User talk:BranwenNiSidhe

Maria Pia de Braganza

I hope you can see the defamations of these users that judge and want put in the mind of the readers their ideas. The definition of the web site of Maria Pia of Braganza with their bad words demonstrate this encycloepdia is not a serious source because this partial judges in a serious encyclopedya don'y exist. Why in Duarte Pio page don't inserti that duarte pio was excluded by the constitution because his descendant was usurper and also he was a Swiss?? Can explain please? I am really displeased. They consider Maria Pia as false pretender...why?She was the daughter of the king Charles, she was a pretender and many and many sources consider this princess the true and unique duchess of Braganza. Best regards. Manuel de Sousa

Fact: There is no record of Hilda/Maria's baptism in existence from the time or place the baptism is alleged to have taken place.

Fact: No DNA samples have been forthcoming from either of Hilda/Maria's daughters to help establish any genetic link with either King Carlos or Manuel II.

Fact: Even _if_ one could prove biologically that Hilda/Maria was who she claimed to be, she would still have been a _bastard_, with _no_ claim to the throne, not even a claim to be an Infanta, unless she could have been legitimated by the king marrying her mother.

Fact: King Carlos could not legitimize her as he was already married - by the Roman Catholic church - to Queen Amelie at the time of Hilda's/Maria's birth. If the King, already beset on all sides by an increasingly hostile populace and government, dared to issue any declaration otherwise, it would have been an affront to his Queen, his country and the Church, and the events of his overthrow would likely have occured earlier than 1910.

Fact: Even if Hilda/Maria was who she said she was, it would have been a severe overstep of royal prerogative to pass both her daughters and her grandchildren in designating Rosario Poidimani has her heir. As I may have pointed out in previous editions, no European monarch since the Napoleonic Wars has had any legal right to designate an heir, so Mr. Poidimani's self-styling is quite without merit. We have yet to see any independent proof of his relationship by blood to the house of Braganza. Since you have made a serious point of Duarte Pio's birth in Switzerland, I should take this moment to point out that, likewise, Mr. Poidimani is not Portuguese-born.

Fact: That tattered Constitution of 1834 to which you cling so fervently is worthless. Other constitutions have replaced it and the clauses in it which had banned the Miguelist line from the country and the succession were specifically _repealed_ in 1950: as in, thrown out, reversed, stricken from the law of the land as though the clauses were never inserted. Like it or not, whether you hate Salazar or not, no government since then has put the ban back into force. Duarte Pio lives in Portugal because, since 1950, it has been his right to live there; as the senior male line representative of the former royal house, he is recognized as the Duke of Braganza.

Fact: Duarte Pio is so recognized by every legitimate royal house in Europe, and any invitations to royal weddings and funerals have his name on the outside envelope. He is also so recognized by the Portuguese government, and enjoys apparently an almost universal appeal from the monarchists within Portugal. Every court in Portugal has reinscribed Duarte's position as Duke of Braganza, and no court outside Portugal ( with the possible exception of the Sacred Rota at the Holy See, whose interests are solely in the interests of ensuring the correct administration of sacraments and pastoral aid) have any authority in deciding the Portuguese succession. Now, if it becomes a human rights issue for either party, or a matter of shoring up security on the continent, the EU may have to step in to settle it, but I doubt that Mr. Poidimani would want that.

Fact: Mr. Poidimani's "claim" in any event is hurt greatly by the inability of his supporters and apologists to form coherent thoughts in written English on the matter. The combination of poorly-constructed sentences and the use of vocabulary not seen in law books in over 200 years has the effect of turning your man's claims into a very raucous and hilarious joke. You may want to take some time to learn English and stop relying on online translation software, especially the ones you can access for free.

Finally, as I've told you before, my interest in this has been strictly academic until I learned from the case of Michel Lafosse what risks there are in supporting false claimants. I strongly suspect that you, sir, have far too much at stake in this matter to think rationally. Either you're in it to destabilize the monarchist movement in Portugal, or you've put up an awful lot of money and personal honour to help keep this thing going, or you may personally believe all that Poidimani's told you. Whichever way, it is interfering with learning and disseminating the full story of the claim and it must be stopped. You have been blocked numerous times from Wikipedia for repeated vandalism: attempt it again & I will have to recommend that all the articles potentially affected by your efforts undergo full protection. Kelly 142.167.251.236 06:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)