The Ember [Published in Omnia, no. 175, Barcelona: Mensa Spain, February 2011, pp. 6-9.] no desire to argue on these lines, however, acknowledge that there would be smoother if you do not spell out some aspects of the article "The flag of Aragon", published in Issue 174, consistent
Omnia in translation by Marcel Pascual Mañé a publication of Daniel Ibànyez and Carles Camp on the website of the Fundació d'Estudis Historics de Catalunya. The article is so unfortunate and unscientific as it seemed a need to answer, because it was like to write a bill of nature which is nothing but a string of inaccuracies and biases not correct. First of all, let it be said that the author of this text has no degree in History and an expert in heraldry, which makes more obvious, if ever necessary after a simple reading, the lack of rigor perfect item. Bold quote or summarize six statements to which I object.
1. Some copy of a painting by Filippo Ariosto's testimony that Alcoraz Cross (Cross of St. George on Cantonese dish with four Moor's heads) is the true shield of Aragon. [...] "The current use of Catalan and the four stripes flag The Aragon is an aberration. " To begin with, something will have to say about this" aberration "Aragonese citizens, we, I say. The picture of Ariosto only prove that at the end of the sixteenth century, someone - Aragon Ariosto or authority which paid him, he thought that it was well or well suited to present. Indeed, the beautiful Cross Alcoraz was from a fifteenth-century heraldic signs exclusive powers to the Kingdom of Aragon (and, as we , that of Sardinia), but not alone. We also have historically been the flag and emblem cuatribarrados, due to their close political relationship with the County Catalonia and the kingdoms of Valencia and Mallorca, and also called Cruz de Iñigo Arista. Moreover, the Cross of St. George that forms the basis of Alcoraz is also ubiquitous in heraldry Barcelona. Examples abound all in heraldry, which is far from being a mathematical science.
2. "It is known that the kings of Catalonia (with the title of Count of Barcelona) and at the same time kings of Aragon always wore his teaching Catalan. [...] Must not fall into semantic games that lead to the false conclusion , for failure to hold the title of king, Ramon Berenguer IV could not be king or Catalunya or Aragon, and their descendants could only be kings of Aragon and Catalonia not. "[...]" There are very many examples, from the Middle Ages until now, multiple kingdoms where the king had the title, despite being so, and take change the titles of Earl, Duke, Prince, Grand Duke, among others. Today, for example, the king of Monaco title of Prince, the King of Luxembourg's Grand Duke [...]" Catalonia was never a kingdom. The kings of Aragon used as real weapons (personal
,
family) that they were entitled by descent male: the home county of Barcelona. The authors forget that heraldry for sovereigns and nobles born much earlier than for the states: the cuatribarrada was taught prior to its familiar emblem of the territories of Catalonia, Aragon and others.
also confuse "king" to "king" has never been kings in Monaco or Luxembourg. Nor in Catalonia, except for the fact that on counts of Barcelona were the kings of Aragon and, after the unification of the state under the Catholic Monarchs, the Kings of Spain. There monarchs are kings, dukes or others who are counts and others who are emperors.
The Counts of Barcelona were always counts sovereign, and as such monarchs of his county, but were not kings. The title of king obtained Alfonso II of his mother, Dona Petronilla Queen of Aragon and Catalonia used the prestigious title, but actually a count of Barcelona. The crown that was forming around the race in Barcelona was always called "Corona de Aragón", because it could not be otherwise. The usual practice in the pre-national monarchies was that his head employ the highest-ranking title of several of which it owned. Thus, Henry II Plantagenet goes down in history as king of England, although most of his Angevin empire were located in the continent. Thus, the lords of Albret and counts of Foix were called in the sixteenth century kings of Navarra although the Baja Navarra (Navarre French) was possibly the most marginal states. Thus, the monarchs of the House of Savoy in the nineteenth century were called kings of Sardinia, though the core demographic, economic and political development of his kingdom and its capital, Turin, were in the Piedmont, but the real title that corresponded to the island of Sardinia placed them, as dynasties and as representatives of a state, in a prominent place among the various monarchies Italian principality of Piedmont were not sought. But no Savoy claimed to be "king of Piedmont", nor the Albret were considered and no one considered them "kings of Foix, or pretended to be king of Plantagenet Anjou or Normandy. Similarly, the Aragonese monarchs Alfonso II to Martin 'followed by the use of the time, they had nothing to do with nations (not exist) or with language (not counted), but the legitimacy of their titles.
Any name as "kings of Catalonia and Aragon", "crown of Catalonia-Aragon, Catalan confederation" or even "count-kings" is the result of Catalan nationalism from the nineteenth century and outside the historiographical tradition. Simply, things in Europe have worked very differently to how nationalists would prefer that happened. By the way, the picture that the authors claim as evidence that the cuatribarrada is the shield of Aragon also clearly represents the marriage of Petronilla of Aragon and Ramon Berenguer IV of Barcelona with their attributes: her with the crown and royal scepter, and he with a simple outfit count. Which goes to prove something should be used to try everything, right?
3. The inclusion of weapons of Navarra in a painting from 1681 ( Apoteosi heraldry
Comtat de Barcelona) is irrefutable proof that Navarra Castilla never joined, as alleged "official history", "made impossible because from 1512 had [sic ] Viceroys [sic ] in Navarra, nonexistent figure in the Kingdom of Castile, but to the "Confederation Catalana" under "flags" contained therein [refers to the coats of arms]. Authors inaccuracies strung one after another, each more naive . confuse a logo commemorating the historical reality. The Apotheosis
Barcelona County heraldry was intended, I suppose, extolling the success of the city or dynasty of Barcelona, \u200b\u200bwhose members, from its obscure origins Franks, came to reign in many states, including Navarra-like force of arms and intelligence of matrimonial diplomacy learned to add. But it is ridiculous to argue that Navarra has ever been part of a "confederation Catalan "that exists only in the imagination of the nationalists less educated or more followers, because the very concept of political confederation is back with a lot to the unification of Spain, but also because the Crown of Aragon was neither a federation nor a state of any type that could qualify as Catalan as Catalonia was just one of plural parts of that state, state, certainly left soon gravitate to Barcelona to do around Valencia when Catalonia was plunged into crisis secular economy.
In any case, it is true that Navarre was incorporated into Aragon in the sixteenth century did Castile in 1515, by decision of the Cortes of Burgos. It is also false to claim that the viceroy was not a English institution, appointed viceroys from 1415 Aragon and Castile in 1492, but in the early sixteenth century was a political-administrative institution in full configuration and expansion in the emerging political system Administrative modern Spain, which drew on the English government, and Aragonese.
Another detail: this
Apoteosi , among countless testimonies, showing the shield of Sardinia, which until today is none other than the Cross of Alcoraz. Does this mean therefore that Sardinia was conquered by exclusively Aragonese and never had anything to do with Catalonia? Does Algherese is therefore an Aragonese dialect? Or is it rather than heraldic matters are subject to infinite variables, almost always more ideological than factual, and therefore do not show anything about real or fictitious nationalities?
Finally, among the titles that the kings of Spain have inherited from those of Aragon, and these in turn of Sicily, is the king of Jerusalem, whose weapons state also appear in the above
Apoteosi . I hope that Mr. Camp Ibànyez and not infer from this that the State of Israel has ever been part of the "Catalan Confederation."
4. "There is no Aragonese kings of Aragon. None of them was born in Aragon!" Say the authors jubilant after relating the monarchs born between 1154 and 1356, as alleged proof that the Crown of Aragon was basically an invention Catalan to "give false closed the debate opened by English nationalism and other reactionary elements." Simplicity is capitalized, but it must be stressed: in the list were Catalan, Valencian and French by birth, which is titled Kings of Aragon because he was the senior title in their possession, and drafted or commissioned chronicles and documents in Catalan because most of them established his court at Barcelona. If born in Catalonia or Roussillon, and in Valencia, and not in Huesca and Teruel, not because they were "Catalan kings" or "Valencia" or "French" and not "Aragon", but because, once finalized by Lift the band of the reconquest of Spain, which took up most powerful kingdom of Castile, and also closed ultrapyrenean feudal expansion after the Treaty of Corbeil, all in the thirteenth century, the monarchs of the Crown of Aragon turned their energies kingdoms in the Mediterranean expansion, in what the authors call "the Catalan empire" but it was not a company starring medieval kings, merchants and mercenaries from all corners of the Crown.
Moreover, the selection of the Kings of Aragon of the House of Barcelona is partial: if we continue with the list of kings of Aragon, Valencia and Mallorca and Barcelona counts of the fifteenth century onwards, we find several monarchs born in Castilla (as Fernando de Antequera, Alfonso the Magnanimous), Aragon (as the King himself Catholic), Flanders (as Charles) or Italy (as Charles IV and Juan Carlos I), due to the political center shift Kingdom and other historical circumstances that have nothing to do with either the language or nationality, because it, and throughout Europe, was born in the nineteenth century in Spain, which pre-existed and been reunited since the sixteenth century as geographical, historical, political and cultural from the Roman, and because neither the language nor race nor place of birth kings have never had anything to do with nationality, except for those who believe in mythologies of identity.
As a final conclusion, I find it hard to understand that nobody, not even an entity pancatalanista as the Fundació d'Estudis Historics de Catalunya, may authorize in its space products clearly teenagers, biased and at odds with the rigor like Ibànyez and Camp, which can only be in the context of myth, propaganda and-twenty years-clearly a flawed educational system. But
Omnia agrees to publish his translation seems to be food for thought: any ideology can be accommodated in a non-political magazine, but a text that ignores the scientific rigor to replace prejudice and improvisation, and ranks those who dissent from his imaginative thesis as "reactionary elements" is radically opposed to the principles underlying Mensa. Or I think so. Omnia
.
