Talk:Line of succession to the former Brazilian throne

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Brazil  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brazil and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Petropolis[edit]

Declaring to be republican is not the same as renouncing succession rights. Pevernagie (talk) 09:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

You cannot be republican and at the same time be a pretender to an abolished MONARCHY. Have you ever seen a muslim Pope before? Anyway, no one from Petropolis claims anything since the Plebiscite that ocurred in 1993. And more: no one in Brazil considers any of them to be pretenders, but only Luís of Orléans-Braganza. - --Lecen (talk) 12:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd rather you provide me a source were they state they no longer claim the Brazilian throne. And I find it very hard to believe you actually visited everyone in Brasil to find out who they consider to be the pretender to the Brazilian throne. Pevernagie (talk) 12:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes I would also like to see a source where it says that they accept Luis as Head of the Imperial House otherwise this article is extensively pov towards one side. - dwc lr (talk) 13:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
DWC, you´ve used a tex written by a man called "Victor Villon" that supports the Petropolis branch. Now THAT´S POV. You two a ruining the article with your biased opinions. - --Lecen (talk) 14:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Plus, while you have used sources from a MONARCHIST website, I´ve used from famous Brazilian Historians such as Heitor Lyra, Gilberto Freyre and Hélio Vianna. If you keep putting biased info I will report you. --Lecen (talk) 14:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Lol which website is this? - dwc lr (talk) 15:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
And am I using it say that one person Is undisputed head of the IH of Brazil no I am most certainly am not! At least you seem to know that a dispute exists and so you are obviously attempting to push your own pov by removing neutral text. It is you whom should be reported for not adhering to a npov if you do not cease. - dwc lr (talk) 15:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
You are giving the impression that there is a dispute up to this day, in the year 2009 when there isn´t ANY. Dom Gastão tried, is true, to claim that he was the heir to the Brazilian crown, but that´s it. His children haven´t kept his claim. The article is wrong as it gives the impression that Pedro Carlos claims something, or that there is a dispute now which there isn´t. --Lecen (talk) 15:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to help set somethings. Pernavegie, you asked for a proof that Petropolis branch renounced their succession rights. That is the letter of D. Pedro de Alcantara, which is well documented. The legitimacy of this letter cannot be contested, since it was confirmed by D. Isabel, chief of the imperial house, herself, and by the monarchist party by the time, which had a direct exchange of correspondece with Isabel. D. Pedro de Alcantara himself did not questioned his decision during his lifetime, which is stated by books like those of Santos and Silva, but by his son, D. Pedro Gastão. The loose of dinastic rights is extendend to one´s descendents, whatever they may state. These are the most objective arguments we may rise by this time. Obviously, Petropolis branch tried to rise supporters for the last 50 years, but their legitimacy cannot be supported. We must be careful with the references, that´s for sure. I may say for myself and for Lecen -- nothing againts Petropolis branch, but indeed against false arguments about their legitimacy.

Summing up: whatever it did existed a dispute, it is wrong to put both pretenders in equality, since one side holds legitimacy de facto. It could be appointed, cited, but it is really a mistake to put them in equal parameters. In order to ensure a neutrality, some mistakes are being made here at WP:EN. --Tonyjeff (talk) 17:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Philip V of Spain signed a document renouncing his claims and those of his descendants to the throne of France, yet that hasn't stopped his descendants from claiming the throne post monarchy as the "legitimists". Wikipedia treats those Bourbon claimants the same, and it should treats these Bourbon claimants exactly the same. Simple, no favourites. Pevernagie (talk) 19:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
It is not a matter of favouritism, but to attain ourselves to factual proof of legitimacy. D. Pedro Gastão's father renounce is much closer in time and was confirmed by the last princess imperial herself. By your logic, each descendant of him, forever, will have to confirm the renounce to be considered out of the succession line. This intended neutrality turns somethings exaggerated. --Tonyjeff (talk) 21:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a popularity contest, even if the Vassasouras branch has more followers, we can't choose sides. Wikipedia is here to inform, based on facts. And it is a fact that the father of the present head of the Petropolis branch considered himself to be the heir to the Brasilian throne, because he considered the renunciation invalid, until that time that the Petropolis branch states that they consider the renunciation valid, they should be considered claimants. And my logic does not mean that every generation should specifically renounce their right, only when there is a change in their claim (if all members of the present Petropolis branch were to renounce their rights, it would be implied that future generations do not claim the throne, unless they state so specifically). Pevernagie (talk) 08:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you. The "fact" is that the father of the Petropolis branch renounced, and just much after the death of Isabel and Eu he gave an interview stating that he considered his renounce invalid. However, he himself did not take a clear attitude against his nephew, lefting to him the representation. I also do not care with popularity. --Tonyjeff (talk) 12:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
We do not take sides in any dispute be it, Russia, France, Two Sicilies we merely present the arguments. With Brazil there is a verifiable split in the fanily, and dispute and so it would be wrong to push the claims of one side over the other. - dwc lr (talk) 12:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


The Vassouras branch. I believe, consider the Brazilian Imperial Constitution of 1824 to be still valid. Under that constitution though, the Emperor of Brazil should be the most senior legitimate descendant of D. Pedro II, respecting male-preference primogeniture. That person is D. Pedro Carlos, from the Petrópolis branch. A letter of abdication signed by D. Pedro's grandfather cannot amend the 1824 Constitution, which could only be changed by the bicameral imperial parliament. To be consistent with their own legal claim, the Vassouras princes should then recognize D.Pedro Carlos as head of the imperial house and D. Luiz as 20th only in the line of succession. The question is really very simple.201.92.90.36 (talk) 12:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Luís as the Head of the Imperial House[edit]

  • "Flash" magazine about Pedro Luís death ans his position as 4th in the line of succession to the Brazilian Throne (and not 4th in the line of succession in the VASSOURAS branch) [1][2]

Translation:

  • Globo website says: "Seu pai é o irmão e herdeiro dinástico do atual Chefe da Casa Imperial do Brasil, D. Luiz, bisneto e sucessor da Redentora" (His father [Dom Antonio] is the brother and dynastic heir to the present Head of the Imperial House of Brazil, Dom Luiz." [3]

Translation:

  • Folha de São Paulo newspaper interview Dom Luiz, Head of the Brazilian Imperial House: "Hoje, a monarquia cedeu espaço para a república e o herdeiro dinástico da família imperial vive à sombra do regime presidencialista na expectativa de um dia governar o país. Em entrevista à Folha Online, dom Luiz de Orleans e Bragança, 69, contou como é viver em São Paulo sem as regalias usufruídas por dom João 6º e Carlota Joaquina no século 19. [...] Chefe da Casa Imperial Brasileira e herdeiro dinástico, dom Luiz diz que vive "sem luxo nem esplendor".[4]

Translation: Today, Monarchy has given its place to the Republic and the dynastic heir of the Imperial Family lives at the shadow of the presidential regimen expecting to rule one day the country. In an interview to Folha Online, dom Luiz de Orleans e Bragança, 69, tells how is to live in São Paulo without the exemptions usufructed by dom João 6º and Carlota Joaquina in the 19th Century. [...] Head of the Brazilian Imperial House and dynastic heir, dom Luiz live "without luxury or splendor."

  • The Federal Chamber of Deputies in Brazil calls Dom Luiz the Head of the Imperial House: "Também participaram da abertura do seminário, nesta terça-feira, [...] o chefe da Casa Imperial, D. Luís Gastão de Orleans e Bragança".[5]

Translation: Also participated in the opening of the seminary, on this thursday, [...] the head of the Imperial House, D. Luís Gastão de Orleans e Bragança.

  • The Chamber of Deputies from the state of Paraná calls Dom Luiz the Head of the Imperial House: A Assembléia irá receber. no próximo dia 13, as visitas de Dom Luiz de Orleans e Bragança - atual Chefe da Casa Imperial do Brasil.[6]

Translation: The Chamber of Deputies will receive, in next day 13, the visit of Dom Luiz of Orleans and Bragança - current Head of the Imperial House of Brazil

Yes no one disputes Luis claims to be head of the Imperial House so it is only natural that one could find news articles referring to him as such. - dwc lr (talk) 14:14, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I haven´t finished yet. --Lecen (talk) 14:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Comunicação newspaper calls Dom Luiz the Head of the Imperial House: Ele falou sobre as atividades da Casa Imperial do Brasil, da qual é chefe[...].[7]

Translation: He has spoken of the activities of the Imperial House of Brazil, of which he is the head [...].


Dom Luiz visits Sorocaba: O principe dom Luiz de Orleans e Bragança, chefe da Casa Imperial do Brasil, vem a Sorocaba hoje [...].[8]

Translation: The prince dom Luiz de Orleans e Bragança, Head of the Imperial House of Brazil, comes to Sorocaba today [...].


TNNews calls Dom Luiz head: Dom Luiz de Orleans e Bragança é o atual chefe da Casa Imperial do Brasil.[9]

Translation: Dom Luiz de Orleans e Bragança is the present Head of the Imperial House of Brazil.


Mundo Lusíada calls Dom Luiz Head: O príncipe Dom Luiz de Orleans e Bragança, Chefe da Casa Real do Brasil, um dos homenageados no evento promovido pela Marinha do Brasil e IHGSP [...].[10]

Translation: The prince Dom Luiz de Orleans e Bragança, Head of the Royal [sic] House of Brazil, one of the homaged in an event promoted by the Brazilian Navy and IHGSP [...].


Municipal Chamber of Cristina in Minas Gerais calls Dom Luiz head: Dom Luiz de Orleans e Bragança. Chefe Casa Imperial do Brasil.[11]

Translation: Dom Luiz de Orleans e Bragança. Head of the Imperial House of Brazil.


DWC, what Lecen is trying to show is that, nowadays, that dispute is almost forgotten. D. Pedro Gastão, son of D. Pedro de Alcântara, was the member of Petropolis branch that could not recognize the loss of dinastic rights to Brazilian throne, due to his father decisions. His sons, D. Pedro Carlos in special, do not care much more about it. When a big news channel like Globo states that D. Luís is the chief of the imperial house, not even citing someone of Petropolis branch or their supposed dispute, is a clear signal that this question is over. The unfortunate death of D. Pedro Luís shows that his branch, Vassouras, acquired a wide recognition, since they always hold legitimacy. In fact, I really do not have notice that any media cited the dispute, regarding to D. Pedro Luís the 4th position in the succession line. --Tonyjeff (talk) 17:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I do not know if this will be of any help, but I found another reference, with good citations, for both D. Pedro de Alcântara and D. Pedro Gastão. --Tonyjeff (talk) 21:55, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Descendants of Princess Leopoldina of Brazil[edit]

Why does this article say they were not considered dynastic after 1908 when the members in that line were still marrying equally during that time? --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 00:22, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Because none of Augusto (Pedro II's grandson)'s children were neither Brazilians nor married to royals. It has been said that a daughter of his (from which the Saxe-Coburg that live in Brazil are descendants) was Brazilian, but that's not true. Brazil did not accept dual citizenship until 1994. It would make no sense to Augusto register only one daughter as Brazilian anot not the other children, including the male ones. And if she became Brazilian later, that wouldn't change anything. You're born Brazilian and born Prince. You can not become Brazilian later and then become a Brazilian prince. Anyway, this line never married to royals. Lastly, I don't understand this "Petrópolis" and "Vassouras" line. This was created by newspapers in 1993 during the plebiscite, because anyone who was descendant of Pedro II showed up putting him/herself as a cadidate to the throne. So, to make everything easier, the newspapers placed them into categories: the ones that came from Petropolis and the ones who came from Vassouras. --Lecen (talk) 13:52, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
Does Brazilian succession require you to be born in Brazil or hold Brazilian citizenship?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 01:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
The present line of succession to the former Brazilian throne includes Princess Eleonora and her children, the princes of Ligne, and also the descendents of Princess Leopoldina. This English version of the line of succession is based on the Portuguese version, which was already debated and confirmed with sources on its talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.44.53.152 (talk) 00:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Wrong, wrong and wrong. If the Portuguese Wikipedia was good for anything, I would be contributing there, and I'm not. Eleonora has married to a foreigner. Her children are out. Simple like that. The children of Maria II, Francisca and Januária (all sisters of Pedro II) were not Brazilian princes, but Portuguese, French and Sicilian princes, respectively. The children of Leopoldina (daughter of Pedro II) were indeed Brazilian princes, but they married abroad and had European children. That means that they are out too. Do you want an example of how serious this is? The last child of Isabel (daughter of Pedro II), Antonio, could only be born in France because the Brazilian Parliament allowed. And before you come to me saying that one daughter of Augusto (son of Leopoldina, grandson of Pedro II) kept her Brazilian citizenship, all I can say is this: bullshit. I'm going to repeat it: bullshit. She was born in Europe in the 1910s. Brazilian law only allowed double citizenship after 1988. Again: 1988. Before that you could only be Brazilian or something else. Not both. And I'm sure that Augusto wouldn't pick arbitrarly one daughter and say: "Ok! All my other children will be German, but you'll be Brazilian!" And lastly: remove the "RH" from their names. They were not Royal Highness. They were not and are not French princes. --Lecen (talk) 00:43, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
You are you're doubly wrong, first by your arguments, second by your rude manners. So, please, por favor, let's be calm and try to find a consense, ok? (a) Eleonora is on the list because she didn't renounced her position before marriage; (b) Her children are Brazilian; (c) Her name is listed on a book of Armando dos Santos, which is supported by the Imperial Family. Go read it, the passage is available on the Portuguese Wikipédia which you despises. (d) Go read too the sources about the Saxe-Coburg-Braganza. I said again, sources. All you are giving are personal opinions, without realiable sources, which is against Wikipedia policy. (e) "And I'm sure that Augusto wouldn't pick arbitrarly one daughter and say: "Ok! All my other children will be German, but you'll be Brazilian!". He did, indeed. GO TO THE SOURCES, come on! They say so. Although the source say she kept Brazilian citizenship, the reason why actually is not explicity, but is quite obvious: as a woman, she could not inherit or transmit her German dignities, but as gender was not a barrier to Brazilian dignities, keep this citizenship would be an advantage. But, again, still is a conflict of an opinion (yours) and sources. If you can find contradictory sources, please, cite them. If not, I recomend to keep the previous version of the article. And even if you find something, which I doubt, the article need to cite the existence of Saxe-Coburg-Braganza claim to precedence. Hope we can make a better article now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.44.53.152 (talk) 02:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Sources[edit]

Do we have clear sources for this article? How may people in this line of succession married equally, cold be difficult these days? PatGallacher (talk) 18:56, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

The constitution of the Brazilian Empire did not require a dynast to marry equally - according to the article. Some of the older royalty in Europe believe in morganatic marriages, which was a predominantly German concept. Reigen (talk) 16:57, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Numbering in the two lists[edit]

Why does the numbering begibn with the second name in each list and not the first? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 05:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://org102.zorpia.com/0/5306/33963267.d6d275.jpg
  2. ^ http://org102.zorpia.com/0/5306/33963274.666513.jpg
  3. ^ http://oglobo.globo.com/mundo/acidente-voo-447/mat/2009/06/04/voo-447-herdeiro-da-familia-orleans-braganca-era-administrador-de-empresas-tinha-26-anos-756196992.asp
  4. ^ http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/folha/brasil/ult96u374584.shtml
  5. ^ http://www2.camara.gov.br/internet/homeagencia/materias.html?pk=119092
  6. ^ http://www.bemparana.com.br/index.php?n=60728&t=caso-bonilha-i
  7. ^ http://www.jornalcomunicacao.ufpr.br/node/3098
  8. ^ http://www.diariodesorocaba.com.br/noticias/not.php?id=22405
  9. ^ http://www.tribunadonorte.com/index.php?setor=DETALHESNOTICIA&nid=89241
  10. ^ http://www.mundolusiada.com.br/CULTURA/cult405_out08.htm
  11. ^ http://www.camaracristina.com.br/montanoticias.php?id=28