Talk:Miguel I of Portugal

message: Miguel is known in english as Miguel not Michael. Wiki's policy is not to translate everything into english but use the form used in english, which in this case is Miguel. FearÉIREANN 04:25, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: History of Portugal (1777-1834) is now being peer reviewed. Please, if you want, go there and state your opinion. Thank you. Gameiro 19:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to state that it is now a featured article candidate. You can support or oppose here. Thanks. Gameiro 01:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer review 

message: This article should be changed to say Miguel's claim is disputed. Also, his 'reign' should be removed from the Infobox & the Monarch of Portugal Navbox deleted. GoodDay (talk) 16:08, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I totally agree because Queen Maria II of Portugal and Portuguese Cortes declared King Miguel without his royal status and also declared him and all his descendants forever ineligible to succeed to the Portuguese crown and forbade them, under death pennalty, to return to Portugal. This decision was supported by the laws of Portuguese Republic. It's important to everyone remember this facts. 84.90.92.195 (talk) 18:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

text: We are not in the habit of deciding who the "legitimate" monarch of a country was.  Miguel was the de facto king for six years.  He is so listed in all reliable references.  As such, he gets called the king no matter what his successor may have said. john k (talk) 19:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, just was wondering. GoodDay (talk) 16:12, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  King of Portugal? 

message: A move to Michael of Portugal is being discussed at Talk:Luís I of Portugal#Requested move. Srnec (talk) 21:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: This article is extremely biased and largely based on references that take only Miguel's enemies opinions into account.
:As a major contributor to this article, I don't believe it is at all biased. I used freely available sources to construct the biography, and have referenced them accordingly. Please note, I am not biased by nationalistic pertentions: as much as I am Luso-canadian, I neither support Portuguese monarchists nor republican sympathies, nor favour the politics of Emperor Pedro or King Miguel. I invite further elaboration of verifiable sources to elaborate the article. Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 16:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry Zeorymer, I didn't mean to say that you are biased, but the sources in which the article is based definitely are. OK, we will work on it together.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.138.117.221 (talk) 20:07, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased article 

message: First of all, the well known popular song saying that Miguel was not the son of Marialva, but of a man in Ramalhão does not make him child of either. Carlota only moved to Ramalhão when Miguel was a baby. That was precisely the moment when João and Carlota became trully separated. Second, he had no resemblance to Mariava, and his features were very similar to Pedro I's. --Lecen (talk) 02:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Pedro I was his brother, so they'd be half-brothers even if Miguel was illegitimate.  What's required here is sources, not our own logical deductions. john k (talk) 20:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not "logical deduction". It's a fact. Carlota Joaquina only moved to Ramalhão when Miguel was a year old. One thing is popular gossip that was used to mock Carlota and another is to write in the article as a fact. Second, he did not look like the Marquis of Marialva, this is said by both Brazilian historian Tobias Monteiros as well as the AMerican Historian Neill McCaullay. --Lecen (talk) 13:38, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

text: To ease suffering here, wouldn't it be easier to edit the article accordingly. The content about his legitimacy was introduced by the citations, but don't claim anything more than idle gossip. Lecen, why not just include your sources/citations on the above, and revamp the context so its less bias?Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 14:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  On Miguel's supposed illegitimacy 

message: 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) 23:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  On-going dispute