Talk:Isabel, Princess Imperial of Brazil
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
Isabel, Princess Imperial of Brazil is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Brazil and Brazil-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale. | ||
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. | ||
|
To-do list for Brazil:
|
|||
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)
- To make the ongoing discussion understandable to others, the proposal by Redux for the person's heading is Princess Isabel of Orleans-Braganza. 217.140.193.123 4 July 2005 09:24 (UTC)
-- The only thing I am uncertain of is whether Brazilians use "Isabel" or "Isabella", though I presume it is Isabel.
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)
- There are strong indications that you are out of line and need to get a grip. You seem to be the one trying to make sure that the articles get named as you see fit. As I recall it, I discussed things first when I thought it could be controversial. What you're doing isn't helpful, and accomplishes nothing. You do know that articles can be moved to different titles... In your haste, you've created an unnecessary controversy about the article's title. If you had just asked me, I could have told you all the stuff I'm about to say about Isabel's name.
According to Wikipedia standards, the article should be named as the most common use in English; if none exists, the transliteration of the common use in the native tongue. The common reference to Isabel in Brazil, and she is very popular, is "Princess Isabel", simple and plain. That would raise disambiguation issues, so I used her family name. You are very wrong about her family name: she may not have been Orleans-Braganza from birth, but the royal house was founded as of her marriage to Gaston of Orleans, and she did use the name. For instance, this is a government page from Brazil, from the historians with the Bahia state library. The page is in Portuguese, but right in the first paragraph, in bold, you see a reference to "Isabel de Orleans e Bragança", in a reference to the 1908 abdication of her son, Prince Pedro of Alcantara, having been signed in her presence (hence, long after her marriage to Gaston and the foundation of the House of Orleans-Braganza, of which she was the founder, along with her husband). As far as the official historiography is concerned, she is hardly ever referred to as "Isabel of Brazil" (not on any documents or papers I can recall), although she was "Princess of Brazil". All this goes right back to what I had said about the general quality of the online information in English about the Brazilian Imperial Family, or at least the source(s) you've been consulting. Redux 4 July 2005 03:39 (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)
Contents |
[edit] "known in English"
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"
[edit] Orleans-Braganza
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)
- Notice: when the monarchy was in place, her father was still alive, and thus it was he, not Isabel, who was head of the Imperial House, and he was not himself Orleans-Braganza (obviously), but Isabel already bore the name Orleans-Braganza, even if it wasn't the name of the of Imperial House, which was still Bragança (in an exercise of speculation: if the Emperor had somehow managed to father a legitimate son before his death, it would have been that boy to inherit the rights to the crown, and the Orleans-Braganza would have become just another branch of the family, eventually distant from succession). When Pedro II died, in 1891 and in exile, Isabel became head of the House, but even before that she was a pretender — her father himself had been reduced to "only" de jure Emperor. The article, however, is not about Pedro II or even specifically about the Orleans-Braganza. It's about Princess Isabel, she became Orleans-Braganza as of her marriage, and had not been de facto Crown Princess since 1889 (when the Emperor was still alive). The article, at least in its title, should reflect her latest status, although within it everything needs to be explained (also obviously). There are articles about people who had acquired titles later in life, through marriage, and the articles' titles usually reflects this (notice that Isabel never reigned as Empress, she was never a monarch as thus we do not need to revert to her last status before loosing her title). The best example would be Isabel's descendant and namesake, Isabelle, comtesse de Paris. She acquired that through marriage. By the logic you appear to be advocating, the article should change its title to "Isabel of Orleans-Braganza". It's all about context. Because of all of that, Princess Isabel is something of a gray area, but "Isabel of Brazil" is completely strange to any treatment ever dispensed to her ordinarily, and the policy does say that if a person is best known by a cognomen, we should use the more common name (in English, but I don't believe that she was commonly known in English in any way, although some may have had referred to her as Isabel, Princess of Brazil, or maybe even Princess Isabel of Brazil, but I don't think "Isabel of Brazil" is realistic by any measure). Really, it's all a question of common sense. Redux 4 July 2005 06:38 (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)
[edit] Redux is behaving...
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)
[edit] Calm down everyone
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.
FearÉIREANN
Image:Animated-union-jack-01.gif SOLIDARITY WITH THE PEOPLE OF LONDON\(caint) 7 July 2005 22:57 (UTC)
[edit] Problem - date of exile revocation
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)
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)
Link Macgreco 22:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
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)
