Talk:Line of succession to the former Brazilian throne

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Brazil / History (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
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.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the History of Brazil task force (marked as Low-importance).
 

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)

References

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)

Princess Alix of Ligne's exclusion[edit]

@FactStraight, DrKay, and 177.44.50.211: Hi, I just found this source. It seems reliable to me. Can we exclude Princess Alix from both Vassouras and Petrópolis claims based on this? Thanks in advance. Anotherwikipedianuser (talk) 01:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Which of these states that any princess has been excluded from the throne by renunciation? The Folha de S. Paulo article does quote Dom Luiz saying in 2008 that he requires "princely" marriages, but that is for members of his own dynasty -- not those who are in succession for maternal descent. Nor do I see a specific reference to her marriage to a Dampierre excluding her, although that is possible. Please quote the exact sentence and source which confirms that the princess has renounced or been excluded from the Brazilian succession -- as I don't see that in the sources you list. Thanks. FactStraight (talk) 04:56, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

@FactStraight: Oops! Sorry about that, talked about a source that wasn't there. Here it is. There is a paragraph that states: "Na sexta-feira 17 de junho, um dia antes do casamento, a Princesa Alix de Ligne, cumprindo o costumo de casamentos dinásticos iniciado com o Príncipe Dom Pedro de Alcântara de Orleans e Bragança em 1908, renunciou, de livre e espontânea vontade, por si própria e por sua eventual descendência, aos direitos dinásticos e sucessórios à Coroa e Trono brasileiros." Translation: "On Friday, 17th of July, one day before the marriage, Princess Alix of Ligne, observing the tradition of dynastic marriages started with Prince Pedro de Alcântara of Orléans-Braganza in 1908, has renounced, by her own will, by herself and any offspring, to the dynastic and succession rights to the Brazilian Crown and Throne." Anotherwikipedianuser (talk) 23:24, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

@Anotherwikipedianuser: «Can we exclude Princess Alix from both Vassouras and Petrópolis claims based on this?». Your question is good. If the 1908 renunciation of Pedro de Alcântara was invalid, why all the Vassouras princes' renunciation are valid? I don't think the second list ("Petrópolis claim") is necessary, those Orleans-Braganza princes would be better placed in the House of Orléans-Braganza article. (177.44.50.211)

We don't select one claimant over another. Some would say Pedro Carlos has a better claim and more popularity, given that he is the cousin of the King of Spain, lives in an imperial palace, was born in Brazil, and holds more liberal views than the alternative. DrKay (talk) 20:24, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
@DrKay and DrKay: Pedro Carlos has not a better claim. But that is not what I'm pointing here: I'm saying that (1) there is no updated source listing the "Petrópolis claimants"; (2) the second list in the article is incomplete, as excluded all Vassouras princes who had renounced. If the 1908 renunciation is invalid, then those probably would be invalid too; (3) some Petrópolis princes have dual citizenship, which would be a problem to validate their claims. For this three arguments, I still sugest that a fixed second list be transfered to the House of Orléans-Braganza article. (177.44.50.211)
If you want to remove the second list because it is unsourced, then you should also remove the first, because that is beset by the same original research problems. The sources are from 1968 to 2008 and so clearly do not include someone born in 2011, but the 2008 source does list both branches, as they were in 2008, so you cannot simply remove one and keep the other. They are both as well-sourced as each other. DrKay (talk) 16:02, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
@DrKay and DrKay:"but the 2008 source does list both branches, as they were in 2008". No, this source list them as they were in 1993. Since them, at least seven Petropólis princes got European citizenship, which would matter a Constitutional problem (or at least an embarrassing scenario) to have a Brazilian Emperor or Empress who is also a King of Spain subject, for exemple. That is my argument n. 3 for the Petrólis princes on the second list. But we do not need to go on and on on this matter, since there is a bigger issue on the second list, which I pointed on my second argument, and which is Anotherwikipedianuser's question: to exclude princess Alix on the second list means that all Petrópolis princes shall be excluded too; to include her, means that all Vassouras princes who had renounced should be add back too. This argument, per se, shows that the second list is wrong. Sugestion. If there should be that second list, would be better if it ends in Dom Luiz of Vassouras line. (177.44.50.211)
The article should only contain sourced information. If the latest published line of succession is from 1993, then the lines presented should be those of 1993. If there are sources stating that certain people have been born since or renounced since, then such information can be included in the article. There should be no original research (putting people in line without a source, or removing people because you disagree with the published sources). DrKay (talk) 16:13, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
I concur that it would be POV to exclude the Petropolis branch from Wikipedia, and the article should continue to reflect the fact that the Vassouras branch disputes that any of them are in the line of succession based on the 1908 renunciation. That renunciation, and renunciations in general, are disputed by descendants of the Petropolis branch and its supporters, not by the Vassouras branch -- and Princess Alix de Ligne's renunciation is pursuant to the "rules of the game" as defined by the Vassouras. So from the POV of the Petropolitans, all members of the Vassouras branch remain dynasts because no renunciation is valid unless confirmed by the Brazilian state -- so Alix and many other Vassouras descendants remain on the Petropolis succession list despite their renunciations -- but all of them follow all of the Petropolitans on that list. For the Vassouras it is the opposite; renunciations are treated as tentatively valid if acknowledged by the Head of the House (presumably pending legal confirmation upon restoration of the monarchy), excluding from succession the renunciant and any descendants unborn at the date of the renunciation, as was clearly stated in the 1908 renunciation (which was repudiated later by some of Dom Pedro de Alcantara's descendants). There are plenty of reliable sources which confirm that history and rationale, but sources diverge on which of the two branches remains first in line to the defunct Brazilian throne. The effects of other factors, such as dual nationality, should be included if acknowledged by the Head of the House or some significant organization of monarchists or scholars who reliably publish their line of succession and explanatory POV. Wikipedia's challenge is merely to reflect what is substantiated in reliable sources. FactStraight (talk) 20:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
@177.44.50.211 and DrKay: I think we are deviating from the point here. I just want to validate the source I presented above about Princess Alix's renunciation. Anotherwikipedianuser (talk) 01:20, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
There are multiple issues being addressed in this discussion thread. On the matter of Princess Alix de Ligne's renunciation: Usually, Wikipedia does not accept personal websites as valid sources for information other than (some) biographical information about that person. However, this website functions as the site of the Head of the Vassouras Imperial Line. As Princess Alix de Ligne belongs (maternally) to that line, and her dynastic rights derive from and have heretofore been acknowledged by that head (Dom Luiz affirms her dynasticity in the 2008 Folha de S. Paulo article alluded to at the beginning of this thread), it seems appropriate to accept his public communications about dynastic changes in his own branch, including Alix's renunciation. So yes, I consider inclusion of that website's mention of her renunciation reliable evidence of her exclusion. FactStraight (talk) 20:08, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
@FactStraight: Okay, thanks. I will update the article excluding Princess Alix and inserting that source. Anotherwikipedianuser (talk) 01:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
@177.44.50.211 and DrKay: Please, stop doing that. There is dead people on your list (Alice Carolina de Saxe-Coburgo e Bragança died in 2013 http://imperiobrasileiro-rs.blogspot.com.br/2013/08/faleceu-condessa-dona-alice-tasso-de.html), people who had renounced (Princess Maria Teresa of Orleans-Bragança, Princess Maria Gabriela of Orleans-Bragança, cf. Sá-Pereira, O. (2007: 82)), and wrong informations already correct by the author's source (people on Petrópolis list). (talk)
Since you are 177.44.50.211, why are you pinging yourself? DrKay (talk) 19:03, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
And why did you remove the signature of Anotherwikipedianuser [1]? Is that another one of your accounts? DrKay (talk) 19:08, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, I remove Anotherwikipedianuser for mistake, as I'm not familiar with Wikipedia style. Is it possible fix it? And yes, 177.44.50.211 is me. What about the wrong informations in the article?Lavrense (talk) 19:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
I have restored the signature, removed Alice Carolina and added a note to the two Marias. DrKay (talk) 19:25, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
The two Marias were in the 1993 list (Németh-Torres), but they renounced when married (Sá-Pereira), as all their brothers who had renounced previous (Eudes, Pedro de Alcântara, Fernando, Francisco and Alberto, as cited by Santos, Németh-Torres, Sá-Pereira), and as Alix and as Amélia did. (http://imperiobrasileiro-rs.blogspot.com.br/2014/07/princesa-dona-amelia-de-orleans-e.html ; Causa Imperial https://www.facebook.com/CausaImperial/photos/a.184416018264138.34374.140092569363150/820789787960088/?type=3&theater). I personally think is unnecessary to put all the princes who had renounced on the list. I also would like that the Petrópolis list be fixed according the updated source. May I do it? Lavrense (talk) 19:50, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Apart from the blog being an unreliable source, and therefore unusable, it doesn't actually say Amélia was excluded. It also contradicts the official website, which says Alix was ninth in line when she renounced her rights last month. DrKay (talk) 20:01, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
They say ninth because they were counting Dom Luiz in the list (as Portuguese Wikipedia do). Causa Imperial announced both renounces. There are several sources about Amélia renounces, here one more. http://ailtonpitombo.com.br/blog/casamento-9/ (talk) 20:12, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Per WP:BLOGS, we can't use blogs as sources. DrKay (talk) 20:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
The information is wrong and you are the one who is citing a blog, I'm citing an author. Németh-Torres published an erratum for his article in his blog because the article was pubish online. His fixed list was publish in a printed work of his own [O Plebiscito Nacional de 1993 sobre as Formas e Sistemas de Governo. São João del-Rei: Universidade Federal de São João del-Rei], which transcribe the list according Silva (1994: 237–238). Anyway, if a blog is a weak source, so it is better keep only Silva's list. Lavrense (talk) 21:14, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
You may remove all blog sources, or tag them as unreliable. You may not remove only the blogs that you personally disagree with nor may you remove tags from unreliable sources without addressing the tag. DrKay (talk) 05:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
@Lecen, FactStraight, and DrKay: I ask for @Lecen: and @FactStraight: mediation, because this situations is turning ridiculous. (DrKay|talk) already puts dead people on the list, people who had renounced more than 15 years ago, and now even gives us this "pearl" against Santos, an author who already pubished 4 books sanctioned by the Imperial House: "Artpress is a printer not a publisher. This could be a privately-printed self-published book" (by the way, Artpress is 45 years old publisher, CPNJ 62.890.652/0001-04, http://www.empresascnpj.com/s/empresa/editora-artpress/62890652000104). My points: (1) If the rule is to take literally only reliable informations (which means no blogs, nor undergraduate papers already fixed by the author himself) with pratical (deaths, renunciations) updates, than the Vassouras list shalls end at (9) Afonso Carlos Tasso de Saxe-Coburgo e Bragança (b. 1970), and Petrópolis list at Pedro Thiago of Orléans-Braganza (b. 1979), as I publish now. (2) If is possible to add some unreliable but reasonable data, notably Carlos Tasso de Saxe-Coburgo e Bragança grandchildren born recently and keep a logic order in sucession, than the list can go futher until reach Maria Cristina Tasso de Saxe-Coburgo e Bragança (b. 1945), last person on sucession, as it was published yesterday. Lavrense (talk) 18:29, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The dead people are/were merely included to show the family relationships between their descendants in the same way that is done for other lines, such as Succession to the British throne#Tree list, from 16 January 2016. We cannot say someone has renounced without a source. Google books[2] says the book is printed by Artpress Industria Grafica E Editora Ltda CNPJ: 47259940 / 0001-63 http://cnpj.info/ARTPRESS-INDUSTRIA-GRAFICA-E-EDITORA-LTDA-ME/01EI/, which is a printing company not a publisher. DrKay (talk) 20:25, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Present "Imperial" family[edit]

I've seen the discussion about present-day Brazilian imperial family and I thought I should share a light on it, even though I have little interest in the topic (my interest on those matters goes up to 1900 only). The 1908 renunciation is valid, and is seen as such by all historians who mention it. There are several highly respected historians who talked about it, including Roderick J. Barman, Heitor Lyra and Hélio Vianna, all considering Luís as the rightful heir. The problem began when Luís died and his son Pedro Henrique showed little interest in Brazil. When the latter finally settled in Brazil, in 1945, he gave no actual support for monarchists. His son, Luiz (the present head) and the latter' brother and heir Betrand have shown far more interested in religion and fighting socialism than focusing on monarchism itself. When the present constitution of Brazil was enacted in 1988, it have provisions to a plebiscite that should (and indeed it did occur) in 1993 to choose which form of government Brazil should have: monarchy or republic. There was an understandable sudden interest in the descendants of Pedro II, from which came the creation of the terms "Vassouras" and "Petrópolis" to distinguish the descendants of Luís and Pedro, respectively. In reality, however, there is no division, except for a few monarchists with blogs or Facebook pages that claim that the Petrópolis branch have their own claim. This is not real. There is only one Brazil imperial family and it is composed of Luiz, Bertrand, Antonio (and his wife) and Antonio's two remaining children (the eldest died in a place accident). When the 200 years celebrations for King Joao VI's arrival occurre in 1808, Luiz was invited by the Brazilian government and acknowledged as the heir. Lastly, there is no Saxe-Coburg-Gotha branch. Brazilian law only allowed double citizenship after an amendment to the 1988 constitution. You could only be Brazilian or something else until that point. The story of a daughter of Pedro Augusto (Princess Leopoldina's son) who kept the Brazilian citizenship is pretty and created by her descendants who later settled in Brazil, but is pointless. Isabel's youngest child, Antonio, was born in France in 1881 and ther only occurred because the Brazilian parliament explicitly allowed (see Isabel's biography by Barman). Leopoldina's eldest children were regarded Brazilian princes because they were born and raised in Brazil.

Having said all that, all the lists should be erased. There should be on section explaining the monarchy, the other a brief history of the Brazilian imperial family after 1889 and a third one with the names of the heads. That's it. In my personal opinion this article shouldn't even exist. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 18:48, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

@Lecen: "There is only one Brazil imperial family and it is composed of Luiz, Bertrand, Antonio (and his wife) and Antonio's two remaining children (the eldest died in a place accident)" I agree with a short list for the article. Lavrense (talk) 19:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I don't. There are clearly reliable sources, such as Hugo Vickers in Burke's Royal Families of the World (page 43) that explicitly mention the dispute and that the claim of one line is disputed by the other. DrKay (talk) 19:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but Vickers is not a reliable source when compared to renowned historians. I hardly believe Vickers made any actual research on the topic. Did he research newspapers? Personal letters? Archives? I doubt that. --Lecen (talk) 19:57, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Vickers is a reliable source as defined by wikipedia. If you dispute that, take it to the Wikipedia:Reliable sources noticeboard and they will tell you the same thing. DrKay (talk) 19:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
That's not how it works. You don't place a journalist who wrote generic books on royalty and say that they have the same weight as historians from different decades who are well known for being the best in their craft. That talk can work with someone inexperienced, but certainly not with me. Vickers may be helpful in cases where there is no doubt, but he loses his value in a case such as the one we are arguing about. --Lecen (talk) 20:21, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Did Pedro Gastao challenge Pedro Henrique's claim in 1946 or not? DrKay (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
I honestly don't know. Historians have interest in Brazilian monarchism up to the 1930s. Serious works about the imperial family and monarchism (as far as I know) are: Roderick J. Barman's Princess Isabel (2002), Teresa Malatian's Dom Luís de Orleans e Bragança: peregrino de imperios (2010), Maria de Lourdes Mônaco Janotti's Os subversivos da República (1986) and Teresa Malatian's Império e Missão: um novo monarquismo brasileiro (2001). One is a biography of Isabel (goes up to 1921), the other is a biography of Luis (up to 1920), the third a history of Brazilian monarchism up to 1905 and the last a history of the monarchism up to 1937, with a conclusion that goes (briefly) up to 1964. It's not a big literature on the subject as you can see. I recall reading a biography of Pedro Henrique many years ago in which there is latter of a monarchist to him saying that Pedro Gastão was insinuating that he was the true heir (sometime in the 1950s). I don't remember having seen any proclamation or letter of Pedro Gastão explicitly claiming the position. I'm not saying he didn't do it. He may have had. --Lecen (talk) 20:56, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
Then there is no reason to doubt Vickers since there is no contesting source and others given in the article (by User:FactStraight[3] and User:DWC LR[4] as well as two (Cerqueira and Santos, but giving a less precise date of "after 1940") added by you[5]. DrKay (talk) 08:47, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you're wrong on this matter. The pretender to the Brazilian throne is Luís and the line of succession goes through his family. I don't care about the author you keep mentioning. He's not an expert on Brazilian history, he doesn't present any source to his claims. The others you mentioned in topic above this are "monarchists" with an agenda. You're enforcing a division in Brazil that actually doesn't exist at all. --Lecen (talk) 00:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree with DrKay that we cannot just accept arguments put forth here about the relative validity of the claims or reputations of authors to reach a conclusion that favors one side over the other: that seems inappropriately POV. Because of the widespread acknowledgement of the Petropolis claim it cannot be dismissed as fringe (like the Tasso de Saxe-Coburgo claim). What I think we might do, alternatively, is to acknowledge both claims, but note that the preponderance of cited scholarly comment since the plebiscite or since the death of Dom Pedro Gastao focuses on and continues to updates the Vassouras line of succession. FactStraight (talk) 14:13, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Peter H. Smith isn't a monarchist or even Brazilian. Both he and Vickers are objective third-parties and neither has an agenda. You added two sources yourself that there was a dispute and it is obvious from the discussion below this one that some potential sources (Santos) disagree with others (Silva), so trying to pretend there isn't or wasn't a dispute or that the sources, like Smith, are unreliable or somehow ignorant, simply won't wash. Wikipedia policy is to reflect the written work of established and reputable scholars not the opinions of individual editors. DrKay (talk) 15:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
You keep missing the point or ignoring it. Can you point out a single moment in which the "Petrópolis" branch claimed the throne? Does any of your sources show a manifesto, a speech, a personal letter, anything at all? I go further: does any of your sources have sources themselves proving their assertions? I doubt it. I recall the 1993 plebiscite. VEJA magazine (a kind of Newsweek type), the largest in circulation and most influential, mentions Pedro's renunciation and presents the members of the "Vassouras" branch as the successors. You're pushing something that doesn't exist. --Lecen (talk) 16:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Grupo Globo says "Dom Pedro Gastão de Orleans e Bragança, pretendente direto ao trono do Brasil" [Dom Pedro Gastao de Orleans e Bragança, direct pretender to the throne of Brazil], Colégio Brasileiro de Genealogia says Pedro Gastão "sempre se colocou como pretendente ao trono brasileiro" [always stood as a pretender to the Brazilian throne], O Estado de S. Paulo says "Bisneto de Dom Pedro II reivindicava o trono imperial" [Great-grandson of Dom Pedro II claimed the imperial throne]. There are multiple sources that say Pedro Gastao was a pretender and did make a claim. We cannot ignore them just because you refuse to believe them. DrKay (talk) 17:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

ISBNs[edit]

The presence of an ISBN does not signify that the book is a reliable source. Vanity press books still have an ISBN but they are not reliable sources. All books published before 1964 are without an ISBN but that doesn't mean they are unreliable. The presence or absence of an ISBN is insignificant when deciding whether a source is reliable or not. The book that User:Lavrense has tagged here [6] (without an edit summary) is published by pt:Edições G.R.D.. It's also written by Paulo Napoleon Nogueira da Silva (1934–2016), who had a PhD in constitutional law and was a professor at pt:Centro Universitário Toledo: [7]. DrKay (talk) 07:01, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

"The presence or absence of an ISBN is insignificant when deciding whether a source is reliable or not". Of course it is not important! But were you, not me, who create this nonsense rule as an excuse to remove Santos (1988) source. I don't know what do you have against him or his works, his CV (search in Lattes) is as good as Nogueira da Silva (and I would add that Alexandre dos Santos have a better reputation, as he didn't changed his position three times as the former), and both sources, good or bad, have the same importance and relevance. I think all this is a fake and silly issue, these "picuinhas" should stop, and all those tags against Santos and Silva books should be removed. Lavrense (talk) 20:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I made no such argument. You did so clearly and explicitly. DrKay (talk) 20:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
On 21:01, 23 July 2016‎ edition, you tagged Santos source arguing that "no isbn is given for Santos". You said so as a support your claim that Artpress is not a publisher, which is not true, according ISBN Brazilian Agency. Just search it prefix 7206 in their catalogue. Why are you doing this? Really, I wander where you want to go with all this situation... by the way, you forget to exclude the fake tags for Santos. Lavrense (talk) 20:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I made no such argument. You said "Artpress is a publisher according ISBN Brazilian Agency (prefix 7206)", I replied "no isbn is given for Santos, the tag is unresolved" because you had not given an ISBN for the Artpress book and, as I explained above, whether Artpress has an ISBN or not does not resolve the issue of whether it is a vanity press or a peer-reviewed publisher. The Santos tags are not fake. DrKay (talk) 20:44, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
"the issue of whether it is a vanity press or a peer-reviewed publisher"... If so, put back Silva's tag, as pt:Edições G.R.D. is a well known science fiction publisher (actually, a very appropriate place for Petrópolis claim...). Really, I still wish to know why are you doing this. It is obvious that you are appling double standards on this issue. Santos and Silva have similar works, although different views, so it is enough to remove all tags there. Enough. Maybe some mediation should be necessary, @Lecen: and @FactStraight:, could you please give your points? Lavrense (talk) 21:29, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I think that the problem is that we lack a reliable source which explicitly states that the Petropolis claim has been abandoned since Dom Pedro Gastão's death in 2007 by both 1. his relatives (especially his nephew Dom João) and 2. others who publicly upheld or recognized the Petropolis claim. I am aware, as I think DrKay is, that during the 1993 campaign surrounding the plebiscite on the restoration of the Brazilian monarchy, not only was the Petropolis claim publicly discussed as one of the available options, but the Petropolis branch appeared, at least in English language media, no less known and no less popular than the Vassouras branch -- a fact that Dom Luiz has acknowledged. Several sources acknowledged the rivalry between the two branches, some of which is already mentioned in this and other articles. I agree that the dispute seems now mostly over but we need to find a source which says so. I agree with DrKay that we cannot accept arguments put forth here about the relative validity of the claims or reputations of authors to reach a conclusion that favors one side over the other: that seems dangerously POV. Because of the widespread acknowledgement of the Petropolis claim it cannot be dismissed as fringe like the Tasso de Saxe-Coburgo claim. What I think we might do, alternatively, is to acknowledge both claims, but note that the preponderance of cited scholarly comment since the plebiscite or since the death of Dom Pedro Gastao focuses on and continues to updates the Vassouras line of succession. FactStraight (talk) 13:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
GRD is not a vanity press. Whether or not a publisher includes science fiction as well as non-fiction in its wider catalog is irrelevant when determining whether the non-fiction source is reliable or not. DrKay (talk) 16:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
"we cannot accept arguments put forth here about (...) reputations of authors to reach a conclusion that favors one side over the other: that seems dangerously POV" I agree, (FactStraight). Can we apply the same for a publisher reputation? The issue here is that DrKay tagged Santos source saying "Artpress is a printer, not a publisher". Now, finally, he accepted Artpress is a publisher, although, on his POV, it hasn't the same reputation as the GRD publisher... Good or bad, Artpres and GRD have the same reputation level, it is unclear why to say Artpress is a "vanity press", and why appling double standards on authors, publishers and sources. I think all those Silva and Santos' sources tags shall be removed, what about you @FactStraight and Lecen:? I will accept your verdict. Lavrense (talk) 20:15, 25 July 2016 (UTC)