Talk:Captaincy General of Chile

message: I think there is a problem with this article as, in my opinion, is not completly accurate with the Spanish Empire administrative organisation, i tried to explain (the best I could remembering my old classes in University and my poor english) that in old spanish Reyno (compared to modern Reino) was more descriptive of a geographical unity rather than a political one. This can lead to confussion since politically there was not a Kingdom of Spain until the Borbon instauration in 1700, but several kingdoms inside and outside the Iberian Peninsula. Spain was in that sense a Reyno before becoming a Reino. Each of this independent kingdoms were engaged in Spain in a personal union by the Spanish King, since the time of Charles I. 
The Chilean kingdom (el Reyno de Chile) was a posession of the King of Castile (and then a geographycal entity more than a political one) as there were all other spanish posessions in the New World. Naples or Sicily in the other hand where posessions of the King of Aragon, which happens to be the same person. 
There was not common administrative apparatus between different independent Reinos, and each one was governed by the King and its own Council, and its own laws. The day a day work was lead mostly by Viceroys to represent the King´s will e.g. in Aragon, Sicily, Mexico or Peru, for example. 
Chile never reach the status of a Viceroyalty (was too small and too poor for that) but of a Captaincy General , dependent of the Peruvian Viceroyalty.
Therefore, in English maybe it should be more appropiated refer to colonial Chile as a Realm under the rule of the Castilian (and later Spanish) King, rather than a Kingdom... which was not. 
that, of course, in my very humble opinion...
— I think you are quite right. Chile have never achieved the status of a Reyno or Kingdom (these were the old Kingdoms of Castilla, Navarra, Aragón) but the one of a capitanía general. Other posessions of Spain in the Americas were under a Viceroy, such as the ones of Perú, Río de la Plata, Nueva Granada and Nueva España.
Moreover there is another problem to discuss in this article: namely the map that shows the apparent extension of the chilean Kingdom, that not only reaches the southest islands of South America, namely Tierra del Fuego, but also the Atlantic coast till the actual province of La Pampa in Argentina. Accually were these lands till late in the 19th century populated by indigenous and native people and were never settled by Spaniards or people under Spanish rule. These native people remained independent till the new republics of Argentina and Chile hastened to get control of them in the 1880s and 1890s. I think therefore that this article violates the neutrality that an article needs in order to achieve an academic and accurate level.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.66.43.7 (talk) 18:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. This article should be about the use of the term Kingdom of Chile and not about the General Captaincy of Chile. It should maybe have an explanatory note on its introduction that links to the General Captaincy of Chile. Dentren | Talk 08:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reyno

message: The actual kingdom definition implies that of a monarch presiding the country, but this never happened in Chile directly. Chile was a province, then a Gobernacion (nowadays this would mean like a federate colony) and Capitania General (a military colony) headed by someone who received both titles (Governor and General Captain). Chile, anyways, was under the rule of the Viceroy of Peru, who was under the rule of the Spanish Crown. Chile was NEVER a kingdom, and using the idea that "Reino" (Kingdom, Realm) implies a social/geographical custom is fallacious. There has never been such thing as a "Reino de Chile". Using that concept is violating both NPOV and veracity. And I'm chilean.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.20.173.54 (talk) 00:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chile was NEVER a kingdom 

message: I changed the text a bit to remove, what I felt was some needless confusion.  I appreciate the original effort to explain the Early Modern use of reino.  First the difference between reyno and reino is not one of meaning, but simply a change in orthography resulting from spelling reform.  Second the use of "kingdom" to describe an political entity which is united via a personal union to another entity's monarch is not unique to Chile or to the Spanish world.  That is why I put a reference to the development of the United Kingdom and the modern use of "Commonwealth realm," which should be more familiar to Anglophone readers.  It should be noted that term reino, was not unique to Chile in the Americas either. This is evidenced by the New Kingdom of Granada (which has an article here in Wikipedia and which--rightly I belive--feels no need to go into a long explanation of the use of "kingdom") and the use of phrases like "el reino de Mexico," "el reino de Quito," "esta corte" and others which abound in the documentation of the period.  Perhaps as suggested above, this article should only be about the 1554-1556 "kingdom" created for the benefit of Philip, but that would be one short, dull article. I suspect that the elevation of Philip to King of Chile and Naples had no effect whatsoever on the administration of Chile (or Naples), and is best treated as a historical footnote.  More imporatant are the institutions which governed the Reino de Chile: the governorship, the captaincy general (both the simple Habsburg office held by the governor and the Bourbon territorial division), the Audiencias and the intendancies.  Perhaps this article should be moved to one of those titles (Audiencia of Chile?, Captaincy General of Chile?).TriniMuñoz (talk) 23:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Return to main thread

message: The map shown in this article does not represent the actual territory but only the chilean dreams, it never happened. It would be best if there was something more balanced like the one at Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata to avoid confuse foreign people  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.13.172.180 (talk) 20:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Will revert the map change until a consensus appear. The differences between both maps are significant and deserves a proper justification. Chiton magnificus (talk) 03:23, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map