Talk:Peter, Constable of Portugal

Request Move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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. 

The result of the move request was: Moved to Peter, Constable of Portugal Mike Cline (talk) 14:34, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Peter V of Aragon → Peter of Coimbra, Constable of Portugal — Peter V never ruled uncontested in Aragon and he can't be legitimately be called King of Aragon. The Portuguese wikipedia uses Pedro de Coimbra, Condestável de Portugal. Also if in the future the Spanish throne is occupied by another king by the name of Peter, he would definitely be called Peter V and follow his ancestor Peter IV of Aragon not a barely known Portuguese infante who fought in a civil war against the John II of Aragon. Also both the articles for Henry IV of Castile and René of Anjou don't put so much rate on their similiar claim as Kings of Aragon.--Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 06:30, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support -- My reading of the subject (but only in WP) suggests that he is best regarded as a pretender, but his regnal title is a plausible search term and should be retained as a redirect. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment This is not an episode of history I am familiar with. However I note that it is POV to say that a de facto ruler was illegitimate or a pretender, the Wikipedias of the various languages of the Iberian peninsula have every variant of his name you can imagine but the Aragones Wikipedia does have him at "Peter V of Aragon", we should deal with a future Peter when this arises, but presumably he would be "Peter V of Spain". PatGallacher (talk) 23:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It depends if this article had an influence on the other one. This article was created a year before the Aragonese article. Plus he is Pere el Conestable de Portugal in Catalan, Pedro de Avis y Aragón in Spanish and Pedro de Coimbra, Condestável de Portugal in Portuguese.--Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 23:36, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * As I was with my hands on the Dictionary of History of Portugal (a collection of individual articles) because of the portuguese royal coat of arms of Lumastan, and I read the request made to him by «...Little Spy», I found this in an article about his father, signed by Maria Emília Cordeiro Ferreira, secndary prof. of History: «D. Pedro, Condestável and writer of merit, that was king of Barcelona». As the conseil de cent was the catalan parliament, they tried the secession, but in the end they were defeated. So, the intented secession failed and there is no reason to criate Kings. Or, in the best, we can say that there were a ephemerous state of Cataluña during some years, if they really controled the territory and population of Cataluña and had a state organisation. But, if Cataluña was divided, we can't say even this.I Think the best it's to see what actually the majority of catalan professors and historians say. Best regards (and we are going to modify the article on WP po), Jorge alo (talk) 01:08, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly his status as King of Aragon and etc can be argued and I see amble reason to mention him under these titles in the text because he was recognized by most of Barcelona, but just not in the article title.--Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 01:33, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * One question I want to ask is, did the Consell de Cent, as the governing body in the County of Barcelona, have any rights to choose the King of Aragon. Did Peter have the recognition of the Cortes of Aragon?--Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 01:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Against If you say to look to the Portuguese article and see that he is Peter, constable of Portugal, then look at the Aragonese article, and see he is Peter V of Aragon A Minha Pátria é a Língua Portuguesa! (talk) 01:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * He was recognized in Catalonia and Barcelona where they speak Catalan and his article on that wikipedia is "Pere el Conestable de Portugal". Also you need to observe that the Aragonese article is the only one in this case out of all the Iberian languages, and it was created at a later date and may have follow the English wiki in naming the article title. --Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 01:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * He is famous for ruling in those Catalan kingdoms, not for being a constable. Even read all the Iberian language articles on him. I read them all and they are all mostly talking about him as king (recognized or not) A Minha Pátria é a Língua Portuguesa! (talk) 01:35, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree we should follow their paths and talk about his kingship in the text but refer to him as Peter of Coimbra in the article title.--Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 01:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It don't matter what this and that article says, they havn't been approved by aragonese or catalan or portuguese referendum. What matters are the sources, and if the aragonese's source is more or less like the portuguese source Geneall,you can forget what the aragonese article says. And now I'm going to bed, abraço Jorge alo (talk) 02:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * @Lumastan 106 results for no "Peter V" and 418 results for no "Pedro V". While there are 3 results for "Pedro V of Aragon" (all three mentions him as Pedro the Constable) and 6 results and many wiki article turned books for "Peter V of Aragon". You underestimate his status as Constable of Portugal, the second highest ranking individual in Portugal after the King.--Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 04:24, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I am well aware of a constable' ranking and power, and for that matter, the overall rankings in the Kingdom of Portugal, but this article primarily covers his life as king of the three monarchies (or two) in question. If a king of england was known as... "Edward the fat and gross" and that was his most commonly used name, by far, would we name his article that? or his regnal name as Edward XIXI? A Minha Pátria é a Língua Portuguesa! (talk) 04:43, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * His status as King is disputed. He was no Edward XIXI. --Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 04:52, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Do what you wish with this article, I will no longer put a fight. As well, please do not ask for my help translating any future articles from Portuguese (or from any of the Iberian languages, for that matter). Cristiano Tomás (talk)


 * Support. The Spanish Wikipedia lists him simply as Pedro de Avis y Aragón. However, I believe the Kings of Spain follow the numbering of the Kings of Castile (Alfonso XII, Alfonso XIII), and ignore that of Aragon and Navarre. Or has this changed? Reigen (talk) 06:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Everything is just speculation. I don't think anybody knows because Spain has never had a monarch that needed to follow Aragonese regnal titles since Castle was always higher in their Alfonsos and Ferdinands, which is similar to the British system, although it tends to ignore all the Navarrese King Charles. Infante Jaime, Duke of Segovia was called Jaime IV of Spain by the Carlists which seems to even count James III of Majorca, so that brings up the question would future kings of Spain followed the regnal numbers of its other former componet states. But since there has never been a case or any decision by the King of Spain, we don't really know either way. Maybe when Infanta Leonor of Spain she would become Eleanor II of Spain instead of Eleanor I of Spain. --Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Is there a way to avoid the "of Coimbra", since Peter was never Duke of Coimbra and that might be misleading? I'd much prefer "Peter of Aviz, Constable of Portugal", as Aviz would capture both his dynastic name and actual title (as administrator of the Order). Walrasiad (talk) 07:50, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "Peter of Aviz" or "Pedro of Aviz" is never used in any sources. The "of Coimbra" is to show that he was the son of the Duke of Coimbra like the articles of his siblings. But why not just elimate that part and go with Peter, Constable of Portugal? Most sources just call him Peter the Constable or Peter, Constable of Portugal.--Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought Spanish sources called him "of Aviz"? I am not sure "Peter, Constable of Portugal" is sufficiently disambiguating, and so I am inclined to something longer like "Peter of Aviz, Constable of Portugal" or "Peter of Aviz-Aragon, Constable of Portugal", but I am not too hung up on that. My interest is more about avoiding the misleading "of Coimbra" (esp. given that that would make him homonymous with his father, and thus a possible source of confusion to casual readers.) Walrasiad (talk) 18:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok but I was referring to academic sources by google book searching, not wikipedia. "de Avis y Aragón" seems to follow the Spanish custom of referring to people by their mother's maiden name and their father's surname. His father was from the Aviz dynasty and his mother was from the Aragon dynasty. The problem with this is that similiar issues have been contested in many English articles about Portugese and Spanish royalty because as royalty they aren't suppose to have surnames. I would support Peter, Constable of Portugal over the rest if anyone is with me. The other Constable Peter/Pedro are merely ceremonial.--Queen Elizabeth II&#39;s Little Spy (talk) 18:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. I can live with that. Walrasiad (talk) 18:36, 7 January 2012 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.