Talk:Pedro de Alcântara, Prince of Grão-Pará

Reneged renunciation
Relative to today's revert war, The Royalty Digest is considered neither obscure nor biased per se, rather it is a generally reputable source. That said, the article used as a citation here clearly takes the side of the Petropolis branch in the dynastic rivalry, which is no doubt why that branch's website has linked to it. Still, the article can include it and remain balanced, by noting the precise words & circumstances of Dom Pedro de Alcantara's renunciation, and of his son's claim: although my recollection is that Dom Pedro Gastao did not claim the throne immediately upon his father's death, but did so only after the legal dispute with the Vassouras branch over the family's vast Petropolis properties in the mid-40s, exacerbated by the rivalry during the referendum on the monarchy in 1992. I'm editing both views in, so that it is clear that even if Dom Pedro did not consider his renunciation legally binding (after all, it was signed post-monarchy), he appears to have considered it morally so, since he did not claim the throne when his mother died, nor openly dispute his nephew's claim, nor assert a claim on behalf of his son. More sources will continue to shed light on the matter and should be added if reputable, but as of now, I see no further grounds for the sides to excise each other's content: the active competition began after Dom Pedro de Alcantara's death and thus doesn't belong in this article. FactStraight (talk) 04:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

More on the succession dispute
The article says currently:

"After the death of the Princess Imperial in 1921, the Monarchist Directory declared that her successor as claimant to the throne should be her eldest son, Dom Pedro de Alcântara, but instead the son of his deceased brother Dom Luiz, Prince Pedro Henrique of Orléans-Braganza assumed that position and was recognized as such by many of Europe's dynasties."

This seems odd and possibly dubious. Prince Pedro Henrique was 11 years old at the time of his grandmother's death. I can't imagine he put forward any kind of claim on his own behalf - he would have likely needed some kind of regent, at the very least (his mother?). There surely must also be evidence as to whether Pedro de Alcântara recognized his nephew as head of the house at that time. I would assume that he did, since he did not put forward his own claim at any point in his life, as I understand it - the claim was advanced by his son at some point after his death in 1940, right? john k (talk) 14:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The sentence above is probably a later fabrication. Here goes the Monarchist Directory to the letter sent by Isabel about her eldest son´s renunciation (I´ve translated from the portuguese original to english):

"'My Lady," "'We had the honor of receiving the letter sent by Your Imperial Majesty, dated november 9, in which it came along the renunciation made by your eldest son, sir D. Pedro, before getting married." "'Obeying your order with the freedom in which you allowed us to, we only published what was essential about the renounce. We did not mention the marriage, as it does not matter, so to hinder others from connecting both facts;" "[...]'In the study in which we referred and whatever else that it is related to our moral unity, the discipline and effectiveness of a very combined work, we shall give with much pleasure our experience and action to the active talents of sir D.Luiz, who will act under your autority, and as you´ve told us, did not give up from his rights." "'With reverence we kiss the hand of Your Imperial Majesty as loyal subjects" "a) Lafayette Rodrigues Pereira" "a) João Alfredo Corrêa de Oliveira" "a) Viscount of Ouro Preto" "Rio de Janeiro," "December 14, 1908'"


 * Santos, Alexandre Armando dos. A Legitimidade Monárquica no Brasil. São Paulo: Artpress, 1988, pg. 175 and 178

Lafayette, João Alfredo and Ouro Preto were the monarchist leaders in Brazil and were also ex-Prime Ministers. - --Lecen (talk) 15:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's remove it, then. john k (talk) 19:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There is another issue, also. As far as I know, the Brazilian Imperial House is NOT in the line of succession to the french throne. Although it´s true that from 1890 to 1909, Gaston d´Orléans tryied at all coast to make the Head of the French Royal House to change his mind, with no success. Even his granddaughter, Isabelle, later countess of Paris and married to the Head of the French Royal House aknowledged that, as we can see in her autobiography (I´ve translated from the original portuguese version):


 * "'O duque de Chartres provocava sempre seu primo, o conde d’Eu, e Philippe, duque de Orléans, seu sobrinho, não gostava dele. Todos os primos diziam que ele era crítico e chicanista, que reivindicava sem cessar seus direitos de príncipe francês; indubitavelmente ele não tinha razão porque, fundando um ramo estrangeiro, não podia mais pretender tais direitois"


 * "The Duke of Chartres always provoked his cousin, the comte d´Eu, and Philippe, the duke of Orléans, his nephew, did not like him. All his cousins used to tell that he was a critic and 'chicanista' (I have no idea what it means), who claimed restless his rights as a French Prince; doubtlessly he had no right because, as he stablished a foreign branch, he could not pretend such rights'."


 * Condessa de Paris. De Todo o Coração. Editora Francisco Alves, 1893, pg.38 (original title:Tout m’est bonheur e Les chemins creux)


 * Also, this website: http://www.heraldica.org/topics/france/pacte1909.htm reveals clearly that the Orleans-Braganza branch has no right to French throne.


 * And more, if the Petropolis branch is not a brazilian dynastic branch and neither french, and their members only commoners descendents from emperor Pedro II, why they are categorized in the Imperial House of Brazil articles and boxes? Why they even have articles for them? --Lecen (talk) 20:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have a couple of thoughts here, although I suspect that Leven is pushing a POV rather than engaging honestly. To get the simplest thing out of the way, they have articles because, whether or not they are in line for the Brazilian throne, they are notable figures in European royalty and have done things worthy of note.  I don't think there's any question of notability.  Next, the family pact of 1909 seems a bit ambiguous to me.  As Velde himself notes, it has frequently been taken to mean not that the Orleans-Braganza branch has no rights to the French succession, but that they have a right after all the other branches die out.  Velde himself thinks that's wrong, but it has frequently been accepted as true.  And, one would imagine, if the male line of the Duc de Chartres became extinct (the male line of the Duc d'Alençon having become extinct in 1970, leaving the descendants of the Duc de Chartres as the only surviving branch of the House of Orleans besides the Braganza and Galliera lines) that the senior line of Orleans-Braganza would claim the succession and would probably be recognized by whatever remnant of Orleanists still existed.  Furthermore, French legitimists presumably would consider the Orleans-Braganza branch, like all branches of the House of Bourbon, to be dynasts.  The senior branch also seems to claim the style of "Royal Highness," and to be traditionally accorded it, as theoretical "Princes of Orleans," even if they have no succession rights anywhere.  The whole thing is, at any rate, complicated, and we should avoid ruling too strongly on one side or the other. john k (talk) 00:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don´t know what a "POV" means but i believe you´re are implying that I´m taking sides and writing with a bad faith in here. Not true. One thing it´s an article about the Countess of Paris, wife of the Head of the French Royal House. Perhaps we could even accept an article about Pedro Gastão (as he married with a Royal). Perhaps. But the others? In fact, I believe that the other members of his branch (with the exception of his sisters and one of his daughters that was married to the head of the Serbian Royal House) should get at most, a simple biographical resume in one article-only dedicated to the whole branch. I´m against articles dedicated to the brothers of dom Luiz (the head of the Vassouras branch) that renounced. Just my thoughts. - --Lecen (talk) 01:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry to accuse you of POV pushing - that was unfair. I think Pedro de Alcantara pretty clearly deserves an article as the eldest son of the Princess Imperial.  Only a few other members of the Petropolis branch have articles - Pedro Gastao, who I think deserves an article more for his claim (whether merited or not) to the Brazilian throne more than for his marriage to a member of a royal family that had been dethroned even before the Brazilian house.  Pedro Carlos deserves an article if notability can be shown - does he get covered in Brazilian newspapers, for instance?  Is he actively claiming to be head of the Imperial House?  The Countess of Paris and the former Crown Princess of Yugoslavia deserve articles, as you say.  Prince Pedro Thiago probably deserves an article because he was kidnapped and then later arrested for theft.  I assume both of those would have been fairly significant stories that garnered press attention.  As far as I can tell, no other members of the Petropolis branch have articles, so I'm not sure what the issue is.  I'd generally agree that junior members of these families born after the end of the monarchy don't automatically attain notability.  But I don't think there's ultimately much difference between the Petropolis branch and the Vassouras branch in that regard.  We should aim to be as accurate as possible in reporting their status, but it is definitely not wikipedia's job to take sides in a succession dispute.  john k (talk) 14:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)