Talk:House of Braganza

Untitled

why you keep writing the word with a Z???? It is written in portuguese "Bragança", I do not understand why I am finding this word with a Z in several wikipedia pages, shouldn't this be written in the correct, Portuguese, way?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.195.217.51 (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Learn The Language

Whomever keeps using "till" instead of "until", I simply have to say that if you are going to contribute to the English version of Wikipedia, learn the English language. To begin with, "till" is not an equivalent of "until", it is a verb, it means working the soil. Furthermore, "'til" is a slang abbreviation, something not to be accepted in a serious encyclopaedic entry, particularly one in a medium clamouring for respect. Perhaps part of the reason many people don't respect Wikipedia is because many of its contributors either don't know the language they are writing in, or don't care that their language has rules.

GuelphGryphon98 (talk) 18:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I just stumbled upon this discussion, but a quick examination of the Oxford English Dictionary entry for "till" as a preposition or conjunction suggests that the above criticism is, at best, too harsh and, at worst, just plain wrong. Don't tell somebody to "learn the English language, if you don't know it yourself. "'Til" is not an abbreviation and has been in the language since Old English. "Till" is, according to Oxford, an "earlier form" than until. They are also "interchangeable," though "until" is somewhat more formal. In any case. Don't get too worked up. Till you do your research, don't mock others for understanding the language better than you do. 24.41.87.2 (talk) 05:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

"'til" is a slang abbreviation for 'until.' 'Till' is indeed a preposition or conjunction from which the later equivalent term 'until' derives, and since it is both of older provenance and requires less space/data to store/express, I have taken it upon myself to revert every usage of the word 'until' in this article to 'till.' Good day. --24.193.52.80 (talk) 15:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I just read you piece on the use of till vs until in the article on the House of Bragança, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:House_of_Braganza. You say, and I quote, "if you are going to contribute to the English version of Wikipedia, learn the English language". You would have a point if someone with appalling command of the language had written something utterly dreadful to warrant your comment and the attitude that it implies. I have come across many English-speaking people who commit far more serious errors when writing English. So, save your pompous arrogance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.246.168.178 (talk) 00:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed merge

Hi, I think House of Braganza should be the surviving article, as in House of Windsor. Kaisershatner 13:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• A quick resume:

• Dukedom of Braganza: Title created by Afonso V of Portugal given to Afonso, Count of Barcelos
• Duchy of Braganza: The actual place of the duchy, in the north of Portugal. It is not relevant since the Dukes lived in Vila Viçosa, in southern Portugal, and I don't know of any privilleges they had in their estates.
• House of Bragaza: The house started with Afonso and still exists today. In 1640, with John, Duke of Braganza (future John IV of Portugal) the house of Braganza comes to power, becoming the...
• Royal House of Braganza: Since 1640 until 1910 it is the royal house of Portugal. In 1910 with the establishment of the republic it ceased to be the de facto house in power, but it is still today recognized as a Royal House by the majority of European royal houses.
• Imperial House of Braganza: A branch of the House of Braganza, that in 1822 split from the Royal House of Portugal with the independence of Brazil declared by Emperor Peter I of Brazil (Prince of Portugal, and thus of the Braganza family). The republic was declared during the 19th century, but (just like in Portugal) the Imperial House is still recognized by the majority of the other royal houses
• Duke of Braganza: Head of the House of Braganza from the beggining until 1640. From 1640 until 1910 it was used for the title of the heir to the throne together with Prince of Beira and Prince of Brazil. Today it is used by the current claimant to the throne Duarte Pio, Duke of Braganza.
• Dynasty of Braganza: corresponds to the actual period between 1640 and 1910, when the House of Braganza was de facto in power in Portugal. It corresponds to the Portuguese 4th dynasty. Gameiro 17:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

This definitely appears to be the correct title. My understanding is that if a name exists in the English language, and is fairly common then that is prefered over the local name. I would suggest including the title in Portuguese as well in the introductory paragraph. Take a look at Portugal's first dynasty the House of Burgundy. It is spelled signficantly different in English than in Portuguese. Falphin 13:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

• A quick google search reveals the current title with 12,000 results, and the other with 10,200. One suggestion is that in the Portuguese note, it should probably either be labeled as "Dinastia de Bragança"(the period) or "Casa de Bragança"(the ruling dynasty) of which the former appears to be much more popular on google. Falphin 14:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Braganza is the most widely used version in English, and there is no information appropriate for one article that is not appropriate for the other.Lethiere 11:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Braganza is the established version of the name in English. Therefore, please do not title any articles with Braganca, nor with those diacritical versions. Shilkanni 20:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't really work out what has happened here, but I think we should change this back to House of Braganza?? Arniep 01:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

The requested merger has now been completed. The article is now Braganza Dynasty which is an acceptable name - but I do not oppose if people wish to move it to House of Braganza (since there already is a page with edit history, I was not able to move anything to its place, an admin would be needed). Shilkanni 01:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I think it should be House of Braganza to keep it in line with all the other articles. Really I think you should have confirmed the consensus for a title name before moving. Arniep 13:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

D. Duarte

I have removed the section on D. Duarte pending citations. Just because some silly publicity whore's father was friends with Salazar and may or may not have had Manuel II (who was never a Duke of Bragança) sign something on a napkin which is now lost does not mean that he has any sort of claim to the title. In fact, he is no where near a legitimate claimant to the title, and all legal precedent works against his line having any claim to the throne. He is just a silly loon whose father Salazar happened to like, and who goes on TV whenever he can saying that he is the Duke. I can say the sky is neon green as much as I like, but that does not make it so. - Kyle543 22:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Consistency

If the article says that the House of Braganza ruled untill 1853 in Portugal, then logically Maria II was the final ruler of the House of Braganza, as her offspring belongs to the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. So it seems strange that the article states that Manuel II, who was not even born in 1853 was the final ruler from that house. If we consider Maria II's succesors to also belong to the House of Braganza, then logically we should merge the article about the House of Braganza Saxe-Coburg Gotha with this one. Pevernagie (talk) 14:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, Pevernagie, my apologies. I confused you with a whole different agenda. And now I understand the nature of your edit. Regarding this issue, of course there must be consistency. The qestion is that the Portuguese royal house after Maria II always called itself House of Bragança, and never House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. At best, mainly in non-Portuguese sources, it is called House of Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. If you make the reign of the Braganças end with Maria II, that will amount, I think, to OR. Even if you can find a reliable source stating the end og the Braganças with her, the mainstream position, that it only ended with Manuel II, must appear with more importance. Again, my apologies for the mix up! Cheers. The Ogre (talk) 15:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It's nothing. Pevernagie (talk) 16:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

House of Braganza

Dear users, let's go to check the informations that I add:

• Maria II of Portugal - She have the name Braganza, in Portuguese: Bragança, because is the name of her House.

• The Brazilian Imperial Family is a branch of House of Braganza, which governed the Empire of Brazil from 1822 to 1889.

• And about the history of the heiress to the throne of Portugal, Maria II of Portugal, was married with Ferdinand of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Therefore, the next heirs to the Portuguese throne should have the name: Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. I thought... is a union of royal houses, that could be just speficied in the second paragraph? Because, the Braganzas dynastyc branch continued beeing the sovereign of the country until 1910.

• I add too, that when the Braganzas were the sovereigns of Kingdom of Portugal, they were the sovereigns of the Portuguese Empire too.

• The rest are just grammar corrections.

Colleagues, I'm from Portugal and I'm not a specialist in English language. If I made a grammar error in this article, please, correct for me. Thank you all. --Fernandoe (talk) 04:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

You are not Portuguese and these arguments above are just your conclusion about a theme you do not understand. Please, give references. --Tonyjeff (talk) 13:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Attitude towards non English-speakers

Dear GuelphGryphon98 I just read you piece on the use of till vs until in the article on the House of Bragança, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:House_of_Braganza. You say, and I quote, "if you are going to contribute to the English version of Wikipedia, learn the English language". You would have a point if someone with appalling command of the language had written something utterly dreadful to warrant your comment and the attitude that it implies. I have come across many English-speaking people who commit far more serious errors when writing English. So, save your pompous arrogance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.246.168.178 (talk) 00:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Braganza

As was already asked here, why do english useres stupidly continue to write "Braganza" instead of "Bragança"? in Portugal, we say Bragança, not Braganza. Braganza is spanish, and the Portuguese Royal House is where the name says it is from, PORTUGAL. So, I would appreciate if you write Bragança , with a "ç", because I don't write "Londres", I write "London". Got it? If someone contiunues to write Braganza, I can and I will erase it, to write Bragança. If this childish error persists, I will erase the whole article. Thank you for your attention. --Prtgl93 (talk) 16:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Whatever. --Lecen (talk) 16:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Merging House of House of Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha into House of Braganza

The House of Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha is a complete concoction of the Anglophone world. The Portuguese monarchs from Queen Maria II of Portugal to King Manuel II of Portugal all considered themselves as monarchs of the Most Serene House of Braganza. The fact is that, even though traditional European customs state that the man's house is the house of which his descendants will be named under, this was never true for the Braganzas. The House of Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha never existed in the eyes of the Portuguese monarchs and thus the article and all its information belong to the House of Braganza article. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 04:52, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. I understand and accept that non-Portuguese sources may have mistakenly recorded that there is a distinction between the Houses of Braganza and of Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, which should be corrected. But to do that requires sources in English which show that no such distinction existed. Wikipedia cannot make a change which is not already, elsewhere reflected in the preponderance of reliable sources on this topic. In the most authoritative text on European dynasties, the Almanach de Gotha of 1944 (last one printed by Justus Perthes, and it was in French, printed in Germany -- so not an "Anglophone concoction"), the "Maison du Portugal" is stated to be "Bragance-Saxe-Cobourg-et-Gotha") on page 88. It includes King King Manoel II, his mother Queen Amelie, and his late uncle Alfonso, Duke of Oporto. Below this article, under "Portual", the reader is referred to the ""Maison de Bragance" on page 36, which lists first the imperial line of Pedro II and second the royal line of Portugal headed by Duarte Nuno, Duke of Braganza, his siblings and aunts. This parallels Monaco on page 84 ("Maison Goyon-de-Matignon-Grimaldi"), "Russia on page 108 ("Romanov-Holstein-Gottorp"), and Austria on page 49 ("Haus Habsburg-Lothringen/Maison de Habsbourg-Lorraine"). Although in common usage, most people and publications refer to these dynasties as the Houses of Grimaldi, Romanov and Habsburg, when they were listed in Europe's de facto guide for diplomats on dynasties, the fact of the monarchy's continuation among those Houses' descendants in the female line is acknowledged by appending the name of the male line to that of the female line. This is so prevalent a usage among European dynasties that it is understandable why Portugal's less sexist practice in nomenclature went unnoticed, understandably annoying the Portuguese. Let's change it when we find broadly-accepted English-language sources that correct the error. FactStraight (talk) 04:08, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree with FactStraight. I have a question however: why is this not the same as with the House of Orange-Nassau? Mr. D. E. Mophon (talk) 04:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose. Portugal should follow this "European custom", since they're in Europe. House classification is best left to genealogists, not to royals or common men. Reigen (talk) 12:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Image of the Palace of the Dukes of Braganza, in Guimarães, Portugal

The feudalism and all the feudal system is based in the property of land... and, therefore, these properties are really importants to the Feudal section of the article. Also, the family is based in the land, as all the traditionals noble families... Making this image very important to this section of the article... being the Palace a mark of the House of Braganza, and of its establishment. Cordially, --Fernandoe (talk) 05:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha

I just started a move request on Talk:House of Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. I would appreciate imput for anyone who would like to. Thank you. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 20:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Most Serene

Hi. I removed "Most Serene"/"Serenissima" from the appelation. That is a traditional courtesy reserved for sovereigns only, i.e. the highest level of authority and jurisdiction, with no appeal to a court or power above them, e.g. "Most Serene Prince" = sovereign king; "Most Serene Republic" = a sovereign republic, etc. This article discusses more than sovereigns. Indeed, it includes many modern people who have no authority or right of jurisdiction at all. Walrasiad (talk) 13:22, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

But the Dukes and their house were granted the luxory of the title of "Most Serene", does that not matter? Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 01:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Not before 1640 they weren't. "Most Serene" = Sovereign. You'll find it in most documents that purport to address or refer to a sovereign (e.g. in papal archives). Walrasiad (talk) 05:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I will be adding most serene again as per evidence. Title 1, Chapter 1, Article 5 of the Political Constitution of the Portuguese Monarchy of 1838 states that:

"The reigning dynasty is the Most Serene House of Braganza, continued by the person of the Lady Dona Maria II, current Queen of the Portuguese"

Besides giving a completely credible source for the house name, I do find that it supports the non-existance of the Braganza-Coburg house, but thats a differant subject.

Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 22:12, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

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) 13:56, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Not a dragon, but a wyvern

The simbol of the House of Braganza was a wyvern, not a dragon. Notice that it doesn't have legs. I read the article over and over and it has many, but many issues, clearly not written based on books, but on the author's mind. --Lecen (talk) 15:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, as such. The Sociedade Histórica da Independência de Portugal says it was originally of golden color. Only later (Seventeenth century and after) shown more in green. The dragon, starting as the Serpe Real and sometimes also as dragon of Saint George (as the same Serpe Real of Ourique as is believed) with João I, sometimes represented and often similar (and called) also as a griffin (in fact half Eagle, half Lion, with legs, but similiar in the frontal appearance and also used as a name for the Portuguese Royal Crest), from the original Portuguese Winged Serpent (a Wyvern, with only two arms or legs or without any legs or arms at all - the Serpent) or the Feathered Serpent (the traditional Portuguese Serpe Real), is the old crest of the crown of the Kings of Portugal and later of the Emperors of Brazil, and was assigned with even more emphasis on the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries to the popular tradition of the Christophany - Miracle of Ourique (1139) and to the Oath of Ourique, shown by the monks of Alcobaça. --LuzoGraal (talk) 21:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)--LuzoGraal (talk) 21:24, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

File:Coat of Arms of the Kingdom of the Algarve.gif Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Coat of Arms of the Kingdom of the Algarve.gif, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests May 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 Kingdom of the Algarve.gif) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Mistake with the war

There is a mistake in this article, because in its introduction it says that "The House of Braganza became the reigning house of the Kingdom of Portugal and the Algarves in 1640, when John II, Duke of Braganza, was acclaimed King by the Portuguese nobility and subsequently waged the War of the Portuguese Succession" when it should say "The House of Braganza became [...] and subsequently waged the Portuguese Restoration War". Don't you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.35.202.143 (talk) 16:16, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

On-going dispute

To participate and view an ongoing dispute concerning various aspects of articles pertaining to the Miguelist dukes, Maria Pia of Braganza, and the Braganza-Coburg articles, and an ongoing dispute between editors User:Anjo-Sozinho, User:Hebel, and myself, see here. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 23:14, 21 June 2016 (UTC)