Talk:Philip I of Castile

message: I agree that this article should definitely NOT be called "Phillip I of Castile".  However, most of the information cited on here is incorrect also. The main point that is being ignored is that Ferdinand did not merely become co-ruler of Castile with Isabella, he was King of Aragon in his own right.  Now, while he was the closest male relative to Isabella upon her death (with the exception of the child Charles), his right as King of Castile ended with Isabella's death.  The right to the throne of Castile first was impressed upon her daughters in succession, Isabella, Maria, (and then upon their deaths), Joanna.  Joanna's husband was not included in this decree, even though she married Phillip many years before.  In fact, Phillip's father Maximillian did not even give him any titles of his own (wisely) because he knew that Phillip was incapable of ably managing such responsiblity.  He was merely heir to the Holy Roman Empire, as his father was Emperor at that point, as well as Duke of Burgundy.  (The titles of Burguny, separate from the Empire, did not part ways until 1527 with the Battle of Pavia and Charles took the mantle of Holy Roman Emperor.)
The reason that Philip was excluded from Isabella's decree is the same reason that Ferdinand was excluded--to be declared heir to the throne of Castile, the Cortes (a kind of Parliment)had to approve the nomination, an action that was most notable struck down when Philip first approched the subject upon Isabella's death.  Ferdinand and Phillip spread rumours of Joanna's "insanity" (most probably a form of clinical depression)to be able to exclude her from taking the throne; the battle continued until Phillip's death.  By this point, Joanna's son, raised by Phillip's sister Margaret, (once married to Joanna's brother Juan) was able to take the throne uncontested as the sole heir to both Burgundy, Spain, and in 1527, the Holy Roman Empire. 67.172.123.47 (talk) 22:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: He was king of Castile - it was in right of his wife, but he was nevertheless king.  Notably, he is Philip I, in the same way that his father-in-law is Ferdinand V, despite neither of them being king in their own right. Through to the end of the middle ages, husbands of heiresses were generally considered to hold their wives' title. And, of course, while Philip's main territory was the Burgundian inheritance, this did not include Burgundy itself, which brings into question the numbering, I think - Philip I of Burgundy did not rule over any of the lands which this Philip ruled, I think... john k 16:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I oppose the proposed move to "Philip the Handsome". We need to keep these article names systematical. Besides, there are NOT enough grounds for a change to a nickname, see the requirements set by naming convention for monarchs. If we let this slip to nicknamed, we will be flloded under all sorts of nickname proposals, some of which nicknames will be POV. The reason for this ruler's naming is simply that Castile was his highest title, and we do it in that way here. The next highest title he held and used, was Philip I, Archduke of Austria. I do not want to see these articles return to a chaos situation of pages being in unpredictable places and forming a funny shit-bungle in a category or like. The proposer of this move should first go and ask if our naming convention is changed, and it probably will not. Shilkanni 23:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The relevant policy is  WP:NC (names and titles). We do not use nicknames unless there is overwhelming usage for them in English sources, as with Alfred the Great or Henry the Lion. Under the circumstances, I would be prepared to consider Philip I of Spain, if that makes any editor happier. Philip the Fair is unacceptable for ambiguity with Philip IV of France.  Septentrionalis 19:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: That has been an oversight. Possibly due to the fact that his royal rule was not at all uncontested. Still, he probably should have another title. Go suggest something there. However, regarding THIS item here, (were it the case) even a mistake elsewhere is no argument for making a mistake here. Shilkanni 19:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it was a mistake over there, as William is either known as a count under the mentioned name or as a King under the name William of Holland. Anyway, Philipp's rule (only per his wife) was much more contested than William's was - William was elected as an anti-king but after his rivals' death he was the undisputed king (in his own right) of Germany. All in all, I think hard and fast rules are good but they should allow for exceptions in cases such as this. Str1977 (smile back) 20:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming

message: Ok, I have started making an effort to get this article into some kind of better shape.  I have added some subdivisions and started in on fleshing out the details.  Please let me know if you have any ideas for improvement. Eusebeus 10:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  the pic in the German version is much more "handsome"82.152.158.193 22:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: The article states that some of the territory was removed from Mary of Burgundy's power by the "Joyous Entry of 1477."  The article on the Joyous Entry indicates it happened more than a century earlier, though it seems to have been a document that was followed for several centuries--and it seems to involve the Dukes of Brabant rather than Burgundy.  The article on Mary does not mention it at all;  it talks about the Great Privilege she was forced to sign in 1477.  Can someone who knows something about all this clarify it in all relevant articles?  Thanks.  Laura1822 14:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, to a degree, at Mary's page. The confusion derives form the fact the agreement by which her rights were stripped is also referred to commonly by its Dutch name, Blijde Inkomst, which was, and still is, the means by which recognition was extended to the Counts of Flanders, etc.... Eusebeus 12:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joyous Entry of 1477? 

message: No contemporary or modern author described him as thus either.  Wikipedia can't make outrageous claims like this.  24.255.11.149 (talk) 06:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can you indicate where that claim is made? I don't see it. Eusebeus (talk) 15:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not made in this article. He/she objects to the (properly sourced, naturally) reference in several articles to the purchase by Ferdinand and Isabella of the Byzantine imperial rights from Andrew Palaeologus. Thus, he/she has been dumping this message on a handful of Spanish related pages. Michael  Sanders 19:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philip never claimed the title Emperor of the Romans 

message: The picture from the guy called Juan de Flandes certainly comes from the same hand as the picture of Charles V in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bernaerd_van_Orley_004.jpg 
I mean, look at the pictures, they even contain the same colors! You certainly need to admit that Bernard van Orley and this invented "Flander Juan" (with the same death year as Leonardo Da Vinci, lol) are certainly the same person...or were they both Albrecht Dürer? 
Hint: Never believe what's written in old chronicles, they just randomly spill out names. However, if you look at the craftmanship of Dürer you could easily imagine how ugly the Spanish king family was...just have a look: Juan de Flandes --178.197.225.27 (talk)
*The above IP's contributions to several talk pages  can be taken with a grain of salt. JNW (talk) 00:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pics from invented "drawers" 

message: What was Philip I's native language ? Was it Dutch ? Or French ? Do we actually know it from any reliable source ? 161.24.19.44 (talk) 14:44, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: From the way his lips are pursed in his painting, his native language would definitely have to be French.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.148.71.212 (talk) 21:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Native language of Philip I 

message: Repeating a 2008 request (Radzewicz, above);
Why is he "handsome"? (Is it a dodgy translation)?
When was it first applied?
Is it in History (of this article) and lost?
MBG02 (talk) 16:31, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is he "handsome"? 

message: Spain was not created at that time. Use terms correctly. You mean Castile! 83.44.96.114 (talk) 12:29, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spain or Castile?