Talk:Queen Letizia of Spain

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not yet married[edit]

Wait a minute. Jiang has now change the page to start with Her Royal Highness, The Princess of Asturias, but she's not princess yet as the wedding is in May. Let us not write history before it actually is history... This should be change back! --Vikingstad 08:49, Mar 22, 2004 (UTC)

née[edit]

I used "née" because I don't imagine "Letizia Ortiz Rocasolano" is her full name anymore. Wouldn't it be, if anything, "Letizia Ortiz de Borbón y Grecia"? - Montréalais 16:29, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Married women ins Spain don't use their husbands' names. So her legal name is still doña Letizia Ortiz Rocasolano, just as Queen Sofia is still doña Sofía de Grecia.177.141.83.196 (talk) 11:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No. See Diana, Princess of Wales. --Cantus 20:42, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
What does Diana have to do with Letizia? The Spanish naming system and the British naming system are rather different. Letizia was born Ortiz y Rocasolano, daughter of Jesus Ortiz y Alvarez del Valle and Maria Paloma Rocasolano y Rodriguez. Her maiden name (apellido de soltera) was "Letizia Ortiz y Rocasolano". A woman's married name, her apellido de casada, consists of her forename, her father's first surname, and her husband's first surname appended with a de: on marriage to a "Borbón y Grecia" she became "Letizia Ortiz de Borbón" - Nunh-huh 21:06, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
That's an old style tradition, no longer in practical use. As long as I know, legally women in Spain never lost their surnames after wedding and this is the convention used nowadays. ManuelGR 21:45, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

in spain, the womans never change their surnames,always is the first father surname and the first mother surname

Exactly, in Spain women do never change their name. The above mentioned form of "de" followed by the husband's name is now old-fashioned but anyway was never legal. It was only a way of calling yourself but women never changed their name legally. Therefore she has never been called Letizia Guerrero. Do please change that as it is a serious error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.147.17.60 (talk) 17:13, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strange Redirect[edit]

Why does Alonso Guerrero y Pérez, her first husband, redirect to this page? --67.71.78.193 1 July 2005 19:28 (UTC)

Erika Ortiz Rocasolano[edit]

There is a lot of important information in that article. I think it is, but User:Andromeda apparently thinks not. I don't want to start a revert war about this, because I think that as it stands, the article has sufficient information. So what if she's the sister of the Crown Princess of Spain. I think her death, and the circumstances around it is notable enough to warrant her own article. Morhange 06:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that I have to agree with Andromeda. Érika Ortiz Rocasolano is not a notable enough person to have her own biography. Nobody should be able to imagine an article about her before her death. Er Komandante 20:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC) PS: it seems that wikinews in english doesn't have an article about her death, maybe there it should be acceptable. Er Komandante 20:00, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then maybe a subarticle from Letizia to Erika? I agree with Morhange, and I think the issue should have been at least debated before taking any action. Her death made her internationally (not locally) notable -so what's the problem? Is that against any policy? I'm not that fussed either way, but I think a subarticle would work for everyone. Raystorm 22:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Birth after Death[edit]

It seems the dates are off. It says she gave birth in April 2007, but died on Feb 7, 2007. I don't believe that's possible.Irishpisces 18:11, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Letizia gave birth in April, her sister, Érika Ortiz Rocasolano, died in February. -- Arwel (talk) 21:58, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Letizia Ortiz Coat of Arms.jpg[edit]

Image:Letizia Ortiz Coat of Arms.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 15:07, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1st husband[edit]

Was her first husband her high-school teacher? --Error 00:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name Letizia during her first marriage[edit]

Letizia was married from 1998-1999 with Alonso Guerrero y Pérez, a previous teacher of hers. What are the naming conventions for a married woman in Spain, and how was she named and styled then? Something like Mrs. Letizia Guerrero-Ortiz?? Demophon (talk) 13:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • See Spanish naming customs. Simply put: Spanish women do not take their husbands names upon marriage. Even after marrying the Prince of Asturias, her official name remained Letizia Ortiz Rocasolano. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.240.11.65 (talk) 22:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fluff in article[edit]

It seems to me this article needs improving substantially, but I dont know enough about the subject to tackle it myself. It does seem to contain a lot of "fluff" though, and a trivia section that (IMHO) doesnt even rate as trivia!....Should it be marked for a cleanup? Jcuk (talk) 10:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fast & the Furious[edit]

I was directed to the page about the "Fast & the Furious" series when looking for this page (typing in "Leticia Ortiz"; note the spelling difference). I don't think there are any direct link paths from one page to the other. How would one go about correcting this? I am unfamiliar with the process of making a disambiguation page, and I don't know whether it would be useful or appropriate in this case. Tha Pyngwyn (talk) 14:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed. You need to click the "redirected from" link at the target article you were directed to, then edit that page to make it point to the correct page. See the edits here and here. Hope you can do it yourself next time! --Waldir talk 01:24, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:A RESI~1.JPG Nominated for Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:A RESI~1.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:A RESI~1.JPG)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Honours and styles[edit]

Detailed info about honours and styles moved to List of titles and honours of Letizia, Princess of Asturias.--Galico (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Armbrust The Homunculus 12:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Letizia of Spain → Queen Letizia of Spain – As per naming customs for queen consorts (WP:CONSORTS) this article should be a Queen Letizia of Spain, as is the case with other current queen consorts, ie Queen Mathilde of Belgium, Queen Máxima of the Netherlands, Queen Sonja of Norway, etc. Also, note that her mother-in-law's article was at Queen Sofía of Spain while she was a queen consort. Morhange (talk) 22:16, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Entirely non-controversial. Seven Letters 22:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Requested move is in line with similar cases. Gugganij (talk) 22:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support-I didn't know there was a difference between consorts and royals when moving. Origamite\(·_·\)(/·_·)/ 22:21, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Also change the infor box to Queen consort of Spain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.129.220 (talk) 22:29, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as this is the standard on Wikipedia, for queen consorts. GoodDay (talk) 22:38, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support To match format of other queens consort. Current format would be for a queen regnant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metheglyn (talk • contribs)
  • Support per above,--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 23:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per old argument on Talk:Queen_Sonja_of_Norway#Requested move. Short version: yes, the RM is correct within Wikipedia's current guidelines for royalty, but said guidelines are totally crazy in this instance. No entity but Wikipedia distinguishes regnal queens from queens consort by using "Queen" only for the consorts. SnowFire (talk) 23:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. Obviously a completely symbolic opposition, like SnowFire's, given the support provided without regard to mere logic. "Queen Letizia of Spain" and "King Felipe VI of Spain" looks and sounds silly, as if Letizia's regal position is more important than Felipe's and so the article about her uses her title while his does not use his title. Even worse when comparing "Queen Letizia of Spain", a woman who is queen due to her marriage, and "Juliana of the Netherlands", a woman who was queen as head of state; a reader could logically only assume the opposite judging by article titles. Surtsicna (talk) 15:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment One wold assume that probably because there is no distinction between monarchs who are the first of their name and listed without regnal numbers and deceased consorts. We ran into this issue with the recent Belgian and Dutch kings, but personally, to me it's quite obvious when looking between Felipe VI of Spain and Queen Letizia of Spain which is the monarch. Morhange (talk) 19:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support standardization of format. --Article editor (talk) 02:48, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Is uniform with all other current Queen Consorts in Europe (ie, Silvia, Sonja, Máxima and Mathilde). 04:00, 19 June 2014 (UTC)JasonBux
  • Support To keep consistency with other consorts articles.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 17:53, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per other queen consorts. Dralwik|Have a Chat 23:05, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as above. ApprenticeFan work 05:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly support as above. If you disagree with the different result of WP:CONSORTS (use title) vs. WP:SOVEREIGN (omit title), change the policy. It seems the reason for the policy is that while regnants are always known by the "royal" title of their respective realms (i.e., "King" or "Queen"), that is not always true of consorts (i.e., Prince Philip vs. the previous British consort Queen Elizabeth). --RBBrittain (talk) 18:04, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Surtsinca did actually move to change the policy here: Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions_(royalty_and_nobility)/Archive_23#RfC_regarding_the_titles_of_articles_about_queens , where there was IMHO sufficient consensus that the current policy was dumb, but for whatever reason the closer said that there wasn't consensus for a replacement, and the current guidelines weren't struck out. An unfortunate result IMHO, but so it goes. SnowFire (talk) 04:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Arms[edit]

I expect that Letizia's arms will need updating, now that she is Queen consort rather than Princes of Asturias? P M C 22:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Photo dates[edit]

She seems to be wearing the exact same dress in both photos, so I doubt one was taken in 2010 and the other 2011... -- AnonMoos (talk) 13:58, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first is just a crop of the second, so I'm changing the date. Origamite\(·_·\)(/·_·)/ 14:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need two versions of the same image at all? AlexTiefling (talk) 21:53, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Current name of the article is incorrect[edit]

The name of Queen Letizia has not changed from Letizia Ortiz Rocasolano to Letizia of Spain, as queens do not change their surnames in Spain. At the official biography of the Spanish Royal House, her name appears as "Her Majesty the Queen, Letizia Ortiz Rocasolano". http://www.casareal.es/ES/FamiliaReal/ReinaLetizia/Paginas/princesa_biografia.aspx Therefore, the correct title should be, either "Queen Letizia", "Letizia, Queen of Spain", "Letizia, Queen consort of Spain" or just "Letizia Ortiz". But not "Letizia of Spain". 193.175.73.201 (talk) 09:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article's name followed English usage before - 'Letizia, Princess of Asturias' - and will do so again if the proposed renaming to 'Queen Letizia of Spain' goes ahead. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The two situations are different. Under Royal Decree (RD) 1368/1987, which regulates the titles and styles of the Spanish Royal Family, the wife of the Prince of Asturias has the title Princess of Asturias. However, under the same RD, the wife of the King of Spain does not have the title Queen of Spain, but rather only Queen. So, Letizia's legal title in Spain is Her Majesty Queen Letizia, and not Her Majesty Queen Letizia of Spain, or Her Majesty The Queen of Spain. In particular, it is blatantly incorrect to say that Letizia is "the Queen of Spain" as written in the opening paragraph and other parts of the article, as "Queen of Spain" is a title reserved for a reigning queen only. 2804:14C:165:8EC3:C0FA:D446:67A:7BB (talk) 10:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
...more to the point, WP:COMMONNAME applies, subject to the ambiguity about queens consort that we're trying to resolve above. Queen Letizia's full name should go in the lead of the article, not in the page title. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:03, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article can't be called "Letizia of Spain". That name is completely wrong. I'm not saying that the full name should be use in the title. I'm saying the title name is WRONG, completely wrong. Nobody use "Letizia of Spain".--P.G.Antolinos (talk) 15:46, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then go and contribute to the RM above, which proposes 'Queen Letizia of Spain' instead. AlexTiefling (talk) 15:54, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added a full name section on info box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.129.220 (talk) 16:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Please do not move the page during a Requested Move discussion[edit]

User:Malik_Shabazz moved the page from "Letizia of Spain" to "Letizia Ortiz". I have reverted that move as a discussion is still underway. Seven Letters 17:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:P.G.Antolinos asked for the move as non-controversial maintenance, which is quite clearly not the case. Seven Letters 17:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Intro[edit]

The common practice on Wikipedia for biographies, is to match the 'name' of article's subject with its article title. Thus this article's intro name, should be Queen Letizia of Spain. What do ya'll think? GoodDay (talk) 10:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yet it's also common practice in Wikipedia biographies to start the lead sentence with the subject's full legal name, per WP:BIRTHNAME/WP:FULLNAME. The present version is the most informative and the least redundant one. "Queen Letizia of Spain is Queen of Spain" sounds quite silly, don't you think? Surtsicna (talk) 10:33, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The intro should be consistent, with the other current queen-consort intros. Again, I understand your opposition to using Queen, but you should take that concern to WP:ROY, instead of pushing it on just one article's intro. GoodDay (talk) 14:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked WP:ROY's opinon on current queen consort article intros. GoodDay (talk) 14:23, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid I have to object to your obsessiveness with "consistency" and arbitrary "rules", and we both know that I am not the first to do so. I say "obsessiveness" because you do not care at all what the sentence looks like after you "correct" it. Thus we end up with ridiculous sentences such as "Queen Letizia of Spain is Queen of Spain" and "Queen Mathilde of Belgium is Queen of Belgium". Tell me, is it more likely that a reader will open up this article and ridicule such a lead sentence, or that a reader will open up 6 articles at the same time, compare their lead sentences and find that "inconsistency" between them is intolerable? There isn't alway a one-size-fits-all. Judge each case on its own merits. Don't sacrifice quality for consistency. Surtsicna (talk) 16:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It should be Queen Letizia of Spain (Letizia Ortiz Rocasolano) or something like that, because although it is still her legal name, it is also her premarital name as well, and her marital titles take precedence over her legal name. Seven Letters 14:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. The title is right, because most people will be referring to her as "The Queen of Spain" or "Queen Letizia". But if her name didn't change on marriage (separate from any titles she gained), shouldn't we lead with her full name? AlexTiefling (talk) 14:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, we don't lead with the full name for other current European royal consorts. Seven Letters 14:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I must echo what Surtsicna has been saying: We should write good content, not strive for needless consistency with other articles whose subjects' specifics are different. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:48, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but consistency in this matter goes hand in hand with good content. The intro best reflects the subject the the article and her full name, being a less important identifying detail, follows right after. Seven Letters 14:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It goes hand in hand with good content, but against optimal content. The lead sentence is now unnecessarily awkward. Imagine if this article started with a sentence such as: "President Barack Obama of the United States (full name: Barack Hussein Obama) is the current President of the United States." I fail to see what kind of "consistency" is brought up as an issue; the 35 articles about her predecessors start with the subject's name, quite naturally. Why should this article be consistent with half a dozen articles about foreign queens and inconsistent with 35 articles about Spanish queens? Surtsicna (talk) 23:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Non-starter, using Barack Obama. Presidents bio articles are set up differently then Monarchs bio articles. Barack Obama doesn't come under WP:ROY :) GoodDay (talk) 00:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A non-starter? It is exactly the same wording. And "WP:ROY" has nothing to say about this article or article intros. "Presidents bio articles" are set up according to common sense, much like other biographies. Royalty articles are, for some reason, being denied that privilege. Surtsicna (talk) 00:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We're not going to agree on this article's intro, obviously. I imagine it's going to keep changing to different versions, over the next several weeks, as the sources for Queen Letizia of Spain continues to increase. Meanwhile, discussing this between ourselves is no longer productive. GoodDay (talk) 01:22, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After having read over the discussion here, my stance hasn't changed on the intro. Sources for Queen Letizia of Spain, surely outnumber sources (if any) for Letizia Ortiz Rocasolano, since her husband accended the throne. GoodDay (talk) 00:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Err, no, they do not. I demonstrated that down below. Surtsicna (talk) 00:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since she's been queen-consort? GoodDay (talk) 00:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Letizia Ortiz[edit]

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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 14:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Queen Letizia of Spain → Letizia Ortiz – A more common name, consistent with the titles of articles about all Spanish queens except her mother-in-law. In addition to being more common in regards to plain numbers, it is also used by respectable media such as Reuters ("Former journalist Letizia Ortiz becomes Spain's first commoner queen") and The Times ("Letizia Ortiz: the republican who would be queen"). I assume the only argument in favor of "Queen Letizia of Spain" will be consistency with articles about contemporary queens consort, but if consistency is the most important aspect (and I don't think it is), it surely makes more sense to strive for consistency with 35 Spanish queens than with 4 non-Iberian queens. Surtsicna (talk) 10:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, per my reasoning in the previous RM. I don't like WP:ROY's directive on how to name queen consort articles. But, it's the directive. GoodDay (talk) 10:37, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a senseless guideline, not a policy. If you have a reason to dislike a guideline, oppose it. Don't bow to it blindly simply because it's there, otherwise nothing will ever change and you will be stuck with what you consider inadequate. And I repeat, it is only a guideline. In this particular case, we have a policy that trumps the guideline: WP:COMMONNAME. Surtsicna (talk) 11:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would support Letiza of Spain (consort) as an alternative. In fact, I would support Name of country (consort), for all royal consort bio article titles. GoodDay (talk) 19:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Aren't you aware that that would lead to a dozen articles being titled Catherine of England (consort)? Anyway, you basically don't like the proposed title - is that right? Surtsicna (talk) 23:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I recommend seeking a change of the guideline at WP:ROY. GoodDay (talk) 12:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • So basically you don't have a valid reason for your decision. Is that right? Because you disagree with the guideline- yet you follow it. I other words you have said "I follow the policy even though I don't like it." And you have followed the "policy" because your reason for opposing is because of "the policy".--Hipposcrashed (talk) 15:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - We just had an RM about this. Living queens consort are named differently to dead ones, because they're current queens. If you don't like the policy, try to change the policy. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:36, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • That RM had nothing to do with this one. Living queens consort are named differently to dead ones? Why? Simply because they are living? And what, once she's dead it will suddenly become acceptable to follow the WP:COMMONNAME policy? The fact that Reuters and The Times refer to her as Letizia Ortiz also means nothing because she happens to be alive? Well, that's quite bizarre. And I have no idea what "policy" you are referring to. The only policy relevant here is WP:COMMONNAME, and that one is in favour of the proposed title. Surtsicna (talk) 23:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, at least for now: I think we're in a period where assumptions about most common name are going to be just speculation. This person was first Letizia Ortiz, then Letizia, Princess of Asturias. The news sources are using the old name to identify who is becoming or has just become queen. A new name may be clearer in a month or so, when the Letizia's status as a queen is taken for granted in news items and all the official reliable sources have been updated. Until then, it seems reasonable that a normal native English speaker, knowing that a woman's husband has been made king, would automatically start referring to this woman as "Queen Letizia", which is basically what we have now. Also, this move seems to be a request to override a vote from just 10 days ago; I don't think it's wise to keep move-wheeling for the next 2 months based on while the media and official sources are all in flux. (And I have no idea why we would need "Letizia of Spain (consort)" with a disambiguator. What other person is going to be confused with the noble-sounding phrase "Letizia of Spain"?) --Closeapple (talk) 00:11, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Letizia has never ceased being Letizia Ortiz. Spanish women do not change their name upon marriage, so "Letizia Ortiz" is not an "old name". It is very much her current name. Letizia's official biography identifies her as "Sa Majestat la Reina, Letizia Ortiz Rocasolano" (Her Majesty The Queen Letizia Ortiz Rocasolano in English). I don't think this is a case of her title not being "taken for granted". The Times and Reuters clearly describe her as queen and name her Letizia Ortiz; these two facts are obviously not mutually exclusive. We refer to Alfonso XIII's wife as Victoria Eugenie of Battenberg, even though she, as the wife of a king, was referred to as Queen Victoria Eugenia - and that's just one of many, many examples. Letizia Ortiz is the Queen of Spain, much like Victoria Eugenie of Battenberg was Queen of Spain. Why treat them differently? Surtsicna (talk) 00:34, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The official biog's short title is just "Her Majesty (the) Queen Letizia". I feel we should follow both our usual custom and the official biog's style - and use the short title for the article title, and put her full name at the head of the lead. AlexTiefling (talk) 01:25, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But the title of our article is not Her Majesty the Queen Letizia, nor is the title of that page "Queen Letizia of Spain". I am not sure what you mean by "our usual custom"; it is certainly not the custom you would see in articles about the other 35 Spanish queens. Surtsicna (talk) 09:55, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have to say that the other queen you mentioned is dead and on English Wikipedia, we revert to their original name after death unless their married name is most common. Wikipedia:CONSORTS#Consorts_of_sovereigns.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 14:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which is a ridiculous, arbitrarily imposed rule that I don't remember being discussed at any point. "On English Wikipedia we do this and that" is no argument at all unless you explain why we do whatever it is that we do. In this case, there is no explanation, as the "rule" is not based on logic. The proposed name is inappropriate now, but would magically become desirable if she were to be hit by a bus tomorrow? How absurd. Surtsicna (talk) 15:25, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, after death usually the name reverts to original but common name is most important so her name would be kept if it were most common.
  • Oppose - I think common name, unless we are discussing something like Felipe VI/Philip VI, in terms of article titles for royals is difficult due to the different ways that they can be referred to (various possibilities have been mentioned here, Letizia of Spain, Queen Letizia of Spain, Letizia Ortiz etc) which is why I feel we need guidelines rather than trying to use some method of seeing what particular option out of various possibility’s is most common. I don't personally agree fully with the naming guidelines I would prefer Letizia, Queen of Spain/Felipe VI, King of Spain as the current king and queen and King Juan Carlos I of Spain/Queen Sofia of Spain for the living former king and queen. - dwc lr (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Her full name is listed right below and there is a template stating that the name uses Spanish naming customs. In English, people just call her Queen Letizia (mostly because it's easier than writing her full name). We know she has a full name but we don't to refer to royals by their full name as this is the English Wikipedia and we have naming conventions that we have already followed.Also calling Letizia Ortiz might imply to English speaking people that she isn't a queen, as she has a title so one would expect the title to be used (English Wikipedia and is catered to English speaking people by using the common English name which doesn't happen to be the Spanish form). And we just had a requested move not long ago.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 14:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • In English, she is most commonly called "Letizia Ortiz". Similarly, the Duchess of Cambridge is most commonly called "Kate Middleton". I have cited two examples of very reutable sources that refer to her as Letizia Ortiz. I have never suggested using the full name (Letizia Ortiz Rocasolano); I suggested using the common name (Letizia Ortiz). Calling her Letizia Ortiz implies that she is not a queen as much as calling her great-grandmother-in-law Victoria Eugenie of Battenberg implies that she was not a queen. Since the word "Queen" is not used in the titles of articles about the other 35 Spanish queens, I have no idea why one would "expect the title to be used" here. Having a requested move not long ago is irrelevant, as I did not propose moving the article back to Letizia of Spain. Surtsicna (talk) 15:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're right about using the common name as you have several sources- although the one I based my opinion on is that of the Spanish Royal Court. I have changed my vote. But I will agree to disagree with some of your other points. And I'm going to point out that the Duchess of Cambridge is now rarely referred to Kate Middleton as that is her maiden name which she herself does not use. But she is often referred to as Duchess Kate which is similar.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 16:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to "Queen Letizia Ortiz Rocasolano" or something similar. If she is referred to as in her biography, I see no reason not to move to this, as her biography refers to her as a queen (which is a plus for people who want her to be referred to as queen in the title of the article) as well as her full name (which is for the people who like tradition and Spanish customs). I hope people will accept a compromise such as this.--Hipposcrashed (talk) 16:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We generally do not use surnames with titles for living queens. Not that it really matters to me (since we have our own naming conventions) but the drop-down menu on the English version of the Spanish royal website says Her Majesty the Queen Letizia, as does the top of her page. No use of the surname shown. Seven Letters 15:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Categories[edit]

I erased the "of fillipino descent" cause that simply isn't true she is not by birth/nationality nor by ancestry as the reference given states. She does not have duel nationality, it was her great-grandfather that was born there not her. She is not by ancestry either, as the reference given states her great-grandfather was born to Spanish parents. --Anen87 (talk) 22:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Queen Letizia of Spain. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool. Link rot affected the first before the url was archived, second is okay. Worldbruce (talk) 18:00, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Queen Letizia 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:52, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Place of birth[edit]

Letizia Ortiz was born in Oviedo in 1972. At the time of her birth, Spain was under the dictatorship of Francisco Franco and its official name was the Kingdom of Spain (like today, only the polity was fundamentally different and the head of state was not a monarch). Given the political upheaval and emergence of several 'Spanish' polities (Republic, dictatorship, constitutional monarchy etc.) across the twentieth century, and in the interest of historical fact and accuracy, it would be prudent to have an underlying link directing to the Francoist Spain page on her place of birth. In other words, the Spain she was born in is not constitutionally the same as the post-1975 Spain she is queen consort of today.

Some have argued that this is wrong - that historical 'time periods' should not feature in this respect. However, as a riposte to their refusal to reach consensus, I point to the Wikipedia page for Adolf Hitler. This details his place of death as 'Nazi Germany', however, this was never the official name of Germany. In fact, during the Nazi period, Germany continued to use the same official name as the Weimar Republic, the 'German Reich'. There is, therefore, inconsistency across Wikipedia's articles.

As a point of comparison, the articles of numerous historical and contemporary personalities on Wikipedia detail their places of birth as states that are no longer in existence today. The pages for Letizia's parents-in-law are an excellent example of such practice. This, I believe, is right and historically accurate. It enriches the general information about the person and provides the reader with convenient historical context. 195.147.250.224 (talk) 18:21, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

195.147.250.224 has repeatedly been told to stop his crusade to change birthplace country names into made-up names. It's impossible to have the same discussion on every single article, so I will just note briefly for the record that I (and other editors) have rejected his proposed changes. --Tataral (talk) 18:33, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Queen Letizia 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heir presumptive?[edit]

Should "heir presumptive" be "heiress presumptive"? If not, why not? Paul Magnussen (talk) 15:40, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heir presumptive is fine, since the word heir is not gender-marked. It is already clear that the heir presumptive is female since she is described as the subject's daughter and as Princess of Asturias. Surtsicna (talk) 17:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic[edit]

She is undoubtedly Catholic, but I can't prove it. All the gossip columns gush about her not requiring a declaration of nullity before her Catholic marriage. The way this is possible is if she had been a baptized Catholic at the time of her first attempt at marriage. If she had been non-Catholic, then an investigation would have been required, and possibly a declaration of nullity would have been issued then. But until we find an article or book that asserts her Catholic status, no categories can apply. Elizium23 (talk) 05:57, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Being baptized a Catholic is one thing and identifying as Catholic as an adult is another. We should not label her as Catholic unless she identifies as such. Surtsicna (talk) 09:35, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Surtsicna, she married the King in a Catholic ceremony. Elizium23 (talk) 15:32, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And her father-in-law married her mother-in-law in an Orthodox ceremony. So what? We cannot claim that she is Catholic without a source that says she identifies as a Catholic. Surtsicna (talk) 17:55, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Her father-in-law married her mother-in-law in a Catholic ceremony in Athens. You are apparently mistaken.161.24.4.94 (talk) 11:23, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: Intro & infobox title[edit]

Should the intro to this article begin with Queen Letizia of Spain & the infobox heading be Letizia? or not. GoodDay (talk) 21:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

  • No, per MOS:FULLNAME and consistency with 24 other articles about Spanish queens consort. And why should we obfuscate the subject's last name? Starting it with "Queen Letizia of Spain" forces us to have the rest of the sentence misleading (suggesting that her last name is no longer what it is), repetitive (defining Queen Letizia of Spain as queen of Spain), and/or borderline misogynistic (defining the subject as someone's wife). Starting it with the subject's full name is natural and common and allows us to define her easily and appropriately. Surtsicna (talk) 21:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Misogynistic? Is that the reason why you're opposing the proposed change? GoodDay (talk) 14:43, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see why the article about the queen of Spain should be consistent with articles about Scandinavian queens instead of Spanish queens. Surtsicna (talk) 21:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The current queen consorts should be consistent with each other. GoodDay (talk) 21:36, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds a lot like recentism. Letizia of Spain has much more to do with Victoria Eugenie of Spain than with Silvia of Sweden. All that aside, there are much more important issues here than consistency: accuracy, encyclopedic wording, and decent writing about women. Surtsicna (talk) 21:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Being as this is an RFC, we'll allow others to interpret what's correct via their input. GoodDay (talk) 22:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No - I agree with Surtsicna on this issue. It is indeed more common and typical to begin with the person's name in full. Idealigic (talk) 16:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Idealigic: Choose as you wish, but many sources call her Queen Letizia or just Letizia. GoodDay (talk) 12:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, as Surtsicna points out this is consistent with other Spanish queen consorts. Vici Vidi (talk) 08:37, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Vici Vidi: But, it's not consistent with other living queen consorts & sources usually call her Queen Letizia or just Letizia. GoodDay (talk) 14:13, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the most commonly used name in references and consistency within a country are more important than consistency with living examples from other countries. Different countries have different monarchies! This does not need to be consistent with the current Empress of Japan just as it does not need to be consistent with the current Queen of the Belgians. < Atom (Anomalies) 04:41, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@AnomalousAtom: What is she called in Spain & international news? Queen Letizia, Letizia or her by her full former name. GoodDay (talk) 12:53, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No per Surtsicna. ~ HAL333 16:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@HAL333: Would you oppose changing it to simply Letizia? GoodDay (talk) 17:00, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't it just be her full name? ~ HAL333 17:01, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why does it have to be? We don't do it for the other current consorts. Why make this one bio different? Or would you support that we use full names in the intros of all the current consorts? GoodDay (talk) 17:27, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would support that. ~ HAL333 18:06, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll bring the suggestion up at Royal Conventions page, in the coming days. GoodDay (talk) 18:12, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

If the trend continues towards no? I'll have to make changes to the intros & infoboxes of all the other current consort bios. See the consorts in Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Monaco, etc. GoodDay (talk) 14:31, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Idealigic:, @Vici Vidi: & @AnomalousAtom:, should we then open an RM on this article. If the article is wrongly named? GoodDay (talk) 14:23, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay: I think it makes more sense, from a formatting point of view, for her to be referred to as Letiza (born Letizia Ortiz Rocasolano) in line with other queen consorts, to standardize it. I also think this discussion is worthy of reopening for consensus, given the importance of the topic. It's a bit strange for her to be referred to by her maiden name first and foremost, since there is no indication it's her popular or legal name by the media.--Bettydaisies (talk) 20:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're free to re-open it. GoodDay (talk) 20:16, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Opening Sentence is wrong[edit]

The opening sentence of the article is wrong as Queen Letizia is not the "Queen of Spain". Under Royal Decree 1368/1987, which regulates the titles of the Spanish RF, "Queen of Spain" is a title reserved for reigning queens only. I don't understand why the sentence is not simply changed to "Letizia Ortiz Rocasolano is the queen consort of Spain as the wife of King Felipe VI". Note that "queen consort" in the proposed sentence is not a legal title (Letizia's only legal title in Spain is "Queen"), but rather a generic qualifier for her position in English (like saying that Charles, Prince of Wales, is the "heir apparent" to the thrones of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth realms). 2804:14C:165:8EC3:C0FA:D446:67A:7BB (talk) 11:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone still cares, that is not true. The wife of the king of Spain is and has always been the queen of Spain. Surtsicna (talk) 16:23, 20 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We have it linked to the consorts page & mention in the infobox. My only problem with the lead, is that it's not Letizia. GoodDay (talk) 17:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great Grandmother a Peninsulares / Criollo Filipino[edit]

Great grandparent was a Peninsulares / Criollo people, a term used in Spanish colonial times in the Philippines, for pure white Spaniards born in their colony of the Philippines. This means her great grandmother was a "White Filipina" born to pure White Spanish parents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.141.129.201 (talk) 12:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Queen_Letizia_of_Spain&oldid=1211016719"