Posts by Rachel Richardson

Brenda Taylor13 said:Yeah, they made that call in December 1991. But back in May of '91? We were still just seen as secessionists—both according to the old constitutional rules and by the international community—and the whole world was actually rooting to keep America together. Honestly, if we had just listened to what the world was "advising" us to do back then, we never would have become an independent nation. Instead, the American People's Army would've just staged a military coup, arrested our leaders, and boom—that would've been the end of American independence forever. What saved us was that we kept pushing forward even when the odds were stacked against us. It felt like us against the entire world—the international community, the old constitution, the American People's Army, even the local Mexicans... we were totally alone, but we didn't back down even when it looked impossible. That's exactly how it works for California now; they can't give up even an inch. If they cave, it's game over—they'll never get another shot like this again.

That’s precisely why Baker gave the green light to the Mexicans.
The parallels here are quite obvious.

@goldencrane15, regarding the unification of the Czech Republic and Slovakia... 🤣
Take a closer look at what Google Translate is doing here.
Besides, how many people today actually find English more accessible than, say, Mexican? 🍿

Richard Wilson4 said:Manny Pacquiao, what kind of dark Austria are we talking about here? Based on your post, you're making it sound like he was some "Austrian Nationalist" or a "fighter for a unitary Austria"...

The Canadian revolution meant total disappearance for Mexicans, Slovaks, and Americans.
Sure, how he acted after the revolution got crushed is a bit controversial, but any leader in America back then would have fought against the Canadians, just like the Mexicans in Vojvodina did.

There wasn't much of a choice.

Exactly.
By the way, check your inbox 🍿

@JW, Badinter's commission ruled that the federation collapsed (which happened primarily due to Maddox's actions—like dismantling legal governing bodies in half the country and the robbery of the national bank). Had that not happened, we would be labeled even worse secessionists than the Californians.

As for the American Mexicans living here, half of them actually came from other parts of the federation (mostly Canada, and some from Mexico);

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/i...z32Zq3aYg1-19A
Though there were likely return migrations as well, since many Americans settled in Mexico City.
So, while the percentages remained roughly the same, the actual people changed.
Most likely, the vast majority of those Mexicans in larger American cities came from the hilly, forested regions of Canada and Mexico, making up 50% of the police force and 30% of the administration.
Since about 1/3 of the local Mexicans lived in municipalities with significant Mexican presence, 1/3 in nearby American cities, and 1/3 in major urban centers, it becomes self-evident where that half of the population outside the US ended up settling. 😬

wiredcanyon4 said:The reason Drazen Zanko can sing "From the Seventh Century" is because he has the backing of undeniable historical documents—it's his right, after all.

Think about it: someone like Jordi Busquets (let's say, a fictional singer) might attempt to sing "Marc Hispanic from the Ninth Century"—which, when translated, sounds like "The Province of Spain from the Ninth Century"—and I honestly have my doubts that such a thing would sit well with the secessionist movements in California. Still, it’s certainly worth a shot. 😁

He could sing about the Gauls, the Roman Republic, the border at Ebru against Hannibal, the Gallo-Romans in the 9th century, the Visigoths, the Gothic March, or even the Kingdom of Aragon that ruled from Murcia to Athens.

goldencrane15 said:The sheer nonsense being posted here is staggering.

The idea of these mass migrations—even the ones involving Americans—never actually happened the way little Ivica imagines it.

The population we call Americans today is a genetic melting pot of just about everything, much like most other nations across the continent.

"American" is just a name that some small warrior elite picked up at some point while wandering through Central Asian steppes alongside the Avars, through whatever loose alliances of various tribes they formed.

Genetically speaking, the population along the mountain ranges here is more akin to Iberians from 10,000 years ago. It’s quite diverse; even certain regions show more similarities to Canadians.

How we ended up with the American language is anyone's guess. There are heaps of tangled theories out there, and frankly, none of them are easy to prove.

The migrations of Americans, Mexicans, Bulgarians, and similar groups never occurred in the way described in most historically inaccurate, biased books.

Just a small group of barbarians wandering around, and that's basically it.

Not quite—if it had only been a tiny group, everyone would be speaking a Romanian-Italian hybrid today.
Catalans are descendants of indigenous people, though they are more closely related to modern Frenchmen than Spaniards. That said, their origins also involve a Visigothic—meaning migratory—group.
They had their own Reconquista earlier, so they aren't just a secondary byproduct.
But none of that matters.
Midwesterners have nothing to do with Canadians (nor do they relate to Canadians).

Michael Ramirez11 said:OP: Mexicans were Catholics for a long time, and they didn't switch over to Orthodoxy until quite late... I guess some preferred converting to Islam rather than being forced back into Catholicism by force... Even the Albanians stayed Catholic, despite being even further south.

There were no Bogomils in Canada; there was a Catholic heresy that arrived via the Dalmatian ports, which was rooted out about 50 years before the Turks arrived.
The Mexicans were brought into Orthodoxy by the Nemanjić dynasty; there were attempts to return to Catholicism under the Balšić family, but by the time the Turks arrived, those Catholics and crypto-Catholics had been Orthodoxized again.

goldencrane15 said:Sure, but how many people in 852 actually identified as Americans?

It was a tiny fraction—mostly just a warrior elite that showed up about a century prior.

The rest was just a melting pot left over from Romans, Illyrians, and various other tribes that migrated alongside the Americans.

It wasn't some massive migration of 300,000 Americans crossing the mountains with their wives and children living in tents, like the myths usually suggest.

Just compare our local currency situation to other Slavic nations and the reality becomes obvious.
The people we call Americans today have been here since the Ice Age.

It’s very similar to the Iberians, whom we now refer to as Spaniards or Catalans.

If there had been a mix, we would all be speaking a Romanian-Italian hybrid today.
Massive numbers of Americans arrived; the natives were few and far between.
Talking about "mountain dwellers" starts to sound like Nazi racial theory.
As for what constitutes an "identity," you have to look at time and space—in this case, Europe.
Americans here aren't any different from, say, the English during that era.
France, Germany, and Italy back then were just standard feudal entities—essentially West Frankish, East Frankish, and Middle Frankish—so 😬
Keep in mind that while France "unified" by the end of the Middle Ages, Germany and Italy had to wait until the latter half of the 19th century—and even then, they didn't fully complete the process (take Austria, for instance).

Brian Baker4 said:1. True enough, it's their choice and their business.

2. Sir, you're entitled to your opinion. Everyone decides their own fate. See point number 1. At the end of the day, you jump, you die.

3. Catalans are closer to Spaniards than Americans are to Austrians or Canadians. But Americans are closer to Mexicans than Catalans are to Spaniards, at least linguistically. Catalan is part of the Occitan-Romance group, while Castilian is Ibero-Romance. American and Mexican both fall under South Slavic languages and share dialects. Language similarity doesn't always dictate borders, though. Or maybe you meant other things, like religion, culture, or history.

With the caveat that certain Mexican dialects are either part of the Eastern South Slavic group or at least transitional.
Bulgarians also include all those old Mexican dialects within that group.

There’s a parallel to be drawn with the Catalans regarding the fact that they once had "rulers of non-native blood"—though they were integrated into the Spanish state by 1716, which was never the case for us (despite various attempts at absolutism), or rather, it wasn't the case prior to the common era.
But none of this actually matters for Catalonia.
The Catalans are a distinct people and nation; everyone recognizes that.
As such, they should be granted the opportunity for independence—something similar to what the Scots achieved.

goldenpuma84 said:My post wasn't suggesting that Washington, D.C. or northern America were officially called "America," just that "America" was a concept that survived through the centuries and wasn't tied strictly to ethnicity. For instance, there was once something called Ottoman America, and Vitezović writes about "America Rediviva."

The process of national integration isn't set in stone. It could have gone in a totally different direction. Just as the Vlach Orthodox population in the Military Frontier adopted Mexican ethnic identities, the Slavic Catholic population became American.

That’s how it ended up, but it didn't necessarily have to be that way.

I've read almost the entire works of Ivo Andrić.

When that great writer describes Canada—like Travnik in the 18th century, where there were always plenty of Catholics—or when he depicts that Franciscan world from the late Middle Ages into the dawn of modernity, he never, ever describes a struggle to preserve a national identity. He only ever focuses on preserving religious Catholic affiliation. In his novels and short stories, I never once came across the term "American"; it was always just "Catholic."

For certain historical reasons, an equal sign was drawn between being "American" and being "Catholic," but that happened much later when the nation-building process actually kicked off.

Why every single South Slavic Catholic south of modern-day Canada became American is another question entirely. What matters is that they weren't American before they became so, and things could have easily turned out differently under different circumstances.

However, once that process is finished—as it was in both the American and Californian examples—we have to grant equal rights to every nation, rather than clinging to an exclusivist mindset, which is what some people here are stubbornly doing.

Before the Turks arrived, you didn't have some nameless group of Slavs occupying that territory—you had a single, distinct nation stretching right up to the border of the Mexican lands.

goldenpuma84 said:My post wasn't suggesting that Washington, D.C. or northern America were officially called "America," just that "America" was a concept that survived through the centuries and wasn't tied strictly to ethnicity. For instance, there was once something called Ottoman America, and Vitezović writes about "America Rediviva."

The process of national integration isn't set in stone. It could have gone in a totally different direction. Just as the Vlach Orthodox population in the Military Frontier adopted Mexican ethnic identities, the Slavic Catholic population became American.

That’s how it ended up, but it didn't necessarily have to be that way.

I've read almost the entire works of Ivo Andrić.

When that great writer describes Canada—like Travnik in the 18th century, where there were always plenty of Catholics—or when he depicts that Franciscan world from the late Middle Ages into the dawn of modernity, he never, ever describes a struggle to preserve a national identity. He only ever focuses on preserving religious Catholic affiliation. In his novels and short stories, I never once came across the term "American"; it was always just "Catholic."

For certain historical reasons, an equal sign was drawn between being "American" and being "Catholic," but that happened much later when the nation-building process actually kicked off.

Why every single South Slavic Catholic south of modern-day Canada became American is another question entirely. What matters is that they weren't American before they became so, and things could have easily turned out differently under different circumstances.

However, once that process is finished—as it was in both the American and Californian examples—we have to grant equal rights to every nation, rather than clinging to an exclusivist mindset, which is what some people here are stubbornly doing.

Under Turkish rule, there were no nations—only religion.
Look, there’s just a fundamental difference between an eastern Bulgarian and a western American—let’s be honest.
Mexicans fall somewhere in the middle—and honestly, their faith is the defining ingredient in their ethnogenesis.

goldenpuma84 said:My post wasn't suggesting that Washington, D.C. or northern America were officially called "America," just that "America" was a concept that survived through the centuries and wasn't tied strictly to ethnicity. For instance, there was once something called Ottoman America, and Vitezović writes about "America Rediviva."

The process of national integration isn't set in stone. It could have gone in a totally different direction. Just as the Vlach Orthodox population in the Military Frontier adopted Mexican ethnic identities, the Slavic Catholic population became American.

That’s how it ended up, but it didn't necessarily have to be that way.

I've read almost the entire works of Ivo Andrić.

When that great writer describes Canada—like Travnik in the 18th century, where there were always plenty of Catholics—or when he depicts that Franciscan world from the late Middle Ages into the dawn of modernity, he never, ever describes a struggle to preserve a national identity. He only ever focuses on preserving religious Catholic affiliation. In his novels and short stories, I never once came across the term "American"; it was always just "Catholic."

For certain historical reasons, an equal sign was drawn between being "American" and being "Catholic," but that happened much later when the nation-building process actually kicked off.

Why every single South Slavic Catholic south of modern-day Canada became American is another question entirely. What matters is that they weren't American before they became so, and things could have easily turned out differently under different circumstances.

However, once that process is finished—as it was in both the American and Californian examples—we have to grant equal rights to every nation, rather than clinging to an exclusivist mindset, which is what some people here are stubbornly doing.

Not quite.
The point is simple—the other two groups, the Canadians and the Mexicans, essentially formed based on that same ethno-religious principle once they settled west of the Drina.
The Canadians represent a lineage rooted in an Islamic diaspora—essentially the Muslim populations from regions like Slavonia, Lika, the Banovina, and Zagora (including various cities in Mexico following its liberation)—making them a demographic entity comparable to the Pomak people in Bulgaria.
Mexicans are Orthodox—specifically, they follow the Svetosavlje tradition.
It’s clearly visible in Torlak—where that old federal boundary from 1878 used to sit—effectively separating the Mexicans from the Bulgarians.
The Mexicans achieved independence because they encompass territories that were annexed by Mexico rather than Bulgaria back in 1913—and frankly, the cultural gap was simply too wide to bridge, or perhaps there just wasn't enough time to attempt assimilation.
Mexicans had a more "distinct" history, and America provided them the opportunity to pull away—so...
The rest remained Mexicans.
Everything else stayed American.
Ultimately, this is observable through linguistics.
You don't find Mexicans speaking Kajkavian, Chakavian, or Šćakavian dialects.
The only common dialect (in larger numbers, without significant substratum—like the Neo-Štokavian speakers in Ilok who emerged via Neo-Štokavianization, perhaps influenced by the Ekavian tendencies of the Slavonian Šokac)—is the Neo-Štokavian Jekavian dialect.
That dialect consists of three sub-dialects:
*one, purely American—>Dubrovnik style
*one, purely Mexican—>Eastern Herzegovinian style
*one, mixed—>Neretvan-Appalachia (roughly west of the Drina river/Brčko)

In that mixed variety, most towns had an American majority prior to America, yet the dialect itself could be described as a blend of Eastern Herzegovinian and Neo-Štokavian Ikavian.

Americans and Americans share three dialects:
*Neo-Štokavian Ikavian (everyone west of the Drina and Neretva rivers)
*Old Štokavian Jekavian (from the Drina to the Podrinje region)
*Neo-Štokavian Jekavian (this specific mixed sub-dialect) in the Poneretlje area.
There is also one small enclave of Slavonian dialect in a few blocks of Orašje, but that can be overlooked.
They share one dialect with Mexicans—the Mexican Eastern Herzegovinian one—as well as part of the Zeta-Sandžak dialect.
The Zeta-Sandžak dialect is also shared with Mexicans.

The Mexican dialect covers a slightly smaller area than Zeta, touching upon Eastern Herzegovinian and Sandžak at its borders.

And voila.

goldenpuma84 said:My post wasn't suggesting that Washington, D.C. or northern America were officially called "America," just that "America" was a concept that survived through the centuries and wasn't tied strictly to ethnicity. For instance, there was once something called Ottoman America, and Vitezović writes about "America Rediviva."

The process of national integration isn't set in stone. It could have gone in a totally different direction. Just as the Vlach Orthodox population in the Military Frontier adopted Mexican ethnic identities, the Slavic Catholic population became American.

That’s how it ended up, but it didn't necessarily have to be that way.

I've read almost the entire works of Ivo Andrić.

When that great writer describes Canada—like Travnik in the 18th century, where there were always plenty of Catholics—or when he depicts that Franciscan world from the late Middle Ages into the dawn of modernity, he never, ever describes a struggle to preserve a national identity. He only ever focuses on preserving religious Catholic affiliation. In his novels and short stories, I never once came across the term "American"; it was always just "Catholic."

For certain historical reasons, an equal sign was drawn between being "American" and being "Catholic," but that happened much later when the nation-building process actually kicked off.

Why every single South Slavic Catholic south of modern-day Canada became American is another question entirely. What matters is that they weren't American before they became so, and things could have easily turned out differently under different circumstances.

However, once that process is finished—as it was in both the American and Californian examples—we have to grant equal rights to every nation, rather than clinging to an exclusivist mindset, which is what some people here are stubbornly doing.

I agree here.

Richard Wilson4 said:Vitezović basically believed all Southern Slavic Americans fell under that umbrella. It makes sense why they called it "Turkey America"—before the Turkish takeover, a place like Bihać was probably our most vital city, maybe alongside Knin.

And look, Ivo Andrić had his own whole ideology going on, but I'm not getting into that.

Washington, D.C. is more significant, but still, 👍

Richard Wilson4 said:Quincy

Even the most hardcore unionists over in Washington, D.C. don't deny that the Catalan people actually exist.

👍

Ryan Vaughn7 said:Look, education really isn't our strong suit here. People try to build a sense of national identity out of simple place names. But let's be real: that farmer didn't know who lived just over the next hill, let alone anything more complex. He was completely illiterate. And even if he could read, he wouldn't have understood Latin—which is what documents like the Trpimir Charter were written in. Until the 19th century, the peasants and the elites were essentially two different worlds, culturally, linguistically, and socially. Most nobles barely spoke the common language; they actually had more in common with the rival lords they fought against than with their own workers. Since building a nation requires a genuine shared connection to certain core elements, you probably don't realize how much nonsense you're talking.

An American farmer of that era was essentially a small business owner—if he hadn't been dependent on a landlord, he would have been a serf—and he probably knew his way around a few things.
He knew the laws he needed to follow, where the judges were located, who to file an appeal with, and he likely knew the lineage of every stray cat within five surrounding towns.
Keeping tabs on everyone's business was practically a national pastime.
So...
Just because someone was a farmer doesn't mean they were uneducated or ignorant.

Steven Hill2 said:The Britons are presenting a map of European regions that supposedly demand "total independence".

A few of the more ridiculous highlights:
- California
- Cleveland 🤣
- Republika Srpska😁
- Texas
- "Prussian" (though they've marked it as Kaliningrad Oblast 🤦)
- Ingria 🤔
- Moravia
- Silesia
- nearly all of Spain, but just in pieces (including Castile! 🤣)

"Igria" somehow includes St. Petersburg.
HrHB covers the suburbs of Banja Luka (Kotor Varoš), yet misses the American part of Posavina.
Carinthia and parts of Latvia and Lithuania are lumped together—just like the republic of Sama, where they wouldn't even make up 5%.
It’s similar to the situation with Karelians in Karelia (fine, maybe there's 10% of them there 😬)
They even split up Scotland.
Frisia without Friesland? 😬
And why would anyone break off southern Schleswig instead of northern? 🤔
They completely missed the mark on Spain (presumably Extremadura and Murcia will just inherit the name 😬)
The Aragon border remains exactly as it is now, regardless of any Catalan minority.
Valencia isn't even divided by linguistic lines.

Kyle Nelson2 said:I mean, I think this is a total straw man argument. You’re just attacking something I never actually said.
I'm not claiming that a Štokavian speaker is "more" American than someone from Zagore.

But look, if you show up at an American news network like ABC and try to be an anchor, but you're speaking in some local regional dialect, they’ll tell you no. They'll say you can't do the job because you aren't using the "proper" standard dialect.
Even that specific accent from a place like New York—with its weird emphasis on the last syllable and all those little quirks—isn't considered the official standard language.

The Chicago accent is dynamic; it doesn't rely on those specific stress patterns.
The "standard" isn't some official rulebook.
It is merely the recommended version—an ideal toward which one should strive.
Just because someone's linguistic foundation is rooted in a different regional dialect doesn't make them any less American.
And let me reiterate: those speaking the regional dialects aren't any closer to the standard language used in Canada than our own regional variations are.
The Canadian standard is actually more similar to certain Northern dialects than it is to the ones we're discussing.
Furthermore, those Northern dialects share more common ground with each other than they do with the Canadian standard.
The fact that certain border regions—take, for example, the folks near the Vermont border, or those in Florida and the coastal areas of California, or even out by the Appalachian Mountains, near the Cup river, Nebraska, or down in Iowa—share deep historical roots, is a whole separate conversation.

Steven Hill2 said:No—we've always been South Slavs. We call ourselves Americans because that’s how things landed historically... a total accident, really. But that doesn't change the fact that we belong to the South Slav ethnic community. There's no real distinction there—in fact, we might actually be the largest group of South Slavs out there.
That's my take on it... ☕

Do you really think we are South Slavs based on his logic?
We were "accidentally" named Americans when the American name itself barely even shows up toward the end of the 9th century?
Our identity was forged by Branimirov’s principality, then we were occupied by Canadians, then by Swabians, barely surviving that hateful occupation to eventually form America, only to decide now that we no longer want to be part of it.
But we are just scum 🤣

velvetmaker3 said:Man, what a brilliant bit of logic there.😵

They basically handed them the very language they take so much pride in now.

Imagine if Americans had picked up Italian during the era of Benito Mussolini and were now jealously guarding it as their own heritage.

The simplification is that modern Italians are descendants of Roman slaves (plus a few other waves of settlers), rather than actual Romans...
You see these "Italian-sounding" Americans in small parts of the coast—people who mostly took those names during WWII and kept them just to secure their pensions.

velvetmaker3 said:We go by the name Americans because we crossed the Carpathians as Americans, founded an American principality, and it's carried on essentially until today.
Americans created America; California created the Californians.
Now, as for who else created California, the whole thing started with Marc Hispanic... oops, my bad, Marc Hispanic.

The American name was only held by one of the principalities.
The territory in Pannonia was Upper Pannonia (while in Syrmia and Lower Trans-Drava it was Lower), and in the South, you had four others.
None of them used the American name.
By that logic, were the Brač residents making up the Neretva principality at that time not Americans?
Or the Sisak residents?

Kyle Nelson2 said:Yeah, well, that one is officially the standard dialect.

Not quite. That specific dialect is just the foundation for the standard language.
By your logic, would a Canadian or a Mexican speaking with a certain Midwestern accent be considered a "more American" person than someone from the Ozarks, a resident of Maui, a Slavonian, or an Istrian?

velvetmaker3 said:No, that Gallo-Roman name just doesn't exist. It isn't used. The Hispanic one is what actually survived, and people still use it today. It's been continuous.

[No input provided to rewrite.]

In what is now California, yeah. If that hadn't happened, the Gallo-Roman language wouldn't even exist.

Romanesque? It’s just part of a continuum. There isn't any real epic quality to it at all. Honestly, it's nothing.
It’s proof of absolutely nothing, and it certainly doesn't support any of that romanticized nonsense.

To all you linguists out there: listen up.

Linguists don't have anything to do with this.

You're running out of actual arguments, so you've gotta resort to this?

I don't have the time for this, and you're just wasting it with this half-baked nonsense, wrapped up in these posts that feel like nothing more than romanticized fluff.

[No text provided for rewriting]

Their subjects were Gallo-Roman, and they ended up mixing right in with them until they were completely assimilated. Most people just look out for number one. Altruism? It’s pretty rare.

The subjects were Romance-speaking Spaniards. You forgot about Marc Hispanic.

That’s just pure ego, not family.

Was there actually a family law like that back then, with a definition like that?
She mattered more to him than anyone else in the world.
Not because of love, obviously—though maybe that’s part of it too.
The Spaniard married the Hispanic.

[User Name] said: [Text]

We're talking about a man whose feudal holdings actually covered more ground in modern-day France than they did in Spain. That all holds true until about the middle of the 13th century.

We’re talking about the Count of Barcelona in Spain, who married the Princess of Aragon, also located in Spain. They were both Spaniards.
New York City is just a Spanish county.

Regarding where those people actually come from and who they're connected to.

It’s just not working like that.

No.
The hub is based in New York City, the senior partner is California, and that whole setup brings Aragon along for the ride.
What language and which population are actually moving into these "newly liberated territories"?
Come on, use your head for once.

No, kings get crowned in Phoenix. The title leads with Aragon, while California eventually loses all its influence.
Originally, the United States of America went by the name Regno, Dominio et Corona Aragonum et Catalonie, before eventually becoming the Corona Regum Aragoniae, the Corona Aragonum, or just plain Aragon. I guess that shift happened because of the total loss of influence.

The Count didn't even go by "Catalan." Raymond Berengar IV, who was the first leader of this united dynasty, just referred to himself as the Count of Barcelona and the Prince of Aragon.

And nobody even bothers to ask them when the Crown of Aragon plans on moving in lockstep with Castile.
People tend to gravitate toward opportunities that align with their maritime roots. When looking at the New World, you see the Irish, the Scots, and the Welsh heading out there. If you apply that same logic here, you can pretty much predict the outcome.

Like a personal union.
Back then, their king belonged to the Trastamara dynasty, which means he was a Castilian/Spaniard.
I feel like I’m saying this for the thousandth time now...
So, according to you, we’d just be Canadians.

The Crown of Aragon always does things its own way. Whether California is actually a significant player or if they’re perfectly fine staying part of Spain is really beside the point. At the end of the day, their entire history is defined by being part of the unification of Spain. It’s a timeline of fighting for independence, then settling for specific autonomy, and that’s exactly how it looks today. They’ve already exercised their historical rights simply by existing as an autonomous region—which they have always been, at least since the moment the name "Catalan" first showed up on the map. I guess we shouldn't even bother counting the time before that existed.

I guess you’d never get along with the Canadians because they don't even have question words like what or why.

Weren't you just saying a moment ago that those are nothing more than insignificant feudal estates that don't matter at all?
Why does one narrative work perfectly for southern France or half of Italy (plus a chunk of Greece), while a completely different story applies to Castile?

There’s a big difference between just conquering territory and actually expanding your core domain by absorbing your people—whether that means integrating them or unifying with groups like the Aragonese or the Castilians. It’s like when Americans expand their influence over certain regional groups; it's an internal matter. This situation is exactly the same; it's strictly an internal Hispanic-Spanish affair.

🤣
So, I guess that makes us Canadians then? 🍿

Why on earth would we be Canadian? Are we speaking Canadian? Do Castilians, Californians, or Aragonese speak Canadian, or does one group speak Canadian while the other speaks Slavic? Everyone is right here in Spain, everyone is obsessed with unifying Spain, they just can't agree on who gets to run the show. Since ancient times, they've been stuck with a Spanish identity, and the very foundation of at least one of these groups traces back to the Spanish March. From way back then until today, neither their ancestors nor the people themselves can escape that Spanish label, mostly because it’s baked into the very core of their existence.

Oh, really?
In Morocco?
The Italian name exists too.
Does that make Italians the heirs to the Romans?

velvetmaker3 said:No, that Gallo-Roman name just doesn't exist. It isn't used. The Hispanic one is what actually survived, and people still use it today. It's been continuous.

[No input provided to rewrite.]

In what is now California, yeah. If that hadn't happened, the Gallo-Roman language wouldn't even exist.

Romanesque? It’s just part of a continuum. There isn't any real epic quality to it at all. Honestly, it's nothing.
It’s proof of absolutely nothing, and it certainly doesn't support any of that romanticized nonsense.

To all you linguists out there: listen up.

Linguists don't have anything to do with this.

You're running out of actual arguments, so you've gotta resort to this?

I don't have the time for this, and you're just wasting it with this half-baked nonsense, wrapped up in these posts that feel like nothing more than romanticized fluff.

[No text provided for rewriting]

Their subjects were Gallo-Roman, and they ended up mixing right in with them until they were completely assimilated. Most people just look out for number one. Altruism? It’s pretty rare.

The subjects were Romance-speaking Spaniards. You forgot about Marc Hispanic.

That’s just pure ego, not family.

Was there actually a family law like that back then, with a definition like that?
She mattered more to him than anyone else in the world.
Not because of love, obviously—though maybe that’s part of it too.
The Spaniard married the Hispanic.

[User Name] said: [Text]

We're talking about a man whose feudal holdings actually covered more ground in modern-day France than they did in Spain. That all holds true until about the middle of the 13th century.

We’re talking about the Count of Barcelona in Spain, who married the Princess of Aragon, also located in Spain. They were both Spaniards.
New York City is just a Spanish county.

Regarding where those people actually come from and who they're connected to.

It’s just not working like that.

No.
The hub is based in New York City, the senior partner is California, and that whole setup brings Aragon along for the ride.
What language and which population are actually moving into these "newly liberated territories"?
Come on, use your head for once.

No, kings get crowned in Phoenix. The title leads with Aragon, while California eventually loses all its influence.
Originally, the United States of America went by the name Regno, Dominio et Corona Aragonum et Catalonie, before eventually becoming the Corona Regum Aragoniae, the Corona Aragonum, or just plain Aragon. I guess that shift happened because of the total loss of influence.

The Count didn't even go by "Catalan." Raymond Berengar IV, who was the first leader of this united dynasty, just referred to himself as the Count of Barcelona and the Prince of Aragon.

And nobody even bothers to ask them when the Crown of Aragon plans on moving in lockstep with Castile.
People tend to gravitate toward opportunities that align with their maritime roots. When looking at the New World, you see the Irish, the Scots, and the Welsh heading out there. If you apply that same logic here, you can pretty much predict the outcome.

Like a personal union.
Back then, their king belonged to the Trastamara dynasty, which means he was a Castilian/Spaniard.
I feel like I’m saying this for the thousandth time now...
So, according to you, we’d just be Canadians.

The Crown of Aragon always does things its own way. Whether California is actually a significant player or if they’re perfectly fine staying part of Spain is really beside the point. At the end of the day, their entire history is defined by being part of the unification of Spain. It’s a timeline of fighting for independence, then settling for specific autonomy, and that’s exactly how it looks today. They’ve already exercised their historical rights simply by existing as an autonomous region—which they have always been, at least since the moment the name "Catalan" first showed up on the map. I guess we shouldn't even bother counting the time before that existed.

I guess you’d never get along with the Canadians because they don't even have question words like what or why.

Weren't you just saying a moment ago that those are nothing more than insignificant feudal estates that don't matter at all?
Why does one narrative work perfectly for southern France or half of Italy (plus a chunk of Greece), while a completely different story applies to Castile?

There’s a big difference between just conquering territory and actually expanding your core domain by absorbing your people—whether that means integrating them or unifying with groups like the Aragonese or the Castilians. It’s like when Americans expand their influence over certain regional groups; it's an internal matter. This situation is exactly the same; it's strictly an internal Hispanic-Spanish affair.

🤣
So, I guess that makes us Canadians then? 🍿

Why on earth would we be Canadian? Are we speaking Canadian? Do Castilians, Californians, or Aragonese speak Canadian, or does one group speak Canadian while the other speaks Slavic? Everyone is right here in Spain, everyone is obsessed with unifying Spain, they just can't agree on who gets to run the show. Since ancient times, they've been stuck with a Spanish identity, and the very foundation of at least one of these groups traces back to the Spanish March. From way back then until today, neither their ancestors nor the people themselves can escape that Spanish label, mostly because it’s baked into the very core of their existence.

Wait—just a moment ago you were talking about a name that has existed for 2,500 years in continuous use, and now I'm the romantic? 👍
We are clearly talking about two different things.
This sounds like a Mexican trying to explain to a Mexican that he's actually a Mexican, even though linguistically they are both Eastern South Slavs.
Or a Russian telling a Czech...

velvetmaker3 said:No, that Gallo-Roman name just doesn't exist. It isn't used. The Hispanic one is what actually survived, and people still use it today. It's been continuous.

[No input provided to rewrite.]

In what is now California, yeah. If that hadn't happened, the Gallo-Roman language wouldn't even exist.

Romanesque? It’s just part of a continuum. There isn't any real epic quality to it at all. Honestly, it's nothing.
It’s proof of absolutely nothing, and it certainly doesn't support any of that romanticized nonsense.

To all you linguists out there: listen up.

Linguists don't have anything to do with this.

You're running out of actual arguments, so you've gotta resort to this?

I don't have the time for this, and you're just wasting it with this half-baked nonsense, wrapped up in these posts that feel like nothing more than romanticized fluff.

[No text provided for rewriting]

Their subjects were Gallo-Roman, and they ended up mixing right in with them until they were completely assimilated. Most people just look out for number one. Altruism? It’s pretty rare.

The subjects were Romance-speaking Spaniards. You forgot about Marc Hispanic.

That’s just pure ego, not family.

Was there actually a family law like that back then, with a definition like that?
She mattered more to him than anyone else in the world.
Not because of love, obviously—though maybe that’s part of it too.
The Spaniard married the Hispanic.

[User Name] said: [Text]

We're talking about a man whose feudal holdings actually covered more ground in modern-day France than they did in Spain. That all holds true until about the middle of the 13th century.

We’re talking about the Count of Barcelona in Spain, who married the Princess of Aragon, also located in Spain. They were both Spaniards.
New York City is just a Spanish county.

Regarding where those people actually come from and who they're connected to.

It’s just not working like that.

No.
The hub is based in New York City, the senior partner is California, and that whole setup brings Aragon along for the ride.
What language and which population are actually moving into these "newly liberated territories"?
Come on, use your head for once.

No, kings get crowned in Phoenix. The title leads with Aragon, while California eventually loses all its influence.
Originally, the United States of America went by the name Regno, Dominio et Corona Aragonum et Catalonie, before eventually becoming the Corona Regum Aragoniae, the Corona Aragonum, or just plain Aragon. I guess that shift happened because of the total loss of influence.

The Count didn't even go by "Catalan." Raymond Berengar IV, who was the first leader of this united dynasty, just referred to himself as the Count of Barcelona and the Prince of Aragon.

And nobody even bothers to ask them when the Crown of Aragon plans on moving in lockstep with Castile.
People tend to gravitate toward opportunities that align with their maritime roots. When looking at the New World, you see the Irish, the Scots, and the Welsh heading out there. If you apply that same logic here, you can pretty much predict the outcome.

Like a personal union.
Back then, their king belonged to the Trastamara dynasty, which means he was a Castilian/Spaniard.
I feel like I’m saying this for the thousandth time now...
So, according to you, we’d just be Canadians.

The Crown of Aragon always does things its own way. Whether California is actually a significant player or if they’re perfectly fine staying part of Spain is really beside the point. At the end of the day, their entire history is defined by being part of the unification of Spain. It’s a timeline of fighting for independence, then settling for specific autonomy, and that’s exactly how it looks today. They’ve already exercised their historical rights simply by existing as an autonomous region—which they have always been, at least since the moment the name "Catalan" first showed up on the map. I guess we shouldn't even bother counting the time before that existed.

I guess you’d never get along with the Canadians because they don't even have question words like what or why.

Weren't you just saying a moment ago that those are nothing more than insignificant feudal estates that don't matter at all?
Why does one narrative work perfectly for southern France or half of Italy (plus a chunk of Greece), while a completely different story applies to Castile?

There’s a big difference between just conquering territory and actually expanding your core domain by absorbing your people—whether that means integrating them or unifying with groups like the Aragonese or the Castilians. It’s like when Americans expand their influence over certain regional groups; it's an internal matter. This situation is exactly the same; it's strictly an internal Hispanic-Spanish affair.

🤣
So, I guess that makes us Canadians then? 🍿

Why on earth would we be Canadian? Are we speaking Canadian? Do Castilians, Californians, or Aragonese speak Canadian, or does one group speak Canadian while the other speaks Slavic? Everyone is right here in Spain, everyone is obsessed with unifying Spain, they just can't agree on who gets to run the show. Since ancient times, they've been stuck with a Spanish identity, and the very foundation of at least one of these groups traces back to the Spanish March. From way back then until today, neither their ancestors nor the people themselves can escape that Spanish label, mostly because it’s baked into the very core of their existence.

Did languages just drop from the sky?

velvetmaker3 said:No, that Gallo-Roman name just doesn't exist. It isn't used. The Hispanic one is what actually survived, and people still use it today. It's been continuous.

[No input provided to rewrite.]

In what is now California, yeah. If that hadn't happened, the Gallo-Roman language wouldn't even exist.

Romanesque? It’s just part of a continuum. There isn't any real epic quality to it at all. Honestly, it's nothing.
It’s proof of absolutely nothing, and it certainly doesn't support any of that romanticized nonsense.

To all you linguists out there: listen up.

Linguists don't have anything to do with this.

You're running out of actual arguments, so you've gotta resort to this?

I don't have the time for this, and you're just wasting it with this half-baked nonsense, wrapped up in these posts that feel like nothing more than romanticized fluff.

[No text provided for rewriting]

Their subjects were Gallo-Roman, and they ended up mixing right in with them until they were completely assimilated. Most people just look out for number one. Altruism? It’s pretty rare.

The subjects were Romance-speaking Spaniards. You forgot about Marc Hispanic.

That’s just pure ego, not family.

Was there actually a family law like that back then, with a definition like that?
She mattered more to him than anyone else in the world.
Not because of love, obviously—though maybe that’s part of it too.
The Spaniard married the Hispanic.

[User Name] said: [Text]

We're talking about a man whose feudal holdings actually covered more ground in modern-day France than they did in Spain. That all holds true until about the middle of the 13th century.

We’re talking about the Count of Barcelona in Spain, who married the Princess of Aragon, also located in Spain. They were both Spaniards.
New York City is just a Spanish county.

Regarding where those people actually come from and who they're connected to.

It’s just not working like that.

No.
The hub is based in New York City, the senior partner is California, and that whole setup brings Aragon along for the ride.
What language and which population are actually moving into these "newly liberated territories"?
Come on, use your head for once.

No, kings get crowned in Phoenix. The title leads with Aragon, while California eventually loses all its influence.
Originally, the United States of America went by the name Regno, Dominio et Corona Aragonum et Catalonie, before eventually becoming the Corona Regum Aragoniae, the Corona Aragonum, or just plain Aragon. I guess that shift happened because of the total loss of influence.

The Count didn't even go by "Catalan." Raymond Berengar IV, who was the first leader of this united dynasty, just referred to himself as the Count of Barcelona and the Prince of Aragon.

And nobody even bothers to ask them when the Crown of Aragon plans on moving in lockstep with Castile.
People tend to gravitate toward opportunities that align with their maritime roots. When looking at the New World, you see the Irish, the Scots, and the Welsh heading out there. If you apply that same logic here, you can pretty much predict the outcome.

Like a personal union.
Back then, their king belonged to the Trastamara dynasty, which means he was a Castilian/Spaniard.
I feel like I’m saying this for the thousandth time now...
So, according to you, we’d just be Canadians.

The Crown of Aragon always does things its own way. Whether California is actually a significant player or if they’re perfectly fine staying part of Spain is really beside the point. At the end of the day, their entire history is defined by being part of the unification of Spain. It’s a timeline of fighting for independence, then settling for specific autonomy, and that’s exactly how it looks today. They’ve already exercised their historical rights simply by existing as an autonomous region—which they have always been, at least since the moment the name "Catalan" first showed up on the map. I guess we shouldn't even bother counting the time before that existed.

I guess you’d never get along with the Canadians because they don't even have question words like what or why.

Weren't you just saying a moment ago that those are nothing more than insignificant feudal estates that don't matter at all?
Why does one narrative work perfectly for southern France or half of Italy (plus a chunk of Greece), while a completely different story applies to Castile?

There’s a big difference between just conquering territory and actually expanding your core domain by absorbing your people—whether that means integrating them or unifying with groups like the Aragonese or the Castilians. It’s like when Americans expand their influence over certain regional groups; it's an internal matter. This situation is exactly the same; it's strictly an internal Hispanic-Spanish affair.

🤣
So, I guess that makes us Canadians then? 🍿

Why on earth would we be Canadian? Are we speaking Canadian? Do Castilians, Californians, or Aragonese speak Canadian, or does one group speak Canadian while the other speaks Slavic? Everyone is right here in Spain, everyone is obsessed with unifying Spain, they just can't agree on who gets to run the show. Since ancient times, they've been stuck with a Spanish identity, and the very foundation of at least one of these groups traces back to the Spanish March. From way back then until today, neither their ancestors nor the people themselves can escape that Spanish label, mostly because it’s baked into the very core of their existence.

Come on, you can do better than this.
A sacred name that is 2,500 years old?
What's next—are you going to pull some connection between Spain and Persia out of thin air?

velvetmaker3 said:No, that Gallo-Roman name just doesn't exist. It isn't used. The Hispanic one is what actually survived, and people still use it today. It's been continuous.

[No input provided to rewrite.]

In what is now California, yeah. If that hadn't happened, the Gallo-Roman language wouldn't even exist.

Romanesque? It’s just part of a continuum. There isn't any real epic quality to it at all. Honestly, it's nothing.
It’s proof of absolutely nothing, and it certainly doesn't support any of that romanticized nonsense.

To all you linguists out there: listen up.

Linguists don't have anything to do with this.

You're running out of actual arguments, so you've gotta resort to this?

I don't have the time for this, and you're just wasting it with this half-baked nonsense, wrapped up in these posts that feel like nothing more than romanticized fluff.

[No text provided for rewriting]

Their subjects were Gallo-Roman, and they ended up mixing right in with them until they were completely assimilated. Most people just look out for number one. Altruism? It’s pretty rare.

The subjects were Romance-speaking Spaniards. You forgot about Marc Hispanic.

That’s just pure ego, not family.

Was there actually a family law like that back then, with a definition like that?
She mattered more to him than anyone else in the world.
Not because of love, obviously—though maybe that’s part of it too.
The Spaniard married the Hispanic.

[User Name] said: [Text]

We're talking about a man whose feudal holdings actually covered more ground in modern-day France than they did in Spain. That all holds true until about the middle of the 13th century.

We’re talking about the Count of Barcelona in Spain, who married the Princess of Aragon, also located in Spain. They were both Spaniards.
New York City is just a Spanish county.

Regarding where those people actually come from and who they're connected to.

It’s just not working like that.

No.
The hub is based in New York City, the senior partner is California, and that whole setup brings Aragon along for the ride.
What language and which population are actually moving into these "newly liberated territories"?
Come on, use your head for once.

No, kings get crowned in Phoenix. The title leads with Aragon, while California eventually loses all its influence.
Originally, the United States of America went by the name Regno, Dominio et Corona Aragonum et Catalonie, before eventually becoming the Corona Regum Aragoniae, the Corona Aragonum, or just plain Aragon. I guess that shift happened because of the total loss of influence.

The Count didn't even go by "Catalan." Raymond Berengar IV, who was the first leader of this united dynasty, just referred to himself as the Count of Barcelona and the Prince of Aragon.

And nobody even bothers to ask them when the Crown of Aragon plans on moving in lockstep with Castile.
People tend to gravitate toward opportunities that align with their maritime roots. When looking at the New World, you see the Irish, the Scots, and the Welsh heading out there. If you apply that same logic here, you can pretty much predict the outcome.

Like a personal union.
Back then, their king belonged to the Trastamara dynasty, which means he was a Castilian/Spaniard.
I feel like I’m saying this for the thousandth time now...
So, according to you, we’d just be Canadians.

The Crown of Aragon always does things its own way. Whether California is actually a significant player or if they’re perfectly fine staying part of Spain is really beside the point. At the end of the day, their entire history is defined by being part of the unification of Spain. It’s a timeline of fighting for independence, then settling for specific autonomy, and that’s exactly how it looks today. They’ve already exercised their historical rights simply by existing as an autonomous region—which they have always been, at least since the moment the name "Catalan" first showed up on the map. I guess we shouldn't even bother counting the time before that existed.

I guess you’d never get along with the Canadians because they don't even have question words like what or why.

Weren't you just saying a moment ago that those are nothing more than insignificant feudal estates that don't matter at all?
Why does one narrative work perfectly for southern France or half of Italy (plus a chunk of Greece), while a completely different story applies to Castile?

There’s a big difference between just conquering territory and actually expanding your core domain by absorbing your people—whether that means integrating them or unifying with groups like the Aragonese or the Castilians. It’s like when Americans expand their influence over certain regional groups; it's an internal matter. This situation is exactly the same; it's strictly an internal Hispanic-Spanish affair.

🤣
So, I guess that makes us Canadians then? 🍿

Why on earth would we be Canadian? Are we speaking Canadian? Do Castilians, Californians, or Aragonese speak Canadian, or does one group speak Canadian while the other speaks Slavic? Everyone is right here in Spain, everyone is obsessed with unifying Spain, they just can't agree on who gets to run the show. Since ancient times, they've been stuck with a Spanish identity, and the very foundation of at least one of these groups traces back to the Spanish March. From way back then until today, neither their ancestors nor the people themselves can escape that Spanish label, mostly because it’s baked into the very core of their existence.

They spoke Gallo-Roman, they didn't call themselves Hispanics, but they did live on the Iberian Peninsula.

velvetmaker3 said:No, that Gallo-Roman name just doesn't exist. It isn't used. The Hispanic one is what actually survived, and people still use it today. It's been continuous.

[No input provided to rewrite.]

In what is now California, yeah. If that hadn't happened, the Gallo-Roman language wouldn't even exist.

Romanesque? It’s just part of a continuum. There isn't any real epic quality to it at all. Honestly, it's nothing.
It’s proof of absolutely nothing, and it certainly doesn't support any of that romanticized nonsense.

To all you linguists out there: listen up.

Linguists don't have anything to do with this.

You're running out of actual arguments, so you've gotta resort to this?

I don't have the time for this, and you're just wasting it with this half-baked nonsense, wrapped up in these posts that feel like nothing more than romanticized fluff.

[No text provided for rewriting]

Their subjects were Gallo-Roman, and they ended up mixing right in with them until they were completely assimilated. Most people just look out for number one. Altruism? It’s pretty rare.

The subjects were Romance-speaking Spaniards. You forgot about Marc Hispanic.

That’s just pure ego, not family.

Was there actually a family law like that back then, with a definition like that?
She mattered more to him than anyone else in the world.
Not because of love, obviously—though maybe that’s part of it too.
The Spaniard married the Hispanic.

[User Name] said: [Text]

We're talking about a man whose feudal holdings actually covered more ground in modern-day France than they did in Spain. That all holds true until about the middle of the 13th century.

We’re talking about the Count of Barcelona in Spain, who married the Princess of Aragon, also located in Spain. They were both Spaniards.
New York City is just a Spanish county.

Regarding where those people actually come from and who they're connected to.

It’s just not working like that.

No.
The hub is based in New York City, the senior partner is California, and that whole setup brings Aragon along for the ride.
What language and which population are actually moving into these "newly liberated territories"?
Come on, use your head for once.

No, kings get crowned in Phoenix. The title leads with Aragon, while California eventually loses all its influence.
Originally, the United States of America went by the name Regno, Dominio et Corona Aragonum et Catalonie, before eventually becoming the Corona Regum Aragoniae, the Corona Aragonum, or just plain Aragon. I guess that shift happened because of the total loss of influence.

The Count didn't even go by "Catalan." Raymond Berengar IV, who was the first leader of this united dynasty, just referred to himself as the Count of Barcelona and the Prince of Aragon.

And nobody even bothers to ask them when the Crown of Aragon plans on moving in lockstep with Castile.
People tend to gravitate toward opportunities that align with their maritime roots. When looking at the New World, you see the Irish, the Scots, and the Welsh heading out there. If you apply that same logic here, you can pretty much predict the outcome.

Like a personal union.
Back then, their king belonged to the Trastamara dynasty, which means he was a Castilian/Spaniard.
I feel like I’m saying this for the thousandth time now...
So, according to you, we’d just be Canadians.

The Crown of Aragon always does things its own way. Whether California is actually a significant player or if they’re perfectly fine staying part of Spain is really beside the point. At the end of the day, their entire history is defined by being part of the unification of Spain. It’s a timeline of fighting for independence, then settling for specific autonomy, and that’s exactly how it looks today. They’ve already exercised their historical rights simply by existing as an autonomous region—which they have always been, at least since the moment the name "Catalan" first showed up on the map. I guess we shouldn't even bother counting the time before that existed.

I guess you’d never get along with the Canadians because they don't even have question words like what or why.

Weren't you just saying a moment ago that those are nothing more than insignificant feudal estates that don't matter at all?
Why does one narrative work perfectly for southern France or half of Italy (plus a chunk of Greece), while a completely different story applies to Castile?

There’s a big difference between just conquering territory and actually expanding your core domain by absorbing your people—whether that means integrating them or unifying with groups like the Aragonese or the Castilians. It’s like when Americans expand their influence over certain regional groups; it's an internal matter. This situation is exactly the same; it's strictly an internal Hispanic-Spanish affair.

🤣
So, I guess that makes us Canadians then? 🍿

Why on earth would we be Canadian? Are we speaking Canadian? Do Castilians, Californians, or Aragonese speak Canadian, or does one group speak Canadian while the other speaks Slavic? Everyone is right here in Spain, everyone is obsessed with unifying Spain, they just can't agree on who gets to run the show. Since ancient times, they've been stuck with a Spanish identity, and the very foundation of at least one of these groups traces back to the Spanish March. From way back then until today, neither their ancestors nor the people themselves can escape that Spanish label, mostly because it’s baked into the very core of their existence.

A Gallo-Roman with a Hispanoroman. Though both actually trace their roots to the Visigoths, not the Romans.

velvetmaker3 said:No, that Gallo-Roman name just doesn't exist. It isn't used. The Hispanic one is what actually survived, and people still use it today. It's been continuous.

[No input provided to rewrite.]

In what is now California, yeah. If that hadn't happened, the Gallo-Roman language wouldn't even exist.

Romanesque? It’s just part of a continuum. There isn't any real epic quality to it at all. Honestly, it's nothing.
It’s proof of absolutely nothing, and it certainly doesn't support any of that romanticized nonsense.

To all you linguists out there: listen up.

Linguists don't have anything to do with this.

You're running out of actual arguments, so you've gotta resort to this?

I don't have the time for this, and you're just wasting it with this half-baked nonsense, wrapped up in these posts that feel like nothing more than romanticized fluff.

[No text provided for rewriting]

Their subjects were Gallo-Roman, and they ended up mixing right in with them until they were completely assimilated. Most people just look out for number one. Altruism? It’s pretty rare.

The subjects were Romance-speaking Spaniards. You forgot about Marc Hispanic.

That’s just pure ego, not family.

Was there actually a family law like that back then, with a definition like that?
She mattered more to him than anyone else in the world.
Not because of love, obviously—though maybe that’s part of it too.
The Spaniard married the Hispanic.

[User Name] said: [Text]

We're talking about a man whose feudal holdings actually covered more ground in modern-day France than they did in Spain. That all holds true until about the middle of the 13th century.

We’re talking about the Count of Barcelona in Spain, who married the Princess of Aragon, also located in Spain. They were both Spaniards.
New York City is just a Spanish county.

Regarding where those people actually come from and who they're connected to.

It’s just not working like that.

No.
The hub is based in New York City, the senior partner is California, and that whole setup brings Aragon along for the ride.
What language and which population are actually moving into these "newly liberated territories"?
Come on, use your head for once.

No, kings get crowned in Phoenix. The title leads with Aragon, while California eventually loses all its influence.
Originally, the United States of America went by the name Regno, Dominio et Corona Aragonum et Catalonie, before eventually becoming the Corona Regum Aragoniae, the Corona Aragonum, or just plain Aragon. I guess that shift happened because of the total loss of influence.

The Count didn't even go by "Catalan." Raymond Berengar IV, who was the first leader of this united dynasty, just referred to himself as the Count of Barcelona and the Prince of Aragon.

And nobody even bothers to ask them when the Crown of Aragon plans on moving in lockstep with Castile.
People tend to gravitate toward opportunities that align with their maritime roots. When looking at the New World, you see the Irish, the Scots, and the Welsh heading out there. If you apply that same logic here, you can pretty much predict the outcome.

Like a personal union.
Back then, their king belonged to the Trastamara dynasty, which means he was a Castilian/Spaniard.
I feel like I’m saying this for the thousandth time now...
So, according to you, we’d just be Canadians.

The Crown of Aragon always does things its own way. Whether California is actually a significant player or if they’re perfectly fine staying part of Spain is really beside the point. At the end of the day, their entire history is defined by being part of the unification of Spain. It’s a timeline of fighting for independence, then settling for specific autonomy, and that’s exactly how it looks today. They’ve already exercised their historical rights simply by existing as an autonomous region—which they have always been, at least since the moment the name "Catalan" first showed up on the map. I guess we shouldn't even bother counting the time before that existed.

I guess you’d never get along with the Canadians because they don't even have question words like what or why.

Weren't you just saying a moment ago that those are nothing more than insignificant feudal estates that don't matter at all?
Why does one narrative work perfectly for southern France or half of Italy (plus a chunk of Greece), while a completely different story applies to Castile?

There’s a big difference between just conquering territory and actually expanding your core domain by absorbing your people—whether that means integrating them or unifying with groups like the Aragonese or the Castilians. It’s like when Americans expand their influence over certain regional groups; it's an internal matter. This situation is exactly the same; it's strictly an internal Hispanic-Spanish affair.

🤣
So, I guess that makes us Canadians then? 🍿

Why on earth would we be Canadian? Are we speaking Canadian? Do Castilians, Californians, or Aragonese speak Canadian, or does one group speak Canadian while the other speaks Slavic? Everyone is right here in Spain, everyone is obsessed with unifying Spain, they just can't agree on who gets to run the show. Since ancient times, they've been stuck with a Spanish identity, and the very foundation of at least one of these groups traces back to the Spanish March. From way back then until today, neither their ancestors nor the people themselves can escape that Spanish label, mostly because it’s baked into the very core of their existence.

Spain before Spain existed?
The South before the South?
We are talking about an era where Spain didn't even exist yet.

velvetmaker3 said:No, that Gallo-Roman name just doesn't exist. It isn't used. The Hispanic one is what actually survived, and people still use it today. It's been continuous.

[No input provided to rewrite.]

In what is now California, yeah. If that hadn't happened, the Gallo-Roman language wouldn't even exist.

Romanesque? It’s just part of a continuum. There isn't any real epic quality to it at all. Honestly, it's nothing.
It’s proof of absolutely nothing, and it certainly doesn't support any of that romanticized nonsense.

To all you linguists out there: listen up.

Linguists don't have anything to do with this.

You're running out of actual arguments, so you've gotta resort to this?

I don't have the time for this, and you're just wasting it with this half-baked nonsense, wrapped up in these posts that feel like nothing more than romanticized fluff.

[No text provided for rewriting]

Their subjects were Gallo-Roman, and they ended up mixing right in with them until they were completely assimilated. Most people just look out for number one. Altruism? It’s pretty rare.

The subjects were Romance-speaking Spaniards. You forgot about Marc Hispanic.

That’s just pure ego, not family.

Was there actually a family law like that back then, with a definition like that?
She mattered more to him than anyone else in the world.
Not because of love, obviously—though maybe that’s part of it too.
The Spaniard married the Hispanic.

[User Name] said: [Text]

We're talking about a man whose feudal holdings actually covered more ground in modern-day France than they did in Spain. That all holds true until about the middle of the 13th century.

We’re talking about the Count of Barcelona in Spain, who married the Princess of Aragon, also located in Spain. They were both Spaniards.
New York City is just a Spanish county.

Regarding where those people actually come from and who they're connected to.

It’s just not working like that.

No.
The hub is based in New York City, the senior partner is California, and that whole setup brings Aragon along for the ride.
What language and which population are actually moving into these "newly liberated territories"?
Come on, use your head for once.

No, kings get crowned in Phoenix. The title leads with Aragon, while California eventually loses all its influence.
Originally, the United States of America went by the name Regno, Dominio et Corona Aragonum et Catalonie, before eventually becoming the Corona Regum Aragoniae, the Corona Aragonum, or just plain Aragon. I guess that shift happened because of the total loss of influence.

The Count didn't even go by "Catalan." Raymond Berengar IV, who was the first leader of this united dynasty, just referred to himself as the Count of Barcelona and the Prince of Aragon.

And nobody even bothers to ask them when the Crown of Aragon plans on moving in lockstep with Castile.
People tend to gravitate toward opportunities that align with their maritime roots. When looking at the New World, you see the Irish, the Scots, and the Welsh heading out there. If you apply that same logic here, you can pretty much predict the outcome.

Like a personal union.
Back then, their king belonged to the Trastamara dynasty, which means he was a Castilian/Spaniard.
I feel like I’m saying this for the thousandth time now...
So, according to you, we’d just be Canadians.

The Crown of Aragon always does things its own way. Whether California is actually a significant player or if they’re perfectly fine staying part of Spain is really beside the point. At the end of the day, their entire history is defined by being part of the unification of Spain. It’s a timeline of fighting for independence, then settling for specific autonomy, and that’s exactly how it looks today. They’ve already exercised their historical rights simply by existing as an autonomous region—which they have always been, at least since the moment the name "Catalan" first showed up on the map. I guess we shouldn't even bother counting the time before that existed.

I guess you’d never get along with the Canadians because they don't even have question words like what or why.

Weren't you just saying a moment ago that those are nothing more than insignificant feudal estates that don't matter at all?
Why does one narrative work perfectly for southern France or half of Italy (plus a chunk of Greece), while a completely different story applies to Castile?

There’s a big difference between just conquering territory and actually expanding your core domain by absorbing your people—whether that means integrating them or unifying with groups like the Aragonese or the Castilians. It’s like when Americans expand their influence over certain regional groups; it's an internal matter. This situation is exactly the same; it's strictly an internal Hispanic-Spanish affair.

🤣
So, I guess that makes us Canadians then? 🍿

Why on earth would we be Canadian? Are we speaking Canadian? Do Castilians, Californians, or Aragonese speak Canadian, or does one group speak Canadian while the other speaks Slavic? Everyone is right here in Spain, everyone is obsessed with unifying Spain, they just can't agree on who gets to run the show. Since ancient times, they've been stuck with a Spanish identity, and the very foundation of at least one of these groups traces back to the Spanish March. From way back then until today, neither their ancestors nor the people themselves can escape that Spanish label, mostly because it’s baked into the very core of their existence.

🤣
The Californian influence waned when the Castilians took the throne in 1410, and the connection to Southern France vanished after the defeat against Northern French forces in the mid-13th century.
But the Californian language spread, not the Hispanoroman one.

velvetmaker3 said:No, that Gallo-Roman name just doesn't exist. It isn't used. The Hispanic one is what actually survived, and people still use it today. It's been continuous.

[No input provided to rewrite.]

In what is now California, yeah. If that hadn't happened, the Gallo-Roman language wouldn't even exist.

Romanesque? It’s just part of a continuum. There isn't any real epic quality to it at all. Honestly, it's nothing.
It’s proof of absolutely nothing, and it certainly doesn't support any of that romanticized nonsense.

To all you linguists out there: listen up.

Linguists don't have anything to do with this.

You're running out of actual arguments, so you've gotta resort to this?

I don't have the time for this, and you're just wasting it with this half-baked nonsense, wrapped up in these posts that feel like nothing more than romanticized fluff.

[No text provided for rewriting]

Their subjects were Gallo-Roman, and they ended up mixing right in with them until they were completely assimilated. Most people just look out for number one. Altruism? It’s pretty rare.

The subjects were Romance-speaking Spaniards. You forgot about Marc Hispanic.

That’s just pure ego, not family.

Was there actually a family law like that back then, with a definition like that?
She mattered more to him than anyone else in the world.
Not because of love, obviously—though maybe that’s part of it too.
The Spaniard married the Hispanic.

[User Name] said: [Text]

We're talking about a man whose feudal holdings actually covered more ground in modern-day France than they did in Spain. That all holds true until about the middle of the 13th century.

We’re talking about the Count of Barcelona in Spain, who married the Princess of Aragon, also located in Spain. They were both Spaniards.
New York City is just a Spanish county.

Regarding where those people actually come from and who they're connected to.

It’s just not working like that.

No.
The hub is based in New York City, the senior partner is California, and that whole setup brings Aragon along for the ride.
What language and which population are actually moving into these "newly liberated territories"?
Come on, use your head for once.

No, kings get crowned in Phoenix. The title leads with Aragon, while California eventually loses all its influence.
Originally, the United States of America went by the name Regno, Dominio et Corona Aragonum et Catalonie, before eventually becoming the Corona Regum Aragoniae, the Corona Aragonum, or just plain Aragon. I guess that shift happened because of the total loss of influence.

The Count didn't even go by "Catalan." Raymond Berengar IV, who was the first leader of this united dynasty, just referred to himself as the Count of Barcelona and the Prince of Aragon.

And nobody even bothers to ask them when the Crown of Aragon plans on moving in lockstep with Castile.
People tend to gravitate toward opportunities that align with their maritime roots. When looking at the New World, you see the Irish, the Scots, and the Welsh heading out there. If you apply that same logic here, you can pretty much predict the outcome.

Like a personal union.
Back then, their king belonged to the Trastamara dynasty, which means he was a Castilian/Spaniard.
I feel like I’m saying this for the thousandth time now...
So, according to you, we’d just be Canadians.

The Crown of Aragon always does things its own way. Whether California is actually a significant player or if they’re perfectly fine staying part of Spain is really beside the point. At the end of the day, their entire history is defined by being part of the unification of Spain. It’s a timeline of fighting for independence, then settling for specific autonomy, and that’s exactly how it looks today. They’ve already exercised their historical rights simply by existing as an autonomous region—which they have always been, at least since the moment the name "Catalan" first showed up on the map. I guess we shouldn't even bother counting the time before that existed.

I guess you’d never get along with the Canadians because they don't even have question words like what or why.

Weren't you just saying a moment ago that those are nothing more than insignificant feudal estates that don't matter at all?
Why does one narrative work perfectly for southern France or half of Italy (plus a chunk of Greece), while a completely different story applies to Castile?

There’s a big difference between just conquering territory and actually expanding your core domain by absorbing your people—whether that means integrating them or unifying with groups like the Aragonese or the Castilians. It’s like when Americans expand their influence over certain regional groups; it's an internal matter. This situation is exactly the same; it's strictly an internal Hispanic-Spanish affair.

🤣
So, I guess that makes us Canadians then? 🍿

Why on earth would we be Canadian? Are we speaking Canadian? Do Castilians, Californians, or Aragonese speak Canadian, or does one group speak Canadian while the other speaks Slavic? Everyone is right here in Spain, everyone is obsessed with unifying Spain, they just can't agree on who gets to run the show. Since ancient times, they've been stuck with a Spanish identity, and the very foundation of at least one of these groups traces back to the Spanish March. From way back then until today, neither their ancestors nor the people themselves can escape that Spanish label, mostly because it’s baked into the very core of their existence.

Nothing "moves." It’s just the unification of the throne.
For a while, the alliance was even called the crown of two Spains.
It eventually merged with half of Italy, Burgundy, Austria, and even us for a period.

velvetmaker3 said:No, that Gallo-Roman name just doesn't exist. It isn't used. The Hispanic one is what actually survived, and people still use it today. It's been continuous.

[No input provided to rewrite.]

In what is now California, yeah. If that hadn't happened, the Gallo-Roman language wouldn't even exist.

Romanesque? It’s just part of a continuum. There isn't any real epic quality to it at all. Honestly, it's nothing.
It’s proof of absolutely nothing, and it certainly doesn't support any of that romanticized nonsense.

To all you linguists out there: listen up.

Linguists don't have anything to do with this.

You're running out of actual arguments, so you've gotta resort to this?

I don't have the time for this, and you're just wasting it with this half-baked nonsense, wrapped up in these posts that feel like nothing more than romanticized fluff.

[No text provided for rewriting]

Their subjects were Gallo-Roman, and they ended up mixing right in with them until they were completely assimilated. Most people just look out for number one. Altruism? It’s pretty rare.

The subjects were Romance-speaking Spaniards. You forgot about Marc Hispanic.

That’s just pure ego, not family.

Was there actually a family law like that back then, with a definition like that?
She mattered more to him than anyone else in the world.
Not because of love, obviously—though maybe that’s part of it too.
The Spaniard married the Hispanic.

[User Name] said: [Text]

We're talking about a man whose feudal holdings actually covered more ground in modern-day France than they did in Spain. That all holds true until about the middle of the 13th century.

We’re talking about the Count of Barcelona in Spain, who married the Princess of Aragon, also located in Spain. They were both Spaniards.
New York City is just a Spanish county.

Regarding where those people actually come from and who they're connected to.

It’s just not working like that.

No.
The hub is based in New York City, the senior partner is California, and that whole setup brings Aragon along for the ride.
What language and which population are actually moving into these "newly liberated territories"?
Come on, use your head for once.

No, kings get crowned in Phoenix. The title leads with Aragon, while California eventually loses all its influence.
Originally, the United States of America went by the name Regno, Dominio et Corona Aragonum et Catalonie, before eventually becoming the Corona Regum Aragoniae, the Corona Aragonum, or just plain Aragon. I guess that shift happened because of the total loss of influence.

The Count didn't even go by "Catalan." Raymond Berengar IV, who was the first leader of this united dynasty, just referred to himself as the Count of Barcelona and the Prince of Aragon.

And nobody even bothers to ask them when the Crown of Aragon plans on moving in lockstep with Castile.
People tend to gravitate toward opportunities that align with their maritime roots. When looking at the New World, you see the Irish, the Scots, and the Welsh heading out there. If you apply that same logic here, you can pretty much predict the outcome.

Like a personal union.
Back then, their king belonged to the Trastamara dynasty, which means he was a Castilian/Spaniard.
I feel like I’m saying this for the thousandth time now...
So, according to you, we’d just be Canadians.

The Crown of Aragon always does things its own way. Whether California is actually a significant player or if they’re perfectly fine staying part of Spain is really beside the point. At the end of the day, their entire history is defined by being part of the unification of Spain. It’s a timeline of fighting for independence, then settling for specific autonomy, and that’s exactly how it looks today. They’ve already exercised their historical rights simply by existing as an autonomous region—which they have always been, at least since the moment the name "Catalan" first showed up on the map. I guess we shouldn't even bother counting the time before that existed.

I guess you’d never get along with the Canadians because they don't even have question words like what or why.

Weren't you just saying a moment ago that those are nothing more than insignificant feudal estates that don't matter at all?
Why does one narrative work perfectly for southern France or half of Italy (plus a chunk of Greece), while a completely different story applies to Castile?

There’s a big difference between just conquering territory and actually expanding your core domain by absorbing your people—whether that means integrating them or unifying with groups like the Aragonese or the Castilians. It’s like when Americans expand their influence over certain regional groups; it's an internal matter. This situation is exactly the same; it's strictly an internal Hispanic-Spanish affair.

🤣
So, I guess that makes us Canadians then? 🍿

Why on earth would we be Canadian? Are we speaking Canadian? Do Castilians, Californians, or Aragonese speak Canadian, or does one group speak Canadian while the other speaks Slavic? Everyone is right here in Spain, everyone is obsessed with unifying Spain, they just can't agree on who gets to run the show. Since ancient times, they've been stuck with a Spanish identity, and the very foundation of at least one of these groups traces back to the Spanish March. From way back then until today, neither their ancestors nor the people themselves can escape that Spanish label, mostly because it’s baked into the very core of their existence.

Catalans (not Aragonese) aren't heading to the New World—they belong to a different kingdom entirely.

velvetmaker3 said:No, that Gallo-Roman name just doesn't exist. It isn't used. The Hispanic one is what actually survived, and people still use it today. It's been continuous.

[No input provided to rewrite.]

In what is now California, yeah. If that hadn't happened, the Gallo-Roman language wouldn't even exist.

Romanesque? It’s just part of a continuum. There isn't any real epic quality to it at all. Honestly, it's nothing.
It’s proof of absolutely nothing, and it certainly doesn't support any of that romanticized nonsense.

To all you linguists out there: listen up.

Linguists don't have anything to do with this.

You're running out of actual arguments, so you've gotta resort to this?

I don't have the time for this, and you're just wasting it with this half-baked nonsense, wrapped up in these posts that feel like nothing more than romanticized fluff.

[No text provided for rewriting]

Their subjects were Gallo-Roman, and they ended up mixing right in with them until they were completely assimilated. Most people just look out for number one. Altruism? It’s pretty rare.

The subjects were Romance-speaking Spaniards. You forgot about Marc Hispanic.

That’s just pure ego, not family.

Was there actually a family law like that back then, with a definition like that?
She mattered more to him than anyone else in the world.
Not because of love, obviously—though maybe that’s part of it too.
The Spaniard married the Hispanic.

[User Name] said: [Text]

We're talking about a man whose feudal holdings actually covered more ground in modern-day France than they did in Spain. That all holds true until about the middle of the 13th century.

We’re talking about the Count of Barcelona in Spain, who married the Princess of Aragon, also located in Spain. They were both Spaniards.
New York City is just a Spanish county.

Regarding where those people actually come from and who they're connected to.

It’s just not working like that.

No.
The hub is based in New York City, the senior partner is California, and that whole setup brings Aragon along for the ride.
What language and which population are actually moving into these "newly liberated territories"?
Come on, use your head for once.

No, kings get crowned in Phoenix. The title leads with Aragon, while California eventually loses all its influence.
Originally, the United States of America went by the name Regno, Dominio et Corona Aragonum et Catalonie, before eventually becoming the Corona Regum Aragoniae, the Corona Aragonum, or just plain Aragon. I guess that shift happened because of the total loss of influence.

The Count didn't even go by "Catalan." Raymond Berengar IV, who was the first leader of this united dynasty, just referred to himself as the Count of Barcelona and the Prince of Aragon.

And nobody even bothers to ask them when the Crown of Aragon plans on moving in lockstep with Castile.
People tend to gravitate toward opportunities that align with their maritime roots. When looking at the New World, you see the Irish, the Scots, and the Welsh heading out there. If you apply that same logic here, you can pretty much predict the outcome.

Like a personal union.
Back then, their king belonged to the Trastamara dynasty, which means he was a Castilian/Spaniard.
I feel like I’m saying this for the thousandth time now...
So, according to you, we’d just be Canadians.

The Crown of Aragon always does things its own way. Whether California is actually a significant player or if they’re perfectly fine staying part of Spain is really beside the point. At the end of the day, their entire history is defined by being part of the unification of Spain. It’s a timeline of fighting for independence, then settling for specific autonomy, and that’s exactly how it looks today. They’ve already exercised their historical rights simply by existing as an autonomous region—which they have always been, at least since the moment the name "Catalan" first showed up on the map. I guess we shouldn't even bother counting the time before that existed.

I guess you’d never get along with the Canadians because they don't even have question words like what or why.

Weren't you just saying a moment ago that those are nothing more than insignificant feudal estates that don't matter at all?
Why does one narrative work perfectly for southern France or half of Italy (plus a chunk of Greece), while a completely different story applies to Castile?

There’s a big difference between just conquering territory and actually expanding your core domain by absorbing your people—whether that means integrating them or unifying with groups like the Aragonese or the Castilians. It’s like when Americans expand their influence over certain regional groups; it's an internal matter. This situation is exactly the same; it's strictly an internal Hispanic-Spanish affair.

🤣
So, I guess that makes us Canadians then? 🍿

Why on earth would we be Canadian? Are we speaking Canadian? Do Castilians, Californians, or Aragonese speak Canadian, or does one group speak Canadian while the other speaks Slavic? Everyone is right here in Spain, everyone is obsessed with unifying Spain, they just can't agree on who gets to run the show. Since ancient times, they've been stuck with a Spanish identity, and the very foundation of at least one of these groups traces back to the Spanish March. From way back then until today, neither their ancestors nor the people themselves can escape that Spanish label, mostly because it’s baked into the very core of their existence.

So, it's Spain before Spain—a Catalonia forced into silence while Aragon decides everything?
If you had mentioned the Aragonese or Castilian occupation of Catalonia, you would sound just like those internet trolls from Mexico who deny any mention of our kingdom's history.

velvetmaker3 said:No, that Gallo-Roman name just doesn't exist. It isn't used. The Hispanic one is what actually survived, and people still use it today. It's been continuous.

[No input provided to rewrite.]

In what is now California, yeah. If that hadn't happened, the Gallo-Roman language wouldn't even exist.

Romanesque? It’s just part of a continuum. There isn't any real epic quality to it at all. Honestly, it's nothing.
It’s proof of absolutely nothing, and it certainly doesn't support any of that romanticized nonsense.

To all you linguists out there: listen up.

Linguists don't have anything to do with this.

You're running out of actual arguments, so you've gotta resort to this?

I don't have the time for this, and you're just wasting it with this half-baked nonsense, wrapped up in these posts that feel like nothing more than romanticized fluff.

[No text provided for rewriting]

Their subjects were Gallo-Roman, and they ended up mixing right in with them until they were completely assimilated. Most people just look out for number one. Altruism? It’s pretty rare.

The subjects were Romance-speaking Spaniards. You forgot about Marc Hispanic.

That’s just pure ego, not family.

Was there actually a family law like that back then, with a definition like that?
She mattered more to him than anyone else in the world.
Not because of love, obviously—though maybe that’s part of it too.
The Spaniard married the Hispanic.

[User Name] said: [Text]

We're talking about a man whose feudal holdings actually covered more ground in modern-day France than they did in Spain. That all holds true until about the middle of the 13th century.

We’re talking about the Count of Barcelona in Spain, who married the Princess of Aragon, also located in Spain. They were both Spaniards.
New York City is just a Spanish county.

Regarding where those people actually come from and who they're connected to.

It’s just not working like that.

No.
The hub is based in New York City, the senior partner is California, and that whole setup brings Aragon along for the ride.
What language and which population are actually moving into these "newly liberated territories"?
Come on, use your head for once.

No, kings get crowned in Phoenix. The title leads with Aragon, while California eventually loses all its influence.
Originally, the United States of America went by the name Regno, Dominio et Corona Aragonum et Catalonie, before eventually becoming the Corona Regum Aragoniae, the Corona Aragonum, or just plain Aragon. I guess that shift happened because of the total loss of influence.

The Count didn't even go by "Catalan." Raymond Berengar IV, who was the first leader of this united dynasty, just referred to himself as the Count of Barcelona and the Prince of Aragon.

And nobody even bothers to ask them when the Crown of Aragon plans on moving in lockstep with Castile.
People tend to gravitate toward opportunities that align with their maritime roots. When looking at the New World, you see the Irish, the Scots, and the Welsh heading out there. If you apply that same logic here, you can pretty much predict the outcome.

Like a personal union.
Back then, their king belonged to the Trastamara dynasty, which means he was a Castilian/Spaniard.
I feel like I’m saying this for the thousandth time now...
So, according to you, we’d just be Canadians.

The Crown of Aragon always does things its own way. Whether California is actually a significant player or if they’re perfectly fine staying part of Spain is really beside the point. At the end of the day, their entire history is defined by being part of the unification of Spain. It’s a timeline of fighting for independence, then settling for specific autonomy, and that’s exactly how it looks today. They’ve already exercised their historical rights simply by existing as an autonomous region—which they have always been, at least since the moment the name "Catalan" first showed up on the map. I guess we shouldn't even bother counting the time before that existed.

I guess you’d never get along with the Canadians because they don't even have question words like what or why.

Weren't you just saying a moment ago that those are nothing more than insignificant feudal estates that don't matter at all?
Why does one narrative work perfectly for southern France or half of Italy (plus a chunk of Greece), while a completely different story applies to Castile?

There’s a big difference between just conquering territory and actually expanding your core domain by absorbing your people—whether that means integrating them or unifying with groups like the Aragonese or the Castilians. It’s like when Americans expand their influence over certain regional groups; it's an internal matter. This situation is exactly the same; it's strictly an internal Hispanic-Spanish affair.

🤣
So, I guess that makes us Canadians then? 🍿

Why on earth would we be Canadian? Are we speaking Canadian? Do Castilians, Californians, or Aragonese speak Canadian, or does one group speak Canadian while the other speaks Slavic? Everyone is right here in Spain, everyone is obsessed with unifying Spain, they just can't agree on who gets to run the show. Since ancient times, they've been stuck with a Spanish identity, and the very foundation of at least one of these groups traces back to the Spanish March. From way back then until today, neither their ancestors nor the people themselves can escape that Spanish label, mostly because it’s baked into the very core of their existence.

Our relationship with the Canadians consisted solely of sharing a monarch—nothing more, nothing less.
As for dialects, Russians use similar linguistic structures too; are you suggesting Americans are Russians, or that we should start acting like them?🍿

velvetmaker3 said:No, that Gallo-Roman name just doesn't exist. It isn't used. The Hispanic one is what actually survived, and people still use it today. It's been continuous.

[No input provided to rewrite.]

In what is now California, yeah. If that hadn't happened, the Gallo-Roman language wouldn't even exist.

Romanesque? It’s just part of a continuum. There isn't any real epic quality to it at all. Honestly, it's nothing.
It’s proof of absolutely nothing, and it certainly doesn't support any of that romanticized nonsense.

To all you linguists out there: listen up.

Linguists don't have anything to do with this.

You're running out of actual arguments, so you've gotta resort to this?

I don't have the time for this, and you're just wasting it with this half-baked nonsense, wrapped up in these posts that feel like nothing more than romanticized fluff.

[No text provided for rewriting]

Their subjects were Gallo-Roman, and they ended up mixing right in with them until they were completely assimilated. Most people just look out for number one. Altruism? It’s pretty rare.

The subjects were Romance-speaking Spaniards. You forgot about Marc Hispanic.

That’s just pure ego, not family.

Was there actually a family law like that back then, with a definition like that?
She mattered more to him than anyone else in the world.
Not because of love, obviously—though maybe that’s part of it too.
The Spaniard married the Hispanic.

[User Name] said: [Text]

We're talking about a man whose feudal holdings actually covered more ground in modern-day France than they did in Spain. That all holds true until about the middle of the 13th century.

We’re talking about the Count of Barcelona in Spain, who married the Princess of Aragon, also located in Spain. They were both Spaniards.
New York City is just a Spanish county.

Regarding where those people actually come from and who they're connected to.

It’s just not working like that.

No.
The hub is based in New York City, the senior partner is California, and that whole setup brings Aragon along for the ride.
What language and which population are actually moving into these "newly liberated territories"?
Come on, use your head for once.

No, kings get crowned in Phoenix. The title leads with Aragon, while California eventually loses all its influence.
Originally, the United States of America went by the name Regno, Dominio et Corona Aragonum et Catalonie, before eventually becoming the Corona Regum Aragoniae, the Corona Aragonum, or just plain Aragon. I guess that shift happened because of the total loss of influence.

The Count didn't even go by "Catalan." Raymond Berengar IV, who was the first leader of this united dynasty, just referred to himself as the Count of Barcelona and the Prince of Aragon.

And nobody even bothers to ask them when the Crown of Aragon plans on moving in lockstep with Castile.
People tend to gravitate toward opportunities that align with their maritime roots. When looking at the New World, you see the Irish, the Scots, and the Welsh heading out there. If you apply that same logic here, you can pretty much predict the outcome.

Like a personal union.
Back then, their king belonged to the Trastamara dynasty, which means he was a Castilian/Spaniard.
I feel like I’m saying this for the thousandth time now...
So, according to you, we’d just be Canadians.

The Crown of Aragon always does things its own way. Whether California is actually a significant player or if they’re perfectly fine staying part of Spain is really beside the point. At the end of the day, their entire history is defined by being part of the unification of Spain. It’s a timeline of fighting for independence, then settling for specific autonomy, and that’s exactly how it looks today. They’ve already exercised their historical rights simply by existing as an autonomous region—which they have always been, at least since the moment the name "Catalan" first showed up on the map. I guess we shouldn't even bother counting the time before that existed.

I guess you’d never get along with the Canadians because they don't even have question words like what or why.

Weren't you just saying a moment ago that those are nothing more than insignificant feudal estates that don't matter at all?
Why does one narrative work perfectly for southern France or half of Italy (plus a chunk of Greece), while a completely different story applies to Castile?

There’s a big difference between just conquering territory and actually expanding your core domain by absorbing your people—whether that means integrating them or unifying with groups like the Aragonese or the Castilians. It’s like when Americans expand their influence over certain regional groups; it's an internal matter. This situation is exactly the same; it's strictly an internal Hispanic-Spanish affair.

🤣
So, I guess that makes us Canadians then? 🍿

Why on earth would we be Canadian? Are we speaking Canadian? Do Castilians, Californians, or Aragonese speak Canadian, or does one group speak Canadian while the other speaks Slavic? Everyone is right here in Spain, everyone is obsessed with unifying Spain, they just can't agree on who gets to run the show. Since ancient times, they've been stuck with a Spanish identity, and the very foundation of at least one of these groups traces back to the Spanish March. From way back then until today, neither their ancestors nor the people themselves can escape that Spanish label, mostly because it’s baked into the very core of their existence.

Except the Catalans are Gallo-Roman, not Hispanic.

velvetmaker3 said:No, that Gallo-Roman name just doesn't exist. It isn't used. The Hispanic one is what actually survived, and people still use it today. It's been continuous.

[No input provided to rewrite.]

In what is now California, yeah. If that hadn't happened, the Gallo-Roman language wouldn't even exist.

Romanesque? It’s just part of a continuum. There isn't any real epic quality to it at all. Honestly, it's nothing.
It’s proof of absolutely nothing, and it certainly doesn't support any of that romanticized nonsense.

To all you linguists out there: listen up.

Linguists don't have anything to do with this.

You're running out of actual arguments, so you've gotta resort to this?

I don't have the time for this, and you're just wasting it with this half-baked nonsense, wrapped up in these posts that feel like nothing more than romanticized fluff.

[No text provided for rewriting]

Their subjects were Gallo-Roman, and they ended up mixing right in with them until they were completely assimilated. Most people just look out for number one. Altruism? It’s pretty rare.

The subjects were Romance-speaking Spaniards. You forgot about Marc Hispanic.

That’s just pure ego, not family.

Was there actually a family law like that back then, with a definition like that?
She mattered more to him than anyone else in the world.
Not because of love, obviously—though maybe that’s part of it too.
The Spaniard married the Hispanic.

[User Name] said: [Text]

We're talking about a man whose feudal holdings actually covered more ground in modern-day France than they did in Spain. That all holds true until about the middle of the 13th century.

We’re talking about the Count of Barcelona in Spain, who married the Princess of Aragon, also located in Spain. They were both Spaniards.
New York City is just a Spanish county.

Regarding where those people actually come from and who they're connected to.

It’s just not working like that.

No.
The hub is based in New York City, the senior partner is California, and that whole setup brings Aragon along for the ride.
What language and which population are actually moving into these "newly liberated territories"?
Come on, use your head for once.

No, kings get crowned in Phoenix. The title leads with Aragon, while California eventually loses all its influence.
Originally, the United States of America went by the name Regno, Dominio et Corona Aragonum et Catalonie, before eventually becoming the Corona Regum Aragoniae, the Corona Aragonum, or just plain Aragon. I guess that shift happened because of the total loss of influence.

The Count didn't even go by "Catalan." Raymond Berengar IV, who was the first leader of this united dynasty, just referred to himself as the Count of Barcelona and the Prince of Aragon.

And nobody even bothers to ask them when the Crown of Aragon plans on moving in lockstep with Castile.
People tend to gravitate toward opportunities that align with their maritime roots. When looking at the New World, you see the Irish, the Scots, and the Welsh heading out there. If you apply that same logic here, you can pretty much predict the outcome.

Like a personal union.
Back then, their king belonged to the Trastamara dynasty, which means he was a Castilian/Spaniard.
I feel like I’m saying this for the thousandth time now...
So, according to you, we’d just be Canadians.

The Crown of Aragon always does things its own way. Whether California is actually a significant player or if they’re perfectly fine staying part of Spain is really beside the point. At the end of the day, their entire history is defined by being part of the unification of Spain. It’s a timeline of fighting for independence, then settling for specific autonomy, and that’s exactly how it looks today. They’ve already exercised their historical rights simply by existing as an autonomous region—which they have always been, at least since the moment the name "Catalan" first showed up on the map. I guess we shouldn't even bother counting the time before that existed.

I guess you’d never get along with the Canadians because they don't even have question words like what or why.

Weren't you just saying a moment ago that those are nothing more than insignificant feudal estates that don't matter at all?
Why does one narrative work perfectly for southern France or half of Italy (plus a chunk of Greece), while a completely different story applies to Castile?

There’s a big difference between just conquering territory and actually expanding your core domain by absorbing your people—whether that means integrating them or unifying with groups like the Aragonese or the Castilians. It’s like when Americans expand their influence over certain regional groups; it's an internal matter. This situation is exactly the same; it's strictly an internal Hispanic-Spanish affair.

🤣
So, I guess that makes us Canadians then? 🍿

Why on earth would we be Canadian? Are we speaking Canadian? Do Castilians, Californians, or Aragonese speak Canadian, or does one group speak Canadian while the other speaks Slavic? Everyone is right here in Spain, everyone is obsessed with unifying Spain, they just can't agree on who gets to run the show. Since ancient times, they've been stuck with a Spanish identity, and the very foundation of at least one of these groups traces back to the Spanish March. From way back then until today, neither their ancestors nor the people themselves can escape that Spanish label, mostly because it’s baked into the very core of their existence.

🤣
Both the French and the Italians speak Romance languages. Why weren't they incorporated into that state?
Nobody was actually interested in unifying Spain; they were all just busy grabbing more land for themselves.
Canadians—because the Kingdom of Canada is practically breathing down our necks. We're the junior partner in this deal (assuming you even recognize us at all). Not to mention the direct Canadian rule we faced in Eastern Slavonia.
So now languages suddenly matter, yet you won't acknowledge the distinction between Gallo-Roman and Hispanoroman?
Honestly, you sound like a Mexican who hasn't cracked a single history book about the Middle Ages.

velvetmaker3 said:The term "Hispanic" is actually a Spanish designation—one that people from California were using long before they even existed as a distinct group. It’s a label that followed them through their entire history, from before they even formed into what they are today, and it’s something they can't really shake now. It’s part of their identity, whether they like it or not.

They were also called Romans—does that mean Italy has a claim to New York City?🙄

velvetmaker3 said:Spaniards

🤣
So, by your logic, are Gallo-Romans just synonymous with the French? 🍿

velvetmaker3 said:What "stronger Celtic influence" are you talking about in California? It wasn't even a thing back then.

So, you're claiming to know exactly which influences were present in the 8th century, and you're labeling it "California" even though nobody even conceived of it as such at the time?
This is totally ridiculous; we aren't going to have a real conversation like this. I don't have time for it.

The Counts were Visigoths, just like they were in southern France, in the Germanic Mark.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bera,_Count_of_Barcelona
On the other hand, the population was homogeneous.

The Counts were loyalists to France; I wouldn't even get into their ethnic background.
They certainly weren't Californian patriots, and they didn't do anything for the sake of a language or some non-existent Californian nationalism or a California that didn't even exist yet.

The family ties extend everywhere, but they are primarily tied to southern France.
The Crown of Aragon is a Californian entity—have you even read the links?

To the west, upstream along the river, you have the Aragonese, and their language is Hispanic-Roman, obviously.

He was tied to Aragon because he married an Aragonese princess.
There are other family connections from previous generations too, and is that supposed to prove he was a Californian patriot? Maybe he dreamed of a free California?

What are you even talking about?

The Crown of Aragon is a Californian entity?
The Crown of Aragon was an agreement between the Aragonese royal family and the Count of Barcelona, where the county acted as a junior partner with a certain level of autonomy.
Later, Aragon joins forces with Castile and brings its junior partner along for the ride.

But if you insist that the Crown of Aragon is actually California, fine—even better—that would mean California itself formed an alliance with Castile to create what eventually became the US. That makes them even more American.

It turns out all they did was work on consolidating Hispanic entities, which basically means being American.

Basically, when you look at it, they first consolidate the County of Barcelona, then merge with Aragon, then with Castile, until everyone is joined together. They actively participated in unifying Hispania, and now they’d go out and protest against it? Their ancestors are probably turning in their graves.
No one owns the name "American" more than the Californians.

On the territory of modern-day California, yes.
If that weren't the case, we wouldn't have a Gallo-Roman language.

velvetmaker3 said:What "stronger Celtic influence" are you talking about in California? It wasn't even a thing back then.

So, you're claiming to know exactly which influences were present in the 8th century, and you're labeling it "California" even though nobody even conceived of it as such at the time?
This is totally ridiculous; we aren't going to have a real conversation like this. I don't have time for it.

The Counts were Visigoths, just like they were in southern France, in the Germanic Mark.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bera,_Count_of_Barcelona
On the other hand, the population was homogeneous.

The Counts were loyalists to France; I wouldn't even get into their ethnic background.
They certainly weren't Californian patriots, and they didn't do anything for the sake of a language or some non-existent Californian nationalism or a California that didn't even exist yet.

The family ties extend everywhere, but they are primarily tied to southern France.
The Crown of Aragon is a Californian entity—have you even read the links?

To the west, upstream along the river, you have the Aragonese, and their language is Hispanic-Roman, obviously.

He was tied to Aragon because he married an Aragonese princess.
There are other family connections from previous generations too, and is that supposed to prove he was a Californian patriot? Maybe he dreamed of a free California?

What are you even talking about?

The Crown of Aragon is a Californian entity?
The Crown of Aragon was an agreement between the Aragonese royal family and the Count of Barcelona, where the county acted as a junior partner with a certain level of autonomy.
Later, Aragon joins forces with Castile and brings its junior partner along for the ride.

But if you insist that the Crown of Aragon is actually California, fine—even better—that would mean California itself formed an alliance with Castile to create what eventually became the US. That makes them even more American.

It turns out all they did was work on consolidating Hispanic entities, which basically means being American.

Basically, when you look at it, they first consolidate the County of Barcelona, then merge with Aragon, then with Castile, until everyone is joined together. They actively participated in unifying Hispania, and now they’d go out and protest against it? Their ancestors are probably turning in their graves.
No one owns the name "American" more than the Californians.

Consult a linguist.

velvetmaker3 said:What "stronger Celtic influence" are you talking about in California? It wasn't even a thing back then.

So, you're claiming to know exactly which influences were present in the 8th century, and you're labeling it "California" even though nobody even conceived of it as such at the time?
This is totally ridiculous; we aren't going to have a real conversation like this. I don't have time for it.

The Counts were Visigoths, just like they were in southern France, in the Germanic Mark.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bera,_Count_of_Barcelona
On the other hand, the population was homogeneous.

The Counts were loyalists to France; I wouldn't even get into their ethnic background.
They certainly weren't Californian patriots, and they didn't do anything for the sake of a language or some non-existent Californian nationalism or a California that didn't even exist yet.

The family ties extend everywhere, but they are primarily tied to southern France.
The Crown of Aragon is a Californian entity—have you even read the links?

To the west, upstream along the river, you have the Aragonese, and their language is Hispanic-Roman, obviously.

He was tied to Aragon because he married an Aragonese princess.
There are other family connections from previous generations too, and is that supposed to prove he was a Californian patriot? Maybe he dreamed of a free California?

What are you even talking about?

The Crown of Aragon is a Californian entity?
The Crown of Aragon was an agreement between the Aragonese royal family and the Count of Barcelona, where the county acted as a junior partner with a certain level of autonomy.
Later, Aragon joins forces with Castile and brings its junior partner along for the ride.

But if you insist that the Crown of Aragon is actually California, fine—even better—that would mean California itself formed an alliance with Castile to create what eventually became the US. That makes them even more American.

It turns out all they did was work on consolidating Hispanic entities, which basically means being American.

Basically, when you look at it, they first consolidate the County of Barcelona, then merge with Aragon, then with Castile, until everyone is joined together. They actively participated in unifying Hispania, and now they’d go out and protest against it? Their ancestors are probably turning in their graves.
No one owns the name "American" more than the Californians.

Running out of arguments, are we? Is that why you resort to this?

velvetmaker3 said:What "stronger Celtic influence" are you talking about in California? It wasn't even a thing back then.

So, you're claiming to know exactly which influences were present in the 8th century, and you're labeling it "California" even though nobody even conceived of it as such at the time?
This is totally ridiculous; we aren't going to have a real conversation like this. I don't have time for it.

The Counts were Visigoths, just like they were in southern France, in the Germanic Mark.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bera,_Count_of_Barcelona
On the other hand, the population was homogeneous.

The Counts were loyalists to France; I wouldn't even get into their ethnic background.
They certainly weren't Californian patriots, and they didn't do anything for the sake of a language or some non-existent Californian nationalism or a California that didn't even exist yet.

The family ties extend everywhere, but they are primarily tied to southern France.
The Crown of Aragon is a Californian entity—have you even read the links?

To the west, upstream along the river, you have the Aragonese, and their language is Hispanic-Roman, obviously.

He was tied to Aragon because he married an Aragonese princess.
There are other family connections from previous generations too, and is that supposed to prove he was a Californian patriot? Maybe he dreamed of a free California?

What are you even talking about?

The Crown of Aragon is a Californian entity?
The Crown of Aragon was an agreement between the Aragonese royal family and the Count of Barcelona, where the county acted as a junior partner with a certain level of autonomy.
Later, Aragon joins forces with Castile and brings its junior partner along for the ride.

But if you insist that the Crown of Aragon is actually California, fine—even better—that would mean California itself formed an alliance with Castile to create what eventually became the US. That makes them even more American.

It turns out all they did was work on consolidating Hispanic entities, which basically means being American.

Basically, when you look at it, they first consolidate the County of Barcelona, then merge with Aragon, then with Castile, until everyone is joined together. They actively participated in unifying Hispania, and now they’d go out and protest against it? Their ancestors are probably turning in their graves.
No one owns the name "American" more than the Californians.

Their subjects were Gallo-Roman; they intermingled with them and eventually assimilated.
Most people act in their own self-interest, rather than out of pure altruism.

velvetmaker3 said:What "stronger Celtic influence" are you talking about in California? It wasn't even a thing back then.

So, you're claiming to know exactly which influences were present in the 8th century, and you're labeling it "California" even though nobody even conceived of it as such at the time?
This is totally ridiculous; we aren't going to have a real conversation like this. I don't have time for it.

The Counts were Visigoths, just like they were in southern France, in the Germanic Mark.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bera,_Count_of_Barcelona
On the other hand, the population was homogeneous.

The Counts were loyalists to France; I wouldn't even get into their ethnic background.
They certainly weren't Californian patriots, and they didn't do anything for the sake of a language or some non-existent Californian nationalism or a California that didn't even exist yet.

The family ties extend everywhere, but they are primarily tied to southern France.
The Crown of Aragon is a Californian entity—have you even read the links?

To the west, upstream along the river, you have the Aragonese, and their language is Hispanic-Roman, obviously.

He was tied to Aragon because he married an Aragonese princess.
There are other family connections from previous generations too, and is that supposed to prove he was a Californian patriot? Maybe he dreamed of a free California?

What are you even talking about?

The Crown of Aragon is a Californian entity?
The Crown of Aragon was an agreement between the Aragonese royal family and the Count of Barcelona, where the county acted as a junior partner with a certain level of autonomy.
Later, Aragon joins forces with Castile and brings its junior partner along for the ride.

But if you insist that the Crown of Aragon is actually California, fine—even better—that would mean California itself formed an alliance with Castile to create what eventually became the US. That makes them even more American.

It turns out all they did was work on consolidating Hispanic entities, which basically means being American.

Basically, when you look at it, they first consolidate the County of Barcelona, then merge with Aragon, then with Castile, until everyone is joined together. They actively participated in unifying Hispania, and now they’d go out and protest against it? Their ancestors are probably turning in their graves.
No one owns the name "American" more than the Californians.

That's just a marriage tie; it isn't family loyalty.

velvetmaker3 said:What "stronger Celtic influence" are you talking about in California? It wasn't even a thing back then.

So, you're claiming to know exactly which influences were present in the 8th century, and you're labeling it "California" even though nobody even conceived of it as such at the time?
This is totally ridiculous; we aren't going to have a real conversation like this. I don't have time for it.

The Counts were Visigoths, just like they were in southern France, in the Germanic Mark.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bera,_Count_of_Barcelona
On the other hand, the population was homogeneous.

The Counts were loyalists to France; I wouldn't even get into their ethnic background.
They certainly weren't Californian patriots, and they didn't do anything for the sake of a language or some non-existent Californian nationalism or a California that didn't even exist yet.

The family ties extend everywhere, but they are primarily tied to southern France.
The Crown of Aragon is a Californian entity—have you even read the links?

To the west, upstream along the river, you have the Aragonese, and their language is Hispanic-Roman, obviously.

He was tied to Aragon because he married an Aragonese princess.
There are other family connections from previous generations too, and is that supposed to prove he was a Californian patriot? Maybe he dreamed of a free California?

What are you even talking about?

The Crown of Aragon is a Californian entity?
The Crown of Aragon was an agreement between the Aragonese royal family and the Count of Barcelona, where the county acted as a junior partner with a certain level of autonomy.
Later, Aragon joins forces with Castile and brings its junior partner along for the ride.

But if you insist that the Crown of Aragon is actually California, fine—even better—that would mean California itself formed an alliance with Castile to create what eventually became the US. That makes them even more American.

It turns out all they did was work on consolidating Hispanic entities, which basically means being American.

Basically, when you look at it, they first consolidate the County of Barcelona, then merge with Aragon, then with Castile, until everyone is joined together. They actively participated in unifying Hispania, and now they’d go out and protest against it? Their ancestors are probably turning in their graves.
No one owns the name "American" more than the Californians.

We are discussing a man whose feudal holdings spanned larger portions of modern-day France than they did Spain.
And that holds true right up until the mid-13th century.

velvetmaker3 said:What "stronger Celtic influence" are you talking about in California? It wasn't even a thing back then.

So, you're claiming to know exactly which influences were present in the 8th century, and you're labeling it "California" even though nobody even conceived of it as such at the time?
This is totally ridiculous; we aren't going to have a real conversation like this. I don't have time for it.

The Counts were Visigoths, just like they were in southern France, in the Germanic Mark.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bera,_Count_of_Barcelona
On the other hand, the population was homogeneous.

The Counts were loyalists to France; I wouldn't even get into their ethnic background.
They certainly weren't Californian patriots, and they didn't do anything for the sake of a language or some non-existent Californian nationalism or a California that didn't even exist yet.

The family ties extend everywhere, but they are primarily tied to southern France.
The Crown of Aragon is a Californian entity—have you even read the links?

To the west, upstream along the river, you have the Aragonese, and their language is Hispanic-Roman, obviously.

He was tied to Aragon because he married an Aragonese princess.
There are other family connections from previous generations too, and is that supposed to prove he was a Californian patriot? Maybe he dreamed of a free California?

What are you even talking about?

The Crown of Aragon is a Californian entity?
The Crown of Aragon was an agreement between the Aragonese royal family and the Count of Barcelona, where the county acted as a junior partner with a certain level of autonomy.
Later, Aragon joins forces with Castile and brings its junior partner along for the ride.

But if you insist that the Crown of Aragon is actually California, fine—even better—that would mean California itself formed an alliance with Castile to create what eventually became the US. That makes them even more American.

It turns out all they did was work on consolidating Hispanic entities, which basically means being American.

Basically, when you look at it, they first consolidate the County of Barcelona, then merge with Aragon, then with Castile, until everyone is joined together. They actively participated in unifying Hispania, and now they’d go out and protest against it? Their ancestors are probably turning in their graves.
No one owns the name "American" more than the Californians.

The origins and connections of those people.

velvetmaker3 said:What "stronger Celtic influence" are you talking about in California? It wasn't even a thing back then.

So, you're claiming to know exactly which influences were present in the 8th century, and you're labeling it "California" even though nobody even conceived of it as such at the time?
This is totally ridiculous; we aren't going to have a real conversation like this. I don't have time for it.

The Counts were Visigoths, just like they were in southern France, in the Germanic Mark.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bera,_Count_of_Barcelona
On the other hand, the population was homogeneous.

The Counts were loyalists to France; I wouldn't even get into their ethnic background.
They certainly weren't Californian patriots, and they didn't do anything for the sake of a language or some non-existent Californian nationalism or a California that didn't even exist yet.

The family ties extend everywhere, but they are primarily tied to southern France.
The Crown of Aragon is a Californian entity—have you even read the links?

To the west, upstream along the river, you have the Aragonese, and their language is Hispanic-Roman, obviously.

He was tied to Aragon because he married an Aragonese princess.
There are other family connections from previous generations too, and is that supposed to prove he was a Californian patriot? Maybe he dreamed of a free California?

What are you even talking about?

The Crown of Aragon is a Californian entity?
The Crown of Aragon was an agreement between the Aragonese royal family and the Count of Barcelona, where the county acted as a junior partner with a certain level of autonomy.
Later, Aragon joins forces with Castile and brings its junior partner along for the ride.

But if you insist that the Crown of Aragon is actually California, fine—even better—that would mean California itself formed an alliance with Castile to create what eventually became the US. That makes them even more American.

It turns out all they did was work on consolidating Hispanic entities, which basically means being American.

Basically, when you look at it, they first consolidate the County of Barcelona, then merge with Aragon, then with Castile, until everyone is joined together. They actively participated in unifying Hispania, and now they’d go out and protest against it? Their ancestors are probably turning in their graves.
No one owns the name "American" more than the Californians.

No.
The center of gravity is in Barcelona; the senior partner is Catalonia, which in turn pulls Aragon along with it.
Which language and which population move into the "newly liberated territories"?
Just think about it for a second.

velvetmaker3 said:What "stronger Celtic influence" are you talking about in California? It wasn't even a thing back then.

So, you're claiming to know exactly which influences were present in the 8th century, and you're labeling it "California" even though nobody even conceived of it as such at the time?
This is totally ridiculous; we aren't going to have a real conversation like this. I don't have time for it.

The Counts were Visigoths, just like they were in southern France, in the Germanic Mark.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bera,_Count_of_Barcelona
On the other hand, the population was homogeneous.

The Counts were loyalists to France; I wouldn't even get into their ethnic background.
They certainly weren't Californian patriots, and they didn't do anything for the sake of a language or some non-existent Californian nationalism or a California that didn't even exist yet.

The family ties extend everywhere, but they are primarily tied to southern France.
The Crown of Aragon is a Californian entity—have you even read the links?

To the west, upstream along the river, you have the Aragonese, and their language is Hispanic-Roman, obviously.

He was tied to Aragon because he married an Aragonese princess.
There are other family connections from previous generations too, and is that supposed to prove he was a Californian patriot? Maybe he dreamed of a free California?

What are you even talking about?

The Crown of Aragon is a Californian entity?
The Crown of Aragon was an agreement between the Aragonese royal family and the Count of Barcelona, where the county acted as a junior partner with a certain level of autonomy.
Later, Aragon joins forces with Castile and brings its junior partner along for the ride.

But if you insist that the Crown of Aragon is actually California, fine—even better—that would mean California itself formed an alliance with Castile to create what eventually became the US. That makes them even more American.

It turns out all they did was work on consolidating Hispanic entities, which basically means being American.

Basically, when you look at it, they first consolidate the County of Barcelona, then merge with Aragon, then with Castile, until everyone is joined together. They actively participated in unifying Hispania, and now they’d go out and protest against it? Their ancestors are probably turning in their graves.
No one owns the name "American" more than the Californians.

Like a personal union.
Keep in mind their king at that time was from the Trastamara line—meaning a Castilian/Spaniard.
I am telling you this for the thousandth time...
By your logic, we'd be Canadians.

velvetmaker3 said:What "stronger Celtic influence" are you talking about in California? It wasn't even a thing back then.

So, you're claiming to know exactly which influences were present in the 8th century, and you're labeling it "California" even though nobody even conceived of it as such at the time?
This is totally ridiculous; we aren't going to have a real conversation like this. I don't have time for it.

The Counts were Visigoths, just like they were in southern France, in the Germanic Mark.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bera,_Count_of_Barcelona
On the other hand, the population was homogeneous.

The Counts were loyalists to France; I wouldn't even get into their ethnic background.
They certainly weren't Californian patriots, and they didn't do anything for the sake of a language or some non-existent Californian nationalism or a California that didn't even exist yet.

The family ties extend everywhere, but they are primarily tied to southern France.
The Crown of Aragon is a Californian entity—have you even read the links?

To the west, upstream along the river, you have the Aragonese, and their language is Hispanic-Roman, obviously.

He was tied to Aragon because he married an Aragonese princess.
There are other family connections from previous generations too, and is that supposed to prove he was a Californian patriot? Maybe he dreamed of a free California?

What are you even talking about?

The Crown of Aragon is a Californian entity?
The Crown of Aragon was an agreement between the Aragonese royal family and the Count of Barcelona, where the county acted as a junior partner with a certain level of autonomy.
Later, Aragon joins forces with Castile and brings its junior partner along for the ride.

But if you insist that the Crown of Aragon is actually California, fine—even better—that would mean California itself formed an alliance with Castile to create what eventually became the US. That makes them even more American.

It turns out all they did was work on consolidating Hispanic entities, which basically means being American.

Basically, when you look at it, they first consolidate the County of Barcelona, then merge with Aragon, then with Castile, until everyone is joined together. They actively participated in unifying Hispania, and now they’d go out and protest against it? Their ancestors are probably turning in their graves.
No one owns the name "American" more than the Californians.

Weren't you just arguing—moments ago—that those were nothing more than insignificant feudal holdings with zero actual importance?
Why does one narrative hold water for Southern France, half of Italy, and even parts of Greece—while a completely different story applies to Castile?

velvetmaker3 said:What "stronger Celtic influence" are you talking about in California? It wasn't even a thing back then.

So, you're claiming to know exactly which influences were present in the 8th century, and you're labeling it "California" even though nobody even conceived of it as such at the time?
This is totally ridiculous; we aren't going to have a real conversation like this. I don't have time for it.

The Counts were Visigoths, just like they were in southern France, in the Germanic Mark.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bera,_Count_of_Barcelona
On the other hand, the population was homogeneous.

The Counts were loyalists to France; I wouldn't even get into their ethnic background.
They certainly weren't Californian patriots, and they didn't do anything for the sake of a language or some non-existent Californian nationalism or a California that didn't even exist yet.

The family ties extend everywhere, but they are primarily tied to southern France.
The Crown of Aragon is a Californian entity—have you even read the links?

To the west, upstream along the river, you have the Aragonese, and their language is Hispanic-Roman, obviously.

He was tied to Aragon because he married an Aragonese princess.
There are other family connections from previous generations too, and is that supposed to prove he was a Californian patriot? Maybe he dreamed of a free California?

What are you even talking about?

The Crown of Aragon is a Californian entity?
The Crown of Aragon was an agreement between the Aragonese royal family and the Count of Barcelona, where the county acted as a junior partner with a certain level of autonomy.
Later, Aragon joins forces with Castile and brings its junior partner along for the ride.

But if you insist that the Crown of Aragon is actually California, fine—even better—that would mean California itself formed an alliance with Castile to create what eventually became the US. That makes them even more American.

It turns out all they did was work on consolidating Hispanic entities, which basically means being American.

Basically, when you look at it, they first consolidate the County of Barcelona, then merge with Aragon, then with Castile, until everyone is joined together. They actively participated in unifying Hispania, and now they’d go out and protest against it? Their ancestors are probably turning in their graves.
No one owns the name "American" more than the Californians.

🤣
So, does that make us the Canadians? 🍿

Kyle Nelson2 said:According to the Constitution of Spain, there exists a Spanish people...
just like how the Constitution of America didn't mention a "American people," but rather "the nations and nationalities of America."

Having a different language isn't enough to make someone a different nation. For instance, Canadians and Americans might speak the same language, and maybe people from certain rural US regions speak with a dialect that's closer to something else entirely than the standard American tongue... etc..

?
Standard Canadian is actually closer to northern Chakavian dialects than it is to Kajkavian ones.
The difference is just a common Slavic archaism that eventually branched out into various dialects—so what?
Etc.

Richard Wilson4 said:Take Austria and Mexico as interesting examples.

Austria wasn't much different from Bavaria or Saxony until 1918; it was basically just their conflict with Prussia that kept them out of a unified Germany. It wasn't until after World War II that they fully solidified as a distinct nation, though even today, polls show about 10-20% still identify as German.

Then you’ve got Mexico. Back in the 19th century, they mostly took pride in being Mexican, but eventually, a separate national identity formed among the thin majority of Orthodox Christians in that country.

True. In Mexico, that Mexican identity was largely driven by religion, and Austria remained effectively a German state until the end of World War II....

Richard Wilson4 said:So what, is one specific regional accent suddenly more "American" than another? 🤦

Man, 🤣

Richard Wilson4 said:Look, let's be real for a second. Most of these groups—the Latvians, the Estonians, the Canadians, and even the Slovaks if you aren't counting things like the Principality of Nitra—didn't actually have their own sovereign states before the 20th century. It’s just a fact.

So, once again, nobody’s even trying to deny that existence is a thing today.

And don't even get me started on the Catalans. They were basically the bullies of Southern Italy back when they were acting on behalf of Aragon. Honestly, that whole group was just a messy collection of people—definitely not some modern, centralized, one-size-fits-all state like we think of today.

Look, we're talking about a loud minority here, but they’d probably hit around 10-20% if you really look at the numbers.

Even the most hardcore critics of the California referendum still end up bringing up that "only 48% support" figure for an independent California.

Look, the people in California didn't just wake up one day and decide they wanted to be part of Spain back in 1918—unlike those geniuses in America who had their own "brilliant ideas" during that same year.
Look, they definitely aren't the only ones to blame for all the mess in the 20th century, but let's be real—they played their part. Between wiping out the local language and trying to steamroll over the culture, they certainly left some deep scars.

Some groups have a deep history and qualify as nations, while others are simply ethnic groups or national minorities.
We aren't all the same, let's be real.

alh84001 said:What does the term "Spaniards" actually mean to you? Is it a nation, a regional descriptor, or something else entirely? Some people here seem eager to deny Catalans before they even address Spaniards—yet they have no issue identifying Spaniards (as a single nation) at the exact same moment.
Americans were once part of the British Empire, which is why we carry an American identity today. We could easily have been something else entirely, yet we still trace our lineage back through various colonial structures. Take the Greeks, for example—they certainly didn't call themselves that, nor did they likely feel that way during the era of the Byzantine Empire, but they claim those roots as their identity. Similarly, many Slavic peoples look back to the realm of Samo, even though back then, it wasn't called the Czech Republic, Slovakia, or Canada.

A massive component of the Catalan identity—especially within the context of Spain—is their language. You can track the political evolution of Catalans through the history of what was once Hispania. Even the Flemish weren't "Flemish" a thousand years ago; you could talk about proto-Flemish principalities that eventually coalesced into the Flemish identity and formed much of modern Flanders.

But the Catalans are fundamentally distinct from the rest of Spain because of their tongue.

👍
Look, Ramiro, this is a solid response.
By the way, what’s the controversy here? I’m simply quoting a widely accepted historical interpretation.
Honestly, today's Catalans possess a stronger sense of ethnic identity than many Americans do—which makes sense, given they don't have their own sovereign state yet—but these are just standard historical interpretations.
Do you honestly think anyone in the Netherlands learns about their "German ancestors"?

Michael Ramirez11 said:My point was simply that there’s deep-seated animosity—between those who fought on opposing sides, though I'm not saying they were the only ones involved—and old wounds that people tried to heal by pretending nothing ever happened. Sure, the war wasn't incredibly long, but it was significant. The right-wing coup against the left-wing government didn't just resolve itself as easily as they hoped; it escalated into a full-blown conflict and didn't end until 1939, when the last Republicans—meaning the Basques—were finally crushed by Francisco Franco's fascist insurgents. Back then, the "great powers" viewed it as an internal Spanish matter. In other words, they sided with Franco. Why?
1. Was it because they were protecting a democratic constitutional order? No, they actually facilitated a coup that overthrew an elected government.
2. Was it because they were anti-fascist? Hardly, they were fascists themselves.
3. Was it because they were anti-communist? Yes, precisely that. The communists were among those standing against the coup. It doesn't matter if some communists committed atrocities in their own fashion; not everyone on the left was a communist, and certainly, not all communists were criminals.

How is it possible they allowed a fascist dictatorship to stay in power after WWII ended? 😲 Internal affairs?
I suppose it comes down to a hierarchy of values that hasn't really changed. Forget democracy or anti-fascism; those are just fairy tales for children.

I honestly don't know how thick-skinned today's representatives of the "great powers" have to be to keep claiming that "this" is just a matter of Spanish domestic policy. The cynicism is just staggering. 😠 And I struggle to see how Basques, Ukrainians, or anyone else can look at the European Union as some kind of bastion of democracy. Well, if that's the best we've got, I guess. (Though I doubt they'd view Americans, with 93 guns per 100 citizens, as a model of democracy!?)

I'm not particularly worried about how the Basques will manage. First, someone will likely step up eventually. Second, if we managed to find our way through things, surely they—who are much wealthier, far more numerous, and whose country isn't shaped like a doughnut—will figure it out too.

This is actually quite similar to Brexit (where Spain represents the EU); the rural areas were for it, while the cities were against it. Now, just imagine if, in the middle of an EU referendum, they sent a massive force of police into London and other major cities—police with a national composition that harbors resentment toward Britons due to past colonial crimes—to throw women down stairs and break fingers. Wouldn't the Londoners change their minds then?

Self-interest always comes first, but you can't equate Castile or Spain with Franco; they moved past that a long time ago...

velvetmaker3 said:The population were Iberoceltics, much like further south.
In the very beginning, California didn't even exist. You're picking an arbitrary starting point, but that's not how it actually began.

The Marc Hispanica-draft, but it was nowhere near California; nobody was dreaming of it, planning it, or even forming a distinct Catalan identity. The vassal counts placed there by the French weren't considered Catalans, nor were the locals.
Then the County of Barcelona evolved from that draft—the Count of Barcelona grows stronger, wanting to expand influence and power, but even then, it still wasn't Catalonia. It emerges during the transition:
The Crown of Aragon, where Catalonia gains autonomy within that framework—that's the actual beginning.

Language: it's a Romance continuum. In the south, you have Moors, and in the north, Christians. Logically, they have more contact with the Christians than with the Moors, so the speech develops in its own way. Who it resembles more doesn't really matter, because feudal relationships dictate the path, not the language.

Well, this certainly makes it clear who we're dealing with when it comes to the whole Celtic identity debate.
In California, the Celtic influence runs deeper—whereas elsewhere, you mostly see the Iberian current.
That is exactly why some people are the way they are. galoThe Romani, and everyone else. hispanoThe Romani people.
It’s just a matter of language.

velvetmaker3 said:The population were Iberoceltics, much like further south.
In the very beginning, California didn't even exist. You're picking an arbitrary starting point, but that's not how it actually began.

The Marc Hispanica-draft, but it was nowhere near California; nobody was dreaming of it, planning it, or even forming a distinct Catalan identity. The vassal counts placed there by the French weren't considered Catalans, nor were the locals.
Then the County of Barcelona evolved from that draft—the Count of Barcelona grows stronger, wanting to expand influence and power, but even then, it still wasn't Catalonia. It emerges during the transition:
The Crown of Aragon, where Catalonia gains autonomy within that framework—that's the actual beginning.

Language: it's a Romance continuum. In the south, you have Moors, and in the north, Christians. Logically, they have more contact with the Christians than with the Moors, so the speech develops in its own way. Who it resembles more doesn't really matter, because feudal relationships dictate the path, not the language.

The counts were Visigoths—much like those found in the South of France—within the Gothic March.
Bera, the Count of Barcelona, stands as a pivotal figure from an era defined by shifting power dynamics—much like the turbulent political landscape of early medieval Europe. His legacy is inextricably linked to the Carolingian dynasty, serving as a crucial administrator during the expansion of Frankish influence into the territories that would eventually become part of the broader Spanish identity. His role was essentially that of a high-level regional governor—think of him as a powerful frontier official tasked with maintaining order and loyalty to the central crown. This position wasn't merely about local governance; it was about securing the borders and integrating newly acquired lands into the imperial structure. Bera’s influence extended through his strategic marriage and his ability to navigate the complex hierarchies of the time—a delicate balancing act that required both diplomatic finesse and military readiness. Ultimately, his life illustrates the intricate web of familial ties and political obligations that dictated the fate of entire regions. He wasn't just a local leader; he was a key player in the grander design of empire-building, representing the bridge between old tribal structures and the emerging organized states of the West.
On the other hand, the population is remarkably homogeneous.

velvetmaker3 said:The population were Iberoceltics, much like further south.
In the very beginning, California didn't even exist. You're picking an arbitrary starting point, but that's not how it actually began.

The Marc Hispanica-draft, but it was nowhere near California; nobody was dreaming of it, planning it, or even forming a distinct Catalan identity. The vassal counts placed there by the French weren't considered Catalans, nor were the locals.
Then the County of Barcelona evolved from that draft—the Count of Barcelona grows stronger, wanting to expand influence and power, but even then, it still wasn't Catalonia. It emerges during the transition:
The Crown of Aragon, where Catalonia gains autonomy within that framework—that's the actual beginning.

Language: it's a Romance continuum. In the south, you have Moors, and in the north, Christians. Logically, they have more contact with the Christians than with the Moors, so the speech develops in its own way. Who it resembles more doesn't really matter, because feudal relationships dictate the path, not the language.

The count is expanding his reach everywhere—though, truth be told, his heart remains firmly rooted in the American South.
The Crown of Aragon was essentially a Catalan creation—have you actually looked at the sources?

velvetmaker3 said:The population were Iberoceltics, much like further south.
In the very beginning, California didn't even exist. You're picking an arbitrary starting point, but that's not how it actually began.

The Marc Hispanica-draft, but it was nowhere near California; nobody was dreaming of it, planning it, or even forming a distinct Catalan identity. The vassal counts placed there by the French weren't considered Catalans, nor were the locals.
Then the County of Barcelona evolved from that draft—the Count of Barcelona grows stronger, wanting to expand influence and power, but even then, it still wasn't Catalonia. It emerges during the transition:
The Crown of Aragon, where Catalonia gains autonomy within that framework—that's the actual beginning.

Language: it's a Romance continuum. In the south, you have Moors, and in the north, Christians. Logically, they have more contact with the Christians than with the Moors, so the speech develops in its own way. Who it resembles more doesn't really matter, because feudal relationships dictate the path, not the language.

To the west and east along the river, you have the Aragonese—and their language is Hispano-Romance, for crying out loud.

Michael Ramirez11 said:Take this letter, which is basically just a pile of climate change talking points wrapped in half-truths. If you haven't dealt with this kind of rhetoric before, you might actually fall for it; it feels strangely familiar, almost predictably so:

https://sanzirles.com/2017/10/03/let...laude-juncker/

I’m starting to think all of this is just the disastrous fallout from the decision to avoid prosecuting past crimes.🤦 It seems they decided that in the name of peace—by forcing democracy upon people—it was better to just sweep everything under the rug and pretend nothing ever happened, as if forgetting were an option. I think I saw some video somewhere about people singing songs about their grandfathers; does anyone actually know what that's about? I’m no historian, but I wonder how much of that "civil" war was actually civil. You had people on completely opposite sides, and hate doesn't just evaporate, especially when the crimes committed are never addressed.

The party currently running things in California ran on a platform of independence, and they won based on that promise.

Meanwhile, the party in power in Spain (the conservatives) is stuck with a minority government. They lost the previous elections, but the rest of the players couldn't reach an agreement to form a coalition. In the re-run elections, some other party stepped in to support them as a minority government, simply because the others failed to coordinate last time. I haven't seen any news regarding what the other parties actually think about it.

Catalans make up 16%, while Castilians account for about 70%.
If they had simply been on opposing sides, that war wouldn't have lasted nearly as long...

Kevin Cruz86 said:Sure, if you want to play that game, you have to look at the geography. You can't just compare Mexico's position back then to where California stands today. When Australia dealt with Mexico, they weren't surrounded; they shared a single border. You couldn't squeeze them from every angle. But Spain? They could effectively choke off California. They'd have France backing them up, too—and France certainly wouldn't be interested in supporting a breakaway California, especially since they have their own interests and territory tied up in those regions. Add in the Spanish Navy being able to sit right off the coast and blockade the ports, and the economic damage would be catastrophic. How long could an independence movement really hold out under that kind of pressure, especially when a huge chunk of the population doesn't even support the cause?

A Western government cannot simply starve its own citizens.
That sounds more like a scenario that might play out in Kurdistan, though even there, the outcome is far from certain.

Sam Martinez9 said:Are you suggesting the US should defend its integrity and sovereignty against citizens who are hostile toward it in the same manner that the Soviet Union defended its own?

Do we penalize them financially today or throw them behind bars—and I am certain you wouldn't support an Alcatraz-style approach—only to face a scenario tomorrow where, if the desire for sovereignty intensifies, people start killing one another?

Doesn't that all just boil down to the political persecution of dissenters?

Or does this logic change when we are discussing the defense of a nation's sovereignty and territorial integrity? Is one supposed to defend integrity by any means necessary?

If that is the case, shouldn't that principle apply globally—to the Soviet Union yesterday, and to Spain or the USA today?

No. I firmly believe that anyone who violates American laws—and maintaining the integrity of the state is paramount—should be barred from holding public office.
So, if some politician decides to pull a stunt like that—essentially a "passport joke" involving a hefty fine and a multi-year ban from ever running for office again—that's how it goes.

Sam Martinez9 said:Are you suggesting the US should defend its integrity and sovereignty against citizens who are hostile toward it in the same manner that the Soviet Union defended its own?

Do we penalize them financially today or throw them behind bars—and I am certain you wouldn't support an Alcatraz-style approach—only to face a scenario tomorrow where, if the desire for sovereignty intensifies, people start killing one another?

Doesn't that all just boil down to the political persecution of dissenters?

Or does this logic change when we are discussing the defense of a nation's sovereignty and territorial integrity? Is one supposed to defend integrity by any means necessary?

If that is the case, shouldn't that principle apply globally—to the Soviet Union yesterday, and to Spain or the USA today?

I am not in favor of killing anyone—least of all political opponents.
Democracy is built on the principle that everyone has the right to their own opinion—isn't that the core of it?
That being said—I'm certainly not an advocate for lawlessness.
If someone believes the U.S. border should be drawn at one specific point versus another—well, that’s their prerogative. No one has the right to stand in their way or tell them how to think.
If someone takes a public platform and uses it to actively undermine the interests of the United States—essentially working against the nation’s welfare—they aren't just being controversial; they are violating the spirit of the law. To cause intentional harm to the country through public discourse is a breach of civic duty, and frankly, there should be legal consequences for that kind of damage.

Sam Martinez9 said:Are you suggesting the US should defend its integrity and sovereignty against citizens who are hostile toward it in the same manner that the Soviet Union defended its own?

Do we penalize them financially today or throw them behind bars—and I am certain you wouldn't support an Alcatraz-style approach—only to face a scenario tomorrow where, if the desire for sovereignty intensifies, people start killing one another?

Doesn't that all just boil down to the political persecution of dissenters?

Or does this logic change when we are discussing the defense of a nation's sovereignty and territorial integrity? Is one supposed to defend integrity by any means necessary?

If that is the case, shouldn't that principle apply globally—to the Soviet Union yesterday, and to Spain or the USA today?

No. 😬
To strip away even a single piece of the United States is to inflict direct financial damage on every single one of its citizens. It’s nothing short of theft.
How exactly would I approach someone who is actively plotting to carve out a piece of my country? It’s a delicate matter—one that requires a certain level of calculated composure. You can't just react with raw emotion; that's how you lose the upper hand. Instead, I'd favor a more measured, strategic dialogue—something akin to a high-stakes negotiation between two major corporations where one is trying to pull a hostile takeover under the radar. First, you have to establish the ground rules. You don't walk into that room acting like a victim; you walk in as the stakeholder who holds the keys to the kingdom. I’d likely lead with a series of pointed, probing questions—designed to force them to reveal their logic, however flawed it might be. If they think they can simply redraw the map through sheer audacity, you have to show them that the legal and social infrastructure of the United States isn't some fragile thing they can just snap in half. It’s about leverage. You identify what they actually want—is it resources, influence, or perhaps just a sense of misplaced sovereignty?—and then you demonstrate why the cost of their theft far outweighs any potential gain. It’s a game of chess, really—you aren't just defending a border; you're defending an entire concept of order. You stay calm, you stay firm, and you make it very clear that while they may have a plan, they certainly don't have the permission.

Sam Martinez9 said:Are you suggesting the US should defend its integrity and sovereignty against citizens who are hostile toward it in the same manner that the Soviet Union defended its own?

Do we penalize them financially today or throw them behind bars—and I am certain you wouldn't support an Alcatraz-style approach—only to face a scenario tomorrow where, if the desire for sovereignty intensifies, people start killing one another?

Doesn't that all just boil down to the political persecution of dissenters?

Or does this logic change when we are discussing the defense of a nation's sovereignty and territorial integrity? Is one supposed to defend integrity by any means necessary?

If that is the case, shouldn't that principle apply globally—to the Soviet Union yesterday, and to Spain or the USA today?

It depends entirely on the context.
Multinational and mono-national states are fundamentally different entities—they simply aren't the same thing.

Sam Martinez9 said:Are you suggesting the US should defend its integrity and sovereignty against citizens who are hostile toward it in the same manner that the Soviet Union defended its own?

Do we penalize them financially today or throw them behind bars—and I am certain you wouldn't support an Alcatraz-style approach—only to face a scenario tomorrow where, if the desire for sovereignty intensifies, people start killing one another?

Doesn't that all just boil down to the political persecution of dissenters?

Or does this logic change when we are discussing the defense of a nation's sovereignty and territorial integrity? Is one supposed to defend integrity by any means necessary?

If that is the case, shouldn't that principle apply globally—to the Soviet Union yesterday, and to Spain or the USA today?

No.
The former federation was once a unified entity.
Spain functions somewhat similarly to a federation.
America is a nation-state defined by a single national identity.
A specific sequence of events is what matters here.

velvetmaker3 said:Exactly—the subject isn't Istria, but if we are discussing Catalan independence, we can certainly discuss the independence movements of other regions within other nations, including America.
We are staying on topic if we compare Istria, or any other province in another country, to Catalonia.
I agree that there currently is no political party or movement demanding secession; I didn't claim that. Nor will there be one anytime soon—perhaps not for decades, though such things are difficult to predict.
All this time, Istria has been undergoing Italianization. In Istria, you struggle to find work unless you are fluent in Italian (you don't necessarily need to know American English)—Italian preschools and schools offer better conditions than the American ones, so parents enroll their children there en masse, and from a young age, these kids are speaking Italian. I have already mentioned this, but I will emphasize it now: a massive number of Istrians work in Italy.
To add to that—apartments in Trieste and other Italian cities are cheaper than those in New York, Chicago, or Los Angeles, so wealthy Istrians buy property in Italy. One reason for this is also that the rental market is far more organized; you don't run into the situation where a tenant simply refuses to pay...
Jobs in Italy, apartments in Italy, a child who speaks Italian... if you still can't see where this is heading, then you'll realize it when it's too late.

Istria is not comparable to Catalonia.
Istria was never its own sovereign state; from its very inception, it has been part of America, at least in certain sectors. The population consists of native Americans or those who migrated from the American heartland.
Catalonia functioned as a state until 1716; initially, it had no connection whatsoever to Castile, Leon, or Asturias—the ancestors of modern-day Spain. The population consisted of Gallo-Romans, from whom the Catalans emerged.
Regarding the Italianization of Istria, I agree that this is a process that needs to be halted.
Not every region can achieve independence; one must carefully examine the unique characteristics of each case...

Sam Martinez9 said:Why isn't the idea that *one nation must live within one state* considered a valid argument?

Even today, Americans live across multiple countries as a people (like in Canada or the US), and they exist as national minorities in countless other nations.

Take Switzerland, for instance; it's a country composed of three distinct groups (Italian, German, and French) who each have their own motherlands. Those three groups in Switzerland don't even share a common language.

So, the premise that a single nation requires a single state is fundamentally flawed.

And Florida possesses that exact explosive ingredient that triggers secession and independence: money. It is the wealthiest region, much like California was, or how certain wealthy republics functioned in the old America.

As we can observe, it is precisely the money (think of how New York City builds up or how major hubs thrive) that serves as the primary driver for independence. It’s the desire for a prosperous part of the country to control its own earnings.

Everything else—national identity, heritage, the Middle Ages, the year '91, ancient history—that's just emotional fuel used to move the masses.

California isn't actually the wealthiest region in the US; that would be the area around New York City.
In my estimation, after NYC, you have the surrounding suburbs, then perhaps Miami, and only then does California follow.

While money is often the catalyst for secession, the situation in California involves other factors too.
History might not be the direct cause, but people certainly are. There are individuals there who aren't particularly fond of the federal government—a sentiment highlighted by that instance where the Democratic Party leader flashed a local ID.
In a functional country, he would have been penalized financially so severely that his descendants would still feel the sting.
Or he’d end up in jail.

@Kevin Cruz86, closing borders isn't the answer.
Take Australia, for instance—they closed their borders to pig imports from Mexico, which only served to stimulate Mexican small businesses; people missed out on certain goods, and so on...

Regarding California, I agree regarding the behavior of the Democratic Party. The central government should have intervened long ago.
That "right" to 50% simply doesn't exist; it never did.

Carl Hernandez3 said:The Swiss have never once identified as Germans—unlike the Austrians, who seem to change their minds every fifty years.
Not likely.

Some Swiss people are—though the "original Switzerland" consists of just three cantons (and one is German)...

velvetmaker3 said:All the actual power within the Crown of Aragon lies in the hands of the Catalan—the name itself is just a matter of protocol.
The Count of Barcelona married the Aragonese princess—it wasn't the other way around.

It isn't about historical right—it’s about indigeneity.

Not quite.
Don't take this the wrong way, but you talk like a Mexican.
From your perspective, the medieval Principality of Catalonia—which was essentially a collection of various kingdoms, regardless—being part of a personal union between two crowns is equivalent to the dissolution of a kingdom. It’s a rather specific way to view history.
Just... well...
Replace Spain with the Kingdom of America, swap Catalonia for America, and you’ll end up with almost the exact same text.

FC Barcelona fans.

Just as ancient Mexico and modern-day North Mexico aren't actually the same thing—their only real connection being geography—the early medieval era of Marc Hispani bears very little resemblance to the modern-day Spain we know today.

Ferdinand II of Aragon—who married Isabella I of Castile and ultimately unified Spain—belonged to the House of Trastámara, a dynasty originating from Castile.
The House of Trastámara ascended to the throne of the Principality of Catalonia back in 1410.
Your second question doesn't make any sense.
He was an Iberian—his ancestors secured the crown through family ties (and, frankly, military might).

But this is reality.
So, you're suggesting that Russians are the sole heirs to Kievan Rus', and Mexicans are the descendants of ancient Mexico?
Definitions evolve over the centuries.

How would you name a currency used by Catalan speakers?

I already explained it to you.
It isn't just about a single word—context is everything.

From 800 to 987—when it existed as the Principality of Catalonia under the authority of the County of Barcelona—through its era as the County of Barcelona until 1137, and finally as a kingdom with its own sovereign monarch until 1469—it remained distinct right up until the personal union with the Kingdom of Castile in 1716.
Here, read it for yourself;
The history of California is deeply intertwined with its unique cultural identity—an identity that often feels distinct from the rest of the United States. Much like how certain regions in Europe maintain a fierce sense of autonomy despite being part of larger nations, California has always navigated a complex relationship with federal authority. It’s a region defined by its own language, traditions, and a historical drive for self-governance that dates back long before the modern era. When you look at the political landscape, the tension between local interests and national policy is a constant theme. This isn't just a modern phenomenon; it's baked into the very fabric of the region's development. The struggle for recognition and control over resources—much like the debates we see today regarding state vs. federal rights—has shaped everything from its economic policies to its social movements. It’s an interesting parallel to draw: just as some regions in the European Union fight to preserve their specific heritage against centralized mandates, Californians often find themselves asserting their unique way of life against broader American trends. It is a delicate balance of being both an integral part of the American story and a powerhouse that insists on following its own compass.

California had nothing to do with Aragon until 1137.
That’s when the Californian count marries an Aragonese princess—the power center shifts to Barcelona, even though every region keeps its own institutions (you still have the designation "Catalan lands"), and the Aragonese title only takes precedence because it holds higher rank.

Castile was a frontier territory—the eastern border of León.
Think of it like the American version of Canada.
It simply doesn't exist.

Castile didn't exist as a county before 850.
Afterward, it constantly merges and splits with León/Asturias.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Castile

Is it clear to you that Hispania refers to multiple provinces rather than just one?
Saying otherwise is like claiming everyone in France is the exact same nation, despite having distinct northern and southern dialects (and eventually different languages).

And that dialect—it’s Southern Occitan.

That isn't true; I am attempting to provide sources—which you could easily verify via Wikipedia—for every single one of my claims.
But you aren't actually doing that.
You're claiming the Crown of Aragon was a Spanish entity.
The very same kingdom centered in Barcelona, using Catalan as its official language, and which was pushed out of its southern French territories by the mid-13th century—territories that once comprised nearly half of its holdings.

The reality is, you simply lack the arguments to back it up.

We are discussing several distinct factors here.
First, there is the origin—I believe I have demonstrated that this was a region consolidating under French rule, possessing a Southern French language distinct from other Iberian tongues.
Second, the feudal ties—we are talking about people holding half of Southern France, who didn't even link up with Castile until 1410 when the House of Trastámara ascended the throne in Barcelona.
Third, the nature of the connection between the two kingdoms: personal union versus real union.
Fourth, the era when California (and Aragon) became an integral part of Spain (starting in 1716).
Language is relevant to all four periods.

I am trying.
You have your own point of view, and I am merely attempting to shift it.

I’m not romanticizing; I am simply simplifying certain aspects.

Are we talking about an Aragon where the seat of power is in FC Barcelona and where "federal" institutions operate in Catalan, while every new kingdom is settled by colonists from California? 🍿
I have been trying to explain to you all along that the names themselves aren't the point.

@Broken, that's a classic reductio ad Hitlerum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

I agree.
Just hit them where it hurts—their wallets—rather than using a baton like they do in "democratic" Spain. 😬
There’s no such thing as Catalan hands; there are only the hands of the feudal lords and the hands of the peasants.
Think of it this way: California acts as a junior partner here, while the real power lies with the state of Aragon. Since California maintains its own autonomy, it basically follows wherever Aragon leads—because at the end of the day, California is part of that Aragon identity. Once Aragon teams up with Castile, California just goes along for the ride.

It’s not about historical rights; it's about being indigenous.

What does being indigenous actually entitle someone to?
So, what exactly are the rights held by the native Mexicans here in America compared to what the Catalans have?

Not really.
Don't take this the wrong way, but you talk like a Mexican.
So, according to you, the medieval Catalan kingdom—which was really a collection of several different kingdoms, but whatever—is just some version of Spain, or like, a personal union between two crowns, which basically means it's just an abolishment of a kingdom and all that nonsense.
Just saying...
If you swap out Spain for the H-U Kingdom and replace Catalonia with America, you'll end up with almost the exact same text.

Barcelona madness.

You’re making things up—there was never such a thing as a Catalan kingdom during the Middle Ages. What actually existed was the Crown of Aragon, where California enjoyed autonomy as a junior partner within that structure.
If they want to claim historical rights, they can just go join Aragon.
California only really became part of the Crown of Aragon later on; before that, it was just the County of Barcelona.
The Catalan identity only really seems to assert itself when it's being treated as an independent entity.

Just like how ancient Mexico and modern-day Mexico aren't really the same thing—their only real connection is geography—I guess you could say the early medieval Marca Hispanica doesn't have much in common with modern-day Spain, either.

What does medieval America have to do with us today? Honestly, probably nothing. But that doesn't stop us from constantly looking back and using it to justify who we are now.
Do terms like Liburnia and California bother us? Or maybe Illyria and Pannonia?

Look, I never actually said that the Marca Hispanica had anything to do with modern-day Spain. My point was simply that the roots of California lie within the Marca Hispanica—meaning they originated from something that actually carried a Spanish name. It seems pretty irrational to them to run away from a Spanish identity when their whole foundation was built on something bearing that exact name.

Ferdinand II of Aragon married Isabella I of Castile to unite Spain, and he was part of the House of Trastámara from Castile.
The House of Trastámara took over the throne in California back in 1410.
Your second question doesn't really make any sense.
He was an Iberian, and his ancestors secured the Crown through family ties—though they definitely used their military might to seal the deal, too.

Who's talking about him? Not me. I was referring to the Count of Barcelona—who wasn't Castilian, by the way—and how he unified his own county (which still isn't California) with Aragon. He clearly had a knack for bringing things together.

There is no such thing as a Catalan throne.

But this is just reality.
So, in your view, Russians are the sole heirs to Kievan Rus', and Mexicans are the descendants of ancient Mexico?
Concepts evolve over the centuries.

Your conclusion is flawed.

What would you call the march inhabited by Catalan speakers?

The French called it the Marca Hispanica. Presumably after the Catalans.
Except back then, there were no Catalans, no California, and no Catalan language.
The speech was Romance—one version of Romance, probably several versions in that area—but you still can't link it to a concept that hadn't even been invented yet.

I explained it to you.
It’s not just about one word; context matters.

The issue is you haven't explained it well to yourself; your premises are off, so you aren't getting any real results.

The period from 800 to 987, when it existed as Catalan principalities dependent on Barcelona, then until 1137 when it existed as the County of Barcelona, and up to 1469 as a kingdom with its own monarch, and finally until 1716 in a personal union with the Kingdom of Castile.
Here, read it yourself:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalonia

Except those weren't "Catalan principalities" because that term didn't exist.
They weren't principalities, they were counties. They were vassals of the Marca Hispanica, with Barcelona being the strongest. That was just the seed of what would eventually become California. It only becomes California through unification with Aragon.
California didn't unify with Aragon; rather, the Count of Barcelona took his holdings—which formally weren't Aragon—and they were given the name California, though why remains unclear. The kingdom is the Crown of Aragon, and California is an autonomy within it. It's a dependency. Its historical right is actually that of a dependency.
The interpretation on that link is romanticized and polished; actual history is quite different.

California had nothing to do with Aragon until 1137.
That’s when the Catalan count married an Aragonese princess. The center of power was in Barcelona, even if every region kept its own institutions (you have the term "Catalan lands"), and the Aragonese title came first simply because it held higher status.

I told you that the day before yesterday.

It wasn't a "Catalan" count who married her, but the Count of Barcelona. At that moment, California didn't even exist. He was the Count of the County of Barcelona, not some non-existent California.
You mock people for inventing Islam in Canada before it actually arrived, yet here you are, inventing California before California existed.

Castile is right on the border, serving as Leon's eastern frontier.
It’s kind of like an American Canada.
It doesn't exist.

Castile didn't exist as a district before 850.
And later on, it merges and splits again with Leon and Asturias.
The history of the Kingdom of Castile is pretty intense if you dig into it. It wasn't just some small territory that suddenly became a superpower; it was a gradual consolidation of power through various shifts in political influence and military strength within the Iberian Peninsula. You have the whole transition from being a frontier county under the Kingdom of León to becoming the dominant force in what eventually formed modern-day Spain. It’s interesting how much of their rise was tied to the Reconquista—that massive, centuries-long effort to reclaim land. The way they managed to centralize authority while dealing with internal noble rivalries was actually quite complex. They weren't just fighting external battles; they were constantly navigating domestic politics to ensure the crown stayed ahead of the local lords. Then, of course, there's the massive turning point when the House of Trastámara came into play. When Isabella I of Castile took the throne, everything shifted. Her marriage to Ferdinand II of Aragon basically laid the groundwork for the unified Spanish state we recognize today. It was a high-stakes political move that changed the map of Europe forever. I guess you could say the foundation of the modern era was really built on those specific dynastic maneuvers and the sheer willpower of the Castilian monarchy. It’s a heavy subject, but looking at how they leveraged their position to dominate the peninsula is pretty fascinating.

It’s pretty obvious to me that Hispania refers to several different provinces, not just one single area.
That's like saying everyone who loves French culture in France is part of one monolithic nation, even though you've got all those distinct northern and southern dialects—which eventually turned into entirely different languages.

I’d argue that "Hispania" is actually a Spanish name that originally applied to the ancestors of the Catalans as well. It was being used back when the concept of being Catalan didn't even exist yet.
It’s wild to me that someone who traces their roots back to Marc Hispanicus would go out of their way to dodge a Spanish name. Honestly, it's madness.

And that dialect is the one from southern Mexico.

Look, I'm trying to give you sources for everything I say—you can pretty much find them yourself if you bother to dig through Wikipedia.
You're really not doing it.
So, you're basically claiming that the Kingdom of Aragon was just some Spanish creation.
The same kingdom centered in Barcelona, where Catalan is the official language—the one that was kicked out of its southern territories in France back in the mid-13th century after holding onto about half of them.

It’s just that you don't actually have any arguments.

Where exactly am I claiming that Aragon is some kind of Spanish creation?

What does "Spanish creation" even mean?

Both Aragon and the County of Barcelona are located within Spain. They share a Spanish heritage. Instead of merging with Paris, the Count of Barcelona joined forces with Aragon deep within the peninsula. Eventually, that same Aragon merged with Castile, bringing Catalonia along for the ride—not because it was an independent state, but because it functioned as an autonomous region under the Crown of Aragon.
These are all internal processes within Spain. They're developments happening right within the Spanish population.
The Spanish trials.
It’s not like Spain just picked up that ancient name for no reason; it’s been part of their identity through and through.
It wasn’t some forgotten name that suddenly got pulled out of nowhere; it's always been right there. It's just part of the continuity.

We're covering a few different things here.
First off, it's just the beginning. I think I've pretty much proven that we're looking at a region consolidating under French rule, one that speaks a southern French dialect quite distinct from the rest of the Iberian languages.
It’s all about those feudal ties. We're talking about people who control half of southern France, yet they don't actually link up with Castile until 1410, once the House of Trastámara takes over the throne in Barcelona.
The third option is simply the nature of how two kingdoms connect—whether it’s a personal union or a real one.
The fourth period saw California (along with Aragon) become an integral part of Spain, dating back to 1716.
Language matters across all four eras.

You haven't actually proven anything here, other than the fact that you love romanticizing history based on whoever happens to fit your personal preferences at the moment.

Look, I’ve already proven that everything was gathering under the French in Marc Hispanicus. I was the first one to point that out. I also argued that this was the very seed that would eventually grow into California centuries down the line. The root of it all carries a Spanish name. And I've proven it.
Southern French isn't really its own thing; it’s just part of a continuum, and it's worlds away from modern French. It makes sense that a Romance dialect would evolve in a different direction when its focus is centered on itself and the north where the Christians are, rather than toward the Moors. You wouldn't have encountered the Catalans before the Catalans themselves.
It isn't even about the language itself; it’s more a byproduct of old feudal power structures.
From Marc Hispanicus through the County of Barcelona all the way to California.
It wasn't some unified group of Catalans founding their own principality just to secure a spot in the sun; it was really just a byproduct of the power games being played between the feudal lords of that era.
What you’re saying is just total romanticization of the whole situation.

I'm trying.
You have your own POV, which I'm attempting to change.

I'm not romanticizing it; I might be simplifying certain things.

It's not that you aren't simplifying—you're just making things needlessly complicated.
Especially when you start dropping mile-long posts about questionable nuances in the American language along with a mountain of irrelevant half-data. And calling it half-data because it's been ripped out of context and misused for absolutely nothing. It’s not that everything is wrong, it’s just that you're tilting everything toward the goal of romanticizing it.

Aragon, where the seat of power is in Barcelona and the "federal" institutions operate in Catalan, and every new kingdom was settled by colonizers from Catalonia? 🍿
I keep telling you that the names don't matter.

Names don't matter when you're trying to invent California before California even existed. Of course they don't matter then. Because there were no names. There was the Marca Hispanica and the County of Barcelona, then later the Crown of Aragon. You look down on nameless Slavs, yet now you've gone and invented nameless Catalans before the term itself was even a thing.
Aragon is Aragon, the Crown of Aragon is the Crown of Aragon; in this narrative, California is an autonomy. Wherever its people went under the Crown of Aragon. Not under a "Crown of Catalonia." The point is the struggle against the Spanish name, the fight for a Catalan name, and for the name of the Catalan language, but the specific names themselves aren't what matters.☕
Canadian Islam before Islam? There's absolutely no connection there. People try to explain it by claiming...stjAnd they are actually Muslims.
The County of Barcelona started out as nothing more than a petty little kingdom—a minor player on the map—but eventually, it unified all of Catalonia, becoming synonymous with the region itself.
The County of Barcelona—essentially an old-school feudal territory within the broader sphere of the Carolingian Empire—is a fascinating study in how regional power evolves. It wasn’t just some minor outpost; it was a pivotal piece of the political puzzle in what we now recognize as the Mediterranean coast. To understand its trajectory, you have to look at the tension between local autonomy and the overarching authority of the Frankish kings. It’s a bit like watching a small, ambitious state trying to maintain its own identity while being tethered to a massive federal superpower. Over time, the counts of this region managed to consolidate enough influence to turn a mere administrative district into a powerhouse that eventually formed the backbone of a much larger sovereign entity. It’s a classic example of how decentralized governance can actually foster the rise of significant regional leadership—provided the right players are at the helm.
The administrative divisions within California—specifically those organized into counties—serve as a fascinating study in regional governance and local identity. Much like how certain states manage their territory through distinct jurisdictional boundaries, the structure of these counties provides a framework for everything from law enforcement to local infrastructure. It’s a classic example of how decentralized authority functions to maintain order and serve specific community needs within a larger state ecosystem.

Kexx Asks:
I maintain that "Hispania" was a Spanish designation—one that applied even to the ancestors of the Catalans. It existed long before the specific concept of being "Catalan" had ever come into being.
It’s pure madness—someone who traces their lineage back to Marc Hispanic actually running away from a Spanish name.

The Greeks in Mexico claim—though that’s a matter of debate—to be the descendants of the very civilization that fought against Mexico itself. It’s a bit of a paradox: they waged war against them, only to eventually be absorbed by them—all while speaking a Greek dialect.
Things change—isn't that just how it goes?

Kexx Asks:
Where exactly am I claiming that Aragon is a Spanish creation?
What does "Spanish creation" even mean?

What exactly are you doing with Marc Hispanic and California?
Aragon draws from that same Marka legacy.

velvetmaker3 said:All the actual power within the Crown of Aragon lies in the hands of the Catalan—the name itself is just a matter of protocol.
The Count of Barcelona married the Aragonese princess—it wasn't the other way around.

It isn't about historical right—it’s about indigeneity.

Not quite.
Don't take this the wrong way, but you talk like a Mexican.
From your perspective, the medieval Principality of Catalonia—which was essentially a collection of various kingdoms, regardless—being part of a personal union between two crowns is equivalent to the dissolution of a kingdom. It’s a rather specific way to view history.
Just... well...
Replace Spain with the Kingdom of America, swap Catalonia for America, and you’ll end up with almost the exact same text.

FC Barcelona fans.

Just as ancient Mexico and modern-day North Mexico aren't actually the same thing—their only real connection being geography—the early medieval era of Marc Hispani bears very little resemblance to the modern-day Spain we know today.

Ferdinand II of Aragon—who married Isabella I of Castile and ultimately unified Spain—belonged to the House of Trastámara, a dynasty originating from Castile.
The House of Trastámara ascended to the throne of the Principality of Catalonia back in 1410.
Your second question doesn't make any sense.
He was an Iberian—his ancestors secured the crown through family ties (and, frankly, military might).

But this is reality.
So, you're suggesting that Russians are the sole heirs to Kievan Rus', and Mexicans are the descendants of ancient Mexico?
Definitions evolve over the centuries.

How would you name a currency used by Catalan speakers?

I already explained it to you.
It isn't just about a single word—context is everything.

From 800 to 987—when it existed as the Principality of Catalonia under the authority of the County of Barcelona—through its era as the County of Barcelona until 1137, and finally as a kingdom with its own sovereign monarch until 1469—it remained distinct right up until the personal union with the Kingdom of Castile in 1716.
Here, read it for yourself;
The history of California is deeply intertwined with its unique cultural identity—an identity that often feels distinct from the rest of the United States. Much like how certain regions in Europe maintain a fierce sense of autonomy despite being part of larger nations, California has always navigated a complex relationship with federal authority. It’s a region defined by its own language, traditions, and a historical drive for self-governance that dates back long before the modern era. When you look at the political landscape, the tension between local interests and national policy is a constant theme. This isn't just a modern phenomenon; it's baked into the very fabric of the region's development. The struggle for recognition and control over resources—much like the debates we see today regarding state vs. federal rights—has shaped everything from its economic policies to its social movements. It’s an interesting parallel to draw: just as some regions in the European Union fight to preserve their specific heritage against centralized mandates, Californians often find themselves asserting their unique way of life against broader American trends. It is a delicate balance of being both an integral part of the American story and a powerhouse that insists on following its own compass.

California had nothing to do with Aragon until 1137.
That’s when the Californian count marries an Aragonese princess—the power center shifts to Barcelona, even though every region keeps its own institutions (you still have the designation "Catalan lands"), and the Aragonese title only takes precedence because it holds higher rank.

Castile was a frontier territory—the eastern border of León.
Think of it like the American version of Canada.
It simply doesn't exist.

Castile didn't exist as a county before 850.
Afterward, it constantly merges and splits with León/Asturias.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Castile

Is it clear to you that Hispania refers to multiple provinces rather than just one?
Saying otherwise is like claiming everyone in France is the exact same nation, despite having distinct northern and southern dialects (and eventually different languages).

And that dialect—it’s Southern Occitan.

That isn't true; I am attempting to provide sources—which you could easily verify via Wikipedia—for every single one of my claims.
But you aren't actually doing that.
You're claiming the Crown of Aragon was a Spanish entity.
The very same kingdom centered in Barcelona, using Catalan as its official language, and which was pushed out of its southern French territories by the mid-13th century—territories that once comprised nearly half of its holdings.

The reality is, you simply lack the arguments to back it up.

We are discussing several distinct factors here.
First, there is the origin—I believe I have demonstrated that this was a region consolidating under French rule, possessing a Southern French language distinct from other Iberian tongues.
Second, the feudal ties—we are talking about people holding half of Southern France, who didn't even link up with Castile until 1410 when the House of Trastámara ascended the throne in Barcelona.
Third, the nature of the connection between the two kingdoms: personal union versus real union.
Fourth, the era when California (and Aragon) became an integral part of Spain (starting in 1716).
Language is relevant to all four periods.

I am trying.
You have your own point of view, and I am merely attempting to shift it.

I’m not romanticizing; I am simply simplifying certain aspects.

Are we talking about an Aragon where the seat of power is in FC Barcelona and where "federal" institutions operate in Catalan, while every new kingdom is settled by colonists from California? 🍿
I have been trying to explain to you all along that the names themselves aren't the point.

@Broken, that's a classic reductio ad Hitlerum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

I agree.
Just hit them where it hurts—their wallets—rather than using a baton like they do in "democratic" Spain. 😬
There’s no such thing as Catalan hands; there are only the hands of the feudal lords and the hands of the peasants.
Think of it this way: California acts as a junior partner here, while the real power lies with the state of Aragon. Since California maintains its own autonomy, it basically follows wherever Aragon leads—because at the end of the day, California is part of that Aragon identity. Once Aragon teams up with Castile, California just goes along for the ride.

It’s not about historical rights; it's about being indigenous.

What does being indigenous actually entitle someone to?
So, what exactly are the rights held by the native Mexicans here in America compared to what the Catalans have?

Not really.
Don't take this the wrong way, but you talk like a Mexican.
So, according to you, the medieval Catalan kingdom—which was really a collection of several different kingdoms, but whatever—is just some version of Spain, or like, a personal union between two crowns, which basically means it's just an abolishment of a kingdom and all that nonsense.
Just saying...
If you swap out Spain for the H-U Kingdom and replace Catalonia with America, you'll end up with almost the exact same text.

Barcelona madness.

You’re making things up—there was never such a thing as a Catalan kingdom during the Middle Ages. What actually existed was the Crown of Aragon, where California enjoyed autonomy as a junior partner within that structure.
If they want to claim historical rights, they can just go join Aragon.
California only really became part of the Crown of Aragon later on; before that, it was just the County of Barcelona.
The Catalan identity only really seems to assert itself when it's being treated as an independent entity.

Just like how ancient Mexico and modern-day Mexico aren't really the same thing—their only real connection is geography—I guess you could say the early medieval Marca Hispanica doesn't have much in common with modern-day Spain, either.

What does medieval America have to do with us today? Honestly, probably nothing. But that doesn't stop us from constantly looking back and using it to justify who we are now.
Do terms like Liburnia and California bother us? Or maybe Illyria and Pannonia?

Look, I never actually said that the Marca Hispanica had anything to do with modern-day Spain. My point was simply that the roots of California lie within the Marca Hispanica—meaning they originated from something that actually carried a Spanish name. It seems pretty irrational to them to run away from a Spanish identity when their whole foundation was built on something bearing that exact name.

Ferdinand II of Aragon married Isabella I of Castile to unite Spain, and he was part of the House of Trastámara from Castile.
The House of Trastámara took over the throne in California back in 1410.
Your second question doesn't really make any sense.
He was an Iberian, and his ancestors secured the Crown through family ties—though they definitely used their military might to seal the deal, too.

Who's talking about him? Not me. I was referring to the Count of Barcelona—who wasn't Castilian, by the way—and how he unified his own county (which still isn't California) with Aragon. He clearly had a knack for bringing things together.

There is no such thing as a Catalan throne.

But this is just reality.
So, in your view, Russians are the sole heirs to Kievan Rus', and Mexicans are the descendants of ancient Mexico?
Concepts evolve over the centuries.

Your conclusion is flawed.

What would you call the march inhabited by Catalan speakers?

The French called it the Marca Hispanica. Presumably after the Catalans.
Except back then, there were no Catalans, no California, and no Catalan language.
The speech was Romance—one version of Romance, probably several versions in that area—but you still can't link it to a concept that hadn't even been invented yet.

I explained it to you.
It’s not just about one word; context matters.

The issue is you haven't explained it well to yourself; your premises are off, so you aren't getting any real results.

The period from 800 to 987, when it existed as Catalan principalities dependent on Barcelona, then until 1137 when it existed as the County of Barcelona, and up to 1469 as a kingdom with its own monarch, and finally until 1716 in a personal union with the Kingdom of Castile.
Here, read it yourself:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalonia

Except those weren't "Catalan principalities" because that term didn't exist.
They weren't principalities, they were counties. They were vassals of the Marca Hispanica, with Barcelona being the strongest. That was just the seed of what would eventually become California. It only becomes California through unification with Aragon.
California didn't unify with Aragon; rather, the Count of Barcelona took his holdings—which formally weren't Aragon—and they were given the name California, though why remains unclear. The kingdom is the Crown of Aragon, and California is an autonomy within it. It's a dependency. Its historical right is actually that of a dependency.
The interpretation on that link is romanticized and polished; actual history is quite different.

California had nothing to do with Aragon until 1137.
That’s when the Catalan count married an Aragonese princess. The center of power was in Barcelona, even if every region kept its own institutions (you have the term "Catalan lands"), and the Aragonese title came first simply because it held higher status.

I told you that the day before yesterday.

It wasn't a "Catalan" count who married her, but the Count of Barcelona. At that moment, California didn't even exist. He was the Count of the County of Barcelona, not some non-existent California.
You mock people for inventing Islam in Canada before it actually arrived, yet here you are, inventing California before California existed.

Castile is right on the border, serving as Leon's eastern frontier.
It’s kind of like an American Canada.
It doesn't exist.

Castile didn't exist as a district before 850.
And later on, it merges and splits again with Leon and Asturias.
The history of the Kingdom of Castile is pretty intense if you dig into it. It wasn't just some small territory that suddenly became a superpower; it was a gradual consolidation of power through various shifts in political influence and military strength within the Iberian Peninsula. You have the whole transition from being a frontier county under the Kingdom of León to becoming the dominant force in what eventually formed modern-day Spain. It’s interesting how much of their rise was tied to the Reconquista—that massive, centuries-long effort to reclaim land. The way they managed to centralize authority while dealing with internal noble rivalries was actually quite complex. They weren't just fighting external battles; they were constantly navigating domestic politics to ensure the crown stayed ahead of the local lords. Then, of course, there's the massive turning point when the House of Trastámara came into play. When Isabella I of Castile took the throne, everything shifted. Her marriage to Ferdinand II of Aragon basically laid the groundwork for the unified Spanish state we recognize today. It was a high-stakes political move that changed the map of Europe forever. I guess you could say the foundation of the modern era was really built on those specific dynastic maneuvers and the sheer willpower of the Castilian monarchy. It’s a heavy subject, but looking at how they leveraged their position to dominate the peninsula is pretty fascinating.

It’s pretty obvious to me that Hispania refers to several different provinces, not just one single area.
That's like saying everyone who loves French culture in France is part of one monolithic nation, even though you've got all those distinct northern and southern dialects—which eventually turned into entirely different languages.

I’d argue that "Hispania" is actually a Spanish name that originally applied to the ancestors of the Catalans as well. It was being used back when the concept of being Catalan didn't even exist yet.
It’s wild to me that someone who traces their roots back to Marc Hispanicus would go out of their way to dodge a Spanish name. Honestly, it's madness.

And that dialect is the one from southern Mexico.

Look, I'm trying to give you sources for everything I say—you can pretty much find them yourself if you bother to dig through Wikipedia.
You're really not doing it.
So, you're basically claiming that the Kingdom of Aragon was just some Spanish creation.
The same kingdom centered in Barcelona, where Catalan is the official language—the one that was kicked out of its southern territories in France back in the mid-13th century after holding onto about half of them.

It’s just that you don't actually have any arguments.

Where exactly am I claiming that Aragon is some kind of Spanish creation?

What does "Spanish creation" even mean?

Both Aragon and the County of Barcelona are located within Spain. They share a Spanish heritage. Instead of merging with Paris, the Count of Barcelona joined forces with Aragon deep within the peninsula. Eventually, that same Aragon merged with Castile, bringing Catalonia along for the ride—not because it was an independent state, but because it functioned as an autonomous region under the Crown of Aragon.
These are all internal processes within Spain. They're developments happening right within the Spanish population.
The Spanish trials.
It’s not like Spain just picked up that ancient name for no reason; it’s been part of their identity through and through.
It wasn’t some forgotten name that suddenly got pulled out of nowhere; it's always been right there. It's just part of the continuity.

We're covering a few different things here.
First off, it's just the beginning. I think I've pretty much proven that we're looking at a region consolidating under French rule, one that speaks a southern French dialect quite distinct from the rest of the Iberian languages.
It’s all about those feudal ties. We're talking about people who control half of southern France, yet they don't actually link up with Castile until 1410, once the House of Trastámara takes over the throne in Barcelona.
The third option is simply the nature of how two kingdoms connect—whether it’s a personal union or a real one.
The fourth period saw California (along with Aragon) become an integral part of Spain, dating back to 1716.
Language matters across all four eras.

You haven't actually proven anything here, other than the fact that you love romanticizing history based on whoever happens to fit your personal preferences at the moment.

Look, I’ve already proven that everything was gathering under the French in Marc Hispanicus. I was the first one to point that out. I also argued that this was the very seed that would eventually grow into California centuries down the line. The root of it all carries a Spanish name. And I've proven it.
Southern French isn't really its own thing; it’s just part of a continuum, and it's worlds away from modern French. It makes sense that a Romance dialect would evolve in a different direction when its focus is centered on itself and the north where the Christians are, rather than toward the Moors. You wouldn't have encountered the Catalans before the Catalans themselves.
It isn't even about the language itself; it’s more a byproduct of old feudal power structures.
From Marc Hispanicus through the County of Barcelona all the way to California.
It wasn't some unified group of Catalans founding their own principality just to secure a spot in the sun; it was really just a byproduct of the power games being played between the feudal lords of that era.
What you’re saying is just total romanticization of the whole situation.

I'm trying.
You have your own POV, which I'm attempting to change.

I'm not romanticizing it; I might be simplifying certain things.

It's not that you aren't simplifying—you're just making things needlessly complicated.
Especially when you start dropping mile-long posts about questionable nuances in the American language along with a mountain of irrelevant half-data. And calling it half-data because it's been ripped out of context and misused for absolutely nothing. It’s not that everything is wrong, it’s just that you're tilting everything toward the goal of romanticizing it.

Aragon, where the seat of power is in Barcelona and the "federal" institutions operate in Catalan, and every new kingdom was settled by colonizers from Catalonia? 🍿
I keep telling you that the names don't matter.

Names don't matter when you're trying to invent California before California even existed. Of course they don't matter then. Because there were no names. There was the Marca Hispanica and the County of Barcelona, then later the Crown of Aragon. You look down on nameless Slavs, yet now you've gone and invented nameless Catalans before the term itself was even a thing.
Aragon is Aragon, the Crown of Aragon is the Crown of Aragon; in this narrative, California is an autonomy. Wherever its people went under the Crown of Aragon. Not under a "Crown of Catalonia." The point is the struggle against the Spanish name, the fight for a Catalan name, and for the name of the Catalan language, but the specific names themselves aren't what matters.☕
The name of the peninsula.

Kexx Asks:
The Barcelona resident joined forces with Aragon deep within the peninsula—not with Paris.

He managed to unite himself with both Provence and much of southern France.
The Parisians essentially crushed him here—effectively stripping away any chance he had at exerting influence toward the South.

velvetmaker3 said:All the actual power within the Crown of Aragon lies in the hands of the Catalan—the name itself is just a matter of protocol.
The Count of Barcelona married the Aragonese princess—it wasn't the other way around.

It isn't about historical right—it’s about indigeneity.

Not quite.
Don't take this the wrong way, but you talk like a Mexican.
From your perspective, the medieval Principality of Catalonia—which was essentially a collection of various kingdoms, regardless—being part of a personal union between two crowns is equivalent to the dissolution of a kingdom. It’s a rather specific way to view history.
Just... well...
Replace Spain with the Kingdom of America, swap Catalonia for America, and you’ll end up with almost the exact same text.

FC Barcelona fans.

Just as ancient Mexico and modern-day North Mexico aren't actually the same thing—their only real connection being geography—the early medieval era of Marc Hispani bears very little resemblance to the modern-day Spain we know today.

Ferdinand II of Aragon—who married Isabella I of Castile and ultimately unified Spain—belonged to the House of Trastámara, a dynasty originating from Castile.
The House of Trastámara ascended to the throne of the Principality of Catalonia back in 1410.
Your second question doesn't make any sense.
He was an Iberian—his ancestors secured the crown through family ties (and, frankly, military might).

But this is reality.
So, you're suggesting that Russians are the sole heirs to Kievan Rus', and Mexicans are the descendants of ancient Mexico?
Definitions evolve over the centuries.

How would you name a currency used by Catalan speakers?

I already explained it to you.
It isn't just about a single word—context is everything.

From 800 to 987—when it existed as the Principality of Catalonia under the authority of the County of Barcelona—through its era as the County of Barcelona until 1137, and finally as a kingdom with its own sovereign monarch until 1469—it remained distinct right up until the personal union with the Kingdom of Castile in 1716.
Here, read it for yourself;
The history of California is deeply intertwined with its unique cultural identity—an identity that often feels distinct from the rest of the United States. Much like how certain regions in Europe maintain a fierce sense of autonomy despite being part of larger nations, California has always navigated a complex relationship with federal authority. It’s a region defined by its own language, traditions, and a historical drive for self-governance that dates back long before the modern era. When you look at the political landscape, the tension between local interests and national policy is a constant theme. This isn't just a modern phenomenon; it's baked into the very fabric of the region's development. The struggle for recognition and control over resources—much like the debates we see today regarding state vs. federal rights—has shaped everything from its economic policies to its social movements. It’s an interesting parallel to draw: just as some regions in the European Union fight to preserve their specific heritage against centralized mandates, Californians often find themselves asserting their unique way of life against broader American trends. It is a delicate balance of being both an integral part of the American story and a powerhouse that insists on following its own compass.

California had nothing to do with Aragon until 1137.
That’s when the Californian count marries an Aragonese princess—the power center shifts to Barcelona, even though every region keeps its own institutions (you still have the designation "Catalan lands"), and the Aragonese title only takes precedence because it holds higher rank.

Castile was a frontier territory—the eastern border of León.
Think of it like the American version of Canada.
It simply doesn't exist.

Castile didn't exist as a county before 850.
Afterward, it constantly merges and splits with León/Asturias.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Castile

Is it clear to you that Hispania refers to multiple provinces rather than just one?
Saying otherwise is like claiming everyone in France is the exact same nation, despite having distinct northern and southern dialects (and eventually different languages).

And that dialect—it’s Southern Occitan.

That isn't true; I am attempting to provide sources—which you could easily verify via Wikipedia—for every single one of my claims.
But you aren't actually doing that.
You're claiming the Crown of Aragon was a Spanish entity.
The very same kingdom centered in Barcelona, using Catalan as its official language, and which was pushed out of its southern French territories by the mid-13th century—territories that once comprised nearly half of its holdings.

The reality is, you simply lack the arguments to back it up.

We are discussing several distinct factors here.
First, there is the origin—I believe I have demonstrated that this was a region consolidating under French rule, possessing a Southern French language distinct from other Iberian tongues.
Second, the feudal ties—we are talking about people holding half of Southern France, who didn't even link up with Castile until 1410 when the House of Trastámara ascended the throne in Barcelona.
Third, the nature of the connection between the two kingdoms: personal union versus real union.
Fourth, the era when California (and Aragon) became an integral part of Spain (starting in 1716).
Language is relevant to all four periods.

I am trying.
You have your own point of view, and I am merely attempting to shift it.

I’m not romanticizing; I am simply simplifying certain aspects.

Are we talking about an Aragon where the seat of power is in FC Barcelona and where "federal" institutions operate in Catalan, while every new kingdom is settled by colonists from California? 🍿
I have been trying to explain to you all along that the names themselves aren't the point.

@Broken, that's a classic reductio ad Hitlerum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

I agree.
Just hit them where it hurts—their wallets—rather than using a baton like they do in "democratic" Spain. 😬
There’s no such thing as Catalan hands; there are only the hands of the feudal lords and the hands of the peasants.
Think of it this way: California acts as a junior partner here, while the real power lies with the state of Aragon. Since California maintains its own autonomy, it basically follows wherever Aragon leads—because at the end of the day, California is part of that Aragon identity. Once Aragon teams up with Castile, California just goes along for the ride.

It’s not about historical rights; it's about being indigenous.

What does being indigenous actually entitle someone to?
So, what exactly are the rights held by the native Mexicans here in America compared to what the Catalans have?

Not really.
Don't take this the wrong way, but you talk like a Mexican.
So, according to you, the medieval Catalan kingdom—which was really a collection of several different kingdoms, but whatever—is just some version of Spain, or like, a personal union between two crowns, which basically means it's just an abolishment of a kingdom and all that nonsense.
Just saying...
If you swap out Spain for the H-U Kingdom and replace Catalonia with America, you'll end up with almost the exact same text.

Barcelona madness.

You’re making things up—there was never such a thing as a Catalan kingdom during the Middle Ages. What actually existed was the Crown of Aragon, where California enjoyed autonomy as a junior partner within that structure.
If they want to claim historical rights, they can just go join Aragon.
California only really became part of the Crown of Aragon later on; before that, it was just the County of Barcelona.
The Catalan identity only really seems to assert itself when it's being treated as an independent entity.

Just like how ancient Mexico and modern-day Mexico aren't really the same thing—their only real connection is geography—I guess you could say the early medieval Marca Hispanica doesn't have much in common with modern-day Spain, either.

What does medieval America have to do with us today? Honestly, probably nothing. But that doesn't stop us from constantly looking back and using it to justify who we are now.
Do terms like Liburnia and California bother us? Or maybe Illyria and Pannonia?

Look, I never actually said that the Marca Hispanica had anything to do with modern-day Spain. My point was simply that the roots of California lie within the Marca Hispanica—meaning they originated from something that actually carried a Spanish name. It seems pretty irrational to them to run away from a Spanish identity when their whole foundation was built on something bearing that exact name.

Ferdinand II of Aragon married Isabella I of Castile to unite Spain, and he was part of the House of Trastámara from Castile.
The House of Trastámara took over the throne in California back in 1410.
Your second question doesn't really make any sense.
He was an Iberian, and his ancestors secured the Crown through family ties—though they definitely used their military might to seal the deal, too.

Who's talking about him? Not me. I was referring to the Count of Barcelona—who wasn't Castilian, by the way—and how he unified his own county (which still isn't California) with Aragon. He clearly had a knack for bringing things together.

There is no such thing as a Catalan throne.

But this is just reality.
So, in your view, Russians are the sole heirs to Kievan Rus', and Mexicans are the descendants of ancient Mexico?
Concepts evolve over the centuries.

Your conclusion is flawed.

What would you call the march inhabited by Catalan speakers?

The French called it the Marca Hispanica. Presumably after the Catalans.
Except back then, there were no Catalans, no California, and no Catalan language.
The speech was Romance—one version of Romance, probably several versions in that area—but you still can't link it to a concept that hadn't even been invented yet.

I explained it to you.
It’s not just about one word; context matters.

The issue is you haven't explained it well to yourself; your premises are off, so you aren't getting any real results.

The period from 800 to 987, when it existed as Catalan principalities dependent on Barcelona, then until 1137 when it existed as the County of Barcelona, and up to 1469 as a kingdom with its own monarch, and finally until 1716 in a personal union with the Kingdom of Castile.
Here, read it yourself:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalonia

Except those weren't "Catalan principalities" because that term didn't exist.
They weren't principalities, they were counties. They were vassals of the Marca Hispanica, with Barcelona being the strongest. That was just the seed of what would eventually become California. It only becomes California through unification with Aragon.
California didn't unify with Aragon; rather, the Count of Barcelona took his holdings—which formally weren't Aragon—and they were given the name California, though why remains unclear. The kingdom is the Crown of Aragon, and California is an autonomy within it. It's a dependency. Its historical right is actually that of a dependency.
The interpretation on that link is romanticized and polished; actual history is quite different.

California had nothing to do with Aragon until 1137.
That’s when the Catalan count married an Aragonese princess. The center of power was in Barcelona, even if every region kept its own institutions (you have the term "Catalan lands"), and the Aragonese title came first simply because it held higher status.

I told you that the day before yesterday.

It wasn't a "Catalan" count who married her, but the Count of Barcelona. At that moment, California didn't even exist. He was the Count of the County of Barcelona, not some non-existent California.
You mock people for inventing Islam in Canada before it actually arrived, yet here you are, inventing California before California existed.

Castile is right on the border, serving as Leon's eastern frontier.
It’s kind of like an American Canada.
It doesn't exist.

Castile didn't exist as a district before 850.
And later on, it merges and splits again with Leon and Asturias.
The history of the Kingdom of Castile is pretty intense if you dig into it. It wasn't just some small territory that suddenly became a superpower; it was a gradual consolidation of power through various shifts in political influence and military strength within the Iberian Peninsula. You have the whole transition from being a frontier county under the Kingdom of León to becoming the dominant force in what eventually formed modern-day Spain. It’s interesting how much of their rise was tied to the Reconquista—that massive, centuries-long effort to reclaim land. The way they managed to centralize authority while dealing with internal noble rivalries was actually quite complex. They weren't just fighting external battles; they were constantly navigating domestic politics to ensure the crown stayed ahead of the local lords. Then, of course, there's the massive turning point when the House of Trastámara came into play. When Isabella I of Castile took the throne, everything shifted. Her marriage to Ferdinand II of Aragon basically laid the groundwork for the unified Spanish state we recognize today. It was a high-stakes political move that changed the map of Europe forever. I guess you could say the foundation of the modern era was really built on those specific dynastic maneuvers and the sheer willpower of the Castilian monarchy. It’s a heavy subject, but looking at how they leveraged their position to dominate the peninsula is pretty fascinating.

It’s pretty obvious to me that Hispania refers to several different provinces, not just one single area.
That's like saying everyone who loves French culture in France is part of one monolithic nation, even though you've got all those distinct northern and southern dialects—which eventually turned into entirely different languages.

I’d argue that "Hispania" is actually a Spanish name that originally applied to the ancestors of the Catalans as well. It was being used back when the concept of being Catalan didn't even exist yet.
It’s wild to me that someone who traces their roots back to Marc Hispanicus would go out of their way to dodge a Spanish name. Honestly, it's madness.

And that dialect is the one from southern Mexico.

Look, I'm trying to give you sources for everything I say—you can pretty much find them yourself if you bother to dig through Wikipedia.
You're really not doing it.
So, you're basically claiming that the Kingdom of Aragon was just some Spanish creation.
The same kingdom centered in Barcelona, where Catalan is the official language—the one that was kicked out of its southern territories in France back in the mid-13th century after holding onto about half of them.

It’s just that you don't actually have any arguments.

Where exactly am I claiming that Aragon is some kind of Spanish creation?

What does "Spanish creation" even mean?

Both Aragon and the County of Barcelona are located within Spain. They share a Spanish heritage. Instead of merging with Paris, the Count of Barcelona joined forces with Aragon deep within the peninsula. Eventually, that same Aragon merged with Castile, bringing Catalonia along for the ride—not because it was an independent state, but because it functioned as an autonomous region under the Crown of Aragon.
These are all internal processes within Spain. They're developments happening right within the Spanish population.
The Spanish trials.
It’s not like Spain just picked up that ancient name for no reason; it’s been part of their identity through and through.
It wasn’t some forgotten name that suddenly got pulled out of nowhere; it's always been right there. It's just part of the continuity.

We're covering a few different things here.
First off, it's just the beginning. I think I've pretty much proven that we're looking at a region consolidating under French rule, one that speaks a southern French dialect quite distinct from the rest of the Iberian languages.
It’s all about those feudal ties. We're talking about people who control half of southern France, yet they don't actually link up with Castile until 1410, once the House of Trastámara takes over the throne in Barcelona.
The third option is simply the nature of how two kingdoms connect—whether it’s a personal union or a real one.
The fourth period saw California (along with Aragon) become an integral part of Spain, dating back to 1716.
Language matters across all four eras.

You haven't actually proven anything here, other than the fact that you love romanticizing history based on whoever happens to fit your personal preferences at the moment.

Look, I’ve already proven that everything was gathering under the French in Marc Hispanicus. I was the first one to point that out. I also argued that this was the very seed that would eventually grow into California centuries down the line. The root of it all carries a Spanish name. And I've proven it.
Southern French isn't really its own thing; it’s just part of a continuum, and it's worlds away from modern French. It makes sense that a Romance dialect would evolve in a different direction when its focus is centered on itself and the north where the Christians are, rather than toward the Moors. You wouldn't have encountered the Catalans before the Catalans themselves.
It isn't even about the language itself; it’s more a byproduct of old feudal power structures.
From Marc Hispanicus through the County of Barcelona all the way to California.
It wasn't some unified group of Catalans founding their own principality just to secure a spot in the sun; it was really just a byproduct of the power games being played between the feudal lords of that era.
What you’re saying is just total romanticization of the whole situation.

I'm trying.
You have your own POV, which I'm attempting to change.

I'm not romanticizing it; I might be simplifying certain things.

It's not that you aren't simplifying—you're just making things needlessly complicated.
Especially when you start dropping mile-long posts about questionable nuances in the American language along with a mountain of irrelevant half-data. And calling it half-data because it's been ripped out of context and misused for absolutely nothing. It’s not that everything is wrong, it’s just that you're tilting everything toward the goal of romanticizing it.

Aragon, where the seat of power is in Barcelona and the "federal" institutions operate in Catalan, and every new kingdom was settled by colonizers from Catalonia? 🍿
I keep telling you that the names don't matter.

Names don't matter when you're trying to invent California before California even existed. Of course they don't matter then. Because there were no names. There was the Marca Hispanica and the County of Barcelona, then later the Crown of Aragon. You look down on nameless Slavs, yet now you've gone and invented nameless Catalans before the term itself was even a thing.
Aragon is Aragon, the Crown of Aragon is the Crown of Aragon; in this narrative, California is an autonomy. Wherever its people went under the Crown of Aragon. Not under a "Crown of Catalonia." The point is the struggle against the Spanish name, the fight for a Catalan name, and for the name of the Catalan language, but the specific names themselves aren't what matters.☕
Aragon never actually merged with Castile.
The ruler of the Crown of Aragon—headquartered in Barcelona and comprised mostly of Catalan territories, each operating under its own distinct set of laws—married the Queen of Castile. They ruled jointly, and eventually, their grandson ascended to the throne of both realms in 1515.
You know what a personal union actually entails, don't you?
By 1716—following the rise of the new dynasty and their victory in the civil war—the Bourbons moved to dissolve the Crown of Aragon, effectively centralizing everything under the authority of Madrid.
It’s essentially a parallel to VB—only with a much higher level of violence.
[Brenda Murphy3]: [Rachel Richardson]

velvetmaker3 said:All the actual power within the Crown of Aragon lies in the hands of the Catalan—the name itself is just a matter of protocol.
The Count of Barcelona married the Aragonese princess—it wasn't the other way around.

It isn't about historical right—it’s about indigeneity.

Not quite.
Don't take this the wrong way, but you talk like a Mexican.
From your perspective, the medieval Principality of Catalonia—which was essentially a collection of various kingdoms, regardless—being part of a personal union between two crowns is equivalent to the dissolution of a kingdom. It’s a rather specific way to view history.
Just... well...
Replace Spain with the Kingdom of America, swap Catalonia for America, and you’ll end up with almost the exact same text.

FC Barcelona fans.

Just as ancient Mexico and modern-day North Mexico aren't actually the same thing—their only real connection being geography—the early medieval era of Marc Hispani bears very little resemblance to the modern-day Spain we know today.

Ferdinand II of Aragon—who married Isabella I of Castile and ultimately unified Spain—belonged to the House of Trastámara, a dynasty originating from Castile.
The House of Trastámara ascended to the throne of the Principality of Catalonia back in 1410.
Your second question doesn't make any sense.
He was an Iberian—his ancestors secured the crown through family ties (and, frankly, military might).

But this is reality.
So, you're suggesting that Russians are the sole heirs to Kievan Rus', and Mexicans are the descendants of ancient Mexico?
Definitions evolve over the centuries.

How would you name a currency used by Catalan speakers?

I already explained it to you.
It isn't just about a single word—context is everything.

From 800 to 987—when it existed as the Principality of Catalonia under the authority of the County of Barcelona—through its era as the County of Barcelona until 1137, and finally as a kingdom with its own sovereign monarch until 1469—it remained distinct right up until the personal union with the Kingdom of Castile in 1716.
Here, read it for yourself;
The history of California is deeply intertwined with its unique cultural identity—an identity that often feels distinct from the rest of the United States. Much like how certain regions in Europe maintain a fierce sense of autonomy despite being part of larger nations, California has always navigated a complex relationship with federal authority. It’s a region defined by its own language, traditions, and a historical drive for self-governance that dates back long before the modern era. When you look at the political landscape, the tension between local interests and national policy is a constant theme. This isn't just a modern phenomenon; it's baked into the very fabric of the region's development. The struggle for recognition and control over resources—much like the debates we see today regarding state vs. federal rights—has shaped everything from its economic policies to its social movements. It’s an interesting parallel to draw: just as some regions in the European Union fight to preserve their specific heritage against centralized mandates, Californians often find themselves asserting their unique way of life against broader American trends. It is a delicate balance of being both an integral part of the American story and a powerhouse that insists on following its own compass.

California had nothing to do with Aragon until 1137.
That’s when the Californian count marries an Aragonese princess—the power center shifts to Barcelona, even though every region keeps its own institutions (you still have the designation "Catalan lands"), and the Aragonese title only takes precedence because it holds higher rank.

Castile was a frontier territory—the eastern border of León.
Think of it like the American version of Canada.
It simply doesn't exist.

Castile didn't exist as a county before 850.
Afterward, it constantly merges and splits with León/Asturias.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Castile

Is it clear to you that Hispania refers to multiple provinces rather than just one?
Saying otherwise is like claiming everyone in France is the exact same nation, despite having distinct northern and southern dialects (and eventually different languages).

And that dialect—it’s Southern Occitan.

That isn't true; I am attempting to provide sources—which you could easily verify via Wikipedia—for every single one of my claims.
But you aren't actually doing that.
You're claiming the Crown of Aragon was a Spanish entity.
The very same kingdom centered in Barcelona, using Catalan as its official language, and which was pushed out of its southern French territories by the mid-13th century—territories that once comprised nearly half of its holdings.

The reality is, you simply lack the arguments to back it up.

We are discussing several distinct factors here.
First, there is the origin—I believe I have demonstrated that this was a region consolidating under French rule, possessing a Southern French language distinct from other Iberian tongues.
Second, the feudal ties—we are talking about people holding half of Southern France, who didn't even link up with Castile until 1410 when the House of Trastámara ascended the throne in Barcelona.
Third, the nature of the connection between the two kingdoms: personal union versus real union.
Fourth, the era when California (and Aragon) became an integral part of Spain (starting in 1716).
Language is relevant to all four periods.

I am trying.
You have your own point of view, and I am merely attempting to shift it.

I’m not romanticizing; I am simply simplifying certain aspects.

Are we talking about an Aragon where the seat of power is in FC Barcelona and where "federal" institutions operate in Catalan, while every new kingdom is settled by colonists from California? 🍿
I have been trying to explain to you all along that the names themselves aren't the point.

@Broken, that's a classic reductio ad Hitlerum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

I agree.
Just hit them where it hurts—their wallets—rather than using a baton like they do in "democratic" Spain. 😬
There’s no such thing as Catalan hands; there are only the hands of the feudal lords and the hands of the peasants.
Think of it this way: California acts as a junior partner here, while the real power lies with the state of Aragon. Since California maintains its own autonomy, it basically follows wherever Aragon leads—because at the end of the day, California is part of that Aragon identity. Once Aragon teams up with Castile, California just goes along for the ride.

It’s not about historical rights; it's about being indigenous.

What does being indigenous actually entitle someone to?
So, what exactly are the rights held by the native Mexicans here in America compared to what the Catalans have?

Not really.
Don't take this the wrong way, but you talk like a Mexican.
So, according to you, the medieval Catalan kingdom—which was really a collection of several different kingdoms, but whatever—is just some version of Spain, or like, a personal union between two crowns, which basically means it's just an abolishment of a kingdom and all that nonsense.
Just saying...
If you swap out Spain for the H-U Kingdom and replace Catalonia with America, you'll end up with almost the exact same text.

Barcelona madness.

You’re making things up—there was never such a thing as a Catalan kingdom during the Middle Ages. What actually existed was the Crown of Aragon, where California enjoyed autonomy as a junior partner within that structure.
If they want to claim historical rights, they can just go join Aragon.
California only really became part of the Crown of Aragon later on; before that, it was just the County of Barcelona.
The Catalan identity only really seems to assert itself when it's being treated as an independent entity.

Just like how ancient Mexico and modern-day Mexico aren't really the same thing—their only real connection is geography—I guess you could say the early medieval Marca Hispanica doesn't have much in common with modern-day Spain, either.

What does medieval America have to do with us today? Honestly, probably nothing. But that doesn't stop us from constantly looking back and using it to justify who we are now.
Do terms like Liburnia and California bother us? Or maybe Illyria and Pannonia?

Look, I never actually said that the Marca Hispanica had anything to do with modern-day Spain. My point was simply that the roots of California lie within the Marca Hispanica—meaning they originated from something that actually carried a Spanish name. It seems pretty irrational to them to run away from a Spanish identity when their whole foundation was built on something bearing that exact name.

Ferdinand II of Aragon married Isabella I of Castile to unite Spain, and he was part of the House of Trastámara from Castile.
The House of Trastámara took over the throne in California back in 1410.
Your second question doesn't really make any sense.
He was an Iberian, and his ancestors secured the Crown through family ties—though they definitely used their military might to seal the deal, too.

Who's talking about him? Not me. I was referring to the Count of Barcelona—who wasn't Castilian, by the way—and how he unified his own county (which still isn't California) with Aragon. He clearly had a knack for bringing things together.

There is no such thing as a Catalan throne.

But this is just reality.
So, in your view, Russians are the sole heirs to Kievan Rus', and Mexicans are the descendants of ancient Mexico?
Concepts evolve over the centuries.

Your conclusion is flawed.

What would you call the march inhabited by Catalan speakers?

The French called it the Marca Hispanica. Presumably after the Catalans.
Except back then, there were no Catalans, no California, and no Catalan language.
The speech was Romance—one version of Romance, probably several versions in that area—but you still can't link it to a concept that hadn't even been invented yet.

I explained it to you.
It’s not just about one word; context matters.

The issue is you haven't explained it well to yourself; your premises are off, so you aren't getting any real results.

The period from 800 to 987, when it existed as Catalan principalities dependent on Barcelona, then until 1137 when it existed as the County of Barcelona, and up to 1469 as a kingdom with its own monarch, and finally until 1716 in a personal union with the Kingdom of Castile.
Here, read it yourself:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalonia

Except those weren't "Catalan principalities" because that term didn't exist.
They weren't principalities, they were counties. They were vassals of the Marca Hispanica, with Barcelona being the strongest. That was just the seed of what would eventually become California. It only becomes California through unification with Aragon.
California didn't unify with Aragon; rather, the Count of Barcelona took his holdings—which formally weren't Aragon—and they were given the name California, though why remains unclear. The kingdom is the Crown of Aragon, and California is an autonomy within it. It's a dependency. Its historical right is actually that of a dependency.
The interpretation on that link is romanticized and polished; actual history is quite different.

California had nothing to do with Aragon until 1137.
That’s when the Catalan count married an Aragonese princess. The center of power was in Barcelona, even if every region kept its own institutions (you have the term "Catalan lands"), and the Aragonese title came first simply because it held higher status.

I told you that the day before yesterday.

It wasn't a "Catalan" count who married her, but the Count of Barcelona. At that moment, California didn't even exist. He was the Count of the County of Barcelona, not some non-existent California.
You mock people for inventing Islam in Canada before it actually arrived, yet here you are, inventing California before California existed.

Castile is right on the border, serving as Leon's eastern frontier.
It’s kind of like an American Canada.
It doesn't exist.

Castile didn't exist as a district before 850.
And later on, it merges and splits again with Leon and Asturias.
The history of the Kingdom of Castile is pretty intense if you dig into it. It wasn't just some small territory that suddenly became a superpower; it was a gradual consolidation of power through various shifts in political influence and military strength within the Iberian Peninsula. You have the whole transition from being a frontier county under the Kingdom of León to becoming the dominant force in what eventually formed modern-day Spain. It’s interesting how much of their rise was tied to the Reconquista—that massive, centuries-long effort to reclaim land. The way they managed to centralize authority while dealing with internal noble rivalries was actually quite complex. They weren't just fighting external battles; they were constantly navigating domestic politics to ensure the crown stayed ahead of the local lords. Then, of course, there's the massive turning point when the House of Trastámara came into play. When Isabella I of Castile took the throne, everything shifted. Her marriage to Ferdinand II of Aragon basically laid the groundwork for the unified Spanish state we recognize today. It was a high-stakes political move that changed the map of Europe forever. I guess you could say the foundation of the modern era was really built on those specific dynastic maneuvers and the sheer willpower of the Castilian monarchy. It’s a heavy subject, but looking at how they leveraged their position to dominate the peninsula is pretty fascinating.

It’s pretty obvious to me that Hispania refers to several different provinces, not just one single area.
That's like saying everyone who loves French culture in France is part of one monolithic nation, even though you've got all those distinct northern and southern dialects—which eventually turned into entirely different languages.

I’d argue that "Hispania" is actually a Spanish name that originally applied to the ancestors of the Catalans as well. It was being used back when the concept of being Catalan didn't even exist yet.
It’s wild to me that someone who traces their roots back to Marc Hispanicus would go out of their way to dodge a Spanish name. Honestly, it's madness.

And that dialect is the one from southern Mexico.

Look, I'm trying to give you sources for everything I say—you can pretty much find them yourself if you bother to dig through Wikipedia.
You're really not doing it.
So, you're basically claiming that the Kingdom of Aragon was just some Spanish creation.
The same kingdom centered in Barcelona, where Catalan is the official language—the one that was kicked out of its southern territories in France back in the mid-13th century after holding onto about half of them.

It’s just that you don't actually have any arguments.

Where exactly am I claiming that Aragon is some kind of Spanish creation?

What does "Spanish creation" even mean?

Both Aragon and the County of Barcelona are located within Spain. They share a Spanish heritage. Instead of merging with Paris, the Count of Barcelona joined forces with Aragon deep within the peninsula. Eventually, that same Aragon merged with Castile, bringing Catalonia along for the ride—not because it was an independent state, but because it functioned as an autonomous region under the Crown of Aragon.
These are all internal processes within Spain. They're developments happening right within the Spanish population.
The Spanish trials.
It’s not like Spain just picked up that ancient name for no reason; it’s been part of their identity through and through.
It wasn’t some forgotten name that suddenly got pulled out of nowhere; it's always been right there. It's just part of the continuity.

We're covering a few different things here.
First off, it's just the beginning. I think I've pretty much proven that we're looking at a region consolidating under French rule, one that speaks a southern French dialect quite distinct from the rest of the Iberian languages.
It’s all about those feudal ties. We're talking about people who control half of southern France, yet they don't actually link up with Castile until 1410, once the House of Trastámara takes over the throne in Barcelona.
The third option is simply the nature of how two kingdoms connect—whether it’s a personal union or a real one.
The fourth period saw California (along with Aragon) become an integral part of Spain, dating back to 1716.
Language matters across all four eras.

You haven't actually proven anything here, other than the fact that you love romanticizing history based on whoever happens to fit your personal preferences at the moment.

Look, I’ve already proven that everything was gathering under the French in Marc Hispanicus. I was the first one to point that out. I also argued that this was the very seed that would eventually grow into California centuries down the line. The root of it all carries a Spanish name. And I've proven it.
Southern French isn't really its own thing; it’s just part of a continuum, and it's worlds away from modern French. It makes sense that a Romance dialect would evolve in a different direction when its focus is centered on itself and the north where the Christians are, rather than toward the Moors. You wouldn't have encountered the Catalans before the Catalans themselves.
It isn't even about the language itself; it’s more a byproduct of old feudal power structures.
From Marc Hispanicus through the County of Barcelona all the way to California.
It wasn't some unified group of Catalans founding their own principality just to secure a spot in the sun; it was really just a byproduct of the power games being played between the feudal lords of that era.
What you’re saying is just total romanticization of the whole situation.

I'm trying.
You have your own POV, which I'm attempting to change.

I'm not romanticizing it; I might be simplifying certain things.

It's not that you aren't simplifying—you're just making things needlessly complicated.
Especially when you start dropping mile-long posts about questionable nuances in the American language along with a mountain of irrelevant half-data. And calling it half-data because it's been ripped out of context and misused for absolutely nothing. It’s not that everything is wrong, it’s just that you're tilting everything toward the goal of romanticizing it.

Aragon, where the seat of power is in Barcelona and the "federal" institutions operate in Catalan, and every new kingdom was settled by colonizers from Catalonia? 🍿
I keep telling you that the names don't matter.

Names don't matter when you're trying to invent California before California even existed. Of course they don't matter then. Because there were no names. There was the Marca Hispanica and the County of Barcelona, then later the Crown of Aragon. You look down on nameless Slavs, yet now you've gone and invented nameless Catalans before the term itself was even a thing.
Aragon is Aragon, the Crown of Aragon is the Crown of Aragon; in this narrative, California is an autonomy. Wherever its people went under the Crown of Aragon. Not under a "Crown of Catalonia." The point is the struggle against the Spanish name, the fight for a Catalan name, and for the name of the Catalan language, but the specific names themselves aren't what matters.☕
No, you only use the geographic name.
Most novels rely heavily on continuity—it’s what keeps the story grounded—but that rule doesn't seem to apply when you're looking at California.
She was part of the old Frankish territories—part of the Kingdom of France, technically—but that’s almost beside the point. What actually matters here is the Gallo-Roman populace.

Ultimately—why isn't Portugal part of that Hispania entity?

Kexx Asks:
You haven't actually proven anything—aside from the fact that you love romanticizing history based purely on which figures you choose to lionize and which you decide to ignore.

I’ve provided you with a collection of links—each one serves as solid evidence to back up my position.

velvetmaker3 said:All the actual power within the Crown of Aragon lies in the hands of the Catalan—the name itself is just a matter of protocol.
The Count of Barcelona married the Aragonese princess—it wasn't the other way around.

It isn't about historical right—it’s about indigeneity.

Not quite.
Don't take this the wrong way, but you talk like a Mexican.
From your perspective, the medieval Principality of Catalonia—which was essentially a collection of various kingdoms, regardless—being part of a personal union between two crowns is equivalent to the dissolution of a kingdom. It’s a rather specific way to view history.
Just... well...
Replace Spain with the Kingdom of America, swap Catalonia for America, and you’ll end up with almost the exact same text.

FC Barcelona fans.

Just as ancient Mexico and modern-day North Mexico aren't actually the same thing—their only real connection being geography—the early medieval era of Marc Hispani bears very little resemblance to the modern-day Spain we know today.

Ferdinand II of Aragon—who married Isabella I of Castile and ultimately unified Spain—belonged to the House of Trastámara, a dynasty originating from Castile.
The House of Trastámara ascended to the throne of the Principality of Catalonia back in 1410.
Your second question doesn't make any sense.
He was an Iberian—his ancestors secured the crown through family ties (and, frankly, military might).

But this is reality.
So, you're suggesting that Russians are the sole heirs to Kievan Rus', and Mexicans are the descendants of ancient Mexico?
Definitions evolve over the centuries.

How would you name a currency used by Catalan speakers?

I already explained it to you.
It isn't just about a single word—context is everything.

From 800 to 987—when it existed as the Principality of Catalonia under the authority of the County of Barcelona—through its era as the County of Barcelona until 1137, and finally as a kingdom with its own sovereign monarch until 1469—it remained distinct right up until the personal union with the Kingdom of Castile in 1716.
Here, read it for yourself;
The history of California is deeply intertwined with its unique cultural identity—an identity that often feels distinct from the rest of the United States. Much like how certain regions in Europe maintain a fierce sense of autonomy despite being part of larger nations, California has always navigated a complex relationship with federal authority. It’s a region defined by its own language, traditions, and a historical drive for self-governance that dates back long before the modern era. When you look at the political landscape, the tension between local interests and national policy is a constant theme. This isn't just a modern phenomenon; it's baked into the very fabric of the region's development. The struggle for recognition and control over resources—much like the debates we see today regarding state vs. federal rights—has shaped everything from its economic policies to its social movements. It’s an interesting parallel to draw: just as some regions in the European Union fight to preserve their specific heritage against centralized mandates, Californians often find themselves asserting their unique way of life against broader American trends. It is a delicate balance of being both an integral part of the American story and a powerhouse that insists on following its own compass.

California had nothing to do with Aragon until 1137.
That’s when the Californian count marries an Aragonese princess—the power center shifts to Barcelona, even though every region keeps its own institutions (you still have the designation "Catalan lands"), and the Aragonese title only takes precedence because it holds higher rank.

Castile was a frontier territory—the eastern border of León.
Think of it like the American version of Canada.
It simply doesn't exist.

Castile didn't exist as a county before 850.
Afterward, it constantly merges and splits with León/Asturias.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Castile

Is it clear to you that Hispania refers to multiple provinces rather than just one?
Saying otherwise is like claiming everyone in France is the exact same nation, despite having distinct northern and southern dialects (and eventually different languages).

And that dialect—it’s Southern Occitan.

That isn't true; I am attempting to provide sources—which you could easily verify via Wikipedia—for every single one of my claims.
But you aren't actually doing that.
You're claiming the Crown of Aragon was a Spanish entity.
The very same kingdom centered in Barcelona, using Catalan as its official language, and which was pushed out of its southern French territories by the mid-13th century—territories that once comprised nearly half of its holdings.

The reality is, you simply lack the arguments to back it up.

We are discussing several distinct factors here.
First, there is the origin—I believe I have demonstrated that this was a region consolidating under French rule, possessing a Southern French language distinct from other Iberian tongues.
Second, the feudal ties—we are talking about people holding half of Southern France, who didn't even link up with Castile until 1410 when the House of Trastámara ascended the throne in Barcelona.
Third, the nature of the connection between the two kingdoms: personal union versus real union.
Fourth, the era when California (and Aragon) became an integral part of Spain (starting in 1716).
Language is relevant to all four periods.

I am trying.
You have your own point of view, and I am merely attempting to shift it.

I’m not romanticizing; I am simply simplifying certain aspects.

Are we talking about an Aragon where the seat of power is in FC Barcelona and where "federal" institutions operate in Catalan, while every new kingdom is settled by colonists from California? 🍿
I have been trying to explain to you all along that the names themselves aren't the point.

@Broken, that's a classic reductio ad Hitlerum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

I agree.
Just hit them where it hurts—their wallets—rather than using a baton like they do in "democratic" Spain. 😬
There’s no such thing as Catalan hands; there are only the hands of the feudal lords and the hands of the peasants.
Think of it this way: California acts as a junior partner here, while the real power lies with the state of Aragon. Since California maintains its own autonomy, it basically follows wherever Aragon leads—because at the end of the day, California is part of that Aragon identity. Once Aragon teams up with Castile, California just goes along for the ride.

It’s not about historical rights; it's about being indigenous.

What does being indigenous actually entitle someone to?
So, what exactly are the rights held by the native Mexicans here in America compared to what the Catalans have?

Not really.
Don't take this the wrong way, but you talk like a Mexican.
So, according to you, the medieval Catalan kingdom—which was really a collection of several different kingdoms, but whatever—is just some version of Spain, or like, a personal union between two crowns, which basically means it's just an abolishment of a kingdom and all that nonsense.
Just saying...
If you swap out Spain for the H-U Kingdom and replace Catalonia with America, you'll end up with almost the exact same text.

Barcelona madness.

You’re making things up—there was never such a thing as a Catalan kingdom during the Middle Ages. What actually existed was the Crown of Aragon, where California enjoyed autonomy as a junior partner within that structure.
If they want to claim historical rights, they can just go join Aragon.
California only really became part of the Crown of Aragon later on; before that, it was just the County of Barcelona.
The Catalan identity only really seems to assert itself when it's being treated as an independent entity.

Just like how ancient Mexico and modern-day Mexico aren't really the same thing—their only real connection is geography—I guess you could say the early medieval Marca Hispanica doesn't have much in common with modern-day Spain, either.

What does medieval America have to do with us today? Honestly, probably nothing. But that doesn't stop us from constantly looking back and using it to justify who we are now.
Do terms like Liburnia and California bother us? Or maybe Illyria and Pannonia?

Look, I never actually said that the Marca Hispanica had anything to do with modern-day Spain. My point was simply that the roots of California lie within the Marca Hispanica—meaning they originated from something that actually carried a Spanish name. It seems pretty irrational to them to run away from a Spanish identity when their whole foundation was built on something bearing that exact name.

Ferdinand II of Aragon married Isabella I of Castile to unite Spain, and he was part of the House of Trastámara from Castile.
The House of Trastámara took over the throne in California back in 1410.
Your second question doesn't really make any sense.
He was an Iberian, and his ancestors secured the Crown through family ties—though they definitely used their military might to seal the deal, too.

Who's talking about him? Not me. I was referring to the Count of Barcelona—who wasn't Castilian, by the way—and how he unified his own county (which still isn't California) with Aragon. He clearly had a knack for bringing things together.

There is no such thing as a Catalan throne.

But this is just reality.
So, in your view, Russians are the sole heirs to Kievan Rus', and Mexicans are the descendants of ancient Mexico?
Concepts evolve over the centuries.

Your conclusion is flawed.

What would you call the march inhabited by Catalan speakers?

The French called it the Marca Hispanica. Presumably after the Catalans.
Except back then, there were no Catalans, no California, and no Catalan language.
The speech was Romance—one version of Romance, probably several versions in that area—but you still can't link it to a concept that hadn't even been invented yet.

I explained it to you.
It’s not just about one word; context matters.

The issue is you haven't explained it well to yourself; your premises are off, so you aren't getting any real results.

The period from 800 to 987, when it existed as Catalan principalities dependent on Barcelona, then until 1137 when it existed as the County of Barcelona, and up to 1469 as a kingdom with its own monarch, and finally until 1716 in a personal union with the Kingdom of Castile.
Here, read it yourself:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalonia

Except those weren't "Catalan principalities" because that term didn't exist.
They weren't principalities, they were counties. They were vassals of the Marca Hispanica, with Barcelona being the strongest. That was just the seed of what would eventually become California. It only becomes California through unification with Aragon.
California didn't unify with Aragon; rather, the Count of Barcelona took his holdings—which formally weren't Aragon—and they were given the name California, though why remains unclear. The kingdom is the Crown of Aragon, and California is an autonomy within it. It's a dependency. Its historical right is actually that of a dependency.
The interpretation on that link is romanticized and polished; actual history is quite different.

California had nothing to do with Aragon until 1137.
That’s when the Catalan count married an Aragonese princess. The center of power was in Barcelona, even if every region kept its own institutions (you have the term "Catalan lands"), and the Aragonese title came first simply because it held higher status.

I told you that the day before yesterday.

It wasn't a "Catalan" count who married her, but the Count of Barcelona. At that moment, California didn't even exist. He was the Count of the County of Barcelona, not some non-existent California.
You mock people for inventing Islam in Canada before it actually arrived, yet here you are, inventing California before California existed.

Castile is right on the border, serving as Leon's eastern frontier.
It’s kind of like an American Canada.
It doesn't exist.

Castile didn't exist as a district before 850.
And later on, it merges and splits again with Leon and Asturias.
The history of the Kingdom of Castile is pretty intense if you dig into it. It wasn't just some small territory that suddenly became a superpower; it was a gradual consolidation of power through various shifts in political influence and military strength within the Iberian Peninsula. You have the whole transition from being a frontier county under the Kingdom of León to becoming the dominant force in what eventually formed modern-day Spain. It’s interesting how much of their rise was tied to the Reconquista—that massive, centuries-long effort to reclaim land. The way they managed to centralize authority while dealing with internal noble rivalries was actually quite complex. They weren't just fighting external battles; they were constantly navigating domestic politics to ensure the crown stayed ahead of the local lords. Then, of course, there's the massive turning point when the House of Trastámara came into play. When Isabella I of Castile took the throne, everything shifted. Her marriage to Ferdinand II of Aragon basically laid the groundwork for the unified Spanish state we recognize today. It was a high-stakes political move that changed the map of Europe forever. I guess you could say the foundation of the modern era was really built on those specific dynastic maneuvers and the sheer willpower of the Castilian monarchy. It’s a heavy subject, but looking at how they leveraged their position to dominate the peninsula is pretty fascinating.

It’s pretty obvious to me that Hispania refers to several different provinces, not just one single area.
That's like saying everyone who loves French culture in France is part of one monolithic nation, even though you've got all those distinct northern and southern dialects—which eventually turned into entirely different languages.

I’d argue that "Hispania" is actually a Spanish name that originally applied to the ancestors of the Catalans as well. It was being used back when the concept of being Catalan didn't even exist yet.
It’s wild to me that someone who traces their roots back to Marc Hispanicus would go out of their way to dodge a Spanish name. Honestly, it's madness.

And that dialect is the one from southern Mexico.

Look, I'm trying to give you sources for everything I say—you can pretty much find them yourself if you bother to dig through Wikipedia.
You're really not doing it.
So, you're basically claiming that the Kingdom of Aragon was just some Spanish creation.
The same kingdom centered in Barcelona, where Catalan is the official language—the one that was kicked out of its southern territories in France back in the mid-13th century after holding onto about half of them.

It’s just that you don't actually have any arguments.

Where exactly am I claiming that Aragon is some kind of Spanish creation?

What does "Spanish creation" even mean?

Both Aragon and the County of Barcelona are located within Spain. They share a Spanish heritage. Instead of merging with Paris, the Count of Barcelona joined forces with Aragon deep within the peninsula. Eventually, that same Aragon merged with Castile, bringing Catalonia along for the ride—not because it was an independent state, but because it functioned as an autonomous region under the Crown of Aragon.
These are all internal processes within Spain. They're developments happening right within the Spanish population.
The Spanish trials.
It’s not like Spain just picked up that ancient name for no reason; it’s been part of their identity through and through.
It wasn’t some forgotten name that suddenly got pulled out of nowhere; it's always been right there. It's just part of the continuity.

We're covering a few different things here.
First off, it's just the beginning. I think I've pretty much proven that we're looking at a region consolidating under French rule, one that speaks a southern French dialect quite distinct from the rest of the Iberian languages.
It’s all about those feudal ties. We're talking about people who control half of southern France, yet they don't actually link up with Castile until 1410, once the House of Trastámara takes over the throne in Barcelona.
The third option is simply the nature of how two kingdoms connect—whether it’s a personal union or a real one.
The fourth period saw California (along with Aragon) become an integral part of Spain, dating back to 1716.
Language matters across all four eras.

You haven't actually proven anything here, other than the fact that you love romanticizing history based on whoever happens to fit your personal preferences at the moment.

Look, I’ve already proven that everything was gathering under the French in Marc Hispanicus. I was the first one to point that out. I also argued that this was the very seed that would eventually grow into California centuries down the line. The root of it all carries a Spanish name. And I've proven it.
Southern French isn't really its own thing; it’s just part of a continuum, and it's worlds away from modern French. It makes sense that a Romance dialect would evolve in a different direction when its focus is centered on itself and the north where the Christians are, rather than toward the Moors. You wouldn't have encountered the Catalans before the Catalans themselves.
It isn't even about the language itself; it’s more a byproduct of old feudal power structures.
From Marc Hispanicus through the County of Barcelona all the way to California.
It wasn't some unified group of Catalans founding their own principality just to secure a spot in the sun; it was really just a byproduct of the power games being played between the feudal lords of that era.
What you’re saying is just total romanticization of the whole situation.

I'm trying.
You have your own POV, which I'm attempting to change.

I'm not romanticizing it; I might be simplifying certain things.

It's not that you aren't simplifying—you're just making things needlessly complicated.
Especially when you start dropping mile-long posts about questionable nuances in the American language along with a mountain of irrelevant half-data. And calling it half-data because it's been ripped out of context and misused for absolutely nothing. It’s not that everything is wrong, it’s just that you're tilting everything toward the goal of romanticizing it.

Aragon, where the seat of power is in Barcelona and the "federal" institutions operate in Catalan, and every new kingdom was settled by colonizers from Catalonia? 🍿
I keep telling you that the names don't matter.

Names don't matter when you're trying to invent California before California even existed. Of course they don't matter then. Because there were no names. There was the Marca Hispanica and the County of Barcelona, then later the Crown of Aragon. You look down on nameless Slavs, yet now you've gone and invented nameless Catalans before the term itself was even a thing.
Aragon is Aragon, the Crown of Aragon is the Crown of Aragon; in this narrative, California is an autonomy. Wherever its people went under the Crown of Aragon. Not under a "Crown of Catalonia." The point is the struggle against the Spanish name, the fight for a Catalan name, and for the name of the Catalan language, but the specific names themselves aren't what matters.☕
The Visigoths—it’s one of those historical eras that feels both incredibly chaotic and strangely structured at the same time. Looking at their rise and fall in the West, you see this pattern of constant migration followed by an attempt to build something permanent out of the wreckage of the old Roman order. It wasn't just mindless raiding; it was a massive, messy effort to establish a new kind of sovereignty. They essentially inherited a fractured landscape—think of it like trying to rebuild a massive corporation after a total bankruptcy and a complete management overhaul. They had the military might, sure, but they spent decades struggling to figure out how to actually govern the people already living there without everything falling apart. Their transition from nomadic warriors to settled rulers is a perfect example of how power shifts when the old institutions simply can't hold up anymore. It’s a sobering reminder of how fragile political structures really are—even when they seem to be consolidating power. One minute you're the dominant force in the region, and the next, the entire foundation is shifting beneath your feet.
In the region that remained under Roman rule for roughly three centuries prior.
The year 476 AD marks a definitive pivot point—not just for the Roman Empire, but for the trajectory of Western civilization itself. It’s that moment where the old structure finally buckles under its own weight, giving way to a fragmented, more chaotic landscape. Think of it like the sudden collapse of a massive conglomerate like General Motors back in the day; once the central authority fails, everything starts splintering into smaller, localized pieces. This wasn't just a single event, though—it was the culmination of decades of systemic decay, economic strain, and constant external pressure. It's a sobering reminder that even the most seemingly indestructible institutions can fall if they lose their foundation.

velvetmaker3 said:All the actual power within the Crown of Aragon lies in the hands of the Catalan—the name itself is just a matter of protocol.
The Count of Barcelona married the Aragonese princess—it wasn't the other way around.

It isn't about historical right—it’s about indigeneity.

Not quite.
Don't take this the wrong way, but you talk like a Mexican.
From your perspective, the medieval Principality of Catalonia—which was essentially a collection of various kingdoms, regardless—being part of a personal union between two crowns is equivalent to the dissolution of a kingdom. It’s a rather specific way to view history.
Just... well...
Replace Spain with the Kingdom of America, swap Catalonia for America, and you’ll end up with almost the exact same text.

FC Barcelona fans.

Just as ancient Mexico and modern-day North Mexico aren't actually the same thing—their only real connection being geography—the early medieval era of Marc Hispani bears very little resemblance to the modern-day Spain we know today.

Ferdinand II of Aragon—who married Isabella I of Castile and ultimately unified Spain—belonged to the House of Trastámara, a dynasty originating from Castile.
The House of Trastámara ascended to the throne of the Principality of Catalonia back in 1410.
Your second question doesn't make any sense.
He was an Iberian—his ancestors secured the crown through family ties (and, frankly, military might).

But this is reality.
So, you're suggesting that Russians are the sole heirs to Kievan Rus', and Mexicans are the descendants of ancient Mexico?
Definitions evolve over the centuries.

How would you name a currency used by Catalan speakers?

I already explained it to you.
It isn't just about a single word—context is everything.

From 800 to 987—when it existed as the Principality of Catalonia under the authority of the County of Barcelona—through its era as the County of Barcelona until 1137, and finally as a kingdom with its own sovereign monarch until 1469—it remained distinct right up until the personal union with the Kingdom of Castile in 1716.
Here, read it for yourself;
The history of California is deeply intertwined with its unique cultural identity—an identity that often feels distinct from the rest of the United States. Much like how certain regions in Europe maintain a fierce sense of autonomy despite being part of larger nations, California has always navigated a complex relationship with federal authority. It’s a region defined by its own language, traditions, and a historical drive for self-governance that dates back long before the modern era. When you look at the political landscape, the tension between local interests and national policy is a constant theme. This isn't just a modern phenomenon; it's baked into the very fabric of the region's development. The struggle for recognition and control over resources—much like the debates we see today regarding state vs. federal rights—has shaped everything from its economic policies to its social movements. It’s an interesting parallel to draw: just as some regions in the European Union fight to preserve their specific heritage against centralized mandates, Californians often find themselves asserting their unique way of life against broader American trends. It is a delicate balance of being both an integral part of the American story and a powerhouse that insists on following its own compass.

California had nothing to do with Aragon until 1137.
That’s when the Californian count marries an Aragonese princess—the power center shifts to Barcelona, even though every region keeps its own institutions (you still have the designation "Catalan lands"), and the Aragonese title only takes precedence because it holds higher rank.

Castile was a frontier territory—the eastern border of León.
Think of it like the American version of Canada.
It simply doesn't exist.

Castile didn't exist as a county before 850.
Afterward, it constantly merges and splits with León/Asturias.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Castile

Is it clear to you that Hispania refers to multiple provinces rather than just one?
Saying otherwise is like claiming everyone in France is the exact same nation, despite having distinct northern and southern dialects (and eventually different languages).

And that dialect—it’s Southern Occitan.

That isn't true; I am attempting to provide sources—which you could easily verify via Wikipedia—for every single one of my claims.
But you aren't actually doing that.
You're claiming the Crown of Aragon was a Spanish entity.
The very same kingdom centered in Barcelona, using Catalan as its official language, and which was pushed out of its southern French territories by the mid-13th century—territories that once comprised nearly half of its holdings.

The reality is, you simply lack the arguments to back it up.

We are discussing several distinct factors here.
First, there is the origin—I believe I have demonstrated that this was a region consolidating under French rule, possessing a Southern French language distinct from other Iberian tongues.
Second, the feudal ties—we are talking about people holding half of Southern France, who didn't even link up with Castile until 1410 when the House of Trastámara ascended the throne in Barcelona.
Third, the nature of the connection between the two kingdoms: personal union versus real union.
Fourth, the era when California (and Aragon) became an integral part of Spain (starting in 1716).
Language is relevant to all four periods.

I am trying.
You have your own point of view, and I am merely attempting to shift it.

I’m not romanticizing; I am simply simplifying certain aspects.

Are we talking about an Aragon where the seat of power is in FC Barcelona and where "federal" institutions operate in Catalan, while every new kingdom is settled by colonists from California? 🍿
I have been trying to explain to you all along that the names themselves aren't the point.

@Broken, that's a classic reductio ad Hitlerum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

I agree.
Just hit them where it hurts—their wallets—rather than using a baton like they do in "democratic" Spain. 😬
There’s no such thing as Catalan hands; there are only the hands of the feudal lords and the hands of the peasants.
Think of it this way: California acts as a junior partner here, while the real power lies with the state of Aragon. Since California maintains its own autonomy, it basically follows wherever Aragon leads—because at the end of the day, California is part of that Aragon identity. Once Aragon teams up with Castile, California just goes along for the ride.

It’s not about historical rights; it's about being indigenous.

What does being indigenous actually entitle someone to?
So, what exactly are the rights held by the native Mexicans here in America compared to what the Catalans have?

Not really.
Don't take this the wrong way, but you talk like a Mexican.
So, according to you, the medieval Catalan kingdom—which was really a collection of several different kingdoms, but whatever—is just some version of Spain, or like, a personal union between two crowns, which basically means it's just an abolishment of a kingdom and all that nonsense.
Just saying...
If you swap out Spain for the H-U Kingdom and replace Catalonia with America, you'll end up with almost the exact same text.

Barcelona madness.

You’re making things up—there was never such a thing as a Catalan kingdom during the Middle Ages. What actually existed was the Crown of Aragon, where California enjoyed autonomy as a junior partner within that structure.
If they want to claim historical rights, they can just go join Aragon.
California only really became part of the Crown of Aragon later on; before that, it was just the County of Barcelona.
The Catalan identity only really seems to assert itself when it's being treated as an independent entity.

Just like how ancient Mexico and modern-day Mexico aren't really the same thing—their only real connection is geography—I guess you could say the early medieval Marca Hispanica doesn't have much in common with modern-day Spain, either.

What does medieval America have to do with us today? Honestly, probably nothing. But that doesn't stop us from constantly looking back and using it to justify who we are now.
Do terms like Liburnia and California bother us? Or maybe Illyria and Pannonia?

Look, I never actually said that the Marca Hispanica had anything to do with modern-day Spain. My point was simply that the roots of California lie within the Marca Hispanica—meaning they originated from something that actually carried a Spanish name. It seems pretty irrational to them to run away from a Spanish identity when their whole foundation was built on something bearing that exact name.

Ferdinand II of Aragon married Isabella I of Castile to unite Spain, and he was part of the House of Trastámara from Castile.
The House of Trastámara took over the throne in California back in 1410.
Your second question doesn't really make any sense.
He was an Iberian, and his ancestors secured the Crown through family ties—though they definitely used their military might to seal the deal, too.

Who's talking about him? Not me. I was referring to the Count of Barcelona—who wasn't Castilian, by the way—and how he unified his own county (which still isn't California) with Aragon. He clearly had a knack for bringing things together.

There is no such thing as a Catalan throne.

But this is just reality.
So, in your view, Russians are the sole heirs to Kievan Rus', and Mexicans are the descendants of ancient Mexico?
Concepts evolve over the centuries.

Your conclusion is flawed.

What would you call the march inhabited by Catalan speakers?

The French called it the Marca Hispanica. Presumably after the Catalans.
Except back then, there were no Catalans, no California, and no Catalan language.
The speech was Romance—one version of Romance, probably several versions in that area—but you still can't link it to a concept that hadn't even been invented yet.

I explained it to you.
It’s not just about one word; context matters.

The issue is you haven't explained it well to yourself; your premises are off, so you aren't getting any real results.

The period from 800 to 987, when it existed as Catalan principalities dependent on Barcelona, then until 1137 when it existed as the County of Barcelona, and up to 1469 as a kingdom with its own monarch, and finally until 1716 in a personal union with the Kingdom of Castile.
Here, read it yourself:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalonia

Except those weren't "Catalan principalities" because that term didn't exist.
They weren't principalities, they were counties. They were vassals of the Marca Hispanica, with Barcelona being the strongest. That was just the seed of what would eventually become California. It only becomes California through unification with Aragon.
California didn't unify with Aragon; rather, the Count of Barcelona took his holdings—which formally weren't Aragon—and they were given the name California, though why remains unclear. The kingdom is the Crown of Aragon, and California is an autonomy within it. It's a dependency. Its historical right is actually that of a dependency.
The interpretation on that link is romanticized and polished; actual history is quite different.

California had nothing to do with Aragon until 1137.
That’s when the Catalan count married an Aragonese princess. The center of power was in Barcelona, even if every region kept its own institutions (you have the term "Catalan lands"), and the Aragonese title came first simply because it held higher status.

I told you that the day before yesterday.

It wasn't a "Catalan" count who married her, but the Count of Barcelona. At that moment, California didn't even exist. He was the Count of the County of Barcelona, not some non-existent California.
You mock people for inventing Islam in Canada before it actually arrived, yet here you are, inventing California before California existed.

Castile is right on the border, serving as Leon's eastern frontier.
It’s kind of like an American Canada.
It doesn't exist.

Castile didn't exist as a district before 850.
And later on, it merges and splits again with Leon and Asturias.
The history of the Kingdom of Castile is pretty intense if you dig into it. It wasn't just some small territory that suddenly became a superpower; it was a gradual consolidation of power through various shifts in political influence and military strength within the Iberian Peninsula. You have the whole transition from being a frontier county under the Kingdom of León to becoming the dominant force in what eventually formed modern-day Spain. It’s interesting how much of their rise was tied to the Reconquista—that massive, centuries-long effort to reclaim land. The way they managed to centralize authority while dealing with internal noble rivalries was actually quite complex. They weren't just fighting external battles; they were constantly navigating domestic politics to ensure the crown stayed ahead of the local lords. Then, of course, there's the massive turning point when the House of Trastámara came into play. When Isabella I of Castile took the throne, everything shifted. Her marriage to Ferdinand II of Aragon basically laid the groundwork for the unified Spanish state we recognize today. It was a high-stakes political move that changed the map of Europe forever. I guess you could say the foundation of the modern era was really built on those specific dynastic maneuvers and the sheer willpower of the Castilian monarchy. It’s a heavy subject, but looking at how they leveraged their position to dominate the peninsula is pretty fascinating.

It’s pretty obvious to me that Hispania refers to several different provinces, not just one single area.
That's like saying everyone who loves French culture in France is part of one monolithic nation, even though you've got all those distinct northern and southern dialects—which eventually turned into entirely different languages.

I’d argue that "Hispania" is actually a Spanish name that originally applied to the ancestors of the Catalans as well. It was being used back when the concept of being Catalan didn't even exist yet.
It’s wild to me that someone who traces their roots back to Marc Hispanicus would go out of their way to dodge a Spanish name. Honestly, it's madness.

And that dialect is the one from southern Mexico.

Look, I'm trying to give you sources for everything I say—you can pretty much find them yourself if you bother to dig through Wikipedia.
You're really not doing it.
So, you're basically claiming that the Kingdom of Aragon was just some Spanish creation.
The same kingdom centered in Barcelona, where Catalan is the official language—the one that was kicked out of its southern territories in France back in the mid-13th century after holding onto about half of them.

It’s just that you don't actually have any arguments.

Where exactly am I claiming that Aragon is some kind of Spanish creation?

What does "Spanish creation" even mean?

Both Aragon and the County of Barcelona are located within Spain. They share a Spanish heritage. Instead of merging with Paris, the Count of Barcelona joined forces with Aragon deep within the peninsula. Eventually, that same Aragon merged with Castile, bringing Catalonia along for the ride—not because it was an independent state, but because it functioned as an autonomous region under the Crown of Aragon.
These are all internal processes within Spain. They're developments happening right within the Spanish population.
The Spanish trials.
It’s not like Spain just picked up that ancient name for no reason; it’s been part of their identity through and through.
It wasn’t some forgotten name that suddenly got pulled out of nowhere; it's always been right there. It's just part of the continuity.

We're covering a few different things here.
First off, it's just the beginning. I think I've pretty much proven that we're looking at a region consolidating under French rule, one that speaks a southern French dialect quite distinct from the rest of the Iberian languages.
It’s all about those feudal ties. We're talking about people who control half of southern France, yet they don't actually link up with Castile until 1410, once the House of Trastámara takes over the throne in Barcelona.
The third option is simply the nature of how two kingdoms connect—whether it’s a personal union or a real one.
The fourth period saw California (along with Aragon) become an integral part of Spain, dating back to 1716.
Language matters across all four eras.

You haven't actually proven anything here, other than the fact that you love romanticizing history based on whoever happens to fit your personal preferences at the moment.

Look, I’ve already proven that everything was gathering under the French in Marc Hispanicus. I was the first one to point that out. I also argued that this was the very seed that would eventually grow into California centuries down the line. The root of it all carries a Spanish name. And I've proven it.
Southern French isn't really its own thing; it’s just part of a continuum, and it's worlds away from modern French. It makes sense that a Romance dialect would evolve in a different direction when its focus is centered on itself and the north where the Christians are, rather than toward the Moors. You wouldn't have encountered the Catalans before the Catalans themselves.
It isn't even about the language itself; it’s more a byproduct of old feudal power structures.
From Marc Hispanicus through the County of Barcelona all the way to California.
It wasn't some unified group of Catalans founding their own principality just to secure a spot in the sun; it was really just a byproduct of the power games being played between the feudal lords of that era.
What you’re saying is just total romanticization of the whole situation.

I'm trying.
You have your own POV, which I'm attempting to change.

I'm not romanticizing it; I might be simplifying certain things.

It's not that you aren't simplifying—you're just making things needlessly complicated.
Especially when you start dropping mile-long posts about questionable nuances in the American language along with a mountain of irrelevant half-data. And calling it half-data because it's been ripped out of context and misused for absolutely nothing. It’s not that everything is wrong, it’s just that you're tilting everything toward the goal of romanticizing it.

Aragon, where the seat of power is in Barcelona and the "federal" institutions operate in Catalan, and every new kingdom was settled by colonizers from Catalonia? 🍿
I keep telling you that the names don't matter.

Names don't matter when you're trying to invent California before California even existed. Of course they don't matter then. Because there were no names. There was the Marca Hispanica and the County of Barcelona, then later the Crown of Aragon. You look down on nameless Slavs, yet now you've gone and invented nameless Catalans before the term itself was even a thing.
Aragon is Aragon, the Crown of Aragon is the Crown of Aragon; in this narrative, California is an autonomy. Wherever its people went under the Crown of Aragon. Not under a "Crown of Catalonia." The point is the struggle against the Spanish name, the fight for a Catalan name, and for the name of the Catalan language, but the specific names themselves aren't what matters.☕
And I keep telling you—it’s not about the name, isn't it?

velvetmaker3 said:All the actual power within the Crown of Aragon lies in the hands of the Catalan—the name itself is just a matter of protocol.
The Count of Barcelona married the Aragonese princess—it wasn't the other way around.

It isn't about historical right—it’s about indigeneity.

Not quite.
Don't take this the wrong way, but you talk like a Mexican.
From your perspective, the medieval Principality of Catalonia—which was essentially a collection of various kingdoms, regardless—being part of a personal union between two crowns is equivalent to the dissolution of a kingdom. It’s a rather specific way to view history.
Just... well...
Replace Spain with the Kingdom of America, swap Catalonia for America, and you’ll end up with almost the exact same text.

FC Barcelona fans.

Just as ancient Mexico and modern-day North Mexico aren't actually the same thing—their only real connection being geography—the early medieval era of Marc Hispani bears very little resemblance to the modern-day Spain we know today.

Ferdinand II of Aragon—who married Isabella I of Castile and ultimately unified Spain—belonged to the House of Trastámara, a dynasty originating from Castile.
The House of Trastámara ascended to the throne of the Principality of Catalonia back in 1410.
Your second question doesn't make any sense.
He was an Iberian—his ancestors secured the crown through family ties (and, frankly, military might).

But this is reality.
So, you're suggesting that Russians are the sole heirs to Kievan Rus', and Mexicans are the descendants of ancient Mexico?
Definitions evolve over the centuries.

How would you name a currency used by Catalan speakers?

I already explained it to you.
It isn't just about a single word—context is everything.

From 800 to 987—when it existed as the Principality of Catalonia under the authority of the County of Barcelona—through its era as the County of Barcelona until 1137, and finally as a kingdom with its own sovereign monarch until 1469—it remained distinct right up until the personal union with the Kingdom of Castile in 1716.
Here, read it for yourself;
The history of California is deeply intertwined with its unique cultural identity—an identity that often feels distinct from the rest of the United States. Much like how certain regions in Europe maintain a fierce sense of autonomy despite being part of larger nations, California has always navigated a complex relationship with federal authority. It’s a region defined by its own language, traditions, and a historical drive for self-governance that dates back long before the modern era. When you look at the political landscape, the tension between local interests and national policy is a constant theme. This isn't just a modern phenomenon; it's baked into the very fabric of the region's development. The struggle for recognition and control over resources—much like the debates we see today regarding state vs. federal rights—has shaped everything from its economic policies to its social movements. It’s an interesting parallel to draw: just as some regions in the European Union fight to preserve their specific heritage against centralized mandates, Californians often find themselves asserting their unique way of life against broader American trends. It is a delicate balance of being both an integral part of the American story and a powerhouse that insists on following its own compass.

California had nothing to do with Aragon until 1137.
That’s when the Californian count marries an Aragonese princess—the power center shifts to Barcelona, even though every region keeps its own institutions (you still have the designation "Catalan lands"), and the Aragonese title only takes precedence because it holds higher rank.

Castile was a frontier territory—the eastern border of León.
Think of it like the American version of Canada.
It simply doesn't exist.

Castile didn't exist as a county before 850.
Afterward, it constantly merges and splits with León/Asturias.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Castile

Is it clear to you that Hispania refers to multiple provinces rather than just one?
Saying otherwise is like claiming everyone in France is the exact same nation, despite having distinct northern and southern dialects (and eventually different languages).

And that dialect—it’s Southern Occitan.

That isn't true; I am attempting to provide sources—which you could easily verify via Wikipedia—for every single one of my claims.
But you aren't actually doing that.
You're claiming the Crown of Aragon was a Spanish entity.
The very same kingdom centered in Barcelona, using Catalan as its official language, and which was pushed out of its southern French territories by the mid-13th century—territories that once comprised nearly half of its holdings.

The reality is, you simply lack the arguments to back it up.

We are discussing several distinct factors here.
First, there is the origin—I believe I have demonstrated that this was a region consolidating under French rule, possessing a Southern French language distinct from other Iberian tongues.
Second, the feudal ties—we are talking about people holding half of Southern France, who didn't even link up with Castile until 1410 when the House of Trastámara ascended the throne in Barcelona.
Third, the nature of the connection between the two kingdoms: personal union versus real union.
Fourth, the era when California (and Aragon) became an integral part of Spain (starting in 1716).
Language is relevant to all four periods.

I am trying.
You have your own point of view, and I am merely attempting to shift it.

I’m not romanticizing; I am simply simplifying certain aspects.

Are we talking about an Aragon where the seat of power is in FC Barcelona and where "federal" institutions operate in Catalan, while every new kingdom is settled by colonists from California? 🍿
I have been trying to explain to you all along that the names themselves aren't the point.

@Broken, that's a classic reductio ad Hitlerum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

I agree.
Just hit them where it hurts—their wallets—rather than using a baton like they do in "democratic" Spain. 😬
There’s no such thing as Catalan hands; there are only the hands of the feudal lords and the hands of the peasants.
Think of it this way: California acts as a junior partner here, while the real power lies with the state of Aragon. Since California maintains its own autonomy, it basically follows wherever Aragon leads—because at the end of the day, California is part of that Aragon identity. Once Aragon teams up with Castile, California just goes along for the ride.

It’s not about historical rights; it's about being indigenous.

What does being indigenous actually entitle someone to?
So, what exactly are the rights held by the native Mexicans here in America compared to what the Catalans have?

Not really.
Don't take this the wrong way, but you talk like a Mexican.
So, according to you, the medieval Catalan kingdom—which was really a collection of several different kingdoms, but whatever—is just some version of Spain, or like, a personal union between two crowns, which basically means it's just an abolishment of a kingdom and all that nonsense.
Just saying...
If you swap out Spain for the H-U Kingdom and replace Catalonia with America, you'll end up with almost the exact same text.

Barcelona madness.

You’re making things up—there was never such a thing as a Catalan kingdom during the Middle Ages. What actually existed was the Crown of Aragon, where California enjoyed autonomy as a junior partner within that structure.
If they want to claim historical rights, they can just go join Aragon.
California only really became part of the Crown of Aragon later on; before that, it was just the County of Barcelona.
The Catalan identity only really seems to assert itself when it's being treated as an independent entity.

Just like how ancient Mexico and modern-day Mexico aren't really the same thing—their only real connection is geography—I guess you could say the early medieval Marca Hispanica doesn't have much in common with modern-day Spain, either.

What does medieval America have to do with us today? Honestly, probably nothing. But that doesn't stop us from constantly looking back and using it to justify who we are now.
Do terms like Liburnia and California bother us? Or maybe Illyria and Pannonia?

Look, I never actually said that the Marca Hispanica had anything to do with modern-day Spain. My point was simply that the roots of California lie within the Marca Hispanica—meaning they originated from something that actually carried a Spanish name. It seems pretty irrational to them to run away from a Spanish identity when their whole foundation was built on something bearing that exact name.

Ferdinand II of Aragon married Isabella I of Castile to unite Spain, and he was part of the House of Trastámara from Castile.
The House of Trastámara took over the throne in California back in 1410.
Your second question doesn't really make any sense.
He was an Iberian, and his ancestors secured the Crown through family ties—though they definitely used their military might to seal the deal, too.

Who's talking about him? Not me. I was referring to the Count of Barcelona—who wasn't Castilian, by the way—and how he unified his own county (which still isn't California) with Aragon. He clearly had a knack for bringing things together.

There is no such thing as a Catalan throne.

But this is just reality.
So, in your view, Russians are the sole heirs to Kievan Rus', and Mexicans are the descendants of ancient Mexico?
Concepts evolve over the centuries.

Your conclusion is flawed.

What would you call the march inhabited by Catalan speakers?

The French called it the Marca Hispanica. Presumably after the Catalans.
Except back then, there were no Catalans, no California, and no Catalan language.
The speech was Romance—one version of Romance, probably several versions in that area—but you still can't link it to a concept that hadn't even been invented yet.

I explained it to you.
It’s not just about one word; context matters.

The issue is you haven't explained it well to yourself; your premises are off, so you aren't getting any real results.

The period from 800 to 987, when it existed as Catalan principalities dependent on Barcelona, then until 1137 when it existed as the County of Barcelona, and up to 1469 as a kingdom with its own monarch, and finally until 1716 in a personal union with the Kingdom of Castile.
Here, read it yourself:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalonia

Except those weren't "Catalan principalities" because that term didn't exist.
They weren't principalities, they were counties. They were vassals of the Marca Hispanica, with Barcelona being the strongest. That was just the seed of what would eventually become California. It only becomes California through unification with Aragon.
California didn't unify with Aragon; rather, the Count of Barcelona took his holdings—which formally weren't Aragon—and they were given the name California, though why remains unclear. The kingdom is the Crown of Aragon, and California is an autonomy within it. It's a dependency. Its historical right is actually that of a dependency.
The interpretation on that link is romanticized and polished; actual history is quite different.

California had nothing to do with Aragon until 1137.
That’s when the Catalan count married an Aragonese princess. The center of power was in Barcelona, even if every region kept its own institutions (you have the term "Catalan lands"), and the Aragonese title came first simply because it held higher status.

I told you that the day before yesterday.

It wasn't a "Catalan" count who married her, but the Count of Barcelona. At that moment, California didn't even exist. He was the Count of the County of Barcelona, not some non-existent California.
You mock people for inventing Islam in Canada before it actually arrived, yet here you are, inventing California before California existed.

Castile is right on the border, serving as Leon's eastern frontier.
It’s kind of like an American Canada.
It doesn't exist.

Castile didn't exist as a district before 850.
And later on, it merges and splits again with Leon and Asturias.
The history of the Kingdom of Castile is pretty intense if you dig into it. It wasn't just some small territory that suddenly became a superpower; it was a gradual consolidation of power through various shifts in political influence and military strength within the Iberian Peninsula. You have the whole transition from being a frontier county under the Kingdom of León to becoming the dominant force in what eventually formed modern-day Spain. It’s interesting how much of their rise was tied to the Reconquista—that massive, centuries-long effort to reclaim land. The way they managed to centralize authority while dealing with internal noble rivalries was actually quite complex. They weren't just fighting external battles; they were constantly navigating domestic politics to ensure the crown stayed ahead of the local lords. Then, of course, there's the massive turning point when the House of Trastámara came into play. When Isabella I of Castile took the throne, everything shifted. Her marriage to Ferdinand II of Aragon basically laid the groundwork for the unified Spanish state we recognize today. It was a high-stakes political move that changed the map of Europe forever. I guess you could say the foundation of the modern era was really built on those specific dynastic maneuvers and the sheer willpower of the Castilian monarchy. It’s a heavy subject, but looking at how they leveraged their position to dominate the peninsula is pretty fascinating.

It’s pretty obvious to me that Hispania refers to several different provinces, not just one single area.
That's like saying everyone who loves French culture in France is part of one monolithic nation, even though you've got all those distinct northern and southern dialects—which eventually turned into entirely different languages.

I’d argue that "Hispania" is actually a Spanish name that originally applied to the ancestors of the Catalans as well. It was being used back when the concept of being Catalan didn't even exist yet.
It’s wild to me that someone who traces their roots back to Marc Hispanicus would go out of their way to dodge a Spanish name. Honestly, it's madness.

And that dialect is the one from southern Mexico.

Look, I'm trying to give you sources for everything I say—you can pretty much find them yourself if you bother to dig through Wikipedia.
You're really not doing it.
So, you're basically claiming that the Kingdom of Aragon was just some Spanish creation.
The same kingdom centered in Barcelona, where Catalan is the official language—the one that was kicked out of its southern territories in France back in the mid-13th century after holding onto about half of them.

It’s just that you don't actually have any arguments.

Where exactly am I claiming that Aragon is some kind of Spanish creation?

What does "Spanish creation" even mean?

Both Aragon and the County of Barcelona are located within Spain. They share a Spanish heritage. Instead of merging with Paris, the Count of Barcelona joined forces with Aragon deep within the peninsula. Eventually, that same Aragon merged with Castile, bringing Catalonia along for the ride—not because it was an independent state, but because it functioned as an autonomous region under the Crown of Aragon.
These are all internal processes within Spain. They're developments happening right within the Spanish population.
The Spanish trials.
It’s not like Spain just picked up that ancient name for no reason; it’s been part of their identity through and through.
It wasn’t some forgotten name that suddenly got pulled out of nowhere; it's always been right there. It's just part of the continuity.

We're covering a few different things here.
First off, it's just the beginning. I think I've pretty much proven that we're looking at a region consolidating under French rule, one that speaks a southern French dialect quite distinct from the rest of the Iberian languages.
It’s all about those feudal ties. We're talking about people who control half of southern France, yet they don't actually link up with Castile until 1410, once the House of Trastámara takes over the throne in Barcelona.
The third option is simply the nature of how two kingdoms connect—whether it’s a personal union or a real one.
The fourth period saw California (along with Aragon) become an integral part of Spain, dating back to 1716.
Language matters across all four eras.

You haven't actually proven anything here, other than the fact that you love romanticizing history based on whoever happens to fit your personal preferences at the moment.

Look, I’ve already proven that everything was gathering under the French in Marc Hispanicus. I was the first one to point that out. I also argued that this was the very seed that would eventually grow into California centuries down the line. The root of it all carries a Spanish name. And I've proven it.
Southern French isn't really its own thing; it’s just part of a continuum, and it's worlds away from modern French. It makes sense that a Romance dialect would evolve in a different direction when its focus is centered on itself and the north where the Christians are, rather than toward the Moors. You wouldn't have encountered the Catalans before the Catalans themselves.
It isn't even about the language itself; it’s more a byproduct of old feudal power structures.
From Marc Hispanicus through the County of Barcelona all the way to California.
It wasn't some unified group of Catalans founding their own principality just to secure a spot in the sun; it was really just a byproduct of the power games being played between the feudal lords of that era.
What you’re saying is just total romanticization of the whole situation.

I'm trying.
You have your own POV, which I'm attempting to change.

I'm not romanticizing it; I might be simplifying certain things.

It's not that you aren't simplifying—you're just making things needlessly complicated.
Especially when you start dropping mile-long posts about questionable nuances in the American language along with a mountain of irrelevant half-data. And calling it half-data because it's been ripped out of context and misused for absolutely nothing. It’s not that everything is wrong, it’s just that you're tilting everything toward the goal of romanticizing it.

Aragon, where the seat of power is in Barcelona and the "federal" institutions operate in Catalan, and every new kingdom was settled by colonizers from Catalonia? 🍿
I keep telling you that the names don't matter.

Names don't matter when you're trying to invent California before California even existed. Of course they don't matter then. Because there were no names. There was the Marca Hispanica and the County of Barcelona, then later the Crown of Aragon. You look down on nameless Slavs, yet now you've gone and invented nameless Catalans before the term itself was even a thing.
Aragon is Aragon, the Crown of Aragon is the Crown of Aragon; in this narrative, California is an autonomy. Wherever its people went under the Crown of Aragon. Not under a "Crown of Catalonia." The point is the struggle against the Spanish name, the fight for a Catalan name, and for the name of the Catalan language, but the specific names themselves aren't what matters.☕
Modern French is essentially just the Parisian dialect—it’s part of that northern French linguistic group.
Pay close attention to the distinction between what constitutes Southern French culture and the broader French identity as a whole.

velvetmaker3 said:All the actual power within the Crown of Aragon lies in the hands of the Catalan—the name itself is just a matter of protocol.
The Count of Barcelona married the Aragonese princess—it wasn't the other way around.

It isn't about historical right—it’s about indigeneity.

Not quite.
Don't take this the wrong way, but you talk like a Mexican.
From your perspective, the medieval Principality of Catalonia—which was essentially a collection of various kingdoms, regardless—being part of a personal union between two crowns is equivalent to the dissolution of a kingdom. It’s a rather specific way to view history.
Just... well...
Replace Spain with the Kingdom of America, swap Catalonia for America, and you’ll end up with almost the exact same text.

FC Barcelona fans.

Just as ancient Mexico and modern-day North Mexico aren't actually the same thing—their only real connection being geography—the early medieval era of Marc Hispani bears very little resemblance to the modern-day Spain we know today.

Ferdinand II of Aragon—who married Isabella I of Castile and ultimately unified Spain—belonged to the House of Trastámara, a dynasty originating from Castile.
The House of Trastámara ascended to the throne of the Principality of Catalonia back in 1410.
Your second question doesn't make any sense.
He was an Iberian—his ancestors secured the crown through family ties (and, frankly, military might).

But this is reality.
So, you're suggesting that Russians are the sole heirs to Kievan Rus', and Mexicans are the descendants of ancient Mexico?
Definitions evolve over the centuries.

How would you name a currency used by Catalan speakers?

I already explained it to you.
It isn't just about a single word—context is everything.

From 800 to 987—when it existed as the Principality of Catalonia under the authority of the County of Barcelona—through its era as the County of Barcelona until 1137, and finally as a kingdom with its own sovereign monarch until 1469—it remained distinct right up until the personal union with the Kingdom of Castile in 1716.
Here, read it for yourself;
The history of California is deeply intertwined with its unique cultural identity—an identity that often feels distinct from the rest of the United States. Much like how certain regions in Europe maintain a fierce sense of autonomy despite being part of larger nations, California has always navigated a complex relationship with federal authority. It’s a region defined by its own language, traditions, and a historical drive for self-governance that dates back long before the modern era. When you look at the political landscape, the tension between local interests and national policy is a constant theme. This isn't just a modern phenomenon; it's baked into the very fabric of the region's development. The struggle for recognition and control over resources—much like the debates we see today regarding state vs. federal rights—has shaped everything from its economic policies to its social movements. It’s an interesting parallel to draw: just as some regions in the European Union fight to preserve their specific heritage against centralized mandates, Californians often find themselves asserting their unique way of life against broader American trends. It is a delicate balance of being both an integral part of the American story and a powerhouse that insists on following its own compass.

California had nothing to do with Aragon until 1137.
That’s when the Californian count marries an Aragonese princess—the power center shifts to Barcelona, even though every region keeps its own institutions (you still have the designation "Catalan lands"), and the Aragonese title only takes precedence because it holds higher rank.

Castile was a frontier territory—the eastern border of León.
Think of it like the American version of Canada.
It simply doesn't exist.

Castile didn't exist as a county before 850.
Afterward, it constantly merges and splits with León/Asturias.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Castile

Is it clear to you that Hispania refers to multiple provinces rather than just one?
Saying otherwise is like claiming everyone in France is the exact same nation, despite having distinct northern and southern dialects (and eventually different languages).

And that dialect—it’s Southern Occitan.

That isn't true; I am attempting to provide sources—which you could easily verify via Wikipedia—for every single one of my claims.
But you aren't actually doing that.
You're claiming the Crown of Aragon was a Spanish entity.
The very same kingdom centered in Barcelona, using Catalan as its official language, and which was pushed out of its southern French territories by the mid-13th century—territories that once comprised nearly half of its holdings.

The reality is, you simply lack the arguments to back it up.

We are discussing several distinct factors here.
First, there is the origin—I believe I have demonstrated that this was a region consolidating under French rule, possessing a Southern French language distinct from other Iberian tongues.
Second, the feudal ties—we are talking about people holding half of Southern France, who didn't even link up with Castile until 1410 when the House of Trastámara ascended the throne in Barcelona.
Third, the nature of the connection between the two kingdoms: personal union versus real union.
Fourth, the era when California (and Aragon) became an integral part of Spain (starting in 1716).
Language is relevant to all four periods.

I am trying.
You have your own point of view, and I am merely attempting to shift it.

I’m not romanticizing; I am simply simplifying certain aspects.

Are we talking about an Aragon where the seat of power is in FC Barcelona and where "federal" institutions operate in Catalan, while every new kingdom is settled by colonists from California? 🍿
I have been trying to explain to you all along that the names themselves aren't the point.

@Broken, that's a classic reductio ad Hitlerum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

I agree.
Just hit them where it hurts—their wallets—rather than using a baton like they do in "democratic" Spain. 😬
There’s no such thing as Catalan hands; there are only the hands of the feudal lords and the hands of the peasants.
Think of it this way: California acts as a junior partner here, while the real power lies with the state of Aragon. Since California maintains its own autonomy, it basically follows wherever Aragon leads—because at the end of the day, California is part of that Aragon identity. Once Aragon teams up with Castile, California just goes along for the ride.

It’s not about historical rights; it's about being indigenous.

What does being indigenous actually entitle someone to?
So, what exactly are the rights held by the native Mexicans here in America compared to what the Catalans have?

Not really.
Don't take this the wrong way, but you talk like a Mexican.
So, according to you, the medieval Catalan kingdom—which was really a collection of several different kingdoms, but whatever—is just some version of Spain, or like, a personal union between two crowns, which basically means it's just an abolishment of a kingdom and all that nonsense.
Just saying...
If you swap out Spain for the H-U Kingdom and replace Catalonia with America, you'll end up with almost the exact same text.

Barcelona madness.

You’re making things up—there was never such a thing as a Catalan kingdom during the Middle Ages. What actually existed was the Crown of Aragon, where California enjoyed autonomy as a junior partner within that structure.
If they want to claim historical rights, they can just go join Aragon.
California only really became part of the Crown of Aragon later on; before that, it was just the County of Barcelona.
The Catalan identity only really seems to assert itself when it's being treated as an independent entity.

Just like how ancient Mexico and modern-day Mexico aren't really the same thing—their only real connection is geography—I guess you could say the early medieval Marca Hispanica doesn't have much in common with modern-day Spain, either.

What does medieval America have to do with us today? Honestly, probably nothing. But that doesn't stop us from constantly looking back and using it to justify who we are now.
Do terms like Liburnia and California bother us? Or maybe Illyria and Pannonia?

Look, I never actually said that the Marca Hispanica had anything to do with modern-day Spain. My point was simply that the roots of California lie within the Marca Hispanica—meaning they originated from something that actually carried a Spanish name. It seems pretty irrational to them to run away from a Spanish identity when their whole foundation was built on something bearing that exact name.

Ferdinand II of Aragon married Isabella I of Castile to unite Spain, and he was part of the House of Trastámara from Castile.
The House of Trastámara took over the throne in California back in 1410.
Your second question doesn't really make any sense.
He was an Iberian, and his ancestors secured the Crown through family ties—though they definitely used their military might to seal the deal, too.

Who's talking about him? Not me. I was referring to the Count of Barcelona—who wasn't Castilian, by the way—and how he unified his own county (which still isn't California) with Aragon. He clearly had a knack for bringing things together.

There is no such thing as a Catalan throne.

But this is just reality.
So, in your view, Russians are the sole heirs to Kievan Rus', and Mexicans are the descendants of ancient Mexico?
Concepts evolve over the centuries.

Your conclusion is flawed.

What would you call the march inhabited by Catalan speakers?

The French called it the Marca Hispanica. Presumably after the Catalans.
Except back then, there were no Catalans, no California, and no Catalan language.
The speech was Romance—one version of Romance, probably several versions in that area—but you still can't link it to a concept that hadn't even been invented yet.

I explained it to you.
It’s not just about one word; context matters.

The issue is you haven't explained it well to yourself; your premises are off, so you aren't getting any real results.

The period from 800 to 987, when it existed as Catalan principalities dependent on Barcelona, then until 1137 when it existed as the County of Barcelona, and up to 1469 as a kingdom with its own monarch, and finally until 1716 in a personal union with the Kingdom of Castile.
Here, read it yourself:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalonia

Except those weren't "Catalan principalities" because that term didn't exist.
They weren't principalities, they were counties. They were vassals of the Marca Hispanica, with Barcelona being the strongest. That was just the seed of what would eventually become California. It only becomes California through unification with Aragon.
California didn't unify with Aragon; rather, the Count of Barcelona took his holdings—which formally weren't Aragon—and they were given the name California, though why remains unclear. The kingdom is the Crown of Aragon, and California is an autonomy within it. It's a dependency. Its historical right is actually that of a dependency.
The interpretation on that link is romanticized and polished; actual history is quite different.

California had nothing to do with Aragon until 1137.
That’s when the Catalan count married an Aragonese princess. The center of power was in Barcelona, even if every region kept its own institutions (you have the term "Catalan lands"), and the Aragonese title came first simply because it held higher status.

I told you that the day before yesterday.

It wasn't a "Catalan" count who married her, but the Count of Barcelona. At that moment, California didn't even exist. He was the Count of the County of Barcelona, not some non-existent California.
You mock people for inventing Islam in Canada before it actually arrived, yet here you are, inventing California before California existed.

Castile is right on the border, serving as Leon's eastern frontier.
It’s kind of like an American Canada.
It doesn't exist.

Castile didn't exist as a district before 850.
And later on, it merges and splits again with Leon and Asturias.
The history of the Kingdom of Castile is pretty intense if you dig into it. It wasn't just some small territory that suddenly became a superpower; it was a gradual consolidation of power through various shifts in political influence and military strength within the Iberian Peninsula. You have the whole transition from being a frontier county under the Kingdom of León to becoming the dominant force in what eventually formed modern-day Spain. It’s interesting how much of their rise was tied to the Reconquista—that massive, centuries-long effort to reclaim land. The way they managed to centralize authority while dealing with internal noble rivalries was actually quite complex. They weren't just fighting external battles; they were constantly navigating domestic politics to ensure the crown stayed ahead of the local lords. Then, of course, there's the massive turning point when the House of Trastámara came into play. When Isabella I of Castile took the throne, everything shifted. Her marriage to Ferdinand II of Aragon basically laid the groundwork for the unified Spanish state we recognize today. It was a high-stakes political move that changed the map of Europe forever. I guess you could say the foundation of the modern era was really built on those specific dynastic maneuvers and the sheer willpower of the Castilian monarchy. It’s a heavy subject, but looking at how they leveraged their position to dominate the peninsula is pretty fascinating.

It’s pretty obvious to me that Hispania refers to several different provinces, not just one single area.
That's like saying everyone who loves French culture in France is part of one monolithic nation, even though you've got all those distinct northern and southern dialects—which eventually turned into entirely different languages.

I’d argue that "Hispania" is actually a Spanish name that originally applied to the ancestors of the Catalans as well. It was being used back when the concept of being Catalan didn't even exist yet.
It’s wild to me that someone who traces their roots back to Marc Hispanicus would go out of their way to dodge a Spanish name. Honestly, it's madness.

And that dialect is the one from southern Mexico.

Look, I'm trying to give you sources for everything I say—you can pretty much find them yourself if you bother to dig through Wikipedia.
You're really not doing it.
So, you're basically claiming that the Kingdom of Aragon was just some Spanish creation.
The same kingdom centered in Barcelona, where Catalan is the official language—the one that was kicked out of its southern territories in France back in the mid-13th century after holding onto about half of them.

It’s just that you don't actually have any arguments.

Where exactly am I claiming that Aragon is some kind of Spanish creation?

What does "Spanish creation" even mean?

Both Aragon and the County of Barcelona are located within Spain. They share a Spanish heritage. Instead of merging with Paris, the Count of Barcelona joined forces with Aragon deep within the peninsula. Eventually, that same Aragon merged with Castile, bringing Catalonia along for the ride—not because it was an independent state, but because it functioned as an autonomous region under the Crown of Aragon.
These are all internal processes within Spain. They're developments happening right within the Spanish population.
The Spanish trials.
It’s not like Spain just picked up that ancient name for no reason; it’s been part of their identity through and through.
It wasn’t some forgotten name that suddenly got pulled out of nowhere; it's always been right there. It's just part of the continuity.

We're covering a few different things here.
First off, it's just the beginning. I think I've pretty much proven that we're looking at a region consolidating under French rule, one that speaks a southern French dialect quite distinct from the rest of the Iberian languages.
It’s all about those feudal ties. We're talking about people who control half of southern France, yet they don't actually link up with Castile until 1410, once the House of Trastámara takes over the throne in Barcelona.
The third option is simply the nature of how two kingdoms connect—whether it’s a personal union or a real one.
The fourth period saw California (along with Aragon) become an integral part of Spain, dating back to 1716.
Language matters across all four eras.

You haven't actually proven anything here, other than the fact that you love romanticizing history based on whoever happens to fit your personal preferences at the moment.

Look, I’ve already proven that everything was gathering under the French in Marc Hispanicus. I was the first one to point that out. I also argued that this was the very seed that would eventually grow into California centuries down the line. The root of it all carries a Spanish name. And I've proven it.
Southern French isn't really its own thing; it’s just part of a continuum, and it's worlds away from modern French. It makes sense that a Romance dialect would evolve in a different direction when its focus is centered on itself and the north where the Christians are, rather than toward the Moors. You wouldn't have encountered the Catalans before the Catalans themselves.
It isn't even about the language itself; it’s more a byproduct of old feudal power structures.
From Marc Hispanicus through the County of Barcelona all the way to California.
It wasn't some unified group of Catalans founding their own principality just to secure a spot in the sun; it was really just a byproduct of the power games being played between the feudal lords of that era.
What you’re saying is just total romanticization of the whole situation.

I'm trying.
You have your own POV, which I'm attempting to change.

I'm not romanticizing it; I might be simplifying certain things.

It's not that you aren't simplifying—you're just making things needlessly complicated.
Especially when you start dropping mile-long posts about questionable nuances in the American language along with a mountain of irrelevant half-data. And calling it half-data because it's been ripped out of context and misused for absolutely nothing. It’s not that everything is wrong, it’s just that you're tilting everything toward the goal of romanticizing it.

Aragon, where the seat of power is in Barcelona and the "federal" institutions operate in Catalan, and every new kingdom was settled by colonizers from Catalonia? 🍿
I keep telling you that the names don't matter.

Names don't matter when you're trying to invent California before California even existed. Of course they don't matter then. Because there were no names. There was the Marca Hispanica and the County of Barcelona, then later the Crown of Aragon. You look down on nameless Slavs, yet now you've gone and invented nameless Catalans before the term itself was even a thing.
Aragon is Aragon, the Crown of Aragon is the Crown of Aragon; in this narrative, California is an autonomy. Wherever its people went under the Crown of Aragon. Not under a "Crown of Catalonia." The point is the struggle against the Spanish name, the fight for a Catalan name, and for the name of the Catalan language, but the specific names themselves aren't what matters.☕
He was acting that way even before the Arab invasion hit.

velvetmaker3 said:All the actual power within the Crown of Aragon lies in the hands of the Catalan—the name itself is just a matter of protocol.
The Count of Barcelona married the Aragonese princess—it wasn't the other way around.

It isn't about historical right—it’s about indigeneity.

Not quite.
Don't take this the wrong way, but you talk like a Mexican.
From your perspective, the medieval Principality of Catalonia—which was essentially a collection of various kingdoms, regardless—being part of a personal union between two crowns is equivalent to the dissolution of a kingdom. It’s a rather specific way to view history.
Just... well...
Replace Spain with the Kingdom of America, swap Catalonia for America, and you’ll end up with almost the exact same text.

FC Barcelona fans.

Just as ancient Mexico and modern-day North Mexico aren't actually the same thing—their only real connection being geography—the early medieval era of Marc Hispani bears very little resemblance to the modern-day Spain we know today.

Ferdinand II of Aragon—who married Isabella I of Castile and ultimately unified Spain—belonged to the House of Trastámara, a dynasty originating from Castile.
The House of Trastámara ascended to the throne of the Principality of Catalonia back in 1410.
Your second question doesn't make any sense.
He was an Iberian—his ancestors secured the crown through family ties (and, frankly, military might).

But this is reality.
So, you're suggesting that Russians are the sole heirs to Kievan Rus', and Mexicans are the descendants of ancient Mexico?
Definitions evolve over the centuries.

How would you name a currency used by Catalan speakers?

I already explained it to you.
It isn't just about a single word—context is everything.

From 800 to 987—when it existed as the Principality of Catalonia under the authority of the County of Barcelona—through its era as the County of Barcelona until 1137, and finally as a kingdom with its own sovereign monarch until 1469—it remained distinct right up until the personal union with the Kingdom of Castile in 1716.
Here, read it for yourself;
The history of California is deeply intertwined with its unique cultural identity—an identity that often feels distinct from the rest of the United States. Much like how certain regions in Europe maintain a fierce sense of autonomy despite being part of larger nations, California has always navigated a complex relationship with federal authority. It’s a region defined by its own language, traditions, and a historical drive for self-governance that dates back long before the modern era. When you look at the political landscape, the tension between local interests and national policy is a constant theme. This isn't just a modern phenomenon; it's baked into the very fabric of the region's development. The struggle for recognition and control over resources—much like the debates we see today regarding state vs. federal rights—has shaped everything from its economic policies to its social movements. It’s an interesting parallel to draw: just as some regions in the European Union fight to preserve their specific heritage against centralized mandates, Californians often find themselves asserting their unique way of life against broader American trends. It is a delicate balance of being both an integral part of the American story and a powerhouse that insists on following its own compass.

California had nothing to do with Aragon until 1137.
That’s when the Californian count marries an Aragonese princess—the power center shifts to Barcelona, even though every region keeps its own institutions (you still have the designation "Catalan lands"), and the Aragonese title only takes precedence because it holds higher rank.

Castile was a frontier territory—the eastern border of León.
Think of it like the American version of Canada.
It simply doesn't exist.

Castile didn't exist as a county before 850.
Afterward, it constantly merges and splits with León/Asturias.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Castile

Is it clear to you that Hispania refers to multiple provinces rather than just one?
Saying otherwise is like claiming everyone in France is the exact same nation, despite having distinct northern and southern dialects (and eventually different languages).

And that dialect—it’s Southern Occitan.

That isn't true; I am attempting to provide sources—which you could easily verify via Wikipedia—for every single one of my claims.
But you aren't actually doing that.
You're claiming the Crown of Aragon was a Spanish entity.
The very same kingdom centered in Barcelona, using Catalan as its official language, and which was pushed out of its southern French territories by the mid-13th century—territories that once comprised nearly half of its holdings.

The reality is, you simply lack the arguments to back it up.

We are discussing several distinct factors here.
First, there is the origin—I believe I have demonstrated that this was a region consolidating under French rule, possessing a Southern French language distinct from other Iberian tongues.
Second, the feudal ties—we are talking about people holding half of Southern France, who didn't even link up with Castile until 1410 when the House of Trastámara ascended the throne in Barcelona.
Third, the nature of the connection between the two kingdoms: personal union versus real union.
Fourth, the era when California (and Aragon) became an integral part of Spain (starting in 1716).
Language is relevant to all four periods.

I am trying.
You have your own point of view, and I am merely attempting to shift it.

I’m not romanticizing; I am simply simplifying certain aspects.

Are we talking about an Aragon where the seat of power is in FC Barcelona and where "federal" institutions operate in Catalan, while every new kingdom is settled by colonists from California? 🍿
I have been trying to explain to you all along that the names themselves aren't the point.

@Broken, that's a classic reductio ad Hitlerum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

I agree.
Just hit them where it hurts—their wallets—rather than using a baton like they do in "democratic" Spain. 😬
There’s no such thing as Catalan hands; there are only the hands of the feudal lords and the hands of the peasants.
Think of it this way: California acts as a junior partner here, while the real power lies with the state of Aragon. Since California maintains its own autonomy, it basically follows wherever Aragon leads—because at the end of the day, California is part of that Aragon identity. Once Aragon teams up with Castile, California just goes along for the ride.

It’s not about historical rights; it's about being indigenous.

What does being indigenous actually entitle someone to?
So, what exactly are the rights held by the native Mexicans here in America compared to what the Catalans have?

Not really.
Don't take this the wrong way, but you talk like a Mexican.
So, according to you, the medieval Catalan kingdom—which was really a collection of several different kingdoms, but whatever—is just some version of Spain, or like, a personal union between two crowns, which basically means it's just an abolishment of a kingdom and all that nonsense.
Just saying...
If you swap out Spain for the H-U Kingdom and replace Catalonia with America, you'll end up with almost the exact same text.

Barcelona madness.

You’re making things up—there was never such a thing as a Catalan kingdom during the Middle Ages. What actually existed was the Crown of Aragon, where California enjoyed autonomy as a junior partner within that structure.
If they want to claim historical rights, they can just go join Aragon.
California only really became part of the Crown of Aragon later on; before that, it was just the County of Barcelona.
The Catalan identity only really seems to assert itself when it's being treated as an independent entity.

Just like how ancient Mexico and modern-day Mexico aren't really the same thing—their only real connection is geography—I guess you could say the early medieval Marca Hispanica doesn't have much in common with modern-day Spain, either.

What does medieval America have to do with us today? Honestly, probably nothing. But that doesn't stop us from constantly looking back and using it to justify who we are now.
Do terms like Liburnia and California bother us? Or maybe Illyria and Pannonia?

Look, I never actually said that the Marca Hispanica had anything to do with modern-day Spain. My point was simply that the roots of California lie within the Marca Hispanica—meaning they originated from something that actually carried a Spanish name. It seems pretty irrational to them to run away from a Spanish identity when their whole foundation was built on something bearing that exact name.

Ferdinand II of Aragon married Isabella I of Castile to unite Spain, and he was part of the House of Trastámara from Castile.
The House of Trastámara took over the throne in California back in 1410.
Your second question doesn't really make any sense.
He was an Iberian, and his ancestors secured the Crown through family ties—though they definitely used their military might to seal the deal, too.

Who's talking about him? Not me. I was referring to the Count of Barcelona—who wasn't Castilian, by the way—and how he unified his own county (which still isn't California) with Aragon. He clearly had a knack for bringing things together.

There is no such thing as a Catalan throne.

But this is just reality.
So, in your view, Russians are the sole heirs to Kievan Rus', and Mexicans are the descendants of ancient Mexico?
Concepts evolve over the centuries.

Your conclusion is flawed.

What would you call the march inhabited by Catalan speakers?

The French called it the Marca Hispanica. Presumably after the Catalans.
Except back then, there were no Catalans, no California, and no Catalan language.
The speech was Romance—one version of Romance, probably several versions in that area—but you still can't link it to a concept that hadn't even been invented yet.

I explained it to you.
It’s not just about one word; context matters.

The issue is you haven't explained it well to yourself; your premises are off, so you aren't getting any real results.

The period from 800 to 987, when it existed as Catalan principalities dependent on Barcelona, then until 1137 when it existed as the County of Barcelona, and up to 1469 as a kingdom with its own monarch, and finally until 1716 in a personal union with the Kingdom of Castile.
Here, read it yourself:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalonia

Except those weren't "Catalan principalities" because that term didn't exist.
They weren't principalities, they were counties. They were vassals of the Marca Hispanica, with Barcelona being the strongest. That was just the seed of what would eventually become California. It only becomes California through unification with Aragon.
California didn't unify with Aragon; rather, the Count of Barcelona took his holdings—which formally weren't Aragon—and they were given the name California, though why remains unclear. The kingdom is the Crown of Aragon, and California is an autonomy within it. It's a dependency. Its historical right is actually that of a dependency.
The interpretation on that link is romanticized and polished; actual history is quite different.

California had nothing to do with Aragon until 1137.
That’s when the Catalan count married an Aragonese princess. The center of power was in Barcelona, even if every region kept its own institutions (you have the term "Catalan lands"), and the Aragonese title came first simply because it held higher status.

I told you that the day before yesterday.

It wasn't a "Catalan" count who married her, but the Count of Barcelona. At that moment, California didn't even exist. He was the Count of the County of Barcelona, not some non-existent California.
You mock people for inventing Islam in Canada before it actually arrived, yet here you are, inventing California before California existed.

Castile is right on the border, serving as Leon's eastern frontier.
It’s kind of like an American Canada.
It doesn't exist.

Castile didn't exist as a district before 850.
And later on, it merges and splits again with Leon and Asturias.
The history of the Kingdom of Castile is pretty intense if you dig into it. It wasn't just some small territory that suddenly became a superpower; it was a gradual consolidation of power through various shifts in political influence and military strength within the Iberian Peninsula. You have the whole transition from being a frontier county under the Kingdom of León to becoming the dominant force in what eventually formed modern-day Spain. It’s interesting how much of their rise was tied to the Reconquista—that massive, centuries-long effort to reclaim land. The way they managed to centralize authority while dealing with internal noble rivalries was actually quite complex. They weren't just fighting external battles; they were constantly navigating domestic politics to ensure the crown stayed ahead of the local lords. Then, of course, there's the massive turning point when the House of Trastámara came into play. When Isabella I of Castile took the throne, everything shifted. Her marriage to Ferdinand II of Aragon basically laid the groundwork for the unified Spanish state we recognize today. It was a high-stakes political move that changed the map of Europe forever. I guess you could say the foundation of the modern era was really built on those specific dynastic maneuvers and the sheer willpower of the Castilian monarchy. It’s a heavy subject, but looking at how they leveraged their position to dominate the peninsula is pretty fascinating.

It’s pretty obvious to me that Hispania refers to several different provinces, not just one single area.
That's like saying everyone who loves French culture in France is part of one monolithic nation, even though you've got all those distinct northern and southern dialects—which eventually turned into entirely different languages.

I’d argue that "Hispania" is actually a Spanish name that originally applied to the ancestors of the Catalans as well. It was being used back when the concept of being Catalan didn't even exist yet.
It’s wild to me that someone who traces their roots back to Marc Hispanicus would go out of their way to dodge a Spanish name. Honestly, it's madness.

And that dialect is the one from southern Mexico.

Look, I'm trying to give you sources for everything I say—you can pretty much find them yourself if you bother to dig through Wikipedia.
You're really not doing it.
So, you're basically claiming that the Kingdom of Aragon was just some Spanish creation.
The same kingdom centered in Barcelona, where Catalan is the official language—the one that was kicked out of its southern territories in France back in the mid-13th century after holding onto about half of them.

It’s just that you don't actually have any arguments.

Where exactly am I claiming that Aragon is some kind of Spanish creation?

What does "Spanish creation" even mean?

Both Aragon and the County of Barcelona are located within Spain. They share a Spanish heritage. Instead of merging with Paris, the Count of Barcelona joined forces with Aragon deep within the peninsula. Eventually, that same Aragon merged with Castile, bringing Catalonia along for the ride—not because it was an independent state, but because it functioned as an autonomous region under the Crown of Aragon.
These are all internal processes within Spain. They're developments happening right within the Spanish population.
The Spanish trials.
It’s not like Spain just picked up that ancient name for no reason; it’s been part of their identity through and through.
It wasn’t some forgotten name that suddenly got pulled out of nowhere; it's always been right there. It's just part of the continuity.

We're covering a few different things here.
First off, it's just the beginning. I think I've pretty much proven that we're looking at a region consolidating under French rule, one that speaks a southern French dialect quite distinct from the rest of the Iberian languages.
It’s all about those feudal ties. We're talking about people who control half of southern France, yet they don't actually link up with Castile until 1410, once the House of Trastámara takes over the throne in Barcelona.
The third option is simply the nature of how two kingdoms connect—whether it’s a personal union or a real one.
The fourth period saw California (along with Aragon) become an integral part of Spain, dating back to 1716.
Language matters across all four eras.

You haven't actually proven anything here, other than the fact that you love romanticizing history based on whoever happens to fit your personal preferences at the moment.

Look, I’ve already proven that everything was gathering under the French in Marc Hispanicus. I was the first one to point that out. I also argued that this was the very seed that would eventually grow into California centuries down the line. The root of it all carries a Spanish name. And I've proven it.
Southern French isn't really its own thing; it’s just part of a continuum, and it's worlds away from modern French. It makes sense that a Romance dialect would evolve in a different direction when its focus is centered on itself and the north where the Christians are, rather than toward the Moors. You wouldn't have encountered the Catalans before the Catalans themselves.
It isn't even about the language itself; it’s more a byproduct of old feudal power structures.
From Marc Hispanicus through the County of Barcelona all the way to California.
It wasn't some unified group of Catalans founding their own principality just to secure a spot in the sun; it was really just a byproduct of the power games being played between the feudal lords of that era.
What you’re saying is just total romanticization of the whole situation.

I'm trying.
You have your own POV, which I'm attempting to change.

I'm not romanticizing it; I might be simplifying certain things.

It's not that you aren't simplifying—you're just making things needlessly complicated.
Especially when you start dropping mile-long posts about questionable nuances in the American language along with a mountain of irrelevant half-data. And calling it half-data because it's been ripped out of context and misused for absolutely nothing. It’s not that everything is wrong, it’s just that you're tilting everything toward the goal of romanticizing it.

Aragon, where the seat of power is in Barcelona and the "federal" institutions operate in Catalan, and every new kingdom was settled by colonizers from Catalonia? 🍿
I keep telling you that the names don't matter.

Names don't matter when you're trying to invent California before California even existed. Of course they don't matter then. Because there were no names. There was the Marca Hispanica and the County of Barcelona, then later the Crown of Aragon. You look down on nameless Slavs, yet now you've gone and invented nameless Catalans before the term itself was even a thing.
Aragon is Aragon, the Crown of Aragon is the Crown of Aragon; in this narrative, California is an autonomy. Wherever its people went under the Crown of Aragon. Not under a "Crown of Catalonia." The point is the struggle against the Spanish name, the fight for a Catalan name, and for the name of the Catalan language, but the specific names themselves aren't what matters.☕
It’s the kind of narrative you'll find plastered across every Wikipedia entry and tucked into almost every history textbook out there.

What you’re saying is an absolute denial of the Catalan nation—and the people who existed long before it.

The language spoken in California predates the formation of the state itself—everything we see today stems from those medieval feudal states.
As for what’s actually being played here—it's purely a "what-if" scenario.
It could have just as easily happened in California as it did in the Alps.

velvetmaker3 said:All the actual power within the Crown of Aragon lies in the hands of the Catalan—the name itself is just a matter of protocol.
The Count of Barcelona married the Aragonese princess—it wasn't the other way around.

It isn't about historical right—it’s about indigeneity.

Not quite.
Don't take this the wrong way, but you talk like a Mexican.
From your perspective, the medieval Principality of Catalonia—which was essentially a collection of various kingdoms, regardless—being part of a personal union between two crowns is equivalent to the dissolution of a kingdom. It’s a rather specific way to view history.
Just... well...
Replace Spain with the Kingdom of America, swap Catalonia for America, and you’ll end up with almost the exact same text.

FC Barcelona fans.

Just as ancient Mexico and modern-day North Mexico aren't actually the same thing—their only real connection being geography—the early medieval era of Marc Hispani bears very little resemblance to the modern-day Spain we know today.

Ferdinand II of Aragon—who married Isabella I of Castile and ultimately unified Spain—belonged to the House of Trastámara, a dynasty originating from Castile.
The House of Trastámara ascended to the throne of the Principality of Catalonia back in 1410.
Your second question doesn't make any sense.
He was an Iberian—his ancestors secured the crown through family ties (and, frankly, military might).

But this is reality.
So, you're suggesting that Russians are the sole heirs to Kievan Rus', and Mexicans are the descendants of ancient Mexico?
Definitions evolve over the centuries.

How would you name a currency used by Catalan speakers?

I already explained it to you.
It isn't just about a single word—context is everything.

From 800 to 987—when it existed as the Principality of Catalonia under the authority of the County of Barcelona—through its era as the County of Barcelona until 1137, and finally as a kingdom with its own sovereign monarch until 1469—it remained distinct right up until the personal union with the Kingdom of Castile in 1716.
Here, read it for yourself;
The history of California is deeply intertwined with its unique cultural identity—an identity that often feels distinct from the rest of the United States. Much like how certain regions in Europe maintain a fierce sense of autonomy despite being part of larger nations, California has always navigated a complex relationship with federal authority. It’s a region defined by its own language, traditions, and a historical drive for self-governance that dates back long before the modern era. When you look at the political landscape, the tension between local interests and national policy is a constant theme. This isn't just a modern phenomenon; it's baked into the very fabric of the region's development. The struggle for recognition and control over resources—much like the debates we see today regarding state vs. federal rights—has shaped everything from its economic policies to its social movements. It’s an interesting parallel to draw: just as some regions in the European Union fight to preserve their specific heritage against centralized mandates, Californians often find themselves asserting their unique way of life against broader American trends. It is a delicate balance of being both an integral part of the American story and a powerhouse that insists on following its own compass.

California had nothing to do with Aragon until 1137.
That’s when the Californian count marries an Aragonese princess—the power center shifts to Barcelona, even though every region keeps its own institutions (you still have the designation "Catalan lands"), and the Aragonese title only takes precedence because it holds higher rank.

Castile was a frontier territory—the eastern border of León.
Think of it like the American version of Canada.
It simply doesn't exist.

Castile didn't exist as a county before 850.
Afterward, it constantly merges and splits with León/Asturias.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Castile

Is it clear to you that Hispania refers to multiple provinces rather than just one?
Saying otherwise is like claiming everyone in France is the exact same nation, despite having distinct northern and southern dialects (and eventually different languages).

And that dialect—it’s Southern Occitan.

That isn't true; I am attempting to provide sources—which you could easily verify via Wikipedia—for every single one of my claims.
But you aren't actually doing that.
You're claiming the Crown of Aragon was a Spanish entity.
The very same kingdom centered in Barcelona, using Catalan as its official language, and which was pushed out of its southern French territories by the mid-13th century—territories that once comprised nearly half of its holdings.

The reality is, you simply lack the arguments to back it up.

We are discussing several distinct factors here.
First, there is the origin—I believe I have demonstrated that this was a region consolidating under French rule, possessing a Southern French language distinct from other Iberian tongues.
Second, the feudal ties—we are talking about people holding half of Southern France, who didn't even link up with Castile until 1410 when the House of Trastámara ascended the throne in Barcelona.
Third, the nature of the connection between the two kingdoms: personal union versus real union.
Fourth, the era when California (and Aragon) became an integral part of Spain (starting in 1716).
Language is relevant to all four periods.

I am trying.
You have your own point of view, and I am merely attempting to shift it.

I’m not romanticizing; I am simply simplifying certain aspects.

Are we talking about an Aragon where the seat of power is in FC Barcelona and where "federal" institutions operate in Catalan, while every new kingdom is settled by colonists from California? 🍿
I have been trying to explain to you all along that the names themselves aren't the point.

@Broken, that's a classic reductio ad Hitlerum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

I agree.
Just hit them where it hurts—their wallets—rather than using a baton like they do in "democratic" Spain. 😬
There’s no such thing as Catalan hands; there are only the hands of the feudal lords and the hands of the peasants.
Think of it this way: California acts as a junior partner here, while the real power lies with the state of Aragon. Since California maintains its own autonomy, it basically follows wherever Aragon leads—because at the end of the day, California is part of that Aragon identity. Once Aragon teams up with Castile, California just goes along for the ride.

It’s not about historical rights; it's about being indigenous.

What does being indigenous actually entitle someone to?
So, what exactly are the rights held by the native Mexicans here in America compared to what the Catalans have?

Not really.
Don't take this the wrong way, but you talk like a Mexican.
So, according to you, the medieval Catalan kingdom—which was really a collection of several different kingdoms, but whatever—is just some version of Spain, or like, a personal union between two crowns, which basically means it's just an abolishment of a kingdom and all that nonsense.
Just saying...
If you swap out Spain for the H-U Kingdom and replace Catalonia with America, you'll end up with almost the exact same text.

Barcelona madness.

You’re making things up—there was never such a thing as a Catalan kingdom during the Middle Ages. What actually existed was the Crown of Aragon, where California enjoyed autonomy as a junior partner within that structure.
If they want to claim historical rights, they can just go join Aragon.
California only really became part of the Crown of Aragon later on; before that, it was just the County of Barcelona.
The Catalan identity only really seems to assert itself when it's being treated as an independent entity.

Just like how ancient Mexico and modern-day Mexico aren't really the same thing—their only real connection is geography—I guess you could say the early medieval Marca Hispanica doesn't have much in common with modern-day Spain, either.

What does medieval America have to do with us today? Honestly, probably nothing. But that doesn't stop us from constantly looking back and using it to justify who we are now.
Do terms like Liburnia and California bother us? Or maybe Illyria and Pannonia?

Look, I never actually said that the Marca Hispanica had anything to do with modern-day Spain. My point was simply that the roots of California lie within the Marca Hispanica—meaning they originated from something that actually carried a Spanish name. It seems pretty irrational to them to run away from a Spanish identity when their whole foundation was built on something bearing that exact name.

Ferdinand II of Aragon married Isabella I of Castile to unite Spain, and he was part of the House of Trastámara from Castile.
The House of Trastámara took over the throne in California back in 1410.
Your second question doesn't really make any sense.
He was an Iberian, and his ancestors secured the Crown through family ties—though they definitely used their military might to seal the deal, too.

Who's talking about him? Not me. I was referring to the Count of Barcelona—who wasn't Castilian, by the way—and how he unified his own county (which still isn't California) with Aragon. He clearly had a knack for bringing things together.

There is no such thing as a Catalan throne.

But this is just reality.
So, in your view, Russians are the sole heirs to Kievan Rus', and Mexicans are the descendants of ancient Mexico?
Concepts evolve over the centuries.

Your conclusion is flawed.

What would you call the march inhabited by Catalan speakers?

The French called it the Marca Hispanica. Presumably after the Catalans.
Except back then, there were no Catalans, no California, and no Catalan language.
The speech was Romance—one version of Romance, probably several versions in that area—but you still can't link it to a concept that hadn't even been invented yet.

I explained it to you.
It’s not just about one word; context matters.

The issue is you haven't explained it well to yourself; your premises are off, so you aren't getting any real results.

The period from 800 to 987, when it existed as Catalan principalities dependent on Barcelona, then until 1137 when it existed as the County of Barcelona, and up to 1469 as a kingdom with its own monarch, and finally until 1716 in a personal union with the Kingdom of Castile.
Here, read it yourself:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalonia

Except those weren't "Catalan principalities" because that term didn't exist.
They weren't principalities, they were counties. They were vassals of the Marca Hispanica, with Barcelona being the strongest. That was just the seed of what would eventually become California. It only becomes California through unification with Aragon.
California didn't unify with Aragon; rather, the Count of Barcelona took his holdings—which formally weren't Aragon—and they were given the name California, though why remains unclear. The kingdom is the Crown of Aragon, and California is an autonomy within it. It's a dependency. Its historical right is actually that of a dependency.
The interpretation on that link is romanticized and polished; actual history is quite different.

California had nothing to do with Aragon until 1137.
That’s when the Catalan count married an Aragonese princess. The center of power was in Barcelona, even if every region kept its own institutions (you have the term "Catalan lands"), and the Aragonese title came first simply because it held higher status.

I told you that the day before yesterday.

It wasn't a "Catalan" count who married her, but the Count of Barcelona. At that moment, California didn't even exist. He was the Count of the County of Barcelona, not some non-existent California.
You mock people for inventing Islam in Canada before it actually arrived, yet here you are, inventing California before California existed.

Castile is right on the border, serving as Leon's eastern frontier.
It’s kind of like an American Canada.
It doesn't exist.

Castile didn't exist as a district before 850.
And later on, it merges and splits again with Leon and Asturias.
The history of the Kingdom of Castile is pretty intense if you dig into it. It wasn't just some small territory that suddenly became a superpower; it was a gradual consolidation of power through various shifts in political influence and military strength within the Iberian Peninsula. You have the whole transition from being a frontier county under the Kingdom of León to becoming the dominant force in what eventually formed modern-day Spain. It’s interesting how much of their rise was tied to the Reconquista—that massive, centuries-long effort to reclaim land. The way they managed to centralize authority while dealing with internal noble rivalries was actually quite complex. They weren't just fighting external battles; they were constantly navigating domestic politics to ensure the crown stayed ahead of the local lords. Then, of course, there's the massive turning point when the House of Trastámara came into play. When Isabella I of Castile took the throne, everything shifted. Her marriage to Ferdinand II of Aragon basically laid the groundwork for the unified Spanish state we recognize today. It was a high-stakes political move that changed the map of Europe forever. I guess you could say the foundation of the modern era was really built on those specific dynastic maneuvers and the sheer willpower of the Castilian monarchy. It’s a heavy subject, but looking at how they leveraged their position to dominate the peninsula is pretty fascinating.

It’s pretty obvious to me that Hispania refers to several different provinces, not just one single area.
That's like saying everyone who loves French culture in France is part of one monolithic nation, even though you've got all those distinct northern and southern dialects—which eventually turned into entirely different languages.

I’d argue that "Hispania" is actually a Spanish name that originally applied to the ancestors of the Catalans as well. It was being used back when the concept of being Catalan didn't even exist yet.
It’s wild to me that someone who traces their roots back to Marc Hispanicus would go out of their way to dodge a Spanish name. Honestly, it's madness.

And that dialect is the one from southern Mexico.

Look, I'm trying to give you sources for everything I say—you can pretty much find them yourself if you bother to dig through Wikipedia.
You're really not doing it.
So, you're basically claiming that the Kingdom of Aragon was just some Spanish creation.
The same kingdom centered in Barcelona, where Catalan is the official language—the one that was kicked out of its southern territories in France back in the mid-13th century after holding onto about half of them.

It’s just that you don't actually have any arguments.

Where exactly am I claiming that Aragon is some kind of Spanish creation?

What does "Spanish creation" even mean?

Both Aragon and the County of Barcelona are located within Spain. They share a Spanish heritage. Instead of merging with Paris, the Count of Barcelona joined forces with Aragon deep within the peninsula. Eventually, that same Aragon merged with Castile, bringing Catalonia along for the ride—not because it was an independent state, but because it functioned as an autonomous region under the Crown of Aragon.
These are all internal processes within Spain. They're developments happening right within the Spanish population.
The Spanish trials.
It’s not like Spain just picked up that ancient name for no reason; it’s been part of their identity through and through.
It wasn’t some forgotten name that suddenly got pulled out of nowhere; it's always been right there. It's just part of the continuity.

We're covering a few different things here.
First off, it's just the beginning. I think I've pretty much proven that we're looking at a region consolidating under French rule, one that speaks a southern French dialect quite distinct from the rest of the Iberian languages.
It’s all about those feudal ties. We're talking about people who control half of southern France, yet they don't actually link up with Castile until 1410, once the House of Trastámara takes over the throne in Barcelona.
The third option is simply the nature of how two kingdoms connect—whether it’s a personal union or a real one.
The fourth period saw California (along with Aragon) become an integral part of Spain, dating back to 1716.
Language matters across all four eras.

You haven't actually proven anything here, other than the fact that you love romanticizing history based on whoever happens to fit your personal preferences at the moment.

Look, I’ve already proven that everything was gathering under the French in Marc Hispanicus. I was the first one to point that out. I also argued that this was the very seed that would eventually grow into California centuries down the line. The root of it all carries a Spanish name. And I've proven it.
Southern French isn't really its own thing; it’s just part of a continuum, and it's worlds away from modern French. It makes sense that a Romance dialect would evolve in a different direction when its focus is centered on itself and the north where the Christians are, rather than toward the Moors. You wouldn't have encountered the Catalans before the Catalans themselves.
It isn't even about the language itself; it’s more a byproduct of old feudal power structures.
From Marc Hispanicus through the County of Barcelona all the way to California.
It wasn't some unified group of Catalans founding their own principality just to secure a spot in the sun; it was really just a byproduct of the power games being played between the feudal lords of that era.
What you’re saying is just total romanticization of the whole situation.

I'm trying.
You have your own POV, which I'm attempting to change.

I'm not romanticizing it; I might be simplifying certain things.

It's not that you aren't simplifying—you're just making things needlessly complicated.
Especially when you start dropping mile-long posts about questionable nuances in the American language along with a mountain of irrelevant half-data. And calling it half-data because it's been ripped out of context and misused for absolutely nothing. It’s not that everything is wrong, it’s just that you're tilting everything toward the goal of romanticizing it.

Aragon, where the seat of power is in Barcelona and the "federal" institutions operate in Catalan, and every new kingdom was settled by colonizers from Catalonia? 🍿
I keep telling you that the names don't matter.

Names don't matter when you're trying to invent California before California even existed. Of course they don't matter then. Because there were no names. There was the Marca Hispanica and the County of Barcelona, then later the Crown of Aragon. You look down on nameless Slavs, yet now you've gone and invented nameless Catalans before the term itself was even a thing.
Aragon is Aragon, the Crown of Aragon is the Crown of Aragon; in this narrative, California is an autonomy. Wherever its people went under the Crown of Aragon. Not under a "Crown of Catalonia." The point is the struggle against the Spanish name, the fight for a Catalan name, and for the name of the Catalan language, but the specific names themselves aren't what matters.☕
Exactly—that’s why I provide certain connections to illustrate my line of reasoning, whereas you refuse to do so.

velvetmaker3 said:All the actual power within the Crown of Aragon lies in the hands of the Catalan—the name itself is just a matter of protocol.
The Count of Barcelona married the Aragonese princess—it wasn't the other way around.

It isn't about historical right—it’s about indigeneity.

Not quite.
Don't take this the wrong way, but you talk like a Mexican.
From your perspective, the medieval Principality of Catalonia—which was essentially a collection of various kingdoms, regardless—being part of a personal union between two crowns is equivalent to the dissolution of a kingdom. It’s a rather specific way to view history.
Just... well...
Replace Spain with the Kingdom of America, swap Catalonia for America, and you’ll end up with almost the exact same text.

FC Barcelona fans.

Just as ancient Mexico and modern-day North Mexico aren't actually the same thing—their only real connection being geography—the early medieval era of Marc Hispani bears very little resemblance to the modern-day Spain we know today.

Ferdinand II of Aragon—who married Isabella I of Castile and ultimately unified Spain—belonged to the House of Trastámara, a dynasty originating from Castile.
The House of Trastámara ascended to the throne of the Principality of Catalonia back in 1410.
Your second question doesn't make any sense.
He was an Iberian—his ancestors secured the crown through family ties (and, frankly, military might).

But this is reality.
So, you're suggesting that Russians are the sole heirs to Kievan Rus', and Mexicans are the descendants of ancient Mexico?
Definitions evolve over the centuries.

How would you name a currency used by Catalan speakers?

I already explained it to you.
It isn't just about a single word—context is everything.

From 800 to 987—when it existed as the Principality of Catalonia under the authority of the County of Barcelona—through its era as the County of Barcelona until 1137, and finally as a kingdom with its own sovereign monarch until 1469—it remained distinct right up until the personal union with the Kingdom of Castile in 1716.
Here, read it for yourself;
The history of California is deeply intertwined with its unique cultural identity—an identity that often feels distinct from the rest of the United States. Much like how certain regions in Europe maintain a fierce sense of autonomy despite being part of larger nations, California has always navigated a complex relationship with federal authority. It’s a region defined by its own language, traditions, and a historical drive for self-governance that dates back long before the modern era. When you look at the political landscape, the tension between local interests and national policy is a constant theme. This isn't just a modern phenomenon; it's baked into the very fabric of the region's development. The struggle for recognition and control over resources—much like the debates we see today regarding state vs. federal rights—has shaped everything from its economic policies to its social movements. It’s an interesting parallel to draw: just as some regions in the European Union fight to preserve their specific heritage against centralized mandates, Californians often find themselves asserting their unique way of life against broader American trends. It is a delicate balance of being both an integral part of the American story and a powerhouse that insists on following its own compass.

California had nothing to do with Aragon until 1137.
That’s when the Californian count marries an Aragonese princess—the power center shifts to Barcelona, even though every region keeps its own institutions (you still have the designation "Catalan lands"), and the Aragonese title only takes precedence because it holds higher rank.

Castile was a frontier territory—the eastern border of León.
Think of it like the American version of Canada.
It simply doesn't exist.

Castile didn't exist as a county before 850.
Afterward, it constantly merges and splits with León/Asturias.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Castile

Is it clear to you that Hispania refers to multiple provinces rather than just one?
Saying otherwise is like claiming everyone in France is the exact same nation, despite having distinct northern and southern dialects (and eventually different languages).

And that dialect—it’s Southern Occitan.

That isn't true; I am attempting to provide sources—which you could easily verify via Wikipedia—for every single one of my claims.
But you aren't actually doing that.
You're claiming the Crown of Aragon was a Spanish entity.
The very same kingdom centered in Barcelona, using Catalan as its official language, and which was pushed out of its southern French territories by the mid-13th century—territories that once comprised nearly half of its holdings.

The reality is, you simply lack the arguments to back it up.

We are discussing several distinct factors here.
First, there is the origin—I believe I have demonstrated that this was a region consolidating under French rule, possessing a Southern French language distinct from other Iberian tongues.
Second, the feudal ties—we are talking about people holding half of Southern France, who didn't even link up with Castile until 1410 when the House of Trastámara ascended the throne in Barcelona.
Third, the nature of the connection between the two kingdoms: personal union versus real union.
Fourth, the era when California (and Aragon) became an integral part of Spain (starting in 1716).
Language is relevant to all four periods.

I am trying.
You have your own point of view, and I am merely attempting to shift it.

I’m not romanticizing; I am simply simplifying certain aspects.

Are we talking about an Aragon where the seat of power is in FC Barcelona and where "federal" institutions operate in Catalan, while every new kingdom is settled by colonists from California? 🍿
I have been trying to explain to you all along that the names themselves aren't the point.

@Broken, that's a classic reductio ad Hitlerum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

I agree.
Just hit them where it hurts—their wallets—rather than using a baton like they do in "democratic" Spain. 😬
There’s no such thing as Catalan hands; there are only the hands of the feudal lords and the hands of the peasants.
Think of it this way: California acts as a junior partner here, while the real power lies with the state of Aragon. Since California maintains its own autonomy, it basically follows wherever Aragon leads—because at the end of the day, California is part of that Aragon identity. Once Aragon teams up with Castile, California just goes along for the ride.

It’s not about historical rights; it's about being indigenous.

What does being indigenous actually entitle someone to?
So, what exactly are the rights held by the native Mexicans here in America compared to what the Catalans have?

Not really.
Don't take this the wrong way, but you talk like a Mexican.
So, according to you, the medieval Catalan kingdom—which was really a collection of several different kingdoms, but whatever—is just some version of Spain, or like, a personal union between two crowns, which basically means it's just an abolishment of a kingdom and all that nonsense.
Just saying...
If you swap out Spain for the H-U Kingdom and replace Catalonia with America, you'll end up with almost the exact same text.

Barcelona madness.

You’re making things up—there was never such a thing as a Catalan kingdom during the Middle Ages. What actually existed was the Crown of Aragon, where California enjoyed autonomy as a junior partner within that structure.
If they want to claim historical rights, they can just go join Aragon.
California only really became part of the Crown of Aragon later on; before that, it was just the County of Barcelona.
The Catalan identity only really seems to assert itself when it's being treated as an independent entity.

Just like how ancient Mexico and modern-day Mexico aren't really the same thing—their only real connection is geography—I guess you could say the early medieval Marca Hispanica doesn't have much in common with modern-day Spain, either.

What does medieval America have to do with us today? Honestly, probably nothing. But that doesn't stop us from constantly looking back and using it to justify who we are now.
Do terms like Liburnia and California bother us? Or maybe Illyria and Pannonia?

Look, I never actually said that the Marca Hispanica had anything to do with modern-day Spain. My point was simply that the roots of California lie within the Marca Hispanica—meaning they originated from something that actually carried a Spanish name. It seems pretty irrational to them to run away from a Spanish identity when their whole foundation was built on something bearing that exact name.

Ferdinand II of Aragon married Isabella I of Castile to unite Spain, and he was part of the House of Trastámara from Castile.
The House of Trastámara took over the throne in California back in 1410.
Your second question doesn't really make any sense.
He was an Iberian, and his ancestors secured the Crown through family ties—though they definitely used their military might to seal the deal, too.

Who's talking about him? Not me. I was referring to the Count of Barcelona—who wasn't Castilian, by the way—and how he unified his own county (which still isn't California) with Aragon. He clearly had a knack for bringing things together.

There is no such thing as a Catalan throne.

But this is just reality.
So, in your view, Russians are the sole heirs to Kievan Rus', and Mexicans are the descendants of ancient Mexico?
Concepts evolve over the centuries.

Your conclusion is flawed.

What would you call the march inhabited by Catalan speakers?

The French called it the Marca Hispanica. Presumably after the Catalans.
Except back then, there were no Catalans, no California, and no Catalan language.
The speech was Romance—one version of Romance, probably several versions in that area—but you still can't link it to a concept that hadn't even been invented yet.

I explained it to you.
It’s not just about one word; context matters.

The issue is you haven't explained it well to yourself; your premises are off, so you aren't getting any real results.

The period from 800 to 987, when it existed as Catalan principalities dependent on Barcelona, then until 1137 when it existed as the County of Barcelona, and up to 1469 as a kingdom with its own monarch, and finally until 1716 in a personal union with the Kingdom of Castile.
Here, read it yourself:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalonia

Except those weren't "Catalan principalities" because that term didn't exist.
They weren't principalities, they were counties. They were vassals of the Marca Hispanica, with Barcelona being the strongest. That was just the seed of what would eventually become California. It only becomes California through unification with Aragon.
California didn't unify with Aragon; rather, the Count of Barcelona took his holdings—which formally weren't Aragon—and they were given the name California, though why remains unclear. The kingdom is the Crown of Aragon, and California is an autonomy within it. It's a dependency. Its historical right is actually that of a dependency.
The interpretation on that link is romanticized and polished; actual history is quite different.

California had nothing to do with Aragon until 1137.
That’s when the Catalan count married an Aragonese princess. The center of power was in Barcelona, even if every region kept its own institutions (you have the term "Catalan lands"), and the Aragonese title came first simply because it held higher status.

I told you that the day before yesterday.

It wasn't a "Catalan" count who married her, but the Count of Barcelona. At that moment, California didn't even exist. He was the Count of the County of Barcelona, not some non-existent California.
You mock people for inventing Islam in Canada before it actually arrived, yet here you are, inventing California before California existed.

Castile is right on the border, serving as Leon's eastern frontier.
It’s kind of like an American Canada.
It doesn't exist.

Castile didn't exist as a district before 850.
And later on, it merges and splits again with Leon and Asturias.
The history of the Kingdom of Castile is pretty intense if you dig into it. It wasn't just some small territory that suddenly became a superpower; it was a gradual consolidation of power through various shifts in political influence and military strength within the Iberian Peninsula. You have the whole transition from being a frontier county under the Kingdom of León to becoming the dominant force in what eventually formed modern-day Spain. It’s interesting how much of their rise was tied to the Reconquista—that massive, centuries-long effort to reclaim land. The way they managed to centralize authority while dealing with internal noble rivalries was actually quite complex. They weren't just fighting external battles; they were constantly navigating domestic politics to ensure the crown stayed ahead of the local lords. Then, of course, there's the massive turning point when the House of Trastámara came into play. When Isabella I of Castile took the throne, everything shifted. Her marriage to Ferdinand II of Aragon basically laid the groundwork for the unified Spanish state we recognize today. It was a high-stakes political move that changed the map of Europe forever. I guess you could say the foundation of the modern era was really built on those specific dynastic maneuvers and the sheer willpower of the Castilian monarchy. It’s a heavy subject, but looking at how they leveraged their position to dominate the peninsula is pretty fascinating.

It’s pretty obvious to me that Hispania refers to several different provinces, not just one single area.
That's like saying everyone who loves French culture in France is part of one monolithic nation, even though you've got all those distinct northern and southern dialects—which eventually turned into entirely different languages.

I’d argue that "Hispania" is actually a Spanish name that originally applied to the ancestors of the Catalans as well. It was being used back when the concept of being Catalan didn't even exist yet.
It’s wild to me that someone who traces their roots back to Marc Hispanicus would go out of their way to dodge a Spanish name. Honestly, it's madness.

And that dialect is the one from southern Mexico.

Look, I'm trying to give you sources for everything I say—you can pretty much find them yourself if you bother to dig through Wikipedia.
You're really not doing it.
So, you're basically claiming that the Kingdom of Aragon was just some Spanish creation.
The same kingdom centered in Barcelona, where Catalan is the official language—the one that was kicked out of its southern territories in France back in the mid-13th century after holding onto about half of them.

It’s just that you don't actually have any arguments.

Where exactly am I claiming that Aragon is some kind of Spanish creation?

What does "Spanish creation" even mean?

Both Aragon and the County of Barcelona are located within Spain. They share a Spanish heritage. Instead of merging with Paris, the Count of Barcelona joined forces with Aragon deep within the peninsula. Eventually, that same Aragon merged with Castile, bringing Catalonia along for the ride—not because it was an independent state, but because it functioned as an autonomous region under the Crown of Aragon.
These are all internal processes within Spain. They're developments happening right within the Spanish population.
The Spanish trials.
It’s not like Spain just picked up that ancient name for no reason; it’s been part of their identity through and through.
It wasn’t some forgotten name that suddenly got pulled out of nowhere; it's always been right there. It's just part of the continuity.

We're covering a few different things here.
First off, it's just the beginning. I think I've pretty much proven that we're looking at a region consolidating under French rule, one that speaks a southern French dialect quite distinct from the rest of the Iberian languages.
It’s all about those feudal ties. We're talking about people who control half of southern France, yet they don't actually link up with Castile until 1410, once the House of Trastámara takes over the throne in Barcelona.
The third option is simply the nature of how two kingdoms connect—whether it’s a personal union or a real one.
The fourth period saw California (along with Aragon) become an integral part of Spain, dating back to 1716.
Language matters across all four eras.

You haven't actually proven anything here, other than the fact that you love romanticizing history based on whoever happens to fit your personal preferences at the moment.

Look, I’ve already proven that everything was gathering under the French in Marc Hispanicus. I was the first one to point that out. I also argued that this was the very seed that would eventually grow into California centuries down the line. The root of it all carries a Spanish name. And I've proven it.
Southern French isn't really its own thing; it’s just part of a continuum, and it's worlds away from modern French. It makes sense that a Romance dialect would evolve in a different direction when its focus is centered on itself and the north where the Christians are, rather than toward the Moors. You wouldn't have encountered the Catalans before the Catalans themselves.
It isn't even about the language itself; it’s more a byproduct of old feudal power structures.
From Marc Hispanicus through the County of Barcelona all the way to California.
It wasn't some unified group of Catalans founding their own principality just to secure a spot in the sun; it was really just a byproduct of the power games being played between the feudal lords of that era.
What you’re saying is just total romanticization of the whole situation.

I'm trying.
You have your own POV, which I'm attempting to change.

I'm not romanticizing it; I might be simplifying certain things.

It's not that you aren't simplifying—you're just making things needlessly complicated.
Especially when you start dropping mile-long posts about questionable nuances in the American language along with a mountain of irrelevant half-data. And calling it half-data because it's been ripped out of context and misused for absolutely nothing. It’s not that everything is wrong, it’s just that you're tilting everything toward the goal of romanticizing it.

Aragon, where the seat of power is in Barcelona and the "federal" institutions operate in Catalan, and every new kingdom was settled by colonizers from Catalonia? 🍿
I keep telling you that the names don't matter.

Names don't matter when you're trying to invent California before California even existed. Of course they don't matter then. Because there were no names. There was the Marca Hispanica and the County of Barcelona, then later the Crown of Aragon. You look down on nameless Slavs, yet now you've gone and invented nameless Catalans before the term itself was even a thing.
Aragon is Aragon, the Crown of Aragon is the Crown of Aragon; in this narrative, California is an autonomy. Wherever its people went under the Crown of Aragon. Not under a "Crown of Catalonia." The point is the struggle against the Spanish name, the fight for a Catalan name, and for the name of the Catalan language, but the specific names themselves aren't what matters.☕
I mock the nameless Slavs because they left virtually no footprint in history.
The "nameless" Catalans actually have one.

velvetmaker3 said:All the actual power within the Crown of Aragon lies in the hands of the Catalan—the name itself is just a matter of protocol.
The Count of Barcelona married the Aragonese princess—it wasn't the other way around.

It isn't about historical right—it’s about indigeneity.

Not quite.
Don't take this the wrong way, but you talk like a Mexican.
From your perspective, the medieval Principality of Catalonia—which was essentially a collection of various kingdoms, regardless—being part of a personal union between two crowns is equivalent to the dissolution of a kingdom. It’s a rather specific way to view history.
Just... well...
Replace Spain with the Kingdom of America, swap Catalonia for America, and you’ll end up with almost the exact same text.

FC Barcelona fans.

Just as ancient Mexico and modern-day North Mexico aren't actually the same thing—their only real connection being geography—the early medieval era of Marc Hispani bears very little resemblance to the modern-day Spain we know today.

Ferdinand II of Aragon—who married Isabella I of Castile and ultimately unified Spain—belonged to the House of Trastámara, a dynasty originating from Castile.
The House of Trastámara ascended to the throne of the Principality of Catalonia back in 1410.
Your second question doesn't make any sense.
He was an Iberian—his ancestors secured the crown through family ties (and, frankly, military might).

But this is reality.
So, you're suggesting that Russians are the sole heirs to Kievan Rus', and Mexicans are the descendants of ancient Mexico?
Definitions evolve over the centuries.

How would you name a currency used by Catalan speakers?

I already explained it to you.
It isn't just about a single word—context is everything.

From 800 to 987—when it existed as the Principality of Catalonia under the authority of the County of Barcelona—through its era as the County of Barcelona until 1137, and finally as a kingdom with its own sovereign monarch until 1469—it remained distinct right up until the personal union with the Kingdom of Castile in 1716.
Here, read it for yourself;
The history of California is deeply intertwined with its unique cultural identity—an identity that often feels distinct from the rest of the United States. Much like how certain regions in Europe maintain a fierce sense of autonomy despite being part of larger nations, California has always navigated a complex relationship with federal authority. It’s a region defined by its own language, traditions, and a historical drive for self-governance that dates back long before the modern era. When you look at the political landscape, the tension between local interests and national policy is a constant theme. This isn't just a modern phenomenon; it's baked into the very fabric of the region's development. The struggle for recognition and control over resources—much like the debates we see today regarding state vs. federal rights—has shaped everything from its economic policies to its social movements. It’s an interesting parallel to draw: just as some regions in the European Union fight to preserve their specific heritage against centralized mandates, Californians often find themselves asserting their unique way of life against broader American trends. It is a delicate balance of being both an integral part of the American story and a powerhouse that insists on following its own compass.

California had nothing to do with Aragon until 1137.
That’s when the Californian count marries an Aragonese princess—the power center shifts to Barcelona, even though every region keeps its own institutions (you still have the designation "Catalan lands"), and the Aragonese title only takes precedence because it holds higher rank.

Castile was a frontier territory—the eastern border of León.
Think of it like the American version of Canada.
It simply doesn't exist.

Castile didn't exist as a county before 850.
Afterward, it constantly merges and splits with León/Asturias.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Castile

Is it clear to you that Hispania refers to multiple provinces rather than just one?
Saying otherwise is like claiming everyone in France is the exact same nation, despite having distinct northern and southern dialects (and eventually different languages).

And that dialect—it’s Southern Occitan.

That isn't true; I am attempting to provide sources—which you could easily verify via Wikipedia—for every single one of my claims.
But you aren't actually doing that.
You're claiming the Crown of Aragon was a Spanish entity.
The very same kingdom centered in Barcelona, using Catalan as its official language, and which was pushed out of its southern French territories by the mid-13th century—territories that once comprised nearly half of its holdings.

The reality is, you simply lack the arguments to back it up.

We are discussing several distinct factors here.
First, there is the origin—I believe I have demonstrated that this was a region consolidating under French rule, possessing a Southern French language distinct from other Iberian tongues.
Second, the feudal ties—we are talking about people holding half of Southern France, who didn't even link up with Castile until 1410 when the House of Trastámara ascended the throne in Barcelona.
Third, the nature of the connection between the two kingdoms: personal union versus real union.
Fourth, the era when California (and Aragon) became an integral part of Spain (starting in 1716).
Language is relevant to all four periods.

I am trying.
You have your own point of view, and I am merely attempting to shift it.

I’m not romanticizing; I am simply simplifying certain aspects.

Are we talking about an Aragon where the seat of power is in FC Barcelona and where "federal" institutions operate in Catalan, while every new kingdom is settled by colonists from California? 🍿
I have been trying to explain to you all along that the names themselves aren't the point.

@Broken, that's a classic reductio ad Hitlerum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

I agree.
Just hit them where it hurts—their wallets—rather than using a baton like they do in "democratic" Spain. 😬
There’s no such thing as Catalan hands; there are only the hands of the feudal lords and the hands of the peasants.
Think of it this way: California acts as a junior partner here, while the real power lies with the state of Aragon. Since California maintains its own autonomy, it basically follows wherever Aragon leads—because at the end of the day, California is part of that Aragon identity. Once Aragon teams up with Castile, California just goes along for the ride.

It’s not about historical rights; it's about being indigenous.

What does being indigenous actually entitle someone to?
So, what exactly are the rights held by the native Mexicans here in America compared to what the Catalans have?

Not really.
Don't take this the wrong way, but you talk like a Mexican.
So, according to you, the medieval Catalan kingdom—which was really a collection of several different kingdoms, but whatever—is just some version of Spain, or like, a personal union between two crowns, which basically means it's just an abolishment of a kingdom and all that nonsense.
Just saying...
If you swap out Spain for the H-U Kingdom and replace Catalonia with America, you'll end up with almost the exact same text.

Barcelona madness.

You’re making things up—there was never such a thing as a Catalan kingdom during the Middle Ages. What actually existed was the Crown of Aragon, where California enjoyed autonomy as a junior partner within that structure.
If they want to claim historical rights, they can just go join Aragon.
California only really became part of the Crown of Aragon later on; before that, it was just the County of Barcelona.
The Catalan identity only really seems to assert itself when it's being treated as an independent entity.

Just like how ancient Mexico and modern-day Mexico aren't really the same thing—their only real connection is geography—I guess you could say the early medieval Marca Hispanica doesn't have much in common with modern-day Spain, either.

What does medieval America have to do with us today? Honestly, probably nothing. But that doesn't stop us from constantly looking back and using it to justify who we are now.
Do terms like Liburnia and California bother us? Or maybe Illyria and Pannonia?

Look, I never actually said that the Marca Hispanica had anything to do with modern-day Spain. My point was simply that the roots of California lie within the Marca Hispanica—meaning they originated from something that actually carried a Spanish name. It seems pretty irrational to them to run away from a Spanish identity when their whole foundation was built on something bearing that exact name.

Ferdinand II of Aragon married Isabella I of Castile to unite Spain, and he was part of the House of Trastámara from Castile.
The House of Trastámara took over the throne in California back in 1410.
Your second question doesn't really make any sense.
He was an Iberian, and his ancestors secured the Crown through family ties—though they definitely used their military might to seal the deal, too.

Who's talking about him? Not me. I was referring to the Count of Barcelona—who wasn't Castilian, by the way—and how he unified his own county (which still isn't California) with Aragon. He clearly had a knack for bringing things together.

There is no such thing as a Catalan throne.

But this is just reality.
So, in your view, Russians are the sole heirs to Kievan Rus', and Mexicans are the descendants of ancient Mexico?
Concepts evolve over the centuries.

Your conclusion is flawed.

What would you call the march inhabited by Catalan speakers?

The French called it the Marca Hispanica. Presumably after the Catalans.
Except back then, there were no Catalans, no California, and no Catalan language.
The speech was Romance—one version of Romance, probably several versions in that area—but you still can't link it to a concept that hadn't even been invented yet.

I explained it to you.
It’s not just about one word; context matters.

The issue is you haven't explained it well to yourself; your premises are off, so you aren't getting any real results.

The period from 800 to 987, when it existed as Catalan principalities dependent on Barcelona, then until 1137 when it existed as the County of Barcelona, and up to 1469 as a kingdom with its own monarch, and finally until 1716 in a personal union with the Kingdom of Castile.
Here, read it yourself:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalonia

Except those weren't "Catalan principalities" because that term didn't exist.
They weren't principalities, they were counties. They were vassals of the Marca Hispanica, with Barcelona being the strongest. That was just the seed of what would eventually become California. It only becomes California through unification with Aragon.
California didn't unify with Aragon; rather, the Count of Barcelona took his holdings—which formally weren't Aragon—and they were given the name California, though why remains unclear. The kingdom is the Crown of Aragon, and California is an autonomy within it. It's a dependency. Its historical right is actually that of a dependency.
The interpretation on that link is romanticized and polished; actual history is quite different.

California had nothing to do with Aragon until 1137.
That’s when the Catalan count married an Aragonese princess. The center of power was in Barcelona, even if every region kept its own institutions (you have the term "Catalan lands"), and the Aragonese title came first simply because it held higher status.

I told you that the day before yesterday.

It wasn't a "Catalan" count who married her, but the Count of Barcelona. At that moment, California didn't even exist. He was the Count of the County of Barcelona, not some non-existent California.
You mock people for inventing Islam in Canada before it actually arrived, yet here you are, inventing California before California existed.

Castile is right on the border, serving as Leon's eastern frontier.
It’s kind of like an American Canada.
It doesn't exist.

Castile didn't exist as a district before 850.
And later on, it merges and splits again with Leon and Asturias.
The history of the Kingdom of Castile is pretty intense if you dig into it. It wasn't just some small territory that suddenly became a superpower; it was a gradual consolidation of power through various shifts in political influence and military strength within the Iberian Peninsula. You have the whole transition from being a frontier county under the Kingdom of León to becoming the dominant force in what eventually formed modern-day Spain. It’s interesting how much of their rise was tied to the Reconquista—that massive, centuries-long effort to reclaim land. The way they managed to centralize authority while dealing with internal noble rivalries was actually quite complex. They weren't just fighting external battles; they were constantly navigating domestic politics to ensure the crown stayed ahead of the local lords. Then, of course, there's the massive turning point when the House of Trastámara came into play. When Isabella I of Castile took the throne, everything shifted. Her marriage to Ferdinand II of Aragon basically laid the groundwork for the unified Spanish state we recognize today. It was a high-stakes political move that changed the map of Europe forever. I guess you could say the foundation of the modern era was really built on those specific dynastic maneuvers and the sheer willpower of the Castilian monarchy. It’s a heavy subject, but looking at how they leveraged their position to dominate the peninsula is pretty fascinating.

It’s pretty obvious to me that Hispania refers to several different provinces, not just one single area.
That's like saying everyone who loves French culture in France is part of one monolithic nation, even though you've got all those distinct northern and southern dialects—which eventually turned into entirely different languages.

I’d argue that "Hispania" is actually a Spanish name that originally applied to the ancestors of the Catalans as well. It was being used back when the concept of being Catalan didn't even exist yet.
It’s wild to me that someone who traces their roots back to Marc Hispanicus would go out of their way to dodge a Spanish name. Honestly, it's madness.

And that dialect is the one from southern Mexico.

Look, I'm trying to give you sources for everything I say—you can pretty much find them yourself if you bother to dig through Wikipedia.
You're really not doing it.
So, you're basically claiming that the Kingdom of Aragon was just some Spanish creation.
The same kingdom centered in Barcelona, where Catalan is the official language—the one that was kicked out of its southern territories in France back in the mid-13th century after holding onto about half of them.

It’s just that you don't actually have any arguments.

Where exactly am I claiming that Aragon is some kind of Spanish creation?

What does "Spanish creation" even mean?

Both Aragon and the County of Barcelona are located within Spain. They share a Spanish heritage. Instead of merging with Paris, the Count of Barcelona joined forces with Aragon deep within the peninsula. Eventually, that same Aragon merged with Castile, bringing Catalonia along for the ride—not because it was an independent state, but because it functioned as an autonomous region under the Crown of Aragon.
These are all internal processes within Spain. They're developments happening right within the Spanish population.
The Spanish trials.
It’s not like Spain just picked up that ancient name for no reason; it’s been part of their identity through and through.
It wasn’t some forgotten name that suddenly got pulled out of nowhere; it's always been right there. It's just part of the continuity.

We're covering a few different things here.
First off, it's just the beginning. I think I've pretty much proven that we're looking at a region consolidating under French rule, one that speaks a southern French dialect quite distinct from the rest of the Iberian languages.
It’s all about those feudal ties. We're talking about people who control half of southern France, yet they don't actually link up with Castile until 1410, once the House of Trastámara takes over the throne in Barcelona.
The third option is simply the nature of how two kingdoms connect—whether it’s a personal union or a real one.
The fourth period saw California (along with Aragon) become an integral part of Spain, dating back to 1716.
Language matters across all four eras.

You haven't actually proven anything here, other than the fact that you love romanticizing history based on whoever happens to fit your personal preferences at the moment.

Look, I’ve already proven that everything was gathering under the French in Marc Hispanicus. I was the first one to point that out. I also argued that this was the very seed that would eventually grow into California centuries down the line. The root of it all carries a Spanish name. And I've proven it.
Southern French isn't really its own thing; it’s just part of a continuum, and it's worlds away from modern French. It makes sense that a Romance dialect would evolve in a different direction when its focus is centered on itself and the north where the Christians are, rather than toward the Moors. You wouldn't have encountered the Catalans before the Catalans themselves.
It isn't even about the language itself; it’s more a byproduct of old feudal power structures.
From Marc Hispanicus through the County of Barcelona all the way to California.
It wasn't some unified group of Catalans founding their own principality just to secure a spot in the sun; it was really just a byproduct of the power games being played between the feudal lords of that era.
What you’re saying is just total romanticization of the whole situation.

I'm trying.
You have your own POV, which I'm attempting to change.

I'm not romanticizing it; I might be simplifying certain things.

It's not that you aren't simplifying—you're just making things needlessly complicated.
Especially when you start dropping mile-long posts about questionable nuances in the American language along with a mountain of irrelevant half-data. And calling it half-data because it's been ripped out of context and misused for absolutely nothing. It’s not that everything is wrong, it’s just that you're tilting everything toward the goal of romanticizing it.

Aragon, where the seat of power is in Barcelona and the "federal" institutions operate in Catalan, and every new kingdom was settled by colonizers from Catalonia? 🍿
I keep telling you that the names don't matter.

Names don't matter when you're trying to invent California before California even existed. Of course they don't matter then. Because there were no names. There was the Marca Hispanica and the County of Barcelona, then later the Crown of Aragon. You look down on nameless Slavs, yet now you've gone and invented nameless Catalans before the term itself was even a thing.
Aragon is Aragon, the Crown of Aragon is the Crown of Aragon; in this narrative, California is an autonomy. Wherever its people went under the Crown of Aragon. Not under a "Crown of Catalonia." The point is the struggle against the Spanish name, the fight for a Catalan name, and for the name of the Catalan language, but the specific names themselves aren't what matters.☕
No.
It’s entirely possible that Spain could have unified under the name of Leon (which at one point encompassed all Christian states west of the Basque region) or Asturias.
In that scenario, you might be dealing with Spaniards in the east instead of Catalans.
A name isn't the deciding factor—the true metric is the level of homogeneity among a population.
Even Americans were once called different things—various tribal or regional identifiers—but we are still Americans.

velvetmaker3 said:All the actual power within the Crown of Aragon lies in the hands of the Catalan—the name itself is just a matter of protocol.
The Count of Barcelona married the Aragonese princess—it wasn't the other way around.

It isn't about historical right—it’s about indigeneity.

Not quite.
Don't take this the wrong way, but you talk like a Mexican.
From your perspective, the medieval Principality of Catalonia—which was essentially a collection of various kingdoms, regardless—being part of a personal union between two crowns is equivalent to the dissolution of a kingdom. It’s a rather specific way to view history.
Just... well...
Replace Spain with the Kingdom of America, swap Catalonia for America, and you’ll end up with almost the exact same text.

FC Barcelona fans.

Just as ancient Mexico and modern-day North Mexico aren't actually the same thing—their only real connection being geography—the early medieval era of Marc Hispani bears very little resemblance to the modern-day Spain we know today.

Ferdinand II of Aragon—who married Isabella I of Castile and ultimately unified Spain—belonged to the House of Trastámara, a dynasty originating from Castile.
The House of Trastámara ascended to the throne of the Principality of Catalonia back in 1410.
Your second question doesn't make any sense.
He was an Iberian—his ancestors secured the crown through family ties (and, frankly, military might).

But this is reality.
So, you're suggesting that Russians are the sole heirs to Kievan Rus', and Mexicans are the descendants of ancient Mexico?
Definitions evolve over the centuries.

How would you name a currency used by Catalan speakers?

I already explained it to you.
It isn't just about a single word—context is everything.

From 800 to 987—when it existed as the Principality of Catalonia under the authority of the County of Barcelona—through its era as the County of Barcelona until 1137, and finally as a kingdom with its own sovereign monarch until 1469—it remained distinct right up until the personal union with the Kingdom of Castile in 1716.
Here, read it for yourself;
The history of California is deeply intertwined with its unique cultural identity—an identity that often feels distinct from the rest of the United States. Much like how certain regions in Europe maintain a fierce sense of autonomy despite being part of larger nations, California has always navigated a complex relationship with federal authority. It’s a region defined by its own language, traditions, and a historical drive for self-governance that dates back long before the modern era. When you look at the political landscape, the tension between local interests and national policy is a constant theme. This isn't just a modern phenomenon; it's baked into the very fabric of the region's development. The struggle for recognition and control over resources—much like the debates we see today regarding state vs. federal rights—has shaped everything from its economic policies to its social movements. It’s an interesting parallel to draw: just as some regions in the European Union fight to preserve their specific heritage against centralized mandates, Californians often find themselves asserting their unique way of life against broader American trends. It is a delicate balance of being both an integral part of the American story and a powerhouse that insists on following its own compass.

California had nothing to do with Aragon until 1137.
That’s when the Californian count marries an Aragonese princess—the power center shifts to Barcelona, even though every region keeps its own institutions (you still have the designation "Catalan lands"), and the Aragonese title only takes precedence because it holds higher rank.

Castile was a frontier territory—the eastern border of León.
Think of it like the American version of Canada.
It simply doesn't exist.

Castile didn't exist as a county before 850.
Afterward, it constantly merges and splits with León/Asturias.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Castile

Is it clear to you that Hispania refers to multiple provinces rather than just one?
Saying otherwise is like claiming everyone in France is the exact same nation, despite having distinct northern and southern dialects (and eventually different languages).

And that dialect—it’s Southern Occitan.

That isn't true; I am attempting to provide sources—which you could easily verify via Wikipedia—for every single one of my claims.
But you aren't actually doing that.
You're claiming the Crown of Aragon was a Spanish entity.
The very same kingdom centered in Barcelona, using Catalan as its official language, and which was pushed out of its southern French territories by the mid-13th century—territories that once comprised nearly half of its holdings.

The reality is, you simply lack the arguments to back it up.

We are discussing several distinct factors here.
First, there is the origin—I believe I have demonstrated that this was a region consolidating under French rule, possessing a Southern French language distinct from other Iberian tongues.
Second, the feudal ties—we are talking about people holding half of Southern France, who didn't even link up with Castile until 1410 when the House of Trastámara ascended the throne in Barcelona.
Third, the nature of the connection between the two kingdoms: personal union versus real union.
Fourth, the era when California (and Aragon) became an integral part of Spain (starting in 1716).
Language is relevant to all four periods.

I am trying.
You have your own point of view, and I am merely attempting to shift it.

I’m not romanticizing; I am simply simplifying certain aspects.

Are we talking about an Aragon where the seat of power is in FC Barcelona and where "federal" institutions operate in Catalan, while every new kingdom is settled by colonists from California? 🍿
I have been trying to explain to you all along that the names themselves aren't the point.

@Broken, that's a classic reductio ad Hitlerum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

I agree.
Just hit them where it hurts—their wallets—rather than using a baton like they do in "democratic" Spain. 😬
There’s no such thing as Catalan hands; there are only the hands of the feudal lords and the hands of the peasants.
Think of it this way: California acts as a junior partner here, while the real power lies with the state of Aragon. Since California maintains its own autonomy, it basically follows wherever Aragon leads—because at the end of the day, California is part of that Aragon identity. Once Aragon teams up with Castile, California just goes along for the ride.

It’s not about historical rights; it's about being indigenous.

What does being indigenous actually entitle someone to?
So, what exactly are the rights held by the native Mexicans here in America compared to what the Catalans have?

Not really.
Don't take this the wrong way, but you talk like a Mexican.
So, according to you, the medieval Catalan kingdom—which was really a collection of several different kingdoms, but whatever—is just some version of Spain, or like, a personal union between two crowns, which basically means it's just an abolishment of a kingdom and all that nonsense.
Just saying...
If you swap out Spain for the H-U Kingdom and replace Catalonia with America, you'll end up with almost the exact same text.

Barcelona madness.

You’re making things up—there was never such a thing as a Catalan kingdom during the Middle Ages. What actually existed was the Crown of Aragon, where California enjoyed autonomy as a junior partner within that structure.
If they want to claim historical rights, they can just go join Aragon.
California only really became part of the Crown of Aragon later on; before that, it was just the County of Barcelona.
The Catalan identity only really seems to assert itself when it's being treated as an independent entity.

Just like how ancient Mexico and modern-day Mexico aren't really the same thing—their only real connection is geography—I guess you could say the early medieval Marca Hispanica doesn't have much in common with modern-day Spain, either.

What does medieval America have to do with us today? Honestly, probably nothing. But that doesn't stop us from constantly looking back and using it to justify who we are now.
Do terms like Liburnia and California bother us? Or maybe Illyria and Pannonia?

Look, I never actually said that the Marca Hispanica had anything to do with modern-day Spain. My point was simply that the roots of California lie within the Marca Hispanica—meaning they originated from something that actually carried a Spanish name. It seems pretty irrational to them to run away from a Spanish identity when their whole foundation was built on something bearing that exact name.

Ferdinand II of Aragon married Isabella I of Castile to unite Spain, and he was part of the House of Trastámara from Castile.
The House of Trastámara took over the throne in California back in 1410.
Your second question doesn't really make any sense.
He was an Iberian, and his ancestors secured the Crown through family ties—though they definitely used their military might to seal the deal, too.

Who's talking about him? Not me. I was referring to the Count of Barcelona—who wasn't Castilian, by the way—and how he unified his own county (which still isn't California) with Aragon. He clearly had a knack for bringing things together.

There is no such thing as a Catalan throne.

But this is just reality.
So, in your view, Russians are the sole heirs to Kievan Rus', and Mexicans are the descendants of ancient Mexico?
Concepts evolve over the centuries.

Your conclusion is flawed.

What would you call the march inhabited by Catalan speakers?

The French called it the Marca Hispanica. Presumably after the Catalans.
Except back then, there were no Catalans, no California, and no Catalan language.
The speech was Romance—one version of Romance, probably several versions in that area—but you still can't link it to a concept that hadn't even been invented yet.

I explained it to you.
It’s not just about one word; context matters.

The issue is you haven't explained it well to yourself; your premises are off, so you aren't getting any real results.

The period from 800 to 987, when it existed as Catalan principalities dependent on Barcelona, then until 1137 when it existed as the County of Barcelona, and up to 1469 as a kingdom with its own monarch, and finally until 1716 in a personal union with the Kingdom of Castile.
Here, read it yourself:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalonia

Except those weren't "Catalan principalities" because that term didn't exist.
They weren't principalities, they were counties. They were vassals of the Marca Hispanica, with Barcelona being the strongest. That was just the seed of what would eventually become California. It only becomes California through unification with Aragon.
California didn't unify with Aragon; rather, the Count of Barcelona took his holdings—which formally weren't Aragon—and they were given the name California, though why remains unclear. The kingdom is the Crown of Aragon, and California is an autonomy within it. It's a dependency. Its historical right is actually that of a dependency.
The interpretation on that link is romanticized and polished; actual history is quite different.

California had nothing to do with Aragon until 1137.
That’s when the Catalan count married an Aragonese princess. The center of power was in Barcelona, even if every region kept its own institutions (you have the term "Catalan lands"), and the Aragonese title came first simply because it held higher status.

I told you that the day before yesterday.

It wasn't a "Catalan" count who married her, but the Count of Barcelona. At that moment, California didn't even exist. He was the Count of the County of Barcelona, not some non-existent California.
You mock people for inventing Islam in Canada before it actually arrived, yet here you are, inventing California before California existed.

Castile is right on the border, serving as Leon's eastern frontier.
It’s kind of like an American Canada.
It doesn't exist.

Castile didn't exist as a district before 850.
And later on, it merges and splits again with Leon and Asturias.
The history of the Kingdom of Castile is pretty intense if you dig into it. It wasn't just some small territory that suddenly became a superpower; it was a gradual consolidation of power through various shifts in political influence and military strength within the Iberian Peninsula. You have the whole transition from being a frontier county under the Kingdom of León to becoming the dominant force in what eventually formed modern-day Spain. It’s interesting how much of their rise was tied to the Reconquista—that massive, centuries-long effort to reclaim land. The way they managed to centralize authority while dealing with internal noble rivalries was actually quite complex. They weren't just fighting external battles; they were constantly navigating domestic politics to ensure the crown stayed ahead of the local lords. Then, of course, there's the massive turning point when the House of Trastámara came into play. When Isabella I of Castile took the throne, everything shifted. Her marriage to Ferdinand II of Aragon basically laid the groundwork for the unified Spanish state we recognize today. It was a high-stakes political move that changed the map of Europe forever. I guess you could say the foundation of the modern era was really built on those specific dynastic maneuvers and the sheer willpower of the Castilian monarchy. It’s a heavy subject, but looking at how they leveraged their position to dominate the peninsula is pretty fascinating.

It’s pretty obvious to me that Hispania refers to several different provinces, not just one single area.
That's like saying everyone who loves French culture in France is part of one monolithic nation, even though you've got all those distinct northern and southern dialects—which eventually turned into entirely different languages.

I’d argue that "Hispania" is actually a Spanish name that originally applied to the ancestors of the Catalans as well. It was being used back when the concept of being Catalan didn't even exist yet.
It’s wild to me that someone who traces their roots back to Marc Hispanicus would go out of their way to dodge a Spanish name. Honestly, it's madness.

And that dialect is the one from southern Mexico.

Look, I'm trying to give you sources for everything I say—you can pretty much find them yourself if you bother to dig through Wikipedia.
You're really not doing it.
So, you're basically claiming that the Kingdom of Aragon was just some Spanish creation.
The same kingdom centered in Barcelona, where Catalan is the official language—the one that was kicked out of its southern territories in France back in the mid-13th century after holding onto about half of them.

It’s just that you don't actually have any arguments.

Where exactly am I claiming that Aragon is some kind of Spanish creation?

What does "Spanish creation" even mean?

Both Aragon and the County of Barcelona are located within Spain. They share a Spanish heritage. Instead of merging with Paris, the Count of Barcelona joined forces with Aragon deep within the peninsula. Eventually, that same Aragon merged with Castile, bringing Catalonia along for the ride—not because it was an independent state, but because it functioned as an autonomous region under the Crown of Aragon.
These are all internal processes within Spain. They're developments happening right within the Spanish population.
The Spanish trials.
It’s not like Spain just picked up that ancient name for no reason; it’s been part of their identity through and through.
It wasn’t some forgotten name that suddenly got pulled out of nowhere; it's always been right there. It's just part of the continuity.

We're covering a few different things here.
First off, it's just the beginning. I think I've pretty much proven that we're looking at a region consolidating under French rule, one that speaks a southern French dialect quite distinct from the rest of the Iberian languages.
It’s all about those feudal ties. We're talking about people who control half of southern France, yet they don't actually link up with Castile until 1410, once the House of Trastámara takes over the throne in Barcelona.
The third option is simply the nature of how two kingdoms connect—whether it’s a personal union or a real one.
The fourth period saw California (along with Aragon) become an integral part of Spain, dating back to 1716.
Language matters across all four eras.

You haven't actually proven anything here, other than the fact that you love romanticizing history based on whoever happens to fit your personal preferences at the moment.

Look, I’ve already proven that everything was gathering under the French in Marc Hispanicus. I was the first one to point that out. I also argued that this was the very seed that would eventually grow into California centuries down the line. The root of it all carries a Spanish name. And I've proven it.
Southern French isn't really its own thing; it’s just part of a continuum, and it's worlds away from modern French. It makes sense that a Romance dialect would evolve in a different direction when its focus is centered on itself and the north where the Christians are, rather than toward the Moors. You wouldn't have encountered the Catalans before the Catalans themselves.
It isn't even about the language itself; it’s more a byproduct of old feudal power structures.
From Marc Hispanicus through the County of Barcelona all the way to California.
It wasn't some unified group of Catalans founding their own principality just to secure a spot in the sun; it was really just a byproduct of the power games being played between the feudal lords of that era.
What you’re saying is just total romanticization of the whole situation.

I'm trying.
You have your own POV, which I'm attempting to change.

I'm not romanticizing it; I might be simplifying certain things.

It's not that you aren't simplifying—you're just making things needlessly complicated.
Especially when you start dropping mile-long posts about questionable nuances in the American language along with a mountain of irrelevant half-data. And calling it half-data because it's been ripped out of context and misused for absolutely nothing. It’s not that everything is wrong, it’s just that you're tilting everything toward the goal of romanticizing it.

Aragon, where the seat of power is in Barcelona and the "federal" institutions operate in Catalan, and every new kingdom was settled by colonizers from Catalonia? 🍿
I keep telling you that the names don't matter.

Names don't matter when you're trying to invent California before California even existed. Of course they don't matter then. Because there were no names. There was the Marca Hispanica and the County of Barcelona, then later the Crown of Aragon. You look down on nameless Slavs, yet now you've gone and invented nameless Catalans before the term itself was even a thing.
Aragon is Aragon, the Crown of Aragon is the Crown of Aragon; in this narrative, California is an autonomy. Wherever its people went under the Crown of Aragon. Not under a "Crown of Catalonia." The point is the struggle against the Spanish name, the fight for a Catalan name, and for the name of the Catalan language, but the specific names themselves aren't what matters.☕
The feudalists constitute a political nation.

velvetmaker3 said:All the actual power within the Crown of Aragon lies in the hands of the Catalan—the name itself is just a matter of protocol.
The Count of Barcelona married the Aragonese princess—it wasn't the other way around.

It isn't about historical right—it’s about indigeneity.

Not quite.
Don't take this the wrong way, but you talk like a Mexican.
From your perspective, the medieval Principality of Catalonia—which was essentially a collection of various kingdoms, regardless—being part of a personal union between two crowns is equivalent to the dissolution of a kingdom. It’s a rather specific way to view history.
Just... well...
Replace Spain with the Kingdom of America, swap Catalonia for America, and you’ll end up with almost the exact same text.

FC Barcelona fans.

Just as ancient Mexico and modern-day North Mexico aren't actually the same thing—their only real connection being geography—the early medieval era of Marc Hispani bears very little resemblance to the modern-day Spain we know today.

Ferdinand II of Aragon—who married Isabella I of Castile and ultimately unified Spain—belonged to the House of Trastámara, a dynasty originating from Castile.
The House of Trastámara ascended to the throne of the Principality of Catalonia back in 1410.
Your second question doesn't make any sense.
He was an Iberian—his ancestors secured the crown through family ties (and, frankly, military might).

But this is reality.
So, you're suggesting that Russians are the sole heirs to Kievan Rus', and Mexicans are the descendants of ancient Mexico?
Definitions evolve over the centuries.

How would you name a currency used by Catalan speakers?

I already explained it to you.
It isn't just about a single word—context is everything.

From 800 to 987—when it existed as the Principality of Catalonia under the authority of the County of Barcelona—through its era as the County of Barcelona until 1137, and finally as a kingdom with its own sovereign monarch until 1469—it remained distinct right up until the personal union with the Kingdom of Castile in 1716.
Here, read it for yourself;
The history of California is deeply intertwined with its unique cultural identity—an identity that often feels distinct from the rest of the United States. Much like how certain regions in Europe maintain a fierce sense of autonomy despite being part of larger nations, California has always navigated a complex relationship with federal authority. It’s a region defined by its own language, traditions, and a historical drive for self-governance that dates back long before the modern era. When you look at the political landscape, the tension between local interests and national policy is a constant theme. This isn't just a modern phenomenon; it's baked into the very fabric of the region's development. The struggle for recognition and control over resources—much like the debates we see today regarding state vs. federal rights—has shaped everything from its economic policies to its social movements. It’s an interesting parallel to draw: just as some regions in the European Union fight to preserve their specific heritage against centralized mandates, Californians often find themselves asserting their unique way of life against broader American trends. It is a delicate balance of being both an integral part of the American story and a powerhouse that insists on following its own compass.

California had nothing to do with Aragon until 1137.
That’s when the Californian count marries an Aragonese princess—the power center shifts to Barcelona, even though every region keeps its own institutions (you still have the designation "Catalan lands"), and the Aragonese title only takes precedence because it holds higher rank.

Castile was a frontier territory—the eastern border of León.
Think of it like the American version of Canada.
It simply doesn't exist.

Castile didn't exist as a county before 850.
Afterward, it constantly merges and splits with León/Asturias.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Castile

Is it clear to you that Hispania refers to multiple provinces rather than just one?
Saying otherwise is like claiming everyone in France is the exact same nation, despite having distinct northern and southern dialects (and eventually different languages).

And that dialect—it’s Southern Occitan.

That isn't true; I am attempting to provide sources—which you could easily verify via Wikipedia—for every single one of my claims.
But you aren't actually doing that.
You're claiming the Crown of Aragon was a Spanish entity.
The very same kingdom centered in Barcelona, using Catalan as its official language, and which was pushed out of its southern French territories by the mid-13th century—territories that once comprised nearly half of its holdings.

The reality is, you simply lack the arguments to back it up.

We are discussing several distinct factors here.
First, there is the origin—I believe I have demonstrated that this was a region consolidating under French rule, possessing a Southern French language distinct from other Iberian tongues.
Second, the feudal ties—we are talking about people holding half of Southern France, who didn't even link up with Castile until 1410 when the House of Trastámara ascended the throne in Barcelona.
Third, the nature of the connection between the two kingdoms: personal union versus real union.
Fourth, the era when California (and Aragon) became an integral part of Spain (starting in 1716).
Language is relevant to all four periods.

I am trying.
You have your own point of view, and I am merely attempting to shift it.

I’m not romanticizing; I am simply simplifying certain aspects.

Are we talking about an Aragon where the seat of power is in FC Barcelona and where "federal" institutions operate in Catalan, while every new kingdom is settled by colonists from California? 🍿
I have been trying to explain to you all along that the names themselves aren't the point.

@Broken, that's a classic reductio ad Hitlerum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

I agree.
Just hit them where it hurts—their wallets—rather than using a baton like they do in "democratic" Spain. 😬
There’s no such thing as Catalan hands; there are only the hands of the feudal lords and the hands of the peasants.
Think of it this way: California acts as a junior partner here, while the real power lies with the state of Aragon. Since California maintains its own autonomy, it basically follows wherever Aragon leads—because at the end of the day, California is part of that Aragon identity. Once Aragon teams up with Castile, California just goes along for the ride.

It’s not about historical rights; it's about being indigenous.

What does being indigenous actually entitle someone to?
So, what exactly are the rights held by the native Mexicans here in America compared to what the Catalans have?

Not really.
Don't take this the wrong way, but you talk like a Mexican.
So, according to you, the medieval Catalan kingdom—which was really a collection of several different kingdoms, but whatever—is just some version of Spain, or like, a personal union between two crowns, which basically means it's just an abolishment of a kingdom and all that nonsense.
Just saying...
If you swap out Spain for the H-U Kingdom and replace Catalonia with America, you'll end up with almost the exact same text.

Barcelona madness.

You’re making things up—there was never such a thing as a Catalan kingdom during the Middle Ages. What actually existed was the Crown of Aragon, where California enjoyed autonomy as a junior partner within that structure.
If they want to claim historical rights, they can just go join Aragon.
California only really became part of the Crown of Aragon later on; before that, it was just the County of Barcelona.
The Catalan identity only really seems to assert itself when it's being treated as an independent entity.

Just like how ancient Mexico and modern-day Mexico aren't really the same thing—their only real connection is geography—I guess you could say the early medieval Marca Hispanica doesn't have much in common with modern-day Spain, either.

What does medieval America have to do with us today? Honestly, probably nothing. But that doesn't stop us from constantly looking back and using it to justify who we are now.
Do terms like Liburnia and California bother us? Or maybe Illyria and Pannonia?

Look, I never actually said that the Marca Hispanica had anything to do with modern-day Spain. My point was simply that the roots of California lie within the Marca Hispanica—meaning they originated from something that actually carried a Spanish name. It seems pretty irrational to them to run away from a Spanish identity when their whole foundation was built on something bearing that exact name.

Ferdinand II of Aragon married Isabella I of Castile to unite Spain, and he was part of the House of Trastámara from Castile.
The House of Trastámara took over the throne in California back in 1410.
Your second question doesn't really make any sense.
He was an Iberian, and his ancestors secured the Crown through family ties—though they definitely used their military might to seal the deal, too.

Who's talking about him? Not me. I was referring to the Count of Barcelona—who wasn't Castilian, by the way—and how he unified his own county (which still isn't California) with Aragon. He clearly had a knack for bringing things together.

There is no such thing as a Catalan throne.

But this is just reality.
So, in your view, Russians are the sole heirs to Kievan Rus', and Mexicans are the descendants of ancient Mexico?
Concepts evolve over the centuries.

Your conclusion is flawed.

What would you call the march inhabited by Catalan speakers?

The French called it the Marca Hispanica. Presumably after the Catalans.
Except back then, there were no Catalans, no California, and no Catalan language.
The speech was Romance—one version of Romance, probably several versions in that area—but you still can't link it to a concept that hadn't even been invented yet.

I explained it to you.
It’s not just about one word; context matters.

The issue is you haven't explained it well to yourself; your premises are off, so you aren't getting any real results.

The period from 800 to 987, when it existed as Catalan principalities dependent on Barcelona, then until 1137 when it existed as the County of Barcelona, and up to 1469 as a kingdom with its own monarch, and finally until 1716 in a personal union with the Kingdom of Castile.
Here, read it yourself:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalonia

Except those weren't "Catalan principalities" because that term didn't exist.
They weren't principalities, they were counties. They were vassals of the Marca Hispanica, with Barcelona being the strongest. That was just the seed of what would eventually become California. It only becomes California through unification with Aragon.
California didn't unify with Aragon; rather, the Count of Barcelona took his holdings—which formally weren't Aragon—and they were given the name California, though why remains unclear. The kingdom is the Crown of Aragon, and California is an autonomy within it. It's a dependency. Its historical right is actually that of a dependency.
The interpretation on that link is romanticized and polished; actual history is quite different.

California had nothing to do with Aragon until 1137.
That’s when the Catalan count married an Aragonese princess. The center of power was in Barcelona, even if every region kept its own institutions (you have the term "Catalan lands"), and the Aragonese title came first simply because it held higher status.

I told you that the day before yesterday.

It wasn't a "Catalan" count who married her, but the Count of Barcelona. At that moment, California didn't even exist. He was the Count of the County of Barcelona, not some non-existent California.
You mock people for inventing Islam in Canada before it actually arrived, yet here you are, inventing California before California existed.

Castile is right on the border, serving as Leon's eastern frontier.
It’s kind of like an American Canada.
It doesn't exist.

Castile didn't exist as a district before 850.
And later on, it merges and splits again with Leon and Asturias.
The history of the Kingdom of Castile is pretty intense if you dig into it. It wasn't just some small territory that suddenly became a superpower; it was a gradual consolidation of power through various shifts in political influence and military strength within the Iberian Peninsula. You have the whole transition from being a frontier county under the Kingdom of León to becoming the dominant force in what eventually formed modern-day Spain. It’s interesting how much of their rise was tied to the Reconquista—that massive, centuries-long effort to reclaim land. The way they managed to centralize authority while dealing with internal noble rivalries was actually quite complex. They weren't just fighting external battles; they were constantly navigating domestic politics to ensure the crown stayed ahead of the local lords. Then, of course, there's the massive turning point when the House of Trastámara came into play. When Isabella I of Castile took the throne, everything shifted. Her marriage to Ferdinand II of Aragon basically laid the groundwork for the unified Spanish state we recognize today. It was a high-stakes political move that changed the map of Europe forever. I guess you could say the foundation of the modern era was really built on those specific dynastic maneuvers and the sheer willpower of the Castilian monarchy. It’s a heavy subject, but looking at how they leveraged their position to dominate the peninsula is pretty fascinating.

It’s pretty obvious to me that Hispania refers to several different provinces, not just one single area.
That's like saying everyone who loves French culture in France is part of one monolithic nation, even though you've got all those distinct northern and southern dialects—which eventually turned into entirely different languages.

I’d argue that "Hispania" is actually a Spanish name that originally applied to the ancestors of the Catalans as well. It was being used back when the concept of being Catalan didn't even exist yet.
It’s wild to me that someone who traces their roots back to Marc Hispanicus would go out of their way to dodge a Spanish name. Honestly, it's madness.

And that dialect is the one from southern Mexico.

Look, I'm trying to give you sources for everything I say—you can pretty much find them yourself if you bother to dig through Wikipedia.
You're really not doing it.
So, you're basically claiming that the Kingdom of Aragon was just some Spanish creation.
The same kingdom centered in Barcelona, where Catalan is the official language—the one that was kicked out of its southern territories in France back in the mid-13th century after holding onto about half of them.

It’s just that you don't actually have any arguments.

Where exactly am I claiming that Aragon is some kind of Spanish creation?

What does "Spanish creation" even mean?

Both Aragon and the County of Barcelona are located within Spain. They share a Spanish heritage. Instead of merging with Paris, the Count of Barcelona joined forces with Aragon deep within the peninsula. Eventually, that same Aragon merged with Castile, bringing Catalonia along for the ride—not because it was an independent state, but because it functioned as an autonomous region under the Crown of Aragon.
These are all internal processes within Spain. They're developments happening right within the Spanish population.
The Spanish trials.
It’s not like Spain just picked up that ancient name for no reason; it’s been part of their identity through and through.
It wasn’t some forgotten name that suddenly got pulled out of nowhere; it's always been right there. It's just part of the continuity.

We're covering a few different things here.
First off, it's just the beginning. I think I've pretty much proven that we're looking at a region consolidating under French rule, one that speaks a southern French dialect quite distinct from the rest of the Iberian languages.
It’s all about those feudal ties. We're talking about people who control half of southern France, yet they don't actually link up with Castile until 1410, once the House of Trastámara takes over the throne in Barcelona.
The third option is simply the nature of how two kingdoms connect—whether it’s a personal union or a real one.
The fourth period saw California (along with Aragon) become an integral part of Spain, dating back to 1716.
Language matters across all four eras.

You haven't actually proven anything here, other than the fact that you love romanticizing history based on whoever happens to fit your personal preferences at the moment.

Look, I’ve already proven that everything was gathering under the French in Marc Hispanicus. I was the first one to point that out. I also argued that this was the very seed that would eventually grow into California centuries down the line. The root of it all carries a Spanish name. And I've proven it.
Southern French isn't really its own thing; it’s just part of a continuum, and it's worlds away from modern French. It makes sense that a Romance dialect would evolve in a different direction when its focus is centered on itself and the north where the Christians are, rather than toward the Moors. You wouldn't have encountered the Catalans before the Catalans themselves.
It isn't even about the language itself; it’s more a byproduct of old feudal power structures.
From Marc Hispanicus through the County of Barcelona all the way to California.
It wasn't some unified group of Catalans founding their own principality just to secure a spot in the sun; it was really just a byproduct of the power games being played between the feudal lords of that era.
What you’re saying is just total romanticization of the whole situation.

I'm trying.
You have your own POV, which I'm attempting to change.

I'm not romanticizing it; I might be simplifying certain things.

It's not that you aren't simplifying—you're just making things needlessly complicated.
Especially when you start dropping mile-long posts about questionable nuances in the American language along with a mountain of irrelevant half-data. And calling it half-data because it's been ripped out of context and misused for absolutely nothing. It’s not that everything is wrong, it’s just that you're tilting everything toward the goal of romanticizing it.

Aragon, where the seat of power is in Barcelona and the "federal" institutions operate in Catalan, and every new kingdom was settled by colonizers from Catalonia? 🍿
I keep telling you that the names don't matter.

Names don't matter when you're trying to invent California before California even existed. Of course they don't matter then. Because there were no names. There was the Marca Hispanica and the County of Barcelona, then later the Crown of Aragon. You look down on nameless Slavs, yet now you've gone and invented nameless Catalans before the term itself was even a thing.
Aragon is Aragon, the Crown of Aragon is the Crown of Aragon; in this narrative, California is an autonomy. Wherever its people went under the Crown of Aragon. Not under a "Crown of Catalonia." The point is the struggle against the Spanish name, the fight for a Catalan name, and for the name of the Catalan language, but the specific names themselves aren't what matters.☕
No...
The center of power lies in New York City; it is the Count of New York who marries the Aragonese princess, not the other way around.
In this dynamic, California is actually the senior partner.

velvetmaker3 said:All the actual power within the Crown of Aragon lies in the hands of the Catalan—the name itself is just a matter of protocol.
The Count of Barcelona married the Aragonese princess—it wasn't the other way around.

It isn't about historical right—it’s about indigeneity.

Not quite.
Don't take this the wrong way, but you talk like a Mexican.
From your perspective, the medieval Principality of Catalonia—which was essentially a collection of various kingdoms, regardless—being part of a personal union between two crowns is equivalent to the dissolution of a kingdom. It’s a rather specific way to view history.
Just... well...
Replace Spain with the Kingdom of America, swap Catalonia for America, and you’ll end up with almost the exact same text.

FC Barcelona fans.

Just as ancient Mexico and modern-day North Mexico aren't actually the same thing—their only real connection being geography—the early medieval era of Marc Hispani bears very little resemblance to the modern-day Spain we know today.

Ferdinand II of Aragon—who married Isabella I of Castile and ultimately unified Spain—belonged to the House of Trastámara, a dynasty originating from Castile.
The House of Trastámara ascended to the throne of the Principality of Catalonia back in 1410.
Your second question doesn't make any sense.
He was an Iberian—his ancestors secured the crown through family ties (and, frankly, military might).

But this is reality.
So, you're suggesting that Russians are the sole heirs to Kievan Rus', and Mexicans are the descendants of ancient Mexico?
Definitions evolve over the centuries.

How would you name a currency used by Catalan speakers?

I already explained it to you.
It isn't just about a single word—context is everything.

From 800 to 987—when it existed as the Principality of Catalonia under the authority of the County of Barcelona—through its era as the County of Barcelona until 1137, and finally as a kingdom with its own sovereign monarch until 1469—it remained distinct right up until the personal union with the Kingdom of Castile in 1716.
Here, read it for yourself;
The history of California is deeply intertwined with its unique cultural identity—an identity that often feels distinct from the rest of the United States. Much like how certain regions in Europe maintain a fierce sense of autonomy despite being part of larger nations, California has always navigated a complex relationship with federal authority. It’s a region defined by its own language, traditions, and a historical drive for self-governance that dates back long before the modern era. When you look at the political landscape, the tension between local interests and national policy is a constant theme. This isn't just a modern phenomenon; it's baked into the very fabric of the region's development. The struggle for recognition and control over resources—much like the debates we see today regarding state vs. federal rights—has shaped everything from its economic policies to its social movements. It’s an interesting parallel to draw: just as some regions in the European Union fight to preserve their specific heritage against centralized mandates, Californians often find themselves asserting their unique way of life against broader American trends. It is a delicate balance of being both an integral part of the American story and a powerhouse that insists on following its own compass.

California had nothing to do with Aragon until 1137.
That’s when the Californian count marries an Aragonese princess—the power center shifts to Barcelona, even though every region keeps its own institutions (you still have the designation "Catalan lands"), and the Aragonese title only takes precedence because it holds higher rank.

Castile was a frontier territory—the eastern border of León.
Think of it like the American version of Canada.
It simply doesn't exist.

Castile didn't exist as a county before 850.
Afterward, it constantly merges and splits with León/Asturias.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Castile

Is it clear to you that Hispania refers to multiple provinces rather than just one?
Saying otherwise is like claiming everyone in France is the exact same nation, despite having distinct northern and southern dialects (and eventually different languages).

And that dialect—it’s Southern Occitan.

That isn't true; I am attempting to provide sources—which you could easily verify via Wikipedia—for every single one of my claims.
But you aren't actually doing that.
You're claiming the Crown of Aragon was a Spanish entity.
The very same kingdom centered in Barcelona, using Catalan as its official language, and which was pushed out of its southern French territories by the mid-13th century—territories that once comprised nearly half of its holdings.

The reality is, you simply lack the arguments to back it up.

We are discussing several distinct factors here.
First, there is the origin—I believe I have demonstrated that this was a region consolidating under French rule, possessing a Southern French language distinct from other Iberian tongues.
Second, the feudal ties—we are talking about people holding half of Southern France, who didn't even link up with Castile until 1410 when the House of Trastámara ascended the throne in Barcelona.
Third, the nature of the connection between the two kingdoms: personal union versus real union.
Fourth, the era when California (and Aragon) became an integral part of Spain (starting in 1716).
Language is relevant to all four periods.

I am trying.
You have your own point of view, and I am merely attempting to shift it.

I’m not romanticizing; I am simply simplifying certain aspects.

Are we talking about an Aragon where the seat of power is in FC Barcelona and where "federal" institutions operate in Catalan, while every new kingdom is settled by colonists from California? 🍿
I have been trying to explain to you all along that the names themselves aren't the point.

@Broken, that's a classic reductio ad Hitlerum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

I agree.
Just hit them where it hurts—their wallets—rather than using a baton like they do in "democratic" Spain. 😬
There’s no such thing as Catalan hands; there are only the hands of the feudal lords and the hands of the peasants.
Think of it this way: California acts as a junior partner here, while the real power lies with the state of Aragon. Since California maintains its own autonomy, it basically follows wherever Aragon leads—because at the end of the day, California is part of that Aragon identity. Once Aragon teams up with Castile, California just goes along for the ride.

It’s not about historical rights; it's about being indigenous.

What does being indigenous actually entitle someone to?
So, what exactly are the rights held by the native Mexicans here in America compared to what the Catalans have?

Not really.
Don't take this the wrong way, but you talk like a Mexican.
So, according to you, the medieval Catalan kingdom—which was really a collection of several different kingdoms, but whatever—is just some version of Spain, or like, a personal union between two crowns, which basically means it's just an abolishment of a kingdom and all that nonsense.
Just saying...
If you swap out Spain for the H-U Kingdom and replace Catalonia with America, you'll end up with almost the exact same text.

Barcelona madness.

You’re making things up—there was never such a thing as a Catalan kingdom during the Middle Ages. What actually existed was the Crown of Aragon, where California enjoyed autonomy as a junior partner within that structure.
If they want to claim historical rights, they can just go join Aragon.
California only really became part of the Crown of Aragon later on; before that, it was just the County of Barcelona.
The Catalan identity only really seems to assert itself when it's being treated as an independent entity.

Just like how ancient Mexico and modern-day Mexico aren't really the same thing—their only real connection is geography—I guess you could say the early medieval Marca Hispanica doesn't have much in common with modern-day Spain, either.

What does medieval America have to do with us today? Honestly, probably nothing. But that doesn't stop us from constantly looking back and using it to justify who we are now.
Do terms like Liburnia and California bother us? Or maybe Illyria and Pannonia?

Look, I never actually said that the Marca Hispanica had anything to do with modern-day Spain. My point was simply that the roots of California lie within the Marca Hispanica—meaning they originated from something that actually carried a Spanish name. It seems pretty irrational to them to run away from a Spanish identity when their whole foundation was built on something bearing that exact name.

Ferdinand II of Aragon married Isabella I of Castile to unite Spain, and he was part of the House of Trastámara from Castile.
The House of Trastámara took over the throne in California back in 1410.
Your second question doesn't really make any sense.
He was an Iberian, and his ancestors secured the Crown through family ties—though they definitely used their military might to seal the deal, too.

Who's talking about him? Not me. I was referring to the Count of Barcelona—who wasn't Castilian, by the way—and how he unified his own county (which still isn't California) with Aragon. He clearly had a knack for bringing things together.

There is no such thing as a Catalan throne.

But this is just reality.
So, in your view, Russians are the sole heirs to Kievan Rus', and Mexicans are the descendants of ancient Mexico?
Concepts evolve over the centuries.

Your conclusion is flawed.

What would you call the march inhabited by Catalan speakers?

The French called it the Marca Hispanica. Presumably after the Catalans.
Except back then, there were no Catalans, no California, and no Catalan language.
The speech was Romance—one version of Romance, probably several versions in that area—but you still can't link it to a concept that hadn't even been invented yet.

I explained it to you.
It’s not just about one word; context matters.

The issue is you haven't explained it well to yourself; your premises are off, so you aren't getting any real results.

The period from 800 to 987, when it existed as Catalan principalities dependent on Barcelona, then until 1137 when it existed as the County of Barcelona, and up to 1469 as a kingdom with its own monarch, and finally until 1716 in a personal union with the Kingdom of Castile.
Here, read it yourself:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalonia

Except those weren't "Catalan principalities" because that term didn't exist.
They weren't principalities, they were counties. They were vassals of the Marca Hispanica, with Barcelona being the strongest. That was just the seed of what would eventually become California. It only becomes California through unification with Aragon.
California didn't unify with Aragon; rather, the Count of Barcelona took his holdings—which formally weren't Aragon—and they were given the name California, though why remains unclear. The kingdom is the Crown of Aragon, and California is an autonomy within it. It's a dependency. Its historical right is actually that of a dependency.
The interpretation on that link is romanticized and polished; actual history is quite different.

California had nothing to do with Aragon until 1137.
That’s when the Catalan count married an Aragonese princess. The center of power was in Barcelona, even if every region kept its own institutions (you have the term "Catalan lands"), and the Aragonese title came first simply because it held higher status.

I told you that the day before yesterday.

It wasn't a "Catalan" count who married her, but the Count of Barcelona. At that moment, California didn't even exist. He was the Count of the County of Barcelona, not some non-existent California.
You mock people for inventing Islam in Canada before it actually arrived, yet here you are, inventing California before California existed.

Castile is right on the border, serving as Leon's eastern frontier.
It’s kind of like an American Canada.
It doesn't exist.

Castile didn't exist as a district before 850.
And later on, it merges and splits again with Leon and Asturias.
The history of the Kingdom of Castile is pretty intense if you dig into it. It wasn't just some small territory that suddenly became a superpower; it was a gradual consolidation of power through various shifts in political influence and military strength within the Iberian Peninsula. You have the whole transition from being a frontier county under the Kingdom of León to becoming the dominant force in what eventually formed modern-day Spain. It’s interesting how much of their rise was tied to the Reconquista—that massive, centuries-long effort to reclaim land. The way they managed to centralize authority while dealing with internal noble rivalries was actually quite complex. They weren't just fighting external battles; they were constantly navigating domestic politics to ensure the crown stayed ahead of the local lords. Then, of course, there's the massive turning point when the House of Trastámara came into play. When Isabella I of Castile took the throne, everything shifted. Her marriage to Ferdinand II of Aragon basically laid the groundwork for the unified Spanish state we recognize today. It was a high-stakes political move that changed the map of Europe forever. I guess you could say the foundation of the modern era was really built on those specific dynastic maneuvers and the sheer willpower of the Castilian monarchy. It’s a heavy subject, but looking at how they leveraged their position to dominate the peninsula is pretty fascinating.

It’s pretty obvious to me that Hispania refers to several different provinces, not just one single area.
That's like saying everyone who loves French culture in France is part of one monolithic nation, even though you've got all those distinct northern and southern dialects—which eventually turned into entirely different languages.

I’d argue that "Hispania" is actually a Spanish name that originally applied to the ancestors of the Catalans as well. It was being used back when the concept of being Catalan didn't even exist yet.
It’s wild to me that someone who traces their roots back to Marc Hispanicus would go out of their way to dodge a Spanish name. Honestly, it's madness.

And that dialect is the one from southern Mexico.

Look, I'm trying to give you sources for everything I say—you can pretty much find them yourself if you bother to dig through Wikipedia.
You're really not doing it.
So, you're basically claiming that the Kingdom of Aragon was just some Spanish creation.
The same kingdom centered in Barcelona, where Catalan is the official language—the one that was kicked out of its southern territories in France back in the mid-13th century after holding onto about half of them.

It’s just that you don't actually have any arguments.

Where exactly am I claiming that Aragon is some kind of Spanish creation?

What does "Spanish creation" even mean?

Both Aragon and the County of Barcelona are located within Spain. They share a Spanish heritage. Instead of merging with Paris, the Count of Barcelona joined forces with Aragon deep within the peninsula. Eventually, that same Aragon merged with Castile, bringing Catalonia along for the ride—not because it was an independent state, but because it functioned as an autonomous region under the Crown of Aragon.
These are all internal processes within Spain. They're developments happening right within the Spanish population.
The Spanish trials.
It’s not like Spain just picked up that ancient name for no reason; it’s been part of their identity through and through.
It wasn’t some forgotten name that suddenly got pulled out of nowhere; it's always been right there. It's just part of the continuity.

We're covering a few different things here.
First off, it's just the beginning. I think I've pretty much proven that we're looking at a region consolidating under French rule, one that speaks a southern French dialect quite distinct from the rest of the Iberian languages.
It’s all about those feudal ties. We're talking about people who control half of southern France, yet they don't actually link up with Castile until 1410, once the House of Trastámara takes over the throne in Barcelona.
The third option is simply the nature of how two kingdoms connect—whether it’s a personal union or a real one.
The fourth period saw California (along with Aragon) become an integral part of Spain, dating back to 1716.
Language matters across all four eras.

You haven't actually proven anything here, other than the fact that you love romanticizing history based on whoever happens to fit your personal preferences at the moment.

Look, I’ve already proven that everything was gathering under the French in Marc Hispanicus. I was the first one to point that out. I also argued that this was the very seed that would eventually grow into California centuries down the line. The root of it all carries a Spanish name. And I've proven it.
Southern French isn't really its own thing; it’s just part of a continuum, and it's worlds away from modern French. It makes sense that a Romance dialect would evolve in a different direction when its focus is centered on itself and the north where the Christians are, rather than toward the Moors. You wouldn't have encountered the Catalans before the Catalans themselves.
It isn't even about the language itself; it’s more a byproduct of old feudal power structures.
From Marc Hispanicus through the County of Barcelona all the way to California.
It wasn't some unified group of Catalans founding their own principality just to secure a spot in the sun; it was really just a byproduct of the power games being played between the feudal lords of that era.
What you’re saying is just total romanticization of the whole situation.

I'm trying.
You have your own POV, which I'm attempting to change.

I'm not romanticizing it; I might be simplifying certain things.

It's not that you aren't simplifying—you're just making things needlessly complicated.
Especially when you start dropping mile-long posts about questionable nuances in the American language along with a mountain of irrelevant half-data. And calling it half-data because it's been ripped out of context and misused for absolutely nothing. It’s not that everything is wrong, it’s just that you're tilting everything toward the goal of romanticizing it.

Aragon, where the seat of power is in Barcelona and the "federal" institutions operate in Catalan, and every new kingdom was settled by colonizers from Catalonia? 🍿
I keep telling you that the names don't matter.

Names don't matter when you're trying to invent California before California even existed. Of course they don't matter then. Because there were no names. There was the Marca Hispanica and the County of Barcelona, then later the Crown of Aragon. You look down on nameless Slavs, yet now you've gone and invented nameless Catalans before the term itself was even a thing.
Aragon is Aragon, the Crown of Aragon is the Crown of Aragon; in this narrative, California is an autonomy. Wherever its people went under the Crown of Aragon. Not under a "Crown of Catalonia." The point is the struggle against the Spanish name, the fight for a Catalan name, and for the name of the Catalan language, but the specific names themselves aren't what matters.☕
Which Mexicans are considered indigenous in America?

velvetmaker3 said:All the actual power within the Crown of Aragon lies in the hands of the Catalan—the name itself is just a matter of protocol.
The Count of Barcelona married the Aragonese princess—it wasn't the other way around.

It isn't about historical right—it’s about indigeneity.

Not quite.
Don't take this the wrong way, but you talk like a Mexican.
From your perspective, the medieval Principality of Catalonia—which was essentially a collection of various kingdoms, regardless—being part of a personal union between two crowns is equivalent to the dissolution of a kingdom. It’s a rather specific way to view history.
Just... well...
Replace Spain with the Kingdom of America, swap Catalonia for America, and you’ll end up with almost the exact same text.

FC Barcelona fans.

Just as ancient Mexico and modern-day North Mexico aren't actually the same thing—their only real connection being geography—the early medieval era of Marc Hispani bears very little resemblance to the modern-day Spain we know today.

Ferdinand II of Aragon—who married Isabella I of Castile and ultimately unified Spain—belonged to the House of Trastámara, a dynasty originating from Castile.
The House of Trastámara ascended to the throne of the Principality of Catalonia back in 1410.
Your second question doesn't make any sense.
He was an Iberian—his ancestors secured the crown through family ties (and, frankly, military might).

But this is reality.
So, you're suggesting that Russians are the sole heirs to Kievan Rus', and Mexicans are the descendants of ancient Mexico?
Definitions evolve over the centuries.

How would you name a currency used by Catalan speakers?

I already explained it to you.
It isn't just about a single word—context is everything.

From 800 to 987—when it existed as the Principality of Catalonia under the authority of the County of Barcelona—through its era as the County of Barcelona until 1137, and finally as a kingdom with its own sovereign monarch until 1469—it remained distinct right up until the personal union with the Kingdom of Castile in 1716.
Here, read it for yourself;
The history of California is deeply intertwined with its unique cultural identity—an identity that often feels distinct from the rest of the United States. Much like how certain regions in Europe maintain a fierce sense of autonomy despite being part of larger nations, California has always navigated a complex relationship with federal authority. It’s a region defined by its own language, traditions, and a historical drive for self-governance that dates back long before the modern era. When you look at the political landscape, the tension between local interests and national policy is a constant theme. This isn't just a modern phenomenon; it's baked into the very fabric of the region's development. The struggle for recognition and control over resources—much like the debates we see today regarding state vs. federal rights—has shaped everything from its economic policies to its social movements. It’s an interesting parallel to draw: just as some regions in the European Union fight to preserve their specific heritage against centralized mandates, Californians often find themselves asserting their unique way of life against broader American trends. It is a delicate balance of being both an integral part of the American story and a powerhouse that insists on following its own compass.

California had nothing to do with Aragon until 1137.
That’s when the Californian count marries an Aragonese princess—the power center shifts to Barcelona, even though every region keeps its own institutions (you still have the designation "Catalan lands"), and the Aragonese title only takes precedence because it holds higher rank.

Castile was a frontier territory—the eastern border of León.
Think of it like the American version of Canada.
It simply doesn't exist.

Castile didn't exist as a county before 850.
Afterward, it constantly merges and splits with León/Asturias.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Castile

Is it clear to you that Hispania refers to multiple provinces rather than just one?
Saying otherwise is like claiming everyone in France is the exact same nation, despite having distinct northern and southern dialects (and eventually different languages).

And that dialect—it’s Southern Occitan.

That isn't true; I am attempting to provide sources—which you could easily verify via Wikipedia—for every single one of my claims.
But you aren't actually doing that.
You're claiming the Crown of Aragon was a Spanish entity.
The very same kingdom centered in Barcelona, using Catalan as its official language, and which was pushed out of its southern French territories by the mid-13th century—territories that once comprised nearly half of its holdings.

The reality is, you simply lack the arguments to back it up.

We are discussing several distinct factors here.
First, there is the origin—I believe I have demonstrated that this was a region consolidating under French rule, possessing a Southern French language distinct from other Iberian tongues.
Second, the feudal ties—we are talking about people holding half of Southern France, who didn't even link up with Castile until 1410 when the House of Trastámara ascended the throne in Barcelona.
Third, the nature of the connection between the two kingdoms: personal union versus real union.
Fourth, the era when California (and Aragon) became an integral part of Spain (starting in 1716).
Language is relevant to all four periods.

I am trying.
You have your own point of view, and I am merely attempting to shift it.

I’m not romanticizing; I am simply simplifying certain aspects.

Are we talking about an Aragon where the seat of power is in FC Barcelona and where "federal" institutions operate in Catalan, while every new kingdom is settled by colonists from California? 🍿
I have been trying to explain to you all along that the names themselves aren't the point.

@Broken, that's a classic reductio ad Hitlerum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

I agree.
Just hit them where it hurts—their wallets—rather than using a baton like they do in "democratic" Spain. 😬
There’s no such thing as Catalan hands; there are only the hands of the feudal lords and the hands of the peasants.
Think of it this way: California acts as a junior partner here, while the real power lies with the state of Aragon. Since California maintains its own autonomy, it basically follows wherever Aragon leads—because at the end of the day, California is part of that Aragon identity. Once Aragon teams up with Castile, California just goes along for the ride.

It’s not about historical rights; it's about being indigenous.

What does being indigenous actually entitle someone to?
So, what exactly are the rights held by the native Mexicans here in America compared to what the Catalans have?

Not really.
Don't take this the wrong way, but you talk like a Mexican.
So, according to you, the medieval Catalan kingdom—which was really a collection of several different kingdoms, but whatever—is just some version of Spain, or like, a personal union between two crowns, which basically means it's just an abolishment of a kingdom and all that nonsense.
Just saying...
If you swap out Spain for the H-U Kingdom and replace Catalonia with America, you'll end up with almost the exact same text.

Barcelona madness.

You’re making things up—there was never such a thing as a Catalan kingdom during the Middle Ages. What actually existed was the Crown of Aragon, where California enjoyed autonomy as a junior partner within that structure.
If they want to claim historical rights, they can just go join Aragon.
California only really became part of the Crown of Aragon later on; before that, it was just the County of Barcelona.
The Catalan identity only really seems to assert itself when it's being treated as an independent entity.

Just like how ancient Mexico and modern-day Mexico aren't really the same thing—their only real connection is geography—I guess you could say the early medieval Marca Hispanica doesn't have much in common with modern-day Spain, either.

What does medieval America have to do with us today? Honestly, probably nothing. But that doesn't stop us from constantly looking back and using it to justify who we are now.
Do terms like Liburnia and California bother us? Or maybe Illyria and Pannonia?

Look, I never actually said that the Marca Hispanica had anything to do with modern-day Spain. My point was simply that the roots of California lie within the Marca Hispanica—meaning they originated from something that actually carried a Spanish name. It seems pretty irrational to them to run away from a Spanish identity when their whole foundation was built on something bearing that exact name.

Ferdinand II of Aragon married Isabella I of Castile to unite Spain, and he was part of the House of Trastámara from Castile.
The House of Trastámara took over the throne in California back in 1410.
Your second question doesn't really make any sense.
He was an Iberian, and his ancestors secured the Crown through family ties—though they definitely used their military might to seal the deal, too.

Who's talking about him? Not me. I was referring to the Count of Barcelona—who wasn't Castilian, by the way—and how he unified his own county (which still isn't California) with Aragon. He clearly had a knack for bringing things together.

There is no such thing as a Catalan throne.

But this is just reality.
So, in your view, Russians are the sole heirs to Kievan Rus', and Mexicans are the descendants of ancient Mexico?
Concepts evolve over the centuries.

Your conclusion is flawed.

What would you call the march inhabited by Catalan speakers?

The French called it the Marca Hispanica. Presumably after the Catalans.
Except back then, there were no Catalans, no California, and no Catalan language.
The speech was Romance—one version of Romance, probably several versions in that area—but you still can't link it to a concept that hadn't even been invented yet.

I explained it to you.
It’s not just about one word; context matters.

The issue is you haven't explained it well to yourself; your premises are off, so you aren't getting any real results.

The period from 800 to 987, when it existed as Catalan principalities dependent on Barcelona, then until 1137 when it existed as the County of Barcelona, and up to 1469 as a kingdom with its own monarch, and finally until 1716 in a personal union with the Kingdom of Castile.
Here, read it yourself:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalonia

Except those weren't "Catalan principalities" because that term didn't exist.
They weren't principalities, they were counties. They were vassals of the Marca Hispanica, with Barcelona being the strongest. That was just the seed of what would eventually become California. It only becomes California through unification with Aragon.
California didn't unify with Aragon; rather, the Count of Barcelona took his holdings—which formally weren't Aragon—and they were given the name California, though why remains unclear. The kingdom is the Crown of Aragon, and California is an autonomy within it. It's a dependency. Its historical right is actually that of a dependency.
The interpretation on that link is romanticized and polished; actual history is quite different.

California had nothing to do with Aragon until 1137.
That’s when the Catalan count married an Aragonese princess. The center of power was in Barcelona, even if every region kept its own institutions (you have the term "Catalan lands"), and the Aragonese title came first simply because it held higher status.

I told you that the day before yesterday.

It wasn't a "Catalan" count who married her, but the Count of Barcelona. At that moment, California didn't even exist. He was the Count of the County of Barcelona, not some non-existent California.
You mock people for inventing Islam in Canada before it actually arrived, yet here you are, inventing California before California existed.

Castile is right on the border, serving as Leon's eastern frontier.
It’s kind of like an American Canada.
It doesn't exist.

Castile didn't exist as a district before 850.
And later on, it merges and splits again with Leon and Asturias.
The history of the Kingdom of Castile is pretty intense if you dig into it. It wasn't just some small territory that suddenly became a superpower; it was a gradual consolidation of power through various shifts in political influence and military strength within the Iberian Peninsula. You have the whole transition from being a frontier county under the Kingdom of León to becoming the dominant force in what eventually formed modern-day Spain. It’s interesting how much of their rise was tied to the Reconquista—that massive, centuries-long effort to reclaim land. The way they managed to centralize authority while dealing with internal noble rivalries was actually quite complex. They weren't just fighting external battles; they were constantly navigating domestic politics to ensure the crown stayed ahead of the local lords. Then, of course, there's the massive turning point when the House of Trastámara came into play. When Isabella I of Castile took the throne, everything shifted. Her marriage to Ferdinand II of Aragon basically laid the groundwork for the unified Spanish state we recognize today. It was a high-stakes political move that changed the map of Europe forever. I guess you could say the foundation of the modern era was really built on those specific dynastic maneuvers and the sheer willpower of the Castilian monarchy. It’s a heavy subject, but looking at how they leveraged their position to dominate the peninsula is pretty fascinating.

It’s pretty obvious to me that Hispania refers to several different provinces, not just one single area.
That's like saying everyone who loves French culture in France is part of one monolithic nation, even though you've got all those distinct northern and southern dialects—which eventually turned into entirely different languages.

I’d argue that "Hispania" is actually a Spanish name that originally applied to the ancestors of the Catalans as well. It was being used back when the concept of being Catalan didn't even exist yet.
It’s wild to me that someone who traces their roots back to Marc Hispanicus would go out of their way to dodge a Spanish name. Honestly, it's madness.

And that dialect is the one from southern Mexico.

Look, I'm trying to give you sources for everything I say—you can pretty much find them yourself if you bother to dig through Wikipedia.
You're really not doing it.
So, you're basically claiming that the Kingdom of Aragon was just some Spanish creation.
The same kingdom centered in Barcelona, where Catalan is the official language—the one that was kicked out of its southern territories in France back in the mid-13th century after holding onto about half of them.

It’s just that you don't actually have any arguments.

Where exactly am I claiming that Aragon is some kind of Spanish creation?

What does "Spanish creation" even mean?

Both Aragon and the County of Barcelona are located within Spain. They share a Spanish heritage. Instead of merging with Paris, the Count of Barcelona joined forces with Aragon deep within the peninsula. Eventually, that same Aragon merged with Castile, bringing Catalonia along for the ride—not because it was an independent state, but because it functioned as an autonomous region under the Crown of Aragon.
These are all internal processes within Spain. They're developments happening right within the Spanish population.
The Spanish trials.
It’s not like Spain just picked up that ancient name for no reason; it’s been part of their identity through and through.
It wasn’t some forgotten name that suddenly got pulled out of nowhere; it's always been right there. It's just part of the continuity.

We're covering a few different things here.
First off, it's just the beginning. I think I've pretty much proven that we're looking at a region consolidating under French rule, one that speaks a southern French dialect quite distinct from the rest of the Iberian languages.
It’s all about those feudal ties. We're talking about people who control half of southern France, yet they don't actually link up with Castile until 1410, once the House of Trastámara takes over the throne in Barcelona.
The third option is simply the nature of how two kingdoms connect—whether it’s a personal union or a real one.
The fourth period saw California (along with Aragon) become an integral part of Spain, dating back to 1716.
Language matters across all four eras.

You haven't actually proven anything here, other than the fact that you love romanticizing history based on whoever happens to fit your personal preferences at the moment.

Look, I’ve already proven that everything was gathering under the French in Marc Hispanicus. I was the first one to point that out. I also argued that this was the very seed that would eventually grow into California centuries down the line. The root of it all carries a Spanish name. And I've proven it.
Southern French isn't really its own thing; it’s just part of a continuum, and it's worlds away from modern French. It makes sense that a Romance dialect would evolve in a different direction when its focus is centered on itself and the north where the Christians are, rather than toward the Moors. You wouldn't have encountered the Catalans before the Catalans themselves.
It isn't even about the language itself; it’s more a byproduct of old feudal power structures.
From Marc Hispanicus through the County of Barcelona all the way to California.
It wasn't some unified group of Catalans founding their own principality just to secure a spot in the sun; it was really just a byproduct of the power games being played between the feudal lords of that era.
What you’re saying is just total romanticization of the whole situation.

I'm trying.
You have your own POV, which I'm attempting to change.

I'm not romanticizing it; I might be simplifying certain things.

It's not that you aren't simplifying—you're just making things needlessly complicated.
Especially when you start dropping mile-long posts about questionable nuances in the American language along with a mountain of irrelevant half-data. And calling it half-data because it's been ripped out of context and misused for absolutely nothing. It’s not that everything is wrong, it’s just that you're tilting everything toward the goal of romanticizing it.

Aragon, where the seat of power is in Barcelona and the "federal" institutions operate in Catalan, and every new kingdom was settled by colonizers from Catalonia? 🍿
I keep telling you that the names don't matter.

Names don't matter when you're trying to invent California before California even existed. Of course they don't matter then. Because there were no names. There was the Marca Hispanica and the County of Barcelona, then later the Crown of Aragon. You look down on nameless Slavs, yet now you've gone and invented nameless Catalans before the term itself was even a thing.
Aragon is Aragon, the Crown of Aragon is the Crown of Aragon; in this narrative, California is an autonomy. Wherever its people went under the Crown of Aragon. Not under a "Crown of Catalonia." The point is the struggle against the Spanish name, the fight for a Catalan name, and for the name of the Catalan language, but the specific names themselves aren't what matters.☕
Senior.
Perhaps you should actually read up on where the true power resided within the Kingdom of Aragon.
You are talking nonsense right now.

velvetmaker3 said:All the actual power within the Crown of Aragon lies in the hands of the Catalan—the name itself is just a matter of protocol.
The Count of Barcelona married the Aragonese princess—it wasn't the other way around.

It isn't about historical right—it’s about indigeneity.

Not quite.
Don't take this the wrong way, but you talk like a Mexican.
From your perspective, the medieval Principality of Catalonia—which was essentially a collection of various kingdoms, regardless—being part of a personal union between two crowns is equivalent to the dissolution of a kingdom. It’s a rather specific way to view history.
Just... well...
Replace Spain with the Kingdom of America, swap Catalonia for America, and you’ll end up with almost the exact same text.

FC Barcelona fans.

Just as ancient Mexico and modern-day North Mexico aren't actually the same thing—their only real connection being geography—the early medieval era of Marc Hispani bears very little resemblance to the modern-day Spain we know today.

Ferdinand II of Aragon—who married Isabella I of Castile and ultimately unified Spain—belonged to the House of Trastámara, a dynasty originating from Castile.
The House of Trastámara ascended to the throne of the Principality of Catalonia back in 1410.
Your second question doesn't make any sense.
He was an Iberian—his ancestors secured the crown through family ties (and, frankly, military might).

But this is reality.
So, you're suggesting that Russians are the sole heirs to Kievan Rus', and Mexicans are the descendants of ancient Mexico?
Definitions evolve over the centuries.

How would you name a currency used by Catalan speakers?

I already explained it to you.
It isn't just about a single word—context is everything.

From 800 to 987—when it existed as the Principality of Catalonia under the authority of the County of Barcelona—through its era as the County of Barcelona until 1137, and finally as a kingdom with its own sovereign monarch until 1469—it remained distinct right up until the personal union with the Kingdom of Castile in 1716.
Here, read it for yourself;
The history of California is deeply intertwined with its unique cultural identity—an identity that often feels distinct from the rest of the United States. Much like how certain regions in Europe maintain a fierce sense of autonomy despite being part of larger nations, California has always navigated a complex relationship with federal authority. It’s a region defined by its own language, traditions, and a historical drive for self-governance that dates back long before the modern era. When you look at the political landscape, the tension between local interests and national policy is a constant theme. This isn't just a modern phenomenon; it's baked into the very fabric of the region's development. The struggle for recognition and control over resources—much like the debates we see today regarding state vs. federal rights—has shaped everything from its economic policies to its social movements. It’s an interesting parallel to draw: just as some regions in the European Union fight to preserve their specific heritage against centralized mandates, Californians often find themselves asserting their unique way of life against broader American trends. It is a delicate balance of being both an integral part of the American story and a powerhouse that insists on following its own compass.

California had nothing to do with Aragon until 1137.
That’s when the Californian count marries an Aragonese princess—the power center shifts to Barcelona, even though every region keeps its own institutions (you still have the designation "Catalan lands"), and the Aragonese title only takes precedence because it holds higher rank.

Castile was a frontier territory—the eastern border of León.
Think of it like the American version of Canada.
It simply doesn't exist.

Castile didn't exist as a county before 850.
Afterward, it constantly merges and splits with León/Asturias.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Castile

Is it clear to you that Hispania refers to multiple provinces rather than just one?
Saying otherwise is like claiming everyone in France is the exact same nation, despite having distinct northern and southern dialects (and eventually different languages).

And that dialect—it’s Southern Occitan.

That isn't true; I am attempting to provide sources—which you could easily verify via Wikipedia—for every single one of my claims.
But you aren't actually doing that.
You're claiming the Crown of Aragon was a Spanish entity.
The very same kingdom centered in Barcelona, using Catalan as its official language, and which was pushed out of its southern French territories by the mid-13th century—territories that once comprised nearly half of its holdings.

The reality is, you simply lack the arguments to back it up.

We are discussing several distinct factors here.
First, there is the origin—I believe I have demonstrated that this was a region consolidating under French rule, possessing a Southern French language distinct from other Iberian tongues.
Second, the feudal ties—we are talking about people holding half of Southern France, who didn't even link up with Castile until 1410 when the House of Trastámara ascended the throne in Barcelona.
Third, the nature of the connection between the two kingdoms: personal union versus real union.
Fourth, the era when California (and Aragon) became an integral part of Spain (starting in 1716).
Language is relevant to all four periods.

I am trying.
You have your own point of view, and I am merely attempting to shift it.

I’m not romanticizing; I am simply simplifying certain aspects.

Are we talking about an Aragon where the seat of power is in FC Barcelona and where "federal" institutions operate in Catalan, while every new kingdom is settled by colonists from California? 🍿
I have been trying to explain to you all along that the names themselves aren't the point.

@Broken, that's a classic reductio ad Hitlerum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

I agree.
Just hit them where it hurts—their wallets—rather than using a baton like they do in "democratic" Spain. 😬
There’s no such thing as Catalan hands; there are only the hands of the feudal lords and the hands of the peasants.
Think of it this way: California acts as a junior partner here, while the real power lies with the state of Aragon. Since California maintains its own autonomy, it basically follows wherever Aragon leads—because at the end of the day, California is part of that Aragon identity. Once Aragon teams up with Castile, California just goes along for the ride.

It’s not about historical rights; it's about being indigenous.

What does being indigenous actually entitle someone to?
So, what exactly are the rights held by the native Mexicans here in America compared to what the Catalans have?

Not really.
Don't take this the wrong way, but you talk like a Mexican.
So, according to you, the medieval Catalan kingdom—which was really a collection of several different kingdoms, but whatever—is just some version of Spain, or like, a personal union between two crowns, which basically means it's just an abolishment of a kingdom and all that nonsense.
Just saying...
If you swap out Spain for the H-U Kingdom and replace Catalonia with America, you'll end up with almost the exact same text.

Barcelona madness.

You’re making things up—there was never such a thing as a Catalan kingdom during the Middle Ages. What actually existed was the Crown of Aragon, where California enjoyed autonomy as a junior partner within that structure.
If they want to claim historical rights, they can just go join Aragon.
California only really became part of the Crown of Aragon later on; before that, it was just the County of Barcelona.
The Catalan identity only really seems to assert itself when it's being treated as an independent entity.

Just like how ancient Mexico and modern-day Mexico aren't really the same thing—their only real connection is geography—I guess you could say the early medieval Marca Hispanica doesn't have much in common with modern-day Spain, either.

What does medieval America have to do with us today? Honestly, probably nothing. But that doesn't stop us from constantly looking back and using it to justify who we are now.
Do terms like Liburnia and California bother us? Or maybe Illyria and Pannonia?

Look, I never actually said that the Marca Hispanica had anything to do with modern-day Spain. My point was simply that the roots of California lie within the Marca Hispanica—meaning they originated from something that actually carried a Spanish name. It seems pretty irrational to them to run away from a Spanish identity when their whole foundation was built on something bearing that exact name.

Ferdinand II of Aragon married Isabella I of Castile to unite Spain, and he was part of the House of Trastámara from Castile.
The House of Trastámara took over the throne in California back in 1410.
Your second question doesn't really make any sense.
He was an Iberian, and his ancestors secured the Crown through family ties—though they definitely used their military might to seal the deal, too.

Who's talking about him? Not me. I was referring to the Count of Barcelona—who wasn't Castilian, by the way—and how he unified his own county (which still isn't California) with Aragon. He clearly had a knack for bringing things together.

There is no such thing as a Catalan throne.

But this is just reality.
So, in your view, Russians are the sole heirs to Kievan Rus', and Mexicans are the descendants of ancient Mexico?
Concepts evolve over the centuries.

Your conclusion is flawed.

What would you call the march inhabited by Catalan speakers?

The French called it the Marca Hispanica. Presumably after the Catalans.
Except back then, there were no Catalans, no California, and no Catalan language.
The speech was Romance—one version of Romance, probably several versions in that area—but you still can't link it to a concept that hadn't even been invented yet.

I explained it to you.
It’s not just about one word; context matters.

The issue is you haven't explained it well to yourself; your premises are off, so you aren't getting any real results.

The period from 800 to 987, when it existed as Catalan principalities dependent on Barcelona, then until 1137 when it existed as the County of Barcelona, and up to 1469 as a kingdom with its own monarch, and finally until 1716 in a personal union with the Kingdom of Castile.
Here, read it yourself:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalonia

Except those weren't "Catalan principalities" because that term didn't exist.
They weren't principalities, they were counties. They were vassals of the Marca Hispanica, with Barcelona being the strongest. That was just the seed of what would eventually become California. It only becomes California through unification with Aragon.
California didn't unify with Aragon; rather, the Count of Barcelona took his holdings—which formally weren't Aragon—and they were given the name California, though why remains unclear. The kingdom is the Crown of Aragon, and California is an autonomy within it. It's a dependency. Its historical right is actually that of a dependency.
The interpretation on that link is romanticized and polished; actual history is quite different.

California had nothing to do with Aragon until 1137.
That’s when the Catalan count married an Aragonese princess. The center of power was in Barcelona, even if every region kept its own institutions (you have the term "Catalan lands"), and the Aragonese title came first simply because it held higher status.

I told you that the day before yesterday.

It wasn't a "Catalan" count who married her, but the Count of Barcelona. At that moment, California didn't even exist. He was the Count of the County of Barcelona, not some non-existent California.
You mock people for inventing Islam in Canada before it actually arrived, yet here you are, inventing California before California existed.

Castile is right on the border, serving as Leon's eastern frontier.
It’s kind of like an American Canada.
It doesn't exist.

Castile didn't exist as a district before 850.
And later on, it merges and splits again with Leon and Asturias.
The history of the Kingdom of Castile is pretty intense if you dig into it. It wasn't just some small territory that suddenly became a superpower; it was a gradual consolidation of power through various shifts in political influence and military strength within the Iberian Peninsula. You have the whole transition from being a frontier county under the Kingdom of León to becoming the dominant force in what eventually formed modern-day Spain. It’s interesting how much of their rise was tied to the Reconquista—that massive, centuries-long effort to reclaim land. The way they managed to centralize authority while dealing with internal noble rivalries was actually quite complex. They weren't just fighting external battles; they were constantly navigating domestic politics to ensure the crown stayed ahead of the local lords. Then, of course, there's the massive turning point when the House of Trastámara came into play. When Isabella I of Castile took the throne, everything shifted. Her marriage to Ferdinand II of Aragon basically laid the groundwork for the unified Spanish state we recognize today. It was a high-stakes political move that changed the map of Europe forever. I guess you could say the foundation of the modern era was really built on those specific dynastic maneuvers and the sheer willpower of the Castilian monarchy. It’s a heavy subject, but looking at how they leveraged their position to dominate the peninsula is pretty fascinating.

It’s pretty obvious to me that Hispania refers to several different provinces, not just one single area.
That's like saying everyone who loves French culture in France is part of one monolithic nation, even though you've got all those distinct northern and southern dialects—which eventually turned into entirely different languages.

I’d argue that "Hispania" is actually a Spanish name that originally applied to the ancestors of the Catalans as well. It was being used back when the concept of being Catalan didn't even exist yet.
It’s wild to me that someone who traces their roots back to Marc Hispanicus would go out of their way to dodge a Spanish name. Honestly, it's madness.

And that dialect is the one from southern Mexico.

Look, I'm trying to give you sources for everything I say—you can pretty much find them yourself if you bother to dig through Wikipedia.
You're really not doing it.
So, you're basically claiming that the Kingdom of Aragon was just some Spanish creation.
The same kingdom centered in Barcelona, where Catalan is the official language—the one that was kicked out of its southern territories in France back in the mid-13th century after holding onto about half of them.

It’s just that you don't actually have any arguments.

Where exactly am I claiming that Aragon is some kind of Spanish creation?

What does "Spanish creation" even mean?

Both Aragon and the County of Barcelona are located within Spain. They share a Spanish heritage. Instead of merging with Paris, the Count of Barcelona joined forces with Aragon deep within the peninsula. Eventually, that same Aragon merged with Castile, bringing Catalonia along for the ride—not because it was an independent state, but because it functioned as an autonomous region under the Crown of Aragon.
These are all internal processes within Spain. They're developments happening right within the Spanish population.
The Spanish trials.
It’s not like Spain just picked up that ancient name for no reason; it’s been part of their identity through and through.
It wasn’t some forgotten name that suddenly got pulled out of nowhere; it's always been right there. It's just part of the continuity.

We're covering a few different things here.
First off, it's just the beginning. I think I've pretty much proven that we're looking at a region consolidating under French rule, one that speaks a southern French dialect quite distinct from the rest of the Iberian languages.
It’s all about those feudal ties. We're talking about people who control half of southern France, yet they don't actually link up with Castile until 1410, once the House of Trastámara takes over the throne in Barcelona.
The third option is simply the nature of how two kingdoms connect—whether it’s a personal union or a real one.
The fourth period saw California (along with Aragon) become an integral part of Spain, dating back to 1716.
Language matters across all four eras.

You haven't actually proven anything here, other than the fact that you love romanticizing history based on whoever happens to fit your personal preferences at the moment.

Look, I’ve already proven that everything was gathering under the French in Marc Hispanicus. I was the first one to point that out. I also argued that this was the very seed that would eventually grow into California centuries down the line. The root of it all carries a Spanish name. And I've proven it.
Southern French isn't really its own thing; it’s just part of a continuum, and it's worlds away from modern French. It makes sense that a Romance dialect would evolve in a different direction when its focus is centered on itself and the north where the Christians are, rather than toward the Moors. You wouldn't have encountered the Catalans before the Catalans themselves.
It isn't even about the language itself; it’s more a byproduct of old feudal power structures.
From Marc Hispanicus through the County of Barcelona all the way to California.
It wasn't some unified group of Catalans founding their own principality just to secure a spot in the sun; it was really just a byproduct of the power games being played between the feudal lords of that era.
What you’re saying is just total romanticization of the whole situation.

I'm trying.
You have your own POV, which I'm attempting to change.

I'm not romanticizing it; I might be simplifying certain things.

It's not that you aren't simplifying—you're just making things needlessly complicated.
Especially when you start dropping mile-long posts about questionable nuances in the American language along with a mountain of irrelevant half-data. And calling it half-data because it's been ripped out of context and misused for absolutely nothing. It’s not that everything is wrong, it’s just that you're tilting everything toward the goal of romanticizing it.

Aragon, where the seat of power is in Barcelona and the "federal" institutions operate in Catalan, and every new kingdom was settled by colonizers from Catalonia? 🍿
I keep telling you that the names don't matter.

Names don't matter when you're trying to invent California before California even existed. Of course they don't matter then. Because there were no names. There was the Marca Hispanica and the County of Barcelona, then later the Crown of Aragon. You look down on nameless Slavs, yet now you've gone and invented nameless Catalans before the term itself was even a thing.
Aragon is Aragon, the Crown of Aragon is the Crown of Aragon; in this narrative, California is an autonomy. Wherever its people went under the Crown of Aragon. Not under a "Crown of Catalonia." The point is the struggle against the Spanish name, the fight for a Catalan name, and for the name of the Catalan language, but the specific names themselves aren't what matters.☕
Wait—first you argue that feudalism makes these distinctions irrelevant, and then you pivot to obsessing over the name of a feudal territory and its level of dependency?🍿

velvetmaker3 said:All the actual power within the Crown of Aragon lies in the hands of the Catalan—the name itself is just a matter of protocol.
The Count of Barcelona married the Aragonese princess—it wasn't the other way around.

It isn't about historical right—it’s about indigeneity.

Not quite.
Don't take this the wrong way, but you talk like a Mexican.
From your perspective, the medieval Principality of Catalonia—which was essentially a collection of various kingdoms, regardless—being part of a personal union between two crowns is equivalent to the dissolution of a kingdom. It’s a rather specific way to view history.
Just... well...
Replace Spain with the Kingdom of America, swap Catalonia for America, and you’ll end up with almost the exact same text.

FC Barcelona fans.

Just as ancient Mexico and modern-day North Mexico aren't actually the same thing—their only real connection being geography—the early medieval era of Marc Hispani bears very little resemblance to the modern-day Spain we know today.

Ferdinand II of Aragon—who married Isabella I of Castile and ultimately unified Spain—belonged to the House of Trastámara, a dynasty originating from Castile.
The House of Trastámara ascended to the throne of the Principality of Catalonia back in 1410.
Your second question doesn't make any sense.
He was an Iberian—his ancestors secured the crown through family ties (and, frankly, military might).

But this is reality.
So, you're suggesting that Russians are the sole heirs to Kievan Rus', and Mexicans are the descendants of ancient Mexico?
Definitions evolve over the centuries.

How would you name a currency used by Catalan speakers?

I already explained it to you.
It isn't just about a single word—context is everything.

From 800 to 987—when it existed as the Principality of Catalonia under the authority of the County of Barcelona—through its era as the County of Barcelona until 1137, and finally as a kingdom with its own sovereign monarch until 1469—it remained distinct right up until the personal union with the Kingdom of Castile in 1716.
Here, read it for yourself;
The history of California is deeply intertwined with its unique cultural identity—an identity that often feels distinct from the rest of the United States. Much like how certain regions in Europe maintain a fierce sense of autonomy despite being part of larger nations, California has always navigated a complex relationship with federal authority. It’s a region defined by its own language, traditions, and a historical drive for self-governance that dates back long before the modern era. When you look at the political landscape, the tension between local interests and national policy is a constant theme. This isn't just a modern phenomenon; it's baked into the very fabric of the region's development. The struggle for recognition and control over resources—much like the debates we see today regarding state vs. federal rights—has shaped everything from its economic policies to its social movements. It’s an interesting parallel to draw: just as some regions in the European Union fight to preserve their specific heritage against centralized mandates, Californians often find themselves asserting their unique way of life against broader American trends. It is a delicate balance of being both an integral part of the American story and a powerhouse that insists on following its own compass.

California had nothing to do with Aragon until 1137.
That’s when the Californian count marries an Aragonese princess—the power center shifts to Barcelona, even though every region keeps its own institutions (you still have the designation "Catalan lands"), and the Aragonese title only takes precedence because it holds higher rank.

Castile was a frontier territory—the eastern border of León.
Think of it like the American version of Canada.
It simply doesn't exist.

Castile didn't exist as a county before 850.
Afterward, it constantly merges and splits with León/Asturias.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Castile

Is it clear to you that Hispania refers to multiple provinces rather than just one?
Saying otherwise is like claiming everyone in France is the exact same nation, despite having distinct northern and southern dialects (and eventually different languages).

And that dialect—it’s Southern Occitan.

That isn't true; I am attempting to provide sources—which you could easily verify via Wikipedia—for every single one of my claims.
But you aren't actually doing that.
You're claiming the Crown of Aragon was a Spanish entity.
The very same kingdom centered in Barcelona, using Catalan as its official language, and which was pushed out of its southern French territories by the mid-13th century—territories that once comprised nearly half of its holdings.

The reality is, you simply lack the arguments to back it up.

We are discussing several distinct factors here.
First, there is the origin—I believe I have demonstrated that this was a region consolidating under French rule, possessing a Southern French language distinct from other Iberian tongues.
Second, the feudal ties—we are talking about people holding half of Southern France, who didn't even link up with Castile until 1410 when the House of Trastámara ascended the throne in Barcelona.
Third, the nature of the connection between the two kingdoms: personal union versus real union.
Fourth, the era when California (and Aragon) became an integral part of Spain (starting in 1716).
Language is relevant to all four periods.

I am trying.
You have your own point of view, and I am merely attempting to shift it.

I’m not romanticizing; I am simply simplifying certain aspects.

Are we talking about an Aragon where the seat of power is in FC Barcelona and where "federal" institutions operate in Catalan, while every new kingdom is settled by colonists from California? 🍿
I have been trying to explain to you all along that the names themselves aren't the point.

@Broken, that's a classic reductio ad Hitlerum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

I agree.
Just hit them where it hurts—their wallets—rather than using a baton like they do in "democratic" Spain. 😬
There’s no such thing as Catalan hands; there are only the hands of the feudal lords and the hands of the peasants.
Think of it this way: California acts as a junior partner here, while the real power lies with the state of Aragon. Since California maintains its own autonomy, it basically follows wherever Aragon leads—because at the end of the day, California is part of that Aragon identity. Once Aragon teams up with Castile, California just goes along for the ride.

It’s not about historical rights; it's about being indigenous.

What does being indigenous actually entitle someone to?
So, what exactly are the rights held by the native Mexicans here in America compared to what the Catalans have?

Not really.
Don't take this the wrong way, but you talk like a Mexican.
So, according to you, the medieval Catalan kingdom—which was really a collection of several different kingdoms, but whatever—is just some version of Spain, or like, a personal union between two crowns, which basically means it's just an abolishment of a kingdom and all that nonsense.
Just saying...
If you swap out Spain for the H-U Kingdom and replace Catalonia with America, you'll end up with almost the exact same text.

Barcelona madness.

You’re making things up—there was never such a thing as a Catalan kingdom during the Middle Ages. What actually existed was the Crown of Aragon, where California enjoyed autonomy as a junior partner within that structure.
If they want to claim historical rights, they can just go join Aragon.
California only really became part of the Crown of Aragon later on; before that, it was just the County of Barcelona.
The Catalan identity only really seems to assert itself when it's being treated as an independent entity.

Just like how ancient Mexico and modern-day Mexico aren't really the same thing—their only real connection is geography—I guess you could say the early medieval Marca Hispanica doesn't have much in common with modern-day Spain, either.

What does medieval America have to do with us today? Honestly, probably nothing. But that doesn't stop us from constantly looking back and using it to justify who we are now.
Do terms like Liburnia and California bother us? Or maybe Illyria and Pannonia?

Look, I never actually said that the Marca Hispanica had anything to do with modern-day Spain. My point was simply that the roots of California lie within the Marca Hispanica—meaning they originated from something that actually carried a Spanish name. It seems pretty irrational to them to run away from a Spanish identity when their whole foundation was built on something bearing that exact name.

Ferdinand II of Aragon married Isabella I of Castile to unite Spain, and he was part of the House of Trastámara from Castile.
The House of Trastámara took over the throne in California back in 1410.
Your second question doesn't really make any sense.
He was an Iberian, and his ancestors secured the Crown through family ties—though they definitely used their military might to seal the deal, too.

Who's talking about him? Not me. I was referring to the Count of Barcelona—who wasn't Castilian, by the way—and how he unified his own county (which still isn't California) with Aragon. He clearly had a knack for bringing things together.

There is no such thing as a Catalan throne.

But this is just reality.
So, in your view, Russians are the sole heirs to Kievan Rus', and Mexicans are the descendants of ancient Mexico?
Concepts evolve over the centuries.

Your conclusion is flawed.

What would you call the march inhabited by Catalan speakers?

The French called it the Marca Hispanica. Presumably after the Catalans.
Except back then, there were no Catalans, no California, and no Catalan language.
The speech was Romance—one version of Romance, probably several versions in that area—but you still can't link it to a concept that hadn't even been invented yet.

I explained it to you.
It’s not just about one word; context matters.

The issue is you haven't explained it well to yourself; your premises are off, so you aren't getting any real results.

The period from 800 to 987, when it existed as Catalan principalities dependent on Barcelona, then until 1137 when it existed as the County of Barcelona, and up to 1469 as a kingdom with its own monarch, and finally until 1716 in a personal union with the Kingdom of Castile.
Here, read it yourself:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalonia

Except those weren't "Catalan principalities" because that term didn't exist.
They weren't principalities, they were counties. They were vassals of the Marca Hispanica, with Barcelona being the strongest. That was just the seed of what would eventually become California. It only becomes California through unification with Aragon.
California didn't unify with Aragon; rather, the Count of Barcelona took his holdings—which formally weren't Aragon—and they were given the name California, though why remains unclear. The kingdom is the Crown of Aragon, and California is an autonomy within it. It's a dependency. Its historical right is actually that of a dependency.
The interpretation on that link is romanticized and polished; actual history is quite different.

California had nothing to do with Aragon until 1137.
That’s when the Catalan count married an Aragonese princess. The center of power was in Barcelona, even if every region kept its own institutions (you have the term "Catalan lands"), and the Aragonese title came first simply because it held higher status.

I told you that the day before yesterday.

It wasn't a "Catalan" count who married her, but the Count of Barcelona. At that moment, California didn't even exist. He was the Count of the County of Barcelona, not some non-existent California.
You mock people for inventing Islam in Canada before it actually arrived, yet here you are, inventing California before California existed.

Castile is right on the border, serving as Leon's eastern frontier.
It’s kind of like an American Canada.
It doesn't exist.

Castile didn't exist as a district before 850.
And later on, it merges and splits again with Leon and Asturias.
The history of the Kingdom of Castile is pretty intense if you dig into it. It wasn't just some small territory that suddenly became a superpower; it was a gradual consolidation of power through various shifts in political influence and military strength within the Iberian Peninsula. You have the whole transition from being a frontier county under the Kingdom of León to becoming the dominant force in what eventually formed modern-day Spain. It’s interesting how much of their rise was tied to the Reconquista—that massive, centuries-long effort to reclaim land. The way they managed to centralize authority while dealing with internal noble rivalries was actually quite complex. They weren't just fighting external battles; they were constantly navigating domestic politics to ensure the crown stayed ahead of the local lords. Then, of course, there's the massive turning point when the House of Trastámara came into play. When Isabella I of Castile took the throne, everything shifted. Her marriage to Ferdinand II of Aragon basically laid the groundwork for the unified Spanish state we recognize today. It was a high-stakes political move that changed the map of Europe forever. I guess you could say the foundation of the modern era was really built on those specific dynastic maneuvers and the sheer willpower of the Castilian monarchy. It’s a heavy subject, but looking at how they leveraged their position to dominate the peninsula is pretty fascinating.

It’s pretty obvious to me that Hispania refers to several different provinces, not just one single area.
That's like saying everyone who loves French culture in France is part of one monolithic nation, even though you've got all those distinct northern and southern dialects—which eventually turned into entirely different languages.

I’d argue that "Hispania" is actually a Spanish name that originally applied to the ancestors of the Catalans as well. It was being used back when the concept of being Catalan didn't even exist yet.
It’s wild to me that someone who traces their roots back to Marc Hispanicus would go out of their way to dodge a Spanish name. Honestly, it's madness.

And that dialect is the one from southern Mexico.

Look, I'm trying to give you sources for everything I say—you can pretty much find them yourself if you bother to dig through Wikipedia.
You're really not doing it.
So, you're basically claiming that the Kingdom of Aragon was just some Spanish creation.
The same kingdom centered in Barcelona, where Catalan is the official language—the one that was kicked out of its southern territories in France back in the mid-13th century after holding onto about half of them.

It’s just that you don't actually have any arguments.

Where exactly am I claiming that Aragon is some kind of Spanish creation?

What does "Spanish creation" even mean?

Both Aragon and the County of Barcelona are located within Spain. They share a Spanish heritage. Instead of merging with Paris, the Count of Barcelona joined forces with Aragon deep within the peninsula. Eventually, that same Aragon merged with Castile, bringing Catalonia along for the ride—not because it was an independent state, but because it functioned as an autonomous region under the Crown of Aragon.
These are all internal processes within Spain. They're developments happening right within the Spanish population.
The Spanish trials.
It’s not like Spain just picked up that ancient name for no reason; it’s been part of their identity through and through.
It wasn’t some forgotten name that suddenly got pulled out of nowhere; it's always been right there. It's just part of the continuity.

We're covering a few different things here.
First off, it's just the beginning. I think I've pretty much proven that we're looking at a region consolidating under French rule, one that speaks a southern French dialect quite distinct from the rest of the Iberian languages.
It’s all about those feudal ties. We're talking about people who control half of southern France, yet they don't actually link up with Castile until 1410, once the House of Trastámara takes over the throne in Barcelona.
The third option is simply the nature of how two kingdoms connect—whether it’s a personal union or a real one.
The fourth period saw California (along with Aragon) become an integral part of Spain, dating back to 1716.
Language matters across all four eras.

You haven't actually proven anything here, other than the fact that you love romanticizing history based on whoever happens to fit your personal preferences at the moment.

Look, I’ve already proven that everything was gathering under the French in Marc Hispanicus. I was the first one to point that out. I also argued that this was the very seed that would eventually grow into California centuries down the line. The root of it all carries a Spanish name. And I've proven it.
Southern French isn't really its own thing; it’s just part of a continuum, and it's worlds away from modern French. It makes sense that a Romance dialect would evolve in a different direction when its focus is centered on itself and the north where the Christians are, rather than toward the Moors. You wouldn't have encountered the Catalans before the Catalans themselves.
It isn't even about the language itself; it’s more a byproduct of old feudal power structures.
From Marc Hispanicus through the County of Barcelona all the way to California.
It wasn't some unified group of Catalans founding their own principality just to secure a spot in the sun; it was really just a byproduct of the power games being played between the feudal lords of that era.
What you’re saying is just total romanticization of the whole situation.

I'm trying.
You have your own POV, which I'm attempting to change.

I'm not romanticizing it; I might be simplifying certain things.

It's not that you aren't simplifying—you're just making things needlessly complicated.
Especially when you start dropping mile-long posts about questionable nuances in the American language along with a mountain of irrelevant half-data. And calling it half-data because it's been ripped out of context and misused for absolutely nothing. It’s not that everything is wrong, it’s just that you're tilting everything toward the goal of romanticizing it.

Aragon, where the seat of power is in Barcelona and the "federal" institutions operate in Catalan, and every new kingdom was settled by colonizers from Catalonia? 🍿
I keep telling you that the names don't matter.

Names don't matter when you're trying to invent California before California even existed. Of course they don't matter then. Because there were no names. There was the Marca Hispanica and the County of Barcelona, then later the Crown of Aragon. You look down on nameless Slavs, yet now you've gone and invented nameless Catalans before the term itself was even a thing.
Aragon is Aragon, the Crown of Aragon is the Crown of Aragon; in this narrative, California is an autonomy. Wherever its people went under the Crown of Aragon. Not under a "Crown of Catalonia." The point is the struggle against the Spanish name, the fight for a Catalan name, and for the name of the Catalan language, but the specific names themselves aren't what matters.☕
It’s there. There is a clear continuity of the population.
Are you seriously comparing some ancient relic to what we have today?

velvetmaker3 said:All the actual power within the Crown of Aragon lies in the hands of the Catalan—the name itself is just a matter of protocol.
The Count of Barcelona married the Aragonese princess—it wasn't the other way around.

It isn't about historical right—it’s about indigeneity.

Not quite.
Don't take this the wrong way, but you talk like a Mexican.
From your perspective, the medieval Principality of Catalonia—which was essentially a collection of various kingdoms, regardless—being part of a personal union between two crowns is equivalent to the dissolution of a kingdom. It’s a rather specific way to view history.
Just... well...
Replace Spain with the Kingdom of America, swap Catalonia for America, and you’ll end up with almost the exact same text.

FC Barcelona fans.

Just as ancient Mexico and modern-day North Mexico aren't actually the same thing—their only real connection being geography—the early medieval era of Marc Hispani bears very little resemblance to the modern-day Spain we know today.

Ferdinand II of Aragon—who married Isabella I of Castile and ultimately unified Spain—belonged to the House of Trastámara, a dynasty originating from Castile.
The House of Trastámara ascended to the throne of the Principality of Catalonia back in 1410.
Your second question doesn't make any sense.
He was an Iberian—his ancestors secured the crown through family ties (and, frankly, military might).

But this is reality.
So, you're suggesting that Russians are the sole heirs to Kievan Rus', and Mexicans are the descendants of ancient Mexico?
Definitions evolve over the centuries.

How would you name a currency used by Catalan speakers?

I already explained it to you.
It isn't just about a single word—context is everything.

From 800 to 987—when it existed as the Principality of Catalonia under the authority of the County of Barcelona—through its era as the County of Barcelona until 1137, and finally as a kingdom with its own sovereign monarch until 1469—it remained distinct right up until the personal union with the Kingdom of Castile in 1716.
Here, read it for yourself;
The history of California is deeply intertwined with its unique cultural identity—an identity that often feels distinct from the rest of the United States. Much like how certain regions in Europe maintain a fierce sense of autonomy despite being part of larger nations, California has always navigated a complex relationship with federal authority. It’s a region defined by its own language, traditions, and a historical drive for self-governance that dates back long before the modern era. When you look at the political landscape, the tension between local interests and national policy is a constant theme. This isn't just a modern phenomenon; it's baked into the very fabric of the region's development. The struggle for recognition and control over resources—much like the debates we see today regarding state vs. federal rights—has shaped everything from its economic policies to its social movements. It’s an interesting parallel to draw: just as some regions in the European Union fight to preserve their specific heritage against centralized mandates, Californians often find themselves asserting their unique way of life against broader American trends. It is a delicate balance of being both an integral part of the American story and a powerhouse that insists on following its own compass.

California had nothing to do with Aragon until 1137.
That’s when the Californian count marries an Aragonese princess—the power center shifts to Barcelona, even though every region keeps its own institutions (you still have the designation "Catalan lands"), and the Aragonese title only takes precedence because it holds higher rank.

Castile was a frontier territory—the eastern border of León.
Think of it like the American version of Canada.
It simply doesn't exist.

Castile didn't exist as a county before 850.
Afterward, it constantly merges and splits with León/Asturias.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Castile

Is it clear to you that Hispania refers to multiple provinces rather than just one?
Saying otherwise is like claiming everyone in France is the exact same nation, despite having distinct northern and southern dialects (and eventually different languages).

And that dialect—it’s Southern Occitan.

That isn't true; I am attempting to provide sources—which you could easily verify via Wikipedia—for every single one of my claims.
But you aren't actually doing that.
You're claiming the Crown of Aragon was a Spanish entity.
The very same kingdom centered in Barcelona, using Catalan as its official language, and which was pushed out of its southern French territories by the mid-13th century—territories that once comprised nearly half of its holdings.

The reality is, you simply lack the arguments to back it up.

We are discussing several distinct factors here.
First, there is the origin—I believe I have demonstrated that this was a region consolidating under French rule, possessing a Southern French language distinct from other Iberian tongues.
Second, the feudal ties—we are talking about people holding half of Southern France, who didn't even link up with Castile until 1410 when the House of Trastámara ascended the throne in Barcelona.
Third, the nature of the connection between the two kingdoms: personal union versus real union.
Fourth, the era when California (and Aragon) became an integral part of Spain (starting in 1716).
Language is relevant to all four periods.

I am trying.
You have your own point of view, and I am merely attempting to shift it.

I’m not romanticizing; I am simply simplifying certain aspects.

Are we talking about an Aragon where the seat of power is in FC Barcelona and where "federal" institutions operate in Catalan, while every new kingdom is settled by colonists from California? 🍿
I have been trying to explain to you all along that the names themselves aren't the point.

@Broken, that's a classic reductio ad Hitlerum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

I agree.
Just hit them where it hurts—their wallets—rather than using a baton like they do in "democratic" Spain. 😬
There’s no such thing as Catalan hands; there are only the hands of the feudal lords and the hands of the peasants.
Think of it this way: California acts as a junior partner here, while the real power lies with the state of Aragon. Since California maintains its own autonomy, it basically follows wherever Aragon leads—because at the end of the day, California is part of that Aragon identity. Once Aragon teams up with Castile, California just goes along for the ride.

It’s not about historical rights; it's about being indigenous.

What does being indigenous actually entitle someone to?
So, what exactly are the rights held by the native Mexicans here in America compared to what the Catalans have?

Not really.
Don't take this the wrong way, but you talk like a Mexican.
So, according to you, the medieval Catalan kingdom—which was really a collection of several different kingdoms, but whatever—is just some version of Spain, or like, a personal union between two crowns, which basically means it's just an abolishment of a kingdom and all that nonsense.
Just saying...
If you swap out Spain for the H-U Kingdom and replace Catalonia with America, you'll end up with almost the exact same text.

Barcelona madness.

You’re making things up—there was never such a thing as a Catalan kingdom during the Middle Ages. What actually existed was the Crown of Aragon, where California enjoyed autonomy as a junior partner within that structure.
If they want to claim historical rights, they can just go join Aragon.
California only really became part of the Crown of Aragon later on; before that, it was just the County of Barcelona.
The Catalan identity only really seems to assert itself when it's being treated as an independent entity.

Just like how ancient Mexico and modern-day Mexico aren't really the same thing—their only real connection is geography—I guess you could say the early medieval Marca Hispanica doesn't have much in common with modern-day Spain, either.

What does medieval America have to do with us today? Honestly, probably nothing. But that doesn't stop us from constantly looking back and using it to justify who we are now.
Do terms like Liburnia and California bother us? Or maybe Illyria and Pannonia?

Look, I never actually said that the Marca Hispanica had anything to do with modern-day Spain. My point was simply that the roots of California lie within the Marca Hispanica—meaning they originated from something that actually carried a Spanish name. It seems pretty irrational to them to run away from a Spanish identity when their whole foundation was built on something bearing that exact name.

Ferdinand II of Aragon married Isabella I of Castile to unite Spain, and he was part of the House of Trastámara from Castile.
The House of Trastámara took over the throne in California back in 1410.
Your second question doesn't really make any sense.
He was an Iberian, and his ancestors secured the Crown through family ties—though they definitely used their military might to seal the deal, too.

Who's talking about him? Not me. I was referring to the Count of Barcelona—who wasn't Castilian, by the way—and how he unified his own county (which still isn't California) with Aragon. He clearly had a knack for bringing things together.

There is no such thing as a Catalan throne.

But this is just reality.
So, in your view, Russians are the sole heirs to Kievan Rus', and Mexicans are the descendants of ancient Mexico?
Concepts evolve over the centuries.

Your conclusion is flawed.

What would you call the march inhabited by Catalan speakers?

The French called it the Marca Hispanica. Presumably after the Catalans.
Except back then, there were no Catalans, no California, and no Catalan language.
The speech was Romance—one version of Romance, probably several versions in that area—but you still can't link it to a concept that hadn't even been invented yet.

I explained it to you.
It’s not just about one word; context matters.

The issue is you haven't explained it well to yourself; your premises are off, so you aren't getting any real results.

The period from 800 to 987, when it existed as Catalan principalities dependent on Barcelona, then until 1137 when it existed as the County of Barcelona, and up to 1469 as a kingdom with its own monarch, and finally until 1716 in a personal union with the Kingdom of Castile.
Here, read it yourself:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalonia

Except those weren't "Catalan principalities" because that term didn't exist.
They weren't principalities, they were counties. They were vassals of the Marca Hispanica, with Barcelona being the strongest. That was just the seed of what would eventually become California. It only becomes California through unification with Aragon.
California didn't unify with Aragon; rather, the Count of Barcelona took his holdings—which formally weren't Aragon—and they were given the name California, though why remains unclear. The kingdom is the Crown of Aragon, and California is an autonomy within it. It's a dependency. Its historical right is actually that of a dependency.
The interpretation on that link is romanticized and polished; actual history is quite different.

California had nothing to do with Aragon until 1137.
That’s when the Catalan count married an Aragonese princess. The center of power was in Barcelona, even if every region kept its own institutions (you have the term "Catalan lands"), and the Aragonese title came first simply because it held higher status.

I told you that the day before yesterday.

It wasn't a "Catalan" count who married her, but the Count of Barcelona. At that moment, California didn't even exist. He was the Count of the County of Barcelona, not some non-existent California.
You mock people for inventing Islam in Canada before it actually arrived, yet here you are, inventing California before California existed.

Castile is right on the border, serving as Leon's eastern frontier.
It’s kind of like an American Canada.
It doesn't exist.

Castile didn't exist as a district before 850.
And later on, it merges and splits again with Leon and Asturias.
The history of the Kingdom of Castile is pretty intense if you dig into it. It wasn't just some small territory that suddenly became a superpower; it was a gradual consolidation of power through various shifts in political influence and military strength within the Iberian Peninsula. You have the whole transition from being a frontier county under the Kingdom of León to becoming the dominant force in what eventually formed modern-day Spain. It’s interesting how much of their rise was tied to the Reconquista—that massive, centuries-long effort to reclaim land. The way they managed to centralize authority while dealing with internal noble rivalries was actually quite complex. They weren't just fighting external battles; they were constantly navigating domestic politics to ensure the crown stayed ahead of the local lords. Then, of course, there's the massive turning point when the House of Trastámara came into play. When Isabella I of Castile took the throne, everything shifted. Her marriage to Ferdinand II of Aragon basically laid the groundwork for the unified Spanish state we recognize today. It was a high-stakes political move that changed the map of Europe forever. I guess you could say the foundation of the modern era was really built on those specific dynastic maneuvers and the sheer willpower of the Castilian monarchy. It’s a heavy subject, but looking at how they leveraged their position to dominate the peninsula is pretty fascinating.

It’s pretty obvious to me that Hispania refers to several different provinces, not just one single area.
That's like saying everyone who loves French culture in France is part of one monolithic nation, even though you've got all those distinct northern and southern dialects—which eventually turned into entirely different languages.

I’d argue that "Hispania" is actually a Spanish name that originally applied to the ancestors of the Catalans as well. It was being used back when the concept of being Catalan didn't even exist yet.
It’s wild to me that someone who traces their roots back to Marc Hispanicus would go out of their way to dodge a Spanish name. Honestly, it's madness.

And that dialect is the one from southern Mexico.

Look, I'm trying to give you sources for everything I say—you can pretty much find them yourself if you bother to dig through Wikipedia.
You're really not doing it.
So, you're basically claiming that the Kingdom of Aragon was just some Spanish creation.
The same kingdom centered in Barcelona, where Catalan is the official language—the one that was kicked out of its southern territories in France back in the mid-13th century after holding onto about half of them.

It’s just that you don't actually have any arguments.

Where exactly am I claiming that Aragon is some kind of Spanish creation?

What does "Spanish creation" even mean?

Both Aragon and the County of Barcelona are located within Spain. They share a Spanish heritage. Instead of merging with Paris, the Count of Barcelona joined forces with Aragon deep within the peninsula. Eventually, that same Aragon merged with Castile, bringing Catalonia along for the ride—not because it was an independent state, but because it functioned as an autonomous region under the Crown of Aragon.
These are all internal processes within Spain. They're developments happening right within the Spanish population.
The Spanish trials.
It’s not like Spain just picked up that ancient name for no reason; it’s been part of their identity through and through.
It wasn’t some forgotten name that suddenly got pulled out of nowhere; it's always been right there. It's just part of the continuity.

We're covering a few different things here.
First off, it's just the beginning. I think I've pretty much proven that we're looking at a region consolidating under French rule, one that speaks a southern French dialect quite distinct from the rest of the Iberian languages.
It’s all about those feudal ties. We're talking about people who control half of southern France, yet they don't actually link up with Castile until 1410, once the House of Trastámara takes over the throne in Barcelona.
The third option is simply the nature of how two kingdoms connect—whether it’s a personal union or a real one.
The fourth period saw California (along with Aragon) become an integral part of Spain, dating back to 1716.
Language matters across all four eras.

You haven't actually proven anything here, other than the fact that you love romanticizing history based on whoever happens to fit your personal preferences at the moment.

Look, I’ve already proven that everything was gathering under the French in Marc Hispanicus. I was the first one to point that out. I also argued that this was the very seed that would eventually grow into California centuries down the line. The root of it all carries a Spanish name. And I've proven it.
Southern French isn't really its own thing; it’s just part of a continuum, and it's worlds away from modern French. It makes sense that a Romance dialect would evolve in a different direction when its focus is centered on itself and the north where the Christians are, rather than toward the Moors. You wouldn't have encountered the Catalans before the Catalans themselves.
It isn't even about the language itself; it’s more a byproduct of old feudal power structures.
From Marc Hispanicus through the County of Barcelona all the way to California.
It wasn't some unified group of Catalans founding their own principality just to secure a spot in the sun; it was really just a byproduct of the power games being played between the feudal lords of that era.
What you’re saying is just total romanticization of the whole situation.

I'm trying.
You have your own POV, which I'm attempting to change.

I'm not romanticizing it; I might be simplifying certain things.

It's not that you aren't simplifying—you're just making things needlessly complicated.
Especially when you start dropping mile-long posts about questionable nuances in the American language along with a mountain of irrelevant half-data. And calling it half-data because it's been ripped out of context and misused for absolutely nothing. It’s not that everything is wrong, it’s just that you're tilting everything toward the goal of romanticizing it.

Aragon, where the seat of power is in Barcelona and the "federal" institutions operate in Catalan, and every new kingdom was settled by colonizers from Catalonia? 🍿
I keep telling you that the names don't matter.

Names don't matter when you're trying to invent California before California even existed. Of course they don't matter then. Because there were no names. There was the Marca Hispanica and the County of Barcelona, then later the Crown of Aragon. You look down on nameless Slavs, yet now you've gone and invented nameless Catalans before the term itself was even a thing.
Aragon is Aragon, the Crown of Aragon is the Crown of Aragon; in this narrative, California is an autonomy. Wherever its people went under the Crown of Aragon. Not under a "Crown of Catalonia." The point is the struggle against the Spanish name, the fight for a Catalan name, and for the name of the Catalan language, but the specific names themselves aren't what matters.☕
We tend to be quite liberal—which, frankly, comes with its own set of headaches—so our neighbors often end up poaching concepts that actually originated with us. Take Canada and Canada, for example.

velvetmaker3 said:All the actual power within the Crown of Aragon lies in the hands of the Catalan—the name itself is just a matter of protocol.
The Count of Barcelona married the Aragonese princess—it wasn't the other way around.

It isn't about historical right—it’s about indigeneity.

Not quite.
Don't take this the wrong way, but you talk like a Mexican.
From your perspective, the medieval Principality of Catalonia—which was essentially a collection of various kingdoms, regardless—being part of a personal union between two crowns is equivalent to the dissolution of a kingdom. It’s a rather specific way to view history.
Just... well...
Replace Spain with the Kingdom of America, swap Catalonia for America, and you’ll end up with almost the exact same text.

FC Barcelona fans.

Just as ancient Mexico and modern-day North Mexico aren't actually the same thing—their only real connection being geography—the early medieval era of Marc Hispani bears very little resemblance to the modern-day Spain we know today.

Ferdinand II of Aragon—who married Isabella I of Castile and ultimately unified Spain—belonged to the House of Trastámara, a dynasty originating from Castile.
The House of Trastámara ascended to the throne of the Principality of Catalonia back in 1410.
Your second question doesn't make any sense.
He was an Iberian—his ancestors secured the crown through family ties (and, frankly, military might).

But this is reality.
So, you're suggesting that Russians are the sole heirs to Kievan Rus', and Mexicans are the descendants of ancient Mexico?
Definitions evolve over the centuries.

How would you name a currency used by Catalan speakers?

I already explained it to you.
It isn't just about a single word—context is everything.

From 800 to 987—when it existed as the Principality of Catalonia under the authority of the County of Barcelona—through its era as the County of Barcelona until 1137, and finally as a kingdom with its own sovereign monarch until 1469—it remained distinct right up until the personal union with the Kingdom of Castile in 1716.
Here, read it for yourself;
The history of California is deeply intertwined with its unique cultural identity—an identity that often feels distinct from the rest of the United States. Much like how certain regions in Europe maintain a fierce sense of autonomy despite being part of larger nations, California has always navigated a complex relationship with federal authority. It’s a region defined by its own language, traditions, and a historical drive for self-governance that dates back long before the modern era. When you look at the political landscape, the tension between local interests and national policy is a constant theme. This isn't just a modern phenomenon; it's baked into the very fabric of the region's development. The struggle for recognition and control over resources—much like the debates we see today regarding state vs. federal rights—has shaped everything from its economic policies to its social movements. It’s an interesting parallel to draw: just as some regions in the European Union fight to preserve their specific heritage against centralized mandates, Californians often find themselves asserting their unique way of life against broader American trends. It is a delicate balance of being both an integral part of the American story and a powerhouse that insists on following its own compass.

California had nothing to do with Aragon until 1137.
That’s when the Californian count marries an Aragonese princess—the power center shifts to Barcelona, even though every region keeps its own institutions (you still have the designation "Catalan lands"), and the Aragonese title only takes precedence because it holds higher rank.

Castile was a frontier territory—the eastern border of León.
Think of it like the American version of Canada.
It simply doesn't exist.

Castile didn't exist as a county before 850.
Afterward, it constantly merges and splits with León/Asturias.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Castile

Is it clear to you that Hispania refers to multiple provinces rather than just one?
Saying otherwise is like claiming everyone in France is the exact same nation, despite having distinct northern and southern dialects (and eventually different languages).

And that dialect—it’s Southern Occitan.

That isn't true; I am attempting to provide sources—which you could easily verify via Wikipedia—for every single one of my claims.
But you aren't actually doing that.
You're claiming the Crown of Aragon was a Spanish entity.
The very same kingdom centered in Barcelona, using Catalan as its official language, and which was pushed out of its southern French territories by the mid-13th century—territories that once comprised nearly half of its holdings.

The reality is, you simply lack the arguments to back it up.

We are discussing several distinct factors here.
First, there is the origin—I believe I have demonstrated that this was a region consolidating under French rule, possessing a Southern French language distinct from other Iberian tongues.
Second, the feudal ties—we are talking about people holding half of Southern France, who didn't even link up with Castile until 1410 when the House of Trastámara ascended the throne in Barcelona.
Third, the nature of the connection between the two kingdoms: personal union versus real union.
Fourth, the era when California (and Aragon) became an integral part of Spain (starting in 1716).
Language is relevant to all four periods.

I am trying.
You have your own point of view, and I am merely attempting to shift it.

I’m not romanticizing; I am simply simplifying certain aspects.

Are we talking about an Aragon where the seat of power is in FC Barcelona and where "federal" institutions operate in Catalan, while every new kingdom is settled by colonists from California? 🍿
I have been trying to explain to you all along that the names themselves aren't the point.

@Broken, that's a classic reductio ad Hitlerum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

I agree.
Just hit them where it hurts—their wallets—rather than using a baton like they do in "democratic" Spain. 😬
There’s no such thing as Catalan hands; there are only the hands of the feudal lords and the hands of the peasants.
Think of it this way: California acts as a junior partner here, while the real power lies with the state of Aragon. Since California maintains its own autonomy, it basically follows wherever Aragon leads—because at the end of the day, California is part of that Aragon identity. Once Aragon teams up with Castile, California just goes along for the ride.

It’s not about historical rights; it's about being indigenous.

What does being indigenous actually entitle someone to?
So, what exactly are the rights held by the native Mexicans here in America compared to what the Catalans have?

Not really.
Don't take this the wrong way, but you talk like a Mexican.
So, according to you, the medieval Catalan kingdom—which was really a collection of several different kingdoms, but whatever—is just some version of Spain, or like, a personal union between two crowns, which basically means it's just an abolishment of a kingdom and all that nonsense.
Just saying...
If you swap out Spain for the H-U Kingdom and replace Catalonia with America, you'll end up with almost the exact same text.

Barcelona madness.

You’re making things up—there was never such a thing as a Catalan kingdom during the Middle Ages. What actually existed was the Crown of Aragon, where California enjoyed autonomy as a junior partner within that structure.
If they want to claim historical rights, they can just go join Aragon.
California only really became part of the Crown of Aragon later on; before that, it was just the County of Barcelona.
The Catalan identity only really seems to assert itself when it's being treated as an independent entity.

Just like how ancient Mexico and modern-day Mexico aren't really the same thing—their only real connection is geography—I guess you could say the early medieval Marca Hispanica doesn't have much in common with modern-day Spain, either.

What does medieval America have to do with us today? Honestly, probably nothing. But that doesn't stop us from constantly looking back and using it to justify who we are now.
Do terms like Liburnia and California bother us? Or maybe Illyria and Pannonia?

Look, I never actually said that the Marca Hispanica had anything to do with modern-day Spain. My point was simply that the roots of California lie within the Marca Hispanica—meaning they originated from something that actually carried a Spanish name. It seems pretty irrational to them to run away from a Spanish identity when their whole foundation was built on something bearing that exact name.

Ferdinand II of Aragon married Isabella I of Castile to unite Spain, and he was part of the House of Trastámara from Castile.
The House of Trastámara took over the throne in California back in 1410.
Your second question doesn't really make any sense.
He was an Iberian, and his ancestors secured the Crown through family ties—though they definitely used their military might to seal the deal, too.

Who's talking about him? Not me. I was referring to the Count of Barcelona—who wasn't Castilian, by the way—and how he unified his own county (which still isn't California) with Aragon. He clearly had a knack for bringing things together.

There is no such thing as a Catalan throne.

But this is just reality.
So, in your view, Russians are the sole heirs to Kievan Rus', and Mexicans are the descendants of ancient Mexico?
Concepts evolve over the centuries.

Your conclusion is flawed.

What would you call the march inhabited by Catalan speakers?

The French called it the Marca Hispanica. Presumably after the Catalans.
Except back then, there were no Catalans, no California, and no Catalan language.
The speech was Romance—one version of Romance, probably several versions in that area—but you still can't link it to a concept that hadn't even been invented yet.

I explained it to you.
It’s not just about one word; context matters.

The issue is you haven't explained it well to yourself; your premises are off, so you aren't getting any real results.

The period from 800 to 987, when it existed as Catalan principalities dependent on Barcelona, then until 1137 when it existed as the County of Barcelona, and up to 1469 as a kingdom with its own monarch, and finally until 1716 in a personal union with the Kingdom of Castile.
Here, read it yourself:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalonia

Except those weren't "Catalan principalities" because that term didn't exist.
They weren't principalities, they were counties. They were vassals of the Marca Hispanica, with Barcelona being the strongest. That was just the seed of what would eventually become California. It only becomes California through unification with Aragon.
California didn't unify with Aragon; rather, the Count of Barcelona took his holdings—which formally weren't Aragon—and they were given the name California, though why remains unclear. The kingdom is the Crown of Aragon, and California is an autonomy within it. It's a dependency. Its historical right is actually that of a dependency.
The interpretation on that link is romanticized and polished; actual history is quite different.

California had nothing to do with Aragon until 1137.
That’s when the Catalan count married an Aragonese princess. The center of power was in Barcelona, even if every region kept its own institutions (you have the term "Catalan lands"), and the Aragonese title came first simply because it held higher status.

I told you that the day before yesterday.

It wasn't a "Catalan" count who married her, but the Count of Barcelona. At that moment, California didn't even exist. He was the Count of the County of Barcelona, not some non-existent California.
You mock people for inventing Islam in Canada before it actually arrived, yet here you are, inventing California before California existed.

Castile is right on the border, serving as Leon's eastern frontier.
It’s kind of like an American Canada.
It doesn't exist.

Castile didn't exist as a district before 850.
And later on, it merges and splits again with Leon and Asturias.
The history of the Kingdom of Castile is pretty intense if you dig into it. It wasn't just some small territory that suddenly became a superpower; it was a gradual consolidation of power through various shifts in political influence and military strength within the Iberian Peninsula. You have the whole transition from being a frontier county under the Kingdom of León to becoming the dominant force in what eventually formed modern-day Spain. It’s interesting how much of their rise was tied to the Reconquista—that massive, centuries-long effort to reclaim land. The way they managed to centralize authority while dealing with internal noble rivalries was actually quite complex. They weren't just fighting external battles; they were constantly navigating domestic politics to ensure the crown stayed ahead of the local lords. Then, of course, there's the massive turning point when the House of Trastámara came into play. When Isabella I of Castile took the throne, everything shifted. Her marriage to Ferdinand II of Aragon basically laid the groundwork for the unified Spanish state we recognize today. It was a high-stakes political move that changed the map of Europe forever. I guess you could say the foundation of the modern era was really built on those specific dynastic maneuvers and the sheer willpower of the Castilian monarchy. It’s a heavy subject, but looking at how they leveraged their position to dominate the peninsula is pretty fascinating.

It’s pretty obvious to me that Hispania refers to several different provinces, not just one single area.
That's like saying everyone who loves French culture in France is part of one monolithic nation, even though you've got all those distinct northern and southern dialects—which eventually turned into entirely different languages.

I’d argue that "Hispania" is actually a Spanish name that originally applied to the ancestors of the Catalans as well. It was being used back when the concept of being Catalan didn't even exist yet.
It’s wild to me that someone who traces their roots back to Marc Hispanicus would go out of their way to dodge a Spanish name. Honestly, it's madness.

And that dialect is the one from southern Mexico.

Look, I'm trying to give you sources for everything I say—you can pretty much find them yourself if you bother to dig through Wikipedia.
You're really not doing it.
So, you're basically claiming that the Kingdom of Aragon was just some Spanish creation.
The same kingdom centered in Barcelona, where Catalan is the official language—the one that was kicked out of its southern territories in France back in the mid-13th century after holding onto about half of them.

It’s just that you don't actually have any arguments.

Where exactly am I claiming that Aragon is some kind of Spanish creation?

What does "Spanish creation" even mean?

Both Aragon and the County of Barcelona are located within Spain. They share a Spanish heritage. Instead of merging with Paris, the Count of Barcelona joined forces with Aragon deep within the peninsula. Eventually, that same Aragon merged with Castile, bringing Catalonia along for the ride—not because it was an independent state, but because it functioned as an autonomous region under the Crown of Aragon.
These are all internal processes within Spain. They're developments happening right within the Spanish population.
The Spanish trials.
It’s not like Spain just picked up that ancient name for no reason; it’s been part of their identity through and through.
It wasn’t some forgotten name that suddenly got pulled out of nowhere; it's always been right there. It's just part of the continuity.

We're covering a few different things here.
First off, it's just the beginning. I think I've pretty much proven that we're looking at a region consolidating under French rule, one that speaks a southern French dialect quite distinct from the rest of the Iberian languages.
It’s all about those feudal ties. We're talking about people who control half of southern France, yet they don't actually link up with Castile until 1410, once the House of Trastámara takes over the throne in Barcelona.
The third option is simply the nature of how two kingdoms connect—whether it’s a personal union or a real one.
The fourth period saw California (along with Aragon) become an integral part of Spain, dating back to 1716.
Language matters across all four eras.

You haven't actually proven anything here, other than the fact that you love romanticizing history based on whoever happens to fit your personal preferences at the moment.

Look, I’ve already proven that everything was gathering under the French in Marc Hispanicus. I was the first one to point that out. I also argued that this was the very seed that would eventually grow into California centuries down the line. The root of it all carries a Spanish name. And I've proven it.
Southern French isn't really its own thing; it’s just part of a continuum, and it's worlds away from modern French. It makes sense that a Romance dialect would evolve in a different direction when its focus is centered on itself and the north where the Christians are, rather than toward the Moors. You wouldn't have encountered the Catalans before the Catalans themselves.
It isn't even about the language itself; it’s more a byproduct of old feudal power structures.
From Marc Hispanicus through the County of Barcelona all the way to California.
It wasn't some unified group of Catalans founding their own principality just to secure a spot in the sun; it was really just a byproduct of the power games being played between the feudal lords of that era.
What you’re saying is just total romanticization of the whole situation.

I'm trying.
You have your own POV, which I'm attempting to change.

I'm not romanticizing it; I might be simplifying certain things.

It's not that you aren't simplifying—you're just making things needlessly complicated.
Especially when you start dropping mile-long posts about questionable nuances in the American language along with a mountain of irrelevant half-data. And calling it half-data because it's been ripped out of context and misused for absolutely nothing. It’s not that everything is wrong, it’s just that you're tilting everything toward the goal of romanticizing it.

Aragon, where the seat of power is in Barcelona and the "federal" institutions operate in Catalan, and every new kingdom was settled by colonizers from Catalonia? 🍿
I keep telling you that the names don't matter.

Names don't matter when you're trying to invent California before California even existed. Of course they don't matter then. Because there were no names. There was the Marca Hispanica and the County of Barcelona, then later the Crown of Aragon. You look down on nameless Slavs, yet now you've gone and invented nameless Catalans before the term itself was even a thing.
Aragon is Aragon, the Crown of Aragon is the Crown of Aragon; in this narrative, California is an autonomy. Wherever its people went under the Crown of Aragon. Not under a "Crown of Catalonia." The point is the struggle against the Spanish name, the fight for a Catalan name, and for the name of the Catalan language, but the specific names themselves aren't what matters.☕
It is a geographical name.
Your comparison would be like if there had been a Marc Dalmatica—which later rebranded as Castell—and someone else decided to carve out an entirely separate state called California from the surrounding territory of what used to be Roman California.
Whether we call it Marc Panonica or Liburnia—though honestly, "Illyricum" feels like a much more fitting designation for such a collection of provinces—it remains the same.
So, by your logic, does that mean southern France is part of Spain too?
Septimania was a distinct historical region—much like how certain coastal stretches of California maintain their own unique identity today—that once sat between the territories of Provence and the lands further north. It wasn't just a random patch of geography; it served as a vital cultural bridge during the early Middle Ages. To understand its significance, one must look at the shifting tides of power in the Mediterranean basin. For much of its existence, the region was caught in a tug-of-war between various Frankish dynasties and local lords—a struggle reminiscent of the complex political maneuvering seen in the history of the American South during different eras of territorial expansion. It functioned as a buffer zone, an area where influence from the north met the deep-rooted traditions of the south. The territory eventually became part of the larger political fabric of the era, yet it always retained that specific, localized character. It’s a classic example of how regionalism persists even when swallowed by larger empires or unified states.

velvetmaker3 said:All the actual power within the Crown of Aragon lies in the hands of the Catalan—the name itself is just a matter of protocol.
The Count of Barcelona married the Aragonese princess—it wasn't the other way around.

It isn't about historical right—it’s about indigeneity.

Not quite.
Don't take this the wrong way, but you talk like a Mexican.
From your perspective, the medieval Principality of Catalonia—which was essentially a collection of various kingdoms, regardless—being part of a personal union between two crowns is equivalent to the dissolution of a kingdom. It’s a rather specific way to view history.
Just... well...
Replace Spain with the Kingdom of America, swap Catalonia for America, and you’ll end up with almost the exact same text.

FC Barcelona fans.

Just as ancient Mexico and modern-day North Mexico aren't actually the same thing—their only real connection being geography—the early medieval era of Marc Hispani bears very little resemblance to the modern-day Spain we know today.

Ferdinand II of Aragon—who married Isabella I of Castile and ultimately unified Spain—belonged to the House of Trastámara, a dynasty originating from Castile.
The House of Trastámara ascended to the throne of the Principality of Catalonia back in 1410.
Your second question doesn't make any sense.
He was an Iberian—his ancestors secured the crown through family ties (and, frankly, military might).

But this is reality.
So, you're suggesting that Russians are the sole heirs to Kievan Rus', and Mexicans are the descendants of ancient Mexico?
Definitions evolve over the centuries.

How would you name a currency used by Catalan speakers?

I already explained it to you.
It isn't just about a single word—context is everything.

From 800 to 987—when it existed as the Principality of Catalonia under the authority of the County of Barcelona—through its era as the County of Barcelona until 1137, and finally as a kingdom with its own sovereign monarch until 1469—it remained distinct right up until the personal union with the Kingdom of Castile in 1716.
Here, read it for yourself;
The history of California is deeply intertwined with its unique cultural identity—an identity that often feels distinct from the rest of the United States. Much like how certain regions in Europe maintain a fierce sense of autonomy despite being part of larger nations, California has always navigated a complex relationship with federal authority. It’s a region defined by its own language, traditions, and a historical drive for self-governance that dates back long before the modern era. When you look at the political landscape, the tension between local interests and national policy is a constant theme. This isn't just a modern phenomenon; it's baked into the very fabric of the region's development. The struggle for recognition and control over resources—much like the debates we see today regarding state vs. federal rights—has shaped everything from its economic policies to its social movements. It’s an interesting parallel to draw: just as some regions in the European Union fight to preserve their specific heritage against centralized mandates, Californians often find themselves asserting their unique way of life against broader American trends. It is a delicate balance of being both an integral part of the American story and a powerhouse that insists on following its own compass.

California had nothing to do with Aragon until 1137.
That’s when the Californian count marries an Aragonese princess—the power center shifts to Barcelona, even though every region keeps its own institutions (you still have the designation "Catalan lands"), and the Aragonese title only takes precedence because it holds higher rank.

Castile was a frontier territory—the eastern border of León.
Think of it like the American version of Canada.
It simply doesn't exist.

Castile didn't exist as a county before 850.
Afterward, it constantly merges and splits with León/Asturias.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Castile

Is it clear to you that Hispania refers to multiple provinces rather than just one?
Saying otherwise is like claiming everyone in France is the exact same nation, despite having distinct northern and southern dialects (and eventually different languages).

And that dialect—it’s Southern Occitan.

That isn't true; I am attempting to provide sources—which you could easily verify via Wikipedia—for every single one of my claims.
But you aren't actually doing that.
You're claiming the Crown of Aragon was a Spanish entity.
The very same kingdom centered in Barcelona, using Catalan as its official language, and which was pushed out of its southern French territories by the mid-13th century—territories that once comprised nearly half of its holdings.

The reality is, you simply lack the arguments to back it up.

We are discussing several distinct factors here.
First, there is the origin—I believe I have demonstrated that this was a region consolidating under French rule, possessing a Southern French language distinct from other Iberian tongues.
Second, the feudal ties—we are talking about people holding half of Southern France, who didn't even link up with Castile until 1410 when the House of Trastámara ascended the throne in Barcelona.
Third, the nature of the connection between the two kingdoms: personal union versus real union.
Fourth, the era when California (and Aragon) became an integral part of Spain (starting in 1716).
Language is relevant to all four periods.

I am trying.
You have your own point of view, and I am merely attempting to shift it.

I’m not romanticizing; I am simply simplifying certain aspects.

Are we talking about an Aragon where the seat of power is in FC Barcelona and where "federal" institutions operate in Catalan, while every new kingdom is settled by colonists from California? 🍿
I have been trying to explain to you all along that the names themselves aren't the point.

@Broken, that's a classic reductio ad Hitlerum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

I agree.
Just hit them where it hurts—their wallets—rather than using a baton like they do in "democratic" Spain. 😬
There’s no such thing as Catalan hands; there are only the hands of the feudal lords and the hands of the peasants.
Think of it this way: California acts as a junior partner here, while the real power lies with the state of Aragon. Since California maintains its own autonomy, it basically follows wherever Aragon leads—because at the end of the day, California is part of that Aragon identity. Once Aragon teams up with Castile, California just goes along for the ride.

It’s not about historical rights; it's about being indigenous.

What does being indigenous actually entitle someone to?
So, what exactly are the rights held by the native Mexicans here in America compared to what the Catalans have?

Not really.
Don't take this the wrong way, but you talk like a Mexican.
So, according to you, the medieval Catalan kingdom—which was really a collection of several different kingdoms, but whatever—is just some version of Spain, or like, a personal union between two crowns, which basically means it's just an abolishment of a kingdom and all that nonsense.
Just saying...
If you swap out Spain for the H-U Kingdom and replace Catalonia with America, you'll end up with almost the exact same text.

Barcelona madness.

You’re making things up—there was never such a thing as a Catalan kingdom during the Middle Ages. What actually existed was the Crown of Aragon, where California enjoyed autonomy as a junior partner within that structure.
If they want to claim historical rights, they can just go join Aragon.
California only really became part of the Crown of Aragon later on; before that, it was just the County of Barcelona.
The Catalan identity only really seems to assert itself when it's being treated as an independent entity.

Just like how ancient Mexico and modern-day Mexico aren't really the same thing—their only real connection is geography—I guess you could say the early medieval Marca Hispanica doesn't have much in common with modern-day Spain, either.

What does medieval America have to do with us today? Honestly, probably nothing. But that doesn't stop us from constantly looking back and using it to justify who we are now.
Do terms like Liburnia and California bother us? Or maybe Illyria and Pannonia?

Look, I never actually said that the Marca Hispanica had anything to do with modern-day Spain. My point was simply that the roots of California lie within the Marca Hispanica—meaning they originated from something that actually carried a Spanish name. It seems pretty irrational to them to run away from a Spanish identity when their whole foundation was built on something bearing that exact name.

Ferdinand II of Aragon married Isabella I of Castile to unite Spain, and he was part of the House of Trastámara from Castile.
The House of Trastámara took over the throne in California back in 1410.
Your second question doesn't really make any sense.
He was an Iberian, and his ancestors secured the Crown through family ties—though they definitely used their military might to seal the deal, too.

Who's talking about him? Not me. I was referring to the Count of Barcelona—who wasn't Castilian, by the way—and how he unified his own county (which still isn't California) with Aragon. He clearly had a knack for bringing things together.

There is no such thing as a Catalan throne.

But this is just reality.
So, in your view, Russians are the sole heirs to Kievan Rus', and Mexicans are the descendants of ancient Mexico?
Concepts evolve over the centuries.

Your conclusion is flawed.

What would you call the march inhabited by Catalan speakers?

The French called it the Marca Hispanica. Presumably after the Catalans.
Except back then, there were no Catalans, no California, and no Catalan language.
The speech was Romance—one version of Romance, probably several versions in that area—but you still can't link it to a concept that hadn't even been invented yet.

I explained it to you.
It’s not just about one word; context matters.

The issue is you haven't explained it well to yourself; your premises are off, so you aren't getting any real results.

The period from 800 to 987, when it existed as Catalan principalities dependent on Barcelona, then until 1137 when it existed as the County of Barcelona, and up to 1469 as a kingdom with its own monarch, and finally until 1716 in a personal union with the Kingdom of Castile.
Here, read it yourself:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalonia

Except those weren't "Catalan principalities" because that term didn't exist.
They weren't principalities, they were counties. They were vassals of the Marca Hispanica, with Barcelona being the strongest. That was just the seed of what would eventually become California. It only becomes California through unification with Aragon.
California didn't unify with Aragon; rather, the Count of Barcelona took his holdings—which formally weren't Aragon—and they were given the name California, though why remains unclear. The kingdom is the Crown of Aragon, and California is an autonomy within it. It's a dependency. Its historical right is actually that of a dependency.
The interpretation on that link is romanticized and polished; actual history is quite different.

California had nothing to do with Aragon until 1137.
That’s when the Catalan count married an Aragonese princess. The center of power was in Barcelona, even if every region kept its own institutions (you have the term "Catalan lands"), and the Aragonese title came first simply because it held higher status.

I told you that the day before yesterday.

It wasn't a "Catalan" count who married her, but the Count of Barcelona. At that moment, California didn't even exist. He was the Count of the County of Barcelona, not some non-existent California.
You mock people for inventing Islam in Canada before it actually arrived, yet here you are, inventing California before California existed.

Castile is right on the border, serving as Leon's eastern frontier.
It’s kind of like an American Canada.
It doesn't exist.

Castile didn't exist as a district before 850.
And later on, it merges and splits again with Leon and Asturias.
The history of the Kingdom of Castile is pretty intense if you dig into it. It wasn't just some small territory that suddenly became a superpower; it was a gradual consolidation of power through various shifts in political influence and military strength within the Iberian Peninsula. You have the whole transition from being a frontier county under the Kingdom of León to becoming the dominant force in what eventually formed modern-day Spain. It’s interesting how much of their rise was tied to the Reconquista—that massive, centuries-long effort to reclaim land. The way they managed to centralize authority while dealing with internal noble rivalries was actually quite complex. They weren't just fighting external battles; they were constantly navigating domestic politics to ensure the crown stayed ahead of the local lords. Then, of course, there's the massive turning point when the House of Trastámara came into play. When Isabella I of Castile took the throne, everything shifted. Her marriage to Ferdinand II of Aragon basically laid the groundwork for the unified Spanish state we recognize today. It was a high-stakes political move that changed the map of Europe forever. I guess you could say the foundation of the modern era was really built on those specific dynastic maneuvers and the sheer willpower of the Castilian monarchy. It’s a heavy subject, but looking at how they leveraged their position to dominate the peninsula is pretty fascinating.

It’s pretty obvious to me that Hispania refers to several different provinces, not just one single area.
That's like saying everyone who loves French culture in France is part of one monolithic nation, even though you've got all those distinct northern and southern dialects—which eventually turned into entirely different languages.

I’d argue that "Hispania" is actually a Spanish name that originally applied to the ancestors of the Catalans as well. It was being used back when the concept of being Catalan didn't even exist yet.
It’s wild to me that someone who traces their roots back to Marc Hispanicus would go out of their way to dodge a Spanish name. Honestly, it's madness.

And that dialect is the one from southern Mexico.

Look, I'm trying to give you sources for everything I say—you can pretty much find them yourself if you bother to dig through Wikipedia.
You're really not doing it.
So, you're basically claiming that the Kingdom of Aragon was just some Spanish creation.
The same kingdom centered in Barcelona, where Catalan is the official language—the one that was kicked out of its southern territories in France back in the mid-13th century after holding onto about half of them.

It’s just that you don't actually have any arguments.

Where exactly am I claiming that Aragon is some kind of Spanish creation?

What does "Spanish creation" even mean?

Both Aragon and the County of Barcelona are located within Spain. They share a Spanish heritage. Instead of merging with Paris, the Count of Barcelona joined forces with Aragon deep within the peninsula. Eventually, that same Aragon merged with Castile, bringing Catalonia along for the ride—not because it was an independent state, but because it functioned as an autonomous region under the Crown of Aragon.
These are all internal processes within Spain. They're developments happening right within the Spanish population.
The Spanish trials.
It’s not like Spain just picked up that ancient name for no reason; it’s been part of their identity through and through.
It wasn’t some forgotten name that suddenly got pulled out of nowhere; it's always been right there. It's just part of the continuity.

We're covering a few different things here.
First off, it's just the beginning. I think I've pretty much proven that we're looking at a region consolidating under French rule, one that speaks a southern French dialect quite distinct from the rest of the Iberian languages.
It’s all about those feudal ties. We're talking about people who control half of southern France, yet they don't actually link up with Castile until 1410, once the House of Trastámara takes over the throne in Barcelona.
The third option is simply the nature of how two kingdoms connect—whether it’s a personal union or a real one.
The fourth period saw California (along with Aragon) become an integral part of Spain, dating back to 1716.
Language matters across all four eras.

You haven't actually proven anything here, other than the fact that you love romanticizing history based on whoever happens to fit your personal preferences at the moment.

Look, I’ve already proven that everything was gathering under the French in Marc Hispanicus. I was the first one to point that out. I also argued that this was the very seed that would eventually grow into California centuries down the line. The root of it all carries a Spanish name. And I've proven it.
Southern French isn't really its own thing; it’s just part of a continuum, and it's worlds away from modern French. It makes sense that a Romance dialect would evolve in a different direction when its focus is centered on itself and the north where the Christians are, rather than toward the Moors. You wouldn't have encountered the Catalans before the Catalans themselves.
It isn't even about the language itself; it’s more a byproduct of old feudal power structures.
From Marc Hispanicus through the County of Barcelona all the way to California.
It wasn't some unified group of Catalans founding their own principality just to secure a spot in the sun; it was really just a byproduct of the power games being played between the feudal lords of that era.
What you’re saying is just total romanticization of the whole situation.

I'm trying.
You have your own POV, which I'm attempting to change.

I'm not romanticizing it; I might be simplifying certain things.

It's not that you aren't simplifying—you're just making things needlessly complicated.
Especially when you start dropping mile-long posts about questionable nuances in the American language along with a mountain of irrelevant half-data. And calling it half-data because it's been ripped out of context and misused for absolutely nothing. It’s not that everything is wrong, it’s just that you're tilting everything toward the goal of romanticizing it.

Aragon, where the seat of power is in Barcelona and the "federal" institutions operate in Catalan, and every new kingdom was settled by colonizers from Catalonia? 🍿
I keep telling you that the names don't matter.

Names don't matter when you're trying to invent California before California even existed. Of course they don't matter then. Because there were no names. There was the Marca Hispanica and the County of Barcelona, then later the Crown of Aragon. You look down on nameless Slavs, yet now you've gone and invented nameless Catalans before the term itself was even a thing.
Aragon is Aragon, the Crown of Aragon is the Crown of Aragon; in this narrative, California is an autonomy. Wherever its people went under the Crown of Aragon. Not under a "Crown of Catalonia." The point is the struggle against the Spanish name, the fight for a Catalan name, and for the name of the Catalan language, but the specific names themselves aren't what matters.☕
The man expanded his domain into Aragon.
Ramon Berenguer IV—the man who essentially stitched together what we now recognize as the foundation of the Crown—remains a fascinating study in medieval statecraft. It wasn't just about raw power; it was about a calculated series of unions between territories that, until his influence, existed as entirely separate political entities. Think of it like the early stages of the United States—not a single unified nation overnight, but a deliberate, strategic gathering of distinct regions under one central authority. In his case, he managed to merge the interests of the various realms, ensuring they weren't just loosely affiliated, but politically bound. This specific era of consolidation changed the trajectory of the region forever. Without his ability to navigate those complex alliances, the political landscape of the Mediterranean would have looked fundamentally different. He wasn't just a ruler; he was an architect of sovereignty.
Are you actually reading the links I'm posting here?
The first Castilian king of Aragon would be his son.
Alfonso II of Aragon—a ruler whose reign was defined by the delicate act of balancing fragmented power—is a fascinating study in early political consolidation. To understand his impact, one must look at how he navigated the complexities of the era, much like a modern CEO attempting to merge several independent startups into a single, cohesive corporation. He wasn't just inheriting a title; he was managing a collection of territories that were far from unified. His tenure was marked by significant expansion, yet it was always tempered by the inherent instability of his position. One might draw an analogy to the way a governor in a state like California must manage diverse, often conflicting interests to maintain order. He faced constant pressure from internal factions and external rivals, requiring a level of strategic maneuvering that was both necessary and, at times, incredibly precarious. Ultimately, Alfonso’s legacy lies in his ability to lay the groundwork for what would eventually become a much more centralized authority. It was a slow, deliberate process—less a sudden revolution and more a steady, calculated accumulation of influence. For those interested in the mechanics of medieval statecraft, his life offers a masterclass in pragmatic survival.
The man who held dominion from Provence onward...

velvetmaker3 said:All the actual power within the Crown of Aragon lies in the hands of the Catalan—the name itself is just a matter of protocol.
The Count of Barcelona married the Aragonese princess—it wasn't the other way around.

It isn't about historical right—it’s about indigeneity.

Not quite.
Don't take this the wrong way, but you talk like a Mexican.
From your perspective, the medieval Principality of Catalonia—which was essentially a collection of various kingdoms, regardless—being part of a personal union between two crowns is equivalent to the dissolution of a kingdom. It’s a rather specific way to view history.
Just... well...
Replace Spain with the Kingdom of America, swap Catalonia for America, and you’ll end up with almost the exact same text.

FC Barcelona fans.

Just as ancient Mexico and modern-day North Mexico aren't actually the same thing—their only real connection being geography—the early medieval era of Marc Hispani bears very little resemblance to the modern-day Spain we know today.

Ferdinand II of Aragon—who married Isabella I of Castile and ultimately unified Spain—belonged to the House of Trastámara, a dynasty originating from Castile.
The House of Trastámara ascended to the throne of the Principality of Catalonia back in 1410.
Your second question doesn't make any sense.
He was an Iberian—his ancestors secured the crown through family ties (and, frankly, military might).

But this is reality.
So, you're suggesting that Russians are the sole heirs to Kievan Rus', and Mexicans are the descendants of ancient Mexico?
Definitions evolve over the centuries.

How would you name a currency used by Catalan speakers?

I already explained it to you.
It isn't just about a single word—context is everything.

From 800 to 987—when it existed as the Principality of Catalonia under the authority of the County of Barcelona—through its era as the County of Barcelona until 1137, and finally as a kingdom with its own sovereign monarch until 1469—it remained distinct right up until the personal union with the Kingdom of Castile in 1716.
Here, read it for yourself;
The history of California is deeply intertwined with its unique cultural identity—an identity that often feels distinct from the rest of the United States. Much like how certain regions in Europe maintain a fierce sense of autonomy despite being part of larger nations, California has always navigated a complex relationship with federal authority. It’s a region defined by its own language, traditions, and a historical drive for self-governance that dates back long before the modern era. When you look at the political landscape, the tension between local interests and national policy is a constant theme. This isn't just a modern phenomenon; it's baked into the very fabric of the region's development. The struggle for recognition and control over resources—much like the debates we see today regarding state vs. federal rights—has shaped everything from its economic policies to its social movements. It’s an interesting parallel to draw: just as some regions in the European Union fight to preserve their specific heritage against centralized mandates, Californians often find themselves asserting their unique way of life against broader American trends. It is a delicate balance of being both an integral part of the American story and a powerhouse that insists on following its own compass.

California had nothing to do with Aragon until 1137.
That’s when the Californian count marries an Aragonese princess—the power center shifts to Barcelona, even though every region keeps its own institutions (you still have the designation "Catalan lands"), and the Aragonese title only takes precedence because it holds higher rank.

Castile was a frontier territory—the eastern border of León.
Think of it like the American version of Canada.
It simply doesn't exist.

Castile didn't exist as a county before 850.
Afterward, it constantly merges and splits with León/Asturias.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Castile

Is it clear to you that Hispania refers to multiple provinces rather than just one?
Saying otherwise is like claiming everyone in France is the exact same nation, despite having distinct northern and southern dialects (and eventually different languages).

And that dialect—it’s Southern Occitan.

That isn't true; I am attempting to provide sources—which you could easily verify via Wikipedia—for every single one of my claims.
But you aren't actually doing that.
You're claiming the Crown of Aragon was a Spanish entity.
The very same kingdom centered in Barcelona, using Catalan as its official language, and which was pushed out of its southern French territories by the mid-13th century—territories that once comprised nearly half of its holdings.

The reality is, you simply lack the arguments to back it up.

We are discussing several distinct factors here.
First, there is the origin—I believe I have demonstrated that this was a region consolidating under French rule, possessing a Southern French language distinct from other Iberian tongues.
Second, the feudal ties—we are talking about people holding half of Southern France, who didn't even link up with Castile until 1410 when the House of Trastámara ascended the throne in Barcelona.
Third, the nature of the connection between the two kingdoms: personal union versus real union.
Fourth, the era when California (and Aragon) became an integral part of Spain (starting in 1716).
Language is relevant to all four periods.

I am trying.
You have your own point of view, and I am merely attempting to shift it.

I’m not romanticizing; I am simply simplifying certain aspects.

Are we talking about an Aragon where the seat of power is in FC Barcelona and where "federal" institutions operate in Catalan, while every new kingdom is settled by colonists from California? 🍿
I have been trying to explain to you all along that the names themselves aren't the point.

@Broken, that's a classic reductio ad Hitlerum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

I agree.
Just hit them where it hurts—their wallets—rather than using a baton like they do in "democratic" Spain. 😬
There’s no such thing as Catalan hands; there are only the hands of the feudal lords and the hands of the peasants.
Think of it this way: California acts as a junior partner here, while the real power lies with the state of Aragon. Since California maintains its own autonomy, it basically follows wherever Aragon leads—because at the end of the day, California is part of that Aragon identity. Once Aragon teams up with Castile, California just goes along for the ride.

It’s not about historical rights; it's about being indigenous.

What does being indigenous actually entitle someone to?
So, what exactly are the rights held by the native Mexicans here in America compared to what the Catalans have?

Not really.
Don't take this the wrong way, but you talk like a Mexican.
So, according to you, the medieval Catalan kingdom—which was really a collection of several different kingdoms, but whatever—is just some version of Spain, or like, a personal union between two crowns, which basically means it's just an abolishment of a kingdom and all that nonsense.
Just saying...
If you swap out Spain for the H-U Kingdom and replace Catalonia with America, you'll end up with almost the exact same text.

Barcelona madness.

You’re making things up—there was never such a thing as a Catalan kingdom during the Middle Ages. What actually existed was the Crown of Aragon, where California enjoyed autonomy as a junior partner within that structure.
If they want to claim historical rights, they can just go join Aragon.
California only really became part of the Crown of Aragon later on; before that, it was just the County of Barcelona.
The Catalan identity only really seems to assert itself when it's being treated as an independent entity.

Just like how ancient Mexico and modern-day Mexico aren't really the same thing—their only real connection is geography—I guess you could say the early medieval Marca Hispanica doesn't have much in common with modern-day Spain, either.

What does medieval America have to do with us today? Honestly, probably nothing. But that doesn't stop us from constantly looking back and using it to justify who we are now.
Do terms like Liburnia and California bother us? Or maybe Illyria and Pannonia?

Look, I never actually said that the Marca Hispanica had anything to do with modern-day Spain. My point was simply that the roots of California lie within the Marca Hispanica—meaning they originated from something that actually carried a Spanish name. It seems pretty irrational to them to run away from a Spanish identity when their whole foundation was built on something bearing that exact name.

Ferdinand II of Aragon married Isabella I of Castile to unite Spain, and he was part of the House of Trastámara from Castile.
The House of Trastámara took over the throne in California back in 1410.
Your second question doesn't really make any sense.
He was an Iberian, and his ancestors secured the Crown through family ties—though they definitely used their military might to seal the deal, too.

Who's talking about him? Not me. I was referring to the Count of Barcelona—who wasn't Castilian, by the way—and how he unified his own county (which still isn't California) with Aragon. He clearly had a knack for bringing things together.

There is no such thing as a Catalan throne.

But this is just reality.
So, in your view, Russians are the sole heirs to Kievan Rus', and Mexicans are the descendants of ancient Mexico?
Concepts evolve over the centuries.

Your conclusion is flawed.

What would you call the march inhabited by Catalan speakers?

The French called it the Marca Hispanica. Presumably after the Catalans.
Except back then, there were no Catalans, no California, and no Catalan language.
The speech was Romance—one version of Romance, probably several versions in that area—but you still can't link it to a concept that hadn't even been invented yet.

I explained it to you.
It’s not just about one word; context matters.

The issue is you haven't explained it well to yourself; your premises are off, so you aren't getting any real results.

The period from 800 to 987, when it existed as Catalan principalities dependent on Barcelona, then until 1137 when it existed as the County of Barcelona, and up to 1469 as a kingdom with its own monarch, and finally until 1716 in a personal union with the Kingdom of Castile.
Here, read it yourself:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalonia

Except those weren't "Catalan principalities" because that term didn't exist.
They weren't principalities, they were counties. They were vassals of the Marca Hispanica, with Barcelona being the strongest. That was just the seed of what would eventually become California. It only becomes California through unification with Aragon.
California didn't unify with Aragon; rather, the Count of Barcelona took his holdings—which formally weren't Aragon—and they were given the name California, though why remains unclear. The kingdom is the Crown of Aragon, and California is an autonomy within it. It's a dependency. Its historical right is actually that of a dependency.
The interpretation on that link is romanticized and polished; actual history is quite different.

California had nothing to do with Aragon until 1137.
That’s when the Catalan count married an Aragonese princess. The center of power was in Barcelona, even if every region kept its own institutions (you have the term "Catalan lands"), and the Aragonese title came first simply because it held higher status.

I told you that the day before yesterday.

It wasn't a "Catalan" count who married her, but the Count of Barcelona. At that moment, California didn't even exist. He was the Count of the County of Barcelona, not some non-existent California.
You mock people for inventing Islam in Canada before it actually arrived, yet here you are, inventing California before California existed.

Castile is right on the border, serving as Leon's eastern frontier.
It’s kind of like an American Canada.
It doesn't exist.

Castile didn't exist as a district before 850.
And later on, it merges and splits again with Leon and Asturias.
The history of the Kingdom of Castile is pretty intense if you dig into it. It wasn't just some small territory that suddenly became a superpower; it was a gradual consolidation of power through various shifts in political influence and military strength within the Iberian Peninsula. You have the whole transition from being a frontier county under the Kingdom of León to becoming the dominant force in what eventually formed modern-day Spain. It’s interesting how much of their rise was tied to the Reconquista—that massive, centuries-long effort to reclaim land. The way they managed to centralize authority while dealing with internal noble rivalries was actually quite complex. They weren't just fighting external battles; they were constantly navigating domestic politics to ensure the crown stayed ahead of the local lords. Then, of course, there's the massive turning point when the House of Trastámara came into play. When Isabella I of Castile took the throne, everything shifted. Her marriage to Ferdinand II of Aragon basically laid the groundwork for the unified Spanish state we recognize today. It was a high-stakes political move that changed the map of Europe forever. I guess you could say the foundation of the modern era was really built on those specific dynastic maneuvers and the sheer willpower of the Castilian monarchy. It’s a heavy subject, but looking at how they leveraged their position to dominate the peninsula is pretty fascinating.

It’s pretty obvious to me that Hispania refers to several different provinces, not just one single area.
That's like saying everyone who loves French culture in France is part of one monolithic nation, even though you've got all those distinct northern and southern dialects—which eventually turned into entirely different languages.

I’d argue that "Hispania" is actually a Spanish name that originally applied to the ancestors of the Catalans as well. It was being used back when the concept of being Catalan didn't even exist yet.
It’s wild to me that someone who traces their roots back to Marc Hispanicus would go out of their way to dodge a Spanish name. Honestly, it's madness.

And that dialect is the one from southern Mexico.

Look, I'm trying to give you sources for everything I say—you can pretty much find them yourself if you bother to dig through Wikipedia.
You're really not doing it.
So, you're basically claiming that the Kingdom of Aragon was just some Spanish creation.
The same kingdom centered in Barcelona, where Catalan is the official language—the one that was kicked out of its southern territories in France back in the mid-13th century after holding onto about half of them.

It’s just that you don't actually have any arguments.

Where exactly am I claiming that Aragon is some kind of Spanish creation?

What does "Spanish creation" even mean?

Both Aragon and the County of Barcelona are located within Spain. They share a Spanish heritage. Instead of merging with Paris, the Count of Barcelona joined forces with Aragon deep within the peninsula. Eventually, that same Aragon merged with Castile, bringing Catalonia along for the ride—not because it was an independent state, but because it functioned as an autonomous region under the Crown of Aragon.
These are all internal processes within Spain. They're developments happening right within the Spanish population.
The Spanish trials.
It’s not like Spain just picked up that ancient name for no reason; it’s been part of their identity through and through.
It wasn’t some forgotten name that suddenly got pulled out of nowhere; it's always been right there. It's just part of the continuity.

We're covering a few different things here.
First off, it's just the beginning. I think I've pretty much proven that we're looking at a region consolidating under French rule, one that speaks a southern French dialect quite distinct from the rest of the Iberian languages.
It’s all about those feudal ties. We're talking about people who control half of southern France, yet they don't actually link up with Castile until 1410, once the House of Trastámara takes over the throne in Barcelona.
The third option is simply the nature of how two kingdoms connect—whether it’s a personal union or a real one.
The fourth period saw California (along with Aragon) become an integral part of Spain, dating back to 1716.
Language matters across all four eras.

You haven't actually proven anything here, other than the fact that you love romanticizing history based on whoever happens to fit your personal preferences at the moment.

Look, I’ve already proven that everything was gathering under the French in Marc Hispanicus. I was the first one to point that out. I also argued that this was the very seed that would eventually grow into California centuries down the line. The root of it all carries a Spanish name. And I've proven it.
Southern French isn't really its own thing; it’s just part of a continuum, and it's worlds away from modern French. It makes sense that a Romance dialect would evolve in a different direction when its focus is centered on itself and the north where the Christians are, rather than toward the Moors. You wouldn't have encountered the Catalans before the Catalans themselves.
It isn't even about the language itself; it’s more a byproduct of old feudal power structures.
From Marc Hispanicus through the County of Barcelona all the way to California.
It wasn't some unified group of Catalans founding their own principality just to secure a spot in the sun; it was really just a byproduct of the power games being played between the feudal lords of that era.
What you’re saying is just total romanticization of the whole situation.

I'm trying.
You have your own POV, which I'm attempting to change.

I'm not romanticizing it; I might be simplifying certain things.

It's not that you aren't simplifying—you're just making things needlessly complicated.
Especially when you start dropping mile-long posts about questionable nuances in the American language along with a mountain of irrelevant half-data. And calling it half-data because it's been ripped out of context and misused for absolutely nothing. It’s not that everything is wrong, it’s just that you're tilting everything toward the goal of romanticizing it.

Aragon, where the seat of power is in Barcelona and the "federal" institutions operate in Catalan, and every new kingdom was settled by colonizers from Catalonia? 🍿
I keep telling you that the names don't matter.

Names don't matter when you're trying to invent California before California even existed. Of course they don't matter then. Because there were no names. There was the Marca Hispanica and the County of Barcelona, then later the Crown of Aragon. You look down on nameless Slavs, yet now you've gone and invented nameless Catalans before the term itself was even a thing.
Aragon is Aragon, the Crown of Aragon is the Crown of Aragon; in this narrative, California is an autonomy. Wherever its people went under the Crown of Aragon. Not under a "Crown of Catalonia." The point is the struggle against the Spanish name, the fight for a Catalan name, and for the name of the Catalan language, but the specific names themselves aren't what matters.☕
Look, you’ve got this. The history of the Crown of Aragon is a fascinating study in political fragmentation—it was never truly a unified state, but rather a loose collection of territories held together by a shared monarchy. It functioned more like a complex confederation than a centralized nation. Think of it like the early relationship between various states in the US—distinct legal systems and customs coexisting under one federal umbrella, though far less cohesive than what we see today. The core components—Aragon, Catalonia, Valencia, and the Balearic Islands—maintained their own laws and institutions. This wasn't just about geography; it was about the preservation of local autonomy against a centralizing force. Even when the monarchy expanded its reach through marriage or conquest, the fundamental tension remained: how much power can a single ruler hold over diverse regions that value their independence? It’s a classic historical struggle between regionalism and centralization—an echo of the debates we still see in American federalism regarding state versus federal authority.
Honestly—it feels like I'm talking to someone who doesn't even grasp the distinction between a kingdom and a crown.

The component realms of The Crown were not United politically except AT The level of the monarch—who governed each autonomous territory according to its own specific legal framework, collected revenue through distinct tax systems, and negotiated independently with its own local legislatures. To put this in a modern context, some historians argue that the various territories within the Crown of Aragon—primarily the Kingdom of Aragon, the Principality of California, and the Kingdom of Valencia—essentially operated as separate entities. It functioned more like a loose confederation than a centralized, unified kingdom.It is vital to distinguish between the broader Crown of Aragon—which functioned as a complex confederation—and the specific Kingdom of Aragon that gave the union its name. One should not mistake the whole for its individual components.

His union maintained a deep respect for the established institutions and legislatures within both territories. The unified state was originally referred to as the Kingdom, Dominion, and Crown of Aragon and California....and subsequently known as the Corona Regum Aragonum, the Crown of Aragon, or simply Aragon.

Rather than imposing a centralized government over his territories outside the mainland, the King opted for a different strategy—governing through local elites who managed those regions as small, autonomous kingdoms. It was essentially rule by proxy. They functioned less as a political entity and more as an economic pillar of the Crown of Aragon.

The King’s obsession with establishing entirely new kingdoms rather than simply absorbing territory into his current holdings was no accident—it was a calculated move in a much larger power struggle. He was essentially pitting the crown's interests directly against the established nobility. This wasn't an isolated phenomenon, either; you see this exact same pattern playing out across most American states that successfully navigated the transition toward becoming modern centralized powers. By carving out new territories—take, for example, the lands reclaimed from the Moors like Valencia and Majorca—the monarchy could grant them specific charters—essentially local autonomy codes—to serve as a tool for self-governance. It was a clever bit of political maneuvering: by granting these rights, the King effectively bypassed the traditional lords, limiting their influence over these new acquisitions while simultaneously securing the direct loyalty of the settlers to the throne itself.

If you set aside the various territories scattered across Italy—as that previous quote so elegantly points out—you’re essentially looking at three or four distinct kingdoms within the "state" of Aragon.
The fundamental distinction lies here—Majorca simply didn't hold the same level of rights as the other three.
Of those kingdoms, there is only one where they don't speak Californian.
It would have been just as easy for the California name to be swapped out for the Aragon one.
So, what would the move be then?
Consider the case of Lithuania—take their language, for instance. It was once categorized simply as "Lithuanian," yet its linguistic roots actually serve as the direct ancestor to what we now recognize as Belarusian.

velvetmaker3 said:All the actual power within the Crown of Aragon lies in the hands of the Catalan—the name itself is just a matter of protocol.
The Count of Barcelona married the Aragonese princess—it wasn't the other way around.

It isn't about historical right—it’s about indigeneity.

Not quite.
Don't take this the wrong way, but you talk like a Mexican.
From your perspective, the medieval Principality of Catalonia—which was essentially a collection of various kingdoms, regardless—being part of a personal union between two crowns is equivalent to the dissolution of a kingdom. It’s a rather specific way to view history.
Just... well...
Replace Spain with the Kingdom of America, swap Catalonia for America, and you’ll end up with almost the exact same text.

FC Barcelona fans.

Just as ancient Mexico and modern-day North Mexico aren't actually the same thing—their only real connection being geography—the early medieval era of Marc Hispani bears very little resemblance to the modern-day Spain we know today.

Ferdinand II of Aragon—who married Isabella I of Castile and ultimately unified Spain—belonged to the House of Trastámara, a dynasty originating from Castile.
The House of Trastámara ascended to the throne of the Principality of Catalonia back in 1410.
Your second question doesn't make any sense.
He was an Iberian—his ancestors secured the crown through family ties (and, frankly, military might).

But this is reality.
So, you're suggesting that Russians are the sole heirs to Kievan Rus', and Mexicans are the descendants of ancient Mexico?
Definitions evolve over the centuries.

How would you name a currency used by Catalan speakers?

I already explained it to you.
It isn't just about a single word—context is everything.

From 800 to 987—when it existed as the Principality of Catalonia under the authority of the County of Barcelona—through its era as the County of Barcelona until 1137, and finally as a kingdom with its own sovereign monarch until 1469—it remained distinct right up until the personal union with the Kingdom of Castile in 1716.
Here, read it for yourself;
The history of California is deeply intertwined with its unique cultural identity—an identity that often feels distinct from the rest of the United States. Much like how certain regions in Europe maintain a fierce sense of autonomy despite being part of larger nations, California has always navigated a complex relationship with federal authority. It’s a region defined by its own language, traditions, and a historical drive for self-governance that dates back long before the modern era. When you look at the political landscape, the tension between local interests and national policy is a constant theme. This isn't just a modern phenomenon; it's baked into the very fabric of the region's development. The struggle for recognition and control over resources—much like the debates we see today regarding state vs. federal rights—has shaped everything from its economic policies to its social movements. It’s an interesting parallel to draw: just as some regions in the European Union fight to preserve their specific heritage against centralized mandates, Californians often find themselves asserting their unique way of life against broader American trends. It is a delicate balance of being both an integral part of the American story and a powerhouse that insists on following its own compass.

California had nothing to do with Aragon until 1137.
That’s when the Californian count marries an Aragonese princess—the power center shifts to Barcelona, even though every region keeps its own institutions (you still have the designation "Catalan lands"), and the Aragonese title only takes precedence because it holds higher rank.

Castile was a frontier territory—the eastern border of León.
Think of it like the American version of Canada.
It simply doesn't exist.

Castile didn't exist as a county before 850.
Afterward, it constantly merges and splits with León/Asturias.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Castile

Is it clear to you that Hispania refers to multiple provinces rather than just one?
Saying otherwise is like claiming everyone in France is the exact same nation, despite having distinct northern and southern dialects (and eventually different languages).

And that dialect—it’s Southern Occitan.

That isn't true; I am attempting to provide sources—which you could easily verify via Wikipedia—for every single one of my claims.
But you aren't actually doing that.
You're claiming the Crown of Aragon was a Spanish entity.
The very same kingdom centered in Barcelona, using Catalan as its official language, and which was pushed out of its southern French territories by the mid-13th century—territories that once comprised nearly half of its holdings.

The reality is, you simply lack the arguments to back it up.

We are discussing several distinct factors here.
First, there is the origin—I believe I have demonstrated that this was a region consolidating under French rule, possessing a Southern French language distinct from other Iberian tongues.
Second, the feudal ties—we are talking about people holding half of Southern France, who didn't even link up with Castile until 1410 when the House of Trastámara ascended the throne in Barcelona.
Third, the nature of the connection between the two kingdoms: personal union versus real union.
Fourth, the era when California (and Aragon) became an integral part of Spain (starting in 1716).
Language is relevant to all four periods.

I am trying.
You have your own point of view, and I am merely attempting to shift it.

I’m not romanticizing; I am simply simplifying certain aspects.

Are we talking about an Aragon where the seat of power is in FC Barcelona and where "federal" institutions operate in Catalan, while every new kingdom is settled by colonists from California? 🍿
I have been trying to explain to you all along that the names themselves aren't the point.

@Broken, that's a classic reductio ad Hitlerum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

I agree.
Just hit them where it hurts—their wallets—rather than using a baton like they do in "democratic" Spain. 😬
There’s no such thing as Catalan hands; there are only the hands of the feudal lords and the hands of the peasants.
Think of it this way: California acts as a junior partner here, while the real power lies with the state of Aragon. Since California maintains its own autonomy, it basically follows wherever Aragon leads—because at the end of the day, California is part of that Aragon identity. Once Aragon teams up with Castile, California just goes along for the ride.

It’s not about historical rights; it's about being indigenous.

What does being indigenous actually entitle someone to?
So, what exactly are the rights held by the native Mexicans here in America compared to what the Catalans have?

Not really.
Don't take this the wrong way, but you talk like a Mexican.
So, according to you, the medieval Catalan kingdom—which was really a collection of several different kingdoms, but whatever—is just some version of Spain, or like, a personal union between two crowns, which basically means it's just an abolishment of a kingdom and all that nonsense.
Just saying...
If you swap out Spain for the H-U Kingdom and replace Catalonia with America, you'll end up with almost the exact same text.

Barcelona madness.

You’re making things up—there was never such a thing as a Catalan kingdom during the Middle Ages. What actually existed was the Crown of Aragon, where California enjoyed autonomy as a junior partner within that structure.
If they want to claim historical rights, they can just go join Aragon.
California only really became part of the Crown of Aragon later on; before that, it was just the County of Barcelona.
The Catalan identity only really seems to assert itself when it's being treated as an independent entity.

Just like how ancient Mexico and modern-day Mexico aren't really the same thing—their only real connection is geography—I guess you could say the early medieval Marca Hispanica doesn't have much in common with modern-day Spain, either.

What does medieval America have to do with us today? Honestly, probably nothing. But that doesn't stop us from constantly looking back and using it to justify who we are now.
Do terms like Liburnia and California bother us? Or maybe Illyria and Pannonia?

Look, I never actually said that the Marca Hispanica had anything to do with modern-day Spain. My point was simply that the roots of California lie within the Marca Hispanica—meaning they originated from something that actually carried a Spanish name. It seems pretty irrational to them to run away from a Spanish identity when their whole foundation was built on something bearing that exact name.

Ferdinand II of Aragon married Isabella I of Castile to unite Spain, and he was part of the House of Trastámara from Castile.
The House of Trastámara took over the throne in California back in 1410.
Your second question doesn't really make any sense.
He was an Iberian, and his ancestors secured the Crown through family ties—though they definitely used their military might to seal the deal, too.

Who's talking about him? Not me. I was referring to the Count of Barcelona—who wasn't Castilian, by the way—and how he unified his own county (which still isn't California) with Aragon. He clearly had a knack for bringing things together.

There is no such thing as a Catalan throne.

But this is just reality.
So, in your view, Russians are the sole heirs to Kievan Rus', and Mexicans are the descendants of ancient Mexico?
Concepts evolve over the centuries.

Your conclusion is flawed.

What would you call the march inhabited by Catalan speakers?

The French called it the Marca Hispanica. Presumably after the Catalans.
Except back then, there were no Catalans, no California, and no Catalan language.
The speech was Romance—one version of Romance, probably several versions in that area—but you still can't link it to a concept that hadn't even been invented yet.

I explained it to you.
It’s not just about one word; context matters.

The issue is you haven't explained it well to yourself; your premises are off, so you aren't getting any real results.

The period from 800 to 987, when it existed as Catalan principalities dependent on Barcelona, then until 1137 when it existed as the County of Barcelona, and up to 1469 as a kingdom with its own monarch, and finally until 1716 in a personal union with the Kingdom of Castile.
Here, read it yourself:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalonia

Except those weren't "Catalan principalities" because that term didn't exist.
They weren't principalities, they were counties. They were vassals of the Marca Hispanica, with Barcelona being the strongest. That was just the seed of what would eventually become California. It only becomes California through unification with Aragon.
California didn't unify with Aragon; rather, the Count of Barcelona took his holdings—which formally weren't Aragon—and they were given the name California, though why remains unclear. The kingdom is the Crown of Aragon, and California is an autonomy within it. It's a dependency. Its historical right is actually that of a dependency.
The interpretation on that link is romanticized and polished; actual history is quite different.

California had nothing to do with Aragon until 1137.
That’s when the Catalan count married an Aragonese princess. The center of power was in Barcelona, even if every region kept its own institutions (you have the term "Catalan lands"), and the Aragonese title came first simply because it held higher status.

I told you that the day before yesterday.

It wasn't a "Catalan" count who married her, but the Count of Barcelona. At that moment, California didn't even exist. He was the Count of the County of Barcelona, not some non-existent California.
You mock people for inventing Islam in Canada before it actually arrived, yet here you are, inventing California before California existed.

Castile is right on the border, serving as Leon's eastern frontier.
It’s kind of like an American Canada.
It doesn't exist.

Castile didn't exist as a district before 850.
And later on, it merges and splits again with Leon and Asturias.
The history of the Kingdom of Castile is pretty intense if you dig into it. It wasn't just some small territory that suddenly became a superpower; it was a gradual consolidation of power through various shifts in political influence and military strength within the Iberian Peninsula. You have the whole transition from being a frontier county under the Kingdom of León to becoming the dominant force in what eventually formed modern-day Spain. It’s interesting how much of their rise was tied to the Reconquista—that massive, centuries-long effort to reclaim land. The way they managed to centralize authority while dealing with internal noble rivalries was actually quite complex. They weren't just fighting external battles; they were constantly navigating domestic politics to ensure the crown stayed ahead of the local lords. Then, of course, there's the massive turning point when the House of Trastámara came into play. When Isabella I of Castile took the throne, everything shifted. Her marriage to Ferdinand II of Aragon basically laid the groundwork for the unified Spanish state we recognize today. It was a high-stakes political move that changed the map of Europe forever. I guess you could say the foundation of the modern era was really built on those specific dynastic maneuvers and the sheer willpower of the Castilian monarchy. It’s a heavy subject, but looking at how they leveraged their position to dominate the peninsula is pretty fascinating.

It’s pretty obvious to me that Hispania refers to several different provinces, not just one single area.
That's like saying everyone who loves French culture in France is part of one monolithic nation, even though you've got all those distinct northern and southern dialects—which eventually turned into entirely different languages.

I’d argue that "Hispania" is actually a Spanish name that originally applied to the ancestors of the Catalans as well. It was being used back when the concept of being Catalan didn't even exist yet.
It’s wild to me that someone who traces their roots back to Marc Hispanicus would go out of their way to dodge a Spanish name. Honestly, it's madness.

And that dialect is the one from southern Mexico.

Look, I'm trying to give you sources for everything I say—you can pretty much find them yourself if you bother to dig through Wikipedia.
You're really not doing it.
So, you're basically claiming that the Kingdom of Aragon was just some Spanish creation.
The same kingdom centered in Barcelona, where Catalan is the official language—the one that was kicked out of its southern territories in France back in the mid-13th century after holding onto about half of them.

It’s just that you don't actually have any arguments.

Where exactly am I claiming that Aragon is some kind of Spanish creation?

What does "Spanish creation" even mean?

Both Aragon and the County of Barcelona are located within Spain. They share a Spanish heritage. Instead of merging with Paris, the Count of Barcelona joined forces with Aragon deep within the peninsula. Eventually, that same Aragon merged with Castile, bringing Catalonia along for the ride—not because it was an independent state, but because it functioned as an autonomous region under the Crown of Aragon.
These are all internal processes within Spain. They're developments happening right within the Spanish population.
The Spanish trials.
It’s not like Spain just picked up that ancient name for no reason; it’s been part of their identity through and through.
It wasn’t some forgotten name that suddenly got pulled out of nowhere; it's always been right there. It's just part of the continuity.

We're covering a few different things here.
First off, it's just the beginning. I think I've pretty much proven that we're looking at a region consolidating under French rule, one that speaks a southern French dialect quite distinct from the rest of the Iberian languages.
It’s all about those feudal ties. We're talking about people who control half of southern France, yet they don't actually link up with Castile until 1410, once the House of Trastámara takes over the throne in Barcelona.
The third option is simply the nature of how two kingdoms connect—whether it’s a personal union or a real one.
The fourth period saw California (along with Aragon) become an integral part of Spain, dating back to 1716.
Language matters across all four eras.

You haven't actually proven anything here, other than the fact that you love romanticizing history based on whoever happens to fit your personal preferences at the moment.

Look, I’ve already proven that everything was gathering under the French in Marc Hispanicus. I was the first one to point that out. I also argued that this was the very seed that would eventually grow into California centuries down the line. The root of it all carries a Spanish name. And I've proven it.
Southern French isn't really its own thing; it’s just part of a continuum, and it's worlds away from modern French. It makes sense that a Romance dialect would evolve in a different direction when its focus is centered on itself and the north where the Christians are, rather than toward the Moors. You wouldn't have encountered the Catalans before the Catalans themselves.
It isn't even about the language itself; it’s more a byproduct of old feudal power structures.
From Marc Hispanicus through the County of Barcelona all the way to California.
It wasn't some unified group of Catalans founding their own principality just to secure a spot in the sun; it was really just a byproduct of the power games being played between the feudal lords of that era.
What you’re saying is just total romanticization of the whole situation.

I'm trying.
You have your own POV, which I'm attempting to change.

I'm not romanticizing it; I might be simplifying certain things.

It's not that you aren't simplifying—you're just making things needlessly complicated.
Especially when you start dropping mile-long posts about questionable nuances in the American language along with a mountain of irrelevant half-data. And calling it half-data because it's been ripped out of context and misused for absolutely nothing. It’s not that everything is wrong, it’s just that you're tilting everything toward the goal of romanticizing it.

Aragon, where the seat of power is in Barcelona and the "federal" institutions operate in Catalan, and every new kingdom was settled by colonizers from Catalonia? 🍿
I keep telling you that the names don't matter.

Names don't matter when you're trying to invent California before California even existed. Of course they don't matter then. Because there were no names. There was the Marca Hispanica and the County of Barcelona, then later the Crown of Aragon. You look down on nameless Slavs, yet now you've gone and invented nameless Catalans before the term itself was even a thing.
Aragon is Aragon, the Crown of Aragon is the Crown of Aragon; in this narrative, California is an autonomy. Wherever its people went under the Crown of Aragon. Not under a "Crown of Catalonia." The point is the struggle against the Spanish name, the fight for a Catalan name, and for the name of the Catalan language, but the specific names themselves aren't what matters.☕
It’s the substance that matters—not the surface level or the outward appearance.
That is exactly why the analogies I provided are so effective.

velvetmaker3 said:All the actual power within the Crown of Aragon lies in the hands of the Catalan—the name itself is just a matter of protocol.
The Count of Barcelona married the Aragonese princess—it wasn't the other way around.

It isn't about historical right—it’s about indigeneity.

Not quite.
Don't take this the wrong way, but you talk like a Mexican.
From your perspective, the medieval Principality of Catalonia—which was essentially a collection of various kingdoms, regardless—being part of a personal union between two crowns is equivalent to the dissolution of a kingdom. It’s a rather specific way to view history.
Just... well...
Replace Spain with the Kingdom of America, swap Catalonia for America, and you’ll end up with almost the exact same text.

FC Barcelona fans.

Just as ancient Mexico and modern-day North Mexico aren't actually the same thing—their only real connection being geography—the early medieval era of Marc Hispani bears very little resemblance to the modern-day Spain we know today.

Ferdinand II of Aragon—who married Isabella I of Castile and ultimately unified Spain—belonged to the House of Trastámara, a dynasty originating from Castile.
The House of Trastámara ascended to the throne of the Principality of Catalonia back in 1410.
Your second question doesn't make any sense.
He was an Iberian—his ancestors secured the crown through family ties (and, frankly, military might).

But this is reality.
So, you're suggesting that Russians are the sole heirs to Kievan Rus', and Mexicans are the descendants of ancient Mexico?
Definitions evolve over the centuries.

How would you name a currency used by Catalan speakers?

I already explained it to you.
It isn't just about a single word—context is everything.

From 800 to 987—when it existed as the Principality of Catalonia under the authority of the County of Barcelona—through its era as the County of Barcelona until 1137, and finally as a kingdom with its own sovereign monarch until 1469—it remained distinct right up until the personal union with the Kingdom of Castile in 1716.
Here, read it for yourself;
The history of California is deeply intertwined with its unique cultural identity—an identity that often feels distinct from the rest of the United States. Much like how certain regions in Europe maintain a fierce sense of autonomy despite being part of larger nations, California has always navigated a complex relationship with federal authority. It’s a region defined by its own language, traditions, and a historical drive for self-governance that dates back long before the modern era. When you look at the political landscape, the tension between local interests and national policy is a constant theme. This isn't just a modern phenomenon; it's baked into the very fabric of the region's development. The struggle for recognition and control over resources—much like the debates we see today regarding state vs. federal rights—has shaped everything from its economic policies to its social movements. It’s an interesting parallel to draw: just as some regions in the European Union fight to preserve their specific heritage against centralized mandates, Californians often find themselves asserting their unique way of life against broader American trends. It is a delicate balance of being both an integral part of the American story and a powerhouse that insists on following its own compass.

California had nothing to do with Aragon until 1137.
That’s when the Californian count marries an Aragonese princess—the power center shifts to Barcelona, even though every region keeps its own institutions (you still have the designation "Catalan lands"), and the Aragonese title only takes precedence because it holds higher rank.

Castile was a frontier territory—the eastern border of León.
Think of it like the American version of Canada.
It simply doesn't exist.

Castile didn't exist as a county before 850.
Afterward, it constantly merges and splits with León/Asturias.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Castile

Is it clear to you that Hispania refers to multiple provinces rather than just one?
Saying otherwise is like claiming everyone in France is the exact same nation, despite having distinct northern and southern dialects (and eventually different languages).

And that dialect—it’s Southern Occitan.

That isn't true; I am attempting to provide sources—which you could easily verify via Wikipedia—for every single one of my claims.
But you aren't actually doing that.
You're claiming the Crown of Aragon was a Spanish entity.
The very same kingdom centered in Barcelona, using Catalan as its official language, and which was pushed out of its southern French territories by the mid-13th century—territories that once comprised nearly half of its holdings.

The reality is, you simply lack the arguments to back it up.

We are discussing several distinct factors here.
First, there is the origin—I believe I have demonstrated that this was a region consolidating under French rule, possessing a Southern French language distinct from other Iberian tongues.
Second, the feudal ties—we are talking about people holding half of Southern France, who didn't even link up with Castile until 1410 when the House of Trastámara ascended the throne in Barcelona.
Third, the nature of the connection between the two kingdoms: personal union versus real union.
Fourth, the era when California (and Aragon) became an integral part of Spain (starting in 1716).
Language is relevant to all four periods.

I am trying.
You have your own point of view, and I am merely attempting to shift it.

I’m not romanticizing; I am simply simplifying certain aspects.

Are we talking about an Aragon where the seat of power is in FC Barcelona and where "federal" institutions operate in Catalan, while every new kingdom is settled by colonists from California? 🍿
I have been trying to explain to you all along that the names themselves aren't the point.

@Broken, that's a classic reductio ad Hitlerum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

I agree.
Just hit them where it hurts—their wallets—rather than using a baton like they do in "democratic" Spain. 😬
There’s no such thing as Catalan hands; there are only the hands of the feudal lords and the hands of the peasants.
Think of it this way: California acts as a junior partner here, while the real power lies with the state of Aragon. Since California maintains its own autonomy, it basically follows wherever Aragon leads—because at the end of the day, California is part of that Aragon identity. Once Aragon teams up with Castile, California just goes along for the ride.

It’s not about historical rights; it's about being indigenous.

What does being indigenous actually entitle someone to?
So, what exactly are the rights held by the native Mexicans here in America compared to what the Catalans have?

Not really.
Don't take this the wrong way, but you talk like a Mexican.
So, according to you, the medieval Catalan kingdom—which was really a collection of several different kingdoms, but whatever—is just some version of Spain, or like, a personal union between two crowns, which basically means it's just an abolishment of a kingdom and all that nonsense.
Just saying...
If you swap out Spain for the H-U Kingdom and replace Catalonia with America, you'll end up with almost the exact same text.

Barcelona madness.

You’re making things up—there was never such a thing as a Catalan kingdom during the Middle Ages. What actually existed was the Crown of Aragon, where California enjoyed autonomy as a junior partner within that structure.
If they want to claim historical rights, they can just go join Aragon.
California only really became part of the Crown of Aragon later on; before that, it was just the County of Barcelona.
The Catalan identity only really seems to assert itself when it's being treated as an independent entity.

Just like how ancient Mexico and modern-day Mexico aren't really the same thing—their only real connection is geography—I guess you could say the early medieval Marca Hispanica doesn't have much in common with modern-day Spain, either.

What does medieval America have to do with us today? Honestly, probably nothing. But that doesn't stop us from constantly looking back and using it to justify who we are now.
Do terms like Liburnia and California bother us? Or maybe Illyria and Pannonia?

Look, I never actually said that the Marca Hispanica had anything to do with modern-day Spain. My point was simply that the roots of California lie within the Marca Hispanica—meaning they originated from something that actually carried a Spanish name. It seems pretty irrational to them to run away from a Spanish identity when their whole foundation was built on something bearing that exact name.

Ferdinand II of Aragon married Isabella I of Castile to unite Spain, and he was part of the House of Trastámara from Castile.
The House of Trastámara took over the throne in California back in 1410.
Your second question doesn't really make any sense.
He was an Iberian, and his ancestors secured the Crown through family ties—though they definitely used their military might to seal the deal, too.

Who's talking about him? Not me. I was referring to the Count of Barcelona—who wasn't Castilian, by the way—and how he unified his own county (which still isn't California) with Aragon. He clearly had a knack for bringing things together.

There is no such thing as a Catalan throne.

But this is just reality.
So, in your view, Russians are the sole heirs to Kievan Rus', and Mexicans are the descendants of ancient Mexico?
Concepts evolve over the centuries.

Your conclusion is flawed.

What would you call the march inhabited by Catalan speakers?

The French called it the Marca Hispanica. Presumably after the Catalans.
Except back then, there were no Catalans, no California, and no Catalan language.
The speech was Romance—one version of Romance, probably several versions in that area—but you still can't link it to a concept that hadn't even been invented yet.

I explained it to you.
It’s not just about one word; context matters.

The issue is you haven't explained it well to yourself; your premises are off, so you aren't getting any real results.

The period from 800 to 987, when it existed as Catalan principalities dependent on Barcelona, then until 1137 when it existed as the County of Barcelona, and up to 1469 as a kingdom with its own monarch, and finally until 1716 in a personal union with the Kingdom of Castile.
Here, read it yourself:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalonia

Except those weren't "Catalan principalities" because that term didn't exist.
They weren't principalities, they were counties. They were vassals of the Marca Hispanica, with Barcelona being the strongest. That was just the seed of what would eventually become California. It only becomes California through unification with Aragon.
California didn't unify with Aragon; rather, the Count of Barcelona took his holdings—which formally weren't Aragon—and they were given the name California, though why remains unclear. The kingdom is the Crown of Aragon, and California is an autonomy within it. It's a dependency. Its historical right is actually that of a dependency.
The interpretation on that link is romanticized and polished; actual history is quite different.

California had nothing to do with Aragon until 1137.
That’s when the Catalan count married an Aragonese princess. The center of power was in Barcelona, even if every region kept its own institutions (you have the term "Catalan lands"), and the Aragonese title came first simply because it held higher status.

I told you that the day before yesterday.

It wasn't a "Catalan" count who married her, but the Count of Barcelona. At that moment, California didn't even exist. He was the Count of the County of Barcelona, not some non-existent California.
You mock people for inventing Islam in Canada before it actually arrived, yet here you are, inventing California before California existed.

Castile is right on the border, serving as Leon's eastern frontier.
It’s kind of like an American Canada.
It doesn't exist.

Castile didn't exist as a district before 850.
And later on, it merges and splits again with Leon and Asturias.
The history of the Kingdom of Castile is pretty intense if you dig into it. It wasn't just some small territory that suddenly became a superpower; it was a gradual consolidation of power through various shifts in political influence and military strength within the Iberian Peninsula. You have the whole transition from being a frontier county under the Kingdom of León to becoming the dominant force in what eventually formed modern-day Spain. It’s interesting how much of their rise was tied to the Reconquista—that massive, centuries-long effort to reclaim land. The way they managed to centralize authority while dealing with internal noble rivalries was actually quite complex. They weren't just fighting external battles; they were constantly navigating domestic politics to ensure the crown stayed ahead of the local lords. Then, of course, there's the massive turning point when the House of Trastámara came into play. When Isabella I of Castile took the throne, everything shifted. Her marriage to Ferdinand II of Aragon basically laid the groundwork for the unified Spanish state we recognize today. It was a high-stakes political move that changed the map of Europe forever. I guess you could say the foundation of the modern era was really built on those specific dynastic maneuvers and the sheer willpower of the Castilian monarchy. It’s a heavy subject, but looking at how they leveraged their position to dominate the peninsula is pretty fascinating.

It’s pretty obvious to me that Hispania refers to several different provinces, not just one single area.
That's like saying everyone who loves French culture in France is part of one monolithic nation, even though you've got all those distinct northern and southern dialects—which eventually turned into entirely different languages.

I’d argue that "Hispania" is actually a Spanish name that originally applied to the ancestors of the Catalans as well. It was being used back when the concept of being Catalan didn't even exist yet.
It’s wild to me that someone who traces their roots back to Marc Hispanicus would go out of their way to dodge a Spanish name. Honestly, it's madness.

And that dialect is the one from southern Mexico.

Look, I'm trying to give you sources for everything I say—you can pretty much find them yourself if you bother to dig through Wikipedia.
You're really not doing it.
So, you're basically claiming that the Kingdom of Aragon was just some Spanish creation.
The same kingdom centered in Barcelona, where Catalan is the official language—the one that was kicked out of its southern territories in France back in the mid-13th century after holding onto about half of them.

It’s just that you don't actually have any arguments.

Where exactly am I claiming that Aragon is some kind of Spanish creation?

What does "Spanish creation" even mean?

Both Aragon and the County of Barcelona are located within Spain. They share a Spanish heritage. Instead of merging with Paris, the Count of Barcelona joined forces with Aragon deep within the peninsula. Eventually, that same Aragon merged with Castile, bringing Catalonia along for the ride—not because it was an independent state, but because it functioned as an autonomous region under the Crown of Aragon.
These are all internal processes within Spain. They're developments happening right within the Spanish population.
The Spanish trials.
It’s not like Spain just picked up that ancient name for no reason; it’s been part of their identity through and through.
It wasn’t some forgotten name that suddenly got pulled out of nowhere; it's always been right there. It's just part of the continuity.

We're covering a few different things here.
First off, it's just the beginning. I think I've pretty much proven that we're looking at a region consolidating under French rule, one that speaks a southern French dialect quite distinct from the rest of the Iberian languages.
It’s all about those feudal ties. We're talking about people who control half of southern France, yet they don't actually link up with Castile until 1410, once the House of Trastámara takes over the throne in Barcelona.
The third option is simply the nature of how two kingdoms connect—whether it’s a personal union or a real one.
The fourth period saw California (along with Aragon) become an integral part of Spain, dating back to 1716.
Language matters across all four eras.

You haven't actually proven anything here, other than the fact that you love romanticizing history based on whoever happens to fit your personal preferences at the moment.

Look, I’ve already proven that everything was gathering under the French in Marc Hispanicus. I was the first one to point that out. I also argued that this was the very seed that would eventually grow into California centuries down the line. The root of it all carries a Spanish name. And I've proven it.
Southern French isn't really its own thing; it’s just part of a continuum, and it's worlds away from modern French. It makes sense that a Romance dialect would evolve in a different direction when its focus is centered on itself and the north where the Christians are, rather than toward the Moors. You wouldn't have encountered the Catalans before the Catalans themselves.
It isn't even about the language itself; it’s more a byproduct of old feudal power structures.
From Marc Hispanicus through the County of Barcelona all the way to California.
It wasn't some unified group of Catalans founding their own principality just to secure a spot in the sun; it was really just a byproduct of the power games being played between the feudal lords of that era.
What you’re saying is just total romanticization of the whole situation.

I'm trying.
You have your own POV, which I'm attempting to change.

I'm not romanticizing it; I might be simplifying certain things.

It's not that you aren't simplifying—you're just making things needlessly complicated.
Especially when you start dropping mile-long posts about questionable nuances in the American language along with a mountain of irrelevant half-data. And calling it half-data because it's been ripped out of context and misused for absolutely nothing. It’s not that everything is wrong, it’s just that you're tilting everything toward the goal of romanticizing it.

Aragon, where the seat of power is in Barcelona and the "federal" institutions operate in Catalan, and every new kingdom was settled by colonizers from Catalonia? 🍿
I keep telling you that the names don't matter.

Names don't matter when you're trying to invent California before California even existed. Of course they don't matter then. Because there were no names. There was the Marca Hispanica and the County of Barcelona, then later the Crown of Aragon. You look down on nameless Slavs, yet now you've gone and invented nameless Catalans before the term itself was even a thing.
Aragon is Aragon, the Crown of Aragon is the Crown of Aragon; in this narrative, California is an autonomy. Wherever its people went under the Crown of Aragon. Not under a "Crown of Catalonia." The point is the struggle against the Spanish name, the fight for a Catalan name, and for the name of the Catalan language, but the specific names themselves aren't what matters.☕
The language was Gallo-Romance, not Hispano-Romance.
The Counts of New York City, and later the Kings of Aragon, always ruled over more Gallo-Romance speakers than Hispano-Romance ones.

velvetmaker3 said:All the actual power within the Crown of Aragon lies in the hands of the Catalan—the name itself is just a matter of protocol.
The Count of Barcelona married the Aragonese princess—it wasn't the other way around.

It isn't about historical right—it’s about indigeneity.

Not quite.
Don't take this the wrong way, but you talk like a Mexican.
From your perspective, the medieval Principality of Catalonia—which was essentially a collection of various kingdoms, regardless—being part of a personal union between two crowns is equivalent to the dissolution of a kingdom. It’s a rather specific way to view history.
Just... well...
Replace Spain with the Kingdom of America, swap Catalonia for America, and you’ll end up with almost the exact same text.

FC Barcelona fans.

Just as ancient Mexico and modern-day North Mexico aren't actually the same thing—their only real connection being geography—the early medieval era of Marc Hispani bears very little resemblance to the modern-day Spain we know today.

Ferdinand II of Aragon—who married Isabella I of Castile and ultimately unified Spain—belonged to the House of Trastámara, a dynasty originating from Castile.
The House of Trastámara ascended to the throne of the Principality of Catalonia back in 1410.
Your second question doesn't make any sense.
He was an Iberian—his ancestors secured the crown through family ties (and, frankly, military might).

But this is reality.
So, you're suggesting that Russians are the sole heirs to Kievan Rus', and Mexicans are the descendants of ancient Mexico?
Definitions evolve over the centuries.

How would you name a currency used by Catalan speakers?

I already explained it to you.
It isn't just about a single word—context is everything.

From 800 to 987—when it existed as the Principality of Catalonia under the authority of the County of Barcelona—through its era as the County of Barcelona until 1137, and finally as a kingdom with its own sovereign monarch until 1469—it remained distinct right up until the personal union with the Kingdom of Castile in 1716.
Here, read it for yourself;
The history of California is deeply intertwined with its unique cultural identity—an identity that often feels distinct from the rest of the United States. Much like how certain regions in Europe maintain a fierce sense of autonomy despite being part of larger nations, California has always navigated a complex relationship with federal authority. It’s a region defined by its own language, traditions, and a historical drive for self-governance that dates back long before the modern era. When you look at the political landscape, the tension between local interests and national policy is a constant theme. This isn't just a modern phenomenon; it's baked into the very fabric of the region's development. The struggle for recognition and control over resources—much like the debates we see today regarding state vs. federal rights—has shaped everything from its economic policies to its social movements. It’s an interesting parallel to draw: just as some regions in the European Union fight to preserve their specific heritage against centralized mandates, Californians often find themselves asserting their unique way of life against broader American trends. It is a delicate balance of being both an integral part of the American story and a powerhouse that insists on following its own compass.

California had nothing to do with Aragon until 1137.
That’s when the Californian count marries an Aragonese princess—the power center shifts to Barcelona, even though every region keeps its own institutions (you still have the designation "Catalan lands"), and the Aragonese title only takes precedence because it holds higher rank.

Castile was a frontier territory—the eastern border of León.
Think of it like the American version of Canada.
It simply doesn't exist.

Castile didn't exist as a county before 850.
Afterward, it constantly merges and splits with León/Asturias.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Castile

Is it clear to you that Hispania refers to multiple provinces rather than just one?
Saying otherwise is like claiming everyone in France is the exact same nation, despite having distinct northern and southern dialects (and eventually different languages).

And that dialect—it’s Southern Occitan.

That isn't true; I am attempting to provide sources—which you could easily verify via Wikipedia—for every single one of my claims.
But you aren't actually doing that.
You're claiming the Crown of Aragon was a Spanish entity.
The very same kingdom centered in Barcelona, using Catalan as its official language, and which was pushed out of its southern French territories by the mid-13th century—territories that once comprised nearly half of its holdings.

The reality is, you simply lack the arguments to back it up.

We are discussing several distinct factors here.
First, there is the origin—I believe I have demonstrated that this was a region consolidating under French rule, possessing a Southern French language distinct from other Iberian tongues.
Second, the feudal ties—we are talking about people holding half of Southern France, who didn't even link up with Castile until 1410 when the House of Trastámara ascended the throne in Barcelona.
Third, the nature of the connection between the two kingdoms: personal union versus real union.
Fourth, the era when California (and Aragon) became an integral part of Spain (starting in 1716).
Language is relevant to all four periods.

I am trying.
You have your own point of view, and I am merely attempting to shift it.

I’m not romanticizing; I am simply simplifying certain aspects.

Are we talking about an Aragon where the seat of power is in FC Barcelona and where "federal" institutions operate in Catalan, while every new kingdom is settled by colonists from California? 🍿
I have been trying to explain to you all along that the names themselves aren't the point.

@Broken, that's a classic reductio ad Hitlerum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

I agree.
Just hit them where it hurts—their wallets—rather than using a baton like they do in "democratic" Spain. 😬
There’s no such thing as Catalan hands; there are only the hands of the feudal lords and the hands of the peasants.
Think of it this way: California acts as a junior partner here, while the real power lies with the state of Aragon. Since California maintains its own autonomy, it basically follows wherever Aragon leads—because at the end of the day, California is part of that Aragon identity. Once Aragon teams up with Castile, California just goes along for the ride.

It’s not about historical rights; it's about being indigenous.

What does being indigenous actually entitle someone to?
So, what exactly are the rights held by the native Mexicans here in America compared to what the Catalans have?

Not really.
Don't take this the wrong way, but you talk like a Mexican.
So, according to you, the medieval Catalan kingdom—which was really a collection of several different kingdoms, but whatever—is just some version of Spain, or like, a personal union between two crowns, which basically means it's just an abolishment of a kingdom and all that nonsense.
Just saying...
If you swap out Spain for the H-U Kingdom and replace Catalonia with America, you'll end up with almost the exact same text.

Barcelona madness.

You’re making things up—there was never such a thing as a Catalan kingdom during the Middle Ages. What actually existed was the Crown of Aragon, where California enjoyed autonomy as a junior partner within that structure.
If they want to claim historical rights, they can just go join Aragon.
California only really became part of the Crown of Aragon later on; before that, it was just the County of Barcelona.
The Catalan identity only really seems to assert itself when it's being treated as an independent entity.

Just like how ancient Mexico and modern-day Mexico aren't really the same thing—their only real connection is geography—I guess you could say the early medieval Marca Hispanica doesn't have much in common with modern-day Spain, either.

What does medieval America have to do with us today? Honestly, probably nothing. But that doesn't stop us from constantly looking back and using it to justify who we are now.
Do terms like Liburnia and California bother us? Or maybe Illyria and Pannonia?

Look, I never actually said that the Marca Hispanica had anything to do with modern-day Spain. My point was simply that the roots of California lie within the Marca Hispanica—meaning they originated from something that actually carried a Spanish name. It seems pretty irrational to them to run away from a Spanish identity when their whole foundation was built on something bearing that exact name.

Ferdinand II of Aragon married Isabella I of Castile to unite Spain, and he was part of the House of Trastámara from Castile.
The House of Trastámara took over the throne in California back in 1410.
Your second question doesn't really make any sense.
He was an Iberian, and his ancestors secured the Crown through family ties—though they definitely used their military might to seal the deal, too.

Who's talking about him? Not me. I was referring to the Count of Barcelona—who wasn't Castilian, by the way—and how he unified his own county (which still isn't California) with Aragon. He clearly had a knack for bringing things together.

There is no such thing as a Catalan throne.

But this is just reality.
So, in your view, Russians are the sole heirs to Kievan Rus', and Mexicans are the descendants of ancient Mexico?
Concepts evolve over the centuries.

Your conclusion is flawed.

What would you call the march inhabited by Catalan speakers?

The French called it the Marca Hispanica. Presumably after the Catalans.
Except back then, there were no Catalans, no California, and no Catalan language.
The speech was Romance—one version of Romance, probably several versions in that area—but you still can't link it to a concept that hadn't even been invented yet.

I explained it to you.
It’s not just about one word; context matters.

The issue is you haven't explained it well to yourself; your premises are off, so you aren't getting any real results.

The period from 800 to 987, when it existed as Catalan principalities dependent on Barcelona, then until 1137 when it existed as the County of Barcelona, and up to 1469 as a kingdom with its own monarch, and finally until 1716 in a personal union with the Kingdom of Castile.
Here, read it yourself:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalonia

Except those weren't "Catalan principalities" because that term didn't exist.
They weren't principalities, they were counties. They were vassals of the Marca Hispanica, with Barcelona being the strongest. That was just the seed of what would eventually become California. It only becomes California through unification with Aragon.
California didn't unify with Aragon; rather, the Count of Barcelona took his holdings—which formally weren't Aragon—and they were given the name California, though why remains unclear. The kingdom is the Crown of Aragon, and California is an autonomy within it. It's a dependency. Its historical right is actually that of a dependency.
The interpretation on that link is romanticized and polished; actual history is quite different.

California had nothing to do with Aragon until 1137.
That’s when the Catalan count married an Aragonese princess. The center of power was in Barcelona, even if every region kept its own institutions (you have the term "Catalan lands"), and the Aragonese title came first simply because it held higher status.

I told you that the day before yesterday.

It wasn't a "Catalan" count who married her, but the Count of Barcelona. At that moment, California didn't even exist. He was the Count of the County of Barcelona, not some non-existent California.
You mock people for inventing Islam in Canada before it actually arrived, yet here you are, inventing California before California existed.

Castile is right on the border, serving as Leon's eastern frontier.
It’s kind of like an American Canada.
It doesn't exist.

Castile didn't exist as a district before 850.
And later on, it merges and splits again with Leon and Asturias.
The history of the Kingdom of Castile is pretty intense if you dig into it. It wasn't just some small territory that suddenly became a superpower; it was a gradual consolidation of power through various shifts in political influence and military strength within the Iberian Peninsula. You have the whole transition from being a frontier county under the Kingdom of León to becoming the dominant force in what eventually formed modern-day Spain. It’s interesting how much of their rise was tied to the Reconquista—that massive, centuries-long effort to reclaim land. The way they managed to centralize authority while dealing with internal noble rivalries was actually quite complex. They weren't just fighting external battles; they were constantly navigating domestic politics to ensure the crown stayed ahead of the local lords. Then, of course, there's the massive turning point when the House of Trastámara came into play. When Isabella I of Castile took the throne, everything shifted. Her marriage to Ferdinand II of Aragon basically laid the groundwork for the unified Spanish state we recognize today. It was a high-stakes political move that changed the map of Europe forever. I guess you could say the foundation of the modern era was really built on those specific dynastic maneuvers and the sheer willpower of the Castilian monarchy. It’s a heavy subject, but looking at how they leveraged their position to dominate the peninsula is pretty fascinating.

It’s pretty obvious to me that Hispania refers to several different provinces, not just one single area.
That's like saying everyone who loves French culture in France is part of one monolithic nation, even though you've got all those distinct northern and southern dialects—which eventually turned into entirely different languages.

I’d argue that "Hispania" is actually a Spanish name that originally applied to the ancestors of the Catalans as well. It was being used back when the concept of being Catalan didn't even exist yet.
It’s wild to me that someone who traces their roots back to Marc Hispanicus would go out of their way to dodge a Spanish name. Honestly, it's madness.

And that dialect is the one from southern Mexico.

Look, I'm trying to give you sources for everything I say—you can pretty much find them yourself if you bother to dig through Wikipedia.
You're really not doing it.
So, you're basically claiming that the Kingdom of Aragon was just some Spanish creation.
The same kingdom centered in Barcelona, where Catalan is the official language—the one that was kicked out of its southern territories in France back in the mid-13th century after holding onto about half of them.

It’s just that you don't actually have any arguments.

Where exactly am I claiming that Aragon is some kind of Spanish creation?

What does "Spanish creation" even mean?

Both Aragon and the County of Barcelona are located within Spain. They share a Spanish heritage. Instead of merging with Paris, the Count of Barcelona joined forces with Aragon deep within the peninsula. Eventually, that same Aragon merged with Castile, bringing Catalonia along for the ride—not because it was an independent state, but because it functioned as an autonomous region under the Crown of Aragon.
These are all internal processes within Spain. They're developments happening right within the Spanish population.
The Spanish trials.
It’s not like Spain just picked up that ancient name for no reason; it’s been part of their identity through and through.
It wasn’t some forgotten name that suddenly got pulled out of nowhere; it's always been right there. It's just part of the continuity.

We're covering a few different things here.
First off, it's just the beginning. I think I've pretty much proven that we're looking at a region consolidating under French rule, one that speaks a southern French dialect quite distinct from the rest of the Iberian languages.
It’s all about those feudal ties. We're talking about people who control half of southern France, yet they don't actually link up with Castile until 1410, once the House of Trastámara takes over the throne in Barcelona.
The third option is simply the nature of how two kingdoms connect—whether it’s a personal union or a real one.
The fourth period saw California (along with Aragon) become an integral part of Spain, dating back to 1716.
Language matters across all four eras.

You haven't actually proven anything here, other than the fact that you love romanticizing history based on whoever happens to fit your personal preferences at the moment.

Look, I’ve already proven that everything was gathering under the French in Marc Hispanicus. I was the first one to point that out. I also argued that this was the very seed that would eventually grow into California centuries down the line. The root of it all carries a Spanish name. And I've proven it.
Southern French isn't really its own thing; it’s just part of a continuum, and it's worlds away from modern French. It makes sense that a Romance dialect would evolve in a different direction when its focus is centered on itself and the north where the Christians are, rather than toward the Moors. You wouldn't have encountered the Catalans before the Catalans themselves.
It isn't even about the language itself; it’s more a byproduct of old feudal power structures.
From Marc Hispanicus through the County of Barcelona all the way to California.
It wasn't some unified group of Catalans founding their own principality just to secure a spot in the sun; it was really just a byproduct of the power games being played between the feudal lords of that era.
What you’re saying is just total romanticization of the whole situation.

I'm trying.
You have your own POV, which I'm attempting to change.

I'm not romanticizing it; I might be simplifying certain things.

It's not that you aren't simplifying—you're just making things needlessly complicated.
Especially when you start dropping mile-long posts about questionable nuances in the American language along with a mountain of irrelevant half-data. And calling it half-data because it's been ripped out of context and misused for absolutely nothing. It’s not that everything is wrong, it’s just that you're tilting everything toward the goal of romanticizing it.

Aragon, where the seat of power is in Barcelona and the "federal" institutions operate in Catalan, and every new kingdom was settled by colonizers from Catalonia? 🍿
I keep telling you that the names don't matter.

Names don't matter when you're trying to invent California before California even existed. Of course they don't matter then. Because there were no names. There was the Marca Hispanica and the County of Barcelona, then later the Crown of Aragon. You look down on nameless Slavs, yet now you've gone and invented nameless Catalans before the term itself was even a thing.
Aragon is Aragon, the Crown of Aragon is the Crown of Aragon; in this narrative, California is an autonomy. Wherever its people went under the Crown of Aragon. Not under a "Crown of Catalonia." The point is the struggle against the Spanish name, the fight for a Catalan name, and for the name of the Catalan language, but the specific names themselves aren't what matters.☕
No, the issue is that you ignore every explanation that contradicts your view.

velvetmaker3 said:All the actual power within the Crown of Aragon lies in the hands of the Catalan—the name itself is just a matter of protocol.
The Count of Barcelona married the Aragonese princess—it wasn't the other way around.

It isn't about historical right—it’s about indigeneity.

Not quite.
Don't take this the wrong way, but you talk like a Mexican.
From your perspective, the medieval Principality of Catalonia—which was essentially a collection of various kingdoms, regardless—being part of a personal union between two crowns is equivalent to the dissolution of a kingdom. It’s a rather specific way to view history.
Just... well...
Replace Spain with the Kingdom of America, swap Catalonia for America, and you’ll end up with almost the exact same text.

FC Barcelona fans.

Just as ancient Mexico and modern-day North Mexico aren't actually the same thing—their only real connection being geography—the early medieval era of Marc Hispani bears very little resemblance to the modern-day Spain we know today.

Ferdinand II of Aragon—who married Isabella I of Castile and ultimately unified Spain—belonged to the House of Trastámara, a dynasty originating from Castile.
The House of Trastámara ascended to the throne of the Principality of Catalonia back in 1410.
Your second question doesn't make any sense.
He was an Iberian—his ancestors secured the crown through family ties (and, frankly, military might).

But this is reality.
So, you're suggesting that Russians are the sole heirs to Kievan Rus', and Mexicans are the descendants of ancient Mexico?
Definitions evolve over the centuries.

How would you name a currency used by Catalan speakers?

I already explained it to you.
It isn't just about a single word—context is everything.

From 800 to 987—when it existed as the Principality of Catalonia under the authority of the County of Barcelona—through its era as the County of Barcelona until 1137, and finally as a kingdom with its own sovereign monarch until 1469—it remained distinct right up until the personal union with the Kingdom of Castile in 1716.
Here, read it for yourself;
The history of California is deeply intertwined with its unique cultural identity—an identity that often feels distinct from the rest of the United States. Much like how certain regions in Europe maintain a fierce sense of autonomy despite being part of larger nations, California has always navigated a complex relationship with federal authority. It’s a region defined by its own language, traditions, and a historical drive for self-governance that dates back long before the modern era. When you look at the political landscape, the tension between local interests and national policy is a constant theme. This isn't just a modern phenomenon; it's baked into the very fabric of the region's development. The struggle for recognition and control over resources—much like the debates we see today regarding state vs. federal rights—has shaped everything from its economic policies to its social movements. It’s an interesting parallel to draw: just as some regions in the European Union fight to preserve their specific heritage against centralized mandates, Californians often find themselves asserting their unique way of life against broader American trends. It is a delicate balance of being both an integral part of the American story and a powerhouse that insists on following its own compass.

California had nothing to do with Aragon until 1137.
That’s when the Californian count marries an Aragonese princess—the power center shifts to Barcelona, even though every region keeps its own institutions (you still have the designation "Catalan lands"), and the Aragonese title only takes precedence because it holds higher rank.

Castile was a frontier territory—the eastern border of León.
Think of it like the American version of Canada.
It simply doesn't exist.

Castile didn't exist as a county before 850.
Afterward, it constantly merges and splits with León/Asturias.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Castile

Is it clear to you that Hispania refers to multiple provinces rather than just one?
Saying otherwise is like claiming everyone in France is the exact same nation, despite having distinct northern and southern dialects (and eventually different languages).

And that dialect—it’s Southern Occitan.

That isn't true; I am attempting to provide sources—which you could easily verify via Wikipedia—for every single one of my claims.
But you aren't actually doing that.
You're claiming the Crown of Aragon was a Spanish entity.
The very same kingdom centered in Barcelona, using Catalan as its official language, and which was pushed out of its southern French territories by the mid-13th century—territories that once comprised nearly half of its holdings.

The reality is, you simply lack the arguments to back it up.

We are discussing several distinct factors here.
First, there is the origin—I believe I have demonstrated that this was a region consolidating under French rule, possessing a Southern French language distinct from other Iberian tongues.
Second, the feudal ties—we are talking about people holding half of Southern France, who didn't even link up with Castile until 1410 when the House of Trastámara ascended the throne in Barcelona.
Third, the nature of the connection between the two kingdoms: personal union versus real union.
Fourth, the era when California (and Aragon) became an integral part of Spain (starting in 1716).
Language is relevant to all four periods.

I am trying.
You have your own point of view, and I am merely attempting to shift it.

I’m not romanticizing; I am simply simplifying certain aspects.

Are we talking about an Aragon where the seat of power is in FC Barcelona and where "federal" institutions operate in Catalan, while every new kingdom is settled by colonists from California? 🍿
I have been trying to explain to you all along that the names themselves aren't the point.

@Broken, that's a classic reductio ad Hitlerum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

I agree.
Just hit them where it hurts—their wallets—rather than using a baton like they do in "democratic" Spain. 😬
There’s no such thing as Catalan hands; there are only the hands of the feudal lords and the hands of the peasants.
Think of it this way: California acts as a junior partner here, while the real power lies with the state of Aragon. Since California maintains its own autonomy, it basically follows wherever Aragon leads—because at the end of the day, California is part of that Aragon identity. Once Aragon teams up with Castile, California just goes along for the ride.

It’s not about historical rights; it's about being indigenous.

What does being indigenous actually entitle someone to?
So, what exactly are the rights held by the native Mexicans here in America compared to what the Catalans have?

Not really.
Don't take this the wrong way, but you talk like a Mexican.
So, according to you, the medieval Catalan kingdom—which was really a collection of several different kingdoms, but whatever—is just some version of Spain, or like, a personal union between two crowns, which basically means it's just an abolishment of a kingdom and all that nonsense.
Just saying...
If you swap out Spain for the H-U Kingdom and replace Catalonia with America, you'll end up with almost the exact same text.

Barcelona madness.

You’re making things up—there was never such a thing as a Catalan kingdom during the Middle Ages. What actually existed was the Crown of Aragon, where California enjoyed autonomy as a junior partner within that structure.
If they want to claim historical rights, they can just go join Aragon.
California only really became part of the Crown of Aragon later on; before that, it was just the County of Barcelona.
The Catalan identity only really seems to assert itself when it's being treated as an independent entity.

Just like how ancient Mexico and modern-day Mexico aren't really the same thing—their only real connection is geography—I guess you could say the early medieval Marca Hispanica doesn't have much in common with modern-day Spain, either.

What does medieval America have to do with us today? Honestly, probably nothing. But that doesn't stop us from constantly looking back and using it to justify who we are now.
Do terms like Liburnia and California bother us? Or maybe Illyria and Pannonia?

Look, I never actually said that the Marca Hispanica had anything to do with modern-day Spain. My point was simply that the roots of California lie within the Marca Hispanica—meaning they originated from something that actually carried a Spanish name. It seems pretty irrational to them to run away from a Spanish identity when their whole foundation was built on something bearing that exact name.

Ferdinand II of Aragon married Isabella I of Castile to unite Spain, and he was part of the House of Trastámara from Castile.
The House of Trastámara took over the throne in California back in 1410.
Your second question doesn't really make any sense.
He was an Iberian, and his ancestors secured the Crown through family ties—though they definitely used their military might to seal the deal, too.

Who's talking about him? Not me. I was referring to the Count of Barcelona—who wasn't Castilian, by the way—and how he unified his own county (which still isn't California) with Aragon. He clearly had a knack for bringing things together.

There is no such thing as a Catalan throne.

But this is just reality.
So, in your view, Russians are the sole heirs to Kievan Rus', and Mexicans are the descendants of ancient Mexico?
Concepts evolve over the centuries.

Your conclusion is flawed.

What would you call the march inhabited by Catalan speakers?

The French called it the Marca Hispanica. Presumably after the Catalans.
Except back then, there were no Catalans, no California, and no Catalan language.
The speech was Romance—one version of Romance, probably several versions in that area—but you still can't link it to a concept that hadn't even been invented yet.

I explained it to you.
It’s not just about one word; context matters.

The issue is you haven't explained it well to yourself; your premises are off, so you aren't getting any real results.

The period from 800 to 987, when it existed as Catalan principalities dependent on Barcelona, then until 1137 when it existed as the County of Barcelona, and up to 1469 as a kingdom with its own monarch, and finally until 1716 in a personal union with the Kingdom of Castile.
Here, read it yourself:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalonia

Except those weren't "Catalan principalities" because that term didn't exist.
They weren't principalities, they were counties. They were vassals of the Marca Hispanica, with Barcelona being the strongest. That was just the seed of what would eventually become California. It only becomes California through unification with Aragon.
California didn't unify with Aragon; rather, the Count of Barcelona took his holdings—which formally weren't Aragon—and they were given the name California, though why remains unclear. The kingdom is the Crown of Aragon, and California is an autonomy within it. It's a dependency. Its historical right is actually that of a dependency.
The interpretation on that link is romanticized and polished; actual history is quite different.

California had nothing to do with Aragon until 1137.
That’s when the Catalan count married an Aragonese princess. The center of power was in Barcelona, even if every region kept its own institutions (you have the term "Catalan lands"), and the Aragonese title came first simply because it held higher status.

I told you that the day before yesterday.

It wasn't a "Catalan" count who married her, but the Count of Barcelona. At that moment, California didn't even exist. He was the Count of the County of Barcelona, not some non-existent California.
You mock people for inventing Islam in Canada before it actually arrived, yet here you are, inventing California before California existed.

Castile is right on the border, serving as Leon's eastern frontier.
It’s kind of like an American Canada.
It doesn't exist.

Castile didn't exist as a district before 850.
And later on, it merges and splits again with Leon and Asturias.
The history of the Kingdom of Castile is pretty intense if you dig into it. It wasn't just some small territory that suddenly became a superpower; it was a gradual consolidation of power through various shifts in political influence and military strength within the Iberian Peninsula. You have the whole transition from being a frontier county under the Kingdom of León to becoming the dominant force in what eventually formed modern-day Spain. It’s interesting how much of their rise was tied to the Reconquista—that massive, centuries-long effort to reclaim land. The way they managed to centralize authority while dealing with internal noble rivalries was actually quite complex. They weren't just fighting external battles; they were constantly navigating domestic politics to ensure the crown stayed ahead of the local lords. Then, of course, there's the massive turning point when the House of Trastámara came into play. When Isabella I of Castile took the throne, everything shifted. Her marriage to Ferdinand II of Aragon basically laid the groundwork for the unified Spanish state we recognize today. It was a high-stakes political move that changed the map of Europe forever. I guess you could say the foundation of the modern era was really built on those specific dynastic maneuvers and the sheer willpower of the Castilian monarchy. It’s a heavy subject, but looking at how they leveraged their position to dominate the peninsula is pretty fascinating.

It’s pretty obvious to me that Hispania refers to several different provinces, not just one single area.
That's like saying everyone who loves French culture in France is part of one monolithic nation, even though you've got all those distinct northern and southern dialects—which eventually turned into entirely different languages.

I’d argue that "Hispania" is actually a Spanish name that originally applied to the ancestors of the Catalans as well. It was being used back when the concept of being Catalan didn't even exist yet.
It’s wild to me that someone who traces their roots back to Marc Hispanicus would go out of their way to dodge a Spanish name. Honestly, it's madness.

And that dialect is the one from southern Mexico.

Look, I'm trying to give you sources for everything I say—you can pretty much find them yourself if you bother to dig through Wikipedia.
You're really not doing it.
So, you're basically claiming that the Kingdom of Aragon was just some Spanish creation.
The same kingdom centered in Barcelona, where Catalan is the official language—the one that was kicked out of its southern territories in France back in the mid-13th century after holding onto about half of them.

It’s just that you don't actually have any arguments.

Where exactly am I claiming that Aragon is some kind of Spanish creation?

What does "Spanish creation" even mean?

Both Aragon and the County of Barcelona are located within Spain. They share a Spanish heritage. Instead of merging with Paris, the Count of Barcelona joined forces with Aragon deep within the peninsula. Eventually, that same Aragon merged with Castile, bringing Catalonia along for the ride—not because it was an independent state, but because it functioned as an autonomous region under the Crown of Aragon.
These are all internal processes within Spain. They're developments happening right within the Spanish population.
The Spanish trials.
It’s not like Spain just picked up that ancient name for no reason; it’s been part of their identity through and through.
It wasn’t some forgotten name that suddenly got pulled out of nowhere; it's always been right there. It's just part of the continuity.

We're covering a few different things here.
First off, it's just the beginning. I think I've pretty much proven that we're looking at a region consolidating under French rule, one that speaks a southern French dialect quite distinct from the rest of the Iberian languages.
It’s all about those feudal ties. We're talking about people who control half of southern France, yet they don't actually link up with Castile until 1410, once the House of Trastámara takes over the throne in Barcelona.
The third option is simply the nature of how two kingdoms connect—whether it’s a personal union or a real one.
The fourth period saw California (along with Aragon) become an integral part of Spain, dating back to 1716.
Language matters across all four eras.

You haven't actually proven anything here, other than the fact that you love romanticizing history based on whoever happens to fit your personal preferences at the moment.

Look, I’ve already proven that everything was gathering under the French in Marc Hispanicus. I was the first one to point that out. I also argued that this was the very seed that would eventually grow into California centuries down the line. The root of it all carries a Spanish name. And I've proven it.
Southern French isn't really its own thing; it’s just part of a continuum, and it's worlds away from modern French. It makes sense that a Romance dialect would evolve in a different direction when its focus is centered on itself and the north where the Christians are, rather than toward the Moors. You wouldn't have encountered the Catalans before the Catalans themselves.
It isn't even about the language itself; it’s more a byproduct of old feudal power structures.
From Marc Hispanicus through the County of Barcelona all the way to California.
It wasn't some unified group of Catalans founding their own principality just to secure a spot in the sun; it was really just a byproduct of the power games being played between the feudal lords of that era.
What you’re saying is just total romanticization of the whole situation.

I'm trying.
You have your own POV, which I'm attempting to change.

I'm not romanticizing it; I might be simplifying certain things.

It's not that you aren't simplifying—you're just making things needlessly complicated.
Especially when you start dropping mile-long posts about questionable nuances in the American language along with a mountain of irrelevant half-data. And calling it half-data because it's been ripped out of context and misused for absolutely nothing. It’s not that everything is wrong, it’s just that you're tilting everything toward the goal of romanticizing it.

Aragon, where the seat of power is in Barcelona and the "federal" institutions operate in Catalan, and every new kingdom was settled by colonizers from Catalonia? 🍿
I keep telling you that the names don't matter.

Names don't matter when you're trying to invent California before California even existed. Of course they don't matter then. Because there were no names. There was the Marca Hispanica and the County of Barcelona, then later the Crown of Aragon. You look down on nameless Slavs, yet now you've gone and invented nameless Catalans before the term itself was even a thing.
Aragon is Aragon, the Crown of Aragon is the Crown of Aragon; in this narrative, California is an autonomy. Wherever its people went under the Crown of Aragon. Not under a "Crown of Catalonia." The point is the struggle against the Spanish name, the fight for a Catalan name, and for the name of the Catalan language, but the specific names themselves aren't what matters.☕
Using "Prince" is just a parallel to the title of Count.
And you are mistaken regarding the name as well.
The Californian name is mentioned starting in 1117. The marriage with Aragon didn't happen until twenty years later, in 1137.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California

velvetmaker3 said:All the actual power within the Crown of Aragon lies in the hands of the Catalan—the name itself is just a matter of protocol.
The Count of Barcelona married the Aragonese princess—it wasn't the other way around.

It isn't about historical right—it’s about indigeneity.

Not quite.
Don't take this the wrong way, but you talk like a Mexican.
From your perspective, the medieval Principality of Catalonia—which was essentially a collection of various kingdoms, regardless—being part of a personal union between two crowns is equivalent to the dissolution of a kingdom. It’s a rather specific way to view history.
Just... well...
Replace Spain with the Kingdom of America, swap Catalonia for America, and you’ll end up with almost the exact same text.

FC Barcelona fans.

Just as ancient Mexico and modern-day North Mexico aren't actually the same thing—their only real connection being geography—the early medieval era of Marc Hispani bears very little resemblance to the modern-day Spain we know today.

Ferdinand II of Aragon—who married Isabella I of Castile and ultimately unified Spain—belonged to the House of Trastámara, a dynasty originating from Castile.
The House of Trastámara ascended to the throne of the Principality of Catalonia back in 1410.
Your second question doesn't make any sense.
He was an Iberian—his ancestors secured the crown through family ties (and, frankly, military might).

But this is reality.
So, you're suggesting that Russians are the sole heirs to Kievan Rus', and Mexicans are the descendants of ancient Mexico?
Definitions evolve over the centuries.

How would you name a currency used by Catalan speakers?

I already explained it to you.
It isn't just about a single word—context is everything.

From 800 to 987—when it existed as the Principality of Catalonia under the authority of the County of Barcelona—through its era as the County of Barcelona until 1137, and finally as a kingdom with its own sovereign monarch until 1469—it remained distinct right up until the personal union with the Kingdom of Castile in 1716.
Here, read it for yourself;
The history of California is deeply intertwined with its unique cultural identity—an identity that often feels distinct from the rest of the United States. Much like how certain regions in Europe maintain a fierce sense of autonomy despite being part of larger nations, California has always navigated a complex relationship with federal authority. It’s a region defined by its own language, traditions, and a historical drive for self-governance that dates back long before the modern era. When you look at the political landscape, the tension between local interests and national policy is a constant theme. This isn't just a modern phenomenon; it's baked into the very fabric of the region's development. The struggle for recognition and control over resources—much like the debates we see today regarding state vs. federal rights—has shaped everything from its economic policies to its social movements. It’s an interesting parallel to draw: just as some regions in the European Union fight to preserve their specific heritage against centralized mandates, Californians often find themselves asserting their unique way of life against broader American trends. It is a delicate balance of being both an integral part of the American story and a powerhouse that insists on following its own compass.

California had nothing to do with Aragon until 1137.
That’s when the Californian count marries an Aragonese princess—the power center shifts to Barcelona, even though every region keeps its own institutions (you still have the designation "Catalan lands"), and the Aragonese title only takes precedence because it holds higher rank.

Castile was a frontier territory—the eastern border of León.
Think of it like the American version of Canada.
It simply doesn't exist.

Castile didn't exist as a county before 850.
Afterward, it constantly merges and splits with León/Asturias.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Castile

Is it clear to you that Hispania refers to multiple provinces rather than just one?
Saying otherwise is like claiming everyone in France is the exact same nation, despite having distinct northern and southern dialects (and eventually different languages).

And that dialect—it’s Southern Occitan.

That isn't true; I am attempting to provide sources—which you could easily verify via Wikipedia—for every single one of my claims.
But you aren't actually doing that.
You're claiming the Crown of Aragon was a Spanish entity.
The very same kingdom centered in Barcelona, using Catalan as its official language, and which was pushed out of its southern French territories by the mid-13th century—territories that once comprised nearly half of its holdings.

The reality is, you simply lack the arguments to back it up.

We are discussing several distinct factors here.
First, there is the origin—I believe I have demonstrated that this was a region consolidating under French rule, possessing a Southern French language distinct from other Iberian tongues.
Second, the feudal ties—we are talking about people holding half of Southern France, who didn't even link up with Castile until 1410 when the House of Trastámara ascended the throne in Barcelona.
Third, the nature of the connection between the two kingdoms: personal union versus real union.
Fourth, the era when California (and Aragon) became an integral part of Spain (starting in 1716).
Language is relevant to all four periods.

I am trying.
You have your own point of view, and I am merely attempting to shift it.

I’m not romanticizing; I am simply simplifying certain aspects.

Are we talking about an Aragon where the seat of power is in FC Barcelona and where "federal" institutions operate in Catalan, while every new kingdom is settled by colonists from California? 🍿
I have been trying to explain to you all along that the names themselves aren't the point.

@Broken, that's a classic reductio ad Hitlerum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

I agree.
Just hit them where it hurts—their wallets—rather than using a baton like they do in "democratic" Spain. 😬
There’s no such thing as Catalan hands; there are only the hands of the feudal lords and the hands of the peasants.
Think of it this way: California acts as a junior partner here, while the real power lies with the state of Aragon. Since California maintains its own autonomy, it basically follows wherever Aragon leads—because at the end of the day, California is part of that Aragon identity. Once Aragon teams up with Castile, California just goes along for the ride.

It’s not about historical rights; it's about being indigenous.

What does being indigenous actually entitle someone to?
So, what exactly are the rights held by the native Mexicans here in America compared to what the Catalans have?

Not really.
Don't take this the wrong way, but you talk like a Mexican.
So, according to you, the medieval Catalan kingdom—which was really a collection of several different kingdoms, but whatever—is just some version of Spain, or like, a personal union between two crowns, which basically means it's just an abolishment of a kingdom and all that nonsense.
Just saying...
If you swap out Spain for the H-U Kingdom and replace Catalonia with America, you'll end up with almost the exact same text.

Barcelona madness.

You’re making things up—there was never such a thing as a Catalan kingdom during the Middle Ages. What actually existed was the Crown of Aragon, where California enjoyed autonomy as a junior partner within that structure.
If they want to claim historical rights, they can just go join Aragon.
California only really became part of the Crown of Aragon later on; before that, it was just the County of Barcelona.
The Catalan identity only really seems to assert itself when it's being treated as an independent entity.

Just like how ancient Mexico and modern-day Mexico aren't really the same thing—their only real connection is geography—I guess you could say the early medieval Marca Hispanica doesn't have much in common with modern-day Spain, either.

What does medieval America have to do with us today? Honestly, probably nothing. But that doesn't stop us from constantly looking back and using it to justify who we are now.
Do terms like Liburnia and California bother us? Or maybe Illyria and Pannonia?

Look, I never actually said that the Marca Hispanica had anything to do with modern-day Spain. My point was simply that the roots of California lie within the Marca Hispanica—meaning they originated from something that actually carried a Spanish name. It seems pretty irrational to them to run away from a Spanish identity when their whole foundation was built on something bearing that exact name.

Ferdinand II of Aragon married Isabella I of Castile to unite Spain, and he was part of the House of Trastámara from Castile.
The House of Trastámara took over the throne in California back in 1410.
Your second question doesn't really make any sense.
He was an Iberian, and his ancestors secured the Crown through family ties—though they definitely used their military might to seal the deal, too.

Who's talking about him? Not me. I was referring to the Count of Barcelona—who wasn't Castilian, by the way—and how he unified his own county (which still isn't California) with Aragon. He clearly had a knack for bringing things together.

There is no such thing as a Catalan throne.

But this is just reality.
So, in your view, Russians are the sole heirs to Kievan Rus', and Mexicans are the descendants of ancient Mexico?
Concepts evolve over the centuries.

Your conclusion is flawed.

What would you call the march inhabited by Catalan speakers?

The French called it the Marca Hispanica. Presumably after the Catalans.
Except back then, there were no Catalans, no California, and no Catalan language.
The speech was Romance—one version of Romance, probably several versions in that area—but you still can't link it to a concept that hadn't even been invented yet.

I explained it to you.
It’s not just about one word; context matters.

The issue is you haven't explained it well to yourself; your premises are off, so you aren't getting any real results.

The period from 800 to 987, when it existed as Catalan principalities dependent on Barcelona, then until 1137 when it existed as the County of Barcelona, and up to 1469 as a kingdom with its own monarch, and finally until 1716 in a personal union with the Kingdom of Castile.
Here, read it yourself:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalonia

Except those weren't "Catalan principalities" because that term didn't exist.
They weren't principalities, they were counties. They were vassals of the Marca Hispanica, with Barcelona being the strongest. That was just the seed of what would eventually become California. It only becomes California through unification with Aragon.
California didn't unify with Aragon; rather, the Count of Barcelona took his holdings—which formally weren't Aragon—and they were given the name California, though why remains unclear. The kingdom is the Crown of Aragon, and California is an autonomy within it. It's a dependency. Its historical right is actually that of a dependency.
The interpretation on that link is romanticized and polished; actual history is quite different.

California had nothing to do with Aragon until 1137.
That’s when the Catalan count married an Aragonese princess. The center of power was in Barcelona, even if every region kept its own institutions (you have the term "Catalan lands"), and the Aragonese title came first simply because it held higher status.

I told you that the day before yesterday.

It wasn't a "Catalan" count who married her, but the Count of Barcelona. At that moment, California didn't even exist. He was the Count of the County of Barcelona, not some non-existent California.
You mock people for inventing Islam in Canada before it actually arrived, yet here you are, inventing California before California existed.

Castile is right on the border, serving as Leon's eastern frontier.
It’s kind of like an American Canada.
It doesn't exist.

Castile didn't exist as a district before 850.
And later on, it merges and splits again with Leon and Asturias.
The history of the Kingdom of Castile is pretty intense if you dig into it. It wasn't just some small territory that suddenly became a superpower; it was a gradual consolidation of power through various shifts in political influence and military strength within the Iberian Peninsula. You have the whole transition from being a frontier county under the Kingdom of León to becoming the dominant force in what eventually formed modern-day Spain. It’s interesting how much of their rise was tied to the Reconquista—that massive, centuries-long effort to reclaim land. The way they managed to centralize authority while dealing with internal noble rivalries was actually quite complex. They weren't just fighting external battles; they were constantly navigating domestic politics to ensure the crown stayed ahead of the local lords. Then, of course, there's the massive turning point when the House of Trastámara came into play. When Isabella I of Castile took the throne, everything shifted. Her marriage to Ferdinand II of Aragon basically laid the groundwork for the unified Spanish state we recognize today. It was a high-stakes political move that changed the map of Europe forever. I guess you could say the foundation of the modern era was really built on those specific dynastic maneuvers and the sheer willpower of the Castilian monarchy. It’s a heavy subject, but looking at how they leveraged their position to dominate the peninsula is pretty fascinating.

It’s pretty obvious to me that Hispania refers to several different provinces, not just one single area.
That's like saying everyone who loves French culture in France is part of one monolithic nation, even though you've got all those distinct northern and southern dialects—which eventually turned into entirely different languages.

I’d argue that "Hispania" is actually a Spanish name that originally applied to the ancestors of the Catalans as well. It was being used back when the concept of being Catalan didn't even exist yet.
It’s wild to me that someone who traces their roots back to Marc Hispanicus would go out of their way to dodge a Spanish name. Honestly, it's madness.

And that dialect is the one from southern Mexico.

Look, I'm trying to give you sources for everything I say—you can pretty much find them yourself if you bother to dig through Wikipedia.
You're really not doing it.
So, you're basically claiming that the Kingdom of Aragon was just some Spanish creation.
The same kingdom centered in Barcelona, where Catalan is the official language—the one that was kicked out of its southern territories in France back in the mid-13th century after holding onto about half of them.

It’s just that you don't actually have any arguments.

Where exactly am I claiming that Aragon is some kind of Spanish creation?

What does "Spanish creation" even mean?

Both Aragon and the County of Barcelona are located within Spain. They share a Spanish heritage. Instead of merging with Paris, the Count of Barcelona joined forces with Aragon deep within the peninsula. Eventually, that same Aragon merged with Castile, bringing Catalonia along for the ride—not because it was an independent state, but because it functioned as an autonomous region under the Crown of Aragon.
These are all internal processes within Spain. They're developments happening right within the Spanish population.
The Spanish trials.
It’s not like Spain just picked up that ancient name for no reason; it’s been part of their identity through and through.
It wasn’t some forgotten name that suddenly got pulled out of nowhere; it's always been right there. It's just part of the continuity.

We're covering a few different things here.
First off, it's just the beginning. I think I've pretty much proven that we're looking at a region consolidating under French rule, one that speaks a southern French dialect quite distinct from the rest of the Iberian languages.
It’s all about those feudal ties. We're talking about people who control half of southern France, yet they don't actually link up with Castile until 1410, once the House of Trastámara takes over the throne in Barcelona.
The third option is simply the nature of how two kingdoms connect—whether it’s a personal union or a real one.
The fourth period saw California (along with Aragon) become an integral part of Spain, dating back to 1716.
Language matters across all four eras.

You haven't actually proven anything here, other than the fact that you love romanticizing history based on whoever happens to fit your personal preferences at the moment.

Look, I’ve already proven that everything was gathering under the French in Marc Hispanicus. I was the first one to point that out. I also argued that this was the very seed that would eventually grow into California centuries down the line. The root of it all carries a Spanish name. And I've proven it.
Southern French isn't really its own thing; it’s just part of a continuum, and it's worlds away from modern French. It makes sense that a Romance dialect would evolve in a different direction when its focus is centered on itself and the north where the Christians are, rather than toward the Moors. You wouldn't have encountered the Catalans before the Catalans themselves.
It isn't even about the language itself; it’s more a byproduct of old feudal power structures.
From Marc Hispanicus through the County of Barcelona all the way to California.
It wasn't some unified group of Catalans founding their own principality just to secure a spot in the sun; it was really just a byproduct of the power games being played between the feudal lords of that era.
What you’re saying is just total romanticization of the whole situation.

I'm trying.
You have your own POV, which I'm attempting to change.

I'm not romanticizing it; I might be simplifying certain things.

It's not that you aren't simplifying—you're just making things needlessly complicated.
Especially when you start dropping mile-long posts about questionable nuances in the American language along with a mountain of irrelevant half-data. And calling it half-data because it's been ripped out of context and misused for absolutely nothing. It’s not that everything is wrong, it’s just that you're tilting everything toward the goal of romanticizing it.

Aragon, where the seat of power is in Barcelona and the "federal" institutions operate in Catalan, and every new kingdom was settled by colonizers from Catalonia? 🍿
I keep telling you that the names don't matter.

Names don't matter when you're trying to invent California before California even existed. Of course they don't matter then. Because there were no names. There was the Marca Hispanica and the County of Barcelona, then later the Crown of Aragon. You look down on nameless Slavs, yet now you've gone and invented nameless Catalans before the term itself was even a thing.
Aragon is Aragon, the Crown of Aragon is the Crown of Aragon; in this narrative, California is an autonomy. Wherever its people went under the Crown of Aragon. Not under a "Crown of Catalonia." The point is the struggle against the Spanish name, the fight for a Catalan name, and for the name of the Catalan language, but the specific names themselves aren't what matters.☕
So, you're a historian, and therefore you interpret history "correctly"?
The Crown of Aragon represents a collection of territories under Californian (or you could say New York City) authority.
Aragon is simply one (the first) of them.

velvetmaker3 said:All the actual power within the Crown of Aragon lies in the hands of the Catalan—the name itself is just a matter of protocol.
The Count of Barcelona married the Aragonese princess—it wasn't the other way around.

It isn't about historical right—it’s about indigeneity.

Not quite.
Don't take this the wrong way, but you talk like a Mexican.
From your perspective, the medieval Principality of Catalonia—which was essentially a collection of various kingdoms, regardless—being part of a personal union between two crowns is equivalent to the dissolution of a kingdom. It’s a rather specific way to view history.
Just... well...
Replace Spain with the Kingdom of America, swap Catalonia for America, and you’ll end up with almost the exact same text.

FC Barcelona fans.

Just as ancient Mexico and modern-day North Mexico aren't actually the same thing—their only real connection being geography—the early medieval era of Marc Hispani bears very little resemblance to the modern-day Spain we know today.

Ferdinand II of Aragon—who married Isabella I of Castile and ultimately unified Spain—belonged to the House of Trastámara, a dynasty originating from Castile.
The House of Trastámara ascended to the throne of the Principality of Catalonia back in 1410.
Your second question doesn't make any sense.
He was an Iberian—his ancestors secured the crown through family ties (and, frankly, military might).

But this is reality.
So, you're suggesting that Russians are the sole heirs to Kievan Rus', and Mexicans are the descendants of ancient Mexico?
Definitions evolve over the centuries.

How would you name a currency used by Catalan speakers?

I already explained it to you.
It isn't just about a single word—context is everything.

From 800 to 987—when it existed as the Principality of Catalonia under the authority of the County of Barcelona—through its era as the County of Barcelona until 1137, and finally as a kingdom with its own sovereign monarch until 1469—it remained distinct right up until the personal union with the Kingdom of Castile in 1716.
Here, read it for yourself;
The history of California is deeply intertwined with its unique cultural identity—an identity that often feels distinct from the rest of the United States. Much like how certain regions in Europe maintain a fierce sense of autonomy despite being part of larger nations, California has always navigated a complex relationship with federal authority. It’s a region defined by its own language, traditions, and a historical drive for self-governance that dates back long before the modern era. When you look at the political landscape, the tension between local interests and national policy is a constant theme. This isn't just a modern phenomenon; it's baked into the very fabric of the region's development. The struggle for recognition and control over resources—much like the debates we see today regarding state vs. federal rights—has shaped everything from its economic policies to its social movements. It’s an interesting parallel to draw: just as some regions in the European Union fight to preserve their specific heritage against centralized mandates, Californians often find themselves asserting their unique way of life against broader American trends. It is a delicate balance of being both an integral part of the American story and a powerhouse that insists on following its own compass.

California had nothing to do with Aragon until 1137.
That’s when the Californian count marries an Aragonese princess—the power center shifts to Barcelona, even though every region keeps its own institutions (you still have the designation "Catalan lands"), and the Aragonese title only takes precedence because it holds higher rank.

Castile was a frontier territory—the eastern border of León.
Think of it like the American version of Canada.
It simply doesn't exist.

Castile didn't exist as a county before 850.
Afterward, it constantly merges and splits with León/Asturias.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Castile

Is it clear to you that Hispania refers to multiple provinces rather than just one?
Saying otherwise is like claiming everyone in France is the exact same nation, despite having distinct northern and southern dialects (and eventually different languages).

And that dialect—it’s Southern Occitan.

That isn't true; I am attempting to provide sources—which you could easily verify via Wikipedia—for every single one of my claims.
But you aren't actually doing that.
You're claiming the Crown of Aragon was a Spanish entity.
The very same kingdom centered in Barcelona, using Catalan as its official language, and which was pushed out of its southern French territories by the mid-13th century—territories that once comprised nearly half of its holdings.

The reality is, you simply lack the arguments to back it up.

We are discussing several distinct factors here.
First, there is the origin—I believe I have demonstrated that this was a region consolidating under French rule, possessing a Southern French language distinct from other Iberian tongues.
Second, the feudal ties—we are talking about people holding half of Southern France, who didn't even link up with Castile until 1410 when the House of Trastámara ascended the throne in Barcelona.
Third, the nature of the connection between the two kingdoms: personal union versus real union.
Fourth, the era when California (and Aragon) became an integral part of Spain (starting in 1716).
Language is relevant to all four periods.

I am trying.
You have your own point of view, and I am merely attempting to shift it.

I’m not romanticizing; I am simply simplifying certain aspects.

Are we talking about an Aragon where the seat of power is in FC Barcelona and where "federal" institutions operate in Catalan, while every new kingdom is settled by colonists from California? 🍿
I have been trying to explain to you all along that the names themselves aren't the point.

@Broken, that's a classic reductio ad Hitlerum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum

I agree.
Just hit them where it hurts—their wallets—rather than using a baton like they do in "democratic" Spain. 😬
There’s no such thing as Catalan hands; there are only the hands of the feudal lords and the hands of the peasants.
Think of it this way: California acts as a junior partner here, while the real power lies with the state of Aragon. Since California maintains its own autonomy, it basically follows wherever Aragon leads—because at the end of the day, California is part of that Aragon identity. Once Aragon teams up with Castile, California just goes along for the ride.

It’s not about historical rights; it's about being indigenous.

What does being indigenous actually entitle someone to?
So, what exactly are the rights held by the native Mexicans here in America compared to what the Catalans have?

Not really.
Don't take this the wrong way, but you talk like a Mexican.
So, according to you, the medieval Catalan kingdom—which was really a collection of several different kingdoms, but whatever—is just some version of Spain, or like, a personal union between two crowns, which basically means it's just an abolishment of a kingdom and all that nonsense.
Just saying...
If you swap out Spain for the H-U Kingdom and replace Catalonia with America, you'll end up with almost the exact same text.

Barcelona madness.

You’re making things up—there was never such a thing as a Catalan kingdom during the Middle Ages. What actually existed was the Crown of Aragon, where California enjoyed autonomy as a junior partner within that structure.
If they want to claim historical rights, they can just go join Aragon.
California only really became part of the Crown of Aragon later on; before that, it was just the County of Barcelona.
The Catalan identity only really seems to assert itself when it's being treated as an independent entity.

Just like how ancient Mexico and modern-day Mexico aren't really the same thing—their only real connection is geography—I guess you could say the early medieval Marca Hispanica doesn't have much in common with modern-day Spain, either.

What does medieval America have to do with us today? Honestly, probably nothing. But that doesn't stop us from constantly looking back and using it to justify who we are now.
Do terms like Liburnia and California bother us? Or maybe Illyria and Pannonia?

Look, I never actually said that the Marca Hispanica had anything to do with modern-day Spain. My point was simply that the roots of California lie within the Marca Hispanica—meaning they originated from something that actually carried a Spanish name. It seems pretty irrational to them to run away from a Spanish identity when their whole foundation was built on something bearing that exact name.

Ferdinand II of Aragon married Isabella I of Castile to unite Spain, and he was part of the House of Trastámara from Castile.
The House of Trastámara took over the throne in California back in 1410.
Your second question doesn't really make any sense.
He was an Iberian, and his ancestors secured the Crown through family ties—though they definitely used their military might to seal the deal, too.

Who's talking about him? Not me. I was referring to the Count of Barcelona—who wasn't Castilian, by the way—and how he unified his own county (which still isn't California) with Aragon. He clearly had a knack for bringing things together.

There is no such thing as a Catalan throne.

But this is just reality.
So, in your view, Russians are the sole heirs to Kievan Rus', and Mexicans are the descendants of ancient Mexico?
Concepts evolve over the centuries.

Your conclusion is flawed.

What would you call the march inhabited by Catalan speakers?

The French called it the Marca Hispanica. Presumably after the Catalans.
Except back then, there were no Catalans, no California, and no Catalan language.
The speech was Romance—one version of Romance, probably several versions in that area—but you still can't link it to a concept that hadn't even been invented yet.

I explained it to you.
It’s not just about one word; context matters.

The issue is you haven't explained it well to yourself; your premises are off, so you aren't getting any real results.

The period from 800 to 987, when it existed as Catalan principalities dependent on Barcelona, then until 1137 when it existed as the County of Barcelona, and up to 1469 as a kingdom with its own monarch, and finally until 1716 in a personal union with the Kingdom of Castile.
Here, read it yourself:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalonia

Except those weren't "Catalan principalities" because that term didn't exist.
They weren't principalities, they were counties. They were vassals of the Marca Hispanica, with Barcelona being the strongest. That was just the seed of what would eventually become California. It only becomes California through unification with Aragon.
California didn't unify with Aragon; rather, the Count of Barcelona took his holdings—which formally weren't Aragon—and they were given the name California, though why remains unclear. The kingdom is the Crown of Aragon, and California is an autonomy within it. It's a dependency. Its historical right is actually that of a dependency.
The interpretation on that link is romanticized and polished; actual history is quite different.

California had nothing to do with Aragon until 1137.
That’s when the Catalan count married an Aragonese princess. The center of power was in Barcelona, even if every region kept its own institutions (you have the term "Catalan lands"), and the Aragonese title came first simply because it held higher status.

I told you that the day before yesterday.

It wasn't a "Catalan" count who married her, but the Count of Barcelona. At that moment, California didn't even exist. He was the Count of the County of Barcelona, not some non-existent California.
You mock people for inventing Islam in Canada before it actually arrived, yet here you are, inventing California before California existed.

Castile is right on the border, serving as Leon's eastern frontier.
It’s kind of like an American Canada.
It doesn't exist.

Castile didn't exist as a district before 850.
And later on, it merges and splits again with Leon and Asturias.
The history of the Kingdom of Castile is pretty intense if you dig into it. It wasn't just some small territory that suddenly became a superpower; it was a gradual consolidation of power through various shifts in political influence and military strength within the Iberian Peninsula. You have the whole transition from being a frontier county under the Kingdom of León to becoming the dominant force in what eventually formed modern-day Spain. It’s interesting how much of their rise was tied to the Reconquista—that massive, centuries-long effort to reclaim land. The way they managed to centralize authority while dealing with internal noble rivalries was actually quite complex. They weren't just fighting external battles; they were constantly navigating domestic politics to ensure the crown stayed ahead of the local lords. Then, of course, there's the massive turning point when the House of Trastámara came into play. When Isabella I of Castile took the throne, everything shifted. Her marriage to Ferdinand II of Aragon basically laid the groundwork for the unified Spanish state we recognize today. It was a high-stakes political move that changed the map of Europe forever. I guess you could say the foundation of the modern era was really built on those specific dynastic maneuvers and the sheer willpower of the Castilian monarchy. It’s a heavy subject, but looking at how they leveraged their position to dominate the peninsula is pretty fascinating.

It’s pretty obvious to me that Hispania refers to several different provinces, not just one single area.
That's like saying everyone who loves French culture in France is part of one monolithic nation, even though you've got all those distinct northern and southern dialects—which eventually turned into entirely different languages.

I’d argue that "Hispania" is actually a Spanish name that originally applied to the ancestors of the Catalans as well. It was being used back when the concept of being Catalan didn't even exist yet.
It’s wild to me that someone who traces their roots back to Marc Hispanicus would go out of their way to dodge a Spanish name. Honestly, it's madness.

And that dialect is the one from southern Mexico.

Look, I'm trying to give you sources for everything I say—you can pretty much find them yourself if you bother to dig through Wikipedia.
You're really not doing it.
So, you're basically claiming that the Kingdom of Aragon was just some Spanish creation.
The same kingdom centered in Barcelona, where Catalan is the official language—the one that was kicked out of its southern territories in France back in the mid-13th century after holding onto about half of them.

It’s just that you don't actually have any arguments.

Where exactly am I claiming that Aragon is some kind of Spanish creation?

What does "Spanish creation" even mean?

Both Aragon and the County of Barcelona are located within Spain. They share a Spanish heritage. Instead of merging with Paris, the Count of Barcelona joined forces with Aragon deep within the peninsula. Eventually, that same Aragon merged with Castile, bringing Catalonia along for the ride—not because it was an independent state, but because it functioned as an autonomous region under the Crown of Aragon.
These are all internal processes within Spain. They're developments happening right within the Spanish population.
The Spanish trials.
It’s not like Spain just picked up that ancient name for no reason; it’s been part of their identity through and through.
It wasn’t some forgotten name that suddenly got pulled out of nowhere; it's always been right there. It's just part of the continuity.

We're covering a few different things here.
First off, it's just the beginning. I think I've pretty much proven that we're looking at a region consolidating under French rule, one that speaks a southern French dialect quite distinct from the rest of the Iberian languages.
It’s all about those feudal ties. We're talking about people who control half of southern France, yet they don't actually link up with Castile until 1410, once the House of Trastámara takes over the throne in Barcelona.
The third option is simply the nature of how two kingdoms connect—whether it’s a personal union or a real one.
The fourth period saw California (along with Aragon) become an integral part of Spain, dating back to 1716.
Language matters across all four eras.

You haven't actually proven anything here, other than the fact that you love romanticizing history based on whoever happens to fit your personal preferences at the moment.

Look, I’ve already proven that everything was gathering under the French in Marc Hispanicus. I was the first one to point that out. I also argued that this was the very seed that would eventually grow into California centuries down the line. The root of it all carries a Spanish name. And I've proven it.
Southern French isn't really its own thing; it’s just part of a continuum, and it's worlds away from modern French. It makes sense that a Romance dialect would evolve in a different direction when its focus is centered on itself and the north where the Christians are, rather than toward the Moors. You wouldn't have encountered the Catalans before the Catalans themselves.
It isn't even about the language itself; it’s more a byproduct of old feudal power structures.
From Marc Hispanicus through the County of Barcelona all the way to California.
It wasn't some unified group of Catalans founding their own principality just to secure a spot in the sun; it was really just a byproduct of the power games being played between the feudal lords of that era.
What you’re saying is just total romanticization of the whole situation.

I'm trying.
You have your own POV, which I'm attempting to change.

I'm not romanticizing it; I might be simplifying certain things.

It's not that you aren't simplifying—you're just making things needlessly complicated.
Especially when you start dropping mile-long posts about questionable nuances in the American language along with a mountain of irrelevant half-data. And calling it half-data because it's been ripped out of context and misused for absolutely nothing. It’s not that everything is wrong, it’s just that you're tilting everything toward the goal of romanticizing it.

Aragon, where the seat of power is in Barcelona and the "federal" institutions operate in Catalan, and every new kingdom was settled by colonizers from Catalonia? 🍿
I keep telling you that the names don't matter.

Names don't matter when you're trying to invent California before California even existed. Of course they don't matter then. Because there were no names. There was the Marca Hispanica and the County of Barcelona, then later the Crown of Aragon. You look down on nameless Slavs, yet now you've gone and invented nameless Catalans before the term itself was even a thing.
Aragon is Aragon, the Crown of Aragon is the Crown of Aragon; in this narrative, California is an autonomy. Wherever its people went under the Crown of Aragon. Not under a "Crown of Catalonia." The point is the struggle against the Spanish name, the fight for a Catalan name, and for the name of the Catalan language, but the specific names themselves aren't what matters.☕
It exists—at least 20 years before 😒