Talk:Sancho III of Pamplona

Redundancy
I am removing this sentence added by user with an IP address 207.89.155.80: He was a distant ancestor to Isabella of Castile, and, thus, is an ancestor to the present-day British royal family, including Elizabeth II, Queen of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Every ancestor of the House of Barcelona is an ancestor of the present-day British Royal Family be it through Isabella of France or Isabella I of Castile (I am sure I'm not exhausting all the possibilities out there). If we don't add this meaningless bit of info to every wiki page on every member of a European royal family, let's not do it here. Or am I wrong? --apoivre 22:32, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Emperor?
Several sources on the net and the encyclopedia britannica claim he declared himself emperor of all spain in 1034 rather than king.
 * IIRC, the first king to style himself emperor of Spain was Alfonso VII of Castile. I may be wrong, though. What are your sources? --apoivre 9 July 2005 17:39 (UTC)
 * First the Britannica pointed mentioned it in their micropedia article on "emperor". Then I went googling and came up with several others that matched it.  Sancho's son Ferdinand also declared himself emperor of spain in 1039 followed by his son Alfonso VI in 1077 and finally by Alfonso VII in 1135.  Googling "optimo imperator" will lead you to Sancho I of Pamplona/Navarre, ancestor of Sancho III.  Since all these men were related, I suspect a pattern of quasi-hereditary succession of the title.--Countakeshi 22:37, 9 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The Spanish edition of Gran Larousse Universal also says he made himself emperor.--Countakeshi 04:26, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
 * quasi-hereditary succession of the title implies there was such a title. If you want, you may say he styled himself emperor of Spain. Oh, and googling "optimo imperator" brings up lots of genealogical homepages recycling the same rubbish (and this Talk page in the 3rd position). The only more or less solid source I've found so far is Payne's History of Spain and Portugal, see page 52. But I'm still in doubt (the book is full of inaccuracies) and would like to see the orignal sources for this claim. --apoivre 17:33, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The imperial style had been used by earlier kings of Asturias and Leon tracing back to, IIRC, Alfonso III, to indicate their preeminence among the Iberian kingdoms. Sancho adopted this style to indicate that he had become top dog. Unfortunately, I have no cites handy, but I have seen it treated as common knowledge by historians of the period. Agricolae 19:50, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Coin

 * minted coins with the legend Imperator Totus Hispaniae.

Googling for "Imperator totius" gives me Alfonso VI rather than Sancho. Besides, according to [http://www.eusko-ikaskuntza.org/en/publicaciones/colecciones/riev/articulo.php?o=13424 Revista Internacional de los Estudios Vascos. RIEV, 26, 4]: Discutibles interpretaciones de la moneda de Sancho el Mayor, by Germán de Iruña, there is only one coin attributed to Sancho, probably this bullion piece attributed to Alfonso VII. It only has IMPERATOR and NA(I/V) ARA. --Error 01:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The article you cite mentions Menéndez Pidal and it is him from whom I believe I got that information. I cannot remember with certainty though. It should say "totius." I suspect that there are coins with the above inscription attributed by some to Sancho.  If you find strong evidence to the contrary, please remove that information.  Srnec 18:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Article
This should interest you: Imperator totius Hispaniae. Cheers! The Ogre 20:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Eagle
Was the eagle of Sancho's seal the Roman eagle of the legions? Was it a claim to the Roman emperor's title like the eagle of Holy Roman emperors or the Byzantine and Russian eagles? --Error 01:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Recent name changes
A user moved this page from Sancho III of Navarre to the current title with the rationale:. I moved it back, but then on second thought I self-reverted. I don't really care whether we call him "of Pamplona" or "of Navarre", but I do object to the rationale that one is more "correct" or that Navarre was not yet established. The kingdom known as Pamplona and that known as Navarre are one and the same. It's just a name change that occurred in the 12th century. Historians use anachronistic terms like Byzantine Empire and unofficial ones like Weimar Republic all the time. There is no need to avoid Navarre for the 11th-century realm of Pamplona on grounds of strict correctness. Nor is there any reason to take a change in nomenclature as indicating the establishment of a new or different kingdom. Srnec (talk) 23:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The correct name of the kingdom by the time of Sancho III was Navarre, not Pamplona. The change happened between 970-1000 with the exact date and reason unknown. But by Sancho III it was definitely Navarre, and if anyone thinks it doesn't matter, tell that to the thousands of us families that have that surname! Yes, it big time matters! Solri89 (talk) 11:57, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I've corrected the article to be as fair as one can have it while correcting the kingdoms name by the time of The Great. But can someone please change the title back to being proper because I don't know how to do that. Solri89 (talk) 12:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

The Historia General de Navarra by Jaime del Burgo. In this book he states King Sancho II took the title King of Navarre in 987. This dude is from Navarre and wrote lots of books on the region. Solri89 (talk) 12:27, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * And Martínez Díez a pretty reputable historian, calls him Sancho of Pamplona (see title of book used as reference= as well as many other sources. Before making a move, perhaps you should have sought some consensus since it had been recently moved just a couple of months ago. --Maragm (talk) 12:55, 29 October 2015 (UTC) pd: Reino de Pamplona es la denominación historiográfica, de acuerdo con los Annales regni Francorum,[4] para referirse a la entidad política creada en el Pirineo occidental en torno a la ciudad de Pamplona en los primeros siglos de la Reconquista, uno de núcleos cristianos surgidos tras la conquista musulmana. La expresión se siguió utilizando hasta que Sancho VI cambió su título de Pampilonensium Rex («Rey de los pamploneses») por el de Rex Navarrae (Rey de Navarra). (from es.wiki), will provide more sources. --Maragm (talk) 13:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Some quotes from Monasterio de Leire:
 * 29 sept. 1023: Regnane supradicto Sancio serenissimo rege in Pampilona, in Aragone, in Suprarue, in Ripacorza…”


 * 1040: Ego Garsea rex, regnante in Pampilonia, Ranimiri rex in prouincia Aragone…


 * 1054-63 Private donation… Regnante Santio rex in Pampilona,…


 * 1063, Feb: Donation by Sancho el de Peñalén, “Regnante domino nostro Ihesu Christo et sub eius imperio Santius rex in Pampilona, Ferdinandus Rex in Legione, Santius rex in Aragone…--Maragm (talk) 13:28, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I was really hoping no one would get into this as much as you did cuz then I'd have to explain further. But first: Let's just agree to disagree as there are too many sources who contradict each other. My point: it was Sancho III's grandfather who was credited as using the style King of Navarre first even though the name of the kingdom by foreign sources was still Pamplona. The question was put to rest by the time of Pamplona's/Navarre's union with the other kingdoms/vassal states. But most definitely by the time of Sancho III he and possibly his immediate ancestors were referring to themselves as King of Navarre. In my understanding this was done because the king(s) wanted to not be known as merely a city-state kingdom but more as a European kingdom than a mere kingdom of Iberia. I have read references to this in the past but that was a long time ago in Mexico. But if you can place yourself there at that time I think you'd agree anyone would do the same thing. Now I believe "consensus" will disagree with me but as a compromise why don't we put King of Pamplona/Navarre? King Sancho III is very important person in my patrimony and because of that is why it's important to me (yes, I know this is Wikipedia but this is the talk page) that he is known as a King of Navarre. Oh and besides, no one insisted on a discussion when it was changed to Pamplona. So why did I have to discuss it before changing it back? Solri89 (talk) 14:49, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Sancho himself, and his ancestors, called themselves kings of Pamplona, not of Navarre. That is the way they appear in medieval charters. It was not until Sancho VI that the kings started to be known as Kings of Navarre. One of the best biographies on Sancho III was written by Gonzalo Martínez Díez, and the title of the book is Sancho III el Mayor, rey de Pamplona, Rex Ibericus. First chapter of the book: "Orígenes del Reino de Pamplona" and on p. 17 of that chapter: "En esas montañas del norte de España surgirán diversos focos de resistencia (a los musulmanes) que darán lugar al nacimiento de los futuros reinos cristianos, los cinco reinos de España de la época medieval, uno de los cuales será el núcleo del reino de Pamplona primero y de Navarra más tarde". I could come up with more sources to back this, not just Gonzalo Mtz Díez.  It would be as misleading to call him King of Navarre as if we called Fernán González King of Castile when at that time, Castile was a county which would later give rise to the Kingdom of Castile. And the reason nobody complained when the article was moved prior to your move was that the user who did so, is one of the main contributors to this article and I agreed with the move. Your only contribution here has been to move it and it appears because as you say, King Sancho "is a very important person in my patrimony" and that is not a very convincing reason to move the article. --Maragm (talk) 15:14, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I just read my own last discussion and I'll admit what I wanted to say didn't come out fully. What I'm saying is that the mentioned kings ALSO took on the style King of Navarre as well as King of Pamplona but yes (I guess) the official title of the kingdom during the time in question was Pamplona. Solri89 (talk) 15:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Another good source: "Del reino de Pamplona al reino de Navarra" by a very reputable historian, Ángel J. Martín Duque.--Maragm (talk) 15:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I guess you didn't fully read what I wrote before you questioned why I put in there he is very important to my patrimony. That was just a personal thing that I wanted to personally state that's why I wrote what I did in the parenthesis. Next time read that part too. Thanks. Solri89 (talk) 15:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC) --Maragm (talk) 15:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I did read that, and also before you talk about "thousands of us families that have that surname" (Navarro, I gather). But calling Sancho King of Pamplona does not diminish Navarre at all and it is a more accurate name, also what he called himself. --Maragm (talk) 15:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC) ps.  In the article i mentioned before,  "Del reino de Pamplona al reino de Navarra"  p. 848:  "En un momento determinado, que cabe situar hacia mediados de 1162, el monarca navarro decidió desechar el título empleado hasta entonces, rex Pampilonesium y sustituirlo por el de Rex Navarre "rey de Navarra"."