Talk:Philip II of Spain/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Religious association on bio

The religious association of Philip II, Roman Catholicism, needs to be added to his right-hand side-bar biography summary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.249.129 (talk) 08:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

La Granjilla de la Fresneda

The Granjilla of The Royal Place of El Escorial

La Granjilla de La Fresneda, is known as both, La Granjilla and La Fresneda.[1]. It is an essential Cultural Treasure of the Royal Site of El Escorial. It was planned by Philip II of Spain as a Real Cottage closed by a fence of dry stone. Juan Bautista de Toledo, Royal Architect, and Gaspar de Vega, Royal Stonework Master, designed it as a Royal Private Park into a Royal Private Estate, The Royal Place of El Escorial, isolated and protected from the rest of the world by a Royal Wall of Dry Stone known nowadays as La Cerca Real (The Royal Fence) and La Cerca de Felipe II(The Fence of Philip II). [3]. Conceptually, La Granjilla (La Fresneda) was the counterpoint of the Monastery: for Fray José de Sigüenza, The Fresneda’s Park was an earthly image of the Paradise.

The monumental area of the Historical Place of Granjilla’s Park (Fresneda’s Park) was built between 1563 and 1569. San Lorenzo's Monastery was built between 1562 and 1584; previously, in 1561, Felipe II moved The Court from Toledo to Madrid.

La Granjilla and the Monasterio de San Lorenzo are two homologous Royal Sites, essential and indivisible parts of the Cultural Landscape of the Royal Site of El Escorial, cultural, natural and symbolic legacy of the Spanish Crown to the Spanish People.[4].

Annotations

[1]. Also as, La Fresneda del Real Sitio del Escorial and La Granjilla del Real Sitio del Escorial.

[2]. In 2006, “La Cerca Real” was declared Cultural Good by Madrid’s Regional Government. Vide, CAM, Decreto 52/2006 – BOCM 21/96/2009.

[3]. La Granjilla (Real Sitio del Escorial)

[4]. La Granjilla is a Welfare of Cultural Interest. By its historicity, until the 19th century, it could be considered Cultural Heritage of the Hispanic Monarchy in The Royal Place of The Escorial. Nowadays should be declared, urgently, Spanish Heritage to be administrated by the Spanish National Trust (Organismo Autónomo de Patrimonio Nacional, Ministerio de la Presidencia, Gobierno de España).

Petition to the Spanish Government: national, regional and municipal authorities

We ask the Spanish authorities:

To declare "The Granjilla de La Fresneda", National Treasure Spanish Heritage.

To include the Cultural Landscape of the Royal Site of El Escorial in the “Parque Nacional Sierra de Guadarrama”. Philip II protected the Royal Site of El Escorial with a Royal Dry Stone Wall.

To declare the Royal Site of El Escorial, European Heritage and World Heritage Site.

The Royal Site of El Escorial is the Inalienable Cultural Legacy of the Parliamentary Hispanic Monarchy to the Spanish People. Direcciones de Internet (URL)

http://apuntesdelasierra.com/descargatelarevista.html

http://camelotescorial.wordpress.com

http://camelot-escorial-unesco.spaces.live.com

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Architecture

http://lafresnedadefelipeii.blogspot.com

http://lamascarachina.blogspot.com

http://picasaweb.google.es/andres.magana

http://portal.unesco.org/es/ev.php-URL_ID=33840&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

http://sanlorenzo.ciudadanos-cs.org

http://whc.unesco.org

http://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/1026

http://whc.unesco.org/en/tentativelists/1038

http://www.blogger.com/profile/15849597522849484451

http://www.bluffton.edu/~sullivanm/spain/madrid/escorial/escorial.html

http://www.cuescorial.es

http://www.descubresanlorenzo.com/tag/escorial

http://www.elescorial.es

http://www.escorialhabitable.com

http://www.galeon.com/patrimoniohistorico/principal.htm

http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/main

http://www.patrimonio-mundial.com

http://www.patrimonionacional.es

http://www.sanlorenzodeelescorial.org

http://www.sanlorenzoescorial.com

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

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

http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Granjilla

http://www.world-heritage-tour.org

http://www.worldwidewarning.net

Créditos

elroto.gmail@elpais.es

http://picasaweb.google.es/andres.magana

http://www.blogger.com/profile/15849597522849484451

El Proyecto Camelot-Escorial pide a los Poderes Públicos y a las Instituciones Internacionales: 1.- Que declaren el Real Sitio del Escorial Legado Cultural Inalienable, Irrenunciable e Imprescriptible de la Monarquía Hispánica Parlamentaria al Pueblo Español. 2.- Que incluyan el Patrimonio Natural, Cultual y Simbólico del Real Sitio del Escorial en el Parque Nacional Sierra de Guadarrama. 3.- Que el Paisaje Cultural del Real Sitio del Escorial, que Felipe II protegió para la posteridad con una Cerca de Piedra en Seco, sea declarado Patrimonio Europeo y Patrimonio de la Humanidad. El Proyecto Camelot-Escorial (Escorial Sostenible y Amigos del Escorial) es un grupo de trabajo altruista abierto e interdisciplinar, sin personalidad jurídica común ni beneficio económico. El Lema del Proyecto Camelot-Escorial es: "Lo que escribió Cervantes, lo que pintó Velázquez, lo que edificó Herrera influye sobre lo que hicimos, pensamos y sentimos los españoles de hoy". G. Morente.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Camelotescorial (talk • contribs) 08:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite needed?

In my oppinion, this article should be rewritten. While it provides a nice overview of his activities and accomplishments, most alinea's are so seperate they might aswell have been different articles. They don't correlate with each other and barely support each other. They don't "flow". Furthermore, alot of significant biographical information is missing. For example, the article immediatly starts with his policies and government. Where is his youth? How did he grow up? etc. 77.250.25.165 (talk) 09:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Removed part of opening paragraph

The following was superflous, contestable and in poor English;

During his reign Spanish armies enjoyed an almost unbroken string of victories on land, but for when the northern Low Countries rebelled and formed the Dutch Republic, as well as being the king who sent the ill fated Spanish Armada against protestant England. By any measure, Philip's was the world's foremost superpower, possessing one of its better navies, merchant fleets, and armies.

CharlieRCD (talk) 18:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

one of the greatest sovereigns in the History of Spain?

"Philip II is considered one of the greatest sovereigns in the History of Spain"

Besides being eyebrow-raising, this is a both a peacock and weasel comment. Something along the lines of "Philip II's reputation has been long been the subject of historical debate" would be more appropriate, but I've added a 'citation needed' to flag this comment.

CharlieRCD (talk) 10:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

In fact Philip II is considered the GREATEST SOVEREIGN in the History of Spain.--88.18.150.26 (talk) 01:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

older comments

suggestion for correction:

the quality of this article strikes me as generally poor. unfortunately i only came on this article to learn about philip II of spain and cannot contribute at the moment. the only thing i can do at the moment is to correct typos, which i did. nevertheless, as an input for future contributions: could anyone please deal with the last sentence of the first section "marriage and issue". the sentence "Although under his reign global expansion and trade flourished this was not necessarily a good thing because this lead to inflation and a massive amount of debt." is to be criticized not only for its poor english (i corrected the typos) or its disputed content (see later comments), but - even if nothing else was wrong with it - does not even fit into the section "marriage and issue" as it deals with the economics of the era. --Happiness international (talk) 03:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone please clean this article up?

This is another one of those articles where the image is overwriting the text. Does someone know how to put it right? Deb

I am unsure about the "in the wake of the Spanish Inquisition]] bit -- what does that have to do with the enmity? I would say it had more to do with Henry's creation of the Anglican Church and England becoming fair game (in Spain's eyes) for conquest, since the Protestants were then considered heretics. This was also likely a motivating facter for the wars against Henry of Navarre. Even worse was the fact that these new Protestant nations were supporting privateering against (especially) the Iberian kingdoms -- in a nutshell, I think the statement gives short shrift to both the fact that the Commercial revolution, New World expansion, and the fact that the Habsburgs were landgrabbing types who always jumped on an opportunity were more important than the unexpected Spanish Inquisition. JHK

The section here on the dutch revolt is woefully inadequate and highly factually inaccurate- the article reads as if the revolt was largley controlled by philip instead of what actually occurred. Currently this is at best misleading and at worst simply wrong82.24.175.213 20:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

––––– From the first paragraph: "The death of Charles V also divided the Habsburg territories, freeing Philip from the burden of governing the unstable German Mediterranean perhaps marked the zenith of Spanish power abroad."

This makes no sense. Apparently some text was lost? What was the author's intent, and how can we salvage this? Arkuat 00:25, 2004 Jul 9 (UTC)

This article is rather mixed up. If necessary, I'll have a bash at tidying it up (when I can find time, grrrr) but if someone else wants to have a go in the meantime, I find that the article is disjointed, with no particular chronological or topical order.

I'm sure that the content here is fine, but if someone's able to write prose which runs smoothly, it would be very helpful. Wooster 16:47, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm reading the part on economics, and I'm wondering where it comes from. It certainly sounds rather like a modern libertarian's perspective, and even lacks a touch of reality. For instance, there weren't _mercantile_ imports from the New World, it was bullion, and it was not a significant part of the economy by 1557 (it increased, almost non-stop, until the end of his reign). The Treaty of Cateau-Cambresis(sp?) was about a long, costly war brought to an end by two sides who both thought it fitter to fight the Protestant heresy at home (something they both could agree upon). It was a double bankruptcy. The Castile was the significant assembly, not that of Navarre or others. No discussion of the Fuggers or the increased reliance on Genoan(is that Genovese?) supplies of money. Philip II never had a free hand to simply create money, it was loaned or taxed, and he needed bankers of the Cortes for them. JoshNarins 03:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Subheadings

To help us recast this material, this entry needs thematic subheadings, where the existing text can be collected, some of them prefaced by directions to main articles elsewhere. Some proposed subsections (please add more here) -- Wetman 19:10, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC):

Marriages
Spain and Portugal
Netherlands policy
Overseas Empire
Counter-Reformation
Papacy and the Turks

it seems to be okay to me

How did this article on such an important protagonist in 16th century European history make it to November 2005 with no wikification? Lets cooperate so we can remove the notice I've had to add. I've started the process off with a few basic headings.--File Éireann 23:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

This article strikes me as anti-Catholic

This article strikes me as anti-Catholic. Dino

Explain. Brutannica 21:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

History often seems dull because so many teachers sanitize it of any trace of controversy. But, in fact, both Catholic and Protestant histories include events that would make modern church members uncomfortable if they thought about them. The 1588 Armada against England was as much an ideological battle as an economic one. It happened; it's over. So don't be offended; be intrigued. Deangup 05:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Born and dead places

Is It possible to add the places where Felipe II was born and dead (besides dates)?

Born in Valladolid and dead in Monasterio de El Escorial, Madrid.

Cheers!

(Excuse my poor english)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.4.124.91 (talk) 10:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Becoming king in 1554

Although his father, Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, abdicated in 1556, his son Philip already received some royal titles two years earlier, in order to put him on equal footing with his bride, Queen Mary I of England. He was created King of Chile, and received the Kingdom of Naples, which came with a claim to the Kingdom of Jerusalem. I've fixed this in some articles, or clarified this, but it probably needs to be changed or better explained in some related articles, such as Mary I of England. I don't remember which article, but I seem to recall that one article only mentioned Philip becoming King of Chile, but then later names Naples and Jerusalem among the couple's titles. Crix 03:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

He was indeed "King" of England, but only King consort, not King regnant. He was not entitled to a regnal number, and no authoritative sources show this. The theory that he was King Philip I (ie. co-equal with Mary in the same way that William and Mary of Orange were co-equal) does not hold water. See Talk:List of the monarchs of the Kingdom of England for my views on this subject. JackofOz 00:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Cultural depictions of Philip II of Spain

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 17:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Ascension

I came to Wikipedia looking for information on how he became the first official King of Spain and suprisingly I found none. Since he was the first, it should be important enough to be in the article. (68.45.99.83 03:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC))

The first official ruler to use the title "King of Spain" was Joseph Bonaparte (or Ferdinand VII, if you consider Joseph to be illegitimate). The first man to be king (in his own right, not as a consort) of all the parts of what is now Spain was Charles V. The Peninsula (other than Portugal) was first unified under Ferdinand and Isabella. The various states of the Peninsula were consolidated into a single administration under Philip V. I'm not sure where Philip II fits in. john k 13:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The word "Spain" originates from the word "Hispania," which refers to the entire Iberian Peninsula. Philip II was the first person to rule over all of Hispania (upon his ascension to the Portuguese throne), and thus is considered the first true King of Spain.

Except that nobody actually says that. This judgment would also make Philip II, Philip III, and Philip IV the only Kings of Spain. john k 17:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

In fact, the three Philips were the only "real" Kings of Spain. The title was resurrected by Joseph Bonaparte, but before him, the "Kings of Spain" were only the Kings of Castile, Leon, Aragon, etc. To this day, there is no "real" King of Spain, and there will be none until Portugal and Spain are united under one monarch.

Well, Charles I was the first king of Spain. Although "Spain" originally referred to the whole Iberia, at this time it started to be called Spain+Portugal, and Hispania being the whole thing. It happened simply. When you want to refer "Hispania" use "Iberia", it is clear that way.Câmara 00:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Complete overhaul?

Does anyone else think that this article needs a shift in focus? The Indies and the Netherlands are barely touched upon, and I don't think Don Carlos is mentioned once. Within the week I'll rewrite the headings and try and get a better structure. Thoughts? N.f.m.c 21:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. john k 21:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Info Box

I've added an info box for Philip II, I've missed a few bits of information out, because I'm not sure of the answers. I hope you all like it! --MC 17:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Overhaul still needed

It seems that someone noticed about 7 months ago that this article needs a huge overhaul, and it's still true. There is no information about Philip's early life; the article seems to jump right into the middle of his reign without any background information. Honestly, articles like this are one of the reasons people view Wikipedia as an unreliable source of information (though I'm sure we've got all kinds of detailed, accurate, cited text on, say, Magmar or Sideshow Bob). It's really sad. I have not the time, knowledge, or capabilities to fix what's wrong, but someone should. 69.153.100.172 23:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC) (TysK, not at my computer and not signed in)

The trivia section states, All Philip's personal secretaries were Letrados. I didn't know what that was; it's a Spanish word for lawyers/learned men. Why is that worth mentioning? What else would you expect his secretaries to be? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.148.169.2 (talk) 00:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Early life

This article could use some information on Felipe's early life - his childhood and life before ascending the throne. Brutannica 21:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Historiographical Views

The article doesn't address the differing views that historians have regarding Philip. For example, when discussing Felipe's management of royal finances there is no citation of historians such as Woodward or Mackinnon Bell (who both argue that Spain's financial problems were not Philip's fault). This article is a prime example of why Wikipedia can get a bad name for accuracy.

Bullion and Inflation
"Inflation throughout Europe in the sixteenth century was a broad and complex phenomenon, but the flood of bullion from the Americas was the main cause of it". This is just one argument that it put forward by historians (E. Hamilton and Braudel are two examples). Historians such as Cipolla and Vilar challenge this, pointing out that much of the Indies bullion arriving in Seville was immediately re-exported to Italy, Flanders and Germany to cover the interest on the Spanish monarquia's loans.

Inflation may lie in a combination of factors:

"imports of bullion, the rising population outstripping food production, accelerating government spending and declining domestic manufactures forcing consumers to purchase goods at greater expense from abroad."

This is a more balanced account which takes into account both arguments (the Cipolla - Villar and the Hamilton - Braudel camps).

wacuthbert 21:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I've dropped in a bit more about the causes of inflation, backed up some refs.

But the inflation rate?? The article has it at 5 times during Philip's reign, but Parker (who has spent a LOT of time going through original documents in the archives in Spain), says during the period 1500-1590, prices in Castille rose "three-fold" (his words), with TAX rising "fivefold" (p.188, 2nd paragraph, Spain and the Netherlands, 1559-1659, revised edition, Fontana, 1990).

Or is someone suggesting that both are true, and there was actually DEFLATION for part of that period??
If a citation isn't forthcoming for 5 times, I intend to change it to match Parker, if it is forthcoming, then I will probably list Parker in a footnote as having a differing view.
Hope this is OK with everyone
Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 03:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

And of course there was the change in the level and cost of equipment used by an army. A soldier of 1599 cost more to outfit than a soldier of 1501 quite apart from any effects from inflation. (more technologically advanced eqipment costs more - rise in standardisation, increase in percentage of firearms, issue of uniforms etc. etc.)Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 00:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Philippines

someone recently edited Philip's titles saying that he is king of the Philippines. Can anyone clarify this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.188.33 (talk) 16:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, i noticed that too. I know the country was named after him. But, I have never heard of the title: "King of the Philippines". References? Coojah 01:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Improvement

This article is very poor to read. Nothing about his early life at all and in no clear concise order. Hard to find parts I am looking for. Every sentence of an encyclopedia should be providing information , structured into the next but with this I'm having to skip whole paragraphs to try to find what shoul dbe the embodiment of the article. Somebody needs to completelt rewrite this The Wild West guy 18:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Philip of England and Ireland, disowned unlike the Orangist William

How come Wikipedia reflects Protestant triumphalism and Whig history? The establishment's hardline propaganda has been endorsed by this website. Philip of Spain was as much a Lancastrian as William of Orange was a Stuart. In fact, England had some rather lengthy dealings with Spain and Portugal, long before cozying up to the Scots or Dutch... Is there any editor here with the info to correct this? For instance, the Marian plantation of Ireland is almost a footnote and similar treatment is given for the ascension as King of Ireland with full recognition to the English monarch by the Pope, for Philip himself. The reign of Mary is seen as a fluke, rather than continuance of English tradition. Who says that cooperation with the Scots is a hallmark of being English? The Scots were the errand boys of the French, with whom the English disputed on the rule of France (as well as disputing over who ruled over the Scots). Calvinism was imported by England's traditional enemies, when England already told Luther to leave well enough alone. There is almost no mention of the Anglo-Breton Habsburg alliance, at least there is no coordinated presentation of it, as the final, failing bulwark against the Franco-Scottish alliance that broke the independence of the Anglo-Breton peoples. Why should the English see the Scots, or the Bretons see the French, as natural allies? 24.255.11.149 (talk) 20:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

If you want someone to answer, could you please repeat that in more cogent, less polemical, tones? Michael Sanders 21:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The art of rhetoric. You wouldn't have the right answer anyway. You claim that the Spanish monarchy hold the title Emperor of the Romans, when they've never said this themselves in over 500 years of opportunities. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 17:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

He was rather more distantly a Lancastrian than William was a Stuart. William's mother was a Stuart. Philip's mother's father's father's father's mother was a Lancastrian. Beyond that, I have no idea what you're talking about. john k (talk) 07:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Both the Lancastrians and Yorkists owed Spanish background (e.g. Titulus Regius [* see below]), but the Lancastrians certainly had an intrigue of their own, since the family patriarch tried to obtain the Crown of Castile and the Castilian civil war only stopped by marrying off his heiresses. This is why the first name Eduardo and whatnot became popular in the Iberian countries.

My point was, that there was not necessarily a Calvinistic, Whiggish sense of "progress" based in fact with regards to the Dutch and Scottish status quo of later years. The only reason why England got swept away with them, was because of the personal failings on the part of Arthur Tudor and Henry VIII to leave lasting heirs by the Spaniard Catherine, while Mary Brandon nee Tudor's heirs were unrighteously ignored. The nouveau riche were doing their damnedest to continue the unheard of alliances like that with Lutheran Cleves and Calvinist Scotland. A similar situation occurred with the death of Francis II, Duke of Brittany and the later insurrections by the Duc de Mercoeur. It was not necessarily fate or "Predestination" that delivered England into the hands of her enemies, but revisionists have painted this myopic, "grand view" of God's plan to wipe out the Spanish alliances (against France), which were merely an extension of relations with Aquitaine & Gascony. England could have gone either way and this is proved by a history of counterbalancing forces from the South and North of Europe, as well as the personal choice of the parliamentary monarchy's establishment to retain "via media" Christianity. There is no reason to darken the reputation or history of Philip and brighten that of William. Each had about equal natural place in English affairs, on the periphery of English relations with France. Protestant triumphalists would gladly do anything to obscure the reign of Philip and his connections with England, but Catholics are forced to endure most of William's infamy without a voice. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 23:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[* Wee considre also, the greate wytte, prudence, justice, princely courage, and the memorable and laudable acts in diverse battalls which we by experience know ye heretofore have done for the salvacion and defence of this same reame, and also the great noblesse and excellence of your byrth and blode as of hym that is descended of the thre most royal houses in Christendom, that is to say, England, Fraunce, and Hispaine. ] 24.255.11.149 (talk) 23:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Church taxation / representation.

the article says "the Church and the upper classes were exempt from taxation (to be expected, considering their lack of parliamentary powers)". Surely the bit in brackets is
a)WP:POV
b)anachronistic, perhaps applying to the logic of some 17th century Britons/Americans, but not to earlier Spaniards.

And
c) you know that the Church/clergy was/were taxed as part of the "Three Graces" to fund the war against the Turks c.1570 ish? (in fact Parker says that the clergy were taxed in Spain, with the agreement of the Pope, for much of the 16th Century)
Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk) 23:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Amended text about clergy taxation, and reflected differeing views on causes of Spanish inflation. 3 references inserted. I will add a couple of references from Parker next time.
Hope this is OK with everyone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariya Oktyabrskaya (talk • contribs) 08:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Tree error

In his family tree, Beatriz of Portugal's parents are incorrect. Could someone please fix? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jreckdahl (talk • contribs) 17:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Why to fix? WIKI is a manifestation of ignorance. Let it stay as it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.197.243.113 (talk) 03:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I changed "Great grand-niece of Henry VII" to "great granddaughter of Henry VII". Mary Queen of Scots was a direct descendent of Henry VII, her grandmother was Henry VIII sister. So she is not a "niece" of Henry VII, she is a niece of Henry VIII. She is the great granddaughter of Henry VII. 216.119.176.119 (talk) 16:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Removed gallery

I have removed the gallery and place it here for consideration. It could become a separate gallery page, either on Wikipedia or Commons, but a history article is not the place for a gallery of this sort, in my opinion. His family can be mentioned and illustrated where appropriate in the article, which will need to expand first. qp10qp (talk) 19:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed section "Philip II in fiction"

I have removed this section to a new article: Cultural depictions of Philip II of Spain. It does not go in a history article, and I have done this on the same principle as it has been done for many other monarchs. qp10qp (talk) 20:17, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Needing revision

Article, which looks like a copy of an old-fashioned Britannica 1911 one, looks needing some revision. In particular, I seem it needs to be chronologically ordered like a biography, not having "Domestic Policy" and "Economy" chapters in the beginning; if kept, they should be at the end of it. Waiting for opinions before starting a thouroughly revision. --'''Attilios''' (talk) 21:26, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

It's an exceptionally difficult subject to condense into a single article. My suggestion would be to have an early life section, leading into a succession section that could incorporate his journey to the Netherlands (via Italy/Augsburg), to England, and back to the Netherlands (appallingly tricky, though, to pick through all the different successions). Then a foreign policy section, starting with the Mediterranean/Ottomans, on to Netherlands, Portugal, England, France, New World. Then a home section, covering family/marriages, government, economy, unrest (Aragon/Moriscos, etc). Finally, an arts section. How one could squash all that into one page, I don't know. Best of luck. qp10qp (talk) 23:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

new section

Marriage and Issue

In 1543 Philip married his cousin Maria Manuela, Princess of Portugal, daughter of King John III of Portugal and his wife Catherine of Habsburg. In 1545 Maria gave birth to a deformed son, Prince Carlos and died shortly after his birth on August 12, 1545.

His second marriage occurred in 1554 when Philip married Mary I of England, a Catholic, the older daughter of Henry VIII, and his father's first cousin. However, they had no children and Queen Mary I died in 1558.

Later in 1558 Philip remarried again this time to Elisabeth of Valois, the eldest daughter of Henry II of France and Catherine de' Medici. Elisabeth's first pregnancy in 1564 ended with a miscarriage of twin girls. She later gave birth to Infanta Isabella Clara Eugenia of Spain on August 12, 1566, and then to Isabella's younger sister Catherine Michelle of Spain October 10, 1567. Elisabeth had another miscarriage on October 3, 1568, and died the same day, along with her newborn infant son. Elisabeth came down with smallpox and died in 1568.

Upon the death of Elisabeth he negotiated a marriage to his niece Anna of Austria, daughter to Maxamillian II, Holy Roman Emperor and Maria of Spain (Philip II's sister). They were married in Prague on May 4, 1570. Anna and Phillip had 5 children. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddavis8 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

The Death of Philip II of Spain

Philip died an excrutiating and protracted death. He had long suffered with gout (like his father before him, Charles V). Much of this was due to his diet, which consisted almost exclusively of red meat. As he aged, his attacks became more severe, and by 1598 they had advanced to a degree of intolerable agony, along with fever and severe dropsy. To help ease his suffering, he had a special chair constructed which allowed him to almost fully recline. It was in this chair that he was carried the 24 miles from Madrid to his Escorial.

Upon arrival at the Escorial he seemed to rally, but his fever became quite severe, and a painful malignant growth appeared on his knee. His surgeons tried to remove the growth, and the smell that issued from the wound was quite putrid. He also developed open sores on one hand and two above the wound on his knee. His wounds were oozing great quantities of putrid material. Eventually, maggots could be seen in his wounds.

The slightest touch of a bedsheet caused the sufferer the greatest agony. He could not be moved, his clothing and linens could not be changed. Philip, who had always been quite fastidious about cleanliness, was forced to foul himself and lay in this position for weeks. His back developed into a massive bedsore. The stench in his sickroom was intense. Through this, Philip maintained his dignity, and bore this without complaint. When he felt his time had come, he insisted on holding the same crucifix his father had held at his death. This is how Philip II of Spain met his fate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.199.40 (talk) 04:41, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Slanted

I find the whole "Black Legend" viewpoint of Philip to be a misrepresentation. I agree with Henry Kamen's viewpoint of Philip - that he simply didn't care much for image building. This would be unlike many of his contemporaries - such as Elizabeth of England, Henry of Navarre, William of Orange. Philip was an intelligent, hard-working head of state, who admitted himself that the power of a monarch was an illusion. He avoided those persons who were affected by his position, and preferred to deal with people on a informal basis. He avoided ceremony whenever possible, and preferred the quiet company of his family circle. Unfortunately, since he didn't care much about building his own image, the voices of his critics have been remembered.

Although Philip ruled over an enormous empire, his main goal thoughout his life, was to maintain the holdings his father bequeathed him (and to pay the unbelievable debt he left). He was not overly ambitous. He never pressed the fact that his father made him heir to the Holy Roman Empire. He allowed his Habsburg Uncle to have this title without a squabble. He begged his young cousin (Sebastian, the King of Portugal) not to endanger himself, and enter into actual combat. He did not scheme to take the throne of Portugal, but politically, he had no choice. He had to keep his enemies from gaining a hold on the Iberian penninsula (not to mention the fact that he was actually the strongest claimant to that throne - his mother Isabella of Portugal, being the daughter and sister of Kings of Portugal). Saying he was over-cautious would be an understatement. Philip rarely acted on anything without be forced to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.192.192.156 (talk) 04:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

King of Chile

El rey de Chile Felipe II de España.

According to historian Diego de Rosales, when Prince Felipe (later Philip II of Spain) married Mary I of England, to raise his condition from Prince to King, he married with the title of "King of Chile".

This is inaccurate - Philip married the English queen, Mary Tudor, because his father, Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, arranged this marriage. Although Philip was not emotionally close to his father, he had a deep respect and reverence for him. It was a political marriage, and an opportune alliance, nothing more (of course, it would not have hurt Spain's position had Mary conceived a child and heir). Shortly before the marriage took place, news arrived from Brussels that Charles had ceded the title of Duke of Milan, and King of Naples to his son Philip. Mary was prepared to marry her prince, but was quite pleased to be marrying a King. (Dgrom (talk) 02:25, 24 March 2009 (UTC))

"(...) en aquella corte y asistencia que el Emperador hizo en Flandes, trató de casar a su hijo Philipe con la serenísima doña María, única y singular heredera de los Reynos de Inglaterra; y como los grandes de aquel Reyno, conociendo que doña María era legítima Reyna respondieron que avía de ser rey quien casase con ella, se trató que el príncipe se coronara por Rey de Chile, y como ya estas provincias, que antes no tenían otro título, estubiesen por el Emperador y pertenesiessen a la Corona de Castilla, dixo pues hagamos Reyno a Chile." Diego de Rosales, Historia general del reino de Chile, Flandes Indiano

According to http://es.rodovid.org/wk/Persona:29921 , he used the title from 1554 to 1556. See also: (in Spanish) http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotario_de_la_Historia_Chilena#El_rey_de_Chile —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.21.241.191 (talk) 14:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Philip - monarch or consort of England?

The discussion has been started here. Surtsicna (talk) 15:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Armada Invencible

This article briefly refers to the Armada, and does not mention that the biggest disaster for the Armada was the terrible weather in which was caught; the obliteration of this event may lead to inacurate interpretations--201.124.123.168 (talk) 19:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

titular King of France, jure uxoris who lost Calais

This is perfectly wikilinked to source materials via Mary Tudor's article. KansasBear is obviously blindly reverting, for God knows what reason. 70.171.236.188 (talk) 04:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

so what i am trying to say is take me away take take take me away —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.249.188 (talk) 15:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Crown of Aragon not Kingdom of Aragon

In the begining should say that is king of the crown of aragon, not the kingdom of aragon. Because if you put only the Kingdom of Aragon he is no the king of Valencia, Mallorca and Catalonia that are part of the Crown. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariolg (talk • contribs) 21:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Combine "Legacy" with "Historical assessment"?

The two sections entitled "Legacy" and "Historical assessment" appear to substantially overlap. Any objection to my reworking them - or does anyone want to take this on himself? I am an editor by trade, not a Spanish historian, so anyone who thinks himself better qualified is welcome to take this on. -- Molly-in-md (talk) 21:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Stud Book

Philip II created one of the greatest genetic project in history in 1567: the first studbook creating a breed of horses which would have specific pre-established characteristics. These live on to this day. I suggest that a mention of this be added in this chapter. (hypocampelephantocamelos, 23/4/2010) Hypocampelephantocamelos 12:18, 23 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hypocampelephantocamelos (talk • contribs)

If there's a reliable reference, then of course it should. Hchc2009 (talk) 12:57, 23 April 2010 (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) i think you are big dum !!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.200.65.227 (talk) 17:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Seriously?

Why would he marry a Queen of England when 30 years later, they would be at war? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.60.203.88 (talk) 13:07, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

He married Queen Mary I of England, his father's first cousin, and was made her co-ruler. She died and the crown was inherited by her Protestant half-sister who became Queen Elizabeth I of England. Philip was at war with his former sister-in-law, not with his wife. Why? Read Spanish Armada. Surtsicna (talk) 17:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

He also offered to marry Elizabeth after Mary's death. Elizabeth turned him down. Anglo-Spanish relations got progressively worse from there. john k (talk) 04:51, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

In answer to the original question, he was never at war with Mary, he was at war with Elizabeth. Secondly, your statement is made with the benefit of hindsight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.219.116.67 (talk) 13:34, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

King of England

I am curious if England were to ever have another king named Philip would this new king be Philip II? Or would he count as Philip I, how does Philip of Spain fit into British regnal numerals? Jamhaw (talk) 23:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)jamhaw

If the United Kingdom ever has a king named Philip, he could reign either as Philip II (thus counting this Philip) or Philip [I] if they decide to treat him the way Henry the Young King is treated. It's impossible to know. Surtsicna (talk) 19:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Philip as King of England

I noted that the section King of England and Ireland claims that

"The Privy Council instructed that Philip and Mary should be joint signatories of royal documents, and this was enacted by an Act of Parliament, which gave him the title of king and stated that he "shall aid her Highness ... in the happy administration of her Grace’s realms and dominions." In other words, Philip was to co-reign with his wife."

I want to dispute this interpretation. It was very much my belief, and what I had been taught, that Parliament had no intention of giving Philip power, and used Acts of Parliament to make sure that he had none of the authority of a King - his title King of England was entirely (and uniquely in British/English history) a compromise title which was nothing more than a Prince-Consort title with an extra coat of polish to make it look shiny. I'll cite this passage as supporting my view - Philip was not "to co-reign with his wife", on the contrary the very wording of the "shall aid her Highness" is designed to highlight that he was only to advice and support Mary, and could not either take her place, nor even be on a level with her. I would make the change myself, but I do not have the book The subject of Elizabeth: authority, gender, and representation which is then cited. Under other circumstances I might remove it and replace with the new interpretation with my source, but given that I don't know the actual book, and given the subject matter, I feel it would be a contentious act to do so; therefore I'm looking to see whether other editors here support my assertion or reject it. If the consensus is that I am wrong I'm happy to leave the matter, but I'm fairly sure that this article is misinterpreting English history in a fairly major and critical (historically) way, and so if I can get support to make the change, I would like to. I hope you understand what I'm getting at here. Falastur2 ^Talk 16:40, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you would be interested in this discussion, where I cited c. 40 historians who consider Philip Mary I's co-ruler, even if only de iure. Of course, he never wielded as much power as she did but he was always treated as a monarch: all official documents (including the Acts of Parliament) were dated with names of both King and Queen,[1] the Parliament was called under their joint authority, etc. The article makes it clear that, despite his status as Mary I's co-ruler, he never enjoyed as much influence as he wanted. Surtsicna (talk) 19:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm. Interesting. Obviously I can't argue with the number of quoted sources, but I have to say that the argument still fails to convince me, and I find several aspects of your thesis irrelevant or flawed. Notably:

Philip was styled "King of England". All Kings of England were monarchs of England, as England had no history of kings consort.

Yes, but that is because England had previously only had one example of a female monarch (I do not count Lady Jane Grey here as she did not last long enough to have had a chance to become involved in situations such as these) and she ruled several centuries earlier in the midst of a civil war in which Matilda failed even to have herself crowned. Indeed many deny that she was ever Queen of England, and List of English monarchs recognises this, so it would hardly have been fitting for her contemporaries to judge on whether Geoffrey of Anjou was a King Consort or not. I agree, however, that under the situation, Matilda would always have been the one recognised as regnant monarch, yet there is no precedent for you to refer to here, and further, my original point disputes this anyway: Philip insisted on being King, against English practice, and so laws had to be bent anyway. Thus, there is plenty of room for grey area here, as the entirety of the marriage negotiations and Philip's wedlock with Mary was an improvisation of sorts.

All official documents (including Acts of Parliament) were dated with names of Philip and Mary. [32][33] In fact, his name appeared before hers.

Philip was given the title King of England as a courtesy title, and it was standard practice to name a male before a female, so I regard this as tenuous proof at best. Note that Philip was never crowned, so technically his claim to be King rested solely on his not being challenged legally anyway.

Coins showed the heads of both Mary and Philip, often with a single crown suspended between them, indicating joint rule. The Great Seal shows Philip and Mary seated on thrones, holding the crown together.

This could be equally explained as sycophancy or Mary's will.

The marriage contract stipulated that the new King will admit no stranger in offices. How could a consort admit anyone in an office? Also, Philip's approval was sought when appointment to a high office was considered. It is known that Philip forbidden John Mason to reassume his office.

Very simple. Philip was forbidden from having foreigners fill positions in his household, and these positions, such as Gentlemen of the Chamber, Private Secretary, etc, were offices of a sort - and ones that he had the right to appoint himself whether monarch or consort. In addition, I am not sure that that section did not refer to the King and Queen, and thus would prevent Mary from being persuaded to appoint Spaniards to actual court offices through Philip's request.

The Pope issued a papal bull declaring that Philip and Mary are the rightful King and Queen of Ireland. The Pope would not mention Philip as the rightful King of Ireland had he been a consort only, as consorts have nothing to do with sovereignity.

True, though you could quibble that the Papacy had never previously recognised the title of King of Ireland (only Lord of Ireland) and thus as a new creation, the Pope could technically appoint whoever he wanted to the position. Logically it should be the incumbent in the position of Lord of Ireland, but if the Pope wanted to recognise Philip as co-sovereign he could have, without recourse to English whims. This was also done early on, before the Papal disputes with Mary and Philip, and you could argue that the Pope would have been interested in recognising Philip even deliberately at the expense of contradicting English law because he had a vested interest in appointing a strong Catholic to the rulership of a country under threat from Protestantism. Supposing that Parliament had refused to grant Mary permission to marry, she had married Philip in secret and a civil war had broken out in England which the Protestants looked like winning, it was equally likely that the Pope would still bless the marriage and recognise Philip as King of Ireland, because it strengthened the position of Catholicism. Remember that it was only three decades later that the Papacy declared Elizabeth (who IIRC according to Mary's Protestant-penned marriage document was recognised as Mary's heir presumptive) to be a usurper of the English throne and called for a righteous assassination. This is hardly an institution likely to work under the confines of Protestant-passed English law: rather it was an institution which claimed sovereignty over all Christian countries and thought most of the Members of Parliament were heretics. If the Pope wanted to recognise a Catholic as King of Ireland, and spotted an opportunity to fudge the terms of Acts of Parliament to suit his needs, he would do so willingly.

An act which made it high treason to deny Philip's royal authority was passed in Ireland. [35] (I guess that Wikipedians could be accused of high treason for saying that Philip was a mere king consort...)

That's Ireland, though, where the Parliament was a whole lot more tractable, and where the Parliament has zero influence on who is King of England, therefore somewhat irrelevant. This ties back in with my last point about Kings of Ireland being a newly [Catholic] recognised title, and so not necessarily indicative of who was the original legal monarch of England or of Ireland. Also, I'm not in Ireland so I'm hardly bound by its ancient laws ;) I bet that if you looked hard enough, there would be medieval statutes somewhere which would declare what we're doing with long-distance communications via an invisible force (electricity etc) to be witchcraft for which we should be burned at the stake...

Since the new King of England could not read English, it was ordered that a note of all such matters of state as should pass from hence should be made in Latin or Spanish henceforth.

A note of all such matters. That just means that after business was done, someone translated the records for Philip. Yes, it means he was involved, but then Philip was a freak for administration anyway, and so could easily be imagined to have wanted to re-read orders of business even if he hadn't had a personal hand in them. This is the man, after all, who commissioned 60-page questionnaires on the utterly inconsequential nitty-gritty of his colonies' geography and demographics. If I recall correctly, one of the questions was something along the lines of "how high do <a very specific type of tree that I can't recall> grow in your province?". He insisted on personally signing every document that his government produced, resulting in six month delays in sending orders to other parts of his Empire. I with some joviality recall the quote from one of the Viceroys of Naples about him: "If death came from Spain, we should live forever". This is the kind of man I can imagine wanting to read everything that went through court or Parliament even if he had no control of it.

The Privy Council instructed that Philip and Mary should be joint signatories of royal documents.

Well Mary's Privy Council were hardly an unbiased group, being all Catholic partisans (with possibly a few Protestants willing to suck up to save their position IIRC) so they naturally would agree to this, but fair enough. Technically, they could have instructed that the youngest stable-boy signed every document too, so long as the Queen had her pen to the parchment.

The coat of arms of England was impaled with those of Spain to "denote the joint reign of Queen Mary I and her husband Philip of Spain". The shield also occurs on the silver coinage and on their Great Seal.

Touche, though I would highlight that if we were to follow your earlier logic about equal recognition of Philip and Mary, that quote could have read "denote the joint reign of King Philip and Queen Mary II". In fact I would highlight that Philip is here addressed specifically as Mary's husband (not as her equal, nor as King - remember, he wasn't crowned, after all) and that he was referred to as Philip of Spain - a typical address for a consort.

Both Mary I and Philip came from a family in which men traditionally reigned by the right of their wives. Mary I's grandfather, who also happened to be Philip's great-grandfather, reigned as King Ferdinand V of Castile by the right of his wife. Philip's father, who also happened to be Mary's uncle, reigned as King Philip I of Castile by the right of his wife.

Irrelevant. Philip's heritage is utterly inconsequential, as this is England we are referring to and he could have been brought up in an environment where women were never to speak, couldn't hold any position and were chattel of their husbands, but if he came to England it would have no bearing on his relationship with his wife. If he took Mary to Spain, fine, but it holds no ground for the governance of England - to suggest it does is to suggest that England is subservient to Spain or somesuch, which is nonsense. Similarly, Mary's only heritage of male-dominated reign is from her grandfather, who she would never have known, and she was brought up her whole life in England, so she would only ever have known English customs. Again, in Mary's case she could have been the daughter of the Queen of Mars, but so long as she was brought up in England and groomed to rule only England, Martian heritage is inconsequential as only English customs and her English upbringing would be of any bearing. Royals were frequently married off to foreign princes in this era, and while they may have talked longingly of home, their duties were to assimilate into their new country and to bring their children up under the customs of the father's country.

I dont know where the person got the quote from, but they have the info wrong. Phillips father was King Charles I of Spain who was the nephew of Catherine of Aragon making him Mary's first cousin not Uncle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.127.106 (talk) 16:51, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

When Mary I died, Philip proposed marriage to her successor, as that was the only way he could continue his reign in England.

Yes, because a Protestant Parliament under Protestant Elizabeth had no intention of giving Philip the power which he wanted, and he saw his chance to control England slipping away. This was, by all accounts, a desperation move, and while Liz I may have seriously considered it, I think you would be pushing the bounds of believability to suggest that had the unlikely gone ahead and they had married, Philip would given the preferential treatment he got under Mary (which he is on record as having complained about, calling his marriage treaty "humiliating", I will highlight - not exactly something a new King would say if they were really given right to rule). This move can be summarised as nothing more than Philip's exasperation at knowing that legally he no longer had any bearing in England, as he always held power by virtue of his marriage and his marriage alone. If he was truly a co-monarch, why didn't he continue on as King alone as William III did after his wife's death (a situation Parliament had made sure to codify when he was granted the position of co-monarch)?

The proclamation stipulated: "Philip should for so long as the matrimony endureth be allowed to have and enjoy jointly together with the same most noble Queen his wife the style, honour, and kingly name of the realms and dominions unto the said most noble Queen appertaining, and shall aid the same most noble Queen his wife in the prosperous administration of her realms and dominions." Professor Roger Lockyer also says that the marriage contract stipulated that Philip was to assist Mary in the government of the country - no other consort was promised to have their share in the government, so it could only mean that Philip, a man and thus considered more capable than Mary, was supposed to reign alongside her.

I would dispute this conclusion. I think that the proclamation makes quite clear that Philip was to be recognised as Mary's counsel and no more. Philip is granted "the style, honour, and kingly name" of England etc - that simply recognises his title, which as stated was given as a courtesy and a compromise. "unto the said most noble Queen appertaining...her realms and dominions" these things are recognising that England and its possessions were rightfully Mary's - no reference is made when the opportunity is gaping to proclaim them to be Philip's as well. "shall aid the same most noble Queen" - well that to look at it another way, if I were looking for a job and met a farmer who offered me work on a farm he owned, and he wrote a contract saying specifically "I <Falastur> shall aid <Farmer X> in the prosperous administration of his farms and lands" I would under no condition think that that suggested any element of control, no less ownership, of the farm - it clearly would state that I was on the farm to act as hired help. This is how I see this sentence defining Mary's relationship to Philip. Professor Roger Lockyer goes so far as to restate the same thing - that Philip "was to assist Mary in the government of the country". I recognise Professor Lockyer's conclusion, and I suggest that it backs up my argument more than the theory than Philip was equal to Mary (especially in that it is little more than a paraphrase of the original quote).

Also, I can tell you that as a born and bred British citizen and an Englishman, it is not common to refer to Mary's reign as "the reign of Philip and Mary" here. Philip is not recognised as having been joint monarch by the population, nor by the education system. In fact I'll point out that the monarchy's official website does not recognise him, and says the following about Philip (this is the sum total of its reference to Philip:

"Mary's decision to marry Philip, King of Spain from 1556, in 1554 was very unpopular; the protest from the Commons prompted Mary's reply that Parliament was 'not accustomed to use such language to the Kings of England' and that in her marriage 'she would choose as God inspired her'.

The marriage was childless, Philip spent most of it on the continent, England obtained no share in the Spanish monopolies in New World trade and the alliance with Spain dragged England into a war with France. "

Anyway, I'm willing to just sit down on this issue as frankly I don't have the sources to match yours, but I want to make clear that I'm not convinced by your argument (though I respect it) and I believe that this article is deceptive at least, if not actually verifiably false. For example, even if we took your stance, I could still highlight that you acknowledge that Philip, and I quote you, "never enjoyed as much influence as he wanted". The article makes no reference of even these slight limitations. I hope you understand (again) where I'm coming from here... Falastur2 ^Talk 01:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Foreign policy section

The phrase "He considered himself by default the chief defender of Catholic Europe, both against the Ottoman Turks and against the forces to fight on every front at whatever cost rather than countenance freedom of worship within his territories." seems incomplete, but I don't know what was intended. I imagine it might be to do with "the forces of Protestantism" or similar, but I know too little of this topic to add anything useful. Perhaps someone with relevant knowledge could help here? VelhinhoEstoniano (talk) 22:48, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

You are right. The sentence was mangled in this edit, which I have now undone. Yaris678 (talk) 19:10, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Little Chance for the Spanish Armada's Success?

Under the section, "After Mary I's Death," after briefly discussing the preparations for an invasion of England, the text confidently states that, "However, the operation had little chance of success from the beginning, because of..." Is there a source that states there was "little chance of success from the beginning?" I've learned that there were myriad problems associated with the endeavor, but never that the entire project was doomed from the start! Certainly, the actions of Elizabeth I of England belie such confidence, to say the least. Such a bold statement requires footnotes, me thinks. Thank you114.167.112.250 (talk) 04:28, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

P & O national ferry services

From the article: "During their joint reign, when they attacked the French against their marriage treaty as composed by Parliament, Calais was lost to England forever." Can we take the shuttle through the English Chunnel?
▲ SomeHuman 2011-08-20 06:07 (UTC)

Commercial access to Calais through the Chunnel is irrelevant. The point is that England never again ruled Calais after the successful French Reconquis in 1558.

-- Molly-in-md (talk) 13:24, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Lack of neutrality

The idea of King Philipp II that this article conveys is clearly contaminated by the Black Legend and the traditional Anglophile point of view; one gets the impression that he was a particularly despotic king (well, which country did not have an absolutist king in those years?), when he was actually one of the most laborious and austere kings that Spain (and Europe) had. Bur for the final sentence, the rest of the article tries to convey the classic (and false) view of the anglophile tradition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.136.191.138 (talk) 15:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

I moved this section here, it had been put at the top of the page.

I read the article until I came across the section about the Netherlands, which Spanish history is rather familiar, in particular the mainly Calvinist propaganda that constitues a good part of the leyenda negro. Unfortunately, the proven reality in the Netherlands did not need much of a legend. The article is far more friendly than one may expect and with our present sources defend... unless the recently refreshed Spanish consciousness has already caused erradicating as much darkness as possible. I did not look into the aspects that might typically involve "the anglophile tradition".
▲ SomeHuman 2011-08-31 03:08 (UTC)

The opposite is the case. The bankruptcies, Netherlands, and Armada are among the man's chief legacies (along with the Philippines) and demand inclusion in the lede section regardless of any desire to finesse his responsibility for their damage in the body sections. — LlywelynII 09:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

LluwelynII I would contest that. The Spanish bankrupticies are important in the context of future decline of Habsburg Spain but historians generally do not attribute that as an important legacy of Philip. You have simply added an infamous defeat and the dutch revolt without adding the major success of Spain under Philip. I dont think you did it intentionally but it is generally noted amongst certain historians to magnify Philip's defeats and gloss over his victories. Do you not think victories in the Italian wars, Portugal, and the Mediterranean merit inclusion in the lead section? Lepanto was arguably a macro-historical battle. The Spanish victory in the Italian wars ensured that it would be Spain and not France that would be the dominant power of Europe and so on.

good work btw on adding to the titles section! Cliniic (talk) 10:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Misleading denominations

Placing the title of King of Spain on one side and King of Portugal on the other hand, offers a false intention that Portugal and Spain were independent kingdoms. On the contrary, Portugal between 1580-1621 was not an independent kingdom because it was part of the Spanish monarchy along with other kingdoms as Castile, Aragon, Valencia, Naples, Sicily... Each of these kingdoms had their own institutions, governments, laws, currencies ... If Portugal was independent of Castile, Aragon, Flanders, ... that did not turn it into independent of Spain, because neither Castile was equal to Spain, nor the conception of Spain in the seventeenth century was the same conception of Spain in the eighteenth century and onwards.

[2]: Politically, tha late sixteenth century was marked by incorporation of the kingdom of Portugal into the Spanish empire. [...] From 1580 to 1640 Portugal was but another realm in the era el puto amo se hacia unas pajillas pensado en la Juana la loca: ERa un vividor follador y repartia el salami a diestro y a siniestro SALAMI KING FOREVER federated structure of the Spanish empire.
[3] In spite of contemporary and later assumptions to the contrary, the kingdom of Aragon, although shorn of some of its privileges and institutional arrangements, retained its essentially constitutionalist and contractual character. A few years earlier a similar willingness to accept existing constitutional ans institutional arrangements had informed Philip's policies for union between Castile and Portugal. In the traditional Habsburg style this union of the Crowns in 1580 was another dynastic union, aeque principaliter, carefully designed to ensure the survival of Portugal's separate identity, along with that of its empire.
[4]: Following Philip II's annexation of Portugal in 1580, Spain became a truly global monarchy, with responsabilities that ranged though Mexico, Peru, Brazil and the Philippines, to Macao, Malacca and Goa and back through Mozambique, and Angola to the European heartland.
[5] The fundamental structure of the union of the Hispanic kingdoms and later of the Habsburg empire or Monarquía, as it was called, was that of a loose confederation. Its main points were: each of them retained itrs own parliament, political institutions, laws, courts, armed forces, taxation and coinage. None was constitutionally subject to any of the others, and the subjects of any were aliens in the others. [...] The viceroy in the states of the Crown of Aragon in the early days of Charles V was expected to be a member of the royal family, and when Philip II annexed Portugal a promise to the same effect was given.
[6] The death of the Portuguese king, moreover, enabled Philip to press his claims to that Crown, formally incorporated into the Spanish monarchy in 1581. Upon returning to Madrid, Philip II created the Council of Portugal, which, like the Councils of Aragon, the Indies, and later Flanders, would administer those territories. Other regions, such as Navarre, Sardinia, Sicily, Naples, Mexico, and Peru, had their own resident viceroys whose courts mediated between regional elites and the Spanish monarchy.
[7] Afeter the division by Charles V of the Habsburg lands, the Spanish Monarchy became, in effect, a conglomerate of six semi-discrete parts, each subject to a different Council of State. There was Castile itself, Aragon, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal (between 1580 and 1640), and the Americas.
[8] There is still a great deal more that we need to know about administrative structures, practices ans appointment policies, but, although the operational perspectives of the central government in Madrid could perhaps be described as Spanish, or peninsular, or even integrationist, they were certainly not castilianist. The conciliar system itself was on one level an image of a monarchy of equals, enshrining the separate juridical personalities of Castile, Aragon, Navarre, Italy, Portugal and Flanders, and with them a bureaucracy that preserved prescriptive rights for the Aragonese, for examlle though not for the Castilians.

It is true that Philip II was Philip I of Portugal as his son Philip III was Philip II of Portugal, but what is the subjacent intention to put in the infobox King Philip I of Portugal but not Philip I of Aragon?, was not Philip I of Aragon?, did not have the kingdoms of the Crown of Aragon their own institutions as Portugal had? Why to put Portugal in the parameter name= of the infobox and other realms not?

WP:COMMONNAME and WP:SOVEREIGN define how to designate the kings in wikipedia in English. It is not logical to use a name for title of the article, and that name is not implemented in the proper article. The purpose of that policy is that wikipedia facilitate access to information and not to appease nationalists POV. Moreover, the use of Template: Infobox royalty is clear, the parameter name= corresponds to Most common English/anglicised name which is simply to apply WP:SOVEREIGN, and of course, Philip I of Portugal or Philip I of Aragon are not common names. Documenting that Philip II was Philip I of Portugal and his successors also, is perfectly feasible in the lead section, but ignore the most common English/Anglicised name can simply be understood as a way of imposing a POV. Of what avail is it a naming convention in the names of the articles if it will not have an application inside the article?.

The name James I & VI is admissible because it has academic references but the designations Philip I & II, Philip II & III ... are invented, the result of a speculation and particular reflection of trying to compare the issue with Peter I of Brazil, but this does not apply because Brazil and Portugal were independent then. In addition, there is neither no academic evidence of use nor academic convention about the name Philip I & II, and therefore this name in wikipedia is WP:OR and to impose it is WP:DISRUPTPOINT. Trasamundo (talk) 19:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Quite agree. He is by far best known as Philip II of Spain and that is the article namespace. Meanwhile, other ranks can be quickly mentioned elsewhere in the lede. Fixed. — LlywelynII 09:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Article Intro

Hm. It seems C.T. 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 article titled "Philip II of Spain" should begin that way, not with "Philip I & II" etc. The subsidiary titles like Aragon and Portugal should simply be quickly listed elsewhere in the lede. — LlywelynII 09:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Titles

The list of COA'd titles is pretty but perhaps overlong and certainly nonexhaustive. I've added some of the more obvious omissions (Asturias, England, France – which we can argue about but which he certainly held and claimed to the same extent as the Jerusalem title), but it's still missing others. Some are fairly problematic: throughout his lifetime, he claimed the title archduke of Austria but the pages on the archduke, archduchy, and Ferdinand I, Holy Roman Emperor, all don't explain how that squares with Ferdinand's position. Note also that Ferdinand's page lists him claiming the duchy of Burgundy, Brabant &c. without explanation of how that squares with Philip's dominion. — LlywelynII 08:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

LlywelynII the title of Archduke was used by all Habsburg males from the 16th century onwards. It did not necessarily mean the ruler of Austria. Cliniic (talk) 11:07, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Surely that can't be right. Every prince in Spain or Austria was simultaneously archduke? — LlywelynII 14:47, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

yes its true. for instance Ferdinand divided his territories between his many sons (Maximilian II, Charles II, Ferdinand II) and all of them were Austrian archdukes. All males of the habsburg dynasty from the 16th century held the title of Archduke regardless of who actually ruled Austria. This was later extended to females. Marie Antoinette for example was an Austrian archduchess. Cliniic (talk) 14:54, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Weird. I assume "Count of Habsburg" worked the same way? If we include them, when was he granted the titles? At birth? at one year old (like Prince of Asturias)? later (like Knight of the Golden Fleece)? — LlywelynII 06:55, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure about Count of Habsburg. I dont think adding the title of archduke would be helpful it was simply a curtsey title and not a ruling one. Cliniic (talk) 15:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Side point

C.T. seems to remain very confused by the meaning of wikt:title (see also: title of nobility). As listed at List of titles and honours of the Spanish Crown among other places, the grandmasteries are indeed titles and the status of the Golden Fleece as a simple honor is debatable (The article on knighthood pointedly excludes all the Spanish orders from the honorary grants and they certainly had privileges, if no land, attached with them). Nonetheless, I'll amend the heading to include "honor" so it ceases to be confusing to modern readers who are used to untitled knights.

On the other hand, the Lord of Conquest, Navigation, and Commerce of Ethiopia, Arabia, Persia, and India is not in any sense mere styling (which is covered under the section regardless) but a reference to the Portuguese claims on those lands granted by the Pope at the Treaty of Tordesillas. — LlywelynII 06:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Mess of titles

Seeing this version of the page I note:

The denomination of Spain in the singular is not anachronistic: Philip the second king of Spain was used in the same period.

[9] Don Felipe por la gracia de Dios Rey de España
[10] y el Catolico Rey de España Don Felipe el segundo
[11] el Rey Don Felipe, por diuina gracia Rey de España, Inglaterra...

Titles, Honors, and Styles is a real mess and original research because the Titles, Honors, and Styles are confused with the divisions and administrative entities, which is a huge mistake.

Which is the justification of putting ordinal absolutely to everything? Does or did it exist in that epoch such names? It is clear enough to indicate simply his titles, honors and styles without adding at all costs an ordinal which is a result of an original investigation and aparticular reflection. The maximum exponent of this speculation is to put the ordinals to titles as prince of Asturias which have never had ordinal, in fact, the current Prince of Asturias doesn't display any ordinal.

The denomination of kingdom does not correspond to a realm-kingdom sui juris, but provinces denominated as kingdom, as Murcia, Granada, Jaen, Cordoba and Seville [12] Esta diversidad regional castellana no tenía ninguna traducción en el terreno legal. Los reinos de Castilla, de León, de Córdoba, no existían más que en la tradición. [13] Los títulos oficiales siguen mencionando los reinos de Castilla, León, Toledo, Jaén, Córdoba, Sevilla el Algarve, Algeciras, Gibraltar y Murcia, pero se trata de supervivencias formales, sin consecuencias para las estructuras políticas y administrativas, muy unificadas o en vías de unificación.

The Algarve was not a kingdom sui juris with his own institutions, legislation, but a Portuguese province; on the contrary, Navarre was in effect a kingdom sui juris with his own institutions, legislation, coinage... but inside the Crown of Castile. The territories of the crown of Aragon were territories sui juris with his own own institutions, as Sardinia [14] The principality of Catalonia was the political administrative entity, but the title was that of count of Barcelona.

In America there were provinces (governorates) denominated as kingdoms but they were not kingdoms sui juris. The kingdom of Chile was no exception since they existed the kingdom of New Spain, New Kingdom of Leon, Kingdom of Tierra Firme, New Kingdom of Granada, Kingdom of Peru, all within the crown of Castile, as the kingdom of Murcia, Seville, Granada...

There is no current scientific and reliable sources attesting the establishment of the kingdom of Chile in 1554, in fact, it is an invention that appears in the chronicle of Diego de Rosales [15]

By the way, what kind of reference is this one: [16]: a book of history of art, doesn't exist any books about political history?. Seeing that the book denominated the order of Santiago as Order of Compostello, a non-existent name, it gives me an idea about his reliable quality in this matter.

There are some anachronistic flags and others not, but his discernment is not for a biographical article and its placement does not contribute anything to the link. In addition, there is already an heraldic gallery in another epigraph.

In an epigraph denominated as Titles, Honors, and Styles is logical and coherent to use styling titles, nevertheless, the crazy thing is to present them as if they were real administrative divisions and due to it, a confusion takes place between the title and the administrative divisions. As a example of this confusion is putting the ordinal (PHILIP VI???!!!!) to kingdom of France, a title of claim reminiscent of the war of Hundred Years.

Trasamundo (talk) 16:06, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Section on economics is mush

The third paragraph of the section on economics of this article, as it stands on 11/29/2012, is nonsensical and bizarre. Who is "George Greenstreet"? There is no such personage. Someone took the care to convert "centralize" to "centralise" within a paragraph that reads like a an overcooked bean casserole. I am tempted to remove the entire paragraph as garbage but would probably get slapped with an edit revert. Who wrote this stuff? E.g.:

Calls to move his Court to Lisbon from the Castilian stronghold of Madrid — the new village Philip established following the move from Valladolid — as the traditional Royal and Primacy seat of Toledo have become obsolete to the growth of its weight by its constrained orography, could have led to prevent the further growth of centralisation and bureaucracy in the peninsula and to ease for the Empire, but Philip for obvious personal reasons too opposed such efforts, with backing from George Greenstreet. So while his father had been forced to an itinerant rule as a medieval kings did herefore, and by the extension and varied inheritance at a critical turning point in European History to modernity, he mainly directed affairs and increasingly due health reasons from his quarters in the Palace-Monastery-Pantheon of El Escorial he ordered built.

Make it go away! KDS4444^Talk 17:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Coats of arms are relevant

Coats of arms are relevant, as articles about British Monarchs. Coat of arms image reduced and hidden option so no really article extend --Heralder (talk) 00:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

King of Portugal

Somebody seized treasure when Lisbon was taken, but it is not clear whether it was Alba or Philip II (I). What was the date of the coronation?? Vicedomino (talk) 14:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Anne of Cleves

--77.101.128.88 (talk) 13:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC)--77.101.128.88 (talk) 13:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Born: 22 September 1515

Married to King Henry VIII: 6 January 1540

Greenwich

Marriage to Henry VIII dissolved: July 1540

Died: 16 July 1557

Chelsea Manor, London

Buried: 4 August 1557

Westminster Abbey

Henry VIII remained single for over two years after Jane Seymour's death, possibly giving some credence to the thought that he genuinely mourned for her. However, it does seem that someone, possibly Thomas Cromwell, began making inquiries shortly after Jane's death about a possible foreign bride for Henry.

Henry's first marriage had been a foreign alliance of sorts, although it is almost certain that the two were truly in love for some time. His next two brides were love matches and Henry could have had little or no monetary or political gain from them.

But the events of the split from Rome left England isolated, and probably vulnerable. It was these circumstances that led Henry and his ministers to look at the possibility of a bride to secure an alliance. Henry did also want to be sure he was getting a desirable bride, so he had agents in foreign courts report to him on the appearance and other qualities of various candidates. He also sent painters to bring him images of these women.

Hans Holbein, probably the most famous of the Tudor court painters, was sent to the court of the Duke of Cleves, who had two sisters: Amelia and Anne. When Holbein went in 1539, Cleves was seen as an important potential ally in the event France and the Holy Roman Empire (who had somewhat made a truce in their long history of conflict) decided to move against the countries who had thrown off the Papal authority. England then sought alliances with countries who had been supporting the reformation of the church. Several of the Duchys and principalities along the Rhine were Lutheran. Holbein painted the sisters of the Duke of Cleves and Henry decided to have a contract drawn up for his marriage to Anne.

Although the King of France and the Emperor had gone back to their usual state of animosity, Henry proceeded with the match. The marriage took place on January 6, 1540. By then, Henry was already looking for ways to get out of the marriage.

Anne was ill-suited for life at the English court. Her upbringing in Cleves had concentrated on domestic skills and not the music and literature so popular at Henry's court. And, most famously, Henry did not find his new bride the least bit attractive and is said to have called her a 'Flanders Mare'. In addition to his personal feelings for wanting to end the marriage, there were now political ones as well. Tension between the Duke of Cleves and the Empire was increasing towards war and Henry had no desire to become involved. Last but not least, at some point, Henry had become attracted to young Kathryn Howard.

Anne was probably smart enough to know that she would only be making trouble for herself if she raised any obstacles to Henry's attempts to annul the marriage. She testified that the match had not been consummated and that her previous engagement to the son of the Duke of Lorraine had not been properly broken.

After the marriage had been dissolved, Anne accepted the honorary title as the 'King's Sister'. She was given property, including Hever Castle, formerly the home of Anne Boleyn.

Anne lived away from court quietly in the countryside until 1557 and attended the coronation of her former step-daughter, Mary I.

She is buried in a somewhat hard to find tomb in Westminster Abbey. Italic text