In furtherance of post #57 and of what I've learned on this thread from others, it seems to me that in terms of setting up British settler colonies there are three main categories (increasing in level of difficulty) with regard to the ease of a British takeover in the face of an already-existing European population: 1) the level of many Anglo areas (e.g. Australia/New Zealand, most of Canada outside Quebec, the United States outside much of the southern tier - i.e. Florida/Louisiana/Texas/Southwest/California) 2) the level of Quebec or the Cape of Good Hope region (or, for that matter, much of the southern tier of the USA) 3) the level of Ireland or Transvaal/Orange Free State Applying all this to the area of OTL Argentina/Uruguay in the event of British success at Buenos Aires in 1807, it seems to me that Patagonia, the southern Pampas (including OTL Bahia Blanca), Entre Rios, and the Chaco (and also Misiones, if you didn't have to go through Corrientes) would be in category 1. Uruguay and Santa Fe would be in category 2. Finally, areas like Buenos Aires, Corrientes/Paraguay (assuming that the Orientales under Artigas end up there and establish their own republic(s)), Cordoba, Mendoza/San Juan/San Luis, Tucuman/Catamarca/La Rioja/Santiago del Estero, and Salta/Jujuy/Oran would be in category 3. It's category 3 that would be the most difficult for the British to try to take over, and for which it would take much justification with respect to British aims to attempt such a takeover. As I said before, of all these category 3 areas in the Southern Cone, Buenos Aires would provide more justification than other such areas for various reasons, and even then, a protectorate/residency/suzerainty would initially be better than an outright takeover. Moreover, IOTL, were the people in Buenos Aires and elsewhere as rebellious in the mid- and late-19th century as they were through the 1820s?