Talk:Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor/Archive 2

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

Minor Edits to Section Titles

I've changed the section titles "Wars with France" and "War with the Ottoman Empire" to "Conflicts with France" and "Conflicts with the Ottoman Empire", as Charles was not continually at war with these countries, but a major theme of his kingship was conflicts in a variety of means between himself and these two countries. I am writing up a major edit of this page, and will post a summary here after I make he change. Expect many more references, details on Charles' importance in the intro, a separate section for his lineage (which will be sucked out of the intro for the most part), greater detail on his actions early on in Spain, the low countries, and the Holy Roman Empire, along with a few other things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cronos2546 (talkcontribs) 03:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I'd prefer if we discussed his life in chronological order, rather than topically. Separating out everything the way we do now gives a very poor sense of Charles's life as a life - interactions with France, the Ottomans, and the German princes were all closely related to each other, for instance. Obviously some topicalness is necessary, but I think it's excessive here. john k (talk) 18:23, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with John Kenney. Also I have no problem with the change Wars > Conflicts, anyhow. --Sugaar (talk) 12:03, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Map needed

I'd say that this article needs a map to illustrate the domains of Charles V, at least the European ones. I've been searching the web for references and I think THIS ONE is a good reference - but, obviously needs to be recreated by someone for Wikipedia/Wikimedia. THIS OTHER MAP (in Spanish) is also good but only for inherited lands, not those joined by himself to the Habsburg Crown. Another map I found is THIS ONE (in Spanish): good ref. but the colors of Castile and the HRE are confusingly the same. --Sugaar (talk) 13:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The two Spanish ones are no good as they seem to portray the Empire and Austria as two distinct entities when in fact Austria was part of the Empire. The same goes for Burgundy. Str1977 (talk) 10:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


I thought he abdicated in the Netherlands on October 25, 1555. john k (talk) 06:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely correct, John. Str1977 (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

"Formally abdicated"

For the benefit of other editors, I here repost an exchange between me and Emperor001 on my and his talk pages:

You said that Charles V did abdicate in 1556. Well, the Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition disagrees with you. From it, I draw the following quotation: "In 1556 also, he practically surrendered the empire to Ferdinand, and in 1558 he formally abdicated as emperor." You can look at it yourself at Emperor001 (talk) 18:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Your source has it wrong.
According to the detailed timeline in Ernst Schulin, Kaiser Karl V. Geschichte eines übergroßen Wirkungsbereichs., Charles handed over the Netherlands to his son Philip on October 25, 1555, handed over Spain, Sicily and America to Philip on January 16,1556, and finally resigned the Imperial dignity in favour of his brother Ferdinand on August 3, 1556 with however leaving Ferdinand at liberty to decide when to assume that dignity himself (note only the dignity of an Emperor elect, as Ferdinand had already been King for more than twenty years). Ferinand entered into negotiations with the Electors and on March 14, 1558 he was formally declared Emperor elect (it took a few more years to get the Pope to recognize this however). Charles was still alive at that point - he died on September 21 - but had no part in the matter.
So in 1558 it was not Charles who laid down the Imperial dignity but Ferdinand who took it up. Charles formally resigned all his rule in 1555 and 1556.
Str1977 (talk) 19:22, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Byzantine Claim

The sucession box has said two different things throughout its history. Who succeeded Charles as the titular Byzantine Emperor, Phillip or Ferdinand? Emperor001 (talk) 20:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Philipp - the claim passed from the last Palaelogi to Ferdinand of Aragon, from him to Charles and from Charles to his son and heir Philip. Basically, Philip gets everything unless it is specified differently (and Ferdinand was already King (by election), ruler of Austria (as a liegeman of his brother) and King of Hungary and Bohemia (by election by these countries). Str1977 (talk) 01:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)


Was Charles V a pretender to the throne of Hungary? I have noticed that some Habsburgs before Ferdinand ruled as Kings of Hungary and Bohemia and in The Life and Times of Martin Luther, Charles is styled as "King of Hungary, Croatia, Dalmatia, etc." Emperor001 (talk) 20:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. Yes there was a Habsburg claim stemming from Sigismund, Albert II and Ladislaus but no Habsburg specifically claimed the crown since King Ladislaus' death. The claim was settled by the agreement which saw Louis of Hungary mary a Habsburg woman and his sister marrying one of Maximilian I's grandsons. This was later specified to be Ferdinand but it could have been Charles instead. Any supposed pretense was ended by that agreement. Str1977 (talk) 01:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Duke of Burgundy

If Duke of Burgundy was a just an in pretense title and not a reigning position, shouldn't it be moved from the reigning titles in the succession box to the pretense titles alongside Byzantine Emperor? Emperor001 (talk) 19:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No because it was not just a pretense title. The claim to the actual Duchy of that name remained unfulfilled but it was real in regard to all those land coming in with the Burgundian heritage. Str1977 (talk) 08:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

The Chin

Worthy of note? This thing was of Lenoesque proportions. Il Castrato (talk) 18:08, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Long and sharp enough to extract fluff from the Imperial belly button. Who says interbreeding produces chinless wonders? --OhNoPeedyPeebles (talk) 21:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Byzantine Emperor

According to the article Charles V was the de jure Byzantine Emperor. Is there any evidence this title continued to exist in his time, or that he actually claimed it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Frisian Peasants Rebellion

I made a section on the succesful Frisian peasants rebellion lead by Pier Gerlofs Donia and Wijerd Jelckama. -The Bold Guy- (talk) 09:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

This is what you added:

"Between 1515 and 1523 Pier Gerlofs Donia was a Frisian farmer who had his farm burned down by the Austrian and Dutch soldiers in Habsburgian service. He blaimed Charles V for this. He then formed an army of angry peasants from Frisia and Gelderland. This army was called The Arumer Zwarte Hoop or Arumer Black Heap. Lead by Donia (nicknamed Greate Pier), they had several major victories such as the succesful siege of two Hollandic castles and the city of Medemblik. Most succes however was received on sea, where Donia sank 28 Dutch ships in the biggest naval battle of his career, earning him the title "Cross of the Dutchmen". He also conquered pieces of the Low Countries belonging to Charles V. In 1519, Greate Pier retired and died the following year. His nephew Wijerd Jelckama took over the command of his armies. This was at the heigt of their succes, and the Arumer Black Heap then had over 4000 thousend members. Jelckama proved to be a less competent commander. He had some minor victories, but slowly the army began losing men. He was defeaten many times until he and the remainder of the Frisian army was captured in 1523. Jelckama was subsequently decapitated in 1523 together with the remaining Frisian and Gelderian rebels. After 8 yeard of battle however, Frisia recognised the Emperor Charles V as their overlord, though with no small measure of hidden anger and hurt pride."

  • To include this local rebellion in this length and breadth is a serious case of undue weight.
  • The section also suffers from several mistakes in orthography and grammar, sometimes unwittingly creating nonsense like "Between 1515 and 1523 Pier Gerlofs Donia was a Frisian farmer" - and what was he before 1515? Didn't he die in 1520?
  • It is also stylistically unfitting: We don't need a long sentence about the leader's nick name. Things like "with no small measure of hidden anger and hurt pride." are editorialising. Actual facts are under- or misrepresented (the identity of the soldiers that pillaged Pier's farm).

But while these points could actually be solved by working on the inserted section, the problem of undue weight cannot. Hence, I condensed the passage to the bare essentials, linking to the two leader's articlesm, and integrated it into the Netherlands section. Str1977 (talk) 12:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

That is good enough for now. They should stay in the Low Countries section and not much needs to be added. Thanks for your work on here. -The Bold Guy- (talk) 13:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The names of the rebel leaders, however, should be linked here for they are important historical figures (at least the first leader, Pier Gerlofs Donia was). -The Bold Guy- (talk) 07:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Title succession in infobox

What's with the successions in the infobox:

King of Germany; Archduke of Austria
Reign   1519–1556
Predecessor     Maximilian I
Successor       Ferdinand I
King of Castile and Aragon
Reign   1516–1556
Predecessor     Joanna
Successor       Philip II
Duke of Burgundy etc.
Reign   1506–1556
Predecessor     Philip IV
Successor       Philip V

The are several problems with that:

  1. Charles was succeeded in Austria by Ferdinand in the early twenties, as King of Germany in 1531.
  2. Charles was not preceded in Castile or Aragon by his mother Joanna - they ruled jointly until her death in 1555.
  3. It is confusing to use different numerals for the Burgundian succession - readers may not be awara that the Philip V of one box is the Philip II of another.

I know it is difficult to bring all these successions into one fold ... but do we need such successions in the infobox at all? Str1977 (talk) 07:56, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

  1. I've edited the infobox accordingly.
  2. Charles was indeed preceded in Castile and Aragon by his mother as a sole ruler. She "reigned" with her husband until he died, then she "reigned" alone until her regent died, and then Charles became her co-ruler. Surtsicna (talk) 09:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
1. Only that didn't help at all, since you turned it into Charles being HRE 1519-1521 which is of course nonsense. I dropped the rather inconsequential rule over Austria and focused on "HRE/King of the Romans".
2. Joanna did not precede Charles in Aragon at all and nowhere in any effective manner.
Str1977 (talk) 06:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
"Joanna did not precede Charles in Aragon at all and nowhere in any effective manner." Is this supposed to convince me that you are right? I explained why I think that Charles was preceded by Joanna and your response is "No, she didn't"? Wow, that's a really good arguement. Surtsicna (talk) 18:41, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Joanna became Queen of Castile on her mother's death, she became Queen of Aragaon at her father's death. Her father's death also constitutes the coming to the throne of Charles in both countries. Joanna never effectively or solely reigned anything, but at best she came to the throne of Aragaon simultanously with her son. Str1977 (talk) 11:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion of Cornelius Agrippa

I was just wondering if any of you considered it relevant to this article to add the mention that the famed 14th century occultist and philosopher, Cornelius Agrippa was one of his councillors. DYBoulet talk 19:21, 13 October 2008 (AST)

Must have been quite an old geezer then. --OhNoPeedyPeebles (talk) 08:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

"Incest" and "keep the blood "pure."" - exagerated, no ?

The article says: "... the family line's multiple years of incest, which was very common in royal families of that era and was practiced in order to keep the blood "pure.""

In most cases, this was not incest, except when it was first cousins (and even in this case, I would argue that "incest" is not the right word). It was never any other case of incest as listed on the Incest page. maybe "inbreeding" would be a better word ? "consanguinity" is also a candidate.

Also, the goal of such marriages had nothing to do with keeping blood "pure" (whatever that means...): it was mostly, I believe, for political reasons (preventing fiefs, kingdoms, etc. to be split; maintain alliances; etc.).

I think this should be corrected.

First cousin marriage is not incest, as far as I know. There were some uncle-niece marriages (as for instance Philip II's fourth marriage), which might qualify, but I agree that "inbreeding" would be better. john k (talk) 02:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Incest applies only to sexual relations/contact between relatives too closely related to marry, therefore there is no definitive point where something is or isn't incest since it varies by jurisdiction. In the case of the House of Austria, the marriages were permitted and therefore are not incestuous; the marriages were consanguineous. (talk) 16:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Charles I, King of Castile, Aragon, Valencia, Majorca, Princep of Catalonia....Spain is a modern country

The first King of Spain was Felipe V (Philip V). Before 1707, Spain was not a country, there were two diferent crowns, Castile and Aragon, and the Crown of Aragon included the Kingdom of Aragon, Kingdom of Valencia, Kingdom of Majorca and Principality of Catalonia. I'm from Spain and I know about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dabilopez (talkcontribs) 23:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Then please take your soapbox back to Spain and leave this article alone. You are not the first to make a big fuss about this supposed "inaccuracy". Str1977 (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

The Crown of Aragon dissapeared in 1714 with the conquest of Catalonia, Spain as a country is born this year with Philip V. There is a big confusion in most articles of Wikipedia between "Spain" as a geographical term and "Spain" as a country, that just is 3 centuries old. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The language he spoke.

What languange did Charles V spoke? was it Old High German, Old Castilian or perhaps Flemish (given his birth in Ghent? --Oren neu dag (talk) 15:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

His "mother-tongues" seem to have been French and Flemish, as he grew up there and French was the language of the court. Spanish (Castilian) he learnt only after the Castilian cortes had demanded this from him (on his first trip to Spain, aged seventeen he knew no Spanish). He would presumably have learnt Latin (I am not sure in this respect). There is a nice anectote: he is supposed to have said that German (he meant Flemish, he did not speak "hochdeutsch") one speaks with the horses, French with the ladies and Castilian with God! Unfortunately I don't have the relevant books at hand. Buchraeumer (talk) 14:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The most quoted form is Spanish to God, Italian to men, French to women, and German to his horse. I've no idea if it's a real quote, though. I've never heard that he could not speak Hochdeutsch - I assume his Hochdeutsch wasn't especially good, but I would be surprised if an obviously multi-lingual native speaker of Flemish who ruled over Germany was unable to pick up enough German to be passable at it. john k (talk) 20:02, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
And of course, Old High German as well as Middle High German were no longer spoken by anybody at that time. Str1977 (talk) 17:15, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
Unless some one provides a reference other than a link to the quote "[...]Spanish to God, Italian to men, French to women, and German to his horse." should not be mentioned here. Let aside the lack of relevance of this quote in the rather short section "Heritage and early life". —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
Looks like it'd be "German" and French. Concepts like Flemish, Dutch, "Middle High German", etc, are later inventions [well, not Flemish maybe], and would have meant nothing to him. Not even sure "high German" and "low German" [the old name for northern German and Dutch] were concepts in this time (they weren't earlier), but someone can correct me if they were. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:37, 7 August 2010 (UTC)
That's not true. Charles V lived during the time when Middle Dutch (also known as Diets) was replaced by modern Dutch. To call the Dutch / Frisian languages during this era German (deutsch) is ridiculous, unless you mean Germanic. It was also the time when Middle High German was replaced by modern German. The German language isn't older than Dutch if that's what you believe. Germanic languages were. Or do you seriously consider the Act of Abjuration to be written in German? Grey Fox-9589 (talk) 16:33, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Deacon can you explain to me why you reverted my action. To say Charles V spoke "Dutch/German" looks very silly and confusing. Charles V spoke Dutch, just like all the dukes after the Philip the Bold learned Dutch. Dutch and High German were not mutually intelligible and required translation. The same goes for Dutch and Low German. Also the suppused quote form Charles V was actually a quote by Frederick the Great from the 18th century. You also restored a citation from "". Grey Fox (talk) 16:52, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
I see you've now turned it into German/Dutch (there was no contemporary distinction). We're supposed to mention which languages Charles V spoke and I'm sure nobody doubts he spoke, what we call today, Dutch. So why do you feel like adding "German"? That's as silly as saying that Charlemagne spoke German. Also just for your information I'll quote for you: All the dukes after Philip the Bold learned Dutch and even Charles V was supposedly brought up to speak ‘thiois’, and Yet no one supposed that Dutch and German were mutually intelligible: High German texts had to be translated to be fully understood in the Dutch region, and this even applied to texts in the Gelders (Low Saxon) vernacular. Grey Fox (talk) 21:54, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

In fact, even Old Dutch had already split of from what later became modern German (Old Dutch led to Middle Dutch in the 12th century): Clearly the comment that there was no distinction should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:09, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, Old and Middle Dutch are modern constructs, and the comment in the reference is not about modern constructs but contemporary points-of-view. Secondly, no-one denies that the continental Germanic dialect continuum was diverse, but the point of the reference is that Dutch/German wasn't how it was broken up. As the reference indicates, the arly modern period saw a crystallization of two prestige dialects, with the term nederduuts ('low German') used for a prestige dialect in the north "spoken from Dunkirk to Riga". Thirdly, maybe Charles V knew the nederduuts better than southern Germanic dialects, but the claim that Charles V couldn't speak the language of southern parts needs some referencing. The High German of upper Saxony was, incidentally, just as 'foreign' and as indeed 'native' in places like Swabia and Bavaria as in Zeeland, Flanders or indeed Oldenburg; the 'standard German' of today was not the language of all of Germany until mass literacy and modern education systems made it so. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:39, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Why don't you leave this issue to its appropriate pages such as Dutch language or Low German? Nobody reading about Charles V is interested in reading this, the page should simply list the languages he spoke, just like how all other sources on Charles V do. "Nederduuts" may also refer to either just low German or Dutch, also in that time: "both were described as ‘lingua teutonica’ and ‘neder duutsche’ might mean either Low German or Dutch". Modern linguistic differentiate between Dutch and Low German and this also applies to the 16th century since Middle Dutch was already replaced. That Charles V did not have a name for this language should not matter whatsoever. Sir William Wallace probably did not refer to Gaelic as Gaelic, and perhaps Jesus did not refer to his language as Aramaic, should that forbid us from mentioning them? Indeed Germanic languages in the dialect continuum did not have names back then. People referred to the West-Germanic languages as a whole to differentiate them from the Romance or welsch languages. And Charles V possibly referred to his language as Flemish, since the languages were often named after the regions in which they were at the time.Grey Fox (talk) 12:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
And why would it need referencing how Charles V didn't speak High German? The page should list the languages Charles spoke, not the languages he didn't speak. But I'll tell your right now that its rather unlikely for Charles to have spoken High German, since the importance of High German in Germany was only emerging at the time when the Luther Bible came out, and Charles V remained in the Low Countries for most of his life. He also surrounded himself with people from Flanders even in Spain. Grey Fox (talk) 12:38, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps a contemporary view (as Deacon) suggests is relevant, however, we should use a contemporary Low Countries view than, as the contemporary English most likely did not distinguish between Japanese and Chinese either, making these view irrelevant for all but their view on the English language area. Arnoutf (talk) 19:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
The only problem mentioned so far by Deacon is that Dutch did not have a name at the time that corresponded to only Dutch (even though a name such as Flemish was used as pars pro toto for Dutch). If we want to add this contemporary view on Dutch we would consequently have to do the same with the other languages spoken by Charles. In his era Spanish did not refer to Castilian only, but also to Portuguese and Catalan. In his era Italian probably did not just refer to modern Italian only but also languages such as Friulan (if the name Italian was even used back then since Italian was only recently codified). The same goes for French and Occitan. I'm pretty sure we aren't supposed to turn an article on the biography of Charles V into that. We should simply list the languages spoken by Charles as mentioned by reliable sources, which are French, Flemish/Dutch, Spanish and Italian. None of these biographies bothered to explain 16th century view on language and neither should this article. Grey Fox (talk) 01:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The quote "Spanish to God, Italian to men, French to women, and German to his horse." was said by Charles V of France, not the Holy Roman Emperor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:55, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

This is clearly untrue, all sources attribute it to Charles V of the Holy Roman Empire not of France. Why would a native French King be interested in speaking all those languages. Charles V of the Holy Roman Empire ruled Spain, Italy, Germany and was brought up in Flanders therefore he is much more likely to have made such quote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

It would really make sense to delete the quote. With its wittiness it sounds very much like one that was fabricated long after his era (I should think presumably in France or in England), and it is of paramount importance to reveal the source exactly in order to give at least an idea of how authentic the quote may be. My guess is that he never said such a thing. The alleged quote can certainly not serve as a proof of what the paragraph is about, i. e. which languages Charles V spoke.( (talk) 15:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)).

It may be better not to mention the languages he spoke at all. Though I might say he was undoubtedly fluent in Latin, as all monarchs of the time were, or should have been. He would have been understood in Latin by all rehions of his empire.Gazzster (talk)
It shouldn't be much of a problem if we simply list the languages he spoke as provided by most sources, and don't add anything controversial by ourselves. I haven't found anything on him speaking Latin, maybe it wasn't the lingua franca in the 16th century? I've done some further reading and it seems that charles spoke French and Flemish fluently, later learned (not so good)-spanish and according to a few sources "some german" (german mentioned alongside flemish). I can't find anything on him speaking some Italian so I think we can best rewrite it all as:
"Charles was born in the Flemish city of Ghent in 1500. The culture and courtly life of the Burgundian Low Countries were an important influence in his early life. He was tutored by William de Croÿ (who would later become his first prime minister), and also by Adrian of Utrecht (later Pope Adrian VI). Charles spoke several vernacular languages: He was fluent in French and Flemish (now known as [[Dutch Language|Dutch)[1], later adding an acceptable Spanish which was required by the Castilian Cortes Generales as a condition for becoming King of Castile. He is also said to have spoken some German.[2] An anacdote sometimes attributed to Charles is: "I speak Spanish to God, Italian to women, French to men and German to my horse." But this quote has many variants and is often attributed instead to Frederick the Great.[3]"
As you can see I also cleared up the supposed anacdote of "german to my horse". I hope we can all agree on the way it is now. Grey Fox (talk) 00:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Still lacking a chronology

This article continues to lack a comprehensible chronology of Charles's life. The guy was all over the place, and this article ought to clarify where he was and what he was doing at different points. From a variety of sources, I've been able to cobble together some fixed reference points. See User:John K/Charles V. We should try to incorporate some kind of chronological narrative into the article. john k (talk) 16:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

posthumous portrait

Is it really van Dyck? Doesn't very much look like one to me, could rather be El Greco. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Clarification on abdication dates

Charles didn't give up all his throne in 1556. In fact he remained HRE until 1558, having only given up his powers & duties before that. I understand there's a note in the infobox concerning his reigns, but it can still lead to confusion. GoodDay (talk) 15:01, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

The article says after he abdicated, he retired to a monastery. How could he have remained HRE until 1558 when he had abdicated in favour of Ferdinand?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
We've got inconsitancies. GoodDay (talk) 20:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
Where are these inconsistancies?--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:38, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Charlie didn't abdicate as HRE, until 1558. He merely gave up his imperial duties in 1556. The succession boxes at the bottom of the article, shows the exact dates of his multiple abdications. GoodDay (talk) 04:15, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
My understanding is that Charles abdicated, including the Holy Roman Empire, in 1556. However, the Diet did not recognize his abdication and Ferdinand's accession as emperor until 1558. john k (talk) 14:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

"Soybean pudding" spoof

Someone is propagating a joke article from Amazon. The book is real, but I doubt the reference actually says anything about "soybeans". Please check the review for the reference at: The "reviewer" states that "Charles V was very fond of soybean pudding". Also that "Charles V FOUGHT SUPERMAN". This is an obvious spoof and just because a reference is quoted doesn't make it in any way legitimate. Will someone who has access to a copy of the reference please verify whether there is or ISN'T content on soybean pudding???? Then kindly remove the item if it does not. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmarshal (talkcontribs) 15:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

See Talk:Douhua for response (talk) 17:38, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

This paragraph is VANDALISM and should be removed by someone qualified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

There is a section in Talk:Douhua about this. People are reverting the information without basis. (talk) 22:53, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


The lead portrait caption is supposed to be informative. It is supposed to say who painted the portrait and when. It is painfully obvious that the subject of the lead portrait is Charles. He is also mentioned as Holy Roman Emperor and as King of Spain in the infobox, just below the caption. Therefore, the caption Karl V (Charles V), Holy Roman Emperor, also Don Carlos I, King of Spain adds nothing to the article or the infobox. Surtsicna (talk) 18:28, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Not really. No one is obliged to know why he is "Charles V" and also "Charles I". Explaining for the casual reader that he was Charles V in Germany and Charles I in Spain is the least we can do. And we have to explain it in the fastest and easiest way possible.
And no, captions do not exist to tell who took a photograph, or who painted something. You may add it, but there no reason to do it. Saying that a painting portrays the "Battle of XX where General YY defeated the YYs" is more important than saying "Oil on canvas by John Doe, made in 1870 in Italy". Unless, of course, if the article is bout the painter, photpgrapher, lithographer, etc... --Lecen (talk) 18:36, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
His regnal names and numerals are explained in the lead sentence. His titles are explained in both the lead sentence and in the infobox just below the caption. The caption is thus heavily redundant. The caption Karl V (Charles V), Holy Roman Emperor, also Don Carlos I, King of Spain is nothing like Battle of XX where General YY defeated the YYs. A caption such as that one would be (just an example): Portrait of Charles sent to the English court on the occassion of his betrothal to Princess Mary. Since the present caption adds nothing to the infobox or the article itself, the image would be better off with a different one or without one at all. Surtsicna (talk) 18:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Hello, I arrived here from the WP:Third opinion noticeboard, and I have to say I agree with Surtsicna. The caption should draw attention to something not obvious from the picture, not just repeat stuff that's already in the article. See WP:Caption. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:04, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I rather prefer "Karl V (Charles V), Holy Roman Emperor, also Don Carlos I, King of Spain" below the picture than "Charles by Titian". But that's my opinion and I won't start reverting others' edits to force my views. I leave that kind of behavior to other editors. If others in here prefer Surtsicna's taste, I'll accept it without complaints. --Lecen (talk) 19:14, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
If we know anything else about the portrait, maybe that would be good material for the caption. Otherwise I'd suggest something along the lines of Charles V, painted in X by Y. See for example Henry_VII_of_England. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:37, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
We are not dealing with tastes and preferences (or at least we shouldn't be). We're supposed to pick an informative caption, a caption that describes the image and/or tells the reader something that's not obvious and already mentioned several times. Surtsicna (talk) 19:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
There's an article at the Oxford Art Journal [1] (which I don't have access to) which might contain more information about this portrait. From the few minutes of research I just did, it seems to be one of the less famous portraits of Charles by Titian. Several others have wikipedia pages. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 19:52, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

"Nonviolent measures"

The intro includes this line: "...continental Spain was spared from religious conflict largely by Charles' nonviolent measures."

Can we truly consider the Inquisition a nonviolent measure? (talk) 18:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, historical revisionism. Turning tyrants to saints. It never ends.

-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:02, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Yeah that really has to be changed. I think the original writer meant non-military methods. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:32, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

About King of Hungary, of Dalmatia, and of Croatia nominal titles attached to Spanish Crown (not Bohemia). Testament of Charles V.

Because of testament of Charles V, like a deference to his widow sister Mary of Hungary, he let her to use this title on life. Then, because of her marriage with Louis II of Hungary without (legal) descendents, these titles laid nominaly on Philip II of Spain, and, from him, Spanish Crown holds the King of Hungary, of Bohemia, and of Croatia nominal titles.

Please, if someone wants, it would be needed to add a citesin referencing an english traslation of Charles V testament pointing out this.

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeubea (talkcontribs) 19:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I have researched the orginal testament wrote by himself as it is documented in Simancas archive, and theses are their titles (is s. XVI Spanish),

En el nombre de Dios todo poderoso Padre, Hijo, Spíritu Santo, tres Personas, un solo Dios verdadero y de la gloriosa siempre Virgen y Madre suya Sana María, nuestra Señora, y de todos los Santos y Santas de la Corte Celestial. Nos don Carlos, por la divina clemencia Emperador de los Romanos, Augusto Rey de Alemaña, de Castilla, de León, de Aragón, de las dos Sicilias, de Hierusalém, de Ungría, de Dalmaçia, de Croaçia, de Navarra, de Granada, de Toledo, de Valençia, de Galicia, de Sevilla, de Mallorca, de Çerdeña, de Córdova, de Córcega, de Murçia, de Jaén, de los Algarbes, de Algezira, de Gibraltar, de las islas de Canaria, de las Indias, islas y Tierra Firme del Mar Océano, archiduque de Austria, duque de Borgoña, de Brabante, de Lothoringia, de Corintia, de Carniola, de Linburg, de Luçenburg, de Gueldres, de Athenas, de Neopatria, conde de Barcelona, de Flandes, de Tirol, de Auspurg, de Arthois y de Borgoña, palatino de Henao, de Olandia, de Zelandia, de Ferrete, de Friburg, de Hanurg, de Rosellón, de Hutfania, Langrave de Alsacia, marqués de Burgonia y del Sacro Romano Imperio, de Oristán y de Gociano, príncipe de Cataluña y de Suevie, señor de Frisia, de la Marcha Esclavonia, de Puerto Haon, de Vizcaya, de Molina, de Salinas, de Triplo y de Malinas, etc.

The original testament manuscript first page, in s.XVI Spanish:

A transcription of the same to readable text, in s. XVI spanish too :

So, finally titles King of Hungary, of Dalmatia, and of Croatia, were titles of Charles V, according to testament and so they have been held nominally by ruling Spanish Kings. No mention to King of Bohemia title.

Finally, Prince of Catalonia title was used until Real Decreto de 1833 (new provincial division) and from this date this title is not mentioned anymore.

I will update theses two corrections: to add King of Hungary, of Dalmatia, and of Croatia titles and re-add Prince of Catalonia and to dissociate the confussion King Hungary, of Dalmatia, and of Croatia / King Hungary, of Bohemia, and of Croatia titles.

Regards --Zeubea (talk) 01:06, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The name of the Encyclopaedia Britannica is misspelled repeatedly in the footnotes. Ron Thompson (talk) 00:34, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

No King of Spain

That title is not right, since at that time did not exist any Kingdom of Spain. It could be as a colloquial way to call him, often used in Spain nowdays (but with strongly disagreement). The phrase "As Charles was the first king to rule Castile, León, and Aragon simultaneously in his own right, he became the first King of Spain." is not right.

The testament wrote by himself as it is documented in Simancas archive, clearly stated this fact and theses are their titles (is s. XVI Spanish),

"En el nombre de Dios todo poderoso Padre, Hijo, Spíritu Santo, tres Personas, un solo Dios verdadero y de la gloriosa siempre Virgen y Madre suya Sana María, nuestra Señora, y de todos los Santos y Santas de la Corte Celestial. Nos don Carlos, por la divina clemencia Emperador de los Romanos, Augusto Rey de Alemaña, de Castilla, de León, de Aragón, de las dos Sicilias, de Hierusalém, de Ungría, de Dalmaçia, de Croaçia, de Navarra, de Granada, de Toledo, de Valençia, de Galicia, de Sevilla, de Mallorca, de Çerdeña, de Córdova, de Córcega, de Murçia, de Jaén, de los Algarbes, de Algezira, de Gibraltar, de las islas de Canaria, de las Indias, islas y Tierra Firme del Mar Océano, archiduque de Austria, duque de Borgoña, de Brabante, de Lothoringia, de Corintia, de Carniola, de Linburg, de Luçenburg, de Gueldres, de Athenas, de Neopatria, conde de Barcelona, de Flandes, de Tirol, de Auspurg, de Arthois y de Borgoña, palatino de Henao, de Olandia, de Zelandia, de Ferrete, de Friburg, de Hanurg, de Rosellón, de Hutfania, Langrave de Alsacia, marqués de Burgonia y del Sacro Romano Imperio, de Oristán y de Gociano, príncipe de Cataluña y de Suevie, señor de Frisia, de la Marcha Esclavonia, de Puerto Haon, de Vizcaya, de Molina, de Salinas, de Triplo y de Malinas, etc.

The original testament manuscript first page, in s.XVI Spanish:

--LinBiao59 (talk) 20:02, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I reverted your edits because there was a couple of problems: the titles should not be included in the Spanish transcriptions of his name in the lead and you inserted your signature in the article. I am not qualified to make a judgement regarding this particular issue, you are welcome to delete the claim of him being king of Spain again if you wish, I won't revert that (though I can't guarantee that someone else won't), but please do not insert your signature in the article text (~~~~), that is only for the talk pages. Thanks. --Saddhiyama (talk) 20:32, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Saddhiyama. Ive just realized my mistake and proceed to clean my signature when I read your correction. I appreciate any comment or help, even a discussion if you disagree with my corrections. I have no wish to get involved in an argument , but I think there is a lack of clarity in this issue mostly due to political differences in Spain. Thanks again.

--LinBiao59 (talk) 20:49, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Correct, there was no Spain back in those days. Spain only exists since the creation of the Spanish constitution. But Charles V was king of the today's spain. So it's according "modern" nationalistic receptions, writing about "kings of France", "kings of Austria", "kings of Spain", aso., only Italy is still called "holy roman empire" today (but the catholics neglect this and argue that the "holy roman empire" was just a title, *lol*, in fact it was the de facto ruling over hole Italy and the Vatican - which only used the tricky "please don't attack me, I will give you a title instead" - but it still took centurys until Napolean demonstrated who really is in charge by crowning himself, *lol*). By the way the only reason why Charles wasn't ruling over Austria/Hungary was because it was ruled by his brother Ferdinand I. Therefore the Habsburger basically ruled over most of Europe. Francis I was a lucky guy for his sympathy by the Habsburger. Charles also had very close ties with Portugal, and only the Portugese revolution many years later made it independent and therefore lead to the many wars over South American colonies between Spain and Portugal. So basically only the Germans and some Turks wanted to mess with Charles, and he crushed them. Lucky for England that Charles wasn't interested in England - or let's say he respected Henry VIII a lot more than this insane woman murderer would have deserved (or let's say the hole English society was insane, they were killing females like the muslims today!). However, the English-Spanish wars started only a generation later. And were a total disaster on both sides. Only the Spanish and English economy profited by the wars. Even centuries ago there were many war profiteers. Some things never change. -- (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Good point. The title used, besides the whole list of titles described above, was King of the Spains, since he was ruling over different kingdoms and realities. That started to change with Philip V of Spain first and the Carlos III, who spread the ideology of a Spanish nation and imposed one official language, Castilian, identified to be "the Spanish language". The idea of a Spanish nation took a legal status in the 1812 Constitution of Cadiz, one that did not accept any identity but the (Castilian-)Spanish and took so much aback the Basques, who had their own nation, the Basque ("Biscaynes", "Cantabrians", etc.) and held a treaty of allegiance to the Crown of Castile in exchange for keeping their own legal and institutional arrangement.
The use of "King of Spain" and the likes should be corrected here and like contemporary articles, and if used for purposes of understanding, it should be noted immediately the correct contemporary title for the sake of accuracy, it may be misleading otherwise. Spain was an idea including the whole Iberia according to the concept of Roman Hispania, but included different institutional and cultural realities. Iñaki LL (talk) 06:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The problem here is that a majority of Wikipedians are quite happy to call him King of Spain and could not care less if such a kingdom existed in his lifetime, but God forbid someone describes James I as King of Great Britain! Both men ruled distinct kingdoms but fancied themselves kings of a unified kingdom, using titles such as King of Spain and King of Great Britain. Anglophones, however, insist on being accurate and precise in one case, and "plain and simple" in the other. Guess which country's history gets butchered? Surtsicna (talk) 08:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah... Agree. Anyway, I am not discovering the moon if I say that "plain and simple" is subject to accuracy, why not otherwise state that a dolphin is a fish? "More or less", keep it simple, right? Some people may not mind much whether a dolphin is a fish or not, but others may! The same goes here and for any encyclopaedic content, someone may find it very useful to state that "Spain is 500 or 1000 years old", but others may not, furthermore they may find it tendentious. The goal of the wikipedia is not to confirm an idea, but add reliable, accurate data that are informative on a specific subject so that the reader can judge by himself. Iñaki LL (talk) 09:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Caption for photo of palace

The caption for the photo of the palace has many problems. I initially noticed the bad English, then noticed that the content is also muddled. From what I've been able to find elsewhere, none of which was made clear in the caption itself:

- The palace is actually part of the Alhambra complex (set up next to the existing palace constructed by the Moors).

- It was not completed, and Charles V never actually lived there.

- Charles V was not committed to making this the center of his kingdom/empire, and eventually abandoned it.

- Its construction was mostly left to the governor.

But I'm not an expert on any of this, and would prefer that someone who is an expert make the changes. - AlanUS (talk) 13:26, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Use of old sources

Regarding this. @Aesthetics101:, you've been using 18th and 19th century sources. They are unlikely to fulfil our WP:RS criteria. You should be looking for sources preferably in the last 20-30 years to at least ensure that modern historiographical method has been followed and a fighting chance that the latest research and opinion is being reflected. To quote a book from 1817 and say that "historians" think x clearly is misleading. I had no problem with the words used so I've left the phrase in unquoted, but you'd needed a recent historical survey of the sources to make a claim that "historians think x". DeCausa (talk) 11:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

That precedent had been set by other wikipedia articles related like [[2]]. I was just following the example of other contributors. Aesthetics101 (talk) 19:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

We don't do "precedent" in that way - see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. If someone fails to follow policy on one article then it doesn't mean that it can be ignored in other articles. If I've got the time I'll take Robertson out of that article. DeCausa (talk) 21:12, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

That "crap" exists on a very closely related article(Revolt of Ghent 1539). As a new user, I look at how other articles are written to learn from them. Why you chose to take particular interest when I used an older source, I have no idea. But if it really bothers you that much, fix it. I would do it(the related article is relevant and an interesting event), but I just don't have that kind of time. You left the words in there because I'm sure you're aware that they are accurate or else you would have deleted it followed by some thinly veiled insult on the talk page.

In any case, as of now I believe Charles's most important dominion has been highlighted much more appropriately, so I will leave you to your devices here. Aesthetics101 (talk) 06:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I apologise for being snippy with you - I didn't realise you are a new user. It is worth being very circumspect as to which articles and which editors you use as models. Vast swathes of Wikipedia are poorly written and breach policy. It's best to become familiar with the policies themselves, in this case, for example, WP:RS. As for examples, look at those given FA status. There's a series of very good articles on medieval English monarchs brought to FA status by, I believe, the same group of experienced editors that's worth using as a model. See for example, Henry III of England, Edward II of England and Henry III of England. As for your edit, I already said I had no problem with the phrase itself - it's the source that's the problem. When you say you have no idea why i took an interest when you used an older source, does that mean you don't follow the point I made in my first post above? Our policy, WP:RS is about only using reliable sources that reflect, in the context of history, the current position in scholarship. There are two problems with using a source from 1817. Firstly, historians 200 years ago did not use modern historical method. The standards of research, fact checking etc are completely different as is the criteria for publication. Secondly research and opinions have moved on. To present an opinion of a historian from 200 years ago, without evidence that it continues to be held by modern historians could contravene WP:UNDUE. In the case of your edit this was excacerbated by you directly quoting the book with the words "historians have said", implying that the author was summarising the historiograpy. What we are trying to do when we select sources is not cherry-pick a source that proves a point we want to make, but reflects the general opinion of sources on a subject. WP:NPOV is very clear on this: we must represent "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." (My emphasis) and "this policy is non-negotiable". I hope that clarifies what I've said. If not, please raise at my user talk page. DeCausa (talk) 09:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
If fully agree with DeCausa. For topics like Charles V 16th century (contemporary) sources may be relevant as primary documentation (how he was considered in his own time), but for the rest we should be extremely cautious in using older secondary sources - as the science historiography has dramatically changed throughout the 20th century, while older views are still in print and underlie part of high school education. Therefore we should be extremely careful that whatever we put in the article aligns with modern mainstream opinion. Arnoutf (talk) 13:38, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Considering Moving Article to "Charles I of Spain".

Here are my reasons:

The center of his empire was Spain and he was King of Spain before buying up the electoral votes to become Holy Roman Emperor. Also, Spain was his only permanent home and headquarters, he always signed his written documents in Spanish as "King"(not emperor). And finally, Spain's powerful military enforced his rule.

Any objections to this move? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aesthetics101 (talkcontribs) 11:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes I object. Most of the argument you bring above may hold for his son; Philip II, but not straightforwardly for Charles.
His original position was that as leader of the Burgundian cycle which he gained in 1506 (and which was part of the Holy Roman Empire and essential to his later adoption of the HRE crown). He only ascended to the Spanish throne in 1516. In addition he spent most of his time in the Low Countries (Brussels) which was his main headquarters, and his most permanent home (if he had any during his reign) and not Spain (where he only took up residence after retiring, ie after he ceased to be an important player). Most of his effort went into the reformation in Northern Europe, not in the Mediterranean and colonial parts of his empire. Nor did he rely heavily on the Spanish military to enforce his power within Europe (instead he relied on local, French/German (William of Orange) and Italian nobles (Parma) in his rule of the Northern parts of the empire.
So all in all, I would object to this move Arnoutf (talk) 20:58, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Yes, very strong objection. In English language historiography he is always known as Charles V, even in the context of Spanish history. WP:COMMONNAME should be the only consideration. DeCausa (talk) 21:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I do not even think he held any "Spanish" whatever title, as shown on the article. The historic and most prestigious "Holy Roman Emperor" title is irrefutable. Re his language skills, please do add references, that should dissipate any WP:OR concerns. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:48, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not saying Spain was his first possession. I'm saying it was the core of his possessions. I don't think it matters which title is most popular or prestigious.

@Arnoutf There's no argument for his son Phillip. Phillip was an indisputable ethnic Spaniard that rarely left Spain and always ruled from the Spanish capital. The argument for Charles being primarily King of Spain is actually rather straightforward. Though he inherited the title of Lord of the Netherlands first, these lands revolted against his rule. He was able to brutally crush the rebellion and keep order largely with troops from Spain(or in Spanish pay) and after the rebellion was crushed "The old abbey of Saint Bavo's and its church of the Holy Savior were demolished to make way for a new fortress, the Spanjaardenkasteel ("Spanish Castle), which housed a permanent garrison.". There were Spanish troops stationed in the Netherlands not the other way around. You're implying that the Spanish Army never captured Milan and the French king at the Battle of Pavia? He relied on mercenaries of all nationalities but most were in Spanish service(see Siege of Vienna). Also, after the revolt of the comuneros Charles' advisers and counselors were all changed to Castilians. And he spent much of his life in Spain with his Portuguese wife that he married there. Where did you get that misinformation about Charles only going there to retire?

Many English monarchs never spoke English and rarely visited England but that doesn't mean their articles should be moved and their names changed. I can't help but see this as a sort of attempt to downplay Spanish history as it would never fly for articles written about English monarchs. How about King Richard of England or George II of Great Britain? These monarchs were French and German first and English a distant second. Charles only signed his documents with the signature "yo el rey". He never signed in Flemish or French and he never gained a real grasp of the German language.

Let's not have double standards here. Should we edit George I of Great Britain since he was Elector of Hanover first? Should his article be moved to George of Hanover? In addition, I have to ask is being Emperor of a land that never had the means of levying direct taxes or to directly raise an army from its territory(source: Neal Schulz and John Green from Crash Course World History) more prestigious than being King of an "empire on which the sun never sets"? The Spanish Empire certainly provided him with more land with America and Italy combined if that's the argument you're making.

As for William of Orange, he is not very relevant to Charles but if you want you can read the first stanza of Wilhelmus, the Dutch anthem. Here's an excerpt: "To the king of Spain I've granted A lifelong loyalty."

A lot people seem to be under the impression that the Holy Roman Empire was his primary possession, which is why I think it should be moved. It's misinformation. I think facts should take precedent over so called prestige or fame. Even the article itself states that "Spain was the core of his personal possessions".

One last point. Before Charles retired he abdicated everything except the Holy Roman Empire to his Spanish born and raised son Phillip including lands that were traditionally part of the Holy Roman Empire like the Netherlands and Milan. The Holy Roman Empire went to his Spanish born and raised brother Ferdinand I. This should tell you where his loyalties lie. (Even during his reign, he rarely set foot in Germany, preferring to let his Spanish-born and educated brother Ferdinand I rule for most his reign on his behalf.) There's really not any real power gained by controlling the Holy Roman Empire which if you know the quote from Voltaire, was "neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aesthetics101 (talkcontribs) 06:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

That all may or may not be true, but it's irrelevant in Wikipedia. What you need to be aware of is that Wikipedia has some specific rules on how articles are named. The main one is WP:COMMONNAME. The only question, in Wikipedia terms, is whether English language reliable sources generally call him Charles V or Charles I of Spain. I have no doubt it's Charles V, and therefore that should be the name of this article. DeCausa (talk) 07:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. My main concern is with Spain being the core of his empire and that fact needs to be highlighted with greater importance. I have no doubt the core of his empire was Spain, that's not really up for debate. And if the title can't be changed, that fact needs to be worked into the first section of the article with greater emphasis. His role as Spanish monarch being bunched in with his titles to lesser European states is rather strange. This goes against the Neutral point of view content policy since it heavily implies that he was first and foremost a ruler of the Holy Roman Empire with no evidence to support it. Since moving the article is not advised I plan on placing greater emphasis on Spain being the core of his empire(with sources, of course), unless you or others object to that with sources of your own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aesthetics101 (talkcontribs) 08:43, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I think Spain is highlighted perfectly well as it is. If your plan is to add more of this sort of nonsense this, then your edits won't last long in the article. I've also had to take out your unsourced statement that Ferdinand couldn't speak spanish, which is untrue per this. DeCausa (talk) 13:22, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
In any case, what indisputable high quality non biased sources do you bring to the table that Charles himself and his contemporaries identified him primarily as king of Spain and only after that as HR Emperor and/or leader of Habsburg Burgundians? Because without such sources your argument is more of a personal opinion of what should have been, rather than what was. (PS interesting that you raise the Wilhelmus as that does indeed refer to an undisputed king of Spain: Philip II. So I fail to see the relevance here. Also interesting that you raise rebellions, as Charles had to suppress rebellions inside Spain using taxes from the low countries.) Arnoutf (talk) 19:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. Also, there has to be some consistency to the presentation of the article. For example, the information box with his portrait says "Charles V" at the very top and then at the very bottom, there's an image of his signature in Spanish where he refers to himself as "king"(my Spanish isn't perfect but I'm sure "rey" means king). Do you agree that it's inconsistent? Maybe one of us here can find an image of his signature as emperor to place there in addition to his signature as king?

I don't remember ever stating that his brother Ferdinand could not speak Spanish.

@Arnoutf I'll bring my sources up when I submit my edits. I'm still learning my way around wikipedia so it might be a while.

PS That was my point. You brought up William of Orange, not me. About the rebellions: Yes he also used revenue from Castile to buy the electoral votes that made him HR Emperor(according to historian, John Lynch). What's your point? Yes he suppressed the rebellion in Spain and the one in Ghent. They had very different outcomes, though. In Spain, Castilians were appointed to high positions. In Ghent, a Spanish army garrison was stationed there permanently. By the way, where's your source for your claim that Charles only lived in Spain when he retired? That's the first time I've heard that and I'm genuinely curious.

Aesthetics101 (talk) 07:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

This is all half-baked oversimplified original research. If there was a "cornerstone" to Charles V's empire, it was his Burgundian possessions. But this misses the point of almost all the historiography: Charles V's objectives, concerns and importance was universalist and European-wide, with the Burgundian inspired Habsburg-Valois conflict and the German Reformation being the dominant features. Actually, there was a slow shift of gravity during the course of his reign. Whilst the Burgundian Netherlands was the cornerstone of his possessions, thinking and concerns for most of his reign, Spain's importance undoubtedly grew. H.G. Koenigsberger put it well: "Already in the later part of Charles V's reign his empire had become more and more Spanish...Even in his lifetime, Charles V's universalist Christian empire with its Burgundian core and Erasmian inspiration was changing into Philip II's Spanish empire with its Castilian core and its inspiration derived from the Catholic revival of the Counter-Reformation."[3] We should not waste time and effort on some dumbed-down pointless argument over whether he was "King of Spain first" or whether Spain was "the centre of his empire". DeCausa (talk) 11:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

If you really believe that his Burgundian possessions were the core of his empire, you should add it to the article because as it stands right now the original author mentioned Spain as the core of his possessions. Spanish forces were vital early in his reign on in crushing the Revolt of Ghent, defending Vienna from the Ottomans, and capturing the King of France at Pavia.

And I am guessing that's a "no" on getting an image of his signature as emperor? I'm not sure where to look but I can't find one anywhere.

I think you have to assume readers would have to be pretty naive to believe that his Burgundian possessions were the "cornerstone" of an empire that included Habsburg Spain, which was "wealthiest and most powerful nation in the world during the sixteenth century"[4].

You can try to make the point that the low countries were the most influential, wealthiest, and most militarily powerful of Charles' possessions but I think it's a pretty strange and "half-baked" point to try and make.

Aesthetics101 (talk) 17:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Spanish forces he could only afford because of taxes levied in the Burgundian part of the empire. Soldier without weapons or pay do not fight well. (PS William of Orange was a favourite of Charles V - that is why I brought him up, the Wilhelmus song was only composed after he had to run for his life from Charles son Philip, after politely and legally protesting against the heavy taxes levied and the oppression of the economy needed to generate these taxes by suppressing Protestantism. Again: get your facts right!).
And he may well have signed in Spanish, especially on Spanish documents. I often sign my name in names other than my native language. That does not mean anything and any conclusions from that are indeed original research.
But in short - It seems adamantly clear that there is no consensus for a name change. So it is not going to happen. Arnoutf (talk) 18:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Aesthetics101, it's not "my" point to make - it's Prof. Koenigsberger's. DeCausa (talk) 18:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

You can't expect me or anyone to believe that Spain's military was primarily funded his Burgundian Possessions without any sources. If anything Spain funded his famous title by paying for the bribes that let him become Holy Roman Emperor.[5]

And I'm not concerned with a name change. If he's known more in English by a title that Spanish revenue bought for him, it is what it is. However I think that the fact that he had the most powerful country in the world defending his dominions bears mentioning with a little more emphasis. I think we can all agree that Spain under Charles was not equal in global influence to the Low Countries, Italy, or the Holy Roman Empire.

DeCausa, If you strongly agree with that, you should add it to the appropriate section of the article. But I don't think that argument holds any water. Apparently the original author of the article disagrees since he specifically mentions Spain as the core. Take that up with him or her. Spain's position as a global super power during Charles' reign speaks for itself. Aesthetics101 (talk) 20:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
The term superpower is exclusively used for post WWII countries, please do not use anachronisms. And I agree with DeCausa's sourced claim that the power base of Charles shifted from the low countries (early reign) to Spain (later reign), especially after the colonies in the Americas became profitable (probably around the 1520-30's).
For your other argument that some earlier editor of the Wikipedia article emphasized the Spanish focus of Charles. That has not much meaning here, as Wikipedia is itself not a reliable source.
The main argument here is WP:COMMONNAME previously raised by DeCausa, and my Google searches on both Charles V and Carlos I did not convince me that Carlos I is the more common name in English. It is up to you to provide evidence that Carlos I is more commonly used in English before we continue this discussion. Arnoutf (talk) 20:23, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
"And I agree with DeCausa's sourced claim that the power base of Charles shifted from the low countries (early reign) to Spain (later reign), especially after the colonies in the Americas became profitable (probably around the 1520-30's)."

No argument there. Personally, I don't consider 1520-30's all that late in his reign, though. Aesthetics101 (talk) 11:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

1520s/1530s isn't late in the reign so obviously Koenigsberger didn't mean then. DeCausa (talk) 11:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

By 1540 high ranking Spanish officials were keeping order in his Burgundian possessions(Duke of Alba) as well as in Spain, which is around the halfway mark of his reign. However, Encyclopedia Britannica, states that "in fact, it was during that second and protracted sojourn in Spain (1522–29) that Charles became a Spaniard, with Castilian grandees replacing the Burgundians.". Within Spain, the shift started early, which is very important to note since Spain as whole was obviously his most powerful and influential possession. Aesthetics101 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:41, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

We are getting a bit distracted from the topic here. Whether or not Charles became at one stage more of a Spaniard than a Burgundian is not relevant in itself. In the end this all about under which name he is most commonly referred to in the English language. The quoted Britannica article above [4] strongly suggests that Charles V is the common name. Arnoutf (talk) 13:42, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
    • ^ Congleton, "Perfecting Parliament", p. 414; Hilliam, "Philip II: King of Spain and leader of the Counter-Reformation", p. 68
    • ^ Slocum-Bradley, "Promoting conflict or peace through identity", p. 25; De Vries, "Brussels: a cultural and literary history" p. 84
    • ^ Burke, "Languages and communities in early modern Europe" p. 28; Holzberger, "The letters of George Santayana" p. 299
    • ^
    • ^ Lynch, John (1964). Spain under the Habsburgs. (vol. 1). New York: Oxford University Press.