Talk:Pretender/Archive 1: Difference between revisions

It should be made clear in the article that "claimant" means someone under current or former rules of succession is or may be entitled to the position, not that the person actively asserts his or her right to the position. Ellsworth 22:37, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

So if such a "claimant" doesn't actually claim anything, should he be called a pretender? I'm doubtfull. I would think a term like "non-reigning dynast" might be more appropriate for a lot of the people mentioned in the list.Gerard von Hebel 21:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC) Perhaps there should be a better term for "person who would be monarch/ruler if the present political climate in country x changed" (which would include eg the various equivalents for Italy - in the news recently - Bulgaria - the ex-PM - etc) as distinct from alternative claimants to the throne. Otto von H is probably the oldest person with a claim to any throne. Jackiespeel 21:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. "Pretender" is not a legal term. It means what it says: One who "pretends" to possess a right to exercise monarchical power, but is prevented, de facto, from doing so by a revolution, usurper, exile, failure to be recognized by the realm's "subjects", or whatever. There are three problems with the term "pretender":

1. It has never excluded those who claim a throne (or royal heirship), but whose claim is not grounded in law. Most would argue that False Dmitriy I, Kaspar Hauser, Alexis Brimeyer, Michael Lafosse, Anna Anderson, Terence Francis MacCarthy, and even Rudolf Rassendyll, were all false pretenders, i.e. impostors, pretending to be persons who had legally-based (even if disputed) claims to dynasticity. But some of these impostors, even when not accepted as whom they claimed to be, were nonetheless referred to as "pretenders" -- and the word does not seem historically precise enough to insist that they were mislabeled. Moreover, the notion of a "false pretender" implies the existence of a "genuine pretender" which, if meaningful in the semi-surrealism of royalists and genealogists, is an oxymoron elsewhere. Most citizens of the republic of France, for instance, could not and would not distinguish between a "rightful" and a "fake" pretender: neither has a lawful claim to reign in France today -- howsoever much Legitimists, Orleanists and Bonapartists would protest au contraire in unison before drawing swords upon one another. This article assumes that there are "genuine pretenders" and I think that's reasonable, in order to then identify them. But the article is POV in attempting to dismiss "false pretenders", because that calls for a political judgment in some cases: Rather, there are pretenders who may have an historical basis for their claim, but genuine and false pretenders are "equal" insofar as neither usually has a current legal basis for their claim (divine right monarchists will, of course, disagree). A notable exception between 1967 and 1974 was King Constantine II of the Hellenes, whom however this article insists was/is not a "pretender", then or now.
2. If a private person discovers a land (or planet!) not otherwise claimed to be part of any nation, and declares himself its monarch, what is he? Paddy Roy Bates is a pirate of sorts, but not an impostor. So is he the Prince of Sealand? Or a pretender?
3. The term "claimant" is more commonly used in monarchist circles to refer to someone who has or could have, under some interpretation of past or present law, a valid claim to reign. But claimant also suffers from the fact that it is used by both those who actively assert their legal right to reign (or to stand as candidate par excellence for the crown in the event monarchy is restored) e.g. Alexander, Crown Prince of Yugoslavia, King Michael I of Romania, and Leka of Albania, yet "claimant" also refers to those who do not assert any current claim, but who would have the undisputed right to reign if the monarchy were revived with its old laws intact, e.g. Georg Friedrich, Prince of Prussia, Nicholas of Montenegro, Prince Ernst August of Hanover, and Otto von Habsburg. These latter ex-dynasts often claim to represent (some of) the traditions associated with the old monarchy, rather than claiming that their family's old realm should or could be restored. A more accurate term for them than pretender or claimant would be historical heir. Also, even among "genuine" claimants there are (increasingly!) dynastic disputes, in which case the supporters of Claimant A regard his/her cousin, Claimant B, to be a "false pretender" (Brazil, France, Italy, Russia, Saxony, Two Sicilies, etc). Since there are disputants, there are persons who actually assert a claim, so "pretender" is an accurate term for them.

Finally, there are complications, as in the Habsburg case where, although Otto formally renounced his dynastic claim to reign, yet he remains the Habsburg claimant because no other member of his dynasty has stepped up to assume that role. All the family members treat Otto's renunciation as extorted and therefore invalid. Otto explicitly claims to represent the Habsburg "tradition", while repudiating any claim to reign by hereditary right. So is he a pretender? Or a claimant? Lethiere 21:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I placed ‘‘disputed tags’’ at the end of some paragraphs in this section. There is no external verification of any of these statements. If they cannot be check we should discuss rewording these paragraphs. ant_ie 19:22, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the source info. ant_ie 19:31, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Not only has an apologetic thone for monarchy in Mexico, it's information in more than 50% of the lines should be in the article about Agustín de Iturbide rather than here. May the guy who put it here explain it's motives or else I'll move it myself - though it would still need some polish to take out the non-NPOV general tone

It was a copyvio in any case. I removed it a few days ago. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 18:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

BBird, Rosario is considered a pretender and not a fake pretender. I can understand if you don't consider Rosario as Duke of Braganza because you consider Duarte Pio the Duke of Braganza but Rosario is a claimant to Portuguese Crown and so you can't insert him name as a fake pretender. You can see this page that consider him pretender: [[1]] - [[2]] - [[3]] - page of international newspapers [[4]] and many others sites. So please stop with this your nosense added in "pretender" wikipage. M.deSousa

I believe he is fake, both his and Hilda Toledano origin and claims are obscure to say the least. But this is not the point. I dont care mich who is the claimant, I care that wk does not mislead the readers. And I care care that info posted here by reliable people -- and people who deserve more trust than you, with your pseudo "official sites", deleting factual references, etc, -- is not deleted just because you don't like it. I don't want to enter into this type of rv loop, so I will not touch the article right now. But be aware that I will fight any attempt from your part to rebuild a fairy tale as if it was fact. BR --BBird 23:25, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

The claims of this young man are obviously bogus. He pretends to be a descendant of a castilian princess exiled on the island of Puerto Rico in... 1420, seventy years before Colombus ! This princess, the infanta Catherine of Castile, daughter of King Henry III, married an aragonese prince, the count of Empúries, in 1420 and died in 1439 whithout giving birth to any child. Unfortunally, the english article on Henry III of Castile only mentions Catherine, but the catalan one [5] is more complete. The Estremera claim should be removed of this article. 213.44.51.151 17:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting that. I've nominated the article for deletion, and he seems to be responsible also for the claim that Katherine of Lancaster was imprisoned at Valladolid when she died, which puzzled me a bit when I edited it. Choess 06:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I added the claim of Concepcion Heredia-Rosas to the page believing that this was a page about disputes (of pretenders to the throne). Why is her claim less valid than that of the Iturbide? Surely on a page dedicated to alternative lines of succession to defunct thrones that this other line is equally as legitimate? I expect of Wikipedia more than a biased view on a subject of little importance nowadays, but of great historical significance - why has it been removed? Robert.

She was a hoax claimant. There is no evidence of her existing beyond very few statements by disillusioned "royalists". Charles 13:07, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Do you mean "disillusioned" or, rather, "deluded"? What are the precise sources? Sources of her asserting the claim? Marrtel 14:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

There are no assertions of her claim. For all that is known, she most likely doesn't exist. If she did, she couldn't claim the throne as a Habsburg, asshe is only such in the female line and if that line exists, it is morganatic. Charles 20:26, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

You would be surprised how big claims are sometimes asserted by people from female and morganatic lines :) Sometimes, they even succeed. Let's not be so uptight with alleged rules of succession. I bet Mexico had no long-time established ones. I am not saying she has any right - the standard here is whether her supporters have managed to publish her claims... Kindly list your sources, they would be more helpful. Then, that inexistence: is this entire claim some fictional invention - are you saying that? Is it really probable? Or is it more probable that such person exists and her supporters have presented her as claimant? Marrtel 21:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

This is the only trace of this woman outside of Wikipedia. How can someone claim the throne of Mexico on the basis that they are a morganatic descendant a female line of a collateral relative of Maximilian? That's like if everyone in line to the British throne died out and some far off descendant of a mediaeval duke of Saxony claimed the throne as a female-line descendant of one of Elizabeth II's paternal ancestors. Archduke Otto would have a better chance at claiming the throne, and he would never be successful in doing so. Charles 21:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Is this really a place to discuss the substantial justifications of individual claims?!? If this is, then I would say, not having any own opinion of the merits of the present claim, that a collateral relative may be a rightful heir. A female line does not necessarily foreclose succession - none could be as tupid as to believe such. A morganatic marriage neither - some realms actually do not recognize that any marriage could be lower than another and some recognize inheritance through illegitimate descent.

Collateral relatives have succeeded on that basis e.g in Romania. An English peerage by writ may be inherited by a collateral relative of original possessor... Maximilian did not inherit his monarchy, he was elected, so there is no earlier line to follow when deciding heirs. Some jurisdictions have recognized succession of relatives LIMITED to citizenry of the country itself - see Iraq. I would rather see that the claim in question were substantiated by independent sources, we do not need to speculate it here. Marrtel 22:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The basis of the "claim" is being a member of the House of Habsburg-Lorraine. One cannot be a member of that house unless one is descended from an archduke of Austria in the male-line. Also, how can this woman, if she existed, claim the crown of Mexico as a descendant of a member of the house of H-L who wasn't a member of the Mexican Imperial Family? There were no provisions for back tracking in the House of Habsburg-Lorraine and allowing the morganatic descendant of an archduke to hold a claim to the throne of Mexico as a Habsburg when she isn't one. The morganatic descent does count. If I were a morganatic descendant of the House of Habsburg and I claimed the throne of Mexico as a Habsburg, I'd be a liar. Any other Habsburg would have a far better claim. Mexico was not an English peerage and it was not Romania. Mexico is also not Iraq. How can you apply these examples to Mexico when all are unique in regard to each other? The claim cannot be substantiated as it is a hoax. If Wikipedia allowed all hoaxes to be listed in the pretenders article, it would be one of the longest articles on the site. Charles 23:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow, we're arguing about the pretender to the title of "Empress of Mexico". Don't you love Wikipedia? Clearly, the title was created with Maximillian (and died with him) so only his heirs could become pretenders. Unless we have positive evidence of the intended line of succession, or ample sourcing for the notability of the claim, I think we should avoid giving legitimacy to displaced nobility of dubious veracity. -Will Beback 10:13, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Dona Concepcion's lineage is on this link - is this a good enough source? http://thepeerage.com/p19329.htm#i193285 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhymut (talk • contribs)

No. It is established that illegitimate and adulterine progeny are perpetually excluded from the lines of succession to any throne unless there is a process of becoming legitimate. Any claimed descent from the House of Habsburg-Lorraine is through bastard lines in this case and even still, general membership in the House of Habsburg-Lorraine itself does not confer succession rights to the throne of Mexico. Also, Rhymut, please sign your posts by affixing ~~~~ to the end. Charles 00:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

To determin ethe Mexican issue, wouldn't we have to look at Mexico's monarchical constitution and see what the succession laws were? I assume this particularly case is bogus, but presumably some provision was made for what should happen if Maximilian died without heirs. Would it have been a Habsburg secundigeniture, like Tuscany? Or was there some other provision? The Iturbides appear to claim to be the heirs to the Habsburg throne as well as to the Iturbide throne - were the Iturbides Maximilian's heirs in the absence of his own issue? If so, I'd think that no Habsburg claimant would have any kind of claim here. john k 17:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Could Emperor Norton I have been considered a pretender to the United States? --71.230.240.24 04:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

No, Norton declared himself Emperor. He did not inherit an existing claim nor did he represent the line of a previous Emperor of the United States (since there were none). Charles 05:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't claiming a title that does not exist make one a pretender, though? Or does the position have to have existed at some point? --71.230.240.24 15:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The position has to have existed and the person claiming it cannot have held that position officially in order to a pretender. For instance, imagine for a moment that Norton "officially" became Emperor of the United States and that he had a son, whom we will Norton, Prince Imperial. If the Empire is abolished before Norton dies, there is no pretender because he was Emperor of the United States. Once Norton dies, his son, the Prince Imperial, becomes the pretender, since he never held the position of Emperor but otherwise would be the Emperor. Charles 16:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Is it really correct to speak of Bonnie Prince Charlie as the most famous pretender in British/any history? Charles's actual exploits were done in 1745-1746, i.e., during a time when he was not actually the pretender - his father was still alive, and Charles's rebellion was officially on his behalf. Charles's own period of pretendership - 1766-1788, was marked by the increasing irrelevance of Jacobitism. john k 17:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Please stop the revert battle (this is addressed to both sides). It's really not that important either way. Just as one side is pushing it's candidate as a "real" pretender, so the other side is trying to bury this man as a "fake" pretender. If he is important enough to list in this article in either way, then why was he not important enough to have his own article? His article (admittedly entirely POV) was deleted January 24, 2006, and again February 26, 2006. I would be willing to try to start an NPOV article on him if I could get some agreement from other parties not to move for deletion (I think that I did a rather good job of removing the POV from the Hilda Toledano article - with the exception of the article name which I will tackle some day when things are calmer). Noel S McFerran 12:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

ok Mr McFerran, in this page there is a continue libel against this pretender. I hope you can create an impartial and neutral article about Rosario as in the your very good work of the Maria Pia, Duarte Nuno and Duarte Pio articles. I think is correct and legitimate insert in Maria Pia page her real name, Maria Pia de Bragança e Saxe-Coburgo-Gotha ( http://www.thepeerage.com/p9164.htm#i91639 ) because Hilda Toledano was only a pseudonym and in that wikipedia page we tell about her claims as portugese pretender. I think is very important also this documentation in portuguese language ( http://duarteotretas.blogspot.com/ ). I hope this can be useful for you. Best regards User:82.52.180.225 18:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC).

Three days ago I requested a halt to the revert battle - to no avail. Now I see that two administrators are participating in this revert battle, one on each side. This is ridiculous. This page (like lots of Wiki-pages) needs all kinds of attention paid to it to improve it. The changes back and forth are just a waster of editor-time. Noel S McFerran 17:15, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

There is in this page continuous libel against the portuguese pretender Rosario Poidimani (http://amt.no.sapo.pt/novaversao/pretendentes/ipretendentes.htm ). The miguelist supporters continue with this libel that Rosario is a false pretender. For many royalists in Portugal, Rosario is the unique legitimate Duke of Braganza. He became Duke of Braganza when Maria Pia of Braganza, the daughter of the king Charles of Portugal, abdicated in favour of him. Maria Pia was daughter of the king and the name of the king is reported in her all official documents and there was also a document in her baptisimal documents, Documento Unido, http://www.theroyalhouseofportugal.org/media/docs/dichiarazioni/ricon-paternita.jpg , where the king attributed, to his beloved daughter, all the honours, privileges, and rights of the Infants of Portugal. The Sacra Rota Romana decided with a definitive sentence to not delete these Maria Pia baptisimal documents where the king is reported as her father. So Maria Pia is a legitimate portuguese pretender and also her heir dom Rosario Poidimani.

The unique false pretender for other royalists in Portugal ( the supporters of Rosario and also for the supporters of the Duke of Lulè) is Duarte Pio of Braganza. He is a direct descendant of the usurper Miguel forever excluded from succession. Miguel lost all his civil and dynastic rights after the Banishment Law for will of the King of Portugal and Cortes. He become a common plebeian after this Banishment. So also his descendants are all no portuguese born and so also for this they are excluded from the succession. So, in particular, I don’t understand how is possible define Duarte Pio as duke of Braganza and so I repropose these questions: 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? The Banishment Law was in force untill the 1950 (so these miguelist remained always plebeian and foreign, and no portuguese constitutional king granted them any title), when their "friend" Salazar decided to eliminate this banishment and supported this branch...a dictator that support a claimant to the throne...a portuguese republic interested in portuguese monarchy,as now...a true funny story...but the unique way for "legitimate" this Usurper branch is only the help of the republican political power because they have no lawful and republican rights! At the contrary Maria Pia supported the portuguese anti salazarist party of the general Humberto Delgado. She was considered from all as pretender so I don’t understand why in this encyclopedia continue to libel her heir that have also support of many portuguese royalists. This is possible to see in all monarchic portuguese forum!!! So stop to continue to libel against this pretender Rosario only in order to hide his claim and his constitutional branch! Instead McFerran is well thata also the admistrator know this situation to continue libel and attack against Rosario as in fascist period where the liberty of expression don't exist. Fortunately there are administrator that understand this sad situation and help for a democratic knowledge of the truth.

With his latest revert today Charles says "This *must* stop. Someone please protect this page again." If people want the revert battle to stop, then EITHER SIDE can do so. I'm not surprised by the behaviour of one side, but I am surprised that it has been matched by the other side. Why do some people feel that it is so absolutely necessary to include on the list of "Impostor pretenders" somebody who doesn't even have a Wiki-article? This is by no means a comprehensive list of impostor pretenders, so why not leave it off (at least for now)? I think that I know the answer: this has turned into a personal battle between editors; that's just not productive. Recently when another editor made (in my opinion) an absolute hash of an article which I had worked very hard on, I walked away when I discovered that the individual couldn't engage in scholarly discussion about the issue. At some point, I'll go back and tidy up the mess. Noel S McFerran 22:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

As long as Poidimani isn't listed in the main list, I see little reason to have him listed at all. He's a joke, and any listing of him gives him credibility. john k 02:44, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The only joke here is hide all the usurpations of Duarte Pio in order to legitimate his claims. Insert here D.Rosario as fake pretender is only a big libel. I think to advise D.Rosario in order to begin a criminal action against the responsible of this continue libel against him. Is a big sadness to see the attempt of some users against this pretender and his supporters in order to legitimate the other pretender.I am a portuguese royalist that don't recognize Duarte Pio as Duke of Braganza because he is firstly not born portuguese but in particular because he is a descedant of the usurper king Miguel, forever excluded from succession and became plebeian, as all his descendants, after the Banishment Law. Who king granted to Duarte parents the title of Duke of Braganza? NO King. So why he defines him duke of Braganza if he is not? This is a usurpartion of title and I don't understand because is defended in wikipedia 82.48.224.24 11:20, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Whatever the legitimacy of the pretensions of Duarte Pio, the pretensions of Mr. Poidimani are obviously ridiculous. On the one hand, Duarte Pio is supposedly excluded because the old monarchical constitution of Portugal excludes his family. But the old monarchical constitution of Portugal equally excludes any illegitimate children of King Carlos from ever having any claim to the throne, even if we accept Maria Pia's claim to being the daughter of King Carlos. It would even more so exclude "Dom Rosario", who is not related to the Portuguese royal family at all, and is not Portuguese. On the one hand, you say that King Manuel's reconciliation with the Miguelist branch and recognition of Duarte Nuño as his heir is illegitimate. On the other hand, Maria Pia's "adoption" of Dom Rosario makes him the heir? This is completely intellectually incoherent. If we accept both the proscription of the Miguelists and the requirement of a Portuguese monarch seriously, as well as the standard idea that all dynasts must be legitimate, then we find that the Duke of Loula, as the senior Portuguese descendant of John VI (outside of the Miguelist line) is the heir. Certainly Dom Rosario, having no blood relationship whatsoever to the Braganzas, has no claim. P.S. Go away, and quit making legal threats. john k 11:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The pretension of Rosario are ridiculous only if a person as you don't know the true history of the Royal House of Portugal. As you affirm is true the miguelist branch are perpetually excluded from succession by the last monarchic constitution. At the contrary Maria Pia also as illegitimate daughter of the king was legitimized with a document of the king Charles that affirmed about Maria Pia "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 Sacred Roman Rota, the normal appeal court for the Roman Catholic Church, issued no modification in Maria Pia baptisimal documents so this document of the king is valid and have legal value. Others are only talk but the true history is based only on official documents as this. At the contrary no king granted to the miguelist branch the title of Duke of Braganza and after the Banisment Law these miguelist became plebeians. How is possible now Duarte Pio affirm him as Duke of Braganza if his father and grandfathere were plebeians? Duarte also born out of portuguese territory (in Swiss territory) and not in portuguese embassy as the Conservatória dos Registos Centrais ( [6] ) confirmed and also for this Duarte is in the same situation of the italian Rosario. After there are no proof of the pacts of Dover and Paris with the sign of the king Manuel, in really these are only dream documents in the mind of some miguelists. Yes, the Maria Pia adoption of Dom Rosario can make him heir, as the ancient Latin law issued " qui filius non est , pro filio habetur " and you can see confirmed this principle also in the book『 Previlégios da nobreza Portuguesa』( Privileges of the Portuguese nobility). Rosario is certainly the rightfull Duke of Braganza and the pretender of the Saxe Coburg Braganza branch, the unique legitimate branch of the Royal House of Portugal. Insert here Rosario as a fake pretender is only a big and true libel!!! Justiceiro 11:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, no. Illegitimate children don't inherit. And there's no actual evidence of any of these legitimizing documents by King Carlos that you claim. Under the monarchical constitution, whose terms are the only basis for excluding the Miguelist branch, there is no provision which would allow the king to unilaterally and secretly put his illegitimate child in line for the throne. Even if there was, there would certainly be no provision for the head of house to just unilaterally appoint someone not even related to him. And, again, if Maria Pia could choose Dom Rosario, who is not related in the slightest to the House of Braganza, as her heir, then why on earth couldn't Manuel II choose the Duke of Braganza as his heir? Your arguments are nonsense, and ridiculous. Rosario. The only person who can claim the throne as the "constitutionalist pretender" is the Duke of Loula. Go away. john k 13:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

The only person who can claim the throne as the "constitutionalist pretender" can be the Duke of Loulè if Maria Pia of Braganza did not exist and if the Sacred Roman Rota did not issued the validity of the baptisimal Maria Pia document with also the legitimation of Maria Pia pretension. After the 1932 with th edeath of the king Manuel according to the principle of the "immediate succession" immediatly the half-sister Maria Pia of Saxe Coburg Braganza became Duchess of Braganza and heir of the Saxe Coburg Braganza branch. The king Manuel II never choose Duarte Nuno as heir. The King never signed a document where he choose the miguelist pretender as Duke of Braganza and none see this hypotetical document because it don't exist. Go away you if you don't debate here. See this page [ http://monarquia.actifforum.com/ftopic38.DUARTE-BRAGANCA-O-GRANDE-TRETAS.htm ] against the fake Duke of Braganza Duarte Pio and please reply how is possible affirm as legitimate Duke of Braganza this person. Duarte Pio of Braganza is the true fake Duke of Braganza Justiceiro 22:30, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Under the constitution, illegitimate children had no succession rights, and the king could not unilaterally declare an illegitimate child to be legitimate for succession purposes. So even ignoring the fact that there is absolutely no real evidence that Maria Pia was Carlos's daughter, and certainly none that Carlos legitimized her, it doesn't even matter. Because even if everything she claims is true, she still wouldn't be the heir, because her parents weren't married, and her father was married to another woman. She wasn't in line for the throne under the Portuguese constitution, and the king isn't allowed to just unilaterally put his bastard children into the line of succession. The Duke of Loula is the heir under the 19th century constitution, but does not assert his claims. The Duke of Braganza is the heir under the traditional constitution, and the heir accepted by actual Portuguese monarchists. Maria Pia was an impostor with an absurd claim, and Rosario is an impostor with a doubly absurd claim. It's ridiculous that supporters of a supposed "constitutionalist" candidate can only defend her candidacy on the grounds of the King unilaterally, arbitrarily, and secretly changing the succession law. john k 22:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

When did this article change from PretendertoLegitimate Pretenders? When did Wikipedia become the arbiter of the validity of claims to non-existent (or extant) crowns? From the point of view of current regimes and the vast majority of their citizens, all pretenders are illegitimate, contemptuous of law, and absurd to the extent that they seek to assert a "right" to rule others based on obsolete mandates. I don't find the Poidimani assertions any less valid, any more obscure, any more fantastical, or any more revisionist history than the claim that the Duke of Braganza is Portugal's "rightful" pretender based on "the traditional constitution". And the latter's claim is no more legal in Portugal than the former's. Pretendership exists in a parallel universe. To the extent it is encyclopedic at all, it can be so only insofar as it does not attempt to confound its deprecated hypotheses with the reality that Wikipedia seeks to engage and to reflect. There is little that is more unseemly, bewildering and base than the public mudslinging rival royal claimants engage in to denounce the pretensions of a kinsman. Seeing Wiki editors replicate those quarrels here is disheartening -- and weird. Maria Pia and Poidimani, or their backers, apparently "pretend" to the throne of Portugal, and have elaborated a rationale under which that makes sense to them. Let Maria Pia and Poidimani supporters embarrass their own cause through their assertions, so long as they do not misrepresent their opinions as facts or exclude appropriate, verifiable, relevant facts inserted by others. If their assertions depend upon impostorship -- rather than on a minority interpretation of possible facts -- let's choose a way to handle that subset of pretenders who were impostors, include that definition in the article and, again, let readers decide for themselves which pretenders' claims are those of impostors and which are "valid" -- instead of Wiki doing so. Lethiere 18:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The opening paragraph of the article presently contains the following sentence: "Deposed monarchs are not seen as pretenders, as the term only applies to those who have never occupied the throne." Nonsense! There are all sorts of published sources which describe deposed monarchs who continue to claim their thrones as "pretenders" or "claimants" (indeed, often such deposed monarchs are far far more active as pretenders or claimants than the descendants of long-ago monarchs). Today somebody removed the entry on Bulgaria. Can we agree to remove the sentence about deposed monarchs and to add several countries with deposed monarchs to the list of modern pretenders? Noel S McFerran 23:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I am not opposed to this at all. What do you think of clearing up the talk page a little as well? Charles 23:53, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Simeon, Michael, and Constantine should certainly be listed here. Are there any other living former monarchs? Some of the rulers of Indian princely states are the only ones I can think of, and maybe Laos. john k 16:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, the former King of Afghanistan, as well. john k 16:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is a list of Surviving deposed monarchs.195.93.21.9 16:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)