Talk:Juan Carlos I

King of Algarve?

As far as I know, the title of King of Algarve was associated with the Kingdom of Portugal since the Reconquista. Since I see no source confirming this I'm deleting it. User:McKagan

Perhaps could have been tagged before removing it? Anyhow, as mentioned above, see http://www.heraldica.org/topics/royalty/royalstyle.htm hippo43 (talk) 17:14, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Duke of Milan & other dubious titles

I fail to see how Juan Carlos is the titular Duke of Milan. That title has belonged to the House of Habsburg since the Treaty of Utrecht (1713). I'm removing it from the titles and succession box. -- Jack1755 (talk) 14:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I have just established that several other titles are enjoyed in an official capacity by other living people. How can he be titular King of Gibraltar if it was ceded to Great Britain by treaty? He is not Duke of Brabant, Prince Philippe, Duke of Brabant is. The titles and succesion box needs an overview. -- Jack1755 (talk) 14:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

His Majesty uses and claims those titles. It's a fact. Even the Constitution of Spain allows the monarcch to use titles pertaining to the Crown of Spain. See List of titles and honours of the Spanish Crown. Surtsicna (talk) 16:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure he claims them; whether he has any basis to do so is entirely different. Wikipedia is not an agent of Spain. The fact of the mattter is that Spain has not enjoyed possession of those territories for centuries. The titles have been legally resigned to other states and Houses by universally recognised treaties. Ergo, It is rather imprudish to attribute those titles to the monarch of Spain. Juan Carlos can claim to be Duke of Brabant all he wants, but he isn't. The Crown Prince of Belgium is. Would Juan Carlos dare declare his pretendership in the middle of Bruges? I think not. In addition to this, the article you linked me to clearly states that "Contrary to some belief, the long titulary that contains the list of over 20 kingdoms, etc., is not in state use, nor is it used in Spanish diplomacy. In fact, it has never been in use in that form, as "Spain" was never a part of the list in pre-1837 era when the long list was officially used." If these titles in question are not used in an official capacity, they have no place in an encyclopaedia. I rest my case. -- Jack1755 (talk) 16:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Of course he is only a pretender - that's why those titles are called titles of pretence, for God's sake! We are not here to argue whether he has any basis to do whatever he is doing; we are here to inform the readers that those are the titles of the Spanish crown. You cite only parts of the article which support your case; however, the mere existance of the article means that mentioning the King of Spain's titles of pretence has place in an encyclopaedia. Surtsicna (talk) 17:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Does Juan Carlos actively pretend to these titles? No, he does not. Nor did I ever say he was anything but a pretender for that matter. It is you who said in an earlier post that "His Majesty uses and claims those titles". Just because I chose to cite you, does that mean I have to abide by everything you publish? Do Lutherans fervently follow all of their founders doctrines, such as the anti-Semetic On the Jews and Their Lies? No, they do not. I do not have to believe in everything in that article just because I cited it. And the for "God's sake" outburst was completely gratuitous. By cicting that article, of course I acknowledge that it exists, and, as already stated, Spain does not actively use that list of titles, remember? -- Jack1755 (talk) 18:04, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Jack1755 Sorry, but you're confusing the actual title with the historical, belonging to the Crown and are only recognized within this institution. Of course, many just a pretender, but that happens with many kings and nobles without so their rights revoked. Are titles that have historically belonged to the Crown, and therefore are recognized within it, nothing more, have greater legal validity. I make an example: Queen Elizabeth II is on today's Empress of India and Duchess of Normandy. Should these titles removed their Entitlement? Thank you and sorry for my poor English.

Actually the Emperor/Empress of India title was abandoned in 1947, but it's certainly true that British monarchs claimed the French throne until 1815, which is a pretty good comparable example. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll copy here the explanation I gave in Kingdom of Gibraltar:

Jack1755, you tend to misunderstand the difference between Monarchy of Spain and the Royal Household of Spain (which does not form part of the Spanish Government, and remains exclusively under the rulement of the monarch). You also misunderstand how Nobility titles work. These titles pertain (as Titles in Pretence) to the household of the spanish branch of the Bourbon family (as every other title in the world pertain to a family). Those titles are inherited by the Head of the Household (in this case Juan Carlos de Borbón y Borbón).

This said, nobody has the right to restore or to remove them those titles (i.e A civil uprising like the Second Spanish Republic). When the Spanish Republic was instored in 1931, Alfonso XIII got withdrawed as Head of State of Spain, but never as King of Spain, as Alfonso was the only one who could get his hereditary title revoked. After he got removed from the Kingship, Alfonso, automatically became claimant or Pretender to the Kingdom of Spain, as he still was the first person in the list of claimants if the Kingdom was restored. In fact, Francisco Franco was the "Spanish Head of State and Regent of the Kingdom".

And, if you had informed yourself a little bit more, you could know that, under the fundamental law of the House of Bourbon, neither a king nor his heirs can renounce the claim to a throne they hold but do not possess.

Titles such as King of Jerusalem, Sardinia, Corsica, Gibraltar or Duke of Burgundy, of Brabant, of Milan, of Athens and Neopatria etc... are claims of the Spanish branch of the House of Bourbon. Why? Because they have the right and because they ARE supposed to be in the first place of the list per inheritance if someday those territories decide to have a monarchical form of government again.

A perfect example of this in France (a republic), is Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou. 220 years after Louis XVI of France was executed and the Monarchy abolished, Louis Alphonse is still a claimant to the French throne, and considered to be the head of the French Royal House by legitimists. In case that France returns to be a Monarchy, (and the legitimists arguments accepted), he would be named Louis XX of France. And watch yourself... Because if Louis Alphonse dies without a male heir (he only has one girl yet), Juan Carlos of Spain could also become the claimant to the title of "King of France", as he is next in the list. (notice that Alfonso XIII was it already from 1936 up to his death)

Back to the titles... The titles are hereditary and pertain to the household of Bourbon, not to Spain nor the Spaniards. And while the Spanish Kings ceded some territories, they had all the rights their Nobility allowed to keep (as they did) the claim to these titles for them and their sucessors in case those were to become a Spanish territory again in the future. And you may very well keep discussing as much as you want, but that's how western society, western traditions and European Nobility work! Live with it. Cheers. --MauritiusXXVII (Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede!). 17:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe we would differ between claimant and claimant, wouldn't we? The titles, say, King of Castilla, Leon, Aragon etc. etc. are surely titles of the King of Spain, and nobody would deny them to him - he was even able to extraordinarily give one of them to another person, the County of Barcelona, though it would be somewhat odd if he did so with a "king"-title. Likewise, the King of Spain is quite surely claimant to the Kingship of Gibraltar, even if he does not use this title, because Spain as a state keeps actively and publicly stating its (peaceful, of course) will to regain Gibraltar. The only thing that looks odd to me is that Gibraltar is called a kingdom.

That said, I do think that some of the other titles are not real titles of pretense, but mere titles of courtesy. What is the case as to Athens and Neopatria I don't know. Duke of Burgundy, Brabant and Milan, Archduke of Austria etc. were titles of the Habsburg monarchs and fiefs of the Holy Roman Empire, and were given to them as such in the treaty of Utrecht. The only claimant to them (from the Habsburg-Bourbon site; the Kingdom of Belgium is another story) is Archduke Charles (since Otto abdicated). The title of Sardinia was included in the same treaty that splitted the territories of the deceased Spanish Habsburgs (yet took no lands of Spain as such) and given to Habsburg, by whom it was without force given to the House of Savoy, who willingly included it into the Kingdom of Italy - so there is no longer a pretender to Sardinia (as such), only the head of the House of Savoy as pretender to the Kingdom of Italy. As to Naples and Sicily, they were given by Spain itself to younger Spanish princes, so it'd seem really odd to call the King of Spain a pretender thereof, the only pretender is the head of the House of Bourbon-Sicily. The particularly prestigious title of pretender to the Kingdom of Jerusalem was originally one of the titles of Naples, and came with them to the House of Habsburg - as this house also has some sort of seniority over Bourbon as to the Spanish crown prior to the Spanish War of Succession, and this particular title was (I think) not specificly dealt with in the treaty of Utrecht - and if it was not explicitly mentioned in the Treaty of Vienna that made the two Sicilies secundo-Spanish again, it's supposed to have stayed with the Habsburgs. (Well - he might have at least some point as to this title.) By the way, even if he may be called 1st in line of succession to the French legitimist claim, the French throne may not be given to the Spanish monarch even if the Legitimists of France were successful.

The problem is that all these treaties, Utrecht in particular, allowed all participants to keep in use all their titles that they claimed before even though they did settle the claims as such (except, I think, Jerusalem and perhaps Athens and Neopatria). These titles are however not titles in pretense but only titles of courtesy. I also think this privilege was only given to the persons then depossesed, and ended by their death.--84.154.122.108 (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Likewise, the head of the House of Prussia styles himself among other titles Duke of Mecklenburg and Prince of Orange. There are historical reasons (cross-hereditary treaties etc.) for doing so. But this doesn't mean that he claims to be the original possessor of these titles, only that he gratefully enjoys an honour that the Houses of Mecklenburg and Orange have granted the House of Prussia centuries ago. --84.154.122.108 (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Franco a Carlist????

Are you kidding?

Iberian Union

Why does the discussion of an Iberian Union have anything to do with this article, especially in the first section? It seems completely out of context. Hpa (talk) 14:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Requested move (August 2010)

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

The result of the move request was: Move to Juan Carlos I (pending speedy delete of destination). When opposition arguments are discounted for creating Catch-22 situation (per john k), consensus is clearly in favor of move. Much of WP evolution occurs at the single article level; simply relying on consistency with some non-policy general naming guideline is not a compelling argument against special cases. Born2cycle (talk) 06:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

---

Juan Carlos I of Spain → Juan Carlos I — This move request isn't intended to alter how we title monarchs generally (see WP:NCROY). What it is intended to do, however, is recognise that like Elizabeth II, the current king of Spain is known popularly and unambiguously as simply Juan Carlos I, and does not need to be disambiguated by his country.

Rationale:

1. Unlike earlier Spanish kings before the Second Spanish Republic and Franco's rule, Juan Carlos I is known by his name in Spanish, not an anglicised form. See earlier monarchs, such as Philip II of Spain, Charles III of Spain, Louis I of Spain and Ferdinand VII of Spain. By current, the current king is not known as John Charles I of Spain. This presents a convincing reason to make a break with Juan Carlos I.
2. Connected to the above point is the fact that Juan Carlos I of Spain is quite an odd title, combining as it does both English and Spanish. At least using Juan Carlos I de España would be consistent in simply using Spanish. Juan Carlos I is much more preferable, however, as the current king is never called Juan Carlos I de España in English, just as he is never called John Charles I of Spain.
3. The official website of the Spanish Royal Family refers to him as Juan Carlos, not as "Juan Carlos of Spain". This is the closest thing to an official source on this subject. The question of whether we should use Juan Carlos I or simply Juan Carlos is really a question for another day, but nowhere on the website is "of Spain" tagged on to his name as on Wikipedia.
4. Not only does Juan Carlos I redirect here, but so does John Charles I, meaning there is no possibility of confusion with another monarch.

Please leave comments below. There seems to be a problem with the text size. City of Destruction 14:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• Support. I'm not at all convinced by your given rationales, except the last. Amadeo I and Alfonso XII and XIII are certainly known in English by the Spanish forms of their names. If you read books on Spanish, as opposed to European, history, you'll find that earlier monarchs are often referred to by their Spanish names in English, although obviously not so universally as the current king. On the whole, I don't really buy the idea that there's anything unique here that would require a departure from the general norms. That being said, I think that moving away from the "pre-emptively disambiguate even when it's obviously unnecessary" standard is a good thing. I support this move on the grounds that I would support a move of Louis XIV of France to Louis XIV or Christian X of Denmark to Christian X; there's simply no particularly good reason to disambiguate here. Obviously Henry IV or Charles II or Philip IV will have to remain disambiguation pages; but when there's a clear primary topic, I don't see any particular reason to force all these articles into the same shape. john k (talk) 00:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose I oppose abandoning pre-emptive disambiguation, but if we are to do so, this should be discussed at WP:NCROY rather than proposing this on a piecemeal basis, a recipe for a lot of interminable wrangles. As I think JohnK recognises, there are no compelling reasons why this person is a special case. If "Juan Carlos" is his normal name in English, then "Juan Carlos I of Spain" is not an awkward hybrid. Yoo could make a case for treating everybody as a special case if you tried hard enough. PatGallacher (talk) 20:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at NCROY was once my preference on this stuff, but nothing ever happened there. The point would be raised, there would be some vague sense that maybe we should do something, and then the issue would get dropped without anyone ever doing anything. This is in part because a lot of people have the view that naming conventions should describe what we actually do, rather than prescribe what we should do. As such, moving a bunch of articles piecemeal seems like the only way to accomplish any changes. I wish City of Destruction had simply proposed the move on the grounds that "of Spain" is unnecessary, rather than inventing somewhat specious supporting motives, but what can you do? john k (talk) 21:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I have to object to your accusation of "somewhat specious supporting motives". Of course the fourth point is important, but it certainly shouldn't be taken as the main reason to move; I don't think Charles Dickens should be moved to Dickens just because that happens to redirect there, or think Napoleon I should be moved to Napoleon for the same reason. Sometimes, a fuller title can add clarity. This is, I would stress, not the case here, but I would argue that the other points I proposed are just as valid. Academic material aside, it is very rare to see Philip II referred to as Felipe II. I would argue that Amadeo and Alfonso are exceptions simply because their names do not have common English forms (I don't think there is even an English form for Amadeo). This is clearly not the case for John or Charles. City of Destruction 23:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

"Amadeus" is the standard Latinized form for "Amadeo," which is used in English in other contexts (as for dukes of Savoy); Alphonse is, I guess, the English form of Alfonso, and I bet that a fair number of eighteenth and nineteenth century works on medieval Spain use that form, although I couldn't say for sure. Felipe II is certainly rare, but Carlos II, say, is quite common. And more and more academic works (which are, of course, reliable sources in English) are avoiding anglicization. Beyond that, I didn't mean to imply that you were offering reasons in bad faith, just that I didn't find them convincing. I fully agree with you that sometimes a fuller title can add clarity, and that in this case it does not. I will say that I think the same logic applies to Alfonso XII and Alfonso XIII. john k (talk) 01:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose so that Juan Carlos I (disambiguation) can be moved to Juan Carlos I. 64.105.65.28 (talk) 03:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

  Seriously? The king is obviously the primary topic. john k (talk) 18:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose on grounds that NCROY's point #3 under Sovereigns is applicable, and the current name is duly in compliance; that pre-emptive disambiguation in these cases continues to work well, is not broken so doesn't need fixing; that pre-emptive disambig brings an encyclopedic consistency to articles on monarchs and a user-friendly format offering predictability and simplicity; and that this is not the appropriate venue to attempt to change NCROY. FactStraight (talk) 03:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

  There is apparently no appropriate venue to attempt to change NCROY. When individual moves are proposed, opponents argue as you do. When changes are proposed at NCROY, opponents argue that naming guidelines reflect practice, rather than directing it, and that the convention shouldn't change until articles themselves get moved in practice. It's a catch-22. john k (talk) 18:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Complete misrepresentation! I accept that discussions at NCROY can sometimes be annoying, but so can discussions on individual talk pages. Changes sometimes have been made to the naming conventions as a result of dicussion. As I recall, the last time this was discussed at NCROY the consensus was against abandoning pre-emptive disambiguation, there were some serious reasons for sticking with it, I could go into my own reasons. PatGallacher (talk) 19:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose He is NOT "known popularly and unambiguously as simply Juan Carlos I"; he is more commonly known just as King Juan Carlos, or Juan Carlos (without the number I). But there are lots of other people with the names "Juan Carlos". Sovereigns are sovereigns of a particular country. It is appropriate to include "of Spain". Noel S McFerran (talk) 04:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Good point! If the premise here is that the current article name is not "most common", it's clear that the proposed one isn't either. No doubt there's a rationale for why that fact should be ignored in this case which, if applied consistently, would just as easily justify leaving him where he is. FactStraight (talk) 21:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• Juan Carlos redirects here and the article could just as well be just-Juan Carlos that as the proposed name, but that has no bearing on the question of whether it needs disambiguating by "of Spain". Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment See a similar discussion going on at Talk:George VI of the United Kingdom. PatGallacher (talk) 19:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support, for the reasons given here. If the tests look familiar, that's because they are those listed by WP:NAME. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support all monarch article titles should be moved to Name # and, when necessary Name # (country). GoodDay (talk) 19:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support per primary usage. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

• Weakly support, since "of Spain" is pointless fluff, but I don't believe we should be including the "I" either (he's not commonly known as that in English). "King Juan Carlos" would be my first choice.--Kotniski (talk) 11:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

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

Footnote

Those who were interested in the title of this article might also be interested in the title of the article on the corresponding warship - see Talk:Spanish ship Juan Carlos I (L61)#Requested move.--Kotniski (talk) 11:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Knight Grand Cross of Justice of the Sacred Military Constantinian Order of Saint George[19] (Russia???????

Among the honours of HM Juan Carlos I there is "Knight Grand Cross of Justice of the Sacred Military Constantinian Order of Saint George[19] (Russia" Now there is a BIG mistake for the following motivation there are two different orders and while the name refers to one rhe link and the proposed Country refers to the other 1-the russian order is The Military Order of the Holy Great-Martyr and the Triumphant George (also known as Order of St. George the Triumphant) estabilished in 1769 and revived in 1994 The link associated by mistake to the name of the Constantinian Order, truly redirect to this one 2-the Sacred Military Constantinian Order of Saint George that is NOT a Russian order. the right link is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Military_Constantinian_Order_of_Saint_George. Everyone could read the difference following those links. Since one of the claimant the Grand Magistery of the Constantinian Order of Saint George is the frst cousin of the King it is this order and not the russian that was bestowed on HM. Also HM is even Knight of the Order of Saint Januarius (while the constatinian oder has three claimant, the order of saint Januarius has only two, one of them being the very same cousin of the King. Now i could have made the correction myself but since once i received a message from wikipedia telling me that i made a non authorized change or something i decidd to write here before amking anything

Requested move (November 2010)

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

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. Jafeluv (talk) 09:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Juan Carlos I → Juan Carlos — Or move this article alternatively to King Juan Carlos. Although the Spanish king is sometimes referred to as "Juan Carlos I", he is much more widely known simply as "Juan Carlos". Traditionally, monarchs are only referred to with a monarchical ordinal if there has been more than one monarch of that name; so Henry I of England is referred to with an ordinal, as there have been eight English kings named Henry, while Henry, King of Portugal is referred to without an ordinal as he is the only Portuguese king of that name. Similarly, Elizabeth I of England was traditionally referred to simply as "Elizabeth" prior to the reign of Elizabeth II, in the same manner that Anne, Queen of Great Britain and Queen Victoria are referred to without ordinals, and much like Elizabeth of Russia, the only Russian empress of that name.

Using Google Books, admittedly not a perfect tool, "Juan Carlos" gets 545,000 results, and is used in the title of many recent works, such as Juan Carlos: Steering Spain from Dictatorship to Democracy, a 2005 biography by Paul Preston. "Juan Carlos I" gets just 35,800 results, roughly fifteen times fewer results. "Juan Carlos" is used by most major news organisations (BBC, CNN, Guardian, New York Times, Telegraph, Wall Street Journal, Haaretz, Economist, Independent, Chicago Tribune, Voice of America, MSNBC, Fox, New Zealand Herald, Sydney Morning Herald), although these are sometimes inconsistent, and by Encyclopedia Britannica and the official website of the Spanish Royal Family.

As Juan Carlos already redirects here, and is clearly the primary topic, I cannot see that being an issue. I would accept King Juan Carlos, but I would prefer not to use his title as part of the article name. The Celestial City (talk) 01:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe Wikipedia's style guide specifies that titles should generally not be used as article titles. If clarity is required, it should be Juan Carlos of Spain. The basic idea, to eliminate the dynastic number, is absolutely correct. "Firsts" only acquire their number retroactively, once a "Second" appears, regardless of what some ill-informed non-European press might mistakenly think. (Miss Manners, if no one else, knows differently. Cite available on request.) 63.249.96.218 (talk) 03:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree generally with what you say. However, current concensus appears to be only to include the name of a country if the article title would be ambiguous without it (i.e., if there was another non-Spanish king called Juan Carlos). The Celestial City (talk) 15:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose I think "Juan Carlos" should be a disambiguation page. I'll boldy create a dab page, if this page is move there, then the dab page can be moved to Juan Carlos (disambiguation) ; Juan Carlos isn't exactly an uncommon name, there's quite a number of them. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 05:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

While certainly there are lots of people called "Juan Carlos", I would argue he is the primary topic. Other people with those names usually are known by surnames as well, such as the Spanish tennis player Juan Carlos Ferrero. The Celestial City (talk) 15:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Some relevant page count results:

  Juan_Carlos_I has been viewed 15454 times in 201009.

  Juan_Carlos_Sánchez_Martínez has been viewed 1681 times in 201009.

  Juan_Carlos_Rodríguez has been viewed 316 times in 201009.

  Juan_Carlos_Ferrero has been viewed 11755 times in 201009.

However, googling "Juan Carlos" king results in 3.5 million ghits, while "Juan Carlos" tennis produces only half a million, and among those I can't find a reference that doesn't use "Ferrero" (doesn't mean it's not there, just that it's rare), so I think referring to the tennis player as just "Juan Carlos" is pretty rare (in fact, he's not even listed on the current Juan Carlos dab page. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. The current title is clear and unambiguous, and the ordinal makes clear we are referring to a monarch. You are also wrong about the use of ordinals. Firsts do not only acquire their number retrospectively. This is a completely false satement. Monarchs who are the first of a name sometimes explicitly take an ordinal and sometimes do not. Juan Carlos I has taken such an ordinal; British monarchs traditionally have not. Treating the British situation as a model for other countries that do things differently is not a good idea. john k (talk) 08:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

With due respect, in your argument that "Juan Carlos I has taken such an ordinal" you appear to be ignoring the many sources that point to the contrary. The Celestial City (talk) 15:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

You have not presented any sources which state the contrary. That not all sources use an ordinal is not evidence that the ordinal is not part of Juan Carlos's official title. Given that there's only been one, in most contexts there's no reason to include the ordinal. That doesn't mean it isn't used. For example, there's an aircraft carrier in the Spanish navy called the Juan Carlos I. This wouldn't make sense if the ordinal wasn't part of his official title. john k (talk) 15:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

But whether it's his official title is beside the point. The only relevant question here, and in all discussions about article titles, is this: What name is usually used to refer to the subject of the article? Now, if the answer to that question presents a disambiguation issue, then we go beyond that. While the relatively high popularity of the Juan Carlos Ferrero page (see above) casts some doubt, the apparent rarity of referring to the tennis player as "Juan Carlos" removes most of that, I think, which takes us back to the only relevant question. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

That is the main question. I do think, though that when one can end all potential ambiguity through the addition of a single letter, that is worthwhile, even if the shorter former is somewhat more common. Is there really any thought that "Juan Carlos I" is confusing? Given that we have dozens of articles on monarchs with needlessly long titles (Louis XVI of France, and such like), what's the harm in this instance of sticking with the formal title that is only ever so slightly longer? john k (talk) 20:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Mild Support. It appears that "Juan Carlos" is the name most commonly used to refer to this subject and this use is the primary topic, but neither is blatantly obvious and either is arguable. This might be close enough to where it really doesn't matter much which way it goes, especially since there is nothing really problematic with the current title. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Monarchs do have a roman numeral I added to their name until they are dead and another monarch of the same name is coronated. For example, until the coronation of Elizabeth II, Elizabeth I was simply refereed to as Elizabeth. Calling Juan Carlos, Juan Carlos I implies that he is dead and that their is a Juan Carlos II. (comment added by IP and moved here)

Apparently not so, since the "I" is in official use in his case (different countries do things differently, of course). Although I don't believe it's in common English use, so I would mildly prefer some title that involves the word "King" and omits the "I". I don't support "Juan Carlos" on its own, though - it doesn't seem to be right as an article title (not usable in contexts analogous to those that we expect titles to be usable in - it would be like titling the US President's article Obama).--Kotniski (talk) 09:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. I don't know what is the monarch tradition in another countries. But in Spain Juan Carlos is known as Juan Carlos I everywhere, and so he signs all documents with that numeral. In the the very first line of Spanish Constitution, the King already appears as "Juan Carlos I".--Infinauta (talk) 10:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose because the current title is his official name and because the proposed title is more ambiguous. MTC (talk) 07:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Juan Carlos I???

Can somebody explain to me, why this article was moved from Juan Carolos I of Spain to Juan Carolos I, without a consensus? GoodDay (talk) 04:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I've moved this article back to Juan Carlos I of Spain, due to lack of consensus for Juan Carlos I. GoodDay (talk) 12:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you please do a proper move request, if you want to change the stable version in a way that you know is going to be controversial? In particular, can you explain why you think the title will be improved by adding "of Spain"?--Kotniski (talk) 12:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

The kinda 'proper move request' you didn't do? GoodDay (talk) 12:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Please look above at the move discussions - you may disagree with the assessment of the results (though it's a bit late for that now), but the result in August/September 2010 was to drop "of Spain", and noone complained. The discussion you're looking at (November 2010) is about dropping the "I". --Kotniski (talk) 12:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, my mistake. Where in the September 2010 RM, do you see a consensus? GoodDay (talk) 12:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

If you exclude the irrelevant oppose arguments (like "not the primary topic", or "must change NCROY first"), there's a pretty clear majority in favour of moving. It would have been better had it been closed by a neutral admin, but there was plenty of opportunity for anyone to complain at the time, and in any case it must have been OK'ed by an admin since a non-admin couldn't at that point have performed that move on his own (I'm pretty sure).--Kotniski (talk) 12:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

It still looks wrong. Moving any page which has a majority of opposers, on the basis of 'we don't like their reasons', stinks. GoodDay (talk) 12:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I make it a majority of supporters (6-4, or 6-3 if we discount the obviously nonsensical "disambiguation page" proposal, and an even greater majority if we discount the "NCROY must be changed first" arguments, which are not true since NCROY clearly allows for exceptions). Instead of moaning: start a new move discussion, set out your reasons, and maybe you'll convince enough people that the article should have your preferred title.--Kotniski (talk) 09:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not gonna request another RM. It just seemed like the last RM ruling & following move, were both too hasty. GoodDay (talk) 14:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

BTW Deacon, I'm not gonna revert Kotniski's 'lack of consensus' RM again. You can un-protect, if you like. I'm just peeved over these 'hijacking' moves lately. GoodDay (talk) 12:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I totally agree. There's too much of it about. Deb (talk) 18:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

This would be reversing an improperly closed move request, closed by a non-admin who is deeply involved in such issues, despite extenxive opposition. This was the 5-3 #Requested move (August 2010), above; not the more recent failed move request. This was not consensus then; it is not consensus now. If this cannot be simply reversed, we may have to request that the closer be sanctioned. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The title since the improper closure is not stable. It was protested then and now, and a request to move it to a third possibility has been undertaken in the meantime. A move reuseat will only confirm this; but the proper placement without any consensus is where it was before this process began; which was the title for years. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

5 to 3? Let's allow WP formatting to do the math for us, shall we? On the original move five months ago, #Requested move (August 2010)... Those in favor of the move from Juan Carlos I of Spain to Juan Carlos I were:

1. City of Destruction (proposer)
2. john k "clear primary topic"
3. Angus McLellan "recognizable, natural, precise and concise" [1]
4. GoodDay "all monarch article titles should be moved to Name # " (yes, that GoodDay, who reverted yesterday the move he was partially responsible for causing 5 months ago)
5. Deacon of Pndapetzim) "primary usage"
6. Kotniski "'of Spain' is pointless fluff"

Those opposed were:

1. PatGallacher (appeal to WP:NCROY despite it expressly allowing exceptions like this)
2. 64.105.65.28 (with nonsensical argument... "so that Juan Carlos I (disambiguation) can be moved to Juan Carlos I")
3. FactStraight (argument refuted by John K as I noted in my closing)
4. Noel S McFerran (non sequitur argument favoring "Juan Carlos" without addressing the relevant "of Spain" part)

Just by the raw vote counts we have 6 to 4 in favor of the move. When you consider the strength of the support votes and the paucity of substance on the oppose side, it was no contest. All this was pointed out yesterday by Kotniski who explained why the appropriate step at this point would be another WP:RM proposal. No one disagreed.

For a non-admin with a checkered past to revert this 5 months later on the grounds that it was moved by a non-admin in the first place is absurd and highly disruptive, and I've filed an AN/I accordingly. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

A non-administrator shouldn't have made a ruling on that RM. GoodDay (talk) 14:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

How is a 6-4 !vote more consensus than 5-3? And we know that Born2Cycle disagreed with the opposition to that requested move; what we object to is his claim to overrule them with this appalling close. I leave to others the question of whether his descriptions match the reality of the discussion. I don't think so; and I don't trust him to evaluate arguments he doesn't agree with and doesn't appear to understand. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Requested move (January 2011)

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

The result of the move request was: withdrawn - clear consensus for the current title Kotniski (talk) 20:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

---

Juan Carlos I of Spain → to be decided — Let's decide, then, what the title of the article should be. There must be almost a dozen perfectly reasonable options: Juan Carlos with or without the "I", with or without "of Spain" or "King of Spain", with or without "King" at the beginning. I would suggest we drop the "I", since it's not in common use in English sources, and may confuse. I also support (though less ardently) dropping "of Spain" from any title form where it's redundant (although it shouldn't actually confuse). So my order of preference would be something like: (1) King Juan Carlos; (2) Juan Carlos, King of Spain; (3) Juan Carlos I; (4) Juan Carlos I of Spain. --Kotniski (talk) 13:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• 4, I'm in favour of consistancy across monarchial articles. We've got articles Ferdinand VI of Spain, Isabella II of Spain, Alfonso XIII of Spain (for example). TBH, I wish it were John Charls I of Spain, but that's probably wishful thinking. GoodDay (talk) 14:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
• 4 Spain should definitely be in the article's title for the sake of consistancy; also not everybody will automatically see Juan Carlos I and know the article is indeed about the Spanish king.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Jeanne, you're far too intelligent to pick up GoodDay's bad habits. Consistency is spelled with an e in English. GoodDay spells it that way because it is spelled that way in French. DrKiernan (talk) 09:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• 1 As Ralph Waldo Emerson once said, a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. WP:COMMONNAME has far greater site-wide consensus than WP:NCROY, and the former should take precedence over the latter. I'd be fine with options 2 or 3, but option 4 is a blatant violation of WP:NOR on the part of Wikipedia editors. *** Crotalus *** 15:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

  Emerson was consistant, he died like all those before him. GoodDay (talk) 15:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• 4 On reflection, I'm not convinced that it needs to be moved off this title after all. NCROY seems to cover things, and the formulation "King Juan Carlos I of Spain" appears in many of the first GNews hits on "Juan Carlos I". (And also per GNews, "John Charles I" would seem to be Right Out.)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Well if you type in the "I", you're going to get "I" back. GNews gives many more hits without the "I" than with it.--Kotniski (talk) 16:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Casareal.es appears to omit the "I", but the Spanish Constitution uses it. *sigh* (Amusingly, Brittanica uses "Juan Carlos (king of Spain)", but EBKids uses "Juan Carlos I".)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• 4 like all the kings of united Spain from Philip II of Spain to Alfonso XIII of Spain. Their ancestors, similarly, are called of Aragon, of Castile, of Navarre, Holy Roman Emperor, etc. Most of this is necessary for disambiguation; to move the others would require readers and editors to find out which names are ambiguous before they know where the articles are. Those who quote Emerson really should also indicate why this particular consistency is foolish; Emerson did. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Well if you want people to be able to guess where the article is going to be (which obviously they don't need to, but let's suppose there's some reason), then you wouldn't include a numeral that apparently requires knowledge of the Spanish Constitution to predict.--Kotniski (talk) 16:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it requires reading any of the majority of English sources which use it; which is presumably what will draw the reader to this article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

How do you get that a majority of English sources use the numeral? My googling (news, books, scholar) indicates the clear reverse.--Kotniski (talk) 16:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose move. I'm very happy with the article the way it stands now, at the title where it was for a long time and which conforms to article naming conventions. Deb (talk) 19:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

In otherwords, you've chosen #4. GoodDay (talk) 19:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I was confused by the wording of the move request into thinking it was a request for a move :-) Deb (talk) 19:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

• 4 per NCROY and .--Jeanne Boleyn. FactStraight (talk) 03:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
• 4 following the naming convention for royalty. Noel S McFerran (talk) 11:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
• Comment is there any reason for the I? I was under the impression that you couldn't have an I until there was an II... might be my inherent Britishness coming out...Worm 14:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Not sure about this, but I do recall that Pope John Paul I called himself that immediately, without knowing that he would be dead within a month and there would be a Pope John Paul II. Deb (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Jean-Bédel Bokassa called himself Bokassa I, and Augustín de Iturbide Augustín I. (Whether those articles should be renamed should be discussed there.) Founders like links to the future. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
• 4 Consistency. The same should be done in Victoria of the United Kingdom. "Queen Victoria" as the article's name simply because everybody knows her that way is kind of foolish. --Lecen (talk) 22:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

In agreement. Afterall, when did Queen become her first name. GoodDay (talk) 00:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, calling people the things that everyone knows them as - what a ridiculous idea. Far better that Wikipedia make up its own names for its subjects. Perhaps it could then go on to making up its own facts too. --Kotniski (talk) 12:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Queen Latifah & King Clancy, remember those monarchs? GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Touchy today, aren't we Kotniski? Skinsmoke (talk) 13:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
• 4 is standard format, but following the long-running debate leading to the move to Elizabeth II, the omission of the country is now acceptable, where there is no ambiguity. I am not clear whether his official title includes the ordinal "I", but "Juan Carlos" would look like a man whose surname was Carlos. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

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

Most of this article is not cited

The vast majority of asserted facts in this article lack citations. They are most likely true and do not appear to be controversial but this is a BLP and requires full citation. Veriss (talk) 08:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The monograms

I recently noticed that almost all the articles relating to modern royals are including this so called monograms, Im stranged by the fact none of them show citations, I've never seen before these monograms, I know they do exist, but are they accurate??? I would like to know where doest the author is getting the graphic data to create them. Lefairh (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

File:1 euro coin Es serie 2.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:1 euro coin Es serie 2.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do?

Speedy deletions at commons tend to take longer than they do on Wikipedia, so there is no rush to respond. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. A further notification will be placed when/if the image is deleted. This notification is provided by a Bot, currently under trial --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

'Opted not to call himself...'

• For his regnal name, he opted not to call himself "Juan III" (or "Carlos V") but to continue using his first and second name and rule as "Juan Carlos I".

But surely he always called himself Juan Carlos? These articles: "Franco Looks to the Future: Monarchy to a Dictator's Pattern", in The World Today, Vol. 12, No. 1, Jan., 1956; "Twenty Years of Franco", in Foreign Affairs, Vol. 37, No. 2, Jan., 1959; and "The Claim of Carlos Hugo de Bourbon-Parma to the Spanish Throne", in Background, Vol. 8, No. 3, Nov., 1964 are just three articles at random I found on Jstor that call him that. Scolaire (talk) 16:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Official portrait permission

I'm used to editing American military biographies, so I don't have to worry about photo licensing a lot. I just came across this article, and I figured it would look nice with an official portrait of the king. All of the ones here can "be freely reproduced for personal and private use", but it says that authorization of other uses must be given from H.M. the King’s Household. Does anyone have any idea how to go about getting said permission? Rockhead126 (talk) 01:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

"monarquía parlamentaria" (parliamentary monarchy)/parliamentary democracy

How can two lines of text of the indtorduction mentioning the same political system link to two different articles?--Mideal (talk) 12:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

FUll name

"asim Mahmood" ? WTF!? I saw the Spanish article and delete this now.--Mideal (talk) 12:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

File:Nicolae e Juan Carlos.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Nicolae e Juan Carlos.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Botswana

The map of countries visited by Juan Carlos I is missing Botswana, where he was recently injured while hunting elephants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.125.122.49 (talk • contribs) 11:56 (UTC) 16 April 2012

Judging from the caption and file name, the image shows only official trips not private holidays. DrKiernan (talk) 12:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Compound given names in Spanish are pronounced as if they were only one word: [2] shows José Luis is pronounced in Spanish as "joseluís", i.e. [xose'lwis]. In the same vein, Juan Carlos is [xwaŋˈkarlos] not [ˈxwaŋ ˈkarlos]. Lubrom (talk) 15:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Marriage

According to the Guardian, following the recent scandals: 'Even the king's private life, where rumours of lovers have always been rife, is no longer out of bounds – and neither is his friendship with a German aristocrat whose name is widely available in Spain and Germany, but whose lawyers say she denies any inappropriate relationship and have threatened legal action against any British newspapers that reveal her name. "The failure of his marriage to Queen Sofia, from whom he is practically separated, is public knowledge," said José Antonio Zarzalejos, a former editor of the conservative ABC newspaper, in his online column.' Shouldn't this be covered here... the article currently gives the impression that the king and queen are a couple? Malick78 (talk) 20:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Corinna zu Sayn-Wittgenstein or Corinna Larson

• "Incluso, el diario italiano “La Stampa” se atrevió a escribir que “en España hay dos reinas: la oficial, Sofía, de 73 años, casada desde 1962 con el rey Juan Carlos y la oficiosa, la provocante y rubia princesa Corinna zu Sayn-Wittgenstein, de 46, separada y amante desde hace cuatro años del soberano más tombeur (casanova) de femmes de Europa”."([3])
• "Im Mai 2006 trat der König zum ersten Mal öffentlich mit Prinzessin Corinna auf, bei den „Laureus-Sport-Awards“ in Barcelona. Im selben Jahr nahm Juan Carlos sie mit zu seinem Vetter Herzog Carl zu Württemberg (75). Laut dem spanischen Portal „El confidencial“ ist sie sogar schon einmal als Vertreterin des Monarchen aufgetreten, bei einem Treffen mit dem saudi-arabischen Prinz Alwaleed bin Talal." ([4])--80.136.29.101 (talk) 20:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC)