r16
not deity
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 12,148
how about Grumman J2F , though the window is more probably for downward vision for the back seater
History questions not worth their own thread III
- Thread starter Plotinus
- Start date
- Status
how about Grumman J2F , though the window is more probably for downward vision for the back seater
Sofista
Deity
madviking
north american scum
How serious was Leopold von Hohenzollern's claim to the Spanish throne in 1868?
He would have been granted it if not for French moaning. That's how serious it was. The Spanish also offered the throne to the father of the Portuguese king. They were pretty desperate for anyone with a claim to take charge.
madviking
north american scum
Was Prussia interested in overriding the French objection?
The French seem to have taken it quite seriously.
madviking
north american scum
Well what I'm trying to learn is whether the claim was for giggles or whether a Prussian king of Spain was within the realm of possibility.
Yes. But they were not yet ready to risk a war with France, especially over a prize as relatively worthless as Spain. Prussia joining forces with Spain was unsettling enough to the other Great Powers that there's a chance they may have backed France against Prussia - especially Austria-Hungary - and Prussia wouldn't have enjoyed the great support it did against France later, since this was obviously a dynastic conflict and not a naked war of aggression as the later Franco-Prussian War. Too much risk for too little gain.
Valid. It wasn't that he had a much of a claim, but that he was conveniently Catholic and fairly important with a few marriage ties into other arms of the extended House of Bourbon. The elements of the military that controlled Madrid would've been happy to have him if, you know, it could've been done with a minimum of fuss from anybody else.
Although I think you're looking for 1870, there. 1868 was the year the revolution happened, but Prim and his cohorts weren't anywhere close to making a decision about monarchs for a few years (political survival being of more interest than a figurehead king).
No. Bismarck seems to have put the whole thing through to test the waters, as it were, and see how Napoleon III was planning his foreign policy. It was a tactical gambit; if he had succeeded in his little fait accompli without the French knowing until the Spanish junta had already announced their acceptance of his candidacy, there would've been a Hohenzollern (not really a Prussian; he was from Sigmaringen, and was therefore a dirty Swabian) on the Spanish throne for a few years until he was kicked out (just like Amadeo I was). Or, if he stayed on the throne, there's basically no way he would've influenced Spanish policy to the degree that Spain would be willing to enter into some kind of alliance with Prussia/Germany against France. This was 1870, not 1470, after all.
The whole crisis came about not because Bismarck wanted to press the issue - he didn't, not really, and Leopold's candidacy was withdrawn very quickly - but because the French decided to see how far they could push the Prussians, for various reasons. Ollivier wanted to cement his hold on the government; Gramont wanted to one-up Bismarck (and then, as the crisis metamorphosed, two-up); Napoleon III was ever-conscious of his plebiscitary numbers, believed that the French army was finally recovered from the Mexican imbroglio, and figured that any way this crisis ended up - Prussian humiliation or war - would end up a French victory of one sort or another. Hence the second push, Benedetti's visit to Wilhelm at Ems (the equivalent of an ambassador walking in on a modern-day president while she's on the toilet), and the rest of that awfully well-known story.
Within the realm of possibility. (Although, again, Leopold was not in any meaningful sense "Prussian". He was from the black-sheep branch of the family from south Germany. The only reason Bismarck and Wilhelm were making decisions about whether he should put his name in the hat was because Wilhelm was the formal head of the family.) Probably wouldn't have mattered all that much for Spanish internal history.
jtb1127
Deity
Did the Maltese Falcon (from the movie with Humphrey Bogart) actually exist?
LightSpectra
me autem minui
I haven't seen the Maltese Falcon (1941) in awhile, so I looked up its Wikipedia page. This is the prologue: "In 1539 the Knight Templars of Malta, paid tribute to Charles V of Spain, by sending him a Golden Falcon encrusted from beak to claw with rarest jewels——but pirates seized the galley carrying this priceless token and the fate of the Maltese Falcon remains a mystery to this day"
It's kind of amazing how many errors are in that paragraph. First of all, the king in question is either "Kaiser Karl V" or "Carlos I of Spain [really Castile-León & Aragon]", and mixing up these two titles isn't a minor blunder. Secondly, the Knights Templar were dissolved in the 14th century. The order that controlled Malta was the Knights Hospitaller. Thirdly, the Hospitaller only held constitutional allegiance to the Pope, so they wouldn't have sent a tribute to the Kaiser. Fourthly, Malta wouldn't be a place where people would craft a solid gold falcon in the 16th century (though I suppose it could've come from somewhere else and the... Knights Templar got a hold of it).
Having gone through that, Wikipedia says this, although it's unsourced: "The "Maltese Falcon" itself is reportedly based on the 'Kniphausen Hawk', a ceremonial pouring vessel made in 1697 for George William von Kniphausen, Count of the Holy Roman Empire. It is modeled after a hawk perched on a rock and is encrusted with red garnets, amethysts, emeralds and blue sapphires. The vessel is currently owned by the Duke of Devonshire and is an integral piece of the Chatsworth House collection."
Yes.
Well, it's common to refer to him as Charles V in English, though considering that he warred with the Ottomans and his soldiers even sacked Rome, it's not too surprising to think that the Knights Hospitaller might send him a tribute. The other errors (including the incorrect pluralisation) are unforgiveable though. 
Given that this is a Wikipedia page about a Hollywood film, it would be surprising if anything true made it through both of those filters.
LightSpectra
me autem minui
Well, it's common to refer to him as Charles V in English, though considering that he warred with the Ottomans and his soldiers even sacked Rome, it's not too surprising to think that the Knights Hospitaller might send him a tribute. The other errors (including the incorrect pluralisation) are unforgiveable though.
Charles is a legitimate anglicization of "Karl" and "Carlos", except he wasn't Charles V of Spain, he was the fifth Kaiser named Charles. He was Charles I of Spain (though if you want to get super technical, Spain didn't exist yet; he was the king of Castile-León and Aragon).
As for the tribute part: the Ottomans didn't attack Malta until 1565, which was when Carlos' son Felipe II was king of Castile-León & Aragon.
I remember reading a while ago that Malta was ceded to the Hospitallers by the King of Spain (or, well, Aragon, technically) in return for a nominal tribute of a falcon every year. Of course the Hospitallers as an order were subject only to the Pope, but I think they held Malta as a theoretical Aragonese fief. Therefore I am inclined to say that this story about a golden falcon is probably an embellishment of the actual fact that a yearly tribute of a falcon was actually paid.
What does the Siege of Malta have to do anything? The Ottomans took Cyprus from the Knights in 1522 and there continual fighting between the Knights and Barbary Pirates and Ottomans.
While Charles V of Spain is wrong, it is commonly used in English.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll
