Talk:Peter, Duke of Coimbra

Untitled
"But, in 1445, Afonso took offence because Isabel of Coimbra, Pedro's daughter was the choice for Afonso V's wife, and not one of her daughters." Huh? whose daughters are being referred to here? What is going on in this sentence? I added a "citation needed" template to draw attention to this, but there must be a more appropriate template. Maestlin 00:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

<-- Afonso de Barcelos was King John's bastard son and was hoping of marrying King Afonso to one of his his granddaughters since he was the oldest (half)brother and his sons had been promised more honours to them (they were descendants from two heroes of the Battle Royale of 1385, King John and the Counstable Nun'Alvares). Instead, Pedro kept concentrating all power in his family and refused to honor previous agreements.

Move discussion in process
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:List of Portuguese monarchs which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. &mdash;RFC bot 21:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:John, Constable of Portugal which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 04:59, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Duke of Treviso?
Article declares that Peter was given the "dukedom of Treviso." Treviso is a city that was controlled by Venice from 1388 to 1797. Am I missing something?
 * I can't say why (because I didn't write the article), but I can tell you that the Portuguese article says it was granted for military service to the Holy Roman Emperor. The Italian article says he later visited Treviso as its Duke and met with the Doge of Venice. Make of that what you will. Cheers, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 21:01, 15 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Actually, Marquis of Treviso properly speaking. Peter of Coimbra was granted the "March of Treviso"  ("Marchionatus Taruisius") by Holy Roman Emperor Sigismund in a donation letter dated 22 January 1418, while attending the Council of Constance.  The March of Treviso is a vast old HRE dominion in northeastern Italy, roughly bounded by Venice, the Brenta and the Piave Rivers, in what is modern Veneto.  At the time, the area was coveted as part of the terraferma of the Republic of Venice, Sigismund's No. 1 enemy, with whom he was at war at the time. The grant was evidently made by Sigismund less to please Peter and more to spite Venice.  It grants the March of Treviso as a imperial feudal fief for Peter and his heirs in perpetuity, and the letter mentions Alvaro d'Ataide (governor of Peter's household) being charged to take possession of it.
 * Note that all this before Peter's military service. So I am really not sure why Peter was given this "gift".  Maybe Sigismund hoped to use the young prince to lure Portugal into his war against Venice?
 * Nothing, of course, came of this. Venice, of course, controlled the area, had already annexed the surrounding territories, and soon annexed Treviso itself. Peter participated in Sigismund's campaigns between 1426 and 1428, and, after parting company with the Emperor, visited Treviso and Venice on his way back home. However, Venetian records point out that Peter was so well-received in Venice that he did not bring up his imperial claim on Treviso.
 * It first came up in 1436 at the Council of Basel. Portuguese emissaries to the Council, while passing through the papal court in Bologna, met with Pope Eugenius IV and lodged a formal "protest" against Venice, in Peter's name, for not relinquishing Treviso to Peter.  This took the pope by surprise - it was the first time he heard of this. The pope asked the papal nuncio in Venice to seek out a clarification from the Venetian authorities.  The Serenissima said that, yeah, there was some silly grant back in 1418, at a time when Venice and Sigismund were at war, but this was basically overriden in subsequent agreements between Venice and the HRE. Besides, Peter had never taken possession of Treviso, nor lodged any protests before nor even mentioned the claim to Venetian officials and he had ample opportunities to do so.  So evidently Peter never took the claim seriously before, and so the imperial grant should be regarded as legally defunct.
 * However, the original 1418 grant was reiterated and confirmed by Emperor-elect Frederick III in 1443. This sent the Venetian authorities into a flurry. A Venetian ambassador, Dr. Nicolau de Canale, was dispatched to Lisbon in April, 1445, and presented documentary proof to the Portuguese court that Treviso rightfully belonged to Venice.  A little while later Peter (now regent of Portugal) wrote a letter to Francesco Foscari, Doge of Venice, dated March 26, 1446, informing the Doge that legal jurists in Lisbon had pored over the documents and considered the case, and found the imperial grant of Treviso to Peter was still good, even if he never took actual possession of it, and supersedes any later agreements between the Venetian Republic and the HRE, and that Venice should restore Treviso to him.  Peter's letter demanded a reply from Venice within six months.
 * (Venetian archives still have the secret diplomatic instructions by Foscari to Canale, instructing him to do everything to avoid endangering the Venetian Flanders galley (which passed routinely through Lisbon), to remind Peter how the Venetian navy had assisted his father John I in his conflicts, instructing Canale to offer Peter monetary compensation, and advising Canale seek out the counsel of Duke Afonso of Braganza, the Archbishop of Lisbon and especially the Archbishop of Braga, who were known to be in favor of the Venetian position on the Treviso question).
 * Not sure what happened after that. The documents I have seem to just end there. Either there was some quiet monetary settlement, or the whole thing dragged on unresolved until Peter's death at Alfarrobeira in 1449.  Not sure if his sons tried to take the claim up for themselves.  Walrasiad (talk) 08:46, 16 May 2019 (UTC)