Talk:Beatrice of Portugal

Was she or wasn't she?
Was she acclaimed or no? If yes, then she was queen of Portugal, whatever John I like it or not.Câmara 23:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Well yes, was she or was she not? No acclamation, no king/queen. Or is this a little thesis from a scholar/student trying to be interesting? Anyway, it's the first time I hear of her.--Xyzt1234 (talk) 19:40, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I looked up the Dicionário Enciclopédico da História de Portugal (Encyclopedic Dictionary of Portuguese History) and also consulted with an enthusiast of the 1383-1385 crisis and indeed Beatriz was never acclaimed. She was the legal heir to the throne, or at least the best bet, and favored by the nobles, but the clergy and the bourgeoisie supported the João das Regras arguments at the Cortes of 1385 instead of her or other candidates and so acclaimed D. João I. So, as someone mentioned, there was no king nor queen in Portugal during 1383-1385. (It is also worth noting that she was 11 in 1383). --Xyzt1234 (talk) 23:10, 6 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Her mother did rule for her as regent in 1383-1384, did she not?--85.226.41.180 (talk) 22:46, 19 March 2010 (UTC)


 * at the light of the testament of John I of Castile (Cronicas de Lopez de Ayala, Henry III, year II, chapter VI), for him, maybe the mother of Beatriz, between 22 Octubre 1383 and 13 January 1384, was regent in his name, maybe in her daughters name. Leonor Teles was regent by force of the Treaty of Salvaterra, that Jonh I of Castile never wanted to respect (who affirm this is Lopez de Ayala, Cronica de John I of Castile, from year IV, chapter V to year V, chapter XIV). Leonor Teles only ordered the acclamation of his daughter after 13 December 1383 in all the country (the acclamation was previewed in that Treaty).In some places (more than 54 cities and towns) she was acclaimed by the nobles and a part of the rural rich burgess, in other cities and towns there were rebellions ant taking of the fortresses by the people, repudiating both her acclamation and the invasion of Portugal by her husband, other cities and towns hadn´t acclamated her, waiting for the development of the situation. Fernão Lopes, the portuguese cronista, says the common people have not acclamate her pratically  anywhere. So, not even as nominal queen of Portugal she can be considered for any period of time (her acclamation was made only in a part of the country and, even there, only by a minority of the population). Real queen, real sovereign is also out of question, for could be considered as real sovereign she must had the approval of the Cortes. The position of the Cortes of Coimbra in 1385, by this reasons, was right: the throne was empty, there was no sovereign, neither nominal nor effective.Jorge alo (talk) 07:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There are some more questions but, by the moment, I only refer this one: if there are any historians defending that she was queen of Portugal, name them, please, user 85.226.41.180.Jorge alo (talk) 07:02, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Warning from Portugal
In 12 March 2010 I have warned Surtsicna about this:

«In that time (1383-1385), there was not such thing as personnal union. The problem was the possession, the owning of the kingdom of Portugal. You can read the testament of John I of Castile in the Chronicles of Pero Lopez de Ayala (Henry III, year II, chapter VI). There he wrote that perhaps the kingdom was of is own, perhaps of his wife Beatrice, that he was not sure. This doubt of the king of Castile represents the complete destruction of the marriage treaty of Salvaterra. More, means that even he didn´t recognized his wife as a truly sovereign of Portugal. For him, it´s may be, but in the treaty of Salvaterra she was firmly, strongly recognized as nominal sovereign. Who killed the possibility of his wife become sovereign of Portugal was John I of Castile himself, when he tried to become sovereign all mighty and ANNEX Portugal to his domains, without any wright to do so. There was in Portugal a kind of parliament called Cortes, and only the Cortes have the power to aloud such thing. He tried to eliminate this Cortes, to convert Portugal in one of his own domains without any representative organ of the cities and county councils (in português, Concelhos). And this was the truly cause of the war. In the portuguese Wikipedia my designation is Jorge alo. My excuses for the errors, I rarely write in english. Um abraço e estou sempre à sua disposição. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.157.243.179 (talk) 20:33, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

After writing to you I saw that my contributiom was not welcome. There´s no problem, but now you have another time a bad article with plenty of errors and some lies. For example, NEVER EXISTED A MIGUEL, SUN OF JOHN I OF CASTILE, and he invaded Portugal in December of 1383, both Fernão Lopes and Pero Lopez de Ayala say it, and those two are PRIMMARY SOURCES. I only can say that you must read the chronicles of Fernão Lopes (Portugal) and Pero Lopez de Ayala (Castile). Also I must say that´s funny the use of the word «controversial». For example, the notice of the birth of Beatrice it´s in Crónica de D. Fernando, chapter LXXII, wrote by Fernão Lopes, and her birth was when Henry II of Castile was near Coimbra for some days. So, couldn´t be in December 1372, but in February 1373 (you must read the chapter). If you want to be in controversy with Fernão Lopes, be my guest. For the rest, at the moment I have not time. In a couple of months I will return in English Wikipedia to try to make some corrections in the articles about 1383-1385 (but you have reason, my english it's horrific). Cumpliments.» 88.157.243.179 (talk) 22:47, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Correction of this article
First proposition of correction, for the item Controversy: «There is no dispute among portuguese historians about Beatrice. All they say that during the 1383–1385 period Portugal had no monarch, so Beatrice can not be counted as a Portuguese queen regnant. She is rarely referred as Queen of Portugal by foreign historians that aren't specialists of portuguese history, but, based on these rare references, some claim that at least for a short period she was Queen and so can be included on the list of the Monarchs of Portugal». If you disagree, present, please, your propositions.Jorge alo (talk) 19:03, 26 March 2010 (UTC). I altered, «foreigner historians» to «foreign historians» and «based on these historians» to «based on these references».Jorge alo (talk) 07:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC). I also altered «based on these references» to «based on these rare references». Bibliography showing that there is no controversy among portuguese historians about Beatriz: Dicionário de História de Portugal, directed by Joel Serrão, edition of Iniciativas Editoriais, Lisbonne, 1971; História de Portugal, direction of José Mattoso, edited by Editorial Estampa; História de Portugal, direction of José Hermano Saraiva, edited by Selecções do Reader's Digest, SARL, 1983, Publicações Alfa, SARL.Jorge alo (talk) 09:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Second proposition of correction, in «regnal titles»: ELIMINATION OF the box «Preceded by Ferdinand I, Queen of Portugal and the Algarve, 1383–1385, Succeeded by John I». Wikipedia don't give regnal titles nor make orders of sucession, it´s a encyclopedia. Her mother ordered the alcaides (commanders of the fortresses)to put in the letters they have to send to Beatriz, «Queen of Portugal and Castile» and, in Castile, the title that Beatriz allways used was «Queen of Castile and Leon, and Portugal». I think it´s correct to refer the thesis that is trying to defend that she was Queen, but I can´t understand how the defenders of that thesis may have legitimacy to change the order of sucession that is consensual in Portugal among historians by their own order of sucession and to fabricate regnal titles. It´s enough to refer this very minoritary thesis, without abusive corolarys and developments. This is History of Portugal for users of a encyclopedia, not History fabricate by some people trying to make their own version.Jorge alo (talk) 10:45, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Need works
Can we agree on a death date? The article gives three date 1420, 1408, after 1413. Also info needs to be translated from the Portuguese wiki about her alleged son Miguel. He possibly or possibly did not exist.--Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 00:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't like how Miguel, Crown Prince of Portugal was removed. There is a large possibility that he is made up or a mistake by later historians but the concept of him still existed. Why don't we move his article here and discuss how it has been a mistake/misconception through history? Even though he may not be real, he is still notable to mentioned.--Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 06:20, 8 January 2012 (UTC)