Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 1 of 2      1   2   Next
felipe31

Registered:
Posts: 22
Reply with quote  #1 

Hello, I am from Argentina and I would like to tell you a very little known historical fact and it is that in november of 1819 the Argentine Congress approved that the Duke of lucca Luis Carlos Luis Borbon-Parma became King of Argentina!
Since 1817, Argentina was negotiating with France the arrival of a European prince as king of Argentina and although originally Argentina intended the Duke of Orleans as king, the French proposal was for that of the Duke of Lucca.
but it all ended when the federalists overthrew the government in early 1820.

I hope you find this little anecdote of my country's history interesting.

Murtagon

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 237
Reply with quote  #2 
Welcome to the forum, felipe31!

A very interesting historical fact that I had not been aware of. Was Carlo II of Parma chosen as a candidate, because Parma at the time was ruled by Marie Louise?
felipe31

Registered:
Posts: 22
Reply with quote  #3 
Carlo was a prince at that time since his mother was the Duchess of Lucca, while the former Empress of France occupied Parma.

The reason why the French proposed to Carlos must be because he was a relative of the Bourbon monarchs of Spain and France, adames of not having a state at that time, but the most important thing is that being the prince of a small duchy not It would be a nuisance to the great powers! If a French prince were elected, that would surely worry England.

the important thing is that this was the closest moment in Argentina as a monarchy
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #4 
Quote:
Originally Posted by felipe31
Carlo was a prince at that time since his mother was the Duchess of Lucca, while the former Empress of France occupied Parma.

The reason why the French proposed to Carlos must be because he was a relative of the Bourbon monarchs of Spain and France, adames of not having a state at that time, but the most important thing is that being the prince of a small duchy not It would be a nuisance to the great powers! If a French prince were elected, that would surely worry England.

the important thing is that this was the closest moment in Argentina as a monarchy

The Inca plan is my favourite proposal for establishing a South American monarchy. Manuel Belgrano proposed electing a descendant of the Inca royal family king of the United Provinces of Rio de la Plata (Argentina, Uruguay and Bolivia), but Argentina rejected the proposal, while Bolivia supported the proposal. Why did Argentina reject the Inca plan?
Do you want Argentina to become a monarchy?
Why does Argentina claim the Malvinas (Falkland Islands)?
You appear to be the first South American member of this forum. I'm a German Kurd and a Nestorian Christian. I'm descended from German nobility. I'm a staunch supporter of Kurdish independence from Iraq. I want an Osmanoglu to be elected Shah of Kurdistan. I feel affinity to the monarchy of Liechtenstein, because Liechtenstein is the only German-speaking current monarchy. Do you feel affinity to the Spanish monarchy?
MatthewJTaylor

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 277
Reply with quote  #5 
Alternatively one could combine an independent Y Wladfa and the Falkland Islands into a single commonwealth realm which could eventually take over all land currently held and claimed by Argentina.

Attached Images
Click image for larger version - Name: 20200101_173828.png, Views: 5, Size: 219.56 KB  Click image for larger version - Name: 1280px-Flag_of_the_Falkland_Islands.svg.png, Views: 6, Size: 133.43 KB  Click image for larger version - Name: 1280px-Flag_of_the_Welsh_colony_in_Patagonia.svg.png, Views: 4, Size: 90.60 KB 

__________________

ceterum censeo caetum europaeum delendum esse
The Scottish Tory - https://sites.google.com/view/scottishtory
Scots for a French Royal Restoration - https://sites.google.com/view/sfrr
felipe31

Registered:
Posts: 22
Reply with quote  #6 
Quote:
Originally Posted by azadi

The Inca plan is my favourite proposal for establishing a South American monarchy. Manuel Belgrano proposed electing a descendant of the Inca royal family king of the United Provinces of Rio de la Plata (Argentina, Uruguay and Bolivia), but Argentina rejected the proposal, while Bolivia supported the proposal. Why did Argentina reject the Inca plan?
Do you want Argentina to become a monarchy?
Why does Argentina claim the Malvinas (Falkland Islands)?
You appear to be the first South American member of this forum. I'm a German Kurd and a Nestorian Christian. I'm descended from German nobility. I'm a staunch supporter of Kurdish independence from Iraq. I want an Osmanoglu to be elected Shah of Kurdistan. I feel affinity to the monarchy of Liechtenstein, because Liechtenstein is the only German-speaking current monarchy. Do you feel affinity to the Spanish monarchy?


the Inca plan was rejected mainly by the deputies of Buenos Aires and corboba because at that time they were more inclined to the republic than to the monarchy.
But as time went by and the war with Spain continued, they wanted to crown a prince who had the consent of the European powers to recognize independence and end the war with Spain. we must remember that it was the time of the holy alliance of the monarchical powers of Europe that did not tolerate the republics.

The monarchy in Argentina is impossible today, Argentina was never a kingdom and we have been 200 years of republic.

Argentina claims Falklands for 2 reasons
1) Britain recognized that the Falklands were Spanish territory.
2) Argentina was an heiress of Falklands at the time of declaring independence and exercised effective control of the territory having settlers and an Argentine governor at the time of the English invasion in 1833.

the English attack and the depopulation of the islands of the Argentines who lived there was an illegal act since Argentina and Britain were not at war and Argentina never seized the sovereignty of the islands

Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,856
Reply with quote  #7 
Argentina should grow up. It has never possessed the Falkland Islands. The Falkland Islanders have lived their for generations and wish to remain under British rule. Neither history nor self-determination is on the side of Argentina.
felipe31

Registered:
Posts: 22
Reply with quote  #8 

according to the parameters of united nations the kelpers are not assisted by the determination because they are not native population is implanted population.

Britain recognized the independence of Argentina in 1828 and already at that time Argentina had a government in the islands.

Britain has no legal right to the islands because in 1790 Britain recognized the Spanish sovereignty of the islands, and once again since in 1828 Britain recognized Argentine independence, it had the Falklands in its possession.

you can claim reasons of strength, that the British as great power can impose their will against weak countries.

Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,856
Reply with quote  #9 
Correct we if I'm wrong, but the United Nations was formed in 1944, so why on earth is such a standard applicable more than a century before that? History is replete with depopulations and changes of territory. It is an absurd idea to go back a couple of centuries and claim that a population that has lived in the islands for that time is now illegitimate. It would open up a huge can of worms about who legitimately owns what (presumably much of America and Australia should be handed over to the indigenous peoples then? - perhaps every South American who is not sufficiently descended from the indigenous peoples of the continent should be deported back to Spain or Portugal or wherever?). It is also deeply unfair to the Falkland Islanders to ignore their right to self-determination on such grounds.

I have never heard that Britain accepted Spain's rights in 1790. Do you have proof? Britain seems to have de facto acted as if it had a right to some control over the islands both before and after that. But, anyway, it doesn't really matter, for two reasons. One is that we aren't talking about Spain, but Argentina. And Britain never recognised Argentina's territorial control of the island. Secondly, and more importantly, we have controlled the island for nearly two centuries, which is more than enough time to legitimise our rule. One could also mention that Argentina's aggressive action forty years ago should doubly disqualify from any consideration. I think we were actually too lenient. We should have taken the war to the mainland and made sure the Argentinians acknowledge they need to grow up. Next time perhaps. But it is rather ironic to talk of us missing our strength (and also because it is us protecting the islanders).

And that's the heart of the matter: like Spain, Argentina needs to grow up and not dig up dubious, centuries old claims that seek to discard not just our legitimate rule, but the very self-determination of the islanders. In the final analysis, Britain is protecting the rights of the relatively weak islanders against the aggression and bullying of Argentina.
felipe31

Registered:
Posts: 22
Reply with quote  #10 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
Correct we if I'm wrong, but the United Nations was formed in 1944, so why on earth is such a standard applicable more than a century before that? History is replete with depopulations and changes of territory. It is an absurd idea to go back a couple of centuries and claim that a population that has lived in the islands for that time is now illegitimate. It would open up a huge can of worms about who legitimately owns what (presumably much of America and Australia should be handed over to the indigenous peoples then? - perhaps every South American who is not sufficiently descended from the indigenous peoples of the continent should be deported back to Spain or Portugal or wherever?). It is also deeply unfair to the Falkland Islanders to ignore their right to self-determination on such grounds.

I have never heard that Britain accepted Spain's rights in 1790. Do you have proof? Britain seems to have de facto acted as if it had a right to some control over the islands both before and after that. But, anyway, it doesn't really matter, for two reasons. One is that we aren't talking about Spain, but Argentina. And Britain never recognised Argentina's territorial control of the island. Secondly, and more importantly, we have controlled the island for nearly two centuries, which is more than enough time to legitimise our rule. One could also mention that Argentina's aggressive action forty years ago should doubly disqualify from any consideration. I think we were actually too lenient. We should have taken the war to the mainland and made sure the Argentinians acknowledge they need to grow up. Next time perhaps. But it is rather ironic to talk of us missing our strength (and also because it is us protecting the islanders).

And that's the heart of the matter: like Spain, Argentina needs to grow up and not dig up dubious, centuries old claims that seek to discard not just our legitimate rule, but the very self-determination of the islanders. In the final analysis, Britain is protecting the rights of the relatively weak islanders against the aggression and bullying of Argentina.


So a practically unarmed country acts as a bully against one of the largest powers on the planet that has a huge military base on the islands?

control the island you can justify by the right of conquest.

Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,856
Reply with quote  #11 
Yes, because Argentina didn't engage in naked aggression towards the islands within a generation or two. Oh, wait... We protect the islanders from further Argentinian attempts at aggression and bullying.

I think that aggression and it's defeat does increase our rights to the island, but we don't really need any increase. Argentina's claim is dubious on its face. The islands have never been Argentinian. They have been controlled by Britain for two centuries, and the islanders overwhelmingly wish to be British. Argentina, like Spain, needs to grow up.
felipe31

Registered:
Posts: 22
Reply with quote  #12 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
Yes, because Argentina didn't engage in naked aggression towards the islands within a generation or two. Oh, wait... We protect the islanders from further Argentinian attempts at aggression and bullying.

I think that aggression and it's defeat does increase our rights to the island, but we don't really need any increase. Argentina's claim is dubious on its face. The islands have never been Argentinian. They have been controlled by Britain for two centuries, and the islanders overwhelmingly wish to be British. Argentina, like Spain, needs to grow up.


Argentina controlled the islands the governor at that time was José María Pinedo.

the British arrived and conquered it from the Argentines who lived there.


right of conquest
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,856
Reply with quote  #13 
Argentina attempted to exercise some control, but it wasn't recognised internationally.

But, yes, of course we took control of the islands. Just like a large proportion of territorial control over the millennia, force was involved. But that doesn't mean that that is the primary reason we have a right to the territory today. It is prescription, the fact that we have possessed the territory for two centuries, alongside the self-determination of the islanders, that gives us that right. The fact that Argentina tried to extend some control to the islands in the 1820s and 1830s and claims some rights once held by Spain, is very weak sauce in comparison.

By the way, it is very interesting that an Argentinian should turn up here just after a recognition of the dispute about Gibraltar.
felipe31

Registered:
Posts: 22
Reply with quote  #14 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
Argentina attempted to exercise some control, but it wasn't recognised internationally.

But, yes, of course we took control of the islands. Just like a large proportion of territorial control over the millennia, force was involved. But that doesn't mean that that is the primary reason we have a right to the territory today. It is prescription, the fact that we have possessed the territory for two centuries, alongside the self-determination of the islanders that gives us that right. The fact that Argentina tried to extend some control to the islands in the 1820s and 1830s and claims some rights once held by Spain, is very weak sauce in comparison.

By the way, it is very interesting that an Argentinian should turn up here just after a recognition of the dispute about Gibraltar.


I will tell you what I think about Gibraltar and that is that Spain has no right over Gibraltar.

Spain delivered Gibraltar to the English in the Treaty of Utrech.

Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,856
Reply with quote  #15 
On that we are in agreement, even if that isn't the primary reason I'd give for Britain's superior claim.
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.