Template talk:House of Habsburg (Spain)

message: Yes, Spanish titles were primary, so what? I'm not proposing removing them, but add also the Portuguese titles, as they were used in Portugal. Anyway why this template was created? I think the old one was good. (I'm not saying this is worse)Câmara 14:55, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Spanish titles were primary and therefore the Portuguese titles were secondary. It is not necessary to add them for the reasons of presentation. All of these sovereigns are known to history in general by their Spanish titles and ordinals. The Portuguese titles were used in Portugal, but Portugal does not encompass the whole world. The Spanish titles have primary usage. Charles 14:58, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Reasons of presentation? I don't think the inclusion of them affects the template, in fact it become more informative. If it had some distortion or else we could talk about this, but I don't find reasonable this argument as this doesn't happen. Both of the titles of the Scottish-English kings titles were also used in their templates. I think the Portuguese titles must be included, as their inclusion only makes better the template.Câmara 15:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The difference between the English monarchs and the Spanish monarchs is that there is precedence of usage in the English language for the dual ordinal (which was only used for the two Jameses for the most part). Such is not true for the Spanish monarchs. Charles 15:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But Charles I is most usually known in English language as Charles V, the Holy Roman Emperor. It is correct to put here Charles V? I don't think so. Without the Portuguese titles, most people will assume that the "Spanish and Portuguese royalty" applies to the five kings (only the color distinguishes them), or that Philip II was also II of Portugal, which is not true either. English language literature usually refers to the Philips as the kings of Spain, not as kings of Portugal, that's why Portuguese titles are not usually seen.Câmara 16:36, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Charles V is an anomaly. I cannot necessarily support the deviation in using "Charles I", but I will not further the problem by introducing secondary titles when the primary functioning titles are the Spanish ones. If necessary, the Portuguese reference can be removed entirely. Charles 18:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: What are you doing? Now you are denying that the Habsburg ruled in Portugal? Why Charles V is an anomaly? He is mostly known, everywhere, as Charles V of the Holy Roman Empire, exactly like the Philips were mostly known by their Spanish titles. So you're choosing the Spanish titles for both kings, excluding the HRE and Portugal...why? Primary/secondary? How do you establish primary/secondary? Because they get first the Spanish title? But then why James VI/I uses both titles? Precedence of usage in English language? But Charles's precedence of usage in English language is Charles V. So what? Witch problem are you talking about? The "secondary" titles the template misses now are only Holy Roman Emperor and King of Portugal, two of the most important titles in that time. It's that difficult to have "Charles I (V of the Holy Roman Empire)" and "Philip X (X-1 of Portugal)"? If a template of the Holy Roman Emperors is done, how do you do? You leave the HR one or the Spanish one? Or do you put both? I cannot understand the way you think.Câmara 23:56, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Was Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor titled King of Portugal? Charles V is an anomaly of all the Spanish monarchs in this template because all others are primarily known by their Spanish titles. Simply as that. You cannot compare it to James I & VI. I didn't decide how these monarchs are to be known in history. All Holy Roman Emperors are known by that title. We go by primary and most common usage here. Evidently, Portugal wasn't as important as you'd like to think when almost all of these kings (except Charles) are known as "of Spain". I do not get what you are trying to accomplish. Obviously trying to push Portuguese pride or something. I'm Canadian and you don't see me naming Elizabeth II as "Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom (and Canada)". Charles 00:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, of course Charles was not king of Portugal, but this template is of the Habsburg, not him only. But how does it works? Common usage or not? If so, why is it Charles I on the template? Of course Charles I is the correct name because this is the "Spanish Royalty" template. But the Holy Roman Empire title should be mentioned too, as the Portuguese. That doesn't make the template incorrect, but better! The Portuguese kings have templates to all, but now the Habsburg kings of Portugal don't have. Should I make another template to them? I don't think so because the page will probably become excessively full. A simple change to "Spanish and Portuguese Royalty" and the "Philip X (X-1 of Portugal)" solves this, it is so simple. You cannot compare it here to the Page name. I think Philip II of Spain should be the page name but in the template it should be Philip II (I of Portugal), here we are talking about the House of Habsburg. The "Portuguese fanatic" argument? Please do not think about you don't know. I'm Portuguese yes, but you must know that in Portugal is considered anti-patriotic to defend the Habsburg kings. I do not think so, I defend the truth, that's is why I treat the Habsburg kings as neutraly as I treat any other king of Portugal, for example. And I must say to you that in the English language literature Portugal is most usually omitted or ignored. The kings were known as "of Spain" because they become first  kings of Spain and only then of Portugal and because Spanish relations with Europe were stronger than Portuguese ones. Also because England did not supported Philip rule over Portugal (Elizabeth I tried to make rebellions in Portugal) because without Portugal England was exposed to the Spanish threat. Elizabeth II's Canadian title is not used because she has lots of kingdom-level titles and because you don't have a completely separate Canadian royalty. Portugal and Spain did, like Scotland and England. A single "Spanish and Portuguese royalty" and a "Philip X(X-1 of Portugal)" solves this problem. Or should I make a template to the Portuguese Habsburg kings? Câmara 01:07, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portuguese titles 

message: A request for comments which may impact this template has been started at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies#RfC on style in royal family templates. You are welcome to comment there. Fram (talk) 14:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC notification