Talk:Catherine of Braganza

Popular inconsistency
Slight inconsistency in saying she was an unpopular choice and then ending in saying she was very popular. Presumably became popular later.

She was unpopular because she was foreign and a Catholic to boot. Also, when she arrived in England, her dress was extremely foreign as well. You must remember, at this time their great fear of "popery" and suspiscions of Catholic plots etc., gave Catherine a mark against her at the outset. Catherine gained respectability by never involiving herself in politics, and never compromising her public or private behaviour. The fact that she retained her dignity while married to a notorious philanderer, eventually endeared her to the English people. Kevin Q.

Tea (meal)
On her influence in starting the tea ritual, see and. This info should be expanded, as well as at Tea (meal). I'd do it myself, but my wikipedia time has not been extensive as of late. Whoever does this should please remember to cite their references. &mdash; Eric Herboso 03:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Neither of these is substantial or well-sourced. Tea was known in England by 1659, so presumably the claim here is for the meal, not the drink? At any rate, needs better sourcing. 99.10.72.121 (talk) 00:58, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Burial
Does anyone have a referable source saying where she was buried? The page said it was the Hieronymite Monastery, but I've been there and I'm absolutely sure she's not. I checked the Portuguese wikipedia, and it said that she was buried there, but moved to the Braganza Pantheon. Sounds reasonable, but I'd rather have a citation. - Kyle543 11:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I have seen her tomb in the Braganza Pantheon at Sao Vincente de Fora but have been unable to establish when her body was moved there. The Portuguese Wikipedia says that the pantheon is located in the former refectory of the monastery. Presumably at the time of Catherine's death it was still a refectory. The article also mentions that the current arrangement of the tombs dates from 1933. - Haymarket22 (talk) 15:26, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Mother's name
Her mother was Luisa de Guzmán, a daughter of the Duke of Medina-Sidonia ... she did not carry the Medina-Sidonia place name as part of her own name ... She had only her surname, de Guzmán.204.126.251.64 (talk) 21:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Her mother was Luisa de Gusmão, not Luisa de Guzmán.--João Farinhote (talk) 12:26, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Crowning
There is something wrong with the statement that "Roman Catholics were not allowed to take part in Anglican services". Her brother-in-law James II was a Roman Catholic, but that did not prevent him being crowned in an (Anglican) coronation service, albeit with the ceremonial modified so that he was not in the main part of the building during the Holy Communion. The reason Catherine was never crowned (if this is so) is much more likely that Charles and his advisors saw no point in provoking a section of the population for no great purpose. Escoville (talk) 09:55, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

New files
Recently the files below were uploaded and they appear to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think they would be a useful addition, please feel free to include any of them.

Dcoetzee 03:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

External link
The external link provides a text written by an amateur that names Catherine of Braganza father as Juan (!), instead of the correct João, duke of Braganza, in english, John. These kind of stereotypes are insultuous both to History and to the Portuguese language.85.242.236.236 (talk) 02:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Statue
Her statue is not facing Queens, NY; it's actually facing southeast, as can clearly be seen in the article's picture, with the Vasco da Gama bridge showing in the background - here it is: http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&ll=38.781473,-9.091085&spn=0.000758,0.000826&t=h&z=20 213.22.51.145 (talk) 03:50, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Princess of Beira
Hello! I have moved the succession information about this title to the succession boxes at the bottom of the article. The intention is not to undermine the importance of the title. It's just that the article should be consistent with articles such as Anne, Princess Royal, Mary, Princess Royal and Princess of Orange, Frederick, Prince of Wales, Catherine, Princess of Asturias, etc. In those articles, the titles are not mentioned in seperate succession fields in the infoboxes. Instead, they are mentioned in the succession boxes at the bottom where it is easier to put a detailed description of the title. That is because it would be quite cumbersome to put the "Prince of Wales" succession in, for example, the article about Catherine of Braganza's husband. So, generally, predecessor, successor and tenure are only mentioned in cases of directly hereditary titles. I have, of course, left the title of Princess of Beira in the infobox right after Catherine's name, as it is done in aforementioned examples. 92.36.144.159 (talk) 14:14, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Would you please do me the honour and respond? 92.36.156.19 (talk) 21:21, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Legacy section: nonexistent statue
I can't see how a statue that wasn't put up counts as any kind of legacy. And the reasons give here for why it wasn't cast or erected have nothing to do with the reputation or perception of Catherine of Braganza today; just about anti-British and republican tendencies in NYC at the time it was proposed.

The statement about the 8ft 9in version at Expo 98 is unreferenced, and a comment on this Talk page says that it doesn't face west as stated here.

A historical figure's legacy is normally measured in the traces they leave on historical events or society today, as institutions, bequests, attitudes etc. One uncited bronze statue in the country of someone's birth hardly counts as a 'legacy': can anyone come up with something better? Robocon1 (talk) 10:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Marriage section: Portugese ambassador's statement
As part of a language edit of this section I removed the following uncited sentence: "The Portuguese ambassador proudly remarked that she was "totally without that meddling and activity in her nature", pending its replacement with a translation that might actually mean something, and a reference to its origin, if anyone is able to supply that. Robocon1 (talk) 15:59, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Catherine 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/20061119230908/http://www.queenstribune.com/anniversary2003/queenscatherine.htm to http://www.queenstribune.com/anniversary2003/queenscatherine.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Legacy section: Borough of Queens
I find this part poorly supported:
 * Historians furthermore argue that Catherine "probably didn't even know Queens existed" and point out that "Catherine herself ... played no role in the settlement of Queens."

What is wrong is that "Historians" are one person (see the Times article); "probably didn't even know Queens existed" is irrelevant and speculative; and "Catherine herself ... played no role in the settlement of Queens." is irrelevant. I don't think it's verified history; it's local color reporting. I moved it to here. Zaslav (talk) 04:03, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

"Absurdity"
The use of the word, "absurdity" in the second paragraph is subjective, and should not be allowed in an encyclopedic entry. Skaizun (talk) 15:39, 22 June 2023 (UTC)