Alexander Palace Forum

Discussions about the Imperial Family and European Royalty => Iberian Royal Families => Topic started by: DonaAntonia on April 16, 2009, 11:33:47 AM

Title: Who is indeed the person(s) who can claim to be «Duke of Braganza»?
Post by: DonaAntonia on April 16, 2009, 11:33:47 AM
I open this topic almost sure it will be closed down or merged into something else. I have noticed all topics against Duarte Pio and his wife are merged sooner or later. A topic about some of «Miguel thee usurper»'s descendants was also merged recently, as to prove not only pro-democracy posts are removed or merged. But with this last one, a notice was left on the forum stating «moved to...» and the previous posts were all left there.

I can only assume there is no equal treatment to the people who follow the pro-democracy line of the Braganzas and who do not believe a descendant from Miguel the usurper could ever be called «Duke of Braganza». Or a descendant of one of King Carlos assassins could ever be called «Duchess».

I believe these titles must be discussed amongst the heirs of King Carlos' aunts or those of King Pedro IV's sisters. I take no party here. just leave it open for foreigners to give an opinion. I already know the op pinion of Duarte Pio's supporters ans that of the person who signs as «Amelio».

The removal of my other topic is why I have stopped posting altogether. But I open this thread and leave the question:
Who is entitled to be called «head of the Portuguese Royal House»?

I don't think this has anything to do with Duarte Pio specifically, so please do not merge this thread with his and his wife's thread.

King Manuel II died without ever stating who should be his heir.
Title: Re: Who is indeed the person(s) who can claim to be «Duke of Braganza»?
Post by: Yseult on April 16, 2009, 11:50:50 AM
Or a descendant of one of King Carlos assassins could ever be called «Duchess».


To be fair...this is not HER fault, DonaAntonia.
;)
Title: Re: Who is indeed the person(s) who can claim to be «Duke of Braganza»?
Post by: DonaAntonia on April 16, 2009, 01:20:56 PM
Or a descendant of one of King Carlos assassins could ever be called «Duchess».


To be fair...this is not HER fault, DonaAntonia.
;)

You are right, Yseult. I'm sorry if I seemed offensive. But the point is her family would not even be Portuguese by now, had King D. Carlos survived. That's what I meant. Anyway, Isabel Heredia is only called «Duchess» by some because she is married to Duarte Pio.

So I guess the point about my thread has to do with him, not with whoever he chose to marry. Or, more likely, it has to do with his father, Duarte Nuno.
Title: Re: Who is indeed the person(s) who can claim to be «Duke of Braganza»?
Post by: Amelio on April 16, 2009, 06:26:12 PM
I know you don't like me Dona Antonia, but I will give my opinion:
The title should be given to whoever fills in the Constitutional rules that were law when Portugal was a Monarchy for the last time (the eve of October 5, 1910). Therefore, it must be given to the heirs of Princess Maria Ana, King Luis' sister. They may be foreigners, but any of them can come and live in Portugal and have children here. After all, it was what the banned branch of the earlier generation (Miguel's) did. And they call themselves «Duke of Braganza» because of that. But as far as I know they are still officially banned by the Portuguese Monarchy. No king ever admited them back. Only a republican dictator: Salazar.
Prince Maria Emanuel of Saschen should issue a statement about what he thinks about this issue. Even if he is not interested in it. As an European, he owes it to the Portuguese people.
Title: Re: Who is indeed the person(s) who can claim to be «Duke of Braganza»?
Post by: Jose II on April 17, 2009, 10:47:11 AM


I told you once and I will tell you once again:
Do your homework before you post such silly remarks.

But as far as I know they are still officially banned by the Portuguese Monarchy.

I wonder if you realize that the Portuguese Monarchy, unfortunately, ended in October 1910.
For almost a century we (sadly) have the Portuguese Republic.

And it was indeed the Portuguese Republic that revoked the Lei do Banimento in the 1950's.

No king ever admited them back.

So since there is no king since 1910, the descendants of King D.Miguel should be banned from their rightful country for ever and ever until the end of times...
That's an intelligent consideration.
Or perhaps they should have to wait that D.Sebastião (a true king) would return in a foggy morning and humbly ask him to revoke that criminous law.

Prince Maria Emanuel of Saschen should issue a statement about what he thinks about this issue. Even if he is not interested in it. As an European, he owes it to the Portuguese people.

Pr.Maria Emmanuel should be more concerned with his own succession as he did not have children, his nephew and heir (from his younger sister) died and he was compelled to make do with the children from his other sister non-royal wedding.
He is a total strange in Portugal, 99,999999% of the portuguese people never heard of him or would bother to what he thinks about a country I wonder if he ever visited.
A country to which he has no succession rights as you seem to forget as both Infantas D.Maria Anna and D. Antónia renounced her rights when they married foreign princes.
Title: Re: Who is indeed the person(s) who can claim to be «Duke of Braganza»?
Post by: DonaAntonia on April 17, 2009, 06:20:30 PM
Ok, Ok, Gentlemen!
Cavalheiros: não discutam!
Thank you José and Amelio, but I already knew your opinions. Anyway, I would like to hear someone impartial. Thank you.
Title: Re: Who is indeed the person(s) who can claim to be «Duke of Braganza»?
Post by: grandduchessella on April 17, 2009, 07:40:56 PM
I must take exception to the idea these posts/threads were merged with some ulterior motive. They were merged with no more consideration than the fact that the section was almost impossible to navigate around and most threads had a handful of posts. ANY post dealing with Dom Duarte should be in his thread. Period. It only has to do with the fact that this isn't his thread but rather one devoted to the entirety of Iberian royalty and, as such, has many individuals who people may want to post about and deserve to have enough room to do so and have their posts noticed rather than drowned up by short-lived threads. The Miguel posts were also moved with NO political agenda. I don't even know, or, quite frankly, care much about modern wrangling over who is the rightful heir to ANY throne. My only agenda is to make these threads navigatable to our Forum members. I will leave this thread isolated from the Duarte thread because it seems to be dealing with the issue of succession rather than the individual or his family.
Title: Re: Who is indeed the person(s) who can claim to be «Duke of Braganza»?
Post by: Amelio on April 18, 2009, 10:50:45 AM


I wonder if you realize that the Portuguese Monarchy, unfortunately, ended in October 1910.
For almost a century we (sadly) have the Portuguese Republic.

And it was indeed the Portuguese Republic that revoked the Lei do Banimento in the 1950's.

No king ever admited them back.

So since there is no king since 1910, the descendants of King D.Miguel should be banned from their rightful country for ever and ever until the end of times...
That's an intelligent consideration.
Or perhaps they should have to wait that D.Sebastião (a true king) would return in a foggy morning and humbly ask him to revoke that criminous law.

Prince Maria Emanuel of Saschen should issue a statement about what he thinks about this issue. Even if he is not interested in it. As an European, he owes it to the Portuguese people.

Pr.Maria Emmanuel should be more concerned with his own succession as he did not have children, his nephew and heir (from his younger sister) died and he was compelled to make do with the children from his other sister non-royal wedding.
He is a total strange in Portugal, 99,999999% of the Portuguese people never heard of him or would bother to what he thinks about a country I wonder if he ever visited.
A country to which he has no succession rights as you seem to forget as both Infantas D.Maria Anna and D. Antónia renounced her rights when they married foreign princes.


Oh, so now we follow a law that the Republic published over the law of Portugal's kings?? -Great! What a true Royalist you are, Jose!

Prince Maria Emanuel of Saxony's personal issue problems have nothing to do with his obligations towards Portugal as a descendant of a Portuguese Infanta.

And Infanta D. Maria Ana clearly abdicated in favour of her brothers and sister. The contract from 1859 clearly states that she would regain her succession rights if none of them had issue.
Title: Re: Who is indeed the person(s) who can claim to be «Duke of Braganza»?
Post by: Jose II on April 18, 2009, 11:06:39 AM


And Infanta D. Maria Ana clearly abdicated in favour of her brothers and sister. The contract from 1859 clearly states that she would regain her succession rights if none of them had issue.

IF, and that's a big IF, that is true, then Pr. Maria-Emanuel has NO RIGHTS to the the Portuguese successions.
D.Maria Ana's siblings, D.Luis and D.Antónia did have issue, you know ?
Title: Re: Who is indeed the person(s) who can claim to be «Duke of Braganza»?
Post by: DonaAntonia on April 18, 2009, 01:22:37 PM
I must take exception to the idea these posts/threads were merged with some ulterior motive. They were merged with no more consideration than the fact that the section was almost impossible to navigate around and most threads had a handful of posts. ANY post dealing with Dom Duarte should be in his thread. Period. It only has to do with the fact that this isn't his thread but rather one devoted to the entirety of Iberian royalty and, as such, has many individuals who people may want to post about and deserve to have enough room to do so and have their posts noticed rather than drowned up by short-lived threads. The Miguel posts were also moved with NO political agenda. I don't even know, or, quite frankly, care much about modern wrangling over who is the rightful heir to ANY throne. My only agenda is to make these threads navigatable to our Forum members. I will leave this thread isolated from the Duarte thread because it seems to be dealing with the issue of succession rather than the individual or his family.

Thank you for the explanation, GrandDuchessElla. I accept it even if I do not agree with everything, of course. I love this forum!
Title: Re: Who is indeed the person(s) who can claim to be «Duke of Braganza»?
Post by: DonaAntonia on April 18, 2009, 01:26:19 PM


And Infanta D. Maria Ana clearly abdicated in favour of her brothers and sister. The contract from 1859 clearly states that she would regain her succession rights if none of them had issue.

IF, and that's a big IF, that is true, then Pr. Maria-Emanuel has NO RIGHTS to the the Portuguese successions.
D.Maria Ana's siblings, D.Luis and D.Antónia did have issue, you know ?

I don't know if Prince Maria Emanuel has no rights. But King Luis has no issue right now. So that leaves the Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen family. Two of Princess Antonia's grandsons were twins and married their first cousins the Princesses of Saschen. I think their heirs also should have something to say about this. One of them , in fact, has a factory in Portugal and gives employment to many Portuguese workers, I believe.
Title: Re: Who is indeed the person(s) who can claim to be «Duke of Braganza»?
Post by: grandduchessella on April 18, 2009, 06:54:40 PM
I must take exception to the idea these posts/threads were merged with some ulterior motive. They were merged with no more consideration than the fact that the section was almost impossible to navigate around and most threads had a handful of posts. ANY post dealing with Dom Duarte should be in his thread. Period. It only has to do with the fact that this isn't his thread but rather one devoted to the entirety of Iberian royalty and, as such, has many individuals who people may want to post about and deserve to have enough room to do so and have their posts noticed rather than drowned up by short-lived threads. The Miguel posts were also moved with NO political agenda. I don't even know, or, quite frankly, care much about modern wrangling over who is the rightful heir to ANY throne. My only agenda is to make these threads navigatable to our Forum members. I will leave this thread isolated from the Duarte thread because it seems to be dealing with the issue of succession rather than the individual or his family.

Thank you for the explanation, GrandDuchessElla. I accept it even if I do not agree with everything, of course. I love this forum!

I'm glad you love the Forum--I love it too!  :) I did take your concerns to heart. In the Slipping Standards section (where we've discussed some of these issues) I reposted our 2 separate postings (here and regarding the Antonia thread) as I really do want to hear concerns about the weeding and also to make clear these explainations (even if people still disagree) and misconceptions that people have. (ie some people believe posts disappear when threads are merged but that doesn't happen). I hope to get further imput and/or questions about some concerns people have.
Title: Re: Who is indeed the person(s) who can claim to be «Duke of Braganza»?
Post by: DonaAntonia on April 18, 2009, 07:25:25 PM
I must take exception to the idea these posts/threads were merged with some ulterior motive. They were merged with no more consideration than the fact that the section was almost impossible to navigate around and most threads had a handful of posts. ANY post dealing with Dom Duarte should be in his thread. Period. It only has to do with the fact that this isn't his thread but rather one devoted to the entirety of Iberian royalty and, as such, has many individuals who people may want to post about and deserve to have enough room to do so and have their posts noticed rather than drowned up by short-lived threads. The Miguel posts were also moved with NO political agenda. I don't even know, or, quite frankly, care much about modern wrangling over who is the rightful heir to ANY throne. My only agenda is to make these threads navigatable to our Forum members. I will leave this thread isolated from the Duarte thread because it seems to be dealing with the issue of succession rather than the individual or his family.

Thank you for the explanation, GrandDuchessElla. I accept it even if I do not agree with everything, of course. I love this forum!

I'm glad you love the Forum--I love it too!  :) I did take your concerns to heart. In the Slipping Standards section (where we've discussed some of these issues) I reposted our 2 separate postings (here and regarding the Antonia thread) as I really do want to hear concerns about the weeding and also to make clear these explainations (even if people still disagree) and misconceptions that people have. (ie some people believe posts disappear when threads are merged but that doesn't happen). I hope to get further imput and/or questions about some concerns people have.

Thank you. It really took me some time to figure out where my Princess Antonia posts were. I am still a bit sad she has been moved «abroad» ;-) It is a kind of Destiny. She was so sad herself because she had to leave Portugal! I think it made her unhappy for the rest of her life. And having to deal with the death of every single member of her family too.
Anyway, I will go to the Slipping Standards section and take a look. Thank you again for your interest and concern.
Title: Re: Who is indeed the person(s) who can claim to be «Duke of Braganza»?
Post by: Jose II on April 19, 2009, 10:23:58 AM


And Infanta D. Maria Ana clearly abdicated in favour of her brothers and sister. The contract from 1859 clearly states that she would regain her succession rights if none of them had issue.

IF, and that's a big IF, that is true, then Pr. Maria-Emanuel has NO RIGHTS to the the Portuguese successions.
D.Maria Ana's siblings, D.Luis and D.Antónia did have issue, you know ?

I don't know if Prince Maria Emanuel has no rights. But King Luis has no issue right now. So that leaves the Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen family. Two of Princess Antonia's grandsons were twins and married their first cousins the Princesses of Saschen. I think their heirs also should have something to say about this. One of them , in fact, has a factory in Portugal and gives employment to many Portuguese workers, I believe.

I'd like to see the marraige contract between Infanta D. Maria Anna and the Prince of Saxony.

If the clause really plainly just said that she would regain her succession rights if neither of her siblings had a heir, as both D.Luis and D.Antónia had children, D. Maria Anna descendants are cut off from the succession.

Who would be the H-Sigmaringen prince who has a factory in Portugal ?
Never heard of that nor have I noticed that any of the brothres/descendants would live here..

But that's interesting because when I was a young boy (1º ano do liceu) there were some Hohenzollern-Sigmaringens studying in the same school as I was . They would be in the 6/7 years.
By the time I knew nothing about the family, just found the name rather intriguing .
I asked on Genea Forum who could be those H-S living in Portugal in the early 70's but I could not get an answer.

Would you know who they could be ?
Title: Re: Who is indeed the person(s) who can claim to be «Duke of Braganza»?
Post by: DonaAntonia on April 19, 2009, 06:08:21 PM
Hi José,
Nice to be friends again, after so much discussion. Sorry if some of my words seem hasty. I have tried to research about the Hohenzolern-Sigmaringen and did find out they have a factory up north and were always close to Portugal. They have not forgotten Dona Antonia's legacy. I have been told they are simple and discreet and never mention any rights to anything that is Portuguese. Their factory is called «Zollern» and it is in Maia, near Oporto.
As for Maria Anna's wedding contract, it was published in 1859. Rocha Martins, of course, alludes to it often, specially in texts of «Ilustração Portuguesa» (1900's) and «Arquivo Gráfico» (1930's). Rocha Martins, as you for sure know, is the royal historian who published many of the known facts about the Royal Family for the first time. He was a militant royalist until the death of King Manuel II. After that, having given up the idea of a Portuguese pretender who could follow the Liberal legacy, he turned to the Republic instead. I think I read it somewhere that Salazar was terrified of his chronics and the newpaper boys used to sell the night titles screaming: «Fala o Rocha! Está o Governo à brocha!» («Rocha speaks! The Government is ... well... how do I put it in English... er... in a mess??»)
I'll check if I can get the whole text of the contract and post some of its 18 items when I find it.
Title: Re: Who is indeed the person(s) who can claim to be «Duke of Braganza»?
Post by: Jose II on April 21, 2009, 01:45:06 PM
Hi Dona Antonia

Yes it is good to be in friendly terms again. I tend to have a short fuse :-)

Thanks for the tip.
I googled the Zollern factory and it seems a grand project.
I've never heard of it before.
Since the HS are a very discrete family for european patterns, I doubt that any of them visiting Portugal would be noticed.

Any news of the Sigmaringens studying in Lisbon in the early 70s, more exactly at Colégio Manuel Bernardes ?
Karl Friederich could eventually match the age but I never heard the HS boys were living or studying here.

Funny that you refer to the Rocha "pregão" used by the newspaper boys. My grand-father used to refer to that story but I didn't hear the expression for ages.



Title: Re: Who is indeed the person(s) who can claim to be «Duke of Braganza»?
Post by: DonaAntonia on April 22, 2009, 03:25:00 PM
Hi Dona Antonia

Yes it is good to be in friendly terms again. I tend to have a short fuse :-)

Thanks for the tip.
I googled the Zollern factory and it seems a grand project.
I've never heard of it before.
Since the HS are a very discrete family for european patterns, I doubt that any of them visiting Portugal would be noticed.

Any news of the Sigmaringens studying in Lisbon in the early 70s, more exactly at Colégio Manuel Bernardes ?
Karl Friederich could eventually match the age but I never heard the HS boys were living or studying here.

Funny that you refer to the Rocha "pregão" used by the newspaper boys. My grand-father used to refer to that story but I didn't hear the expression for ages.





Hi José, I also have a «short fuse». If it wasn't for people with a lot of short fuses, we would still be in the stone age, I guess.
:-)
The «pregão» of the newspaper boys was really funny. I think it was only shouted when the Police was not around...

I have been told the Hohenzollern-Sigmaringens spend long periods of time in Portugal,
so it is only natural some of the children from the 1960's generation attended school in Lisbon.
Prince Fernando (Frederick William's youngest son) was born in 1960 and his brother Alberto in 1954.
I guess they could easily have been in highschool in the early seventies.
About the Portuguese Zollern firm, they seem to have escaped the general crysis as they have recently invested 4 milion euros on their Maia factory.
Title: Re: Who is indeed the person(s) who can claim to be «Duke of Braganza»?
Post by: DonaAntonia on April 25, 2009, 09:23:32 PM
(About the Absolutist subbranch and the eldest brothers of Duarte Nuno.)

I answer this topic here, as I think it goes beyond the Princess Maria Anna of Portugal thread.

Maybe you think I have googled the Absolutist Braganzas to find the skeletons they hide inside the closet. But in fact I do not need to. I have not seen anything about Franz of Braganza in Wikipedia.

I don't doubt he liked bullfights, since his father and grandfather both did enjoy them beyond anything else. About the rest, I think you can just read the newspapers of the period. I am not at all shocked Franz (or anybody, for  that matter) was homossexual. He was entitled to. But since you genuinely think I made it up or saw it in Wikipedia, I'll also tell you that, by today's standards, he was not a homossexual (nothing wrong with that) but a pedophile. He was always caught with teenage boys.

If you still do not believe me, please read the Royalist António Feijó.
His letters to Luis de Magalhães are published (by Imprensa Nacional, 2004).
In the letter dated February 1912 (page 413, volume 2), he wrote:

«In the last years of Monarchy the Miguelist party was dead and gone. The newspaper «A Nação» was already published only once a week, I'm small format, and their members were either dead or inside the Constitution, just like my relative of the «Casas Queimadas» whom (João] Franco made Count of the Paço de Victorino. (...) That prince (Miguel called the second) does not benefit in Vienna not even from the lightest of sympathies. A gambler, «panier percé», full of debts, with all the vices of the young aristocrats of the Austrian court, you can't recommend him under any circumstances whatsoever. The Countess of Colotra, née Princess of Thurn and Taxis and first cousin of Miguel's first wife told me horrid things about him. Her family was dramatically against their marriage but could not avoid it since he was very handsome and she was in love like any other girl. Afterwards, it was her hell. His father in law had to pay his debts various times, until he stopped talking to him altogether.
His 2 elder sons are going the same scandalous way. The older one married an American woman because he thought she was rich and afterwards she was not; shortly after marriage he was almost arrested in Berlin because of their debts and a dirty business that was near the «escroquerie».
The younger one, Francisco, who was in the troops of Couceiro, was arrested in London during King Edward VII 's coronation, when surprised by a police raid while he was practicing his queer habits («nas funções de invertido»)»

So, you see, even the Royalists of the period knew but too well who these Absolutist Braganzas were. In fact, no other words by me are necessary.


Title: Re: Who is indeed the person(s) who can claim to be «Duke of Braganza»?
Post by: DonaAntonia on April 25, 2009, 09:44:39 PM
José,
Once again I would like to be clear about one thing: I have nothing against you or any Miguelist supporter personally.
I think you are an intelligent poster here and you genuinely believe the Absolutist branch descendants are the best for our country.
The only thing I have against it is that I believe they are, in fact, the worse for our country.
I believe in the legacy of King Carlos, King Pedro V and Queen Maria II and cannot accept that someone so distant from Democracy and from them (both genealogically and politically) can ever be called Duke of Braganza.
Once again, this has nothing to do with you or me. It has to do with wishing the best for my country. If Duarte Nuno and his brothers had been as intelligent and dignifying as you yourself (and some other of their supporters) seem to be, maybe I would change my point of view.
Title: Re: Who is indeed the person(s) who can claim to be «Duke of Braganza»?
Post by: Jose II on April 26, 2009, 11:10:38 AM
José,
Once again I would like to be clear about one thing: I have nothing against you or any Miguelist supporter personally.
I think you are an intelligent poster here and you genuinely believe the Absolutist branch descendants are the best for our country.
The only thing I have against it is that I believe they are, in fact, the worse for our country.
I believe in the legacy of King Carlos, King Pedro V and Queen Maria II and cannot accept that someone so distant from Democracy and from them (both genealogically and politically) can ever be called Duke of Braganza.

Thanks for the compliments, which I also reciprocate.
It is always best to discuss with someone intelligent who can say what goes on one's mind - no matter how distant one may be from their "ideology" -than with some fundamentalists as it was the case a few weels ago.

But one must focus on the present days.
You say you "cannot accept that someone so distant from Democracy" . I guess you are referring to the "so-called" Duke of Bragança.
What makes you say that ? Don't you believe he is a true democrat ? What makes you think the opposite ? You don't think he is a supporter of dictatorships, right ?
He was always more liberal than his father, D.Duarte Nuno, which is rather natural.
He was ordered to leave Angola during his military service where he was trying to draw some opposition lists to the regime.

He is not exactly D.Miguel I and does not intend to instaurate a Dictatorship in Portugal, no matter how rotten our democracy looks, 35 years after the April coup, with the complete dicredit of our leading politicians.

Yes, I believe that after D.João VI's death, the rightful king should have been D.Miguel, as D.Pedro betrayed the country declaring the brazilian secession, became a brazilian citizen and therefore "cut his bridges" with his fatherland.
Yes, I believe should D.Miguel have been more liberal, he would have been the undisputed king, as he was at the beginning of his reign, with the support of Wellington's England, Charles X France and Ferdinand VII's Spain.
But then the spirit of the times changed, Wellington move sides, Charles X lost his throne to liberal Louis-Philippe, and without international support, D.Miguel's fate was sealed.

As to the legacy of Democracy of King Carlos, King Pedro V and Queen Maria II, there is much to say.
D.Maria II lacked almost every inch of political instinct. The few she had was instigated by her husband D.Fernando.
Her changes of moods, reflected in the change of cabinets led to civil wars and the shame of having her throne secured not by her people and the army, but by foreign powers who treated the country as their back yards.

As to D.Pedro V's notion of democracy, I recommed you the Correspondence to Pr.Albert where you can read what he felt about the politicians (a situation that tends to repeat today :-) ) and the ideas he had about everything in the country, many of them far from the role of a constitutional monarch.

D.Carlos - By supporting João Franco's dictatorship, the king sealed his fate.

So, on democratic basis, the Bragança-Saxe-Coburgs cannot teach lessons to the Braganças.

And I heven't realized yet who do you support as the legitimate heir to the throne instead of the "oppresive" D.Duarte Pio.

I won't ask if you saw him today at the canonization of his ancestor D.Nuno Álvares Pereira, now St. Nuno de Santa Maria.




Title: Re: Who is indeed the person(s) who can claim to be «Duke of Braganza»?
Post by: DonaAntonia on April 26, 2009, 05:33:04 PM
Hi José!
Nice to be back to our conversation.

Yes, I have seen the canonization of our own Saint Nuno of Saint Mary (Alvares Pereira). I haven't seen Duarte Pio of Bragança but that only makes his presence more interesting, if he was there just like any other person and not only to be seen by the media. I have also followed the link Amelio left us. But I do not agree with trying to diminish this canonization. It is good for Portugal to have one of its good children recognized as such internationally. And it is a good thing that a religion, be it whatever religion, recognizes a person who lived turbulent days and decided, in face of it all, to renounce his wealth and give it all away. These examples, like the one of Saint (Grand-Duchess) Ella of Russia are very needed nowadays when we face the problems of a society where people just want to get famous and rich and dress smart and have cars and houses and forget about everyone else.

Well, about Democracy and today's standards. It is obvious no person who has political ambitions (wether they are as a pretendant or anything else) would dare nowadays to say he or she is against Democracy. We are inside the European Union, the European Monarchies that still exist are democratic and the dictatorship days are gone. Duarte Nuno was living a time when dictatorships were «fashionable», «politically correct», and so it was okay for him to be friendly towards them like he was to Salazar. After all, it was Salazar who allowed him to come to Portugal. And why did the dictator do so: because in Duarte Nuno he had a kind of pretender who would never put the dictatorship at risk.

Duarte Pio, his son does not seem to be very interested in Democracy «per se». He just admits that, if Portugal would ever have a King in the future, that king would have to rule with a Parliament, just like anywhere else in Europe nowadays. But, to be true, I have never heard him say anything particularly modern, ranging from bullfights to family laws. And he is always making statements taking one of the sides (the conservative one) about important issues that divide the Portuguese. No head of State ever does that.

This would matter a lot if he could indeed be considered a pretender to the throne and not just a pretender to pretender.
Let's see:
King Pedro IV did abdicate from the Portuguese throne to be Emperor of Brazil. But he had children already. So he had to abdicate in favour of them. His brother could never be the king, thus . And King Pedro IV did the right thing giving Brazil its independence. As it is widely agreed upon nowadays, he was ahead of his time in this. If he hadn't done so that early in the 19th century, Brazil would probably had split into various nations like the rest of Latin America (the Spanish part of it) did. If only Salazar had the same wide views more than 100 years later, we would had been spared the shameful conditions in which the former Portuguese African colonies were left in 1975, with people there killing each other and the European being robbed of everything they had.

I also do not agree Queen Maria II «lacked almost every inch of political instinct». She was a queen by seven and a ruling one by 15. She was prepared like few other people at those ages. Being a child Queen and ruling for the first time in Democracy was not easy for her, with all the newly  politicians and their own ambitions. In fact, she had an enormous task and performed it very strongly and gracefully. And while she was feeding the new Constitutional habits she was also always feeding new babies, becoming pregnant and educating her children herself, teaching them all to read and write, etc. It is no wonder she died while being a mother once again and is quoted as having said «I die doing my job!» An amazing human being, a cultivated person and an excellent mother and educator. Her children's generation was compared, by the newspapers of the 19th century, to that of Queen Filipa's: «an enlightened generation». If you think Queen Maria's best decisions were in fact influenced by her husband, please read their letters. When D. Fernando arrives here it is her who almost orders him to command the Portuguese troops and go and meet the Count of Tomar, and he is appalled with that. Much later on, she still writes Saldanha asking him to convince her husband to go and stroll at the public garden because it was good for people to see their Royal family there. These are just 2 of many stories. She has been so underrated!

It is thus very unfair that people pretend she left no legacy. She has surviving descendants and they do have rights taking precedent over her uncle's descendants, even if these had never been banned. Because her heirs are from a more recent generation and the Portuguese law always allowed women in the line of succession when there are no male heirs in the same generaton. You would never have to go to the preceding generations, not even on the 18th century.

As for King Pedro V he was our best king of the 19th century, educated by Queen Maria to be so.  I did, of course, read his letters, both on the Ruben Andresen Leitão's 2 books and in person. What strikes me most is how precocious this young man was. A natural born prince, one would say, if we didn't know how much study was going on that house. King Pedro believed firmly in the Constitution he had sworn upon. That he did not trust the politicians of the time is only one more thing in his favour, I think, as these were very seldom serving the Constitution and the people's rights, but rather trying to make a career out of it. Pedro V took upon himself the huge task of moralizing a country used to favours amongst the politicians and to demoralization within the lower classes. He visited everyone alike and even stayed in Lisbon when every single aristocrat left because of the yellow fever.

As for King Carlos, he also was a strong Constitutional king. The fact that he gave João Franco full power to straighten things in 1907 does not erase all the other years during which he wisely ruled. With the country on the verge of insurrection there was no other apparent solution. And please let me remind you that this «king-based government» can hardly be considered a dictatorship (though João Franco my have thought it was). General elections were marked for July 1908. Unfortunately the King was killed before that.

So in the name of all these good heads of State, how could we Portuguese ever accept the Miguelists back?


Title: Re: Who is indeed the person(s) who can claim to be «Duke of Braganza»?
Post by: Lucien on April 27, 2009, 10:36:46 AM
Dom Duarte Pio
Title: Re: Who is indeed the person(s) who can claim to be «Duke of Braganza»?
Post by: Yseult on April 27, 2009, 10:38:03 AM
Just a minute...

I want to offer my compliments to Dona Antonia and Jose. Being so close to Portugal as I´m, I never thought about this very interesting issue. It´s a pleasure to read your arguments. Both of you know how to argue!! I´m really interested in read more ;)
Title: Re: Who is indeed the person(s) who can claim to be «Duke of Braganza»?
Post by: DonaAntonia on April 27, 2009, 03:53:52 PM
Just a minute...

I want to offer my compliments to Dona Antonia and Jose. Being so close to Portugal as I'm, I never thought about this very interesting issue. It's a pleasure to read your arguments. Both of you know how to argue!! I'm really interested in read more ;)

Thanks so much, Yseult! I also like discussions that are friendly and where we can learn someone else's point of view. I am not very militant on this matters, so I have only posted my knowledges on this over here. I do like this forum very much, because everybody has something to teach and everybody has something to learn. As there are people from all over the world, it is also a sort of beautiful utopia, that shows how we can be richer if we all listen to each other.
Title: Re: Who is indeed the person(s) who can claim to be «Duke of Braganza»?
Post by: Jose II on April 27, 2009, 04:20:31 PM
Thanks for the compliment, Yseult. Hope I want disappoint you with this:

Summarizing:

1. I do not have much opinion on D.Duarte Nuno.
I find him a self-effaced prince, a 3rd son that was thrown to the limelight due to circumstances he could not control.
He hardly had any intervention, but let's face it, several pretendants acted likewise.
Think of the french pretendants, f.i.
Either one agrees or likes the late Count of Paris one must recognize he was a firm and active leader up to a certain point, when he realized (some would say he misinterpreted) de Gaulle's intentions to have him succeding him were not going to happen.
His father, however, the Duke of Guise, never showed much interest in politics or in the cause, and, as soon as Henri became major, gladly passed him the burdeon of the representation of the House of France.

But one thing you must concede D.Duarte Nuno.
He was not ungrateful or had a double face.
When the Banning Law was revoked, Salazar made clear he would not be allowed to "make waves" ;-) and be the center of any political party or association that might jeopardise his own status.
If at a certain time, influenced by Franco, as a monarchist himself Salazar might have considered to reinstate D.Duarte Nuno in the throne, he backed up, not much impressed by the Prince's qualities, and, let's not forget it, by the intransigence of Marechal Carmona, who thought he would be a better head of state.
And, as you must know, he was re-elected more times than the Constitution allowed it...

D.Duarte Nuno was born in a foreign country, within a family living in exile for almost 100 years.
Naturally, when Salazar waved him the possibility of returning and establish in his ancestors' country, he welcomed the offer.
He did not jave the stamina, charisma and the internal support of a Count of Barcelona, but that was his nature, and he cannot be blamed for it.

More than a Salazar supporter, he was grateful to the man that allowed him to return and raise his family in Portugal.
And he kept his promise of non-involvement.
All I read about him showed a very amiable and educated Prince, but definitely not fit for the role of Pretendant.

2. D.Duarte Pio - I am sure you've heard him often praising King Juan Carlos and the "revolution" he operated from Francoism towards Democracy, and that JC would be a model to him, should he ever be called to the throne.
I hope you don't consider JC a bad example on democratic terms...

3. D.Maria II - she was a brat ! :-)
A spoilt child, that grew alone, in the middle of teachers she twisted as she liked.
Orphan from Mother at a tender age, with a distant Father who spent his times with cabinet ministers and his mistresses - not necessarily in this order :-), she spent much of her childhood without what one could call a proper family
She was an impulsive woman who acted with her heart, not with her head, for the dispair of her Ministers.
Read Q.Victoria correspondence on her. Despite being good friends, Victoria never ceased to criticize her.
And despite having the doubtful title and record of "the only reigning queen that died in her post" - that is, giving birth, here again her stubborness and misled intuition speak for her:
On her last pregnancies, the Queen had been advised to ease her gargantuan apetite and try some regime/diet.
She would not listen to her doctors and ate what she wanted, when she wanted, becoming incredible fat, which of course was bad for her health and for her baby's.
At the eve of her last pregnancy, she insisted on going to Sintra and ride a mule - the most advisable exercise for a preagnant woman.
Naturally she felt bad and troubles soon arrived.
Q.Victoria sent her that novelty of clorophorm for when the birth would occurr.
In a grand manner, she refused and History would retain her phrase "I die in my post", which we'll never know if it is true or legend.

I know she appointed D.Fernando as head of the Army, but let's face it, her first husband - who had had a military career before his wedding (opposite to D.Fernando ! - had hold that rank so it was natural the D.Fernando would step on his shoes.

4. D.Pedro V He was 16 when his Mother died.
I don't dispute she was a devoted Mother, as well as D.Fernando was the best of Fathers, but he had a very difficult nature.
Unlike his brother D.Luis, he despised the company of men of his age and women, being rather misogyn.
Alexandre Herculano called him "My Old friend", as he hat the temper of an older man. Surely "older" than his bon-vivant Father ;-) whose behaviour he criticised all the time.

You say the press at the time called D.Pedro and his siblings the new "Ínclita Geração".
That can only be a very very very much flattering press, eager to please the RF.
D.Luis was hardly a scholar (although late in his life he translated Shakespeare) and little do we know about the younger princes D.João, D.Fernando or D.Augusto. João and Fernando died too soon to proove worthy of the title, and we all know what Augusto unfortunately was like . So I won't buy the "Ínclita Geração" title as the one that would fit was D.Pedro.

There is an interesting book on the trips D.Pedro and D.Luis made during D.Fernando's Regency.
Opposite to D.Pedro, who spent his time visiting Museums, factories and all the novelties that the industrial revolution brought along, D.Luis spent his time in theaters, cabarets, parties and fooling around (let's say no more); Being genuinely fond of his brother, when he candidly wanted to share with him his adventurous nights, he was swiftly criticized and sent away by a pudic big brother who despized him and his manners.

5. I agree that João Franco's dictatorship cannot be described as such in the proper way. A dictatorship with full freedom of press ?
That would only proove that there are no "mild dictatorships", either you have a "proper" one or stick to "democracy".
D.Carlos was the living (bad jeu de mots) proof that one cannot have the best of two so different systems.
Being treated in the press as he had been, he should have foreseen what was coming.