[Menydh]

Vasconcelos, I'll answer one question at a time.

First you ask if Spain has not existed perfectly without Portugal. Well, yes and no. Torralba has put it simply but just clear in his second paragraph.

Spain would exist even if she was torn apart into small segments, as it has been forever. What you were thinking of is a State which is known as Spain, but which is imposed and alien to the very essence of Spain.. that is Spain as a Nation.

Since old times our kings admitted the existance of Spain, even when there was not officially a state under that name. There were other states, namely kingdoms: Castille, Galicia, Aragon, León, Valencia, the Catalan counties, Navarre, Valencia, ... Portugal.

And though the dismembering of the Regnum Spaniae after the Islamic invasion brought about the formation of independent territories, the sentiment of belonging to Spain never abandoned the peoples... nor the rulers. And as a matter of fact, the King of Leon was recognized by all other rulers of the territories which were being formed, as Imperator totius Hispaniae (Emperor of all The Spains). Just as the Ultramontanos (people beyond the Pyrenees) identified all as Spanish regardless of their territorial (kingdom-state) origin. Or those beyond the Strait of Gibraltar.

I won't go further into discussing the nature of these newly formed territorial states, but I should notice that in my opinion there is room for speculating about the coincidence with the tribal territories prior to Roman conquest. Not only the new Christian kingdoms, but also the Muslim kingdoms which resulted from the dismembering of the Caliphate of Cordoba (Reinos de Taifas). I don't know if any historian has done any research on this, but it surely would be most interesting and helpful to understand the nature and the essence of Spain, past and present.

Now let me correct a statement by Torralba, where he says that the reason that Portugal seceded was because the Count-Duke of Olivares sent the Tercios to Catalonia instead of Portugal. That's a fact, but it is the reason why the secession succeeded, not the reason why it took place.

With the end of the Hispanic Monarchs in the Crowns of Aragon and Castille, came the Habsburgs. I am of the opinion that this was unfortunate because they diverted The Spains from the destiny that had been forged in them, which it should have been the expansion to Africa and The Americas, as well as the recovery of the Catalano-Aragonese influence in Occitania. Instead, the resources of Castille first and later the other kingdoms were diverted to Europe.

It is fair to say that the first of the Habsburg Monarchs, Carlos I (Holy Roman Emperor Carlos V) was still at least a heir of the Hispanic Monarchs for his mother, Juana, the daughter of Ferran (Ferdinand) of Aragon and Isabel (Isabella) of Castille. And as such he assumed much of his Hispanic Heritage with his Germanic heritage subdued to the Hispanic. However, he committed the first ever attempt against the Spanish nation which was the derogation of the Old Castillian Fueros. with the intention of centralising the power on his person and diverting the resources of Castille to the defense of his Habsburg posessions.

The Age of the Reconquista, of the Recuperatio Hispaniae, which coincided with the start of the Reinassance should have ended with the union of the the Hispanic kingdoms, which was to be realized with the union of Princess Isabel, heir to the thrones of Castille and Aragon, and the Infante Afonso de Portugal, son of João II of Portugal. But Afonso died shortly after and Princess Isabel married this time who would be Manuel I of Portugal. She died while giving birth to their son, Prince Manuel da Paz de Avís e Trastámara, the sworn heir to all the kingdoms of Spain except for Navarre, which would be annexed by his grandfather later.

Unfortunately Prince Miguel died with 21 months of age.

Now I would ask, who are these petty state patriots to want to deny the reunification of The Spains? I can only feel contempt for their miserable pseudo-patriotism.

Second to answer would be "the point of it". Not that any point should be needed other than uniting what should not be separated. But apart from that, it is as a united nation that Portugal and the other territories of The Spains should walk into the future.

The division, not only of Portugal, has only played in the hands of our enemies throughout history. Nowhere did Rome meet so much resistance as in Hispania. The years of war against the Gauls pale before the much longer wars againt Cantabrians, Lusitanians or Celtiberians. Unfortunately never united like the Gauls under Vercingertorix.

And yes, it played too in the hands of England and The Netherlands against Spain. Ask what benefit Portugal obtained from such alliance, other than becoming a useful piece to others.

Under the reign of King Phillip II (Felipe II de Castilla y León, Felip I de Aragón, Catalonia and Valencia, Filipe I de Portugal), son of Carlos I and Isabel de Portugal (the daughter of King Manuel I and María de Aragón y Castilla), the union was made effective.

(Notice that Manuel I of Portugal, after the death of Isabel married her other sister. It was the will of Portugal more than that of Castille to reunite the kingdoms).

But he was the last king with a decent Hispanic heritage left, through his grandparents (Isabella of Castille and Ferdinand of Aragon) and his mother (Isabel of Portugal).

Hi succesor, Phillip III (II etc.) was the son of Anne of Austria and further he married another Austro-Bavarian. The Germanic element was too strong and the Hispanic character of the monarchy lost. With him starts a monarchy of useless, weaks and ill kings governed by chief ministers (the Duke of Lerma in the case of Phillip III). He started a process of centralisation (sending Castilian magistrates and ministers to Portugal and other kingdoms), to the discontent of the people, even when Lerma tried to favour Portugal.

And so on for the rest, they were incapable and unfit to rule Spain and much less so the vast Empire that they had inherited. The begining of the end. For Portugal, João IV was the king of the independence, but also the king under which started a mass migration of Portuguese to Brazil, which left Portugal nearly depleted of people. Something that marked the start of the decadence of Portugal.

Anyway, which sovereignty should Portugal lose? The still (even if only in part) Hispanic kings were the monarchs of a nation and different kingdoms, each with their courts and ministers. As some member of my family said once, I don't recognize this man as our king because he has never been crowned King of Valencia and has not sworn the Furs. Our Hispanic kings were crowned in the different territories and they swore to respect and to abide by the territorial Charters (Fueros, Furs, Forais) that our ancestors earned. It is the Fueros (I'll use the Castilian name for them) that grant us our Freedom and Sovereignty. And it is in them that any idea of state must be built.

Finally, for the territory of Portugal, in all fairness a degree of autonomy to the sub-territories should be given within the wider foral system for Portugal. Even João IV was titled King of Portugal and of the Algarves. Not just King of Portugal.


p.s. Torralba, I wouldn't judge Olivares too severely. I'm not sure if he could have done better with what he got.