Talk:Fuero

I'm not clear on the current claims of the Basque Country (autonomous community) with respect to fueros, nor that of any other region except Navarre. Do any of the other Spanish regions count their present day autonomy as a fuero? -- Jmabel | Talk 00:48, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)

There is nothing at Basque Country (autonomous community) on fueros. I don't know if Castilian liberties were ever general Castilian fueros. Anyway, they would disappear after the Castilian War of the Communities. The Catalonian charters were suppressed after the Spanish War of Succession. As I wrote in the article, the four Diputaciones Forales were restored by the autonomy process. The Navarrese one is not subjected to the Basque government if that is not clear in my redaction. -- Error 01:05, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Bias

The pre-Medioeval history seems biased to me. -- Error 01:05, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What part exactly do you believe is biased?

On the other hand, there were important authors in the XVIII that considered the Cantibracan peoples (Astures, Austrigons, e.a.) had yet their own laws and fueros. It only can be understood if the philological word fuero would mean right in XVIII Castilian-Spanish language.[1] [2] [3](<--leyes y fueros-->)[4]

There are also another connotation we haven't taken into account: the Pyrenaical juridical system, which is more known in French schoolars than in Spanish cause the supression of such debate in an attempt to avoid political problems. Idiazabal 12:22, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

More fueros

I forgot to mention the Fuero de los Españoles and the Fuero de los Trabajadores. -- Error 01:05, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Fuero vs. rigfht. Basque Fuero or fuero itself would be equivalent to Right.

I've started to change a paragraph but better to cut here and debate with you before changing it:

''Fueros are distinct from derechos ("rights"), as in human rights. Fueros did not arise, historically or theoretically, from the tradition of natural law with its of inherent rights of particular individuals, groups, or communities. Instead, they usually arose out of feudal power politics, and were (depending on one's point of view) wrested from the monarch in exchange for the general acknowlegement of his or her authority, or granted by the monarch to reward loyal subjection.

I would say that it is just on the contrary, Fuero is just a sinonimous of Rigth or Derecho, and even in the constitutional sense.

I'll procced to correct it. But you can explain your POV if you doesn't agree with it.Idiazabal 15:12, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I believe that what is currently written in the article is simply correct. I do not believe that this is a matter of point of view. I take it that you intend to edit it to say something else. Judging by your statement that "fuero" is synonymous with "right" or "derecho", you intend to edit it to something that I believe to be false. I cannot claim to be expert in this area: I've spent less than six months of my life in Spain, and have made only a moderate study of Spanish law and history. Nonetheless, I have read enough on this topic from enough different sources to be reasonably confident of my understanding of it and to suspect that you are attempting an edit not on the basis of accuracy, but for Basque nationalist propagandistic purposes. I'm not going to singlehandedly get in an edit war with you: go ahead and make your edits, though I'd be a lot more inclined to give them some credibility if you were citing sources -- preferably from people who are not themselves Basque nationalists -- rather than making a blind assertion that, on the basis of your personal expertise, the article is wrong. Make your edits and I will not revert, at least not until I have time to do solid research and cite sources.

I would argue, strongly, that the suggestion that a applying a notion of derechos/rights to feudal times in Spain is simply anachronistic. Although the tradition of natural law does go back to Thomas Aquinas, it formed no part of Castilian or Spanish legal theory prior to the reign of Charles I. At that point, via the School of Salamanca, this line of thinking started to enter into Spanish law. The fueros defined rights and privileges within the Castilian (and later Spanish) kingdom.

It may be that within the Basque community there was already at this time a concept more akin to our modern notion of individual rights. I gather that was the case, but I really don't know much about it: my knowledge of Basque history prior to the last two centuries or so is only a very broad outline. However, that has no bearing at all on the sense in which the Basque fueros were fueros: their existence defined a relationship between the Basque community as a whole and the Castilian (later Spanish) state. If their specifics defined relationships among Basques that were more akin to a modern notion of individual rights, that's all well and good and should be discussed somewhere (perhaps even in this article), but it's beside the point as far as a definition of fueros in the second paragraph of the article. This is not an article about what the Basque laws happened to be. This is an article about fueros as such.

I would welcome the involvement of others in this matter, particularly others with a strong knowledge of Basque and Spanish history. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:50, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

Fuero Juzgo. It was the legal system writen by king Alfonso X the Learned. If I'm right it's the first compendium of laws made by any Spanish crown.

I was speaking in that sense, that the word fuero was synonim to derecho or right.

There has been a lot of propaganda and works made by Spanish governments since Godoy at least, paid for Bourbon crowns, to try to undermine and suppress the Basque Fueros, and in the meantime the own philological word Fuero, which had a broader sense and was applied to what we now know as right, has suffered and its connotations are negative mostly for Spaniards.

But to start with, I did put a link yesterday at the bottom of the article[5] from the Constitution Society that should be more "balanced" that opinnions... mine or any other Spanish nationalist that had broad anti-basque prejudices.

There is a long history of Spanish "studies" dedicated to undermine Basque system and liberties dated back at least to Godoy. And of course there are plenty documentation. But I don't see the interest on working a lot finding such documentation if you position yourself with a anti-basque or pro-spanish prejudice. Which is understandable since it seems you're inclined to trust Error when he is clearly byased in the Basque issue.

Anyway, be patient and you'll have overwhelming documentation. Idiazabal 11:21, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Castile, Navarre and Basques.

It is not accurate to attribute the Fuero to Castile. When Castile didn't even exist, the Navarrese had yet a long history of Fuero.

In any case we should speak of "Basque Fuero", which was the basic law. Perhapps there can be distinguished among different philological meanings of that word.I would say that it was equivalent to actual "Right".Idiazabal 19:31, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The Basques had a long history of laws of their own, but these were not fueros. The were simply the body of Basque law. The sense in which these were fueros was that they came to be accepted by the Castilian crown. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:01, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

No, that's the idea you've taken through the debates about such sense, but the meaning of the word "fuero" has nothing to do with acceptance or not. It is certain that the Lord of the Basques, being him the Castilian king, the Navarrese, or the Bearnese, the Foix, the Valois dinasties in the Navarre case, had to be accepted by the Council, but it has nothing to do with the meaning of the word "fuero". A word that was used in Latin and Romance (proto-castilian) languages to mean "chart of rights", in the case of village as chart of village, but in the case of a Compendio de usos y buenas costumbres", in a broad sense called "fueros", as a "chart of rights" moreless in the sense we know now as constitution or carta magna.

It is moreless as the difference among "human rights", "Declaration of Rights" and "the right to work" or "equality of rights". Right means many things, same was with fuero and fueros.

There is also the long debate about "Basque fueros", with all its connotations. Look in the four pages I've posted in the article and there you'll see how in 1800 Archbishop LLorente refers himself to the fueros arguing against the Basque ones, and how he himself quotes the "Fuero Juzgo" of Alfonso X (year 1200 moreless,) and even the old fuero of the Cantabrians and Astures in the time of Roman empire rule.

Is it difficult or obscure? Sorry, I can't explain it more clearly. Idiazabal 21:43, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Pro libertate patria, gens libera state.

"S.VNIVERSITATIS IURATORUM :

NAVARRE PRO LIBERTATE PATRIA GENS LIBERA SIAT" File:Obanoseskuak.jpg

Nabarra aberriaren askatasunagatik jende askea izan.

Navarra en pro de la libertad de la patria sea la gente libre.

POV dispute

The section 'Fuero, philological meaning assimilable to "Right"' is nothing more than a poorly written polemical first-person essay by Idiazabal. I am not going to try to fix the bad writing, because I believe it is beyond salvaging, although there might be something within it worth keeping. Since he and I have been disputing many related matters, I am not going to attempt to engage with him on this beyond stating my objection. My own inclination would be simply to delete this material. I would welcome others' intervention. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:22, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)