This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I am removing this sentence added by user with an IP address 207.89.155.80: He was a distant ancestor to Isabella of Castile, and, thus, is an ancestor to the present-day British royal family, including Elizabeth II, Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Every ancestor of the House of Barcelona is an ancestor of the present-day British Royal Family be it through Isabella of France or Isabella I of Castile (I am sure I'm not exhausting all the possibilities out there). If we don't add this meaningless bit of info to every wiki page on every member of a European royal family, let's not do it here. Or am I wrong? -- apoivre 22:32, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Several sources on the net and the encyclopedia britannica claim he declared himself emperor of all spain in 1034 rather than king.
Googling for "Imperator totius" gives me Alfonso VI rather than Sancho. Besides, according to Revista Internacional de los Estudios Vascos. RIEV, 26, 4: Discutibles interpretaciones de la moneda de Sancho el Mayor, by Germán de Iruña, there is only one coin attributed to Sancho, probably this bullion piece attributed to Alfonso VII. It only has IMPERATOR and NA(I/V) ARA. -- Error 01:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
This should interest you: Imperator totius Hispaniae. Cheers! The Ogre 20:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Was the eagle of Sancho's seal the Roman eagle of the legions? Was it a claim to the Roman emperor's title like the eagle of Holy Roman emperors or the Byzantine and Russian eagles? -- Error 01:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
A user moved this page from
Sancho III of Navarre to the current title with the rationale: The correct name is "of Pamplona"; Navarre hadn't been established yet)
. I moved it back, but then on second thought I self-reverted. I don't really care whether we call him "of Pamplona" or "of Navarre", but I do object to the rationale that one is more "correct" or that Navarre was not yet established. The kingdom known as Pamplona and that known as Navarre are one and the same. It's just a name change that occurred in the 12th century. Historians use anachronistic terms like
Byzantine Empire and unofficial ones like
Weimar Republic all the time. There is no need to avoid Navarre for the 11th-century realm of Pamplona on grounds of strict correctness. Nor is there any reason to take a change in nomenclature as indicating the establishment of a new or different kingdom.
Srnec (
talk) 23:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
The correct name of the kingdom by the time of Sancho III was Navarre, not Pamplona. The change happened between 970-1000 with the exact date and reason unknown. But by Sancho III it was definitely Navarre, and if anyone thinks it doesn't matter, tell that to the thousands of us families that have that surname! Yes, it big time matters! Solri89 ( talk) 11:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
I've corrected the article to be as fair as one can have it while correcting the kingdoms name by the time of The Great. But can someone please change the title back to being proper because I don't know how to do that. Solri89 ( talk) 12:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
The Historia General de Navarra by Jaime del Burgo. In this book he states King Sancho II took the title King of Navarre in 987. This dude is from Navarre and wrote lots of books on the region. Solri89 ( talk) 12:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
I was really hoping no one would get into this as much as you did cuz then I'd have to explain further. But first: Let's just agree to disagree as there are too many sources who contradict each other. My point: it was Sancho III's grandfather who was credited as using the style King of Navarre first even though the name of the kingdom by foreign sources was still Pamplona. The question was put to rest by the time of Pamplona's/Navarre's union with the other kingdoms/vassal states. But most definitely by the time of Sancho III he and possibly his immediate ancestors were referring to themselves as King of Navarre. In my understanding this was done because the king(s) wanted to not be known as merely a city-state kingdom but more as a European kingdom than a mere kingdom of Iberia. I have read references to this in the past but that was a long time ago in Mexico. But if you can place yourself there at that time I think you'd agree anyone would do the same thing. Now I believe "consensus" will disagree with me but as a compromise why don't we put King of Pamplona/Navarre? King Sancho III is very important person in my patrimony and because of that is why it's important to me (yes, I know this is Wikipedia but this is the talk page) that he is known as a King of Navarre. Oh and besides, no one insisted on a discussion when it was changed to Pamplona. So why did I have to discuss it before changing it back? Solri89 ( talk) 14:49, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
I just read my own last discussion and I'll admit what I wanted to say didn't come out fully. What I'm saying is that the mentioned kings ALSO took on the style King of Navarre as well as King of Pamplona but yes (I guess) the official title of the kingdom during the time in question was Pamplona. Solri89 ( talk) 15:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
I guess you didn't fully read what I wrote before you questioned why I put in there he is very important to my patrimony. That was just a personal thing that I wanted to personally state that's why I wrote what I did in the parenthesis. Next time read that part too. Thanks. Solri89 ( talk) 15:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
-- Maragm ( talk) 15:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC)En un momento determinado, que cabe situar hacia mediados de 1162, el monarca navarro decidió desechar el título empleado hasta entonces, rex Pampilonesium y sustituirlo por el de Rex Navarre "rey de Navarra".
This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I am removing this sentence added by user with an IP address 207.89.155.80: He was a distant ancestor to Isabella of Castile, and, thus, is an ancestor to the present-day British royal family, including Elizabeth II, Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Every ancestor of the House of Barcelona is an ancestor of the present-day British Royal Family be it through Isabella of France or Isabella I of Castile (I am sure I'm not exhausting all the possibilities out there). If we don't add this meaningless bit of info to every wiki page on every member of a European royal family, let's not do it here. Or am I wrong? -- apoivre 22:32, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Several sources on the net and the encyclopedia britannica claim he declared himself emperor of all spain in 1034 rather than king.
Googling for "Imperator totius" gives me Alfonso VI rather than Sancho. Besides, according to Revista Internacional de los Estudios Vascos. RIEV, 26, 4: Discutibles interpretaciones de la moneda de Sancho el Mayor, by Germán de Iruña, there is only one coin attributed to Sancho, probably this bullion piece attributed to Alfonso VII. It only has IMPERATOR and NA(I/V) ARA. -- Error 01:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
This should interest you: Imperator totius Hispaniae. Cheers! The Ogre 20:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Was the eagle of Sancho's seal the Roman eagle of the legions? Was it a claim to the Roman emperor's title like the eagle of Holy Roman emperors or the Byzantine and Russian eagles? -- Error 01:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
A user moved this page from
Sancho III of Navarre to the current title with the rationale: The correct name is "of Pamplona"; Navarre hadn't been established yet)
. I moved it back, but then on second thought I self-reverted. I don't really care whether we call him "of Pamplona" or "of Navarre", but I do object to the rationale that one is more "correct" or that Navarre was not yet established. The kingdom known as Pamplona and that known as Navarre are one and the same. It's just a name change that occurred in the 12th century. Historians use anachronistic terms like
Byzantine Empire and unofficial ones like
Weimar Republic all the time. There is no need to avoid Navarre for the 11th-century realm of Pamplona on grounds of strict correctness. Nor is there any reason to take a change in nomenclature as indicating the establishment of a new or different kingdom.
Srnec (
talk) 23:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
The correct name of the kingdom by the time of Sancho III was Navarre, not Pamplona. The change happened between 970-1000 with the exact date and reason unknown. But by Sancho III it was definitely Navarre, and if anyone thinks it doesn't matter, tell that to the thousands of us families that have that surname! Yes, it big time matters! Solri89 ( talk) 11:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
I've corrected the article to be as fair as one can have it while correcting the kingdoms name by the time of The Great. But can someone please change the title back to being proper because I don't know how to do that. Solri89 ( talk) 12:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
The Historia General de Navarra by Jaime del Burgo. In this book he states King Sancho II took the title King of Navarre in 987. This dude is from Navarre and wrote lots of books on the region. Solri89 ( talk) 12:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
I was really hoping no one would get into this as much as you did cuz then I'd have to explain further. But first: Let's just agree to disagree as there are too many sources who contradict each other. My point: it was Sancho III's grandfather who was credited as using the style King of Navarre first even though the name of the kingdom by foreign sources was still Pamplona. The question was put to rest by the time of Pamplona's/Navarre's union with the other kingdoms/vassal states. But most definitely by the time of Sancho III he and possibly his immediate ancestors were referring to themselves as King of Navarre. In my understanding this was done because the king(s) wanted to not be known as merely a city-state kingdom but more as a European kingdom than a mere kingdom of Iberia. I have read references to this in the past but that was a long time ago in Mexico. But if you can place yourself there at that time I think you'd agree anyone would do the same thing. Now I believe "consensus" will disagree with me but as a compromise why don't we put King of Pamplona/Navarre? King Sancho III is very important person in my patrimony and because of that is why it's important to me (yes, I know this is Wikipedia but this is the talk page) that he is known as a King of Navarre. Oh and besides, no one insisted on a discussion when it was changed to Pamplona. So why did I have to discuss it before changing it back? Solri89 ( talk) 14:49, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
I just read my own last discussion and I'll admit what I wanted to say didn't come out fully. What I'm saying is that the mentioned kings ALSO took on the style King of Navarre as well as King of Pamplona but yes (I guess) the official title of the kingdom during the time in question was Pamplona. Solri89 ( talk) 15:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
I guess you didn't fully read what I wrote before you questioned why I put in there he is very important to my patrimony. That was just a personal thing that I wanted to personally state that's why I wrote what I did in the parenthesis. Next time read that part too. Thanks. Solri89 ( talk) 15:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
-- Maragm ( talk) 15:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC)En un momento determinado, que cabe situar hacia mediados de 1162, el monarca navarro decidió desechar el título empleado hasta entonces, rex Pampilonesium y sustituirlo por el de Rex Navarre "rey de Navarra".