Talk:List of Portuguese monarchs
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
List of Portuguese monarchs is part of WikiProject Portugal, a project to improve all Portugal-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Portugal-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome. |
 FA |
This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance for this Project's importance scale. |
|
Portugal To-do:
|
|
 |
This article is a former featured list removal candidate. Please see the archive to see why the proposal to remove its featured status failed. |
 |
List of Portuguese monarchs is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you see a way this page can be updated or improved without compromising previous work, feel free to contribute. |
Contents |
[edit] Luis II, king of Portugal?
When King Carlos was assassinated in 1908, his also fatally injured crown prince survived him by a short time. I thought the Crown Prince was technically regarded as having been king between his father's death and his own a short time later. If so, surely he too should be on the list? JTD 22:54 Jan 22, 2003 (UTC)
Prince Luis Filipe actually died with his father in Terreiro do Paco, if not, a few hours later. Manuel was also shot in the arm, but survived to be the last portuguese king. Sara C
I know. I understood that Luis Filipe survived his father by a couple of hours. As he was Crown Prince, it has been claimed by some that he automatically became king, even if only for a matter of hours, with his death passed on the throne to his heir presumptive, Manuel. Others insist the throne passed directly to Manuel.
I've just looked a website that used as its source the Library of Congress. And it has its facts all wrong (Manuel the oldest son; assassination killed the youngest son, etc). Oh dear. I thought it was just the CIA fact book that screws up so baldly. JTD 22:24 Feb 10, 2003 (UTC)
About Portuguese Crown Princes... I don't think this institution exists in Portugal at all. This is due to the fact that Portuguese Kings are not crowned themselves. The reason for this strange tradition goes back to 1640, when Joao IV recovered independence after spanish domain since 1580. Then, Joao IV dedicated Portugal and its crown to Nossa Senhora da Conceicao. And after that it's the Virgin who is actually the crowned queen of Portugal, being the living monarchs mere representatives of her. Muriel Gottrop
I head Luis Filipe only lived 20 minutes after his father :-s. So i we going to ad dhim or not?? -fonzy
I don't think it's correct to add Luis Filipe to the list. I never heard about a Luis II, king of Portugal. Muriel Gottrop
- Agree with muriel!!!-Pedro 14:29, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Prince Royal and no King Luís Filipe
According to the Constitutional Charter of 1826 (Carta Constitucional) the heir presumptive of Portugal is styled "Prince Royal" (Príncipe Real); his first born is Prince of Beira (Príncipe da Beira).
Luís Filipe was not king because there was no acclamation; this is customary since the beginning of Portuguese nationhood.
Ricardo monteiro 10:29, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] 1143?
Why this article considers the rule of King Alfonso I only since 1143, when the majority of authors indicates 1128?! Even the Portuguese encyclopedia that I'm seeing at the moment. Ok: (...)-1128 - He was a count 1129-1139 - He declared himself the Prince of Portugal 1139-1179 - He declared himself the king of Portugal 1179- King de jure. (the proof is in the Portuguese national archive, Torre do Tombo)
Why 1128? because he ruled it has an independent country and many acclamed him has king.
BTW the same encyclopedia accepts King Anthony has king from 1580-1581. -Pedro 14:29, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
1129 or 28 was his own first proclamation - possibly nothing more than claiming the position of independent prince, not a proper king
1139 there was another proclamation.
check the year when Pope recognized. 217.140.193.123 16:46, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] ephemeral and unrecognized monarchs
dona Beatriz (Brites), daughter of Ferdinand I, was acclaimed as queen regnant and was recognized by her party. She was a part of the period here called an interregnum. Should be mentioned in the article, if dom Antonio is.
Antonio the Bastard was the rival king briefly when Philip demanded the throne.
Also dona Catarina, princess of Guimaraes, claimed the throne. married with duke of Braganza.
And finally, dom Luiz Filippe, who technically succeeded for some minutes, could be mentioned. 217.140.193.123 16:45, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- I agree that Beatrice should be mentioned, but not as Queen because at the time coronation was needed (the Portuguese crown had'nt been offered yet to Our Lady of Conception). A claimant to the throne is not the same thing as an acclaimed king (like António, the Prior of Crato) but I believe that every claimant to the throne in the dynastical crises (1383-1385 and in 1580) should be mentioned in a note. Finally, as for Prince Royal Luis Filipe, he did'nt became king the second his father died. Portuguese kings are only considered kings when they are crowned and/or acclaimed, so the period between the death of a monarch and the beginning of reign of the next king is a kingless period known as vacatio regis.--Gameiro 02:28, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
-
- But Beatrice wasn't acclaimed in 1383? I think so.Câmara 13:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Improvement drive
The article on John III of Portugal is currently nominated to be improved by Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. Support the article with your vote or comment on the nomination.--Fenice 09:12, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] House Avis - Beja
Emanuel I belonged to dynasty Aviz - Beja, so please make the correction. see the portuguese wikipedia .--Regalijan
[edit] Harmonization of names?
All kings named "Alphonzo", "Sanctius", "Emmanuel", "Anthony", "Louis" and "Charles" have links redirecting to articles in which they are identified as "Afonso", Sancho, "Duarte", and so on. Aren't these last names the ones by which they are really known in English? Furthermore, at some point names kewep being mentioned in Portuguese, then in English, then back in Portuguese. Would't the article benefit from some harmonization? I propose:
1. The King's names as used in the articles referring to them (it makes research easier, simpler and more coherent);
2. The subject's names follow the king's names rules. It's a convention, a mere choice, but one should be followed, I believe.
Some articles (Peter IV and V), for example, use "Pedro". This, I admit, requires even deeper work at harmonization.
Of course, I take it upon myself to undertake the changes, should users agree to this. Thanks a lot and congratulations for the "featured article", Nuno Gabriel Cabral 16:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks Nuno. I chose to use the English versions of their names so that the whole list could be coherent. I do not think that kings named Sancho, Afonso and Manuel are known in English by Sanctius, Alphonzo or Emmanuel, but thats the English version of their names. We could use English names all over the list, or alternatively all Portuguese. Perhaps Portuguese would be better. As for the actual names of the articles it's quite difficult, Since Wikipedia has a policy that states that an article should be titled with the name by which is most known in English. So we have Peter I of Portugal and Pedro V of Portugal, the names by which they were known. And we also have things like having both Mary I of Portugal and Maria II of Portugal. Feel free to change it. Joaopais 18:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, João, for your attention to the questions I raised. I have to admit that I'm reasoning on my personal experience of studying History in English, but I'm quite convinced that in English, despite the absence of a precise rule on translation of foreign names, the most usual use of the names coincides with the titles of most of the articles. Of course this is not free from contradictions: the Catholic Kings are Ferdinand and Isabella, not Ferdinand and Elisabeth; the Kaiser is, on the other hand, William II and not Wilhelm II. By the way, why "Peter" for the others and "Pedro" for Pedro V? That's intriguing.
I'm not a native English speaker, who am I to say anything? Nonetheless, I believe in the convenience of using names by which an English speaker may search or refer to when researching about Portuguese history. I'll make some changes according to my criteria and put them to everybody's consideration, i.e., I'll do waht any Wikipedia user does... Thanks again, Nuno Gabriel Cabral 11:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
- They should always have English names, that's obvious! Except when they were known by the Portuguese name (case of the Brazilian Emperor). So anything is wrong with the list. --Pedro 11:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- The only one I'm not comfortable with is the article Mary I of Portugal, which should be renamed Maria I of Portugal. About the Pedros, it's really odd. I think that in the middle of the 19th century, in English-speaking countries, the names of foreign monarchs started to be used in their native languages, with exceptions of course. If you reasearch magazines of the 19th century you will find Pedro I of Brazil (IV of Portugal), Pedro II of Brazil, Pedro V of Portugal, Miguel of Portugal, Luis I of Portugal and Carlos I of Portugal. An English-language encyclopedia today has entrances for Peter I of Portugal, Peter II of Portugal, Peter III of Portugal, but Pedro I of Brazil (IV of Portugal) and Pedro V of Portugal. It's strange. As for the all-English/all-Portuguese in the list, Pedro (the user, not the king) says that we should stick to the English names except when they were known by their Portuguese name. So we ought to change the Sanctius, Alphonzos and Emmanuels to their Portuguese names. And also Charles, Louis, Michael and the two last Peters, since they were known by their Portuguese name too. Joaopais 13:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
-
- Maybe I'm the king, and you don't know it yet, lol. I'm named after Saint Peter, not kings. BTW I thought that issue on native names was only with Pedro I of Brazil. Are those references british? we should stick to British references/ encyclopedias. --Pedro 14:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Princes of Portugal/Brazil
I created the succession box of Princes of Portugal, and so I created some pages of short lived princes. Feel free to improve them. ;) I will do the same for the Princes of Brazil, but not todayCâmara 00:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
