Pedro Augusto as Pedro III of Brazil

Every couple of months or so comes out a new thread querying about the feasibility of the survival of the Brazilian monarchy into the 20th century. IOTL the lack of a male heir caused Pedro II's later years of reign to be very unenthusiastic and apathetic. Not the only cause but it certainly didn't help.
Let's explore the Pedro Augusto option. Born in 1866, he was a popular, consensual, well-read and energetic prince that happened to be the son of the younger of Pedro II's only two daughters.

Let's make it so that grandpa's favorite grandson gets to be his direct heir. One needs to snuff out Princess Isabel.

Isabel had problems conceiving and the first time she found herself pregnant she was in Europe. The trip back to Brazil is long and stressful and she had the poor judgement to undergo this trip during her third trimester. Fortunately for her she arrived to Brazil in time, unfortunately but unrelated to the trip, she gave birth to a stillborn this time. Let's set the PoD with a disastrous poorly assisted early labour at the high seas that ends up with not only a stillborn but also a bled out Isabel in 1874.

Pedro Augusto's mom died 3 years prior so this means that Pedro II will outlive all of his children. He'll be devastated and may be numb for a while but in the end what counts is that he'll eventually put a lot of hope in Pedro Augusto and we'll see a more determined Pedro II during the following decade.

We're not butterflying away the severe indebtness cause by the War of the Triple Alliance and the new class of less than loyal officers that will still be there lurking. We're changing the mood of an emperor that gave up at the first sign of friction IOTL. OTL's revolution - that was coopted by a monarchist that eventually proclaimed the republic under very confusing circumstances - could have been almost bloodlessly defused by the emperor himself had he put an effort to it. Republicans must take a more decisive action to overthrow the monarchy... Admittedly, we're hardly saving the monarchy but we're at least buying it more time.

Before examining an eventual third reign (that can be really interesting considering that Pedro Augusto eventually developed schizophrenia), let's examine how the second reign (Pedro II's) will end.
- Slavery: everyone knew its days were numbered, the slave owners too. Could a more future-wary Pedro II try to pander to his most powerful support base by abolishing slavery but compensating the owners? The question being "how", of course.
- Abdication: despite being more hopeful I can still see Pedro II growing tired of the job as IOTL. ITTL he'll have someone he trusts to abdicate to. Would he do it as soon as Pedro Augusto turns 18? Would he do it as soon as the slavery issue is dealt with? Would he do it at all?
- Army purge (if a coup attempt happens during Pedro II's reign): how much time could it give the monarchy?
 
Only a few countries had financiel compensations for the slave owners. So far I know only Dutch gave financiel compensation. But the compensation price varied per colony, and the Dutch were only able to pay for it with the profits from the Dutch East Indies.
 
Only a few countries had financiel compensations for the slave owners. So far I know only Dutch gave financiel compensation. But the compensation price varied per colony, and the Dutch were only able to pay for it with the profits from the Dutch East Indies.

I was thinking of some sort of compensation/grant other than monetary compensation since Brazil was short of cash.
Not because it was "fair" or even a usual practise but to keep some key people loyal.
 
I'm not entirely sure why Pedro Augusto would be more likely to hold the monarchy together than Pedro de Alcântara IOTL. I mean really anything that makes Pedro II actually fight for his crown would be a boon for the monarchist cause, but ultimately I'm not sure if this Pedro would be enough to push things that way. Sure the death of his daughter (and Regent) would be harsh, but it's not likely to cause Pedro II to suddenly be more invigorated than he was IOTL - after all he had a lot of hopes riding on Pedro de Alcântara and that didn't stop him from simply walking away from Brazil when the coup broke out.

Also, just to clarify the OP, slavery has already been abolished in Brazil by the time of your POD; by Isabel, during her first stint as Regent. Yes, the Law of Free Birth wasn't as radical as the Golden Law, but it was effectively abolition none-the-less. The Great Drought had also basically ruined the plantation economy of Brazil, and the slave trade had finally been outlawed in the 1850s iirc. So by the time of the OTL republican coup slavery was already out.
 
I'm not entirely sure why Pedro Augusto would be more likely to hold the monarchy together than Pedro de Alcântara IOTL. I mean really anything that makes Pedro II actually fight for his crown would be a boon for the monarchist cause, but ultimately I'm not sure if this Pedro would be enough to push things that way. Sure the death of his daughter (and Regent) would be harsh, but it's not likely to cause Pedro II to suddenly be more invigorated than he was IOTL - after all he had a lot of hopes riding on Pedro de Alcântara and that didn't stop him from simply walking away from Brazil when the coup broke out.

Pedro de Alcântara didn't get to be oh-so-consensual-and-popular because he was just a child. Pedro Augusto OTOH had all the qualities out in the open and he was grandpa's fav.
The most important point here though is the generation bypass. Despite having entrusted the regency to Isabel whenever he was holidaying, Pedro II always left her out of the loop in governmental affairs. Having a more exciting heir to personally pass the briefcase to can change his enthusiasm.

Also, just to clarify the OP, slavery has already been abolished in Brazil by the time of your POD; by Isabel, during her first stint as Regent. Yes, the Law of Free Birth wasn't as radical as the Golden Law, but it was effectively abolition none-the-less. The Great Drought had also basically ruined the plantation economy of Brazil, and the slave trade had finally been outlawed in the 1850s iirc.
Sadly, the Law of Free Birth was easily bypassable through fraud.

So by the time of the OTL republican coup slavery was already out.
Quite so. And there was no one there to actively protect the monarchy.
 
In fact, I see as the major cause of the Brazilian republican coup the great rejection by the old landed élite of the measures of the politically overactive Princess Isabel. She was way too liberal to the eyes of most of the political class and it was pretty visible with all her laws against slavery. There's no doubt that she, the heiress to the throne, was much more active then her old father, an intellectual man, that was much more occupied in studying the Pyramids in Egypt than in statesmanship. The rejection was much aggravated by her husband's cruel actions against civilians in the Triple Alliance War... Well, if she is out I think that the Brazilian monarchy has a chance to live, if the new emperor is careful enough.
 
In fact, I see as the major cause of the Brazilian republican coup the great rejection by the old landed élite of the measures of the politically overactive Princess Isabel. She was way too liberal to the eyes of most of the political class and it was pretty visible with all her laws against slavery. There's no doubt that she, the heiress to the throne, was much more active then her old father, an intellectual man, that was much more occupied in studying the Pyramids in Egypt than in statesmanship. The rejection was much aggravated by her husband's cruel actions against civilians in the Triple Alliance War... Well, if she is out I think that the Brazilian monarchy has a chance to live, if the new emperor is careful enough.

Princess Isabel wasn't liberal at all; her pro-abolition stance was the exception to her overall beliefs.

Regarding the Count D'Eu's actions in Paraguay, they didn't change the way people saw him, for two reasons:

1) Those weren't any different than what was done before he assumed command - it was a harsh war, on both sides;

2) Public opinion in Brazil didn't care about what happened to the Paraguayans, as long as the war ended - if Brazil decided to treat Paraguay as the Romans did Carthage, and it shortened the war, there would be few objections indeed.

The Count D'Eu was derided for going to Paraguay only when the Paraguayan armies were destroyed and what remained was the chase for Solano López, but that was merely another thing to hit him with.

As for the changes brought by having Pedro Augusto being the new heir, those would be centered on Pedro II; Pedro Augusto reaches majority in 1886, IIRC. Assuming little or no changes to the timeline, this is too late, and may even bring the coup forward(end the Monarchy before we have another Emperor).
 
Princess Isabel wasn't liberal at all; her pro-abolition stance was the exception to her overall beliefs.

Regarding the Count D'Eu's actions in Paraguay, they didn't change the way people saw him, for two reasons:

1) Those weren't any different than what was done before he assumed command - it was a harsh war, on both sides;

2) Public opinion in Brazil didn't care about what happened to the Paraguayans, as long as the war ended - if Brazil decided to treat Paraguay as the Romans did Carthage, and it shortened the war, there would be few objections indeed.

The Count D'Eu was derided for going to Paraguay only when the Paraguayan armies were destroyed and what remained was the chase for Solano López, but that was merely another thing to hit him with.

As for the changes brought by having Pedro Augusto being the new heir, those would be centered on Pedro II; Pedro Augusto reaches majority in 1886, IIRC. Assuming little or no changes to the timeline, this is too late, and may even bring the coup forward(end the Monarchy before we have another Emperor).

It depends on what is your conception of Liberalism. A princess that tries by all means to abolish slavery in her country, despite of the position of most of her political and economical support, and that even thought of an agrarian reform to settle the new freedmen (yes, we have documents talking about that), is way too liberal to 19th century Brazil, I think.

As for the public opinion about Count D'Eu's actions in the war, just read the local newspapers from that time, he commanded the Brazilian war despite of the lack of battlefield experience and he only entered the war after Caxias resigned when it was practically won, he was just man-hunting Lopez. Besides that, Brazilian population was not very eager to have a foreigner in the throne, specially him. I remember an anecdoctal story of him losing a discussion with a Republican Professor in Rio about his families actions hundreds years ago in the St. Bartholomew's Night.
 
Top