Wikipedia

Talk:Maria Pia de Saxe-Coburgo e Bragança/Archive 1

< Talk:Maria Pia de Saxe-Coburgo e Bragança
Latest comment: 17 years ago by Nistork in topic A BIG BIG WRONG OF AN ADMINISTRATOR OF WIKIPEDIA AGAINST THIS PRETENDER
Archive 1Archive 2
Latest comment: 20 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Not a copyright violation according to http://mail.wikipedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2004-March/011763.html. Angela. 08:11, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)

It may not be a copyright violation, but it needs correction for NPOV, clarity, and accuracy. Portugal is a republic. The passage of titles to bastard daughters, even if somehow later legitimated is at best problematic. The website from which this (and apparently other) pages were copied seems to be an advocacy website devoted to the dubious claims to succession of this line to the House of Portugal. One looks in vain for this line at The Online Gotha. Nor is she recognizable among the House of Bragança in the printed Gotha, which names Dom Duarte Pio Nuno João Miguel Gabriel Rafael, Duke of Bragança, as the head of the house. -- Nunh-huh 08:53, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Great job Nunh-huh!! Muriel 16:58, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

For every monarchist(with the exception of miguelist line in this case)have value only the 1838’s Constitution(also if abrogated in 1910 with republican Constitution ) because it identifies the only Historical Truth and the base for a restoration in Portugal of the Monarchy.So not only this Constitution has value but also the Royal Decree of legitimates XXI and XXII Dukes of Bragança(Dona Maria Pia and Dom Rosario)that with their powers of Royal House Head can also modify the Monarchic Constitution(because we are not in Monarchic period and so all powers are in the Person of Royal House Head). Dona Maria Pia Saxe Cobug Bragança was the daughter of the king Carlos ,and i don’t say this,but official Sacra Romana Rota documents(the highest court in the world for matters of chatholic births)and registry office documents.Dom Rosario is parent of Dona Maria Pia and his blood relationship is possible to see in the web-site( www.theroyalhouseofportugal.org )where is reported the official document of blood relation issued by the XXI Duchess of Bragança.So both have royal blood. In 1983 also Fernando Luso Soares ,one of the most important law university professor in Lisbon,wrote a important book namend “Maria Pia Duquesa de Bragança contra(against)D.Duarte Pio senhor de Santar(Mr. Of Santar)”(reported in web site of the Royal House of Portugal http://www.theroyalhouseofportugal.org/html/testim.html ) and emphasized that unique legitimate Duchess of Bragança was Maria Pia while Duarte had no right for the aspiration for Portuguese Crown. Many years ago (after the Maria Pia incontrovertible victory in Sacra Romana Rota Court in Vaticano where the Court asserted that the King Carlos was without question her Father) Duarte finally said: “I don’t call myself Duke of Bragança,it’s my followers that call me that” Manuel de Sousa


Please to change the title of this page “Hilda Toledano”in “Maria of Bragança” because Hilda Toledano was only a pseudonym that she used in the course of Salazar period in order that she was not recognized and repressed by dictatorship of that moment(because Salazar knew the existence of the King Carlos daughter). In all official documents of the Catholic Church ( http://www.theroyalhouseofportugal.org/html/bapt.htm ) and of the Registry office ( http://www.theroyalhouseofportugal.org/media/docs/batesimi_2526certificati/cert-morte.jpg ) is possible to see that the true name of this Woman is Maria Pia Saxe Coburg Gotha Bragança.


Muriel Gottrop said : dont erase the title: thats her name and you know it

But is there an official document where I can see that this Woman is called Hilda Toledano????????? NO and you,Mr. Muriel Gottrop ,know this better than me .Is this a serious Encyclopedia or not? I don’t understand the change of this web-page title “Maria Pia Bragança” in “Hilda Toledano”.Do you want mask and change the Truth and the History??? I report only State and Church official documents (only these with value for a person identity) and not talk like any heraldic supporter of usurper miguelist line.

Manuel de Sousa

For the historical truth, you just have to consult any text book on Portuguese History. I dont know any respectable encyclopedia (and i tell you i've been doing research on this) that mentions Miss Hilda Toledano, or if you prefer SAR Maria Pia (which continues to exist as a redirect). Why should wikipedia be different? And that's Miss Muriel Gottrop se nao se importa Sr. Manel. MvHG 14:48, 17 May 2004 (UTC)

Dear Miss Muriel Gottrop, excuse me for my mistake of her identification. About the name of Maria Pia of Bragança you can see the family tree of Royal House of Bragança in one of the most important historical portuguese encyclopedia named “Història de Portugal” Vol. III of A.H. de Oliveira Marques (page 112-113) and you can see the name Maria Pia (born 1907) ,daughter of the King Carlos, in sketched line because She was still alive when this volume was published and indicated as pretender to portuguese throne. The web page with pages of this encyclopedia are: http://www.theroyalhouseofportugal.org/media/docs/libri/copertina.jpg and http://www.theroyalhouseofportugal.org/media/docs/libri/albero-medio.jpg This is one of the most portuguese historical source. The name Hilda Toledano was only a pseudonym in a fascist period. This is the Truth.

Manuel de Sousa

Dear Manuel, I just added another truth, but this one you dont like so much: the one that Maria Pia is born out of an adulterous liaison and thus excluded from succession. Anyway, i appreciate your reference to Oliveira Marques' História de Portugal. I have that book, but unfortunately in my London house, where i will go in July. You will be kind enough to wait until i check the reference you made, before we return Hilda to Maria Pia page. I understand Maria Pia, even if she is Maria Pia and not Hilda. What i dont understand is what exactly is the connection between Dom Rosario and her. Son? Grandson? What? I've read somethings about him and Maria Pia's husband, which made me laugh, but i chose not to believe for the time being. Can you explain to me, what is the blood connection of Dom Rosario and Maria Pia. Or, in other words, between Dom Rosario and Carlos I? Cumprimentos MvHG 07:31, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

Ok Muriel. Excuse me but I have an question for you.What are these “modern” rules of succesion? The modern and present laws about filiation,in all States of UE (Europe Union),estabilish same and equality rights and conditions between legitimate or illegitimate(of adultery)children and I think that all people know this.Also for these present laws is simply to state the Maria Pia legitimacy of all Royal House of Saxe Coburg Bragança rights and pretensions.She was illegitimate daughter of the King Charles I of Portugal but the most direct descendant of the King after the death of her half-brother Manuel. Moreover the clear and unquestionable will of her Father,King Charles,decided to confere upon his natural daughter all privilegies,prerogatives and rights of an Infant of Portugal(this is possible to see in the “Documento Unico”). The definitive sentence in 1982 of the Ecclesiastic Court of Sacra Romana Rota (the highest Court in the world for matters of Catholic births)confirmed the autenticity of Charles I fatherhood and the autenticity of documents of the Maria Pia Baptisim Acts,including also the “Documento Unico” . About the blood-relation between Dona Maria Pia and Dom Rosario there is a common descent between Bragança Kings of Portugal(and so also Dom Charles I and Dona Maria Pia)and the family Poidimani (to which Dom Rosario belongs)from Bosone(King of Bourgogne and Provence ,dead on 887).This relationship is also documented by one of the most important heraldic professor of American University,the italian Count Luciano Pellicioni di Poli,dead the last year.( http://www.theroyalhouseofportugal.org/html/testim1.html ) Moreover the same Maria Pia ,in her abdication in favour of Dom Rosario,consolidated their relationship with a solemn Act of blood-relationship and confered him all powers and rights of Head of Royal House of Portugal with the duty to figh and unmask the usurper miguelist line (to which Duarte Pio belongs)in order to introduce the historical,legal and constitutional truth to all Portugueses. The other talk are only malice and don’t merit answer. Com os melhores cumprimentos, Manuel de Sousa

Manuel: I asked this question about Rosario Poidimani to better understand your thoughts on the subject, to try to reach an agreement about this page. I never made fun of you or your ideas. I dont think i deserve to get a joke as an answer. Bosone, King of Burgundy died 887? You must think you are very funny but you are not. Muriel G 08:47, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Miss Murriel:It is common knowledge that the daughter and the grandson of Maria Pia of Bragança voluntarily have refused the possibility of Portuguese Crown Succesion and have consented and supported the Maria Pia abdication in favour of Dom Rosario .Personally I am agree with their support.Infact Dom Rosario is an energetic and determined person in order to restore the legitimate branch of Saxe Coburg Bragança,the only with the right of Portuguese Crown Succesion.And this was the will of the Duchess Maria Pia .Any legitimate Duke or Duchess of Bragança can decide to abdicate in favour of his/her very distinguished successor (relative or not,and expecially in this case where there are not willing and suitable son or grandson in order to continue the Maria Pia fight against miguelist usurper line)and can decide to abrogate Monarchic Constitution articles (in particular in Republican period where all powers and rights of Royal House are concentrated in the Person of Royal House Head(the Duke or Duchess of Bragança). Now I have not understand this your phrase: “Portuguese rules for succession, before the establishment of the Republic on 1910, excluded the collateral line of the king Miguel of Portugal and all his descendents” Infact no Duke of Bragança has abrogated the famous 98 art. of the 1838 Monarchic Constitution (for modified an article of Monarchic Constitution needs the will and in particular the Sovereign Act with the signature of the same Duke of Bragança and this NEVER happened).This principle is still valid! For this I believe that you should insert the correct form in your phrase and that is:”Moreover,Portuguese rules for succession excluded perpetually the collateral line of the king Miguel of Portugal and all his descendents” . Thanks. Manuel de Sousa


The finding (quoted below) in Poidimani's suit against Guy Stair-Sainty finds that there is no libel in his website, merely scholarly opinion. Thus it is inappropriate at best to claim that there is libel there and I am accordingly changing that description. - Nunh-huh 22:51, 27 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Il procedimento d'urgenza ex art. 700 cpc (codice procedura civile) promosso dal signor Rosario Poidimani e vinto in prima istanza da Poidimani, è stato definitivamente annullato e respinto dal Tribunale di Vicenza, dichiarando la sua nullità e la mancaza di esecutorietà della sentenza precedente. Nella sentenza è confermato e detto dai 3 giudici del Tribunale che Guy Stair Sainty ha il pieno diritto di studioso (si dice che è uno scholar) di fare tutte le contestazioni che ritieni più giuste in ambito di ricerca scientifico ed accademico nel suo sito web. Inoltre è detto che se il signor Poidimani non riesce a fare affari a causa delle afferzioni contenute nel web sito del signor Guy Stair Sainty, questa non è una responsabilità di Guy Stair Santy perchè non ha nessuna colpa in merito. Quindi il signor Guy Stair Sainty ha il pieno diritto di tenere in vita il proprio link riguradante la "pretensione" del signor Poidimani. Questa sentenza vinta totalmente e con numerosissime motivazioni a favore della tesi del signor Guy Stair Sainty sarà essere tenuta in considerazione per la prossima causa civile che si terrà a novembre 2004. Questa sentenza è in ultimo grado è definitiva e non può essere modificata"


About ICOC:

1870 was a historical year for the Church that, at the end of what has been called Vatican Council 1st, proclaimed, as a dogma, the infallibility of the Pope, should he express himself "ex cathedra" in matters of faith. But history remembers also that other pastoral letter "Etiam ICOC…"

This could be the beginning of a fanta-history story for that person, who should one day bump into a site that tells tales as an Arab phoenix "..that exist, someone says, where it is, no one knows", with that much conviction of being able to represent something more than a mere nothing.

Let's see why. If the aim, or the mission, if we want to be aulic, of an association is the distribution of legitimacy licences, it is then task of that association to predict some point of reference typical of all historians. Research, research, and again research. Obviously, if a person defines himself historian and only feeds not with research but with prejudices, then we are in the presence of a charlatan. In the ICOC association, there is no home for historical research, nor there is the capability to do historical research. It is more a faction, actually small, that is happy enough with its self-reference. A fact is so because so say John, Frank and Albert. If three wise-men decides – not analysing with will of knowledge - that it is the sun that rotates around the Earth, there is no Copernican revolution strong enough to contradict them. The same is happening with the ICOC. Reading what appears in the site of this association concerning the case of Dom Rosario, Duke of Bragança, there appears in all evidence some considerations that are in everybody's reach. The first. The ridicule and popularly inquisitive content of what has been written largely overcomes the petty defamatory aspect. The second. The fundamental rules of every search for truth, resumed in the famous questions "who, when, how and why", don't seem to be valued by this zealous and intelligent editor (there is no doubt that it is not a team work, or at least let's hope so!) that put himself between inspector Poirot and the janitor of the Sun Pupil, who claimed his knowledge because he eavesdropped the lessons in the school. The third. To put oneself forward as infallible subject like the Pope can appear bizarre, but it is very rewarding for those who have nothing better to do. Analyse, even only to dismantle, what has been written in those lines gives a sense of disgust comparable to the one felt while having to pick up poop without gloves. But, as we live in a world where one can issue edicts of proscription, it is better to be more precise. Let's proceed through points, from no.1 to no. 8.

1. Article 13 of the transitory dispositions of the Italian Constitution refuses to acknowledge the worthiness of nobility titles, that, consequently, have lost their efficacy and don't have any influence on the law. Therefore, the Republic doesn't, and can't, attribute nobility titles. If a registrar accepts the titles, he does it on his own initiative and so any authority could cancel said titles from the document. We could appeal to the subjectivity of the right as regulated in the international law, but this is a theme on which one could discuss for a long time and, similarly, valid for all subjects. 2. Dom Rosario lost a business for 400 million dollars. I understand it is hard to understand for someone that maybe feeds only on flatulencies. This, however, doesn't mean that the personal loss is of the same amount, since it was only a transaction. Concerning Dom Rosario incomes, it is confirmed that his annual tax return is punctual and precise. If the inquisitive department of the ICOC wants to know the declared income, why, instead of invoking a violation of the privacy law or ask trials on the public square from the editorial staff of a newspaper, doesn't it send some of its official (please let not it be Torquemada!) to examine this tax returns? Dom Rosario, who is a kind person, will not object to the fact of somebody qualified taking vision of them. 3. Concerning the Italian law on the recognition of chivalric orders and on the prohibition of their issuing, isn't it possible that things are different from how our Poirot hypothesizes?, i.e.: a. Dom Rosario doesn't issue titles nor sign of honour from Italy, since the orders are Portuguese; b. Even if he did it, wouldn't there exist conditions for proceeding, since he is head of the name and arms of an already reigning family? 4. Dom Rosario put in the site existing documents. Dom Rosario is ready to confront the ICOC without prejudice, should someone in the association declare that this very documents are false or that the person who formed them was not authorized to do it. 5. See above consideration. 6. See above consideration. 7. It is not true that Dom Rosario prohibited to anyone to meet Donna Maria Pia, nor would the Princess have accepted such a limitation. More than that, Dom Rosario came to know about this request of a meeting only in this circumstance. 8. It is scandalous and of bad taste, to insinuate that Dom Rosario could in some way have wanted to cremated Donna Maria Pia so that any trace of the Princess would disappear, in order to avoid any hypothesis of verification. Our slobbering inquisitor shouldn't forget that Donna Maria Pia repetitiously invited Dom Duarte to get a DNA analysis, and he always refused. Our "super partes" historian shouldn't neither forget that there exist a living daughter of Donna Maria Pia and also there exist nephews.

Of all the cultural modesty expressed in the article, and of all the unmotivated livid envy shown in contempt of the truth, it still remains the possibility to verify and study "de visu" the existing documentation. Only from such a start it would be possible to emit sentences, without invoking the papal infallibility prerogative.

Manuel de Sousa

Manuel,

Will you please be careful in the language you use in the article. It is POV and thereforem should not be in a wikipedia article. This and related articles could be good sources of information but the POV-stuffed text you keep adding in makes them read like propaganda. Frankly I don't care whether this woman was or was not the daughter of King Carlos. But I do care that care is taken to use elementary standards of academic accuracy in language. You may not realise it but your edits are seriously damaging to the credibility of the article and counter-productive to any cause you are promoting. FearÉIREANN 19:45, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)


jtdirl, the first point is Maria Pia of BragançA was not a Cuban woman but an Portoguese woman:she was born in Portugal,Lisbon and her mother was a Brazilian Woman and her father was the king of Portugal,Charles. This is the unquestionable decision of the Sacra Romana Rota,the most important Tribunal for the Cattolic birth that confirmed the king Charles fatherhood.Do you want to be in doubt of this decision?Are your opinion more important than an sentence of Sacra Romana Rota? 

See: http://www.theroyalhouseofportugal.org/portugues/srr1.htm

and http://www.projectedletters.com/vault/duchess/ http://www.projectedletters.com/vault/2/duchess/ the second point:the expression "Duarte Pio's grandfather Miguel II, Duke of Braganza was recognized as heir by Manuel II" is not accepted from many historians because with the Pact of Paris of 1922, the King Manuel's lieutenant(and NOT the king Manulel personally) would have abdicated the title of Duke of Bragança in favour of Duarte Nuno.This document, whose existence has not been visibly proved, would be an inconstitutional act anyways, because the abdication in favour of the miguelist line should have been made after the abrogation, by a King's sovereign act, of article 98 of the constitution, which has never happened. Please to consider these two points.Thanks Manuel de Sousa

This article needs a thorough rewrite

We should NOT be calling this person Maria Pia, but Hilda. Just because she CLAIMS to be the heir to the throne does not make it true, and because she CLAIMS to use a royal name does not mean that Wikipedia should do so. RickK 22:39, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

  • Tell me about it! muriel@pt 15:51, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

When the thing is unprotected

The category should be changed to Impostor pretenders, because Hilda cant be place in the same bag as universally recognized pretenders because her claims (no mather how her supporters scream and shout) were overruled by the Supreme Court of Justice. A link to the article Claimants of the Duchy of Braganza must be added. muriel@pt 15:51, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What now

Dear anon user (Manuel?), as you found by now, you are pretty much alone in your opinions about this article, hence the reversions not only i made, but other users too. Wikipedia is about clarity and consensus. If the comunity agrees in a version, you cant just change it to your preferred version. I hope you understand this. I see your point in supporting Ms. Toledano claim and i think its worth an article about her and about the claim. But you cant ignore the basic fact that this claim is just a claim and that Duarte is, for all practical matters, the Duke of Braganza. It is not universally accepted, yes, but he is. There are other claimants besides Rosario and Hilda, namely the Duke of Loulé, who has a lot more exposure in Portugal than the ones you support. So i propose the following:

  • to leave this article as a biography of Hilda Toledano, or Maria Pia, if you insist
  • to remove all the discussion about rights, constitutional lines, court rulings, baptismal acts, whatever to the article: Claimants of the Duchy of Braganza
  • this article will have to include also a section to the Duke of Loulé claim, (because this claim exists just like the one of Hilda Toledano)
  • i also suggest that the claimants article include a section about succession rules, namely, a discussion about the exclusion of children born out of adultery and the descendants of Miguel.

I have no love for any monarchic cause, i just want wikipedia to be a Non Point Of View encyclopaedia that treats all sides of a problem with detachment. This is a free encyclopaedia, but please remember what i wrote, it cant be a free advertising media for anybody. muriel@pt 21:15, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)


Ok Muriel,I understand your opinion.

  • In my opinion is important to reintegrate the baptism name of Maria Pia Saxe Coburg Bragança(as it was some months ago)in this article.
  • In my opinion the article Claimants of the Duchy of Braganza is already ok and has a good contents. You can add news about the Duke of Loulé . Your affermation:"If the descendants of the exiled King Miguel are excluded, the succession of the Portuguese throne falls upon the issue of Princess Ana de Jesus de Bragança, a daughter of King João VI of Portugal who married the Duke of Loulé" has an unquestionable certainty that in my opinion(and of many other persons and historians) is not correct because this affirmation would be true if this daughter of the king Charles of Portugal had not existed.
  • In the biography of Maria Pia I think is important also to add the support and sympathy for the Princess from His Majesty, Alfonso XIII, King of Spain (http://www.theroyalhouseofportugal.org/media/docs/lettere%20dmp/alfonso080839-new.jpg)

and Maria Pia fights for her birthrights under the Salazarist dictatorship (http://www.theroyalhouseofportugal.org/html/testim.html) and supports the National Independence Movements, the Portuguese National Liberation Front, and the Portuguese Revolutionary Junta, led by Gen. Humberto Delgado, who wrote, "firstly, Your Excellency, I wish to thank you for your dedicated assistance to both myself and my family".(http://www.theroyalhouseofportugal.org/html/delgado.html)

Manuel


Miss Muriel, the name of Maria Pia de Saxon Coburg Bragança is reported:

Miss Muriel,now please, can you inform me where can I see a document that identify this woman as "Hilda Toledano"(that was only a pseudonym in Salazarist period),so also I can understand your pretension to leave in this web page the name Hilda Toledano.In the contrary case this is a tentative of mystification of the historical truth. I attend your answer.Thanks. Manuel

Dear Manuel, sorry for the delay in answer. Actually User:Nunh-huh pointed me a long time ago to a webpage discussing the naming issue. But, if you follow my suggestions above (repeating)...

to remove all the discussion about rights, constitutional lines, court rulings, baptismal acts, whatever to the article: Claimants of the Duchy of Braganza; this claimants article will have to include also a section to the Duke of Loulé claim, (because this claim exists just like the one of Hilda Toledano); i also suggest that the claimants article include a section about succession rules, namely, a discussion about the exclusion of children born out of adultery and the descendants of Miguel.

...i honestly couldnt care less about the title of this article, provided that the name Hilda Toledano is mentioned. I just want to keep things as clean from opinions and factions possible. But maybe you should ask the opinion of the other intervinients on this discussion, namly Nunh-huh and Jtdirl. (It would be a lot nicer if you log in and sign your comments with 4 ~ like everybody else). Cumprimentos, muriel@pt 21:56, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)


About the change of name Hilda Toledano in Maria Pia see above. I delete the word "purportedly"because the Sacra Romana Rota sentence confirmed the validity of king Charles documents . I add also “salazar’s regime” when were “repealed”the laws of December 1834 (which repealed the collateral line of Miguel I) because is important to specify that this was a regime action and not was in monarchic period(for this is usually consider it a political favour). I delete about the pact of Paris because if you want add this you should also add the other interpretation of this pact of some historians and lawyers(as reported in Claimants of the Duchy of Braganza ). I delete about duke of Loulè because this is Maria Pia page and if a person want to know the claim of this duke of Loulè can see this in in Claimants of the Duchy of Braganza I also delete about the web site of ICOC because these “questions” are only an opportunity to defame Dom Rosario without proofs. If they want some answers they can directly speak to Dom Rosario. Thanks. Manuel

nobody answers to my questions about the name of maria pia and where can i see in a official document reported the name hilda toledano, so i re-insert the name of maria pia saxe coburg gotha bragança in this article. Manuel


Excuse me but the unique attempt to vandalize the page of Maria Pia of Braganza is to change the authentic baptism name of the duchess Maria Pia in Hilda Toledano. Hilda Toledano was only a pseudonym name that she used when she wrote some novels. (You can see also in this web page : http://www.projectedletters.com/vault/maria-pia/maria-pia-3/ ). Don' t exist other documents where you can see the name Hilda Toledano. In all the official documents of this woman the only used name was Maria Pia Saxe Coburg Braganza. So the attempt to change her name is only a fool the portoguese historical truth ! And this is also illegal ! M. de Sousa 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Requested move

Latest comment: 19 years ago13 comments8 people in discussion

It has been proposed to move this page to Maria Pia de Saxe Coburg Braganza on the grounds that this was her name and Hilda Toledano was only a pseudonym she used to write books.

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~
  • oppose: the proposed name is an attempt to suggest the validity of her claims, which are accepted by only a small number of her supporters. Manuel is one of them; his efforts to enforce his naming led to duplicate articles which had to be merged, as he insisted on cutting and pasting to his desired name. I suggest that if Ms. Toledano's supporters want to rename the article, they make their case at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles); I would support any move that follows our naming conventions. -Nunh-huh 21:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Please don't take this there, unless you have reason to believe we're going to have a change of policy on recognizing pretensions. Choess 00:43, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Even were her claims to be the daughter of Carlos II correct, she would, as the issue of an adulterine union, have no right to her father's surname. Given the general lack of acceptance for her claims, this move would be misleading and inappropriate. Choess 00:43, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Support: I have read the affermations of Nunh-huh (a declared supporter of Duarte Pio of Braganza) that he want hide the historical truth and in particular change the baptismal name of Maria Pia of Braganza in Hilda Toledano. Here is not rilevant about the rights of Maria Pia of Braganza to Portuguese dinastic succession but now is important make clear(if wikipedia is a serious encyclopedia) that the name of this woman was in all her official documents and always she was know as Maria Pia de Saxe Coburg Braganza and not Hilda Toledano(a pseudonym in her novels). If this in not true, dear nunh-huh I ask another time(but you don't reply to me -because there is no answer ) where can I see an official document where this woman was named Hilda Toledano?
    At the contrary the name of Maria Pia de Saxon Coburg Bragança is reported:
  • Oppose move; evidence is clear, for English pages Wikipedia:Google test:
    • "Hilda Toledano" -Wikipedia: 144 hits
    • "Maria Pia of Saxe Coburg Braganza" -Wikipedia: 2 hits
    • "Maria Pia de Saxon Coburg Bragança" -Wikipedia: 2 hits
    • "Maria Pia de Saxe Coburg Braganza" -Wikipedia: 0 hits
      There's nothing "illegal" naming someone with the name he/she is known best. None of the other documents or "proofs" supersedes "the name with which she is known best" for the article name; all other approaches of her name go in the article, if they can be presented in a NPOV way. --Francis Schonken 08:49, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose this move. The arguments for it are a lengthy attempt to extablish the plainly controversial assertion that her claim is valid as Wikipedia's PoV; which is contrary to policy. There is therefore no reason to move. Septentrionalis 15:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. — Knowledge Seeker দ 16:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I see no justification for this move. Deb 17:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Unless there is proof positive that she is who she claims to be, then she should stay here. Prsgoddess187 20:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I was going to abstain on the grounds that even though she was most certainly not the daughter of King Carlos, she is possibly most widely known under her assumed name, and that such a title might thus be appropriate. But the fact that the proponent of the move is claiming that Nunh-Huh is a "declared supporter" of Dom Duarte is just so absurd that I can't take any of this very seriously. john k 04:29, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Vote results, 7 days after start of vote

9 people voted: 8 opposed the move, 1 supported the proposed move. Result of the vote can be summarized:

  • Supporters of the move: 1 voter out of 9 = 11% < 60% => Don't move this page

Seen the backlog at WP:RM, the topic will be removed there. --Francis Schonken 05:51, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

Dear 82.54.247.122|Manuel, please only vote once. Longer comments go in this section. For clarity, the next reply is to my vote in the vote list of the "requested move" section above --Francis Schonken 16:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC):

  • excuse me but I hope you understand that this is only a statistic without value in this moment. Also only a person can put and search the name Hilda Toledano in wikipedia untill he reachs 144 hits. For example also I can put and search now for 200 times the name Maria Pia of Saxe Coburg Braganza untill I reach 202 hits... but excuse me and after? After this name have more approval and so is the correct title of this page??? Please if this is a serious encyclopedia, don't joke! In this wiki-page we want explain who is this woman as portoguese pretender of Braganza Royal House and no as a writer of novels. If you want leave the title "Hilda Toledano" you can change this text and write of Hilda Toledano as a writer (about her novels and her literature work). But now here we are writing about this woman as Braganza pretender,so her claims is correct write in the "Maria Pia of Saxe Coburg Braganza"page.Manuel 21 September 2005 (UTC)
    • For clarity "-wikipedia" in a google search query means "exclude pages containing the word wikipedia from the search", which should cover wikipedia and all its derivatives (who should back-link to wikipedia, so the word "wikipedia" should be found on such pages): "-wikipedia" means exclude all such derivatives and wikipedia pages. wikipedia:google test can only produce more or less fiable results if referring to the outside world, not information spread by wikipedia. --Francis Schonken 16:29, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

For 82.54.247.122|Manuel (before getting frustrated) I still found this related info, showing how wikipedia tries to deal with such issues:

Applying these recommendations would also lead to what the (intermediate) result of the vote above is presently showing. --Francis Schonken 16:47, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Split the page on this person in two separate pages

Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Now in this page we want write about this woman as a pretender of the Royal House of Braganza and no as a writer of novels. She is known with the name Hilda Toledano only for her novels and instead when one person talk or search informations about her as a pretender use the name Maria Pia of Saxe Cobug Braganza (you can see this also in google). So I suggest to write in the page of Hilda Toledano about her work and her novels but no about her dinastic claims and in the page of Maria Pia of Saxe Coburg Braganza write about her dinastic claims and connect this page with Hilda Toledano page. I think that this is the more truthful solution . Manuel 25 September 2005 (UTC)

POV fork

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

A POV fork of the article has been created by Mr. de Sousa at Dom Rosario Saxe Coburg Gotha Bragança. Discussion is underway at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dom Rosario Saxe Coburg Gotha Bragança - Nunh-huh 21:11, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Books?

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

What works has Toledano authored under that name? They should be mentioned in the article... +sj + 07:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


Maria Pia of Saxe Coburg Braganza

In the wiki article Maria Pia of Saxe Coburg Braganza,aka Hilda Toledano, is mentioned because she was daughter of the king Charles of Portugal and she was considered a pretender to Portuguese Crown. When she claimed this dynastic rights her name was Maria Pia Saxe Coburg Braganza. This name is reported in her baptizimal certification and also in all her State offiacial certifications [[1]],[[2]]. In her youth she assumed the name Hilda Toledano, a pseudonym in a dictatorial salazarist period in Portugal because she was pursued in this dictatorial period but she fighted the dictator Salazar for the return of democracy in Portugal. So for politic reasons she assumed the name Hilda Toledano. With this name she was also a writer and she wrote many books. The names and the story of this books you can find in this site, wrote by an important french hystoric *Maria Pia: The Pretender,part I; part II; part III: part IV; part V. Now her oppositors, the miguelist supporters, want hide the presence of her rights and mystify her story. The miguelist supporters(supporters of other portuguese pretender,Duarte Pio of Braganza,sir of Santarem), in particular with a user Muriel@pt, have delete also the Rosario Poidimani page. Muriel has asked her others wiki-fiends to vote to delete Rosario Poidimani page. I think this people know nothing about Maria Pia but only for friendship with Muriel they have voted! Is this possible?? Is important to reinsert the name Maria Pia Saxe Coburg Braganza in her wikipage because she was her name that we can find in her official certifications and create the Rosario Poidimani page. Thankyou. An interesting forum about the usurper duke of Braganza is [[3]]; M.deSousa 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Reinsert baptizimal name used for rivendication of her claims

The name of Maria Pia you can find in this offiacial document that you can find here [[4]],[[5]]. ...but where I can find this woman was named Hilda Toledano??? Don't exist documents with this name. In this wikipage we talk about her claim and she used the name Maria Pia of Saxe Coburg Braganza for this claim and not Hilda Toledano that was only a pseudonym. So please don't change her baptzimal and official name. M.deSousa 27 January 2006 (UTC)

page name

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The agreed-upon title for this page is "Hilda Toledano". Please don't move it against consensus again. - Nunh-huh 19:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, since this page is listed at WP:RM again. I opposed the move before; I oppose it now. I see no reason to suppose the consensus above has changed. Septentrionalis 21:24, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

a fake, just a fake, nothing more than a fake

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This woman was a fake like Anna Anderson trying to be Anastasia Romanov. Look at her face: Hilda Toledano doesn't look anything like D. Carlos, D. Luís or D. Maria Pia (her grandparents) or any other Braganza! Lets make a DNA test to stop these stupid pretenders!

Of course there is no reason to censor out these comments. I'm trying to put some serious discussion: does Hilda Toledano look like any Braganza? I don't think so!


Just note -- to delete a talk page section like this one shows very well the wiki spirit of the pretense defenders of the stupid theroy of hilda toledano. she his fake and her psedo deffender are just dishonest.--BBird 22:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

A bit of clean-up/clarification?

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I cleaned up the section on legal ramifications to try to make it more concise and, at the same time, clarify the challenges of each's claim based on my own understanding of the common rules of succession. Mostly I eliminated passages where cumbersome terms are repeated and clarified the "legitimacy" issue. Hopefully, it helps. 142.167.247.103 02:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Kelly

Performed some more clean-up, this time throughout the article - again, mainly to simplify the language and improve some sentence structure to make it easier to understand. 142.167.247.103 02:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)Kelly

Undiscussed Revisions

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I am growing concerned that revisions to the article are continuing to be made without any discussion here nor, from the information being changed, without any new material being presented.

My intention in editing the article on 16 June was merely to make language clearer and more accessible to a wider audience. My assertion that Ms. Toledano/Maria Pia was a "minority-view" claimant was not to legitimize nor to deny outright the claim, but instead to point out that hers is an alternate claim to that presented by Dom Duarte Pio.

However, the editing war over the legitimacy of her claim to the throne seems to have taken over what should be a straight piece of biography because we lack any independent information about her life or, by extension, that of Rosario Poidimani. The rumours about both are rampant on boards in which the matter is discussed. Perhaps this article should be reverted to some NPOV revision (mine would be nice 8), but I'll accept any balanced article on the subject) and then protected to force everyone to discuss the article.

12.40.61.2 16:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)Kelly


I have reverted the page to a version I had submitted on June 15 which had since been revised on numerous occasions; in addition, I have further simplified the language and style and added some information. This is, I feel, the best we can do for an article on Hilda Toledano given the dearth of independent and balanced information available. 12.40.61.2 17:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)Kelly


Revisions

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Dear anonymous,

About the affirmation “the Church's interests in issues of baptism are limited to confirming that someone has received the sacrament, and not in establishing parentage of the child” can be also true but is also true that in this baptisimal document are written the name of the father and the mother that issues the baptism of the person and if you think that above you wrote the consequence is also the possibility in our baptisimal document where are reported the name of our parents could be not valid to establishing our parentage. How is possible confirm and establish the true parantege of all our? DNA test for all the people who want the baptism? So is a nosense affirmation and is correct delete.

About the affirmation “There exists no record from the time or parish at which Ms. Toledano/Maria Pia was said to have been baptised” is true but you can also explain that the records of the Parish of Madrid Alcalà were burned down during the civil war in Spain (1936-1939) so all the people baptized here lost their baptismal certificate. So the Ecclesiastical Court of Sacra Romana Rota after ten years of esamination of many important civil and religious autorities (also the king of Spain Alfonso XIII) confirmed the validity of Maria Pia baptismal certificate where there is also the declaration of recognition of paternity of the king Charles of Portugal[6]. So if you can write about this “no record exists from parish” you also must write the cause (the civil war,) or I think this is no important so we can also delete this particular because the definitive sentence of Sacra Rota has recognized this.

About the affirmation “Ms. Toledano/Maria Pia had a daughter and at least one grandson, but the reasons for the designation of Mr. Poidimani as heir are not known” this is fake. We known well the motivations of this abdication because Maria Pia in the official and pubblic abdication in favour of Rosario explained well the motivations and you can find in the act abdication in these affiramtions of Maria Pia : “Having come to an advanced age, in full possession of my capacities, practically blind, totally deprived of the support of my descent, betrayed by a few monarchists who do not respect either the tradition of the House of Braganza or the Constitution of the Monarchy, a victim of the continuous apathy of republican governments, from Salazar down to Mario Soares,I have decided to transmit by the present deed all my rights as Head of the House of Bragança to Dom Rosario Poidimani, a prince and an enterprising businessman, who has deserved it well through the great love and sincere devotion he has demonstrated towards my beloved fatherland, Portugal” [7]. So I delete this false your affirmation. I don’t understand why anyone deleted the photo of the pretender Rosario, the 3 sons names and births of Rosario. Also in Duarte page are reported his photo, the name and the birth of his 3 sons. So for impartial respect is correct insert this. This new affirmation of this anonymous “Rosario Poidimani's claim as "cognate" of Ms. Toledano/Dona Maria Pia and thus to the throne is even more tenuous: no apparent blood tie exists between the two, and to date no DNA evidence has been introduced by Mr. Poidimani in support of his claim. Even if Maria Pia were legitimate in the strictest sense, her recognized heirs would be her daughter, then her grandchildren in accordance with the traditional rules of succession. No European monarch since the Napoleonic Wars has had the legal authority to name their successor specifically; they may abdicate or renounce their position in a line of succession, but they cannot choose who will succeed them. The crown or title simply goes to the heir apparent or heir presumptive, who must be, without question, of the "blood royal.” is very debatable. Infact also if were true the no blood close relation between Maria Pia and Rosario but only a far blood relation ( see the Pellicioni di Poli geneological tree of the House of Braganza [8], in every case Maria Pia after having executed the documents of blood relationship [9] has undersigned, in 1987, a solemn Act of Abdication in favour of Dom Rosario. Maria Pia daughter or grandchildrens renounced to dynastic rights of Maria Pia and were agree with Maria Pia to abdicate in favour of Rosario. Infact Maria Pia affirmed her will: “totally deprived of the support of my descent, betrayed by a few monarchists who do not respect either the tradition of the House of Braganza or the Constitution of the Monarchy, a victim of the continuous apathy of republican governments, from Salazar down to Mario Soares,I have decided to transmit by the present deed all my rights as Head of the House of Bragança to Dom Rosario Poidimani, a prince and an enterprising businessman, who has deserved it well through the great love and sincere devotion he has demonstrated towards my beloved fatherland, Portugal” [10]. So this new affirmations are not important in this article because are only personal considerations and not objective facts. So I delete in accordance with the precedence version of this article approved many months ago. The affirmation “Dom Duarte Pio descends from both of the branches affected by the changes wrought by the 1834 Constitution” is not important. He is a direct descendent of the king Miguel and he is not a Saxe Coburg Braganza, the only with the first right of constitutional succession in opposition of th emiguelist branch perpetually excluded from the constitution of 1838. So delete this. Delete the connection with the “impostor pretenders” because Maria Pia and Rosario has considered from many monarchists the true heirs and pretenders to Portuguese Crown, see for example this official site of portuguese monarchist under construction [11]. So is NPOV this connection, I think added from any Duarte supporter.

M.deSousa, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It's been agreed that Poidimani is not encyclpedic, that Toledano is appropriately classified as an Imposter Pretender, and the other changes by our anonymous friend are, in fact, correct. Please stop trying to pervert a relatively neutral article into one that an unthinking, adoring supporter could have written. - Nunh-huh 14:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Charges of vandalism

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Ladies and gentlemen, please do not throw accusations of vandalism at each other. One thing that this article is NOT prone to, thank goodness, is vandalism. We may disagree about the changes that each side is making but every one of us has to realise that the others are all editing to improve the article from their own point of view -- not to make the article worse which is the sole reason that a vandal edits. The fact is that while I may disagree with Mr deSousa's opinion on the article's subject, I thoroughly respect his right to hold it and completely agree with his exhortation to discuss things on this talk page. At all events stop the name-calling. It's in violation of Wikipedia policy and does nothing but make a bad situation worse. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Mr de Sousa's continued attempts to insert misleading information into the article are inappropriate, and have been discussed here. The idea that he's going to acheive the results he wants by doing so ought not to be encouraged. What he needs to do is consider for a moment why his additions, signed in or not, are quickly reverted, and devote himself to promoting his pretender elsewhere. Wikipedia is not meant to promote minority viewpoints at the expense of reality. - Nunh-huh 20:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I must agree with Nunh-huh here. Unless and until the supporters of Ms. Toledano and Mr. Poidimani can bring before the courts in Portugal to have recognized as valid a) independent DNA analyses linking Ms. Toledano's offspring _and_ Mr. Poidimani to King Carlos or his sons and b) documents certifying that the marriage between Carlos and his Queen had been annulled at or before the date of Maria Pia's/Ms. Toledano's birth, we have to acknowledge the challenges facing the claim are quite insurmountable. In a day and age where DNA testing is routine and has been done to rule out royal imposters, a baptismal certificate is not going to be enough. No piddling court decisions in Italy or San Marino will suffice, either, in the age of an EU, Interpol, the International Court of Justice, and the post-9/11 climate.

I can hear the questions now, "Kelly, what are you trying to say?" I'm saying that the stakes in this game can climb very, very high very, very quickly. I sense that there are forces at work behind Mr. deSousa's attempts in molding this article to support the claim, few of them noble. Yet, there is more at stake in dealing with any royal imposters than simple fraud or impersonation. This may well be an issue of international security. Check out some of the reports about Michel Lafosse, aka Prince Michael Stewart of Albany if you don't believe me. Forget about fake passports bearing the symbols of some chivalric order: what if any of these people pass themselves and the entourage as a trade or security delegation to another country? What if they're part of a spy network or a terrorist cell? What if these groups have the best of intentions but manage to attract terrorist operatives?

Mr. deSousa, please understand that I have tried to be fair in editing the article and that, until I read about Lefosse/Albany, my interest in royal- and noble-watching has been strictly academic (I'm Canadian - I am forbidden by law to accept or use styles or honours granted by any nation other than my own.) I have tried to keep an open mind about Ms. Toledano/Maria Pia; nevertheless, her claim faced far too many obstacles to be valid and Poidimani's intentions in taking up the claim are still a matter of debate. And now that Lafosse faces deportation from the UK for falsifying documents and a host of international charges and lawsuits stemming from issuing false passports, I would imagine that awareness of the issue is up and the knives are being sharpened for anyone else doling out false knighthoods and titles throughout Europe. Poidimani's had a good run with this claim, if reports are to be believed, but it must come to an end. The Portuguese government would not accept him if they restored the monarchy and the people wouldn't either. If the amounts of money reported to be involved are accurate it's inevitable that he will draw someone's attention; there could be copyright issues if he continues to distribute Portuguese honours and the lawsuits could swell the coffers both for the government and the recognized Duke of Braganza - and see Poidimani in prison for various crimes against the state. - 142.167.230.13 05:28, 3 July 2006 (UTC)Kelly

Latest comment: 18 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I must protest the editing of the external links for this article with the comment that the claim supporters' websites are false or a "hoax." While we have continuously rejected any edition in which Ms. Toledano's supporters have attempted to lend credence to evidence that is certainly in question, it is not encyclopedic nor is it a neutral point of view to have the article denounce the claim in this fashion, either. In my previous editions it was my desire to present, in a concise and balanced manner, the facts of this person's life and claim as they have come to us. We must leave the judgement of whether Ms. Toledano's claim (or, by extension, Mr. Poidimani's) to the reader. It should not be our role as editors to make that judgement for them and I would hope that any future additions to this article would be discussed here.

--Kelly 08:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I put the comments and thought of it -- while the supporters of whoever pretender are of course free to express their views, the naming of a site " The royal house" by obscure pretender are just misleading and ridiculous. that's why I labeled it hoax. just see the site report from netcraft --Site report for www.theroyalhouseofportugal.org Site http://www.theroyalhouseofportugal.org Last reboot unknown Uptime graph Domain theroyalhouseofportugal.org Netblock owner PowerSurge Technologies IP address 205.234.216.40 Site rank unknown Country US Nameserver ns1.surgeservers.net Date first seen November 2002 DNS admin root@ns1.surgeservers.net Domain Registry unknown Reverse DNS wabash.surgeservers.net Organisation unknown Nameserver Organisation surgeservers.net, 2349 Jamestown Ave, Independence, 50644, United States --BBird 17:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

SOrry it took so long to get back to this. I just thought the parenthetical notes went too far in their trestment of the links. Kelly 06:50, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


Considerations

In an encyclopedia as wikipedia has no value the considerations because they are only personal considerationes and has not objective value. So please delete the paragraph about the consideration in Hilda Toledano/Maria Pia Saxe Coburg page because are NPOV. Thannks . MS, 12:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Clean, clean, clean

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I took the liberty of cleaning up some of the mechanics and logic, though I suspect a more linear approach may be called for (more of a sequence rather than blocking off some information under different headings and having some info duplicated.)Kelly 01:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Article title

Latest comment: 18 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

I dread to raise this issue again - since last time (before I got involved in editing this article) it was so contentious.

The name "Hilda de Toledano" (note the "de") was used by this lady as a pen-name when she wrote two books (one in 1937 and one in 1954). I presume that she also used the name when she published articles in the Spanish press in the 1930s. Other than that she does not seem to have used this name.

Pailler suggests that the first official document which this lady had (ignoring the missing baptismal certificate) was her marriage certificate and her subsequent Cuban passport (thanks to her civil husband). From that point on she seems always to have used the name Maria Pia de Saxe-Coburgo de Braganca (or some variant thereof). This is the form for her death certificate and for numerous other documents.

Nobody could call me an adherent of this lady (although I think it quite possible that she may have been an illegitimate daughter of Carlos I). Her legal relationship to Carlos (or lack thereof) is, however, unimportant when it comes to her name.

In Wikipedia we use the name most commonly used in English-language works for an individual. In this case that is certainly not "Hilda Toledano". There are all sorts of newspaper articles (NYT, Globe and Mail, Sydney Herald) all of which refer to her as Maria Pia and some form of Braganza.

It seems to me that just as one editor who favours Maria Pia has repeatedly added all sorts of inappropriate statements to the article, there are other editors who favour Duarte Pio (whom I have always regarded as quite admirable) who have felt compelled to respond by creating an article which was one-sided in the opposite direction.

Can we try to produce an article which is appropriate for an encyclopedia (i.e. not arguing a particular case, but presenting what evidence is available)? Noel S McFerran 04:42, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem with titling the article "Maria Pia, Duchess of Braganza" or anything similar is that it creates in some readers the false impression that her claim has/had merit. There was apparently a vote on this question some time ago and it was decided then that "Hilda Toledano" was the name by which this woman was best known.

While the injection of so much biographical information about her is welcome in allowing a broader understanding of the woman and the context of her claims, I find it troublesome that only one or two sources are given for this article, predominantly the Jean Pailler book which, though emphatically careful not to give her a resounding validation, is sympathetic enough to its subject that some may confuse its presentation of Ms. Toledano's/Maria Pia's viewpoint with its own viewpoint, which is decidedly more neutral. Guy Stair Sainty's critique of the claim is much harsher in tone, though more concise in addressing the points on which the claim snags.

Regardless of the amount of research available on this subject, Wiki policy is to weigh the amount of research available on a subject against the subject's importance. Duarte Pio's article is not given nearly the same thoroughness and substance as this subject has been, and he is generally regarded as the true pretender to the throne. We would, all of us, do well to keep that in mind.Kelly 02:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


Please reinsert the name "Maria Pia of Braganza" or "Maria Pia of Saxe Coburg Braganza" in the Hilda Toledano page. Maria Pia Saxe Coburg Braganza is the name of this woman that we can see in all her official documents while the name Hilda Toledano is only a paseudonym as a writer. Here in Wikipedia we write about her claims as Duchess of Braganza so the unique real name of this woman is Maria Pia of Saxe Coburg Braganza and not Hilda Toledano. The miguelist supporters(the supporters of Duarte Pio of Braganza) want delete this truth and they want insert the name Hilda Toledano to discredit this pretender. Please read the considerations also of a impartial user of wikipedia about this argument. Thanks, M. 13:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

If anything she claimed was true, she is already discredited as being adulterine (a bastard born of adultery). That's a BIG no-no for any Catholic kingdom. Charles 15:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
The above response by Manuel de Sousa to Charles was removed by Jtdirl on August 7th. This removal does not conform to the Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. A talk page is for discussion. The Wikipedia:Vandalism official policy specifically includes "Talk page vandalism. Deleting the comments of other users from article Talk pages, aside from removal of internal spam, or deleting entire sections of talk pages, is generally considered vandalism." Noel S McFerran 14:32, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

De Sousa is a banned vandal who is using sockpuppets to vandalise articles. He is no longer entitled to contribute to this site. Given his history of prolonged vandalism de Sousa may be reported to his service provider as a vandal. Wikipedia may also be taking other steps to get rid of him from this site. For now Wikipedia has had to semi-protect a whole series of articles from his attacks. De Sousa has also resorted to creating ficticious redirects. It is worth noting that de Sousa happens to be based in the vicinity of Ms Toledano's so-called heir. There is a strong suspicion that he is trying to use Wikipedia to promote the 'cause' of that so-called heir. As the issue of de Sousa may now be dealt with through the servers and through law, and de Sousa is not entitled to edit this site any longer, and the edits he posts here are through sockpuppets, I am removing the latest sockpuppet contribution by de Sousa. It would help if before jumping to conclusions Mr McFerran checked his facts. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 14:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I saw that Jtdirl (aka FearÉIREANN) had removed comments by an anonymous user from this talk page. There was no explanation why that had been done. As a non-administrator I am not able to determine that the comment was made by a sock puppet for a banned and blocked user (although I assumed that the comment was made by Manuel de Sousa, and I now see that he is permanently blocked). I did not know that a blocked user was forbidden by the Wikipedia:Banning_policy from using anonymous accounts to continue editing. I therefore apologise to Jtdirl for the accusation that he vandalised this page by removing the comment of another editor when in fact that was a legitimate action against a sock puppet for a banned editor. I do suggest that the WP:Vandalism page be edited to show that that is a legitimate action. I also suggest that other editors assume good faith. I did not participate in the war between Mr de Sousa and various other editors, but it does seem to me that the fault was not entirely one-sided. Phrases such as "It would help if before jumping to conclusions Mr McFerran checked his facts" and "I expect an apology for your slur" (as on my talkpage) do not encourage civility from other editors. Noel S McFerran 15:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Accusing a user of vandalism for following WP policy without first checking with that user to see was there a reason why something was done, and leaving messages stating that I had vandalised a page, certainly counts as a slur. Unfortunately I was busy elsewhere cleaning up de Sousa's mess and so was not immediately able to post a comment on this page explaining the deletion. But the issue is closed as far as I was concerned. Noel did not know what had happened. He jumped to what proved to be the wrong conclusion and made unfair allegations. These things happen sometimes. I apologise if my anger at his allegation appeared uncivil. As he now knows, de Sousa has been a serious problem — he has been a professional vandal for months here. I would strongly advise users not to debate any issues with him. Anything added by him through sockpuppets onto Wikipedia can and should be deleted unread. The whole point of a ban is that a user is not allowed onto Wikipedia at all. They are not allowed so much as to add a full stop on the site once banned. Banning means no editing whatsoever, no contributions whatsoever. Even their own talk page is out of bounds. De Sousa can no longer edit this site. He can no longer set foot on this site. If he persists Wikipedia will release his details as a vandal to his service provider. In extreme cases WP can go to law to get rid of a persistent banned vandal. FearÉIREANN \(caint) 16:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Analysis

Latest comment: 18 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Yesterday I revised the section "Legal and constitutional considerations" with a new section "Analysis". Today an editor who has only ever edited two encyclopedia pages just reverted the whole thing (I, on the other hand, have edited hundreds, and as a librarian know something about what makes a good encyclopedia article). I'm not suggesting that what I wrote could not be improved, but to revert the whole thing seems to me excessive. The "Legal and constitutional considerations" section was very poorly written. There were all kinds of factual errors (the government recognises nobody as the claimant to the throne; the 1834 constitution actually came out in 1838; it wasn't repealed in 1950 but in 1910; etc., etc.) I have restored the "Analysis" section with a few additional changes. Please try to improve specific parts of it, rather than just reverting it. It may even be appropriate not to have this section at all (since it is still very POV). Perhaps User:BranwenNiSidhe could explain what he means be a "slippery slope". Noel S McFerran 12:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

My worry with this section is that even now (as I have written it) it reads like an anti-Maria Pia propaganda piece. It's not as bad as it was, but it is still a little odd for an encyclopedia. In the last week I've made lots of changes (improvements?) on the Duarte Nuno, Duke of Braganza and Duarte Pio, Duke of Braganza pages. Check them out to see how they can be improved. The Duarte Pio page still needs more about Timor. The Maria Pia page still needs more about the property dispute. Noel S McFerran 12:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

My concern with the changes you initially made was that certain supporters of the claims of Maria Pia/Hilda Toledano & Rosario Poidimani would read the changes as an admission that the claim is somehow valid when it is clearly not. While the aim of Wikipedia is to be encyclopedic, it is also to be accessible to as broad a readership as possible, and the attempts of some of this claim's supporters to hijack the article and bury it under a mound of dated legal jargon blended with such awful grammar and sentence structure as to make it unreadable just grate me the wrong way. I can appreciate that you want the same for this article as I do: a thorough, yet concise article that explains who this woman is and why she might be important. On the other hand, sometimes the tone of the article must be blunt in order to be clear about its facts: that this woman could never have become Queen of Portugal and had _no_ authority to give the throne to anyone else. Though it may seem blunt to you, and POV, the tone of this analysis must be clear in laying out what has been presented to support the claim as well as the problems with the evidence and with what is known about succession laws and traditions. Needless to say a DNA analysis by a reputable lab, with the cooperation of Maria's daughter and the Portuguese government, could change all of this. Nonetheless, this is proving a very good example of Wikipedia as a living encyclopedia. I suspect Douglas Adams would be proud.Kelly 01:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Noel, I don't see that this article is any worse than, say, that on Michael Lafosse. The woman is notable primarily because of her counterfactual claims on the throne of Portugal; any honest article discussing them is going to have to devote a great deal of space to refutations, as well, lest readers be misled. The "Analysis" section is quite good, although it should perhaps be integrated or inserted into the "Active claim to the Portugese throne" section; it feels a bit out of place at the bottom of the article. Choess 02:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I have purposefully never edited the article on Michael Lafosse since I personally have been one of his most active opponents and have published one of the major critiques of him on my website (http://www.jacobite.ca). In spite of the fact that I have a definite opinion about the Duarte Pio vs. Maria Pia controversy, I think that I am more able to write something NPOV in this case. I am not aware of any published and verifiable source about Maria Pia which calls for DNA testing. We are required to observe the Wikipedia:No original research rule. In that part of the article which I have written I have tried to present her claims and the case against those claims. I have tried to do the same thing for Duarte Nuno and Duarte Pio in their articles. There is always room for improvement. NPOV requires that we present what people claim for themselves and also what their opponents counter-claim; it's not, however, appropriate (under NPOV) to say that one person is fake and the other person is real. Noel S McFerran 02:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that, as an encyclopedia, we should not in the end pass judgments on the subject in the article. However, it may be appropriate at least to infer from the evidence available, including the lack of DNA analysis which, while not forthcoming to date, was at least available as a means to prove or disprove Maria's claim at least as far back as the early 1990s. DNA analysis was used to prove that Anna Anderson was not Anastasia of Russia. It continues to be available to the Poidimani camp so long as Maria's daughter Cristina and her sons still live, but still they insist on using documents whose origins cannot be verified or corroborated. The point I wish to make is that, while DNA analysis would be original research and not appropriate here unless it was published elsewhere first, the issue of DNA is one many if not most readers would consider when reading this article. Establishing Maria's paternity being so central to her claim, it was certainly the first thing that crossed my mind when I first heard of the claim and the evidence presented to support it.Kelly 11:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Issue w/"Miguelist"/"Pedrist" designations

Latest comment: 18 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I notice that some of the later versions make rather much of the monarchist factions and that Duarte Pio, the current accepted pretender to the throne, is in the Miguelist camp. Is he not descended from Maria or Pedro as well, through his mother's line? If this is the case then the conflict between "constitutional" versus "autocratic" lines of succession is largely irrelevant, if not outright moot.

Kelly

How is possible now the miguelist rapresentatives declare them as legitimate Duke of Braganza as successor of the usurper king Miguel forever excluded from the succession by the last monarchic Constitution and after the Banishment Law lost all his civil and dynastic rights and so become a common plebeian for the incontrovertible will of the Cortes and the King of Portugal? Who grant them this title?
Why in 1920 if the king dom Manuel was alive, Miguel II abdicated the title of Duke of Braganza (that he logically did not have) in favour of Duarte Nuno? Are there two Dukes of Braganza, the legitimate (the HM King dom Manuel) and so the other illegitimate (the miguelist Duarte Nuno)?
Please now can reply to my questions? Thanks
In 1922 Miguel abdicated as king of Portugal (the title he then claimed). There were not two people claiming to be duke of Braganza; there were two people claiming to be king of Portugal (Duarte Nuno and Manuel). In an encyclopedia, we talk about both claims. Noel S McFerran 20:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
The fact that the Jacobite claimant to the thrones of England and Scotland is also descended from George I of Hanover hasn't ended that controversy. 1. In the Portuguese case there are other potential candidates (at least some people think so). 2. It's not just about the individual claimant; it's about the type of monarchy which would be restored (or at least it used to be about that, and some people still hold to it). Noel S McFerran 20:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Continue vandalism against this pretender in favour of the miguelist Duarte Pio

Latest comment: 18 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Today User:Nunh-huh has protected this page only because in these days I have insert the impartial genealogy of Maria Pia of Saxe Coburg Braganza, the portuguese pretender (aka Hilda Toledano, this was only a pseudonym as writer) present in the very important thepeerage.com ( http://www.thepeerage.com/p9164.htm#i91639 ). Nunh-huh and other Duarte Pio, Duke of Braganza supporters continue to insert instead the genealogy of a portuguese site ( http://genealogia.netopia.pt/pessoas/pes_show.php?id=493102 ) well-known to be in favour of the pretender Duarte Pio and so they want discredit Maria Pia claims. Infact they insert also in Maria Pia page the Category "impostor pretenders" only in order to support Duarte Pio. I ask the unprotection of this page and the delete of the category "impostor pretender" because Maria Pia was in really the portuguese pretender of a monarchic branch and have many royalists that see in her the only legitimate pretender. So for an impartial encyclopedia please also change the title of her page and insert her real name Maria Pia of Saxe Coburg Braganza(the name present in all her offiacial documents) in order to not libel and discredit her claims. The most important Catholic Tribunal of the world, the Sacred_Roman_Rota decided with the definitive sentence to not modify her baptisimal documents where all can see the name of the king Carlos I of Portugal as her father and also a document where the king recognised Maria Pia as his daughter and that "she may be called by my name and enjoy from now on the use of this name with the honours, prerogatives, rank, obligations and advantages of the princes of the House of Bragança of Portugal". The impartial encyclopedia has as source only official documents like the documents that I have mentioned and not talk and libel. 82.48.224.24 23:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Everyone, read this. All that needs to be said on the matter of Maria Pia "of Saxe-Coburg-Braganza". Charles 21:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Dom Rosario Poidimani sued Mr Stair Sainty for libel present in this web page above and the sentence perhaps will be issued in 2008. Stair Sainty can only libel with nosense affirmations as he affirmed for example the documents in Rosario site are fake so Rosario sued this person but at the end he will can see the autenticity of all Saxe Coburg Braganza Royal House documents. Stair Sainty is a big friend and supporter of Duarte Pio of Braganza and so we want only discredit and libel Maria Pia claims.
Perhaps will be issued? Mr. Stair Sainty will most assuredly not be ruled against because Rosario the Italian (e.g. not born Portuguese and not related to the Royal House of Portugual) has absolutely no vaild claim whatsoever to the throne of Portugual. Charles 00:18, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
Mr Sainty certainly will be condemned for libel concerning this situation. Is absurd his affiramtions about the falsity of Maria Pia documents. These documents are all documents confirmed by the most important Tribunal for Catholics, the Sacred Roman Rota. Duarte Pio of Braganza has absolutely no vaild claim whatsoever to the throne of Portugual: infact he is born not portuguese ( http://duarteotretas.blogspot.com/ ) and the unique rivendication for his claim he was a descendant of Miguel, the usurper king. This branch (the miguelist branch) was excluded forever from succession by the last monarchic constitution and after the Banishment Law these miguelists "pretenders" become common plebeians. Now how granted them the title Duke of Braganza? No king, infact they are not dukes of Braganza. This is a big mystification of this branch. They want hide this truth but the heir of Maria Pia and his supporters can't accept this big injustice. 82.48.224.24 11:00, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

All that needs to be said on the matter of Maria Pia of Saxe-Coburg-Braganza must see these documents about the Royal House of Portugal [12] ; [13] [14]. Why in a google post and also in Duarte page of wikipedia instead Stair Sainty and the other miguelist supporters don't reply anything to the questions about the supposed claims of Duarte Pio as Duke of Braganza? [15] 82.48.224.24 23:55, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I feel I should respond to this point, Mr. De Sousa, simply because you so frequently accuse anyone who disputes Mr. Poidimani's claim of being a "Miguelist". I am not exceptionally interested in the question of whether or not a monarchy should return to Portugal, nor whether Duarte Pio or the Duke of Loulé has a better claim in law to the throne. Neither Maria Pia's opposition to Salazar, nor the exclusion of Duarte Pio from claims on the throne, in any way alter the fact that she clearly has no right whatsoever in law to claim the throne of Portugal, nor does Rosario Poidimani. I seek merely to make Wikipedia reflect this, and offer no judgement on the other claimants to the throne of Portugal. Choess 01:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if you are a miguelist but here there are some Duarte Pio supporters (for example the User:195.93.21.41) that continue to want hide the hystorical truth about this pretender (Maria Pia) only in order to support the other pretender Duarte Pio. In Portugal there are many supporters of D.Maria Pia and her heir D.Rosario. They see in this branch the unique legitimate branch that based their claim in official document and not in talks... They see in Duarte Pio only a bad and sad example of mystification of the Royal House of Portugal. Firstly with his attempt to cheat the Portugueses: infact he born NOT portuguese (he is swiss born) and after because he want "legitimate" her claims saying he is a Miguel descendant. In really this is a true reason of exclusion from portuguese succession and in particular is incredible his usurpation of the title of Duke of Braganza and I don't obtain any reply to my previous questions about the title of duke of Braganza concerning Duarte Pio.

Here is very sad to see the censorship of my words and so the protection of this page accusing me of vandalism only because I insert in this page an objective source as thepeerage.com and delete the NPOV insertion of the category "impostor pretender"in this page. This person instead want hide this truth about this pretender and "legitimate" the other misuelist pretender inserting in this page the category "impostor pretender" and not inserting an impartial source as thepeerage.com about D.Maria Pia. Is this a democratic encyclopedia or we want create an encycloepdia where the current minorities can't expose objective facts and they are subjected to libel and insults? I seek merely to make Wikipedia reflect this, and hope in the right of free expression for all...82.48.224.24 11:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


Change the name in this page and insert the name Maria Pia of Saxe Coburg Braganza

Latest comment: 18 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I want to change the name of this page in Maria Pia of Saxe Coburg Braganza. This is the real and official name of this woman. There are many official sources where all can see this true name of this pretender. Or you can indicate me where I can find the name Hilda Toledano in any official documents or other sources? Why continue here to insert this pseudonym name instead of her real and baptisimal name used also as pretender? Justiceiro 17:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Impostor pretender category

Latest comment: 18 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Today semi-protection was removed from this page, and within hours the category "Impostor pretender" was also removed. May I ask other editors not to put it back in without at least some discussion? Another edit war on this minor point is just silly. With MOST of the people in this category they claimed to be some historical figure who they were not. This is somewhat different from Maria Pia who claimed to be someone whom nobody had actually heard of before. Maria Pia was unable to provide proper proof for her claim to be Carlos' illegitimate daughter - but equally her opponents have not been able to provide proof that she was not his illegitimate daughter (it always being difficult to proove a negative). I conclude that it is unnecessary to add this category. Past experience shows that it is unproductive. It seems to me that several editors just want to show another editor that he can't get away with something. A little bit of wiki-maturity might go a long ways here. Noel S McFerran 13:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Impostor pretender implies that they were claming to be someone they were not so I’ve created a new category titled false pretenders.
That most DEFINITELY violates the neutral point of view policy. I have therefore removed the link and recommend deletion of the category. Who would decide which of the current Savoy, Two Sicilies, or Brazil claimants should go into that category if it were kept? Noel S McFerran 17:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Noel S McFerran I am agree with you. Only in this way this encyclopedia can be neutral. I have never see an encyclopedia where a pretender is declared false or impostor without insert the impartial and legal source. Also for this is correct and neutral delete in the pretender wikipage [[16]] the affirmation against Rosario Poidimani, the heir of Maria Pia, as false pretender. Infact the last news in this dispute is the Portuguese Government has officially decides [ see http://www.parlamento.pt/plc/requerimento.aspx?req_id=36925] to not "legitimize" any pretenders because the Portugal is a Repubblic and so it can't enter in this matter. This decision is obtained after the request of the president of the People's Monarchist Party (Partido Popular Monárquico) against the abuse of power of the portuguese ambassador in Italy that the last year declared Duarte Pio is the legitimate pretender in Portugal. At the end there are not impartial sources that judge Maria Pia and Rosario as false pretender, so if some users insert this affirmation this is only a NPOV or their personal points of view (at the contrary please insert here the impartial and official source of this). At the end I think is appropriate insert in the wiki page of this pretender the name Maria Pia of Saxe Coburg Braganza and not Hilda Toledano. Hilda Toledano is only a pseudonym as writer but here we discuss of her claims and in all her official documents is reported only the name Maria Pia de Saxe Coburg Braganza. This is other NPOV attempt to denigrate this pretender in order to favour Duarte Pio.Justiceiro 18:00, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I'll put the imposter category back in then as that catergory has been accepted in the article in the past.Kigf 18:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Again, This is not NPOV .Justiceiro 18:35, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
With friends like this, who needs enemies. ;) I find it more than a little amusing that the VoABot II is reverting changes by both Justiceiro and Kigf. I find it more than a little suspicious that the later user-id was used for the first time today by somebody who wanted to create the category "False pretenders". It seems amazing to me that a completely new user would even know about categories. It seems to me that there are sock-puppets all over the place. Noel S McFerran 19:23, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
I've suggested to VoABot that it would be best if this particular issue were left to human beings. - Nunh-huh 21:34, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Protection

Latest comment: 18 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I'm going to ask for semi-protection of this article, because of edit warring with an IP, and likely circumvention of 3RR from only registered user simply by logging out. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 06:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Why you protect this page in favour of a vandal ( user:195.93.21.41 ) that continue to libel this pretender as "impostor pretender" ??? Please if you want insert this category in this article put here the impartial source of this your affirmation, at the contrary this is only a personal point of view of this vandal and a libel and in this encyclopedia has no value. Jackind 15:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh my, the same broken English and syntax as the various anonymous sockpuppets of Manuel de Sousa... Charles 15:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Oh my, if you want write here insert objective documentation against this pretender, where I can see she was impostor pretender and not talk about her, ok??? At the contrary you are a libeller Jackind 15:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

A BIG BIG WRONG OF AN ADMINISTRATOR OF WIKIPEDIA AGAINST THIS PRETENDER

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

An administrator of wikipedia Steel1359 has semi-protected this page in order to favour a vandal, the user:195.93.21.41,that continued to vandalize this page inserting this pretender in the category "impostor pretender".This is only his personal point of view, there are no source of this affirmation and this is only a big libel but I see in wikipedia some administrator favour this vandals. Jackind 08:45, 17November 2006 (UTC)

BOTH sides in this dispute would do well to read the definition of Wikipedia:Vandalism. This particular revert war is NOT vandalism (although it is decidedly annoying). As I have said before: in my opinion it is entirely unnecessary to include either the category "Impostor pretenders" or the category "Pretenders to the Portuguese throne". Noel S McFerran 13:02, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
I have seen you in Maria Pia page reinsert this libellous category against this pretender and said: "Rv, the category is fully and completely accurate. See the particulars of Guy Stair Sainty's essay on the topic, for instance". This category is "fully" and "completed" accurate only in your mind I think, you only mention the site of Stair Sainty, a person very friend of the pretender Duarte Pio of Braganza and also member of a private association in Italy, the ICOC, where the patron is Duarte Pio of Braganza. Is clear this Sainty want only denigrate Maria Pia of Braganza in order to favour his friend Duarte Pio. The site of this Sainty ( http://www.chivalricorders.org/ ) is defaced since many months, I think this is a precaution for all the libels this person affirmed in his site. Infact in the case of Maria Pia he affirmed all the documents in the site of Rosario Poidimani are false and he affirmed Maria Pia is a daughter illegitimate so without power of succession. Rosario sued Mr Stair Sainty for these libels present in his web site. All that you can see in the site of ICOC ( http://www.icocregister.org/Poidimani_Sainty.htm )is only a transcription of a precautionary measure for the darkening of the Stair Sainty page web( http://www.chivalricorders.org/royalty/fantasy/portugal-false.htm ) promoted by HRH Dom Rosario and the court of first instance issued a ordinance in favour of Dom Rosario. Mr Stair Sainty opposed this and the judgement on appeal issued in favour of Mr Sainty and that is concerning the not darkening of Sainty web page, waiting for the sentence of this lawsuit pendent. Is amusing read that the ICOC friends of Mr Sainty want deceive the readers that this ordinance was as a victory of Mr Sainty, that is really false, while in really the sentence perhaps will be issued in 2008. But now the site of Sainty is all darkened. Sainty also affirmed Maria Pia was illegitimate daughter of the king so without power of succession. In reality the Sacred Roman Rota confirmed after a trial of 10 years Maria Pia was undoubitable daughter of the king Charles of Portugal and also confirmed the presence of the document with the sign of the king that legitimated his daughter in order to put her in succession of the portuguese Crown. All the newspapers of the world consider Maria Pia as pretender (for example see the article in the newspaper most important in Spain for the death of this pretender http://www.elmundo.es/papel/hemeroteca/1995/05/07/sociedad/39247.html or read the book of an important french writer and investigator about this pretender http://www.projectedletters.com/the-pretender/ ). Now insert in Wikipedia the category "Imposter pretender" for this pretender is only a big libel without impartial source and so a big injustice. So please delete the category imposter pretender in this page because this is vandalism Nistork 09:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maria_Pia_de_Saxe-Coburgo_e_Bragança/Archive_1&oldid=1245922023"