Talk:Margarita de Castro e Souza

Margarita or Margarida?
"Margarita" is not the usual spelling, "Margarida" is — at least currently, I'mm not sure about the 1400ies. Is there any evidence for this spelling, or is this inferred from the cognate and etym forms (English "Margaret", and Italian, Russian etc. "Margarita")? Shoudl the page be renamed? 62.48.171.17 14:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Sephardic Jewish Ancestry?
What about the possibility of this family/person having Sephardic Jewish ancestry? There were MANY Sephardic Jews in Spain/Portugal (hundreds of thousands of them), but many of them were driven out of the Spanish and Portuguese Inquisitions (those that did not want to be expelled would face the death penalty, or they could convert to Catholicism and become "New Christians," or "marranos"/"conversos"). However, before they were expelled from both countries (from Spain in 1492; Portugal in 1497) these Jews often intermarried to some extent with the royalty and upper-classes of those countries, and thus some lingered on in those countries a bit even after the vast bulk had been expelled (many remain even today). So possibly this person/family had some Sephardic Jewish ancestry? Please note that these Sephardic Jews are different from the Eastern European Ashkenazi Jews. --172.144.52.244 06:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, Aloandro Ben Bekar was partially of Sephardic origin, so Margarita de Castro e Souza also had that in her genealogy. Notice however that, contrary to what you said, it was not often that jews "intermarried to some extent with the royalty and upper-classes of those countries, and thus some lingered on in those countries a bit even after the vast bulk had been expelled (many remain even today)". The Ogre 13:57, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Notability
Margarita de Castro e Souza's sole notability is due to Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz. Still, it is a notability. Therefore this article should not be deleted. Thanks. The Ogre (talk) 13:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * (Setting aside whether the whole thing isn't WP:FRINGE . . . .) The argument that the supposed descent is notable still doesn't make Margarita notable. Why her, and not any of the previous 6 people, all of whom are likewise part of the same (claimed) notable descent, but are themselves non-notable.  The same goes for the descendants.  Nothing that you have added says anything that could not be said of her mother or her child. What makes her a notable genealogical nexus within this descent? Agricolae (talk) 14:33, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello Agricolae! Well, why indeed! The question is not of me thinking that she is notable, the question is that Mario de Valdes y Cocom's speculations, aired in a PBS special, have made her "special". Her notariety, deserved of not, fringe or not, is asserted by the fact that discussions about Queen Charlotte's "race" always end up talking about Margarita and Madragana. For me this all issue is just somewhat stupid... But the fact is that there is a stupid public discussion envolving her! Do you get my point? Cheers! The Ogre (talk) 16:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I get the argument that the descent is notable (don't necessarily agree with it, but I get it - it is like the equally lame Real Monarch of Britain nonsense, but that is a separate discussion). I don't get why the claim, whether on a PBS special or not, makes Margarita de Castro e Sousa notable, as opposed to her mother Mencia de Sousa e Sousa or her son Ferdinand de Neufchatel.  If we had a page on the descent, or on the PBS show, that at least would be to the point, but to throw a dart at the lineage and make a page on the person it happens to hit, that I don't get. Agricolae (talk) 16:31, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, so I lied - it is not a separate discussion. Do we really have to give validation to every fringe historian who happens to get his/her wild theory repeated by an ever-more-sensationalist broadcast media? It is certainly WP:UNDUE to give so much attention to something that is patently ridiculous (that Charlotte 'looked African' because of a single ancestor 15 generations earlier), and which has received zero scholarly validation. There is a full discussion of the theory on Charlotte's page.  There is no need to have a second page, on Margarita, simply to repeat the same arguments, when Margarita was in no way notable in her own right. Agricolae (talk) 16:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree! Let's make this a redirect to Charlotte of Mecklenburg-Strelitz? The Ogre (talk) 16:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a reasonable way to address it. Agricolae (talk) 17:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Consider it done! The Ogre (talk) 17:55, 26 May 2009 (UTC)