Talk:Fuero

Current claims
I'm not clear on the current claims of the Basque Country (autonomous community) with respect to fueros, nor that of any other region except Navarre. Do any of the other Spanish regions count their present day autonomy as a fuero? -- Jmabel | Talk 00:48, Oct 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * There is nothing at Basque Country (autonomous community) on fueros. I don't know if Castilian liberties were ever general Castilian fueros. Anyway, they would disappear after the Castilian War of the Communities. The Catalonian charters were suppressed after the Spanish War of Succession. As I wrote in the article, the four Diputaciones Forales were restored by the autonomy process. The Navarrese one is not subjected to the Basque government if that is not clear in my redaction. -- Error 01:05, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Fueros de Castilla seems a law compilation. -- Error 01:51, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Bias
The pre-Medioeval history seems biased to me. -- Error 01:05, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * What part exactly do you believe is biased?


 * The origin of Basque fueros as bait to take territories from Navarre doesn't seem to me as the general consensus. The same about Bagaudae, are they related to the article? I may be wrong. -- Error 01:24, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Whom "general consensus"? The general consensus of those that try to deny them? Other thing is if they are related or not to the article, but I'm not going to erase other person work and opinion if I haven't a clear idea of substitution.


 * I am not either. That's why I ask for review in this page. If the current version is not generally accepted, it should be labelled as "this historian says that..., that historian though, says that...". -- Error 03:06, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * What about the paragraphs above? They stated that even in Roman rule times the Cantabrians (then the Bizkainos were included in the Cantabrians references) and Astures ruled themselves by their own fueros. In such a context the bagaude were but the locals everthrowing the remainings of Roman rule.


 * Also, there are schoolars who sustain with enough acreditation that it was but the Pyreneecal "rule of law" system, subsequentily extended to Castile and Aragon in the first stages of the Reconquest. I myself would say that it is close to reality.Idiazabal 13:57, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * No idea. The only thing I remember is that Castile differenced from Leon in that Castilian law was more based in custom (compare to Common Law) than in the Roman Law. -- Error 03:06, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, there were important authors in the XVIII that considered the Cantibracan peoples (Astures, Austrigons, e.a.) had yet their own laws and fueros. It only can be understood if the philological word fuero would mean right in XVIII Castilian-Spanish language.  (<--leyes y fueros-->)


 * It could also be understood as "rules", "customs", even "jurisdictions". -- Error 03:59, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * There are also another connotation we haven't taken into account: the Pyrenaical juridical system, which is more known in French schoolars than in Spanish cause the supression of such debate in an attempt to avoid political problems. Idiazabal 12:22, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

More fueros
I forgot to mention the Fuero de los Españoles and the Fuero de los Trabajadores. -- �Error 01:05, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * If you are old enough you have to know that we were taught in school that the Fuero de los Españoles was our "Carta Magna", the equivalent to a constitution.


 * So, I insist saying that the second paragraph in the article is just the opposite. And I believe it proved beyond any doubt after reading the books whose pages I've pasted. Don't you believe it is clear enough?Idiazabal 14:02, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Fuero vs. right. Basque Fuero or fuero itself would be equivalent to Right.
I've started to change a paragraph but better to cut here and debate with you before changing it:


 * Fueros are distinct from derechos ("rights"), as in human rights. Fueros'' did not arise, historically or theoretically, from the tradition of natural law with its of inherent rights of particular individuals, groups, or communities. Instead, they usually arose out of feudal power politics, and were (depending on one's point of view) wrested from the monarch in exchange for the general acknowlegement of his or her authority, or granted by the monarch to reward loyal subjection.

I would say that it is just on the contrary, Fuero is just a sinonimous of Rigth or Derecho, and even in the constitutional sense.

I'll procced to correct it. But you can explain your POV if you doesn't agree with it.Idiazabal 15:12, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I believe that what is currently written in the article is simply correct. I do not believe that this is a matter of point of view. I take it that you intend to edit it to say something else. Judging by your statement that "fuero" is synonymous with "right" or "derecho", you intend to edit it to something that I believe to be false. I cannot claim to be expert in this area: I've spent less than six months of my life in Spain, and have made only a moderate study of Spanish law and history. Nonetheless, I have read enough on this topic from enough different sources to be reasonably confident of my understanding of it and to suspect that you are attempting an edit not on the basis of accuracy, but for Basque nationalist propagandistic purposes. I'm not going to singlehandedly get in an edit war with you: go ahead and make your edits, though I'd be a lot more inclined to give them some credibility if you were citing sources -- preferably from people who are not themselves Basque nationalists -- rather than making a blind assertion that, on the basis of your personal expertise, the article is wrong. Make your edits and I will not revert, at least not until I have time to do solid research and cite sources.

I would argue, strongly, that the suggestion that a applying a notion of derechos/rights to feudal times in Spain is simply anachronistic. Although the tradition of natural law does go back to Thomas Aquinas, it formed no part of Castilian or Spanish legal theory prior to the reign of Charles I. At that point, via the School of Salamanca, this line of thinking started to enter into Spanish law. The fueros defined rights and privileges within the Castilian (and later Spanish) kingdom.

It may be that within the Basque community there was already at this time a concept more akin to our modern notion of individual rights. I gather that was the case, but I really don't know much about it: my knowledge of Basque history prior to the last two centuries or so is only a very broad outline. However, that has no bearing at all on the sense in which the Basque fueros were fueros: their existence defined a relationship between the Basque community as a whole and the Castilian (later Spanish) state. If their specifics defined relationships among Basques that were more akin to a modern notion of individual rights, that's all well and good and should be discussed somewhere (perhaps even in this article), but it's beside the point as far as a definition of fueros in the second paragraph of the article. This is not an article about what the Basque laws happened to be. This is an article about fueros as such.

I would welcome the involvement of others in this matter, particularly others with a strong knowledge of Basque and Spanish history. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:50, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)


 * Fuero Juzgo. It was the legal system writen by king Alfonso X the Learned. If I'm right it's the first compendium of laws made by any Spanish crown.


 * I was speaking in that sense, that the word fuero was synonim to derecho or right.


 * There has been a lot of propaganda and works made by Spanish governments since Godoy at least, paid for Bourbon crowns, to try to undermine and suppress the Basque Fueros, and in the meantime the own philological word Fuero, which had a broader sense and was applied to what we now know as right, has suffered and its connotations are negative mostly for Spaniards.


 * But to start with, I did put a link yesterday at the bottom of the article from the Constitution Society that should be more "balanced" that opinnions... mine or any other Spanish nationalist that had broad anti-basque prejudices.


 * There is a long history of Spanish "studies" dedicated to undermine Basque system and liberties dated back at least to Godoy. And of course there are plenty documentation. But I don't see the interest on working a lot finding such documentation if you position yourself with a anti-basque or pro-spanish prejudice. Which is understandable since it seems you're inclined to trust Error when he is clearly byased in the Basque issue.


 * Anyway, be patient and you'll have overwhelming documentation. Idiazabal 11:21, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * From the DCECH by Joan Corominas, the etymological dictionary of Spanish:
 * The original meaning in Castilian was "that conforming to justice", el derecho (En vida traxi grant avaricia / ... / por esso so agora puesto en tal tristiçia / qui tal faze tal prenda, fuero es e justicia)", Berceo, Mil., 250d). From there, it passed, concretizing, to "compilation of laws" (Fuero Juzgo), more specially "privative code to a municipality", and on the other side, conserving the abstract acception, jurisdicción, competencia a que está sometido alguien conforme a derecho'' [...] [My translation]
 * So there are several (overlapping?) meanings for fuero. One of them would be right, but I think it's not appliable to Fuero Juzgo or Fuero de Cuenca.
 * -- Error 01:45, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Then, although Fuero has other acceptions (exactly as "right" has) I believe it is clear enough that Fuero was just the Spanish (or classical Romance, including here the different Romances spoken in Spain in period of time between Latin and universal Castillian) equivalent concept to "Right", or "derecho".


 * In some contexts, fuero means right, but not when dealing with Biscayne fueros or some town charter, since they include rights, duties and process rules. I'd say that the meaning "right" is not very relevant in an English-language encyclopedia. I can't tell if the meaning of "privilege" is more or less relevant. We could mention both meanings, and the "jurisdiction" one and deal with the more interesting meanings of "charter" and "law compilation". -- Error 02:35, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Do you know the Biscayan fueros (and Navarrese and its derivatives Alavese and Gipuzkoan?? The "jurisdiction" is also equivalent today to one acception of "right". Why to you believe that the Biscayan case doesn't apply?


 * Because the Biscayne fueros include not only rights, also duties, punishments, and other legal matter. Compare with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Just rights there. -- Error 03:09, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

�
 * What was the universal Basque hidalgy but universal rights? And ultimately, there you have the Foral system in rule until 1840 (Navarre) and 1876 (Basque provinces.)Idiazabal 10:35, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Universal gentry is not the only content of Biscayne fueros. -- Error 03:09, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Just this is what I was saying when I challenged the second paragraph of the article. Do I procced to changing it? Is our consensus enough?Idiazabal 14:08, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Also, I note with interest that in the 13th-century passage Idiazabal has provided there is a reference to natural law, and fuero is seen as part of that. That surprises me, and admittedly undercuts some of what I was previously saying. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:34, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)


 * Which page? Is it the 13th-century text or the 17th one? -- Error 03:09, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Remarkably, it's in the 13th-century text: "Estas nacen unas de otras, é han derecho natural en sí: ca bien como de las letras nasce verbo; é de los verbos, parte; é de la parte, razon: así nasce del tiempo, uso; é del uso, costume; é de la costume, fuero." -- Jmabel | Talk 04:40, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

Castile, Navarre and Basques.
It is not accurate to attribute the Fuero to Castile. When Castile didn't even exist, the Navarrese had yet a long history of Fuero.

In any case we should speak of "Basque Fuero", which was the basic law. Perhapps there can be distinguished among different philological meanings of that word.I would say that it was equivalent to actual "Right".Idiazabal 19:31, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * The Basques had a long history of laws of their own, but these were not fueros. The were simply the body of Basque law. The sense in which these were fueros was that they came to be accepted by the Castilian crown. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:01, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)


 * No, that's the idea you've taken through the debates about such sense, but the meaning of the word "fuero" has nothing to do with acceptance or not. It is certain that the Lord of the Basques, being him the Castilian king, the Navarrese, or the Bearnese, the Foix, the Valois dinasties in the Navarre case, had to be accepted by the Council, but it has nothing to do with the meaning of the word "fuero". A word that was used in Latin and Romance (proto-castilian) languages to mean "chart of rights", in the case of village as chart of village, but in the case of a Compendio de usos y buenas costumbres, in a broad sense called "fueros", as a "chart of rights" moreless in the sense we know now as constitution or carta magna.


 * It is moreless as the difference among "human rights", "Declaration of Rights" and "the right to work" or "equality on rights". Right means many things, same was with fuero and fueros.


 * There is also the long debate about "Basque fueros", with all its connotations. Look in the four images I've posted in the article and there you'll see how in 1800 Archbishop LLorente refers himself to the fueros arguing against the Basque ones, and how he himself quotes the "Fuero Juzgo" of Alfonso X (year 1200 moreless,) and even the old fuero of the Cantabrians and Astures in the time of Roman empire rule.


 * Is it difficult or obscure? Sorry, I can't explain it more clearly. Idiazabal 21:43, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Just in case, there is no "Basque fuero" (I meant "no single common Basque fuero"). Fueros are particular to each province and, as the article says, the Biscayne foral private law does not apply in Bilbao or Orduña as in the tierra llana. -- Error 02:40, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * There is the Fuero General de Bizkaia, as there are similar ones for Navarre, Gipuzkoa or Alava. It is possible the "confederation" concept be strange to you, but it doesn't give any new clarification to our study on Fueros. And anyway, when we speak about "Basque Fueros" we are speaking about all of them. If not, I would wrote Basque General Fuero or something like that. Have you read Father del Pulgar Cronica de los Reyes Catholicos? You would see there that when the crown needed the Basque navy to go to a war in Sicily, he didn't distingush among Bizkaian sailors and ship owners, although citing both separately.


 * But yes, if you want to be precisse, there were two original Fueros, the Navarrese and the Bizkaian. And here is where your previous prudencies about such sentences about being the fueros granted as a way to detract territories from Navarre to Castile would get its place. The Alavese and Gipuzkoan fueros, along with those of actual Rioja, were originaly from the Navarrese branch and first stablished by the Navarrese crown, but accepted and recognized by the emerging Castilian (which was related and relative with the Bizkaian Lord) to gain them for their own. Surely you know that it conducted to 250 years of the "Banderizos War", that were divided among loyalties to the Navarrese and the Castilian, governning through an intrincate system of cogovernation.


 * Weren't "Basque Fueros? or weren't a lot of them?Idiazabal 14:27, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Pro libertate patria, gens libera state.
"S.VNIVERSITATIS IURATORUM :

NAVARRE PRO LIBERTATE PATRIA GENS LIBERA SIAT"

Nabarra aberriaren askatasunagatik jende askea izan.

Navarra en pro de la libertad de la patria sea la gente libre.

POV dispute
The section ' Fuero, philological meaning assimilable to "Right" ' is nothing more than a poorly written polemical first-person essay by Idiazabal. I am not going to try to fix the bad writing, because I believe it is beyond salvaging, although there might be something within it worth keeping. Since he and I have been disputing many related matters, I am not going to attempt to engage with him on this beyond stating my objection. My own inclination would be simply to delete this material. I would welcome others' intervention. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:22, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)


 * Hi, jmabel, I pasted the second paragraph of the article here in the talk page and said that in my point of viow it was just the opposite, that fuero do mean right. You answered me moreless saying that "suspect that you are attempting an edit not on the basis of accuracy, but for Basque nationalist propagandistic purposes".


 * Well, I took texts of archinationalist Spanish Archibishop of Toledo father LLorente, from a book wroten just to try to deny the Basque rights. They are his own words to deny the validity of Basque rights. On the other hand there are the words of John Adams, founder father, about what he saw and studied in Biscay when he traveled to Europe to compare political systems for an ulterior writing of their own constitution.


 * I assume that was written in Spanish. Was he using the term derechos? And can you cite an apropos passage here? -- Jmabel | Talk 20:51, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, it was writen in old Castilian from the XVIII. But quotes some paragraphs of Alfonso X's Fuero Juzgo or recopilation of all old laws from the XIII. Those paragrphs are in a more archaic Castilian (he was the king that first adopted in Castile the new romance language instead of the Latin used until him. Although I believe the Navarrese kings had adopted yet such Romance previously) but are the most interesting of all because it tracks the fueros issue back to the year 1220.


 * Read them please. They are only 4 pages and are very clarifying of the old meaning of the word fuero. Moreover it distinguished among the fuero as chart of village or a compendium of laws, among other examples.


 * It took me a lot of work to find them. Unfortunately it wasn't possible to put a clean link as they are taken by an on-line digital biblioteca that presents the documents one by one through java search system and doesn't produce a clear url until the end.


 * And about the Wikipedia article, why not let the two versions for the reader to see the controversy and value so the contradictions almost impossible to agree. Perhapps after a rethinking it can be rewriten and let the controversy there. At the end, I put it at the bottom, although I sincerely believe that it is beyond doubt that the word Fuero had acceptions covering from "right" to "magna carta". Moreless as happens with the word "right" or "rights". Idiazabal 23:12, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * You tell me to read the material from the archbishop of Toledo, but I still don't understand how to find it. As for the Adams material, I don't see the relevance. Neither the word "fueros" nor "rights" appears anywhere in this text. ("Privileges" does.) He describes the internal working of the Basque system as rather democratic, on which we both agree. (He also makes some obviously wrong statements, describing the Basques as "Celts"). Perhaps this article would be a good place to discuss the Basque laws that were recognized as fueros by Castile and later by Spain (although I think that a good discussion of these would be long enough to deserve an article of its own and a digest here). Adams writing has bearing on that, but has no bearing on your claim that fueros are only to be understood as rights, not as privileges. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:45, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I thought I stated yet previously that archbishop's material are those four images of book pages I'd pasted in the article we're speaking about. I searched, seek and found them for you to contrast and build your own opinnion. They are at the bottom of the "Fueros" article. Note that in such pages, 2, 3 and 4th, archbishop cites another previous text, just such of Alfonso X's Fuero Juzgo, which is the first compendia of Spanish laws. Idiazabal 10:56, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * OK; no that was not clear. Very interesting, rather dense, and the Spanish is (inevitably) a bit archaic. I'll need some time to look it over. I do more see your point now, though. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:05, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * I've now made my way through them, leaving an English translation in my wake. Rough going, but I think I've understood correctly. It would seem that this author, by fuero, means something like a quasi-constitutional principle established by custom and long use, and establishing principles which should guide even a monarch in matters of justice. Would you agree with that characterization? If we are on the same page with this, then certainly that should make its way into the article. I do, increasingly, think we are dealing with a word that has had multiple meanings. Apologies for thinking you were merely being obscurantist. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:27, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)


 * Anyway, what's the point to write an article about Fueros in an encyclopedia if it has to be for denying its significance? Today the fueros don't exist, or do them? Then what's the point in denying them anew, if they were denied yet dialectically in 1780, and were redenied anew in 1808, and in 1824, and supressed militarily anew 1839, and anew militarily in 1876. It is a joke that in 2004 in an encyclopedia they would need to be resuppressed theoretically and dialectically one more time.


 * Well, certainly the actual Spanish constitution of 1979 abolished the 1840 and 1876 decrees of abolition, making them virtually reinstated at least in their spirit or meaning.


 * Jmabel, excuse me cause the long and ununderstandable (besides "poorly written polemical first-person essay") history of the word "Fuero" and the history of Basque fueros, but take a minute to think in the long hours it has taken to me the search, reading of old Castilian language documents, etc. in a sincere effort to explain and show you the true meaning of such a word, appart of being them Basque or not. Have you red the documents? They are from a "Rebutal of the Basque rights" writen by a Castilian archbishop. What a joke, a rebuttal that 200 year afters it seems that can be used to rebut the rebuttal. Idiazabal 23:11, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * What's the point? The point is probably more one of historical relevance than present-day relevance. And the question of whether they are to be understood as "rights" or "privileges" does not deny their significance. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:47, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, perhapps this would be only a question of point of viow. I.e. for a Basque its Fueros had to be understood as a compendium of his rights, while a Castilian or foraigner perhapps would see them as a privilege taken by others, not him. But anyway the meaning of the word "privilege" wasn't the same then than now. Idiazabal 10:56, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'll remove the NPOV dispute tag, because it looks to me like this is more a matter of properly "digesting" material than actual disagreement. I appear to have been wrong on some matters, and Idiazabal appears to be acknowledging that he didn't have a full picture, either. Now let's see if we can hammer the article into shape, because a lot of what Idiazabal added is not comprehensible English. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:40, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)


 * Rewrite it as you wish. Obviously my English isn't enough for a so dense matter. At the end I'm happy enough seeing that it has been clarified a little bit more, which was my ultimate purpose. There are lots of documents more, but I selected those because they were taken from an pseudo-encyclopedic work writen in the late XVIII precisely with a rebbutal purpose preparatory for the ulterior suppresion of the Basque fueros. Those pseudo-encyclopedic works were conveniently answered at least by the Biscayan and Guipuscoan Foral Councils, and evidently I could take those books as cites, but I thought that it was more appropiate to take that writen with rebbutal purpose.


 * What I disputed when entered in this discussion page was precissely the second paragraph of the article, which seemed to me was just opposite to the original meaning. But if you wish to rewrite the entire article, do it as you like.Idiazabal 00:22, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dictionaries, other encyclopedias
I'd like to start enumerating how other reference works handle this. Anyone who has citations, please add them. I'll start with what I've got. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:05, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)


 * The Espasa Diccionario de la lengua española (1998) defines fuero as "Privilegio, derecho, exención, etc., que se conceden a una persona, ciudad o territorio. Más en pl. | En la Edad Media, ley o estatuto concedido por un soberano a un territorio. | Compilación de leyes: Fuero Juzgo. | Competencia jurisdiccional. | fuero interna: la conciencia. | FAM. foral, forero, fuerismo, fuerista."
 * For the benefit of those who don't speak Spanish, this translates as: "Privilege, right, exemption, etc., which is conceded to a person, city or territory. More common in the plural [literally: "More in pl."]. | In the Middle Ages, law or statute conceded by a soverign to a territory. | Compilation of laws: Fuero Juzgo [juzgo derives from the verb juzgar, "to judge"]. | Jurisdictional capacity. | fuero interna: the conscience. | Related words: foral, forero, fuerismo, fuerista." Only trivial definitions are given for those related words (they are referred back to fuero).
 * The Diccionario del idioma español (Pocket Books, 1959 / 1967) gives: "compilación de leyes; jurisdicción; exención, privilegio; fueros: arrogancia; fuero interior: la conciencia de cada uno."
 * For the benefit of those who don't speak Spanish, this translates as: ""compilation of laws; jurisdiction; exemption, privilege; fueros: arrogance; fuero interior: the conscience of each one [i.e. of each person]."
 * The Bantam New College Spanish and English Dictionary (I have the 1991 edition) translates fuero as "law, statute, code of laws; jurisdiction, exemption, privilege; fuero interior: conscience, inmost heart. fueros: pride, arrogance.

I would presume that the etymology comes from the fact that fueros are outside of (afuera de) the normal laws. The etymology is presumably the same as that of forastero ("outside, strange, foreign, outsider, foreigner") and, for that matter, of the English word "foreign". -- Jmabel | Talk 02:26, Nov 3, 2004 (UTC)


 * I can't say it for sure, but I don't believe it. In fact Alfonso X's Fuero Juzgo (the compendia of laws cited by the archibishop in the pages I posted in the article) derives its meaning from the Latin forum. That's why I colected the pages to make a prospective study of it.


 * Anyway, such compendia of Basque laws was in use and was the basic laws of the Basques until 1876. By that time the significance of laws and rights was yet enough similar to the idea we have today of them. On the other hand the Spanish literature trying to avoid them, their meaning, etc. etc. was overwhelmingly abundant by then, and even in the first decades of the XX they continued and continued producing such literature. But when the Spanish regime of Franco tried to write a constitution-like they wrote the Fuero de los españoles, which was the main Spanish law until 1979. And each chapter, as the right to work in example was the Fuero del trabajo, and so on. As I said previously, it would be very assimilable to a Carta Magna, which was just the description we were taught in school: Carta Magna. Idiazabal 10:56, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * You are certainly right about Fuero de los españoles, but I always assumed that this word was chosen precisely for its connotation of something granted from on high by God-given authority rather than based in any notion of natural law and the "rights of man" or "human rights". -- Jmabel | Talk 19:42, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)


 * I would say that the Franco regime used the word Fuero because the Traditionalistes were more familiar with it as Spanish tradition-based concept of "right" and even rule of law. But if you read the 2nd image-page of the article, which is a textual cite of Alfonso X's Fuero Juzgo of 1220, it distinguish three stadiums, uses, costumbres and fuero, being the last the writen plasmation of the two previous, uses and costumbres.


 * Unfortunately the classical Castilian language used in such cites is the more archaic, but it is not necessary to understand it completely, you have enough reading the second one and the last paragraph of the first. I would say that with those 4 paragraphs is enough to understand the classical nature of the Fuero. Idiazabal 22:24, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Interesting. Do you have access to a good etymological dictionary of Spanish? (I don't readily, but in a worst case, I could probably find one at a university library here.) I'd be very interested in knowing if that derivation from "forum" is uncontroversial. If it is, then my apologies: unsurprisingly, my knowledge of etymology is not as strong in Spanish as in my native English. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:30, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)


 * Corominas gives only "forum" as the origin. -- Error 02:44, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, I haven't, although I studied letres some 20 years ago. But I said that of forum because it was cited by archbishop LLorente taken by Alfonso X's Seven Partidas, which can be taken as uncontroversial because all the posterior schoolars would base themselves in previous ones, so until the more ancient, and Alfonso X certainly met all the knowledge of the time, not only Spanish but even Arab and Jewish on the Iberian Peninsula. His school was famous precisely cause was the main traduction centre of the Middle Age.Idiazabal 19:08, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Procced to change the second paragraph?
Then, Would I procced to rewrite a little bit the second paragraph of the article, the one in dispute?

Perhapps it is enough erasing the first sentence and changing some adverb to explain the classical (actualy it has not relevance in actual laws) concept of Fuero as compendia of laws, uses and costumes that had evolved to writen law?

Although it can also be left as it is now and add a sentence linked to the end of the article to show the other possible concept or meaning in Fuero.Idiazabal 14:38, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reference
Idiazabal, can you give us the citation information (title, year of publication, etc.) for those copied pages you've provided, so we can properly add it to the references section? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:40, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, They are taken from Noticias históricas de las tres provincias vascongadas / por Juan Antonio Llorente.   Tomo II, Capitulo I. Which can be found here in Digital Library online from the Sancho El Sabio Fundation (For more quick access go directly to the page and 3 followings.)


 * But there are lots of documents, included of course several recopilations of Fueros, both Basques and no-basques. This actual books were composed and edited as a rebbutal of Basque rights, or as preparatory works for an ulterior abolitions of Basque rights and liberties. But as with any rebbutal, it gives us interesant data, i.e. its citations of Alfonso X el Sabio compilation or Fuero Real, Fuero Juzgo, etc.

Part of this is still a mess
Idiazabal: in the article, the following, which is yours, is enough of a mess that I don't know how to fix it. It includes your own first-person commentary, it doesn't set any context, etc. It's more like a talk-page comment than part of the article. I realize you have valid points here, but this needs a total rewrite.

Here's my suggestion: work out what you want to say here; maybe write it in Spanish, I'll be glad to translate, if I'm out of my depth anywhere it's obvious User:Error is at least close to dual native proficiency, we'll get the translation done. I want to get this into the article, I don't feel I have my head around it well enough to just write it from scratch myself, but this material is really not much help. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:47, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)


 * Note how in the forth document Archbishop LLorente denies the own Alfonso X's Fuero juzgo version to reinvent as Castilian some ancient fueros given by the Navarrese king. Of course the Castilian historiografy have worked in such way to rebuild a world in which all the legitimacy had to fall in the Castilian crown. As any part has made along history.


 * I would say that the meaning of Fuero would be just the same of would be today "Right" in the sense of politic-juridical system, or constitution, magna carta, or any other name that means "rule of law".


 * Of course the connotations of the meanings of words, and sometimes the negative connotations that political interest give to the words, have made so controversial the fueros as Basque institutional system. But it should be separate and foccus in the different would-means of the word Fuero, perhapps derived from the Goth system or from the Pyreenical laws system.



idiazabal answer:

Yes, it was as a talk page. I was a little bit radical there. I didn't found any other way.

About the uncomprensibleness, I didn't know how to obtain English subjuntives. And now I would try to rewrite it:


 * ==Comment and contextualization about archibishop LLorente books==
 * -Those four documents are taken by an would-be Spanish encyclopedia that at the end started and ended with the four tomos dedicated to the Basque Provinces. Toledo Archbishop LLorente even denied the own Alfonso X's Seven Partidas (a compendium of Christian Iberian fueros made arround the 1220 year) or credited to the Castilian king many fueros first gave by the Navarrese. Certainly during the Godoy regime the Castilian historiography worked very hard to build a new Spanish order an a centralized and homogeneous state eliminating the differences among Castilean laws system and Basque fueros and Aragonese-Catalonian institutions (their fueros were suppressed also in 1717.) To accomplish such goal they started a considerable editorial effort exemplified in archbishop LLorente Noticias históricas de las tres provincias vascongadas.


 * Anyway, the meaning of Fuero would be just the same of today idea of "Right" in its acception of juridicial and political system of rights, or constitution, magna carta or any other system of main laws. But in its beginnings it was a compendium of uses and costumes, natural law, hereditary laws, even pre-Christian divorce law (which was very disputed and tried to suppress in Navarrese fuero by the church, although unsuccessfuly .-refference taken from Origin and legal authority of FUERO GENERAL DE NAVARRA) and, most important, system of election of lord, king and limitative of the rights he would have along with the election of the representatives councils.


 * The fuero also was mean to be ruled under Roman and Gothic power, same by Basques, Vascons, Cantabrians and Astures. They were an oral transmited code of uses and costumes and effectively ruled through a system of conciliums (concejos or Basque batzarres) and representatives that applied such rule, although it didn't take its historicaly known forms until the first Romance language started to be writen moreless in the s.XI or XII. There existed previously writen Cartas puebla, but almost all of them have disappeared, along with other original fueros, due to wars and fires.


 * -The negative connotations of the word fueros started with the Godoy regime editorial effort directed to suppress the Basque provinces system and to bring the taxes and military borders to the Pyrenees. But it sharpened in 1824's short-lived constitutional Triennium and the subsequent Carlist War, in which the Basques aligned with the Carlist in a close deffense of their political and institutional system while the Catalonians did trying to reinstate there abolished 1717 ones. Anyway, that "editorial war" continued all along the s.XIX and part of the XX, although can be said that it is still Spain main internal debate even today in renewed forms centered in other words but with the same historic-political core.


 * There is also the French school of doctrine that sustains that the fueros (Basque, Navarrese, Aragonese and Catalonian, both from the north or south side of the Pyrenees) were but the original Pyreneeal juridicial system, which in those cases is very close to reality. Being the high-Pyreneeal Hosca, main city of Sobrarbe County, the first of all writen fueros, then part of the Vascon kingdom of Navarre and ethnicaly Basque (there exist even a decree of the XVIII forbbiden the use of the Basque language in the market.)

<-I don't know if my rewriting helps or obscures more the subject. Perhapps what you wanted was a commentary on the LLorente's books and I've lost in the way. Rewrite it at your wishes.Idiazabal 14:53, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Perhapps we've forgoten to speak about the "Mayorazgo".
Perhapps in the middle of the discussion heat we've forgoten to speak about the Mayorazgo institution, which is also an important part refered or sided with the Foral question.

Unclear phrase
"...invaded Aragon and executed its authorities." I assume this is "executed" in the sense of "killed", but who exactly was killed? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:55, Dec 15, 2004 (UTC)


 * The Justicia Mayor (an ombudsman?) and others. --Error 02:40, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * How can King "invade" his own territory (Aragón)?--Bistor92 17:18, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Because effective ownership was not so clearcut. For a similar example, even historians who favor the North in the U.S. Civil War, and don't recognize the secession of the Southern states as legitimate, don't hesitate to refer in some contexts to the North "invading" the South. I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to come up with a lot of similar examples. - Jmabel | Talk 18:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Under the fueros of Aragón, the powers of the king were limited. In this case, he could not seize the Aragonese Antonio Pérez. So Phillip overruled the Aragonese government with Castilian troops, i.e., invaded Aragon. In Castile, since the War of the Communities, the royal power was less limited. --85.84.179.227 01:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Fuero Juzgo =! Seven Partidas
Fuero Juzgo is not the Seven partidas (Siete Partidas)...

The Fuero Juzgo (1241) is a translation to the spanish of the Liber Iudiciorum (visigoth text of 654) made during the government of Fernando III.

The Seven Partidas (1256-1265) are of the time of the kingdom of Alfonso X

--Yakoo 00:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

In the Biblioteca Nacional
Biblioteca Nacional Española provides a digitized version of Amalio Marichalar, Marqués de Montesa, Historia de la legislación y recitaciones del derecho civil de España : Fueros de Navarra, Vizcaya, Guipúzcoa y Alava, 2ª ed. corr. y aum., Madrid : [s.n.], 1868 (Impr. de los Sres. Gasset, Loma y compañia) p. ; 8º mayr. --Error 23:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I've added this as an external link. - Jmabel | Talk 05:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Spanish use
this article only represents the Spanish view, we need the Portuguese counterpart, maybe because the article name is in Spanish we need to create the article "Foral", as in Portugal Foral are often the foundation/ autonomy of Municipalities. -Pedro 13:23, 14 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Foral redirects here, which, I believe, is as it should be. Information on Portugal would be welcome; I, for one, know little or nothing about historic Portuguese law, and pt:Aforamento is little more than a stub. If you do, and/or know where to research it, certainly add something. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:48, 25 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The main question concerning the mixing of the portuguese Foral and the spanish Fuero is that, whereas fuero is a very controversial topic dealing with the past and present statutes of the regions of iberia under spanish administration (i'm trying to be completely diplomatic...) the word Foral is, in modern portuguese, almost exclusivelly used to describe the bill of rights that was conceded by the ruling portuguese king to a given village, confering it the statute of city. This clarification seems worthy of a different arcticle... --Pedrojpinto 23:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That sense of fuero is mentioned here already, and would do well to be expanded upon. Unsurprisingly, focusing in a Spanish context, that didn't get as much attention, but it is part of the story for Spain, as for Portugal. I'd still say expand on it here if you know enough to do so. - Jmabel | Talk 01:56, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Obvious
I recently edited the part where it was stated that biscayne hidalgos didn't refuse manual works unlike their fellow Spanish hidalgos just by stating that they obviously couldn't refuse manual work since every Biscayne was born hidalgo and they just couldn't have avoided manual works unless they wanted the whole province to be idle, whereas in the rest of Spain not everyone was born hidalgo which allowed those who did born hidalgo to refuse manual work (for someone else would do it). I've seen this edit reverted because it is obvious, and I do agree. I have now erased the cross reference between Biscaynes not refusing manual works and the rest refusing them because, lacking the obvious reference which has been deleted, some may be misled to think of some kind of supposed humbleness within Biscayne hidalgos confronted to some supposed lazyness of the rest of Spanish hidalgos which, due to the above mentioned fact that all Biscayne born hidalgos, is not true. At the same time I have erased the following line which stated "some resented the formation of a Biscayne clique" because it just doesn't fit well in there and, besides, it is too vague and doesn't add anything in this context. Thanks Mountolive 22:23, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Feudalism

 * Navarrese law developed along less feudal lines than those of surrounding countries.

I was under the impression that Navarre and Catalonia were more feudal than say Castile. Castile as frontier land had many free men. --Error 23:06, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Agree with Error.Mountolive 23:11, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Álava
The remarks about Alavese foralismo sit very oddly in the article. I notice that the mention of Unidad Alavesa was dropped, apparently on the basis that the party was merged into the PP. So what? This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Either this article needs to expand on the matter enough to make it coherent, or it needs to link to one that does. - Jmabel | Talk 22:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Incoherent sentence
"The fuero also was mean to be ruled under Roman and Gothic power, same by Basques, Vascons, Cantabrians and Astures." Can anyone work out what this means to say? - Jmabel | Talk 22:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that is definitely non sensical. Actually, the whole "philological" section (which is not "philological" at all) about "archibishop Llorente" looks definitely forced into this article, for not to mention that it lacks sources and adds nothing but some confusion to the article. The John Adams section also seems a bit forced here. I think both of them are the main responsibles for this article lacking a "worldwide perspective" and, thus, they should be removed from here. This would made the article so much clear. Mountolive 23:46, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

John Adams
Given that the article is in English, the John Adams material should probably stay. - Jmabel | Talk 04:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * mmhhh...I don't think that the fact that is in English is enough...if the Adams review had to stay, I guess it should be like an incidental BTW-reference, not like a section of its own which does not really add anything to "fuero" which is what the article is about, don't you think? Mountolive 04:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Since the presumed primary readers are English-speakers, and this was a main way that fuero came to influence constitutional thought in the English-speaking world, I would think a mention should stay. But, yes, I agree that the "by the way" reference early in the article may be all that is merited, not necessarily an entire section. I could go either way: the Adams quotation here is an at least moderately interesting example of how a republican from elsewhere viewed fuero. - Jmabel | Talk 07:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Please feel free to delete the John Adams section. I am fine if you'd rather preserve the initial reference as it has some interest and relevance here, but we shouldn't lose sight what this article is truly about (Fueros) and what it is not (Adams): the latter was born well after fueros saw the first light of the day and, on the other side, despite he made a reference to the fueros these are not by any means the main rationale behind American constitutionalism anyway, thus I still think the reference, if it has to exist, should be quite incidental.
 * On the other side, I would delete the entire "philological" section because it does not make much sense, at least the way it is (it definitely looks like a direct translation forced into here) and it does not seem to refer universally to the fueros concept anyway. Thank you anyways. Mountolive 03:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I've cut the John Adams material. It may belong in the article on Biscay, or somewhere else, so I am leaving it here to be refactored. [begin cut material] John Adams, later the second president of the United States, traveled to Europe in 1779 to study and compare various forms of government. He visited Bizkaia (alternately Viscaya, Biscay), one of the Basque provinces. In "A defense of the Constitution of the United States" (1786), he cited Biscay as a precedent for republicanism:
 * John Adams' view of the Forua of Bizkaia

"In a research like this, after those people in Europe who have had the skill, courage, and fortune, to preserve a voice in the government, Biscay, in Spain, ought by no means to be omitted. While their neighbours have long since resigned all their pretensions into the hands of kings and priests, this extraordinary people have preserved their ancient language, genius, laws, government, and manners, without innovation, longer than any other nation of Europe. Of Celtic extraction [Adams erred on this point], they once inhabited some of the finest parts of the ancient Boetica; but their love of liberty, and unconquerable aversion to a foreign servitude, made them retire, when invaded and overpowered in their ancient feats, into these mountainous countries, called by the ancients Cantabria..."

"...It is a republic; and one of the privileges they have most insisted on, is not to have a king: another was, that every new lord, at his accession, should come into the country in person, with one of his legs bare, and take an oath to preserve the privileges of the lordship."

Authors such as Navascues, and the Basque-American Pete Cenarrusa, former Secretary of the State of Idaho, agree in stressing the influence of the Forua of Bizkaia (Biscayan code of laws) on some parts of the U.S. Constitution. 

[end cut material]

I'm moving here the rest of the rather weird section. It definitely looks like a direct translation from some unidentified source with some comments ad hoc. As it was in the article it didn't follow from the rest, it wasn't consistent neither internally nor within the very section itself but it looked quite incoherent and out of place.

Those four documents are taken from a Spanish would-be encyclopædia that started and ended with the four tomos'' dedicated to the Basque Provinces. Archbishop Llorente of Toledo even denied Alfonso X's own Siete Partidas (a compendium of Christian Iberian fueros made around the year 1265) or credited to the Castilian king many fueros first given by the Navarrese. Certainly during the Godoy régime Castilian historiography worked very hard to build a new Spanish order, a centralized and homogeneous state eliminating the differences among the Castilian system of laws, Basque fueros and Aragonese-Catalan institutions (their fueros were also suppressed in 1717.) To accomplish such a goal, they undertook a considerable editorial effort, exemplified in archbishop Llorente's Noticias históricas de las tres provincias vascongadas.

In any event, the meaning of fuero at that time would be the same as today's idea of a "right" in its acceptance of a juridicial and political system of rights: a constitution, magna carta, or any other system of primary laws. But in its beginnings, fuero was a compendium of uses and customs, natural law, hereditary laws, even pre-Christian divorce law (which was very disputed and resulted in an unsuccessful attempt by the Church to suppress in Navarrese fuero Origin and legal authority of FUERO GENERAL DE NAVARRAand, most important, a system of election of lord, king and limitative of the rights he would have along with the election of the representatives councils.

The fuero also was mean to be ruled under Roman and Gothic power, same by Basques, Vascons, Cantabrians and Astures. They were an orally transmitted code of uses and customs and effectively ruled through a system of councils (concejos or Basque batzarres) and representatives that applied such rule, although it didn't take its historically known forms until the first Romance language started to be written in the 11th or 12th century. Previously, there existed written Cartas puebla, but almost all of them have disappeared, along with other original fueros, due to wars and fires.

The negative connotations of the word fueros started with the Godoy régime's editorial effort directed to suppress the Basque provinces' system and to extend the frontiers of centralized Spanish taxation and military control to the Pyrenees. These negative connotations were sharpened in 1824's short-lived constitutional Triennium and the subsequent Carlist War, in which the Basques aligned with the Carlists in a close defense of their political and institutional system while the Catalans tried to reinstate their fueros, which had been abolished in 1717. That "editorial war" continued all through the 19th century and part of the 20th century. It can be claimed that the major internal political conflicts in Spain today continue this same historic-political core, albeit generally using different words.

There is also the French school of doctrine that sustains that the fueros (Basque, Navarrese, Aragonese and Catalan, from both the north and south side of the Pyrenees) were simply the original Pyreneean juridicial system. Hosca (Huesca), high in the Pyrenees, main city of Sobrarbe County, has the first of all written fueros, dating from when it was part of the Vascon kingdom of Navarre and ethnically Basque (there even exists an 18th century decree forbidding the use of the Basque language in the market.)''

Mountolive 01:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Portuguese foro, etc.
Hello

I cannot agree to see the portuguese word Foro linked to this page about the castilian word fuero, as it misleads confusion in people's minds. Even if portuguese foro and castilian fuero and french for etc. all originate from a common latin root, sense and application have differences in those three languages. In portuguese there are in fact two words, foro and foral, to be considered. It means that fuero and for divides in tho different words with two different significations in Portuguese: Foro and Foral. They relate to the time, prior to the Portuguese Civil War (1832-34) were Portuguese Law was still under Common Law at some municipal levels, as a feudal inheritance. After 1834, Foro is used just in a general, abstract, literary or archaic sense in portuguese. Foral WAS used exactly as the english word CHART. So I eliminate the word Foro, and advise a link to Chart if Wikipedia want to be not an encyclopedia, but a portuguese-english common dictionary... I already wrote today about the portuguese words Foro and Foral (and not aforamento as it by mistake on the portuguese Wiki) at http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/For_%28droit%29 For and their history in Droit portugais at the french wiki, and hope to have time to do the same here someday. Portuguez 12:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Personally I agree strongly: fuero, foro, etc. are nothing but Romance synonims of chart. Basque fueros possibly need a separate article maybe under that name or under Navarrese/Pyrenean right/law. But the use of fuero is confuse and implies a Spanish ethnocentrism, even if unwillingly. --Sugaar 04:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I would have no problem with a separate Portuguese-related article, if someone wants to do the work. But, clearly, the two should reference each other.

Sugaar, why do you feel that Basque fueros constitute an entirely separate topic from, say, Catalan fueros? - Jmabel | Talk 03:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Like our Portuguese friend said fuero means "chart", nothing else. In modern terms "law". In this sense unlike such articles are focused from the viewpoint of specific legal frames/traditions they are meaningless.
 * I really know little about Catalan charts but I know that Basque charts are an specific legal tradition that isn't rooted in Roman and Visigothic law like the rest of legal traditions around (except French that, I believe is rooted in Frankish right specifically) but instead born out of the customs and political actions of Basques and their political institutions. It is also an important reference to the understanding of Basque history and specificty.
 * M. Sorauren talks of "Navarrese right", emphasizing that, even when this was poorly developed in written form at the time of Castilian conquest of the western provinces in 1200, it's quite clear that the fueros of Biscay, Alava and Guipuscoa (and in the North too, I beleive) are all directly connected and clearly derived to the legal frame of Navarre, stated in text soon after under the House of Champagne.
 * It has two or three important differences with Castilian or other post-Visigothic legal traditions:
 * Civil right is markedly different, favoring the perpetuation of mid-sized property and otherwised allowing freedom of testing, unlike Spanish law that is much more restrictive.
 * Politically, the Basque fueros were constitutions (sometimes called "republican" or "democratic" by many authors) that kept the provinces quasi-independent until the 19th century. The parlamentary tradition is surprisingly old, pre-dating the Magna Carta and anything of the like, and being much more democratic.
 * It is also noticeable that until the 19th century conscription did not exist in the Basque country: Basques militias were only obligued to defend their own provinces and, if for reasons of need, they would have to go beyond their limits, they were to be paid as mercenaries.
 * There are probably some other specificities that I can't recall right now.
 * I really don't know enough about Castilian or Catalan law but it seems clear that while these states were pretty much feudal, Navarre and the other Basque provinces were not (earls were put and deposed by the King continuously, something that actually favored that some of them got alligned with Castile, specially in La Rioja). Navarre did develope some feudalism later on but it's a late trait rather than the basics.
 * I'm pretty sure anyhow that the legal traditions are separate and the term Navarrese or Pyrenean Right are used frequently. The term has become synonim of foral in Spain because Basques were the only ones to keep their particular laws under the Bourbons, so, while in the other cases, fueros have only historical meaning, in the Basque case they are still part (even if diminished) of our legal frame. Both Navarre and the BAC have that specificity, that, despite the name, has little or plainly nothing to do with other legal traditions of Spain or elsewhere. --Sugaar 06:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Btw, some of these ideas: the creation of an article on Navarrese right (insde the frame of a separate article and series on Basque history) have been proposed in the Basque WikiProject. You may want to pass by and give your opinion. --Sugaar 06:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

- Jmabel | Talk 03:09, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) When you write "chart" above, do you mean to write "charter"? Fuero certainly means something in the same neighborhood a "charter"; as far as I can tell it has nothing to do with "chart".
 * 2) I agree that the origins of Basque law were certainly not Roman, but it seems to me that it is from contact with Latin civilization that this became a written body of law. Yes, we could have a separate article specifically on Basque legal tradition, but the present article is an article on an entirely legitimate topic: the many "special" bodies of law that existed under the various Iberian "crowns" prior to the unification and centralization of Spanish (and Portuguese) power. Basque law, as far as I understand, only became known as "fuero" in the context of coming under the Crown of Castile: the explicit, written feuros were, among other things, effectively a treaty between the Basque people and the Castilian Crown.
 * 3) I agree that the Basque regions were less feudal; I'm not sure if applying the word "republican" is entirely correct, though, it seems to me like writing history backward.


 * 1. Yes: I mean charter. I realized later but this is because charter in google brings you charter flights mostly, with little or no info on legal charters. They can be synonims anyhow, can't they? At least google (or was it vivísimo?) did give results in that sense - hence my confusion.
 * 2. What I thought was to merge "Fuero" and "Charter". They are talking about the same concept in diferent geographical/linguistic areas. It's just my opinion, but being a general European (if not wider) concept it would be better dealt with primarily in a single article and, if necesary, created regional articles for the local peculiarities and specially legal history (much in the line I was suggesting to do with Basque law). So this article would be rather called: Feudal Law in Spain, rather than so ambiguously "fuero". It's just my opinion anyhow.
 * There are at least three parts to written Basque law: Western fueros, that fit your description, Navarrese fuero (constitution of the Kingdom of Navarre, later kept almost intact inside Castile-Spain and France) and the laws of Labourd and Soule, that, as far as I know are also very similar. Aditionally, in the 12th century Navarrese monarchs, specially Sancho the Wise, gave fueros to cities like St. Sebastian and lands like Durangoaldea. So while the constitutional fuero of Navarre wasn't written until the 13th century (and the same happened with the provincial fueros of the West), there are clear precedents not just in written form but also in attested practices like the rising of the new king by the noblemen or the election of the king by the Parliament or the army, as happened repeatedly in case of dynastic dispute, often rejecting the Spanish pretenders in favor of local or "French" ones.
 * 3. Some people have defended the "republican" nature of these constitutions and the term republic was sometimes used but to refer to the municipalities mostly (occasionally to Guipuscoa too). Many others have argued very solidly the parlamentary system, and if the provinces were maybe not always fully democratic in the ultra-modern sense of universal suffrage they were indeed democratic even if in censitarian manner (i.e. only household owners were entitled to suffrage in some cases, a system that was used in many 19th century democracies). Whatever the case it was a representative system and possibly the oldest one of its kind in Western Europe, pre-dating clearly other examples as the English Magna Carta (feudal representation), Switzerland or the Netherlands. Navarre had estamentary representation but Biscay and Guipuscoa didn't: all "citizens" were basically equal and the acknowldgement of gentry (hidalguía) by Castilian law to them was feudal form of recognition of this status.
 * I'd give you sources but I have to work it out. --Sugaar 12:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to a reorganization like that, but I'd hope that if you want to reorganize, you: - Jmabel | Talk 06:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Wait until you really have time to work on it.
 * 2) As you edit, assemble in one place (linked from relevant talk pages) any non-trivial material that you are basically tossing away rather than incorporating in new articles.

Yes indeed, I can't run faster than I really can. I also have to gather some documentation first and I do have other priorities. I don't plan to clean up this article, really, I have more important things to do, but I may create an article on Pyrenean or Navarrese right in some months, without erasing anything from here. This article is about charters in Spain but it covers very badly the Basque legal system itself.

What I will surely do is to check for pages linking here that could be better linked to the new article once it's created. But by the moment it's just a project. --Sugaar 12:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've opened an encyclopaedia and seen the Portuguese article and created the article Foral. Please clean it, if needed. --Pedro 15:29, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

cleanup
I have added a tag. The main fault is that the lead section is far too long, but the rest of the article also needs to be organised into logically coherent sections. I think that's a job best left to the subject experts (not me). Good luck! --NSH001 12:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Fuero for Guadalajara
The Guadalajara article says it received its fuero from Alfonso VII (in the section Christian conquest and Middle Ages.) I decided to be bold and add an entry here in the List of aristocratic fueros, but I'm not completely certain that it qualifies. Is that list supposed to be non-royal fueros to be shown in contrast with royal ones, or not? --Eliyahu S Talk 05:35, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Fuero. 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/20131112002250/http://www.eusko-ikaskuntza.org/es/publicaciones/colecciones/riev/publicacion.php?o=1273 to http://www.eusko-ikaskuntza.org/es/publicaciones/colecciones/riev/publicacion.php?o=1273
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070210180317/http://www.euskadi.net/q56/q56ControladorServlet?mapping=detalleMonografia.do&accion=2&idObjeto=2105350&idLibro=09600009808 to http://www.euskadi.net/q56/q56ControladorServlet?mapping=detalleMonografia.do&accion=2&idObjeto=2105350&idLibro=09600009808
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927012137/http://www.bne.es/cgi-bin/wsirtex?FOR=WBNBIBT1&VIS=W01BIMO&FMT=WBNARIA&ITE=0004701272289 to http://www.bne.es/cgi-bin/wsirtex?FOR=WBNBIBT1&VIS=W01BIMO&FMT=WBNARIA&ITE=0004701272289

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) 05:43, 15 December 2017 (UTC)