Talk:Crown of Aragon

Old discussion

This seems rather inappropriate as a separate article, unless someone really wants to flesh it out. I would say this mostly should be merged into Aragon, with a redirect from this title. The last paragraph is about Castille and Andalucia, not Aragon, and should be in either the article on Castille or Andalucia, not here. -- Jmabel 05:29, Jul 15, 2004 (UTC)

• Note that at the time of the above remark, the title of the article was "Aragonese Empire", not the more appropriate "Crown of Aragon". - Jmabel | Talk 06:47, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Since the Aragon Empire and the present region of Aragon are different things in many aspects, including territory, they must be separate articles. The Last paragraph is about the merge of the Aragon Empire with Castille. I will try to expand it.

Merging them? ...

Aragon is a historical region and an autonomous community, while the Crown of Aragon and the Kingdom of Aragon were different things. If you told me the Kingdom of Aragon to be mixed with Aragon, well, maybe, but THE CROWN? The crown also included Catalonia, València, Sicília, Sardinia, Neopatria, Southern Italy, and many others. It's senseless. We're not mixing Spanish Empire with Spain, nor Holy Roman Empire with Germany. Onofre Bouvila 19:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Aragon Crown and Kingdom of Aragon

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)

Catalan counts and Kings of Aragon

"The real centre of this kingdom was Barcelona, since it was the Catalan counts that inherited the Aragonese Crown and not the other way around." That's plain false. The Crown was inherited by the son of a Catalan count and a Aragonese Queen. For more info, see Petronila of Aragon and Ramon_Berenguer IV, Count of Barcelona, parents of Alfonso II of Aragon. I don't understand what is "the other way around". --Enric Naval 15:03, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The point having been, presumably, that the male line came through the Catalan counts, not through Petronila. I think this should be clarified and restored. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:33, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

This is the text: The union of the two territories of Catalonia and Aragon was caused by the marriage of Ramon Berenguer IV and Petronila of Aragon. This merged the County of Barcelona with the Kingdom of Aragon under the name of "Crown of Aragon". Their son, Alfonso II, inherited both titles. What clarifications need to be done? Maybe indicating that Berenguer was Count of Barcelona and Petronila was Queen of Aragon? Alfonso II inherited both titles at the same time, he wasn't a catalan count inheriting a the aragonese kingdom. Are you implying that the Count of Barcelona title was more important because it was held by a male? --Enric Naval 19:31, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I could be mistaken, and I can't claim specific expertise, but I think that at that time in Western Europe the male line would almost universally have been thought of as the "main" line of descent. But that is probably not particularly important, and I don't care if it's dropped; I didn't put it there, for what it's worth.

I do think, however, that it is pretty clear that, in this empire without a fixed capital, the Catalan areas (in the broad sense, including Valencia and the Balearics) were generally more dominant than Aragon. The Aragonese Empire was a major maritime power, but not much of a power on land. The important cities were the ports, and those were all in Catalan-speaking regions. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:40, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

Valencia is not a Catalonian area, it was conquered by Aragonese noblemen, NOT Catalonian and repoblated by Aragonese too, like well known families as Borja (later Borgia). Valencia was a kingdom, Catalonia NEVER was a kingdom, Valencia was always indepedent from Catalonian counties. As Matrimonial Agreements between queen Petronila I and count Ramon Berenguer IV said (you only have to read them)the main line was agreed to be FEMININE in this special affair, so Count Ramon Berenguer IV was Prince of Aragon, but not king. He relinquished his lienage by common consent and his lineage was wiped out in 1150. Ramon Berenguer IV adopted a superior lineage but relinquished his own. "Count of Barcelona" became only a title used by the King of Aragon as Marquis of Tortosa or Lord of Montepelier. The Royal House held the name of Aragon as its principal title . Barcelona was not the center of the Crown, King of Aragon court was travelling. Kings of Aragon were crowned in Zaragoza for example and some of them lived in Valencia. Catalonia was not the heart of the crown, Crown of Aragon had many hearts because of its special political configuration. Catalonia was a part of the crown, not the crown itself. Catalonian nacionalism is trying to change history but history is history in spite of politics.

Irati (interspersed 27 March 2005)

Catalan-speaking region doesn't equal neither catalan political influence nor administrative territory of Catalonia. Some of those seaports were in Valencia and Majorca, which had its own separate laws and administration. --Enric Naval 15:34, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Role of Barcelona in Aragon Crown

Barcelona was certainly a most important city, specially since Aragon kings were forced to stop expanding in the Peninsule and start expanding in the Mediterranean, with Barcelona's port being very near to Mallorca's port, and being a preferred embarking place for both catalan and aragonese troops, but it was not the "real centre", as there wasn't such a thing, and no document of that epoch talks about Aragon Crown having a "capital" or a "central city". Please cite official documents of that epoch before changing this. --Enric Naval 15:03, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree it wasn't "the center" -- there was none -- but I think your edit is even less appropriate (and you don't cite any documents yourself, so you really don't have any right to demand that others produce documentation if they want to revert your newly added paragraph). I think you are quite wrong on the dominance of Valencia. Yes, once the crowns of Aragon and Castile were joined Valencia became the more important, but up to that time I think it is clear that Barcelona was the more important port and the more important city.

I'm not going to revert this myself, since I don't claim to be expert, just clueful, but I would encourage others who know Catalan history better than I do to comment and possibly revert or edit. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:37, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

About the documents, you're right, but because of the wrong reasons :) Since it is never mentioned anywhere that there was no capital, I can't possibly produce any document.... I'll try to be more careful from now on.

By "being bigger" I meant "having more population", I should edit that, because it's confusing.

I have seen times when both Barcelona and Valencia were claimed to be the most importants seaports and times when only Barcelona was mentioned. Since I have no economical data to make an objective comparison, you must probably be correct. Want me to edit that myself? --Enric Naval 20:16, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sure, go for it. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:34, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

Done --Enric Naval 15:25, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Crown of Aragon

In my opinion, the Aragonese Empire is an episode in the history of the Crown of Aragon, that is the reference name of this politic entity. Afterwards, this denomination is far more popular and well-known. And, ... besides... the word "empire" sounds a little bit military aggressive and pretentious, don't you think?

So I suggest the change of the excellent contents of Aragonese Empire to Crown of Aragon, and redirect the article to it. Any objections? --Joan sense nick 18:02, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Mmmh... The Crown of Aragon, in strict sense, are the kingdoms which its royalty sovereign were under the King of Aragon and Sovereigner Sir of Catalonia (Count of Barcelona). It means that the Crown of Aragon has a territorial evolution starting with the dinastic union (but not politic, it's important) of Aragon and Catalonia, and later the self-founded Kingdom of Valencia, while the rest of the territories were under the royalty sovereign of anothers, altough those kings came from the same dinasty, from Barcelona House.

You can see the chronological table about the changes on the royalty sovereign of each territory at catalan wikipedia: ca:Corona d'Aragó. But in every territory there remained the local political status, and it wasn't imposed any law, so it isn't correct to talk about any empire. --Martorell 06:16, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Someone has now edited to "but its most usual name is "Crown of Aragon", for it is the original name." (emphasis mine.) Is this last phrase really needed? Doesn't seem to me to add much. If there is something to it, could someone explain what? And then maybe we can express it more clearly? - Jmabel | Talk

Lacking explanation, I'm going to remove that added phrase. - Jmabel | Talk 19:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

It would seem that the term was introduced by Jerónimo_Zurita_y_Castro to name the lands belonging to the King of Aragon as a whole. I don't know any historical references before that. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

"Catalan-Aragonese Confederation"

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Duchy of Athens

The maximum extent of the Aragonese Empire.

IIRC, Athens was never part of the Crown. (For those unfamiliar with the whole story, see Catalan Company.) I commented it out in the article but can't edit the map that goes with it. Could someone do it? Remove Athens altogether (the duchy must have been far smaller than is depicted anyway) or paint it in a different shade and add a note to the effect that it was briefely ruled over by Catalan mercenaries (BUT not by the King of Aragon) until they sold it to this Florentine upstart. -- apoivre 18:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Will do right away. I'll do the same with Corsica, which, as I recall, was snatched from the Crown by a Genoese coup de main. Albrecht 18:36, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Apparently, the Pope gave the Crown both Corsica and Sardinia but the Catalans apparently had a look at the Corsicans and knew better than to try and take possession :) -- 18:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I had a better look at the map and it is rather bizarre. It shows all of the North of Greece (the Wiki article on the Dukes of Athens, by the way, shows Peter IV of Aragon as the Duke so I may have been wrong) AND about three quarters of Italy. OK, this is the Aragonese "Empire" like when? If we must show every territory the House of Barcelona ruled over in different epochs, please use different colours/shades or dates. (Whoever will be kind enough to edit the map, look up the boundaries at www.euratlas.com) --apoivre 18:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The map was copied from a public domain illustration I found at the Library of Iberian Resources. Possessions in Italy include Sicily and the Kingdom of Naples (compare Image:Habsburg Map 1547.jpg, which shows the same boundaries in the context of the Spanish/Habsburg union). I reduced the extent of the territory marked in Greece, but, on further verification, my original version (with Euboea) was correct. This is not a composite map patched together from different periods—with the exception of Greece and Corsica, all of these regions remained in the empire for centuries. Anyway, don't hesitate to add more suggestions. The general idea at first was to include some representation of the Catalan Company's exploits in Asia minor, because, after all:

"No Catalan will ever forget that a few thousand warriors from his country became for six years the terror of Asia Minor, of Constantinople and of Greece, marching as and where they pleased, routing armies, destroying fleets and desolating provinces, from the Taurus Mountains to the Acropolis of Athens; and the tale of their adventures, well-attested as it is, resembles rather the fantastic legends of some fabulous generation than the comparatively sober and pedestrian course of European history."

But maybe this is too complicated, so I've removed the dots. Albrecht 19:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

":Possessions in Italy include Sicily and the Kingdom of Naples (compare Image:Habsburg Map 1547.jpg, which shows the same boundaries in the context of the Spanish/Habsburg union). ... This is not a composite map patched together from different periods—with the exception of Greece and Corsica, all of these regions remained in the empire for centuries." - My problem with the Kingdom of Naples is it was only conquered by Alfons V of Aragon in 1442, long after Athens was sold and the House of Barcelona died out and just a few years before Isabel and Fernando got married. -- apoivre 03:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The caption does say "maximum extent" of the Crown. You can clarify it further by adding a precise date if you'd like, and maybe something to the effect of "light blue denotes former possessions." Otherwise, I hardly see what the problem is; the solid blue areas were all simultaneously under Aragonese control. Albrecht 14:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Miscellaneous issues

This article was a bit of a mess in terms of the writing when I came through just now. I believe I've fixed it in terms of style, but there seem to be a lot of remaining issues:

• There is nothing here to indicate that Catalan-Aragonese Confederacy is a modern term, not one from the period.
• "The economic centre of this empire was split between Barcelona and Valencia" seems awkward. It suggests that somehow a single "centre" was split. Is there any problem with saying (I think more accurately and clearly) "Barcelona and Valencia were the empire's two most important economic centres"?
• When we say that the Marqués de Lozoya "described the Crown of Aragón more like a confederacy than a centralized Kingdom, let alone an empire", this seems to involve a great deal of interpretation, unless he used words much more specific than I believe he did. Is there either an appropriate secondary source to cite here that makes this claim, or can someone cite specific passages in the primary source to back this claim?
• "Perhaps more important, it never regarded itself as an empire." How do we claim to know this?
• "Thus it may be better described as one of the major powers in Europe at the time of its height." Weasel-worded and uncited.

That's all in the lead. Much of the rest of the article is less problematic, but still lacking in citation. One other matter seems to ask particularly for citation, because it involves opinion and interpretation:

• The struggle between king and nobility as the basis for granting fueros, and the claim that the equivalents happened throughout Europe.

- Jmabel | Talk 03:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jmabel. Yes, your edit makes this article look much more better in terms of words choice and style: thanks!

On the other stuff,

• yes, I believe your question regarding the "Catalan-Aragonese Confederacy" is a good one: feel free to make it clear that this is a latter day term.
• I agree that your solution for the "split centre" is much more accurate: feel free again to put it the way you suggest (I wrote this part myself so feel specially free to do so).
• As for the Empire, I also made myself this edit by making clear that "it never regarded itself as an Empire". We can know about this in terms of legal formalism, if you want: as you know, back in the day, it was definitely important this "empire" claim since the only one which claim itself an Empire was the Sacred Roman Germanic one and it based its claim on some -unlikely, to say the least, but good enough and accepted back in the day- so called ancestry from the Roman empire (even though this was no empire at all, at least as we think of them nowadays).

Or, put it this other way if you want: you will not find a single document from the Crown of Aragón calling itself an "Imperium", but just "Kingdom": this should be enough to claim that it never regarded itself as such, for it it did, they would have claim it in their official chronicles, correct?

What I mean is that no other power than the Sacred Roman Germanic Whatever dared to claim itself and Empire because that terms wasn't used at ease back in the day: the Crown of Aragón was more than happy to rule the sea at its height and be a major power but they didn't need to call themselves "Empire" by any means, for this would be considered hostile and not accurate by the other contemporary states. Yes, I know a citation in this regard would be great in this regard, but...

I stand also by the assertion that the fueros were a mechanism to evolve into a more centralized state and debase nobility as an in between power.

But I know for all these supporting citations would be best, so feel free to revert all of them if you'd rather only have cited claims here.

Mountolive 16:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I've edited accordingly, or at least I hope accordingly. - Jmabel | Talk 00:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Jmabel, for your accurate editions. --Joan sense nick 23:02, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Templates

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)

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)

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)

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)

Shouldn't someone create {{Crown of Aragon}} to try to resolve some of these problems? Physchim62 (talk) 12:30, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

That would be a good approach. - Jmabel | Talk 22:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Malta and Aragon

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).

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)

Map

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)

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)

Merely a principate

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)

It's been more than a week and nobody answered, so I'm changing it. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Removing (dis)infobox

Crown of Aragon Corona d'Aragó
1137–1715
Flag of the Crown Arms
Aragonese Empire at its greatest extent.
Capital	Zaragoza Alternatives: Barcelona, Naples and Valencia
Other languages	Catalan, Spanish and Neapolitan
Religion	Roman Catholicism
Government	Monarchy
History
• Aragon and Barcelona merger	1137
• Disestablished	1715
Population
• 1443	300,000

It is notoriously difficult to identify the nature of entities like the Holy Roman Empire, the United Kingdom, the European Union, the so-called Angevin Empire, and, of course, the Crown of Aragon. Why anybody thinks an informative survey of the entity and its history can be fit in a box I have no idea.

The box starts off by asserting that the Crown's native name was Corona d'Aragó, but that is modern Catalan. What about the Aragonese? And what about medieval orthography? Corona Darago looks better to me, but it's not as if there was one and only one "native name" for the Crown. Besides that, what is a native of the Crown? And "Crown of Aragon" is not a "conventional long name" nor is "Aragonese Emprie" the common name: these are both just terms encountered in English historiography an entity which is difficult to pin down.

Status "empire"? It was no more an empire than are modern France, the USA, the UK, the Netherlands, and a host of other countries are empires just because they have overseas territories and rule various distinct populations. It had no emperor either. It was also not a monarchy, but was composed of several monarchies and it was not considered (as the opening paragraph wrongly states) indissoluble or permanent by its monarch, since Sicily was separate off and on, as were the Greek states, and Provence, and even Barcelona and Aragon almost split in the late 12th century.

The "Crown" did not begin so neatly in 1137 and end in 1715. 1137 is just the date of a marriage between an infant heiress and an adult man. 1715 is the just date in which the "Kingdom of Spain" abolished its sub-monarchies. Giving dates like that just misleads the uninformed reader. As does giving the Crown a flag and a coat of arms: these hardly applied as they do today to a multinational conglomeration of various monarchies and titles, jursidctions, states, etc... It is misleading to provide them, especially considering the variations between the use of such banners and arms in the various parts of the "Empire".

Why is Latin mentioned up to the 7th century? And Greek thereafter? I don't even know what is being talked about here. And Catalan, Spanish, and Neapolitan were spoken, but apparently not so much Sicilian, Greek, Aragonese, Occitan, or Italian. Zaragoza was not the capital of the Crown but of the Kingdom of Aragon. The Crown had not capital. The box is out. Srnec (talk) 17:48, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

The Catalan (FA), Spanish and Italian articles all have the same infobox. Please, if you're going to follow me this much, stop ripping out infoboxes and athiesing the articles by removing anything of colour, vigure, etc. It is desribed as an empire, by many, many sources.[1][2][3][4][5] - Gennarous (talk) 10:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Practice at other Wikis is not relevant here and if they have they same one then they are just as innacurate.

When you throw around accusations of "athiesing" (sic) you become hard to take seriously. What does "atheism" (presumably) that have to do with anything? I have no problem with colour, hence I kept the map, but I have a big issue with misinformation.

I don't dispute that it is described as an empire, but so is America and it is not an "empire" in terms of its mode of government. Neither was the Crown. It was a de facto "empire" b/c it was a conglomeration of many lands/titles/countries/peoples under one rule. See also Angevin Empire for this type of usage. Besides, the empire bit was hardly the main point of my argument. Srnec (talk) 17:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The sources disagree, the other Wikipedia articles disagree, which by the way is significant in the case of the Catalan one since its reached FA status and is to be used for help. Removing the infobox is unacceptable. Adjustments with sources if you feel the native language name is wrong is fine. But blanking infoboxes (temps you seem to have something against, as per strange previous activity on the County of Sicily article) is simply not how we deal with something like that. Desist.

PS - Atheising is like in the Eastern Bloc where they stripped away their flags, their indentity, everything and replaced it with dull nothingness. Ripping away the symbols of the Crown of Aragon, its arms, its flag, its infobox is atheising in that sense. I hope this puts across what I meant. - Gennarous (talk) 18:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't like the infobox and I don't want it there. I am not required to keep it there, but you are required to keep it accurate if you want to argue for keeping it there. As long as it is a piece of misinformative junk, it must stay out. The responisibility for fixing it lies with those who actually want it, but you can't just keep a box with so many errors in the article: that's unacceptable! (And I notice you haven't addressed my arguments yet... And you are politicising things again...) Srnec (talk) 21:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Disinfoboxes

A box aggressively attracts the marginally  literate eye with apparent promises to contain a  reductive summary of information that can't be  neatly contained. Like a bulleted list, or a time-  line that substitutes for genuine history, it offers  a competitive counter-article, stripped of nuance.  As a substitute for accuracy and complexity a box  trumps all discourse.                —courtesy of User:Wetman

Gennarous intention is the best, still, other than the quite unfortunate 'I dont like and I dont want' I fundamentally agree with Srnec's more elaborated reasoning as read above. I'd say that the infobox adds more problems than it actually solves. Mountolive _{group using a loop of another pop group} 00:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

My argument has nothing to do with what I like and want. It is true that I neither like nor want infoboxes in general, but I often cannot argue against them because they "standard" and because some of them are accurate, if not, in my opinion, very informative. In this case I happen to have the luxury of being able to argue against the infobox because it seems to me it will never be salvageable. Some subjects are just too complicated to fit in a box. Srnec (talk) 19:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The infobox needs to be sourced and restored with only the sourced stuff. I already tried to source a few things below. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

1137-????

Crown of Aragon Corona de Aragon
1137
Flag of the Crown Arms
Aragonese Empire at its greatest extent in the 1380s.
Capital	None. Important cities : Barcelona, Naples, Zaragoza and Valencia
Other languages	Catalan, Spanish and Neapolitan
Religion	Roman Catholicism
Government	Monarchy
History
• Aragon and Barcelona merger	1137

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: [6] [7] 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)

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.[8] 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)

"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)

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)

"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)

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)

Emperor Charles V: Carlos Quinto. Sorry. Srnec (talk) 23:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

1479 or 1714?

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 [9](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 [10], 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" [11]
• 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"[12]

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)

1137?

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)

more sources on 1137:

• "The "Crown of Aragon" in the fourteenth century was actually the union in one person of dominion over numerous political entities. The County of Barcelona and the kingdom of Aragon had been united through marriage in 1137, and remained so thereafter. This resulted in a rather anomalous numbering system for the kings of Aragon-Catalonia, so that Peter the Ceremonious, for example, was Pedro IV of Aragon and Pere III of Catalonia."Boswell, The Royal Treasure: Muslim Communities under the Crown of Aragon in the Fourteenth Century
• "The XVII International Congress on the History of the Crown of Aragon will be held in Barcelona and Lérida, 7-12 September 2000. This year's topic: "The Urban World in the Crown of Aragon from 1137 Onwards." Information is available online at: congressos@sacu.ub.es"Newsletter of the American Academy of Research Historians of Medieval Spain November 1999
• "A similar kind of monarchical unity in regnal diversity developed in 1137 when the marriage of Ramón Berenguer IV to Queen Petronilla of Aragon lashed two very different countries to the will of one ruler. (...)The count of Barcelona's court entered into a new phase of complexity and professionalism after the union of Catalonia and Aragon in 1137 (...) Ramon Berenguer IV who, with his marriage to Petronilla, acceded to power in Aragon in 1137 but never bore a regal title there, being known instead as the princeps Aragonensium" Donald J. Kagay, The Usatges of Barcelona : The Fundamental Law of Catalonia

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)

aragonese empire

There are sources for this name [13]. 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

status, empire

For the "status = Empire" part, I was not sure about this, so I looked at {{Infobox Former Country}} and saw the list at {{Infobox Former Country/Categories}}. 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."[14], 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)" [15]

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

official languages

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)

Absolutely. Srnec (talk) 04:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I sourced a pair of languages on "es" version [16], 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)

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)

population

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)

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)

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)

Quite why it's useless to put it in the box. Srnec (talk) 23:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

coats of arms

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)

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)

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)

'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)

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)

flag

I found no source, but the flag is most probably correct, see eswiki article about a flag used by Jaume I, including photography of it --Enric Naval (talk) 23:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

National flags I don't believe existed in that time, so it ought to be removed, though the four bars as a symbol of the Crown (be it as a pennon, flag, shield, whatever) is alright. Srnec (talk) 04:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The box doesn't say anywhere that it is representing a national flag. That's the flag used by the King, I think it was brought by the king to battles, and I think it was also the flag used by the ships. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Unless it's the "Flag of the Crown of Aragon" it doesn't belong in the box. I still think the box is uninformative and misinforms much. (The four bars were a symbol of the Crown. They could be used on fabric, paper or parchment, chields, seals, coins, etc. "Flag" is a loaded term.) Srnec (talk) 05:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The flag needs a bit of sourcing for what it exactly represents and how it was exactly used, but Kings of Aragon used actual flags with the four bars since James I of Aragon times, so I don't see the problem with saying that there was a flag. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is putting it in a box without any context or explanation. Is it flag the same way the Star-spangled Banner is a flag or the Tricouleur? Not exactly. Is it like the flag of a monarch? Maybe moreso. Who knows when it's in a box. Put it alongside some text in a section the symbols of the Crown and you've got yourself an encyclopaedia. Srnec (talk) 23:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no requirement to give such detailed explanations on the infobox. Since it's a sumary, a section can be created anyways with a detailed explanation of the uses of the flag. I have to say cawiki has a separate article for the flag on medieval time [17], another for the same flag on modern time [18] and another for the valencian version [19]. eswiki also has a separate flag article (which, btw, contradicts its catalan counterpart on certain key points) [20]. This doesn't prevent them from just saying "flag" on the infobox of their respective versions of Crown of Aragon without the article suffering from it. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

"There is no requirement to give such detailed explanations on the infobox." Exactly! That's why an infobox is a waste of space that leaves the reader underinformed. Srnec (talk) 05:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I sourced the flag and put a more accurate caption [21]. Notice that the page of Generalitat Catalana (government of Catalonia) gives another origin for the flag [22], but it's not sourced by any historian, and doesn't make claims that contradict the caption that I put (it's probably sourced from [23], where it explains that it's a heraldic flag, which means that it was translated from a coat of arms to a piece of fabric). --Enric Naval (talk) 11:50, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

(deindent) So what does the reader learn? Not much in my opinion. We have conflicting government websites (neithre reliable for this in my opinion) talking about the origins of a "flag" that was not originally a flag but merely a symbol, found on seals and in chansonniers, on shields and pennons, etc. I still think it oughta go, infobox and all. I am not convinced by your online governmental (not academic or even impartial) sources. Srnec (talk) 02:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

quick answer, the aragonese government page is sourced from "BLASON DE ARAGON. EL ESCUDO Y LA BANDERA, de Guillermo Fatás y Guillermo Redondo. Ed. Diputación General de Aragón. Zaragoza, 1995.", which is reliable (there is no requirement for it be impartial, and you should find a equaly reliable source that contradicts the caption before challenging it). I don't source the book itself because I don't have access to any copy of it. (I assume that the government of Aragon didn't misrepresent Fatás, or they would have been a nice little escandal there.)

The flag had a origin on seals, but that was during Alfonso II's time, that means around 1162-1196, which means that it was a flag during 95%-90% of crown's existance. Medieval times flags had not the same meaning that flags have today, but they are still flags, and anyways the caption says "pennon", not "flag". The template uses a parameter called "flag", but the caption states clearly that it's a pennon, and that it was used by the monarchs. No ambiguity there. You should find a reliable source that says that the crown had no flag at all before removing it. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

another quickie: the aragonese government says it was used by "kings of aragon" and catalan says by "counts of barcelona". However, ever since Alfonso II of Aragon both titles belonged to the same person, until 1977 with Infante_Juan,_Count_of_Barcelona. The caption avoids the contradiction by saying "by monarchs of the crown". It could also say "by Kings of Aragon and Counts of Barcelona", which would be equally correct but it's also not exactly what the sources say and could cause edit wars. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

capital

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 [24]. 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." [25].

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)

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)

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)

Damn, I can't find online sources on english for "itinerating capitals". On spanish there is some reference to christian kingdoms having "capitales itinerantes" [26]. I found a paper source on the capitality on Spain article on eswiki --Enric Naval (talk) 07:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

native name

The name "Corona de Aragon" was most probably created by Zurita on his "Anales de la Corona de Aragón" (first page, notice the coat of arms) around +1550. The name before that must have been "Aragon" or "lands of the King of Aragon", but I have no sources for that --Enric Naval (talk) 00:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

According to the catalan wiki "On the Corts de Montsó of 1289, the whole of the territories was designed with the names of Corona Reial, of Ceptre Reial or of Corona d'Aragó i de Catalunya" but it provides no source for it [27] --Enric Naval (talk) 00:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This is great information. I beg you to notice that it cannot be put in a box! This is why I oppose the box. There are still problems with it, namely: arbitrariness of cities section, misleading nature of 1137/1715 dates, implication of the existence of a flag, use of Zurita's nomenclature as a "native name", monarchy as government (it was many monarchies). Only "Roman Catholicism" rings true, but even then the Crown had a lot of Muslims in some places at some times and its subjects in Greece were predominantly Greek Orthodox. So what does "Roman Catholicism" mean? Predominant religion? Official religion? The box doesn't tell us... Srnec (talk) 04:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Why using Zurita's nomenclature is wrong? The crown still existed then, and Zurita was the royal archiver of all archives of the crown. If I had a serigrafy of the Cortes de Monzón documents, I would use that designation instead of Zurita's since it's from way before, but I don't have it.

There was a lot of jews, but their religion wasn't the state's religion. The kings where catholic, and so was most of the population, the churches were catholic, and the official documents make references to the catholic God.

It was one monarch ruling many kingdoms.....

Of course it can be put on a box and of course it's not complete. It's just a quick summary. If there are problems with a certain part of the box, then that part can be corrected. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Zurita's nomenclature is fine, but not in a box, where it is devoid of context and nobody knows that it is Zurita's nomenclature. The "quick summary" concept is ridiculous. This is an encyclopaedia, not designed to provide "quick summaries" like a dictionary or an almanac. I am trying to point out that the box just doesn't tell the reader very much and therefore easily misleads him. The reader of these talk pages is more well-informed. Srnec (talk) 14:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You are right, Zurita's name was not a "native name". --Enric Naval (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

event3, marriage and union of crowns

Damn, don't remove this event, ot at least remove only the marriage part if the event is too verbose :P The union was the marriage itself, as the sources state, and the conditions of the marriage were the conditions for the union of the states --Enric Naval (talk) 18:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Henry IV of Castile died in 1474 while John II of Aragon died 1479: the Crowns could not possibly have been united before then. Srnec (talk) 23:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The historians, as stated on those sources, signal that marriage as the point of union of the crowns. Notice also that Henry was a weak king probably manipulated on the shadow by Isabella, and so was John. Notice that the arrangements on their marriage were the arrangements used later to manage the united crowns. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Neither source supports the assertion: Chaytor says that John II hoped that a "marriage with his son should bring about the union of Aragon and Castile", but this does not mean that the union occurred when the marriage occurred. Henry IV and John II ruled separate Crowns, not united ones. The assertion is false and the sources on this point are not reliable. (I cannot even find where in the Payne source he says anything to the effect of 1469 being the date of union of the Crowns). Srnec (talk) 05:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

On Chaytor, See "It was a union fraught with many difficult problems (...) and the marriage of their respective rulers was the only immediate bond of union between the two states". Payne says "The dynastic alliance worked with surprising harmony(...)", I infer that he is talking about the marriage. On the paragraph starting with "The union of the crowns established a dyarchy (...)" he details the agreements that Chaylor says that were done for the marriage itself. I'll try to find a better source than Payne, but when he is talking about the union he is clearly talking about the marriage.

Also, on Chaytor, it also details all the agreements at the marriage that were later used during the government of Isabella and Fernando like "The heir to the Crown of Aragon undertook to observe all the laws, customs and freedoms of the Castilian realm and of particular localities within it, to take up his residence in Castile, to alienate none of the Crown property without the consent of his consort and to appoint only Castilians to his council. Isabella was to make appointments upon her own responsibility, to sign all public documents and to have the deciding voice in questions of peace and war.". --Enric Naval (talk) 05:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyways, I have to ask, from context, what other thing can Payne be possibly talking about? And, is there any historian that does *not* refer to that marriage as the moment of union of the crowns? Ok, wait, I see that Paye is probably refering to 1479, the year when both Isabella and Fernando ascended to their respective thrones, and so does the Britannica article [28]. Let me think how to put this on the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

religion

I can't look for the sources right now, Sancho III already crowned himself "by the grace of god". The King of Aragon was a direct vassal of the Pope (there are several matizations about that, see [29]), and I think that the kings were crowned on Zaragoza because othe Pope ordered so. Also remember that the start of the crown was on the start of the Reconquista, which was had a christian base of reclaiming muslim territories for christianity and support from the papacy. Details about how jews were treated and how they were all told on 1492 by Catholic Kings to either convert or get out of the territory can be treated on an expanded section of the article. Idem for details about converted muslims living on reconquered territories, persecution of false converts that were still practicing the old religion and Inquisición Española.

I'd say that "Roman Catholic" for the infobox is an accurate enough summary for the religion of the crown. Maybe adding a detail about jews being tolerated until 1492. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Or Greek Orthodox in the duchies of Athens and Neopatria. Or Muslims in New Catalonia and the Crusader Kingdom of Valencia. It's just not clear in the box what about the Crown is "Roman Catholic". Srnec (talk) 17:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Those are details that can go on a extended section on the article. Once the section is written and sourced, the wording on the infobox can be changed. This could be a good start for such a section:

the muslims were described as "our royal treasure," "subject to our whim," "servants of our household."[30] and their legal privileges were not respected most of the time[31], they were allowed to chant the çala publicy and the Pope made a call to "all the princes of Christendom" against that, but Spanish monarchs resisted that[32], the Spanish clergy and the king's Christian subjects were not nearly as concerned with religious toleration they were with the triumph of the Christian faith, later James II prohibited, under pain of death, the public crying of the name of Muhammad(íbid).

We could add on the infobox "minoritary jew and muslim populations". I dunno how to add the greek orthodox thing, I suggest finding sources for it first (side note: "princes of Christendom" includes the Kings of Aragon)--Enric Naval (talk) 01:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

fine tuning

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)

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 [33][34]), 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)

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)

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

The confusion on the confederation thing seems to be on the manner that the territories were goberned, see Payne's comment on Spanish Crown goverment of territories: "The European possessions of the crown were in general satisfied with Spanish rule, conducted on the confederal Aragonese pattern and respectful of local rights and customs." [35]. From around 1702 "Archduke Karl stressed the traditional Habsburg respect for Aragonese federalism and played upon the fear and hatred of French imperialism and centralization" [36]. From what I have read, the crown ressembled a confederation because of how it let every territory handle its matters with its own laws, even if it was a monarchy. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

arbitrary break (discussion on removal of infobox)

(Note: this thread is continuing from comments above, and has been cut in half to separate discussions on different topics, since the topic has changed from the one stated on the original heading) --Enric Naval (talk) 18:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I'd remove it completely. If you support that contention, I think we have presented enough argumentation to justify it, since Gennarous has not participated in the discussion and Enric Naval has allowed the infobox to dwindle severely and become heavily footnoted, defeating its purpose. Before I remove it completely again, I'll wait for Enric to comment here to see how strongly he wishes to keep it. Srnec (talk) 01:41, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Ye gods, I strongly want to keep it, please stop trying to remove the poor infobox. The aragonese, catalan and spanish wikis have the same infobox. It's dwindled because we took out the information that you pointed out that was inaccurate, and it's heavily footnoted to demonstrate its accuracy and to stop well-intentioned editors from deleting stuff thinking that it was not sourced, or altering it from an unsourced version to another unsourced version that they think is more correct (like it happened with the capital and the flag).

The reason you wanted the infobox removed was that it was misleading and that the origin and end of the crown was not clear, but I think that we found sources stating the exact years of origin and end, and we addressed most if not all of the misleading statements. If you still think that the infobox contains inaccurate statements, then point at them so we can correct them.

I agree, however, that, for example, the events listed on the infobox are better sourced than the history section on the article, so we should be moving all those footnotes to proper places on the body of the article. (But, please, don't remove the actual events from the infobox, just move the footnotes out). --Enric Naval (talk) 03:27, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

The practice at other Wikis is of no concern to me, nor should it be. To you either. Let them have their infoboxes! I want none of them. I object to most infoboxes, but as I said, I found this one particularly objectionable because of its inaccuracy. I believe that even when accurate it adds nothing to the article. Can I ask in what way you believe it enhances the article overall? It certainly does add a summary, but I don't think that is actually helpful. Srnec (talk) 05:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If you *still* find the infobox inaccurate, then point out the exact inaccurate information so it can be corrected, just like we have done several times already.

Ok, other wikis are not relevant, so then look at this same wiki here. You can find infoboxes on Spain, Catalonia, Aragon, Kingdom_of_Aragon, Valencia,_Spain and almost all country articles and city articles. (curiously, enough, nobody has put up a userbox on Kingdom_of_Valencia).

Meh, are you using the WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument on removing the infobox? I'm sorry if you don't like the infobox, but it provides a nice organized place to place the three images of the flag, the coat and the map, as well as the start and end years, as well as a concise list of events that summarize nicely the "History" section. There's a good reason for so many articles using infoboxes: they are useful.

I think that the infobox has improved a lot, and we can now re-use those improvements on the body of the article. We have already created a new section for the capital due to the infobox, and we have added good sources for the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)To be fair, the infobox on spanish empire was removed, see Talk:Spanish_Empire#THE_infobox_removed, but the definitions of what constitutes Spanish Empire are far more nebulous that the ones of Crown of Aragon, so the circumstances of removal are different. Also, most european empires have infoboxes now, with Roman_Empire, Holy_Roman_Empire, Macedonian Empire, Byzantine_Empire, Seleucid_dynasty, German_Empire and Nazi_Germany having one. There are only a few that don't have, like Ptolemaic_dynasty and Delian_League.--Enric Naval (talk) 07:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Disinfoboxes

A box aggressively attracts the marginally  literate eye with apparent promises to contain a  reductive summary of information that can't be  neatly contained. Like a bulleted list, or a time-  line that substitutes for genuine history, it offers  a competitive counter-article, stripped of nuance.  As a substitute for accuracy and complexity a box  trumps all discourse.                —courtesy of User:Wetman

Disagree. The infobox does not provide good information to the reader. It has no context, no explanation, no defence, no footnotes (ideally). It makes the start/end dates sound definitive: the reader is not informed that in reality the "Crown of Aragon" was just a formalism after the 15th century, just a vestige of a pre-united Spain. The reader sees a flag and a coat of arms and thinks of their country's flag and coat of arms b/c the infobox seems to be saying that that is what they are. But they aren't countries in the Middle Ages (and the Crown wasn't one to begin with) didn't have flags (and frequently arms) like they do today. Even the term "Crown of Aragon" has hardly any more real legitimacy than "Aragonese Empire" or the Catalan nationalists' favourite "Aragonese-Catalan Empire". We have a line stating that the Crown's religion was "Roman Catholicism". But what does that mean? Official religion? Other religions outlawed? Religion of the state apparatus only? Majority of subject? What? And we have a note about "itinerating capitals" which is not quite true: the Crown did not have a capital in fact. The kingdoms and counties etc did, but not the Crown, which was a dynastic union and hardly a single state in any sense. The reader sense none of these nuances or subtleties, none of the debate amongst scholars or their different takes on things. We list an arbitrary number of "events" and call it a summary. I just don't like it. See the sidebox for a great quotation encapsulating my disgust with most (not yet all) infoboxes. We are an encyclopaedia not an almanac: we ought to force the reader to READ. Srnec (talk) 06:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If you don't like the idea of infoboxes, then please go to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) or to Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous) and propose that they all get removed. Citing again the WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument is not going to work. Infoboxes are used on many articles and none of the problems that you cite seem to be happening, and if you think that they happen then this talk page is not the place to talk about them, please go to the Village Pump instead.

Please, don't insist again that the infobox is not accurate. First, the statements on *this* infobox have already been discuted and sourced by reliable sources, and tweaked several times on your request. Second, a summary is not intended to be totally unambiguous, and the solution is expanding the body of the article to address these issues. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed that infoboxes are covered on Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(infoboxes) and that there is a wikiproject to create them at WP:INFOBOX. --Enric Naval (talk) 07:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

(deindent)I'd prefer if you didn't cite WP:IDONTLIKEIT again. My argument has never been that the infobox should be removed because I don't like it. Rather, my dislike of it has motivated by arguments for its removal, but it has never been my argument.

A summary ought to be totally unambiguous! What kind of use is it otherwise? The solution is expanding the article, but why do you insist then on retaining an ambiguous summary that deflects readers away from it? The infobox is not perfectly accurate: "monarchy" sounds odd for a state that included many sub-royal and sub-imperial entities as well as multiple kingdoms, which were periodicially in the hands of different persons. The Crown did not have one single government and therefore the infobox cannot tell us what it was.

Finally, every addition to WP must be justified on its own merits, not the merits of others. If an infobox is useful at every other article that is still irrelevant. It must be proved uself here to be included here. (By the way, note that my version of the de-infoboxised article reatins the pennon/flag and the map at the top.) Srnec (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I still think that your concerns about the infobox are based more on personal dislike of infoboxes than on specific problems with inclusion on this specific article, and I think that such general concerns should be discussed on the Village Pump, which I linked above, or on the relevant project at WP:INFOBOX, or on the relevant page of the manual style at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(infoboxes). If you want, we can open a WP:RFC Request for Comment on the article, to get opinions of other editors on the matter --Enric Naval (talk) 18:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

footnotes on infobox

I asked for comments on [[37]] about having too many footnotes on infobox, and the convenience of leaving a few of them on place to avoid drive-by edits by well-intentioned editors --Enric Naval (talk) 20:15, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd urge you to request a comment at RfC. I still think the infobox adds nothing and takes away some by trying fit complexities into a box, thus misleading the reader into thinking that is even possible. Also, note that I still think "Religion: Roman Catholicism" is vague, "Government: monarchy" is wrong (the Crown was not a monarchy and it did not have a single government), the list of events is arbitrary (unless we give the reader the criteria), the dates 1137–1715 are misleading (who talks of the Crown in 1715? they talk of Spain: and in 1137 a betrothal took place between the rulers of two separate principalities, the formation of the Crown was a process), and I cannot tell for certain whether the the "flag" (I suspect other fabric emblems were also used) and arms belong to the Crown or merely to one or several of her components. Srnec (talk) 03:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

RfC done, the bot will take a day or two to prepare the stuff. Is there any problem with announcing this RfC at the wikiprojects listed at the top of the page? This way they can come to comment.

I made some comments on end date and religion. (commented instead on the relevant subsection) --Enric Naval (talk) 12:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

second instance of pennon in article

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)

should the infobox be removed for being an inaccurate summary for a difficult to indentify entity

Not sure if the RFC nominator wanted to say anything extra at the start here, so I'll just jump in..

I found my way here via the above-mentioned query at WP:INFOBOX - which, BTW, is not a place for the creation of infoboxes or for the enforcement of infoboxes for every single article, rather a place to keep their use in check and to be something of a help desk for these complex templates. I responded to the query there but after a look at the lengthy debate that has erupted here, I think I should weigh in here, particularly since I am the editor most responsible for Infobox Former Country.

First, I'm not sure if anyone has done so so far, but look at the instructions for using this template. This is one of the more complex templates around and should be used carefully to prevent it from 1) displaying false information; 2) overwhelming the article instead of supplementing it; or 3) both. Not all fields are meant to be filled out every time, and the many of the field names themselves are not as significant as some here may think (e.g. common_name is simply used to determine under what name an article should be indexed in categories, and to assist with the creation of some links), many of which are used only to assist in categorisation (eg. "status", which is not a compulsory field anyway). Please, have another look at the instructions.

Second, the template is necessarily complicated because it has to deal with a lot of different possibilities, many of which it can handle very well if not too complicated (eg. United Kingdom of Great Britain, or East Germany). BUT, even though I've put a lot of work into this template since creating it, I would rather not see the template used at all if it means shoehorning false or potentially misleading information just for the sake of using it.

From a quick look at the article, and considering that my knowledge of Aragon history is pitiful, I would say that the infobox does not belong here. This particular type of entity was not a "country", as the Kingdom of Aragon was (this article has the template there, and it fits without any trouble). Similarly, I would not condone the use of this template to describe the British and Spanish Empires, since it is simply not designed for such entities. Some so-called empires were indeed countries (e.g. German Empire) so the usage of the template fits there, but there is a difference that I hope I have made clear.

If it is necessary to fill the infobox with so much text to present this information in an attempt to describe such an unusual entity, then it defeats the purpose. Infoboxes are meant to make the presentation of information simpler - and if that cannot be done in a reliable manner, then better to go without. - 52 Pickup (deal) 12:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

You have recapitulated in a more eloquent and persuasive manner my own arguments. I move to have the box removed. Srnec (talk) 21:51, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think that we won't find a better commenter than the creator of the infobox himself. I'll have to agree with Srnec about removing the infobox. I'll just extend the body of the article with the information we researched, like I did with the capital and the treaty of Corbeil. I'm removing the RfC tag, the rfc bot will take care of removing the RfC but we may still get some other commenter the next two days. Pickup, I'm afraid that I didn't really read the instructions at all *blush* --Enric Naval (talk) 01:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Sometimes different entities come along which the template can be adapted for. But this, to me, is not one of them. There are other places where the template is misused (or should not be used at all) and misused templates tend to propagate via copy-and-paste, so it is sometimes hard for anyone else to see what is good practice and what isn't. And managing its usage is a never-ending task (although thankfully it is correctly used in the majority of cases). If I can ask a small favour of anyone here who works with other articles that use the template: please make sure that you stick with the guidelines in the instructions. The more articles that do the right thing, the less likely that bad practices will propagate.

I can see that a lot of research has been done here on the talk page because of this dispute, so if this information can be incorporated into the article, then in a way, the whole dispute has been worthwhile. - 52 Pickup (deal) 11:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, there was a lot of good research, and I'm hoping to incorporate some of it myself as soon as I'm finished with other issues that are draining all my wikipedia time. Looks like a book example of Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle --Enric Naval (talk) 17:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

France

Speaking of France by the 13th century may be correct, but that is not the France the average reader has in mind (that of the Valois and Bourbons, for not to mention Republican France).

I personally prefer the House of the Capet, because it puts the claim in a better context, that of early France, a state which was, like all the others, under construction, if you may.

Another user reverted the Capet edit, restoring France. As a means of a middle ground, I am proposing "the French House of Capet", which is integrating both points of view, but this has been reverted once again. I can't see why this formulation should be discarded, as is sounds perfectly fine and accurate historically speaking, while respecting both points of view. Mountolive _{group using a loop of another pop group} 19:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. We can speak of France from the 10th century at least. There is no harm in it. The claims over Catalonia were not derived at all from the Capets being Capets but from their being kings of France, the kings who succeeded the Carolingians and by whose reigns conscientious monks long dated their chronicles/annals/acts. I think "French House of Capet" is not accurate, really, since it makes it sound like Catalonia was a possession of the family, but it was not, not even formally. If the reader has no idea that France does not extend back further than the Bourbons that's no problem of ours, though I suspect they are aware of Joan of Arc. Srnec (talk) 20:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

"(Jaime I) by the Treaty of Corbeil had resigned virtually all his suzerain rights in the Midi, Louis IX in return surrendering his notional authority over the County of Barcelona which dated from the reign of Charlemagne"[38]. I agree with Srnec that "France" is more accurate. Capet dinasty started later, and his claims are based on what the charolingian dinasty reconquered from moors after Charles_Martel (the grandfather of Charlemagne) stopped the moors at Battle of Tours --Enric Naval (talk) 00:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

About removing feudal[39], in case some wants to restore it, I provide a source supporting removal: Chaytor says "The treaty (of Corbeil) is noteworthy as it was based upon the principle of natural frontiers as opposed to that of feudal claims"[40]--Enric Naval (talk) 00:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Hey, guys, did you notice that what is written is "the FRENCH House of Capet..."? what is so fundamentally wrong with that? Do you really want to argue about this? I don't. Mountolive _{group using a loop of another pop group} 01:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, looking at Treaty_of_Corbeil_(1258), I don't know what to think. I think I'll just go with what you decide. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

What is wrong is that it was not the House of Capet, French or otherwise. It was France, Capetian or otherwise. Srnec (talk) 05:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Even today you could challenge statements such as "France wants..." (I know we dont have any at the infobox anyway). It is not France, but the French government, which nowadays we presume representative of the majority of the citizenry, and so it's ok to speak of France in such a generalizing way.

This is now, but what it can't possibly be argued is that back in the 13th century there was such a thing as a national French self-awareness. France, as we know it, didnt exist, wasn't probably even a project and, therefore, it's way too early to claim that "France relinquished" anything. It was the Capets, speaking in the name of France, who did relinquish.

Because what existed back in the 1200s was a complex feudal allegiance system to the king which only can be called "France" if we have room for gross historical reductionism. That is why I stand by the previous version.

If this was not convincing enough, you say that "we can speak of France as of the 10th century and forth. There is no harm in it". So, what's is the harm in speaking of the "French House of Capet"? I can't see any.

Anyway, I can't believe we're even arguing about this....so this will be my last contribution in this regard. You can do as you wish with this from now on. Mountolive _{group using a loop of another pop group} 23:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I completely disagree. For now I will explain only what is misleading about "House of Capet". The house of Capet is a family (dynasty). It can own property or lordships, but it did not own Catalonia and it had no jurisdiction there. It happened to be supplying the kings of France at the time of the treaty of Corbeil in 1258. It was not the house of Capet that renounced claims but the French crown, which was independent of the dynasty that held it. The "crown" was the government of France. The issue of Catalonia had to do with jurisdiction and not with feudal claims: the jurisdiction of the kings of France (who were accidentally Capetian). The claims are simply unrelated to the Capetians. Srnec (talk) 05:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but, even though this is yet one more piece of gross generalizing, as far as I know, by these early stages of European history, diverse territories were tied up one with another not horizontally, but vertically in a line which goes up first to any given feudal lord (baron, count, whatever) who, in turn, pledged allegiance to a king which was the ultimate part of the chain. The monarch gathered all those territories under the form of a plurality of titles rather than that of "King of France" (which I am not denying he sported, anyway). This situation started changing from this moment (12th century) onwards towards a higher centralization of power by the removal of any substance in the power of proxys (the nobility). In the process, an elementary notion of nation beyond the component parts (i.e., ville, pays, nation, say Nantes-->Brittany-->France or Rouen-->Normandy-->France) started a slow surfacing in very concrete tracts of society (nobility, clergymen)

If this is correct (and it is correct at least for the cases I know better) then it would be more proper to speak of the French House of Capet than speaking of France. I wouldn't object speaking of France by the time of the Valois and, especially, the Bourbons, because that accumulation process had reached higher states, and the nation was at least a sketch spreading more or less all over the country.

I don't think by the latter was true by the times of the Capets. France was more a brittle structure in selected minds, still to be submitted to much change (some constituent territories of what we know as France today weren't even under Capet's influence). This structure was united only by means of a common king, that is why the importance of the dinasty and that is why, while not denying the importance of the latter (and so the "French" reference) I think it is more accurate to emphasize the ruling family over the country. Mountolive _{group using a loop of another pop group} 23:17, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

edit war of maurice27

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Crown_of_Aragon. 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 [41] (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)

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)

The pennon description

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)

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 [42] --Enric Naval (talk) 05:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Alright, but I retain my personal scepticism about the source's reliability. Srnec (talk) 05:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

"Empire"

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)

Native name of the Crown of Aragon

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)

Of course, we could also put it in Spanish since that was the native language of the Trastamara dynasty that came to power in 1412-- but by the same hand, we might also put it in Neapolitan or Sicilian. What does everyone think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Acomasga (talk • contribs) 01:08, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

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)

Absolute Monarchy?

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)Byblios

Sovereignty and Independence

• Bosquejo histórico sobre la sucesión á la corona de España. Heinrich Zoepfl . The throne of the country together, which was the symbol of its independent existence, the law of succession, which was the legal means to convey the dignity and royal power, necessarily disappear with the independence of the state, for the simple reason that two thrones two inheritance laws are incompatible with the unity of a state. This law is so strict overall actual incorporation, which suffers no condition nor agreed. The conventions in such cases can keep the people built their civil laws administrative and even political, but never its law of succession, which is a symbol of independence, and that without a sovereign throne has not subject to enforcement practice. These principles had their application in the Peninsula, where at different times were added to the crown of Castile, the largest, the most powerful of all, the growing daily on the progress of the Reconquest against the Arabs, and the crowns of Asturias Leon, Aragon and Navarre to form a single crown of Castile, now known under the title of kingdom of Spain. In actual incorporation absolute royal power as that formed the common bond, conditions were agreed, and Aragon, Navarre and the Basque provinces retained much of its civil laws and administrative policies even under the aegis of the throne of Castilla and its law of succession, but with the mandatory obligation to recognize by their king and who was proclaimed sovereign legitimately under the laws of Castile, but on this particular ever happened to anybody the slightest doubt. Google Traslation.

• "El trono del país reunido, que era el símbolo de su existencia independiente ; la ley de sucesion, que era el medio legal para trasmitir la dignidad y el poder real, desaparecen forzosamente con la independencia del estado, por la razon sencilla de que dos tronos, dos leyes de sucesion son incompatibles con la unidad de un estado. Es tan rigurosa esta ley general de la incorporacion real, que no sufre condicion ni pacto en contrario. Las convenciones en tales casos pueden conservar al pueblo incorporado sus leyes civiles administrativas y aun políticas, pero jamas su ley de sucesion, que es un símbolo de independencia, y que sin un trono soberano no tiene objeto de observancia práctica. Estos principios tuvieron su aplicacion en la Península, cuando en diferentes épocas se incorporaron á la corona de Castilla, la mas extensa, la mas poderosa de todas, la que diariamente crecía por los progresos de la reconquista contra los Árabes, las coronas de Asturias y Leon, de Aragon y de Navarra para formar una sola corona, la de Castilla, conocida ya bajo el título de reino de España. En la incorporacion real absoluta, en cuanto al poder real, que formó el vínculo comun, se pactaron condiciones, y Aragon, la Navarra y las Provincias Vascongadas conservaron una gran parte de sus leyes civiles administrativas y aun políticas, bajo la égida del trono de Castilla y de su ley de sucesion, pero con la obligacion indeclinable de reconocer por su rey y soberano al que fuese proclamado legítimamente con arreglo á las leyes de Castilla, sin que sobre este particular haya ocurrido jamas á nadie la mas ligera duda." Original español.

--Santos30 (talk) 03:03, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

• Nueva Planta decrees abolished the laws and self administration of kingdoms. There are not any bibliography, no book in spanish or english to say in the article: "The Crown existed until it was abolished by the Nueva Planta decrees issued by King Philip V in 1716". "Crown existed until it was... abolished"!??? What? This is totally false. Totally erroneous. I ask the bibliography and citation needed.

--Santos30 (talk) 12:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• As I already commented, the "Bosquejo Histoórico" source is an old outdated source that was written with the purpose of pushing the legitimacy of a pretender to the throne. Everything in that book is twisted to support that legitimacy. It is not a reliable source. --Enric Naval (talk) 12:47, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• The book is old, but why "outdated"?, your opinion Enric Naval or an historiography article?.
• Furthermore, we not talk in this article about legitimacy of a queen or king. We talk about the Sovereignty of the throne of Spain and the false information about crown of Aragon is "abolished" in 1716. This article need bibliography and clarity of all opinions. Citation needed for mentioned date 1716.--Santos30 (talk) 13:16, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's that difficult to find citations for it, for example this one from Prof. Henry Kamen's "Spain, 1469-1714: a society of conflict". But what's your fundamental point? If you don't think it was abolished in 1716, when was it abolished? Or do you think it still exists? DeCausa (talk) 13:23, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I not see citation (only see the title of the book). Copy the citation here please. Easy. I can copy other dates to add.--Santos30 (talk) 13:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

"In January 1716 a new constitution (nueva planta)remodelled the public bodies of the principality, established the laws of Castile, made the use of Castillian obligatory in the law courts and imposed a military occupation on Catalonia. The crown of Aragon now ceased to exist". DeCausa (talk) 13:38, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah I've just seen one of your edits where you claim 1516. That's absolutely incorrect. e.g See the titles of Philip II: "King of Aragon", "Count of Barcelona" etc etc DeCausa (talk) 13:44, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, the article already has a citation for 1716 in Bisson's book. DeCausa (talk) 13:56, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• This citation of 1716 of Kamen is enough for me "crown of Aragon now ceased to exist". The titles of kingdoms of the crown of Aragón can not be abolished (Kingdom Aragón, Kingdom Valencia, and Count of Barcelona). In any case, the Council of Aragon during Habsbourgs are not sovereign. OK, citation needed solved.

• My question is that there is no reason for User:Escarlati to delete my last edition ("The independence of crown of Aragon existed until it was incorpored to the sovereignity and law of succession of the throne of Castile") because the Decretos de Nueva planta not eliminate the Sovereignty because it is not in the council of Aragon, because is for each kingdom, and exist before and after 1716 in the throne of Spain, from Catholic kings ([43]).

This information is important to discriminate the Sovereignty from absolutism to liberal state.

--Santos30 (talk) 15:50, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow. There was only one sovereign state after 1716 - Spain. Until 1716 de jure the crown of Aragon was separate from the crown of Castile, but was in personal union through a shared monarch. After 1716, the two were merged into a single state. I'm not sure whether your above statement is referring to 1516 or 1716. It's incorrect for 1516, because only a personal union was effected on that date. But I don't think it's correct for 1716 either because, I think, the laws of succession were harmonised before the nueva planta - but I may be wrong on that. DeCausa (talk) 15:59, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Without trying to fix an exact date it is clear that laws of succession is before Nueva Planta 1716. And as the sovereign is in the throne of Spain. I can change my edition for proposal of consensus: "The independence of Kingdom of Aragon, Kingdom of Valencia and Count of Barcelona existed until it were incorporated to the sovereignity and law of succession of the throne of Spain before Nueva Planta decrees" --Santos30 (talk) 16:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

But there was no "throne of Spain" before 1716 (at least). There were separate Kingdoms etc, but with the same monarch. To be sure, Castile was dominant de facto but that is just a practical issue. The legal position was that crown of Aragon had a separate and theoretically independent status from the crown of Castile until 1716 when the two were merged to create the new state, albeit the new state reflected the prior dominance of Castile. I think the article as it currently is makes that clear enough already. DeCausa (talk) 16:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry this is POV. The crown of Spain it is before 1716.--Santos30 (talk) 17:29, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

POV? I don't understand. What POV? DeCausa (talk) 17:32, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• WP:POV. We must to tray to put all of points of view in the article. Not only one. This is the case of Throne of Spain [44]. But to overpass the problem of the name of Spain as modern country I can make a second Proposal of consensus: "The independence of Kingdom of Aragon, Kingdom of Valencia and Count of Barcelona existed until it were incorporated to the sovereignity and law of succession of the monarchy before Nueva Planta decrees".--Santos30 (talk) 18:55, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

No. Firstly, Wikipedia's policy is not "to put all of points of view in the article". See WP:FRINGE. Secondly, you are confusing the de facto position with the de jure position. There is no doubt that the Habsburgs were "Kings of Spain", held the "throne of Spain", and "Spain" was the leading power on the 17th century. That was the de facto position for most purposes. And today we use those terms because it is convenient to do so. That's all the google search you refer to illustrates. But the de jure position is clearly that the crowns of Aragon and Castile were united in only a personal union between 1516 and 1716, much the same as Scotland and England were united between 1601 and 1707 prior to the formation of the Kingdom of Great Britain. This is not POV it's the mainstream. DeCausa (talk) 20:08, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• I see: about the crown of Spain exist before 1716 "de fact" (you say it is WP:FRINGE) in front of "de jure". OK is WP:POV. For the contrary, I think that the article put minority view saying that crown of Spain not exist before 1716.--Santos30 (talk) 20:39, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't understand what you've written in your last post. DeCausa (talk) 21:33, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

• Minority view is yours (I think): that crown of Spain not exist before 1716. But to include your point I have 3º Proposal of consensus: "The independence of Kingdom of Aragon, Kingdom of Valencia and County of Barcelona existed until it were incorporated to the sovereignity and law of succession of the throne of Spain (De facto) before Nueva Planta decrees "--Santos30 (talk) 06:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I disagree - I think what I've stated is pretty much the standard view. The article is clear enough as it is and I think your suggestion just adds ambiguity. DeCausa (talk) 10:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I disagree. We can change this words for another but it is critical clarify the sovereignty.--Santos30 (talk) 16:57, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Confederation

• References say confederation of Kingdoms.
• Template is not only for before union dinastic.

--Santos30 (talk) 04:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Las confederaciones son un concepto actual; completamente anacrónico para la época de la Corona de Aragón, que era una monarquía.

Las flechitas indican los estados de donde procede la Corona: El reino de Aragón y el condado de Barcelona, y a la derecha en donde desemboca: en la Monarquía Hispánica. Así pues, son absurdos los cambios que quieres introducir. No solo en este, sino en otros numerosos artículos de esta wikipedia. Escarlati (talk) 04:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I will make a consult about template.--Santos30 (talk) 05:08, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Section: Nationalist revisionism

The following text comes from the named section in the article: "Some of the nationalist movements in Spain consider the former kingdoms of the Crown of Aragon to be the foundation of their nations, the Catalan nationalist movement being the strongest one. Spanish nationalism, on the other hand, places more importance in the later dynastic union with the Crown of Castile and considers it the origin of one Spanish nation. Historians in Spain can sometimes incur in biased revisions of history due to that fact."

What does that last sentence mean? I don't understand it. Could someone who does understand it clarify the text? --Carmaskid (talk) 10:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

I have changed the paragraph to:

"The punishment inficted on the territories that had fought against Philip V in the War of Succession is used by some Valencian and Catalan nationalists as an argument against the centralism of Spanish nationalism and in favor of federalism, confederation, or even independence. Some Aragonese took refuge in the myth of an ancient constitution dating from before recorded medieval times, while the Catalans remembered their ancient privileges, which they associated with their Generalitat and resistance to Castile. Because restoration of fueros was one of its tenets, Carlism won support in the lands of the Crown of Aragon during the 19th century." --Carlstak (talk) 14:13, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, the whole section Nationalist revisionism sounds pretty fanciful to me. Do you have further sources for your wording? I think we need a shorter and more restrained text, something like Nationalists and Regionalists in the territories of the old Crown have emphasized the importance of their old independent kingdoms, while Spanish Nationalists emphasize the 5 centuries of a united Spain. Catalan nationalists mainly claim a cultural basis for their nation, rather than a historical one. Jotamar (talk) 16:50, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

These are not my words; I merely edited the broken English so that others, including editors, could better understand them. I think an argument could be made for this point of view, as well as an opposing one. I agree that either position should refer to sources. Carlstak (talk) 17:30, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll edit the section so that it is more neutral. Jotamar (talk) 16:52, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

The trouble seems to be the literal use of a particular source, Thomas N. Bisson. I'll try to get the book. Jotamar (talk) 17:02, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Population

Was the Population in 1443 really only 300,000? That seems ridiculously small. --English Bobby (talk) 20:23, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

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)

I agree. In ca:Corona_d'Aragó#Demografia, Catalonia alone had between 230k and 300k inhabitants. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:11, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Map - blue specks over Turkey

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)

1410 or 1716? more than 300 years of confusion.

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)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:35, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:19, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Revert by editor on Basque

@Jotamar: I pointed to the issues of your intervention in this article on your talk page. As for content, there is no doubt on the presence of Basque language in Aragon up to a few centuries ago, and more so during the Middle Ages. In 1349, Basque was forbidden for use in the market of Huesca, along with Hebrew and Arabic. Basque people are attested in the Pyrenean valleys of Aragon during the Middle Ages, and much later, very well in small place names. Axular, early 17th century, cites Basque in its seven territories and "in many other places", which can only be in a few adjacent Castilian areas and eastern Pyrenean areas, where place names are still fresh.

Biscarrués is the Aragonese version of Gascon (Gascony < Wasconia) Biscarrosse with Basque root “bizkar” (= hillock, cf Mitxelena) a Romance language dipthong o > ue. an:Xabierregai, es:Javierrelatre, and in its different composite names are very well known forms of Xabier < Etxeberri, with a Navarro-Aragonese phonetic evolution. The Catalan linguist and philologist Joan Coromines defends a shift from Basque straight to Catalan without a Latin stage. Basques cited in the Vall d’Aran around year 1000. Basque is present in the whole area to a lesser or wider extent. Do no come please speaking of Iberian at this point, we are talking about the Middle Ages around 1.000 and later. Archibald Lewis, Roger Collins point also in that direction. So what is your claim? Iñaki LL (talk) 20:45, 12 March 2018 (UTC) Iñaki LL (talk) 12:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

So no input? No wonder really, neither it does that you demand citation needed tag only for Basque, and take unquestioned Maltese thousands km away from the nucleus area. Indeed no news. Iñaki LL (talk) 22:19, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Can't you even check that I didn't log on to WP yesterday? What's the hurry about? By the way I reverted an IP editor, not you. So, you want to discuss your sources. The proving value of the ordenanzas of Huesca has been ridiculed by specialists (right now I can't find the link). Placenames don't have any date tag attached to them. So, in my opinion you don't have any solid proof for your claim. And, in addition, I don't think this is the right page to discuss the matter, it's more about the history of Basque. --Jotamar (talk) 17:30, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Now coming to content... Basque has been ridiculed and restrained by the Spanish authorities and academia for ages, so nothing new there. Your comments above are still bringing no arguments and adding nothing constructive from what I see. es:José María Lacarra, a prominent medievalist on Navarre and Aragon (see also here), stated that the languages of the medieval texts and written documentation reveal the people's concealed linguistic reality, usually disclosed in the people's and place's names and notes on the margins and footnotes.

And yes, the first time Basque is cited in history explicitly is in Huesca, 1349, to state that it be prohibited, as it happens time and again in later history no matter where (Castile, Rioja, etc.). Get over it and move on. Iñaki LL (talk) 07:58, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I still can't see the point of this discussion. You just need to provide a reliable source stating that "Basque was spoken in place X in the year Y", and that's all. --Jotamar (talk) 16:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

The point is I am bringing light to the point of having Basque among the languages of the Crown of Aragon because you assumed that was not the case, still you have brought nothing to this discussion. I take there is nothing more you can add to make your point, and prefer instead to focus on shouldering the burden on me and bring discussion to a standstill. Ok. Iñaki LL (talk) 17:06, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

I assumed that there is no proof that Basque was ever spoken in the Crown of Aragon, and you are confirming my assumption. --Jotamar (talk) 18:39, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Nothing to say on the topic but self-entitlement and putting the burden on others, as expected. Iñaki LL (talk) 20:05, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 July 2018

184.69.129.82 (talk) 20:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

 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)

Americas

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)

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)

I understand so as well, but I'd like a properly referenced mention in the article. --Error (talk) 18:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Did this exist in 1137? Re: Catalunya articles

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)

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)