Well, for those who don't know, Dom Pedro II had no affection for the monarchy, he declared several times that republicanism was the best form of government, and that he had just not declared a republic and abdicated Why he didn't see Brazil ready for the republic (and seeing how the first republic was, he was right) He even wrote in his diary "I would abdicate like my father if I didn't still think I was capable of working for the natural evolution of the republic" He also didn't like being emperor, And he said that if he weren't emperor, he would want to be a teacher, At the end of the empire he abandoned the imperial robes, It is not surprising that he did not react to the military coup that ended the empire.
The idea is that Pedro II, instead of being an Enlightenment man, was a conservative more or less like his uncle Miguel, My opinion is that the empire would have continued into the 21st century With a strong emperor, Sorry to my Brazilian monarchist friends, mainly liberals, but Dom Pedro II is the main culprit for the fall of the empire, He himself self-sabotaged, his republican ideals, detachment from the monarchy, the religious issue (He took sides with the Freemasons and Arrest the bishop dom vital , something that even the Freemason Duque de Caxias disapproved in addition to his daughter Isabel, There is also the issue of the freedom of the church within the empire, with the empire being highly draconian with Catholic orders With many orders having to sell convents to support themselves , all of this leading to the terrible state of the lower Brazilian clergy and leading to Parts of the clergy support the coup against the monarchy, Due to constant attacks by the monarchy on the church), The end of his reign, constantly traveling outside Brazil, abandoning the imperial robes (Something symbolically bad) And etc.
Gilberto Freyre (Sociologist and anthropologist) about him " Dom Pedro II was the first to disdain the crown; and to present himself in a frock coat and black top hat in the eyes of his people, who were eager for a government that was not only paternal but also majestic. And at the head of the Brazilian monarchy, a Manueline church calling for solemn masses rather than moralistic sermons, he gives us this melancholy idea: that of a Protestant pastor officiating in a Catholic cathedral. He doesn't actually officiate: the liturgy seems contemptible to him. He just sermonizes, moralizes, preaches - all mediocrely.
In the midst of the books, Pedro II had lost sight of Brazil: a Brazil that wanted him not in a top hat but in a crown; and martial, paternal, liturgical, in reliefs of action. A Brazil that wanted him more to see him with a sceptre, reigning and on horseback, like a real Saint George, than to listen to the speeches and phrases of a moral censor, a mediocre Marcus Aurelius, a third-rate literary man."
With a different Dom Pedro II, how do you think Brazil would change?
The idea is that Pedro II, instead of being an Enlightenment man, was a conservative more or less like his uncle Miguel, My opinion is that the empire would have continued into the 21st century With a strong emperor, Sorry to my Brazilian monarchist friends, mainly liberals, but Dom Pedro II is the main culprit for the fall of the empire, He himself self-sabotaged, his republican ideals, detachment from the monarchy, the religious issue (He took sides with the Freemasons and Arrest the bishop dom vital , something that even the Freemason Duque de Caxias disapproved in addition to his daughter Isabel, There is also the issue of the freedom of the church within the empire, with the empire being highly draconian with Catholic orders With many orders having to sell convents to support themselves , all of this leading to the terrible state of the lower Brazilian clergy and leading to Parts of the clergy support the coup against the monarchy, Due to constant attacks by the monarchy on the church), The end of his reign, constantly traveling outside Brazil, abandoning the imperial robes (Something symbolically bad) And etc.
Gilberto Freyre (Sociologist and anthropologist) about him " Dom Pedro II was the first to disdain the crown; and to present himself in a frock coat and black top hat in the eyes of his people, who were eager for a government that was not only paternal but also majestic. And at the head of the Brazilian monarchy, a Manueline church calling for solemn masses rather than moralistic sermons, he gives us this melancholy idea: that of a Protestant pastor officiating in a Catholic cathedral. He doesn't actually officiate: the liturgy seems contemptible to him. He just sermonizes, moralizes, preaches - all mediocrely.
In the midst of the books, Pedro II had lost sight of Brazil: a Brazil that wanted him not in a top hat but in a crown; and martial, paternal, liturgical, in reliefs of action. A Brazil that wanted him more to see him with a sceptre, reigning and on horseback, like a real Saint George, than to listen to the speeches and phrases of a moral censor, a mediocre Marcus Aurelius, a third-rate literary man."
With a different Dom Pedro II, how do you think Brazil would change?
Last edited:
