Template:Did you know nominations/Philip III of Navarre
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Miyagawa (talk) 11:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Stained glass window depiction of Philip
- ... that Queen Joan II and King Philip III of Navarre (pictured) had to agree to step down when their eldest son or daughter reached majority, which chroniclers found shocking?
Source: "It was stipulated that when Juana and Philip's heir, 'whether it will be a son or daughter', reached the age of twenty-one, the couple would have to step aside or pay a hefty fine of 100,000 livres. Andre Favyn found this stipulation, indeed the very idea that subjects could place limits on their sovereigns' rule, shocking." ([1])- ALT1:... that despite his subjects' reluctance to accept him as king, Philip III of Navarre (pictured) proved to be an effective and successful ruler?
Source: "... the Navarrese were understandably keen to put specific limits to the powers of Juana II's husband." "Generally the perception of the reign of Juana II and her husband Philip d'Evreux by both their contemporaries and modern historians has been positive." "He took kingship seriously and worked on projects such as the amejoramiento of the law code which had a long-term benefit for the kingdom." ([2])
- ALT1:... that despite his subjects' reluctance to accept him as king, Philip III of Navarre (pictured) proved to be an effective and successful ruler?
- Reviewed: Beatriz de la Cueva
5x expanded by Surtsicna (talk) and Srnec (talk). Nominated by Surtsicna (talk) at 23:40, 17 November 2016 (UTC).
Recent fivefold expansion. Hook are both referenced to reliable sources, but the "which chroniclers found shocking" of the first hook is not in the article; so I will approve of only the second hook. No neutrality or copyright issues detected and QPQ is done. --KAVEBEAR (talk) 23:11, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
