Talk:Philip II of Spain

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


The list of COA'd titles is pretty but perhaps overlong and certainly nonexhaustive. I've added some of the more obvious omissions (Asturias, England, France – which we can argue about but which he certainly held and claimed to the same extent as the Jerusalem title), but it's still missing others. Some are fairly problematic: throughout his lifetime, he claimed the title archduke of Austria but the pages on the archduke, archduchy, and Ferdinand I, Holy Roman Emperor, all don't explain how that squares with Ferdinand's position. Note also that Ferdinand's page lists him claiming the duchy of Burgundy, Brabant &c. without explanation of how that squares with Philip's dominion. — LlywelynII 08:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

LlywelynII the title of Archduke was used by all Habsburg males from the 16th century onwards. It did not necessarily mean the ruler of Austria. Cliniic (talk) 11:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Surely that can't be right. Every prince in Spain or Austria was simultaneously archduke? — LlywelynII 14:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
yes its true. for instance Ferdinand divided his territories between his many sons (Maximilian II, Charles II, Ferdinand II) and all of them were Austrian archdukes. All males of the habsburg dynasty from the 16th century held the title of Archduke regardless of who actually ruled Austria. This was later extended to females. Marie Antoinette for example was an Austrian archduchess. Cliniic (talk) 14:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Weird. I assume "Count of Habsburg" worked the same way? If we include them, when was he granted the titles? At birth? at one year old (like Prince of Asturias)? later (like Knight of the Golden Fleece)? — LlywelynII 06:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure about Count of Habsburg. I dont think adding the title of archduke would be helpful it was simply a curtsey title and not a ruling one. Cliniic (talk) 15:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Related questions:

  1. Were the numerous Netherlander titles really all separate or were they (or some of them) held as part of the Burgundian title?
  2. Was there really a "Kingdom of Chile" title granted by Charles to his son? Naples should have been enough and the Spanish sources seem to copy English ones. Was it only a Wikipedia or English parliamentary mistake? Was it resumé puffing? or did it (briefly) exist?
  3. The title of King of the Algarves (plural) indicates rule over the Portuguese lands in Africa. A fairly unhelpful editor (Cristiano Tomás, who previously blanked the style information at King of Portugal without moving the content or fixing the links there) is now trying to add Ceuta as a separate title. I haven't seen anything that shows that Portugal or Philip treated it as separate title from Algarve-Beyond-the-Sea, but even broken clocks are sometimes correct. Does anyone have a source? — LlywelynII 09:10, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  1. the Netherlands became one entity with the pragmatic sanction in 1549 but all of them continued to view themselves as separate. Charles V and Philip II took the title of Lord of the Netherlands but also kept all of the individual titles. During the days of the Duchy of Burgundy, the duke of burgundy was simultaneously duke, count and magrave of many other territories. The Netherlands were not held as part of the duchy of burgundy itself as the region remained under habsburg rule even as France took the title and the core area of burgundy in france.
  2. Philip was made King of Chile upon his marriage to Mary Tudor. he simply reabsorbed the territory into castile when he became king of spain.
  3. from wikipedia Style_of_the_Portuguese_sovereign it seems the portuguese sovereigns held the algarves and cueta separetely. there is a website there in portuguese cited as a source. Cliniic (talk) 15:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  1. Was the "Lord of the Netherlands" thing official? Be nice to get a source and Latin or Spanish form to include. [edit: Cool. Found it at Seventeen Provinces. Will go ahead and include it, although not sure what the COA would be.]
  2. Yeah, I've seen that on Wikipedia. I'm just saying I haven't seen anything on the internet in Spanish that seems to be a good source or explain the details.
  3. My point was that is precisely what Style of the Portuguese sovereign (which I mostly rebuilt) does not say. Ceuta was originally a separate title when the other was King of the Algarve (singular). King of the Algarves (plural) includes Ceuta as part of Algarve-Beyond-the-Sea and ceased to include it separately. Now, that article is poorly sourced and might be wrong, but it doesn't support what C.T. was claiming about Philip's titles. — LlywelynII 16:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
  1. the title was official. for reference "Charles was King of Spain, Lord of the Netherlands, Lord of the Austrian hereditary lands" Constitutional Law of 15 EU Member States.
  2. "Almagro's successor in the conquest of Chile was Pedro de Valdivia, a Spanish captain who had fought under Pizarro in Peru ... her future husband must be a reigning king; and he forthwith caused Philip to be crowned "King of Chile," The republic of Chile (1904).
  3. well at the moment leave it be or do what you think its right. if C.T can find a source then we can edit it later. Cliniic (talk) 15:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Related questions:

4. This source seems to treat Cerdagne, Catalonia, and Rousillon as kingdoms in their own right quite analogous to Majorca or Sardinia. Catalonia certainly had its own customs, privileges, and parliaments analogous to Aragon's and Google brings up plenty of other people calling it a kingdom united with Aragon, but Wikipedia only styles it a principality. During Philip's age, it was certainly considered part of the crown of Aragon but with the style of principality or kingdom? Do we have Charles's articles of abdication somewhere where we can see what he gave up?
5. What about Cerdagne and Rousillon? I've seen them considered counties of the kingdom of Majorca, which also became a component of the Aragonese crown. Once it was absorbed, did they become separately privileges kingdoms in their own right?
6. Are we sure about the Kingdom of Naples dates? As listed in the article, it seems that when Philip inherited Sicily proper, he went back to styling himself "King of the Two Sicilies", not "King of Naples" and "King of Aragon and Sicily" as currently given.
7. Franche-Comté was held along with Count of Charolais, apparently, but was the title fully subsumed? or did Charles and Philip claim both titles?
8. The article currently lists "early titles includ[ing] Prince of Asturias..., Prince of Viana..., Prince of Girona..., Duke of Montblanc..., Count of Cervera... and Lord of Balaguer" but doesn't clarify when he received any of them aside from Asturias. Any sources, so we can include them in the title section? [edit: found Girona at least, although that article seems to simply use his birthdate, which didn't seem to be the actual timing for Asturias...]
9. There also seem to be a number of subsidiary kingdoms Philip left unmentioned that his son restored to prominence: Toledo, Gibraltar, the Canaries, the Four Kingdoms of Andalusia, etc. They were established before him and employed after him; should they be listed? or are we long enough now that we should simply link to Crown of Castile, Aragon, Portugal, &c. and create a new page at Lord of the Netherlands to cover all the subsidiary titles under the major ones? — LlywelynII 06:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
4. Catalonia was most definitely a principality. it was nowhere near important enough to be a kingdom. some historians however choose to call it that due to historical revisionism. after the decline of aragon and the power center of valencia catalonia emerged as the seat of power for the catalans. so you will often see anachronistic terms used by some people like kingdom of aragon-barcelona or even barcelona-aragon etc.
5. no cerdagne and rousillon were counties
6. Philip was given Naples on the day of his marriage to Mary Tudor. also I am not sure if he called himself king of two sicilies.
7.The Franche-Comte was the remaining territory of the former Habsburg duchy of Burgundy in France. they called themselves dukes of burgundy owing to the fact that they were in possession of the franche-comte still. it became a separate county in its own right under Charles V.
8. I dont know the exact dates. just leave it you can fill it later
9. when i orignally added the titles section I didnt imagine it would become so big haha. still its smaller presently owing to the smaller font you have used. If we are using all the constituent duchies and counties etc of netherlands I suppose it makes no sense not to use the Spanish ones. Cliniic (talk) 15:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Side point[edit]

C.T. seems to remain very confused by the meaning of wikt:title (see also: title of nobility). As listed at List of titles and honours of the Spanish Crown among other places, the grandmasteries are indeed titles and the status of the Golden Fleece as a simple honor is debatable (The article on knighthood pointedly excludes all the Spanish orders from the honorary grants and they certainly had privileges, if no land, attached with them). Nonetheless, I'll amend the heading to include "honor" so it ceases to be confusing to modern readers who are used to untitled knights.

On the other hand, the Lord of Conquest, Navigation, and Commerce of Ethiopia, Arabia, Persia, and India is not in any sense mere styling (which is covered under the section regardless) but a reference to the Portuguese claims on those lands granted by the Pope at the Treaty of Tordesillas. — LlywelynII 06:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Article Intro[edit]

Hm. It seems C.T. was also responsible for the unhelpful edits to Philips II, III, & IV. Just as a reminder: WP:Sovereign (inter alia) clearly explain that the articles should be headed by the single title most commonly used in English. The article titled "Philip II of Spain" should begin that way, not with "Philip I & II" etc. The subsidiary titles like Aragon and Portugal should simply be quickly listed elsewhere in the lede. — LlywelynII 09:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Mess of titles[edit]

Seeing this version of the page I note:

The denomination of Spain in the singular is not anachronistic: Philip the second king of Spain was used in the same period.

  • [1] Don Felipe por la gracia de Dios Rey de España
  • [2] y el Catolico Rey de España Don Felipe el segundo
  • [3] el Rey Don Felipe, por diuina gracia Rey de España, Inglaterra...

Titles, Honors, and Styles is a real mess and original research because the Titles, Honors, and Styles are confused with the divisions and administrative entities, which is a huge mistake.

  • Which is the justification of putting ordinal absolutely to everything? Does or did it exist in that epoch such names? It is clear enough to indicate simply his titles, honors and styles without adding at all costs an ordinal which is a result of an original investigation and aparticular reflection. The maximum exponent of this speculation is to put the ordinals to titles as prince of Asturias which have never had ordinal, in fact, the current Prince of Asturias doesn't display any ordinal.
  • The denomination of kingdom does not correspond to a realm-kingdom sui juris, but provinces denominated as kingdom, as Murcia, Granada, Jaen, Cordoba and Seville [4] Esta diversidad regional castellana no tenía ninguna traducción en el terreno legal. Los reinos de Castilla, de León, de Córdoba, no existían más que en la tradición. [5] Los títulos oficiales siguen mencionando los reinos de Castilla, León, Toledo, Jaén, Córdoba, Sevilla el Algarve, Algeciras, Gibraltar y Murcia, pero se trata de supervivencias formales, sin consecuencias para las estructuras políticas y administrativas, muy unificadas o en vías de unificación.
The Algarve was not a kingdom sui juris with his own institutions, legislation, but a Portuguese province; on the contrary, Navarre was in effect a kingdom sui juris with his own institutions, legislation, coinage... but inside the Crown of Castile. The territories of the crown of Aragon were territories sui juris with his own own institutions, as Sardinia [6] The principality of Catalonia was the political administrative entity, but the title was that of count of Barcelona.
  • In America there were provinces (governorates) denominated as kingdoms but they were not kingdoms sui juris. The kingdom of Chile was no exception since they existed the kingdom of New Spain, New Kingdom of Leon, Kingdom of Tierra Firme, New Kingdom of Granada, Kingdom of Peru, all within the crown of Castile, as the kingdom of Murcia, Seville, Granada...
  • There is no current scientific and reliable sources attesting the establishment of the kingdom of Chile in 1554, in fact, it is an invention that appears in the chronicle of Diego de Rosales [7]
  • By the way, what kind of reference is this one: [8]: a book of history of art, doesn't exist any books about political history?. Seeing that the book denominated the order of Santiago as Order of Compostello, a non-existent name, it gives me an idea about his reliable quality in this matter.
  • There are some anachronistic flags and others not, but his discernment is not for a biographical article and its placement does not contribute anything to the link. In addition, there is already an heraldic gallery in another epigraph.
  • In an epigraph denominated as Titles, Honors, and Styles is logical and coherent to use styling titles, nevertheless, the crazy thing is to present them as if they were real administrative divisions and due to it, a confusion takes place between the title and the administrative divisions. As a example of this confusion is putting the ordinal (PHILIP VI???!!!!) to kingdom of France, a title of claim reminiscent of the war of Hundred Years.

Trasamundo (talk) 16:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Section on economics is mush[edit]

The third paragraph of the section on economics of this article, as it stands on 11/29/2012, is nonsensical and bizarre. Who is "George Greenstreet"? There is no such personage. Someone took the care to convert "centralize" to "centralise" within a paragraph that reads like a an overcooked bean casserole. I am tempted to remove the entire paragraph as garbage but would probably get slapped with an edit revert. Who wrote this stuff? E.g.:

Calls to move his Court to Lisbon from the Castilian stronghold of Madrid — the new village Philip established following the move from Valladolid — as the traditional Royal and Primacy seat of Toledo have become obsolete to the growth of its weight by its constrained orography, could have led to prevent the further growth of centralisation and bureaucracy in the peninsula and to ease for the Empire, but Philip for obvious personal reasons too opposed such efforts, with backing from George Greenstreet. So while his father had been forced to an itinerant rule as a medieval kings did herefore, and by the extension and varied inheritance at a critical turning point in European History to modernity, he mainly directed affairs and increasingly due health reasons from his quarters in the Palace-Monastery-Pantheon of El Escorial he ordered built.

Make it go away! KDS4444Talk 17:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Coats of arms are relevant[edit]

Coats of arms are relevant, as articles about British Monarchs. Coat of arms image reduced and hidden option so no really article extend --Heralder (talk) 00:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)