Talk:House of Aviz

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

no consensus to move the page, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 13:46, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * House of Aviz → House of Avis — The current spelling of this dinasty is "Avis". "Aviz" is the Portuguese archaic spelling. Dantadd 13:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Survey

 * Add  # Support   or   # Oppose   on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~ . Please remember that this is not a vote; comments must include reasons to carry weight.


 * Oppose. - per WP:UE and WP:COMMONNAME. -- Sig Pig  |SEND - OVER 17:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose At the time of this dinasty, "Aviz" was the common spelling.-- Hús  ö  nd  02:05, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Discussion
I see no discussion here. Two editors expressed their opinion and that is it? The End? All Portuguese monarchs, at the time they've lived, had names written in the old spelling, but nowadays this is just a matter of paleography, and the names are written with the current spelling, here on the English Wikipedia and elsewhere. Therefore, it makes no sense to keep "Aviz" with the old spelling and the name of the monarchs in the current spelling. It's just not coherent. But I won't lose my time with this en.wiki bureaucracy. Dantadd 21:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "Fixing" names to a spelling used nowadays is a bad Portuguese habit, and it's good that such practice isn't often observed on the English Wikipedia. Names may change, but people who lived in another time have no fault that their names suffered variations in the future. For the sake of accuracy, it's good that records are kept immutable through time. It has nothing to do with wp-en bureaucracy, we just have different standards here.-- Hús  ö  nd  00:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Convert to the current spelling is a very good habit, for the sake of the language and literacy, and it's even prescribed by law. But you're missing the point: nobody wants to erase old records and correct them. We are talking about using the current and correct spelling in secondary and tertiary sources . Wikipedia is not a primary record and it's not a transcription of original records. Dantadd 13:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sourced it is, variants occur (both Aviz and Avis are verifiable). Undeniable however is the fact that "Aviz" was the name of the royal family at its time, not Avis. If the surname "Einstein" starts writing as "Heinstein" in the future, it doesn't seem wise to change the article about Albert Einstein to a most inaccurate Albert Heinstein just to conform to an unrelated etymological evolution.-- Hús  ö  nd  17:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: The names of royal houses are different. It is much like a territorial designation, the spelling can change over time and the use is retroactive. Charles 18:13, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course the use is retroactive. If it was not like that we would still write "Affõso Hẽriques" for Afonso Henriques or "Ioam", "Joham", "Joam" etc. for João I etc etc. Wikipedia is not an exercise of paleography and it's not the historical record itself. Dantadd 22:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Most of the other languages used "Avis", as noted down the left side of the page. Charles 10:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Galicia and Aragon
Afonso V of Portugal was never "King of Galicia" and the Galician coat of arms date to the 16th century. I think he was proclaimed King of Castile and Leon by some Galician nobles against Isabella I of Castile, at best an anti-king, at least that was the case for Ferdinand I of Portugal. It is sound too anachronistic and nationalistic.--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 04:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Also for this same reason Peter, Constable of Portugal should be removed since his title is false in that history does not recognize him as legitimate King of Aragon even if he may have been chosen by the Consell de Cent disgruntled at King John II of Aragon. By Cristiano Tomás's standard Beatrice of Portugal and her husband John I of Castile would be given a place on the List of Portuguese monarch and the title King of Portugal and the Algarves should be added to the article on the House of Trastámara.--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 03:57, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Merger
The Portuguese article does not recognize this as a separate House from that of Avis. There was not a break in the line of succession, as Manuel I of Portugal, Duke of Beja, was by birth already an Infante of Portugal and grandson of Edward, King of Portugal, so belonging to the very same House of Aviz. capmo (talk) 15:34, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This should be merged, if the Portuguese don't even recognize the existence of seperate Aviz-Beja branch. The article from the Portuguese wik should be translated and this an Aviz-Beja section should be included on the main article detailing the misconception, although the content about the "Dinastia do Crato", "Dinastia de Aviz-Inquisição", or "Dinastia de Avis-Évora" should be left out because I believe it to be original research by the Portuguese editors since there are no mention of any of these three dynasties outside of wikipedia .--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 05:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * This article should be urgently marked to be merged with the House of Aviz one. There is no such thing as a House of Aviz-Beja. It is just plainly wrong. All the Kings of Portugal were descendants in the male line of Afonso I (the first King in the XII century) until 1853, when Peter V (son of Mary II) succeeded to the throne; with the exception of the three Spanish Kings (Philip I, II and III) who usurped the crown in 1580 and ruled Portugal until the Revolution of 1640. If we exclude the Spanish kings (the Habsburg Dinasty), all the monarchs that ruled Portugal are divided into 3 Dynasties. As said, all 3 dynasties are descendants in the male line from Afonso I and the cut off points to divide them are when two illegitimate descendents, albeit in the male line, managed to succeed to the throne. The first one was John I who succeded to his half-brother in 1385, thus founding the Royal House of Aviz. The second one was John IV, Duke of Braganza, who claimed the throne in the 1640 Revolution that expels the Spanish yoke, thus founding the Royal House of Braganza. The claimed was based on the right of his grandmother Catarina, Infanta of Portugal and Duchess of Braganza, grand-daughter of King Manuel I, who lost her claim to the throne in the conturbed 1580 succession crisis. Nebertheless, John the IV was also a male-line descendent from Afonso I, through the Dukes of Braganza, although the first Duke was an illegitimate son of King John I. Concerning the article in question, all Kings of Portugal from Duarte I to Henrique I (Duarte I, Afonso V, John II, Manuel I, John III, Sebastian I and Henrique I) are male-line descendants from John I, the founder of the Royal House of Aviz. In particular, Manuel I, Duke of Beja (and the alleged founder of the non-existant House of Aviz-Beja) was the son of Ferdinand, Duke of Viseu, who was son of Duarte I. Manuel I thus succeed to his first-cousin in the male-line John II who died without issue. To the Portuguese historiography that succession does not imply in any way a change in Dynasty, nor did the contemporaries of that situation found it to be so. The invention of this wrong concept is explained in the Portuguese wiki page for the House of Aviz, where an argument ab absurdo is used to show the illogicality of the concept, thus making reference to other possible would-be-Dynasties, such as "Dinastia do Crato", "Dinastia de Aviz-Inquisição", or "Dinastia de Avis-Évora". Neither of those is a real one. --Tomás de Sousa Athayde e Noronha (talk) 22:19, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes merging the two article will create a more accurate article. Any volunteers?--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 05:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * I went ahead with the merge. It will take me awhile to relink everything from Aviz-Beja to Aviz.--The Emperor&#39;s New Spy (talk) 05:50, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:23, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Portrait of John II of Portugal.jpg