Talk:House of Braganza

Portugal B‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Portugal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Portugal on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PortugalWikipedia:WikiProject PortugalTemplate:WikiProject PortugalPortugal

B

This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Portugal To-do:

Find correct name The airport is not listed as João Paulo II anywhere. The airport's own website calls itself simply Ponta Delgada, and has no mention of João Paulo.

Improve key articles to Good article

Improve

Review

Category:History of Portugal: lots to remove there
Template:Regions of Portugal: statistical (NUTS3) subregions and intercommunal entities are confused; they are not the same in all regions, and should be sublisted separately in each region: intermunicipal entities are sometimes larger and split by subregions (e.g. the Metropolitan Area of Lisbon has two subregions), some intercommunal entities are containing only parts of subregions. All subregions should be listed explicitly and not assume they are only intermunicipal entities (which accessorily are not statistic subdivisions but real administrative entities, so they should be listed below, probably using a smaller font: we can safely eliminate the subgrouping by type of intermunicipal entity from this box).

Requests

See Requested articles

Assess

Help assessing articles.

Need images

Translate from Portuguese Wikipedia

Wikify

Vote:

Watch this list — Edit this list

Middle Ages Unassessed

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

braganza?=

why you keep writing the word with a Z???? It is written in portuguese "Bragança", I do not understand why I am finding this word with a Z in several wikipedia pages, shouldn't this be written in the correct, Portuguese, way?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.195.217.51 (talk) 14:43, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Learn The Language

Whomever keeps using "till" instead of "until", I simply have to say that if you are going to contribute to the English version of Wikipedia, learn the English language. To begin with, "till" is not an equivalent of "until", it is a verb, it means working the soil. Furthermore, "'til" is a slang abbreviation, something not to be accepted in a serious encyclopaedic entry, particularly one in a medium clamouring for respect. Perhaps part of the reason many people don't respect Wikipedia is because many of its contributors either don't know the language they are writing in, or don't care that their language has rules.

GuelphGryphon98 (talk) 18:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just stumbled upon this discussion, but a quick examination of the Oxford English Dictionary entry for "till" as a preposition or conjunction suggests that the above criticism is, at best, too harsh and, at worst, just plain wrong. Don't tell somebody to "learn the English language, if you don't know it yourself. "'Til" is not an abbreviation and has been in the language since Old English. "Till" is, according to Oxford, an "earlier form" than until. They are also "interchangeable," though "until" is somewhat more formal. In any case. Don't get too worked up. Till you do your research, don't mock others for understanding the language better than you do. 24.41.87.2 (talk) 05:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"'til" is a slang abbreviation for 'until.' 'Till' is indeed a preposition or conjunction from which the later equivalent term 'until' derives, and since it is both of older provenance and requires less space/data to store/express, I have taken it upon myself to revert every usage of the word 'until' in this article to 'till.' Good day. --24.193.52.80 (talk) 15:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just read you piece on the use of till vs until in the article on the House of Bragança, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:House_of_Braganza. You say, and I quote, "if you are going to contribute to the English version of Wikipedia, learn the English language". You would have a point if someone with appalling command of the language had written something utterly dreadful to warrant your comment and the attitude that it implies. I have come across many English-speaking people who commit far more serious errors when writing English. So, save your pompous arrogance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.246.168.178 (talk) 00:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge

Hi, I think House of Braganza should be the surviving article, as in House of Windsor. Kaisershatner 13:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A quick resume:

Dukedom of Braganza: Title created by Afonso V of Portugal given to Afonso, Count of Barcelos
Duchy of Braganza: The actual place of the duchy, in the north of Portugal. It is not relevant since the Dukes lived in Vila Viçosa, in southern Portugal, and I don't know of any privilleges they had in their estates.
House of Bragaza: The house started with Afonso and still exists today. In 1640, with John, Duke of Braganza (future John IV of Portugal) the house of Braganza comes to power, becoming the...
Royal House of Braganza: Since 1640 until 1910 it is the royal house of Portugal. In 1910 with the establishment of the republic it ceased to be the de facto house in power, but it is still today recognized as a Royal House by the majority of European royal houses.
Imperial House of Braganza: A branch of the House of Braganza, that in 1822 split from the Royal House of Portugal with the independence of Brazil declared by Emperor Peter I of Brazil (Prince of Portugal, and thus of the Braganza family). The republic was declared during the 19th century, but (just like in Portugal) the Imperial House is still recognized by the majority of the other royal houses
Duke of Braganza: Head of the House of Braganza from the beggining until 1640. From 1640 until 1910 it was used for the title of the heir to the throne together with Prince of Beira and Prince of Brazil. Today it is used by the current claimant to the throne Duarte Pio, Duke of Braganza.
Dynasty of Braganza: corresponds to the actual period between 1640 and 1910, when the House of Braganza was de facto in power in Portugal. It corresponds to the Portuguese 4th dynasty. Gameiro 17:54, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This definitely appears to be the correct title. My understanding is that if a name exists in the English language, and is fairly common then that is prefered over the local name. I would suggest including the title in Portuguese as well in the introductory paragraph. Take a look at Portugal's first dynasty the House of Burgundy. It is spelled signficantly different in English than in Portuguese. Falphin 13:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A quick google search reveals the current title with 12,000 results, and the other with 10,200. One suggestion is that in the Portuguese note, it should probably either be labeled as "Dinastia de Bragança"(the period) or "Casa de Bragança"(the ruling dynasty) of which the former appears to be much more popular on google. Falphin 14:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Braganza is the most widely used version in English, and there is no information appropriate for one article that is not appropriate for the other.Lethiere 11:16, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Braganza is the established version of the name in English. Therefore, please do not title any articles with Braganca, nor with those diacritical versions. Shilkanni 20:53, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really work out what has happened here, but I think we should change this back to House of Braganza?? Arniep 01:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The requested merger has now been completed. The article is now Braganza Dynasty which is an acceptable name - but I do not oppose if people wish to move it to House of Braganza (since there already is a page with edit history, I was not able to move anything to its place, an admin would be needed). Shilkanni 01:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be House of Braganza to keep it in line with all the other articles. Really I think you should have confirmed the consensus for a title name before moving. Arniep 13:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

D. Duarte

I have removed the section on D. Duarte pending citations. Just because some silly publicity whore's father was friends with Salazar and may or may not have had Manuel II (who was never a Duke of Bragança) sign something on a napkin which is now lost does not mean that he has any sort of claim to the title. In fact, he is no where near a legitimate claimant to the title, and all legal precedent works against his line having any claim to the throne. He is just a silly loon whose father Salazar happened to like, and who goes on TV whenever he can saying that he is the Duke. I can say the sky is neon green as much as I like, but that does not make it so. - Kyle543 22:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Consistency

If the article says that the House of Braganza ruled untill 1853 in Portugal, then logically Maria II was the final ruler of the House of Braganza, as her offspring belongs to the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. So it seems strange that the article states that Manuel II, who was not even born in 1853 was the final ruler from that house. If we consider Maria II's succesors to also belong to the House of Braganza, then logically we should merge the article about the House of Braganza Saxe-Coburg Gotha with this one. Pevernagie (talk) 14:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, Pevernagie, my apologies. I confused you with a whole different agenda. And now I understand the nature of your edit. Regarding this issue, of course there must be consistency. The qestion is that the Portuguese royal house after Maria II always called itself House of Bragança, and never House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. At best, mainly in non-Portuguese sources, it is called House of Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. If you make the reign of the Braganças end with Maria II, that will amount, I think, to OR. Even if you can find a reliable source stating the end og the Braganças with her, the mainstream position, that it only ended with Manuel II, must appear with more importance. Again, my apologies for the mix up! Cheers. The Ogre (talk) 15:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's nothing. Pevernagie (talk) 16:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

House of Braganza

Dear users, let's go to check the informations that I add:

Maria II of Portugal - She have the name Braganza, in Portuguese: Bragança, because is the name of her House.

The Brazilian Imperial Family is a branch of House of Braganza, which governed the Empire of Brazil from 1822 to 1889.

And about the history of the heiress to the throne of Portugal, Maria II of Portugal, was married with Ferdinand of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. Therefore, the next heirs to the Portuguese throne should have the name: Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. I thought... is a union of royal houses, that could be just speficied in the second paragraph? Because, the Braganzas dynastyc branch continued beeing the sovereign of the country until 1910.

I add too, that when the Braganzas were the sovereigns of Kingdom of Portugal, they were the sovereigns of the Portuguese Empire too.

The rest are just grammar corrections.

Colleagues, I'm from Portugal and I'm not a specialist in English language. If I made a grammar error in this article, please, correct for me. Thank you all. --Fernandoe (talk) 04:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are not Portuguese and these arguments above are just your conclusion about a theme you do not understand. Please, give references. --Tonyjeff (talk) 13:47, 18 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Attitude towards non English-speakers

Dear GuelphGryphon98 I just read you piece on the use of till vs until in the article on the House of Bragança, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:House_of_Braganza. You say, and I quote, "if you are going to contribute to the English version of Wikipedia, learn the English language". You would have a point if someone with appalling command of the language had written something utterly dreadful to warrant your comment and the attitude that it implies. I have come across many English-speaking people who commit far more serious errors when writing English. So, save your pompous arrogance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.246.168.178 (talk) 00:51, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Braganza

As was already asked here, why do english useres stupidly continue to write "Braganza" instead of "Bragança"? in Portugal, we say Bragança, not Braganza. Braganza is spanish, and the Portuguese Royal House is where the name says it is from, PORTUGAL. So, I would appreciate if you write Bragança , with a "ç", because I don't write "Londres", I write "London". Got it? If someone contiunues to write Braganza, I can and I will erase it, to write Bragança. If this childish error persists, I will erase the whole article. Thank you for your attention. --Prtgl93 (talk) 16:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]