Jump to content

Talk:House of Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tasso of Saxe-Coburg and Braganza

[edit]

Princess Theresa Christine of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha and her descendants, the Tasso of Saxe-Coburg and Braganza family, are not from this same house. They were descended from the marriage of Prince Ludwig August of Saxe-Coburg-Kohary, the nephew of Ferdinand II of Portugal, and Princess Leopoldina of Brazil. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 14:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested Move

[edit]
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: not moved. Favonian (talk) 20:32, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

House of Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha → Branch of Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha – While Portuguese sources most certainly do not consider Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha a royal house of Portugal, it is considered a branch of the House of Braganza. I think that the article would be more accurate should it be titled as branch and not house. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 20:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, but would support House of Braganza-Coburg, which is actually (and fairly commonly attested in English, unlike the other two. I see a source for the present title; is there one for the nominator's form? (In English, please; if the Portuguese heralds make a nice play on words by calling this House a "branch", that belongs in the article - not at its head. That's one of the things we have interwiki links for.) JCScaliger (talk) 01:21, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Elsewhere royal houses are those descended from a male progenitor. When the crown passes through a woman, the next heir (usually her son) will from his fatgher's ancestry create a new house. I am not familiar with the usage of English-language historians, but if a form that is less of a mouthful can be found, I would not oppose a change to that. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:06, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- The traditional manner of viewing the situation is that the House of Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha is a branch of the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha or Wettin family not a branch of the Braganza family to which it was the successor family. Closely related but not a subset.--CSvBibra (talk) 00:24, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Maria Pia of Braganza

[edit]

Since 1932, also Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha Braganza claimed the right to use the royal title Duchess of Braganza and made an active claim to be the rightful Queen of Portugal throught the House of Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha family dinastic line. See it in:

  • "Princess Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg, duchess of Braganza" in CHILCOTE, Ronald H.; The Portuguese Revolution: State and Class in the Transition to Democracy, page 37. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers; Reprint edition (August 31, 2012);
  • Jean Pailler; Maria Pia of Braganza: The Pretender. New York: ProjectedLetters, 2006.

It should be mentioned in the article; not only the Miguelist claimants/pretenders. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 14:53, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The edits are without any context and furthermore Maria Pia was not a member of the House the article is about. Furthermore POV edits are attached. Also the first Braganza Saxe Coburg to reign was Pedro V. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:13, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So you must delete Duarte Nuno of Braganza information because the information about him and his Miguelist family related to this article is false. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 16:29, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You still promoting false information, Hebel (talk · contribs). Anjo-sozinho (talk) 18:57, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How does that work as I'm only removing yours? And how are the claims of an illegitimate child of a king, who as far as we know is not even that, relevant for the purposes of these articles? Anybody can claim to be a pretender, and some get more publicity than others, but we need to stay at least a little serious. As you very well know because we have been through all of this before. I sometimes seriously wonder if you know what you're talking about. The right of succession of Miguel's descendants was restored in principle long before the abolition of the monarchy, and the talks between the two branches after the abolition were not about that! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:07, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That restoration is false and is just one of their new claims (based on his supporters opinion). Nothing more. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 19:34, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who are you, Gerard von Hebel, to affirm that Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha Braganza is not a bastard daughter of King Carlos I of Portugal? She is also cited as "Princess Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg, duchess of Braganza" in CHILCOTE, Ronald H.; The Portuguese Revolution: State and Class in the Transition to Democracy, page 37. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers; Reprint edition (August 31, 2012). And she is cited by several historicians and authors as the real legitimated daughter of King Carlos I of Portugal. Please read:

  • Humberto Delgado; Memórias (Colecção "Compasso do tempo"). Lisboa, 1974, pp. 233–234.
  • Manuel de Bettencourt e Galvão; Ao Serviço d'El-Rei (Cadernos Políticos), Lisboa: Gama, 1949, pp. 123–129.
  • A.H. de Oliveira Marques; História de Portugal - Vol. III'. Lisboa, 1982.
  • Jean Pailler; D. Carlos I Rei de Portugal. Lisboa: Bertrand Editora, 2000, pp. 158.
  • Jean Pailler; Maria Pia: A Mulher que Queria Ser Rainha de Portugal. Lisboa: Bertrand, 2006.
  • Jean Pailler; A tragédia da Rua do Arsenal. Lisboa: Editorial Planeta, 2009.
  • Mariano Robles Romero Robledo & José António Novais; Humberto Delgado : assassinato de um herói. Lisboa, 197-.
  • Fernando Luso Soares; Maria Pia, Duquesa de Bragança contra D. Duarte Pio, o senhor de Santar. Lisboa: Minerva, 1983.
  • Mário Soares; Portugal amordaçado: depoimento sobre os anos do fascismo. Lisboa: Arcádia, 1974, pp. 274–278.
  • Francisco de Sousa Tavares; O caso de Maria Pia de Bragança (13 de maio de 1983), in Escritos Políticos I, Porto, Mário Figuerinhas, 1996, pp. 246–251.
  • José María Zavala; La Infanta Republicana: Eulalia de Borbón, la oveja negra de la Dinastía. Madrid: Plaza & Janes, 2008.
  • José María Zavala; Bastardos y Borbones. Los hijos desconocidos de la dinastía. Madrid: Plaza & Janes, 2011.
  • Ronald H. Chilcote; The Portuguese Revolution: State and Class in the Transition to Democracy. Lanham, Maryland, USA: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2012, pp. 37.
  • Isabel Lencastre; Bastardos Reais - Os Filhos Ilegítimos Dos Reis De Portugal. Lisboa: Oficina do Livro, 2012.
  • Fernando Dacosta; O Botequim da Liberdade. Lisboa: Casa das Letras, 2013, pp. 176–177.

These sources are sufficiently varied to attest that this is not a simple assumption on the lady of parenthood. The article of Maria Pia of Braganza are quite vandalized and neutralized, so not even understand why they do not allow more issues to rectify what is missing. But what is not admitted is the amount of false titles attributed to Miguelist pretenders. They may be descendants of ancient kings (but it is also controversial), but what is factual is that those titles are not officially recognized in Portugal and they are still used and challenged by other famous throne pretenders. Your activity here in Wikipedia only promotes the absence of neutrality and the publication of false titles in favor of these people.

Etc... Anjo-sozinho (talk) 22:38, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at the evidence the lady presented for her case. And find an actual academic historian who says she is an illegitimate daughter of Carlos. And then find an actual academic scholar who, in a reliable source, magically makes it so that she was entitled to the succession to the Portuguese throne. It simply can't be done. The claims by Maria Pia are too outlandish. a) She claims to be the illegitimate daughter of Carlos I which she has no proof of whatsoever b) She claims her "father" put her in line to the throne which she has no proof of whatsoever, and even if he did, the king had no right to do. PERIOD! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to note for the record that I fully agree with the most recent addition made to the article by Cristiano Tomás that gives a fair account of the matter surrounding the claims made by Maria Pia. As far as I'm concerned the matter has been solved by consensus. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:36, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Revertions

[edit]

Who promoted the revertions in this article was not me, but the other user (Gerard von Hebel). He intends to win the community by "fatigue" through its constant revertions on a matter which he is not understood. Please verify that he also has eliminated information that remains verifiable literature sources. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 20:50, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The user Gerard von Hebel replaced again the false information with a fantasy title and invented "Pact" atributed to Duarte Nuno "Duke of Braganza". Please... there's any neutrality here! Anjo-sozinho (talk) 22:34, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your edits, rather than those of Gerard von Hebel, are those which attempt to insert allegations and interpretations about members of this dynasty and Portuguese claimants that are against consensus, as I also dissent from them. Please obtain consensus for these types of assertions here prior to insertion. FactStraight (talk) 01:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to note for the record that I fully agree with the most recent addition made to the article by Cristiano Tomás that gives a fair account of the matter surrounding the claims made by Maria Pia. As far as I'm concerned the matter has been solved by consensus. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 01:30, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus? False information don't have consensus. Miguel Januário de Bragança (his real name) was just a pretender (King Manuel II of Portugal is alive at the time of his opportunistic claims!). He's not Duke of Braganza, but a pretender. And Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha Braganza is not a name "called herself", but her real name and sustained in all the official religious and civil documents. I don't agree totally with the editing of Cristiano Tomás, but I will edit a new neutral version based on Cristiano's version. I'm also convinced that this matter can be resolved by consensus in you don't revert without read and being neutral. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 15:41, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus

[edit]

Trying a consensus: Hello Gerard von Hebel, I made a new neutral proposal, based on Cristiano Tomás version, to the article House of Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. I hope now (both of you) accept that: it's neutral, based on the references and sustained in what Cristiano previously wrote. See here. I hope to hear from you soon. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 16:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cristiano made some alterations and so have I, leaving out words like "alledgedly", actually leaving out the entire Dover and Paris pacts, and words like "apparently" and "undisputed" as far as Carlos I rights and the proof provided by Maria Pia was concerned. I also changed her name back to Portuguese and reincluded "calling herself", as we don't know what she was named at birth and as we do know she adopted the name as a young woman. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is POV and not consensual information. The consensual information was published by me under the information avaliable on the references. Please, stop POV and stop replacing titles of fantasy. If you want to call "Duke" to Miguelist claimants, you must call "Duchess" also to Maria Pia. I cannot accept your changes, they are not based on a neutral pont of view or factual accuracy. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 21:22, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This article still with false and not consensual information. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 15:18, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On-going dispute

[edit]

To participate and view an ongoing dispute concerning various aspects of articles pertaining to the Miguelist dukes, Maria Pia of Braganza, and the Braganza-Coburg articles, and an ongoing dispute between editors User:Anjo-Sozinho, User:Hebel, and myself, see here. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 23:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:House_of_Braganza-Saxe-Coburg_and_Gotha&oldid=1200320052"