Talk:García II of Galicia

Epitaph
There is a big difference between him calling himself King of Portugal and someone else calling him that at some point afterward, particularly given the degree to which other royal epitaphs seem to be late forgeries. Anyhow, we cannot claim he was first to call himself King of Portugal, unless we have a charter from his lifetime with this phrasing. Agricolae (talk) 00:04, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That phrase whoever putted in here, is taken almost word for word from Angelo Ribeiro's work, a famous historian, and reviewed by José Sousa. You even deny the king's own tomb. You are not a serious user, as you have already proved before in several articles, you revert sourced material continuously, and had this kind of weird distortions before. And you course you had no idea about the tomb or how he earned the title. I'll add that source too just for fun. But it will be the last tough. You can have your candy, then. bye. --Pedro (talk) 09:40, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * You know, you could engage in discussion - that would be an alternative to ad hominem. A good start would be to explain how Garcia managed to carve his own memorial after he died.  As to denying the king's tomb, one of his sisters-in-law has two separate memorials naming different fathers, and neither is likely correct.  That is a good reason to be skeptical about the lot.  I don't see that anyone has given this inscription serious analysis that would enable one to determine its authenticity.  It certainly would have been a brave engraver who did it during Alfonso's reign, and much later than that and there is a strong reason for nationalistic tampering. How about suggesting alternative phrasing that might be more acceptable?  or at a minimum providing a page number in the cited source where this is discussed, so others can see precisely what is said?  Finally, it is completely illegitimate to remove flags indicating that a citation is needed without either providing such a citation or explaining why it is unnecessary. And why is the completely unsourced English translation of his epitaph sacrosanct - it is certainly inaccurate, as it does not say he died in chains, plus the date it gives is not a translation, but involves further interpretation. Agricolae (talk) 13:55, 5 July 2017 (UTC)


 * George Tyler Northup, "The Imprisonment of King García", Modern Philology, Vol. 17, No. 7 (1919), pp. 393–413, gives the epitaph (no translation) as:
 * H. R. D. Garcia Rex Portugalliae et Galleciae
 * filius Regis Magni Fernandi. Hic ingenio
 * captus a fratre suo, in vinculis obiit. Era
 * MCXXVII. XI Kal. Aprilis.
 * He says it was identically copied by three authorities before it and the tomb were destroyed on 21 December 1808 by Marshal Soult's troops. It is impossible to say if it dates from the 11th century. The Chronica Naierensis is the earliest source to claim that García refused to have his chains removed, preferring to be buried in them. The Historia silense records that he died in León while a church council was being held under the future Paschal II. Both the Silense and the Chronicon Compostellanum describe an elaborate, well-attended funeral. He was buried in the Panteón de los Reyes. Northup believes the burial in chains is a poetic embellishment, which, although he does not say so, suggests by his punctuation of the epitaph that he thinks it too is late. Moving into OR ... I'm not sure about nationalist tampering in the Panteón, but "Portugalliae et Galleciae" may just represent the view of the late 12th century, when Portugal was definitely a kingdom and by which time the buried-in-chains legend was current. Certainly, though, the epitaph is not evidence for how García called himself or even for how he was called in or shortly after his lifetime. Srnec (talk) 01:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Rather than nationalistic tampering, I should have said 'anachronistic nationalistic influences' by which I meant the later existence of Portugal as a nation influencing the manner of his style in the engraving, as well as setting up this 'king of Portugal' as the victim of perfidious Leon/Castile - this would have been indirect, via the developing ballad and poetic tradition. The suggestion of trickery and chains points to influence by the developing legend, again placing it decades after the events. Alfonso himself would have overseen the original burial in the royal pantheon, and such an inscription would have been somewhat treasonous. I concur that a placement in the second half of the 12th century is nore likely than it being contemporary. Agricolae (talk) 16:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)