Plausability check: Empress Maria I of Brazil and King Pedro V of Portugal

OK so while reading about Portugal and Brazil, and I was struck by the huge differences between the two after Brazilian independence. Brazil became a true modern nation, with a powerful armed forces, strong industries and a wonderful educational system. Portugal, by contrast, declined heavily during the 19th century, falling behind in industry, economics and power in general. One of the reasons for Brazil's success was its monarch, Pedro II. He was originally second in line to the Portuguese throne, but his father Pedro I & IV abdicated that nation to his daughter Maria. So what if the two were reversed, with Pedro becoming Pedro V of Portugal and Maria eventually becoming Empress of Brazil? Is this possible or no? How would his affect world history?
 
I suppose it's possible, yes. I see no legal obstacles, only that Pedro I may feel that a male would better ensure the survival of the dynasty of his new realm.

Some technicalities could be evoked because even though both siblings were born in Rio de Janeiro, Pedro was born in a recognized foreign country (in 1825) but Maria was born in the Portuguese realm (in 1819). But that's as lame as OTL Miguelist's arguments against Maria's legitimacy, so never mind that.

As to effects for Portugal... For a spunky forward-looking humane king of Portugal we have the real Pedro V, son of Maria II that unfortunately died young. He only reigned for half a dozen years and he proved to be good influence on Portugal but a constitutional monarch can only do so much. No Portugal wank here but Pedro V (whatever Pedro V) may reign over a more credible government system with a litte more reasonable social/education policies so... yeay! :)

For Brazil... we'd have to know if Pedro I abdicated on schedule. In such a critical period, the slightest butterfly could topple the monarchy in Brazil before Maria even gets to actually reign.
 
I suppose it's possible, yes. I see no legal obstacles, only that Pedro I may feel that a male would better ensure the survival of the dynasty of his new realm.

Some technicalities could be evoked because even though both siblings were born in Rio de Janeiro, Pedro was born in a recognized foreign country (in 1825) but Maria was born in the Portuguese realm (in 1819). But that's as lame as OTL Miguelist's arguments against Maria's legitimacy, so never mind that.

As to effects for Portugal... For a spunky forward-looking humane king of Portugal we have the real Pedro V, son of Maria II that unfortunately died young. He only reigned for half a dozen years and he proved to be good influence on Portugal but a constitutional monarch can only do so much. No Portugal wank here but Pedro V (whatever Pedro V) may reign over a more credible government system with a litte more reasonable social/education policies so... yeay! :)

For Brazil... we'd have to know if Pedro I abdicated on schedule. In such a critical period, the slightest butterfly could topple the monarchy in Brazil before Maria even gets to actually reign.

I hadn't thought of the technicalities, but wouldn't it be done away with sense his father Pedro IV was the recognized heir to the throne and for four months King? At least that would be the argument.

And I did see the article about OTL Pedro V. He seemed to be a promising King and it is a real shame that he died so young. Really someone should right a TL on him, it would be very interesting.

As to Brazil, well maybe Pedro I would be more reluctant to abdicate. Though here's an idea: have one of Pedro's older son's survive, at least for a time. Both Miguel and João died young, leaving Pedro II as the only surviving son. Have one of them live and Pedro II becomes Pedro V, gaining Portugal while an older brother keeps Brazil. It could work.
 
I hadn't thought of the technicalities, but wouldn't it be done away with sense his father Pedro IV was the recognized heir to the throne and for four months King? At least that would be the argument.
Yes, of course.

I mentioned this just by going along with the Miguelist argument that Pedro I/IV by committing treason had implicitly renounced his nationality and claim to the throne making his short reign illegitimate. Following this faulty logic, Maria and not Miguel would have inheritted his position in the line of succession upon Pedro's "renunciation" in 1822.

I mentioned OTL Pedro II theoretical ineligibility to the Portuguese throne because the position of dynasts born after a parent's renuncination is murky and... you know what, forget it: this is all bollocks, João VI died on terms with Pedro I/IV and Pedro was his legal heir! :)

And I did see the article about OTL Pedro V. He seemed to be a promising King and it is a real shame that he died so young. Really someone should right a TL on him, it would be very interesting.

I agree. Alas, I lack the skills for that and there aren't many Portuguese history buffs hereabouts...

As to Brazil, well maybe Pedro I would be more reluctant to abdicate. Though here's an idea: have one of Pedro's older son's survive, at least for a time. Both Miguel and João died young, leaving Pedro II as the only surviving son. Have one of them live and Pedro II becomes Pedro V, gaining Portugal while an older brother keeps Brazil. It could work.
That's the easiest and smoothest way to get an 1825-born Pedro on this side of the Atlantic and to control butterflies in Brazil.
 
Last edited:
I think you're getting a bit carried away with Brazil as this wonderful, modern, industrialized nation, at least in the 19th century, but that's beside the point. Pedro II did indeed lead Brazil in making great strides, and I think that was your point.

There are a couple of issues: Maria was married off to Uncle Miguel (I know most European royalties engaged in such practices, but Portugal/Spain really lead the pack) at the time of Joao's death, as a way to keep Pedro I's lineage in charge and out of the clutches of Miguel (dunno how Pedro thought that notion was going to work - sending an infant off into the arms of a known usurper). What does Miguel do if he's not married into the throne? If he takes it, by the time Pedro I gets tired of Brazil, he may be entrenched enough. Or maybe having an infant King, combined with no marital ties, squashes Miguel's ambitions right off the bat. Could have significant butterflies for Portugal.

Maria in Brazil needs a husband. Do we just move up the timeline of the OTL problems with Pedro II's daughters? Perhaps there's a spanish infante of the correct age? Hmmm. now that might change dynamics of spanish/Brazilian friendship/enmity. I smell a wank in there somewhere :)

As for effect on the world. Not much, sans a Brazilian or Portuguese wank. Neither country has really affected world politics, except in a generic sense. In a best case scenario for Portugal, the country stabilizes/modernizes enough for it to actually take advantage of its African holdings. A stronger African empire might be able to withstand the encroachments of the English and beat Leopold into the Congo (coastal access of which really should have been held by Portugal anyway, but it was too weak to develop that area), perhaps the French Congo, too. It takes a real wank to extend/affect Portuguese Africa too much, but it could affect the Scramble for Africa.
 
OK so while reading about Portugal and Brazil, and I was struck by the huge differences between the two after Brazilian independence. Brazil became a true modern nation, with a powerful armed forces, strong industries and a wonderful educational system. Portugal, by contrast, declined heavily during the 19th century, falling behind in industry, economics and power in general. One of the reasons for Brazil's success was its monarch, Pedro II. He was originally second in line to the Portuguese throne, but his father Pedro I & IV abdicated that nation to his daughter Maria. So what if the two were reversed, with Pedro becoming Pedro V of Portugal and Maria eventually becoming Empress of Brazil? Is this possible or no? How would his affect world history?

Pedro II was never in the Portuguese line of succession. His father had no power to give the crown to Maria instead of Pedro.

Brazil had a powerful navy, but weak army (with highly experienced officers).

The educational system was highly deficient and Brazil had a very high level of iliteracy (85%).
 
Pedro II was never in the Portuguese line of succession. His father had no power to give the crown to Maria instead of Pedro.

Brazil had a powerful navy, but weak army (with highly experienced officers).

The educational system was highly deficient and Brazil had a very high level of iliteracy (85%).

Also, we didn't have a strong industry before the early 20th Century (I would say even before the 1930's).

The Portuguese Law didn't allow foreigners to inherit the throne. Pedro II was born in Brazil, after the independence (even after the Brazilian independence was recognized by Portugal in August 1825). Only Maria could be the heir of Pedro I in Portugal as she was born in 1819, when Brazil was still part of Portugal (well, her sister Januaria probably could also, as she was born in March 1822, before the independence be declared).
 
His father had no power to give the crown to Maria instead of Pedro.
Historically it was normal for kings to divide their realms among their children. In Portugal an analogous practise was still observable with noble titles.
EDIT: Sure there are constitutions to comply but Pedro supervised the writing of the Portuguese and Brazilian constitutions so... the constitutions may say what he wants.

The Portuguese Law didn't allow foreigners to inherit the throne. Pedro II was born in Brazil, after the independence (even after the Brazilian independence was recognized by Portugal in August 1825). Only Maria could be the heir of Pedro I in Portugal as she was born in 1819, when Brazil was still part of Portugal

That would be the kernel of the argument against him. But Portuguese nationality has historically been one based on jus sanguinis so it's easy to argue that he was a natural born Portuguese as a son of a natural born Portuguese. When Pedro II was born his father was the recognized Emperor of Brazil but was also the recognized heir of Portugal... One could say Pedro I/IV had double nationality.
 
Last edited:
Historically it was normal for kings to divide their realms among their children. In Portugal an analogous practise was still observable with noble titles.
EDIT: Sure there are constitutions to comply but Pedro supervised the writing of the Portuguese and Brazilian constitutions so... the constitutions may say what he wants.



That would be the kernel of the argument against him. But Portuguese nationality has historically been one based on jus sanguinis so it's easy to argue that he was a natural born Portuguese as a son of a natural born Portuguese. When Pedro II was born his father was the recognized Emperor of Brazil but was also the recognized heir of Portugal... One could say Pedro I/IV had double nationality.

Exactly. Also , from what I can find it appears that the constitution excluding foreigners from the throne wasn't finished until after Maria II became Queen. So legally, there was no impediment to Pedro I/IV and Pedro II/V becoming King of Portugal.
 
Exactly. Also , from what I can find it appears that the constitution excluding foreigners from the throne wasn't finished until after Maria II became Queen. So legally, there was no impediment to Pedro I/IV and Pedro II/V becoming King of Portugal.

Not correct. When Pedro I (then-Duke of Braganza) died in 1834, the Brazilian government tried to make Pedro II inherit the title of Duke of Braganza and the duchy of Braganza (and the lands with it). The Portuguese government ruled out arguing that Pedro II was a foreigner.
 
Exactly. Also , from what I can find it appears that the constitution excluding foreigners from the throne wasn't finished until after Maria II became Queen. So legally, there was no impediment to Pedro I/IV and Pedro II/V becoming King of Portugal.
IIRC the no-foreign rule had been set up early on the establishment of the Bragança dinasty. But even if it was so, it's moot given that all of those involved are or could easily be considered Portuguese naturals...

Not correct. When Pedro I (then-Duke of Braganza) died in 1834, the Brazilian government tried to make Pedro II inherit the title of Duke of Braganza and the duchy of Braganza (and the lands with it). The Portuguese government ruled out arguing that Pedro II was a foreigner.
Yeah, he was just Brazilian. The point is that in an alt series of events, it wouldn't be difficult to consider him a natural born Portuguese.

I didn't know about that claim, though. I imagine that the Brazilian government didn't appeal and try to register him as a Portuguese.
 
Not correct. When Pedro I (then-Duke of Braganza) died in 1834, the Brazilian government tried to make Pedro II inherit the title of Duke of Braganza and the duchy of Braganza (and the lands with it). The Portuguese government ruled out arguing that Pedro II was a foreigner.

Considering that the Dukedom of Braganza was like the Principality of Wales, that's not really a good argument. Really that the Brazilian government would try that is kinda idiotic.
 
Considering that the Dukedom of Braganza was like the Principality of Wales, that's not really a good argument. Really that the Brazilian government would try that is kinda idiotic.

In politics, there is no harm in trying. The Duchy of Braganza was the largest and wealthiest in Portugal. It would be an amazing source of income for Pedro II. For the same reason Portugal said "no".
 
In politics, there is no harm in trying. The Duchy of Braganza was the largest and wealthiest in Portugal. It would be an amazing source of income for Pedro II. For the same reason Portugal said "no".

Do you have a source for this? I don't doubt they would try to do it, but I can't find any reference about such attempt.
 
Do you have a source for this? I don't doubt they would try to do it, but I can't find any reference about such attempt.

Neither can I. One would think that the Brazilians would instead try to claim the House of the Infantado. Though did go to second sons, one could try to make the argument that it should go to Pedro II, as the heir presumptive and the next eldest male of the Royal House.
 
Do you have a source for this? I don't doubt they would try to do it, but I can't find any reference about such attempt.

Calmon, Pedro (1975). História de D. Pedro II (in Portuguese) 1–5. Rio de Janeiro: José Olímpio.

Check the first volume.
 
Neither can I. One would think that the Brazilians would instead try to claim the House of the Infantado. Though did go to second sons, one could try to make the argument that it should go to Pedro II, as the heir presumptive and the next eldest male of the Royal House.

Pedro II never belonged to the Portuguese Royal House. None of his sublings were. Januária was for sometime until she was considered Brazilian. Maria's heir was her uncle, Miguel. However, Miguel was removed by the Portuguese government. Maria lacked heirs until the birth of her son Pedro.
 
Top