Talk:Edward, King of Portugal

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 January 2022 and 13 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Joel Garvey (article contribs).

Edward or Duarte?

Does anyone else share my disquiet at referring to this Portuguese King, who was referred to in his realm and lifetime and in all Portuguese literature by his Portuguese name, "Duarte", by the English equivalent, "Edward"? This looks like an anglophone/anglocentric attempt to draw attention to the fact that he was half-Plantagenet and descended from Edward III of England. in fact both "Edward" and "Duarte" occur in different parts of the article. I suggest this article should be "Duarte of Portugal", and "Edward of Portugal" should redirect to it.Cenedi (talk) 11:41, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Duarte is the modern Portuguese version of his name; it is entirely possible that the name was spelled differently during his lifetime and more than likely that he officially used its Latin version (Eduardus). His nationality and ethnicity are completely irrelevant. The fact that his mother was an English princess has nothing to do with the anglicisation of his name. The names of kings and emperors have been anglicised through history, which is why we have Henry IV of France, John II of Castile, Elizabeth of Russia, Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor and Edward of Portugal. Protesting against the title by saying that he was Portuguese is like protesting against the title of the article about Lisbon by saying that it's a Portuguese city. If Lisbon is called Lisbon in English, then that's what English language Wikipedia should call it; same for King Edward. Surtsicna (talk) 12:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, for the record, he was named Duarte by his parents precisely to draw attention to his Plantagenet roots. It is not a name that existed in Portugal before that. That said, no it doesn't trouble me at all. He is commonly referred to as 'Edward' in English language sources. And his father was John (not Joao) and his brother was Henry (not Henrique). Just as, conversely, in Portuguese language sources, the English queen Elizabeth is "Isabel" and not "Elizabeth". Walrasiad (talk) 15:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

So we should be calling the first king of Portugal Alphonse Henry?Cenedi (talk) 18:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

If that were how English language sources call him - yes. But English language sources tend to use A(l)fonso instead of Alphonse. That's what "English" means - the name used by English language sources. Surtsicna (talk) 19:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

File:Coat of Arms of the House of Aviz.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Coat of Arms of the House of Aviz.png, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 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:Coat of Arms of the House of Aviz.png) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:03, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved, per WP:NCROY -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:27, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

---

Edward of Portugal → Edward, King of Portugal – I suggest that we move this article to Edward, King of Portugal because, as he had no regnal number, he is easily confused with other Portuguese royalty, such as Joan of Portugal or Isabella of Portugal (their article names do not contain their honorific title of Infante or Infanta). Also, per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility), this name is recommended. Alexcoldcasefan (talk) 08:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

• Against, other articles like Sebastian of Portugal and Denis of Portugal are perfectly known as monarchs. I would, however, support a change to Duarte of Portugal, as Edward translates to Eduardo, a name existing already in Portuguese. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 08:54, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
• Question. How would Edward be confused with Joan or Isabella? Jenks24 (talk) 12:27, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
  • I didn't say Edward is confused with Joan and Isabella per say, just that he can get confused with other Portuguese royalty, that is, not because their name would be Edward, but his article name does not suggest that he was a King of Portugal. Alexcoldcasefan (talk) 13:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. Such a proposal was recently made and debated in Talk:Denis of Portugal#Requested move. I don't think the arguments are different here. Walrasiad (talk) 20:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support. "When there is no ordinal, the format John, King of England and Anne, Queen of Great Britain is recommended". (WP:NCROY). Kauffner (talk) 02:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
• Support -- WP has had a lot of heart searchings over the correct naming of British monarchs with no ordinal. We have (fairly recently) settled on the form Anne, Queen of Great Britain. This should apply here. He reigned 1433-38. After the arguments over John/Joa, I hesitate to enter the arena as to whether it should be Edward or Duarte. I presume that was the contemporary form of his name, even if Edward is now tranlated as Eduardo. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The decison at Talk:Denis of Portugal#Requested move (who was a king) was closed at "no consensus", not as "keep": this accordinly provides little precedent. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

The practical effect of "no consensus" was to keep. If this is changed, then it is going to disrupt the prior one. As it stands, Portuguese kings in Wiki don't have the "X, King of Portugal" format (neither do most monarchs outside of the British ones, it only a recommendation, not a norm). I see little reason for forcing it by the backdoor. Walrasiad (talk) 05:05, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

• Support, per NCROY (a Wikipedia guideline), as opposed to a previous decision based on "no consensus". Reigen (talk) 13:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Portrait of Edward

I restored the confirmed portrait of Edward in the lede, and moved the possible, but dubious, image from the Saint Vincent Panels further down, with an explanatory note. The latter is not a confirmed portrait of Edward - it is speculatively proposed by some art historians, but vigorously disputed by others. Indeed, it is quite frequently identified as a portrait of Afonso V of Portugal, not Edward. As the identification of the person represented in the Saint Vicent panels is uncertain and very contested, I don't think it ought to be placed in the lede spot, but relegated further down as a mere possibility. Walrasiad (talk) 19:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't notice this. As I explained in the edit summary: The National Museum of Ancient Art's official guide, and display at the museum, state that that image is of King Duarte I. The Museum is one of the most important in the country, the leading expert institution in Portuguese ancient art, and an incredibly credible source. As you'll notice, I put a footnote that tells of how some others claim it not to be Duarte. This being said, the fact that the painting is unique and a better image is good enought to be the lead. It has a museum backing it up and the footnote will tell of any confusion. The other painting is of a series of paintings, all incredibly posthumous, that are all monotonous in there style, lacking and real uniquity to the portrait, which the st. vincent panel image has. Thank you very much, cheers, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 03:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I am not disputing the credentials of the Museum's experts. They are certainly competent. But they are not the only experts. This is a speculative - and very recent - theory, that is still under dispute, not a definitive identification. There is simply no consensus on identification of any figures in the polyptych and it has been subject to much speculation. The theory forwarded by the Museum's experts is just one of the various competing theories forwarded by art historians over a very contentious painting. If we had no other pictures of Edward I would let it slide for lack of other options. But we do have other options - we do have other portraits which definitively identify themselves as being of Edward. And good enough portraits. Foisting a contested picture in the intro is unnecessarily imposing a non-neutral POV on art history at the top. This image can be better dealt with later down the page. An uncontested portrait should be at the top. Walrasiad (talk) 03:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I will make my arguement again tomorrow, as I am going to retire right now. I say this just so you know that I'm not leaving the discussion. Thank you very much, cheers, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 03:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Look forward to hearing from you. Just don't go disappearing. I worry. (Remember: controversy over the St. Vincent panels can be quite passionate - it even led to the suicide of the famous researcher Henrique Loureiro.) Walrasiad (talk) 06:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

marriage date

his marriage year listed with reference 3 just above his list of children is after his and his wife's deaths and so impossible. 173.22.17.198 (talk) 05:03, 31 December 2021 (UTC)