Talk:Philip II of Spain

King of England

I am curious if England were to ever have another king named Philip would this new king be Philip II? Or would he count as Philip I, how does Philip of Spain fit into British regnal numerals? Jamhaw (talk) 23:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)jamhaw

If the United Kingdom ever has a king named Philip, he could reign either as Philip II (thus counting this Philip) or Philip [I] if they decide to treat him the way Henry the Young King is treated. It's impossible to know. Surtsicna (talk) 19:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Philip as King of England

I noted that the section King of England and Ireland claims that

"The Privy Council instructed that Philip and Mary should be joint signatories of royal documents, and this was enacted by an Act of Parliament, which gave him the title of king and stated that he "shall aid her Highness ... in the happy administration of her Grace’s realms and dominions." In other words, Philip was to co-reign with his wife."

I want to dispute this interpretation. It was very much my belief, and what I had been taught, that Parliament had no intention of giving Philip power, and used Acts of Parliament to make sure that he had none of the authority of a King - his title King of England was entirely (and uniquely in British/English history) a compromise title which was nothing more than a Prince-Consort title with an extra coat of polish to make it look shiny. I'll cite this passage as supporting my view - Philip was not "to co-reign with his wife", on the contrary the very wording of the "shall aid her Highness" is designed to highlight that he was only to advice and support Mary, and could not either take her place, nor even be on a level with her. I would make the change myself, but I do not have the book The subject of Elizabeth: authority, gender, and representation which is then cited. Under other circumstances I might remove it and replace with the new interpretation with my source, but given that I don't know the actual book, and given the subject matter, I feel it would be a contentious act to do so; therefore I'm looking to see whether other editors here support my assertion or reject it. If the consensus is that I am wrong I'm happy to leave the matter, but I'm fairly sure that this article is misinterpreting English history in a fairly major and critical (historically) way, and so if I can get support to make the change, I would like to. I hope you understand what I'm getting at here. Falastur2 ^Talk 16:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you would be interested in this discussion, where I cited c. 40 historians who consider Philip Mary I's co-ruler, even if only de iure. Of course, he never wielded as much power as she did but he was always treated as a monarch: all official documents (including the Acts of Parliament) were dated with names of both King and Queen,[1] the Parliament was called under their joint authority, etc. The article makes it clear that, despite his status as Mary I's co-ruler, he never enjoyed as much influence as he wanted. Surtsicna (talk) 19:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. Interesting. Obviously I can't argue with the number of quoted sources, but I have to say that the argument still fails to convince me, and I find several aspects of your thesis irrelevant or flawed. Notably:

Philip was styled "King of England". All Kings of England were monarchs of England, as England had no history of kings consort.

Yes, but that is because England had previously only had one example of a female monarch (I do not count Lady Jane Grey here as she did not last long enough to have had a chance to become involved in situations such as these) and she ruled several centuries earlier in the midst of a civil war in which Matilda failed even to have herself crowned. Indeed many deny that she was ever Queen of England, and List of English monarchs recognises this, so it would hardly have been fitting for her contemporaries to judge on whether Geoffrey of Anjou was a King Consort or not. I agree, however, that under the situation, Matilda would always have been the one recognised as regnant monarch, yet there is no precedent for you to refer to here, and further, my original point disputes this anyway: Philip insisted on being King, against English practice, and so laws had to be bent anyway. Thus, there is plenty of room for grey area here, as the entirety of the marriage negotiations and Philip's wedlock with Mary was an improvisation of sorts.

All official documents (including Acts of Parliament) were dated with names of Philip and Mary. [32][33] In fact, his name appeared before hers.

Philip was given the title King of England as a courtesy title, and it was standard practice to name a male before a female, so I regard this as tenuous proof at best. Note that Philip was never crowned, so technically his claim to be King rested solely on his not being challenged legally anyway.

Coins showed the heads of both Mary and Philip, often with a single crown suspended between them, indicating joint rule. The Great Seal shows Philip and Mary seated on thrones, holding the crown together.

This could be equally explained as sycophancy or Mary's will.

The marriage contract stipulated that the new King will admit no stranger in offices. How could a consort admit anyone in an office? Also, Philip's approval was sought when appointment to a high office was considered. It is known that Philip forbidden John Mason to reassume his office.

Very simple. Philip was forbidden from having foreigners fill positions in his household, and these positions, such as Gentlemen of the Chamber, Private Secretary, etc, were offices of a sort - and ones that he had the right to appoint himself whether monarch or consort. In addition, I am not sure that that section did not refer to the King and Queen, and thus would prevent Mary from being persuaded to appoint Spaniards to actual court offices through Philip's request.

The Pope issued a papal bull declaring that Philip and Mary are the rightful King and Queen of Ireland. The Pope would not mention Philip as the rightful King of Ireland had he been a consort only, as consorts have nothing to do with sovereignity.

True, though you could quibble that the Papacy had never previously recognised the title of King of Ireland (only Lord of Ireland) and thus as a new creation, the Pope could technically appoint whoever he wanted to the position. Logically it should be the incumbent in the position of Lord of Ireland, but if the Pope wanted to recognise Philip as co-sovereign he could have, without recourse to English whims. This was also done early on, before the Papal disputes with Mary and Philip, and you could argue that the Pope would have been interested in recognising Philip even deliberately at the expense of contradicting English law because he had a vested interest in appointing a strong Catholic to the rulership of a country under threat from Protestantism. Supposing that Parliament had refused to grant Mary permission to marry, she had married Philip in secret and a civil war had broken out in England which the Protestants looked like winning, it was equally likely that the Pope would still bless the marriage and recognise Philip as King of Ireland, because it strengthened the position of Catholicism. Remember that it was only three decades later that the Papacy declared Elizabeth (who IIRC according to Mary's Protestant-penned marriage document was recognised as Mary's heir presumptive) to be a usurper of the English throne and called for a righteous assassination. This is hardly an institution likely to work under the confines of Protestant-passed English law: rather it was an institution which claimed sovereignty over all Christian countries and thought most of the Members of Parliament were heretics. If the Pope wanted to recognise a Catholic as King of Ireland, and spotted an opportunity to fudge the terms of Acts of Parliament to suit his needs, he would do so willingly.

An act which made it high treason to deny Philip's royal authority was passed in Ireland. [35] (I guess that Wikipedians could be accused of high treason for saying that Philip was a mere king consort...)

That's Ireland, though, where the Parliament was a whole lot more tractable, and where the Parliament has zero influence on who is King of England, therefore somewhat irrelevant. This ties back in with my last point about Kings of Ireland being a newly [Catholic] recognised title, and so not necessarily indicative of who was the original legal monarch of England or of Ireland. Also, I'm not in Ireland so I'm hardly bound by its ancient laws ;) I bet that if you looked hard enough, there would be medieval statutes somewhere which would declare what we're doing with long-distance communications via an invisible force (electricity etc) to be witchcraft for which we should be burned at the stake...

Since the new King of England could not read English, it was ordered that a note of all such matters of state as should pass from hence should be made in Latin or Spanish henceforth.

A note of all such matters. That just means that after business was done, someone translated the records for Philip. Yes, it means he was involved, but then Philip was a freak for administration anyway, and so could easily be imagined to have wanted to re-read orders of business even if he hadn't had a personal hand in them. This is the man, after all, who commissioned 60-page questionnaires on the utterly inconsequential nitty-gritty of his colonies' geography and demographics. If I recall correctly, one of the questions was something along the lines of "how high do <a very specific type of tree that I can't recall> grow in your province?". He insisted on personally signing every document that his government produced, resulting in six month delays in sending orders to other parts of his Empire. I with some joviality recall the quote from one of the Viceroys of Naples about him: "If death came from Spain, we should live forever". This is the kind of man I can imagine wanting to read everything that went through court or Parliament even if he had no control of it.

The Privy Council instructed that Philip and Mary should be joint signatories of royal documents.

Well Mary's Privy Council were hardly an unbiased group, being all Catholic partisans (with possibly a few Protestants willing to suck up to save their position IIRC) so they naturally would agree to this, but fair enough. Technically, they could have instructed that the youngest stable-boy signed every document too, so long as the Queen had her pen to the parchment.

The coat of arms of England was impaled with those of Spain to "denote the joint reign of Queen Mary I and her husband Philip of Spain". The shield also occurs on the silver coinage and on their Great Seal.

Touche, though I would highlight that if we were to follow your earlier logic about equal recognition of Philip and Mary, that quote could have read "denote the joint reign of King Philip and Queen Mary II". In fact I would highlight that Philip is here addressed specifically as Mary's husband (not as her equal, nor as King - remember, he wasn't crowned, after all) and that he was referred to as Philip of Spain - a typical address for a consort.

Both Mary I and Philip came from a family in which men traditionally reigned by the right of their wives. Mary I's grandfather, who also happened to be Philip's great-grandfather, reigned as King Ferdinand V of Castile by the right of his wife. Philip's father, who also happened to be Mary's uncle, reigned as King Philip I of Castile by the right of his wife.

Irrelevant. Philip's heritage is utterly inconsequential, as this is England we are referring to and he could have been brought up in an environment where women were never to speak, couldn't hold any position and were chattel of their husbands, but if he came to England it would have no bearing on his relationship with his wife. If he took Mary to Spain, fine, but it holds no ground for the governance of England - to suggest it does is to suggest that England is subservient to Spain or somesuch, which is nonsense. Similarly, Mary's only heritage of male-dominated reign is from her grandfather, who she would never have known, and she was brought up her whole life in England, so she would only ever have known English customs. Again, in Mary's case she could have been the daughter of the Queen of Mars, but so long as she was brought up in England and groomed to rule only England, Martian heritage is inconsequential as only English customs and her English upbringing would be of any bearing. Royals were frequently married off to foreign princes in this era, and while they may have talked longingly of home, their duties were to assimilate into their new country and to bring their children up under the customs of the father's country.

I dont know where the person got the quote from, but they have the info wrong. Phillips father was King Charles I of Spain who was the nephew of Catherine of Aragon making him Mary's first cousin not Uncle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.127.106 (talk) 16:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

When Mary I died, Philip proposed marriage to her successor, as that was the only way he could continue his reign in England.

Yes, because a Protestant Parliament under Protestant Elizabeth had no intention of giving Philip the power which he wanted, and he saw his chance to control England slipping away. This was, by all accounts, a desperation move, and while Liz I may have seriously considered it, I think you would be pushing the bounds of believability to suggest that had the unlikely gone ahead and they had married, Philip would given the preferential treatment he got under Mary (which he is on record as having complained about, calling his marriage treaty "humiliating", I will highlight - not exactly something a new King would say if they were really given right to rule). This move can be summarised as nothing more than Philip's exasperation at knowing that legally he no longer had any bearing in England, as he always held power by virtue of his marriage and his marriage alone. If he was truly a co-monarch, why didn't he continue on as King alone as William III did after his wife's death (a situation Parliament had made sure to codify when he was granted the position of co-monarch)?

The proclamation stipulated: "Philip should for so long as the matrimony endureth be allowed to have and enjoy jointly together with the same most noble Queen his wife the style, honour, and kingly name of the realms and dominions unto the said most noble Queen appertaining, and shall aid the same most noble Queen his wife in the prosperous administration of her realms and dominions." Professor Roger Lockyer also says that the marriage contract stipulated that Philip was to assist Mary in the government of the country - no other consort was promised to have their share in the government, so it could only mean that Philip, a man and thus considered more capable than Mary, was supposed to reign alongside her.

I would dispute this conclusion. I think that the proclamation makes quite clear that Philip was to be recognised as Mary's counsel and no more. Philip is granted "the style, honour, and kingly name" of England etc - that simply recognises his title, which as stated was given as a courtesy and a compromise. "unto the said most noble Queen appertaining...her realms and dominions" these things are recognising that England and its possessions were rightfully Mary's - no reference is made when the opportunity is gaping to proclaim them to be Philip's as well. "shall aid the same most noble Queen" - well that to look at it another way, if I were looking for a job and met a farmer who offered me work on a farm he owned, and he wrote a contract saying specifically "I <Falastur> shall aid <Farmer X> in the prosperous administration of his farms and lands" I would under no condition think that that suggested any element of control, no less ownership, of the farm - it clearly would state that I was on the farm to act as hired help. This is how I see this sentence defining Mary's relationship to Philip. Professor Roger Lockyer goes so far as to restate the same thing - that Philip "was to assist Mary in the government of the country". I recognise Professor Lockyer's conclusion, and I suggest that it backs up my argument more than the theory than Philip was equal to Mary (especially in that it is little more than a paraphrase of the original quote).

Also, I can tell you that as a born and bred British citizen and an Englishman, it is not common to refer to Mary's reign as "the reign of Philip and Mary" here. Philip is not recognised as having been joint monarch by the population, nor by the education system. In fact I'll point out that the monarchy's official website does not recognise him, and says the following about Philip (this is the sum total of its reference to Philip:

"Mary's decision to marry Philip, King of Spain from 1556, in 1554 was very unpopular; the protest from the Commons prompted Mary's reply that Parliament was 'not accustomed to use such language to the Kings of England' and that in her marriage 'she would choose as God inspired her'.

The marriage was childless, Philip spent most of it on the continent, England obtained no share in the Spanish monopolies in New World trade and the alliance with Spain dragged England into a war with France. "

Anyway, I'm willing to just sit down on this issue as frankly I don't have the sources to match yours, but I want to make clear that I'm not convinced by your argument (though I respect it) and I believe that this article is deceptive at least, if not actually verifiably false. For example, even if we took your stance, I could still highlight that you acknowledge that Philip, and I quote you, "never enjoyed as much influence as he wanted". The article makes no reference of even these slight limitations. I hope you understand (again) where I'm coming from here... Falastur2 ^Talk 01:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Foreign policy section

The phrase "He considered himself by default the chief defender of Catholic Europe, both against the Ottoman Turks and against the forces to fight on every front at whatever cost rather than countenance freedom of worship within his territories." seems incomplete, but I don't know what was intended. I imagine it might be to do with "the forces of Protestantism" or similar, but I know too little of this topic to add anything useful. Perhaps someone with relevant knowledge could help here? VelhinhoEstoniano (talk) 22:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

You are right. The sentence was mangled in this edit, which I have now undone. Yaris678 (talk) 19:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Little Chance for the Spanish Armada's Success?

Under the section, "After Mary I's Death," after briefly discussing the preparations for an invasion of England, the text confidently states that, "However, the operation had little chance of success from the beginning, because of..." Is there a source that states there was "little chance of success from the beginning?" I've learned that there were myriad problems associated with the endeavor, but never that the entire project was doomed from the start! Certainly, the actions of Elizabeth I of England belie such confidence, to say the least. Such a bold statement requires footnotes, me thinks. Thank you114.167.112.250 (talk) 04:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

P & O national ferry services

From the article: "During their joint reign, when they attacked the French against their marriage treaty as composed by Parliament, Calais was lost to England forever." Can we take the shuttle through the English Chunnel?
​▲ SomeHuman 2011-08-20 06:07 (UTC)

Lack of neutrality

The idea of King Philipp II that this article conveys is clearly contaminated by the Black Legend and the traditional Anglophile point of view; one gets the impression that he was a particularly despotic king (well, which country did not have an absolutist king in those years?), when he was actually one of the most laborious and austere kings that Spain (and Europe) had. Bur for the final sentence, the rest of the article tries to convey the classic (and false) view of the anglophile tradition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.136.191.138 (talk) 15:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I moved this section here, it had been put at the top of the page.

I read the article until I came across the section about the Netherlands, which Spanish history is rather familiar, in particular the mainly Calvinist propaganda that constitues a good part of the leyenda negro. Unfortunately, the proven reality in the Netherlands did not need much of a legend. The article is far more friendly than one may expect and with our present sources defend... unless the recently refreshed Spanish consciousness has already caused erradicating as much darkness as possible. I did not look into the aspects that might typically involve "the anglophile tradition".
​▲ SomeHuman 2011-08-31 03:08 (UTC)