Talk:Prince of Asturias

Juan Carlos?

Was the present king styled as Prince of Asturias between 1941 and 1975 (or 1969)? I seem to recall that he wasjohn k 14:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, was not the Count of Barcelona known as Prince of Asturias between his brothers' renunciations and his father's death? john k 14:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, what about Prince Emanuele Filiberto, eldest son of King Amadeo I? And was not the future Alfonso XII still called Prince of Asturias during the 1868-1874 period? john k 14:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Nobody? john k (talk) 16:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Juan Carlos was never known as Prince of Asturias, as his father was never King of Spain. When JC was named heir-apparent to the vacant Spanish throne in 1969, he was made Prince of Spain. GoodDay (talk) 21:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Only Alfonso XIII's eldest son was 'Prince of Asturias', all his yonger sons weren't. The Spanish monarchy was abolished in 1931. Therefore those renunications occured during the time of the Spanish Republic. GoodDay (talk) 21:36, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is actually right, though. Are you basing your statements here on knowledge of the specific situation, or logical deduction? Obviously, there was no Spanish monarchy between 1931 and 1975. But after the Count of Covadonga and the Duke of Segovia renounced in 1933, the Infante Juan was known as the Prince of Asturias until his father's abdication early in 1941. My understanding is that from 1941 to 1975, Juan Carlos was also known as the Prince of Asturias. What they were known as is not dependent on whether they held that title in reality. For a similar case, see Prince Ferdinand Pius, Duke of Calabria, who was known by the traditional title of heirs to the throne of the Two Sicilies, even though that throne had ceased to exist long before he took the title in 1894. john k (talk) 21:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The title didn't officially exist between 1931 & 1975, just like King of Spain didn't exist. Spain was a republic from 1931-39 & ruled by Franco 1939-75 (after 1947, it became a monarchy again, with Franco as 'regent-for-life'). GoodDay (talk) 21:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that it didn't officially exist, at least from 1931 to 1947 (whether it existed between 1947 and 1975 might be in question, though). That doesn't mean the title wasn't used in those years. john k (talk) 22:21, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Not certain, put I suppose so. If it were used? it was likely without Franco's consent. GoodDay (talk) 22:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Franco apparently designated him the "Prince of Spain" in 1969. I believe that before that Juan Carlos would generally have been referred to as the Prince of the Asturias or Prince of Asturias. john k (talk) 22:45, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Quite possible, his father Juan styled himself rightful 'King of Spain' (1941-77). GoodDay (talk) 22:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

His father claimed to be the rightful king of Spain, but was called the Count of Barcelona. I think Juan Carlos claimed to be and was called the Prince of Asturias. john k (talk) 23:04, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I suppose, but then exiled/pretender families (as the Bourbons were at that time) tend to claim/use royal titles. GoodDay (talk) 13:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Not that this is actually evidence, but note that Spanish wikipedia, German wikipedia, and French wikipedia all include Juan Carlos and his father as princes of Asturias. These would be, I think, the foreign language wikipedias most likely to derive their information independently of the English wikipedia. john k (talk) 06:06, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I reckon you can add Juan & Juan Carlos' names to this article & see what happens. GoodDay (talk) 23:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Table

Please don't remove the table without discussion. I don't see anything wrong with it. It follows the format of Prince of Wales and Dauphin of France.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 19:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

It is terribly complicated and contains so many useless information. It is extremely difficult to understand which date is the date of Joanna the Mad's birth, which date is the date she became heiress, which date is the date she was created Princess of Asturias, which date is the date she ceased to be Princess of Asturias and which date she died. To understand that, you need to go all the way up to the start of the table. Furthermore, the dates of birth and death are completely irrelevant, the latter even more if the prince(ss) ascended the throne. Why would the date of death of Joanna the Mad be relevant for this table if she died 51 year after ceasing to be Princess of Asturias? And why are other titles held by the princes(ses) relevant? Why do we need a whole bunch of titles Joanna held as Philip the Handsome's wife? How does it help us? What does it have to do with the title of Prince of Asturias? Surtsicna (talk) 19:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe they are relevant. Again I made this table in exact model of the one on Prince of Wales and Dauphin of France. Obviously these information are deemed relevant if these articles' contents have not been contested. You state that the standard Wikipedia procedure is that those who wish to add disputed information must gain consensus; please refer to the talk page, yet you are the one who remove the table I created based on your own opinion and preference without any discussion at all. And why did you anglicized Miguel da Paz's name and why did you remove Joseph Ferdinand, Prince of Asturias. And adding "of Austria" when it isn't neccessary is only confusing to those who don't understand. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 20:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Just because you believe they are relevant doesn't mean they are. You have to say why you think they are relevant. I've said why I don't believe they are relevant. The tables in the articles Prince of Wales and Dauphin of France are just as complicated and should be made more simple. The purpose of the table is to give only the most important info about the holder - his or her name, the year (or precise date) when they were granted the princely title, the name of the person who granted them the title, the year they lost it and the reason they lost it. The dates of their birth and death and information about their marriage and trivial titles they held are completely unrelated to their status as Prince of Asturias. Why is it important to state that Joanna the Mad was Countess of Charolais by marriage while being Princess of Asturias in her own right? It is not. It was impossible to make heads or tails of all the dates and trivial info in the middle of the table. I anglicised Miguel de Paz's name to make it consistent with the other names in the table; I would not mind reverting back to Miguel de Paz. Adding "of Austria" is helpful because it makes a distinction between the Habsburgs and their predecessors. Besides, the Spanish Habsburgs are generally known as being "of Austria", especially in Spanish (but also in English, Anne of Austria being an obvious example). As for Joseph Ferdinand, could you please cite a source that confirms he was Prince of Asturias? I have not been able to find such a source. He is not called Prince of Asturias by es.wiki, nor is he included in the list of princes on es.wiki. If you cannot find a source that confirms he was granted the title (not only the honours) of Prince of Asturias, I will request a move of the article about him. Surtsicna (talk) 15:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Well then everything is irrevelant. Birthdate and death date are relevant, just because some princes died decades after ceasing to be Prince of Asturias doesn't mean that it's not relevant. Okay maybe Joanna's titles as consort of Philip of Habsburg aren't relevant, but the other titles of the other crowns of Aragon are. You said that after scrolling down it's hard to distinguish the dates, yet you're the only one complaining. Why not revert it to this version if you stress such simplicity? --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

As a compromise, I propose adding the years of birth and death (without precise dates) below the names of the holders. On a side note, their spouses have an article of their own (Princess of Asturias). Surtsicna (talk) 16:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I am standing on my opinion because I know if I give in to your arguements, it'll only give you the right to simpilify all other articles like Prince of Girona, Dauphin of France, Prince of Wales. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 09:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I would like to here other people's opinion on this, for a comparison see User:Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy/Sandbox/Prince of Asturias vs the current one on this article. Can we vote on this or something similar to a move request?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 20:35, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

• Third opinion: While I agree that QEII's table is more complex, it does seem that there's also a lot more information in it, and it is based on a format at other pages. I'd say it's the better of the two. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Now that a third opinion has been stated do you want to revert it back to the previous table or do you want to discuss this further with Wikipedia:Dispute resolution? I'm up to it if you are.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 09:20, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

HelloAnnyong, I do not dispute the fact that there is a lot more information in it. What I am saying is that much of that information is irrelevant to the article about the title Prince of Asturias and to the holders' status as Prince of Asturias. If the point is to have as much info as possible, why not add "Royal house", "Parents", "Notes", "Children", etc? That information would be just as much relevant as "Other titles" or actually even more relevant. I would like to discuss this further because I feel very strongly about it. Surtsicna (talk) 10:50, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

How about adding the years of birth and death below their names and their other titles in a note next to their names? Surtsicna (talk) 11:37, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The current table leaves off the full dates of their birth/death, and it doesn't cover the corresponding princess. Having to go to the separate Princess article and match up the dates or heiress would be really awkward, so I think it belongs in as well. And once that's in, you have QEII's table. I would think that adding their birthdates and titles under their names would make the table a bit difficult to read/process - but it's worth a shot. Try adding it in, and then we can compare. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:02, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

There have only been c. 10 princesses by marriage, as opposed to c. 40 princes and princesses by birth. That leaves c. 30 useless empty entries that only serve to squeeze the useful information. Once the dates and spouses are in, you still don't get QEII's table because you miss "Other titles" - the most trivial of all the trivial parameters. As I said, adding the name of the prince's royal house would be much more useful than adding their insignificant titles or the names of their spouses (or, much more often, "-" because they were not married). So would be adding the names of their parents or the cortes that recognised them as princes. The table is extremely difficult to read/process when there are 10 columns; putting the years of birth and death below their names would do exactly the opposite to making it any more difficult to understand. QEEII's table look legible when you watch only the first several entries but when you scroll down to Don Carlos, it is impossible to understand what happened on 8 July 1545, what happened on 16 January 1556 and what happened on 24 July 1568 without having to go all the way up to the beggining to see where the column leads. This is not a biographical article; precise dates of birth and death are as neccessary as places of birth and death and I don't see those in the table (nor should I). Surtsicna (talk) 15:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I've added the years of birth and death. However, I have encountered difficulties adding the notes with the trivial titles because QEEII's original table contained lots of inaccuracies and ascribed them titles they never held or pretended to have while princes of Asturias (such as the title of King of Navarre to Henry IV, the title of Princess of Viana to the son, eldest daughter and grandson of Isabella I, the title of Duchess of Cadiz to Isabella II, etc). Are there any sources to confirm that all the princes of Asturias held the principality of Viana from the 16th century onwards? We shouldn't just assume they did because they did not hold the principality of Girona between the 17th century and the 20th century. Surtsicna (talk) 15:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

María de las Mercedes

The table says that "María de las Mercedes" was displaced by the birth of her brother in 1885 as princess of Asturias. But actually her brother was born in 1886. what happened was the king Alfonso XII died leaving two daughters and pregnant consort. the throne left vacant until the queen dilivers the child considering that birth of a son would make him King as died king has no other sons. Then Maria was heir presumptive of his father until birth of her brother, then she continued as her brothers heir.
Chamika1990 (talk) 13:41, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Juan Carlos until 1975 or 1977?

Although Juan Carlos I ascended the throne in 1975, the table indicates that he was Prince of Asturias until 1977. This is the year he granted the title to his son Infante Felipe, as the constitutional provisions granting it by right to the heir apparent or presumptive didn’t exist yet. But surely the title had merged with the Crown in 1975? Juan Carlos wasn’t at the same time King and Prince of Austrias? I can’t find ready clarifications about that in their articles.

(I don’t know if this is relevant, but this is also the year his own father Infante Juan renounced his claim to the throne, and until which he would have claimed him to be merely the Prince of Asturias.)

Keriluamox (talk) 08:47, 8 June 2023 (UTC)