Talk:Ferdinand II of Aragon

Untitled
Was he king of Castile? I didn't think so. Wetman 02:37, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Why is he in Category:Arabbljhvljhvljhvljhvljhvljhvljhvljhvljhvljhvlhgl? --Saforrest 23:53, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

"When Ferdinand succeeded his father as King of Aragon in 1479, the Crown of Castile and the various territories of the Crown of Aragon were united in a personal union creating for the first time since the 8th century a single political unit which might be called Spain, although the various territories were not properly administered as a single unit until the 18th century"

Reading this one might assume there was a single political unit (Spain) before the 8th century, which is not true. Besides that, Granada was a muslim kingdom until 1492 and Navarre wasn't annexed until 1512, so there was no such thing as Spain in 1479. And about if he was king of Castille, Isabella was the ruler of Castille, but he was regent during several periods of time.

"...Spain the most powerful state in Italy"? Was this intentional? Should it read "most powerful state in Europe", or was France more powerful at the time? ThePedanticPrick 13:28, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

The Date of Death?
AFAIS, Spanish Wiki states Ferdinand's death date as the 23rd of January, while in English Wiki it is the 23rd of June. Can someone more familiar with the subject check the date of death of Ferdinand II?

How do you get more info on him?

Was he king regnant of Castillia?
Or only King consort while Isabella was the sole ruler, and regent for Juana the Mad after Isabella's death?--Nitsansh 01:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * He was counted as co-monarch of Castile with Isabella (in those days a king consort was often made regnant). He's included in the Castilian numeration as Ferdinand V. Jess Cully 08:04, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The testament of Queen Isabella declared him regent in case that his daughter Juana wasn't able to govern. As Juana was declared insane after Philip the Handsome's death, Ferdinand was made co-king and appeared as such in the Castilian currency coigned after 1506, but in essence he was full king as Juana was imprisoned in Tordesillas. His position was never discussed, and he was considered and treated as king of Castile till his death in 1516, so it's not a surprise his successors counted him as Ferdinand V of Castile. In conclusion, it should be perfectly right to say that Ferdinand was Ferdinando I di Sicilia from 1469, Fernando, rey consorte de Castilla between 1474 and 1504, Ferrando II d'Aragón from 1474, Ferdinando III di Napoli from 1504 and Fernando V de Castilla from 1506. He is usually named "Ferdinand II" in all languages, though.--Menah the Great 22:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Big scale vandalism
The article has been a victim of repeated vandalism, to the point it is difficult to say in which version it started. Somebody should correct it, please.--Menah the Great 22:03, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

English-Spanish Translations
I'm not sure but I think the translations from English to those other types of Spanish are incorrect. I know the English-Spanish translation was wrong, so I fixed that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.30.165.156 (talk) 03:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Ferdinand never claimed the title Emperor of the Romans
No contemporary or modern author described him as thus either. Wikipedia can't make outrageous claims like this. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 06:11, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Succession
How was he succeeded immediately by his grandson when his daughter was still alive? Did he state in a will that he wanted Aragon to go straight to Charles, skipping Joana? Emperor001 (talk) 20:23, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You should see Talk:Joanna of Castile. Some people claim that Ferdinand was indeed succeeded by his eldest surviving daughter, while others say that Ferdinand was succeeded by his daughter's son since Salic law forbade women to inherit the Aragonese crown. Even if Ferdinand was succeeded by Joanna, she certainly co-reigned with her son and he was de facto ruler of her dominions because of her mental illness. Surtsicna (talk) 21:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I think, that Aragon was under salic rule Joanna could pass the crown, but was not able to rule by herself —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazav1 (talk • contribs) 09:23, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Totally false the thing of de illegitimate son with Luisa Estrada. There was a strategy of Estrada of Mexico to claim a nobility. This son never exists. In fact Alonso de Estrada was son of Juan Hernández of Ciudad Real a squire and her first wife.

Spanish wiki"Aunque él mismo se jactaba de ser hijo natural de Fernando el Católico y Luisa de Estrada, según los datos recopilados en el expediente de limpieza de sangre de Jorge de Alvarado y Villafaña, su bisnieto, Alonso fue hijo de Juan Hernández Hidalgo y su primera esposa (cuyo nombre no recordaban los testigos), siendo sus abuelos paternos Diego Hernández Hidalgo (residente en Ciudad Real) y María González de Estrada. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.14.204.220 (talk) 10:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

I delete !again! this thing about Estrada — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.167.163.177 (talk) 01:26, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Aixa and Ferdinand: Sources?
I'm trying to find sources for this union, or even the existence of Aixa, and haven't yet found anything but links back to other Wikipedia articles. The footnote here is not to a reliable source, but to someone's blog entry. Given that Boabdil's life has been highly mythologized, it wouldn't surprise me that Aixa is another legend, though not one than I can source at all. So I'm going to delete it.

-Eileen R 161.184.107.221 (talk) 03:23, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Heir to Castile?
It seems to me that he was, according to primogeniture, second in line to the throne of Castile at the moment of his wife's accession (after their daughter Isabella), since Isabella had no closer eligible relatives. Is this true? Surtsicna (talk) 10:20, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

She had her niece Joanna "La Beltraneja", against whom she was at war. She was her would-be heir, according to the laws of Castile. However, I am not aware whether she had this law modified to favour Ferdinand. --Superflicka (talk) 11:42, 3 September 2011 (UTC)


 * A decade later but here goes nothing: The line of succession was Henry IV of Castile → Henry's daughter Joanna (denounced as illegitimate by Isabella's supporters) → Henry's sister Isabella → Henry's uncle John II of Aragon (grandson of Henry IV's great-grandfather John I of Castile) → John II's son, Ferdinand. So Ferdinand was fourth according to Joanna's supporters and third according to Isabella's. Isabella was smart to nullify the Aragonese threat by adding it to her supporters. Menah the Great (talk) 06:03, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Films
Sigourney Weaver played Ferdinand? I don't think so. She actually played Isabel. Ferdinand only appears for some second in the film and doesn't have any lines. I don't even think his role is relevant at all. I suggest that mention be erased. --Superflicka (talk) 11:37, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Lice
Worth mentioning that he had lice?

Axl ¤  [Talk]  10:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Not the same king, man. This one is son of Juan II of Aragon and Juana Enríquez. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.27.42.62 (talk) 06:20, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Ferdinand II of Aragon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120205100701/http://www.ucm.es/BUCM/revistas/byd/11321873/articulos/RGID0303220133A.PDF to http://www.ucm.es/BUCM/revistas/byd/11321873/articulos/RGID0303220133A.PDF
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120114061003/http://www.ucm.es/BUCM/revistas/byd/11321873/articulos/RGID0202220291A.PDF to http://www.ucm.es/BUCM/revistas/byd/11321873/articulos/RGID0202220291A.PDF
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120205100701/http://www.ucm.es/BUCM/revistas/byd/11321873/articulos/RGID0303220133A.PDF to http://www.ucm.es/BUCM/revistas/byd/11321873/articulos/RGID0303220133A.PDF
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080610081505/http://saavedrafajardo.um.es/biblioteca/biblio.nsf/buscarLect/96E2C129300D5FB0C1256E43003ECF79?OpenDocument to http://saavedrafajardo.um.es/biblioteca/biblio.nsf/buscarLect/96E2C129300D5FB0C1256E43003ECF79?OpenDocument
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080610081505/http://saavedrafajardo.um.es/biblioteca/biblio.nsf/buscarLect/96E2C129300D5FB0C1256E43003ECF79?OpenDocument to http://saavedrafajardo.um.es/biblioteca/biblio.nsf/pw/A94C1361FB8E6926C1256E43003F1FAF/%24file/00000242.jpg

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:44, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Infobox
The infobox was stable for years before the numerous changes made to it by TheLastTrastamara. While bold editing is welcome, the changes to the infobox have been opposed by two editors. The right thing to do at this point, per WP:BRD and WP:ONUS policies, is to discuss the edits before reinstating them. Calling other editors vandals is not productive. An editor who does not want to collaborate is not suited to this project. Surtsicna (talk) 15:34, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Listing every single title a historical figure held in the infobox is not (and should not be) the practice on Wikipedia. It contravenes not just the prevailing practice but also the purpose of infoboxes, which is to succinctly provide essential information. The infobox would make up half the article about Charles V if we listed all titles in infoboxes. We do not do it for modern politicians either, which has been confirmed in countless discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 16:04, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree completely. Carlstak (talk) 17:51, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. The infobox had way too many titles that are simply not all that important in the grand scheme of things. Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:24, 11 April 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree as well there were too many I even removed 2 or 3 a few weeks ago. Orson12345 (talk) 23:51, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the back-and-forth reverts
Can the ones doing the reverts explain why they feel the need to make this article page worth less than? Before my contributions, the article had the absolute bare minimum. In someplaces, just 2-3 sentences. All the additions that I have done have citations from verified sources, both primary and contemporary. If you have an issue with any of them, please be kind enough to raise it instead of undoing all of them.

Thank you. TheLastTrastamara (talk) 17:03, 18 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Pinging the 2 other users who reverted tehm ― Blaze WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 17:25, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I came here only in an administrative capacity, not disputing content. The original large-scale revert was by with an edit summary asserting massive WP:MOS violations and WP:OWN concerns. The content removed included mostly material that was added by TheLastTrastamara without any apparent consensus. Because the WP:BURDEN to include the material was apparently not met after the initial revert, I have removed it again until consensus can be reached. Anyone can view the diffs to see the content under contention. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:27, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * In my opinion (from just skimming), TheLastTrastamara's changes make the page sound more like a fan page/hagiography, i.e. not a neutral point of view and the tone does not seem encyclopedic. Of specific concern is the removal of content related to the Spanish Inquisition and Alhambra Decree. I think there are also issues with length and too many trivial details being added. Random fixer upper (talk) 23:18, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
 * This is exactly why I threw TLT's contributions out. It's Fandom-tier. The best path of course would have been to repair the article myself, but TLT has in the past demonstrated that they regard such acts as "vandalism". Volunteer time is precious and I as of now don't have the time (or library) to fix the article myself. So, I elected to just chop out what seemed to me work of a low-quality by a(n at the time inactive) single-purpose account and for the time being call it good. – ♠Vamí _IV†♠  23:52, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Postage stamp showing Isabella and Columbus
The image shows part of a larger canvas painted by Václav Brožík, who died in 1901. Numerous images of the original are to be found on the web, some of which are outside copyright, as the painting was created before it was placed on the postage stamp in 1884, the year in which Václav Brožík became a member of the Académie des Beaux-Arts. The original ought to be preferred to an engraved illustration.

Vicedomino (talk) 05:29, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

"Ferdinand I of Spain" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ferdinand_I_of_Spain&redirect=no Ferdinand I of Spain] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at until a consensus is reached. Estar8806 (talk) 02:34, 29 March 2023 (UTC)