Talk:Luís I of Portugal

Untitled

What became of Carlos August, the child born in 1874 in Lisbon ? Any info available regarding his mother ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Windemere (talk • contribs) 13:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. 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 move request was: page not moved: no concensus in 35 days. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

---

Luís I of Portugal → Louis I of Portugal — Per WP:UE. The Britannica uses the English form and we use English forms for the Portuguese kings named Peter, John, Sebastian, Henry, Ferdinand, Denis, Edward, Philip, Joseph and Beatrice. The only exceptions are Afonso and Sancho, since there are no real English counterparts, and Luís, Carlos, Miguel, Manuel and Maria. Now Maria and Manuel I can stomach, because Manuel is clearly used in English in preference to Emmanuel, and the same goes, I think, for Maria, though I'm less certain. What I can't figure out is the logic behind Luís, Carlos and Miguel. The English forms of their names are used at Britannica, so I am also proposing that Carlos and Miguel be moved:

Carlos I of Portugal→Charles I of Portugal

Miguel of Portugal→Michael of Portugal

None of the sources I've looked at use ordinal I's for Louis or Charles. Perhaps the community would favour Louis, King of Portugal, Charles, King of Portugal and Michael, King of Portugal—but that would create more inconsistency, while I'm trying to remove some. Srnec (talk) 21:40, 8 October 2010 (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 policy on article titles.

• Support, per Srnec. Surtsicna (talk) 22:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support per rationale, but given the current move requests in progress I would favour Louis I, King of Portugal as consistant with the newly-moved John, King of England. The Celestial City (talk) 22:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

John was moved because he doesn't have an ordinal; if we're using the ordinal "I" for Luis, the situation is different, as it's reasonably clear we're talking about a king.--Kotniski (talk) 13:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Granted, but I don't see there being any difference at all between this article and Henry, King of Portugal. As with Henry, there has only been one Portuguese monarch named Louis. Also, ordidinals do not necessarily imply a king; see, for example, Louis I, Duke of Orléans or Louis I, Count of Montpensier. The Celestial City (talk) 17:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Having read some of the reasons laid out below, I am removing my support. I would suggest moving this page to Luís, King of Portugal, or Luís I, King of Portugal. The Celestial City (talk) 18:01, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support Consistency. I find the system being used for Portuguese monarchs is archaic. In no other modern situation would people seriously rename or transliterate peoples names just to make it understandable or acceptable to other people (except with non-Roman languages, where pronunciation is difficult): it seems almost paternalistic. Personally, I am of the opinion that all the names should be left as they are originally written, due to their historical context, that is: Miguel, Afonso, Maria, Pedro, Luís, etc. I find that transliterating people's names takes away from the uniqueness of their cultural significance. I mean, would anyone transliterate Mao Zedong's name, just so that someone will know that his name meant: Bob Smith? BUT, given the Wikipedia rules, I would prefer to see some consistency: Afonso = Alfonse/Alphonse and Sancho = Santzo/Santso. Ironically, the obscureness of these examples only shows the obvious: the naming logic is totally incorrect. I will, of course, abide by the consensus.Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 23:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

If there is a move to use the valid name of all these people, I strongly oppose this current proposition to move articles to their English "equivalent", and suggest that all the monarchic names be reverted to their real name. No anglicizing for the sake of anglicizing!Ruben JC (Zeorymer) (talk) 09:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose The goal of Wikipedia is not to create consistency in scholarship. Only one single source has been cited in favour of Louis/Charles/Michael (the Encyclopedia Britannica). I will cite two sources in favour of Luis/Carlos/Miguel: the New York Times and the Times (of London); both newspapers consistently use Luis/Carlos/Miguel in the obituaries for these men. Wikipedia should not change the names of people for the sake of consistency. They are more commonly referred to by their Portuguese names. Noel S McFerran (talk) 23:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the "consistency police" will suggest a move from Juan Carlos I of Spain to John Charles I of Spain since all the other kings of Spain named Carlos have articles named Charles. Noel S McFerran (talk) 23:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

You are correct in identifying me as one of the consistency police. But don't worry, we're unarmed. Srnec (talk) 03:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• As strong an oppose as is possible to give. Whatever Britannica may say, most English sources use the Portuguese names. Just looking at book's in my apartment: Norman Rich's Great Power Diplomacy 1814-1914 uses Miguel; so do H.A.C. Collingham's The July Monarchy, Dupuy & Dupuy's Harper Encyclopedia of Military History, and Bridge & Bullen's The Great Powers and the European States System 1814-1914, 2nd ed. Langer's Encyclopedia of World History (1948) does use "Louis I" for Luis, but does not anglicize either Miguel or Carlos I. The Columbia Encyclopedia also uses Miguel. Birmingham's A Concise History of Portugal uses Miguel, Pedro V, Luis I, and Carlos I. If you want to demonstrate common usage, you have to point to more sources than just Britannica. I think "Michael of Portugal" is pretty close to completely unused in English. I'd add that Srnec's example that "we" use "Peter" comes as a result largely of Surtsicna's unilateral move of Pedro V of Portugal to Peter V of Portugal last year. Otherwise, all Portuguese monarchs from 1826 are at the Portuguese form of the name. john k (talk) 03:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
  • What about Ferdinand II of Portugal? Srnec (talk) 03:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, if neither form is dominant in English usage, then I prefer the original form of the name, as more encyclopedically informative. (Of course, I'd happily dispense with "of Portugal".)--Kotniski (talk) 13:14, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
• Support, I'm always in favour of anglonizing such names. GoodDay (talk) 14:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
• Would support Luís, King of Portugal. Strictly speaking, anglicization is Lewis, whereas Louis is a Frenchization of Germanic Hlodovech/Ludwig/Lodewijk. Support Miguel, King of Portugal and Carlos, King of Portugal. Charles is yet another Frenchization of Germanic, Carol/Karl, OE ceorl>churl. Carlos is just as 'English' these days as Charles. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 23:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Why does Luís get a I, but Miguel and Carlos don't? Srnec (talk) 03:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• I assumed there was another Luis ... changed accordingly. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 10:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

There's no other Juan Carlos, but he still gets a I. I think it has to do with official usage - what was the official usage in this case? (Or waas the "I" added retrospectively by those who acknowledge the kingship of would-be Luis II?)--Kotniski (talk) 11:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The modern customs of these monarchies are obscure to me ... it is confusing though to give a monarch an ordinal even when he doesn't need one (a practice out of step with intuition and usual practice). :/ Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose – In my opinion, the local names should always be used, and in this case it’s even clearer than usual that the local names are preferable. I am not expressing a preference for one suffix over another (“ of Portugal” or “, King of Portugal”). MTC (talk) 07:33, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose Louis, Charles or Michael. I think Peter V should be moved back to Pedro V since Pedro IV of Portugal is at Pedro I of Brazil instead of Peter I of Brazil.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 20:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. 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.

British Ultimatum

This article mentions the British Ultimatum being made during Luis I's reign, however it was made January 11, 1890, 3 months after he died. Should it even be mentioned in this article? Paris1127 (talk) 12:02, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha

Although saying King Luís I belonged to the House of Braganza isn’t totally wrong, he actually belonged to the House of Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. This branch was created when Queen Maria II (Braganza) married the German prince Ferdinand of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha. All Portuguese monarchs descended from them belonged to the House of Braganza-Saxe-Coburg and Gotha Royal Braganza (talk) 14:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)