Talk:Miguel da Paz, Prince of Portugal

Untitled

Do not change this without discussion - since when has 'Prince of Asturias' been a higher title than 'Crown Prince of Portugal'? Michael Sanders 22:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC) I changed it to "Prince of Portugal and Asturias" because he was... Prince of Portugal and Prince of Asturias, not only Prince of Asturias.Câmara 00:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this page should be renamed "Miguel da Paz, Prince of Portugal" or "Miguel da Paz, Prince of Portugal and Asturias" as he descended in male line from the portuguese king.Câmara 19:36, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Prince of Asturias is the more common title. Male line descent has nothing to do with it. Charles 20:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Common where?81.193.32.214 23:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)It's meCâmara 23:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

In the English language. Charles 23:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Googles finds 196000 "miguel da paz prince of portugal" and 69500 "miguel da paz prince of asturias"Câmara 23:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I have replied on your talk page. Charles 23:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Miguel da Paz, Prince of Asturias → Miguel da Paz, Prince of Portugal and of Asturias — Miguel da Paz, or Miguel de la Paz, was both a Portuguese, a Castilian and an Aragonese heir to the throne. Portugal and Spain (Castile and Aragon) were two independent sovereign nations, each with its own respective title used for the heir to the throne. Castile uses Prince of Asturias and Portugal uses Prince of Portugal, the other sons and daughters of Iberian monarchs are styled Infante or Infanta. Since Miguel da Paz was the eldest son of a Portuguese king, Manuel I of Portugal, and that he would become king of Portugal by a direct male line, and king of Castile and Aragon by a female indirect line, I think this article title should have at least his Prince of Portugal title. Other alternatives are Miguel da Paz, Prince of Portugal and Prince of Asturias or Miguel da Paz, Prince of Portugal and Asturias. Joaopais 19:25, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Oppose Being the heir to two kingdoms does not mean that both need to be used. Before the Acts of Union, we didn't have "The Prince of Wales and Scotland". Charles 20:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose What is he actually called? "Prince of Asturias" seems more plausible. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it be moved. --Stemonitis 20:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Move

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was: Page moved to Miguel da Paz, Prince of Portugal per discussion. Other suggested titles remain as redirects. Station1 (talk) 23:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

---

Miguel da Paz, Prince of Asturias → Miguel da Paz, Prince of Portugal or Miguel da Paz, Prince of Portugal and Asturias or just Miguel da Paz — because his father was the King of Portugal at the time and as heir of his father he was the Prince of Portugal and as heir of his grandmother he was Prince of Asturias. He was only heir-presumptive as Prince of Asturias while heir-apparent as Prince of Portugal so the Portuguese title was his first title and Asturias his secondary title. The Union of two crown may not require two titles mentioned, but we don't have the Prince of Wales after the union of the Scottish and English crowns mentioned as Princes of Scotland or Dukes of Rothesay, do we? Also most people seem unable to distinguish from a Prince of Portugal and a Infante of Portugal or Crown Prince of Portugal (which never existed); Prince of Portugal was just like the title Prince of Asturias and Prince of Wales used by only the heir to the throne while any sons of the King could be an Infante. Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 00:33, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I believe he should be moved to Miguel da Paz, Prince of Portugal, as Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy pointed out, it would've come first because Portugal was his native country and Spain was second to him--David (talk) 14:42, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Both titles are mentioned at the beginning of the first line in bold face, so I think the question (as with Queen Victoria) is how will most readers search for this person? I'd think as Prince of Portugal (thinking of his father), but perhaps more think of him as Prince of the Asturias. This is so far from my range of knowledge that although I know a little Spanish and Portuguese, I can't really venture an opinion. —— Shakescene (talk) 01:55, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I support moving him to Miguel da Paz, Prince of Portugal, per the arguments laid out by Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy and Daaviiid. Portugal was his native country, and therefore his main title should reflect that. If Asturias is deemed too important to remove, add that title also to his article title. Ruby2010 (talk) 05:08, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I support the move to Miguel da Paz, Prince of Portugal. As Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy points out, he was heir-apparent of Portugal, while being just heir-presumptive of Asturias. His Portuguese title has to take precedence in this case, although if Asturias is also included I would not object. Miguel da Paz by itself is insufficient.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 05:28, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• As he was apparently the only Miguel da Paz, how about just moving him there and not bothering about which title is more important? Ucucha 12:40, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, he was the heir apparent to the Portuguese throne and heir presumptive to the Castilian throne but Castile was a larger and more important kingdom. Therefore, I am neutral. Surtsicna (talk) 10:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• Prince of Portugal is much more important. That would have taken precedence over Prince of Asturias as an Infante of Portugal and son of the King of Portugal Prince LouisPhilippeCharles (talk) 20:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

What did he die of?

Do we know? Tabbycatlove (talk) 07:04, 1 August 2017 (UTC)