Talk:Philip III of Spain

Untitled

I wonder about "childish piety." Is that meant literally? I.e., approaching religion in a childlike manner? Or is it an editorial comment? In which case, it probably ought to be changed. ---Michael K. Smith 01:38, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Clarification....

A bit of clarification is needed with the paragraph below. It seems, at least to me, to be contradicting itself. At least based on my knowledge of "court festivities."

The king's own life was passed amid court festivities, on which enormous sums of money were wasted, or in the practice of piety. It was said that he was so virtuous as hardly to have committed a venial sin. Sanada RaeVynn (talk) 15:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that court festivities went hand in hand with sin? The problem with this article is a dire lack of citations, meaning that we don't know where the "it was said" came from. qp10qp (talk) 16:22, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've reworded a bit, reffed this part to Elliott and Kamen, and started a notes section. I've separated the two points above so that they don't form a non sequitur. I've changed to "In the view of historian J. H. Elliott, his 'only virtue appeared to reside in a total absence of vice'." "Wasted" is a rather judgmental word, so I've also reworded to say that household expenses increased and at least mentioned that income was falling. It will be a long time before this article comes up to scratch, though, I fear. qp10qp (talk) 17:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I guess I also could have worded my paragraph better XD. I realize they don't go hand in hand. While they often did, it certaintly wasn't the case in every situation as that would be a sociologically and historically invalid statement. I think you worded it better than I, especially the dire lack of citations. I apologize, I would have been a bit more clear if I hadn't pointed this out at about 4:00 a.m. ; ) Sanada RaeVynn (talk) 07:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Restructuring and expansion...

I've given the article a bit of a re-scrub, using some of the recent works in the last couple of years; I've added in-line citations and a bibliography. I suspect I'll have introduced a range of new errors in the process, but I think it covers the wider topic of Philip III a bit more fully now.Hchc2009 (talk) 17:37, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice work Omegastar (talk) 15:31, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Brother

I spotted the following line in the article:

The comparision with the disobedient and ultimately insane Don Carlos was usually a positive one, Prince Philip appeared less intelligent and politically competent than his later brother.

Should that be "late brother", as in a brother who is already dead? Also comparison is spelt wrong. Road Wizard (talk) 02:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Charles II of Spain which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 00:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Taxes

He [Philip] had inherited... an unhelpful tradition that the kingdom of Castile bore the brunt of royal taxation - Castile carried 65% of total imperial costs by 1616. Philip III received no money from the cortes, or parliaments, of Aragon, the Basque provinces or Portugal; Valencia only provided one contribution, in 1604.

How did this situation form? Probably in the time of Isabella and Fernando the crown did receive some taxes from Aragon? What about the colonies? They paid no taxes?

Top.Squark (talk) 18:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Attack of the Palatinate

Ambrosio Spinola had been conspiring to find an opportunity to intervene with the Army of Flanders into the Palatinate, a vital, Protestant set of territories along the Rhine guarding the most obvious route into the rebellious Dutch provinces

The most obvious route from where? There was no need of a "route" to get from the Spanish Netherlands to the United Provinces: they bordered each other. The Lower Palatinate was to the east and somewhat to the south of the Spanish Netherlands and the Upper Palatinate even further to the east.

Top.Squark (talk) 19:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem was the terrain and the fortifications; the Palatinate gave you a back door into the provinces avoiding the usual front line. I can have a quick look at the sources later if you like. Hchc2009 (talk) 05:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

It still doesn't make sense. The Palatinate didn't border the United Provinces at all, at least according to the Euratlas of 1600 (the online version is available at http://www.euratlas.net/history/europe/1600/1600_Northwest.html but it is too low detail to be convenient: the United Provinces are green, the Palatinate is two gray spots; I am using the commercial version which has far better detail). There is quite a distance between them and several other states have to be crossed, for instance one could go through the Electorate of Trier and the Duchy of Julich-Berg. Top.Squark (talk) 09:33, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, by 1620 Julich-Cleves-Berg was partitioned among the Margraviate of Brandenburg and the Palatinate-Neuburg (not the same as the Electoral Palatinate we are talking about) in the Treaty of Xanten which ended the War of the Jülich succession. Top.Squark (talk) 10:26, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, I figured it out. The answer can be found in the article Thirty Years' War. The Palatinate guarded the route from Spain and Italy into the United Provinces. I added an explanation to the article. Top.Squark (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Article Intro

Hm. It seems C. Tomas was also responsible for the unhelpful edits to Philips II, III, & IV. Just as a reminder: WP:Sovereign (inter alia) clearly explain that the articles should be headed by the single title most commonly used in English. The subsidiary titles like Aragon and Portugal should simply be quickly listed elsewhere in the lede. — LlywelynII 09:48, 8 July 2012 (UTC)