Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

It does tickle me/us no end with your national obsession with "socialism".

We're not a socialist country by any stretching of the terms, when, especially during elections etc, you hurl the word around as an accusation it at times comes across as baffling. In general politicians we hear described as "leftists" would generally still be centre right at least in Europe.

just curios but do you guys across the pond learn about the american revolution, and if so do they say that loyalists are heroes

my social studies teacher was also wondering

I want someone to explain to me what the function of the British Royal Family is. Do they have any authority in the government, or are they just celebrities? Does the government give them money to live off of, or do they have their own sources of wealth? Do they hold ranks within the church of england?

Thanks.

Doctor Thunder wrote:I want someone to explain to me what the function of the British Royal Family is. Do they have any authority in the government, or are they just celebrities? Does the government give them money to live off of, or do they have their own sources of wealth? Do they hold ranks within the church of england?

Thanks.

Lifted from various sources:

Payment to them.

Funding
Monies to support the Queen in the exercise of her duties as head of state of the United Kingdom (the Head of State Expenditure) come from the Civil List. This is a return of a small portion of the revenue from the Crown Lands that are surrendered by the monarch to parliament at the beginning of each reign; all Crown Land being administered by The Crown Estates, an institution that is answerable to parliament. In the 2003-04 fiscal year, the amount surrendered was £176.9 million, where the Head of State Expenditure was £36 million. The Head of State Expenditure does not include the cost of security.

Only the Queen and Duke of Edinburgh receive funding from the Civil List. The Duke receives £359,000 per year.

Only some members of the Royal Family carry out public duties; these individuals receive an annual payment known as a Parliamentary Annuity, the funds being supplied to cover office costs.

The Duke of York: £249,000 per annum
The Earl and Countess of Wessex: £141,000 per annum
The Princess Royal: £228,000 per annum
The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester: £175,000 per annum
The Duke and Duchess of Kent: £236,000 per annum
Princess Alexandra £225,000 per annum
These amounts are repaid by The Queen from her private funds.

Though always voluntarily subject to the Value Added Tax and other indirect taxes, the Queen agreed to pay taxes on income and capital gains from 1992, although the details of this arrangement are both voluntary and secret. At the same time it was announced that only the Queen and Prince Philip would receive civil list payments. Since 1993 the Queen's personal income has been taxed as any other Briton. The Queen's private estate (eg shareholdings, personal jewellery, Sandringham House and Balmoral Castle) will be subject to Inheritance Tax, however bequests from Sovereign to Sovereign are exempt. [3]

So they give over their crown lands to the government and in return are given between 1/5 and 1/6 of the income back (which they pay tax on) and people still whinge. Imagine if that was your pay deal...

Only the monarch has a role in constitutional affairs. the rest of the royal family attend functions, raise awareness for issues (charity patronage), Do their own work (Prince Edward and his wife most notably), and most are ranked within the military.

Role in constitutional affairs:

, the monarch's role is constitutional, and limited to non-partisan functions such as bestowing honours. Despite this, the ultimate executive authority over the government of the United Kingdom is still, by and through, the monarch's royal prerogative. Such powers include the dissolution of parliament, and the making of the rules for the government and regulation of the civil service and the armed forces. But these powers are only used according to the policies and procedures set down by laws enacted in Parliament and; where the laws be silent, within the constraints of convention and precedent.

The monarch holds a weekly audience with the Prime Minister and regular audiences with other members of the Cabinet. The monarch may express his or her views, but, as a constitutional ruler, must ultimately accept the Prime Minister's and Cabinet's decisions (subject to the Crown's authority to appoint a new Prime Minister and ministers,[25] itself limited by convention).

It should also be noted that several countries around the world have the Queen as the head of thier government (Australia included). We have a governeor general who acts in consultation with her to enact laws in her name, and back in the 70's the governor general here sacked the governmant as it didn't have the numbers to get anything done.
The last Monarch to dismiss a Prime Minister was William IV in 1834..

She is the top of the Church Of England

The British monarch, at present Queen Elizabeth II, has the constitutional title of "Supreme Governor of the Church of England". The Canons of the Church of England state, "We acknowledge that the Queen’s most excellent Majesty, acting according to the laws of the realm, is the highest power under God in this kingdom, and has supreme authority over all persons in all causes, as well ecclesiastical as civil."

Essentially its the monarch (or the regent in the case of a monarch under 18) who has the power, the rest are just close relatives with titles and their own structured jobs to do...

youbedead wrote:just curios but do you guys across the pond learn about the american revolution, and if so do they say that loyalists are heroes

my social studies teacher was also wondering

We do learn about the American revolution, but history teaching in Britain (in my experience) is a lot more about facts than 'heroes and villains', with the obvious exception of WW2. When I learnt about it, no mention was made of one side being 'correct' in their actions, IIRC.

I have often wondered about where the (percieved) American love for the constitution comes from, as over here we have no equivalent, and no document or legislation is held with such reverance. Is it really considered an acceptable argument for something that the constitution allows it? I see this a lot in pro-gun arguments. Has no-one pointed out that it's just what some old dead blokes wrote down on a bit of parchment?

youbedead wrote:just curios but do you guys across the pond learn about the american revolution, and if so do they say that loyalists are heroes

my social studies teacher was also wondering

No, we learned nothing about it in school beyond the occasional mention in the context of other historical events. The UK has such a long history that it really is not that significant compared to all the other stuff they need to cram in to a schoolkid's history course. We didnt have too much on the empire in general either. Here is the current syllabus for mandatory history (optional history covers things like specific wars and major events in detail):

Unit 1. Introductory unit what's it all about?
Unit 2. How did medieval monarchs keep control?
Unit 3. How hard was life for medieval people in town and country?
Unit 4. How did the medieval church affect people's lives?
Unit 5. Elizabeth I how successfully did she tackle the problems of her reign?
Unit 6. What were the achievements of the Islamic states 600-1600?
Unit 7. Images of an age what can we learn from portraits 1500-1750?
Unit 8. The civil wars was England 'turned upside down' in the seventeenth century?
Unit 9. From Glorious Revolution to the '45 how united was the kingdom?
Unit 10. France 1789-94 why was there a revolution?
Unit 11. Industrial changes action and reaction
Unit 12. Snapshot 1900 what was British middle-class life like?
Unit 13. Mughal India and the coming of the British, 1526-1857 how did the Mughal Empire rise and fall?
Unit 14. The British Empire how was it that, by 1900, Britain controlled nearly a quarter of the world?
Unit 15. Black peoples of America from slavery to equality?
Unit 16. The franchise why did it take so much longer for British women to get the vote?
Unit 17. Divided Ireland why has it been so hard to achieve peace in Ireland?
Unit 18. Hot war, cold war why did the major twentieth-century conflicts affect so many people?
Unit 19. How and why did the Holocaust happen?
Unit 20. Twentieth-century medicine how has it changed the lives of people?
Unit 21. From Aristotle to the atom scientific discoveries that changed the world?
Unit 22. The role of the individual for good or ill?

The only real exposure to older US stuff was the industrial revolution which covered some of the US inventions, though most of the emphasis was on the industrial revolution in the UK as that is where it truly began with the invention of the steam engine. The slavery aspect was covered from a US perspective as slavery was a much bigger issue in the US and still moulds world culture today, the US being the last major power to abolish slavery. The more modern units cover the US a lot more though as the US got more significant in the late 19th century.

damn you greebynog Contradictory too. I am assuming that it was specific to your region or that you are talking about an elective like GCSE rather than mandatory KS3?

For me it was one lesson in a day when some re-enactors came to my school for a demonstration, including firing a cannon. I got to be the drummer, it was top fun. It certainly wasn't dwelled upon, and it was more a case of saying 'this is what happened' than anything else. I think people from over the seas looking for an answer will find Legoburner's far more representative.

Greebynog wrote:
I have often wondered about where the (percieved) American love for the constitution comes from, as over here we have no equivalent, and no document or legislation is held with such reverance. Is it really considered an acceptable argument for something that the constitution allows it? I see this a lot in pro-gun arguments. Has no-one pointed out that it's just what some old dead blokes wrote down on a bit of parchment?

We probably revere the Magna Carta more than you all do. A great deal of our secondary education centers around the constitution ( and the Magna Carta for that matter). Throughout high school ( I don't know what you call the different education levels over there, I'm talking about the school that most people attend through the ages of, say, 13 and 18) I would guess I got a total of three or four months of it, most of which I do not remember. Same thing with the declaration of independence, I believe we had to have that one memorized. Its pretty much the foundation of our laws, and I can't imagine that the UK doesn't have something similar. The constitution can be amended. In fact, there is an amendment prohibiting alcohol, and then a later amendment ending said prohibition.

Greebynog wrote:For me it was one lesson in a day when some re-enactors came to my school for a demonstration, including firing a cannon. I got to be the drummer, it was top fun. It certainly wasn't dwelled upon, and it was more a case of saying 'this is what happened' than anything else. I think people from over the seas looking for an answer will find Legoburner's far more representative.

I imagine the all important nature of the Revolution is an American perspective. For the UK, it is just another colonial issue out of many, albeit one with enormous repercussions for the history of the world, and of course, of the United States.

That brings me to a question I've always wanted to ask a Brit who was knowledgeable about history. That question is, why did the British lose their empire? From my, admittedly limited, study of history, it looks like they just gave up a great deal of the territory, pretty much allowing them to rule themselves.

Grignard wrote:

Greebynog wrote:
I have often wondered about where the (percieved) American love for the constitution comes from, as over here we have no equivalent, and no document or legislation is held with such reverance. Is it really considered an acceptable argument for something that the constitution allows it? I see this a lot in pro-gun arguments. Has no-one pointed out that it's just what some old dead blokes wrote down on a bit of parchment?

We probably revere the Magna Carta more than you all do. A great deal of our secondary education centers around the constitution ( and the Magna Carta for that matter). Throughout high school ( I don't know what you call the different education levels over there, I'm talking about the school that most people attend through the ages of, say, 13 and 18) I would guess I got a total of three or four months of it, most of which I do not remember. Same thing with the declaration of independence, I believe we had to have that one memorized. Its pretty much the foundation of our laws, and I can't imagine that the UK doesn't have something similar. The constitution can be amended. In fact, there is an amendment prohibiting alcohol, and then a later amendment ending said prohibition.

Tony Hancock wrote:Does Magna Carta mean nothing to you? Did she die in vain?

The UK doesn't have a direct equivalent to the constitution, New Labour briefly tried to introduce one, but were crushed under a wave of cynicism and apathy. I was aware that the constitution can be ammended, but it's a fairly arduous process to do so is it not?

We call high school secondary school BTW, but after growing up with a lot of American teen sitcoms, we're all pretty much aware of those sort of semantic differences! We are two countries seperated by a common language after all...

reds8n wrote: It does tickle me/us no end with your national obsession with "socialism".

That is because generally socialism = communism in the US. Lots of cold war feelings about. This also means that to some people that Socialism = Atheism, or anti-Christian.

Grignard wrote:

I imagine the all important nature of the Revolution is an American perspective. For the UK, it is just another colonial issue out of many, albeit one with enormous repercussions for the history of the world, and of course, of the United States.

That brings me to a question I've always wanted to ask a Brit who was knowledgeable about history. That question is, why did the British lose their empire? From my, admittedly limited, study of history, it looks like they just gave up a great deal of the territory, pretty much allowing them to rule themselves.

You pretty much nailed it with regards to the American revolution. I'm 32 and when i was at school we did a small project about it. One of the things we covered-- and doesn't really seem to be brought up by anyone else very often-- during this project was that there was a sizable swell of support for the Americans in Britain at the time. Some people did indeed think it unfair that you were taxed with no representation. There's been arguments put forward that this was encouraged by rivals who stood to gain from the ruination of business etc rivals who would lose out i this regard, but the British always have this strong trend to empathise with the underdogs in a situation and a fairly strong sense of social justice.

And I think most people felt this would blow over, there'd be a compromise and we'd carry on. I think people felt it odd almost that you wouldn't want to be part of the empire. Too much to lose compared to gains so to speak.

With regards to the end of the empire....

You're right we pretty much gave it away. It's pretty much the only self disassembled Empire in the history of the world. Most benevolent one too I'd say, you'll note that the countries we left have generally prospered and been stable countries, a legacy of the institutions we established.

To a large extent we probably had no choice. WW II despite our victory the country was pretty much dead on its knees, and we had no real chance of defending or resisting any attempts to break it up.

There was (is ?) an argument put forward that the USA was (at least partially) to blame with the 1945 end of the land lease programme. Whilst I think it fair to say there will no doubt be a germ of truth in that-- no decision is made purely for 1 reason-- I don't think that's fair. America had far more to gain from a strong ally in Europe-- and we were the only country that could realistically offer any help if the ruskies made a move in the region, and quite possibly the only country that would have helped as well.

America was viewed very favourably at the time by the majority of the British, the support they gave and the lives they laid down were noticed by the average man far more so than the politicians I think. Hell, even today, I'd take America as an ally over any other country in the world as I think we ultimately share a largely common heritage and have more in common than not. The most compelling argument for me for us going into Iraq was the fact that America has been the nest ally... friend even we've had and when push comes to shove or all else is in doubt you stick with your mates. For me anyway.

Wow, this rambled, sorry it's early !

EDIT :

Just whilst I'm here I would just like to point out that all debts are paid back BTW

The Empire ended much as Reds8n said.

After the cost of not just the 2nd World War, but the 1st as well, we simply no longer had the manpower or clout to hold on any longer.

American Revolution? Well, we know we let you win because you threatened to cry if we didn't (Thank you Little Britain! Gem that one!).

The one thing that surprised me when I was on a school exchange programme in the States, was how differently the US Students were taught History. It very much was American History (event X cause result Y, in America) whereas in Britain, we were more about the overall affect on the world. Still, each to their own, as both have their merits.

Oooh! Oooh! Is it true, that in Texas, Trespass Laws allow you to shoot (though not necessarily kill I guess) *anyone* who steps on your property without permission, hence those quaint little post boxes at the end of driveways?

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:The Empire ended much as Reds8n said.



Oooh! Oooh! Is it true, that in Texas, Trespass Laws allow you to shoot (though not necessarily kill I guess) *anyone* who steps on your property without permission, hence those quaint little post boxes at the end of driveways?

I imagine that the post boxes at the end of driveways has more to do with America's passion for the automobile than texas law. Everywhere I've lived, they drop the mail in the mailbox from the road. For what it is worth, I've never lived in a house or apartment that has the little slot in the door that the postman inserts the mail through. My current apartment complex has a cluster of mailboxes for the entire apartment in the office parking lot. The office is at the bottom of a steep hill, and I have seen people drive their car to the bottom of the hill to get their mail, then drive back up. I like the walk myself; I've had my complaints, but there are really nice grounds here at least. Anyhow, it's very wasteful.

I don't keep up with new laws, or old ones for that matter, as much as I should, but I haven't heard of a law that would allow you to use deadly force for someone who simply steps on your property, though you can ask them to leave certainly. I can't speak for texas, but in Tennessee I know it is not the case. We had an incident 10 or 15 years ago involving just that sort of thing, in fact, it was an episode on Unsolved Mysteries. A man just outside of Chattanooga had had issues with some young men who would ride ( after opening fence gates with no trespassing signs) their ATVs on his property....their families said it was to go swimming in the swimming hole up there. My uncle knew the owner, and the owner's story was that he had told them multiple times to keep off his property, and that he had been threatened by them and that they had torn up his fence gate. The last time they tried it he said he'd kill them if they came back, and when they came back, he did. I don't know the exact law, but I imagine the guy would have been ok ( especially as he was threatened ) if he didn't hide the bodies, and apparently one of them was shot in the back while he was trying to run away. Things had gotten exceptionally ugly, as people knew what had happened before the police could prove it. I think the owner ended up with many years in prison, which probably means life as I believe he was in his 60s at the time. IIRC a daughter or cousin or something ended up in trouble because she helped ditch the ATVs.

Right or wrong, the take home lesson is that you shouldn't trespass. I have a friend who has some hunting property, and several times he's had deer poached, and some pretty strange stuff done. One of the bucks had been decapitated and basically left there to rot, which really isn't cool. He just called TWRA ( Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency ) and they drive by every so often now. Apparently whoever had been doing it got spooked by that, and hasn't been causing trouble since. Probably a better way to handle it.

I think you may be looking for this: Make My Day Laws

In your diners etc do you really get these bottomless/free refills cups of coffee ?

And in your Mcdonalds etc can you realy get free refills for your soft drinks ?

reds8n wrote: In your diners etc do you really get these bottomless/free refills cups of coffee ?

And in your Mcdonalds etc can you realy get free refills for your soft drinks ?

Almost all places have free refills on coffee and soda except higher scale restaurants. Tea is also usually free refills as well.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

Oooh! Oooh! Is it true, that in Texas, Trespass Laws allow you to shoot (though not necessarily kill I guess) *anyone* who steps on your property without permission, hence those quaint little post boxes at the end of driveways?

Not property. House yes.

Of course a wife who blows away a cheating husband may use the "he needed killin' your honor" defense. I can't find it in the law, but She Who Must Be Obeyed keeps telling me its in there...

Ahtman wrote:

reds8n wrote: In your diners etc do you really get these bottomless/free refills cups of coffee ?

And in your Mcdonalds etc can you realy get free refills for your soft drinks ?

Almost all places have free refills on coffee and soda except higher scale restaurants. Tea is also usually free refills as well.

If you had free tea refills in English cafes there'd be a national crisis as everyone stopped working. The main reason for an Englishman to be employed is to procure more tea.

jfrazell wrote:Of course a wife who blows away a cheating husband may use the "he needed killin' your honor" defense. I can't find it in the law, but She Who Must Be Obeyed keeps telling me its in there...

I'd get a second opinion on that... and a bulletproof vest, just in case.

Hahaha, no that's not what the post office boxes are for...they're for mail. Being from Texas I get a lot of stuff about if we all carry guns or wear cowboy boots even from people from my own country.

The American revolution is pretty romanticized in our grade school history classes. Especially in elementary and middle school. This leads to a bunch of misconceptions among our populace. Most wouldn't even be able to tell you that in addition to France, Spain and the Dutch also joined the war on our side.

Whats the balance of 40k and fantasy players like in the UK? In the US, in my experience at least, 40k is overwhelmingly more popular than fantasy.

We have letter boxes here in Australia.

In more country areas they are out on the edge of the road so the postman doesn't have to get out of his car/van.

However in suburbs they are set back at the edge of the property so the walking/motorbike riding postie doesn't have to spend their entire time on the road.

In inner city they usually are front door slots or stacked up together.

Depends of density of housing really.

In Australia 40k players outnumbers WHFB.

LOTR is played in secret by people who love to buy the minis and supplements but never/rarely play a game at a tourney, games club or even a GW store.

Tourney wise WHFB is roping in huge numbers. But the average age seems late twenties/early thirties with a good smattering of older players (50+). Many WHFB players used to play 40k but moved onto the better ruleset.

40k is wildly popular amongst the kids.

All are horrendously expensive (LOTR the least bad). :(

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:In Australia 40k players outnumbers WHFB.

LOTR is played in secret by people who love to buy the minis and supplements but never/rarely play a game at a tourney, games club or even a GW store.

Tourney wise WHFB is roping in huge numbers. But the average age seems late twenties/early thirties with a good smattering of older players (50+). Many WHFB players used to play 40k but moved onto the better ruleset.

40k is wildly popular amongst the kids.

All are horrendously expensive (LOTR the least bad). :(

Exactly how I find the UK scene. Most start on 40k, and it's the most popular game, but a lot move on to fantasy, it's seen as more of a vet's game (in my personal experience). I certainly followed that path.

youbedead wrote:just curios but do you guys across the pond learn about the american revolution, and if so do they say that loyalists are heroes

my social studies teacher was also wondering

Most British homes feature a Benedict Arnold shrine and every year we celebrate Benedict Arnold day. I would count Benedict Arnold amongst my personal heros and a guiding force in my life.

He's more important than Jesus over here.

Who the heck is Jesus ?


Whilst we're here : thing that surprised me the most when I ventured online is how religious the majority of Americans seem to be. I live in a ( you could say the ) Cathedral city of the Uk and there's no-one in my social circle who goes to church at all-- ball and chain attachment and deaths aside I guess and less and less of the former. I only know a few people who have any active form of faith at all. Generally in the UK if you go to church then-- and I'm not flaming or attacking those here who do I hasten to add-- you're viewed as odd at least or even a bit backwards.

More questions : exactly what is "biscuits and gravy", "grits" and ( not sure of this ) key/qui lime pie ?

40k is by far the more popular game.

reds8n wrote: Who the heck is Jesus ?


Whilst we're here : thing that surprised me the most when I ventured online is how religious the majority of Americans seem to be. I live in a ( you could say the ) Cathedral city of the Uk and there's no-one in my social circle who goes to church at all-- ball and chain attachment and deaths aside I guess and less and less of the former. I only know a few people who have any active form of faith at all. Generally in the UK if you go to church then-- and I'm not flaming or attacking those here who do I hasten to add-- you're viewed as odd at least or even a bit backwards.

More questions : exactly what is "biscuits and gravy", "grits" and ( not sure of this ) key/qui lime pie ?

40k is by far the more popular game.

Biscuits and gravy aka One of the Proofs of the Existence of God, is what it says. To be correct they have to be fluffy buttermilk biscuits, preferably large (or more preferably made by your grandmother). The gravy is thick white gravy, often with a little bit of kick, and again often with bits of sausage in it, or served with sausage/bacon. Its a country dish. Jeez now I'm hungry.

Key lime pie is a lemon like pie if a rememebr correctly. Quite good but I am not partial to pies.

Grits, also known as craklin' grits is ground corn served for breakfast. I believe fried. Its a southern thing but you don't see it much in Texas (unlike breakfast tacos, oh man I'm hungry again)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grits

" My cousin Vinnie" suddenly makes a whole lot more sense.

Key Lime pie is just Lime pie eh ? Kind of disappointing.

I am confused still as to "white gravy" and "biscuits". What are the biscuits made of-- over here biscuits is the term for what ( I believe) you guys call cookies, with cookie being a specific type of biscuit. Are these southern biscuits more akin to rusks then ?

A biscuit here is a fluffy concoction. how to describe. I guess more like a soft pastry. Kind of like a croissant I'd say. here this should be helpful.

http://www.cookingnook.com/buttermilk-biscuits.html

Oh....a scone

If you must use our language, please endeavour to do so with some accuracy!