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.
