information the article lacks: royal privileges in Spain Minaker 11:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
OMG! The title of the king is HUGE! Does he remember it? Is there a "Trivia" section somewhere, where we can add instances that someone forgot it? *Steve
I'll copy here the explanation I gave in Kingdom of Gibraltar:
We should not misunderstand the difference between Monarchy of Spain and the Royal Household of Spain (which does not form part of the Spanish Government, and remains exclusively under the rulement of the monarch). These titles pertain (as Titles in Pretence) to the household of the spanish branch of the Bourbon family (as every other title in the world pertain to a family). Those titles are inherited by the Head of the Household (in this case Juan Carlos de Borbón y Borbón).
This said, nobody has the right to restore or to remove them those titles (i.e A civil uprising like the Second Spanish Republic). When the Spanish Republic was instored in 1931, Alfonso XIII got withdrawed as Head of State of Spain, but never as King of Spain, as Alfonso was the only one who could get his hereditary title revoked. After he got removed from the Kingship, Alfonso, automatically became claimant or Pretender to the Kingdom of Spain, as he still was the first person in the list of claimants if the Kingdom was restored. In fact, Francisco Franco was the "Spanish Head of State and Regent of the Kingdom".
Also, under the fundamental law of the House of Bourbon, neither a king nor his heirs can renounce the claim to a throne they hold but do not possess.
Titles such as King of Jerusalem, Sardinia, Corsica, Gibraltar or Duke of Burgundy, of Brabant, of Milan, of Athens and Neopatria etc... are claims of the Spanish branch of the House of Bourbon. Why? Because they have the right and because they ARE supposed to be in the first place of the list per inheritance if someday those territories decide to have a monarchical form of government again.
A perfect example of this in France (a republic), is Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou. 220 years after Louis XVI of France was executed and the Monarchy abolished, Louis Alphonse is still a claimant to the French throne, and considered to be the head of the French Royal House by legitimists. In case that France returns to be a Monarchy, (and the legitimists arguments accepted), he would be named Louis XX of France. And watch yourself... Because if Louis Alphonse dies without a male heir (he only has one girl yet), Juan Carlos of Spain could also become the claimant to the title of "King of France", as he is next in the list. ( notice that Alfonso XIII was it already from 1936 up to his death)
To sum up... The titles are hereditary and pertain to the household of Bourbon, not to Spain nor the Spaniards. And while the Spanish Kings ceded some territories, they have all the rights their Nobility allows to keep (as they do) the claim to these titles for them and their sucessors in case those territories were to become a Spanish territory again someday in the future. That's how western society, western traditions and European Nobility work! Cheers. -- MauritiusXXVII ( Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 20:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Should not 'roll' be changed to 'role'?-- MathFacts ( talk) 01:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I have reorganized the article. I have removed much of the "Contemporary monarchy section" as it was dealing with mostly biographical information on Spanish Royalty. My logic is that this page should be for the institution and the more personal stories and details of individual family members should be on thier biographical articles. I have used as a loose model the article Monarchy of the United Kingdom which is featured. Ltwin ( talk) 08:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I heartilly welcome your inpute to make the page the best it can be! ♦Drachenfyre♦· Talk 04:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Give me a day or so to prune down the Queen's comments? ♦Drachenfyre♦· Talk 05:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Re: New layout: reviewing now. Give me a moment :) ♦Drachenfyre♦· Talk 05:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Maybe we should ask for more imput and recommendations?
♦Drachenfyre♦·
Talk
06:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I would like to point out that this article is both factual and informative. Drachenfyre has done a great job here.--
Marked4life (
talk)
17:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm trying to copy edit this article but came across an issue. Can someone explain the meaning behind this sentence (3rd paragraph of the lead in section):
The Spanish monarchy has its roots in the Visigothic Kingdom founded in Spain, in Aquitainia in the 5th century, and its Christian successor states which fought the Reconquista following the Muslim conquest of Spain in the 8th century.
I changed it to this, which may not be quite the same
The Spanish monarchy has its roots in the Visigothic Kingdom, founded in Spain, Aquitainia in the 5th century, and its Christian successor states which fought the Reconquista following the Muslim conquest of Spain in the 8th century.
I'm still having trouble grasping exactly what it's trying to say. Can someone just quickly explain this so that I can make it a clearer section? Thanks. -- Shirik ( talk) 16:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
It is also my concern that there are too many block quotes in the section The Crown and the Constitution. Is it really necessary to embed the constitution into this section? I think that the oath is a useful quote and should stay, but the constitution translations can probably go. I already removed one section which was actually just a duplicate of an earlier quote, but in Spanish, which I felt was redundant. -- Shirik ( talk) 17:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I would like to keep them as they are. However, I could go along with removing the Spanish quotes. But the English quotes of the constitution are, in my opinion, a very important part of the section in question and of the article in general.--
Marked4life (
talk)
03:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Welcome aboard Shirik! Thank you for spending your time copy editing the article! I look forward to your expertise! This is what copy editing is for... to go through the article and correct errors for flow. If the constitutional quotes are too cumbersom for the article then they should be removed. Its not as though the President of the United States article quotes sections of the constitution as detailed as I have done here. So my opinion is that sections of the constitution should be listed only if it reveals or clarifies. I say this with a heavy heart because personally I do like to see the sections so listed, in both languages. ♦Drachenfyre♦· Talk 04:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Observation:
Having gone through a read, I think we can remove excessive "According to the 1978 Constitution", phrases. We should only prehaps list that once, and successively simply say constitutionally. Also, in the same context, prehaps excessive "According to Title II The Crown, Article 123, Subsection 1" could be replaced by consitutionally also. What does everyone think here? ♦Drachenfyre♦· Talk 05:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
With respect, I believe you are reading too much into it. The constitution is unambiguous and defines who is crowned, and how to determine his successors. The 1978 Constitution over rides any other pre-1978 “House Laws”, such as the tradition of prohibiting a member of the royal family from marrying in an unequal marriage. Indeed, the Constitution is clear that all laws passed by the Cortes supersede any laws predating 1978, so a member of the royal family may marry a same-sex partner and not lose their rights to the crown!
The 1978 Constitution clearly does exclude Don Luis Alfonso de Borbon-Franco from the direct succession of JC, as the constitution also excludes JC's sisters and other paternal relations. The Constitution clearly states that if any of the lines directly decendent of JC become extinct, the Cortez reserves the right to assign the successor as benifits Spain. ♦Drachenfyre♦· Talk 12:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok why don't we do this. Instead of arguing over what two editors think, why not include verifiable sources (in English, however I realize that that could be hard) of perhaps constitutional scholars or other credible people who represent the different views. With these sources, you could include how credible sources interpret the constitution. Ltwin ( talk) 19:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
In the case of British monarchy it's understood that English or Scottish numbering is used, whichever is larger. Is there a similar understanding here as regards Castilian & Aragonese? Peter jackson ( talk) 11:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
That's also a correct information. In fact, Castile was, in the time, only a County inside the Kingdom of Leon. We, the spaniards, say Castile when refering nowadays to Castile-Leon-Asturias-Galicia all together. The numbering of Aragon ceased and is not used anymore, What is true is that, if we want to be perfectly right, the numbering is the one from the Kingdom of Asturias as the only name which was already used by the time and still is (Alfonso), cames from Asturias.
To give some examples of the first kings with the names with the highest numbering:
Cheers, --MauritiusXXVII ( Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 08:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
information the article lacks: royal privileges in Spain Minaker 11:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
OMG! The title of the king is HUGE! Does he remember it? Is there a "Trivia" section somewhere, where we can add instances that someone forgot it? *Steve
I'll copy here the explanation I gave in Kingdom of Gibraltar:
We should not misunderstand the difference between Monarchy of Spain and the Royal Household of Spain (which does not form part of the Spanish Government, and remains exclusively under the rulement of the monarch). These titles pertain (as Titles in Pretence) to the household of the spanish branch of the Bourbon family (as every other title in the world pertain to a family). Those titles are inherited by the Head of the Household (in this case Juan Carlos de Borbón y Borbón).
This said, nobody has the right to restore or to remove them those titles (i.e A civil uprising like the Second Spanish Republic). When the Spanish Republic was instored in 1931, Alfonso XIII got withdrawed as Head of State of Spain, but never as King of Spain, as Alfonso was the only one who could get his hereditary title revoked. After he got removed from the Kingship, Alfonso, automatically became claimant or Pretender to the Kingdom of Spain, as he still was the first person in the list of claimants if the Kingdom was restored. In fact, Francisco Franco was the "Spanish Head of State and Regent of the Kingdom".
Also, under the fundamental law of the House of Bourbon, neither a king nor his heirs can renounce the claim to a throne they hold but do not possess.
Titles such as King of Jerusalem, Sardinia, Corsica, Gibraltar or Duke of Burgundy, of Brabant, of Milan, of Athens and Neopatria etc... are claims of the Spanish branch of the House of Bourbon. Why? Because they have the right and because they ARE supposed to be in the first place of the list per inheritance if someday those territories decide to have a monarchical form of government again.
A perfect example of this in France (a republic), is Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou. 220 years after Louis XVI of France was executed and the Monarchy abolished, Louis Alphonse is still a claimant to the French throne, and considered to be the head of the French Royal House by legitimists. In case that France returns to be a Monarchy, (and the legitimists arguments accepted), he would be named Louis XX of France. And watch yourself... Because if Louis Alphonse dies without a male heir (he only has one girl yet), Juan Carlos of Spain could also become the claimant to the title of "King of France", as he is next in the list. ( notice that Alfonso XIII was it already from 1936 up to his death)
To sum up... The titles are hereditary and pertain to the household of Bourbon, not to Spain nor the Spaniards. And while the Spanish Kings ceded some territories, they have all the rights their Nobility allows to keep (as they do) the claim to these titles for them and their sucessors in case those territories were to become a Spanish territory again someday in the future. That's how western society, western traditions and European Nobility work! Cheers. -- MauritiusXXVII ( Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 20:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Should not 'roll' be changed to 'role'?-- MathFacts ( talk) 01:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
I have reorganized the article. I have removed much of the "Contemporary monarchy section" as it was dealing with mostly biographical information on Spanish Royalty. My logic is that this page should be for the institution and the more personal stories and details of individual family members should be on thier biographical articles. I have used as a loose model the article Monarchy of the United Kingdom which is featured. Ltwin ( talk) 08:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I heartilly welcome your inpute to make the page the best it can be! ♦Drachenfyre♦· Talk 04:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Give me a day or so to prune down the Queen's comments? ♦Drachenfyre♦· Talk 05:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Re: New layout: reviewing now. Give me a moment :) ♦Drachenfyre♦· Talk 05:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Maybe we should ask for more imput and recommendations?
♦Drachenfyre♦·
Talk
06:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I would like to point out that this article is both factual and informative. Drachenfyre has done a great job here.--
Marked4life (
talk)
17:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm trying to copy edit this article but came across an issue. Can someone explain the meaning behind this sentence (3rd paragraph of the lead in section):
The Spanish monarchy has its roots in the Visigothic Kingdom founded in Spain, in Aquitainia in the 5th century, and its Christian successor states which fought the Reconquista following the Muslim conquest of Spain in the 8th century.
I changed it to this, which may not be quite the same
The Spanish monarchy has its roots in the Visigothic Kingdom, founded in Spain, Aquitainia in the 5th century, and its Christian successor states which fought the Reconquista following the Muslim conquest of Spain in the 8th century.
I'm still having trouble grasping exactly what it's trying to say. Can someone just quickly explain this so that I can make it a clearer section? Thanks. -- Shirik ( talk) 16:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
It is also my concern that there are too many block quotes in the section The Crown and the Constitution. Is it really necessary to embed the constitution into this section? I think that the oath is a useful quote and should stay, but the constitution translations can probably go. I already removed one section which was actually just a duplicate of an earlier quote, but in Spanish, which I felt was redundant. -- Shirik ( talk) 17:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I would like to keep them as they are. However, I could go along with removing the Spanish quotes. But the English quotes of the constitution are, in my opinion, a very important part of the section in question and of the article in general.--
Marked4life (
talk)
03:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Welcome aboard Shirik! Thank you for spending your time copy editing the article! I look forward to your expertise! This is what copy editing is for... to go through the article and correct errors for flow. If the constitutional quotes are too cumbersom for the article then they should be removed. Its not as though the President of the United States article quotes sections of the constitution as detailed as I have done here. So my opinion is that sections of the constitution should be listed only if it reveals or clarifies. I say this with a heavy heart because personally I do like to see the sections so listed, in both languages. ♦Drachenfyre♦· Talk 04:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Observation:
Having gone through a read, I think we can remove excessive "According to the 1978 Constitution", phrases. We should only prehaps list that once, and successively simply say constitutionally. Also, in the same context, prehaps excessive "According to Title II The Crown, Article 123, Subsection 1" could be replaced by consitutionally also. What does everyone think here? ♦Drachenfyre♦· Talk 05:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
With respect, I believe you are reading too much into it. The constitution is unambiguous and defines who is crowned, and how to determine his successors. The 1978 Constitution over rides any other pre-1978 “House Laws”, such as the tradition of prohibiting a member of the royal family from marrying in an unequal marriage. Indeed, the Constitution is clear that all laws passed by the Cortes supersede any laws predating 1978, so a member of the royal family may marry a same-sex partner and not lose their rights to the crown!
The 1978 Constitution clearly does exclude Don Luis Alfonso de Borbon-Franco from the direct succession of JC, as the constitution also excludes JC's sisters and other paternal relations. The Constitution clearly states that if any of the lines directly decendent of JC become extinct, the Cortez reserves the right to assign the successor as benifits Spain. ♦Drachenfyre♦· Talk 12:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
Ok why don't we do this. Instead of arguing over what two editors think, why not include verifiable sources (in English, however I realize that that could be hard) of perhaps constitutional scholars or other credible people who represent the different views. With these sources, you could include how credible sources interpret the constitution. Ltwin ( talk) 19:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
In the case of British monarchy it's understood that English or Scottish numbering is used, whichever is larger. Is there a similar understanding here as regards Castilian & Aragonese? Peter jackson ( talk) 11:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
That's also a correct information. In fact, Castile was, in the time, only a County inside the Kingdom of Leon. We, the spaniards, say Castile when refering nowadays to Castile-Leon-Asturias-Galicia all together. The numbering of Aragon ceased and is not used anymore, What is true is that, if we want to be perfectly right, the numbering is the one from the Kingdom of Asturias as the only name which was already used by the time and still is (Alfonso), cames from Asturias.
To give some examples of the first kings with the names with the highest numbering:
Cheers, --MauritiusXXVII ( Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 08:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)