Talk:Juan Carlos I/Archive 1

Prefix Argument

--68.167.34.42 19:53, 3 August 2005 (UTC)As the first Juan Carlos, he cannot be called 'Juan Carlos I' as such numerals are only added to a monarch's name when there is a need to distinguish him from a Juan Carlos II. It is exceptionally rare for a monarch to be called 'the first' in their own lifetime. Queen Elizabeth I and Pope John Paul I are two of the very rare examples. Juan Carlos is not one and won't be called 'Juan Carlos I' until Spain has a Juan Carlos II. The name of this page and its contents have been changed to reflect this. JTD 06:39 Jan 2, 2003 (UTC)

Actually, I think Juan Carlos is Juan Carlos I, and is referred to as such in the Constitution, e.g. article 57.1 "the Crown is hereditary in the successors of H.M. Don Juan Carlos I [sic] of Bourbon, legitimate heir of the historic dynasty" -- Someone else 07:00 Jan 2, 2003 (UTC)

Juan Carlos is referred to as 'Juan Carlos I'. That is automatic, as such documents would have to be written on the presumption that there could potentially be a second Juan Carlos, a second Queen Victoria, a second Queen Anne, etc., hence the references to 'the first' in their title. But because there was only one Victoria, only one Anne, etc. nowhere except in the most formal primary documents are there any references to them as 'Victoria I', etc. The same rule applies with Juan Carlos. Hence on Wikipedia, which relies on the most common, unambiguous and accurate term or name, there is no reference to 'Victoria I', merely Queen Victoria, no reference to Anne I, just Queen Anne, no reference Haile Selassie I, merely Haile Selassie of Ethiopia. The rule is simple. Monarchs who are the first to use a name are referred to generally without adding 'the first', until a second monarch uses that name. So either all references to monarchs like Victoria, Anne, Haile Selassie, etc should be changed to include the numeral 'I' (which would contradict Wiki policy AND all other similar entries everywhere else), or Juan Carlos like such monarchs should be entered in without a numeral, with a numeral being added only if at some time in the future, a Juan Carlos II inherits the Spanish throne. JTD 00:23 Jan 3, 2003 (UTC)

I know that's the common rule, and it's certainly the British way of doing things, but it's not a universal one. It's Juan Carlos I in the Constitution, it's Juan Carlos I in the Almanac de Gotha, and he's officially styled as Juan Carlos I. He attended the opening of "The King Juan Carlos I of Spain Center" at New York University in 1997 and didn't complain that they got his name wrong. This is different from Britain: even in formal documents, e.g. Royal Proclamations dictating her style, Victoria was not Victoria I, and Anne in her Letters Patent was Anne, not Anne I. The Spanish do it differently, and they use "Juan Carlos I" where the British wouldn't. He's S. M. Don Juan Carlos I de Borbón y Borbón, Rey de España. Of course, he'll answer to Juan Carlos, if we call him that to force our false consistency upon him. But it's certainly reasonable to refer to him as Juan Carlos I, and it's wrong to imply that it's wrong. USER 79.78.251.16 (talk) 16:49, 15 December 2008 (UTC)It is not the British way of doing thinks, it is the universal manner of dealing with the first monarch to use a title. I have a large number of books on world monarchies. Not a single one used 'I' to indicate a monarch. It also is the agreed way in which Wikipedia refers to such monarchs. It needs to follow a standardised approach at it does, across all such monarchs, and it does: no 'I' unless there has been a second. (Where a 'I' is included by someone, it invariably is removed. ) JTD 04:44 Jan 3, 2003 (UTC)

As I've shown, it's not "universal". I have no problem with Wikipedia using it as a matter of style, Wikipedia adopts all kinds of arbitrary rules and naming conventions. I only object to the notion that "Juan Carlos I" is wrong, as though using it were a mark of illiteracy: it's not. -- Someone else 04:57 Jan 3, 2003 (UTC)

Sorry if you thought I was suggesting illiteracy; I wasn't. It is of course strictly correct. I know I am a bit of a stickler for correct titles myself. (I've been rather dogmatic on the issue of using the titles 'England', 'Great Britain' and 'United Kingdom' correctly rather than interchangably on Wikipedia, which some people were doing!!!) It is nice to find others of Wiki who are as concerned with accuracy. The issue is simply to get a balance that in applicable in all monarchical titles, and doesn't create problems, where, for example, some people mention 'Juan Carlos I', while others (the majority) use 'Juan Carlos'. And whichever version doesn't exist would then end up being created by people who don't know about the other page. (That regularly happens, with duplicates causing all sorts of problems.) As other monarchs who are the only ones to hold their name don't use the 'I' designation, it is logical to apply that rule universally. But that doesn't mean any disrespect for His Majesty; far from it, he is the embodiment of how to be an effective modern monarch and deserves every praise for being so. We both want to see the King get the entry on Wiki he deserves, and which treats him with the respect he deserves. We just disagree on the technicalities. JTD 20:13 Jan 3, 2003 (UTC)

We don't even disagree that much even on the technicalities. Colour me happy and smiling. (and I was with you on the UK thing too<G>) -- Someone else 20:48 Jan 3, 2003 (UTC)

The most common usage in Spain is Juan Carlos I -- Error

It may well be, but this wiki is not spanish. On english'; wiki there is a standardised international notation when referring to monarchs, the one used generally in the english language. Internationally, monarchs who do not have a successor who uses the same name are not referred to by an ordinal. So in international usage, Juan Carlos I is wrong, just as Victoria I, Louis Philippe I and Paul I are all wrong for the monarchs of the United Kingdom, France and Greece respectively. Whether the Spanish in spanish use it is irrelevant. It is not used in the english language and english wiki goes by the form of language used by english speakers. So Juan Carlos I is not an option in an english language wiki. A spanish wiki could if it wished use an ordinal and in Spanish call him Juan Carlos I, just as it could if to wished, talk about a Queen Victoria I or a King Louis Philippe I. But in the english language he is Juan Carlos, not Juan Carlos I, until a second King Juan Carlos arises in Spain. FearÉIREANN 02:58 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Can somebody explain why he is not called John Charles of Spain? -- Error

It is simple. Wiki doesn't translate things into english, it uses the form used in english. English speakers call him Juan Carlos not John Charles so that is why he is called Juan Carlos here. Ditto with Wilhelm II of Germany, who though often called William was regularly called Wilhelm in english also, so there is no need to translate his name. But nobody in English called Tsar Nicholas II Nikolai so he is in as Nicholas, as is his brother Michael II, not MIkhail, just as Juan Carlos' father-in-law is in as King Paul of Greece, not Pavlos. FearÉIREANN 05:53 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Can somebody explain why he is not called John Charles of Spain in English? -- Error 04:01 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Because in the modern media age it is possible to combine a native name with pictures or VT and so create an acceptable recognisable identity. In addition people can now get broadcasts and newspapers from many sources, so sticking with his given name gives him an international identity. A century ago most newspapers would not have had correspondents in Madrid. They would have relied on a wire service with generally if in english would translate the name into english. Each nation's newspapers would then translate the name into French, German, Russian, Italian. This phenomenon of keeping the native name is now widespread in the media; for example in Ireland, the Irish language news service, Án Nuacht in the 1970s translated the Irish prime minister's english language names into gaelic for the bulletins, calling Liam Cosgrave Liám MacCosgair and Jack Lynch Sean Ó Loinsigh. Today they don't do that any more. So whereas the line - 'the Taoiseach Liam Cosgrave said today' would be said as Dúirt an taoiseach, Liám MacCosgair inniú gur . . in 1973, in 2003, the newscaster would say Dúirt an taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, inniú gur . . with no attempt to translate his name from english into gaelic. FearÉIREANN 05:04 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

In English you only put I when there is a II, but in Spanish qe put I without II (for example: Felipe V's son, Luis I , there isn't Luis II)

---

Can somebody include a bit about how he shot his brother in an hunting accident? I am not sure about the facts and it is not a fact that gets publicized. -- Error

There was no hunting involved. Here's what I have on file, feel free to extract and add what you think is important. It will have to be reworded since I don't know who wrote it.

Alfonso of Spain died in 1956, at age 15, either accidently shot by his brother Juan Carlos who was playing with their father's revolver, or by the accidental discharge of a gun while Alfonso was cleaning it at his parents home in Estoril, Portugal.

The exact nature of his death is questionable. The Bourbons used a simlar ‘gun-cleaning accident’ story just a few years previously to explain the suicide of Princess Giovanna of Bourbon-Parma (1916 - 1949). Then there was Prince Gaetano of Bourbon-Sicilies (1846 - 1871), whom we are told accidentally shot himself to death during an epileptic seizure. There was no gunshot wound involved in the death of Gaetano's brother, Prince Luigi (1838 - 1886) so the truth of his suicide by hanging became public knowledge.

As sole witness to the shooting accident which claimed the life of Infante Don Alfonso, only the present King of Spain knows for certain precisely how his brother received the mortal wound.

-- Someone else 02:22 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

What is a military holiday? RickK 02:43 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

A bunch of people with suits of the same color get together outdoors. Most walk in the same direction while a few watch them. :)

Parades, medals, speeches,...

Officially it's "Pascua militar", but the straight translations "Military Easter" or "Miitary Passover" don't sound right.

-- Error

---

Correcting some layout errors:

• the article began with JC's personal name. Under wiki naming conventions it is supposed to start for monarchs with title.
• After a debate recently on the messy topic of how to include royal personal names, it was decided to include them directly after the royal reign name in bold italics and parentheses. I have done that here.
• In the bottom template, the heir apparent was named by personal name surname and title. It was long long ago decided never to use your personal surnames with title. Surname was removed. (Other royals are also renamed by that long abandoned format in this article and they are all going to have to be changed, eg, Juan Carlos' father's name, which should include title and not surname.)

Juan de Borbón, self-appointed Count of Barcelona. Actually Count of Barcelona is a sovereign title, belonging to the king, so he was claiming kinghood indirectly. His kinghood is a bit dubious. He was never crowned, and didn't formally abdicate his rights until the 1980s, but he is intombed at Escorial in the Royal Pantheon.

• Also in the template, it went into detail about before JC there was Franco, the IInd Republic and Alfonso XIII. The template is simply supposed to list the next previous head of state. That was Franco. Nothing else belongs in that box and everything else has been removed. (On Franco's page, the second president should be named, etc etc. Alfonso XIII was succeed by the 1st president, etc. One only name belongs in the preceded by template in each page, not an entire history lesson.) FearÉIREANN 03:23 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

There is a point to saying that Franco's regime was illegitime and the exile government of the Republic was the legitime one. I think that was the Soviet position (and the Mexican one?). --- Error

Monarchs don't need crowning. No Norwegian monarchs since Haakon VII have been crowned. Popes are no longer crowned. Belgian monarchs aren't crowned. Juan Carlos wasn't crowned. Was Alfonso XIII? I know the ancient Spanish Crown Jewels were destroyed centuries ago in a fire. I don't even know if they were ever fully replaced, but from what I know Spanish monarchs like their French neighbours pretty much didn't see the point in crowning and often just never bothered. As far as Spanish monarchists were concerned, the Count of Barcelona was the legitimist pretender.

That should be "as far as Spanish monarchists of the Alfonsine branch were concerned". The Carlist branch fought the Spanish war with Franco and became absorbed in the regime. (I'd like an article on Carlism). The Carlists had a bad opinion (or worse) on the Alfonsines. Though some subbranch of the Carlist s recognized Juan (or Juan Carlos?) as the legitime heir of their branch. -- Error 04:01 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

There is in reality no such thing as an illegitimate state. If the state becomes a reality and is recognised at home and abroad it is de facto legitimate. If it fails to establish that support it never becomes a real state to start off with. The majority of the world's states started off by breaking the old order in what was deemed at the time an illegal act. The US is a classic example. The fact was that whether one approves of the monarchy and democracy now, Juan Carlos is king and Spain a democracy. Whether you approve of not of Franco, he was the legitimate (ie legitimised by existence and acceptance) ruler of Spain. Whether one approves of the 2nd Republic, it existed and was accepted, and the King was gone. Similarly whether one approved or not of the monarchy that replaced the 1st Republic, it existed. So before Juan Carlos there was Franco and no-one else. Before him was Azara and no-one else, etc etc. FearÉIREANN 05:53 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

What if it's recognized just by some? Like Taliban Afghanistan and the Islamic State of AF. Or ROC and PRC. I'm guessing again but I think that the USSR and Mexico didn't recognize Franco's Spain. Just out of debugging. I don't think that adding a lot of predecessors would improve the article. -- Error

---

I disagree with some edits:

• The point about being exiled fascist Rome is important for somebody that was later a democrat.
  • Exiled monarchs settled in Italy sometimes because they were related to the Italian Royal Family (or one of the royal families, sometimes because Rome on account of the papacy was seen as a stable place unlikely to be overrun by revolution, and so that had an appeal. The Count of Barcelona was in any case married to an Italian princess (not a Savoyard one though). Many democrats lived in Italy during the fascist era. In any case the Count held views that were far removed fom fascism. It could be speculated I suppose that Juan Carlos's distaste for dictatorship was fostered by his experience in Italy. FearÉIREANN 05:53 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I don't remember if Juan's article justifies why he moved from Fascist Italy to Salazarist Portugal. I think Switzerland would be a better place. Could you point to some foreign democrats living voluntarily in Italy in 1938? I can't think of anyone, but I don't know much about the time and place. -- Error

• I doubt if he had a say in moving to Spain. He was quite young.
• My guess on the resignation data of Juan is wrong according to Juan's article.

--Error 04:36 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

It was in 1977 that Juan Carlos' father renounced his rights, not in the 1980's. I've corrected this.Erwin 12:37, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

"Fraudulent Acquistion" link

• Allegations of misappropiation of the art collection of the Duke of Hernani by the Spanish Royal Family.

Was this link appropriate? Although listed in wikipedia as Allegations of misappropiation the website itself begins with the bold, and possibly defamatory, statement that the Royal Family did commit fraud.

Later the website accuses the Royal Family, the Royal Household, various departments of the Spanish Government and judiciary and the entire Spanish media of involvement in the fraud or the coverup.

The site passes beyond legitimate comment on a claim and into the fantastical conspiracy theory --garryq 18:52, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The number's back

I had to change the opening sentence, because it read His Majesty the King of Spain is the reigning King of Spain. I introduced the ordinal as it is part of the style and title the King uses -- as required by wikipedia -- and emphasises the break between Juan Carlos Juan Carlos... --garryq 19:10, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Franco's posthumous apointment

The opening paragraph looks silly IMO. Franco died on 20 November but then appointed Juan Carlos King on 22 November. I know the context and that Franco had long intended to be suceeded by Juan Carlos, but doesn't it need to say something like "the operation of Franco's political last will resulted in Juan Carlos' being recogninzed as King of Spain on 22 November," or something like that. The current wording makes it seem like the late Franco could have instead just appointed him to the Cabinet, or something like that. Rlquall 13:40, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Infante

Juan Carlos' little brother Alfonso's death was not well-explained in that the article referred to him as an "infant". I think that this was confusion caused by the title "Infante", which certainly does not directly translate to the English word "infant", which is properly applied in English to children under two, not fifteen year olds. (This is a clear case of a false cognate.) I have removed the word "infant", if someone wants to restore the title Infante, with context and and explanation, it would certainly be welcome. Rlquall 13:50, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have just removed it again, we do not want to deliberately deceive!!! --SqueakBox 18:56, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Prefixed Style

There exists no consensus for the use of prefixed styles in Wikipedia. The use of "His Majesty" in the initial introduction has been opposed by a majority of those participating in a recent survey as improper POV. NPOV trumps consensus, I am therefore disputing the neutrality of this article. Whig 08:28, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree, and removed it, --SqueakBox 14:53, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Given the edit warring from those who aren't involving themselves in this discussion i have replaced the NPOV tag though at the moment the talk page consensus is to get rid of the His Majesty, --SqueakBox 17:33, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

I think a reasonable convention would be that the way he is styled is noted separately, see for example Harald V. I don't know enough Spanish to research this, but I would propose that we write something along the lines of "Juan Carlos, styled His Majesty, Juan Carlos," etc... I don't understand why this should be an NPOV dispute, unless there is someone who disputes his claim to the throne, in which case that should be noted. --Leifern 17:40, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Whig knows quite well enough that his recent survey, despite his unusual counting methods and despite his loading the questions, did not reach consensus for anything. He is trolling now. He seems quite happy to see any article where a style could be appended to have a NPOV tag. THis is very disruptive and helps no-one, least of all our readers. Please don't feed the trolls. Kind regards, jguk 18:02, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

It was me who replaced the tag, not whig. This argument seems to be going on all over the place, but I am interested in here. I think it should be much easier to place a tag than to remove it. The Spanish is simply Su Majestad. I prefer the new version. i think Whig has a valid point, we musn't fawn, --SqueakBox 22:00, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

military holiday and birthday

I read that the birthday of Juan Carlos I is a military holiday. I think that is unaccurate. First, birthday is Jan 5th, while the military holiday, known as Pascua Militar, Military Pasch, is held every Jan 6th at the royal palace. Second, and most important, that holiday is said to have been stablished by Carlos III in the 18th celebrating some kind of military event at the island of Menorca.

I also think that this fact is inaccurate. The military holiday is indeed the "Pascua Militar", which has nothing to do with Juan Carlos's birthday. I procede to correct that. --Wamdebach, Jan 31 2006, 1:56 UTC.

Why Spanish Now?

Why are past Spanish Monarchs names given in English (Example: Charles II ,Philip V ,Ferdinand VII)? Yet the current Spanish Monarch's name is given as Juan Carlos I (Spanish version) and not John Charles I?

Because whereas the British Queen is called Isobel in Spanish countries Juan Carlos is called Juan Carlos in the English speaking world whereas the former monarchs are known by their English names in the English spealking world, and it is the name someone or something is commonly known as in English that is used, SqueakBox 23:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, basically. English over the last century and a half has been incredibly inconsistent about its anglicizations of the names of foreign monarchs. john k 07:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for responding to my question, SqueakBox & John Kenney. I'm happy to see that others have noticed this linguistic inconsistancy. 23 October 2005.

Other examples of this trend would be Baudouin I, King of the Belgians. Baudouin I in the Anglo form would be Baldwin I and Carl XVI Gustav of Sweden (in Anglo: Charles XVI Gustaf). Mightberight/wrong 16:13, 27 October 2005

"Juan Carlos is called Juan Carlos in the English speaking world". Really? I've heard people refer to him as "John Charles of Spain" before. -Alex ,12.220.157.93 00:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC).

Then you are the only one. Juan Carlos is the only version I ever hear, except possibly the additional prefix of Juan Carlos I.
–Whaleyland 02:55, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

The Spanish Royal Household has always referred to the king with his Spanish name (on invitations, on the web site, and so on), and the media just picked it up. Except perhaps for someone in the household, I doubt that many people have consciously decided for one form over the other. It just always was the Spanish name. For more details, see the French version, which has a brief debate on the same issue (Jean-Charles).

Lovers????

I've deleated the "lovers" appendix. Those are rumors without any evidence. --81.60.3.27 01:27, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Antichrist

The supposedly strong(I do not believe that the 'rapture' is going to be during his lifetime; "alleged") possibility that he or his son is the Antichrist should be mentioned. --Anglius 05:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

This theory is utterly fringe. I see no reason to mention it in the article. (That said, I don't understand why Jtdirl would feel he has the right to remove your talk page comment on the subject). john k 03:18, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

. . . em did I? If I did it was an accident and I apologise. I'm not aware of having done so. But I was dealing with a vandal attacking some talk pages at the same time. I may have hit a revert thinking I was on the vandal page and not here. If so I apologise. But there are no grounds for including such a claim in the article. No evidence is offered. No proof is given, merely a lot of unsourced, unevidenced, and so worthless, POV. (If that is "particularly strong" Ang, I'd hate to see what you think is weak!!!) You seem to take that stuff seriously. I'm afraid I regard it as being on the Laurel and Hardy wing of theology. FearÉIREANN 04:53, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Kenney, I appreciate that you restored this 'section.' I thought that it would interesting for other Christians to read it, for I think that it is such a strong theory.

Firstly, don't pretend that "Christian" is equivalent to "premillennial dispensationalist." The latter are a tiny subset of Christians. One premillennial dispensationalist (as far as we can tell) has suggested that Juan Carlos might be the antichrist. The argument is from several years ago, amid a large list of possible antichrists. The idea of Juan Carlos as antichrist might be significant enough to mention in an article about currently living people who have been suggested as potentially being the Antichrist. It is certainly not significant in an article on Juan Carlos. john k 04:06, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

As I have mentioned, Mr. Kenney, I thought that the theory was particular strong, and it was merely at the bottom of the article. That is what I associate Christianity with, for it is in the Bible.

I am so confused. According to The AntiChrist and a Cup of Tea by Tim Cohen, Prince Charles is the Antichrist. Perhaps we could put the various candidates on an island and vote one off each week? - Nunh-huh 04:19, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I thought the anti-christ was Javier Solana? see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Javier Solana Antichrist allegations, SqueakBox 04:34, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I suppose now we'll need a bigger island. - Nunh-huh 04:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Don't forget the UN General Secretary! Oh and I read somewhere that Dan Rather is too. Or was that Dan Quayle? Even Scrub (sorry that is what we Europeans call Bush the Minor — who achieves the miracle of making his father look intelligent!) is supposed to be the anti-christ. And I read somewhere that Bill Clinton is. Guess we have rather a lot of anti-christs. Maybe we should call it a crush of anti-christs! Or create a special Wikipedia:Nominations for Anti-Christ page, NAC for short, so we can all go around and ask each other "have you got the nac yet?"

The Anti-Christ's Insane Reign in Spain

There was a king down in Spain

Who was thought to be reigning insane

holding devilish black masses

while wearing dark classes

We all laughed so much we ended in pain.
FearÉIREANN 05:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Can anybody translate his official title into Hebrew, that way you could get the number corresponding to it. The number should come out as 666 or 616, depending on Revelation 13:18 or Papyrus 115 respectively. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.188.32.23 (talk) 03:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Alfonso of Spain

I see that 2 years ago we added the material about the death of Alfonso of Spain on the basis of "Here's what I have on file, feel free to extract and add what you think is important. It will have to be reworded since I don't know who wrote it" from User:Someone else. Not much of a citation. Does someone have a decent citation for this, since our wording strongly suggests that Juan Carlos may have shot his brother? -- Jmabel | Talk 19:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes the eldest and second elest sons reannounced their claims to the throne and the third son was sitllborn.-Dannywalker 1 January 2006

I assume "reannounced" is "renounced", but I don't see how that is a citation, or even particularly relevant. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Why including something like this? Is there any proof that the King killed his brother? This type of garbage is not what I expected to see in Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlvaroMS (talk • contribs) 18:06, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Popularity

"Public media in Spain keep a tacit agreement to avoid any discussion or criticism against King Juan Carlos; for these reasons, the amount of real support for the monarchy among the Spanish public opinion remains unknown." Is there any citable basis to demonstrate such a "tacit agreement"? And what is "real support" supposed to mean? Only people who would kill and die for the monarchy? Certainly Juan Carlos is popular; certainly there are polls that demonstrate this possibility. The recent additions sound like the carping of someone who happens not to like that, rather than NPOV encyclopedic material. Of course there are a number of just plain anti-monarchists on the left, a number of people on the right who consider this monarch a traitor to Franco, and among the Basques, Catalans, etc. you can find people who would be opposed to any Spanish monarch, but it is hard to imagine how a reigning king could be more widely popular. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

---

King Juan Carlos gave his people democracy, how can any Spaniard not hold a man who gives them such a gift in high esteem. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.66.116.247 (talk • contribs) 24 August 2006.

I am responsible for the change you mention. Although the way I wrote it can certainly be improved, I don't agree that public support for King Juan Carlos is as big as the previous version suggested, so I thought it was fair to introduce another view of the topic. My text follows the lines of the Spanish wikipedia. I don't have precise data about how many Spaniards are unhappy with King Juan Carlos being in power and would prefer a Republican system instead. But according to the number of famous people that claim to be "republican", the number of political parties that dislike the monarchic system, and the number of "republican" assotiations in Spain, I would state that the amount of Spaniards who are not followers of Juan Carlos is quite large. By the way, Catalonians and Basques represent about 20% of the population of Spain, so I think we'd better not neglect them.

The "tacit agreement" of the public media is cited in the own public media many times. And if you follow the Spanish media, you will see how they avoid any criticism towards the King. There are probably written references about them, if you are to find them, but the "tacit agreement" thing is a public known fact in Spain. By "real support" I mean people who would choose to keep Juan Carlos as the King in a hypothetical referendum (which has never happened, by the way). When we talk about popularity of Juan Carlos, I think the relevant fact is the popularity of him being the head of Spain, not his popularity as an individual.

In summary, the motivation for the change is that I felt that the previous version was biased in supporting the King. For instance:

- "Despite his apparent public support of the Franco regime, Juan Carlos personally harboured ambitions to bring liberal reform to the country, much like his father." Well, who knows, right? Maybe his support for Franco's regime was real, and he was forced to change because he realized he wouldn't be able to keep power otherwise. The sentence is not written in a neutral way, I think.

- "In 1956, his younger brother, the Infante Alfonso died of a gunshot wound in Estoril, Portugal, with Juan Carlos as the only witness. The official explanation is that it was an accident which occurred while cleaning a gun. It is uncertain whether Alfonso or Juan Carlos pulled the trigger." While this account of the story is true, it is written in the most favorable way to Juan Carlos. All versions I have read about the incident assume that Juan Carlos himself pulled the trigger. Of course, the King's family will give the "we don't know who pulled the trigger" version. See the way it's written in the Spanish wikipedia.

- "The coup ended up being thwarted by the unprecedented public television broadcast by the King, calling for unambiguous support for the legitimate democratic government." Well, as far as I know, the coup wasn't "thwarted" by the King's broadcast, which happened quite late, when most of the army had already declined their support. I think the way this episode was originally written is extremely biased, so I tried to write it in a more neutral way (compare with the corresponding article in the Spanish Wikipedia).

- Finally, the paragraph about Santiago Carrillo is uncalled for, in my opinion. It seems to say: "See how popular the King is, that even the communists now adore him". Well, this idea is false. There is a big fraction of the Spanish population who would prefer him not to be King anymore, and that there was a Republic instead.

I thought there were two ways of make the article more neutral: 1) Re-write it or 2) Keep the current opinions there and include the alternative ones. In my modest change, I opted for the second.

---

About the "tacit agreement". Read the following excerpt from Juan Carlos's biography "Un rey golpe a golpe", by Patricia Sverlo, p.13:

"Sí que existe un acuerdo tácito, un "pacto entre caballeros" para no publicar nada que perjudique a la Corona, firmemente consolidado entre periodistas y escritores, bajo la atenta mirada de los editores, que deciden en última instancia lo que se publica y lo que no".

The approximate translation would be:

"It exists indeed a tacit agreement, a courtesy agreement not to publish anything detrimental to the Crown. The agreement is strongly consolidated among journalist and writers, under the control of the editors, who have the last word to decide what is published and what is not".

---

I see that, in spite of my arguments, my revision of January 17th was reverted. So I guess that user Jtdirl considers that none of my apportations are worth keeping. I won't spend more effort on this, but I want to express my opinion that the article, in the way it is written now, flagrantly violates the neutrality of the point of view. It is a clearly pro Juan Carlos article.

NPOV

Wamdebach, Jan 23 2006, 1:45 UTC. -- I think that the way in which several parts of this article are written violate NPOV. Following my comments in the section "Popularity", I would like to start a discussion about this. I cite the -in my opinion- controversial parts, although there may be more:

- "Despite his apparent public support of the Franco regime, Juan Carlos personally harboured ambitions to bring liberal reform to the country, much like his father." This is an opinion, noone knows what Juan Carlos thought. Maybe his support for Franco's regime was apparent and not real, and he was forced to change his position because he realized he wouldn't be able to keep in power otherwise.

- "In 1956, his younger brother, the Infante Alfonso died of a gunshot wound in Estoril, Portugal, with Juan Carlos as the only witness. The official explanation is that it was an accident which occurred while cleaning a gun. It is uncertain whether Alfonso or Juan Carlos pulled the trigger." While this account of the story is true, it is written in the most favorable way to Juan Carlos. All versions I have read about the incident assume that Juan Carlos himself pulled the trigger. Of course, the King's family will give the "we don't know who pulled the trigger" version. See the way it's written in the Spanish wikipedia.

- "His reforms had gained considerable animosity from the armed forces, which ultimately culminated in an attempted military coup..." "The coup ended up being thwarted by the unprecedented public television broadcast by the King, calling for unambiguous support for the legitimate democratic government." First, this is incoherent: According to this pararaph, the coup was caused by the animosity of the army towards the King's reforms, but then was a speech of the own King who stopped the coup against him... To my knowledge, the animosity was not against the King, but against the government's reforms and the popular democratic movement. And the coup was not "thwarted" by the King's broadcast, which happened quite late, when most of the army had already declined their support. This is a biased account of the episode, that doesn't present other broadly expressed opinions (see Spanish wikipedia). According to these alternative opinions, the coup was organized by Spanish institutions to neutralize a real coup by the army, stabilize the democracy, and increase Juan Carlos's popularity.

- The paragraph about Santiago Carrillo is uncalled for, and its inclusion is biased, in my opinion. It seems to say: "See how popular the King is, that even the communists now adore him". Well, this idea is false. There is a big fraction of the Spanish population who would prefer him not to be King anymore, and that there was a Republic instead. It is true that the King is more popular now than 25 years ago, but this paragraph should be rewritten.

- In Patricia Sverlo's bibliographic reference: "a highly critical biography, written from a Republican and Communist point of view". I think the mention to Communism is inappropriate here. I don't think it is relevant to describe the bibliographic reference, and it seems to call for possible anti-communist feelings of the readers to reject the criticism against the King.

Wamdebach, Jan 30 2006, 6:53 UTC. I have introduced modifications addressing the issues above. I think that my modifications make the text more objective and neutral.

Wamdebach, Jan 30 2006, 7:03 UTC. About the event involving his brother's death, all sources I have consulted say that Juan Carlos shot the gun. I have re-written the episode according to this.

Can you please cite your sources, instead of simply asserting that you have them?

In general, I'm unimpressed by what may be in the Spanish Wikipedia, even on a specifically Spanish topic. In my experience -- which led to my largely dropping out of the Spanish Wikipedia -- their standards of citation and NPOV are very low. I've had contributors there be actually offended to be asked for their sources.

As far as the claims of Juan Carlos's lack of popularity, in particular, do you have anything citable? Just the fact that someone calls themselves "Republican" is not enough: I know people in Spain who call themselves "Republican", but admire Juan Carlos; they tend to say "Once this king dies, we want a republic. Conversely, I know at least one Catalan who likes monarchy, but not "this Bourbon king".

At the end of the Sverlo book is a large image with the name of the Juventud Comunista de Asturias and a link to their website. The book could hardly be more explicitly communist. - Jmabel | Talk 04:54, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

My source for Juan Carlos's brother death is "Juan Carlos, Steering Spain from Dictatorship to Democracy" by Paul Preston. I would also cite Sverlo's book, but I don't know if you would accept it as a valid reference.

Well, what you say about the Spanish Wikipedia is your personal opinion. According to my understanding of the Wikipedia project, the idea is to reflect people's knowledge about a certain topic, not necessarily in a scholarly way, but introducing whatever is publicly believed to be true. So I think that the Spanish Wikipedia is probably a good font to find out about what is the common knowledge of people in Spain.

I agree Juan Carlos is popular; according to a recent survey by El Mundo (one of the main Spanish newspapers), 80% considered that he has been a good or very good king. But there is still a 20% that we should not neglect. In the previous version, it was stated that the support for the king was unanimous, and this is not true.

I hadn't payed attention to that image before. Yes, it seems she is communist. Now, I don't see what the point is in saying that in the citation, where it is already stated that the book is a "highly critical biography". Given that, in the US and other parts of the world, communism is regarded as evil, saying that the book is communist seems to me a subtle way of saying that it is crap. Why not let the reader figure out himself?

I see you deleted my "alternative" version of the 1981 coup, which is cited in Sverlo's book and the Spanish Wikipedia, and circulates in the Internet and among the public opinion in Spain. It may appear in other bibliographic references as well. At least, I think a sentence should be included referring to the doubts about the King's participation in the coup (see, e.g., http://wais.stanford.edu/Spain/spain_kingjuancarlos71903.html ) -- Wamdebach, Feb 6 2006, 18.40 UTC

I have changed back to the version I wrote the account of Alfonso's death. I was trying to fix the 2-euro-coin image, which hides one line of text, but I don't know how to do it. I need help in that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wamdebach (talk • contribs) 6 Feb 2006.

It looks like a lot of what you've come forward with is citable and solid. Good. Get it back in there, but with citations in the article. Certainly a poll showing 20% opposition to the king would be citable, and certainly El Mundo is considered a reliable source, so track down the specific citation and cite it.

I certainly don't think "Communist" means "crap": plenty of them in my family, and I've had no hesitancy to cite, for example, Jean Shaoul of the IFCI on the Sabra and Shatila massacre, but I think it is important (as I did there) that when citing a source that is published by or closely tied to a partisan organization, that the partisanship be clear. I'd have done the same if the author showed overt association to the PSOE, PP, etc. As it says in Wikipedia:External_links#Maybe_OK_to_add: "On articles with multiple Points of View, a link to sites dedicated to each, with a detailed explanation of each link. The number of links dedicated to one POV should not overwhelm the number dedicated to any other. One should attempt to add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view."

On his brother's death, please, add an appropriate footnote to Paul Preston, and certainly also to Sverlo, who is citable as long as the nature of her work is made clear; if cited, the work should be moved from the "External links" section to the "References" section. And, you seem to have citation for the "alternative" version of the coup. Great! Cite it in the article!

"…the idea is to reflect people's knowledge about a certain topic, not necessarily in a scholarly way, but introducing whatever is publicly believed to be true…" I think this is a serious misunderstanding of the goals of Wikipedia. Yes, the work is intended to be scholarly. The intent of Wikipedia:No original research is to say that material must not be, in a deep sense, original, previously unpublished scholarship, but Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources are equally clear that it should be based on somebody's scholarship. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I think we have reached a point of agreement here. I will re-introduce the modifications with the corresponding citations and, according to your opinion, the note about Sverlo's book being written from a communist perspective. -- Wamdebach, Feb 11 2006, 18.50 UTC

This article is highly un-encyclopedic. Even if sourced, some comments such as the "polls from 2000 show that he is widely approved of by Spaniards" and "in 2008 he was considered the most popular leader in all Ibero-America", are judgements that should not be in an article. Thanks. --Karljoos (talk) 20:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

ø

---

At the moment, the article refers to Sverlo as "the King's biographer Patricia Sverlo". This is either tonedeaf or deliberately misleading. When one refers to someone as someone's "biographer", it suggests an authorized biographer. Sverlo, as discussed above, is author of an utterly hostile biography. I am editing accordingly to "author of a biography of Juan Carlos" which, if anything, is still overgenerous in not overtly indicating hostility. - Jmabel | Talk 05:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Royal Titles

In the section "Ancestry and Titles" there are titles such as "Duke of Athens" and "King of Corsica", but are they correct? The Duchy of Athens had its last Duke in the 15th century (according to the relevant article) and Corsica is a part of France. I am in no way an expert on these things, but it just struck me as odd and there was no validation in the related articles. --Kimonandreou 17:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

These would both have been inherited from the Aragonese line. I suspect that they have been passed down as hereditary titles and never renounced; does anyone know with certainty? - Jmabel | Talk 16:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

You would be right. The practice was far more common than it lets on to be. Monarchs would frequently keep titles of territories that passed out of the family long ago, whether by annexation, female succession, distribution amongst familial branches, etc. The Grand Dukes of Luxembourg use such titles as Duke of Nassau and Count Palatine of the Rhine, although those titles really "can't" pass through female lines. Most now represent territories contained within greater titles (i.e, Spain) or are just literally additional names representing historic lineage. Charles 18:48, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

This anonymous, uncited change from "King of Algeciras" to "King of Gibraltar" strikes me as unlikely. I am reverting based on lack of citation. If this is real, please provide citation. - Jmabel | Talk 05:37, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

According to [1], there are his titles (Gibraltar bolded):

S. M. Don Juan Carlos I De Borbón y Borbón, Rey de España, Rey de Castilla, de León, de Aragón, de las Dos Sicilias, de Jerusalén, de Navarra, de Granada, de Toledo, de Valencia, de Galicia, de Cerdeña, de Córdoba, de Córcega, de Murcia, de Jaén, de los Algarves, de Algerciras, de Gibraltar, de las Islas Canarias, de las Indias Orientales y Occidentales, de las Islas y Tierra Firme del Mar Océano; Archiduque de Austria; Duque de Borgoña, de Brabante, de Milán, de Atenas y Neopatria; Conde de Habsburgo, de Flandes, del Tirol, del Rosellón, y de Barcelona; Señor de Vizcaya y de Molina; Capitán General de las Reales Fuerzas Armadas y su Comandante Supremo; Soberano Gran maestre de la Insigne Orden del Toisón de Oro, y de cuantas Ordenes discierne el Estado Español...

-- ChrisO 18:58, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

And let's not mistake Gibraltar with Campo de Gibraltar. The Kingdom of Gibraltar states: "Gibraltar and its lands". --Maurice27 20:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Honours

Juan Carlos is no longer knight of the Golden fleece, since he was proclaimed king he is Sovereign of the order and Grand Master of all other spanish orders

Coronation ?

Juan Carlos didn't have a coronation, he wasn't crowned King. GoodDay 20:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It is proclaimed King of Spain by the Spanish Cortes as Juan Carlos I of Spain on November 22, 1975 and exalted to the throne on November 27 with an anointing ceremony called "Mass of the Holy Spirit" (the equivalent of a coronation) held at the historic Church of St. Jerome Real, in Madrid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.217.161.16 (talk) 23:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Curious

I don't see the answers to these in the article, and I'd like to know. Are citizens of Spain called "subjects" or "citizens"? And are they required to take some sort of oath of allegiance or service to the King? Kasreyn 16:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

They are certainly citizens. Whether they are also called "subjects" or some equivalent term, I'm not sure, nor am I sure what oaths may be used in Spain. I don't believe any oaths are routine among the general populace, but I imagine that there is something for officeholders, military, and police. I don't know which of these involve an oath to the king; I'd be surprised if, for example, Catalan police take an oath to the king. - Jmabel | Talk 22:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Elected officials, naturalized foreigners, the military and probably somebody else (JC included) swear or promise something about the Spanish Constitution of 1978. --Error 22:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

English and Spanish

Strange question: Why do we have Juan Carlos instead of John Charles on the one hand (along with Alfonso and Amadeo), while on the other hand we have Philip, Louis and Ferdinand (instead of Felipe, Luis, etc.)? 70.107.101.15 14:51, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It is a twentieth century English convention, apparently. I am not too sure why though. I would not be offended at all if I were called Karl in Germany, Carlos in Spain or Karel in the Czech Republic. Elizabeth II is Isabel II in Spanish, Elisabetta II in Italian and Élisabeth II in French. So yes, it seems to just be an English convention (one I find silly). Charles 15:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Yup. We have Juan Carlos because no one calls him John Charles, except perhaps in jest. - Jmabel | Talk 20:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

UK-centric remark?

"Therefore, he is related to all the current monarchs of Europe. He is a third cousin to Queen Elizabeth II of United Kingdom." And the reason we are supposed to care particularly about that rather distant relationship is… - Jmabel | Talk 03:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Remove it, or add various other monarchs. Charles 04:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. His spouse Sophie's relation to Elizabeth's spouse Philip is notable, this relationship clearly isnt, SqueakBox 04:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

• are you sure, for English readers in the UK, it probably is relevant.

I dont agree and I am British. The Sophie Philip connection is much closer and thus is the close family connection between the two families. I have heard of second cousins and may even have some but third cousin is a bit of an obscure term to describe an obscure connection that I dont believe would be of interest ot UK readers, I suspect there is nothing about it on the Queen Elizabeth page, SqueakBox 17:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd say less UK-centric than genealogical - many of the royal families of Europe are related precisely because they're all descendents of Queen Victoria and her umpteen children and grandchildren who were then married off around the continent - eg the fact that the Russian Tsar, German Kaiser and British King in WW1 were all cousins. Queen Victoria is simply the common nexus that connects all these families genealogically and it is a relevant fact,and given that the majority of (anglophone) people reading this page in English will probably be more familiar with the British royal family than eg the House of Borbon of the Two Sicilies it will be of at least passing interest to a large number of readers who will then have a clearer idea of how the various European royal families are interconnected. Given also that Queen Victoria was extremely famous both then and now, it seems somewhat strange to say that this is an example of "UK-centrism" rather than just relating two well known people together. 5 words or so in a lengthy article can hardly be considered "UK-centric" surely? The editors of this page in Castellano and German also consider it relevant to their respective audiences I note. Reynardthefox 03:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Typo, but what does it mean to say?

"In winter, they use to go skiing in Baqueira-Beret and Candanchú (Pyrenees)." Perhaps "used to" (as in they did something in the past but no longer do)? Or perhaps something else. Since I know little about the holiday preferences of Spanish royalty, I leave it to someone else to fix this. - Jmabel | Talk 01:34, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Surnames

According to the Spanish Royal Household, King Juan Carlos' mother was princess of Bourbon-Orleáns not of Bourbon-Two Sicilies. So, the king's Surname is Bourbon and Bourbon-Orleáns. {{subst:66.66.74.252|4 November 2006}}

Actually, according to the CasaReal website Maria de las Mercedes (the king's mother) is of Bourbon Y Orléans which means that her father was a Bourbon and her mother was a French princess of the House of Orléans*** . Maria Mercedes's father was a Bourbon of the Two Sicilies Branch specifically thus Maria de las Mercedes full surname as it was known is Spain is de Bourbon-Two Sicilies y Orléans. Orleans is a maternal name of the his mother and should thus be dropped from the name of Juan Carlos.

• • • The Orléans is mostly a cadet branch of the Bourbon house but since the Orleans have produced 2 French Kings they could be considered a House of their own.*** and French law does not permit the Orleans to call themselves Bourbon though they are very much related.

I was always under the impression that the Orleans called themselves Bourbon, as indeed they are. I don't see what French law coud do about that. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

IPA mismatch

The pronunciation does not match the name - specifically "Borbón-Orleans". I don't dare take a chance in guessing, as it seems someone has gone for a full phonetic rather than phonemic transcription. Chris talk back 05:21, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it was left over from "Borbón y Borbón Dos Sicilias". - Jmabel | Talk 01:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Juan Carlos DIRECT descendant from El Cid

I'm not sure where this information can be used, but the sources are all from Wikipedia, if anyone finds it of use/interest for Juan Carlos or some other article go ahead and use it, I decided to post it here (of course, there was a little incest in that royal family line, so I'm not sure if this is the MOST direct...) :

Rodrigo Díaz de Vivar, El Campeador, El Rey de Valencia, El Cid

María Díaz - Ramón Berenguer III, Count of Barcelona

Ramón Berenguar IV, Count de Barcelona - Petronila de Aragon

Alfonso II de Aragon, el bardo (en serio!) - Sancha de Castilla

Peter II de Aragon - Marie de Montpellier

James I de Aragon - Yolande de Hungary

Peter III de Aragon - Constance of Sicily

James II - Blanca de Anjou

Alfonso de Aragon - Teresa de Entenca

Peter IV - Elionor de Sicily

Eleanor - Juan I de Castile

Ferdinand el católico I de Aragon, II de Castilla - Isabella I de Castilla y León

Maria - Manuel I, rey de Portugal

Isabella, princesa de Portugal - Charles I de Hapsburgo

Philip II de Hapsburgo - Anna de Austria

Philip III de Hapsburgo - Margaret de Austria

Philip IV de Hapsburgo - Isabelle de Bourbon, princesa de Francia

Maria Theresa - Louis XIV, rey de Francia

Louis de Bourbon, el Dauphin de Francia

Philip V de Bourbon - Isabelle Farnese de Parma

Philip I de Parma - Isabelle

Marie Louise - Charles IV de Bourbon

Marie Isabella - Francis I, rey de los dos Silicias

Louise Charlotte de Bourbon-Sicilias - Francis de Paula

Francis Assisi de Bourbon - Isabella II de Bourbon

Alfonso XII de Bourbon - Marie Christine de Austria

Alfonso XIII de Bourbon - Victoria de Battenberg

John de Bourbon de Barcelona - Maria de las Mercedes de Bourbon-Sicilias

Juan Carlos I de Bourbon, Rey de España, rey de Castilla, rey de León, rey de Aragón, rey de los dos Sicilias, rey de Jerusalem, rey de Navarre, rey de Granada, rey de Toledo, rey de Valencia, rey de Galicia, rey de Sardinia, rey de Cordoba, rey de Corsica, rey de Murcia, rey de Jaen, rey de Algeciras, rey de Gibraltar, rey de los islas Canarias, rey del Español este y Indias Oeste y de los islas y tiera del Mar Océano, Archduke de Austria, Duke de Burgundio, Duke de Brabant, Duke de Milan, Duke de Athens y Neopatria, Count de Hapsburgo, Count de Flanders, Count del Tirol, Count del Roussillon, Count de Barcelona, Cid de Vizcaya, Cid de Molina, Capitán General de las fuerzas armidas royales y su Commandante Suprimo, etc.

Fephisto 04:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

What is this order ?

anyone know what this is [2] . According to the website it is an "anti-terrorism order". Dowew 07:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Seems a fake medal. Never had listened about that order exists.

No, it is not a fake medal. Donew as found a picture of the Spanish "Gran Cruz de la Real Orden de Reconocimiento Civil a las Víctimas del Terrorismo" (english: Great Cross of the Royal Order for Civil Recognition to the Victims of Terrorism).

It has the purpose of honoring the deceased, wounded and kidnapped in terrorist acts. According with the established in article 4 of Law 32/1999. October 8th 1999. "For Solidarity to the Victims of the Terrorism".

The Standards of this degree will consist in a plate with 85 millimeters of total diameter made of golden metal, formed by four along cleaved arms, equal and symmetrical whose central part (or flame) goes enameled in red. Alternating with these arms it will have four burnished bursts of five facets. In the center of the Cross in circular shape, the Shield of Spain in its colors. In the center of the superior arm of the Cross it will have, the royal crown.

This Royal Order grants two different distinctions, the "Gran cruz" (Great Cross) and the "Encomienda" (Encomendation):

The Great Cross: Granted, posthumously, to the deceased in terrorist acts. It is granted by Royal Decree approved by the Government Cabinet. Grants the treatment of "Excellence" (Excelencia).

The "Encomienda" (could be translated in english as encomendation):Granted to the wounded and kidnapped in terrorist acts. It is granted by Ministerial order of the Minister of the Presidency. Grants the treatment "Illustrious Sir or Dame" (Ilustrísimo(a) Señor(a)). A smaller (around 60 millimeters) Cross, same shape, is given.

Regards, Maurice27 05:26, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Why Bush?

There are a lot of photografies (according to Wikipedia policy). Don't understand why u use a Juan Carlos I photograph with that Bush. In other similar articles the photos focus is only the article focus.

Probably was the only public domain picture available. Because the U.S. gov't puts virtually everything it creates in the public domain, often an official photo of a U.S. president with a given head of state is the only public domain picture of that head of state that we can lay hands on. - Jmabel | Talk 22:42, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

King with a Clout?

"Although King Juan Carlos voluntarily relinquished his absolute rule through the promulgation of the Spanish Constitution, among contemporary monarchs in Europe he is said to have more power in the field of governance. Indeed, he still maintains quite a bit of power in contemporary Spanish politics, although more by means of personal influence than because of de jure powers."

This article, as it stands, is more opinion than fact. No references are cited for this assessment. The use of "he is said" appears somewhat like weasel wording. Can anyone cite any references for this assessment? While I don't doubt that it contains some truth, it should probably be removed if it can't be substantiated.--Iacobus 04:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The coup on 23-F

IMO, the statement on the 23F is POV-written. It is my understanding that (1) the participants of the coup expected that the king would give them support and (2) the King only made the public TV broadcast when the coup had already failed, hours had passed and it was clear that the needed support had not been mustered. If I'm not wrong, I think the text should reflect on that.--RR' 23:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Banned user warning

Unfortunately it seems that this article is repeatedly being attacked by the banned User:Gibraltarian. He has been permanently banned from Wikipedia following a sustained campaign of abuse, edit-warring, sockpuppeting and vandalism - see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Gibraltarian. However, in the 18 months since his banning he's continued his obsessive campaign across a range of Wikipedia articles, editing anonymously from 212.120.*.* IP addresses. If you see him editing this article or this talk page, please revert him; don't engage him in discussion (it won't get you anywhere - he's a fanatical nationalist and probably not entirely sane). Reverting him is not subject to the 3 revert rule so you can do so as often as necessary. If he persists, please report it to the administrators' noticeboard. -- ChrisO 07:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I moved almost all the section of the titles to a main article called Spanish monarchy full Titulary. This way, apart from being able to present all the titles in a better way, Gibraltarian will not continue vandalizing Juan Carlos I of Spain's article and other users will be able to edit freely. Admins are requested to protect Spanish monarchy full Titulary from non registered users if he continues to vandalize it. Cheers, --Maurice27 18:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Just a note, I have moved Spanish monarchy full Titulary to List of titles and honours of the Spanish Crown. Charles 19:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Good work, both of you. It looks much clearer now than it did when included in this article. I'll semi-protect the new article to keep our resident crank at bay. -- ChrisO 19:58, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Why isn't the vandaliser's IP address banned? to further stop his/her political vendetta. GoodDay 18:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately he is editing not from one single IP address, but from dynamically assigned IP addresses - so he's rarely coming from the same address twice. We can't block his range, much as I'd like to, because that would block his entire ISP. That would block many of our other (saner!) Gibraltarian editors and cause an unacceptable level of collateral damage. Fortunately his vandalism isn't of such a frequency that it would require a drastic measure like that. As for it being a political vendetta, it's more likely simply the case that he's a crank - I'm no psychiatrist, though, so I couldn't say what motivates him. -- ChrisO 18:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Let me get this straight, Elizabeth II is the Head of State of Gibraltar? but Spain claims Juan Carlos I is the Head of State of Gibraltar? GoodDay 20:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It's not all that unusual for titles not to comport with reality. Many medieval monarchs simultaneously carried the title "King of Jerusalem", and the Kings of England and its successor states carried the title of "King of France" from 1340 to 1800, though they had lost all continental property by 1558, and France had become a republic in 1792. And of course, George VI was "King of Great Britain, Ireland and the British Dominions beyond the seas" two years after Ireland had become a republic. - Nunh-huh 20:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, for the clarification. GoodDay 21:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Killing of Infante Alfonso

I'm reverting the report of this incident to the old version, supported by references (Preston). The current version, which omits the fact that Juan Carlos killed Alfonso, is the result of a change made on June 14, 2007 by an unregistered user who did not provide any reason for the change. Wamdebach 17:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm reverting again the report of this incident. It was again deleted in November 2007 without providing reasons for the change. Please, if you disagree with the inclusion of this information in the article, explain your reasons in this discussion page. Wamdebach 00:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I've read this same book of Preston (my favourite writer), but I think the paragraph in this article should be written in a different way, clarifying that this is a "legend" / rumours but not a fact. Shall we therefore add a conditional term in the verbs? Escorial82 (talk) 10:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you referring to p. 101 in Preston's book? Preston writes that, at the time of the incident, "there were rumours that the gun had been in Juan Carlos's hands at the time of the fatal shot. Within three weeks, these rumours were being stated as undisputed fact in the Italian press. They were not denied by Don Juan [the King's father] at the time time nor have they ever been denied by Don Juan Carlos since. Shortly after the accident, Gonzalo Fernández de la Mora, a monarchist and member of Opus Dei on Don Juan's Privy Council who later served Franco as Minister of Public Works, met Pedro Sainz Rodríguez and commented later: 'His short and portly figure was woebegone because a pistol had gone off in Prince Juan Carlos's hand and killed his brother Alfonso.' It is now widely accepted that Juan Carlos's finger was on the trigger when the fatal shot was fired." (P. Preston, Juan Carlos: A People's King, 2004, p. 101) According to this and the rest of the passage in the book, I clearly interpret that Preston is stating as a widely accepted fact that Juan Carlos triggered the gun. However, a sentence could be added stating that Juan Carlos himself has never confirmed nor denied this version of the incident. Wamdebach (talk) 02:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Any reference to this alleged killing should be deleted as there is no evidence of it, just pure speculation. If we allow things like this here, we should maybe make a reference to Prince Phillip's alleged involvement in Princess Diana's death.--AlvaroMS (talk) 18:19, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't decide what is true. It summarizes what has been published. It would not be appropriate to say that Juan Carlos shot Alfonso - but it's perfectly alright to record that certain people have said that he did that. I have edited the paragraph to record the different versions of events. Noel S McFerran (talk) 22:14, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Hugo Chávez

Didn't the King recently have a verbal altercation with the President of Venezuela? I think that the King told Chávez to "Shut up" after Chávez called a Spanish politician a fascist or something to that effect. Charles 23:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is a link to a video showing the exchange. Charles 23:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is a BBC article in Spanish with the clip"¿Por qué no te callas?". Thanks, SqueakBox 03:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't remember any applause after. Any video proof? d.m.an 01:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Does this incident really need a full section as it currently is? This seems to be a case of recentism. It may belong in the article, but not highlighted as it is. --Anietor (talk) 18:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Falangist partisan Anietor needs to stop abusing the editing process to do damage control on the egregious misbehavior of his hero Juan Carlos. Accurate, sourced, relevant information on the King's alcoholic rantings should not be suppressed just because you find them inconvenient. Authoritative information source (talk) 07:17, 28 November 2007 (UTC) Ya que han decidido dedicar un epígrafe al rifirrafe con Hugo, sería interesante que se explicara aquí que, antes del suceso, la popularidad del Rey estaba descendiendo en España y, gracias a su actuación, se invirtió esta tendencia. En España todo el mundo aplaudió su actuación y su imagen salió muy reforzada después del "¿por qué no te callas?". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.221.93.163 (talk) 04:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Charles V?

Hola, quizá se os ha deslizado un error en lo de que el rey Juan Carlos desciende también de "Carlos V emperador del Sacro Imperio Romano". Creo que tras la crisis y guerra de Sucesión, la rama española de los Habsburgos se extingue con Carlos II y no tiene nada que ver con Juan Carlos, desde que el Borbón Felipe V pasó a ser rey de España en 1700. Ved si es así o no. Sinceras felicitaciones por Wikipedia y su oferta de posibilidades interactivas como ésta. Juan Fernández Elorriaga

89.216.119.78 03:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Or: Hello, perhaps has slid himself you an error in him that the king Juan Carlos descends also of "Carlos V emperor of the Sacred Roman Empire". I believe that after the crisis and war of Succession, the Spanish branch of the Hapsburgs he is extinguished with Carlos II and he has nothing to do with Juan Carlos, since the Bourbon Felipe V passed to be a king of Spain in 1700. You see if is thus or not. Sincere congratulations by Wikipedia and its offering of interactive possibilities as this. Use English please Juan! :-) --Soetermans 09:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Or a slightly more English friendly translation would be:

You have slipped into an error concerning King Juan having desceneded from Charles V, the Holy Roman Emperor. After the crisis and the war of succession, the S[panish branch of the Hapsburgs died with Charles II and has had nothing to do with Juan Carlos since the Boubon Philip V became king in 1700.

etc etc. Clearly the person cannot speak English. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

See here. Philip V of Spain descended from Philip III of Spain (grandson of Charles V) through both his paternal grandparents. 190.136.233.199 04:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The Bourbon do not descend from Charles V on the male line but on the female line. When historians say that the Spanish Habsbugs died out they refer to the male line. In fact, Phillip V was the closest and most senior relative of the last Spanish Habsburg and, therefore, his legitamate successor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlvaroMS (talk • contribs) 18:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Spain project importance

Juan Carlos I is the current Spanish Head of State. As such I definitely think it should be desribed as a top importance article. Any objections? Escorial82 (talk) 08:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Juan Carlos doesn't claim the title Emperor of the Romans

No author describes him as thus either. Wikipedia can't make outrageous claims like this. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 06:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I got to be honest folks, I've never heard of Juan Carlos or any of the previous Spanish Kings claiming the title of Byzantine Emeperor. This is a newbie for me. GoodDay (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The term is certainly used in quite a disparaging way here in Central America, ie if someone is considered uppity or arrogant they would be called the Emperor of Rome so it is disparaging in this case too I don't doubt. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Look, I WOULD LOVE IT TO BE TRUE! But the simple fact is, this is "news" to everybody. Juan Carlos has no more or less right to Imperium than any descendent of Ferdinand and Isabel, if they had the rights to it. There was never an act of succession for this title, like how parents divide their different assests to different children (compare Henry the Young King in Normandy, Richard in Aquitaine, Geoffrey in Brittany and John in Ireland), or perhaps just the eldest son (Prince of Wales). Nowhere is this title mentioned in their royal writs or wills. Wanna bet me on it? I'll bet all I have, how about that! 24.255.11.149 (talk) 06:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Please calm down, you're bordering on hysterics. I too find the 'Byzantine Emperor' claim questionable, but at the momment nothing can be done about it. It's certainly not enough to get oneself blocked over. GoodDay (talk) 17:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You accused me of being the aggressor, when it is other people making Wikipedia difficult by adding and re-adding dubious information. I'm only doing my duty, by watching out for this type of stuff. Cite your sources, enough said! 24.255.11.149 (talk) 18:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

That's no excuse for breacking 3RR. GoodDay (talk) 18:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Well then, I guess I'll go down with the ship, but it's been sinking for a while without reply to my SOS. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 19:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Duke of Milan & other dubious titles

I fail to see how Juan Carlos is the titular Duke of Milan. That title has belonged to the House of Habsburg since the Treaty of Utrecht (1713). I'm removing it from the titles and succession box. -- Jack1755 (talk) 14:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I have just established that several other titles are enjoyed in an official capacity by other living people. How can he be titular King of Gibraltar if it was ceded to Great Britain by treaty? He is not Duke of Brabant, Prince Philippe, Duke of Brabant is. The titles and succesion box needs an overview. -- Jack1755 (talk) 14:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

His Majesty uses and claims those titles. It's a fact. Even the Constitution of Spain allows the monarch to use titles pertaining to the Crown of Spain. See List of titles and honours of the Spanish Crown. Surtsicna (talk) 16:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure he claims them; whether he has any basis to do so is entirely different. Wikipedia is not an agent of Spain. The fact of the mattter is that Spain has not enjoyed possession of those territories for centuries. The titles have been legally resigned to other states and Houses by universally recognised treaties. Ergo, It is rather imprudish to attribute those titles to the monarch of Spain. Juan Carlos can claim to be Duke of Brabant all he wants, but he isn't. The Crown Prince of Belgium is. Would Juan Carlos dare declare his pretendership in the middle of Bruges? I think not. In addition to this, the article you linked me to clearly states that "Contrary to some belief, the long titulary that contains the list of over 20 kingdoms, etc., is not in state use, nor is it used in Spanish diplomacy. In fact, it has never been in use in that form, as "Spain" was never a part of the list in pre-1837 era when the long list was officially used." If these titles in question are not used in an official capacity, they have no place in an encyclopaedia. I rest my case. -- Jack1755 (talk) 16:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course he is only a pretender - that's why those titles are called titles of pretence, for God's sake! We are not here to argue whether he has any basis to do whatever he is doing; we are here to inform the readers that those are the titles of the Spanish crown. You cite only parts of the article which support your case; however, the mere existance of the article means that mentioning the King of Spain's titles of pretence has place in an encyclopaedia. Surtsicna (talk) 17:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Does Juan Carlos actively pretend to these titles? No, he does not. Nor did I ever say he was anything but a pretender for that matter. It is you who said in an earlier post that "His Majesty uses and claims those titles". Just because I chose to cite you, does that mean I have to abide by everything you publish? Do Lutherans fervently follow all of their founders doctrines, such as the anti-Semetic On the Jews and Their Lies? No, they do not. I do not have to believe in everything in that article just because I cited it. And the for "God's sake" outburst was completely gratuitous. By cicting that article, of course I acknowledge that it exists, and, as already stated, Spain does not actively use that list of titles, remember? -- Jack1755 (talk) 18:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Jack1755 Sorry, but you're confusing the actual title with the historical, belonging to the Crown and are only recognized within this institution. Of course, many just a pretender, but that happens with many kings and nobles without so their rights revoked. Are titles that have historically belonged to the Crown, and therefore are recognized within it, nothing more, have greater legal validity. I make an example: Queen Elizabeth II is on today's Empress of India and Duchess of Normandy. Should these titles removed their Entitlement? Thank you and sorry for my poor English.

Actually the Emperor/Empress of India title was abandoned in 1947, but it's certainly true that British monarchs claimed the French throne until 1815, which is a pretty good comparable example. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll copy here the explanation I gave in Kingdom of Gibraltar:

Jack1755, you tend to misunderstand the difference between Monarchy of Spain and the Royal Household of Spain (which does not form part of the Spanish Government, and remains exclusively under the rulement of the monarch). You also misunderstand how Nobility titles work. These titles pertain (as Titles in Pretence) to the household of the spanish branch of the Bourbon family (as every other title in the world pertain to a family). Those titles are inherited by the Head of the Household (in this case Juan Carlos de Borbón y Borbón).

This said, nobody has the right to restore or to remove them those titles (i.e A civil uprising like the Second Spanish Republic). When the Spanish Republic was instored in 1931, Alfonso XIII got withdrawed as Head of State of Spain, but never as King of Spain, as Alfonso was the only one who could get his hereditary title revoked. After he got removed from the Kingship, Alfonso, automatically became claimant or Pretender to the Kingdom of Spain, as he still was the first person in the list of claimants if the Kingdom was restored. In fact, Francisco Franco was the "Spanish Head of State and Regent of the Kingdom".

And, if you had informed yourself a little bit more, you could know that, under the fundamental law of the House of Bourbon, neither a king nor his heirs can renounce the claim to a throne they hold but do not possess.

Titles such as King of Jerusalem, Sardinia, Corsica, Gibraltar or Duke of Burgundy, of Brabant, of Milan, of Athens and Neopatria etc... are claims of the Spanish branch of the House of Bourbon. Why? Because they have the right and because they ARE supposed to be in the first place of the list per inheritance if someday those territories decide to have a monarchical form of government again.

A perfect example of this in France (a republic), is Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou. 220 years after Louis XVI of France was executed and the Monarchy abolished, Louis Alphonse is still a claimant to the French throne, and considered to be the head of the French Royal House by legitimists. In case that France returns to be a Monarchy, (and the legitimists arguments accepted), he would be named Louis XX of France. And watch yourself... Because if Louis Alphonse dies without a male heir (he only has one girl yet), Juan Carlos of Spain could also become the claimant to the title of "King of France", as he is next in the list. (notice that Alfonso XIII was it already from 1936 up to his death)

Back to the titles... The titles are hereditary and pertain to the household of Bourbon, not to Spain nor the Spaniards. And while the Spanish Kings ceded some territories, they had all the rights their Nobility allowed to keep (as they did) the claim to these titles for them and their sucessors in case those were to become a Spanish territory again in the future. And you may very well keep discussing as much as you want, but that's how western society, western traditions and European Nobility work! Live with it. Cheers. --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 17:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we would differ between claimant and claimant, wouldn't we? The titles, say, King of Castilla, Leon, Aragon etc. etc. are surely titles of the King of Spain, and nobody would deny them to him - he was even able to extraordinarily give one of them to another person, the County of Barcelona, though it would be somewhat odd if he did so with a "king"-title. Likewise, the King of Spain is quite surely claimant to the Kingship of Gibraltar, even if he does not use this title, because Spain as a state keeps actively and publicly stating its (peaceful, of course) will to regain Gibraltar. The only thing that looks odd to me is that Gibraltar is called a kingdom.

That said, I do think that some of the other titles are not real titles of pretense, but mere titles of courtesy. What is the case as to Athens and Neopatria I don't know. Duke of Burgundy, Brabant and Milan, Archduke of Austria etc. were titles of the Habsburg monarchs and fiefs of the Holy Roman Empire, and were given to them as such in the treaty of Utrecht. The only claimant to them (from the Habsburg-Bourbon site; the Kingdom of Belgium is another story) is Archduke Charles (since Otto abdicated). The title of Sardinia was included in the same treaty that splitted the territories of the deceased Spanish Habsburgs (yet took no lands of Spain as such) and given to Habsburg, by whom it was without force given to the House of Savoy, who willingly included it into the Kingdom of Italy - so there is no longer a pretender to Sardinia (as such), only the head of the House of Savoy as pretender to the Kingdom of Italy. As to Naples and Sicily, they were given by Spain itself to younger Spanish princes, so it'd seem really odd to call the King of Spain a pretender thereof, the only pretender is the head of the House of Bourbon-Sicily. The particularly prestigious title of pretender to the Kingdom of Jerusalem was originally one of the titles of Naples, and came with them to the House of Habsburg - as this house also has some sort of seniority over Bourbon as to the Spanish crown prior to the Spanish War of Succession, and this particular title was (I think) not specificly dealt with in the treaty of Utrecht - and if it was not explicitly mentioned in the Treaty of Vienna that made the two Sicilies secundo-Spanish again, it's supposed to have stayed with the Habsburgs. (Well - he might have at least some point as to this title.) By the way, even if he may be called 1st in line of succession to the French legitimist claim, the French throne may not be given to the Spanish monarch even if the Legitimists of France were successful.

The problem is that all these treaties, Utrecht in particular, allowed all participants to keep in use all their titles that they claimed before even though they did settle the claims as such (except, I think, Jerusalem and perhaps Athens and Neopatria). These titles are however not titles in pretense but only titles of courtesy. I also think this privilege was only given to the persons then depossesed, and ended by their death.--84.154.122.108 (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Likewise, the head of the House of Prussia styles himself among other titles Duke of Mecklenburg and Prince of Orange. There are historical reasons (cross-hereditary treaties etc.) for doing so. But this doesn't mean that he claims to be the original possessor of these titles, only that he gratefully enjoys an honour that the Houses of Mecklenburg and Orange have granted the House of Prussia centuries ago. --84.154.122.108 (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)