The Vilafrancada was an attempt by prince Miguel of Portugal to overthrow his father, king John VI. A supporter of absolutism, Miguel sought to overturn the Constitution of 1822, which had been created after a revolution two years prior that, besides creating a constitutional monarchy, also forced (most of) the Portuguese royal family to return to the mother country after more than a decade in Brazil. Ultimately, the plot fell apart after John took control of the revolt and restored absolutism by himself, unleashing a wave of repression likely less severe than the one his son envisioned.

But what if he lost his nerve and Miguel became king? How would Portuguese society, and especially the military, react to this usurpation?

Last but not least, how does this affect the independence of Brazil? IOTL, the Brazilians made significant concessions to Lisbon in the treaty that stipulated the recognition of their country's independence: an indemnity of two million pounds, plus the status of titular emperor of Brazil to John VI. Would emperor Pedro I agree to these terms if Portugal is governed by an usurper?
 
Last edited:
Miguel could just become Regent or make João VI nominate him as the heir since Pedro has revolted and was now Brazilian. This would fix any legitimate issues and keep João VI around. I don't think the Armed Forces would contest Miguel, in OTL most of them were on his side. I think Miguel's worst tendencies came from following his mother's instructions rather than thinking for himself. If she dies maybe a somewhat liberal state would emerge from Miguel's reign like Prussia or Two Sicilies.

As for the terms of Brazil's independence, I think they will be the same except maybe João VI not getting the titular title of Emperor of Brazil, that was a huge insult for Pedro and if João VI is deposed or having a Regency he will not accept them.
 
As for the terms of Brazil's independence, I think they will be the same except maybe João VI not getting the titular title of Emperor of Brazil, that was a huge insult for Pedro and if João VI is deposed or having a Regency he will not accept them.
Do you know of any sources on the negotiations that led to the Treaty of Rio de Janeiro? I'd love to find a POD there that makes its terms less severe for Brazil.
 
First part of Rubens Ricupero's A Diplomacia na Construção do Brasil (1750-2016), looks at the negotiations for the Treaty of Rio de Janeiro. Unsurprisingly*, he places blame on D.Pedro I choosing to safeguard his dynastic rights, to the detriment of Brazil, for the final settlement. The obvious POD that comes when reading it is not having D.Pedro I either not firing Andrada(which is much harder than it seems), or him choosing to keep the same negotiation strategy('Britain, you don't want to deal? Fine, we'll do what we want, and in the end you'll have to deal with us if you want access to our markets.'), which would require some personality change on part of D.Pedro I.

*This may be the contrarian on me speaking, but... I can't help but think that placing the blame exclusively or almost exclusively on D.Pedro I, is too neat(also, it frees Ricupero, a member of the Brazilian diplomatic service with a long and highly-lauded career, from criticizing the Brazilian diplomats). While I do believe he is one of the, and probably, the main responsible for that, I can't help but think that Brazilian historiography is missing something in that story.
 
*This may be the contrarian on me speaking, but... I can't help but think that placing the blame exclusively or almost exclusively on D.Pedro I, is too neat(also, it frees Ricupero, a member of the Brazilian diplomatic service with a long and highly-lauded career, from criticizing the Brazilian diplomats). While I do believe he is one of the, and probably, the main responsible for that, I can't help but think that Brazilian historiography is missing something in that story.
I agree with you, historical events are usually too complex to be placed on the shoulders of a single person.
 
First part of Rubens Ricupero's A Diplomacia na Construção do Brasil (1750-2016), looks at the negotiations for the Treaty of Rio de Janeiro. Unsurprisingly*, he places blame on D.Pedro I choosing to safeguard his dynastic rights, to the detriment of Brazil, for the final settlement. The obvious POD that comes when reading it is not having D.Pedro I either not firing Andrada(which is much harder than it seems), or him choosing to keep the same negotiation strategy('Britain, you don't want to deal? Fine, we'll do what we want, and in the end you'll have to deal with us if you want access to our markets.'), which would require some personality change on part of D.Pedro I.
Also, what would it take for Pedro to keep Andrada in the cabinet? Why did their alliance break in the first place? What little I found so far (I just started researching) says Pedro was influenced by people close to him, but that's a bit nebulous to say the least.
 
Also, what would it take for Pedro to keep Andrada in the cabinet? Why did their alliance break in the first place? What little I found so far (I just started researching) says Pedro was influenced by people close to him, but that's a bit nebulous to say the least.
Don't know much about it either(haven't looked at the Primeiro Reinado that close, with the exception of the Cisplatine War, somewhat), but my impression is that he was influenced, but the influence was directed at worsening the results of their divergences and their personality clashes(for good and bad, Pedro was passionate, while Andrada was, AFAIK, vain and convinced he knew better; I can easily see Andrada trying to manage the Emperor and Pedro getting pissed at that, with the courtiers pouncing on that).
 
Also, what would it take for Pedro to keep Andrada in the cabinet? Why did their alliance break in the first place? What little I found so far (I just started researching) says Pedro was influenced by people close to him, but that's a bit nebulous to say the least.
A lot of their issues came about due to the troubles surrounding the drafting of the 1823 constitution, and what role Pedro would play as sovereign. At one point Pedro was to have a concrete role, but later there were attempts to make Pedro's role purely symbolic and to deprive him of any say or power in the new constitution: the emperor would be a figurehead and that was it. Both the federalist liberals and the absolutists who had seats in the constituent assembly had their reasons for disliking Andrada and they forged an alliance to oust him: essentially using Pedro's Portuguese-born friends who held positions within the imperial household to poison Pedro's relationship with his premier. After Andrada was gone, the federalists and absolutists were free to knife each other in the back once again.

It's probably also worth noting that Andrada (and Pedro, too) represented the "radical liberals" in Brazil: Andrada had ideas for agricultural reform and nourished hopes of gradual manumission / abolition of Brazil's participation in the slave trade. Given that Brazil's political class in this period consisted primarily of the great landowners, even the most liberal looked upon Andrada's ideas with possible horror.
 
Top