|
| Thread: Princess Diana |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted January 15, 2005 05:52 AM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 14 Jan 2005
|
You Missed It Svarog
Not but a very short time ago, I had been calling PrivateHudson a British "citizen". To this he adamantly corrected my use of the word. He gave a small and short reason in the Real-Life meetings thread why British people consider themselves "subjects". As I recall, he explained something about having 'good will'. I was as confused then as I am now to the meaning of this explanation but I never asked him to elaborate. I do wish he would though; I'm very much interested in the explanation.
The word "subject" is thought of with extremely negative/derogatory inferences here in the U.S.(perhaps we never forgot the revolution ). To be called this by another american is to insinuate that you are of less stature, less equal; also to infer the person is your slave. And all of these are merely slang interpretations. You won't find these definitions in the dictionary but people do still use it in such a way as this(personal experience).
This was my original thinking until PrivateHudson demanded that I call him such. I think Peacemaker was also curious because we then wondered why he would want to be called this derogatory name.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
posted January 15, 2005 06:20 AM |
|
|
I think you missed his joke Consis. 
Thats why I commented.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Asmodean
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Heroine at the weekend.
|
|
posted January 15, 2005 02:30 PM |
|
|
I for one think that the press tends to blow a lot of stuff about Harry out of proportion.
While not being a personal fan of the British Royal family, I can't help but feel sorry for him.
I am equally sure that his older brother has done just as many stupid things, but they didn't get this type of media coverage because he's the heir to the throne.
A lot of people in Britain, and some of the papers feel that Charles should abdicat the throne in favour of William when Liz finally kicks the bucket.
A whole bunch of reasons go into it - the thing with Camilla, Diana and those horrible big ears of his.
So those people deliberately turn a blind eye to whatever William may get up to and instead focus the scandal machine on Harry to sell their papers.
And if this is the best they can come up with, a rather lame fancy dress (he's loaded, you think he could have afforded a better looking one!) then they're really scraping the bottom of the barrel imo.
____________
To err is human, to arr is pirate.
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
|
posted January 15, 2005 03:11 PM |
|
|
This thing has now reached Norway as well. I was reading a Norwegian tabloid last night, and I took notice of to things in it: One "article" and one small news report of a few lines.
The "article" was about Harry's little party incident, and the little news report was about the last statements from Le Pen.
Now, the article said that Harry went to a birthday party some of his upper class friends held, and that the theme for the party was "colonies and indegiunous (?) peoples". A theme that's not exactly fitting the British upper class.
Anyway, it alsosaid that Harry went in a uniform that the Forces of Rommel used in North Africa. Now, I might be wrong, but isn't these the forces who, because of the extremely few SS soldiers in the army, were the most "humane" of all the Nazi armies in their treatment of POWs and civilians?
I noticed the small Le Pen story because of some things PH posted earlier in the thread.
It said that Le Pen is risking prison in France these days, because he's said that the Nazi occupation of France wasn't really that bad. To quote some: "'The German occupation wasn't that inhumane. If the Germans had increased their massive executions around the place, they wouldn't have needed consentration camps.' Only 'common mistakes' were made according to Le Pen. He also added that tat it was 'much to say' about Oradour-sur-Glane, without going further into the specifics. But through that sentence, he sowed doubts about the largest massacre in France during WWII, a symbol of the suffering in France during the occupation. On June 10. 1944, 643 people were killed when they were locked up inside the village church, and the Germans set fire to it."
Imo, the last guy (Le Pen) is much more dangerous than the first one (Harry), since Le Pen is a politician who get millions of votes in France, while Harry is just a kind of powerless figurehead, doomed because of his birth to become no more than a page filler for the gossip magazines and tabloids...
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted January 15, 2005 03:30 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Anyway, it alsosaid that Harry went in a uniform that the Forces of Rommel used in North Africa
From what I've seen I doubt it was to be honest. It looked more like an ordinary shirt with armband and collar tabs than a proper attempt at a uniform.
Quote:
On June 10. 1944, 643 people were killed when they were locked up inside the village church, and the Germans set fire to it."
Indeed. Das Reich SS Panzer Division had been stationed in the south of France to refit from a mauling on the eastern front. When D-Day occurred the division was ordered northwards, but local resistance, directed by British orgs like SOE and so on blew vital railroads and bridges on it's route through the country. In retaliation the SS directed it's wrath against the civilians of that poor town/village.
Quote:
Imo, the last guy (Le Pen) is much more dangerous than the first one (Harry), since Le Pen is a politician who get millions of votes in France, while Harry is just a kind of powerless figurehead, doomed because of his birth to become no more than a page filler for the gossip magazines and tabloids...
Indeed. This only highlights that there must be some reason behind the outcry against Harry and I strongly suspect it's to abuse his situation to publicise the upcoming holocaust memorial day. Co-incidentally, I've yet to see a single British paper report the Le Pen comments, which says a lot for the lack of quality of our press...
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted January 15, 2005 11:07 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I was as confused then as I am now to the meaning of this explanation but I never asked him to elaborate
Hmmm well if you insist....
The goodwill thing was in recognition of the fact that whilst the Monarch of our country retains certain powers, they know without a shadow of a doubt that to abuse (and in most cases even use) those powers would be a grave error. For example, off the top of my head the Queen can:
Command the armed forces: She is technically head of the armed forces, though no monarch since the Hanovarians (1700's roughly) has done so in battle. In theory this gives the monarch an immense power base, in reality the armed forces would be unlikely to support the monarch over parliment unless circumstances were pretty extreme.
Refuse to sign laws: IIRC every law that is passed by our parliment follows a process of being voted for in the Commons, and if accepted is passed to the Lords. The lords can (and do) reject bills that the commons have passed, but can only send it back to the commons to pass again. After a number of rejections from the Lords, the commons can force it through anyway. Then finally it goes to the Monarch and becomes law in fact when signed by him/her. In theory the King/Queen could refuse to do this, but in reality this would be incredibly unpopular (depending on the law of course) and result in a large downturn in public support.
Call Parliment: Every time a General Election is held, the winning party have to go to the Monarch for permission to govern on their behalf. In theory the Monarch can refuse to let an elected party form a government. They can also refuse to open parliment if they so wish too. Again, the consequences of opposing the will of the people would be disasterous.
Hence why it works much on good will. Unless extreme circumstances called for it, the people would not stand for the Monarch abusing the power they have and would pretty sharpish remove them. The power exists, but in a way only to act as a safeguard against an abusive government. Now I wouldn't garuntee that the exact wording or situation is this way, it's what I understand of it though.
As to the "subject" issue, I really doubt it's that important to most people here outside radical republicans. We don't consider it derogatory as we know that though technically we live under a monarchy, in reality we have a working democracy. The Monarchy has very little direct influence on most people's lives, so I see no reason to be worried about being under them so to speak.
After all, after seeing Chirac and Bush, you may get a clue as to why an Elected head of state isn't too popular here
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted January 19, 2005 01:13 AM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 19 Jan 2005
|
Research Intermission
Quote:
If you're looking at it from the revolution onwards, you'll miss some supporting evidence for your theory, which btw I consider to be rather sound. If you look into things like the Magna Carta and the English Civil war you will get further proof. Both show periods where the Monarch demanded absolute power as a devine right, or an attempt to exercise power that was unpopular. Both also show that elements of English society (Barons in the MC, Parliment in ECW) rose against this and forced the king to accept conditions to his power and forms of civil rights. I'd heartily reccomend studying those periods, even if only briefly to show background proof and that the process was gradual rather than abrupt.
I have finished my research on the French revolution and am now starting on exactly what you suggested. The Magna Carta, English civil war, and the actual end-date of British Monarchical rule are my focus. This is of course all in an effort to help myself better understand the current global opinion toward the last surviving royal family.
Quote:
Also it may well be worth a look into Louis XIV's reign to examine what real absolute monarchy was like and how he was able to make such a system work, comparing this to Louis the XVI who obviously could not.
I have done so. I have come to the conclusion that the French revolution was the global denouement and most sobering primevil answer of humanity's true feelings toward absolute monarchism.
Quote:
If I was going to suggest one thing to consider it would be that really speaking, people did not always care so much about an absolute ruler as long as said ruler was popular and sucessful.
I disagree. My answer is the formation of the Roman Republic.
Quote:
The people rose against Louis XVI to remove his absolute authority and weaken the Monarchy(before they ever considered executing him the revolutionaries created a constitutional monarchy), but soon afterwards accepted the reign of Napoleon who wielded even stronger dictatorial powers than Louis.
(my large disagreement is more closely associated with your lack of detail than the actual details you have given/I furthermore disagree with the usage of 'the people' in the context with which you used it/it almost seemed to me that you intended 'the people' to mean all people)
I must admit this use of the word "the people" is grossly misrepresented in my own American Declaration of Independence. It is clear to me that by saying, "We The People" it insinuates that America represents all men/women. This is a common misconception of today's American citizen. Many people today think that America is leading the world in civil rights and progression of mankind on the whole. I can't disagree with this philosophy enough. It is absolute arrogance to think that our nationalism sets the standard for the rest of the world. I was in complete agreement with John Kerry when he said "we must pass the global test"! This man could not have been more on the mark in my opinion. I fully understand the significance of nationalism but one must not let it take control over his/her own understanding of human civil rights.
I think the people(as you have referred to them as) rose against Louis XVI after a long period of damning events. They did not simply rise to remove his power and authority over them. In my opinion they rose through a successive period of what many historians refer to as an 'age of enlightenment'. By the time the 1790's had begun the French had already been through harsh winters, wide-spread famine, disease, and increasing taxation upon even the most basic of necessities such as a simple loaf of bread. I do agree that the French people had felt nothing short of contempt for their monarch but they also came to hate the very man himself; along with his wife Marie. He was fat, indecisive, and ultimately proved to betray his own people through his escape attempt. This man and his role as sovereign King of France was absolutely despised by the French.
I also disagree that the French 'accepted'(as you say) Napoleon's reign as self-proclaimed Emperor. In fact shortly after the British had trapped him in north Africa by destroying most of his naval vessels, the current French governing body had been discussing a clever idea to convince Napoleon to invade and take over Great Britain. It was the best they could come up with to try and keep him out France and off conquering something. Napoleon seems to have had most of his success toward becoming emperor largely dependant on his military successes. Once he started losing his wars then his political power would instantly falter. In addition to his military(dictatorial) authoritarian rule, Napoleon actually received papal approval of his right to rule. This act was in contradiction to the revolution. The French turned toward the catholic church as the next consecutive target following the death of King Louis XVI. The French people concluded the church had been a supporter of the French monarchy ergo they shared the blame for French turmoil and poverty.
Quote:
Napoleon also had an interesting habit of placing Brothers and Marshals on the thrones of Europe's duchies and countries showing nepotism. What I'm suggesting is that you should consider that people would not rebel and force their monarchs to accept less power if the Monarch was popular basically, part of the reason why the process could be argued to take so long.
As I say......I respectfully disagree. I believe the timing was more related to an increase of populations per capita for each respective body of sovereign identity. And that, in and of itself, is an entire body of research all together seperate from the newest terminology of that time affectionately called "ideology" and the warring thereof.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted January 19, 2005 11:48 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I think the people(as you have referred to them as) rose against Louis XVI after a long period of damning events. They did not simply rise to remove his power and authority over them.
Difference of the use of the term I guess. By the people I meant the people responsible for the revolution as opposed to the more American use of the term, ie the populace at large. Kind of like the comparisons to the rebellions in England under the Tudors. Without fail these would occur in years with bad crops and high taxes, which would be the people's reasons for rebellion. The leaders would usually have higher aims such as religious reform or to replace the king. Similarly though the people of France despised Louis XVI, they would not have been as willing to remove him without the problems of taxes and crop failiure, and certainly not as able without the sizable middle classes and some nobles also throwing their weight behind the matter.
Quote:
I also disagree that the French 'accepted'(as you say) Napoleon's reign as self-proclaimed Emperor. In fact shortly after the British had trapped him in north Africa by destroying most of his naval vessels, the current French governing body had been discussing a clever idea to convince Napoleon to invade and take over Great Britain. It was the best they could come up with to try and keep him out France and off conquering something
Napoleon had little realistic power in France at the time of Egypt. He may have been a sucessful General who dabbled in politics, but he was not in position to take power until he returned.
Quote:
Napoleon seems to have had most of his success toward becoming emperor largely dependant on his military successes. Once he started losing his wars then his political power would instantly falter.
Being unpopular in parliment did not make one unpopular in the country though. I'll be the first to admit that he had enemies throughout parliment, not least from the die-hard republicans, but he was popular throughout most of the army and quite popular at home amongst the people despite his dictatorial regime. Enemies would always exist and look for political openings and times when the ruling person was weak, it's nothing new. Napoleon was aware of this true, hence why he was more inclined towards military solutions and making France dominant in Europe.
Quote:
He was fat, indecisive, and ultimately proved to betray his own people through his escape attempt. This man and his role as sovereign King of France was absolutely despised by the French.
I'd argue that the role as absolute monarch was not the problem for the common person, but for the middle classes and some nobles.
Quote:
In addition to his military(dictatorial) authoritarian rule, Napoleon actually received papal approval of his right to rule. This act was in contradiction to the revolution. The French turned toward the catholic church as the next consecutive target following the death of King Louis XVI. The French people concluded the church had been a supporter of the French monarchy ergo they shared the blame for French turmoil and poverty.
Well that part is true as far as it goes, but one has to question whether the supressing of the church was entirely popular in France and how much Napoleon's support would have dropped for gaining papal backing. There were after all a number of rebellions in France against the Revolution and it's attacks on the church.
Quote:
As I say......I respectfully disagree. I believe the timing was more related to an increase of populations per capita for each respective body of sovereign identity
Not seeing your logic here sorry. Social history is never my strongpoint anyway, never as interesting as battles A Level Tudor History generally held to that theory I expressed though and certainly supported it.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted January 19, 2005 06:56 PM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 19 Jan 2005
|
My 'Per Capita' Theory
Sorry to sound so confusing. It's my own little theory. Please let me try and explain it.
Let's say you have a city containing 10 people. Each person provides each a different necessary requirement for the city to exist. One farms, a second builds housing, a third cooks food, etc. In a small city with so low a population you might hear each with their respective usual complaint at a townhall meeting. The farmer complains of the weather destroying crops; the cook complains there is not enough grain to make bread; and the architect complains there are not enough people to help him build the houses. These are all logical and reasonable complaints in a city. Now let's take this miniature city and give it governance. Give it a King and a military/police force. Of the 10 people 3 are reserved for the cooking, building, and farming; one is now the King; and 6 are left with city defense(ie military/police).
All of this is relatively tiny in comparison any one of today's massively populated cities thus we can logically conclude that its problems/complaints are relatively tiny. Ergo a miniature city has miniature problems. The population of France at the time of the revolution was 26 million. This is an increase of 6 million people in the last hundred years. This is a comparitively massive jump in comparison to the prior 200yrs in which the whole of the country had only increased by one million(largely affected by the plague). My whole per capita theory is based on population growth in a small amount of time(ie 100yrs).
Per Capita Theory:
"If a geographic region exceeds more than 30% population increase within 100yrs then it requires massive technological/economic theoretical jumps that must be recognized and implemented by the governing body." Failure to do so will result in massive populace civil unrest and upheaval.
My argument is that King Louis XVI did not have any such grandeur economic/technological advancements motivation/innovations. He didn't seem to care at all. If he needed more money then he'd simply tax the hell out of the poor French people. This guy had not a single visionary bone in his body.
Aside from my boring/confusing/complex theoretical ramblings, I do agree that historical battles are quite exciting to read about.
I was slowly working my way toward the defeat of the British army that had defeated Napoleon. They were of course defeated by our own American president Andrew Jackson; on the coast of Louisiana at the very end of war of 1812; after a peace had already been negotiated by our two countries. Now that is quite an interesting battle! I'll try to refrain from gloating
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted January 19, 2005 07:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I was slowly working my way toward the defeat of the British army that had defeated Napoleon. They were of course defeated by our own American president Andrew Jackson; on the coast of Louisiana at the very end of war of 1812; after a peace had already been negotiated by our two countries. Now that is quite an interesting battle! I'll try to refrain from gloating
Pakenham was a half-mad fool who got his position through seniority (ie being around the longest) and connections (ie being Wellington's brother in law) so it's hardly a huge shock that such a man would be as stupid as to attack Jackson's position. Jackson's position btw would have been untenable had the RN commander been brave enough to risk bringing his warships into the area, meaning Jackson's "trench line" would have been enfiladed and shot down like flies. We here prefer to remember thrashing soundly the invasion of Canada (4 times in 60 years no less, but the most important was in this war) and occupying Washington.
Co-incidentally, Wellington was offered command of the British army in North America with the aim of invading from Canada. He refused saying it needed more troops than was available, domination of all the great lakes (which was impossible for the Brits) and much more money than the British had. Remember that for the entire 1812 war, with the exception of the last 1/2 of 1814, the British were heavily engaged against Napoleon. Out of a not very large army, over 80,000 were costantly fighting the French in Spain and Portugal alone. Britain had in effect bankrupted herself funding the wars, and most of her navy was tied down blockading France also. It's in this context that the 1812 war should be remembered, that Britain was never going to treat it as much more than a sideshow. Napoleon was the main aim, the primary target if you will. Britain's biggest wish in the 1812 war was to maintain Canada and then hold onto a status quo with the USA until France was beaten. There are many that will tell you Britain lost the war, the truth is more that Britain did exactly what it desired to do, so even if the US did achieve some of it's aims, it's pointless saying that the British did not also do so.
As for your theory, it's interesting, but I doubt it would cover or explain more than a selcted few rebellions or civil wars. The majority in england that I have studied owe their reasons to other causes, and "the" Civil war especially does.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted January 20, 2005 12:07 AM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 19 Jan 2005
|
Slight Response, Mild Humor
Quote:
Pakenham was a half-mad fool who got his position through seniority (ie being around the longest) and connections (ie being Wellington's brother in law) so it's hardly a huge shock that such a man would be as stupid as to attack Jackson's position.
Bah...he's only a fool to you because he lost the battle. The most significant aspect of this particular battle was "terrain". These sorts of swamps and marshes were not common in the European theater whence they had come after having defeated one of the greatest military geniuses in history. After defeating Napoleon Great Britain had secured its place in the world as the most powerful country. I was deeply saddened by the loss of your great and admirable Mediterranean naval commander(can't remember his name currently). He was a master and it was he who kept the French from maintaining security in that region. I would even go so far as to speak his name alongside sir Francis Drake. I half wonder if he had been assassinated because no British vessels were lost in the battle in which he died. I obviously need to go back to my research to make sure I never forget his name. It's really quite embarassing for me to not be able to recall it at this crucial time in my response. I'm ashamed.
Quote:
Jackson's position btw would have been untenable had the RN commander been brave enough to risk bringing his warships into the area, meaning Jackson's "trench line" would have been enfiladed and shot down like flies.
Oh come now, my right and honorable friend. We shant linger on what might have happened had those ships come any closer. The size of the lagoons, miniature bays, and culdesac was much too risky. They could have lost the ships, had they run aground or hit by looming land artillery. Not but a short while before(when our national anthem was written) the very same fleet had encountered near impassable penetration at Ft McHenry. So why wouldn't they be cautious of entering? They had every reason to be.
Quote:
We here prefer to remember thrashing soundly the invasion of Canada (4 times in 60 years no less, but the most important was in this war) and occupying Washington.
Touche! I'll give you that much. I'm surprised we won from that look of the start. Yes we quite clearly were decimated in Canada on down to Washington. In fact I think in some cases whole towns would simply give up without fighting! Not very patriotic I admit.
However, Washington....yes Washington...hahaha...and why didn't the British remain in Washington? LoL! I understand if you scream, "Not our fault!" Because well...it wasn't your fault or even ours. That was the first, last, and only time anyone has ever invaded our nation's capitol; enjoy your fleeting success.
First of all it took a great deal of bravery for us to declare war on Britain. I think we only had a total of 7million population country-wide; most were farmers. And we didn't simply declare war on any average country, but the most powerful in the world at the time. In fact some people were so against the war that they called it "Madison's war".
Quote:
Co-incidentally, Wellington was offered command of the British army in North America with the aim of invading from Canada. He refused saying it needed more troops than was available, domination of all the great lakes (which was impossible for the Brits) and much more money than the British had.
Too right. As I recall this was how Napoleon planned to win against Great Britain. It failed obviously but it was his plan none the less. I think the British had allied with Russia too. This, in my opinion, is what kept them afloat. At the time, Britain was an economic fledgling industrialized country with a rapid growth. In turn, no honor was taken from Britain in losing to our rag-tag fledgling country. We weren't a threat at all. We were more of a threat to the Canadian colonies but certainly not the island homeland. This is where you are absolutely correct in saying that Britain was right to focus on Naploeon over our 7million-pop country. Napoleon was indeed the great threat.
Quote:
Remember that for the entire 1812 war, with the exception of the last 1/2 of 1814, the British were heavily engaged against Napoleon. Out of a not very large army, over 80,000 were costantly fighting the French in Spain and Portugal alone. Britain had in effect bankrupted herself funding the wars, and most of her navy was tied down blockading France also. It's in this context that the 1812 war should be remembered, that Britain was never going to treat it as much more than a sideshow. Napoleon was the main aim, the primary target if you will. Britain's biggest wish in the 1812 war was to maintain Canada and then hold onto a status quo with the USA until France was beaten.
I agree completely. No argument here.
Quote:
There are many that will tell you Britain lost the war, the truth is more that Britain did exactly what it desired to do, so even if the US did achieve some of it's aims, it's pointless saying that the British did not also do so.
My right and honorable friend speaks the truth.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted January 20, 2005 12:39 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Bah...he's only a fool to you because he lost the battle
Any general can loose a battle, few would elect to charge close order infantry over open terrain into the face of fire from entrenched troops during this period. Pakenham was half-mad though, even leaving aside the battle in question. It was not uncommon during this period for a completely insane general to lead British troops, one in the peninsula was almost blind and couldn't remember orders most of the time (even when written down!) and yet still had command of the cavalry of the British army!
Quote:
was deeply saddened by the loss of your great and admirable Mediterranean naval commander(can't remember his name currently). He was a master and it was he who kept the French from maintaining security in that region.
Horatio Nelson, hero of Trafalgar, though not a man with a huge deal of non-naval common sense. Stalking the deck of a ship dressed in full Admiral's uniform with medals is not an act condusive to survival. Nelson fell because he stood out like a sore thumb on the deck and was shot down by a French sniper firing from the rigging of one of their ships.
Quote:
Oh come now, my right and honorable friend. We shant linger on what might have happened had those ships come any closer. The size of the lagoons, miniature bays, and culdesac was much too risky
Possibly, but it hardly excuses him not trying. He wasn't known for his bravery and refused to even consider the suggestion. Pakenham should have called off the attack though. I agree it would have been very difficult, but instead of trying, he didn't even consider the option, and that just isn't acceptable.
Quote:
However, Washington....yes Washington...hahaha...and why didn't the British remain in Washington? LoL! I understand if you scream, "Not our fault!" Because well...it wasn't your fault or even ours. That was the first, last, and only time anyone has ever invaded our nation's capitol; enjoy your fleeting success
We marched onto Boston Naval yards (IIRC) where we were repulsed before withdrawing into Canada from what I gather. Essentially it was a large raid rather than a concerted attempt at permanent occupation, they never intended to stay because we knew it would jeprodize our aims. Having a good part of the army in N. America down in Maryland instead of protecting Canada was not wise, nor what we wanted to do.
Quote:
First of all it took a great deal of bravery for us to declare war on Britain. I think we only had a total of 7million population country-wide; most were farmers. And we didn't simply declare war on any average country, but the most powerful in the world at the time. In fact some people were so against the war that they called it "Madison's war".
Well I'd argue that at the time of Declaration, we were not the most powerful, but probably about tied with France. Britain was powerful in empire stakes and naval issues, but less so in european affairs where France was dominant. Remember that at this stage the USA was in reality allying itself to France at the height of her power, the declaration came before the Russia campaign, with France virtually ordering continental europe about to her whim. Britain was tied down already and bankrupt, France looked invincible and troop numbers in Canada were laughably small (though so was the US army to be frank). I agree it was unpopular at the time, but the Madison would never get a better time or opportunity than 1812.
Quote:
I think the British had allied with Russia too. This, in my opinion, is what kept them afloat.
Well, the wars abound with coallitions (usually aimed at France) and changes of sides. Usually Britain found herself allied with Russia, but between about late 1807 and 1812 Napoleon forced his will somewhat on Russia. They ceded to some of his demands (Napoleon had beaten the Russians in 1807), not least to enter the continental system. This meant no trade with Britain and hurt the British as Russia was a major source for timber and woods used in ship-building. During that period relations were not quite as pleasant to say the least. Russia became a British ally by virtue of the 1812 invasion and her subsequent involvement in the 1813-14 campaigns against France, though even this was not entirely popular, Kutuzov (Arguably Russia's finest general of the period) for example argued that doing more than chasing them from Russia was pointless.
Britain had a tendency to support coallitions financially, for example in 1815 each of the allied nations agreed to put a certain number of troops into the field to remove Napoleon, except Britain who agreed to subsidise each ally for her lack of troops! British money helped make european opposition to Napoleon possible to harness into war, and this is what brought us financially to our knees almost.
Quote:
At the time, Britain was an economic fledgling industrialized country with a rapid growth. In turn, no honor was taken from Britain in losing to our rag-tag fledgling country.
I'd argue the war was drawn, both sides achieving their objectives. We lost battles but did not loose anything significant in the peace terms. We renounced the policy of impressing sailors, but as the war with France was over, the need had passed and become irrelevant.
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted January 25, 2005 06:25 AM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 25 Jan 2005
|
Sorry I Couldn't Help But Respond
Quote:
We marched onto Boston Naval yards (IIRC) where we were repulsed before withdrawing into Canada from what I gather. Essentially it was a large raid rather than a concerted attempt at permanent occupation, they never intended to stay because we knew it would jeopardize our aims.
I'm sorry but you seem to be avoiding the actual true description of what really happened. First let me say that I think you(the British; not you personally) were justified in burning our capitol. We treated York no different. But still you seem to be hesitant to mention what really happened. You were in fact not "repulsed", nor was it a "large raid". It was an absolute act of revenge to which the hand of God took an active role! 'Repulsed' you say? Is that what you call it when your entire army is flung about like childrens' play-things? It was first the hurricane and then the touchdown of a tornado that sent you Redcoats running! I'm ashamed to say that our own Bladensburg was a disaster and full victory to you. But really, did you think the regiment in Maryland would simply accept your actions as diplomatic? I think not. It was justifiable revenge, nothing more; nothing less.
Quote:
Having a good part of the army in N. America down in Maryland instead of protecting Canada was not wise, nor what we wanted to do.
Tis true. But all we really wanted was for you British to recognize our sovereignty(founded by revolution 30yrs prior) and stop the impressment. We were no real threat to the British empire. In principle perhaps we were, but nothing of any tangible means with which to cause real concern.
Quote:
Remember that at this stage the USA was in reality allying itself to France at the height of her power.
"X, Y, Z - affair"?
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted January 25, 2005 01:27 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Tis true. But all we really wanted was for you British to recognize our sovereignty(founded by revolution 30yrs prior) and stop the impressment.
To be fair, there were a good deal of people quite interested in "liberating" Canada at the start of the war, and for that matter still interested in doing so more than half a century later. Even so, the point remains that both sides achieved their aims, neither lost territory, neither side lost much. A draw therefore as I said.
Quote:
I'm sorry but you seem to be avoiding the actual true description of what really happened
Actually I'm more unaware of exactly what happened over than general details. I'm therefore totally lost as to what you then proceed to waffle about. I tend to concentrate on the much more interesting and vital part of the wars
Quote:
"X, Y, Z - affair"?
*stares blankly with lack of comprehension*
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
|
posted February 09, 2005 05:53 PM |
|
|
A Few Thoughts
I was thinking about something. It occured to me that Prince Charles hadn't thought about sitting down with Diana and discussing, in great detail and at great length, the role and responsibility of being a King or Queen. I think perhaps he simply assumed every girl wants to be Princess/Queen. But really, there are some people whom value their privacy greatly. I know of at least three people that protect their privacy as though it were a vanguard. It comes first, demands respect, and is part of a self-defining characteristic that keeps unwanted prying eyes at bay. I think Diana, being a school teacher, was the type of person who enjoyed doing things for herself. I think she enjoyed setting her schedule and performing her duties as a teacher. I think she enjoyed grading the childrens' papers in the quiet solice of her quaint domicile. I think she was indeed accustomed to being a private citizen(subject).
Whenever asked what the role of the wife of my country's First Lady(president's wife), the correct response has always been: "Whatever she wants it to be". In my country, this is because even if the president died or any of his/her successors, she does not become the new president. There can be no congressional vote that could ever approve the president's wife to office in the event of the death of her husband. There aren't any expectations placed upon her for anything concerning politics. Anything she does and says will ultimately be an act of personal choice. But the Princess of Whales could become Queen and have political power within that country. Because of this, I think there are appropriately placed rules and expectations regarding the role of the King's wife. A political figure should not go without some kind of responsibility and regulations by his/her parliament/congress; this is ethical and reasonable.
Contrary to the United States, bringing a person such as this into role of King's-wife must be a massive undertaking and change in personal living. What if the Prince never told her she would be required to keep a diary of her palacial years, plan events 6 months in advance, and that her first-born(Prince William) would never be allowed to travel in the same vehicle as Charles? I can understand my own country's national security measures for our elected officials. These people wanted the job and expected the kind of effects it would have on their personal lives. When ever we have a Congressional meeting of any kind, only half of the senators are allowed in the building at any time. The President, Vice President, and House Speaker often find themselves being strategically seperated in case of an attack. One or two might be killed but the third would be out of harm's way. These are all regular procedural steps expectedly coordinated by our national secret service, F.B.I., C.I.A., and local police to ensure our government is protected from terrorists. Diana was a very caring mother however, who very much enjoyed spending quality time with her children. She loved to hold them, talk to them, hug them, and rock them in her arms. A person such as this would never be suited to having a nanny and she definitely wouldn't want to leave her own children for any length of time. What did the Queen say; that she had to leave Charles for 6 months when he was young? I would have thought Diana's child births to be perfectly normal as were mine and millions of other peoples'. Why was she expected to have them born in the palace? That expectation seemed very odd to me. I'm glad she openly defied the Queen to this end.
Diana obviously never belonged in the Royal family to begin with. I feel this all could have been prevented had the Prince simply spent the time required to understand her better. I now know why looking to other persons of aristocratic upbringings might be more suited for royal wedlock. They might have a bit more understanding of what to expect and were probably raised in the media spotlight to begin with.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted February 10, 2005 05:58 PM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 10 Feb 2005
|
American-Confused
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/02/10/charles.camilla/index.html
Well it's done then. It's finally come to this. After all that has happened, Prince Charles has finally decided to wed Ms. Bowles. I have so many questions:
1. I don't understand the significance of the death of Charles' grandmother. How was she the last obstacle to him marrying Camilla?
2. What the hell is a "Princess Consort"? Does this title imply/designate less political power or stature?
3. I have to wonder what their wedding will be like as compared to his wedding to Diana. Methinks it must be a great deal less extravagant.
4. I wonder what William and Harry truly think. I can hardly accept "delighted" as any sort of real response.
*sigh*...Charles will be much happier no doubt, but what will this do to William and Harry? Even if he does have a right to be happy, how will it affect the boys? Everyone copes with stress in different ways. For some it can be an enlightening experience but for others it can be disastrous. I can't help but remember Nostradamus's prediction about brothers being torn apart and London being wrought with destruction. Could this be the beginning of a great family feud? Could this be the straw that broke the camel's back? I can't help but wonder if one or both of the lads might end up hating their father for this.
I worry about such things because I can remember how I dealt with my own parents splitting up. My mother cheated on my father and my father beat my mother into submission over it. He was drunk and betrayed while she was hospitalized and living in fear. I have never forgiven either of them and reserve strong feelings of hatred and disgust for them both to this day.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted February 10, 2005 07:48 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I don't understand the significance of the death of Charles' grandmother. How was she the last obstacle to him marrying Camilla?
Simple. The Queen Mother influenced the Queen quite a fair bit, and was popular in the country when alive. Her opposition to it would turn many against the marriage, and if she persuaded her daughter, the Queen could block the marriage also.
Quote:
What the hell is a "Princess Consort"? Does this title imply/designate less political power or stature?
It's a title given to those that marry into the royal family and will not have any power or influence usually beyond that given by their spouse. This in the past was done when a man married a Queen to ensure he would not take the throne if the queen died. Best example of recent times would be Albert, Victoria's husband.
Quote:
I have to wonder what their wedding will be like as compared to his wedding to Diana. Methinks it must be a great deal less extravagant.
Well they're not upsetting the church by having it in one, so I'm thinking they'll go for as little fuss as possible.
Quote:
I wonder what William and Harry truly think. I can hardly accept "delighted" as any sort of real response.
I doubt they have any choice in the matter, nor should they. They're both adults now, what their father does is not for them to say. I imagine by now they've had time to get used to the idea frankly.
Quote:
I can't help but remember Nostradamus's prediction about brothers being torn apart and London being wrought with destruction.
Intruiging, care to quote which one it is, or the quatrain in full? IIRC this is usually attributed to an earlier two brothers from the war of the roses period, which was during a period of huge family feud.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
|
posted February 11, 2005 06:24 PM |
|
Edited By: Consis on 11 Feb 2005
|
I'm A Fool
As well anyone should be who tries to interpret Nostradamus' prophecies/predictions. My thoughts are exactly so, and it would be perfectly sound to call me a fool for translating them in my own unique way.
First let me say that I've always thought his predictions were meant for greater populace concepts. That is to say that I have always thought of him as a reflectionist artist of future sentiments. And it is through this preconceived notion that I interpret his predictions. I have always thought of the late Princess Diana as so much more than a princess. In my mind she has always been part of a greater human concept. I believe her to be an icon of the untenable human desire for the ideal fairy tale wedding. To this end I have loosely gathered a handful of Nostradamus's quatrains that vaguely fit my perception of how things are going and might come to pass. Here goes nothing:
Year X:
36
Upon the King of the stump speaking of wars,
The United Isle will hold him in contempt:
For several good years one gnawing and pillaging,
Through tyranny in the isle esteem changing.
My thoughts: I think the stump speaking wars is a reference to the American 04 presidential campaign(i.e. debates). While these were proceeding, the British had their Oxford scholars debate the American presidency as well. This is also a reference to Bush being hated in the U.K. It also is referencing the current increasing U.K. economic prosperity. The value of the British pound has exceeded the value of the American dollar(hence the 'good years'). I believe the tyranny is his first reference to the death of Diana. I think he believes she was murdered by a political power. I also believe the 'esteem change' is meant for vague representation of William and Harry.
39
First son, widow, unfortunate marriage,
Without any children two Isles in discord:
Before eighteen, incompetent age,
For the other one the betrothal will take place while younger
My thoughts: I believe this is a reference to the marriage about to happen between Charles and Camilla. I believe he is calling Prince Charles the 'widow'. Then I believe he jumps to Camilla and Charles not having any children. Then I think he jumps backward to Diana's youth with 'incompetent age'. And then adding to her youthful incompetence with the 'betrothal'.
40
The young heir to the British realm,
Whom his dying father will have recommended:
The latter dead Lonole will dispute with him,
And from the son the realm demanded.
My thoughts: unknown. I think it's relevant but I don't know what this might mean.
42
The humane realm of Anglican offspring,
It will cause its realm to hold to peace and union:
War half-captive in its enclosure,
For long will it cause them to maintain peace.
My thoughts: Obviously a reference to the U.K. It is obviously a reference to its well-balanced long-held peace since the last World War. I believe he is describing the price of British peace to be directly related to preventing riots at public protests.
43
Too much good times, too much of royal goodness,
Ones made and unmade, quick, sudden, neglectful:
Lightly will he believe falsely of his loyal wife,
He put to death through his benevolence.
My thoughts: I believe he is referencing the Queen Mother and the Queen have been so occupied with running a good country that they've neglected Charles as a child. The relationship between these two mothers is absolutely one of co-dependency to the point of utter exclusion of Charles' needs for his own motherly affections(good old freud was a genius). And then of course he may have secretly ordered the death of Diana when she went off with Muslim affections. 'Benevolence' to his belief in a racially secure royal family.
46
In life, fate and death a sordid, unworthy man of gold,
He will not be a new Elector of Saxony:
From Brunswick he will send for a sign of love,
The false seducer delivering it to the people.
My thoughts: When Charles finally becomes King, I believe this quatrain to be descriptive of his reign. Otherwise I haven't got a clue as to what it is detailing.
57
The uplifted one will not know his scepter,
He will disgrace the young children of the greatest ones:
Never was there a more filthy and cruel being,
For their wives the king will banish them to death.
My thoughts: This is a reference to Prince Harry's conduct and the symbol of man whom the swastika represents. It is also a mention of Prince William not being able to realize that he is really the one the country looks up to rather than his father. I must wonder at the two boys' future wives. I half-wonder if their teenage meeting with the Spice Girls has anything to do with it.
66
The chief of London through the realm of America,
The Isle of Scotland will be tried by frost:
King and Reb will face an Antichrist so false,
That he will place them in the conflict all together.
My thoughts: The next time America and Britain become hostile to each other; at the time of the famed Nostrdamus "Anti-Christ"(born in Greece).
71
The earth and air will freeze a very great sea,
When they will come to venerate Thursday:
That which will be never was it so fair,
From the four parts they will come to honor it.
My thoughts: the tsunami
72
The year 1999, seventh month,
From the sky will come a great King of Terror:
To bring back to life the great King of the Mongols,
Before and after Mars to reign by good luck.
My thoughts: Osama Bin Laden and 9/11 are the inspiration for Kim Jong IL. And the wars that follow 9/11: Afghanistan, Iraq, Africa, etc.
78
Sudden joy to sudden sadness,
It will occur at Rome for the graces embraced:
Grief, cries, tears, weeping, blood, excellent mirth,
Contrary bands surprised and trussed up.
My thoughts: death of the Pope
I fully expect plenty of laughter. I have no real means of interpretation except through my own insignificant gut feeling.
____________
Roses Are RedAnd So Am I
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted February 11, 2005 07:09 PM |
|
|
Nostradamus was extremely vauge and his works need a heavy degree of interpretation to make sense of. IMO you're falling into the trap everyone who interprets him does, ie trying to fit the quatrain to the person after the event. A perfect example would be the attempt to link Osama to one of the very few specifically dated quatrains in his works. Osama did not come from the skies in July 1999, one either accepts he was a little out, or one accepts that the interpretation is wrong, or one accepts that the prophecy was innacurate.
Given that there are oooo a few thousand books on the topic and almost every one of them interpret 90% of the quatrains in a totally different way to the rest, I very much doubt one can assume this is the correct interpretation, especially since I can't figure out why you see what you see in them other than as I said, wishing to see the link.
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted February 11, 2005 07:34 PM |
|
|
Quote:
And lo he shall deliver joy to the women of the world/
He of the enormous genitals and rugged good looks/
His gentle swagger doth make ladies swoon/
And Brot shall be his name.
Well, he got the spelling a bit off, but looks like old Nostra-diddy nailed it on this one.
____________
Drive by posting.
|
| |
|
|
