Kingdom of Argentina.

Status
Not open for further replies.
IIf he could have stablished an "Argentinian Empire" the relations between Brazil and Argentina would be sooo different... There would be even the risk of a later personal union between both empires :)eek:) due to the interbreeding of both royal houses.

THAT would be interesting, for sure. :D
And what's the problem with a personal union, Gonzaga?
 
THAT would be interesting, for sure. :D
And what's the problem with a personal union, Gonzaga?

Well, after a long history of wars and competition it would be like a personal union of England and France in the early 19th century. A recepy for troubles.

About Pedro Carlos, he didn't die from yellow fever, but from tuberculosis. But, interesting enough, the Portuguese Minister of War, Rodrigo de Sousa Coutinho, Count of Linhares, after the refusal of John VI to approve Charlotte going to Buenos Aires in order to become queen of La Plata, suggested to king to send Pedro Carlos instead. So this possibility wouldn't be so unlikely. Of course, we would need him having a better health.
 

maverick

Banned
And what's the problem with a personal union, Gonzaga?

There were already too many autonomist movements in the Brazilian north and south, Argentinean west and north...this needs to be a confederation or super-centralized...

Then there's the special interest groups, especially the ones centered at Sao Paolo and Buenos Aires, who'd have to share power and influence...of course the centralization would be bad for some ports (I'm guessing Buenos Aires) and that's bad for some commercial interests...

Plus what Gonzaga said...

About Pedro Carlos, he didn't die from yellow fever, but from tuberculosis. But, interesting enough, the Portuguese Minister of War, Rodrigo de Sousa Coutinho, Count of Linhares, after the refusal of John VI to approve Charlotte going to Buenos Aires in order to become queen of La Plata, suggested to king to send Pedro Carlos instead. So this possibility wouldn't be so unlikely. Of course, we would need him having a better health.

This is just a timeline BEGGING TO ME MADE!:D
 
This is just a timeline BEGGING TO ME MADE!:D

Well, I was already planning to start a new TL about a different fate for the Braganzas in Brazil as soon as I finish A New Portugal, but the POD I thought would be in 1821. This one about Pedro Carlos would be a little earlier, but why not? Maybe a colaborative work?:p

How about Montevideo? Or a new city built on the upper reaches of the Parana or Uruguay?

It would hardly work. Any city on the Platenean rivers would be seen by the Brazilians as being influenced by Buenos Aires. To solve the "vanity war" between B.A. and Rio would be a hard task.
 

maverick

Banned
Well, I was already planning to start a new TL about a different fate for the Braganzas in Brazil as soon as I finish A New Portugal, but the POD I thought would be in 1821. This one about Pedro Carlos would be a little earlier, but why not? Maybe a colaborative work?:p

That's just what I was thinking...:p

Of course, for you to get "A New Portugal" to its Finale in 1755 it'd take you several months, considering you started over a year ago, I think...

And I have the Timeline Contest, the Writer, my Japanese TL, and the epilogue for "The Fallen Prince"...but since classes are over by late Octuber, I could finish that by mid-November, in time to continue with "Sol de Austria" and the Argentinean project I wanted to start this year...
 
That's just what I was thinking...:p

Of course, for you to get "A New Portugal" to its Finale in 1755 it'd take you several months, considering you started over a year ago, I think...

And I have the Timeline Contest, the Writer, my Japanese TL, and the epilogue for "The Fallen Prince"...but since classes are over by late Octuber, I could finish that by mid-November, in time to continue with "Sol de Austria" and the Argentinean project I wanted to start this year...

Actually I decided to finish A New Portugal around the 1660's, and as I now have more time to write I think that it can be concluded in November or December. But we can discuss the possibilities...;)
 

Faeelin

Banned
Would Latin America Have Done Better Under Bourbon Monarchs?

some idle thinking, now that I"m starting to explore the Mexican War.

The Wars of Independence for Latin America were catastrophic. I mean, Argentina gains independence, and spends the next fifty years fighting a civil war; Mexico gets wracked by insurrections and a total collapse of industry, followed by a succession of would be emperors and caudillos.

How much of this was inevitable, and how much of this was due to the abrupt transition to independence? If there had been more continuity and a more stable regime from the getgo, would Latin America have done markedly better?

(And would local Monarchs really have made things more stable? It's not like *Spain* was a paragon of stability in the 19th century).
 
Maybe, maybe not.

On the one hand, a Bourbon monarch might act as an unifiying figure, and might have avoided desintegration of vicerroyalties and administrative units. Part of the problem in Spanish America was that the colonial system was very centralised, and so, after the revolution, the cities that were the capitals of the different entities tried to continue rulling other cities of the same entity as they had done in the past. Buenos aires, for example, kept designating provincial governors till 1820. But sooner or later other cities found that they had no reason to accept the will of Buenos Aires or Mexico City now that Vicerroys didn't reside there any longer, and that former capitals were just mere cities. And capital-cities found out that they didn't had the resources to kept the entire vicerroyalties united by force.

If there's no monarch, this tendency might reduced somewhat, and biggerv units might be manteined, as it happened with Brazil.

But, on the other hand, if monarchs act as absolutists monarch (as Carlota Joaquina - one of the candidades for the throne of OTL Argentina - probably would have done) then this might stop the forces pushing towards democratization, liberalization and a reasonable descentralization. IOTL, an equilibrium was found some time after 1810, between centrifug and centripetal forces, and between the need of a powerfull government and the will of the peoples. The time varies from country to country, and Argentina didn't achieve it till 1861. But if monarchs act as tyrans, they might only delay change, and this would lead to violent revolutions in the future. On the other had, Mexico did have a violent revolution OTL in 1910-17, so this might not be such a big change.
 

maverick

Banned
I'm leaning towards yes on the short term, no on the long term.

It also depends on the monarch. Carlotta Joaquina? Failure. Francisco de Paula or another son of Carlos IV or Fernando VII? It's harder to say.

If the Monarch is absolute and acts like Gaspar Rodriguez de Francia did in Paraguay between 1810 and 1840, or like Rosas did in Argentina between 1835-1852, then a degree of order and balance will be kept but at the prize of crushing the ideas that drove the 1809-1811 revolutions. How would a monarchy in Argentina or any place of Latin America look like? Don't look at Brazil or Mexico, but at Argentina under Rosas, the closest thing to a continuation of the colonial order post-1810.

A Constitutional Monarch under the auspices of the Metropolis is hard to do, maybe if France doesn't fuck with Spain with the Hundred Thousand Sons of Saint Louis in 1823 or Fernando VII is never in a position to oppose the 1812 Constitution in the first place.

But at the end, you end up buying short-term stability and order with a stick and carrot, but at the end it'll blow up in the face of the King and revolution will be back around the corner.
 

archaeogeek

Banned
I'm leaning towards yes on the short term, no on the long term.

It also depends on the monarch. Carlotta Joaquina? Failure. Francisco de Paula or another son of Carlos IV or Fernando VII? It's harder to say.

If the Monarch is absolute and acts like Gaspar Rodriguez de Francia did in Paraguay between 1810 and 1840, or like Rosas did in Argentina between 1835-1852, then a degree of order and balance will be kept but at the prize of crushing the ideas that drove the 1809-1811 revolutions. How would a monarchy in Argentina or any place of Latin America look like? Don't look at Brazil or Mexico, but at Argentina under Rosas, the closest thing to a continuation of the colonial order post-1810.

A Constitutional Monarch under the auspices of the Metropolis is hard to do, maybe if France doesn't fuck with Spain with the Hundred Thousand Sons of Saint Louis in 1823 or Fernando VII is never in a position to oppose the 1812 Constitution in the first place.

But at the end, you end up buying short-term stability and order with a stick and carrot, but at the end it'll blow up in the face of the King and revolution will be back around the corner.

One of the problems I'm seeing already is the successions; Bourbon lines of succession in the 19th century were a nightmare because of the way it cumulated house laws and the laws of two major powers.

Just finding potential rulers was a pain for my TL
- Carlos would probably have gotten Mexico by virtue of being the second son... but at the same time he was an absolutist and a horrible judge of people (one of his generals ended up trying to coup him during the Carlist wars and IIRC another tried to have him murdered after having a general shot). And until the birth of Isabella in 1830, he's Ferdinand VII's heir apparent (a position which he never let go): I expect him to be restless in ATL as well, although he might compensate himself with the still-spanish Indies. The chances of his reign falling apart are the highest IMO.
- Francisco de Paula was a kid when my 1808 point of separation happens. Assuming Charles IV had split the crowns in 1806, he would have been 12. In many ways he's the son of Carlos who has the most potential though but since what he'd have gotten was Greater Peru, the possibility of his territories erupting in revolution in the south still stands IMO, especially with a regency involved.
- Carlotta Joaquina was princess of Brazil since the 1790s
- Maria Luisa was an interesting candidate and IOTL she did take up an offer by Napoleon to swap Parma for Tuscany and later Tuscany for Portugal minus the north. However, she was princess of Parma since 1795 and any deal getting her in the Americas would probably have required land wrangling in Europe: except she was already extremely busy doing her own land wrangling with the French.
- The last of his surviving children was Maria Isabella, queen consort to Francis I of the Two Sicilies.

As for children of Ferdinand: he had none until 1830. He only ever had two kids at that, Isabella in 1830 and a sister in the 30s.

Basically I ended up having to dip in the other Bourbon sub-branches, and that ended up bringing me to
- Salerno: I've pointed it out already, Leopold's father Ferdinand I had huge ambitions for him when things started going to hell in Spain and I think he'd be close enough to the Bourbon-Spain branch that it would be less annoying than the french ones below. In 1806 he'd be 16
- Condé: IOTL de facto extinct with the death of the last duke of Enghien, although his father and grandfather would die after him - it's possible to butterfly his survival though since it was an abduction and an execution. He was 32 when he was shot though.
- Orléans: as First Princes of the Blood, they should be considered too close to the crown of France to be safe.
- Provence is king of France as soon as Louis XVII dies and Artois is the next in line because Provence is sterile and his wife is according to most accounts a lesbian (with high suspicions that their marriage has only been consumed once and that's it - the part about her being a lesbian made scandal at the time at court so I'm fairly sure of it)

Basically, intermarriage in the dynasty ensures there are too few Bourbons in 1801 to furnish both their European crowns AND 4 Kingdoms in the Americas without stretching all the way back to France, and when I go back to the 3 crowns Aranda plan, I end up seeing an epic mess to come, especially with Ferdinand VII's lack of heirs (and the queen did a hell of a lot to convince Ferdinand to ignore Bourbon house law and instead make Isabella his successor) and the temper of Carlos. I agree with the appraisal that Rosas is probably the best model for early absolutism in Bourbon America, but I'm not sure they would all be that way: I'm fairly sure Francisco de Paula or his heir would probably end up going for something more constitutional which would look a lot like Brazil (but might well cost him Argentina no matter what).

Also if children of Francisco de Paula survive as OTL, I suspect Francisco de Asis, the OTL King Consort of Spain during the reign of Isabella II, might end up marrying her sister instead as a kind of "face-saving measure" so that any kid born would at least have some Bourbon blood because IOTL it's very likely most of Isabella II's children were not his and both this and his homosexuality was an open secret. And this complicates matters further (basically a bit like Ludwig II of Bavaria of Friedrich II of Prussia), but if he pulls that shit and the succession is somewhat accepted by anyone, then you end up with the duke of Seville who will most certainly come knocking for the throne once his uncle dies.

Even if they avoid a liberal revolution in Venezuela and Argentina, dynastic problems might very well turn the Bourbon crowns into a righteous mess.

(EDIT: There's also the Comtes de Busset, but they're not even considered legitimate Bourbon dynasts as they descend from a bastard of the Connétable; if you're that desperate for princes, at this point you might as well be inviting the Indian Bourbons :p )
 
Last edited:

Faeelin

Banned
A Constitutional Monarch under the auspices of the Metropolis is hard to do, maybe if France doesn't fuck with Spain with the Hundred Thousand Sons of Saint Louis in 1823 or Fernando VII is never in a position to oppose the 1812 Constitution in the first place.

But at the end, you end up buying short-term stability and order with a stick and carrot, but at the end it'll blow up in the face of the King and revolution will be back around the corner.

I admit I find the wars of independence incredibly confusing. It seems as if even many revolutionaries (Iturbide, San Martin, etc.) thought a monarchy aws necessary, and that the revolutions were all won on a shoe string. But I don't see how a monarchy would really do anything to solve Latin America's problems.

It looks to me like a Spain that wasn't ravaged by the Penninsular War could have beaten the Revolutions of 1810-1820. But would it have just exploded a generation later?
 
I think Bourbon monarchs would have had a lot of the same problems eventually, especially when it comes to relations with America. So you might get a similar end state to OTL even if the initial state was more ordered.
 

Faeelin

Banned
I think Bourbon monarchs would have had a lot of the same problems eventually, especially when it comes to relations with America. So you might get a similar end state to OTL even if the initial state was more ordered.

Here's why I'm not sure. We tend to forget that the period before Ferdinand's restoration (and decision to scrap the Constitution) did see a flourishing of free press and democratic elections, with a franchise that extended far beyond that of contemporary Britain.

Building a civil society overnight is not easy. But a head start could have helped.
 
Possible candidates and scenarios.

Well there are enough heads to fill crowns or asses to warm up thrones. The concept of breaking up the Spanish Empire and sitting sovereigns on each had already been brought up during the reign of Charles III. After the Wars of Independence, Bolivar thought an absolute monarchy would suit Peru. Additionally there is the actual example of the Portuguese monarchy being exiled in Brazil, and the positive effect it had on Brazilian history. So with that said the actual break up took place between 1811-1815. There was the idea of having Carlotta Joaquina set up shop in present day Argentina, but her husband put a stop it, and with good reason too, given her character and reputation.

Around that time there were four areas which merited a viceroy : Mexico (Central America), Peru (Peru, Ecuador), La Plata (Argentina, Bolivia, Paraguay, and Uruguay), and New Granada (Venezuela, Colombia, parts of Ecuador, Panama, and parts of Central America). The Philippines, Cuba, and Puerto Rico being Captaincies. So we've got 4 seats to fill.

Let's call the main breaking point, Ferdinand VII's abolition of the Constitution of 1812. So this sets off, the Wars of Independence.

Back in Europe, its an everyman for himself situation. Ferdinand VII didn't inspire too many positive feelings towards himself, even in his own family.
So there are plenty of candidates willing to roll the die.

First there's dad, Charles IV is still hanging around, going into exile in Rome. Say he gets sick of being cuckolded by his nagging wife. He could always hop onboard a ship and head off for a tropical get away. He knows its plausible, since his daughter's off in Brazil. Where would he go? Probably the most loyal outpost, Cuba, just as a gathering point for any Loyalist forces that want to rally around. In OTL, Cuba ended up as a final destination for plenty of Loyalist, which is why the rumblings for independence were delayed til the 1860's.

Maybe Charles IV, is too tired or old, but then there are still plenty of other plausible candidates. First there are Charles IV's two other sons, Carlos (from whom the Carlists spewed) and Francisco. Carlos was old school, believing in the divine right of kings and all, but was also a dutiful man. Carlos allowed FVII to sideline him, and only initiated the Carlists Wars because of a sincere belief it was his God-given duty to rule. Seeing the possibility of establishing himself on a New World throne, not as an act of rebellion, but as a continuation and preservation of Bourbon family rule, he might. Given his temperament Carlos would be suited for Peru or Mexico if he can wrench it away from Iturbide. If not there's always Francisco. He was offered the possibility of setting up shop in Buenos Aires, but did not receive any positive encouragement from Charles IV. Well assuming this time around Charles IV took some initiative, then viola, you've got a kingdon in Buenos Aires.

Francisco and Carlos would constitute the most legitimate and ready made candidates for Bourbon thrones in the New World. Assuming we're sticking to the Spanish Branch or direct descendants of Spanish monarchs, then there are even more options. I'm sticking to male descendants only, because they would be the most palatable candidates to most Royalists. Having seen how pointless backing a female candidate was during the Carlota Joaquina episode. There are Luis Maria de Borbon y Vallabriga, grandson of Philip V; then there are Infante Sebastien of Spain and Portugal, as well as Infante Miguel of Portugal, both are great grandsons of Charles III.

The craziest candidate being Don Luis Maria, at the time he's a clergyman in Spain. However, Don Luis Maria's father Don Luis, had been a clergyman and traded in the red (archbishopric) for some pink (wink, wink), why not trade in the red this time around for some purple (throne). Don Luis Maria was the only member of the royal family to remain in Spain during the Napoleonic Wars, and acted as regent for Ferdinand VII, while FVII was in exile France. When FVII disbanded the Cortes and abjured the 1812 Constitution, his actions impacted Luis Maria negatively. Luis Maria, through reputation, cooperation with the Cortes, and as a supporter of constitutional monarchy would if he had chosen to risk it made an ideal candidate for a monarch.

Don Sebastien and Don Miguel were already in the New World at the time the revolutions took place. Given the distance and time it took to travel between Europe and certain parts of the Spanish Empire, both make ideal candidates. Don Sebastien at the moment is an infant, but his mother Maria Teresa is a scrapper, having fought for her son's hereditary rights in Spain in the OTL. Well in the ATL, what's to stop Maria Teresa from accepting a regency for her son. As a daughter of Carlota Joaquina, she could lay claim there, in addition her father, John VI, who could offer material support was running Brazil and comfortably installed in Rio.

Dom Miguel is pretty much in the same boat as Don Sebastien, except of course, he's Carlota's boys. Assuming Carlota renounced her rights in favor of her younger son, then Johnny boy might have been more amicable towards setting up a kingdom in Buenos Aires. There eldest, Pedro was already an adult and by 1819 a father..... so Miguel could have already been expendable.

Either one of these alternate candidates could set up shop. Additionally, any one of the more charismatic princes of either Bourbon-Parma or Bourbon-Naples could've jumped ship to the New World, planted a flag, and taken a roll of the die.

The fact that Spanish America was essentially conservative and Catholic played into there hands. Other than regionalism within the prospective Kingdoms, the assumption of a King in anyone of the Viceroyalties, would have kept a lid on strife for at least two or three more generations, as was proven in Brazil...... or as mentioned earlier when large numbers of Loyalist from OTL, emigrated to Cuba and squashed any budding hope for independence for another 40-50 years. The real trick to survival is adaptability and the transition/abolition of slavery.;)
 
I'm Argentine and I want to clarify this point.
The only one who could have been king of Argentina is Charles Bourbon-Parma Duke of Lucca. because the national congress the same as in 1816 declared independence in 1819 approved that the Duke of Lucca be king of Argentina.

obviously what is legal could not be translated into practice because a group of rebels defeated the government in early 1820.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top