Talk:Catholic Monarchs of Spain

A United Spain?

Although the unions of the two monarchs help establish some ties between Castile and Aragon, I do not think that Spain was necessarily united by the marriage of Isabella and Ferdinand. Castile and Aragon were still very much independent from one another, due to the social and cultural devisions that existed between the two regions. Ferdinand still had certain powers over Aragon that Isabella did not necessarily have, at the same time Isabella had certain exclusive powers over Castile. Another example includes the funding of Christopher Columbus which was largely sponsored solely by Isabella and Castile. Laws between the two regions also differed. Would it make sense to reorganize the article based on these facts or at least acknowledge that this argument exists throughout the article? Alexion (talk)

The two kingdoms of Castile and Aragon were obviously not united by this union and mostly they still functioned separately. This time was considered to be a consolidation of power though. Although there was no true "Spain" yet, all of the building blocks were there to make it happen. This of course did not occur until several generations later, but by uniting the two crowns it laid the groundwork for other kings to follow in their footsteps. I think that it would be wrong to consider this a time of a united Spain, but to say that it was a time of more Spanish unity would definitely be true. I think that this argument is very valid and should be included in the article, because its incorrect to say that the kingdoms were truly united by Isabella and Ferdinand’s marriage. Voitik2 (talk) 00:40, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Fernando wasn't even able to inherit the Castilian crown upon the death of Isabella.Optymystic (talk) 19:30, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, to be blunt, your thinking is errant. It’s fine to have an opinion, but scholars—historical and present—all agree that this was the unification of Spain. Just off the top of my head, Castellano (Spanish) became the official language under the Catholic Monarchs: a common language is a major unifying factor.

I’m going to archive your comment within the coming week because it’s not supported by fact (no citations, not even a vague reference), and because the first sentence explicitly shows this to be your subjective (“…I do not think”) opinion, rather than an objective, true fact. Gobucks821 (talk) 19:31, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Untitled

I think this article could be greatly expanded. I'm going to check out the Spanish version that has attained feature status and see what I can get. I would also encourage anyone with advanced or fluent skills in that language to do the same. My comprehension of the language is moderate at best. Youngamerican 03:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

I think this article really should make mention of their involvement in creating the Spanish Inquisition. SaltyBoatr 17:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I think this article is redundant. It is based on an almost unheard of euphemism for people who already have adequate articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.69.219.3 (talk) 07:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that this article is redundant. Catholic Monarchs or "los Reyes Católicos" is a wellknown historic term which should not be missing in wikipedia. Also the marriage and hence the unification of their kingdoms is marking the beginning of modern Spain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.41.58.181 (talk) 12:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. This is a critical article for the reasons you stated, namely: their reign marked the beginning of modern Spain. Gobucks821 (talk) 18:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

"Kings" or "Monarchs"?

It is fairly common to see Fernando and Isabella called the "Catholic Kings". This is actually a mistranslation of the Spanish term "reyes católicos". "Reyes Católicos" is literally "Catholic Kings" rather than "Monarchs", and is sometimes so rendered in English; but in Spanish it is usual for the masculine plural to be used in an essentially gender-indifferent way, so for example it is usual in Spanish to call the children of a person or couple "hijos", literally sons, regardless of actual gender. In Spanish it is quite normal to say what would translate literally as "I have two sons, Mary and John"; in English "son" and "king" are always gender-specific, so the Spanish needs to be converted to a gender-neutral form, e.g., "children" and "monarchs". This is a simple issue of translation. I have added a footnote to this effect, and edited "Catholic Kings" to "Catholic Monarchs" in many articles. In some contexts "Catholic King and Queen" might be better? Pol098 (talk) 15:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Correct, this is a misnomer from errant translation from Spanish to English, including a lack of considering etymology. However there is some nuance here.

The concept overall of these two people and their reign indeed calls for the use of (the Catholic) “Monarch(s)”. For this article, that would tend to be the prevailingly used term.

However, of course, it’s also true that these two people were indeed also King and Queen of their kingdom and of unified Spain. So we ought to expect some instances of the use of “King” (or “Queen”). Edit: Also, yes, confirming the Spanish term is “los Reyes Católicos” which is correctly interpreted (NOT translated) to “the Catholic Monarchs”. Gobucks821 (talk) 18:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

"Monarchs" doesn't really make sense, either, since there were two of them, after all (making this a coregency and not a monarchy per se). This is just a situation where the meaning of the Spanish term doesn't translate perfectly into English (if "monarchs" had been proper, the original term would be the word "monarcas"). While "Kings" sounds unusual to English ears, that's simply because of the gender differences in the two languages, as you note. However, within the feudal context of the era, I can't help but think it's the proper term to use. Tmrobertson (talk) 09:17, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

This is a matter of (A) pure translation vs. interpreting and (B) failure to consider etymology. The English way of referring to “los reyes Católicos” is indeed “the Spanish Monarchs”. I know this from my own formal undergraduate education and from even a cursory glimpse of literature or an entry level, English-language textbook.

Going to have to ask everybody to end this debate because it was solved years before this Talk entry was created: the collective term is indeed “the Spanish Monarchs”—if you need convincing, I suggest searching the literature or a textbook.

As I noted elsewhere, there is indeed some nuance here. Yes, individually, each was a “King” or “Queen” in the context of a ruler. In the context of their reign, their marriage, and the general idea of these actual monarchs (kings) is indeed “(Catholic) Monarch(s)”.

Any editors around to please confirm that I may archive this ongoing thread?? Thnx! Gobucks821 (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I second that. 'Monarchs' - meaning 'rule by one' - is wrong, and the traditional moniker for Ferdinand and Isabella are 'The Catholic Kings', weird as it may sound. //roger.duprat.copenhagen —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.27.16.129 (talk) 10:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Help! This is a dreadful title. Surely Ferdinand and Isabella is a lot better. PatGallacher (talk) 20:45, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Titling this article “Ferdinand and Isabella” isn’t better and is in fact worse. The proper translation from Spanish to English is The Catholic Monarchs. It’s common knowledge within the realm of history that Ferdinand & Isabella are the people to whom the term refers. Thnx! Gobucks821 (talk) 18:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

It may or may not be a dreadful title, Pat, but it is that officially bestowed upon Ferdinand and Isabella by the Pope in 1494. To suggest alternatives to the title is to ignore the history. Yes Catholic Monarchs is a poor translation of Reyes Católicos, as Pol098 writes, but we have to accept that there is no accurate translation into English, and that this is the one that has been used in English for a long time, at least by historians. For this reason we should retain an article with this title in WP.

Tmrobertson and 212.27.16.129 argue that "Monarchs" dooes not really make sense, since there were two of them. This argument based on etymology is weak; the meaning as it is used in current language transcends its etymology. More important is that Ferdinand and Isabella were separate monarchs over their respective realms, by explicit agreement. As Alexion and others point out above (under "A United Spain?") Ferdinand ruled Aragon and Isabella ruled Castile. As the lead section points our, "Castile and Aragon remained separate kingdoms until the Nueva Planta decrees of 1707–1716." Mike Spathaky (talk) 11:15, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Domestic Policy

The fact that the court moved around from time to time is cited as evidence that this state was pre-modern. The Elizabethan court moved around England fifty years later. Was that pre-modern also? Optymystic (talk) 15:30, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

@Optymystic I realize this is a very old comment and a very delayed reply. Could you please advise where within the article—if it still exists in the article—this is mentioned?

If it’s been resolved, I will archive your comment. Thnx! Gobucks821 (talk) 22:34, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

chaotic and incorrect descriptions of papal dispensation and opposition

One pope opposed the marriage, the other supported it, and this is presented chaotically in different sections without any mention of the other pope and of dates. In addition, the intro is apparently simply incorrect because Sixtus apparently wasn't yet pope when they married. --Espoo (talk) 19:20, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I suggest reviewing this source, which is freely available via U Mich: https://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/moa/AHY6589.0001.001/?view=toc

I will do some research to clarify re: pope(s)… Gobucks821 (talk) 17:52, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Good catch! It was actually the Archbishop of Toledo who granted them a dispensation. I’ll take a look at the article to find your concern, will correct & add citation. Gobucks821 (talk) 19:09, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Missing quotation re “prize”/“gamble”

I’ve added a Citation Needed tag to the first section because a quote is presented as if attributable to a source.

Upon a Google search, it appears the source may be this book: HISTORY OF THE REIGN OF FERDINAND and ISABELLA (William Hickling Prescott) [ISBN-10: 1410210502].

More info on this book at these websites, for example: https://search.worldcat.org/title/60827815 -OR- https://quod.lib.umich.edu/m/moa/AHY6589.0001.001/?view=toc

If not cited within a few days/weeks, I will assume the above book to be the source (as the quote is an exact match) and will attempt to obtain the book to find said quote within the text (and then add the source, including page number if available, to the article).

Gobucks821 (talk) 17:48, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Middle ground/best resolution of debate “kings” vs. “monarchs”

While it is beyond a doubt, per literature and textbooks, that the correct English term for “los reyes Católicos” is indeed “the Catholic Monarchs,” I’ve been reviewing a text that sheds light on what I’ve been trying to say in my various responses on this Talk page—which is that this title is conceptual more than literal.

In any event, it may make folks feel better to consider the term “(Catholic) soverign(s)” of Spain. This is absolutely accurate and helps folks understand the concept of what “reyes Católicos” really means (considering etymology, history, etc.).

SOURCE: History of the reign of Ferdinand and Isabella, the Catholic (by William H. Prescott). Univ. of Mich. provides free access to the entire text.

Please note that this article should NOT be rewritten to use that term; however, using “soverign(s)” in the article would be okay, especially when we’re repeating the same term over any over. Please use sparingly, and please recall the context of the actual phrase in English.

Hope this helps!

Gobucks821 (talk) 18:54, 30 December 2024 (UTC)