Talk:Juan Carlos I

Prefix Argument

--68.167.34.42 19:53, 3 August 2005 (UTC)As the first Juan Carlos, he cannot be called 'Juan Carlos I' as such numerals are only added to a monarch's name when there is a need to distinguish him from a Juan Carlos II. It is exceptionally rare for a monarch to be called 'the first' in their own lifetime. Queen Elizabeth I and Pope John Paul I are two of the very rare examples. Juan Carlos is not one and won't be called 'Juan Carlos I' until Spain has a Juan Carlos II. The name of this page and its contents have been changed to reflect this. JTD 06:39 Jan 2, 2003 (UTC)

Actually, I think Juan Carlos is Juan Carlos I, and is referred to as such in the Constitution, e.g. article 57.1 "the Crown is hereditary in the successors of H.M. Don Juan Carlos I [sic] of Bourbon, legitimate heir of the historic dynasty" -- Someone else 07:00 Jan 2, 2003 (UTC)

Juan Carlos is referred to as 'Juan Carlos I' is the 1978 constitution and key legal documents, just as similar documents refer to 'Victoria I' in the United Kingdom, 'Anne I' of England, of whatever. That is automatic, as such documents would have to be written on the presumption that there could potentially be a second Juan Carlos, a second Queen Victoria, a second Queen Anne, etc., hence the references to 'the first' in their title. But because there was only one Victoria, only one Anne, etc. nowhere except in the most formal primary documents are there any references to them as 'Victoria I', etc. The same rule applies with Juan Carlos. Hence on Wikipedia, which relies on the most common, unambiguous and accurate term or name, there is no reference to 'Victoria I', merely Queen Victoria, no reference to Anne I, just Queen Anne, no reference Haile Selassie I, merely Haile Selassie of Ethiopia. The rule is simple. Monarchs who are the first to use a name are referred to generally without adding 'the first', until a second monarch uses that name. So either all references to monarchs like Victoria, Anne, Haile Selassie, etc should be changed to include the numeral 'I' (which would contradict Wiki policy AND all other similar entries everywhere else), or Juan Carlos like such monarchs should be entered in without a numeral, with a numeral being added only if at some time in the future, a Juan Carlos II inherits the Spanish throne. JTD 00:23 Jan 3, 2003 (UTC)

I know that's the common rule, and it's certainly the British way of doing things, but it's not a universal one. It's Juan Carlos I in the Constitution, it's Juan Carlos I in the Almanac de Gotha, and he's officially styled as Juan Carlos I. He attended the opening of "The King Juan Carlos I of Spain Center" at New York University in 1997 and didn't complain that they got his name wrong. This is different from Britain: even in formal documents, e.g. Royal Proclamations dictating her style, Victoria was not Victoria I, and Anne in her Letters Patent was Anne, not Anne I. The Spanish do it differently, and they use "Juan Carlos I" where the British wouldn't. He's S. M. Don Juan Carlos I de Borbón y Borbón, Rey de España. Of course, he'll answer to Juan Carlos, if we call him that to force our false consistency upon him. But it's certainly reasonable to refer to him as Juan Carlos I, and it's wrong to imply that it's wrong. -- Someone else 01:41 Jan 3, 2003 (UTC)

It is not the British way of doing thinks, it is the universal manner of dealing with the first monarch to use a title. I have a large number of books on world monarchies. Not a single one used 'I' to indicate a monarch. It also is the agreed way in which Wikipedia refers to such monarchs. It needs to follow a standardised approach at it does, across all such monarchs, and it does: no 'I' unless there has been a second. (Where a 'I' is included by someone, it invariably is removed. ) JTD 04:44 Jan 3, 2003 (UTC)

As I've shown, it's not "universal". I have no problem with Wikipedia using it as a matter of style, Wikipedia adopts all kinds of arbitrary rules and naming conventions. I only object to the notion that "Juan Carlos I" is wrong, as though using it were a mark of illiteracy: it's not. -- Someone else 04:57 Jan 3, 2003 (UTC)

Sorry if you thought I was suggesting illiteracy; I wasn't. It is of course strictly correct. I know I am a bit of a stickler for correct titles myself. (I've been rather dogmatic on the issue of using the titles 'England', 'Great Britain' and 'United Kingdom' correctly rather than interchangably on Wikipedia, which some people were doing!!!) It is nice to find others of Wiki who are as concerned with accuracy. The issue is simply to get a balance that in applicable in all monarchical titles, and doesn't create problems, where, for example, some people mention 'Juan Carlos I', while others (the majority) use 'Juan Carlos'. And whichever version doesn't exist would then end up being created by people who don't know about the other page. (That regularly happens, with duplicates causing all sorts of problems.) As other monarchs who are the only ones to hold their name don't use the 'I' designation, it is logical to apply that rule universally. But that doesn't mean any disrespect for His Majesty; far from it, he is the embodiment of how to be an effective modern monarch and deserves every praise for being so. We both want to see the King get the entry on Wiki he deserves, and which treats him with the respect he deserves. We just disagree on the technicalities. JTD 20:13 Jan 3, 2003 (UTC)

We don't even disagree that much even on the technicalities. Colour me happy and smiling. (and I was with you on the UK thing too<G>) -- Someone else 20:48 Jan 3, 2003 (UTC)

The most common usage in Spain is Juan Carlos I -- Error

It may well be, but this wiki is not spanish. On english'; wiki there is a standardised international notation when referring to monarchs, the one used generally in the english language. Internationally, monarchs who do not have a successor who uses the same name are not referred to by an ordinal. So in international usage, Juan Carlos I is wrong, just as Victoria I, Louis Philippe I and Paul I are all wrong for the monarchs of the United Kingdom, France and Greece respectively. Whether the Spanish in spanish use it is irrelevant. It is not used in the english language and english wiki goes by the form of language used by english speakers. So Juan Carlos I is not an option in an english language wiki. A spanish wiki could if it wished use an ordinal and in Spanish call him Juan Carlos I, just as it could if to wished, talk about a Queen Victoria I or a King Louis Philippe I. But in the english language he is Juan Carlos, not Juan Carlos I, until a second King Juan Carlos arises in Spain. FearÉIREANN 02:58 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Can somebody explain why he is not called John Charles of Spain? -- Error

It is simple. Wiki doesn't translate things into english, it uses the form used in english. English speakers call him Juan Carlos not John Charles so that is why he is called Juan Carlos here. Ditto with Wilhelm II of Germany, who though often called William was regularly called Wilhelm in english also, so there is no need to translate his name. But nobody in English called Tsar Nicholas II Nikolai so he is in as Nicholas, as is his brother Michael II, not MIkhail, just as Juan Carlos' father-in-law is in as King Paul of Greece, not Pavlos. FearÉIREANN 05:53 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Can somebody explain why he is not called John Charles of Spain in English? -- Error 04:01 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Because in the modern media age it is possible to combine a native name with pictures or VT and so create an acceptable recognisable identity. In addition people can now get broadcasts and newspapers from many sources, so sticking with his given name gives him an international identity. A century ago most newspapers would not have had correspondents in Madrid. They would have relied on a wire service with generally if in english would translate the name into english. Each nation's newspapers would then translate the name into French, German, Russian, Italian. This phenomenon of keeping the native name is now widespread in the media; for example in Ireland, the Irish language news service, Án Nuacht in the 1970s translated the Irish prime minister's english language names into gaelic for the bulletins, calling Liam Cosgrave Liám MacCosgair and Jack Lynch Sean Ó Loinsigh. Today they don't do that any more. So whereas the line - 'the Taoiseach Liam Cosgrave said today' would be said as Dúirt an taoiseach, Liám MacCosgair inniú gur . . in 1973, in 2003, the newscaster would say Dúirt an taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, inniú gur . . with no attempt to translate his name from english into gaelic. FearÉIREANN 05:04 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Can I just point out a line that I think may be the funniest I think I've ever seen on a discussion page? "I have a large number of books on world monarchies." Reminds me of Anchorman. "I have many leather bound, books." I apologize for the innapropriate use of the discussion page, but I felt it necessary. In conclusion, go Sox.

---

Can somebody include a bit about how he shot his brother in an hunting accident? I am not sure about the facts and it is not a fact that gets publicized. -- Error

There was no hunting involved. Here's what I have on file, feel free to extract and add what you think is important. It will have to be reworded since I don't know who wrote it.

Alfonso of Spain died in 1956, at age 15, either accidently shot by his brother Juan Carlos who was playing with their father's revolver, or by the accidental discharge of a gun while Alfonso was cleaning it at his parents home in Estoril, Portugal.

The exact nature of his death is questionable. The Bourbons used a simlar ‘gun-cleaning accident’ story just a few years previously to explain the suicide of Princess Giovanna of Bourbon-Parma (1916 - 1949). Then there was Prince Gaetano of Bourbon-Sicilies (1846 - 1871), whom we are told accidentally shot himself to death during an epileptic seizure. There was no gunshot wound involved in the death of Gaetano's brother, Prince Luigi (1838 - 1886) so the truth of his suicide by hanging became public knowledge.

As sole witness to the shooting accident which claimed the life of Infante Don Alfonso, only the present King of Spain knows for certain precisely how his brother received the mortal wound.

-- Someone else 02:22 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

What is a military holiday? RickK 02:43 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

A bunch of people with suits of the same color get together outdoors. Most walk in the same direction while a few watch them. :)

Parades, medals, speeches,...

Officially it's "Pascua militar", but the straight translations "Military Easter" or "Miitary Passover" don't sound right.

-- Error

---

Correcting some layout errors:

• the article began with JC's personal name. Under wiki naming conventions it is supposed to start for monarchs with title.
• After a debate recently on the messy topic of how to include royal personal names, it was decided to include them directly after the royal reign name in bold italics and parentheses. I have done that here.
• In the bottom template, the heir apparent was named by personal name surname and title. It was long long ago decided never to use your personal surnames with title. Surname was removed. (Other royals are also renamed by that long abandoned format in this article and they are all going to have to be changed, eg, Juan Carlos' father's name, which should include title and not surname.)

Juan de Borbón, self-appointed Count of Barcelona. Actually Count of Barcelona is a sovereign title, belonging to the king, so he was claiming kinghood indirectly. His kinghood is a bit dubious. He was never crowned, and didn't formally abdicate his rights until the 1980s, but he is intombed at Escorial in the Royal Pantheon.

• Also in the template, it went into detail about before JC there was Franco, the IInd Republic and Alfonso XIII. The template is simply supposed to list the next previous head of state. That was Franco. Nothing else belongs in that box and everything else has been removed. (On Franco's page, the second president should be named, etc etc. Alfonso XIII was succeed by the 1st president, etc. One only name belongs in the preceded by template in each page, not an entire history lesson.) FearÉIREANN 03:23 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

There is a point to saying that Franco's regime was illegitime and the exile government of the Republic was the legitime one. I think that was the Soviet position (and the Mexican one?). --- Error

Monarchs don't need crowning. No Norwegian monarchs since Haakon VII have been crowned. Popes are no longer crowned. Belgian monarchs aren't crowned. Juan Carlos wasn't crowned. Was Alfonso XIII? I know the ancient Spanish Crown Jewels were destroyed centuries ago in a fire. I don't even know if they were ever fully replaced, but from what I know Spanish monarchs like their French neighbours pretty much didn't see the point in crowning and often just never bothered. As far as Spanish monarchists were concerned, the Count of Barcelona was the legitimist pretender.

That should be "as far as Spanish monarchists of the Alfonsine branch were concerned". The Carlist branch fought the Spanish war with Franco and became absorbed in the regime. (I'd like an article on Carlism). The Carlists had a bad opinion (or worse) on the Alfonsines. Though some subbranch of the Carlist s recognized Juan (or Juan Carlos?) as the legitime heir of their branch. -- Error 04:01 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

There is in reality no such thing as an illegitimate state. If the state becomes a reality and is recognised at home and abroad it is de facto legitimate. If it fails to establish that support it never becomes a real state to start off with. The majority of the world's states started off by breaking the old order in what was deemed at the time an illegal act. The US is a classic example. The fact was that whether one approves of the monarchy and democracy now, Juan Carlos is king and Spain a democracy. Whether you approve of not of Franco, he was the legitimate (ie legitimised by existence and acceptance) ruler of Spain. Whether one approves of the 2nd Republic, it existed and was accepted, and the King was gone. Similarly whether one approved or not of the monarchy that replaced the 1st Republic, it existed. So before Juan Carlos there was Franco and no-one else. Before him was Azara and no-one else, etc etc. FearÉIREANN 05:53 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

What if it's recognized just by some? Like Taliban Afghanistan and the Islamic State of AF. Or ROC and PRC. I'm guessing again but I think that the USSR and Mexico didn't recognize Franco's Spain. Just out of debugging. I don't think that adding a lot of predecessors would improve the article. -- Error

---

I disagree with some edits:

• The point about being exiled fascist Rome is important for somebody that was later a democrat.
  • Exiled monarchs settled in Italy sometimes because they were related to the Italian Royal Family (or one of the royal families, sometimes because Rome on account of the papacy was seen as a stable place unlikely to be overrun by revolution, and so that had an appeal. The Count of Barcelona was in any case married to an Italian princess (not a Savoyard one though). Many democrats lived in Italy during the fascist era. In any case the Count held views that were far removed fom fascism. It could be speculated I suppose that Juan Carlos's distaste for dictatorship was fostered by his experience in Italy. FearÉIREANN 05:53 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I don't remember if Juan's article justifies why he moved from Fascist Italy to Salazarist Portugal. I think Switzerland would be a better place. Could you point to some foreign democrats living voluntarily in Italy in 1938? I can't think of anyone, but I don't know much about the time and place. -- Error

• I doubt if he had a say in moving to Spain. He was quite young.
• My guess on the resignation data of Juan is wrong according to Juan's article.

--Error 04:36 20 Jul 2003 (UTC)

---

It was in 1977 that Juan Carlos' father renounced his rights, not in the 1980's. I've corrected this.Erwin 12:37, 31 Jul 2003 (UTC)

"Fraudulent Acquistion" link

• Allegations of misappropiation of the art collection of the Duke of Hernani by the Spanish Royal Family.

Was this link appropriate? Although listed in wikipedia as Allegations of misappropiation the website itself begins with the bold, and possibly defamatory, statement that the Royal Family did commit fraud.

Later the website accuses the Royal Family, the Royal Household, various departments of the Spanish Government and judiciary and the entire Spanish media of involvement in the fraud or the coverup.

The site passes beyond legitimate comment on a claim and into the fantastical conspiracy theory --garryq 18:52, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

The number's back

I had to change the opening sentence, because it read His Majesty the King of Spain is the reigning King of Spain. I introduced the ordinal as it is part of the style and title the King uses -- as required by wikipedia -- and emphasises the break between Juan Carlos Juan Carlos... --garryq 19:10, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Franco's posthumous apointment

The opening paragraph looks silly IMO. Franco died on 20 November but then appointed Juan Carlos King on 22 November. I know the context and that Franco had long intended to be suceeded by Juan Carlos, but doesn't it need to say something like "the operation of Franco's political last will resulted in Juan Carlos' being recogninzed as King of Spain on 22 November," or something like that. The current wording makes it seem like the late Franco could have instead just appointed him to the Cabinet, or something like that. Rlquall 13:40, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Infante

Juan Carlos' little brother Alfonso's death was not well-explained in that the article referred to him as an "infant". I think that this was confusion caused by the title "Infante", which certainly does not directly translate to the English word "infant", which is properly applied in English to children under two, not fifteen year olds. (This is a clear case of a false cognate.) I have removed the word "infant", if someone wants to restore the title Infante, with context and and explanation, it would certainly be welcome. Rlquall 13:50, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have just removed it again, we do not want to deliberately deceive!!! --SqueakBox 18:56, May 1, 2005 (UTC)

Prefixed Style

There exists no consensus for the use of prefixed styles in Wikipedia. The use of "His Majesty" in the initial introduction has been opposed by a majority of those participating in a recent survey as improper POV. NPOV trumps consensus, I am therefore disputing the neutrality of this article. Whig 08:28, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree, and removed it, --SqueakBox 14:53, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Given the edit warring from those who aren't involving themselves in this discussion i have replaced the NPOV tag though at the moment the talk page consensus is to get rid of the His Majesty, --SqueakBox 17:33, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

I think a reasonable convention would be that the way he is styled is noted separately, see for example Harald V. I don't know enough Spanish to research this, but I would propose that we write something along the lines of "Juan Carlos, styled His Majesty, Juan Carlos," etc... I don't understand why this should be an NPOV dispute, unless there is someone who disputes his claim to the throne, in which case that should be noted. --Leifern 17:40, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

Whig knows quite well enough that his recent survey, despite his unusual counting methods and despite his loading the questions, did not reach consensus for anything. He is trolling now. He seems quite happy to see any article where a style could be appended to have a NPOV tag. THis is very disruptive and helps no-one, least of all our readers. Please don't feed the trolls. Kind regards, jguk 18:02, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

It was me who replaced the tag, not whig. This argument seems to be going on all over the place, but I am interested in here. I think it should be much easier to place a tag than to remove it. The Spanish is simply Su Majestad. I prefer the new version. i think Whig has a valid point, we musn't fawn, --SqueakBox 22:00, May 15, 2005 (UTC)

military holiday and birthday

I read that the birthday of Juan Carlos I is a military holiday. I think that is unaccurate. First, birthday is Jan 5th, while the military holiday, known as Pascua Militar, Military Pasch, is held every Jan 6th at the royal palace. Second, and most important, that holiday is said to have been stablished by Carlos III in the 18th celebrating some kind of military event at the island of Menorca.

Why Spanish Now?

Why are past Spanish Monarchs names given in English (Example: Charles II ,Philip V ,Ferdinand VII)? Yet the current Spanish Monarch's name is given as Juan Carlos I (Spanish version) and not John Charles I?

Because whereas the British Queen is called Isobel in Spanish countries Juan Carlos is called Juan Carlos in the English speaking world whereas the former monarchs are known by their English names in the English spealking world, and it is the name someone or something is commonly known as in English that is used, SqueakBox 23:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, basically. English over the last century and a half has been incredibly inconsistent about its anglicizations of the names of foreign monarchs. john k 07:09, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for responding to my question, SqueakBox & John Kenney. I'm happy to see that others have noticed this linguistic inconsistancy. 23 October 2005.