Talk:Isabel, Princess Imperial of Brazil

Monarchs vs. Pretenders to the throne

Princess Isabel was never a Brazilian Monarch, except when acting as a regent, so it is incorrect to place her in the category of Brazilian monarchs, which should include only two names: Pedro I and Pedro II. She can, however, be placed in the category of Pretenders to the Brazilian throne. Lets not politicize this encyclopedia. Monarchs are those who officially ruled (and not temporary substitute-rulers); pretenders to the throne can and should not be included in that list, if history is not to be falsified. Abueno97 (talk)

Why was this article created under this title? I had created the link (albeit still red) following the same rationale discussed for the title of the Prince Luiz article. What is the point of this? Redux 3 July 2005 18:22 (UTC)

To make the ongoing discussion understandable to others, the proposal by Redux for the person's heading is Princess Isabel of Orleans-Braganza. 217.140.193.123 4 July 2005 09:24 (UTC)

-- The only thing I am uncertain of is whether Brazilians use "Isabel" or "Isabella", though I presume it is Isabel.

It is Isabel. "Isabella" is an Italian name. In Portuguese, it's used Isabel, just like in Spanish.

There are indications that you go around whining. Is that true? --

Please understand that you do not control the articles and their names. Besides, your idea for her heading is totally wrong, for many reasons. Perhaps the most important of those is that she was a crown princess and regent, thus she goes under the name of her then realm. Another thing is that she certainly will not be here under her husband's name, nor under such name that was created for her children. SHE never was Orleans-Braganza. 217.140.193.123 3 July 2005 19:48 (UTC)

There are strong indications that you are out of line and need to get a grip. You seem to be the one trying to make sure that the articles get named as you see fit. As I recall it, I discussed things first when I thought it could be controversial. What you're doing isn't helpful, and accomplishes nothing. You do know that articles can be moved to different titles... In your haste, you've created an unnecessary controversy about the article's title. If you had just asked me, I could have told you all the stuff I'm about to say about Isabel's name.
According to Wikipedia standards, the article should be named as the most common use in English; if none exists, the transliteration of the common use in the native tongue. The common reference to Isabel in Brazil, and she is very popular, is "Princess Isabel", simple and plain. That would raise disambiguation issues, so I used her family name. You are very wrong about her family name: she may not have been Orleans-Braganza from birth, but the royal house was founded as of her marriage to Gaston of Orleans, and she did use the name. For instance, this is a government page from Brazil, from the historians with the Bahia state library. The page is in Portuguese, but right in the first paragraph, in bold, you see a reference to "Isabel de Orleans e Bragança", in a reference to the 1908 abdication of her son, Prince Pedro of Alcantara, having been signed in her presence (hence, long after her marriage to Gaston and the foundation of the House of Orleans-Braganza, of which she was the founder, along with her husband). As far as the official historiography is concerned, she is hardly ever referred to as "Isabel of Brazil" (not on any documents or papers I can recall), although she was "Princess of Brazil". All this goes right back to what I had said about the general quality of the online information in English about the Brazilian Imperial Family, or at least the source(s) you've been consulting. Redux 4 July 2005 03:39 (UTC)

You are clearly behaving badly. However, your behavior (nor your obsessions) is not the most important thing here, but to make the articles encyclopedic. Your proprietary (possessive) attitude is harmful in that sense.

There are several instructions in Wikipedia policy that point how her article heading should be arranged: "the most common form of the name used in English" is recommendable, but secondary to certain standards. It is important to realize that this is NOT "the most common form of the name in native culture".

Monarchical titles, regarding deposed royals, there is the instruction "should be referred to by their previous monarchical title". Isabella was regent - she had sort of monarchical position. Orleans-Braganza apparently was a title in exile. "all former or deposed monarchs should revert to their previous monarchical title upon death" - and she is dead.

She was "crown princess" (equivalent), and there is the instruction "When dealing with a Crown Prince/ss of a state, use the form "{name}, Crown Prince/ss of {state}" unless there is a clear formal title awarded to a prince which defines their status as crown prince (eg, 'Charles, Prince of Wales', 'Felipe, Prince of Asturias', etc)" - that sort of "substantial" title is to be used. "Princess Imperial of Brazil" can be regarded as substantial title. A guideline that speaks against "Orleans-Braganza" regarding her, is also "Do not use 'surnames' in article names. Most royal families do not have surnames. Many that do have different personal surnames to the name of their Royal House." And finally, she was of course CONSORT of Gaston, and we have the instruction that Past Consorts are referred to by their pre-marital name...not by their consort name.

Of course it is slightly complicated to determine the "correct" heading for a crown princess who was deposed and never ascended fully the throne (but was a pretender). However, there are clear instructions that mean she will not be "Orleans-Braganza" here. 217.140.193.123 4 July 2005 05:40 (UTC)

"known in English"

book - "Princess Isabel of Brazil: Gender and Power in the Nineteenth Century" by Roderick J. Barman. Biography of Pedro II's daughter, who served as regent three times and emancipated Brazil's slaves.

in some genealogy: "H.I.H. Princess Senhora Dona Isabel Cristina Leopoldina Augusta Michaela Gabriela Raphaela Gonzaga, Princess Imperial of Brazil"

in some chronology: "Princess Isabel of Brazil signs "Lei Aurea" abolishing slavery"

Orleans-Braganza

According to records I have read, the name Orleans-Braganza came into use only when the family was in exile. When the empire was in existence, her sons apparently were princes of Brazil. The origin of course is the Portuguese cultural thing to use father's and mother's names together, with "e".

It would have been an extraordinary thing, and thus not credible, that a crown princess would use a surname, and moreover her husband's surname, during the reign.

In texts visible e.g in the internet, Isabel is mentioned as "de Braganca e de Bourbon" - which is a different thing than Orleans-Braganza, and comes from different setting. 217.140.193.123 4 July 2005 05:05 (UTC)

Notice: when the monarchy was in place, her father was still alive, and thus it was he, not Isabel, who was head of the Imperial House, and he was not himself Orleans-Braganza (obviously), but Isabel already bore the name Orleans-Braganza, even if it wasn't the name of the of Imperial House, which was still Bragança (in an exercise of speculation: if the Emperor had somehow managed to father a legitimate son before his death, it would have been that boy to inherit the rights to the crown, and the Orleans-Braganza would have become just another branch of the family, eventually distant from succession). When Pedro II died, in 1891 and in exile, Isabel became head of the House, but even before that she was a pretender — her father himself had been reduced to "only" de jure Emperor. The article, however, is not about Pedro II or even specifically about the Orleans-Braganza. It's about Princess Isabel, she became Orleans-Braganza as of her marriage, and had not been de facto Crown Princess since 1889 (when the Emperor was still alive). The article, at least in its title, should reflect her latest status, although within it everything needs to be explained (also obviously). There are articles about people who had acquired titles later in life, through marriage, and the articles' titles usually reflects this (notice that Isabel never reigned as Empress, she was never a monarch as thus we do not need to revert to her last status before loosing her title). The best example would be Isabel's descendant and namesake, Isabelle, comtesse de Paris. She acquired that through marriage. By the logic you appear to be advocating, the article should change its title to "Isabel of Orleans-Braganza". It's all about context. Because of all of that, Princess Isabel is something of a gray area, but "Isabel of Brazil" is completely strange to any treatment ever dispensed to her ordinarily, and the policy does say that if a person is best known by a cognomen, we should use the more common name (in English, but I don't believe that she was commonly known in English in any way, although some may have had referred to her as Isabel, Princess of Brazil, or maybe even Princess Isabel of Brazil, but I don't think "Isabel of Brazil" is realistic by any measure). Really, it's all a question of common sense. Redux 4 July 2005 06:38 (UTC)

You seem not to know sufficiently about ex-monarchical naming, which is a different rule than pretender naming. Isabelle of Paris was a wife of a pretender, never a crown princess of an existing monarchy. False analogy from you, thus. (And, it could be argued that Isabelle of Paris should have better heading, but I will leave it at the moment, as it will not help in Isabel of Brazil's naming.)
Please show an official act that Isabella became Orleans-Braganza during the reign already, and is there actually any act she became that afterwards?
We do not regard former crown princes as pretenders before they "succeed" - thus, Isabella was not a pretender in 1889-91. She was "former" crown princess and that title can be used here, both had she remained such and also in case she succeeded in pretension. (Compare Alexander, Crown Prince of Yugoslavia)
You are wrong when requiring that the article should reflect her last status. Quite often, articles reflect the most senior status, not the last. And, in many cases royal women revert to pre-marital name after death (which is not the main rule in this case, but helps to understand the direction.)
re your hypothetical (though we do not deal in hypotheticals, there are places for royal romantics for people interested in that), had her father got a son to succeed, Isabella's issue would then not have been dynasts of Imperial Brazil at all - usually, woman's descendants become dynasts only if her line succeeds as head, otherwise they are out. Children of Anne, Princess Royal, are strictly speaking not members of the british royal house (did you know even that?).
Do you even know what means cognomen here?? It would be Isabella the Redeemer, which for other reasons is not applicable.
as a political figure (regent etc), and heiress of a monarchy, she certainly was known in English - newspapers etc have certainly written about her. Do you really have delusions that only Brazilians knew her?
It seems to me that in promoting your own idea of heading, you are using self-conflicting reasons, and that you do not bother to read reasonings further above, nor do you read naming policies. 217.140.193.123 4 July 2005 07:05 (UTC)

I think that Redux is suffering from "myopia" of the local culture. She was the most important princess of that country, apparently, and therefore there she tends to be "Princesa Isabel", without territorial design or some other addendum. To world-wide audience, as well as in foreign setting - such as in anglophone world (Eng.wiki) there is factual need of an addendum, and now Redux has seemingly been desperately trying to concoct one, her husband's/ children's name. However, apparently the thing she is most familiar in other countries, is the biographical book (I came across its referrals many many times with google test) written in English which is titled "Princess Isabel of Brazil". 217.140.193.123 4 July 2005 09:00 (UTC)

Redux is behaving...

Please remove your wip tag after max 3 hours

WIP tag must not abused. It is not a tool to keep others from contributing, or correcting. You have good possibilities to contribute more - in equal footing with others. The guidelines instruct: "The tag is used to alert people that you are in the process of making a larger edit (within 30 - 180 minutes). The article remains open to editing, but courteous users should leave it alone until you're done. If you do use such a "lock" please be responsive to any inquiries about the lock.". You have indicated that you want keep the tag in place for as long as days: "This is not about wanting to control the article. This is about understanding and patience. Really, the tag has been there for less than a day." 217.140.193.123 4 July 2005 18:12 (UTC)

Do not post my comments from other pages as if I had posted them here. In fact, that comment was not even in regard to this page. Out of context, at the very least. You are out of line yet again. Do you not know when to stop? I've already said that I don't care if you go ahead with your edits (in that other article), so just move on already. Redux 5 July 2005 02:00 (UTC)

Calm down everyone

Everyone needs to calm down. The article should pretty clearly be at Isabel, Princess Imperial of Brazil. john k 7 July 2005 15:25 (UTC)

I agree with John.

FearÉIREANNFile:Irish flag.gifFile:Animated-union-jack-01.gif SOLIDARITY WITH THE PEOPLE OF LONDON\^(caint) 7 July 2005 22:57 (UTC)

Problem - date of exile revocation

From the Portuguese version of this article:

"Em 1920 teve a felicidade de saber que a lei que bania a Família Imperial do Brasil havia sido revogada pelo Presidente Epitácio Pessoa."

Rough translation:

"In 1920, she became happy to know that the banishment of the Imperial Family of Brazil had been revoked by President Epitácio Pessoa."

All the Portuguese articles around the subject are consistent on this... I do not have a citation to back this up but I would tend to believe those versions. Was the exile removed in 1920, or 1922 as it says here? (I got here because an article I am translating, Mariano Procópio Museum, says she came back to Brazil in 1921.) Grandmasterka 05:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

It was in September 3 1920, Decree n. 4,120. I will paste the full, untranslated text:

Decreto n. 4120, de 3 de setembro de 1920

Revoga os artigos 1º e 2º do Decreto n. 78-A e autoriza a transladar para o Brasil os despojos mortais do ex-Imperador Dom Pedro II e de sua esposa Dona Teresa Cristina, abrindo para tal fim os necessários créditos. O presidente da República dos Estados Unidos do Brasil. Faço saber que o Congresso Nacional decretou e eu sanciono a seguinte resolução:

Art. 1º - Ficam revogados os arts. 1º e 2º do Decreto n. 78-A, de 21 de dezembro de 1889.

Art. 2º - Fica o Poder Executivo autorizado a, mediante prévio consentimento da família do ex-Imperador Dom Pedro II e do Governo de Portugal, transladar para o Brasil os despojos mortais do mesmo e os de sua esposa Dona Teresa Cristina, fazendo-os recolher em mausoléu condigno e para tal fim especialmente construído.

Art. 3º - Fica o Governo autorizado a abrir, para tal fim, os necessários créditos.

Art. 4º - Revogam-se as disposições em contrário.

Rio de Janeiro, 3 de setembro de 1920, 99º da Independência e 32º da República.
(a) Epitácio Pessoa
Macgreco 22:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Link Macgreco 22:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

In the political history of Brazil she was the first female ruler in the post-colonial period. In 1888 she signed the Law establishing the total abolition of slavery in the Empire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.4.36 (talk) 21:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The scandalous dance

I once read a novel where I heard that Isabel, in connection to her anti-slavery oppinions, made a scandal by dancing with a coloured man - a mulatto - on a ball. It was a way of demonstrating the idea of equality between the races. Of course, this was from a novel, but I wonder if it was taken from a true event? Does anyone know? --85.226.47.79 (talk) 17:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It is true. It was not a mulatto, but a Black man. His name was André Rebouças, one of the greatest abolitonist leaders in Brazil. Rebouças invited a young lady to dance with him in a ball, but she simply ignored him. At that moment, the Count of Eu (Isabel's husband) touched him in the shoulder and asked him to dance with his wife, no one else than the heir to the throne, which the Count said that would be an honor to him. Rebouças accepted. --Lecen (talk) 17:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Would be great to see this anecdote added to the André Rebouças article; with a reference, of course.--~ ~ : Lincoln Cooper : ~ ~ (talk) 06:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Rebouças' article is no more than a stub right now and is not one of my top priorities at the moment. I'm working at Empire of Brazil and plan to move to Pedro I of Brazil. Since I'm the only editor working in Imperial Brazil-related articles, that will take some time. --Lecen (talk) 12:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is true — Preceding unsigned comment added by Es157 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

This black guy André Rebouças had grown so faithful to the imperial family at that point that he willingly boarded the ship which sent them to exile in Europe, and never came back to Brazil. He hoped the empire would be restored one day and Isabel would be empress, but never happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Es157 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Portuguese infanta

Why there is this category at Isabel's article? Is there any reference stating that she was considered a Portuguese princess??? Tonyjeff (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

When Princess Isabel was born the Portuguese Royal Family and the Brazilian Imperial Family were completely different and had now members in common, therefore she was not an Infanta of Portugal Royal Braganza (talk) 19:59, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Improving the article

I'm going to begin improving this article. Suggestions, criticism, ideas, comments are welcomed. --Lecen (talk) 14:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

I have a question. What does her appearance have to do with marriage? Because there is a sentence of her appearance under marriage section. Spongie555 (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm done with 2 sections. Moving to a third one. --Lecen (talk) 22:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Comtesse d'Eu

Did she ever used the female form of her husband's title Comtesse d'Eu or Countess of Eu?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 07:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

That's all she ever did. Just take a look into her signature. She never called herself "Princess Imperial". She was always "Comtess d'Eu". Isabel never tried to strengthen her position as heiress. I'll mention that once I'm finished with this article. --Lecen (talk) 14:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Lecen is correct, she did sign "Comtess d'Eu" in her private correspondence. She used a different signature as regent, in official documents: Princess Imperial Regent. Regards to all, Paulista01 (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The Portuguese and Brazilian monarchs had different signatures depending on the occasion. Pedro II signed "Dom Pedro 2nd" when he wrote to diplomats, politicians, etc... (this signature can be seen in the infobox of his article). When he signed documents, he did as "Emperor". That was a tradition since the times of the Portuguese monarchs, who signed "King". Isabel signed "Princess Regent", but everwhere else was simply "Isabel, Comtess d'Eu" (not the that she used the title in its original French, not in Portuguese as "Condessa d'Eu"). --Lecen (talk) 16:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Well if she was known as such for most of her life. It should probably be mentioned.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 07:38, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The rest of the article?

While I appreciate the excellent improvement of the first half of the article, I am not sure that it is appropriate to leave the reader completely clueless about the rest of her life. The article used to contain those information and they should be restored. Surtsicna (talk) 21:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

We're working on it. It requires a little patience. --Lecen (talk) 22:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

The article has been without any information about the latter half of her life for a month. There should be something, at least in the lead section.

By the way, Elisabeth is not the English form of her name. It's the German form. The English form is Elizabeth but, as I have already noted, the names Isabel and Isabelle have been traditionally rendered into English as Isabella (their Latin form). Thus, the English queen Isabella of France is not known as Elizabeth and Isabella I of Castile is not known as Elizabeth. Insisting on keeping the German form of her name in the lead sentence makes no sense. Surtsicna (talk) 23:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

That's because this is not the only article about Brazilian imperial history which we are working on right now. We have another one as a featured article candidate which we regard as priority. Nonetheless, Astynax is right now reviewing the article and correcting its mistakes as we always did. Have patience, as I said. The work we do is quite good and the wait will pay off. P.S.: In Portuguese, the translation to "Elizabeth" (such as Queen Elizabeth II of Great Britain) is "Isabel". But there is no problem on keeping "Isabella/Elizabeth"). --Lecen (talk) 23:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Almost two months have now passed. Let's restore the old material, or even the entire article, if necessary. The current situation is unacceptable. Thanks. Wwheaton (talk) 02:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the article prior to Lecen's expansion over the last several months shows an article essentially devoid of citations, and covering not much more than the current, partly expanded version. It would be a step backward to revert to that situation. By all means, if you wish to add information to any of the current sections (including information from previous versions), doing so is no problem—as long as you also provide sources. There is no rush, but well-sourced additions will always be appreciated. • Astynax ^talk 06:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Excellent article !

I only wish that the part "Later years" will be a little expanded and that the question of the succession will be a little clarified! However it is a very interesting article yet. As always... 31.39.53.205 (talk) 12:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC) fr:user:Konstantinos

Dubious

The titles and styles in the table are unsourced. DrKay (talk) 21:53, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Does the reference at the end of the section (the Imperial Constitution) establish titles for the daughters? There are a couple of versions online, but I have not had a chance to go over it again (my Portuguese is rudimentary, and the text version has many nonsense characters substituted for characters not present in the text font). It would work well if the titles could be sourced to the constitution. I haven't found a source to support Isabel's use of "Her Imperial Majesty". • Astynax ^talk 08:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

It's article 105 of the 1824 constitution. This has all been said before in other venues, e.g. [1]. DrKay (talk) 09:47, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for recalling that. • Astynax ^talk 18:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Finishing the article

Is that okay if I finish the article? --Lecen (talk) 13:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Letter

I want to add the letter she wrote in the final days of the empire to add more drama to the storyline. Also I feel the need to enfasize her kindness of heart which was so notorious. But this letter doesnt exist in English so I have translated, but then people wont accept the sources.

August 11, 1889 - Paço Isabel

Corte midi

Dear Sir Viscount of Santa Vitória,

I was told by papa who put me aware of the intention and the sending of the funds of your Bank in the form of a donation as indemnisation to the ex-slaves freed on May 13 of last year, and the secrecy that you Sir asked from the president of the cabinet not to provoke more violent reaction of the slaveholders. God protect us if the slavocrats and the military know about our business, for it would be the end of the current government and even of the Empire and the House of Braganza in Brazil. Our friend Nabuco, in addition to Sirs Rebouças, Patrocínio and Dantas, will be able to give assistance after November 20, when the Chambers gather for the inauguration of the new Legislature. With the support of the new deputies and papa's faithful friends of the Senate, it will be possible to make the changes that I dream for Brazil!

With the funds donated by you Sir, we will have the opportunity to put these ex-slaves, now free, on their own land, working in agriculture and livestock and from them taking their own revenues. I was more touched to hear from papa that this donation meant more than 2/3 of the sale of your assets, which shows the love devoted to you Sir towards Brazil. May God protect you and all your family forever!

It was moving the fall of Bank Mauá in 1878 and the honest and unprofitable, although unhappy way that you Sir and your esteemed partner, the great Viscount of Mauá, accepted the fall, according to papa forged by the English in a dishonest and corrupt way. The fall of Lord Mauá meant a great defeat for our Brazil!

But let's not stay in the past, because the future will be promising, if the Republicans and slaveholders allow us to dream a little bit more. For the changes that I have in mind, as you already know, are beyond the liberation of the captives. I now want to dedicate myself to freeing women from the fetters of domestic captivity, and this will be possible through Female Suffrage. If woman can reign it can also vote! I thank you for your help with all my heart and may God bless you!

I send my greetings to Madame Viscountess of Santa Victória and the whole family.

Very heartedly,

Isabel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Es157 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Isabel, Princess Imperial of Brazil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080409175236/http://www2.uol.com.br/historiaviva/multimidia/princesa_isabel.html to http://www2.uol.com.br/historiaviva/multimidia/princesa_isabel.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:35, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

"Elizabeth I of Brazil" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Elizabeth I of Brazil and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 22#Elizabeth I of Brazil until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. DrKay (talk) 07:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)