Talk:Iberian Union

message: This article is very Portugal-centric.  Even the general article History of Spain has more info about the effect of the Union on Spain than this one does. Mdotley 17:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My friend! Feel free to edit! Be bold! Sorry about the excess of excamation marks!!! The Ogre 21:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be happy to be bold, but I was coming here to find that information, not to add it.  :-) Mdotley 23:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two countries, right? 

message: The 1580-1640 wwas a personal union, not a political one -- much less the coutries were somehow merged. this is a root problem with this article.--BBird 21:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed! That was also how I learned it in school 84.241.248.37 (talk) 07:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Not so (that way) the Bandeirantes were not "allowed". They forced the expantion (read history, the events) - by force, who continued after. That happened parcialy in East Asia (not Ceuta, in Ceuta it was the Portuguese governor with differences with the House of Braganza, also due to (maybe in this case) strategic geographic sitiation, stayed with Phillip IV, and hand over to Spanish hands in 1668 in the Traety, neither Fernando Po, ceded to Spain in the 18th century).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.92.31.189 (talk) 23:18, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  personal union, not political 

message: I think that most of the "Origins of the House of Braganza" section would be better placed in the House of Braganza article than here. Does anyone object to me moving it? Ground Zero | t 16:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: House of Braganza

message: I made a new map and i already put it up , the previous one showed too many current borders in south america .
sources for new map : --EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 22:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This map  is completely wrong from the standpoint of Portuguese colonies.  I dispute its accuracy.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:34, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Tell that to the Ministry of Education of Spain (lol) or just show me another accurate map. Also the map you created is innacurate too, the spaniards had territory around the patagonia and the portuguese lands were not restricted to the angolese and mozambique coast.--EuroHistoryTeacher (talk) 21:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Try The Penguin Atlas of African History, or C. R. Boxer's Portuguese Seaborne Empire.  Unfortunately the latter is not scanned by Google, and is out of print, but I have a copy in my collection.  C. R. Boxer is by the way probably the preeminent English historian of Portuguese colonial history.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is another one.  The Penguin Atlas of World History p.242 The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:14, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

text: And another      Concise Atlas of World History p.107 The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And another .  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 22:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And another Historical Atlas of the British Empire, page 22.  Unfortunately Amazon don't show this page, but it is a map of the world showing European colonial possessions in 1630.  We see only the coasts of present day Mozambique and Angola shaded.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map modified 

message: According to WP:V, I am going to add little by little, depending on my available time, the sources that justify the depiction with dots of the territories of the kingdom of Portugal during the Iberian Union, as the map of the Spanish empire shows. Trasamundo (talk) 21:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I support that move.  The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 00:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Territories of Portugal 

message: The union could have been achieved earlier had Miguel da Paz, Prince of Asturias, become king. What exactly needs to be sourced? No scholar disputes the fact that Miguel was simultaneously heir apparent to the Portuguese throne and heir presumptive to the thrones of Aragon and Castile. Surtsicna (talk) 21:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation needed tag 

message: For the Portuguese "Hispania" and "Hespanha" was a geographic name for Iberian Peninsula until 1700s(even XIX century sometimes for some people, as the name "Iberia" of today), as its peninsular "homeland", but not so "homeland" as was Portugal already in Medieval Ages and Renaissence for Portuguese - Portugal already was their "nation", "homeland" and "motherland" (not only "Kingdom") - see Fernão Lopes before, Luis Vaz de Camões, António Ferreira, Gil Vicente, Garcia de Resende and many other great names.
But not for the Spanish, at least so late - the name became a "Country" or "motherland" without Portugal(as we know Spain today) and more early than 1716´s "Nueva Planta", altough "Nueva Planta" marks the unified Spain of today as the people know - altough the long spanish process has started in 1469-1512 as a united crown of crowns.
From some Seals and Portraits of Philip II(and I) on Habsburg´s Iberian Union times - 1580-1640:
"PHILIPPUS II HISPANIAR ET LUSITANIAE REX DIVI CAROLI V...ISABELLA EMANUELIS LUSITANIAE REGIS F. CAROLI V IMP. MAX. UXOR"
"PHILIPPUS DEI GRATIA REX HISPANIARVM VTRIVSQVE SICILIAE HIERVSALEM ET PORTVGALLIAE"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.113.163.75 (talk) 19:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: the name(other side)

message: The case of Portugal+Spain has been included in both the Dynastic Union and the Personal Union articles. I am not going to change this, as it would appear that the doming view favours Dynastic Union, while in my opinion it is more a Personal Union. Rui Gabriel Correia (talk) 08:40, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: apologies for the typo - it was indeed meant to say "dominant" - it would appear that the doming view favours Dynastic Union. Rui Gabriel Correia (talk) 08:39, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dynastic Union/ Personal Union 

message: Indias (Americas and Phillipines) was incorpored to the crown of Castile. Council of Indias was only a big part of council of Castile. --Santos30 (talk) 16:24, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I see another evidence of your rude manners to justify the POV the placing that the Indies belonged to the crown of Castile wherever and however without taking into account either the context or meaning of the phrases.
The aim of the map is to depict the domains of Philip II, in addition to that I added information about territorial councils to show how the Catholic monarch managed the issues of his domains through the polisynodial system of Councils. At no time, the map depicts the kingdoms, states and lordships of the Catholic monarchy, so the legend neither says anything nor should say anything about the realms (kingdoms...). Similarly if it is not shown that the Council of Aragon only engaged a part of the Crown of of Aragon, and the Council of Italy the other part of the Crown of Aragon along with imperial fiefs in Italy, then it mustn't show that the councils of Castile and that of the Indies engaged with territories of the crown of Castile. If the aim of the map is not to depict kingdoms, then it is not intention of the legend of the map show something that does not appear on the map. The map is not wrong because it depicts what it tries to show, and it doesn't show what you would like to put to justify your POV of placing indiscriminately that the Indies belonged to the crown of Castile wherever and however, because that's not the purpose of the map.
And in 1524 the Council of Indies split from that of Castile.  La creación del Consejo de Indias (1524) desglosado ya definitivamente del de Castilla [...] La primera media fue la creación del Real y Supremo Consejo de Indias, inspirado en los de Castilla (1480) y Aragón (1494). Por ella se desgajan las indias de la matriz castellana.. Trasamundo (talk) 14:19, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map POV 

message: An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Iberian Republic. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so.  signed, Rosguill talk 18:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Iberian Republic" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: "Iberian Union" is a modern name, not one used at the time, very much like the Byzantine empire. But, while the Byzantine empire article has this clarification, I've found none about this in the so-called "Iberian Union" article.
I think the best name would be "personal union of Spain and Portugal". Or even Spanish Habsburg empire, but considering this article is too Portuguese-centric, I guess it would be renamed. "Iberian Union" isn't someting that is taught in the History of Spain lessons in Spain, so I guess it's a Portuguese-centric way to not mention Spain. Back then, modern nation-states didn't exist yet, so people would consider themselves subjects of kings Philip II, III and IV of the House of Austria (Spanish name for the Habsburgs), with different cultures/backgrounds (Spanish, Portuguese), but not Spanish citizens of a Spanish state or Portuguese citizens or a Portuguese state living under one ruler. The ruler was Spanish, and lived in Spain, which was a more powerful country at the time, so it's naturally assumed to be the main partner in the union. This is not to make Portuguese people look unimportant or disrespect their legacy. Look at England and Ireland: they had been under a personal union since King John, even if the kingdoms hadn't been merged. But nobody talks about a "British Isles Union" to talk about that period.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.54.194.151 (talk) 16:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  The name "Iberian Union" 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:09, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: Originally a personal union, the Kingdoms of Portugal and Spain remained independent states, sharing a single monarch. Although, over time it became the same political unit, since the Portuguese had to make war against the Spanish to achieve the long-awaited independence from Portugal, as it happened in 1640. 87.223.34.73 (talk) 09:05, 26 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Originally it was a personal union, later it was a full union 

message: The Treaty of Lisbon makes the division official in 1668 de iure and the facto as territories (Ceuta etc) are exchanged between the two parties involved and this is accepted by both and also the intermediary as the British crown. This means that the independence wasn't achieved until 1668. JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa (talk) 21:51, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at English language book sources, I think it is fair to say that there is broad consensus among both 19th, 20th, and 21st Century sources to regard the Union as de facto ended with the deposition of the Vicereine of Portugal, Margaret of Savoy and the Duke of Braganza accepting the throne as John IV of Portugal in 1640, regardless of the fact that it took Spain 28 years of war to finally de jure recognize the legitimacy of the Portuguese monarch at the 1668 Treaty of Lisbon. Sam Sailor 10:41, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: So the iure they got the independence in 1668. The facto some territories were exchanged in 1668 with the Treaty of Lisbon as Ceuta. I understand that the borders were not defined until 1668, so the facto the Iberian Union finished in 1668. On the other hand, did the Braganza get international recognition before 1668? As far as I am concerned, not. Am I wrong if I suggest changing the date marking the end of the Iberian Union in 1668? JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa (talk) 19:38, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, that would violate one of our core content policies, Wikipedia:No original research. Sam Sailor 05:28, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Sam please find here all the research: here, here, here, here (Page 240) about the Braganza international relations that were inexistent until 1669. So now; can I change the end date of the Iberian union? JoaquindeMosquerayFigueroa (talk) 14:28, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, you may not. And I am not going to read the four URLs you casually dumped just to prove that you are wrong in your assertion, the WP:BURDEN is on you. But if you actually do a search for sources, you will find that they widely agree on 1640 as the end of the Union. Sam Sailor 16:38, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with ; this is not some school project, your views on "international recognition" only coming by 1669 are irrelevant. Historiography has always defined the union as lasting from 1580-1640. That is what reputable sources define it as, what popular understanding defines it as, etc. A few random papers do not change that. your first source makes zero reference to the Iberian union lasting until 1668, neither does this source. Your other source even states verbatim "the separation of Portugal from the House of Hapsburg (1640) and the Restauration Wars that lasted until 1668...". The wars may have lasted longer, but the seperation was effective as of 1640. You have no sources and only claims from random papers. And on top of that, not a single source provided is dedicated to the topic of the Iberian Union or the Restoration Wars and instead only cover those subjects tangentially. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 15:40, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The union was de jure and the facto finished with the Treaty of Lisbon 1668