Template talk:Brazilian Imperial Family

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Brazil / History (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Brazil, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Brazil and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This template is supported by the History of Brazil task force.

Dynastic and non-dynastic[edit]

For the past few days there has been an edit war on this page about the use of the terms "dynastic" (for the Vassouras branch) and "non-dynastic" (for the Petropolis branch). Three times within less than fourteen hours Redux has reverted other editors. He has provided an edit summary but has not initiated any discussion on this talk page. As an administrator and a bureaucrat Redux should know better than to engage in an edit war. Redux has provided an edit summary citing the website http://www.brasilimperial.org.br as proof that there is only one branch of the family which makes a dynastic claim. This website is associated with the Vassouras branch (I regularly receive their emails); it advocates one side of the dispute and obviously ignores the other side. The fact that there is still a dynastic dispute was made very clear during the Brazilian referendum when the Petropolis princes did not support the Vassouras branch but instead presented themselves as another option. Let me point out that I myself am a supporter of the Vassouras branch. I sent birthday greetings to the Princess Mother and always visit her brother (Dom Luis's godfather) when I am in Bavaria. That doesn't stop me from recognising that there is another side in this dispute which has to be represented fairly here in Wikipedia. Noel S McFerran (talk) 14:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read Wikipedia:Assume good faith again. I did exactly that when you reverted back an edit with a source and explanations given with the edit summary "npov" — I didn't roll back on your edit, but reverted with explanations and added a lenghtier comment on your talk page. You should also review the concept of "edit war": Charles asked if a source could be provided; I named one, added a more in-depth comment on his talk page and changed the article back; a move that, given his lack of response, he seems to have accepted.
You, on the contrary, have not presented an external source to back up the statement that there is any kind of serious contention to the Vassouras branch being "dynastic", and the Petropolis branch being "non-dynastic". Prince Gastão's attempt to review the abdication, around the time of the Referendum, was not taken seriously by any school of thought other than that of Prince Gastão himself and a close circle of his supporters. He has himself acknowledged that and abandoned his claim. I have cited not one, but the two main pro-monarchy websites from Brazil, which, if I'm not mistaken, themselves refer (at least in the case of Brasilimperial.org) to other sources to support the affirmative that Prince Gastão's assertion was without any merit and is today completely abandoned.
That you know any of the Princes personally is original research at best, and proves no point that there would be any kind of schism regarding the dynastic branch of the Imperial family, especially since the Vassouras branch members are usually very careful when refering to the status of the Petropolis branch, in order to avoid any unnecessary friction over an unrestored throne. Further, since you presented no source to support the opposite, it is utterly inappropriate to revert the article back and start a discussion after. The appropriate behavior is to discuss first, and if consensus is achieved in support of the point you are making, deciding that the sources presented are, for some reason, incomplete or inaccurate, then change the article. It is what I am doing now, in spite of how you have conducted this.
And on the point itself: you need to present at least one source, supporting the opposite from what monarquia.org and brasilimperial.org are stating, so that we can weigh the situation and decide how to best reflect it on the wording of the template. So far, there is absolutely no reason to infer that a single contention, made once by one person — who later abandoned it himself —, is suffient to establish that there is more than one pretender to the Brazilian throne. All of the sources on the table at this point are pointing to the opposite scenario. That is not my opinion. I'm calling it as I see it. Redux (talk) 21:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
You do realize that, if no source can be presented offering a version of facts that is different from what Brasilimperial.org and Monarquia.org are offering, I will change the template again to reflect the wording for the Vassouras Branch as dynastic and the Petropolis Branch as non-dynastic, per the research I conducted on those two websites. Something needs to be presented that will relativize the previously published data on those websites; otherwise there would be no other side of the story to be reflected on the template's wording. Redux (talk) 13:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
1. "Heirs Apparent and Not So Apparent", The Guardian (August 4, 1993), "Brazil: At least three pretenders to the throne, descendants of Joao VI, the Portuguese king who was forced to leave Brazil in 1808 by Napoleon. Dom Pedro Gastao de Orleans e Braganca is closest in line."
2. "Brazilians Pay Homage to the Men Who Would be King", The Times (April 21, 1993).
3. "Claimants Dream of New Brazilian Monarchy", The Washington Post (April 20, 1993).
4. "Brazil's Royal Family: The Men Who Would Be King", Reuters News (April 19, 1993), "Presiding over one side of the family outside Rio de Janeiro in the city of Petropolis, Dom Pedro Gastao, 80, the eldest son of Dom Pedro de Alcantara, argues that his father's renunciation does not bar him from wearing the crown."
5. "Bourbon Pretenders Wait for the Call of the People", The Observer (April 18, 1993), "Happily for the monarchists, there are jollier and more attractive pretenders who are in every way closer to the throne. The game octogenarian Dom Pedro Gastao ...".
6. "Brazil Has a Number of Contenders to Throne Should Voters Want to Return to a Monarchy", The Wall Street Journal (April 12, 1993). "The question is: Which king? ... Luiz de Orleans e Braganca sees no reason for dispute. ... Not so, replies Pedro Gastao de Orleans e Braganca, Dom Luiz's 80-year-old cousin. 'He can bark all he wants. I'm the eldest. I'm the head of the imperial household.' "
There are dozens more. Noel S McFerran (talk) 13:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources. But looking at it, those seem to be newspaper stories ran in 1993, possibly a little before the Referendum, which is when Prince Gastão attempted to have the abdication reviewed. The point being made is exactly that this attempt went nowhere — newspapers run stories per the polemics, regardless of whether or not the claim itself had any actual merit — and that, shortly after, Prince Gastão abandoned his claims, upon noticing that they would not be ecoed anywhere.
Think about it: we could find newspapers from the San Francisco area in the late 19th century, when that guy decided to declare himself "Emperor of the United States" (forgot his name now). Doesn't mean that we relativize the fact that the US was founded as a Republic and has always been one.
The sources don't deny that Prince Gastão once attempted to claim succession rights. But they do make the point that that claim was completely unfounded and was completely abandoned, by Prince Gastão himself. I still can't find a single serious contention that Prince Luis of Orléans-Braganza is not the only "official" pretender to the throne. As I said before: a single claim, made once by one person, and then quickly abandoned, does not suffice to establish that there is any kind of serious contention for the role of pretender, as indicated by the sources researched. All the newspapers did, at the time, was report on the possibility (however slim) of Restauration and tell of Prince Gastão's claim at the time.
The existence of Prince Gastão's claim need to be included on his biography and in the article on the Brazilian Imperial Family. This page, however, is a template. Not the place for us to go into this kind of thing. What we need to do here is be to the point: and the point is that there is no serious contention to the abdication's validity. And if that is the case, the Petropolis branch is not dynastic, and the Vassouras Branch is. That is what the sources are saying. Redux (talk) 20:33, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Dom Pedro Gastão first claimed the headship of the Imperial House when his father died in 1940; because of the war he didn't do very much until 1946. Since then, and until today, he has continued to claim to be head of the Imperial House. I am not sure where Redux got the idea that Dom Pedro Gastão "quickly abandoned" his claim; he's been making it for over sixty years.
As a supporter of the Vassouras branch, I'm perhaps not the best person to argue the case for the Petropolis branch. The Vassouras branch is the more conservative and legitimist one; they have the support of the hardcore monarchists. The Petropolis branch is like the Orleans family in France; they're supported by those who like the idea of a liberal monarchy or a crowned republic. There are dozens and dozens of sources which refer to the FACT that there is more than one claimant to the Brazilian throne; it's not appropriate for Wikipedia to say that there's only one (even though I personally think that only one counts). Noel S McFerran (talk) 04:00, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
So which are those sources? Again, a newspaper story run at the time is a relative source. It proves that Prince Gastão did question the abdication at that time, but it doesn't prove that the claim had any kind of strength. It is quite common for unrestored thrones that several lines might present themselves as possible pretenders. That doesn't mean that the claims have any kind of merit. As you pointed out yourself, there seems to be only one claim that counts.
To answer your question, by simply repeating what I've stated before, I "got the idea" from two external, independent sources, which I have already named.
And you don't need to refer to me in the third person. You are having the discussion with me, not making a case to a "panel". Redux (talk) 11:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Pedro Gastão's obituary in a Portuguese newspaper today describes him as "pretendente ao trono imperial do Brasil" [1]. Noel S McFerran (talk) 21:24, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

And a Brazilian newspaper as "aspirante ao trono imperial do Brasil" [2]. Noel S McFerran (talk) 21:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Ok, but isn't it correct to say that the reason why the 2 newspapers are saying that of him is because he is or was himself making the claim? That's what I said: a newspaper story proves that he has claimed succession rights at a time (or more than one time, even), but not necessarily that this claim could or should be taken seriously. Monarquia.org, citing a few other sources, was stating that Prince Gastão's claim was based on the assertion that "it is not possible to abdicate validly an unrestored throne", i.e., it would not be possible for anyone in the succession line to abdicate their position while the Brazilian throne remains nonexistent. They claim that Prince Gastão's argument, as presented, was extremely weak and did not merit any kind of serious resonance, being ultimately abandoned.
Proving that the claim existed is easy enough, you have presented several sources that prove that. But Wikipedia cannot reflect the position that there is a serious dispute for the position of pretender based on a "weak claim", made once and then abandoned by a single man and which did not receive support in any school of thought. I did some reading back when I was creating some of the pages on the Brazilian Imperial Family, mostly on Portuguese-language pages, and so far I haven't seen a single expert's opinion testifying that the abdication was anywhere close to being invalid. Quite on the contrary, everyone says that the abdication was valid, written and signed by Prince Gastão's father in the presence of the then-pretender (Head of the Imperial Family), Princess Isabel the Redeemer and verified by witnesses (I think Monarquia.org had a digital version of the paper...).
By all expert accounts, it would seem that Prince Gastão was really trying to push an impossible angle, from the legal point of view. Today, all he has is the chronological card: he is indeed the eldest living relative of Princess Isabel the Redeemer. But he never had any dynastic rights. Redux (talk) 17:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
Were there equality requirements in the Brazilian Imperial Family? Charles 18:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I once read that there actually was not, at least not enacted ones except some vague tradition, and Isabel, facing the situation, decided to however require equality. Henq (talk) 21:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Did the Brazilian House Laws allow for that though? Charles 03:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking into it. Apparently, there were none, and the abdication was a requirement made specifically by Princess Isabel, to allow her son to marry without dynastic permission. According to this essay, published by Brasilimperial.org.br, the abdication, at the time, was submitted to the "main" royal houses in Europe for consideration, and was recognized as valid by them all. Further, apparently it is also held as valid and effective by a publication known as the "Almanach of Gotha", which is supposed to be a reference in the subject. Redux (talk) 20:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

So I gather the nomenclature can be reinserted without any further issue? Redux (talk) 02:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
No. It is still disputed. Also refer to what Mr McFerran has said here. Charles 03:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
McFerran presented newspaper stories (although they would be hard to verify, since they don't seem to be online, so I'm taking his word on it) from the time when Prince Gastão tried to reclaim succession rights — they are all from 1993, the time of the Referendum in Brazil. As I have already said about a dozen times, that only proves that he was making that claim at that time. Newspaper stories are not expert opinions. I have linked and referred to several of those, all of which sustain the position that there is no serious contention to Prince Luis of Orleans-Braganza as the only serious pretender. As I said, Wikipedia will not reflect a position that there are multiple contenders based on a discredited claim made once or twice by a single person and not received or echoed by a single serious school of thought.
Further, it is not helpful that no one presented a single comment regarding my January 3 post for nearly 2 weeks, where I linked yet more expert opinions (Astrid Bodstein, who wrote the article, is a known Brazilian historian; and her reference to the Almanach of Gotha, which would be another expert opinion) and a historical fact (the "peer review" mentioned by Bodstein which was conducted at the time), all attesting to the position that there are no [serious] multiple pretenders. Then, when I said, "ok, so I'm restoring the nomenclature", there's finally something. By all accounts, I could have restored the nomenclature per lack of opposition and lack of same-level sources (newspaper stories, as I mentioned above).
I'm sorry, but without anything other than some newspapers stories, ran at the time on Prince Gastão's apparently unfounded claim, there really is no dispute here. A user's personal disagreement with this does not suffice to establish that there would be a serious contention to Prince Luis of Orleans-Braganza's position. Redux (talk) 11:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Astrid Bodstein has written an article for Royalty Digest Quarterly about the Brazilian Imperial Family and says that Pedro Gastão is the head and offers the opinions of Jurist’s regarding the validity of Pedro Gastão’s fathers renunciation (the Bodstein article is used as a reference in his article). Considering there is a dispute of who is head of the Imperial Family I don’t think terms like Dynastic, non-dynastic are helpful or necessary as it simplifies a complicated situation which seems to have gone on for over sixty years. - dwc lr (talk) 18:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Bodstein is personally a supporter of Prince Gastão. Despite that, she presents the fact (in order to disagree with it openly) that the abdication has been held as valid by all but those who support Prince Gastão personally. I don't believe that this kind of initiative has had much success so far, however, since from a strictly empyric point of view, it is a fact that, whenever there is some kind of public function in Brazil to honor the monarchy, remember the monarchic times or just plain mark a monarchic date, Prince Luis of Orleans-Braganza is the one to attend as Head of the Imperial Family — and, since he is unmarried and childless, his younger brother, Prince Bertrand, is regarded as his heir (Prince of Grão-Pará, the equivalent of the title Prince of Wales in British monarchy).
On another note, I actually first created this template on demand. People were asking if there could be a template which would provide a quicker guide to the main figures in the Brazilian Imperial Family, helping to tie together the biographies we had at the time. And a specific part of this request was if the template could make it clear which of the branches was dynastic, and which weren't. "Historically", that was the exact reason why I included this nomenclature in the template: there was an explicit request for it.
So I did the research — I had been aware of the 2 branches, and the abdication, but I didn't know at the time whether or not there was a contention to the "title" of Head of the Imperial Family and Pretender to the throne — and the results yielded indicated to me — and so far, they still do — that the sole contention to the validity was made by Prince Gastão, but it proved unfounded and ended up discredited. That is not sufficient to establish two branches vying for the position. Basically, if we can't find any substantial contention other than Prince Gastão's own complaints, we'd be carrying out a severe and unacceptable POV by suggesting that there isn't a clear succession line established based exclusively on the isolated claim of the exact person who was excluded from the line by his father's abdication. Unless this claim has found support sufficient to have established a serious contention. Redux (talk) 02:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I have repeatedly said that I personally am a Vassouras supporter - but it would be unscholarly of me to claim that Dom Pedro Gastão's claim was merely personal and did not receive the support of others. Surely the support and recognition of the Count of Barcelona and the Infante Alfonso (called Duke of Calabria) count for something. There are several legal monographs (in Portuguese) which have maintained Pedro Gastão's claim. I'll try at some point to get citations. One of them is something like "Amazon Imperial" - that's not the exact title (my Portuguese is rusty). Noel S McFerran (talk) 03:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
And Astrid Bodstein, who is a self-declared supporter of Prince Gastão, claims that King Juan Carlos of Spain also supports his claim. To be honest, we would need to determine what exactly would be sufficient to establish a serious contention. Considering that the abdication received widespread support at the time (1908) and it continues to be held as valid by, apparently, all international publications (I'm no expert though) and organisms that study Monarchies and royal successions, I really don't know at what point individual opinions, which would obviously be expressed by those who have a personal connection or opinion regarding Prince Gastão himself, would constitute a contention establishing rival, valid claims. Clearly, if the monarchy was restored tomorrow, a decision on who would become King would not be based on the personal opinion of King Juan Carlos of Spain or the Count of Barcelona's. It would be predicated on the validity of the abdication at the time. Bodstein seemed (in the essay I linked), particularly irritated that all of those who don't know Prince Gastão personally seem to side with the validity of the abdication, which she, personally, thinks is wrong. Redux (talk) 03:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I've been reviewing the news stories run on the occasion of Prince Gastão's death, last December 27. Some of them were worded in the sense that he was the head of the Petrópolis branch, but some were plain saying that he was the Head of the Imperial Family. A few mentioned the dispute with the Vassouras branch.
But again, news stories, run by newspapers and news sites aren't a particularly good source for justifying something like this. One of them (if wanted, I can locate it again and link it here, although it's going to be in Portuguese) said something that seems to contain a historical inaccuracy, althought it might be due to poor wording; but the intention was to sustain that the Vassouras branch would be the dynastic one, and not the Petrópolis branch: they were saying that the members of the Petrópolis branch did not have to stay out of the country during the exile imposed to the Imperial Family by the newly-installed Republican government. I thought it was strange because the abdication took place in 1908, and the Imperial Family had been exiled in 1889. However, perhaps they meant to say that the Petrópolis branch members were allowed to return before the lifting of the banishment of the Imperial Family, which took place in 1922. The Vassouras branch members only started relocating to Brazil after that year. If we could ascertain that, it could be an interesting lead: that would mean that the Brazilian government itself was no longer considering the members of the Petrópolis branch (then simply the issue of Prince Pedro of Orléans-Braganza) as a part of the Imperial Family dynastically speaking (that is, they would never be able to succeed), and thus not subject to the exile anymore. Redux (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Republican governments cannot determine the dynasticity of branches of a formerly reigning royal/imperial family. Charles 22:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they can. As long as it is the same country where the royals would or could reign, as it is the case here. This does not involve tradition or bloodlines, that is a matter of sovereignty. If a given country decided to restore the monarchy only iff certain conditions are met, such as who is to reign and the succession rules, they are entirely empowered to do it. If the would-be royals would rebel and refuse to succeed, that is a different issue. The Brazilian Republican government could perfectly determine that any given branch would be the dynastic one, and that if restored, the crown would go to that branch. No one can prevent it, unless you overthrow the government. If the 1993 Referendum had yielded a result of monarchic restauration, the Brazilian government would have divised a means through which to determine which branch would reign, and given Brazilian law under the 1988 Constitution, that would be done exactly by determining the validity of the abdication as perceived in 1908. You certainly don't think that the government would just say: "ok, now you tell us who will be King, and we will crown whoever it is, no questions asked."
As I mentioned, the actual validity of the abdication would only be verified ultimately considering the validity of the abdication at the time. If the Brazilian government itself, which was clearly anti-monarchy in the first years after the Declaration of the Republic, and thus would be rather careful about letting members of the Imperial Family back in, would itself consider that the Petrópolis Branch posed no threat, in terms of a possible Restauration, to the point where they'd be allowed back in the country while the banishment was still in full force, that is a very strong indication that the abdication was held valid by the one entity with power to restore the throne and to determine who might be King: the Brazilian government. And frankly, that is all that counts. The rest is speculation and personal opinions. Redux (talk) 01:59, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

No, they cannot, and I would truly question someone's common sense for saying so. There is a difference between the Empire of Brazil and the Republic of Brazil. A republican government can make another branch of the family its ruling family, but it has absolutely no bearing on the status of another branch of the family. Take for instance the two lines of succession to the French throne. One branch is fully contained in the other. A republican government cannot determine is the Petrópolis branch is dynastic, whether or not they give another branch a chance at ruling. If the Brazilian government decided to make a foreign royal their emperor, it wouldn't make the current Brazilian Imperial Family non-dynastic. Charles 16:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a matter of law, not opinion or common sense. "Dynastic", semantically speaking, means that a given family rules, or would have the right to rule. Because we are discussing modern monarchies, and not Absolutism, who will rule is determined not by the family itself, but by Parliament, by enactment of one or more pieces of legislation. If a Republican government passes legislation restoring the monarchy and determining that family "A" will rule, and not family "B", that means that family "B", under the law, has no rights to accede to the throne, and that means that they are non-dynastic. I mentioned sovereignty: that means that the government decides under its own understanding, not necessarily adhering to tradition, common law or the opinions of any given individual or foreign governments.
You seem to be referring to "dynastic" as a above-and-indepedent-from-the-government concept, so that a branch that once had a right continues to retain it traditionally, unless removed by its own [valid] will and within its own framework or removed while its own status quo still exists. Legally and pragmatically speaking, however, it is not the case. The law that counts is the law that is in force at the time of the restauration (in the case of a dormant throne). I'm analyzing the scenario that begins in 1908, under the light of this new indication that the Brazilian government might have already held the abdication valid. If it did, then legally the Petropolis branch cannot be dynastic, even if traditionally speaking it could be considered as such unless relinquishing those "rights" under very specific conditions. That, I'm afraid, is utterly immaterial for the determining of who would have dynastic rights in case of a restauration under the current law of the land — or else you are assuming a coup d'état that would overthrow everything and allow the royals to resume their reign under their own terms. Redux (talk) 04:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I suppose you recognize the "power" of the Republic of Austria to make Crown Prince Otto renounce the headship of the Austro-Hungarian Imperial and Royal Family, do you? Charles 16:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

You missed the point: sovereignty means that the Austrian government does not need to make him renounce anything. It needs only not to acknowledge his claim to the throne. The Austrian government is sovereign to determine if there will be a monarchy, who would be King and what the succession line would be. Whether or not Prince Otto, or anyone, is the Head of the Family, or "Crown Prince", becomes immaterial if Parliament, or whichever governmental organ empowered, does not recognize it, instead recognizing someone else's claim — say, for instance, if there was an abdication that might be held as valid by the government.
If the Brazilian government has recognized the validity of the abdication, indicated by allowing the Petropolis branch members to return before the exile was lifted, that means that the one entity that gets to decide if there would be a King and who that might be acknowledges the abdication and considered the dynastic prerrogatives transferred to the Vassouras branch. In light of that, it is simply immaterial that the Head of the Petrópolis branch claims, really, anything. What counts is what Parliament, or Congress, decided. And because governments are sovereign, it is also immaterial what other individuals and even other governments think, or even what tradition would seem to indicate under any kind of interpretation.
And if the Brazilian government in 1908 acknowledged the abdication, and took actions in conformity with this position, then a review of the legal act of the abdication today, under the 1988 Constitution, would be highly unlikely to change that, because Brazilian law cannot retroact to change what they define as a "completed legal act" (in this case, the recognition of the validity of the abdication). That means that in terms of dynastic rights in case of a restauration, that is the right to accede to the throne, the Vassoura branch members would be inequivocally dynastic.
That being said, I am not entirely convinced of the historical accuracy of this claim that the Petropolis branch was allowed to return before the ban on the Imperial Family was lifted. I have not been able to ascertain that so far. Redux (talk) 04:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


It is difficult to see why some of the descendants are included and others excluded, and the number of descendants is likely to rise exponentially. Consequently, I have reduced the template down to just the Main line, instead of the fuller line as shown below. DrKiernan (talk) 16:51, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Although it may be difficult to understand (which I do not think), I believe it would be more appropriate with the complete information of all members of the Imperial Family in the Template. Not only for informing, but for not causing any contradiction in other posts, for example a Princess is the daughter of a Prince of Brazil but not in the Brazilian Imperial Family, which clearly does not make sense. Also to inform about current members with direct links. I support the old template format.

Arthur Brum (talk) 11:31, 24 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14D:5CB8:837D:C4FA:2085:EB6E:CC38 (talk)

Sons of Princess Leopoldina born in the Empire of Brazil[edit]

The list contains, in my view, a grave omission. And I'm not concerned with members of the dinasty who claim the title of Prince, but with actual Princes, that lived during the era when the Empire of Brazil existed. The children of Princess Leopoldina of Brazil born in Brazil, known in Portuguese by the names Pedro Augusto (Prince Peter of Saxe-Coburg-Kohary), Augusto Leopoldo (Prince August Leopold of Saxe-Coburg-Kohary) and José (no wikipedia article in English; there is an article in the Portuguese language wikipedia), members of the Saxe-Coburg-Braganza branch of the Imperial Family (Saxe-Coburgo e Bragança, in Portuguese), were all Brazilian Princes, and were thus deemed, taken and accepted during the imperial period. Why is it, then, that those Princes of the Empire of Brazil, born in Brazil of Princess Leopoldina's marriage to Prince Ludwig August of Saxe-Coburg-Kohary, are not included in the list of Brazilian Princes? This should be corrected. (talk) 03:50, 4 July 2012 (UTC)