Talk:Duarte Pio, Duke of Braganza

message: Born on 15 May 1945 in Bern, Switzerland, due to the Law of Banishment (Lei do Banimento) then still in effect in Portugal. Upon its revocation by the Portuguese Parliament in the 1950s, the Royal Family was presented with a residence in Portugal by the Fundação Casa de Bragança. Dom Duarte continued his primary education in Oporto (which he had started in Bern), and his secondary education first in the Nuno Álvares in Santo Tirso, and later at the Military College in Lisbon. Subsequently he attended the superior course of Agronomic Engineering at the Agronomic Institute of the Technical University of Lisbon (Instituto de Agronomia de Universidade Tècnica de Lisboa) and the Institute for Development of the University of Geneva, Switzerland.  
His military service took place between 1967 and 1971 in Angola as a helicopter pilot, with the rank of Lieutenant, where he made many contacts with the local population, and learned local dialects. He was expelled from Angola in 1973, escorted out by the political police, for having challenged the dictatorial regime by helping to organize an opposition for the next elections. (In 1987 he completed the course of the Institute of National Defence and qualified as a Pilot Captain Aviator in the Portuguese Air Force Reserve.) He remembers his military services as one of the most fulfilling periods of his life, especially because of his contacts maintained with the local peoples, who always received him very warmly. Some of them still remembered the 1908 visit to Angola of Dom Luis Filipe, Crown Prince of Portugal, who was assassinated with his father, King Carlos I, later that year.
 
On 13 May 1995 Dom Duarte Pio married Dona Isabel de Herédia. The wedding was a state occasion, attended by the President of the Republic, the Prime Minister and members of the cabinet, the Diplomatic Corps and leading personalities in Portuguese life.
 
His first son, Dom Afonso, the Heir Apparent and Prince of Beira, was born on 25 March 1996. His daughter Dona Maria Francisca was born on 3 March 1997, and his second son Dom Dinis was born on 25 November 1999.
The Duke of Bragança is the Sovereign Grand Master of the Order of Our Lady of the Conception of Vila Viçosa, and Sovereign of the Royal Order of Saint Isabel (of which the Grã Mestra is Her Royal Highness Dona Isabel, Duchess of Bragança). 
He is a Knight Grand Cross of Honour and Devotion of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta and a Knight of the Order of the Golden Fleece, and of the Order of Calatrava. He is also a member of many foreign Orders of Knighthood and associations. 
I assume that the chance to be a king to the prince Afonso is interresting and should be raized, because the republic was not the portuguese people wil and in the early days the republic was very unpopular, and some say that today till is, but I think that Dom Duarte is an Anti-European, so I dont like him! So a referendum must be made. Duarte Pio is a descendant of King Miguel adn King Pedro IV (if we can call that thing a king)? Yack! This is just my POV.Pedro 02:08, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: And I'm Santa Claus. Ho ho ho Pedro 19:49, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternate text

message: Look, "they" are trying to use wikipedia policies, for "their" objective.
I'm "full" with "these people". They (he) even use NPOV and other policies with the intent of trying to put nonsence in the article. I'm very POV don't you see, I can also gain a count title or something with this; don't you see? Duh! Get a job and stop annoying people. The last comment of MSousa you can see how he is dellusional, using supposed international laws that obviously don't exists and even if they existed they would not obviously be applied to Portugal. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A PLAYGROUND!  -Pedro 19:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: I've created a  box for pretender pages to pull together information in a uniform infobox that can be used in all similar pages. I have deliberately not placed it at the every top of the page, for NPOV reasons. Office infoboxes like those of monarchs and popes are placed at the top of the page. Pretender isn't a formal title, but a general title used to describe people regarded as the person would be monarch if a monarchy was restored. Giving it identical placing would imply an equality in terms of status for the different boxes. This box is not formal status-orientated but information and co-ordination orientated. Placing it at the end of the first paragraph gives the box a clear visual impact without any POV implications of compatibility with constitutional offices. I've been placing the box in in the same way all over, ie first paragraph down on the right. It also aligns best with the toc box on the left. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 23:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  infobox 

message: Can someone verify if Dom Duarte was born at the Portuguese embassy in Bern? If he was, then he would have, in fact, been born on Portuguese soil as international diplomatic agreements stress that embassies and consulates are the sovereign territories of the countries whose diplomats operate and occupy them. Hence, it would seem that, though possibly a violation of the law at the time banning Miguel's descendants from Portuguese soil, it would still satisfy succession requirements that an heir be born in Portugal in the event, as has apparently happened, that such a law was repealed. It seems a sticking point for other claimants to the Portuguese throne and their supporters, though it clearly does not seem to matter to the Portuguese government or to the people of Portugal.
12.40.61.2Kelly
Kelly: The article states in one part he was born at the Portuguese Embassy, and another in a hotel room with extraterritoriality. If the latter is true, it has precedence when Princess Margriet of the Netherlands was born in Ottawa during the Royal Family's exile in WW II. The hospital floor where she was born was declared "extraterritorial", so that she would not be born in Canada, thus acquiring Canadian citizenship by her place of birth, but would only have Dutch citizenship based on the citizenship of her parents. Extraterritorial does not mean that the floor became Dutch soil, just that it temporarily was placed outside the jurisdiction of the Crown of Canada. So that would not seem to satisfy a Portuguese exigence that an heir be born on Portuguese soil. A hotel room made extraterritorial would be temporarily placed outside of Swiss jurisdiction, but it would still not be Portuguese. As for embassies, while they are inviolate, it is inaccurate to state that they represent foreign soil. The are inviolate generally, but still retain the nationality of their host. Quoted from Wikipedia; Contrary to popular belief, diplomatic missions do not enjoy full extraterritorial status and are not sovereign territory of the represented state.[5][6] Article: Diplomatic mission.
Dave  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.138.219.192 (talk) 11:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foreign-born? 

message: What's the problem with having a section related to the opposition to Duarte Pio? Afonso Silva 09:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Opposition

message: Now is official: the Portuguese Government don' t recognize any pretenders. The Portuguese Government has officially decides [ see   http://www.parlamento.pt/plc/requerimento.aspx?req_id=36925] to not "legitimize" any pretenders because since 96 years the Portugal is a Republic and so it can't enter in this matter. This decision is obtained after the request of the president of the People's Monarchist Party (Partido Popular Monárquico) to the Government against the abuse of power of the portuguese ambassador in Italy that the last year declared Duarte Pio as the legitimate pretender in Portugal. This is an illegal act of this ambassador because the Republican organs obviously don't enter in monarchical problems. Justiceiro 21:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So it is time to change all references to "Dom", "pretender to the throne"(!) and other nobility titles and adjectives. It is now more than clear that the republican laws that have been effective for more than a century simply apply strictly and there is no and has not been any nobility in Portugal in modern times. Contrary to Spain, though one of the oldest secular nations - in Portugal "Dom" is a title that is used by the Portuguese Roman-Catholic clergy and this clergy alone and has been since 1910, the legitimization for this lies in the Concordata. This page is alltogether completely political POV and does not depict a neutral presentation of the person of public interest. Monarchism is and has been a legitimate and lawful political view and cause in the Nation's law, and to make myself clear - I have the greatest affection and respect for Duarte Pio, but this is neither respectful and honourable to his nor to the country's image and portrayal. Something like this article and discussion, this low quality POV-article only happens in third world countries. Portugal is better than this. --92.231.44.101 (talk) 13:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Portuguese Government don't recognize any pretenders 

message: http://www.casareal.co.pt/galeria/index.php?mode=view&album=Algumas+visitas+de+Suas+Altezas+Reais&pic=v005a.jpg&dispsize=640&start=0
http://www.casareal.co.pt/galeria/index.php?mode=view&album=Algumas+visitas+de+Suas+Altezas+Reais&pic=v006a.jpg&dispsize=640&start=0
http://www.casareal.co.pt/galeria/index.php?mode=view&album=Algumas+visitas+de+Suas+Altezas+Reais&pic=v007a.jpg&dispsize=640&start=0
http://www.casareal.co.pt/galeria/index.php?mode=view&album=Algumas+visitas+de+Suas+Altezas+Reais&pic=v008a.jpg&dispsize=640&start=0
http://www.casareal.co.pt/galeria/index.php?mode=view&album=Algumas+visitas+de+Suas+Altezas+Reais&pic=v009a.jpg&dispsize=640&start=0
http://www.casareal.co.pt/galeria/index.php?mode=view&album=Algumas+visitas+de+Suas+Altezas+Reais&pic=v010a.jpg&dispsize=640&start=0
http://www.casareal.co.pt/galeria/index.php?mode=view&album=Algumas+visitas+de+Suas+Altezas+Reais&pic=v011a.jpg&dispsize=640&start=0
http://www.casareal.co.pt/galeria/index.php?mode=view&album=Algumas+visitas+de+Suas+Altezas+Reais&pic=v012a.jpg&dispsize=640&start=0
http://www.casareal.co.pt/galeria/index.php?mode=view&album=1950-1974&pic=050a.jpg&dispsize=640&start=0
Images speak for them selves and if you want more I can scan from lots of books!
:First, Mr. Unsigned Editor (Duarte Pio?), none of your links work.  Second, there is nothing in a photograph that can prove that "royal houses recognize" anyone, unless the monarch in question is holding up a sign that says so explicitly.  Which I doubt very much they are.  Anyone can get a photograph taken with a monarch; that does not prove anything.  I could get my picture take with the Pope.  Would that "prove" that he recognizes me as the Bishop of Timbuktu?  Third, monarchs of other countries CANNOT confer legitimacy to other monarchs.  It wouldn't matter one whit if the King of Country X "recognized" someone who claimed to be the King of Country Z.  The ONLY thing that can make the claimed King of Country Z king is if that country recognizes him as their own king.Bricology (talk) 09:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Royal Houses of Europe, Asia and Africa recognize Duarte Pio 

message: This page has (once again) gone through numerous reverts in the past weeks.  It is not vandalism for an editor to add information about the recognition (or lack thereof) of Duarte by official bodies.  That is definitely within the scope of this article.  It is not reasonable to include a statement about what the Ministry of Foreign Affairs did (or was it the Portuguese ambassador to Italy?), but then not include the subsequent official enquiry to the President of the Assembly of the Republic and the official response.  I have tried to include this information - in reasonably well-written English and without pushing one particular agenda. Noel S McFerran 00:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claims of vandalism 

message: Poidimani lost this ridiculous case against me and was subsequently arrested anc charged by the Italian authorities for breaches of the Law of 1951 concerning the sale of supposed Orders, etc. It is his breach of Italian law, not Portuguese law, that led to Poidimani's prosecution. Guy Sainty  —Preceding unsigned comment added by GuyStairSainty (talk • contribs) 12:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: POOR STAIR SAINTY...AFTER TWO YEARS FROM YOUR FAMOUS WORDS ABOVE...In August 2010 the Court of Vicenza (Italy) sentenced for defamation against Mr Guy Stair Sainty in favour of the portuguese pretender Dom Rosario Poidimani,requiring compensation of twenty thousand euro. Here the entire sentence:   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.252.55.226 (talk) 19:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Case brought by Rosario Poidimani against Guy Sainty 

message: Just to remember everyone one of the most relevant fact from the History of Portugal: the Portuguese Monarchic Constitution promulgated in 1838 and never revoked, in article 98 categorically states as follows: "The collateral line of the ex-infant Dom Miguel and all his descendants are perpetually excluded from the succession". Also Queen Maria II of Portugal and Portuguese Cortes declared King Miguel without his royal status and also declared him, and all of 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 Portuguese Republic. It's important everyone in Wikipedia remember this fact. 84.90.92.195 (talk) 18:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The Constitution of 1838 was revoked in 1841, substituted by the Constitution of 1826. --Tonyjeff (talk) 15:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miguelist pretenders: Miguel II, Duarte Nuno and Duarte Pio 

message: The Portuguese government officially recognized Duarte Pio as the Duke of Braganza, and recognized his family line as the legitimate line to the throne of Portugal. This being so, to follow the customary ducal names of the house of Braganza, which has always being given the right to have "numbered names", Duarte Pio is supposed to be "Duarte II of Braganza", because he is the second Duke of Braganza, because his family line was officialy recognized and legitimized, making his father "Duarte I" and himself "Duarte II". Also, his template should not be that for a pretender, because he is not pretending to be the Duke of Braganza, of which he has been officially granted.{Lumastan (talk) 22:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Article names on Wikipedia are determined by how people are called in scholarly sources (which may or may not be the same as what people have a right to be called).  If there are more sources which call him "Duarte II" than "Duarte Pio" then you would have a case for changing the article. Noel S McFerran (talk) 00:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Calling him Duarte II or Duarte III is speculation even as Duarte of Braganza. Unless sources support the ordinals then they should be removed. We don't speculate that Prince William, Duke of Cambridge will be William V even though there probably more sources on the internet that mentions this than the ones for Duarte.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 19:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Duarte II instead of Duarte Pio

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) 21:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Portugal kingdom braganza.gif Nominated for Deletion

message: What source besides self-published royalist sites give this man the title Prince Royal of Portugal? I cannot find any news source or book source that connects the title Prince Royal or Principe Real to Duarte Pio.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 17:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Also how can he be the 24th Duke of Braganza in the intro and the 25th Duke of Braganza in the title section? There are 24 dukes/duchesses of Braganza on wikipedia's list right now and if you count Peter III of Portugal husband of Maria I as Duke of Braganza then you have 25 dukes/duchesses. Either way calling him the 24th or 25th duke is false since that would count the Dukes/Duchesses of two rival lines (Miguel's line and Pedro's line)--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 12:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The Almanach de Gotha gives him the title Prince Royal of Portugal. - dwc lr (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet another example of why I dispute that this publication is a reliable source -- and especially object to referring to it as "the Almanach de Gotha" without explicitly distinguishing it from the widely-respected series originally published under the name "Almanach de Gotha" by Justus Perthes. FactStraight (talk) 03:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title  

message: I added a "contradict" template because the article says at one point that Duarte Pio was born in a hotel room and in the next paragraph that he was born at the Portuguese Embassy. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Do registo de nascimento lavrado por transcricao da certidao de registo de nascimento Suiço, ao invés de que Dro afirma nao consta que o registado tenha nascido em qualquer embaixada portuguesa e muito menos em Portugal antes constando que nasceu em Berna.
My best guess is that basically, the document says that the registration fraudulently claims he was born in the embassy when he wasn't. Is that the gist of it? Until this is cleared, I believe the template should stay and if the registration was indeed fraudulent, this should certainly be mentioned even if it's inconvenient to Duarte Pio. Pichpich (talk) 01:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

text: Where did you get that quote from? I will put together a paragraph that says what Duarte Pio claims and then what the Portuguese Republic's stance on his claim his. That way both arguments are posed. What do you think? Cristiano Tomás (talk) 02:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That quote is directly from the reference we're using  and it appears to be an official document. Again, you speak Portuguese and I don't but this certainly seems to contradict Duarte Pio's story and if the document is genuine, I don't see how this controversy can be left out of the article. Pichpich (talk) 02:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I'm concerned, the current write-up is fine and (again, as far as I understand) quite representative of the situation presented in the sources. Good job Cristiano, Pichpich (talk) 05:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction re: place of birth 

message: Does the Duke of Braganza really style himself as "By the Grace of God, Duarte III, King of Portugal and the Algarves before and beyond the sea in Africa, Lord of Guinea and of Conquest, Navigation, and Commerce of Ethiopia, Arabia, Persia, and India, etc"? This claim ought to be either sourced or removed very quickly, as we're dealing with a biography of a living person. Surtsicna (talk) 15:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Done and Done. Thank you both for your input, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 00:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If you manage to expand it fivefold before 17 January, it could even be featured on the Main Page in WP:DYK section. That could be a bit hard to accomplish, though. There doesn't appear to be much written about him in English, but I'm sure there's a lot in Portuguese. Surtsicna (talk) 13:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Then I shall make it my goal to complete my renovation by then! Haha, thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 16:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It just occurred to me that you might be able to succeed in getting it to the main page by expanding it "only" twofold, per Wikipedia:Did you know#Eligibility criteria (since this is a BLP that used to be unsourced), but you still have to hurry. Good luck! Surtsicna (talk) 16:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Wonderful! It would be so lovely if a Portuguese article, let alone a Portuguese royalty article, was featured on th did you know. I have some work to do I guess, haha, cheers, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 17:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Style as King of Portugal 

message: Good day editors. I commend all on the elaboration of this article, and detail put into covering its detail. I want to make one note: it would improve this article substantially if there were valid inline references. As much as there are a plethora of external references supporting the content, there are few footnotes directly from published material. Since there is a lot of good will on the editing of this article, it only seems right that direct references to established third-party documents be included. Otherwise, any good intentions aside, this will result in a big label on the header suggesting improvements and/or inline referencing. Obviously, this not a demand, hostile critic nor "talking-down-to": God knows I've forgotten to do the same in the past. But, since there is movement to improve the content and the resources to support it, then it should be included immediately. Just a supportive reminder. Once again, good work. ruben jc ZEORYMER (talk) 11:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been doing a renovation concerning the article, and I've added most of these new sources and articles, but my question is how do I use published material for things concerning stately visits and receptions, ceremonies, and expositions? Most of these things are published through online news or magazines and newspapers. As I am sadly not in a position where I can acquire these magazines and newspapers, I am confined to using online articles and my 2 books (which I have yet to use). Do you have any suggestions how I can more properly cite this article, because it is my only desire to raise this article to the level of other royals, such as prince William or Elizabeth II. Thank you for your input, and I hope that we can all work together for a better sourced and well written article. Cheers, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 16:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll refer you to this source Wikipedia:Citation_templates, which provides various citation templates for different data sources, including magazines and newspapers. Regardless of the source, you will have to be aware of the basic information, including dates of publications, editor/author, titles, etc.: its generally the model that I follow in regard to inline citations. Please note, there is a template for website citations, although, like I alluded to earlier, its suggested that inline references be of a literary (third-person) variety. Regardless, by providing the information associated with online sources, although the link may fail in the future, the reference itself will continue to be valid. In the meantime, you can add referenced works (books) to validate the content, using the associated page references. I hope that was what you were asking. ruben jc ZEORYMER (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, one thing. I would watch the tone of this article, it might swing easily into the WP:NPOV without proper editing. I refer you to the reference to him being a "popular public figure", or other similar POV-type statements. This article seems to be laced with the Duke's "popularity" without justifiable/supported references. If you can support this type of statement with documented proof (such as polling results), then fine. But, from my understanding, these type of statements can not be justified once you throw the "light of fact" and reference onto them: one mans "popularity" is another mans "revisionism". Also, "official visits" implies a political nature that does not exist within the Republican government of Portugal (which was also clarified in this article). Cristiano, I understand your emotional leanings, but I just want you to be clear that WP:POV does hang over this article to some degree. No critique on your work, but to upgrade this article, it will be necessary to abandon some of the wording choices selected. I leave this to you. I hope I have not offended or maligned your efforts. It is NOT intended. ruben jc ZEORYMER (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inline referencing 

message: Duarte Pio, "Duke of Braganza" is just a pretender as Maria Pia's, as Duke of Loulé, and others. This article still extremely partial and clearly just promotes monarchic partisanship. The Monarchic Constitution promulgated in 1838 and never revoked, in article 98, categorically states: "The collateral line of the ex-infant Dom Miguel and all his descendants are perpetually excluded from the succession". This is not considered in this partial article when the article call him Duke, Prince, etc. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 23:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that he appears in most media and is referred to most often as Duke of Braganza is already enough for the article to do so as well, per WP:COMMONNAME. As the monarchy is no longer an official institution, there is no technical body that can determine who is what title and so on, so sources, the vast majority of whom call Duarte Pio as Duke of Braganza, are what we build the article on. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 04:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Also other pretenders are presented as Dukes and Duchesses in the media and WP don't gave them this titles. They are pretenders and this information should be neutral. Duarte Pio article should be renamed to just Duarte Pio of Braganza or Duarte Pio de Bragança. All information in his article is just promotional for his pretentions and not as presented in Portuguese Wikipedia. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 13:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Other articles on pretenders give titles as well. Look at Franz, Duke of Bavaria or Henri, Count of Paris. The English Wikipedia isn't bound by the conventions of the Portuguese one. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: So why not placed the pretender Maria Pia also as Duchess of Braganza? She is cited in the books (references) as Duchess of Braganza... See example: "Princess Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg, duchess of Braganza" in CHILCOTE, Ronald H.; The Portuguese Revolution: State and Class in the Transition to Democracy, page 37. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers; Reprint edition (August 31, 2012). Can you answer this? Anjo-sozinho (talk) 14:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Because she had no legitimate traditional claim to hereditary titles. Even if she had been an illegitimate daughter (the key word her is illegitimate), which is in serious doubt, she would not have had any claim to titles (let alone a throne) through her father. Authors can write about her until they see blue in the face but they cannot change that she is not a legitimate child of King Carlos I.Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: However she is legitimated by her father and all authors and documents cited this. The question of hes royal legitimacy is not on evidence, but on the opponents she had and has. Duarte Pio is not Duke of Braganza, but just a pretender, as Maria Pia should be considered. Using Duke in Duarte Pio is promote factional information and it should be removed or Maria Pia should be called also as she was recognized in all media and books. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 14:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

text: You speak of "The Monarchic Constitution promulgated in 1838 and never revoked" that barred the Miguelist line from succession. You also say the article doesn't mention that. The Constitution of 1826 was however restored in 1842 and was in force until the end of the monarchy. Which gives Duarte Pio his argument for his pretense and this is touched upon in the article. I have added a quote from the site of the Portuguese parliament. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:04, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Also the birth certificate of Duarte Pio is false (as it was proved by the Civil Registry of Portugal) and he's not Portuguese, so he can't be king or duke of Braganza. If you spoke about constitutional laws, I remember you the Monarchic Constitution promulgated in 1838 (and this was never revoked) that, in article 98, categorically states: "The collateral line of the ex-infante Dom Miguel and all his descendants are perpetually excluded from the succession". Please, be neutral. Duarte Pio is just a pretender as the others are. About the legitimacy... remember this: the House of Braganza was founded by an illegitimate person and also the first Duke of Braganza was an illegitimate son. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 15:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The Registry office said no such thing. They said that there was no proof he was born in the Embassy in Bern, since they only take their own records, taken from the birth certificate, into consideration. Also the first Duke of Braganza may have been an illegitimate child, but his descendant did not claim his title to the throne from his illegitimate ancestor. You are making lame excuses. Also the constitution of 1826 was restored in 1842. It is argued by some, that this is a significant factor in this question  Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:29, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. You are here just to promote false and partial information. Duarte Pio is just a pretender to the Portuguese throne and to the titles of the Duchy of Braganza. He's not duke and Portugal is not a Monarchy now. His article should be named Duarte Pio of Braganza and the correct infobox to use in his article is the Infobox/Pretender. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 15:47, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

text: That is not an answer. He's a claimant, so the right infobox is the Infobox/Pretender. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 16:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duarte Pio is a pretender, not a duke or a king 

message: Duarte Pio, as Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Braganza and the current Duke of Loulé are just pretenders to the Portuguese extinct throne, so the infobox used in their articles should be the Infobox/Pretender. Gerard von Hebel is using now partial information, reverting always the neutral editions in the articles and don't accept the right use of the Infobox/Pretender to all pretenders to the extinct portuguese throne. Hebel attitude clears his support to the false dukes, because all claimants to the Duchy of Braganza are now JUST pretenders. Portugal lives in a Republic. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 16:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Seek consensus first.Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You are promoting false information. Portugal is a Republic, so Duarte Pio is just a Pretender. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 16:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Gerard von Hebel is clearly promoting false information and threatening me. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 17:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

text: Dom Duarte Pio, Prince Royal of Portugal, Duke of Braganza (born 15 May 1945), is the pretender to the former Portuguese throne
Isn't it then logical and more coherent to use the pretender infobox? Pichpich (talk) 20:18, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the thing is that in articles on other pretenders it's not used. So why should it be here? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That is false. The infobox/pretender is used, for example, in Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Braganza article. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 22:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You could always try removing the pretender infobox from her article. DrKiernan (talk) 07:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I would not be a supporter of replacing it with the royalty infobox there, however.... Gerard von Hebel (talk) 13:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

text: I agree with Anjo-sozinho, if a infobox should be used, as has been the tradition with articles of this type, then the Infobox Pretender is the correct. It already states in the article that Duarte Pio is classed as a pretender to the former throne of Portugal. Until as such time as the Miguelist heir has standing in a reconstituted constitutional monarchy (or absolutist), then the use of the Pretender designation has no legs. But, clearly, Portugal is NOT a kingdom or constitutional monarchy and will likely be a Republic for the forseeable future, and his role continues as a Pretender. I believe my learned colleague User:Cristiano Tomas would (and has) supported this type infobox classification in the past. By using a "Royality"-based infobox is misleading, since most readers have a tendency to skim the article content, and may not move beyond the infobox for pure facts. Also Anjo-sozinho, I do suggest sending "threat" complaints to admins and arbiters, if that is in fact what Gerard von Hebel has been doing outside talkpage comments. I examined both user pages and did not notice any obvious inflammatory or threatening message. Obvious edit-warring may result in bans and/or blocks by admins, and I believe that important contributions are necessary to Portuguese articles on Wikipedia EN. ruben jc ZEORYMER (talk) 20:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

text: @Hebel: I don't find your argument quite persuasive. Articles should use the most relevant infobox, I think that's not up for debate. Obviously, this is not always the case but that's not a reason to stop progress in this instance. Pichpich (talk) 20:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: To me the infobox is not the issue. The NPOV remarks that were added to the article accompanying it's introduction however were, as was the fact that both were clearly pushed into the article without consensus, which was requested more times than once. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Which, to make myself clear, means that if it is reintroduced on its own merits, I will not oppose it. Although I do think there is something to be said for consistency. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Alright then. Let's solve the conflict piece by piece. You don't object to the use of the pretender infobox? Then let's change that and get to the thornier issues. Pichpich (talk) 21:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm... I wanted to change the infobox but the downside is that the pretender infobox template has far fewer parameters which means that we're throwing away some of the info. So I'm not sure where I stand on the infobox issue anymore! Pichpich (talk) 20:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Pichpich I personally would have no problem using the pretender infobox if only it was a more encompassing template - currently it is lacking, which is why i believe the royalty\nobility infobox is better. He is clearly stated as a pretender in the lead which I think for even skimming the article is good enough, at least I think. Shouldnt we chose the best formatted one? Cristiano Tomás (talk) 00:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I hadn't noticed that. I saw it nowhere in use on articles about pretenders or their relatives (except in the article on Maria Pia de Saxe-Coburgo e Bragança, who could hardly qualify for a royalty inbox anyway). Perhaps that's the reason why it's not in general use. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 01:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess the most pragmatic solution is to stick with the royalty infobox especially since it doesn't have a "this person is royalty" banner. Readers probably don't even realize that this is the royalty infobox. Pichpich (talk) 02:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: My point exactly - I doubt readers will go to the code source to check what type of infobox it is haha. I'm glad we all reached a decision. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 15:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

text: He is the male line representative of the original Duke of Braganza, so that would make him the Duke of Braganza. I don't know if new rules were made concerning the title during the Portuguese monarchy however. But I've never heard of that. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 00:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The user Gerard von Hebel still promoting false information in Wikipedia as a hidden supporter of Duarte Pio pretentions. Duarte Pio is just a claimant to the Duchy of Braganza, as other claimants are. He never can be officially Duke of Braganza because his dynastic line does not match the last line reigning in Portugal. The last kings of Portugal are from the House of Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha line and not the descendants of Dom Miguel. Also the Monarchic Constitution promulgated in 1838 and never revoked states in article 98: "The collateral line of the ex-infante Dom Miguel and all his descendants are perpetually excluded from the succession". Please, this article should be neutral. Duarte Pio is just a pretender as the others are. The infobox pretender should be used. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 22:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

text: His real name is Duarte Pio de Bragança and he was just a pretender to the Portuguese extinct trone. When Hebel deleted the Infobox/Pretender he is showing to everyone how promotes here false information and an impartial point of viwe about this person and subject. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 22:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox/Pretender 

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) 23:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  On-going dispute 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Duarte Pio, Duke of Braganza. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029192230/http://www.lacm.org.pt/conheca-o-cm/outros-antigos-alunos-de-relevo/d-duarte-pio-de-braganca to http://www.lacm.org.pt/conheca-o-cm/outros-antigos-alunos-de-relevo/d-duarte-pio-de-braganca
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121114002848/http://www.angelfire.com/pq/unica/monumenta_1834__lei_de_banimento.htm to http://www.angelfire.com/pq/unica/monumenta_1834__lei_de_banimento.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121114003944/http://www.angelfire.com/pq/unica/monumenta_1950_revoga_proscricao.htm to http://www.angelfire.com/pq/unica/monumenta_1950_revoga_proscricao.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131022105528/http://app.parlamento.pt/site_antigo/ingles/constitucionalism/const_monarchy/index.html to http://app.parlamento.pt/site_antigo/ingles/constitucionalism/const_monarchy/index.html#2
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131219031635/http://sol.sapo.pt/inicio/Internacional/Interior.aspx?content_id=23595 to http://sol.sapo.pt/inicio/Internacional/Interior.aspx?content_id=23595
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121118144222/http://liberal.sapo.cv:80/noticia.asp?idEdicao=64&id=37426&idSeccao=542&Action=noticia to http://liberal.sapo.cv/noticia.asp?idEdicao=64&id=37426&idSeccao=542&Action=noticia
*Added  tag to http://www.alentejolitoral.pt/PortalRegional/Actualidade/Noticias/Paginas/DDuartePiovisitaSantiagodoCacem.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130614150314/http://causamonarquica.com/2009/05/20/a-24-e-25-de-maio/ to http://causamonarquica.com/2009/05/20/a-24-e-25-de-maio/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120129144833/http://causamonarquica.com/2008/11/29/d-duarte-pio-e-o-1%c2%ba-de-dezembro-entrevista/ to http://causamonarquica.com/2008/11/29/d-duarte-pio-e-o-1%C2%BA-de-dezembro-entrevista/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Duarte Pio, Duke of Braganza. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120523222121/http://www.angelfire.com/pq/unica/causa_dd_2001_Timor.htm to http://www.angelfire.com/pq/unica/causa_dd_2001_Timor.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150528181601/http://www.dn.pt/inicio/pessoas/interior.aspx?content_id=2296298 to http://www.dn.pt/inicio/pessoas/interior.aspx?content_id=2296298
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160207203608/http://www.jornal.gov.tl/?q=node%2F112 to http://www.jornal.gov.tl/?q=node%2F112
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:30, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Duarte Pio, Duke of Braganza. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150528180826/http://www.dn.pt/politica/interior.aspx?content_id=2301680 to http://www.dn.pt/politica/interior.aspx?content_id=2301680
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029184554/http://www.binokulu.com/2012/11/08/jorge-carlos-fonseca-recebe-no-palacio-do-plateau-dom-duarte-duque-de-braganca/ to http://www.binokulu.com/2012/11/08/jorge-carlos-fonseca-recebe-no-palacio-do-plateau-dom-duarte-duque-de-braganca/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Edward III of Portugal and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 22#Edward III of Portugal until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.  DrKay (talk) 08:00, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Edward III of Portugal" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] 

message: The propaganda articles in favor of the Family of Duarte Pio "of Braganza" are just a repetition of lies with the aim of proselytizing to legitimize these impostors. Documentation only written by friends of the Cause, without any legal historical basis, and articles from gossip magazines, are mistakenly used as reliable sources to create the idea of a Portuguese royal family (although false). Duarte Pio, plus his father and mother, plus his grandparents, are all foreigners and without any dynastic rights in Portugal. It's impressive how administrators continue to allow (and condone) free publicity for a giant lie here on Wikipedia. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 11:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Please provide references for your arguments. So far you have provided none. You are showing unconscious bias in your arguments and lack to provide sustainable evidence. If someone is vandalising these articles is you with you republicanism bias. Wether you like it or not, Duarte Pio and his family are part of Portugal history, albeit through the Miguelist branch of House Braganza. You can argue/present this in the article and make it evident that they descend from this branch and have a claim as such, however, what you cannot due is deny it's existence, which you have been doing in you destructive comments so far. Duarte Pio and family are, for all facts and purposes, claimants to the monarchy's defunct titles and would be considered to succeed to the throne, even if it is via the Miguelist branch. I have proposed the pages to reflect this, as pretenders/claimants, but you continuously have vandalised the changes to reflect your republicanism bias. GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 14:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pure proselytism and total distortion of the History of Portugal 

message: The Royal Order Presented to this Man was a "revived" type of the Order of the crown of hawai'i. Owana Salazar, nor do other claimants have any right to change nor present these orders. in the Hawaiian kingdom constitution, only the head of state can distinguish Orders. being that their is no head of state of the kingdom of hawai'i NOR a claimant of the throne agreed apon, the order that this man has received is illegitimate. 808Poiboy (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I have edited such as illegitimate since this has not been changed. 808Poiboy (talk) 23:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove Order of hawai'i