What Result Would You Like Another Vote On?

a reply to: berenike

I'd like to go back and rewrite our history.

There are things about British history that many of you do not realise. We have mentioned already about the Romans being invited to Britain to aid in tribal wars, rather than them invading us. We have also mentioned that there is no evidence whatsoever about a Celtic invasion of Britain. In fact it was made up by the Anglo - Saxons to remove our true heritage and leave us more open to their history. We also know that many University Professors also believe that their was no Celtic invasion or mass settlement.

In 1714 King George I became king of Britain, this was around the time that British history was to become a thing of the past, and the new false history would begin due to the court historians making it more acceptable to the House of Hanover. It was though only when Queen Victoria married Prince Albert Saxe-Coberg-Gotha that this suppression of the true history of Britain really took hold, through the newly appointed Regius Professor of Modern History at Oxford University Bishop William Stubbs (1866). It was Bishop Stubbs who set about completely reforming the subject and suppressing all the texts from before this time. He based his new approach to our history around the newly emerging science of archaeology. With this approach he revised all British history within all our schools and universities, which todays archaeologists and historians still swear by.

The Anglo - Saxon invasion is another made up piece of history. The true story is that when they came to this land to settle they found it primarily empty due to the comet of 562AD that devastated Britain and left it inhabitable for about a decade. The true British having left for Britanny and other parts of Europe till they could return. When they did return they found these Anglo - Saxons here and began to push them back out. These are the tribal wars that you hear about but are not told the entire truth surrounding them.

Yes we mention a comet in the year 562AD, that most of you will not have heard of, or read about or even been told by any teacher at school, but it did happen. If you ask they will tell you it never happened. Well, this comet is actually mentioned by various people writing about our history such as Gildas, Sir Thomas Mallory and Tysiios. All these writings are dismissed and ignored by archaeologists and historians. If these people were not telling the truth then why would there be a stone in St. Pauls, London that was found in 1850 telling the story of the comet, because it does not fit in with current thinking.

www.orrar.net...

a reply to: berenike

I'd love a redo of Wat Tyler's march on London in 1381. If he'd been less trusting, we might have seen democracy and equal rights spread across the world a little sooner. He led a peasant's revolt all the way to the walls of London and had the full attention of the King of England. The King's men invited him for a chat away from his own forces and the daft bugger went for it; he was slaughtered on the spot and the revolution died with him. Truly a dark day in history...

The Peasants' Revolt began in May 1381 , it started because a new levy tax had been forced on all citizens and it was the same amount for peasants and rich people.. The revolt was not only about money; the peasants also sought increased liberty and other social reforms. They demanded that each labourer be allowed to work for the employer of his choice, and sought an end to serfdom and other rigid social demarcation.

Wat Tyler

On a jokey note, Liverpool FC's 2013-14 season when we finished 2nd. Oh man, the decisions that went against us! A do-over could have seen us be Champions at last. That doesn't mean we'd have done better since, but it's been so long since we won the league and it hurts to always be saying 'next season.'

a reply to: DBCowboy

Sorry, Ketsuko.

Looks like you'll have to vote again.

Try and get the right answer this time.

a reply to: Kandinsky

Can we do something about enclosures while we're at it.

Enclosures: Protector Somerset and his civil servant John Hales believed that the economic and agrarian problems of the time were caused by greedy landlords trying to enclose land. They tried to stop this but the commons blocked three bills in 1548, so they set up commissions to look into enclosure abuses. The only one that got anywhere was near the area affected by the rebellion. The rebels thought that they were supported by the central government when they began tearing down enclosures. Resentments against the landlords was made worse by rack renting, and overstocking [grazing more than their fair share of animals] of commons by landlords.

rebellionsa2.blogspot.co.uk...

a reply to: Kester

Sounds good

I'm a Lancashire/Merseyside mongrol. The NW has always tended to be Monarchist in revolutionary times. We could have been been the tipping point for change instead of supporting the status quo.

a reply to: Kandinsky

Actually Tyler intresting at it shows as even back then you had people that pushed too hard and too fast in protests.

From accounts it seems Richard was rather amicable towards Tyler and agreed to grantb most his demands, in fact all the vital one as a lot of his supporters went home.
These concessions back then being pretty big.


But it wasn't enough for him and he demanded more and more to the point he was outright rude to the king then it seems he started a drunken fight with the mayor of londonbwhich got him arrested then executed.

He should of gone home when the king granted the key concessions.
If he had then England would have advanced forward still.


He was back then a millenial entitled liberal

I vote we should have stayed in the sea.

a reply to: crazyewok

drunken fight with the mayor

Friend living in Spain, now deceased, got into a fight with another dog walker. Bloodied his nose. Then found out it was the mayor. Rewind, please.

Not killed by the mayor, I should make clear. Heroin did that. There's another choice that should be re-made.

Good to see people are againts democracys, people often revote on alot of issues, the usual suspects selling us there lovely fascist ideas.

a reply to: crazyewok

Yeah, equality under law and freedom of movement for workers.

Tyler was a snowflake dick

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: crazyewok

Yeah, equality under law and freedom of movement for workers.

Tyler was a snowflake dick

Remember we are talking 14th century here. At that time what he asked for was more than radical, some woukd say heretical.

What the king agreed on was pretty big. Like huge for the 14th century. And it wasnt a peaceful march either as the peasants were looting and rapeing through london.

What ruined the deal it seems was tyler acting like a Chav.

Remember this is a time when bad manners in front of the king could get you arrested.
It seems tyler went out his way to break all the social rules in Front of the king but Richard II was still tolerant and granted his demanded. It was only when tyler pulled a knife and tried to stab the mayor after the mayor insulted him was he was killed.


Wat Tyler was a bad leader it seems. Too easy to provoke and too crass.


Not like Robert Aske in the 16th century who was polite and respectful and got executed by henry VIII for asking less.

a reply to: crazyewok

It was politics. The king wouldn't lay down and concede to Tyler's demands.

The backbone of the monarchy was the Lords and their domains.

Offering a surrender was a ruse.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: crazyewok

It was politics. The king wouldn't lay down and concede to Tyler's demands.

The backbone of the monarchy was the Lords and their domains.

Offering a surrender was a ruse.

Well Tyler foul manners and aggressive attitude didnt help and only gave the king a excuse. Once he went for the mayor that was pretty much it for him.

We should have voted to have kept our tails.

Tails would have been so cool.

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: crazyewok

It was politics. The king wouldn't lay down and concede to Tyler's demands.

The backbone of the monarchy was the Lords and their domains.

Offering a surrender was a ruse.

Well Tyler foul manners and aggressive attitude didnt help and only gave the king a excuse. Once he went for the mayor that was pretty much it for him.

Sure.

It was Tyler's 'foul manners' that killed him rather than being a figurehead for a political movement asking for equality under law.

The aristocracy would have rescinded their lands and powers if only they'd been asked nicely?

a reply to: DBCowboy

I saw one today! Not a real one. It was a fur tail sewn onto the back of his trousers. He's a guy I call The Wolf Man. He wears a wolf print jacket and gets very familiar with some of the local dogs, slobbering in their faces, I've even seem him trying to mount one. The owners face was a bit surprised, but she didn't know how to call him off. The tail was unexpected, I feel privileged to have him as a neighbour.

a reply to: berenike

The Eurovision Song Contest.

OUT OUT OUT.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: berenike

Giving women the right to vote.

What in the hell were they thinking?

We women not only have the right to vote... we can drive cars from
either side of the car* and shoot guns!


* I am an excellent side-seat driver,just ask my husband!

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: crazyewok

I'd give them a pass, especially if they lost their property in a divorce!

I think it is usually the man who loses everything in a divorce.Some are lucky if
they still have the shirt on their back and a car to drive.

originally posted by: Kandinsky

originally posted by: crazyewok

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: crazyewok

It was politics. The king wouldn't lay down and concede to Tyler's demands.

The backbone of the monarchy was the Lords and their domains.

Offering a surrender was a ruse.

Well Tyler foul manners and aggressive attitude didnt help and only gave the king a excuse. Once he went for the mayor that was pretty much it for him.

Sure.

It was Tyler's 'foul manners' that killed him rather than being a figurehead for a political movement asking for equality under law.

The aristocracy would have rescinded their lands and powers if only they'd been asked nicely?

A good leader needs to be smart, diplomatic and articulate.

The fact Tyler went for a meeting with the king on his own shows he wasnt that bright.

Robert Aske was the above and it wasnt until he went home that Henry VIII was able to capture and execute him as Aske was smart enough not only surrounded himself with followers but his polite nature won over a number of lords too. He still lost but he didnt make killing him easy.

Back then politics was a brutal game of life and death like a G RR Martin book, a clumsy oaf like Tyler was going to die, even Richard II played the game of thrones badly and ended up starving to death in a dungeon when his cousin Henry IV disposed him.

If Tyler had been clever he might of survived longer or if he had demanded less maybe some reform rather than none.