Richildis von Egisheim - Richildis or Joanna?

SOLVED special TNX

re-move or move TAG to wrong JPG https://www.geni.com/photo/view?album_type=photos_of_me&id=6000...

*Private User

It is believed she conspired with other nobles to assassinate her husband, Andrew, Duke of Calabria András (Andrew) d'Anjou, prince of Hungary

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1345_in_Italy

Aka the black widow queen.

Curt, I presume the guy in the window was one of her chief conspirators. Her pointed finger indicates she has given him verbal (i.e. unofficial) orders to carry out. In this case, the assassination of her own husband because she did not wish to share her power with him (per the Pope's decree). The fact that the communication between them was conducted through a window signifies secrecy. One might be able to reasonably pinpoint the window-man's identity with a bit more historical research.

I'm sure the guy looks worried because murder is a serious crime punishable by death.

The image is a miniature from a copy of Boccaccio’s De Claris Mulieribus which is held at the national library in Paris.

She isn’t in a carriage. She is enthroned, and the man in the window represents her subjects giving her homage.

This information is from the library’s description of the illustrations in the manuscript.

See https://archivesetmanuscrits.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/cc717401

Curt Quentin Harris -- the image that you link to is not medieval, and so is not any sort of evidence for what might or might not have gone on in the middle ages.

Same for the image up above that you link to, supposedly of Maria of Jerusalem. They are not evidence of medieval images. They are evidence of modern interpretations of medieval images.

The image of Hugh Capet is, according to the New World Encyclopedia, an "imagined" portrait, as no contemporary ones exist. It's by Charles de Steuben and dates from the early 19th century.

The portrait of Maria is not a portrait of Maria at all. It is a portrait of Irina Volodarovna, painted by Orlenov Artur. I can't find a date for the painting itself, but since Orlenov is still working, it would be within the last 50 years, probably more recently.

it's really important to be specific. And to not assume, or speculate.

Curt Quentin Harris, she's too modest to say so herself but Anne Brannen is arguably the most qualified medieval historian active in Geni. She is also one of Geni's most active Curators.

In my interactions with her she is always pleasant and goes out of her way to educate users as well as correcting the tree. Your reply to her seems to imply you feel some sort of conflict exists but having just read thru this whole thread I cannot see why you feel that way.

Your comment that some users upload images to Geni without any real knowledge is 100% accurate. I have come across profiles of people from the 18th century with photos in their profiles, pre-dating the invention of photography by 100 years, but they are old and pretty so ...

@Curt Quentin Harris, always ask the question, and do not assume that everything in Geni is correct. See if sources are provided in the profile and follow up on them. There are a lot of unsourced profiles, particularly where people are trying to link American colonial ancestors back to Europe, usually in a hunt for a royal connection. And yes, people dump pictures in the profile just because they think the profile needs a picture.

Curt Quentin Harris — sorry; I posted quickly and then had to go feed parrot and dogs and humans and what not.

No, the question about the pointing is a very good one; I was simply objecting to the use of non-medieval works as examples of medieval works. And yes. This is a collaborative site, and we all have differing levels and areas of expertise.

But! As to the pointing!

The pointing is not about royalty; it’s about medieval stylistics. People in medieval art might be pointing up, that is, to heaven, or they might be pointing to something else that is to be noted. Medieval manuscripts often have pointing hands in the margins, so that you can tell what is important on the page.

As a special treat, here are several actual medieval images of kings, along with some discussion.

https://thepostgradchronicles.org/2018/05/19/the-image-of-the-king-...

— Anne

https://www.geni.com/photo/view/5411162384740027078?album_type=phot...=

Mr. Harris, here is an authentically Medieval portrait of Hugh Capet that appears to corroborate your point (puns intended, or at least noted :D ) with regard to his being traditionally depicted holding up exactly two fingers. And although (as Anne so generously pointed out to everyone reading this discussion) the picture you referenced was done by a later artist, it does nevertheless maintain the tradition alluded to in your comment. And it is after all a portrait of the same subject (Hugh Capet), by a highly regarded artist. So I would agree that there is a tradition of portraiture of Hugh Capet symbolically holding up precisely two fingers, and I think your reasoning is probably correct. He likely gained a fearsome reputation as someone who disabled English longbowmen.

There would be no Discussions without questions and hopefully Geni discussions will remain forever friendly and respectful, because many of us enjoy learning from them.

And while I'm here: "Royalty" were mortals who put their pants on one leg at a time, like everyone else. They could be uncrowned as easily as they were crowned. The biggest genealogical and/or historical difference is that they were far better documented than most individual, impoverished (i.e. landless) subjects. That's why it is far more likely to find an ancient royal connection than any other kind, because they are among the few ancestors whose records were intentionally preserved. Even so, a lot of family history has been lost to wars, political power struggles, and famines and other 'natural' disasters.

And another: https://www.geni.com/photo/view/5411162384740027078?album_type=phot...=

Curt Quentin Harris — the gesture with two fingers up and the others folded over the palm isn’t a pointing gesture, but a blessing gesture. Royal figures can have it but it is mostly seen on religious figures.

The first Hugh Capet image that Private User linked to above (11th century) shows a different hand gesture, though also one of blessing. The edge of the circle cuts off part of the hand, but you can see that his hand is open, with the fingers together.

Again, mostly seen in religious portraits, but royalty included, if they behave themselves.

I don’t know if there are examples of lesser secular people using either gesture. That would be interesting.

You are quite welcome.

all very nice, but the wrong JPG of Private User..

..although covered by me on GENI, it's still tagged and titled in the name of GENI on search engines..

*https://www.geni.com/photo/view?album_type=photos_of_me&id=6000...

Livio, you are correct again, of course. I hope it is resolved before too long.