Could the Brazilian Empire continued to have stayed in power past 1889 and even to today?

[Hijo Dulce]

Isabel was the last Crown Princess of Brazil until 1889 when the monarchy was overthrown. When her father was away she became his regent and acted on his behalf. She became very popular in her country when she heavily supported and pushed a law through parliament outlawing Slavery in the country. Although this made her popular with her people she was also heavily disliked because of her gender, her marriage to a foreigner, and her strong catholic faith. She also shared her father's pessimism and had no drive to become empress or see the monarchy continue after her lifetime.

That makes me wonder if the monarchy could've survived if Isabel took an interest in ruling and wanted to be an empress. She seemed to have the intelligence to do it. There were other factors but I don't see why they were such a big deal

1) Gender - Although female monarchs were uncommon in that time period, at the same time the most powerful empire in the world was run by a woman who was doing a pretty good job (Queen Victoria). Being a woman ruler would've been difficult in Brazil but not impossible

2) Marriage to a foreigner - European Royals had been marrying foreign nobles and royals for years and Isabel was no exception as she was married to a French nobleman. Why was this seen as such a bad thing by the people of Brazil? And who would they've considered a suitable husband? A nobility member? Did Brazil have a Nobility? A commoner?

3) Strong Catholic Faith - I thought Brazil was mostly Catholic. Why did they have such a problem with Isabel being a Catholic?

These obstacles don't seem like that big a deal. The Brazilian Empire was a heavily democratic constitutional monarchy that some argued was even better then the following republic. The challenges Isabel faced seemed hard but not impossible. Is it possible that all the Brazilian Empire needed to survive beyond 1889 was a successor who actually gave a crap.

 

[GorillaTheater]

My understanding is that while dismay at a female monarch in Brazil was pretty common (it was even shared by Pedro II), opposition to monarchy itself was pretty limited. I think the only reason republicanism succeeded was that Pedro was beyond giving a crap at that point. Even if Isabel remained objectionable because of her genitalia, it seems to me that a good work-around would be for Isabel to decline the throne in favor of her son, who was around 13, and serve instead as regent.

But's it's not really an area I know much about.

 

[yourworstnightmare]

Wasn't the biggest problem that everyone became indifferent to the survival of the monarchy. the Conservatives were pissed slavery was abolished, the Liberals didn't care about the monarchy and the monarchy itself became indifferent to it's own survival, which made it easy to topple.

 

[John I of Brazil]

1) Gender - Although female monarchs were uncommon in that time period, at the same time the most powerful empire in the world was run by a woman who was doing a pretty good job (Queen Victoria). Being a woman ruler would've been difficult in Brazil but not impossible

This is the least important motivation for the brazilian elite's dislike for her. Besides common 19th century machism ("she will always obey her french husband "), this aspect only has some relevance with th second one you told.

2) Marriage to a foreigner - European Royals had been marrying foreign nobles and royals for years and Isabel was no exception as she was married to a French nobleman. Why was this seen as such a bad thing by the people of Brazil? And who would they've considered a suitable husband? A nobility member? Did Brazil have a Nobility? A commoner?

Many people despised the idea of a foreign man in the brazilian throne, but Count of Eu was a "special case". He was said to have no charisma and barely speak portuguese, and there were many bad rummors about him, like that he would have given orders to burn a hospital with his residents during his participation in the Paraguayan War and that he was spending too much money (most, if not all these rummors were false).

3) Strong Catholic Faith - I thought Brazil was mostly Catholic. Why did they have such a problem with Isabel being a Catholic?

Her strong catholic faith was a good thing for the poor people and the church, but not for the french-wannabe brazilian elite and middle class , who was being influenced by the idea of a secular modern state (positivism was gaining popularity among them and the army, for example).

But none of this was that relevant. The empire could survive (Isabel would even have the advantage of being liked by the church, in contrast with her father).

Wasn't the biggest problem that everyone became indifferent to the survival of the monarchy. the Conservatives were pissed slavery was abolished, the Liberals didn't care about the monarchy and the monarchy itself became indifferent to it's own survival, which made it easy to topple.

This. The own emperor didn't helped. After the Paraguayan War, Pedro's official public image changed from the more traditional god chosen emperor (which he had since the beginning of his reign) to a liberal and cultured "Louis Philip"-esque monarch (if it was a strategic decision or a personal choice, it isnt clear). Some monarchic traditions began to be abandoned and tthe monarchy lost much of its appeal and alienated its traditional allies (the church and the slaveowner elite of Vale do Paraíba).

 

[ByzantineCaesar]

I believe you could have easily extended the monarchy past 1889, especially with a male heir, but I don’t think it would have survived to this day. The monarchy in OTL failed to approve relatively simple modernizing reforms in the 1880’s (federalism, universal male suffrage, end to lifelong Senators etc.) and the Emperor’s powers were always a point of contest, especially after the Paraguayan War when Pedro II used his powers to force the Progressives out of power and put the Conservatives in charge of the war effort. Any surviving Brazilian monarchy will have to deal with those issues. I very much doubt the monarchy could accommodate the new industrial interests of the 20th century, however, and also those of the rising intellectual elite that will inevitably look for Brazilian identity in the common people rather than the House of Braganza. IMHO the monarchy’s expiration date is ca. 1930. The OTL 1930 revolutionaries led by Getúlio Vargas considered the First Republic to be an archaic institution; from their worldview, the monarchy would have been doubly so, especially if the Braganzas still are those ultracatholics they became with Isabel. Before anyone asks, I don’t think a surviving monarchy would butterfly away their revolutionary movement for modernization. Instead, it might even hasten it.