Talk:Duarte Pio, Duke of Braganza

Alternate text
Born on 15 May 1945 in Bern, Switzerland, due to the Law of Banishment (Lei do Banimento) then still in effect in Portugal. Upon its revocation by the Portuguese Parliament in the 1950s, the Royal Family was presented with a residence in Portugal by the Fundação Casa de Bragança. Dom Duarte continued his primary education in Oporto (which he had started in Bern), and his secondary education first in the Nuno Álvares in Santo Tirso, and later at the Military College in Lisbon. Subsequently he attended the superior course of Agronomic Engineering at the Agronomic Institute of the Technical University of Lisbon (Instituto de Agronomia de Universidade Tècnica de Lisboa) and the Institute for Development of the University of Geneva, Switzerland.

His military service took place between 1967 and 1971 in Angola as a helicopter pilot, with the rank of Lieutenant, where he made many contacts with the local population, and learned local dialects. He was expelled from Angola in 1973, escorted out by the political police, for having challenged the dictatorial regime by helping to organize an opposition for the next elections. (In 1987 he completed the course of the Institute of National Defence and qualified as a Pilot Captain Aviator in the Portuguese Air Force Reserve.) He remembers his military services as one of the most fulfilling periods of his life, especially because of his contacts maintained with the local peoples, who always received him very warmly. Some of them still remembered the 1908 visit to Angola of Dom Luis Filipe, Crown Prince of Portugal, who was assassinated with his father, King Carlos I, later that year.

On 13 May 1995 Dom Duarte Pio married Dona Isabel de Herédia. The wedding was a state occasion, attended by the President of the Republic, the Prime Minister and members of the cabinet, the Diplomatic Corps and leading personalities in Portuguese life. His first son, Dom Afonso, the Heir Apparent and Prince of Beira, was born on 25 March 1996. His daughter Dona Maria Francisca was born on 3 March 1997, and his second son Dom Dinis was born on 25 November 1999. The Duke of Bragança is the Sovereign Grand Master of the Order of Our Lady of the Conception of Vila Viçosa, and Sovereign of the Royal Order of Saint Isabel (of which the Grã Mestra is Her Royal Highness Dona Isabel, Duchess of Bragança).

He is a Knight Grand Cross of Honour and Devotion of the Sovereign Military Order of Malta and a Knight of the Order of the Golden Fleece, and of the Order of Calatrava. He is also a member of many foreign Orders of Knighthood and associations.

I assume that the chance to be a king to the prince Afonso is interresting and should be raized, because the republic was not the portuguese people wil and in the early days the republic was very unpopular, and some say that today till is, but I think that Dom Duarte is an Anti-European, so I dont like him! So a referendum must be made. Duarte Pio is a descendant of King Miguel adn King Pedro IV (if we can call that thing a king)? Yack! This is just my POV.Pedro 02:08, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I've seen both sides. In fact, there was a ban of King Miguel's heirs. The Portuguese parliament lifted the ban to his heirs. And all the Portuguese Royal Associations and the Portuguese State assumes that he is the heir to the Portuguese throne; in fact, when he got married that was a n--85.138.42.63 00:22, 16 July 2005 (UTC)ation-wide event.

Maria Pia Saxe Coburg Bragança was the natural daughter of King Charles I of Portugal and for unquestionable will of her Father assumed all the honours,privileges and rights of the Infants of Portugal (this original document named”Documento Unico”is at disposition in parish of Alcalà in Madrid where Maria Pia was baptised according to the will of her Father. (See: www.theroyalhouseofportugal.org/html/framesetintro1.html).

It’s important to note that Maria Pia’s personal lawyer for 25 years was Mr. Mario Soares who became prime minister after the fall of the fascist dictatorship in 1975 and after was the President of Portuguese Repubblic.(Mario Soares official letters are published in the web-site of Royal House of Portugal-Constitutional line). In last years Duarte Pio was asked from Portuguese TV and press to confront with Dom Rosario about the pretension of Portuguese Crown but Duarte Pio refused it.

Regarding all defamations published in the web site  www.chivalricorders.org/royalty/fantasy/portugal-false.htm  there is a civil pending suit in Vicenza Court (Italy), against Stair Sainty, promoted by H.R.H. Dom Rosario of Bragança. The Duarte Pio pretension is based only on talk while Dom Rosario pretension is based on official documents that anyone can see in the web-site: www.theroyalhouseofportugal.org. I have added in the page “Duke of Bragança” because in a free encyclopaedia is not corrected to define Duke Bragança only Duarte Pio (that belongs to usurper miguelist line) but is corrected to add also Dom Rosario that belongs to constitutional line of the Royal House and for his monarchic followers is the legitimate XXII Duke of Bragança. No Portuguese repubblican Autorithy or monarchic Representative of another State can decide about legal and constitutional arguments regarding the claims of Portuguese Crown and less than ever symphaties and popularity that a person has can influence this.Also Stair Sainty in the forum of Google, newsgroup “rec.heraldry”, re:Maria Pia and her Successor(24-02-2004  12:55:04)affirms:”While I am unqualified admirer of Dom Duarte, in a recent correspondence with a high Portuguese government official on this very subject, I was assured that the Portuguese republic does not recognize any one individual as head of the Royal House of Braganza, nor any title or Order given byany such claimant. I would be very interested and grateful to see clear evidence to the contrary and to support the assertion that the Parliament has legalised the use of the styles of royal highness, etc, since I am presently being sued by Mr Poidimani, aka Duke of Braganza, for disputing his particular claims”.

Com. Manuel de Sousa


 * And I'm Santa Claus. Ho ho ho Pedro 19:49, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Dear Manuel de Sousa, you seem an educated and knowladgable men. You know perfectly well, or if not you should, that the rules of succession in Portugal excluded illegitimate children. They can be recognized but only if there was no adultery involved, that is if the royal parent was single. And, you know that king Carlos I was married and if that relationship did exist, was out of adultery. So, Maria Pia and Rosario, even if related to Carlos I, which I personally doubt, are no match for the line of Duarte Pio. You also should know that the constitution you cite so often was abolished in 1910. And by the way, Dom might be a respectful treatment, but actually means stupid in Dutch, so Dom Rosario is to say the least very funny to me. Cheers, MvHG 12:10, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

Dear MvHG,also you seem an intelligent person(and not like Pedro seem an person disrespectful of idea of another people ). For this you easily understand that there is a substantial difference between monarchic(1838)and repubblican(1910) Constitution. For every monarchist(with the exception of miguelist line in this case)have value only the 1838’s Constitution(also if abrogated in 1910 with republican Constitution ) because it identifies the only Historical Truth and the base for a restoration in Portugal of the Monarchy.So not only this Constitution has value but also the Royal Decree of legitimates XXI and XXII Dukes of Bragança(Dona Maria Pia and Dom Rosario)that with their powers of Royal House Head can also modify the Monarchic Constitution(because we are not in Monarchic period and so all powers are in the Person of Royal House Head). Dona Maria Pia Saxe Cobug Bragança was the daughter of the king Carlos ,and i don’t say this,but official Sacra Romana Rota documents(the highest court in the world for matters of chatholic births)and registry office documents.Dom Rosario is parent of Dona Maria Pia and his blood relationship is possible to see in the web-site( www.theroyalhouseofportugal.org )where is reported the official document of blood relation issued by the XXI Duchess of Bragança.So both have royal blood. In 1983 also Fernando Luso Soares ,one of the most important law university professor in Lisbon,wrote a important book namend “Maria Pia Duquesa de Bragança contra(against)D.Duarte Pio senhor de Santar(Mr. Of Santar)”(reported in web site of the Royal House of Portugal http://www.theroyalhouseofportugal.org/html/testim.html ) and emphasized that unique legitimate Duchess of Bragança was Maria Pia while Duarte had no right for the aspiration for Portuguese Crown. Many years ago (after the Maria Pia incontrovertible victory in Sacra Romana Rota Court in Vaticano where the Court asserted that the King Carlos was without question her Father) Duarte finally said: “I don’t call myself Duke of Bragança,it’s my followers that call me that”

Manuel de Sousa

Please Manuel, stop adding in heavily POVing additions. This is an encyclopædia, not a propaganda website. They have been reverted. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 20:36, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

It is important to note that is impossible in 1945 Duarte Pio physically was born in the Portuguese Embassy in Bern because with the Ban Law the Royal Family was excluded from portuguese soul and so also from every Portuguese Embassy (because portuguese soul). Only with Ban Law revocation by the Portuguese Parliament in the 1950s Duarte could register him in Portuguese Embassy. If Duarte Pio was borned really in the portuguese ambassy this was a criminal offence. It is also important to note Duarte Pio served as an Air Force Lieutenant in Angola from 1968 to 1971. So Duarte Pio served the Repubblican Army. An important principle of the International Law, called "Debellatio", establish that when a pretender serve the Repubblican Army and therefore swear fidelity to Repubbic consequently lose all the rights of pretender to the Portuguese throne. M.deSousa 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Stop using wikipedia as a propaganda site with nonsense! There is no Ban Law! There was. And that is written were.

Yes, Maria Pia is a "rota". lol ;) He and his children are the only descendants from the first king. He and his children are the only recognized by the royal associations in various Portuguese cities, I've check that out. There's no mention of anyone else. And there's no one else.

The only excluded would be her if she was really the daughter of a Portuguese king and the other guy… yeah right. They were born outside Portugal. Since the Spanish kings every king must born in Portugal. Duarte was born in the Portuguese embassy in Switzerland; is that considered Portuguese soil? I don’t know. But his children were born in Portugal.

Friend, no one would accept a foreigner and with no relation to the Royal house as the king, stop that. Maybe shakira would be accepted, she is famous, she sings, she dances, she's pretty and she speaks Portuguese. Do something else; this is not a farce encyclopaedia. -Pedro 15:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Yes, infact Shakira would be accepted rather than Duarte! She has more personality and charisma than this "dom" Duarte!!! And her family was not excluded perpetually from the last monarchic constitution as a usurper branch of the Royal House ! Duarte Pio and his supporters want hide the hystorical Truth of Portugal and this is not possible in a democratic encyclopedia. Now can explain me as this man can define to have rights of pretender to the Portuguese throne if he served the Repubblican Army and therefore swear fidelity to Repubbic?? As monarchic I prefer a foreign king of Portugal rather than a Repubblican almoner without monarchic values!!! M.deSousa 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Stop using this article to push your own political agenda. You have already tried to do it before and been stopped. Wikipedia has to follow a strict NPOV agenda. If someone is accepted as the legitimate pretender to a throne by the vast majority then Wikipedia cannot say he isn't. You are breaking the No original research rule on Wikipedia. There are sites that can take POV edits pushing the agenda of your preferred candidate for the crown but this is not one of them. All edits that try to do that will be reverted every time and any POV information and original research that is added will be deleted every time. Please respect the rules of Wikipedia. If you continue to add in POV information over and over again onto a page you have face a block. Please do not push it that far. FearÉIREANN\(caint) 17:06, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me Jtdirl but the two my affermations are true and also logical so these are not POV ! If they are NPOV please explain me : if there was the Ban Law and no member of the Royal Family could enter in Portoguese soul ,how is possible Mr Duarte Pio was born in Bern Embassy and so in portoguese soul??? The second point is Mr. Duarte Pio served the Repubblican Army and therefore swore fidelity to Repubbic consequently losing all the rights of pretender to the Portuguese throne for international law, or you can prove me that this is not a principle of international law(debellatio). When you prove me that these affermations are mistakes I will change idea and so you have all the right to change the Duarte Pio page. At the contrary your changes will be NPOV because you want hide two true and important affermations.M.deSousa 9 November 2005 (UTC)

NPOV
Look, "they" are trying to use wikipedia policies, for "their" objective.

I'm "full" with "these people". They (he) even use NPOV and other policies with the intent of trying to put nonsence in the article. I'm very POV don't you see, I can also gain a count title or something with this; don't you see? Duh! Get a job and stop annoying people. The last comment of MSousa you can see how he is dellusional, using supposed international laws that obviously don't exists and even if they existed they would not obviously be applied to Portugal. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A PLAYGROUND! -Pedro 19:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

M.de Sousa affermations are very interesting. These international laws exist and only an ignorant of international laws can think they don't exist or that they are not be applied to Portugal: Portugal is a State of the Europe and not of Mars where don't exist international laws... Pedro you have a mania of persecutation. Please finish to delete the site of Rosario from external link. This is important for an impartial reader of Wikipedia that wants to understand also the objections to Duarte claim. So if you delete this link this can be NPOV for a neutral and as a whole reading of this article. User:82.50.183.202 20:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

puff... I'm not losing time with you. If you don't know, this article is about Duarte, not the idiot from that site. Finnito... the end... Go learn what's an encyclopedia, then come and talk. Until then G'bye! About the NPOV you must be kidding...--Pedro 21:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

infobox
I've created a box for pretender pages to pull together information in a uniform infobox that can be used in all similar pages. I have deliberately not placed it at the every top of the page, for NPOV reasons. Office infoboxes like those of monarchs and popes are placed at the top of the page. Pretender isn't a formal title, but a general title used to describe people regarded as the person would be monarch if a monarchy was restored. Giving it identical placing would imply an equality in terms of status for the different boxes. This box is not formal status-orientated but information and co-ordination orientated. Placing it at the end of the first paragraph gives the box a clear visual impact without any POV implications of compatibility with constitutional offices. I've been placing the box in in the same way all over, ie first paragraph down on the right. It also aligns best with the toc box on the left. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 23:29, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Foreign-born?
Can someone verify if Dom Duarte was born at the Portuguese embassy in Bern? If he was, then he would have, in fact, been born on Portuguese soil as international diplomatic agreements stress that embassies and consulates are the sovereign territories of the countries whose diplomats operate and occupy them. Hence, it would seem that, though possibly a violation of the law at the time banning Miguel's descendants from Portuguese soil, it would still satisfy succession requirements that an heir be born in Portugal in the event, as has apparently happened, that such a law was repealed. It seems a sticking point for other claimants to the Portuguese throne and their supporters, though it clearly does not seem to matter to the Portuguese government or to the people of Portugal.

12.40.61.2Kelly

Kelly: The article states in one part he was born at the Portuguese Embassy, and another in a hotel room with extraterritoriality. If the latter is true, it has precedence when Princess Margriet of the Netherlands was born in Ottawa during the Royal Family's exile in WW II. The hospital floor where she was born was declared "extraterritorial", so that she would not be born in Canada, thus acquiring Canadian citizenship by her place of birth, but would only have Dutch citizenship based on the citizenship of her parents. Extraterritorial does not mean that the floor became Dutch soil, just that it temporarily was placed outside the jurisdiction of the Crown of Canada. So that would not seem to satisfy a Portuguese exigence that an heir be born on Portuguese soil. A hotel room made extraterritorial would be temporarily placed outside of Swiss jurisdiction, but it would still not be Portuguese. As for embassies, while they are inviolate, it is inaccurate to state that they represent foreign soil. The are inviolate generally, but still retain the nationality of their host. Quoted from Wikipedia; Contrary to popular belief, diplomatic missions do not enjoy full extraterritorial status and are not sovereign territory of the represented state.[5][6] Article: Diplomatic mission.

Dave — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.138.219.192 (talk) 11:42, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Opposition
What's the problem with having a section related to the opposition to Duarte Pio? Afonso Silva 09:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that, to date, no rivals senior to Duarte Pio's position have come forward whose claims are independently verifiable. There have been legal actions and an attempt on Wikipedia to present a claim that Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg-Braganza/Hilda Toledano is a "recognized" illegitimate daughter of King Carlos I, but the validity of that claim is challenged on so many bases that, even if true, it holds little if any credibility within royal or noble circles. The Dukes of Loulé, though legitimate, are considered junior to Duarte Pio's line and no challenge to Duarte Pio's claim has come from that family to date.

Moreover, the acceptance of Duarte's position has come from a higher source: namely, the recognition by the Portuguese (republican) government, the recognition by various other European royal houses, and the popular appeal Duarte apparently enjoys among the citizenry.12.40.61.2 12:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)Kelly

Oh, ok. Personally, I don't give a damn to the monarchist cause. It was just curiosity. Actually, I never heard about Hilda Toledano. I'm now clarified. Afonso Silva 16:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Why you don't want that we can insert in Duarte Pio page the truth that is the article of monarchic constitution of 1838 excluded the miguelist line and so also Duarte Pio to succession of portuguese Crown?Because this is not convenient for this pretender??? but this is not a miguelist encyclopedia so please insert this paragraph about "Opposition to Duarte Pio's claims" and in particular: "The last Monarchic Constitution of 1838, never revoked, in the article 98 categorically excluded the collateral line of the king Miguel of Portugal and all his descendants, of which Duarte Pio of Bragança is one. Many monarchists oppose the Duarte Pio claims and rivendications as Duke of Braganza because his suppose rights are not proved. The opposition claim the rights as legitimate heir of the Royal House of Portugal of Maria Pia of Braganza or the Duke of Loulé." Also in the page of these pretenders you insert the oppositions of their claims so I can' t understando because you don't want that I can Insert this objective fact. Users:Manuel,4 July 2006 (UTC)

Claim opposition, why?
Exscuse me but this is a serious and neutral and impartial encyclopedia? Why you want delete these important informations about this pretender reported in many newspaper?Please explain me this. One of the most famous free portuguese newspaper, the "Destak", http://www.destak.pt/default.asp, the 14 july in the page 5 entitled: " Royal War divides portuguese monarchists" and writes about the war between portuguese pretenders. This is only one newspaper but there are many others. Many supporters of the pretender dom Rosario Poidimani claim the legitimate rights as Duke of Braganza of this italian prince after the abdication of the last daughter of the king Charles of Portugal. Many of these monarchists attack the pretender Duarte Pio of Braganza because the last monarchic constitution of 1838 excluded perpetually dom Miguel and all his descendant (of which Duarte Pio is one) and also because in really Duarte Pio of Braganza born in Swiss territory of Berna and not in the portuguese ambassy of Berna (because in 1945 there was the "Banimento" Law) and so he is a Swiss without power of succession for the last monarchic constitution. Now begin also a case and a trial against Duarte Pio of Braganza for these facts. In particular the president of P.P.M., the only monarchic party in Portugal affirms the illegitimaty of Duarte Pio of Braganza as duke of Braganza and also as pretender and so affirms that now Duarte Pio in Portugal is considered from most the head of the Royal House of Portugal only because the miguelist branch hides and falsifies the historical truth of Portuguese Royal House. Very well, the usurper pretender will be soon unmasked in all the Portugal and after in all the world. Now is the just moment! M.deSousa, 20 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Slightly confused M.deSousa buy what your saying, you say Duarte Pio is unable to succeed because he’s Swiss so is excluded from succession, as the last Constitution excluded succession to people born outside of Portuguese territory, but yet Rosario Poidimani is Italian presumably born there so surely he falls fowl to rule does he not? DWC LR 00:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

here there is no interest about the rights of dom Rosario but only of Duarte Pio. He is excluded by the contitution because he is a miguelist descendant, because he is Swiss born and because he is not the most direct relative of the last king of Portugal. Infact if for absurdity had not existed Maria Pia of Saxe Coburg Braganza, the last daughter of the king Charles, before Duarte Pio there are 36 others pretenders more direct to the last king of Portugal than him. So is absurd to consider Duarte Pio of Braganza the legitimate pretender to portuguese Crown or the legitimate duke of Braganza.
 * The sentence "The opposition claim the rights as legitimate heir of the Royal House of Portugal of Maria Pia of Braganza or the Duke of Loulé" has been inserted into the article various times. However, regardless of the validity or invalidity of Maria Pia's claims, she is deceased and thus should not be implied to be a current claimant or potential claimant to the Portuguese crown. --Metropolitan90 05:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * the Destak is a free Metro newspaper of low quality (that is distributed in Lisbon and Porto subways), tabloid-like, I've saw that report, they only tried to make people read it. That report was because of a PPM man, a fado singer and bullfighting lover, which no one likes, and everyone sees him as a weird fellow and always say nonsense, but he talked about that duke of Loulé and that Miguelist theory, so I just cleaned that section instead of deleting it. As for MdeSousa's / Rosario’s claims, don’t loose your time with those guys, please. Reading the English of that section that he always put on the article, he speaks Italian; you can see that in double consonants such as in "repubblic", and other words and the "di" word. I really think he is the "king" Rosario I of Portugal. A Portuguese would never use double b and "di". Or maybe he is a Portuguese in Italy close friend of Rosario. A thought: Rosário é melhor rezares um terço para seres rei. LOL
 * Why are you trying so hard to be king of Portugal? The country is a republic, you are Italian, with the close descendant to the kings of Portugal being the Australopithecus afarensis known as Lucy. Not even the palaces you would get, they are public, they belong to the people. You would even had to build new ones. And obviously you wouldn't be accepted as king by the people. You are crazy.---Pedro 19:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

How is possible now the miguelist rapresentatives declare them as legitimate Duke of Braganza as successor of the usurper king Miguel forever excluded from the succession by the last monarchic Constitution and after the Banishment Law lost all his civil and dynastic rights and so become a common plebeian for the incontrovertible will of the Cortes and the King of Portugal? Who grant them this title? Why in 1920 if the king dom Manuel was alive, Miguel II abdicated the title of Duke of Braganza (that he logically did not have) in favour of Duarte Nuno? Are there two Dukes of Braganza, the legitimate (the HM King dom Manuel) and so the other illegitimate (the miguelist Duarte Nuno)? Please now can reply to my questions about this pretender? Thanks


 * In 1922 Miguel abdicated as King of Portugal (the title he then claimed). There were not two people claiming to be duke of Braganza; there were two people claiming to be king of Portugal (Duarte Nuno and Manuel).  In an encyclopedia, we talk about both claims. Noel S McFerran 20:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The king of Portugal? Miguel II is not portuguese, he is descendant of the usurper king Miguel forever excluded from the last monarchich constitution. The use of the title of Duke of Braganza for these miguelist pretenders is only an illegitimate title. They are not Duke of Braganza!!!How is possible now the miguelist rapresentatives declare them as legitimate Duke of Braganza as successor of the usurper king Miguel forever excluded from the succession by the last monarchic Constitution and after the Banishment Law lost all his civil and dynastic rights and so become a common plebeian for the incontrovertible will of the Cortes and the King of Portugal? Who grant them this title? The Banishment Law was in force untill the 1950 (so these miguelist remained always plebeian and foreign, and no portuguese constitutional king granted them any title), when their "friend" Salazar decided to eliminate this banishment and supported this branch...a dictator that support a claimant to the throne...a portuguese republic interested in portuguese monarchy,as now...a true funny story...but the unique way for "legitimate" this Usurper branch is only the help of the republican political power because they have no lawful and republican rights!

Duarte of Braganza, the swiss born. He is NOT born in portuguese embassy of Berne!
In the official document of the Conservatória dos Registos Centrais all the people can see Duarte Pio born in swiss territory in Berne and NOT in portuguese territory ofthe embassy!!! So stop with this falsity!!! The first falsity is said this man is duke of Braganza...after here the second big falsity is affirmed he born in portuguese emabassy. Here I insert an official document, the most important document concerning the place of his birth and it states he is NOT born in embassy. So don't write other falisity in Wikipedia. See : http://monarquia.actifforum.com/ftopic38.DUARTE-BRAGANCA-O-GRANDE-TRETAS.htm


 * Rosario Poidimani is was NOT born on Portuguese territory. Charles 21:04, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This is D.Rosario Poidimani, true Duke di Braganza page or Duarte Pio, usurper Duke di Braganza page??? If you want write about this usurper don't change the Truth based in offiacial portuguese documents.


 * Why do you chat with him, it is useless. He should be blocked, today he reverted about 4 times (he broke the 3 revert rule) and added fake information. --Pedro 21:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Besides, isn't he Portuguese, does anyone has any doubt he is Portuguese? As my own POV I would agree that an ambassy shouldn't count, but that's just POV. But he is undoubtly Portuguese. So stop using that kind of arguments. I see!!!! you want to be king. Don't you? You can be king of Berlengas, if you want it so much. eheh --Pedro 22:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh POOR Pedro...A lot of portugueses are tired of the falsity of your dear Duarte Pio, the usurper "duke" of Braganza. The document that I have insert and you can see in the blog of DUARTE O GRANDE TRETAS, above, is all original and genuine. Do you Know what is the Conservatória dos Registos Centrais? If with your stupid presumption you think that this is a fake document send a letter to Conservatória dos Registos Centrais and they reply you with this document. ok? But don't affirm here this document is false because the only fake here is this pretender!!! He is NOT born in portuguese embassy but in Berne territory,this is the unique documented Truth, not fake chat as your!
 * O.O You are not from this planet. Who do you want to cheat?! I didn't read that blog, nor I will, it is not a Reliable Source, and with that title (offensive) much less, so I wont spent a byte downloading that page. I don't like Dom Duarte Pio much less the BS that you are constantly adding to this article.--Pedro 09:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You could see very soon this my affirmation is not false but is only the Truth... so please before wait for this and after judge. This man, Duarte Pio, untill now has cheat all the Portugueses and all the Royalists as me. But now is the time to unmask this Usurper and many royalists in Portugal want this!!! So please wait a little....

The Portuguese Government don't recognize any pretenders
Now is official: the Portuguese Government don' t recognize any pretenders. The Portuguese Government has officially decides [ see  http://www.parlamento.pt/plc/requerimento.aspx?req_id=36925] to not "legitimize" any pretenders because since 96 years the Portugal is a Republic and so it can't enter in this matter. This decision is obtained after the request of the president of the People's Monarchist Party (Partido Popular Monárquico) to the Government against the abuse of power of the portuguese ambassador in Italy that the last year declared Duarte Pio as the legitimate pretender in Portugal. This is an illegal act of this ambassador because the Republican organs obviously don't enter in monarchical problems. Justiceiro 21:40, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * So it is time to change all references to "Dom", "pretender to the throne"(!) and other nobility titles and adjectives. It is now more than clear that the republican laws that have been effective for more than a century simply apply strictly and there is no and has not been any nobility in Portugal in modern times. Contrary to Spain, though one of the oldest secular nations - in Portugal "Dom" is a title that is used by the Portuguese Roman-Catholic clergy and this clergy alone and has been since 1910, the legitimization for this lies in the Concordata. This page is alltogether completely political POV and does not depict a neutral presentation of the person of public interest. Monarchism is and has been a legitimate and lawful political view and cause in the Nation's law, and to make myself clear - I have the greatest affection and respect for Duarte Pio, but this is neither respectful and honourable to his nor to the country's image and portrayal. Something like this article and discussion, this low quality POV-article only happens in third world countries. Portugal is better than this. --92.231.44.101 (talk) 13:11, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Royal Houses of Europe, Asia and Africa recognize Duarte Pio
http://www.casareal.co.pt/galeria/index.php?mode=view&album=Algumas+visitas+de+Suas+Altezas+Reais&pic=v005a.jpg&dispsize=640&start=0

http://www.casareal.co.pt/galeria/index.php?mode=view&album=Algumas+visitas+de+Suas+Altezas+Reais&pic=v006a.jpg&dispsize=640&start=0

http://www.casareal.co.pt/galeria/index.php?mode=view&album=Algumas+visitas+de+Suas+Altezas+Reais&pic=v007a.jpg&dispsize=640&start=0

http://www.casareal.co.pt/galeria/index.php?mode=view&album=Algumas+visitas+de+Suas+Altezas+Reais&pic=v008a.jpg&dispsize=640&start=0

http://www.casareal.co.pt/galeria/index.php?mode=view&album=Algumas+visitas+de+Suas+Altezas+Reais&pic=v009a.jpg&dispsize=640&start=0

http://www.casareal.co.pt/galeria/index.php?mode=view&album=Algumas+visitas+de+Suas+Altezas+Reais&pic=v010a.jpg&dispsize=640&start=0

http://www.casareal.co.pt/galeria/index.php?mode=view&album=Algumas+visitas+de+Suas+Altezas+Reais&pic=v011a.jpg&dispsize=640&start=0

http://www.casareal.co.pt/galeria/index.php?mode=view&album=Algumas+visitas+de+Suas+Altezas+Reais&pic=v012a.jpg&dispsize=640&start=0

http://www.casareal.co.pt/galeria/index.php?mode=view&album=1950-1974&pic=050a.jpg&dispsize=640&start=0

Images speak for them selves and if you want more I can scan from lots of books!
 * First, Mr. Unsigned Editor (Duarte Pio?), none of your links work. Second, there is nothing in a photograph that can prove that "royal houses recognize" anyone, unless the monarch in question is holding up a sign that says so explicitly.  Which I doubt very much they are.  Anyone can get a photograph taken with a monarch; that does not prove anything.  I could get my picture take with the Pope.  Would that "prove" that he recognizes me as the Bishop of Timbuktu?  Third, monarchs of other countries CANNOT confer legitimacy to other monarchs.  It wouldn't matter one whit if the King of Country X "recognized" someone who claimed to be the King of Country Z.  The ONLY thing that can make the claimed King of Country Z king is if that country recognizes him as their own king.Bricology (talk) 09:10, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Claims of vandalism
This page has (once again) gone through numerous reverts in the past weeks. It is not vandalism for an editor to add information about the recognition (or lack thereof) of Duarte by official bodies. That is definitely within the scope of this article. It is not reasonable to include a statement about what the Ministry of Foreign Affairs did (or was it the Portuguese ambassador to Italy?), but then not include the subsequent official enquiry to the President of the Assembly of the Republic and the official response. I have tried to include this information - in reasonably well-written English and without pushing one particular agenda. Noel S McFerran 00:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

A critique to Duarte Pio claims
Why I can't insert this site: www.reifazdeconta.com A critique to Duarte Pio claims. Also the others pretenders in their page have a critique site against their claim. So in this encyclopedia is correct insert also this critique or delete in other page the critique about others pretenders.
 * That seems reasonable to me. The editors who keep removing this citation should explain their reasons for doing so. Noel S McFerran 11:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

No. It is not reasonable. This guy is a usual vandal that defends a pretender widely know to be a fraud (he is in fact in jail!). And the site he aims to add to the external links is completly delirious - see the article Hilda Toledano for explanations. Thank you. The Ogre 12:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * What is a the sentence that affirms the pretension of Dom Rosario Poidimani is a fraud? He is in jail but he is innocent. This was only a big abuse of power of some portuguese autorithies but very soon this sad story will end and the justice will arrive. If this site www.reifazdeconta.com is not appropriate for his "Chefe" you can inform him and after denounce the author of this site...but all the documents in this site is true and genuine so we can see only truth in this site and for this is correct insert it. All the readers should know also the critique of this miguelist pretender.
 * How is this crap (comments immediately above) showing up without either an editor's handle or an IP address?! Bricology (talk) 09:13, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Case brought by Rosario Poidimani against Guy Sainty
Poidimani lost this ridiculous case against me and was subsequently arrested anc charged by the Italian authorities for breaches of the Law of 1951 concerning the sale of supposed Orders, etc. It is his breach of Italian law, not Portuguese law, that led to Poidimani's prosecution. Guy Sainty —Preceding unsigned comment added by GuyStairSainty (talk • contribs) 12:51, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * POOR STAIR SAINTY...AFTER TWO YEARS FROM YOUR FAMOUS WORDS ABOVE...In August 2010 the Court of Vicenza (Italy) sentenced for defamation against Mr Guy Stair Sainty in favour of the portuguese pretender Dom Rosario Poidimani,requiring compensation of twenty thousand euro. Here the entire sentence:  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.252.55.226 (talk) 19:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Miguelist pretenders: Miguel II, Duarte Nuno and Duarte Pio
Just to remember everyone one of the most relevant fact from the History of Portugal: the Portuguese Monarchic Constitution promulgated in 1838 and never revoked, in article 98 categorically states as follows: "The collateral line of the ex-infant Dom Miguel and all his descendants are perpetually excluded from the succession". Also Queen Maria II of Portugal and Portuguese Cortes declared King Miguel without his royal status and also declared him, and all of his descendants, forever ineligible to succeed to the Portuguese crown and forbade them, under death pennalty, to return to Portugal. This decision was supported by the Portuguese Republic. It's important everyone in Wikipedia remember this fact. 84.90.92.195 (talk) 18:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The Constitution of 1838 was revoked in 1841, substituted by the Constitution of 1826. --Tonyjeff (talk) 15:38, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Duarte II instead of Duarte Pio
The Portuguese government officially recognized Duarte Pio as the Duke of Braganza, and recognized his family line as the legitimate line to the throne of Portugal. This being so, to follow the customary ducal names of the house of Braganza, which has always being given the right to have "numbered names", Duarte Pio is supposed to be "Duarte II of Braganza", because he is the second Duke of Braganza, because his family line was officialy recognized and legitimized, making his father "Duarte I" and himself "Duarte II". Also, his template should not be that for a pretender, because he is not pretending to be the Duke of Braganza, of which he has been officially granted.{Lumastan (talk) 22:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)}
 * Article names on Wikipedia are determined by how people are called in scholarly sources (which may or may not be the same as what people have a right to be called). If there are more sources which call him "Duarte II" than "Duarte Pio" then you would have a case for changing the article. Noel S McFerran (talk) 00:07, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Calling him Duarte II or Duarte III is speculation even as Duarte of Braganza. Unless sources support the ordinals then they should be removed. We don't speculate that Prince William, Duke of Cambridge will be William V even though there probably more sources on the internet that mentions this than the ones for Duarte.--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 19:22, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Title
What source besides self-published royalist sites give this man the title Prince Royal of Portugal? I cannot find any news source or book source that connects the title Prince Royal or Principe Real to Duarte Pio.--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 17:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Also how can he be the 24th Duke of Braganza in the intro and the 25th Duke of Braganza in the title section? There are 24 dukes/duchesses of Braganza on wikipedia's list right now and if you count Peter III of Portugal husband of Maria I as Duke of Braganza then you have 25 dukes/duchesses. Either way calling him the 24th or 25th duke is false since that would count the Dukes/Duchesses of two rival lines (Miguel's line and Pedro's line)--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 12:58, 4 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The Almanach de Gotha gives him the title Prince Royal of Portugal. - dwc lr (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yet another example of why I dispute that this publication is a reliable source -- and especially object to referring to it as "the Almanach de Gotha" without explicitly distinguishing it from the widely-respected series originally published under the name "Almanach de Gotha" by Justus Perthes. FactStraight (talk) 03:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Contradiction re: place of birth
I added a "contradict" template because the article says at one point that Duarte Pio was born in a hotel room and in the next paragraph that he was born at the Portuguese Embassy. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Before removing this template, the article should clarify what the official source is actually saying. Now I'm not fluent in Portuguese but I do know enough to see that this memo concerns a fraudulent registration of birth. As for the exact translation of the critical passage, I'm not 100% confident I understand its meaning but it doesn't really seem to back up Duarte Pio's story.
 * Do registo de nascimento lavrado por transcricao da certidao de registo de nascimento Suiço, ao invés de que Dro afirma nao consta que o registado tenha nascido em qualquer embaixada portuguesa e muito menos em Portugal antes constando que nasceu em Berna.

My best guess is that basically, the document says that the registration fraudulently claims he was born in the embassy when he wasn't. Is that the gist of it? Until this is cleared, I believe the template should stay and if the registration was indeed fraudulent, this should certainly be mentioned even if it's inconvenient to Duarte Pio. Pichpich (talk) 01:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Where did you get that quote from? I will put together a paragraph that says what Duarte Pio claims and then what the Portuguese Republic's stance on his claim his. That way both arguments are posed. What do you think? Cristiano Tomás (talk) 02:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That quote is directly from the reference we're using and it appears to be an official document. Again, you speak Portuguese and I don't but this certainly seems to contradict Duarte Pio's story and if the document is genuine, I don't see how this controversy can be left out of the article. Pichpich (talk) 02:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As far as I'm concerned, the current write-up is fine and (again, as far as I understand) quite representative of the situation presented in the sources. Good job Cristiano, Pichpich (talk) 05:59, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Style as King of Portugal
Does the Duke of Braganza really style himself as "By the Grace of God, Duarte III, King of Portugal and the Algarves before and beyond the sea in Africa, Lord of Guinea and of Conquest, Navigation, and Commerce of Ethiopia, Arabia, Persia, and India, etc"? This claim ought to be either sourced or removed very quickly, as we're dealing with a biography of a living person. Surtsicna (talk) 15:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, Duarte II needs to be removed and replaced with Duarte Pio unless a creditable source can be given for it other than internet monarchist sites.--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 00:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Done and Done. Thank you both for your input, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 00:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If you manage to expand it fivefold before 17 January, it could even be featured on the Main Page in WP:DYK section. That could be a bit hard to accomplish, though. There doesn't appear to be much written about him in English, but I'm sure there's a lot in Portuguese. Surtsicna (talk) 13:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Then I shall make it my goal to complete my renovation by then! Haha, thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 16:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It just occurred to me that you might be able to succeed in getting it to the main page by expanding it "only" twofold, per Did you know (since this is a BLP that used to be unsourced), but you still have to hurry. Good luck! Surtsicna (talk) 16:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Wonderful! It would be so lovely if a Portuguese article, let alone a Portuguese royalty article, was featured on th did you know. I have some work to do I guess, haha, cheers, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 17:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Inline referencing
Good day editors. I commend all on the elaboration of this article, and detail put into covering its detail. I want to make one note: it would improve this article substantially if there were valid inline references. As much as there are a plethora of external references supporting the content, there are few footnotes directly from published material. Since there is a lot of good will on the editing of this article, it only seems right that direct references to established third-party documents be included. Otherwise, any good intentions aside, this will result in a big label on the header suggesting improvements and/or inline referencing. Obviously, this not a demand, hostile critic nor "talking-down-to": God knows I've forgotten to do the same in the past. But, since there is movement to improve the content and the resources to support it, then it should be included immediately. Just a supportive reminder. Once again, good work. ruben jc ZEORYMER  (talk) 11:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I've been doing a renovation concerning the article, and I've added most of these new sources and articles, but my question is how do I use published material for things concerning stately visits and receptions, ceremonies, and expositions? Most of these things are published through online news or magazines and newspapers. As I am sadly not in a position where I can acquire these magazines and newspapers, I am confined to using online articles and my 2 books (which I have yet to use). Do you have any suggestions how I can more properly cite this article, because it is my only desire to raise this article to the level of other royals, such as prince William or Elizabeth II. Thank you for your input, and I hope that we can all work together for a better sourced and well written article. Cheers, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 16:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll refer you to this source Citation_templates, which provides various citation templates for different data sources, including magazines and newspapers. Regardless of the source, you will have to be aware of the basic information, including dates of publications, editor/author, titles, etc.: its generally the model that I follow in regard to inline citations. Please note, there is a template for website citations, although, like I alluded to earlier, its suggested that inline references be of a literary (third-person) variety. Regardless, by providing the information associated with online sources, although the link may fail in the future, the reference itself will continue to be valid. In the meantime, you can add referenced works (books) to validate the content, using the associated page references. I hope that was what you were asking. ruben jc ZEORYMER  (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, one thing. I would watch the tone of this article, it might swing easily into the WP:NPOV without proper editing. I refer you to the reference to him being a "popular public figure", or other similar POV-type statements. This article seems to be laced with the Duke's "popularity" without justifiable/supported references. If you can support this type of statement with documented proof (such as polling results), then fine. But, from my understanding, these type of statements can not be justified once you throw the "light of fact" and reference onto them: one mans "popularity" is another mans "revisionism". Also, "official visits" implies a political nature that does not exist within the Republican government of Portugal (which was also clarified in this article). Cristiano, I understand your emotional leanings, but I just want you to be clear that WP:POV does hang over this article to some degree. No critique on your work, but to upgrade this article, it will be necessary to abandon some of the wording choices selected. I leave this to you. I hope I have not offended or maligned your efforts. It is NOT intended. ruben jc ZEORYMER  (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Duarte Pio is a pretender, not a duke or a king
Duarte Pio, "Duke of Braganza" is just a pretender as Maria Pia's, as Duke of Loulé, and others. This article still extremely partial and clearly just promotes monarchic partisanship. The Monarchic Constitution promulgated in 1838 and never revoked, in article 98, categorically states: "The collateral line of the ex-infant Dom Miguel and all his descendants are perpetually excluded from the succession". This is not considered in this partial article when the article call him Duke, Prince, etc. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 23:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)


 * The fact that he appears in most media and is referred to most often as Duke of Braganza is already enough for the article to do so as well, per WP:COMMONNAME. As the monarchy is no longer an official institution, there is no technical body that can determine who is what title and so on, so sources, the vast majority of whom call Duarte Pio as Duke of Braganza, are what we build the article on. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 04:08, 16 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Also other pretenders are presented as Dukes and Duchesses in the media and WP don't gave them this titles. They are pretenders and this information should be neutral. Duarte Pio article should be renamed to just Duarte Pio of Braganza or Duarte Pio de Bragança. All information in his article is just promotional for his pretentions and not as presented in Portuguese Wikipedia. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 13:54, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Other articles on pretenders give titles as well. Look at Franz, Duke of Bavaria or Henri, Count of Paris. The English Wikipedia isn't bound by the conventions of the Portuguese one. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * So why not placed the pretender Maria Pia also as Duchess of Braganza? She is cited in the books (references) as Duchess of Braganza... See example: "Princess Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg, duchess of Braganza" in CHILCOTE, Ronald H.; The Portuguese Revolution: State and Class in the Transition to Democracy, page 37. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers; Reprint edition (August 31, 2012). Can you answer this? Anjo-sozinho (talk) 14:26, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Because she had no legitimate traditional claim to hereditary titles. Even if she had been an illegitimate daughter (the key word her is illegitimate), which is in serious doubt, she would not have had any claim to titles (let alone a throne) through her father. Authors can write about her until they see blue in the face but they cannot change that she is not a legitimate child of King Carlos I.Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * However she is legitimated by her father and all authors and documents cited this. The question of hes royal legitimacy is not on evidence, but on the opponents she had and has. Duarte Pio is not Duke of Braganza, but just a pretender, as Maria Pia should be considered. Using Duke in Duarte Pio is promote factional information and it should be removed or Maria Pia should be called also as she was recognized in all media and books. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 14:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

The legitimation by her "father" is not only regarded as a heavy handed fake, (the document being a copy from decades after the fact), it also would have had no meaning if it hadn't been a fake, since, as you very well know User:Anjo-sozinho, the constitutional king of Portugal had no powers to alter the succession to the throne. Certainly not by issuing a statement nobody has ever seen. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * You speak of "The Monarchic Constitution promulgated in 1838 and never revoked" that barred the Miguelist line from succession. You also say the article doesn't mention that. The Constitution of 1826 was however restored in 1842 and was in force until the end of the monarchy. Which gives Duarte Pio his argument for his pretense and this is touched upon in the article. I have added a quote from the site of the Portuguese parliament. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:04, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Also the birth certificate of Duarte Pio is false (as it was proved by the Civil Registry of Portugal) and he's not Portuguese, so he can't be king or duke of Braganza. If you spoke about constitutional laws, I remember you the Monarchic Constitution promulgated in 1838 (and this was never revoked) that, in article 98, categorically states: "The collateral line of the ex-infante Dom Miguel and all his descendants are perpetually excluded from the succession". Please, be neutral. Duarte Pio is just a pretender as the others are. About the legitimacy... remember this: the House of Braganza was founded by an illegitimate person and also the first Duke of Braganza was an illegitimate son. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 15:06, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The Registry office said no such thing. They said that there was no proof he was born in the Embassy in Bern, since they only take their own records, taken from the birth certificate, into consideration. Also the first Duke of Braganza may have been an illegitimate child, but his descendant did not claim his title to the throne from his illegitimate ancestor. You are making lame excuses. Also the constitution of 1826 was restored in 1842. It is argued by some, that this is a significant factor in this question Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:29, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * OK. You are here just to promote false and partial information. Duarte Pio is just a pretender to the Portuguese throne and to the titles of the Duchy of Braganza. He's not duke and Portugal is not a Monarchy now. His article should be named Duarte Pio of Braganza and the correct infobox to use in his article is the Infobox/Pretender. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 15:47, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

That infobox isn't used on other articles on pretenders. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:02, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That is not an answer. He's a claimant, so the right infobox is the Infobox/Pretender. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 16:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 30 August 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. DrKiernan (talk) 19:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Duarte Pio, Duke of Braganza → Duarte Pio of Braganza – Mr. Duarte Pio de Bragança, also as his family and other claimants to the extinct Portuguese throne is just a Pretender and not Duke of any Duchy. He claims to himself and to his family several titles and styles, but Portugal is now a Republic and also the Monarchic Constitution of 1838 states that his family cannot use any title and be on the line of sucession. Call him "Duarte Pio, Duke of Braganza" is promote false and partial information on WP-EN. Should be moved to his real name, Duarte Pio de Bragança or translated to Duarte Pio of Braganza. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 19:10, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:NCROY: "......call them what independent secondary sources in English call them. For example, use Louis Alphonse, Duke of Anjou, not Louis XX, for the legitimist pretender to the French throne. Such a person may however be referred to by a title, for example, Victor Emmanuel, Prince of Naples for the last Italian Crown Prince. But he should not have his article titled Victor Emmanuel IV even though Italian royalists call him so. (Such a name should redirect to the article.)"


 * As this move would make the article stand out from most other articles about pretenders, for reasons that are POV, it would also be in contravention of WP:NPOV. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose, per NCROY's Sovereigns #6 section, and the fact that this person is predominantly referred to in English sources by his ducal title. FactStraight (talk) 22:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per WP:COMMONNAME and NCROY rule 6.--Yopie (talk) 22:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. It is not Wikipedia's job to make decisions on whether titles are legitimate or not. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:49, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose as all sources name him duke of Braganza, that is how he is known, etc etc WP:COMMONNAME Cristiano Tomás (talk) 16:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Infobox/Pretender
Duarte Pio, as Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Braganza and the current Duke of Loulé are just pretenders to the Portuguese extinct throne, so the infobox used in their articles should be the Infobox/Pretender. Gerard von Hebel is using now partial information, reverting always the neutral editions in the articles and don't accept the right use of the Infobox/Pretender to all pretenders to the extinct portuguese throne. Hebel attitude clears his support to the false dukes, because all claimants to the Duchy of Braganza are now JUST pretenders. Portugal lives in a Republic. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 16:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Seek consensus first.Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:39, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * You are promoting false information. Portugal is a Republic, so Duarte Pio is just a Pretender. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 16:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Gerard von Hebel is clearly promoting false information and threatening me. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 17:05, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Naive question for those who want to avoid the "pretender" infobox. The first sentence of the article is
 * Dom Duarte Pio, Prince Royal of Portugal, Duke of Braganza (born 15 May 1945), is the pretender to the former Portuguese throne

Isn't it then logical and more coherent to use the pretender infobox? Pichpich (talk) 20:18, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, the thing is that in articles on other pretenders it's not used. So why should it be here? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:23, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That is false. The infobox/pretender is used, for example, in Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Braganza article. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 22:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You could always try removing the pretender infobox from her article. DrKiernan (talk) 07:58, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I would not be a supporter of replacing it with the royalty infobox there, however.... Gerard von Hebel (talk) 13:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Anjo-sozinho, if a infobox should be used, as has been the tradition with articles of this type, then the Infobox Pretender is the correct. It already states in the article that Duarte Pio is classed as a pretender to the former throne of Portugal. Until as such time as the Miguelist heir has standing in a reconstituted constitutional monarchy (or absolutist), then the use of the Pretender designation has no legs. But, clearly, Portugal is NOT a kingdom or constitutional monarchy and will likely be a Republic for the forseeable future, and his role continues as a Pretender. I believe my learned colleague User:Cristiano Tomas would (and has) supported this type infobox classification in the past. By using a "Royality"-based infobox is misleading, since most readers have a tendency to skim the article content, and may not move beyond the infobox for pure facts. Also Anjo-sozinho, I do suggest sending "threat" complaints to admins and arbiters, if that is in fact what Gerard von Hebel has been doing outside talkpage comments. I examined both user pages and did not notice any obvious inflammatory or threatening message. Obvious edit-warring may result in bans and/or blocks by admins, and I believe that important contributions are necessary to Portuguese articles on Wikipedia EN. ruben jc ZEORYMER  (talk) 20:31, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * @Hebel: I don't find your argument quite persuasive. Articles should use the most relevant infobox, I think that's not up for debate. Obviously, this is not always the case but that's not a reason to stop progress in this instance. Pichpich (talk) 20:45, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * To me the infobox is not the issue. The NPOV remarks that were added to the article accompanying it's introduction however were, as was the fact that both were clearly pushed into the article without consensus, which was requested more times than once. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:44, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Which, to make myself clear, means that if it is reintroduced on its own merits, I will not oppose it. Although I do think there is something to be said for consistency. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:58, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright then. Let's solve the conflict piece by piece. You don't object to the use of the pretender infobox? Then let's change that and get to the thornier issues. Pichpich (talk) 21:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

OK! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmmm... I wanted to change the infobox but the downside is that the pretender infobox template has far fewer parameters which means that we're throwing away some of the info. So I'm not sure where I stand on the infobox issue anymore! Pichpich (talk) 20:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Pichpich I personally would have no problem using the pretender infobox if only it was a more encompassing template - currently it is lacking, which is why i believe the royalty\nobility infobox is better. He is clearly stated as a pretender in the lead which I think for even skimming the article is good enough, at least I think. Shouldnt we chose the best formatted one? Cristiano Tomás (talk) 00:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I hadn't noticed that. I saw it nowhere in use on articles about pretenders or their relatives (except in the article on Maria Pia de Saxe-Coburgo e Bragança, who could hardly qualify for a royalty inbox anyway). Perhaps that's the reason why it's not in general use. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 01:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess the most pragmatic solution is to stick with the royalty infobox especially since it doesn't have a "this person is royalty" banner. Readers probably don't even realize that this is the royalty infobox. Pichpich (talk) 02:16, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * My point exactly - I doubt readers will go to the code source to check what type of infobox it is haha. I'm glad we all reached a decision. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 15:11, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Note, that Dom Duarto is pretender to the throne of Portugal, but he is Duke of Braganza--Yopie (talk) 22:48, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * He is the male line representative of the original Duke of Braganza, so that would make him the Duke of Braganza. I don't know if new rules were made concerning the title during the Portuguese monarchy however. But I've never heard of that. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 00:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The user Gerard von Hebel still promoting false information in Wikipedia as a hidden supporter of Duarte Pio pretentions. Duarte Pio is just a claimant to the Duchy of Braganza, as other claimants are. He never can be officially Duke of Braganza because his dynastic line does not match the last line reigning in Portugal. The last kings of Portugal are from the House of Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha line and not the descendants of Dom Miguel. Also the Monarchic Constitution promulgated in 1838 and never revoked states in article 98: "The collateral line of the ex-infante Dom Miguel and all his descendants are perpetually excluded from the succession". Please, this article should be neutral. Duarte Pio is just a pretender as the others are. The infobox pretender should be used. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 22:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * His real name is Duarte Pio de Bragança and he was just a pretender to the Portuguese extinct trone. When Hebel deleted the Infobox/Pretender he is showing to everyone how promotes here false information and an impartial point of viwe about this person and subject. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 22:50, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Duarte Pio, as Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Braganza and the current Duke of Loulé are just pretenders to the Portuguese extinct throne, so the infobox used in their articles should be the Infobox/Pretender. Gerard von Hebel and Cristiano Tomás are using now partial information, reverting always the neutral editions in the articles and don't accept the right use of the Infobox/Pretender to all pretenders to the extinct portuguese throne. Hebel and Cristiano attitude clears his support to the false dukes, because all claimants to the Duchy of Braganza are now JUST pretenders. Portugal lives in a Republic. Please, I ask for a NEUTRAL consensus. Pretender is one thing; Portuguese royalty and Duke of Braganza is other. Duarte Pio is not the Duke of Braganza, but a pretender as his father and his grand-father. Please stop POV. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 19:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

On-going dispute
To participate and view an ongoing dispute concerning various aspects of articles pertaining to the Miguelist dukes, Maria Pia of Braganza, and the Braganza-Coburg articles, and an ongoing dispute between editors User:Anjo-Sozinho, User:Hebel, and myself, see here. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 23:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 one external links on Duarte Pio, Duke 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/20131029192230/http://www.lacm.org.pt/conheca-o-cm/outros-antigos-alunos-de-relevo/d-duarte-pio-de-braganca to http://www.lacm.org.pt/conheca-o-cm/outros-antigos-alunos-de-relevo/d-duarte-pio-de-braganca
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121114002848/http://www.angelfire.com/pq/unica/monumenta_1834__lei_de_banimento.htm to http://www.angelfire.com/pq/unica/monumenta_1834__lei_de_banimento.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121114003944/http://www.angelfire.com/pq/unica/monumenta_1950_revoga_proscricao.htm to http://www.angelfire.com/pq/unica/monumenta_1950_revoga_proscricao.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131022105528/http://app.parlamento.pt/site_antigo/ingles/constitucionalism/const_monarchy/index.html to http://app.parlamento.pt/site_antigo/ingles/constitucionalism/const_monarchy/index.html#2
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131219031635/http://sol.sapo.pt/inicio/Internacional/Interior.aspx?content_id=23595 to http://sol.sapo.pt/inicio/Internacional/Interior.aspx?content_id=23595
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121118144222/http://liberal.sapo.cv:80/noticia.asp?idEdicao=64&id=37426&idSeccao=542&Action=noticia to http://liberal.sapo.cv/noticia.asp?idEdicao=64&id=37426&idSeccao=542&Action=noticia
 * Added tag to http://www.alentejolitoral.pt/PortalRegional/Actualidade/Noticias/Paginas/DDuartePiovisitaSantiagodoCacem.aspx
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130614150314/http://causamonarquica.com/2009/05/20/a-24-e-25-de-maio/ to http://causamonarquica.com/2009/05/20/a-24-e-25-de-maio/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120129144833/http://causamonarquica.com/2008/11/29/d-duarte-pio-e-o-1%c2%ba-de-dezembro-entrevista/ to http://causamonarquica.com/2008/11/29/d-duarte-pio-e-o-1%C2%BA-de-dezembro-entrevista/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Duarte Pio, Duke 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/20120523222121/http://www.angelfire.com/pq/unica/causa_dd_2001_Timor.htm to http://www.angelfire.com/pq/unica/causa_dd_2001_Timor.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150528181601/http://www.dn.pt/inicio/pessoas/interior.aspx?content_id=2296298 to http://www.dn.pt/inicio/pessoas/interior.aspx?content_id=2296298
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160207203608/http://www.jornal.gov.tl/?q=node%2F112 to http://www.jornal.gov.tl/?q=node%2F112

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) 01:30, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Duarte Pio, Duke 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/20150528180826/http://www.dn.pt/politica/interior.aspx?content_id=2301680 to http://www.dn.pt/politica/interior.aspx?content_id=2301680
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029184554/http://www.binokulu.com/2012/11/08/jorge-carlos-fonseca-recebe-no-palacio-do-plateau-dom-duarte-duque-de-braganca/ to http://www.binokulu.com/2012/11/08/jorge-carlos-fonseca-recebe-no-palacio-do-plateau-dom-duarte-duque-de-braganca/

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) 10:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

"Edward III of Portugal" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Edward III of Portugal and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 22 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. DrKay (talk) 08:00, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Pure proselytism and total distortion of the History of Portugal
The propaganda articles in favor of the Family of Duarte Pio "of Braganza" are just a repetition of lies with the aim of proselytizing to legitimize these impostors. Documentation only written by friends of the Cause, without any legal historical basis, and articles from gossip magazines, are mistakenly used as reliable sources to create the idea of a Portuguese royal family (although false). Duarte Pio, plus his father and mother, plus his grandparents, are all foreigners and without any dynastic rights in Portugal. It's impressive how administrators continue to allow (and condone) free publicity for a giant lie here on Wikipedia. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 11:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Please provide references for your arguments. So far you have provided none. You are showing unconscious bias in your arguments and lack to provide sustainable evidence. If someone is vandalising these articles is you with you republicanism bias. Wether you like it or not, Duarte Pio and his family are part of Portugal history, albeit through the Miguelist branch of House Braganza. You can argue/present this in the article and make it evident that they descend from this branch and have a claim as such, however, what you cannot due is deny it's existence, which you have been doing in you destructive comments so far. Duarte Pio and family are, for all facts and purposes, claimants to the monarchy's defunct titles and would be considered to succeed to the throne, even if it is via the Miguelist branch. I have proposed the pages to reflect this, as pretenders/claimants, but you continuously have vandalised the changes to reflect your republicanism bias. GrandDukeMarcelo (talk) 14:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Remove Order of hawai'i
The Royal Order Presented to this Man was a "revived" type of the Order of the crown of hawai'i. Owana Salazar, nor do other claimants have any right to change nor present these orders. in the Hawaiian kingdom constitution, only the head of state can distinguish Orders. being that their is no head of state of the kingdom of hawai'i NOR a claimant of the throne agreed apon, the order that this man has received is illegitimate. 808Poiboy (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I have edited such as illegitimate since this has not been changed. 808Poiboy (talk) 23:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)