Talk:Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2

The Granjilla of The Royal Place of El Escorial - La Granjilla de La Fresneda

La Granjilla de La Fresneda, is known as both, La Granjilla and La Fresneda.[1]. It is an essential Cultural Treasure of the Royal Site of El Escorial. It was planned by Philip II of Spain as a Real Cottage closed by a fence of dry stone. Juan Bautista de Toledo, Royal Architect, and Gaspar de Vega, Royal Stonework Master, designed it as a Royal Private Park into a Royal Private Estate, The Royal Place of El Escorial, isolated and protected from the rest of the world by a Royal Wall of Dry Stone known nowadays as La Cerca Real (The Royal Fence) and La Cerca de Felipe II(The Fence of Philip II). [3]. Conceptually, La Granjilla (La Fresneda) was the counterpoint of the Monastery: for Fray José de Sigüenza, The Fresneda’s Park was an earthly image of the Paradise.

The monumental area of the Historical Place of Granjilla’s Park (Fresneda’s Park) was built between 1563 and 1569. San Lorenzo's Monastery was built between 1562 and 1584; previously, in 1561, Felipe II moved The Court from Toledo to Madrid.

La Granjilla and the Monasterio de San Lorenzo are two homologous Royal Sites, essential and indivisible parts of the Cultural Landscape of the Royal Site of El Escorial, cultural, natural and symbolic legacy of the Spanish Crown to the Spanish People.[4].


[1]. Also as, La Fresneda del Real Sitio del Escorial and La Granjilla del Real Sitio del Escorial.

[2]. In 2006, “La Cerca Real” was declared Cultural Good by Madrid’s Regional Government. Vide, CAM, Decreto 52/2006 – BOCM 21/96/2009.

[3]. La Granjilla (Real Sitio del Escorial)

[4]. La Granjilla is a Welfare of Cultural Interest. By its historicity, until the 19th century, it could be considered Cultural Heritage of the Hispanic Monarchy in The Royal Place of The Escorial. Nowadays should be declared, urgently, Spanish Heritage to be administrated by the Spanish National Trust (Organismo Autónomo de Patrimonio Nacional, Ministerio de la Presidencia, Gobierno de España).

Petition to the Spanish Government: national, regional and municipal authorities

We ask the Spanish authorities:

To declare "The Granjilla de La Fresneda", National Treasure Spanish Heritage.

To include the Cultural Landscape of the Royal Site of El Escorial in the “Parque Nacional Sierra de Guadarrama”. Philip II protected the Royal Site of El Escorial with a Royal Dry Stone Wall.

To declare the Royal Site of El Escorial, European Heritage and World Heritage Site.

The Royal Site of El Escorial is the Inalienable Cultural Legacy of the Parliamentary Hispanic Monarchy to the Spanish People. Direcciones de Internet (URL)


El Proyecto Camelot-Escorial pide a los Poderes Públicos y a las Instituciones Internacionales: 1.- Que declaren el Real Sitio del Escorial Legado Cultural Inalienable, Irrenunciable e Imprescriptible de la Monarquía Hispánica Parlamentaria al Pueblo Español. 2.- Que incluyan el Patrimonio Natural, Cultual y Simbólico del Real Sitio del Escorial en el Parque Nacional Sierra de Guadarrama. 3.- Que el Paisaje Cultural del Real Sitio del Escorial, que Felipe II protegió para la posteridad con una Cerca de Piedra en Seco, sea declarado Patrimonio Europeo y Patrimonio de la Humanidad. El Proyecto Camelot-Escorial (Escorial Sostenible y Amigos del Escorial) es un grupo de trabajo altruista abierto e interdisciplinar, sin personalidad jurídica común ni beneficio económico. El Lema del Proyecto Camelot-Escorial es: "Lo que escribió Cervantes, lo que pintó Velázquez, lo que edificó Herrera influye sobre lo que hicimos, pensamos y sentimos los españoles de hoy". G. Morente.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Camelotescorial (talk) 09:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

About the new picture

There are now two pictures at the top of the page. This distorts the intro because there simply is not enough space for 2 pictures to fit in the screen. It doesnt fit. Furthermore, i believe the standard procedure for biographies is to have only 1 picture placed next to the intro? Im not saying that the new picture( the one on the left) should be removed. But it should be moved to a better fitting place atleast. And please, remember, that no matter how nice the picture might be, you sometimes have to cut them out because otherwise theyll clog the actual article and turn it into an encarta-like-article. (talk) 13:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Adrian of Utrecht

I saw no reason for a link to "Adrian of Utrecht" when there is already a link to "Pope Adrian VI," especially when there is no "Adrian of Utrecht" entry and they are the same person. Therefore, I took out the link.

Anonymous 4/9/03 — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:21, 10 April 2003 (UTC)


Many call him "Carlos I de España y V de Alemania" (Charles I of Spain and V of Germany), not just "Carlos V". It looks like he is better known by both of his titles... Sabbut 20:29, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

This doesn't seem to be empirically true: It appears that all other Wikipedias except the Spanish (and possibly the Chinese) one refer to him primarily as Charles V. The English Wikipedia article should be named following the term most common in English, which, I think, is his Holy Roman Emperor number. Martg76 22:42, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Also, HR Emperor was his highest title, and it should be used as his primary title, and thus regnal number. -Alex, 09:18, 27 December 2005 (UTC).

I just don't understand. In every other biographical article I've read, where the person is not English, a long, contentious debate has raged, resulting in the article using the non-English name of the subject of the article. This is so, even if the non-English name is unfamiliar to English speakers. It wouldn't be right to use the name most commonly used in English, even though this section of Wikipedia is written in English. Doing so would be an affront. Proper usage in the English language Wikipedia is to use non-English names. It's one of the fundamental principles of Wiki-thinking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Infanta Isabella

Is there an article about Infanta Isabella? Is she listed on the Isabella-disambiguatation page? WouterVH 21:52, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

If you're talking about Infanta Isabella Clara Eugenia of Spain, then yes and yes. --IvanP 18:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


Why exactly did Charles give up all his power when he did? And why did he not try to pass it on as a single empire?

very likely because he of all people should have known what a strain such a duty would have been for one man to be occupied with, so he merly made sure that it didnt happen. Plus, as his son, Philip II was intitled to be his heir, and as a reward to his brother for being his regent in Germany and helping him with many various important things there that be left that domain to Ferdinand. The reformation in Germany was brewing, the Turks in the south invading, the French causing trouble in Italy, plus Spain and the "new world" possesions.....and look what happened within time with those things, and imagine how easily it would have been had one person ruled it for it to all fall apart......The Thirty Years War, the seige of Vienna, the eventual aggression of France....not something id presonally like to deal with by myself.

Charles V was suffering from bad health conditions and he was "tired" of being a ruler in his later years. His son and brother were already able to stand on their own. The truimph of Protestants in some parts of the Holy Roman Empire also perhaps "broke" his heart and he saw the corrputed pope, who was only busy with their papal state, as another big disappointment. -- Swimfan October 28, 2005

Essentially, it was too much for one man to rule. Charles was exhausted at the end of his reign, and so split the territories. This seems better in the long run, anyway. -Alex, 07:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC).

Another thing, the Holy Roman Empire was an elective monarchy. The nobles had the final say as to who became the next king-emperor. Though I have heard Charles asked them to elect his brother, Ferdinand, I am not sure this is true. Also, most emperors were elected through either pressure from the reigning emperor or by bribing the princes (this is actually how Charles himself was elected). As Phillip was only a toddler when the election took place, he could not bribe the princes while his uncle could (though the explations of the other editers above are also plausible because if Charles wanted Phillip to be emperor, why did he call the election so soon after his son's birth?). He also abdicated the Austrian thrones before his son was even born which is why Ferdinand got them. Charles probably abdicated these to avoid ruling too many places at once (his grandfather did the same with the Burgundian territories though curiously, Maximillian gave up the Burgundian lands but kept Austria until death where Charles gave up Austria after 2 1/2 years but kept Burgundy until he started abdicating everything else). Emperor001 20:43, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

More Needed

This article on one of the most powerful monarchs in history is about the same length as the obscure Prince Frederick, Duke of York and Albany. Charles V deserves more here. How do we make this a candidate for a Collaboration? --StanZegel 21:00, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

The rules there are that the article must be a stub of no more than two paragraphs. Is there some alternate mechanism? --StanZegel (talk) 06:23, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

There is a fantasitic book by Karl Brandi on Charles V, translated by C. V. Wedgewood and published by Alfred A Knopf of New York, 1939 which would be a good resource for this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Philintheo (talkcontribs) 04:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


I have changed this part a bit, mentioning his place of birth (Okay, I admit, it's my home town). I wouldn't say "It is hard to say what nationality Charles really held". He was clearly not French, Spanish, German, Italian or Austrian so he must have been Flemish: he was born there and when he moved to Spain as emperor, appointed many Flemings to high offices in Spain. Even though Spain was the center of his empire, he spent many of his later years in Flanders too. I just removed the line. Piet 13:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

It is hard to say what nationality he held, but it's also an anachronistic question. Culturally he was a Burgundian. Str1977 09:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Agree on the first part, that why I removed it from the article. But Burgundian? Only one of his grandparents was Burgundian and when he was born, most of Burgundy was already a part of France. Anyway, I like the changes you made. I planned to work on this article but it's difficult to find time. Piet 14:36, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, by blood, was he not Spanish? His mother was Spanish and his father was an the Austrian King of Aragon, which was merged into Spain. Thus, he'd be spanish or austro-spanish. -Alex, 21:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC).

Philip was Austrian-Burgundian. He had nothing to do with Spain except through his wife. He was born in Bruges, Flanders, he got married in Flanders, Charles was born and spent his childhood there. Piet 08:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Why is Carlos V the name of a Spanish chocolate bar? 14 March 2006

I think generally the term "nationality" is wrong here, because there were no Nations at this time. You´d better speak of ethnicity. And German was far more widespread those days asit is today. Austrian is definatly German, even Dutch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:36, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

First King of Spain

I moved the follwing over from the article, for rewording:

He is considered (the first) King of Spain though in fact his son was the first to use that title. He was king from 1516 to 1556 (in principle, he was from 1516 king of Aragon and from 1516 guardian of his insane mother, queen of Castile who died 1555, and the co-king of Castile 1516-55, full king 1555-56), ...

No doubt it's valuable information, but how should we include it. As it stood, it seemed a bit bulking up the opening section. Any thoughts? Str1977 09:52, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I think I fixed it. The info is now either included in the succession passage (including the him vs. Philip II as first king of Spain), the specific years are included in the succession box. Str1977 10:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Spain as country doesn't appear until 1715. Charles V was the king of many kingdoms, that includes all Hispania kingdoms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Conflict with Cortes

"He eventually won and from then on Castilian Cortes were keen on conceding him the vast resources needed for the numerous wars he waged in Europe." I don't think they ever were _keen_ on paying for the wars abroad. And I don't think he really won the support of the cortes just by beating them on the battlefield. But I will do some research and try to make changes. Piet 14:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Quote (copied from above)

"I speak Spanish to God, Italian to women, French to men and German to my horse."

I have heard a very similar quote (with Latin substituted for Spanish) ascribed to Frederick II of Prussia. Could anyone provide documentary evidence for the statement(s)?

Mmartins 17:42, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would like to put it in the article in the "Nationality section" to illustrate Charles' view on his own nationality. But first a source. Piet 13:47, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Seeing as Frederick II of Prussia was an athiest, which is explicitly stated in his article, how could he speak "Spanish to god"? -Alex, 21:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC).

I googled "Charles V" "spanish to god" and came up with 2,460 hits and then googled "Charles V" "latin to god" and came up with only 40. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind if I put this quote in Spanish. "No importa que no me entendáis. Que yo estoy hablando en mi lengua española, que es tan bella y noble que debería ser conocida por toda la cristiandad." (It doesn't mind if you don't understand me. I'm speaking in my spanish language, because is so beautiful and noble that it would known be by all cristianity.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:41, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


In the book, "The Habsburgs: Embodying Empire", it is noted that Charles V was sometimes known by a Spanish epithet, "El Dorado", or "The Golden One", due to how he ruled both the Austrian and Spanish territories. Should this be mentioned? -Alex, 23:55, 29 January 2006 (UTC).

Family and nationality

The prime influence in his early life was the culture and courtly life of the Netherlands. I don't see what was wrong with the Low Countries. The Netherlands is a confusing term, I think it is clearer to speak of Burgundian Netherlands, Seventeen Provinces, Spanish Netherlands, United Provinces and so on. In this case I think Burgundian Netherlands would be the best choice since that is his prime heritage. Some reactions please as I think it has been changed a couple of times already. Piet 10:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


I've removed the expand tag, I would prefer it not to be on top of the page. This doesn't mean the article doesn't have to be expanded any more :-) Any comments? Piet 13:32, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Flemish language

The language Charles was brought up in was changed to "Dutch" with the comment "There is no flemish language, see Dutch language or Flemish linguistics". There may be no Flemish language now (officially), but there was no Dutch language in 1500. And if there was a Dutch language, then Charles was definitely not brought up in it. I'm quite certain that his contemporaries would have described his language as "Flemish". The line pointed to a book by Henry Kamen, which states (quote) he was brought up to speak only French and Flemish, but soon added Spanish and a smattering of German. I will therefore change it back, unless someone objects. Piet 21:28, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Charles no doubt knew how to speak Flemish, but his first language would have been French. At the time, French was the lingua franca of the aristocratic classes in the Low Countries.

Nope, sorry, you must take into account how Charles really lived during his youth and early manhood:
Hunting with poachers, drinking with robbers, riding with highwaymen, sleeping with whores and making fun with - and mocking of - the lot of them.
AND THEY ALL SPOKE FLEMISH!!! (The word 'Dutch' (Nederlands) didn't even exist in those days).
He may have mocked them, but he LOATHED the aristocracy - In his eyes there was no aristocracy - There was only Him (Second to God) and peasants.
Yes, his mother-tongue was Flemish, no doubt, and he hated any other language (Except perhaps German as this is indeed somewhat more fit to grumble to a horse)! 20:56, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Carlos V

I see no reason to add the Spanish name so prominently at the top of the article. It is not how he is known in the English language. He was not Spanish and he did not rule as Carlos V in Spain. If we add his name in other languages, it should be later in the introduction and names in French, Dutch and Italian should be added as well. Piet 19:30, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I followed the link Carlos V, and came to this page. Since it was mentioned nowhere in the article I had to do a bit of investigation as to whether the link was correct or not. This seems unpractical. You could change the 14 links to Carlos V of course Special:Whatlinkshere/Carlos V but since a number of different users put that name in 14 different articles, it will be put in other articles and wikilinked again. It should be mentioned somewhere in the article; I agree it is not necessary to mention it as one of the first words but preferrably, one shouldn't have to search the entire article to find that you indeed ended up on the right spot. // Habj 23:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
He was Carlos I of Spain, but not Carlos V. Karl V, as his German name which was used in the Holy Roman Empire, should perhaps be mentioned, though. john k 00:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

We could mention all his names but I don't think it is necessary, the lead section will get long. If we add one, then we have to add all the others to (Spanish, French, Dutch, German, Italian); there are reasons to add every one of them. Concerning Spanish: I don't think Carlos V is what he was called in Spain so maybe that redirect has to be changed into a disambiguation page that clarifies this; that would solve the problem Habj encountered. We don't have to change this page because of a wrong redirect. Piet 06:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The topics of most of those 14 languages are related to Puerto Rico, Mexico, Peru, Colombia, Chile. If he was generally referred to as Carlos V anywhere in the world, then the redirect is not wrong. For now, I add the info last in the article. Then at last you find it letting the browser searching for the word. // Habj 12:35, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I've moved it to the top anyway, it was there already as "the ordinal of ...". Concerning the redirect, I don't agree. Carlos V in Spanish has four meanings (see es.wikipedia):

  • Rey Carlos I de España y emperador del Sacro Imperio Romano
  • Carlos V Leopoldo
  • Carlos V el Sabio
  • Carlos V, nombre con que pretendió el trono español el Infante Carlos María Isidro de Borbón

You cannot decide that whoever makes a link to Carlos V will mean the Charles V the HRE. So I've changed the redirect to point to Charles V the disambiguation page. Piet 19:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Once again, he was never called "Carlos V" in Spain. In Spain he was called "Carlos I." In the Spanish language today, he might occasionally be called "Emperador Carlos V," but this name is not significant enough that it should be listed in the article. john k 03:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

El Dorado

Is this epithet ever used in English? I think the remark has little value, especially in the introduction. Piet 13:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I've removed it. If anyone thinks it is absolutely necessary, please explain. Piet 08:45, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Pragmatic Sanction

Don't just delete something without saying why. It's bad manners. The article is in need of expansion, not shortening. Piet 08:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


I've reverted a few additions:

  • some people refer to him also as Charles V & I
  • Charles son [ Phillip ] got married to Marry Tutor also known as Bloody Marry. Marry Tutor also was Charles' 1st cousion.
  • Indeed, he is quoted in the Oxford Dictionary of Quotations as having said, "To God I speak Spanish; to women, Italian; to men, French; and to my horse, German."

The first two contain mistakes and do not make the article better; the quote was in the text somewhere else. Please take some time to preview before saving. Piet 07:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Plus Oultre

What does this mean and what does it have to do with Charles V? Piet 15:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Plus Oultre (Latin: Plus Ultra) means something like "more beyond" and was Charles V's personal motto. It can be seen on many devices, often in combiantion with the Pillars of Hercules (Straits of Gibraltar) to symbolize both the infinite extant of his imperial claims as well as his conquests into the unknown New World. Thomas Antonius 16:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll add it to the caption. Hmm, there's actually an article about it. If I had checked that this question would have been unnecessary. Thanks for the answer. Piet 18:27, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

New Charles V image

I think the old image was much better. What was the reason for replacing it? Piet 08:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Recent additions problems

Hallo, there are some problems with the recent additions (from the Spanish WP)

"With the death of his grandfather, Ferdinand II, on May 30, 1516 Charles became heir to the throne of Aragon. He was proclaimed king of Castile by the Cortes of Valladolid in 1518, but with some conditions: he would learn to speak Castillian; he would end the appointments of foreigners; he was prohibited from taking precious metals from Castile; and he would treat his mother, Juana la Loca, former queen, with more respect.

"Charles was formally crowned king of Aragon in 1518 in Zaragoza, before the Cortes of Aragon. For the first time the crowns of Castile and Aragon were united in one person. Ferdinand and Isabella had each been sovereign in one kingdom, but only consort in the other."

  • Some info contained in the first para is already covered a section above. This should be merged.
  • The way I understand it, is that in 1516 Charles succeeded his grandfather Ferdinand as king of Aragon (and didn't become heir) and as ruler of Castilia on behalf of Juana. Ferdinand was regent and Charles now became co-King.
  • Some issues with the conditions:
    • "end the appointments" - had there been appointment of foreigners before? If not, Charles could have hardly ended them. Or was the condition that he wouldn't appoint foreigner (this did become an issue in his first few years as king)
    • "treat his mother ... with more respect" - did he disrespect her in any way before? I think not. I guess the condition meant that he should treat his mother with respect, or rather should respect the fact that she was the Queen in the end (and hence superior to him).
      • "the former Queen" is definitely wrong. Juana was Queen all the way from her mother's death until her own. That she was incapable of ruling is another thing, but she was Queen nonetheless. Certainly she was no former Queen, as that would require her stepping down at one point. The only such point is her death.

Finally, I think it more appropriate to change the sequence from Castilia and Aragon to Aragon and Castilia, as it was Ferdinand's death that brought this about. Is there anything that would speak against this?

Str1977 (smile back) 14:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead! Piet 08:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I did. But I am still baffled by the proclamation as King of Castile in 1518. Was it really in 1518, or was it in 1516 (which would exlain the sequence above) - or is it talking not about a proclamation but an act of coronation or submission, when he first visited his new territories (that is what the Aragon event looks like). Some one in the know, please speak up. Str1977 (smile back) 13:06, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
I found the answer. It was an act of homage by the various Cortes. I will edit the article accordingly. Str1977 (smile back) 13:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Different territories

One more thing: Was Charles really proclaim King of Castile only in 1518? That seems to be a pretty long interval. Str1977 (smile back) 15:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

We can proceed by two ways with this article:

  • Either we first recount in one section the sequence of his accession in his various territories, spanning from 1506 (Burgundy) to 1519 (Empire) and deal with his reign in later, separate section (that was the rationale behind the former version)
  • Or we put in a section for every country, relating the accession there (this is the current state)

But we must decide between these two.

Str1977 (smile back) 15:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, someone must decide between the two. But both have advantages and disadvantages. Doing it chronologically will be confusing I think. But when treating the different regions separately, the relations become less clear (Spain having to divide its military between all the regions, so wars in the mediterranean had consequences for the north). I would keep the division in territories though. Piet 08:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


I also have made a couple of corrections:

  • Either Low Countries or Netherlands, otherwise we will confuse the reader.
  • The Low Countries always remained fiefs of either the Emperor or the King of France, they never became independent, never could have become independent.
  • I avoided references to "his family", as he had more than one family, as the "family section" amply demonstrates.

Str1977 (smile back) 15:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

  1. Agreed. I prefer the Netherlands and I think it is more common although it could be confused with the modern country.
  2. Not sure why you bring this up; after the Pragmatic Sanction of 1549 the Netherlands became independent of the HRR and of France. When Charles split the empire, he did not pass the HRR fiefs to the holy Roman Empire but kept them as a part of Spain. Territories that went back to France later were conquered in war. So effectively in 1549 all ties were cut for good.
  3. I suppose it would refer to the Habsburg side, but I guess you're right.
Piet 08:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear Piet,

  • I don't mind either Low Countries or Netherlands, but it should be consisted. LC might draw attention to the fact that this is not the same as todays's Netherlands.
  • I have to contradict you on the Pragmatic Sanction. The Netherlands did not become independent from the HRE. It might have ensured that Flanders was no longer a French fief (not sure about this), but the whole Netherlands remained within the HRE. The United Netherlands remained part of it until after the Thirty Years' War, the Souther Netherlands until the French Revolution. After Charles, the (Spanish) Netherlands remained in the possession of the Spanish King but he held it as a fief from the Emperor (Austrian line). After the Spanish lines ended, it was the Austrian line that inherited the Netherlands and held it until the revolution, always a fied from the Emperor (who however mostly was a Habsburg).
  • Yes, "his family" I would consider first and foremost the Habsburgs. Hence, referring to the Burgundian Netherlands as the region of his family was seriosly wrong. Habsburgs coming from Austria, Northern Swittzerland and originally the Alsace.

Str1977 (smile back) 13:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Pragmatic Sanction: I got a wrong notion then somewhere, I'll look it up. You can change this article if you want, I have probably been wrong about it. We should expand the Pragmatic Sanction of 1549 article a bit to make all this clear. It is however true that the Netherlands from then on have a history that is separate from France and the German states. Piet 13:47, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
Wow! The 17 provinces were never, as a whole, a fief of the HRE nor France. The Burgundians united them, some of them were previously fiefs of France and others were and remained in the HRE but not the whole of them. So the corrections to the pertinent article are correct on that point but the provinces were already united (de facto) previously, the Pragmatic Sanction only guaranteed that they would remain to the Hasbourg and outside of the HRE (to avoid giving the same rights to protestants in the LC). --moyogo 12:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Exactly, each of the various territories was either a fief of the Roman Emperor or a fief of the French King. The Burgundians united them under one ruler, the Duke of Burgundy. The Habsburgs inherited the whole collection (safe the Duchy of Burgundy). The Pragmatic Sanction ensured the unity of the territories in the future (just as the P.S. of Charles VI did with the Habsburg Monarchy). Str1977 (smile back) 14:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Hm I missed that in Str1977's remark. Were the southern netherlands as a whole in the HRE? I don't think Flanders ever was. Piet 14:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Yep. Only the United Netherlands (now the Kingdom of that name) achieved formal independence in 1648 (or 1654, depending on which peace treaty you prefer) - idependence from the HRE and from Spain. The South remained with Spain (and later the Austrian Habsburgs) and withing the HRE until the Revolution swept over it. Str1977 (smile back) 14:31, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
But Flanders traditionally was a part of France, not the HRE. How did that change? That it was a part of Spain does not imply that it was within the HRE. When the empire was split by Charles V, the Netherlands were NOT passed to HRE Ferdinand I, but to Philip. Piet 16:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that's right. Flanders was one of the territories that were fiefs of the French king (the major one of these by far). It was to my knowledge never a part of the HRE, at least not until Louis XIV, who tried to conquer Flanders. He succeeded partly and I think the other part was released from being a French fief, at the latest with the duty of Utrecht. Str1977 (smile back) 16:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Flanders and Artois became part of the Holy Roman Empire with the Treaty of Cambrai in 1529. While it is true that the southern Netherlands (well, more accurately, the central Netherlands, as the actual southern Netherlands are now the two northernmost departments of France) remained technically part of the Holy Roman Empire until the French Revolutionary Wars, iirc it is also true that the Pragmatic Sanction of 1549 did give them de facto independence, in that they were no longer subject to the acts of the Reichstag, but were pretty much the possessions of their prince to do with as he wished. The Kings of Spain had pretty much absolute sovereignty over the Spanish Netherlands after 1549, in a way that no other prince of the Empire did. They were still part of the HRE on paper, but they were also pretty much completely sovereign. Their situation after 1549 was similar to that of northern Italy - technically part of the Empire, but with no actual defined connections to it, besides the Duke of Burgundy's right to a seat on the Prince's Bench in the diet. The Burgundian Circle of the Empire consisted only of the Burgundian provinces, and thus the ruler of the area had no connection to the rest of the Empire through the Imperial Circle Estates.

In terms of where Charles's family came from, it's of course true that the Habsburgs themselves were Austrian, but Charles's father and aunt both grew up in and spent most of their lives in the Low Countries, and Charles himself and at least some of his sisters grew up there as well. john k 17:20, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, John, for clearing that up. Note that we should strive to including both the legal status and the de facto conditions and not sacrifice the one to the other or vice versa. Str1977 (smile back) 19:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Incan Empire (Peru) and Aztec Empire (Mexico)

I am missing in the article references to the camapigns against those two american empires. I think those were key moments in the history of our civilization. Don you agree??

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The article has a brief discussion of Cortez and Pizzarro's conquests, and I don't think anything more is warranted. It is certainly true that these were very important events, but they were not all that important for Charles - his own attention was more focused on the complex issues of the rise of Lutheranism in Germany, his struggles with Francis I of France, and defending Europe against the Ottoman menace. It seems to me that an article about Charles should focus on the events in which he was centrally involved, many of which are covered inadequately and amateurishly (the discussion of his wars with Francis is achronological and full of awkward phrasing, for instance), rather than on events done half a world away in his name, which he himself had little to do with. john k 12:37, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Charles's travels

One thing this article lacks is any coherent sense of where Charles was at any given time. Since he was a seriously peripatetic monarch, this would surely be useful.

If I recall correctly, Charles was in the Netherlands until 1517, when he proceeded to Spain upon Ferdinand's death. He stayed in Spain until his other grandfather's death in 1519, when he left Spain, briefly visited England, and went to Germany to be crowned King at Aachen. He stayed in Germany until 1521, then returned to Spain. He remained in Spain until the conclusion of peace in 1529, and then proceeded to Italy, where he was crowned Emperor by the Pope at Bologna in 1530, and then went on back to Germany, where he presides over some more irritating diets on the Lutheran issue and leads a campaign on the Danube against the Turks in 1532. I assume he returned to Spain after this, and then led the expidition against Tunis in 1535. He also personally invaded Provence in 1536, during the war with France. Seems to have returned to Spain after that(?) then marched across France to crush a rebellion in Ghent in 1540. He led an expedition against Algiers in 1541-42, and he was again in the Netherlands during the 1542-1544 war, and was in Germany during the Schmalkaldic war of 1546-1547, and again in either Germany or the Netherlands during most of his last war with the French, finally abdicating in Brussels. He then returned to Spain and ended his life there. But there's still some gaps. Can anyone fill this in? john k 13:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

BTW, can anyone read Italian? The Italian Charles V article seems much better than ours, notably because it describes his life in more or less chronological order, rather than the awkward topical organization here - an encyclopedia article on someone's life should, I think, generally be chronological. john k 13:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Change in heading of the article

I reverted the change made by Qp10qp as it to me made the introductory section seem unneccesarily large. I am sorry if an explanation was made, but I could not find the reference on the talk page mentioned with the edit. The dates added are already made clear in the 'Reign' chapter. Mainly, I did not see why in this particular section of the article there should be made a distiction (although correct) between 'German king' and 'Holy Roman Emperor', but not between 'king of Castile' and 'king of Aragon'. 'King of Spain' was not used, I believe, until the reign of Philip II of Spain. Besides, if mentioning the dates for these, the dates for him being Duke of Burgundy and the other assorted Netherlands should also be mentioned (The correct dates can be viewed at the succesion boxes at the end of the article). To me it seems that mentioning all dates would make the section rather cluttered up, but maybe a compromise could be reached? Tom 01:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The comment that I was about to post would have said that this change was provisional and would have raised some questions. My overriding intention was to provide some dates for Charles's reigns in the opening section, as is normal in Wikipedia. The lack of those at the moment is a great shame.
I'm sorry you felt the need to revert this wholesale because it took me ages to research; I took into account that connected lists of monarchs on Wikipedia — List of Spanish monarchs, List of Leonese monarchs, List of Castilian monarchs, List of Aragonese Monarchs — say that Charles may be considered King of Spain, even if Aragon and Castile were still technically individual monarchies. The details about Aragon and Castile are addressed in the article, even with a footnote, so no deception of the reader is involved.
The addition of the German kingship was not a distinction but merely a fact: that Charles was German king from 1519 to 1530 (I'm interested in German history and this reign was certainly important to the electors there: for example, he chaired the Diets of Worms and Augsburg). Charles was the last of the crowned Holy Roman emperors and should not be dated like an emperor-elect.
As for the succession boxes being correct, are you sure? The German succession box claims that Charles was King of Germany from 1519 until 1556; but Ferdinand I was elected German king in 1531 and it was impossible to have two kings or to be the king and emperor at the same time. The box for Castile and Leon says that Charles was guardian and regent for Joanna until 1555, whereas the article says he was crowned co-king, which I favour.
Anyway, I wash my hands of it. I just think the schoolkids etc. that come here should be given a few dates at the beginning, as they are for most other monarchs.
By the way, before reverting a good-faith edit that has an edit summary saying "see Talk", do give the editor a chance to get his comment up: in a case like this, it takes some time to compose; I was including some questions about Charles's abdication date as emperor too.qp10qp 00:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
I apologize, my revert was rather rushed; it was late and I was tired, if that's any excuse. On second thought, I do agree with your edit more then I did at first, it does seems costumary to put the dates at the beginning. Also, you are right about the succession boxes, I think: Ferdinand, not Charles, was indeed German king after 1530 and co-king with Joanna does sound more correct. I however still do not agree with the use of 'king of Spain', as it Charles was indeed the first to rule over all Spanish kingdoms, but these were in no way an united country. Taking your edit in mind, I will edit the part again; I hope this way we both agree. Again, apologies for my rushed decision. Tom 09:22, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
Well, I think your version now is a dog's dinner, if I may say so. And you seem to rely too heavily on the succession boxes, which are certainly not in their final correct state yet (for example, look at your dates for archdukeship). Wikipedia style requires that the most notable titles come first, yet you relegate the fact that Charles was emperor to low down the pecking order.
As for whether he may be called "King of Spain" or not, I admit that my first draft had "King of Spain, the first to effectively unite the kingdoms of Castile and Aragon", which I feared might be called rather clumsy but which is the formula on Spanish Wikipedia, :
Carlos I de España, (Gante, 24 de febrero de 1500 – Cuacos de Yuste, Cáceres, 21 de septiembre de 1558).Rey de España, apodado el Emperador, fue el primer rey que unió en su persona las coronas de Castilla y Aragón.
The German page simply calls him the King of Spain:
Karl V. (* 24. Februar 1500 in Gent; † 21. September 1558 im Kloster San Jerónimo de Yuste, Extremadura) war von 1516 an König Karl I. von Spanien....
The Italian Wikipedia is a featured article, and has:
Carlo di Gand, meglio conosciuto come Carlo V, Re di Spagna, Arciduca d'Austria e Imperatore del Sacro Impero Romano-Germanico (S.R.I.)
Even they don't go giving dates about Naples and Sicily, by the way (the dates of lesser titles aren't usually given at the start of articles).
"King of Spain" is common on Wikipedia and Amazon etc. because that's how Charles is popularly known. I perfectly understand your point of view, but if we only called things what they were called from the start, we wouldn't name the Holy Roman Empire, Catholicism, Protestantism etc. as we do. I could go on forever with examples.
Anyway, I'm not going to change it again, because I see another two hours' research looming up. qp10qp 12:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
The title "King of Spain" was formally used for the first time in 1808 by Joseph Bonaparte. It was then adopted by Ferdinand VII on his restoration and used ever since. The Spanish kingdoms did not become a single entity until 1713 or so, as I recall, when the Aragonese crown lands were deprived of their special privileges as a result of their rebellion against Philip V during the War of the Spanish Succession. Thus, at the very least, none of the Habsburg rulers was any more "King of Spain" than Charles V, and, arguably, the first three generations of Bourbon rulers were also deficient in this respect. john k 12:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Ludwig of Bavaria

Someone added this guy, I don't know him and it's unlclear if he has an article. It wouldn't be Louis X, Duke of Bavaria because he died in 1545 and neither him nor his brother had a son called Ludwig. If we don't find him, I would remove him from this article. Also, the claim that he was with Charles on his death bed should have a source. Piet | Talk 14:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I've thrown him out. Piet | Talk 13:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)


Due to my Anglocentric education, I have no idea what German equivalent of "Charles" the HRE would have called himself - most likely Carl or Karl, I suppose. But I truly have to wonder if he would have considered himself to be simultaneously Charles, Karl, and Carlos. If we could ask him, what would he say his name was? Forgive me, please, for starting down such a slippery slope, but it has always bugged me that so many people in European history have these Anglicized names. It completely obscures what they would have actually originally been called. Take Joan/Janne of Arc, or Christopher Columbus, which is surely too Anglicized a name for it to have truly been his, regardless of whether he was in fact Spanish or Italian. Anyway, I'm curious your views on this. (Please don't hurt me.) LordAmeth 11:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

In this case, the "anglicized" name is probably also the one Charles would have used himself. He grew up in the Low Countries, and French was, so far as I'm aware, his first language. The French equivalent of the English Charles is, er, Charles. Beyond this, spelling and names and so forth were not even standardized until more recent times. Using an anglicized version for the middle ages doesn't seem terribly problematic, because the supposed "native" version is usually just as much a retrospective standardization. john k 12:10, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Just to mention this, however, he did (as most people of the era) not have a 'standard spelling' for his name. Especially Charles, who was overlord of many territories with many languages, and spoke several languages himself, would have been referred to with the regional variation of his name. I know for a fact that in Middle Dutch he was called Kaerle (Karel) in several official documents which were issued in his name. I'm pretty sure Carolus (Latin), Karl (German), and Carlos ('Spanish') would have been used as well. Also one must consider that many people used different names for themselves back then: only look at the humanists that made up latinized versions of theit own vulgar names, and others simply did not have a standard spelling for their names (many people did not even spell their own name the same every time). The anglicised version is probably just fine (and is, in this case, at least one of the names that would have been used for him anyway). Tom 12:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Additionally, "Carlo" is likely to have been used in Sardinia, Naples, and Sicily. john k 13:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 17:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Ancestry infobox

Why isn't there a infobox with Charles V ancestry like the other spanish monarchs? Actually where can I find the infobox's template and can I add them to the other monarchs in wikipedia?--Cosmos666 22:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Birthplace of Charles V

Recent research shows that Charles V was not born on 24/2/1500, but a few days earlier. He also might not have been born in Ghent but in Eeklo which is about 20 km from Ghent.

There is no indication of a signigicant birth in the accounts of the City of Ghent around 24/2. In those of the city of Eeklo on the other hand, around this date, there is indication of purchase of vast amounts of wine, celebrations and the welcoming of various distinguished leaders and messengers.

Jay 4/11/2006

Do you have a source for that? Piet | Talk 16:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Birthplace seems to have been vandalized to "Ghetto". I changed it back to "Ghent" to conform to the pages in French, Spanish, Italian, German, Dutch, & Catalan. But of course it should be changed to Eeklo if that can be confirmed. Adamgarrigus 07:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

3 articles have been published by the city of Eeklo in 2000. First one, by local historian Romano Tondat claims that Charles was born in Eeklo, like Jay says above. (I have to add that the accounts of the city of Ghent around 24/2 are lost rahter than they would say nothing about a birth.) The second article by dr. René Vermeir (currently professor at Ghent University) does not proof that Charles was born in Ghent, but explains why anywhere else would be very unlikely. He also states that the main source used by Tondat, the city accounts, are in fact a copy of a copy (in which dates and amounts are written in lowercase roman numerals). The third article, by dr. Johan Decavele, supports the second article. Source: Romano Tondat, Keizer Karel te Eeklo geboren, Eeklo, 2000. Fhomasson 20:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Update: This source claims there is a mention in the city's archives. But also mentions the Eeklo claim. Now, today, in the Flemish newspaper De Morgen, a Pieter Donche, "connected with the Universiteit Antwerpen and all his life passionated by calendars", makes the spectacular claim, based on the same archives, that Charles' birth date should be interpreted as 23/24 February 1500, the unnumbered Sint Matthew's Eve (introduced into leap years, instead of the 29th of February). So Charles would actually have been born on the last leap day of a century year not divisible by 400!

However, since Donche in the article also advocates the belief that Augustus once had 30 days, but Emperor Augustus subtracted one from February, I think all his statements may be suspect. For one, it looks like Ghent was still using Easter or a day in March as New Year: the city archives give 1499 as year date. I think we should therefore assume that there were only 28 days in that particular month of February (and 29 the next year, because they still used the Julian calendar in February "1500", which would translate to our February 1501) but our article on the Julian Calendar does not make that clear beyond any possible doubt. Unfortunately, this particular article in De Morgen is not free content. Is there any way to make the part about Charles accessible without infringing on copyright? --Paul Pieniezny (talk) 11:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Er, at that time I of course forgot to answer the original claim "There is no indication of a signigicant birth in the accounts of the City of Ghent around 24/2.". Why am I reminded of Barack Obama when I read this? Actually, the Gent records clearly say
"Des maendaeghs up Sint Matthijsavond, den XXIIIIen in sporcle anno XCIV, omtrent den IIII ueren in de morghenstond bedaghende." (="On Monday, St Matthew's Eve, February XXIIII anno XCIV, at around 4 hours of the morning dawn.") The only problem is anno XCIV (94) which on inspecting the rest of the archives means 1499, which in today's calendars (that start on January 1st, and not on Easter) translates to 1500. (For the question whether this aprticular Matthew's Eve was a leap day, see above)--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 17:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Lead section

The lead section has become completely ridiculous now. Not a single word about his importance, just a load of names and dates. It needs to be rewritten completely. Piet | Talk 13:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to contributions from many, by now the first three paragraphs of the leader read well. However, the fourth paragraph goes into matter that, for better balance, may be moved to the (expanded) section on ancestors, marriage, and children. Instead of lineage, the fourth paragraph of the leader may be used to summarize Charles V’s place in history, briefly touching on things like Reformation, the state in which he left the Holy Roman Empire, colonialization, and more. Anybody? -- Iterator12n Talk 04:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


Can someone please fix the text that has been inserted 'TITLE: BUTTMUNCHES FROM MARS TAKE OVER CANADA!'? I do not know how. This is probably not even in the correct area. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) at 00:24, 5 February 2007.

That was actually removed 2 days ago. Maybe you should clear your browser cache. Piet | Talk 08:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


I've put in an infobox, in which I have tried to condense as much information as I can. I've also rearranged some images, so that there aren't big gaps in the middle of the article. --MC 12:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Somebody has altered the infobox, and whilst the flags look nice, there are no longer any dates. Also, I'm not sure about the titles 'Lord of the Netherlands' and 'Lord of Flanders'. I'll leave this message here for a while, and if nobody objects, I'll revert it. --MC 19:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Succession Box

Why does it say that Charles V was only King of Germany until 1531. To my understanding, as long as a man was Holy Roman Emperor, he was also King of Germany. I thought that he was King of Germany and used that title until he abdicated everything else. 1531 is just the year that his brother was elected to succeed. Though his brother often handled German affairs for him, he was still the reigning King of Germany. Emperor001 01:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You seem a bit muddled. Are you American?

I seperated the titles King of Germany and King of the Romans. They were sepearte titles and he stopped using them at different times. He ceased to be King of the Romans in 1531 when his brother was elected (this was a courtesy title for the one elected to become Holy Roman Emperor and he ceased in to King of Germany in 1556 when he abdicated. Emperor001 16:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Not right! --OhNoPeedyPeebles 19:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

And your succession box which says he created the position of King of Spain, and ruled as such from 1516 to 1556, is also simply wrong. He inherited Aragon and Castile separately, and at different times, and never united them. The term 'Spain' was first used in the early modern period by his son, Philip, who adopted it (ironically) only after the incorporation of Portugal in 1580. --OhNoPeedyPeebles 19:24, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I read a book called the The Life and Times of Matin Luther, and in it, he was described as "Emperor elect of the Romans, King of Germany, Spain, the Two Sicilies etc." This was on letters to Luther himself. Also, every encyclopedia I have read, such as the World Book", calls him King of Spain. Emperor001 17:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, some people insist that inheritance and the (questionable) opinion of the subject him/herself override custom. I have seen people argue that because of certain legalities one of Elisabeth II's titles is Queen of New South Wales. It would be a day job to weed out the quirks. -- Iterator12n Talk 18:06, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


the article should be in the title of Charles I of Spain, because even when he wass later elected Holy Roman Emperor the heart of his empire was Spain, more precisely Castilla, and it wass in Spain where he wass usually. Germany wass a more "accesory" kingdom because he didn't have the power there that he had in Spain. Besides in all Europe he wass more commonly seen as the spanish king.--Andres rojas22 20:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Charles of Spain

Now I can't write this without looking like a pedant but Wikipedia is a pedant's charter, so here goes! He inherited the kingdoms separately at different times and from different sources; he never sought to unify them politically or economically. The idea of Hispania goes back to Roman times but in the early modern era it was not used by Charles. Ironically, it was only after the incorporation of Portugal in 1580 that his son, Philip II, started to refer to himself as King of Spain. So it's okay to give Charles this title as a shorthand, amongst friends, with a sly smile and an ironic inverted comma but it's not accurate. All the best, --OhNoPeedyPeebles 21:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Indeed, the present version of the Charles V article is fine. Still, the "King of Spain" matter is worth two notes. (1) Columbus claimed American lands in the name of "the King and Queen of Spain," not the King or Queen of Aragon or Castile. (2) Around the middle of the 16th Century, "King of Spain" was in general use, see for instance the Dutch national anthem, and P.C. Hooft's De Nederlandse Histooriën (at least in my abridged version). (Of course, Hooft wrote his work 75 years later, but he is said to have been extremely precise in his facts and words.) Cheers. -- Iterator12n Talk 02:18, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, evidence of the primacy of "Spain" is right in front of us, in the Wikipedia article of Charles V where it shows a coin from the early 1540s with "Hispaniarum" on it! A second case is Charles's appointment of Philip in 1543 to "Regent of Spain." By that time, apparently the power of Charles already had become absolute enough to drop the niceties of "Aragon and Castile." -- Iterator12n Talk 05:34, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Just for the heck of it, please argue why the use of “Spain” in the Charles V article is an anachronism. Please do so in view of you stating to "detest people who don’t explain." And please argue in view of articles such as Sancho III of Navarre, Spain and innumerable other articles that position the idea of Spain x hundreds of years (I’m not even counting the Romans) before Charles V – not to mention uncounted books that refer to “Spain” in contexts preceding Charles. To quote the Spain article: “Isabella and Ferdinand centralised royal power at the expense of local nobility, and the word España - whose root is the ancient name "Hispania" - began to be used to designate the whole of the two kingdoms.” Until you convincingly argue that all these sources are wrong, please refrain from undoing a perfectly reasonable edit. Cheers. -- Iterator12n Talk 23:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC) (Retrieved from "")
What about Leon, Navarre, etc.?? Second, pls respond on this talk page, or on the article talk page, before changing a perfectly reasonable edit repeatedly. -- Iterator12n Talk 01:34, 3 December 2007 (UTC) (Retrieved from "")
You are obviously wrong, Iterator. There was no state by that name then. In fact, the colonization of America was a purely Castilian matter (notwithstanding the occasional "foreign" navigator such as Magellan, Vespuccio or Colombus himself) and the subjects of other "Spanish" realms were in principle not authorized to participate in them.
In fact the legal division between Castile and Aragon did not vanish until the Bourbons (17th century) but guess one can argue that since Philip II (but not before) the title of "King of Spain" was used. Philip started to use that title actually because he was also King of Portugal, what made him the only ruler of all "Spain" (i.e. the Iberian peninsula). Sure that in some isolated cases, the term was used before (also by monarchs of Leon who only controlled a small fraction of the territory) but that's not justification to claim Charles as "King of Spain", a title he never styled in any case.
It's only after Philip (and the Portuguese independence) that the term Spain actually begins to mean "Castile and Aragon" and not anymore the Iberian peninsula.
It's true that many modern authors use the term Spain way too liberally, falling in absurd anachronisms. This is partly fuelled by the nationalist ideology of modern Spain (with all the romanticism involved in such phenomenons: amplifying the nimious and minimzing the obvious) and the general perception that the seed of this modern state was already there since the late 15th century (marriage of Ferdinand and Isabella). --Sugaar 13:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
But formally there was no such "kingdom" at all at least until Philip II. --Sugaar 13:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
In fact the first monarch to use the title "King of Spain" was Philip II, upon his ascension to the Portuguese throne. He did indeed rule over all "Spain" (then meaning the Iberian peninsula) and the name stuck after Portugal became independent again.
One could well argue that there was no politically unified Spain until the Bourbons anyhow (when the political institutions and separate laws of Aragon and associated realms were supressed) but in any case, it's very clear that Charles never used that title nor that any state of that name existed yet in his time. --Sugaar 12:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC) (Retrieved from "")
Thanks for your answer, Sugaar, which is more than can be said about Michaelsanders. (As somebody said, Wikipedia, we all, is the domain of pedants, however, pedantism with shallowness makes for an insufferable combination.) Re. substance, it’s a pity that you don’t answer my points. Besides, my formulation is "ruled Spain," avoiding anything such as Charles himself saying that he was King of Spain, or claiming that there was a Crown of Spain, or claiming that Spain was politically unified. (If the measure of political unification were used, there would be say no Germany or Italy until the 19th c. – now that would wake up the general reader of Wikipedia!) Finally, we should not overlook that we try to write Wikipedia for the general public. There is room for “crowns” and other precision down an article but the leader section should be introductory in nature; in this sense, for example, Charles “V” is acceptable, even if Charles himself did not use the designation, nor did any of his contemporaries. That said, I will let the present edit stand as a monument to insufferable pedants. -- Iterator12n Talk 15:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Just like to point something out. Every other encyclopedia in existance lists Charles as King of Spain, so why not Wikipedia? Also, a book I read called The Life and Times of Martin Luther stated in a letter written either by Charles or on his behalf called him "Emperor elect of the Romans, King of Germany, Spain, the Two Sicilies," etc. Emperor001 21:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC) (Retrieved from User_talk:Michaelsanders)

Emperor, you ask why not Wikipedia. I think the answer lies in the fact that the other encyclopedias are written by confident professionals driven by a desire to communicate with their readers, while Wikipedia is mostly written by well-willing amateurs who lack perspective and who lack a most urgent drive to communicate. Today, I happen to be re-reading Barraclough’s The Origins of Modern Germany, THE standard in its field. And there it is, by coincidence: "The succession in 1516 to the Spanish throne of [Maximilian’s] grandson, Charles, [...]" The Spanish throne!!! By comparison, I tried to soft-peddle "ruled Spain" but that choice of words already upset the particularists around here. I cannot even imagine the reaction from some of our co-editors when reading about the Spanish throne in Charles’s time. In sum, Wikipedia is an interesting experiment but publishers of authoritative encyclopedias have no reason to worry. On the other hand, that's sad. -- Iterator12n Talk 02:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC) (Retrieved from User_talk:Michaelsanders)
Sorry, hadn't seen this discussion when I made a change to the main article. Independently of his own personal consideration, which we can discuss here for a long time, what is for sure is that Philip II considered him King of Spain, the it is seen as his burial place in El Escorial (built by Philip II for all Spanish kings). That's what I added in the article, which is fully correct. Escorial82 09:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
So what? The post-987 Kings of France considered their Carolingian predecessors to be 'Kings of France', and the royal necropolis of Saint-Denis served as a repository for the royal dead even before the Carolingians. However, whilst the Carolingians may have 'ruled France', they weren't 'Kings of France'. Furthermore, can you prove that Philip II intended the Escorial as a necropolis for 'all Spanish kings', or for the Habsburg dynasty? Michael Sanders 11:59, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
As I tried to mention before, independently of how he/they considered himself at that time, it is clear that now-a-days he is described as King of Spain. One clear reference, the official website of the Spanish Royal Family, with a genealogical tree of the Kings of Spain . Escorial82 13:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
If Charles didn't assume the 'title' King of Spain in 1516 (when he succeeded the Aragonese throne, while having been King of Castile since 1506), then when did he assume the title? Should we thus say Philip II is the first King of Spain? GoodDay (talk) 20:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, what's with his reign as Holy Roman Emperor? was it 1519-58 OR 1530-56? There's alot of foggy issues here. GoodDay (talk) 21:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
1) Charles had not been King of Castile since 1506. He became co-King in 1517.
2)There is no clear-cut transition from the mediaeval kingdoms to 'Spain'. It's simplest within wikipedia with Philip, since he was consistently sole King of what is now modern Spain, and is commonly referred to in modern historiography as 'King of Spain' (Charles, by contrast, is commonly referred to in passing as 'Holy Roman Emperor').
3)Charles became Emperor-elect in 1519, upon his election. However, it was tradition in the Empire not to take the title of 'Emperor' until crowned by the Pope and/or crowned in Rome. Charles was only crowned (in Bologna) in 1530. Michael Sanders 16:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Hey guys, why not look at these?: Imperator totius Hispaniae & Marca Hispanica & Spanish Empire & Hispaniola In any case, the union of Ferdinando and Ysabel was actually two branches of the same family of rather "native Spanish" monarchs of Burgundian and Italian origin. The Portuguese royal family were actually outsiders installed by France, just as the Bourbons of Navarre and later of Spain in total were. In both cases, they were Capetian. The term "Spain" was already commonplace, while it did particularly belong to Ferdinand and Isabella. There's no reason for separatism here, which is the driving force behind all these discussions. (talk) 16:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
What are you talking about? What do antiquated titles from the early middle ages and a colony named after a peninsula have to do with the states Charles V ruled? What do the Portuguese and Capetian families have to do with this topic at all? Michael Sanders 16:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

These titles have been used over the centuries, without care for a united or divided Spain by different dynasties. It just so happened, that two dynasties of the same royal family ruling in Iberia/Hispania was imported from France, at two different times. It stands to reason that this was part of the divide and conquer approach, by setting the Hispanic (inc. the "Lusitanic") against one another. If there had been no import of the Capetians, there would be no Portugal and much less talk of separatism in the Iberian countries today. I assume that you are arguing against me in bad faith, because you cannot be that naive as a scholar, in conjunction with all the other attacks you make on my edits by removing them from talk pages or reverting them from articles. (talk) 17:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Again (like Michaelsanders asked), what are you talking about? You're on another topic. GoodDay (talk) 17:26, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The topic is the "Spanishness" vs subsidiary components of Spain. Spain is a valid, encompassing term that is used without controversy, except when used by separatists like the Navarrese and Catalans. (talk) 06:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I gotta tell ya folks, in all other books & encyclopedias I've seen over the years, Charles is described as the first King of Spain. GoodDay (talk) 19:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Apart from technicalities of "who" was the first, I've never known any controversy until now. It is always told that Ferdinand and Isabel united Spain, drove out the Moors and discovered the New World via Columbus. After that, all the monarchs since have been considered simply "of Spain". (talk) 19:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Charles not being described as the king of Spain is one of innumerable quirks in Wikipedia. As said before, let them stand as monuments of pedantism. -- Iterator12n Talk 05:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, Wikipedia is often a forum for pedantry and attempts to 'correct' perceptions of history. The convention is to call Charles King of Spain. What's wrong with that? If we're going to fly in the face of English-speaking historical convention, why don't we call the Emperors of Byzantium 'Emperors of the Romans' (that is how they styled themselves)? Hundreds of historians more erudite than us have come to accept and follow usages of convenience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gazzster (talkcontribs) 05:42, 23 December 2007 (UTC) --Gazzster (talk) 05:48, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Edit War

So, User:Michaelsanders is proving me right by unilateral editing against total consensus. He fights and fights his POVs, so my RV of the addition of the Byzantine title to the various Spanish monarchs pages by User:Strothra and himself should be nothing, when both these editors have block log histories of breaking the 3RR. (talk) 18:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

And who are you, Mr/Ms Anonymous User?
In any case, the title of "King of Spain" was not ever among those Charles styled. The first one to use it was his son Philip, who ruled also over Portugal and therefore was indeed sovereign of all Spain (i.e. Hispania or the Iberian peninsula).
Michaelsanders' edit is correct, pertinent and NPOV (he includes a modern, not historical, claim to him being "King of Spain"). --Sugaar (talk) 04:22, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

See? A Basque separatist! How quaint that it would be you to object. Like I did not expect this... This is why I do not edit Wikipedia articles anymore. (talk) 17:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

So he's a Basque. And a patriot, by the look of his user page. Does he say he's a separatist? Even if he is, what's the problem with that? If I were a Basque, or a Tyrolean Italian, or a Wend, or one of any number of minorities ruled by others for centuries, I probably would be too. But never mind that. Address the argument, not the man.--Gazzster (talk) 05:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It just so happens that, too many of the edit wars and disputes about Spain, or even Portugal, are spawned by tendentious editors trying to make their propaganda heard about "the cause". This is an encyclopedia, not a tavern. Please, keep the brawling out of academia. (talk) 06:09, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Which brings to mind an old saw: In academia, the fights are so nasty because there is so little at stake. Same for Wikipedia. Keep up the good work. -- Iterator12n Talk 20:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

There will always be academic disputes. Hell, that's why half of us love it here! I've found that listening to someone's elses argument and counter-arguing has often improved my insights and helped me see issues in different ways. I haven't been following here for a long time. I just thought the 'basque' thing is out of liune, mate.--Gazzster (talk) 06:28, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It should not matter if I am "a Basque separatist" or "a Spanish imperialist" or whatever. It should matter the arguments and the facts. And the fact is that there was no "Kingdom of Spain" then, nor Charles ever styled himself as "King of Spain".
Those who say otherwise are actually being "more popist than the Pope himself", as the Spanish say. If Charles would had wanted to be known as "King of Spain", I'm sure he would have used that title: he could not have enough power to defeat the German Protestants or the French but he had indeed enough power to style himself as he wished. He didn't. Never. It's the Emperor himself talking, who are we to question him?
And please, anonymous user, don't go around trying to disqualify people on their presumt ideology. First, you only disqualify yourself by doing that, showing that you have no other arguments. Second it's a "capital sin" in Wikipedia and you could be blocked for that. See WP:NPA.
I am actually against it... but it seems most people are in favor of qualifying what you do as a personal attack. En fin. --Sugaar (talk) 18:55, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
If the criterion is how the individual styled him(her)self, then why stop at dropping the V in Charles V? I have never seen a document from Charles or his immediate environment using the V. The point is that historiography is always done for the people now and in the future. From that point of view, “king of Spain” is a good approximation, particularly for the general reader of an encyclopedia. On a secondary note, please don’t threaten people that they may be blocked – if you think that somebody should be blocked, then start the process. Otherwise, zip it. Happy editing. -- Iterator12n Talk 20:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
It is offensive (and akin to racism) to use someone's nationality or affiliations perjoratively, or to play on supposed stereotypes to insinuate an insult. Furthermore, it isn't relevant to discussing the subject. Michael Sanders 19:11, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
If you all cared to substantiate this claim, then who was a rival ruler to Philip I of Castile apart from the rulers of Navarre and Portugal (both in the Capetian orbit)? What matters is de facto evolution of the state because of the Reconquista done by Fernando and Isabel. (Mary of Scots, in conjunction with Francois de France, claimed by inheritance, the rule of the same dominions later belonging to her son James, although he himself styled his principle region in the united form of "Great Britain". It didn't matter that there were other rightful claimants to the Crown, including the collateral heirs of Lady Jane Grey or even Yorkist descendents.) What one claims is irrelevant to the actual substance. All history books recognize Charles's absolute claim to rule of a united Spain and indeed, Habsburg Spain/Spanish Habsburg is considered partially synonymous, as with Austria. Look, I am personally interested in the "royal style" of various monarchs, to see how they titled themselves. I am against "splitting hair" reinterpretations based upon "supposed discrepencies" that "scholars and diplomats missed", that you lot believe are necessary to "inform us all" about. Have you heard of realpolitik?
Semantics don't change a damned thing, while the only people who keep arguing about this, have agendas and bad faith themselves. There is nothing wrong in calling somebody out on it, no more than a citizen's arrest in catching a thief, or simply one calling the police when they see nonsense going on. We call them rabble rousers, amongst other self-explanatory labels. If the shoe fits, wear it Cinderella. Noting that involved parties have personal biases and motives that obscure or cloud their interactions, is rather prudent, even if some would like to not be caught with their damned hands in the cookie jar. Calling an innocent bystander "racist", just tries to stifle the righteousness of their cause against villainy. In any case, they should not be expected to make an oath declaring otherwise--the sin they complained about was not theirs. Do not turn this back onto the messenger. I have no part in this, but I see what goes on with disdain, because I am here to learn or pass on what I have come to know, rather than push a POV of my own and depose that of others. In reversal of a Wild West colloquialism, "this here town is big enough for the both of us". I don't see that coming from you editors, who constantly war it out and think it's exciting. (talk) 19:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about?--Gazzster (talk) 07:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Keep playing these naivete games. (talk) 08:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

My understanding was that "King of Spain" was never used as a formal style until the time of Joseph Bonaparte. john k (talk) 07:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

John Kenney's point is very clear to illustrate mine; informalities are just as valid in the real world. There is real power and pretension or description per title, but the latter does not change the former. A word or name only alludes to ideas about the nature of actuality; a name or word can provide nothing more or less than POV.
Analogous to this discussion of "Spain" as usefulness for this community, one might look to the centralist colony of Nueva Espana (New Spain), which revolted into the Empire of Mexico. Spain and Spanish seems to fit the main objective of the settler class in that polity, whereas no similar undertaking throughout history had been in force for other colonies founded by the Spaniards (or collectively Castilians, Leonese, Aragonese, Catalans, Granadans, Sicilians etc).
The reason why I strenuously object to the propagandic spin of POV on the choice of name, is because there are extremists who like to play on the supposed differences between the majority of Spaniards (scions of Civil War anarchists seizing on the instability in the Francoist constitution that Juan Carlos inherited), as if the Spaniards on a whole are so diverse internally, let alone the apparent estrangement with Portugal. The only reason why Spain and Portugal are not one such federal or confederal "collective of nations" in and of themselves (as they were in Roman and Barbarian times), is due to dynastic politics (stemming from the fractured Christian groups in opposition to the Moors, who turned them against one another, aided by the French sending a Capetian to take over--look here, the two royal families are now Capetian, lol) and those such courses which led to incidental differences(which the British are happy to exploit, so long as it distracts the two from London's objectives at the Pillars of Hercules). There is hardly ethnic or as some throwbacks might say, racial difference between any of these people (yes, not plural), especially when the hotheaded opponents take their heads out of their hellish bowels and see how much in common they have in comparison to the rest of Europe, or even the world if one wishes to look for more dramatic, realistic proof of splitting hairs with the total people of Hispania--old Lusitania and Mauretania included. (talk) 08:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
That the Braganzas are a bastard line of a bastard line of a very distant cadet line of the Capetian house hardly seems relevant to anything. Portugal revolted from Spain in 1640 because the Spanish Empire was bankrupt and falling apart, and there was widespread sentiment among Portuguese elites against the union with Spain. The same thing happened in Catalonia, but Philip managed to re-establish control of Catalonia (in large part because of internal problems among the French backers of the Catalonian rebels in the early 1650s), but was not able to do the same in Portugal. Certainly the current state of the peninsula, divided into two states - Portugal and Spain - is a highly contingent result, and one that might have gone a different way in the seventeenth century, but I'm not sure what the relevance is. At any rate, I'm fairly certain that, formally, "King of Spain" was never used until Joseph Bonaparte. Can anyone provide actual evidence that it was used informally for the first time by Philip II after 1580, and never before that? My sense was that Kings of Castile were informally known as "Kings of Spain" for a long time prior to Philip II and the union with Portugal. john k (talk) 08:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
One last set of notes; borders are a real issue, but not if you have the same head of state. What is the "division" between Castilians and Aragonese in Spain most comparable to, but the conjoined Anglo-Irish and Scottish inheritance of Great Britain, or that of the South and North in the United States? Were there separate embassies for Ferdinand and Isabel after their marriage, or between the estates held by Philip jure uxoris, or indeed, inside the Spanish dominion of Charles? I would vouch for such to be the case for Philip II's Iberian Union, at least in the beginning and end, but they surely must have almost been one system in most idealistic application, despite heirs of the Portuguese royals. It is original research to suppose that there was such a divided management by the royals in respect to their composite territories.
Aside from those comments, I am in full agreement with John Kenney about the need to consider both informal and formal usage on an equal level, for the sense of practice in terminology and the proper, rather than undue weight given to either at the expense of the other. For instance, the ancient declaration by English kings of imperium over the British Isles and pursued in Medieval times is quite relevant to understand evolution and even the status quo with regard to British and Irish government as it exists today. (talk) 08:52, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
This is getting quite crazy and unstructured. And anyhow, Mr/Ms Anon, your argumentation is clearly just an opinion, not anything documented. It doesn't even reach the level of self-research.
Some of it at least is clearly wrong in any case: the so-called "Spanish colonies" were always, at least until the Bourbons, Castilian colonies, and the subjects of the Aragonese crown (Aragonese, Catalans, Italians) as well as those of the Burgundian one (Flemish) were in principle not allowed to operate comercially nor settle in them. There was a clear division of "the kingdoms" and American and Filipino colonies were always part of Castile and had exactly nothing to do with Catalonia, Naples or Flanders.
In my understanding, there was no state that can be identified "Spain" until the War of Spanish succession and the ascension of the Bourbon monarchs that stripped the Aragonese realms of their self-rule, de facto annexing them to Castile. But at least since Philip II, the name Spain seems to be used now and then for the realms under his rule, something that wasn't the case at all with Charles (naturally). --Sugaar (talk) 11:47, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

You can prove all of this definitively? (talk) 14:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that throughout the Habsburg period, Brussels and Madrid would send out separate embassies. But I think that's a unique circumstance. The issue, at any rate, is getting shrouded here. It is not what term contemporaries use. It is what term is used by modern historians. And certainly, in informal contexts Charles is referred to as "King of Spain," on the grounds that he was the first ruler to rule all of modern Spain. And, again, my sense is that the term "Spain" was also used "now and again" for Charles's lands, too. Where else, for instance, does "New Spain" come from? THat name was given in 1535, no? john k (talk) 15:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
"The word Hispania was in current use throughout the Middle Ages to describe the Iberian peninsula as a geographical unit. The native of Aragon or Valencia thought of himself, from a geographical standpoint, as an inhabitant of Spain, and fifteenth-century sailors, although coming from different parts of the peninsula, would talk about 'returning to Spain'." (Elliott, Imperial Spain) In other words, Charles would not commonly have been described as 'King of Spain' - 'Spain' at that time still meant the Iberian peninsula, and to call himself such would have been an insult to the Kings of Portugal. Michael Sanders 15:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Is that it would insult the King of Portugal really relevant? The King of England called himself "King of France" until 1801, and still managed to have long periods of good relations with the French. What bad relations there were had little to do with that. One might note that "Italy" always referred to the whole of the peninsula, but that the "Kingdom of Italy" only covered the northern part of said peninsula. That the king of Castile might have called himself sometimes "King of Spain" is not a surmise refuted by stating that Aragon and Portugal might also be referred to as Spain. See, e.g. here, which shows a papal official in 1504 using "Rex Hispaniae" for the king of Castile. john k (talk) 16:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Michael is right. Spain or Hispania was used through all history to designate what we now call the Iberian peninsula. Eventually the name was absorbed by the new monarchy but this was a gradual process that by no means started with Charles V but at least with his son Philip, who, as king of Castile, the Aragonese crown and Portugal became de facto ruler of all Spain, that is: Iberia, in modern terms.
One can surely argue wether the name was used first in the reign of Philip II, with the arrival of the Bourbons, José Bonaparte or Amadeo of Savoy, but in any case, it was not as early as with Charles V, known universally as Holy Roman Emperor (and not "king of Spain"). --Sugaar (talk) 16:19, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
Please find a source for this claim about 1580. A single Kingdom of Spain first really existed under Philip V, and "King of Spain" was first formally used by Joseph Bonaparte. But the title had been used informally since the Middle Ages for Castile, so far as I can tell, and is used by historians to refer to rulers starting with Charles V, which is the really important thing. john k (talk) 23:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
To John: the English title "King of France" was clearly a claim, not effective but real in their styling. The Castilian title was just non-existent. The Castilian-Aragonese monarches prefered to use long lists of titles even over realms that had lost all autonomy, like Seville or Granada... but never used the title "King of Spain", at least for a long time after Charles.
The case is that Charles as first joint monarch of Castile and Aragon (and many other lands) is considered by some the first King of Spanish but in truth the Spanish crown (not kingdom yet) as separated from Austria and the Empire was only estabilished with his son. The Spanish kingdom as such was probably not estabilished until the war of Spanish succession (with the annexation of the Aragonese crown to Castile) or even later, in the 19th century, when the new innovative monarchs (Bonaparte, Savoy) begin styling themselves regularly as "king of Spain".
It's clear that there was no attempt to emphasize the alleged existence of any "kingdom of Spain" until it was very consolidated as centralized entity de facto. Nevertheless there was indeed a Crown of Spain, distinct from that of Austria-HRE, since Philip II. But hardly before. --Sugaar (talk) 14:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I am aware that the English use of "King of France" is different from calling the King of Castile "King of Spain." But you made a specific, completely unsupported, point about how using "King of Spain" would be offensive to Portugal. That is all I was responding to. john k (talk) 23:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

The most relevant point to consider is that King of Spain is used as a term of convenience by most contemporary English-speaking historians. Standard Englsh language texts use the phrase. That is all the precedent that we need. By all means, note the techicalities of the situation if we want.--Gazzster (talk) 22:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. john k (talk) 23:28, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
I must admit that i laughed very hard, charles was king of Spain, DEI GRATIA REX HISPANIARUM, the inscribed-legends inside the coin that he used in its european posessions was KAROLVM ROM IMP ET Hispaniarum Rex, (king of the Romans and king of SPAIN, in those centuries also defined as Hispaniae or Hispanici in latin, and in spanish or castilian Spain or Spains),the spaniards referred as charles like "our spanish king" in the courts of Santiago.

For instance the ottomans never recognized Charles as the king of the romans, but as king of spain "Ispanya Krali". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Veracruzian (talkcontribs) 15:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Current phrasing and alternative proposal

Now it reads:

Charles V (24 February 1500 – 21 September 1558) was the Holy Roman Emperor from 1519 until his abdication in 1556. He was also the King of Aragon and Castile as Charles I, and is considered to be one of the first Kings of modern Spain.[1] As the heir of four of Europe's leading royal houses, he united in personal union extensive realms including the Holy Roman Empire, Spain, Naples, Sicily, Lombardy, the Burgundian Netherlands, and the Spanish colonies in America. Upon his retirement, he divided his realms between his son Philip and his brother Ferdinand.

I instead would prefer something like:

Charles V (...) was Holy Roman Emperor from 1519 until his abdication in 1556. He was also the heir of four of Europe's leading royal houses: the Kingdom of Castile, the Crown of Aragon, the Crown of Burgundy and the Crown of Austria. As such, he ruled overe extensive domains in Spain, Italy, Central Europe, the Low Countries, the Americas, etc. (...)

Alternatively we could list each an every realm he reigned over but I would rather leave it for a detailed list elsewhere, such as the one at the bottom.


(...) As first monarch ruling over both the Kingdom of Castile and the Crown of Aragon he is considered often as the first King of Spain, with the name of Charles I.

I guess this proposal can be consensual, right?

The difference is obviously that against the current lack of structure in the introduction, that is confusing, I suggest a clear structure:

1. Emperor 2. Heir of four large crowns 3. Approximate description of his domains 4. Considered by some as "king of Spain"

--Sugaar (talk) 14:11, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks good, assuming the "etc. (...)" part gets filled in or removed. A potential source of disagreement could be the silence about the French domains (although here one could argue about "extensive", maybe) ruled by Charles.
-- Iterator12n Talk 06:14, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
The French domains were largely part of the Burgundian inheritance, no? john k (talk) 22:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
By the standards of what was France back then, only the Charolais was really France. Artois was part of the HRE (Low Countries), Franche Comté (or however it's spelled) was fully part of HRE and Rousillon was historically part of Catalonia/Spanish Mark/Kingdom of Majorca and not France properly. Yet when we use the modern terminology (i.e. "Spain, Italy, Central Europe...") this becomes confuse. I tend to see the "remainder Burgundy Crown" that inherited Charles as part of Germany-HRE, hence Central Europe and Low Countries, but guess this may be a POV.
Anyhow, I was using the "etc." mostly thinking in the Philippines.
An alternative text could be:

As such, he ruled overe extensive domains in Central, Western and Southern Europe, as well as Castilian colonies in the Americas and Philippines.

Is that better? --Sugaar (talk) 12:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok. No comments mean we have a deal, right? I'm going to implement it as:

Charles V (...) was Holy Roman Emperor from 1519 until his abdication in 1556. He was also the heir of four of Europe's leading royal houses: the Kingdom of Castile, the Crown of Aragon, the Crown of Burgundy and the Crown of Austria. As such, he ruled overe extensive domains in Central, Western and Southern Europe, as well as Castilian colonies in the Americas and Philippines. As first monarch ruling over both the Kingdom of Castile and the Crown of Aragon he is considered often as the first King of Spain, with the name of Charles I.

--Sugaar (talk) 12:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I had to make a few edits to that:

  • The intro should clearly state right at the beginning the two main realms he ruled, namely the Empire (though being Emperor only in 1530) and (what at least later became and now is) Spain. Therefore I edited it in this vain and moved the "Charles I" bit up as well.
  • "Royal houses" did not work as Burgundy was no royal house and Austria had no royal house - it would be the royal house of the HRE, though a "royal house of" claim is difficult with an elective monarchy.
  • There never was a "crown of Burgundy" (well maybe in the early middle ages) and there was no "crown of Austria" before 1804.
  • The circles of the Empire are completely irrelevant as being merely fiscal, military and judiciary districts. Certainly Charles did not inherit anything from that circle - he inherited the heritage of the Valois-Burgundians. Str1977 (talk) 14:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Prince Friedrich of Saxony

In the movie Luther, Charles calls Friedrich the Wise "dear Uncle". Were they really uncle and nephew? The family tree in the article doens't support this statement. Emperor001 17:20, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Priceless! ---- OhNoPeedyPeebles (talk) 18:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Frederick the Wise's paternal grandmother, Margarethe, was the sister of Charles's paternal great-grandfather, Emperor Frederick III. So they were second cousins, once removed. Someone might loosely refer to a cousin of an older generation as an "uncle." john k (talk) 20:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)