MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Spain refuses to share recovered undersea booty with former American colonies
Spain rejected Peru's claim to a huge multimillion-dollar undersea treasure recovered from the wreckage of a galleon that had left from Montevideo port more than 200 years ago loaded with precious metals originally from the Peruvian highlands. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesThey can use the coins to pay the Manila Ransom, which is probably worth over £600'000'000 to the UK now. Well done Spain.
Feb 27th, 2012 - 08:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So sunk by the British off Gib, recovered and taken to Gib, and they let it go to Florida!!!
Feb 27th, 2012 - 08:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Pirate skill are getting rusty, letting it go even when it falls in our lap.
We clearly have very bad piracy skills.
Feb 27th, 2012 - 10:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Still got the Falklands
Feb 27th, 2012 - 10:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0pirates rule yo ho ho
1 GreekYoghurt
Feb 28th, 2012 - 01:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0Keep dreaming your pirate dreams mate! The so called “Manila Ransom” extracted by English corsairs (read pirates) from the Archbishop of Manila under threat of mass murder, rape and pillage was never recognised by Spain or its legitimate representatives on the ground in the Philippines.
Check out the following excerpt from Wikipedia and get your facts straight in the future:
“The surrender agreement between Archbishop Rojo and the British corsairs guaranteed the Roman Catholic religion and its episcopal government, secured private property, and granted the citizens the rights of peaceful travel and of trade 'as British subjects'.
Under the agreement Manila would remain under British control, and continue to be governed by the Real Audencia, the expenses of which were to be paid by Spain.
However, [legitimate Spanish authority in the Philippines rested with Visitor-General] Don Simón de Anda y Salazar who refused to recognize any of the agreements signed by [Archbishop] Rojo as valid, claiming that the Archbishop has been made to sign them by force, and therefore, according to the statutes of the Council of the Indies, invalid.
He also refused to negotiate with the British until he was addressed as the legal Governor-General of the Philippines, returning to the British the letters that were not addressed to that effect.
All of these initiatives were later approved by the King of Spain, who rewarded Anda and other members of the Audiencia, such as José Basco y Vargas, [who over two years successfully fought against the English corsairs limiting their area of influence to Manila and the port of Cavite.]
[In the end the British were unable to conquer the Philippines.] Severe disagreements then broke out between Dawsonne Drake and the military commanders who replaced Draper and Cornish, preventing either effective military action or fruitful negotiations with Anda.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_occupation_of_the_Philippines
“These coins are not money. They are archaeological pieces,”
Feb 28th, 2012 - 06:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What is the betting, that once they are restored, there is a sale by Spain to 'serious collectors only' thus retaining their 'status'.
@5 Betelgeuse
Feb 28th, 2012 - 06:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So the English were the Corsairs (read Pirates) who forced the Catholic Archbishop to sign away Spanish control of Manila, and some cash.
The Spanish being the legitimate authority in the Philippines of course.
By what legitimate means did Spain have authority/jurisdiction over the Philippines?
Was it previously uninhabited, or did the Spanish race actually originate from there, no.
The English were simply relieving the Spanish Conquistadors of plunder they had robbed from the Philippinos in the first place, the English of course were going to give back to the Philippinos.
Robin Hood vs the evil Spanish Dons
7 Pugol-H
Feb 29th, 2012 - 01:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0The point I was making is that the so called “Manilla Ransom” was an invalid agreement (made under threat of mass murder, rape and pillage) that was never recognised by Spain or its legitimate representatives on the ground in the Philippines (legitimate Spanish authority in the Philippines rested with Visitor-Genera Don Simón de Anda y Salazar).
The English did not attack Manila to de-colonise the Philippines. Their intention was to replace a Spanish colony with an English colony nothing more and nothing less. However, they were unable to re-conquer the Philippines from Spain.
You should really get off your high horse as your hypocrisy is an embarrassment that is obvious to any objective reader.
8 Betelgeuse
Mar 01st, 2012 - 06:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The point I was making, was that you seem to regard the English actions of trying to rob the Spanish of their plunder, as piracy and a crime.
Whilst the Spanish actions of colonising and robbing the philippinos of the plunder in the first place, as being completely legitimate.
The English made a large and very profitable industry of relieving the Spanish of their ill gotten gains, this is true.
But to try and pretend that the English behaviour was morally or legally any different to the behaviour of the Spanish in gathering the booty in the first place is the real hypocrisy here, as any objective reader will see.
Both the English and Spanish were building empires by what ever means nessecary and or available, and you talk of “Spain or its legitimate representatives on the ground in the Philippines”, and “legitimate Spanish authority in the Philippines”, and accuse me of being on a “high horse”.
The English had no real intention of trying to colonise the Philippines, it was simply, a raid in force, nothing more.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!