Talk:House of Barcelona

Requested move

Untitled

The debate began way back in July 2006. It continues. Srnec (talk) 01:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

House of Barcelona should be House of Aragon

Note: I moved the discussion back here --Enric Naval 17:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to change the name of the House in these articles:

• List_of_Aragonese_monarchs
• House of Barcelona
• List_of_Counts_of_Barcelona
• List_of_Valencian_monarchs
• oher pages linking to House of Barcelona when it is talking about an aragonese monarch

Please feel free to provide reasons for/against. Wikipedia:Citing_sources Citing sources with Wikipedia:Verifiability verifiable sources, please!--Enric Naval 10:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

comment moved from Talk:List_of_Counts_of_Barcelona

The article says "In Aragonese history, this dynasty is called the House of Barcelona.". No. In aragonese history, it's called the House of Aragon. In catalan history, it's called the House of Barcelona. In english history, you can find House of Aragon on plenty places, refering both to Kings of Aragon and kings of Sicily [1] The encyclopedia of World History, 2001 sicilian history. In medieval documents, you can find "Darago" and "Casal Darago".

Particularly, I'm quite sure that there is no document of S. XVIII or sooner that mentions "House of Barcelona" when refering to Kings of Aragon, but there are tons of documents saying "Darago" (Of Aragon). Well, actually about any document mentioning the Kings of Aragon will say that. This article doesn't even mention "House of Aragon" anywhere.

I placed some arguments and verifiable sources on Talk:House_of_Barcelona --Enric Naval 20:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

comment moved from from Talk:House_of_Barcelona

This article should be called "House of Aragon" for the part that accounts for the Kings of Aragon. The reason is this extract of the Chronica of Ramon Muntaner (he lived in 1265-1336, but the book was edited in 1558), where it says that it is talking about the "Casal Darago" (House of Aragon).

[2] "Capitol ij. en lo qual Lautor recapta attencio dels Llectors, perço com propos a la materia de que deu parlar en aquest libre, ço es dels feyts, e proefes, del Casal Darago (...)" in which the author asks for attention (gets attention?) from the readers, because of this relating to the matter that he must talk about on this book, which is of the facts, and feats, of the House of Aragon

[3] "Capitol xxj. com lo Rey en Iacme Darago hach carta del Papa (...)" How the King James of Aragon has letter from the Pope

Please notice also that all documents from that period always talk of "King of Aragon" and/or "Darago". There is no ancient document that I know about that ever mentions "De Barcelona".

Also, the title of king had precedence because it was so accorded on the marriage of Ramon Berenguer IV to Petronila. It was also accorded that sons of them would be crowned on Zaragoza. And the kings were called "DArago" (Of Aragon) on that epoch's literature, too.

It is also ignored by wikipedists that Ramon Berenguer took the Aragon King Ramiro as father, so he became part of the Aragon house! And that aragonese legal usage said that the house could be transmitted throught by women.

I would like to see hard facts justifying why aragonese kings should be called part of the House of Barcelona. And I don't mean an article from the GREC (Great Catalan Encyclopedia). I mean proof enough to counter the fact that the very "Constitucions" of Barcelona have this same treatment. And all Aragonese Court documents, and "fueros" documents, etc. And actual whole documents, because I have seen people directly cutting relevant sentences inside a paragraph withouth saying so, changing all its meaning, and I could only notice it by looking at the original lytographies and transcriptions of the books.

I want to create a House of Aragon article and place there all Aragonese kings from Alfonso I up to the Trastamara dinasty. I don't like the actual distorsion of history on this article. Wikipedia should not be a place for catalans to hijack their neighbours' history because they feel that it's not correctly treated. It was the way it was, and it should spelled here that way.

Also, notice, that the catalan version of wikipedia is biased towards Catalonia, so please take things from there with a grain of salt. Sorry for ranting --Enric Naval 18:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC) changed --Enric Naval 20:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Note: there exists at least one Court transcription where the Consell de Cent (the catalan parliament) addresses the King as "our Count" or "Count of Barcelona" while asking for something, but the rest of time the treatment of King is preserved, and the document is signed as King of Aragon, Valencia, Mallorca, Count of Barcelona, Lord of Montpellier. I think there may be other cases. I'm sorry I can't remember the exact document. --Enric Naval 20:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Barcelona/Aragon, whatever

Firstly, why are you insisting that all discussion of this be on your talk page? That's a rather odd place to put it. Beyond that, "House of Barcelona" is used because "House of Aragon" doesn't really make sense. It could be used, but it could also refer to the earlier dynasty that ruled up through Petronilla, or for the branch of the Trastamaras that ruled after 1412 - this latter usage is quite common in names like Catherine of Aragon. Similarly, the Habsburgs are sometimes called the "House of Austria" (in fact, fairly frequently), but this name is not normally used because it could also refer to the preceding Babenberg dynasty. Similarly, we use "Wittelsbach," "Wettin," and "Hohenzollern" rather than the equally appropriate "Bavaria," "Saxony," and "Brandenburg," because these latter terms are not specific to the dynasty - they refer to any dynasty which ruled these territories, while "Hohenzollern" refers just to the dynasty that ruled Brandenburg from the 15th century on. The term "House of Barcelona" is not as common, but is used, and specifies which dynasty is meant in a way that "House of Aragon" does not. john k 12:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Discussion moved to my user page: I saw on other pages that some discussions were moved by administrators to the talk page of a user because "it didn't belong on the article". Since the change I'm proposing affects several pages, I thought I should put all in a centralized page, to prevent repeating the same arguments on every single affected page. What do you propose as an alternative? Would it be better to use only the discussion page of House of Barcelona and point everything there? Should I put the pointers to my talk page but not say "have all discussion here"? I put pointers on those pages because I thought that very little people would be watching House of Barcelona (seems a small, young page) and they would only notice when I tried to update the pointers on their pages and would complain about not knowing about it. I'm not sure about the conventions on this. Sorry if I did wrong. Please tell me the correct way.

Talk:House of Barcelona would likely have more people watching it than there are people watching your talk page, I should think, and is a perfectly appropriate place. Putting notes at the other pages to indicate a discussion there would have been appropriate. Usually discussions moved to user talk pages are ones that are not about the article at all, and often are ones that are starting to get personal in some way. We shouldn't be discussing this question here, at any rate. john k 16:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, you're totally right. I'm moving the argument back to House of Barcelona. --Enric Naval 17:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

House of Barcelona makes more sense: The term "House of Barcelona" seems to appear on catalan historiography around S. XVIII, so I'm afraid it was not intended to distinguish any confusion, but to propel a certain point of view of history and give more importance to Catalonia than it actually had at that point. I think that it was never intended to distinguish a dinasty. So, House of Barcelona is not only not common, it also seems to be made up post-facto, and used only on biased sources. I'd name it "House of Aragon", which is the name most correct according to actual history, and put a warning on the article that it appears as "House of Barcelona" on catalan history. I'm not sure that it is widely used out of catalan historiography. Does anyone have any actual verifiable sources or any research that House of Barcelona is used out of catalan historiography, or that it has more usage than House of Aragon on medieval research? Please excuse my insistance. I insist on verifiability, because I have seen too many deliberately biased paraphrases from medieval texts.

The issue is what is used in English, I should think. And the "House of Barcelona" is not called that to make Catalonia more important (although of course Catalonia was more important than poor, mountainous Aragon), but because the family which ruled Aragon from 1162 to 1410 had previously been the ruling family of the County of Barcelona. Why should a family which was only one of three (or four, if you include the Habsburgs) to rule over Aragon be called the "House of Aragon"? The family was not a native Aragonese one, and it ruled over other territories (namely, the County of Barcelona, and perhaps Provence as well) before it got Aragon. In a few contexts (rule in Provence, perhaps, rule in Sicily, certainly) "House of Aragon" makes sense. It most certainly does not make sense when referring to it in Aragon, since it's not a native Aragonese dynasty. This is like calling the Plantagenets the "House of England". john k 16:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Since the title was transmited throught Petronila, and since the matrimonial contract indicates that Berenguer takes the King of Aragon as Father and Señor (Lord? Master?), then the family is native aragonese. About the inheritance of the title, notice that children from Berenguer who were not born from Petronila would not have had inheritance rights, even if they were born before than the male children from Petronila. Berenguer would only have the title if Petronila died, or had only female descendence, or her male descendence died with no succesors. Even then, the title would revert to Berenguer, not to his children. If any of these situations had happened after Berenguer's death, surely a new dispute over succession would have started, because the document overlooks this situation. The Kings of Aragon are catalan only if you overlook how the succession was accorded. This was not a normal marriage, but a "marriage at home" in Aragonese legalese. You should also know that, due to the contract, Aragon and Catalonia couldn't be separated and had to be ruled and inherited together. Not exactly two separate territories. Also, Catalonia didn't yet exist as a legal entity yet. Both Aragon and Catalonia were "The lands occupied by the people ruled by the king of Aragon", so you shouldn't say that he was ruling two separate territories. There were one single entity at the time. --Enric Naval 07:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I was wrong about the inheritance. If Petronila died withouth descendance, then the sons of Ramon Berenguer inherit, at least acording to the enciclopedia aragonesa. There is also an article on casamiento en casa, which describes as tending to the cohesión y perpetuación de la casa (cohesion and pertuation of the house). --Enric Naval 11:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Surely Aragon was montanious and poor, but it was a kingdom, which Barcelona wasn't, Zaragoza had more inhabitants at that point than Barcelona (altough it has to be inferred from sparse documents), Aragon had more territory and inhabitants, and maritim trade on Barcelona was strangled by muslim pirates based on Mallorca, so it hadn't a great advantage for being a seaport. Catalonia didn't still include Tarragona, Urgell, Pallars nor Ribagorza. Notice also how it was accorded that Kings would be crowned on Zaragoza, not on Barcelona, and how it the title order was accorded. Please don't confuse the actual situation with the situation at that point. --Enric Naval 07:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not even the correct dinasty: This belongs in another discussion, but I can't but mention it. "House of Barcelona" is not the correct Dinasty for Kings of Aragon. The proper dinasty would be "Dinasty Jimenez" (Dinastia Jimena?), since the title was purposefully transmited through Petronila. Note that the matrimonial contract was intended to preserve the House of Aragon. I have to add that all Aragon Kings before and after Berenguer are refered as "name-of-king-here of Aragon", so there weren't just "name-of-king-here, King of Aragon", so there doesn't seem to be any actual House change at all. Note that Berenguer accepts Ramiro as father, as if he was adopted, so he actually entered the Dinasty.

The title was transmitted through Petronilla, but that's not the same thing as house name. Your claim would seem to include the Trastamaras in the "House of Aragon" as well - after all, Ferdinand I and his successors were also "Name-of-king-here of Aragon". Of course the principal title of all Kings of Aragon up through Ferdinand II was "King of Aragon." But this is irrelevant to what the dynastic name is. Dynasties are generally used to indicate patrilineal ancestry. Henry VII's claim to the English throne came through his mother, a Beaufort (and thus, through a legitimized line, a Plantagenet), but he is called the first member of the House of Tudor, and Richard III the last Plantagenet, because his house derives from his father, even if his inheritance came from his mother. For you to demonstrate your point, you'll have to show some (preferably genealogical) sources which use "House of Aragon" for this family. You'll also have to explain why this family should be "House of Aragon," but the Jimenez and Trastamara rulers should not be. (And Alfonso II and successors are most definitely not Jimenez's, any more than Edward VII and his successors are Hanoverians). john k 16:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I hate citing from Internet, but the library is closed now.

• Graph of descendance. Follow the "Before Pedro III" link
• A web based on former source
• this one counts from James I to S.XX
• Malta had many rulers, including ... the Spanish under the House of Aragon ...
• this one has reference to C. W. Previté-Orton The Shorter Cambridge Medieval History, Volume 2, the Twelfth Century to the Renaissance, 2 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978). Hereinafter cited as sCMH II.
• cites the will of James I of 1272 where it mentions House of Aragon
• "Since Charles of Anjou’s marriage to Beatrice of Provence in 1246, there had been a feud between the houses of Aragon and Anjou."
• Dr. Testaferrata is a lineal descendant of ... as well as the Royal House of Aragon, the Counts of Biscaya, ...
• ... the Exilarch Lines of Baghdad and Spain in the House of Aragon and Castile ...
• this one uses House of Barcelona up to Berenguer and House of Aragon-Barcelona for his son Alfons
• History of the Reign of Ferdinand and Isabella V1 by William H. Prescott uses Aragon for Kings of Aragon and Barcelona for a relative

There are plenty of sources for people using House of Aragon for Aragon Kings, even up to Ferdinand_II_of_Aragon. Also. Pedro IV in his Cronica uses "House of Aragon" to refer to where a party was celebrated. And Ramon Muntaner on his Cronica uses it to refer to Jaume I. They never use "House of Barcelona". So "House of Aragon" is not a weird name for them, since they used it themselves.

There are also for House of Barcelona, but many less:

• "under the house of Barcelona which was to last until 1410" {-Encycl. Brit., '56, 21:118}
• uses House of Barcelona for Kings of Sicily.....

Note my comment about Ramon Muntaner mentioning the "Casal Darago" (House of Aragon) in S. XIII-XIV when talking of James I.

Notice that when it is talked about House of Aragon, no Dinasty is mentioned. At most, the House of Barcelona article should be called "Dinasty of Barcelona" or "Dinasty of Counts of Barcelona", or include a reference that it is sometimes used to distinguish part of the House of Aragon, especially in catalan historiography. But the Aragon Kings should be in a House of Aragon article, since this is the way they were known and have been known for a long time. --Enric Naval 07:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not agree. House of Aragon are only all those people that was Kings of Aragon, pointing this title in first position of their dominion. According to this rule, House of Aragon can be considered all people from the Jimenez family to the House of Trastamara, until Ferdinard II of Aragon. With Charles I of Castile the title of "King of Aragon" isn't in first position, always was the first position the title of "King of Castile". In the other hand, House of Barcelona are all the people with relevant titles with political power and territorial dominion over the Mediterranean, wich origin is directly from the Count of Barcelona, ie King Frederick III of Sicily or King James II of Majorca. --Joanot Martorell ✉ 20:15, 13 October 2006 (UTC) Sorry because of my poor level of English.

status of count of barcelona

Count of Barciluna was "Count to the Emperor", "suzerain over Counts" with princely or margravate status.

House of Trastámara is the branch of Ivrea family or House of Castile-León

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septimania

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marca_Hispanica

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Catalonia

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.246.41.166 (talk • contribs) 16:56, 26 October 2006 --Enric Naval (talk) 22:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

female of the house of barcelona

The article says "(...) passed to the House of Trastámara, descended from a female of the house of Barcelona". Can someone say the name of the female so we can wikilink to the proper article? --Enric Naval (talk) 07:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Linked. Srnec (talk) 14:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

House of Barcelona does not exits. It should be House of Aragon

If Prince Charles of Wales was reigning in England, it would be from different 'House' than Elizabeth II? Besides, So-called "House of Barcelona" couldn't inherited what they never had: From Ángel Sesma Muñoz: Doctor and Professor on Middle Age History on Zaragoza's University. From the book "Aragón en su Historia" (1980), written by Sesma and other authors: "In the end of 1137 the crisis have been avoided and Ramón Berenguer got from his father-in-law the kingdom, but not the real rank: 'Maguere yo dé a tu, el regno, pero la mi dignidad real non lexo', that keeped mantaining until he die (1157), that's why Barcelona's Count never maked use of the King Title, instead he used 'Prince of Aragón' title" (...) "After Ramón Berenguer IV death in 1162, his first son, Alfonso, got Aragón and Barcelona territories. Two years later, his mother Petronila, gave him the Real Rank on Aragón. With that, not only Alfonso II became King of Aragón and Count of Barcelona, but also the first Crown's King, and the union was, not merely by marriage, but personal." From Domingo J. Buesa: Doctor and Professor in History. Member of Madrid's "Academia de Bellas Artes de San Fernando" and Vicepresident of Zaragoza's "Academia San Luis". From his book 'Historia del Alto Aragón' (2000, p. 122): "Prince Alfonso, 5 year old and born in the city of Huesca, that was his mother Petronila court seat, it will be the so-called Corona de Aragón heir: the group of states of the Catalan territories (inherited from his father -Ramón Berenguer IV- family) and the Aragonese territories, her mother's Petrolina inheritance. He gets from her the Real Title that gives name to the Crown: Aragón."

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.55.137.195 (talk • contribs) 17:35, 21 July 2007

There's a lot of confusion on this talk page, but I haven't seen a reliable source yet cited for "House of Aragon" in reference to the dynasty that ruled the Crown of Aragon from 1162 until 1410. "House of Aragon" is mere shorthand for "ruling dynasty of Aragon whatever that may be". But that is not what this article is about. "House of Barcelona" is used as a reference for the dynasty in works by Paul Freedman, David Abulafia, Stephen P. Bensch, among others. See this academic source and try searching the journal Viator if you can. Note that if I search LIBRO for "house of aragon" I get these results, indicating that it is rarely used in the proper institutional/political historical context and that it is often preceded by "royal", indicating that it is not a reference to a dynasty/family, but to the generic ruling house of Aragon. I have therefore moved the page back for now, but I'd be happy to see some more discussion, but please read John Kenney's remarks above. Srnec (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Linking to a list of search results is not enough. I looked at all the articles, and all talked of House of Barcelona as the conuts of Barcelona before the union, one of them even talking about an actual physical house on the city [4]. The ones that do support your argument are [5], [6], [7], [8].

Also, the last two talk about "royal House of Barcelona", which you said was an indication that they talked about the kings ruling a territory and not a dinasty. One of those two (Chaylor), mentions House of Aragon, House of Sicily and House of Anjou on a chapter of the same book[9], so he's probably talking of a dinasty. I quote "The papacy was not upon friendly terms with the House of Aragon; its sympathies lay rather with the family of Anjou". Chaytor also talks about the dinasty of the Counts of Barcelona [10] without naming it. If we were to take your argument that "royal house" does not refer to a dinasty, then Chaylor would be talking about the House of Aragon dinasty and calling it the dinasty of the Counts of Barcelona. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

"House of Anjou [11] --Enric Naval (talk) 06:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I see there are several overlaping entities that are causing this confusion. The dinasty for Aragon kingdom up to Ramon Berenguer IV was Sanchez dinasty or dinastia jimena, which I am not sure if it has its own article, see [12], it's supposed to end on Ramiro I for not having a male child. Payne mentions "a united dinasty" instead of giving the dinasty a name [13].

This article also has a serie of issues like not linking to List_of_Aragonese_monarchs so maybe House of Aragon needs a separate article talking about kings of aragon before Petronila, the meaning of it being the generic ruling house of Aragon, and the Sicily branch that had that name. Also, Category:House_of_Aragon needs to be populated with the kings of aragon, it doesn't even have the kings pre-crown.

I'm currently on a wikibreak so I won't be able to make the changes for a few days --Enric Naval (talk) 00:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

We do have an article on the Jiménez dynasty. It begins with some Jimeno in the 8th or 9th century and ends with Ramiro II in Aragon in 1137. Through the marriage of Petronilla and Raymond Berengar, a descendant of Wifred the Hairy, a "united dynasty" (this is what Payne is referring to) is formed that rules both Aragon and Barcelona. This dynasty is, in the male line, that of Wifred, which may be the Bellonids, but the ancestry of Wifred is uncertain. This dynasty ruled Aragon until 1410. "House of Aragon" is not useful in the context of the history of Aragon. We need separate articles for separate dynasties and "House of Aragon" just isn't a dynasty. "House of Barcelona" is customary for the descendants of Wifred the Hairy that ruled Barcelona until 1410 (and Aragon from 1137, kings after 1162). Srnec (talk) 04:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

"House of Aragon" is not useful on the context of the history of Aragon? Are you sure of that? Just in case, I'll look for stuff that doesn't overlap with House of Barcelona and see if it's enough for an article. There is still the branch of Sicily that received this exact name, for example. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Sicily was ruled by the houses of Barcelona and then Trastámara. I am sure of that. "House of England" is useless for English history and "House of France" would be useless in French history. Srnec (talk) 04:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I mean the "house of aragon" mentioned here [14] as ruling Sicily. Also notice this encyclopedia talking of house of aragon as a family [15]. The term is actually used as such, and it overlaps house of barcelona on some meanings, but not on all of them, that's why I'll look for content to make a separate article when I have time. --Enric Naval (talk) 08:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Mention ought to be made that House of Aragon is used to refer to the house of Barcelona when it ruled outside of Iberia. Srnec (talk) 14:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll just look at what the sources say --Enric Naval (talk) 17:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The sources are confused. "House of Aragon" is used to refer to more than one dynasty and sometimes not a dynasty at all. The Columbia usage is noteworthy, so "House of Aragon" deserves mention, but your first source is not referring to a single dynasty (1276&ndsah;1516). The term is used in the context of the history of Sicily because it is not ambiguous there. Also, note that the Columbia Encyc. article uses the term to describe the rulers of Aragon from 1035 until 1410: this is sloppiness probably resulting from confusion in English historiography concerning Spanish dynastic history. "House of Barcelona" is accurate. "House of Aragon" is as informative as "House of France" for the Capetians, and it's inconsistently used to boot. Remember WP:RS, not just sources, reliable ones. I think the sources you're grabbing are not of the highest scholarly calibre. Srnec (talk) 23:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The sources are confused? :P Are you sure you are not the one confused by trying to give a certain rigid arbitrary meaning to "house" with "dinasty" when notable sources will give them different meanings that contradict and overlap each other? The different meanings can be listed and attributed to the sources using them. About those sources, I just used the first two I found as examples. I'll dig out better ones when I have time and will to do so --Enric Naval (talk) 00:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Official website of the royal house calls it the "House of Aragon", so that should be the title of the article, not "House of Barcelona".[16] Srnec, you seem to be confusing the House of Trastámara with the House of Aragon, while the Trastamara's are sometimes called Aragonese, this does not mean we rewrite history and magically rename the House of Aragon, the "House of Barcelona" to get around it cause that is just wrong. - Gennarous (talk) 20:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Did nobody see the sources (and names) I presented for "House of Barcelona"? And did you realise that the (self-proclaimed offical) website (about a non-entity) you provided is not actually talking about a dynasty? It lumps together all the kings of Aragon under the heading "Royal House of Aragon". I, of all parties, am not the one to accuse of conflatin House of Trastámara with the House of Aragon. I wish to keep the dynasties distinct: Jiménez, Barcelona, and Trastámara. I could add T. N. Bisson, one of the most important scholars of medieval Aragon and Catalonia of the last twenty five years for the usage "House of Barcelona" to refer to a dynasty that ruled Barcelona, and then numerous other things, from 878 until 1410. That is what this article is about. Nothing that you or Enric Naval have yet cited supports the notion that "House of Aragon" is being used in this dynastic sense. It is being used confusedly, sloppily, vaguely, and with reference to something other than a dynasty. Usage of "house of Barcelona" is clear and consistent. Remember, not just sources, reliable ones. (As a sidenote: Spanish usage in a Spanish context refers to the Hapsburgs as the casa de Austria, but nobody suggests that we should call the Hapsburg dynasty the "House of Austria", since the Babenbergers would have as good a claim to that title. "House of Austria" makes sense outside of an Austrian context only.) Srnec (talk) 04:22, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

If you mean this guy here, I checked his list of books at Amazon [17] and I'm going to buy "The Medieval Crown of Aragon: A Short History" (paperback edition) so I can source it here. Mind you, if he has been only writing for 20 years he probably didn't have time yet to become notable by being cited by other historians, or at least to become more notable and WP:RS than Payne, etc. Also, you seem to appose any mention of "house of aragon" even if it's sourced, but we should put all points of view held by reliable sources.

Also see my comment above about the sources you put supporting "house of barcelona" and the use of "royal house". I think that you need to be more specific on your sources, citing the specific document where a certain claim is made, instead of just saying that a certain author says something. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:48, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

If Bisson is professor emeritus, what does that tell you? John C. Shideler uses "House of Barcelona" here. Paul Freedman uses it here. The prominent and well-cited Archibald Ross Lewis uses it here. Brodman uses it here. Stanley G. Payne uses it here. I have verified that all these authors, available at LIBRO, use it in reference to the dynasty that ruled Barcelona from 878 (and Aragon from 1137) until 1410. You can see that Balaguer uses it here, as cited by A. J. Forey, authority on the medeival military orders. Chaytor seems to give us the sense of "House of Barcelona" I have been arguing for here. In this review, also available throug the AARHMS, both reviewer (Webster) and author (renoqned Jocelyn Hillgarth) seem to use "Royal House of Barcelona" in reference to the dynasty (but it's hard to tell).

We see Freedman use it again in reference to the dynasty that died out in 1410 in The Origins of Peasant Servitude in Medieval Catalonia (1991), see page 165. Jocelyn N. Hillgarth uses the term extensively in reference to a specific Catalan family that ruled a vast Crown in his two-volume The Spanish kingdoms, 1250-1516 (1976–78). I couldn't cite pages numbers b/c there's too many to choose from. Another esteemed author, Kenneth Meyer Setton, general editor of the largest and best encyclopaedic treatment of the Crusades and of numerous works on medieval Greece (with special reference to the Crown of Aragon), also uses the term "House of Barcelona" for our dynasty: see pp. 445 and 460 in The Papacy and the Levant, 1204-1571, p. 210 in Athens in the Middle Ages, and pp. 22 and 281 in Catalan Domination of Athens, 1311-1388. All these pages are just a few out of many. Note how Setton writes of the "Sicilian branch of the House of Barcelona".

Among Bisson's work which use the term as a reference for the dynasty are Fiscal Accounts of Catalonia under the Early Count-Kings (1151-1213) (1984). Bisson also uses it in "The Problem of Feudal Monarchy: Aragon, Catalonia, and France" published in Speculum, 53 (1978). Freedman also uses the term in "Cowardice, Heroism and the Legendary Origins of Catalonia", Past and Present (1988). Fredric L. Cheyette is not a minor historian and not one who concentrates on the possessions of the Crown of Aragon or even on Spain who uses the term in "The 'Sale' of Carcassonne to the Counts of Barcelona (1067-1070) and the Rise of the Trencavels" in Speculum, 63 (1988).

I reference some works in Viator above. Here they are: "The Foundation of the Confraternity of Tarragona by Archbishop Oleguer" by Lawrence McCrank (p. 159), "The Historian as Artist: Manipulation of History in the Chronicle of Desclot" by Alison Goddard Elliot, who isn't the first to point out Bernard Desclot's love of the house of Barcelona more than the crown of Aragon (see p. 198), "The Enserfment Process in Medieval Catalonia: Evidence from Ecclesiastical Sources" by Freedman (p. 230), and finally see "Catalan Merchants and the Western Mediterranean, 1236-1300: Studies in the Notarial Acts of Barcelona and Sicily" where David Abulafia (see his article for his prominence) talks of the "dynastic link" between the house of Barcelona and that of Arborea (an interesting contrast between a proper dynastic terminology where he is familiar with the topic, Catalonia, but of a poor choice with Arborea, where the dynasty is more properly called that of Bas-Serra). One more indefintie source: the works of J. Lee Shneidman. Finally, this whole post took me about 20 minutes to put together, so these sources are hardly obscure. Srnec (talk) 20:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

house of Barcelona

There's Middle Ages documents enough to call the lineage of the kings as house of Barcelona so i would beg Gennarous do not edit if he has not read enough to do it. thanks.

Over 1260, the king James the first on his Chronicle[18]: «Car uostre linyatge el Comte de Barçalona per nom, ha feyt aquest nostre linyatge» (so your lineage, count of Barcelona called, has made great my lineage).

Over 1350, the Chronicle of King Peter Cerimonious[19] «lo dit regne, en defalliment d'hereu mascle, pervenc a comte de Barcelona» (the kingdom, without aragonese male descendent, transfered to count of Barcelona)

And the chronist of the King Peter the Great, Bernat Desclot, on 1280,[20] «los nobles reys que hac en Aragó qui foren del alt linyatge del comte de Barcelona» (the nobles kings who were of the high lineage of the count of Barcelona.) There's more Middle Ages documents in the same way.

There's another Chronicle that talks about the Kings of the house of Aragon (Chronicle of Ramon Muntaner, 1325-28) but in this Chronicle the author talk about the Kings of the house of Mallorques and the house of Sicily too so the word house can not means lineage here because the kings of Mallorques and Sicily were direct descendents of the kings of Aragon and Counts of Barcelona.--Sclua (talk) 18:16, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Sclua, non of those references use the words "House of Barcelona" at all, the Kings of Aragon were also for some time the Counts of Barcelona, you've basically just displayed common knowledge on some of the titles held, why wouldn't that be in the chronicles? Count does not mean House, it means Count, so those can't be used to source "House of Barcelona", please do not let political, regionalism sentiments get in the way of articles on historic entities. - Gennarous (talk) 10:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Gennarous, first, please see, on your called official website, this click on "The beginning", down till petronella "Henceforth the ruling dynasty of Aragon was styled the House of Barcelona". The word House is synonymous of lineage and the lineage on the Middle Ages was only patrilineal. I think the Kings James I and Peter III the Cerimonious had not regionalism sentiments. The biggest problem of this talk page is the huge amount of lies and falsities that wrote Enric Naval on 2006 that made shut up john k. All, supercheries from the aragonese nationalism. I think what the kings said is more importance than hundreds of links. If you accept that a new "house" was born after Petronilla you are accepting that the females would not transmit the lineage. Alfons the Chast or was from the house of Ximena (lineage of his mother) or Barcelona (lineage of his father). --Sclua (talk) 18:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

If Bisson is professor emeritus, what does that tell you? John C. Shideler uses "House of Barcelona" here. Paul Freedman uses it here. The prominent and well-cited Archibald Ross Lewis uses it here. Brodman uses it here. Stanley G. Payne uses it here. I have verified that all these authors, available at LIBRO, use it in reference to the dynasty that ruled Barcelona from 878 (and Aragon from 1137) until 1410. You can see that Balaguer uses it here, as cited by A. J. Forey, authority on the medeival military orders. Chaytor seems to give us the sense of "House of Barcelona" I have been arguing for here. In this review, also available throug the AARHMS, both reviewer (Webster) and author (renoqned Jocelyn Hillgarth) seem to use "Royal House of Barcelona" in reference to the dynasty (but it's hard to tell).

We see Freedman use it again in reference to the dynasty that died out in 1410 in The Origins of Peasant Servitude in Medieval Catalonia (1991), see page 165. Jocelyn N. Hillgarth uses the term extensively in reference to a specific Catalan family that ruled a vast Crown in his two-volume The Spanish kingdoms, 1250-1516 (1976–78). I couldn't cite pages numbers b/c there's too many to choose from. Another esteemed author, Kenneth Meyer Setton, general editor of the largest and best encyclopaedic treatment of the Crusades and of numerous works on medieval Greece (with special reference to the Crown of Aragon), also uses the term "House of Barcelona" for our dynasty: see pp. 445 and 460 in The Papacy and the Levant, 1204-1571, p. 210 in Athens in the Middle Ages, and pp. 22 and 281 in Catalan Domination of Athens, 1311-1388. All these pages are just a few out of many. Note how Setton writes of the "Sicilian branch of the House of Barcelona".

Among Bisson's work which use the term as a reference for the dynasty are Fiscal Accounts of Catalonia under the Early Count-Kings (1151-1213) (1984). Bisson also uses it in "The Problem of Feudal Monarchy: Aragon, Catalonia, and France" published in Speculum, 53 (1978). Freedman also uses the term in "Cowardice, Heroism and the Legendary Origins of Catalonia", Past and Present (1988). Fredric L. Cheyette is not a minor historian and not one who concentrates on the possessions of the Crown of Aragon or even on Spain who uses the term in "The 'Sale' of Carcassonne to the Counts of Barcelona (1067-1070) and the Rise of the Trencavels" in Speculum, 63 (1988).

I reference some works in Viator above. Here they are: "The Foundation of the Confraternity of Tarragona by Archbishop Oleguer" by Lawrence McCrank (p. 159), "The Historian as Artist: Manipulation of History in the Chronicle of Desclot" by Alison Goddard Elliot, who isn't the first to point out Bernard Desclot's love of the house of Barcelona more than the crown of Aragon (see p. 198), "The Enserfment Process in Medieval Catalonia: Evidence from Ecclesiastical Sources" by Freedman (p. 230), and finally see "Catalan Merchants and the Western Mediterranean, 1236-1300: Studies in the Notarial Acts of Barcelona and Sicily" where David Abulafia (see his article for his prominence) talks of the "dynastic link" between the house of Barcelona and that of Arborea (an interesting contrast between a proper dynastic terminology where he is familiar with the topic, Catalonia, but of a poor choice with Arborea, where the dynasty is more properly called that of Bas-Serra). One more indefintie source: the works of J. Lee Shneidman. Finally, this whole post took me about 20 minutes to put together, so these sources are hardly obscure. Srnec (talk) 20:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not such a clear cut thing, see [21] talking of inheriting the blood of the royal house of Aragon. The Columbia encyclopedia also has an entry for house of aragon [22] and so does bartlebly.com [23]. A document from 1670 says that another author talks about "the origins and descendence of the Royal House of Aragon" which also mentions "the four red pales of Aragon on a gold field" [24] (it mentions Paternoy, which seems related to the official page of House of Aragon that Gennarus added to the article). The house of aragon page also says "House of Aragon or Barcelona" [25]. As I say above, some sources at LIBRO use the expresion "House of Aragon", yet you refuse to accept them as reference to a dinasty on shaky grounds, like saying that it says "royal house" which means that it's not a dinasty, yet you have no problem accepting "royal house" when it's used for house of barcelona. That's called a double standard, and it biases the sources that you present. I can't imagine how many sources at Viator you dismissed on similar grounds.

I'm not much worried about where you move the article to, since eventually both names will have an article under them, using reliable sources, since both names are used by reliable sources, and "House of Aragon" is the only house named on middle age documents except a pair of exceptions, so it will have to be mentioned somewhere. At the end there will have to be two separate articles.

I suggest you create "House of Barcelona" as a separate article and add all the sources to *that* article instead of just talking about them on the talk page. "House of Aragon" is a definitely notable term that needs an article of its own, and not just a redirection. As I said, I don't have time to actually do this right now. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Also notice "while Sicily itself was ruled by branches of the house of Aragon" on a context that talks about dinasties getting extinguished [26] and [27] who cites T.N.Bison for the Caspe compromise, so he must have read it and [28] which I think is from same author. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

And also "The struggle between the house of Anjou and the heirs to the house of Aragon" [29] --Enric Naval (talk) 05:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

And Britannica talks both about "(...) Sicily (...)was ruled from 1296 to 1409 by a cadet branch of the royal house of Aragon." [30], but also "Alfonso succeeded his father as count of Barcelona and his mother as ruler of Aragon, thus associating the two countries under the house of Barcelona" [31]. "House of aragon" returns 9 articles including kingdom of naples [32], and "house of barcelona" returns 7, including the Alfonso II entry I cited before and Roussillon and Toulosse. That means that the term is not used on any other entry about kings of aragon except that one, so it's use on Britannica is not that extended. Notice in [33] you can see on the Catalonia entry how it says "1410, when the male line of the counts of Barcelona became extinct.", so it supports the meaning of the dinasty being that of the counts of barcelona, but does not call it "house of barcelona", which is the point that we are trying to make here. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Also see peerage.com [34]. Notice that this one is sourced with bibliography sources. Also, on a paper about moriscos [35] --Enric Naval (talk) 05:38, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Before I make a detailed response, let me clarify one thing. I do not argue that "House of Aragon" is unused or never refers to the dynasty or is invalidated by the form "royal house". I am arguing that its usage is inconsistent and sloppy and typical only of scholarship outside of Aragonese-Catalan historiography, where the inaccuary and lack of clear meaning in the term is safely ignored. I checked every source I cited to be sure that "(Royal) House of Barcelona" was being used to refer to the dynasty (family) that ruled Barcelona from 878 and Aragon from 1137 until dying out in the main line in 1410. I have not yet found any such clear-cut usage for the term "House of Aragon". The page House of Aragon should be a disambig page. Srnec (talk) 06:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree, but I don't have right now time to look for good sources for "House of Aragon". I have to say that I don't agree on your assessment of what authors mean when they say "house of aragon" or "house of barcelona". And, yes, the use of "house of aragon" on english literature is very ambiguous, when compared to literature in spanish or in catalan. I also don't agree on doing only a disambiguation page where there are meanings like the branch of Sicily that I think that there are reliable sources for them. As I said, I don't really have the time right now that this article deserves. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

arbitrary break 1

I think is compatible the article House of Barcelona with an article over the Royal House of Aragon but not House of Aragon only. Do you agree? --Sclua (talk) 16:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't, because I don't see a majority of sources using "royal house of aragon" in preference to "house of aragon", and the house of barcelona also gets called "royal" on several sources, yet the article title does not include that word. Either you call them both "royal house" or call them both "house".

I would agree with linking to this article using [[House of Aragon|Royal House of Aragon]] when talking about it, and with creating a redirect called "royal house of aragon" directing to "house of aragon", and with mentioning on the article that it's called often "royal", and with mentioning that the dinasty itself is called "house of barcelona".

I would also agree with moving almost all of the content currently on this article to "house of barcelona", and leaving and adding here things like: the sources that call it "house of aragon" to refer to the ruling house, the sources that call that "house of aragon" to the branch on Sicily, the sources talking about the Counts of Aragon pre-crown, references to its appeareance on middle age documents, genealogical sources caling it like that, mentions to the Paternoy website that claims rights to the name, etc.

I would not agree with mass-replacing of "house of aragon" with "house of barcelona", and, after seeing the sources provided, I also don't agree with mass-replacing the other way around, like I did on the first move. I see that there are enough sources of notable enough to justify the mention of both names, with overlapping meanings.

I do *not* oppose to "house of barcelona" existing as a separate article, linking to "royal house of aragon" as a name for the ruling house on Aragon independiently of the dinasty (and viceversa, this article linking to "Jimenez Dinasty" as the name of the dinasty until Petronila, "house of barcelona" as the name of the dinasty until Martin I, to "house of trastamara" as name of dinasty later, etc) --Enric Naval (talk) 18:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: by "moving most of the content to house of barcelona", I mean opening House of Barcelona, copy/pasting the dinasty stuff there, and then remove the dinasty stuff on "house of aragon" and reword to point to dinasty stuff on "house of barcelona". House of Aragon can then be filled up with the content I mentioned, and sourced appropiatedly. I hope that Gennarus can agree with this, so we can achieve consensus and avoid edit wars. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:11, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

How is "House of Aragon" possibly a unique way of referring to this dynasty? The term "House of Aragon" refers to any dynasty ruling Aragon, including the Jimenez dynasty that ruled before 1162 and the Trastamaras after 1412. Catherine of Aragon was not a member of this House of Aragon, although she was clearly a member of the "House of Aragon" in many senses. Calling the dynasty House of Aragon is like calling the Capetians House of France or the Habsburgs House of Austria. john k (talk) 20:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm talking about calling the dinasty "House of Barcelona" on a "house of barcelona" article, and leave the "house of aragon" article for things like references to all the dinasties ruling Aragon including Jimenez, Trastamara, etc, and for reference to people like Catherine of Aragon that you are talking about and who wouldn't fit in a house of barcelona article, etc. Wheter the dinasty should be called "Jimenez Dinasty" instead is something that I won't weight in because I'm more interested on splitting the article first to avoid repeating all the time the same edit wars about the name --Enric Naval (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

We have similar ideas. I suggest moving this page to "House of Barcelona" because that's what it's about. Then turn "House of Aragon" into a dab page, since that's all it could be. There is no use for an article on a nonspecific ruling house of Aragon. All the pertinent information belongs in the specific articles. The sources you have for "House of Aragon" show that it is not used consistently of one dynasty and that if it is used to mean a dynasty at all it is used by writers outside of the topic of Catalan-Aragonese history and therefore probably unfamiliar with its finer points: like the distinction between Aragon's three ruling houses. Srnec (talk) 04:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree in that sources don't clearly use house of aragon to mean a dinasty, and I already stated that I was ok with linking the dinasty meaning to house of barcelona. I also agree in moving the article first to house of barcelona and then creating house of aragon. However, I have listed above a list of meaning for house of aragon and I think the article will become more than a disamb page. However, since creating a disamb page would be a good way to get started, I agree with that with disamb page with the condition that you don't oppose the eventual expansion of the article with sourced additions about the details of the several meanings I listed. I don't agree with you assessment of the need for a house of aragon, and I think that at this point it's not constructive to keed discussing. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, It seems we all agree to move this article to "House of Barcelona". What Enric Naval does with "House of Aragon" will belong to other talk page. So if nobody does it, tomorrow i will rename this article.(if i can because an article "House of Barcelona" already exists now, and i am not expert on Wikipedia. i hope not to find any problem.) --Sclua (talk) 12:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I request speedy deletion of house of barcelona redirect [36] as non-controversial housekeeping for performing a move using {{db-g6}}. Once it's deleted, you can just go to House of Aragon, hit the "move" button, and put "House of Barcelona" as the new name. The talk page gets moved automatically with the article page --Enric Naval (talk) 12:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I have been bold and gone ahead with this. Do you approve, or do you still think a fuller article is needed? Srnec (talk) 05:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Currect version is OK. I think a fuller article is needed, but I'm busy with an arbitration case and can't look for reliable sources for the material and add the stuff myself. Will do when I have time. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

2 years later

I found a Cambridge UP source, and I expanded House of Aragon from being only a disambiguation page. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:07, 19 May 2010 (UTC)