Talk:Charles II of Spain

Genetics discussion

The linked study actually states in the conclusion that "Although we recognize that it is highly speculative, some of the health problems suffered by Charles II could have been caused by the action of detrimental recessive genes given his high inbreeding coefficient (F = 0.254) with 25.4% of his autosomal genome expected to be homozygous. In this sense, the simultaneous occurrence in Charles II of two genetic disorders determined by recessive alleles ... In this way, we may speculate that most of the symptomatology showed by Charles II could be explained by two different genetic disorders produced by detrimental recessive alleles at two unlinked loci. Evidently, the probability of an affected individual suffering from two very rare recessive traits must be very low but it must be taken into account that inbreeding may cause the association of two recessive traits even for unlinked loci. In addition, recent studies with SNPs and microsatellite markers have shown that the amount of genomic homozygosity of consanguineous individuals is often greater than expected from pedigree information, suggesting that the genomic homozygosity of Charles II could have been higher than the inferred 25.4%." The statement that recessive genes have not been demonstrated to have caused his issues is from an earlier paragraph in which previous scholars' work is being critiqued - that is, the researchers are saying that nobody bothered to look at the issue scientifically, they simply asserted it based on the stereotype of Habsburg inbreeding. Mimicofmodes (talk) 14:27, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate you providing Sources and data for your position. This topic has been discussed on various occasions; I'm going to go into one more time, and its for the benefit of others, not only you, so its not intended to be personal. I just don't want to have it again.

There are two issues; (1) nature of the "inbreeding' element; and (2) its relevance to an article on the life and reign of Charles II. I spent a lot of time re-writing and expanding this article, plus those on his mother, his second wife and the War of the Spanish Succession; apparently, the only thing people find interesting is his genetics. I find that slightly weird, but then I'm a historian, not a scientist.

Despite that character flaw, I'm willing to (a) read Sources, and (b) when I disagree, ask myself why.

The statement that recessive genes have not been demonstrated to have caused his issues is from an earlier paragraph in which previous scholars' work is being critiqued - that is, the researchers are saying that nobody bothered to look at the issue scientifically, they simply asserted it based on the stereotype of Habsburg inbreeding.

Ok - but the study still doesn't confirm it. You cannot 'confirm' a 'speculation'; if you could, it would be a fact. I've highlighted all the conditionals that appear in the content you've provided. Although frequently cited as 'proof', the authors are saying 'We think its more likely'.

In addition to this, there are various limitations;

(a) None of these studies are based on actual genetic material; they are deductions, made by interpreting 17th century reports, generally written by non-doctors. None explain why he had issues, and his sister didn't.

(b) The inbreeding co-efficient quoted in the study is not an absolute, but a probability calculation, used in agriculture to help guide breeding; even then, and I quote: Many linkage studies are performed in inbred populations, either small isolated populations or large populations with a long tradition of marriages between relatives. In such populations, there exist very complex genealogies with unknown loops. Therefore, the true inbreeding coefficient of an individual is often unknown.

(c) The suggestion inbreeding causes infertility is not proved; for example, this study concludes consanguinity was not found to be associated either with a significant positive or negative effect on fertility.

I have no doubt you can find others which suggest the opposite. The point is these are interpretations, based on contemporary reports of his illness, in an era when medical diagnostics were based on Galen's humours, and examining the patient's urine. Then applied to a probability calculation, using a sample size too small to provide actionable data.

It's a guess; that's all I said, and I'm struggling to see why that is so controversial.

For balance, other (more recent) studies provide alternative theories, eg herpetic infection, so we've improved the article.

I could care less about his genetics, but I'm willing to spend 45 minutes looking at Sources, rather than just restating my position. I think its reasonable to expect others to do the same.

Robinvp11 (talk) 12:23, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

References

"The degree to which inbreeding was responsible for his ill-health is unclear and disputed"

Sorry, but this wikipedia page must be the only place where the inbreading itself is disputed. Maybe we find some geneticist who is willing to look into sources and weigh them ('sources' as in modern scientific studies), rather than someone with an undergraduate degree in history. (Apologies @Robinvp11, in case this come across in an unfriendly manner, I read your comments below, and I don't mean it in any way personal. Your time time invested here is much appreciated. But this wikipedia report is really a stark anomaly with respect to this aspect of Charles II's live and death.) And just to apply the same rigor to the alternative hypothesis that is suggested above: Are there any sources ('sources' as in contemporary historical reports) that support a claim that the poor young Charles II was just a victim of bullying by ill-meaning relatives, leading to all those unfavourable contemporary reports? In case there are, then it may be worth writing a reasearch article about it to get things straight. Until that paper / book is out, however, it is not wikipedia that should make attempts to spearhead alternative scientific (or historical) hypotheses. Cheers, BHM 46.5.123.208 (talk) 06:58, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

All I've done is read the Sources, not attempt to become a geneticist. Robinvp11 (talk)

FYI, here is yet another scholarly article which suggests an alternative theory on the CAUSES of his ill-health; https://neurologyopen.bmj.com/content/3/2/e000072 Robinvp11 (talk) 10:04, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree. I find that statement and a couple of others in that paragraph to be highly suspect. It needs to be reviewed. Spiel (talk) 11:13, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

One of the things they teach you as an historian is to read Sources. I may not be a geneticist (to be fair, neither is Ceballos, the lead author of the paper everyone seems to rely on), but I've actually read the articles which purport to "prove" his health issues are related to inbreeding. If you haven't, then I suggest you do (give yourself some time because there's a lot) or perhaps read my previous answers, then come back and discuss.

Read the article. It DOES NOT claim Charles did not suffer from ill-health, or that his issues were caused by bullying. What it says (and again, read the scholarly articles first before telling me I've got it wrong, please) is that the CAUSE is undetermined, and provides several suggestions from other scholars as to what that might be eg a herpetic infection at birth. The paper constantly quoted as "proof" is extremely cautious in making any specific claim (and I'm sorry if I sound irritated, but I've now covered this about eight different times without it seeming to make much difference). In the response below, I have actually listed all the qualifying statements made in that article.

Tell me precisely which elements you find "suspect" and why, and I'll respond. But please read the article, the Ceballos paper you rely on and other TP submission first, especially the extensive analysis below. Robinvp11 (talk) 15:19, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Attention Genetic fans; Please, please, please :)

Before engaging on this topic, please check the Sources and articles provided. I've read them, and now know more about genetics than I ever wanted. It would be helpful if you can do the same. Thanks! Robinvp11 (talk) 11:41, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Regardless of what caused his deformities, isn’t the exceptionally high degree of inbreeding worth a mention in the opening para? He has 3 uncle/niece marriages is his recent pedigree. His inbreeding may well be the most noteworthy thing about him, but it is barely discussed.Skates61 (talk) 16:51, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

• Thank you for your comment.

• (1) He has 3 uncle/niece marriages in his recent pedigree. Per the article by Ceballos etc which postulates the "inbreeding" idea, it's actually two, the first (Philip II) being a century before. I don't want to sound unduly picky but even this "fact" is incorrect.

• (2) In historical terms, Charles' "inbreeding" is absolutely not the most noteworthy thing about him. Speculation over his succession and the weakening of the Spanish state caused by factional infighting dominated European politics for over half a century and was a major factor in the wars fought by Louis XIV. His death resulted in the first truly global conflict, which reshaped European power structures for over a century.

• (3) The Lede (which is supposed to summarise the article content) currently says "He suffered from a variety of physical defects, the causes of which are still debated". This is an accurate reflection of what the article actually says in the detailed analysis that appears in the "Background" section, which shows the vast majority of what appears in popular history is demonstrably untrue. So I'm not clear what the Lede should say in addition, apart from "everything people think they know about this is wrong".

• (4) Even the articles looking at the genetic evidence make the point inter-family marriage was widespread throughout the European landed classes and even uncles marrying nieces was far from unusual; for example, in 1642 Prince Maurice of Savoy renounced his cardinalship to marry his niece Princess Louisa. They also point out the whole idea of what constitutes "inbreeding" is a Western concept, originating in a power grab by the Catholic church to exercise control over marriage by using consanguinity to lever concessions out of the nobility by granting dispensations. In Pharaonic Egypt, brothers married sisters and aunts for generation after generation. No one can explain why Charles' sister was completely normal and he wasn't - the most likely explanation is not genetics but a herpetic infection.

• Why Charles should be held up as some sort of outlier for the dangers of "incest" when he was far from unique and no one can agree what caused his physical problems is unclear. But it keeps coming up. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:16, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Re-addition of absolutely crucial quote

@Robinvp11: I have admired your work on this article, so I will inform you of my having done this: I re-inserted the quote/citation about him "baffling Christendom by continuing to live", since I think it paints a quite vivid picture that the article lacked without it. jp×g 14:35, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

@JPxG: It is a great quote, but I go back and forth because Langdon-Davies also talks about his family background. That grates because I've tried hard to rescue Charles from the "victim of incest" tag that seems to obsess so many and regain the unfortunate young man who was bullied and mistreated by his mother and second wife. Plus being ruthless with my own editing allows me to expect it from others ('Interesting v Useful' debate). Happy to keep it in but I thought it worth explaining my thinking :). Robinvp11 (talk) 19:03, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

On the fiscal reforms of Charles II of Spain

I noticed how you mentioned that the Bourbons were shocked at the ‘weakness of the military’ and the ‘empty treasury’, but I think the wording Caused some confusion. Well, The Land and Naval forces were crippled for the spanish ever since the miserable blows during the 30 and 80 years’ wars. The fact that the nation managed to survive Louis XIV’s incursions were written about by Luis Ribot and Storrs (who also elaborated on spanish successes in Lombardy during the 9 years’ war).

As for the public coffers (this refers to Castille, the region that suffered the most from these problems) , throughout the 1680s, continuous and rigorous efforts were made to improve the fiscal situation. These included a lowering of the tax burden (the only such thing witnessed in 200 years), the devaluation of silver and the stabilisation of the billon, then the subsequent action to reduce the interest of the indebted. These shocked the economy in the short term but it calmed the Monetary situation after decades of chaos and bankruptcies and no such reform were taken after it.

I think I failed to put a citation for that (Though it is mentioned in pages 33,34,35 of Luis Ribot’s paper), the sources for it are;

•Juan Antonio: La política fiscal en Castilla durante el reinado de Carlos II.

You will find more references on Ribot’s paper. 2344Mkonji (talk) 13:15, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

• @2344Mkonji: Thanks for that. I've included some wording on this in the Legacy section which I think balances the various views. See what you think. Robinvp11 (talk) 17:58, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Hmm. I just read the Legacy section but I doubt that’s relevant with the economic recovery and it isn’t chronologically correct.

1) Population: The decrease in population began early in the 17th century and continued to decrease until the 1670s when it increased for a while. Then, because of the locusts and plagues which ravaged the nation (along with france and holland), it fell again during the 1680s and continued on that path till the late 18th century.

2) Economics: 1680 was the year that the deflation took place and was disastrous at first but was lessened in 1686. Note that the currency was extremely inflated and was subject to continuous instability prior to 1680 and during the century before.

What I believe you should mention is that the rigorous reforms that lasted for 6 years were necessary to keep a constant trend and served as a stepping stone to the reforms of the Bourbons (especially Charles III).

This is important as it ended a century of Exacerbated Inflation. Read this study and please do mention the importance of this.

https://e-archivo.uc3m.es/bitstream/handle/10016/438/wp06-07.pdf?sequence=1

2344Mkonji (talk) 07:21, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok; I've included the Villanueva paper and I think the revised wording adequately reflects these points. In addition, the first two paragraphs of the "Reign" section makes it clear that these problems were not unique to Spain eg the impact of the Little Ice Age led to famine and population decline across Europe. Robinvp11 (talk) 17:26, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Introduction

I apologise if I seemed impetuous by making those edits. The issue here isn’t the person of the King and inbreeding (Honestly, all European Royals were inbred, the Bourbons of the 18th and 19th century were a lot more inbred than him as were the Portuguese,Tuscans, and Austrians). The introduction seems contradictory, the reason being that the ‘managed decline’ isn’t the traditional view of his reign. In fact, it was seen as an absolute and utter decline, the king being the human embodiment of it.

Also, the relativistic decline that Spain was experiencing didn’t improve with his successors but rather remained constant. My question is, Is this a suitable phrase for a reign that was experiencing a decline in Relative power that wasn’t unique to it? You and I know that there was an improvement in internal decline that found it’s origins in Charles’ reign and continued through the first Bourbons. However, those same Bourbons weren’t the saviours of spain who reversed this decline, Spain continued to be Large and important player, but not a Hegemon.

In other words, this ‘relativistic decline’ is present in every reign from Phillip 4 till the industrial revolution. Is it unique to this reign? 2344Mkonji (talk) 12:00, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

The discussion about "relativity" doesn't really make sense to me. Spain was weaker at the end of Philip's reign than the start and the same was also true of Charles. The question is (a) how much was caused by factors beyond his control (A lot) and (b) is this the whole story? (No). I believe the article as written fairly reflects the historical consensus.

"Managed decline" is used by Storrs, who argues Philip weakened the Empire by fighting futile wars to retain Spanish hegemony, while Charles and his regents accepted this was no longer possible. In modern British history the retreat from Empire over the period 1947 to 1974 is referred to as one of "managed decline". Historians suggest British power had been in absolute decline since the 1880s and so no one's blaming Elizabeth II, but we can't deny that reality.

"Managed" is pro-active and means "we accept our position is now weaker and we're going to design policy on that basis" (Charles), rather than "we're going preserve that position, regardless of our capacity to do so" (Philip). Robinvp11 (talk) 18:16, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. But by saying that Spain was ‘weaker’ by Charles’ death is simply a reference to the relative decline in Spanish power.

What I mean by relative power is that France and the UK were only beginning to mark their ascension whilst Spanish dominance came to a close by 1658. Now no Scholar denies this decline, as you’ve stated, but its true for Phillip 5 and those who came after him and not unique to Charles: similar to the natural process of ‘aging’ if you wish.

Also, his reign hasn’t traditionally been viewed as ‘managed decline’ . It was viewed as an absolute decline in all aspects with the Sick fool Charles as it’s human embodiment.

Finally the focus shouldn’t be on position relative to other nations. We know that Charles’ reign faired a lot better than his predecessors so the emphasis should be on this. No longer the European Hegemon, but marking the beginning of reforms for recovery. 2344Mkonji (talk) 15:51, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

You can't have a Charles II of both England and Spain

Why not Just Carlos II? 2603:6011:A400:8873:84A0:365F:292F:672E (talk) 19:04, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I dont understand??? 2601:280:5301:8740:C067:9C4A:D7B:5E1F (talk) 21:56, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

HELP??

Who put on one of the edits that said “ugly busted lip goo ah” or something like it?! 67.198.64.244 (talk) 18:43, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Bro lmao, 12 yrld history nuts be wildin 2601:280:5301:8740:C067:9C4A:D7B:5E1F (talk) 21:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Inbreeding

I recently edited this article to state that Charles was inbred in the lead, the reason being that that's what he's thought of and whenever I hear people talking about the war they focus on this as what caused it. My edit was reverted by Glendoremus, who wrote in their edit summary, "There's plenty of debate as to the extent and causes of his physical and mental disabilities. All of it is detailed in the text of this article." But I feel necessary to point out that I'm not focusing on his disabilities as a result of inbreeding like everyone does, I'm simply pointing out that everyone knows he was inbred and is massively associated with the phenomenon, regardless if his disabilities were a result of it. I therefore believe it is necessary to mention inbreeding in the lead.GOLDIEM J (talk) 16:11, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

It's undue emphasis in the lede, especially in the very first sentence, and effectively denies his humanity by describing him "as a product of intense inbreeding", as if he were an animal. As Glendoremus said, the fact of his disabilities is discussed in the body of the article, so a blaring mention of *inbreeding* in the very first sentence is beyond the pale. Carlstak (talk) 16:46, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

@Carlstak: As said earlier, I am not attempting to appropriate his disabilities as a result of inbreeding, but rather I am trying to point out that the inbreeding is what he's best known for and is what his disabilities are traditionally (regardless if correctly) attributed to. I still believe that Wikipedia is obligated to at least mention inbreeding in the main section of the article (if not the first sentence or lead paragraph) for this reason, as Wikipedia is not an attempt to appropriate information, but rather to give the information as is, and as for the information as is, when people discuss Charles II of Spain there is only one word that comes to the public conscience, "inbred." It is not Wikipedia or its editors who are "denying his humanity" as you so say; instead, it has already been done and that's a matter of fact, regardless if we think that's a good thing or not. GOLDIEM J (talk) 13:06, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, GOLDIEM J; I take your point, but I still strongly disagree. I have no doubt that you are completely sincere, but I see mentioning this fact in the lede with the emphasis on "inbreeding" as unequivocally undue commentary on a person's disabilities, and find the language you used to be a superfluous insult to his human dignity. Unless you can find a consensus here on the talk page, your desired change should not be made. Carlstak (talk) 18:21, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

When a disability is the defining characteristic of a person, the first mention of it should certainly not be relegated to the article body. Having it in the lead paragraph might be excessive, but I do not see why it should not be somewhere in the lead section. See, for example, the lead sections of the articles about Bela II of Hungary, Baldwin IV of Jerusalem, Franklin D. Roosevelt (whose disability gets an entire article too), etc. The question now is how much his pedigree collapse is emphasized in scholarly biographies of him, of which there are enough to draw a conclusion if anyone is willing to check. I do not think pop culture perception of Charles is something to go by since we are writing an encyclopedia, not a meme. Surtsicna (talk) 19:26, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "the first mention of it should certainly not be relegated to the article body", Surtsicna. The very second sentence of the lede starts, "Best remembered for his physical disabilities...". I'm not saying we should remove that text, but I think emphasizing a loaded term like "inbreeding" by adding it to the lede is undue. The social connotations and the suggestion of a subtext behind "breeding" introduces a confusing lack of clarity to no good purpose, besides my other concerns. Carlstak (talk) 00:19, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

To say that he is "best remembered as a product of intense inbreeding" is pure titillation and avoids explaining his actual notability. I agree, his disabilities were "defining characteristics" and their significance should be addressed in the lead: he was a king who was unable to rule, unable to inspire confidence, and unable to produce an heir. (This last bit comes from Kamen (1980) which surprisingly is not used as a source in the article). Glendoremus (talk) 02:53, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

As discussed in the body of the article, there is no scientific consensus his physical disabilities were caused by inbreeding, hence they are not linked in the Lede (which summarises the actual content of the article, rather than what people believe to be "true").

His problems producing an heir and their possible causes are also discussed in the body of the article;

The statement he was a king who was unable to rule is challenged by any number of modern historians, while four of Kamen's works are included in the Sources and used as references, so I haven't ignored his views. Robinvp11 (talk) 17:27, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Middle names

Did Carlos II have any middle names? Because some of his siblings did, and as the heir apparent wouldn't he have been given middle names? For instance his brother Philip Prospero, Prince of Asturias had the middle names: Felipe Próspero José Francisco Domingo Ignacio Antonio Buenaventura Diego Miguel Luis Alfonso Isidro Ramón Víctor, did Carlos II have any middle names similar to this? Jeffersonian111 (talk) 00:15, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Mariana, mother of Charles II, and Autos-da-fé

Autos-da-fé of the Spanish Inquisition were presided over by both Charles and his mother/regent, Mariana. This included the burnings alive of heretics and Jews. Mariana was the power behind Charles' throne, he was not actively in control of the monarchy in the early years. Autos-da-fe were taking place all through the reigns of Charles' father, Philip IV and continued after his death in 1665. According to the Wikipedia article on Marianna, "Mariana became regent once again" on the death of Don Juan, the illegitimate son of Philip IV in September of 1679. In the next year, 1680, "the greatest of all spectacles staged by the Inquisition in Spain was held on June 30 on the Plaza Mayor in Madrid". It lasted 14 hours and many were burned alive, which is what happens at a large auto-da-fé. Is this an example of the power of a woman, Mariana, the then Regent of Spain? If so, let's follow the evidence where it leads. On that day, another woman attached to the Royal Court, the Marquise de Villars, wrote as follows: "I did not have the courage to be present at this horrible execution of the Jews". . . "It was a hideous spectacle. During the period of judgment, it was necessary to put in an appearance from beginning to end unless one had a medical certificate: for otherwise one would have been considered a heretic. Indeed, people thought very ill of me for not enjoying everything that was happening. The cruelties which were witnessed at the death of these poor wretches is impossible for me to describe." Source: Cecil Roth, "The Spanish Inquisition", 1964, pages 70-71.

A second source for the events of June 30, 1680: The Spanish court (Mariana & Charles) was so proud of this auto-da-fé that they commissioned the court painter, Francisco Rizi, to record the event. This painting can be seen both at the Museo del Prado website and Wikimedia Commons site under the title, "Auto-da-fé on Plaza Mayor, Madrid". At both sites, Mariana & Charles II can be seen on a dais enjoying and presiding over the spectacle of inquisition, torture and burning. If we're going to have articles about sovereigns, let's have all the information of importance mentioned. This painting should be included in the articles of both Mariana and Charles and is in the public domain. Sources: Museo del Prado (https://www.museodelprado.es/en/the-collection/art-work/autodafe-in-the-plaza-mayor-of-madrid/8d92af03-3183-473a-9997-d9cbf2557462), Wikimedia Commons, under the name "File:Detail of Auto de fe 1680.jpg":(https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Detail_of_Auto_de_fe_1680.jpg)

47.232.145.208 (talk) 02:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

== Charles II had better potraair. ==Charles II of Spain had a really better portrait by anonymous painter.

Lead section: "the last Habsburg king of Spain" is bad form

Some editors are insistent on referring to Charles II as "the last Habsburg king of Spain" in the first sentence, instead of "King of Spain from 1665 to 1700" which is the standard form. This form is inconsistent with other monarchs. The page of Philip IV of Spain does not refer to him as "the last Habsburg king of Portugal", especially not in the first sentence. Henry III of France does not call him the "last Valois king of France" etc etc. With the exception of Frankish monarchs. the gender neutral form "monarch" is also preferred to the male-specific form "king". The form "last Habsburg king of Spain" violates MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE. UmbrellaTheLeef (talk) 17:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Charles' role as the last Habsburg king of Spain directly ties into his reign, the events that occurred during it, and the War of the Spanish Succession that followed. It is therefore highly significant and a key aspect of his life, especially as the House of Bourbon that succeeded him still rules in Spain. If you object to its inclusion in the first sentence, I will move it down; however, for my own interest, can you explain precisely which part of MOS:BIOFIRSTSENTENCE it violates, because its unclear to me.

As the editor largely responsible for the current article, I have removed the sentence on his reign. It was inserted after a lengthy discussion with another editor but after careful consideration, it is largely subjective and as such should not be included in the Lead. The topic is however discussed in detail in the body of the article, so has not been "removed". Robinvp11 (talk) 13:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Move it down. It is highly abnormal to have it in the first sentence. UmbrellaTheLeef (talk) 13:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

What should the title be?

For the last seven years, the opening has read "Charles II of Spain" - which aligns with the article title.

It baffles me as to why this should arouse controversy. Leaving aside "what aboutery" arguments, can someone please explain why this is a problem and how it helps the general reader? I'd love to hear it.

It would be also be helpful to have the relevant Wikipedia guidelines referenced, so I can read them and avoid similar situations in the future. Robinvp11 (talk) 15:12, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

As I said in an edit summary: (1) it's an unnecessary repetition: "Charles II of Spain was the King of Spain". We don't need "of Spain" twice in the same sentence. Per MOS:BIO and MOS:REDUNDANCY, the first sentence should avoid unnecessary clutter and redundancy should be kept to a minimum. (2) It's inconsistent with the treatment of disambiguated titles on wikipedia. Parenthetical disambiguators are excluded from the first sentence of individual articles. So, we don't write "John Smith (anatomist) was a professor anatomy" or "John Smith (astronomer) as a professor of astronomy" in the first sentence even though the article titles are disambiguated that way. Natural disambiguation is generally treated the same way. Natural dsambiguators are also silently removed. Hence, the other disambiguated articles read "Charles II was a 9th-century king of West Francia", "Charles II was King of Naples", "Charles II was Count of Alençon ", etc. This article is an inconsistent outlier. DrKay (talk) 16:56, 26 December 2024 (UTC)