Talk:Philip the Handsome

Naming

I agree that this article should definitely NOT be called "Phillip I of Castile". However, most of the information cited on here is incorrect also. The main point that is being ignored is that Ferdinand did not merely become co-ruler of Castile with Isabella, he was King of Aragon in his own right. Now, while he was the closest male relative to Isabella upon her death (with the exception of the child Charles), his right as King of Castile ended with Isabella's death. The right to the throne of Castile first was impressed upon her daughters in succession, Isabella, Maria, (and then upon their deaths), Joanna. Joanna's husband was not included in this decree, even though she married Phillip many years before. In fact, Phillip's father Maximillian did not even give him any titles of his own (wisely) because he knew that Phillip was incapable of ably managing such responsiblity. He was merely heir to the Holy Roman Empire, as his father was Emperor at that point, as well as Duke of Burgundy. (The titles of Burguny, separate from the Empire, did not part ways until 1527 with the Battle of Pavia and Charles took the mantle of Holy Roman Emperor.) The reason that Philip was excluded from Isabella's decree is the same reason that Ferdinand was excluded--to be declared heir to the throne of Castile, the Cortes (a kind of Parliment)had to approve the nomination, an action that was most notable struck down when Philip first approched the subject upon Isabella's death. Ferdinand and Phillip spread rumours of Joanna's "insanity" (most probably a form of clinical depression)to be able to exclude her from taking the throne; the battle continued until Phillip's death. By this point, Joanna's son, raised by Phillip's sister Margaret, (once married to Joanna's brother Juan) was able to take the throne uncontested as the sole heir to both Burgundy, Spain, and in 1527, the Holy Roman Empire. 67.172.123.47 (talk) 22:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

This article shouldn't be called "Philip I of Castile":

• Philip was de facto never was king of Castile, it was his wife's kingdom and his attempt at becoming regent and co-king was short-lived.
• Philip's own territory was Burgundy and here he was Philip IV for 24 years (1482-1506).

Maybe the best option is to all him Philip the Handsome. Any other views? Str1977 02:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

He was king of Castile - it was in right of his wife, but he was nevertheless king. Notably, he is Philip I, in the same way that his father-in-law is Ferdinand V, despite neither of them being king in their own right. Through to the end of the middle ages, husbands of heiresses were generally considered to hold their wives' title. And, of course, while Philip's main territory was the Burgundian inheritance, this did not include Burgundy itself, which brings into question the numbering, I think - Philip I of Burgundy did not rule over any of the lands which this Philip ruled, I think... john k 16:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

John, I agree with your comments on consorts etc. However, I think Philipp nonetheless bore the title of "duke of Burgundy", even though the actual duchy was lost to the king of France. (I admit however that I never positively heard of any title for him, but I don't think he was styled Free-count of Burgundy etc.) I do not propose changing the title to "Philip I of Burgundy" (that is someone else) but rather to "Philip the Handsome" or "Philip the Fair (Habsburg)" (depending on what the common nickname in English is). Str1977 19:27, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I oppose the proposed move to "Philip the Handsome". We need to keep these article names systematical. Besides, there are NOT enough grounds for a change to a nickname, see the requirements set by naming convention for monarchs. If we let this slip to nicknamed, we will be flloded under all sorts of nickname proposals, some of which nicknames will be POV. The reason for this ruler's naming is simply that Castile was his highest title, and we do it in that way here. The next highest title he held and used, was Philip I, Archduke of Austria. I do not want to see these articles return to a chaos situation of pages being in unpredictable places and forming a funny shit-bungle in a category or like. The proposer of this move should first go and ask if our naming convention is changed, and it probably will not. Shilkanni 23:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The relevant policy is WP:NC (names and titles). We do not use nicknames unless there is overwhelming usage for them in English sources, as with Alfred the Great or Henry the Lion. Under the circumstances, I would be prepared to consider Philip I of Spain, if that makes any editor happier. Philip the Fair is unacceptable for ambiguity with Philip IV of France. Septentrionalis 19:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I have denied the move request for lack of consensus. Joelito (talk) 00:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

For those arguing that a ruler should always be called by his highest-ranking title, please have a look at William II, Count of Holland. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

That has been an oversight. Possibly due to the fact that his royal rule was not at all uncontested. Still, he probably should have another title. Go suggest something there. However, regarding THIS item here, (were it the case) even a mistake elsewhere is no argument for making a mistake here. Shilkanni 19:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it was a mistake over there, as William is either known as a count under the mentioned name or as a King under the name William of Holland. Anyway, Philipp's rule (only per his wife) was much more contested than William's was - William was elected as an anti-king but after his rivals' death he was the undisputed king (in his own right) of Germany. All in all, I think hard and fast rules are good but they should allow for exceptions in cases such as this. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Can someone shed some light on why or how he gained the moniker Philip the Handsome? Where exactly did that come from? Radzewicz (talk) 00:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Philippe le Beau and his titles

Philip the Fair, Duke of Burgundy, assumed the titles to the Kingdom of Castile in an accession ceremony celebrated in Brussels in 1504 (See Jean Molinet or Jean Lemaire de Belges for the details). This ceremony of accession was then subsequently recognised by the Cortes in 1506, when Philip went to Spain; at that point, Ferdinand withdrew his challenge and acceded to the succession. He died, however, in the same year, so was never able to exercise his regal athority, despite having attained the title.

Philip, however, is principally known for being the Duke of Burgundy, not Philip I of Castile, although both are entirely accurate. While the point made below, that Philip never inherited the title to the Duchy of Burgundy (there was also the County of Burgundy, known today as the Franche Comte), the Habsburgs continued to use the title as the first of his many and it was widely used elsewhere: see, for example, English, Spanish and Venetian ambassadorial correspondence. It might also be noted that ambassadors were sent to the "Burgundian Court". Thus, Philip IV, Duke of Burgundy, or Philip the Fair, Duke of Burgundy, would be an equally appropriate title for this article.

As for the actual list of his titles, he had scads: Duke of Burgundy, Duke of Brabant, Duke of Holland, Count of Zeeland, Cont of Burgundy, Count of Hainault, Count of Flanders, Seigneur de Luxembourg, etc etc etc. Burgundy was ALWAYS listed first, even after the French irredentism of 1482. Eusebeus 11:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

All right except for one thing: Philip did inherit the title "Duke of Burgundy", even though the territory of the actual Duchy was ceded to the King of France. There was nothing irregular in him and his descendents using that title. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure I agree, since the French did not recognise the continued right to the title, so far as I know. He inherited insofar as the Habsburg's did not recognise French reclamation of suzerainty over the title. However, Louis XI (and his successors) named their own "Duke of Burgundy" so, in fact, there were technically two people holding that title, although control over the duchies privileges, prebends, appointments, minting privileges and the like was in the hands of the French Duke (which meant effectively the French king). Interestingly, in his instruction to Philip II on his death, Charles named reclaiming the Duchy back from the French the single most important priority, and Philip did, in fact, make a (vain) effort to regain the territory. So, the "title" was inherited insofar as the French irredentist move in 1482 was not necessarily respected (although French claims to the Duchy under Salic privilege were clear). But the Habsburgs had no actual control over the territory. You may know something I don't, however, which I would be very interested to learn so I don't go around sounding ignorant ;) Eusebeus 16:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

What we have here is a dispute about the the heritage of the Burgundians, including the title. But that doesn't mean that we can decide that now. Charles indeed placed a high value on the Duchy, as he above anything else considered himself a Burgundian (and he achieved his aim, though only for a little while). Anyway, I think you pretty much enough, but let me just state that the title and the actual Duchy are not necessarily the same. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure we are in dispute in any way(although note the two Dukes of Burgundy in Vicenzo Quirino's correspondence). At any rate, you seem well-informed, so I'm glad to see you keeping an eye on the page. The article needs to be cleaned up, and I don't care what the title of the article is particularly, so if you are game, let's make a stab. Eusebeus 23:12, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Sure, Eusebeus. The dispute I referred to was between the King of France and the Habsburgs, not between us. WP need not take side in this (though I know where my sympathies lie). I also appreciate your help in this, as my aim has been for a while to move this from the terrible "Philip of Castile" to something more telling. As of yet, I have not been successful. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:15, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

"Philip IV of Burgundy" is hardly any better than "Philip I of Castile." And I believe "Archduke of Austria" would have come before "Duke of Burgundy" in Philip's list of titles. john k 10:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

That is the whole problem: the dogmatic sticking to a rule that might work in most cases but not in all, using a "higher title" which the protagonist is hardly known under.

And no, I wouldn't object to "Philipp the Handsome, Archduke of Austria either. Which title preceded the other is IMHO both an open and a not really relevant question.

However, since verifiability is such an important principle of WP, I had a look into the "Lexikon des Mittelalters" and looked up Philip, who is called in this book (Philipp, #15): "Ph. der Schöne, Ehzg., Fs. der Niederlande (Burgund)", which translates to Philip the Handsome, Archduke, Prince of the Low Countries/Netherlands (Burgundy).

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

One more thing: Philip's Archducal title must be of the kind later common, when all male members of the Habsburg dynasty bore the title, as Philip actually never ruled over the Austrian lands. Or has someone a better explanation? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

That was a standard title for the eldest son of the Habsburgs; it passed to Charles as well, before the split of the two patrimonies. And it's true it did come first in the documents of the day. Eusebeus 12:56, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

So I guess it began with Philip. Originally, the title Archduke belonged to the prince ruling over the Duchy of Austria, or later the Duchies of Lower and Upper Austria (with Lower Austria being more important). It was created first by Duke Philip IV's forged Privelegium Maius but never recogniuued until Duke Frederick (Philip's grandfather) became Emperor and ratified the Privilegium.

Anyway, it is a title used with Philip. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:59, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I think Maximilian had the title as well until he succeeded Frederick, although I am not entirely sure. Do you have access to Wiesflecker's biography? The details would certainly be elaborated in there, doubtless as great length. I ought to know the answer to this but my area of expertise is Valois/Hb Burgundy, and I am less informed about the Austrian patrimony (the Privelegium Maius was new information to me). Eusebeus 09:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I will look to having a look into that book.

Maximilian's title might also be related to his reign in other Austrian territories (I think he took over Tyrol from a bankrupted relative ... and probably all reigning Habsburgs used the title at that time, even those reigning over Tyrol or Styria.

If you want to know more details about the two Austrian Privilegia, just drop me a line. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

Ok, I have started making an effort to get this article into some kind of better shape. I have added some subdivisions and started in on fleshing out the details. Please let me know if you have any ideas for improvement. Eusebeus 10:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

the pic in the German version is much more "handsome"82.152.158.193 22:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Joyous Entry of 1477?

The article states that some of the territory was removed from Mary of Burgundy's power by the "Joyous Entry of 1477." The article on the Joyous Entry indicates it happened more than a century earlier, though it seems to have been a document that was followed for several centuries--and it seems to involve the Dukes of Brabant rather than Burgundy. The article on Mary does not mention it at all; it talks about the Great Privilege she was forced to sign in 1477. Can someone who knows something about all this clarify it in all relevant articles? Thanks. Laura1822 14:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Done, to a degree, at Mary's page. The confusion derives form the fact the agreement by which her rights were stripped is also referred to commonly by its Dutch name, Blijde Inkomst, which was, and still is, the means by which recognition was extended to the Counts of Flanders, etc.... Eusebeus 12:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Philip never claimed the title Emperor of the Romans

No contemporary or modern author described him as thus either. Wikipedia can't make outrageous claims like this. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 06:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Can you indicate where that claim is made? I don't see it. Eusebeus (talk) 15:38, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not made in this article. He/she objects to the (properly sourced, naturally) reference in several articles to the purchase by Ferdinand and Isabella of the Byzantine imperial rights from Andrew Palaeologus. Thus, he/she has been dumping this message on a handful of Spanish related pages. Michael Sanders 19:34, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Eusebius, this user above you is the one responsible for presenting the facts to support what they clearly do not. He is in fact, persistently violating WP:NPOV and WP:TEND. Look at his profile page to see his obvious declaration against WP:CIVIL. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 04:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

King or King-consort of Castile

I thought Philip was crown as co-monarch with his Queen Joanna. GoodDay (talk) 17:28, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

No, Philip was technically only King-consort. Joanna's infirmity, and the circumstances against her, allowed him to exercise real power; but had that not been the case, he'd have been in the same position as Ferdinand II during Isabella's reign (i.e. given only as much power in his wife's realm as she wished). Michael Sanders 17:46, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, I thought it was similiar to the co-succession of Mary II & William III/II of England, Scotland & Ireland, in 1689. GoodDay (talk) 17:51, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I know that this brief discussion has ended more than a year ago, but I don't think that Philip was a king consort, neither de jure nor de facto. Philip was indeed Joanna's co-monarch as Philip I, just like Ferdinand was Isabella I's co-monarch as Ferdinand V. Both Ferdinand and Philip ascended by the right of their wives and they were just as much monarchs as their wives were, although they could reign only during their marriage. They were not kings consort. Kings consort, just like queens consort, do not have monarchical numbers because they are not monarchs and they do not appear on coins. We all know that Ferdinand and Philip are included in the lists of monarchs of Castile as Ferdinand the Fifth and Philip the First. William III of Orange, however, did not ascend by the right of Mary - he ascended by the right of conquest. Surtsicna (talk) 15:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Philip was King jure uxoris, meaning "in right of his wife." You have to remember that this was a patriarchal society and if a queen had a king, the king would automatically rule dominant - unless special circumstances dictated otherwise. Hence the hoopla England when Mary I married then-Prince Philip of Spain, as well as her sister Elizabeth I's spoken reason for not marrying (she would have no one above her). By "jure uxoris" husbands of heiresses sat in Parliaments, Cortes, etc, where their wives could not go and exercise rights to what really was the wife's inheritance.

In the case of Juana's parents, Isabella was the dominant ruler of Castille and Ferdinand was the dominant ruler of Aragon. If I remember correctly, papers for Isabella's dominions carried her name first and then Ferdinand's; in Ferdinand's dominions it was the reverse. Likely it was the same case with Juana and Philip. Jure uxoris also means that when the wife dies, her titles go to her heir, not to her husband - he rules only in right of his wife, and when she is gone he no longer rules. It was protection for the bloodline, so that if a female heiress died, her inheritance did not go to her husband's line unless they had a joint heir; if she had no heir her estates went to the next member of her family.

Of course, the time between Juana and Philip taking up the official reins of power in Castile and his death was quite short. I've never delved into the primary sources. Maybe someone who has seen the papers or examined this couple's marriage contract could shed some further light on this subject. History Lunatic (talk) 00:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)History Lunatic

Pics from invented "drawers"

The picture from the guy called Juan de Flandes certainly comes from the same hand as the picture of Charles V in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bernaerd_van_Orley_004.jpg

I mean, look at the pictures, they even contain the same colors! You certainly need to admit that Bernard van Orley and this invented "Flander Juan" (with the same death year as Leonardo Da Vinci, lol) are certainly the same person...or were they both Albrecht Dürer?

Hint: Never believe what's written in old chronicles, they just randomly spill out names. However, if you look at the craftmanship of Dürer you could easily imagine how ugly the Spanish king family was...just have a look: Juan de Flandes --178.197.225.27 (talk)

• The above IP's contributions to several talk pages [1] can be taken with a grain of salt. JNW (talk) 00:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Native language of Philip I

What was Philip I's native language ? Was it Dutch ? Or French ? Do we actually know it from any reliable source ? 161.24.19.44 (talk) 14:44, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

From the way his lips are pursed in his painting, his native language would definitely have to be French. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.148.71.212 (talk) 21:01, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Why is he "handsome"?

Repeating a 2008 request (Radzewicz, above);

Why is he "handsome"? (Is it a dodgy translation)?

When was it first applied?

Is it in History (of this article) and lost?

MBG02 (talk) 16:31, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Spain or Castile?

Spain was not created at that time. Use terms correctly. You mean Castile! 83.44.96.114 (talk) 12:29, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Date of birth

"22 June/July" is an odd construction. How is the source so specific about the day but not the month? Looking at it here, there isn't any explanation. It actually says "22 July (or June)". Does that, in fact, mean 22 July or sometime in June? In any event 22 July appears to be the primary date with June in parentheses which doesn't quite match what we have. I've had a quick look for other sources and haven't found anything reliable as yet - Britannica online has 22 July only. DeCausa (talk) 20:00, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

"Philip (the handsome), duke of Burgundy 22 July(or June) 1478 – 25 September 1506.." --

I was unaware this was such a big deal. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:31, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm confused: (a) is it a big deal? Why? (b) You linked to the same source as I did above. Are you saying we should change the text to match it? DeCausa (talk) 20:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Not at all, but user:Dirkschoenaers that keeps changing it appears to have an issue with it.[2],[3]

As I told Sovietblobfish on my talk page, I have ran into more than a few of these editors/IPs that are editing dob/dod/dates of battles without the use of any reliable source. --Kansas Bear (talk) 20:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I wasn't really thinking of that edit. It did prompt me to look at the cited source which made me wonder if we were reflecting it correctly - as I said in my first post. DeCausa (talk) 20:48, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Apologies. The disinformation in the secondary source quoted in the article is based on a longstanding misunderstanding (also reflected in the encyclopedia Britannica) that has since been resolved and should no longer be propagated. It is uncertain where this confusion originates, but it is probable that the Middle Dutch 'Wedemaent' (generally used for June, but in some dictionaries also translated as July) in the Excellent Chronicle of Flanders is the culprit. Primary sources confirm the date of 22 June, as does the authoritative biography by Jean-Marie Cauchies, Philippe le Beau, le dernier duc de Bourgogne (Turnhout, Brepols 2003, p. 4, p. 269), adding that Philip the Handsome was baptised on 29 June 1478, which would be rather hard if he was still in the womb at the time. This is a problem of using lower-standard encyclopedic sources (meaning the Bietenholz / Deutscher, as opposed to the Cauchies biography) which collect and repeat information without checking the primary texts. Dirkschoenaers (talk) 18:26, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm reverting you and if you revert again you'll be blocked. Read WP:BRD. You need to establish consensus for your change before your edit can be made now that you have been reverted multiple times. You're using WP:PRIMARY sources to engage original research which is not permitted in Wikipedia. We go by secondary sources. If you want to gain consensus you need to post supporting secondary sources here so they can be evaluated. DeCausa (talk) 18:58, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm unconvinced by the link left in Dirkschoenaers' edit summary which is a book from 1855! The so-called "lower-standard encyclopedic sources" is published by the University of Toronto Press. I see no reason not to include July. --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:40, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

The book from 1855 is an edition of a handwritten document written the day after Philip’s birth and the Original source thus dates from 1478. This is the information used by De Cauchies 2003, 4 (biography, secondary source already listed in the article) to confirm the date in June. De Cauchies also quotes the baptism on 29 June. The UoTP argument by Kansas Bear in favor of the Bietenholz source is void, since it is based on confusion in modrrn secondary sources and there are no primary sources to support the July date. 2A02:1810:8C3F:7600:792C:59F5:716F:C0E1 (talk) 03:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Bietenholz/Deutscher is not the only source that states 22 July 1478 as his date of birth.[4][5][6][7]

• "..since it is based on confusion in modrrn secondary sources and there are no primary sources to support the July date."
  

It is your opinion that there is "confusion", since there are no sources stating this so-called confusion. This is your interpretation of sources, which is WP:OR. --Kansas Bear (talk) 13:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

If some say 22nd June and others say 22 July (and still others both), I would indeed say that there is confusion about the date of birth. With all respect to the authors of the sources you list above, none of them refers to a primary source to support the date of birth. Marie-Cauchies, who has studied the life of Philip in depth does: the letter written to Maximilian by his wife's physicians the day after Philip's birth. The original of this letter (so not a copy) has been preserved and it clearly states 22 junii. There is no palaeographical reason to assume an error here (there is no way that julii can be mistaken for junii by the 19th-c. editor). This letter is as close as you can get to a birth certificate.

It is ironic that while this strong and undeniable documentary evidence exists, there should be confusion because encyclopedic sources and overviews, such as Britannica and Wikipedia, which are easily accessible repeat this annoying error, which more than probable originates from a misunderstanding in translation from Middle Dutch, based on outdated sources. Modern scholars - even those publishing with university presses - do not always take the time to consult the documentary evidence and this kind of mistakes is not easily spotted. The authoritative source here should be the account of Jean-Marie Cauchies, Philip's biographer, who knows the source material in and out and thus makes no mention of 22 July.

While I think it is sad that the quality of Wikipedia-articles is hindered by blind resistance to improvement, and disinformation is further spread due to poor source criticism, I am not going to further insist: people who are determined to find the truth of the matter will find the correct date elsewhere; those who repeat other secondary sources without checking the documentary evidence will keep on citing information that is obviously incorrect. It is an easy way to separate the wheat from the chaff. Dirkschoenaers (talk) 16:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

One final call to reason: Jean Molinet, the official Burgundian court historiographer under Charles the Bold, Mary of Burgundy, and Philip the Handsome records the following:

DURANT le temps que monseigneur le duc d Austrice tenoit les champs en frontière d ennemys comme dict est et labouroit au salut de la chose publique madame d Austrice son espouse seulle fille au duc Charles que Dieu absolve se travailloit d autre costé pour le bien des pays et accoucha d un beau fils en sa ville de Bruges environ trois heures au jour le vingt deux de juing l an soixante et dix huit monde de la nativité

https://books.google.be/books?id=ftyQrXFp0IcC&newbks=1&newbks_redir=0&dq=molinet%20chroniques&pg=PA156#v=onepage&q=molinet%20chroniques&f=false

The facts are that on the one hand we have contemporary documentary and narrative sources by the Duchess' physicians and the official court historiographer (so in close proximity of Philip) both confirming that Philip was born on 22 June 1478 (again there is no way that 'juillet' can be misread as 'juing'), and on the other a set of modern authors repeating the same error, probably made in the 19th c. (and unfortunately *also* in the Britannica). Somewhere, there is a lesson to be learnt here. Dirkschoenaers (talk) 17:33, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand what Wikipedia is. Because it's "crowd-sourced" we can't use primary sources to make the type of justification you are trying to argue for. We're obliged to reflect the significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources. What is not permitted is picking out one source, decide it's superior because of our personal research of primary resources and ignore all others. The reason why we can't do that is that we are all anonymous. Our individual judgments are lacking in credentials. On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. We go with what the balance of what reliable secondary sources say. That's the rules here I'm afraid. Maybe Wikipedia isn't the place for you if you can't accept that. DeCausa (talk) 18:18, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

What I am saying is that the sources that have been picked out in this case are hardly reliable because they do not reference primary sources as evidence and as a consequence all repeat the same error.

Furthermore, the argument you make is not entirely logical: the judgment of Wikipedia editors cannot be trusted when it comes to primary sources, but when it comes to saying whether or not a secondary source is reliable, they can all be trusted? Surely that is not the case here: reliability is not a numbers game. Errors that are easily accessed (like in Britannica and now also Wikipedia) are easily repeated, and that is something I take issue with.

In this case, it is not even the consensus that Philip was born in July or that his date of birth is uncertain; most recent scholarship says "22 June", following the primary documentary and narrative sources. I understand that several English sources repeat the mistake made in Britannica (and now also Wikipedia), because the authors do not read Dutch or French (or do not bother to do so), but in serious (recent) Dutch or French scholarship you will hardly ever find 22 July.

Dutch:

June: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Filips+de+Schone%22+%2222+juni%22&sca_esv=36d237c1c360350f&sca_upv=1&biw=1440&bih=724&tbm=bks&ei=T02hZtX2MdD5kdUPqv_L4Qw&ved=0ahUKEwiV2ryvrMCHAxXQfKQEHar_MswQ4dUDCAk&uact=5&oq=%22Filips+de+Schone%22+%2222+juni%22&gs_lp=Eg1nd3Mtd2l6LWJvb2tzIhwiRmlsaXBzIGRlIFNjaG9uZSIgIjIyIGp1bmkiSOweUN0FWOUWcAF4AJABAJgBbaABsQKqAQMxLjK4AQPIAQD4AQGYAgCgAgCYAwCIBgGSBwCgB9AC&sclient=gws-wiz-books

July: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22Filips+de+Schone%22+%2222+juli%22&sca_esv=36d237c1c360350f&sca_upv=1&biw=1440&bih=724&tbm=bks&ei=VU2hZuqlLsiGkdUPyIryyAQ&ved=0ahUKEwiqpKeyrMCHAxVIQ6QEHUiFHEkQ4dUDCAk&uact=5&oq=%22Filips+de+Schone%22+%2222+juli%22&gs_lp=Eg1nd3Mtd2l6LWJvb2tzIhwiRmlsaXBzIGRlIFNjaG9uZSIgIjIyIGp1bGkiSPsNUMIGWPALcAB4AJABAJgB0wGgAb8DqgEFMC4yLjG4AQPIAQD4AQGYAgCgAgCYAwCIBgGSBwCgB6YE&sclient=gws-wiz-books

French:

June: https://www.google.be/search?tbm=bks&hl=en&q=%22Philippe+le+beau%22+%2222+juin%22

July: https://www.google.be/search?q=%22Philippe+le+beau%22+%2222+juillet%22&sca_esv=36d237c1c360350f&sca_upv=1&hl=en&tbm=bks&ei=qk2hZt6zIsqLkdUP2dDriQU&ved=0ahUKEwjesN_arMCHAxXKRaQEHVnoOlEQ4dUDCAk&uact=5&oq=%22Philippe+le+beau%22+%2222+juillet%22&gs_lp=Eg1nd3Mtd2l6LWJvb2tzIh8iUGhpbGlwcGUgbGUgYmVhdSIgIjIyIGp1aWxsZXQiSM4gUIITWLMYcAB4AJABAJgBd6AB8QaqAQMwLji4AQPIAQD4AQGYAgGgAnPCAgQQIRgKmAMAiAYBkgcDMC4xoAfHDg&sclient=gws-wiz-books

English

June: https://www.google.be/search?q=%22Philip+the+handsome%22+%2222+june%22&sca_esv=36d237c1c360350f&sca_upv=1&hl=en&tbm=bks&ei=qk2hZt6zIsqLkdUP2dDriQU&ved=0ahUKEwjesN_arMCHAxXKRaQEHVnoOlEQ4dUDCAk&uact=5&oq=%22Philip+the+handsome%22+%2222+june%22&gs_lp=Eg1nd3Mtd2l6LWJvb2tzIh8iUGhpbGlwIHRoZSBoYW5kc29tZSIgIjIyIGp1bmUiSNRWUIcFWKpUcAN4AJABAJgBhAGgAfMYqgEEMy4yNrgBA8gBAPgBAZgCAqACpgHCAgUQABiABJgDAIgGAZIHATKgB58h&sclient=gws-wiz-books

July: https://www.google.be/search?q=%22Philip+the+handsome%22+%2222+july%22&sca_esv=36d237c1c360350f&sca_upv=1&hl=en&tbm=bks&ei=Rk6hZsDsG-GmkdUP2brQsQY&ved=0ahUKEwjAp4qlrcCHAxVhU6QEHVkdNGYQ4dUDCAk&uact=5&oq=%22Philip+the+handsome%22+%2222+july%22&gs_lp=Eg1nd3Mtd2l6LWJvb2tzIh8iUGhpbGlwIHRoZSBoYW5kc29tZSIgIjIyIGp1bHkiSKEZUNwTWMkWcAF4AJABAJgBcaABngOqAQMxLjO4AQPIAQD4AQGYAgCgAgCYAwCIBgGSBwCgB6oF&sclient=gws-wiz-books Dirkschoenaers (talk) 19:00, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

References

Philip I of Castile? Really?

I've hardly ever seen him referred to as that. I was tempted to do a WP:BOLD move to Philip the Handsome, but thought I should post here first. Do we really need a WP:RM to move it to what is clearly WP:COMMONNAME? DeCausa (talk) 22:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, I hadn't checked to see how many times he's referred to as Philip I of Castile or Philip the Handsome. After a cursory search, moving the article to Philip the Handsome seems warranted.--Kansas Bear (talk) 23:31, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Because it's already a redirect I can't move it boldly so have put it into technical requests.[8] DeCausa (talk) 09:16, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Now done. DeCausa (talk) 21:42, 28 July 2024 (UTC)