MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
14 August is Falklands Day, commemorates first sighting of the Islands in 1592
14 August is Falklands Day and commemorates the first sighting of the Falkland Islands on that day in 1592 by the English navigator and explorer, John Davis, on board his 120-ton vessel 'Desire'. Davis (1550-1605) was one of the principal navigators under Queen Elizabeth I. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesA Story to take note of as all the dates are verifiable, although I expect the Argentine posters will Whine Whinge and Complain that its not Fair!
Aug 14th, 2023 - 09:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0TWIMC...
Aug 14th, 2023 - 10:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0Falklands Day... ?
- Ya mean today...,14 August ..., when ya' Anglo Kelpers commemorate the “First Sighting?!?” of the Malvinas Islands by an Engrishman on that day in 1592 by the Engrish navigator and explorer, John Davis, on board his 120-ton Engrish vessel 'Desire'...?
- May I humbly direct ya' Anglo Kelper attention to Sr. PEDRO REINEL..., FERDINAND MAGELLAN's carthographer and his pretty map from 1522...?
http://www.malvinas-falklands.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Figura-1.jpg
What do ya' Tænk that spot..., almost in the middle of his 1522 map..., some 200 nautical miles from the Magellan Strait is...?
- A crumb of Sr. PEDRO REINEL's pastrami sandwich...?
C'mon Kelpers...!
Even ya' dear own Pepper & Pascoe lads have admitted and published this mathematical truth...:
1592 -1522 = 70
Capisce...?
Chuckle..., chuckle...:-)))
Sr. The Think is something that has been mentioned many times and even if you put the evidence in their face the Anglos will deny it and continue repeating the same lies.
Aug 14th, 2023 - 11:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0First sighted by England in 1592.
Aug 14th, 2023 - 12:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0First claimed by England in 1594
https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2021/12/1480-to-1762-10.pdf
Turning out to be a busy day ;-)
A small sample of the lie of this article in a small paragraph.
Aug 14th, 2023 - 12:30 pm - Link - Report abuse -1The islands were inhabited by the French since 1764:
«The Falkland Islands never had any native inhabitants and were entirely unoccupied until 1765, when they were first claimed by the British who established a garrison at Port Egmont».
Trunks
Aug 14th, 2023 - 12:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0On the other page I only gave the first half of my comment regarding that map of 1522. I do wish MercoPress would provide a larger box. Here is the rest.
“At the tip of the south cone is a large bay generally acknowledged to be San Julian. The bay where Magellan, Gomes and the fleet overwintered in 1520. If that supposition is correct, the large but incomplete island to the east is most likely a mispositioned Tierra del Fuego. Why? Because Gomes had explored part of a strait, and a strait has two sides. Destombes, however, believed the island represented a sighting of the Falklands archipelago by Vespucci in 1502. He does not seem to have speculated upon the missing Tierra del Fuego. If however, the large bay with its central island is not San Julian, then it can only represent the strait itself. Or as much of the strait as Gomes explored; he never seeing the western mouth. If that is the case, then the island to the east may well represent an early sighting of the Falklands archipelago, although its subsequent absence from
Seville charts after 1522 becomes hard to explain. Wild theories aside, and possibly far more worthy of note, is the inclusion of six unidentified red dots close to the Patagonian coast.198 Seemingly, the first depiction of the Sanson group situated at latitude 47° 54'S. Confirming that the Sanson group were not the Falklands.”
Not that any of this is important. Discovery only provides an incohate title easily overruled by a landing - which we did also in 1690.
Marv - First claimed by England in 1594.
Reclaimed by Britain in 1765.
Go learn some history
https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2022/11/1763-to-1766.pdf
Sr. Malvinense 1833...
Aug 14th, 2023 - 12:42 pm - Link - Report abuse -1I do know that this is something that has been mentioned many times and even if we put the evidence in their face them Anglos will deny it and continue repeating the same lies....
Anyhow... dear Engrish Ex-Copper ain't really lying..., he is just joggling with semantics to ma,e reality fit with his haughtiness...
He says...: “First sighted by England in 1592.”...which is possibly true..., after..., of course..., several other Countries had sighted them before..., as this nice 1522 Portuguese map..., currently at the Topkapi library in Türkiye clearly proves...
https://www.cartographyunchained.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/ChRHD_0001.jpg_000023.jpg
Saludos...
Trunks, best evidence is a first sighting by Davies in 1592.
Aug 14th, 2023 - 01:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Spain does not claim discovery.
That map is - “Unsigned, undated and not widely examined, this chart was discovered in 1935 at the Topkapi Saray Library in Istanbul.”
As far as I can tell, nobody has examined this map since 1938. I suspect it was drafted by Estêvão Gomes and either finished by him or, more likely, from information provided by him in 1522. It reveals what he knew. He had not travelled through the strait to the far side, but he recognised a strait (salt water). This map mis-positions the southern side of that strait. Too close to be the Falklands, it cannot be anything other than Tierra del Fuego IMHO. There are other views. Pascoe & Pepper argue that this same map proves a Portuguese discovery in 1519.
Fun to argue, but of no great consequence.
More detail available here - https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2021/12/1480-to-1762-10.pdf
“Not the Falklands - a mispositioned Tierra del Fuego.”..., ya' say...???
Aug 14th, 2023 - 01:24 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Geeeeeeee...., Copper...
That risible fudge explanation of yours...,suddenly makes me previous joke 'bout them Isles on that Map just being crumbs of Sr. PEDRO REINEL's pastrami sandwich..., seem as the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth...
Chuckle..., chuckle...
Malvi, you have the audacity to call us liars ,your whole fantasy argument has been one big lie.
Aug 14th, 2023 - 01:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0your so called inheritance. proven a big lie, your so called Argentine settlement claim proven a big lie. your claim of usurping proven a big lie, your claim of Argentine civilians being evicted a whopping great lie, Britain has never denied the French were on one island in 1764, Spain wasnt there, the renegade UP were not there and Argie land was not there, it does not alter the fact the Britains claim precedes the French and Spanish, You were never in the game , cut to the chase shall we, go to court with your fabulous evidence, the islanders will go with theirs and lets see were the chips land,
Hey Juan, have you read the article? What is the lie?
Aug 14th, 2023 - 01:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0...and were entirely unoccupied until 1765
the 4 that i have just given you,
Aug 14th, 2023 - 01:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0An Argentine population of 10 weeks according to British history is insufficient.
Aug 14th, 2023 - 02:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The French population is insufficient.
The Spanish population is insufficient.
But the British claim of 1592 is enough please Juan!!
Yes enough Malvi, nobody has said the French population was insufficient, nobody has said the Spanish population was insufficient,however There was NO Argentine population , what there was was a PRIVATE business venture made up of various nationalities, Argentines were a minority in that business venture led by a Brit and a German, no UP leadership was there, so yes i agree Malvi, enough please with your blatant lies and distortion of facts, jump on a plane with your evidence, present it to the court and see were the chips fall, but Argentina has twice rejected that option, scared to lose like they did to Chile,
Aug 14th, 2023 - 02:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Che..., Malvinense 1883...
Aug 14th, 2023 - 03:39 pm - Link - Report abuse -1- Why dont you ask your Brainwashed Anglo Turnip friend above when...: ”Argentina has twice rejected an option, to present our evidence about the Islas Malvinas to the (ICJ) Court“...?
- He keeps repeating that falacy on his posts as it was true...!
- Many years ago I teached that haughty Ex-Engrish copper posting here..., called ”Roger Lorton” a lesson 'bout that...:-)))
-After much huffing & puffing against the overhwelming documentation provided..., he finally stopped using that false argument in here*...
* (Have no idea if he has corrected it on his “Malvinastimeline” though... Auld me gets quickly bored & tired reading bad quality material...)
- Cue...: it has something to do with the little word...: “Dependencies”... -
Saludos...
Taenk, you immature racist excuse for a man, go research it and you will find the 2 invitations given to Argentina to settle the matter. or is that beyond your brain function,
Aug 14th, 2023 - 03:50 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Cue TWIMC..:
Aug 14th, 2023 - 04:01 pm - Link - Report abuse -1- Go research it and you will find that the invitations given to Argentina to settle the matter at the ICJ..., were ONLY for the “Malvinas/Falkland DEPENDENCIES”..., NOT .for the ”Malvinas/Falkland ISLANDS...
Geeeeeeeeeeeee..., if a Brummie Copper could understand it......., anybody can... !
Cuckle..., chuckle...
If you searched more closely and thoroughly and not just be a keyboard child you will find farmore information than you know, but your tunnel vision only allows you to see what you want to see, Argentina can go there any time it wants too but chooses not to, its time Mercopress warned you about your racism, Arabs, Chinese, Africans and goodness knows how many other nationalities you have used racist commentsabout, now be a good little boy and go persuade the country you quit and ran out of to hop on a plane and go settle the matter ,as many people have said, its time to put up or shut up,
Aug 14th, 2023 - 04:20 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Trunks
Aug 14th, 2023 - 08:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The definitive chart that came out of Magellan's expedition is that by Vespucci's nephew drawn up at Seville in 1523. Juan Vespucci had the advantage of the evidence received from Gomez (who worked alongside him in 1823) and the Elcano survivors. All of who had been interviewed during two inquiries into Magellan's expedition. He also had inherited his uncle's papers. The chart he produced speaks for itself. The relevant detail from it is here -
https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2019/07/1523-vespucci-detail.jpg
Enjoy
Let me guess..., Copper...
Aug 14th, 2023 - 09:00 pm - Link - Report abuse -1- The Vespucci map must surely be..., FOR YOU..., the “DEFINITIVE CHART that came out of Magellan's expedition”..., because there ain't no Sr. PEDRO REINEL's pastrami sandwich.crumbs that resemble Isles some 200 nautical miles east from the Magellan Strait on it...
Right...?
Trunks, what Pedro Reinel chart?
Aug 14th, 2023 - 09:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The 1522 Hazine Map No. 1825 in the Topkapi Palace, Istanbul?
That was not Reinel, who was back in Lisbon in 1522 working with Lopo Homen on what is now known as the Miller Atlas. At best, it was by Gomez. Gomez was not as well informed as Vespucci.
https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2021/12/1480-to-1762-10.pdf
Mr. The Think is right, the United Kingdom has never submitted a request for arbitration for the Falkland Islands.
Aug 14th, 2023 - 10:33 pm - Link - Report abuse -1I wonder if this topic is in the bible you use, the lordton timeline.
Is there mention of arbitration by the Malvinas Islands?
Lordton: The English did not discover the islands first.
The English did not occupy the islands first.
The islands were never English.
As I said before, this Mercopress article is lying when it says that the islands were uninhabited in 1765.
Mercopress please don't lie. In any case, check the information.
Marv - you are talking crap again. Go and flush.
Aug 14th, 2023 - 10:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Trunks - Reinel or Gomez, not only did they put Tierr del Fuego in the wrong place, the put the Tropic of Cancer in the wrong hemisphere.
https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2019/03/hazine-map-no.-1825-in-topkapi-palace-istanbul-attributed-to-jorge-reinel.jpg
Dear Copper...
Aug 14th, 2023 - 11:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- You can keep mudding the waters and dropping auld Dago names all what you want to make reality fit in your fantasies..., but fact remains that there is a pretty auld map quietly lying for centuries in the Topkapi library...
- That unsigned map may be from 1522..., 1519 or earlier..., it may been drawn by Pedro Reinel..., by his son Jorge or by somebody else...
-It was found..., deemed interesting and throughtly studied and examinated in the 1930's..., a time when Perfidious Albion's Empire still was in its prime and the “Malvinistas” almost inexistent...
https://www.cartographyunchained.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/ChRHD_0001.jpg_000023.jpg
- Today.., almost 100 years later..., it becomes interesting for us because it depicts a couple of Islands some 200 nautic miles to the east of the southern tip of South America..., coincidentally there were them Malvinas/Falklands are today...
Simples...
Capisce...?
that was redid wished history but...
Fact remains that
Trunks?
Aug 14th, 2023 - 11:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A couple of islands? Hahahaha .... look again.
https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2019/07/1522-detail.jpg
That's the trouble with Argies, no grasp of the details.
Falklander 1833, Britain does not need to submit any request for arbitration, the Falkland Islanders are happy with the situation , and Britain his happy to support what the islanders want, it is your country that does the complaining and crying, it is down to you to challenge it in a court of law, as the poster above said, put up or shut up, it is that simple,
Aug 14th, 2023 - 11:37 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Copper...
Aug 14th, 2023 - 11:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Most of the written material on your Timeline is heavily manipulated by yourself...
Why would it be different with your graphic material...?
For all I know...,you could have cut and pasted the dead pig's mouth David Cameron used to put his dick on.., in place of them Isles...
If you have something to show me..., do it with a link from a somewhat trustworthy source...
(On both my map links above one can clearly see two Islands..)
Trunks, what you can see is the north coast of one Island and a hole in the parchment. Your links are simply not zoomed in enough.
Aug 14th, 2023 - 11:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Go learn, old man .... or buy some new glasses.
My source is faultless
https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2019/07/1522-detail.jpg
You source is faultless...?
Aug 14th, 2023 - 11:49 pm - Link - Report abuse -1So link us to it...!
Trunks, my source is - L'Hemisphere Austral en 1524: Une carte de Pedro Reinel a Istanbul by Marcel Destomes 1938.
Aug 14th, 2023 - 11:52 pm - Link - Report abuse +1There is no online source. However, I seem to recall that an Argentine author who wrote about this included a loose-leaf copy in the back of his book. Name escapes me, but I may have that somewhere.
You are full of horse manure..., Copper...
Aug 15th, 2023 - 12:18 am - Link - Report abuse -1In Destombes auld book from 1955 there are none higher definition pictures that the ones provided in my second link on this thread...:
https://www.cartographyunchained.com/chrh1/
And the “loose-leaf” copy from an Argentine author whose name escapes you and where the hole in one of the islands can clearly be seen is quite possibly the one in my first link on this thread...
Capisce...?
Trunks, got it (that was a mad 20 minutes I shall never get back)
Aug 15th, 2023 - 12:26 am - Link - Report abuse +1Las Islas Malvinas by Vicente Guillermo Arnaud [published 2000 with three loose leaf maps in the back, the largest of which is the one under discussion.
Also a reproduction on page 221 which is clear enough to show the hole.
Stick that in your pipe and smoke it old man ;-)
Capisce...?
Jupppp...
Aug 15th, 2023 - 12:50 am - Link - Report abuse -1“Las Islas Malvinas por Vicente Guillermo Arnaud”
As I said (and linked) before..., two Islands..., clearly placecd there where them Malvinas/Falkllands still are today...somebody made a hole in one of them...
http://www.malvinas-falklands.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Figura-1.jpg
I don't smoke...,Copper
Capisce...?
Hahahahaha
Aug 15th, 2023 - 12:57 am - Link - Report abuse +1Yeah, right. A typical Argie. Unable to accept the evidence of his own poor eyesight.
An Island, or part of one - and a hole.
As I said.
70 years of indoctrination have addled your brains Trunks.
And for what is left of it - HAPPY FALKLANDS DAY
I don't think anybody disputes that somebody may well have sighted the Islands well before 1592.
Aug 15th, 2023 - 01:22 am - Link - Report abuse +1BUT - Capt John Davis in 1592 was definatley the first to record the fact in his ships log that day of what he had found and where- thus - yes sorry folks- his was the First Recorded Sighting of the Islands.
However there were no formal claims of sovereignty made for another 170 plus years in the 1760s and Spain did not figure. Capt John Strong was the first recorded Landing in 1690, but no record of him raising a flag.
Esteemed Mr. Timlander1...
Aug 15th, 2023 - 05:15 am - Link - Report abuse -1Again..., that what I always say about most of ya' Kelpers to any Argie that wants yo listen..., shows itself to be true...:
- ”(Usually, Kelper's comments are much better than those of the Brainwashed Anglo Turnips ;-)
https://en.mercopress.com/2023/08/09/uk-warned-eu-of-argentina-s-misinterpretation-on-any-falklands-reference/comments#comment527434
And..., don't be sorry...!
I Tænk that nobody can dispute that ya'..., Anglo-Patagonian folks..., 'ave all the right to commemorate the first Engrish recorded sighting of the Islas Malvinas... by an Engrishman on that day in 1592..., written in Engrish language..., on a proper & reglamentary Royal Engrish Navy logbook..., on board the 18,896 Engrish stones heavy Royal Engrish Navy vessel..., the Desire...
Saludos...
El Tænk...
One thing is certain, old man, Argentina did not discover the Falklands archipelago.
Aug 15th, 2023 - 06:36 am - Link - Report abuse +2Now we are talking..., Copper...
Aug 15th, 2023 - 06:58 am - Link - Report abuse -1One thing is certain, England did not discover the Malvinas archipelago.
Aug 15th, 2023 - 11:43 am - Link - Report abuse -1Now we are talking..., Malvinense... ;-)))
Aug 15th, 2023 - 11:54 am - Link - Report abuse -1The evidence suggests otherwise Marv.
Aug 15th, 2023 - 12:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If there was an earlier discovery, we do not know when or by who. Which is a bit of a crippler when it comes to deciding who saw them first. Davies, therefore, remains the best candidate.
There is no evidence that Magellan, Elcano, Gomes or, shortly after, Loaisa, saw the archipelago. After that, who knows? There are no records.
Pascoe & Pepper believe that the Islands were sighted earlier than 1520 by an unknown Portuguese expedition. The word 'unknown' bothers me and I see no good evidence for it.
Indeed, most of the maps argued over here do not provide any serious evidence of an earlier discovery.
Not that any of it matters. Discovery alone, give nothing but an incohate title. Sovereignty is determined by effective possession. Something that Argentina never achieved. and no, Argentina is not Spain which brings us full circle to inheritance.
Take it to the ICJ, suckers.
@ redhoyt, you clearly need an increase in your glasses, in the link provided by The Think you can clearly see the Malvinas Islands.
Aug 15th, 2023 - 12:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I already told you, redhoyt.
They did not discover the islands.
Nor were they the first to achieve effective possession. Do not lie.
Suckers? He seems a bit nervous.
Marv
Aug 15th, 2023 - 12:55 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Britain achieved effective possession over the Western islands from 1771.
Spain achieved effective possession over the eastern island from 1771.
Argentina achieved nothing - as usual.
I am never nervous Marv... too old
Ya' must be an exceptionally phlegmatic Engrishman..., Copper...
Aug 15th, 2023 - 01:26 pm - Link - Report abuse -1- I remember the times when I had any of them official missuses 24/7 at home..., they always managed somehow to make me nervous at least twice daily...
Chuckle..., chuckle...
Bad again, redhoyt, the islands were occupied by Spain. Imagine the absurdity of occupying all the islands of an archipelago. Go learn.
Aug 15th, 2023 - 01:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Chuckle... chuckle...
Doesn’t matter who saw them first, landed first, took a car€p there first. Spain had sovereignty in 1811.
Aug 15th, 2023 - 04:16 pm - Link - Report abuse -1They then left. Voluntarily, as Britain had done before leaving the islands empty.
The was no Spanish population to either join the wars of Independence on either side, they were all back in Spain. .
The islands were empty and therefore only claims of sovereignty not a population .
It actually doesn’t matter what you think Vernets business was, because Vernet and the vast majority of them left voluntarily in 1831, leaving the islands all but empty.
The next population is the current one, and has been there 190 years .
No inheritance no usurpation no Argentine sovereignty EVER
The British never left after 1771. The Islands were never empty of people after 1764.
Aug 15th, 2023 - 08:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In line with the status quo of 1771, Spain only claimed one Island in 1811. This is easily proven.
https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2018/09/88740.pdf
@Monkey
Aug 16th, 2023 - 12:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are making progress on some issues, which I am pleased about.
You acknowledge that Spain had sovereignty, therefore the islands can in no way be English.
You acknowledge that Spain had sovereignty, therefore it is absurd to continue the argument of Falklands Day John Davis blah blah blah.
The English withdrawal is different from the Spanish one.
The English recognized Spanish sovereignty with a treaty, then withdrew, also leaving Spain in possession of the islands in absolute solitude. The situation is very different with respect to the Spanish withdrawal due to the wars of independence that were being fought on the continent.
In addition, it was arranged that a ship visit the different ports annually, you can see it in the link provided by redhoyt.
https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2018/09/88740.pdf
The islands were not res nullius as I mentioned in another post. Read again the cases of Isla de Aves and Isla Trindade.
Regards.
Malvinense,
Aug 17th, 2023 - 06:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0I havent changed my position at all.
Spain had sovereignty of Trinidad it passed to Britain its now with the Trinidadians
Spain had sovereignty of Jamaica (undisputed), it passed to Britain (undisputed) now lies with the Jamaicans (undisputed).
You see a pattern? Whether Spain once had sovereignty of an island is irrelevant today, the islands belong to their inhabitants.
The English DID not recognise Spanish sovereignty and then withdraw that is a blatant lie, they each recognised each others sovereignty of East and West Falkland.
Spain withdrew from the islands due to cost of Napoleonic Wars.
Unfortunately, nothing that happened before 1811 is really relevant, Spain left the islands empty, you think Argentina had a working population that was expelled, I have proven to you countless times it didn't.
Therefore Britain reclaiming sovereignty is perfectly fine in 1833, and passing that sovereignty over to the islanders is in line with all other former European colonies including Argentina or Jamaica or Trinidad.
The rest of it is inconsequential nonsense.
Inconvenient Malvinas truths # 18
Aug 17th, 2023 - 09:37 am - Link - Report abuse -1Hummmm, Mr Monkey, your logic is at fault. Here is why:
1. Your comparisons are incorrect because, as you put it there, the territories you cite were UNDISPUTED
2. The Malvinas Islands are a DISPUTED TERRITORY; therefore, no UNILATERAL decisions can be made while its sovereignty is not resolved
3. Argentina's claim is based on historical & geographical facts (look it up, we posted it many times) and
4. the right of former colonies to preserve the integrity of its territory as per 'uti possidetis iuri'
5. The current inhabitants of the Malvinas are British citizens. Their ancestors were transplanted there AFTER the 2nd invasion of the Malvinas.
6. the 1833 invasion was a forceful violent act performed in a time of peace, without warning, against a military garrison AND civilians that lived in the islands. These acts were in flagrant disregard of the international law of that time.
7. The British first invaded the Malvinas c 1767 +-; they were forcefully removed by the Spanish in 1774.
8. The Spanish had effective possession until 1811.
9. The Provinces of the Rio de La Plata, inherited sovereingty as the rightful owners of Malvinas, exercising that sovereignty by first monitoring them & settling in civilians, allocating fishery concessions etc; AND had possession as well (plus the previous Spanish possession).
10. the current inhabitants of Malvinas are still British citizens in a colonial situation, occupying a foreign soil that belongs to Argentina.
11. Looking at the map provided by Mr Taenk, which I already mentioned in the previous article UK warns EU Argentina misinterpret.., the Malvinas were drawn in its right spot, but as a one bigger island.
12. Tierra del Fuego is drawn in its spot as well, but curled & not separated from the continent.
13. Should we entertain the idea that the big island is Tierra Del Fuego, then Spain & therefore Argentina have sovereignty, as both are part of the Atlantic South Archipelago.
GeoFray
Aug 17th, 2023 - 10:10 am - Link - Report abuse +1Spain only claimed one Island in 1811, and Argentina is not Spain. Inheritance is an unproven legal theory which Argentina has repeatedly declined to take to the ICJ.
Therefore, until such time as Argentina tests its theory at the ICJ, the matter is settled.
British, before Argentina existed.
https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2023/08/simple-list-english.pdf
You inherited NOTHING from Spain not Cuba not Hispaniola and most certainly not the Falklands, it is utter and complete nonsense, on top of that you lost a war ,the islands belong to the people who live their and have been there longer than you Argentines that live and stole the whole of what is now Southern Argentina, it is their decision to choose the future path, not London, nor Buenos Aires, no dispute at all its settled,
Aug 17th, 2023 - 10:14 am - Link - Report abuse +2Hmm
Aug 17th, 2023 - 12:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I quote “The Falkland Islands are a DISPUTED TERRITORY; therefore, no UNILATERAL decisions can be made while its sovereignty is not resolved”
So are you claiming that between 1820 and 1833 Argentina had no idea whatsoever about the British claim? Are you claiming that Luis Vernet knew sufficiently about the British claim to ask Woodbine Parrish for permission for his business, but Argentina were blissfully aware.
Are you claiming that the Argentine invasion of October 1832 was unaware of the British claim despite 3 warnings from the British that they would be removed.
It seems to me that your logic is the one that is flawed. Argentina acted completely unilaterally in full knowledge of a sovereignty dispute.
points 1 and 2 : nonsense, if true Argentina more guilty
Point 3: Nonsense proven time and again
Point 4: Nonsense or India can claim Yemen
Point 5: The current inhabitants of Argentina are Spanish put there after invasion, ditto all the Americas
Point 6: utter Rubbish
Point 7: also Rubbish
Point 8: Might be true for one island
Point 9: Rubbish
Point 10: Rubbish
Point 11: Irrelevant Rubbish
Point 12: Irrelevant
Point 13: Irrelevant
I could take each point in turn as to why they are either historically inaccurate or irrelevant but I cant be bothered.
But if your point 2 is true (and just for laughs lets assume it is), Argentinas behaviour in 1832 got exactly what it deserved. Lucky we didnt do more/
Even if uti possidetis is set aside... Due to the state of rebellion in the South American provinces, the international legal situation in Spanish America was comparable to that of a civil war. The rebels could not invoke a right of independence from Spain: they had to gain independence. Third States had to adopt a policy of neutrality –which they did. This means that they could not take advantage of the situation to take possession of the territories of the rebel provinces.The existence of a civil war or rebellion did not turn the territories of the States involved into vast terrae nullius, requiring occupation by one side or the other to avoid foreign occupation. The British position was clearly described by George Canning on March 4th, 1823:
Aug 17th, 2023 - 10:18 pm - Link - Report abuse -1“In the year 1818, the Contest between Spain and her Colonies then raging with extraordinary violence, an Application was made by the Court of Spain to the British Government to interdict the Service of British Subjects in the Armies of the Insurgent Colonies - An Act of Parliament was passed for this purpose, but it was felt that in making such Concession to Spain, it would be right that the Mother Country and her Colonies should be placed by this Country upon that footing which the Neutral Position of Great Britain between the two Belligerent Parties prescribed; the prohibition therefore against serving in the Armies of South America, was extended to those of Spain”
The fact that British de iure recognition of Argentina occurred after 1820 does not change this conclusion in any way. In 1818, Great Britain recognized the South American provinces as belligerents, as is apparent from George Canning’s note.
For our purposes, the acts in exercise of State authority carried out both by Royalist and South American authorities must be considered together. Both authorities were effectively fighting for power over the same territory.
Marv - all Argentina has is its claim of an inheritance. Nothing more. Buenos Aires failed to achieve effective occupation in the 1820. The islands' status therefore remained as it had been since 1771. Britain in the west, Spain in the east. In 1833, Britain ejected some trespassers and in doing so effectively usurped Spanish rights. That was confirmed in 1841 with the creation of a British colony on Soledad Island (East Falkland).
Aug 17th, 2023 - 10:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina was never in the game.
According to a well-established rule of international law, the acts of rebels or insurgents are attributable to a State from the moment they take over the effective government of the State or establish a new one. This means that whatever the legal approach followed, whether the uti possidetis iuris of 1810 or the rules relating to civil war and secession, the territory in question does not become res nullius. In regard to the Falklands/Malvinas, if the uti possidetis iuris of 1810 is discarded in favour of the theory requiring effective possession in case of secession, the conclusion would be that the islands were Spanish until 1820, when the government of the Provincias Unidas (United Provinces) took possession of them.
Aug 17th, 2023 - 10:40 pm - Link - Report abuse -1The Swiss Federal Council set out a point of key importance on this matter in the arbitral award in regard to the border dispute between Colombia and Venezuela, on March 24th, 1922: [it was an] absolute rule that in old Spanish America, from the legal point of view, there was no territory belonging to no one; those regions unexplored or unoccupied by the Spanish were considered to legally belong to each of the Republics that succeeded to the Spanish province to which those territories were attached by virtue of the old royal orders of the Spanish motherland.
Another well-established rule of international law?
Aug 17th, 2023 - 10:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Take it to the ICJ Marv, just take it to the ICJ.
Without an ICJ determination, you have nothing but theory.
If there was no territory belonging to no one who did Patagonia belong to in 1833?
Aug 18th, 2023 - 12:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0Patagonia?
Aug 18th, 2023 - 03:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0In 1833?
The Patagonians, of course.
Colonized by Roca in the 1870s.
http://www7.bbk.ac.uk/ibamuseum/texts/Andermann02.htm
Exactly Roger.
Aug 18th, 2023 - 06:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0So Argentina can seize land belonging to others but Britain cannot reclaim vacated land
Argentina can act unilaterally in disputed territories but Britain cant
Spain can keep sovereignty in absentia but Britain cant
Funny rules these Malvinistas work too!
After 1771, we never left
Aug 18th, 2023 - 09:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0;-)
I thought I would have a quick go at the list GHR provided.
Aug 18th, 2023 - 11:51 am - Link - Report abuse +11&2: These can be taken together, if we concede that the Falklands were “disputed” in 1811-1833 then Argentina was taking unilateral decisions all the time. Indeed they sent a militia in Oct 1832. So can't be true or Argentina in breach of its own rule.
3) There are no geographic or historic rights the idea South America belongs to Latinos only is nonsense more than 10 regions of South America/South Atlantic are not.
4) Again, the Spanish Viceroyalty was split upon independence, so integrity was not maintained, and the idea that any empty Falklands becomes automatically part of Argentina because the viceroyalty used to maintain only East Falkland from BA a decade earlier is nonsense, Britain administered Aden from Bombay, it doesn't make Yemen part of India.
5) The current inhabitants of the Falklands are Falkland Islanders
6) the 1883 action was not violent, it was with warning and was not against the 30 or so civilians on the island, led by William Dickson (British)
7) Britain was not forcibly removed by the Spanish
8) The Spanish had effective possession of West Falkland until 1811 when they left
9) the UP did not inherit the Falklands, it failed to sustain a civilian population and invaded by force in October 1832
10) The current inhabitants are Falkland islanders occupying their own territory in the South Atlantic
11) Where is Narnia on the map? Who saw it first is irrelevant (even though it was Britain)
12) it is up to the inhabitant of Tierra del Fuego
13) Should we entertain that Britain had sovereignty of East Falkland, Spain had West Falkland, and now Britain has both. Or we could redraw the world map and give every island to the mainland country nearest.
In summary, Argentina tried to seize the islands in 1832 and 1982, both times they were evicted. The islanders have lived there for 190 years, the land is theirs.
Do not forget Monkey magic ( transplanted stock,) lol, every white man in the whole of the American continent North Central and Southern is of transplanted stock,
Aug 18th, 2023 - 12:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We will now turn to British sources on the topic. Professor M. Akehurst assertively states that “Argentina succeeded to Spains title. It is a rule of international law that a newly independent State which was formerly a colony succeeds to all the territory within the former colonial boundaries.” Gaston de Bernhardt in his Foreign Office Memorandum dated December 7th, 1910, stated that “Of the extent of the Spanish Settlement at Soledad It was under the superintendence of an officer entitled “Commandant of the Malvinas” who was dependent on the Viceroy of a Plata. The party appearing to represent Spain in her title to those islands is the Government of Buenos Ayres. On the overthrow of the Spanish supremacy in the Vice-Royalty of La Plata, those territories, with the exception of Paraguay, were converted into a Republic under the name of the “United Provinces of Rio de la Plata” and Buenos Ayres, the capital of the Vice- Royalty, became the seat of Government of the Republic.” In the same vein, Ronald H. Campbell of the Foreign Office, summarised the weaknesses in Britain’s title in his minutes of July 18th, 1911, and referred to the same point, saying that “ they were soon afterwards (in 1820) claimed, and a year or two later occupied, by the United Provinces of Buenos Ayres, as the successors in title of Spain from whom the colony had just won its Independence”. Great Britain’s Counter-memorial in the recent Chagos Marine Protected Area (Mauritius v. United Kingdom) arbitration leaves no room for doubt in regard to its position on uti possidetis
Aug 18th, 2023 - 02:57 pm - Link - Report abuse -1”It is trite law that the territory of a newly independent State is established at the moment of independence. This is reflected in the uti possidetis juris principle, which applies in particular to cases of decolonization, but is not limited to such cases.
Assessment of the Totality of Argentina’s Claim to Sovereignty
Aug 18th, 2023 - 05:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Argentina failed to submit the dispute to a body capable of adjudicating the competing claims. .... there is little reasonable doubt that Great Britain acquired definitive title to the Islands by prescription before 1982.”
But, after critically reviewing the bases for Argentina’s claim to sovereignty, one must conclude that Argentina never developed definite
title to the Islands. None of the bases argued by Argentina are conclusive in establishing sovereignty. .
Applying the rules concerning the mode of extinctive prescription
However, since this was such a long period of time, exceeding eighty years, l7O one could conclude under general principles of international law that this was a sufficient period to extinguish Argentina's claim in spite of her diplomatic protests.
Regardless of the conclusion reached above, however, the establishment of the world courts changed the situation so that diplomatic protests were no longer sufficient to keep Argentina's claim to sovereignty alive.
The League of Nations and, later, the United Nations provided bodies capable of adjudicating the competing claims. ...
To avoid losing her claim by extinctive prescription, Argentina should have submitted her claim to the LON, the PCIJ or the ICJ....For over 50 years prior to the armed conflict of April 2, 1982, Argentina failed to submit the dispute to a body capable of adjudicating the competing claims.
Applying the rules concerning the mode of extinctive prescription to GB results in a different conclusion. Extinctive prescription involves possession,... ...However, since this was such a long period of time, exceeding eighty years, l7O one could conclude under general principles of international law that this was a sufficient period to extinguish Argentina's claim in spite of her diplomatic protests.
Regardless of the conclusion reached above, however, the establishment of the world courts changed the situation s
Malvinense, you are quoting peoples opinions, I am sure you could find the opinions of Jeremy Corbyn MP who was terrifyingly only a few thousand votes away from being UK prime minister, opinions are worthless.
Aug 18th, 2023 - 08:47 pm - Link - Report abuse +1The first opinion suggesting that the city from which a distant territory was administered automatically gains sovereignty is not international law, usually as in the case of Paraguay the people who live there decided. As there was nobody living on the Falklands, there was nobody to decide. Why is Aden not part of Bombay?
The second quote, they were claimed in 1820 (so nine years after Spain left) and even then dubiously by Jewitt, and a year or two later occupied by the UP. This is false, the Vernet business didnt start until 1828 (so 8 years later) and he sought and gained permission from the British consulate in BA to do so.
Like I say, you can hang on to these myths and legends, but that's all they are.
East Falkland (not West Falkland, South Georgia, the South Sandwich Islands and all maritime spaces) was administered by Spain from Buenos Aires, through expedience, it is telling that when Spain evacuated the population returned to Spain not Argentina. It shows clearly they considered themselves distinct from the Argentines.
Therefore, it is only possible to claim inheritance for East Falkland and quite clearly in 1832 Argentina tried to usurp and steal East Falkland which remained British by the grace of Zeus. It acted violently and unilaterally destroying British territorial integrity. Britain had no choice but to defend its territory and had done ever since.
Marv - take it to the ICJ
Aug 18th, 2023 - 10:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Only the ICJ's opinion can carry legal weight
Continued.
Aug 19th, 2023 - 09:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0Regardless of the conclusion reached above, however, the establishment of the world courts changed the situation so that diplomatic protests were no longer sufficient to keep Argentina's claim to sovereignty alive. ”
The Falklands (Malvinas) Islands: An International Law Analysis of the Dispute Between Argentina and Great Britain Major James Francis Gravelle
MILITARY LAW REVIEW CONTEMPORARY INTERNATIONAL LEGAL ISSUES
Pamphlet NO. 27-100-107 HEADQUARTERS DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY; Washington, D.C., Winter 1985
Inconvenient Malvinas truths # 19
Aug 22nd, 2023 - 08:20 am - Link - Report abuse -2Mr Lorton, both the inheritance claim (uti possidetis iuri) and possession are valid: from 1774 -Spanish possession, from 1811 Province of the Rio de la Plata monitoring & exercising sovereignty & possession via e.g. military garrison, civil population, fishing concessions. The inhabitant of the Islas Malvinas were not trespassers: they were their right owners.
Let me remind you that the British were expulsed by the Spanish military in 1774, who from that moment had Governors to the Islas Malvinas. Pinedo was the governor of the islands when the British usurped them. He was an Argentinian citizen of the former Provinces of the Rio de la Plata.
The Patagonia was part of the Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata, later Provinces of the Rio de la Plata, later Argentina.
Mr Monkey: the current inhabitants of the Islas Malvinas are descendants of those who usurped the islands, & their citizenchip hasn’t changed: they’re still British citizens, & the islands are still a disputed territory, under British colonial mandate.
Also, rubbish & nonsense are not valid arguments.
Not according to US contemmpary international law point-man.
Aug 22nd, 2023 - 09:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0https://en.mercopress.com/2023/08/14/14-august-is-falklands-day-commemorates-first-sighting-of-the-islands-in-1592/comments#comment527664
GeoFraya
Aug 22nd, 2023 - 11:40 am - Link - Report abuse +1Nobody was expelled in 1774,.and if uti possideis juris was anything more than a legal theory, then Argentina would have gone to the ICJ long ago.
Go learn some history. I have made it as simple as I can.
https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2023/08/simple-list-spanish.pdf
Nobody was expelled? Name the British governors from 1774 onwards.
Aug 22nd, 2023 - 03:43 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Hmm, your unqualified opinion, or a qualified contemporary international lawyer giving clear indication which claim the US supports.
Aug 22nd, 2023 - 04:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Marv - what have governors got to do with sovereignty? Governors are merely the administrators. The presence, or not, of governors is irrelevant to any question of sovereignty. We didn't have a governor there before 1774 but sovereignty over the western islands was British. Recognised by Spain from 1771.
Aug 22nd, 2023 - 11:16 pm - Link - Report abuse +2By the by, I see that for the 35th year the Decolonization Committee have failed to recommend their Falklands resolution for adoption by the United Nations.
Funny that ;-)
https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2022/08/1982-to-1999.pdf
In your previous comment you tell me that they never withdrew.
Aug 23rd, 2023 - 11:29 am - Link - Report abuse -1Now you tell me that the presence of governors or of a population is irrelevant, so I deduce that the English actually withdrew.
The Spanish had a population and a governor at the time of the English withdrawal.
The British recognized the sovereignty of the Malvinas Islands in the 1771 treaty.
Stop repeating lies. Go learn.
We, therefore, called for restitution, NOT AS A CONFESSION OF RIGHT, but as a REPARATION OF HONOUR, which required that we should be restored to our former state upon the island, and that the king of Spain should disavow the action of his governour.
Samuel Johnson -1771
GeaoFray.
Aug 23rd, 2023 - 12:03 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Yet again, you are confused. No, after 1771, the British never left. No, there were no Governors. Get it?
The 1771 accord recognised Britain in the western islands. Our “former state upon the island”.
Go read.
https://falklandstimeline.files.wordpress.com/2022/11/1767-to-1774-1.pdf
The one who is confused is you. Holding so many lies has led you to confusion.
Aug 23rd, 2023 - 12:45 pm - Link - Report abuse -2You say that before 1774 they had no governor.
I say that later either.
The presence of a governor is not irrelevant.
Manage. What do you manage? The islands.
What does it manage? A population.
What does this mean? The sovereign presence of a state.
The English withdrew, leaving Spain in absolute solitude, recognizing Spanish sovereignty through the treaty of 1771.
What you say and your completely distorted timeline are irrelevant to the words of Samuel Johnson.
Go read.
In other words, the question of the prior right of sovereignty was left as it had been before the dispute both countries' rights were left untouched, Britain's as well as Spain's.
Aug 23rd, 2023 - 04:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0'The British Foreign Secretary at the time, Lord Palmerston, ... ... On 27 July 1849, in reply to a question in the House of Commons, he said:
“... a claim had been made many years ago, on the part of Buenos Ayres, to the Falkland Islands, and had been resisted by the British Government. Great Britain had always disputed and denied the claim of Spain to the Falkland Islands, and she was not therefore willing to yield to Buenos Ayres what had been refused to Spain.”
“The withdrawal of His Majesty's forces from these islands, in the year 1774, cannot be considered as invalidating His Majesty's just rights. That measure took place in pursuance of a system of retrenchment, adopted at that time by His Britannic Majesty's Government. But the marks and signals of possession and property were left upon the islands. When the Governor took his departure, the British flag remained flying, and all those formalities were observed which indicated the rights of ownership, as well as an intention to resume the occupation of that territory, at a more convenient season.”
Getting it right: the real history of the Falklands/Malvinas by Graham Pascoe and Peter Pepper
'As late as 1886 the Secretary of State found it necessary to inform the Argentine Government that as “the resumption of actual occupation of the Falkland Islands by Great Britain in 1833 took place under a claim of title which had been previously asserted and maintained by that Government, it is not seen that the Monroe Doctrine, which has been invoked on the part of the Argentine Republic, has any application to the case. By the terms in which that principle of international conduct was announced, it was expressly excluded from retroactive operation.”
P.60 Sovereignty and the Falkland Islands Crisis D.W. Greig
Marv, the role of Governor is just an administrative position. They do not have to be present. The many and various 'Governors' of South Georgia, for example, have never lived there. The Governor of the South Sandwich Islands, also never lived there - nor were there any people.
Aug 23rd, 2023 - 10:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Your vefry own Luis Vernet was in Buenos Aires for all of 1832.
The British never left after 1771, and Spain recognised the British in the western islands in both 1771 and again in 1811. Argentina did not exist. There was no inheritance. Argentina was simply never in the game.
Disagree? take it to the ICJ
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!