Talk:Duke of Loulé

message: This article is poorly written and may be biased. There is no cohesive structure within the article and the tone seems to propound the Dukes of Loulē as legitimate as opposed to Duarte Pio who is recognized by most observers as the pretender to the Portuguese throne. Moreover, the writing style in this article is similar to that used in certain edits for and talk pages for the articles "Hilda Toledano" and "Duarte Pio," edits that were since reverted and corrected.
:The article does need improvement in grammar and cohesion. But the above suggestion that the article is "biased" is not only unsourced speculation, but is anonymous, unsourced and itself  biased. Worse, it makes little sense: Advocates for Hilda Toledano claim that she and her "heir" were Portugal's rightful pretenders, to the exclusion of both Duarte Pio, Duke of Braganza and the Dukes of Loulé. Lethiere 03:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Needs improvement

message: Why is it that the template is so "misleading" it is correct in fact and all.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lumastan (talk • contribs) 01:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The info box contained such misleading information as "Surname = Ducal House of Loulé" and "estate = of Portugal" and "parent house = House of Braganza" These are not correct answers to the questions of "What is the surname of the Duke?", "What is the primary estate of the Duke?" and "Of what family are the Dukes of Loulé a branch?" Thanks to Pichpich for pursuing clarification of my concerns. FactStraight (talk) 02:14, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: the parent house and the estate may be changed, but if you look at the other pages on houses like, House of Bourbon the title for surname is: The house of Bourbon, thus proving that the Ducal House (or just House) of Loulé is suitable {O Marquês de Terra e Marques (talk) 03:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The House of Bourbon is a dynasty whose membership is determined by male-line descent, and it is disputed whether all members of a reigning dynasty have surnames. But the Dukes of Loulé do not and have never reigned: Each duke has a surname, and that is what should be used. If the names of the dukes have changed over time, then each name should be given in chronological order. FactStraight (talk) 06:19, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Would this satisfy you? {O Marquês de Terra e Marques (talk) 07:39, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

text: The viewers do not see the "surname", lets just keep its place filled with: Duke of Loule {O Marquês de Terra e Marques (talk) 00:30, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: So yes? :) O Marquês de Terra e Marques (talk) 06:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes -- when and if "surname" is changed to "surname = Moura Barreto". FactStraight (talk) 10:03, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Template

message: I'm sorry to say, but the present article is an absolute disaster.
The title was NOT "originally granted to the family of Moura Barreto".
It was granted in 1804 to Nuno José Severo de MENDOÇA Rolim de Moura Barreto, the 9th count of Vale de Reis.
The title of count of Vale de Reis in turn was granted in 1628 to his DIRECT ANCESTOR IN THE MALE LINE, Nuno de MENDOÇA.
The arms of the family are those of MENDOÇA.
All other family names are subsidiary.
While it is true that the paternal surname(s) today normally come last in Portugal, this was by far the case in the 18th century, when additional family names indicating ancestry would normally be added AFTER the main surname of the noble lineage. In a  completely random look at the "Anuário da Nobreza de Portugal" (2006 edition), it only took me 4-5 seconds to find the "Pinto da Silva de Miranda Montenegro Vasconcelos e Menezes" family (pp. 1034-1039): the first line of that entry clearly states the point - "Familia que descende, por legítima varonia, de Aires Pinto, fidalgo...".  Pinto is the main family name; the arms of the family, quartered, display the Pinto arms in the first quarter, as shown on page 1034. All other surnames are subsidiary, simply used to show later marriage alliances and descent.
In Portugal the present duke of Loulé and his brother go by "Folque de Mendoça", as the male line was broken (several times) in the 19th century. However, even though strictly genealogically speaking no longer in the the Mendoça male line, that original family name, following the Portuguese tradition, was kept in every instance. The present duke is thus the son of the 4th duchess and José Pedro de Basto Feio Folque. Hence, Folque de Mendoça, the male line now being Folque, but still keeping the all-important Mendoça. Nobody in their right mind in Portugal would dream of calling him "Moura Barreto", which are completely secondary family names. I mean no offense, but the idea that the dukes of Loulé belong to such a family is outright ridiculous; in fact, the present duke's four younger siblings are all simply "Folque de Mendoça"; they do not even have Rolim Moura Barreto in their names.
Since I have no particular interest in this family or title, I would prefer if someone else undertook the task of correcting the present article to reflect the reality. However, I will gladly do it myself if no one else feels like doing it - and I will do it eventually anyway if no one else does it, as the present article is utterly incorrect in this particular aspect. If anyone has any questions, feel free to ask.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Igor Zyx (talk • contribs) 20:26, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's Mendoça/Mendonça, not Moura Barreto 

message: I removed Maria Pia de Saxe-Coburgo e Bragança from the geneaology table. Her descent is unsourced and unsubstantiated. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  unsubstantiated descent