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.

 Krellnus wrote:

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.

Stay classy, Bruce.

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.

 Goliath wrote:

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.

Who,

The.

Hell.

Cares.

Thank you very much.

If you Brits and Commonwealthers like the Royal Family, do whatever. #YOLO

Palindrome wrote:

 Goliath wrote:

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.

Well, some people take anything personally even if it
a) Didn't happen to them
b) Doesn't affect them in any way
c) Happened many years ago

It's like the Macedonia naming dispute, who really cares? Macedonia didn't exist for like a thousand years, deal with it Greeks.

 LordofHats wrote:

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.

 LordofHats wrote:

Palindrome wrote:

 Goliath wrote:

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.

 LordofHats wrote:

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

 Goliath wrote:

 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...

The current UK king was Scottish, who took over the throne after the English line died out in the 1600s

uninformed indeed

 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:

 Goliath wrote:

 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...

Well, you can't spell, so...

Palindrome wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

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

 LordofHats wrote:

Palindrome wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:

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?"

Bavaria holds the true claim to the throne of England!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bavaria holds the true claim to the throne of England!

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

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?

 SilverMK2 wrote:

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.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

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.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

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.

Palindrome wrote:

 SilverMK2 wrote:

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

 Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:

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.

This has gone a little off track though

 Formosa wrote:

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.