![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on May 13, 2006, May 13, 2007, May 13, 2008, May 13, 2009, July 29, 2018, July 29, 2021, and July 29, 2022. |
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Princess Isabel was never a Brazilian Monarch, except when acting as a regent, so it is incorrect to place her in the category of Brazilian monarchs, which should include only two names: Pedro I and Pedro II. She can, however, be placed in the category of Pretenders to the Brazilian throne. Lets not politicize this encyclopedia. Monarchs are those who officially ruled (and not temporary substitute-rulers); pretenders to the throne can and should not be included in that list, if history is not to be falsified. Abueno97 (talk)
Why was this article created under this title? I had created the link (albeit still red) following the same rationale discussed for the title of the Prince Luiz article. What is the point of this? Redux 3 July 2005 18:22 (UTC)
-- The only thing I am uncertain of is whether Brazilians use "Isabel" or "Isabella", though I presume it is Isabel.
It is Isabel. "Isabella" is an Italian name. In Portuguese, it's used Isabel, just like in Spanish.
There are indications that you go around whining. Is that true? --
Please understand that you do not control the articles and their names. Besides, your idea for her heading is totally wrong, for many reasons. Perhaps the most important of those is that she was a crown princess and regent, thus she goes under the name of her then realm. Another thing is that she certainly will not be here under her husband's name, nor under such name that was created for her children. SHE never was Orleans-Braganza. 217.140.193.123 3 July 2005 19:48 (UTC)
You are clearly behaving badly. However, your behavior (nor your obsessions) is not the most important thing here, but to make the articles encyclopedic. Your proprietary (possessive) attitude is harmful in that sense.
There are several instructions in Wikipedia policy that point how her article heading should be arranged: "the most common form of the name used in English" is recommendable, but secondary to certain standards. It is important to realize that this is NOT "the most common form of the name in native culture".
Monarchical titles, regarding deposed royals, there is the instruction "should be referred to by their previous monarchical title". Isabella was regent - she had sort of monarchical position. Orleans-Braganza apparently was a title in exile. "all former or deposed monarchs should revert to their previous monarchical title upon death" - and she is dead.
She was "crown princess" (equivalent), and there is the instruction "When dealing with a Crown Prince/ss of a state, use the form "{name}, Crown Prince/ss of {state}" unless there is a clear formal title awarded to a prince which defines their status as crown prince (eg, 'Charles, Prince of Wales', 'Felipe, Prince of Asturias', etc)" - that sort of "substantial" title is to be used. "Princess Imperial of Brazil" can be regarded as substantial title. A guideline that speaks against "Orleans-Braganza" regarding her, is also "Do not use 'surnames' in article names. Most royal families do not have surnames. Many that do have different personal surnames to the name of their Royal House." And finally, she was of course CONSORT of Gaston, and we have the instruction that Past Consorts are referred to by their pre-marital name...not by their consort name.
Of course it is slightly complicated to determine the "correct" heading for a crown princess who was deposed and never ascended fully the throne (but was a pretender). However, there are clear instructions that mean she will not be "Orleans-Braganza" here. 217.140.193.123 4 July 2005 05:40 (UTC)
book - "Princess Isabel of Brazil: Gender and Power in the Nineteenth Century" by Roderick J. Barman. Biography of Pedro II's daughter, who served as regent three times and emancipated Brazil's slaves.
in some genealogy: "H.I.H. Princess Senhora Dona Isabel Cristina Leopoldina Augusta Michaela Gabriela Raphaela Gonzaga, Princess Imperial of Brazil"
in some chronology: "Princess Isabel of Brazil signs "Lei Aurea" abolishing slavery"
According to records I have read, the name Orleans-Braganza came into use only when the family was in exile. When the empire was in existence, her sons apparently were princes of Brazil. The origin of course is the Portuguese cultural thing to use father's and mother's names together, with "e".
It would have been an extraordinary thing, and thus not credible, that a crown princess would use a surname, and moreover her husband's surname, during the reign.
In texts visible e.g in the internet, Isabel is mentioned as "de Braganca e de Bourbon" - which is a different thing than Orleans-Braganza, and comes from different setting. 217.140.193.123 4 July 2005 05:05 (UTC)
You seem not to know sufficiently about ex-monarchical naming, which is a different rule than pretender naming. Isabelle of Paris was a wife of a pretender, never a crown princess of an existing monarchy. False analogy from you, thus. (And, it could be argued that Isabelle of Paris should have better heading, but I will leave it at the moment, as it will not help in Isabel of Brazil's naming.)
Please show an official act that Isabella became Orleans-Braganza during the reign already, and is there actually any act she became that afterwards?
We do not regard former crown princes as pretenders before they "succeed" - thus, Isabella was not a pretender in 1889-91. She was "former" crown princess and that title can be used here, both had she remained such and also in case she succeeded in pretension. (Compare Alexander, Crown Prince of Yugoslavia)
You are wrong when requiring that the article should reflect her last status. Quite often, articles reflect the most senior status, not the last. And, in many cases royal women revert to pre-marital name after death (which is not the main rule in this case, but helps to understand the direction.)
re your hypothetical (though we do not deal in hypotheticals, there are places for royal romantics for people interested in that), had her father got a son to succeed, Isabella's issue would then not have been dynasts of Imperial Brazil at all - usually, woman's descendants become dynasts only if her line succeeds as head, otherwise they are out. Children of Anne, Princess Royal, are strictly speaking not members of the british royal house (did you know even that?).
Do you even know what means cognomen here?? It would be Isabella the Redeemer, which for other reasons is not applicable.
as a political figure (regent etc), and heiress of a monarchy, she certainly was known in English - newspapers etc have certainly written about her. Do you really have delusions that only Brazilians knew her?
It seems to me that in promoting your own idea of heading, you are using self-conflicting reasons, and that you do not bother to read reasonings further above, nor do you read naming policies. 217.140.193.123 4 July 2005 07:05 (UTC)
I think that Redux is suffering from "myopia" of the local culture. She was the most important princess of that country, apparently, and therefore there she tends to be "Princesa Isabel", without territorial design or some other addendum. To world-wide audience, as well as in foreign setting - such as in anglophone world (Eng.wiki) there is factual need of an addendum, and now Redux has seemingly been desperately trying to concoct one, her husband's/ children's name. However, apparently the thing she is most familiar in other countries, is the biographical book (I came across its referrals many many times with google test) written in English which is titled "Princess Isabel of Brazil". 217.140.193.123 4 July 2005 09:00 (UTC)
Please remove your wip tag after max 3 hours
WIP tag must not abused. It is not a tool to keep others from contributing, or correcting. You have good possibilities to contribute more - in equal footing with others. The guidelines instruct: "The tag is used to alert people that you are in the process of making a larger edit (within 30 - 180 minutes). The article remains open to editing, but courteous users should leave it alone until you're done. If you do use such a "lock" please be responsive to any inquiries about the lock.". You have indicated that you want keep the tag in place for as long as days: "This is not about wanting to control the article. This is about understanding and patience. Really, the tag has been there for less than a day." 217.140.193.123 4 July 2005 18:12 (UTC)
Do not post my comments from other pages as if I had posted them here. In fact, that comment was not even in regard to this page. Out of context, at the very least. You are out of line yet again. Do you not know when to stop? I've already said that I don't care if you go ahead with your edits (in that other article), so just move on already. Redux 5 July 2005 02:00 (UTC)
Everyone needs to calm down. The article should pretty clearly be at Isabel, Princess Imperial of Brazil. john k 7 July 2005 15:25 (UTC)
I agree with John.
FearÉIREANNFile:Irish flag.gifFile:Animated-union-jack-01.gif SOLIDARITY WITH THE PEOPLE OF LONDON\(caint) 7 July 2005 22:57 (UTC)
From the Portuguese version of this article:
"Em 1920 teve a felicidade de saber que a lei que bania a Família Imperial do Brasil havia sido revogada pelo Presidente Epitácio Pessoa."
Rough translation:
"In 1920, she became happy to know that the banishment of the Imperial Family of Brazil had been revoked by President Epitácio Pessoa."
All the Portuguese articles around the subject are consistent on this... I do not have a citation to back this up but I would tend to believe those versions. Was the exile removed in 1920, or 1922 as it says here? (I got here because an article I am translating, Mariano Procópio Museum, says she came back to Brazil in 1921.) Grandmasterka 05:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was in September 3 1920, Decree n. 4,120. I will paste the full, untranslated text:
Decreto n. 4120, de 3 de setembro de 1920
Revoga os artigos 1º e 2º do Decreto n. 78-A e autoriza a transladar para o Brasil os despojos mortais do ex-Imperador Dom Pedro II e de sua esposa Dona Teresa Cristina, abrindo para tal fim os necessários créditos. O presidente da República dos Estados Unidos do Brasil. Faço saber que o Congresso Nacional decretou e eu sanciono a seguinte resolução:
Art. 1º - Ficam revogados os arts. 1º e 2º do Decreto n. 78-A, de 21 de dezembro de 1889.
Art. 2º - Fica o Poder Executivo autorizado a, mediante prévio consentimento da família do ex-Imperador Dom Pedro II e do Governo de Portugal, transladar para o Brasil os despojos mortais do mesmo e os de sua esposa Dona Teresa Cristina, fazendo-os recolher em mausoléu condigno e para tal fim especialmente construído.
Art. 3º - Fica o Governo autorizado a abrir, para tal fim, os necessários créditos.
Art. 4º - Revogam-se as disposições em contrário.
Rio de Janeiro, 3 de setembro de 1920, 99º da Independência e 32º da República.
(a) Epitácio Pessoa
Macgreco 22:12, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Link Macgreco 22:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the political history of Brazil she was the first female ruler in the post-colonial period. In 1888 she signed the Law establishing the total abolition of slavery in the Empire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.209.4.36 (talk) 21:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I once read a novel where I heard that Isabel, in connection to her anti-slavery oppinions, made a scandal by dancing with a coloured man - a mulatto - on a ball. It was a way of demonstrating the idea of equality between the races. Of course, this was from a novel, but I wonder if it was taken from a true event? Does anyone know? --85.226.47.79 (talk) 17:12, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is true — Preceding unsigned comment added by Es157 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This black guy André Rebouças had grown so faithful to the imperial family at that point that he willingly boarded the ship which sent them to exile in Europe, and never came back to Brazil. He hoped the empire would be restored one day and Isabel would be empress, but never happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Es157 (talk • contribs) 21:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why there is this category at Isabel's article? Is there any reference stating that she was considered a Portuguese princess??? Tonyjeff (talk) 23:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
When Princess Isabel was born the Portuguese Royal Family and the Brazilian Imperial Family were completely different and had now members in common, therefore she was not an Infanta of Portugal Royal Braganza (talk) 19:59, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to begin improving this article. Suggestions, criticism, ideas, comments are welcomed. --Lecen (talk) 14:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did she ever used the female form of her husband's title Comtesse d'Eu or Countess of Eu?--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 07:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
While I appreciate the excellent improvement of the first half of the article, I am not sure that it is appropriate to leave the reader completely clueless about the rest of her life. The article used to contain those information and they should be restored. Surtsicna (talk) 21:19, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Almost two months have now passed. Let's restore the old material, or even the entire article, if necessary. The current situation is unacceptable. Thanks. Wwheaton (talk) 02:25, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I only wish that the part "Later years" will be a little expanded and that the question of the succession will be a little clarified! However it is a very interesting article yet. As always... 31.39.53.205 (talk) 12:27, 25 February 2013 (UTC) fr:user:Konstantinos[reply]
The titles and styles in the table are unsourced. DrKay (talk) 21:53, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is that okay if I finish the article? --Lecen (talk) 13:14, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I want to add the letter she wrote in the final days of the empire to add more drama to the storyline. Also I feel the need to enfasize her kindness of heart which was so notorious. But this letter doesnt exist in English so I have translated, but then people wont accept the sources.
August 11, 1889 - Paço Isabel
Corte midi
Dear Sir Viscount of Santa Vitória,
I was told by papa who put me aware of the intention and the sending of the funds of your Bank in the form of a donation as indemnisation to the ex-slaves freed on May 13 of last year, and the secrecy that you Sir asked from the president of the cabinet not to provoke more violent reaction of the slaveholders. God protect us if the slavocrats and the military know about our business, for it would be the end of the current government and even of the Empire and the House of Braganza in Brazil. Our friend Nabuco, in addition to Sirs Rebouças, Patrocínio and Dantas, will be able to give assistance after November 20, when the Chambers gather for the inauguration of the new Legislature. With the support of the new deputies and papa's faithful friends of the Senate, it will be possible to make the changes that I dream for Brazil!
With the funds donated by you Sir, we will have the opportunity to put these ex-slaves, now free, on their own land, working in agriculture and livestock and from them taking their own revenues. I was more touched to hear from papa that this donation meant more than 2/3 of the sale of your assets, which shows the love devoted to you Sir towards Brazil. May God protect you and all your family forever!
It was moving the fall of Bank Mauá in 1878 and the honest and unprofitable, although unhappy way that you Sir and your esteemed partner, the great Viscount of Mauá, accepted the fall, according to papa forged by the English in a dishonest and corrupt way. The fall of Lord Mauá meant a great defeat for our Brazil!
But let's not stay in the past, because the future will be promising, if the Republicans and slaveholders allow us to dream a little bit more. For the changes that I have in mind, as you already know, are beyond the liberation of the captives. I now want to dedicate myself to freeing women from the fetters of domestic captivity, and this will be possible through Female Suffrage. If woman can reign it can also vote! I thank you for your help with all my heart and may God bless you!
I send my greetings to Madame Viscountess of Santa Victória and the whole family.
Very heartedly,
Isabel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Es157 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Isabel, Princess Imperial of Brazil. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:35, 17 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Elizabeth I of Brazil and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 22#Elizabeth I of Brazil until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. DrKay (talk) 07:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]