The Duke and Duchess of Bragança and family, News and Pictures: February 2008-

[Regina]

The official blog of Real Associação de Beja says thet the Duke and Duchess wouldn't be present. It says "The Dukes of Braganza not invited for royal reception".

Real Associação de Beja: Duque de Bragança agastado da recepção aos Reis da Noruega a Portugal !!

After all, they were there.

[Elsa M.]

D. Duarte and D.ª Isabel attended the inauguration of the new Museu do Oriente, which took place last May 8th.

Photo from Caras:
Digitalizar0021.jpg (image)

[julliette]

D. Duarte is facing a process of a man who says that D. Duarte's documents are false. But D. Duarte garantee he's portuguese
(sorry for my english)
Sol

[Regina]

Originally Posted by julliette

D. Duarte is facing a process of a man who says that D. Duarte's documents are false. But D. Duarte garantee he's portuguese
(sorry for my english)
Sol

Hi Juliette, I've posted about this topic here since it is related to the Claims to the Portuguese throne thread.

[Marengo]

The duke was interviewed by Norwegian television, look at this link. The interview is in english.

Courtesy: Hans-E at the FIRMB

[Elsa M.]

Last Monday, D. Duarte was interviewed by José Adelino de Faria, on Rádio Clube Português:

http://radioclube.clix.pt/player/fra...20Clube&linha4=

[Marengo]

Perhaps any of the Portuguese posters can help us to find out what was the topic of the interview. My Portuguese sadly is rather disappointing.

[Regina]

The interview was mostly about Portuguese political, cultural and economical issues.
Oh and he also mentioned Timor's situation (of course )

In his opinion, if Portugal was a Monarchy, it would be a more developped country like all the other european monarchies. He thinks a monarchy plays a very small part in the life of a government but it still has a symbolical role in society. Duarte believes a republican government has a short term thinking, while a constitutional monarchy is more concerned with the Future of the Nation.

About international issues: D. Duarte finds the Treaty of Lisbon a dangerous treaty because it will only serve the federalist ideal. In his opinion, these european Treaties are no more than dangerous steps to reach the european unification.

[Elsa M.]

D. Duarte (who is Diana's godfather) escorted today the Duchess of Cadaval down the aisle, while D.ª Isabel was one of the 16 wedding testimonies. Also Infanta D.ª Maria Francisca played as one of D.ª Diana's flowergirls. For more about the Duchess of Cadaval's wedding to the Duke of Anjou, please see this thread:

http://www.theroyalforums.com/forums...8-a-17425.html

[Elsa M.]

Sol

GEF (a real estate management company, owned by the millionaire Vasco Pereira Coutinho) is going to present D. Manuel II Foundation (chaired by D. Duarte) with 10 shops, 4 apartments and several parking places in a luxury condominium (which can be leased). This is the result of a deal, involving the buildings that once belonged to PIDE (which were owned by the Foundation and are located at the Street António Maria Cardoso, in Lisboa) and were now evaluated in more than two million euros. The main beneficiary of the business exchange (which should overcome 2.000.000 €) will be D. Duarte, since the statutes of the Foundation allocate 60% of its revenues to the head of the Bragança royal family and his descendants.

The D. Manuel II Foundation was established by D.ª Augusta Vitória (the widow of King D. Manuel) for social and cultural purposes.

[Elsa M.]

Prince Ermias Sahle-Selassie Haile-Selassie (President of the Crown Council of Ethiopia) was recently in Portugal for a week’s visit, during which he participated in the celebrations marking the 600th anniversary of the Royal House of Bragança.

The grandson of Emperor Haile Selassie was received in Sintra, by the Duke of Bragança, who took him to Cabo de Roca – “where Europe ends and the ocean begins”.

Also D. Filipe Folque de Mendonça (Count of Rio Grande and descendant of King D. João IV) accompanied the Royal visitor to the São Vicente Royal Pantheon, in order to pay homage to the Kings and Queens of the Bragança dynasty.


For a complete report, see this link:
The Crown Council of Ethiopia


Photos:
http://www.ethiopiancrown.org/port4.jpg
http://www.ethiopiancrown.org/port1.jpg
http://www.ethiopiancrown.org/port04.jpg

Local press reports:
http://www.ethiopiancrown.org/portugal1.jpg
http://www.ethiopiancrown.org/portugal2.jpg
http://www.ethiopiancrown.org/portugal3.jpg

[Elsa M.]

Jornal de Notícias

Last Sunday, the inauguration of a new spa in São Pedro do Sul (Viseu) included a historical reconstitution, with 150 people recreating the time when the first King of Portugal, D. Afonso Henriques, was here to cure a wounded a leg, after the Battle of Badajoz.

D. Duarte Pio, Duke of Bragança, was one of the special guests who attended the parade.

_________________________________________________________________________


RBA - Rádio Bragança: Feira de São Pedro celebra 25 anos

The São Pedro Fair (an anual fair held in Macedo de Cavaleiros) is taking place up to July 5th. Among the events that are scheduled, there is a symposium on "Heritage, Tourism and Nature", which will be attended by D. Duarte Pio, Duke of Bragança.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by Regina

The interview was mostly about Portuguese political, cultural and economical issues.
Oh and he also mentioned Timor's situation (of course )

In his opinion, if Portugal was a Monarchy, it would be a more developped country like all the other european monarchies. He thinks a monarchy plays a very small part in the life of a government but it still has a symbolical role in society. Duarte believes a republican government has a short term thinking, while a constitutional monarchy is more concerned with the Future of the Nation.

About international issues: D. Duarte finds the Treaty of Lisbon a dangerous treaty because it will only serve the federalist ideal. In his opinion, these european Treaties are no more than dangerous steps to reach the european unification.

Regina,
I would have to agree with D. Duarte. A democratic republican form of government is prone to short-term thinking. Often I think our politicians here in the US only think in the short-term and not in the long-term interests of the country because they are trying to get re-elected. So they cater to the immediate interests and popular notions at the time instead of attempting to discern and work for what is best for the nation in the long run. In my opinion this is one of the reasons our country has developed certain characteristics that were never intended by our founders. For instance, if we would stay true to what our founders had intended, and be more concerned about long-term interests, we would probably be meddling less in other countries' affairs and be building more friendly economic interests with them. Our State's would not have lost so much of their liberties, rights and sovereignty. Actually, I think this is why so many Americans are a little suspicious about the European Union. Are the European countries going to lose much of their liberties and sovereignty? Be careful of a strong centralized federal government. We have found that as the government becomes more centralized and powerful, economic and political liberties seem to decrease.

The short-term thinking is also what has resulted in our dependence on oil rather than developing a long term energy strategy.

Another problem is that many factions have developed that is splitting the country ideologically. And these factions tend to be self-righteous believing only their vision of the country has any merit, and work to gain power over the other factions. There are several reasons why these factions develop, which I don't have the space or time to go into right now. But the President, generally, cannot unify these factions since that person is a member of one of the factions that is opposition to other factions. Often, I think, it would be nice to have a monarchy that would be above partisanship and provide an institution which unites the people. Don't get me wrong, just because I'm critical of some of things my country has become does not mean I don't think we have some great qualities. After all it is still my home. I just think in some ways a constitutional monarchy offers some advantages that would offset the disadvantages inherent in a democratic republic.

I know there have been some not so good experiences with monarchies in the past. But there have been some good success stories with monarchies as well. From my perspective, I would say that the European countries should be very careful about throwing out their monarchies, and instead work to find a way to include the institution of monarchy in how they govern themselves.

[Regina]

Originally Posted by Elsa M.

Sol

The main beneficiary of the business exchange (which should overcome 2.000.000 €) will be D. Duarte, since the statutes of the Foundation allocate 60% of its revenues to the head of the Bragança royal family and his descendants.

The D. Manuel II Foundation was established by D.ª Augusta Vitória (the widow of King D. Manuel) for social and cultural purposes.

I don't know much about the Foundation's statutes. Who (Dª Augusta, Salazar?) stablished that 60% of its revenues would be allocated to the the Head of the House of Bragança?
Since the Foundation was created for social and cultural purposes, I am surprised that only 40% are used for that purpose.

[Regina]

Originally Posted by Keith

Regina,
I would have to agree with D. Duarte. A democratic republican form of government is prone to short-term thinking. Often I think our politicians here in the US only think in the short-term and not in the long-term interests of the country because they are trying to get re-elected. So they cater to the immediate interests and popular notions at the time instead of attempting to discern and work for what is best for the nation in the long run. In my opinion this is one of the reasons our country has developed certain characteristics that were never intended by our founders. For instance, if we would stay true to what our founders had intended, and be more concerned about long-term interests, we would probably be meddling less in other countries' affairs and be building more friendly economic interests with them. Our State's would not have lost so much of their liberties, rights and sovereignty. Actually, I think this is why so many Americans are a little suspicious about the European Union. Are the European countries going to lose much of their liberties and sovereignty? Be careful of a strong centralized federal government. We have found that as the government becomes more centralized and powerful, economic and political liberties seem to decrease.

The short-term thinking is also what has resulted in our dependence on oil rather than developing a long term energy strategy.

Another problem is that many factions have developed that is splitting the country ideologically. And these factions tend to be self-righteous believing only their vision of the country has any merit, and work to gain power over the other factions. There are several reasons why these factions develop, which I don't have the space or time to go into right now. But the President, generally, cannot unify these factions since that person is a member of one of the factions that is opposition to other factions. Often, I think, it would be nice to have a monarchy that would be above partisanship and provide an institution which unites the people. Don't get me wrong, just because I'm critical of some of things my country has become does not mean I don't think we have some great qualities. After all it is still my home. I just think in some ways a constitutional monarchy offers some advantages that would offset the disadvantages inherent in a democratic republic.

I know there have been some not so good experiences with monarchies in the past. But there have been some good success stories with monarchies as well. From my perspective, I would say that the European countries should be very careful about throwing out their monarchies, and instead work to find a way to include the institution of monarchy in how they govern themselves.

I agree with you, Keith, interesting post of yours.
Here in Portugal, the elected Presidents always try to be re-elected 5 years later. So in the first five years, they say popular (and populist) things, they try to be nice all the time to everyone and do not give too much "problems" to the Government. After those 5 years, they change and become "tough" to the Government. Each of them wish to become known as the best President that Portugal ever had...
Just to give you an example: our President (Cavaco Silva) always called himself a praticant Catholic. Which means he goes to the Mass every Sunday, he recognized Pope's authority, etc. The Roman Catholicism teachings say you can't approve a law if it is against God. On the last referend about Abortion, most people (more than 55%) stayed at home and didn't care for this. So the result (Yes or No) could never be taken as Valid. The Yes won and no matter how much Christians (Catholics, Evagelics) signed petitions to Cavaco to ask him to do not sign a law supporting abortions, he did sign it because if he didn't, most political parties would accuse him of not respecting people's will, etc. And maybe because of that he wouldnt wint the elections next time... The possible negative comments were the only reason why he signed something against his so well known beliefs.
As many Christians condemned his behaviour, he later said he would pay attention to exaggerations this law could bring...
Anyway, I trully believe that he would NOT sign this law if he was in his second (and last) presidential mandate. So as you see, the perspective of future elections really made presidents think in short terms and not according to what they think it is the best for the people.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by Regina

I agree with you, Keith, interesting post of yours.
Here in Portugal, the elected Presidents always try to be re-elected 5 years later. So in the first five years, they say popular (and populist) things, they try to be nice all the time to everyone and do not give too much "problems" to the Government. After those 5 years, they change and become "tough" to the Government. Each of them wish to become known as the best President that Portugal ever had...
Just to give you an example: our President (Cavaco Silva) always called himself a praticant Catholic. Which means he goes to the Mass every Sunday, he recognized Pope's authority, etc. The Roman Catholicism teachings say you can't approve a law if it is against God. On the last referend about Abortion, most people (more than 55%) stayed at home and didn't care for this. So the result (Yes or No) could never be taken as Valid. The Yes won and no matter how much Christians (Catholics, Evagelics) signed petitions to Cavaco to ask him to do not sign a law supporting abortions, he did sign it because if he didn't, most political parties would accuse him of not respecting people's will, etc. And maybe because of that he wouldnt wint the elections next time... The possible negative comments were the only reason why he signed something against his so well known beliefs.
As many Christians condemned his behaviour, he later said he would pay attention to exaggerations this law could bring...
Anyway, I trully believe that he would NOT sign this law if he was in his second (and last) presidential mandate. So as you see, the perspective of future elections really made presidents think in short terms and not according to what they think it is the best for the people.

If 55% of the people stayed home and did not vote, then the will of the people cannot be discerned with a certainty. There is another problem that seems to occur in a republic. Of course, I suppose this problem could occur elsewhere where there is a supreme court that interprets laws. This problem is one of loosely interpreting the constitution. One of the critiques of our Supreme Court is that it has loosely interpreted our constitution to make it agree with their personal beliefs. This essentially results in the court making laws, by-passing the legislative branch, and actually going against the will of the majority of people to please a particular segment of society. Theoretically, our legislative branch could over-ride this situation, but choose not to because of fears of not being re-elected. Again, this raises the question whether or not the long-term well-being of the country is being considered.

It would be nice to have some kind of institution that stands above all this and is in a position to question these kinds of situations without having to worry about being popular or winning elections.