Talk:Alfonso XIII

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

Why is this Alphonso and not Alfonso? If we want to anglicize it, why not go the full nine yards and make it Alphonse? - user:Montrealais

Because when someone imported vast piles of rubbish from the Brittannica we got the Alphonsos. That's how Britain was spelling it then. Lots of our nomenclature problems can be traced to the same source. Sad, isn't it? MichaelTinkler

Shall we change them? As it's now spelled, it makes no sense. Does anyone spell it Alphonso other than misguided encyclopædia readers? - user:Montrealais

As it is almost four months later and nobody has objected, I think I'll start moving the Alfonsos of Spain to "Alfonso," where I think they should be. - Montréalais

Go for it! -- Zoe

Yes, please do. See also talk:Alphonso. --mav

Did the Count of Barcelona really renounce his claims only in 1977, after his son was already on the throne for two years? john 18:30 20 Jun 2003 (UTC)

CAn anyone provide a sourse for Franco's statement that he wouldn't accept Alfonso as the King?

Why was he Alphonse II of France for the Legitimists, according to the french version of Wikipedia he should be Alphonse I? Xerxes M.F. 27.8.2006

Ancestor infobox[edit]

Cosmos666 has added a box which shows Alfonso's four grandparents and eight great-grandparents. This is certainly not usual for an encylopedia article (indeed, often not for a full-length book about the subject). I suggest removal. If not, what are the limits to this? Noel S McFerran 04:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC) Pretty weak biography don't you think?[reply]

I rather like the info box, just not where it is located. Also, since the succession boxes have been hit with the citation fiends lately, this too should probably have some citation somewhere noting where the genealogy derives. I think this box style, though, could work somewhere on the page and for other pages that lack a certain ancestral attribute.
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 03:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On a second look, I believe it is overzealous. As can be shown with the broken links, the list does not need to go three generations, two would due. Additionally, the listing of each with a title such as father and mother seems a little juvenille. I think we can figure that much out. I will work with what this person made and see if I can get something a bit more fluid out of it. Maybe something that would work with the succession lists at the bottom of the page.
–Whaleyland ( Talk • Contributions ) 03:23, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see the ancesty-box brought back. Many of the other Wikipedia royal biographies have these boxes. They're useful for tracing historical genealogical and familial relationships among royalty. They present useful information in a concise format. Thanks for considering this. a.windemere@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.177.248 (talk) 06:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The box is still there, it's just "collapsed" now. If you scroll down to the "Ancestors" section and click the "show" button on the right..voila. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:41, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I just realized that. (a.windemere). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.177.248 (talk) 07:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saint-Paul disambiguation issue[edit]

In the section 'Illegitimate Issue', regarding Jean-Baptiste Lévêque de Vilmorin, there is a link to Saint-Paul. Currently this leads to a disambiguation page, and I can't tell from the content which of the several places known by this name it refers to. Could someone please clarify this and alter the link accordingly? Thanks. El Staplador (talk) 15:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article does not display correctly[edit]

The the content of the left hand margin overlays the text of the article. Can this be fixed, pleae? 217.42.56.223 (talk) 08:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Presumedly, Alfonso XIII had other illegimate daughter. Her name was Mrs Leticia Martí y Rodríguez de Castro, that she was daughter of Most Serene Highness Isabel Rodríguez de Castro y Bueno (in the finish part of her live, Duchess of Santa Elena, because she got married with Most Serene Highness Alberto de Borbón).

Isabel, when she got pregnant was married with Mr Ernesto Martí Sacone. The reason was that she was Marqises of Bueno´s grand daughter and they could not permit this situation. Mr Martí, died very soon, but Alfonso XIII never forgot his supposed daughter. He was her godfather, he paid her studies, and he was her best man in her wedding.

Mrs Leticia Martí, was Leoncio González de Gregorio y Martí´s mother, and for this she was the grand mother of Leoncio Alonso González de Gregorio, Duke of Medina Sidonia, Pirlar Leticia González de Gregorio, Duchess of Fernandina, and Ernesto Gabriel González de Gregorio, maybe future Marquis of los Belez. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.163.4.83 (talk) 15:35, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Erm... Alfonso's reign began well???[edit]

Curious... Especially considering that his reign saw a great number of riots and uprisings (7 years after his coronation he had a massive riot in his hands in Barcelona; see Tragic Week), not to mention Spain's social and economic backwardness at the turn of the 20th century, the disastrous state of the army, a proliferation of nationalist, socialist and anarchist movements, poverty and illiteracy rife among the peasant class... He suffered two assasination attempts in the space of 2 years (1905 and 1906)... And several historians (Beevor, for example) consider his mismanagement of the country as one of the reasons for the outbreak of the civil war in 33. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Benway (talk • contribs) 14:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article appears to have been written (or at least edited) by royalists. It should be made more objective, at least in its form.
Pazouzou (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

El Africano[edit]

According to the list of Spanish monarchs and the Spanish-language version of this page, Alfonso is referred to as the African, or El Africano. Neither, however, explains why and this page does not even mention the name.

Does anyone know the history here? Brooksmith's (talk) 16:21, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is the first time that I heard anything of the sort, but it might be because of the Rif War.--Menah the Great (talk) 00:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Alfonso XIII of Spain. 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:

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) 09:43, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Alfonso XIII of Spain. 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:

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) 22:11, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1931 landslide republican victory?[edit]

Vulg revisionism of contemporary politics, Republican and left wing parties actually lost the elecction, though somehow the page of the elections is also manipulated and atributes to "others" and "unknown" the majority of the monarchic votes. After these eletions wide spread protests against the results and in favor of a republic led to the unpopular king into exile and legitimizes the second repiblic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elloza (talk • contribs) 23:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Amadeo I of Spain which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Predecessor & successor.[edit]

It's been the practice on Wikipedia, to include the monarch's predecessor & successor in the infobox. Is this article going to be made the exception to the rule? GoodDay (talk) 18:24, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exceptions should always be made for exceptional situations. We do not list predecessors or successors in Napoleon III, for example, nor should we. Infoboxes are only useful when kept simple (see MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE). In this case, the matter is too complex for the infobox to handle it effectively. Once again you are putting consistency above accuracy, efficiency, grammar, and everything else. Surtsicna (talk) 18:38, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This article is a part of the Spanish monarchs series. We shouldn't be making it different from the rest. BTW, I've opened up a discussion at WP:NCROY concerning this matter, if you want a larger platform. GoodDay (talk) 18:42, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are the one opposing the change. What I want is you to explain how it benefits readers to explain the deposition of Alfonso XIII, republican government, fascist regency, and restoration of the monarchy in two words, "monarchy abolished". Surtsicna (talk) 18:52, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It benefits readers because it's there in the infobox for them to read. You want to completely wipe that out. The entire info, that you deleted days ago, should be restored. But you want readers to be believe that nothing (in terms of the monarchy) occurred before or after Alfonso XIII's reign. GoodDay (talk) 18:58, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is there for them to read and be misled by what they read. So yes, I do want to wipe that out. Surtsicna (talk) 19:01, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not inaccurate to say his predecessor is Alfonso XII & the monarchy was abolished after him, in 1931. GoodDay (talk) 19:05, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is inaccurate because there have been two kings after him, not to mention heads of state between them and Alfonso XIII. Surtsicna (talk) 22:55, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What about his predecessor? Going by your arguments, the predecessor & successor fields should 'also' be removed at Juan Carlos I article. GoodDay (talk) 23:01, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The predecessor is fine but having one without the other would be rather awkward in this case. Surtsicna (talk) 13:27, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Spanish monarch articles, just like other monarch articles, are strong together via the predecessor/successor sections of the infobox. It's best we don't break that string 'here' & confuse readers. Are you suggesting that we delete the predecessor & successor sections in Juan Carlos I's infobox, due to his 'bloated' predecessor section? GoodDay (talk) 14:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is confused by the breaking of a "string". The Bourbon monarchy has been discontinued three times, so there is no "string" to begin with. Information should be presented in a way that supports the understanding of the topic. The monarchy was not just abolished after Alfonso XIII. Surtsicna (talk) 15:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At Louis XVI, his successor is listed as Louis XVII & at Louis XVII, his successor is listed as Louis XVIII. As for a monarchy being abolished? We can handled as as I mentioned below, like it is at Manuel II of Portugal or we can simply go with just Monarchy abolished, as is at Constantine II of Greece. What annoyed me at this article, is that you basically seen too many swings in the playground & proceeded to bulldoze the entire playground. GoodDay (talk) 16:12, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is also the example of Charles I of England/Charles II of England for a discontinued monarchy. The Napoleon III's example that has been brought is somewhat tricky: it does not use those fields, indeed, but that does not seem to come as a result of any explicit consensus on the issue, so I wouldn't regard it as an authoritative example. Nonetheless, the nature of the "Empire" (a monarchy in all but name that remained shy of associating itself with the old Monarchy) casts doubts on whether it should be Napoleon II or Louis Philippe I the one considered as the predecessor, so maybe the absence of the field makes sense for that specific article (this is not the case for Alfonso, though). Impru20talk 17:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely support the retention of predecessor and successor names. Deb (talk) 14:36, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And it does not bother you at all that the successor field has to be either misleading (as it is now) or excessively complex? Which of the two would you prefer? Surtsicna (talk) 15:39, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since your concern is bloating: If you go the monarch route only, his successor is Juan Carlos I. Then you need only put Juan Carlos I (1975), as the successor entry.
If you go the head of state route only, his successor is Niceto Alcala-Zamora, President of the Second Spanish Republic. GoodDay (talk) 15:55, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I cannot understand such a confusing discussion. The predecessor/successor fields refer to the office post being shown. Alfonso XII and Juan Carlos I are the only possible choices here, as no other people were monarchs before or after him. If anything, the only reasonable doubt would be whether claimants should count as "monarchs", as per Louis XVI (thus, the issue would be whether it should be Juan Carlos I or his father Juan as Alfonso's successor). You don't need to explain the full context regarding the succession in the infobox: that can (and should) be done through prose in the article. Impru20talk 16:05, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've no objections to listing Juan Carlos I as Alfonso XIII's successor or Alfonso XIII as Juan Carlos I's predecessor over at the Juan Carlos I article. Was just wondering why Surtsicna was trying to eliminate the entire field. GoodDay (talk) 16:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good heavens no. That is just silly. Successor of Alfonso XII is the Second Spanish Republic. Monarchy was abolished in 1931, de facto and de jure. That government office became defunct. Says so in the Spanish constitution and by international law of succession of states. The title might have been revived decades later, but that is of no relevance to this article. Juan Carlos is not his "successor", and frankly, nobody visiting this article cares about events a half-century later. They care to know what came after the reign of Alfonso XIII - and that was that the monarchy was abolished (if you want, also link to Second Spanish Republic). That's what should be in the info box because that is what is actually informative, that is what people want and need to know. Walrasiad (talk) 18:08, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Could we have both in the successor entry? GoodDay (talk) 18:11, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's no point, and only likely to cause confusion. Juan Carlos is a complete irrelevance to this article. It has zero informational worth. Walrasiad (talk) 18:15, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The successor of Alfonso XIII as King of Spain was the Second Spanish Republic? Good luck attempting to source that (the field refers to the monarch, not the head of state office). Juan Carlos was the king coming next to Alfonso. Not irrelevant. Impru20talk 18:20, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What it comes down to is how are we viewing the infobox. Are we viewing it as A) Monarch infobox, B) Head of state infobox, or C) both. If A? we'd have Juan Carlos I as successor. If B? we'd have Alcala-Zamora as successor. If C? we'd have both listed as successor with explanation below each name. PS - Note how it's done at the Juan Carlos I infobox, concerning the predecessor. GoodDay (talk) 18:24, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The monarchy was abolished. That is what succeeded his reign. See the date? April 14, 1931. Reign ends. A reign does not begin after that. What should be in his infobox is what succeeded his reign. That is actual information, and information people want and need to know.
King is just a government office title, like a Count or Admiral or Treasurer, which might be be abolished, or put into commission, then re-created again decades, or centuries, later. We don't skip over intervals and pretend two disparate people decades apart who happen to have a revived title are "successors". It's not only useless information, it is positively misleading. Walrasiad (talk) 18:42, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We can have Monarchy abolished in the 'successor' entry. BTW, what we decide here, affects the infobox at the Juan Carlos I article. GoodDay (talk) 18:48, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Huh... why do you assume that for a "successor" to exist, it must be in place immediately after? I have also found the example of Amadeo I of Spain, which solves this in a very straightforward way. Wikipedia customary practice does not seem to support your view. At all. Impru20talk 18:51, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it does. When the title of Count of Anjou is abolished it is reported as absorbed into the French monarchy. When it is re-created, they don't list the last count as predecessor. When "Lord High Admiral" is abolished, and re-created a century letter, the predecessor of the latter is not the last Lord High Admiral a century earlier but the immediately preceding First Lord of the Admiralty Commission. Because that's what matters.
What should be listed as successor is "Monarchy abolished", with a link to the Second Spanish Republic, so people can actually follow it chronologically. Because that is actually useful. No more clicking pointlessly, cycling and lost through royal articles to look for who was the last Spanish king before the Republic. It's visible right there, as clear as day. Information people actually want. Walrasiad (talk) 19:02, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nobiliary titles are not typically used in the infobox in the same fashion as regnal titles, unless they were actual ruling offices. The last Count of Anjou (the example you bring) was John II of France, and the title is nowhere to be seen in the infobox. Neither it is for the last legally-established Duke of Anjou, who was Louis XVIII (ironically though, both Louis XVII and Napoleon I are shown as predecessors to Louis XVIII as "King of France" in the infobox, which further disproves your claims). Impru20talk 19:13, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Title was absorbed into the French crown on his ascension. But it was recreated again later. You are welcome to put a note at the bottom of this page that the next person to hold the title was some guy called Juan Carlos. But that should not be in the infobox. He is not the successor to a reign that ended in 1931. At least as far as I know - does official Spanish legal record obliterate the Republic and backdate Juan Carlos's reign to begin in 1931? No? Then he's not the successor under any meaning of the term, de jure or de facto. It is nonsense, useless and, more damningly, peddling misinformation to Wikipedia readers. Walrasiad (talk) 19:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We are in agreement on keeping the predecessor & successor fields in the infobox? GoodDay (talk) 19:33, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The English say ‘monarchy abolished with Charles I, restored with Charles II’, and continue to use a numbering system that refers to the previous monarchy. Before the Restoration, Charles II was the pretender to the abolished throne.

So, when Alfonso died, his son became the pretender to the abolished Spanish throne. When the throne was restored, that son gave up his claim to his own son, Juan Carlos, for political reasons. The Spaniards then continued with the old numbering system (the current monarch is Felipe VI).

It seems simple enough. What is all the heat about? Leftover passions from the Civil War, no doubt. 2A00:23C7:E284:CF00:2509:F1AB:E0C7:5595 (talk) 11:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominated for Nobel Peace Prize[edit]

What does that mean? Is is something official by the committee, or can anyone do it? Clarity needed. 2A00:23C7:E284:CF00:2509:F1AB:E0C7:5595 (talk) 11:05, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Succession[edit]

The article does not make clear what happened between the death of the old king, and the birth of the new one, six months later. Presumably, the Queen was pregnant when the king died, so the coming child was considered king/queen under a regency. But it is never said so, and that the throne is never vacant. Clarity needed. 2A00:23C7:E284:CF00:2509:F1AB:E0C7:5595 (talk) 11:28, 8 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ancestry[edit]

"Alfonso XIII is a rare example of endogamy." How is he a "rare" example? Among royalty, and the Hapsburgs, Bourbons, etc., especially, it seems pretty common. 76.202.192.102 (talk) 01:33, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Alfonso XII which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 01:30, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RfC of interest[edit]

(non-automated message) Greetings! I have opened an RfC on WT:ROYALTY that may be of interest to users following this article talk page! You are encouraged to contribute to this discussion here! Hurricane Andrew (444) 19:51, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Alfonso_XIII&oldid=1216969947"