Talk:Line of succession to the Portuguese throne

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Portal:Portugal
 Portugal Portal
Line of succession to the Portuguese throne 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.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.
Portugal To-do:

Contents

[edit] inherent POV problem

This article, at least now (name was "Line of succession to the Portugiese throne" at the tyime of writing this), is totally POV. We cannot say what is the present line of succession to the Portuguese throne, but the said fact is nowhere mentioned in the article. For POV reasons, this article should probably be deleted. It will be very difficult (possibly impossible) to write a concise, NPOV article under this name. Another possibility is to change this page to something like "Miguelist line of succession (to the Portuguese throne)". If we want to have a NPOV article about something verifiable under the title "Line of succession to he Portuguese throne", we actually must choose 1910 as its date. That was the last point when the line of succession was in an existing monarchy. Marrtel 19:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I think all these pages of "lines of succession" to now defunct thrones should either be deleted or entirely recast. This is especially true when the pretender has no claims based on the last monarchical constitution (that of 1838). I believe that under the 1838 constitution nobody is in line for the Portuguese throne. After the death of King Manuel II, all Portuguese-born dynasts were extinct save the Miguelist line. I believe that in such circumstances the constitution provided that the Cortes would decide who should be king, and what the order of succession would be. Given that there is no monarchy, this is moot, so it is at least arguable that there is no claimant. Alternately, there are the potential claims of the Duke of Loulé, descended from the sister of Dom Pedro and Dom Miguel, assuming that marriage is considered dynastic. At any rate, while it is perhaps not terribly controversial to list successions to thrones that have had well recognized pretenders who were clearly the heirs under the old system (like with the Habsburgs, or the Hohenzollerns, or the Wittelsbachs), the whole idea of it seems so dubious as to require, as I said before, either recasting, renaming, or deletion. john k 20:48, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move back to original title at Line of succession to the Portuguese throne. There is no consensus for any title at all, so keeping it at the old title is the default until consensus can be reached. —Mets501 (talk) 03:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for move

The article now covers the family of the current Miguelist claimant, other members of which actually are not pretenders but family members of that current pretender. This does not even begin to list all earlier Portuguese pretenders, for example the son of Pedro I and Ines de Castro in 14th century. The title does not correspond at all to the content. Marrtel 00:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poll

  • Support. As I requested above. Marrtel 00:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Restore to original name (Line of succession to the Portuguese throne). Charles 00:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
      • I notice that Charles above actually does not support the present article title, nor does he support anything else than move to a POV title. Presumably that vote should be disregarded, as it does not address the RM at hand. Marrtel 01:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
        • The is irrelevant, my vote is still valid. I have a problem with two unfavourable moves as opposed to one. Charles 01:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    • How could the original title possibly be NPOV? By any reasonable standard, there is no Portuguese throne. Furthermore, it's far from clear that Dom Duarte is the heir to the former Portuguese throne. He is the pretender who is supported by most Portuguese monarchists today, but that's not the same thing. john k 00:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Should we understand that User:Cfvh (= Charles) is a Miguelist supporter? I cannot see how any NPOV would allow this to be at Line of succession to the Portuguese throne. Marrtel 01:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
      • When someone does not agree with you you should not resort to making unnecessary assumptions. My opinion will not be swayed. Charles 01:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Support. As I've said before, I'm not clear that we should have these articles at all. I'd much prefer broad-based articles on former royal houses that discuss them more broadly (and that, perhaps, list recognized dynasts not in the somewhat mythical "line of succession" - mentioning consorts seems far more useful to me than listing people with distant chances to succeed to the throne. john k 00:59, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I have a strong history of trying to edit the articles on Portuguese royalty and related subjects according to a neutral point of view. But NPOV does not mean that each and every theory should be treated with equal weight in Wikipedia. While the vast majority of people believe the world to be round, there are a few who believe it is flat; that does not mean that every wiki-article about the Earth must be neutral on this point. When people who actually have an opinion on the topic are asked "who is the pretender to the Portuguese throne", there is no doubt that the vast majority would reply "Dom Duarte Nuno". I think it reasonable that an article such as this one record dissenting opinions briefly at the bottom. I concur with Charles that the article should be returned to its original title Line of succession to the Portuguese throne; it is highly inappropriate for an article to be unilaterally moved when the name is contentious such as here. Noel S McFerran 01:57, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Indeed we should not treat every theory with equal weight. Surely the predominant theory at the moment is that there is no Portuguese throne, and thus no line of succession. john k 11:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
      • In an article about the Government of Portugal it would not be reasonable to include information about that tiny minority who still believe that Portugal is rightfully a monarchy. But in an article specifically about a dissenting opinion (such as this one), it is perfectly reasonable to discuss it (and, as I said, briefly refer to the dissenting opinion regarding other potential claimants). Noel S McFerran 12:06, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
        • The problem is that the title "Line of succession to the Portuguese throne" implies that Portugal currently has a throne, and thus seems to take the monarchist point of view. My own view would tend to be that articles about lines of succession in countries that aren't monarchies anymore should be avoided, and should be replaced by a) articles about the pretending houses themselves; and b) articles about the system of succession in those countries when they were monarchies. john k 12:33, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
        • In an article about Portugal it would not be reasonable to include information about that tiny minority who still believe that Portugal is rightfully a monarchy. Yet the original title of this article refers to "Portugal" -- not to "Portugal as imagined by monarchists". Therefore, the title should be changed to indicate, in some way, that it is not about "succession" in the Portugal that exists. Either the present "Pretender" version or the proposed "Miguelist" version of the title is more indicative of its subject matter than the original title, because both hint to the reader that the article is about Portugal in the parallel universe of royalism. As for opposition based upon the last move having been unilateral, when has an editor on these royal articles reverted due to such pleas? Lethiere 02:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Either support or restore to original name. Who came up with this gross title? "Portugual"?!? --Húsönd 18:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Is correct they are only miguelist pretenders, perpetually excluded by the last monarchic constitution of 1838 Jackind 15:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Furthermore, we have an anonymous user (82.58.229.111) signing as Jackind/Manuel de Sousa. Charles 16:10, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I have struck out Jackind's vote since he is a sockpuppet for Manuel de Sousa who was indefinitely blocked on July 6, 2006. Noel S McFerran 04:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
    • The allegation that User:M.deSousa were indefinitely blocked, seems not to be true. I cannot find anywhere any such decision, nor is there such block in that user's account's blocking log. I suspect that the allegation above is McFerran's way to diminish his opposer, nothing else. My opinion is that misrepresentations made by McFerran and by Charles here should be regarded as blocking-worth offense. Marrtel 10:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Please check the talk page of M.deSousa. He was indefinitely blocked on July 6, 2006 by Royboycrashfan. Anybody who edits pages about Portuguese pretenders knows the editing history of M.deSousa, and his ongoing use of sock-puppets since July 2006. The accusation by Marrtel that I falsely made this allegation against M.deSousa as a means of wrongly affecting this vote is a grave violation of the Wikipedia:Assume good faith policy. An examination of Marrtel's talk page shows that this is not the first time this has occurred. Noel S McFerran 13:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
        • from the user's talk page: "You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for repeated vandalism. If or when the block expires, please refrain from vandalizing or this account will face longer blocks, and action could be taken against the individual who uses it. Roy A.A. 18:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)"; - observe the words "if or when the block expires";
        • from block log: "18:14, 6 July 2006 Royboycrashfan (Talk | contribs) blocked "M.deSousa (contribs)" with an expiry time of 2 weeks (repeated vandalism)"; - observe the words "expiry time of 2 weeks". Noel McFerran seems to go happily around alleging falsely that the said block is indefinite; and Charles seems to go happily around elleging falsely that the said user is banned. Marrtel 22:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
          • Anybody who has a two-week block is working on a ban. And one-sided contributions to Hilda Toledano are working on community consensus on a ban. Septentrionalis 23:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Support unless reasons can be given why Miguelist line of succession is not neutral. It would be nice to indicate what country we are talking about; but Jacobite succession doesn't. Miguelist succession (Portugal)? Septentrionalis 23:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

It is too difficult to enlarge this to be a full article of Pretenders to the Portuguese throne, seeing that in history, there have been such pretenders almost ach century. Marrtel 00:18, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

A suggestion, in which I have invested little special love: Might something like List of living members of the House of Braganza be less problematic? john k 02:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so... I can see someone trying to put Rosie in that one. We have articles titled Line of succession to the (such-and-such non-extant) Throne. Why must this one be the exception? After all, they are going to be ordered as if it were a line of succession anyway. This is hardly controversial, all we have is one delusional pest trying to insert a fraud. I think we need to just push through and streamline it as best as we can to the other articles and still have the various constitutional/etc things mentioned. Charles 03:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Do we have Line of succession to the French throne or Line of succession to the Neapolitan throne? So far as I can tell, we do not. Even beyond that, I will add that I find all of these articles strikingly inappropriate, and think that they should all be gotten rid of, as inherently POV. john k 06:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Please take a look at the template box which is on the right side of this very article page. There is a link to Line of succession to the French throne (Orléanist). There are similar links for many other European countries which were formerly monarchies. The Two Sicilies is an anomaly (as perhaps it should be considering its disputed status); the equivalent information is at Two Sicilies#Current line of succession to Prince Ferdinando, Duke of Castro. Noel S McFerran 12:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Note that "Orléanist" (and "Legitimist" and "Bonapartist") provides context that perhaps suggests that it is a discussion of, as others have said "a monarchist fantasy France" rather than the actual France that is a republic. Beyond that, I generally think that we should never have these articles unless the title indicates fairly clearly that there is no monarchy anymore. I don't mind the content of these articles, but the way they are titled is misleading. john k 14:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Want about Line of succession to the former xxx throne or something like that? Like I said, it doesn't matter if there is a republic or not in terms of naming the article, because the throne "exists" but is just former rather than extant. We don't have to make it clear in the title that such-and-such place is a republic. What of the places that don't exist anymore? The previous form was totally fine. There is a line of succession to the Portuguese throne. The chair just insn't there anymore, so to speak. It's like telling someone you're waiting in line to go to the bathroom even if it's out of order. That's fine. The article can explain the circumstances. We had articles on non-existant Popes titled as if they existed and that is fine. Charles 21:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand how a throne can currently "exist" when it is "former". Beyond that, in pretty much every former monarchy (and at least one former former monarchy, Spain), there is some question about the exact line of succession. In Portugal the right of the Miguelist line to succeed to the throne is doubtful; in France there are three separate lines of pretenders. The legitimist line is fairly clear (all legitimate agnatic descendants of Hugh Capet are in line), but the Orleanist line is much less so (are the Orleans-Braganzas or Orleans-Gallieras in line? I think this is in question); many of the former German monarchies have some kind of dispute or confusion - in Prussia, for instance, Prince Friedrich Wilhelm has rescinded his renunciation, and claims the pretendership; in Austria, the status of Archduke Karl's children is debatable; there are now two claimants for the House of Savoy, and there have long been two claimants for that of the Two Sicilies. The Parmese claims of the Grand Ducal House of Luxembourg seem to be in question; there is a dispute in royal Saxony between supporters of the cognatic nephew of the Margrave of Meissen and the morganatic son of his cousin; the status of pretty much all the Ernestine duchies is confusing; there's obviously a considerable dispute about Russia. When there actually is a monarchy, it's usually reasonably clear what the line of succession is, because there's actually a state currently regulating it. As soon as one removes this, the whole thing becomes open to debate and dispute, and chaos gradually increases over time. To say that a "former" throne still has a line of succession seems an incredibly questionable idea. Who determines this, and how? Where can we find a reliable source on this subject, and how can we avoid this being original research? john k 21:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
And the legitimist line is unclear too, because of the effort spent arguing that Philip V of Spain did not, or could not, renounce the French throne; and what the present implications of this are. It has been possible, since 1883, to argue that the Count of Paris is the legitimist Pretender. The article actually handles this fairly well. Septentrionalis 23:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
How do we explain the order the list is in in this article now? It certainly isn't alphabetical. Come on, think a little here. The fact of the matter is we can have a reasonably neutral and accurate title and then explain the alternatives and differences in the article itself. It is the exact same thing as the Russian line of succession. Regardless of the number of them for any title, they are lines of succession. Charles 22:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

What's wrong with giving Rosie a section of her very own, where we can explain why she's wrong? Compare the treatment of conspiracy theories at Novus Ordo Seclorum. Septentrionalis 23:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

That's what I've advocated, although serious alternative suggestions are welcomed. Lethiere 23:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

How on earth was there a consensus to move back to the original name? john k 07:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

because User:Mets501 misguidedly thought (I cite from his edit comment, which fortunately is not easy to alter) that "per talk; no one objects to this title, both other titles have opposition". Marrtel 07:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Mets501 did not claim that there was consensus to move back to the original name. The point is that there was no consensus in favour of any other name, and that therefore the article stays where it originally was. Septentrionalis should not have moved the page unilaterally on November 13; there should have been a discussion. Noel S McFerran 13:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Mr McFerran states that "Mets501 did not claim consensus to original name", when the exact opposite is actually the case; Mets501 claimed that no one objects to this title. Sometimes I am amazed at face of the intellectual dishonesty of some. Marrtel 08:21, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merger

Would it not be better to have the line of succession at the end of the monarchy included in this article, so we have the former and current lines of succession in the one article like the Russian one. Xxy 21:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

We now have two articles; this bare list of names and a much longer article at Line of succession to the Portuguese throne as of 1910. It would be better to merge this article there, as a note that the Duke of Braganza did leave heirs. I do not object to that title, and I don't see anybody else having done so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:49, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Septentrionalis about the direction of the suggested merger. And, we cannot have this article here anyway for long, as this is inherently POV: presupposing an existence of a throne that is abolished; implying that the Miguelist claim is the only existing; implying that Miguel's line is in some way in line of succession to the abolished throne, contrary to the view that the laws the said monarchy followed until its abolition actually regarded Miguel's line ineligible to succeed; and so forth. Actually, the discussion should continue at Talk:Line of succession to the Portuguese throne as of 1910. The other logical alternative is actually to delete this article here, because this is inherently POV. Marrtel 08:16, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I think all of it should be brought to *this* article, even if it means leaving the present heirs as footnotes. Multiple lines of succession are at the Russian article and it has a title without dates. Charles 17:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/i/n/Talk%7ELine_of_succession_to_the_Portuguese_throne_61c7.html"