Talk:Duarte Nuno, Duke of Braganza

message: The miguelist supporters claim the validity of a supposed “Pact of Dover” in the 1920 when a rapresentative of the Manuel II of Portugal  would have abdicated in favour of Duarte Nuno of Braganza that would have become the Duke of Braganza. The truth is there are no proof of this “pact” and at the end in that year the king Manuel of Portugal was in good health and so there are no reason of him hypothetical abdication in favour of a pretender exclused from the last Monarchic Constitution. There is no documental proof of this "pact" and this was only a invention to legitimate the miguelist line, excluded perpetually from the succession by the last monarchic constitution!
:Adulterine/bastard daughters and their appointed Italian/non-Portuguese "heirs" are perpetually excluded as well! Charles 20:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pact of Dover 

message: Seebenstein (where Duarte Nuno was born) is in Austria - not Germany.  This is just one example of the reasonable edits made recently by an anonymous editor who also makes some less reasonable edits.  Instead of constantly reverting such edits, perhaps other editors could think of more appropriate ways of phrasing things. Noel S McFerran 03:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seebenstein, Austria 

message: I have never heard of this so called 1816 creation of the duchy of Bragança. It is true that D. Pedro IV did style himself Duke of Bragança but the assumption was that the title would merge with the crown of Portugal on his death and was simply a life peerage. This is in fact the way royal titles remained royal. 
It makes no sense anyway since D. Duarte Nuno was already the head of the Royal House of Portugal on the occasion of his marriage to the brazilian princess.
Nuno A. G. Bandeira
:I haven't seen any record of this phenomenon other than this Wiki-article.  When I did a major edit of this article a little while ago, I left the section in, hoping that somebody else could clarify.  Merely because neither of us has heard of this, doesn't mean that there isn't any truth to the claim. Noel S McFerran 21:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1816 creation ?? 

message: This article is well-edited and mostly balanced, but might be rendered even better by reconciling/correcting/clarifying what seem to be omissions and "weaseling" on a few crucial points. In the spirit of an earlier plea for constructive contribution (i.e., "Instead of constantly reverting [less reasonable] edits, perhaps other editors could think of more appropriate ways of phrasing things"), I would urge that the following points be addressed or, as time permits, I'll attempt to do so myself:
*Use of the terms "Pact of Dover" and "Pact of Paris" should be explained and/or reconciled.
*The legal validity of (Miguel's 1920) renunciation and the subsequent exclusion of Miguel and his descendants is assumed (in much the same way as that of Infante Jaime, Duke of Segovia), rather than sourced or acknowledged as legally questionable.
*The phrase "Manuel had no children and no close heirs" is somewhat misleading: either one has an heir-at-law, or one does not, or it is not clear if such an heir exists. But the 1838 Constitution is not particularly vague on this point, whereas this phrase is. It seems to confound "no close (agnatic) relatives" with "no heir", apparently in order to suggest that since the heir-at-law was not a close relative, selection of a different heir was needed or justifiable.
*The phrase "In the 'Pact of Paris', however, Manuel II showed his personal desire that the Cortes should name a successor in any future restoration" is in apparent contradiction with the earlier  phrase, "Manuel agreed that the Cortes should select his heir if he died without one". I haven't yet read the Pact so I don't know for sure which of these two statements is more accurately derived from it. It's possible the Pact does state both, but if so, Manuel is contradicting himself therein. While that "fact" need not be explicitly stated as such in the article, it should not be buried or minimized either, since it would be relevant to Duarte Nuno's claim and thus to readers of this article.
*The reference to the Loulés is genealogical rather than legal, and gets shorter shrift than the Maria Pia pretensions which, in a section entitled Succession as claimant to the throne seems inadequate, at best.
*While "foreigners" were banned from the Portuguese succession, it is assumed rather than sourced that Portuguese citizenship was available only by being born on Portuguese soil rather than, as was often the case in 19th & 20th century Europe, being heritable through a parent. King Miguel's descendants were non-dynasts under the Saxe-Coburg-Braganzas because the Constitution explicitly and "perpetually" excluded him and his descendants, not necessarily because they weren't Portuguese citizens. Lethiere 00:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have tried to respond to some (but not all) of Lethiere's concerns by making a few changes to the article.  The "Pact of Dover" is different from the "Pact of Paris".  I suppose that something could be added about it at some point. Noel S McFerran 03:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bravo, Noel. But I'm now confused about the implications of the February 1842 repeal of the 1838 Constitution and consequent restoration of the 1826 Constitution: Is the only difference between the two the "perpetual" exclusion from succession of the Miguelist line contained in the 1838 version? It seems a little farfetched that Miguel was restored to the succession so soon. On the other hand, his banishment wasn't lifted, and by then Queen Maria da Gloria had 2 sons and a third on the way, so maybe the issue was considered moot. Assuming that the 1826 version excluded Maria da Gloria's father and brother as Brazilian monarchs, current and future, what was its take on the rights of her younger sisters? By the time of the extinction of her Portuguese descendants in 1932, the Miguelist line had ceased to be Portuguese if we continue to assume applicability of Jus soli rather than Jus sanguinis. Alternatively, the Miguelist line's succession to King Manoel II becomes automatic. But that, again, seems inconsistent with the other known facts: Since Miguelist succession rights were restored in 1842, why would Manoel II not acknowledge in the Pact of Paris that the Miguelists were his heirs by right if he died childless? Instead, he affirmed that his successor would have to be chosen by the Cortes, whose constitutional authority to choose could only arise once the line of lawful succession had been exhausted. (As in the Artois/Orléans "Fusion" of 1873, and the 1909 Pacte de Famille between the Orléaniste and Brazilian claimants, it does not seem that the incumbent pretender makes any concessions to or recognition of the dynasticity of the junior branch in these pacts, while the cadets validate the senior line's rights and authority in their entirety). Hmm. Repeal of the 1838 constitution followed Portugal's September 1842 coup d'état, which was driven by political issues unrelated to Miguel's cause. Were its effects on Miguelist rights neither intended nor foreseen? Anyway, I'm impressed by this outstanding and objective edit job. Thanks for taking it on. Lethiere 06:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarifying succession issues

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) 18:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Duarte Nuno «de Bragança» was just a pretender to the Portuguese extinct throne and never was a real Duke of Braganza. This article's factual accuracy doesn't exist and it isn't neutral Anjo-sozinho (talk) 19:13, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duarte Nuno as Duke of Braganza? 

message: I am amazed to find out that this article says that Pedro II of Brazil was Duke of Braganza. He never held such title as it belonged to the Portuguese crown and he was considered a foreigner in Portugal and was never a Portuguese prince (that's why his elder sister, a female, became queen and not him) as he was born after the Brazilian independence was recognized by João VI. --Lecen (talk) 02:04, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is based on false information. Duarte Nuno «de Bragança» is just a pretender to the Portuguese extinct throne. All information and titles cited here as factual are just fantasy and based on Miguelist advertising literature. It's impossible accept information like this and refusing to name the other claims, as Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha Braganza and Duke of Loulé for example. This article's factual accuracy doesn't exist and it isn't neutral Anjo-sozinho (talk) 19:11, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Brazilian branch as Dukes of Braganza? 

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) 13:58, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Coat of Arms of the Most Serene and Royal House of Braganza.gif Nominated for Deletion

message: Duarte Nuno, 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) 16:34, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: you're literally doing huge moves without consensus - whatever your personal views are they don't matter  - on Wikipedia we seek consensus and sources, which these articles have. - Cristiano Tomás (talk) 17:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is based on false information. Duarte Nuno «de Bragança» is just a pretender to the Portuguese extinct throne. All information and titles cited here as factual are just fantasy and based on Miguelist advertising literature. It's impossible accept information like this and refusing to name the other claims, as Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha Braganza and Duke of Loulé for example. This article's factual accuracy doesn't exist and it isn't neutral Anjo-sozinho (talk) 19:11, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

text: Who made the massive changes to several articles like this back in December last year? Without any consensus or without any reference to Wikipedia conventions? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:05, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: His real name is Duarte Nuno de Bragança and he was just a pretender to the Portuguese extinct trone. When you delete the Infobox/Pretender you are showing to everyone how are you promoting here false information and an impartial point of viwe about this person and subject. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 22:42, 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) 23:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  On-going dispute 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Duarte Nuno, 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/20080119061222/http://www.angelfire.com:80/pq/unica/monumenta_1920_bronnbach_abdicacao.htm to http://www.angelfire.com/pq/unica/monumenta_1920_bronnbach_abdicacao.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061002133531/http://www.parlamento.pt/ingles/constitucionalism/index.html to http://www.parlamento.pt/ingles/constitucionalism/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070307084011/http://www.angelfire.com:80/pq/unica/il_doc_pacto_de_dover.htm to http://www.angelfire.com/pq/unica/il_doc_pacto_de_dover.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050828202213/http://www.angelfire.com:80/pq/unica/causa_1932_proclama_do_lugar_tenente.htm to http://www.angelfire.com/pq/unica/causa_1932_proclama_do_lugar_tenente.htm
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: :The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
----
:Duarte Nuno de Bragança →  – The page was moved to the current title from this one without without discussion or consensus. 67.173.23.66 (talk) 16:02, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: WikiProject Royalty and Nobility has been notified of this discussion. Favonian (talk) 17:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 6 February 2022 

message: An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect :Edward II of Portugal and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 22#Edward II 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 II of Portugal" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]