Talk:Carlism

Hi Error,

Wow, this may not be "finished" but it is a lot more than a stub!

The sentence

the political situation oscillated between the supporters of the Ancien régime and the Liberals influenced by the French Revolution of 1789, though many of them have fought the Napoleonic occupation.

is a little ambiguous. Who exactly fought the Napoleonic occupation? I think the Liberals no? And they wanted similar changes in Spain but without Napoleon???

Spaniards reacted to the French occupation:

• afrancesados, who thought that Napoleon and Joseph I would bring the good side of French Revolution (with Napoleonic corrections)
• fighting for independence. Guerrillas and regular military.
  • longing for the king and the ancien regime with the Inquisition
  • longing for a liberal monarchy (see Spanish Constitution of 1812)

Once Ferdinand won, the Afrancesados went into exile to France. The King oscillated between the Liberals and the Conservatives, there were several Constitutions. After his death, the dispute became a war. -- Error 05:58, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Do we talk about Carlism in the present or past-tense? I mean, Carlos-Hugo de Borbón-Parma still has hopes... Or not?

I don't know whether he is alive. Carlism has no practical importance today. And the fascist branch even less. I doubt that most young Spanish extreme-rightists do even know about Carlism. The Socialist branch of his brother (?) shows on some elections. I'd put it in a similar rank as those Brazilian, French (Bourbon and Bonaparte) or Italian monarchists. Certainly less important than Bulgarian monarchists. -- Error 05:58, 13 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Carlos Hugo was the leader of the socialist branch, Sixto (his brother) was the leader of one of the far-right splinters. The main group -relatively speaking- on the far far right (but don't call them fascists) the "Comunion Tradicionalista Carlista", didn't like any of them, IIRC --Wllacer 17:09, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

One other thing I don't entirely understand: the Spanish Civil War was a Carlist war, Franco was a conservative, yet he put a non-Carlist on the throne?... -- Viajero 08:07, 11 Aug 2003 (UTC)

The Civil War was a Carlist war... for Carlists; for others it was a Crusade, or a proletarian revolution, a fight for secession, or a prequel to WW2. I have included it as a Carlist war but it is not canonically included in the three Carlist wars.

There was a lot of fighting between Franco and Don Juan for Juanito's control. There's a quote from the last years of Franco: Todo está atado y bien atado. ("Everything is tied and well tied"). Franco probably didn't expect the breadth of changes that Juan Carlos introduced.

I don't know why he didn't trust the Carlist pretenders (there were several at some time). What you may not know is that Franco's daughter (or was it granddaughter?) married a Bourbon, son of one of Juan's elder brothers who had renounced. It's said that Carmen Polo (Franco's wive) wanted her descendants to be kings of Spain. So Franco had several Carlist pretenders, Juan, Juan Carlos and the Duke of Cádiz (?) to restore monarchy into. -- Error

Putting a carlist pretendant was never in Franco's mind, they were just tools used to make pressure on Don Juan.

• For the military there was no question which branch was the rightful heir to the throne (for most of the XIX century the carlist were the enemies to fight)
• the carlists inside Franco's regime (the absolute majority of the Carlism) had accepted the return of the dynastic rights to Alfonso XIII, and deeply mistrusted the Parma princes.--Wllacer 17:09, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just for the record, after my current knowledge, the last paragraph should be heavily qualified. It was based on personal remembrances of the late 1970's, and most probably doesn't reflect much of the prior forty years --Wllacer 16:41, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I made some clean-up about the fate of the carlism. When I have time I'll try to to add more content into the article --Wllacer 17:09, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi error ... thanks for your corrections --Wllacer 09:04, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Spell check

I only corrected the first word that I found, but this page needs a good spell checking. I will try to come back to do it, but not tonight. [[User:GK|gK ¿?]] 06:47, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Feel free to do it (and to improve the contents )English is not my native language, and no english spellchecker seems to work on my computer :-) --Wllacer 09:26, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I just installed the "SpellBound" extension into to my Firefox web browser, and used this article to test the program. It worked quite nicely for me. (The default language is American English, but you can also add other versions of English, as well as Spanish Spanish and Mexican Spanish dictionaries, among other choices.) There were a few words, however, that I had troubles with. Doctrinarian (do you mean dogmatic?), uniformists (do you mean conformist?), anti-uniformism, Particularist, autogestionary, integrism, and soutuer. Also, for the phrase "extreme right's gunman", if I understand the sentence, I think it should be changed to "extreme right-wing gunman". [[User:GK|gK ¿?]] 05:37, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Will check the extension. I just got today the OpenOffice spellchecker working, but is a PITA to edit articles this way.

Your're right about the gunman correction. It reads better.

So(u)tuer is an heraldic term, synonym of Saltire. As this last seems to be the most common in English, I'll substitute.

As for the rest of the terms you cite, they're what i intended to write. Some (or their usage) will be explained, as I progress in the article. I wasn't able to find in dictionary.com: Uniformist, Autogestionary and integrism. The last has a very special usage i'll have to explain, the middle should be how the particular way of Titoist Socialism was called. A synonym for uniformist could be "Leveller". but for an english speaking audience has very diferent notes --194.224.160.129 13:37, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

References and biblography

I enhanced the reference links provided bu Idiazabal. It's funny to see the so diverging POV of the self styled modern members of Carlism. BTW, for the interested, the only one with a minimally decent history timeline is that of the Carlist Party; but a treasure trove of information is the "forum" hosted by the "Comunión Tradicionalista Carlista". As for the biblography, I'm still in doubt. My idea is to include a couple of introductory texts, G. Alferez's "Historia del Carlismo" (Ed. Actas), with a traditionalist POV, something easy available from J.C. Clemente,(he publishes too much ;-)) with his "leftist" twist, and a couple of more neutral works, Jordi Canal's "Carlismo" (Alianza) or S.G.Payne's "Historia del Carlismo". What do you think?. Sadly, everything is in Spanish, has anybody a decent introductory reference in English or German? ----Wllacer 12:35, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I was going to propose the articles by Marx, but marxists.org does not have them, and probably they are not insightful enough. What I have quoted in the article is from La clarificación ideológica del Partido Carlista, by María Teresa de Borbón-Parma, which I bought cheap this weekend. It has an almost Marxist POV ("class struggle"), but I hope that her quotes are accurate. -- Error 02:05, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The "Red Princess", shudder ;-) She is an interested party. To take isolate citations is dangerous - if you have, as she, an axe to grind. For instance, read the article Figaro de vuelta ...(1836) Larra seems to have a very different view (of course not on the ideology) on Carlism than on 1833

The Larra paragraph is not in María Teresa, it's out from my memory.

I don't read that. Larra keeps a bad impression on Carlism, but the article shows that the French an Spanish societies are also horrible in their own ways. -- Error 01:29, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As for the Marx citation, I found this reference [1] about the "history" (and misuse) of the citation and got worried. I checked the german edition of Marx-Engels works], I found the 1854 article, without the citation, but no 1849 article, nor book about Spain. So i also believe it's a long running fake. We should either delete it in the article, or somehow point to this factual error.

Thank you. I'll try. -- Error 01:29, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Unamuno citation is harmless compared to the one in the es:Carlismo Spanish wikipedia. The latter, belongs to a serie of articles in 1898 [2], written in response to Angel Ganivet. I had the idea that he was a rabid anti-carlist (as was also Pio Baroja), and he is pointed as the originator of the aphorism "El carlismo se cura leyendo, el nacionalismo viajando" (Carlism is cured by reading, nationalism by travelling). I'll have to reread the 98'ers (its about time)

This 'dangerous' "Views" subheading should be converted into something like "Carlism and Literature", and could be an interesting subarticle, but i don't feel capable. Anyone out there ?

--Wllacer 10:43, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Manuel Fal Conde

I deleted the changes by Error about a death sentence imposed to Manuel Fal Conde on 1936. I'm afraid it's a factual error. I hope his info comes not from the same source we've talked prior. I'm still in doubt in some elements of Manuel Fal's activities during the critical period December 1936- August 1937, but let's try to make a calendar (exact dates are still dubious)

Yes, it is from María Teresa. -- Error 01:37, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(deep silence).The only other resource I've found a similar statement is, of all places, on a FAQ at [the CTC webpage]. Unless there is something I still haven't found, this a doublet to the Marx citation, about a surprisingly badly documented moment. To be fair, the memories I had was that Fal went to exile after the unification (and this is what most books/pages seem to imply), when in fact he already was by then. The timeline I wrote yesterday, is based on Jordi Canal's book and scattered info on the web.--Wllacer 11:13, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• ( 8 ?) December 1936. The Carlists decide to create a Royal Officer's Academy. This move irritates Franco up to the point that
• General Varela has to talk to Fal and recommends him to cross to Portugal to avoid a court martial for high treason
• (20 ?) December 1936 Fal follows -obviously- the counsel and crosses the border
• 22 december 1936, all the militias are put efectively under ordinary military control
• 17 February 1937, there are conversations in Lisboa between Falange and Fal.
• (12 ?) April 1937, some carlist leaders (the navarrese under Rodezno) are informed of the purported unification.
• (17 ?) April 1937, Fal is informed in Portugal
• 19 April 1937. Unification Decret
• (22 ?) April 1937, Don Javier and Fal reject the Unification in a note to Franco
• Fal returns to the interior the 11 of August
• Meanwhile, the carlist are offered some posts into the structure, culminating in an offer of "Consejero Nacional" (and some say also a ministery) that month to Fal-Conde, who rejects the "honor". In the meantime, Rodezno and some (but not all) collaborators are excluded from the carlist party.

This timeline leaves little if any support (even in that troubled times) for a court martial, a death penalty (even in absence) and an amnesty. This what not the case with Manuel Hedilla, the leader of the Falange, which suffered the whole cycle after the unification. BTW the best online resource I could find for dates is about this last person [3]

I moved the info about Don Javier's fate during WWII to the pretenders subsection

Check it. It is also from María Teresa. --Error 03:04, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Don't let us be too overcritical ;-) It's his daughter. I have read that before and I can safely asume that this tragical event is true.BTW I found references about it in the dutch wikipedia nl:Xavier van Bourbon-Parma. The carlist house hadn't much luck during both WW. Don Jaime was house arrested in Austria for a couple of years during WWI

--Wllacer 10:37, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Trivia (?). Indiana Jones

A bit of trivia: I think that in The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles, Indy meets two youths, Sixtus and other, in a WWI front. --Error 04:12, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If it's true, it was a good pun on part of the screenwriters. Anybody volunteering to write an article about the "Sixtus Affair"? --Wllacer 16:41, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

According to Indiana Jones, Indy joined the Belgian army, and the series featured historic people. So they were probably the real brothers. I remember no mention of Carlism though.--Error 02:32, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No wonder about it. In 1916, Don Jaime was still in his prime (IIRC, some 46 years old), so any part played in Carlism by his Parma cousins had to be secondary. And at that time, Sixtus and Javier were only cadet princes (4th and 5th male sons of Duke Robert from Parma -14th and 15th siblings of 24 [4]!!!). Don Javier only became titular Duke of Parma in 1974, after the extintion of all prior branches, and not without some troubles, because of his somewhat unequal marriage (how times have changed for monarchists ;-).--Wllacer 09:55, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A proposal

We have three partly overlapping articles, this, Carlist Wars, and First Carlist War. There is something good in it, as their reflections on the origins of Carlism are very different (of course it's easy to know which I prefer ;-)) and any interested reader can have a comprehensive (if scattered) view of the discussion. But the fact is we duplicate other information, and findings in one article don't go into the others (the Marx quotation, for instance). Also, the articles are not so strong in regards to military history (just compare with the spanish wikipedia article about the first war ).

Therefore I make to the usual contributors (and whoever want to join) following proposal.

• Move all the information about the general origins of Carlism to this article.

To avoid an edit war, and trying to keep a NPOV, the specific question of basque Foralism in the origins of carlism (using the first carlist war article as base) could, either go into a separate subheading, or as the first topic on the Talk page, which I would prefer (referencing it in the main body, if doable)

The Talk page is for discussion among contributors, not for encyclopedic text. If you can't make it NPOV,

• don't write it
• write in the article and wait for fixers. wikipedia:Be bold.
• Propose a text in the Talk page as a sketch with the intention of moving it into the article.

--Error 02:23, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

• Write a short and standard introduction to the causes into the other articles, so people who wanders into any of them, can have, at least, an overview, without navigating to the main article.
• The article on Carlist Wars ought to be a general introduction to the three wars from the military history POV, on the line of most of the "Carlist at war" subheading here, and ,if separate articles for each war are not deemed necessary, all the details inside it.
• For each war (or war article) a standart military history article, with an introduction to the specific issues leading to the start of the war (clearly short on the first), the contenders, a military history, and the outcome and short term influence ... For the first the spanish article is an excellent starting point, for the rest we have to build it.

What do yo think ?--Wllacer 09:46, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

OK. Start :) --Error 02:23, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Gossip removed from article body

I removed following sentence : "They cited the doubts over Alfonso XII's paternity to dismiss him as illegitimate and his descendants as thus ineligible for the throne."

Formally, no carlist leader has ever made this claim to disqualify the offspring of Isabel II to the throne of Spain.

It's a widely held belief, though, as D. Francisco de Asis (Isabel's husband) had some physical dysfunctions and , probably with reason, was libelled as homosexual. If you follow carlist (and republican) propaganda you'll find a lot of references to the currently reigning family as the "Puig-Moltó"'s, as that was the family name of the (presumed) lover of Isabel II at the time of Alfonso's conception.

There are a lot of spanish Borbons of all branches and sexes, who have lead a "peculiar" (to be prude) lifestyle. But I'm not so sure "gossip" (and sometimes libel) belongs to an encyclopedia, unless it has had a public impact or has produced offspring; as it's customary to cite the Royal bastards, and they appear in most genealogical lists.

One case in question i want to put forward to the fellow wikipedianers. Charles (VII), duke of Madrid, led for some years after 1876 a "crazy life", which involved him in several scandals, some of them well publicised, even to the point to become the main figure of a french "vaudeville". Beside the PR desaster, this period saw the Pretender almost inactive, and overlaps with the Nocedal's ascendancy in the party. I have only sketchy details (via Jordi Canal's book), but ... does it belongs to Wikipedia ? Is this relevant ?

--Wllacer 10:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

---

Wiki was screwing the page, deleting everything else than the section I tried to edit.

Leandro GFC Dutra 18:22, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Recent Changes POV

I've seen with dismail that a host of small changes have been made lately. The net result has been to give it a POV stance:

• The article now contains the ordinals of the "carlists pretenders" without parenthesis, and those of the actual kings and queens of Spain enclosed. This is contrary to ALL style conventions in encyclopedic works
• There are a host of small wordings which give the article a definitive "Sixtine" stance (plus all the links newly added, without giving notice of it)
• It has erased references (f.i. in Offshots and influence) to the left variant of Carlism (the so called "Carlos-Hugo")

Please refrain from further slanted contributions. And a plea to all to recover the article to is former (and better, i think) state --Wllacer 12:12, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Relevance of images

What do the pictures illustrating the Ten Commandments and Universal Declaration of Human Rights have to do with this article? They don't seem to be mentioned in, or related to, the sections where they're included. Are they merely decorative? 67.158.75.219 04:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is relevance. The paragraph dealing with that was removed. I have re inserted it. It makes sense now. Stijn Calle 16:18, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Salic law

From the current version of the article, the traditional succession in Castile was Salic law (female exclusion). Philip V would have changed it to Semi-Salic. I though the Castilian tradition was the Siete Partidas (first-male preference among siblings). Otherwise, Ferdinand's brother Charles would have been preferred over Isabella. So I think the article got it backwards. Could you check the actual rules for the succession? --Error 00:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

No need to recheck. You're right, someone botched it up. I'll change it. Prior to 1713 the regular order of succession was that of the Siete Partidas; in this order: direct line precedence (offspring preferred to siblings of the current monarch) with right of representation (offspring of a predeceased takes its place), male precedence, age precedence, just as today. From that date up to 1789/1830 (excluding the years the 1812 constitution -which reverted to the old order- was acknowledged), semi-salic ruled: women -or their descendants- were to be considered only on extintion (or disqualification) of all branches of Felipe V descendancy. (The actual law can be found at the Novisima Recopilación book 3, Title I, Law 5)

This last paragraph has also some bearing on the wicked affair of who is the legitimate Pretender after 1936

The article seems to suffer a little 'bit-rot' lately.--Wllacer 09:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

If the law was indeed semi-salic as you set out above, then the carloctavistas have it. Jess Cully (talk) 14:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Just FYI. The changes which introduced the error were inducted on April 15, 2007 by User:Stijn_Calle (btw. they were marked as minor ...). Pls, can this user stand up, and tell us where on Hell did he got info that any Spanish kingdom was using any variant of the Salic system?Wllacer 14:11, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

De-linking "legitimist"

"Carlism is a traditionalist and legitimist political movement in Spain"

"Legitimist" was linked to Legitimists (redirects from Legitimism), which says "Legitimists are Royalists in France who believe that the King of France and Navarre must be chosen according to the simple application of the Salic Law."

Legitimists (disambiguation) lists:

Legitimists, Royalists in France ...
Jacobitism, the political movement dedicated to the restoration of the Stuart kings to the thrones of England and Scotland
Carlists, a traditionalist, legitimist political movement in Spain ...
Miguelistas, legitimists of Portugal
Legitimists (Nicaragua)

Under the circumstances, I have de-linked. -- 201.53.7.16 (talk) 19:30, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

The Flag

The Carlists -and the Liberals- used basically the red-over-yellow-over-red flag in the 3rd Carlist War (1872-76). Take into account that before October 1843 that flag was only the naval ensign (warships and coastal defences). Despite the popular legend, the cross of Burgundy was marked down as the Carlist badge in the mid-1930s, and not in 1833. In fact , many official Spanish army colours in the 19th century bore the red ragged saltire: The infantry, artillery and engineers battalion colours -used on paper until 1843, and in fact beyond 1843-, and the red-yellow-red regimental colours issued in December 1843 (and used until April 1931). All these colours were used by the regulars against the Carlist forces. Perhaps incidentally some Carlist units flew these colours as well, but remember those flags were official army colours, not Carlist colours.

Red Berets...or White Berets

In Basque , at least in the first war (1833-39), the Carlists were known as Txapelzuriak (White Berets) rather than as Red Berets (although incidentally most of the Carlist infantrymen were issued perhaps with blue berets). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.8.98.118 (talk) 12:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

This may be wrong, but I think female Carlists today wear white, while the men wear royal red. - Yorkshirian (talk) 08:51, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, the current standard color codes for the berets (red for male, white for women) is a XX century (D. Jaime era) evolution and only universal during the II republic (with the Requete Ordinance) and afterwards.

During the third war (1873-76) berets (in all possible colors) where THE standard headgear of the carlist units and afterward the outwardly mark of the party but with local color codes. Staff officers and royals (like D. Margarita) wore always white (huge) berets with golden cord and tassel.

Uniformity in the first war (1834-1841) was local. Berets were at first only popular in the northern front, spreading later to Catalonia and the "Center front" (Maestrazgo). It seems that the only quasi standard color code was white for staff officers, and on the northern front anything (usually deep blue) but red; because red berets were -at least in Biscay- the headgear of the foral liberal militae/police force (the migueletes, aka chapelgorris)

The red saltire as distinctive party banner is also a late addition --Wllacer (talk) 02:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Names

Why on Earth should we refer to Alfonso XIII of Spain as Alfonso de Borbón y Austria? Why should we call his cousin Carlos Hugo de Borbón-Parma y Borbón-Busset when he is known as "Carlos Hugo, Duke of Parma" or "Carlos Hugo of Bourbon-Parma"? Why should Austrians such as Archduke Anton of Austria be called "Antonio de Habsburgo-Lorena y Borbón"?

Why should an English language encyclopaedia use names that are commonly used by Spanish language sources and not by English language sources?

And what does Los Angeles has to do with this case?[5] Los Angeles is the name used by English language sources. That can't be disputed. On the other hand, Alfonso de Borbón y Austria is not a name used by English language sources. The Spy Who Came in from the Cold (talk) 16:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

This seems sensible to me. john k (talk) 16:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, could you be a bit more specific? Should we use Spanish names or English names? The Spy Who Came in from the Cold (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

What you are saying seems sensible to me. john k (talk) 16:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The proper encyclopedic position would be to give both sets of names, rather than to choose one or the other. μηδείς (talk) 20:39, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

No, the proper encyclopedic position would be to give only the names used in English because this encyclopaedia is in English. Why do we need invented Spanish names for the Germans? If it's "proper" to give Spanish names, why not give German names to the Austrians? Calling Alfonso XII "Alfonso de Borbón y Austria" is in no way helpful. The Spy Who Came in from the Cold (talk) 21:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

What part of "encyclopedic" is unclear to you? Add both the English and the Spanish names, they are both relevant. (I am travelling or I would do it myself.) Does it not occur to you that someone might come here seeking to find out just this very information? Why would giving this factual information be a problem?μηδείς (talk) 21:45, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The part that says that we can add all sorts of irrelevant stuff into article. I highly doubt that the name "Antonio de Habsburgo-Lorena y Borbón" is a factual information. It seems like an original research, as I doubt Archduke Anton ever held Spanish nationality. No, why would it occur to me that someone would come here looking precisely for an invented Spanish name of an Austrian man? The Spy Who Came in from the Cold (talk) 22:04, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Francisco de Paula, Treason and the Siete Partidas.

I have added some brief information, under the "The Succession after Alfonso Carlos" and "Alfonso de Borbón" sections, concerning the legal argument on the exclusion of Infante Francisco de Paula and his descendants from the throne on account of treason, as specified in the "Siete Partidas", the "Ordenamiento de Alcalá" and the "Novísima Recopilación". I have also added two footnotes that explain this in greater detail. I believe I have provided sufficient reference, but I'd be glad to add more should anyone think it necessary. -Waakzaamheid — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waakzaamheid (talk • contribs) 20:58, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Line of Succession

If, hypothetically speaking, Carlos Javier, his brother Jaime, and their uncle Sisto Enrique were all to fail to produce a legitimate son between them, who would be the next heir to the Carlist claim? 137.158.152.213 (talk) 11:30, 28 April 2011 (UTC)