Talk:House of Braganza

message: why you keep writing the word with a Z???? It is written in portuguese "Bragança", I do not understand why I am finding this word with a Z in several wikipedia pages, shouldn't this be written in the correct, Portuguese, way?!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.195.217.51 (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Whomever keeps using "till" instead of "until", I simply have to say that if you are going to contribute to the English version of Wikipedia, learn the English language. To begin with, "till" is not an equivalent of "until", it is a verb, it means working the soil. Furthermore, "'til" is a slang abbreviation, something not to be accepted in a serious encyclopaedic entry, particularly one in a medium clamouring for respect. Perhaps part of the reason many people don't respect Wikipedia is because many of its contributors either don't know the language they are writing in, or don't care that their language has rules.
GuelphGryphon98 (talk) 18:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Learn The Language 

message: Hi, I think House of Braganza should be the surviving article, as in House of Windsor.  Kaisershatner 13:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't really work out what has happened here, but I think we should change this back to House of Braganza?? Arniep 01:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I think it should be House of Braganza to keep it in line with all the other articles. Really I think you should have confirmed the consensus for a title name before moving. Arniep 13:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merge

message: I have removed the section on D. Duarte pending citations. Just because some silly publicity whore's father was friends with Salazar and may or may not have had Manuel II (who was never a Duke of Bragança) sign something on a napkin which is now lost does not mean that he has any sort of claim to the title. In fact, he is no where near a legitimate claimant to the title, and all legal precedent works against his line having any claim to the throne. He is just a silly loon whose father Salazar happened to like, and who goes on TV whenever he can saying that he is the Duke. I can say the sky is neon green as much as I like, but that does not make it so. - Kyle543 22:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: D. Duarte

message: If the article says that the House of Braganza ruled untill 1853 in Portugal, then logically Maria II was the final ruler of the House of Braganza, as her offspring belongs to the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. So it seems strange that the article states that Manuel II, who was not even born in 1853 was the final ruler from that house. If we consider Maria II's succesors to also belong to the House of Braganza, then logically we should merge the article about the House of Braganza Saxe-Coburg Gotha with this one. Pevernagie (talk) 14:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, Pevernagie, my apologies. I confused you with a whole different agenda. And now I understand the nature of your edit. Regarding this issue, of course there must be consistency. The qestion is that the Portuguese royal house after Maria II always called itself House of Bragança, and never House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. At best, mainly in non-Portuguese sources, it is called House of Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. If you make the reign of the Braganças end with Maria II, that will amount, I think, to OR. Even if you can find a reliable source stating the end og the Braganças with her, the mainstream position, that it only ended with Manuel II, must appear with more importance. Again, my apologies for the mix up! Cheers. The Ogre (talk) 15:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's nothing. Pevernagie (talk) 16:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consistency 

message: Dear users, let's go to check the informations that I add:
* Maria II of Portugal - She have the name Braganza, in Portuguese: Bragança, because is the name of her House.
* The Brazilian Imperial Family is a branch of House of Braganza, which governed the Empire of Brazil from 1822 to 1889.
* And about the history of the heiress to the throne of Portugal, Maria II of Portugal, was married with Ferdinand of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Therefore, the next heirs to the Portuguese throne should have the name: Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. I thought... is a union of royal houses, that could be just speficied in the second paragraph? Because, the Braganzas dynastyc branch continued beeing the sovereign of the country until 1910.
*I add too, that when the Braganzas were the sovereigns of Kingdom of Portugal, they were the sovereigns of the Portuguese Empire too.
*The rest are just grammar corrections.
Colleagues, I'm from Portugal and I'm not a specialist in English language. If I made a grammar error in this article, please, correct for me.
Thank you all. --Fernandoe (talk) 04:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You are not Portuguese and these arguments above are just your conclusion about a theme you do not understand. Please, give references. --Tonyjeff (talk) 13:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: House of Braganza

message: Dear GuelphGryphon98
I just read you piece on the use of till vs until in the article on the House of Bragança, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:House_of_Braganza. You say, and I quote, "if you are going to contribute to the English version of Wikipedia, learn the English language". You would have a point if someone with appalling command of the language had written something utterly dreadful to warrant your comment and the attitude that it implies. I have come across many English-speaking people who commit far more serious errors when writing English. So, save your pompous arrogance.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.246.168.178 (talk) 00:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attitude towards non English-speakers 

message: As was already asked here, why do english useres stupidly continue to write "Braganza" instead of "Bragança"? in Portugal, we say Bragança, not Braganza. Braganza is spanish, and the Portuguese Royal House is where the name says it is from, PORTUGAL. So, I would appreciate if you write Bragança , with a "ç", because I don't write "Londres", I write "London". Got it? If someone contiunues to write Braganza, I can and I will erase it, to write Bragança. If this childish error persists, I will erase the whole article. Thank you for your attention. --Prtgl93 (talk) 16:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever. --Lecen (talk) 16:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Braganza

message: The House of Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha is a complete concoction of the Anglophone world. The Portuguese monarchs from Queen Maria II of Portugal to King Manuel II of Portugal all considered themselves as monarchs of the Most Serene House of Braganza. The fact is that, even though traditional European customs state that the man's house is the house of which his descendants will be named under, this was never true for the Braganzas. The House of Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha never existed in the eyes of the Portuguese monarchs and thus the article and all its information belong to the House of Braganza article. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 04:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merging House of [[House of Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha]] into [[House of Braganza]] 

message: The feudalism and all the feudal system is based in the property of land... and, therefore, these properties are really importants to the Feudal section of the article. Also, the family is based in the land, as all the traditionals noble families...
Making this image very important to this section of the article... being the Palace a mark of the House of Braganza, and of its establishment.
Cordially,
--Fernandoe (talk) 05:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Image of the Palace of the Dukes of Braganza, in Guimarães, Portugal

message: I just started a move request on Talk:House of Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. I would appreciate imput for anyone who would like to. Thank you. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 20:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha 

message: An image used in this article, , 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 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Coat of Arms of the Most Serene and Royal House of Braganza.gif Nominated for Deletion

message: The simbol of the House of Braganza was a wyvern, not a dragon. Notice that it doesn't have legs. I read the article over and over and it has many, but many issues, clearly not written based on books, but on the author's mind. --Lecen (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, as such. The Sociedade Histórica da Independência de Portugal says it was originally of golden color. Only later (Seventeenth century and after) shown more in green. The dragon, starting as the Serpe Real and sometimes also as dragon of Saint George (as the same Serpe Real of Ourique as is believed) with João I, sometimes represented and often similar (and called) also as a griffin (in fact half Eagle, half Lion, with legs, but similiar in the frontal appearance and also used as a name for the Portuguese Royal Crest), from the original Portuguese Winged Serpent (a Wyvern, with only two arms or legs or without any legs or arms at all - the Serpent) or the Feathered Serpent (the traditional Portuguese Serpe Real), is the old crest of the crown of the Kings of Portugal and later of the Emperors of Brazil, and was assigned with even more emphasis on the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries to the popular tradition of the Christophany - Miracle of Ourique (1139) and to the Oath of Ourique, shown by the monks of Alcobaça. --LuzoGraal (talk) 21:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not a dragon, but a wyvern 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests May 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 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Coat of Arms of the Kingdom of the Algarve.gif Nominated for Deletion

message: There is a mistake in this article, because in its introduction it says that "The House of Braganza became the reigning house of the Kingdom of Portugal and the Algarves in 1640, when John II, Duke of Braganza, was acclaimed King by the Portuguese nobility and subsequently waged the War of the Portuguese Succession" when it should say "The House of Braganza became [...] and subsequently waged the Portuguese Restoration War". Don't you think?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.35.202.143 (talk) 16:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistake with the war 

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) 23:14, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  On-going dispute