Talk:António, Prior of Crato

message: He is not normally considered to have been King.  I suggest moving this article to Antonio de Crato. john k 15:29, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It depends on how strict line we draw for being a monarch. He ruled for a brief period, apparently all Portugal. There are similar examples afaik, here afaik treated as monarchs. And compare with some other briefly-reigning, such as Frederick III of Prussia 217.140.193.123 19:52, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

text: I did not mention Fred III as analogy, but only for his brief reign. See rather certain medieval Norwegian and Swedish kings (who were very disputed), and some Polish monarchs, etc. And, who consider after 1640 Antonio as usurper? Isn't he in the national king lists of Portugal... Anyway I am somewhat opposed to Antonio de crato, as if he were an ordinary Portuguese nobleman... An usurper is usually anglicized (actually had he even support from Britain?)  217.140.193.123 20:07, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

text: In my opinion, you are too hasty to move. And, we have not had any proper discussion about naming of earlier pretenders. IMO, already the fact that someone apparently created this article under this heading, means something of the use of some people, possibly Portuguese. Then, the article in Portuguese Wiki seems to be monarchically titled. Apparently due to lists of their kings by Portuguese. Do you have any contrary knowledge of Portuguese national position into this issue? Have you checked googe-test for Anthony vs Antonio re him, and Crato vs Portugal?  Then, as far as I checked, in English texts he seems to be "of" Crato rather than "de" - do you have many contrary observations? I tend to leave the article titled as it was... any change requires good reasons to support, IMO. 217.140.193.123 21:41, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

text: PS do not forget to check particularly the Norwegian medieval pretenders or rival kings, there were plenty of them. And some in sweden and some in Denmark... We should not treat such so radically differently. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.140.193.123 (talk • contribs) 
Well, in my opinion you are making a lot of assumptions here, about, for instance, what Portuguese king-lists say.  At any rate, it doesn't matter what Portuguese people call him.  What matters is what he is known as in the English-speaking world.  And that is not "Anthony of Portugal."  Most of the google hits for that seem to be to wikipedia and mirrors.  1911 Britannica apparently had Antonio, Prior of Crato, although the article is one that has been turned into nonsense by love to know's stupid scan.  At any rate, that seems like an appropriate title to me. john k 21:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Already in Portugiese WP there is some list, copied from somewhere: http://pt.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lista_de_Reis_de_Portugal&diff=15603&oldid=15598
 For more general discussion about rival kings, please really check particularly the Norwegian medieval pretenders or rival kings, there were plenty of them. And some in Sweden and some in Denmark... We should not treat such so radically differently. 217.140.193.123 22:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: António of Portugal or Anthony of Portugal are not usual when referring to this guy. Antonio de Crato is plain wrong. "De Crato" can mean two things: he was born or lived in the town of Crato or it was his family name. However, António was a natural son of a Portuguese prince (Luís, Duke of Beja), and because of that he had no family surname. So his name is just António. Nothing more. Because it is odd to use just António, he used the name of his title in this form: António, Prior do Crato, in English, António, Prior of Crato. This is the correct name. By the way, he is in fact a disputed monarch of Portugal, but many historians are now considering him a de facto and de jure monarch, since he was acclaimed. I'll move the article to António, Prior of Crato. Joaopais 19:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If I may join in, the fact that António was acclaimed and that PORTUGUESE historians recognize him should be enough to at least give him a page that uses the royalty template and a title António I of Portugal. The fact that he may be disputed doesnt mean that he is just any other Portuguese noble. On this page one could still write (disputed) like on it.Lumastan (talk) 23:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: The sentence reads: "Due to his illegitimate status, however, his claim to the throne was considered invalid." What is the source for this? Two hundred years before in 1385, John, an illegitimate son of Pedro I, was declared John I, king of Portugal. This precedent meant being illegitimate did not automatically make one invalid for the throne. Of course, it was ammunition in the hands of D. Antonio's enemies. All the claimants had problems. D. Antonio was illegitimate, Catherine was a woman, Philip was a foreigner. I will modify the sentence if there is no disagreement.  Bartam (talk) 03:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early Life 

message: I took the material about Antonio's claim to the throne of Portugal as shown under "Early Life" and moved it here. I made a number of changes. I added the information about primogeniture being concerned with the oldest living son and that it was Antonio, not Ranuccio, who had the strongest claim under this old feudal custom. I also deleted Ranuccio's name altogether as being one of those who contested the succession because his father never contested it in his name.  Bartam (talk) 04:32, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claimant to the Throne of Portugal