style

edit

He is a pretender, not a monarch or such. Therefore the styles (such as Imperial highness) are not clearly NPOV, and the person should not be introduced by such style. Rather, the use of style is to be explained in a neutral paragraph, saying about the style, and possibly about who accept it. Compare another pretender, Maria Vladimirovna of Russia, where: "...has claimed to be the Head of the Imperial Family of Russia and Titular Empress and Autocrat of all the Russias since 1992. Throughout her life she has used the title and style of Her Imperial Highness Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna of Russia." 217.140.193.123 3 July 2005 12:23 (UTC)

The style is not part of the article's title, as had been agreed in the discussion. What the articles states is a matter of research. I have reflected the official references he receives in Brazil, also in accordance with Brazilian tradition. Having the article state that is in keeping with Wikipedia policies, standards and procedure. This could only be reversed if there were a common deference in English for him, which is not the case.
There is going to be an entire section in the article explaining the controversies of succession, the relativization of his condition as prince and even de jure emperor, the matter of his titles and styles, etc, etc. I have not had the time to do all the research, translations and creative work that it takes to put the whole article together though. That is why I added the Work In Progress tag. Please, wait until I have put in all the information I plan to add in before you start changing the article and addind new stuff. This does not help. Most of the information online about him and the Imperial Family is in Portuguese, so I'm going to be the one bringing it in to Wikipedia. Patience.
Incidentally, the title of "princess" for Maria of Baviera was included for the same reasons as that of "prince" for Luiz. I intend to [eventually] write articles about these people, and the main point of view will be that of the Brazilian Imperial Family, according to whose nomenclature, she is "Princess Maria of Baviera", that being the form by which she is/was commonly addressed. We're abiding by the common use, regardless of whether that's not what's normally done for other royal families and so on. This is Wikipedia standard procedure. Regards, Redux 3 July 2005 16:07 (UTC)

No, we need not wait so long for your personal edits. WIP tag must not abused. It is not a tool to keep others from contributing, or correcting - as now seems to be here. You have had enough time, and the tag should be taken away. You have all good possibilities to contribute more - in equal footing with others. 217.140.193.123 3 July 2005 16:56 (UTC)

"The tag is used to alert people that you are in the process of making a larger edit (within 30 - 180 minutes). The article remains open to editing, but courteous users should leave it alone until you're done. If you do use such a "lock" please be responsive to any inquiries about the lock." - 3 hours is the maximum set by guidelines.217.140.193.123 4 July 2005 18:07 (UTC)
This is not about wanting to control the article. This is about understanding and patience. Really, the tag has been there for less than a day. If it had been there for weeks, or months, your remarks would be justified, and I would not refute them. Wikipedia is a volunteer work, everybody has other things that they need to attend to. It is not excessive to request some time to complete a laborious construction of a new article, this is why we actually have a template to tag the article in the first place. During this process, edits that insert bits of information that may even be incomplete (see below about the problem with the English material available online) only make the process harder, slower and, in some instances, even counterproductive. It would be different if this article was about a US President, or a prominent athlete, when there's abundant material in English to be found all over the net. In this case, the bulk of the relevant material will have to be translated from Portuguese into English, and I'm going to be the one doing this. It is perfectly reasonable that I request some time for doing this. As it happened with the issue regarding the "Prince of Brazil" style, information on this in English may be incomplete or confusing, leading to wrong or, at least, not completely accurate/complete versions. This is why I request time so that I can get everything in and make the article work as a whole. As I said, it is all a question of common sense and a touch of good will. As I've already requested, please be patient. It will not be long until the article has been assembled with all the information. There's plenty of stuff that need attention all over the project in the meantime. Regards, Redux 3 July 2005 17:17 (UTC)

I wonder why you are not ready to work as the others: to add your additions as ADDITIONS. It is not too difficult. 217.140.193.123 3 July 2005 19:33 (UTC)

Finally, 10 July, a sysop erased the inappropriate WIP tag made by Redux, commenting it as "stale".

French status

edit

The Orleans-Braganza are not royal princes of France. They lost that status by their naturalization in Brazil, and this was confirmed in the 1909 Pacte de Famille by the head of the Royal House of France and other dynasts. Choess 19:08, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Pact is not necessarily valid, as already commented by the writer of that website. Clearly, the Duke of Orleans wanted to keep the hardline which also excluded the Spanish Bourbons from Maison de France (without that hard line, Orleans actually is not necessarily the rightful head...). Perhaps the Pact must be seen as Pact of Orleans, not Pact of House of France... (and Orleans-Braganza not Princes of the French but possibly yes Princes of France) - However, after the deposition and the end of monarchy, it is a bit ridiculous to "legislate", thus we should treat those as (potential) members of House of France which would belong to it according to the rules in force at the time of deposition (the two positions should be explained in the text, not for us to decide)... and, Orleans-Braganza have not renounced all their rights, only agreed not to pursue before all else is extinct. 217.140.193.123 20:42, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply

No Orleans-Braganza is a "Prince of France" according to the traditions of the ancien régime, since no such title existed. They are princes du sang only by French legitimist interpretation -- a rank the Orleans-Braganzas neither claim nor acknowledge, and which French legitimists don't promote. Rather, by the agreement of the 1909 Pacte du Famille, the Orleans-Braganzas agreed to desist their prior assertions to be in the line of succession to the French crown, unless and until extinction of all other dynastic branches of the House of Orleans occurs. In return the head of the House of Orleans (and his dynastic agnates) agreed to 1. recognize the use of the non-dynastic style "prince d'Orleans-Bragance" by legitimate male-line descendants of Gaston, comte d'Eu; 2. to recognize them as kinsmen for purposes of ceremonial precedence; and 3. to recognize their acceptance of the fact that they are not considered French dynasts by the other members of the House of Orleans. (It should go without saying that the Pacte has never prevented the House of Orleans from acknowledging the Brazilian royalty of Eu's descendants). Since no parties to the pact, or their descendants, have disputed its applicability, the only grounds that Wikipedia could have for doing so now is adoption of the Bourbon legitimist POV with regard to a matter that the Orleans resolved internally nearly a century ago. FactStraight (talk) 06:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Luís or Luíz?

edit

It was my understanding that the former is a Spanish name. Why are we referring to a Brazilian by the Hispanicization of his name? In the earlier discussion from a few years ago above, everyone refers to him as "Luiz". john k 14:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

  1. Luis - Spanish
  2. Luís - Portuguese
  3. Luiz - Archaic Portuguese, used only in Brazil (in Portugal is incorrect).

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.154.132.103 (talkcontribs) 01:22, 15 March 2007

Exactly as above. The only correct spelling according the current orthography of the Portuguese language is "Luís". This applies in Brazil and Portugal, although in Brazil people can be named whatever the parents want, even "Colher" (spoon) or "Cadeira" (chair). That's a shame that even the "Imperial House" does not always respect the current orthography. Dantadd 23:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)Reply
I never understood the Wikipedians mania to modify D. Luiz' name by their own will. ALL SOURCES available, Brazilian or not, and including the prince himself, writes his name with the letter "z." This article is misleading people about the correct spelling, which contradicts the terms of use of Wikipedia: "4. Refraining from Certain Activities: Engaging in False Statements, Impersonation, or Fraud". And about the nonsense commentary "that's a shame that even the 'Imperial House' does not always respect the current orthography", the author should remember that the former president which signed the current orthography law still writes his name "wrong" -- Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. So I would like to recomend the correction of all the wrong "D. Luís" entries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.44.53.152 (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)Reply

On Air France Flight 447?

edit

Is this the person mentioned in the last part of this BBC report as having been on Air France Flight 447? Loganberry (Talk) 13:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ah, apparently not. This diff says that it's his nephew who is missing. Loganberry (Talk) 22:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Vassouras branch settled in Petropolis?

edit

That can't possibly be right, can it? john k (talk) 01:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)Reply

Title vs position

edit

The term "head of house" is a descriptive phrase for a position held by a member of a dynasty (whether that dynasty is reigning or not, e.g. Juan, Count of Barcelona in 1976). A "title of pretence" is a princely (usually national, e.g. "Prince of Prussia", "Grand Duchess of Russia", "Margrave of Baden", "Firstname, Prince Napoléon", "Duke of Bavaria", "Prince Firstname of Montenegro", "Prince of Lippe", etc.) or historical noble title ("Comte de Paris", "Count of Barcelona", "Duke of Calabria", "Margrave of Meissen", "Duke of Brunswick") that is used by a claimant or head of house in lieu of the ancestral title he or she would hold as a ruler. But in this article, "His Imperial and Royal Highness The Head of the Imperial House of Brazil" is being presented as the claimant's proper title rather than as a description of the position he holds. What sources justify this usage? FactStraight (talk) 22:12, 5 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

Obsolete title as part of article name

edit

I fully agree with User:Awikimate who reverted an undiscussed move of this page adding a title that is no longer valid, and I strongly object to subsequent edit-warring to restore the article's current name, again with no discussion. Looks like we're going bananas? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

I reverted an undiscussed move and restored the original article title, as agreed at the last discussion. DrKay (talk) 06:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
The edit was reverted based on a discussion from 15 years ago before the article was actually created. There are sources clearly stating nobility titles do not exist in Brazilian law. It suffices to point the article in Portuguese is titled Luíz Gastão de Orléans e Bragança. I invite any interested partes who are against moving the article again, to please make your point here. Awikimate (talk) 08:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC).Reply
As I said in the edit summary, whenever there is prior discussion about an article title, the article should only be moved after a requested move. DrKay (talk) 09:24, 26 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
I agree with DrKay. Besides the point, the "legality" of a title is not what determines its usage in an article title. The article is Aga Khan IV, not Shāh Karim al-Husayni simply because the man was born in switzerland and his ancestral titles mean nothing "legally" in India or Pakistan. If the title is part of the persons WP:Commonname, it merits inclusion. Wikipedia reflects actual usage & trends, not the officialities of government & titles. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 13:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
Since any title is likely to be included when someone who has one or uses an illegitimate one, or is given an illegitimate one by more-or-less tabloid-type media, I can't see how WP:Commonname is relevant. Dr. Smith is probably always called Dr. Smith and so is Professor Doe. Irrelevant to article names. The inclusion of royal and noble titles in article names, whether they are obsolete or not, is becoming more and more hysterical on Wikipedia. It needs to be curtailed. Encyclopedia? It's unnecessary and it's embarrassing. Would tend to make any rational person ashamed of the whole project. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:31, 26 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
Probably should discuss if the title should be changed and if there are any alternatives at Requested Moves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.217.186 (talk) 04:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)Reply
This guy is known as "prince..." exclusively in Brazilian monarchist circles. In fact, he only is known to monarchists, and remains largely unknown to society in general. Besides not being a holder of any nobility title, his claim as Head of the Imperial House of Brazil remains disputed within his own family. Moreover, there is not such thing as the Imperial House of Brazil as an institution, that is an informal thing created by monarchists after the abolition of all nobility titles and imperial institutions in 1891. Awikimate (talk) 15:44, 27 August 2020 (UTC).Reply
If you feel it should be moved, you can request it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.217.186 (talk) 21:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)Reply

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

edit

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Requested move 9 March 2021

edit
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Prince Luiz of Orléans-BraganzaLuiz of Orléans-Braganza – According to the most reliable sources, nobility titles no longer exist in Brazil: they were abolished in the late XIX Century 1 2 3 4 5. That is because the 1891 Constitution clearly stated those titles were suppressed 6. As a consequence, this article in Portuguese is named "Luíz Gastão de Orléans e Bragança" and not "Prince...". Also, as discussed previously here, WP:Commonname is irrelevant in this case because otherwise any title is likely to be included when someone has one, uses an illegitimate one, or is given an illegitimate one by tabloid-type media, monarchist blogs, and social media pages. WP:Commonname also does not apply here because this person is known as "prince..." exclusively in Brazilian monarchist circles; in fact, he only is known to monarchists and remains largely unknown to society in general. Moreover, his claim as Head of the Imperial House of Brazil is a complete fiction. That claim remains disputed within his own family, and there is not such thing as the Imperial House of Brazil as an institution (that's an informal concept created by monarchists after the abolition of all nobility titles and imperial institutions in 1891). Awikimate (talk) 09:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

  • Support per request. VocalIndia (talk) 12:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • Support Cristiano Tomás (talk) 17:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose Prince of Orleans-Braganza is really nothing to do with Brazil, it’s a French title, and Wikipedia is not subject to the law of a particular country anyway. - dwc lr (talk) 15:23, 18 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
  • Oppose As previously stated, wikipedia isn't subject to the law of any particular country at least on this matter, furthermore it has been previously agreed on the title of Prince Luiz of Orléans-Braganza for the article as a compromise between "Luiz, Prince of Brazil" which would be the actual dynastyc title and how the references calls him, mostly as Prince Luiz of Orléans-Braganza, and this regardless of the legality of the title either in Brazil or France. Furthermore, it seems unbalanced to change the article's title based on "nobility titles are no longer legal in Brazil", whereas here on English Wikipedia we have lots of titles of Princes of Savoy, Archdukes of Austria, Prussian Princes, Russian Grand Dukes, Portuguese Infantes, etc. None of these countries recognize these royal titles anymore, and yet, nor only pretense royals born following the deposition of their monarchies are counted on templates such as the mentioned, as their articles bears their pretense titles. Duarte Pio, Duke of Braganza, Jean, Count of Paris, Maria Vladimirovna, Grand Duchess of Russia, Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia, etc. If we are to begin to change articles on royalty based on wether their royal titles are legally recognized or not, then we'll have a hard and unnecessary task ahead of us. Abellarson (talk) 22:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
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.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

edit

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:38, 10 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2021

edit

Please remove the link to Henri Antoine, Hereditary Prince of Ligne, as the article has been deleted. 2601:241:300:B610:E527:D5EF:BD37:8447 (talk) 15:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)Reply

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

edit

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

edit

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

"Louis I of Brazil" listed at Redirects for discussion

edit

  An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Louis I of Brazil and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 22#Louis I of Brazil until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. DrKay (talk) 07:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

edit

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply