Contents

Talk:Agustín de Iturbide: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 17:57, 5 February 2012

Mexico Start‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mexico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mexico on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MexicoWikipedia:WikiProject MexicoTemplate:WikiProject MexicoMexico articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography: Royalty and Nobility Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility.

A fact from Agustín de Iturbide appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 22 November 2008 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know ... that the empire ruled by Agustín I of Mexico (pictured) lasted less than one year? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2008/November.

umm so what was his greatest accomplishment?

He was the first leader of a sovereign Mexican government. Its hard to overestimate the significance of that. How different is he than who Washington would have been in U.S. history had he acceded to the demands of many around him to have proclaimed himself a monarch (other than Washington didn't start the Revolution by being on George III's side and then switching)?

I totally agree with you, he was just a lucky enough person who was there at the right place, at the right time. Agustin de Iturbide's descendants have no constitutional claim on Mexico whatsoever, they are the descendants of a commoner who crowned himself Emperor, but did not even last a year in this position. The site of the Imperial House of Mexico is very distorted.

Commoner birth is less important than some sort of following. If such a following exists in signifigant number it should be mentioned. After all Napoleon's descendent succeeded him and thus his line was very important despite not being royal or of French aristocracy.

I would agree, but you are ignoring that two of his descendents were adopted by Maximilian of Habsurg and given the title Princes of Mexico.

A King for a Day sires a perpetual royal family. OK, he was named emperor on the street by some soldiers. He was emperor for a few months. What is pathetic is that his descendants still claim to be blue-blooded. There are still some around in the U. S. and Australia devoting their lives to let others know they are princes and princesses. I think that's quite pathetic. A king for a day makes a perpetual "royal" family. Pathetic. More even so that no one in Mexico knows about this family. Just remember *THAT* Mexico included California, Texas, Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, and more -- [[User:|User:]] 16:29, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the succession box is appropriate, at least as currently, and think we'd be better off without it. Certainly he was neither immediately preceeded nor succeeded by anyone else with the title of "Emperor of Mexico". I suppose we could have some sort of "leaders of Mexico" listing; perhaps being preceeded by the Viceroys? -- Infrogmation 16:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The userbox as it is right now is in line with current practice where we list the leaders consecutively and make a note if the title changed with the successor. I was in fact thinking of adding the last Viceroy to this userbox too, it's a good idea. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 17:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I propose chaning the title of the page to either "Agustin I of Mexico" or, using the English translation, "Augustus I of Mexico". Seeing as he was a monarch, no matter short of a period, the title should be changed to reflect his official final title. Hell, Louis XVII of France reigned for only a couple years, and that was as a child, but his page uses his official title. Iturbide was sworn in as Emperor in an official ceremony. He has as much legitimacy as any other monarchs to have the page title changed to reflect this. -Alex, 12.203.168.7 20:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC).[reply]

The guy is best known as "Iturbide," not『Agustín I,』and naming conventions should not be a suicide pact. This is how he is best known, he was emperor for only a couple of months, and here he should stay. john k (talk) 06:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As there is an accent on the “i” in his first name, shouldn’t there also be one on the “u” in his family name: Agustín de Itúrbide? (Compare the article on his grandson, Salvador de Itúrbide.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.47.242.160 (talk) 12:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed there should. john k (talk) 17:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The name Iturbide is stressed on the second "i", not on the "u"; that is the usage in Mexico. Therefore, we never write an accent mark on the word. Agustín, on the other hand, does have the stress on the "i", so we do write the accent mark there. Greetings. Cheval Fou 12 (talk) 04:58, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yay, an article I started in 2002 just got featured on the front page as a new article! LOL. Thanks to all who've improved it in the years since! Happily, -- Infrogmation (talk) 02:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Youre welcome. Thelmadatter (talk) 17:26, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the sentence below, "castizo" should be turned into "mestizo".

"... the union of a castizo (one with 1/4 Amerindian ancestry) ...."

Also, perhaps we need a reference for the definition of "mestizo". It's not clear that mestizo must be 1/4th Amerindian as opposed to 1/2.