![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
See discussion on Talk:Pedro II of Brazil.
History of Portugal (1777-1834) is now being peer reviewed. Please, if you want, go there and state your opinion. Thank you. Gameiro 19:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The article calls the Cerco do Porto "Porto's Wall", but I beleive "cerco" is meant as "siege". Is this a traditional english translation?... Wouldn't surprise me they like a strange transation, since in "Thelondon" they already like to call Porto "Oporto"... :) -- NIC1138 22:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
How can an Absolutist Monarchy be held by a Constitution? If it has a Constituition it's not Absolutist.
And more, how can a Prince called "The Liberal" be an absolutist emperor? Please this must be changed, here in Brazil discussions made about Pedro's I monarchy are all saying he made a Constitutional Monarchy, calling him an Absolutist is outrageous. And please don't take your texts based on portuguese Wikipedia, it sucks, it's empty of references and it's usually based on hour Basical History Learning that is being contested since the end of the XX century, and most of books are beeing rewritten to show some truth.
Independent Brazil has never had an Absolutist Monarchy, and the reign of Dom Pedro I is really similar to Presidentialist system, where the Chief of State is the Chief of Government.
I'm not signed on wikipedia, so if someone here wants to contact me i'll give my page on Orkut: http://www.orkut.com/Profile.aspx?uid=3184544641264841604
189.32.158.41 ( talk) 02:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
The reign of D. Pedro I was a constitucional Monarchy , because had a constitution.But in fact was a absolut monarchy. In the time of the Empire we had four powers.The tradicional 3 and one that hear was called "Poder Moderador" with this power D. Pedro I reigned without limits.Of course wasn't democratic in fact was a way that Pedro I found to reign without limits but was constitutional.It's complicated.
Augusto Fontes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.53.160.122 ( talk) 23:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Could the listing of names at the beginning of the article be changed? Looks completely ridiculous in the current form, and part of it is redundant with what is mentioned in the beginning of the biography. -- Imladros ( talk) 15:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
This article (and the one on the War of the Brothers) contends that Pedro "returned to Brazil" after abdicating in Portugal in 1826. This implies that he went to Portugal in the first place, which seems odd. He was king of Portugal for two months. I'm not sure exactly how long a voyage from Lisbon to Rio de Janeiro took in 1826, but I'd guess it would have to be at least a few weeks. So, did Pedro actually travel to Portugal in this time period? john k ( talk) 13:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I see no harm to readers in having Peter IV of Portugal in the infobox heading & Peter IV in the content, relating to the Kingdom of Portugal. GoodDay ( talk) 23:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Since you haven't joined discussion? I'll assume you reverted me per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. - GoodDay ( talk) 23:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Because the cry (or shout) was made from the banks of the Ipiranga River, the phrase "O Grito da Ipiranga actually has the meaning of "The Cry from the Ipiranga." As an example, if someone shouted something on the banks of the Swanee River in the US, we would say, "The Cry from the Swanee" -- not "The Cry of Swanee," which is nonsense. Moreover, in terms of a bold shout of Independence, "shout" seems much more suitable than "cry." Even if the mistaken translation has been used a few times in the past, it is not too late to correct this erroneous description. 189.38.128.8 ( talk) 11:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
I know I've been improving this article for some time now, but it's taking longer than I imagined. Unfortunately, I just don't feel the same passion as before when I write this articles. There are two paragraphs missing on section "Constitutional Emperor": one that talks about the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly and the other that talks about the ennactment of the Imperial Constitution. I'll try to finish them soon. -- Lecen ( talk) 23:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I was under the impression that the title "Duke of Braganza" for the heir to the Portuguese throne was akin to "Duke of Cornwall" for the heir to the British throne. In other words, the heir does not bear a numeral until they succeed to the throne. For example, is John VI really called John IV until he succeeds? Is Luís Filipe, Prince Royal of Portugal, really called "Luís I"? DrKiernan ( talk) 16:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
This section contains all removed sourced content from the article that might be useful to be used elsewhere. -- Lecen ( talk) 01:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
The treaty required the Brazilian government to pay an indemnity of ₤2,000,000 (the equivalent of U.S. $10,000,000 at that time) [1] to Portugal.
[...to Portugal,] which was to "regain her previous status as a most-favored nation." [2]
It "was as though all the blood shed and all the sacrifices made since 1822 had been to no purpose, their value denied", said Barman. [3]
Even worse, Great Britain was rewarded for its role in advancing the negotiations by the signing of another treaty in which its favorable commercial rights were renewed (including a maximum tariff of 15% on British goods)... [3] [4]
In his May 1826 Speech from the Throne to the General Assembly (the Brazilian parliament), Pedro I said: "Ungrateful men who owe much to Brazil have risen against her and are now supported by the government of Buenos Aires [capital of the United Provinces], currently at war with us. The national honor requires that the Cisplatina province be retained, since we have sworn to maintain the integrity of the Empire." [5]
In an article he wrote for a newspaper, the Emperor said that slavery "is the cancer that is gnawing away at Brasil, and must be erradicated." And also stated that "I don't believe that men have any right at all to enslave another". [6]
He was attacked by the Liberals for his misdeeds, real or not, but incongruities were found in the Liberal Party, clearly exemplified in its main figures. Nicolau de Campos Vergueiro was born in Portugal; [7] Bernardo Pereira de Vasconcelos [8] as well as Evaristo da Veiga [9] were both hardcore advocates of slavery who openly attacked the Emperor's measures against it; Antônio Borges da Fonseca conspired not only to rip apart the Constitution, but also to topple the monarchy. [10]
Pedro I was contradictory in character as he was in many aspects of his life. He was good humored and easily laughed, [11] but he could just as fast get anger. Maria Graham (later Lady Callcott), who worked in the palace in early 1820s, said that the Emperor was "subject to sudden explosions of violent passion," she wrote, "followed by a generous and frank civility, a readiness to do more than necessary to undo the ill that might have been done, or the pain that might have been caused in the moments of rage." [12] [13] A British diplomat made a similar comment: "The improvident measures adopted by the Government are the result of the fits of passion to which he gives way, but no man regret more than himself the [resulting] quarrels ... when the fit is over." [14]
"Against me they argue that I was born in Portugal. I thought that twenty three years of existence in this land, of which ten were dedicated to the public cause, had given me the right to be Brazilian", would later say Pedro I. [15]
A little later he told the Council of State about his desire to relinquish the crown and depart. [16]
Pedro disembarked in the Portuguese capital on 28 July [17] [18] and went to his father's tomb, where he wrote: "A son murdered you: the other will avenge you". [19]
On 15 August the reopened Portuguese parliament confirmed the Duke of Braganza as regent during his daughter's minority, a position he already held in practice. [20] [21]
...while he was given the honors of a general, not of a king, in his funeral. [22] [23]
Neill Macaulay's Dom Pedro: The Struggle for Liberty in Brazil and Portugal, 1798–1834 only tells that Dom Pedro's remains were brought to Brazil in 1972. The information about being brought as a Head of State and with much fanfare came from several different sources. Perhaps not known for most foreigners, the Brazilian Military Dictatorship brought his remains to celebrate the 150th anniversary of Brazil's independence. His body was paraded through all capital of every single Brazilian state. I thought that there was no reason to add further sources because this well known and can be easily found anywhere. -- Lecen ( talk) 23:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Neill Macaulay's Dom Pedro: The Struggle for Liberty in Brazil and Portugal, 1798–1834 only tells that Dom Pedro's remains were brought to Brazil in 1972. The information about being brought as a Head of State and with much fanfare came from several different sources. Perhaps not known for most foreigners, the Brazilian Military Dictatorship brought his remains to celebrate the 150th anniversary of Brazil's independence. His body was paraded through all capital of every single Brazilian state. I thought that there was no reason to add further sources because this well known and can be easily found anywhere. -- Lecen ( talk) 00:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Please clarify "succeeding in reducing the impact of the most outrageous conditions". Does this mean "succeeding in reducing the impact of their more unacceptable demands"? DrKiernan ( talk) 16:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Costa says Pedro landed at Arnoso de Pampelido beach and then moved through Pedras Rubras entering Porto from the north in the early morning of 9 July. It would seem to indicate that the landing was not on the 9th itself, but a little before, and the landing was not in the city itself, but a few kilometres north. See also the wikipedia articles Mindelo (Vila do Conde) and Siege of Porto, which (though I appreciate they are not reliable) also seem to support this. This is the reason I separated the two events (landing and entering Porto) and gave a date only for entering the city. DrKiernan ( talk) 10:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I changed the lead/infobox image from File:Dom Pedro Duke of Braganza.png to File:29- Imperador Rei D. Pedro IV - O Soldado.jpg. Because it seems unlikely that the subject has green/blue hair, and the replacement image seems far more likely to be a good representation of the subject. This was reverted without explanation. Perhaps this could be discussed. ( Hohum @) 00:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
The images mentioned are different works derived from the same archetype, so the color choices may be partly due to artistic license. The existing image does have a slight blue cast, but it is not off-putting at the size used in the infobox (the hair comes closest to the "dark brown" ascribed to Pedro I and the image is a known work by John Simpson). The first alternative has a noticeable and overly yellow cast (the hair seems lighter than what the article describes and the image is of unknown provenance—the attribution to John Simpson likely will not hold water). The colors in the second alternative are much too oversaturated (the hair should not look so nearly black and the image and the image is an anonymous copy of the existing, original image by John Simpson). If there is a better image, I request that you discuss here before changing. The infobox image needs to reflect the text and references in the article. • Astynax talk 06:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Terrific article! I noticed in the FAC review that other people objected to "widowhood" - it is technically correct in applying to both genders but not used very often and so is awkward in this context, as most people assume it refers to a woman. You have to read the section to find out that Pedro's wife died. Similarly, what I was trying to clarify in the earlier section by using "noblewoman of the court" for his mistress was that his affair was with a woman, as "courtier" is frequently thought of as a man, although it is increasingly applied to both genders. That was my first thought when encountering it in the Lead, and it wasn't until reading the article that I found out the scandal was with a woman, one of his many mistresses. I think "noblewoman" would be more clear in this context, or lady in waiting. Parkwells ( talk) 12:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Congratulations on the FA status. Anyways, is one allowed to make a 'minor' edit on an FA, or not? GoodDay ( talk) 04:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
We should have Peter I & Peter IV in the infobox heading, along with the Pedros. The Portuguese/English names idea is being done at
John VI of Portugal. --
GoodDay (
talk)
21:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Is there any reason not to have a link to http://www.cpdl.org/wiki/index.php/Peter_IV_of_Portugal ? I see it lasted 4 minutes when I added it last month. Cpupton ( talk) 13:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Last year's exhumation of Pedro and his two wives should be mentioned.-- The Emperor's New Spy ( talk) 08:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Anybody else want to add the information about his exhumation?-- The Emperor's New Spy ( talk) 07:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
The image width in the infobox was set to 200px in November 2011, but this was before the main image was updated recently. I have removed the constraint in favor of the default, but I don't mind if the old image width is retained. DrKiernan ( talk) 18:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
If we're going to use historic artworks to show him, we need to use as accurate as possible copies of those artworks, as they, in themselves, become part of the story of the person. File:Unidentfied artist - Portrait of Dom Pedro, Duke of Bragança - Google Art Project.jpg is by the Google Art Project, who are noted for taking great care in getting colour balances accurate. File:Anônimo - D. Pedro, Duque de Bragança.JPG is from a site I've never heard of, so it doesn't have that reputation.
Now, the thing is, this painting is not a completely naturalistic interpretation, and no adjustment will make it so. 1835... hmm. That'll be the early romantic era... so, yeah, bright, vivid oversaturated colours were one of the artistic choices being played with at the time. So I'd say there's no reason to doubt the Google Art Project's colours.
We are, in the end, an encyclopedia. Do I like the artwork? Eh... it's alright. Rather over-vivid for my tastes. But tastes don't matter: we can't mislead he viewer by changing it to suit our tastes, without reason to think it's wrong. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 01:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
This is a higher resolution file, that I added. The current is 1,714 × 2,135 pixels - the new is 3,213 × 4,001 pixels, exactly the same file, but is from the Google art project and much more detailed, and of superior quality. Hafspajen ( talk) 00:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
The Google Art Project image is from a place with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. The old one is something grabbed from some random site. You can't do that in a featured article. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 19:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I was astonished to see the level of bullying, harassment and abuse of administrative tools. The picture used in the infobox was erased by one of the parties. We are going to report the two editors behind that. For the mean time the article won't have a main picture. -- Lecen ( talk) 14:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
The erased file was restored on Commons. Although no longer in use, nonetheless a fine accomplishment. -- Lecen ( talk) 17:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Until yesterday there was a picture of Princess Paula within "Issue" chart. Now it has been replaced with another. I believe that none should remain, for the following reasons: the first picture was a cropped version of File:Maria Leopoldine of Austria Family.jpg. The author died less than a 100 years ago, which means that it's still not in public domain in the US; the second picture is even worse, since it has no source, nothing that tells who was the artist, whether Paula is the person depicted in it. I made a search through Google and I found a version of that picture in the website "Geneall". Other than that, however, I couldn't find any reliable source that could identify the picture as representing her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lecen ( talk • contribs) 13:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Despite her lower rank by birth, [24] [25] he was stunned by her beauty after meeting her in person. [26] [27]
In June 1828, Irish and German mercenaries mutinied in Rio de Janeiro. [28] [29] Discontented with the harsh conditions of military life in Brazil, the foreigners readily accepted bribes from the United Provinces to not only rebel, but to also capture the Emperor so that he could be held hostage as a bargaining chip. [30] [31] The mercenary mutiny was put down with much bloodshed.
In the months following 7 September, João VI was still recognized as the rightful ruler of the independent Kingdom of Brazil. [32] Brazil's independence movement was not directed against the King, who was regarded as merely a figurehead dominated by the Cortes. [33] The prince regent was only later persuaded to accept the Brazilian crown as emperor, not king. Pedro, however, made it clear that, if his father returned to Brazil, he would relinquish the throne. [34]
It was promulgated and solemnly sworn on 25 March 1824. [35]
The situation came to a head when Pedro I, on the grounds of inappropriate conduct, dismissed Bonifácio and his brother Martim Francisco de Andrada from their ministry portfolios.
Although the Emperor had once regarded him as a mentor, Pedro I began to chafe in the subservient position of neophyte to Bonifácio's role as schoolmaster.
Property owners were protected from having their lands confiscated, and no citizen could thenceforth be arrested without a written warrant, unless caught in the process of committing a crime. Suspects could no longer be held for more than 48 hours without being charged and were entitled to representation. Torture, secret trials, and inhumane restraints were also abolished.( Macaulay 1986, p. 96) ( Sousa 1972, Vol 1, pp. 231–232) Pedro I had envisioned this union since 1822 and had attempted to convince Miguel to return to Brazil. The Emperor wrote to him then: "There will be no shortage of people who tell you not to leave ... Tell them to eat shit. And they'll say that with Brazil seceding you're going to be King of Portugal: tell them to do it again"( Macaulay 1986, p. 118) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lecen ( talk • contribs) 16:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
When I wrote this article years ago, I did not have the experience in writing I have today. I made some much needed improvements in it, mainly sticking to a "three paragraph per section" rule. Superfluous information, that did not add to context, but was nonetheless useful to expand our opinion of Pedro I's character, was turned into footnotes. His second marriage, and his relationship with Amélie are now in a single section. -- Lecen ( talk) 17:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Any objections to throwing this article into the current pile of potential TFA reruns (currently being developed at User:Dank/Sandbox/2)? Any cleanup needed? - Dank ( push to talk) 18:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Why do we link to John VI of Portugal using a redirect João? It would make more sense to avoid the redirect & just use John. GoodDay ( talk) 16:33, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Featured articles must follow criterion 3 of Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, which includes compliance with Wikipedia:Image use policy#Required information: "Origin (source)". DrKay ( talk) 16:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
I believe, this image, was the good choice and worthy as I said: this's a painting of historical value because it is probably the only pic (up to the present time) that shows his daughter (Queen Maria) beside him! And why is it not allowed to put in this article?? Huelam987 ( talk) 16:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Blockquotes should be used more often in this article (in accordance with the MS), in order to make the structure clearer and easier to read. So, I will add some block quotes. Best -- Itzhak Rosenberg ( talk) 15:27, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
See discussion on Talk:Pedro II of Brazil.
History of Portugal (1777-1834) is now being peer reviewed. Please, if you want, go there and state your opinion. Thank you. Gameiro 19:50, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
The article calls the Cerco do Porto "Porto's Wall", but I beleive "cerco" is meant as "siege". Is this a traditional english translation?... Wouldn't surprise me they like a strange transation, since in "Thelondon" they already like to call Porto "Oporto"... :) -- NIC1138 22:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
How can an Absolutist Monarchy be held by a Constitution? If it has a Constituition it's not Absolutist.
And more, how can a Prince called "The Liberal" be an absolutist emperor? Please this must be changed, here in Brazil discussions made about Pedro's I monarchy are all saying he made a Constitutional Monarchy, calling him an Absolutist is outrageous. And please don't take your texts based on portuguese Wikipedia, it sucks, it's empty of references and it's usually based on hour Basical History Learning that is being contested since the end of the XX century, and most of books are beeing rewritten to show some truth.
Independent Brazil has never had an Absolutist Monarchy, and the reign of Dom Pedro I is really similar to Presidentialist system, where the Chief of State is the Chief of Government.
I'm not signed on wikipedia, so if someone here wants to contact me i'll give my page on Orkut: http://www.orkut.com/Profile.aspx?uid=3184544641264841604
189.32.158.41 ( talk) 02:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
The reign of D. Pedro I was a constitucional Monarchy , because had a constitution.But in fact was a absolut monarchy. In the time of the Empire we had four powers.The tradicional 3 and one that hear was called "Poder Moderador" with this power D. Pedro I reigned without limits.Of course wasn't democratic in fact was a way that Pedro I found to reign without limits but was constitutional.It's complicated.
Augusto Fontes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.53.160.122 ( talk) 23:32, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Could the listing of names at the beginning of the article be changed? Looks completely ridiculous in the current form, and part of it is redundant with what is mentioned in the beginning of the biography. -- Imladros ( talk) 15:49, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
This article (and the one on the War of the Brothers) contends that Pedro "returned to Brazil" after abdicating in Portugal in 1826. This implies that he went to Portugal in the first place, which seems odd. He was king of Portugal for two months. I'm not sure exactly how long a voyage from Lisbon to Rio de Janeiro took in 1826, but I'd guess it would have to be at least a few weeks. So, did Pedro actually travel to Portugal in this time period? john k ( talk) 13:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I see no harm to readers in having Peter IV of Portugal in the infobox heading & Peter IV in the content, relating to the Kingdom of Portugal. GoodDay ( talk) 23:28, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Since you haven't joined discussion? I'll assume you reverted me per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. - GoodDay ( talk) 23:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Because the cry (or shout) was made from the banks of the Ipiranga River, the phrase "O Grito da Ipiranga actually has the meaning of "The Cry from the Ipiranga." As an example, if someone shouted something on the banks of the Swanee River in the US, we would say, "The Cry from the Swanee" -- not "The Cry of Swanee," which is nonsense. Moreover, in terms of a bold shout of Independence, "shout" seems much more suitable than "cry." Even if the mistaken translation has been used a few times in the past, it is not too late to correct this erroneous description. 189.38.128.8 ( talk) 11:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
I know I've been improving this article for some time now, but it's taking longer than I imagined. Unfortunately, I just don't feel the same passion as before when I write this articles. There are two paragraphs missing on section "Constitutional Emperor": one that talks about the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly and the other that talks about the ennactment of the Imperial Constitution. I'll try to finish them soon. -- Lecen ( talk) 23:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
I was under the impression that the title "Duke of Braganza" for the heir to the Portuguese throne was akin to "Duke of Cornwall" for the heir to the British throne. In other words, the heir does not bear a numeral until they succeed to the throne. For example, is John VI really called John IV until he succeeds? Is Luís Filipe, Prince Royal of Portugal, really called "Luís I"? DrKiernan ( talk) 16:41, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
This section contains all removed sourced content from the article that might be useful to be used elsewhere. -- Lecen ( talk) 01:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
The treaty required the Brazilian government to pay an indemnity of ₤2,000,000 (the equivalent of U.S. $10,000,000 at that time) [1] to Portugal.
[...to Portugal,] which was to "regain her previous status as a most-favored nation." [2]
It "was as though all the blood shed and all the sacrifices made since 1822 had been to no purpose, their value denied", said Barman. [3]
Even worse, Great Britain was rewarded for its role in advancing the negotiations by the signing of another treaty in which its favorable commercial rights were renewed (including a maximum tariff of 15% on British goods)... [3] [4]
In his May 1826 Speech from the Throne to the General Assembly (the Brazilian parliament), Pedro I said: "Ungrateful men who owe much to Brazil have risen against her and are now supported by the government of Buenos Aires [capital of the United Provinces], currently at war with us. The national honor requires that the Cisplatina province be retained, since we have sworn to maintain the integrity of the Empire." [5]
In an article he wrote for a newspaper, the Emperor said that slavery "is the cancer that is gnawing away at Brasil, and must be erradicated." And also stated that "I don't believe that men have any right at all to enslave another". [6]
He was attacked by the Liberals for his misdeeds, real or not, but incongruities were found in the Liberal Party, clearly exemplified in its main figures. Nicolau de Campos Vergueiro was born in Portugal; [7] Bernardo Pereira de Vasconcelos [8] as well as Evaristo da Veiga [9] were both hardcore advocates of slavery who openly attacked the Emperor's measures against it; Antônio Borges da Fonseca conspired not only to rip apart the Constitution, but also to topple the monarchy. [10]
Pedro I was contradictory in character as he was in many aspects of his life. He was good humored and easily laughed, [11] but he could just as fast get anger. Maria Graham (later Lady Callcott), who worked in the palace in early 1820s, said that the Emperor was "subject to sudden explosions of violent passion," she wrote, "followed by a generous and frank civility, a readiness to do more than necessary to undo the ill that might have been done, or the pain that might have been caused in the moments of rage." [12] [13] A British diplomat made a similar comment: "The improvident measures adopted by the Government are the result of the fits of passion to which he gives way, but no man regret more than himself the [resulting] quarrels ... when the fit is over." [14]
"Against me they argue that I was born in Portugal. I thought that twenty three years of existence in this land, of which ten were dedicated to the public cause, had given me the right to be Brazilian", would later say Pedro I. [15]
A little later he told the Council of State about his desire to relinquish the crown and depart. [16]
Pedro disembarked in the Portuguese capital on 28 July [17] [18] and went to his father's tomb, where he wrote: "A son murdered you: the other will avenge you". [19]
On 15 August the reopened Portuguese parliament confirmed the Duke of Braganza as regent during his daughter's minority, a position he already held in practice. [20] [21]
...while he was given the honors of a general, not of a king, in his funeral. [22] [23]
Neill Macaulay's Dom Pedro: The Struggle for Liberty in Brazil and Portugal, 1798–1834 only tells that Dom Pedro's remains were brought to Brazil in 1972. The information about being brought as a Head of State and with much fanfare came from several different sources. Perhaps not known for most foreigners, the Brazilian Military Dictatorship brought his remains to celebrate the 150th anniversary of Brazil's independence. His body was paraded through all capital of every single Brazilian state. I thought that there was no reason to add further sources because this well known and can be easily found anywhere. -- Lecen ( talk) 23:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Neill Macaulay's Dom Pedro: The Struggle for Liberty in Brazil and Portugal, 1798–1834 only tells that Dom Pedro's remains were brought to Brazil in 1972. The information about being brought as a Head of State and with much fanfare came from several different sources. Perhaps not known for most foreigners, the Brazilian Military Dictatorship brought his remains to celebrate the 150th anniversary of Brazil's independence. His body was paraded through all capital of every single Brazilian state. I thought that there was no reason to add further sources because this well known and can be easily found anywhere. -- Lecen ( talk) 00:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
Please clarify "succeeding in reducing the impact of the most outrageous conditions". Does this mean "succeeding in reducing the impact of their more unacceptable demands"? DrKiernan ( talk) 16:34, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
Costa says Pedro landed at Arnoso de Pampelido beach and then moved through Pedras Rubras entering Porto from the north in the early morning of 9 July. It would seem to indicate that the landing was not on the 9th itself, but a little before, and the landing was not in the city itself, but a few kilometres north. See also the wikipedia articles Mindelo (Vila do Conde) and Siege of Porto, which (though I appreciate they are not reliable) also seem to support this. This is the reason I separated the two events (landing and entering Porto) and gave a date only for entering the city. DrKiernan ( talk) 10:42, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
I changed the lead/infobox image from File:Dom Pedro Duke of Braganza.png to File:29- Imperador Rei D. Pedro IV - O Soldado.jpg. Because it seems unlikely that the subject has green/blue hair, and the replacement image seems far more likely to be a good representation of the subject. This was reverted without explanation. Perhaps this could be discussed. ( Hohum @) 00:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
The images mentioned are different works derived from the same archetype, so the color choices may be partly due to artistic license. The existing image does have a slight blue cast, but it is not off-putting at the size used in the infobox (the hair comes closest to the "dark brown" ascribed to Pedro I and the image is a known work by John Simpson). The first alternative has a noticeable and overly yellow cast (the hair seems lighter than what the article describes and the image is of unknown provenance—the attribution to John Simpson likely will not hold water). The colors in the second alternative are much too oversaturated (the hair should not look so nearly black and the image and the image is an anonymous copy of the existing, original image by John Simpson). If there is a better image, I request that you discuss here before changing. The infobox image needs to reflect the text and references in the article. • Astynax talk 06:45, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Terrific article! I noticed in the FAC review that other people objected to "widowhood" - it is technically correct in applying to both genders but not used very often and so is awkward in this context, as most people assume it refers to a woman. You have to read the section to find out that Pedro's wife died. Similarly, what I was trying to clarify in the earlier section by using "noblewoman of the court" for his mistress was that his affair was with a woman, as "courtier" is frequently thought of as a man, although it is increasingly applied to both genders. That was my first thought when encountering it in the Lead, and it wasn't until reading the article that I found out the scandal was with a woman, one of his many mistresses. I think "noblewoman" would be more clear in this context, or lady in waiting. Parkwells ( talk) 12:15, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Congratulations on the FA status. Anyways, is one allowed to make a 'minor' edit on an FA, or not? GoodDay ( talk) 04:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
We should have Peter I & Peter IV in the infobox heading, along with the Pedros. The Portuguese/English names idea is being done at
John VI of Portugal. --
GoodDay (
talk)
21:54, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Is there any reason not to have a link to http://www.cpdl.org/wiki/index.php/Peter_IV_of_Portugal ? I see it lasted 4 minutes when I added it last month. Cpupton ( talk) 13:05, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Last year's exhumation of Pedro and his two wives should be mentioned.-- The Emperor's New Spy ( talk) 08:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Anybody else want to add the information about his exhumation?-- The Emperor's New Spy ( talk) 07:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
The image width in the infobox was set to 200px in November 2011, but this was before the main image was updated recently. I have removed the constraint in favor of the default, but I don't mind if the old image width is retained. DrKiernan ( talk) 18:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
If we're going to use historic artworks to show him, we need to use as accurate as possible copies of those artworks, as they, in themselves, become part of the story of the person. File:Unidentfied artist - Portrait of Dom Pedro, Duke of Bragança - Google Art Project.jpg is by the Google Art Project, who are noted for taking great care in getting colour balances accurate. File:Anônimo - D. Pedro, Duque de Bragança.JPG is from a site I've never heard of, so it doesn't have that reputation.
Now, the thing is, this painting is not a completely naturalistic interpretation, and no adjustment will make it so. 1835... hmm. That'll be the early romantic era... so, yeah, bright, vivid oversaturated colours were one of the artistic choices being played with at the time. So I'd say there's no reason to doubt the Google Art Project's colours.
We are, in the end, an encyclopedia. Do I like the artwork? Eh... it's alright. Rather over-vivid for my tastes. But tastes don't matter: we can't mislead he viewer by changing it to suit our tastes, without reason to think it's wrong. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 01:15, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
This is a higher resolution file, that I added. The current is 1,714 × 2,135 pixels - the new is 3,213 × 4,001 pixels, exactly the same file, but is from the Google art project and much more detailed, and of superior quality. Hafspajen ( talk) 00:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
The Google Art Project image is from a place with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. The old one is something grabbed from some random site. You can't do that in a featured article. Adam Cuerden ( talk) 19:31, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
I was astonished to see the level of bullying, harassment and abuse of administrative tools. The picture used in the infobox was erased by one of the parties. We are going to report the two editors behind that. For the mean time the article won't have a main picture. -- Lecen ( talk) 14:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
The erased file was restored on Commons. Although no longer in use, nonetheless a fine accomplishment. -- Lecen ( talk) 17:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Until yesterday there was a picture of Princess Paula within "Issue" chart. Now it has been replaced with another. I believe that none should remain, for the following reasons: the first picture was a cropped version of File:Maria Leopoldine of Austria Family.jpg. The author died less than a 100 years ago, which means that it's still not in public domain in the US; the second picture is even worse, since it has no source, nothing that tells who was the artist, whether Paula is the person depicted in it. I made a search through Google and I found a version of that picture in the website "Geneall". Other than that, however, I couldn't find any reliable source that could identify the picture as representing her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lecen ( talk • contribs) 13:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Despite her lower rank by birth, [24] [25] he was stunned by her beauty after meeting her in person. [26] [27]
In June 1828, Irish and German mercenaries mutinied in Rio de Janeiro. [28] [29] Discontented with the harsh conditions of military life in Brazil, the foreigners readily accepted bribes from the United Provinces to not only rebel, but to also capture the Emperor so that he could be held hostage as a bargaining chip. [30] [31] The mercenary mutiny was put down with much bloodshed.
In the months following 7 September, João VI was still recognized as the rightful ruler of the independent Kingdom of Brazil. [32] Brazil's independence movement was not directed against the King, who was regarded as merely a figurehead dominated by the Cortes. [33] The prince regent was only later persuaded to accept the Brazilian crown as emperor, not king. Pedro, however, made it clear that, if his father returned to Brazil, he would relinquish the throne. [34]
It was promulgated and solemnly sworn on 25 March 1824. [35]
The situation came to a head when Pedro I, on the grounds of inappropriate conduct, dismissed Bonifácio and his brother Martim Francisco de Andrada from their ministry portfolios.
Although the Emperor had once regarded him as a mentor, Pedro I began to chafe in the subservient position of neophyte to Bonifácio's role as schoolmaster.
Property owners were protected from having their lands confiscated, and no citizen could thenceforth be arrested without a written warrant, unless caught in the process of committing a crime. Suspects could no longer be held for more than 48 hours without being charged and were entitled to representation. Torture, secret trials, and inhumane restraints were also abolished.( Macaulay 1986, p. 96) ( Sousa 1972, Vol 1, pp. 231–232) Pedro I had envisioned this union since 1822 and had attempted to convince Miguel to return to Brazil. The Emperor wrote to him then: "There will be no shortage of people who tell you not to leave ... Tell them to eat shit. And they'll say that with Brazil seceding you're going to be King of Portugal: tell them to do it again"( Macaulay 1986, p. 118) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lecen ( talk • contribs) 16:56, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
When I wrote this article years ago, I did not have the experience in writing I have today. I made some much needed improvements in it, mainly sticking to a "three paragraph per section" rule. Superfluous information, that did not add to context, but was nonetheless useful to expand our opinion of Pedro I's character, was turned into footnotes. His second marriage, and his relationship with Amélie are now in a single section. -- Lecen ( talk) 17:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
Any objections to throwing this article into the current pile of potential TFA reruns (currently being developed at User:Dank/Sandbox/2)? Any cleanup needed? - Dank ( push to talk) 18:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Why do we link to John VI of Portugal using a redirect João? It would make more sense to avoid the redirect & just use John. GoodDay ( talk) 16:33, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Featured articles must follow criterion 3 of Wikipedia:Featured article criteria, which includes compliance with Wikipedia:Image use policy#Required information: "Origin (source)". DrKay ( talk) 16:02, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
I believe, this image, was the good choice and worthy as I said: this's a painting of historical value because it is probably the only pic (up to the present time) that shows his daughter (Queen Maria) beside him! And why is it not allowed to put in this article?? Huelam987 ( talk) 16:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Blockquotes should be used more often in this article (in accordance with the MS), in order to make the structure clearer and easier to read. So, I will add some block quotes. Best -- Itzhak Rosenberg ( talk) 15:27, 5 November 2020 (UTC)