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)

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)

Image copyright problem with Image:Elfas14b.png
The image Image:Elfas14b.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --10:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Sections
I have updated this page to include sections and added the image of Christopher Columbus. This article seems like it could still be expanded, especially in citations. DemonicInfluence (talk) 19:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Inquisition section
The section on the Inquisition is too apologist. The story of a Jew stealing the host sounds like anti-semitic propaganda, and saying this was an inspiration for a "policy initiative" makes it sound like the Inquistion was a natural and reasonable response to this incident. If some legitimate, modern scholars argue that the Inquisition was a reasonable policy initiative, then their view can be presented, but right now the article only only presents this minority view.--Bkwillwm (talk) 05:42, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Completely rewritten. Pol098 (talk) 12:22, 12 November 2010 (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)

"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)

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)

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)

Requested move

 * 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: already moved to Ferdinand and Isabella. Favonian (talk) 11:09, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Catholic Monarchs → Ferdinand and Isabella – This is how they are usually known, the current title may have some currency but to most readers would just sugget all Catholic monarchs in history. PatGallacher (talk) 10:04, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Support. I think this is the far more common way of referring to this. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:18, 30 September 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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Catholic Monarchs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100416082647/http://users.mo-net.com:80/mlindste/alhambra.html to http://users.mo-net.com/mlindste/alhambra.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

. Be prosperous! Paine 07:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 13:25, 18 October 2015 (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)

contradiction between summary and rest of the article
The summary states papal permission for the marriage was given by pope Sixtus IV, but in the article it is stated that papal permission was refused by pope Paul II, and they falsified it. which one is correct? The degree of their relation is also not the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.89.98.177 (talk) 19:28, 12 June 2018 (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)