![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have re-tagged this article as being non-notable, its only reference is a nonexistent link and there are less than 10 non-wiki Google hits for the kingdom in question. If adequate references are provided, feel free to remove the tags, but for now its notability is dubious. Chris Buttigieg 12:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
This article is about the King of Spain, hits titles. The territory was ceeded to the Crown of Great Britain, not Great Britain. hisce cedit Coronae Magnae Britanniae plenam. You can read the actual treaty online and you do not need to change the wording to push a POV. The fact that it was ceded in perpetuity is important.
There is no reason to introduce San Roque here, its has nothing to do with the titles assumed by the Spanish King, and it is highly POV.
You have removed my reference to Sir William Jacksons book, he is pretty neutral on the subject and actually quoted in the article about San Roque.
But this article is about the 'kingdom of Gibraltar' not a village in Spain which never formed part of that. Many other villages also use a similar emblem, its all over the place and quite inappropriate
Finally the crest used by the Government of Gibraltar is quite different to the one you describe. -- Gibnews 21:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the section on the coat of arms of Gibraltar as it is wholly immaterial. The article is about a substantive title of which Gibraltar was part of. The section in question essentially reiterates the history of the arms when it already has its respective article, namely the coat of arms of Gibraltar. -- Chris.B 16:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
The current coat of arms of gibraltar is not exactly the same as the one from san roque, which is supposed to be the "original" one. All nobility titles have a coat of arms related, so, an heraldic explanation is needed. And make no mistake. this article is not about Gibraltar nor the british Gibraltar coat of arms (which, if I'm not wrong, is supposed to show a ship). It is about the spanish title pertaining to the spanish crown and its coat of arms. -- Maurice27 11:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Again, This article has NOTHING to do with british Gibraltar. It is about a spanish monarchy title, its coat of arms and the the city in which it is based. "The original royal warrant of 1502, which the city council took with it to San Roque along with Gibraltar's standard and records, is now in the San Roque municipal archives" So, again, quit talking about San Roque not being related. It is Gibraltar which is not related here. You give any reason to erase the heraldic explanation of the coat of arms. -- Maurice27 23:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, so now it is about Gibraltar? I thought I already explained it in MAY!. I'm not going to explain it again and again. The british monarchy does not use this title, it doesn't. The spanish monarchy does. If you want to take this matter to a political controversy, it is not our problem. This article is about a title of the spanish monarchy which was first based in Gibraltar and then moved to San Roque. It is the third time I explained and proved it. I hope that it is enough. If any other user keeps reverting or erasing parts of the article for this same reason just for the sake of improving his ego, he will be reported for trolling and vandalism. -- Maurice27 09:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
And because both cities share the same coat of arms, you do feel in the right to erase all that section here? By which means? So you feel like reducing an article from a start to a stub just because you decided so. This article is about a title, the articles about titles all do have a section to explain the coat of arms related. If you want me to copy you here 50 examples, you just have to ask. So again, quit erasing information from an article without a valid explanation or you will be reported for trolling and vandalism. -- Maurice27 21:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
"there is still no distinction between San Roque (or its coat of arms) and Gibraltar (or its coat of arms). The latter of which already has its own associated article." Chris B 10:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)... "Both cities do not share the same coat of arms" Chris B 21:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)... Is this a kind of game you are playing? The old castilian coat of arms does not have the british motto. This makes a completely different one. So, your argument of the british one already having an associated article is not valid to erase the info in this one. -- Maurice27 21:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
ChrisO, your expansion is a great job, but I don't understand the need to erase the pictures from this one. Just take a look at all the articles about titles. They all have a coat of arms to illustrate it, which includes and heraldic explanation of it. Plus the picture of the original coat granted to the city and to the duke of medina-sidonia is clearly very useful in this article. The title of "Kingdom" and the arms ar united since the begining. I would love to read your POV before adding them again -- Maurice27 22:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to just butt into this discussion, but Chris is right. I do believe the castle depicted on San Roque's CoA is different to that depicted on Gibraltar's. In the past one could get hold of cheap 'Gibraltar Flags' with the castle that San Roque uses. They were cheap because they were not Gibraltar's official flag, as it depicted the wrong castle. Gibmetal 77 talk 22:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
-- Gibnews 10:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
If we have to have mention of San Roque, lets be clear on what its role is. Its where artifacts from the Spanish period of Gibraltar were removed to. Its influence over Gibraltar is NONE WHATSOVER.
In relation to the ToU its an old and false argument that it does not transfer sovereignty of Gibraltar to the British Crown, but the Spanish MAE accept that it does, so lets not go down that road.
Mr Hills wrote a book about Gibraltar and citing it is rather like quoting what Herr Goebbels wrote about Hitler. Historially interesting but very much POV, the man was half Spanish and a close friend of Franco. -- Gibnews ( talk) 11:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Not that interpetation of the ToU is appropriate to the context of this article which is about a historical curiosity in a title. AND is not the official Spanish position, it was the opinion of a dead friend of Franco, and Mr Hills was not the 'Spanish King'. -- Gibnews ( talk) 19:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Mr Hills also considered that General Franco was good for Spain, others may disagree - the current official position which has been described:
Spain does not dispute that Gibraltar is properly, in law, British territory. Therefore, this is not disputed land. She has a political claim to the return of Gibraltar sovereignty, but she does not dispute the fact that in proper international law, she ceded sovereignty to Britain in perpetuity and therefore it is undisputed British sovereign territory.
-- Gibnews ( talk) 09:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I note that ChrisO has removed the above on the grounds totally misleading line; cited source is the CM of Gibraltar, not the Spanish govt. You need to find a Spanish govt source for this However the statement attributed to Mr Hills who was a friend of Franco but not part of the MAE remains. In relation to the CURRENT Spanish view, Mr Caruana who meets with the Spanish minister regularly is better informed than Mr Hills who is dead. -- Gibnews ( talk) 18:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I see there remains no citation for the claim that the King of Spain still asserts that he is the 'King of Gibraltar' unless someone can provide one, I suggest that the wording is changed to reflect the historical context of this currently dubious claim. -- Gibnews ( talk) 00:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Iy isn't true, no such references have been provided as none exist. This ( http://www.the-rock-of-gibraltar.com/Gibraltar-News/8931/queen-of-gibraltar-gibraltar-queen-coin-fivepoundcoin-queenofgibraltar) however IS a reference confirming that Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II DOES indeed claim such a title. As Gibraltar was CEDED to "Her Britannic Majesty" in the ToU she is the ONLY Monarch entitled to make such a claim in any case. The fact remains that the current King of spain does NOT claim such a title, nor would he be entitled to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.208.213.145 ( talk) 17:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Although the constitution says His title is that of "King of Spain" and he may use the others which belong to the Crown. there is no reliable reference that says that Gibraltar is actually claimed as a title. -- Gibnews ( talk) 19:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
New references provided. The tip was looking for "título grande" as it's the protocolary way to name the set of titles formally used by the Spanish kings. Best regards -- Ecemaml ( talk) 23:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
You're possibly unaware of the Restoration of the Monarchy in Spain (BTW, Alfonso XIII died in 1941). It happened in 1978. There are plenty of books and even wikipedia articles describing it. On the other hand, I forgot to include the url of the reference. You have it. As possibly your Spanish is even worse than my English, I can provide a translation. The section that is mentioned refers to the current king, not to Alfonso XIII (which abdicated into his son in 1941; don Juan transferred all his dinastic rights to the current king). The discussion is over. -- Ecemaml ( talk) 08:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I removed the part which says that these territories were never part of the Spanish Crown from the lead because:
- Portugal: Philip II of Spain became King of Portugal when married his first spouse Maria Manuela of Portugal. His Successors, Philip III of Spain and Philip IV of Spain were also Kings of Portugal until December 1, 1640, when an uprising took place in Lisbon expelling King Philip IV of Spain (Philip III of Portugal) from the Portuguese throne.
-Jerusalem: This title comes from the Aragonese branch of the Spanish Monarchy. Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor (King of Jerusalem) married Constance of Aragon in 1209. In 1262, Peter III of Aragon married Frederick II's grand-daughter Constance of Sicily, Queen of Aragon. When the kingdom ended, the Spanish Monarchy became part of the [ Aragonese Claimants]. Link. (Sorry for being from pink press, but it is quite acceptable). --MauritiusXXVII ( Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 08:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kingdom of Gibraltar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I have re-tagged this article as being non-notable, its only reference is a nonexistent link and there are less than 10 non-wiki Google hits for the kingdom in question. If adequate references are provided, feel free to remove the tags, but for now its notability is dubious. Chris Buttigieg 12:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
This article is about the King of Spain, hits titles. The territory was ceeded to the Crown of Great Britain, not Great Britain. hisce cedit Coronae Magnae Britanniae plenam. You can read the actual treaty online and you do not need to change the wording to push a POV. The fact that it was ceded in perpetuity is important.
There is no reason to introduce San Roque here, its has nothing to do with the titles assumed by the Spanish King, and it is highly POV.
You have removed my reference to Sir William Jacksons book, he is pretty neutral on the subject and actually quoted in the article about San Roque.
But this article is about the 'kingdom of Gibraltar' not a village in Spain which never formed part of that. Many other villages also use a similar emblem, its all over the place and quite inappropriate
Finally the crest used by the Government of Gibraltar is quite different to the one you describe. -- Gibnews 21:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the section on the coat of arms of Gibraltar as it is wholly immaterial. The article is about a substantive title of which Gibraltar was part of. The section in question essentially reiterates the history of the arms when it already has its respective article, namely the coat of arms of Gibraltar. -- Chris.B 16:04, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
The current coat of arms of gibraltar is not exactly the same as the one from san roque, which is supposed to be the "original" one. All nobility titles have a coat of arms related, so, an heraldic explanation is needed. And make no mistake. this article is not about Gibraltar nor the british Gibraltar coat of arms (which, if I'm not wrong, is supposed to show a ship). It is about the spanish title pertaining to the spanish crown and its coat of arms. -- Maurice27 11:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Again, This article has NOTHING to do with british Gibraltar. It is about a spanish monarchy title, its coat of arms and the the city in which it is based. "The original royal warrant of 1502, which the city council took with it to San Roque along with Gibraltar's standard and records, is now in the San Roque municipal archives" So, again, quit talking about San Roque not being related. It is Gibraltar which is not related here. You give any reason to erase the heraldic explanation of the coat of arms. -- Maurice27 23:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, so now it is about Gibraltar? I thought I already explained it in MAY!. I'm not going to explain it again and again. The british monarchy does not use this title, it doesn't. The spanish monarchy does. If you want to take this matter to a political controversy, it is not our problem. This article is about a title of the spanish monarchy which was first based in Gibraltar and then moved to San Roque. It is the third time I explained and proved it. I hope that it is enough. If any other user keeps reverting or erasing parts of the article for this same reason just for the sake of improving his ego, he will be reported for trolling and vandalism. -- Maurice27 09:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
And because both cities share the same coat of arms, you do feel in the right to erase all that section here? By which means? So you feel like reducing an article from a start to a stub just because you decided so. This article is about a title, the articles about titles all do have a section to explain the coat of arms related. If you want me to copy you here 50 examples, you just have to ask. So again, quit erasing information from an article without a valid explanation or you will be reported for trolling and vandalism. -- Maurice27 21:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
"there is still no distinction between San Roque (or its coat of arms) and Gibraltar (or its coat of arms). The latter of which already has its own associated article." Chris B 10:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)... "Both cities do not share the same coat of arms" Chris B 21:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)... Is this a kind of game you are playing? The old castilian coat of arms does not have the british motto. This makes a completely different one. So, your argument of the british one already having an associated article is not valid to erase the info in this one. -- Maurice27 21:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
ChrisO, your expansion is a great job, but I don't understand the need to erase the pictures from this one. Just take a look at all the articles about titles. They all have a coat of arms to illustrate it, which includes and heraldic explanation of it. Plus the picture of the original coat granted to the city and to the duke of medina-sidonia is clearly very useful in this article. The title of "Kingdom" and the arms ar united since the begining. I would love to read your POV before adding them again -- Maurice27 22:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry to just butt into this discussion, but Chris is right. I do believe the castle depicted on San Roque's CoA is different to that depicted on Gibraltar's. In the past one could get hold of cheap 'Gibraltar Flags' with the castle that San Roque uses. They were cheap because they were not Gibraltar's official flag, as it depicted the wrong castle. Gibmetal 77 talk 22:27, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
-- Gibnews 10:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
If we have to have mention of San Roque, lets be clear on what its role is. Its where artifacts from the Spanish period of Gibraltar were removed to. Its influence over Gibraltar is NONE WHATSOVER.
In relation to the ToU its an old and false argument that it does not transfer sovereignty of Gibraltar to the British Crown, but the Spanish MAE accept that it does, so lets not go down that road.
Mr Hills wrote a book about Gibraltar and citing it is rather like quoting what Herr Goebbels wrote about Hitler. Historially interesting but very much POV, the man was half Spanish and a close friend of Franco. -- Gibnews ( talk) 11:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Not that interpetation of the ToU is appropriate to the context of this article which is about a historical curiosity in a title. AND is not the official Spanish position, it was the opinion of a dead friend of Franco, and Mr Hills was not the 'Spanish King'. -- Gibnews ( talk) 19:20, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Mr Hills also considered that General Franco was good for Spain, others may disagree - the current official position which has been described:
Spain does not dispute that Gibraltar is properly, in law, British territory. Therefore, this is not disputed land. She has a political claim to the return of Gibraltar sovereignty, but she does not dispute the fact that in proper international law, she ceded sovereignty to Britain in perpetuity and therefore it is undisputed British sovereign territory.
-- Gibnews ( talk) 09:28, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I note that ChrisO has removed the above on the grounds totally misleading line; cited source is the CM of Gibraltar, not the Spanish govt. You need to find a Spanish govt source for this However the statement attributed to Mr Hills who was a friend of Franco but not part of the MAE remains. In relation to the CURRENT Spanish view, Mr Caruana who meets with the Spanish minister regularly is better informed than Mr Hills who is dead. -- Gibnews ( talk) 18:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I see there remains no citation for the claim that the King of Spain still asserts that he is the 'King of Gibraltar' unless someone can provide one, I suggest that the wording is changed to reflect the historical context of this currently dubious claim. -- Gibnews ( talk) 00:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
Iy isn't true, no such references have been provided as none exist. This ( http://www.the-rock-of-gibraltar.com/Gibraltar-News/8931/queen-of-gibraltar-gibraltar-queen-coin-fivepoundcoin-queenofgibraltar) however IS a reference confirming that Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II DOES indeed claim such a title. As Gibraltar was CEDED to "Her Britannic Majesty" in the ToU she is the ONLY Monarch entitled to make such a claim in any case. The fact remains that the current King of spain does NOT claim such a title, nor would he be entitled to do so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.208.213.145 ( talk) 17:24, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Although the constitution says His title is that of "King of Spain" and he may use the others which belong to the Crown. there is no reliable reference that says that Gibraltar is actually claimed as a title. -- Gibnews ( talk) 19:09, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
New references provided. The tip was looking for "título grande" as it's the protocolary way to name the set of titles formally used by the Spanish kings. Best regards -- Ecemaml ( talk) 23:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
You're possibly unaware of the Restoration of the Monarchy in Spain (BTW, Alfonso XIII died in 1941). It happened in 1978. There are plenty of books and even wikipedia articles describing it. On the other hand, I forgot to include the url of the reference. You have it. As possibly your Spanish is even worse than my English, I can provide a translation. The section that is mentioned refers to the current king, not to Alfonso XIII (which abdicated into his son in 1941; don Juan transferred all his dinastic rights to the current king). The discussion is over. -- Ecemaml ( talk) 08:15, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
I removed the part which says that these territories were never part of the Spanish Crown from the lead because:
- Portugal: Philip II of Spain became King of Portugal when married his first spouse Maria Manuela of Portugal. His Successors, Philip III of Spain and Philip IV of Spain were also Kings of Portugal until December 1, 1640, when an uprising took place in Lisbon expelling King Philip IV of Spain (Philip III of Portugal) from the Portuguese throne.
-Jerusalem: This title comes from the Aragonese branch of the Spanish Monarchy. Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor (King of Jerusalem) married Constance of Aragon in 1209. In 1262, Peter III of Aragon married Frederick II's grand-daughter Constance of Sicily, Queen of Aragon. When the kingdom ended, the Spanish Monarchy became part of the [ Aragonese Claimants]. Link. (Sorry for being from pink press, but it is quite acceptable). --MauritiusXXVII ( Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 08:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kingdom of Gibraltar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:42, 10 December 2017 (UTC)