Talk:Charles II of Spain/Archive 1

Untitled

The "John of Austria" who was the illegitimate brother of Carlos II is *not* identical to Don John of Austria. — Comment by Liveforever of 2004-11-08 11:34 (originally neither signed nor dated).

Heraldry: The Heraldry segment seems defective. I see nothing in that section. Sussmanbern (talk) 01:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Charles/Carlos

I added (Carlos) to the title at the head of the article because I got confused when the article started referring to him as "Carlos." Thought a note should be made at the very beginning that Charles = Carlos, but I wasn't quite sure about the best way to do it.

underbite

Did he have an underbite and was he unable to chew? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.122.44.100 (talk • contribs)

Yes apparently, he had the aptly named "Habsburg jaw". Charles 02:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

What about a 'Habsburg Nose'? ArdClose 14:34, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

"First Cousin Marriages in Europe"

I find this line, "(First cousin marriages are still quite common in Europe, and are still frequently not prohibited, though Aunt-nephew, Uncle-niece unions frequently now are.)" very racist and unfounded. I highly doubt this is true in any measure, and I think a citation or removal is in order.

I thought so too, so I deleted it. --217.10.60.85 (talk) 10:05, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, 26 States in the US allow first-cousin marriages.98.162.136.248 (talk) 00:55, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Anglicization of Names

Before the Sixties, it was quite common for the names of famous/notorious foreigners to be Anglicized. However, practice has always been inconsistent and continues to be so--despite the current fads of "ethnic" studies that have waste some much academic time and energy. For example, Wilhelm II Hohenzollern, the last "Kaiser" or Emperor of the German Empire, is sometimes referred to as William II. This, however, invites confusion in the English-speaking world with a number of English monarchs and Dutch monarchs (i.e. of the the House of Orange which still "rules" the Netherlands in the person of Queen Beatrix) who are quite prominent. Additionally, young Prince William of Britian will accede to the British throne as William V in the not-too-distant future.

Essentially, the matter rests with the individual historian. Personally, I find referring to the last Hohenzollern as "William II" to be rather pedantic. The propaganda of WWI has, for better or worse, permanently cemented the use of "Wilhelm II" rather than its anglicization as William. Similarly, while it would be entirely accurate to refer to the greatest Habsburg ruler, Charles I (of Spain) & V (as Holy Roman Emperor), as Carlos Primero, it would be unnecessarily confusing. To the Anglo-Saxon world Charles I brings to mind, firstly, the ill-fated second Stuart monarch. For five hundred years this man has been known as Charles in the English world. Francis I of France is Francois le Premier in French, but, he has been known as Francis so long, to revert to the French spelling would also invite confusion. Few modern historians (say, arbitrarily, those after Gibbon), therefore, have done so.

By extending the principle of strict adherence to the native name to nations whose languages are even more distant from English than Spanish or French, we invite even greater confusion. Peter the Great is Pyotr (Петр) in Russian but few English readers would recognize that and it would be pure pedantry to insist on using the original; the corollary would be referring to Ivan the Terrible as "John" The Terrible, as technically accurate as it would be. Without repetitive and distracting translations, almost no one would know who you were talking about.

In my opinion, the best way to avoid confusion is to use the form most commonly known, (an example of the confusion created by insistance on the use of the native origian would be calling the the third Roman Emperor--commonly known as Caligula--by his proper name Gauis. This is because that was also the name of the great Gaius Julius Caesar). The approach Britannica uses (see: http://www.britannica.com/eb/article?tocId=9108537&query=Peter%20the%20Great&ct=eb) is, to my mind, the best. The subject in this article in indexed according to the anglicized form, while the header of the article gives the "correct" Spanish form. Thus both problems are solved: his "correct" name and his "common" name are both given. Accuracy is maintained, confusion avoided. Therefore, referring to the last Habsburg as Charles II and including the Spanish original is the best way to go, it avoids inelegance as well as confusion with Charles II Stuart of England. PainMan 07:27, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Intellectual snobbery is a vastly more powerful force in the world than Political Correctness. A lot of folks just love to show off their knowledge of foreign languages, and one of the simplest ways of doing it is to call foreigners by their foreign names. Bastie 08:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Incontinence v Impotence

He was also impotent and drooled.

are we sure that shouldn't be "incontinent"? it would make more sense in context, i think

YggdrasilsRoot 15:24, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

He may well have been incontinent...

...as well as impotent, but the point is that he was incapable of fathering children. This is hardly surprisingly given his physical and mental infirmities. I've never read that he had bladder control problems. The man was tormented enough by his botched heredity, I certainly hope he wasn't afflicted by incontinence as well as everything else. PainMan 11:49, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Of that we may never be certain, but my opinion is that he was merely sterile. Otherwise, there would have been a bigger scandal and his second wife would not have suffered him either. Rotten Venetic 22:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Testicles

Should the line about his possibly having four testicles really be in here? It's presented as only a rumor (without a source), and it's somewhat of an off-putting one at that. Funnyhat 17:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's especially notable. I won't complain if it is removed. Charles 18:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I also don't think that it is notable, and it is an unsourced rumour. I have removed the text: "Perhaps humorously along this vein, he is rumoured to have had four testicles (although he was sterile)." If someone wants to re-add it, could you please cite a source? --  timc  talk   21:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Acromegaly

I don't think it is strictly accurate to refer to acromegaly as a "bone disease". Acromegaly is a hormonal disorder that has, among its many symptoms, disproportionate growth in certain bony areas. Paroche 00:16, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Ancestors

Added that 4 generation ancestors table that seems to be all the rage in articles about monarchs. I'm presuming one hadn't been added here due to Charles's 'complicated' ancestry Lec CRP1 07:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Charles' mother Maria Anna was niece of Charles' father, being daughter of Maria Ana of Spain (1606-46) and Emperor Ferdinand III. Thus, Empress Maria Anna was simultaneously his aunt and grandmother

If the ancestry of Charles and Maria Anna is true, then I think that Maria Anna is the cousin and mother of Charles and not Aunt and grandmother.Aunt and grandmother is not possible in my mind. Can anyone work out the logistics of it? Charles' mother is his father's sister's daughter is Maria Anna then that is a 1st cousin and mother.

I've drawn a basic family tree of Charles's ancestors to show this:

Note : the two Annes of Bohemia and Hungary, and the two Maria Annes of Spain are different people (though no doubt closely related). Blame the unimaganative naming schemes of European Royalty. Lec CRP1 10:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

So I am right. Charles' mother is also his cousin and not his aunt or grandmother. So the article should be changed to mother and cousin from aunt and grandmother.

Your table is wrong - you have shown Maximilian II as being married to "Anne of Bohemia and Hungary," who was actually his mother. In fact, Maximilian II was married to Maria of Spain, daughter of Emperor Charles V and sister of Philip II. (And, of course, Maximilian and Maria were thus first cousins, and Philip II had married his own niece...there was some serious inbreeding going on in that family). john k 17:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, fixed that. You can understand some confusion with Habsburg geneology, though. A proper tree of the Spanish Habsburgs would need some real planning... They're inbred to hell. Which I suppose is what happens when you have two branches of a dynasty to exchange marriage partners between. Makes you wonder how Charles II was the only severely genetically-disabled family member Lec CRP1 18:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, among the Habsburg-Lorraines you have Emperor Ferdinand, who was retarded. his parents were, I believe, double first cousins (Ferdinand's father Franz II's mother, Empress Maria Louisa, was the sister of Ferdinand's mother Maria Theresa's father, King Ferdinand IV of Naples; Franz II's father, Emperor Leopold II, was the brother of Maria Theresa's mother, Queen Maria Caroline.) One would also imagine that the difficulty of the later Habsburgs-proper in producing heirs might have been a result of bad genes and a lot of miscarried monstrosities. john k 01:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

You mean like this?

Has a pleasing symmetry but god knows what it did to the gene pool. Still, I thought Ferdinand's disabilities were caused by Hydrocephalus, rather than inheritance? Lec CRP1 08:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Not sure. Hydrocephalus isn't genetic? The real winners on the genetic front were the children of Duke Robert of Parma and his first wife, Maria Pia of Bourbon-Two Sicilies - most of them were mentally retarded. But those two don't seem to be that closely related - only first cousins once removed. Obviously there are more relations than that, but they don't seem nearly as inbred as some. Apparently, at present the most inbred royal family in Europe are the Bourbon-Orleans - and, indeed, the Comte de Paris' eldest son is mentally retarded (or something similar - I'm not quite sure on the exact details). john k 12:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Looking on that family tree, it seems likely that Ferdinand's 'issues' were more a result of his Spanish Bourbon heritage. Looking at Charles III of Spain and his children (13, only 7 reached adulthood and one of those was an 'imbecile') and his grandson and Ferdinand's father Francis II, Holy Roman Emperor who fathered 13 children also, and also only 7 survived (one was Ferdinand, and another was Maria Anna who I've read was kept locked away). For once, the Habsburgs are seemingly not to blame. The last Habsburg Emperor, Karl I of Austria had 8 children, 4 of whom are still alive aged (IIRC) 87, 88, 92 and 94. The Habsburgs seem to have done some serious treatment of their formerly polluted gene pool. Lec CRP1 16:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the Spanish Bourbons seem too have inherited the Spanish Habsburgs' penchant for inbreeding. That only cleared up when Isabella II started having the children by people other than her husband, which worked wonders. I would concur that the early pollution of the Habsburg-Lorraine genetic pool came largely out of the close alliances with the Spanish/Neapolitan Bourbons, whose genetic problems I am at something of a loss to explain - the Farnese marriage, one might have thought, would have provided a bit of hybrid vigor, and Maria Amalia was not all that closely related to Charles III. I'm not sure what happened for the Habsburg-Lorraines to put them back on the right track. Looking back at the ancestry chain of Archduke Otto, his mother was a Bourbon-Parma, his paternal grandmother was a Saxon princess (wife of Archduke Otto the Elder), and continuing back along the paternal line we have a 2 Sicilies princess (wife of Karl Ludwig), a Bavarian princess (Sophie, Franz Joseph and Karl Ludwig's mother), and then to the aforementioned Maria Theresa of Bourbon-Two Sicilies. Sophie of Bavaria would perhaps be the key, as neither the Zweibrücken Wittelsbachs nor the Baden-Durlachs (her mother's family) were very closely related to the Habsburgs. The others were, however, reasonably close relations. Archduke Karl Ludwig and his second wife were second cousins; Archduke Otto the Elder and his wife were also second cousins; Emperor Karl and Zita were 2nd cousins once removed. john k 13:31, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, just started work on my latest grand project - a tree detailing the dynastic links between the Habsburg-Lorraines and Spanish Bourbons. Looking at it after some preliminary work, the tree of Charles II was easy compared to this one. By the looks of things Charles III of Spain and Maria Theresa of Austria must have met at some point to arrange lots of marriages between their children and nephews/neices, with the express purpose of counfounding future amateur geneologists having to draw up family trees. I'll be as mad as a Spanish Habsburg by the time I get it finished... Lec CRP1 21:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Charles' mother Maria Anna was niece of Charles' father Then Charles' mother is his COUSIN! Not Aunt or Grandmother!It is impossible to be aunt/mother/grandmother to the one person. (the above has been written by some anonymous writer)

It seems to me, from the genealogy, that EMPRESS Maria Anna was Charles' aunt and grandmother, simultaneously. Of course, Charles' own mother, also named Maria Anna (or Mariana, the same name in different languages) was not Empress. Marrtel 19:25, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Including birth and death dates may help. Charles 19:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Inbred Family Tree

I've done a better version of the image above and put it on the page. It was more difficult than it looks. Lec CRP1 12:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The title needs to be changed to something more NPOV and accurate. How about, "Ancestry of Charles II of Spain"? Charles 18:24, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

POV? I chose that title because Charles *was* unfortunate, in many ways, as the article says. Lec CRP1 20:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Maybe* so, but encyclopedias don't title figures as such. At any rate, the title is incorrect. It is his ancestry, not just his Habsburg ancestry. Charles 15:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I have updated the image with the appropriate title. Charles 15:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I prepared a family tree depicting the succession of Habsburg inbreeding. It is referenced on the page located here: http://www.musitek.com/Public/Charles_II_Inbreeding.jpg

Yet another image

68.39.174.238 01:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Mentally retarded?

Can anyone elaborate on this? It isn't given nearly as much ground as it should. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.255.11.143 (talk) 04:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

• There is absolutely no evidence for this and it should be removed. I will do so unless someone can come up with evidence. This entire article is full of editorialization and I am marking it as not NPOV as well. Needs a lot of work and citations.

--Bewtros (talk) 20:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Now corrected - there are a number of contemporary sources who confirm his mental abilities remained intact, so I have included this plus reference.

Robinvp11 (talk) 15:01, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

POV Check

I understand that this is a monarch that's very difficult to like. That said, the fact that the page is chock full of uncited sources, unattributed or incorrect medical and psychiatric information (see my "mentally retarded" comment) makes me think there's some bias involved. Sentences that begin with "unfortunately..." and phrases that are patently false such as "he was left entirely uneducated" need to be rewritten/removed. I'm happy to help in this labor as I'm currently reading a book on the family illnesses of the Habsburgs. Bewtros (talk) 20:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Inappropriate tone / humor

In Charles II, [hereditary genetic defects] resulted in being physically disabled, mentally retarded and disfigured, but that was sufficient to cripple his rule as well.

Does this pun strike anyone else as incredibly tacky? C alan zoppa (talk) 02:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Changed it. --Fullobeans (talk) 03:42, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

POV

After reading this article, I think it would be better just to delete it (exaggerating here btw), there are so many parts lacking sources and citations, that this is not acceptable. I see not why this monarch would be disliked, he was benign and harmless to Europe and the world. What has been written about him in this article is a disgrace which also stains the name of the Spanish Royal Family which has Habsburg ancestry. Can anybody who knows more about Charles II please edit this instead of the anon users (trolls most of the time)?--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 02:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Exercised, or exorcised?

"The king was exercised, and all the exercises of the kingdom were called upon to put straight Charles II's ailing body."

Surely, given the suggestion of sorcery, it should be "exorcised", and "exorcists". Xarqi (talk) 12:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Mental retardation?

How do we know that Carlos was mentally retarded? His difficulty to speak may have lead to people underestimating his mental capabilities. Did he have epicanthic fold or any other physical signs of Down syndrome? Did he behave in ways typical for mentally retarded people? I wonder because many people have been mistaken for mentally retarded when they actually had a very different disability. And yes, I am one of them.

2009-06-10 Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.

Long time after the fact but as per the revised article, his mental capacities appeared to be unaffected.

Robinvp11 (talk) 18:05, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 07:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

---

Charles II of Spain → Charles II of Castile — Accuracy. Surtsicna (talk) 00:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• Philip IV of Spain → Philip IV of Castile
• Philip III of Spain → Philip III of Castile
• Philip II of Spain → Philip II of Castile

Charles II of Spain → Charles II of Castile — Although the Habsburg rulers of the Crown of Castile and the Crown of Aragon are commonly referred to as kings of Spain, such naming is as wrong as referring to Charles II of England as Charles II of Great Britain or to Elizabeth II as Queen of England. It is common but utterly wrong. The Kingdom of Spain did not exist during the lifetimes of these men. It only came into existance during the reign of Philip V of Spain and therefore we can only speak of Spain in the articles about Philip V and his successors. If we choose to prefer historical accuracy over common name in situations such as George IV of the United Kingdom vs. George IV of England and Diana, Princess of Wales vs. Princess Diana, shouldn't we also prefer historical accuracy over common name in this situation? Or are we going to have double standards: accurate (but not very common) names for UK-related articles and inaccurate (but very common) names for articles like these?

Besides, of Castile is not even always replaced with of Spain. There was at least one more sovereign who reigned over both the Crown of Castile and the Crown of Aragon in their own right (excluding Charles I who held an imperial title): Joanna of Castile. She isn't called Joanna of Spain, isn't she? So why start with Philip II? I propose being accurate all the way, like we are regarding English-Scottish-British monarchs. Surtsicna (talk) 00:14, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

• Move per given reasons. Vanjagenije (talk) 00:32, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose as noted in the nomination itself the WP:COMMONNAME is 'kings of Spain'. I agree that there is some merit to the nomination but I am going to oppose on the common name basis.--Labattblueboy (talk) 04:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • In that case, would you support moving George III of the United Kingdom to George III of England and similar moves? It's the same situation: historical accuracy against the common name. If the reason for keeping these articles at X of Spain is WP:COMMONNAME, why don't we move George III of the United Kingdom to George III of England? I see no reason for having double standards: being accurate regarding British history and anachronistic regarding, for example, Spanish history. Surtsicna (talk) 10:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
    • WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Focus on this article, not what is done or not done in others.--Labattblueboy (talk) 17:36, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
• Srongly Oppose The nation of Spain begin in the 16th centuries, officially or not. That fact cannot be changed and to move all these Spanish monarchs to of Castile make it confusing to what was the country name at the time. Your argument is good but I can suggest a similar move of all Castilian and Spanish monarchs to of Leon. The title King of Leon was the top title in the Crown of Castile and all Castilian and Spanish kings were crown as King of Leon, even though Castile may have been the center of power in union. Having redirects are enough. Do we really want moves like Spanish Empire → Castilian Empire or Spanish Golden Age → Castilian Golden Age?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 06:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • The nation of Britain began during the rule of the Romans, officially or not. Yet we do not have an article about William I of Britain. James I of England (James VII of Scotland) used the title King of Great Britain - that's a fact as well but we ignore it and use his correct title. Could you please explain why should we treat British history with more 'respect' (if I may call it so) than Spanish history? Nobody said that the nation of Spain began only when Philip V decided to have his kingdoms merged. The nation certainly existed before the creation of the Kingdom of Spain but I don't see why we should anachronistically invent a state when we don't normally do such things in other situations even if the wrong name is the common name. Surtsicna (talk) 10:12, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't really know, but commonly William I of England is not referred to as William I of Britain. We can't always be correct terms. In my opinion, it'll be a mistake to moves this. Many will not accept this. Spain de facto creation was in 1516 when the first King who held both crowns of Castile-Leon and Aragon by birth right. (Joanna of Castile succession to Aragon doesn't agree with the Aragonese law of succession, even if her father way have degree her as his heir, nor did she really ruled. Also the Aragonese cortes were reluctant to accept her as queen.) Can you give me an explaination why all French monarchs before Philip IV of France aren't of the Franks or of Francia when their actual title were Kings of the Franks rather than King of France, the more common term?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 22:16, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose For the same reasons as QEII's Little Spy. Hchc2009 (talk) 08:18, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. The Spanish kings claimed all of the above - Castile, Aragon, and Spain itself (Charles I's page includes a coin which has "HISPANIARVM" etched on it, i.e. Hispania / Spain). They could technically be in any slot, but why not pick the broadest title? As for Joanna of Castile, Ferdinand II of Aragon was still alive during the relevant part of her reign, which is why she's there. True, after Ferdinand died, she was co-Queen of Aragon with Charles I of both Castile and Aragon... maybe... but I'm not sure even ever went to the Aragon corts to be proclaimed (which Charles I did). Even assuming she was considered Queen, I don't believe she ever visited or ruled it in any sense, unlike Castile (where she was sole Queen after Philip I's death, even if the regent / Ferdinand did everything). So it makes sense to just list her as "of Castile." SnowFire (talk) 22:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose "Accuracy" hasn't been raised by this move's proposer or discussed at NCROY to replace "most common name used in English" as the criterion for article titles -- not even when Carlos II's multiple regnal titles were raised here was any argument made to change our conventions. Nor has the argument that British monarchs are best located at "accurate" rather than "most common" article titles been cited by the proposer as grounds for an !vote in the pending Talk:Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom poll where that point might be relevant, although here it is irrelevantly cited as the strongest precedent in defense of this move request. Seems puzzlingly out of the blue and inconsistent. FactStraight (talk) 18:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Despite my best efforts, I couldn't understand your point. All I understood is that you commented much more on me than on the content. I fail to understand how this discussion is related to this one. Unlike the latter, the former did not involve inventing states. I've neither opposed nor supported the move of Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom article and I certainly haven't voted there; what was your point? Have you mistaken me for somebody else?
  • Anyway, suddenly preferring the common name when talking about SpanishCastilian monarchs yet preferring the accurate name when talking about EnglishBritish monarchs is what I would call puzzlingly out of the blue and inconsistent. But if the community feels that English history and the Spanish history should be treated so differently, so be it! Surtsicna (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I apologize for my comment seeming like an attack, which was not my intention at all, so I sincerely beg your pardon. But since you are usually very consistent in argumentation and I couldn't find consistency in the grounds on which you connect this article's title to the titles of British monarchs, I was left puzzled. I was hoping you might address the seeming inconsistencies. Usually you argue that articles should be titled according to what reputable English-users most frequently write. But here you do not cite that basis, arguing rather that this article's name should be based on accuracy. Your grounds for this argument is that we do not rely upon "most common name" to put the first wife of Charles, Prince of Wales at "Princess Di", nor "Elizabeth II" at some more common name. Yet when I look at your comments in past discussions of Carlos II, you do not advocate he be moved to "of Castille". Nor in the current debate on Elizabeth II's article location, do you argue in favor of leaving her at the "more accurate" geographical reference. So, it looks as though you rely here on the validity of a principle ("accuracy over popular" article name) that you do not defend elsewhere where it is under current debate. I can't follow your logic, and yet since you are usually logical, I'm puzzled: Do you argue that, as in Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom the principle of "accurate geo-political title over popular usage" should prevail and be applied to Spanish monarchs, or are you defending this move on some other basis I haven't grasped yet? FactStraight (talk) 21:21, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
      • First of all, your apology really means a lot to me! I do usually argue that articles should be titled according to the WP:COMMONNAME. In fact, my original argumentation for these moves said that we should choose either using the most common name for both British and Castilian monarchs or the most common accurate name for both British and Castilian monarchs since the problem with both is exactly the same: the common name is not the correct name. I have never yet participated in a discussion regarding Charles II so I've had no opportunity to advocate a name change. To be honest, I did not actually intend to advocate this move. I proposed it to attract people interested in the subject and to share opinions, as I myself wasn't sure which titles were best. It took me a bit to understand the evolution of the Kingdom of Spain and the titles of these articles certainly didn't help me. The problem with the Elizabeth II case is that Elizabeth II is not inaccurate and that it is the most common name, so it is a bit difficult to argue against the move even though I don't support it. Anyway, the question is: when the most common name is obviously inaccurate, are we supposed to nevertheless use it or to switch to the next common name that is actually accurate? My logic: if the article about "George II of England" is located at George II of Great Britain because the former title is incorrect, the article about "Charles II of Spain" should be located at Charles II of Castile for the same reason. Was this clear enough? Surtsicna (talk) 23:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The main reason I proposed this move is to make the matter less confusing for the reader; explaining that these men ruled the kingdoms within the Crown of Castile and the Crown of Aragon and that a single state in Spain did not exist prior to the 18th century is, in my humble opinion, better than confusing them by calling these men kings of Spain without explaining how the grandson of a woman we call "Queen of Castile and Aragon" became "King of Spain" and forcing the reader to sniff around in order to conclude that the Crown of Castile and the Crown of Aragon were not united until the reign of Philip V. I could certainly live with the present titles; I'm just confused by our double standards. Surtsicna (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's not a double standard if you assume that Spain actually exists once Charles I takes the throne and unifies the lines of descent. Obviously the old client Kingdoms aren't abolished till Philip V, but that doesn't mean that there can't be a term for the personal union of the kingdoms from 1517-1715, i.e. Spain. Which was used at the time, and is a broader term that correctly indicates that Charles II and others ruled both Castile and Aragon. SnowFire (talk) 21:49, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

If it were that simple, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The problem is that there is no reason to assume that Spain actually existed since Charles I's accession. A personal union does not immediately create a new state. Charles I was king of seperate kingdoms of which the Crown of Castile and the Crown of Aragon were composed, just like (for example) Charles I of England & Scotland was king of three seperate kingdoms. Spain is a broader term for the personal union of those kingdoms, but does that fact entitle us to merge several states into one? Once again, Great Britain is a broader term used to denote the personal union of England and Scotland, the title King of Great Britain was used at the time (by monarchs themselves) and it correctly indicated that both England and Scotland were ruled by the same person since 1603. Yet we choose to ignore that. That's what I mean by double standards. There are other examples, of course. Surtsicna (talk) 23:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose because the kings of Spain became "kings of Spain", not in the 18th century, but in the 16th, and I am wondering where Surtsicna's Spanish historical sources are to be found, or if his decision is based on the number of Google hits, which always privileges English-speaking Googlers. And why the naming kings of Spain should have anything to do with the naming of kings & queens of England/Scotland/Great Britain/United Kingdom ? These articles are on kings of Spain, and the history of Spain with the naming of its kings/queens should be our guide, not the never-ending discussions on the naming of Elizabeth II.

In Spanish wiki, which I imagine to take its info from Spanish history sources, these kings are de España, starting, in fact, with Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor :

• Carlos I de España (Emperador del Sacro Imperio Romano Germánico como Carlos V (1520–1558)
• Felipe II de España (1527-1588)
• Felipe III de España (1578-1621)
• Felipe IV de España (1605-1665)
• Carlos II de España (1661-1700)

In its Anexo:Monarcas de Castilla [1]:

A partir de Felipe II comienza a estilarse el título de Rey de España, por la reunión en su persona de los reinos hispánicos: León, Castilla, Navarra, Aragón, Valencia, Mallorca, Granada y Portugal. La titulación castellana seguirá empleándose oficialmente hasta el reinado de Isabel II (1833-1868).

--Frania W. (talk) 00:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment This raises the interesting question of whether the English/British monarchs during 1603-1707 should be moved from "of England" to "of Great Britain". PatGallacher (talk) 19:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment The title 'King of Great Britain' was never sanctioned by either parlimanent but was simply adpoted by royal letters patent, and thus the official title of the monarch of England and of Scotland never actually changed from a legal POV. -- Jack1755 (talk) 05:01, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose This could be a grey area, but I think we ought to defer to common usage, whatever the legal technicalities. Phillip II of Spain is a fairly important figure in English history, because of his marriage to Bloody Mary and the Spanish Armada, it could come as a great surprise to many people that he wasn't king of Spain. Should we start talking about the "Castillian Armada" or the "Iberian Armada" (since it actually sailed from Lisbon) or Sir Francis Drake "singeing the king of Castille's beard"? PatGallacher (talk) 13:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking into this further, several articles on European and Spanish history treat Spain as a single political entity during this period e.g. Spanish Empire, War of the Spanish Succession, without a hint of any alternative view. Do we re-name and substantially re-write these articles? The decree of 1715, which by this view supposedly created a united Spain, only rates a brief mention in one article, it is not even mentioned in the biography of Philip V of Spain who issued it. The Union of the Parliaments in 1707, the nearest equivalent in British history, does rate significantly more mention. PatGallacher (talk) 22:23, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose as they're known as Kings of Spain. GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Juana la Loca

The consensus among historians is that Joanna of Castile was not, in fact, mad. She likely had some emotional problems and perhaps suffered from schizophrenia or depression, but these were probably exacerbated by the fact that her father and other family members were constantly scheming to undermine her claim to rule. The article actually on Queen Joanna has been updated to reflect this current historiographical trend. This article, however, cites her as prime proof of the dangers of Habsburg inbreeding. Though two of her great-grandfathers were brothers, she was not nearly as inbred as the Habsburgs, and while such emotional disorders could have been passed to her by heredity, inbreeding is not presently believed to have been a contributing factor to her putative instability.

In short, the paragraph in this article citing her example as evidence of insanity running in the family should be removed since she was not, most historians agree, insane. Most notable among those who have adopted this new view is John Elliott (historian), who subscribed to the madness hypothesis in the original edition of his classic Imperial Spain, 1469-1716, but has withdrawn his support for it in later works. Ajgwm10 (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I added a line briefly addressing the fact that the "madness" may have been a misnomer. 76.119.244.49 (talk) 17:54, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Pedigree collapse

I feel like there ought to be a link to pedigree collapse in this article somewhere, but I'm not certain where it would fit in. Perhaps someone could add it. 128.205.231.146 76.119.244.49 (talk) 17:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)(talk) 17:23, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Added as a "see also" in the paragraph directly outlining the inbreeding.76.119.244.49 (talk) 17:53, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Marie Louise & Charles II Marriage

In the article, it is said: 'It is likely that Charles was impotent, and no children were born. Marie Louise became deeply depressed[3] and died at 26, ten years after their marriage, leaving 28-year-old Charles heartbroken'.

It is not true that Marie Louise became depressed and then died. She had an accident when riding a horse and had to stay in bed. There are several theories about the type of drinks she was given while in bed or how deeply she was hurt when falling from the horse, but the fact is that she never got up again. She died after a few days. Agila13 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agila13 (talk • contribs) 10:47, 24 March 2011 (UTC) This information can be checked out on Duque de Maura's book on Charles II of Spain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agila13 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for a great article - could easily be FA. PiCo (talk) 09:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Hexed by Sorcery

Also known as sick by food poisoning. Europe was eager to test arcane lore from the new people in America and the growing Empires. Such arcane lore was more valuable paid by rulers than by commoners and in effect was a weapon. Intrigues were necessary to deliver the substances and perform the experiment without exposing the man of lore. Ancestry would be profitably blamed for any failure. This historical figure seems to be the perfect example of such experimentation. djb — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.56.75.49 (talk) 02:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Klinefelter syndrome

Can we remove the wanton assumptions about inbreeding being the cause of his condition (while, magically, his parents were perfectly healthy despite being just as inbred) and finally admit the truth: that he was afflicted by Klinefelter syndrome, a random genetical disease unrelated to inbreeding — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:CB1C:8172:5400:E51A:C769:72CD:1430 (talk) 18:31, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Disorders section

Maybe it is an idea to add a disorders section to this articles, as it is one of the most interesting things about Charles II.

Charles II mostlikely had Hydrocephalus. I don't have any sources for this, it seems logical. --Candide124 (talk) 23:38, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

While there us plenty of speculation about Charles' medical condition, I could not find any source claiming he had Hydrocephalus. Also it is rather unclear how he managed to survive so long with his health problems. See:https://www.thevintagenews.com/2017/03/23/when-charles-ii-of-spain-died-the-autopsy-stated-that-his-body-did-not-contain-a-single-drop-of-blood-and-his-head-was-full-of-water/

• "After he died in Madrid on 1 November 1700, the physician who performed his autopsy had reportedly stated that his body “did not contain a single drop of blood; his heart was the size of a peppercorn; his lungs corroded; his intestines rotten and gangrenous; he had a single testicle, black as coal, and his head was full of water.” "
• "American historians Will and Ariel Durant, co-authors of the book The Story of Civilization, had further described Charles II as “short, lame, epileptic, senile, and completely bald before 35, he was always on the verge of death, but repeatedly baffled Christendom by continuing to live.” " Dimadick (talk) 17:33, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Proposed Removal of Ancestry Section

While I understand its interesting, I think this largely replicates content elsewhere and I'm not sure adds much to this article. I've rewritten the Early Life section to include the key points so I propose removing this or moving it to another page.

Robinvp11 (talk) 05:03, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

First let me say that I think ancestries are significantly over-used for royalty and nobility, often being excessive and sometimes gratuitous. However, I don't think that is the case here. Charles has become the poster-child for royal inbreeding, and the degree to which he was inbred and the genetic consequences have served as the basis for entire scholarly studies. A chart very similar to the one we show has appeared multiple times in reliable sources. I think it is appropriate to have such a section, though any duplication should be minimized. Agricolae (talk) 09:28, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Let me add that Charles II has been the nexus of these analyses, so the same argument does not apply to his father, whose page has a cookie-cutter 5-generation tree of a type I don't remember ever seeing in any coverage of Philip IV. Agricolae (talk) 09:33, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. I could understand a claim that it was overly detailed, but considering we have 4- or 5-generation trees on most royal figures' pages, it seems odd to excise the section completely. --RoseOfVarda (talk)

Seriously, why start a discussion if your intent is to immediately act unilaterally anyhow? Agricolae (talk) 16:08, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Reasonable point on the edit; my poor wording. I was following the Wikipedia principle of Be bold but recorded it on the Talk page so people could respond. From my perspective, the overall flow and content only make sense when the article is viewed as a whole (as you can probably tell from the number of minor edits); arguing about individual sections doesn't help and often leads to a sterile discussions which are largely unnecessary. My original point was not the content per se but where it sat in the article.

Wikipedia developed the Biography templates to provide consistency; I've followed that. My understanding is variations should only be made if they are essential to the topic and not sufficiently covered elsewhere.

I understand Charles' relevance to an article on Inbreeding but this is about Charles the King; His disabilities are highly relevant to the events of his reign but the cause of those disabilities far less so in this article

The original spent more time on his genetic makeup and personal habits than historical developments during his reign; John of Austria whose feud with Mariana was a major cause of Spanish weakness only appears in the context of complaining about his lack of hygiene. Zero discussion of the long term trends impacting Spain or why Charles' reign was so ineffectual. The balance was wrong and there is a limit to how much content you can include.

I've read through various sources (not just the ones cited here) and the 'evidence' is not nearly as clear cut as the original suggests. One of those sources made the point that the exact impact of Hapsburg inbreeding is not fully understood and Margaret Theresa is evidence of that. I'm not a scientist but it seems odd to discuss Charles and not even mention her.

Suggested actions;

If you feel key information has been omitted, let's discuss;

I'll dig out the right source for the point re Margaret Theresa;

If you have a page I should link to, please advise.

Robinvp11 (talk) 23:43, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

That said, there's certainly a history of including some amount of pedigree on pages about royalty. For example, the page on Elizabeth II has a section on her ancestry that just lists her parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents. As a compromise, I think we could add the family tree back in, perhaps along with a note on his high coefficient of inbreeding, but otherwise keep the current revision. --RoseOfVarda (talk)

Thanks both; I appreciate the help in improving this article :).The issue wasn't about the family tree per se but how much detail to include on genetics and where to place it.

Re Family Tree; I've linked to the Wikipedia page on this ie Monarchs of Spain family tree.

Coefficient; already included in Footnote B;

Reference; updated the reference in Early Life to reflect the actual content.

Inbreeding; I read (some :)) of the Celbellos article and it confirms my point it belongs elsewhere. I've linked to Inbreeding in Humans - it looks like it needs a rewrite by someone who knows what they're talking about (not me). There's also a page on Royal intermarriage which I haven't linked to.

Hope that helps.

Robinvp11 (talk) 16:25, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

RE: Family tree. That still doesn't respond to the point that most other pages on royal figures directly include a 4- or 5- generation family tree on the page. Since Charles II has an especially interesting family tree (to say the least), it seems odd to not even have a 6-generation tree like on his father's page. At the very least, I would restore the family tree part of the old Ancestry section, even if all the text has been moved elsewhere. --RoseOfVarda (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:30, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok.

Robinvp11 (talk) 22:47, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

The article has gone too far in the other direction. Inbreeding deserves at least two paragraphs in this article. The Habsburgs are well-known for being one of the most inbred dynasties in Europe, and Charles II of Spain is the poster child for Habsburg inbreeding.

The article on Queen Victoria has a paragraph on hemophilia. The article on Haemophilia has three paragraphs on the descendants of Queen Victoria. There is a whole article on Haemophilia in European royalty, and it gets 500 pageviews per day.

As for his sister Mariana, the effect of inbreeding is random. Any offspring may be born disabled or perfectly healthy. Inbreeding only increases the *probability* of a genetic disability.

Tozar80 (talk) 02:08, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

I think we've now reached a reasonable compromise on this and so this is for the benefit of others; as included in the revised article, even the authors of the most famous inbreeding study admit that they have no idea - its a guess. Haemophilia is a disease that can be clearly tracked ie its not a guess. That makes it very different and the original omitted that crucial qualifier by the authors of the study (ie We don't really know) and made several assertions (including mental retardation) that cannot be substantiated. Several other people on this Talk page have made the same point.

Robinvp11 (talk) 18:04, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Additions

Wikipedia is an Encyclopaedia for others; unnecessary complexity or content does not help the objective of making it accessible.

(a) What is the purpose of the separate section on Offspring; the article says several times he died childless and his marriages are already covered. As a user, what additional information does that provide?

(b) Re the insert into the Succession; why is 'cognatic primogeniture' better than saying it could be inherited through the female line? The rest of the insert simply repeats what is covered lower down.

The duplication concerns me more because it suggests the article has not been read in detail. No particular animus but I've put a lot of work into this and I think these are reasonable questions.

Robinvp11 (talk) 19:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

(a) The word "childless" only occurred a single time before my revision, and in the summary at the beginning of the article, no less. But even if it had been mentioned in the article proper, I think the offspring section would be appropriate to briefly explain why a succession crisis was even possible. (b) Given that other pages on succession crises use more technical terms like "cognatic primogeniture", such as the page on the Wars of the Roses, I think it's reasonable to use them, especially with explanation. It gives an easy way to link to the page, should someone want to read more on succession laws. Using the War of the Roses page for reference, France certainly followed Salic law, but the Pragmatic Sanction of 1713 explicitly gave Habsburg women the right to inherit, so I'm not sure if saying Austria prohibited women from inheriting the crown is entirely accurate. And finally, it's half of a sentence saying why women could inherit. I don't think that counts as "unnecessary complexity". RoseOfVarda (talk) 23:46, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok; thanks for increasing my knowledge :). It is one of the many ironies of history that Charles of Austria spent most of his long reign from 1711 to 1746 altering the Austrian inheritance rules to allow his daughters to inherit and almost bankrupting Austria in the process. I've added some other stuff, edited to make it consistent with elsewhere and removed over links etc; obviously, you're welcome to adjust as you wish.

Robinvp11 (talk) 18:36, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Early life

The closing paragraph has some problems. It appears that something was inadvertently cut out of the middle of the passage, and the formatting confused. PurpleChez (talk) 16:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks - I'm assuming you mean the one on 'Legacy' so I've re-worded it :) - can you take a look and see if it makes more sense.

Robinvp11 (talk) 17:55, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Mischaracterizies severity of inbreeding

The sister not apparently having congenital issues isn't conclusive since recombination/epigenetics fully allow a healthy individual out of a larger population and she died at 22. As the flattened family tree with loops shows it's a fairly extreme case. That's how sexual reproduction is supposed to work, inbreeding amplifies defects that would be normally be knocked out. There's a yt vid that talks about this at some length as part of a larger cultural survey of modern genetics. The essence of the matter is that the Hapsburgs in Spain inbred themselves out of existence resulting in the war of the Spanish Succession. Lycurgus (talk) 11:49, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

This has been discussed ad nauseam in previous segments, and it staggers me why so much energy is spent on this.

First, this is an article on Charles II of Spain, not the impact of inbreeding.

Second, "The essence of the matter is that the Hapsburgs in Spain inbred themselves out of existence resulting in the war of the Spanish Succession." This simply isn't true. Philip IV had four sons; three died of natural causes, which wasn't unusual. No one has actually shown any of their deaths were due to inbreeding, not even Charles himself. His cousin Emperor Ferdinand had four sons, two made it to adulthood but died in their early 40s. From 1714-1715, four of Louis XIV's five male heirs died, leaving a five year old as king. People died young.

Third I really wish someone other than me would actually read the studies; because the one that's most often quoted actually says "evidence supporting inbreeding as an important factor in the extinction of the Spanish Habsburg lineage [is] not conclusive; it has not been demonstrated disabilities suffered by Charles II were caused by detrimental recessive alleles inherited from common ancestors."

Here's the link; Alvarez, Gonzalo; Ceballos, Francisco; Celsa, Quintero (2009). "The Role of Inbreeding in the Extinction of a European Royal Dynasty". PLOS ONE. 4 (4). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005174. PMC 2664480. PMID 19367331.

Robinvp11 (talk) 19:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

So here's what you (and presumably your source) are not getting. It's not required for every member of the dynasty to have been as severely affected as Charles II for the historical qualitative assessment to be made as a more or less flat fact. Many apparently healthy ones are not inconsistent with this judgement. It's only required that after a sufficient chain of events, the line of the Hapsburgs couldn't continue in Spain because the final dynast was severely disabled and unable to produce a natural heir or make accommodation in lieu of that which his intellectual disability prevented and both of these as a result of inbreeding. If you are contesting this fact, and justifiably, then your refutation will be complete. I don't wish to contest or discuss this further, but you may wish to reply for closure. Lycurgus (talk) 00:36, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

My logic chopping days are long past, but in order to 'refute' something, you need to have a reasoned argument. In this thread, you've made a series of unsupported statements, which is not the same. If you have alternative sources ie that don't already appear in this article, let me know.

My sources are not mine; I have zero interest in genetics, but I am prepared to do people like yourself the courtesy of reading the sources they provide (see Sources list).

Fact; there is not a single historical or scientific study that says definitively the Habsburgs bred themselves into extinction, or that Charles' impotence was the result of inbreeding. Even the one most frequently quoted and I've included a direct quote from that in the article.

Fact; the few contemporary sources we have say Charles displayed no sign of mental incapacity; he certainly had a speech impediment, and it is claimed his mother restricted access to ensure control. Not the same thing. Again, this is in the article.

Fact; dying heirless is not the same thing as fighting a 14 year war over the inheritance. The War of the Spanish Succession was not the result of Charles' death, an event widely anticipated throughout Europe for 30 years, and included in various treaties, starting with the 1667 Partition Agreement between Leopold and Louis XIV. If you'd like to understand the geo-political reasons behind it, I've written the article, please refer to it.Robinvp11 (talk) 11:05, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

The argument was clear in my last response, I won't restate it. Your last response was obfuscation and because sources. Also your statement "my logic chopping days are long past" is contradicted by the subsequent butchery. The judgement is a flat fact by virtue of having no variables, the nature of summary judgement. No mas. Lycurgus (talk)

? Robinvp11 (talk) 14:07, 16 March 2020 (UTC)