Talk:Joanna of Castile

Jane & Joan

I have usually seen this woman called Joanna in English, not Joan, and since she is the only queen of Castile by this name, she should be at Joanna of Castile. (Compare Victoria of the United Kingdom. Note also that other lonesome I's of Castile, such as Isabella, should stay I since Spain used the dynastic numbering of Castile and (for example) Isabella I of Castile was followed by Isabella II of Spain.) Montréalais

I am confused. Her name in Spanish is Juana which translates to English as Joan. I think calling her Joanna is inaccurate. What other sources refer to her as Joanna? Saucybetty

I've heard her called Juana Bruja (the Witch). Trekphiler 08:54, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

See Joanna. English, being particularly rich in doublets of Christian names, has many synonyms for this one. Thus "Jane the Insane" or "Crazy Joan" would be valid, though cruel, translations for "Juana la Loca". "Joanna" is older than these, in English, and is also used in other languages, so it's at least as reasonable a selection as the others. Jim.henderson 16:24, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

"Crazy Jane" is a figure in several poems by William Butler Yeats, as well as a painting by 19th-century mentally ill artist Richard Dadd and a character appearing in DC Comics. Perhaps Juana la Loca's ghost has been haunting Western civilization in one form or another ever since she was so royally screwed over... Johanna-Hypatia 11:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Why isn't she listed as simply Juana? There is no need to anglicize. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.142.49.99 (talk) 22:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with what the last guy said. We don't refer to a Carlos as Charles nowadays.--Batfan1966 (talk) 18:50, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Death on April 11 or 12, 1555?

Currently the article states her death to have occurred on 4/11, but this is in conflict with wikipedia versions in Catalan, Dutch, German, and Italian. There is some discussion in de wikipedia about this. According to Townsend Miller (Ref) she died in the morning hours of Good Friday, 1555, that would be 4/12/1555. Ekem 19:48, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

1516-55

Why isn't Joanna known (1516-55), as Queen of Spain? GoodDay 21:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

• Well, in theory, she was the Queen of Spain (I believe it is still unclear if she ever suceeded her father in Aragon, though). Her son Charles was merely a co-ruler while she was still alive - offical documents stated something like "Joan and Charles, queen and king of Spain..." If you check the French Wiki, for instance, she's listed under Jeanne Ire d'Espagne. However, History is cruel and even after her death and the death of her enemies she is not remembered as the first Queen of Unified Spain - which she was, although not a de facto ruler. Maybe we could do something about it?[Aki]

Juana was called mad, but may not have been mad. Her father declared her mad so he could have her throne, and when she got married she went from Juana to Joanna, as did her sister (Catalina to Katherine) ~i

• Being Joanna instead of Juana has nothing to do with marriage. 'Joanna' (although I still think Joan is more accurate) is simply the English version of Juana. That's why in Portugal she is Joana, in Germany Johanna and so on. It is a common practise for historical figures and even modern royals to be known outside their country by the local version of their name. Her mother is known as Isabella in English speaking countries, but she was Isabel all her life. [Aki]
  • Actually, her mother was Ysabel all her life. Isabel is the modern version of her name. This is her signature. Surtsicna (talk) 20:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

At that moment the concept of Spain evoked the territory of the ancient Roman province of Hispania. The different kigdoms in the Iberian Peninsula remained separeted until 1707-1715 with the Nueva Planta decrees.David gonzalez garcia (talk) 11:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

"Joanna was the last of the original Spanish royals; after her, all royalty on the Spanish throne was from houses that had come from abroad"

This is inaccurate. The last native Spanish ruling dynasty in Castile was the one whose direct male line ended with Alfonso VI in the 12th century. Alfonso's daughter, Queen Urraca of Castilla and Léon, was married to a Burgundian count. Their offspring were thus French on the paternal line, and known as the House of Burgundy.

The House of Burgundy was later supplanted by the "bastard" Trastamara line in the 14th century. The Trastamaras also came to control the Aragonese throne in the early 1400's, with the accession of Ferdinand I. So on both sides of the family, Juana's dynastic lineage was already of foreign origin. --Carlos 17:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Carribas

Joanna never claimed the title Empress of the Romans

No contemporary or modern author described her as thus either. Wikipedia can't make outrageous claims like this. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 06:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Joanna was Queen of Aragon

Solved, Joanna was indeed Queen of Aragon as stated by all primary, secondary and tertiary sources provided. Article was updated to reflect this. Archived very long discussion to avoid scaring newbies
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
1.- The Royal intitulatio establishes that they were both Kings of Aragon, including Joanna. You can see this intitulatio in this page, and more specifically in [1], [2] and [3]. For example: (Apr 1516) Doña Juana y don Carlos su hijo, reina y rey de Castilla, de León, de Aragón, de las Dos Sicilias, de Jerusalén, de Navarra, de Granada, de Toledo, de Valencia, de Galicia, de Mallorca, de Sevilla, de Cerdeña, de Córdoba, de Córcega, de Murcia, de Jaén, de los Algarves, de Algeciras, de Gibraltar, de las islas Canarias, de las Islas, Indias y Tierra Firme del mar Océano, &c. (Apr 1542) Carolus , Divina favente clemencia, Romanorum imperator, semper augustus, Rex Germaniae; Joanna, eius mater, et idem Carolus, Dei gratia, Reyes Castelle, Aragonum utriusque, Siciiae, Hierusalem, Ungariae, Dalmatiae, Croatie, Legionis, Navarrae, Granatae, Toleti, Valenciae,Gallecie, Maiosicarum, Hispalis, Sardiniae, Corsicae, Murciae, Gienis, Algarbic, Algezirae, Gibraltaris, inscularum Cunariae nec non Indiarum insularum et terre firme mares oceani, &c. If she was not queen of Aragon, why does she show up as queen in the royal titles? 2.- Joanna's name appears with her son Charles' name in the Aragonese coins. Please see this coin [4] You will see the legend +IOANA ET KAROLVS REX ARAGON and this coin from Saragossa (1520). How is explained that in the Aragonese coins, Joanna and Charles should appear together?. The fact is that the institutions recognized them as kings to mint them in the coins. 3.- It is true that Aragonese Fueros did not permit inheritance by females, but it was allowed to their sons the inheritance. But in 1502, the Kingdom of Aragon did an exception with the princess Joanna, and they swore her as heiress of her father King Fernando II, thereby she was Princess of Girona. Nevertheless, this oath was an exception, and the Aragonese Cortes did not change the Fueros «Que los quatro Braços de la Corte general deste Reyno, avida entre si deliberación y diligente examen, por ellos y por sus sucessores juravan por Dios sobre la Cruz de Nuestro Señor Jesu Christo y los Santos quatro Evangelios delante dellos puestos, y por ellos y cada uno dellos manualmente tocados, a la Ilustrísima Señora Doña Juana, Princesa y Archiduquesa, primogénita, fija legítima y natural del Señor Rey, que la tenían y tendrían, avían y avrían en y por primogénita de Aragón durante la larga y bienaventurada vida del Señor Rey, y después de sus bienaventurados días, en Reina y por Reina y Señora suya natural, y que como a tal la obedecerían y guardarían fidelidad de la manera sobredicha, como vasallos naturales devían y eran tenidos, y assí mesmo al Ilustrísimo Señor Don Felipe, Príncipe, Archiduque de Austria y Duque de Borgoña, como a legítimo marido de la dicha Ilustrísima Doña Juana,durante el dicho matrimonio tan solamente. Mas si a Nuestro Señor Dios placía dar al Señor Rey fijo o fijos masclos legítimos y de legítimo matrimonio procreados, que aquella jura y actos en ella contenidos fuessen avidos por no hechos». 4.- Joanna was Queen of Aragon, but she did not reign and did not govern; her son interested about keeping her locked up, since she was the legitimate queen. Though the Fueros were not allowing to reign the women, there were two exceptions, Petronila and Joanna, and they had both male children. 5.- I have added reliable sources from Spanish universities, you can see here [5], [6] and [7]. If you understand the Spanish language, you will know that I am not wrong. I added text to the article directly and explicitly supported by the cited sources. However, User:Michaelsanders delete these sources and but he neither discusses nor explains his point of view. Trasamundo (talk) 15:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC) Online sources are only to be trusted if they come from reputable sources. Reputable sources - online and published - say that Joanna was never Queen of Aragon - the succession passed directly from Ferdinand to Charles. Nor was she ever sworn allegiance to as heiress of Aragon or 'Princess of Girona', only as heiress of Castile. Michael Sanders 19:42, 15 December 2007 (UTC) Furthermore, Joanna is never referred to as being 'Queen of Aragon' in established historiography, which always describes Charles as directly succeeding his grandfather. Wikipedia convention is that if you are stating anything other than the established norm, you need a reliable source to back it up. As it is, you are engaging in Original Research, drawing your own conclusions from dubious evidence to argue that the truth is other than commonly accepted facts. That is simply not on. Frankly, I don't care if Joanna was or wasn't referred to as Queen of Aragon on coins, or in a list of royal titles from a dubious source and furthermore in Spanish (I can't read Spanish, and I'd wager a fair number of contributors on English language wikipedia can't either. Whilst this does not in itself invalidate the sources, it makes them difficult for us to use) - what I care about is what is said in established historiography. That says that she was never Queen of Aragon. Nor has anyone on wikipedia apart from you ever claimed she was Queen of Aragon, or that Charles did not directly succeed Ferdinand II, and I'm not buying that we all simply didn't notice what would be a very major oversight. So, to put it simply: Aragon, unlike the male-preference primogeniture systemed Castile, allowed succession through but not of females. Ferdinand tried to bequeath Aragon to his grandson Ferdinand but eventually left it to Charles. Charles succeeded in Aragon, and then became co-King in Castile with Joanna. Joanna was never, ever, Queen of Aragon. Michael Sanders 20:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC) :::Joanna, King of Aragon (instead of Queen regnant)? What? GoodDay (talk) 02:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC) So when King Ferdinand II of Aragaon died in 1516, his grandson only succeeded him (not his daughter Joanna, who was already Queen of Castile). GoodDay (talk) 02:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC) Exactly. Michael Sanders 03:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC) No, by no means! User:Michaelsanders does not engage in affirming the veracity of his theories but in denigrating my theories. He thinks that the truth is the commonly accepted facts, for me it is to contribute with real proofs. 1.- I contribute primary sources, Michaelsanders doesn't. He says that I put a list of royal titles from a dubious source, but perhaps does the Municipal archive of Cordova lie with this letter of privilege (1538)?. We are able to read Don Carlos, por la divina clemencia, Emperador de los romanos, augusto rey de Alemania. Doña Juana su madre, y el mismo Don Carlos, por la gracia de Dios reyes de Castilla y León, de Aragón, de las dos Sicilias, de Jerusalén, de Navarra... . How do you explain that the queen Juana should have the queen's title of Aragon?, for a pity? so, for example, why did she not have the title of Empress of the Romans?. The list of royal titles is not the list of the purchase, this list says those who do the laws. The acceptable unique thing is that by law Joanna had the royal title of Aragon, and you, Michaelsanders deny it, and you don't care that. Is this for you the verifiability?. I contribute coins also, they aren't medals, [8] and [9]. Will not you hint that the coins which are actioned are false? The coins are primary sources tangible and objective, its existence is not subject to discussion since it is minted in Saragossa (the capital of Aragon) in the epoch of the reign of Juana and Carlos, and its mintage had not taken place if Juana had not been a queen, she was Queen of Aragon by law, but the institutions recognized her as queen and her effigy appears with his son's effigy; but it seems that you know more than the Aragonese institutions of this epoch, and I see queens or manikins where they do not appear. Why do you ignore the primary sources?, Do you write the objective articles by this way?. I do not have a misconception, I contribute proofs in the suitable place and in the suitable epoch; perhaps has more veracity the book that writes a guy 550 years later?. Which explanation do you deduce of these primary sources?, are they an isolated fact?. 2.- Michaelsanders, you establish yourself that the reputables sources say that Joanna was never Queen of Aragon - the succession passed directly from Ferdinand to Charles. I don't know if the reputables sources are British, but in Spain nobody doubts that she was a queen of Castile and Aragon with her son, so: Ernest Belenguer with his book El imperio hispánico (1479-1665) (Ed Grijalbo Montadori, pag 143) mentions that Carlos is sworn together in Aragon with his mother (I do not have permission to reproduce the text). Martyn Rady with his book Carlos V (Ed Altaya. pag 21) mentions that Charles was proclaimed king of Castile and Aragon, co-ruler with his mother. Joseph Pérez (president of University of Bordeaux), inside Historia de España, vol 5, directed by es:Manuel Tuñón de Lara (ed.Labor, pag 169) mentions: Según el testamento de la reina Isabel le correspondía ahora al hijo mayor de Juana, Carlos de Gante, que a la sazón residía en Flandes, hacerse cargo del gobierno con simple título de regente; así se lo explicó el Cardenal Cisneros en nombre del Consejo Real [...] Ahora bien, los consejeros flamencos de don Carlos tenían otras miras; juzgaron más conveniente que Carlos recibiera desde entonces el título de rey de Castilla y Aragón, "juntamente con la católica reina", doña Juana. No hay que andarse con rodeos: la decisión de Bruselas era totalmente ilegal; se trata de un verdadero golpe de estado que Cisneros y el Consejo Real aceptaron [...]. (According to the testament of Queen Isabel, it was corresponding now to the older son of Juana, Carlos of Ghent, who was residing in Flanders at that time, to take charge of the government with simple title of regent; thus Cardinal Cisneros explained him in name of the Royal Council [...] Don Carlos' Flemish advisors judged more suitable than Carlos received the title of king of Castile and Aragón since then, "together with the catholic queen", Dona Juana. The decision of Brussels was totally illegal; it is real coup d’état that Cisneros and the Royal Council accepted) I believe that you deduce your own conclusions when these wonderful reputables sources do not say anything of Juana as queen of Aragon, and you think that she was not queen by no means. When your sources do not say anything, they do not want to say that neither should say yes nor should say not. You are the one that you imagine. Why your reliable sources ignore of these specifications? The truth is very simple. A book of history pays attention on the important subjects, but no historian focuses his attention on the period 1516-1518 in Aragon (not this way in Castile), since this period does not affect for anything the development of the reign of Carlos I, it is easier to say that after Fernando II's death his grandson was came to the power and swore the laws of the kingdoms, but it is not developed the legal tricks, because these tricks do not affect Carlos' reign in Aragon in anything, while his mother was in Tordesillas. But in Spain there are researchers (investigators) who read the primary sources and they write very specific essays about what they have gathered; and it is logical that the essays are in Spanish if the unique persons that they gather the specific essays are Spaniards. I am not the guilty if historians are not interesting in the the period of 1516-1518 in Aragon at all, but if some studies exist which light the matter, I transmit it for the common knowledge; however, you impede that somebody has knowledge of these sources, so you prevent from changing the commonly accepted facts. I contribute unknown information for the common public and you, Michaelsanders are censuring it. You spread an official history and you deny everything in what you are not interested. You are closed of mind, you affirm that you do not know the Spanish, and instead of opening your thought for new researches, you eliminate them. If you wanted to extend your knowledge you would look for other persons who knew Spanish and you would confirm these sources, and you would not eliminate it, but I believe that you consider yourself to be the guardian of the knowledge, and you delete everything what is not inside your personal orthodoxy. I don't have draw own conclusions, I have transmitted researchers' conclusions who have acceded to primary sources and have written what they have seen. You must understand that these essays are very specific and they do not treat of general historiography but they treat history of the Law, and they do not concern in anything the development of the established facts. 3.-You affirm that she was not sworn allegiance to as heiress of Aragon or 'Princess of Girona', only as heiress of Castile. In this essay (pag 137) quotes «El derecho de sucesión al trono en la Corona de Aragón (The right of succession to the throne in the Crown of Aragon) from es:Anuario de Historia del Derecho Español, where es:Alfonso García-Gallo gathers the Princess Joanna's oath in Cortes of Aragon assembled in Saragossa in 1503: «Que los quatro Braços de la Corte general deste Reyno, avida entre si deliberación y diligente examen, por ellos y por sus sucessores juravan por Dios sobre la Cruz de Nuestro Señor Jesu Christo y los Santos quatro Evangelios delante dellos puestos, y por ellos y cada uno dellos manualmente tocados, a la Ilustrísima Señora Doña Juana, Princesa y Archiduquesa, primogénita, fija legítima y natural del Señor Rey, que la tenían y tendrían, avían y avrían en y por primogénita de Aragón durante la larga y bienaventurada vida del Señor Rey, y después de sus bienaventurados días, en Reina y por Reina y Señora suya natural, y que como a tal la obedecerían y guardarían fidelidad de la manera sobredicha, como vasallos naturales devían y eran tenidos, y assí mesmo al Ilustrísimo Señor Don Felipe, Príncipe, Archiduque de Austria y Duque de Borgoña, como a legítimo marido de la dicha Ilustrísima Doña Juana, durante el dicho matrimonio tan solamente. Mas si a Nuestro Señor Dios placía dar al Señor Rey fijo o fijos masclos legítimos y de legítimo matrimonio procreados, que aquella jura y actos en ella contenidos fuessen avidos por no hechos». (That 4 estates of the Court of this Kingdom swear by God ... to missis dona Joanna ... legitimate child of the Mister King, that they would have it ... for first-born of Aragon during the life of the King and after his days, in Queen and as to such they will obey and guard loyalty) You affirm that Ferdinand tried to bequeath Aragon to his grandson Ferdinand but eventually left it to Charles. This is false. The same essay says (pag 142): En su testamento don Fernando había nombrado a Carlos Gobernador General, título de gobierno que tenían por ley únicamente los primogénitos de la Corona tras jurar los fueros, dejando la administración de los reinos hasta la llegada del príncipe al arzobispo de Zaragoza, Alonso de Aragón, nombrado además Lugarteniente General. (In his testament don Fernando had appointed to Carlos Gobernador-General, title of government that took by law solely the first-born of Corona (Kings) after swearing the fueros, leaving the administration of the kingdoms until the arrival of prince to the archbishop of Saragossa, Alonso de Aragón, named in addition General Lugarteniente). The same source says (pag 145) quotes cited es:Alfonso García-Gallo where gathers Carlos' oath before the Cortes of Aragon: «Havida entre nosotros deliberación, por nosotros y nuestros sucesores juramos por Dios sobre la Cruz de Nuestro Señor Jesu Christo y los santos quatro Evangelios, delante de nosotros puestos e por nosotros e cada uno de nos manual y corporalmente tocados, a vosotros los Muy Altos, Muy Cathólicos y Muy Poderosos Príncipes y Señores, Doña Juana y Don Carlos, su hijo primogénito, por la gracia de Dios reyes de Castilla, de Aragón, etc.; por reyes y señores nuestros conregnantes en el dicho Reyno de Aragón; e que vos havemos y tenemos, havremos y ternemos por reyes, en reyes y señores nuestros naturales, et que de aquí adelante obedeceremos e guardaremos fidelidad a Vuestras Altezas, así como a reyes y señores conregnantes en el dicho Reyno, e como vasallos naturales deben e son tenidos servir fidelidad y obediencia». (We swore by God ... to you ... Dona Juana and Don Carlos, her first-born son, by the grace of God kings of Castile, Aragón, etc, for our kings and our overlord reigning jointly in this Kingdom of Aragón and that we will take you as Kings). Nevertheless, for Michaelsanders neither Revista General de Información y Documentación (General journal of Information and Documentation) of Universidad complutense de Madrid (Complutensian university of Madrid), nor Anuario del Derecho Español (Yearbook of the Spanish Law), nor es:Manuel Tuñón de Lara are realiable sources. He agrees as God's word the Sixteenth Century Journal', Incredible! Who has granted him the faculty to give legitimacy to the English sources and to the Spaniards not? Are not the Spanish teachers-researchers of Spanish universities reputable sources? It seems that he drinks of the sources of the truth, but he does not know Spanish language and he censures and he discredits everything what is not molded to his knowledge. 4.- You say that nobody on wikipedia apart from me ever claimed Joanna was Queen of Aragon, or that Charles did not directly succeed Ferdinand II. But in Wikipedia in Spanish nobody doubts that she was a queen of Aragon, and in Wikipedia in Italian, which is a featured article, indicates also that she was a queen of Aragon. Probably for Michaelsanders the only wikipedia that exists is in English language, where he has despised of the Spanish historiography the Spanish researches, by his denominated reputed sources. Michaelsanders only repeats again and again that established historiography always describes Charles as directly succeeding his grandfather, but he does not explain how it is possible. I contribute some proofs and he discredits them because he is not interested in them or he does not understand them, since they are not adapted to his established scheme. 5.- Michaelsanders says that Charles succeeded in Aragon, and then became co-King in Castile with Joanna. Joanna was never, ever, Queen of Aragon. I propose another source that Sanders certainly will deny because it is not trustworthy, It is the Britannica Online Encyclopedia, this page, indicates that Juana was queen of Castile (from 1504) and of Aragon (from 1516). Am I the rare guy?. So, the fact is that you have the particular vision and not I. And if you are so sure why don't you submit to a third opinion?, I do not have any problem. I already have written everything what I must say. Trasamundo (talk) 01:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC) Perhaps it's this way: In 1516 upon Ferdinand's death, Joanna & Charles became co-monarchs of Aragon. Charles became co-monarch of Castile (joining Joanna, who began her reign there, in 1504). GoodDay (talk) 01:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC) It isn't. I don't care what books you aren't allowed to quote say, and I don't care how many 'theories' you present, how much Original Research you indulge in, how open your mind is to 'new researches'. Nor do I particularly care how much you accuse me of being 'closed-minded', etc. What I will say is: 1). Articles written on the basis of personal research into primary sources is strongly discouraged, particularly if you draw new and original conclusions. You have conducted such research, and drawn such conclusions. You say yourself: "He thinks that the truth is the commonly accepted facts, for me it is to contribute with real proofs" and "I contribute unknown information for the common public" - Well, that's a statement of Original Research if ever there was one. 2). Preferring secondary over primary sources is a fundamental concept of wikipedia. I have no idea why Joanna might have been juxtaposed with Charles in Aragon - nor will I commit Original Research by speculating - and I don't care. All I care is what secondary sources, which don't have the obvious degrees of bias and misinformation, have to say. That's how objective articles are written. 3) The only book you quote (possibly due to your translation) gives an ambiguous impression, but appears to apply only to Castile (mention of Isabella's will), and says that "Carlos received the title of king of Castile and Aragón since then, "together with the catholic queen", Dona Juana" - which, again perhaps due to your translation, is ambiguous, since it could just apply to Castile. Frankly, I prefer the specific statement in my source that he directly succeeded in Aragon. 4) Online sources are considered inferior to published sources - anyone can post a webpage. 5) Perhaps my 'reliable sources' ignore these specifications because your supposed specifications are fictional? 6)Again, you're using webpages to prove your point. Web-sources are not appropriate in controversial points. Sources such as the Sixteenth Century Journal are appropriate - that is a reputable published source, and because it's in English, other editors can investigate the sources to ensure that they say what the editor is claiming to say. That's not the case if you are obfuscating by using a different language. 7) You can't argue that a point is true because other people on wikipedia do it. You can argue that, because since the inception of this article about 4 years ago no-one has claimed she was 'Queen of Aragon', it indicates that nobody has either thought to add it or considered it's exclusion strange. It's not conclusive proof, merely a suggestive indication of what editors expect to see. 8) Britannica is not infallible. Again, published historiography indicates that she was not Queen of Aragon. But then, since her Britannica article is only 302 words, it's pretty easy to accept that the writers did not put a particularly intensive degree of effort into it - so perhaps they made a mistake? 9)The fact that I can't read Spanish does not invalidate me from editing articles on Spanish history. Merely from editing Spanish wikipedia. Perhaps you should consider the same vis a vis English wikipedia? Michael Sanders 21:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC) I request excuses to write and to express so badly in English, since you, User:Michaelsanders, have understood little of which I want to say, I am going to try it better: 1.- Original Research I do not elaborate neither original research nor not original. After discussing the subject of the beginning of the reign of Joanna and Charles in Aragon, because in the Spanish historiography the commonly accepted facts are that both were co-kings in Castile and Aragon, and after accepting the agreements in the Spanish wikipedia, I put this information in the English Wikipedia, and you say that is not correct, you say that you have other sources, and in addition you insist on looking for each coma and each dot written by me to induce that I implement original researches, and deleting me. These ideas that I try to defend are not neither new nor original for the historiography in Spain and they do not contradict to the Britannica Encyclopedia; nevertheless, it seems that for you, or perhaps (I do not know it) for the British historiography, these ideas are an atrocity. I act in consequence and I try to demonstrate what I write, that it is what is written in the Spanish wikipedia (where is also in opposition to Original Research). I try to demonstrate it with real proofs, which hit with what you defend, your Commonly accepted facts, but they are not the commonly accepted facts for Spanish historiography; and I contribute unknown information for the common public, since it specifies very precise aspects that clarify the subject that I defend (on this already I will explain afterwards). THEREFORE, I neither have elaborated nor created nor thought nor dreamed personal research; in addition, I don't have draw own conclusions. I have only transmitted Spanish researchers' conclusions about this subject, I have transmitted the agreements adopted in the Spanish wikipedia, which I share them and I defend them, as you do with your theories. You should not affirm that what I affirm is a product of my imagination. 2.- Primary sources In Primary source, we read: «A work on history is not likely to be taken seriously as scholarship if it only cites secondary sources, as it does not indicate that original research has been done». I agree with you about the general conception of the primary sources, but I have not showed up subjective material as diaries, recorded notes, descriptions interviews, trials or observations, I have only showed up objective, formal material, without intention, without premeditation, without purpose, without assumptions, without suppositions, these primary sources are elaborated by law. what it is interesting in this discussion is not the content of those sources but the form whereupon appears to us, for that, I am going to use children's reasoning in primary education. I will put two examples: - If you look at the obverse side of the British coins, anyone will see ELIZABETH II D G REG F D, if I ask who is Elizabeth II the answer is undoubtedly the Queen; and you have reason, it is not necessary to analyze anything more, and nobody needs any secondary source to know it (except you), if I take the authentic coin of Aragon in 1520 we read IOANA ET:KARLOS:DEI: GRA:R:AR / +IOANA ET KAROLVS REX ARAGON and if I ask Who are IOANA and KAROLVS, the answer is the Kings of Aragon, so, in that epoch, they knew it and in this epoch we know it also. - If you look at s:Constitución española de 1978 or in English s:Spanish Constitution of 1978, we read (in English) «We, don Juan Carlos I, King of Spain, announce to all those who may have knowledge of this: that the Cortes have passed and the Spanish people have ratified the following Constitution», if I ask who is the King of Spain the answer is undoubtedly Juan Carlos I, and if we see this original law (1538) we read Don Carlos, por la divina clemencia, Emperador de los romanos, augusto rey de Alemania. Doña Juana su madre, y el mismo Don Carlos, por la gracia de Dios reyes de Castilla y León, de Aragón, de las dos Sicilias, de Jerusalén, de Navarra...; if I ask who is the Emperor the answer is only Carlos, but if I ask who are the kings of Castile, Leon, Aragon..., the answer is Juana and Carlos. I have done reading comprehension. What are the bias and misinformation of the question?, probably if another person publishes this paragraphs in the " Sixteenth Century Journal " passes to be reliable for you. For rest of the world look like very simply, and now I have not speculated on the reasons. THEREFORE: The primary sources that I have presented are not opinions or subjective versions of a point of view, they are objective and legal realities. 3.- I'm able to quote Historia de España directed by es:Manuel Tuñón de Lara (reliable source) because in the book there does not appear any prohibition of reproduction of the content. Though you think that it is ambiguous, it is clear that it is said that Carlos self-proclaimed king in Brussels illegally, so he) did not inherit any kingdom in Spain; and this is the opposite view that you affirm. You should read the last testament of Ferdinand II, inasmuch as you have so much true sources. Here you have the complete paragraph: Y es que la situación de doña Juana en nada mejoró a la muerte del rey de Aragón, en enero de 1516. Según el testamento de la reina Isabel le correspondía ahora al hijo mayor de Juana, Carlos de Gante, que a la sazón residía en Flandes, hacerse cargo del gobierno con simple título de regente; así se lo explicó el Cardenal Cisneros en nombre del Consejo Real: «por el fallecimiento del Rey Católico, vuestro abuelo, vuestra alteza no ha adquirido más derecho de lo que antes tenía». Ahora bien, los consejeros flamencos de don Carlos tenían otras miras; juzgaron más conveniente que Carlos recibiera desde entonces el título de rey: el 14 de marzo de 1516, en Bruselas, don Carlos fue proclamado oficialmente rey de Castilla y Aragón, «juntamente con la católica reina», doña Juana. No hay que andarse con rodeos: la decisión de Bruselas era totalmente ilegal; se trata de un verdadero golpe de estado que Cisneros y el Consejo Real aceptaron para no complicar aún más la difícil situación política de Castilla, pero que causó un profundo malestar en amplios sectores del país. If someone wants to translate it, you can take some online translator, or the Babylon, or another one. THEREFORE: I hope that you do not continue thinking that I draw original research. 4.- Online sources You insist that "Web - sources are not appropriate in controversial points" and "Online sources are considered inferior to published sources". You have totally the reason. This way, the Revista General de Información y Documentación (General Journal of Information and Documentation) is a publication (book) which is sold in Madrid, and at bottom of this page you will see the place where the journal is sold and how to subscribe in order that the journal is send to your house (I translate venta=sale, Suscripción=subscription, Intercambio=Exchange). The essay that I use of the Revista General de Información y Documentación quotes Anuario de Historia del Derecho Español (Yearbook of History of the Spanish Law). Nowadays the Yearbook is edited by the ministry of Justice and the Boletín Oficial del Estado=BOE (Official Bulletin of the State: organization that publishes the Spanish laws). For example, the volume of 2005 has 1176 pages and it is sold in the shop of the BOE, so it does not seem that this source is online, and the quoted volume (XXXVI) in the essay of the General Journal of Information and Documentation, is available for example in the library of the university of Valparaíso (Chile). This is the 36th volume, ans it appears Juana's oath as princess of Aragon and Carlos' oath as King together with his mother, like I wrote them before. I repeat that they appear in a secondary source of 1966 and you affirm that I draw original speculative research. Is it sufficient this to be a reliable source?. As for this essay, it belongs to MAYURCA: Revista del Departament de Ciències Històriques i Teoria de les Arts. Universitat de les Illes Balears, (Journal of the Department of Historical Sciences and Theory of the Arts. University of the Balearic Islands) whose volumes are digitized in the Biblioteca Digital Científica de les Illes Balears (Digital Scientific Library of the Balearic Islands. (the information is in Catalan language). THEREFORE: It is clear that the essays that I have used online are written publications by universities and according to Wikipedia:No original research the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. And it is a luck that in addition they are digitized because they spread researches through a rapid system, so that they do not remain stored in specializing libraries, but with the digitalization they are able to be used for the common knowledge, when the subject is not so well-known. If I have used them online it is because I wanted that anyone sees them, and it is not as your theses which are not seen, but you only tell them. I believe firmly that you think that it is the same thing that Joanna was not a queen of Aragon and Joanna did not reign in Aragon; but it is different, because though Joanna did not reign in Aragon (she could not exercise as queen of Aragon), Joanna kept the legal title of queen of Aragon. I believe that you are obfuscated. 5.- You said Perhaps my 'reliable sources' ignore these specifications because your supposed specifications are fictional? I am going to do a comparison. I have put a text of a collection of History of Spain (directed by es:Manuel Tuñón de Lara) that tells about the subject that we discuss, and it takes care of it in a single paragraph, but in the essay of Revista General de Información y Documentación] it is used 13 pages. This way, in the general historiography the importance is void or is is very scanty, whereas in the specific historiography the same matter develops. THEREFORE: The subject of discussion is not fictitious since Spanish researchers (I am not that) have dedicated their time to publish in journals (written on paper) what they have gathered, and so, that mentioned essay is a secondary source. 6.- Language You cannot claim that English historiography puts more interest than the Spanish historiography to write on history of Spain. I do not say that the amount in English should be scanty, but the Spanish researchers can can have more facility of access and understanding of primary and secondary sources, and the publication only in Spanish language supposes an important part to complete information. I complain about that you are not care in these Spanish researches, but you must think that the Spanish is not Navajo language and there are million of persons who understand it, as I understand the English language, and so many other people can write it well, not like me, and they can accede likewise to this information, and investigate these Spanish sources to to ensure that they say what the editor is claiming to say. If you cannot do it, nobody has given you the authority it to prevent the others. Evidently the fact that you can't read Spanish does not invalidate you from editing articles on Spanish history, it invalidates that you have the absolute truth without accepting what is what the own Spaniards (especially, the Spanish researchers) say to whom so gracefully you have done the favor of writing them their own history. 7.- Wikipedia You have said You can't argue that a point is true because other people on wikipedia do it, but before you had said Nor has anyone on wikipedia apart from you ever claimed she was Queen of Aragon. Really I do not understand what you want to say, but if there are another people in wikipedia with my viewpoint, certainly I have not made an original research. If nobody in 4 years has thought over this, it is because the topic is totally insignificant. Really the sources that I contributed (they are online but they digitalizations of Journals published in university), I found them little time ago when I was looking for the prices of coins. In all that these essays I observed that they were developing and specifying what the historians were saying little, and I corrected in wikipedia in Spanish, where it has been accepted. In addition, if I had found it before I would have modified it before. 8.- Britannica If I use the link that you have indicated me, Wikipedia:Original Research, I read Encyclopaedia Britannica and encyclopedias of similar quality can be regarded as reliable secondary sources instead of tertiary ones, but now you speculate that Britannica is not infallible, and writers did not put to particularly intensive degree of effort into it. Well then, I have no idea why Britannica is not infallible - nor will I commit Original Research by speculating - and I don't care. Perhaps I can speculate and I say that the editors have seen primary sources as laws or coins, or they have read the oath, or they have read Ferdinand II's will and they have written that Juana and Carlos were kings of Aragon, I don't know. Also I can say that your sources are not infallible. 9.- Finally Your word is like god's word, somebody believes you or not; on the other hand, I have crumbled, crushed and justified fully the positions that they have been accepted in the Spanish wikipedia, and they are not my invention, in spite of you have tried repeatedly of despising them: if they are online, if they are ambiguous, if they are unknown. And it is not true, I have demonstrated it. I think simply that it is all mentioned, and inasmuch as I am bored of this absurd discussion (in Spanish: discusión bizantina). Simply, I thank you because I did not write in English since a lot of time. And I do not edit in English wikipedia, because I do not know write well, I only can correct some details for certain articles. Trasamundo (talk) 21:10, 22 December 2007 (UTC) You are engaging in Original Research, and what's more you are hoisting yourself upon your own petard. Consider your claim regarding the coin: "If you look at the obverse side of the British coins, anyone will see ELIZABETH II D G REG F D, if I ask who is Elizabeth II the answer is undoubtedly the Queen; and you have reason, it is not necessary to analyze anything more, and nobody needs any secondary source to know it (except you), if I take the authentic coin of Aragon in 1520 we read IOANA ET:KARLOS:DEI: GRA:R:AR / +IOANA ET KAROLVS REX ARAGON and if I ask Who are IOANA and KAROLVS, the answer is the Kings of Aragon, so, in that epoch, they knew it and in this epoch we know it also." "After Isabella's death, Ferdinand, though legally no more than regent in Castile, had coins minted with the inscription 'Ferdinand and Joanna, King and Queen of Castile, Leon and Aragon'." (JR Hale, Renaissance Europe, 1480-1520). By your logic, Joanna was thus co-monarch of Aragon with her father, because the description on the coins indicate that "in that epoch, they knew it and in this epoch we know it also." Sadly for you, it is simply inconceivable that Joanna was 'Queen of Aragon' whilst Ferdinand II was still alive. Yet the coins say that she was. Result: the coins are not trustworthy, they are tools of propaganda, and those associating her with Charles are no more conclusive proof of their titles than those associating her with Ferdinand. What we get is an object lesson of why wikipedia discourages careless use of primary resources. And what else do you have? A dodgy geocities website, written and posted by god-knows-who, and with nothing to speak for its reputation? A handful of sources, which either you 'can't quote', or which are too ambiguous, or which are inaccessible and which therefore we can't check and trust. Not buying it, I'm afraid. Michael Sanders 18:37, 23 December 2007 (UTC) Oh my God. The text says: Medals were struck with political slogans. Even everyday coins could carry a political message. After Isabella's death Ferdinand, though legally no more than regent in Castile, had coins minted with the inscription 'Ferdinand and Joanna, King and Queen of Castile, Leon and Aragon'. I have said previously that the coin is a currency and it is not a medal. In addition, the coinage of Castile did not use the same procedure that in Navarre or in Aragon (except in the kingdom of Naples during Ferdinand the Catholic). In Navarre or in Aragon the coinage was much more rigid, in agreement with their laws and the Cortes. In addition, my sources are accessible, inasmuch as they are both printed in paper and they are digitized.--Trasamundo (talk) 15:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC) Like Hale says, coins can carry political messages. The coins he mentions Ferdinand striking were legal tender - and yet they carried slogans that were untrue. So why do you think that those Charles struck would be any more accurate or apolitical? Michael Sanders 15:40, 24 December 2007 (UTC) I have found new sources to support that Juana was Queen of Aragon. In the book Fueros, observancias y actos de corte del reino de Aragón of the year 1866, which is scanned in the web page of the Library Saavedra Sajardo of the University of Murcia, in the page 64 the book indicates in modern Spanish: La serenísima señora Reina doña Juana, hija primogénita de los dichos Reyes Católicos, fue jurada por Reina, y Señora de los Reinos de Aragón y su Corona, para después de los felices y largos días del dicho Rey Católico su padre, en la ciudad de Zaragoza el año MDII: y por muerte del dicho señor Rey Católico su padre, sucedió en los dichos Reinos de Aragón, juntamente con el muy alto y muy poderoso Príncipe y Señor don Carlos, hijo suyo primogénito y del muy alto y muy poderoso señor don Felipe de austria hijo primogénito del Emperador Maximiliano, &c. Archiduque de Austria su marido, correinante con la dicha señora Reina su madre, por el impedimento de la dolencia que la dicha señora Reina padecía: fue electo en Rey de Romanos por la muerte del dicho Emperador Maximiliano su abuelo, el año MDXIX: y después coronado en Emperador en el año MDXXXIX en la ciudad de Bolonia por el Papa Clemente VII. Tuvo Cortes generales en la ciudad de Zaragoza en el año MDXIX. Anyone can translate this text in English in Internet: The most serene Lady Queen dona Juana, first-born daughter of the above mentioned Catholics Kings, was sworn by Queen and Lady of the Kingdoms of Aragon and their crown, for after the happy and long days of the above mentioned Catholic King her father, in the city of Saragossa in the year MDII, and due to the death of the above mentioned Lord Catholic King her father, succeeded in the above mentioned Kingdoms of Aragon, together with the very high and very powerful Prince and Lord don Carlos, her first-born son and son of the very high and very powerful Lord don Philip of Austria, first-born son of the Emperor Maximiliano &c. Archduke of Austria her husband, reigning jointly with the above mentioned Lady Queen his mother, due to the impediment of the ailment that the above mentioned Lady Queen was suffering: he was elect King of the Romans by the death of the above mentioned Emperor Maximiliano, his grandfather, in the year MDXIX, and later he was crowned Emperor in the year MDXXXIX in the city of Bologna by the Pope Clement VII. He had General Cortes in the city of Saragossa in the year MDXIX. Definitively that Carlos I was sworn co-regnant with his mother in the Kingdom of Aragon. In addition, you User:Michaelsanders indicate as reliable source the article "Juana the Mad's Signature" from Sixteenth Century Journal, and in this article, Bethany Aram quotes in the page 337 and page 339 the Municipal Archive of Cordova, and from the same Municipal Archive of Cordova, I have showed this law that indicates that Juana and Carlos were Kings of Castile and Aragon, etc, as I indicated before. By this way, for Bethany Aram the Municipal Archive of Cordova is a reliable source, but this is not for you. Finally in FILIPINIANA.NET they recognize the Queen Juana as queen of Aragon and Castille, and this is not my original research. Trasamundo (talk) 00:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC) Michael, you say: Reputable sources - online and published - say that Joanna was never Queen of Aragon - the succession passed directly from Ferdinand to Charles. You also say: Furthermore, Joanna is never referred to as being 'Queen of Aragon' in established historiography, which always describes Charles as directly succeeding his grandfather. Can you provide any evidence of these assertions? Trasamundo has presented a fair number of sources that say Juana was queen of Aragon. You can't simply assert that reliable sources back you up. You have to say what they are. john k (talk) 17:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC) Soo, I might be right afterall. Joanna was indeed Queen regnant of Aragon. GoodDay (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC) I have found another source that indicates that Juana was queen of Aragon: Historia general de España, Modesto Lafuente (Author), 1861. In the page 51 we read: Todavía los aragoneses no habían reconocido a Carlos por rey, y a esto se encaminó (abril 1518) en compañía de su hermana doña Leonor, de muchos caballeros extranjeros y pocos castellanos. Al día siguiente de llegar a Calatayud juró en la iglesia colegial los fueros de la ciudad, y desde allí escribió a la de Zaragoza (3 de mayo) sobre la forma como deseaba que las Cortes le hiciesen el juramento. Con esto partió para aquella ciudad, donde hizo su entrada el 6 de mayo. Congregáronse seguidamente en Cortes los cuatro brazos del reino, pero lo acaecido en Castilla había hecho estar muy sobre sí a los aragoneses, naturalmente celosos de la conservación de sus fueros y libertades, y no estaban ellos tampoco acostumbrados a jurar como rey a un heredero en vida del que hubiesen reconocido como rey o reina legítima. Así pues costó a Carlos no poco trabajo, tiempo y esfuerzo, alcanzar que le juraran en la misma forma que Castilla, esto es, en unión con su madre, después de haber jurado él ampliamente guardar sus usos, libertades y privilegios. No menos le costó arrancar un servicio de doscientos mil ducados, y esto a condición de invertir esta suma en el pago de las deudas de la corona, tiempo hacía descuidadas, para que no fuese a parar a mano de extranjeros. (The Aragonese people had not recognized Carlos as a king yet, and with that aim, took the road to (April 1518), in company of her sister Doña Leonor, of many foreign gentlemen and few Castilian people. The following day of arriving at Calatayud, he swore in the collegiate church the Fueros of the city, and he wrote to Saragossa (May 3) about the way as he wished that Cortes did the oath to him. So, he departed to that city, where he performed his entrance on May 6. Afterwards, the four arms (estates) of the kingdom put together, but the happened topics in Castile become careful to the Aragonese peole, naturally jealous of the conservation of their Fueros and freedoms, and they were not they either accustomed to swear as king an inheritor in life of whom they had recognized as legitimate king or queen. This way, Charles required not little work, time and effort, to reach that the Cortes alleged oath to him, as in Castile, namely, jointly with his mother, following his oath to guard widely the uses, freedoms and privileges of the kingdom. Also, it was difficult to him to extract a duty of two hundred thousand ducados, and this, with the condition of inverting this sum in the payment of the debts of the crown, neglected since a long time, in order that that amount did not go to foreigners' hand.) And in the page 52 we read: Faltábale a Carlos sólamente ser reconocido en Cataluña, y con este objeto partió y llegó a Barcelona entrado ya el año 1519 (15 de febrero). Esperábale allí más fuerte y más violenta oposición que la que había experimentado en Aragón y Castilla, y más insistencia en no quererle jurar en vida de su madre, tanto que se burlaban los catalanes de la blandura con que se habían allanado a hacerlo los aragoneses y castellanos. Sin embargo, el soborno y la intriga fueron templando poco a poco la dureza de aquella gente, y al fin acabaron por prestarle, aunque de mala gana, el mismo juramento que en los demás reinos, si bien, en lo de dar dinero fueron más parcos los catalenes, y se lo escatimaron más, no tanto por negárselo al rey, cuanto por mortificar a los avaros flamencos. (It was lacking to Carlos to be recognized as king only in Catalonia, and with this aim he departed and arrived to Barcelona, already in the year 1519 (February 15). There, stronger and more violent opposition than the one that he had experienced in Aragón and Castile, was waiting for him, and more insistence in not wanting to swear him in life of his mother, so much that the Catalans were ridiculing about the softness that Aragonese and Castilians had submitted. Nevertheless, the bribe and the intrigue were moderating little by little the hardness of those people, and finally, they finished to allege him, though unwillingly, the same oath that in other kingdoms, although, in the subject of giving money, the Catalan people were more sparing, and they scrimped it more, not as much to deny it to the king, but affecting the greedy Flemings). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trasamundo (talk • contribs) 23:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC) I'm sorry. I forgot to sign and to put the link of quoted book. Here you are Trasamundo (talk) 00:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Queen of Castile

If she was only de jure? then in that case George III of the United Kingdom, was dejure UK King from 1811 to 1820. GoodDay (talk) 03:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The Prince of Wales didn't get to start being George IV in 1811, as far as I'm aware. Juana's son, on the other hand, was not only de facto ruler, but actually King. john k (talk) 01:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Joanna, really?

I've never seen her called anything but "Juana" in sources written in the last 50 years. Where are we getting this anglicization from? john k (talk) 01:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree--seems like a no-brainer. Most sources use Juana not Joanna. Glendoremus (talk) 06:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, according to Google Book Search, Joanna of Castile is used more often than Juana of Castile. Surtsicna (talk) 16:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

But a Google search is not necessarily the best measure. Instead we should use WP:Verifiability--"Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Reliable sources are necessary both to substantiate material within articles and to give credit to authors and publishers in order to avoid plagiarism and copyright violations... In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers." Here are some good sources along with the name they use for the subject:

• Aram, 2005, Juana the Mad -- Juana
• Gomez,ed. 2008 Juana of Castile: History and Myth of the Mad Queen -- Juana
• Liss, 2004, Isabel the Queen -- Juana
• Edwards, 2005, Ferdinand and Isabella -- Joanne
• Liss, 1992, Isabel the Queen -- Juana
• Stuart, 1991, Isabella of Castile -- Juana
• Maltby, 2002, Reign of Charles V -- Juana
• Kamen, 1999, Philip of Spain -- Juana
• Elliott, 1963, Imperial Spain: 1469-1716 -- Juana
• Thomas, 2003, Rivers of Gold: The Rise of the Spanish Empire -- Juana

As you can see, it's not quite unanimous, but sources that use Joanna tend to be older or a bit further off topic. Glendoremus (talk) 20:39, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you're right. But if we move the article to Juana of Castile, wouldn't we create some sort of inconsistency (since we have Isabella, Ferdinand, Philip, Catherine instead of Isabel, Fernando, Felipe, Catalina etc)? Surtsicna (talk) 22:54, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I know what you mean but there's plenty of inconsistencies no matter what direction you go. I think we have to follow what's being done in the pertinent references. Personally, I'd like to see more use of original names but for the best-known historical figures, it will be a long time coming. Glendoremus (talk) 01:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Policy states we are not use the "original names", but the best known name in the English language. Few people would be looking for Juana of Castile. -- Secisek (talk) 15:50, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Juana is well-known enough in English literature to have a "best known name" to English readers. She is certainly not well-known on the scale of Ferdinand and Isabella, names we learn in high school. I actually do think that people who hear or read about her a little elsewhere before looking her up on Wikipedia are more likely to know her as Juana of Castile. DavoLWS (talk) 17:21, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

inconsistency in Imprisonment section?

Text in the first paragraph of this section states that Juana was kept in a windowless room; however, the second paragraph says that her daughter Catherine - who had no choice but to stay with her mother:

had nothing to do all day, her only entertainment was to look out of the window

Can this discrepancy be resolved?

Ed8r (talk) 17:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

There are many sources which confirm that Joanna was kept in a windowless room and I haven't been able to find a source for the sentence you quoted. Therefore, I'll remove it. That's certainly better than having such contradicting information. I'm amazed how you spotted it, though. Surtsicna (talk) 18:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

--91.77.56.238 (talk) 18:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC) Somebody messed up the article!! See the previous version. I undid the changes, but I don't know how to report the abuser, - he goes on editing more articles!(( Delete this post after resolving the problem. Ivan, rufilter@inbox.ru —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.77.56.238 (talk) 18:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I have corrected the site of imprisonment of Juana. Despite very common belief, Juana was never confined to the Royal Monastery of Santa Clara. She was confined to the Royal Palace built in the late 1300s by king Enrique III. After Juana's death, the palace was abandoned and deteriorated to the point that was demolished by Charles III in the 1700s. The historic memory of the palace was lost with time, and because the Royal Monastery of Santa Clara was a Royal Palace before being a monastery, it is often referred to as the site of confinement of Juana. However this is inaccurate. See http://www.tordesillas.net/oficina-de-turismo/eventos-organizados/exposicion-temporal-palacio-real-de-tordesillas- and http://www.tordesillas.net/-que-ver-/guia-de-monumentos/palacio-real. Juana's body was placed at the Royal Monastery of Santa Clara, though, from 1555 until 1574 when it was transferred to El Escorial and then to Granada.— Preceding unsigned comment added by REjimenez (talk • contribs)

I think there's some confusion caused by the fact that the prior palace was turned into the Convent. Based on your sources, I will fix the article. --Jayron32 18:03, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

No. The two buildings were physically separate. The Real Monastery of Tordesillas was built originally as a palace, but king Pedro I gave it as a gift to her daughter who made it a Nunnery. Because of this, and because of the need of a palace at this important medieval city, king Enrique III "decided to build another palace in the proximities of the previous one, facing the Duero river, with splendid vistas". (http://www.tordesillas.net/-que-ver-/guia-de-monumentos/palacio-real). The palace decayed over the years after Juana's death and was demolished. The confusion between the two sites results in people visiting the Real Monastery in search for the place of confinement of Juana, and misinformation in numerous trip advising sites. Spanish pages of both Juana and the Monastery do not make this inaccurate connection.

Merely schizophrenic??

From time to time one comes upon the most astonishing remarks in Wikipedia. I gasped in disbelief when I read the following statement, which appeared not once but twice, in two different sections (I've now deleted one entirely):

"...she was merely clinically depressed or schizophrenic at the time, not 'insane' as commonly believed."

Good grief. All I can say is that nobody familiar with the subject could ever entertain the idea of putting the word "merely" in close proximity to either "clinically depressed" or "schizophrenic", as there is nothing mild or slight about those afflictions.

Obviously the offending word can be excised quite easily. But the fact that that word was used at all raises a serious question about the accuracy & reliability of the rest of the sentence as well -- especially when there is no citation provided to support what was written. I hope a knowledgable editor will take on the task of reviewing (and possibly rewriting) these passages -- with citation(s) -- ASAP. I'll check back in a week. Regards, Cgingold (talk) 12:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I for my part am curious as to what the author means by insane if schizophrenia does not cut it. 83.250.140.199 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC).

Agreed: either she was insane/mad/lunatic (or whatever old word you might use for 'metally disordered'), as confirmed apparently by modern historians who define it better as either schizophrenia or depression (psychosis is a symptom, not a disorder - melancholia is about a century out of date but should mean depression)... or she wasn't mad, therefore NOT mentally disordered. Saying she had a mere "depression or schizophrenia but wasn't mad" suggests a very, very liberal idea the author entertains about sanity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.3.103.7 (talk) 02:13, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

First, "insanity" is not a medical condition nor does any condition (such as schizophrenia or depression) automatically qualify someone as "insane". "Insanity" is a legal term that means nothing in the psychological or psychiatric community. Second, why does the article say that modern scholars believe she may have suffered from "melancholia"? "Melancholia" is not recognized as a valid psychological or psychiatric condition, nor has it been for a very, very long time. 74.109.122.239 (talk) 20:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

This made me laugh: "Most historians now agree that she had melancholia,[21]:9 severe clinical depression,[21]:9[22] a psychosis,[22] or a case of inherited schizophrenia.[21]:9[22]" Jeez, make your mind up! That's hardly agreement, and how do historians know this stuff? They can't. Best to observe that she was considered by her contemporaries to be suffering an instability of the mind and was therefore confined.Shtove (talk) 18:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Sister Catherine was not QofEngland in 1506.

Twice this is mentioned:

• She would not see her mother or siblings again, except for her younger sister Catherine of Aragon in 1506, as the Queen of England.

• Leaving Flanders on 10 January 1506, their ships were wrecked on the English coast and the couple were guests of Henry VIII and her sister Catherine of Aragon at Windsor Castle.

Henry did not become king until his father's death on 21 April 1509, and Catherine did not become queen until he married her in June of 1509.

Were Juana and Philip received by Henry VII (whose queen had died in 1503)? Did she get a chance to see Catherine, who at the time would have been the Dowager Princess of Wales, and pretty much stuck in a corner until Henry VII figured out what was the most convenient thing to do with her? Lizbetann (talk) 07:50, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

"Philip's death" error?

Not quite sure of this one, so don't pounce on me if I'm mistaken. In one part of the section titled "Philip's death", there are a few lines that seem to be discombobulated. The lines in question are as follows:

"Joanna was pregnant with their sixth child, a daughter Catherine (1507-1578). Peter (1488-1490). By 20 December 1506, she was in the village of Torquemada in Castile, attempting to exercise her rights as Queen of Castile to rule alone in her own name."

The italicized words are the ones that are confusing. Why are they there? Is there a part of the article that I've overlooked or is this in the wrong place? —Preceding unsigned comment added by GeorgiaWillow (talk • contribs) 01:37, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Page image

I recognize some of the potential reasons for preferring File:Meister der Magdalenenlegende 002.jpg to File:Juan de Flandes 003.jpg, but they should be articulated, if not here than in the edit summary, and the caption must be altered if necessary. The current picture is from her youth; the other pictures that have been tried are, no doubt, from later on. Lockesdonkey (talk) 05:33, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. Jafeluv (talk) 11:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Joanna of Castile → Joanna the Mad — She was not just queen of Castile and she is very well known by her byname in English and Spanish. 216.8.134.159 (talk) 15:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The poor girl! Is Joanna the Mad still her English common name? I would not use it personally, for moral reasons, and suspect many other anglophones would not. But it's a guess; If they do, we should go with the common usage. Interesting! Andrewa (talk) 19:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

My own GoogleBooks searches support the proposal's rationale. The byname comes out on top over the current title in several different searches. I'll leave it to others to try it for themselves, if they feel the need. (I'd also point out that she probably was mad, so it's not just a slur, even if it is politically incorrect by today's standards to call anybody "mad".) Srnec (talk) 01:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

My searches don't reveal any great dominance of one name over the other (depends exactly what you search for), so I don't see any need to change the title, particularly if we think "mad" sounds like a slur.--Kotniski (talk) 12:07, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Oppose no reason to use this nickname. Her insanity is debatable. She was less mad than Charles VI of France who isn't at Charles the Mad.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 00:34, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose, it is a pejorative nickname, and per the article's text on her mental health it is inaccurate.---Look2See1 t a l k → 05:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose See WP:NCROY, if Castile was the most important of her kingdoms then the default option is to call her that in the absence of a good reason to the contrary, it is entirely irrelevant that it was not her only kingdom. "The Mad" now seems insensitive and problematic. Maybe we should call her "Joanna of Spain", but that's another discussion. PatGallacher (talk) 19:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Legacy in the Arts please add William Mortensen's Johan the Mad

I don't know how to add to an article, so I'm requesting William Mortensen's Johan the Mad be mentioned in the legacy section. Google it or check it out here http://www.flickr.com/photos/ajourneyroundmyskull/3168313353/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.187.105.90 (talk) 03:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Physical traits

The characteristics being described are shared by most of the Trastamara, including those not descended from Pedro. They are seen in John I and Ferdinand I, and they are seen in Alfonso XI, so any special focus on Pedro and the Plantagenet descent is undue (and not found in the cited source). Agricolae (talk) 14:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Alright then. I think the claim was challenged several years ago anyway. Perhaps it should be removed altogether. Surtsicna (talk) 15:05, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

The removal of Peter doesn't seem right because Peter of Castile's article is the only ancestors of Joanna of Castile other than her mother's that describes physical appearance. There were once many reference to this on the articles of members of the House of Trastamara that either said the trait of blue eyes and auburn hair came from Henry II, Peter, or Alfonso XI some even said the trait came from Eleanor of England, Queen of Castile, which is a 400 year difference. I really doubt that all the Trastamara had these traits, especially the members that we don't even have accurate portraits of, and a few months ago I removed all the unsourced duplicate entries from the articles of Isabella of Aragon, Queen of Portugal, Miguel da Paz, Prince of Portugal, Alfonso, Prince of Asturias (1453–1468), Maria of Aragon, Queen of Portugal, John, Prince of Asturias, Henry IV of Castile, Alfonso, Prince of Asturias (1453–1468), John II of Castile, Alfonso, Prince of Asturias (1453–1468), and Henry IV of Castile. The only articles with this still are the ones with citations: Isabella I of Castile, Joanna of Castile and Catherine of Aragon. Is there any need to put a claim to the origin of these physical traits? Isn't it kind of subscribing to the stereotype that Spanish people shouldn't have light color hair and blue eyes and that only by an English ancestors either Eleanor of England or Catherine of Lancaster that the royals of Castile could have these traits.

The article on Alfonso XI of Castile describes his physical appearance referencing a contemporary chronicler, although it also contained an unreferenced (and completely false) statement about the genetics of eye color that I just took out. The fact that Joanna descended from Alfonso XI three times is probably much more relevant with regard to her appearance than that she descended once from Peter - you just can't attribute one's (recessive) physical characteristics to a single great-great-grandfather. It really comes down to this - is there a reliable source that refers to these as characteristics of a broader family? If not, then we shouldn't include it. If there is, we still might not want to include it. Maybe we could be more precise and say 'like her mother and sister' rather than referring to the whole extended family. Agricolae (talk) 20:53, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

That would probably be the best idea since there is no reliable sources right now to claim that all members of the family had these traits. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Joanna of Castile. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131104042833/http://www.ucm.es/BUCM/revistas/byd/11321873/articulos/RGID0202220291A.PDF to http://www.ucm.es/BUCM/revistas/byd/11321873/articulos/RGID0202220291A.PDF
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131104043900/http://www.ucm.es/BUCM/revistas/byd/11321873/articulos/RGID0303220133A.PDF to http://www.ucm.es/BUCM/revistas/byd/11321873/articulos/RGID0303220133A.PDF
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131104042833/http://www.ucm.es/BUCM/revistas/byd/11321873/articulos/RGID0202220291A.PDF to http://www.ucm.es/BUCM/revistas/byd/11321873/articulos/RGID0202220291A.PDF
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131104042833/http://www.ucm.es/BUCM/revistas/byd/11321873/articulos/RGID0202220291A.PDF to http://www.ucm.es/BUCM/revistas/byd/11321873/articulos/RGID0202220291A.PDF

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Joanna of Castile. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131104042833/http://www.ucm.es/BUCM/revistas/byd/11321873/articulos/RGID0202220291A.PDF to http://www.ucm.es/BUCM/revistas/byd/11321873/articulos/RGID0202220291A.PDF

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:29, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Joanna of Castile. 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/20080610081505/http://saavedrafajardo.um.es/biblioteca/biblio.nsf/buscarLect/96E2C129300D5FB0C1256E43003ECF79?OpenDocument to http://saavedrafajardo.um.es/biblioteca/biblio.nsf/buscarLect/96E2C129300D5FB0C1256E43003ECF79?OpenDocument
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080610055350/http://www.cervantesvirtual.com/servlet/SirveObras/95791734217821695203346/p0000017.htm to http://www.cervantesvirtual.com/servlet/SirveObras/95791734217821695203346/p0000017.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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 06:12, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

quality of citations

This page is relying heavily on primary sources, and on very dated Spanish language sources, some of which are so poorly cited they are incomprehensible. Surely there are recent books on Juana that can be relied on, but all of the cites to letters and stated documents represent prohibited Original Research. Agricolae (talk) 23:25, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Ref 3 gives the bibliographic information as "Smwmwm. E*tado. CastiUa" which is complete gibberish. The last two words are Estado Castilla - any guesses what Smwmwm might be? Agricolae (talk) 16:09, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Tortured?

There is no historical source that collects information about those supposed tortures of Queen Isabel to her daughter Juana... Is this a joke after watching The Spanish Princess series? Mosen Luis Ferrer was his first guard and watchman of his prison in Tordesillas. KTQ1485 (talk) 08:54, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I fully agree; the chapter "Rebellion against her mother's Catholicism" should be removed for the following reasons:

+ The citated source refers to things that happened after Queen Isabel's death. There's isn't even any proof she was tortured this way during her captivity in Tordesillas.

+ Luis Suárez Fernández en Manuel Fernández Álvarez don't write anything about Isabel getting her daughter tortured in their authoritive studies.

+The more serious versions in the Spanish and German Wikipedia don't mention it at all Pol Import (talk) 21:39, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

NPOV tag on "Rebellion against her mother's Catholocism"

The section entitled "Rebellion against her mother's Catholicism" is entirely incorrect. The only source cited in it is historian G. A. Bergenroth, who published a treatment on Juana which proposed that every previously published contemporary account of her life was part of a conspiracy on the part of her parents, her husband, and her son to deny her the crown of Castile. Like every good conspiracy theorist, Bergenroth either ignored all evidence that didn't fit his theory, or he included it in the conspiracy. I've read Bergenroth, and while I will freely admit, his theory is compelling, it is Wikipedia's obligation to present a neutral point of view, and Bergenroth's certainly isn't that.

Besides neutrality, the article section suffers from major errors: "By 1495, Joanna showed signs of religious skepticism and little devotion to worship and Catholic rites." Uh, source? The word "skepticism" literally never appears once in Bergenroth. (For that matter, neither does the year 1495!) The closest thing I can find has to do with Juana's later life, after she spent years in solitary confinement and appeared to stop caring about things in general. The letters of Mosen Ferrer that mention la cuerda were written in 1516, by which time Isabella had been dead for 12 years, and they describe recent events. The article, however, sandwiches the mention of la cuerda in between two sentences about Isabella, implying that the torture was done at her direction, which is entirely false. The letters complaining about Juana's "refusal to confess" were written by Spanish friars sent from Isabella while Juana was living in Flanders - they were annoyed that she would only confess to local priests and not to them or in their presence. The reality of it is, as I see it, Juana was simply a young newlywed attempting to keep her mother's nose out of her business. Let's not go making her out to be a victim of the Spanish Inquisition over that.

I feel that this subject deserves a much more accurate and balanced treatment. I don't feel that I'm the right person to write it, because I've only recently started examining it myself. I've just read enough to know that a neutrality warning needs to be added to this section, and I hope I've adequately made that case. DavoLWS (talk) 17:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Joanna’s inheritance to other Crowns.

I am a bit confused.

Joanna inherited Everything from her parents, Such as Queen of Leon Queen of Castile, Queen of Lower Navarre, Queen of Aragon, Queen of Naples, Queen of Sicily, Queen of Majorca, Queen of Valencia, and the County of Barlocia (sorry if I spelled it wrongly)

But on the list, it says only Queen of Aragon and Queen of Castile not other inheritance that she got from Ferdinand and Isabella.

it might just be me.

Thank you

The kingdoms (plus county) you mention were constituent parts of what were termed 'crowns' - collections of administrative kingdoms (and other units) under a single monarch (not to be confused with 'crowns' used simply as a synonym for 'kingdoms'). These were the Crown of Castile (Castile, Leon, Galicia, Toledo, Grenada, Jaen, Murcia, Seville, Asturias and Biscay) and the Crown of Aragon (Aragon, Barcelona, Valencia, Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica, Naples, Majorca, Minorca). Thus saying she inherited the crowns of Castile and Aragon covers all these polities. The only outlier is Iberian (not Lower) Navarre, which had been conquered by a combined Castile-Aragon army under Fernando just a few years before his death and still in administrative flux, but it represents a minor constituent (when we talk of Charles I succeeding James as King of England and Scotland, we don't mention the Channel Isles or the Isle of Man, even though they were part of the inheritance). Agricolae (talk) 00:08, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

@Agrocolae Thanks I was just a bit confused =) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:1280:9EB1:C015:6C13:17A1:B646 (talk) 22:52, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Genealogy

The genealogy tree at the bottom of the page is showing her ancestors four generations back. The policy on many of monarchs' articles to list the ancestors only three generations back, for instance at Elizabeth II, Queen Victoria, and Carl XVI Gustaf. Векочел (talk) 00:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

This is the edit they are referencing.This user has a repeated history of making edits with no summary. I reverted the edit; they then decided that was a good time to explain their edit. The reason given was "Excessive and WP:NOTGENEALOGY. WP:NOTGENEALOGY says nothing about how far back an ancestral tree can or should go. It is not uncommon for monarchs who played a particularly important role in history to have 3-4 generations back, including the husband to Joanna, but we haven't seen this user try to edit this ancestry yet. The Madness of Joanna (talk) 11:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I still find it excessive. Pity the references(the reliable ones) can't be added to articles that have no references regarding their parents or children.

FYI, I would avoid using Britannica. E.L. Miron doesn't appear to be an historian. Also, you should avoid online genealogy website(s), especially if they fail to disclose where they get their information, per WP:V. --Kansas Bear (talk) 13:03, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

So was the removal because of a lack of good sources or was it because Wikipedia isn't a genealogy website? The Madness of Joanna (talk) 21:01, 28 March 2024 (UTC)