US citizens view of the British

Ahh! national stereotypes!

I found this on the net about us Europeans and thought it was quite funny!


Heaven is where the police are British,
the chefs Italian,
the mechanics German,
the lovers French,
and it's all organized by the Swiss.


Hell is where the police are German,
the chefs are British,
the mechanics French,
the lovers Swiss,
and it is all organized by the Italians.


Sadly I don't know how we can reconstruct this to also include our friends the Americans into this? maybe someone can give it a shot and try? that would be a laugh...but until then....

I guess Purgatory would be where America invades both Heaven and Hell and imposes the PNAC agenda, junk culture & cowboy capitalist market economics on everything. j/k

Please don't be angry! lol!

Originally posted by Chevalerous
Hell is where the police are German,
the chefs are British,
the mechanics French,
the lovers Swiss,
and it is all organized by the Italians.

That does actually sound pretty crappy

I guess Purgatory would be where America invades both Heaven and Hell and imposes the PNAC agenda, junk culture & cowboy capitalist market economics on everything. j/k

I'm American, and as you know, America is a pretty big place.

I get accents from the west and north mixed up..... a lot. It's pretty common, I think.

When I visited England, I loved the people I met but really couldn't stand all the bus exhaust in Oxford (ugh). I loved the Germans, too....everyone was just so nice.

And when informed I was an American, I didn't get any anti-yank spill, or stuff like that. Almost everyone made sure I knew the best places to visit in town, told me what to make a point to see, etc.

Of ocurse, this was 1996. Maybe things change....

But I still think of the Brits as friends, the Scots as the hot guys with the kilts, and the Irish with the delectable accents.....

Originally posted by thoughtsfull
The Winsors changed their name

and I am not sure if there are any English kings since Harold Godwinson.. He is the last one I recognise with half decent laws that did not oppress and enslave everyone or treat women as merchandise..

I managed to wade through 10 pages of this thread and resisted the urge to correct some very idiotic statements from either foreigners or my own countrymen, then I saw this...

(Although i especially loved the Scotsmans attempt to paint all "redcoats" as English! Most amusing..... That's the SNP for you feeding them all bullcrap)

All Monarchs from Henry IV downwards are direct descendents of John of Gaunt, who was the progentior of the House of Lancaster. The fact that the Queens immediate family was from Hannover has little bearing when talking about Royal Houses as they all intermarried for centuries anyway.

The Queen can also trace a direct line back to King Harold, you so eloquently speak of. He also had little time to make any laws whatsoever, he was King less than a year.

But, to shoot down your rose-tinted views even more, even this stalwart "English" King was related to all the other Royals in Europe and wad the cousin of the Viking King who invaded (with the aid of Harolds Brother, no less) and was also related to William the Conquerer.

Believe me, I know my British/English history and cannot stand people talking out of their anal orifices about it.

And seeing as I have no been baited, lets address a few more points:

To be English is bad, apparently. If you're English and win Wimbledon, you're British. If you're Scottish and win, you're Scottish. The English always seem to get the bad name, but the vast majority of the political leaders who grew the Empire were Scottish and a significant amount of the troops used were Scottish.

We also get accused of conquering Scotland when in fact they came begging to us to form a Union in 1707. We even had a "Scottish" King on the throne of England at the time, which enabled the Scots to join us without much of a complaint.

We also get the bad wrap from Ireland, even though that was mostly the Scots and most Unionists in NI are of Scottish descent.

And now the English are getting the blame for the Falklands, even though....you've guessed it, they are mostly Scottish and Irish in descent!

Most settlers in Africa were Scottish too, like in Zimbabwe. The English, for the most part, didn't really go into the whole "colonising" thing unless forced to, like in Australia.

Now, don't get me wrong, I love the Scots. But I hate it when all the bad press goes to us English, they get off "scot" free (pardon the pun!) and even they buy into the whole "evil English" thing, even while England bankrolls the SNP's mindless spending. Seems a tad "ungrateful", if you ask me.

Also, for that douche that thinks the UK is some sort of Orwellian police state, please check your own country first. I've done this debate to death and I grow weary of it, needless to say it's usually from a select few of Alex Jones' bum chums. Now there's a guy I'd like to hit with my face.

Camera on every corner? Nope. We only have a handful in my whole town and they are all concentrated in the centre where all the pubs are. We find them handy for recording crimes so something called "evidence" can be presented to the court.

Restriction of my liberties? Likely blown out of proportion, but many people don't know their rights anyway and bleat when some pecieved "right" is "taken away", when it either never existed or has been misreported.

Bad food? Just shows you've never even set foot in the country. I could could cook your arse off as easily as I could slap some sense into it.

We don't even have as bad weather as people claim. For the most part, it's "mild", nothing going on in either direction.

Bad beer? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Not likely.. At least, it's better than any Pisswasser you get from the States.

On that note, I'd like to point out we're not all alcoholic hooligans hell bent on fighting either. Personally, I rarely drink at all and would much rather a more "peaceful" smoke in the comfort of my own home, which incidentally I am allowed to defend without fear of the Law punishing me.


EDIT: For typo's..

[edit on 28/2/10 by stumason]

reply to post by thoughtsfull


Nothing wrong with the south but there are some (very generalised, sorry) differences.
It was a friend from Kent who pointed it out. She was bowled over by things like the neighbours or the postman on his rounds speaking to her, a stranger. When I worked in Hertfordshire for a time, I experienced the reverse. But eventually I realised that the apparent 'unfriendliness' of my new work colleagues was just a natural tendency to be more reserved.
I do think as well that so many things 'down south' are more expensive. But also I believe that it's a myth that housing up here is so much cheaper. A friend from Cambridge was actually quite shocked at our prices locally - which were higher.
London, as you say, is a case on it's own. Everyone in such a hurry. And as a car driver, I find people are less likely to let you out of a side turn. In fact they look at you funny or don't acknowledge it at all, if YOU let THEM through. Plus those behind you get more impatient if you hesitate (because you are lost!).
And finally (and this is just a personal thing) I prefer the hillier terrain just where I live and the raw wildness of the countryside. It all seemed so manicured where I worked down south.

Back to the subject - stumason I so agree.
I'm going out now but clearly I need to be wary. A camera no doubt on the corner of the lane and up every cow's backside. Maybe I will get back just in time to sample the execrable home made steak and ale pie from the local pub (selling really awful beer from small, local breweries). And no doubt afterwards I will get arrested by the local police for being on this site. Best be careful not to have an accident while I am out because our unfashionably modern health care facilities might insist on treating me without payment.
Sigh....





[edit on 28-2-2010 by unicorn1]

reply to post by stumason


Your tirade directed at me was most interesting and amusing to read, thank you..

And it would be helpful if you are going to direct such a tirade at me along with comments that I speak out of my orifice, to actually respond to my comments that I see Harold Godwinson as the last "true" King of England who had half decent laws and treated women better than merchandise.. since you are so willing to direct your triade at me care to comment on what I wrote?? or just going to go off on another tangent??

And as far as the house of Anjou and it progeny stand I leave you to define your own view of those of that line as I already have mine thanks, and given your remarks you also know very little of 1066 country and how the people in this neck of the woods see such things..

Just because my world view does not gel with your world view does not make my views any less truthful.

reply to post by unicorn1


cool, thanks, I was concerned your view might be tempered by some rude southerners..

Got to agree the house prices are awful.. I'd certainly like our house prices to in line with others parts of the country.. But most people in these parts are chatty and friendly, perhaps because we're not rich southerners or because I live here, I'm not sure

Still my neck of the woods is all Downland, everything is up and down, and the raw beauty of mother nature clashing with downland cliffs is quite spectacular..

Tho there are so many wonderful places in the rest of Britain, I just love the Moors and Dales.. such stunning beauty out there to visit, the sad part is that I'll never see it all

reply to post by thoughtsfull


I did, actually, address your claims. You said he ruled with "hlaf decent laws and didn't oppress women", to which I replied he was barely King for a year (10 months in fact) so quite how he got anything done in that time given the repeated attempts on the throne he had to endure is beyond me.

What "half-decent" laws did Harold introduce? None, to be honest. His reign is only worth taking note of for the defeat of the Vikings and the subsequent loss to the Normans. The administration he inherited of Edward the Confessor was the one responsible for the "better treatment of women" and the common man I might add, but this is mainly due to a greater Anglo-Saxon tradition and not one mans efforts. The Normans got rid of all that with the feudal system they copied of the French and which was pretty popular among most continental countries.

I am unsure quite why you view him as "the last King of England" when he had a pretty weak claim to the throne, certainly no stronger than Williams.

His claims to the throne seem to stem mostly from marriage (of his sister I might add), he inherited the Earldom of Wessex, from where he took a shot at the Crown based on a rather dubious claim that Edward said he would give it too him. Certainly no stronger a claim than William.

You are, I assume, aware that Harolds father Godwin was an active supporter of Danish attempts on the crown and had gone against any "english" claimants.

This is how he became Earl of Wessex, Canute bestowed the title on him after receiving Godwins support. If anything, Godwin is an "english" traitor and obtained his land and titles (subsequently Harolds land and titles) through betraying his countrymen. Also, it is worth adding that Harolds mother was Danish also, so claiming him to be the "last King of England" is silly.

Also, to back up my assertion the Royal Houses intermarried extensively, I am sure you are aware that his daughter married into the Kiev Rus Dynasty and was a progenitor of major royal houses in Russia.

Also, the wife of Edward II, Isabella of France, was a direct descendant of Harold, which reintroduced Harolds bloodline to the English Crown, so even if you don't view William through to Edward I as legitimate Kings, Edward II is a direct descendant of this "last King of England", even in your eyes he and his descendants must be legitimate?

I think I know a damned site more about English history than you seem to. The House of Anjou (under the Plantagenets founded by Henry II in 1154) came some time after the Norman conquest. And, as stated, Edward II Plantagenet was a direct descendent of Harold anyway, so whatever views you have are misguided.

Nice of you to claim I am the one going off on a tangent (and maybe I am) but you bring up some crap about English history or the Royal's and get your knickers in a twist when I correct you.

Anyway, there's plenty for you to chew on.

EDIT: You really should start a thread on all this, it would be most entertaining.

Also, please don't get all uppity just because I said you were talking out of your arse.

It wasn't meant to be offensive, just calling it as I see it. I am quite happy to tell my own mother she is talking out her arse if I believed it to be the case. Doesn't mean I don't love her

[edit on 28/2/10 by stumason]

reply to post by stumason


And I am quite happy to accept the criticism when I am wrong, and even when I'm right

Are you infering that Harold did not rule by Saxon laws???

what have new laws got to do with upholding the existing laws, and the existing treatment of women pre Norman invasion.. Which is in marked contrast to that of the post Norman era..

Thus I contest that Harold holds the position of a King with half decent laws, even for a week he would still hold that position in my eyes, since I was simply stating a fact that he was the last King with half decent laws.. that is half decent in comparison to those that followed that oppressed the masses.

Lewes Castle does not have a plaque that says the Castle was seen as a symbol of oppression for 900 years for the fun of it, that is how people locally view it.. YOU may not view it that way, Historians may not view it that way.. but the people here about's do.

So how long did it take for women to reclaim the right to half of the proceeds in Divorce! even in the late 19th century Brighton, wives were being sold for their value in pints of beers as they could not afford the costs of divorce, putting women in the perpetual situation as nothing more than merchandise.. That was the decent laws the other kings brought to their subjects.

So again I contend the pre-Norman Saxon laws treated subjects better than the post Norman laws..

Anyway given that South Saxon lands were the first invaded and held tightly, where speaking against a Norman lord got your nadgers cut off and eyes gouged out it creates enough of a chip on the shoulder that still exists about it to this day.. so much so that I doubt I could ever agree with anyone that post Norman rule was good, so not rose tinted but bloody minded

I did state I could not be sure about actual English kings since Harold.. and admit even in my original post that my knowledge is flawed,

But I will be sticking by my guns on this, Harold was the last English King with Half decent laws that did not treat their subjects like merchandise..

reply to post by thoughtsfull


Ironically, I completely agree with this post in it's entirety.

Anglo-Saxon laws were much fairer and didn't oppress women or the common man anywhere near as much. The Normans brought in a whole new system which still affects our lives to this very day!

I never disagreed with this point, I just disagreed with your view on the "legitimacy" of any King/Queen since Harald right up to our present Monarch.

Sometimes I think that Americans hate everyone.

Americans have a derogatory word for every people and every culture.

Americans even hate Americans.

reply to post by SpiritoftheNightSky


No offense, but American's don't have a monopoly on hate.

I've traveled to several countries, they all have derogatory terms. I won't post them here, because I'm sure the Mods might not like it.

reply to post by stumason


Ironically I am a Royalist Brought up a Catholic tho still got involved with the pope burning at Lewes, which I'm sure I will go somewhere hot for...

But my knowledge of the kings and queens is very flawed, and feel deeply that the oppression all others claim was actually first perfected on the English.. tho that is not convenient to some.. nor is the fact that it continues to this day.. *shakes fist*

Once I put the post up I realised when you responded you might think this some white, Saxon thingie.. Like some quote Kipling's Saxon stuff..

They quote someone not realising Kipling was talking about the South Saxons since lived here, wrote about the local geography and towns, the bloody minded locals and used South Saxon words throughout his writings.

Kipling was writing about people he knew who protested the plight of Native Americans and Zulu's in the 19th Century and who turned Brighton into a Hospital town in WW1 for Indian troops, where the level of care and kindness they received meant that of 10,000 Indian wounded received into the town only 73 died of their wounds and complications.

I mean they must have really hated Brown people to turn the Royal Palace over to the convalescing Indian troops to remind them of home, such is our evil nature!

Those aspects tends to get neglected in the pure white Saxons rule the world thing, or when putting the English down, which I have seen dotted throughout this thread.. bah humbug..

Tho I do appreciate we are not perfect.. but just to focus on the negatives gets my goat.

I did get a bit of Royal history from you, thanks for that never to late to learn that kind of stuff.

As far as Kings and Queens go we get taught about a B*st*rd, the Peasants Revolt, Lollardy, Bloody Mary, The Swing Riots and all such things that we were involved in.. which does give one a tainted view of ALL of them.. but still I'm a Royalist.. since the Protectorate was soooo good for the people.. NOT..


[edit on 28/2/10 by thoughtsfull]

reply to post by DeathShield


LOL, I have been brewing my own beer for 4 years now... I like Stouts and porters, But I will say there are some good beers in the US. but they come from what are called "Micro Breweries"
Although Sam Adams Almost seems to be getting a bit too big to be called a micro brewery, I still like alot of thier beers..

reply to post by mr-lizard


I could be wrong, but I think that was a sort of "Tongue in cheek" post..(by Murphyhurtme) at least that is how I read it, and it made me laugh..... LOL. If it was meant to be serious.... Well, I think it just made me laugh harder.....

[edit on 28-2-2010 by SideWynder]

reply to post by fooks


our driving on the wrong (left) side of the road dates back to the days before cars came along. it was so people passing each other on horseback could easily shake the right hand of the oncoming person. I dont understand why the rest of the world would not have done this back then.

Here is an American view of the British:

Buck tooth
Tea Drinking
Sissies
Hippies
Socialists
Communists
Gay
Freaks
Dumb
Ugly
Up-tight
No personality
Anti-God
Anti-Christian
Lazy

I'm sure there is more that I just can't think of right now...





Of course these are just stereotypes and I was being sarcastic because I like the British and people of every country, but the sad thing is that alot of Americans don't like the British... Hell they don't really like anyone who is not American. Alot of Americans think contradictory; Everyone wants to be in America, or every country is there because we let them be there.

It's quite sad how many Americans think of the British and foreigners overall. Alot are ignorant, but I don't think that is a big problem outside the rural areas and the south.

Edit to add: Also if you're a foreigner avoid the Republican Party, they tend to dislike foreigners.

[edit on 3/1/10 by Misoir]

All the brits i,ve spoke to, that have been to the states...said the american people and the american way of life was brilliant...and thats why they allways go back...

Originally posted by union_jack
All the brits i,ve spoke to, that have been to the states...said the american people and the american way of life was brilliant...and thats why they allways go back...

It might be nice to visit here, but not live. I would love everything about America if all I had to do was visit. I live here and everything is religion, family and money. It's how most people outside of the northeast and the cities think. I dare a Brit to come to the deep south and stay in a rural area, I would have to see that

the way i see, im a mid 20s male from the south of england. everyone has their own feelings about groups of people either religion, race or just their country of origin. ive been to many countries met many a few foreigners, ive worked with 3 americans myself.

i havent been to the states myself yet but planning to go snowboardin at the start of 2011 (before 2012 ) but the americans i have met have been nice never had a problem with them and i was proud in a way i knew and got on with them

in my view i see the majority of the american population sees the English portraided the same way. Drinking tea, reading large newspapers, posh BBC english, posh, up tight. But take the oppotunity to visit sometimes, we all have different accents not all of us are posh not all of us drink tea (i do ). Until you've spent time with people you will always think they are weird or strange.

Im just your average guy who is stoned and sitting at a friends house , now tell me there isnt someone in the states doing exactly the same

here's a little insight into what a group of Americans thought of British TV shows, quite amusing