Talk:Juliet

Shakespeare High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Shakespeare, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of William Shakespeare on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ShakespeareWikipedia:WikiProject ShakespeareTemplate:WikiProject ShakespeareShakespeare articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Fictional characters

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Fictional characters, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of fictional characters on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Fictional charactersWikipedia:WikiProject Fictional charactersTemplate:WikiProject Fictional charactersfictional character articles

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[List of Toy Story characters#Aliens / Little Green Men|Squeeze Toy Aliens/LGMs]] The anchor (#Aliens / Little Green Men) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

More Performers, Please!

Juliet and Romeo were not just a story characters. They were aslo real human beings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.137.105.82 (talk) 09:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC) I know more famous actresses have done Juliet. Look at the lists on other character pages from the play. These people need to be included. Also, it would be nice if they were categorized into stage, film and television. If it takes too long, I might just do this myself, but otherwise, it'd be nice if someone else could... --02:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)BeastKing89[reply]

Juliet's language

She uses monosyllabic words with Romeo, and formal language with Paris.[1] -Malkinann 01:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nurse's "betrayal"?

I recently removed the statement that Juliet is "betrayed" by her nurse, changing it instead to "let down". It's true that the nurse's suggestion that Juliet should marry Paris, when she knows that Juliet is secretly married to Romeo, is pretty outrageous; and not only Juliet but also probably the audience and the readers feel disillusioned and let down. But "betrayal" would suggest that the nurse actually pretends to support Juliet, while treacherously reporting to others the secrets with which she has been entrusted. There's no suggestion that the nurse does that. Admittedly, she very likely keeps silent because she doesn't want to get into trouble for the role she played in assisting the lovers, rather than out of any loyalty to Juliet. But I think "betrayed" is still too strong a word to use, and I see that it has been put back. Cowardly Lion (talk) 17:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Cowardly Lion. Juliet may feel betrayed, but the current wording is definitely better. AndyJones (talk) 17:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's true. After all, the nurse is Juliet's dear friend. Angie Y. (talk) 18:49, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Shakespears time

In Shakespears time when it says that girls where normally at the age of 21 before they made children, they were mainly forced at a young age to get married (even 11).

I wasn't able to change it so I decided to say it in the discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.135.25.158 (talk) 13:06, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Jungli"

Can someone revert the October 2, 2010 change to the introduction?--24.190.144.211 (talk) 19:21, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Age

In Juliet's 'Physical Appearance' section, someone keeps changing the age to 15. She is fifteen in one of the poem versions, but she is thirteen in Shakespeare's play. (Capulet says : 'She hath not seen the change of fourteen years...'

Or, maybe someone should get rid of the 'Physical Appearance section altogether? It 'is' only one sentence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.166.173.83 (talk) 22:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is the purpose of saying that "the parts of young women were played by pre-adolescent boys in Shakespeare's day also cannot be overlooked and it is possible that Shakespeare had the physique of a young boy in mind during composition"? This has nothing to do with the age of the character, and the following word "in addition to the fact that Romeo and Juliet are of wealthy families and would be more likely to marry earlier than commoners" is entirely unconnected.Royalcourtier (talk) 19:37, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the mention of young women being played by pre-adolescent boys is relevant, when discussing Shakespeare's changes from the poem he used for reference. However, the following information on the average ages that women married in England is contradictory and quite confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.62.202 (talk) 20:43, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Breawycker public (talk) main account (talk) 19:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Juliet Capulet → Juliet – We have already moved "Romeo Montague" to "Romeo" (see Talk:Romeo so the same arguments apply e.g. the script does not actually call her this, it calls her "Juliet, daughter to Capulet". She is already the primary meaning of "Juliet". PatGallacher (talk) 17:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose many characters are named "Juliet", some of them based on this character, but not a Capulet. 64.229.100.153 (talk) 04:30, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. As Juliet already redirects to this article, this is not WP:PRIMARYTOPIC discussion (consensus has already been reached on that less than a month ago). Instead it is a WP:COMMONNAME discussion, with the question being is she more commonly referred to as "Juliet" or "Juliet Capulet". The majority of reliable sources name her simply Juliet, so that is what we, Wikipedia, should also do. Jenks24 (talk) 10:27, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Jenks24; the notion of many characters named Juliet which may be confused with this one does not hold water. pablo 14:22, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Jenks24 Johnbod (talk) 23:50, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Juliet redirects here so the hard part has already been decided. Non-Shakespeare enthusiasts will likely not recognize her last name. –CWenger (^ • @) 15:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Juliet (Shakespeare character) or similar? Juliet (disambiguation) lists 27 meanings. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:42, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like an implicit proposal to reverse the decision to treat her as the primary meaning, not the matter under discussion. PatGallacher (talk) 22:06, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In case you hadn't realised Anthony, consensus just last month at Talk:Juliet (disambiguation)#Requested move was that the Shakespeare character was the primary topic. Jenks24 (talk) 13:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I was (subjectively am still, come to it) opposed to this move, but I find Jenks24's argument persuasive: since WP:PRIMARYTOPIC has been decided, only arguments based on WP:COMMONNAME are relevant. --Xover (talk) 06:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support for every conceivable reason.--Kotniski (talk) 12:44, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

In universe?

The lead reads:

"The story has a long history that precedes Shakespeare himself. The heroine's wealthy and rich family lived in Verona, headed by Capulet and his wife. She was their youngest child. She apparently had older siblings at some point, but by the time of the play, she was their only surviving child."

Makes it sound like the play is Juliet's biography. Care for change? Ratibgreat (talk) 13:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly. Whoop whoop pull up ^{Bitching Betty | Averted crashes} 18:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Julie'ts age and marriageable age. Revisionism?

I have noticed a somewhat strange, or dubious at best, statement on the section Juliet's Age. It says: " In many cultures and time periods, women did and do marry and bear children at such a young age."

At the Wikipedia page " Marriageable age" it says quite the oposite, at it's secion "History and social attitudes": "Traditionally, across the world, the age of consent for a sexual union was a matter for the family to decide, or a tribal custom. In most cases, this coincided with signs of puberty, menstruation for a woman and pubic hair for a man.[1] In Ancient Rome, it was very common for girls to marry and have children shortly after the onset of puberty. The first recorded age-of-consent law dates back 800 years: In 1275, in England, as part of the rape law, a statute, Westminster 1, made it a misdemeanor to "ravish" a "maiden within age," whether with or without her consent. The phrase "within age" was interpreted by jurist Sir Edward Coke as meaning the age of marriage, which at the time was 12 years of age.[2] In the 12th century Gratian, the influential founder of Canon law in medieval Europe, accepted age of puberty for marriage to be between 12 and 14 but acknowledged consent to be meaningful if the children were older than 7. There were authorities that said that consent could take place earlier. Marriage would then be valid as long as neither of the two parties annulled the marital agreement before reaching puberty, or if they had already consummated the marriage. It should be noted that Judges honored marriages based on mutual consent at ages younger than 7, in spite of what Gratian had said; there are recorded marriages of 2 and 3 year olds.[1] The American colonies followed the English tradition, and the law was more of a guide. For example, Mary Hathaway (Virginia, 1689) was only 9 when she was married to William Williams. Sir Edward Coke (England, 17th century) made it clear that "the marriage of girls under 12 was normal, and the age at which a girl who was a wife was eligible for a dower from her husband's estate was 9 even though her husband be only four years old."[1]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriageable_age

Pretending the custom in our days is the general rule all over the History and all over the world could be understood as revisionism... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariznobrega (talk • contribs) 00:31, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Headstrong and intelligent nothing to do with age

The statement that "Juliet is a headstrong and intelligent character in spite of her young age" is wrong. Intelligence and being headstrong have nothing to do with age.119.224.100.246 (talk) 03:36, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fake balcony on a probably fake house

Not only is the claim that the house pictured in Verona is the Capulet house (if there ever was one, they are after all fictional characters!), very dubious, but the balcony itself is apparently a recent addition (possibly a period sarcophagus, added during restorations for the 1936 movie, though that factoid comes from a web site for which I cannot claim any authority). Most importantly though, although act2 scene2 of Romeo and Juliet is universally known as 'the balcony scene' there is no mention of a balcony. It clearly states that Juliet appears 'at a window'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romeo_and_Juliet#The_Balcony_Scene . Surly this is worth clarifying in the article, more than simply saying the house is 'claiming' to be the capulets. The casa de Giulietta in Verona is basically a tourist scam. Very successful and long running, apparently getting more visits than David (the statue), but a scam all the same.Adagio67 (talk) 07:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ivliet

i really don't think that juliet's name was "originally" ivliet. in the style of typography used, a capital j in the title's font appears to be a capital i. if you look further in the cited text, the name john is rendered as iohn. same with the letters u and v. so i'm taking it out 192.76.7.137 (talk) 10:48, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Juliet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Juliet's Family

Most of the family relations listed, especially the cousins, are taken from After Juliet rather than the original play. I think these should be removed, since there are non-canonical. Is there anyone here who agrees with me? (Kaiserincapulet (talk) 21:23, 13 November 2017 (UTC))[reply]

The article in general has major problems with fancruft and original research, so there's quite a lot of cleanup required. But to your specific point, yes, anything that is sourced to After Juliet should probably be removed outright, unless it can fairly easily be re-sourced to something scholarly (books, journal articles, etc.) that deal with the Shakespeare play. The Macdonald play merits at most a paragraph somewhere towards the end of the article. --Xover (talk) 07:25, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Juliet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://archive.is/20120907215338/http://www.premioterna.it/en/new/juliet%E2%80%99s--graffiti-at-the--d-orsay-museum-in-paris to http://www.premioterna.it/en/new/juliet%E2%80%99s--graffiti-at-the--d-orsay-museum-in-paris

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:21, 2 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Age. Romeo.

Lots of words on Juliet’s age; but Romeo’s age (in Shakespeare) is not cited... Not at Romeo either. MBG02 (talk) 13:02, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]