I pledge allegiance to the . . . UK?

[Raven]

You don't have to send an army to invade, we have been politically invaded several times.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Pledging(which sounds like cleaning something up) allegiance by free will is just fine, and there's nothing wrong in a healthy amount of pride about your country, but taking it too far in either case; zealotism and forced pledging, is not a good way to go.

 

[Dukat]

We've been invaded once in the past 1000 years and that particular invasion pretty much restarted the monarchy at the time. Jesus people where do you learn history from?

I dont know about you, but I learnt mine at school mate, I didnt specify a timeframe did I?

Off the top of my head I can name four different sets of people who have invaded England:

Romans(on two seperate occassions)
Saxons
Angles
Normans

There are probably more out there that I dont know about, me not being a professor of history, sorry about that mr 00dave, I'll get working on my PhD right away!!!

Now, I have to ask, but where did you learn your history? It should have been plainly obvious that I was referring to ancient/medieval times.

What the fuck is your problem anyway?

 

[DaGaffer]

You missed out the Vikings. But the last big successful invasion of England was a lot later than that (discounting the Jocks getting as far as Derby in 1745), it was the Dutch in 1688. The fact that certain elements of parliament invited them to invade is besides the point, it was still an invasion, and was at least as important as 1066.

 

[Mey]

We've been invaded once in the past 1000 years and that particular invasion pretty much restarted the monarchy at the time. Jesus people where do you learn history from?

Not true the french invaded one of our off-shore islands not too long ago, it was crushed fairly quickly mind.

Ah here we go; BBC News | UK | French 'invade' British island

 

[throdgrain]

00Dave said once in the last 1000 years, which in fairness Pikey mate discounts the Romans and the Angles.

The Vikings did attempt almost continuous invasion but didnt succeed very completely either and were defeated by Harold a few weeks before the battle of Hastings ,when we did get invaded, so I expect thats the thing he's refering to.

Yeah jolly ol braveheart did get as far as north of Derby, but it wasnt a successful invasion and my god him and his skirt wearing chums didnt half pay for that on didnt they

As far as your other point Dagaffer, well, dont get me started

 

[Hawkwind]

I just can't believe a government heading into a deep recession has not got better thing to worry about than this shite.

Regarding the Monarchy I'm with Dukat. People moan about the amount they cost the country but it's BS. 3 billion plus a year is spent by tourists who come over to see all the pomp and pagentry.

I took my then six year old son up to London last summer and he just loved the changing Guards. Made me quite proud to be English!:england:

 

[Tom]

We've been invaded once in the past 1000 years and that particular invasion pretty much restarted the monarchy at the time. Jesus people where do you learn history from?

Once? Try again mate.

 

[Dukat]

00Dave said once in the last 1000 years, which in fairness Pikey mate discounts the Romans and the Angles.

I realise that this timeframe of a thousand years discounts alot of the invasions I mentioned in my original post, but where does the last 1000 years become relevent though? why is anything older than that being discounted?

I was talking about our history as a whole, not just the last 1000 years, hence why I said "in the past" as opposed to "in the last thousand years". If I say "the dinosaurs were alive 'in the past'" am I going to have my history questioned?

If I'd said the words "thousand years" when talking about how "we've been invaded so many times" I might understand the reason for 00daves post, but I didn't, so I don't.

 

[taB]

Argentina invaded us about 25 years ago :england:

 

[Mazling]

Allegiance is for medieval knights; fear, ignorance and pride are the only reasons for this "with us or against us" BS which is what allegiance is. We don't need it any more.

 

[00dave]

FFS you lot are being pedantic today. I gave the timeframe of 1000 years because we were discussing the royal family and their background. Don't try and look clever by taking what I said out of context. Your statement ealier refered to the mix in their blood because of the amount of times we've been invaded, and the 1066 invasion effectively restarted it all, so bollocks to your Roman's and Vikings.

And to Tom. I will try again....... yep once. Unsucessful attempts/covert ops/territory invasions/political bollocks aside we have been invaded once in the past 1000 years.

 

[Dukat]

FFS you lot are being pedantic today. I gave the timeframe of 1000 years because we were discussing the royal family and their background. Don't try and look clever by taking what I said out of context. Your statement ealier refered to the mix in their blood because of the amount of times we've been invaded, and the 1066 invasion effectively restarted it all, so bollocks to your Roman's and Vikings.

I dont see it as pedantry because what I am referring to is the crux of my argument.

The misunderstand lies in the fact that I was refering to the country as a whole to try and show that the entire country has a mix of european blood in our history, therefore the fact that we're ruled by a european bloodline is largely irrelevent.

I can understand the ambiguity though, because I said:

England has always been a bit of a mix of european blood

It is easy to mistake that for me meaning the royal family instead of the country as a whole because of the context. It would have been far more obvious had you of taken it in the context of my post's overall point.

That said, I'm not trying to look clever, I am simply defending what I have said.

Your statement ealier refered to the mix in their blood because of the amount of times we've been invaded

Change the word "thier" for "our" and you have what I was referring to, perhaps if wasnt obvious, but its not being pedantic seeing as it changes the entire meaning of the statement.

We as a country DO have alot of mixed blood because of the invasions that have happened SINCE TIME BEGAN. I say this because the british isles have never been purged of humanity, and the blood from the invaders, as well as settlers, traders, immigrants and so on, have mixed with the original english to become what England is today.

What you said is also right, the royal family is unaffected by alot of this because of 1066. I can see how you think I was disputing this but I actually wasnt, I was stating that the entire country is a bit of a mix of european races, and how this means that the fact that we're ruled by a european(german, scottish, whatever) bloodline doesnt really mean anything at all.

Its not about me looking clever by spouting 101 facts about the british isles, its about me posting something relevent to the thread's topic and brooky's posts in particular - that the fact that we're all partially european anyway means that the royal family bloodline's distant past really doesnt matter so much.

 

[DaGaffer]

FFS you lot are being pedantic today. I gave the timeframe of 1000 years because we were discussing the royal family and their background. Don't try and look clever by taking what I said out of context. Your statement ealier refered to the mix in their blood because of the amount of times we've been invaded, and the 1066 invasion effectively restarted it all, so bollocks to your Roman's and Vikings.

And to Tom. I will try again....... yep once. Unsucessful attempts/covert ops/territory invasions/political bollocks aside we have been invaded once in the past 1000 years.

Reading back through the argument, Dukat's point was well made, and yours was...bollocks, because it was irrelevant. Dukat is correct, we ARE a polyglot nation, not just through invasion, but through continuous immigration (Hugeneots, Flemish, Irish etc. have all had a major impact on the gene pool). The Norman invasion (who by the way were basically Vikings with bad hair themselves) changed the power structure at the top of what was already a very genetically mixed population, (this has been proved through DNA archeology; northerners have strong genetic links with Danish and Norweigian populations, southerners with central German and dutch populations) and since then the population has continued to change, and so has the background of the royals (there's a pretty tenuous link between the Plantagenets and the Windsors). So our royals are Eurotrash, but so are most white English people.

 

[Tom]

And to Tom. I will try again....... yep once. Unsucessful attempts/covert ops/territory invasions/political bollocks aside we have been invaded once in the past 1000 years.

lol.

 

[00dave]

Well done to Dukat for defending himself with a well structured redress of his initial point. Although less of the big words I used up my vocab last week on my police exam.

A plague on Degaffer for using my name and the word bollocks without the prefix "the" or "dogs"

And Tom can burn in hell

I do apologise for my abruptness, I've been arguing with the fundies again and they do so wind me up almost to the point where I live for the frustration.

 

[throdgrain]

Abolishing the monarchy is a shit idea. I dont care what nationality the Monarch is in all honesty, England has always been a bit of a mix of european blood - we've been invaded so many times and had so much go on in the past that its inevitable that thers a little bit of a mix.

I feel that the monarchy gives the country a bit of an identity. Being subjects instead of citizens makes very little difference to our everyday lives surely?

The monarchy is a proud tradition that we as a country have had for hundreds and hundreds of years, I feel it would be horrible to get rid of something like that just because we dont like what it says on our passport.

I agree with what DaGaffer said about it not really mattering about who the monarch is per se, more the fact that we actually have one.

This is a post I 100% agree with by the way.

 

[Guest]

shes still german tho................ uke:

 

[Dukat]

Well done to Dukat for defending himself with a well structured redress of his initial point. Although less of the big words I used up my vocab last week on my police exam.

I do apologise for my abruptness, I've been arguing with the fundies again and they do so wind me up almost to the point where I live for the frustration.

Like I said you were right in what you said, I didnt really articulate my point well enough the first time around, this debating lark isnt as easy as it looks

I was a bit arsey too to be fair heh, I had just woken up when I replied the first time around thats no excuse though so I apologise also.

I'm a bit too jingoistic about our country sometimes though I think. Need to try and curb it a bit.

 

[DaGaffer]

Like I said you were right in what you said, I didnt really articulate my point well enough the first time around, this debating lark isnt as easy as it looks

I was a bit arsey too to be fair heh, I had just woken up when I replied the first time around thats no excuse though so I apologise also.

I'm a bit too jingoistic about our country sometimes though I think. Need to try and curb it a bit.

Oh my God, people on FH General being civil to each other. Pack it in. We've got a rep to think about! You'll be singing cum-ba-ya and plaiting each other's hair next...

 

[Fweddy]

*puts daisy chain round DaGaffer's neck*

Mostly what other's have said: I think the monarchy is a good thing. They generate tourist revenue and make us a bit different. Why would having a bit of foreign blood affect that?

As to what it says on the passport, you can call TdC a whore or a roadside massage therapist, it doesn't change his job one bit.