Talk:List of Galician monarchs

Kings with no claims

Many of the kings listed here made no claim to being kings of Galicia. From the reign of Pelayo to that of Fernando I, there was only one who had such a title, following Alfonso III's sons' revolt and subdivision, and the kingdom was quickly reunited into a unified entity. The rest were kings whose territory just happened to include Galicia, or a couple were anti-kings, claiming the entire kingdom, whose power-base was in Galicia (i.e. Alfonso Fruelaz and Vermudo II at the end of Ramiro III's reign). That a kingdom of Galicia existed during this period is not the consensus of historians, who treat it as a single kingdom, originally Asturias, later called Leon, during the entire period, except during the reigns of Alfonso III's sons and perhaps during the conflict among his grandchildren. It is all thus original research. I suspect that the same is true under most of the Visigoths, but am not familiar with the scholarship during that period. This looks like the POV work of Galician nationalism. If no one defends this with actual sources, calling, say, Aurelius king of Galicia, I am going to trim the unsupported 'kings'. Agricolae (talk) 02:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Galicia did existed as a seperate title within the Crown of Castile. I agree the visigothic kings have no place here but the Leonese and Castilian kings should remain. One of Juan Carlos of Spain's title is king of Galicia.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 19:34, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The kings of England used the title King of France for 300 years after they lost it. That Juan Carlos uses this title is not very persuasive - it just represents the typical self-glorification of royalty. The question is when was the kingdom of Galicia a separate entity, and when did it become just another title used by the monarchs. Most importantly, when do English-language authors quit making the distinction. My guess would be that it was long before Juan Carlos. Agricolae (talk) 00:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I never said it was a seperate kingdom; its a seperate title. The example you gave me has a list of monarchs. Notice List of Leonese monarchs which includes Leonese kings after Castile gain supremacy, or List of Majorcan monarchs (seperate from Aragon for only a short while) and List of Valencian monarchs (never seperate from Aragon). I'm just asking if you are trimming this list do not remove the Suebic kings or the Leonese-Castilian kings.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 02:56, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

And the difference between a separate title and a separate kingdom is the root of our disagreement. I know these lists abound (and for each, another list for their wives). I just don't think many of them should. They appear to be mostly original research and listcruft, based on the whims of editors. Take the page you mention, English claims to the French throne, which claims: "Calais was ruled by eight more English Kings and Queens of France until 1558". I challenge you to find a single historian or scholar that considers any of these individuals after Henry VI to be a King of France. The List of Valencian monarchs is an abomination. First, it fails to notice two centuries of actual Valencian monarchs, the rulers of Taifa-era Valencia. Instead it spans a period throughout which the so-called Kingdom of Valencia was nothing but an administrative unit of the Crown of Aragon, controlled by appointed Viceroys and ruled as a constituent part of that Crown. This is like having a List of Welsh monarchs, page that simply repeats the English and British rulers. Again, find me a scholarly reference to king Peter/Pedro/Pere II of Valencia (as Peter II, not as Peter IV of Aragon). The entire page should be replaced by a redirect to List of Aragonese monarchs. To be useful, a list should bear some resemblance to both historical reality and scholarly consensus, not the wishful claims of monarchs or the obsessive categorization of editors. Back to the original point, I challenge anyone to find a scholar who considers Aurelius to have been King of Galicia, or a non-Galician scholar who talks about the succession of John II as King of Galicia. Agricolae (talk) 22:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I must agree as well as disagree with some of the above 10-year old discussion. I am familiar with the use of the title of King of France by the the kings of England even after they lost the continental territories as a result of the Hundred Years War. The reality is that that ridiculous claim was initially English and then it became British. It went on until 1803. I must totally agree that the use of titles nowadays "represents the typical self-glorification of royalty" to add color to claims they gave up by allowing democracy to avoid ending up like Charles I of England or Louis XVI of France. The fact the Cross of Saint Patrick in the Union Jack and the harp of Ireland in the two forms of the Royal Standard of the United Kingdom and countless variations still still have not been dropped from the flags is just a preposterous perpetration of claims they no longer possess.

I must disagree that Suebic and Visigothic kings should be taked off the list. They were monarchs of Galicia as a geographical territory and this is what this article is all about. This is about who ruled the territory and you cannot separate the Suebi or the Visigoths from it. They are mutually inclusive. The lines between what is really Galicia and who was the king/queen are blurred in some cases so I believe there should be more clarity, particularly when Galicia was independent as a kingdom and when it was part of another kingdom. If this list should be a list of kings where the title was King of Galicia then it's another story. I think we need to begin with the wording to establish a definition in order to make a distinction.

ICE77 (talk) 21:17, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Comments and suggestions for improvement

1. I think a flag should be added to the article just like it's done for the monarchs of Navarre or monarchs of Aragón.

2. The section "Kings of Galicia" needs some work. The first part starts with Ordoño II (910–914) and it ends with Bermudo II (982–985). No label has been associated to a dynasty and I assume this cannot be done due to the lack of continuity from 910 to 985 and the fact Galicia was independent or part of another kingdom at different times.

3. I do not like the wording from Ordoño II (910–914) to John of Castile (1296-1300). I think it's better to have text explaining/summarizing a period on top of a list of monarchs. It also looks cleaner.

4. My understanding is that the Kingdom of Galicia existed at different times as an independent kingdom from 910 to 1230: 910-914, 926-929, 982-985, 1065–1072 and 1111-1230. I think this should be clearly explained and correlated by a list of kings that were true kings of independent Galicia.

5. The list of claimants (John of Castile and houses of Burgundy, Lancaster and Aviz) should be in a separately labeled or flagged like they are in the list of monarchs of Scotland and monarchs of England.

ICE77 (talk) 21:51, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

A historical lesson

There was a certain confusion in the way the kings were listed, which I assume is because of a certain lack of common familiarity with the way the medieval era and the rules for dynastic succession worked... The same absolutist king could rule at the same time two different kingdoms, who usually retained their own laws and traditions. Sometimes, the kings of Leon and/or Castille succeeded in the throne of Galicia, and at other times, the kings of Galicia succeeded in the throne of Leon and/or Castille. Alfonso IV of Galicia for example, was the VI of Leon and II of Castile. Confusing? It sure can be, but that's how it worked. I have corrected the article so as to reflect this reality. Wareno (talk) 16:04, 27 May 2021 (UTC)