Talk:Philip II of Spain

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Peer review This History article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale (comments).

Contents

[edit] Removed part of opening paragraph

The following was superflous, contestable and in poor English;

During his reign Spanish armies enjoyed an almost unbroken string of victories on land, but for when the northern Low Countries rebelled and formed the Dutch Republic, as well as being the king who sent the ill fated Spanish Armada against protestant England. By any measure, Philip's was the world's foremost superpower, possessing one of its better navies, merchant fleets, and armies.

CharlieRCD (talk) 18:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] one of the greatest sovereigns in the History of Spain?

"Philip II is considered one of the greatest sovereigns in the History of Spain"

Besides being eyebrow-raising, this is a both a peacock and weasel comment. Something along the lines of "Philip II's reputation has been long been the subject of historical debate" would be more appropriate, but I've added a 'citation needed' to flag this comment.

CharlieRCD (talk) 10:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] older comments

suggestion for correction:

the quality of this article strikes me as generally poor. unfortunately i only came on this article to learn about philip II of spain and cannot contribute at the moment. the only thing i can do at the moment is to correct typos, which i did. nevertheless, as an input for future contributions: could anyone please deal with the last sentence of the first section "marriage and issue". the sentence "Although under his reign global expansion and trade flourished this was not necessarily a good thing because this lead to inflation and a massive amount of debt." is to be criticized not only for its poor english (i corrected the typos) or its disputed content (see later comments), but - even if nothing else was wrong with it - does not even fit into the section "marriage and issue" as it deals with the economics of the era. --Happiness international (talk) 03:02, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

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

The section here on the dutch revolt is woefully inadequate and highly factually inaccurate- the article reads as if the revolt was largley controlled by philip instead of what actually occurred. Currently this is at best misleading and at worst simply wrong82.24.175.213 20:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

––––– 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

Explain. Brutannica 21:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
History often seems dull because so many teachers sanitize it of any trace of controversy. But, in fact, both Catholic and Protestant histories include events that would make modern church members uncomfortable if they thought about them. The 1588 Armada against England was as much an ideological battle as an economic one. It happened; it's over. So don't be offended; be intrigued. Deangup 05:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

[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] Cultural 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)


[edit] Overhaul still needed

It seems that someone noticed about 7 months ago that this article needs a huge overhaul, and it's still true. There is no information about Philip's early life; the article seems to jump right into the middle of his reign without any background information. Honestly, articles like this are one of the reasons people view Wikipedia as an unreliable source of information (though I'm sure we've got all kinds of detailed, accurate, cited text on, say, Magmar or Sideshow Bob). It's really sad. I have not the time, knowledge, or capabilities to fix what's wrong, but someone should. 69.153.100.172 23:26, 6 June 2007 (UTC) (TysK, not at my computer and not signed in)

The trivia section states, All Philip's personal secretaries were Letrados. I didn't know what that was; it's a Spanish word for lawyers/learned men. Why is that worth mentioning? What else would you expect his secretaries to be?

[edit] Early life

This article could use some information on Felipe's early life - his childhood and life before ascending the throne. Brutannica 21:52, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Historiographical Views

The article doesn't address the differing views that historians have regarding Philip. For example, when discussing Felipe's management of royal finances there is no citation of historians such as Woodward or Mackinnon Bell (who both argue that Spain's financial problems were not Philip's fault). This article is a prime example of why Wikipedia can get a bad name for accuracy.

Bullion and Inflation
"Inflation throughout Europe in the sixteenth century was a broad and complex phenomenon, but the flood of bullion from the Americas was the main cause of it". This is just one argument that it put forward by historians (E. Hamilton and Braudel are two examples). Historians such as Cipolla and Vilar challenge this, pointing out that much of the Indies bullion arriving in Seville was immediately re-exported to Italy, Flanders and Germany to cover the interest on the Spanish monarquia's loans.

Inflation may lie in a combination of factors:

"imports of bullion, the rising population outstripping food production, accelerating government spending and declining domestic manufactures forcing consumers to purchase goods at greater expense from abroad."

This is a more balanced account which takes into account both arguments (the Cipolla - Villar and the Hamilton - Braudel camps).

wacuthbert 21:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Philippines

someone recently edited Philip's titles saying that he is king of the Philippines. Can anyone clarify this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.133.188.33 (talk) 16:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, i noticed that too. I know the country was named after him. But, I have never heard of the title: "King of the Philippines". References? Coojah 01:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Improvement

This article is very poor to read. Nothing about his early life at all and in no clear concise order. Hard to find parts I am looking for. Every sentence of an encyclopedia should be providing information , structured into the next but with this I'm having to skip whole paragraphs to try to find what shoul dbe the embodiment of the article. Somebody needs to completelt rewrite this The Wild West guy 18:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Philip of England and Ireland, disowned unlike the Orangist William

How come Wikipedia reflects Protestant triumphalism and Whig history? The establishment's hardline propaganda has been endorsed by this website. Philip of Spain was as much a Lancastrian as William of Orange was a Stuart. In fact, England had some rather lengthy dealings with Spain and Portugal, long before cozying up to the Scots or Dutch... Is there any editor here with the info to correct this? For instance, the Marian plantation of Ireland is almost a footnote and similar treatment is given for the ascension as King of Ireland with full recognition to the English monarch by the Pope, for Philip himself. The reign of Mary is seen as a fluke, rather than continuance of English tradition. Who says that cooperation with the Scots is a hallmark of being English? The Scots were the errand boys of the French, with whom the English disputed on the rule of France (as well as disputing over who ruled over the Scots). Calvinism was imported by England's traditional enemies, when England already told Luther to leave well enough alone. There is almost no mention of the Anglo-Breton Habsburg alliance, at least there is no coordinated presentation of it, as the final, failing bulwark against the Franco-Scottish alliance that broke the independence of the Anglo-Breton peoples. Why should the English see the Scots, or the Bretons see the French, as natural allies? 24.255.11.149 (talk) 20:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

If you want someone to answer, could you please repeat that in more cogent, less polemical, tones? Michael Sanders 21:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The art of rhetoric. You wouldn't have the right answer anyway. You claim that the Spanish monarchy hold the title Emperor of the Romans, when they've never said this themselves in over 500 years of opportunities. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 17:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

He was rather more distantly a Lancastrian than William was a Stuart. William's mother was a Stuart. Philip's mother's father's father's father's mother was a Lancastrian. Beyond that, I have no idea what you're talking about. john k (talk) 07:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Both the Lancastrians and Yorkists owed Spanish background (e.g. Titulus Regius [* see below]), but the Lancastrians certainly had an intrigue of their own, since the family patriarch tried to obtain the Crown of Castile and the Castilian civil war only stopped by marrying off his heiresses. This is why the first name Eduardo and whatnot became popular in the Iberian countries.
My point was, that there was not necessarily a Calvinistic, Whiggish sense of "progress" based in fact with regards to the Dutch and Scottish status quo of later years. The only reason why England got swept away with them, was because of the personal failings on the part of Arthur Tudor and Henry VIII to leave lasting heirs by the Spaniard Catherine, while Mary Brandon nee Tudor's heirs were unrighteously ignored. The nouveau riche were doing their damnedest to continue the unheard of alliances like that with Lutheran Cleves and Calvinist Scotland. A similar situation occurred with the death of Francis II, Duke of Brittany and the later insurrections by the Duc de Mercoeur. It was not necessarily fate or "Predestination" that delivered England into the hands of her enemies, but revisionists have painted this myopic, "grand view" of God's plan to wipe out the Spanish alliances (against France), which were merely an extension of relations with Aquitaine & Gascony. England could have gone either way and this is proved by a history of counterbalancing forces from the South and North of Europe, as well as the personal choice of the parliamentary monarchy's establishment to retain "via media" Christianity. There is no reason to darken the reputation or history of Philip and brighten that of William. Each had about equal natural place in English affairs, on the periphery of English relations with France. Protestant triumphalists would gladly do anything to obscure the reign of Philip and his connections with England, but Catholics are forced to endure most of William's infamy without a voice. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 23:18, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
[* Wee considre also, the greate wytte, prudence, justice, princely courage, and the memorable and laudable acts in diverse battalls which we by experience know ye heretofore have done for the salvacion and defence of this same reame, and also the great noblesse and excellence of your byrth and blode as of hym that is descended of the thre most royal houses in Christendom, that is to say, England, Fraunce, and Hispaine. ] 24.255.11.149 (talk) 23:22, 16 December 2007 (