Talk:Petronilla of Aragon

Untitled

Isn't "Petronilla" the more common spelling of her name? -- Jmabel 04:13, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've seen lots of spellings for it. I suggest we keep it Petronila (sounds better). Where did see "Pétronille"? -- Apoivre

Mostly in French-language sources. Do a web-search, you'll find it. -- Jmabel 17:46, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)

So we're talking about modern spellings? Then we'll have to include them all, in every language (Aragonese medieval lexicology used to be pretty strong in Finland - shall we add a Finnish version, then?). I thought we should only include spellings in Latin/Spanish/Catalan and a common English one (it's en.wikipedia, after all, not fr:). BTW, I uploaded a list of counts of Urgell - care to have a look and check names (Armengol/Ermengol/Ermengarius, Sunifred(o)/Sunyer/Suniarius)?

And another question (I'm totally new here): is there some project to coordinate efforts on Catalonia/Aragon medieval history? -- Apoivre

No, though if someone wants to start one, I'm in. Do you read Catalan? A lot of material in the English-language Wikipedia about Catalonia/Aragon medieval history originally came from the Catalan-language Wikipedia. Any such project should probably try to rope in some of the contributors there and should probably cross over at least English and Catalan, and maybe Spanish. -- Jmabel 08:23, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I read both modern and medieval Catalan. However, there's next to no use translating stuff from :ca as there's lot of incorrect info there (like stating Peter the Catholic died on the next day after the battle of Muret - he died on the battlefield early in the battle). I might actually pitch in and correct everything which is wrong in :ca. -- Apoivre

Cool! Sounds like you have quite an advantage over me. My Catalan is just barely OK for reading. I have near-fluent Spanish (and pretty decent Romanian), and I spent enough time in Barcelona and painfully plowed through museum wall texts and copies of Avui to start learning some Catalan. Also, in the last few years I've put in what adds up to maybe 50 hours of more systematic study and maybe another 50-100 hours of attempted translations. And I bought a decent dictionary. At this point, I read it pretty decently, but still hesitate to try to write in the language. I get very confused by any misspellings and bad grammar. (I also get very confused by the pronouns, but that's another story.) As for the medieval history, my knowledge is not at all strong. I would probably not catch any Catalan out in a mis-statement; I've simply been relying on the people writing in Catalan to know their own history.

If you do want to start a WikiProject on this, I will gladly join. And help out. I'm not ready to start another myself, because I'm already not giving adequate attention to the Ethnic Groups WikiProject and the Translation project, both of which I started. -- Jmabel 22:42, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I majored in medieval Aragon at the University so I should be the man for the job. OTOH, if projects are for streamlining content presentation then we probably don't need on for the Corona de Aragón. Might as weel just go along and add bits of info on everyone. And I do like your Ethnic Group Project. Let's see if I can do something there as well apoivre 09:44, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

On the spelling: I think in this case "Pétronille" is useful because a lot of the searchable web content about her uses that form of the name. I don't by any means advocate reproducing all international forms of a royal name, but I find that it is useful to give ones that might aid someone in doing basic research. Maybe these should be identified by language, though. I've done that elsewhere, didn't think to do it here. --Jmabel 08:26, 9 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Seeming contradiction

Recently anonymously added "The kingdom was inherited only by males, thus Petronila's succession was an exception at the time… Petronila's succession created a new case in succession custom in Aragon." Given that Petronila did, indeed succeed to the throne, the first phrase here seems inherently false. I am editing it to "The Aragonese monarchy had previously passed only to males…" If that is not what was meant, could someone please reword more clearly? -- Jmabel | Talk 22:38, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

Extenuating circumstances?

"Petronila came to the throne under extenuating circumstances." This makes no sense. "Extenuating circumstances" are those which tend to excuse a crime or mitigate its severity. Ascending to the throne is in no sense a crime. What is meant here? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:56, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I would guess "unlikely" or "complicated." john k 18:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The editor in question changed it to "special". I still don't think it adds much (the facts follow immediately), but this isn't the sort of thing worth fighting over. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:14, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Earlier image?

What happened to the image of Petronilla which was used a few months ago? It was much better than the current one.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Tomb

How do you lose a tomb in a church that still stands today? Was it looted or sacked by enemy forces?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 09:04, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that would have been the most likely scenario, unless the tomb was later transferred to another church or abbey.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:18, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Her tomb may have been lost because the existing Gothic cathedral began construction in 1298; Petronilla died in 1173 when the Romanesque cathedral, built in the 11th century, was on the site.Fromthemitten (talk) 23:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Images' use

Dear EeuHP and Srnec,
As regards the use of images in the article, I have made edits to the article:

• I have retained the portrait in the infobox, but have used the caption field to add the qualification it is from a much later text
• I have added the image of the charter in the body of the article, at an appropriate position chronologically.

As a 3rd party to this exchange I hope this is a compromise that is acceptable to you both. Personally I believe using two images, rather than just one is advantageous to the look and educational value of the article.
Regards, --LukeSurl ^{t c} 15:03, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you. For me, alright.--EeuHP (talk) 15:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. I do not believe that whatever educational value the 15th-century miniature has justifies its prominence in this article about a 12th-century queen. The charter is incomparably more significant and its educational value too far exceeds that of the late portrait. I also disagree with EeuHP's recent changes to the article. Why make the article look longer than it is? And why subsume all of the body text under one heading? What use is the heading then? And why list her children in point form? Is it too hard for people to read in a sentence? All these recent edits, to me, move the article away from its encyclopaedic purpose (to be read) and towards something more database-y. Srnec (talk) 19:29, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

You say that the painting is not "educational"? What is "educational"? I don't understand. The function of the section "image" is put a picture of the person to illustrate the article. If only there to put a painting (or sculpture) created during the life of the historical figure, 80% of the articles would be without any image. Is that what you want? Place the earliest known portrait is not a sin.

Also, place a paper in the "image" (intended to give the reader a picture of a person) makes no sense. And even having placed the letter in the body of the article (which clogs) your opposition is not minor.

You oppose my latest changes. I don't understand. Compartmentalize information is not bad. Put the names of the children of the queen in "list mode" helps them look better.--EeuHP (talk) 20:56, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

You need to read better. I did not say the painting is not educational. I said that "whatever educational value [it] has" does not "justif[y] its prominence" here. Neither did I ever say that only a contemporary depiction was admissible. What I am saying is that when an image is not a genuine depiction of a person, we need a different reason from "intended to give the reader a picture of a person", since the image does no such thing. Such is the case here. The "paper", as you call it (it isn't one, it's parchment), is a contemporary artifact of great importance for understanding and learning about Petronilla (i.e., it's educational). Srnec (talk) 22:18, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for attacking my edition in the article of Nicholas II. An edit war against me is very little for you, it seems. Reasoning with you is a futile enterprise. But I will try one last time.

• The picture illustrating the article. You have not given any reason why a painting years later should not appear. Why reject later paintings? Sometimes, the portraits made during the life of the person hiding their flaws and made them look better. There are portraits of a person, made ​​during his life, that are completely different of others of the same condition.
• The letter is already in the article. Why do you insist? It seems you want to remove the picture and put the letter in his place. Sorry, but this claim is illogical. The "image" refers to a person's image, painted or sculpted. Put her act of abdication have the same logic that put a photo of your college diploma in the identity card.--EeuHP (talk) 22:59, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I did not "attack" your edit to Nicholas II. I reverted it. Because it is not an improvement.

You don't get to decide how many times you try to reason with me. That's not how Wikipedia works.

You clearly have no idea what I am saying (perhaps you just don't know English well enough). I am not categorically rejecting posthumous depictions. I am arguing that the image you insist on barely even deserves the label "depiction". It is nothing of the sort. It is about as good as if I drew a picture of girlfriend with a crown on at a Renaissance Fair and uploaded it here under the file name "Queen_Petronilla_of_Aragon". The fact that somebody beat me to it by 500 years does not make the image a depiction of Petronilla. Now, (a) if it showed a woman doing something distinctly associated in historical memory with Petronilla, or (b) if it was of great artistic merit and witnessed the legacy of the queen in the centuries after her death, or even (c) if we had nothing better, then I could live with the image. But in this case we (a) have something very much better, (b) have a portrait of little artistic merit and having nothing to do with what people thought of Petronilla in the 15th century [it's basically just a decoration beside a name in a genealogy] and (c) have a portrait that could be of any queen of the Middle Ages, with nothing distinct about it to indicate that it must be Petronilla. For these reasons, it is educationally practically valueless—at least next to the charter.

There is no Wikipedia rule that we must you a "depiction" of a person as the main image in an article on him/her. Don't be fooled by the infobox. "Image" is just the name of a field, it need not be an image of the person whose name is atop the stupid box. Srnec (talk) 00:31, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

1. The (in your opinion) poor quality of the picture does not take away its age. It is the most oldest drawing of her in Commons. Would you accept another picture, higher quality, but more modern?
2. The letter (though valuable) is unacceptable in the place where you want to put in the beginning (if you believe that there is no valid paint, you should believe that in "image" there should be nothing). And I do not change my opinion. The place where the letter is now is the correct. I no see reason for complaint: there is only one image in the body of the text and is the letter (and I have decreased the size of the letter because before dislocated the position of the section "notes". A simple aesthetic criteria).--EeuHP (talk) 00:51, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

1. What are you talking about? I don't want any drawing of her that doesn't meet the criteria I set out. To my knowledge, she plays little to no role in Spanish/Catalan historical consciousness. Her legacy, in common memory, is nil. Therefore, there is no portrait of her that we could justify on artistic merits alone. No artist, no historian, no demagogue has taken her up. All the picture of her are mostly meaningless placeholders. We have a lot of those at Wikipedia, and if it were up to me many (perhaps most) would be gone.
2. Why is the charter unacceptable at the beginning? If it is because of the infobox, let's get rid of the infobox. But where is there a rule that says only a picture of the article's subject must be in the infobox? Srnec (talk) 02:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment on main image

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

See the preceding section. There are two main candidates to be the primary image (i.e. the image in the infobox): the one that is currently there (since User:EeuHP, now blocked, added it a few days ago) and the one that was there before (the charter that is lower on the page right now). I have argued that the contemporary charter, bearing the subject's signature and perhaps her own thoughts or words, is superior to a much later image that was never intended to depict the subject, but was mainly decorative. User:EeuHP has argued that the lead image to a biographical article should by default be a depiction of the person, and that disqualifying posthumous or late images would leave most pre-modern biographies barren. Is one image more appropriate as the lead image for this subject? Srnec (talk) 01:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

• RFC Comment: I found a section of the MoS: WP:LEADIMAGE, which seems to prefer the picture of the lady, as opposed to the picture of the document: "Lead images should be images that are natural and appropriate visual representations of the topic". As this is an article about the lady, a picture of the lady is a visual representation of the topic. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:14, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Do you think this applies when there is no near contemporary visual representation of the subject? Should we then use, as in this case, a much later picture in preference to a contemporary document of the lady's own issuing? Srnec (talk) 23:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

    Yes, even in that case, see the same MoS page which says "images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, even if they are not provably authentic images". There are other articles with similar problems with images, although this is probably one of the least representative ones. If no agreement can be reached as to the appropriateness of an image, the MoS page also provides that a lead image isn't mandatory on a page. In case the portrait is chosen, it should be represented correctly as a later work, see e.g. the way the lead image of Anne Boleyn is introduces. --Dailycare (talk) 20:46, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

    But do provably inauthentic images "look like what they are meant to illustrate"? We have no reason to believe so. All we can say is that the image is of a royal woman and Petronilla was a royal woman. Srnec (talk) 06:08, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

    Yes, in the sense that in this case the image portrays a lady who is docketed as the lady this article is about. Obviously, if we had a contemporary portrait we'd use that, but as we don't we need to use a picture that we do have. The subject of this article isn't the charter so using an image of the charter seems contrary to the MoS section quoted first above. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:00, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

• What was wrong with this one? That seems better than both of those. And I don't see what being contemporary has to do with anything; there are no contemporary portraits of Jesus, but his article still has a stylized image of him. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 02:39, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

  I rather dislike the lead image at Jesus, but the case is not comparable, since we have no contemporary artefact directly associated with him. As for the image you suggest, I won't bother critiquing it. It's all made-up, which is fine for what it is, but, in my opinion, apparently contrary to the MoS, makes it unworthy of being the lead image (when we have another option). Srnec (talk) 06:08, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

  Well, as you say, your opinion is contrary to the manual of style. And apparently you're the only one who has a problem with it. Hardly grounds for an RfC. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 18:17, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

  There was a dispute. There was a third opinion, with which I still disagreed. That's grounds for an RFC. I will bow to the wishes of my fellow editors, even though I continue to believe the current lead image is not helpful to our readers. Srnec (talk) 20:48, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Count Raymond Berengar (top left), holding a ring, marries Queen Petronilla (top right), crowned and holding a sceptre. Their son and heir, King Alfonso (bottom), is also shown crowned and holding a sceptre.

I think this image would be better than the current one, although Petronilla is only one of three figures in it. It illustrates her key relationships and visualises the distinction between her (crowned) and her husband (not). Petronill and her son are facing into the page. Srnec (talk) 21:05, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not particularly opposed to this new image, although I'd prefer the one with just Petronilla. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 19:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The image at right illustrates a several things for the reader's benefit: the difference in status between the queen and her husband, the count; that the queen's status passed to her son (i.e. he didn't become king b/c of his dad); and that in the first decade of the 15th century this was remembered (that Ramon Berenguer did not become king). What does the reader learn about Petronilla or her life/reign from an obscure 15th-century image? Does he even learn anything about her legacy or posthumous reputation?

I am not absolutely opposed to merely decorative images, but I think that decoration is of secondary importance. In this case, we have options and we do not have to fall back on a mere decoration. Srnec (talk) 01:36, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

No one is going to learn any of that by looking at the picture. They'll learn it by reading the article. So the picture should be used to illustrate the appropriate section of the article. The function of the lead image is not to teach readers anything; it shouldn't need a long caption to explain all the esoteric elements. It is solely to illustrate the subject. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 02:35, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Kafziel makes a good point, we can use this image further down in the article. --Dailycare (talk) 20:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Nobody is supposed to learn it from the image alone, but the image should at least illustrate something found in the article, preferably something more unique to her than "royal woman". This image, unlike many we use, is not in any way a likeness of Petronilla. So what is it illustrating? Srnec (talk) 21:06, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

• RFC Comment -- I prefer the current photo per Dailycare above and MOS WP:LEADIMAGE. Even though the image is from a later period it is still more appropriate than the photo of the charter. This image would also be fine and I also favor it over the charter image.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:05, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Summary and explanation

Hello. I'm back and now I understand the situation. Srnec is a misunderstood genious. A normal person see the article of Petronilla, think "oh, an article without image" and put an image (this, this, this or this other). But Srnec no. He is a genious and the genious never take the easy way. He prefer the document of abdication of Petronilla. The normal people say "WTF??? The infobox should illustrate the appearance of the person and a paper does not do that". But Srnec thinks it does. Why? Because he is a misunderstood genious.

Distrustful people may think that Srnec is stupid, but he is not stupid. A stupid person couldn't have done what he did to get rid of me. His maneuver was very clever. He couldn't let that a user "boss" saw our edit war because both would be blocked. But if he reopened an old war edition where I participated, I would be the only blocked (by "recidivism") and he would not be punished. And so it happened. A maneuver worthy of him.

But the genius does not stop there. Now he defend the image of the right side and I can't understand the decisions of his brain. Why he refused this image two weeks ago and now he defend the extended version of the same image (with Petronilla, Ramon Berenguer and Alfonso II). Why put a picture of three people (very excessive) when exist a cropped version of Petronilla? Would not it be easier to leave the image of Petronilla? It is possible, but he is a genius and he understands it differently.

I do not want to be locked again. Only say that I am opposed the document (it does not serve to enlighten readers about the person) and I'm opposed the image that he defends now (three people is excessive, we only need one person to illustrate the article). Maybe I'm not a genius, but I think my arguments are equally valid.--EeuHP (talk) 18:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Your arguments are valid, but please discuss your point of view about the photos, not other editors. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 19:17, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Honestly, I have wanted to laugh (because it's better to laugh than mourn).

Everyone tells me "Do not talk about other editors." Sorry, but that's nonsense. It is impossible to speak about my position without a mention to Srnec.

I talked to him during three days, trying to explain why his decision (put a document in the infobox's section "image") was not correct.

He has rejected all images of Petronilla (saying that its validity was the same as a picture of his girlfriend painted by him with a pencil). He accused me of ignoring the importance of the document (when I had accepted that it was in the body of the article). He removed my editions eight times (even cosmetic changes). And he managed to expel me.

And now he has completely changed his opinion and accepted a painting, precisely the worst of all (the only one where the presence of Petronilla goes unnoticed -the opposite of the mission of the infobox-).

I share your position on the matter, but I assure you that talk to the hand is not a pleasant task. He wants the image of infobox inform more that the article and a week later he continues to think the same. He is entrenched. I hope you have better luck.--EeuHP (talk) 21:13, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, the only thing left to do is say that these two images are most appropriate to put in the infobox. These images are closer to her time and fulfill their purpose of illustrating the article. Ah, and I think that divide the informations into compartments are not bad [1] (the document in the article dislocates the text and the division helps readability, I think).--EeuHP (talk) 21:32, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Since I was an involved party in this discussion and this topic appears to be contentious and has continued in a new form a another article topic, I have self reverted my non-admin closure of the RfC and have relisted it at WP:ANRFC so it can be closed by an un-involved party.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:05, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request for comment on structure of the article

Seems that Srnec want to be my eternal opponent and as I don't want to war, I would ask to the users their opinion of my proposition of structure and his option. My reasons by the change are:

• I've compartmentalized the information on the life of the queen in three parts (enthronement, full age and last years) for easier reading. This article looks better that way and if, in the future, more information is added, the work for clarification is already advanced.

• I replaced the phrase Charter by Which Petronilla abdicated (18 July 1164) in Favour of her son Alfonso II of Aragon for this one sentence: Charter by Which Petronilla abdicated in Favour of her son Alfonso II. Why? Because in the accompanying paragraph already appears the date on which she abdicated.

• I have decreased slightly the size of the image because I think that so overwhelms least paragraph next door and I think that the images don't must detract prominence to the words without reason.

• And I get down the title "Notes" because the section was disjointed and I think the composition should be harmonious.

Thanks in advance.--EeuHP (talk) 18:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree about the caption and have amended it. About the size of the image, I believe we should not generally force image sizes. Logged-in users can set defaults in their preferences. Other users will have screens of various sizes and resolutions, so forcing the size does not optimise it for everyone. That's why I prefer the parameter "upright" to make the image smaller. I don't know what you mean about the "Notes".

I am opposed to "compartmentalizing" because the section headings are meaningless. They do not help the reader navigate because all they do is refer to ill-defined chronological periods in any person's life. They break up the text for no other reason than to break it up. We have paragraphs for that. Srnec (talk) 01:48, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The key is that the image broken the harmony of the text: the annex paragraph and the section title "notes" are moved to the right. If I were the only editor, I'll remove the image. But I preferred to keep it to avoid arguments. Now, I try to make other harmony (a image with less size and section headings to get that "Notes" get down and leave the right of the article).

Moreover, the section heading not break up the article. They make reading easier. Petronilla almost was born married. All her life can be divide in three period: before her wedding night (childhood), after her wedding night (full age) and when she was widow. I think that the division is perninent and correct and help my intention of make a new harmonic structure .--EeuHP (talk) 15:45, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, I know how I would fix that bunching problem. . . Seriously, it is a problem only on some screens (not mine) and section headings are not the way to solve it. I have added a {{clr}} template, I hope that helps.

I do not see how headings make reading easier, since they assigne basically one paragraph to a section. The division, moreover, is applicable to anyone's life. That was my point. Who comes to this article looking to learn about Petronilla's "later years"? Also, the bulleted list of children is disapproved of in the MOS, see WP:L, where it says, "Do not use [bulleted] lists if a passage is read easily as plain paragraphs". Srnec (talk) 03:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

The move to get "Notes" below was good. Now the problem is that there is much space blank. But we can solve without compartmentalize the article. We just need a title "Biography" to separate the introductory paragraph of the rest of the article and put the children of Petronilla in list mode (thus adding additional information about the role they had).--EeuHP (talk) 20:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

A "biography" heading is meaningless and list mode is, as I pointed out, discouraged. Instead, I removed the "issue" from the infobox as redundant. There are two ways to fix the white space: remove the infobox or make the article longer by adding information with references. Srnec (talk) 21:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

References: [2]--EeuHP (talk) 00:23, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

It is your responsibility to add citations to material you add, not mine. Srnec (talk) 01:02, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Lead image

• 
  #1 - Lead image per 2014 RFC
• 
  #2 - Image I proposed as a compromise in the RFC
• 
  #3 - Image after June 2018
• 
  #4 - After image was removed in April 2020, I moved this one up in September
• 
  #5 - Image to replace charter in May 2021. Another user removed it and I restored it.
• 
  #6 - User who added the prev. image decided on this one, but I reverted back.

The above is the lead image (debate) history. I stand by my position in the RFC. I would be happy with the charter at the top or in the infobox. I don't care if the infobox stays or goes. I think #2 is an acceptable compromise for the lead or the box. If we must have a decorative image, the current one is clearly the prettiest. @Beyond My Ken and Surtsicna: —Srnec (talk) 00:56, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

The purpose of a lede image is not to be "pretty" it is to represent what the person looked like, or -- in this case -- how the person was imagined to have looked like. The only image which does a halfway decent job of this is #6. (I added the numbers.) I still don't understand on what ground Smec reverted my addition of it, it appeared to be pure WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The 2014 RfC image (#1) would be OK if there were a version of it with better resolution. As it is it to too poor an image to be the lede. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:41, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

The purpose of a lead image is defined by MOS:LEADIMAGE: Lead images should ... illustrate the topic specifically... That would seem to disqualify the charter, as the topic is a person, not the charter or abdication. Lead images should be ... the type of image used for similar purposes in high-quality reference works... This clearly disqualifies fanciful depictions from the 15th, 16th, and 17th centuries because these are not associated with the subject in modern scholarship. I would much rather see one of those in the Petronilla_of_Aragon#Legacy section, which discusses how she was seen in the later centuries. Lead images are not required, and not having a lead image may be the best solution if there is no easy representation of the topic. So not only does MOS:LEADIMAGE allow for having no image in the lead, it states that no image may sometimes be the best option.
In my opinion, having no image in the lead is certainly better than having a fanciful image in the lead. She did not look like this nor did women in 12th-century Catalonia dress in 16th-century Portuguese fashion; but that is exactly what an average reader will gather from that image. For what it's worth, last year there was an RfC on non-contemporary images of popes, ending in a nearly unanimous consensus not to use fanciful images in the lead. Surtsicna (talk) 07:58, 24 June 2021 (UTC)