Talk:Miguel, Crown Prince of Portugal

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Deletion without discussion[edit]

This page has been delated by User:Fastily tonight without any discussions in secret under the cover of night by reason of VANDALISM. His action was VANDALISM. If you do not like my page, first PLEASE discuss his existence before delating. This is the right action.Borgatya (talk) 15:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

  • All the article is misinformation and you, Borgatya, even if you do not want to be one, here you are objectively a vandal, and more: you are forcing me to waste my time. Jorge alo (talk) 15:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

All who read this discussion, see my contributions and decide if I were a vandal. If you consider me as a vandal, you see in yourself, and pay attention to the many many many many and many stubs and correct and expand them and please leave my page alone.Borgatya (talk) 15:55, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The mere existence of this figure was never proven and there are no reliable sources that sustain its theory. Some classify it as "lunatic", and I assume this has to do with political claims regarding throne sucession between Portugal and Spain. Although not scientifcally impossible, but according to it, the queen would have been preagnant at the age of 10. Polyethylen (talk) 17:05, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Borgatya, "your page" isn´t a stub, is absolutely misinformation. Pedro López de Ayala was a good spanish historian. He wrote that there was no sun or daughter of Juan I and Beatrice. He lived on their age and he knew them. You have the notice on his «Henry III». You will never find a source such reliable to prove that he was wrong. Jorge alo (talk) 17:32, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Jorge, your state is ONE state, ONE source, there are other sources, see FMG/Castile & Leon Kings Genealogy and Europäische Stammtafeln.Borgatya (talk) 18:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

  • Your sources are not reliable. They make mere affirmations, without sources. As, for example, António Caetano de Sousa did, in his Genealogical Story of the Portuguese Royal House, tome I (in the end of the tome). The problem is that there are no mention of this Infante till, at least, the XVI century, neither on portuguese or castilian authors. So, you are proclaiming as existant someone that never was proved his existence. And you are deleting a warning that you can't delete. Salutations, Jorge alo (talk) 18:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

You want to falcificate the history because you want to eliminate my sources. Beatriz was queen regnant of Portugal and she gave birth to a son.Borgatya (talk) 18:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of whether he existed or not, this is not a blatant hoax. Per WP:HOAX, it may not be deleted except with a discussion. Nyttend (talk) 19:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Nyttend.Borgatya (talk) 19:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Personally, I was taught to distrust contemporary sources (not to disbelieve them, but not to trust), as many of them had hidden agendas. Caesar, Bede, Hollinshed, right up to the Soviet and Nazi regimes' contemporary historians, there have been many axes on many grindstones. I feel a balanced article giving both points of view (and sources) would be the best from Wikipedia's angle. We are not here to decide truth - we record coverage. If there is coverage that says Miguel existed (albeit briefly and without noticeable affect on history(, and it is not a source like the Hitler Diaries, it has a place here along with the source that denies existence. I can hope, but may I see a bit of co-operation in achieving this goal? Peridon (talk) 20:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
  • There are no sources for the existance of such individual. Olivera Serrano, the last to wrote on the subject, searched and found nothing. He says on is book (refered on the article Beatrice of Portugal) that this was problably a confusion with the birth of Miguel da Paz, son of King Manuel I de Portugal. I think Wikipedia is not for "legitimate" confusions. Also the affirmation that Beatrice was Queen Regnant of Portugal and others are very interessant to discover who is trying to falsify History. How was she such thing if the people, because of her husband, didn't accepted her? Salutations. Jorge alo (talk) 20:45, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Wait a second. So, nobody is saying this is a "hoax" or "vandalism" in the sense of "something just made up for Wikipedia", right? You all agree there is in fact some debate out there, and there are relevant reliable sources that discuss this issue (if only to debunk it)? In that case, there might in fact be a case for an article on how this meme came about. Would this be notable as an issue (if not as a real person?) Fut.Perf. 22:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Sources etc[edit]

Could you please provide reliable sources for this article? If there is none provided in a reasonable time, I am considering taking this to Articles for deletion. I had a quick look for sources, and couldn't find anything at reliable sources - and the one provided in the article I am not able to ascertain the reliability of. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 22:46, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

My sources[edit]

My sources that follow says:

  • Europäische Stammtafeln (German genealogy of the European houses) are masterpeace in their category:

"Miguel Erb-Infant von Portugal Infant von Kastilien *1384 †1385. (In English: Miguel hereditary prince of Portugal and infante of Castile *1384 †1385)

  • Die Könige von Kastilien und León IV, 1369–1504 a.d.H. Trastamara des Stammes Burgund-Ivrea, In: Detlev Schwennicke (Hrsg.): Europäische Stammtafeln: Stammtafeln zur Geschichte der Europäischen Staaten, Neue Folge, Band II, Die außerdeutschen Staaten, Die regierenden Häuser der übrigen Staaten Europas, Tafel 65, Verlag von J. A. Stargardt, Marburg/Berlin, 1984.
  • Foundation for medieval genealogy:

"Infante don MIGUEL de Castilla y León (1384-1385). He was considered Crown Prince of Portugal by his father, who claimed the Portuguese throne by right of his second wife." FMG/Castile & Leon Kings Genealogy

One state, one denial, serious admin cannot delete an article because of bits of halfinformation without any discussions in secret under the cover of night by reason of VANDALISM. He who is right, IS NOT AFRAID of the opinion of the other party. Borgatya (talk) 22:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The last academic to write on Beatriz was the spanish Olivera Serrano, on this XXI century, He named is book «Beatriz de Portugal: la pugna dinástica Avis - Trastámara. He speaks of Miguel as an equivocation of genealogists of the XVII and XVIII centuries. He refer three times the question, pages 43, 354 and 397.
His words on page 42 are: «Beatrice had no childs, in spite of the equivoqued affirmations of some genealogists of the XVII and XVIII centuries, that attribute her one called Miguel».
Here it is in spanish: «Beatriz no tuvo hijos, pese a las equivocadas afirmaciones de algunos genealogistas de los siglos XVII e XVIII, que le atribuyen uno llamado Miguel».
Serrano made research and haven't found nothing, unless the «equivocations of genealogists of the XVII and XVIII centuries». He thinks they have made confusion with Miguel da Paz, son of King Manuel I de Portugal. And it's true there's nothing till de XVI century on the historians of Portugal and Castile, because I have made my own research.
So, I think that the German contemporary source of Borgatya followed the error of some of the genealogists referred by Serrano. And that source wasn't the only one. For example, a portuguese historian referred on the portuguese article of Beatrice did the same error. Well, Borgatya wants to make an article thats affirm as true an error. And is for this I'm opposed.
Another question, in the article Beatrice of Portugal, is «the claim» in 1383. It is Juan I himself, on his testament, that says there were two claims: his own and the claim of Beatriz. You want to delete Juan I himself? And both the Chronicles of Ayala and Fernão Lopes explain very well that Juan I had is own claim.
So, if Borgatya persists, in spite of this explanation, on the "undo" in Beatrice, and in reediting an article about someone that never existed, I have to put the problem to the administrators.
Salutations, Jorge alo (talk) 23:17, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

If I read Jorge's words well it still remains: one statement one denial, so you (judges), admins are prudent, you cannot rely a delation on one denial.Borgatya (talk) 23:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

No it is not one denial: The denials are from all the chronists till de XVI century. And more, Ayala wrote «there were no childs». So, when you say I only give one state you are reading me wrong, at least. And one thing is an kind of general genealogical almanac and other thing is a research of a spanish academic in is own land. More, everybody knows that, evem in our days, genealogical works are plenty of errors. Jorge alo (talk) 23:39, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The Portuguese want to eliminate Beatriz reign, and they do not want to consider her as queen regnant of Portugal. So to this viewpoint it is not surprise that Beatriz's son is considered as phantom. Jorge's sorces do not eliminate my sources because Europäischen Stammtafeln are serious genealogy work. And the German precision is famous. So Jorge's sources can be handled with some debts and criticism. Suppose, Jorge is right (provided but not allowed), I ask: why was Jorge afraid about the discussion if the truth is on his side. If I know, I am right, I am not afraid to discuss and defend my truth. The main evidence that he is not right that he is afraid of discussion and wanted to delete it without discussing it. And Phantomsteve should have got this article discussed on the pages above earlier instead of infamous deletion.Borgatya (talk) 00:14, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Give us the sources that the «German precision» used. Are they genealogists of the XVII or XVIII century? You are negating all the historians til the XVII century, amid them Ayala,Fernão Lopes, Froissart, etc., etc. For you the History is what? And «the portuguese want to eliminate Beatriz reign»!? What is this? If the Portuguese, in that time, could not considerer her their queen because of the pretensions of her husband, it's you that is going to oblige the actual Portuguese to recognize her as one of their past queen? Jorge alo (talk) 00:47, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

And If Beatriz's son was confused then how his birth date was created. It is weird and incredible that the fakers chose the year 1384 when Beatriz was only twelve (sic)!!!! She and John were married until 1390, so Beatriz got a widow when she was 18 so it would be more logic that Beatriz might give birth to her phantom son in an later time, if his existence is fictional. It is not impossible that a woman may bear a child at the age of twelve but the fakers can have chosen a more credible year. And why did the little prince die in 1385 at the age of 1 because Miguel da Paz, Prince of Portugal was two years old when he died. If there is only confusion, the essential elements of data should be equal: birth: 1398 instead of 1498 and 1400 instead of 1500. If one sees these dates, one observes that these dates are similar to Peter of Aragon (heir of Sicily), so Jorge says: Prince Peter was also phantom?:))) because this follows of his arguments!! If anyone says, it is nonsense, he is right. But it is not nonsense because some users similar to Jorge wanted to delete the article Peter of Aragon but it was unsuccessful action, too and I managed to defend against the attackers.:))Borgatya (talk) 01:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

This: «The main evidence that he is not right that he is afraid of discussion and wanted to delete it without discussing it», it's a Falacy, and all your paragraph above are falacies. I never said here that she couldn't have a son with eleven years (and not twelve), but the problem is where it is written that was borned a child named Miguel in 1384, dead in 1385, in a Cronicle? in a church document? in the archives of Castile? Where? Yes, I already know it is written with «German precision», but also is written by António Caetano de Sousa and other genealogists since the XVII century, like you wrote the same affirmation here, in Wikipedia. The problem is there are any sources to that affirmation. If you discover one, my congratulations. Salut, Jorge alo (talk) 01:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I think, you misunderstood and misinterpreted my words. Your sources at least claim that they do not know about her son but my sources above exactly claims that she gave birth to a son. Even If his existence is disputed, the deletion is wrong solution, I do not understand your ruthlessness. But it's not me who you must convince about your truth.Borgatya (talk) 01:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The medieval sources dont´t «at least claim that they do not know about her son», the sources speak that she had no sons or don't refer any sons of that marriage. The contemporary source Olivera Serrano, on a book all about Beatrice's question, so, a specialized work, says she had no sons and that this affirmation: «she had a son named Miguel» was a equivocation of genealogists of the XVII and XVIII centuries. He has access to the archives of Castile and Aragon and couldn'f find nothing. But you are a believer on «German precision» and on the «Queen Regnant Beatrice». what can we do more? You are a believer that want to give us his truth and we are rude...The problem here is not a matter of truth, yours or mine, it's a problem of sources. Salut, Jorge alo (talk) 02:33, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The article should at least balance both points of view. Please insert the Serrano material and adjust the text in the article to present the two views as alternatives. Currently, it only presents one side, which is clearly bias. DrKiernan (talk) 08:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I have no point of view about the subject, if there was a child and was named Miguel, very well, that will be a subject, but I defend (this, yes, is a point of view) Wikipedia sources politic must put clear one thing: a called second or third source only is a real second or third source if she has one or more primary sources studied. If she has not, she isn´t a source at all, it´s mere affirmations. António Caetano de Sousa, a portuguese genealogist of the XVIII century, wrote that affirmation (HGCRP, I, page 440), and gives, near, as source, Duarte Nunes de Leão. We can read not only the pages appointed by António Caetano but all the historical works of Duarte Nunes de Leão and we dont´t find nothing. We don't find any reference to such Infante in any chronist even till, at least, Juan de Mariana, and he died in 1624. There is no primary document atesting the birth of such individual, all we have is mere affirmations, as Serrano said, of genealogists of the XVII an XVIII. Probably, the german publication referred by Borgatya collected that notice in some of these "sources" (that aren't sources), and so the German publication isn't, too, a source. But we have, by hasard, a primary source that says there were no childrens of Juan I after is first marriage: it's Ayala, on «Henry the third», page 500, Madrid edition, 1780. A spanish academics, in this XXI century, make a specialized work about Beatrice, defending his own opinions, and atest that there are no primary documents about Miguel. If there are no primary documents, and what we have is only mere affirmations of writers three centuries forward, how can we write anything about such " biographical subject"?
My response is: in the particular case here on discussion, the Miguel hipotetic existence, we do not have nothing atesting it, and we can´t write an article giving life to a XVII and XVIII genealogist's phantom; as subject, we only have here an epistemological question to present, and not a biography to do, and so this biographycal article can't exist, as is written in the Wikipedia instructions, «"If a topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it"», but we can put the epistemological question on Beatrice or Juan I pages, as we did in wikipedia on portuguese. And in the general question, can we consider as source someone that only make mere affirmations about the historic past without any primary source or element, my answer is, of course, no. Even when someone presents a thesis on history, he gives the elements where his thesis is founded, and I repeat, in this particular case there is nothing, there are no primary sources and, for this reason, also there are no second or third sources.
As this is a epistemological problem, I ask to invite to this discussion all the historians working on english Wikipedia, and not only those (if they exist) specialized on medieval portuguese history. I think it wil be interessant and useful for Wikipedia. Jorge alo (talk) 15:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

A point that seems to have been missed or bypassed is that Wikipedia doesn't only have articles about things that are true. We have articles on the Cottingley Fairies (an admitted hoax), and dubious subjects like the Loch Ness Monster and Bigfoot, foe example. If the existence of this alleged child is disputed, then there is coverage. It is coverage that Wikipedia depends on for establishing notability. That the two of you can argue so intensely about it tells me that there should be an article - with both sides of the coin showing. Something fleshed out on the skeleton of 'Miguel was alleged to be a son of Beatrice and John born in xxxx and died in xxxx+1. There are no mentions of this child in Sources A, B, C, D, which otherwise give details of Beatrice and John, but Sources E, F, G attest to Miguel's existence.' I know it is harder to provide evidence for a lack of something, and I don't know how detailed the surviving records of the Court of Castile are (if any...). Only in cases of vandalism where there are no sources or fake or bogus sources do we attempt to judge the truth of a particular situation. We report on the early Christian Church's disputes over the spelling of words without taking sides as to who was correct. We record the dispute. Neutrally. Peridon (talk) 16:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

First of all, my welcome to the discussion. Second, I'm going to repeat myself: there's no reliable source atesting the existence of the individual, and in the only primary source existent, Ayala chronicles, is written that such individual never existed. This «confusion», on Serrano's words, can be noticed in Wikipedia as a epistemological matter, not as a biography. Borgatya don't have nothing more than affirmations on German publications and a site of internet. Those affirmations don't atest any existence. What could atest his existence where some primary sources that should be indicated, for example, as X chronicle, Y book of a church, W registration on the archives of N. By the way, Serrano says on the begining of his book that the Castilian archive is very well documentated about these years. Conclusion: Borgatya sources aren't any source to atest the existence of the individual, and a biography of "someone" whose existence is not atested isn't a biography, it's a fraud. And even the "affirmative sources" existents fall in contradiction, for example, António Caetano de Sousa wrote that this Infante Miguel died in 1385 with «few years of life», so, more than one year. There are many other questions, but I'm going to refer only one, for example: Juan I on his testament (date: june 1385) speaks about, of his point of view, the sucession on the throne of Portugal. He don't refer any children of him and Beatrice, dead or alive, when he says that, after is deadh, maybe the kingdom was of his son Henry, maybe of Beatrice. All the matter of this pretense byiography is a fraud "atested" by affirmations not founded in publications or in sites, and I even referred other "sources", as António Caetano de Sousa, that do the same: mere affirmations. If someone gives a reliable source to the matter, founded, very well, but, y repeat, Borgatya's sources more those all genealogists of the XVII and XVIII centuries that wrote mere affirmations are not reliable sources to the matter: they don't atest the existence of the individual. Jorge alo (talk) 19:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
OK. Why have these people gone to so much trouble to create an infant death that had no affect on anything (except perhaps the mother's state of mind)? Peridon (talk) 21:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
BTW I'm not joining the discussion - I've been in it for a bit... Peridon (talk) 21:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
António Caetano de Sousa wrote 24 tomes only on his work Genealogical History of the Portuguese Royal House, and, in this particular work, he wrote to page lines about the matter we are discuting. As he don't gives any document, he must have copied this two lines of one of his sources. When there were documents António Caetano always noticed them. Jorge alo (talk) 22:37, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Look, it's obvious that Miguel was imaginary as his mother was only 10 years old at his supposed birth. The question is over how to reconcile the obvious falsehood against the sources that claim he did exist. The page isn't going to be deleted. The best we can hope for is to add the fact that Miguel was a later fiction. DrKiernan (talk) 09:56, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Other references[edit]

The two references in the article Beatrice of Portugal (the mother of this prince, if he existed) should be reviewed to see what information they offer. Eastmain (talkcontribs) 08:54, 6 December 2011 (UTC)


This article, Beatriz's article and John's article are all very short. The material from here can be merged into one of the other two. DrKiernan (talk) 09:43, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I, the "infamous" Jorge alo, wrote on Wikipedia on portuguese, more than a year ago, this: «Segundo os cronistas medievais, entre os quais se destacam Pero Lopez de Ayala e Fernão Lopes, não houve qualquer filho deste casamento. Muito tempo depois, alguns historiógrafos como o português Salvador Dias Arnaut[1], talvez baseados numa passagem de António Caetano de Sousa, na sua «História Genealógica da Casa Real Portugueza», vieram afirmar que D. Beatriz e João I de Castela haviam tido um filho, Miguel, falecido em 1385. Lopez de Ayala, que conviveu com João I de Castela e Beatriz, é quanto a isto taxativo: além de Henrique III e do «Infante Dom Fernando...el Rei Dom João não houve outros filhos legítimos nem em outra maneira em nenhum tempo, salvo uma Infanta de que morreu a Rainha Dona Leonor sua mulher, depois de parida, segundo antes contámos»[2]. Os cronistas medievais portugueses e castelhanos são fontes primárias para o estudo histórico desta época. Para dizer que Fernão Lopes, cronista de reconhecida probidade, omitiu a existência deste infante, e que Lopez Ayala, outro excelente cronista, foi mentiroso, necessárias eram outras fontes primárias que os contrariassem, todavia tais testemunhos nunca são indicados pelos que afirmam ter existido tal Infante Miguel.»
So, we gave ten lines to the matter (5 more times what António Caetano de Sousa did (I'm joking))and two portuguese sources, one of the XVIII and the other of the XX century affirming his "existence".
What DrKiernan proposed by last is perfectly acceptable on the section Ancestry and descendency of John I of Castile. Not on Beatrice, because, till better prove (in the day of the never), she had no descendency. But attention, all the affirmations their of the «believers» of "Infante Miguel" and "Queen Beatrice" (I confess that, here, in Wikipedia, they are a front!) must be documented. We are dealing not with something of our own but with the History of the Portuguese people, and, as I have been doing for more than a year, with lots ands lots of patient, I demand respect for this particular History.
The only thing I don't accept is to conserve a biographical article of a fraud, giving it credibility. That is to participate on the fraud. And this is the reason why I nominate the article, and I think I did well, to fast delete. During the time we were here discuting, some poor diables "learned" about Miguel. I do not agree dispute material should be edited during discussions (attention, I have nothing against discussion, even if my free time in this moment is none), and I sugest a rule: obvious misinformation material in the "freeze" during the discussion. Salut to you all, specially to Borgatya, that give me a little moment of distraction, in times where I was very much occupied in writing History without hoaxes, and my excuses because of my awful english, Jorge alo (talk) 15:07, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
Just merge it already. And please strenghten the text to make clearer that it's only a confusion, and that she didn't really have any children. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
And please add the Olivera reference to the Portuguese article, thank you. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:41, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
Even if this person was real (which is clearly not the case), he still has not received the kind of in-depth coverage that provides the notability required for a Wikipedia page. All of this should be nothing but a footnote on another page. Agricolae (talk) 17:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Support This article is nonsense. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 10:14, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd forgotten about this. As the merger is clearly supported, I'll do it. DrKiernan (talk) 12:51, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for performing the merger. Someone wrote a draft in other section, but it's is full of original research of documents. It's more appropriate for an article in a history journal than for wikipedia, which only makes summaries of detailed works. The author should try to get it published somewhere. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)
Why merge it to his father's article? It seems for fitting if it was merged into his mother's article because John I of Castile is known for other things besides that period of Portuguese history.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 03:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that's fine by me. DrKiernan (talk) 09:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)
I redirected to the mother's article instead. The information to both the father's and the mother's articles. If Miguel doesn't need to be mentioned in the father's article then please remove it from there. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Isn't a hoax, they are two, an old and a new one[edit]

Now it seems you began to see the light, let's finish with this. The old hoax: someone, as Serrano by chance found, made confusion between Miguel da Paz and a imaginary son of a eleven years girl and a sic man, and, after that, António Caetano followed him without knowing what he was doing, because António Caetano couldn't make such confusion: he knew very well Miguel da Paz. I think the most problable is a castilian equivocation, maybe a intentional fraud, maybe not, but, if she was intentional, she can also be portuguese.
Let's finally arrive to the matter: the new hoax.
who is doing it? Amazing! «The Foundation for Medieval Genealogy», you coppied from the Internet, and you that are writing and correcting this article. I´m going to take perhaps an hour to write the explanation and then you can judge it simply asking the Fundation. Jorge alo (talk) 14:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I - The first half of the hoax: «4.Infante don MIGUEL de Castilla y León (1384-1385). He was considered Crown Prince of Portugal by his father, who claimed the Portuguese throne by right of his second wife», says the respectable Foudation.
It's the only source collected by you that says such a thing. The German source no, with her «German precision», she speaks only of «Infant of Portugal and Infant of Castile» (by hasard the real title of Miguel da Paz), and not of a Crown heir.
I A) - But, if there are no documents about "Miguel", how can the respectable Foundation write such a thing without fear of being attacked? Simple, all we, the common mortals, thought "the thing" after: Juan I recognized Miguel as heir after his birth. It's the common sense that tell us this. But no, the respectable Foundation don't meant, with her affirmation, what the common sense tell us: she couldn't say such thing because there are no documents attesting it. So, what really means the affirmation of the Foundation? This: He was considered Crown Prince of Portugal by his father...before his birth, when he signed the Treaty of Salvaterra. It's the only logical explanation I can found to the affirmation, believing that the Foundation is a respectable one, as she seems to be. Where is the hoax? in «He», because, as we already see, he didn't, till better prove, existed.
II - The second part of the hoax: your article, spreading the idea on the world that we was a "Crown Prince of Portugal" recognized by his father after his birth, even if the testament of Juan I says that he didn't recognized his "mother", Beatrice, as the owner of Portugal. Maybe se was, maybe not, is what he says, and we can also read that he is convinced that the throne belongs to him and, by consequense, to his son Henry.
II A) - Obviously, nothing show me that you havn't acted with good faith (or the Foundation), but it's also obvious that you have any source to create and style a new Crown Prince for Portugal. You don't have any source to say that "his father" have in fact recognized him. As I said, you can ask the Foundation about the really meaning of her affirmation.
Note: I know many sources, but it's the first time I see this two particular affirmations: I- «He was considered by his father, etc» (Foundation), and II- the idea of after is birth, that´s yours. And you even purely invented a little more, because it's false the following affirmation made by you: «Later histories claimed he was recognised as heir to his mother's kingdom of Portugal by his father». No source that I know or that you gave "noticed" this, and I think, in this particular, someone here made it with the intentional purpose of denying a real source: Juan I's testament. But I'm going to take "the thing" only as an exorbitance of passion. Salut, Jorge alo (talk) 16:18, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
  • Notice: E-mail to medlands already sent, with this text: On Castile & Leon, Counts & Kings, you refer: «4. Infante don MIGUEL de Castilla y León (1384-1385). He was considered Crown Prince of Portugal by his father, who claimed the Portuguese throne by right of his second wife».

What we must understand by «He was considered Crown Prince of Portugal by his father», that we was considered before is birth, when Juan I signed the Treaty of Salvaterra, or after is birth, and, in this case, what are the sources. Olivera Serrano, on his book «Beatriz de Portugal: la pugna dinástica Avis - Trastámara, defends, pages 42, 354 and 397, that such Infante Miguel never existed and it´s a equivocation of spanish and portuguese genealogists of the XVII and XVIII centuries; that is a confusion with the Infante Miguel da Paz, son of the portuguese king Manuel I. Also Lopez Ayala, t. II, Chronicles, Edition Madrid of 1780, page 500, many time before, wrote that Juan I had no other childrens after is first marriage, nor of Beatrice nor of other women. Jorge alo (talk) 19:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

«Exceptional claims require exceptional sources»[edit]

«Policy shortcut: WP:REDFLAG See also: Wikipedia:Fringe theories

Any exceptional claim requires high-quality sources.[7] Red flags that should prompt extra caution include:

claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant comunity, or that would significantly alter mainstream assumptions, especially in....history...this is especcially true when proponents say there is a conspiracy to silence them.»

  • Your half-based theories on tertiary sources contradict the mainstream point of view for the particular historic episode involving your "Crown Prince": Juan I of Castile claimed the portuguese «by the rigt of his wife», so, to be king jure uxoris, and not because «of the rights of his wife», and also not because of the rights of the never existent "Crown Prince Miguel". If he had existed and if his father had recognised him, he would be in fact a Crown Prince of Portugal and more, he hould reigned at the age of 14 years. Not because he was «considered by his father», but because of the Treaty of Salvaterra, swore in Cortes: the two clauses for the succession would be fullfiled. "He" never had to be «recognised has heir of his mother by his father» because "he" would be king at the age of 14 years.
  • Your theories are an essay of complete alteration of the history of the late XIV century not only of Portugal but also of Castile, as I said, based on tertiary sources, and your british "source", challenged, till the moment haven't answered.
  • But, anyway, this is very, very much interessant, by all the reasons, so let's wait a bit more. And your tertiary source with «German precision» will be also challenged. She wasn't yet because I don't write German, but don't worry, I has someone to write.
  • And also, anyway, you even don't have a tertiary source to your title of the article. Your german tertiary source called him Infante of Portugal and Infante of Castile, if the "development" of «Infante of Portugal» to «heir prince» made by Borgatya was true, then Borgatya would be obliged to do the same with «infante of Castile»: hew was the "heir of Castile"...ridiculous! Your british tertiary source called him «Infante of Castile and Leon and don't called him "Crown Prince of Portugal", what the source says is that his father «considered him, etc. You and I we know that, if what you say was true, "he" would be a really Crown Prince of Portugal, but this is inedit research, till better prove, because by the moment is affirmed by me, and, anyway, the mainstream question rest insolved: it's necessary a primary source, any medieval document of church, archives, chronicles, etc., to prove that "he" had existed, and that "he" is not a «if». Yo know, in my country we say: «if grandmother had wheels she hould be a truck». Salutations, Jorge alo (talk) 15:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
I agree about the title. I don't think "Crown Prince of Portugal" is justified. DrKiernan (talk) 15:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I continue to say that's the question is epistemological, not biographical. In Wikipedia/po we haven't made an article about because there isn't to much thing to say. As today I haven't time, tomorrow I'm going to give you the translation of the two portuguese sources we have om Wikipedia/po, and also the portuguese text, so you can confront. As you are going to see, there's almost any biographical material, only the year of the supposed death. In all the most recent academic sources (Mattoso, Saraiva, Borges Coelho, etc.) "this Infante", as till de XVII century on all the sources, never existed, and to can say even «if he had existed» are needed sources of equal degree. Jorge alo (talk) 16:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
  • finally, for today, find a historiographic work as source for the following affirmation or delete it: ««Later histories claimed he was recognised as heir to his mother's kingdom of Portugal by his father». Salutations, or, as we say in Portugal, um abraço, Jorge alo (talk) 17:36, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


I- The two portuguese sources that have affirmed something about "him":

  • António Caetano de Sousa (XVIII century), História Genealógica da Casa Real Portuguesa, Lisbon, 1735, tomo I, page 440: «deste matrimónio nasceu (paragraph) II - O Infante D. Miguel, que faleceu no ano de 1385 contando poucos de vida, acabando nele toda a posteridade do matrimónio da Rainha D. Leonor Telles, que parece não permitiu Deus conservá-la pelos caminhos, com que conseguiu a Coroa.»

Translation: «born of this marriage (paragraph) II - The Prince Michael, who died in the year 1385 counting a few of life, ending on him all the posterity of the marriage of Queen Leonor Telles, that seems not permitted God to keep it on the roads, with which she took the Crown.»

  • Professor Salvador Dias Arnaut (XX century), article «Beatriz (1373-after 1409)» on Dicionário de História de Portugal, Iniciativas Editoriais, Lisbon, 1963, Volume I, page 319: «Finado este em 1390, a causa de D. Beatriz ficou praticamente perdida, até porque um filho que haviam tido, de nome Miguel, morrera em 1385.»

Translation: «Deceased this one (Juan I of Castile) in 1390, the cause of D. Beatriz was practically lost, even because a son they had had, named Michael, died in 1385.» Jorge alo (talk) 14:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

II- Another hoax (attention, I'm not accusing neither of you of nothing): «and her claim to the throne of Portugal in December 1383 was contested by John of Avis, half-brother of her father, King Ferdinand I of Portugal». No one contested openly that she could be the titular or nominal Queen in the terms of the Treaty of Salvaterra, not even the members of the Castro family and their vassals and friends. The most part of the nobles, and all the bourgeoisie, were ready to take her as their Queen. All the problem begun when Juan I of Castile acclaimed himself in Toledo «King of Castile and Leon and Portugal», assembling the arms of the two kingdoms on his banner (meaning: the arms and all the kingdom of Portugal are mine). Vasco Martins de Melo reacted immediately saying he couldn't take the banner because he would fall in «bad case» (meaning: crime equiparated to kill his landlord or give without permission an fortress under his command). This is in the Chronicles of Ayala and Fernão Lopes, maybe the two first credible chronists of all the medieval Europe. Who wanted her heritage was her husband, via jure uxoris, what was forbbiden by the Treaty without the consent of the Portuguese Cortes (parliament). We have also the text of the Treaty (in old castilian), here [1], page 296. Jorge alo (talk) 15:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

III - My proposition of the article's text:

The first known reference to this hypothetical Infante Dom Miguel of Castile and Leon [1], the son of the second marriage of King John I of Castile, with the Infanta Beatriz of Portugal, heiress to the throne of Portugal under the Treaty of Salvaterra, is made by Pedro Salazar de Mendoza in 1618 [2], which says, "and of this marriage was born the Infante Dom Miguel, who died in childhood." Rodrigo Mendez Silva, in 1656 [3], has indicated something more, the year of his alleged death: "died on young age in the year 1385." Later, in 1735 [4], Antonio Caetano de Sousa wrote that at the time of his hypothetical death he counted a few years of life. Finally, in 1963, aware of the dates and seeing that the marriage of John and Beatrice had been in May 1383, Salvador Days Arnaut [5] removed the contribution of the "short life" proposed by António Caetano, and returned to what Silva Mendez had stated: This Prince died in 1385.

It has never been presented by these authors who reported the existence of such infant any primary source that prove it: document file, book Church or even Chronicles. Since Pedro Lopez de Ayala and Fernão Lopes to Duarte Nunes de Leão, and even to the first historical textbooks such those of Esteban Garibay y Zamalloa and of Juan de Mariana, we don't find the slightest trace of this individual. In fact, the only primary source that we can use on this issue, the Chronicle of Henry III [6] Lopez de Ayala, tells us that he never existed.

Nowadays, Olivera Serrano, in his monograph "Beatrice of Portugal, the dynastic fight Avis-Trastámara" [7] also states that Prince Michael would never have existed, and that would be the product of a confusion of genealogists from the XVII and XVIII centuries with Miguel da Paz.

Also in the most recent general histories of Portugal, those of Saraiva, Mattoso or Borges Coelho (edited two volumes), such Infante does not exist. He just had and has his existence on the now almost forgotten pages of those passed authors, and on current publications of general genealogy or similar genealogic sites [8] on Internet.

However, there is a marked difference between the laconic statements of the old authors and the statements wich are currently produced. Those authors limited merely to say that Michael was born, with no indication of the respective year, and that died at an early age in 1385. But now, for example, a German publication our contemporary [9], considering his undoubted existence, give him a year of birth, and the titles of Crown Prince of Portugal and Infante of Castile [10], and on the Internet, again merely as example, the page «Euweb / Ivrea / Genealogy Castile Kings' do almost the same affirmations [11].

Of course, if he had been born in the year 1384, and was recognized by John I of Castile as heir to the Portuguese Crown, even following the historiographical current that advocates that his supposed mother, D. Beatrice, was titular Queen of Portugal from 22 October to mid December 1383, when she would have been deposed [12], one could easily speculate that, by the Treaty of Salvaterra, he would be heir of the Crown of Portugal and, passed the age of 14 years, King of Portugal [13]. His birth would had caused, at the time, a real politic earthquake in the struggle then waged between Castile and Portugal. However, the first adversity that such theories find, theories that would turn upside down the history of Portugal and the history of Castile of the late fourteenth century, is that the existence of such Infante Miguel was never proved.

It's necessary to correct my bad english and, of course, to do the notes (references, already made on WP-po). So, both these things are missing here. Jorge alo (talk) 18:31, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

notice from the Foundation and new proposition[edit]

  • The Foundation answered but, as they are continuing for the moment their research, I'm not authorized to tell you, yet, their prelimminary conclusions. My excuses, but I think very soon they will authorized me to edit here their finals conclusions.
  • I alter my agreement to the proposition of merge. I propose, in turn, to includ the article on the Category:Pseudohistory, with change of title, elimination of the boards, etc. There's already some "legitimate" material on the article in WP-po (even if, formally, is being discuted its elimination (or not). Abraço, Jorge alo (talk) 02:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
The first question is: Is this called "pseudohistory" in any source? The Olivera source calls it a mistake.
The second question is: Does it fit the description of pseudohistory? It doesn't seem to. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the Foundation for Medieval Genealogy takes no position on such issues. Rather, they have chosen to host on their web site the Medieval Lands project, which is the work of a sole compiler, Charles Cawley. All conclusions reached there are those of this individual and not of the Foundation. (talk) 21:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

«Pseudohistory can be compared with pseudoscience in that they both consist of a methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be historic, but which does not adhere to an appropriate historic methodology, and lacks supporting evidence or plausibility». The first work known where appears a laconic reference to a Miguel, son of Beatrice and Juan I of Castile, is from 1618, impressed on Toledo. You have all the references on the Wikipedia-po article. Jorge alo (talk) 23:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)