Talk:Peter of Castile

Untitled

I believe that the name is spelled "Alburquerque." "Albuquerque" is the name of the city in New Mexico. It used to be spelled the same as the name, but legend has it that the original station manager of the first train station left the "r" out, and nobody has ever bothered to fix it. The issue does come up occasionally, but what would people do with all those incorrect signs and city stationery?

I believe you are misinformed. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary gives the "Albuquerque" spelling in both its geographical and biographical names sections. The signs and stationery can continue to be used without apology. -- Someone else 01:58, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

• Sorry, but I think the first poster is correct. The original spelling was, in fact, "Alburquerque", as it is currently used in Spain. Said in other words, "Albuquerque" derives from "Alburquerque", either by accident or misunderstanding; and now Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary is just accepting "Albuquerque" as the English version of the original Spanish term. These misspellings are common in many Spanish names currently used, both in North and South America (and vice versa). For a reference see Manuel Pavia y Rodriguez de Alburquerque and Badajoz.

"He confided in nobody save the Jews, who were his tax-gatherers, or the Muslim guards he had about him. The profound hatred of the Christians for the Jews and Mudejares, or Muslims settled among them, dates from the years in which they were the agents of his unbridled tyranny." The first sentence reeks of antisemitism, and I'm guessing is due to antisemitism by the author of the 1911 Britannica article. Tax collectors were often Jews, but not always; the same could be said of doctors during the same period. The second sentence is ridiculous if taken at face value; has it been taken out of context from the 1911 article, or mangled in editing? We're talking about a period of history during which the convivencia was still going strong, and the persecutions and pogroms of 1367-1390 had not yet taken place. The Spanish Inquisition is still 100 years in the future. To say that Christians in general had a "profound hatred" for Jews and Muslims during this period is wildly inaccurate. There is abundant evidence against such a blanket statement. For instance, Muslim jugglers and musicians performed in Christian religious rites, and Jewish doctors often treated Christian patients. --Bcrowell 18:27, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC).

There is a lot of confusion about whether Jews and Christians used to live in harmony in Spain during the High Middle Ages and what happened next. It is usually forgotten (if ever mentioned) that the roots of the clash between Christians and Jews would go back into, at least, the 7th century. For example, there is a general agreement about that Jews conspired against the Spanish Gothic kingdom and gave support to the Arabs to invade and conquer the Iberian peninsula in 711.

Why Pedro and not Peter?

Well, why? Srnec 16:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, obviously you moved it, but it should absolutely be at Pedro, because that is what most sources in English called him. Examples: B. Tuchman, A Distant Mirror; this recent biography. On the whole, I think he really ought to be at Peter the Cruel or (better, imo) Pedro the Cruel, and not at this somewhat puzzling title. john k (talk) 19:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I have a question: where is the source for him being called "the Just"? I see the Old Spanish translation, but no source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.174.182.124 (talk) 22:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Why Henry and not Enrique?

It's English. Srnec 04:12, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Henry is called Henry. Pedro is called Pedro. john k (talk) 14:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Except when they're called Enrique and Peter. Srnec (talk) 23:28, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure, but I think that the balance of English language sources use "Pedro" and "Henry". Certainly I've never really seen "Peter" outside Wikipedia. john k (talk) 19:22, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the balance of sources probably does. I think it is terribly inconsistent to go with Pedro, although it appears the literature is just this inconsistent. Most books put Pedro the Cruel beside Peter IV (of Aragon), which makes no sense to me. One book uses Pedro I (of Aragon), then Pere for James the Conqueror's son before his coronation and then Peter III for him after that. Then it uses Pedro the Cruel and Peter IV on the same page. Srnec (talk) 02:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah. It can be horrendously inconsistent and is stupid. Such is how Wikipedia has decided to title articles, though. (My personal preference is local name forms for Romance and Germanic languages, Anglicized for Slavic, Hungarian, etc., but that's not the policy). I suppose it doesn't matter. I tend to think this article should be at Pedro the Cruel, but what can one do? john k (talk) 13:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Formatting etc.

what on Earth is going on here? The article seems to be thorough and accurate in the information it gives, but it desperately needs citations to make it verifiable and sections to make it readable, while sticking to undisputed fact, otherwise, all the hard work that has obviously gone into the article would be in vain. HJ Mitchell (talk) 23:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Continuity/Clarity

I don't understand this part:

"Peter was to be married to Joan, the daughter of Edward III of England, but on the way to Castile, she travelled through cities infested with plague, ignoring townspeople who had warned her not to enter the town. Joan soon contracted the disease and died.[3] He was unfaithful to his wife, as his father had been. But Alfonso XI did not imprison his wife, or cause her to be murdered, which Peter did.[4] He had not even the excuse that he was passionately in love with his mistress, María de Padilla; for, at a time when he asserted that he was married to her, and when he was undoubtedly married to Blanche of Bourbon, he went through the form of marriage with a lady of the family of Castro, who bore him a son, and then deserted her. María de Padilla was the only lady of his harem of whom he never became quite tired."

So, Joan died of the plague, and Maria was not his wife. Who is the wife that he imprisoned? Blanche of Bourbon? And why did he imprison her? It would be good if someone could make this part more clear. Thanks! (Userpong (talk) 16:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC))

Yea, it was totally confusing. I've tried to clarify it. Paul B (talk) 16:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Appearance

Why is the appearance of his descendants all sound the same? Did seriously all of Peter I of Castile's descendant have "blue eyes, and had a hair color that was between reddish-blonde and auburn"? It's not sourced at all in the articles of his descendants. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 03:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. 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 proposal was no consensus to move. Cúchullain ^t/c 15:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

---

Peter of Castile → Peter I of Castile – I know the wikipedia rule, but I dislike it. Peter I of Castile seems to be a widely used term. See this and this versus [1]. Plus in the Spanish wiki this article is listed as es:Pedro I de Castilla, which is a featured article.--Relisted Cúchullain ^t/c 19:10, 9 August 2012 (UTC)--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 04:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

• We do have a precedent (and more than one) for the form Peter, King of Castile. Since monarchs' titles have become less standardised over time because of disputes I'm not too concerned whether this is moved there or not, but I would prefer that to the ordinal. In general, Spanish and other European languages are more prone than English, historically, to the use of the first ordinal (I) before a second monarch of that name has reigned. Thus, Queen Victoria, but Juan Carlos I. For this reason, I think it is more English to drop the ordinal. Srnec (talk) 00:27, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I think it is more "wikipedian" to drop the regnal. The King John precedent is pretty much half and half all over wikipedia, there are no consensus on any of the articles. There are those that like it and those that don't, Talk:Anna of Russia#Requested move for example failed. I would be against a move to Peter, King of Castile
    • As long as it is a matter of what we like, I like the present title just fine and oppose any move until a consensus is established. Srnec (talk) 16:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
• Additional info There is the example of Louis I of Spain. Wikipedia seems to have a rule that you can used the regnal when the name is official, but I have no idea on where to find any official degrees or contemporary documents of his. And Pero López de Ayala wrote Crónica de Pedro I around his lifetime.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 07:25, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support. There is no harm in clarifying that he was the first, even if only, to have the name in Castille. We already have Louis I of Spain, as pointed out above, as well as Miguel I of Portugal. --Lecen (talk) 18:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. 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.