Jump to content

Talk:Gaston, Count of Eu

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Gaston, comte d'Eu)

Untitled

[edit]

Feel free to move this to a better title and fix the redirects. --Henrygb 3 July 2005 18:42 (UTC)

Error

[edit]

In your article Gaston, comte d'Eu, you wrote Another of his great-grandsons, Duarte Pio, Duke of Braganza is the current presumptive heir to the throne of Portugal Please note that Duarte Pio is not Gaston's grat-grandson and he is of a different branch of the House of Braganca. Moreover, the Brazilian branch of the House of Braganca has no rights to the Portuguese Throne. Please correct the error, and for genealogical refrence you can see: http://www.btinternet.com/~allan_raymond/Portuguese_Royal_Family.htm mirekmarut


Not An Error

[edit]

D. Duarte Pio, Duke of of Braganza is the son of D. Duarte Nuno , Duke of Braganza and the Brazilian Princess Francisca of Orleans-Braganza . She was the daughter of Prince D. Pedro de Alcantara, the eldest son of Gaston of Orleans, Comte d`Eu , and Princess Isabel of Orleans-Braganza. Therefore, D. Duarte is indeed a Great-grandson of Princess Isabel and Gaston de Orleans, therefore a descendant of both Brazilian and Portuguese branches of the Braganzas, and also, a claimant to the Portuguese throne. Regarding the Count of Eu,and his position in the Royal Orleans family, by the time they were back to Europe after the coulp in Brazil, there was a negotiation between he and his family, and it was established that he and his present and future line would have full rights to the French throne, by the Orleans branch.

Surname of the royalty and of the nobility

[edit]

User Fernandoe started to impose his point of view in WP:EN just like he has been doing in WP:PT: moving a mass of articles and editing their content, with no discussion and no reference, not aiming a consensus.

In special, he believes that nobles, even those who lived during the XIX century, had surnames, in a time that even commons did not have it (the current concept of a "surname" is very recent, developed with the consolidation of civic registers). Apart from that, he does not have a clear understanding of the Iberic title of "Dom", compelling many of us to revert his editions (not to say his careless English).

Articles that were edited in order to impose his point of view:

No matter if one agrees or not with that, it is not allowed to force one's point of view, ignoring the contributions of many other editors. Please, I ask the opinion of other editors, trying to avoid a mass war editing here. Thank you all very much. --Tonyjeff (talk) 16:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I concur that unilateral moves by editors to undo the works of many others without references or prior discussion should not be tolerated and need to be dealt with. I've experienced a similar problem with an editor under a different name. I would suggest that an administrator run the sock puppetry tool on Fernandoe. If this matter cannot be settled here, I would also recommend that this dilemma be brought to Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee. --Caponer (talk) 16:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Caponer. I really have some difficulties understanding all the procedures here. All the help with it would be great. --Tonyjeff (talk) 16:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as requested by another user whom I did not know before: Nobles did not have surnames in a time when even commons did not have them. The current concept of a legal surname is very recent, developed with the creation of (1) official civic registers, (2) legislation regarding them and (3) officially regulated spelling. Legitimate royals (i.e. who have not lost their legitimacy) belong to officially named dynasties, and often have epithets, but have never had surnames. These statements of fact (as argued above, though worded a bit differently) are perfectly accurate. If the edits complained about (which I am sorry I am unable to study at length at this time) contain any POV-pushing contrary to these facts, or POV-pushing of any kind that is not reliably sourced, that should be removed. If the user complained about indulges in very extensive POV-pushing of that kind, and/or in extensive editing where sufficiently incomprehensible language is used on en.WP, he/she should be warned or blocked. SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with Caponer and SergeWoodzing. I had the same issue with this same editor in article Pedro II of Brazil even though there were several different sources that told the emperor's full name. --Lecen (talk) 17:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'll echo what has been said by others: novel contentions require a source, or they should be removed. Where a sourced statement is added which stands in conflict with other sourced statements already in the article, then both statements should be included and noted as alternative views. What seems to be happening is that original research is being added without verifiability. • Astynax talk 18:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are surprised to hear about 19th-century "surnames"? Please take a look at the article about Joan the Lame - an editor claims that de France was the surname of 14th-century French princesses and that therefore referring to them as "[Name] of France" is incorrect. But I wouldn't like to discuss that when the editor is not aware of the discussion. Just don't be so surprised. Surtsicna (talk) 20:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Two distinct issues are erupting in similar articles, and it would be helpful for us to sort them out:
  1. I request that this complaint be combined with the concerns I raised a week ago at Talk:Anne Marie d'Orléans/d' or of query about the un-discussed, multiple moves to controversial article names made by LouisPhilippeCharles. These moves by Fernandoe and LouisPhilippeCharles are unfair ownership and call for admin intervention. Since the article names of nearly all Bourbon, Orleans and Braganza branches of the House of Capet can arouse discussion and dissent. It is by now clear to anyone except genuine newbies that any Capet article move should be proposed on the individual talk page first. Arbitration has been suggested to fix the recent moves. If that can't be quickly implemented, I recommend that we immediately initiate polls to move each article back to where it was (even if you want it moved back later), and then hold a second poll to give each article a name approved by consensus.
  2. Meanwhile, let's also start a discussion at NCRN of Wikipedia's "prevalent practice" on the names, titles & styles of French royalty & nobility (I include here princes etrangers). This effort has been tried before and failed, so let's learn from past mistakes: people already have fixed opinions on the Capets (and other articles, e.g. Savoy, Lorraine) based on rules and evidence they trust about English vs French (e.g. Henry, Duke of Orleans vs Henri, duc d'Orléans), surname vs title (e.g. Jean d'Orléans, Count of Dunois vs John of Orleans), main branch vs branch+suffix (e.g. Bourbon vs Bourbon-Condé). We can continue shouting at each other and waving our sources at each other, or just let everybody keep their private opinions and work out an agreement on what we should generally use in articles (for example, if you consider the Dukes of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha to be nobility because they were subordinate to an emperor, and I consider them royalty because they reigned over subjects and land, we might agree to call them "dynasts" in articles). Shall we start? FactStraight (talk) 22:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The questioned editor here is in fact aware of this discussion as per user's talk page.

Re: latest 2-part comment in very good faith: there have long been perfectly clear established facts about all this in very reliable literature that need no further discussion nor any reevaluation by Wikipedia. I go by Burke's and Debrett's in English. Respectfully suggest we all save ourselves the trouble, and miles and miles of unending discussion, by relying on such experts and their insurpassable genealogical reports, and correct everything to the contrary even to where articles may need to be mechanically protected from arbitrary POV-pushing that cannot be substantiated with sources anywhere near as reliable. Royalty with subjects are royals, nothing less - no surnames ever. Royalty without are former royals, nothing more. The latter in modern times have surnames. Before then, nobody did. SergeWoodzing (talk) 23:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to point out that user Fernandoe not just ignored this discussion, although invited him, but also kept on war edition in some of the articles cited above. I really ask the help of the community, since I know his behaviour at WP:PT. I would like to emphasize that this is just a try to avoid a war edition, my intention is not to determine which point of view is right or wrong. Thank you all. --Tonyjeff (talk) 17:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, you are being unfair on me. Dear users, I'm not a vandal that started doing vandalism in some articles of royals at wikipédia English, and I never had this tipe of behavior at Wikipédia Lusófona(WP:PT). Sorry, I was with another importants commitments, and because of they, I wasn't reading this important talk. But now, I have time to start show my arguments for my changes. My intention is help Wikipédia, and do a "good work" here, ever abideing the true history. I don't want to change more the articles that user Tonyjeff mentioned, but I'm just adding the alleged lastnames, because I saw in some history books and including in the farewall letter of Emperor Pedro I, when he abdicated to the imperial throne of Brazil, he writed: "12 de abril de 1831, D. Pedro de Alcântara de Bragança e Bourbon". Wasn't me who writed this letter, was the Brazilian Emperor, Pedro I( of Braganza and Bourbon).

About the title of Dom, we can see in the talk of Pedro II of Brazils article, when I prove why just the royals and close relatives of them are authorized to use this title. Here: Talk:Pedro II of Brazil.

  • About Pedro II of Brazil - I was wrong in this article, Lecen was right. Pedro II really don't have lastnames.
  • House of Braganza - Braganza(or in Portuguese: Bragança) is actually a noble family of Portugal, and was initially a Iberian(Portuguese) noble family, that conquer with some marriages, the royal throne of Portugal. What is the problem in this article. Tony, you don't like me, you know this. I writed right informations in a lot of Portuguese articles, with some wrong quotations, I admit, ok, but you are generalizeing, saying that I'm a vandal. I add a lot of informations, abideing the true history.

I apologize again, because I was with some commitments... but now, I'm ready to show my arguments for my changes. Thank you all. Sincerely, --Fernandoe (talk) 03:41, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody here is interested in your arguments for the changes you have done in the articles, but why you act in such a disruptive way to insert information with no reference. Your "arguments" above show just your own conclusions, and only that. You said you did not have time to read this discussion, but you did have time to keep on edit warring for some more days. Finally, you recognized that you were wrong in the article about Peter II. Why all of us had to pass through it all to you finally notice your error? And how long more will it take for you to notice your other mistakes? --Tonyjeff (talk) 04:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't believe it! He keeps reverting everything! No matter how many times will tell him that he is wrong! Ins't and administrator in this place? --Lecen (talk) 12:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tonyjeff, I think that you and Lecen are the same person. Because in instantly he began to hate me... About your argument... I saw that some users were calling me to this talk, but I wasn't having time to write here and show my arguments. Now, I show my arguments and you don't have any argument for them... Because, they(my arguments) are true, I show them abideing the history. We just have to abide the history... The wikipedia must be edit by the true. --Fernandoe (talk) 03:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS: The "alleged lastnames" that I talked, are the names of those Royal Houses or Duchy Houses, County Houses and so on. We can say that they hadn't lastnmes, but they had the names of the Royal houses of them, in those names. --Fernandoe (talk) 03:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fernandoe, it looks like you don't respond to the comments left in your talk page, User talk:Fernandoe. Please do. - Altenmann >t 05:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fernandoe, you insist that this is a discussion about the matter of fact, when it is about your attitudes. Again, you promoted edit warring instead of focus on this debate, even though you alleged lack of time. About my opposition against your arguments, I am not alone here – I guess this is your situation, since every user who manifested an opinon in this talk page agreed about your mistakes. About your suspicion of Lecen and me be the same person, feel free to ask a checkuser. --Tonyjeff (talk) 04:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Antislavery

[edit]

It's the first time I see the Count of Eu as a sort of "antislavery paladin". If this claim is not substantiated with source references, I'll remove it. dariopy (talk) 23:15, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, you won't erase anything. And if you do not know that he was an "antislavery paladin" is because you never bothered to read a single book about him. You can find in several sources: (Barman, p.171) [1], (Carneiro, p.68) [2], etc... --Lecen (talk) 00:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Improving the article

[edit]

I don't know if someone pays any attention to this article but I thought it would be at polite to leave a warning that I am improving it. Any help, suggestions, comments will be very appreciated. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 20:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Title of the Count of Eu in Brazil

[edit]

Comment. I see that the article at present mentions that the title of the Count of Eu in Brazil was "His Imperial Highness Dom Gastão, Prince Imperial consort of Brazil". There is currently no reference or source to back that information up. I don't know if this part of the article was included by you, Lecen, or if it was already there when you started your improvements (there appears to be still a work in progress). Anyway, years ago I read in monarchist websites linked to the Imperial Family what a mistake it was that D. Pedro II never approved Brazilian titles for Gaston, and that he, as a male, kept using his French titles even when married to the Brazilian Princess Imperial. That kind of anectotal information is backed up by official State documents, such as the Atas do Conselho de Estado (Acts of the Council of State), that always make reference to Gaston as "His Royal Highness the Count of Eu". That is, even after being raised to the Brazilian Council of State as husband of the heiress to the Throne, Gaston was still styled with his French titles. See the following examplei n the documents of the Council of Sate: "Aos cinco dias do mês de dezembro do ano de Nosso Senhor Jesus Cristo de mil oitocentos e oitenta e cinco às onze horas do dia na Imperial Quinta da Boa Vista, bairro de São Cristovão desta cidade de São Sebastião do Rio de Janeiro, reuniu-se o Conselho de Estado Pleno sob a Presidência do Muito Alto e Muito Poderoso Senhor Dom Pedro II, Imperador Constitucional e Defensor Perpétuo do Brasil, estando presentes os Conselheiros de Estado Sua Alteza Real o Senhor Conde d’Eu, Visconde de Muritiba, Paulino José Soares de Sousa, Joaquim Raimundo de Lamare (...)["http://www.senado.gov.br/publicacoes/anais/pdf/ACE/ATAS12-Terceiro_Conselho_de_Estado_1884-1889.pdf] (I highlighted the relevant passage). The acts of the Council of State can be found in the link provided (pdf files in the website of the Brazilian Senate, there are several acts in one single file, in cronological order). So, as you can see from the raw official documents provided in the link above, Gastão was titled "His Royal Highness" and not "Imperial Highness", and he used the title of "The Lord Count of Eu" (o Senhor Conde d'Eu) and not the title of "Prince Imperial Consort". Under the Constitution, he would become Emperor Consort if his wife came to the Throne (because they had children), but, while she was only the heiress presumptive, there was no title of "Prince Imperial Consort" for him. The official documents appear to back that up. As a male, the general rule that he did not take titles from his wife was adhered to. Unless you have other sources that show that the situation regarding titles was in fact more complex... Accordingly, I made an alteration to the article, reflecting the title of the Count of Eu as it was actually used in Brazil. --Antonio Basto (talk) 19:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I never take in account monarchist sources. Never. They are almost always wrong. In fact, the present-day Brazilian "Imperial" Family has the audacity of claiming a position in the French line of succession, which they do not have. I was trying to work on this issue when I began writing the article on Teresa Cristina, which I haven't finished yet. But getting back to your concern: the title of "Count of Eu" was not hereditary, which is why he did not lose as he did as French Prince in 1864. Pedro II never gave him a Brazilian title simply because Gaston did not want to and because he already had one, that is, of Prince Imperial. It is also true that he was often simply called "Count of Eu", but as you know as I do, it was not a Brazilian title. In other words, as it is mentioned in the article, he was Count of Eu until his death, but he was Royal Highness only until 1864. From that point he became "Dom Gastão de Orléans, Príncipe Imperial consorte do Brasil". --Lecen (talk) 20:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I agree with you in not trusting monarchist sites. But please take a look at the documents from the Council of State I posted above (the acts cover the period between 1884-1889 and Gaston was still reffered to as "Royal Highness" and "Count of Eu").Are you sure that he ever acquired the title of Imperial Highness?--Antonio Basto (talk) 20:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if he was called "Alteza Real" that means little. Pedro I gave his illegitimate daughter the right to bear "Sua Alteza" although the Constitution did not allow that. Gaston of Orleans renounced his position as French Prince in 1864. Once he did that, he lost all hereditary titles he had until then. --Lecen (talk) 20:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Updated Content

[edit]

I updated the Exile and Return to Brazil and death sections by translating the copy from the official French Wikipedia page Gaston_d'Orléans_(1842-1922) I think this was due for a while ;) Jccoelho99 (talk) 03:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems nobody added the historical fact that it was Princess Isabel that signed the document that ended slavery in Brazil (Lei Aurea) Jccoelho99 (talk) 04:09, 20 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gaston,_Count_of_Eu&oldid=1207231644"