Prince Imperial Afonso doesn't die?

A simple question. Say Pedro II of Brazil's first son doesn't die at the tender age of two? Let's even give him a bonus prize and have all his children survives.

How does this affect the future of Brazil, specifically Pedro II's view of his empire?

I understand that, OTL, Pedro II began to lose faith in the empire because, without a male heir, he felt that neither of his daughters was fit to rule as a woman Empress of Brazil. It was to the point that when he was overthrown, he was mostly relieved that he didn't have to bother with it anymore.

So, needless to say, I foresee Pedro II being much more optimistic towards the Empire, with male heirs ready in the wings. Could Brazil have remained a monarchy until today, even?
 
A simple question. Say Pedro II of Brazil's first son doesn't die at the tender age of two? Let's even give him a bonus prize and have all his children survives.

How does this affect the future of Brazil, specifically Pedro II's view of his empire?

I understand that, OTL, Pedro II began to lose faith in the empire because, without a male heir, he felt that neither of his daughters was fit to rule as a woman Empress of Brazil. It was to the point that when he was overthrown, he was mostly relieved that he didn't have to bother with it anymore.

So, needless to say, I foresee Pedro II being much more optimistic towards the Empire, with male heirs ready in the wings. Could Brazil have remained a monarchy until today, even?

The dynastic question surely had effects in the end of monarchy, but what really changed everything was the Tripple Alliance War and the can of worms it oppened. While a prince Afonso could be more popular than Isabel, the Empire wouldn't survive if the way that monarchy deals with the political, economical and social pressures created by the war isn't changed.
 
The dynastic question surely had effects in the end of monarchy, but what really changed everything was the Tripple Alliance War and the can of worms it oppened. While a prince Afonso could be more popular than Isabel, the Empire wouldn't survive if the way that monarchy deals with the political, economical and social pressures created by the war isn't changed.

I get the impression Pedro II, with heirs available, will be a lot more pro-active in his actions as Emperor, rather than just growing tired of the monarchy and just letting things go by as they please.
 
I get the impression Pedro II, with heirs available, will be a lot more pro-active in his actions as Emperor, rather than just growing tired of the monarchy and just letting things go by as they please.

Ok, but this would be just a small part of the crisis the monarchy faced. If the Tripple Alliance War still happens then you still have all the problems that came from there: the opposition between the old political elite versus the new military officers; the huge economical crisis caused by the war; the growing pressures for the end of the slavery that put the landowners (the most important supporters of monarchy) against the Empire. Also, it still doesn't butterfly the pressure for federalism against the Imperial centralism and the French influence among the educated elite after the French Republic was proclaimed (especially the spread of Positivism). Afonso would need to be lucky enough to have extreme political talent to face all this problems and keep his throne. There were much deeper internal problems that brought the monarchy to an end than just the dynastical crisis, and unless Afonso is talented enough to deal with it he most likely wouldn't be successful.
 
Ok, but this would be just a small part of the crisis the monarchy faced. If the Tripple Alliance War still happens then you still have all the problems that came from there: the opposition between the old political elite versus the new military officers; the huge economical crisis caused by the war; the growing pressures for the end of the slavery that put the landowners (the most important supporters of monarchy) against the Empire. Also, it still doesn't butterfly the pressure for federalism against the Imperial centralism and the French influence among the educated elite after the French Republic was proclaimed (especially the spread of Positivism). Afonso would need to be lucky enough to have extreme political talent to face all this problems and keep his throne. There were much deeper internal problems that brought the monarchy to an end than just the dynastical crisis, and unless Afonso is talented enough to deal with it he most likely wouldn't be successful.

Personally, I'm a believer in butterflies, so I doubt the War of the Triple Alliance, at least as we know it, won't happen in a world with a PoD twenty years earlier.

And I'll go and presume that, even with butterflies, Pedro II lives to around his OTL death. In that time, he could easily consolidate the monarchy and solve all of these problems you put forward himself, as he definitely had extreme political talent. He just didn't want to use it after growing tired of ruling.
 
Personally, I'm a believer in butterflies, so I doubt the War of the Triple Alliance, at least as we know it, won't happen in a world with a PoD twenty years earlier.

And I'll go and presume that, even with butterflies, Pedro II lives to around his OTL death. In that time, he could easily consolidate the monarchy and solve all of these problems you put forward himself, as he definitely had extreme political talent. He just didn't want to use it after growing tired of ruling.

Well, butterflies of course would exist, but I just can't see how the presence of a male heir to the Brazilian throne would change the political conflicts in the Plata basin and Solano Lopez' foreign agenda. I'm not saying that the monarchy was doomed from the start, but only having a male heir wouldn't change the political conflicts that brought it down. The Emperor was highly respected, but in the end it didn't stop a personal friend of him to be the one who would depose him.
 
But in the end, wasn't the lack of loyalty of the largely unchecked and unsatisfied army that overthrew the monarchy?
If Afonso Pedro and/or Pedro Afonso survive, they'd probably be sent to the front and be soldiers. Gaston d'Orléans did this but he had the unfortunate feature of being foreigner. Should the Prince Imperial score points with the army and keep it under control, economic and social issues arising from the war and the abolition of slavery are less likely to escalate into a successful republican coup. Any rebel should face a loyal army first.
 
Last edited:
But in the end, wasn't the lack of loyalty of the largely unchecked and unsatisfied army that overthrew the monarchy?
If Afonso Pedro and/or Pedro Afonso survive, they'd probably be sent to the front and be soldiers. Gaston d'Orléans did this but he had the unfortunate feature of being foreigner. Should the Prince Imperial score points with the army and keep it under control, economic and social issues arising from the war and the abolition of slavery are less likely to escalate into a successful republican coup. Any rebel should face a loyal army first.

I have doubts if Pedro II would send the heir of his throne to fight in the Paraguayan swamps. Also, as you pointed by the example of Gaston, it wouldn't mean that the Army would respect him for this.
In the late 19th century the Army was passing through a deep internal change, as the old groups of aristocratic officers (who usually got their positions by political appointment) were being replaced by a new generation of leaders who were formed in military schools, influenced by the anti-monarchist ideas of Positivism, and they received their positions through merit. Many of them belonged to lower or middle classes. As the aristocratic officers were becoming old and dying the second group , that had no symphaties for the monarchy, became the predominant force in the Army. So, even if Afonso had gone to the war and survived, he would probably still be seen by many as an "intruder", someone who was appointed to a position due to his birth, and not a fellow officer.
 
I have doubts if Pedro II would send the heir of his throne to fight in the Paraguayan swamps. Also, as you pointed by the example of Gaston, it wouldn't mean that the Army would respect him for this.
In the late 19th century the Army was passing through a deep internal change, as the old groups of aristocratic officers (who usually got their positions by political appointment) were being replaced by a new generation of leaders who were formed in military schools, influenced by the anti-monarchist ideas of Positivism, and they received their positions through merit. Many of them belonged to lower or middle classes. As the aristocratic officers were becoming old and dying the second group , that had no symphaties for the monarchy, became the predominant force in the Army. So, even if Afonso had gone to the war and survived, he would probably still be seen by many as an "intruder", someone who was appointed to a position due to his birth, and not a fellow officer.

Granted.

A poster elsewhere suggested that maybe the monarchy could have survived if the top men of the military were given their fair share of power. I'd figure the easiest way for this to happen was if Afonso fights the war personally, befriends many of the officers and rewards them, effectively - not necessarily knowingly - buying them out against a future revolution.

But if there's a widespread class conflict those in Afonso's inner circle wouldn't suffice to change the overall army opinion and something more deliberate must be made.
 
Granted.

A poster elsewhere suggested that maybe the monarchy could have survived if the top men of the military were given their fair share of power. I'd figure the easiest way for this to happen was if Afonso fights the war personally, befriends many of the officers and rewards them, effectively - not necessarily knowingly - buying them out against a future revolution.

But if there's a widespread class conflict those in Afonso's inner circle wouldn't suffice to change the overall army opinion and something more deliberate must be made.

Well, I personally think that any survival of the monarchy must involve no Tripple Alliance War or an entirely different one. Without this conflict the officers in the Army would never create the idea of their political self-importance, and there would be less tensions with the regime. But a large part of it would still become influenced by Positivism, and the class tensions inside the Army woulld probably arise as well as the need for modern military education and training (and the creation of military academies) would still be there. Argentina was also passing through this proccess, and Brazil wouldn't want to be left behind.
 
Well, butterflies of course would exist, but I just can't see how the presence of a male heir to the Brazilian throne would change the political conflicts in the Plata basin and Solano Lopez' foreign agenda. I'm not saying that the monarchy was doomed from the start, but only having a male heir wouldn't change the political conflicts that brought it down. The Emperor was highly respected, but in the end it didn't stop a personal friend of him to be the one who would depose him.

I was saying that, with a male heir or two, Pedro II's own entire behavior towards pretty much everything to do with Brazil would change, at least as far as I understand. He wouldn't be so passive, and would be extremely involved in the going-ons.

Also, what you said about a meritocratic officers corps: How hard would it be for the monarchy to garner support from the new officers? I understand it would require a massive change in policy for the monarchy, and they'd lose their old base of support, but could they?
 
I was saying that, with a male heir or two, Pedro II's own entire behavior towards pretty much everything to do with Brazil would change, at least as far as I understand. He wouldn't be so passive, and would be extremely involved in the going-ons.

Also, what you said about a meritocratic officers corps: How hard would it be for the monarchy to garner support from the new officers? I understand it would require a massive change in policy for the monarchy, and they'd lose their old base of support, but could they?

The problem is, the Emperor depended on the support of the big landowners who composed most of the political elite and formed the base of the old "aristocratic Army". Shifting their policy to support these new meritocratic officers would weaken their alliance with their historical allies. Look what happened when the monarchy started to push the end of slavery: it deprived them from their most loyal support base (the coffee farmers of Rio de Janeiro and Eastern São Paulo) and less than two years later the Empire was over.
No matter how Liberal were the personal ideas of the Emperors or their relatives. The "institution of monarchy" in Brazil relied on the support of the conservative landwoner classes, as it was seen by them as the only consensus that could be achieved to control the lower classes and at the same time preserve the institutions that kept their social status (mainly slavery). Once the monarchy angered all its former most loyal allies (the Church, the Army and finnaly the rural elite) then there was almost no one left to defend them, and no one really cared when Deodoro sent them away.
 
The problem is, the Emperor depended on the support of the big landowners who composed most of the political elite and formed the base of the old "aristocratic Army". Shifting their policy to support these new meritocratic officers would weaken their alliance with their historical allies. Look what happened when the monarchy started to push the end of slavery: it deprived them from their most loyal support base (the coffee farmers of Rio de Janeiro and Eastern São Paulo) and less than two years later the Empire was over.
No matter how Liberal were the personal ideas of the Emperors or their relatives. The "institution of monarchy" in Brazil relied on the support of the conservative landwoner classes, as it was seen by them as the only consensus that could be achieved to control the lower classes and at the same time preserve the institutions that kept their social status (mainly slavery). Once the monarchy angered all its former most loyal allies (the Church, the Army and finnaly the rural elite) then there was almost no one left to defend them, and no one really cared when Deodoro sent them away.

The monarchy never started to push the end of slavery. One of Pedro II's daughters did, but Pedro II himself never did.
 
The monarchy never started to push the end of slavery. One of Pedro II's daughters did, but Pedro II himself never did.

Have you ever read anything about the life of Pedro II beside what is on Internet? He personally supported and started several measures to begin the end of slavery, many times even knowing that it would damage his prestige among the slaveholders. He personally supported Eusebio de Queiroz when the Conservative government decided to end the slave trade. Again he supported Nabuco de Araújo when he decided several actions against landowners and politicians of Pernambuco involved in illegal arrivals of slaves in 1855. He always refused to give nobility titles to families that were involved in the slave trade. Heck, among all the "Coffee Barons" of Rio de Janeiro there isn't a single one from the Breves family, the greates slaveholders of the province.

When the American Civil War ended in 1864 he asked to his ministers to create laws that would start the end of slavery through a "Law of the Free Womb" - that would give freedom to all slaves that would be born after the signature of the law. Two years later he personally wrote a letter to the "Committee for the Abolition of Slavery" stating that emancipation would be the highest priority of government as soon as the war in Paraguay would be over. Such letter was received by indignation in the Parliament, and he received a public answer in the newspapers by senator José de Alencar - at the time was the most read Brazilian writer - who accused Pedro II of "giving attention to European philanthropists instead of defending the national interests".

After that, for three years he tried to include the issue of the end of slavery in the annual "Speech from the Throne", but the government didn't let him do it. After the war was over he pressure Parliament to approve the law, and he needed to change three times the president of Parliament before he could find one who would accept to bring the law to a vote (it would five, but two of the names appointed by him simply refused to get the mission).

Meanwhile the slaveholders of Minas Gerais, São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro forgot all their political divisions and founded the Club of Farming and Commerce to defend their interests in the Court. Who was their representantive to the press? Cristiano Ottoni, the brother of Teofilo Ottoni, the most die-hard Republican politician in the Empire. It alone shows how they were more commited with the defense of slavery than the defense of monarchy.

Before the final vote Pedro was being extremely criticized in the press for making such "horrible law" because he wanted to have a good impression in Europe instead of being concerned with national problems, was called a despot and of being too involved in politics. It was finnally approved in 1871 by 61 to 35 after intense political pression and briberies, and the damage to his public image was so intense that he didn't pressure for new legislation regarding slavery until 1884.

So, saying that he was never started to push for the end of slavery is simply wrong. He was the one who started the political process to have it approved 24 years before 1888. And in retribution for this he gained several damages in his reputation and in the image of monarchy among those who until then were his most loyal allies.
 
Top