Talk:Camila O'Gorman

Untitled

Rosas was not President, he was the Governor of Buenos Aires province, in charge of foreign relations of the whole country, thus, I recommend to ammend that.

Charge

What was she charged with, and why was she executed? --85.226.235.160 (talk) 15:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

According to the movie, she and Gutiérrez were charged with sacrilege. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.149.71.80 (talk) 19:29, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

That should defenitely be inserted to the article. Now, the article doesn't say exactly why they were executed, only that they were. --85.226.235.248 (talk) 08:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Firing squad executed?

At the end of the film, a note in French says that the members of the firing squad, who had initially refused to shoot Camila, were themselves executed for "indiscipline". Does anyone know if that actually happened, and can find a reference? --Trovatore (talk) 08:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Did Sarmiento and other Unitarios really change tactics and to what extent?

The article claims that Rosas's oponents changed tactics. It provides no references to sustain that charge against them, or even to explain in what exactly consisted the change. When his oponents blamed Rosas for the execution, did they revert from a previous position in which they claimed that the lovers had to be executed? If not, where is the change in tactics? Ariel Emilio Barbero (talk) 00:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

They are both mentioned. First, they blamed Rosas for the corruption of moral values, which means that such cases should be punished. Don't forget that, regardless of the sentimental movies and the tragic love plot, this article is not about a movie but about a historical woman. And in history, in the real world perspective, we are talking about a romance between a woman and a priest, in a highly religious society, in the XIX century. Do not fall in the temptation of extrapolating our own moral values to that time, but understand them in their own context. The Unitarians blamed Rosas of the execution because they blamed him of everything (not unlike any faction of a war talking about the leader of the enemy faction), but do you think that if this took place during the presidency of Mitre or Sarmiento things would have been different? Cambalachero (talk) 13:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

References cited do not correspond

The article mentions as proven, facts that are still the matter of dispute and fall into the category of gossip: - The supposed pregnancy of Camila O'Gorman - The way her unborn baby should be baptised and even the method to be used Reference cited regarding to this is a letter from his father asking for severe punishment (last sentence of the paragraph) but has no relationship with the rest of it. I am re-assembling the paragraph to clarify, and mark the rest of it as rumor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghpicard (talk • contribs) 14:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

"Inaccurately"

They escaped from Buenos Aires on 12 December 1847, bound for the United States, where they inaccurately believed, "priests may marry."

Was it "inaccurately"? It's certainly true that going to the US would not have enabled them to marry in the Catholic Church, so I suppose it depends on what you mean by "may". As far as I'm aware there would have been no legal impediment to their contracting a civil marriage (pure speculation, but I can imagine that Maryland, the most Catholic of the states, could have been an exception, but they didn't have to go to Maryland). --Trovatore (talk) 19:25, 18 June 2023 (UTC)