Talk:List of Spanish monarchs

List of Monarchs in what is now Spain

Besides this article we have List of Navarrese monarchs, List of Castilian monarchs, List of Aragonese monarchs, and List of Counts of Barcelona. As far as I can tell, we lack lists of Vandal, Visigothic, and Suebi monarchs in Iberia; I'm also unaware of where we might have a list of the Muslim monarchs in what is now Spain.

The Spanish-language wikipedia has a lot of this (still missing the Muslim monarchs, though) well-arranged in a table at es:Tabla_cronológica_de_reinos_de_España. Do people think it would be useful to so something like that in English? Or maybe just link to that Spanish-language article from here? I'm open to ideas. -- Jmabel 20:51, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

The Visigoth article lists those rulers. Umayyad, Almoravides, and Almohad have lists of those rulers. john k 21:36, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Jmabel 21:59, Oct 9, 2004 (UTC)

Why do you mention a list of Suevi and Visigoth Kings? Why not the Vandal Siling kings? And by the way why not the Roman list of rulers of the Peninsula? It looks pretty silly to have to read who were the forerunners of the Spanish throne when the article is about the Spanish kings, it is so confusing for a student.

How were these lineages eventually united by the marriage of Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella I of Castile? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.84.66.111 (talk • contribs) 6 March 2006.

This is a list of Spanish monarchs, that is a list of what is considered Spain after the union of Castilla and Aragón. What comes before is not relevant to this page. It's relevant geographically but not in terms of what was/is Spain. Links to what was there before can be added at the bottom of the article.

ICE77 (talk) 08:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos vs. Charles?

Is there any standard on when to use Carlos or Charles for the different Spanish Kings. I noticed that Charles III of Spain, for example, doesn't mention the name Carlos at all (although there is a redirect from Carlos III of Spain), but is listed on this page as Carlos III (as well as referred to as Carlos III in an article on California history I was just reading). [[User:GK|gK ¿?]] 05:19, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia standards seem pretty clear that we should be using "Charles" consistently, but should have redirects from "Carlos" and should mention it in the lead of the relevant article. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:26, Nov 20, 2004 (UTC)

If nothing else then, the lead article on him needs some revision since it doesn't even mention "Carlos".

Did the Spanish actually call him "Charles III de Bourbon, Rey de España" or "Carlos III de Borbón, Rey de España"? Even the fairly Anglo-centric website http://thePeerage.com (A genealogical survey of the peerage of Britain as well as the royal families of Europe website) calls him "Carlos III de Borbón, Rey de España". For a modern example, we certainly don't say "his majesty King John-Charles of Spain" [1] for the current Spanish king no matter how Anglo-centric we want to be. [[User:GK|gK ¿?]] 07:30, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Agreed, Juan Carlos is a simple case, I've never seen any other form. I'm just reporting what I've seen as the preponderant approach in a little over a year on Wikipedia. I don't necessarily like the policy, but I'd rather try to follow it reasonably consistently than be ad hoc every time. -- 09:08, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)

Charles III is a special case, since he before ascending the Spanish throne, was king of Naples etc in Italy, where the name form is Carlo. All these cannot be included in the title of his article, thus in all cases it is easiest to call him Charles.

Juan Carlos comes from the specific Wiki policy, an exception, that a living monarch can be named in the native language in English article - today's news flow uses his native name. Since history books tend to use English name forms, Charles is the presumption for deceased monarchs. 62.78.125.16 09:34, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Carlos IV

Carlos IV was recently edited without explanation to Carlos Torralba IV. The word "Torralba" does not appear in our article on him. Does anyone know what is going on here? -- Jmabel | Talk 15:35, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Spain is not Iberia or Hispania!

This article had several instances of Spanish-centered POV! The Iberian peninsula or Hispania, covers not only the modern country of Spain, but Portugal also (and Andorra; and Gibraltar!). The word "Spain" in modern English (and its counterparts in other languages) means the country of Spain, not all of the Iberian peninsula (as the respective articles show). The fact is that Castillian expansionism over the centuries (ask not only the Portuguese, but also the Galicians, the Basques or the Catalans...) tried to monopolize the definition of Iberia in a way that satisfied its imperial interests. In fact, even if Spain was used in ancient times to refer to the whole of Iberia, today it is not. In this sense, given that the Kingdom of Spain only emerges with the union of Castille and Aragon in 1492 (and this is disputed since Navarre was only incoporated in 1512), one can almost say that there was never a Spain before that! It was Iberia that was conquered by the Romans, who called it Hispania. The country of Spain didn't exist then. It was Hispania that was conquered by Suevi, Vandals, Alans and Visigoths. The country of Spain didn't exist then. It was Visigothic Hispania that was conquered by the Moors. The country of Spain didn't exist then. The Moorish conquest was of Iberia or Hispania (that should not be confused with Spain, even if the term Hispanic is used to denote Spanish speaking peoples). This conquest and subsequent occupation led to a Christian reaction know as the Reconquista from which several Christian kingdoms emerged (such as Asturias, León, Castille, Portugal, Navarre, etc.). Over time Castille came to dominate most of Iberia (but not Portugal, except for a small period between 1580 and 1640) and the use of the castillian word "España" (which is the castillian version of latin Hispania) started as a political strategy to curb autonomy or independence from centralist Madrid (for the same reason Castillian language started to be known as Spanish, implying the irrelevance of other Iberian languages - this was still a problem in the Spain of the 20th century, with the active repression of languages other than Castillian). Furthermore, if you call Spain to the Iberian peninsula, this not only is simply not true, but is felt as profoundly offensive at least by the Portuguese. For all these reasons and more, this article should not emply that Spain is Iberia and that there was an exclusive direct descent from some of the monarchs of ancient times to those of modern Spain. The Ogre 19:05, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Really nice job on your edit on this. It's nice to see someone with this level of issue with the POV of an article simply come in and fix the issue without tearing our large quantities of useful information, or inserting POV in the opposite direction, etc. I corrected a couple of very minor English-language issues, but great work! -- Jmabel | Talk 06:19, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jmabel! The Ogre 16:15, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it ought to be noted that Philip IV didn't give up his claim to the Portuguese throne until some decades after the revolt. I'd add that, prior to 1516, and perhaps prior to 1640/1662, "Spain" can be considered to mean "the Iberian Peninsula". It is only with the definitive independence of Portugal that "Spain" can be said to mean "the Iberian Peninsula, except Portugal." john k 06:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello John Kenney. I've added that the Habsburgs only recognized the separation of Portugal under the Braganzas in 1668. As to the fact that, before 1640, the name "Spain" meant all of Iberia, I think that is clear by the sentence "and thenceforth the name of Spain does not refer to the whole of the Iberian peninsula (ancient Hispania), but only to one of its constituent countries." Mind you that in most Iberian languages, namely Portuguese and Castillian, "Spain", when refering to the whole of the peninsula, was frequently worded in the plural - they spoke of the "Spains" (As Espanhas or Las Españas) - which has quite different connotations... The Ogre 16:13, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Suebi Kings of Gallaecia

KuatofKDY had deleted the link to the Suebi Kings of Gallaecia, arguing "Wrong kingdom listed. No list available yet for Gallician kings". This is a mistake. If one follows the link one can see the list. However the list is not of Galician Kings, but of the Suebi Kings of Gallaecia. Gallaecia, not Galicia. There where no Kings of Galicia, except for Garcia II of Galicia and Portugal during a period of very few years (see Kingdom of Galicia and Portugal), even if sometimes Galicia was refered to as a Kingdoom. The fact was that Galicia was generally ruled by a Count. For these reasons I have reverted to Jmabel version, that includes the afore mentioned link. The Ogre 15:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ancestors' Infobox

I finished adding the infobox in all Spanish Monarchs' articles with two exceptions: Amadeo I's and Juan Carlos I's. I couldn't find the necessary genealogical information for their mothers, so I decided to do a bit more of research instead of adding a incomplete infobox.--Cosmos666 15:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Charles IV again

Charles IV is listed here as having had a 1-month restoration that goes unmentioned in our article Charles IV of Spain. If it is accurate, it should be mentioned in his biographical article; if not, it should be removed from here. Does anyone have a citable source? - Jmabel | Talk 00:31, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

El Reyna

From the article" "The Spanish monarchs traditionally sign Yo El Rey (I the King), or Yo El Reyna (I the Queen)." Surely not. I believe that the only person who would be El Reyna is Freddie Mercury. Given the one obvious mistake, is any of this correct? Does anyone have a citation? Or am I (not a native Spanish speaker) completely confused? - Jmabel | Talk 00:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando V

Hola. I've change a Fernando king of Aragon. He is Fernando II de Aragon y V de Castilla. before he appear that I of Castile and I of Spain, when the last king of Castile was Fernando IV (1296-1312). The last king of Spain (Fernando VI 1746-1756) never Fernando II. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Singara (talk • contribs) 16:41, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

Fair use rationale for Image:Alfonso XIII of Spain.jpg I

Image:Alfonso XIII of Spain.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 19:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Alfonso XIII of Spain.jpg II

Image:Alfonso XIII of Spain.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ordinal numbers

This page should probably include a brief explanation of why some of the ordinals don't start at I -- i.e. what happend to Philip I, Isabella I, Ferdinand I-V, and Alfonso I-XI. I know that some of the predecessor state kings are counted in the sequence, but I'm not sure which ones (Castille and Leon, I think, and the Asturias, maybe?); we could perhaps also remark on the origin of this convention, if anyone knows it. --Jfruh (talk) 04:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, Phillip I was king consort of Castille. The rest were kings (and queen) proper of Castille. 74.68.129.111 (talk) 23:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Philip I and Isabella I are part of the list. Ferdinand I was a king of Aragón before Ferdinand II. Alfonso I-XI were primarily kings of Castilla, sometimes of Aragón and León. Alfonso XII and XIII appear in the late 1800s and they follow the numbering of kings from the middle ages. Alfonso XI (1311–1350) was the last king named Alfonso and this is even before Castilla and Aragón merged together in 1469. Traditional numbering of monarchs follows the Castillian crown (as mentioned in the article).

ICE77 (talk) 08:49, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal

As Spain has been both a Kingdom and a Republic, I suggested to merge this article into List of heads of state of Spain. I believe that having two articles is probably not redundant, but unnecessary. I will be glad to hear other opinions. --MauritiusXXVII ^{(Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!)} 18:40, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the best option is in the Spanish wikipedia, the List of heads of state of Spain is divided between the List of Spanish monarchs and the List of heads of state of Spain who were not monarchs. This way, the heads of state of Spain would became a disambiguation page. Trasamundo (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Monarchy is recognised as a separate topic throughout Wikipedia, and this list needs to exist for categorisation purposes. Postlebury (talk) 12:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The page will continue to exist after the merger, the users clicking on the link in category lists will simply be redirected to the new page. So this is not an obstacle. Zhmr (talk) 19:56, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The articles overlap, as List of heads of state of Spain includes all the monarchs. Even the Spanish wikipedia does not have separate articles. There has been no opposition since I've put the merger tag so I am going to proceed with the merger. Zhmr (talk) 19:58, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The monarchy in Spain is one thing and the heads of state are another thing. Two related things, but two things. I understand a list of kings and other heads of state list, but leave one and remove the other does not seem right. And the Spanish wikipedia does have separate articles (one for the kings and other for the chiefs of State without crown). --EeuHP (talk) 12:17, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but the article we have here on English WP, List of heads of state of Spain, includes all the monarchs, it does not list only "the chiefs of State without crown". So it is not a case of "two related things", on equal "level", but a case of one article containing everything that is in the smaller one, which is like a sub-level. Spain is still a Monarchy and there are very few heads of state in the list that were not monarchs. This list is almost a duplicate. Zhmr (talk) 12:26, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the article of the Heads of State in es.wiki, regents are included (regents during the minority of the kings or regents during the absence of the kings)--EeuHP (talk) 13:40, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So? They are not here. Zhmr (talk) 14:06, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I mean they could be added to the article. There would be two lists: one for kings and other for heads of state non-kings (presidents, regents, dictators...).--EeuHP (talk) 14:16, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is simple really. This article is a duplicate of 90% of the List of heads of state of Spain. All the content from here belongs there. If this article didn't already exist, would you really take time to create it? To me it seems the sentiment behind keeping it is a sort of... "inertia". If there is no reason to merge these two articles, we can renounce merging altogether. Zhmr (talk) 14:25, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think (as most of the heads of state are kings) monarchs list should be maintained and modified the other, but is a hard task. Other option is say List of monarchs and head of State of Spain, for example.--EeuHP (talk) 14:41, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge as proposed. Littledogboy (talk) 22:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maria de la Mercedes

She was "queen in name" for a while, and thus actual head of state under her mother's regency. Had her brother been her sister or stillborn, she would have kept her title and position.74.68.129.111 (talk) 23:41, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never actually seen her listed as Queen of Spain. However, it appears that she may have been nominal head of state. If she is to be included on this list I think there should be a special section or a note on her status. York1066 (talk) 02:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think she was ever considered queen. If her brother had been a girl, she would have been considered to retroactively be queen since her father's death, but because he was a healthy boy, she was not considered to have been queen. You would need some pretty good sourcing for the claim that she was ever actually queen. john k (talk) 02:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Title field

I don't care for the title field here. It gives titles that aren't actually correct. Philip II, say, was never called "King of Spain." What's the point of a title field if it doesn't even give the right titles? john k (talk) 15:05, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Carlos' reign

Please folks. Juan Carlos' reign ends on June 19. Check the BBC, where it's shown that the King has signed the abdication, but mentions his reign is now in its final hours. GoodDay (talk) 20:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One thing is when will Felipe become King, which will be at 00:00, 19 June 2014 (CET). And way another thing is the time of Juan Carlos' abdication, which became formal at 18:15, 18 June (CET) after the signing of the abdication law, which is now irrevocable and can't be undone. Impru20 (talk) 20:44, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The throne hasn't become vacant, not even for a few hours. Succession is automatic & the abdication hasn't taken effect 'yet'. GoodDay (talk) 20:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

English/Spanish names

I recommend that we keep the last two monarchs names in sync. If that means using English/Spanish to match the rest of the article? that's fine. If it means Spanish only? that too is fine. GoodDay (talk) 20:29, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favour of having them both in English and Spanish, as all other monarchs. Specially in the case of Felipe VI; all other "Felipes", from II to V, are named as "Philip", so having him as "Felipe" looks both weird and unconsistent with other names. Either all monarchs' names are shown in Spanish or in both English and Spanish, but having the same name shown in different languages depending on the person who wears it has little sense. Cheers. Impru20 (talk) 20:37, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, to say that "Juan Carlos" must be shown only in Spanish because "he's called like that" is not justification enough. For instance, Charles III should be "Carlos III", Philip II should be "Felipe II" and so on. That could be an argument in favour of having all names in Spanish, but that's another thing. Impru20 (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree. However, such decisions are beyond my control, see results of RMs at Juan Carlos I of Spain & Felipe VI of Spain. In the meantime, the last 2 monarchs names shouldn't be out of sync. Even it that means appearing in Spanish 'only'. GoodDay (talk) 20:45, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe what could be done would be to show their Spanish name as the main name, then add the anglicised version of them. That would be accurate and would not be out of sync, since the English name shown would stand there just as a translation of the Spanish name. Impru20 (talk) 22:31, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Juan Carlos" is called "Juan Carlos" in English. That is the point. "John Charles" is nothing; it has no connection to the man at all; it is just a random name that is never used to refer to this man in reliable sources of any language. DrKiernan (talk) 21:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the same rule we could discuss why Carlos III is named Charles III, and the same for all monarchs. "It is just a random name that is never used to refer to this man in reliable sources of any language" Even so, it is the English translation of the name, and if for other monarchs it has been deemed appropiate to anglicise their names, I don't know why can't it be the case for him. Otherwise you can't possibly explain why we have Philip II to V and then a Felipe VI. Or Charles I to III and then a Juan Carlos (by the way, Juan is also the masculine form for Juana, Spanish for Joanna, which we also have in this same article). I'm in favour of having all of them in English or, rather, all of them in Spanish, but just a single language, for consistency. Maybe the latter option would be best; all historical figures are known by the names they got in their respective's languages. If it is to be applied differently on monarchs, if should be applied on all of them, not just a few here and there. Impru20 (talk) 22:31, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:COMMONNAME, we follow the name most widely used in reliable sources. Reliable sources - even English ones - are inconsistent here, preferring Spanish names for recent monarchs and English ones for earlier ones, even when the Spanish names are same in each case. It's not up to us to impose on the sources a consistency that they do not express for themselves. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know that, and I agree with this policy for individual articles. But I'm not saying that the article names themselves should be changed. The issue here comes when you make a list showing all monarchs in a single article. So, for instance, you have in the same list four Philips and one Felipe, despite them all wearing the same name (just a different regnal number). It just looks weird. At least, the anglicised version of the name should be added in the same way the Spanish version is added for previous monarchs, because otherwise it could be confusing at first glance. Impru20 (talk) 22:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Using "John Charles I" is confusing and looks weird. By trying to force its use you are doing exactly what you claim you're trying to avoid. No native English speaker would ever say that. Articles should be written in English not in some weird pidgin that we've created ourselves. DrKiernan (talk) 06:45, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Juan is translated as "John" and Carlos is "Charles". A name translation can never be weird (specially since it seemingly isn't for all previous Felipes, Carlos, Fernandos, etc; otherwise they would be written in Spanish). Furthermore, you are just rebutting my arguments by saying "No, what you say is bad" yet you are not showing a strong argument to defend it. That "Juan Carlos" is known as "Juan Carlos" and not "John Charles"? Aye, but I repeat: the same can be said for any Spanish monarch. And I'm not talking just about Juan Carlos (which you seem to stick on) but about all monarchs. Philip/Felipe VI as well, for instance (there have been even English sources calling Felipe VI as Philip VI interchangeably; sources here, here, here, here or here, to name a few examples). Furthermore, I'm not even defending to change Juan Carlos article name (he is known as Juan Carlos), just to put all names in the list shown in this article in a single, uniform language for consistency.

Btw, if we are going to name Kings as how they are known, remove Juan Carlos' regnal number because he is hardly ever (if ever) refered to as "King Juan Carlos I", but as "King Juan Carlos". Impru20 (talk) 08:39, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We already had this discussion at Talk:Juan Carlos I of Spain. It's quite common to speak of him as Juan Carlos I. Please stop re-hashing this; we will call monarchs whatever they're called in the bulk of reliable sources. Nothing requires us to make our lists monolingual. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so the issue of Juan Carlos being called John Charles is closed. Impru20 (talk) 11:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can only assume you have misunderstood because English is not your native language. That would also explain why your comments here are self-contradictory (by claiming for example that Felipe VI is not known as Philip VI, and then showing that he is). "John Charles I" is unacceptable because that form is not used in English. "Charles III" is acceptable because that form is used in English. English speakers recognise and are familar with the words "Charles III"; they are not familiar with and do not recognise "John Charles I". DrKiernan (talk) 09:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, my comments are not contradictory, but maybe you have not understood my point. What I'm stating in the example you put of Felipe is that either Felipe VI should be known as Philip VI or that all other Philips should be shown as Felipes. Either of both is okay, but because all of them have the same name, having one of them as Felipe and the others as Philip is unconsistent. Your issue seems to be only with "Juan Carlos"; so, that is okay. If it has been already discussed before and because there is no other past Juan Carlos being called in a different way in the list to alter consistency, I can skip over it. But the issue of Felipe/Philip is still there, and I have shown a couple sources that call him Philip VI (even if I do recognize that others call him Felipe VI; there is no consensus about how should him be called even in the English press). Impru20 (talk) 11:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've been around the old 'pedia (and I've got the scars to proove it) long enough, to know the John Charles I & Philip VI aren't gonna pass the mustard here. Perhaps I'm getting softer in my old age, but we could have all the names appear in their Spanish forms & drop the non-Spanish forms. Just a thought. GoodDay (talk) 11:08, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe they could use the same treatment that in this template, where their Spanish names seem to have been respected. Impru20 (talk) 11:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Though it personally annoys me to no end (since this is English Wikipedia), I can accept the all Spanish version, as it's done on the Template-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 19:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hola necesito una foto de un diagrama de the catholic monarchs no la encuentro ayudenme por favor — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.6.224.34 (talk) 16:17, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified I

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Spanish monarchs. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071128175025/http://nick.frejol.org/siglo-de-oro/spainkings.pdf to http://nick.frejol.org/siglo-de-oro/spainkings.pdf

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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified II

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of Spanish monarchs. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090201131544/http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Charles_VI_of_the_Holy_Roman_Empire to http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Charles_VI_of_the_Holy_Roman_Empire

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).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:34, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and questions

1a. The article on Spain says "In 1469, the crowns of the Christian kingdoms of Castile and Aragon were united by the marriage of Isabella I of Castile and Ferdinand II of Aragon". I added this sentence to the article because it's quite relevant.

1b. Why does the House of Trastámara only start in 1479?

2a. The summary for the House of Trastámara (1479–1555) should at a minimum mention the Reconquista and the voyage of Columbus which are two major historical events.

2b. I think the House of Trastámara (1479–1555) section should be modified to show a separate list for the Crowns of Castilla and Aragón, even if they fell on multiple monarchs at the same time. This is similar to the Crowns of Scotland and England between 1603 and 1707. They were still separate entities. I spent time trying to understand who was on the Castilian and who were the Aragonese leaders. I find it hard to read this section.

3. Does Joanna need the regnal number? I do not see any other Joanna in the article.

4. The placement of Philip I in the House of Trastámara is inconvenient since he was an Habsburg. How do we go about that?

5. The summary for the House of Habsburg (1516–1700) should mention the 1580-1640 Iberian Union with the Crown of Portugal under Philip II, III and IV.

6. "Constitutional King of Spain" is not a complete sentence. If that was the new title then state so for clarity.

7. I would be useful to briefly add why Amadeo I and Alfonso XIII abdicated.

8. The section called "Kingdom of Spain (1975–present)" should be replaced by "House of Bourbon (1975–present)" for consistency with every other section. It's understood this is about the kings and queens of Spain.

ICE77 (talk) 08:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]