# female pope
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/female-pope/445670
**Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports
**Created:** [April 17, 2008, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/female-pope/445670 "2008-04-17T00:41:15Z")
**Posts on this page:** 16
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@boomie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/boomie)
#### Post date: [April 17, 2008, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/female-pope/445670/1 "2008-04-17T00:41:15Z")
There was a female Pope, her bust was amoung the busts of other Popes until Clement VIII had her bust reworked and changed her name to Pope Zacherias in the16 th century.
pope
---
### Author:  [@Khadaji](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Khadaji)
#### Post date: [April 17, 2008, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/female-pope/445670/2 "2008-04-17T00:49:19Z")
Hello Boomie. Is [this](http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_139.html) the article you are talking about?
---
### Author:  [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)
#### Post date: [April 17, 2008, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/female-pope/445670/3 "2008-04-17T00:50:39Z")
It is customary to provide a link to the column in question, which I am more than happy to do for you-I assume you are referring to [this classic column](http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_139.html) from 1987.
Would you happen to have a cite for your assertion?
---
### Author:  [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)
#### Post date: [April 17, 2008, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/female-pope/445670/4 "2008-04-17T01:15:36Z")
You mean the [Pope Joan hoax](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Joan)?
---
### Author:  [@SiXSwordS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SiXSwordS)
#### Post date: [April 17, 2008, 5:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/female-pope/445670/5 "2008-04-17T17:42:38Z")
[QUOTE=Exapno Mapcase]
You mean the [Pope Joan hoax](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Joan)?
[/QUOTE]
That WIKI article includes this surprising detail:
> [@](#):
>
> The famous bust of her, inscribed Johannes VIII, femina ex Anglia, which had been carved for the series of papal figures in the Duomo of Siena about 1400 and was noted by travelers, was either destroyed or recarved…
From my reading, it doesn’t appear that the bust itself was considered apocryphal.
Why would there be a bust of a person who was never Pope included with other papal figures?
I’m not arguing that there was a female pope, just that having a bust of a non-pope in with actual popes seems odd.
---
### Author:  [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)
#### Post date: [April 17, 2008, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/female-pope/445670/6 "2008-04-17T18:07:06Z")
It isn’t a hoax unless you can get someone to believe it.
---
### Author:  [@DSYoungEsq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DSYoungEsq)
#### Post date: [April 17, 2008, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/female-pope/445670/7 "2008-04-17T18:33:10Z")
[QUOTE=SiXSwordS]
That WIKI article includes this surprising detail:
From my reading, it doesn’t appear that the bust itself was considered apocryphal.
Why would there be a bust of a person who was never Pope included with other papal figures?
I’m not arguing that there was a female pope, just that having a bust of a non-pope in with actual popes seems odd.
[/QUOTE]
I think you didn’t catch the fact that the series of busts was made after the legend was engendered, and probably was intended to establish the accuracy of the story so much as to reflect the then currency of the story. When the Church finally had had enough of the silly story, they moved to do away with such “evidence.”
---
### Author:  [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)
#### Post date: [April 17, 2008, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/female-pope/445670/8 "2008-04-17T19:55:01Z")
[John VIII](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_John_VIII) was a real and male pope.
So was [Pope Zachary.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Zacharias)
---
### Author:  [@Dukeguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dukeguy)
#### Post date: [December 24, 2010, 12:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/female-pope/445670/9 "2010-12-24T12:21:20Z")
Ok, I’ve read the article from Cecil and I’ve become nonplussed regarding this:
> [@](#):
>
> The story is false, although it was possibly inspired by actual events, about which more in a moment.
And then nothing is mentioned about it again. While I’d like to believe the teeming millions and of course, Wikipedia is the font of all knowledge - I want to here it from the organ grinder (as promised) and not the legion of monkeys.
---
### Author:  [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor)
#### Post date: [December 24, 2010, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/female-pope/445670/10 "2010-12-24T13:35:00Z")
**boomie** –you got any _proof_ of your unsubstanciated (sp?) claim?
---
### Author:  [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)
#### Post date: [December 24, 2010, 1:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/female-pope/445670/11 "2010-12-24T13:55:44Z")
> [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](#):
>
> **boomie** –you got any _proof_ of your unsubstanciated (sp?) claim?
Don’t hold your breath. **boomie** posted once in 2008, for 20 seconds.
---
### Author:  [@Dukeguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dukeguy)
#### Post date: [December 24, 2010, 2:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/female-pope/445670/12 "2010-12-24T14:08:59Z")
😃
Sorry, I realize that this is a bump - but the email from the SD resurrected this subject and I’m sure that it’s considered courteous to post in an existing thread instead of constructing a new one
---
### Author:  [@Biffy\_the\_Elephant\_Shrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Biffy_the_Elephant_Shrew)
#### Post date: [December 24, 2010, 4:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/female-pope/445670/13 "2010-12-24T16:33:39Z")
> [@Dukeguy](#):
>
> Ok, I’ve read the article from Cecil and I’ve become nonplussed regarding this:
>
> > [@](#):
> >
> > The story is false, although it was possibly inspired by actual events, about which more in a moment.
>
> And then nothing is mentioned about it again.
That presumably refers to the parenthetical remark concerning three early 10th century popes:
> [@](#):
>
> (Theodora and Marozia effectively controlled the papacy through their menfolk and may be the source of the Pope Joan legend.)
---
### Author:  [@qazwart](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/qazwart)
#### Post date: [December 24, 2010, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/female-pope/445670/14 "2010-12-24T19:53:23Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#):
>
> You mean the [Pope Joan hoax](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Joan)?
It can’t be a hoax! The People’s Almanac said it was true. If Pope Joan wasn’t true, that could mean the story in the People’s Almanac about the farmer who disappeared into another dimension in his cornfield was also false. (You could allegedly hear his voice from a certain spot, but couldn’t see him) And, that people don’t spontaneously combust.
Next thing you’ll tell me is that not everything in “Ripley’s Believe it or Not” was [true](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=590463).
---
### Author:  [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)
#### Post date: [December 24, 2010, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/female-pope/445670/15 "2010-12-24T21:32:51Z")
> [@qazwart](#):
>
> Next thing you’ll tell me is that not everything in “Ripley’s Believe it or Not” was [true](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=590463).
Hey, he said “Not,” didn’t he? Why would he put Not in the title if he sometimes didn’t expect Not to be the answer? If he were a lying bastard, he would have called his column Believe It.
The real question is why someone else didn’t call his column, The Straight Dope or Not. 😃
---
### Author:  [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)
#### Post date: [December 24, 2010, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/female-pope/445670/16 "2010-12-24T21:51:00Z")
Technically, that phrase means “this is true whether or not you believe it”, rather than “this may or may not be true”.