Template talk:Brazilian princes

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Brazil / History (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template 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.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This template is supported by the History of Brazil task force.

Sons of Princess Leopoldina born in the Empire of Brazil[edit]

The list contains, in my view, a grave omission. And I'm not concerned with members of the dinasty who claim the title of Prince, but with actual Princes, that lived during the era when the Empire of Brazil existed. The children of Princess Leopoldina of Brazil born in Brazil, known in Portuguese by the names Pedro Augusto (Prince Peter of Saxe-Coburg-Kohary), Augusto Leopoldo (Prince August Leopold of Saxe-Coburg-Kohary) and José (no wikipedia article in English; there is an article in the Portuguese language wikipedia), members of the Saxe-Coburg-Braganza branch of the Imperial Family (Saxe-Coburgo e Bragança, in Portuguese), were all Brazilian Princes, and were thus deemed, taken and accepted during the imperial period. Why is it, then, that those Princes of the Empire of Brazil, born in Brazil of Princess Leopoldina's marriage to Prince Ludwig August of Saxe-Coburg-Kohary, are not included in the list of Brazilian Princes? This should be corrected. (talk) 19:14, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Post-republic Princes[edit]

Hello. I would like to know why other templates have princes, archdukes, infants, or whatever the royal titles of princes born after the proclamation of the republic in their respective countries and why it has not, and how, if possible, adds them. I read in the history of editions where they said "do not add titles in pretension" which left me confused because other templates of long-deceased royalties still count on the princes of today. I think it would be of greater public use if this were standardized for all royal templates so that the public would have knowledge of the princes of their respective dynastic houses of their countries. Arthur Brum (talk) 13:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Explained at Template talk:Brazilian princesses#Include more princesses. DrKay (talk) 16:59, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I must insist. Why one does not consider the other princes born after the fall of the monarchy with the appropriate titles of Brazilian royalty, but consider those of princes of the Serbia, Infantes of Portugal, Archdukes of Austria, Grand Dukes of Russia, Princes of Prussia, etc, even being born after the fall of the monarchy in their respective countries. This de-characterizes the pattern of this type of template and it seems to me to be a person-imposed view. If the justification is that Brazil does not officially recognize royal titles, Austria does not either - specifically prohibits them, Russia does not, nor does Portugal, etc. If the justification is that because they were the descendants of a woman, Isabel, Princess Imperial of Brazil, she was presumptive heiress of Emperor Pedro II of Brazil and recognized as such; And the constitution of the late empire does not prevent the succession of royal titles through a woman, despite the preference for male birthright. Moreover, all deposed royalties continue to use their titles of law, whether or not they are recognized by the countries that claim. You can find this by researching right here about any suitor or prince of some former monarchy. It's also said that in the templates they should only present "real princes". But now, if Brazilian princes are not real because they born after the end of the monarchy, what makes Austrians, Portuguese, Russians, Italians, Serbs, Bulgarians or Romanians born after the monarchy real, so that only the Brazilian princes template will not be introduced to the other princes? I hope we can debate this and reach a consensus, not that the vision of anyone is imposed.

Arthur Brum (talk) 16:00, 01 June 2017 (UTC)