Talk:Maria Pia de Saxe-Coburgo e Bragança/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Disputed

Maria Pia mixed frequently with the jet set idle rich. For many years she maintained an ongoing friendship with the exiled King Alfonso XIII of Spain and his son Infante Jaime, Duke of Segovia. Much correspondence exists between Maria and members of European royal families recording her efforts to gain legitimacy within royal circles.

As far as I know, Maria Pia was a joke among European royalty. Are there any sources for these statements? Charles 19:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

All three of the sentences which Charles quotes are correct and verifiable in the biography by Jean Pailler. Maria Pia:

1. mixed with the jet set idle rich;
2. maintained a friendship with Don Alfonso XIII and Don Jaime;
3. wrote to various royals trying to gain legitimacy.

What evidence can Charles provide that any of these facts are "dubious"?

It seems to me that Maria Pia must have been an absolutely charming individual. But merely because people enjoyed her company doesn't mean that they recognised her claims. We can't say that, however, in the article, because we are limited to summarizing published sources. Noel S McFerran 19:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Noel, I disputed statements because they did not seem correct to me. I was merely trying to find sources. As for dubious, that is the name of the template, not something of my choosing. Now that I know where it has come from I shall remove the tag. Charles 22:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Emmanuela de Dampierre

Is reported in this article "...but this is strongly denied by the first wife of the latter, Emmanuela de Dampierre" and also "...but most of the replies were merely polite but unsupportive". Where are proved these affirmations? Or in this encyclopedia is possible write also affirmations without proof? I know at the contrary many official documents (in particular the letter of the King Alfonso that was used for the legal case in the Sacred Roman Rota but also others) where for example the king affirms "I remember you (Maria Pia) that is a stupidity forget your rights of Infante of Braganza". In these letters adressed to Maria Pia all the readers can see the familiarity in the words of the king Alfonso http://www.royalhouseofportugal.org/portugues/alfonso.html

It is not up to wiki-editors to decide the truth - of this matter or of any other. We merely gather what has already been written. Other people have written:

1. that Maria Pia had a friendship with Alfonso;

2. that the claim that Maria Pia had a friendship with Alfonso is false.

The article should reflect what has already been written. Noel S McFerran 11:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

But more, see here the J. Pailler testimony [1]: "We can have no doubt that Maria Pia was acknowledged in her lifetime – at least by part of the princely establishment in Europe – as a natural daughter of king Carlos I. She certainly was by the family of Alfonso XIII, the King of Spain. A son of the King, Don Jaime de Borbón y Battenberg, duke of Anjou and Segovia, has written a statement to that effect, that cannot be seriously challenged. D. Jaime's widow, Doña Emanuela de Dampierre, the Duchess of Anjou, speaking to me via telephone in March 2003, certainly confirmed that Maria Pia's Braganza connection had been accepted as a matter of fact by King Alfonso. To the Duchess of Anjou, however, it was very clear that such connection did not entail any dynastic rights, and she recalled, with regal and pungent humour, the somewhat excessive personality and pugnacity of Maria Pia.This should be accepted as an indication that we are not dealing with a crazy lady who fancied herself a Princess, nor with a shameless crook who posed as one. King Alfonso XIII in the 1930's was a man in his prime, who might lose his crown, but not his head, and could certainly not be fooled by any royal pretence of either madwoman or adventuress. It does not mean, however, that Maria Pia's story should not be taken without a grain of salt. In fact, an ounce might be more appropriate. For the lady, charming and royal as she was, was also a charming and royal liar."

Web of fantasy is revealed as 'last king of Portugal' goes on trial

By Peter Popham in Rome Published: 25 March 2007 http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article2390845.ece

Portugal's last king died in 1932, but the pretender to his throne is alive and well and currently behind bars in the northern Italian city of Vicenza.

Rosario Poidimani, a 60-year-old businessman from Syracuse in Sicily, is accused with 11 others of constructing a web of fake titles, fraudulent diplomatic passports and imaginary offshore bank accounts around his claim to be the King of Portugal.

At his home, he created an elaborately decorated throne room and a council chamber with gilt and red plush chairs around a vast glass table. Here, prosecutors claim, he sold imaginary aristocratic titles and, with his assembled courtiers, planned the grand climax of the scheme: the creation of a sovereign kingdom, possibly in Ukraine or on a Croatian islet, which would eventually become a member of the EU.

Mr Poidimani's bizarre ambitions originated in his friendship with a woman called Maria Pia, who died in Italy in 1995 aged 88. Maria Pia claimed that soon after she was born her unmarried mother took her to Madrid, where she was baptised, and that her baptismal record stated that her father was "D. Carlos de Sassonia-Coburgo y Savoia de la Casa de Braganza de Portugal" - Carlos I, the penultimate King of Portugal.

With the baptismal records destroyed during the Spanish Civil War, Maria Pia spent much of her life trying to prove she was heir to the defunct Portuguese throne - despite the fact that Carlos I was married at the time and children of adulterous unions were excluded from the succession.

Then, in 1987, she "abdicated" from her "throne", making it over to Poidimani, who says she adopted him.

Among those arrested this week were his "foreign minister", Roberto Cavallaro, and six others. Italian tax police seized 712 fake diplomatic passports, 600 fake diplomatic IDs and 135 forged CD plates. They also took away his throne. Bnguyen 06:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The article as it is

I have to give thanks, aand praises, and kudus to the editors who managed to make a mess of a subject into such good example of a Wikipedia article - neutral, verified, nicely written, referenced, informative. Really, after all the trouble I had with this article and Mr.Poidimani, I am really impressed with the result. Thanks! muriel@pt 12:58, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Reversion to 29 December 2007 edition

I have reverted the article to the version of 29 December 2007 to return the tone to NPOV. The "Analysis" gives a thorough treatment of the historical challenges to Maria Pia's/Hilda's claims; there is no need to throw in "fraudulent" or "illegally" into the overview paragraph. There is also no need to deny the woman her name if she indeed called herself and was addressed as "Maria Pia"; "Hilda Toledano" may be her best known name, but it is also a nom de plume and not consistent with her birth surname or any of her married names. To call her "Hilda" in the article would be akin to insisting on referring to Muhammad Ali by "Cassius" throughout a biographical article about him.

I realize that for some, to give an inch is to be allowed a mile on this article. While I've had this point of view in the past, it does our reader no good to be subjected to an editing war between to extremes. This version has served for nearly six months without incident. Let us consider this version the line in the sand, until new evidence emerges. If it takes protection to keep it this way, I am open to that.

Kelly (talk) 00:41, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

First paragraph

Three times in the last three days User:Finneganw has reverted the attempts by myself, User:Jtdirl, and User:BranwenNiSidhe to restore a version of this article which is neutral and does not promote the claims of Maria Pia or the claims of her opponents. Thus far User:Finneganw has not contributed to the discussion on this talk page to explain these edits.

The first paragraph as it now stands reads:

• Maria Pia de Saxe-Coburgo-Bragança (March 13 1907 - May 6 1995), also known as Hilda Toledano, the pseudonym she used to write books, claimed to be an illegitimate child of King Carlos I of Portugal. She also claimed that Carlos had recognized her as his daughter and given her the same rights and honours as other princes of Portugal. From 1957 she used the title "Duchess of Braganza" and made an active claim to be the rightful queen of Portugal.

The paragraph to which User:Finneganw reverts reads:

• Hilda Toledano (March 13 1907 - May 6 1995), also known as Maria Pia de Saxe-Coburgo-Bragança, claimed fraudulently to be an illegitimate child of King Carlos I of Portugal. She also claimed that Carlos had recognized her as his daughter and given her the same rights and honours as other princes of Portugal. From 1957 she illegaly used the title "Duchess of Braganza" and made an active claim to be the rightful Queen of Portugal. She also used to write books.

1. "Hilda Toledano" was a pseudonym used by this lady when she wrote books. She did not use this name at other times. The name which she used was Maria Pia de Saxe-Coburgo-Bragança. In many countries people can use whatever name they wish.

2. It is appropriate to say that she "claimed to be an illegitimate child of King Carlos I". It is not appropriate to say that she "claimed fraudently". Maria Pia was never charged with fraud, or found guilty of it. (It is not particularly relevant that I personally don't believe her claim.)

3. It is appropriate to say that "she used the title Duchess of Braganza"; that is merely a statement of fact. It is not appropriate to say that she "illegaly [sic] used the title". I know that in France one can be charged with a crime for using a title to which one has no right; I don't know if there is a similar provision in Portuguese law. In any case, Maria Pia was never charged with any crime.

4. It is appropriate to describe her as "also known as Hilda Toledano, the pseudonym she used to write books" rather than adding the sentence at the end, "She also used to write books." This is just a matter of good style.

I invite comments from other editors. Continuing to revert the edits of three different editors without any discussion is just bad form. Noel S McFerran (talk) 11:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

You are doing the right thing, Noel. There is support for your actions from several editors other than the two you have already mentioned. -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:55, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

2 points. As the article is titled Hilda Toledano it is illogical to start the article using a different name. I have tweaked it slightly to start off with the HT name, saying it was the pseudonym of Maria Pia . . .. That should make the opening more easy to read. The previous version was poorly written.

Secondly, what was the woman's real name? Saxe-Cob.... was the surname of the kings and she used it to push her claim. The article really needs to say what her real name was, rather than rely either on a pseudonym or a claimed name. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 21:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "real" name. The legal surname of the actor Martin Sheen continues to be Estevez (which is why three of his children have the Estevez surname) - but his article is under Sheen because that is how he is generally known. The name this lady generally used is Maria Pia de Saxe-Coburgo-Bragança. That doesn't mean that she is related to the other people with the surname Saxe-Coburgo-Bragança (or variants), anymore than Martin Sheen is related to Archbishop Fulton Sheen. It seems that some editors want to make sure that no reader is "taken in" by Maria Pia's claims. I think that it would be appropriate to rename the article - but I haven't made a formal proposal because I didn't want to deal with the firestorm from a few Maria Pia opponents. Noel S McFerran (talk) 11:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Finneganw has finally replied on my talk page. He seems to think that I am "determined to support a known fraud on wikipedia"; anybody who has read my comments on this talk page knows that I am not a supporter of the claims of this woman. The first paragraph presently uses phrases such as "woman who called herself", "claimed to be an illegitimate child", "claimed the right to use", "made an active claim", and "court declared that she had failed". It no longer includes the words "fraudulently" and "illegaly" (sic), both of which are inaccurate.

User:Jtdirl, User:BranwenNiSidhe, User:Derek_Ross, and even User:Charles seem to be satisfied with the neutrality of the present first paragraph which avoids the excesses of User:M.deSousa (a supporter of Maria Pia). Perhaps User:Finneganw could explain why he is insistent on the use of the words "fraudulently" and "illegaly" (sic) - in spite of the fact that Maria Pia was never charged with fraud or any other illegal action. Perhaps he could also explain why he is insistent on using the name "Hilda" when that was merely the literary pseudonym of the lady, and not the name by which she was commonly known. Noel S McFerran (talk) 15:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I will confirm your statement regarding my satisfaction as wholly correct. Charles 19:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I too am happy with Noel's phrasing. If a court had stated that she had acted fraudulently, it would be alright for us to report that it had done so. But it would be utterly wrong for us to make that claim ourselves. -- Derek Ross | Talk 21:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Since the above discussion, there have been numerous edits back and forth among the three viewpoints outlined. I propose that this article come, once again, under some form of protection under a neutral tone. Full protection may be necessary not only to maintain the tone as neutral, but also to force editors to discuss the changes they wish to make. Signed, BranwenNiSidhe

170.37.244.10 (talk) 17:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

While there are a few differences, in my opinion the balance is still there (at least at this moment until somebody changes it). It's annoying that it gets changed so frequently. But there seems to be enough editors with the page in their watchlists to ensure that most of the time a fairly neutral version is "up". Noel S McFerran (talk) 19:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Maria Pia of Braganza

You should redirect this article to Maria Pia of Braganza or Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha Braganza. She never used her literary pseudonym as her name. Please, change it. 84.90.92.195 (talk) 22:27, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I am in favour of a move to Maria Pia de Saxe-Coburgo-Bragança, since this is the name she used and is most known by (she isn't known by an English translation of this name). I have hesitated to initiate a move request because I don't like controversy. Noel S McFerran (talk) 23:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

You really should move the article to Maria Pia de Saxe-Coburgo Bragança or Maria Pia de Saxe-Coburgo-Gotha Bragança, because is the name she used and is most known by (and is also her real name: watch this official document). And, please, delete the name "Maria Pia de Laredo" because it's a false name! 84.90.92.195 (talk) 00:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Page rename

Today User:Tonyjeff renamed this page from "Hilda Toledano" to "Maria Pia de Laredo". This is a name made up by this editor. There is no justification for this use. The lady called herself "Maria Pia de Saxe-Coburgo-Bragança"; that is the name most commonly used for her in literature. Whether her claims about herself were true is of course a totally different matter. Noel S McFerran (talk) 01:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

If you are going to do this, you will need to change the introductory paragraph. At the moment it assumes that the article is still titled "Hilda Toledano" -- Derek Ross | Talk 02:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The initial paragraph should contain all known aliases or other names by which the person is known, regardless of that person's historical preference. We need to make absolutely clear as well that, in this person's case, that her claim is _highly_ problematic if not invalid for the reasons outlined in the "Analysis" section of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.37.244.10 (talk) 12:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

And it should be called Hilda Toledano until there is consensus to change that. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Separate article on Rosario Poidimani

Last year the separate article on Rosario Poidimani was deleted because some editors considered him not to be noteworthy enough for a Wiki-article. The recent charges against him in Italy may have changed this situation. Then it would be possible to remove several paragraphs from this article about recent events. Noel S McFerran 13:13, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Beyond the one-liner in the article, what is known of the charges and would they make him, or anyone else for that matter, particularly notable? Charles 15:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

-Based on his lawsuit against Guy Stair Sainty and not the legal action taken against Mr. Rosario Poidimani by the Italian authorities would make it noteworthy enough for a Wiki-article. http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article2390845.ece Bnguyen 06:38, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

What makes him any more notable than anyone else who launches a lawsuit? [[User talk:Charles|Charles]] 15:48, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

He actively claims the Portuguese throne; there are numerous newspaper articles about him. The fact that he is, in my opinion as well as those of many others, a fraud is not a reason for denying him a wiki-article. Noel S McFerran 16:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't commenting on the fact that he is a fraud. What I am trying to convey is that I have heard of many people who have appeared in a number of articles for a number of reasons but I don't think that it would make them particularly notable. I think that Rosario Poidimani is fine as a section of this article. [[User talk:Charles|Charles]] 17:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

The issue is that the RP article was mainly edited by anon/very recent users that were only editing his and related article, trying to sound like his claims were legitimous. They were also changing more mainstream/affluent pages (such as Manuel II of Portugal, Pretender, Duke of Braganza and putting his claims on par with legitimate/mainstream heirs. --BBird (talk) 11:58, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Bastard/illegitimate

It is occurring a dispute upon the most appropriate term to define Maria's civil situation. According to herself, she was a bastard daughter of Charles I – since she would be the result of a extra-matrimonial affair of the king with her mother. By the other hand, yet according to her, she would be legitimated, since Charles I recognized her and granted dinastical rights by a letter.

Yet this might not be the most friendly term, "bastard" is the most precise to define Maria's situation and, at least within Iberic monarchical traditions (Spain, Portugal, Brazil etc.) it is widely used, since it is important to determine one's rights. --Tonyjeff (talk) 13:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

To be precise, her claim seems to have been that Carlos I "recognized" her, which is not the same thing as legitimating her. It's doubtful at best that Carlos I had the power to legitimate her (much less to bestow dynastic rights upon her), since she was not merely a purported bastard, but, as you note, a purported adulterine bastard, since Carlos I was married to Amélie d'Orléans at the purported time of Ms. Toledano's birth. And yes, it is tiresome when people won't use the appropriate term because of their extreme delicacy. - Nunh-huh 03:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I did not noticed that there is a difference between "legitimated" and "recognized", but I agree with you: "bastard" would be the most accurate, and it isn't offensive, since she herself declared to be it. --Tonyjeff (talk) 14:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

News about Poidimani

There is a dispute about the publication of links with polemics related to Poidimani. The justification is that these news are about Poidimani, and this article is about Maria Pia. In some Wikis, where there are different articles for them, this argument would be justified. Here, both are cited at the same article, and so I believe it is fair and relevant enough to post these links. I would like to understand why user 84.90.92.195 is worried to hide these informations…

I must say that, in other Wikis, where there is an article dedicated to mr. Poidimani, the same user 84.90.92.195 (user "Anjo-sozinho" in WP:PT) deleted those links many times (most recent try).

It must also be said that it has never had an effort to hide links of news with polemics related to Duarte Pio, the other "side" of this dynastic dispute. --Tonyjeff (talk) 13:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Tonyjeff, but I know what are you trying to do, but... without sucess. I don't hide anything here. Not actualised news should be present on article references, not in external links. Can you understand it?? 84.90.92.195 (talk) 22:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Royalty surnames

The DWC LR are deleting valid information on Maria Pia's article. Jean Pailler's biography about Maria Pia of Braganza cleary explains that her daughters had the surnames of royalty, and also explain that the Spanish Congress of Deputies had decided that her grandsons should also mantain the royalty surnames. So, the article as I edited is correct. Please, read Jean Pailler book. 84.90.92.195 (talk) 17:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The valid and reliable source is: Jean Pailler; Maria Pia: A Mulher que Queria Ser Rainha de Portugal. Lisbon: Bertrand, 2006. (If he refuse a valid and reliable source, he's comitting vandalism on WP:EN). The information should be replaced. 84.90.92.195 (talk) 17:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Surname??? de Saxe-Coburgo-Bragança, de Saxe-Coburgo-Gotha-Bragança etc then what form does that book use? Glad we have cleared that up. - dwc lr (talk) 17:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The books use both: Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Braganza (Portuguese: Maria Pia de Saxe-Coburgo e Bragança) was her abreviated name and the name more used by the authors. Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha Braganza (Portuguese: Maria Pia de Saxe-Coburgo-Gotha e Bragança) was her real name and had the surname from the last Portuguese Royal House. Remember that "Saxe-Coburg and Gotha Braganza" was the last Portuguese Royal Family surname (because "Saxe-Coburg and Braganza" is most common in a Brazilian Imperial Family line). 84.90.92.195 (talk) 17:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

A book written in portuguese, about a portuguese person gives her an english surname that is peculiar. - dwc lr (talk) 17:57, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

No, the book is avaliable in English and in Portuguese languages! 84.90.92.195 (talk) 18:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

If one is talking about surnames we don't translate. We only translate titles hence we have Frederic Prinz von Anhalt for instance. - dwc lr (talk) 18:03, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Article name

As it happens with other EN-WP articles, this article should be moved to Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Braganza, and the first paragraph should be:

Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Braganza (Portuguese: Maria Pia de Saxe-Coburgo e Bragança) (Lisbon, March 13, 1907 - Verona, May 6, 1995) was the name assumed by a lady who claimed to be an bastard child of King Charles I of Portugal. Etc...

Remember: this is the English Wikipedia. Thank you. 84.90.92.195 (talk) 22:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

This notice has been here for four days, so I'd imagine someone has looked it over since then. (And if not, this might serve to shake up the relevant watchlists a bit.) If no one disagrees, then I'll probably make the move in a few days (unless some one who knows the matter better I makes it themselves), but I'd think this article sees enough traffic that the need for some consensus exists. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 22:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

This should probably be put through a WP:RM as could be controversial as I'm not aware of peoples names being translated for titles of articles. - dwc lr (talk) 13:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

 Disagree with the move. The translation of the name would be justifiable if she had been a royal person de facto (like John I of Portugal, for instance). However, she was just a pretender (Portugal was, already, a Republic), and her status was not recognized by many people (most of the monarchists, indeed). So, as she was a normal person, we must keep her name as the way it was known by most. --Tonyjeff (talk) 16:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

 Disagree. I completely agree with Tonyjeff; we translate the names of royalty, or people with certain lesser titles, but she wasn't royalty, and had no titles. - Nunh-huh 16:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree with the move. We are not discussing if she is or not from Portuguese royalty, we are just discussing the translation of her name based on Wikipedia Naming conventions policy. 84.90.92.195 (talk) 16:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The answer to this is made quite clear in the Wikipedia Naming conventions policy. The general rule for names of people is given in the naming conventions for names and titles as use the most common form of the name used in English. Likewise the general naming policy says we should use what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, which comes to much the same thing. I cannot see anything in either of those documents which would justify making an exception in this case. It is a midtake to say that we should "keep her name as the way it was known by most", unless that means "keep her name as the way it was known by most English speakers". So what is the usual English language form of her name? This seems like one of the rare cases where a simple count of Google hits is a useful guide, since we only want to know what is most common. Well, a search for Bragança "Maria Pia", restricted to pages in English, gives me 1390 pages, and the same using Braganza gives me 2820, so, unless someone can find convincing evidence that this is wrong, Wikipedia policy requires us to make the move. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

If this wasn't clear before, I really don't know much about the matter, but was only contacted about it. However, I think you misunderstand the change, and forgive me if I'm wrong. The proposed change is from "...-Braganca" to "... and Braganca", which, as far as I know, the name supported by most sources. "Braganca" and "Braganza" are not being discussed here, as far as I know. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 22:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand the above comment above at all. The first sentence of this section says "...this article should be moved to Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Braganza...". Here we have "Coburg" in place of "Coburgo", "and" in place of "e", and "Braganza" in place of "Bragança". JamesBWatson (talk) 12:54, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

My friends: JamesBWatson is totaly right in this case! As he said «Wikipedia policy requires us to make the move». Rules are rules. We are not discussing if she is or not from Portuguese royalty, we are just discussing the naming conventions for names and titles. Thank you. 84.90.92.195 (talk) 23:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I don’t believe a search for Braganza “Maria Pia” is useful or accurate in this instance. There are various people who will be found (and indeed are) in the hits for this search such as Maria Pia of Italy and Maria Pia of Bourbon-Two-Sicilies who was married to Luis of Orleans-Braganza. - dwc lr (talk) 23:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia conventions policy are clear in this case. JamesBWatson had very well presented why we should move this article to Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Braganza. His arguments and the Wikipedia conventions should be considered. 84.90.92.195 (talk) 16:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Well I get two hits on google for "Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Braganza". One from this article and one from this article on a mirror site. - dwc lr (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I totally disagree with you. The Google results are:

• about 4,090,000 for Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha Braganza (0.08 seconds)
• about 4,080,000 for Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Braganza (0.10 seconds)

With her complete surname (including "Gotha"), and without it, this results are clear. And also based on Wikipedia conventions policy, the article should be moved. Thank you. 84.90.92.195 (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

And did you use quotation marks? - dwc lr (talk) 16:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Me, JamesBWatson and (βǃʘʘɱ), we had explained the reasons to move. If you cannot understant it, I'm just sorry. 84.90.92.195 (talk) 17:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

No you didn't did you so you have hits for who only knows, most likely for wikipedia and and its mirrors and actual royalty like the two women I mentioned above. - dwc lr (talk) 17:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Two women?!? Please... facts are facts! 84.90.92.195 (talk) 17:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The title of this article is totally wrong. Any source cited her as "Saxe-Coburgo-Bragança", but as "Maria Pia de Saxe-Coburgo e Bragança" and "Maria Pia de Saxe-Coburgo-Gotha e Bragança" (in Portuguese language, of course). In English, Jean Pailler book cited her as "Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha Braganza, the Princess Royal of Portugal and Duchess of Braganza" and as "Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Braganza". Anyway, based on Wikipedia conventions policy, the article should be moved. 84.90.92.195 (talk) 17:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Why is this woman given a supposed royal title on this site?

There is no proven evidence that she was the daughter of King Carlos. (I am not saying whether she was or was not, just that there is no proven evidence.)

In her life she assumed two titles, a pseudonym as a writer and a title she claimed as the supposed daughter of the late king. As neither are provably correct, and both were assumed, neither should be the article title. As the only definitive evidence is who her mother is, the technically correct name (the only provably real name) should be her own given name and her surname. That does not mean we are commenting on whether the woman was or was not the daughter of the King, merely that we cannot verify who her father was, but we can verify who her mother was, and so refer to her by the only verifiable identity, while explaining that she claimed a different title.

The only way we can use a royal title is if it is verifiable or if she changed her name by deed poll to that name. It is not Wikipedia's job to be used by either side in the debate to justify or ridicule the claim, merely state unambiguous facts. Unless she legally changed her name to the form used here, we cannot use it simply because she chose, controversially, to claim it was her title. Propaganda books using a name is not in itself independent evidence of its truthfulness.

Furthermore, the article as constructed reads in its opening as though it is an article on a title. It is supposed to be an article about a person, yet nowhere that I can see do we actually say what her legally registered name, as opposed to assumed names, was. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 17:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Jean Pailler is not a book of propaganda. But if you don't believe, so, read also the President of Portugal book: Mário Soares; Portugal amordaçado: depoimento sobre os anos do fascismo. Lisbon: Arcádia, 1974, pp. 274–278; or General Humberto Delgado book: Memórias (Colecção "Compasso do tempo")'. Lisbon, 1974, pp. 233–234; or Fernando Luso Soares; Maria Pia, Duquesa de Bragança contra D. Duarte Pio, o senhor de Santar. Lisbon: Minerva, 1983. Many different sources should not be considered all as propaganda. Her names and surnames are valid and are cleary explained on this books. The information should be replaced. 84.90.92.195 (talk) 17:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

What was legally recognised name?

The answer is Marie Amalia Laredo e Murca. That is the only verifiable name there is. What Soares or anyone else says is irrelevent. They are simply opinions. The only issue is accuracy -

Can we verify her claimed royal title? No

Was it her legal name? No.

Was it her registered name? No.

The job of an encyclopaedia should be to refer to someone by their actual verifiable name, not their claimed one. It is not for us to say whether her claimed name should be correct or not. The reality is that legally it isn't. Her legal name apparently was Marie Amalia Laredo e Murca, and that is what the article should be under, with redirects from her pseudonym and her assumed title. This is not the Maria Pia de Saxe-Coburgo-Bragança appreciation society, however much her supporters may want it to be (and they have been targeting this article for years to push her claim). FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 17:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a false information and any source cited that name. The most common name cited by all sources and registered on Civil services of Portugal and Italy was Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Braganza (Portuguese: Maria Pia de Saxe-Coburgo e Bragança). 84.90.92.195 (talk) 18:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

We should call people by the names they call themselves, even if those names were assumed under false pretenses. john k (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Infobox Pretender

In the Infobox Pretender used on Maria Pia's article it should be referred the House of Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha as Royal House, because it's by this Royal House that became her pretension to the Portuguese throne. Thank you. 84.90.92.195 (talk) 01:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Her claimed titles, claimed paternity and claimed Royal House (House of Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha) should be referred on the Infobox, because she had a Infobox as Pretender in her article. 84.90.92.195 (talk) 23:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Her claimed father and title is as far as I can see? - dwc lr (talk) 00:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Gotha surname

In Genealogy of the Royal Family of Wettin (Portugal), and other genealogy websites, Maria Pia of Braganza was cited as Maria Pia de Saxe-Coburgo Gotha e Bragança, and as daughter of Carlos I of Portugal. 84.90.92.195 (talk) 19:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

That's nice. Unfortunately, she was neither. Which is why our "reliable souces" policy doesn't encourage the use of self-published websites as sources of information for Wikipedia articles. -Nunh-huh 02:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Active claim to the Portuguese throne

This section is curious. It says much more about the supposed defects of the "miguelist" line – Miguel's coup d'etat, their absolutist trends, their exclusion of the succession line by the Chart of 1938, their banishment from the Kingdom, their support to Salazar etc. – than what should be the focus of this section: Maria Pia's active claim to the Portuguese throne. Also, too much polemic information without reference. Shouldn't it be rewritten? --Tonyjeff (talk) 03:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes it probably should be. Quite a few sections are unreferenced I notice as well. - dwc lr (talk) 15:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I removed most of the text related to the clash between miguelists and constitucionalists, and some information about miguelists and Franco without citation. I intend to move it to a proper article. --Tonyjeff (talk) 19:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Braganza article

Many people don't edit Maria Pia's article because it will be better to the encyclopedia, but just for promote his own believes and partidarism causes. For example: in the History of Portugal, the Monarchic Constitution promulgated in 1838, and never revoked, categorically states as follows (in article 98): "The collateral line of the ex-infant Dom Miguel and all his descendants are perpetually excluded from the succession". The same constitution defines that they are no more members of Portuguese royalty, so, they cannot carry any of Portuguese royal titles (as Duke of Braganza, for example). So, how can we consider Miguel, Duarte Nuno and Duarte Pio as members of Portuguese royalty and Dukes of Braganza? The Monarchic Constitution of Portugal is not a valid source? Sould not be considered here? Please! Many persons are here acusing me of partidarism, but the truth is that the war against Maria Pia of Braganza surname translation is only to better promote the Miguelist cause and not the better of Wikipedia. 84.90.92.195 (talk) 20:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• • I think you're confusing the concepts of "monarchy" and "royalty". The common consent of the royal families of Europe decides whether a European family is royal; governments only decide whether they want a royal family to be their monarchs. These are totally different concepts. The idea that a family still remains royal even if a country abolishes its monarchy is an important European historic and political concept dating back centuries. The Portuguese government does not control the House of Braganza or decide whether it's royal or not; they only control whether the House of Braganza reigns as monarchs in Portugal. Despite anything the Portuguese government does or says, the Braganzas are considered a royal house because other European royal houses consider them so. The head of the House is the one who decides whether an individual is "royal" or not, NOT the government.
    
    The distinction between royal and non-royal is important for some royal families who are still reigning in Europe, so the distinction has a practical importance too. In some countries (I think Belgium and perhaps Luxembourg?) the heir to the throne must marry someone of equal rank. Dom Miguel's descendants can't marry into those families because they've lost their royal rank, because the head of the House of Braganza no longer considers them royal. Again, the Portuguese government has nothing to do with this.
    
    This, I suspect, is why people are accusing you of being non-neutral: you might have come across as anti-monarchy because you were unaware of the difference between the two concepts.
    
    I hope this explanation makes sense to you. -- NellieBly (talk) 13:51, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, largely. I will say further that my understanding is that the Portuguese government actually does more or less recognize the Miguelist line as being the royal family of Portugal. At any rate, none of this has much to do with Maria Pia, who was an impostor. A note - I don't think any currently reigning European monarchies any longer require equal marriages. Neither the last two queens of the Belgians nor the current duchess of Brabant have been of equal rank. Nor is the current Grand Duchess of Luxembourg. The Queens of Norway and Sweden, the Queen of the Netherlands' late husband, the queen of Denmark's current husband, and the Princess of Asturias were all also not of royal rank. Obviously Grace Kelly was not of royal rank. The princes of Liechtenstein may retain more or less equal marriage, but even there if you look at the family tree you'll see some families who would not have been considered equal by higher ranking royal families back in the day. john k (talk) 15:33, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I must also appoint that the fact of a family not being reigning is not sufficient to loose its condition of "royal". Thus, the miguelist line may, indeed, marry in equal condition with reigning families, because they recognize the actual duke of Braganza of royal blood (and not the impostor Maria Pia and her Siracusian sept). The Brazilian branch of the House of Braganza, the Orleans-Braganzas, already in the XX century, was able to marry many of its members with European royal houses in a time, when equal marriage was still the rule. --Tonyjeff (talk) 20:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Dear NellieBly, neither Belgium nor Luxembourg require the heir to the throne (or anyone for that matter) to marry a royal. To further illustrate how wrong you are about everything you wrote, the present Belgian and Luxembourg Royal Families descend from king Miguel of Portugal. Pevernagie (talk) 17:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Brazilian imperial house demands equal rank. --Tonyjeff (talk) 21:01, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The Ligne family is a noble family, so they have a very loose definition of equal rank. Pevernagie (talk) 07:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, they have the title of "princes" for more than 300 years. So, I consider it equalized enough... --Tonyjeff (talk) 19:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but that was not my point, my point was that no ruling monarchy (as NellieBly mentioned country, she did not refer to overthrown regimes) requires the heir to marry someone who is of "equal birth". And I feel we are turning this talk page into a forum, which is something that shouldn't be done. Pevernagie (talk) 11:34, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

No monarchy (of the handful that are left) may do so in the twenty-first century; but they certainly have done so in the past. See, for Britain, Royal Marriages Act 1772; also Leopold, Grand Duke of Baden. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Why does this article exist after all?

I was taking a look around when I found this amazing article. It is more than clear that both "Maria Pia" and the Italian guy are two buffons. Even if she was an ilegitimate daughter of a Portuguese king, she could not claim the throne. Even less the Italian who is not even related to her. No history book ever mentioned the existence of that woman and now we have an article about her?

Why wasn't it erased, yet? Is there any explanation? --Lecen (talk) 20:50, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Her notability is secured by her claims, which appeared in the press and inspired several books, as well as by her writings, as journalist and writer. She was one of the first female journalists in Spain. Besides, there are plenty of reliable sources which mention and describe her and a few books entirely dedicated to her life, most notably the Pailler one. All this is in the article, especially in the Portuguese version, so I don't quite well understand what are your doubts.--Darwinius (talk) 02:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

So, you really expect anyone to believe that not only she is a bastard of a Portuguese King but she also had a claim to the throne? Worse of all: her "heir", who has no connection to her, and is obviously a scoundrel, is the new pretender to the extinguished throne? Really? --Lecen (talk) 03:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The question of whether she is notable is entirely independent of the question of whether she was an illegitimate daughter of King Carlos of Portugal and of whether, assuming this is true, she had a claim to the throne. The question of whether Mr. Poidimani is a scoundrel is even further removed from the question of whether "Maria Pia" was notable. Karl Wilhelm Naundorff was not Louis XVII, but he was still notable. john k (talk) 05:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with John K. She is notable as false predendent.--Yopie (talk) 09:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

If that's so, why se is called "de saxe-coburgo e bragança"? Shouldnt she be named after her real name? --Lecen (talk) 11:27, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how Lecen is defining the term "real name". Rightly or wrongly this lady used the name "de Saxe-Coburgo e Bragança" (or a similar variant). That is how she is most widely known. It doesn't mean that she was related to other people with that name any more than Duke Ellington was a Duke. Noel S McFerran (talk) 19:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Lawyer

I removed the following sentence : "Mr. Poidimani lawyer was lately arrested for swindling ( O advogado de famosos que perdeu as graças ). " because I fail to see how this relates to the rest of the article? Will we also be able to read about the nephew of the cleaning lady of the hair dresser of Maria Pia? This article is not about Rosario Poidimani, and as far as google translate can tell me his arrest was not even related to Rosario Poidimani, but for ripping off his customers Pevernagie (talk) 12:43, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Two proposed moves

I hate starting another thread on the matter, but I think this will be of some benefit. There seem to be two distinct proposed name changes being discussed here. The first is changing the title from Maria Pia de Saxe-Coburgo-Bragança to Maria Pia de Saxe-Coburgo e Bragança. This seems to be based purely off a Portuguese to English translation. This was the change that was originally being discussed here, but it seems grew into a different matter (or, the second proposed move).

The second move being discussed is based on the matter of royalty, and whether she has a royal title in her name or not, and whether this should translate to the title of the page. The change proposed would be from Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg-Braganza to Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha Braganza (the "and" being an addition found in the translation move). This move, it seems to me, is the one that deals more heavily with WP:RS and what supports what. For clarity, I think we could benefit from a clear, split discussion on the two changes, as to avoid confusion. At least to me, it feels like we're discussing two different things. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 17:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Translation move

support If she was entitled to be use a royal name (ie, if it was her legally registered name) it should be translated, according to naming conventions. It is a no-brainer. But as her legal name was actually Marie Amalia Laredo e Murca it is immaterial. As her royal claim is unverified, and her legal name is different, this article should be under her actual legally registered name, not her claimed royal name and not her pseudonym. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 17:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Her legally registered name mentioned include the royal surname. Maria Amélia Laredó e Murça was her mother! 84.90.92.195 (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• Do you mean moving it to Maria Pia de Saxe-Coburgo e Bragança? - dwc lr (talk) 18:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• •  Done Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 18:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Moving it to Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Braganza (and include on first paragraph the mention about how was her name in Portuguese language). Example:

Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Braganza (Portuguese: Maria Pia de Saxe-Coburgo e Bragança) (Lisbon, March 13 1907 - Verona, May 6 1995) was the name assumed by a lady who claimed to be an bastard daughter of King Carlos I of Portugal. Etc...

This is the most correct thing. Maybe with "Gotha" also. 84.90.92.195 (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

When are peoples surnames translated in article titles? - dwc lr (talk) 18:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

If it is a royal title they are translated, as this is English language Wikipedia and usually in English royal titles are referred to in English. Hence Mary of Teck, Caroline of Monaco, etc. But if it is a surname then it remains in the language the person used. Hence the fifth president of Ireland is Ceabhall Ó Dálaigh, not Charles Daly. The distinction is between titles and surnames. Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Braganza is a title. Maria Pia Saxe Coburg would be a name. This article, ridiculously in my view, uses an unverifiable title used by someone whose right to use it we cannot verify. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 18:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

A name don't is a title such because it's translated. C'mon!! 84.90.92.195 (talk) 18:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, "Gotha" has to do with the Royalty part. If we're going to discuss "Gotha", do it below. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 18:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no objections to it being moved to Maria Pia de Saxe-Coburgo e Bragança if that's the more correct version of the this late Portuguese woman's surname. - dwc lr (talk) 18:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The general rule for names of people is given in the naming conventions for names and titles as use the most common form of the name used in English. Likewise the general naming policy says we should use what the greatest number of English speakers would most easily recognize, which comes to much the same thing. 84.90.92.195 (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

• I say, use Maria Pia de Saxe-Coburgo e Bragança, she falls in the same category as mister "Prinz von anhalt". Pevernagie (talk) 18:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Reasons to use "Gotha": Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha Braganza (Portuguese: Maria Pia de Saxe-Coburgo-Gotha e Bragança) was her real name and had the surname from the last Portuguese Royal House. Remember that "Saxe-Coburg and Gotha Braganza" was the last Portuguese Royal Family surname (because "Saxe-Coburg and Braganza" (Pt: Saxe-Coburgo e Bragança) is most common in a Brazilian Imperial Family line). 84.90.92.195 (talk) 18:18, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Using capslock is shouting. Please refrain from doing so. Pevernagie (talk) 18:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Was not intencional. Sorry. 84.90.92.195 (talk) 18:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The pushers of her claim have a habit on shouting on this issue. They have been banging away on this issue for years, trying to use this website to bolster her claims on the basis that if we say it, other sites will follow. There have been edit wars for years and years on this, and when they are blocked, in the past they have referred to shouting (and starting edit wars). I'm just back on here after a couple of years and sure enough, this page and British Isles is still having the exact same rows as were going on when I left. In twenty years time they still will be going on! *sigh* ) FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 18:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

This is not a war. In Wikipedia, we should be always as a community of friends working all to the same finallity. 84.90.92.195 (talk) 19:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Translated or not, the surname is the same (and not considered necessarely as a title): "Saxe-Coburg and Braganza" = "Saxe-Coburgo e Bragança" (but in different languages). The article should be moved because this is the WP:EN and the naming conventions for names and titles is use the most common form of the name used in English. Just it, nothing more! Regard this:

Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Braganza (Portuguese: Maria Pia de Saxe-Coburgo e Bragança) (Lisbon, March 13 1907 - Verona, May 6 1995) was the name assumed by a lady who claimed to be an bastard daughter of King Carlos I of Portugal. Etc...

It's the name, not any title. It's imparcial and everyone can understand. Why are you complicating a simple question as a translation? 84.90.92.195 (talk) 19:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems the general consensus is to move the article to Saxe-Conburg e Braganza. Would anyone have any objections if I did this? This does not include any claims of royalty, like the "Gotha" bit. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 19:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

No, the consensus was Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Braganza (if in English language) or Maria Pia de Saxe-Coburgo e Bragança (if in Portuguese language). But Wikipedia policy defines that should be considered the English version. Please, be more carefull when you write her surname. 84.90.92.195 (talk) 19:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I do that frequently. I mean exactly what you said. I will make the move then, if there are no objections. Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 19:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would have an objection to moving it to Maria Pia de Saxe-Coburgo e Bragança people object to translating the surname to English. - dwc lr (talk) 19:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done, and now begins the ever so enjoyable task of dealing with double redirects. :) Lәo_(βǃʘʘɱ) 19:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

, If the surname means the same in both languages and if we are on WP:EN, why do not translate? 84.90.92.195 (talk) 19:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Because its a surname she was not English. - dwc lr (talk) 19:45, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Most part of people in Wikipedia are not English but have his names and surnames translated. 84.90.92.195 (talk) 19:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Like who? - dwc lr (talk) 19:49, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Francis Joseph of Braganza, Adelaide of Löwenstein-Wertheim-Rosenberg, Stephanie of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen, Edward of Portugal, all of Category:House of Orléans-Braganza, all of Category:House of Braganza, all of Category:House of Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, etc... 84.90.92.195 (talk) 20:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Um people with royal titles yes of course we do translate. Normal people (commoners) who don't have one just a name like Maria Pia de Saxe-Coburgo e Bragança, Frederic Prinz von Anhalt, Michael Prinz von Anhalt, Marcus Prinz von Anhalt we don't because they are surnames not titles theres a big difference. Maria Pia was not royalty just an alleged bastard daughter of royalty.- dwc lr (talk) 20:11, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems that Anjo-sozinho (84.90.92.195) does not understand the differences between "surname" and "title" (or pretends not to understand). --Tonyjeff (talk) 13:14, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Royalty move

"Saxe-Coburg and Braganza" = "Saxe-Coburgo e Bragança" (but in different languages). The surname should be translated; and based on a decision of Cortes de Lamego, Maria Pia received rights as member of the Portuguese royalty. 84.90.92.195 (talk) 20:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

This is just an allegation. Please, do not push your point of view. --Tonyjeff (talk) 13:12, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The name of the lady was Maria Amalia Laredo e Murça, daughter of Maria Amélia de Laredó y Murça and unknown father, as ruled by the Portuguese supreme court. If you want to make an encyclopedia, than do it properly. dcalado 24 September 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcalado (talk • contribs) 21:51, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

WRONG NAME

The real name of this lady was not Maria Pia. Actually her name was Maria Amalia Laredo e Murça, daughter of Maria Amélia Laredó e Murça and unknown father (http://www.geneall.net/P/per_page.php?id=493102 and as declared by the Portuguese supreme court). Maria Pia was the name of the Portuguese Queen Maria Pia Saboia Sax - Coburg e Bragança, mother of King Carlos I of Portugal and not related, whatsoever, with Maria Laredo e Murça. The title of the article should have been "Maria Amalia Laredo e Murça". dcalado 24 September 2011 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dcalado (talk • contribs) 21:37, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

• I understand your opinion, but please, do not rename interwiki links.--Yopie (talk) 09:08, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Name

With regard to this edit, later reverted because it is important to point out the dubious nature of what her supporter's website characterizes as her birth certificate, it is also important that we not falsely claim that "Hilda de Toledano" was merely a "pen name" as opposed to one of the several aliases she called herself in actual life. For example, she used the Toledano name when she met Galeazzo Ciano on 26 August 1938, as commemorated in his diaries: "I had a visit from a lunatic called Hilda de Toledano. With a great air of mystery she declared that she was the King of Portugal and offered to include her kingdom in the Roman Empire." - Nunh-huh 19:45, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Absolution of Rosario Poidimani, April 2013 concerning Busto Arsizio trial

I put the previous version including specifically the article of the Giornale di Vicenza, the page, the author and the date concerning the acquittal of Rosario Poidimani about the process of Busto Arsizio by the Court of Review of Milan and also in the link that I quoted. An encyclopedia neutral must indicate these important implications regarding a final absolution and not behave as the online press that after defame Rosario Poidimani during this 5 years at the end hides this news concerning this absolution in order to avoid bad impression with readers. In Italy, unfortunately, such cases happen every day, just to see what concerning in the case of the pretender Vittorio Emanuele of Savoy, few years ago, which was eventually acquitted after an alleged scandal.">Mario B. 20:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for either protection or removal of article

I was the individual responsible, back some years ago, for adding an "Analysis" section to the article and, subsequently,assisting with outlining the nature of the case put forth by Maria Pia and the issues raised by her claims. At the time I was active on this article, the collection of users here had managed to clean up the article to the point at which it had been considered, at one point, for Article of the Day (if not actually getting it.) This was in spite of pro-Poidimani trolls continuing to edit poorly-spelled, poorly-constructed but agenda-laden diatribes into the article. At more than one point, the article had been placed under semi-protection or indeed full protection.

I've recently returned to this article and find it in such poor shape that I must now question the value of an article's existence when a) it's being hijacked by users editing to push forth and lend legitimacy to a cause, and b) when that cause has such minor import to the current treatment of royal families throughout Europe and to the governments of Europe that little would change were it forgotten entirely. At one point, Maria Pia's claim might have been an interesting lesson in how royals are accepted as such in royal circles or among the general public. However, it's taken on the role of potentially perpetuating a major scam involving the fraudulent sale of noble titles overseas and the fraudulent issuance of coats-of-arms from heraldry offices which are near-defunct. The story of Maria Pia, whether de Laredo e Murca or de Saxe-Coburgo e Braganca, legitimately ends with her death. The continuation of the claim by Rosario Poidimani does not need to be mentioned beyond the simple fact that he has continued the claim. The expansion of that section including his information has never been supported by me nor has it a place in the article except to feed further the delusions of a few supporters.

I think it's time that we begin to cut this article down to size and to keep it there, if not to cut it out entirely. It's become a mess that few users think important enough to clean up. Perhaps subjecting it to full protection and letting the Talk section take the mess will be the only way to keep the article worthy of staying on the English Wikipedia site.

Kelly (talk) 20:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

IGO

I insert these links because are connect with Rosario Poidimani and with his association of IIRD and Royal House, the source is the official site of United Nations that report these associations as IGO, Intergovernmental Organizations. [2] ; [3] ; [4] ; [5]. I don't understand the motivations of delete these links, also in the official portuguese version of this page is reported this information about IGO Mario B. 19:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

This information is irrelevant to the article as these organizations were not listed during Maria Pia's lifetime. Besides, the entire section on Poidimani needs to be reworked or removed, in my view: the language in the text edited in by certain editors is such a poor translation into English that the passages make little sense and smack of an attempt to mislead or confuse readers. If editors are not native speakers of English and are relying on translation software to enter their contributions, I would strongly suggest that they have a human who's fluent in both languages review the passage before it's submitted. Kelly (talk) 14:53, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

ABOUT THE LEGAL VICTORY OF THE PORTUGUESE PRETENDER DOM ROSARIO POIDIMANI AGAINST MR STAIR SAINTY GUY

In August 2010 the Court of Vicenza (Italy) sentenced for defamation against Mr Guy Stair Sainty in favour of the portuguese pretender Dom Rosario Poidimani,requiring compensation of twenty thousand euro. Here the entire sentence: [6] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.21.233.237 (talk) 10:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

If this is true, all it shows is the outrageous nature of Italian defamation laws. john k (talk) 01:59, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

All this is true and it shows that this Mr Guy Stair Sainty is a slanderer and therefore was rightly punished by an impartial judge. 79.21.233.237 (talk) 13:11, 07 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.21.234.240 (talk)

There is the small matter that Mr Guy Stair Sainty was not able to defend himself in the case because he was unaware of those particular proceedings. As of October 2011 Stair Sainty was planning to appeal the action. So it is not over just yet. Heraldic (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:01, 1 May 2011 (UTC).

Your affirmations is completely false. Mr Stair Sainty know very well this case because for this same in the web site [7] of his friend Pier Felice degli Uberti boasted of winning against Dom Rosario only because an investigating judge has not obscured his web site containing defamation against the pretender Dom Rosario Poidimani. Now the Court of Vicenza condemned Stair Sainty for defamation. Mr. Stair Sainty was fully aware of this process, only that he could not win because the claims of the pretender Dom Rosario Poidimani are based only on official documents and not talk like this Stair Sainty and his disciples are used. The law condemned Stair Sainty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.252.55.226 (talk) 19:14, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Just in case anyone is curious: the unsigned posts above all display the IP address from which they were sent. That IP address resolves to the area of Italy between Venice and Trieste. Not coincidentally, this also happens to be where Mr. Poidimani lives. Draw your own conclusions. Bricology (talk) 07:36, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

On-going dispute

To participate and view an ongoing dispute concerning various aspects of articles pertaining to the Miguelist dukes, Maria Pia of Braganza, and the Braganza-Coburg articles, and an ongoing dispute between editors User:Anjo-Sozinho, User:Hebel, and myself, see here. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 23:12, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Her surname

I'm rather curious how de Saxe-Coburgo e Bragança got to be this persons surname. And even if it was her official surname. How was she registered officially in the country / countries she resided in? The article doesn't make that clear. I've placed a CN tag because at this point the matter is unverifiable. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of her legal name, which is highly and continuously disputed between her supporters and denouncers, the lead, infobox title, and article name should bare Maria Pia de Saxe-Coburgo e Bragança as it falls in line with WP:COMMONNAME. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 00:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

There is also a rule about the first mention. That should always be the legal name per WP:FULLNAME and WP:BIRTHNAME. What goes for the article title doesn't go for the lead. Also Gerard von Hebel (talk) 00:57, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Sure, but the trouble is the dispute about her legal name - therefor the common name should take precedence, no? Cristiano Tomás (talk) 01:26, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not clear that her common name isn't Hilda Toledano.-Nunh-huh 01:28, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

The trouble is that we don't know what her legal name is. Or her birthname. Her legal name may very well be de Saxe Coburg e Braganza, but it could hardly have been her birthname. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 01:32, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Exactly my point, considering we really don't know what her legal or birth names were, shouldn't we use common name for everything, simply with a disclaimer on the uncertainty of names? Cristiano Tomás (talk) 02:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh yes of course. Until we know better (if such information is even available). That's why I put the CN tag there. Perhaps of course her birthname will remain a mystery. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 03:11, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Her birth name is Maria Pia de Saxe-Coburgo Gotha e Bragança (in English: Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha Braganza) based on the alleged request of the king upon acknowledgment letter. However, in the date of her birth there was no civil registration requirement and remained just the baptism certificate. When appeared the civil registration, she was registered as Maria Pia de Saxe-Coburgo e Bragança (in English: Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Braganza), that, due to a distraction, omitted her "Gotha" surname. In all civil documents, until her death, remained the information: Father - Carlos de Sabóia e Saxe-Coburgo e Bragança (in English: Charles of Savoy and Saxe-Cobourg Braganza), Mother - Maria Amélia Laredó e Murça, and her own name as Maria Pia de Saxe-Coburgo e Bragança (in English: Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Braganza). So, the name is correct and is also the name referred in all existing bibliography (see example: CHILCOTE, Ronald H.; The Portuguese Revolution: State and Class in the Transition to Democracy, that, in page 37, states: «Contending with Nuno was the Manuelist claimant, Princess Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg, duchess of Braganza, and independent monarchists in the opposition...») Anjo-sozinho (talk) 13:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

"Alleged" seems to be the operative word here. Documents about her baptism were made when she was well into adulthood. What the situation was at her birth is basically an unknown for us at this point. Also Stair-Sainty speaks of "a name she assumed in adulthood"[8]. This lady must have existed by a name between her birth and the production of the documents her name is derived from. Per WP:BIRTHNAME that would be interesting to know. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 13:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Guy Stair Sainty has been already sentenced for defamation and their claims have been eliminated from its official website by express order of the court. Their official links with the false information about Maria Pia's claims are broken now. The WP decision was use the name referred in the bibliographic sources, so I added more references to complete the article and made it more neutral. Thanks for your help and words. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 13:59, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps you don't understand that the Sainty/Poidmani decision was on the basis of intemperate language and not about the basic truth of the proposition that Poidmani's claims are false? In a country more devoted to freedom of speech than Italy, such a decision would have been impossible; in the U.S., proving that Poidmani's claims are false would be a defense, while in Italy, truth is not a defense if you have spoken "intemperately". The crux was Sainty saying that only an idiot would believe Poidmani's claims, which you're apparently not allowed to say in Italy whether or not it's true. - Nunh-huh 03:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

In Jean Pailler's book The Pretender: Maria Pia, the would-be queen of Portugal she is referred as "Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha Braganza, the heiress of portuguese throne and the duchess of Braganza". Also the book The Portuguese Revolution: State and Class in the Transition to Democracy of Ronald H. Chilcote cited her as "Princess Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg, Duchess of Braganza" in page 37. The surnames should be translated as it happens in other articles to be more consistent with the cited sources. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 23:22, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Surnames are not translatable. Titles however can be. But she had none. It is obviously rather unlikely that she would have a surname with English terms in it. The cited sources all say different things, basically at this point we have no sources for her surname. Pailler's citation calls her "Her Royal Highness Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha Braganza, Princess of Portugal", from which he apparently derives an English translation. That is obviously false. Chilcote uses titles she didn't have as well, but he omits the Gotha part. Her baptismal certificate calls her "de Sajonia Coburgo-Braganza de Laredo" and cites a document from the king, making her a dynastic Princess. All of this isn't particularly helpful. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 00:12, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Gerard von Hebel I couldnt agree with you more - you've said it there, all these "sources" which are supposed to clear up uncertainties of names and titles surrounding her only seem to confuse and contradict. Just within Pailler's description, his use of calling her Princess of Portugal ( a defunct title since the renaissance), or within her baptismal certificate, which curiously gives her the names of (translating to) Savoy Coburg-Braganza de Laredo, which doesn't follow any naming norm at all, be it amongst royalty (who only use their singular house name [usually]) or normal people (with it listing grandmother-great grandfather-father-mother. Don't these inconsistencies and suspicious claims warrant these sources as WP:Questionable sources, and shouldn't be included. Cristiano Tomás (talk) 04:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

To better reflect the problems with this issue I removed the citations from the first mention in the lead. That at least indicates where we stand, namely that we haven't got any authoritative sources on the birth name of this lady or on the name she was known by viz the authorities of the country / countries she resided in. The last(which is important when it comes to the first mention) may, as far as we know, very well not have been "de Saxe-Coburgo e Bragança". Gerard von Hebel (talk) 05:12, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

There are here more sources about the the parental relationship between King Charles I of Portugal and Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha Braganza:

• Maria Pia of Braganza is presented in the family tree of King Charles I of Portugal by the renowned historian A. H. de Oliveira Marques in his book História de Portugal - Volume III published in Lisbon, 1982.
• Maria Pia of Braganza was cited as Princess Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg, duchess of Bragança in CHILCOTE, Ronald H.; The Portuguese Revolution: State and Class in the Transition to Democracy, page 37. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers; Reprint edition (August 31, 2012).
• Maria Pia of Braganza was cited as the Princess Maria Pia in HILTON, Ronald; Hispanic American Report (Volume 10), page 576, published by the Stanford University, Department of Hispanic American Studies, in 1957.
• Maria Pia's life and parental relationship with King Charles I of Portugal was presented in a popular biography of Jean Pailler published under the title Maria Pia: A Mulher que Queria Ser Rainha de Portugal (The Pretender: Maria Pia, the would-be queen of Portugal), published by Bertrand Editora in Lisbon, 2006.
• Maria Pia's case was studied and presented openly by the famous Portuguese lawyer Francisco de Sousa Tavares and published under the title O caso de Maria Pia de Bragança (13 de maio de 1983) (The Maria Pia of Braganza's case), in Escritos Políticos I, by Mário Figuerinhas, pages 246–251, in Oporto, 1996.
• The author Isabel Lencastre published a literary work resulting from a study done to all the bastards of the Portuguese royalty and devoted an entire chapter to the case of Maria Pia of Braganza. The book is Bastardos Reais - Os Filhos Ilegítimos dos Reis de Portugal. Lisboa: Oficina do Livro, 2012, pages 211-223.

Thank you for your attention. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 04:43, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

I don’t see you quoting (chapter and verse) where any of these authors explicitly and clearly assert that this lady is indeed Carlos’ daughter and what their evidence or even proof for that is, or what this has to do with her surname. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 07:09, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

@Hebel: Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha Braganza (her real name) is cited as "Princess Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg, duchess of Braganza" in CHILCOTE, Ronald H.; The Portuguese Revolution: State and Class in the Transition to Democracy, page 37. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers; Reprint edition (August 31, 2012) and as "...Her Royal Highness D. Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha Braganza, the Crown Princess of Portugal" in Jean Pailler; Maria Pia of Braganza: The Pretender. New York: ProjectedLetters, 2006. But there are more and more examples and you don't have any proof to tell that her claims are false. If you call "Dukes" to foreign persons (remember that the Portuguese Courts and Law banish all foreigns from the sucession line, even to President of the Republic role), Miguelists cannot be Dukes, or Princes, or Kings, in Portugal. They are born in Switzerland (Duarte Pio), in Austria-Hungary (Duarte Nuno), in Germany (Miguel Januário). Just Maria Pia of Braganza was born in Portugal and she was born at the time of last Portuguese Monarchy. That's the facts. If you used the same criteria for treatment in all articles of the pretenders in question (Miguelist and Saxe-Coburg) so I could even agree with you. But you don't... or you think to reconsider that? Anjo-sozinho (talk) 00:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I have now changed the intro. We've waited long enough for an official name anywhere on record. We will now have to acknowledge that we don't know what it was. We do know that she took the name that is the title of this article, in later life . Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:20, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

That's a false and partial information. The name "Maria Pia de Saxe-Coburgo e Bragança" was in her baptism certificate and was not "assumed in life" by the lady. You changed the factual references to placed a reference based on a opinion maker in genealogy. That's not correct in Wikipedia. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 15:10, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The point is that we don't have the actual baptism certificate, and that the copy administered by a priest many years later has some features that are so unlikely, it's of no practical value as proof of her birth name. Furthermore the 'çopy' is accompanied by another lost document, on which it is partly based, that has even more unlikely features. In the meanwhile, the lady involved must have had a name registered by some authority. That seems nowhere to be found. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:20, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

@Hebel: you can see (at least) two ancient and original baptism certificates here (1939) with the oficial transcription of 1958 here. In fact, in English Wikipedia her name sould also be translated (as it happens with Miguelist and other pretenders) to Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha Braganza. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 16:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Anjo-sozinho, WE know these documents, they are in the article and they are from 1939 and in many facets beg belief, as is clearly stated in the body article already. The original baptismal certificate is unlikely to have had the name of the father mentioned and as you know, King Carlos didn't have the authority to grant Maria Pia, what he allegedly granted her there. Also the documents are from 1939. Can you actually explain what is so different about your version, except the quote by Stair Sainty? Can you explain how your sources give any official name used from birth? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:22, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

@Hebel: All the cited books sources cited her as Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha Braganza (sometimes also as Duchess of Braganza). Never any Historian wrote that this name was "assumed in life" by her. There are also all the civil documents of this lady that states the name as referred in the cited books. So using "name assumed in life" is cleary make partial the truthfulness of Maria Pia's life events. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 16:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

@Hebel: you are placing worst and worts information to gave a wrong idea about this personality. This cannot be accepted. This is a biography, not an opinion article. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 16:47, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Anjo-sozinho, this is stated, not only by a prolific writer on these matters, but it follows implicitly even from the supposed birth certificate and the life history of the lady involved. Where do your sources explicitly state she was called that from birth? You have been asked this question before. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:55, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

You must consider factual information. If you want all information to prove all things, please cited where is published all "proof's" about the other claims (for example Miguelist pretenders titles and "names")... you don't have nothing to proove that. So, please don't do a war with Maria Pia's article. The factual information is already cited and should be mantain it impartial. You are developing and publishing a partial version here about this subject. Please, stop it. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 17:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Let's stick to the matter at hand shall we? Which is that the assertions made by some about the name and status of this lady at birth and in later life, is and always has been highly problematic. Which the article should, and indeed in the body article does, reflect. Which should be acknowledged in the lead section as well. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

@Hebel: You just want to discuss the matter that interests you, which reveals an impartial attitude. The same review that you are making in this article is urgently be made to the articles of Miguelist pretenders. I'm doing neutral contributions and only based on verifiable literature sources. This should be respected, is a community rule. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 17:14, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

You ask consensus, but you not promote or respect any consensus. Please, replace referenced and neutral information into the article. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 17:25, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Why do you insist on denying that her pretense is to all intents and purposes highly problematic? You have agreed in the past to text that clearly expressed that. So what exactly is the problem? Even if she was the child of Carlos I, she was the illegitimate child of Carlos I. Which gave her no rights to the throne whatsoever at birth, and you know that very well! Yet you are willfully arguing against the facts on the ground, with quotes that don't actually deny them! I understand that the lady in question was to some, more politically palatable that the Miguelist family, and for that she should be praised, but that's not the question at hand! Also consider the restoration in 1842 of the constitution of 1826, which you just have always denied to have even taken place! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

@Hebel: I'm not denying that Maria Pia's pretense is highly contested (not problematic, it's very different). But that's not the point: I'm not deleting any of your recent information, I'm just placing in a footnote. You still placing Star Sainty reference as the most relevant, and it isn't. He declares himself as a Miguelis supporter, so his opinion cannot be considered as neutral in this case (can be cited, but not as main information or "law"). Also happens in House of Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha article. Why are you deleting neutral information to replace false titles and more Miguelist POV? I guess we are very close to finish this discussion, but it's necessary that you stop vandalism (deleting factual information and several sources) and read what I write in the articles. I'm not deleting anything, just neutralizing. Respect it and please do the same in Miguelist pretenders articles. I cannot accept those false information and I will ask to all WP community to change that scandalous POV. Can we reach a consensus or not? Anjo-sozinho (talk) 18:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

No, I don't believe we can as long as you insist on this lady's pretense to be taken seriously versus the laws of the Portuguese monarchy as they were in place from 1842 to 1910. I agree the pretense should be mentioned, but so should the facts on the ground, which are highly problematic, and as long as you insist that we actually know what her name at birth was, which we simply don't know. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:29, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

@Hebel: So you admit that you don't want to be impartial and that you are just in an attitude of persecuting the true story about this pretender and trying to benefit other claims? Wow... So it changes everything. I cannot accept impartial attitude here. If you don't change your attitude, I will again appeal to the community. Your answer now was very clear: you are just based in your opinion, not in sourced information or consensus discussions. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 19:35, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Anjo-sozinho, we are talking about the question of her first mention and birthname here. I have no problem with the first mention as long as we have no info about her birthname and the name she was officially known by from birth until whatever year it was when it became equivalent to the name of the article, if it did indeed. The question at hand is that we don't know what she was officially known by from birth to at least somewhere in the 1930's or later. The so called birth certificate is too problematic to give us any clue, as the matters stated in it are beyond reason and defy any belief! The King making her an heir to the throne? Added to a so called specimen of the document more that thirty years later. Anjo, you can't be serious! Also the sources you mention do not touch upon the matter at all, as far as I can fathom. So what exactly is the problem? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Why do you insist on suppressing Stair Sainty, who is the only quoted and qualified author about the subject of her birth name to have anything to say about the matter? Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

First of all, I did not supressed Stair Sainty... I placed their information in a footnote, because their reference is just an opinion (not based in any documental proof), and no, he's not a qualified author since he was placed as a Miguelist supporter in Duarte Pio's pretender website. Please, read first my contibutions and don't revert again and again. The information is there, but respecting the Wikipedia editing rules. You are mading Maria Pia's article as an opinion article. Stop doing it. Be neutral. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 20:00, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, as far as Sainty's info goes, it can't be subjected to a footnote. It's a rather critical part of this matter. The matter I expressed in a CN tag just about one year ago and that stood there as a sore thumb throughout the past year. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:07, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Sainty's info can and should be subjected into a footnote. It's a secondary source and declared as Miguelist advertising. Wikipedia cannot admit POV like this. Please, replace my NEUTRAL edition. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 20:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Just a question for you Anjo-sozinho. I know that Maria Pia was not a sympathizer of the Estado Novo, while the Miguelists apparently were. Is that the background of your support for the mention of her pretense? Because if that's the problem we should be having another discussion altogether. And you're right that Stair Sainty is a secondary source (he, not the blog that quotes him). Wikipedia uses secondary sources as it's prime fount of information. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:16, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not a supporter of Maria Pia's throne claims. I just support the truth of all pretentions and I'm shocked with the amount of lies that were written and published over the years only with the intention of "legitimize" the huge fraud and lies promoted by Miguelist pretenders. I made an intense work in Wikipedia to replace the truth, always based on sources and reliable information about her. Her article still not neutral because you deleted all my contributions. I defend that her article should be correctly translated and also Miguelist articles should be. Maria Pia of Braganza claimed the Portuguese throne as a daughter (even bastard) of a King. Current Miguelist pretenders did not: they passed over their own older brothers and uncles (remember that Miguel Januário claimed to be King even during Manuel II of Portugal life and ignored his own sisters and older brothers!) and they made a pact with Salazar (in exchange for dynastic recognition and knowing that they had no valid rights). They know that they are perpetually banished from the Portuguese throne sucession. But here on Wikipedia you started defending Maria Pia as an impostor and Miguelists as "Dukes", "Royal Princes", etc. Any person recognize that. But neutrality doesn't exists here since you reverted all my contributions without read first. It's a shame. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 20:31, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

For example, the oldest brother of Duarte Nuno, the false "Prince" Francis Joseph of Braganza, was involved in homosexual scandals and emeralds robbery, reason why they silenced their claim and made it disappear from succession... They promote falsehoods about the lady Maria Pia to hide the scandals in which they themselves have always been involved... Anjo-sozinho (talk) 20:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I see you don't like the Miguelists. You don't have to, but that's not a valid reason for your years of disruptive editing. You are basically admitting to YOUR POV in your most recent edits on this talkpage. If that is your rationale, seek a better one! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

That is a false acusation and your edits with vandalism and declared personal opinions supressing factual information admits your POV against Mrs. Maria Pia and promoting Miguelist pretenders. But I will appeal and show to everyone all of your vandalism edits (supressing factual information has no excuse). I asked your help and tried a consensus. You answered with vandalism and declared POV and acusations. This will be considered. Anjo-sozinho (talk) 23:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

The major problem continues to be that you seem unwilling to accept a consensus that does not concur with your view, in which Maria Pia and the Miguelist descendants are treated equally. But Wikipedia's policies and guidelines requires that competing interpretations of historical or other facts reflect prevailing coverage in reliable sources, which requires that the two sides be treated proportionately -- not equally. It would be distortionate and undue weight to provide them the same amount or kind of coverage. The consensus on this article and this page appropriately reflects that difference between "due weight" and "same treatment", but you decline to accept a consensus that does not elevate Maria Pia to a prominence in coverage and treatment which is not reflected in published coverage of claimants to Portugal's royal legacy. FactStraight (talk) 02:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

References

Neutrality disputed

This article is embarrassing. Each side keep pushing their claims without independent sources, state their analysis as fact, have few independent links. It is ludicrous that the article doesn't EVEN give the woman's name. One side claims to use her writer pseudonym, the other her royal claimed name. As the article uses her pseudonym as the title I have reverted to the version that uses her name, and removed some of the more ludicrous over the top language.

The battle over this article has been going on for years. If a solution isn't found soon, we should simply delete the whole thing. It isn't worth the hassle when both sides insist on vandalising it to push their agendas. FearÉIREANN[\^(caint) 22:58, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted to the December 29, 2007 version, just as Kelly did several days ago. There is a commitment by several editors to a neutral version. Unfortunately there are other editors who have strong personal opinions on both sides of this issue who seem insistent on forcing their point of view versions - but don't seem to want to engage in discussion about any particular issues on this talk page. There is no excuse for using words like illegally, fraudulently, absurd, sensational, and bizarrely; these are all point-of-view words. Noel S McFerran (talk) 10:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a typical Wikipedia:Conflict of interest issue. There is no such thing as both sides. There is the pro-wk side -- to avoid hoax and delusive articles -- and the agenda of a self proclaimed succesor who has been insisting for years in creating this castle in the air. Only when Rosario Poidimani was arrested (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=rosario+poidimani+prison&spell=1 )the edits stopped for a while.--BBird (talk) 20:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The article uses this persons assumed and clearly fake titles. They should not be given in the title, summary, etc, only in the text. Incidentally to refer to "Pretend from 1932-1987" is extraordinarily bad English.Royalcourtier (talk) 09:40, 29 October 2017 (UTC)