Talk:Princess Maria Amélia of Brazil

Removal of footnote
I removed a footnote. Unfortunately, the sources which I have with me aren't completely clear about whether Maximilian visited or not Maria Amélia while she was sick in Madeira. All they say is that he saw her for the first and only time in mainland Portugal and from there he traveled in his Austrian ship. During this trip he visited Madeira, but apparently before Maria Amélia moved herself to the island. It is known that he continued to exchange letters with her until her death. He says in his letter: "I see again with sadness the valley of Machico and lovely Santa Cruz where, seven years ago, we experienced such sweet moments..." This seems to indicate that they were actually together but maybe he was just mentioning his relationship with her. Since there is a doubt, I opted to remove the footnote. --Lecen (talk) 03:28, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Navboxes
She isn't included on Template:Brazilian Imperial Family. Should she be? I notice not all the princesses by birth on Template:Brazilian princesses, used in this article, are listed on the other one. Should the templates be merged? DrKiernan (talk) 08:46, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I must confess to you that I never really cared about any of those templates (with the sole exception of the "Empire of Brazil" template) because people who were not part of the Brazilian royalaty were included and also because of the different branches of claimants. It's a mess, in sum. --Lecen (talk) 14:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

About the changes I made to the article
I made a few changes to the article. Most important of all, I changed the order of the paragraphs in the first section. It was a bit confusing and now the text flows better, I think. I also shortened a couple of quotations to make the text more straightfoward. I must admit that I added them in the first place because there is so little written about her that I had do fill space. Since I plan to improve Maximilian's article, I'll talk more about his obssession to Maria Amélia in the appropriate place. The 180th anniversary of her birth will be on the next 1 December. I suggested her article to be today's featured article, but unfortunately another editor (motivated by personal feelings) has opposed. In case someone has the will and time to improve whatever is necessary, and to share your vote, please do it. --Lecen (talk) 23:39, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I also removed the "brown eyes" description. After seing her pictures (such as this one), everything seems to indicate that she had blue eyes like her mother, and not brown eyes like her father. In doubt, I thought it would be better not to have any description in the article. --Lecen (talk) 01:46, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's important to use only things that can be reliably referenced..if a reliable reference says brown eyes, then that is fine, if there is no description of eye color, then I wouldn't mention it. I'm doing some copyediting too, but if you disagree with any of my changes feel free to revert me.--MONGO 06:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Lecen...can you translate and create an en.wiki article from this one at the Portuguese wiki?--MONGO 06:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I created Sepetiba's article. I'll expand it later. --Lecen (talk) 13:01, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it would be better to move the current third paragraph of the "Birth" section to be the second paragraph, so that the pregnancy and Pedro's history as Emperor of Brazil comes before her acknowledgement as a Brazilian princess. At present, it is not obvious why she should be acknowledged as a Brazilian princess as the explanation of Pedro's position comes afterwards. Also, removal of the Portuguese abdication leads to confusion as the sentence "He was succeeded on the Portuguese throne by his eldest daughter" implies that this occurred after his death. The early succession should be explained. DrKiernan (talk) 10:43, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I moved the paragraph as you suggested. However, I see no reason to add more information over the reasons to why Pedro I abdicated the Portuguese crown. And I can't see where it implies that he was dead by the time Maria II became queen. The paragraph starts with "Pedro had formerly been the first Emperor of Brazil, as Pedro I, and also King of Portugal, as Pedro IV." If he was only Pedro, and had also been Pedro I and Pedro IV before, I can't see where someone would think that he was dead. It also has the following sentence: "In 1828, Maria II's crown was usurped by her uncle (Pedro's younger brother) Dom Miguel I." Since the year is 1828, and Maria Amélia was born on 1831 I can hardly see how even a casual reader would believe that Pedro had died. Also: "Eager to restore his daughter back to her throne, Pedro abdicated the Brazilian crown in April 1831 and departed for Europe with Amélie, who was pregnant with Maria Amélia" This is pretty much obvious. How would he want to restore his daughter to her throne if he was dead? If you really believe the text should explain more, feel free to add more info. However, I believe it should try to focus more on Maria Amélia and less on others. If the reader wants to know more about Pedro I, he should move to the appropriate article. --Lecen (talk) 12:31, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Historical clarifications
In trying to clarify where Pedro left from to return to Portugal to overthrow his brother, what aid he secured, be it military or simply diplomatic to better understand the situation, I came across the reference by Jackson, in which it is stated that Pedro left from England and had British assistance...it doesn't detail exactly what that assistance was. I also found the following by Ertl, pg 303 here, in which it states that Miguel was put on the throne over his niece Maria II (who had been put there by Pedro IV when he abdicated), by an "'absolutist' faction of landowners along with the church"....and that Pedro was able to restore his daughter to the throne with British assistance...again, it doesn't detail what that assistance was. I fully recognize that this article isn't about Pedro, Maria II or Miguel...but the issue of Maria II being "usurped" seemed to be needing clarification. I confess I am not fluent in Portugese history, so please do revert any and all changes as you see fit.--MONGO 03:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Jackson doesn't directly say Pedro left England for Portugal. According to Costa's Every Inch a King, he drummed up support in Britain and France, and traveled between both countries assembling support. The invasion fleet assembled at Belle Ile off Brittany. After Amelia's birth in Paris, Pedro went from Paris to Nantes to Belle Ile, and from there sailed first to the Azores before then making for Oporto. DrKiernan (talk) 10:19, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * He went first to England but found no support. Since the cost of living there was very high he departed for France. Once there, he was warmly welcomed by the King and became a celebrity in Paris, seen as champion of Liberalism. However, as in England, he also found no support from the government. What he did? He took loans from private bankers, hired mercenaries, bought a few very old ships and sailed to Azores. There were also Portuguese liberals in his army, as well as volunteers from other nationalities. For example, he became a friend of the aging Gilbert du Motier, marquis de Lafayette, whose two grandsons fought under Pedro as volunteers. These are details that belong to articles about Pedro and the war, not here. The only reason why I bothered to mention it was to explain the reason to Maria Amélia's birth in Paris and why she settled in Portugal, not Brazil. --Lecen (talk) 12:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, I agree that the article needs to focus on Maria..but whatever peripheral details that are included need to be referenced. Some of these things may be common knowledge to many, but we have to remember that we are possibly writing about a subject or person many others have no prior knowledge of or may have never heard of.MONGO 15:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Further points:
 * I wanted to add that I'm finding the quotes, mostly from the source "Almeida", to be fanciful redentions and not historically accurate as to what was actually said. Notes 41-43 are pretty dubious in this regard, and sound more like the fanciful wordings by an author who may have been writing a love sonnet rather than an objective historical record. I'm not sure this level of flowery prose is helpful to the article.
 * I opted to use this author because he was Maria Amélia's biographer. However, Maximilian's biographers also tell the exact same thing: they fell in love, were going to marry, but she died too early. --Lecen (talk) 12:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The section on Premature death needs to be reworded to be more objective...though she died young even by the standards of the period, I don't know if the word "premature" is neutral...I'd simply retitle the section as "Illness and death".
 * I understand that in that time people died often early. However, a death at age age 22 is still premature. --Lecen (talk) 12:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Maximilian may have been influenced by the loss of his love to journey to places that had been a part of her life, but that she had much to do with Mexican history at all seems to be a pretty unsubstantiated stretch. I find it odd that Maximilian waited until after he had married another woman to set forth on these journeys...and it appears his acceptance of the Mexican throne was more due to Pedro II than to his lost love....and even that seems weak.--MONGO 04:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * In Maximilian's own words: "I see again with sadness the valley of Machico and lovely Santa Cruz where, seven years ago, we experienced such sweet moments ... seven years full of happinesses and sadnesses, fertile in ordeals and bitter disillusions. Faithful to my word, I come again searching over the waves of the Ocean for a relief that the glimmering Europe can no more give to my troubled soul. When I compare both epochs, I feel penetrated by a profound melancholy. Seven years ago I woke up to life, happily facing the future; today, I feel exhausted; it weighs upon my shoulders, the burden of a bitter past ... Here died, of tuberculosis, on 4 February 1853, the only daughter of the Empress of Brazil, an extraordinarily gifted creature. She left this flawed world, pure as an angel who returns to Heaven, her true native land."
 * He had just lost Venetia-Lombardy after the war between Sardinia, France and Austria and was trying to find a place for himself in the world. He married his wife not for love, but only for interests of state. DrKiernan could take a look for me on Princess Isabel's biography written by Munro. There is an entire chapter about him (I think is the one called "No place for women"). He loved Maria Amélia, not Charlotte. Read the entire article and you'll see that even as he was about to be killed by Mexican republicans he still thought in Maria Amélia. Also, as the article says: Maria Amélia had indirect, not direct, impact on Maximilian's choice to accept the Mexican throne. If he had not been disillusioned about his life, about the choices he made, about the loss of Maria Amélia, or had he had not visited Brazil and became enchanted by it, he would have certainly not accepted the throne. He loved and admired everything that was related to her: Brazil, the Madeira island, her brother Pedro II, the Empire, everything. Again: this is something that would be more appropriate in his article, not here. --Lecen (talk) 12:20, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Lecen, that's fine but I have to take your word on it, and I do since I have no reason to doubt it...but again, its crucial that multiple sources be available to substantiate any claim...the more the better, especially regarding a chain of events such as this one.MONGO 15:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I used two other different historians beyond Sylvia Lacerda Martins de Almeida to back the information about the influence that his trip had over his decision to become Mexican Emperor. One is an American, called James McMurtry Longo and the other is a Brazilian called Pedro Calmon. See note "F". You must read the footnotes too. --Lecen (talk) 15:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I used two other different historians beyond Sylvia Lacerda Martins de Almeida to back the information about the influence that his trip had over his decision to become Mexican Emperor. One is an American, called James McMurtry Longo and the other is a Brazilian called Pedro Calmon. See note "F". You must read the footnotes too. --Lecen (talk) 15:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd think it be best to refer to Pedro in one form to avoid confusion...he is known as Pedro I, Pedro IV, Duke Pedro, Dom Pedro...I understand he had different titles at different times, but to the reader, especially those poorly versed in issues surrounding royals (like myself), I would prefer we just call him one thing or the other...MONGO 15:08, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * He was known as "Dom Pedro, the Duke of Braganza" between 1831 and 1834 and that' how he is called in this article. Most importantly: everytime he is mentioned, he is also called "her father" as to avoid any confusion. He is only briefly called "Pedro I" and "Pedro IV" when it's told that he was once the ruler of two different nations. --Lecen (talk) 15:48, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Lecen, I've mentioned that I don't mind if my edits are reverted...no problem..but was there a problem with the 2 references here as I added them to provide clarification.MONGO 17:13, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * As I told you: he got no military aid from England nor France. Even if he had, is that important enough to be here? Is the place to where Miguel was exiled that important too? I understant that "Almeida" appears a lot in a certain moments, but only on trivial information, like her taste for piano, her upbringing, etc... I could understand that someone could argue that he is used too much on a possibly controversial subject, which is not the case here. Maria Amélia is an obscure historical character. She didn't do anything of notice. How could someone argue that there is controversy about something related to her? A proof of this is that none of the eight reviewers who granted their support for this article's promotion complained about anything close to that. Regards, --Lecen (talk) 17:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not here to argue with you at all. I just thought that where Miguel was exiled to and to cite that was better than to just have it say he was exiled...and I thought that from those two refs, as explained above, thet Pedro did get some aid, but neither ref said what that aid was...I fully recognize Maria is an obscure historical figure...till I saw this article up for TFA I had never heard of her...had it not been for you, the English Wikipedia may have had to wait years to see this article...so I thank you for your efforts. I've actully learned a lot more about Portugal and especially Brazil just doing the reading here and due to my own research...so you've expanded my horizon to a degree...Best wishes.--MONGO 03:25, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm really sorry. It was not my intention to drive you alway. 90% of what you did here I agrred completely. I just believe that in those few points you were losing the track. Will you give your support for this article to apper on TFA? --Lecen (talk) 07:27, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Comments

 * "The blond[18][19] Maria Amélia grew into "a girl of striking beauty as well as cultivated intelligence",": I guess my first question is: is it significant that she was blond when she was younger?  Most children start out as blond ... it looks like she was brunette in the images.  That is, what would be lost if the sentence started, "Maria Amélia grew into ..."? - Dank (push to talk) 00:15, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The sources described her as an adult, not as a child. Pedro II, her brother, was blond haired and had blue eyes, but doesn't look like that on  this painting, for example. It's odd,I know.  --Lecen (talk) 00:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "locations connected to Maria Amélia in 1859 and 1860": I don't understand. Does this mean "places Maria Amélia stayed in 1859 and 1860"? - Dank (push to talk) 00:22, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, not a problem, it's explained below that. - Dank (push to talk) 01:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No, no. Maximilian made a trip to places that were related to Maria Amélia in one way or another, like Brazil (her native country) and Madeira island (where she died). --Lecen (talk) 00:26, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I edited it so that it's more specific. - Dank (push to talk) 01:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * "Her fiancée Maximilian made a personal pilgrimage to Brazil and other places linked to her and his journey influenced his eventual acceptance of the throne of Mexico in 1864.": Just putting this down to remind me to look at it again after I have finished the article. - Dank (push to talk) 00:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "did not correspond much to his caresses.": "correspond much" doesn't work. "warm" or "respond" would work. [I went with "warm".]
 * "slightly ironic personality": personalities aren't generally ironic; I went with "droll", but maybe you wanted something else. - Dank (push to talk) 01:09, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "sis[ter]": The brackets would be appropriate if you were quoting an English-language source, but since you're translating, I think "sister" probably works better ... that is, if your meaning is that he used an informal word for "sister". I made the edit.
 * The word used in Portuguese was "mana", a diminutive of the Spanish word "hermana" (sister), which would be the same as "sis" in English or "bro" (if used the male form "mano"). --Lecen (talk) 01:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay that's what I figured (and I get to learn some Portuguese, too). It's a judgment call here; "sis[ter]" just doesn't look right to me, and "sis" is a little too informal for a translation.  "Little sister" would work if you prefer. - Dank (push to talk) 02:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * "Little sister" is fine. It could be just "sister" too. We don't need to make a literal translation. --Lecen (talk) 11:53, 3 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, that's everything ... feel free to revert or complain :) Sorry I didn't catch these things in April. - Dank (push to talk) 01:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Dank, you wrote "he made a personal pilgrimage to Brazil, to places she stayed, and to the hospital named for her..." She was a Brazilian princess but she was born in Paris and never travelled to Brazil. She was never in Brazil and the articles tell that "The widowed Amélie would never remarry and her days were spent overseeing her daughter's upbringing in Portugal where they remained even though they were not members of the Portuguese Royal Family. Neither of them ever traveled to Brazil..." (see "Brazilian princess" section). --Lecen (talk) 01:37, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, I get that ... I'll change the order so it's easier to see what I mean. - Dank (push to talk) 01:43, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, you fixed it already .... looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 01:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Name
I was wondering if the title of the article, being "of Brazil", is the more appropriate name or if "of Braganza" is not the better option, considering the many references that name her as such and the use of that convention in other language wikis. Thoughts? Cristiano Tomás (talk) 05:59, 28 December 2016 (UTC)