Talk:Inter caetera

Exclusion of other monarchs

The Bull excluded other monarchs because of the reconquest.

Which reconquest? The Reconquista? If so, it should be reworded, as the Reconquista couldn't be the reason to exclude other monarchs; in any case, the Bull would have been something of a prize given by the Church for the Reconquista. Anyway, a citation is needed. --euyyn 08:16, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Sept. 1493 Bull

It appears that the incipit of the Sept. 1493 Bull is Dudum siquidem (see, e. g., [1] and [2]). If there is no disagreement, I'll be glad to make the change in the text.NorCalHistory 15:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

By all means, add it, and thanks for the links. I have additional concerns about the geographical details, both with the accuracy of the meridians (even though I calculated them) and whether the bull even had a meridian! Meridian accuracy depends on the accuracy of the ship's speed. I now doubt that the bull used a meridian because it says the line is 100 leagues west and south of the Azores and Cape Verde Islands. Instead of a N-S meridian, this can be construed to be a SSE-NNW rhumb line that is 100 leagues SW of both island groups. If such a line is projected SE, it passes Africa by a wide margin. — Joe Kress 08:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Encyclopedic tone

Regarding the recent proposed changes in the text of the article, I would agree that the proposed language is not encyclopedic in tone, and I would revert on that ground as well. EspanaViva 18:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Major move of material

I am concerned about a major move of material by an anon editor to this article from Treaty of Tordesillas. Two questions:

• Should the material which was moved, actually be in both articles?
• More importantly, the moved material is unreferenced, pov-sounding, and not exactly encyclopaedic tone - so the question is - does this material actually belong in either article, or should it be pulled out, and placed on the talk page, or on a sub-page for substantial re-writing, source-adding, and fact-checking?

NorCalHistory 23:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The following material is being moved here as unsourced, and NPOV. If anyone can make sense of this and provide reliable sources, those portions may be moved back into the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EspanaViva (talk • contribs)

Competition and Future

England and France were not included in the bull, partially because of their centralist expansionism with Wales and Brittany, dynastic problems with Stuarts and Bourbons, while continuing their Hundred Years' War contest over Burgundy. Eventual violent influxes of Calvinism from the Kingdom of Scotland and Kingdom of Navarre rendered these countries Protestant in comparison to the Iberian Union; Anglican (simultaneously titled Defender of the Faith) and Gallican (simultaneously titled "Most Christian King"). Their wish to get the upper hand with the Habsburgs, with the English in Germany and the French in Italy, added to their religious impotence in pursuing claims to lands discovered. As a result, England and France no longer had access to Mediterranean navigators and resorted to privateering with their own sailors such as Francis Drake and Jacques Cartier. The English and French approaches were more or less of the same caliber.

The Kingdom of England, nevertheless recieved partiality for colonial interests in the New World of America. Henry VII of England banked on his Lancastrian ties to Castile and contracted a marriage between his son Arthur Tudor with Catherine of Aragon. John Cabot was a Genoan like Columbus, hired to press English interests and in 1497 rediscovered what is now Canada after Leif Ericson. Catherine remarried upon Arthur's premature death, to his brother Henry VIII of England. Their subsequent daughter Mary I of England, was married to Philip II of Spain and they ruled legally as co-monarchs in their collective dominions. The Kingdom of Chile was the first American monarchy, rooted in this Anglo-Spanish alliance. Eventually, Nova Albion (British America) came to be the predominant condition of North America. British colonists had a Continental view of their situation, rather than the insularity preferred by the establishment in the British Isles.

The French view of this treaty was exemplified by Francis I of France, demanding to be shown the clause in Adam's will excluding his authority from the New World. The French however, were embroiled in Imperial affairs and did not become involved with America until switching focus to dynastic ambitions with the Kingdom of Navarre. Giovanni da Verrazzano in 1524, was sent to press the rights of Francis in what is now the United States. France eventually got the upper hand, during the War of the Spanish Succession. Nouvelle-France (French America) was less directly influential, failing to retain a lasting hold on their territories due to the early British toehold in the Age of Discovery. France's legacy was to be the type of American governments; in Canada (Monarchy), the United States (Republic) and the Empire of Haiti (Empire). France's Bonapartes later erected the Mexican Empire and its disinherited Capetians were to rule in the Empire of Brazil.

The Ottoman Empire's strategies divided Europeans and set the stage for the 20th Century Cold War. US Founders believed that Colonists inherited the mantle of the Holy Roman Empire, as Britain, Gaul, Spain and Italy were once part of the Western Roman Empire which subjected Africans. Russia and Alaska inherited the Byzantine Empire. A universalist approach was made to Manifest Destiny and the Treaty of Tordesillas was finally made null after the Spanish-American War, with a majority of German (English interest) and Italian (French interest) immigrants to balance Americana. Hispanic legacy is currently contested as of 2007, between "Latin America" and "Anglo-America". One thing in common, is a duality based in Burgundians and Orangists. The European Union is also heir to the Burgundy-Low Country tradition.

Brazil

How and why is it that neither Brazil nor South America is even mentioned in this article? Badagnani (talk) 06:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Well in 1493 when this edict was made by the Pope, Columbus had only made one voyage, and he had only discovered the Bahamas and Haiti.Eregli bob (talk) 05:29, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Chronology

Some of the chronology seems dubious. They negotiated in November 1493 and then the pope made 4 edicts in May 1493 ? Also Columbus returned to Spain in March 1493 and the pope made edicts about it 6 weeks later ? That is implausibly fast diplomacy.Eregli bob (talk) 05:28, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Alexandra VI in the bull states "as was pleasing to the Lord, you, with the wish to fulfill your desire, chose our beloved son, Christopher Columbus, a man assuredly worthy and of the highest recommendations and fitted for so great an undertaking..." see also Oskar Spate re fast papal response.[3] Yt95 (talk) 15:53, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Problems in the article

• the lead picture is from a later period with unknown reliability, doesnt fit the article too.
• section with indian protests, the sources do not seem reliable enough to have this statement, if there was a large protest I would agree, but it is just a clear POV, without any importance or representability.--Pedro (talk) 12:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

point 2. The citations include the National Catholic Reporter so it's not clear how the POV tag is relevant other than your pov maybe that Native Americans are not entitled to express their opinions since they are a conquered nation. I don't agree with that so maybe you can take it to the relevant page on Wikipedia for a third opinion. Meantime I'm deleting the tag as being itself a the product of a wiki editors pov. Yt95 (talk) 15:01, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Yt95, "Native Americans"... could you explain how "a delegation of roughly 15-20 human and indigenous rights activists from the Americas and Pacific region" [4] and "50-60 activists and students gathered again in Honolulu" [5] could be entitled to spoke in name of all "Native Americans"? Maiby we could replace "Various groups representing indigenous peoples of the Americas" with "some human and indigenous rights activists". Domics — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.40.157.149 (talk) 06:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Inter caetera. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080724032429/http://bullsburning.itgo.com/Index.htm to http://bullsburning.itgo.com/Index.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:48, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Inter caetera

Thanks for taking the time to revise this article. Perhaps, I missed it, but could you show me where the proposed arguments and the voting is taking place? Thanks. Caballero/Historiador ^⎌ 00:20, 23 February 2016 (UTC)