Talk:Anglo-Portuguese Alliance

message: What happened during Spanish control of Portugal? Was the treaty ignored and re-implimented after independance or did the SPanish oblige by it? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Say1988 (talk • contribs).
:In 1580 Phillip II of Spain became Phillip I of Portugal. In other words, as the result of the untimely death of Portugal's young King Sebastian, Phillip (who was closest in line of succession) ended up ruling both Kingdoms. For over the previous 300+ years, Spain had been unsuccessful in its ongoing efforts to absorb Portugal by force. It had now done so through dynastic fluke. Rather than push his luck, Phillip was intelligently advised to tread lightly over Portuguese political, economic and cultural sensibilities. As a result, Spanish "control" of Portugal was very carefully limited and did not extend to the full abrogation of its treaty obligations toward England. Nevertheless, England attacked Portugal and succeeded in taking some colonial assets in the new world. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Grandcross (talk • contribs).
I would say that the Spanish probably ignored it.  Consider the case of the Spanish Armada (1588), during the time when Portugal was united with Spain.  I think that would be a pretty good example of the fact that the Spanish ignored the alliance-- when it didn't suit them. Mwinslett 19:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Spanish Control

message: Herewith we regret and contest racist imperial and colonial tone of certain sentences (Made bold for refference either change the language or get taged for non neutrality. After German incursions in "Portuguese East Africa"-Denotes an imperial attitude of validating a colonial occupation as like a property (Mozambique), Portuguese troops fought on the Western Front during World War I. In the Second World War Portugal was neutral but the treaty was invoked by the allies to establish bases on the Azores. In 1961 during the "invasion of Portuguese possessions of Goa, Daman and Diu, by the Indian Union,"-Language coming out of colonial era justfying imperial attitude.Indian People and Indian Union Governments treat this as a liberatio and not invasion, We dont need to invade within our own territory. Portugal sought the help of Britain to little effect. During the 1982 Falklands War the facilities of the Azores were again offered to the British Royal Navy. Mahitgar 16:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but, whether you want it or not, Mozambique and Goa were part of the Portuguese territory. And when armies of another country occupy Portugal's territory, recognized as Portuguese by the rest of the World, it is an invasion. By the way, I'm not a colonialist, I believe in the self-determination of all peoples. In the Goan case, they managed their "liberation" by means of an invasion of Portuguese territory in India mainly populated by indian people. Cheers. Joaopais 01:05, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In 1498, Vasco da Gama finally arrived in India by sea, and economic prosperity ensued for Portugal, then with a population of one million, one-tenth the present number." "In 1498, Vasco da Gama " this was not any thing less by invasion this started invasion by portugues of India , India got it liberated this invasion.So my friend I do have strong objection to the position you state. Mahitgar 16:17, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, right. Goa was "invaded"... But you missed the point. When Portuguese Goa was re-occupied (400 year later), the Indian Union was a member of the UN, just like Portugal. The UN recognized Goa as Portuguese territory. When the Indian armies marched over Goa they de facto and de jure invaded a Portuguese border with India, which was recognized by Portugal, the former British Empire, India and the rest of the World. It is only seen as a liberation by India. Portugal only recognized Goa as Indian territory in 1974, after the Carnation Revolution. This sums it up. By the way, Vasco da Gama never conquered Goa, he only found a sea route to India. Joaopais 22:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

text: India ended the illegitimate 400 year occupation of Goa by foreigners in 1961. The Chinese had every right to do the same to end the Portuguese occupation of Macau, but they were more patient. That doesn't make India's decision to justifiably use force to end the occupation of their territory by a foreign imperialist power illegitimate.108.131.122.159 (talk) 19:25, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

text: For Christ's sake, just because we use terms used by the empires of old in PASTENSE does not make us evil racist white colonizers. Many of us in the US refer to the BRITISH rule of the colonies as part of "British North America." Using your logic, all of New England should change its name to "New America" or some other politically-correct claptrap as it purports some Anglo-Saxon dominence yadayadayada. Has it ever occured to you that Mozambique WAS CALLED PORTUGESE EAST AFRICA IN THAT TIMEPERIOD????? Has it ever occured to you that some people might find it easier to spell "Portugese East Africa" than Mozambique? I can imagine that someone may find the latter somewhat offensive, but I can understand that, and I can also understand that many non-english speakers might find it easier to reffer to the United States as America and the United Kingdom as England. Hell, many NATIVE english speakers do. Shortens the burden on stationary. If there was something justifiable about this politically-correct claptrap, I would support it. But as of now I cannot see WTF is the big issue here. If he had refered to Mozambique as ex-Portugese East Africa, every time, I could see somthing to get upset about. If I squint hard. But it isn't like that. As for the Macao issue, I am pro-Indian on the issue, but even those who were supporters of the invasion  at the time *coughcoughUSAcoughcough* called it an "invasion." Most people call D-Day the "Invasion of France" alongside the "Liberation of France." It is human nature. Take your head out of your PC dreamworld and grow the H*LL up. ELV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.147.150 (talk • contribs) 
Racist!!! Sorry, just felt like saying that before someone else does for once. It's fun, and wins every argument.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.185.115.52 (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: The language tone, neutrality and facts contested

message: what was the legal status of the alliance when Portugal and Spain were in personal union from 1580-1640?  Anglo-iberian relations were about as sour as they could possibly be throughout that period.  Was Elizabethan England formally in alliance with Portugal whilst Portugal was party to the Spanish Armada?Zebulin (talk) 09:17, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  nature of the alliance during the Iberian Union? 

message: In 1580, Spain invaded Portugal, and within a year, Portugal was forced into a Union with Spain that lasted for 60 years. This period saw a Spanish ruled Portugal losing control of many of its former dominions. In 1640 the Duke of Braganza asked for the Pope’s assistance to the Portuguese crown but failed to gain that support. The Duke then turned towards the English for help. A fresh  treaty was signed between England and Portugal in 1642. This was cemented by the marriage of Catherine of Braganza to King Charles II of England. The alliance defeated the Spanish and guaranteed future Portuguese independence from Spain.218.79.39.113 (talk) 20:20, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  From the angloportuguese society 

message: Edgar Prestage (). The Anglo-Portuguese Alliance. Transactions of the Royal Historical Society (Fourth Series), 17, pp 69-100 doi:10.2307/3678521  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.215.5.254 (talk) 14:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interesting source of information on this subject