Calling ALL Englishmen and Englishwomen to stand up for yourselves

reply to post by fritz


Hmmm... as an englishman I do sympathize with you.... but I feel its to late to change things now.

Im not even sure what it means to be english anymore...if it means anything at all.

I am english and I dont have any problems with American perspectives or any other countries for that matter, I wouldnt want to live in England if it meant we had an "us and them" attitude, which it feels like you are trying to create here.

For thelibra, nice try my friend, a national holiday dedicated to the fall of the Spanish Armada, the only problem I see with that one is, quite a large number of english spend their holidays in Spain or even live over there, dont think it would go down to well with the Spanish.......but as we are english this is something that we would probably do..

Regards,

JQ.

'After all, you're all British' - By posting that brief statement Rasobasi, you have hit the nail on the head.

The Irish are Irish, the Welsh are Welsh and the Scotts are Scottish. But I keep getting told I am British which of course, I am. BUT, I am English first and British second.

England is a SINGLE country, whereas Great Britain or Britain is a collection of countries which used to be known as the 'United Kingdom'.

I was born in England and by default, I am ENGLISH, as is ANYBODY who was born in England, irrespectiver of colour or ethnic origins.

However, in their rush to laughingly appease the 'in house' racists who misguidedly perceive anything 'English' as being racist, the Labour government - itself predominantly Scottish seems hell bent on erasing all references to anything English.

'But the more you post the more you sound like an angry misinformed Nationalist.' I suppose to you, I must do Bramski.

In a way, I am. But all I would like, as my original post said, is a level playing field whereby England is governed by the English people for the English people.

What, in your view, is wrong with wanting that? The N. Irish have Stourmont, the Welsh have their own Assembley whilst the Scotts have their own Parliament.

We English do not have our own Parliament. Yes we DO have the Houses of Parliament - comprising the House of Commons and the House of Lords but these two chambers are predominatly filled with 'foreign' MPs - mostly Scotts.

The Scotts, Welsh and Irish may vote on matters relating to England, but English MPs may NOT vote on matters relating to Wales, Scotland or N.Ireland. Where, I ask you Bramski, is the democracy in that?

We English men and women are sick and tired of sending £26B a year to Scotland for example, so they may enjoy 'free' prescriptions, no university fees, better health and old age care than we get in England.

THAT is what Gordon browne thinks being English is all about. I just happen to disagree.

Rasobias, think of it like this:

Fritz is both English and British, in the same way that I am both Texan and American. It's not quite the same thing, but in Yank terms, England is like a "state" of Great Britain.

I think what he's saying is that England doesn't have the equivolent of a state legislature, only a national one (the British Parliament), and that the national one doesn't have enough English representation.

Thus, it'd be like if Texas had no state legislature, answered only to the Federal government, and the federal government were composed mostly of "Damned Yankee States" (ie. New England).

What probably makes this doubly irritating to Fritz is that England is the founding company of Great Britain, and by losing its fair share of representation, has basically created a collection of other nations to rule it.

Nah, I can actually see why Fritz is upset now... I'm just not certain anything can be done about it short of revolution or some drastic actions by Parliament. I don't think Prime Minister Brown is likely to do anything like that anytime soon, at least.

reply to post by thelibra


Quite a good summarisation.

In addition, any outward expression of English National Pride is frowned upon and deemed as racist whilst the other constituent nationalities within the UK are allowed to glory in their own individual National Heritage, (as they should).
A village near where I live is partly named after our Patron Saint but no-one is allowed to fly The St George Cross for fear of offending people.

We have the ridiculous situation whereby English TV presenters wear a Thistle for St Andrews Day, Daffodil's for St David's Day and Shamrocks for St Patrick's Day, yet April 23rd passes off without even a mention.


It is not a celebration of the saints life, rather an opportunity for us to celebrate our English heritage.

reply to post by fritz



Fritz, you're assuming I'm disagreeing with you, which I'm not. I think Scotland England Ireland and Wales should all be free to Govern themselves and make their own decisions and run their own countries.

It was your resentment towards Scotland the Scottish economy that made you sound bitter. Don't forget that Scotland would be the 3rd wealthiest nation in the European Union if they were allowed to run their own affairs and take control of their own oil reserves so I think they pay their way just fine in the UK.

For The Libra first comment about Spanish Armada.

You don't seem much learnt of what happened with Spain and England, with Phillip II and Elizabeth I, neither of what happened to the Armada, destroyed by a terrible storm (it wasn't Elizabethan forces). Maybe she prayed more and God decided to be kind to her.

I would advise you to read more from an impartial source, instead of making a chant praising a queen whose best collaborators at sea were pirates, who dared to execute Queen Mary Stuart of Scotland and whose best achievements were obtained by luck, not by her skills.

It's a shame that for being proud of their country (and the same could be applicable to Spaniards) the English should go backwards several centuries and update past wars and disasters of their enemies.

Be serious, please.

Originally posted by fritz

Our government - who are mostly Scots, are treating we English like 3rd class citizens in OUR own country.
/quote]

It's not so nice when the boot is on the other foot is it?

Originally posted by fritz
I was born in England and by default, I am ENGLISH, as is ANYBODY who was born in England, irrespectiver of colour or ethnic origins.

That's like saying a dog born in a stable is a horse by default.
I am the produce of two SCOTS ergo I am a SCOT regardless of where I was born

reply to post by executioner

You are no more a Celt than I am a Roman. Have a DNA test and I am confidentally sure that you will be so surprised at your ancient ancestry.

Originally posted by ceman43
You don't seem much learnt of what happened with Spain and England, with Phillip II and Elizabeth I, neither of what happened to the Armada, destroyed by a terrible storm (it wasn't Elizabethan forces). Maybe she prayed more and God decided to be kind to her.

I would advise you to read more from an impartial source...

Ah, well, sorry, all I've got to go on is a University textbook, a professor with a doctorate in English history, and a ton of web pages by equally qualified sources stating pretty much the same thing, crediting Elizabeth I with handling the Armada.

Obviously I've just been reading the wrong material. How partial of me. Clearly I was just pulling myths from just any old doctorates, and not yours. Please accept my apologies, I'll try to be more judicious with my choices in the future.



[edit on 2/25/2008 by thelibra]

The Libra, yes, you may consider yourself very well informed from the British side. But have you tried to read the same history not from British or Spanish sides?
Queen Elizabeth I is not so that well considered, believe me.

Sorry if I seemed pretentious in my former commentary. It's a consequence of the recent two parts of the film "Elizabeth", where anything but impartiality can be found. Not that Philip II was a saint, uh?

Originally posted by ceman43
The Libra, yes, you may consider yourself very well informed from the British side. But have you tried to read the same history not from British or Spanish sides?
Queen Elizabeth I is not so that well considered, believe me.

I hadn't seen the movies you mentioned, merely a fan of history. It is said that history is written by the victors. So of course, it is going to favor England perhaps moreso than not. I invite you to pick any single momentous event in history that doesn't have at least 3 different viewpoints, each stating a separate case for the "reality" of the event, and the truth is usually somewhere in the middle. If studying history around the world has taught me anything, it is that every event is the sum result of countless events before it, any one of which could have altered the entire course of the event.

Now, in reference to Queen Elizabeth I, from what I understand, her country was threatened with a return to Papal control, as well as control by Spain. The New World was already firmly under Spanish control without a single colony, and the Atlantic was dominated by the Spanish fleet. England itself was split between loyal Catholics who'd seen some respite under Mary's rule, and those following the Church of England established under Elizabeth's father. England itself was barely out of the dark ages, had almost no allies since the other powerful neighbors were either enemies or Catholics or both, had zero control over the lucrative spice trade, and no waterborne route to the Indian Ocean because of Portugal's monopoly on the south-African route.

Would that be an accurate summation of England's status at the beginning of Elizabeth's reign.

During her reign:

She allowed the establishment of the first colony in America (which admittedly, failed, but largely because the Armada's invasion required the use of all English ships to successfully defend with.

King Phillip II, with the backing of the Catholic Church (no small ally) sent the Armada with the intent of invading it and taking over the country.

The Spanish Admiral Sidonia, due to poor decisions, had his formation broken and then later was caught in a position of poor maneuverability by a weaker English fleet.

When the Spanish attempted retreat, the were able to be picked off all along the route.

The storm you mention wasn't until after the fleet had already left the English Channel (East of England), sailed up north through the channel, along the North, and into the Atlantic. By then, the fleet had already been soundly defeated. The storm just added insult to injury. Fewer than half the Spanish ships sunk were the result of the war.

The English employed new methods of naval combat and weaponry in order to defeat a much more powerful foe. The gap in technology, armament, and tactics between England and Spain at the end of the Armada's return to Spain was now so great, it broke the Spanish stranglehold on the Atlantic, and handed that power to England. Because of the gap created, they stayed a dominant Naval power for some time.

The Protestant power in England was now cemented, and as a result, began to spread throughout the Old World, and later the New.



Now I'm not saying she walks on water, and she wasn't the one on the ships giving the calls. But the ruler of a nation is ultimately the one responsible for its fall. She the officers she did, she was the one to give ultimate approval for policies, and she was the one to make the toughest judgment calls of greatest import. Though luck enters into it, luck only carries a success or failure so far, and England's defense was ensured before luck played any major role.

A lot of people fail to credit a ruler who DEFENDED their country from attack. It's a lot more fun to credit the conqueroring rulers instead. The failure of Spain to succeed in its attack on England was indeed the result of many factors (not the least of which was the ineptitude of Sidonia), but Elizabeth made the most critical decisions of all, and during a time and place when not only was the idea of a female head of state unthinkable, but the idea that a woman could lead any sort of military victory just didn't even enter into the minds of people.

And she ended up not just defending England from being wiped off the map, but laying the ground for England to be a world power thereafter and cementing the foundation of the Protestant faiths laid by King Henry VIII, and despite the failure of the Roanoake colony, she got the ball rolling on colonization of the New World.

I think that's a pretty good record for a Queen that was once considered the illegitimate child of a King who was utterly convinced the nation would fail without a male ruler, started with very little support of her own people, no support of the Church, and only the barest of support from her direct vassals.

Originally posted by fritz
reply to post by executioner

You are no more a Celt than I am a Roman. Have a DNA test and I am confidentally sure that you will be so surprised at your ancient ancestry.

With the many traders, raiders and invaders that have graced the shores of this island I have no doubt there may be a few surprises in my dna.
However I stand by what I said, I am the product of the union between two Scots therefore I am a Scot regardless of where I was born.

Alba gu Brath

I posted this podcast about being English rather than British.

Being English not British podcast

I am English first and last. Nothing else. If I want to travel, I am forced to carry an EU passport. My country has been sold out from under us by all the non English.

The Libra, your version of the Armada Invincible defeat is a bit poor. You say nothing about Francis Drake's 1957 attack to Cadiz, destroying several ships and delaying until 1588 the Armada Invincible. This however was not only frustrated by the english resistance, but also by the Holland sea blockade and the terrible storm. Maybe you know that several ships's crews wrecked and had to remain in Ireland and their descendants are still there.

"Inglaterra había vencido, pero fue una victoria “pírrica”, pues la nación estaba agotada tras sus enfrentamientos con España y ya ni siquiera las riquezas pirateadas compensaban los gastos de tal campaña, por ello, inmediatamente de la muerte de Isabel I (1603), se firma con su sucesor, Jacobo I , el Tratado de Londres (1604), por el que se contemplaba el cese de las hostilidades (nunca se cumplió en el ámbito de rivalidad marítima) y el cese de la ayuda a los holandeses."

In case you can't read Spanish, I can translate it for you.

reply to post by ceman43


I don't think it can be described as a "pyrrhic" victory.
Afterwards England, then Britain, became the primary European power for centuries to come.
Spain was never to be the power it once was and gradually declined in influence and status.

Queen Elizabeth 1 was indeed a most succesful and influential English sovereign who laid the platform upon which we built our Empire on which "the sun never set".

Originally posted by ceman43You say nothing about Francis Drake's 1957 attack to Cadiz, destroying several ships and delaying until 1588 the Armada Invincible.

I bloody well hope not mate! That would mean that Drake is several hundred years old when he attacked an EU country. :shk:

Actually we could attack the Spanish fishing fleet which is operating within our territorial waters.

England - a country
Scotland - a country
Wales - a country
Northern Ireland - a country

Great Britian - England, Wales and Scotland combined.
The United Kingdom - Great Britian and Northern Ireland combined.


So there is actually a difference between GB and UK... not that it really matters much.


I have no problem with being called British, WHEN it applies... for example if described as part of a group where one does not know the nationality of each person, or it is mixed around GB...then fair enough. But when refered to singally, i expect to be called English.

Great Britian is not a country... you wouldn't simply describe me as a European because I'm from Europe... People from Germany are German, from France are French and Scotland are Scottish... but those from England are only British.


Can this change, yes, will it, of course not.