Talk:Beatrice of Portugal

message: Was she acclaimed or no? If yes, then she was queen of Portugal, whatever John I like it or not.Câmara 23:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well yes, was she or was she not? No acclamation, no king/queen. Or is this a little thesis from a scholar/student trying to be interesting? Anyway, it's the first time I hear of her.--Xyzt1234 (talk) 19:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

text: I looked up the Dicionário Enciclopédico da História de Portugal (Encyclopedic Dictionary of Portuguese History) and also consulted with an enthusiast of the 1383-1385 crisis and indeed Beatriz was never acclaimed. She was the legal heir to the throne, or at least the best bet, and favored by the nobles, but the clergy and the bourgeoisie supported the João das Regras arguments at the Cortes of 1385 instead of her or other candidates and so acclaimed D. João I. So, as someone mentioned, there was no king nor queen in Portugal during 1383-1385. (It is also worth noting that she was 11 in 1383). --Xyzt1234 (talk) 23:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Her mother did rule for her as regent in 1383-1384, did she not?--85.226.41.180 (talk) 22:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  at the light of the testament of John I of Castile (Cronicas de Lopez de Ayala, Henry III, year II, chapter VI) , for him, maybe the mother of Beatriz, between 22 Octubre 1383 and 13 January 1384, was regent in his name, maybe in her daughters name. Leonor Teles was regent by force of the Treaty of Salvaterra, that Jonh I of Castile never wanted to respect (who affirm this is Lopez de Ayala, Cronica de John I of Castile, from year IV, chapter V to year V, chapter XIV). Leonor Teles only ordered the acclamation of his daughter after 13 December 1383 in all the country (the acclamation was previewed in that Treaty).In some places (more than 54 cities and towns) she was acclaimed  by the nobles and a part of the rural rich burgess, in other cities and towns there were rebellions ant taking of the fortresses by the people, repudiating both her acclamation and the invasion of Portugal by her husband, other cities and towns hadn´t acclamated her, waiting for the development of the situation. Fernão Lopes, the portuguese cronista, says the common people have not acclamate her pratically  anywhere. So, not even as nominal queen of Portugal she can be considered for any period of time (her acclamation was made only in a part of the country and, even there, only by a minority of the population). Real queen, real sovereign is also out of question, for could be considered as real sovereign she must had the approval of the Cortes. The position of the Cortes of Coimbra in 1385, by this reasons, was right: the throne was empty, there was no sovereign, neither nominal nor effective.Jorge alo (talk) 07:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

text: There are some more questions but, by the moment, I only refer this one: if there are any historians defending that she was queen of Portugal, name them, please, user 85.226.41.180.Jorge alo (talk) 07:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was she or wasn't she? 

message: In 12 March 2010 I have warned Surtsicna about this:
«In that time (1383-1385), there was not such thing as personnal union. The problem was the possession, the owning of the kingdom of Portugal. You can read the testament of John I of Castile in the Chronicles of Pero Lopez de Ayala (Henry III, year II, chapter VI). There he wrote that perhaps the kingdom was of is own, perhaps of his wife Beatrice, that he was not sure. This doubt of the king of Castile represents the complete destruction of the marriage treaty of Salvaterra. More, means that even he didn´t recognized his wife as a truly sovereign of Portugal. For him, it´s may be, but in the treaty of Salvaterra she was firmly, strongly recognized as nominal sovereign. Who killed the possibility of his wife become sovereign of Portugal was John I of Castile himself, when he tried to become sovereign all mighty and ANNEX Portugal to his domains, without any wright to do so. There was in Portugal a kind of parliament called Cortes, and only the Cortes have the power to aloud such thing. He tried to eliminate this Cortes, to convert Portugal in one of his own domains without any representative organ of the cities and county councils (in português, Concelhos). And this was the truly cause of the war. In the portuguese Wikipedia my designation is Jorge alo. My excuses for the errors, I rarely write in english. Um abraço e estou sempre à sua disposição. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.157.243.179 (talk) 20:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warning from Portugal

message: First proposition of correction, for the item Controversy: «There is no dispute among portuguese historians about Beatrice. All they say that during the 1383–1385 period Portugal had no monarch, so Beatrice can not be counted as a Portuguese queen regnant. She is rarely referred as Queen of Portugal by foreign historians that aren't specialists of portuguese history, but, based on these rare references, some claim that at least for a short period she was Queen and so can be included on the list of the Monarchs of Portugal». If you disagree, present, please, your propositions.Jorge alo (talk) 19:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correction of this article 

message: Can we agree on a death date? The article gives three date 1420, 1408, after 1413. Also info needs to be translated from the Portuguese wiki about her alleged son Miguel. He possibly or possibly did not exist.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 00:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need works