'King' D. Miguel I 'The Absolute King', the Miguelist Cause and descendants

If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.


Site Team
Aug 13, 2004
São Paulo
Miguel Maria do Patrocinio João Carlos Francisco de Assis Xavier Paula Pedro de Alcántara António Rafael Gabriel Joaquim José Gonzaga Evaristo, 'de facto' King of Portugal (Lisbon 26 October 1802 -Jagdschloß Karlshöhe near Bronnbach, 14 November 1866); married in Kleinheubach on 14 September 1851 Princess Adelheid of Löwenstein-Wertheim-Rosenberg (Kleinheubach, 3 April 1831 - Abbaye Ste. Cécile, Apley, Isle of Wight, 16 December 1909)

Reign: 1828-1834 (de facto)

Regency: 1822 - 1828

Children: Princess Maria das Neves of Spain, Duchess of S. Jaime, Miguel 'II', Duke of Braganca; Archduchess Maria Teresa of Austria, Duchess Marie Jose in Bavaria, Princess Adelgunde of Bourbon-Parma, Countess of Bardi; Grand Duchess Maria Ana of Luxembourg and Duchess Maria Antonia of Parma

Parents Miguel: King João VI of Portugal, Emperor of Brazil and Princess Carlota Joaquina of Spain

Parents Adelheid: Hereditary Prince Constantin of Lowenstein-Wertheim-Rosenberg and Princess Marie Agnes of Hohenlohe-Langenburg

Siblings Miguel: Princess Maria Teresa of Spain, Prince Antonio of Portugal, Duke of Beira, Queen Maria Isabel of Spain, Emperor Pedro I of Brazil, King of Portugal, Princess Maria Francisca of Spain, Prince Isabel Maria and Prince Miguel (or King Miguel I) and Princess Maria da Assunção of Portugal and Duchess Ana de Jesus of Loulé

Brother Adelheid: Fuerst Karl of Lowenstein-Wertheim-Rosenberg,
Last edited:
Miguel I (Miguel Maria do Patrocínio João Carlos Francisco de Assis Xavier de Paula Pedro de Alcântara António Rafael Gabriel Joaquim José Gonzaga Evaristo de Bragança e Bourbon; Lisbon, October 26, 1802 - Karlsruhe, November 14, 1866) was the second son of King John VI of Portugal and Charlotte of Spain, and the 30th (or 31st according to some historians) King of Portugal and Algarves between 1828 and 1834, during the Portuguese civil war.

He was given the Lordship of Infantado as his appanage.
Miguel was an avowed conservative and admirer of the Austrian Empire under the guidance of Klemens Wenzel von Metternich. He led two revolts against his father in the 1820s, earning himself a sentence of exile at one point. In 1826 he was betrothed to his young niece Maria II. Miguel subsequently proclaimed himself regent (February 26, 1828) and then took the throne as sole monarch (June 23, 1828) at which time he overthrew his brother Pedro IV's constitution.
Miguel sought to gain international backing for his regime, but the government of Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland fell in 1830 just before it could afford formal recognition. In 1831 Miguel's brother Pedro abdicated the throne of Brazil and occupied the Azores from which he launched naval attacks on Portugal. After a three-year civil war, Miguel was forced to abdicate at Evoramonte (May 26, 1834) and was sent into exile by the victorious Pedro.
The last Monarchic Constitution of 1838, never revoked, in the article 98 categorically excluded the collateral line of the king Miguel of Portugal and all his descendants.

Read the entire wikipedia article here.
More information about the wars between Miguel and his brother and niece Pedro V and Maria II:

The Liberal Wars, also known as the Portuguese Civil War, the War of the Two Brothers, or Miguelite War, was a war between progressive constitutionalists and authoritarian absolutists in Portugal over royal succession that lasted from 1828 to 1834. Embroiled parties included the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, France, Portugal, Portuguese rebels, the bishops of the Roman Catholic Church and Spain.

The death of King João VI of Portugal in 1826 created a dispute over royal succession. The rightful heir to the throne was his eldest son, Pedro I of Brazil, who was briefly made Pedro IV of Portugal. Neither the Portuguese nor the Brazilians wanted a unified monarchy; consequently, Pedro abdicated the Portuguese crown in favor of his daughter, Maria da Glória of Portugal, a child of seven, on the condition that when of age she marry his brother, Miguel. In April 1826, as part of the succession settlement, Pedro revised the constitution granted in 1822, the first constitution of Portugal, and returned to Brazil leaving the throne to Maria, with Miguel as regent.

In the Portuguese Constitutional Charter, Pedro attempted to reconcile absolutists and liberals by allowing both factions a role in government. Unlike the Constitution of 1822, this new document established four branches of government. The legislature was divided into two chambers. The upper chamber, the Chamber of Peers, was composed of life and hereditary peers and clergy appointed by the king. The lower chamber, the Chamber of Deputies, was composed of 111 deputies elected to four-year terms by the indirect vote of local assemblies, which in turn were elected by a limited suffrage of male tax-paying property owners. Judicial power was exercised by the courts; executive power by the ministers of the government; and moderative power by the king, who held an absolute veto over all legislation.

Read the entire article here.
These awful miguelist Braganzas

...Prince Miguel has a most unfortunate record. He has been mentionned as holding a commission in the Austria Army. But it is not the case and the very fact he should hold no rank whatever in the military forces of Austria, a land to which he belongs like his father, the Duke of Braganza, by birth, education, and association, is very significant. He was at one time a Lieutenant in the crack regiment of cavalry of the Guard at Dresden but lost his commission in the Saxon Army under discreditable circumstances.

For, while driving a phaeton back to town from a country house, where he had been dining not too wisely but too well, he overtook the equipage of Prince Albert of Saxony, youngest brother of the present King, and either through gross careleness, or else in pursuance of some drunken idea of fun, caught his wheels in those of Prince Albert´s carriage with so much violence that it was overtuned into the ditch, the royal occupant, who was a rather delicate lad, sustainning such injuries that he succumbed thereto a few hours later. Prince Albert was the most popular and promising menber of the reigning House of Saxony, and although the difficulty of determining the dichting of his carriage had been intentional or accidental enabled Miguel to escape a court-martial, yet the indignation of the affair created, not only at the Court of Dresden, but also in the Saxon Army and among the people was so great that young Braganza had to give up his commission and to leave the country.

By a "Veteran Diplomat"
Published in The New York Times of 18th July 1909

8d) Albert Karl Anton Ludwig Wilhelm Viktor (Dresden 25 Feb 1875-Wolkau 16 Sep 1900)
Still more unsavory is the record of his younger brother, Prince Francis Joseph of Braganza, who in 1902 was called upon to resign his commission of Lieutenant in the Seventh Regiment of Hussars of the Austrian Army as the result of his arrest in London during the festivisties in connection with the coronation of King Edward on charges so shocking that the less said about them the better. Archduke Francis Ferdinand, the Austrian heir apparent, who was in England at the time for the purpose of representing the Austrian Emperor at the coronation, declined to lift a finger to extricate his young kinsman from his trouble, and would not hear of the Austrian Embassy moving in the matter.

After remaining in jail for some time, he was ultimately discharged, owing to the alleged discovery that some of the evidence in the affair was of a tainted character. But the case against him was sufficiently black to necessitate not only his removal from the Austrian Army but also to lead to his being placed by the Austrian Courts under "curatel", that is to say, reduced to the legal status of a minor, or a lunatic, deprived of all civic rights, while the administration of his affairs was vested in the hands of a curator, or trustee, his brother-in-law, Prince Charles Louis of Thurn and Taxis.

By a "Veteran Diplomat"
Published in The New York Times of 18th July 1909
In this current age its more acceptable to discuss delicate issues, much more so than 100 years ago. Does anyone know what Prince Frances Joseph of Braganza actually did in London that was so shocking that ended in arrest and to resign his commission in the Austrian Army? Who were his parents? Thanks in advance.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dear Austria,
Have you heard about Wikipedia? Try to use this on-line encyclopedia next time. Noone minds answering really interesting questions, but the answer for this one you can find by yourself easily. LOL
Prince Francis Joseph of Braganza - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The prince was involved into a number of sex scandals and swindles.

You're absolutely right about using Wikipedia. In this case you wouldn't know its my favorite on-line reference. :) Thanks for your constructive criticism and for answering my question.
Wikipedia is not 100% sure or safe as you know.

People post whatvere they want...
At the age of sixteen Miguel was seen galloping around Mata-Carvalos, knocking off the hats of passers-by with his riding crop.
In the early 1900s a bill to lift the prohibition that barred the successors of King Miguel I from entering Portugal failed to gain the assent of Parliament by four votes.
I suppose I'll ask my follow-up question about current-day royal watchers oddly siding with absolutist Miguel over constitutional monarch Maria II here as well, to see if anyone might know. :flowers:

Why is it that people in royal watching communities sometimes acknowledge and sometimes refuse to acknowledge decisions taken by reigning monarchs to strip titles from their family members? For example:

King George V of Great Britain stripped the royal titles from various members of his family in 1917. For example, Prince Louis of Battenberg was demoted to Lord Louis Mountbatten. When people today reference Louis's daughter Pamela, they call her Lady Pamela Hicks, not Princess Pamela of Battenberg, in accordance with the decision of King George V.

Queen Maria II of Portugal stripped the royal titles of her uncle Miguel. When he subsequently married, she naturally did not confer titles on his wife and children. But even today, people usually refer to Miguel's children and grandchildren as Infantas and royal dukes, in defiance of the decision of Queen Maria II.

Why is it that most royal watchers recognize (for example) King George V's decision to strip his family's titles as valid, but still refuse to recognize (for example) Queen Maria II's decision to strip her uncle's titles? This has always puzzled me.

The same reason the Napoleons still use their titles and so on.

Miguel was deposed as king. And there are still those who see his line as the rightful claimants to the throne. For those who believe Miguel, and his line, are the rightful rulers, Maria had no right to strip her Uncle of such titles.

George V is a totally different matter. He was the undisputed king, and he had the right to make such changes. He didn't strip Prince Louis Sr (father of Lord Mountbatten) of anything. Louis chose to follow suit of the king and others and drop his German titles. He accepted Marquiss of Milford-Haven instead, turning down a dukedom in the process.

Considering German titles were abolished only 2 years after Louis Sr gave up his German title, they didn't fair too bad. They actually have a title, and not a courtesy title not recognized by the state.

Thank you for responding to my question!

Interesting. Assuming that is indeed the reason for the double standard, the natural question is why is it that royalty fans today, at least in the English-speaking world, view Queen Maria II as a usurper and Miguel as the rightful ruler? That is especially strange since modern-day royalty fans typically side with the victorious claimant in historical succession wars (most believe the Hanover kings were the rightful rulers of Britain and not the Jacobite Stuarts, for example) and King Miguel is famous for his absolutism and ultratraditionalism (which most modern royalty watchers would claim to dislike).

And to use a different example, does this adequately explain why most royal watchers refuse to accept some of the decisions to deny or strip titles which have been implemented by the Spanish monarchs? It is true that King Felipe VI and his line are not undisputed monarchs either, but I was under the impression that no other line enjoys much support from royal watchers.
Top Bottom