text:
Talk:Juan Carlos I

Franco a Carlist????
Are you kidding? Preceding unsigned comment by 212.8.98.118 talk, 13:10, 8 March 2010

He was often portrayed wearing a carlist red beret. Google ‘propaganda painting of Franco’. Note he is also sometimes wearing a black shirt, with red yoked arrows. Black and red were the colors of the Falange (Spanish Fascists), and the yoked arrows were their symbol. He drew support from several elements, including Carlists, for his ‘National Movement’. 2A00:23C7:E287:1901:883E:AA7C:C3EE:D2D1 (talk) 10:14, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Iberian Union
Why does the discussion of an Iberian Union have anything to do with this article, especially in the first section? It seems completely out of context. Hpa (talk) 14:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Requested move (August 2010)

 * 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: Move to Juan Carlos I (pending speedy delete of destination). When opposition arguments are discounted for creating Catch-22 situation (per john k), consensus is clearly in favor of move. Much of WP evolution occurs at the single article level; simply relying on consistency with some non-policy general naming guideline is not a compelling argument against special cases. Born2cycle (talk) 06:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Juan Carlos I of Spain → — This move request isn't intended to alter how we title monarchs generally (see WP:NCROY). What it is intended to do, however, is recognise that like Elizabeth II, the current king of Spain is known popularly and unambiguously as simply Juan Carlos I, and does not need to be disambiguated by his country.

Rationale:

 * 1) Unlike earlier Spanish kings before the Second Spanish Republic and Franco's rule, Juan Carlos I is known by his name in Spanish, not an anglicised form. See earlier monarchs, such as Philip II of Spain, Charles III of Spain, Louis I of Spain and Ferdinand VII of Spain. By current, the current king is not known as John Charles I of Spain. This presents a convincing reason to make a break with Juan Carlos I.
 * 2) Connected to the above point is the fact that Juan Carlos I of Spain is quite an odd title, combining as it does both English and Spanish. At least using Juan Carlos I de España would be consistent in simply using Spanish. Juan Carlos I is much more preferable, however, as the current king is never called Juan Carlos I de España in English, just as he is never called John Charles I of Spain.
 * 3) The official website of the Spanish Royal Family refers to him as Juan Carlos, not as "Juan Carlos of Spain". This is the closest thing to an official source on this subject. The question of whether we should use Juan Carlos I or simply Juan Carlos is really a question for another day, but nowhere on the website is "of Spain" tagged on to his name as on Wikipedia.
 * 4) Not only does Juan Carlos I redirect here, but so does John Charles I, meaning there is no possibility of confusion with another monarch.

Please leave comments below. There seems to be a problem with the text size. City   of   Destruction  14:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

 * Support. I'm not at all convinced by your given rationales, except the last.  Amadeo I and Alfonso XII and XIII are certainly known in English by the Spanish forms of their names.  If you read books on Spanish, as opposed to European, history, you'll find that earlier monarchs are often referred to by their Spanish names in English, although obviously not so universally as the current king.  On the whole, I don't really buy the idea that there's anything unique here that would require a departure from the general norms.  That being said, I think that moving away from the "pre-emptively disambiguate even when it's obviously unnecessary" standard is a good thing.  I support this move on the grounds that I would support a move of Louis XIV of France to Louis XIV or Christian X of Denmark to Christian X; there's simply no particularly good reason to disambiguate here.  Obviously Henry IV or Charles II or Philip IV will have to remain disambiguation pages; but when there's a clear primary topic, I don't see any particular reason to force all these articles into the same shape. john k (talk) 00:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

 * Oppose I oppose abandoning pre-emptive disambiguation, but if we are to do so, this should be discussed at WP:NCROY rather than proposing this on a piecemeal basis, a recipe for a lot of interminable wrangles. As I think JohnK recognises, there are no compelling reasons why this person is a special case.  If "Juan Carlos" is his normal name in English, then "Juan Carlos I of Spain" is not an awkward hybrid.  Yoo could make a case for treating everybody as a special case if you tried hard enough. PatGallacher (talk) 20:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Discussion at NCROY was once my preference on this stuff, but nothing ever happened there. The point would be raised, there would be some vague sense that maybe we should do something, and then the issue would get dropped without anyone ever doing anything.  This is in part because a lot of people have the view that naming conventions should describe what we actually do, rather than prescribe what we should do.  As such, moving a bunch of articles piecemeal seems like the only way to accomplish any changes.  I wish City of Destruction had simply proposed the move on the grounds that "of Spain" is unnecessary, rather than inventing somewhat specious supporting motives, but what can you do? john k (talk) 21:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, I have to object to your accusation of "somewhat specious supporting motives". Of course the fourth point is important, but it certainly shouldn't be taken as the main reason to move; I don't think Charles Dickens should be moved to Dickens just because that happens to redirect there, or think Napoleon I should be moved to Napoleon for the same reason. Sometimes, a fuller title can add clarity. This is, I would stress, not the case here, but I would argue that the other points I proposed are just as valid. Academic material aside, it is very rare to see Philip II referred to as Felipe II. I would argue that Amadeo and Alfonso are exceptions simply because their names do not have common English forms (I don't think there is even an English form for Amadeo). This is clearly not the case for John or Charles. City   of   Destruction  23:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * "Amadeus" is the standard Latinized form for "Amadeo," which is used in English in other contexts (as for dukes of Savoy); Alphonse is, I guess, the English form of Alfonso, and I bet that a fair number of eighteenth and nineteenth century works on medieval Spain use that form, although I couldn't say for sure. Felipe II is certainly rare, but Carlos II, say, is quite common.  And more and more academic works (which are, of course, reliable sources in English) are avoiding anglicization.  Beyond that, I didn't mean to imply that you were offering reasons in bad faith, just that I didn't find them convincing.  I fully agree with you that sometimes a fuller title can add clarity, and that in this case it does not.  I will say that I think the same logic applies to Alfonso XII and Alfonso XIII. john k (talk) 01:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

 * Oppose so that Juan Carlos I (disambiguation) can be moved to Juan Carlos I. 64.105.65.28 (talk) 03:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Seriously? The king is obviously the primary topic. john k (talk) 18:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose on grounds that NCROY's point #3 under Sovereigns is applicable, and the current name is duly in compliance; that pre-emptive disambiguation in these cases continues to work well, is not broken so doesn't need fixing; that pre-emptive disambig brings an encyclopedic consistency to articles on monarchs and a user-friendly format offering predictability and simplicity; and that this is not the appropriate venue to attempt to change NCROY. FactStraight (talk) 03:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There is apparently no appropriate venue to attempt to change NCROY. When individual moves are proposed, opponents argue as you do.  When changes are proposed at NCROY, opponents argue that naming guidelines reflect practice, rather than directing it, and that the convention shouldn't change until articles themselves get moved in practice.  It's a catch-22. john k (talk) 18:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Complete misrepresentation! I accept that discussions at NCROY can sometimes be annoying, but so can discussions on individual talk pages.  Changes sometimes have been made to the naming conventions as a result of dicussion.  As I recall, the last time this was discussed at NCROY the consensus was against abandoning pre-emptive disambiguation, there were some serious reasons for sticking with it, I could go into my own reasons. PatGallacher (talk) 19:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose He is NOT "known popularly and unambiguously as simply Juan Carlos I"; he is more commonly known just as King Juan Carlos, or Juan Carlos (without the number I). But there are lots of other people with the names "Juan Carlos".  Sovereigns are sovereigns of a particular country.  It is appropriate to include "of Spain". Noel S McFerran (talk) 04:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point! If the premise here is that the current article name is not "most common", it's clear that the proposed one isn't either. No doubt there's a rationale for why that fact should be ignored in this case which, if applied consistently, would just as easily justify leaving him where he is. FactStraight (talk) 21:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Juan Carlos redirects here and the article could just as well be just-Juan Carlos that as the proposed name, but that has no bearing on the question of whether it needs disambiguating by "of Spain". Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Comment See a similar discussion going on at Talk:George VI of the United Kingdom. PatGallacher (talk) 19:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Support, for the reasons given here. If the tests look familiar, that's because they are those listed by WP:NAME. Angus McLellan (Talk) 16:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

 * Support all monarch article titles should be moved to Name # and, when necessary Name # (country). GoodDay (talk) 19:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

 * Support per primary usage. Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 19:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

 * Weakly support, since "of Spain" is pointless fluff, but I don't believe we should be including the "I" either (he's not commonly known as that in English). "King Juan Carlos" would be my first choice.--Kotniski (talk) 11:50, 6 September 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.

Footnote
Those who were interested in the title of this article might also be interested in the title of the article on the corresponding warship - see Talk:Spanish ship Juan Carlos I (L61).--Kotniski (talk) 11:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Knight Grand Cross of Justice of the Sacred Military Constantinian Order of Saint George[19] (Russia???????
Among the honours of HM Juan Carlos I there is "Knight Grand Cross of Justice of the Sacred Military Constantinian Order of Saint George[19] (Russia" Now there is a BIG mistake for the following motivation there are two different orders and while the name refers to one rhe link and the proposed Country refers to the other 1-the russian order is The Military Order of the Holy Great-Martyr and the Triumphant George (also known as Order of St. George the Triumphant) estabilished in 1769 and revived in 1994 The link associated by mistake to the name of the Constantinian Order, truly redirect to this one 2-the Sacred Military Constantinian Order of Saint George that is NOT a Russian order. the right link is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Military_Constantinian_Order_of_Saint_George. Everyone could read the difference following those links. Since one of the claimant the Grand Magistery of the Constantinian Order of Saint George is the frst cousin of the King it is this order and not the russian that was bestowed on HM. Also HM is even Knight of the Order of Saint Januarius (while the constatinian oder has three claimant, the order of saint Januarius has only two, one of them being the very same cousin of the King. Now i could have made the correction myself but since once i received a message from wikipedia telling me that i made a non authorized change or something i decidd to write here before amking anything

Requested move (November 2010)

 * 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) 09:00, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Juan Carlos I → Juan Carlos — Or move this article alternatively to King Juan Carlos. Although the Spanish king is sometimes referred to as "Juan Carlos I", he is much more widely known simply as "Juan Carlos". Traditionally, monarchs are only referred to with a monarchical ordinal if there has been more than one monarch of that name; so Henry I of England is referred to with an ordinal, as there have been eight English kings named Henry, while Henry, King of Portugal is referred to without an ordinal as he is the only Portuguese king of that name. Similarly, Elizabeth I of England was traditionally referred to simply as "Elizabeth" prior to the reign of Elizabeth II, in the same manner that Anne, Queen of Great Britain and Queen Victoria are referred to without ordinals, and much like Elizabeth of Russia, the only Russian empress of that name.

Using Google Books, admittedly not a perfect tool, "Juan Carlos" gets 545,000 results, and is used in the title of many recent works, such as Juan Carlos: Steering Spain from Dictatorship to Democracy, a 2005 biography by Paul Preston. "Juan Carlos I" gets just 35,800 results, roughly fifteen times fewer results. "Juan Carlos" is used by most major news organisations (BBC, CNN, Guardian, New York Times, Telegraph, Wall Street Journal, Haaretz, Economist, Independent, Chicago Tribune, Voice of America, MSNBC, Fox, New Zealand Herald, Sydney Morning Herald), although these are sometimes inconsistent, and by Encyclopedia Britannica and the official website of the Spanish Royal Family.

As Juan Carlos already redirects here, and is clearly the primary topic, I cannot see that being an issue. I would accept King Juan Carlos, but I would prefer not to use his title as part of the article name. The Celestial City (talk) 01:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

 * I believe Wikipedia's style guide specifies that titles should generally not be used as article titles. If clarity is required, it should be Juan Carlos of Spain. The basic idea, to eliminate the dynastic number, is absolutely correct. "Firsts" only acquire their number retroactively, once a "Second" appears, regardless of what some ill-informed non-European press might mistakenly think. (Miss Manners, if no one else, knows differently. Cite available on request.) 63.249.96.218 (talk) 03:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I agree generally with what you say. However, current concensus appears to be only to include the name of a country if the article title would be ambiguous without it (i.e., if there was another non-Spanish king called Juan Carlos). The Celestial City (talk) 15:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Oppose I think "Juan Carlos" should be a disambiguation page. I'll boldy create a dab page, if this page is move there, then the dab page can be moved to Juan Carlos (disambiguation) ; Juan Carlos isn't exactly an uncommon name, there's quite a number of them. 76.66.203.138 (talk) 05:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * While certainly there are lots of people called "Juan Carlos", I would argue he is the primary topic. Other people with those names usually are known by surnames as well, such as the Spanish tennis player Juan Carlos Ferrero. The Celestial City (talk) 15:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Some relevant page count results:
 * Juan_Carlos_I has been viewed 15454 times in 201009.
 * Juan_Carlos_Sánchez_Martínez has been viewed 1681 times in 201009.
 * Juan_Carlos_Rodríguez has been viewed 316 times in 201009.
 * Juan_Carlos_Ferrero has been viewed 11755 times in 201009.
 * However, googling "Juan Carlos" king results in 3.5 million ghits, while "Juan Carlos" tennis produces only half a million, and among those I can't find a reference that doesn't use "Ferrero" (doesn't mean it's not there, just that it's rare), so I think referring to the tennis player as just "Juan Carlos" is pretty rare (in fact, he's not even listed on the current Juan Carlos dab page. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Oppose. The current title is clear and unambiguous, and the ordinal makes clear we are referring to a monarch.  You are also wrong about the use of ordinals.  Firsts do not only acquire their number retrospectively.  This is a completely false satement.  Monarchs who are the first of a name sometimes explicitly take an ordinal and sometimes do not.  Juan Carlos I has taken such an ordinal; British monarchs traditionally have not.  Treating the British situation as a model for other countries that do things differently is not a good idea. john k (talk) 08:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * With due respect, in your argument that "Juan Carlos I has taken such an ordinal" you appear to be ignoring the many sources that point to the contrary. The Celestial City (talk) 15:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You have not presented any sources which state the contrary. That not all sources use an ordinal is not evidence that the ordinal is not part of Juan Carlos's official title. Given that there's only been one, in most contexts there's no reason to include the ordinal.  That doesn't mean it isn't used. For example, there's an aircraft carrier in the Spanish navy called the Juan Carlos I.  This wouldn't make sense if the ordinal wasn't part of his official title.  john k (talk) 15:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * But whether it's his official title is beside the point. The only relevant question here, and in all discussions about article titles, is this: What name is usually used to refer to the subject of the article?  Now, if the answer to that question presents a disambiguation issue, then we go beyond that.  While the relatively high popularity of the Juan Carlos Ferrero page (see above) casts some doubt, the apparent rarity of referring to the tennis player as "Juan Carlos" removes most of that, I think, which takes us back to the only relevant question.   --Born2cycle (talk) 16:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That is the main question. I do think, though that when one can end all potential ambiguity through the addition of a single letter, that is worthwhile, even if the shorter former is somewhat more common. Is there really any thought that "Juan Carlos I" is confusing?  Given that we have dozens of articles on monarchs with needlessly long titles (Louis XVI of France, and such like), what's the harm in this instance of sticking with the formal title that is only ever so slightly longer? john k (talk) 20:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Mild Support. It appears that "Juan Carlos" is the name most commonly used to refer to this subject and this use is the primary topic, but neither is blatantly obvious and either is arguable.  This might be close enough to where it really doesn't matter much which way it goes, especially since there is nothing really problematic with the current title.  --Born2cycle (talk) 16:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Monarchs do have a roman numeral I added to their name until they are dead and another monarch of the same name is coronated. For example, until the coronation of Elizabeth II, Elizabeth I was simply refereed to as Elizabeth. Calling Juan Carlos, Juan Carlos I implies that he is dead and that their is a Juan Carlos II. (comment added by IP and moved here)
 * Apparently not so, since the "I" is in official use in his case (different countries do things differently, of course). Although I don't believe it's in common English use, so I would mildly prefer some title that involves the word "King" and omits the "I". I don't support "Juan Carlos" on its own, though - it doesn't seem to be right as an article title (not usable in contexts analogous to those that we expect titles to be usable in - it would be like titling the US President's article Obama).--Kotniski (talk) 09:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

 * Oppose. I don't know what is the monarch tradition in another countries. But in Spain Juan Carlos is known as Juan Carlos I everywhere, and so he signs all documents with that numeral. In the the very first line of Spanish Constitution, the King already appears as "Juan Carlos I".--Infinauta (talk) 10:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose because the current title is his official name and because the proposed title is more ambiguous. MTC (talk) 07:56, 16 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.

Juan Carlos I???
Can somebody explain to me, why this article was moved from Juan Carolos I of Spain to Juan Carolos I, without a consensus? GoodDay (talk) 04:34, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I've moved this article back to Juan Carlos I of Spain, due to lack of consensus for Juan Carlos I. GoodDay (talk) 12:03, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you please do a proper move request, if you want to change the stable version in a way that you know is going to be controversial? In particular, can you explain why you think the title will be improved by adding "of Spain"?--Kotniski (talk) 12:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The kinda 'proper move request' you didn't do? GoodDay (talk) 12:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please look above at the move discussions - you may disagree with the assessment of the results (though it's a bit late for that now), but the result in August/September 2010 was to drop "of Spain", and noone complained. The discussion you're looking at (November 2010) is about dropping the "I". --Kotniski (talk) 12:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, my mistake. Where in the September 2010 RM, do you see a consensus? GoodDay (talk) 12:17, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * If you exclude the irrelevant oppose arguments (like "not the primary topic", or "must change NCROY first"), there's a pretty clear majority in favour of moving. It would have been better had it been closed by a neutral admin, but there was plenty of opportunity for anyone to complain at the time, and in any case it must have been OK'ed by an admin since a non-admin couldn't at that point have performed that move on his own (I'm pretty sure).--Kotniski (talk) 12:25, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It still looks wrong. Moving any page which has a majority of opposers, on the basis of 'we don't like their reasons', stinks. GoodDay (talk) 12:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I make it a majority of supporters (6-4, or 6-3 if we discount the obviously nonsensical "disambiguation page" proposal, and an even greater majority if we discount the "NCROY must be changed first" arguments, which are not true since NCROY clearly allows for exceptions). Instead of moaning: start a new move discussion, set out your reasons, and maybe you'll convince enough people that the article should have your preferred title.--Kotniski (talk) 09:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not gonna request another RM. It just seemed like the last RM ruling & following move, were both too hasty. GoodDay (talk) 14:46, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

BTW Deacon, I'm not gonna revert Kotniski's 'lack of consensus' RM again. You can un-protect, if you like. I'm just peeved over these 'hijacking' moves lately. GoodDay (talk) 12:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

 * I totally agree. There's too much of it about. Deb (talk) 18:41, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * This would be reversing an improperly closed move request, closed by a non-admin who is deeply involved in such issues, despite extenxive opposition. This was the 5-3, above; not the more recent failed move request. This was not consensus then; it is not consensus now. If this cannot be simply reversed, we may have to request that the closer be sanctioned. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:15, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

 * The title since the improper closure is not stable. It was protested then and now, and a request to move it to a third possibility has been undertaken in the meantime. A move reuseat will only confirm this; but the proper placement without any consensus is where it was before this process began; which was the title for years. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 5 to 3? Let's allow WP formatting to do the math for us, shall we?  On the original move five months ago, ... Those in favor of the move from Juan Carlos I of Spain to Juan Carlos I were:
 * City of Destruction (proposer)
 * john k "clear primary topic"
 * Angus McLellan "recognizable, natural, precise and concise"
 * GoodDay "all monarch article titles should be moved to Name # " (yes, that GoodDay, who reverted yesterday the move he was partially responsible for causing 5 months ago)
 * Deacon of Pndapetzim) "primary usage"
 * Kotniski "'of Spain' is pointless fluff"

 * Those opposed were:
 * PatGallacher (appeal to WP:NCROY despite it expressly allowing exceptions like this)
 * 64.105.65.28 (with nonsensical argument... "so that Juan Carlos I (disambiguation) can be moved to Juan Carlos I")
 * FactStraight (argument refuted by John K as I noted in my closing)
 * Noel S McFerran (non sequitur argument favoring "Juan Carlos" without addressing the relevant "of Spain" part)

 * Just by the raw vote counts we have 6 to 4 in favor of the move. When you consider the strength of the support votes and the paucity of substance on the oppose side, it was no contest.  All this was pointed out yesterday by Kotniski who explained why the appropriate step at this point would be another WP:RM proposal.  No one disagreed.

 * For a non-admin with a checkered past to revert this 5 months later on the grounds that it was moved by a non-admin in the first place is absurd and highly disruptive, and I've filed an AN/I accordingly. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * A non-administrator shouldn't have made a ruling on that RM. GoodDay (talk) 14:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * How is a 6-4 !vote more consensus than 5-3? And we know that Born2Cycle disagreed with the opposition to that requested move; what we object to is his claim to overrule them with this appalling close. I leave to others the question of whether his descriptions match the reality of the discussion. I don't think so; and I don't trust him to evaluate arguments he doesn't agree with and doesn't appear to understand. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:54, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Requested move (January 2011)

 * 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: withdrawn - clear consensus for the current title Kotniski (talk) 20:11, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Juan Carlos I of Spain → to be decided — Let's decide, then, what the title of the article should be. There must be almost a dozen perfectly reasonable options: Juan Carlos with or without the "I", with or without "of Spain" or "King of Spain", with or without "King" at the beginning. I would suggest we drop the "I", since it's not in common use in English sources, and may confuse. I also support (though less ardently) dropping "of Spain" from any title form where it's redundant (although it shouldn't actually confuse). So my order of preference would be something like: (1) King Juan Carlos; (2) Juan Carlos, King of Spain; (3) Juan Carlos I; (4) Juan Carlos I of Spain. --Kotniski (talk) 13:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

 * 4, I'm in favour of consistancy across monarchial articles. We've got articles Ferdinand VI of Spain, Isabella II of Spain, Alfonso XIII of Spain (for example). TBH, I wish it were John Charls I of Spain, but that's probably wishful thinking. GoodDay (talk) 14:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 4 Spain should definitely be in the article's title for the sake of consistancy; also not everybody will automatically see Juan Carlos I and know the article is indeed about the Spanish king.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Jeanne, you're far too intelligent to pick up GoodDay's bad habits. Consistency is spelled with an e in English. GoodDay spells it that way because it is spelled that way in French. DrKay (talk) 09:55, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

 * 1 As Ralph Waldo Emerson once said, a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. WP:COMMONNAME has far greater site-wide consensus than WP:NCROY, and the former should take precedence over the latter. I'd be fine with options 2 or 3, but option 4 is a blatant violation of WP:NOR on the part of Wikipedia editors. *** Crotalus *** 15:18, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Emerson was consistant, he died like all those before him. GoodDay (talk) 15:24, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 4 On reflection, I'm not convinced that it needs to be moved off this title after all. NCROY seems to cover things, and the formulation "King Juan Carlos I of Spain" appears in many of the first GNews hits on "Juan Carlos I". (And also per GNews, "John Charles I" would seem to be Right Out.)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:07, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well if you type in the "I", you're going to get "I" back. GNews gives many more hits without the "I" than with it.--Kotniski (talk) 16:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Casareal.es appears to omit the "I", but the Spanish Constitution uses it. *sigh* (Amusingly, Brittanica uses "Juan Carlos (king of Spain)", but EBKids uses "Juan Carlos I".)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:34, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

 * 4 like all the kings of united Spain from Philip II of Spain to Alfonso XIII of Spain. Their ancestors, similarly, are called of Aragon, of Castile, of Navarre, Holy Roman Emperor, etc. Most of this is necessary for disambiguation; to move the others would require readers and editors to find out which names are ambiguous before they know where the articles are. Those who quote Emerson really should also indicate why this particular consistency is foolish; Emerson did. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Well if you want people to be able to guess where the article is going to be (which obviously they don't need to, but let's suppose there's some reason), then you wouldn't include a numeral that apparently requires knowledge of the Spanish Constitution to predict.--Kotniski (talk) 16:41, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it requires reading any of the majority of English sources which use it; which is presumably what will draw the reader to this article. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:44, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * How do you get that a majority of English sources use the numeral? My googling (news, books, scholar) indicates the clear reverse.--Kotniski (talk) 16:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

 * Oppose move. I'm very happy with the article the way it stands now, at the title where it was for a long time and which conforms to article naming conventions. Deb (talk) 19:11, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In otherwords, you've chosen #4. GoodDay (talk) 19:43, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was confused by the wording of the move request into thinking it was a request for a move :-) Deb (talk) 19:48, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

 * 4 per NCROY and .--Jeanne Boleyn. FactStraight (talk) 03:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 4 following the naming convention for royalty. Noel S McFerran (talk) 11:58, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment is there any reason for the I? I was under the impression that you couldn't have an I until there was an II... might be my inherent Britishness coming out... Worm   14:21, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure about this, but I do recall that Pope John Paul I called himself that immediately, without knowing that he would be dead within a month and there would be a Pope John Paul II. Deb (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Jean-Bédel Bokassa called himself Bokassa I, and Augustín de Iturbide Augustín I. (Whether those articles should be renamed should be discussed there.) Founders like links to the future. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:22, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 4 Consistency. The same should be done in Victoria of the United Kingdom. "Queen Victoria" as the article's name simply because everybody knows her that way is kind of foolish. --Lecen (talk) 22:59, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In agreement. Afterall, when did Queen become her first name. GoodDay (talk) 00:12, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, calling people the things that everyone knows them as - what a ridiculous idea. Far better that Wikipedia make up its own names for its subjects. Perhaps it could then go on to making up its own facts too. --Kotniski (talk) 12:53, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Queen Latifah & King Clancy, remember those monarchs? GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

 * Comment Touchy today, aren't we Kotniski?  Skinsmoke (talk) 13:28, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 4 is standard format, but following the long-running debate leading to the move to Elizabeth II, the omission of the country is now acceptable, where there is no ambiguity. I am not clear whether his official title includes the ordinal "I", but "Juan Carlos" would look like a man whose surname was Carlos.  Peterkingiron (talk) 21:33, 22 January 2011 (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.

Most of this article is not cited
The vast majority of asserted facts in this article lack citations. They are most likely true and do not appear to be controversial but this is a BLP and requires full citation. Veriss (talk) 08:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The monograms
I recently noticed that almost all the articles relating to modern royals are including this so called monograms, Im stranged by the fact none of them show citations, I've never seen before these monograms, I know they do exist, but are they accurate??? I would like to know where doest the author is getting the graphic data to create them. Lefairh (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

'Opted not to call himself...'
But surely he always called himself Juan Carlos? These articles: "Franco Looks to the Future: Monarchy to a Dictator's Pattern", in The World Today, Vol. 12, No. 1, Jan., 1956; "Twenty Years of Franco", in Foreign Affairs, Vol. 37, No. 2, Jan., 1959; and "The Claim of Carlos Hugo de Bourbon-Parma to the Spanish Throne", in Background, Vol. 8, No. 3, Nov., 1964 are just three articles at random I found on Jstor that call him that. Scolaire (talk) 16:30, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
 * For his regnal name, he opted not to call himself "Juan III" (or "Carlos V") but to continue using his first and second name and rule as "Juan Carlos I".

Official portrait permission
I'm used to editing American military biographies, so I don't have to worry about photo licensing a lot. I just came across this article, and I figured it would look nice with an official portrait of the king. All of the ones here can "be freely reproduced for personal and private use", but it says that authorization of other uses must be given from H.M. the King’s Household. Does anyone have any idea how to go about getting said permission? Rockhead126 (talk) 01:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

"monarquía parlamentaria" (parliamentary monarchy)/parliamentary democracy
How can two lines of text of the indtorduction mentioning the same political system link to two different articles?--Mideal (talk) 12:10, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

FUll name
"asim Mahmood" ? WTF!? I saw the Spanish article and delete this now.--Mideal (talk) 12:21, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Botswana
The map of countries visited by Juan Carlos I is missing Botswana, where he was recently injured while hunting elephants. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.125.122.49 (talk • contribs) 11:56 (UTC) 16 April 2012
 * Judging from the caption and file name, the image shows only official trips not private holidays. DrKay (talk) 12:42, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

 * Other than showing the number of countries Don Juan Carlos has pooped at, what's the reason for having this map on the article anyway?

Pronunciation
Compound given names in Spanish are pronounced as if they were only one word: shows José Luis is pronounced in Spanish as "joseluís", i.e. [xose'lwis]. In the same vein, Juan Carlos is [xwaŋˈkarlos] not  [ˈxwaŋ ˈkarlos]. Lubrom (talk) 15:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Marriage
According to the Guardian, following the recent scandals: 'Even the king's private life, where rumours of lovers have always been rife, is no longer out of bounds – and neither is his friendship with a German aristocrat whose name is widely available in Spain and Germany, but whose lawyers say she denies any inappropriate relationship and have threatened legal action against any British newspapers that reveal her name. "The failure of his marriage to Queen Sofia, from whom he is practically separated, is public knowledge," said José Antonio Zarzalejos, a former editor of the conservative ABC newspaper, in his online column.' Shouldn't this be covered here... the article currently gives the impression that the king and queen are a couple? Malick78 (talk) 20:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Corinna zu Sayn-Wittgenstein or Corinna Larson

 * "Incluso, el diario italiano “La Stampa” se atrevió a escribir que “en España hay dos reinas: la oficial, Sofía, de 73 años, casada desde 1962 con el rey Juan Carlos y la oficiosa, la provocante y rubia princesa Corinna zu Sayn-Wittgenstein, de 46, separada y amante desde hace cuatro años del soberano más tombeur (casanova) de femmes de Europa”."
 * "Im Mai 2006 trat der König zum ersten Mal öffentlich mit Prinzessin Corinna auf, bei den „Laureus-Sport-Awards“ in Barcelona. Im selben Jahr nahm Juan Carlos sie mit zu seinem Vetter Herzog Carl zu Württemberg (75). Laut dem spanischen Portal „El confidencial“ ist sie sogar schon einmal als Vertreterin des Monarchen aufgetreten, bei einem Treffen mit dem saudi-arabischen Prinz Alwaleed bin Talal." --80.136.29.101 (talk) 20:21, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Otto van Habsburg was not offered the crown.
i have deleted this from the article that Otto von Habsburg was offered the crown by Franco. There was a dead link to Forbes. In the obituary by the reference newspaper in Spain there was no mention to it.[] Preceding unsigned comment by 80.136.29.101 talk, 20:21, 21 April 2012

FRANCO WAS NOT A CARLIST
There are some claims in this article which are absurd and i am deleting them if nobody add a link (i think it may be simply vandalism) I have never heard that franco was a carlist and it is even dubious that juan added carlos to his name because he wanted to claim the suppot of carlist. I delete them and wait if somebody add a link. Preceding unsigned comment by 81.47.192.186 talk, 03:36, 19 May 2012

Titles, Styles and Honours
Spanish and Foreing Honours detailed at List of titles and honours of Juan Carlos I of Spain as Article Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom all data translated there, there were duplicated.--Galico (talk) 14:20, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Ancestors
The ancestors mentioned here as Pelaius, Ferdinand and Isabelle are dubious if not wrong. The spanish line was broken when one Charles (III?) died without sons and the title went to Philip V (french dinasty). --81.38.101.194 (talk) 04:26, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Philipp V (of Anjou) was nephew-grandson of Charles II (last Habsbourg House King), so ancestry lineage is continous up to, at least, King Pelagious, who was son of Fafila, Visigoth Dux of Asturias at time of Omeya's invassion.

Inmunity
Shouldnt his full inmunity according to the spanish constitution ("titulo 2, articulo 56", 3rd paragraph http://www.congreso.es/consti/constitucion/indice/titulos/articulos.jsp?ini=56&fin=65&tipo=2) be mentioned in this article? (not only in matters related to his official duties as stated in the article) I would think is a very relevant and interesting point.

"the first" -- also, use of a double name
If not already done, does someone want to work Juan Carlos I into the discussion about regnal names (in THAT article)? Notice he has a double name AND we are commonly seeing use of "I" (i.e., "the first"), which is sometimes but not always done with the first ruler to use a particular name. I do see the British monarchy mentioned above in a now-archived discussion; John, Anne, and Victoria have no numbers (no other British monarchs have had those names), and the queen who is now called Elizabeth I formerly had no number (this changed in 1952 because of Elizabeth II).

I wonder about the number, too. *Why* does he have a number, when there was no other Spanish monarch of that name? The English way is the one I learned; no number till you get another monarch of the same name, then the first one gets the number ‘I’, posthumously. This does not necessarily apply to Spain, of course. So, what is the thinking? Some discussion of this point could improve the article. 2A00:23C7:E287:1901:18CA:6327:B0BF:C9D8 (talk) 10:21, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * No need to use "I" or to mention it. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 11:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

King no more
He has renounced to the title in favour of his heir Philip. We need to update the page soon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moi961 (talk • contribs)

 * You mean heir, not hair. But he'll remain as king until the relevant legal work has been done. Please don't change the article to make it look like he's stopped being king yet. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Last word I saw was that the abdication won't take effect until sometime after the new year. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Got a source for that? If true, that would be significantly slower than any of last year's royal abdications. However, if true, that's a further reason for not prematurely adding a 'to' date to anything. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:37, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Correction I misread this article which said he resolved to abdicate in January when he turned 76. For some reason I read that as future tense when it's actually past. This is likely to occur more quickly than I had thought. -Ad Orientem (talk) 17:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * By the way, his name is Felipe, not Philip. When he does become, his Wikipedia page will presumably be moved to Felipe VI of Spain. Tad Lincoln (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * And Elizabeth II's name is Elizabeth II, not Isabel II. Names of monarchs have traditionally been "translated". The only monarch whose name is regularly "translated" today is the pope, so I doubt everyone who referred to the Prince of Asturias as Felipe will now start calling him Philip. Surtsicna (talk) 21:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm aware of that. But that's generally not done in English anymore, as you yourself are clearly aware. My point was, his name is Felipe and that is the name he is known by in English, not Philip. Tad Lincoln (talk) 00:23, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, and he just might become Philip/Felipe VIII if the Basques start nagging. Surtsicna (talk) 21:21, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Have the Basques ever asserted Navarrese regnal numbers for the Spanish monarchs?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 19:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, it appears that they have. There are several books referring to "Carlos VII de Navarra", many of which were published in Navarre during his reign. See also Felipe VII de Navarra. Surtsicna (talk) 19:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * According to this official source today, the required constitutional law is in draft form and is to be fast tracked through the parliament, after which it will come into force when gazetted: Draft Constitutional Law on the abdication of HM King Juan Carlos I de Borbón. The king's abdication speech did not anticipate a date.  The parliament, of course, can specify any date for gazetting that it pleases;  or it can amend the bill so that a date different from that of gazetting is provided.  Wikiain (talk) 00:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I translated the name as I think the previous Felipe was translated to English. I have lived in Spain myself for a really long time and it actually felt really weird for me to translate it as I would never refer to him that way in conversation, however, this is not only my but everyone's source. And the misspelling, I am sorry, I probably felt tired that day (seems like an eternity since I wrote that!) or was hurrying since it had just been on the news and I wanted to share it. And some of you have made good points: the previous king was going to abdicate yet legally not yet at that time. Sorry for all the inconveniences and that I have not been around to add to this.

References and call to remove semi-protection
Abdication references which mention the constitutional issue and the related Catalan separatist issue --

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27662351 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27672997 http://www.euronews.com/2014/06/02/spain-s-king-juan-carlos-to-abdicate-for-better-or-for-worse/ http://www.times-gazette.com/latest%20headlines/2014/06/03/spain-king-abdicates-for-his-more-popular-son http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/02/king-juan-carlos-spain-protests-referendum-monarchy

And why is this article semi-protected? By Wikipedia standards, it really should not be. Please don't tell me to get an account -- that sidesteps the core issue of why this and other similar articles are reflexively semi-protected on a routine basis rather than on a need basis. That kind of semi-protection is in direct opposition to one of Wikipedia's pillars. - Tenebris 05:36, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * What we need are references for the king's early life; that's the section that has an orange tag. The semi-protection is there because people kept on altering the page to suggest that the king had actually abdicated yesterday - changing the dates of his reign and so forth. If you've got good sources on the fascist era and Juan Carlos' life at that time, please let us know; I'm very keen to get this sorted. AlexTiefling (talk) 06:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Still waiting. I can't get at my books; if you can, and can provide the references, please post them here and get this over with. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

 * Sorry for the delay, I did not immediately see this, and then would you believe we edit-conflicted? so I had to do a quick fix. Initial set of links below. It would be easier and more thorough to reference books than online links (more academic, less overtly opinionated) but I recognise that online citations are preferred if at all possible. Also trying to keep away from Spanish-language links. There should be enough here for you to choose the ones you want.

 * https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/paul-preston/juan-carlos/ (the book itself preferred, but at least this is a more solid online review with a few citation-useful details)
 * http://www.unofficialroyalty.com/royal-weddings/spanish-royal-weddings/wedding-of-juan-carlos-and-princess-sophia-of-greece/ (includes early life)
 * http://www.thewhig.com/2014/01/10/the-reign-in-spain-of-king-juan-carlos
 * http://www.kansascity.com/2014/06/02/5061849/historical-images-of-spain-king.html (pictures and captions going back to boyhood)
 * http://www.transicion.org/En/archivos/Spains_Transition.pdf
 * http://marcaespana.es/en/instituciones-historia/historia/articulos/142/the-years-of-the-franco-regime (concentrating on Franco)
 * http://marcaespana.es/en/instituciones-historia/historia/articulos/141/spain-following-the-1978-constitution (continuing after Franco)

 * As to semi-protection, there will always be waves of editing changes, but semi-protection should not be evoked for normal wave crests. In its original form, that pillar of Wikipedia clearly indicates that pages should always be kept open barring extreme editing shifts such as extreme and ongoing vandalism -- and this was not that. To invoke semi-protection simply because several people -- even a hundred people -- edited a page incorrectly is to choose the path of comfort above the ideals of Wikipedia. It is not even all that much work to revert an edit -- all of one click. Most people editing in such a fashion are only one-off fly-bys, and the very few persistent ones can be warned about the 3R rule and then temp-banned if necessary. - Tenebris 10:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not the one who applied semi-protection. I'm just the sap who spent so much of yesterday doing the reverting, here and on a handful of other pages. Which claims in the 'Prince of Spain' section are referenced by which sources, please? I'm genuinely grateful for your help here, by the way - 3142's intervention it ITN/C hasn't helped either of us. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Got it. Give me a second -- if I had access to that article, I would be rewriting and restructuring a good deal of that section (not that it is bad, simply that it could be considerably better), so I have to try to shoehorn what I have to what is there. - Tenebris 10:23, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That's OK - I really appreciate the effort, and we can of course all work to improve the article further once it's not semi-protected. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:24, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Probably easiest if I just copy-paste that section here and place references accordingly. Will try to minimise my itch to edit.

The dictatorial regime of Francisco Franco came to power during the Spanish Civil War, which pitted democrats, anarchists, socialists, and communists, supported in part by the Soviet Union and by international volunteers, against conservatives, monarchists, nationalists, and fascists, supported by both Hitler and Mussolini, with the latter group ultimately emerging successful with the support of neighbouring Portugal and the major European Axis powers of Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany.

REF - http://libro.uca.edu/payne2/payne26.htm

Delete the following phrases - useless for this article --

Despite his alliance with monarchists, Franco was not eager to restore the deposed Spanish monarchy once in power, preferring to head a regime with himself as head of state for life. The far right factions demanded the return of a hardline absolute monarchy, and eventually Franco agreed that his successor would be a monarch. Franco had no intention of restoring the constitutional form of monarchy known during the 19th century or the republican form of government created by the Spanish Constitution of 1931. Though Franco's partisan supporters generally accepted this arrangement for the present, much debate quickly ensued over who would replace Franco upon his death.

Replace this with

Franco's fascist government remained dominant in Spain until the 1960s. With Franco's increasing age, left-wing protests increased, while at the same time, the far right factions demanded the return of a hardline absolute monarchy. At the time, the heir to the throne of Spain was Juan de Borbón (Count of Barcelona), the son of the late Alfonso XIII. However, General Franco viewed him with extreme suspicion, believing him to be a liberal who was opposed to his regime.

REF - http://www.thewhig.com/2014/01/10/the-reign-in-spain-of-king-juan-carlos

Juan Carlos's cousin Alfonso, Duke of Anjou and Cádiz, was also briefly considered as a candidate. Alfonso was known to be an ardent Francoist and would marry Franco's granddaughter, Doña María del Carmen Martínez-Bordiú y Franco in 1972.

REF - Powell, Charles (1996). Juan Carlos of Spain. Oxford, UK: MacMillan Press, St. Antony's Series. pp. 1–5, 9, 13–14, 27–28, 50–51, 221–222. ISBN 0-333-54726-8.

Ultimately, Franco decided to skip a generation and name Juan de Borbón's son, Prince Juan Carlos, as his personal successor. Franco hoped the young prince could be groomed to take over the nation while still maintaining the ultraconservative nature of his regime. In 1969, Juan Carlos was officially designated heir-apparent and was given the new title of Prince of Spain (not the traditional Prince of Asturias). As a condition of being named heir-apparent, he was required to swear loyalty to Franco's Movimiento Nacional, which he did with little outward hesitation.[14] His choice was ratified by the Spanish parliament on 22 July 1969.

REF - http://marcaespana.es/en/instituciones-historia/historia/articulos/142/the-years-of-the-franco-regime

Prince Juan Carlos met and consulted Franco many times while heir apparent and often took part in official and ceremonial state functions standing alongside the dictator, much to the anger of hardline republicans and more moderate liberals, who hoped that Franco's death would bring in an era of reform. During 1969–1975, Juan Carlos publicly supported Franco's regime. Although Franco's health worsened during those years, whenever he did appear in public, from state dinners to military parades, it was in Juan Carlos's company as he continued to praise Franco and his government for the economic growth and positive changes in Spain.

REF - http://www.kansascity.com/2014/06/02/5061849/historical-images-of-spain-king.html (eg. third picture)

Delete the next phrase (and the conversations were not secret on a telephone both of them knew was tapped) --

However, as the years progressed, Juan Carlos began meeting secretly with political opposition leaders and exiles, who were fighting to bring liberal reform to the country. He also had secret conversations with his father over the telephone.

When asked independently for his opinions, Juan Carlo was terse yet vague to the point that he was nicknamed "The Brief". Most believed him to be Franco's puppet, including Franco himself, who denied allegations from his ministers and advisors that Juan Carlos was in any way disloyal to his vision of the regime.

REF - http://www.transicion.org/En/archivos/Spains_Transition.pdf

During periods of Franco's temporary incapacity in 1974 and 1975 Juan Carlos was acting head of state. Near death, on 30 October 1975, Franco gave full control to Juan Carlos. On 22 November, following Franco's death, the Cortes Generales proclaimed Juan Carlos King of Spain. In his coronation speech of 22 November 1975, the monarch himself spoke of three factors: the historical tradition, national laws, and the will of the people, and in so doing referred to a process dating back to the Civil War of 1936–39.[15] 27 November, Juan Carlos was anointed king in a ceremony called Holy Spirit Mass, which was the equivalent of a coronation, at the Jerónimos Church in Madrid. He opted not to call [16] himself Juan III or Carlos V, but Juan Carlos I.

REF - http://www.onlinefootage.tv/stock-video-footage/11527/spain-juan-carlos-coronation-ceremony?keywords=

Also, use this link as reference for the wedding to Sophia mentioned elsewhere - http://www.unofficialroyalty.com/royal-weddings/spanish-royal-weddings/wedding-of-juan-carlos-and-princess-sophia-of-greece/

Hopefully that should do? - Tenebris 11:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

 * So that gives us:
 * The dictatorial regime of Francisco Franco came to power during the Spanish Civil War, which pitted democrats, anarchists, socialists, and communists, supported in part by the Soviet Union and by international volunteers, against conservatives, monarchists, nationalists, and fascists, supported by both Hitler and Mussolini, with the latter group ultimately emerging successful with the support of neighbouring Portugal and the major European Axis powers of Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany. Franco's fascist government remained dominant in Spain until the 1960s. With Franco's increasing age, left-wing protests increased, while at the same time, the far right factions demanded the return of a hardline absolute monarchy. At the time, the heir to the throne of Spain was Juan de Borbón (Count of Barcelona), the son of the late Alfonso XIII. However, General Franco viewed him with extreme suspicion, believing him to be a liberal who was opposed to his regime.

 * Juan Carlos's cousin Alfonso, Duke of Anjou and Cádiz, was also briefly considered as a candidate. Alfonso was known to be an ardent Francoist and would marry Franco's granddaughter, Doña María del Carmen Martínez-Bordiú y Franco in 1972.

 * Ultimately, Franco decided to skip a generation and name Juan de Borbón's son, Prince Juan Carlos, as his personal successor. Franco hoped the young prince could be groomed to take over the nation while still maintaining the ultraconservative nature of his regime. In 1969, Juan Carlos was officially designated heir-apparent and was given the new title of Prince of Spain (not the traditional Prince of Asturias). As a condition of being named heir-apparent, he was required to swear loyalty to Franco's Movimiento Nacional, which he did with little outward hesitation. His choice was ratified by the Spanish parliament on 22 July 1969.

 * Prince Juan Carlos met and consulted Franco many times while heir apparent and often took part in official and ceremonial state functions standing alongside the dictator, much to the anger of hardline republicans and more moderate liberals, who hoped that Franco's death would bring in an era of reform. During 1969–1975, Juan Carlos publicly supported Franco's regime. Although Franco's health worsened during those years, whenever he did appear in public, from state dinners to military parades, it was in Juan Carlos's company as he continued to praise Franco and his government for the economic growth and positive changes in Spain. However, as the years progressed, Juan Carlos began meeting secretly with political opposition leaders and exiles, who were fighting to bring liberal reform to the country. He also had secret conversations with his father over the telephone. Franco, for his part, remained largely oblivious to the prince's actions and denied allegations from his ministers and advisors that Juan Carlos was in any way disloyal to his vision of the regime.

 * During periods of Franco's temporary incapacity in 1974 and 1975 Juan Carlos was acting head of state. Near death, on 30 October 1975, Franco gave full control to Juan Carlos. On 22 November, following Franco's death, the Cortes Generales proclaimed Juan Carlos King of Spain. In his coronation speech of 22 November 1975, the monarch himself spoke of three factors: the historical tradition, national laws, and the will of the people, and in so doing referred to a process dating back to the Civil War of 1936–39. On 27 November, Juan Carlos was anointed king in a ceremony called Holy Spirit Mass, which was the equivalent of a coronation, at the Jerónimos Church in Madrid. He opted not to call [16] himself Juan III or Carlos V, but Juan Carlos I.

 * AlexTiefling (talk) 11:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

If that is enough, go for it. I did not want to put the straight ref tags on this page -- was not sure how that would turn out.

We also have a photo of him signing the official document starting the abdication process
 * http://media.kansascity.com/smedia/2014/06/02/10/55/aUCsA.St.81.jpeg

from the collection of pix linked above. It was released by the Royal Family (see caption, 23 of 66) so it should be copyright-free. - Tenebris 11:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

 * Excellent. If someone who knows how to upload photos can add that, we'll be sorted. I've already made the other changes, while reconciling with Bellemora's sources where I could. Many thanks once again. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:59, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

More sources needed
We need sources for the 'Restoration' section. I was about to use this Daily Telegraph article: - but if I was the author's university examiner, I'd send him back to write something that didn't depend as obviously on our own article! AlexTiefling (talk) 13:00, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I've fixed a red link I introduced, by creating a new article for Jesús Posada Moreno. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:45, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

The Pope is a Monarch?
"Juan Carlos will become the fourth European monarch to abdicate in just over a year, following Pope Benedict XVI of Vatican City"

I am surprised at this sentence. What source is there for calling the Pope a monarch?

Thanks, CBHA (talk) 17:17, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The Pope is the head of state of the Vatican City. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:21, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

 * Thanks. But is Vatican City a monarchy? CBHA (talk) 18:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

 * Yes, at least according to the Monarch and Monarchy articles. Vilhelm.s (talk) 20:57, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed. It's an elective monarchy, much like the Holy Roman Empire once was. The Pope is the sovereign, and the cardinal-electors are the electoral princes. They're even called 'princes of the church'. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

 * Thank you.

 * There are more things in heaven and earth, CBHA, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy. - Hamlet (1.5.167-8) CBHA (talk) 01:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Style
In the "Titles, styles, honours and arms" section it states "22 November 1975 – present: His Majesty The King" Do we know what his style will be once the abdication is official? -- 63.243.41.35 (talk) 21:06, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Not yet. There was an article in El Pais speculating that he'll retain his father's title of Count of Barcelona, but nothing definite. Let's wait and see. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Some of Juan Carlos's predecessors also abdicated in favour of their sons. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe they retained their title. Obviously, he would not be the king. I believe Isabella II, Ferdinand VII, Charles IV and Philip V all kept their title. Surtsicna (talk) 15:01, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, and sources are scarce, Philip V was known as "King Philip of Spain" during the reign of Louis I, who was "The King of Spain" for the same period. This seems similar to the current situation with Popes: Pope (Emeritus) Benedict still has the title 'Pope', but 'The Pope' is unambiguously Pope Francis. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:55, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Catholic monarchs in general tend to keep their title after abdication. Think of the kings of Belgium, Ferdinand I of Austria, Pope Benedict XVI, the kings of Sardinia, the grand dukes of Luxembourg, the kings of Bavaria, etc. The Protestant monarchs do not (Edward VIII of the United Kingdom, Beatrix of the Netherlands and her predecessors, Gustav IV Adolf of Sweden, etc). I am not sure if that is just a coincidence. Surtsicna (talk) 16:44, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't remember off-hand if Christina of Sweden (who was a Protestant monarch, but abdicated to become a Catholic) retained her title or not. Would it help or harm the theory if she did? AlexTiefling (talk) 16:47, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I do not know how it would affect the theory, so I did not bother checking. If I were to guess, I would say that she did not. Surtsicna (talk) 17:27, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Juan Carlos I of Spain "The first" ?
A question I did not (yet) find answered:  Why is he called Juan Carlos I?   The Brits don't talk about Queen Victoria I and they only discovered Queen Elizabeth I in the twentieth century when a second one hove into view. Our Dutch cousins didn't insist on calling their recently retired queen Queen Beatrix I.  The Spanish king's son is a Felipe, and as far as I can make out he only has daughters which is splendid but girls don't commonly get called "Juan" or "Carlos", even in a country where your bus driver is quite likely to have been christened "Jesus". But maybe there is already a future Juan Carlos II of Spain patiently waiting his turn for the top seat. Or? Tempting to be frivolous about all this stuff, but there might be a serious quasi-encyclopaedic explanation out there, if only anyone knew what it was. Thanks for any thoughts. Regards
 * My first and completely unresearched response is that your question is very good one. I would also add that Pope Francis is not Francis I for the same reason. If this is not a mistake (a real possibility) my guess is that there must be some explanation peculiar to the way the Spanish style their monarchs. But among royalty it is not customary to style any sovereign as "the first" (i.e. 'I') until there is a "the second" (i.e. 'II'). -Ad Orientem (talk) 16:43, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There are a couple of Portuguese monarchs who are styled 'the first' despite there not being a 'second'. This definitely isn't a mistake in Wikipedia; I heard of the unusual numbering convention regarding Juan Carlos before Wikipedia ever existed. But I've never seen a good explanation for it. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It's an Iberian custom. Sure, it doesn't sound logical to many (including us on other peninsulas), but it does to them. Isabella I was known to them as Isabel I long before her namesake ascended the throne, and Joanna the Mad has always been Juana I as far as her countrymen are concerned. The same is true for Portuguese monarchs. Some non-Iberian monarchs also called themselves "the First" despite being "the only" - notably all Austrian emperors. Surtsicna (talk) 17:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Thank you for all these reactions.   If the Austrians do it and the Iberians do it, I wonder if the custom originated with the Hapsburgs.   (Though I don't think the Belgians do it, even though they picked up quite a lot of things from the Hapsburgs along the way.)   If it was the Hapsburgs who started it, it's nice to see a Spanish Bourbon staying faithful to a Hapsburg tradition.   Regards Charles01 (talk) 18:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The Habsburgs did not start it. Maria Theresa, the last Habsburg, is known as "the First" only in Iberia; she herself never used the ordinal, nor do her countrymen when referring to her. The same is true for her predecessors, such as Emperor Matthias. This has been customary in Iberia since time immemorial. Surtsicna (talk) 18:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Not time immemorial. Certainly not any of the single named Visigothic kings or early kings of Asturias such as Don Pelayo or Favila, Silo, Aurelio, Mauregato, Nepociano.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 02:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Juan Carlos's title is officially "I", so I think we should copy. See e.g. Draft Constitutional Law on the abdication of HM King Juan Carlos I de Borbón. Among other uses, I recall that Pope John Paul II announced his choice of name by referring to his predecessor John Paul as "Giovanni Paolo Primo". Wikiain (talk) 23:48, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
 * We can also point to when Juan Carlos was proclaimed King by the Cortes. The wording of the declaration was:

 * En nombre de las Cortes Espanolas y del Consejo del Reino, manifestamos a la nacion espanola, que que le proclamado Rey de Espana, Don Juan Carlos de Borbon y Borbon, reinera con el nombre de Juan Carlos Primero . Senores Procuradores, Senores Consejeros, desde de la emocion en el recuerdo a Franco !viva el Rey! !Viva Espana!

 * (English keyboard, so please excuse the lack of accents and inverted exclamation points)

 * There is a video of the King's proclamation on YouTube - the section in question begins 1 minute 41 seconds into the video. Also worth noting is that while Spain still used the Peseta, the inscription on the obverse ('heads') of the coin was "JUAN CARLOS I REY DE ESPANA" - there is a picture of a 100 Pts coin in the article which illustrates this nicely.  P M C  00:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * But surely the title of the page should be the common name in English language reliable sources, not Spanish ones? We have a page on Napoleon, while the French wikipedia has one on Napoléon Ier, nothing wrong with the fact that there is a difference. I suspect Juan Carlos of Spain would be more correct here for exactly the reason which makes it sound less odd. Moonraker (talk) 01:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no preference one way or the other, I was just providing sources confirming the official usage. With regards to Napoleon I, there was in fact also a Napoleon II (who did not reign because of the Bourbon restoration), and a Napoleon III (reigned 1852-70). P M C  15:55, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course, but whereas the French commonly refer to Napoleon I, almost no one writing in English would do that, resulting in the different page names. What King Juan Carlos is called in English and Spanish seems to bear the same difference. Moonraker (talk) 04:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I'm quite accustomed to hearing Napoleon the First referred to as such in English. You seem to be basing your argument simply on how things generally are in English, or what sounds natural to your ear. AlexTiefling (talk) 05:45, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I had not realised, when I kicked off this discussion, that I might be triggering a passionate debate about the name of the entry.  I should have known better.   Anyhow, I looked at several different language versions in Wikipedia and they all seem to apply "Juan Carlos I" (ie with the "I") without thinking about it too much.   I think there is a sort of assumption that if they do it that way in Spain, and he's their king, why should we wish to do it in our own language any other way?:   There is a sort of mutual cultural respect across the west European mainland - maybe simply good manners - which somehow does not always cross so comfortably into in the anglosphere.   Island mentality?   American imperialistic instincts?   I don't know the mechanism whereby these preconceptions originate differently according to where you are.   But it seems to me that if "Juan Carlos I" works for the folks whose king he is, then you'd need a pretty strong reason to do it differently in our own "anglophone" language zones. Charles01 (talk) 10:47, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
 * North Koreans call their head of state "dear supreme leader". There is really no reason to respect the Spaniards more than the Koreans, is there? After all, the anglophones are quite happy to refer to arguably the most famous Spanish monarch as Isabella I (rather than Isabel), while the hispanophones know the present British monarch as Isabel II. Anyway, I am sure there are better arguments in support of the current name. Surtsicna (talk) 11:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Abdication article
The Spanish and Basque Wikipedias have a whole article on his abdication. I don't know if this would be appropriate for the English one as we seem to sum it up in a short paragraph, but could this be a possibility? It is certainly an event which, by the look of the Spanish article, has led to a lot of reaction in Spain. '''tAD''' (talk) 18:15, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

 * I think the normal wiki-process would be for the abdication section within this entry to grow longer and (one hopes) more interesting, until the natural thing becomes for someone to cut it out and paste it as (the start of) a separate entry.  But, at least in my judgement, I don't think we've got enough for that to happen yet.   What would be interesting, if you have the time and interest (and of course the linguistic knowledge), would be to short cut the process by translating some of the bits in the Spanish entry and copying them over (with their sources, of course...)   Success Charles01 (talk) 18:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

 * Thanks. The Spanish article has bullet points on regional and international reactions, of which I've put a few into prose as listing them all in bullet points is inappropriate for the biography rather than an article on the abdication. '''tAD''' (talk) 15:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Felipe VI of Spain which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 02:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

The opening paragraph currently reads "Juan Carlos and his wife retain their titles of King and Queen of Spain" [my emphasis]. Could someone with a better grasp of Spanish than I please chack an original source carefully, as I suspect this may be incorrect. I think it should read ""Juan Carlos and his wife retain their titles of King and Queen." (i.e. not "of Spain"). "King of Spain" is a constitutionally defined office, and there can be only one incumbent, currently Felipe VI. Following the abdication, I believe the Juan Carlos' correct title changed from HM The King of Spain to HM King Juan Carlos I?

Still has title "king"
I've been trying to avoid saying the he ceased to be king; formally his son is king and head of state, JC still has the style of king. So instead of saying he "was king from 1975 to 2014" I tried "was reigning king from 1975 to 2014", which was reverted a couple of times, and have now put different wording referrring to head of state in place. There has been a brief discussion on my Talk page; I wrote the following (and the author of the comment to me may want to replace my paraphrase with his text to bring the debate here):

It was said that in someone's opinion Juan Carlos now has the title of 'King' as a sort of courtesy title, and that the title 'King of Spain' means the head of state, and thus applies only to his son. I said:

 * I've not seen any source for this, i don't even know if it's been formally defined. He unquestionably remains King Juan Carlos. Rather than my most recent wording, I had earlier thought it best to specify the difference by saying he was "reigning king" until 19 June 2014, but someone reverted that a few times, so I have been seeking some wording that doesn't explicitly say that he ceased to be a king of Spain, bu does specify that he ceased to be head of state. I'll try to find something else that avoids implying that he is not a king of Spain. I don't want to make a big point of saying "he's still a king of Spain", just unobtrusively not say explicitly he isn't. In brief, it's not reliable to say that he's not a king of Spain without a source. Pol098 (talk) 11:40, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

 * (copied from Pol098's user page:)My reading of article 56.2 here: is that the title King of Spain belongs to the head of state. I think sourcing this one either way is going to be difficult. I suggest calling him 'King Juan Carlos' in the lead - because it's clear from casareal.es that that's still his title - and then say that he was head of state from X to Y. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

 * The point I'm aiming at here isn't ultimately a pedantically correct definition; in a year's time when somebody see a reference in a newspaper to "King Juan Carlos of Spain visited the 2015 exhibition" and looks up who this is in Wikipedia, I don't want the article to start with something to the effect of "the former king of Spain", which is confusing (and a reader won't necessarily read on to find all the details). Pol098 (talk) 12:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

 * Perhaps "...reigned as King of Spain from 1975 to 2014. He abdicated as head of state...". He is actually still referred to as a king, who is no longer head of state, after Felipe took over . Pol098 (talk) 09:37, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * He's no longer the King of Spain though, which is what we're aiming at. See the article Albert II of Belgium, for how former monarchs who keep their title, are handled. GoodDay (talk) 15:15, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * People will come here for information after they see "HM King Juan Carlos of Spain" or similar wording on the guest list of some international shindig. It's relevant, and right at the beginning, to make it clear that he abdicated as head of state and commander-in-chief of the armed forces, but is still a king (and has the same title as before, with "Don" inserted in Spanish). Pol098 (talk) 20:26, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * And why assume that people would assume that he is no longer styled as a king? "Don" was not inserted following abdication; it is an honorific that he has used all his life. Anyway, my point is that the lead should not discuss his present or past title and style in such a great detail, especially not the lead paragraph, and not before anything is said about his tremendously important reign. Surtsicna (talk) 20:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * How about: Juan Carlos I was the Spanish head of state from the restoration of the monarchy on 22 November 1975 to his abdication on 19 June 2014. He was succeeded by his son, Felipe VI. DrKay (talk) 20:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It's factually correct, of course, but what is wrong with the present version? Surtsicna (talk) 20:44, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, nothing as far as I'm concerned. I'm happy with it personally. Sorry, I didn't make that clear. DrKay (talk) 20:50, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2014
Please remove the designation of a monarch as applied to the Papacy. The Papacy is not a monarchy and labelling it as such in the abdication section is misleading and strange.

162.136.192.1 (talk) 17:34, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * See section above. The article is not protected. DrKay (talk) 17:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This again? Seriously? AlexTiefling (talk) 20:41, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Predecessor is Franco, not Alfonso XIII
If it's considered that his predecessor is the previous head of the state, it is Franco, also, he swore to follow the principles of the "national movement" and declared receiving his legitimacy from the "glorious national uprising" in 1936.

If it's considered that his predecessor is the last person able to inherit the Spanish throne it should be his father, not his grandfather.

If it is considered that his predecessor is the last legitimate chief of state, it should be Juan Negrin

 * Well let me clarify a few things:
 * 1.) The preceding Head of State to the King was not Franco, but Alejandro Rodríguez de Valcárcel, who was President of the Regency
 * Council of Spain for 2 days before the King's accession
 * 2.) This is quoted from Juan Carlos I's Wikipedia Article: "In 1978, the government promulgated a new constitution that acknowledged
 * Juan Carlos as the rightful heir of the Spanish dynasty and king; specifically, Title II, Section 57 asserted Juan Carlos's right to
 * the throne of Spain by dynastic succession in the Bourbon tradition, as "the legitimate heir of the historic dynasty" rather than as
 * the designated successor of Franco"
 * 3.) The Count of Barcelona claimed the Crown but never wore it, and is not recognized by Spanish law as ever having been King, and he
 * renounced his claim to the throne sometime after his son's accession
 * 4.) Juan Negrin was not the last Legitimate Head of State, that would be Manuel Azaña, who was the last President of Spain to hold
 * office before the start of the Spanish Civil War
 * 5.) Therefore, pursuant to everything previously stated, as the preceding monarch who was the last undisputably legal monarch of Spain : was Alfonso XIII, he is Juan Carlos I's monarchical and only wholly legal predecessor CanadianPrince (talk) 04:24, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Juan Carlos I's reign did not begin in 1978. It began in 1975, with the so-called "Prince of Spain" swearing over the Principles of the Movimiento seamlessly following the law issued in 1969 anointing him as successor of Francisco Franco to the Headship of the State. Using an ad hoc phrasing from a legal text excreted years later as proof of whatnot is rather dubious. Most critically, interpreting the constitutional text in order to draw the idea it sets Alfonso XIII as "wholly legal predecessor" is a no go.--Asqueladd (talk) 18:00, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) CanadianPrince (talk) 19:05, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Easy. Because the Spanish Constitution dates from 1978 and Juan Carlos was proclaimed king in 1975 in a perfectly (Francoist) legal manner (he was head of state before 29 December 1978 as legally as he was afterwards). (Personal attack removed) --Asqueladd (talk) 19:30, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Why wasn't this discussion begun at the bottom of the talkpage? Anyways, I remember a similar argument at Alfonso XIII. -- GoodDay (talk) 22:23, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Redirect Juan Carlos
Currently Juan Carlos redirects to this article. However, Juan Carlos is one of the most common names in the Spanish language. There are hundreds of men named as such. See Juan Carlos (disambiguation) for just a partial list. I would argue that Juan Carlos should link to a list of people named Juan Carlos, not just this one article. Crispulop (talk) 15:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 one external links on Juan Carlos I of Spain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141024170643/http://www.casareal.es/sm_rey/index-iden-idweb.html to http://www.casareal.es/sm_rey/index-iden-idweb.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150224165018/http://www.casareal.es/sm_rey/index-ides-idweb.html to http://www.casareal.es/sm_rey/index-ides-idweb.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081208073548/http://www.elperiodico.com:80/default.asp?idpublicacio_PK=46&idioma=CAS&idnoticia_PK=457570&idseccio_PK=1007 to http://www.elperiodico.com/default.asp?idpublicacio_PK=46&idioma=CAS&idnoticia_PK=457570&idseccio_PK=1007
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140930141307/http://www.casareal.es:80/noticias/news/20111228_desglose_presupuestario-ides-idweb.html to http://www.casareal.es/noticias/news/20111228_desglose_presupuestario-ides-idweb.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140602200342/http://informaria.com/02062014/alberto-fabra-transmite-a-s-m-el-rey-el-respeto-reconocimiento-y-admiracion-del-pueblo-valenciano/ to http://informaria.com/02062014/alberto-fabra-transmite-a-s-m-el-rey-el-respeto-reconocimiento-y-admiracion-del-pueblo-valenciano/

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

Cheers. —cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 00:52, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Juan Carlos I of Spain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071112090430/http://www.antena3.com/a3noticias/servlet/Noticias?destino=..%2Fa3n%2Fnoticia%2Fnoticia.jsp&sidicom=si&id=13286798 to http://www.antena3.com/a3noticias/servlet/Noticias?destino=..%2Fa3n%2Fnoticia%2Fnoticia.jsp&sidicom=si&id=13286798

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:25, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Juan Carlos I of Spain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140606233511/http://marcaespana.es/en/instituciones-historia/historia/articulos/142/the-years-of-the-franco-regime to http://marcaespana.es/en/instituciones-historia/historia/articulos/142/the-years-of-the-franco-regime
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140530061012/http://public.genoom.com/trees/familia-real/juan-carlos to http://public.genoom.com/trees/familia-real/juan-carlos

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:08, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Juan Carlos I of Spain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120910103102/http://www.casareal.es/sm_rey/index-ides-idweb.html to http://www.casareal.es/sm_rey/index-ides-idweb.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140605060527/http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2012/09/23/spain-king-juan-carlos-meets-with-bill-clinton/ to http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/news/2012/09/23/spain-king-juan-carlos-meets-with-bill-clinton/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:57, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Infobox image
The image used on the Main Page is (imvho) a better one, it is brighter and sharper than the one in the infobox. Should the infobox image be changed? Mjroots (talk) 09:58, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I can't find the image used on the Main Page, but as far as I can tell that current image is from 2013 and that is the most recent image we have of the subject. <font color="maroon" face="Garamond">Donna Spencer <font color="#E6A817" face="times new roman">talk-to-me ⛅ 16:29, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Numismatics
I've just removed a pic with some coins. It serves little purpose in the main biographical section below the effigy of the monarch in a note. If anyone has reliable secondary sources, for all purposes, feel free to create a standalone section about numismatics (both pesetas and euros) with the face of the man.--Asqueladd (talk) 08:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Amadeo I of Spain which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 18:16, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Discussion has ended. Juan Carlos I of Spain → Juan Carlos I. <font color="maroon" face="Garamond">Donna Spencer <font color="#E6A817" face="times new roman">talk-to-me ⛅ 19:40, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Predecessor & successor.
A discussion at Alfonso XIII is occurring, which may effect the infobox of this article. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Exile
Is this really exile? The article mentions exile a couple of times.49.178.82.183 (talk) 08:30, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 November 2022
Juan Carlos I's house is wrong, it should be Bourbon-Anjou not Bourbon as he is a desendent of Philip V of Spain. Also his son, Felipe VI, has the house of Burbon-Anjou so why should'nt he have that house as well. 96.247.202.215 (talk) 21:07, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DrKay (talk) 21:58, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, maybe we should discuss that more to avoid this kind of war of editions we have right now. Meanwhile, those who support "House of Bourbon" should not add as a source that in Spanish we say "Casa de Borbón" (House of Bourbon) because when we say that (and the Royal Household), we are referreing to the Spanish branch (formally, Bourbon-Anjou), not to the French one (for us, it's not the same House, it's a foreign house that has nothing to do with ours (except that yes, they are related by blood)). So, please, restore it to the stable edition and let's open a discussion in order to solve the issue. TheRichic Escudo de España (mazonado).svg  (Messages here)  11:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

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

The gun that killed Alfonso
The text identifies the weapon that killed Juan Carlos' younger brother as "a .22 caliber Long Automatic Star revolver owned by Alfonso." It is unclear whether the caliber is .22 Short (the Wiki reference), .22 Long or .22 Long Rifle (LR); the "Long" in the name would appear to suggest either of the latter. A more serious question is whether the weapon was a revolver or an automatic pistol. Only one revolver to my knowledge can be termed "automatic": the British Webley-Fosbery self-cocking revolver of 1901. The Spanish gunmaker Star certainly did not manufacture any "automatic revolvers", so the gun was either a normal revolver or an automatic pistol. The Wiki article on the manufacturer Star Bonifacio Echeverria does not list any revolvers among the weapons produced by the company, so the gun was probably an automatic pistol, not a revolver. Death Bredon (talk) 20:03, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

RfC of interest
(non-automated message) Greetings! I have opened an RfC on WT:ROYALTY that may be of interest to users following this article talk page! You are encouraged to contribute to this discussion here! Hurricane Andrew (444) 19:53, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Juan Carlos I


text:
Rude Awakening (Prong album)

Rude Awakening is the fifth studio album by American metal band Prong. It is an enhanced CD but was also released as a special limited edition on 12" red vinyl. The album was reissued in 2008 as a digipak version, featuring four remixes of the "Rude Awakening" single and a new booklet.

Rude Awakening entered the Billboard charts at No. 107 and sold 10,000 units in the United States in its first week. It is the last Prong album to feature Ted Parsons and Paul Raven, as well as the band's last album on Epic Records.

Background and musical style
Continuing from the developments on 1994's Cleansing, Rude Awakening sees a further pursuit of the industrial style. Following the departure of keyboardist John Bechdel in 1995, electronic contributions would be managed by Charlie Clouser of Nine Inch Nails. The tracks are also comparitively slower than what could be found on prior releases by the band. The album's opener, "Controller", contains an identical riff to the song "Doomsayer" by Argyle Park. Frontman/guitarist Tommy Victor had contributed to the latter song and reused the guitar part for the former.

Reception
Reviewing the title track, Billboard wrote that the single's "assaulting, deviant style" shows why Prong is popular. Jenni Glenn of CMJ New Music Monthly wrote that the album is heavier and angrier than Cleansing, blending thrash metal and industrial music.

Track listing
All tracks written by Prong except "Controller" (Prong and Scott Albert) and "Slicing" (Prong and Joe Bishara Kebbe).
 * 1) "Controller" – 3:39
 * 2) "Caprice" – 2:47
 * 3) "Rude Awakening" – 4:18
 * 4) "Unfortunately" – 3:08
 * 5) "Face Value" – 4:09
 * 6) "Avenue of the Finest" – 3:37
 * 7) "Slicing" – 3:29
 * 8) "Without Hope" – 3:13
 * 9) "Mansruin" – 3:29
 * 10) "Innocence Gone" – 3:11
 * 11) "Dark Signs" – 3:22
 * 12) "Close the Door" – 4:05
 * 13) "Proud Division" – 5:46

Personnel
Additional personnel
 * Tommy Victor - guitars, vocals
 * Paul Raven - bass
 * Ted Parsons - drums
 * Charlie Clouser - drum programming, keyboards

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Rude Awakening (Prong album)


text:
The Japan Times

The Japan Times is Japan's largest and oldest English-language daily newspaper. It is published by The Japan Times, Ltd. (株式会社ジャパンタイムズ), a subsidiary of News2u Holdings, Inc. It is headquartered in the Kioicho Building (紀尾井町ビル) in Kioicho, Chiyoda, Tokyo.

History
The Japan Times was launched by Motosada Zumoto on 22 March 1897, with the goal of giving Japanese people an opportunity to read and discuss news and current events in English to help Japan participate in the international community.

In 1906, Zumoto was asked by Japanese Resident-General of Korea Itō Hirobumi to lead the English-language newspaper The Seoul Press. Zumoto closely tied the operations of the two newspapers, with subscriptions of The Seoul Press being sold in Japan by The Japan Times, and vice versa for Korea. Both papers wrote critically of Korean culture and civilization, and advocated for Japan's colonial control over the peninsula in order to civilize the Koreans.

The newspaper was independent of government control, but from 1931 onward, the paper's editors experienced mounting pressure from the Japanese government to submit to its policies. In 1933, the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs appointed Hitoshi Ashida, former ministry official, as chief editor.

During World War II, the newspaper served as an outlet for Imperial Japanese government communication and editorial opinion. It was successively renamed The Japan Times and Mail (1918–1940) following its merger with The Japan Mail, The Japan Times and Advertiser (1940–1943) following its merger with The Japan Advertiser, and Nippon Times (1943–1956), before reverting to the Japan Times title in 1956. The temporary change to Nippon Times occurred during the ban on English language sentiment during World War II-era Japan.

Shintaro Fukushima (1907–1987) became president of The Japan Times in 1956. He sold some of the company's shares to Toshiaki Ogasawara (小笠原 敏晶 Ogasawara Toshiaki), who was chairman of Nifco, a manufacturer of automotive fasteners. Fukushima renounced management rights in 1983, after which Nifco acquired control of The Japan Times and brought about staff changes and alterations to the company's traditions established in 1897. Ogasawara served as the chairman and publisher of The Japan Times until 2016, when his daughter Yukiko Ogasawara (小笠原 有輝子 Ogasawara Yukiko) succeeded him as chairman of the company. She had previously served as the company's president from 2006 to 2012, when she was replaced by career Japan Times staffer Takeharu Tsutsumi. Nifco sold The Japan Times to PR firm News2u Holdings, Inc. on 30 June 2017.

Content
The Japan Times publishes The Japan Times, The Japan Times On Sunday, The Japan Times Alpha (a bilingual weekly), books in English and Japanese. Staff at The Japan Times are represented by two unions, one of which is Tozen.

Print
The Japan Times, Ltd. publishes three periodicals: The Japan Times, an English-language daily broadsheet; The Japan Times Weekly, an English-language weekly in tabloid form; and Shukan ST, also a weekly in tabloid form, targeted at Japanese readers learning the English language. Since 16 October 2013, The Japan Times has been printed and sold along with The New York Times International Edition.

Web
Printed stories from The Japan Times are archived online. The newspaper has a readers' forum and, since 2013, the website offers a section for readers' comments below articles. This came about during a redesign and redevelopment of the newspaper, using Responsive Web Design techniques so the site is optimised for all digital devices. The Japan Times has a social media presence on Twitter, and Facebook since 2007.

Controversy
After being acquired by News2u, The Japan Times changed its editorial stance and contributor lineup as part of efforts to reduce criticism of the newspaper as an "anti-Japanese" outlet. In November 2018, it was announced in an editor's note that subsequent articles would use the term "wartime laborers" rather than "forced labor", and "comfort women" would be referred to as "women who worked in wartime brothels, including those who did so against their will, to provide sex to Japanese soldiers", instead of the previously used "women who were forced to provide sex for Japanese troops before and during World War II." The change drew immediate criticism from readers and employees, with particular concerns expressed over the paper's apparent alignment with the political positions of Prime Minister Shinzō Abe. In response to these criticisms, The Japan Times wrote in an article on 7 December 2018, "We must admit that the editorial note undermined the relationships of trust we have built with our readers, reporters and staff. I would like to apologize for the inconvenience", and denied criticism that it was in line with the intentions of the administration.

Contributors

 * Mark Brazil, Wild Watch nature columnist (1982–2015)
 * Monty DiPietro, art critic
 * John Gauntner, Nihonshu columnist
 * John Gunning, sumo columnist
 * Don Maloney
 * Fume Miyatake, Women in Business columnist
 * Jean Pearce, community columnist
 * Ezra Pound, Italian correspondent
 * Dreux Richard, African community, investigative
 * Donald Richie, book, film critic
 * Elyse Rogers, Women in Business columnist
 * Mark Schilling, film critic
 * Robbie Swinnerton, Tokyo Food File columnist
 * Edward Seidensticker
 * Fred Varcoe, sports editor
 * Robert Yellin, Ceramic Scene columnist

title: The Japan Times