Talk:Philip II of Spain

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Portal:Biography
 Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ]
(If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
Core This article is listed on this Project's core biographies page.
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This History article has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Philip II of Spain article.
This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Article policies
Portal:Portugal
 Portugal Portal
Philip II of Spain is part of WikiProject Portugal, a project to improve all Portugal-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Portugal-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome.
Portugal To-do:
WikiProject_Spain
Portal:Spain
 Spain Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Spain which aims to to expand and organise information better in articles related to the history, languages, and cultures of Spain. Please participate by editing the article, or visit the project page for more details.


Contents

[edit] older comments

Can anyone please clean this article up?

This is another one of those articles where the image is overwriting the text. Does someone know how to put it right? Deb

I am unsure about the "in the wake of the Spanish Inquisition]] bit -- what does that have to do with the enmity? I would say it had more to do with Henry's creation of the Anglican Church and England becoming fair game (in Spain's eyes) for conquest, since the Protestants were then considered heretics. This was also likely a motivating facter for the wars against Henry of Navarre. Even worse was the fact that these new Protestant nations were supporting privateering against (especially) the Iberian kingdoms -- in a nutshell, I think the statement gives short shrift to both the fact that the Commercial revolution, New World expansion, and the fact that the Habsburgs were landgrabbing types who always jumped on an opportunity were more important than the unexpected Spanish Inquisition. JHK

From the first paragraph: "The death of Charles V also divided the Habsburg territories, freeing Philip from the burden of governing the unstable German Mediterranean perhaps marked the zenith of Spanish power abroad."

This makes no sense. Apparently some text was lost? What was the author's intent, and how can we salvage this? Arkuat 00:25, 2004 Jul 9 (UTC)

This article is rather mixed up. If necessary, I'll have a bash at tidying it up (when I can find time, grrrr) but if someone else wants to have a go in the meantime, I find that the article is disjointed, with no particular chronological or topical order.

I'm sure that the content here is fine, but if someone's able to write prose which runs smoothly, it would be very helpful. Wooster 16:47, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I'm reading the part on economics, and I'm wondering where it comes from. It certainly sounds rather like a modern libertarian's perspective, and even lacks a touch of reality. For instance, there weren't _mercantile_ imports from the New World, it was bullion, and it was not a significant part of the economy by 1557 (it increased, almost non-stop, until the end of his reign). The Treaty of Cateau-Cambresis(sp?) was about a long, costly war brought to an end by two sides who both thought it fitter to fight the Protestant heresy at home (something they both could agree upon). It was a double bankruptcy. The Castile was the significant assembly, not that of Navarre or others. No discussion of the Fuggers or the increased reliance on Genoan(is that Genovese?) supplies of money. Philip II never had a free hand to simply create money, it was loaned or taxed, and he needed bankers of the Cortes for them. JoshNarins 03:15, 30 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Subheadings

To help us recast this material, this entry needs thematic subheadings, where the existing text can be collected, some of them prefaced by directions to main articles elsewhere. Some proposed subsections (please add more here) -- Wetman 19:10, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC):

  • Marriages
  • Spain and Portugal
  • Netherlands policy
  • Overseas Empire
  • Counter-Reformation
  • Papacy and the Turks

it seems to be okay to me

How did this article on such an important protagonist in 16th century European history make it to November 2005 with no wikification? Lets cooperate so we can remove the notice I've had to add. I've started the process off with a few basic headings.--File Éireann 23:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] This article strikes me as anti-Catholic

This article strikes me as anti-Catholic. Dino

[edit] Born and dead places

Is It possible to add the places where Felipe II was born and dead (besides dates)?

Born in Valladolid and dead in Monasterio de El Escorial, Madrid.

Cheers!

(Excuse my poor english)

[edit] Becoming king in 1554

Although his father, Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor, abdicated in 1556, his son Philip already received some royal titles two years earlier, in order to put him on equal footing with his bride, Queen Mary I of England. He was created King of Chile, and received the Kingdom of Naples, which came with a claim to the Kingdom of Jerusalem. I've fixed this in some articles, or clarified this, but it probably needs to be changed or better explained in some related articles, such as Mary I of England. I don't remember which article, but I seem to recall that one article only mentioned Philip becoming King of Chile, but then later names Naples and Jerusalem among the couple's titles. Crix 03:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

He was indeed "King" of England, but only King consort, not King regnant. He was not entitled to a regnal number, and no authoritative sources show this. The theory that he was King Philip I (ie. co-equal with Mary in the same way that William and Mary of Orange were co-equal) does not hold water. See Talk:List of the monarchs of the Kingdom of England for my views on this subject. JackofOz 00:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ural depictions of Philip II of Spain

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 17:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ascension

I came to Wikipedia looking for information on how he became the first official King of Spain and suprisingly I found none. Since he was the first, it should be important enough to be in the article. (68.45.99.83 03:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC))

The first official ruler to use the title "King of Spain" was Joseph Bonaparte (or Ferdinand VII, if you consider Joseph to be illegitimate). The first man to be king (in his own right, not as a consort) of all the parts of what is now Spain was Charles V. The Peninsula (other than Portugal) was first unified under Ferdinand and Isabella. The various states of the Peninsula were consolidated into a single administration under Philip V. I'm not sure where Philip II fits in. john k 13:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The word "Spain" originates from the word "Hispania," which refers to the entire Iberian Peninsula. Philip II was the first person to rule over all of Hispania (upon his ascension to the Portuguese throne), and thus is considered the first true King of Spain.

Except that nobody actually says that. This judgment would also make Philip II, Philip III, and Philip IV the only Kings of Spain. john k 17:27, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
In fact, the three Philips were the only "real" Kings of Spain. The title was resurrected by Joseph Bonaparte, but before him, the "Kings of Spain" were only the Kings of Castile, Leon, Aragon, etc. To this day, there is no "real" King of Spain, and there will be none until Portugal and Spain are united under one monarch.
Well, Charles I was the first king of Spain. Although "Spain" originally referred to the whole Iberia, at this time it started to be called Spain+Portugal, and Hispania being the whole thing. It happened simply. When you want to refer "Hispania" use "Iberia", it is clear that way.Câmara 00:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Complete overhaul?

Does anyone else think that this article needs a shift in focus? The Indies and the Netherlands are barely touched upon, and I don't think Don Carlos is mentioned once. Within the week I'll rewrite the headings and try and get a better structure. Thoughts? N.f.m.c 21:31, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. john k 21:39, 2 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Info Box

I've added an info box for Philip II, I've missed a few bits of information out, because I'm not sure of the answers. I hope you all like it! --MC 17:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/h/i/Talk%7EPhilip_II_of_Spain_d8d6.html"