Talk:Monarchy of Spain/archive 1

Information lacking

information the article lacks: royal privileges in Spain Minaker 11:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Title of the king

OMG! The title of the king is HUGE! Does he remember it? Is there a "Trivia" section somewhere, where we can add instances that someone forgot it? *Steve

I've changed the discussion of the titulary of the King, because I think the previous version was incorrect. It said that there is no basis for the longer titles. This is not, however, true. While the 1978 constitution only mentions "King of Spain" as a title of the King, it also says that the king is entitled to all the other titles "pertaining to the crown". That seems to pretty specifically mean "that long list of titles that the Kings of Spain used before 1931." So I've changed this, with a reference to François Velde's discussion of the issue, which is, as usual, clear. I've also added a section to list the titles, which are, I think, interesting, at least from a historical perspective. john k 22:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Who questions the use of "Prince of Viana" by Prince Felipe? Eboracum (talk) 02:57, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious: When the article states the titles "the king is entitled to use include: . . . King . . . of the Algarves . . .", does this amount to an international dispute with Portugal? 00:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.153.122 (talk)

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

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

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

Also, under the fundamental law of the House of Bourbon, neither a king nor his heirs can renounce the claim to a throne they hold but do not possess.

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

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

To sum up... The titles are hereditary and pertain to the household of Bourbon, not to Spain nor the Spaniards. And while the Spanish Kings ceded some territories, they have all the rights their Nobility allows to keep (as they do) the claim to these titles for them and their sucessors in case those territories were to become a Spanish territory again someday in the future. That's how western society, western traditions and European Nobility work! Cheers. --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 20:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

king plays an important roll in maintaining Spanish democracy

Should not 'roll' be changed to 'role'?--MathFacts (talk) 01:23, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Good eye!Corrected!♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 04:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Reorganization

I have reorganized the article. I have removed much of the "Contemporary monarchy section" as it was dealing with mostly biographical information on Spanish Royalty. My logic is that this page should be for the institution and the more personal stories and details of individual family members should be on thier biographical articles. I have used as a loose model the article Monarchy of the United Kingdom which is featured. Ltwin (talk) 08:17, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the article! I reverted your good faith edits largely because I felt that the role of the Monarchy in contemporary Spain is very relevant to the article on Spanish Monarchy. Yes, in the section regarding the Spanish Royal Family is somewhat biographical, but introductory only, which is warranted on this page and in this section. Their abbreviated biography of the royal family offers additional historical narrative from the history section. Can some of that biographical info be trimmed down, I'm sure it can and will be, but it is needed here on this artical.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 04:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The monarchy encompasses the royal family (which necessitates their introduction), their duties and patronage; amongst other topics that have yet to be added (I am to change the "Christmas Message" section to "The monarchy, media, and the people" section). ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 04:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

As far as comparing this article to the British Monarchy article, from my point of view that article is more historically based, with this Spanish monarchy article far more contemporary. The history of the Spanish monarchy may constitute a new article. There is no relation between the British monarchy article and the Spanish monarchy article that I can discern, nor does there necessarily need to be.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 04:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I heartilly welcome your inpute to make the page the best it can be!♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 04:43, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for responding. When I mentioned the British Monarchy article, I was in no way suggesting that they were similar or that there articles should be. I was only looking at it as a model of how the article could be improveed since that article has reached Featured article status already.

The Monarchy in Contemporary Spanish Life

If you feel that a contemporary role section is needed then thats fine with me. I realize that my removal of that section may have been premature, but much of it was kept. The section "Spanish Royal Family" was mostly removed as while biographical, much of it was controversial statements made by the queen, which while important might not need to be included in this article in such detail. In my humble opinion, the details of the Juan Carlos's life might be better in the history section and I agree that members list should be retained, the main problem I have with this section is the part on the queen's statements, which as they haven't seemed to have irreparably damaged the institution seem to me more appropriate on the queen's article. The section "Popularity and Criticism" was mostly retained, with the exception of the Jaun Carlos' advice to his son, which to me seemed overkill. If that part is to be retained, I would suggest not reproducing the letter in its entirety. The section "Charitable, cultural, and religious patronage" was not deleted, but it was moved to the Spanish Royal Family, which had no information on its public role.

That's my explanation for those edits. Tell me what you think and also what did you think about the new layout I gave the article? Ltwin (talk) 05:18, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

From my perspective, the artical should stand alone as an intro to the institution and the family, as well as their role in contemporary Spain. This was the main reason why I was including more bio info on them then otherwise. One has to ask who comprises the monarchy, what are the members? I was trying to give a sense of who they were and their role (Charitable, cultural, and religious patronage). Additionally, I was going to change out the Christmas message to one which explores the relationship of the monarchy with the people and the media... how many people in Spain mark time by celebrating many events with the Spanish royals... such as royal weddings, births, protests marches (when Felipe and his sisters marched in 2005 for peace).♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 05:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• Prehaps Juan Carlos' history could go more in the history section, but with as abbreviated as it is, I was thinking it fit better when intro him and individual members of the royal family. From my perspective, the artical should stand alone as an intro to the institution and the family, as well as their role in contemporary Spain. ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 05:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• I agree that prehaps the bio section could be pruned down alot, and we can work on that. I tend to over write, and plan on migrating much of that over to their individual articles soonish. I suppose sooner then I had thought! hehe. ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 05:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• I agree, the queen's statements are overkill and should be pruned, just as your instincts suggested. They actually will form the basis for a new artical specifically detailing the contraversy but I havent created that artical yet. Suffice to say I think it important to make mention that she did make contraversal statements which opened the monarchy to criticism last year. No, her comments (from a 70 year old woman) will not actually damage the long term institution, as you say, there is a great quote from Villispin regarding that. ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 05:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

• As for the quote from the king to his son, I thought it important to keep the quote. It is not the whole letter (which were not in the artical sourced), so that particular quote is in a block quote. I do think that should stay. ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 05:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Give me a day or so to prune down the Queen's comments? ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 05:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: New layout: reviewing now. Give me a moment :) ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 05:40, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I've noticed that when quotes translated in English are given in the article, such as excerpts from the Constitution, they are accompanied with parallel versions in Spanish. Is this really necessary? If not began removing those. I'm not talking about important concepts and names where having the Spanish version mentioned is highley appropriate, but I'm referring to having to the block qoutes.Ltwin (talk) 05:48, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the Spanish... I personally like having the english and spanish version of the actual text.... however it is not absolutely necessary, no. There is a link to the Spanish language version of the 1978 Constitution. I like it myself, but it is not absolutely necessary no, I guess :( ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 05:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding formating: Royal Prerogaives and succession both should be subjects part of the "Crown and the Constitution", as it is in the actual constitution. "Residences" ... could be that or maybe "Spanish royal sites", which is more correct. Spanish royal cites are owned by the state and administered by the National Heritage on behalf of the government, but made available to the royal family and royal household for housing and for staging royal events and ceremonies.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 05:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

There was/is some verbage in the opening paragraph I used specifically because of the constitution, hummm....♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 05:57, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe we should ask for more imput and recommendations?♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 06:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

The reason I'd prefer not to see the Spanish version is that this is an English language encyclopedia and it doesn't add an understanding of the issue with the result of making the article longer which for an article already quite large is undesirable. Regarding section categorization, while it is true that they are both given in the constitution in the current version there is one huge section with many sub-sections and sub sub-sections. From my point of view, the Royal Prerogatives section seems to be a subject of important weight able to stand on its own without being a sub-section. I guess where I'm looking at it is from the view that the sections dealing with the kings constitutional role need not be in one huge and long section. How long would waiting for more input take? Ltwin (talk) 06:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

1)I see your point in that having the Spanish language version alongside the English translation would indeed make the article longer, and I concede that. 2) Well, I dont know how long it may take. A day or so? I was simply thinking on posting for more eyes on the British monarchy artical, there are many there who care enough about monarchy to come over and give suggestions and contribute. Also of corse on the Spanish forums too. I had watched this page for a year before my edits, and no one expanded on the topic until I started working on it this summer. 3) From my perspective there really is only two subjects.. the role of the monarchy in contemporary Spain, and the Crown as defined in the 1978 constitution. Even the Royal Household, as defined in the constitution, is a supporting organ of the monarch, so it would be under the "Crown and the Constitution". A possible 3rd subject would be Spansih royal sites/residences which are not defined in the constitution. ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 06:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I think it would be good to have other input on the article, and if you don't have problems with removing the Spanish, I'll go ahead and do that. Also, in the intro I think there could be some paragraph rearrangement, such as combining the 2nd and 3rd paragraphs, and getting rid of the last sentence by mentioning Juan Carlos and his wife in the first paragraph? Ltwin (talk) 06:33, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Lemme trim down the queen's comments tonight, then we can post for more eyes on those other forums, before we do alot of editing. I wish to get more eyes on that first. I'd rather let everyone see what is here first before we change much, even with the Spanish version of the quotes. We can ask them to leave comments here for us to see?♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 06:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok. Ltwin (talk) 06:47, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Kk, I have edited down her comments. I am going to post to have the artical peer reviewed, hopefully that will get the suggestions we need. I've had my eyes on the page by my self so long that it is good to have yours and other's view it now. ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 06:58, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I would like to point out that this article is both factual and informative. Drachenfyre has done a great job here.--Marked4life (talk) 17:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Copy edit concerns

I'm trying to copy edit this article but came across an issue. Can someone explain the meaning behind this sentence (3rd paragraph of the lead in section):

The Spanish monarchy has its roots in the Visigothic Kingdom founded in Spain, in Aquitainia in the 5th century, and its Christian successor states which fought the Reconquista following the Muslim conquest of Spain in the 8th century.

I changed it to this, which may not be quite the same

The Spanish monarchy has its roots in the Visigothic Kingdom, founded in Spain, Aquitainia in the 5th century, and its Christian successor states which fought the Reconquista following the Muslim conquest of Spain in the 8th century.

I'm still having trouble grasping exactly what it's trying to say. Can someone just quickly explain this so that I can make it a clearer section? Thanks. --Shirik (talk) 16:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The sentence should have read "The Spanish monarchy has its roots in the Visigothic Kingdom, founded in Spain and Aquitainia in the fifth century, and its Christian successor states which fought the Reconquista following the Muslim conquest of Spain the eighth century."

It seems to have been changed in a prior change by someone... and I didn't catch the change until you pointed that out. ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 04:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll correct this sentence in a moment.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 05:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

It is also my concern that there are too many block quotes in the section The Crown and the Constitution. Is it really necessary to embed the constitution into this section? I think that the oath is a useful quote and should stay, but the constitution translations can probably go. I already removed one section which was actually just a duplicate of an earlier quote, but in Spanish, which I felt was redundant. --Shirik (talk) 17:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, the block quotes in The Crown and the Constitution are relavent and should remain.--Marked4life (talk) 17:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with removing the Spanish language quotes. For English readers, it is uninformative and it clutters the article. Some block quotes are good and appropriate, but we don't need redundant quotes or mulitlingual one's either. Ltwin (talk) 21:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like to keep them as they are. However, I could go along with removing the Spanish quotes. But the English quotes of the constitution are, in my opinion, a very important part of the section in question and of the article in general.--Marked4life (talk) 03:43, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Welcome aboard Shirik! Thank you for spending your time copy editing the article! I look forward to your expertise! This is what copy editing is for... to go through the article and correct errors for flow. If the constitutional quotes are too cumbersom for the article then they should be removed. Its not as though the President of the United States article quotes sections of the constitution as detailed as I have done here. So my opinion is that sections of the constitution should be listed only if it reveals or clarifies. I say this with a heavy heart because personally I do like to see the sections so listed, in both languages.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 04:06, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

further comment.... I think it is good to get a sense of the constitutional language which clarifys from where the constitutional authority of the monarch comes from... and also where proceedural customs origionate. This is why I had included the constitutional sections. But as stated before.. some could be sacraficed if they are unhelpful for the article as a whole.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 04:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Observation:

Having gone through a read, I think we can remove excessive "According to the 1978 Constitution", phrases. We should only prehaps list that once, and successively simply say constitutionally. Also, in the same context, prehaps excessive "According to Title II The Crown, Article 123, Subsection 1" could be replaced by consitutionally also. What does everyone think here?♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 05:17, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. Remember, people reading this can get bogged down if the article is repetitive. Also, if you want the reader to be able to know what part of the constitution a power or role derives from, you can all ways give the details: article, section, etc. in a citation. Ltwin (talk) 18:47, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

One more thing, are the quotes supposed to be in italics? Ltwin (talk) 19:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. I don't exactly know. I had them italicized, but Shirik did not italicized the ones he adjusted. He is the copy editor so I defer to him.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 05:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Found it. According to the Manual of Style quotations shouldn't be italicized just because they are quotations, so I think that answers the question. Ltwin (talk) 19:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Succession questions

Some of the changes made in the 1978 Constitution and the Royal Decree 1368 of 1987 should be included as quotes, with their Spanish translations (as footnotes?), because they are unprecedented or complex. Several examples come to mind: For political reasons relevant at the time, the Constitution avoids enumerating who is in line for the throne, instead using the opaque phrase, "The Crown is hereditary in the successors of HM Don Juan Carlos I de Borbón" (La Corona de España es hereditaria en los sucesores de S. M. Don Juan Carlos I de Borbón), but never defines the term "successors", so that the meaning must be induced and is potentially open to interpretation (if a disaster strikes, a la King Ralph, are Juan Carlos's sisters automatically eligible to ascend the throne? What about Infante Carlos, Duke of Calabria)? Dynastic marriage: Unusually, no prior permission is required, rather the King and the Cortes must take timely action to disapprove a dynast's marriage in order for the descendants thereof to be excluded (elopement, anyone?), so the precise language should be quoted. Persons raised to the rank of infante/infanta need not be of the blood royal, and enjoy the style of "Highness" rather than the traditional style of "Royal Highness" -- by error or design? Further, any child of a marriage of an iInfante/Infanta of Spain has the rank of a grandee and the style of Excellency -- without actually being a grandee or entitled to any title -- dynastic or noble, hereditary or life-only. These are the kinds of peculiarities about which people turn to an encyclopedic article named "Monarchy of Spain" to obtain clarification (not resolution). We should provide it. FactStraight (talk) 01:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, information supported by the 1987 Decree should probably go in the Spanish Royal Family article, while facts based on the Constitution and other laws should remain here. Information specific to individual members of the dynasty should go under their respective articles, with the exception of important historical and political background derived from the role and actions of King Juan Carlos, since he is still shaping the monarchy while occupying the throne. FactStraight (talk) 00:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Very good points that you bring up! I think the decree was referencing specifically the royal family and its use. As far as the King Ralph scenario... the constitution specifies the successors of JC through male preference primogeniture, so that is clear, but if these lines do become extinct or ineligible, then the Cortes reserves the right to designate the successor as benefits Spain. This has been interpreted to mean that JC's sisters and their heirs would be considered, then JC's paternal cousins, and then broadened outward from there. We'll resolve your questions shortly. Very good points!♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 04:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It would be clear if the Constitution said, "The Crown is hereditary in the descendants of HM Don Juan Carlos I de Borbón" (or Don Juan, Count of Barcelona, or Isabel II, etc.) through male preference primogeniture. But that is not what it says and "successor" is not a synonym for "descendant". At the time, there was a dispute within the Royal Family about the status of Juan Carlos's sisters because they married non-royals. During the interregnum the throne was vacant and the old laws requiring equality of birth and permission to marry dynastically were not, legally, in effect during Franco's "reign", although the Count of Barcelona considered them binding by tradition. Nor does the 1978 Constitution's wording clearly exclude Don Luis Alfonso de Borbon-Franco, El Caudillo's great-grandson. FactStraight (talk) 08:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

With respect, I believe you are reading too much into it. The constitution is unambiguous and defines who is crowned, and how to determine his successors. The 1978 Constitution over rides any other pre-1978 “House Laws”, such as the tradition of prohibiting a member of the royal family from marrying in an unequal marriage. Indeed, the Constitution is clear that all laws passed by the Cortes supersede any laws predating 1978, so a member of the royal family may marry a same-sex partner and not lose their rights to the crown!

• The Crown of Spain shall be inherited by the successors of HM Juan Carlos I de Borbón, the legitimate heir of the historic dynasty. Succession to the throne shall follow the regular order of primogeniture and representation, the first line having preference over subsequent lines; and within the same line the closer grade over the more remote; and within the same grade the male over female, and in the same sex, the elder over the younger.

• La Corona de España es hereditaria en los sucesores de S. M. Don Juan Carlos I de Borbón, legítimo heredero de la dinastía histórica. La sucesión en el trono seguirá el orden regular de primogenitura y representación, siendo preferida siempre la línea anterior a las posteriores; en la misma línea, el grado más próximo al más remoto; en el mismo grado, el varón a la mujer, y en el mismo sexo, la persona de más edad a la de menos.

The 1978 Constitution clearly does exclude Don Luis Alfonso de Borbon-Franco from the direct succession of JC, as the constitution also excludes JC's sisters and other paternal relations. The Constitution clearly states that if any of the lines directly decendent of JC become extinct, the Cortez reserves the right to assign the successor as benifits Spain. ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 12:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Reasonable people may disagree and, in this case, do. That was my point as to why it is important to include the precise language of the Constitution, law and relevant decrees -- along with translations -- so that people who want information about the Spanish monarchy can assess these issues for themselves based on the facts. The fact that the Constitution is ambiguous, that Juan Carlos's eldest sister wanted her husband made an infante and their children considered dynastic, that Franco's great-grandson might reasonably assert a claim to inherit under the law as heir male of Alphonso XIII, and that there are multiple possible interpretations and implications of the use of "successors" has been much discussed among monarchists and constitutionalists. As I said, these matters are complex. So let's avoid taking sides in the article, while making sure that the relevant law is included. FactStraight (talk) 16:05, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe that reasonable people would read the constitution with the information presented above (and already in the artical) and clearly understand what it means, that the constitution of 1978 only recognizes JC and his children as legitimate heirs as legitimate dynasts with concern for the inheritance of the crown. All other prior dynasts are excluded from the crown, including JC's sisters and their children and even JC's late father Don Juan. These claiments/pretenders may compose an extended family of JC, but are excluded from the line of succession per the constitution. In fact, as of the very early 1970s their claims amounted to very little as it was clear then that JC would become king. The only other edits that have been issued has been that JC has formally approved the peerages of his sisters... (but i do admit I need to discover if these are life or hereditary peerages). There is no provision within the constitution which prohibits "unequal marriage", or divorce, religous membership, or sexual orientation, meaning that constitutionally those issues do not apply in terms of succession.

I have no problem with a sentence stating that there may be other claiments to the Crown of Spain based on other pre-Constitutional basis, but this would necessarily link to another artical intittled Pretenders to the Crown of Spain, and be sourced by verifyable academic or even news artical sources.

But let us not distract ourselves with this one point because you do raise other good points and there are other more important artical related information to add/clean up.♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 04:16, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

So any intterpretation other than the one you believe is not only wrong, but necessarily unreasonable and the various scholars (such as Guy Stair Sainty and François Velde) who have analysed and debated this point at length for years all show a lack of the "clear understanding" you bring to the matter? "Successors" is, in Spanish, a synonym for "descendants"? The Spanish legislators and jurists, when writing the Constitution, did not know of the Spanish word for "descendants" and so used a word that has different and broader definition (even though the word "descendants" had been used in several previous Spanish monarchical constitutions when defining the class of heirs to the throne)? It is unfortunate that you began your response here by saying "with respect" and then concluded by expressing a complete lack of it for views other than your own (I have not expressed my opinion in the matter, since it is irrelevant, other than to point out that the document is subject to more than one interpretation). Again, all the more reason to keep the exact language of the Constitution in the article, so that people can interpret for themselves what its words say and mean. As for the other points you make, no one here has even raised, let alone disputed, Juan Carlos's right to be king (so why talk of "pretenders"?), nor that religious membership, sexual orientation and equal marriage are not in the constitution (unequal marriage was always enforced by law and tradition anyway, and was never enshrined in the constitution), nor the infantas' dukedoms (which are non-hereditary) so I don't understand why these points were repeated in a discussion about those who may (or may not) have rights of succession to the Spanish throne after King Juan Carlos and/or his direct descendants. FactStraight (talk) 14:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok why don't we do this. Instead of arguing over what two editors think, why not include verifiable sources (in English, however I realize that that could be hard) of perhaps constitutional scholars or other credible people who represent the different views. With these sources, you could include how credible sources interpret the constitution. Ltwin (talk) 19:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure to what problem this is the solution? I haven't advocated including my interpretation of the Spanish succession (which I also haven't asserted) in the article nor, so far as I can see, has my interlocutor. What I have been "arguing", in agreement with Marked4life above, is why it would be useful to quote constitutional language in this article: because some of its provisions on the succession, and other matters, are unprecedented and complex. For the same reason, I suggested that it would be wise to include the Spanish translation of some of those quotes. As you noted, it may be be difficult to find published scholarly debate of the future succession in English which address the concerns raised. Juan Carlos was indisputably designated king in the 1978 constitution and most are likely to assume that his direct descendants constitute the complete class of "successors" to his throne, making it unlikely that proof of and/or challenges to that assumption will be published so long as he remains in good health. For purpsoses of this article, that moots but does not resolve the questions involved. So all I've asked is that the relevant wording be quoted rather than excluded or paraphrased. What more should be included on this point? FactStraight (talk) 21:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

If all you want is to insert constitutional language into the article... it already is, in various sections, in English translations in the body of the text, with the Spanish language originals noted at the bottom. For instance with succession, the English language translation for Article 57 (1) is already quoted in the section, with a note at the bottom (number 33 and 34) where the quote was lifted from. Originally we did have both the English and Spanish quoted one after the other. But per our conversation above it was determined, for readability, to list the Spanish text as a footnote. If this is all you were suggesting then rest assured that is what the rest of us want... where appropriate the English language translation will be quoted in the body of the text with the Spanish language citation as a footnote.

Your initial statement above that Article 57 (1) is somehow ambiguous and complex as to who the successors of JC are is, in my opinion, unfounded and at the heart of this current... debate. In my opinion, Article 57 (1) is unambiguous and to my knowledge there is no reliable published source that critiques Article 57 (1) in the manner you suggest (that it is so ambiguous as to allow Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou/ "Don Luis Alfonso de Borbon-Franco" to possibly inherit EXCEPT for in Article 57 (3) which states that "If all lines designated by law [that law is male preference primogeniture for the children and grandchildren of JC] become extint, the Cortes Generales shall provide for succession to the Crown that best serves the interests of Spain). So, and let me know if I am wrong... if you wish to somehow suggest that we should include a note as to the "ambiguity" of the meaning of "successors" in Article 57, then that inclusion should be sourced by a reliable and verifiable source. I leave it to you to present the reliable source to us. If it is in Spanish, then we can get a Spanish speaker to read it and translate if necessary. ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 07:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I regret and apologize to the extent that this discussion has escalated in a manner that allowed my recommendation to be misconstrued. My recommendation was and is entirely in support of what you have already done, and done well: include quotes, and translations of quotes, from important portions of the constitution relative to the monarchy. Have I at any time suggested that anything more or different be included in the article? The fact that we may disagree about whether the 1978 constitution can reasonably be understood to generate different classes of heirs to the throne becomes irrelevant when the precise language of the constitution is included so that readers may assess implications of its wording for themselves -- which is all that I advocate. FactStraight (talk) 05:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

No worries. My apologies as well. Lets move on so as to bring the artical to the level of FA?!! ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 08:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Numbering

In the case of British monarchy it's understood that English or Scottish numbering is used, whichever is larger. Is there a similar understanding here as regards Castilian & Aragonese? Peter jackson (talk) 11:45, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Generally, yes. Though this would need to be formally vetted. ♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 21:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

No. Since Charles V, the numbering used has always been the Castilian. Cheers. --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 00:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought they were using Leonese numbering, as Leon was the primary successor state (through Asturias) and the kings of Leon claimed the "imperial title". Do we have a source we may refer to?♦Drachenfyre♦·Talk 05:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

That's also a correct information. In fact, Castile was, in the time, only a County inside the Kingdom of Leon. We, the spaniards, say Castile when refering nowadays to Castile-Leon-Asturias-Galicia all together. The numbering of Aragon ceased and is not used anymore, What is true is that, if we want to be perfectly right, the numbering is the one from the Kingdom of Asturias as the only name which was already used by the time and still is (Alfonso), cames from Asturias.

To give some examples of the first kings with the names with the highest numbering:

• Alfonso: Alfonso I of Asturias
• Ferdinand: Ferdinand I of León and Castile
• Philip: Philip I of Castile
• Charles: Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor (I of Spain)

Cheers, --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 08:48, 24 December 2009 (UTC)