View source for Talk:Pretender/Archive 1

{{talkarchivenav}}

It should become clear who is pretender to the the states of the former Habsburg Monarchy, because Austria-Hungary was put together of several states of whom some exist today as sovereign states, such as Croatia, Hungary, Austria etc. Thus it makes sense to add a chapter concerning this or to add on the list all these countries with the Pretender Otto Habsburg. Definitively to cancel are Pretenders who can not at all be seen as such, such as todays Duke of Aosta as pretender to the Croatian Throne, whose claimant is in the opposite to that of Otto Habsburg not accepted by the croatian government. Msvj 27.10.06 

::[[Alexander, Crown Prince of Yugoslavia]] could also be a pretender to  Croatia, Bosnia and Slovenia which were part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire as well as Yugoslavia. 

::: This cannot really be said, because there is no inherited right of the Karadjordjevic to that throne, the legal successors of the old croatian Kingdom for example have been the Kings of Hungary whose rights went over to the Habsburgs with the marriage of [[Ferdinand I]] with Mary of Bohemia and Hungary. The Krain (more or less todays Slovenia) was a Habsburg crown country since [[Rudolf I]] gave it to his son Albrecht I. In the casa of Bosnia it can be rather discussed, becuase their is no clear heir of Bosnias medieval rulers, but I think the Habsburgs are rather related to them than the relatively new house of Karadjordjevic. MSVJ
 
China, Burundi, Ruanda, the "Indian states", Aceh and Sansibar should be added! Then should be a discussion concerning the [[Timurids]], which ruled over the Mughal Empire, are they the pretenders to the Indian throne (they are muslims) or should they treated as pretenders to the throne of Pakistan? (the current pretender is to find at http://uqconnect.net/~zzhsoszy/ips/misc/mughal.html) Xerxes M.F. 20.9.06

Can someone please tell me what happened to the actuall page on pretenders to the thrones of abolished monachies?[[User:CharlesMartel|CharlesMartel]] 05:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)CharlesMartel

A pretender is someone who has never been on the throne and is claiming it. A deposed monarch is not classed as a pretender, but when they die, their ''heir'' is classed as one. [[User:Jtdirl|STÓD/ÉÍRE]] 02:53 Apr 12, 2003 (UTC)


That's really broken table markup. -- Anon.

[[Maria Pia de Saxe Coburg Braganca]] (and not Hilda Toledano that was only a pseudonym in salazar fascist period)was daugther of The King Charles of Portugal and so after the death of her half-brother Manuel she became the Duchess of BragançA to the will of her Father.About the name of Maria Pia of Bragança you can see the family tree of Royal House of Bragança in one of the most important historical portuguese encyclopedia named “Història de Portugal” Vol. III of A.H. de Oliveira Marques (page 112-113) and you can see the name Maria Pia (born 1907) ,daughter of the King Carlos, in sketched line because She was still alive when this volume was published and indicated as pretender to portuguese throne. The web page with pages of this encyclopedia are: http://www.theroyalhouseofportugal.org/media/docs/libri/copertina.jpg and http://www.theroyalhouseofportugal.org/media/docs/libri/albero-medio.jpg This is one of the most portuguese historical source. The name Hilda Toledano was only a pseudonym in a fascist period. This is the Truth. 

Manuel de Sousa


Should there be something on this page about the Jacobites (James Stuart - The Old Pretender, and Bonnie Prince Charlie - the Young Pretender)? maybe with links, as these both have entries? -- Anon.

Why is [[Otto von Habsburg]] listed here?  He has renounced all claims to the thrones of Austria and Hungary. [[User:193.64.7.9|193.64.7.9]] 17:38, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

:Should we maybe change the name of the page or create a new one so that we can include people like von Habsburg? - [[User:Nat Krause|Nat Kraus]][[User_Talk:Nat Krause|e]] 07:24, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)


It seems that I've mess the table up, when last adding two new sections. Can anyone fix the table up and put it up to the top of the page. [[User:Tancarville|Charles Said-Vassallo]] 7.51pm 5-11-04. (EST)


What a mess this page is - it describes heirs to thrones in which there have been thrones overthrown (legally or illegally) as pretenders, which is not the case and there is much international law which can argue on such issues much more closely.

A proper legal definition of a "pretender" will be appended soon in this area.

Writers as well should bear in mind libel and slander issues in this area as defining a rightful heir to a throne as a fictitious claimant is an invitation to a civil suit in some jurisdictions.

:Please note Wikipedia official policy: [[Wikipedia:No legal threats]]

:Writers should bear in mind that pretensions to thrones in some jurisdictions can result in criminal liabilities.  [[User:66.60.159.190|66.60.159.190]] 18:38, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)


"Pretender of doubtful authenticity" ?? Who assert this? Mr Jtdirl or Mr Jess Cully(probably miguelist supporter)?? At the contrary, many Tribunal of  Sovereign States had sentenced in favour of HRH Dom Rosario and of his rights. See: http://www.theroyalhouseofportugal.org/html/lodo.htm
Manuel

Manuel, don't start all this stuff again. I've reverted and changed the headline to ''Pretender of debated authenticity'' which is more NPOV. The person you are claiming is the heir to the Portuguese throne is not universally accepted. His status is subject to debate, hence the category. Don't start pushing his claims again here. People have already made it clear Wikipedia is ''not'' going to rule him as the legitimate heir, merely state that he makes a claim and it is debated. <span style="color: #006666;">'''Fear'''</span><span style="color: #FF6600;">'''''ÉIREANN'''''[[Image:Flag of Ireland.svg|25px]]</span><span style="color: blue;"><sup>[[user_talk:Jtdirl|<span style="color: blue;">(talk)</span>]]</sup></span> 22:28, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


Only a sentence of a tribunal of a Sovereign State can decide if a right of pretension exist or not. In this case already three Tribunals of Sovereign State(San Marino,Italy and Rumania) have decided about the legitimacy of the Dom Rosario rights concerning his pretense as Head of the Royal House of Portugal(constitutional line , at the contrary of the miguelist line excluded perpetually of the succession from the last Monarchic Constitution of 1838).  These Courts have decided  regarding the official documentation both Vatican State and Italy State about the legitimacy of Dona Maria Pia and so of her successor Dom Rosario.
So when you discuss if a preteder have or not the right to be defined pretender (and a right can be demonstrated only by a competent tribunal )  you should  consider  at least all the official documentation of this pretender and not only the other talk or your personal considerations.
Manuel

"Contrary to common beliefs, the massacre of the Romanovs that followed the Russian Revolution makes the tracking not difficult - no one has ever seriously recognized the impostors of the murdered Grand Duchess as heirs, since females anyway were not entitled to succeed as long as there are male dynasts. And there was no serious impostor for a male dynast." - can anyone actually *parse* that? I'd weigh in, but I don't have enough subject knowledge, and can't figure out what the author was trying to say.


- I don't want to mess this table up, but someone should add that there seems to be two pretenders to the Korean throne, but only one is listed on this page.  The one listed, Won, seems to be the one accepted, but if you read both bios, the other one, Seok, seems to have a stronger claim.



== Definition and the meaning of "claimant" ==

It should be made clear in the article that "claimant" means someone under current or former rules of succession is or may be entitled to the position, not that the person actively asserts his or her right to the position. [[User:Ellsworth|Ellsworth]] 22:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

So if such a "claimant" doesn't actually claim anything, should he be called a pretender? I'm doubtfull. I would think a term like "non-reigning dynast" might be more appropriate for a lot of the people mentioned in the list.[[User:Hebel|Gerard von Hebel]] 21:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps there should be a better term for "person who would be monarch/ruler if the present political climate in country x changed" (which would include eg the various equivalents for Italy - in the news recently - Bulgaria - the ex-PM - etc) as distinct from alternative claimants to the throne. Otto von H is probably the oldest person with a claim to any throne. [[User:Jackiespeel|Jackiespeel]] 21:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
:Exactly. "Pretender" is not a legal term. It means what it says: One who "pretends" to possess a ''right'' to exercise monarchical power, but is prevented, ''de facto'', from doing so by a revolution, usurper, exile, failure to be recognized by the realm's "subjects", or ''whatever''. There are three problems with the term "pretender":
:#It has never excluded those who claim a throne (or royal heirship), but whose claim is not grounded in law. Most would argue that [[False Dmitriy I]], [[Kaspar Hauser]], [[Alexis Brimeyer]], [[Michael Lafosse]], [[Anna Anderson]], [[Terence Francis MacCarthy]], and even [[Prisoner of Zenda|Rudolf Rassendyll]], were all ''false'' pretenders, i.e. [[impostor]]s, pretending to be persons who had legally-based (even if disputed) claims to dynasticity. But some of these impostors, even when not accepted as whom they claimed to be, were nonetheless referred to as "pretenders" -- and the word does not seem historically precise enough to insist that they were mislabeled. Moreover, the notion of a "false pretender" implies the existence of a "genuine pretender" which, if meaningful in the semi-surrealism of royalists and genealogists, is an [[oxymoron]] elsewhere. Most citizens of the republic of France, for instance, could not and would not distinguish between a "rightful" and a "fake" pretender: neither has a lawful claim to reign in France today -- howsoever much [[legitimism|Legitimists]], [[Orleanism|Orleanists]] and [[Bonapartism|Bonapartists]] would protest ''au contraire'' in unison before drawing swords upon one another. This article assumes that there are "genuine pretenders" and I think that's reasonable, in order to then identify them. But the article is POV in attempting to dismiss "false pretenders", because that calls for a political judgment in some cases: Rather, there are pretenders who may have an '''historical''' basis for their claim, but genuine and false pretenders are "equal" insofar as neither usually has a current '''legal''' basis for their claim (divine right monarchists will, of course, disagree). A notable exception between 1967 and 1974 was King Constantine II of the Hellenes, whom however this article insists was/is not a "pretender", then or now. 
:#If a private person discovers a land (or planet!) not otherwise claimed to be part of any nation, and declares himself its monarch, what is he? [[Paddy Roy Bates]] is a pirate of sorts, but ''not'' an impostor. So is he the Prince of [[Sealand]]? Or a pretender? 
:#The term "claimant" is more commonly used in monarchist circles to refer to someone who has or could have, under some interpretation of past or present law, a valid claim to reign. But ''claimant'' also suffers from the fact that it is used by ''both'' those who actively assert their legal right to reign (or to stand as candidate ''par excellence'' for the crown in the event monarchy is restored) e.g. [[Alexander, Crown Prince of Yugoslavia]], King [[Michael I of Romania]], and [[Leka of Albania]], yet "claimant" also refers to those who do not assert any current claim, but who would have the undisputed right to reign if the monarchy were revived with its old laws intact, e.g. [[Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia]], [[Nicholas of Montenegro]], [[Ernst August V, Prince of Hanover|Prince Ernst August of Hanover]], and [[Otto von Habsburg]]. These latter ex-dynasts often claim to represent (some of) the traditions associated with the old monarchy, rather than claiming that their family's old realm should or could be restored. A more accurate term for them than pretender ''or'' claimant would be ''historical heir''. Also, even among "genuine" claimants there are (increasingly!) dynastic disputes, in which case the supporters of ''Claimant A'' regard his/her cousin, ''Claimant B'', to be a "false pretender" (Brazil, France, Italy, Russia, Saxony, Two Sicilies, etc). Since there are disputants, there are persons who actually assert a claim, so "pretender" is an accurate term for them. 

:Finally, there are complications, as in the Habsburg case where, although Otto formally renounced his dynastic claim to reign, yet he remains ''the'' Habsburg claimant because no other member of his dynasty has stepped up to assume that role. All the family members treat Otto's renunciation as extorted and therefore invalid. Otto explicitly claims to represent the Habsburg "tradition", while repudiating any claim to reign by hereditary right. So is he a pretender? Or a claimant? [[User:Lethiere|Lethiere]] 21:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

== Disputed Irish Pretenders ==

I placed ‘‘disputed tags’’ at the end of some paragraphs in this section. There is no external verification of any of these statements. If they cannot be check we should discuss rewording these paragraphs.
[[User:Ant ie|ant_ie]] 19:22, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the source info. [[User:Ant ie|ant_ie]] 19:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

== Section on Mexican pretenders is 50% non-NPOV ==
Not only has an apologetic thone for monarchy in Mexico, it's information in more than 50% of the lines should be in the article about [[Agustín de Iturbide]] rather than here. May the guy who put it here explain it's motives or else I'll move it myself - though it would still need some polish to take out the non-NPOV general tone

:It was a copyvio in any case. I removed it a few days ago. -- [[User:Rune.welsh|Run]][[Wikipedia:Esperanza|<span style="color: #339900;">e</span>]] [[User:Rune.welsh|Welsh]] | [[User_talk:Rune.welsh|ταλκ]] 18:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

== Portuguese pretender ==

BBird, Rosario is considered a pretender and not a fake pretender. I can understand if you don't consider Rosario as Duke of Braganza because you consider Duarte Pio the Duke of Braganza but Rosario is a claimant to Portuguese Crown and so you can't insert him name as a fake pretender. You can see this page that consider him pretender: [[http://www.projectedletters.com/vault/maria-pia/maria-pia-1/]] - [[http://amt.no.sapo.pt/novaversao/pretendentes/rosario.htm]] - [[http://www.portugalnoseumelhor.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2376&start=0&sid=87a4355463a395b6810eb30d2fe0d6ad]] - page of international newspapers [[http://www.theroyalhouseofportugal.org/html/press.htm]] and many others sites.
So please stop with this your nosense added in "pretender" wikipage. [[User:M.deSousa|M.deSousa]]

I believe he is fake, both his and Hilda Toledano origin and claims are obscure to say the least. But this is not the point. I dont care mich who is the claimant, I care that wk does not mislead the readers. And I care care that info posted here by reliable people -- and people who deserve more trust than you, with your pseudo "official sites", deleting factual references, etc, -- is not deleted just because you don't like it. I don't want to enter into this type of rv loop, so I will not touch the article right now. But be aware that I will fight any attempt from your part to rebuild a fairy tale as if it was fact. BR --[[User:BBird|BBird]] 23:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

== Disputed Claims (Mexico) ==

I added the claim of Concepcion Heredia-Rosas to the page believing that this was a page about disputes (of pretenders to the throne). Why is her claim less valid than that of the Iturbide? Surely on a page dedicated to alternative lines of succession to defunct thrones that this other line is equally as legitimate? I expect of Wikipedia more than a biased view on a subject of little importance nowadays, but of great historical significance - why has it been removed? Robert.
:She was a hoax claimant. There is no evidence of her existing beyond very few statements by disillusioned "royalists". [[User:Cfvh|Charles]] 13:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

::Do you mean "disillusioned" or, rather, "deluded"? What are the precise sources? Sources of her asserting the claim? [[User:Marrtel|Marrtel]] 14:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

:::There are no assertions of her claim. For all that is known, she most likely doesn't exist. If she did, she couldn't claim the throne as a Habsburg, asshe is only such in the female line and if that line exists, it is morganatic. [[User:Cfvh|Charles]] 20:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

::::You would be surprised how big claims are sometimes asserted by people from female and morganatic lines :) Sometimes, they even succeed. Let's not be so uptight with alleged rules of succession. I bet Mexico had no long-time established ones. I am not saying she has any right - the standard here is whether her supporters have managed to publish her claims... Kindly list your sources, they would be more helpful. Then, that inexistence: is this entire claim some fictional invention - are you saying that? Is it really probable? Or is it more probable that such person exists and her supporters have presented her as claimant? [[User:Marrtel|Marrtel]] 21:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

:::::[http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&rls=GGGL%2CGGGL%3A2005-09%2CGGGL%3Aen&q=%22Concepcion+Heredia-Rosas%22+-wikipedia&btnG=Search This] is the only trace of this woman outside of Wikipedia. How can someone claim the throne of Mexico on the basis that they are a morganatic descendant a female line of a collateral relative of Maximilian? That's like if everyone in line to the British throne died out and some far off descendant of a mediaeval duke of Saxony claimed the throne as a female-line descendant of one of Elizabeth II's paternal ancestors. Archduke Otto would have a better chance at claiming the throne, and he would never be successful in doing so. [[User:Cfvh|Charles]] 21:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

::::::Is this really a place to discuss the substantial justifications of individual claims?!? If this is, then I would say, not having any own opinion of the merits of the present claim, that a collateral relative may be a rightful heir. A female line does not necessarily foreclose succession - none could be as tupid as to believe such. A morganatic marriage neither - some realms actually do not recognize that any marriage could be lower than another and some recognize inheritance through illegitimate descent.
Collateral relatives have succeeded on that basis e.g in Romania. An English peerage by writ may be inherited by a collateral relative of original possessor... Maximilian did not inherit his monarchy, he was elected, so there is no earlier line to follow when deciding heirs. Some jurisdictions have recognized succession of relatives LIMITED to citizenry of the country itself - see Iraq. I would rather see that the claim in question were substantiated by independent sources, we do not need to speculate it here. [[User:Marrtel|Marrtel]] 22:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)


:::::::The basis of the "claim" is being a member of the House of Habsburg-Lorraine. One cannot be a member of that house unless one is descended from an archduke of Austria in the male-line. Also, how can this woman, if she existed, claim the crown of Mexico as a descendant of a member of the house of H-L who wasn't a member of the Mexican Imperial Family? There were no provisions for back tracking in the House of Habsburg-Lorraine and allowing the morganatic descendant of an archduke to hold a claim to the throne of Mexico as a Habsburg when she isn't one. The morganatic descent does count. If I were a morganatic descendant of the House of Habsburg and I claimed the throne of Mexico as a Habsburg, I'd be a liar. Any other Habsburg would have a far better claim. Mexico was not an English peerage and it was not Romania. Mexico is also not Iraq. How can you apply these examples to Mexico when all are unique in regard to each other? The claim cannot be substantiated as it is a hoax. If Wikipedia allowed all hoaxes to be listed in the pretenders article, it would be one of the longest articles on the site. [[User:Cfvh|Charles]] 23:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

::::::::Wow, we're arguing about the pretender to the title of "Empress of Mexico". Don't you love Wikipedia? Clearly, the title was created with Maximillian (and died with him) so only his heirs could become pretenders. Unless we have positive evidence of the intended line of succession, or ample sourcing for the notability of the claim, I think we should avoid giving legitimacy to displaced nobility of dubious veracity. -[[User:Will Beback|Will Beback]] 10:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Dona Concepcion's lineage is on this link - is this a good enough source? http://thepeerage.com/p19329.htm#i193285 <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Rhymut|Rhymut]] ([[User talk:Rhymut|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Rhymut|contribs]]) </small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->

:No. It is established that illegitimate and adulterine progeny are perpetually excluded from the lines of succession to any throne unless there is a process of becoming legitimate. Any claimed descent from the House of Habsburg-Lorraine is through bastard lines in this case and even still, general membership in the House of Habsburg-Lorraine itself does not confer succession rights to the throne of Mexico. Also, Rhymut, please sign your posts by affixing <nowiki>~~~~</nowiki> to the end. [[User:Cfvh|Charles]] 00:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

To determin ethe Mexican issue, wouldn't we have to look at Mexico's monarchical constitution and see what the succession laws were?  I assume this particularly case is bogus, but presumably some provision was made for what should happen if Maximilian died without heirs.  Would it have been a Habsburg secundigeniture, like Tuscany?  Or was there some other provision? The Iturbides appear to claim to be the heirs to the Habsburg throne as well as to the Iturbide throne - were the Iturbides Maximilian's heirs in the absence of his own issue?  If so, I'd think that no Habsburg claimant would have any kind of claim here. [[User:John Kenney|john k]] 17:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

==Emperor Norton I?==
Could Emperor Norton I have been considered a pretender to the United States? --[[User:71.230.240.24|71.230.240.24]] 04:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
:No, Norton declared himself Emperor. He did not inherit an existing claim nor did he represent the line of a previous Emperor of the United States (since there were none). [[User:Cfvh|Charles]] 05:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
::Doesn't claiming a title that does not exist make one a pretender, though?  Or does the position have to have existed at some point? --[[User:71.230.240.24|71.230.240.24]] 15:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
:::The position has to have existed and the person claiming it cannot have held that position officially in order to a pretender. For instance, imagine for a moment that Norton "officially" became Emperor of the United States and that he had a son, whom we will Norton, Prince Imperial. If the Empire is abolished before Norton dies, there is no pretender because he ''was'' Emperor of the United States. Once Norton dies, his son, the Prince Imperial, becomes the pretender, since he never held the position of Emperor but otherwise would be the Emperor. [[User:Cfvh|Charles]] 16:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

== User's edits reverted per policy ==

{| class="messagebox standard-talk" style="width: auto;"
|-
| [[Image:Nuvola apps kdmconfig.png|50px| ]]
| '''[[User:NunoS.|NunoS.]]''' has been shown on the evidence to be a '''[[Wikipedia:Sock puppetry|sock puppet]]''' or impersonator of '''[[User:M.deSousa|M.deSousa]]''', '''[[User:82.58.216.254|82.58.216.254]]''', '''{{{4|and others}}}'''.<br>
<small>As a hardbanned user they had already been prohibited from doing any editing on Wikipedia. Because of this any edits made by this user using sockpuppets to get around their ban are ''automatically'' deleted on sight, irrespective of content, quality or whatever. Apologies for any problems caused by this process on this page. Unless and until their hardban is revoked by Jimbo Wales, the arbcom or other relevant authorities they cannot contribute in any way whatsoever to this site.</small>  
|} [[User:Jtdirl|<span style="color:green; background-color:pink">'''Fear''ÉIREANN'''''</span>]][[Image:Ireland-up.png|15px]]\[[User talk:Jtdirl|<sup style="color:blue;">(caint)</sup>]] 13:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

== Old and Young Pretender ==

Is it really correct to speak of Bonnie Prince Charlie as the most famous pretender in British/any history?  Charles's actual exploits were done in 1745-1746, ''i.e.'', during a time when he was ''not'' actually the pretender - his father was still alive, and Charles's rebellion was officially on his behalf.  Charles's own period of pretendership - 1766-1788, was marked by the increasing irrelevance of Jacobitism. [[User:John Kenney|john k]] 17:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

==Dom Rosario Poidimani, again==

Please stop the revert battle (this is addressed to both sides).  It's really not that important either way.  Just as one side is pushing it's candidate as a "real" pretender, so the other side is trying to bury this man as a "fake" pretender.  If he is important enough to list in this article in either way, then why was he not important enough to have his own article?  His article (admittedly entirely POV) was deleted January 24, 2006, and again February 26, 2006.  I would be willing to try to start an NPOV article on him if I could get some agreement from other parties not to move for deletion (I think that I did a rather good job of removing the POV from the [[Hilda Toledano]] article - with the exception of the article name which I will tackle some day when things are calmer). [[User:Mcferran|Noel S McFerran]] 12:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
:ok Mr McFerran, in this page there is a continue libel against this pretender. I hope you can create an impartial and neutral article about Rosario as in the your very good work of the Maria Pia, Duarte Nuno and Duarte Pio articles. I think is correct and legitimate insert in Maria Pia page her real name, Maria Pia de Bragança e Saxe-Coburgo-Gotha  ( http://www.thepeerage.com/p9164.htm#i91639 ) because Hilda Toledano was only a pseudonym and in that wikipedia page we tell about her claims as portugese pretender. I think is very important also this documentation in portuguese language ( http://duarteotretas.blogspot.com/ ). I hope this can be useful for you. Best regards [[User:82.52.180.225 ]] 18:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC).
:Three days ago I requested a halt to the revert battle - to no avail.  Now I see that two administrators are participating in this revert battle, one on each side.  This is ridiculous.  This page (like lots of Wiki-pages) needs all kinds of attention paid to it to improve it.  The changes back and forth are just a waster of editor-time. [[User:Mcferran|Noel S McFerran]] 17:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
:: There is in this page continuous libel against the portuguese pretender Rosario Poidimani (http://amt.no.sapo.pt/novaversao/pretendentes/ipretendentes.htm ). The miguelist supporters continue with this libel that Rosario is a false pretender. For many royalists in Portugal, Rosario is the unique legitimate Duke of Braganza. He became Duke of Braganza when Maria Pia of Braganza, the daughter of the king Charles of Portugal, abdicated in favour of him. Maria Pia was daughter of the king and the name of the king is reported in her all official documents and there was also a document in her baptisimal documents, Documento Unido, http://www.theroyalhouseofportugal.org/media/docs/dichiarazioni/ricon-paternita.jpg , where the king attributed, to his beloved daughter, all the honours, privileges, and rights of the Infants of Portugal. The Sacra Rota Romana decided with a definitive sentence to not delete these Maria Pia baptisimal documents where the king is reported as her father. So Maria Pia is a legitimate portuguese pretender and also her heir dom Rosario Poidimani.
The unique false pretender for other royalists in Portugal ( the supporters of Rosario and also for the supporters of the Duke of Lulè) is Duarte Pio of Braganza. He is a direct descendant of the usurper Miguel forever excluded from succession. Miguel lost all his civil and dynastic rights after the Banishment Law for will of the King of Portugal and Cortes. He become a common plebeian after this Banishment. So also his descendants are all no portuguese born and so also for this they are excluded from the succession. So, in particular, I don’t understand how is possible define Duarte Pio as duke of Braganza and so I repropose these questions: How is possible now the miguelist rapresentatives declare them as legitimate Duke of Braganza as successor of the usurper king Miguel forever excluded from the succession by the last monarchic Constitution and after the Banishment Law lost all his civil and dynastic rights and so become a common plebeian for the incontrovertible will of the Cortes and the King of Portugal? Who grant them this title? The Banishment Law was in force untill the 1950 (so these miguelist remained always plebeian and foreign, and no portuguese constitutional king granted them any title), when their "friend" Salazar decided to eliminate this banishment and supported this branch...a dictator that support a claimant to the throne...a portuguese republic interested in portuguese monarchy,as now...a true funny story...but the unique way for "legitimate" this Usurper branch is only the help of the republican political power because they have no lawful and republican rights! 
At the contrary Maria Pia supported the portuguese anti salazarist party of the general Humberto Delgado. She was considered from all as pretender so I don’t understand why in this encyclopedia continue to libel her heir that have also  support of many portuguese royalists. This is possible to see in all monarchic portuguese forum!!! So stop to continue to libel against this pretender Rosario only in order to hide his claim and his constitutional branch!
Instead McFerran is well thata also the admistrator know this situation to continue libel and attack against Rosario as in fascist period where the liberty of expression don't exist. Fortunately there are administrator that understand this sad situation and help for a democratic knowledge of the truth.

With his latest revert today [[User:Cfvh|Charles]] says "This *must* stop. Someone please protect this page again."  If people want the revert battle to stop, then EITHER SIDE can do so.  I'm not surprised by the behaviour of one side, but I am surprised that it has been matched by the other side.  Why do some people feel that it is so absolutely necessary to include on the list of "Impostor pretenders" somebody who doesn't even have a Wiki-article?  This is by no means a comprehensive list of impostor pretenders, so why not leave it off (at least for now)?  I think that I know the answer: this has turned into a personal battle between editors; that's just not productive.  Recently when another editor made (in my opinion) an absolute hash of an article which I had worked very hard on, I walked away when I discovered that the individual couldn't engage in scholarly discussion about the issue.  At some point, I'll go back and tidy up the mess. [[User:Mcferran|Noel S McFerran]] 22:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

:As long as Poidimani isn't listed in the main list, I see little reason to have him listed at all.  He's a joke, and any listing of him gives him credibility. [[User:John Kenney|john k]] 02:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
::The only joke here is hide all the usurpations of Duarte Pio in order to legitimate his claims. Insert here D.Rosario as fake pretender is only a big libel. I think to advise D.Rosario in order to begin a criminal action against the responsible of this continue libel against him. Is a big sadness to see the attempt of some users against this pretender and his supporters in order to legitimate the other pretender.I am a portuguese royalist that don't recognize Duarte Pio as Duke of Braganza because he is firstly not born portuguese but in particular because he is a descedant of the usurper king Miguel, forever excluded from succession and became plebeian, as all his descendants, after the Banishment Law. Who king granted to Duarte parents the title of Duke of Braganza? NO King. So why he defines him duke of Braganza if he is not? This is a usurpartion of title and I don't understand because is defended in wikipedia [[User:82.48.224.24|82.48.224.24]] 11:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

:::Whatever the legitimacy of the pretensions of Duarte Pio, the pretensions of Mr. Poidimani are obviously ridiculous.  On the one hand, Duarte Pio is supposedly excluded because the old monarchical constitution of Portugal excludes his family.  But the old monarchical constitution of Portugal equally excludes any illegitimate children of King Carlos from ever having any claim to the throne, even if we accept Maria Pia's claim to being the daughter of King Carlos.  It would even more so exclude "Dom Rosario", who is not related to the Portuguese royal family at all, and is not Portuguese.  On the one hand, you say that King Manuel's reconciliation with the Miguelist branch and recognition of Duarte Nuño as his heir is illegitimate.  On the other hand, Maria Pia's "adoption" of Dom Rosario makes him the heir?  This is completely intellectually incoherent.  If we accept both the proscription of the Miguelists and the requirement of a Portuguese monarch seriously, as well as the standard idea that all dynasts must be legitimate, then we find that the Duke of Loula, as the senior Portuguese descendant of John VI (outside of the Miguelist line) is the heir.  Certainly Dom Rosario, having no blood relationship whatsoever to the Braganzas, has no claim.  P.S. Go away, and quit making legal threats. [[User:John Kenney|john k]] 11:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

::::The pretension of Rosario are ridiculous only if a person as you don't know the true history of the Royal House of Portugal. As you affirm is true the miguelist branch are perpetually excluded from succession by the last monarchic constitution. At the contrary Maria Pia also as illegitimate daughter of the king was legitimized with a document of the king Charles that affirmed about Maria Pia "she may be called by my name and enjoy from now on the use of this name with the honours, prerogatives, rank, obligations and advantages of the princes of the House of Bragança of Portugal". The Sacred Roman Rota, the normal appeal court for the Roman Catholic Church, issued no modification in Maria Pia baptisimal documents so this document of the king is valid and have legal value. Others are only talk but the true history is based only on official documents as this. At the contrary no king granted to the miguelist branch the title of Duke of Braganza and after the Banisment Law these miguelist became plebeians. How is possible now Duarte Pio affirm him as Duke of Braganza if his father and grandfathere were plebeians? Duarte also born out of portuguese territory (in Swiss territory) and not in portuguese embassy as the Conservatória dos Registos Centrais ( [http://monarquia.actifforum.com/ftopic38.DUARTE-BRAGANCA-O-GRANDE-TRETAS.htm] ) confirmed and also for this Duarte is in the same situation of the italian Rosario. After there are no proof of the pacts of Dover and Paris with the sign of the king Manuel, in really these are only dream documents in the mind of some miguelists. Yes, the Maria Pia adoption of Dom Rosario can make him heir, as the ancient Latin law issued " qui filius non est , pro filio habetur " and you can see confirmed this principle also in the book " Previlégios da nobreza Portuguesa" ( Privileges of the Portuguese nobility). Rosario is certainly the rightfull Duke of Braganza and the pretender of the Saxe Coburg Braganza branch, the unique legitimate branch of the Royal House of Portugal. Insert here Rosario as a fake pretender is only a big and true libel!!! [[User:Justiceiro|Justiceiro]] 11:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
:::::Sorry, no.  Illegitimate children don't inherit.  And there's no actual evidence of any of these legitimizing documents by King Carlos that you claim.  Under the monarchical constitution, whose terms are the ''only'' basis for excluding the Miguelist branch, there is no provision which would allow the king to unilaterally and secretly put his illegitimate child in line for the throne.  Even if there was, there would certainly be no provision for the head of house to just unilaterally appoint someone not even related to him.  And, again, if Maria Pia could choose Dom Rosario, who is not related in the slightest to the House of Braganza, as her heir, then why on earth couldn't Manuel II choose the Duke of Braganza as his heir?  Your arguments are nonsense, and ridiculous.  Rosario.  The only person who can claim the throne as the "constitutionalist pretender" is the Duke of Loula.  Go away. [[User:John Kenney|john k]] 13:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
::::::The only person who can claim the throne as the "constitutionalist pretender" can be the Duke of Loulè if Maria Pia of Braganza did not exist and if the Sacred Roman Rota did not issued the validity of the baptisimal Maria Pia document with also the legitimation of Maria Pia pretension. After the 1932 with th edeath of the king Manuel according to the principle of the "immediate succession" immediatly the half-sister Maria Pia of Saxe Coburg Braganza became Duchess of Braganza and heir of the Saxe Coburg Braganza branch. The king Manuel II never choose Duarte Nuno as heir. The King never signed a document where he choose the miguelist pretender as Duke of Braganza and none see this hypotetical document because it don't exist. Go away you if you don't debate here. See this page [ http://monarquia.actifforum.com/ftopic38.DUARTE-BRAGANCA-O-GRANDE-TRETAS.htm ] against the fake Duke of Braganza Duarte Pio and please reply how is possible affirm as legitimate Duke of Braganza this person. Duarte Pio of Braganza is the true fake Duke of Braganza [[User:Justiceiro|Justiceiro]] 22:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
::::::::Under the constitution, illegitimate children had no succession rights, and the king could not unilaterally declare an illegitimate child to be legitimate for succession purposes.  So even ignoring the fact that there is absolutely ''no'' real evidence that Maria Pia was Carlos's daughter, and certainly none that Carlos legitimized her, it doesn't even matter.  Because even if everything she claims is true, she ''still'' wouldn't be the heir, because her parents weren't married, and her father was married to another woman.  She wasn't in line for the throne under the Portuguese constitution, and the king isn't allowed to just unilaterally put his bastard children into the line of succession.  The Duke of Loula is the heir under the 19th century constitution, but does not assert his claims.  The Duke of Braganza is the heir under the traditional constitution, and the heir accepted by actual Portuguese monarchists.  Maria Pia was an impostor with an absurd claim, and Rosario is an impostor with a doubly absurd claim.  It's ridiculous that supporters of a supposed "constitutionalist" candidate can only defend her candidacy on the grounds of the King unilaterally, arbitrarily, and secretly changing the succession law.  [[User:John Kenney|john k]] 22:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::When did this article change from [[Pretender]] to [[Legitimate Pretenders]]? When did Wikipedia become the arbiter of the validity of claims to non-existent (or extant) crowns? From the point of view of current regimes and the vast majority of their citizens, all pretenders are illegitimate, contemptuous of law, and absurd to the extent that they seek to assert a "right" to rule others based on obsolete mandates. I don't find the Poidimani assertions any less valid, any more obscure, any more fantastical, or any more [[revisionism|revisionist]] history than the claim that the Duke of Braganza is Portugal's "rightful" pretender based on "the traditional constitution". And the latter's claim is no more legal in Portugal than the former's. Pretendership exists in a [[parallel universe]]. To the extent it is encyclopedic at all, it can be so only insofar as it does not attempt to confound its deprecated hypotheses with the reality that Wikipedia seeks to engage and to reflect. There is little that is more unseemly, bewildering and base than the public mudslinging rival royal claimants engage in to denounce the pretensions of a kinsman. Seeing Wiki editors replicate those quarrels here is disheartening -- and weird. Maria Pia and Poidimani, or their backers, apparently "pretend" to the throne of Portugal, and have elaborated a rationale under which that makes sense to them. Let Maria Pia and Poidimani supporters embarrass their own cause through their assertions, so long as they do not misrepresent their opinions as facts or exclude appropriate, verifiable, relevant facts inserted by others. If their assertions depend upon [[impostor]]ship -- rather than on a minority interpretation of possible facts -- let's choose a way to handle that subset of pretenders who were impostors, include that definition in the article and, again, let readers decide for themselves which pretenders' claims are those of impostors and which are "valid" -- instead of Wiki doing so. [[User:Lethiere|Lethiere]] 18:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
:::::::::::I agree that it is ridiculous for wikipedia to judge between the quality of claims of real pretenderships.  We shouldn't judge between the two Two Sicilies candidates, or between the Orleanist, Legitimist, and Bonapartist pretenders in France, or between the two Brazilian candidates, or between the Prince of Naples and the Duke of Braganza.  But there is a difference between a pretender who is the genealogical representative (or one plausible claimant to be the genealogical representative) of an ancient dynasty that used to rule a country, and impostors. It's worth noting, though, that the Duke of Braganza's claim is, in fact, more legal in Portugal than Poidimani's - the Portuguese Republic has, as I understand it, officially recognized Duarte Pio as the official representative of Portugal's former royal family, or something similar.  Pretendership isn't entirely a fantasy world.  There are real things that go alongside it.  Archduke Otto is still considered the Grand Master of the Austrian Order of the Golden Fleece, for instance.  Some pretenders, like the aforementioned Duarte Pio, or the various French pretenders, get some kind of official recognition as pretenders by the current republican governments.  Others have until recently been forbidden by law to enter the country over which their family once ruled.  Pretendership may sometimes exist in a parallel universe, but sometimes it exists in the real world.  For instance, the Duke of Bavaria's claims to the English, Scottish, and Irish thrones only exist in a parallel universe - they are nothing but a genealogical fact, and have no bearing on the man's life.  But his claim to the equally non-existent Bavarian throne is a reality in a way that the other claim is not - he holds numerous honorary positions in Bavaria as a result of it.  I think he still lives in one of the former royal palaces.  His surname is "Herzog von Bayern."  Obviously he is not the King of Bavaria, and calling him the "rightful King of Bavaria" is stupid (and I admit that it was stupid of me to call the Duke of Braganza the rightful king under the "traditional constitution" of Portugal), but pretendership is nonetheless a real thing, and the real kind of pretendership ought to be distinguished from the phony kind represented by someone like Poidimani.  It strikes me, beyond this, that only the kind of pretendership that actually involves making some sort of claims in the real world, or acting as Head of House, should be listed in this article.  We shouldn't take sides in genuine disputes, but ought to be clear to distinguish impostures.  Beyond that, in cases where there is a dispute, we should be careful to give due weight to the positions based on the strength of the POV.  For instance, I believe that the late Prince Louis Ferdinand of Prussia's eldest son disputes his exclusion, and has claimed the pretendership.  This should probably be mentioned somewhere (and, in fact, is not), but shouldn't be given equal weight with the general consensus that his nephew is the current pretender.  Similarly, the claims of the Lambrinos in Romania should be mentioned, but not given equal weight with the claims of the former King.  And so forth.  [[User:John Kenney|john k]] 20:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
::::::::::::I have never seen an encyclopedia where a pretender is declared false or impostor without insert the impartial and legal source. Also for this is correct and neutral delete in the pretender wikipage the affirmation against Rosario Poidimani, the heir of Maria Pia, as false pretender. Infact the last news in this dispute is the Portuguese Government has officially decides [ see   http://www.parlamento.pt/plc/requerimento.aspx?req_id=36925 ] to not "legitimize" any pretenders because the Portugal is a Republic and so it can't enter in this matter. This decision is obtained after the request of the president of the People's Monarchist Party (Partido Popular Monárquico) against the abuse of power of the portuguese ambassador in Italy (and friend of Duarte Pio) that the last year declared Duarte Pio is the legitimate pretender in Portugal. At the end there are not impartial and official sources that judge Maria Pia and Rosario as false pretender, so if some users insert this affirmation this is only a NPOV or is their personal points of view (at the contrary please insert here the impartial and official source of this). Many royalist in Portugal affirm the only fake and false Duke of Braganza and pretender in Portugal is Duarte Pio of Braganza. At the end I think is also appropriate insert in the wiki page of this pretender the name Maria Pia of Saxe Coburg Braganza and not Hilda Toledano. Hilda Toledano is only a pseudonym as writer but here we discuss of her claims and in all her official documents is reported only the name Maria Pia de Saxe Coburg Braganza. This is other NPOV attempt to denigrate this pretender in order to favour Duarte Pio.[[User:Justiceiro|Justiceiro]] 10:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

:::Apropo, I do not think there is sufficient proper grounds to regard Duarte Pio as heir "according to traditional constitution". What is traditional constitution, before 19th century? It was based on cognatic succession, similar to that in use in the UK. Nothing save miracle can make "the heir-male" of a really cadet branch as heir in a system that allows cognatic succession. And traditional constitution did not allow Manoel II to adopt an heir (nor would it have allowed Hilda to adopt a heir, or Carlos to make Hilda eligible for succession). This, of course, is going again to merits of their claims, something that is not the job of WP. But needs to be mentioned, because some are basing Duarte's position on similar arguments of merits. I believe that when Manoel II died, there existed his cognatic cousins who were not rulers of any existing monarchy at that time any longer, and could well have been regarded as heirs general to Portuguese monarchy (had Manoel not been deposed, Portugal would have arranged for his succession, presumably using its conventional cognatic line, when it became foreseeable that a successor will be needed as he was not siring children). It should be recognized here that Duarte Pio is pretender on basis of wide acceptance in monarchist circles, and as a cadet descendant of old dynasty, but not as its clear heir - he is clear heir of only a usurper king who was deposed. And, the title of Braganza duke comes from a different justification: as far as I have understood points available even here, it comes from the dukedom granted to the future Pedro I of Brazil (ironically: remember that Duarte Pio descends from the rival of Miguel too). [[User:Marrtel|Marrtel]] 06:30, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
::::I entirely agree with this analysis of the two dynastic claims (although, to be fair, it should be noted that [[User:John Kenney|john k]] retracted his reference to "the traditional constitution of Portugal"). The problem with excluding Hilda Toledano on the grounds that her claim rests upon royal recognition that is wrongly presumed to have legal validity, is that the claim of the pretender "recognized" as "legitimate" in this article, Dom Duarte Duke of Braganza, rests largely on the same basis (the 1922 post-monarchy ''Pact of Paris''). While I don't equate the two claims (I happen to consider Dom Duarte the "rightful pretender"), I consider that Wiki's obligation is to approach them without pre-conceived bias, process information about them in the same way, and encourage readers to make appropriate inferences about them by providing as much accurate, relevant data as possible. Since this article lists pretenders without presenting the evidence on which their claims are based, Wiki editors bear an extra responsibility to be objective and fair in selecting pretenders for inclusion. I get increasingly uncomfortable with arguments that Wiki editors should substitute their judgment for that of Wiki's readership -- particularly with respect to a "line" of pretenders (and their royalist advocates) whose claim has persisted for 50 years now, and which I find mentioned in, for example, such respected works as Valynseele's "Les Prétendants aux Trônes d'Europe" (1967, page 308)) and Tourtchine's C.E.D.R.E. "Le Royaume de Portugal-L'Empire du Brésil", volume II (1987, Pages 177-178). '''Please''', I don't want to hear the pros and cons of Maria Pia's or Dom Duarte's claims ''here'' -- I want to read about both -- or neither -- in the appropriate articles in Wikipedia. [[User:Lethiere|Lethiere]] 02:57, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

==Deposed monarchs==
The opening paragraph of the article presently contains the following sentence: "Deposed monarchs are not seen as pretenders, as the term only applies to those who have never occupied the throne."  Nonsense!  There are all sorts of published sources which describe deposed monarchs who continue to claim their thrones as "pretenders" or "claimants" (indeed, often such deposed monarchs are far far more active as pretenders or claimants than the descendants of long-ago monarchs).  Today somebody removed the entry on Bulgaria.  Can we agree to remove the sentence about deposed monarchs and to add several countries with deposed monarchs to the list of modern pretenders? [[User:Mcferran|Noel S McFerran]] 23:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

:I am not opposed to this at all. What do you think of clearing up the talk page a little as well? [[User:Cfvh|Charles]] 23:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

:Simeon, Michael, and Constantine should certainly be listed here.  Are there any other living former monarchs?  Some of the rulers of Indian princely states are the only ones I can think of, and maybe Laos. [[User:John Kenney|john k]] 16:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

:Oh, the former King of Afghanistan, as well. [[User:John Kenney|john k]] 16:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

: Here is a [[List of monarchs deposed in the 20th century#Surviving monarchs from abolished monarchies|list]] of Surviving deposed monarchs.[[User:195.93.21.9|195.93.21.9]] 16:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

==False pretenders==
I have made a few edits to this section, regularising the entries and trying to make it more neutral.  I would like to suggest a better (i.e. less POV) section heading, perhaps "Controversial pretenders". Can somebody come up with a better suggestion?
I know that some of the ongoing edits from a certain editor are irritating, but I try to learn something positive from this experience. On the page [[Jacobite succession]] a difficult editor (he's got himself blocked several times for abusive language) was challenging things, but in spite of the fact that he was difficult, I think that the edits I made in response to his challenges were in the end an improvement in the page.  Perhaps we can hope for something similar here. [[User:Mcferran|Noel S McFerran]] 21:24, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

:"Controversial pretenders" seems to be bending over backwards the other way.  The Duke of Aosta, for instance, is a controversial pretender, but he doesn't really belong with this bunch.  But I agree that "false pretenders" is not very good, either. [[User:John Kenney|john k]] 23:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

== [[List of Royal Houses]] ==

May I draw to people's attention the existence of another wiki-article which duplicates much of this page (the other page was created September 28, 2006 by an anonymous editor). I think that this other page could be most misleading to many readers. Fortunately it is only linked to from one other page at present. [[User:Mcferran|Noel S McFerran]] 21:28, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

:I agree that that article is bad, especially what with calling these people "Emperor Suchandsuch", which of course they are not.  The images of the coats of arms are nice, though.  it ought to be deleted. [[User:John Kenney|john k]] 23:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

== King Fernidad Frederick (Prussia) ==

I'm stuck on this one, Is he a Claimant, Pretender, Fake-Pretender or Mental Illness? He has a website at www.houseofhohenzollern.com and claims to be related to the Prussian Royal Family and is the current "King". The problem is that there is no current "King of Prussia" so what does that make him as far as a Pretender, since there is no ligitimate claim for "King" at this point? [[User:Intuitionz|Intuitionz]] 08:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

:The legitimate claimant to be King of Prussia is Prince Georg Friedrich.  He doesn't call himself King of Prussia, but he is recognized as the genealogical representative of the Kings of Prussia, and treated as head of house by other members of the family (although I believe his uncle, Prince Friedrich Wilhelm, who renounced his claims when he married unequally, has tried to take back his renunciation and claim the headship of house).  King Fernidad Frederick is somewhere between fake-pretender and mental illiness.  He doesn't even spell Ferdinand right! I would suggest that he's not even notable - every idiot with a website is not notable, even if they pretend to be the King of Bohemia.  [[User:John Kenney|john k]] 12:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

:On the other hand, at least "Fernidad Frederick" has made up a genealogical claim which, if true, could conceivably make him the rightful heir to the Prussian throne.  That's already better than old Dom Rosario.  [[User:John Kenney|john k]] 12:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

{{infobox pretender|English name=King Fernidad Frederick|birth_date=[[20 December]] [[1977]]|image=[[Image:Fernidad.GIF|150px]]|regnal=Fernidad Frederick, The King of Prussia|title=Prince of Prussia|throne=[[Prussia]]|year=1918|king=[[William II, German Emperor|William II]]|relationship=[[Augustus William, Prince of Prussia]]|house=Royal House of Hohenzollern|}}

== Change to meaning of pretender ==

I came here to point out that, as currently defined in the article,  "pretender" would be inapplicable to many of the people on the list; however, I can see that many of my points were already made [[Talk:Pretender#Definition_and_the_meaning_of_.22claimant.22|above]].  For example, [[Franz, Duke of Bavaria]] has never actually made a claim to the throne of England, Scotland and Ireland.  Should the definition of "pretender" be modified to include those people ''on whose behalf'' claims are made, whether or not the person actually makes the claim him/herself? [[User:JChap2007|JChap2007]] 19:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

==What on earth?==

''Some sources suggest that Alice, Duchess of Calabria, is a pretender to the throne of England. This is because she is the senior descendant of King Edward the Confessor.(See, [1]). However, this is debateable - firstly, because the kingship of England in the Anglo-Saxon period was elective; secondly, because Edward had no children and, thus, cannot possibly have any living descendants; and, thirdly, senior descandant means she is the eldest living representatives of Edward the Confessor, rather than the closest living relation.''

This whole material is incredibly confusing, poorly written, and ridiculous, and I've removed it.  It makes factual statements only to contradict them in the next sentence - Alicia is the senior descendant of Edward the Confessor, except that Edward the Confessor has no descendants.  Alicia's claim is as follows: she is the heir-general of [[Edmund Ironside]], eldest son of King Ethelred the Unready and elder brother to Edward the Confessor.  She is also the heir-general to Edmund Ironside's granddaughter Margaret, who married King Malcolm III of Scotland.  She is not the "oldest" descendant, she is the genealogically senior most descendant, in the same way that if the Queen and Prince Charles died tomorrow, Prince William would be the senior descendant of Electress Sophia, even though he would most certainly not be the ''oldest'' descendant of Electress Sophia, or even the oldest descendant of the present queen.  The whole business appears to have been written by someone who only knows enough about genealogy to mislead others.  The argument that Alicia's claim is invalid because the Anglo-Saxon throne was elective is perhaps valid, but the rest of it all seems to be misleading and ignorant nonsense.  At any rate, perhaps some mention of Alicia is in order but it ought to be written by someone who knows what they're talking about. [[User:John Kenney|john k]] 22:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

== Semi again ==

I've semi'd this cos of the reverting. If anyone (not in the revert war) can tell me what this [[Hilda Toledano]] nonsense is, I'd be grateful. [[User talk:Justiceiro]] is supposedly a sock, so gets 24h. What a mess [[User:William M. Connolley|William M. Connolley]] 20:53, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

{{talkarchive}}

{{Clear}}
== External links modified ==

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on [[Pretender]]. Please take a moment to review [[special:diff/815008051|my edit]]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://archive.is/20120524174828/http://dispatch.opac.ddb.de/DB=4.1/PPN?PPN=128842709 to http://dispatch.opac.ddb.de/DB=4.1/PPN?PPN=128842709

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 05:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)