Talk:List of Portuguese monarchs

Rafael, first king of Portugal

What the is that picture doing there? I can't find the code to delete it. So someone who can, please do. It is just stupid that someone as put a picture like that there! (sorry to put this first, but I think it is important enough) Folkmann 21:17 Jun 5, 2008 (UTC)

Luis II, king of Portugal?

When King Carlos was assassinated in 1908, his also fatally injured crown prince survived him by a short time. I thought the Crown Prince was technically regarded as having been king between his father's death and his own a short time later. If so, surely he too should be on the list? JTD 22:54 Jan 22, 2003 (UTC)

Prince Luis Filipe actually died with his father in Terreiro do Paco, if not, a few hours later. Manuel was also shot in the arm, but survived to be the last portuguese king. Sara C

I know. I understood that Luis Filipe survived his father by a couple of hours. As he was Crown Prince, it has been claimed by some that he automatically became king, even if only for a matter of hours, with his death passed on the throne to his heir presumptive, Manuel. Others insist the throne passed directly to Manuel.

I've just looked a website that used as its source the Library of Congress. And it has its facts all wrong (Manuel the oldest son; assassination killed the youngest son, etc). Oh dear. I thought it was just the CIA fact book that screws up so baldly. JTD 22:24 Feb 10, 2003 (UTC)

About Portuguese Crown Princes... I don't think this institution exists in Portugal at all. This is due to the fact that Portuguese Kings are not crowned themselves. The reason for this strange tradition goes back to 1640, when Joao IV recovered independence after spanish domain since 1580. Then, Joao IV dedicated Portugal and its crown to Nossa Senhora da Conceicao. And after that it's the Virgin who is actually the crowned queen of Portugal, being the living monarchs mere representatives of her. Muriel Gottrop

I head Luis Filipe only lived 20 minutes after his father :-s. So i we going to ad dhim or not?? -fonzy

I don't think it's correct to add Luis Filipe to the list. I never heard about a Luis II, king of Portugal. Muriel Gottrop

• Agree with muriel!!!-Pedro 14:29, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Prince Royal and no King Luís Filipe

According to the Constitutional Charter of 1826 (Carta Constitucional) the heir presumptive of Portugal is styled "Prince Royal" (Príncipe Real); his first born is Prince of Beira (Príncipe da Beira).

Luís Filipe was not king because there was no acclamation; this is customary since the beginning of Portuguese nationhood.

Ricardo monteiro 10:29, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Rule of King Alfonso I

Why this article considers the rule of King Alfonso I only since 1143, when the majority of authors indicates 1128?! Even the Portuguese encyclopedia that I'm seeing at the moment.

Ok:

(...)-1128 - He was a count

1129-1139 - He declared himself the Prince of Portugal

1139-1179 - He declared himself the king of Portugal

1179- King de jure. (the proof is in the Portuguese national archive, Torre do Tombo)

Why 1128? because he ruled it has an independent country and many acclamed him has king.

1129 or 28 was his own first proclamation - possibly nothing more than claiming the position of independent prince, not a proper king

1139 there was another proclamation.

check the year when Pope recognized. 217.140.193.123 16:46, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ephemeral and unrecognized monarchs

dona Beatriz (Brites), daughter of Ferdinand I, was acclaimed as queen regnant and was recognized by her party. She was a part of the period here called an interregnum. Should be mentioned in the article, if dom Antonio is.

Antonio the Bastard was the rival king briefly when Philip demanded the throne.

Also dona Catarina, princess of Guimaraes, claimed the throne. married with duke of Braganza.

And finally, dom Luiz Filippe, who technically succeeded for some minutes, could be mentioned. 217.140.193.123 16:45, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree that Beatrice should be mentioned, but not as Queen because at the time coronation was needed (the Portuguese crown had'nt been offered yet to Our Lady of Conception). A claimant to the throne is not the same thing as an acclaimed king (like António, the Prior of Crato) but I believe that every claimant to the throne in the dynastical crises (1383-1385 and in 1580) should be mentioned in a note. Finally, as for Prince Royal Luis Filipe, he did'nt became king the second his father died. Portuguese kings are only considered kings when they are crowned and/or acclaimed, so the period between the death of a monarch and the beginning of reign of the next king is a kingless period known as vacatio regis.--Gameiro 02:28, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

But Beatrice wasn't acclaimed in 1383? I think so.Câmara 13:13, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Improvement drive

The article on John III of Portugal is currently nominated to be improved by Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. Support the article with your vote or comment on the nomination.--Fenice 09:12, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

House Avis - Beja

Emanuel I belonged to dynasty Aviz - Beja, so please make the correction. see the portuguese wikipedia .--Regalijan

Harmonization of names?

All kings named "Alphonzo", "Sanctius", "Emmanuel", "Anthony", "Louis" and "Charles" have links redirecting to articles in which they are identified as "Afonso", Sancho, "Duarte", and so on. Aren't these last names the ones by which they are really known in English? Furthermore, at some point names kewep being mentioned in Portuguese, then in English, then back in Portuguese. Would't the article benefit from some harmonization? I propose:

1. The King's names as used in the articles referring to them (it makes research easier, simpler and more coherent);

2. The subject's names follow the king's names rules. It's a convention, a mere choice, but one should be followed, I believe.

Some articles (Peter IV and V), for example, use "Pedro". This, I admit, requires even deeper work at harmonization.

Of course, I take it upon myself to undertake the changes, should users agree to this. Thanks a lot and congratulations for the "featured article", Nuno Gabriel Cabral 16:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Nuno. I chose to use the English versions of their names so that the whole list could be coherent. I do not think that kings named Sancho, Afonso and Manuel are known in English by Sanctius, Alphonzo or Emmanuel, but thats the English version of their names. We could use English names all over the list, or alternatively all Portuguese. Perhaps Portuguese would be better. As for the actual names of the articles it's quite difficult, Since Wikipedia has a policy that states that an article should be titled with the name by which is most known in English. So we have Peter I of Portugal and Pedro V of Portugal, the names by which they were known. And we also have things like having both Mary I of Portugal and Maria II of Portugal. Feel free to change it. Joaopais 18:33, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, João, for your attention to the questions I raised. I have to admit that I'm reasoning on my personal experience of studying History in English, but I'm quite convinced that in English, despite the absence of a precise rule on translation of foreign names, the most usual use of the names coincides with the titles of most of the articles. Of course this is not free from contradictions: the Catholic Kings are Ferdinand and Isabella, not Ferdinand and Elisabeth; the Kaiser is, on the other hand, William II and not Wilhelm II. By the way, why "Peter" for the others and "Pedro" for Pedro V? That's intriguing.

I'm not a native English speaker, who am I to say anything? Nonetheless, I believe in the convenience of using names by which an English speaker may search or refer to when researching about Portuguese history. I'll make some changes according to my criteria and put them to everybody's consideration, i.e., I'll do waht any Wikipedia user does... Thanks again, Nuno Gabriel Cabral 11:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• They should always have English names, that's obvious! Except when they were known by the Portuguese name (case of the Brazilian Emperor). So anything is wrong with the list. --Pedro 11:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The only one I'm not comfortable with is the article Mary I of Portugal, which should be renamed Maria I of Portugal. About the Pedros, it's really odd. I think that in the middle of the 19th century, in English-speaking countries, the names of foreign monarchs started to be used in their native languages, with exceptions of course. If you reasearch magazines of the 19th century you will find Pedro I of Brazil (IV of Portugal), Pedro II of Brazil, Pedro V of Portugal, Miguel of Portugal, Luis I of Portugal and Carlos I of Portugal. An English-language encyclopedia today has entrances for Peter I of Portugal, Peter II of Portugal, Peter III of Portugal, but Pedro I of Brazil (IV of Portugal) and Pedro V of Portugal. It's strange. As for the all-English/all-Portuguese in the list, Pedro (the user, not the king) says that we should stick to the English names except when they were known by their Portuguese name. So we ought to change the Sanctius, Alphonzos and Emmanuels to their Portuguese names. And also Charles, Louis, Michael and the two last Peters, since they were known by their Portuguese name too. Joaopais 13:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Maybe I'm the king, and you don't know it yet, lol. I'm named after Saint Peter, not kings. BTW I thought that issue on native names was only with Pedro I of Brazil. Are those references british? we should stick to British references/ encyclopedias. --Pedro 14:35, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Princes of Portugal/Brazil

I created the succession box of Princes of Portugal, and so I created some pages of short lived princes. Feel free to improve them. ;) I will do the same for the Princes of Brazil, but not todayCâmara 00:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Beatrice image

I think the image shown in Beatrice is not of Beatrice queen regnant but one of the two castilian that were queen consort.Câmara 08:27, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Detail in the history

I wonder if we do not have a bit too much detail on this page - it is, after all, meant to be a list of the monarchs. Would it not be better to prune this back a bit and put the detail on the relevant history pages? Bagunceiro (talk) 13:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Clarification of long sentence

There's a sentence in the House of Burgundy section:

And the implementation of necessary structures, such as international diplomacy, agriculture, population, commerce, education and culture, even all that existed in the Portuguese territory a long time ago, and even in a very developed way during the regency of Count Henrique of Burgundy already, who travelled to Rome and Jerusalem, France and other hispanic kingdoms, and was the nephew of the most powerful diplomat of his time, Saint Bernard, leading him to bring the cosmopolite Order of the Temple to his fied when it was just created.

which needs tidying up but I am unclear as to what it is saying. Can anyone help out here? Bagunceiro (talk) 14:21, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Requested 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 no consensus to standardize the names of these articles. Consider making individual requests for any of these that you think are not at the most common name. Jafeluv (talk) 17:31, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

---

Prince Fernando, Duke of Viseu → Ferdinand, Duke of Viseu — Relisted for further input. Jafeluv (talk) 02:04, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

The above moves are requested in order to straighten out the odd naming non-conventions of Portuguese royalty. I have removed all the princely titles, per policy and guidelines, I believe. I have also (mostly) standardised spellings to English, but this would leave some Portuguese royalty that I have not listed (because they did not have princely titles in their article titles) out of the loop. Srnec (talk) 04:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

• Infante João, Duke of Valencia de Campos → John, Duke of Valencia de Campos
• Prince Fernando, Lord of Serpa → Ferdinand, Lord of Serpa
• Infanta Teresa, Countess of Flanders → Theresa, Countess of Flanders
• Prince Ferdinand, Count of Flanders → Ferdinand, Count of Flanders
• Infanta Branca, Lady of Guadalajara → Branca, Lady of Guadalajara
• Prince Afonso, Lord of Portalegre → Afonso, Lord of Portalegre
• Infanta Sancha of Portugal → Sancha of Portugal
• Prince Pedro, Duke of Coimbra → Peter, Duke of Coimbra
• Infanta Isabella of Portugal, Duchess of Burgundy → Isabella of Portugal, Duchess of Burgundy
• Princess Catherine of Portugal → Catherine of Portugal

• Oppose per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (names and titles) though Prince/Princess should probably be Infante/Infanta. "Name of Place" is only used for Emperors(Empresses)/Kings(Queens) or there consorts, people with substantive titles are "Prince/Infante Name, Title of Place". Regarding English/Portuguese names use whatever they are better known as. Some (Princess Constança of Portugal and Infanta Mafalda of Portugal) of the proposed targets names are already taken by different articles. - dwc lr (talk) 22:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

  So... what you're saying is that you would Support a Prince Fernando, Lord of Serpa → Infante Ferdinand move, for example?
  — V = I * R (talk) 21:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

  No, I'd support a move to Infante Ferdinand, Lord of Serpa, it would have to be that or Infante Ferdinand of Portugal. - dwc lr (talk) 23:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

  OK, that actually supports my initial thinking to Oppose this movereq. if any are to be done, they should be handled individially.
  — V = I * R (talk) 00:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

  What is the point of keeping infante/a and prince/ss in the article titles? These are medieval figures and the usage seems unusual in English. They are called such when it is important, but it is hardly customary, to my knowledge, to say "Prince Fernando, Lord of Serpa", the way it would be customary to say "Prince Charles [of Wales]" or "Prince Felipe [of Asturias]". I agree that infante/a should not be translated prince/ss. Srnec (talk) 00:31, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

• The real problem here is that most of these articles lack references. If even a single reference were added to most of these articles then I could make a knowledgeable decision based on WP:UCN, since that's really what we're supposed to do regardless. Currently, the best that we'll be able to do is bicker back and forth based on personal opinions, and that's not really going to help anything (especially going into the future).
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 01:47, 30 August 2009 (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.

Mercy

The list of styles for kings of Portugal used at different times includes "mercy". Should it not be "grace"? I have no knowledge of Portuguese, and will not change it, but I know that the Danish word "nåde", which is usually rendered "mercy" in English, is invariably "grace" when used as a style. --Klausok (talk) 09:36, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

First Portuguese county, then Portuguese state

This is ignorancy !! lol

We cannot talk about Portugal before the XII century ! --85.243.105.229 (talk) 18:20, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

In fact, Portugal was a county until 1139 and a state from 1139. This is consistent with XII century so I don't see the point of your argument.

ICE77 (talk) 07:22, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Disputed monarchs and numbering

This has been a slow revert war for several days, so I think a discussion to hash out the positions is merited. I am unfamiliar with the scholarly consensus here, so if someone could indicate how common review sources refer to these individuals as kings vs claimants would help. As to the numbering, in general, English-language sources don't tend to number kings in succession order, except out of convenience, not systematically. That being the case, maintaining three different numbering systems is decidedly inconvenient and without benefit - saying 'the 33rd king' without specifying that you mean the one that is 31st or 32nd or 33rd, and not the 32nd or 33rd or 34th, or the 33rd or 34th or 35th, is all more of a nuisance than a help. I would suggest deleting the entire number column. Agricolae (talk) 03:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Warning from Portugal: There is no Beatriz I nor António I recognized as kings in Portugal. There´s a discussion if they should be considered or not as sovereigns by some time. For the moment, in the lusophone Wikipédia, our provisory solution was to use the traditional numbering (scholarly consensus) for the recognized kings and put between parenthesis the claims of a minority of historians (case of António) and some monarchic portuguese Wikipedists and one or two historians (Beatriz). The best list, for real KINGS, it´s that of German Wikipedia (in 11 March 2010). About Miguel I, the only people that disputed him was the posterior branch of his brother D. Pedro. Forgive me my very bad english, but what matter here is the historical truth. I profit the occasion to say tat some of your (english Wikipedia) articles about the 1383-1385 crisis are also plenty of inventions (I don't mean the article «1383-1385 crisis»; this one is good). I have left another warning in Beatriz. It's I, as Jorge alo, that have made lately some corrections about these problems in the Lusophone Wikipedia.88.157.243.179 (talk) 23:19, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

The affirmation, about Beatrice, «Although frequently forgotten from the monarchs of the country», is at least a euphemism. The truth is: although not recognized as a monarch of the country...because she was the heiress (as nominal queen) and she was acclaimed (thirty days and more in the most part of the places) after her father´s dead by a great part of the nobility (not by the people, that was against her), there´s a discussion on Wikipedia if she should be considered queen of Portugal or not. Puting her as succeeding her father, and John I as succeeding her, is not also officially recognized, and is the point of the view of the minority that claim she was a portuguese monarch. Seems to me excessive considerate that hipothetical order of succession on Wikipedia. The Wikipedia question "was she or wasn´t she a queen of Portugal» is discuted and disputed. I think it´s enough and wise to consider the thesis without developing corollarys as «Beatriz I», orders of succession and so on. More, there´s a particular consideration here: the claime that António was king, in 1580, is defended by some portuguese historians, but there´s not a single portuguese historian defending that Beatriz was a portuguese queen. Who is defending that, in Portugal, are some circles of portuguese monarchists, with the support of a little number of teachers of history. But I'm not referring this to diminish them or their thesis. I accept the discussion, with or without historians defending such theory.88.157.243.179 (talk) 18:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

THERE ARE 34 KINGS recognized by scholarly consensus. António is only recognized as king by a minority of portuguese historians and Beatriz isn't recognized by ANY portuguese historian. There is at the lusophone Wikipedia a investigation since January 2010, and, by my part, that investigation it's finished. The elimination of Beatriz from the list was proposed and we are going to wait two months to see if any one gives new facts (based on REAL SOURCES) to the discussion. Why we do that? Because the question of Beatriz is complicate. She was the heiress; her mother, being Regent, called her Queen of Portugal; very late, after, at least, 13 December 1383, her mother ordered her acclamation by all the country. But in that moment was already clear to many portuguese that her husband was trying to annex the kingdom of Portugal to his possessions, so, his acclamation was also the moment of the most part of the popular rebellion in the country. The people didn't acclamate her, but more than 54 alcaides (commanders of the fortresses) and some nobility and rich burgers did so. Some of these alcaides were, two weeks after, already expelled by the people. So, in a part of the country she was acclamate by a part of the rich classes, in another part of the country her acclamatiom was repudiated, and in another part of Portugal she wasn't acclamated by alcaides that remain neutral, waiting for the development of the situation. But, truly, the fundamental question isn´t the problem of her acclamation. Is another one: by the Treaty of Salvaterra she should be only nominal queen of Portugal, and her husband, John I of Castile, nominal king consort of Portugal in the next years, but he tried to be lord and master, full, real sovereign of Portugal since the beginning (source: Lopez de Ayala). This, in the terms of that Treaty, was usurpation. Her husband profit her "alf-acclamation" to justify his usurpation, so, even this "alf-acclamation" was a fraud (please: as I'm not a good "english writer", if there are any mistakes in this little text, I ask you to correct them). Two articles that distort our History of Portugal are the english articles about «John I of Portugal» and «Beatriz». Also isn't truth that she succeed her father and John I of Portugal succeed her. Those are mere thesis and must not be affirmed, for example, as «or Beatriz or Jonh I» succeed Ferdinand I. Also the use of the terms de jure and de facto are ridiculous; the right words should be right title, acclamation, and possession, but in her case the two things are contradictory, because her acclamation only was possible as nominal queen and any real possession of the kingdom was usurpation.

MY PROPOSITION: use the provisory numbering of the lusophone Wikipedia or, if you want, eliminate Beatriz. As I said, we, on the lusophone Wikipedia, will wait two months to close the discussion. A great salute for you all (and also, if there are some, for the defenders of «Beatriz I»),Jorge alo (talk) 00:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposition: eliminate Beatriz from the list

First of all, the affirmation that «she was acclaimed queen of Portugal in 1383 after her father's death» it's a forgery. The first attempts of acclamation by order of her mother, Leonor Teles de Menezes, only took place on 22 November 1383, thirty days after her father's death, and we know that they were boycotted by the people at, by the least, Lisbon and Santarém. These first attempts happened only in some places. The orders for her acclamation in all the country only were given on December, after de assassination of John Fernandes Andeiro and the revolution in Lisbon. This revolution didn't dismissed Leonor Teles de Menezes of her paper as Queen Regent, only brought a double power in place. It was after being in Alenquer that Leonor Teles de Menezes ordered the acclamation of her daughter, never before the 13 December. So, even in theory, her acclamation in some places happened at the same time that, in other places, John, Master of Avis, was being acclaimed Regent and Defender of the kingdom. In some places she was acclaimed and, one or two weeks after, those who aclaimmed her were expelled from that towns and cities, for example: Beja, Évora and Estremoz. More, many towns and a few cities became neutrals, neither acclamating her nor John, the Master of Avis. Perhaps these were the majority, but we don't know. So, we have two acclamations at the same time in different places of the country. But in the more of 54 places that were from the side of Castille even before King Juan I of Castille entered Portugal (more or less 20 or 25 December, and, surely, before 1 January 1384), we know that some places, as in Minho, didn´t recognize Beatriz as the real sovereign but Juan I of Castille. So we have a part of the portuguese nobles that were from the side of Castile recognizing her as the truly sovereign, another part recognizing Juan I of Castille. We don´t know the proportions, we only know that both partys in the castillain side were importants. Conclusion: she wasn´t queen of the portuguese, she wasn´t queen of all the portuguese nobles that fought from the castillain side, only of a part of them, even if they were the majority (very dubious). We can't put a queen of some portuguese noble families on the list of monarchs of a nation. Where was the confusion? First of all, in thinking that by her father's death she was automatically queen of Portugal. The treaty of Salvaterra, her contract of marriage with Juan I of castille, previewed that acclamation; without acclamation she wasn't queen. Second, in the date of the order of acclamation by her mother in all the country. Thirth, in who was really recognized as sovereign, her or Juan I of Castille, in many places that took the side of Castille. I could said more, but I think this is enough.

Sources: Chronicles of Fernando I and John I, Fernão Lopes; Chronicle of Juan I of Castille and Leon, López de Ayala; Provas da Historia Genealogica da Casa Real Portuguesa, Tomo I, prova 39 do Livro I, António Caetano de Sousa (this last for the Treaty of Salvaterra, in castellain).

I will wait 15 days for other opinions before eliminate Beatriz from the list. Sorry for my bad english, please correct my mistakes in the writing, and a big salut for you all,Jorge alo (talk) 19:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Counts are not kings

I think the long list of counts of Portucale and of Garcia, and even of the 2.º County, it's a deliberate and not innocent attempt to reduce the political entity «Kingdom of Portugal».

A list of kings of Portugal must obey to that entity. So, I propose to place the lists of Counts on their proper articles, and eliminate them from here. King Garcia isn´t also proper placed, neither in counts nor Kings of Portucale. The only list where he could be was a list of ancient kings, of ancient states, before the criation of the kingdom of Portugal, that have somehow ruled over the territory. But, in that case, we have to do similar lists for all the territories in the world, since the beggining of their history...and with what propose? Jorge alo (talk) 10:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree! What do you mean reduce? The inclusion of the Counts and of Garcia is just a way to include the direct forerunners of the political entity of Portugal. This has nothing to do with other political entities that ruled that territory (like the Suebi, the Visigoths or the Romans!). They should remain in the list, which is not, stricto sensu, a list of Kings, but also of the "heads" or direct rulers of the political entities from which the Kingdom of Portugal emerged. The Ogre (talk) 12:39, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Monarch and king don't mean the same thing. On the other hand, those "first county of Portugal" guys are pretty obscure. john k (talk) 13:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Nevertheless an encyclopedia does not follow criteria of fame... The fact is that they were the rulers of a political entity that preceded and gave origin to another one that was the immediate foreruner of the kingdom. The Ogre (talk) 13:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't see any problem with splitting them off to a separate article, though. john k (talk) 19:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Reply of Jorge alo to the Ogre:

1- With «to reduce» I mean: «to bring to a lower rank, quality or value; to bring under one's power». And you, my dear The Ogre, with your "theory" of the list «not stricto sensu a list of Kings», what you are saying it's that THIS IS NOT A LIST OF KINGS OF PORTUGAL. More, Portugal emerged from TWO COUNTYS. County of Portugal and County of Coimbra. So, we should have tu put here also «the direct forerunners» of the second County.

2- Why you don't try to apply your "theory" «not strictu senso», for example, here: List of English monarchs. You can put before this: List of monarchs of Mercia. The place of the lists of the Counts of Portucale and Portugal is in their articles, or annexed to these articles. If you want to refer their existance in this page, you can put a connexion on the beginning of the list. You can refer only the fact without needing to make the full enumeration of the counts.

3- And even about the County of Portugal, who said the «direct forerunners» of the portuguese kingdom are those of the actual list? You? And to include Garcia we have to include also other kings whom, since, by your acconts, the VIIIth century, had somehow power above the territories of Portucale and Coimbra.

4- Finally, THE FACT IS THAT THE COUNTS WERE NOT KINGS NOR MONARCHS OF PORTUCALE OR PORTUGAL. And the other fact is that YOU WANT to enumerate the Counts together with the Kings. By the way, and by the qui pro quo stricto sensu/strictu senso, you, The Ogre, are not named in spanish «Trasamundo»? With my best cumpliments to the Ogre and all the others, Jorge alo (talk) 14:27, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Jorge alo, relax! There is no need to SHOUT! Calma! And no, I'm not User:Trasamundo (I have the same user name in all of wikipedia projects, for instance in the Portuguese wikipedia and the Spanish one, amongst many other wikis) - you can even see this discussion were myself and Trasamundo argued (politely, of course!). Regarding your observations, I have to tell you:

1. I do not feel that the present inclusion reduces the "nobility" of Portugal, quite on the contrary, since it establishes Portugal as a rising political entity since the 9th century.
2. There is a difference between the English example, were a multitude of kingdom amalgamated into a single one, and the Portuguese one, were a single entity develloped into a kingdom.
3. The Kingdom of Portugal did not emerge by th union of the 2nd County of Portugal and the County of Coimbra, but from the seccesion of the County of Portugal from León, when it already had incorporated the County of Coimbra.
4. I'm not completely opposed to the creation of a differente list for the Holder of the fiefdoom of the County of Portugal (including reference or even a list of the Counts of Coimbra, before and after their submission to Portugal; and including Garcia of Galicia and Portugal, since he was the responsable for the demise of the 1st County), even though it should be in a way as not to confuse it with the List of countships in Portugal and even though I believe the present solution to be the best one.

Best regards. The Ogre (talk) 16:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

All that information was unsourced, besides being controversial since Portugal only started as an autonomous political entity with D. Afonso Henriques. There was much confusion as well between the Counts with a county and Counts in some territory, but not ruling any county (honorific title only). I removed the whole mess, if you want to add it again please write in the article a good justification for including such people as rulers of Portugal, sourced in some recognized work, and not your own research.--Darwinius (talk) 17:30, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, Darwinius came, saw and resolved...but any way I will write what I have prepared before read Darwinius:

Ok The Ogre, don't worry, I'm not shouting. The "big letters" (how we say «maiúsculas» in english?) it's only to call the attention to some words. My intention was to refer that Portugal, concerning the territory, emerged from two Countys (I think, but I'm not sure, Sisnando Davides was the only Count; but this is sure: before that, the territory belonged to a Taifa), and not to say that he emerged politically from that two Counties. I think I begin to understand what you want, something like «PORTUGAL SINCE THE BEGINNING till the last king», no?

But this list, in that case, must be called with another name. It's very risky and speculative call the Counts of Portugal monarchs. And, in that case, then we must criate a list of Portuguese Kings (those where monarchs, at least to the other kings; with the exception of the Pope). I think the best solution is to create a list for all the Counts in the «Reconquista» till the first King. And then a list of kings with a note, in the beginning, refering the existence of the first and second county, and also with a connexion to the list of counts. Garcia killed the Count of Portucale, but didn´t killed Sisnando Davides, and he was vizier or Count of Coimbra (and son-in-law of the killed Count). So, in the time of Garcia, there was another ruler in a big part of the territory that becoming 75 years (more or less) formed Portugal. To be precise, then we have to put Garcia and Sisnando side by side (You read Herculano, or the article about Sisnando on the Dicionário de História de Portugal of Joel Serrão?; there's also now a new History of Portugal of a good medieval historian: António Borges Coelho). Finishing, the direct forerunners of Afonso Henriques were his parents (this ones, almost monarchs, but not yet monarchs), and not everybody till the VIIIth century. The article, any way, must be precised. And if it is precised, we will need another list: the list of Kings of Portugal, because we can't stop at the Republic. For that, we must change this list to «PORTUGAL SINCE THE BEGINNING TIL NOW». Why to stop in the last king?

Curiosity: In latin, the inscription on the grave of Garcia isn't «King of Galiza and Portugal», is «King of Portugal and Galiza"...perhaps because of Coimbra, no? (this of «Coimbra» is a speculation of my own, so don´t consider it). Jorge alo (talk) 18:50, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see what harm would be done by separate lists. Wikipedia articles are supposed to follow reliable sources, and most reliable sources that I've seen start their lists of Portuguese monarchs with, as Jorge says, Afonso I's parents. I don't see any particular reason not to split off the earlier counts to a separate article. john k (talk) 19:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a curious take on it, as the list including the earliest counts actually was produced in an attempt to play up Portugal, not minimize it. It originally suggested an autonomous Portuguese 'state' as early as the 9th century, and has since been toned down to indicate that the earlier counts were not autonomous. This is not unique to Wikipedia, as it was the national myth put forward by Portuguese nationalists. Likewise, the inclusion of Garcia is part of a long-standing effort to trace back the origins of the Portuguese nation-state, suggesting that it represents the same entity as Garcia's Galician kingdom, but lacking the northern part. It is an odd twist, then, that the the pro-Portugal propaganda is now being interpreted as being anti-Portugal.

As to the context of Wikipedia, note that we do exactly the same thing for Castile, and that did end up requiring a four-way split among the precursor counties of Castile. For Aragon, it went the other way, the counts were carved off to their own page. While I have sympathy for both arguments, I have always been uncomfortable with the use of 'monarchs' to describe these early leaders, as being too much a reflection of the same Portuguese nationalist revisionism that makes them seem more independent than they were. My personal preference would be to create a separate page for the counts (also in the Castile case) and remove them from this 'monarchs' page, and to lead the monarchs page with a discussion of political precursors without a name-by-name accounting, but giving specific mention to the fact that Garcia specifically used Portugal in his title. Either way, we are forced by historical realities to have a list that is an imperfect reflection of history. Agricolae (talk) 21:04, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, whatever you do, please make sure it is very well sourced. Those are obscure times quite prone to speculation and imaginative digressions, therefore all care is not enough. I'm not feeling quite comfortable as well with those loose translations of Portucale as "Portugal". They are distinct entities, and should not be confused, even if one eventually evolved into the other.--Darwinius (talk) 22:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't like using arbitrary medieval spellings to distinguish different polities with the same name from each other. The fact that, in the middle ages, "Portugal" was sometimes spelled "Portucale" is not particularly related to the fact that the county of Portugal that existed in the 10th century is kind of a different thing from the Kingdom of Portugal of the 12th century. Saxony has many different meanings, often referring to completely different geographical regions (the original Duchy of Saxony, I believe, does not overlap at all with the current German state of Saxony), but we don't arbitrarily use an alternate spelling for the old duchy simply because it's a different entity from the modern state. john k (talk) 23:18, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Fact is that while Portugal-the-country has been and is consistently called Portugal, Portucale-the-county has never been nominated by none other than "Portucale". I've never, never heard the term "Portugal" applying to the county in Portuguese, and it would be an anachronism indeed. It's possible, however, that deficient translations in other languages have taken Portucale as the equivalent of Portugal in all cases, inventing a modern day translation for the Latin word. Anyway, my perception is that it's a minority trend and indeed result of deficient and loose translations. You don't translate Anglia as England as well, so why Portucale is an "arbitrary medieval spelling" and should suddenly became "Portugal"? There's nothing arbitrary on it, it's a well documented Latin word.--Darwinius (talk) 23:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

"County of Portugal" is the standard term in English for at least the second county, which was apparently called "Portucale" just as much as the first county. And given the fact that spelling was not standardized in the middle ages, "Portucale" is pretty obviously just an alternative version of "Portugal". If "Portucale" is sometimes to be translated as "Portugal," it generally makes little sense not to generally translate it that way. I'm not sure I understand your "Anglia" point - Anglia is just the Latin word for England, and is of course normally translated as England. john k (talk) 01:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I'm a little pressed for time, just now. So I'll come back latter on. But again, I am not completely opposed to the criation of a different list for the counts. See you latter. The Ogre (talk) 10:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• This is a good discussion, and I think, in the end, that it would be productive. Agricolae touched some very important "ills" of the matter. Only a repair: if we speak of Garcia, we must speak of Sisnando Davides. One controled for few years the territory of the County of Portucale (the end of the first County) and the other the County of Coimbra that, after, was integrated. Sisnando was in oposition to Garcia, and was a partidary of king Afonso of León. Spite the «Dicionário de História de Portugal» coordinated by Joel Serrão isn't truly a "Dictionary of History", but a colection of individual articles, and, now, is a little "passed" and must be read very careful, "crossed" with other sources, I'm going to give here a resume in portuguese of the article about Coimbra. After you can, if you want, translate it. This: d, means a note of my own in the text. I made also six or seven little alterations on words, but they don´t change nothing in the article.

• The resume of the article, in portuguese, «Land Or Territory of Coimbra», it's finished (28/09/10). If someone want to read it, it's here, Article «TERRA OU TERRITÓRIO DE COIMBRA» (land or territory of Coimbra), Iniciativas Editoriais, Vol. IV (Sis - Zurara e Adenda), p. 160. Author of the article: T. S. S. (Torcato de Sousa Soares, Professor de história da Universidade de Coimbra). I'm going to make also resumes of the articles Sesnando and Portucale, maybe this week. Salut to you all, Jorge alo (talk) 15:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello everyone. Sorry for the delay, but I've been busy. I have been thinking about this question, though. And, yes, I do rather believe, now, that there should be a separated list or article/articles. This should only be a list of kings. There probably should be another article or list regarding the holders of the County of Portugal (both creations), and the County of Coimbra (and these two must be develloped), in their relation to their overlords (either the Kings of Asturias, or of León, or of Galicia, or of the holders of the Imperial title).

Something should also be done about the article History of Portuguese Nationality, by the way.

I'm also inviting User:Srnec and User:Trasamundo to this discussion. They are serious, dedicated editors whose work is of excellent quality, even if I don't necessarily agree with them in some issues.

I really do not have the time right now to particpate as I would like in this discussion. But I trust you folks to come up with a better and more thorough solution. I'll keep checking to see if there is anything that I might contibute to. Cheers! The Ogre (talk) 12:38, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

that's not that simple. In fact these counts governed the country as kings and some used that title and did not submit to the rule of any king. The separation is not as simple as you might think. The first county of Portugal historical investigation dates back to estado novo regime, and some even stated that those counts were nationalistic mythology created by the regime. but it is not. using the term "portucale" is in fact a modern bias, and an attempt to distinguish the two periods using two names that are the same, and used as being the same, just one is more archaic than the other. --Pedro (talk) 13:06, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I am unaware of any modern historians who feel that the early counts are, as historical individuals, nationalistic inventions. However, the view that they 'governed the country as kings and some used the title and did not submit to the rule of any king' is not followed by the vast majority of non-Portuguese scholars. (The only individuals for whom this is an accurate description are the Portuguese Mulawid rebels of the 10th century Caliphate, but that doesn't exactly fit with the Christian Portuguese nationalist ethos.) Dating of a Portuguese state to their time, based on a supposed autonomy that in fact was no greater than that of their peers in other marcher counties, is a nationalistic interpretation, as is the suggestion that they represent a single contiguous dynasty (which is demonstrably false). The early counts did not govern 'as king', but rather were nominated to their posts by kings and held as vassals - sometimes fractious vassals, but there isn't the slightest indication that prior to Teresa any of them had royal aspirations. Agricolae (talk) 13:49, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Agricolae! The Ogre (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

In fact, an article/list about the Counts the Portugal (and Coimbra) should also aknowledge the complex relations with other countships. The fact is that the fief of Portugal (Portucale) was a diffuse entity regarding the 1st county. Sometimes it was meant to include all of modern Northern Portugal (including more or less of Trás-os-Montes e Alto Douro), sometimes it just meant the regions around the cities of Porto and Braga (that is to say, more or less Douro Litoral and Minho, or Entre Douro e Minho). What were the relations between the counts of Portugal and the Counts of Guimarães? Not to mention Coimbra or the Galician Counts (Tuy, Deza, Vierzo)? And one must keep in mind the difficulties in reconstructing their genealogy. For instance, I doubt that this genealogy shown here (made by me in 2007) would survive a thorough source check. The Ogre (talk) 16:17, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

House of Vímara Peres?

I have now modified this file to reflect Mattoso's work and others - see it's history for Ogre's original Agricolae (talk) 16:05, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Let's see. Much of it is valid, but there are some critical problems. First of all, the crucial link connecting the later counts to the earlier ones and making this a single dynasty is bogus. Oneca Lucides existed, but was a different woman, a descendant of this Oneca, living almost a century later. Count Diego Fernandez had a wife named Oneca, and someone finding an Oneca Lucides just assumed this was the same woman, when the date of the document would have made it clear it was not. This might be a case of intentional obfuscation, as it enabled Diego's wife to be made daughter of the previous count. Diego's wife is of unknown parentage - Perez de Urbel speculated that she was daughter of Garcia Jimenez of Pamplona Jimeno of Pamplona and Infanta Leodegundia. There is no known connection between the first two counts and the later ones, and Diego's wife had no known title of her own. Actually, everything else is supported in the upper 2/3 of the chart, except perhaps that Teresa Eriz was daughter of Ero Fernandez by his wife Adosinda - I don't remember which is which. One of Ero's daughters is explicitly called daughter by Adosinda, the other not, and Ero had two documented wives (the other daughter I am speaking of is Ilduara Eriz, on the chart but not connected to Ero). The next big problem is that Totadomna, wife of Menendo Gonzalez, is known to be granddaughter of Fruela Gutierrez but nothing further is documented about this relationship. I had not seen it claimed that she was daughter of Munio Fruelaz until I saw this chart. I don't recall whether the marriage of Munio to Elvira Paes is valid or not. I am unfamiliar with the later time period - whether Tutadomna actually married again or if this has been created to explain Alvito Nunez succeeding Menendo, and Ilduara was certainly not Countess in her own right as this would have it - with the exception of Muniadomna Diaz, I know of no non-royal woman who held such status in her own right. The bigger problem is the coloration, apparently done to highlight the seeming hereditary nature of the County, but this was not the case. Mendo Gonzalez, for example, left numerous sons who were heirs to his property (much of which passed by descent into the Trava family). If a son-in-law or grandson ended up later as count, that was coincidence, not inheritance. Agricolae (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I looked it up in Mattoso's As Familias Condais Portucalenses dos Seculos X e XI for the latter generations. He makes no mention of Alvito Nunes marrying a widowed Totadomna - gives him just the one wife. He does make him son of Nuno Alvites, son of Alvito Lucides (by Munia Dias, sister of Munadomna Dias), son of Lucido Vimaranes, the earlier count. He indicates that Ildiara Mendes was Countess and governed the county, but as widow of her husband Count Nuno Alvites. The remaining descent is as shown, with a surprise at the end. The last-named count, Nuno Mendes, was father-in-law (via daughter Loba Nunes Aurovelido) of Sisnando Davides, called Alguacil of Coimbra, in turn father-in-law of Martim Moniz (see Jorge's note). Agricolae (talk) 05:00, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

One more quick note in case you are thinking about redoing it. 'Betote' was not a surname. It was a nickname/byname of Alfonso. His son was Gonzalo Betotez - son of 'Betote', and his sons were simply Hermengildo and Pelayo (Paio) Gonzalez, the sons of Gonzalo. Agricolae (talk) 05:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Can't we just move the counts to the County of Portugal page? It is misleading to call them monarchs. Srnec (talk) 22:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, we have one more count in Coimbra, after Sesnando. From the article above, Land or territory: «Sesnando, a que sucedeu Martim Moniz, seu genro, que se designa dux, comes, preses e consul. As concessões feitas ao conde D. Raimundo e depois a D. Henrique alteraram este quadro...», and Mattoso say the same thing. About the "tree", you and Agricolae are right, the "tree" is wrong in the beginning.

Articles Sesnando, Mumadona Dias, Author: A. de J. C. (Padre Avelino de Jesus da Costa, Assistente da Faculdade de Letras da Universidade de Coimbra), and article Condado Portucalense (almost finished), Author: T. S. S., are here. But the article about Condado Portucalense is bad and don't give great information. Tomorrow I will start to make a resume of Mattoso's article on his Story of Portugal, and I will also give his list of counts and their families. Salut to everyone, Jorge alo (talk) 21:57, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:PURPLIST, lists index the contents for assist in navigating their subjects. The advantage of a list is to facilitate the access to the matter joining in a list what is dispersed among different articles avoiding the fragmentation in different articles. The articles are for historical developments and the lists to facilitate complementary information that links several articles. The nature of the articles is to specialize subjects whereas the lists is to generalize and to integrate. The trend should be to indexing in lists, not to establish multiple exclusive lists inside several articles, where ultimately the list stays as a patch. Otherwise, the textual content of this list is so wide that rather it seems to an article that a simple list.

• Dialectics of the title: It can be understood that in agreement to WP:TITLE the counts are not kings, but probably if we bear in mind WP:SENSE, probably a common reader does not think restrictively about such nuances, and simply it searches sovereigns or rulers.

• Direct forerunners: whereas the articles focus on specific details, the lists show a chronological succession. If there is an historical continuous, then this historical continuous should be indexed in a list. In addition, it is referenced that the kingdom comes directly from Enrique of Burgundy's county [1][2] It does not seem to be necessary to fragment the list simply for the fact that the sovereigns of the same territory flaunted different titles, it would give the impression of independent territories and it impedes the assist in navigating, contrary to WP:PURPLIST. Another thing is that the direct forerunner has the importance for itself to develop its own list, but it is not the case of Portugal.

If it is a question of detecting to him which are the direct forerunner, then I say: Ferdinand I of Leon created two counties, Nuño Méndez as count of Portugal (county of Oporto [3]) and Sisnando Davidiz as count of Coimbra. After the death of Ferdinand I, the part that was corresponding to García included the county of Portugal with the territory of Coimbra, this county of Portugal turns out to be as new. [4] Sisnando appears as a rebel who was submitted by Garcia.

Finally the king entrusted the territory between the Douro (later Miño) and the Tagus, including the territories of Portucale and Coimbra, to Enrique of Burgundy[5][6] Therefore this county granted to Enrique of Burgundy should be kept in the list only, but not the previous counties. Trasamundo (talk) 01:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I have already finish yesterday the resumes of the articles of The Dictionary of History of Portugal and of The History of Portugal coordinated by Mattoso. I'm very sorry but I don't have time to translate them. I also was obliged to alter the most part of the phrases and words because of our principle «say it by your own words», because those texts are protected by authors and edition rights. As by the moment we don't have page of our own project, I put them temporarely here, in my page, [7].

To The Ogre, we said bad things of your "tree", but now I think your tree is correct, or seems correct, with one of the hypothesis of Mattoso. The problem is that he makes at least three hypothesis to Mamadona Dias (and not only to Mumadona). I think the solution is given by the proper Mattoso. He refers the counts, is his text, without many considerations, and after, he gives two genealogical trees about the counts of Porto and Coimbra (where Mumadona appears two times, with different parents). Or we give the different hypothesis of the different trees, or we say that Ogre's tree is only one hypothesis and that exist others. I tried to find someone to copy these two trees to send you, but till the moment I couldn't found anyone.

About the first county of Portucale and the first county of Coimbra, for what Mattoso says, even this two didn't occupied, in that time, all the christian territory at the south of Galiza. there were more counts. The old county of Portucale finished with King Garcia, and had nothing to do with the Portugaliae of the style of Garcia. Portugaliae was all the territory at the south of Galiza. And he was king of the territories of Galiza and Portugaliae. So, put him on the list is making confusion between the "little thing", county of Portucale, and the "big thing", the territory of "Portugaliae", that surely englobed Coimbra since 1064, because was decided, by Ferdinand I, that the «parias» of the kingdom of Badajoz will be for Garcia. The first county of Coimbra finished with Almançor, and we can even discuss if, with Sesnando (or Sisnando), we can call that a county. But, well, on his titles there was the word comes, as also on the titles of his son-in-law and sucessor. You have the dates about this last on the article of Mattoso. In my opinion, considering Henrique, father of Afonso Henriques, a monarch, is very forced and untruth. And even is wife, Teresa, spite that she tried. So I think that even this two must not be considered. About the others, I subscribe the proposition of Trasamundo: first counts out of the list. Jorge alo (talk) 18:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the discussion has run its course. The overall preference would seem to be in favor of removing those prior to Portuguese statehood. As to what to do with the removed information, there is less consensus, so I have dropped it here for the time being. Agricolae (talk) 01:26, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I have moved the family tree and a bare list of counts to the article County of Portugal. Obviously, it needs a lot of work and more sources. Srnec (talk)

Removed information on pre-independence leaders

Leonese and Galician Portugal First Portuguese county

Main article: History of Portugal (711–1112)

A distinct Portuguese political entity dates from 868 when Alfonso III of León gave Vímara Peres the lands between the Minho and Douro rivers in the south of Galicia that had recently been reconquered from the Moors. Vímara controlled a county named after the city of Portucale (today's Porto) and based in Guimarães.

The First County of Portugal lasted for two centuries as a vassal state of the Kingdoms of León and Galicia, until 1071, when García II of Galicia and Portugal was victorious at the Battle of Pedroso over rebel count Nuno II Mendes, and no new count was appointed by the victor.

Name	Started	Ended	Alternative names	Title
Vímara Peres	868	873	Vimarano	Count of Portugal
Lucídio Vimaranes	873	?		Count of Portugal
Mumadona Dias with Mendo I Gonçalves	c. 924	c. 950		Countess of Portugal
Gonçalo I Mendes	c. 950	999		Count of Portugal, magnus dux portucalensium (in 997)
Mendo II Gonçalves	999	1008		Count of Portugal
Alvito Nunes	1008	1015		Count of Portugal
Ilduara Mendes with Nuno I Alvites	1017	1028		Countess of Portugal
Mendo III Nunes	1028	1050		Count of Portugal
Nuno II Mendes	1050	1071		Count of Portugal

Kingdom of Galicia and Portugal

Main article: History of Portugal (711–1112)

In 1065, Portugal and Galicia formed the most part of the territory allotted by Ferdinand I to his youngest son García, who became the first and only monarch to use the style "King of Galicia and Portugal". However, he struggled to control his fractious nobles. It was his 1071 victory at the Battle of Pedroso over count Nuno II Mendes that led to the end of the First County of Portugal.

Later in 1071, his brothers Alfonso VI and Sancho II took the Galician kingdom, including Portugal, from García and expelled him. The following spring, Sancho in turn expelled Alfonso, thereby reuniting the larger León-Castile state (including Galicia and Portugal) that had been held by their father Ferdinand. Sancho appeared as king in a 1072 Portuguese document. With Sancho's assassination later the same year, Alfonso VI succeeded to the three crowns criated by his father, after enticed García to return and imprisoned him, reducing the position of Galicia and Portugal to a constituent part of the larger reunified kingdom.

Name	Started	Ended	Alternative names	Title
García II	1065	1071		King of Galicia and Portugal

Second County of Portugal

Main articles: History of Portugal (711–1112) and History of Portugal (1112–1279)

A Second County of Portugal was established when Alfonso VI extended the domains of his son-in-law, Raymond of Galicia, south into Portugal in 1093. Raymond and his cousin (and brother-in-law) Henry of Burgundy, facing the possibility of a new heir to the throne, joined in 1095 to sign a succession agreement, with Henry agreeing to support Raymond in exchange for Toledo. Alfonso responded by trying to divide the two politically, and in 1096, he divided the domains of Raymond, leaving him with Galicia while granting the County of Portugal to Henry. A great grandson of Robert II of France in the male line, he was nephew to Constance of Burgundy, wife of Alfonso VI, and had married Alfonso's illegitimate daughter Theresa, who thus became Countess of Portugal. Henry, pressed to secure peace, as well as to parley his wife's position into a favourable succession. With Alfonso's death, Urraca of León and Castile struggled to maintain her reign, and out of this Henry, and then Theresa after his death, achieved near-independence. However, Theresa's 1120 capture led to the recognition of Leonese overlord-ship. Theresa herself faced rebellion from her son, Afonso, and was forced to resign in his favour in 1128.

Name		Started	Ended	Alternative names	Title
Raymond		1093	1096	Ramon (Castilian) Raimundo (Portuguese)	Count of Portugal
Henry		1096	1112	Henri (French) Henrique (Portuguese)	Count of Portugal
Theresa		1112	1128	Teresa or Tareja (Old Portuguese)	Countess of Portugal Regent of the County but the de facto ruler and self-styled Queen of Portugal
Afonso		1128	1139	Alphonzo (English), Alphonse (English), Afonso Henriques (Portuguese alternative), Affonso (Old Portuguese), Alfonso (Old Portuguese) or Alphonso (Old Portuguese)	Count of Portugal (until 1128/1129) and the Duke of Portugal (Dux Portucalensis)

Proposition: eliminate António, Prior do Crato, from the list

This same proposition is being discussed on lusophone Wikipedia. It's truth that he was acclaimed, by the people, in many places on all the portuguese territory (almost all the contemporary portuguese historians agree on this), but, after that, the portuguese people didn´t defended him. The glorious exception was the people of some islands of Azores, namely the people of island Terceira. The majority of portuguese historians don´t consider António as a king, only a minority. As in Wikipedia we don´t proclaim kings, till the moment (yesterday) we consider, on lusophone Wikipedia, that a mention of the minoritary thesis about António, on the article-list, is enough. I think is good to have such discussion on two Wikipedias (pt, en) at the same time. Best regards, Jorge alo (talk) 15:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC) discussion on portuguese. Jorge alo (talk) 15:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Here I tend to agree with you, Jorge alo. The Ogre (talk) 16:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I also tend to agree. Most lists I've seen tend to go strait from Henrique to the Habsburgs. john k (talk) 23:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the harm in including him in the list. It's not as if the transition from Henry to Habsburg was without incident. Srnec (talk) 22:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

He could be listed the way List of English monarchs lists Lady Jane Grey. john k (talk) 16:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

To all: I´m very happy that all you came here, in these discussions. I'm going to speak frankly and without tricks. I respect your work and what I want is that your work, of you all, will be even better:

I. Consideration: "Upstairs we are "descending" Counts from the category of monarchs to her proper category: counts. Some of them had many power? Specially the latters? Were near monarchs? Yes. But even these last wasn´t yet monarchs. Now, here, "downstairs", we have been informed by John K that Jane Grey was "mounted", "promote" to queen and monarch in the English monarchs. Certainly I agree with Srnec (salut Srnec, long time no see) about the "transition question"; certainly I agree we must say she was procclamed, but are we obliged to declare her monarch when only a very little number of historians considered her so? It's the law of the "sacred respect for the minorities" that impose us that? Why aren't we obliged by the "common respect for the majorities"?

II. Consideration: There are criterion to "judge" who was king or wasn't? Well, what we are seing in the Wikipedias is a "strange" phenomenon: the criterion of the "legimacy" of the blood, of the legitimate heirs, and also the criterion of the acclamation "killing" another criterion, this one: have they had subjects?

III. Consideration. My opinion is that, with excuses and false arguments of a pretense imparciality, what we are doing is making History, and not giving enciclopedic information, by "procclaming" kings and monarchs and so on. By this way, we are the "God of the Kings", or "the King of the kings". I think we must correct this, certainly without puting in cause all the information that we can give, about facts, and about schoolls or currents of historiography, but also without concessions to minoritary currents nor to only formal criterion, and, above all, we must not declare episodes and persons that are controversial as being "this or that". I will wait your's considerations with great attempt, because what real moves me it's to know what you think about this matter. A great salut, Jorge alo (talk) 15:08, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia offers encyclopaedic information, but not in a way interested deleting information that contextualize the history of Portugal. I have already explained it to you in wikipedia in Spanish. The lists offer complementary information, and if there was a civil war, then it is shown such information and the contender sides, and in the above mentioned civil conflict (1580) I do not see the need to conceal that the Prior of Crato was a contender, that he was proclaimed as king and exercised government over his subjects [8], this it would be sufficient in order that the prior of Crato and Beatriz-John I of Castile appear (together with their opponents) in the list according to WP:ASSERT. It looks like to me an insult to affirm that the editors of wikipedia that we know and respect the policies of wikipedia we proclaim kings, when such facts are referenced, and I emphasize the word facts. The false arguments are to use WP:WEASEL, to justify a violation of WP:NPV. Finally I believe that in order to neutralize the article there would be necessary to separate the periods of interreign (1383-5 and 1580) in differents sections and to show the contender sides. Trasamundo (talk) 01:47, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Salut to Trasamundo. A great welcome, by my part, to these discussions. "Upstairs", for the moment, I"ll work on the sources (Mattoso and the Dicionário de História de Portugal). Here, "downstairs", let's take a good example. In the end, maybe the conclusions can be applicables to Jane Grey, the Archiduke of Austria and I don't know how many else. Could you, please, emphasize to us the facts that make you conclude the «end of mandate» of Juan I de Castile on the date of 8 June 1386? Isn't this date a criation of your own? Then, why you have chosen the word «mandado» («mandate» it's the correct translation?)? I think choose «proclamation» would be better, because Juan and Betriz were acclamed in Toledo, we can say on the end of October (beginning of November; and we have sources), and João of Aviz at middle of December, in Lisbon. More, can you explain to us those dates of «mandado»? 23 October 1383 it's the date of what? Of the beginning of the «mandate» of Beatriz as heiress? And I emphasize, heiress. Do you know that the date of 22 October 1383 is in general considered by the historiography as the beginning of the crisis? And that the date of Aljubarrota is the end? If Juan of Castile considered himself king since the proclamation in Toledo, and the portuguese never recognized the renunciation of Leonor Teles powers in his hands, who, among the historians, said that the beginning of «mandate« of Juan I was «13 January»? Isn't this another criation of your own? Why are you eliminating dates that are consensual in the historiography of the crisis, or dates of facts by dates of your own? The tittle Great Master of the Order of Aviz it's a «event»? Or the event was being procclamed in Lisbon «Ruler and Defender of the Kingdom»? This is a strange lapsus. And why on the table João de Aviz is "downstairs", as, by hasard, António, Prior do Crato, on his own table? It's sure that you have very good and objective criterions to make such a choice and, so, that you can explain them to us. Finnally, we are discuting, not talking of making a demand for disciplinary measures. Til tomorrow, a great salut to Trasamundo and to you all. Jorge alo (talk) 16:24, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Each time I understand less, now the problem is about the dates, it was not that of appearing as kings. The issues of format of the list in wikipedia in Spanish it is not related here.

There is an historical period called Crisis of 1383-1385 relative to the succession of Portugal, with several events directly linked to the succession topic, but also there are other events not so narrowly related to the succession, but rather with the protagonists. The War of the Spanish Succession as an historical period finishes with the peaces of Utrecht and Baden, but another issue are archduke Charles' rights, and of the posterior support that still kept later to the above mentioned peaces. The treay of Baden dates from September 7, 1714, the capture of Barcelone dates from September 11, 1714 and that of Majorca on July 2, 1715, and on April 30, 1725 the resignation of the archduke Charles. The dates that affect one and to another issue are related but they are different. The succession of Portugal was defined in Aljubarrota, but the positions of Juan I of Castile and Beatriz did not fall down in Aljubarrota of immediate way, it was necessary to hope a few months that Joao I conquered these places. The last one seems to be Almeida (june 1386), probably it was different, since then, though both Juan I and Beatriz followed claiming the throne of Portugal, they did not exercise any power in Portugal or there was nobody was exerced it in their names.

The date of January, 1384 was when Leonor Tellez resigned the regency [9][10] and entrusted the government to Juan I of Castile, obviously this was not going to be recognizedby the supporters of the master of AVis. I do not have problem in order that the date most succeeded for Juan I is that of the proclamation in Toledo, because of it, it appears that the Portuguese throne slid back to Juan I of Castile [11] But still it do not know when that date was exactly.

Nevertheless, Beatriz was different. If all the previous kings of the House of Burgundy did not need the proclamation to be a king, but they became kings due to the death of the predecessor, then, an exception must not be done here. In conformity with the treaty of Salvaterra, Leonor Tellez was the regent in name of his daughter Beatriz [12][13]he revolution is posterior, it began in December, 1383 not in October [14]

What I admire is the capacity for playing with the words that has certain nationalistic Portuguese historiography for not to say that Beatriz was a queen. The regencies are for the sovereigns (or no sovereign at all) but not for the princes inheritors (the heiress in this particular case).

The fact of indicating term of office/tenure, is to indicate the efficiency of the government in the Portuguese territory, because if the question is about the pretension of Juan I of Castile and Beatriz, they continued supporting up to his death that they were the kings of Portugal, and therefore they would be kings of Portugal up to his respective deaths.

Finally, as I already indicated you, Beatriz appears as proclaimed queen of Portugal even in the Portuguese historiography [15][16][17] Trasamundo (talk) 21:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

My excuses, but I'm full of work and I only began the resume of Mattoso´s article on his History of Portugal today (is not yet in the Wiki page). I think being free on two or three days. Till then, my dear Trasamundo, don´t call names to the portuguese historiography without sources, so that you can´t be accused of one more of your inventions. And, by the way, can you give us the names of the «portuguese historians» of your's three examples, and also, in the first case, say if the author had considered Beariz as a queen, and exactly what he says about the «proclamation»? And you can also give us sources, please, for all yours affirmations? You know what will hapen, in spanish, russian, chinese, or etc, to yours points of vew if you don't prove that they aren't yours. Any way, I think you are useful, even inventing. If weren't you, I never had studied a lot of questions. Best regards. Jorge alo (talk) 14:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Be careful since your comments can be considered as WP:HARASS. You accuse me of inventing when you have invented an interpretation of the testament of Juan I of Castile placing it in a article of Beatriz. [18]

Here you are what you name my inventions:

Leonor Tellez was a regent in name of his daughter Beatriz

• [19] After the death of D. Ferdinand, D. Leonor Telles took possession of the kingdom as Regent without meeting any resistance.

• [20]: Fernando I of Portugal dies. His widow, Leonora, who married Fernando despite the fact that she was already married to another man, becomes regent for her daughter Beatriz.

• [21]: Diante do impasse, Dona Leonor Telles, viúva de D.Fernando, tourno-se a regente em nome de Dona Beatriz (against the impasse, Leonor Telles, widow of Ferdinand, became regent in the name of Dona Beatriz.).

Beatriz was proclaimed Queen of Portugal, although this was not well received

• [22] Doña Leonor Teles, la reina viuda, que asume la regencia, se inclina, como es natural, hacia su hija Beatriz, y la proclama reina. (Leonor Teles, the queen dowager, who assumed the regency, bows, of course, to his daughter Beatrice, and she proclaimed her as queen.)

• [23] When Dom Fernando I died in 1383, his venomous wife Leonor Teles assumed the position of regent, assisted by her lover Count Andeiro. The king had died without a son; his daughter Beatriz was married to the king of Castile, Juan I, who added the arms of Portugal to his standard, and ordered all the Portuguese townships to proclaim Beatriz as queen.

• [24]: Antes de lo que era de esperar, la muerte de Fernando I puso sobre las sienes de su hija Beatriz, ya reina de Catilla, la corona de Portugal (22 de octubre 1383). (Sooner than expected, the death of Fernando I put on the forehead of her daughter Beatrix, and Queen of Castile, the crown of Portugal (October 22, 1383))

• [25]: Ferdinand sank under his infirmities; and Juan desired that Beatrix should be proclaimed Queen, according to the stipulations ogf the Treaty. The demand was instantly obeyed, but the coldness and silendce of the people testified how little their sympathies and prejudices responded to the call.

• [26]: El contrato matrimonial y el testamento del difunto rey designaban por regente a la reina viuda. A ella comisionó el rey de Castilla en conformidad con ambos documentos para que Dª Beatriz fuese proclamada reina. Así se verificó en todo el reino, pero en Lisboa y en alguna otra ciudad la proclamación fue interrumpida. (The matrimonial contract and the testament of the deceased king designated as regent to the widow queen. The king of Castile commissioned her in conformity with both documents in order that Dª Beatriz was proclaimed a queen. This way it took place in the whole kingdom, but in Lisbon and in some another city the proclamation was interrupted.)

• [27] A poco de celebradas estas Cortes, habiendo muerto el rey de Portugal envió el de Castilla un mensajero a la reina viuda, reclamando el cumplimiento de las condiciones pactadas en el matrimonio de doña Beatriz, y en virtud de ellas fue aclamada reina de Portugal. (<smal>Shortly after of taking place these Cortes, the king of Portugal died, and the king of Castilla sent a messenger to the dowager queen, claiming fulfillment with the conditions agreed in the marriage of dona Beatriz's marriage, and by virtue of them, she was acclaimed queen of Portugal.)

• [28]: Doña Beatriz fut proclamée reine a Lisbonne; mais cette proclamation fut mal accueillie par les Portugais (Doña Beatriz was proclaimed queen in Lisbon, but this proclamation was not welcomed by the Portuguese)

• Beatriz also appears listed as undiscussed queen of Portugal in 1383 [29]

And together with Beatriz, Juan I of Castile was king of Portugal

• [30]: Juan of Castile had meanwhile succeeded his father as King and, on hearing of the death of Fernando, he immediately called upon Leonor to proclaim Beatriz as Queen of Portugal and himself as King. This Leonor did in accordance with her pro-Spanish policy.

• [31]: After the death of her father, Beatrix was proclaimed queen of Portugal by her followers, and her husband added the words king of Portugal to his title.

• [32]: he took for his second wife Ferdinands's only child Beatrix, and on Ferdinand's death in 1383 assumed by treaty the style of King of Portugal.

• [33]: Murió Fernando I el 22 de octubre de 1383 y fueron jurados reyes Beatriz y su marido, que no hicieron el menor gesto de que intentaban ir a Portugal. Sin embargo, una parte de la nobleza portuguesa pensaba que el mejor medio de acabar con Leonor y su amante era precisamente que Juan I viniera a tomar posesión en Lisboa. (Fernando I died on October 22, 1383 and Beatriz and his husband were sworn kings, and they did not do the slightest gesture of trying to go to Portugal. Nevertheless, a part of the Portuguese nobility thought that the best way of finishing with Leonor and his lover was precisely that Juan I come to take possession in Lisbon.)

• [34]: Respondiendo don Juan a su llamamiento, pasó de La Guardia a Santaren, donde la reina doña Leonor abdicó en él el derecho a la regencia del reino que tenía con arreglo a los tratados, y acudieron a reconocerle como tal buen número de caballeros, hidalgos y capitanes portugueses, señores de castillo que obedecían como reina a doña Beatriz (1384).(Don Juan responding to her call, he went from La Guardia to Santaren, where the Queen Dona Leonor abdicated to him the right to the regency of the kingdom which she held according to the treaties, and a good number of knights, noblemen and Portuguese captains, lords of the castle that obeyed as queen Dona Beatriz, came to recognize him (1384).)

• [35]: Santarem fut choisi pour le siège de la cour, pour la résidence du gouvernement, le centre du rassemblement des forces militaires, qu'il tirait peu à peu de Castille (Santarem was chosen for the seat of the court, for the Government House, the center of the gathering of military forces, that it pulled gradually from Castile) [...] Dans les ordonnances et les décrets officiels, le roi s'intitula : D. Joâo por graça de Deos rey de Castella , e de Leao, et de Portugal, e de Toledo, e de Galliza, etc. Il exerça en Portugal, dans les parties qui lo reconnaissaient ou son épouse, tous les droits et les actes de la puissance royale; il fit même frapper plusieurs espèces de monnaies avec les armes ci-dessus désignées, et les mit en circulation. (In orders and official decrees, the king called himself: D.Joâo by grace of God king of Castile and Leon, and Portugal, and Toledo, and Galicia, etc. He exerted in Portugal, with the parties that recognize him or his wife, all the rights and acts of royal power, he even minted several a sort of pieces with the arms described above, and put them into circulation.) [...] La plus forte portion de la noblesse se rallia à son parti, ainsi qu'une quantité de châteaux et de forteresses dont les commandants appartenaient à l'ordre nobiliaire. Le roi envoya quelques fidalgos dans leurs possessions afin de prévenir par leur présence toutes tentatives de changements et de troubles.(The largest portion of the nobility rallied his party, and a number of castles and fortresses which belonged to the nobility. The king sent some fidalgos to their possessions in order to prevent any attempts of changes and disturbances by their presence.)

These are the facts that the sources assert, and observing the policy of WP:NPV, they must be included, as it establishes WP:ASSERT. Any element against this does not deny these facts but they would define that the títle royal was disputed. Such dispute is not unique in the history, the periods of anarchy and civil war have not happened only in Portugal, another case would be the civil war between Stephen and Matilda, and Matilda appear in the List of English monarchs, why does Beatriz not appear listed here?.

Interregnum does not mean that there was no king at all, but there was not really either a recognized or undisputed king. I do not believe that it is necessary to justify that there were two sides fighting in 1383, but... [36]: Morrera el-rei D.Fernando e a naçao dividirase principalmente em dois partidos, que disputavam com as armas na mao sobre a successao da coroa. Por um lado o mestre d'Avis á frente dos populares, hasteava a bandeira da independencia e da liberdade; pelo outro lado D. Joao I, rei de Castella, confiando no seu exercito e em grande numero de fidalgos portuguezes, seus adeptos, dispunha-se a sustentar or seus direitos a coroa de seu sogro, el-rei D.Fernando. (the King Ferdinand died and the nation was divided mainly between two parties, who fought with weapons in hand about the succession of the crown. On the one hand, the master d'Avis ahead of common people, hoisting the banner of independence and liberty, and on the other hand, D. Joao I, King of Castile, trusting in his army, and in large numbers of Portuguese noblemen, his supporters, was prepared to support your rights or the crown of his father-in-law, the king Ferdinand.)

Being asserted the facts which Beatriz-Juan I of Castile were kings of Portugal and their title was disputed, I agreed with Srnec in which and I do not see harm in including them in the list with the contenders sides, showing that there was not a succession without incident. Retrospective de jure concessions in the Cortes of Coimbra (1385) which declared Beatriz illegitimate cannot erase de facto realities of a civil war, in which one of the contenders they were the kings Beatriz and Juan I of Castile, the same thing for the Prior of Crato. In agreement to WP:NPV it is necessary to show the parts contenders of the war and that the titles that hold Prior of crato, Beatriz and Juan I of Castile were titles disputed, just as it appear with Matilda. Trasamundo (talk) 01:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I have almost finish what I'm doing and after tomorrow we can discut all, since the beginning and your dates. Meanwhile you can read what Ayala says about the date of acclamation in Lisbon, page 182, chapter XIII, here, and Fernão Lopes, here, at the beginning, about the acclamation ordered in all the country. Those two are the sources, the others that came after only can interpretate what Ayala e Fernão Lopes said, with the help of autentical documents (primary sources). Curiosity: Ayala says there was a acclamatiom at Lisbon, and Fernão Lopes says there wasn't, but not in this chapter. After tomorrow I'll show you. Another thing, what you have erased about the testament is going to return, as I told you, with a note with the text of Oliveira Martins. This is what you have erased: «The Portuguese rebellion was, however, not the only problem to her ascension to the throne. Also her husband, King John I of Castile, as can be read in his testament, dating of 21 July of 1385, in Celorico da Beira, did not recognize his wife as the true monarch of Portugal, saying that after his death, his heir, Henry, could dispute the throne of Portugal with her, based on a judgment by the pope.» And the next rest for the moment out: «Many Portuguese nobles recognized John I of Castile as their real monarch, by rendering him vassalage and obedience.», and after I'll put notes to sources that say who renderred him vassalage and who did not. No, returning to the matter, this is what is written in the testament, translated in french: «...pour cette raison nous défendons fermement et expressément, et ordonnons au dit infant mon fils que, par aucune information ni induction qui lui soit fait, il ne prenne ni titre ni acclamation de Roi de Portugal sans premièrement être déclaré et établi par jugement de notre Pape[4] que le dit Royaume lui appartienne en tant que notre fils premier-né et légitime héritier. Néanmoins nous avons pour bien ordonner, jusqu'à ce que ce doute soit déclarée par jugement et que l'on sache à qui d'eux appartient le dit Royaume...», and in portuguese: «por esta razão nós defendemos firme e expressamente, e mandamos ao dito infante meu filho que, por nenhuma informação nem induzimento que lhe seja feito, não tome voz nem título de Rei de Portugal sem primeiramente ser declarado e determinado por sentença de nosso senhor o Papa que o dito Reino pertence a ele assim como nosso filho primogénito e legítimo herdeiro. Porém temos por bem e mandamos, até que esta dúvida seja declarada por sentença e se saiba ao certo a qual deles pertence o dito Reino...» What is this, Beatriz was the sovereign? And where is my invented "interpretation"? And let's give also the text in ancient castilian: «..por ende nos defendemos firme é expresamente, é mandamos al dicho infante mi fijo, que por ninguna informacion nin inducimiento que le sea fecho, que non tome voz nin título de Rey de Portugal, sin primeramente ser declarado é determinado por sentencia de nuestro señor el Papa que el dicho Regno pertenesce á él asi como á nuestro hijo primogénito, é legítimo heredero...Pero tenemos por bien. é mandamos, que hasta que esta dubda sea declarada por sentencia, é se sepa de cierto á qual dellos pertenesce el dicho Regno... the rest, also very interesting, you can read at pages 428 and 429, here. And no, we can't put neither Beatriz, nor Jane Grey, nor António nor any one else disputed by the historiography as king or queen or something else. Any way, if, in abstract, you were right, then you had to open another list: The list of the Kings of Castillla, León y Portugal. Till after tomorrow, my saluts to you all, Jorge alo (talk) 03:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand the sense of considering the testament as a truth of faith. A testament is a primary source, reflects a subjective vision about who writes it, its importance in the matter, it is not decided by the wiki-editor, but by the historiography, namely, the historiography that you say that it does not recognize in any way Beatriz as queen must highlight the importance of the testament of Juan I of Castile in the issue, contextualise it among the facts and analyze it, only this way it is justifiable to put an quote to indicate his importance. I see that there is a particular interest and a subjective and speculative interpretation, for example with a phrase as this one: non podemos entender, segund Dios é nuestra conciencia, que otro haya derecho en el Regno, salvo la Reyna mi mujer, é nos. (we (I) cannot understand, according to God and our conscience, that other one has right in the Kingdom, except the Queen my wife, and us (me)). It does not wrap my head around that it could be said that Juan I does not recognize his wife as queen of Portugal.

And if in the very remote case that John I of Castile did not know who was the king of Portugal, it does not concern the facts that happened. If there was necessary to follow to the letter what a testament was able to say, there would be no problem to say affirmations as Charles I was not a king of Spain because Ferdinand the Catholic's testament reserved him the regency in name of his mother, or Ramiro II was not a king of Aragon because Alfonso the Battler's testament distributed the kingdom between the military orders, even the Louis XIV's testament was annulled, and being as adoring testaments, there would be necessary to remove Juan IV of Portugal because was sure that in Philip IV's testament did not acknowledge him the title of King of Portugal. Trasamundo (talk) 17:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Interregnum, The Royal English Dictionary: «the time between the death of one king and the coming to the throne of another». Death of Ferdinand I on 22 October 1383. Election of king John I of Portugal at 6 April 1385.

It's consensual between me and Trasamundo that Beatriz and John I of Castile were recognized as kings on parts of Portugal. But one or another, as Trasamundo's french source says (ou = «or»). So, we have here the same problem of the testament, who was king or queen consort, and who was king or queen sovereign. Or we are going to declare there was two? A king and a queen, both sovereign? But this is an logical and academic question. Another question is that in some parts of Portugal, and in the most part of the cities of the time (Lisbonne, Santarém, Porto, Évora, Beja, Coimbra, Viseu, the cities of Algarve) they weren't recognized. And even in the little number of cities that were from their side the situation was of confrontation. The population of Braga was forced to rend vassalaje to Juan I of Castile, in the person of the archbishop of Santiago, and, in 1385, when the population had the opportunity, revolted and isolated in the castle, inside the city, the castilian and portuguese warriors of Juan I; the castle of the city of Guarda denied vassalaje to Juan I or Beatriz, on the end of December 1383. We have sources to say they were recognized in Minho, Trás-os-Montes, a little part of Beira, a big part of Estremadura, and maybe a half of Alto Alentejo. And maybe would give some work to "catch" all the passsages about this in Fernão Lopes and Ayala, but it can be done. It´s truth, confronting with Ayala and Fernão Lopes, a great part of what sources brought by Trasamundo say, but we can't conclude from «these facts» another one, this: "they were kings of Portugal from this date to this date". To say it we need sources saying exactly that. If there is such a great historiographic current defending that they were kings of Portugal, will be easy to find sources saying, for example, that they were kings since 22 October 1383, or since 12 January 1384 till, also for example, 6 April 1385 or 14 August 1385, because it's a common use to do that with kings. If there are no sources stablishing a period of reign, then we are creating one. Conclusion: it's correct to say that they were recognized, one or another, in some part of Portugal as the sovereign, but is also correct to say by whom (not by the people, but by a part of the nobless an the rich plebeian class). Is't correct to caracterize them as kings of Portugal because they weren't kings for the great most part of the population of the time, and they hadn't the control of the most part of the territory; this is what explains the fact that there are no sources for their period of "reign".

The kind of problems we have with Beatriz and Juan I and their reign, are, on a different way, the kind of problems we have with all the contenders for the throne, in any time, so, we must not caracterized them as kings if the majority of the historiography don't consider them as kings. The epistemological error of Trasamundo is that his not taking as object the historiography but the proper history, and is only taking the historiography as circunstancial instrument to defend his point of view: that they were kings. Doing that, even if he don't want, he is forced to make history, because he is dealing with the proper history (this is what I meant with the "inventions", but you are right, the word it's a kind rude) Proclamations and acclamations, coining money (circulating where?), exercice of power and all more we can colect don't erase a historic truth in such cases: no one of this candidates had any time the pacific possession («posesión pacifica», said Juan I on his testament) of the most part or of a big part of his pretense "reign". Well, and conclusion, if we want to put this figures on the list of monarchs of a nation (this is disputable, on my point of view, because they can be refered only in text) to explain to our readers that there was a transition or contending period, we must not confound them with the kings, isolating in a proper table, replaced to the right and, by this way, out of the list, with the contenders and their sumary caracterisation, and with references to the historiographic view: who defends that they were kings and for what period, and who defend they were not (majority/minority); this can be done by us in a phrase of few words, as is written, for example, for Jane Grey (but, in her case, she must be replaced on the right and isolated in a proper table with her contenders, if she rest on the list). For saying this in few words: contenders, in general, are not kings; they are fighting to be kings (there's always, as in anything, exceptions, for example, Henry II and Peter I of Castile in the years 1367-1369). Ps: I'm liking very much this discussion. Salut to you all, Jorge alo (talk) 15:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

About Concrete questions and final proposal. I: Says Trasamundo, «and if there was a civil war, then it is shown such information and the contender sides»...«the prior of Crato and Beatriz-John I of Castile appear».....comment: in fact, on both conflits castilian or, after, spanish troops entered portuguese territory. In 1383-1385 this is caracterized as a invasion by the most part of the authors. But in 1580, although spanish troops entered the territory, there was a big difference, the portuguese resistance was very weak, and Filipe of Spain had a conjuncture much more favourable, juridical, political and social, than, in 1383-35, the defeated Juan I of Castile. Remark: Trasamundo never use the word «invasion», and the expression «castilian invasion» on 1383-85 case. Here he speaks already of Beatriz and Juan I, but, before, he had only refered the expression «civil war». The lists of casualties, the references to the deaths on the battles, or to the composition of the contingents of troops ou 1383-1385, show cleary that the essencial fight was between portuguese and castilians. This is also showed by the presence of castilian troops in the castles and forteresses commanded by portuguese nobles (seven of them where not quite "portuguese", but emigrated galicians or castilians), and, in some cases, commanded even by castilians, as for example, the city of Santarém, or Torres Novas, or Torres Vedras (this two were'nt cities). More, the portuguese army was, then, in the most part, a kind of national army, composed by many little owners. That was a reform made by king Ferdinand I, more or less on 1373. You can read it here, on Fernão Lopes (I'm very sorry, but my awful english and my disponible time don't aloud me to translate), on portuguese [37]. But, curiously, we never see this troops on the castilian side, more, even the traditional feudal warriors corps of many nobles, that were from the castilian side, abandoned them, as, for example, the men of Gonçalo Vasques de Azevedo [38]. This is a very strange "civil war", and the truthful reason why Juan I was defeated is this: the portuguese nobles that have supported him weren't able to mobilize important contingents. Even more, in some cases they were even surrounded by the population, as in Penela, where peasants killed and cuted the head of count João de Menezes, cousin of Leonor Teles and Beatriz, maybe already in 1384, and count João, in that moment, was in company of 40 warriors.

'II, said Trasamundo: «in order to neutralize the article there would be necessary to separate the periods of interreign (1383-5 and 1580) in differents sections and to show the contender sides»...... Well, a article about kings, or monarchs, don't need to be «neutralized» by the incorporation of contenders in a certain moment. Why not, in this case, "neutralize" the articles with the incorporation of all the important civil wars that wasn't properly interregnuns? Once more, contenders are not kings, they are fighting to try to be. But I agreed that these situations must be refered, and in the proper lists of kings or monarchs, but only by text (can be detached) and with links to Wikipedia articles where the conflits would be caracterized with detail. The incorporation of the contenders, in such moments, on the lists of kings or monarchs, is a disguised way of calling them kings, by growing up their importance. And this is not neutral, it´s parcial: we are promoting contenders to kings. What caracterize a king isn't the legitamacy/usurpation. King Miguel I of Portugal was king and he was a usurper, but is recognized as king because he had the domain of pratically all the territory and people during some years. What defines a nation are three things: territory, population, state. To be king of a nation someone must have the control of the three, more or less total, during some time. If he hadn't, he is not a ruler, is a pretender trying to be a ruler. On contrary, we were oblige to define as rulers all the parts envolved in civil or inter nations conflits wherever they happened.

III, Trasamundo affirmed: «The succession of Portugal was defined in Aljubarrota, but the positions of Juan I of Castile and Beatriz did not fall down in Aljubarrota of immediate way, it was necessary to hope a few months that Joao I conquered these places.»....But as Trasamundo also said, Juan I never gived up his pretension till his death, and was buried with the flag of the armas of Castile and Portugal. In the last Cortes he made, he spoke of the necessity, on the futur, of continuing the war. If we read Olivera Serrano [39], we see on her letters, that Beatriz called allways herself Queen of Castile, and León, and Portugal till her death (and we have truthly to read Serrano, because, probably, we have to alter again the date of her dheath, from 1413 to 1418 or 1419; we must study his book. He his a great defender of the thesis she was a really queen, and also the really queen, even after the peace treaty of 1411, called by him a truce, and not a treaty, and we can clearly understand why he do that). So neither the pretensions fall, neither the fall of Almeida can be considered the end of the story. And yes, the village and forteress of Almeida wasn't the last to fall, many thing falled after, and on both portuguese and castilian terrritories. Conventionnally, we have two pair of dates to this historic episode: 22 october 1383 - 6 april 1385, the interregnum; and 22 october 1383 - 14 august 1385, the crisis. The contemporary little number of authors defending Beatriz or Juan I were kings, or those that defended this in the past, don't give dates of their "reign" because they consider the two (or one or another) were allways the real kings (of a nominal point of view). The only guys "dating" the reign of Beatriz (but calling Juan I an usurper) were the impostors, in the time of King Miguel I, that invented the "destitution" of Beatriz by the Cortes in 1383 to justify, with a forged "precedent", the drowing of queen Maria II, this one a truthly destitution. So, regarding 1383-1385, this is not histoy, it's a joke. The cortes im 1385 haven't destituted her, considering the throne was void, empty. To say the guys of the Cortes were lyers, we need here sources that say it, and there are sources, beggining 600 years ago. So, we have here a good opportunity to open another article: the juridical question on the 1383-1385 crisis. We can even ask the opinions about the matter of the academies of History of Portugal and Spain.

IV, so when Trasamundo says: «they did not exercise any power in Portugal or there was nobody was exerced it in their names.»..... he is completely wrong. Even in the time of Henry III there was portuguese and castilians places and forteresses in the hands of the ennemy. the problem with this criterion of the date ending the "tenure" is that Trasamundo created it, no in the truth date of the fall of Almeida, or any other forteress, but as criterion of end of mandate. Trasamundo he's trying to find a criterion because he don't like the two conventionnals criterion refered above, thinking they are "nacionalistics" or "parcials". Perhaps he even don't see that he is replacing them by his own. The same thing we can say about the date of beggining of the mandate of Juan I. I never read such thing on any author. By the treaty of Salvaterra, Juan I couldn't rule on Portugal, and even castilians chronists recognized this, and even Ayala, in his chronicle, don't put nobody responding to Nuno álvares in a famous discussion on the day of Aljubarrota. Here she is, [40]. Before, Ayala put in the mouth of the caballeros replies for all the questions, but when Nuno Álvare say «that this Queen Doña Leonor could not do without volunty and council and agreement off all of the reign of Portugal», there are no concrete answers. So, considering this the beggining of the "tenancy" is arbitrary. Some acclamations, on some places of both two, or only of Beatriz, were already made on November. «Tomar voz», literally, the meaning is "taking voice". So here we have the "tenancy", and it's beggining. But not of «Portugal», and, yes, of some villages and forteresses. Fernão Lopes say that before the King of Castile entered portuguese territory, they were more than 54, Oliveira Martins, in the XIX century, say «around 60». And about the proclamation in Toledo, is completely absurd defending that a act produced in castilian soil could have any effect in Portugal.

V How someone can be regent on the name of a heiress appointed to be queen? Well, everybody beggining to govern before the enthronement of a heir.

VI Says Trasamundo: «If all the previous kings of the House of Burgundy did not need the proclamation to be a king, but they became kings due to the death of the predecessor, then, an exception must not be done here. In conformity with the treaty of Salvaterra, Leonor Tellez was the regent in name of his daughter Beatriz».....No, the portuguese kings didn't became kings due to the death of the predecessor. Fernão Lopes will be enough to explain us how it was: Kings Peter chronicle [41], «because the Infante Dom Fernando, his primogenit sun, wasn't then there, was the king detained, and don't taked imediately, till that the Infante came». So, Ferdinand was Infante till the cerimony of «Alçamento», «Levantamento» as king, done at the same time of the exequies of his father. When Ferdinand was death, Leonor Teles wasn't in the exequies, and no cerimony of alçamento ou levantamento as queen was made for Beatriz (even because se wasn't there; and for such cerimony she would had to be, in person). The treaty, as we like it or not, obliged to make an acclamation, and was by this reason that Juan I reclamed the acclamation to is mother-in-law, Leonor Teles. Without acclamation, no queen. Simple as that. And yes, we can all the times open here exceptions, because Beatriz situation was more than exceptional. With the acclamation she would be only nominal queen without any powers. Even in case of war, Juan I, by her intermediate, couldn't obliged the portuguese alcaides to participate. They would participate only if they want. It is written, and not in a portuguese version, but in the castilian version. In the the treaty also was written «that all naturels received her as Queen and Lady», and naturels, in that time, meant «all that have property», those who had or could have, as heirs, property (the meaning is, for example, in Portugalliae Monumenta Historica, of Herculano, in his introduction to the Livros das Linhagens).

VII About Trasamundo's examples of portuguese historiagraphy, the first says that, spite being acclamed in several places, «she could't be the queen», and the second and third examples are of the time of king Miguel I, the proclamation and a article on a north-american newspaper making parte of the farce of the "destitution". They belong to the history of the XIX portuguese century, and, as regards 1383-1385, they are only a joke.

Finally, I'll propose the folowing: all the pretenders fighting to be kings out of the Wikipedias lists of kings or monarchs. References, on these lists, to those situations with links to proper pages where the episodes can be exposed with detail. In this articles, yes, we must give all the information that we can about claims, facts, etc, and the different positions of the historiography. A final note to thanks, sincerely, Trasamundo for his work of recollection of sources. It shall be surely profitable. Jorge alo (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Here you are my last contribution (I hope):

The proclamations were not to be a king, but to announce/make public that the proclaimed one already was a king previously. There were proclamations so absurd out of the territory as those of Charles of Spain in Brussels, that of Philip V of Spain in Versailles or the emperor William I of Germany in Versailles, but all of them showed up later in the correspondent territory. I suppose that such important act for becoming a new king, as "Alçamento/Levantamento" will be due explained and analyzed in secondary sources, not doing original research of a primary source of the 15th century. If such fact was so important and it was properly referenced according the policies of wikipedia then it would be necessary to change all the previous reigns. WP:NOR forewarns interpretation of primary source material, nevertheless, you do precisely the opposite with the treaty of Salvaterra de Magos, establishing that The treaty, as we like it or not, obliged to make an acclamation,, but this ignores such basic policy if it is not properly referenced, and certainly you ignore that the same treaty established a free and released succession (libre e desembargada), namely, without impediments or conditions. In addition, the treaty does not impede Juan I of Castile from becaming king of Portugal, [42] but from taking possession of the kingdom and to govern, but this was ignored and Juan I assumed direction of the government [43], for what he is not simply a foreign king who places an invading army. In addition, in that epoch it occured the fact that a woman should not be lonely queen, and she should associate a male co-ruler, as Joan I of Navarre, Joan II of Navarre, Blanche I of Navarre Catherine of Navarre, Joanna of Castile Isabella I of Castile, Joanna of Castile, Mary of Sicily, Mary of Hungary or Jadwiga of Poland.

It is not a mistake to assert referenced facts as it indicates WP:ASSERT because such facts happened. I do not have problem sen admit that to indicate reign can be not neutral, and that the exercise of the royal power was more than troubled, specially to date it. But one thing is the exercise of royal power and another one the royal title, and when there is a disarrangement then the problems appear. It is erroneous to say that the contenders fought to be kings and therefore they are not kings, the contenders were kings if they held this titles (if they held another title, then that title), the dispute is for trying to exercise the royal power that implies the royal title, of an uncontroversial way invalidating the rival title and squashing to the opposition; it is not properly to reach a title because the title as royal title already they had it, but rather achieving the full legitimacy, and the fact that they are contenders it does not take away simply the title of king, but affects to the exercise of the royal power. According to the criterion of contenders are not kings, they are fighting to try to be, then Henry IV of France would not be king in 1589, but when it ended the French Wars of Religion (it is not necessary to remember that the Catholic League was in Paris), and therefore, to say that he was a king in 1589 would be partial, because it is a disguised way of calling him king, by growing up their importance. And this is not neutral, it´s parcial: we are promoting contenders to kings.

The key information is the fact, fact of the dispute (and of the wide scope that it had) in the exercise of the royal power that carries the royal title, and that allows us to understand what title disputed means, but it should not be understood if there is a dispute in the historiography, because this would fall within opinions and valuations, WP:ASSERT referes it, to establish to assert facts not opinions: The royal title was disputed is a fact. This implies highlighting certain conflicts if the importance, range and diffusion of the conflict needs it, is neither for any conflict, nor for a wild attempt; in cases of interreign, the situation is more evident: indicating that there is an interreign, it is shown the dispute and the importance that it had in the history. As I have indicated before. [44] Portugal was divided in two sides faced in arms and it is called civil war. And as Portugal is not a watertight compartment, as it happened with other civil wars, there were foreign armies, according to the interests of the contenders: as England in the second phase of Hundred Years' War in support of Henry VI (there was a civil war, and in addition and invasion). A situation of civil war is not only military campaigns and composition of armies.

Lists should be about the de facto situation of a civil war, not de jure claims. Though it concerns the criteria of dynastic legitimacy, also carries over to the retroactive way of declaring Beatriz illegitimate and therefore, the vacancy of the throne, such argument of empty throne would appear in 1688 to justify another revolution, but in England. What is partial and not neutral it is to affirm that there was a regent on behalf of a non-queen (or maybe is the only case of regent for an heir), and to hint that Juan I of Castile only was devoting himself to invade, in fact, Juan I of Castile assumed the government of Portugal while that of Castile was different and an Council of regency assumed the government of Castile.

To take a dictionary to define interreign is a bit simple. It is not the same thing to say that during the great interregnum there was no king in Germany, that to say that there were two kings of the Romans in dispute. To say that there was no king in Germany supposes eliminating and concealing information, whereas to mention the fact of the dispute supposes showing facts (the facts again). This is the true sense of the lists: WP:PURPLIST The list may be to valuable information source. This is particularly the marries for to structured list. Therefore, it is logical that they do not appear within a ruling royal house, but in a separate section which would include the protagonists together with his opponents. This is not an isolated practice, in wikipedia appear lists with kings with titles disputed, and also antikings, and to act according of this way is not for simple imitation, but acting this way, it is followed a way of acting in agreement to the policies of wikipedia, not doing for Portugal a way and for the others list other one. Trasamundo (talk) 17:26, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, Trasamundo, let's finish. «Alçado a rei», «levantado por rei», mor or less: «elevated to king», is everywhere on the ancient chronicles and also in the Histories of Portugal, when they speak of the ancient portuguese kings. In Castile was more or less the same till Juan I, if I'm not in mistake, or his heir, Henry III. More, I'm going to reveal you, because you deserve, a secret that I found thanks to our discussion (so, also thanks to you). Juan I de Castile claimed or asked Leonor Teles that the acclamation of Beatriz was simultaneous with the "saimento", the funereal cerimony in honour of the deceased king Ferdinand, thirty days after his death (Ayala has made confusion between this saimento and Beatriz essay of acclamation in all the country on December), why? Because the traditionnal cerimony associated the exequies of the last king with the ascension of the new one. But this discovery is really inedit investigation, for the moment, so we can't use it, also by now, but we can say that we both, with the discussion, discovered it. Maybe we must begin thinking on write a book together, "fighting" each other. Your french very good example it's an exception to what I said (he haven't lost and things where more or less legitimous; and, as I said, there are allways exceptions). But ok, for finish the discussion, I will say that you have the right to use such argument. Final note: I liked very much this discussion with you, and also with the others, that are now a little in silent, so let's give them the word. Trasamundo maintain his position: inclusion, in a separate section of the disputers, in these lists, and I maintain my own, only reference by text with links to their proper pages, the articles of the protagonists and of the historic episode, where all things can be treated properly; and contenders figures, in general, out of the lists of monarchs, kings and so on. A great salut to you all, Jorge alo (talk) 23:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Numbering

All numbering of the monarchs should be erased. It is unconventional to number monarchs like British peerage titles. Also numbering leaves leaves out the jure uxoris monarchs, how can Maria I and Peter III be both the 26th monarchs? It is confusing when a monarch has two reigns like Afonso V and John II. Are they Grover Clevelands? No other monarchs are numbered and I highly doubt any reliable source numbers every single one of these monarchs. Also it brings the problem of acknowledging the possibility of António, Prior of Crato being a monarch in every articles of the monarchs after him with the phrase "#th (or #+1th according to some historians)" which is unnecessary and should only be mentioned here and all the articles related to him and his time period. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 01:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Also the Template:Monarchs of Portugal should only include undisputed monarchs of Portugal, that means no António, Prior of Crato who is no different from Beatrice of Portugal, Infante Denis, Lord of Cifuentes, or Infante John, Duke of Valencia de Campos, other than António's claim was more widespread and accepted than the other three.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 02:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I completely disagree on the need to flatten every name of every monarch by removing the number that follows him/her when multiple monarchs of the same name exist in a specific country like Portugal. Having a numbering is indeed useful so you know if you talk about Afonso I or Afonso II. Think about the 8 James of Scotland and try to figure out who is who across generations and centuries.

I also do not understand the argument about Maria I and Peter III ruling at the same time which happened, as an example, with Mary I of England and Philip II of Spain in England or with Mary II of England and William II of England in Scotland.

Afonso V and John II reigned twice and I agree this can be confusing since Afonso V abdicated for 4 days, from 11 to 15 November 1477 (something that should be noted to avoid confusion).

I do not understand the argument about the last complaint.

ICE77 (talk) 07:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Typo

Someone please fix the typo in that Portuguese Royal Houses colunm. I will do it myself but I rarely edit anything on wikipedia, so I don't know how to edit that.

The typo is this "Portugueuse House of Habsburg"

File:Coat of Arms of the Most Serene and Royal House of Braganza.gif Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Coat of Arms of the Most Serene and Royal House of Braganza.gif, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Coat of Arms of the Most Serene and Royal House of Braganza.gif) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Ordinals

Unless there is a convention among historians to use ordinals for kings with unique names, they shouldn't be used here. Agricolae (talk) 13:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

I completely disagree on the need to flatten every name of every monarch by removing the number that follows him/her when multiple monarchs of the same name exist in a specific country like Portugal. Having a numbering is indeed useful so you know if you talk about Afonso I or Afonso II. Think about the 8 James of Scotland and try to figure out who is who across generations and centuries.

ICE77 (talk) 07:45, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

House of Beja-Évora

House of Beja-Évora? Are you positive this is actually a real term? I mean if it is original research, you can't just say that because Henry was Archbishop of Evora. I placed a citation needed on that sentence for you to provide a credible reference. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 02:46, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Names of monarchs

Why is there a need to include the most Anglify names of these monarchs and their Portuguese names? Calling Manuel Emmanuel and Afonso Alphonse is going a bit far.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 19:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, it's how it should be. This is (afterall) the English Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 02:56, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I agree with GoodDay. This article is in the English version of Wikipedia and names should be in English, possibly followed by the original Portuguese name or Portuguese-Galician as necessary (like in the case of Aphonso I - for consistency of the language at the time).

ICE77 (talk) 07:48, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Galician Monarchs

Hello All,

I have recently taken interest in the ancient Counties of Portucale, and have been reading a lot on them. For those that do no know, the last Count of the first County of Portucale, Nuno II, was defeated by King Garcia II of Galicia at the Battle of Pedroso, in 1071. After his victory, Garcia proclaimed that he and his successors be title "King of Galicia and Portugal". I was wondering that we should add these three Galician/Leonese monarchs on this page for the fact that they were, in fact, kings of Galicia and Portugal (not separate titles; singular). I appreciate all and any input, thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 03:49, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

See discussion above. It was agreed that all pre-independence ruler be removed. Also it isn't sourced that Garcia's two successors Sancho II of León and Castile and Alfonso VI of León and Castile continued the use the "of Portugal" part of the title.--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 19:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

I view Garcia's choice of title as a reaffirmation that Portugal was part of his kingdom and not the creation of a novel entity, a kingdom of Portugal, any more than Fernando created a Kingdom of Castile when he had himself crowned King of Leon and Castile (or for that matter that his father Sancho created such a kingdom when he referred to himself as "king in Castile"). Thus Garcia was no more a King of Portugal than Fernando was, or Vermudo before him. All were kings of lands that included (part of) what would become Portugal, the same that could be said of the Caliph and several Taifa kings. Agricolae (talk) 01:19, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Constitutional Monarchs and their house name

In regard to the so-called constitutional monarchs (Pedro V to Manuel II), all descendants of Queen Maria II and Fernando II, there is often conflict here on wiki on whether to label them as members of the House of Braganza or as members of a supposed House of Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, which I must state is a designation only created by non-Portuguese historians and usually past the time that the monarchy fell. I understand that according to German laws, the family would be considered a cadet branch, but I think many fail to recognize that simply because the German laws, or rather even international European laws, states so, it doesnt necessarily mean anything. The family was Portuguese and bound to Portuguese laws. In the Portuguese constitution of 1838 clearly states that "the Most Serene House of Braganza is the reigning house of Portugal and continues through the Person of the Lady Queen Maria II" (CONSTITUIÇÃO POLITICA DA MONARCHIA PORTUGUEZA p. Title 1, Chapter 1, Article 5.). Perhaps I am blind, but if a house is bound by its own laws and rules, and never calls itself something else, how can we, essentially, rewrite history, refering to them as Braganza-coburg monarchs when they never did so and their laws specifically made sure to establish that they were Braganza dynasts. Now I understand that we similarly cannot erase the historical analysis surrounding Braganza-coburg, but I dont believe that this disputed designation should be the foremost representative designation on articles concerning these monarchs. Rather, as it is a disputed subject, it should be confined to that specifically addressing the subject (i.e. articles like House of Braganza and this one here, which can link to the braganza-coburg articles). However, I dont believe the actual articles of the monarchs should have Braganza-coburg on them, as it's sort of a fringe, disputed topic. But what do the rest of you think? Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 22:17, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Nobody says they did not belong to the House of Braganza where Portuguese law is concerned. But that is not the end of the story. The people involved were patrilineal Princes of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha-Kohary, were entitled to succeed to the Duchy of SCG and that has consequences for how they are classified in historiography when it comes to the house or houses they belonged to. Interpreting a primary source like the House Law you mention to make it imply that no distinction should be made between these monarchs and the other Braganza's looks like OR to me, as I have said in another place. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I concur. While it is fine to describe the dynasty and its members primarily as "House of Braganza", as noted in the Almanach de Gotha (along with the reigning dynasty of Imperial Austria {Habsburg-Lorraine} and that of Russia {Romanov-Holstein-Gottorp} since the reign of Catherine the Great) it should be made clear in articles on the dynasty and on the individuals, that they belong patrilineally to the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha because, as previously stated, they had dynastic membership and rights of inheritance to the realm ruled by that family as well (just as Catherine the Great's descendants retained dynastic rights in Oldenburg and Schleswig-Holstein). If it can be demonstrated that reliable sources omit reference to the Coburg affiliation, I'd concur that it need be mentioned only in the article on the dynasty. But if articles do mention it, Wikipedia cannot properly ignore it because Portuguese sources exclude it -- any more than we only write articles on any nation based exclusively on sources from that nation. Why not simply include a brief, standard paragraph (or even a sourced footnote) explaining both the legal membership in the House of Braganza and the patrilineal Saxon affiliation for insertion in relevant articles -- and otherwise refer to them as Braganzas? FactStraight (talk) 02:27, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I quite like that last idea, FactStraight. I think in their "early life" sections or equivalent, when mentioning their birth to their parents, I think it would be more than fine to mention something like " X was born to Y and Z on DATE. A member of the House of Braganza, X was also a Saxe-Coburg dynast, through descent from Ferdinand II." That sounds lovely to me. On the other hand, I do believe that in the infobox, Braganza should be the only name listed, as infoboxes are for quick reference and summary, and the intricacies of dynastic descent and its complications really dont have place there - in simple terms they were Braganzas but in more elaborated terms, they were braganzas and saxe coburg dynasts etc. Does that sound good? Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 05:13, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Frankly, on first glance, I'd like it better the other way around. Call him a Braganza in the article, and keep the Braganza & Coburg references to the infobox. The classification there is correct and of some interest. And I don't believe it is fringe from any point of view. Monarchs mean something to their own countries of course, but they also have a standing and status in international diplomacy and in the general history of royalty and dynastic history. We shouldn't look exclusively to the viewpoint from one country. It is in that light (not exclusively on an international level I think) that these people are almost universally classified (in most literature that I've seen) as being Saxe-Coburg & Braganza or House of Braganza and Saxe-Coburg & Gotha or similar terms. Remember also that, while nowadays that doesn't play a big role anymore, these notions were much more pervasive in international diplomacy in those days, than they are now. Remember also that the fact that the male line of the House of Braganza was (and is) still around, made the differentiation between the two lines of some relevance, especialy in the eyes of contemporaries. An other thing is of course the general notability of the development of the Saxe-Coburg dynasty in 19th century European dynastic history, of which the Portuguese story is definitely a part. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 10:22, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

What about this: "House of Braganza(-Coburg)" or "House of Braganza (Coburg line)". Gerard von Hebel (talk) 12:04, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

A footnote for articles and/or templates might then read, "While remaining patrilineal dynasts of the duchy of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha according to pp. 88, 116 of the 1944 Almanach de Gotha, Title 1, Chapter 1, Article 5 of the 1838 Portuguese constitution declared, with respect to Ferdinand II of Portugal's issue by his first wife, that 'the Most Serene House of Braganza is the reigning house of Portugal and continues through the Person of the Lady Queen Maria II'. Thus their mutual descendants constitute the Coburg line of the House of Braganza". FactStraight (talk) 15:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

I really do like the footnote - it's well put and as informational as needed. I will add it to all the "early" sections of descendants of Maria II and Fernando II. As for the infobox, I must respectfully disagree with you Gerard von Hebel. On the simplest of views, these royals would be simply looked at as Braganzas, because if one did not study royalty and asked what their house was, it would be Braganza. I feel that their status is coburg dynasts (which im not trying to dispute at all, dont worry) is an elaboration of their memberships to royal houses. With this new footnote it would be well put and clear on each page, but as for the infobox I think Braganza should be the only one, However I could link the footnote twice to both the early section and to the infobox itself, both leading to the same note that FactStraight kindly wrote for us. Does that sound agreeable? Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 21:34, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in replying. As I said I would have liked something like "Coburg branch" added to the infobox reference to House of Braganza, but the footnote (that I also like a lot) is fine with me. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:52, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha is a cadet of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha which is in turn a cadet of Wettin. This meaning it can be represented in Belgium Bulgaria Poland and the United Kingdom. You could be misrepresenting any relations of the last Portuguese Dynasty to all the Countries I mention. in fact I think you can even include India as well. Jccoelho99 (talk) 04:29, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Monarch styles in each individual monarch's infobox

Current format
King of Portugal and the Algarves

Proposed format
King of Portugal

Not sure if this is the right place to raise this point, but I'd like to suggest that the denomination 'King of Portugal and the Algarves' in each monarch's page infobox be changed to simply 'King of Portugal'. In place of the rest, a '(more...)' would be added beside the royal title. This would by wikilinked to the article 'Style of the Portuguese sovereign'.

This would make it similar to how English kings are labeled on Wikipedia. For centuries, they called themselves kings of England and France, but the label 'King of France' doesn't appear on their infoboxes for obvious reasons (and any additional labels are displayed on the separate Styles of English sovereigns page). The infobox of most English monarchs' pages will display as 'King of England (more...)'.

Similarly, 'Algarve' isn't an actual kingdom and I see no reason to have it along with the rest of the Portuguese royal title. Coupled with this is the fact that Portuguese monarchs are most often referred to as simply "kings of Portugal". The infobox should only convey essential information, thus I believe the title should appear as displayed beside. 6071m (talk) 23:38, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Closer to home, Alfonso VI claimed to be King of Toledo in his titulature but this does not appear in the infobox, and it would have a better claim, since Alfonso set up a separate administration there. We don't mention it for Urraca and Alfonso VII, then include it for Sancho III, Alfonso VIII, and Fernando III, then start excluding the 'lesser' constituent titles with Alfonso X. That makes it hard to determine how 'we usually do it'. Agricolae (talk)

Okay, but historically Spain (and its predecessors) was a composite monarchy and its monarchs had a whole array of nominal titles, the number of which increased as the Reconquista progressed. The case of Portugal is similar but much simpler, given that only one title, 'King of Algarve', was added to the royal style, being a purely nominal denomination in any event. I had already tried changing the titulature in some pages but these changes were quickly reversed. The Castilian/Leonese/Spanish monarchs also have a separate Wikipedia page describing the entirety of their assortment of titles. Since most people would only be interested in the main title anyway, I figured it would be best to just display 'King of Portugal' and create a separate link to the other page for the full titulature, just like the English kings. 6071m (talk) 18:10, 29 September 2018 (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:

• Portrait of John II of Portugal.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:23, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Suggestions, inconsistencies, lack of clarity

1. I don't think the image of Manuel II should be shown at the top right of the article. He was no more important than other kings. The image should be an emblem of the Portuguese monarchy or something more general related to it. If a monarch should be shown then Afonso I should be the one to be in the box since he was the first.

2. I think the image of the kings should be in column 2 instead of the last and the family column should be in column 3.

3. Should "Afonso I" really be referred to as "Alphonso I Henriques" in the article? This would reflect a Galician-Portuguese spelling which would be correct but I believe he should be referred to as "Afonso I", possibly followed by the spelling of the language of Portugal in 1139.

4. Afonso V and João II have multiple dates for the beginning and end of their reigns and they seem to alternate for 4 days. This can be confusing and there should be a note to explain that Afonso V abdicated for 4 days, from 11 to 15 November 1477.

5. Was "Edward" really known as "Edward I" and should he really be called "Edward I"? I don't think the cardinal is necessary unless a Edward II of Portugal existed.

ICE77 (talk) 07:55, 26 May 2020 (UTC)