Talk:List of Portuguese monarchs

message: When King Carlos was assassinated in 1908, his also fatally injured crown prince survived him by a short time. I thought the Crown Prince was technically regarded as having been king between his father's death and his own a short time later. If so, surely  he too should be on the list? JTD 22:54 Jan 22, 2003 (UTC)
Prince Luis Filipe actually died with his father in Terreiro do Paco, if not, a few hours later. Manuel was also shot in the arm, but survived to be the last portuguese king. Sara C
I know. I understood that Luis Filipe survived his father by a couple of hours. As he was Crown Prince, it has been claimed by some that he automatically became king, even if only for a matter of hours, with his death passed on the throne to his heir presumptive, Manuel. Others insist the throne passed directly to Manuel. 
I've just looked a website that used as its source the Library of Congress. And it has its facts all wrong (Manuel the oldest son; assassination killed the youngest son, etc). Oh dear. I thought it was just the CIA fact book that screws up so baldly. JTD 22:24 Feb 10, 2003 (UTC)
About Portuguese Crown Princes... I don't think this institution exists in Portugal at all. This is due to the fact that Portuguese Kings are not crowned themselves. The reason for this strange tradition goes back to 1640, when Joao IV recovered independence after spanish domain since 1580. Then, Joao IV dedicated Portugal and its crown to Nossa Senhora da Conceicao. And after that it's the Virgin who is actually the crowned queen of Portugal, being the living monarchs mere representatives of her. Muriel Gottrop
I head Luis Filipe only lived 20 minutes after his father :-s. So i we going to ad dhim or not?? -fonzy
I don't think it's correct to add Luis Filipe to the list. I never heard about a Luis II, king of Portugal. Muriel Gottrop
*Agree with muriel!!!-Pedro 14:29, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Luis II, king of Portugal?

message: According to the Constitutional Charter of 1826 (Carta Constitucional) the heir presumptive of Portugal is styled "Prince Royal" (Príncipe Real); his first born is Prince of Beira (Príncipe da Beira).
Luís Filipe was not king because there was no acclamation; this is customary since the beginning of Portuguese nationhood.
Ricardo monteiro 10:29, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prince Royal and no King Luís Filipe 

message: Why this article considers the rule of King Alfonso I only since 1143, when the majority of authors indicates 1128?! Even the Portuguese encyclopedia that I'm seeing at the moment.
Ok: 
(...)-1128 - He was a count
1129-1139 - He declared himself the Prince of Portugal
1139-1179 - He declared himself the king of Portugal
1179- King de jure. (the proof is in the Portuguese national archive, Torre do Tombo)
Why 1128? because he ruled it has an independent country and many acclamed him has king.
1129 or 28 was his own first proclamation - possibly nothing more than claiming the position of independent prince, not a proper king
1139 there was another proclamation.
check the year  when Pope recognized. 217.140.193.123 16:46, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Rule of King Alfonso I

message: dona Beatriz (Brites), daughter of Ferdinand I, was acclaimed as queen regnant and was recognized by her party. She was a part of the period here called an interregnum. Should be mentioned in the article, if dom Antonio is.
Antonio the Bastard was the rival king briefly when Philip demanded the throne.
Also dona Catarina, princess of Guimaraes, claimed the throne. married with duke of Braganza.
And finally, dom Luiz Filippe, who technically succeeded for some minutes, could be mentioned. 217.140.193.123 16:45, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that Beatrice should be mentioned, but not as Queen because at the time coronation was needed (the Portuguese crown had'nt been offered yet to Our Lady of Conception). A claimant to the throne is not the same thing as an acclaimed king (like António, the Prior of Crato) but I believe that every claimant to the throne in the dynastical crises (1383-1385 and in 1580) should be mentioned in a note. Finally, as for Prince Royal Luis Filipe, he did'nt became king the second his father died. Portuguese kings are only considered kings when they are crowned and/or acclaimed, so the period between the death of a monarch and the beginning of reign of the next king is a kingless period known as vacatio regis.--Gameiro 02:28, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: But Beatrice wasn't acclaimed in 1383? I think so.Câmara 13:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ephemeral and unrecognized monarchs 

message: The article on John III of Portugal is currently nominated to be improved by Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. Support the article with your vote or comment on the nomination.--Fenice 09:12, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Improvement drive

message: All kings named "Alphonzo", "Sanctius", "Emmanuel", "Anthony", "Louis" and "Charles" have links redirecting to articles in which they are identified as "Afonso", Sancho, "Duarte", and so on. Aren't these last names the ones by which they are really known in English? 
Furthermore, at some point names kewep being mentioned in Portuguese, then in English, then back in Portuguese. Would't the article benefit from some harmonization? I propose:
1. The King's names as used in the articles referring to them (it makes research easier, simpler and more coherent);
2. The subject's names follow the king's names rules. It's a convention, a mere choice, but one should be followed, I believe.
Some articles (Peter IV and V), for example, use "Pedro". This, I admit, requires even deeper work at harmonization.
Of course, I take it upon myself to undertake the changes, should users agree to this. Thanks a lot and congratulations for the "featured article", Nuno Gabriel Cabral 16:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Nuno. I chose to use the English versions of their names so that the whole list could be coherent. I do not think that kings named Sancho, Afonso and Manuel are known in English by Sanctius, Alphonzo or Emmanuel, but thats the English version of their names. We could use English names all over the list, or alternatively all Portuguese. Perhaps Portuguese would be better. As for the actual names of the articles it's quite difficult, Since Wikipedia has a policy that states that an article should be titled with the name by which is most known in English. So we have Peter I of Portugal and Pedro V of Portugal, the names by which they were known. And we also have things like having both Mary I of Portugal and Maria II of Portugal. Feel free to change it. Joaopais 18:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The only one I'm not comfortable with is the article Mary I of Portugal, which should be renamed Maria I of Portugal. About the Pedros, it's really odd. I think that in the middle of the 19th century, in English-speaking countries, the names of foreign monarchs started to be used in their native languages, with exceptions of course. If you reasearch magazines of the 19th century you will find Pedro I of Brazil (IV of Portugal), Pedro II of Brazil, Pedro V of Portugal, Miguel of Portugal, Luis I of Portugal and Carlos I of Portugal. An English-language encyclopedia today has entrances for Peter I of Portugal, Peter II of Portugal, Peter III of Portugal, but Pedro I of Brazil (IV of Portugal) and Pedro V of Portugal. It's strange. As for the all-English/all-Portuguese in the list, Pedro (the user, not the king) says that we should stick to the English names except when they were known by their Portuguese name. So we ought to change the Sanctius, Alphonzos and Emmanuels to their Portuguese names. And also Charles, Louis, Michael and the two last Peters, since they were known by their Portuguese name too. Joaopais 13:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harmonization of names? 

message: I created the succession box of Princes of Portugal, and so I created some pages of short lived princes. Feel free to improve them. ;) I  will do the same for the Princes of Brazil, but not todayCâmara 00:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Princes of Portugal/Brazil 

message: I think the image shown in Beatrice is not of Beatrice queen regnant but one of the two castilian that were queen consort.Câmara 08:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beatrice image 

message: I wonder if we do not have a bit too much detail on this page - it is, after all, meant to be a list of the monarchs. Would it not be better to prune this back a bit and put the detail on the relevant history pages? Bagunceiro (talk) 13:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Detail in the history 

message: There's a sentence in the  House of Burgundy section:
:And the implementation of necessary structures, such as international diplomacy, agriculture, population, commerce, education and culture, even all that existed in the Portuguese territory a long time ago, and even in a very developed way during the regency of Count Henrique of Burgundy already, who travelled to Rome and Jerusalem, France and other hispanic kingdoms, and was the nephew of the most powerful diplomat of his time, Saint Bernard, leading him to bring the cosmopolite Order of the Temple to his fied when it was just created.
which needs tidying up but I am unclear as to what it is saying. Can anyone help out here? Bagunceiro (talk) 14:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification of long sentence 

message: The list of styles for kings of Portugal used at different times includes "mercy". Should it not be "grace"? I have no knowledge of Portuguese, and will not change it, but I know that the Danish word "nåde", which is usually rendered "mercy" in English, is invariably "grace" when used as a style.
--Klausok (talk) 09:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mercy 

message: This has been a slow revert war for several days, so I think a discussion to hash out the positions is merited.  I am unfamiliar with the scholarly consensus here, so if someone could indicate how common review sources refer to these individuals as kings vs claimants would help.  As to the numbering, in general, English-language sources don't tend to number kings in succession order, except out of convenience, not systematically.  That being the case, maintaining three different numbering systems is decidedly inconvenient and without benefit - saying 'the 33rd king' without specifying that you mean the one that is 31st or 32nd or 33rd, and not the 32nd or 33rd or 34th, or the 33rd or 34th or 35th, is all more of a nuisance than a help.  I would suggest deleting the entire number column. Agricolae (talk) 03:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputed monarchs and numbering 

message: First of all, the affirmation that «she was acclaimed queen of Portugal in 1383 after her father's death» it's a forgery. The first attempts of acclamation by order of her mother, Leonor Teles de Menezes, only took place on 22 November 1383, thirty days after her father's death, and we know that they were boycotted by the people at, by the least, Lisbon and Santarém. These first attempts happened only in some places. The orders for her acclamation in all the country only were given on December, after de assassination of John Fernandes Andeiro and the revolution in Lisbon. This revolution didn't dismissed Leonor Teles de Menezes of her paper as Queen Regent, only brought a double power in place. It was after being in Alenquer that Leonor Teles de Menezes ordered the acclamation of her daughter, never before the 13 December. So, even in theory, her acclamation in some places happened at the same time that, in other places, John, Master of Avis, was being acclaimed Regent and Defender of the kingdom. In some places she was acclaimed and, one or two weeks after, those who aclaimmed her were expelled from that towns and cities, for example: Beja, Évora and Estremoz. More, many towns and a few cities became neutrals, neither acclamating her nor John, the Master of Avis. Perhaps these were the majority, but we don't know. So, we have two acclamations at the same time in different places of the country. But in the more of 54 places that were from the side of Castille even before King Juan I of Castille entered Portugal (more or less 20 or 25 December, and, surely, before 1 January 1384), we know that some places, as in Minho, didn´t recognize Beatriz as the real sovereign but Juan I of Castille. So we have a part of the portuguese nobles that were from the side of Castile recognizing her as the truly sovereign, another part recognizing Juan I of Castille. We don´t know the proportions, we only know that both partys in the castillain side were importants. Conclusion: she wasn´t queen of the portuguese, she wasn´t queen of all the portuguese nobles that fought from the castillain side, only of a part of them, even if they were the majority (very dubious). We can't put a queen of some portuguese noble families on the list of monarchs of a nation. Where was the confusion? First of all, in thinking that by her father's death she was automatically queen of Portugal. The treaty of Salvaterra, her contract of marriage with Juan I of castille, previewed that acclamation; without acclamation she wasn't queen. Second, in the date of the order of acclamation by her mother in all the country. Thirth, in who was really recognized as sovereign, her or Juan I of Castille, in many places that took the side of Castille. I could said more, but I think this is enough.
Sources: Chronicles of Fernando I and John I, Fernão Lopes; Chronicle of Juan I of Castille and Leon, López de Ayala; Provas da Historia Genealogica da Casa Real Portuguesa, Tomo I, prova 39 do Livro I, António Caetano de Sousa (this last for the Treaty of Salvaterra, in castellain).
 
I will wait 15 days for other opinions before eliminate Beatriz from the list. Sorry for my bad english, please correct my mistakes in the writing, and a big salut for you all,Jorge alo (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposition: eliminate Beatriz from the list 

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) 13:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Coat of Arms of the Most Serene and Royal House of Braganza.gif Nominated for Deletion

message: House of Beja-Évora? Are you positive this is actually a real term? I mean if it is original research, you can't just say that because Henry was Archbishop of Evora. I placed a citation needed on that sentence for you to provide a credible reference. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 02:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  House of Beja-Évora  

message: Why is there a need to include the most Anglify names of these monarchs and their Portuguese names? Calling Manuel Emmanuel and Afonso Alphonse is going a bit far.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 19:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: On the contrary, it's how it should be. This is (afterall) the English Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 02:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names of monarchs 

message: Hello All,
I have recently taken interest in the ancient Counties of Portucale, and have been reading a lot on them. For those that do no know, the last Count of the first County of Portucale, Nuno II, was defeated by King Garcia II of Galicia at the Battle of Pedroso, in 1071. After his victory, Garcia proclaimed that he and his successors be title "King of Galicia and Portugal". I was wondering that we should add these three Galician/Leonese monarchs on this page for the fact that they were, in fact, kings of Galicia and Portugal (not separate titles; singular). I appreciate all and any input, thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 03:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: See discussion above. It was agreed that all pre-independence ruler be removed. Also it isn't sourced that Garcia's two successors Sancho II of León and Castile and Alfonso VI of León and Castile continued the use the "of Portugal" part of the title.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 19:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

text: I view Garcia's choice of title as a reaffirmation that Portugal was part of his kingdom and not the creation of a novel entity, a kingdom of Portugal, any more than Fernando created a Kingdom of Castile when he had himself crowned King of Leon and Castile (or for that matter that his father Sancho created such a kingdom when he referred to himself as "king in Castile").  Thus Garcia was no more a King of Portugal than Fernando was, or Vermudo before him.  All were kings of lands that included (part of) what would become Portugal, the same that could be said of the Caliph and several Taifa kings.  Agricolae (talk) 01:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Galician Monarchs 

message: In regard to the so-called constitutional monarchs (Pedro V to Manuel II), all descendants of Queen Maria II and Fernando II, there is often conflict here on wiki on whether to label them as members of the House of Braganza or as members of a supposed House of Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, which I must state is a designation only created by non-Portuguese historians and usually past the time that the monarchy fell. I understand that according to German laws, the family would be considered a cadet branch, but I think many fail to recognize that simply because the German laws, or rather even international European laws, states so, it doesnt necessarily mean anything. The family was Portuguese and bound to Portuguese laws. In the Portuguese constitution of 1838 clearly states that "the Most Serene House of Braganza is the reigning house of Portugal and continues through the Person of the Lady Queen Maria II" (CONSTITUIÇÃO POLITICA DA MONARCHIA PORTUGUEZA p. Title 1, Chapter 1, Article 5.). Perhaps I am blind, but if a house is bound by its own laws and rules, and never calls itself something else, how can we, essentially, rewrite history, refering to them as Braganza-coburg monarchs when they never did so and their laws specifically made sure to establish that they were Braganza dynasts. Now I understand that we similarly cannot erase the historical analysis surrounding Braganza-coburg, but I dont believe that this disputed designation should be the foremost representative designation on articles concerning these monarchs. Rather, as it is a disputed subject, it should be confined to that specifically addressing the subject (i.e. articles like House of Braganza and this one here, which can link to the braganza-coburg articles). However, I dont believe the actual articles of the monarchs should have Braganza-coburg on them, as it's sort of a fringe, disputed topic. But what do the rest of you think? Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 22:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody says they did not belong to the House of Braganza where Portuguese law is concerned. But that is not the end of the story. The people involved were patrilineal Princes of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha-Kohary, were entitled to succeed to the Duchy of SCG and that has consequences for how they are classified in historiography when it comes to the house or houses they belonged to. Interpreting a primary source like the House Law you mention to make it imply that no distinction should be made between these monarchs and the other Braganza's looks like OR to me, as I have said in another place. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur. While it is fine to describe the dynasty and its members primarily as "House of Braganza", as noted in the Almanach de Gotha (along with the reigning dynasty of Imperial Austria {Habsburg-Lorraine} and that of Russia {Romanov-Holstein-Gottorp} since the reign of Catherine the Great) it should be made clear in articles on the dynasty and on the individuals, that they belong patrilineally to the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha because, as previously stated, they had dynastic membership and rights of inheritance to the realm ruled by that family as well (just as Catherine the Great's descendants retained dynastic rights in Oldenburg and Schleswig-Holstein). If it can be demonstrated that reliable sources omit reference to the Coburg affiliation, I'd concur that it need be mentioned only in the article on the dynasty. But if articles do mention it, Wikipedia cannot properly ignore it because Portuguese sources exclude it -- any more than we only write articles on any nation based exclusively on sources from that nation. Why not simply include a brief, standard paragraph (or even a sourced footnote) explaining both the legal membership in the House of Braganza and the patrilineal Saxon affiliation for insertion in relevant articles -- and otherwise refer to them as Braganzas? FactStraight (talk) 02:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I quite like that last idea, FactStraight. I think in their "early life" sections or equivalent, when mentioning their birth to their parents, I think it would be more than fine to mention something like " X was born to Y and Z on DATE. A member of the House of Braganza, X was also a Saxe-Coburg dynast, through descent from Ferdinand II." That sounds lovely to me. On the other hand, I do believe that in the infobox, Braganza should be the only name listed, as infoboxes are for quick reference and summary, and the intricacies of dynastic descent and its complications really dont have place there - in simple terms they were Braganzas but in more elaborated terms, they were braganzas and saxe coburg dynasts etc. Does that sound good? Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 05:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, on first glance, I'd like it better the other way around. Call him a Braganza in the article, and keep the Braganza & Coburg references to the infobox. The classification there is correct and of some interest. And I don't believe it is fringe from any point of view. Monarchs mean something to their own countries of course, but they also have a standing and status in international diplomacy and in the general history of royalty and dynastic history. We shouldn't look exclusively to the viewpoint from one country. It is in that light (not exclusively on an international level I think) that these people are almost universally classified (in most literature that I've seen) as being Saxe-Coburg & Braganza or House of Braganza and Saxe-Coburg & Gotha or similar terms. Remember also that, while nowadays that doesn't play a big role anymore, these notions were much more pervasive in international diplomacy in those days, than they are now. Remember also that the fact that the male line of the House of Braganza was (and is) still around, made the differentiation between the two lines of some relevance, especialy in the eyes of contemporaries. An other thing is of course the general notability of the development of the Saxe-Coburg dynasty in 19th century European dynastic history, of which the Portuguese story is definitely a part. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 10:22, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: What about this: "House of Braganza(-Coburg)" or "House of Braganza (Coburg line)". Gerard von Hebel (talk) 12:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: A footnote for articles and/or templates might then read, "While remaining patrilineal dynasts of the duchy of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha according to pp. 88, 116 of the 1944 Almanach de Gotha, Title 1, Chapter 1, Article 5 of the 1838 Portuguese constitution declared, with respect to Ferdinand II of Portugal's issue by his first wife, that 'the Most Serene House of Braganza is the reigning house of Portugal and continues through the Person of the Lady Queen Maria II'. Thus their mutual descendants constitute the Coburg line of the House of Braganza". FactStraight (talk) 15:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I really do like the footnote - it's well put and as informational as needed. I will add it to all the "early" sections of descendants of Maria II and Fernando II. As for the infobox, I must respectfully disagree with you Gerard von Hebel. On the simplest of views, these royals would be simply looked at as Braganzas, because if one did not study royalty and asked what their house was, it would be Braganza. I feel that their status is coburg dynasts (which im not trying to dispute at all, dont worry) is an elaboration of their memberships to royal houses. With this new footnote it would be well put and clear on each page, but as for the infobox I think Braganza should be the only one, However I could link the footnote twice to both the early section and to the infobox itself, both leading to the same note that FactStraight kindly wrote for us. Does that sound agreeable? Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 21:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constitutional Monarchs and their house name 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:23, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: 1. I don't think the image of Manuel II should be shown at the top right of the article. He was no more important than other kings. The image should be an emblem of the Portuguese monarchy or something more general related to it. If a monarch should be shown then Afonso I should be the one to be in the box since he was the first.
2. I think the image of the kings should be in column 2 instead of the last and the family column should be in column 3.
3. Should "Afonso I" really be referred to as "Alphonso I Henriques" in the article? This would reflect a Galician-Portuguese spelling which would be correct but I believe he should be referred to as "Afonso I", possibly followed by the spelling of the language of Portugal in 1139.
4. Afonso V and João II have multiple dates for the beginning and end of their reigns and they seem to alternate for 4 days. This can be confusing and there should be a note to explain that Afonso V abdicated for 4 days, from 11 to 15 November 1477.
5. Was "Edward" really known as "Edward I" and should he really be called "Edward I"? I don't think the cardinal is necessary unless a Edward II of Portugal existed.
ICE77 (talk) 07:55, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions, inconsistencies, lack of clarity