Talk:Hilda Toledano

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Portugal Portal
Hilda Toledano 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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance for this Project's importance scale.
Portugal To-do:


Archive
Archives
1


Contents

[edit] Disputed

Maria Pia mixed frequently with the jet set idle rich. For many years she maintained an ongoing friendship with the exiled King Alfonso XIII of Spain and his son Infante Jaime, Duke of Segovia. Much correspondence exists between Maria and members of European royal families recording her efforts to gain legitimacy within royal circles.

As far as I know, Maria Pia was a joke among European royalty. Are there any sources for these statements? Charles 19:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

All three of the sentences which Charles quotes are correct and verifiable in the biography by Jean Pailler. Maria Pia:
  1. mixed with the jet set idle rich;
  2. maintained a friendship with Don Alfonso XIII and Don Jaime;
  3. wrote to various royals trying to gain legitimacy.
What evidence can Charles provide that any of these facts are "dubious"?
It seems to me that Maria Pia must have been an absolutely charming individual. But merely because people enjoyed her company doesn't mean that they recognised her claims. We can't say that, however, in the article, because we are limited to summarizing published sources. Noel S McFerran 19:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Noel, I disputed statements because they did not seem correct to me. I was merely trying to find sources. As for dubious, that is the name of the template, not something of my choosing. Now that I know where it has come from I shall remove the tag. Charles 22:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Separate article on Rosario Poidimani

Last year the separate article on Rosario Poidimani was deleted because some editors considered him not to be noteworthy enough for a Wiki-article. The recent charges against him in Italy may have changed this situation. Then it would be possible to remove several paragraphs from this article about recent events. Noel S McFerran 13:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Beyond the one-liner in the article, what is known of the charges and would they make him, or anyone else for that matter, particularly notable? Charles 15:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

-Based on his lawsuit against Guy Stair Sainty and not the legal action taken against Mr. Rosario Poidimani by the Italian authorities would make it noteworthy enough for a Wiki-article. http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article2390845.ece Bnguyen 06:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

What makes him any more notable than anyone else who launches a lawsuit? [[User talk:Charles|Charles]] 15:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
He actively claims the Portuguese throne; there are numerous newspaper articles about him. The fact that he is, in my opinion as well as those of many others, a fraud is not a reason for denying him a wiki-article. Noel S McFerran 16:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't commenting on the fact that he is a fraud. What I am trying to convey is that I have heard of many people who have appeared in a number of articles for a number of reasons but I don't think that it would make them particularly notable. I think that Rosario Poidimani is fine as a section of this article. [[User talk:Charles|Charles]] 17:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Emmanuela de Dampierre

Is reported in this article "...but this is strongly denied by the first wife of the latter, Emmanuela de Dampierre" and also "...but most of the replies were merely polite but unsupportive". Where are proved these affirmations? Or in this encyclopedia is possible write also affirmations without proof? I know at the contrary many official documents (in particular the letter of the King Alfonso that was used for the legal case in the Sacred Roman Rota but also others) where for example the king affirms "I remember you (Maria Pia) that is a stupidity forget your rights of Infante of Braganza". In these letters adressed to Maria Pia all the readers can see the familiarity in the words of the king Alfonso http://www.royalhouseofportugal.org/portugues/alfonso.html

It is not up to wiki-editors to decide the truth - of this matter or of any other. We merely gather what has already been written. Other people have written:
1. that Maria Pia had a friendship with Alfonso;
2. that the claim that Maria Pia had a friendship with Alfonso is false.
The article should reflect what has already been written. Noel S McFerran 11:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
But more, see here the J. Pailler testimony [1]: "We can have no doubt that Maria Pia was acknowledged in her lifetime – at least by part of the princely establishment in Europe – as a natural daughter of king Carlos I. She certainly was by the family of Alfonso XIII, the King of Spain. A son of the King, Don Jaime de Borbón y Battenberg, duke of Anjou and Segovia, has written a statement to that effect, that cannot be seriously challenged. D. Jaime's widow, Doña Emanuela de Dampierre, the Duchess of Anjou, speaking to me via telephone in March 2003, certainly confirmed that Maria Pia's Braganza connection had been accepted as a matter of fact by King Alfonso. To the Duchess of Anjou, however, it was very clear that such connection did not entail any dynastic rights, and she recalled, with regal and pungent humour, the somewhat excessive personality and pugnacity of Maria Pia.This should be accepted as an indication that we are not dealing with a crazy lady who fancied herself a Princess, nor with a shameless crook who posed as one. King Alfonso XIII in the 1930's was a man in his prime, who might lose his crown, but not his head, and could certainly not be fooled by any royal pretence of either madwoman or adventuress. It does not mean, however, that Maria Pia's story should not be taken without a grain of salt. In fact, an ounce might be more appropriate. For the lady, charming and royal as she was, was also a charming and royal liar."


[edit] Web of fantasy is revealed as 'last king of Portugal' goes on trial

By Peter Popham in Rome Published: 25 March 2007 http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article2390845.ece


Portugal's last king died in 1932, but the pretender to his throne is alive and well and currently behind bars in the northern Italian city of Vicenza.

Rosario Poidimani, a 60-year-old businessman from Syracuse in Sicily, is accused with 11 others of constructing a web of fake titles, fraudulent diplomatic passports and imaginary offshore bank accounts around his claim to be the King of Portugal.

At his home, he created an elaborately decorated throne room and a council chamber with gilt and red plush chairs around a vast glass table. Here, prosecutors claim, he sold imaginary aristocratic titles and, with his assembled courtiers, planned the grand climax of the scheme: the creation of a sovereign kingdom, possibly in Ukraine or on a Croatian islet, which would eventually become a member of the EU.

Mr Poidimani's bizarre ambitions originated in his friendship with a woman called Maria Pia, who died in Italy in 1995 aged 88. Maria Pia claimed that soon after she was born her unmarried mother took her to Madrid, where she was baptised, and that her baptismal record stated that her father was "D. Carlos de Sassonia-Coburgo y Savoia de la Casa de Braganza de Portugal" - Carlos I, the penultimate King of Portugal.

With the baptismal records destroyed during the Spanish Civil War, Maria Pia spent much of her life trying to prove she was heir to the defunct Portuguese throne - despite the fact that Carlos I was married at the time and children of adulterous unions were excluded from the succession.

Then, in 1987, she "abdicated" from her "throne", making it over to Poidimani, who says she adopted him.

Among those arrested this week were his "foreign minister", Roberto Cavallaro, and six others. Italian tax police seized 712 fake diplomatic passports, 600 fake diplomatic IDs and 135 forged CD plates. They also took away his throne. Bnguyen 06:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The article as it is

I have to give thanks, aand praises, and kudus to the editors who managed to make a mess of a subject into such good example of a Wikipedia article - neutral, verified, nicely written, referenced, informative. Really, after all the trouble I had with this article and Mr.Poidimani, I am really impressed with the result. Thanks! muriel@pt 12:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reversion to 29 December 2007 edition

I have reverted the article to the version of 29 December 2007 to return the tone to NPOV. The "Analysis" gives a thorough treatment of the historical challenges to Maria Pia's/Hilda's claims; there is no need to throw in "fraudulent" or "illegally" into the overview paragraph. There is also no need to deny the woman her name if she indeed called herself and was addressed as "Maria Pia"; "Hilda Toledano" may be her best known name, but it is also a nom de plume and not consistent with her birth surname or any of her married names. To call her "Hilda" in the article would be akin to insisting on referring to Muhammad Ali by "Cassius" throughout a biographical article about him.

I realize that for some, to give an inch is to be allowed a mile on this article. While I've had this point of view in the past, it does our reader no good to be subjected to an editing war between to extremes. This version has served for nearly six months without incident. Let us consider this version the line in the sand, until new evidence emerges. If it takes protection to keep it this way, I am open to that.

Kelly (talk) 00:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality disputed

This article is embarrassing. Each side keep pushing their claims without independent sources, state their analysis as fact, have few independent links. It is ludicrous that the article doesn't EVEN give the woman's name. One side claims to use her writer pseudonym, the other her royal claimed name. As the article uses her pseudonym as the title I have reverted to the version that uses her name, and removed some of the more ludicrous over the top language.

The battle over this article has been going on for years. If a solution isn't found soon, we should simply delete the whole thing. It isn't worth the hassle when both sides insist on vandalising it to push their agendas. FearÉIREANN[\(caint) 22:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted to the December 29, 2007 version, just as Kelly did several days ago. There is a commitment by several editors to a neutral version. Unfortunately there are other editors who have strong personal opinions on both sides of this issue who seem insistent on forcing their point of view versions - but don't seem to want to engage in discussion about any particular issues on this talk page. There is no excuse for using words like illegally, fraudulently, absurd, sensational, and bizarrely; these are all point-of-view words. Noel S McFerran (talk) 10:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] First paragraph

Three times in the last three days User:Finneganw has reverted the attempts by myself, User:Jtdirl, and User:BranwenNiSidhe to restore a version of this article which is neutral and does not promote the claims of Maria Pia or the claims of her opponents. Thus far User:Finneganw has not contributed to the discussion on this talk page to explain these edits.

The first paragraph as it now stands reads:

  • Maria Pia de Saxe-Coburgo-Bragança (March 13, 1907 - May 6, 1995), also known as Hilda Toledano, the pseudonym she used to write books, claimed to be an illegitimate child of King Carlos I of Portugal. She also claimed that Carlos had recognized her as his daughter and given her the same rights and honours as other princes of Portugal. From 1957 she used the title "Duchess of Braganza" and made an active claim to be the rightful queen of Portugal.

The paragraph to which User:Finneganw reverts reads:

  • Hilda Toledano (March 13, 1907 - May 6, 1995), also known as Maria Pia de Saxe-Coburgo-Bragança, claimed fraudulently to be an illegitimate child of King Carlos I of Portugal. She also claimed that Carlos had recognized her as his daughter and given her the same rights and honours as other princes of Portugal. From 1957 she illegaly used the title "Duchess of Braganza" and made an active claim to be the rightful Queen of Portugal. She also used to write books.

1. "Hilda Toledano" was a pseudonym used by this lady when she wrote books. She did not use this name at other times. The name which she used was Maria Pia de Saxe-Coburgo-Bragança. In many countries people can use whatever name they wish.

2. It is appropriate to say that she "claimed to be an illegitimate child of King Carlos I". It is not appropriate to say that she "claimed fraudently". Maria Pia was never charged with fraud, or found guilty of it. (It is not particularly relevant that I personally don't believe her claim.)

3. It is appropriate to say that "she used the title Duchess of Braganza"; that is merely a statement of fact. It is not appropriate to say that she "illegaly [sic] used the title". I know that in France one can be charged with a crime for using a title to which one has no right; I don't know if there is a similar provision in Portuguese law. In any case, Maria Pia was never charged with any crime.

4. It is appropriate to describe her as "also known as Hilda Toledano, the pseudonym she used to write books" rather than adding the sentence at the end, "She also used to write books." This is just a matter of good style.

I invite comments from other editors. Continuing to revert the edits of three different editors without any discussion is just bad form. Noel S McFerran (talk) 11:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You are doing the right thing, Noel. There is support for your actions from several editors other than the two you have already mentioned. -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

2 points. As the article is titled Hilda Toledano it is illogical to start the article using a different name. I have tweaked it slightly to start off with the HT name, saying it was the pseudonym of Maria Pia . . .. That should make the opening more easy to read. The previous version was poorly written.

Secondly, what was the woman's real name? Saxe-Cob.... was the surname of the kings and she used it to push her claim. The article really needs to say what her real name was, rather than rely either on a pseudonym or a claimed name. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 21:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "real" name. The legal surname of the actor Martin Sheen continues to be Estevez (which is why three of his children have the Estevez surname) - but his article is under Sheen because that is how he is generally known. The name this lady generally used is Maria Pia de Saxe-Coburgo-Bragança. That doesn't mean that she is related to the other people with the surname Saxe-Coburgo-Bragança (or variants), anymore than Martin Sheen is related to Archbishop Fulton Sheen. It seems that some editors want to make sure that no reader is "taken in" by Maria Pia's claims. I think that it would be appropriate to rename the article - but I haven't made a formal proposal because I didn't want to deal with the firestorm from a few Maria Pia opponents. Noel S McFerran (talk) 11:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Finneganw has finally replied on my talk page. He seems to think that I am "determined to support a known fraud on wikipedia"; anybody who has read my comments on this talk page knows that I am not a supporter of the claims of this woman. The first paragraph presently uses phrases such as "woman who called herself", "claimed to be an illegitimate child", "claimed the right to use", "made an active claim", and "court declared that she had failed". It no longer includes the words "fraudulently" and "illegaly" (sic), both of which are inaccurate.

User:Jtdirl, User:BranwenNiSidhe, User:Derek_Ross, and even User:Charles seem to be satisfied with the neutrality of the present first paragraph which avoids the excesses of User:M.deSousa (a supporter of Maria Pia). Perhaps User:Finneganw could explain why he is insistent on the use of the words "fraudulently" and "illegaly" (sic) - in spite of the fact that Maria Pia was never charged with fraud or any other illegal action. Perhaps he could also explain why he is insistent on using the name "Hilda" when that was merely the literary pseudonym of the lady, and not the name by which she was commonly known. Noel S McFerran (talk) 15:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I will confirm your statement regarding my satisfaction as wholly correct. Charles 19:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I too am happy with Noel's phrasing. If a court had stated that she had acted fraudulently, it would be alright for us to report that it had done so. But it would be utterly wrong for us to make that claim ourselves. -- Derek Ross | Talk 21:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Since the above discussion, there have been numerous edits back and forth among the three viewpoints outlined. I propose that this article come, once again, under some form of protection under a neutral tone. Full protection may be necessary not only to maintain the tone as neutral, but also to force editors to discuss the changes they wish to make. Signed, BranwenNiSidhe

170.37.244.10 (talk) 17:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

While there are a few differences, in my opinion the balance is still there (at least at this moment until somebody changes it). It's annoying that it gets changed so frequently. But there seems to be enough editors with the page in their watchlists to ensure that most of the time a fairly neutral version is "up". Noel S McFerran (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Maria Pia of Braganza

You should redirect this article to Maria Pia of Braganza or Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha Braganza. She never used her literary pseudonym as her name. Please, change it. 84.90.92.195 (talk) 22:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I am in favour of a move to Maria Pia de Saxe-Coburgo-Bragança, since this is the name she used and is most known by (she isn't known by an English translation of this name). I have hesitated to initiate a move request because I don't like controversy. Noel S McFerran (talk) 23:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)