![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Theresa Christina of the Two Sicilies's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Lyra v.1, p.116":
Reference named "Barman 1999, p.97":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia naming conventions stress following the spelling used in the majority of English sources. As most of the references, including those used to cite this article, do not use "Theresa Christina", I propose moving the article to a title which reflects the references. In this case, most of the available reliable sources for her life concentrate on her role as Brazilian Empress and use a Portuguese spelling (i.e., "Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies"). The existing title would be redirected to the new name. Comments?
She is the only notable Teresa Cristina so why not simply Teresa Cristina? After all, we have Maria Theresa. Surtsicna ( talk) 19:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
For the editors who have been following my and Astynax recent revamp in this article, I'd like to let you all know that I've finished its text. Astynax will, as soon as he has time, correct all spelling and grammar mistakes. After that's done, we'll nominate it as FAC. Regards to all, -- Lecen ( talk) 18:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Does the Footnotes need a little bit of condensing? It seems a bit long. I notice on some article (can't remember which specifically) they have references in two collums or in a seperate box that you could scroll up and down.-- Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy ( talk) 12:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
This article has been written following U.S. English spellings (see WP:ENGVAR). Please also be careful when creating or changing wikilinks so as not to introduce inaccuracies, anachronisms for the time being discussed, or surprises. Finally, be sure that any changes are supported by sources (and cite the source where no citation is already given). • Astynax talk 17:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
It seems that the article has already been promoted, so I'm adding my review comment here.
On the use of senhor and senhora: The Golden Law, that is, the law that abolished slavery in Brazil has written in it in 19th century archaic Portuguese: "A Princeza Imperial Regente em Nome de Sua Majestade o Imperador Senhor D. Pedro II, faz saber a todos os subditos do Imperio..." Notice how Pedro II was called: "Sua Majestade o Imperador Senhor D. Pedro II", which is, "His Majesty the Emperor Senhor D. Pedro II". The word "Senhor" can be translated as "Lord", "Mister", "Sire", "Liege", etc... depending on the occasion. In this particular case, there is no "correct" choice, because it means something like "Lord" but the word "Dom" itself also means "Lord". The fact that a law used "Senhor" does not mean that was actually part of his title. The Constitution was clear: Art. 100: His titles are "Constitutional Emperor and Perpetual Defender of Brazil" and has the treatment of "Imperial Majesty". See here.
Nonetheless, "senhor" and "senhora" were not part of Brazilian, nor Portuguese, Spanish and Italian royals. They are no more than simply a polite way of refering to someone.
The name of Empress Teresa Cristina: In the early 20th century, both Brazil and Portugal made a huge ortographic revision and many Portuguese words changed. "Affonso" became "Afonso", "Izabel" became "Isabel", "Thereza Christina" (or "Theresa Christina") became "Teresa Cristina", "Telephone" became "Telefone", "subdito" (subject) became "súdito", "prohibido" (prohibited, forbidden) became "proibido" and so on.
Dr Kiernan removed a source that gave her Anglicized name for two other sources. The first one is Longo's "Isabel Orleans-Bragança: The Brazilian Princess Who Freed the Slaves", who maintain the names in their Portuguese versions (King Afonso VI, Maria I, Pedro II, etc...). I have no idea why he believed that this book had an Anglicized name of Teresa Cristina. Perhaps if he sees the "Coleção Teresa Cristina" (sometimes spelled " Thereza Christina" and Theresa Christina) he will believe that those are names in English? I don't know.
Next book is the one by Daniel Parish Kidder and James Cooley Fletcher, who use 19th Century archaic Portuguese names such as Pedro II and Theresa Christina. No where it is using an Anglicized version.
The book that was used before and that I restored used "Pedro II" but called the Empress' father "Francis I", not "Francesco I" and she "Therese Christine". See here.
Done. -- Lecen ( talk) 21:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
The change isn't acceptable because her name, as you have yourself said, was Theresa Christina in Portuguese. There is no proof that the sources are English translations of a Portuguese name. The very next line of the source you've introduced says "comte d'Aquila" which shows that the book is not a direct translation into English. That is why I think we should avoid claiming anything to be an English translation and just give examples of the variants of her name used in published sources.
You have also now performed 4 reverts within 24 hours. You should not have done this, and should instead be discussing any potential edits before making them. WP:3RR advises you to undo your last revert, to avoid potential misunderstandings. DrKiernan ( talk) 14:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I think it would be useful to first decide on what we agree:
If I'm reading them correctly, EdJohnston [2] and LouisPhilippeCharles [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] (blocked indefinitely) were of the opinion that alternative names should not be given in the lead because they are too similar to the predominant version. So, the first point of contention is: should alternative forms be given in the lead?
If editors cannot agree on whether the alternative forms should or should not be in parentheses in the lead, then there is a reasonable compromise between the two opposing views, which still complies with the relevant section of the guideline: include the alternatives in the article, for the reasons stated by Astynax, [8] but since they are extremely similar, put them in a footnote to the lead instead. DrKiernan ( talk) 15:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, as it's been 24 hours without further comment, I shall assume that we are agreed on #8, and are also agreed that alternative forms of the name should be given in either a footnote or parentheses in the lead. I shall add this as #10. I suggest we wait for a further 24 hours to make sure that we are still in agreement, and then proceed to discuss which alternative forms should be included. DrKiernan ( talk) 19:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Let's move on to the alternative names to be included in the lead then, as despite the fact that we are agreed on all the points above, trying to get a simple "Yes, I agree" appears impossible. I suggest we discuss each name in turn.
I would like introduce the original Portuguese "Thereza or Theresa Christina" into the alternative names, either in a footnote or the lead, as this was the form of her name used throughout her married life and for twenty years afterwards. Currently, the lead incorrectly states that this is her name in English. But it is her name in Portuguese before the reform of Portuguese orthography. DrKiernan ( talk) 10:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
As it's been another 24 hours without comment, I've removed "Theresa Christina". We do not have agreement to add it as an alternative spelling, and we do not have a source to include it as a translation. I again suggest a delay of 24 hours before raising a new topic, in case there is further comment. DrKiernan ( talk) 11:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Moving on then to "Therese Christine". When I said that "Theresa Christina" and "Thereza Christina" were as English as "Therese Christine", because all three are found in English-language sources, Lecen implied that "Theresa Christina" was not a translation because it occurred only in works where Peter was given as Pedro, thus showing that the names were not English. However, on the source given for "Therese Christine", Peter is also given as Pedro (p. 166). So, the names are not translated there either.
Her own signature shows the French form of her name, and the French form (without accents) is used frequently throughout the Victorian era in works of multiple languages: [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]. Indeed "Therese Christine" occurs in more foreign-language works than it does in English-language ones. Consequently, "Therese Christine" is not English any more than it is German or Dutch. It is more likely a "French" version without accents.
I have repeatedly said that this is not an issue of the Portuguese language. It is an issue of the English language, which I speak natively and fluently. Non-native speakers would do well to believe native speakers when they say, "English does not work like this". There are multiple English forms of the name Teresa/Theresa/Thereza. It is impossible to translate one to another because they are not in different languages: they are merely different spellings. The article Mother Teresa is at that name for a reason. The article Teresa is at that name for a reason. "Translating" the name "Teresa" to "Therese" is never done in English.
By giving one out of a possible three alternative spellings, the impression is given that the alternative spelling shown is the only one or the predominant one found in English. However, it is not. It is in one obscure 19th-century encyclopedia. Compare this with other alternative spellings which are more common, and found in modern academic sources. Google book searches comparing "Theresa Christina" with "Therese Christine" (restricted to books written in English about Brazil) gives well over a thousand books for "Theresa Christina" [15] but less than a dozen for "Therese Christine" [16]. If, as Astynax says "The point is surely to let readers know of variants from the Portuguese spelling which they may encounter when reading English-language sources" then the form chosen is the wrong one. It should be the most common one, not the rarest one, which no-one will ever encounter anyway. DrKiernan ( talk) 16:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Articles about royals in the Western culture often have their names translated to English. The Russian Czar Nikolay II is known as " Nicholas II", the Austrian Karl I is " Charles I", the Portuguese João VI is " John VI", etc, etc... On the other hand, there are royals who have their names kept in their original languages. This is the case of the German Wilhelm II ("William II"), the Austrian Franz Joseph I ("Francis Joseph I"), the Brazilian Pedro II ("Peter II"), etc, etc...
What their articles all have in common is that next to their names, at the beginning of the lead, in parantheses, there is a translation of their names either to their original language or to English, depending on the situation. This is pretty much standard in the Wikipedia (in English). I did the same in Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies (See here), an article which I brought to FA standard. Although very rare, the Portuguese name "Teresa Cristina" has been translated to English either as "Therese Christine" [17] or "Theresa Christina" [18] [19].
Thus, I have two questions:
I am not asking for "alternative names". I was quite direct: should there be anglicized forms of their names in parentheses or not? If the name is already anglicized, should the name of the royal in its native language be shown in parentheses? Please, Dr Kiernan, do not respond this message. -- Lecen ( talk) 11:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand entirely you request and why you per se want to put the anglicized forms of their names in parentheses, but I will explain the procedure again: follow the guideline WP:NCNT, which is applicable for the name giving for royals. Also, WP:MOSBIO which explains the style of naming in general in biographies. And if I'm correct, the guidelines DrKiernan was referring to, are also applicable. Thus, use the common form of name in the opening paragraph, which is used in current English works of general reference. Where this cannot be determined, use the conventional anglicized form of the name. If in English works commonly is used the anglicized form then this one should be used, but if in English works commonly is used the Portuguese variant, then use that one. It is that simple. There are only four cases in which I can imagine to put other names in parentheses: 1) the concerning person is also very commonly known by other or differently written names, or by multiple names also (but in this case section 2.3 of WP:MOSBIO is applicable); 2) the person has different names, for example kings or queen who are reigning multiple different countries; 3) the person had a different name before his or her marriage; 4) internationally the anglicized form of their name is the preferred name which is put in front of the introduction followed by their name written in the native language between brackets. But I never saw edits in which the name is deliberately anglicized just without reason and put between brackets, unless of course as explained in 1) people are as commonly referred with (anglicized) name also. Mr. D. E. Mophon ( talk) 15:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Just as I did in Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias. I'm moving pieces of the text to here. I will use them on other, more suitable, articles. -- Lecen ( talk) 19:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
The European royal houses which had been approached were wary, fearing that Pedro II might develop an erratic personality similar to that of his father, Emperor Dom Pedro I, who was also notorious for his infidelities. [1]
Romantic attachment was secondary in an age in which the role of a royal consort was to bear heirs for her husband and nation. As a princess, eligible suitors were very limited, and the prospect of marrying an emperor was an opportunity not to be passed. [2]
The Brazilian squadron, accompanied by a Neapolitan naval division consisting of a ship of the line and three frigates, returned to Rio de Janeiro with Teresa Cristina on 3 September 1843
In his eyes, Teresa Cristina seemed much older at 21—an age at which women of that era were deemed to be old maids. [3]
He was tall, well-proportioned, blond, blue-eyed, and considered handsome in spite of a protruding jaw inherited from his Habsburg ancestors. [2]
One account has him needing to sit due to shock, while another has him turning on his heel and leaving. Historian Roderick J. Barman observed that "he may have done both these things." [2]
The Emperor was charmed by the portrait, saying that its subject appeared to be a "fairy princess". [1] According to historian James McMurtry Longo, the woman portrayed in the painting was not Teresa Cristina, but someone else, and by the time Pedro II "discovered the deception, it was too late." [1] Because of complicated royal intermarriages, Teresa Cristina was related to Pedro II in many degrees of consanguinity, which required a dispensation from Pope Gregory XVI before the marriage arrangements could be finalized. [4]
Teresa Cristina learned that evening that the Emperor had based his expectations on a picture which did not accurately portray her. Teresa Cristina was despondent, although she hid her anguish from her husband and their subjects. She resolved to make the best of the situation, and wrote home: "I know my appearance is different from what has been announced. I will make every effort to live in such a way that nobody will be misled by my character. It will be my ambition to resemble the nature of Dona Leopoldina, my husband's mother, and to be a Brazilian with all my heart in everything I do." [5] Although a proxy marriage had already been performed, an extravagant state wedding was held on 4 September at the cathedral in Rio de Janeiro. [6] Brazil's new Empress won over her adopted countrymen with her pleasant disposition and earnestness. In the days following her arrival, she received expressions of affection and delight from every quarter—except from her new husband. [7]
One of the main purposes of a monarch's marriage was to provide a successor, and the announcement of a pregnancy was anxiously awaited. As months dragged on without an announcement, people began to speculate as to reasons for the delay, including questioning the Emperor's potency. [8] The true reason was quite different: the Emperor had formed a dislike for his bride and had no wish to consummate the relationship. Teresa Cristina eventually asked to be sent back to her father in Italy. Pedro relented in the face of her obvious misery and marital relations finally commenced. Even so, Pedro II continued to treat his wife coldly and subjected her to many slights. [9]
Luigi, the Count of Áquila and Teresa Cristina's younger brother, had traveled with her to Brazil. He had married Pedro II's sister and heir, Januária, following Teresa Cristina's own marriage. [10] Pedro II and his brother-in-law did not get along, and by mid-July, they had stopped speaking to each other. The Count's outgoing personality conflicted with the Emperor's introversion, and a penchant for frivolous pleasures offended Pedro II's sense of duty and propriety. [10] Januária was enamoured of her new husband, and the contrast between the two couples irritated the Emperor further and highlighted his insecurity and immaturity. That both Januária and Teresa Cristina got along well with Áquila only compounded the Emperor's alienation. [11]
The Neapolitans who had accompanied the bridal party to Brazil sought to carve out positions for themselves. Áquila's confessor was seen as inflaming the Count's ambitions; encouraging him to create his own faction among the courtiers. Paulo Barbosa da Silva (the palace steward) was alarmed by this. He, along with Aureliano de Sousa e Oliveira Coutinho, Viscount of Sepetiba, had formed a group known as the "Courtier Faction" which was composed of high ranking palace servants and notable politicians. [12] They had exercised a strong influence over Pedro II for years and had no intention of allowing rivals to challenge their positions. [11]
The Courtier Faction began to exploit the family rift to its own advantage. The courtiers falsely insinuated that Áquila was cultivating a bloc plotting to seize the throne. The insecure young Emperor was inclined to accept this as fact, and the Count began to be slighted and excluded at court. Áquila reacted by openly complaining of the lack of consideration and respect being given to himself, and went on to contemptuously deride society and life in Brazil. Luigi requested repeatedly that Pedro II grant him leave to travel to Europe. When he and the Emperor publicly quarreled over the matter at a state banquet, permission was quickly granted to avoid a public scandal. The Count of Áquila and Januária set sail from Rio de Janeiro for Europe on 23 October 1844. [13]
The births stopped after July 1848. Four years of continual pregnancy may be part of the reason for the change. [14] Another factor may have been the early death of her eldest child, Afonso, in June 1847. Upon the death of her youngest son Pedro in January 1850, there were only two daughters remaining as heirs to the throne. Although the Constitution allowed a female to succeed under male-preference primogeniture, the prevailing attitude at the time was that only a male was capable of exercising authority over the nation. Teresa Cristina was aware of her obligation to produce a male heir, and as a dutiful wife never gave any indication of resisting her role. [14] Aside from the tragedies, another likely reason for the halt to childbearing is because the Emperor was becoming more attracted to other women who possessed beauty, wit and intelligence which the Empress could not provide. [15]
Pedro II changed considerably in the period between the departure of Áquila and Januária in 1844 and the birth of his last child in 1848. He was more mature and confident, and no longer gave credence to allegations of plots against him. He learned to detect attempts at manipulating his decisions and rejected partisan influence-peddling. [16] With growth, the Emperor's weaknesses faded and his strengths of character came to the fore. He learned to be not only impartial and diligent, but also courteous, patient and personable. He began to fully exercise authority, and his new social skills and diligence in government greatly enhanced his effectiveness and public image. [16] He tamed his emotions, never losing his temper or displaying rudeness in public, and was "exceptionally discreet in words and cautious in action." [17] In time, even the breach with Áquila was smoothed-over. [18] Most importantly, this period saw the fall of the Courtier Faction. Pedro II quietly and decisively engineered an end to the power held by the courtiers—all of whom Teresa Cristina strongly disliked [19]—by barring their access to his inner circle. [20]
The years passed and Teresa Cristina's daughters matured. Isabel and Leopoldina were married to Princes Gaston of Orléans (the Count of Eu) and August of Saxe-Coburg-Kohary, respectively, at the end of 1864. [21] The newlywed couples moved on to new lives, and their governess, the Countess of Barral, returned in March 1865 to France, where she had lived prior to being appointed to oversee the princesses. [22]
Pedro II and Teresa Cristina brought with them, after their first trip to Europe in 1872, the two oldest of Leopoldina's children: Pedro Augusto and Augusto Leopoldo. They were to be raised by the Imperial couple as possible heirs, since Isabel was then childless (until the birth of her first child in 1875). [23]
Time passed, and the old couple still behaved as ever.
Although the nation was in the midst of an unparalleled period of economic progress [24] and its international reputation had never been better, from the early 1880s the monarchy had been allowed to become increasingly undermined. [25] The main causes can be attributed to Teresa Cristina's husband, who had long ceased to desire a continuation of the monarchy in Brazil. [26] He allowed Imperial authority to be steadily eroded, allowed the rise of discontentment among former slaveowners who resented the abolition of slavery in 1888 [27] and did nothing to suppress insubordination among those military officers who had openly advocated the creation of a dictatorial republic. [28]
The fall of the Brazilian monarchy had a crushing effect on Teresa Cristina's spirit.
André Rebouças, a renowned Brazilian abolitionist leader, who of his own free will had accompanied the Imperial Family into exile, wrote in his diary that he had to awaken at 3:30 during the night "to help the empress, who was crying due to a most painful attack of asthma." [29]
Isabel and her family, as well as Pedro Augusto, departed to Spain. [29]
She was not thought to be near death, so her requests for a priest went unheeded, [30] and Pedro II went out on tour of the town. With no family to attend her and with little company, Teresa Cristina's breathing became increasingly labored, and the failure of her respiratory system led to cardiac arrest and death at 2:00 pm. [30]
According to historian Lídia Besouchet, a "huge crowd" gathered in Porto to witness her funeral. [31]
It came almost as a surprise that the person who suffered the most from Teresa Cristina's death was Pedro II himself. According to historian José Murilo de Carbalho, despite his "initial disappointment with the fianceé, her lack of attractiveness, the love affairs into which he allowed himself be carried, the act of living together for 46 years ended up generating in him a strong feeling of friendship and respect for his wife, which her death brought to the surface." [32] This opinion is shared by Roderick J. Barman, who said that only "after she was no more did he begin to appreciate her concern, her kindness, her self-denial, and her generosity. The realization came slowly and with growing force." [33] He goes on to say that to "assuage his sense of guilt and to lessen his deprivation, D. Pedro quickly redefined his mental image of D. Teresa Cristina, viewing her as 'minha Santa' [my Saint]." She "was now his superior, surpassing him in virtues. She was enjoying in heaven the rewards and recognition he had not given her on earth, Her very sanctitude assured D. Pedro that she had forgiven him his past neglect and that she would intercede with the Almighty to secure him forgiveness there too. As a saint she would watch over him and aid him until he died." [33]
Her simplicity, kindness and—especially—her safe distance from political controversy shielded her from criticism, including from republicans.
Azevedo also said that she "had no enemy. The most violent enemies of the monarchy never insulted her with the shadow of an allusion, with any semblance of irreverence, and who knows? Her virtue might have been the strongest sustenance of this throne, which crumbled another day." She "had the good sense of never taking part in politics, of never getting involved in State affairs." And finally: "Her death will be long bewailed: D. Teresa Cristina was one of those beings whose memory has the right to tears." [34]
I propose changing the subject of the lead sentence (and possibly the name in the infobox) from Teresa Cristina to Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies. I am so sorry that User:Lecen is this difficult to discuss with. I have cited Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#First sentence, which says that, if possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence, as well as countless examples of (featured) articles. I explained to him that this article stands out from the crowd (including Teresa Cristina's predecessor, Amélie of Leuchtenberg, and other Portuguese queens) for no reason. His only argument is that he does not like it that way. He then said that he did not wish to discuss this with me anymore but when I edited the article he autocratically reverted again. Are there any reasonable arguments in favour of ignoring the Manual of Style in this instance and treating the article differently from articles about all other related consorts? Surtsicna ( talk) 13:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Everyone: calm down. We're all here to improve this site's content. Sursicna, please reread WP:LEAD again. The first bullet point refers to the structure of the first sentence, that is we should not have "There was an empress of Brazil, Teresa Cristina, ...". The third bullet point is the applicable point here: "When the page title is used as the subject of the first sentence, it may appear in a slightly different form, and it may include variations, including synonyms." I don't think that "of the Two Sicilies" is necessary here, as it is mentioned in the next sentence. It only needlessly complicates the opening sentence. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Great job on making this a Featured Article - it's great to see a Brazilian topic on the front page too. I learned a lot by reading this (shocked I didn't realize Brazil ever had its own monarchy... go USA public schooling). 41.186.11.210 ( talk) 03:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to echo the same comments from above. It was a decent read – not terribly long, but very informative and fairly comprehensive on a piece of Brazilian history that many of us outside of South America don't get to hear much about. -- MuZemike 06:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Though we commonly speak of Dom Pedro, "King Don Francesco" seems a solecism. Doesn't "king" trump "don" in English and in Italian?-- Wetman ( talk) 10:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I have yet to read the rest of this article, but within the opening there already seems to be something odd in the sentence "Despite a cold beginning, the couple's relationship improved as time passed, due primarily to Teresa Cristina's patience, kindness, generosity and simplicity." We don't really know her personally, but this sentence would be difficult to verify, and in fact has no source attached to it. Can anyone vouch for why this sentence should be included? Señorsnazzypants talk 21:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Piledhigheranddeeper made
an edit to remove excess ordinals following Pedro's name, which was
reverted by
Lecen, without explanation. I'm not clear on why this was reverted, it is fairly common in our monarch articles that the monarchical ordinal is dropped after the first use in common prose, such as through
Elizabeth II,
George VI,
Pedro I of Brazil,
Ferdinand VII of Spain and most others. In my view, Piledhigheranddeeper's edit was quite reasonable and shouldn't have been reverted without explanation. Are there any objections to restoring this change? –
NULL ‹
talk›
‹
edits›
23:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Theresa Christina of the Two Sicilies's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Lyra v.1, p.116":
Reference named "Barman 1999, p.97":
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 14:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
Wikipedia naming conventions stress following the spelling used in the majority of English sources. As most of the references, including those used to cite this article, do not use "Theresa Christina", I propose moving the article to a title which reflects the references. In this case, most of the available reliable sources for her life concentrate on her role as Brazilian Empress and use a Portuguese spelling (i.e., "Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies"). The existing title would be redirected to the new name. Comments?
She is the only notable Teresa Cristina so why not simply Teresa Cristina? After all, we have Maria Theresa. Surtsicna ( talk) 19:10, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
For the editors who have been following my and Astynax recent revamp in this article, I'd like to let you all know that I've finished its text. Astynax will, as soon as he has time, correct all spelling and grammar mistakes. After that's done, we'll nominate it as FAC. Regards to all, -- Lecen ( talk) 18:43, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
Does the Footnotes need a little bit of condensing? It seems a bit long. I notice on some article (can't remember which specifically) they have references in two collums or in a seperate box that you could scroll up and down.-- Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy ( talk) 12:24, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
This article has been written following U.S. English spellings (see WP:ENGVAR). Please also be careful when creating or changing wikilinks so as not to introduce inaccuracies, anachronisms for the time being discussed, or surprises. Finally, be sure that any changes are supported by sources (and cite the source where no citation is already given). • Astynax talk 17:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
It seems that the article has already been promoted, so I'm adding my review comment here.
On the use of senhor and senhora: The Golden Law, that is, the law that abolished slavery in Brazil has written in it in 19th century archaic Portuguese: "A Princeza Imperial Regente em Nome de Sua Majestade o Imperador Senhor D. Pedro II, faz saber a todos os subditos do Imperio..." Notice how Pedro II was called: "Sua Majestade o Imperador Senhor D. Pedro II", which is, "His Majesty the Emperor Senhor D. Pedro II". The word "Senhor" can be translated as "Lord", "Mister", "Sire", "Liege", etc... depending on the occasion. In this particular case, there is no "correct" choice, because it means something like "Lord" but the word "Dom" itself also means "Lord". The fact that a law used "Senhor" does not mean that was actually part of his title. The Constitution was clear: Art. 100: His titles are "Constitutional Emperor and Perpetual Defender of Brazil" and has the treatment of "Imperial Majesty". See here.
Nonetheless, "senhor" and "senhora" were not part of Brazilian, nor Portuguese, Spanish and Italian royals. They are no more than simply a polite way of refering to someone.
The name of Empress Teresa Cristina: In the early 20th century, both Brazil and Portugal made a huge ortographic revision and many Portuguese words changed. "Affonso" became "Afonso", "Izabel" became "Isabel", "Thereza Christina" (or "Theresa Christina") became "Teresa Cristina", "Telephone" became "Telefone", "subdito" (subject) became "súdito", "prohibido" (prohibited, forbidden) became "proibido" and so on.
Dr Kiernan removed a source that gave her Anglicized name for two other sources. The first one is Longo's "Isabel Orleans-Bragança: The Brazilian Princess Who Freed the Slaves", who maintain the names in their Portuguese versions (King Afonso VI, Maria I, Pedro II, etc...). I have no idea why he believed that this book had an Anglicized name of Teresa Cristina. Perhaps if he sees the "Coleção Teresa Cristina" (sometimes spelled " Thereza Christina" and Theresa Christina) he will believe that those are names in English? I don't know.
Next book is the one by Daniel Parish Kidder and James Cooley Fletcher, who use 19th Century archaic Portuguese names such as Pedro II and Theresa Christina. No where it is using an Anglicized version.
The book that was used before and that I restored used "Pedro II" but called the Empress' father "Francis I", not "Francesco I" and she "Therese Christine". See here.
Done. -- Lecen ( talk) 21:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
The change isn't acceptable because her name, as you have yourself said, was Theresa Christina in Portuguese. There is no proof that the sources are English translations of a Portuguese name. The very next line of the source you've introduced says "comte d'Aquila" which shows that the book is not a direct translation into English. That is why I think we should avoid claiming anything to be an English translation and just give examples of the variants of her name used in published sources.
You have also now performed 4 reverts within 24 hours. You should not have done this, and should instead be discussing any potential edits before making them. WP:3RR advises you to undo your last revert, to avoid potential misunderstandings. DrKiernan ( talk) 14:50, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I think it would be useful to first decide on what we agree:
If I'm reading them correctly, EdJohnston [2] and LouisPhilippeCharles [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] (blocked indefinitely) were of the opinion that alternative names should not be given in the lead because they are too similar to the predominant version. So, the first point of contention is: should alternative forms be given in the lead?
If editors cannot agree on whether the alternative forms should or should not be in parentheses in the lead, then there is a reasonable compromise between the two opposing views, which still complies with the relevant section of the guideline: include the alternatives in the article, for the reasons stated by Astynax, [8] but since they are extremely similar, put them in a footnote to the lead instead. DrKiernan ( talk) 15:18, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, as it's been 24 hours without further comment, I shall assume that we are agreed on #8, and are also agreed that alternative forms of the name should be given in either a footnote or parentheses in the lead. I shall add this as #10. I suggest we wait for a further 24 hours to make sure that we are still in agreement, and then proceed to discuss which alternative forms should be included. DrKiernan ( talk) 19:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Let's move on to the alternative names to be included in the lead then, as despite the fact that we are agreed on all the points above, trying to get a simple "Yes, I agree" appears impossible. I suggest we discuss each name in turn.
I would like introduce the original Portuguese "Thereza or Theresa Christina" into the alternative names, either in a footnote or the lead, as this was the form of her name used throughout her married life and for twenty years afterwards. Currently, the lead incorrectly states that this is her name in English. But it is her name in Portuguese before the reform of Portuguese orthography. DrKiernan ( talk) 10:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
As it's been another 24 hours without comment, I've removed "Theresa Christina". We do not have agreement to add it as an alternative spelling, and we do not have a source to include it as a translation. I again suggest a delay of 24 hours before raising a new topic, in case there is further comment. DrKiernan ( talk) 11:44, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Moving on then to "Therese Christine". When I said that "Theresa Christina" and "Thereza Christina" were as English as "Therese Christine", because all three are found in English-language sources, Lecen implied that "Theresa Christina" was not a translation because it occurred only in works where Peter was given as Pedro, thus showing that the names were not English. However, on the source given for "Therese Christine", Peter is also given as Pedro (p. 166). So, the names are not translated there either.
Her own signature shows the French form of her name, and the French form (without accents) is used frequently throughout the Victorian era in works of multiple languages: [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14]. Indeed "Therese Christine" occurs in more foreign-language works than it does in English-language ones. Consequently, "Therese Christine" is not English any more than it is German or Dutch. It is more likely a "French" version without accents.
I have repeatedly said that this is not an issue of the Portuguese language. It is an issue of the English language, which I speak natively and fluently. Non-native speakers would do well to believe native speakers when they say, "English does not work like this". There are multiple English forms of the name Teresa/Theresa/Thereza. It is impossible to translate one to another because they are not in different languages: they are merely different spellings. The article Mother Teresa is at that name for a reason. The article Teresa is at that name for a reason. "Translating" the name "Teresa" to "Therese" is never done in English.
By giving one out of a possible three alternative spellings, the impression is given that the alternative spelling shown is the only one or the predominant one found in English. However, it is not. It is in one obscure 19th-century encyclopedia. Compare this with other alternative spellings which are more common, and found in modern academic sources. Google book searches comparing "Theresa Christina" with "Therese Christine" (restricted to books written in English about Brazil) gives well over a thousand books for "Theresa Christina" [15] but less than a dozen for "Therese Christine" [16]. If, as Astynax says "The point is surely to let readers know of variants from the Portuguese spelling which they may encounter when reading English-language sources" then the form chosen is the wrong one. It should be the most common one, not the rarest one, which no-one will ever encounter anyway. DrKiernan ( talk) 16:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Articles about royals in the Western culture often have their names translated to English. The Russian Czar Nikolay II is known as " Nicholas II", the Austrian Karl I is " Charles I", the Portuguese João VI is " John VI", etc, etc... On the other hand, there are royals who have their names kept in their original languages. This is the case of the German Wilhelm II ("William II"), the Austrian Franz Joseph I ("Francis Joseph I"), the Brazilian Pedro II ("Peter II"), etc, etc...
What their articles all have in common is that next to their names, at the beginning of the lead, in parantheses, there is a translation of their names either to their original language or to English, depending on the situation. This is pretty much standard in the Wikipedia (in English). I did the same in Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies (See here), an article which I brought to FA standard. Although very rare, the Portuguese name "Teresa Cristina" has been translated to English either as "Therese Christine" [17] or "Theresa Christina" [18] [19].
Thus, I have two questions:
I am not asking for "alternative names". I was quite direct: should there be anglicized forms of their names in parentheses or not? If the name is already anglicized, should the name of the royal in its native language be shown in parentheses? Please, Dr Kiernan, do not respond this message. -- Lecen ( talk) 11:01, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't understand entirely you request and why you per se want to put the anglicized forms of their names in parentheses, but I will explain the procedure again: follow the guideline WP:NCNT, which is applicable for the name giving for royals. Also, WP:MOSBIO which explains the style of naming in general in biographies. And if I'm correct, the guidelines DrKiernan was referring to, are also applicable. Thus, use the common form of name in the opening paragraph, which is used in current English works of general reference. Where this cannot be determined, use the conventional anglicized form of the name. If in English works commonly is used the anglicized form then this one should be used, but if in English works commonly is used the Portuguese variant, then use that one. It is that simple. There are only four cases in which I can imagine to put other names in parentheses: 1) the concerning person is also very commonly known by other or differently written names, or by multiple names also (but in this case section 2.3 of WP:MOSBIO is applicable); 2) the person has different names, for example kings or queen who are reigning multiple different countries; 3) the person had a different name before his or her marriage; 4) internationally the anglicized form of their name is the preferred name which is put in front of the introduction followed by their name written in the native language between brackets. But I never saw edits in which the name is deliberately anglicized just without reason and put between brackets, unless of course as explained in 1) people are as commonly referred with (anglicized) name also. Mr. D. E. Mophon ( talk) 15:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Just as I did in Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias. I'm moving pieces of the text to here. I will use them on other, more suitable, articles. -- Lecen ( talk) 19:11, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
The European royal houses which had been approached were wary, fearing that Pedro II might develop an erratic personality similar to that of his father, Emperor Dom Pedro I, who was also notorious for his infidelities. [1]
Romantic attachment was secondary in an age in which the role of a royal consort was to bear heirs for her husband and nation. As a princess, eligible suitors were very limited, and the prospect of marrying an emperor was an opportunity not to be passed. [2]
The Brazilian squadron, accompanied by a Neapolitan naval division consisting of a ship of the line and three frigates, returned to Rio de Janeiro with Teresa Cristina on 3 September 1843
In his eyes, Teresa Cristina seemed much older at 21—an age at which women of that era were deemed to be old maids. [3]
He was tall, well-proportioned, blond, blue-eyed, and considered handsome in spite of a protruding jaw inherited from his Habsburg ancestors. [2]
One account has him needing to sit due to shock, while another has him turning on his heel and leaving. Historian Roderick J. Barman observed that "he may have done both these things." [2]
The Emperor was charmed by the portrait, saying that its subject appeared to be a "fairy princess". [1] According to historian James McMurtry Longo, the woman portrayed in the painting was not Teresa Cristina, but someone else, and by the time Pedro II "discovered the deception, it was too late." [1] Because of complicated royal intermarriages, Teresa Cristina was related to Pedro II in many degrees of consanguinity, which required a dispensation from Pope Gregory XVI before the marriage arrangements could be finalized. [4]
Teresa Cristina learned that evening that the Emperor had based his expectations on a picture which did not accurately portray her. Teresa Cristina was despondent, although she hid her anguish from her husband and their subjects. She resolved to make the best of the situation, and wrote home: "I know my appearance is different from what has been announced. I will make every effort to live in such a way that nobody will be misled by my character. It will be my ambition to resemble the nature of Dona Leopoldina, my husband's mother, and to be a Brazilian with all my heart in everything I do." [5] Although a proxy marriage had already been performed, an extravagant state wedding was held on 4 September at the cathedral in Rio de Janeiro. [6] Brazil's new Empress won over her adopted countrymen with her pleasant disposition and earnestness. In the days following her arrival, she received expressions of affection and delight from every quarter—except from her new husband. [7]
One of the main purposes of a monarch's marriage was to provide a successor, and the announcement of a pregnancy was anxiously awaited. As months dragged on without an announcement, people began to speculate as to reasons for the delay, including questioning the Emperor's potency. [8] The true reason was quite different: the Emperor had formed a dislike for his bride and had no wish to consummate the relationship. Teresa Cristina eventually asked to be sent back to her father in Italy. Pedro relented in the face of her obvious misery and marital relations finally commenced. Even so, Pedro II continued to treat his wife coldly and subjected her to many slights. [9]
Luigi, the Count of Áquila and Teresa Cristina's younger brother, had traveled with her to Brazil. He had married Pedro II's sister and heir, Januária, following Teresa Cristina's own marriage. [10] Pedro II and his brother-in-law did not get along, and by mid-July, they had stopped speaking to each other. The Count's outgoing personality conflicted with the Emperor's introversion, and a penchant for frivolous pleasures offended Pedro II's sense of duty and propriety. [10] Januária was enamoured of her new husband, and the contrast between the two couples irritated the Emperor further and highlighted his insecurity and immaturity. That both Januária and Teresa Cristina got along well with Áquila only compounded the Emperor's alienation. [11]
The Neapolitans who had accompanied the bridal party to Brazil sought to carve out positions for themselves. Áquila's confessor was seen as inflaming the Count's ambitions; encouraging him to create his own faction among the courtiers. Paulo Barbosa da Silva (the palace steward) was alarmed by this. He, along with Aureliano de Sousa e Oliveira Coutinho, Viscount of Sepetiba, had formed a group known as the "Courtier Faction" which was composed of high ranking palace servants and notable politicians. [12] They had exercised a strong influence over Pedro II for years and had no intention of allowing rivals to challenge their positions. [11]
The Courtier Faction began to exploit the family rift to its own advantage. The courtiers falsely insinuated that Áquila was cultivating a bloc plotting to seize the throne. The insecure young Emperor was inclined to accept this as fact, and the Count began to be slighted and excluded at court. Áquila reacted by openly complaining of the lack of consideration and respect being given to himself, and went on to contemptuously deride society and life in Brazil. Luigi requested repeatedly that Pedro II grant him leave to travel to Europe. When he and the Emperor publicly quarreled over the matter at a state banquet, permission was quickly granted to avoid a public scandal. The Count of Áquila and Januária set sail from Rio de Janeiro for Europe on 23 October 1844. [13]
The births stopped after July 1848. Four years of continual pregnancy may be part of the reason for the change. [14] Another factor may have been the early death of her eldest child, Afonso, in June 1847. Upon the death of her youngest son Pedro in January 1850, there were only two daughters remaining as heirs to the throne. Although the Constitution allowed a female to succeed under male-preference primogeniture, the prevailing attitude at the time was that only a male was capable of exercising authority over the nation. Teresa Cristina was aware of her obligation to produce a male heir, and as a dutiful wife never gave any indication of resisting her role. [14] Aside from the tragedies, another likely reason for the halt to childbearing is because the Emperor was becoming more attracted to other women who possessed beauty, wit and intelligence which the Empress could not provide. [15]
Pedro II changed considerably in the period between the departure of Áquila and Januária in 1844 and the birth of his last child in 1848. He was more mature and confident, and no longer gave credence to allegations of plots against him. He learned to detect attempts at manipulating his decisions and rejected partisan influence-peddling. [16] With growth, the Emperor's weaknesses faded and his strengths of character came to the fore. He learned to be not only impartial and diligent, but also courteous, patient and personable. He began to fully exercise authority, and his new social skills and diligence in government greatly enhanced his effectiveness and public image. [16] He tamed his emotions, never losing his temper or displaying rudeness in public, and was "exceptionally discreet in words and cautious in action." [17] In time, even the breach with Áquila was smoothed-over. [18] Most importantly, this period saw the fall of the Courtier Faction. Pedro II quietly and decisively engineered an end to the power held by the courtiers—all of whom Teresa Cristina strongly disliked [19]—by barring their access to his inner circle. [20]
The years passed and Teresa Cristina's daughters matured. Isabel and Leopoldina were married to Princes Gaston of Orléans (the Count of Eu) and August of Saxe-Coburg-Kohary, respectively, at the end of 1864. [21] The newlywed couples moved on to new lives, and their governess, the Countess of Barral, returned in March 1865 to France, where she had lived prior to being appointed to oversee the princesses. [22]
Pedro II and Teresa Cristina brought with them, after their first trip to Europe in 1872, the two oldest of Leopoldina's children: Pedro Augusto and Augusto Leopoldo. They were to be raised by the Imperial couple as possible heirs, since Isabel was then childless (until the birth of her first child in 1875). [23]
Time passed, and the old couple still behaved as ever.
Although the nation was in the midst of an unparalleled period of economic progress [24] and its international reputation had never been better, from the early 1880s the monarchy had been allowed to become increasingly undermined. [25] The main causes can be attributed to Teresa Cristina's husband, who had long ceased to desire a continuation of the monarchy in Brazil. [26] He allowed Imperial authority to be steadily eroded, allowed the rise of discontentment among former slaveowners who resented the abolition of slavery in 1888 [27] and did nothing to suppress insubordination among those military officers who had openly advocated the creation of a dictatorial republic. [28]
The fall of the Brazilian monarchy had a crushing effect on Teresa Cristina's spirit.
André Rebouças, a renowned Brazilian abolitionist leader, who of his own free will had accompanied the Imperial Family into exile, wrote in his diary that he had to awaken at 3:30 during the night "to help the empress, who was crying due to a most painful attack of asthma." [29]
Isabel and her family, as well as Pedro Augusto, departed to Spain. [29]
She was not thought to be near death, so her requests for a priest went unheeded, [30] and Pedro II went out on tour of the town. With no family to attend her and with little company, Teresa Cristina's breathing became increasingly labored, and the failure of her respiratory system led to cardiac arrest and death at 2:00 pm. [30]
According to historian Lídia Besouchet, a "huge crowd" gathered in Porto to witness her funeral. [31]
It came almost as a surprise that the person who suffered the most from Teresa Cristina's death was Pedro II himself. According to historian José Murilo de Carbalho, despite his "initial disappointment with the fianceé, her lack of attractiveness, the love affairs into which he allowed himself be carried, the act of living together for 46 years ended up generating in him a strong feeling of friendship and respect for his wife, which her death brought to the surface." [32] This opinion is shared by Roderick J. Barman, who said that only "after she was no more did he begin to appreciate her concern, her kindness, her self-denial, and her generosity. The realization came slowly and with growing force." [33] He goes on to say that to "assuage his sense of guilt and to lessen his deprivation, D. Pedro quickly redefined his mental image of D. Teresa Cristina, viewing her as 'minha Santa' [my Saint]." She "was now his superior, surpassing him in virtues. She was enjoying in heaven the rewards and recognition he had not given her on earth, Her very sanctitude assured D. Pedro that she had forgiven him his past neglect and that she would intercede with the Almighty to secure him forgiveness there too. As a saint she would watch over him and aid him until he died." [33]
Her simplicity, kindness and—especially—her safe distance from political controversy shielded her from criticism, including from republicans.
Azevedo also said that she "had no enemy. The most violent enemies of the monarchy never insulted her with the shadow of an allusion, with any semblance of irreverence, and who knows? Her virtue might have been the strongest sustenance of this throne, which crumbled another day." She "had the good sense of never taking part in politics, of never getting involved in State affairs." And finally: "Her death will be long bewailed: D. Teresa Cristina was one of those beings whose memory has the right to tears." [34]
I propose changing the subject of the lead sentence (and possibly the name in the infobox) from Teresa Cristina to Teresa Cristina of the Two Sicilies. I am so sorry that User:Lecen is this difficult to discuss with. I have cited Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section#First sentence, which says that, if possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence, as well as countless examples of (featured) articles. I explained to him that this article stands out from the crowd (including Teresa Cristina's predecessor, Amélie of Leuchtenberg, and other Portuguese queens) for no reason. His only argument is that he does not like it that way. He then said that he did not wish to discuss this with me anymore but when I edited the article he autocratically reverted again. Are there any reasonable arguments in favour of ignoring the Manual of Style in this instance and treating the article differently from articles about all other related consorts? Surtsicna ( talk) 13:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
Everyone: calm down. We're all here to improve this site's content. Sursicna, please reread WP:LEAD again. The first bullet point refers to the structure of the first sentence, that is we should not have "There was an empress of Brazil, Teresa Cristina, ...". The third bullet point is the applicable point here: "When the page title is used as the subject of the first sentence, it may appear in a slightly different form, and it may include variations, including synonyms." I don't think that "of the Two Sicilies" is necessary here, as it is mentioned in the next sentence. It only needlessly complicates the opening sentence. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 21:02, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Great job on making this a Featured Article - it's great to see a Brazilian topic on the front page too. I learned a lot by reading this (shocked I didn't realize Brazil ever had its own monarchy... go USA public schooling). 41.186.11.210 ( talk) 03:04, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to echo the same comments from above. It was a decent read – not terribly long, but very informative and fairly comprehensive on a piece of Brazilian history that many of us outside of South America don't get to hear much about. -- MuZemike 06:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Though we commonly speak of Dom Pedro, "King Don Francesco" seems a solecism. Doesn't "king" trump "don" in English and in Italian?-- Wetman ( talk) 10:56, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
I have yet to read the rest of this article, but within the opening there already seems to be something odd in the sentence "Despite a cold beginning, the couple's relationship improved as time passed, due primarily to Teresa Cristina's patience, kindness, generosity and simplicity." We don't really know her personally, but this sentence would be difficult to verify, and in fact has no source attached to it. Can anyone vouch for why this sentence should be included? Señorsnazzypants talk 21:59, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
Piledhigheranddeeper made
an edit to remove excess ordinals following Pedro's name, which was
reverted by
Lecen, without explanation. I'm not clear on why this was reverted, it is fairly common in our monarch articles that the monarchical ordinal is dropped after the first use in common prose, such as through
Elizabeth II,
George VI,
Pedro I of Brazil,
Ferdinand VII of Spain and most others. In my view, Piledhigheranddeeper's edit was quite reasonable and shouldn't have been reverted without explanation. Are there any objections to restoring this change? –
NULL ‹
talk›
‹
edits›
23:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)