early 19th-century monarchy in Argentina

Well, if we go for the rule of cool then yeah, lets have an Inca king.

Going back to reality, you confused 40 years of Argentinean history.
Let's reconsider what you said slowly.

First, Buenos Aires started the Revolution, it was certainly the head, because it was the most liberal and aware of new ideas city.
Second, Buenos Aires separated from the country in the 50s, 30 years after the last proposal for a king.
Third, it wasn't enormously popular in the rest of the country. It may have been popular in certain areas of Bolivia, but let's face it, by 1816 the Elite of the country was already resigning to the idea that Bolivia could be made part of the county. They still claimed some of South Bolivia, but that's not full of Natives.
Fourth, read what I posted before about racial relations in Colonial Argentina.
Fifth, as I say by 1820, the idea of a king was dead, but I invite you to provide a source that it even was discused as an option in the Constitutional Congress of 1852.
Sixth, how are you supposed to have an Argentinean working as a country without Buenos Aires? Is like having the USA having the whole Louisiana Purchase minus New Orleans. You can have it happen but economic development will be halted and sooner or later the city will become part of the country. And then you are screwed, the economic might of Buenos Aires is unbeatable in Argentina.

I am aware the Inca plan wasn't discussed in 1852, but it was discussed in 1816, at the Congress of Tucuman, which had nearly pulled a fait accompli on Buenos Aires, until Buenos Aires got the whole thing moved to Buenos Aires in March of 1817. My PoD is simply what if the Congress of Tucuman hadn't moved? I think they would have gone ahead with the Inca plan. Also, Charles II, Duke of Parma (then Duke of Lucca) was still being proposed, I think, as an Argentinian monarch as late as the period of the Argentina-Brazil War of 1825-1828. You're right that after the 1820s Argentine monarchism was apparently dead. But the Inca plan (and many other possibilities) were at one point very close to fruition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inca_plan
 
I am aware the Inca plan wasn't discussed in 1852, but it was discussed in 1816, at the Congress of Tucuman, which had nearly pulled a fait accompli on Buenos Aires, until Buenos Aires got the whole thing moved to Buenos Aires in March of 1817. My PoD is simply what if the Congress of Tucuman hadn't moved? I think they would have gone ahead with the Inca plan. Also, Charles II, Duke of Parma (then Duke of Lucca) was still being proposed, I think, as an Argentinian monarch as late as the period of the Argentina-Brazil War of 1825-1828. You're right that after the 1820s Argentine monarchism was apparently dead. But the Inca plan (and many other possibilities) were at one point very close to fruition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inca_plan

The link, which is wiki so it's not the best source, says the idea had strong popular support among the Northern Provinces. Now, one thing is to talk about Argentina's northern provinces when the country got more or less a definitive shape(Salta, Jujuy, Catamarca, maybe Tucuman and La Rioja depending on what is you critery), and the other is to talk about the Northern Provinces of the United Provinces. These Northern Provinces were everything from lake Titicaca to Potosi. What are Argentina's northern provinces were considered Central Provinces. In these provinces there was moderate support. And after them, support was almost inexistent.

The thing is, Buenos Aires ruled the country economically and politically. Their decision is the important one, not the one of a bunch of provinces they don't even control.
If a monarch was to rule the country, it would be one they liked.

Now if we start to talk about a Inca monarch in Bolivia, or Bolivia-Peru, that's is certainly possible and would actually had good support from the people.
 
If Argentina get a monarch would its relationship with Brazil change for the better? I also wonder if Peru might decide to go with the Inca plan later if monarchism is more popular in South America.
 
If Argentina get a monarch would its relationship with Brazil change for the better? I also wonder if Peru might decide to go with the Inca plan later if monarchism is more popular in South America.

Perhaps the Inca plan could have been transferred to Peru or Bolivia. Especially Bolivia, where it was enormously popular. And could Chile adopt Carlotism if monarchy becomes more popular in South America?
 
How about the debate raging on long enough for Argentina to accept a sort of personal union with the lusophone Empire of Brazil?
 
If Argentina get a monarch would its relationship with Brazil change for the better? I also wonder if Peru might decide to go with the Inca plan later if monarchism is more popular in South America.

They might do so. San Martin could very well propose that to Peruvian people. The problem would be Bolivia, who IIRC was republican.
But having a monarchy in Peru would surely help to tight the country together if it ever includes Bolivia.

Perhaps the Inca plan could have been transferred to Peru or Bolivia. Especially Bolivia, where it was enormously popular. And could Chile adopt Carlotism if monarchy becomes more popular in South America?

No. Chileans would have a British monarch. Or at least a German. If not, a republic.

How about the debate raging on long enough for Argentina to accept a sort of personal union with the lusophone Empire of Brazil?

No.
That's like proposing the French to be part of a personal union with the UK instead of having the Bourbon Restoration. Nobody would like that.
Now, that Argentinean and Brazilian royal families are going to intermarry, that's a fact.
 
No.
That's like proposing the French to be part of a personal union with the UK instead of having the Bourbon Restoration. Nobody would like that.
Now, that Argentinean and Brazilian royal families are going to intermarry, that's a fact.

Argentina and Brazil as national concepts are inventions of their colonial classes, and in this age when racism was so rife throughout the New World, a union of Argentina and Brazil would be rather more like the union between Flemings and Waloons than between the English and the French; plausible, but challenging, and dependent upon a sort of Catholic identity among the populace.
 
Argentina and Brazil as national concepts are inventions of their colonial classes, and in this age when racism was so rife throughout the New World, a union of Argentina and Brazil would be rather more like the union between Flemings and Waloons than between the English and the French; plausible, but challenging, and dependent upon a sort of Catholic identity among the populace.

You are right, I probably didn't choose the best example.
Argentinean-Brazilian relationship wasn't the best. It all started in the 1600, when the Portuguese founded Colonia del Sacremento.
Its like having a business you have built with hardwork(I'm talking about smugglering and illegal trade), and then a big and rich guy comes and sets a new shop in front of yours, and he have all the advantages.
Then the Bandeirantes, who took the Catholic Guaranies from the Misiones to work as slaves. And disrupted a lot our rural production.
Finally, you have the Invasion of Uruguay and the War of Brazil. That two things alone made it impossible anytime before 1920 as a minimun.

But anyway, there's only one way this could be forgiven. And that's having Portuguese Brazil to help Argentina durign independence without taking any territory. Highly unlikely. And after that Brazil shouldn't have a war with us.
 
You are right, I probably didn't choose the best example.
Argentinean-Brazilian relationship wasn't the best. It all started in the 1600, when the Portuguese founded Colonia del Sacremento.
Its like having a business you have built with hardwork(I'm talking about smugglering and illegal trade), and then a big and rich guy comes and sets a new shop in front of yours, and he have all the advantages.
Then the Bandeirantes, who took the Catholic Guaranies from the Misiones to work as slaves. And disrupted a lot our rural production.
Finally, you have the Invasion of Uruguay and the War of Brazil. That two things alone made it impossible anytime before 1920 as a minimun.

But anyway, there's only one way this could be forgiven. And that's having Portuguese Brazil to help Argentina durign independence without taking any territory. Highly unlikely. And after that Brazil shouldn't have a war with us.

I forgot that Flanders, Brabant, Hainault, Liege, Limburg, Luxembourg, and Namur never quarelled:rolleyes:
 
I forgot that Flanders, Brabant, Hainault, Liege, Limburg, Luxembourg, and Namur never quarelled:rolleyes:

But that's different. In Europe they are very close to each other. They were certainly more close related and dependant on each other than Brazil and Argentina.

Remember also that distances in Brazil and Argentina are rather big, with like 2.200 kilometres between Sao Paulo and Buenos Aires. Roughly the same distance between Paris and Moscow. Misunderstandings and problems take much longer to solve.
 
But that's different. In Europe they are very close to each other. They were certainly more close related and dependant on each other than Brazil and Argentina.

Remember also that distances in Brazil and Argentina are rather big, with like 2.200 kilometres between Sao Paulo and Buenos Aires. Roughly the same distance between Paris and Moscow. Misunderstandings and problems take much longer to solve.

You handwaived distance issues when you suggested that Peru would be united to this alternate Argentina.
 
You handwaived distance issues when you suggested that Peru would be united to this alternate Argentina.

When?

I only suggested that instead of an Inca Monarchy in Argentina, there could be one in Bolivia, and that this Bolivia could be united with Peru. Nothing more, nothing else.
 
When?

I only suggested that instead of an Inca Monarchy in Argentina, there could be one in Bolivia, and that this Bolivia could be united with Peru. Nothing more, nothing else.

There is no reason for an Incan monarchy in a country that was never within the Incan domain. If you only have this Incan monarch rule just Argentina, then what you propose is absurd omn its face.
 
It would be interesting to read a tl where monarchy became the popular form of government instead of republicanism. I'm not entirely sure how this would directly impact the rest of the world though as it doesn't seem as large a change compared to more popular points of divergence.
 
There is no reason for an Incan monarchy in a country that was never within the Incan domain. If you only have this Incan monarch rule just Argentina, then what you propose is absurd omn its face.

I think we are not understanding.

Of the three countries I mentioned, the three had areas dominated by the Incas. Specially Bolivia and Peru. Just google "inca empire map". Why won't there be an Inca monarch in a country where more than 15% of the people speak Quechua, the Inca language, as an heritage of being under the Inca. In comparisson with an Argentina which only had some few speakers of Quechua. Just to show some facts about Incan heritage in both countries.

Second, I have been saying, since the thread started, that Argentina won't have an Inca monarch. It won't happen if Argentina is independent and it won't happen even if Argentina is a member of the South American Confederation whos king happen to be an Inca.

Third, read what I post!
I will try to speak in a more simple way. Argentina can't have an Inca monarch. Bolivia can have an Inca Monarch. Peru can have an Inca monarch. Peru and Bolivia have a similar culture and history. Bolivia and Peru can be part of a same country. That country can have an Inca Monarch. Argenina is not in that country. That country is just Bolivia+Peru.

Is it clearer now?
 
Was Dionisio Inca Yupanqui an native Indian or was he a mestizo or criollo? If the latter, he can certainly qualify.

A possible candidate to be crowned after this proposal was Dionisio Inca Yupanqui, colonel in Spain and deputee at the Courts of Cadiz in 1812, mentioned in a mail from Chamberlain to Castlereagh.[3] He had a high social position, and by representing Peru at Cadiz he was already politically notable.[4] Another possible candidate was Juan Bautista Tupamaro, also known as Túpac Amaru. As well as his brother Túpac Amaru II, he claimed to be a descendent of the former Inca ruler Túpac Amaru.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inca_plan#cite_note-4
 
Top