History Hub permalink
Welsh Independence at Last?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.
Posted by Minette Minor (U14272111) on Saturday, 5th March 2011
In 1536 with the Act of Union, England officially swallowed up Wales. Later, in 1706 it would do the same to Scotland so forming what would become Great Britain. No body ever asked the Welsh or the Scots if they agreed to this and for hundreds of years prior to this formal legislation of, by and from Westminster, Wales and Scotland had been absorbed into England's sphere of influence and treated as though they were parts of, although unruly and awkward, extensions of England.
The British are taught about English history but seldom about Welsh or Scotish, unless it is conection with English History, which to me seems a shame it is all so rich and fascinating. Distance as always plays a major part in this. Anyone who has travelled along the M6 to Scotland will appreciate that Scotland IS another country. Wales on the other hand is only two hours and a bit away from Cenral London along the M4 corridor, although people entering into Wales have to pay for the crossing. It is a marked border. On entry all signs are in Welsh and English and at this time of year daffodils are in abundance.
And like Afghanistan due the mountains and countryside of Wales, the people are diversified. For example someone from north Wales speaks very different Welsh and English to someone from the south. People in Cardiff have a different accent to those who live a mere ten miles away in the Rhondda Valley. Formerly this has been used by the English to peddle the idea that Wales has never been a united nation and "deserved what it got" when the first English king, Edward I, kicked Wales into complete subjugation. Oddly nothing could be further from the truth, we have our own language and local paterns of speech, which only the Welsh can appreciate.
(Just watch "Gavin and Stacey"). Do you know what "tidy" means? We all do which is why it's funny.
Llewellyn of Gwynedd, Prince of Wales, refused to pay allegience to Edward I, as his Over Lord, on five seperate occassions and was punished. When he refused to subjugate himself he replied about the Welsh;
"That they must stand by their laws and rights in defence of all Wales. The people preferred to die rather to live under Englsih rule. They would not do hommage unto any stranger of whose language, manners and laws they were entirely ignorant, they would fight in defence of nostra nary, our nation, against the English". Of course the Prince was killed by his English masters. Yet in the c16th, the Tudors, due to their lack of English royal ancestry, would claim descent from Welsh Royalty, Prince Cadwallader and even king Arthur of Welsh/Celtic/Romano/British descent.
One thing is true. The English and Welsh were seperate nations.
Edward I with his Draconian Laws decreed that the Welsh were inferior to the English and banned marriage between the two "races". He also made it a hanging offence for a Welsh person to be "out" after the curfew, especially in the grounds of his splendid ring of expensive Castles built by Master St James. The subjugation of the Welsh was complete by 1284 when Edward II as a baby was insultingly made the new Prince of Wales at the citadel of the new castle of Caermarthen. In 1969 Prince Charles would follow this ritual and be declared the Prince of Wales by the English/German Elizabeth II. Some habits die hard.
The Apartheidt system in Wales between the Welsh and Englsih and the laws preventing Welsh people associating with, or marrying English people in Wales would become more "lax" until the "up-rising" of the Welsh aristocrat and friend of Richard II, Owain Glyndwr at the turn of the c15th. A barrister (and Welsh Prince) Glyndwr had his lands stolen from him by a nouveau riche English Marcher Lord and he took it took it to Court. Here, Henry IV, who had just over-thrown Richard II (and judging by their letters) feeling intellectually inferior to Glyndwr slapped him down as a Welsh ingrate and so the brawl began in earnest.
Everyone he sent to "reason" with Glyndwr went over to his side, Mortimer married one of Glyndwr's royal daughters and Henry Hotspur (Percy) also joined his side, hence the "Bloody Field near Shrewsbury". English Historians rarely talk of this in connection with Glyndwr. Shakespeare gave us "Henry IV" parts One and Two and Harry Hotspur, why speak about WHY this happened? One would almost believe that Shakespeare was a "bum" historian and that the "victor" truly does write the spolis! As IF! The consequences were - the Draconion laws of Edward I were re-inforced with gusto!
The golden Court of Owain Glyndwr where music, poetry and all manner of culture thrived became a muddy training ground for young Prince Hal, later the Glorious Henry V who died of dysentry after Agincourt, where he insisted on slitting the throats of the French dying and left a mad son to rule after him. Hurrah! History owes Shakespeare so much.......?
But to cut a fascinating and long story short, including just how much a steady 3 million people of Wales are related to the first eight Presidents of the USA, to say nothing of New South Wales in Australia, Prince Meric may well have given America its name, the writers, poets and painters, actors and "film stars" this 3 million have produced (How many people are there in London alone today? 6 million?I rest my case) many useful people.
And so on March 3rd, after 470 years of English rule, the people of Wales have had enough. Even the enuii of this strange coalition government, who have no mandate to rule and cut and ravish with no thought of the future, (we'll be solvent but will have nothing of any value left, and I hated Thatcher)
Wales has said "NO"! From the posh and wealthy Vales to the countryside farms to the no longer industrial valleys. Unlike the Lib Dems and Conservatives it is wonderful to know that the Welsh still have values. We are NOT charged for prescriptions. People from as far away as Cornwall and Devon come to our University Hospital at the Heath, Cardiff. Students are allowed to go to university IF they are intelligent rather than Rich and have real Grants and our collegiate universities are still held in esteem.
Scotland is bigger than Wales with a higher population. It's lost it's native language. Even this Athen's of the North was designed by a Welshman, John Nash. (Yale University in the USA was founded by a Welshman, Yale. Nobody knows these things.) Yet Scotland has a Parliament! Wales has an Assembley, the Senedd and believe me when you sit there with ear phones in place for the Welsh/English translation, one realizes how extraordinary it is that Wales, two and a bit hours from Westminster, still has it own language and identity!
I had a brief chat with a GP friend of mine the other day about what she thought of "owning her own surgery"? She simply said...."But this is Wales"! Aneurin Bevan still lives here. I do not like the Richard Rogers Mushroom Senedd building in Cardiff Bay - too much grey slate - it needs trees and flowers and Welsh Dragon Flags as the beautiful Civic Centre has BUT this was the place where the first cheque for a million pounds was written, this is where Tiger Bay and it's multi-culture was based, where Roual Dahl went to the Norwegian Church, (though born in Llandaff) and anthracite coal fuelled the British Empire.
Wales is so beautiful it is where people chose to spend their holidays, the Gower Coast and Pembrokeshire Coast are not only areas of outstanding national beaty but international areas of outstanding natural beauty. Perhaps it is time to that Wales was unleashed from English Dominence and its laws.
God knows England has used us. During WW1 no "British" battleship could leave harbour without Welsh anthracite to fuel it. We have been used and abused for far too long. If ONLY more was known about Welsh History then you would see why Wales deserves and wants to be free of Westminster's domination.
England and Scotland have Parliaments. It is time that Wales did. We have supplied you with the raw materials and inventions, although you probably have not been told of what (ignorance is no excuse in the law) and it is or turn! It is only fair.I would do this in Welsh, but who would be able to read it?!
Welsh has different vowels and alphabet to English. If I attempted to do it here it would simply confuse. For example "ll" is a letter in Welsh pronounced "lch", w is a vowel as is...no would be fun but take too long. All good wishes Minette. -
Message 2
Posted by raundsgirl (U2992430) on Saturday, 5th March 2011
The Welsh can have Wales, and the Scots Scotland as far as I'm concerned, as long as they take all of their MPs out of OUR Parliament, don't expect us to subsidise them, and stop banging on about how the nasty cruel English done them wrong umpteen hundred years ago
-
Message 3
This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the in some way.
-
Message 4
Posted by Small Town Girl (U1483784) on Saturday, 5th March 2011
I'm a bit puzzled by your reference to QEII as being English/ German.
Her father was born in Norfolk and both of his parents were born in London.
Her mother and both of her mother's parents were born in London.
To get a German connection, one has to go back to her maternal great-greatgrandfather's parents, one of whom was born in Germany, the other in what is now Croatia.
So, assuming that one is the sum of one's g.g.grandparents, then she's 1/8th German, 1/8th Croatian and 6/8th English (or possibly 5/8ths English and 1/8th Scottish).
STG -
Message 5
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Saturday, 5th March 2011
The subjective selection of historical fact in order to prosecute a contemporary subjective political agenda speaks volumes about the speaker's priorities - in which their own personal opinion ranks highest while history is relegated to the role of dressing that opinion with spurious historical context in order to lend it a "weight" it otherwise cannot possess, being simply opinion after all.
One finds this trait quite evident amongst those whose political opinion regarding nationality is of the reactionary and inferiority complex-laden sort which, amongst populations whose sense of a collective nationality was actually forged through their own submission to a greater political power in the past, is not only quite common but actually nurtured and fostered in the interests of pursuing this narrow understanding of what nationality actually is. Anyone here from Scotland, Ireland or Wales would readily identify both Minette's tone and conceit as familiar faults which dog the study of political history in these regions. Only the individual historical data used in a vain attempt to ennoble these faults differ in each case.
My own opinion, as a lover primarily of history itself, is one of repugnance at this subversion of historical fact and, whether consciously or not on the part of the speaker, the omission by them of data which does not "suit" their opinion. It is an ill-informed and ill-conceived approach to understanding history and, in my experience, not conducive to any meaningful historical debate to which the protagonist can contribute. Such rants belong on other forums where such shallow versions of nationalism and baiting rather than debating are the preferred pursuits of the contributors. Here they are simply a waste of space - at least as long as the ranter stays involved in the discussion. -
Message 6
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Saturday, 5th March 2011
In 1536 with the Act of Union, England officially swallowed up Wales. Later, in 1706 it would do the same to Scotland so forming what would become Great Britain. No body ever asked the Welsh or the Scots if they agreed to this
And nobody ever asked the English. -
Message 7
Posted by Minette Minor (U14272111) on Saturday, 5th March 2011
Good point!
I was referring to the Saxe Cohburg Goetha connection. Which is spelled in many ways! So to be pedantic and leaving the Queen Mother aside - to the important heriditary bit....Why the Queen IS the queen, which is through her father George VI.
IF one has the right to rule it is all about one's birthright or nothing makes sense. Like horses being royal doesn't matter about where one was born but who sired and actually bore you. Although it can be interesting. I've been through the ringer with late medieval History and this is a breeze in the park where someone does not have 23 children!
As you no doubt know, it doesn't matter where George V was born it matters WHY he became king! His father Edward VII was the son of Victoria who was the neice of William IV who was the son of George III, brother of George IV and so descended from George III, George II and George I, the Elector of Hanover who was the son of the "Winter Queen" Elizabeth Stuart, daughter of James VI of Scotland AND James I of England. You are the one for fractions what do you make of this? OK let's introduce wives?
From George I to George V all married German wives. Well even Queen Victoria or if we must be exact Alexandrina, spoke German as their first language and many comment about this, Queen Victoria spoke English with a German accent.
When she married Albert, should that be Francis, of Saxe Coberg Goetha, they spoke German together, natuarally.
The reason we have a Prime Minister is because George I and George II could never bother to learn English and so the the First Lord of the Treasury, then Walpole acted as a go between twixt King and Parliament, translating. Has a PM ever had such room for manoevre before or since? George III boasted that he was born in England and could speak (not very well) the lingo! It was a farce! As long as Queen Anne's step brother, James III, James VIII IF he had had been crowned, "the Old Pretender" a Roman Catholic BUT in direct line of descent from his father the king James II, James VII of Scotland was not recognized then all would be well. Which
it wasn't.
In 1715 James III led an uprising against "German George" as he was called and lost. 30 years later his son "Bonnie Prince Charlie" Charles Edward Stuart, almost gained the throne IF he had not been made to turn back at Derby then there is little doubt that he would have become king Charles III. As a member of the Royal Stuart Society I was fortunate enough to be an insider on such matters. I've taken Mass at the Banqueting Hall on the anniversary of Charles 's execution and I've been to meeetings and banquets in the Stuart name. Not a quitter. White Rose Day (anniversary of sundry Stuart things) is June 10th. We celeberate the King over the Water.
NOT the pale insignificant offshoots who took the throne by the skin of their teeth because they happened to be PTROTESTANT descendants of Charles I's father! Ridiculous!
The present Queen loves horse racing. We all know that and even she must believe her position is due to the fact that of her odd German breeding. She is NOT a direct descendent of the last real Stuart Monarch James II. She is a descendent of his auntie! Elizabeth of Bohemia who married the Elector of Hanover. It's a shambles and due to hatred of Roman Catholicism. Actually I'm an Anglican. Not R.C.. But of course all are descended, even tenuosly from Henry VII, first of the House of Tudor. No Plantagenets allowed!
I've attempted to go on but what is the point? It has nothing to do with my question or post. Which was about Wales and the English feeling of superiority towards it. Which continues. WHY? -
Message 8
Posted by Minette Minor (U14272111) on Saturday, 5th March 2011
Dear Nordmann
In plain English? Are you saying, "up yours"?!
On brief reading it seems to me that you should bear Jane Austen in mind, when she once wrote a letter and said, "I do apologize that this letter is long. I did not have time to write a brief one".
p,s.
Iam tired and time is running out. I like you, can't think why.
So why this verbal attack? It was meant to be a discusion. -
Message 9
Posted by eristheapplethrower (U9524346) on Sunday, 6th March 2011
Austen?
I thought the letters observation was from
Blaise Pascal's Lettres provinciales : (letter 16)
"I would have written a shorter letter, but I did not have the time"
And the Union of the Parliaments happened in 1707 not 1706. -
Message 10
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Sunday, 6th March 2011
I BEG you Minette to read Nordmann's post carefully, it is in NO way an attack on you, rather very sound and wise advise. You'll be doing yourself (and everyone else)an enormous favour if you can take it on board.
-
Message 11
Posted by stanilic (U2347429) on Sunday, 6th March 2011
Minette
May I also request that you reflect on Nordmann's good advice.
I have an intense dislike of nationalism although I can understand how people end up there. Also I dislike the use of history to dress up arguments about current events. Yes, I agree we got here somehow but surely the objective today is to build a better, more humane society rather than whinge about the past. I can never see how carping on about difference can do that.
Might I also request as partially a descendant of immigrant Germans and minor Scottish aristocracy that I find sneering at the DNA of the Royal Family offensive as I feel I am being sneered at as well. Yet in the same context I am also part Welsh. By all means argue against constitutional monarchy but why make it so personal? In the nineteenth century the biggest immigrant community in Britain were the Germans: so there is a lot of it about! The pain this community experienced from 1914 onwards was extensive and vicious. Why continue it?
I am a great admirer of Michael Collins who was a passionate and very violent Irish nationalist. Irish Catholic Unionist and British members of my own family fought him and consequently the Catholics went into exile because they viewed him and his supporters as thugs. Despite these intense family feelings I can see what Collins achieved, respect it and put it into context.
History is a subject endowed with the entire behaviour of the human race. It needs to be savoured, studied and enjoyed. Like food it should not be thrown into the faces of others. -
Message 12
Posted by Small Town Girl (U1483784) on Sunday, 6th March 2011
> So to be pedantic and leaving the Queen Mother aside - to the important heriditary bit ..... doesn't matter about where one was born but who sired and actually bore you.
I have tried to follow the logic of this, believe me.
To say that it matters who sired you AND actually bore you - and leave the Queen Mother aside simply doesn't make sense.
> From George I to George V all married German wives.
Ah, well here you have a problem. If we go with your opening gambit that mother's don't count ("putting the Queen Mother aside"), then George's V's wife, May of Teck's father was Croatian* so that, according to you, is the defining nationality. So, not a male German ancester in sight until we get back to Albert.
* And don't try to tell me that it was part of Germany at the time, because if so then I expect the locals were as thrilled about being occupied/ruled by Germany as you appear to be about being "ruled by the English".
> I've attempted to go on but what is the point? It has nothing to do with my question or post. Which was about Wales and the English feeling of superiority towards it. Which continues. WHY?
Posting on a public message board means that you can put something out there, but it doesn't mean that you get to control what is actually discussed. We live in a free country. -
Message 13
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Sunday, 6th March 2011
Hi MInette
1536 hey.. Should this be a warning from history about what happens when the Welsh are in power?
I suppose by design it would have been a King Arthur who would have brought this about, but his younger brother had to do.. I always thought that Richard Burton was "right" as an actor in terms of Welsh bombast and fire. But Burton was an open-side wing forward, who played to quite a high level, once he said being expected to "mark" Cliff Morgan (?).. It is pretty obvious that Henry VIII was much more of a Ryan Jones or even one of the Quinnels. Blind-side/Number eight in his youth, and massive second row as he got older.
Back to more conventional history - Henry VIII not only did this unification, but also seized the wealth of the Church and used it to help to pay for his government schemes. In a not dissimilar way Lloyd George seized the wealth of the British landowning class to pay for his own government schemes, and also compelled the London bankers, with the intellectual support and encouragement of J.M.Keynes, to hand over the British Gold Reserves- underpinning the global economy- to the USA in order to pay for the war..
Were these examples of use, or abuse, of power?
After the Welsh vote that you have welcomed, I am left wondering when the 80% of the Welsh electorate who did not vote, and all those Welsh who did not have a vote, will discover a "Barebones Parliament" situation in which a small band of enthusiasts and extremists will take over these new powers to impose by law their own vision of the New Millennium.
But I am glad that it brought you joy, and perhaps lifted you out of your Lib-Dem disillusionment.
Cass -
Message 14
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Sunday, 6th March 2011
PS
Minette
The collapse of the Lib Dem vote in the thursday's by-election, while reflecting the particular circumstances of time and place, also reflects what happens when such a party that has been based upon activists who think that with a mere foothold on power they can transform the state of affairs suddenly being confronted by the kind of coalition politics reality that PR and such "fairer" forms of voting usually create..
The great Welsh dream- I always come back to Bonnie Tyler "Holding on for a Hero"- is for great leadership like the legendary King Arthur who can unite all men of goodwill.. In fact the age of the State the art of politics and the art of diplomacy is very much in line with a much more compromising and moderate approach based upon mutual respect and understanding, which I know you know all about Minette from your university studies that included Politics.
Cass -
Message 15
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Sunday, 6th March 2011
Hi Minette
Surely the results of the vote on Thursday should be a celebration of living in Wales, of people feeling that self determination is a valid state rather than a form of triumphalism against a perceived apartheid that has long since passed.
I have to disagree with Cass about the percentages, in fact that over a 3rd of the electorate voted with a huge swing to the “Yes” position indicates the election was certainly legitimate.
We have often discussed on these boards that most people throughout the United Kingdom are a very mixed bunch with links to all Nationalities (Welsh, Scottish, Irish, English and dare we say it European) within their family trees, so to look for “pure bloods” is probably impossible.
So is Nationalism made up of your lineage (as you postulate) or where you live and love? There may well be a feeling of belonging when you “come back home to Wales” but does this indicate that yoiu are Welsh or just where you feel at home?
If the later is the case, which I believe, it is purely a transient State.
The migrations to and from one part of the country to another to look for work whether as an Archer from Wales, a Coal Miner from England or a Railway Worker from Scotland permeates our history.
I live in West Wales but work all over the country and there are many thousands who cross the Severn Bridge in both directions every day to work with each other to produce great things as colleagues and friends.
To say that Wales is unique in that there is one accent in Cardiff and a different one in the Rhondda and yet ignore a Newcastle accent as against a Yorkshire accent versus a Cockney to an Essex local is disingenuous.
Why do you think that the English feel superior to the Welsh?
It seems a misguided attitude to have. Yes the cultures are different but then so are the cultures in many other countries. Do you feel the same about them?
There are many who have moved to Wales from England for the lifestyle, to bring their children up in the Welsh Culture and language, to have Welsh friends but still be happy in their English skins and yet be welcome in the Valleys......
There are many from Wales who now live in England, possibly more than actually live in Wales yet I don’t expect that they feel like foreigners but are still proud of their heritage whether it is mixed or not.
Yes Wales is unique and beautiful, has a wonderful language, a joy and melancholy all of its own and people go there to holiday but equally England and Scotland have their wonderful traits and beautiful landscapes where people go on holiday.
To say that the people of Wales have been persecuted is no doubt true but the working classes in England and Scotland have been equally persecuted, look at Judge Jefferies sitting in Devizes, Dickensian London, or Serfdom throughout the ages and you will see that there is more in common with each other than that which separates.
I think that having the Senedd able to make its own laws is something that is worthwhile, historic and necessary especially with the proposed reduction of Welsh MPs at Westminster.
Regional government in England could also work and is possibly needed. We are now a population of some 60 millions and reflecting the needs of very different groupings is difficult and central Government just can’t cope.
It would seem that Westminster has actually lost touch with nearly all its regions and what is now happening is that through various circumstances it is the very rich who are now exempt from the trials and tribulations that will affect most areas and classes over the next few years, regardless of nationality.
People that I know in Wales are celebrating, looking to a new future but appreciate Wales cannot work in isolation any more than can England work in isolation from Wales or Scotland.
Someone mentioned that Wales gets subsidies from England but much of England’s prosperity is derived from Wales or the Welsh but equally Wales needs to build its own prosperity as does the rest of the United Kingdom. None of us can run on handouts wherever this is sourced.
We cannot hark back to Edward the first or the Romans, or Arthur or indeed to the more recent iniquities of the Welsh language being banned in schools.
What’s the point? We can’t change the past but we can learn from it and move
forward so those mistakes are not repeated or take on board the great successes and emulate them.
Surely it is more positive to look at the increase of the Welsh language and pride that is now more pronounced than ever and deservedly so but no more than one should be proud to be English or Scottish or (dare we say) British.
Let’s try and keep the Nationalism for the Rugby for a couple of hours, enjoy it and then get back to the real world of day to day living with each other where we can all benefit from our different attitudes and our shared or separate histories.
Insulting each other should not be part of the menu on these boards.
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 16
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Sunday, 6th March 2011
No body ever asked the Welsh or the Scots if they agreed to this
Frankly, I did not get beyond the first para of the opening post as it was the usual garbled nationalistic nonsense.
However, the first para has enough misnomers to go along with.
When Wales was subsumed into the English entity, no one asked the English either. That tends to be how absolute monarchies behave. The Tudors were, in any case, famously, Welsh in origin.
In fact, the legal authorities in Scotland were asked. Again, the bulk of the English people were no more referred to in this decision than the bulk of the Scottish people were asked.
Assuming victim status is always pathetic. Assuming it in the face of contradictory facts doubly so.
Whatever the history, the current situation is bizarre.
The sooner the fringe nations go their own way, the better. -
Message 17
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Sunday, 6th March 2011
Correction to previous posting a "yes" was left out of my statement.
Two thirds of the third of the electorate, who voted, voted "Yes"- which means about 23+% of the electorate have actively supported the idea enough to vote for it.
Following TA's post it is to be hoped that at least this proportion of the electorate, and all those who are too young to vote, but whose future is at stake, will be prepared to put their shoulder to the wheel in order to make a success of Minette's new Wales.. And perhaps Wales will be more successful than the Scottish nationalists in their "Year of the 鶹Լcoming" in attracting Welsh and would be Welsh people to the cause.
I suspect that this will call for what I have described as "Labour Investment" which is being being prepared to work for the public good with which private good is inextricably intertwined irrespective of the modern condition in which its seems to be assumed that all that can be done is what people can be paid to do.
In the lost post I mentioned- in the light of Minette's OP- a recent reading of Nicholas Crane's account of his re-treading of Gerald of Wales tour around Wales in 1188 as part of a team preaching the Crusade.. Hopefully MInette and others will be more successful than Gerald seems to have been as he toured a very dramatic and poetic region.
Cass -
Message 18
Posted by Caro (U1691443) on Sunday, 6th March 2011
Nice post, TA. We were in Wales on the day of the voting. The wife of the family we were with voted, but I don't know how; the husband didn't as he said he didn't know which way to vote. We felt that in their situation we would have voted 'Yes, as we value our independence as a small country. But it is hard-going on your own; NZers would not (at the moment anyway) consider linking itself to Australia, but keeping a country going with just 4 million people is not easy; there is no large-scale to work with economically.
But I was not entirely sure just what the Welsh vote was considering. I gather twenty areas of government are to become part of the Welsh Assembly instead of operating from Westminster, but I don't know about funding and independent governance of finances.
I agree that holding on to old grudges is very non-productive and only likely to lead to problems, as well as tending to make yourself/ves sour victims. I am not really in a great position to talk about this, not having any obvious grudges to hold. (Though as my ancestry is all Scottish, there may have been problems with the English there; if so it was never brought up in my family as something to concern ourselves with. I recall when my sister's first child was born, she considered calling his Campbell, and her father-in-law a Macdonald, was irate. But she and I had never been brought up to know about these old fights. And even now I hesitate before writing Campbell in case I have the wrong tribe.
There's surely enough problems in the present and future without using old history to justify new modern hatreds.
Caro. -
Message 19
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Sunday, 6th March 2011
Hi Caro
Good to read you.. I was computerless at the time of this earthquake-- and again thought of the pain and loss of people "down there".. I say this here in the light of your post because clearly the reconstruction task for Christchurch is going to be a heavy call on as you say a small community- and I hope and expect that people within the wider family of British nations- in spite of all the ups and downs of our "family life" will show the kind of solidarity that is the main secret of the success of Humankind as a "social species".
As I have explained yesterday on Tas' Empire thread, one of the aspects of the Past/Present that people tend to take for granted was the growth of Financial Instruments and things like Lloyds Insurance in the eighteenth century. It was a means by which private wealth was used to underwrite risks and dangers so that it became much easier, as one company has put it, not to make a drama out of a crisis.
Just who can/will underwrite small and less wealthy nations as the number of small States proliferates will be an interesting question. As I have just written re the Irish Republic, it looks like the pattern is to lose a great deal of your national independence and end up in thrall to the IMF who will dictate your government's policies.
Much better all round to keep things between friends and family.
Regards
Cass -
Message 20
Posted by ambi (U13776277) on Sunday, 6th March 2011
"One finds this trait quite evident amongst those whose political opinion regarding nationality is of the reactionary and inferiority complex-laden sort which, amongst populations whose sense of a collective nationality was actually forged through their own submission to a greater political power in the past, is not only quite common but actually nurtured and fostered in the interests of pursuing this narrow understanding of what nationality actually is. Anyone here from Scotland, Ireland or Wales would readily identify both Minette's tone and conceit as familiar faults which dog the study of political history in these regions."
But not anyone from England? I'd suggest that many English right-wing conservatives also fall into this category (the EU being the greater political power they have, against their will, submitted to), and define their victimhood in terms of immigration, British/English decline and political disenfranchisement. I'd imagine that just on the basis of respective populations, they outnumber all their Scottish, Irish and Welsh counterparts put together. -
Message 21
Posted by ambi (U13776277) on Sunday, 6th March 2011
"And perhaps Wales will be more successful than the Scottish nationalists in their "Year of the 鶹Լcoming" in attracting Welsh and would be Welsh people to the cause."
What leads you to describe the 鶹Լcoming as unsuccessful? -
Message 22
Posted by an ex-nordmann - it has ceased to exist (U3472955) on Sunday, 6th March 2011
But not anyone from England? I'd suggest that many English right-wing conservatives also fall into this category (the EU being the greater political power they have, against their will, submitted to), and define their victimhood in terms of immigration, British/English decline and political disenfranchisement. I'd imagine that just on the basis of respective populations, they outnumber all their Scottish, Irish and Welsh counterparts put together.
You are of course quite right, ambi, and my not including England in my post was precisely because I was addressing a contributor here for whom such a mental leap in comprehension is apparently, from the evidence she provides, extremely improbable. I felt that my point could be best illustrated to her by keeping it within parameters she understands. As it turned out, given by the reaction it provoked, I was wrong in any case.
Ultra nationalistic Englishness is indeed also expressed most vocally and most commonly by a group who include, as a primary element of their self-perception, a sense of having been subsumed against their will in the past - for some a very recent past indeed. And nor do "nationalists" of any hew claim a monopoly on the subversion of historical data to suit their ends. The same accusation can be levelled, I have found, against almost anyone with an agenda which itself dictates that data is either vindication for or offensive to their chosen stance, be that agenda political or religious in origin (other sources exist, but these two cover the majority of instances).
We are all of us in every society in which we are raised rather forcibly invited to absorb and adopt presumptions and terms of convenience, some of which themselves are historic in that they have survived generations before our arrival. Many of these are even considered cornerstones of our self-perception or at least shorthand expressions of elements of our identity so commonly understood as to appear comprehensive definitions in their own right, and it is this aspect of our attempt to simplify and therefore more readily understand our history which ironically complicates its study the most. Some people, nationalists included, have tended to elevate certain of these iconoclastic concepts to a status deemed by them inviolable and worthy of defence against what they perceive as detractors. Historical research however, in its better definition and application, circumvents such shorthand expressions and even deconstructs them on occasion (to the frequent dismay of said nationalists, it must be said). But to do that it must place the data at the centre of the exercise and all else to the periphery. Minette's viewpoint, like many others', does the opposite.
Her personal assault on raundsgirl, now deleted by the board's moderators, was unforgivable in its crassness, its lack of any attempt at intelligence, and the level of venom directed against someone who after all, should you read raundsgirl's post, has only actually responded to Minette's clumsy nationalistic generalisations by replying within very same parameters, thereby highlighting their inadequacy in terms of historical debate. But the crime of impolite and insulting behaviour against interlocutors, distatsteful though it may be, is less than the crime that the same mentality is obliged, through its ignorance, to commit against the study of history itself. That the criminal should also claim to be "interested" in the welfare of her victim and even on occasion claims to be "defending" it, merely proves the tortuously convoluted self-justification and self-delusion which is constantly required simply to maintain such an ignorant stance. I often wonder if the same level of effort was simply placed into a pursuit of knowledge, rather than agenda, how much better off would this world be. -
Message 23
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Sunday, 6th March 2011
ambi
I had in mind an interview with Mr Salmond in which he observed that the projected bonanza for the Scots economy was not materialisng with the unfortunate coincidence of a year of mostly unfavourable holiday weather and the great financial crash.
Was he being incorrect? Or was it Scottish gloom and doom?
Actually from the bits I see of programmes like Relocation Relocation inward movement into Scotland seems to be as popular with non-Scots as Scots, of course in some cases they are married to each other.
Cass -
Message 24
Posted by Herewordless (U14549396) on Sunday, 6th March 2011
Minette, you do love a good ole rant so. Alot of bitterness and anger and little coherent or rational thread to your many raised issues?
England has used Wales? A small section of the rich and powerful in each generation throughout medieval history onwards has 'used' Wales, and Scotland ...and their OWN working class English folk, too! -
Message 25
Posted by Stoggler (U14387762) on Monday, 7th March 2011
The original post is entertaining if nothing else! And nothing new from Minette to be honest. I won't add anything (as others have dealt brilliantly with her OP), other say that all the factual errors are laughable really, including about her own country and the language of Wales - surely any Welsh person knows how to pronounce the LL sound - it certainly isn't: For example "ll" is a letter in Welsh pronounced "lch"
-
Message 26
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Monday, 7th March 2011
TheodaricAur
Your use of the word "legitimate" highlights my concern..
Resort to legitimacy implies legal compulsion, part of what makes any State essentially flawed and weak. Any State "is instituted among men" with the legitimate right to use evil means to impose upon people. Legitimate is a word that Minette has often used in the many threads about Richard III who was a legitimate King, as opposed to Henry Tudor and that Welsh dynasty in power that she decries.
Minette has implied a great resentment by the Welsh people over centuries of being part of the English State. Some of those rights to impose,coerce, punish, discriminate etc are now going to be devolved to Wales: and the Welsh will have the chance to see whether they will prefer being imposed upon by Welsh political activists than by the wider British brethren.
Cass -
Message 27
Posted by Thomas_II (U14690627) on Monday, 7th March 2011
In 1536 with the Act of Union, England officially swallowed up Wales. Later, in 1706 it would do the same to Scotland so forming what would become Great Britain. No body ever asked the Welsh or the Scots if they agreed to this
And nobody ever asked the English.
I really like this kind of your posts vizzer, keep up your good work for the "English cause".
***
I really can´t stop wondering why people think that in centuries ago the rulers felt necessary to ask their people for their agreement upon whether or not they like to have unifications as if it would had been the usual thing to held up referendums at that time.
Why is it so hard to believe in the strenght of the United Kingdom and often complaining about alll what went wrong in the past and put the blame just to the English. That´s no way to act in a correct way. It´s like a nation that never grew up and refusing to face that most of their advantages they had in the past and they have in the present came and comes from the Union?
You´ll just realize that what you´ve now when it´s gone, but then history will telll you in the face, that it is too late.
Everyone who advocates the end of the United Kingdom for a dream of the independence of his country, is missing the terms and conditions under which in our times a Nation has the advantages to prevail and to survive in these global economic world.
If the English were that bad as they are seen by others, on which standards would some of the complainers live in the present?
This anti-Englishness is really worn out.
-
Message 28
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Monday, 7th March 2011
I'm considering forming a Mercian Nationalist Party. A key part of our manifesto will be re-building Offa's Dyke and closing the borders with Wales.
-
Message 29
Posted by Stoggler (U14387762) on Monday, 7th March 2011
I'm considering forming a Mercian Nationalist Party. A key part of our manifesto will be re-building Offa's Dyke and closing the borders with Wales.
I'll be forming a Sussex Nationalist Party then, and replant the Andredsweald forest to keep out those nasty Kent and Surrey foreigners!
-
Message 30
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Monday, 7th March 2011
Thomas speaks a lot of sense, as has everyone except for the OP.
Thinking on the practicalities of devolution it is difficult to imagine just how a little place like Wales will manage when they have to begin funding their own healthcare, welfare, education, defence force, police force, public buildings, roads, government, civil service etc without the massive amount in tax generated by the larger UK.
It is easy to have pie in the sky sentiments when others are funding all the little necessities that make life easier, but when they have to stand on their own two feet? I think Caro as already mentioned above just how very difficult the responsibilities are for everyone in nations with small populations. -
Message 31
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Monday, 7th March 2011
Interested in joining the anti-London alliance, Stoggler?
-
Message 32
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Monday, 7th March 2011
Hi Cass
As always a pleasure......
The aim of my remark was to nullify the inference that because the turnout was around 34% of the total electorate that the result was somehow suspect.
You could say the same of the election of Boris as the Mayor of London where the figures were about the same.
Probably the turnout was so low that it was very low key in many areas with little publication or debate. In fact most people do not know what the total effect will be, in fact probably no body does.
The Senedd cannot raise taxes so will still be reliant on funding from the Central Government and Europe. It is the use of some of this money in the local environment that the Welsh Assembly Government will now be able to focus more successfully (we hope) and ensure that local Councils put money where it is meant rather than go their own way..
You are right about the word “legitimize” and it is an expression that is corrupted by some but not everyone is tarred by the same brush.
You mention that Minette “has implied a great resentment by the Welsh people over centuries of being part of the English State”.
There are some people with those views but I expect that you and many others will have met Welsh people who do not share her outlook on life. (I do not refer to the remarks by bttdp).
As I have said before and others have echoed my sentiments that those in power are the ones who “impose,coerce, punish, discriminate etc”.
This will not change. It is not going to be devolved to Wales it has been here for centuries. The Welsh aristocracy had vast estates with their Serfs, they were quite happy to take their lead from the most powerful.
Many English laws have embodied the laws from Hywell Dda a great Welsh King as well as from the Anglo Saxon laws and Roman law (don’t get me started!)
To blame everything on the English is ludicrous, as is the British blaming all our ills on Europe or immigration.
It is this blame culture that holds so much back for us all and that leads to a particularly nasty type of Nationalism.
There is nothing wrong in being proud of your Nation. Surely we can respect others.
Again as I said before there are very few who can trace their ancestry in Wales back to Edward 1st but I suppose that there will be people who have ancestry back to the Rebecca Riots or to the shootings by the army of strikers in Llanelli 100 years ago this year.
Some will hark back to Thatcher and her actions to the miners in Wales which was appalling but also the men of Kent and Nottingham fared just as badly.
Who was to blame?
I think you will all have your own answers but it should not be the base for a hate culture.
Devolution will no doubt have an impact on Wales, hopefully it will be beneficial. There is little point leaving it as it is an empty institution with little power at all.
London has its Mayor and the ruling Council. Perhaps there should be more devolved institutions in England sending representatives to a Central Government for a less centralised governance that all the Westminster politicians say they support.
Certainly the needs of Cornwall, Devon and Somerset will be different than those of the 鶹Լ counties.
Is this a legitimate stance? Possibly but of course it does not legitimize the means of getting there however this is or isn’t achieved.
Kind Regards - TA -
Message 33
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Monday, 7th March 2011
Perhaps to try to be fair to Minette, who was after all ,she tells us, a journalist, her headline news OP might be placed alongside her History Hub thread reflecting her fear that the History MB might die by its own hand of inertia...
Sometimes apparently it is the duty of journalists to stimulate a bit of current affairs when things are too calm and blithe?
Or am I still talking about Wales?
What comes after "blithe! blithe!" in the Welsh national anthem?
Cass -
Message 34
Posted by TheodericAur (U14260004) on Monday, 7th March 2011
Hi Islanddawn
The way you put that reminds me of having a teenager / twenty something at home who only pays a little rent but gets their washing ironing and cooking done, their food thrown in as well as lifes consumable like toilet paper but are constantly whingeing for their own place.....
Haven't we all been there?
Best Wishes - TA -
Message 35
Posted by Stoggler (U14387762) on Monday, 7th March 2011
What comes after "blithe! blithe!" in the Welsh national anthem?
Which version of the Welsh national anthem is that then...?
Do you mean "Gwlad! Gwlad!"? -
Message 36
Posted by Stoggler (U14387762) on Monday, 7th March 2011
Thinking on the practicalities of devolution it is difficult to imagine just how a little place like Wales will manage when they have to begin funding their own healthcare, welfare, education, defence force, police force, public buildings, roads, government, civil service etc without the massive amount in tax generated by the larger UK.
Devolution has been going on for the last decade - all of those government activities have already been looked after by the Senedd in Cardiff. The referendum was essentially about who got to make the laws pertinent to Wales and Wales only - by Westminster, or by Cardiff (thus bringing Wales in line with Scotland and Northern Ireland).
Put simply, previously Cardiff suggested a law for Westminster to pass, and so were reliant on Westminster to pass those laws pertaining to Wales, which is rather silly really when other parts of the UK have the ability to pass their own laws. I wonder however if Westminster ever refused to pass any of the laws requested by Cardiff, or amended any? No idea myself - be interested to know though.
As for the money, devolution does not mean that Wales (or Scotland or NI) are reliant solely on money from Welsh tax payers. England may see some of its taxes going to Scotland and Wales (and some complain about that) but that is what happens - I do not know of any country under a liberal democracy where money does not (in general) flow from the richer to the poorer parts of the country, regardless of whether it's a federal or centralist system of government. If England kept all their money, I'm sure some in the south would still complain that their money is going to places where people don't talk proper and wear cloth caps (and whatever other sillly stereotypes they may have).
The current constitutional set-up in the UK is a bit of a dog's dinner at the moment. It now seems to me that the three "Celtic" (for wont of a better term) nations are now on the same level, we just need to sort out whether England or its regions needs its own representative body (other than the House of Commons).
Apologies, this is all rather current affairs and off topic I guess. I'll try and stick to more historical matters now! -
Message 37
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Monday, 7th March 2011
Hi Stoggler,
Thanks for that and yes I was aware of the current and past situation but I was really thinking in furture terms. I feel that a complete seperation of the UK is where it will all eventually lead, I'm just not sure how it will be possible at this advanced stage.
Sorry to interrupt the parcelling of the provinces with Urn (that's a joke btw) with what, as you say, is a thought not really relevant on a history board. -
Message 38
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Monday, 7th March 2011
"The way you put that reminds me of having a teenager / twenty something at home who only pays a little rent but gets their washing ironing and cooking done, their food thrown in as well as lifes consumable like toilet paper but are constantly whingeing for their own place....."
Hi TA,
Your analogy is rather apt and I hadn't thought of it in those terms.
Co-incidentally, only today I was talking to a woman whose son had moved out of home a few months ago. At home he had his own seperate studio to live in, cooking, cleaning and everything else provided with no rent required (in Greece children aren't expected to pay rent at home) but even so he had decided that independence and personal space was the thing. Well according to his mother he is now bringing his clothes home to be washed and mended and has begun appearing regularly at meal times. So much for the much vaunted independence! -
Message 39
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Monday, 7th March 2011
Ah yes. Got a pair of boomerangs ourselves.
-
Message 40
Posted by somewhatsilly (U14315357) on Monday, 7th March 2011
Oh yes, 'tis the same.......... but it's worth the washes and meals. It's you that gains the independence, not them.
-
Message 41
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Monday, 7th March 2011
Re: Message 38.
Therese,
sorry to butt in, but all the same in Belgium too. It is so practical and not that money consuming for the son or daughter. And they stay more and more at home even to their 25, 30...If I recall it well they call it "studio Mama" (the father seems not to be mentioned...I wonder why...)
Kind regards and with esteem,
Paul. -
Message 42
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Monday, 7th March 2011
Re: Message 27.
Thomas,
happy to see you back.
Kind regards and with esteem,
your friend, Paul. -
Message 43
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Monday, 7th March 2011
TheodericAur
I take what you said about % turn out in other elections, and it was with the general disegagement and disillusionment from and with our current form of democracy in mind that I applied a general caveate to Minette's joy over Wales' new powers to lay down the law.
I have often tried to explain to people the nature of England's earlier tradition of democracy when much, perhaps most, new law making- requiring Parliamentary legislation- was actually concerned with projects that local communties wished to undertake, and needed empowering not compelling legislation.
This would apply even to the nineteenth century and the "populous districts" that wished to have the powers to act as democratically elected Municipal Corporations, Public Health Boards, School Boards. These developents were directly connected with social conscience and a tradition of public service that inspired Winifred Holtby to write "South Riding" which we have just had on TV.
"South Riding" was a poignant tribute by Winifred Holtby to her Mother, who like Winifred had fought hard against the tragedy when the national farm workers strike at the end of the IWW ruined Mr Holtby ,who had been a model employer and had made a benevolent team with his wife looking after the whole community around Winifred's beloved Rudston Hall. The loss of Rudston Hall destroyed Mr Holtby. But Winifred embraced the workers cause and became a campaigning Socialist journalist and fighter for TU rights, especially among black workers in South Africa.
Mrs Holtby meanwhile became the first Alderwoman in Yorkshire, and carried on the kind of public service that she had formerly carried out as the local large farmer's wife. Apparently Winifred frequently raided her mother's waste paper basket in order to get an insight into the workings of local government. And my theory, in view of the fact that South Riding became a best seller in the Thirties, is that it served as a great inspiration for the increasing acceptance of socialism with a small 's' before 1939.
So I was born in 1944 and as soon as I could be aware of the Hell that the world had been going through, I could also be aware of the hangover of that Community Spirit captured so brilliantly by Victoria Wood in Housewife 49.
But compulsion and state machinery have proved deadly to that kind of spirit. Aneurin Bevan has been mentioned on the thread, but not his "the rich are vermin" remark which was one of the "blasts from the Past" and most unwelcome as we were all coming to terms with the Nazis attempt to rid the world of their "vermin". It was not unlike Jesse Jackson's "Not black enough" but much more damaging as Britain degenerated back into age old struggles and conflicts.
After the Cuban Missile Crisis Harold Wilson's general "In Place of Strife" approach encouraged hopes of a better Britain, and some of us Working Class kids for whom the 11+ system had opened access to University education embraced the whole idea of comprehensive education; coincidentally introduced by the lady who I presume Winifred Holtby had been godmother, for when her dear friend Vera Brittain found love and happiness with "Mr Williams" he realised that Winifred must live with them, and their little Shirley.
The whole question of legal compulsion and its impact, however, came home to me most forcibly when as a product of the Cardiff PGCE course, with that and other things in common with my contemporary Neil Kinnock, I started teaching in Lambeth. There I encountered pupils whose whole attitude to education was that they were only in school because they were compelled by law to attend..And they were determined to take the "You can lead a horse to the water but you can't make it drink (think)" approach.
I did as usual try to correct them, pointing out that in fact the law placed an obligation on their parents to make sure that their children were educated- and most parents chose the simple way of packing them off to school (cheap babysitting).. Nevertheless there were those who quite specifically said that it was my job to force them to learn, and it was their job to resist that imposition as much as they could and make my work impossible.
For surely one of the reasons why slavery was abolished is that as soon as work went beyond a very basic level and productivity became important it became very obvious that forced labour had only very limited application (I can't do it, Sir, It's too hard! Can't you give me something easier), and the kind of work that could be done by slaves could be done by more or less anyone so there was little point paying for the permament board and keep, and emergency provision, for such workers.
But of course in modern Britain there are several millions of people getting board and keep and emergency services for no economic work and hardly any effective community service in most cases..
As my grandfather was crippled by a working life of shovelling probably Minette's anthracite in South Wales, and died before I was two, I do not underestimate the deliterious impact of heavy industry. But, as mention of the Welsh coal mines has already been made, in view of all the ex-miners and steel-workers who were and probably still are angry at the impact of the Thatcher Revolution, one has to wonder who would have worked them had they not been closed down, because (and this may be an English slander) reportedly a huge proportion of those who lost their jobs are now medically unfit to work: and many parts of Wales have suffered tremendously from the social deriliction of families where the adults seem to do nothing all day every day.
But then in the kind of Britain created by Mr Blair's and Mr Brown's New Labour Government Social Exclusion was largely a matter of not having the money to enjoy the same levels of leisure and entertainment in a 24 hour drinking, gambling and sex-experimenting society.
One last thing, TA regarding your picture of Wales- Minette, of course, was very much established Church, but when I was in Wales in 1966 the Chapel was still very strong in many regions ( those that were "dry") and the Chapels had been very important in the organisation of Welsh working people and their self-help movements. Syndicalism took very strong roots there, as did working class cultural aspiration, which I suppose impacted on my life as it did NK, not just in getting to University but also having a strong affection for music and lyrics-if not poetry.
So all power to Wales- nb power of the heart and spirit- the sources of true strength.
Cass -
Message 44
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Monday, 7th March 2011
all the same in Belgium too.
-------------------------------------------------------------
hello Paul
and talking about Belgium and about Welsh constitutional issues (pun intended) - is it true that Belgium has been without a government for nearly a year now? I hear that Prime Minister Yves Leterme resigned in April last year. Was his resignation accepted and if so, does that mean that executive authority now rests with King Albert?
World wars aside - this must be the most remarkable period in Belgian constitutional history since the Regency of Surlet de Chokier in 1831 and that only lasted for 5 months. -
Message 45
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Monday, 7th March 2011
Vizzer
I am sure that Paul will give you chapter and verse, but I think that it was on the news a couple of days ago that the leader of a Flemish Party has been invited to be the latest to try to form a government.
Cass -
Message 46
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Tuesday, 8th March 2011
Re: Message 44.
Vizzer,
thanks for the reply and for mentioning Erasme Louis Surlet de Chokier.
I don't know if one can make parallels between the United Kingdom and Belgium? For the specific Wales region for instance, if you compare with Belgium you have some 40% French speaking ones together with 60% Dutch speaking ones...but yes we have also the German community of some 60,000 German speaking ones...
And all the animosity in Belgium dates only from the 1880's with the start of a Flemish movement. After WWII and perhaps, if I recall it well, also yet a bit from the in between the WW, you had a Walloon reaction to this Flemish emergence.
You wrote:
"I hear that Prime Minister Yves Leterme resigned in April last year. Was his resignation accepted and if so, does that mean that executive authority now rests with King Albert?"
No, he stays Prime Minister of government of current affairs, which nearly all can do what a normal government can do.
from the text:
"Belgium is a constitutional monarchy. The Head of State is King Albert II and the Government of current affairs is headed by Prime Minister Yves Leterme. Following the June 2010 elections, a new government is expected to be installed before year’s end."
Yves Leterme was my vote and I am glad (coincidences from history) that the "branded" author of that many gaffes (it's the same word as in French) (as singing the Marseillaise, when asked in a hurry for the Belgian national anthem) is now already nearly a year Prime Minister of the Belgian government and in my opinion a good one...
If you understand French, we had a long discussion on a French messageboard about the nowadays Belgium, in which this inhabitant of the North of Belgium participated.
To have access: type in google:
le salon géopolitique la belgique entre wallons et flamands (the geopolitical salon Belgium between Walloons and Flemings)
Kind regards and with esteem,
Paul. -
Message 47
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Tuesday, 8th March 2011
Paul - might try that link if my rusty Frecnh allows, who knows might even have my septante cents worth ....
-
Message 48
Posted by baz (U14258304) on Wednesday, 9th March 2011
No body ever asked the Welsh or the Scots if they agreed to this
Nobody asked the English, either. It's no fun for us having a bunch of sanctimonious victimists for neighbours. -
Message 49
Posted by Thomas_II (U14690627) on Wednesday, 9th March 2011
Hi Paul,
It seems to me, from what I´ve heard in the news a couple of months ago, that the Flemish would rather stress to get Flanders becoming a part of the Netherlands. So the Wallonnes would do similar to go to France. What would be left were the Brussles Region and Eupen / Malmedy. Well they - supposedly - would rather choose to follow the Flemish to the Netherlands instead as becoming part of Germany again (as it was before the Versailles Treaty).
In a post on this thread, someone wrote about the "Celtic roots" the Welsh, Scottish and Irish have in common. This sounds rather to depict the English as "Outsiders" which has a bad taste in my opinion. I wouldn´t say that this debate about a "Welsh independency" is similar to the problems Belgium is into since nearly one year.
To me, Belgium as it is constituated with its regional parliaments is more like a pattern for a federal and constitutional Monarchy that works. It has worked and it would further work, if the sentiments "cooked up" by the Flemish and the Walloons wouldn´t be that severe as it looks.
I hope you´re well and lets hope that your country won´t break.
Kind Regards,
Thomas -
Message 50
Posted by CASSEROLEON (U11049737) on Wednesday, 9th March 2011
baz
I think that victim syndrome has become very important..
And to some extent there was always a danger of this within the English Parliamentary tradition that was based upon the right of the tax-paying public to get redress of grievance before it voted the extra funds that the Crown needed to tackle with the crisis situation that was normally the reason for calling a Parliament.
It was natural for the people to exaggerate their problems and foretell disaster at their local level. And it was natural for the Crown to talk about the catastrophes at its "macro" level.. Just look at Britain's news over recent months and the historic discourse of disaster and catastrophe is alive and well. No wonder Minette seized on the idea of a piece of good news- being a lady of "Gospel" tradition.
As historians including Dr. Kitson Clarke pointed out this English tradition led to a situation in which the emerging literate Middle Class of the Eighteenth Century began to feel able to look at the terrible state of the world outside -"of which they knew nothing"- and be stirred by campaigns like the Anti-Slavery Campaign to see that "nasty" world through the eyes of moral indignation. Their logic argued that "good" people like themselves should take charge in this world of Gothic Horror and use the power potential of the age to "Make a Difference".
I agree in general terms with Bertrand Russell that Mary Shelley's "Dr. Frankenstein" was a prophetic and allegorical forecast of where this would lead.
And I agree too with William Cobbett that the mechanisms and traditions that the English had evolved before the Age of Revolution started in 1776, which were still based upon a tradition of Commonweal and Community- as part of what Lord Clarendon had called "English good naturedness"- were badly damaged as the circumstances of the time, along with that Middle Class drive for power, meant the sacrifice of many of those English traditions.
This was essential because people within a wider Britain could not operate such traditions- and in most cases in my experience because they can not/ could not actually see the living reality of England they insist (as do those who they have convinced ) that the plight of the common people in England was essentially the same as that of the common people of the rest of Britain , where for example there was no right to Poor Relief, merely licence to beg.
This is very convenient for England's neighbouring peoples because they can convince themselves that the English people made no sacrifices in order to create a Great Britain strong enough to save Europe from the disastrous paths of nihilistic revolution or savage repression, all of the costs of change weighed upon them and all of the gain went to the English.
It was only after the Age of Revolution in 1848- and perhaps the first 20 years of a new Greek State championed by the Byron-Shelley circle, among others- that Victorians began to see a relevant pattern in Ancient History. Athenian democracy looked like the grass-roots democracy that had been possible in England. It too was a small state where people did not work my making laws and imposing authority, but agreed on common goals and all worked to accomplish them. As the scale of things moved on Greece had to give up the Athenian ideal and the times led to the might of Rome.
By this time concepts of evolution were suggesting that life was a struggle for the survival of the fittest, and the lessons of Paleontology and Ancient History argued that the best thing would be a Tyranosaurus Rex governed by super intelligence.. Now Britain found itself in a world in which Gemany and the USA were well on the way to becoming a "Collosus", while Russia was stirring.
I have just started reading Nial Ferguson's analysis of the world domination of the US "Collosus", he compares alongside with the Great Britain of the late Victorian Empire, that he earlier described in "Empire. How Britain Made the Modern World." As in earlier ages the English felt that if there was going to be massive power in the world, it would be preferable that this power would be on the side of England's tradition lf Liberty and the rights of the common people.
Since c 1960 the tradition of the manipulation of moral indignation, Gothic Horror and terror has focussed from time to time on the future Chinese world domination, which has no tradition of Liberty and the rights of the Individual, as we understand those concepts.
Which brings us back to "victim" syndrome.
Cass
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
鶹Լ iD
鶹Լ navigation
鶹Լ links
鶹Լ © 2014 The 鶹Լ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.