Talk:Crown of Aragon

message: The Kingdom of Aragon was the same size as the actual administrative territory of Aragon, with its most important city was Zaragoza. 
The Aragon Crown included all the territories mentioned in the article, and had several important cities (each one claiming to be the centre of the Crown) but there was no official capital. Barcelona is near the geographical center of it and an important city.
I have changed several things in the article to attempt to make clear the differences between "Kingdom" and "Crown". --Enric Naval 15:29, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aragon Crown and Kingdom of Aragon 

message: "or the Catalan-Aragonese Confederation" was added to the lead sentence. Yes, I'm familiar with the politics behind this claim. Is there any citation for a significant English-language writer on the topic using this formulation (not as in "is was more of a Catalan-Aragonese confederation", but as a name for the entity)? If not, this is just a neologism and does not belong. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:05, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I do believe I saw it in T.N.Bisson's books (but now I'm starting having second thoughts). Anyway, it is a neologism - and so is, to some extent, the Crown of Aragon/Aragonese Empire (now that is really weird), etc. Medieval supranational "states" didn't have official names, you see. At least they didn't back in the early 13th century (the period I'm most familiar with), as the statehood was embodied in the King. I don't remember the exact formula but most charts of Jaume I I studied started with something like Nos, Iacobus, Dei gratia rex Aragoniae/Aragonis/insert any grammatic form the scribe could come up with, comes Barcinonensis/Barchinonae (sic!)/etc, dominus Montepesulanis/Montis Pesulani/whatever... - We, James, by the Grace of God King of Aragon, Count of Barcelona, Lord of Montpellier... (that was before the conquest of Valencia and Majorca). So any term you choose to use for the Crown as a whole will necessarily be a neologism - these were separate entitities united in the fact that they happened to have the same ruler. Catalan-Aragonese confederation is fine by me (and it is definitely used by respected Catalan historians, not necessarily by nationalists). -- apoivre 18:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Portuguese kings until the 19th century or even later refered to themselves as "Kings of Portugal and the Algarve.  Are we now going to try to edit the Portuguese pages with mention of the "Portuguese-Algarvian Crown?"  If anything, the Kingdom of Aragon would be the most appropriate method of refering to this former political entity.  However, given the obvious heterogeneiy, reconcilining the primacy of the Aragonese title in the crown with the diverse territory, the "Crown of Aragon" is a reasonable compromise.  However, calling it a Catalan-Aragonese confederation when Catalonia was not even a Kingdom is simply historically incorrect babble.   Eboracum 01:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The term "Catalanoaragonese crown" has never used in the past. There is no ancient text which uses that term, but now it has been created for promoting the idea that Catalonia was a country. In a edition I have just made, I didn't delete the term, I only added that it was incorrect but even that has been deleted. If somebody can send one ancient document reference using that term I agree with using it. If not, it has to be classified as incorrect because It's like call the Roman empire, the Spanishroman empire because Spain was inside.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.144.114.81 (talk) 19:18, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Not only Catalano-Aragonese crown was not used in old documents, Crown of Aragón wasn't used either. They were just the possessions of the king of Aragón, and they didn't need any name in particular. --Jotamar (talk) 22:59, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Notice also that we can't read 150 pages of a book to check a reference, the pages field should typically include about 4 or 5 pages at most. --Jotamar (talk) 22:59, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not specialize in all the history of Aragon or Catalonia. However, present-day categories have been used often for past realities, inaccurately or not, e.g. Kingdom of Asturias or Leon, when in fact the latter is just a continuation of the same basic polity, etc. The concept "Spain" is not very different from that either, a monarch with a lot of territories (Castille, Navarre, Aragon, Portugal and Sicilia at some points, etc.) Iñaki LL (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless the fact that present-day categories are sometimes used for past realities, the term Catalan–Aragonese Confederation (or Catalanoaragonese Crown) is applied nowadays in the context of the controversial nationalist revisionism (see ref. #26 in the article), which is a modern political debate anachronistic to the period described here. Including these terms in the introduction violates neutrality because it puts in a prominent position only one view (that of "some modern [Catalan] historians") on the current politico-historical debate. The topic should be addressed properly by moving these terms to the section “nationalist revisionism” or by discussing them, together with other alternative names of the Crown, in a new section (e.g. “alternative names” or “terminology”; see as an example the corresponding sections of the articles in Spanish and Catalan), where references should be included and context about the proposed new names provided. At the very least, this controversy about the terminology should be acknowledged somewhere. --Anchelovik (talk) 19:30, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Catalan-Aragonese Confederation" 

message: Both Catalan speaking territories and Spain close up are kind of only loosely related to the article and taking a lot of room which could be used to display new pictures. I'd remove both of them and substitute them by pictures such as the ones in the Lonja de la Seda or any other out there.
Comments? Mountolive | Talk 00:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone has removed the Spain template as "it talked about San Fermin and other things not related to the article". I agree. I am removing now the remaining Catalan speaking template, as it speaks of Salvador Dalí, Caganers and other things not related. Mountolive | Talk 18:40, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Removing BOTH is fine... But I now feel like in those summer nights, when you are camly seated in the veranda, watching the storm to arrive... Maurice27 22:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Both are removed and I see clear skies over here, the storm is about to unleash somewhere else, stay tuned ;) Mountolive | Talk 22:13, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't someone create  to try to resolve some of these problems? Physchim62 (talk) 12:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be a good approach. - Jmabel | Talk 22:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Templates 

message: Hello, I teach History and as the map on the article itself indicates, Malta was also part of the Aragonese Crown from 1283 till 1530, therefore I have added it too in the paragraph stating the Crown's possessions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.77.201.78 (talk) 21:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It was part of the Kingdom of Sicily at the time (which was part of the Crown of Aragon) so it didn't exist as an individual entity like the others. - Gennarous (talk) 15:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Malta and Aragon

message: The map uses light blue to indicate those possessions which were Catalan/Aragonese-dominated but never part of the Crown. However, I believe it is misleading. Athens and Neopatria were part of the Crown after 1381, no? And Corsica was as much formally a part of the Crown as Sardinia. Srnec 06:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put a new map up, it was taken from Catalan Wikipedia (where the article is FA). It has all the parts as the same colour blue. - Gennarous (talk) 18:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Map

message: Should we strike out the word "mere" from this sentence: given the preeminence of the Aragoese "kingdom" status over Catalonia's mere "principality". It's a subjective valoration about Catalonia being "merely" a principality compared to Aragon's kingdom status. Stating that a Kingdom is more preeminent than a Principality should be enough.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Enric Naval (talk • contribs) 18:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been more than a week and nobody answered, so I'm changing it. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merely a principate 

message: Actually, there are plenty of historicians that say that the Crown of Aragon clearly started at 1137, see at LIBRO of "crown of aragon" 1137 (you need to check "Search libro.uca.edu" and then click on "Search"), I can find these sources:   Rulers of the Crown of Aragón, 1137-1410.
What I can't find is in what year it was considered to have ended, so the date ought to be 1137-???? until sources are found explicitely naming the ending year (somewhere between the marriage of Fernando of Aragon and Isabel at 1476 and Felipe V's removal of last old privileges at 1715). --Enric Naval (talk) 23:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The new version you have proposed, with the edition of 1715 as the end date should be fine. It should be 1715 because that is the offical date when the Crown of Aragon and the Crown of Castile were formally merged together. Officiality is the best way we are going to get a date out of this and it also matches the Crown of Castile article. - Gennarous (talk) 03:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "Officiality" is just completely misinformative here. The average reader will come away with the idea that there was a state encompassing eastern Spain, Sicily, and parts of Greece in 1715. Furthermore, the date of 1137 is meaningless without context. What happened then? Not the formation of some special "Crown". Let the reader read the text to find out, don't distract him with a box! Srnec (talk) 04:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The historians unanimously cite 1137 as starting date for the crown, so *that* is totally correct, and the 1715 is probably correct too, since it's when the last privileges from the crown of aragon were finally removed. The infobox just makes a quick summary of the situation, the reader can always read the article for more detail. Also, infoboxes are standard for wikipedia articles. Your arguments that it will mislead the readers are not valid, since the map clearly states that it's the maximum extension at a certain date. If you want more detail, then make maps for several period of years. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: "The infobox just makes a quick summary of the situation, the reader can always read the article for more detail." At the risk of being élitist (and I have retained accent on purpose) I suggest that the reader ought to have to read the article. This is an encyclopaedia after all. "Standard at Wikipedia" is never a good argument, see WP:IAR: every individual change to Wikipedia must be independently justifiable. We do not really speak of the Crown from Charles V onward, by then we talk of just Spain. Srnec (talk) 14:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Man, don't use WP:IAR so much, it gets devaluated for when I actually have to use it myself :D . Don't you worry, I like long articles full of references, so I'm not going to dumb down wikipedia for an infobox. In List_of_Aragonese_monarchs I only see kings until Charles III, so I think you are refering to the wrong king, since by Charles V the crown of aragon was dead and buried --Enric Naval (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Emperor Charles V: Carlos Quinto. Sorry. Srnec (talk) 23:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm only arguing that the infobox cannot present the complexity of the developments after 1137 and gives no idea what happened in 1137. Certainly in 1137 no new state was formed. I am fine with beginning the history of the Crown in 1137. Srnec (talk) 17:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  1137-???? 

message: Reviewing sources:
*the kingdoms (of Castile and Aragon) were not officially united under one constitution until 1715
*Chaytor stops narrating at the union with Castile because "henceforward the history of Aragon and Catalonia cannot be separated from that of the Spanish peninsula as a whole."
*Payne lists lands of the Crown of Aragón-Catalonia on a map of Charles V domains (not conclusive at all, it could only be separating the territories to indicate its origin before union). I found the part where Payne talks about the Spanish War of Succession , and while he talk of how the fueros were finally abolished then, he has been talking all the time about the Crown of Spain, like Snrec said, and on the specific page he only mentions "Spain Crown" and "Borbon Crown"
*Amelang talks about Barcelona "Beginning in 1714, the Principality ceased to exist as a separate institutional body within the Hispanic monarchy"  
*Herr says "The union of Spain was, however, purely dynastic, Ferdinand and Isabel and their successors maintained separate governmental institutions and legal systems in their kingdoms" and "The Peace of Utrecht that terminated it in 1713 was a compromise. Philip V kept the crowns of Castile and Aragon and with them the overseas colonies,", "'Domestically the war put an apparent end to the problem of unifying the kingdoms of Aragon with Castile" "(in 1714)Philip V retaliated for the disloyalty of these kingdoms by abolishing their fueros. The cortes of the three kingdoms disappeared." "At last the crown had achieved the institutional unification which was the logical result of the marriage of Ferdinand and Isabel"
It looks like sources agree that "crown of aragon" really finished on union with Castile, but also agree in that it wasn't until around 1714 that the institutions from the crown ceased to exist. I think that changing the end year to the Catholic Kings union would be adequate, and then making a section on the article explaining the fine details of the preservation of the institutions after that. I think that the War of Succession event *could* stay, but reworded to something like "removal of the institutions of the crown", and after the end date. I'm not sure if the template even allows to do that. --Enric Naval (talk) 11:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: 1479 or 1714?

message: Srnec appears to be right on the end date thing. However, the sources seem to agree on 1137 as start of the crown. I suggest that Srnec provides sources stating a different year for the start, and that he reviews the ones I used at the "1137-????" subsection. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:09, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm only arguing that the infobox cannot present the complexity of the developments after 1137 and gives no idea what happened in 1137. Certainly in 1137 no new state was formed. I am fine with beginning the history of the Crown in 1137. Srnec (talk) 17:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  1137? 

message: There are sources for this name . It includes the original map used as source for the map on the infobox. I would say this is enough to justify it as a "common name". --Enric Naval (talk) 23:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course there are sources, but it's still just a historiographic term like Angevin Empire or British Empire, having no constitutional reality. Srnec (talk) 04:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The infobox says "common name", it doesn't say "not just a historiographic term". Do you have any other objection to Aragonese Empire being a common name for the Crown of Aragon? --Enric Naval (talk) 05:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Common among whom? The term was not, to my knowledge, current. It is mere historiographical projection. (I should probably never call that "mere"!) Srnec (talk) 14:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right, I found no sources to establish a "common name", so its probably better to remove it --Enric Naval (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  aragonese empire 

message: For the "status = Empire" part, I was not sure about this, so I looked at  and saw the list at . While the Crown had the intention of forming an empire, it's probably more of a federation than an actual empire, due to the way it was formed and the keeping of the laws of every kingdom. However, for "status= federation", on LIBRO I can only find this.
For examples of how the intention was to form and empire, and how it's described as an empire, I quote "Alfonso's exploits were apparently inspired by the ambition to form an empire which should dominate the Western Mediterranean.", and for the empire description see the name of this book "J. Lee Shneidman, The Rise of the Aragonese-Catalan Empire, 1200-1350, 2 vols. (New York 1970)"  
On :Category:Former_empires I can see countries that never had an actual emperor, like Great_Moravia, Macedon, Nazi Germany, Lydia and Nomadic_Empires_of_Central_Asia, so there shouldn't be any problem with calling Crown of Aragon a former empire even if it had no emperor.
So, given what the sources say, and how the infobox is used on other articles, "empire" would actually be ok for the infobox, and WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments should be ignored unless sources are provided saying how it can *not* be considered an empire, and those sources can offset the historians calling it an empire. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, misleading. How does the reader know that empire is being used in this sense? (Sourcing a negative is not expected, rather positive claims must be sourced.) As to Chaytor's claim, that is controversial and outdated, see the more recent work by Bisson. The Crown was hardly more an "empire" in status than the modern USA, UK, France, or China. Srnec (talk) 04:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the status to "confederation", since the Confederation article even lists the Crown of Aragon as the first example. The description also fits the government structure, with several countries with their own laws. The type of government is obviously monarchy, 1 monarch with many kingdoms. I think, however, that we could even put confederation also on government type. Scratch that, there were parts of the crown that were not kingdoms, like the catalan counties (Principaly of Catalonia) and the Duchy of Neopatria. I just put confederation. --Enric Naval (talk) 04:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Let me just remind you that WP is not a source for WP. That said, I don't have a real issue with "confederation". Thankyou for realising the complexity of its "governmental structure". Srnec (talk) 14:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all. It took me quite a while until I noticed my mistake on insisting on "monarchy" --Enric Naval (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  status, empire 

message: As far as I know, there were no "official" languages, but languages that were used on one region or other. Languages used on official documents differed from the ones used by the population. The languages themselves had lots of different names. There have been fights also about this on cawiki and eswiki, and the catalan version provides no sources for the languages on their infobox. This part should be removed until it's sourced. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely. Srnec (talk) 04:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I sourced a pair of languages on "es" version , but the sources are on spanish. Let's see how it works there before using them here --Enric Naval (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess we could write about languages used, but since the various realms of the Crown were usually governed separately (to some degree), the languages used vary from region to region and this variation is not necessarily a variation in the usages of the Crown but only the difference between its component kingdoms. Srnec (talk) 23:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  official languages 

message: I couldn't find any source for the population at 1443. This part needs to be removed until it's sourced. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. And why just 1443 anyway? How does that really help the reader, citing a population figure for the year 1443 for an entity that lasted from 1137 until 1715? Srnec (talk) 04:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was probably the only year available. Census were not very frequent or exact at that time --Enric Naval (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite why it's useless to put it in the box. Srnec (talk) 23:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  population 

message: The kings of Aragon clearly had a coat of arms, and it's clearly used as representation of the crown of aragon by official sources. See the Spain postal office talking of how the arms of the Crown of Aragon and on the coat of arms of Spain and the moncloa page on the same coat. See a representation of the coat at the tourism page of CAI. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be willing to "concede" the arms, but I don't want it in a box. Srnec (talk) 04:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: you don't "concede" anything No editor "concedes" anything on wikipedia. It's properly sourced with WP:RS sources and it will go on the box because there is a place on it for the coat of arms --Enric Naval (talk) 05:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Concede' was in scare quotes. And please note that I can and will concede arguments at Wikipedia, though you are correct to point out that my concession is not the determining factor. "it will go on the box because there is a place on it for the coat of arms." More arguing from "standards"! No mindless standards-following please, please see WP's only "global policy". Srnec (talk) 14:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: My bad for getting fired up about "conceding" stuff. I've related to too many POV pushers, and that sort of statements puts me on my toes because of a reflex action. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  coats of arms 

message: There was no official capital. Each kingdom had its own capital (this is partly the reason because it was sometimes called a confederation). See how Payne avoids naming a capital . The capital was where the king was residing at the moment, and royal courts were held at different cities. I quote "The great triumph of Alfonso's reign was the complete reconquest, by 1442, of Naples, which became the center and capital of the Aragonese empire until his death, for Alfonso never returned to the peninsula." . 
I don't know the exact source for "the capital was where the king was at that moment", but I am quite sure that a aragonese historian actually put that exact sentence on one of his books. Unfortunately, that book is not online. It was called "capital itinerante".
I think we should copy the catalan wikipedia on this, using: "capital = None. Important cities : Barcelona, Nàpols, Saragossa i València". --Enric Naval (talk) 23:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not good, too arbitrary. What of Palermo? Athens, which Peter IV called the greatest jewel in the world I believe? No Aix-en-Provence? Montpellier? Palma de Mallorca? Perpignan? Srnec (talk) 04:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I imagine there must be a good reason to choose those, like Naples being chosen as residence for one of the kings for a long time, but they don't specify it. Anyways, we can leave it at "none", and see if information can be found about "itinerating capitals" --Enric Naval (talk) 05:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Damn, I can't find online sources on english for "itinerating capitals". On spanish there is some reference to christian kingdoms having "capitales itinerantes" . I found a paper source on the capitality on Spain article on eswiki --Enric Naval (talk) 07:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The concept of a "capital city" would not apply to the Crown, though it would/could to the various kingdoms which made it up. Nonetheless, it would be misleading to include all of them, which would include all of the cities I named plus Neopatras and perhaps Arles and all the various comital seats of Catalonia (Besalú, Tarragona, Girona, etc.) Also, Wikipedia is not a source for Wikipedia (especially unsourced assertions) and the Spanish Wiki doesn't even seem to me to be talking about an itinerant capital of the Crown but of the various capitals or quasi-capitals of the kingdoms/duchies/lordships/counties that comprised it. Srnec (talk) 14:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just took care to use a source that was on the article, not the article itself. We need a source for a list of cities. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  capital 

message: In my opinion, we shouldnt use modern terms such as "confederation" to former realities. Dynastic Union sounds more accurate to me.
As for the capital, I dont think it belongs in the infobox such a level of detail as Buesa's theory. That's the problem with the infobox: it's supposed to be a summary, but then summarizing may be a gross reduction, but if you guys still think that the infobox is mandatory, I think this way is more true to historic reality. Mountolive  group using a loop of another pop group 01:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure about that ("dynastic union" can be counted as a form of government?), but I couldn't find notable sources on english language talking about the crown having a federate government (except two minor sources at LIBRO ), or sources saying what type of government the Crown actually had, so I'll have to agree. I moved the capital stuff to a section on the article body, together with the sources including Buesa. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right, dynastic union is not a form of government. Monarchy seems to be the most descriptive and historically accurate. Mountolive  group using a loop of another pop group 14:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Srnec's comment was placed at this position before creating an arbitrary break below --Enric Naval (talk) 18:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: fine tuning

message: Since the royal standard is already on the infobox, the image on the "history" section could be replaced by a different image of the standard, like the image of Jaime I's pennon, or paintings where the flag is displayed --Enric Naval (talk) 19:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  second instance of pennon in article 

message: You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. 
Leges palatinae miniature, or, laws of the king James III for the Kingdom of Mallorques, 14th Century, you can see the coat of arms of the pales, the coat of arms familiar of the house of Barcelona members, so do not repeat again "used exclusively by the monarchs of the Crown  (of Aragon) because is an Aragonese nationalist lie and shows that you are the ignorant. I think, you do not have read enough to edit about this. --Sclua (talk) 18:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sclua, seems you learned very well from all the messages you got at your very own talk page before you blanked it... You were already warned not to attack other editors, and your Aragonese nationalist lie is a perfect example of your disruptive behavior. Your style is completely uncessary, undesirable and shows your bad taste. Please, read Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:No personal attacks and Wikipedia:Assume good faith if not wanting to be reported. --MauritiusXXVII   (Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 21:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  edit war of maurice27 

message: After Srnec last edit on the description of the pennon, I believe we should leave it that way. It is true that a pennon is not exclusive to the kings (the arms are), but is important to say that probably the reason for the pennon to have fesses and the arms to have pallets is to separate territories (fesses) from the house of Barcelona itself (pallets). What is not acceptable is Sclua's obstinance to add a description which clearly fits the arms (pales of barcelona) when the pennon has fesses. I vote to leave the description just like Srnec did.--MauritiusXXVII   (Aut Doce, Aut Disce, Aut Discede!) 07:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I moved the description to its own section where the details can be worked at lenght. Please don't remove sources by from historians because you think that they are wrong. The other option is that the historian Ubieto is wrong Fatás and Redondo are wrong. However, Ubieto Fatás and Redondo made the statement on a published source, and it was picked up by the Government of Aragon to source his flag, so I think that it fits the reliable source criteria. If you have sources that state that the pennon, not the coat of arms, was used by people other than the monarchs of the crown, then please provide sources of this instead of removing a sourced statement. Notice that the miniature does not display any pennon, only coats of arms. And, in case you were wondering, James III of Mallorca was also vassal of the kingdom of Aragon like his father  --Enric Naval (talk) 05:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

text: I question the government website source. The first paragraph of that page does not sound unbiased, with its strong emphasis on "Aragon", telling us the pennon was used exclusively by the monarchs of the Aragonese Crown and is always known as the bandera "of Aragon". How do we know this source is scholarly? What Ubieto source are you speaking of? Srnec (talk) 05:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oooops, I mean Fatás and Redondo, look at the end of the page, it cites the source used for the text: "Bibliografía: BLASON DE ARAGON. EL ESCUDO Y LA BANDERA, de Guillermo Fatás y Guillermo Redondo. Ed. Diputación General de Aragón. Zaragoza, 1995." --Enric Naval (talk) 19:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright, but I retain my personal scepticism about the source's reliability. Srnec (talk) 05:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: The pennon description

message: Hello. There is several instances in the article where the word empire, between commas is used. I find it distracting, and I can not avoid thinking, ok what was it, an Empirette maybe?
Can we not drop the commas, or find a name which could be used minus them? It was a kingdom, I guess, because it had a King, despite the many titles he/she held.Leirus (talk) 11:29, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Empire" 

message: I changed the 'native name' of the Crown that appeared in the Infobox, as it was in Spanish. I've put it in Catalan and Aragonese using modern orthography; as Aragonese has no official standard, I've written 'Corona d'Aragón' according to the provisional standards used by the Sociedat de Lingüística Aragonesa, the Academia de l'Aragonés and the Consello d'a Fabla Aragonesa, which happen to coincide here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acomasga (talk • contribs) 01:03, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In old documents I saw it written as "Corona D'Arago" (with no accent in the "o"). --Enric Naval (talk) 09:31, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Native name of the Crown of Aragon 

message: I find difficult to think that the Crown of Aragon was an absolute monarchy. The presence of Cortes in Valencia, Barcelona and Zaragoza, which limited the authority of the monarch, and the swear of fueros point out to a more proto-parlamentarian monarchy. The monarch of Castile, on the opposite, swore to not allienate the states of the free cities. --Byblios (talk) 18:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Absolute Monarchy?

message: Was the Population in 1443 really only 300,000? That seems ridiculously small. --English Bobby (talk) 20:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the figure; if you check the Catalan version of this page, in the Demografia section, the numbers are quite different. Jotamar (talk) 17:58, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. In :ca:Corona_d%27Aragó#Demografia, Catalonia alone had between 230k and 300k inhabitants. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Population 

message: I see a number of specks over Turkey (then part of the Ottoman Empire). If these were at the coast I might not even have noticed them, but inland, it is verly extremely unlikely that there represent any sort of Catalan presence. Rui Gabriel Correia (talk) 23:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map - blue specks over Turkey 

message: In the text it says that the crown of Aragon came under the crown of Castille in 1410, yet the infobox at the top of the article implies that Aragon was an independent state until 1716...
Which one is it? It clearly can't be both!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.104.172.90 (talk) 22:24, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  1410 or 1716? more than 300 years of confusion. 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Crown of Aragon. 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/20080107013054/http://www.aragob.es/pre/cido/bandera.htm to http://www.aragob.es/pre/cido/bandera.htm
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) 23:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Crown of Aragon. 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/20070927003202/http://www.lluisvives.com/FichaClasificacionMaterias.html?Ref=821.134.1&idGrupo=convencional&portal=126 to http://www.lluisvives.com/FichaClasificacionMaterias.html?Ref=821.134.1&idGrupo=convencional&portal=126
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) 20:19, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 184.69.129.82 (talk) 20:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Dolotta (talk) 21:41, 18 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2018 

message: I would like a confirmation that the institutions and people of the Crown of Aragon had (almost?) no part in the colonization of the Americas and Asia.
In my understanding, the American and Asian parts of the Spanish Empire were considered the preserve of the Crown of Castile and Castilians.
Is it so or did Aragon play a significant part in the Atlantic and Pacific before the unification of the Crowns?
--Error (talk) 19:37, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, my understanding is that up to Nueva Planta decrees the subjects of the Crown of Aragon were deprived of access to the Americas, since it was an initiative undertaken under the Crown of Castile. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I understand so as well, but I'd like a properly referenced mention in the article. --Error (talk) 18:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Americas 

message: According to articles in multiple languages on the political entity of Catalonia (Catalunya), the Crown of Aragon was involved in the formation of Barcelona and Catalonia in the year 1137, which does appear in cornerstones of buildings such as cathedrals. This article says the Crown of Aragon was not established in the year 1137 CE.
I am not a historian, just a linguist and physician. Help or clarification would be appreciated. (I'm also not Spanish.)
DrDavidWebb (talk) 15:49, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't quite understand what is the problematic point. This page states that The Crown of Aragon originated in 1137. --Jotamar (talk) 16:34, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did this exist in 1137? Re: Catalunya articles 

message: The crown is formed by the kingdom of Aragon and the county of Barcelona, ​​the latter has all the power.
The 4 sticks or bars are from the house of Barcelona, ​​NOT from the house of Aragon. They were the coat of arms of Ramon Berenguer IV, his son adopted that flag for his crown. It is a mistake to call the Aragonese crown when all power was held by the principality of Catalonia, proof of this is that the language that has endured in all those territories is Catalan. 139.47.117.229 (talk) 12:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  It is called the Catalan-Aragonese crown.