Talk:List of titles and honours of the Spanish Crown

King of Algarve?
King of Algarve? Really? Is anyone sure that they maintain that title, since it pertains to a Portuguese region, and I had the idea that the kings of Spain dropeed the Portuguese titles after 1640. By the way is it of the Algarve or of the Algarves, which is the tradicional way (as in King of Portugal and of the Algarves)? The Ogre 12:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Substantive titles have nothing to do with soveraignty. The Duke of Anjouis the pretender of the french throne even if France has been a republic for more than 200 years. The Kingdom is for the Algarves (Huelva is the other one. --Maurice27 18:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The Kingdom of Algarve was always associated with the Kingdom of Portugal. As far as I know, the titles weren't separated since the Reconquista. I also can't find any official data supporting this. User:McKagan

Proof of Byzantine inheritance
Please show sources. 68.110.8.21 01:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, no source but Wikipedia acknowledges them as having title to Imperial Rome. Ferdinand and Isabel never claimed to represent the Romans, nor have any of their descendents--not even Juan-Carlos or his predecessor Franco.  Just because they "bought" a title or rights to it, doesn't mean it matters.  Imagine a title to the Etruscan kingdom of Italy.  Anyways, User:Michaelsanders unilaterally reverted User:John Kenney's perfect example of Wikipedia's consensus.  Ask User:Adam Bishop if you don't believe me.  Undue weight is undue weight.  Wikipedia has rules about distortion of "facts" to make a point.  24.255.11.149 (talk) 01:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The Spanish monarchy never claimed to be Emperors or Empresses of the Romans. No contemporary or modern author described them as thus either. Wikipedia can't make outrageous claims like this. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 06:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I have moved the title of Byzantine Emperor from Titles held by the King of Spain (which at worst is mistaken and at best is very uncertain) into a new section headed Eastern Roman Empire, reading as follows -
 * The last titular Byzantine Emperor, Andreas Palaiologos, sold his imperial title to Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella of Castile before his death in 1502. However, the sale of such a title in pretense was of uncertain validity and no kings of Spain are known to have used the title of Roman or Byzantine Emperor, except that Charles I of Spain was elected as Holy Roman Emperor in 1519.


 * I hope this will be seen a fair compromise between including this imperial title in the list and excluding it from the article. Xn4  08:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I changed it a bit to remove the reference to Charles V. The reference to him gave to anyone unfamiliar with the subject, I think, the impression that he used it or made claims to it. Whereas in fact the HRE and Charles' election was wholly unconnected to whatever Byzantine claims he may have had, so it doesn't need to be said. Michael Sanders 12:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Byzantine Empire
The title should be renamed as "Roman Emperor". This makes the section conform to the rest of the article. It also addresses the actual use of the title in the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.52.246.175 (talk) 23:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

All I did now, was add Imperator totius Hispaniae to the "See also" section. Now whether either of you wishes to put it elsewhere in this article for context, I raise no objection. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 17:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

byzantines
"The last titular Byzantine Emperor, Andreas Palaiologos, sold his imperial title to Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella I of Castile before his death in 1502. However, the sale of such a title in pretense was of uncertain validity and no kings of Spain are known to have used the Byzantine Imperial titles."

Did they actually use these titles themselves, let alone their descendants? If not, we should say this. BillMasen (talk) 21:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

UNBLOCK
This daft censorship has run long enough now. This should be unblocked, and edited to reflect the truth. The info here is incorrect.


 * What are you talking about? "King of Gibraltar" was absolutely a title used by the Kings of Spain before 1931, and, as such, remains part of the formal long form titulary of the present king, even though it, like most of the other titles, is virtually never used in practice.  The asterisk indicates that Spain doesn't actually rule Gibraltar. Is it offensive to note King of Jerusalem, or King of both Sicilies? john k (talk) 18:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

It may well be offensive to the people of Jerusalem or Sicilies. However that is irrelevant....the fact remains that the info provided here is simply not true. The spanish monarchy DO NOT use the title "King of Gibraltar" nor would they be entitled to do so. This is simple irrefutable fact. A trawl through the spanish monarchy's own website will show that this title is not in use. FACT. And facts are what should be dealt with here.

Why insist on a lie? Who does it serve? How does maintaining obviously and demonstrably false information enhance Wikipedia? The Wiki taliban need to reflect on this seriously and alter this to the truth. Lies help nobody.


 * Hah, my God, I can see the pathetic nationalism-torie-Old Empire crying in miles around. By God's sake, Kings of England are even kings of Canada, Australia, Jamaica, Barbuda, Papua New Guinea, Saint Lucia, Saint Kitt and Nevis, Bahamas, Barbdos, Belice, Tuvalu, etc... what are you complaining about? If you where as consistent as you are complaining about Gibraltar delicacies and buah-politics, you should make something about the Commonwealth, in where kings of England only have a De Iure realm and any power at all. So, why Elizabeth II maintain all those titles? Oh, the History! She uses them? Of course, but only in the brief way of "Commonwealth Sovereign", as the Spanish Monarch uses it, in its "etc.". Does it gives some rigth to do something? ha ha no, as all the kings in a parlamentary monarchy. 85.136.64.71 (talk) 18:50, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Irony?
''"Ironically King Juan Carlos I of Spain is descended from both the House of Orléans and the Royal House of Bourbon-Two Sicilies. Likewise Prince Jean-Christophe Napoleon is descended from both the House of Bonaparte and the Royal House of Bourbon-Two Sicilies."

I fail to see the irony. Coincedentally? Interestingly? Curiously? 11:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Prince of Catalonia?
What about Prince of Catalonia? СЛУЖБА (talk) 12:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That title does not exist. See Duchy of Montblanc for the heir and Counts of Barcelona for the title. Cheers, -- MauritiusXXVII ( Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede! )   . 06:30, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

/* Titles held by the King of Spain */ Added other titles maintained, but usually abbreviated with "etc." word: King of Hungary, of Dalmatia, and of Croatia etc
I have added titles abbreviated with etc., mainly old titles inherited from Charles I.

It would be nice include all coats of arms of these "abbreviated" titles and put in them altogether separately of the rest, in the Other titles maintained etc. section.

Regards. --Zeubea (talk) 02:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


 * as pointed out here (https://history.stackexchange.com/q/43113), the title of king of hungary etc... was not inherited by Felipe and his successors, not only because of the fact that Charles' brother inherited it instead, but also because Charles never held the title in the first place. 46.117.188.66 (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2024 (UTC)