It's going to be a weird union though. England held most of the UK's population before but now they're going to be a huge supermajority and Northern Irish and Welsh people are probably going to be itching for some freedom. And then there's all the recent history in Northern Ireland, where many (most?) of the Protestants are of Scottish origin. Iiiiiiiinteresting.
I am extreeeeeeeemely curious to see if Northern Ireland has some ideas or starts getting some ideas. Their troubles with England are recent. The vast majority of adults in those counties experienced, saw, or knew someone involved in those Troubles. It's not like Scotland where you're mostly harkening back to some shit long dead ancestors endured.
Those Protestants aren't going to want to be straight Irish but at the same time, they see themselves as Irish, not merely of Scottish decent so I doubt they want to be Scottish.
Northern Ireland should really just stay where they are because that's a huuuuuuuuuuuuge fucking can of worms to open up. We wouldn't discussing flags and currency but the possibility of a resurgence of terrorism and unrest.
It's going to be a weird union though. England held most of the UK's population before but now they're going to be a huge supermajority and Northern Irish and Welsh people are probably going to be itching for some freedom. And then there's all the recent history in Northern Ireland, where many (most?) of the Protestants are of Scottish origin. Iiiiiiiinteresting.
I am extreeeeeeeemely curious to see if Northern Ireland has some ideas or starts getting some ideas. Their troubles with England are recent. The vast majority of adults in those counties experienced, saw, or knew someone involved in those Troubles. It's not like Scotland where you're mostly harkening back to some shit long dead ancestors endured.
Those Protestants aren't going to want to be straight Irish but at the same time, they see themselves as Irish, not merely of Scottish decent so I doubt they want to be Scottish.
Northern Ireland should really just stay where they are because that's a huuuuuuuuuuuuge fucking can of worms to open up. We wouldn't discussing flags and currency but the possibility of a resurgence of terrorism and unrest.
So I totally should have realized this before I read about this this week, but did you know residents of Northern Ireland could "choose" to compete for either Great Britain or Ireland? They don't get automatic qualification to Great Britain's Olympic team since their team is Great Britain and not United Kingdom, but they can also elect to compete for Ireland if they get a spot on Ireland's Olympic team. So weird. And I'm ashamed that I didn't realize this considering Team GB's name!
Wales has always seemed rather lazy. I don't know where I get that impression but I kind of feel like they're just like, whatever, dude, call us what you want, we'll still be Welsh, thanks. Then they go back into their cute little homes with their cute little pipes and coal mines and Methodist preachers and shit.
Yanno, probably because when I hear Wales, I think of the Shire. What the shit? Or the Englishman who went up a hill and came down a mountain or did Hugh Grant go up a mountain and come down a hill? Yes, it's a long ass title for a movie but have you see the village names in Wales? It's rather short in comparison.
So I totally should have realized this before I read about this this week, but did you know residents of Northern Ireland could "choose" to compete for either Great Britain or Ireland? They don't get automatic qualification to Great Britain's Olympic team since their team is Great Britain and not United Kingdom, but they can also elect to compete for Ireland if they get a spot on Ireland's Olympic team. So weird. And I'm ashamed that I didn't realize this considering Team GB's name!
Well fuck, I didn't know that! I also hadn't given any thought at all to the fact that it's team Great Britain and not team UK. I just kind of, idk, when I hear Great Britain, I know where we're talking about, same thing as UK and I just accept it.
I would like to pole the Northern Ireland athletes and find out how many choose base on religious affiliation/their neighborhood and how many just look at what country will give them better support/better chance at qualifying.
Re: the United Kingdom name, I thought it was because Scotland was its own kingdom, and England/Wales was one kingdom, when they formally united in the Acts of Union of 1707. Hence, the two united kingdoms.
I thought Ireland was included as part of the English Kingdom by that point, but I looked it up and the separate Kingdom of Ireland ceased around 1800 when it joined the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Wales joined the Kingdom of England in the 16th century.
I am extreeeeeeeemely curious to see if Northern Ireland has some ideas or starts getting some ideas. Their troubles with England are recent. The vast majority of adults in those counties experienced, saw, or knew someone involved in those Troubles. It's not like Scotland where you're mostly harkening back to some shit long dead ancestors endured.
Those Protestants aren't going to want to be straight Irish but at the same time, they see themselves as Irish, not merely of Scottish decent so I doubt they want to be Scottish.
Northern Ireland should really just stay where they are because that's a huuuuuuuuuuuuge fucking can of worms to open up. We wouldn't discussing flags and currency but the possibility of a resurgence of terrorism and unrest.
So I totally should have realized this before I read about this this week, but did you know residents of Northern Ireland could "choose" to compete for either Great Britain or Ireland? They don't get automatic qualification to Great Britain's Olympic team since their team is Great Britain and not United Kingdom, but they can also elect to compete for Ireland if they get a spot on Ireland's Olympic team. So weird. And I'm ashamed that I didn't realize this considering Team GB's name!
I knew about this.
The Irish Rugby Football Union came up with a new song in the 90s ("Ireland's Call") because players from both Ireland and Northern Ireland compete on the team, and singing Amhrán na bhFiann/God Save the Queen caused some unrest amongst fans. They still sing the Irish national anthem for games in the Republic, but I don't know how many (if any) situations call for God Save the Queen.
Re: the United Kingdom name, I thought it was because Scotland was its own kingdom, and England/Wales was one kingdom, when they formally united in the Acts of Union of 1707. Hence, the two united kingdoms.
I thought Ireland was included as part of the English Kingdom by that point, but I looked it up and the separate Kingdom of Ireland ceased around 1800 when it joined the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Wales joined the Kingdom of England in the 16th century.
I think the Kingdom of Ireland ceased officially but there hadn't been a king in Ireland for centuries before that. Elizabeth, I think pulled some shady shit. Didn't that almost boyfriend/stepson of Robert Dudley try to go in there and clean it up, miserably failing before coming home and plotting to kill Elizabeth?
Ireland was also Cromwell's pet project and he rode in there regularly to put the hurting on people.
I'm struggling to recall the details though because the names are so fucking similar to shit that went down in Scotland. Dudley/Darnley, Bosley/Bothwell/Battle of the Boyne etc.
At least in the case of Scotland, there was some intermarrying and inheritance that brought Scotland and England under one king. Ireland didn't have such pretenses.
Re: the United Kingdom name, I thought it was because Scotland was its own kingdom, and England/Wales was one kingdom, when they formally united in the Acts of Union of 1707. Hence, the two united kingdoms.
I thought Ireland was included as part of the English Kingdom by that point, but I looked it up and the separate Kingdom of Ireland ceased around 1800 when it joined the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Wales joined the Kingdom of England in the 16th century.
I think the Kingdom of Ireland ceased officially but there hadn't been a king in Ireland for centuries before that. Elizabeth, I think pulled some shady shit. Didn't that almost boyfriend/stepson of Robert Dudley try to go in there and clean it up, miserably failing before coming home and plotting to kill Elizabeth?
Ireland was also Cromwell's pet project and he rode in there regularly to put the hurting on people.
I'm struggling to recall the details though because the names are so fucking similar to shit that went down in Scotland. Dudley/Darnley, Bosley/Bothwell/Battle of the Boyne etc.
At least in the case of Scotland, there was some intermarrying and inheritance that brought Scotland and England under one king. Ireland didn't have such pretenses.
I'm reading a book about the lives/relationship between Elizabeth I and Mary, Queen of Scots and you're right - it's really hard to keep track of some of these names because of the similarities.
I was going to order a world map wall decal and now I feel like I need to wait until the referendum results and hope that if they vote Yes, world map wall decal companies update their maps accordingly. I don't want to have to resort to drawing a line between Scotland and England with a Sharpie.
When I was a kid my grandparents had a globe that I believe was manufactured around 1960. I know this because it not only had the USSR, east and west Germany, French Indochina and Yugoslavia on the map, but also the United Arab Republic. So basically, the worst time in the 20th century to buy a globe. It was awesome.
Wouldn't the UK have to change its name if Scotland breaks away? Since the "united kingdom" being referenced in the name is the union between Scotland and the English kingdom.
The Flag Institute has some ideas about what could happen to the flags of the UK and Australia if Scotland becomes independent: www.flaginstitute.org/wp/
ETA: In other Scottish news, another vote has taken place:
ST. ANDREWS, Scotland (AP) -- Royal & Ancient Golf Club votes to admit women members.
The UK actually consists of England Scotland Wales and Northern Ireland.
Yes, but the "kingdom" being referred to in the name is the unification of the kingdoms of England and Scotland. The kingdom of Wales was forcibly overrun, IIRC. At the very least, it was never merged with England. (And I use the term merged loosely, which is the problem many Scots have - England kind of "stole" the Scottish monarchy and just moved them down to London.)
I'm reading a book about the lives/relationship between Elizabeth I and Mary, Queen of Scots and you're right - it's really hard to keep track of some of these names because of the similarities.
Plus, it makes no damned sense anyway. That period of English/Irish/Scottish history is so full of convoluted shit that it's hard to keep straight. I only recently managed to grasp how the Tudor's got the throne anyway and the short answer is basically that everyone else killed each other off for the most part and it kind of seemed like a good idea at the time or at least a less bad idea than perhaps others.
But all of that mess with the Tudor ascension explains Henry's obsession with an heir and Elizabeth's paranoia regarding plots plus her hand-wringing over her own heir. Without that context, you just assume Henry was a dick (he was) who wanted his first child to be a masculine child.
Add in all of the external forces and their motivations and you have a real live clusterfuck.
It's probably easier to track how the French crown was passed around.
I'm reading a book about the lives/relationship between Elizabeth I and Mary, Queen of Scots and you're right - it's really hard to keep track of some of these names because of the similarities.
Plus, it makes no damned sense anyway. That period of English/Irish/Scottish history is so full of convoluted shit that it's hard to keep straight. I only recently managed to grasp how the Tudor's got the throne anyway and the short answer is basically that everyone else killed each other off for the most part and it kind of seemed like a good idea at the time or at least a less bad idea than perhaps others.
But all of that mess with the Tudor ascension explains Henry's obsession with an heir and Elizabeth's paranoia regarding plots plus her hand-wringing over her own heir. Without that context, you just assume Henry was a dick (he was) who wanted his first child to be a masculine child.
Add in all of the external forces and their motivations and you have a real live clusterfuck.
It's probably easier to track how the French crown was passed around.
And even then, you had the English monarchs laying claim to it until the French Republic was established. Today there's something like six separate claimants to the French throne, going through various branches of the family.
It's amazing that it's all still in the same overall family line, though. Elizabeth II can trace her ancestry back to William the Conqueror, as well as ancient Scottish, Welsh, and Irish rulers: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent_of_Elizabeth_II_from_William_the_Conqueror (I guess almost anyone from that part of the world can be part of the family if they go back far enough, but all things considered it seems fairly straightforward here)
I've read that Cornwall might stand a better chance of independence than Wales.
Lol, poor Wales.
But Charles is the Duke of Cornwall, so there goes most of his yearly income.
I don't know if there's a plan to actively pursue it or not (I know there's a Cornish separatist movement but I don't know how big or serious it is right now), but the article I read said that Cornwall stands a better chance than Wales from an economic standpoint.
Maybe Camilla would then have to use another title ... going down the list, the next non-Scottish or Cornish title she holds is Countess of Chester, I think.
But Charles is the Duke of Cornwall, so there goes most of his yearly income.
I don't know if there's a plan to actively pursue it or not (I know there's a Cornish separatist movement but I don't know how big or serious it is right now), but the article I read said that Cornwall stands a better chance than Wales from an economic standpoint.
Maybe Camilla would then have to use another title ... going down the list, the next non-Scottish or Cornish title she holds is Countess of Chester, I think.
To add to that train of thought--Queen Elizabeth's husband is Duke of Edinburgh. Hmmm.
And Princess Diana's family (Spencer) can trace their lines to the Stuarts. Most of the 'commoners' mingling with the royal family have excellent pedigrees themselves.
And even then, you had the English monarchs laying claim to it until the French Republic was established. Today there's something like six separate claimants to the French throne, going through various branches of the family.
It's amazing that it's all still in the same overall family line, though. Elizabeth II can trace her ancestry back to William the Conqueror, as well as ancient Scottish, Welsh, and Irish rulers: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Descent_of_Elizabeth_II_from_William_the_Conqueror (I guess almost anyone from that part of the world can be part of the family if they go back far enough, but all things considered it seems fairly straightforward here)
Right, which is why the idea that the Kingdom of Ireland neatly fell into English hands is rather laughable. English kings were calling themselves kings of France for generations after they held not a damned thing there. I think the last of the claims was from Eleanor of Aquitaine (a bad mamma jamma it must be mentioned.)
But I disagree that that list is straight forward. It's not a father to son/daughter delineation. Victoria was like a grandniece or some such. All that list really shows is English nobility intermarried like fuck not only with other English nobility and peerage but with that of other countries as well which is how we have names like Normandy, Hanover, and Saxe Coburg showing up there.
To add to that train of thought--Queen Elizabeth's husband is Duke of Edinburgh. Hmmm.
And Princess Diana's family (Spencer) can trace their lines to the Stuarts. Most of the 'commoners' mingling with the royal family have excellent pedigrees themselves.
Wait, who are you calling a commoner? LOL Kate Middleton is a commoner. Lady Diana was of the aristocracy. Hence why she was called Lady Diana even before she married old mouse ears Charlie.
Also, titles don't exactly denote a specific holding. They used to but then you know, they'd get passed down, we slipped out of the feudal era, dukes lost entire fortunes to debt or just at the tables and anything that wasn't entailed would slip away. Not to mention the amount of times the title would go into abeyance, the land that should have come with it would be either passed to someone else or turned into public lands. Then later, when someone did something kind of interesting or happened to be born on the wrong side of the blanket to someone important, the title would get handed out again.
Post by msmerymac on Sept 18, 2014 14:17:13 GMT -5
mbcdefg, I meant to mention this earlier when you talked about the Queen's comments, but I forgot. Did you see that at the Invictus games Harry mentioned maybe having it in Glasgow next year? As in, "...and we'll keep them in the UK next year before maybe moving to Canada or something, so Glasgow seems like a good option!" Lol. I wonder if he meant us to read more into his opinion than he actually said or not.
Post by msmerymac on Sept 18, 2014 14:21:36 GMT -5
Oh, and for some reason I was looking into the Hanoverian line last night. It's odd to think that if the UK had the same "rule" about only male inheritance as Hanover, then old Prince Ernest Augustus would be king now. Except Hanover was taken over by Prussia in 1866 (thanks, Bismarck), and then Germany eliminated officially recognized royal titles in 1919, so really, Prince Ernest Augustus has some really pretty houses, but not much else. Well, except a wife who almost was able to become the ruler of Monaco.
mbcdefg, I meant to mention this earlier when you talked about the Queen's comments, but I forgot. Did you see that at the Invictus games Harry mentioned maybe having it in Glasgow next year? As in, "...and we'll keep them in the UK next year before maybe moving to Canada or something, so Glasgow seems like a good option!" Lol. I wonder if he meant us to read more into his opinion than he actually said or not.
I didn't see that! Very interesting that he'd make a statement like that.
To add to that train of thought--Queen Elizabeth's husband is Duke of Edinburgh. Hmmm.
And Princess Diana's family (Spencer) can trace their lines to the Stuarts. Most of the 'commoners' mingling with the royal family have excellent pedigrees themselves.
Wait, who are you calling a commoner? LOL Kate Middleton is a commoner. Lady Diana was of the aristocracy. Hence why she was called Lady Diana even before she married old mouse ears Charlie.
Also, titles don't exactly denote a specific holding. They used to but then you know, they'd get passed down, we slipped out of the feudal era, dukes lost entire fortunes to debt or just at the tables and anything that wasn't entailed would slip away. Not to mention the amount of times the title would go into abeyance, the land that should have come with it would be either passed to someone else or turned into public lands. Then later, when someone did something kind of interesting or happened to be born on the wrong side of the blanket to someone important, the title would get handed out again.
That's a lot of dorkage, isn't it?
Sowweh
Diana was a commoner. Aristocratic and upper class but not royal.
Wait, who are you calling a commoner? LOL Kate Middleton is a commoner. Lady Diana was of the aristocracy. Hence why she was called Lady Diana even before she married old mouse ears Charlie.
Also, titles don't exactly denote a specific holding. They used to but then you know, they'd get passed down, we slipped out of the feudal era, dukes lost entire fortunes to debt or just at the tables and anything that wasn't entailed would slip away. Not to mention the amount of times the title would go into abeyance, the land that should have come with it would be either passed to someone else or turned into public lands. Then later, when someone did something kind of interesting or happened to be born on the wrong side of the blanket to someone important, the title would get handed out again.
That's a lot of dorkage, isn't it?
Sowweh
Diana was a commoner. Aristocratic and upper class but not royal.
Uhm, not the definition of a commoner. Are we going to fight? Because if she were a commoner, I wouldn't have had to listen to everyone gasp in awe and delight that William was marrying one. Instead, I would have had to listen to everyone gasp in awe and delight that William was marrying a commoner just like his mommy.
She was a member of the nobility, thus, not a commoner.
Tagging kapoentje too because her husband is Belgian.
Sorry, had to *like* & run. That, and I've been in napless teething HELL.
These are great sources. They well explain the convoluted situation that is Belgium.
As mentioned, Belgium is a 19th century construct. It's a geographical region that was, more or less, sandwiched together for not having previously done so. It's no wonder that even today, Belgians find their national identity "in the negative," as in, they know they're not French, they're not Dutch and they're not German. But that's it. Pro Europe & pro EU they'll always be. But patriotic Belgians? Rare outside of World Cup & Euro Championship time.
The main reason for separation is economically motivated. Simply put, Flanders is wealthy, Wallonia is not. For the first 100+ years of Belgium's history, the reverse was true. And with that, Walloons as the monied upper class, Non Francophone Flemings (and the Flemish language) as 2nd class; the workers. This persisted to some extent into the mid 20th century. There are also territorial disputes, especially around Brussels. See: Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde (a personification of absurdly over complicated Belgian bureaucracy, if ever there was one). The sticking point is, of course, Brussels. Geographically within Flanders, it's a Francophone city. So, where would it go? Both sides "claim" it.
The reality of it is, in its current state, Wallonia cannot survive economically without Flanders. And by and large, most Belgians do not want to leave them high & dry (or, God help us, French). Even within Flanders, the tone varies but has lately taken on a far more moderating tone amongst separatists. Vlaams Belang has largely been sidelined by the Nieuw-Vlaamse Alliantie/New Flemish Alliance (N-VA) who, while still pro Flemish independence, aren't crazy anti-EU xenophobes.
Of course there's much more to it -- the region has a fascinating history and not just as Europe's forever battlefield. BUT since interested parties would likely begin and end with me, I won't *really* go into it.
Post by msmerymac on Sept 18, 2014 14:38:56 GMT -5
kapoentje the weirdest part for me when travelling in Flanders was the language thing. I speak (very little) French. And people seemed to speak French in Brussels. But in Bruges, Oostende, and out in the rural countryside? I had no idea what language to try to initiate conversation in, because I do not speak any Dutch (or Flemish) and I was afraid of offending people if I tried to speak French, and I'm ALWAYS afraid of offending people if I try to speak English off the bat. But then some restaurant menus would be in three languages!
Diana was a commoner. Aristocratic and upper class but not royal.
Uhm, not the definition of a commoner. Are we going to fight? Because if she were a commoner, I wouldn't have had to listen to everyone gasp in awe and delight that William was marrying one. Instead, I would have had to listen to everyone gasp in awe and delight that William was marrying a commoner just like his mommy.
She was a member of the nobility, thus, not a commoner.
We can debate this point. Diana was not a royal. She was not a peer--her father was. Children of peers are commoners by British definition; she could never join the House of Lords. She was not common, but she was a commoner.
We can debate this point. Diana was not a royal. She was not a peer--her father was. Children of peers are commoners by British definition; she could never join the House of Lords. She was not common, but she was a commoner.
You are splitting hairs like whoa. You know as well as I do that Diana was served up to Charles on a damned platter because she was the daughter of an earl and the granddaughter of a baron on the other side. Legally straight up the peerage herself? No. She was not a lord in her own right. Member of the nobility and the peerage and thus not a commoner, all day and twice on Tuesday.
It is incredibly simplistic if not outright misleading to say that Diana wasn't a commoner. And yes, I'm taking this more seriously than I ought but dude, she was the daughter of an earl and eventually the sister an earl. To quote Margaret Mitchell, she "could marry a boot boy" and she'd still be Lady Diana (BootBoy).