Talk:John I of Castile

Farfanes
Can someone elaborate on the "farfanes"? Also, what precisely is "riding in a fantasia"? Top.Squark (talk) 18:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Portuguese, Castilian and Spanish, and other sources
I'm going to put here the sources (the ancients and the actuals) as in the original, and then I will put an essay of their translation. These sources can be used also in other articles concerning this period on the Spains (Hispanias).


 * Ayala, Pero López (c. 1400), Crónica del Rey Don Juan el Primero de Castilla e de Leon, in "Cronicas de los Reyes de Castilla por D. Pedro Lopez de Ayala", II. Amirola, Don Eugenio LLaguno. Madrid: 1780

Elevation to King of Castile and León. Año Primero, Capitulo I, pp 123/124 (on old castilian; curiosity: much more near to the actual portuguese then the actual castilian): ...é fue alzado Rey en la cibdad de Sancto Domingo de la Calzada el dia que su padre finó, que fué lunes veinte é nueve dias de Mayo...é empezó á regnar en edad de veinte é un años é dos mes é medio. E luego el dia de Santiago adelante de este dicho Año se coronó en el Monesterio de las Dueñas de las Huelgas cerca de la cibdad de Burgos.
 * ...and was elevated King on the town of Santo Domingo de la Calzada the day that his father died, that was monday twenty nine days of May...and begun to reign on the age of twenty one years and two month and a half. And then on the following day of Santiago of this Year crowned himself on the monastery of the Dueñas de las Huelgas near the city of Burgos.
 * Commentary: He was elevated to King more or less a month before his coronation. To be King he only needed to be «alzado» (elevated, ascended).

The day of Henry II's deadh. Amirola's note on Crónica del Rey Don Enrique Segundo de Castilla, idem, Año Catorceno, Capitulo III, note 1, p. 105: «Aquel año el lunes segundo dia de Cinquesma, esto es, segundo dia de Pentecostes, fué á 30 de Mayo, y se debe entender que murió en la noche del domingo 29 dos horas después de las doce, que ya era lunes 30.»
 * That year on Monday second day of Cinquesma, that is, the second day of Pentecost, that was the 30th of May, and it is understood that died on the night of Sunday 29 two hours after midnight, that was already Monday 30.
 * Commentary: This is very interesting but we need more one or two good sources saying the same of Amirola.

The issue of Juan I of Castile. First correction we can make on the article's text. Where is writen, «His first marriage, to Eleanor of Aragon on 18 June 1375,[1] produced most of his issue», we can write something like: «his only known issue» (Juan and Fernando and a immediately death female baby). Source: Ayala, Pero López (c. 1400), Crónica del Rey Don Enrique Tercero de Castilla e de Leon, ibidem, Año Tercero, Capitulo XXV, p. 500.
 * Ayala: Dicho avemos como luego que el Rey regnó, los que estaban con él en la villa de Madrid, por algunas cosas que eran complideras a servicio del Rey, trataron casamiento del Infante Don Ferrando su hermano fijo del Rey Don Juan, (ca el Rey Don Juan non ovo otros fijos legítimos, nin en otra manera en ningund tiempo, salvo una Infanta de que murió la Reyna Doña Leonor su mujer después de parida, segundo suso contamos)...
 * Translation: We have said as soon as the King reigned, those who were with him in the city of Madrid, for some things that were necessary to service of the King, treated marriage of the Infante Don Fernando his brother son of King Don Juan, (for King Juan don't had no other legitimate sons, none in another way in no time, except one infanta from wich died Reyna Leonor Reyna his wife after given birth, second above we counted)...
 * Commentary: Ayala is clearly saying: there where no other chirdren, nor legitimate nor ilegitimate, from any other woman.

Birth of henry III. Ayala, Crónica del Rey Don Juan el Primero de Castilla e de Leon, ibidem, Año Primero, Capitulo III, p. 128.

To continue:
 * Lopes, Fernão (c. 1440), — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jorge alo (talk • contribs) 14:31, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Conversation between Jorge alo and Carlstak
Ok, Carlstack, all right: my english is really very bad. As I'm going to put on the discussion the sources, we have time to make all the corrections, and it's true that someone is going to write (or correct them), because my english is awful. My best salutations, Jorge alo (talk) 15:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

One thing I forgot: the article is already good, but there are some (only a few) errors and we can put it even better (and joining all the references needed). Jorge alo (talk) 15:09, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree interely with you: the great problem it's really my english (very bad). But there are also some historic nuances that are a little difficult for me to explain. for example, Leonor Teles, by the Treaty, could not proclaim them, it was necessary a proclamation by the naturals (all people that was propietary), and who said the treaty was unfair was Juan I of Castile and a part of his counselors (I think I will arrived to that passage today, maybe). But I think that with the sources and the translations, in the end all will be clear. I'm going to work on this maybe two months, or more, and I not only agree with you on not making changes before talking about it, but I even ask you to do them, after we talked, because of my bad english (I can read more or less easy, with the diccionary help, but I'm a danger on writing. Jorge alo (talk) 16:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * A question I forgot: I think, for what you said about your translation, that you can read well portuguese and castilian, no? Jorge alo (talk) 16:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I welcome your contributions, Jorge, and I would be happy to collaborate with you in adding references and inline citations to the article. I travel frequently, so I may not always respond to your communications immediately, but I will usually be able to get to them within twenty-four hours.


 * I am not a native speaker of Castilian or Portuguese, but I read them fairly well. With time and effort I can produce good translations into English; I spend more time on fact-checking and reading sources than I do on the translation. You might find Google Translate of assistance in translating to English, it yields much better results than Babelfish. If you use Mozilla's Firefox browser, the gTranslate add-on by Pau Tomàs is especially useful and adds great functionality on any web page. Carlstak (talk) 17:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok, let's work. Don't bodher with the time on answering, we have all the time on the world (I confess I have a problem with time: for me it seems that "thing" don't exist). It's enough that you read what I'm puting on the discussion page, and you can make the improvements without saying nothing to me, because as I'm going only little by little, step after step, I can easilly follow the corrections and improvements you will make on the text. Abraço, Jorge alo (talk) 17:26, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

@Carlstak, there are two great errors to correct on the borders of sucession, in the end. The first, we can't separate León From Castile because, in that time, it was only a Crown. So, it´s a great mistake to say the he was a) King of Castile and B) King of León. He was King of Castile and of Leon. This article is the only one that has such border after the preceded unification of the two Crowns. Second, it's true that even João das Regras, on Cortes of Coimbra, 1385, classified John I of Castile as a pretender and as one of the possible heirs of the portuguese Crown. So, no doubt he was a recognized pretender, but, first, I think it's inedit research to say that a pretension is as tittle, and, second, a pretender can't be preceded and succeded by Kings. Logically: or he was a King preceded and succeded by kings or he was a pretender succeded and preceded by pretenders on a specific pretension. As we say in my country, we can't make the addition of oranges with apples. So, I propose the quick correction of these borders. Abraço, Jorge alo (talk) 15:01, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your input, Jorge. I will address this today, as soon as I have a chance. Muito obrigado, Carlstak (talk) 17:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * My proposition: put in the end, on the center, as it is now, a «pretension» border without any «preceded» and «succeed» spaces, so, the pretension space all alone aligned with, also in the center, but above, King of Castile and León (Lord of Molina was one of his titles, but Molina was also part of the Crown of Castile and León, so we can not and do not need to discriminate). The pretension wasn't till 1385, but till his death on 1390, and we even can wonder if his strange death had nothing to do with this (but this we can't put in the article: there is no known source). So, we can put on the «pretension border» that final year: 1390. Jorge alo (talk) 20:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not prepared to change the title of the article to "John I of Castile and León", if that is what you mean, as it would be a major change that would require discussion on the talk page and general consensus.


 * The Crown of Castile, formed in 1230, did include León; it was definitely a union of the crowns and parliaments of the kingdoms of Castile and León upon the accession of King Ferdinand III of Castile to the vacant Leonese throne. The Spanish Wikipedia refers to him as Juan I de Castilla. Carlstak (talk) 21:54, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Like this, the article don't say his pretension was a title, and also don't say he was King of Portugal. Only say that he maintained his pretension during all his life, and that is true and correct to say. Jorge alo (talk) 20:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you mean, Jorge. To say that "John I of Castile assumed the title and coat of arms of King of Portugal" does not imply in English that he was accepted as such by the Portuguese. It would be awkward in this context to say he pretended to the throne, since the dispute between the different factions in support or against his pretension is already made clear in the text. I've made a faithful translation of the text in Spanish Wikipedia: "Juan I de Castilla adoptó el título y armas de rey de Portugal".


 * As far as I can see, the article as presently written does not refer to John the I of Castile by the title of "John I of Portugal", although there is one instance where the wording can be improved to clarify that it was the Master of Aviz who became John the I of Portugal. I am making that change now. Does this satisfy your contention? Carlstak (talk) 21:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, Carl, I'm going to try tyo explain the problems: 1) If The Crowns where unified on one, there was only one Crown and we can't put two crowns on his head: King of Castile, King of León = two times king; two Crowns. And the name of that Crown was: «Crown of Castile and León». If he was a pretender he was not preceded, as pretender, by King Ferdinand I (King Ferdinand I was pretender to what?], not succeed by King John I. Tell me, please, John I of Castile was preceded and succeed on what? Other questions: he didn't took the arms of Portugal, he tooked the arms and mixed (mezclar) them with the arms of Castile and León. The cry of his acclamation on the streets of Toledo was «King of Castile and Portugal». His title was «King of Castile and of León and of Portugal and of Toledo, etc.» On the year of 1390, a litle before the Castilian Cortes, he said what was his problem: that the Portuguese accused him of having mixed the arms and the Kingdoms of Portugal and Castile, with the loss of independency of Portugal. So, what he proposed to his counselors? This amazing thing: to give up of the Crown of Castile, to his son Henry, so the Portuguese could accept him as King of Portugal! Amazing, no?
 * But let's go with cool, I have already saw you are making a big effort. I thinK we can put Ayala's text translation on the note you create about John I of Castile's issue. What you say? Abraço, Jorge alo (talk) 00:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, no problem. Done. Obrigado, Carlstak (talk) 05:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, you didn't answered to the rest of what I said and I could already ask mediation, but I'm not going to do that, because I believe you are acting on good faith, and that we two can make a good work together. Also what is wrong on the text, even some great mistakes, it is not crucial. By the way, one more: what was done November and on December 1383 was not a proclamation, it was an essay of acclamation. But we have time to clarify all this, and in the end all will be proper. I begin to like very much, on the text, the paragraph of te «issue», it's powerful, no? With all that notes. I'm going to improve the reference to the book, because it's a eigteenth century critical edition of Ayala's Chronicles, made by Eugenio LLaguno de Amirola. I'm going to continue to put excerpts of Ayala on the discussion page, and, for systematic reasons, I'm not going to traduce it, already. If you want, and if you would be so kind, you can begin traduce them. I think the text speaks to much about 1383-1385 crisis and don't speak about other important matters of is reign, so I'm going to begin to refer such matters. To clean the space, when a translation on the discussion page will be integrate on the article, I will eliminate the already integrated text of the discussion page, only referring that action: «text already integrate on the article». But, before eliminate, I'm going to do a last confrontation of the castilian text (in this case) with the original, to remove some eventual errors (it's old castilian, in this case, and I can have done some little mistakes). Abraço, Jorge alo (talk) 19:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Jorge, I have bent over backwards to accommodate you. Part of the "problem" may be that your grasp of English is lacking, and consequently it is sometimes difficult to understand what you're saying, or just what exactly you want. I am curious about one thing: I made a faithful translation from the equivalent article on Spanish Wikipedia; why aren't you pressing for these changes there first, as that would seem more appropriate? Could it be because you know that the Spaniards might not accept them? The article is about a Spanish king, and you are Portuguese. You seem to have an agenda that is not strictly from a strictly neutral point of view; also, I gather you want to call King John I of Castile "King John I of Castile and León". That would violate the accepted convention here at Wikipedia and in the English-speaking world generally, as well as the Spanish-speaking one. I suggest you propose these changes (whatever they are, as I'm not sure) at Spanish Wikipedia and see what kind of reception you get. It is difficult communicating with you in English, and this is English Wikpedia, after all. Carlstak (talk) 21:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Till is father all the Kings are caracterized as «king of Castile and León», in the end. From him they are caracterized two times, King of Castile, King of León, with their regnal titles divided. Why?
 * Soon, more four or five days, and I will also go, I hope, in Wikipedia on Spanish. But I'm going to resolve this matter, speaking of agendas, here, on english. This is a problem since 2007, lots of time before I entered Wikipédia, on 2010. I've already discussed it on Portuguese, French, English, and, as you can understand, it's time to me to finish with the question. I'm going to say something in spanish about, on Wikipédia on Spanish, but I'm going to resolve the matter here, on Wikipédia on English, with my bad english. Why? Because like that historians of all over the world that write on Wikipedia can come here, to the discussion. So, "my agenda", to this matter, it's to clarify it, once for all, and with the help of the most great number possible of Wikipedian historians. So, we can list, already, the points where we do not agree, on the discussion page, and ask the mediation of historians to resolve the matter. But, at the same time, as I already told you, I'm going to continue with the work on the sources. If you want to cooperate, very well, for me. If you do not want to cooperate, it's with you, you are free to do what you want. By the way, I do not want to call him «King of Castile and León», Castile is enough. What I do not want are his regnal titles divided, as they were two Crowns, and I also want to know on what he was preceded and succeeded by King Ferdinand I and King John I, what the three have of commun on that «pretence border». Have I made myself clear? Here are two questions, already, to ask mediation. Abraço, Jorge alo (talk) 03:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I don't know what you mean, I have no idea. Please request mediation, maybe an administrator can figure out what you want and sort it out. Não faz mal. Carlstak (talk) 03:48, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
 * What I'm going to ask is a RFC, a request for comment, and also a request of opinion to all historians of Wikipedia en. But, obviously, I shall do so after have listed the questions that I want to put. Abraço, and good night, Jorge alo (talk) 04:01, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Intro
Could someone shorten the intro and create a section relating to his earlier reign before the Portuguese Succession Crisis?--Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 03:48, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Last Spanish monarch to be crowned
Wouldn't that honor belong to Ferdinand I of Aragon who was crowned in 1414 or John II of Aragon who was crowned King of Navarre in 1429.--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 02:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Eleanor of Navarre was crowned in 1479 before Iberian Navarre's conquest by Aragon.--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 02:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)