Talk:Portuguese succession crisis of 1580

Portugal Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Portugal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Portugal on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PortugalWikipedia:WikiProject PortugalTemplate:WikiProject PortugalPortugal articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Portugal To-do:

Find correct name The airport is not listed as João Paulo II anywhere. The airport's own website calls itself simply Ponta Delgada, and has no mention of João Paulo.

Improve key articles to Good article

Improve

Review

Category:History of Portugal: lots to remove there
Template:Regions of Portugal: statistical (NUTS3) subregions and intercommunal entities are confused; they are not the same in all regions, and should be sublisted separately in each region: intermunicipal entities are sometimes larger and split by subregions (e.g. the Metropolitan Area of Lisbon has two subregions), some intercommunal entities are containing only parts of subregions. All subregions should be listed explicitly and not assume they are only intermunicipal entities (which accessorily are not statistic subdivisions but real administrative entities, so they should be listed below, probably using a smaller font: we can safely eliminate the subgrouping by type of intermunicipal entity from this box).

Requests

See Requested articles

Assess

Help assessing articles.

Need images

Translate from Portuguese Wikipedia

Wikify

Vote:

Watch this list — Edit this list

It nonsense to claim that "Spain invaded Portugal". This is not true. Philip II was the strongest of other candidates, and his force serve as a good persuasion. He was truly a Portuguese King, not a foreign dominator. maybe the same cannot b said about his son and grandson. --BBird 21:25, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've tidied this page up and included the point about Invasion or No invasion.--shtove 13:09, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Saying that Spain did not invade Portugal and that Philip II truly deserved to be the king of Portugal means taking a Spanish POV. Even Prof. H.V. Livermore, A History of Portugal (1947), on page 267, writes that the “Spanish army began its invasion on June 27, entering Évora, Arraiolos and Montemór.” The Spanish may have thought the Philip II was the strongest candidate, but the Portuguese mostly did not. Only when they came to realize that Spain was too powerful to resist and they had much to lose if they did not support the Spanish claim did many come around to the Spanish point of view. In fact, probably every claimant, as a descendant of King Manuel, had an envoy at the Portuguese court pressing his or her claim. Even Catherine, the Queen Mother of France, who was descended from an earlier Portuguese king, sent someone to make her claim. The Pope did also, citing the fact that the Cardinal King Henry was a member of the Catholic Church. User:Bartam (talk) 02:52, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The usual spelling for the pretender who was of an illegitimate birth would be António, not Anthony. I have never seen the name spelled as Anthony in any Portuguese history written in English. In French, however, it is sometimes spelled as Antoine. Also, in the list of claimants to the Portuguese throne, António should be added, and John I of Braganza deleted as he wasn't descended from King Manuel. Bartam (talk) 03:06, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move request

This page should be moved to 1578-1580 Portuguese succession crisis or something like it. Struggle for the throne of Portugal is too poetical and no one knows it with this name. Joao pais 18:53, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surely it would be more enclopaedic to call this article "Portuguese Succession Crisis", it sounds more historical than the current "Struggle for the throne of Portugal". In any instance, I agree that it should be moved to a more appropriate title. --Matthewcollins1989 19:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"old feudal custom"

What exactly is the precedent for the "old feudal custom" that Rainuccio was the heir? It seems to me that he was certainly the heir by male-preference cognatic primogeniture, but there is no particular reason to think that this particular form of inheritance was preferred in Portugal. The only time there was a chance to try it out, in 1383, it resulted in a bastard line, the Aviz, taking the throne, to the detriment of the proper heiress. Also, why so much attention to the Parmesan and Braganza claims, when the real struggle was between the Prior of Crato and Philip of Spain? john k 15:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Philip II was not King of Spain before 1580, because Spain, then, was the Iberian Peninsula. Portuguese claimed to be Spaniards until 1712, with the Treaty of Utrecht (see S. G. Payne, A History of Spain and Portugal, Madison & London, University of Wisconsin Press, 1973 (II, 18, 368) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.30.111.89 (talk) 12:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Portuguese have never claimed to be Spaniards. Iberians, yes; Spaniards, no. Bartam (talk) 05:16, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced the name Anthony with that of Antonio. Bartam (talk) 05:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that D. Antonio should be recognized as the proper heir to the Portuguese throne after D. Sebastião died in 1578, when following the principle of primogeniture. I don't have a source for this except by looking at how the oldest son of King Manuel was made king after the latter's death. The 1578 death of Sebastião, who had no heirs, meant that the line then passed to D. Luis, Manuel's second oldest son. Since he was deceased, the throne should have passed to his son, D. Antonio, if the law of primogeniture was to be followed. I will make the necessary changes if no one disagrees. Bartam (talk) 04:01, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Changes of this nature go against Wikipedia convention on "original research". You can not make those claims without supporting research to support them. Further, the only people who can validate these claims are politicians, geneologists and like-minded peoples and not editors on Wikipedia. Please read the guidelines on content. Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 11:46, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is the "old feudal custom." No one has satisfactorily answered what that was, nor have any sources been listed to support that it was used in Portugal, yet a list of qualified successors has been made. I suggest that the custom was the law of primogeniture, whereby the oldest living son inherited the throne, the family estate, etc. I suggest removing that list. Bartam (talk) 04:13, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

I added a couple of sources. Bartam (talk) 06:22, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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: moved to Portuguese succession crisis of 1580. Favonian (talk) 09:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1580 Portuguese succession crisis → Portuguese succession crisis of 1580 – (proposed originally by User: Bartam): I believe the title should be changed. According to the Chicago Manual of Style [see, for example, the 13th ed., sects. 7.125 and 8.9], dates and numbers coming at the beginning of titles and sentences should be spelled out, and not left in the numeric form. I would suggest changing the title to: Portuguese succession crisis of 1580. Walrasiad (talk) 06:40, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the title should be changed. According to the Chicago Manual of Style [see, for example, the 13th ed., sects. 7.125 and 8.9], dates and numbers coming at the beginning of titles and sentences should be spelled out, and not left in the numeric form. I would suggest changing the title to: The Portuguese Succession Crisis of 1580. Bartam (talk) 04:17, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, I believe the title right now gets to the point, no need add the "of". Cristiano Tomás (talk) 04:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

According to Wikipedia: Manual of Style/Dates and Numbers, item 3.1, bullet #4, is the following, which I have quoted here: "Numbers that begin a sentence are spelled out, since using figures risks the period being read as a decimal point or abbreviation mark; it is often better to recast the sentence than to simply change format, which may produce other problems; e.g. do not use Nineteen forty five and 1950 were important elections for the Labour Party, but rather The elections of 1945 and 1950 were important for the Labour Party." Granted that the item refers to a sentence and not a title, the same confusion would ensue if the title was ever to be referenced in a sentence. Bartam (talk) 04:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'm actually inclined to agree. "Portuguese succession crisis of 1580" (lower case by MOS:CAPS) just looks and sounds a lot better and proper. As it is written now, it is almost suggesting that there were one thousand, five hundred and eighty Portuguese succession crises. I've linked a lot to this page, and I've always found the title wording a bit awkward and unnatural. EDIT: turned this into an RM on behalf of Bartam. Walrasiad (talk) 06:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per User:Walrasiad's points. Although, it does bring up the issue of 5 October 1910 revolution, and whether its shouldn't be changed as well. Regardless, true, the title did seem awkward to begin with, although I question if an alternative could not be "Succession crisis of 1580 (Portugal)". Or would that be just as awkward. Regardless. Support Walrasaid's and User:Bartam's points based on Wikipedia MOS. Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 08:48, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. A natural title that seems to accord with all policies and guidelines. I like to see "Portuguese" coming first, so that more naturally related prompts appear when the reader using the WP search facility types words in. (I do not accept that CMOS line on numbers at the start of a sentence; it is obtuse and unnecessary as a hard rule. But it is not relevant here anyway.) Noetica^Tea? 23:59, 13 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.