Talk:Ferdinand, Duke of Viseu

Requested move

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Closing as no consensus. I'm sorry but I don't see an consensus here, good arguments are made on both sides. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:20, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

---

• Infante Ferdinand, Duke of Viseu → Ferdinand, 2nd Duke of Viseu
• Infante John, Duke of Viseu → John, 3rd Duke of Viseu
• Infante Diogo, Duke of Viseu → Diogo, 4th Duke of Viseu

– To conform to WP:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility). "Infante" is an honorific (generally to be avoided), and, at any rate, is erroneously applied here (John & Diogo are not "infantes", they are the sons of dukes, not kings; cf. pt.wikipedia). Duke of Viseu is their senior title (they were also Duke of Beja, but Viseu is the older title, 1st Duke of Viseu was Henry the Navigator). I would also consider Ferdinand of Portugal, 2nd Duke of Viseu as an alternate for the first (but not the other two), if someone wants to emphasize the brief period when Ferdinand was the heir apparent, but that is probably not necessary. 5th Duke of Viseu was King Manuel I of Portugal. relisted--Mike Cline (talk) 15:24, 5 February 2012 (UTC)Walrasiad (talk) 19:05, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Support Much better than what it is now and it follows the conventions. Though, I do like ordinals, migh I ask if article titles such as: Fernando I of Viseu or John I of Viseu would be allowed? I know that the Braganzas were given the right to bear ordinals, for the Viseus I do not know. Is that at all correct, because I am just basing off of the Braganzas. Also, whether it is "Name X of somewhere" or "name,X duke of somewhere", could we also include Beja? After all, the two were intertwined and, towards the end, it seems Beja was used more, as El-Rei Manuel I was called Duke of Beja more than called Duke of Viseu, hence Avis-Beja, but I am rambling, sorry. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 13:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Wait, wait, nevermind, they carry differant ordinals, so nevermind to the adding Beja. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 13:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought of Beja, but that was problematic since Viseu is senior and Ferdinand preferred it. The reason Manuel is more frequently called Duke of Beja than Viseu was to emphasize that his bloodline stems from Ferdinand (1st Beja, 2nd Viseu), and not from Henry (1st Viseu, who had no sons). Walrasiad (talk) 18:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I don't mind dropping 'Infante' if that is incorrect but per WP:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility)#Royals with a substantive title we should not add numerals like 1st Duke etc. For instance according to naming conventions we have Prince Edward, Duke of Kent not Prince Edward, 2nd Duke of Kent. - dwc lr (talk) 15:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Edward, Duke of Kent is a living royal. These guys are long, long dead. Orderng of old dukes is quite conventional - even uber-famous fellas like Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington. And quite helpful. Particularly for these guys, since the succession to the title was not passed linearly (Duke of Viseu went to nephew, then to son, then to brother). It is quite easy to get confused and I've often seen whoppers suggesting Ferdinand was the first duke, succeeded by Diogo his son, overlooking that Henry the Navigator was first and there was John in between. Since the succession of Dukes of Viseu involved very important (and tragic) political deals, it is useful to be clear. Walrasiad (talk) 17:47, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Nobility, like the Duke of Wellington, are given numerals for their titles but not royalty according to the naming conventions. I think mentioning the number in the articles is enough I don’t think adding it to the article name adds anything.. - dwc lr (talk) 21:52, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Grandchildren of Spanish and Portuguese monarchs were accorded the title of Infante too. The Spanish royal articles are perfect examples. Infante Alvaro, Duke of Galliera, Infante Antonio, Duke of Galliera, Infante Alfonso of Spain, Infante Alfonso, Duke of Galliera, Infante Alfonso Carlos, Duke of San Jaime, Infante Peter Charles of Spain and Portugal, Infante Carlos, Duke of Calabria, Infante Carlos, Count of Montemolin, Infante Enrique, Duke of Seville. All list were not the sons or "infants" of a monarch, yet they all held the title of Infante; you don't see as much Portuguese examples because Portuguese monarchs rarely have secondary son, who never became king, that had descendants, basically none in the modern Braganza line. I would oppose the numbering unless their is clear consensus and prove that Portuguese titles were numbered or is this some method fabricated by English users who favor the British system of numbering their peers. No other country numbers their dukes besides Great Britain.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 23:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Not in Portugal they weren't. Definitely not at the time. You will not find them referred to as "infante" in any contemporary records or chronicles or histories, e.g. Chronica of Damião de Góis, refers to both the sons only as dukes, never as infantes, e.g. "Ioam duque de Viseu, filho do Infante dom Fernando" p.90, "duque de Viseu Do. Diogo, filho do Infante Do. Fernando" (p.192). In the chronicle of Ruy de Pina, the children of Infante Ferdinand are deprived of infante and only called D. Joao and D. Diogo p.55, and repeatedly so, "Dom Diogo de Viseu" [1], etc. And in case you're wondering, it applies to other lists of grandchilden, e.g. the sons & daughters of Infante John(p.10). Portuguese wikipedia also doesn't use the title infante for them. In short, it is an error, it is an error unique to this article, and the article title propagates that error. Besides, "infante" is an honorific, and Wiki nobility articles expressly request that honorifics not be included.
    • In that case I revise my outright oppose to a vote for Ferdinand, Duke of Viseu, John, Duke of Viseu, and Diogo, Duke of Viseu for simplicity's sake. I would argue that the "Infante" remain in Ferdinand's name, but I don't really care. This last comment is irrelevant to this discussion, but I don't agree with your last statement. Infante is not treated as an honorific; it's a royal title similiar to Prince, do you propose that we move all the articles I listed above and many more just like them to fit with what you stated?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 01:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
      • Maybe we use the word "title" differently. In the usage I am used to, the term "title" implies land and/or jurisdiction. It is something that is given, transferred and can (at least notionally) be taken away. An "infante" has none of that. Its sole meaning is "any legitimate child of the king". It comes with nothing, and can't be transferred nor lost. It was no more than a courtesy. As for the articles you listed, sure I'd vote to move them. Not even Spanish es.wikipedia uses "infante" for them, why should English wiki?;) Walrasiad (talk) 02:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
        • Wikipedia allows courtesy titles to be used in names like Prince and Infante is no different, both are courtesy titles for children and grandchildren of monarchs that don't have their own substantive title. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 19:26, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
          • • But these articles do have a substantive title, the Dukedoms of Viseu and Beja. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 19:41, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
  • As for counting nobles, meh, plenty of Portuguese noble articles have counting already, e.g. Pedro de Menezes, 1st Count of Vila Real, Fernando de Noronha, 2nd Count of Vila Real, Duarte de Menezes, 3rd Count of Viana, Vasco Fernandes Coutinho, 1st Count of Marialva, Álvaro Vaz de Almada, 1st Count of Avranches, etc. The Dukes of Braganza articles are all numbered too (2nd Duke, 3rd Duke, etc.) I don't understand the objection. It is quite helpful, especially with the Dukes of Viseu, as their succession is not linear. Useful way to sort them clearly. Besides, again, it is requested in Wiki naming guidelines. If that is a British plot, than so be it. Curse perfidious Albion and her undue influence on English Wikipedia. ;) Walrasiad (talk) 00:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
    • The Braganzas were given ordinals as dukes before their rise to power, so I guess not just GB. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 23:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support. But I would prefer Infante Ferdinand, 2nd Duke of Viseu. Reigen (talk) 11:19, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. We don't usually double title people, and Infante Ferdinand is certainly the more common form of the name of this subject. For John and Diego, I support the proposed forms. Kauffner (talk) 02:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

To repeat, "Infante" is not a substantive title; it's an honorific courtesy. Ferdinand's titles are Duke of Viseu, Duke of Beja, Lord of Covilha, Constable of Portugal, etc. As for common usage, keep in mind pt.wiki does not use "Infante" in their article title, e.g. Fernando de Portugal, Duque de Viseu). And hardly common in English usage at all. A quick check on "Infante Ferdinand" in combination with "Viseu" yields up a mere 4 hits. "Ferdinand, Duke of Viseu" (minus infante) shows up with 37 hits. Walrasiad (talk) 12:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

There are no hits on Google Books for Fernando de Portugal, Duque de Viseu. The subject's usual name in Portuguese is infante D. Fernando. The common name for a feudal lord is almost always his highest title plus the given name. Kauffner (talk) 13:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

But for 128 for "Fernando, Duque de Viseu" and 2 for "Infante Fernando, Duque de Viseu" :) "Infante" is not a title, it is an honorific courtesy. English and Wiki article guidelines do not use use honorifics. Walrasiad (talk) 01:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. Prince Charles, Prince of Wales would be a double title; Prince William, Duke of Cambridge is not. Similarly, Infante is not the same as Duke, so there is no redundancy. Reigen (talk) 15:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think anybody is claiming it is redundant. The argument here is about usage. "Infante" is a Portuguese courtesy honorific for any and all non-bastard sons of kings.

It is not used in English (heck, it is not used in Portuguese either, except in combination with "Dom", i.e. "Infante Dom Fernando", never "Infante Fernando"). It is not a substantial title, it is an honorific, at best an internal courtly rank, used obsequiously - like using "Blessed Saint Augustine", instead of plain Augustine of Hippo. When translated into English, Infante comes out as "Prince", e.g. you sometimes find "Prince Henry the Navigator", but never "Infante Henry the Navigator", so if you want to maintain this case here, it would have to be as "Prince Ferdinand, Duke of Viseu". But if the far-better known Henry doesn't get "Prince" in his article title, why should Ferdinand get it? Now, there are some cases where a courtesy appelation is more prominent than a substantive title, e.g. Edward, 1st Duke of Cornwall is far better known as "Edward the Black Prince". But this Ferdinand is not particularly known for his princely title, but more for his ducal title of Viseu. On the contrary, if anything, the immediate connection of "Prince Ferdinand" or "Infante Dom Fernando" would be his much better-known uncle Ferdinand the Saint Prince (who doesn't really have any other substantive title to lean on), which is why even the most sycophantic Portuguese sources emphatically disambiguate this Ferdinand as "Duke of Viseu", rather than leave it as "Infante Dom Fernando". In short, "Infante Ferdinand" is not his name, it is not his title, it is not how he is best known, or known at all, nor it is not how the term is translated into English (the only case I can think of for common usage of "Infante" in English is with the "Cardinal-Infante Ferdinand" of Spain, but that is an exception.) I remind all that neither Portuguese nor Spanish wikipedias use the term "Infante" in their own article titles for royal princes. I don't see why English wiki should be more ingratiating of fawning courtly courtesies. Walrasiad (talk) 16:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

File:Coat of Arms of the House of Aviz.png Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Coat of Arms of the House of Aviz.png, 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 House of Aviz.png) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)