The untimely death of King Pedro V is perhaps one of the most tragic events to befall the House of Braganza in the XIXth century. He was, of the sons of Maria da Gloria, the one who was best prepared to take Portugal in a new direction. The rest of the Coburg clan saw in him a natural leader, the new liberal monarch who would conduct his country through the path towards true constitutional government.
Alas, his death put an end to all these hopes. Dom Luiz was a nice monarch, but not prepared for the task at hand. Dom Carlos was a veritable disaster as a ruler. Dom Manoel, however nice he was, lacked the mettle to be an effective monarch and perhaps would have been much better wearing the cloth than the crown.
Arturo Beéche
The image of D.Pedro V has been "romanticized" due to his early death, the early death of his wife Queen Stephanie, the fact that he lost his Mother so young, etc.
He had nothing of a liberal monarch.
He acted as so, as well as he had to or as far as he intended to.
As a matter of fact he loathed the parliamentary regime which he felt was infested with corrupt and incompetent politicians (well, who does not share his views ?
)
He had difficult relations with his PM, including his grand uncle the old duke of Loulé and he often spoke bluntly his ideas to the despair of the politicians.
His political ideas are well described in his correspondence to Prince Albert.
Don't know if the book is translated to english.
You would be surprised with his "liberal" thoughts...
http://genealogia.netopia.pt/livraria/livro.php?id=185D.Luis was the ideal constitutional monarch.
A bit of a George V avant la lettre.
Conscient of his not very big capacities he just left the limelight to the politicians and sanctionned all they did as a model constitutional king.
You are certainly aware that once a Prime-Minister made a coup d'état and dissolved parliament and began to rule as a dictator.
He went to the Palace and presented the fait-accomplis to the king.
Queen D.Maria Pia entered in the room and the PM turn to her to kiss her hand.
She stared him in the eyes and just said: "If I were the King, I would have you shot immediately" and left the room.
I do not agree that D.Carlos was a disaster as a ruler.
As a constitutional king, he grabbed what he could not to live his father's idle life, that is, the foreign affairs.
Some say he would be a better Foreign Office Secretary than a King.
But as a king he had no particular role in the internal affairs.
Not as anti-parliamentar as his uncle D.Pedro V, at a point he realised that the Parliament did not work nor did it leave the government rule and at the suggestion of the PM he agreeded on suspending the Cortes, giving the PM carte blanche.
That was his major fault, but he genuinely acted on good faith realising the country was paralised .
And he had to cope with a growing republican movement who took advantage of the division between the monarchic parties.
D.Manuel II 's reign was doomed since the beginning.
His Father had been coaching his brother, the Crown-Prince D.Luis Felipe, who might have been a pretty good king, but the there was the Regicide and he was forced to step on his brother's shoes.
The country was ungovernable, he had no political experience or influence whatsoever and a minor coup ended almost 700 years of Monarchy.
