Jump to content

Talk:John, Constable of Portugal

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

Untitled

[edit]

Several points:

This page repeats myths since debunked in Peter Russell's recent biography of Henry the Navigator. Russell cites specific letters from Fernando making quite clear that he wanted very much to come home to Portugal. Fernando essentially made himself a hostage to guarantee the Portuguese surrender of Ceuta, which Henry agreed to and then refused to do. I suggest an edit.

Rename

[edit]

Do yout think this article should be renamed Infante João, Lord of Reguengos, since it is his title and since every other article on a Portuguese royal has their correspondent title following his name? Joaopais 19:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since nobody said a thing, I'm changing the name. Joaopais 04:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]
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) 14:02, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Duke of Beja

[edit]

Is it a widely attested fact with sources from multiple periods of history and across both Portuguese and English sources that he was duke of Beja? Or is it a mistake of a few sources? --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 22:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joao was not the Duke of Beja, whatever sources Mr.Kiernan has they are isolated mistakes. Find one Portuguese source that gives him the title. Hell, I even went to Batalha monastery today and his tomb's plaque is inscribed as: Infante Joao, Lord of Reguengos de Monsaraz. Thanks, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 23:11, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also it is questionable why the title passed to Infante Ferdinand, Duke of Viseu instead of to John's surviving son Diogo, Constable of Portugal. BTW either way I prefer John, Constable of Portugal to John, Lord of Reguengos de Monsaraz since he was called O Infante Condestável ("the Constable Prince").--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 22:23, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To repeat my comment: the title of "Duke of Beja" was created for the first time in February 1453 by Afonso V for his brother Ferdinand. That is over ten years after the death of John. That is definite. There is no Portuguese source or history book (and I have several dozen) that refers to him as "Duke of Beja" (almost all refer to his brothers Peter as Duke of Coimbra and Henry as Duke of Viseu, but he isn't). On the contrary, there are long passages explaining the difficulties of cobbling together the duchies for Peter and Henry, and how John got left out of a territorial donation and was given the Order of Santiago as compensation. This "Duke of Beja" is a plain error. No doubt about it.
(That said, I am also having difficulties confirming explicitly that John received the Lordship of Reguengos de Monsaraz. There are documents from 1424 granting John the royal property of Colares and Belas (in the Sintra region) via dowry from his marriage to Isabel of Barcelos, with commentary noting that Colares and Belas were originally the dominions of the constable Nuno Alvares Pereira; Isabel was the constable's granddaughter, and the marriage was arranged precisely because it was the only way the king could find some territory to give prince John. But I am a little concerned that I'm not finding independent confirmation of Reguengos de Monsaraz. Now the word "reguengo" just means "royal property", and wonder if some Wiki editor just read "regengos de Colares e de Belas", and thought "reguengos" meant a third dominion, the town of "Reguengos de Monsaraz", rather than the generic term for the royal property of Colares and Belas (e.g. [1]). Can anyone confirm he held the Lordship of Reguengos de Monsaraz? Monsaraz was apparently also a property of Nuno Alvares Pereira, but I can't find confirmation that it was transferred in 1424.) Walrasiad (talk) 23:47, 11 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I will definitely look for a citation for the lordship of Reguengos de Monsaraz, so that we can look into that, but it is agreed that this Infante Joao was never Duke of Beja, correct? Thanks, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 02:13, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infante

[edit]

I strongly disapprove of this latest move. Maybe this should be open for general discussion, as the plethora of Infantes in article titles are inexplicable and marring the English Wikipedia (they don't exist in Portuguese or Spanish Wikipedia article titles). "Infante" should never be in the article title prefacing a name.

  • First off, "Infante John" is likely to be confused with a proper name. It is not a commonly recognizable title.
  • Secondly, Infante isn't even a proper title. It is an honorific. It merely denotes somebody (anybody) who is a legitimate child of a king.
  • Thirdly, the phrasing is awkward and wrong. "Infante John" is not a phrase you'll find in any source. The phrasing of the Portuguese honorific requires the use of "Dom", i.e. it is "Infante Dom Joao" (never "Infante Joao"), and it translates in English to "Prince John" (like "Prince Henry the Navigator", not "Infante Henry").
  • Fourthly, Wikipedia article titles don't list people with titles or honorifics in their prefixes - it is "John, King of England" not "King John of England", "Edward the Black Prince", not "Prince Edward the Black".

I wouldn't object to the "John, the Constable-Prince of Portugal" or even "John, the Constable-Infante", but it definitely shouldn't be prefacing the name. Walrasiad (talk) 17:56, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would! It is either John, Constable of Portugal or nothing else for me. His son is just Diogo, Constable of Portugal. I reverting it back solely because Cristiano Tomás didn't request it.
As for the whole Infante thing, I feel like we should start an rule that all pre-Braganza (on second thought pre-Manuel I since it is quite tricky with his daughter and the two Edward, Duke of Guimarães) infantes should not have the prefixes in the title like the Medieval English royals but still have it mentioned in the article content. While later Braganza infantes living in an era, where royal titles and styles have been really more defined, should fit more with the British model having Infante name, Title of place or Infante name of Portugal... User:Walrasiad, I remember I had a conversation with you on Talk:Infante Ferdinand, Duke of Viseu about the same thing and you pointed out grandchildren of Portuguese monarchs were rarely referred to as infante in medieval times, am I correct. And looking back on it I am surprise it was closed without a consensus considering the fact I took back my initial oppose and support a simpler move without the numbers or the prefix of infante.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 04:04, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, "the Constable-Prince" was and is his commonly-used nickname. Like Henry the Navigator, Ferdinand the Holy Prince, Edward the Black Prince, it is frequent to find John the Constable Prince (he's the only constable who was an infante).
Yes, nobody but the legitimate sons and daughters of a king (and only a king) was referred to as "Infante". The appellation does not transmit further - the son of an Infante is not an Infante. Walrasiad (talk) 13:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Infante/Infanta removal (pre 1495)

[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. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved. The arguments at Talk:Infante Ferdinand, Duke of Viseu#Requested move (from February 2012) address some of the same questions. 'Infante' seems to be an honorific rather than a substantive title. The Portuguese Wikipedia doesn't use these Infante titles, and our article on the best-known infante is called Henry the Navigator, with no 'infante' prefix. EdJohnston (talk) 16:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{{movereq}}

Per above and Talk:Infante Ferdinand, Duke of Viseu#Requested move. A list I compile. Note that the list for those without the Infante/Infanta prefix is even bigger. --The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 04:42, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I support the changes.
A great number of them - John of Viseu, Ferdinand of Viseu, Beatrice of Viseu, Beatrice of Coimbra and Philippa of Coimbra are, of coure, - not infantes/infantas at all! That needs to be corrected without question.
I wouldn't mind "Beatrice, Duchess of Viseu" to be changed to "Beatrice of Portugal, Duchess of Viseu", simply to highlight her descendence (as she did not hold Duchess title by her own right, which might be implied without it). Perhaps the same could be done for the Brancas/Blanches "of Portugal".
I also don't really like the date disambiguation of Sancha (I hate dates in article titles - they are ugly, unreliable and subject to change). For that one, I wouldn't object to "Sancha, Infanta of Portugal", or something along those lines. Maybe the same for Catherine.Walrasiad (talk) 14:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would object to "Name, Infanta of Portugal" because a title after a comma usually denote a substantive title like Duchess of Viseu rather than a courtesy title like Infanta of Portugal. We have precedence for dates Mafalda of Portugal (1149–1160) and nun Maria of Portugal (nun). Also Sancha's article might just be better off redirected to her father's article like Constance of Portugal (born 1182) was since absolutely nothing is known of her, while Catherine's article still has some potentials.
I don't think the Blanches need an addition of Portugal since they held their titles in their own right and we got Sancha, Lady of Alenquer as a precedent. As for Beatrice, Duchess of Viseu, we have Catherine, Duchess of Braganza where the title by marriage is more important. Also Braganza and Viseu were both Portuguese titles, for foreign titles we do have "of Portugal" to show descendance like Beatrice of Portugal, Duchess of Savoy and Isabella of Portugal, Duchess of Burgundy.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 16:18, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Against Just like in British articles, the prince prefix is used, the infante prefix should be used, as it denotes a princely courtesy title and membership of the royal family. John, constable of Portugal, could literally be any John to hold the title, but the infante denotes that he was a prince and thus no surname is required. The infante prefix is just like the prince prefix, they should be included. thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 21:19, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what English case you're referring to. Using the contemporary examples of, say, the sons of Edward III, we have:
* Edward, the Black Prince
* Lionel of Antwerp, 1st Duke of Clarence
* John of Gaunt, 1st Duke of Lancaster
* Edmund of Langley, 1st Duke of York
* Thomas of Woodstock, 1st Duke of Gloucester
Not a single one with princely prefix among the bunch.
Or if you prefer to take the sons of Henry IV:
* Thomas of Lancaster, 1st Duke of Clarence
* John of Lancaster, 1st Duke of Bedford
* Humphrey of Lancaster, 1st Duke of Gloucester
Again not a single prefixed prince among the bunch. So I'm not sure what you're talking about. Could you explain?
Secondly, you don't address the fact that several of these figures are not Infantes (e.g. John of Viseu, Diogo of Viseu, etc.). If you find any Portuguese history books who refer to them as such, I'll eat my hat. Walrasiad (talk) 21:28, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
He is trying compare examples like the 19th century Prince George, Duke of Cambridge to the 15th century Infante Peter, Duke of Coimbra.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 22:24, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
John, Constable of Portugal like Isabella of Portugal is the primary topic for that name regardless how many other Isabella's or Constable John's there were (all other are known by other names).--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 22:37, 13 August 2013 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John,_Constable_of_Portugal&oldid=1207838027"