more anti-usa low-blows

mepbmlist
#21

"Laurence G. Tilley" wrote:

Wales and Scotland have recently been granted (note the language
appropriate to Royal Subjects rather than citizens) their own

Although it's appropriate to note that the whole royal thing is merely a
technicality. Annoying to someone who has to deal with it, I'm sure, but
they can't actually do anything.

parliaments, though with very limited powers. Many English people want
their own parliament as well, now that we have the crazy situation of
Scots and Welsh MPs able to vote on English law. Hence you see a
movement towards Devolution. AT THE SAME TIME however, each of these
countries is moving closer and closer into the European Union. A single
currency, the Ecu is on the cards - it just takes a long time over here
to throw off the shackles of centuries of tradition.

Yes, I had a lot of discussion with my fearless traveling companion
during my three weeks in Eastern Europe. I still say most of those
people who want to go alone are on crack. It seems like a perfect
situation of wanting to have your cake and eat it too.

We have plenty of disparate traditions over here, but we choose to
belong to one group instead of going out of our way to highlight our
differences.

Do you really want there to be 50 different World Cup teams in Europe?
I'm serious, that's a reflection of what the trend is, and I think it
will water down more than the quality of the football.

The prospect then, is for independent states, bound together in a
federal union - sound familiar? Your Woodrow Wilson, first started
talking about self-determination nearly 100 years ago. You never know

Yes, he did, but I doubt even he saw the extremes it's being taken too.
I like the concept of the EU, but the important difference is, no one in
the states refers to themselves as, for example, a Virginian, except as
a distant second to "U.S." (I won't say American -- that would hack off
our Canadian neighbors :slight_smile:

The EU splinter groups seem to not be willing to live with each other,
but they certainly still want the money. No cost, all benefit.
Convenient.

        jason

···

--
Jason Bennett, jasonab@acm.org
Software Engineer, Cryptography Buff, Gamer
Believer in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord
http://members.home.net/jasonab/

#22

I was reading about Arthur(s) recently. Seems a certain Welsh king, who
might have been the basis for the Arthurian legend, gave the English a

right

stomping one time. Circa 1178, if I remember correctly. I can't look it up,
'cos the book's in Minsk!

Not possible, because Geoffrey of Monmouth is the main early source for
the Arthurian legend, and he's wring in the FIRST half of the twelfth
century.

Not sure what you're referring to with 1178. Anglesey gets seized by
the Welsh in 1200, and partial Welsh unity is established under Llewelyn
I and II, ending with the death of the latter in 1282, and the
completion of the conquest by Edward I in 1284.

Regards,
Laurence G. Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/
Talk to me live when I'm online with Yahoo Messenger
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/ My ID=LGTilley

RD: the factual Arthur (as opposed to the legendary or romantic one)
flourished in the 6thC.

Regards,

Richard.

···

Gavinwj <gavinwj@compuserve.com> wrote

#23

Laurence G. Tilley wrote:

RD has been thumbing the text books too I see. But the date you give is
too early for either of the Llewelyns. Any luck with 1178 RD?

1178 was from memory. Said memory may well be out a decade or two.

Gavin

#24

Check out what you can about a Scottish group of tribes in and around
the Lothian from 1st Cent. - 6th cent. They were trained and armed in
cavalry tactics by the Romans who used their froeces as a buffer
force against the Scots Picts/Highland tribes. Known as the Gedodin
they were led by the DUX BELORUM(I think) which is Latin for a leader
of men(GENERAL). As Richard wrote such a "GENERAL" did exist around
the 6th century. Another point to mention is that an area near
Gloucester on the Welsh border could not be placed. Of the top of my
head I can't remember what it was but it was an old Welsh name, but
as it happens we all spoke Celtic in those days. This area is
actually documented in Edinburgh as being the town of Kelso, which
sits at the meeting point of two of the Borders rivers. There are
also ruins of Roxburgh castle which had a huge natural corral for the
cavalry troops. Eminently defensible, with water on two sides could
this be CAMELOT.

--- In mepbmlist@egroups.com, "Richard John Devereux" <devereux@l...>
wrote:

Gavinwj <gavinwj@c...> wrote
>I was reading about Arthur(s) recently. Seems a certain Welsh

king, who

>might have been the basis for the Arthurian legend, gave the

English a

right
>stomping one time. Circa 1178, if I remember correctly. I can't

look it up,

>'cos the book's in Minsk!
Not possible, because Geoffrey of Monmouth is the main early source

for

the Arthurian legend, and he's wring in the FIRST half of the

twelfth

century.

Not sure what you're referring to with 1178. Anglesey gets seized

by

the Welsh in 1200, and partial Welsh unity is established under

Llewelyn

···

I and II, ending with the death of the latter in 1282, and the
completion of the conquest by Edward I in 1284.

Regards,
Laurence G. Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/
Talk to me live when I'm online with Yahoo Messenger
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/ My ID=LGTilley

RD: the factual Arthur (as opposed to the legendary or romantic one)
flourished in the 6thC.

Regards,

Richard.

#25

Laurence G. Tilley wrote:

A single
currency, the Ecu is on the cards - it just takes a long time over here
to throw off the shackles of centuries of tradition.

The EURO exists, mate, even if the British don't want to play.

Gavin, in Euroland (as everyone seems to want to call it now)

#26

Richard John Devereux wrote:

Not possible, because Geoffrey of Monmouth is the main early source for
the Arthurian legend, and he's wring in the FIRST half of the twelfth
century.

He's the main ENGLISH source for the legend, boyo!

Gavin

#27

Do you really want there to be 50 different World Cup teams in Europe?
I'm serious, that's a reflection of what the trend is, and I think it
will water down more than the quality of the football.

there might be already, we've got 5 just in our two little islands - and
look at the high quality of them.

#28

Wales and Scotland have recently been granted (note the language
appropriate to Royal Subjects rather than citizens) their own

Although it's appropriate to note that the whole royal thing is merely a
technicality. Annoying to someone who has to deal with it, I'm sure, but
they can't actually do anything.

Oh you'll be surprised. Soldiers still swear their oath of loyalty to
the Queen rather than to any elected figure. In times of constitutional
crises, e.g. if a hung parliament were to be elected, she still has
absolute power. In 1974 when the Prime Minister resigned, the Queen
invited the Opposition to form a minority administration - directly
contrary to the will of the people as evidenced by the number of MPs
elected.

The prospect then, is for independent states, bound together in a
federal union - sound familiar? Your Woodrow Wilson, first started
talking about self-determination nearly 100 years ago.

Yes, he did, but I doubt even he saw the extremes it's being taken too.
I like the concept of the EU, but the important difference is, no one in
the states refers to themselves as, for example, a Virginian, except as
a distant second to "U.S." (I won't say American -- that would hack off
our Canadian neighbors :slight_smile:

Could be that Virginians have an independent geographic, but not a
cultural or racial identity. If you look in a Virginian telephone
directory, I expect you'd find abundant surnames from every country in
the world. The English have not had large scale immigration to affect
their racial identity since the dark ages, and the Welsh since the Iron
Age (Nobody else has wanted to move in since the Celts :wink: English
cultural identity (language as the key indicator) was challenged by the
Norman conquest 1066, but eventually it was English, the language of the
Anglo-Saxons which prevailed.

Regards,
Laurence G. Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/
Talk to me live when I'm online with Yahoo Messenger
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/ My ID=LGTilley

···

Jason Bennett <jasonab@acm.org> (quoting & responding to LGT )wrote

#29

Gavinwj wrote:

> >> I was reading about Arthur(s) recently. Seems a certain Welsh king,

who

> >> might have been the basis for the Arthurian legend, gave the English

a right

> >> stomping one time. Circa 1178, if I remember correctly. I can't look

it up,

> >> 'cos the book's in Minsk!

> > Not possible, because Geoffrey of Monmouth is the main early source

for

> > the Arthurian legend, and he's wring in the FIRST half of the twelfth
> > century.
>
> Only if you believe the English version of events... The first source

for

> Arthur is in the *sixth* century when he appears in some Welsh

chronicles.

I have to say, this is where such discussions cease making sense to
Americans. Does it really matter whose king Arthur was? Over here, such
things are academic, but never nationalistic. Totally different
mindset.....

jason

RD: Historically you are right, it matters not a jot, because all Arthur did
was inflict a temporary (in historical terms) setback on the various
Germanic invaders. But culturally he and what he stood for have provided
timeless inspiration not only to people of Celtic stock but to much of
Europe. You're lucky I have to go to work now - I could write forever on
the subject!

Richard.

#30

"Laurence G. Tilley" wrote:
>
> >I have to say, this is where such discussions cease making sense to
> >Americans. Does it really matter whose king Arthur was? Over here, such
> >things are academic, but never nationalistic. Totally different
> >mindset.....
> It's not about nationalism, its about heritage. Of course we understand
> that the Americans never have any disputes with their ethnic and
> cultural differences, and are all equal under God.

<eye roll>

Now, Lawrence, you know that I know better than that. My point is, it
seems like everyone is trying to run off on their own. Between the
Scottish and Welch assemblies, the Quebecois in Canada, and all the
other nationalities fighting for independent states, it just seems like
everyone is so quick to draw differences instead of similarities. From
my perspective, it would seem that you'd be better off sharing that
island, instead of drawing lines down the middle.

jason

RD: Would somebody tell Tony Blair that? Whilst I agree that the Scots,
Welsh and other minorities should maintain their language and cultural
identities, devolution is a dreadful idea. If Britain ever did split into
its constituent countries, England would be reduced to the status of
Switzerland and the Celtic bits to the equivelant of Luxembourg.

Mind you, the Celtic bits are financial millstones round England's neck, so
maybe splitting up isn't such a bad idea. England would also never again
have to put up with a Scottish PM and Chancellor!

Put my spoon away now...

Regards,

Richard.

···

> Jason Bennett <jasonab@acm.org> wrote

#31

What do you people know ?

Actually Arthur was an Alien !

He built the Stonehedge and started the Druid career !

RD: Stonehenge actually, and it was said to be built by Merlin, not Arthur,
altho of course it was thousands of years before either of them.

Rumors was that he inspired the Aztecs to build their pyramids.

But the Egyptian pyramids had nothing to do with him.

RD: No, it was the ancient Egyptians who crossed the Atlantic in reed boats
who showed the native south Americans (not then dominated by the Aztecs) how
to build pyramids. The pale-skinned (relatively) Egyptians were viewed as
gods, and pale-skinned gods are amongst those depicted in ancient south
American art. That is also why when the Spanish conquistadores landed, they
had a relatively easy conquest: the natives viewed them as the ancient gods
returned. Read Thor Heyerdal's 'The Ra Expedition.'

The Egyptian pyramids were also the inspiration for Stonehenge, Avebury
etc., but the Brits found pyramids too much like hard work, so they settled
for stone circles instead.

···

----- Original Message -----
From: "baerauble" <baerauble@GEOCITIES.COM>
To: <mepbmlist@egroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2000 10:30 AM
Subject: [mepbmlist] More Arthurian Stuff

He later married an oak tree and rooted himself in America.

b.e.

Middle Earth PBM List - Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.onelist.com
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/harlequin.games/list.htm

#32

> Do you really want there to be 50 different World Cup teams in Europe?
> I'm serious, that's a reflection of what the trend is, and I think it
> will water down more than the quality of the football.

there might be already, we've got 5 just in our two little islands - and
look at the high quality of them.

RD: Yes, most of them have beaten Germany recently!

Richard.

···

Middle Earth PBM List - Harlequin Games
To Unsubscribe:www.onelist.com
http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/harlequin.games/list.htm

#33

epbmlist@egroups.com>

>> Wales and Scotland have recently been granted (note the language
>> appropriate to Royal Subjects rather than citizens) their own
>Although it's appropriate to note that the whole royal thing is merely a
>technicality. Annoying to someone who has to deal with it, I'm sure, but
>they can't actually do anything.
Oh you'll be surprised. Soldiers still swear their oath of loyalty to
the Queen rather than to any elected figure. In times of constitutional
crises, e.g. if a hung parliament were to be elected, she still has
absolute power. In 1974 when the Prime Minister resigned, the Queen
invited the Opposition to form a minority administration - directly
contrary to the will of the people as evidenced by the number of MPs
elected.
>
>> The prospect then, is for independent states, bound together in a
>> federal union - sound familiar? Your Woodrow Wilson, first started
>> talking about self-determination nearly 100 years ago.
>Yes, he did, but I doubt even he saw the extremes it's being taken too.
>I like the concept of the EU, but the important difference is, no one in
>the states refers to themselves as, for example, a Virginian, except as
>a distant second to "U.S." (I won't say American -- that would hack off
>our Canadian neighbors :slight_smile:
Could be that Virginians have an independent geographic, but not a
cultural or racial identity. If you look in a Virginian telephone
directory, I expect you'd find abundant surnames from every country in
the world. The English have not had large scale immigration to affect
their racial identity since the dark ages, and the Welsh since the Iron
Age (Nobody else has wanted to move in since the Celts :wink: English
cultural identity (language as the key indicator) was challenged by the
Norman conquest 1066, but eventually it was English, the language of the
Anglo-Saxons which prevailed.

Regards,
Laurence G. Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/

RD: No large-scale immigration? What about the Huegenots and Jews and other
religious/racial minorities for whom this sceptred isle has been a refuge
from medieval to modern times? More recently, what about the huge numbers
of people of African, Asian or Oriental origin (to say nothing of east
European)?

Where would we be without African influence on our music? At least one in
ten British sportsmen and women are black or half-cast. And tikka masala
has replaced fish and chips as the most poular meal in the country!

Have these not affected our cultural identity?

Richard.

···

Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2000 7:58 PM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Unity & Devolution

Jason Bennett <jasonab@acm.org> (quoting & responding to LGT )wrote

#34

Ah yes the influence of the "Devereuxs" and other dodgy Frenchie types -
possibly over rated :slight_smile: My point was that unlike the USA there have not
been large waves of immigration since the dark ages. Nobody would deny
the influence of a continual trickle of immigration, but you say "No
large-scale immigration?" then use the word "minorities" in the next
sentence. In significant areas of the USA in the last 300 years, the
immigrant (or 2nd generation) population was the majority, many of the
immigrants were keen to become "Americans", not Virginians etc.

Regards,
Laurence G. Tilley http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk/
Talk to me live when I'm online with Yahoo Messenger
http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com/ My ID=LGTilley

···

Richard John Devereux <devereux@lineone.net> wrote

RD: No large-scale immigration? What about the Huegenots and Jews and other
religious/racial minorities for whom this sceptred isle has been a refuge
from medieval to modern times? More recently, what about the huge numbers
of people of African, Asian or Oriental origin (to say nothing of east
European)?

Where would we be without African influence on our music? At least one in
ten British sportsmen and women are black or half-cast. And tikka masala
has replaced fish and chips as the most poular meal in the country!

Have these not affected our cultural identity?

#35

>RD: No large-scale immigration? What about the Huegenots and Jews and

other

>religious/racial minorities for whom this sceptred isle has been a refuge
>from medieval to modern times? More recently, what about the huge

numbers

>of people of African, Asian or Oriental origin (to say nothing of east
>European)?
>
>Where would we be without African influence on our music? At least one

in

>ten British sportsmen and women are black or half-cast. And tikka masala
>has replaced fish and chips as the most poular meal in the country!
>
>Have these not affected our cultural identity?
Ah yes the influence of the "Devereuxs" and other dodgy Frenchie types -
possibly over rated :slight_smile: My point was that unlike the USA there have not
been large waves of immigration since the dark ages. Nobody would deny
the influence of a continual trickle of immigration, but you say "No
large-scale immigration?" then use the word "minorities" in the next
sentence. In significant areas of the USA in the last 300 years, the
immigrant (or 2nd generation) population was the majority, many of the
immigrants were keen to become "Americans", not Virginians etc.

Regards,
Laurence G. Tilley

RD: Immigrant minorities, whether large or small scale, can have an
influence out of all proportion to their numbers.

Since you brought up the subject of my ancestry, the male side were vikings
who, under Rolf the Ganger, conquered a SIGNIFICANT lump of France which was
consequently renamed Normandy. The Northmen were always a minority but they
were most definitely in charge! My ancestor was Count of Evreux = d'Evreux
(the town is still there altho the Revolution abolished the title).

According to the Roll of Honour at Battle Abbey in Sussex, Robert Devereux
fought under William the Conqueror at Hastings. A later Robert Devereux,
Earl of Essex, was a favourite of Queen Elizabeth I, and is most famous for
Her Majesty boxing his ears after he turned his back on her. Not content
with that, she had his head removed - well he did try to raise a rebellion
against her.

Yet another Robert Devereux, also Earl of Essex, commanded the Parliamentary
army at the start of the English Civil War. He has been much criticized for
his tactics at the 'drawn' battle of Edgehill, but in fact it was decisive
as it halted Charles I's march on London and foiled the only chance the King
ever had of recovering the capital. Altho there were blunders on both
sides, Edgehill laid the foundation for Parliamentary victory.

This Robert Devereux was also the guy who dressed his soldiers in red coats,
which remained the uniform colour for British troops until about 200 years
later, when somebody finally realised that perhaps it was NOT a good idea to
dress soldiers in such bright colours as it made them easier targets.

Incredibly, this lesson still had not been learned at the time of the
Normandy landings in 1943 when British officers still went into battle with
brightly polished brass badges and pips. A hell of a lot were killed by
snipers before the survivors substituted cloth badges.

Who am I not to continue such a tradition of military incompetence - if only
on paper?

Richard.

···

Richard John Devereux <devereux@lineone.net> wrote