Talk:António, Prior of Crato
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, now in the public domain. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
António, Prior of Crato is part of WikiProject Portugal, a project to improve all Portugal-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Portugal-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome. |
|
Portugal To-do:
|
|
[edit] Title
He is not normally considered to have been King. I suggest moving this article to Antonio de Crato. john k 15:29, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
It depends on how strict line we draw for being a monarch. He ruled for a brief period, apparently all Portugal. There are similar examples afaik, here afaik treated as monarchs. And compare with s0me other briefly-reigning, such as Frederick III of Prussia 217.140.193.123 19:52, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
The thing is, Frederick III was universally recognized as the rightful monarch. Antonio de Crato is more analogous to Lady Jane Grey - a de facto monarch who was, in retrospect, considered to be a usurper. Given the controversy, and the fact that he's much better known as Antonio de Crato, I don't see why he should be at this odd location - we don't have Jane of England. john k 19:57, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
I did not mention Fred III as analogy, but only for his brief reign. See rather certain medieval Norwegian and Swedish kings (who were very disputed), and some Polish monarchs, etc. And, who consider after 1640 Antonio as usurper? Isn't he in the national king lists of Portugal...
Anyway I am somewhat opposed to Antonio de crato, as if he were an ordinary Portuguese nobleman... An usurper is usually anglicized (actually had he even support from Britain?) 217.140.193.123 20:07, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
I have never seen Antonio de Crato in a list of Portuguese monarchs, although I haven't seen Portuguese king-lists by Portuguese people, if that's what you're asking. He's not listed here, [friesian.com/perifran.htm here], or here, for instance. As to Anglicization, I don't see why we should do that - we don't anglicize the names of actual monarchs who are normally known by non-Anglicized names, so I don't see why we should Anglicize the name of a pretender. And as to Antonio de Crato being too simple, see James Francis Edward Stuart and Charles Edward Stuart, for instance. Given that he is not normally listed as a proper King of Portugal, and that he is universally known as Antonio de Crato, I don't see why we should have him at any other location. john k 07:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
In my opinion, you are too hasty to move. And, we have not had any proper discussion about naming of earlier pretenders. IMO, already the fact that someone apparently created this article under this heading, means something of the use of some people, possibly Portuguese. Then, the article in Portuguese Wiki seems to be monarchically titled. Apparently due to lists of their kings by Portuguese. Do you have any contrary knowledge of Portuguese national position into this issue? Have you checked googe-test for Anthony vs Antonio re him, and Crato vs Portugal? Then, as far as I checked, in English texts he seems to be "of" Crato rather than "de" - do you have many contrary observations? I tend to leave the article titled as it was... any change requires good reasons to support, IMO. 217.140.193.123 21:41, 4 August 2005 (UTC) PS do not forget to check particularly the Norwegian medieval pretenders or rival kings, there were plenty of them. And some in sweden and some in Denmark... We should not treat such so radically differently.
Well, in my opinion you are making a lot of assumptions here, about, for instance, what Portuguese king-lists say. At any rate, it doesn't matter what Portuguese people call him. What matters is what he is known as in the English-speaking world. And that is not "Anthony of Portugal." Most of the google hits for that seem to be to wikipedia and mirrors. 1911 Britannica apparently had Antonio, Prior of Crato, although the article is one that has been turned into nonsense by love to know's stupid scan. At any rate, that seems like an appropriate title to me. john k 21:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
BTW, "Antonio Crato" gets 62000 hits, while "Anthony Crato" gets only 9000. It should be noted that most of the early hits for the former are for the proper individual, while many of the latter are false links. At any rate, Antonio, Prior of Crato, or Antonio de Crato, or something along those lines seems clearly the appropriate title. john k 22:00, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
(The German article is at Antonio von Crato, by the way. john k 22:02, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
Already in Portugiese WP there is some list, copied from somewhere: http://pt.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lista_de_Reis_de_Portugal&diff=15603&oldid=15598
For more general discussion about rival kings, please really check particularly the Norwegian medieval pretenders or rival kings, there were plenty of them. And some in Sweden and some in Denmark... We should not treat such so radically differently. 217.140.193.123 22:11, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
We should treat them based on the way they are normally treated in English language reference works. john k 22:59, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
António of Portugal or Anthony of Portugal are not usual when referring to this guy. Antonio de Crato is plain wrong. "De Crato" can mean two things: he was born or lived in the town of Crato or it was his family name. However, António was a natural son of a Portuguese prince (Luís, Duke of Beja), and because of that he had no family surname. So his name is just António. Nothing more. Because it is odd to use just António, he used the name of his title in this form: António, Prior do Crato, in English, António, Prior of Crato. This is the correct name. By the way, he is in fact a disputed monarch of Portugal, but many historians are now considering him a de facto and de jure monarch, since he was acclaimed. I'll move the article to António, Prior of Crato. Joaopais 19:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
