Talk:Crown of Castile

Untitled

Starting translation from Spanish wikipedia

--Ajrs 22:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Expanding

Like Kingdom of Castille, it would be good to see anyone who is proficient in Spanish to take up this one. Orchid Righteous 17:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I have translated the first couple of sections from the Spanish original so that there was more detailed information, please feel free to correct any translation errors - there shouldn't be as its not too hard, I didn't attempt to translate the old Castillian language quotes though! I'm not sure that the section on universities is correctly titled as the universities seem more like a side note that a causal factor! What does anybody think? Jonny1047 16:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I've added an info box while translating as the Spanish one had loads of info in! not sure if its the right one, as in if there is one specifically for historical developments of countries, so I put in the former countries one for now! Anyone please change it if there is a better one! Also I can't get the arms of Castile and León to come up - I think coz they aren't set up as arms on their respective pages! Jonny1047 17:04, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Jim.henderson for improving the English in my translation, another set of eyes is always appreciated - when you read your own work its hard to spot the errors! Also sometimes its hard to get out of the mind set of the other language! Jonny1047 12:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Easy for me since my Spanish is rarely good enough to set my mind. I've also helped edit articles translated from Japanese, Russian and Turkish despite a complete ignorance of those languages. Maybe it will be a little easier with a language in which my ignorance is incomplete. Incidentally I noticed that in some cases you first presented a term in both languages and then only in translation. Quite right, and perhaps you should do a little more of that, for the benefit of readers with a slight knowledge of the original language. Oh, and there's no need for every year to have a link like 1506 since we don't need to know what was happening in Russia or Egypt that year. There's an official Wikipedia guideline against overlinking though at the moment I am failing to find it.

Peripheral matter, Christopher Columbus has a link to Crown of Castillo which I suspect is a completely bogus article, but my subject knowledge is insufficient to embolden me to kill it. Can you encourage me, or tell I'm wrong? Jim.henderson 21:50, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the over tagging of dates, I just linked everything that was linked in the Spanish version! on your point about Columbus, in the spanish wikipedia it says: "El título de Almirante en todas las tierras que descubriese o ganase en la mar Océana, con carácter hereditario y con el mismo rango que el Almirante de Castilla." basically that he became admiral of any territories he discovered and it is similar to the title of Admiral of Castile. I can't find any info on Castillo - it means castle so it wouldn't make sense for him to be admiral of Castle! Jonny1047 16:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

English Wikipedia as far as I see makes a more serious attempt at universality or internationality than Spanish, German or other languages, so a date link in Spanish is more likely to find a fair concentration of relevant events. In English the list will be longer and have sparse relevance. Cristopher Columbus has fortunately lost its link to the probably bogus Crown of Castillo and maybe I'll do something about removing that article. Anyway thanks for continuing to translate, and I'll continue inserting my small style dabs. Jim.henderson 14:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm finished translating, I'm sure the english could be better written but its understandable - I'll try and tidy it up at some point! So now that its done should we remove the in translation box? I didn't want to just do it so I thought I'd put it on here first! Also can we tag any pages like that as there are a few links on the spanish version with no english equivalent that I was thinking of creating and translating! The biggest is the Crown of Aragon - although there seems to be some confusion between the spanish versions for crown and kingdom of aragon so I'll have to do a bit of research and figure that out first! Jonny1047 12:11, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

el reino de castilla paso a llamarse reyno de España por causas politicas, para evitar discusiones tontas entr los "Nobles y los dtractores. de esa manera salio el reyno de España, ahunque ya existia esa unidad con los Godos, es de logica, si un reino ocupa el 80 por ciento del territorio y el 90% de lo conquitado en el resto del mundo baja su bandera, ¿como podria llamarse Castilla? no la llamaron España. ¡Haaa! otra cosa si Isabel de Castilla no se hubiera casado con Fernando de aragon, el Reyno de Aragon hubiera desaparecido 'Un saludo y gracias! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.159.215.184 (talk) 21:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Too many "kingdoms"

The Crown of Castile began in 1230 indeed, it began with the union of the kingdom of Castile with her "father" kingdom of León. Period. In medieval Spain there are 4 and only 4 christian kingdoms: León, Castile, Aragón and Navarre. Period. Galicia was never a proper kingdom , she was part of the Kingdom of León, the title "kingdom" was but honorary.The reason for this "mistake" here is Galician nationalist movements. We all know any nationalism needs a history (be it real or not), so there are some people very active in the net (particularly here in Wikipedia) that have set out to re-write history to their convenience. And everyone who knows a bit of Spanish political reality knows how radical and fanatical this nationalist movements are, which is all all right for idealist people defending their nations to be, but history is history and wikipedia users shouldn't be victims of this political fanatism.Cornelius71 (talk) 15:42, 2 April 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cornelius71 (talk • contribs) 15:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes I agree with you, Nationalisms are very fanatical and radical, and the most radical and fanatical is the Spanish nationalism, no doubt.--88.24.114.134 (talk) 16:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

There was a Kingdom of Asturias that later became a part of Leon. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

The Kingdom of Majorca, Kingdom of Valencia and Kingdom of Aragon were all part from the Crown of Aragon. The Kingdom of Majorca split out of the crown for a few years. The Crown of Castile had several kingdoms inside it. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:36, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm having a bit of trouble understanding the "kingdoms" myself. Were the "kingdoms" like Toldeo and Granada mere provinces of a larger state called the Crown of Castile, or were they more akin to the Crown of Aragon: several independent kingdoms in personal union (in that case Aragon, Valencia, and Catalonia)? Emperor001 (talk) 15:54, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Population

I know from past reading that the figure of over 8.2 million in 1595 is incorrect, and applies to all of Spain, including Aragon, not just of Castile. From memory the actual figure for Castile was about 6 million but I don't have a reliable source.

abolishment date

The Crown of Castile was abolished in 1715. The Crown of Aragon was already abolished in 1707. The Council of Castile, not the crown, was abolished much later. This is what the sources say. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

This seems to be part of a campaign across multiple wikipedias, to introduce information that is not supported by sources. The information in English wikipedia was first added by Santos30[1]. Santos30 was blocked in Spanish wikipedia because he was socking to generate false support for his ideas. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:38, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

discussion in Spanish wikipedia about Santos30 inserting unsourced information and propagating it to the English wikipedia. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:42, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, the Indies were not proper part of the Crown until after the death of Ferdinand the Catholic, when it was all unified as Spain. This means that this map is not an accurate portrait of the Crown of Castile. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

• The question is when Americas was a part of Castile. The question is not "when it was all unified as Spain". But give references of this date please.
• What sources say that the Crown of Castile was abolished in 1715?. References please.
• Americas were a part of Crown of Castile by first time in 1506. see references here You are mistaken.
• I revert you.

--Santos30 (talk) 23:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

First of all, the abolition in 1812 is totally incorrect: the 1812 Cadiz constitution was revoked in 1814, and the Borbons had been calling themselves Spanish kings for decades. In the Spanish wikipedia you asked for a second opinion of an expert and you were told that you were wrong. Now you are pushing the same idea again in a different wikipedia.

Second, in 1713 the Ultrech treaty was already signed between the Crown of Spain and the Crown of Portugal, the Crown of Castile had already disappeared. What remained was the kingdom of Castile and the title of king of Castile, but there was no longer a "Crown of Castile". This means that the date of 1715/1716 is also mistaken.

Third, in 1516 Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor was already Charles I of Spain, the first king to unite Castile and Aragon under a single crown: the Spanish Crown. This book gives 1556, the crowning of Philip II of Spain as the definitive extinction of Castile in favor of the (Spanish) Crown (Castilla "dejó de existir").http://books.google.es/books?id=18pfdBXSpcoC&pg=PA142&dq=corona+de+espa%C3%B1a+castilla&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xdSJUJbWFYbP0QW4y4GgBQ&ved=0CFgQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=corona%20de%20espa%C3%B1a%20castilla&f=false in page 142. Looking at es:Monarquía Hispánica, every author gives a different date for the start of the Spanish Crown, and there are sources for all the different dates. This is going to be difficult to source. I don't think we can simply put a date in the infobox and say that this was the exact date when it ceased existing.

Fourth, the Indies were personal property of the kings, they were not part of any Crown of Castile. Read your source carefully instead of quoting an isolated sentence:

"(...) the Indies were conceived as forming part of a wider grouping which was known as the Spanish monarchy, the monarquía española. In this agglomeration of territories (...) most states were equal, but some were more equal than others. Castile came to enjoy an effective predominance in the monarchy, and from the beginning the Indies stood in a special relationship to Castile. Alexander's VI9s Inter Costera of 1493 vested the government and jurisdiction of the newly found lands, not in the kings of Spain but in the kings of Castile and León. Consquently, the Indies were to be regarded as the possession of Castile and to be governed, where appropriate, in accordance with the laws and institutions of Castile." (emphasis added)[2]

The Indies were part of the Spanish monarchy, not part of the Crown of Castile.

Fifth, the title of "King of Castile" was carried by the bearers of the Spanish Crown. Indeed, the current bearer of the Spanish Crown Juan Carlos I of Spain is still king of Castile, Aragon, Navarra, etc. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

This is not the History of liberalism of course all the kingdoms are personal property of the kings. Juan Carlos I of Spain is constitutional monarch (not Absolute monarchy) the current bearer of the Spanish Crown is not a personal property.

• [3] I not see the phrase that say "Castile ceased existing" . Can you copy Citation please?

• [4] Sorry I can not see the citation (p 142) where explain that "the crowning of Philip II of Spain as the definitive extinguishment of Castile in favor of the (Spanish) Crown". But then, similar, extinguishment crown of Aragon was in 1556. or what?.

• Spanish Constitution of 1812 where revoqued but restablished in 1820 and 1836 over Bourbon absolutism. Between Bourbon absolutism and Constitution I not see the Treaty of Utrecht of 1713 as a treaty of unification of the monarchy of Spain. Citation required here.

• see references here Read all the sources please. The Indies was forever a part of Castile and Leon. First as a "lordship" of Catholic Kings by the Pope Inter caetera of 1493 with unlimited personal power. But in 1506 Joanna and Philip as heirs of Castile immediately added the kingdoms of Indies, Islands and Mainland of the Ocean Sea, but under laws of Castile. Then, the death of Ferdinand in 1516 is not the first time when Indias was unified with Castile. In any case, Indias was incorporated to Castile, before whatever date of "unified Spain" that you say here (1516,1556,1713).

--Santos30 (talk) 02:31, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I have to say that Santos30, who is obviously Castilian himself, is insensitive in, first confusing the Kingdom Spain during the 18th century with the Crown of Castile. Secondly, the country is referred to as Spain by both contemporaries and historians during the 18th century and indeed from the 16th century onwards, as all the territories in modern-day Spain were ruled by the same monarch, the King of Spain. Castile and Aragon united dynastically into Spain with the Catholic Monarchs or Charles I. Maps refer to the united country as Spain in the 18th century, albeit in Latin. So you are completely wrong, Santos30, and probably deluded. Thirdly, your aggressive Castilian national sentiment borders on imperialism as you tell the English-speaking world that, yes there was the Crown of CAstile and the Crown of Aragon, but Castile 'annexed' Aragon, Valencia and Catalonia. That Catalonia was just a region of Castile during the 18th century is very insulting and demeaning to the Catalan people. Yes, the Crown of Aragon was abolished by the government in Madrid, which was indeed the Capital of Castile. But the two joined together politically as the Kingdom of Spain. At least the Spanish authorities of the time, 1715 that is, had more respect towards the peoples of Spain than you in calling the unified country by an all-inclusive name 'Spain' from the Roman name of the Iberian peninsula, than just call the country after the dominant region or former country. You were blocked from Spanish Wikipedia, I just hope you are blocked from the English one, before you go around upsetting people!! And for you info, I am not Catalan, I am half Castilian myself, but I respect the other peoples of Spain. Just accept that you are ignorant and biased. 109.154.249.15 (talk) 18:21, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

• references and citation about Crown of Castile was abolished in 1715 before changes-Santos30 (talk) 20:37, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

You two are broking every single rule of wikipedia on this edit war. I suggest you settle your differences here before both of you ended up being blocked from editing. I'll revert the page to the stat before this mess started. Jack Bufalo Head (talk) 21:39, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

The state before the mess started was 7th July, before Santos30 started making unsourced changes that have since been rejected in the Spanish wikipedia. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:00, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Santos30, you seem to be confusing the government of the Kingdom of Castille with the government of the Crown of Castille. The Crown's government was a es:Régimen polisinodial (there is no English version of this article) with a council for each territory.

No comment in Indies, I would need to look at more sources.

You ask for references for 1715, but you give no references for 1812. es:Corona de Castilla ends the history in 1713 with the sucession war, and your attempts to introduce 1812 as the end date were reverted in the Spanish wikipedia [5] I find it difficult to believe that both es:Usuario:Durero and es:Usuario:Escarlati are mistaken. And you are making an extraordinary claim: that the Crown of Castile existed after the War_of_the_Spanish_Succession, when Philip V of Spain unified the laws of the different kingdoms and unambiguously titled himself King of Spain. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

• WP:PRIMARY = Wikipedia:español and User:Durero or Escarlati are not a source. And you no have any references for 1715.
• [6] UNITARY STATE was made by the 1812 constitution of Spain (Liberalism), never before by the old regime (Absolutism) with lordship, kingdoms of Spain and viceroyalties of the crown of Castile [7] [8].

--Santos30 (talk) 13:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Santos30, you have not provided any source for the 1812 date, that source does not support an end date of 1812 for the Crown of Castile. The 1812 date was already rejected in the Spanish wikipedia by two editors who are very active at Spanish history articles. In this comment I provided a source that gives a date prior to 1812, I pointed to an article that contain several sourced dates prior to 1812. My edit was technically unreferenced, but I had already provided rationale and sources in the talk page.

I know, I am lazy, I should have added the sources to the article when making the revert, I should have made the legwork, I should have added a paragraph with those sources. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• I repeat: give us the citation of your source for 1715 please.--Santos30 (talk) 13:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, the 1713 treaty of Ultrech was signed between the crowns of Spain and Portugal[9], and the Succession War was about the succession to the Crown of Spain[10][11].

And I finally found a clear reference: "Louis XIV accepted [in 1700] on behald of his grandson, who succeeded as Philip V on condition that the Crowns of France and Spain should never be united. (...) This provoked the great War of the Spanish Succession. (...) Barcelona fell in 1714 and the Aragonese privileges were abolished. Spain had become one country." The Companion to British History p. 1161

And another one: "Mas que con los Reyes Católicos (a finales del siglo XV), como todavia suele repetirse, es a partir de Felipe V (a principios del sigo XVIII) cuando podemos comenzar a considerar España como un Estado auténticamente unificado o, mejor, unitario: es a partir de entonces cuando podemos empezar a hablar con propiedad de un rey de España o de una Corona de España y, consecuentemente de un Reino de España."El catalán: Una lengua de Europa para compartir pp. 106-107

Is this enough? --Enric Naval (talk) 16:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry. We are not talk about about when peninsular Spain starts as a country in 1492 or 1715 or 1812. We are not talk about the abolition of the Crown of Aragon with Succession War, or the relations between Catalonia vs Spain.
• We are talk about that you not have any citation to say that the Crown of Castile was abolished in 1715. For the contrary, the sources says that the constitution of 1812 abolished the Crown of Castile [12] and Spain try to impose their unitary state to Americas.--Santos30 (talk) 21:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• I can't see the page right now, but I recall that it said the Council of Castile was abolished. The Crowns of Castile and Aragom were unified into the Crown of Spain by Philip V in 1714. How can you possible defend that the Crown of Castile continued existing after the whole of Spain was unified under the Crown of Spain? Never mind that the 1812 constitution was derogated 3 years later. Does this mean that the Crown of Castile was restored for a few decades more? The 1812 date is still unsourced and it doesn't even make sense. Please take your original research elsewhere. What I mean is, you are making an extraordinary claim and extraordinary claims in wikipedia require extraordinary sources. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

• Why is impossible to you to give a citation (english or spanish) to support that "the Crown of Castile was abolished in 1715"?. Because not exist any act of "unified" two crowns as you say mistaken. The Crown of Aragon was conquered by Bourbons and forced to unified with the rest of the Crown of Spain. Not vice versa.

• The absolutism and the rest of kingdoms of the Crown of Spain was abolished by the liberal and unitary Spain in 1812. And this constitutional Spain try to impose their unitary state to Americas. Americas under their laws of Crown of Castile start the independence with the Junta (Spanish American Independence). Those are well know historical facts. The restoration of absolutism in Spain ends with the fall of absolutism in France in 1830 in the July Revolution.--Santos30 (talk) 00:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

• The country was unified into the crown of Spain, not the crown of Castile. "King of Castile" became one more title of the king of Spain. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:06, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• I don't know why you bothered asking for sources if you were going to dismiss them with flawed arguments to keep pushing your original research. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• And more sources. Historical Dictionary of Spain In the entry for Crown of Castile the last sentence is "After the War of Succession, the new Bourbon monarch, Felipe V, turned the Cortes of the Crown of Castile into a Spanish-wide body, while however emptying it of all remaining powers." pp. 215-216

• Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages, Volume 1 Routledge, pp. 249-251. The last sentence for the entry Castile is "And in the "Crown of Spain" reunited by the Habsburgs from 1516, its name and its arms retained the primacy.". It gives an even earlier date.

• And all those books that cover the Crown of Castile reach at most until 1715, as you can see in these titles:

• Las milicias pecuniaria: en la corona de Castilla (1650-1715)
• Entre el castigo y el perdón. Felipe V y los austracistas de la Corona de Castilla, 1706-1715
• Antecedentes de la minería Española contemporánea; la minería en la Corona de Castilla (1515-1715)
• Lo conflictivo y lo consensual en Castilla: sociedad y poder politíco : 1521-1715

• And I will repeat again, since you chose to ignore it. In es:Monarquía_Hispánica there are many sources giving different dates for the start of the Spanish Crown, and thus the end of the Castilian Crown. None of them gives a date as late as 1812. Zero sources support your position. And many sources support a different position.

• And the Crown of Castile never "ended", it got merged into the Crown of Spain. You are requiring a source that doesn't exist. You can't look when the Crown of Castile became part of the Crown of Spain.

• No author gives 1812 as the date for the end of Crown of Castile. You have simply made up the date from your own original research. That's why the date was rejected in the Spanish wikipedia. If you insert the 1812 date again, I will ask that you are topic banned from this article. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry Eric you are totally mistaken by User:Durero,User:Escarlati and Wikipedia:es. I give you a traslation, but you can read in spanish the sources:

• Bosquejo histórico sobre la sucesión á la corona de España. Heinrich Zoepfl . The throne of the country together, which was the symbol of its independent existence, the law of succession, which was the legal means to convey the dignity and royal power, necessarily disappear with the independence of the state, for the simple reason that two thrones two inheritance laws are incompatible with the unity of a state. This law is so strict overall actual incorporation, which suffers no condition nor agreed. The conventions in such cases can keep the people built their civil laws administrative and even political, but never its law of succession, which is a symbol of independence, and that without a sovereign throne has not subject to enforcement practice. These principles had their application in the Peninsula, where at different times were added to the crown of Castile, the largest, the most powerful of all, the growing daily on the progress of the Reconquest against the Arabs, and the crowns of Asturias Leon, Aragon and Navarre to form a single crown of Castile, now known under the title of kingdom of Spain. In actual incorporation absolute royal power as that formed the common bond, conditions were agreed, and Aragon, Navarre and the Basque provinces retained much of its civil laws and administrative policies even under the aegis of the throne of Castilla and its law of succession, but with the mandatory obligation to recognize by their king and who was proclaimed sovereign legitimately under the laws of Castile, but on this particular ever happened to anybody the slightest doubt. Google Traslation.

• "El trono del país reunido, que era el símbolo de su existencia independiente ; la ley de sucesion, que era el medio legal para trasmitir la dignidad y el poder real, desaparecen forzosamente con la independencia del estado, por la razon sencilla de que dos tronos, dos leyes de sucesion son incompatibles con la unidad de un estado. Es tan rigurosa esta ley general de la incorporacion real, que no sufre condicion ni pacto en contrario. Las convenciones en tales casos pueden conservar al pueblo incorporado sus leyes civiles administrativas y aun políticas, pero jamas su ley de sucesion, que es un símbolo de independencia, y que sin un trono soberano no tiene objeto de observancia práctica. Estos principios tuvieron su aplicacion en la Península, cuando en diferentes épocas se incorporaron á la corona de Castilla, la mas extensa, la mas poderosa de todas, la que diariamente crecía por los progresos de la reconquista contra los Árabes, las coronas de Asturias y Leon, de Aragon y de Navarra para formar una sola corona, la de Castilla, conocida ya bajo el título de reino de España. En la incorporacion real absoluta, en cuanto al poder real, que formó el vínculo comun, se pactaron condiciones, y Aragon, la Navarra y las Provincias Vascongadas conservaron una gran parte de sus leyes civiles administrativas y aun políticas, bajo la égida del trono de Castilla y de su ley de sucesion, pero con la obligacion indeclinable de reconocer por su rey y soberano al que fuese proclamado legítimamente con arreglo á las leyes de Castilla, sin que sobre este particular haya ocurrido jamas á nadie la mas ligera duda." Original español.

--Santos30 (talk) 04:49, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

• That source was written in 1839, it's outdated. It contradicts several modern sources. If you read the first page. It's not a neutral book, it's a political book that argues the legitimacy of Isabella II of Spain against the pretender Infante Carlos, Count of Molina. The author may have modified historical facts to support his non-neutral position. The translator warns that the has reordered parts of the book and added observations of his own, and he is also biased in the same direction. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:22, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
• I realize that I should asked the opinion of outside editors. I will open a request for comment below. P.D.: I have left notices to get participants, in the wikiprojects listed at the top of the page, and on the talk pages of editors who have contributed with the article (only editors who added or modified actual content) --Enric Naval (talk) 11:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• Well, I have read the answers in Wikipedia español you've been asking and all conclude that no body nor biblografía stating that the crown of Castile ended in 1716. The problem of tremendous blunder is Spanish wikipedia articles that focus on the councils, courts etc, but the question is quite another, where the sovereignty is, and that sovereignty resides. Nothing more. Sovereignty resided on the throne of Castile, in the person of the king of Spain, until sovereignty was transferred to the Spanish people or the Hispanic American people.

--Santos30 (talk) 10:29, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Did the the Crown of Castile end in 1812 or in 1715

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Did the the Crown of Castile end in...

• 1812, with the Spanish Constitution of 1812.
• 1715, with the Nueva Planta decrees.

The discussion and sources are above. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The Nueva Planta decrees made territories subordinate to it, so in 1812, if I had to pick between the two. It appears to be that, the crown of Castile was the kingdom of Spain. --<Nicht Nein! (talk) 18:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Below are links to two maps. One is of Europe in 1700. The second in 1714. The first says 'Crown of Castile' and 'Crown of Aragon'. The second says 'Spain'.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3b/Europe%2C_1700_-_1714.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Europe%2C_1714.png

2.51.180.28 (talk) 16:04, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the Crown of Castile continued up to 1812 in theory. Of course, the Napoleonic period presents a sort of interruption before that. The nuevas plantas of 1715–16 essentially abolished the other crowns that were in union with Castile and placed their government under that of the Council of Castile and under Castilian law. Nothing in the nuevas plantas that I can see abolished the Crown of Castile. What happened is that Spain, which was a typical early European composite state, was transformed into a more-or-less unitary state by the subsumption of its smaller parts into its largest (Castile). The term "Spain", always in use, became politically correct (in two sense) after this. There is nothing to be gained by distinguishing Castile and Spain after 1716, and historians don't do so. An analogous case is presented by Italy. When did the Kingdom of Sardinia disappear? The answer is 1946, when a republican constitution was adopted. But the kingdom had changed its name in 1861 and nobody calls it Sardinia after that. (And it had only been a unitary state since 1847. Before that you could still distinguish the old Kingdom of Sardinia, just the island, from the Duchy of Aosta.) This wouldn't be so difficult if it weren't for the infobox. I suggest removing it entirely. Consensus once got the infobox at Crown of Aragon removed, but it's back now. Srnec (talk) 01:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The Crown of Castile was de facto abolished in 1716 by the Nueva Planta decrees, which abolished the Crown of Aragon and united the two Crowns into the Kingdom of Spain. The Crown was officially abolished by the Spanish Constitution of 1812.

2.51.180.28 (talk) 04:51, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the confusion arises because the Crown of Castile itself was abolished in 1716, but the Council of Castile, which continued to administer the now unified Kingdom of Spain, was not abolished until the Spanish Constitution of 1812. 2.51.180.28 (talk) 04:54, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

After reading the sources provided by both parties, my impression is that no date can be given for the definitive end of the Crown of Castile. Maybe it still exists and we haven't noticed! (no kidding). The 1812 date seems of little relevance, given that the 1812 Constitution did not last and had little real effect; it was soon reverted. I think the page should state something along these lines: The Crown of Castile was never formally abolished, but after the Nueva Planta Decrees it became de facto synonymous with "Spain", and historians don't deal with its history after that date. Jotamar (talk) 15:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

It's also obvious to me that user:Santos30, has some sort of personal theory that links the end of the Crown of Castile with the uprisings that led to the independence of the Latin American Republics. Jotamar (talk) 15:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

• Origen y significado de las Juntas Hispano-americanas de 1810. Ramón Peralta Martínez "The proclamation of a sole "national sovereignty", on the opening day of the Cadiz Parliament expressed that September 24, 1810 by Rep. Muñoz Torrero, supposed the extinction of system of kingdoms and provinces of Spain and the Indies.La proclamación de una única y exclusiva «soberanía nacional» en la jornada inaugural de las Cortes de Cádiz expresada aquel 24 de septiembre de 1810 por el diputado Muñoz Torrero suponía la extinción del sistema de reinos y provincias diferenciados de España e Indias".

• Fundamentos intelectuales y políticos de las independencias. José Carlos Chiaramonte 2010 For Hispanic American, [...], the Creoles claimed that their political connection was with the Castilian monarchy, not the Spanish nation, and that the throne vacant recover sovereignty. [...] The new entities sovereign, who considered themselves heirs to the sovereignty of the Castilian crown [...] the sovereign bodies considered representative of the cities, and then provinces, or Latin American States, rejected decisions made without their consent.

--Santos30 (talk) 10:17, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I translate a comment from the Spanish wikipedia:

I have seen on occasions how he "inserted" a well-disguised lie at the English Wikipedia and the users who attempted to reverse (in my experience, users from the Spanish Wikipedia) chrashed again and again into a wall and finally the usual troll got away with his intentions. Long ago I lost great part of my interest to discuss there.

Mind you, the question that you offer is tricky. I do not think there is any source that specifies when the Crown of Castile disappeared. In Wikipedia we put for both Castile and Aragon the dates of the implementation of the decrees of New Plant. In Aragon that can be more clear by the fact that most of its institutions disappear, but I doubt there's a book that says exactly the year you can give as "disappeared" the Crown of Aragon. In Castile it may not be so clear, but the situation is similar. In this case, its institutions are not "eliminated", but it is true that extend its authority over all the monarchy (except for some particular case). Technically wh could say that the institutions of Castile cease to exist from the moment that extend all other territories and are no longer "its own". Considering that the Aragonese Crown no longer exists because it no longer have its "its own" institutions, we can make a comparison with the Castilian case and and say that the Crown of Castile ceases to exist for the same reason: it stops having "its own" institutions and is governed by the same (almost) as all the Monarchy (although, technically, one and the other are the same).

Of course, the problem you've found you, can forward it to Santos30. What references can he provide that explicitly say that the Crown of Castile disappeared in 1812? And I say "explicit" because it is very likely that, accustomed as he is to the misrepresentation of sources, try casting as proof something like the disappearance of the Council of Castile or some text of the very Constitution. The latter is easy to refute, it is a primary source and also it nowhere abolished the Crown of Castile. As for the Council, as just discussed, despite its name, it was not typical of Castile, but of Spain. Moreover, this institution disappeared in 1809, to re-created in 1810, to return to disappear in 1812, re-establishing itself in 1814, to disappear again in 1820, only to reappear in 1823 and finally abolished in 1834. So which of these dates is intended Santos30 establish the demise of the Crown of Castile? Why 1812? Why not any other? Of course the argument of joining the existence of the Crown to the Council is absurd.

Another argument to consider would be the existence of other council besides that "of Castile". And, like this one, all extended their jurisdiction over (almost) all the Monarchy after the end of the War of Succession. All of Castile, War, Treasury, etc. had authority over Spain, not only over one of the Crowns. As in the case of the Council of Castile, the other disappeared and appeared intermittently at the beginning of century XIX until its final abolition in 1834. This date marked the end point of the old (and decadent) council system, the disappearance of the remnants of the old regime. But this process in any way can be equated with the demise of the Crowns, as these had long ago been "rolled over" with the introduction of a genuine single monarchy.

All it could be said is that the Crown of Castile survived just as territorial division, but nothing more. When in 1833 it was established the current division into provinces, it was talked, among many others, of the kingdom of Aragon, Jaen or Leon, but that does not mean these kingdoms continued to exist as entities themselves, but as mere territorial divisions inherited from the old kingdoms. The same happened with the Crown of Castile (and with the Crown of Aragon). So, for example, when Charles III named a Decree of 1783 corregidores "in the Crown of Castile" and "in the Crown of Aragon", it is not stating that both the one and the other survive as separate crowns.

Following Santos30's distorted vision, if the Crown of Castile survived until the s. XIX, the Crown of Aragon did so, since, simply, they just changed the laws that governed them. It is obviously absurd.[13] Durero, 23 Nov 2012.

--Enric Naval (talk) 21:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

No. Wikipedia:No original research--Santos30 (talk) 21:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

• La disgregación del Reyno de Indias.p133. Barreiro y Ramos.1981 24 de setiembre de 1810, dieron por aprobada la especie de ley fundamental que habían proyectado los diputados Muñoz,Torrero y Luxán, puede decirse que, por estar en dicha ley dispuesto que residía en ellas (las cortes) la soberanía nacional y dispuesto, asimismo,la extinción del sistema de reinos y provincias diferenciados de España e Indias para dar cabida en su lugar a una sola "nación española".

• El Supremo Poder Conservador: El Diseño Institucional en Las Primeras constituciones mexicanas.David Pantoja Morán. 2005 La situación era paradójica,pues,al desvanecerse los títulos de la corona de Castilla sobre los territorios americanos, éstos dejaban de ser reinos independientes de la península. Más la renuncia a esa secular independencia -ficticia,pero legal- y la unión con España, confundiendose en una sola nación suponía necesariamente un pacto de conformidad entre esas partes autónomas de la monarquía, un pacto que sólo podía concluirse en el ejercicio de las varias soberanías involucradas.

--Santos30 (talk) 22:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Ditch the infobox and the whole problem disappears. Like the Roman Empire, the Crown of Castile does not need to have a specific "year of death". Srnec (talk) 01:29, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Not rule out your solution. However the Date is needed for explain fundamentals and chronology of Independence of Latin America of throne of Castile, and the end of sovereignty. The Date explicit exist in the references, 24 september of 1810.--Santos30 (talk) 07:48, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Why does Santos30 keep changing his opinions? First it was 1812 and now it is 1810! Personally, I agree with 1716. 92.99.114.108 (talk) 12:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

References cite explicit these date 1810.--Santos30 (talk) 15:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

America got its independence from Spain, not from Castile. And from the Spanish Monarchy, not from the "throne of Castile". It seems that you have some POV about Castile and American independence, and that you will distort any source as necessary to defend that POV. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:11, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Americas got its independence from Spain, not from Castile. But it seems Enric you do not understand the independence of Latin America. In short. The corts of Cádiz, the first national assembly of Spain, declared on 1810 that the people of Spain have the sovereignty of all kingdoms of the Monarchy of Spain (including Crown of Castile) and the extinction of system of kingdoms and provinces of Spain and the Indies. The people of Latin America reject the pretensions of spaniards and assume the sovereignty of own American kingdoms of the Crown of Castile, that King of Spain before was sovereign.--Santos30 (talk) 17:30, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• Las Guerras de Independencia en la América Española.Marta Mier y Terán.2002 "La Nueva España era un reino perteneciente a la Corona de Castilla por un acuerdo o pacto entre los conquistadores y Carlos V. De ninguna manera y hay que subrayarlo, la Nueva España podría considerarse de Aragón". New Spain was a kingdom belonging to the Crown of Castile. No way, and it must be stressed, New Spain could be considered of Aragon.--Santos30 (talk) 15:41, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• And more distortion of sources. This is a legal argument made by Spanish revolutionaries, not a statement by the author. You have omitted the first part of the sentence: "Los "americanos españoles" como se llamaban a sí mismos nuestros antepasados, argumentaron que de acuerdo al Derecho Medieval castellano y a las Leyes de Indias, la Nueva España (...)". The author calls the Crown the "Corona Española" (Spanish Crown). --Enric Naval (talk) 15:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• El Problema de la Soberanía: Su Historia Ante el Siglo XXI. Claudio Alberto Briceño.2007. Todos los actos ejercidos por las autoridades españolas en Indias se hicieron,repetimos, en nombre de la Corona de Castilla. Cuando en 1810 las provincias integrantes de la capitanía general de venezuela, dependiente de la corona de Castilla, proclamaron su independencia, asumieron los derechos que hasta entonces habían correspondido al soberano. All acts exercised by the Spanish authorities in Americas were made, again, on behalf of the Crown of Castile. When in 1810 the provinces of the Captaincy General of Venezuela, under the Crown of Castile, proclaimed their independence, assumed their rights that had previously corresponded to the sovereign.

--Santos30 (talk) 16:41, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

• You are confusing topics. The Spanish Monarchy had legal authority over the Indies over the treaties that gave authority to the Crown of Castile, which by 1810 was only a territorial division and one more title of the King of Spain. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:26, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I made a topic ban proposal, but it's getting very little input from the community. Apparently, people are not commenting because they are not familiar with the topic. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:02, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I translate a comment from the Spanish wikipedia, with comments on why Santos30 is interpreting sources incorrectly [14]:

I already wrote you about the penchant of this person to misrepresenting sources to say exactly what he wants them to say. Since their "references" to say that the Crown of Castile became extinct in 1812 are weak, he now uses a text that refers to 1810 ([15]) Let's analyze his reference. The text indicates that in 1810 finalizes "the system of kingdoms and provinces differentiated of Spain and the Indies" being replaced by "only one "Spanish nation" ". And where exactly does it say that the Crown of Castile in 1810 no longer exists ...? What it says is that it finishes that that thing of the kingdoms of Spain on one side and the ones of the Indies on the other and that, since then, all territories will form part of a single "nation" (advancing the famous first article of the 1812 Constitution: "the Spanish nation is the gathering of all the Spanish of both hemispheres").

Another facet of Santos30/Domenico is the lack of respect (bordering on contempt) when dealing with users who stand against his view of things. His answer to your translation of my message is a glaring example. I'll be back a bit later on that message.

To support my words that the Decree of Nueva Planta also ended the Crown of Castile (as a political entity), that ever since then there is no such thing and that it's only "Spain" and that any later mention to the Crowns is a way to establish a territorial division within that "Spain"; I bring several excerpts:

So, from Philip V to the reform of Mon (1845), there existed in Spain three different tax systems:
Crown of Aragon (Aragon, Catalonia, Mallorca and VALENCIA [sic]).
Crown of Castile.
Provinces exempt (Vascongadas and Navarra).

— Berné Valero, José Luis; Femenia Ribera, Carmen; Aznar Bellver, Jerónimo (2004). Catastro y valoración catastral. Universidad Politécnica de Valencia. Page 41

If the Crown of Castile 'allegedly' disappeared in 1810 (and the Crown of Aragon a hundred years before), how is it possible that it continued to exist until 1845? Simply because with the unification of the state resulting from the Bourbon reforms, they continued talking about crowns, kingdoms and provinces as a form of territorial division (or fiscal, as in this case).

(...) a war, civil and European [the Spanish War of Succession] arising from dynastic issues would serve as a pretext to achieve the desired legal uniformity in Spain (...) the concept of nationality began to identify itself with that of Spain on the basis of a non contrasted Castilian dominance over all other communities with historic right.
(...) As they expanded into the new territories the Castilian political and administrative institutions, they acquired for the first time a national scope and the Castilian law began to identify with the new "national law" or Spanish [law]". This was it left behind the heterogeneous political morphology of the Spanish monarchy, replacing its traditional political, legal and administrative diversity for an unitary State in all its aspects, except those affecting private Law.
(...) So, the old viceroyalmies of the Crown of Aragon were organized as provinces and general captaincies, the same as happened in the rest of Spain, except Navarra and Vascongadas, who kept their genuine institutions until the nineteenth century.
(...) Thus, the Spanish scene was divided, from the governative perspective, in general captaincies and audiencias, which exercised a kind of collegial governance. These were: Old Castile, Seville, Granada, Extremadura, Galicia, Asturias, Aragon, Catalonia, Valencia, Mallorca and the Canary Islands.

— Martinez Ruiz, Enrique (dir.) (2007). Diccionario de historia moderna de España. Volumen II: la Administración. Ed. Akal. Págs. 133-137

This book clearly shows how the reforms carried out after the Spanish Succession War achieved the uniformity in Spain, which was divided into general captaincies, provinces and audiencias, ceasing to exist the Crowns with institutions of its own.

Consequence of the abolition of the Aragonese fueros was the disappearance of customs offices to the Castilian crown [...] the Basque-Navarre constituted itself as its own customsspace, open to foreign trade, but clearly differentiated from the Castile-Aragon block.
(...) It was expressly abolished the privilege of Aliens, i.e. the hitherto existing obligation that royal officials were natives of the kingdoms.
(...) Both territorial sets [the crowns of Castile and Aragon] formed a single customs area subject to the payment of the "general revenue". Unlike them, Navarra and the Basque Country were "exempt provinces" of this tax system and enjoyed broad administrative autonomy.

— Corona Bratech, Carlos E.; Armillas Vicente, José Antonio (coord.) (1990). Historia general de España y América. Tomo X. Volumen 2. Ed. Rialp. Págs. 14; 114-121

In this book, in addition to repeating the idea of ​​two territorial groups that form a unit, it talks about something very interesting: the abolition of foreignness. The Castilians no longer considered themselves "foreign" in the Crown of Aragon and the Aragonese, Valencian, Catalan and Majorcan ceased to be considered foreigners in Castile. All are part of the same entity where borders no longer exist.

The Courts of the eighteenth century were a kind of General Courts of the Monarchy' in which the procuradores of Castilla 'had joined other representing Aragon, Catalonia and Valencia, 'which had lost their own courts following the Spanish Succession War.

— Pérez Samper, María Angeles (1988), «Yo el Rey. Poder y sociedad entre dos reinados». En Boletín de la Real Academia de la Historia. Tomo CLXXXV. Pág. 583

In the latter quote, it is clearly indicated the transformation of a Courts own of the Crown of Castile in a General Courts of the Monarchy where the procuradores from all over the country were consulted on issues that went beyond the powers of the old Crown of Castile issues, now the issues affected the entire monarchy.

• NOTE: obviously, and as emphasized in several quotes, special cases (such as exempt provinces) went down a different path.

I hope these new contributions are useful. Kind regards.

I would add one fact, that I forgot to mention in my previous message. When Spain is reorganized territorially in early s. XVIII, the province of Murcia is built in 1715 to the intendencia of Valencia (see Montojo Montojo, Vicente (1997). "La intendencia de provincia de Murcia y sus contadurías: institución y documentación fiscal en Murcia (1749-1849). In Murgetana. p. 90). This is something very important that show that the old idea of the Crowns is past. The intendente of Valencia (which, with nuances, replaced the viceroy), with jurisdiction over the old kingdom of Valencia, part of the Crown of Aragon, starts dealing with Murcia, an integral part of the Crown of Castile. This is very significant, because it is the first time the boundaries between the two crowns are not respected, and gives a pretty good idea that the old concepts become obsolete before the unitary idea of Spain.

--Enric Naval (talk) 10:29, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

No. That we have seen already. I repeat you Wikipedia:No original research. We talk about sovereignity. Not administration. --Santos30 (talk) 18:52, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

No, those are statements based on sources. Sovereignty is based on the title. The title was preserved and it is still used by the current King of Spain, centuries after the desaparition of the original crown. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

No you are totally mistaken. Sovereignty of the current King of Spain is based on the People of Spain, not the title. The Crown of Castile loss their sovereignty for Cadiz Cortes in 1810.--Santos30 (talk) 11:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Another source:

La pérdida de los dominios europeos se compensó con la intensificación del poder real, como consecuencia de la Nueva Planta en los reinos de la Corona de Aragón. Pero no se llegó a una formulación jurídica precisa de la nueva unidad política. Podemos comparar este hecho con otro acontecimiento del mismo orden de la época: el Acta de Unión de 1707, por el cual los Parlamentos de Inglaterra y Escocia proclamaban la fusión de ambos reinos en una unidad superior que se llamaría precisamente el Reino Unido de la Gran Bretaña. Fácilmente se observan las diferencias con la versión española. No sólo porque en nuestro caso no hubo un Parlamento que autorizase la mayor imbricación de los reinos, sino porque no se produjo la proclamación formal de la nueva unidad. Los decretos de Nueva Planta indicaron que los nuevos reinos deberían gobernarse como los de la Corona de Castilla, 'sin la menor diferencia en nada' (decreto de abolición de los fueros de Aragón y Valencia, 1707) o señalaron la forma en que debían regirse en adelante (Nueva Planta de Cataluña y Mallorca), pero no declararon la unión de ambas Coronas en una entidad superior. El proceso de unificación quedó falto de una proclamación formal y jurídica, aunque a nadie escapaba la realidad de una unificación basada en Ejército, la burocracia y el conjunto del aparato del Estado. Pero los monarcas conservaron hasta el siglo XIX su compleja titulación que enumeraba un conjunto de reinos reducidos en la práctica a entidades administrativas, y a veces ni siquiera esto. Luis Suárez Fernández (1984). Historia general de España y América: Hasta el final del reinado de Carlos IV. La España de las reformas. Ediciones Rialp. p. 87. ISBN 978-84-321-2106-7. Retrieved 31 December 2012.

Another message from eswiki[16]:

In case it wasn't already evident that he is a troll:

1. His distorted references, that say nothing of what he says, are the universal panacea. However, if you provide sources that refute their "theories", it turns out to be a

1. Sus tergiversadas referencias, que no dicen nada de lo que él asegura, son la panacea universal. Sin embargo, si se aportan fuentes que refutan sus «teorías», resulta ser una original research.

2. If an IP removes his erroneous interpretations and the alleged references that support them, it's vandalism. But if he restores all (and incidentally removes the references provided by the IP), it's what has to be done.

No one is going to do anything? Another example that strengthens my view that in enWiki the control is very lax depending on which topics, and that trolls are out of hand.

In case you still feel like it, the references deleted in a very timely by Santos30 are very interesting:

Charles Arnold-Baker (2001), The Companion to British History (2, revised, illustrated, reprint ed.), Routledge, pp. 1161, ISBN 9780415185837, "Louis XIV accepted [in 1700] on behald of his grandson, who succeeded as Philip V on condition that the Crowns of France and Spain should never be united. (...) This provoked the great War of the Spanish Succession. (...) Barcelona fell in 1714 and the Aragonese privileges were abolished. Spain had become one country."

Vicent de Melchor, Albert Branchadell, Vicent de Melchor (2002), El catalán: Una lengua de Europa para compartir, Univ. Autònoma de Barcelona, pp. 106-107, ISBN 9788449022999, "Mas que con los Reyes Católicos (a finales del siglo XV), como todavia suele repetirse, es a partir de Felipe V (a principios del sigo XVIII) cuando podemos comenzar a considerar España como un Estado auténticamente unificado o, mejor, unitario: es a partir de entonces cuando podemos empezar a hablar con propiedad de un rey de España o de una Corona de España y, consecuentemente de un Reino de España."

A single country, no trace of the old crowns. Evident and clear to anyone, except for Santos30. The difference? The above user currently "controls" the articles and few oppose him. His absurd "castilianist" theories, his distorted references and his sockpuppet games caused here blockade in the Spanish Wiki, but in the Wiki in English they do not seem able to react ... Oh, well. Happy Holidays.

--Enric Naval (talk) 17:03, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

• • You are mistaken because:
    • Sovereignty is not in any of administrative territory of Spain or current title of King Spain.
    • You try to confuse made equal what is different: Aragon (composite of states) and Castile (sovereign state). The kingdoms of the throne of Castile never have sovereingty it was only administrative territories. Centuries before of Bourbons reforms and Nueva Planta decrees.
    • Nueva Planta decrees not abolish the sovereignity of the Crown of Castile. If Catholic kings or Nueva Planta decrees made Spain a country it is not the point of discussion. When Spain was become country not abolished the sovereignity of the Crown of Castile.
    • Retroversion of Sovereignty is definitive to explain totally clear that Sovereignty of Crown of Castile was abolished by Cadiz Cortes in 1810.

--Santos30 (talk) 12:53, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Repeating the same flawed claim again and again won't make them correct, and you haver been edit-warring with several users over several months. Stop your disruptive edits. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Stop your uncivil behavior. You not have a single reference to say the Crown of Castile ends 1715. None. Nothing. After long talk you and the pressure of the lobby of spanish Wikipedia (Durero,Trasamundo,Escarlati, IPs) can not cite a single explicit reference for 1715. The Retroversion of Sovereignty between Crown of Castile and Spanish America in 1810 can not be deleted. --Santos30 (talk) 16:59, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Right above I posted a quot by Luis Suárez Fernández, he says that the crown was only an administrative division after the Nueva Planta Decrees (1707-1716. Vicent de Melchor says that Spain a single country after Felipe V (the king who issued said decrees). Charles Arnold-Baker places the unification of the country in the abolishment of the Aragonese privileges (abolishment made by said decrees). Corona Bratech, Carlos E says that both territories formed a single customs area (because of said decrees). Pérez Samper, María Angeles says that Castile no longer had a separate court (around the time of said decrees). Martinez Ruiz, Enrique says that Spain acquired an unified national identity (after said decrees took effect). Berné Valero, José Luis says that there was a separate system for the Crown of Castile until 1843 (which means that the crown couldn't disappear in 1810 as a territorial division because it was still used in 1843). Etc, etc, etc,

Why go on? This has already been told to you. In this very page. In this very section. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

etc etc etc no. Luis Suárez Fernández say Nueva Planta Decrees "no declararon la unión de ambas Coronas" (Traslation:"did not declare the union of the two Crowns"). The rest of your references theorize about when Spain become a country, between Catholic Kings union or Bourbons Decrees. But not say nothing about abolition or end of crown of castile in 1715. Nothing. The last Berné Valero, José Luis talk about different tax systems until 1843 but not means different sovereign states. Who say that taxes means sovereign of Castile couldn't disappear in 1810? you?. I've put explicit citations and I demand the same to you and the lobby of WP-ES(Durero,Trasamundo,Escarlati, IPs) for the date 1715.--Santos30 (talk) 18:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I recover references deleted and wait for citation needed and put template POV for 1715 in infobox.--Santos30 (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

1715 or 1716?

Did the Crown of Castile end in 1715 or 1716? The last of the Nueva Planta decrees abolished the County of Barcelona in 1716, merging it with the Crown of Castile. 86.97.146.6 (talk) 06:20, 10 January 2013 (UTC) Payne says "approximately 1715".

Spain as a single united polity dates from approximately 1715, and the model for its eighteenth-century royalist regime was the governing system of the Bourbon dynasty of France. The separate fueros of Aragón and Valencia were abolished in 1707 and the administrative system of Castile extended over those territories. This brought abolition of the socially progressive changes in legal jurisdiction over peasant lands that had been decreed by the Habsburg pretender. Catalonia was also incorporated into the central system under terms of the Nueva Planta decree of 1716.

— A History of Spain and Portugal, Vol. 2, Stanley G. Payne, Chapter 16: The Eighteenth-Century Bourbon Regime in Spain

The fueros of Aragon and Valencia were already taken away with the 1707 Nueva Planta Decree, but Felipe V couldn't impose them until he squashed the rebellions.

Legally, the War of Spanish Succession ended with the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht, but Majorca and Ibiza were not taken until 1715. In the last section of the Spanish-language version you can see more battles that are considered part of the war, even if it was already finished.

The trick is this: the Catalonia decree was written in 9 October 1715, but it wasn't issued until 16 January 1716. By that time Majorca had been taken, and the last resistance in Catalonia had been defeated in Siege of Barcelona (1713–1714). Obviously, many historians think that the date of 1715, or "approximately 1715", is more accurate. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. I understand now. 86.97.146.6 (talk) 05:58, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

If you have reliable sources that support the date of 1714, then present them here. Note that the County of Barcelona was merged into the Crown of Aragon centuries before 1714. It became part of the Crown, and was called "Catalonia" or "Principado". Note that "Catalonia inside the Crown of Aragon" is not the same as "the County of Barcelona". Paybe only talks about Catalonia. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

History of the Crown after 1521

I notice that after 1521, the year the Revolt of the Comuneros ended, very little is mentioned about the history of the Crown. This is especially bad since many things happened during this period (wars in Europe especially). Can someone add this much needed information? I would be glad to help.
Thanks 86.97.146.6 (talk) 06:04, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Spanish-controlled cities in North Africa

Were cities such as Oran, Algiers, Bougie, Biserta, and Tunis controlled by the Crown of Castile or the Crown of Aragon? 86.97.146.6 (talk) 06:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Reino y corona de Castilla

El reino de Castilla paso a llamarse reyno de España por causas politicas, para evitar discusiones tontas entr los "Nobles y los dtractores. de esa manera salio el reyno de España, ahúnque ya existia esa unidad con los Godos, es de logica, si un reino ocupa el 80 por ciento del territorio y el 90% de lo conquistado en el resto del mundo bajo su bandera, ¿como podria llamarse Castilla? ¡no! la llamaron España. ¡Haaa! otra cosa si Isabel de Castilla no se hubiera casado con Fernando de Aragon, el Reyno de Aragon hubiera desaparecido 'Un saludo y gracias! --79.159.215.184 (talk) 21:44, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

artilcle scope

The article needs to make up its mind if it wants to be about a state (as in Spain) or about a title (institution, as in Monarchy of Spain).

Castile and Léon existed as a state between 1230 and 1516. After 1516, the title continued to exist, of course, but the state and territory just became (the core) part of Habsburg Spain. The title of king of Castile is still claimed by the current King of Spain, so it is meaningless to claim that the "Crown of Castile" was "disestablished in 1715". Either it was disestablished in 1506/16, ceasing to exist as a separate entity, or it was never disestablished, as it survives as a purely nominal title. --dab (𒁳) 16:14, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

I have to disagree. The political entity known as the Crown of Castile existed after 1516, but does not exist today. I am not sure whether it ceased to exist in 1715 (along with the Crown of Aragon) or perhaps later on, the latest possible date being 1837. Habsburg Spain consisted, for the most part, of the Crown of Castile and the Crown of Aragon. There was no political entity called "Spain" yet. Spain did not exist before the Bourbons took over. Surtsicna (talk) 20:17, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

king of Castile and King of Jerusalem are still titles claimed by Juan Carlos I of Spain (the current King of Spain) but they are not states as Spain. --Dososos (talk) 14:27, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

SEVERE INACCURACIES

The gif image which shows the evolution of the territorial expansion of the Crown contains a good deal of severe inaccuracies. To name just one, The Kingdom of Leon (including Galicia, which was part of it, not a separate entity like the gif implies) was not "annexed" to the "already existing (1217 (!!))" "Crown" of Castile: The "Kingdom" of Castile fused with the Kingdom of Leon in 1230 for being under the same sovereign (it was not annexed), and this formed the "Crown" of Castile in 1230. This gif implies that the "Crown" of Castile existed already in 1217 (false, it was still a Kingdom) and annexed Leon and an independent (false) Galicia, which is a very important mistake. The Spanish version of this gif which served as template for this version was corrected a year ago and so this one should be corrected too. The other mistakes have been fixed there too. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Mapa_de_la_Corona_de_Castilla.gif I have contacted the author who fixed the Spanish version to see if he could do the same with this one, as I don't know how to do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.54.84.68 (talk) 23:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Infobox

I have removed denominations in the infobox in galician, leonese, basque. I think it is unnecessary editorializing that clutters the infobox and I sticked to latin and spanish (latin and the romance vernacular (old spanish) were the languages of the royal chancellery in the Middle Ages. They are featured as note in the lead anyways. I am aware even this can be a dubious construct, as the romance vernacular and middle spanish were different from modern spanish and the Castiella denomination was probably also a common term in sources back then in the romance vernacular (old castilian). Supposing you need to include every language spoken there in the infobox brings bad editorializing (think Ottoman empire or Austrian Empire).--Asqueladd (talk) 11:03, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a specialist, but I'm pretty sure Madrid was considered the capital by most medieval standards. Bertdrunk (talk) 13:16, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

By medieval standards? Not really. In the Middle Ages there were not a capital per se. The nuanced discussion about which city gathered more administrative power at a particular point in the Late Middle Ages is interesting (Burgos, Valladolid, Toledo) but it is not a thing for the infobox and Madrid does not belong to that discussion either. Madrid (which was a decent sized city with some importance previously to 1561 despite some views trying to portray the city as an invention of Philip II) had nevertheless just a vote in the Cortes just like more than a dozen of cities of the Crown. Later Madrid became the capital of the Crown of Castile in 1561, that's true, but that date falls outside the temporal scope of the article as it is formulated in its current form.--Asqueladd (talk) 14:15, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

By Medieval standards I mean wherever the court is, or was. If there was a seat, at least partially permanently, I suppose it could be cited. Bertdrunk (talk) 15:38, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

There was no such thing. If you are interested in developing the centres of power of the Crown of Castile, you have a decent source here. However, I am highly skeptical the content you can infer from the sources could lead to a explanation in the infobox that improves in any form the presentation of the article, and therefore I think it is most appropiate to deal with it just in the body of the article.--Asqueladd (talk) 16:04, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Alright. Thx. Bertdrunk (talk) 16:42, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Navarre in Preceding events

Hi Asqueladd, I definitely agree that my edit does not belong under the statement "The two kingdoms had been united twice previously:", so I have changed its location in the section. This article is not about the unification of Leon and Castile, it is about the Crown of Castile, with the invasion of Navarre and subsequent annexation of Gipuzkoa, Álava and Durango are major events for that crown. I do have some grasp of the topic, and this event, as well as the forced incorporation of these territories and the different status held by these districts in the Crown of Castile are conspicuously missing.

Also, I am not sure what your objection is to the dates. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Iñaki LL I am positive the year "1999" (the year João Félix was born) is a typo ;). --Asqueladd (talk) 21:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

O! Thanks. Definitely typo, you could have changed it yourself anyway. Iñaki LL (talk) 21:54, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Iñaki LL The article could use more information about territorial expansion and decrease in general (popping up in my mind, the protectorate in Murcia as satellite polity for instance) in terms of post-1230 and if there is a section about precedents also more succintly about events prior to 1230. One thing. Do you have any idea of which of the Durangaldea vs Duranguesado terms is the most common one in English language sources (particularly in this context)? If it were a toss, it could be worth to discuss the inclusion of both variants here.--Asqueladd (talk) 22:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

The article is about its expansion/decrease, and its make-up, and its milestones, etc. If you think the protectorate of Murcia was relevant in the Precedent events please add accurately what knowledge you have on the matter if you think it was relevant for the realm.

Sorry, but why are you changing the topic to the name of the area of Durango? Please try to stay focus, it is not very helpful to keep hopping off from one topic to another. Thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 22:17, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I mean that I see no conspicuous attempt to hidden anything, since what you included happened before 1230, the supposed starting point for the actual stuff of this article (there were no precedents but the mention of the preceding periods under which the two kingdoms were ruled by the same king) and that there are more important events to add to this article (namely: territorial change after 1230 –including the particularities in the status not restricted to those territories–; Murcia, for instance). Now the preceding events section is unbalanced: it currently works like a (very incomplete) bulleted "list of". To the extent "a very incomplete bulleted list of events" (thus providing no holistic understanding) is problematic, now there is a problem where before there was none. It they were to keep different status under the Crown of Castile, it would best to weave that content in the main part, but anchoring it less to the turn of the 13th century and more to things that happened after 1230. PD: Regarding the name of the area of Durango, I am evaluating more recent changes but I don't have a problem to ask you (as you have a grasp in the topic) that elsewhere.--Asqueladd (talk) 22:24, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

As I let you know, I do have some grasp on the topic. The invasion of Navarre, the realm with which Castile had had historic, continuous disputes not only over its borders, but its very existence, is a key matter for later developments. Castile got access to the Basque maritime districts, hubs for the Castilian navy, and major arms manufacturers, as well as direct commercial access to Gascony, ruled by the Plantagenet lineage based in England. I am thus talking about a strategic event, not about the occupation of another territory in the south of the Peninsula. The occupation left a feeble Navarre, broke the multi-party alliance pattern held up to that point, thus allowing a (dualistic) Christian alliance under the auspices of the Pope against the Almoravids in the Battle of Las Navas de Tolosa, and the creation of the Crown of Castile. Please be specific on your claims, and keep it positive. Iñaki LL (talk) 09:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

What you mention (focused on the Crown of Castile) is the kind of content I would like to see woven in the "Crown of Castile from the rule of Ferdinand III until the ascension of Charles I" section, of course referring back inline to preceding events (when causality applies). It looks really interesting and in-depth. But still don't see it as a rationale to introduce an "open-bulleted-list-of-stuff-that-happened-before-the timeframe-for-this-article" section where before there was arguably none.--Asqueladd (talk) 04:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

should merge with "the kingdom of castille"

the two articles are really similar and both should merge. The french guru (talk) 03:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I guess that rather than merging them, the page Kingdom of Castile should be trimmed to avoid too much redundancy. --Jotamar (talk) 20:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

yeah I guess you'r right. but the guys who did the reaserch will not be that happy The french guru (talk) 00:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Red links in infobox

Any explanation of why these were added? Perhaps we could find actual working links to add? Because right now this arguably does not look very aesthetically pleasing Aliy Dawut (talk) 00:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC)