Talk:Luiz of Orléans-Braganza

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Before creating this article, I requested assistance in the talk page of the official policy project page. The name of the article was decided there after much discussion. What follows is a reproduction of that discussion. Please do not edit it, since this is a preserved archive. Redux 2 July 2005 20:50 (UTC)

Discussion titled: "A Little Help"

Hi. I'm about to start a new article and I'd like to get the title right, to avoid or at least minimize controversies about how the article should be named (in fact, I intend to copy and paste this discussion onto the future article's talk page, to make it known there). First, it will be about the present legitimist pretender to the Brazilian throne. His name is Luiz de Orléans e Bragança and he is usually referred to as "Prince Dom Luiz de Orléans e Bragança" (the word "Dom" is not really part of his name, it's a deference, as the spanish word "don"). His present status is Head of the Brazilian Imperial House. The problem, or maybe problems, is/are: Brazil is a Republic today, and there's no legal recognition of anyone as being a prince. His being called "Prince Luiz" is a matter of tradition and deference; In Brazil, there's no such style as "Prince of Brazil", and the prince is never referred to as "Luiz of Brazil"; If the monarchy were still in force, he'd be the Emperor, if he were the first in line (which is his present hypothetical situation), he'd be the "Imperial Prince", but as it stands, there's no monarchy, no perspective of restauration and the prince is never addressed as "Imperial Prince", except maybe for legitimists. As I said, he is commonly called "Prince Dom Luiz de Orléans e Bragança".
So, I'm in doubt as to how I should title the article: "Luiz of Brazil"? "Luiz de Orléans e Bragança"? "Luiz, Prince of Brazil"? Or maybe some other title? I've read the policy time and again and still I can't settle for a title that I'd be sure to be in harmony with said policy. Can I get any help? Thanks, Redux 29 June 2005 17:25 (UTC)

I'd suggest "Luiz de Orléans e Bragança," or "Dom Luiz de Orléans e Bragança," if that is how he is commonly known. Titles of pretense should only be used if they are / BTW, in English, the title would be "Prince Imperial," not "Imperial Prince." I will note, though, that this site, which is normally pretty reliable for such things, states that he bears the style of "Prince of Brazil," and that "Prince of Orleans and Braganza" is a lesser title...BTW, are there different terms for supporters of the junior line (represented by Luiz) and the senior line (represented by Prince Pedro Gastão)? john k 29 June 2005 18:49 (UTC)

Just to note: if he is almost universally known as Luiz de Orléans e Bragança, it would certainly be POV to call him Prince Luiz of Brazil as the article title. But his formal style, as used by Brazilian monarchists and as (presumably) is regulated by pre-1889 laws, should still be listed in the article. john k 29 June 2005 18:51 (UTC)

I agree with User:John Kenney. probably best to go with how he is known in Brazil, either way. the rest of the titles and so can be obviously mentioned in the article itself. if everyone in Brazil knows him as "Dom Luiz (...etc)" then I would probably go with that way.. Antares911 29 June 2005 18:55 (UTC)
I believe it is somewhat dangerous to instruct to create articles "how he is known in Brazil", and similarly preferring native name forms. As this in English Wikipedia, the abovesaid may result in articles with TOO foreign names. Many important names have English translitterations, versions and established use. After all, a relevant Wikipedia policy states "the most common form the person is known to English-speakers". Thus, it is worth cautioning that the rule here is certainly not "how known in native language". 217.140.193.123 30 June 2005 06:36 (UTC)

I would make such article under either Louis of Orleans-Braganza or Luiz de Orleans-Braganza. As this is English Wikipedia, established English versions of names are very much preferred, thus Orleans-Braganza (All I have read suggests that it, with hyphen and using "z" is the most used english version). "e" instead of hyphen is Portuguese practice applied to combine father's and mother's name, and there it actually goes wrong, as his mother was de Baviera. It was rigidly correct in the first generation (dom Luiz' grandfather's) where father was Orleans and mother the last Braganza of Brazil. Now it should (if I have not misunderstood this Portuguese piece of naming culture) be de Orléans-Braganca e de Baviera. Louis is the clear English variant, and it is recommendable, also because he is not well known around the world with any native name form. However, Luiz is allowable on the same basis as king Juan Carlos - but if using Luiz, then preferably "de" as it seems bad form to me to adulter "of" in midst of all those foreign names. Certainly not the title "prince" in the article name, if it not absolutely necessary for disambig purposes. Also I feel that it may be POV to put "of Brazil" into the article name, thus I would avoid. And, simplicity is best, thus no unnecessary words into the article name. His styles, claims, rights etc are to be presented, in objective wordings, in the text of the article.

Is he actually "dom Luiz Gastao"?? and - Does anyone know has the title "Prince of Grao Para" disappered totally from claims and titularies?

I would make a separate List page of List of Heads of the Brazilian Imperial House, list all those and shortly their claims there, linking each to individual's article. That list page may be, but not necessarily must, a part of another page that lists all the two Brazilian emperors. Usually I would want such pages be two separate ones, but here we are speaking only a few persons for each of those lists, thus economics could be the ground to combine those. However, in that case the text must express VERY clear distinction between who ruled, who pretended.

AFAIK the so-called senior line renounced their rights a century ago because of unequal marriage, thus Pedro Gastao is dynastically not The Prince, but -a bit simplifying- only a titled aristocrat. They use the same basic title, "prince of Orleans-Braganza" but are not entitled to succession. I am aware that Pedro Gastao has tried to revoke his father's renunciation. AFAIK his father was never a pretender, did not personally make the claim, but more or less deferred to the rights of his brother's line. 217.140.193.123 29 June 2005 20:09 (UTC)


Thanks everybody for your interest. Let me start by addressing the translation suggestion by the anon at 217.140.193.123: I'm not sure, you mentioned that the family name has a common English version. That's unsual. But in the case of Prince Luiz, I don't believe that there's any used form for his name — you said he is not known by any native form, but if neither is he known by an English form, it would appear that we can't use a translated version in the title of the article about him. If I'm not wrong, Wikipedia does not translate names, we can only use the common translation if it exists. I'm completely unaware of any common form of translation, into any language, of the "de Orléans e Bragança" last name, but in the particular case of Prince Luiz, since, as you said yourself, he is not known by any form, it would appear that the native name would apply by default. Also, we can't translate his first name because he is a pretender, that is, he never reigned. Even if he did, I believe the rule of common use would apply. As in the cases of the two only monarchs to have actually ruled in Brazil, it is most likely that the Portuguese version would have prevailed. There was a long discussion in the Pedro I of Brazil article about whether it should be moved to "Peter I of Brazil", until evidence was presented that indicated that, in English literature, he was always referred to as "Pedro I of Brazil".
The prince also has a much longer name than this, as it is traditional with Portuguese/Brazilian royals, but the commonly used form was the one I indicated in my original comment.
Now, John indicated that the Prince does actually detain the style of "Prince of Brazil". I was talking to Antares911 about how the most logical choice, given the common use, would be "Luiz de Orléans e Bragança", without the word "dom", which is neither part of his name nor a title or style, but rather just a deference, some sort of "old form" of the word "mister" that is no longer used in Brazil except for royals. But I thought that this would have a weird ring to it, since it's unusual to have an article about royalty named as if it was about an athlete, a musician, or some other public figure. So I came to think that a good compromise, albeit somewhat lenghty, would be "Luiz de Orléans e Bragança, Prince of Brazil". Comments?
Now, on to the other questions. First, john's question about the different names for the senior branch and the junior branch. Yes, there are two very particular expressions. The senior non-dinastic branch headed by Prince Pedro Gastão (more commonly known as "Dom Gastão") is called the "Petrópolis Branch", whereas the junior dinastic branch is called the "Vassouras Branch". Petrópolis and Vassouras are the two towns where the heads of the two branches settled upon their return to Brazil following the end of the exile that had been imposed to the Imperial Family.
Now, about the anon's question about the title. Some of the titles, although still in theoretical existence, have stopped being used by the Imperial Family due to fact that, not only there's no monarchy in Brazil, but also there's no perspective of restauration. In any case, the titles were/are three:
1. Monarch: Emperor/Head of the Imperial House
2. 1st in line: Prince Imperial (thanks to john for this, it will be useful in the article)
3. 2nd in line: Prince of Grão Pará ("Grão Pará" was a province in Brazil, a little larger than the present state of Pará, which now occupies most of the original area).
I hope I have addressed everything. Regards, Redux 30 June 2005 20:46 (UTC)

There are plenty of English texts which use Orleans-Braganza, not Orléans e Braganca. please google the net, or whatever. Already John's reference page http://pages.prodigy.net/ptheroff/gotha/brazil.html uses that: "of Orleans-Braganza". When a name has an established version in english, we do not use it intermittently, but it should be used consistently. Thus, dom Luiz should be as Orleans-Braganza as others, there is no justification to put him differently - I expect the founder of that article to check carefully which are the common English usages of the surname. (All Savoy royals are here "of Savoy", not so that some of them were "di Savoia".)
Then, first names: Wikipedia translates them to most monarchs and to some pretenders. There is no impediment to translate the first name of a pretender. However, I accept the version "Luiz", basically for same reasons as Juan Carlos.
Re Antares, as that person clearly does not understand the basics of encyclopedic work, but is pushing all sorts of titularies to headings, it is definitely not wise to listen Antares' opinions.
"Luiz de Orléans e Bragança, Prince of Brazil" is bad for a heading, there are unnecessary parts as burden. Headings should be simple. If it weren't likely POV, I would recommend Luiz of Brazil (which would be NPOV had he born as "of Brazil" officially accepted by the then state, and alternatively would be acceptable had his line received "of Brazil" officially from the Empire), but to reach NPOV, it would be recommendable not to use that, and instead Luiz de Orleans-Braganza remains as acceptable. 217.140.193.123 30 June 2005 21:25 (UTC)
The article has not been "founded" yet. I will not start it until this discussion yields some sort of understanding about the article's title. If the English version of the name is common use, you can rest assured it will be used in the title if it is decided that the family name should indeed be part of it, that's the whole point of mine starting this discussion prior to creating the article. It does not help that you start creating redirect pages for your proposed names. This may multiply needlessly the work that others will have to perform if the name chosen for the article turns out to be different from you idea. I would also request that you refrain from accusing other users of not knowing what they are doing because their opinions differ from yours. We're all volunteers here and we are all just trying to get it right. Antares' ideas will be taken into consideration the same as yours. If your proposal turns out to be the accurate/better one, it will be adopted, simple as that.
About your argumentation, I'm not sure if "[Prince] of Brazil" would be out only because there was no recognition from the Brazilian State to that style when he was born or because the Empire did not bestow this upon the family (it wasn't necessary then, whereas many pretenders nowadays seem to carry the style name of country, when back when the country that might be concerned was still a monarchy, there was no use of said style). Not forgetting about the website that does refer to his style of "Prince of Brazil" too. Finally, if we were to use the English version of the name, wouldn't it be "Luiz of Orleans-Braganza"? Or do we keep the particle "de", which is Portuguese? I still believe that it would be better to have some sort of style as part of the title though. Regards, Redux 1 July 2005 04:13 (UTC)
I accept "Luiz of Orleans-Braganza". Since Orleans-Braganza can be regarded as English version as "Spain" in Juan Carlos I of Spain.
A titulary ("style") as part of heading is not acceptable, if it is not unavoidably necessary, and moreover, there is the requisite that the person is generally known by that "style". - all styles, claims and titles belong rather to the text of the article, not to heading.
Could you kindly give evidence about pretenders to whom general public now accepts the style name of country, despite of back when the country was still a monarchy, there was no use of said style??? I happen to doubt that, therefore happy to hear contrary evidence if such exists. 217.140.193.123 1 July 2005 06:19 (UTC)
All right, the anon has settled for "Luiz of Orleans-Braganza", which seems to be acceptable. About the style in the title, I'm still not sure, check out Louis-Alphonse, Duc d'Anjou. That's a French style, which I don't think Republican France acknowledges, and I don't believe he would be known as "Louis-Alphonse, Duc d'Anjou", bur rather [more likely] as Louis-Alphonse, or just Louis, or Louis d'Anjou, or maybe even Louis-Alphonse last name. The article does not elaborate on that, but the title doesn't seem to be questioned, in fact it serves as a paradigm right here in the project policy page. Following the same logic, it seems to me that the article could be named "Luiz of Orleans-Braganza, Prince of Brazil" (since we have a reference that indicates that this style does exist and is acknowledged by royalists — and it is referenced in a English-language website) or maybe "Luiz, Prince of Brazil" (but not "Luiz of Brazil", following the explanation given by the anon). Regards, Redux 1 July 2005 16:07 (UTC)

Actually, I believe the French Republic at least semi-officially, and possibly officially, recognizes the titles of pretense of its various pretenders. France is a rather strange republic, it must be said - it also recognizes noble titles, and succession to them is regulated by law. So a French duc is actually a duc under French law, and if you're a duc, and somebody else decides to start going by your title, you can sue them. john k 1 July 2005 16:14 (UTC)

Louis-Alphonse's titles are not a good example, firstly because Anjou is not the name of the country. It is "only" a duchy, and the French are accustomed to it having dukes. And, as John pointed out, the nice French (which I like) apparently cultivate their pretenders and their nobility. (If I have not misunderstood, Louis-Alphonse actually does not use that Anjou title. Its use is possibly odd.) If he uses, he has some justification as it was granted to his ancestor in the end of 17th century, and he IS the dukedom's heir according to its original grant stipulations (thus, this derives from the principle "if the state has granted"). Louis-Alphonse apparently has no other title (he is not infante of Spain afaik, etc), thus bared to bones, he is "Luis Alfonso de Borbon".
The heading for Louis-Alphonse is here based on idea that he is a "peer", and the heading is directly the applicatrion of that. But it does not fit to Luiz regarding "of Brazil", as I doubt greatly that Brazil can be regarded as peerage. And, anyway, I am against unnecessary style and unnecessary titulary in headings. 217.140.193.123 1 July 2005 16:37 (UTC)

Ok, I've done some research. We already had John's reference to the title "Prince of Brazil". Here's what I found out: when he was forced to return to Portugal under the Porto Revolution, John VI conferred upon his son, Pedro, the title of "Prince of Brazil". That was in 1822. After the independence, the Imperial Constitution of 1824 recognized his title of "Prince of Brazil", although the heir to the throne, Pedro II, and later every other heir who was first in line, came to be known as "Prince Imperial". The 1824 Constitution was only replaced in 1891, when Brazil had become a republic. There's nothing in that or any other Brazilian Constitution that followed that expressly revokes the titles of nobility, although they have no legal purpose since the country is a republic. This is probably why the princes are still referred to as "prince(ss)" and "dom". So, as it turns out, "Prince of Brazil" isn't a fiction made up for the present pretenders, but rather it is a title, or style (?) that was conferred and recognized by the Absolute monarch of Portugal (meaning: he was the law) and later ractified by the Constitution of independent Brazil. And it was never formally revoked. Nowadays, since the Head of the Imperial House is unable to reign, and he would not exaclty be "first in line", since he is the potential monarch, he (Prince Luiz) bears the title of "Prince of Brazil",whereas the title of "Prince Imperial" is exclusive to the first one in line after the monarch/head of the Imperial House (today, the Prince Imperial is Prince Luiz's younger brother, Prince Bertrand of Orleans-Braganza, since prince Luiz is unmarried and childless, and the Prince of Grão Pará is yet another brother of Prince Luiz, since Prince Bertrand is also unmarried and childless, Prince Antonio of Orleans-Braganza, whose son, Prince Pedro Luiz of Orleans-Braganza is fourth in line). So, apparently, the title "Prince of Brazil" would be recognized with the same degree of "gray area" as the French titles. And I have visited a couple of royalist sites from Brazil, which had, at least to some degree, the cooperation of the Imperial Family and which refer to Prince Luiz as "Luiz of Brasil". What about that?? Regards, Redux 1 July 2005 17:44 (UTC)

Thus, Brazil is going to be regarded as a Portuguese peerage. Funny :) 217.140.193.123 1 July 2005 19:17 (UTC)

Prince of Brazil actually was title for some Portuguese heirs apparent (or even heirs presumptive) of the Portuguese throne.

So we could go with "Luiz of Orleans-Braganza, Prince of Brazil", or alternatively, I could also suggest "Prince Luiz of Orleans-Braganza". This second one just occurred me. It's shorter and, I believe, doesn't stir controversy, since we don't dispute his status as "Prince", which is, incidentally, commonly used, since no one says "Luiz of Orleans-Braganza", but rather, at the very least, "Prince Luiz of Orleans-Braganza". Thoughts? Regards, Redux 2 July 2005 02:18 (UTC)

Prince Luiz of Orleans-Braganza seems like the best choice to me. We should explain, however, that he is more formally styled (by Brazilian royalists and perhaps others) as Prince Luiz of Brazil. john k 2 July 2005 03:12 (UTC)

Great. So, if no one will object the name, I will start the article this weekend. Regards, Redux 2 July 2005 03:54 (UTC)

style[edit]

He is a pretender, not a monarch or such. Therefore the styles (such as Imperial highness) are not clearly NPOV, and the person should not be introduced by such style. Rather, the use of style is to be explained in a neutral paragraph, saying about the style, and possibly about who accept it. Compare another pretender, Maria Vladimirovna of Russia, where: "...has claimed to be the Head of the Imperial Family of Russia and Titular Empress and Autocrat of all the Russias since 1992. Throughout her life she has used the title and style of Her Imperial Highness Grand Duchess Maria Vladimirovna of Russia." 217.140.193.123 3 July 2005 12:23 (UTC)

The style is not part of the article's title, as had been agreed in the discussion. What the articles states is a matter of research. I have reflected the official references he receives in Brazil, also in accordance with Brazilian tradition. Having the article state that is in keeping with Wikipedia policies, standards and procedure. This could only be reversed if there were a common deference in English for him, which is not the case.
There is going to be an entire section in the article explaining the controversies of succession, the relativization of his condition as prince and even de jure emperor, the matter of his titles and styles, etc, etc. I have not had the time to do all the research, translations and creative work that it takes to put the whole article together though. That is why I added the Work In Progress tag. Please, wait until I have put in all the information I plan to add in before you start changing the article and addind new stuff. This does not help. Most of the information online about him and the Imperial Family is in Portuguese, so I'm going to be the one bringing it in to Wikipedia. Patience.
Incidentally, the title of "princess" for Maria of Baviera was included for the same reasons as that of "prince" for Luiz. I intend to [eventually] write articles about these people, and the main point of view will be that of the Brazilian Imperial Family, according to whose nomenclature, she is "Princess Maria of Baviera", that being the form by which she is/was commonly addressed. We're abiding by the common use, regardless of whether that's not what's normally done for other royal families and so on. This is Wikipedia standard procedure. Regards, Redux 3 July 2005 16:07 (UTC)

No, we need not wait so long for your personal edits. WIP tag must not abused. It is not a tool to keep others from contributing, or correcting - as now seems to be here. You have had enough time, and the tag should be taken away. You have all good possibilities to contribute more - in equal footing with others. 217.140.193.123 3 July 2005 16:56 (UTC)

"The tag is used to alert people that you are in the process of making a larger edit (within 30 - 180 minutes). The article remains open to editing, but courteous users should leave it alone until you're done. If you do use such a "lock" please be responsive to any inquiries about the lock." - 3 hours is the maximum set by guidelines.217.140.193.123 4 July 2005 18:07 (UTC)
This is not about wanting to control the article. This is about understanding and patience. Really, the tag has been there for less than a day. If it had been there for weeks, or months, your remarks would be justified, and I would not refute them. Wikipedia is a volunteer work, everybody has other things that they need to attend to. It is not excessive to request some time to complete a laborious construction of a new article, this is why we actually have a template to tag the article in the first place. During this process, edits that insert bits of information that may even be incomplete (see below about the problem with the English material available online) only make the process harder, slower and, in some instances, even counterproductive. It would be different if this article was about a US President, or a prominent athlete, when there's abundant material in English to be found all over the net. In this case, the bulk of the relevant material will have to be translated from Portuguese into English, and I'm going to be the one doing this. It is perfectly reasonable that I request some time for doing this. As it happened with the issue regarding the "Prince of Brazil" style, information on this in English may be incomplete or confusing, leading to wrong or, at least, not completely accurate/complete versions. This is why I request time so that I can get everything in and make the article work as a whole. As I said, it is all a question of common sense and a touch of good will. As I've already requested, please be patient. It will not be long until the article has been assembled with all the information. There's plenty of stuff that need attention all over the project in the meantime. Regards, Redux 3 July 2005 17:17 (UTC)

I wonder why you are not ready to work as the others: to add your additions as ADDITIONS. It is not too difficult. 217.140.193.123 3 July 2005 19:33 (UTC)

Finally, 10 July, a sysop erased the inappropriate WIP tag made by Redux, commenting it as "stale".

French status[edit]

The Orleans-Braganza are not royal princes of France. They lost that status by their naturalization in Brazil, and this was confirmed in the 1909 Pacte de Famille by the head of the Royal House of France and other dynasts. Choess 19:08, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

Pact is not necessarily valid, as already commented by the writer of that website. Clearly, the Duke of Orleans wanted to keep the hardline which also excluded the Spanish Bourbons from Maison de France (without that hard line, Orleans actually is not necessarily the rightful head...). Perhaps the Pact must be seen as Pact of Orleans, not Pact of House of France... (and Orleans-Braganza not Princes of the French but possibly yes Princes of France) - However, after the deposition and the end of monarchy, it is a bit ridiculous to "legislate", thus we should treat those as (potential) members of House of France which would belong to it according to the rules in force at the time of deposition (the two positions should be explained in the text, not for us to decide)... and, Orleans-Braganza have not renounced all their rights, only agreed not to pursue before all else is extinct. 217.140.193.123 20:42, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No Orleans-Braganza is a "Prince of France" according to the traditions of the ancien régime, since no such title existed. They are princes du sang only by French legitimist interpretation -- a rank the Orleans-Braganzas neither claim nor acknowledge, and which French legitimists don't promote. Rather, by the agreement of the 1909 Pacte du Famille, the Orleans-Braganzas agreed to desist their prior assertions to be in the line of succession to the French crown, unless and until extinction of all other dynastic branches of the House of Orleans occurs. In return the head of the House of Orleans (and his dynastic agnates) agreed to 1. recognize the use of the non-dynastic style "prince d'Orleans-Bragance" by legitimate male-line descendants of Gaston, comte d'Eu; 2. to recognize them as kinsmen for purposes of ceremonial precedence; and 3. to recognize their acceptance of the fact that they are not considered French dynasts by the other members of the House of Orleans. (It should go without saying that the Pacte has never prevented the House of Orleans from acknowledging the Brazilian royalty of Eu's descendants). Since no parties to the pact, or their descendants, have disputed its applicability, the only grounds that Wikipedia could have for doing so now is adoption of the Bourbon legitimist POV with regard to a matter that the Orleans resolved internally nearly a century ago. FactStraight (talk) 06:16, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Luís or Luíz?[edit]

It was my understanding that the former is a Spanish name. Why are we referring to a Brazilian by the Hispanicization of his name? In the earlier discussion from a few years ago above, everyone refers to him as "Luiz". john k 14:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Luis - Spanish
  2. Luís - Portuguese
  3. Luiz - Archaic Portuguese, used only in Brazil (in Portugal is incorrect).

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.154.132.103 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 15 March 2007

Exactly as above. The only correct spelling according the current orthography of the Portuguese language is "Luís". This applies in Brazil and Portugal, although in Brazil people can be named whatever the parents want, even "Colher" (spoon) or "Cadeira" (chair). That's a shame that even the "Imperial House" does not always respect the current orthography. Dantadd 23:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I never understood the Wikipedians mania to modify D. Luiz' name by their own will. ALL SOURCES available, Brazilian or not, and including the prince himself, writes his name with the letter "z." This article is misleading people about the correct spelling, which contradicts the terms of use of Wikipedia: "4. Refraining from Certain Activities: Engaging in False Statements, Impersonation, or Fraud". And about the nonsense commentary "that's a shame that even the 'Imperial House' does not always respect the current orthography", the author should remember that the former president which signed the current orthography law still writes his name "wrong" -- Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. So I would like to recomend the correction of all the wrong "D. Luís" entries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.44.53.152 (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On Air France Flight 447?[edit]

Is this the person mentioned in the last part of this BBC report as having been on Air France Flight 447? Loganberry (Talk) 13:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, apparently not. This diff says that it's his nephew who is missing. Loganberry (Talk) 22:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vassouras branch settled in Petropolis?[edit]

That can't possibly be right, can it? john k (talk) 01:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Title vs position[edit]

The term "head of house" is a descriptive phrase for a position held by a member of a dynasty (whether that dynasty is reigning or not, e.g. Juan, Count of Barcelona in 1976). A "title of pretence" is a princely (usually national, e.g. "Prince of Prussia", "Grand Duchess of Russia", "Margrave of Baden", "Firstname, Prince Napoléon", "Duke of Bavaria", "Prince Firstname of Montenegro", "Prince of Lippe", etc.) or historical noble title ("Comte de Paris", "Count of Barcelona", "Duke of Calabria", "Margrave of Meissen", "Duke of Brunswick") that is used by a claimant or head of house in lieu of the ancestral title he or she would hold as a ruler. But in this article, "His Imperial and Royal Highness The Head of the Imperial House of Brazil" is being presented as the claimant's proper title rather than as a description of the position he holds. What sources justify this usage? FactStraight (talk) 22:12, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Obsolete title as part of article name[edit]

I fully agree with User:Awikimate who reverted an undiscussed move of this page adding a title that is no longer valid, and I strongly object to subsequent edit-warring to restore the article's current name, again with no discussion. Looks like we're going bananas? --SergeWoodzing (talk) 22:24, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted an undiscussed move and restored the original article title, as agreed at the last discussion. DrKay (talk) 06:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The edit was reverted based on a discussion from 15 years ago before the article was actually created. There are sources clearly stating nobility titles do not exist in Brazilian law. It suffices to point the article in Portuguese is titled Luíz Gastão de Orléans e Bragança. I invite any interested partes who are against moving the article again, to please make your point here. Awikimate (talk) 08:50, 26 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]
As I said in the edit summary, whenever there is prior discussion about an article title, the article should only be moved after a requested move. DrKay (talk) 09:24, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with DrKay. Besides the point, the "legality" of a title is not what determines its usage in an article title. The article is Aga Khan IV, not Shāh Karim al-Husayni simply because the man was born in switzerland and his ancestral titles mean nothing "legally" in India or Pakistan. If the title is part of the persons WP:Commonname, it merits inclusion. Wikipedia reflects actual usage & trends, not the officialities of government & titles. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 13:39, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since any title is likely to be included when someone who has one or uses an illegitimate one, or is given an illegitimate one by more-or-less tabloid-type media, I can't see how WP:Commonname is relevant. Dr. Smith is probably always called Dr. Smith and so is Professor Doe. Irrelevant to article names. The inclusion of royal and noble titles in article names, whether they are obsolete or not, is becoming more and more hysterical on Wikipedia. It needs to be curtailed. Encyclopedia? It's unnecessary and it's embarrassing. Would tend to make any rational person ashamed of the whole project. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:31, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Probably should discuss if the title should be changed and if there are any alternatives at Requested Moves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.217.186 (talk) 04:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This guy is known as "prince..." exclusively in Brazilian monarchist circles. In fact, he only is known to monarchists, and remains largely unknown to society in general. Besides not being a holder of any nobility title, his claim as Head of the Imperial House of Brazil remains disputed within his own family. Moreover, there is not such thing as the Imperial House of Brazil as an institution, that is an informal thing created by monarchists after the abolition of all nobility titles and imperial institutions in 1891. Awikimate (talk) 15:44, 27 August 2020 (UTC).[reply]
If you feel it should be moved, you can request it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.110.217.186 (talk) 21:49, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 9 March 2021[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Prince Luiz of Orléans-Braganza → Luiz of Orléans-Braganza – According to the most reliable sources, nobility titles no longer exist in Brazil: they were abolished in the late XIX Century 1 2 3 4 5. That is because the 1891 Constitution clearly stated those titles were suppressed 6. As a consequence, this article in Portuguese is named "Luíz Gastão de Orléans e Bragança" and not "Prince...". Also, as discussed previously here, WP:Commonname is irrelevant in this case because otherwise any title is likely to be included when someone has one, uses an illegitimate one, or is given an illegitimate one by tabloid-type media, monarchist blogs, and social media pages. WP:Commonname also does not apply here because this person is known as "prince..." exclusively in Brazilian monarchist circles; in fact, he only is known to monarchists and remains largely unknown to society in general. Moreover, his claim as Head of the Imperial House of Brazil is a complete fiction. That claim remains disputed within his own family, and there is not such thing as the Imperial House of Brazil as an institution (that's an informal concept created by monarchists after the abolition of all nobility titles and imperial institutions in 1891). Awikimate (talk) 09:38, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per request. VocalIndia (talk) 12:56, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Cristiano Tomás (talk) 17:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Prince of Orleans-Braganza is really nothing to do with Brazil, it’s a French title, and Wikipedia is not subject to the law of a particular country anyway. - dwc lr (talk) 15:23, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As previously stated, wikipedia isn't subject to the law of any particular country at least on this matter, furthermore it has been previously agreed on the title of Prince Luiz of Orléans-Braganza for the article as a compromise between "Luiz, Prince of Brazil" which would be the actual dynastyc title and how the references calls him, mostly as Prince Luiz of Orléans-Braganza, and this regardless of the legality of the title either in Brazil or France. Furthermore, it seems unbalanced to change the article's title based on "nobility titles are no longer legal in Brazil", whereas here on English Wikipedia we have lots of titles of Princes of Savoy, Archdukes of Austria, Prussian Princes, Russian Grand Dukes, Portuguese Infantes, etc. None of these countries recognize these royal titles anymore, and yet, nor only pretense royals born following the deposition of their monarchies are counted on templates such as the mentioned, as their articles bears their pretense titles. Duarte Pio, Duke of Braganza, Jean, Count of Paris, Maria Vladimirovna, Grand Duchess of Russia, Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia, etc. If we are to begin to change articles on royalty based on wether their royal titles are legally recognized or not, then we'll have a hard and unnecessary task ahead of us. Abellarson (talk) 22:34, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 19:38, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 10 October 2021[edit]

Please remove the link to Henri Antoine, Hereditary Prince of Ligne, as the article has been deleted. 2601:241:300:B610:E527:D5EF:BD37:8447 (talk) 15:31, 10 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:37, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:07, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Louis I of Brazil" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Louis I of Brazil and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 22#Louis I of Brazil until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. DrKay (talk) 07:37, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:23, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Luiz_of_Orléans-Braganza&oldid=1208618786"