Regarding the news a few days ago of Holland's Queen Beatrix abdicating and passing on the crown to her son, and Queen Elizabeth affirming that she will not do the same thing and will only pass on the crown upon death - possibly saying something about the crown being prised 'from her cold, dead hands' (there we go - got a mention of gun politics in there ) - has got me thinking about what is likely to happen to the crown here in the UK when she does finally pass away?
Chiefly, assuming that Elizabeth reaches a similar age to her mother (and dies in perhaps another decade or so), Charles is going to be well into his 70's. There is also the matter of his early infidelity and scandal surrounding Diana and her death (which the country seems unable to forget), Camilla Parker Bowles then being made Queen, and finally the fact that it's widely publicised that he is a bit of an imbecile. And not in the 'aww isn't he sweet' level of stupidity that seems to endear us to Homer Simpson or Londoners to Boris Johnson. But I think that 2nd point is probably the sticker, and I'm not sure how many of the 'family' will be keen on the idea of Camilla taking on the role of Queen. The possibility of drunk chauffeurs driving into tunnels late at night, pursued by white Fiat Pandas and paparazzi, remains.
As well as this the Monarchy must surely be aware that having a young, popular king like William (who, so far, hasn't managed to continually ridicule himself in the eyes of the public) would most likely safeguard the position of the Crown for the foreseeable future. Certainly, he seems to have been the island of normality and respect, in amongst the ocean of horsey drunkards, nazi-uniform wearing illegitimates and Duchesses of York, who have all seemed to have done their best to undermine the position and respectability of the Monarchy over the past few decades with their antics.
Contrary to this of course goes the opinion that, well if we don't have tradition, then what do we have? Despite his poor behaviour with regards to Diana and level of buffoonery Charles is still next in line to the throne, like it or lump it. There is also the fact that (and sorry if I'm wrong with this), constitutionally Charles does not have to do anything. It is quite permissible that he can sit on the throne, crown on head and holy hand-grenade in hand, and no-one can do a damn thing about it!
So anyway just a quick poll to see what the users of Dakka feel about this. Upon the death of Elizabeth, crown to Charles, should he abdicate in favour of his son, or something else? I'm hoping that the discussion here will be a bit more intellectual than the absolutely hilarious comments section of the Daily Mail following their article about Queen Beatrix!
It's a monarchy, not a democracy. I'm sure when Richard the Lionheart died and King John gained the throne there were people saying "skip him, he seems like an donkey-cave". Didn't make much difference.
I don't see why he should skip out on being king unless he doesn't want to be.
I'm not a royalist in any way shape or form, but I don't want the monarchy to be torn down at all.
After all, who wants to become a republic and have even more politicians whilst simultaneously losing part of our national identity and living part of our history?
Regarding the news a few days ago of Holland's Queen Beatrix abdicating and passing on the crown to her son, and Queen Elizabeth affirming that she will not do the same thing and will only pass on the crown upon death - possibly saying something about the crown being prised 'from her cold, dead hands' (there we go - got a mention of gun politics in there ) - has got me thinking about what is likely to happen to the crown here in the UK when she does finally pass away?
Chiefly, assuming that Elizabeth reaches a similar age to her mother (and dies in perhaps another decade or so), Charles is going to be well into his 70's. There is also the matter of his early infidelity and scandal surrounding Diana and her death (which the country seems unable to forget), Camilla Parker Bowles then being made Queen, and finally the fact that it's widely publicised that he is a bit of an imbecile. And not in the 'aww isn't he sweet' level of stupidity that seems to endear us to Homer Simpson or Londoners to Boris Johnson. But I think that 2nd point is probably the sticker, and I'm not sure how many of the 'family' will be keen on the idea of Camilla taking on the role of Queen. The possibility of drunk chauffeurs driving into tunnels late at night, pursued by white Fiat Pandas and paparazzi, remains.
As well as this the Monarchy must surely be aware that having a young, popular king like William (who, so far, hasn't managed to continually ridicule himself in the eyes of the public) would most likely safeguard the position of the Crown for the foreseeable future. Certainly, he seems to have been the island of normality and respect, in amongst the ocean of horsey drunkards, nazi-uniform wearing illegitimates and Duchesses of York, who have all seemed to have done their best to undermine the position and respectability of the Monarchy over the past few decades with their antics.
Contrary to this of course goes the opinion that, well if we don't have tradition, then what do we have? Despite his poor behaviour with regards to Diana and level of buffoonery Charles is still next in line to the throne, like it or lump it. There is also the fact that (and sorry if I'm wrong with this), constitutionally Charles does not have to do anything. It is quite permissible that he can sit on the throne, crown on head and holy hand-grenade in hand, and no-one can do a damn thing about it!
So anyway just a quick poll to see what the users of Dakka feel about this. Upon the death of Elizabeth, crown to Charles, should he abdicate in favour of his son, or something else? I'm hoping that the discussion here will be a bit more intellectual than the absolutely hilarious comments section of the Daily Mail following their article about Queen Beatrix!
So please, fire away!
The British should rid themselves of these cruel hereditary overlords once and for all.
Now then. I'm no royalist either, but I don't see why he should not be King. I agree completely with SilverMK2. Better to have a living history instead of more dirty politicians mucking the place up...
sarpedons-right-hand wrote: Now then. I'm no royalist either, but I don't see why he should not be King. I agree completely with SilverMK2. Better to have a living history instead of more dirty politicians mucking the place up...
he should be king. Further, since the British family was related to the Kaiser, he should claim all the Germanies as his domain as well. He should show up at the Berlin airport, get off the plane with about fifty of those cavalry guys, and try to ride through downtown Berlin all the while waving at his "new subjects."
I don't care but I would like our next monarchy to be a little more outspoken even if all they have to say is bs. I find Liz a little boring and uninspiring.
Bangbangboom wrote: I don't care but I would like our next monarchy to be a little more outspoken even if all they have to say is bs. I find Liz a little boring and uninspiring.
Come on, deep down you want to see him at the head of a column of shiny guilded calvalry, clomping down the middle of the Berlinstrasse, proclaiming "thats mine, yes that too, yes that too, Oi! Hands off you tosser!"
Bangbangboom wrote: I don't care but I would like our next monarchy to be a little more outspoken even if all they have to say is bs. I find Liz a little boring and uninspiring.
Thats intentional though, the Monarchy is deliberately apolitical these days and I can't see it changing.
I wonder if the people who want Charles to abdicate in favour of one of his sons are aware of what a monarchy actually is?
Palindrome wrote: I wonder if the people who want Charles to abdicate in favour of one of his sons are aware of what a monarchy actually is?
To be fair there are precedents in history for where a monarch is asked or forced to abdicate because their actions and have done so. Edward VIII for example.
Not necessarily, and there is a precedent - in particular Edward VIII in the 1930s, whose marriage to Wallis Simpson could not be abided and so he abdicated in favour of his younger brother.
If Charles had just been allowed to marry who he wanted in the first place then there wouldn't have been the disaster that was Diana. Also, Camilla won't be 'queen' whatever happens.
Bangbangboom wrote: I don't care but I would like our next monarchy to be a little more outspoken even if all they have to say is bs. I find Liz a little boring and uninspiring.
Thats intentional though, the Monarchy is deliberately apolitical these days and I can't see it changing.
I realise its deliberate, I don't agree with it, but I suppose it serves their purpose.
Come on, deep down you want to see him at the head of a column of shiny guilded calvalry, clomping down the middle of the Berlinstrasse, proclaiming "thats mine, yes that too, yes that too, Oi! Hands off you tosser!"
Oh I wish they could, it would elevate them above the tourist attraction they have become.
Wrong-o! What we have is a Constitutional Monarchy based on the Westminster System of government. It's very much a democracy. In fact, that's a central part of our constitution - the Magna Carta basically recognises the fact that Monarchs rule by our consent. We elect HM Queen Elizabeth II every day, and frankly, she's a bargain.
As for my opinion on the succession? Hoo boy! Not sure. It's Charles' right to become king upon the death of HM ERII, but I think there's a little bit in all of we royalists that would (not-so) secretly like to see William on the throne sooner rather than later. I think Charles cops a lot of flak, but when you look at the way some presidents carry on the guy's practically a saint. I've heard that he's actually quite a nice bloke too. He has the common touch in a way that perhaps his mother doesn't.
Bangbangboom wrote: I don't care but I would like our next monarchy to be a little more outspoken even if all they have to say is bs. I find Liz a little boring and uninspiring.
Come on, deep down you want to see him at the head of a column of shiny guilded calvalry, clomping down the middle of the Berlinstrasse, proclaiming "thats mine, yes that too, yes that too, Oi! Hands off you tosser!"
Wrong-o! What we have is a Constitutional Monarchy based on the Westminster System of government. It's very much a democracy. In fact, that's a central part of our constitution - the Magna Carta basically recognises the fact that Monarchs rule by our consent. We elect HM Queen Elizabeth II every day, and frankly, she's a bargain.
The Magna Carta is actually a document written up by nobility who made King John sign it in order to give them more power. The conception that it was intended to speak about the rights of the common man is a misconception. King John reneged on the promises made in the document only years later and despite it being reissued hundred of years later only three clauses of it are still in force today, concerning the freedoms of the church the land and the famous 'no imprisonment without fair trail' clause. And the monarchy is not a democracy, the position of King and Queen is not open to anyone nor are they elected by majority, this fact is not dependant on whether or not the UK is a democracy, which it obviously is.
Pff, you do realise they own ridiculous amounts of land, not only that, but the government derives its legal authority from the crown. If you got rid of the Royal Family that would erase every law on the books, as well as dissolve parliament.
I'm not even sure they could legally get rid of the monarchy without the assent of the current monarch. Which means that if they don't want to sign off their own oblivion the government can't do anything about it unless they stage a revolution.
feeder wrote: Ditch the welfare kings upon the (sweet old) welfare queen's death.
Nothing personal, we just can't possibly justify the massive cost of the Royal Family.
Yes the Royals should take thier ball and go home. Instead of being paid the Sovereign Grant of a percentage of the Crown Estates they already own they can just start pocketing all of it. The Royals pay for themselves and graciously give the rest of thier income to the state in an over 300 year old arrangement. But as far as "Welfare Kings" goes, you're just plain wrong; released of the civic responsibility to pay for the civil government the Royals would be taking a fair chunk of the budget with them since the whole arrangement they have is based on not having to pay for the government out of pocket.
Pacific wrote: finally the fact that it's widely publicised that he is a bit of an imbecile. And not in the 'aww isn't he sweet' level of stupidity that seems to endear us to Homer Simpson or Londoners to Boris Johnson.
Does it matter how imbecilic he is? The Queen\King hold no actual functional power, do they? Honest question, I have no real idea.
feeder wrote: Well if they want to pretend they still "own" all of the UK they say they do then I suppose there is always the French way of doing things
They don't pretend anything of the sort, you merely like to prefer to claim they do as an excuse to post ignorant drivel.
Most of the accusations of being out of touch are totally unfounded, HM has a very good finger on the pulse.
But the truth doesn't give the opportunity to stir up any bile, so the myth of arrogant aloof manipulators persists..
If you want to find the real out of touch arrogant scum who think they own everything, try looking in the House of Commons.
feeder wrote: Well if they want to pretend they still "own" all of the UK they say they do then I suppose there is always the French way of doing things
They don't pretend anything of the sort, you merely like to prefer to claim they do as an excuse to post ignorant drivel.
Most of the accusations of being out of touch are totally unfounded, HM has a very good finger on the pulse.
But the truth doesn't give the opportunity to stir up any bile, so the myth of arrogant aloof manipulators persists..
If you want to find the real out of touch arrogant scum who think they own everything, try looking in the House of Commons.
"Ignorant drivel", nice one mate. Let's not make this personal, eh?
I never said anything about being any of them being out of touch, I should fething hope the HM has a "finger on the pulse", she has an army of aides to hold it there for her!
The arrogant scum at the House of Commons, differ from the Royals in one key aspect: they worked their ares off to get there. They had to wheel, deal, backstab, lie and fool enough people into voting for them to earn their spot on top of the gakheap.
A Royal is born, feths around, does no real work, drinks and smokes for free, and makes the news when something embarrassing happens to them. They are chavs with better housing.
feeder wrote: Well if they want to pretend they still "own" all of the UK they say they do then I suppose there is always the French way of doing things
They don't pretend anything of the sort, you merely like to prefer to claim they do as an excuse to post ignorant drivel.
Most of the accusations of being out of touch are totally unfounded, HM has a very good finger on the pulse.
But the truth doesn't give the opportunity to stir up any bile, so the myth of arrogant aloof manipulators persists..
If you want to find the real out of touch arrogant scum who think they own everything, try looking in the House of Commons.
"Ignorant drivel", nice one mate. Let's not make this personal, eh?
I never said anything about being any of them being out of touch, I should fething hope the HM has a "finger on the pulse", she has an army of aides to hold it there for her!
The arrogant scum at the House of Commons, differ from the Royals in one key aspect: they worked their ares off to get there. They had to wheel, deal, backstab, lie and fool enough people into voting for them to earn their spot on top of the gakheap.
Yep, ignorant drivel was a fair assessment.
feeder wrote: [
A Royal is born, feths around, does no real work, drinks and smokes for free, and makes the news when something embarrassing happens to them. They are chavs with better housing.
I get kind of confused by any kind of talk about who should be the monarch. The only qualification for being the monarch is that they're the next in line, and the old monarch just died. That's it. Whether they had a much publicised unhappy marriage or not, whether they're slightly oafish in front of a camera, they're still next in line. That's what the monarchy means.
Start questioning that and you don't really have a monarchy anymore, you've just got another popularity contest, albeit one with absolutely nothing at stake, as the royal family wields no actual political power. Which is, of course, why they're so popular. Whenever they actually held power people hated them.
They're kind of like the Liberal Democrats in that regard.
Ratbarf wrote: Pff, you do realise they own ridiculous amounts of land, not only that, but the government derives its legal authority from the crown. If you got rid of the Royal Family that would erase every law on the books, as well as dissolve parliament.
I'm not even sure they could legally get rid of the monarchy without the assent of the current monarch.
Umm, countries have left the Commonwealth without ending up in Thunderdome. You just write a constitution that says 'everything is like it was before, except instead of the head of state being the Queen it's whoever we elect to the position' or something like that.
I think the Canadians, Kiwis and Aussies should take the death of the Queen as a signal to finish severing all ties with the UK.
The sun will finally set on the remnants of the British empire
As to the actual question why bother? I mean the crown's just a figure head right? One blighter in a fancy gilded hat's no different then any other are they? I mean William might be able to wave at the peasants slightly more vigorously but that's about it.
sebster wrote: I get kind of confused by any kind of talk about who should be the monarch. The only qualification for being the monarch is that they're the next in line, and the old monarch just died. That's it. Whether they had a much publicised unhappy marriage or not, whether they're slightly oafish in front of a camera, they're still next in line. That's what the monarchy means.
Start questioning that and you don't really have a monarchy anymore, you've just got another popularity contest, albeit one with absolutely nothing at stake, as the royal family wields no actual political power. Which is, of course, why they're so popular. Whenever they actually held power people hated them.
I'm not even sure they could legally get rid of the monarchy without the assent of the current monarch.
Yes of course that is the proviso. Like Edward before him, the option remains for Charles to abdicate.
I think it's also important to consider the internal pressure placed on the family, from other members within the royal family itself - it is very much an institution. So Camilla, who was deemed 'not good enough' to be Queen previously (when Charles wanted to marry her) is hardly going to now be the desired option, especially considering the scandal that surrounded them and culminated in Diana's death.
So you're right - it's not a case of a popularity contest, but more the reality of internal power and control within the royal family itself. They have exercised that power many times in the past (with Charles himself in fact - preparing the arranged marriage with Diana, despite what his own wishes might have been). I see no reason to suppose that they won't do so again, and in this sense you can imagine that they won't be immune to the negative public perception of Charles, and the positive public perception of William.
Ratbarf wrote: Pff, you do realise they own ridiculous amounts of land, not only that, but the government derives its legal authority from the crown. If you got rid of the Royal Family that would erase every law on the books, as well as dissolve parliament.
I'm not even sure they could legally get rid of the monarchy without the assent of the current monarch.
Umm, countries have left the Commonwealth without ending up in Thunderdome. You just write a constitution that says 'everything is like it was before, except instead of the head of state being the Queen it's whoever we elect to the position' or something like that.
I don't believe that any of those nations separated without the monarchs writing off on it, unless the power change came about because of revolution.
KalashnikovMarine wrote: I think the Canadians, Kiwis and Aussies should take the death of the Queen as a signal to finish severing all ties with the UK.
The sun will finally set on the remnants of the British empire
As to the actual question why bother? I mean the crown's just a figure head right? One blighter in a fancy gilded hat's no different then any other are they? I mean William might be able to wave at the peasants slightly more vigorously but that's about it.
Personally I want the British Empire back, they did a lot of good in their time, and I think they could fix a lot of the issues with certain areas of the world if they were willing to take them back and enforce good British values and legal practices upon them. Well maybe not the values, but the legal practices and the ability for a higher more powerful authority to deal with the rampant corruption and human rights abuses that is inherent in many of the old colonies would likely be welcome. Just look at what the Malians are saying about the French, it seems they want to be re-colonised because they recognize that the French government is much less corrupt and a much more humanitarian government then the strongmen they've been subjected to since achieving independence.
Ratbarf wrote: I'm not even sure they could legally get rid of the monarchy without the assent of the current monarch. Which means that if they don't want to sign off their own oblivion the government can't do anything about it unless they stage a revolution.
Second English Civil War? I call royalists.
I'm pretty sure if there was a revolution the politicians would be first up against the wall.
The sun will finally set on the remnants of the British empire
Congratulations, you've completely misunderstood the meaning of that phrase. Also, Ratbarf is correct. There are a significant number of countries that would be better off back under British rule, some of whom have publicly acknowledged this.
The sun will finally set on the remnants of the British empire
Congratulations, you've completely misunderstood the meaning of that phrase. Also, Ratbarf is correct. There are a significant number of countries that would be better off back under British rule, some of whom have publicly acknowledged this.
Its almost like independence for the sole benefit of independence isn't a very good reason to be independent
The sun will finally set on the remnants of the British empire
Congratulations, you've completely misunderstood the meaning of that phrase. Also, Ratbarf is correct. There are a significant number of countries that would be better off back under British rule, some of whom have publicly acknowledged this.
From my understanding it was based on the massive colonial occupations of the Empire world wide, so the sun literally never set because it was literally day in some part of the empire at any given time. With her final "colonies" abandoning her, then yes. The sun would finally set.
Personally, I'm fine with Britain trying to reconquer the world. Just ditch the royals first, the less monarchies we have in the world the better.
I never got the royal hate. They don't really do much do they? They're more of a living museum which I can appreciate. So really who cares if they're still around.
Most definitely, the worst the Royals get up to is pretty much whatever Prince Harry is doing at any given moment. Which is quite tame compared to what American celebrities seem to get up to.
d-usa wrote: I take royals over celebrities any day...
American Celebs just need a proper spay and neuter program.
Harry actually seems okay except for that whole "Nazi uniform" incident. I give the man credit for deploying to Afghanistan and literally having to be dragged back when the word broke he was overseas.
feeder wrote: A Royal is born, feths around, does no real work, drinks and smokes for free, and makes the news when something embarrassing happens to them. They are chavs with better housing.
So Prince Harry, despite being deployed to Afghanistan, doesn't have a real job?
Besides which, the queen is an 86 year old woman who perform as many as 400 public engagements a year.
That's a fair bit more than "fething around, doing no work"
So yeah, ignorant drivel does cover the original comment quite well actually.
Ratbarf wrote:Personally I want the British Empire back, they did a lot of good in their time, and I think they could fix a lot of the issues with certain areas of the world if they were willing to take them back and enforce good British values and legal practices upon them. Well maybe not the values, but the legal practices and the ability for a higher more powerful authority to deal with the rampant corruption and human rights abuses that is inherent in many of the old colonies would likely be welcome. Just look at what the Malians are saying about the French, it seems they want to be re-colonised because they recognize that the French government is much less corrupt and a much more humanitarian government then the strongmen they've been subjected to since achieving independence.
Just my two cents.
Yeah lots of good, like wiping out indigenous populations "for their own good" because they were "subhuman". Why don't you find some Maoris and Aborigines you can tell of all the good the British Empire did back in the old days eh?
LordofHats wrote:I never got the royal hate. They don't really do much do they? They're more of a living museum which I can appreciate. So really who cares if they're still around.
They get hate, because some people are smart and realise the only reason they are the head of state is because their ancestors used "God" as an excuse to opress other peoples ancestors, the sooner they are dead and done, the better.
They get hate, because some people are smart and realise the only reason they are the head of state is because their ancestors used "God" as an excuse to opress other peoples ancestors, the sooner they are dead and done, the better.
Ratbarf wrote:Personally I want the British Empire back, they did a lot of good in their time, and I think they could fix a lot of the issues with certain areas of the world if they were willing to take them back and enforce good British values and legal practices upon them. Well maybe not the values, but the legal practices and the ability for a higher more powerful authority to deal with the rampant corruption and human rights abuses that is inherent in many of the old colonies would likely be welcome. Just look at what the Malians are saying about the French, it seems they want to be re-colonised because they recognize that the French government is much less corrupt and a much more humanitarian government then the strongmen they've been subjected to since achieving independence.
Just my two cents.
Yeah lots of good, like wiping out indigenous populations "for their own good" because they were "subhuman". Why don't you find some Maoris and Aborigines you can tell of all the good the British Empire did back in the old days eh?
I don't recall them doing it, "for their own good" unless you mean for the good of the British Settlers. Also, I would think that if the Maoris, Aborigines, Indians (not east indians) and various other peoples who were pulled out of subsistence farming and constant tribal warfare by the British were given the choice to return to their pre contact state or their current state but told to quit their bleepin the vast majority would stfu about the whole thing.
Secondly, much of that so called genocide was merely the introduction of diseases to native populations. A thing that the British cannot be rationally blamed for, and the warfare that broke out between the native inhabitants and the British gave them cause for subduing the native peoples.
Thirdly, most of the initial colonialism was driven by the promise of increased economic gains, but was later driven by population expansion. If the British hadn't expanded into the territories of other peoples they would have had massive famines/wars in their home nation. Just look at what overcrowding did to the Irish.
Fourthly, if the various governments that used to be under British rule and oversight were currently under their rule I think it's fair to assume that they would not have such rampant corruption or human rights abuses, and they would in all likeliness be much more advanced both socially and economically. The loss of both social and economical capital that came resulted from the various nations separation from Britain was a huge blow, and would have stymied growth substantially even if those nations had managed to achieve a modicum of political stability. Which most of those that I am aware of didn't.
Ratbarf wrote:Personally I want the British Empire back, they did a lot of good in their time, and I think they could fix a lot of the issues with certain areas of the world if they were willing to take them back and enforce good British values and legal practices upon them. Well maybe not the values, but the legal practices and the ability for a higher more powerful authority to deal with the rampant corruption and human rights abuses that is inherent in many of the old colonies would likely be welcome. Just look at what the Malians are saying about the French, it seems they want to be re-colonised because they recognize that the French government is much less corrupt and a much more humanitarian government then the strongmen they've been subjected to since achieving independence.
Just my two cents.
Yeah lots of good, like wiping out indigenous populations "for their own good" because they were "subhuman".
...Which never happened.
Why don't you find some Maoris and Aborigines you can tell of all the good the British Empire did back in the old days eh?
Brilliant. I love this gak. So when something bad happens in Australia's past, it's our fault, but when it's something good, Australians get the credit? It was YOUR predecessors that wiped out Aborigines, not mine. Quit trying to shift the blame and just own it.
They get hate, because some people are smart and realise the only reason they are the head of state is because their ancestors used "God" as an excuse to opress other peoples ancestors, the sooner they are dead and done, the better.
I'm fine with him being king, what I'm not fine with is that in this day and age there is still a "prince of Wales" in the ENGLISH monarchy, remove that disgusting insulting title and I'm couldn't care less who the english king is.
I'm all for Charles taking his turn. I don't think he'll hold up too long under the strain, but it would undoubtedly be better for Prince William, Kate and their budding offspring. If he can hold on just 10 years after the assumed date of the Queen's passing, then the next generation of monarch ought to be in their late teens or early 20s. If they can just remain non-monarchs until their offspring is grown, I think the next generation has a much better chance of being like Prince William and Kate, and avoiding scandalous or entitled habits.
He may not be the best thing for England now, but the 10-20 years Prince Charles could give now will make the next 100 years better.
LordofHats wrote: I never got the royal hate. They don't really do much do they? They're more of a living museum which I can appreciate. So really who cares if they're still around.
I dislike the monarachy for 2 reasons. Firstly a herediatary head of state is an anachronism in this day and age and secondly the monarchy has, at least in principal, real political power. The reigning monarch signs off all legislation passed by the UK parliment before they can become law, has the perogative to choose the Prime Minister and can dissolve parliment. In practice of course the queen does what she is told but those powers still exist.
Interesting. So on the books the family still has power, but it practice those powers are like US sodomy laws (never used). I always assumed that they'd been written out of power or some such. That at least makes sense to me, in principle, as a reason to dislike the royals.
Formosa wrote: I'm fine with him being king, what I'm not fine with is that in this day and age there is still a "prince of Wales" in the ENGLISH monarchy, remove that disgusting insulting title and I'm couldn't care less who the english king is.
Here's a hint:
It's because it's actually the United Kingdom Monarchy!
Wales has been part of it since around 1535, and Scotland since 1603 (1707 for a legal joining rather than just both having James I as king)
So going on about how it's actually "the English monarchy" just makes you seem uninformed really.
It's because it's actually the United Kingdom Monarchy!
Yes it is, the Welsh monarchy was destroyed by Edward I in his usual pink and fluffy fashion. Thats reason enough for Welsh nationalists to feel that the British monarchy is not their own.
It's because it's actually the United Kingdom Monarchy!
Yes it is, the Welsh monarchy was destroyed by Edward I in his usual pink and fluffy fashion. Thats reason enough for Welsh nationalists to feel that the British monarchy is not their own.
It was what, 500 years ago? A little long to hold a grudge don't you think? Besides, there's probably plenty of Welsh nobility in those veins somewhere. I assume anyway XD Something really terrible must of happened if all of Welsh nobility got wiped out without any interbreeding.
It was what, 500 years ago? A little long to hold a grudge don't you think? Besides, there's probably plenty of Welsh nobility in those veins somewhere. I assume anyway XD Something really terrible must of happened if all of Welsh nobility got wiped out without any interbreeding.
Most of Llwelyn the lasts surviving relatives were either imprisoned for life or executed while his only child spent the rest of her life in a convent. Not all of them were killed off but there basically weren't any heirs left. It was a long time ago of course but the British monarchy has little if any connection to the Welsh princes. Where national identiy is concerned time isn't really much of a factor, just look at Isreal.
It's because it's actually the United Kingdom Monarchy!
Yes it is, the Welsh monarchy was destroyed by Edward I in his usual pink and fluffy fashion. Thats reason enough for Welsh nationalists to feel that the British monarchy is not their own.
It was what, 500 years ago? A little long to hold a grudge don't you think? Besides, there's probably plenty of Welsh nobility in those veins somewhere. I assume anyway XD Something really terrible must of happened if all of Welsh nobility got wiped out without any interbreeding.
Edward I was roughly 700 Years ago when he crushed the Welsh and nicked their longbows,
There's still a fairly independent community in Wales, represent politically by Pllyd Cymru
Palindrome wrote:Most of the Llwelyn the lasts surviving relatives were either imprisoned for life or executed while his only child spent the rest of her life in a convent. Not all of them were killed off but there basically weren't any heirs left. It was a long time ago of course but the British monarchy has little if any connection to the Welsh princes
I don't men the Welsh Royals, I mean the Welsh Nobles. It would be indirect lineage (very indirect) but I assume that in classic fashion Edward used the existent Welsh nobility to enforce his rule, leaving the door open for English and Welsh noble interbreeding, and surely the Welsh nobility had some loose relations towards the the Welsh Royal family itself. That's the way that sort of thing usually goes anyway
I would like to see Charles hold it for a few years then pass it on to William and stay as an advisor. The Royals do a lot of good work and I don't get the hate.
I don't men the Welsh Royals, I mean the Welsh Nobles. It would be indirect lineage (very indirect) but I assume that in classic fashion Edward used the existent Welsh nobility to enforce his rule, leaving the door open for English and Welsh noble interbreeding, and surely the Welsh nobility had some loose relations towards the the Welsh Royal family itself. That's the way that sort of thing usually goes anyway
Probably, but by that logic the British royal family is also the monarchy for most of Europe
Formosa wrote: I'm fine with him being king, what I'm not fine with is that in this day and age there is still a "prince of Wales" in the ENGLISH monarchy, remove that disgusting insulting title and I'm couldn't care less who the english king is.
Here's a hint:
It's because it's actually the United Kingdom Monarchy!
Wales has been part of it since around 1535, and Scotland since 1603 (1707 for a legal joining rather than just both having James I as king)
So going on about how it's actually "the English monarchy" just makes you seem uninformed really.
Actually our monarchy is dead, you also killed yours off..
Wales was indeed annexed a long time ago, and the prince of Wales was a title pit in place to remind the Welsh of there "place"
How would you like it if everytime you saw this.prancing fool on tv and he was called the "prince of England got beaten by Germany 400 years ago, but we still keep this title to remind the English that they should keep in lime or else"
And it is the English monarchy, where is the Scottish king? Welsh one? Irish? Thats right there dead, all we have left is the England one.
Sure.. I'm uninformed...
Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote: The current UK king was Scottish, who took over the throne after the English line died out in the 1600s
uninformed indeed
Actually James VI had a lot more than a drop of English blood in him. The British monarchy's genology can be traced to some,if not all, of the European royal houses, most of which ultimately can be traced to Scandinavia anyway . Assigning nationalities to something as malleable as herediatry monarchys is not really very worthwhile. Afterall the Current royal family's name should really be Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha.
Formosa is getting a little carried away but he is basically right, at least from the Welsh nationalist point of view.
Formosa wrote: I'm fine with him being king, what I'm not fine with is that in this day and age there is still a "prince of Wales" in the ENGLISH monarchy, remove that disgusting insulting title and I'm couldn't care less who the english king is.
Here's a hint:
It's because it's actually the United Kingdom Monarchy!
Wales has been part of it since around 1535, and Scotland since 1603 (1707 for a legal joining rather than just both having James I as king)
So going on about how it's actually "the English monarchy" just makes you seem uninformed really.
Actually our monarchy is dead, you also killed yours off..
Wales was indeed annexed a long time ago, and the prince of Wales was a title pit in place to remind the Welsh of there "place"
How would you like it if everytime you saw this.prancing fool on tv and he was called the "prince of England got beaten by Germany 400 years ago, but we still keep this title to remind the English that they should keep in lime or else"
And it is the English monarchy, where is the Scottish king? Welsh one? Irish? Thats right there dead, all we have left is the England one.
Sure.. I'm uninformed...
I don't men the Welsh Royals, I mean the Welsh Nobles. It would be indirect lineage (very indirect) but I assume that in classic fashion Edward used the existent Welsh nobility to enforce his rule, leaving the door open for English and Welsh noble interbreeding, and surely the Welsh nobility had some loose relations towards the the Welsh Royal family itself. That's the way that sort of thing usually goes anyway
Probably, but by that logic the British royal family is also the monarchy for most of Europe
I don't men the Welsh Royals, I mean the Welsh Nobles. It would be indirect lineage (very indirect) but I assume that in classic fashion Edward used the existent Welsh nobility to enforce his rule, leaving the door open for English and Welsh noble interbreeding, and surely the Welsh nobility had some loose relations towards the the Welsh Royal family itself. That's the way that sort of thing usually goes anyway
Probably, but by that logic the British royal family is also the monarchy for most of Europe
True dat
Now THAT would be an entertaining claim to see the House of Windsor press. "Right then, We'll be taking the thrones of France, Germany and these half dozen smaller nations back, now be a good peasant and kiss my boots would you?"
Now THAT would be an entertaining claim to see the House of Windsor press. "Right then, We'll be taking the thrones of France, Germany and these half dozen smaller nations back, now be a good peasant and kiss my boots would you?"
Ratzinger and Elizabeth should duel to the death for total supremacy.
Formosa wrote: How would you like it if everytime you saw this.prancing fool on tv and he was called the "prince of England got beaten by Germany 400 years ago, but we still keep this title to remind the English that they should keep in lime or else"
And it is the English monarchy, where is the Scottish king? Welsh one? Irish? Thats right there dead, all we have left is the England one.
Sure.. I'm uninformed...
Every time I see an American flag It really annoys me - they are just rubbing "our" faces in it that they took over large chunks of North America and kicked "us" out. Not only that but they kept on trying to invade Canada (we'll get to how their refusal to be directly ruled by the UK government is a grave insult to "us" later...) and take over there too!
Why do they refuse to accept that our Queen should be their head of state, and one of our Princes should be Prince of America?!? I mean their line of presidents is broken! They have to keep electing new ones every 4 years and very few of them are even related to one another. What kind of stupid system of government is that?
So yeah, I don't really get the "rage" of some Welsh/Scottish/NI people over what happened 100's or even 1000's of years ago. It seems to be forgotten that the UK is a very different place now. Why carry the grudge of something that happened that long ago? I mean the Scotts repeatedly fought themselves, highland vs lowland and blame the English for it, yet we don't blame them for striking out down into England, burning, looting and generally making a mess more than a few times in the past. I'm not saying that these things should be forgotten, because it is always important to learn from history, but why teach the hate too?
Why do they refuse to accept that our Queen should be their head of state, and one of our Princes should be Prince of America?!??
A better analogy would be if the US head of state had been imposed on the UK, that is afterall what happened to the Welsh.
The English spent more time invading Scotland then the Scots spent in England. I don't think that its a question of teaching hate, well most of the time at least, but it is important to be aware of your own history and the significant events that shaped the world we live in.
Palindrome wrote: A better analogy would be if the US head of state had been imposed on the UK, that is afterall what happened to the Welsh.
Only if the USA invaded the UK and took over though... I don't really hear large chunks of England complaining that they are being ruled by the queen when they used to be seperate kingdoms once upon a time (well, there is Cornwall, but eh...)
The English spent more time invading Scotland then the Scots spent in England.
The Scotts spent more time fighting each other than the English did invading them.
I don't think that its a question of teaching hate, well most of the time at least, but it is important to be aware of your own history and the significant events that shaped the world we live in.
Well, anacdotal evidence only of people from England who went to Scottish schools - there is quite a healthy "blame the English" theme running throughout Scottish teaching, either by ignoring or downplaying other people's involvement, or by exaggerating the involvement of the English. Hell, I've even heard the same from a number of Scotts.
I have no issue with people being taught history - indeed I think it is important, but from what others told me they experienced, the hate really needs to be removed from it.
Well, anacdotal evidence only of people from England who went to Scottish schools - there is quite a healthy "blame the English" theme running throughout Scottish teaching, either by ignoring or downplaying other people's involvement, or by exaggerating the involvement of the English. Hell, I've even heard the same from a number of Scotts.
I went to a Scottish school and I studied history to a higher level. We were taught far more English history than we were Scottish. All I was taught was a bit about the Canmores and a bit about the Jacobite rebellion (only the second one though). This was in the mid 90's so things may have changed since but its quite hard to have a 'blame the English' theme if you aren't even taught about the context.
Only if the USA invaded the UK and took over though...
Which is exactly what happend to the Welsh. Other parts of the UK who used to be autonomous and whose historical rulers were completely displaced by the British monarchy would also be entitles to complain.
As a republican I really don't care but some people obviously think that its important.
Well, anacdotal evidence only of people from England who went to Scottish schools - there is quite a healthy "blame the English" theme running throughout Scottish teaching, either by ignoring or downplaying other people's involvement, or by exaggerating the involvement of the English. Hell, I've even heard the same from a number of Scotts.
I went to a Scottish school and I studied history to a higher level. We were taught far more English history than we were Scottish. All I was taught was a bit about the Canmores and a bit about the Jacobite rebellion (only the second one though). This was in the mid 90's so things may have changed since but its quite hard to have a 'blame the English' theme if you aren't even taught about the context.
When I did history at INT 2 level we did: road to War (1933-39), Black civil rights movements, Welfare state (1901-1911 IIRC) and the emigration of Irish and Scots in the 18th century The higher modules were the re-unification of Germany and more Welfare State
When I did history at INT 2 level we did: road to War (1933-39), Black civil rights movements, Welfare state (1901-1911 IIRC) and the emigration of Irish and Scots in the 18th century
The higher modules were the re-unification of Germany and more Welfare State
Very similar to what I was taught except that I did Wiemar Germany, the Plantagent kings (specifically Henry II) and the Chartists for Higher. In other words not a thing about Scotland.
And it is the English monarchy, where is the Scottish king? Welsh one? Irish? Thats right there dead, all we have left is the England one.
Ireland never had a united monarchy. There were High Kings, but the role wasn't hereditary. But anyway, until 2003-ish or something like that there were still recognised Chiefs of areas. Then they got annoying so the government scrapped it. Shame.
England has had a number of outside forces invade and change our leaders and political makeup over history; as has been mentioned in this thread already, our royal family have ties to most of europe and there have been complete disconnects at certain times in history between ruling families.
I don't recall there being a particular hatred in the UK against the Italians for taking over large chunks of England and Wales, or the Scandinavians for invading and setting up camp all along our coast, especially the north and generally taking over much of the country. Hell, I don't hear that much about the French, our "most hated ally" who we have been at war with on and off again with for a large part of our history.
Other parts of the UK who used to be autonomous and whose historical rulers were completely displaced by the British monarchy would also be entitles to complain.
How far back to you want to go when considering what exactly the "British monarchy" is? Pretty much every town or region used to be its own little kingdom once upon a time. As I said, you hear rumblings from the Cornish but that is about it. Most of this stuff happened so long ago, why hold a grudge?
As a republican I really don't care but some people obviously think that its important.
I'm not really that bothered about whether people want to continue on with the royals heading the country or not, however, I don't really understand the hate for them based on some people hundreds of years ago not being very nice to some other people. Hell, in those days if the Welsh had been stronger and the English weaker, I am sure those Welsh kings and queens would have been the first ones over the boarder to kick bottom and take titles.
Other parts of the UK who used to be autonomous and whose historical rulers were completely displaced by the British monarchy would also be entitles to complain.
How far back to you want to go when considering what exactly the "British monarchy" is? Pretty much every town or region used to be its own little kingdom once upon a time. As I said, you hear rumblings from the Cornish but that is about it. Most of this stuff happened so long ago, why hold a grudge?
As a Cornishman, I'll tell you this. We don't want to be independent, we don't want to ever stop being British. We just want the recognition currently afforded to the Welsh, Scots, Ulsterians, hell even the Manx. We want a border drawn on the map and a different colour used to indicate Cornwall, just as there used to be up until a few hundred years back, because we are not English and not Anglo Saxon. We are not English, we are a celtic people.
As to why there are grudges, it's ingrained. Until about 200 years ago, the Cornish had their own language which was then made illegal and only English taught in schools. In the 15th century, 1 in 10 people in Cornwall died due to violence by the English armies enforcing tax laws, that's not 1 in 10 fighting men, that's 1 in 10 people of all ages. Entire villages were blocked off and starved for resisting the crippling taxes. This culminated in the battle of Deptford Bridge when 20,000 Cornishmen marched peacefully to London to protest and were massacred by two armies Henry VII had been building to march on Scotland. The Cornish were led by a blacksmith, An Gof, and made up of fishermen, miners and farmers who were being broken by the taxes levied at them to fund the wars in Scotland.
After this march was broken, it's leaders executed, the taxes were increased yet further and the Cornish persecuted further with starvation, poverty and draconian punishment. This was continued for centuries. Whilst many of my English friends will say 'it all happened so long ago, why hold a grudge?' or 'It's not really important is it?', I can say that no, I hold not a single bit of dislike for my English brothers or sisters, but I want my people recognised again, because we are culturally different to them and the absolute assimilation we had placed on us, that the English could not perform with the other Celtic nations due to geography or size, is an insult to our individuality and spirit. It all happened a long time ago, but ask yourself if you could ignore the call of your ancestors or the knowledge you were growing up in a 'quietly occupied' country who's millennia-old (we were trading tin with the Phoenicians when Rome was a collection of mud huts on a hill) culture has been whitewashed over and removed from history.
Other parts of the UK who used to be autonomous and whose historical rulers were completely displaced by the British monarchy would also be entitles to complain.
How far back to you want to go when considering what exactly the "British monarchy" is? Pretty much every town or region used to be its own little kingdom once upon a time. As I said, you hear rumblings from the Cornish but that is about it. Most of this stuff happened so long ago, why hold a grudge?
As a Cornishman, I'll tell you this. We don't want to be independent, we don't want to ever stop being British. We just want the recognition currently afforded to the Welsh, Scots, Ulsterians, hell even the Manx. We want a border drawn on the map and a different colour used to indicate Cornwall, just as there used to be up until a few hundred years back, because we are not English and not Anglo Saxon. We are not English, we are a celtic people.
As to why there are grudges, it's ingrained. Until about 200 years ago, the Cornish had their own language which was then made illegal and only English taught in schools. In the 15th century, 1 in 10 people in Cornwall died due to violence by the English armies enforcing tax laws, that's not 1 in 10 fighting men, that's 1 in 10 people of all ages. Entire villages were blocked off and starved for resisting the crippling taxes. This culminated in the battle of Deptford Bridge when 20,000 Cornishmen marched peacefully to London to protest and were massacred by two armies Henry VII had been building to march on Scotland. The Cornish were led by a blacksmith, An Gof, and made up of fishermen, miners and farmers who were being broken by the taxes levied at them to fund the wars in Scotland.
After this march was broken, it's leaders executed, the taxes were increased yet further and the Cornish persecuted further with starvation, poverty and draconian punishment. This was continued for centuries. Whilst many of my English friends will say 'it all happened so long ago, why hold a grudge?' or 'It's not really important is it?', I can say that no, I hold not a single bit of dislike for my English brothers or sisters, but I want my people recognised again, because we are culturally different to them and the absolute assimilation we had placed on us, that the English could not perform with the other Celtic nations due to geography or size, is an insult to our individuality and spirit. It all happened a long time ago, but ask yourself if you could ignore the call of your ancestors or the knowledge you were growing up in a 'quietly occupied' country who's millennia-old (we were trading tin with the Phoenicians when Rome was a collection of mud huts on a hill) culture has been whitewashed over and removed from history.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: After this march was broken, it's leaders executed, the taxes were increased yet further and the Cornish persecuted further with starvation, poverty and draconian punishment. This was continued for centuries. Whilst many of my English friends will say 'it all happened so long ago, why hold a grudge?' or 'It's not really important is it?', I can say that no, I hold not a single bit of dislike for my English brothers or sisters, but I want my people recognised again, because we are culturally different to them and the absolute assimilation we had placed on us, that the English could not perform with the other Celtic nations due to geography or size, is an insult to our individuality and spirit. It all happened a long time ago, but ask yourself if you could ignore the call of your ancestors or the knowledge you were growing up in a 'quietly occupied' country who's millennia-old (we were trading tin with the Phoenicians when Rome was a collection of mud huts on a hill) culture has been whitewashed over and removed from history.
I recognise that certain areas had it rougher than others in terms of being brought into the fold, but is there anything much to distinguish Cornwall today from anywhere else in the UK (other than perhaps better weather and pastries) now that would require them essentially being marked out as a seperate country? And is there any prticular reasion other than some general "recognition"? It is a genuine question - I'm not attempting to mock or anything like that so forgive me if it comes across as anything other than a request for your insight.
You say yourself that the vast majority of the culture, language and so on has essentially passed into history (remembered or otherwise). I guess in some ways it would be simmilar (in my mind anyway - can't say I have given the issue much thought so may be speaking rubbish) to someone in the US who cares more about states rights than the union... except that they wanted a return of British/French/Spanish/etc rule in whatever place they lived in. Or people in the North of England wanting to go back to speaking whatever variation of Scandinavian the vikings spoke and cutting all ties with the current government.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: After this march was broken, it's leaders executed, the taxes were increased yet further and the Cornish persecuted further with starvation, poverty and draconian punishment. This was continued for centuries. Whilst many of my English friends will say 'it all happened so long ago, why hold a grudge?' or 'It's not really important is it?', I can say that no, I hold not a single bit of dislike for my English brothers or sisters, but I want my people recognised again, because we are culturally different to them and the absolute assimilation we had placed on us, that the English could not perform with the other Celtic nations due to geography or size, is an insult to our individuality and spirit. It all happened a long time ago, but ask yourself if you could ignore the call of your ancestors or the knowledge you were growing up in a 'quietly occupied' country who's millennia-old (we were trading tin with the Phoenicians when Rome was a collection of mud huts on a hill) culture has been whitewashed over and removed from history.
I recognise that certain areas had it rougher than others in terms of being brought into the fold, but is there anything much to distinguish Cornwall today from anywhere else in the UK (other than perhaps better weather and pastries) now that would require them essentially being marked out as a seperate country? And is there any prticular reasion other than some general "recognition"? It is a genuine question - I'm not attempting to mock or anything like that so forgive me if it comes across as anything other than a request for your insight.
You say yourself that the vast majority of the culture, language and so on has essentially passed into history (remembered or otherwise). I guess in some ways it would be simmilar (in my mind anyway - can't say I have given the issue much thought so may be speaking rubbish) to someone in the US who cares more about states rights than the union... except that they wanted a return of British/French/Spanish/etc rule in whatever place they lived in. Or people in the North of England wanting to go back to speaking whatever variation of Scandinavian the vikings spoke and cutting all ties with the current government.
Well, it's a question I've asked myself and I guess it comes down to some simple things. How would you feel knowing that in about four or five generations, 'Britishness' would cease to exist and these isles would simple be 'Western European Zone 5' and your descendants would all be speaking German. How does that make you feel? No 'keep calm and...', no 'cup of tea', no 'Rule Britannia', no 'daleks', no 'Fools and Horses', no 'English language', no 'Battle of Hastings', no 'Finest Hour', no 'Queen and Country', no 'BBC World Service', no 'Green and Pleasant Land', no 'Rugby', no 'Trooping the Colours', no Britain, no England, no Scotland, no Wales, no Ulster... I think it would break my heart. How would you feel about your children's children's children wanting the Island called Britain again and being marked on the map to remember her thousands of years of history and hundreds of years dominating the face of the earth from just a small rainy island and being told 'what does it matter?' 'Is there anything much to remember about it that's really that worthwhile?'.
The Celtic peoples have a distinct identity as the 'first' peoples of the islands, we were here before the Romans, the Angles, the Saxons, the Norse, the Normans or any of the significant incursions that followed and in Cornwall, Wales and the rest of the celtic fringe nations, there is a belief that we have remained peoples apart from the changing English. We Cornish have a Stannary Council, recognised at one time by the crown of England as separate.
I understand it's difficult for the average English person to 'get it' as to you, we are another county, like Wiltshire or Surrey, but growing up Cornish is to be a nation apart from England and many of my English friends have said that there really is a difference staying or living in Cornwall akin to visiting Ireland or Wales, to the mindset and atmosphere. Some Cornish go in for the same thing the Welsh can be guilty of, getting closed off and hostile, I don't believe for a second in that as history has always recognised the Cornish for being excellent and welcoming hosts. I just want us recognised on the map as different, we were here for thousands of years before the English in their various incarnations, arrived and I'd like that to be shown and our history and rich culture and folklore brought back. I want us to work together with the English and the rest of our Celtic nations brothers in the British Isles and I've knocked another Cornishman to the ground for speaking out of turn to an English lass, but I am not English, my father is not English, my Grandfather is not English and none of my ancestors have ever been English, no matter what some buggers have changed on the map.
We were quietly assimilated, we had an ancient history erased, we had our cultural identity 'reformed' by people who are not our people. This happened some centuries ago yes, but ask a Sioux National about keeping their culture alive, or an Ainu, or any number of tribes from Papua New Guinea, if their way of life should be kept alive or just consumed by the intruding culture around them. Ask a Maori if they identify as a New Zealander or Maori first? I am a Cornishman, a Celt and a proud citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and I am not English...
I would liken Cornwall to say the Basque, Breton (Another Celtic culture), or Catalonia.
They appear no more than another provincial area to some people but to the people than live there and that were raised there it is a very distinct identity away from the overall national identity with things such as meals, languages and in some places national dress.
MeanGreenStompa wrote: Well, it's a question I've asked myself and I guess it comes down to some simple things. How would you feel knowing that in about four or five generations, 'Britishness' would cease to exist and these isles would simple be 'Western European Zone 5' and your descendants would all be speaking German. How does that make you feel? No 'keep calm and...', no 'cup of tea', no 'Rule Britannia', no 'daleks', no 'Fools and Horses', no 'English language', no 'Battle of Hastings', no 'Finest Hour', no 'Queen and Country', no 'BBC World Service', no 'Green and Pleasant Land', no 'Rugby', no 'Trooping the Colours', no Britain, no England, no Scotland, no Wales, no Ulster... I think it would break my heart. How would you feel about your children's children's children wanting the Island called Britain again and being marked on the map to remember her thousands of years of history and hundreds of years dominating the face of the earth from just a small rainy island and being told 'what does it matter?' 'Is there anything much to remember about it that's really that worthwhile?'.
The Celtic peoples have a distinct identity as the 'first' peoples of the islands, we were here before the Romans, the Angles, the Saxons, the Norse, the Normans or any of the significant incursions that followed and in Cornwall, Wales and the rest of the celtic fringe nations, there is a belief that we have remained peoples apart from the changing English. We Cornish have a Stannary Council, recognised at one time by the crown of England as separate.
I understand it's difficult for the average English person to 'get it' as to you, we are another county, like Wiltshire or Surrey, but growing up Cornish is to be a nation apart from England and many of my English friends have said that there really is a difference staying or living in Cornwall akin to visiting Ireland or Wales, to the mindset and atmosphere. Some Cornish go in for the same thing the Welsh can be guilty of, getting closed off and hostile, I don't believe for a second in that as history has always recognised the Cornish for being excellent and welcoming hosts. I just want us recognised on the map as different, we were here for thousands of years before the English in their various incarnations, arrived and I'd like that to be shown and our history and rich culture and folklore brought back. I want us to work together with the English and the rest of our Celtic nations brothers in the British Isles and I've knocked another Cornishman to the ground for speaking out of turn to an English lass, but I am not English, my father is not English, my Grandfather is not English and none of my ancestors have ever been English, no matter what some buggers have changed on the map.
We were quietly assimilated, we had an ancient history erased, we had our cultural identity 'reformed' by people who are not our people. This happened some centuries ago yes, but ask a Sioux National about keeping their culture alive, or an Ainu, or any number of tribes from Papua New Guinea, if their way of life should be kept alive or just consumed by the intruding culture around them. Ask a Maori if they identify as a New Zealander or Maori first? I am a Cornishman, a Celt and a proud citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and I am not English...
I would add that the 'English' are also a 'Celtic' people, though I use both terms fairly loosely, as 'celtic' is something that we have applied to Brythonic peoples retrospectively, and 'English' is the product of acculturation between native Britons and Anglo-Saxons. Genetically, we're pretty much identical to the rest of our British/Irish brothers and sisters, as the genetic impact of the Vikings, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Normans and particularly the Romans is often massively over-estimated (there have been genetic studies) by most people. The effect was more of a cultural one. It's also worth pointing out that Gaelic isn't the 'native' language of the Welsh, Scottish, Manx or Cornish people.
I think many Americans might be looking at this discussion and thinking it is kind of weird. We (Americans) do identify somewhat by the state we live in, but I have never seen it expressed to such a level. Unless you live in Texas of course.
But I can relate to is from my German side. We (Germans) have very strong ties to our cultural heritage and often claim our regional self before our national self. You are more likely to see city and county flags before state flags of even national flags in some areas. For me I consider myself Franconian first, Bavarian second, and German third. But I don't have that kind of divide for my American self.
Albatross wrote: It's also worth pointing out that Gaelic isn't the 'native' language of the Welsh, Scottish, Manx or Cornish people.
Well, no. Gaelic is spoken by the Irish. The Welsh speak Welsh. The ancient Scots and Picts had their own languages. The Cornish spoke Cornish. Related to Welsh, I think? But did I miss somewhere where someone said all Celts spoke Gaelic?
Albatross wrote: I would add that the 'English' are also a 'Celtic' people, though I use both terms fairly loosely, as 'celtic' is something that we have applied to Brythonic peoples retrospectively, and 'English' is the product of acculturation between native Britons and Anglo-Saxons. Genetically, we're pretty much identical to the rest of our British/Irish brothers and sisters, as the genetic impact of the Vikings, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Normans and particularly the Romans is often massively over-estimated (there have been genetic studies) by most people. The effect was more of a cultural one. It's also worth pointing out that Gaelic isn't the 'native' language of the Welsh, Scottish, Manx or Cornish people.
We're genetically all remarkably similar and I find that oft cited reasoning a fairly massive red herring, the Japanese are genetically (I would guess) very similar to the Chinese but very different culturally and it's culture I've been referring to. I'm sure there's very little genetic variation between a German person and an England person, they remain culturally significantly different in their own viewpoints, likely viewed rather similarly by a tribesman from the Amazon or a Mongolian.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
d-usa wrote: I think many Americans might be looking at this discussion and thinking it is kind of weird. We (Americans) do identify somewhat by the state we live in, but I have never seen it expressed to such a level. Unless you live in Texas of course.
Imagine the states had evolved as nations for about 2 thousand years then review it.
Albatross wrote: It's also worth pointing out that Gaelic isn't the 'native' language of the Welsh, Scottish, Manx or Cornish people.
Well, no. Gaelic is spoken by the Irish. The Welsh speak Welsh. The ancient Scots and Picts had their own languages. The Cornish spoke Cornish. Related to Welsh, I think? But did I miss somewhere where someone said all Celts spoke Gaelic?
The Highland Scots also have their own version of Gaelic (Pronounced Gah-Lic compared to the Irish Gay-Lic or Eirse)
They are very close but do have some differences
Albatross wrote: I would add that the 'English' are also a 'Celtic' people, though I use both terms fairly loosely, as 'celtic' is something that we have applied to Brythonic peoples retrospectively, and 'English' is the product of acculturation between native Britons and Anglo-Saxons. Genetically, we're pretty much identical to the rest of our British/Irish brothers and sisters, as the genetic impact of the Vikings, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Normans and particularly the Romans is often massively over-estimated (there have been genetic studies) by most people. The effect was more of a cultural one. It's also worth pointing out that Gaelic isn't the 'native' language of the Welsh, Scottish, Manx or Cornish people.
"English" comes from the word "Angle", so no, the "English" technically aren't Celtic. Apply it to the people of England then yes, they're Celtic, but the customs they eventually adopted were Germanic. English is a Germanic language.
Gaelic also is the language of the Scots. The Scots originally were a tribe from Northern Ireland who settled the area they called "Dalriada". Eventually, the Picts accepted the Scottish king as their own after a battle with Vikings and the Scottish language was spread throughout what was now Scotland. That, or the fact that there's evidence of a lot of contact between Irish and Pictish merchants. Anyway, Gaelic has two forms: Irish Gaelic (the well-known one) and Scottish Gaelic (which is very similar to Irish Gaelic, I believe and developed from Middle Irish).
Gaelic also is the language of the Scots. The Scots originally were a tribe from Northern Ireland who settled the area they called "Dalriada". Eventually, the Picts accepted the Scottish king as their own after a battle with Vikings and the Scottish language was spread throughout what was now Scotland. That, or the fact that there's evidence of a lot of contact between Irish and Pictish merchants. Anyway, Gaelic has two forms: Irish Gaelic (the well-known one) and Scottish Gaelic (which is very similar to Irish Gaelic, I believe and developed from Middle Irish).
EDIT: damn beaten to it!
Huh. I didn't know they were the same! Still, Welsh is not Gaelic. Related? Maybe. But not the same.
Yeah, Welsh is quite different. It's Brythonic, is it not? The Gaelics and Manx is Goidelic. I'm not quite sure, but it's something to do with the p's and the q's isn't it?
Gaelic also is the language of the Scots. The Scots originally were a tribe from Northern Ireland who settled the area they called "Dalriada". Eventually, the Picts accepted the Scottish king as their own after a battle with Vikings and the Scottish language was spread throughout what was now Scotland. That, or the fact that there's evidence of a lot of contact between Irish and Pictish merchants. Anyway, Gaelic has two forms: Irish Gaelic (the well-known one) and Scottish Gaelic (which is very similar to Irish Gaelic, I believe and developed from Middle Irish).
EDIT: damn beaten to it!
Huh. I didn't know they were the same! Still, Welsh is not Gaelic. Related? Maybe. But not the same.
Scots and Irish isn't quite the same. Very similar, same common ancestor, but still different.
Scots and Irish isn't quite the same. Very similar, same common ancestor, but still different.
My aunt (who is fleunt in Gaelic) can hold a reasonable conversation in Irish. There are obvious differences but the root is the same and Scotland and Ireland are close enough geographically and culturally that there was quite a lot of cross pollination over the years. I do find it interesting that the North Western Irish accent is hard to distinguish from a Western Isles accent.
I believe that fragments of the Pictish language still exists, to some extent at least, in the form of Doric which is a Scots dialect spoken in the North East.
Albatross wrote: It's also worth pointing out that Gaelic isn't the 'native' language of the Welsh, Scottish, Manx or Cornish people.
Well, no. Gaelic is spoken by the Irish. The Welsh speak Welsh. The ancient Scots and Picts had their own languages. The Cornish spoke Cornish. Related to Welsh, I think? But did I miss somewhere where someone said all Celts spoke Gaelic?
That's the typical shorthand, because of the similarities between the languages at their root. Have you honestly never heard the language spoken by the Welsh, Cornish and Manx described colloquially as 'Gaelic'? Because if that's the case, I would find that surprising.
EDIT: I feel I should clarify the reason for making the statement - the desire for reversion to Gaelic or Brythonic languages is often a component of 'Celtic' nationalisms. In some cases those languages are imports, such as in the case of Scotland and the Isle of Man. There's also evidence (iirc) that Brythonic languages such as Welsh and Cornish 'Gaelic' (a misnomer) have their roots on the continent, making them imports too.
Albatross wrote: I would add that the 'English' are also a 'Celtic' people, though I use both terms fairly loosely, as 'celtic' is something that we have applied to Brythonic peoples retrospectively, and 'English' is the product of acculturation between native Britons and Anglo-Saxons. Genetically, we're pretty much identical to the rest of our British/Irish brothers and sisters, as the genetic impact of the Vikings, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Normans and particularly the Romans is often massively over-estimated (there have been genetic studies) by most people. The effect was more of a cultural one. It's also worth pointing out that Gaelic isn't the 'native' language of the Welsh, Scottish, Manx or Cornish people.
We're genetically all remarkably similar and I find that oft cited reasoning a fairly massive red herring, the Japanese are genetically (I would guess) very similar to the Chinese but very different culturally and it's culture I've been referring to.
Actually you referenced your ancestry, so it's reasonable to point out that genetically you probably have a lot in common with the English. And are you you implying that there is as much cultural difference between the English and the Cornish as there is between the Chinese and Japanese? Because that would be silly. Very, very silly.
Albatross wrote: I would add that the 'English' are also a 'Celtic' people, though I use both terms fairly loosely, as 'celtic' is something that we have applied to Brythonic peoples retrospectively, and 'English' is the product of acculturation between native Britons and Anglo-Saxons. Genetically, we're pretty much identical to the rest of our British/Irish brothers and sisters, as the genetic impact of the Vikings, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Normans and particularly the Romans is often massively over-estimated (there have been genetic studies) by most people. The effect was more of a cultural one. It's also worth pointing out that Gaelic isn't the 'native' language of the Welsh, Scottish, Manx or Cornish people.
"English" comes from the word "Angle",
No gak. Did you actually read my post, or just skip straight to Wikipedia?
so no, the "English" technically aren't Celtic. Apply it to the people of England then yes, they're Celtic
Thanks, Captain Obvious. That's actually what I said. What else would I be saying if I said "the 'English' are also a 'Celtic' people"?
but the customs they eventually adopted were Germanic. English is a Germanic language.
Two massive over-simplifications. Look up the word 'acculturation' next time you're on Wiki.
Gaelic also is the language of the Scots.
Yes, it is now. It wasn't, however, the original native language of the people living in that area, nor were they called 'Scots'. They didn't even call themselves that. I'm pointing this out to highlight the often ridiculous nature of 'celtic' nationalism, the Scots being the worst offenders, IMO. It's basically all about xenophobia - they're prepared to go to these ridiculous lengths just to differentiate themselves from the English, going back to their 'original' language, when in fact Scottish Gaelic was an import too.
The Scots originally were a tribe from Northern Ireland who settled the area they called "Dalriada". Eventually, the Picts accepted the Scottish king as their own after a battle with Vikings and the Scottish language was spread throughout what was now Scotland.
Those are not facts, and there is no evidence for any of that, as far as I'm aware.
That, or the fact that there's evidence of a lot of contact between Irish and Pictish merchants.
Albatross wrote: I would add that the 'English' are also a 'Celtic' people, though I use both terms fairly loosely, as 'celtic' is something that we have applied to Brythonic peoples retrospectively, and 'English' is the product of acculturation between native Britons and Anglo-Saxons. Genetically, we're pretty much identical to the rest of our British/Irish brothers and sisters, as the genetic impact of the Vikings, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Normans and particularly the Romans is often massively over-estimated (there have been genetic studies) by most people. The effect was more of a cultural one. It's also worth pointing out that Gaelic isn't the 'native' language of the Welsh, Scottish, Manx or Cornish people.
We're genetically all remarkably similar and I find that oft cited reasoning a fairly massive red herring, the Japanese are genetically (I would guess) very similar to the Chinese but very different culturally and it's culture I've been referring to.
Actually you referenced your ancestry, so it's reasonable to point out that genetically you probably have a lot in common with the English. And are you you implying that there is as much cultural difference between the English and the Cornish as there is between the Chinese and Japanese? Because that would be silly. Very, very silly.
Of course I reference my own ancestry as I'm Cornish, we're talking about Cornish national identity and it's something that existed for them and didn't exist for me. Genetically we are all 99% identical to the Chimpanzees, that discussion is pointless. The English are principally governed in their outlook, culture and language by the Anglo Saxons, the Celtic nations around them are principally governed in their outlook by their peoples, who were here a lot longer ago. Also what is the .0000 degree difference between the English and the Cornish, or the .0000 difference between the Japanese and Chinese and why would it be 'very very silly'? According to you? Good, because noone was talking genetic differences until you jumped in there to point out we're genetically similar, good, I'd expect us to be, but I am Cornish, you are English, you are the result of a thousand years of cultural invasions and shifts in the population make up and I've the result of a region that's had very little impact from those same changes and identifies with an extremely old culture which was identified as separate until someone in London decided to start colouring the map in the same as England and just claim an ownership which has never existed.
The Scots originally were a tribe from Northern Ireland who settled the area they called "Dalriada". Eventually, the Picts accepted the Scottish king as their own after a battle with Vikings and the Scottish language was spread throughout what was now Scotland.
Those are not facts, and there is no evidence for any of that, as far as I'm aware.
The precise nature of the union of the Scots of Dal Riada and the Picts isn't clearly known but they certainly did mearge, apparently peacefully, creating the kingdom of Alba in the process which eventually became modern Scotland. A simple wiki search could have told you that. The langauge of the Scottish court pre Normanification was Gaelic and given that there are Gaelic place names all over Scotland its not a great stretch to say that Gaelic became the defacto 'national' language of Scotland.
Of course language is imported, its a minor wonder that the English don't speak French. By the same token everyone is decended from immigrants. Thats of no consequnce to how people view their nationality or cultural heritage, I am far more Scottish than I am British and I don't care what my passport says.
Ratbarf wrote: I don't believe that any of those nations separated without the monarchs writing off on it, unless the power change came about because of revolution.
The referendum here in Australia for us to become a monarch didn't include a 'we'll write to the Queen and ask her to okay this' part. If the referendum had been won the government of Australia would have simply announced we were becoming a Republic and the Queen would no longer be our head of state, and that'd be that.
Personally I want the British Empire back, they did a lot of good in their time, and I think they could fix a lot of the issues with certain areas of the world if they were willing to take them back and enforce good British values and legal practices upon them. Well maybe not the values, but the legal practices and the ability for a higher more powerful authority to deal with the rampant corruption and human rights abuses that is inherent in many of the old colonies would likely be welcome. Just look at what the Malians are saying about the French, it seems they want to be re-colonised because they recognize that the French government is much less corrupt and a much more humanitarian government then the strongmen they've been subjected to since achieving independence.
Just my two cents.
The world in which Europe held colonies just isn't the modern world. Britain and the other European powers just won't invest in what is now the massive money losing operation of running someone else's country for them. Nor would colonies make sense given how these countries have developed.
Assistance packages, where government officials are lent to root out corruption or improve processes, those make a lot of sense. Which is why they presently exist.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pacific wrote: Yes of course that is the proviso. Like Edward before him, the option remains for Charles to abdicate.
I think it's also important to consider the internal pressure placed on the family, from other members within the royal family itself - it is very much an institution. So Camilla, who was deemed 'not good enough' to be Queen previously (when Charles wanted to marry her) is hardly going to now be the desired option, especially considering the scandal that surrounded them and culminated in Diana's death.
So you're right - it's not a case of a popularity contest, but more the reality of internal power and control within the royal family itself. They have exercised that power many times in the past (with Charles himself in fact - preparing the arranged marriage with Diana, despite what his own wishes might have been). I see no reason to suppose that they won't do so again, and in this sense you can imagine that they won't be immune to the negative public perception of Charles, and the positive public perception of William.
Fair point, and if Charles or any other monarch proved so unbelievably incompetent in the job that the nation began to seriously consider becoming a Republic, I could see "the firm" deciding to pressure a monarch to abdicate in favour of a more likeable heir. But I think you'd have to have a spectacularly incompetent monarch for that to be the case, given how the world is today.
And there's also a lot to be wary of in thinking Charles is some kind of hopeless case, while his son is a wunderkid. People love young royals. Charles used to win bachelor of the year awards when he was young. At the same time they don't much like old royals, except for the king/queen.
I don't know what the psychology of it is, but watch as Charles becomes king. People will start liking him more.
The reasons that happened then, and wouldn't happen now, are very much the same reasons that colonisation just wouldn't happen now.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ratbarf wrote: I don't recall them doing it, "for their own good" unless you mean for the good of the British Settlers. Also, I would think that if the Maoris, Aborigines, Indians (not east indians) and various other peoples who were pulled out of subsistence farming and constant tribal warfare by the British were given the choice to return to their pre contact state or their current state but told to quit their bleepin the vast majority would stfu about the whole thing.
Then you know absolutely nothing of the history of India. I mean, to think the country was just subsistance farming before the British turned up is just staggering ignorance.
So just, please, go and actually read about this before you just start making up opinions in your head.
Secondly, much of that so called genocide was merely the introduction of diseases to native populations.
And really, really terrible agricultural policy enforced on the native population by British rule. 10 million died in India because of the British ideas about what crops would be most profitable.
Ratbarf wrote: I don't believe that any of those nations separated without the monarchs writing off on it, unless the power change came about because of revolution.
The referendum here in Australia for us to become a monarch didn't include a 'we'll write to the Queen and ask her to okay this' part. If the referendum had been won the government of Australia would have simply announced we were becoming a Republic and the Queen would no longer be our head of state, and that'd be that.
The Governor General would still have to sign off on it to make it law, which as the Queen's representative would still mean that the Monarch would essentially be, "Signing off on it."
Ratbarf wrote: The Governor General would still have to sign off on it to make it law, which as the Queen's representative would still mean that the Monarch would essentially be, "Signing off on it."
Albatross wrote: I would add that the 'English' are also a 'Celtic' people, though I use both terms fairly loosely, as 'celtic' is something that we have applied to Brythonic peoples retrospectively, and 'English' is the product of acculturation between native Britons and Anglo-Saxons. Genetically, we're pretty much identical to the rest of our British/Irish brothers and sisters, as the genetic impact of the Vikings, Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Normans and particularly the Romans is often massively over-estimated (there have been genetic studies) by most people. The effect was more of a cultural one. It's also worth pointing out that Gaelic isn't the 'native' language of the Welsh, Scottish, Manx or Cornish people.
"English" comes from the word "Angle",
No gak. Did you actually read my post, or just skip straight to Wikipedia?
Surprisingly no! Philology and culture is something that I'm very interested in, reading Lord of the Rings as a young kid and being somewhat of a nationalist.
so no, the "English" technically aren't Celtic. Apply it to the people of England then yes, they're Celtic
Thanks, Captain Obvious. That's actually what I said. What else would I be saying if I said "the 'English' are also a 'Celtic' people"?
I should have made myself a bit more clear: apply it to the genetics of the English people then yes, they're Celtic. Culturally, they're totally different. In the States, most of them are probably Celts (since a lot of them come from the British Isles) yet thanks to the contact with other cultures that make up the country they don't think of themselves as Celts and they don't show that much of a sign of being Celtic. In Britain it's pretty much the same with several major differences: the history of invaders is a lot longer and the cultures of the invaders hand a longer period of time to settle in. The culture of Britain therefore cannot be considered truly Celtic.
but the customs they eventually adopted were Germanic. English is a Germanic language.
Two massive over-simplifications. Look up the word 'acculturation' next time you're on Wiki.
English still is a Germanic language. Most of the words that we speak is Germanic in origin. It is a gross simplification, but I'm not writing a history essay - it's a forum post for a site about expensive toy soldiers and 500 page rulebooks.
Gaelic also is the language of the Scots.
Yes, it is now. It wasn't, however, the original native language of the people living in that area, nor were they called 'Scots'. They didn't even call themselves that. I'm pointing this out to highlight the often ridiculous nature of 'celtic' nationalism, the Scots being the worst offenders, IMO. It's basically all about xenophobia - they're prepared to go to these ridiculous lengths just to differentiate themselves from the English, going back to their 'original' language, when in fact Scottish Gaelic was an import too.
Well English is also an import. So is Spanish for the Mexicans. So is "Macedonian" for the peoples of Macedon. So is Turkish for the people of Turkey. Are we going to deny them the fact that those languages are their own languages of their own cultures?
The word Scot was used by the Scottish - why do you think the country is called Scotland as opposed to Pictland or Gaeland?
The Scots originally were a tribe from Northern Ireland who settled the area they called "Dalriada". Eventually, the Picts accepted the Scottish king as their own after a battle with Vikings and the Scottish language was spread throughout what was now Scotland.
Those are not facts, and there is no evidence for any of that, as far as I'm aware.
That, or the fact that there's evidence of a lot of contact between Irish and Pictish merchants.
Please, feel free to cite it.
I can't remember where I read it, I'll get back to you as soon as I re-find it. It's an accepted theory nowadays, more popular than the Irish Scots invading.
For all we know, an African villager in the Malian rebel army has the highest IQ in the world - IQ does not equal intelligence. Hitler, for example, had a very high IQ, and look where that got him.
ExNoctemNacimur wrote: For all we know, an African villager in the Malian rebel army has the highest IQ in the world - IQ does not equal intelligence. Hitler, for example, had a very high IQ, and look where that got him.
) - has got me thinking about what is likely to happen to the crown here in the 
Let's not make this personal, eh?
