The Second American Revolution
-
I wouldnt tell a Welshman he is English! Desribing a Scots English battle as a British civil war is to view the event from 300 or more years in the future. No doubt, if I had the ability to read the future and that future saw the UK become a Muslim state governed by the Taliban, I could call the Afghan war a UK civil war. Clearly we cant apply future knowledge or understanding in this way. The Socts-English war was a war between two nations. As was the Saxon war against the Britons. Heres a quick test for you, name two differences between Norman French and Parisien French (without googling!) :)
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
I wouldnt tell a Welshman he is English!
Neither would I! But Wales has always been considered to be merely an annex of England (a Principality), never a separate nation. No mention of Wales was made in the Monarch's title (never 'King of England & Wales, Scotland, Ireland, and France'), nor did it ever appear on the coat of arms.
Bob Emmett New Eugenicist - The weekly magazine for intelligent parenting. Published by the New World Order Press.
-
I wouldnt tell a Welshman he is English! Desribing a Scots English battle as a British civil war is to view the event from 300 or more years in the future. No doubt, if I had the ability to read the future and that future saw the UK become a Muslim state governed by the Taliban, I could call the Afghan war a UK civil war. Clearly we cant apply future knowledge or understanding in this way. The Socts-English war was a war between two nations. As was the Saxon war against the Britons. Heres a quick test for you, name two differences between Norman French and Parisien French (without googling!) :)
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
I wouldnt tell a Welshman he is English!
Nor would I, well actually I would, but just to wind them up, that is another matter :-). Actually, I have Welsh ancestry, my paternal great-grandfather was a native speaker. The long-bowyers I mentioned were integrated but not assimilated, they would have described themselves as Welsh too. I can describe myself as Northumbrian (and there are Northumbrian nationalists, just as there are Cornish/Welsh/Scots nationalists), but that doesn't stop me from being British, or English for that matter.
fat_boy wrote:
Describing a Scots English battle as a British civil war is to view the event from 300 or more years in the future.
It depends which battle you are talking about. Yes there were constant border wars and raiding, but these are not full-on wars. I was born and grew up near the Scots borders. The area has the highest [or at least one of] density of castles in the whole of Europe, this testifies to the trouble. The Northumberland countryside is still underpopulated compared to the rest of England as a result of the warfare. There are three distinct phases of Anglo-Scots fighting:
- Pre Union of the crown. In no way are these civil wars, as you quite rightly describe.
- Post Union of the crown. The Jacobite rebellions started in this period, I doubt anyone would describe these as Civil Wars but the terminology is getting shaky.
- Post Union of the parliaments. Again,Jacobite rebellions continue. It is not stupid to argue these are civil wars at all, as the Scots were trying to gain control of a unified UK/British government/nation. Bonnie Prince Charlie actually got as far south as Derby, at a time when London is undefended. It is likely if he had pressed on, he'd have taken the [unified] Crown
Of course all this has to be read (and is read) through people's identities. It is instructive that the 1745 uprising is described as a rebellion, perhaps if they'd won, it would be described as a civil war today.
fat_boy wrote:
Clearly we cant apply future knowledge or understanding in this way.
Clearly. But some of the wars happened after the 1707 Act of Union. These are arguably British Civil wars, I wouldn't describe them as such due to the odd way the unification happened. If the legal status of the bits of the UK wasn't
-
fat_boy wrote:
I wouldnt tell a Welshman he is English!
Neither would I! But Wales has always been considered to be merely an annex of England (a Principality), never a separate nation. No mention of Wales was made in the Monarch's title (never 'King of England & Wales, Scotland, Ireland, and France'), nor did it ever appear on the coat of arms.
Bob Emmett New Eugenicist - The weekly magazine for intelligent parenting. Published by the New World Order Press.
Yes, the idea of Welsh nationhood is recent, but this probably attests to the previous arogance of the English law and system rather than the sentiments of the people. We, the English and Welsh do feel seperate countires. But you have a point. I think between the English and the Scots there is greater distinction. Actually, Cornwall is heading towards seperate country staus if the locals would have their way!
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
fat_boy wrote:
I wouldnt tell a Welshman he is English!
Nor would I, well actually I would, but just to wind them up, that is another matter :-). Actually, I have Welsh ancestry, my paternal great-grandfather was a native speaker. The long-bowyers I mentioned were integrated but not assimilated, they would have described themselves as Welsh too. I can describe myself as Northumbrian (and there are Northumbrian nationalists, just as there are Cornish/Welsh/Scots nationalists), but that doesn't stop me from being British, or English for that matter.
fat_boy wrote:
Describing a Scots English battle as a British civil war is to view the event from 300 or more years in the future.
It depends which battle you are talking about. Yes there were constant border wars and raiding, but these are not full-on wars. I was born and grew up near the Scots borders. The area has the highest [or at least one of] density of castles in the whole of Europe, this testifies to the trouble. The Northumberland countryside is still underpopulated compared to the rest of England as a result of the warfare. There are three distinct phases of Anglo-Scots fighting:
- Pre Union of the crown. In no way are these civil wars, as you quite rightly describe.
- Post Union of the crown. The Jacobite rebellions started in this period, I doubt anyone would describe these as Civil Wars but the terminology is getting shaky.
- Post Union of the parliaments. Again,Jacobite rebellions continue. It is not stupid to argue these are civil wars at all, as the Scots were trying to gain control of a unified UK/British government/nation. Bonnie Prince Charlie actually got as far south as Derby, at a time when London is undefended. It is likely if he had pressed on, he'd have taken the [unified] Crown
Of course all this has to be read (and is read) through people's identities. It is instructive that the 1745 uprising is described as a rebellion, perhaps if they'd won, it would be described as a civil war today.
fat_boy wrote:
Clearly we cant apply future knowledge or understanding in this way.
Clearly. But some of the wars happened after the 1707 Act of Union. These are arguably British Civil wars, I wouldn't describe them as such due to the odd way the unification happened. If the legal status of the bits of the UK wasn't
I only used 300 years as an arbitrary time period, I should have just written 'centuries' because yes, the fighting took place over a long period of time, As for French I got a U at O'Level so all my knowledge comes from studying it way after my schooling. It is interesting though, and I believe Norman French is quite close to Channel Islands French which is still used. THe differrence between Norman French and French explain the differences between English and French, the hard Qw in English Quit (Quiter in French with a soft Qu) and so on and the position of the 'i', '-ire' vs '-rie' in words like salaire and salarie -> salary. I didnt know it was still used in the House of Lords though, that is odd!
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Yes, the idea of Welsh nationhood is recent, but this probably attests to the previous arogance of the English law and system rather than the sentiments of the people. We, the English and Welsh do feel seperate countires. But you have a point. I think between the English and the Scots there is greater distinction. Actually, Cornwall is heading towards seperate country staus if the locals would have their way!
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
There was a study that showed a correlation between the decline in the use of the Welsh language and the strength of the Welsh economy. Things have been pretty tough in Wales for the past 30-40 years, so it is no surprise that there has been a strengthening in nationalism during this period. I would imagine the same holds for Cornwall.
Bob Emmett New Eugenicist - The weekly magazine for intelligent parenting. Published by the New World Order Press.
-
fat_boy wrote:
I wouldnt tell a Welshman he is English!
Neither would I! But Wales has always been considered to be merely an annex of England (a Principality), never a separate nation. No mention of Wales was made in the Monarch's title (never 'King of England & Wales, Scotland, Ireland, and France'), nor did it ever appear on the coat of arms.
Bob Emmett New Eugenicist - The weekly magazine for intelligent parenting. Published by the New World Order Press.
Actually, the idea of a Welsh nation pre-dates the anglo-saxon conquest, and it continued on right until the 13th Century. The battle of HeavenField for example, was fought between the Welsh King(s? - seem to remeber there were two for some reason?) and the King Oswald in Northumbria (as an interesting aside Oswald was decapitated, but the Northumbrians won, it is unusual for the king to die but for his side to prevail). In the early middle ages, Wales had the status of a Principality, but was still a nation (cf Modern Luxembourg: It is technically a Dutchy, a Country rules by a Grand Duke). Incidentally, Dutchy is a truer description of English Kingship, as the King/Queen of England is "Prima Inter Pares"??? (First amoung equals) to the rest of the aristocracy (hence the use of peer, "equal"). The English crown doesn't have a patrimony (These where actually lost when Normandy, Anjou and Aquitaine fell to the French), the lands the Queen currently holds actually fall under different titles. Compare this with the French Kings, who had absolute power (by "devine right") and their patrinomic land is the Ile-de-France. The loss of the patrinomic lands benefited the English greatly, as it then required the King to raise taxes through parliament. Legally Wales and England have been the same political entity for a long time, though this has only been the case since at least the 13th century. One purpose of investing the Heir of the British throne the title Prince of Wales was historically to allowed the prince to run a country-sized entity in preparation to their accession. Additionally, it kept the prince occupied, so they didn't spend so much time trying to overthrow their father. Look what happens when this failed, as in the case of Henry II. Ouch.
ragnaroknrol The Internet is For Porn[^]
Pete o'Hanlon: If it wasn't insulting tools, I'd say you were dumber than a bag of spanners.