last, as the Beauforts represent the Plantagenets now, rather than one dynasty among the great House of Fulk le Jeune, roi de Jerusalem. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 08:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

The Tudors (Showtime production) was full of glaring historical errors from poor casting to lack of basic knowledge of life in the 16th century. Not to mention conbining the two sisters of Henry VIII into one woman who married the King of Portugal????????????. What is liking someone on a hippie level? Are we perhaps referring to the liking Charles Manson felt towards his female followers, the indescriminate flashing of the peace sign at Woodstock or the use of Like wow, like faaaaarrrrrrrouuuuut, maaaaaaan, like outtasite?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I know perfectly well the downsizing that Michael Hirst has done to simplify matters, though it was a joy to see the Emperor represented, for nobody does this... I am pleased that he did not whitewash the Pilgrimage of Grace, but I wish he held onto Norfolk until the end of Henry's reign, for how else shall we know Catherine Howard? It was terrible to miscast Henry and use the better actor, Steven Waddington, as Buckingham. It was terrible to blot out Richmond at toddlerhood and to conflate two sisters into the "Queen of Portugal". Hirst should have covered Flodden and ought to include Pinkie, but completely ignores Scotland and even Ireland. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 08:51, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Anne Boleyn did not have blue eyes, Henry VIII was a redhead-and rather plump, they used litters not carriages in the 16th century.....need I go on? That series was completely hosed.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

So what? The Welsh dumped on England and England is to blame for it. It's the same thing when James took over, with his rag-tag shenanigans. Blame England for what is done through London's traitorous clique. That's the problem. We must dare not speak the name of "England". Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 08:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

This sceptered Isle, this England....--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I will not repeat those words, unless the Hammer of the Scots comes back to life and really does some magic. Assimilate them all, I say. Do as France does with Alsace-Lorraine, Gascony and Brittany. Why not? A house divided against itself, shall not stand? If only this was spoken in England, rather than America. The "English Isles" does sound nice. Quot homines tot sententiae: suo quoique mos. (talk) 11:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)