Royal wedding called off

iguana

Rango555 wrote: »

Let's not let facts get in the way of prejudices indeed. The Ottoman Sultan Abdülmecid sent five ships full of food supplies and funds as charity. However, the British administration did not give permission for these ships to enter the ports of Belfast or Dublin. To counter this The Otoman sultan declared that he would donate £10,000, but on the orders of Queen Victoria the British Ambassador in Istanbul informed the Sultan that he should reduce this amount, for the Queen’s donation was only £2,000. As noted in the letter of gratitude from the “noblemen, gentlemen, and inhabitants of Ireland,” the amount donated by Sultan Abdülmecid was reduced by the Queen to one thousand pounds.

So in fact Queen Victoria made sure that her £2,000 cost the Irish people £9,000.

That's a great story but there is very little evidence that it's anything other than a story. The "evidence" for it is very far from conclusive and there is as much to say it was a propaganda story from our side rather than genuine. It may or may not be true, it's very far from definitive. However it's absolutely true that Victoria made a large donation from her personal funds.

Eta: The Choctaw story is absolutely true.

Rango555

baza1976 wrote: »

You are using facts from 200 years ago to prove a point. A lot has happened since then. As I mentioned in a previous post when "republicans" were bombing England Maggie still allowed unemployed Irish people to trave to England and look for work.............. with out restrictions. If the same Irish people at the same time wanted to go look for work in the USA or Aus you needed to be succesful in getting a visa.

It's holding on to bad things that happened on both sides of the water that is holding back progress.

God damn it you got me...I am using facts from 160 years ago to prove a point..the point being that Victoria's "donation" was not out of charity, did you notice that I was replying to a post about something that happened 160 years ago? Have you also noticed that this thread is about the royal wedding and not about a british prime minister? You seem to be trying to take this waaaaay off topic....good luck with that

Rango555

iguana wrote: »

That's a great story but there is very little evidence that it's anything other than a story. The "evidence" for it is very far from conclusive and there is as much to say it was a propaganda story from our side rather than genuine. It may or may not be true, it's very far from definitive.

Really? Show me your evidence that it was a "propoganda story from our side rather than genuine" Muddy them waters, muddy them good.

iguana wrote: »

However it's absolutely true that Victoria made a large donation from her personal funds.

I think I have demonstrated that, in context, her "donation" was paltry in comparison to the actual aid being sent from the four corners of the world, most of which was refused entry by the British. During Victoria’s reign, the English monarchy became less political and more ceremonial in character. For that reason, the British Royal Family received less criticism than the government for the dreadful situation.

There was wide controversy when she made an official visit to Ireland in 1849. The propaganda tour was meant to show British politicians the extent of the crisis. The exorbitant cost of banquets and other events far exceeded the amount of her contribution to famine relief.

Read more at Suite101: Charitable Organization Donations During Famine: Absentee Landlord System and Tenant Evictions in Ireland | Suite101.com http://www.suite101.com/content/charitable-organization-donations-during-famine-a158928#ixzz1KNhCPvSH


Don't get me wrong, I don't hold any grudges against English people and I have many English friends, but to ignore your propoganda as if the British Royal family have always been "charitable" to the Irish and even had to "dip into their personal funds" (gained, I add through genocide, theft and murder all over the world) to help the poor old Irish would be a complete disservice to anyone with even a passing interest in actual history...not the revisionist history that you seem to subscribe to.

iguana

Rango555 wrote: »

but to ignore your propoganda as if the British Royal family have always been "charitable" to the Irish and even had to "dip into their personal funds" (gained, I add through genocide, theft and murder all over the world) to help the poor old Irish would be a complete disservice to anyone with even a passing interest in actual history...not the revisionist history that you seem to subscribe to.

I never said they have always been charitable to the Irish. A certain poster asked for specific instances where members of the royal family had personally done anything for the Irish and I provided 2. That's it. I'm as far from a monarchist as you can get but there are a few instances of royalty doing nice things for other people every so often.

That's not revisionist, that's looking at people who I may have a personal distaste for and respecting that they weren't all bad. You are the one who is looking at a very likely fictional tale, which has one secondary source written after the fact by a person with likely bias, spread by people with clear bias and accepting it as fact because you like the narrative. Hell, I like the narrative, as I said, it's a great story. I'd love for it to be true and I researched it hoping it was, but tbh, it seems very unlikely that it is.

Rango555

iguana wrote: »

I never said they have always been charitable to the Irish. A certain poster asked for specific instances where members of the royal family had personally done anything for the Irish and I provided 2. That's it. I'm as far from a monarchist as you can get but there are a few instances of royalty doing nice things for other people every so often.

Given the context of the donations from all over the world from people like the Choctaw and Calcutta (which is credited with making the first donation of £14,000. The money was raised by Irish soldiers serving there and Irish people employed by the East India Company) her "donation" is looking less and less like a charitable act and more of a "saving face" act. She was known as the "famine Queen" It is also noted that her visit to Ireland cost a lot more than her "donation" and it is evident in her own letters of that time that she treated her visit as a grand holiday rather than a pilgrimage to highlight the plight of the Irish.

iguana wrote: »

That's not revisionist, that's looking at people who I may have a personal distaste for and respecting that they weren't all bad. You are the one who is looking at a very likely fictional tale, which has one secondary source written after the fact by a person with likely bias, spread by people with clear bias and accepting it as fact because you like the narrative. Hell, I like the narrative, as I said, it's a great story. I'd love for it to be true and I researched it hoping it was, but tbh, it seems very unlikely that it is.

Why does it seem unlikely? To take a look at the politics between Turkey and England back then it seems very likely that he offered that amount knowing that he would be asked to reduce it so the Queen could save face. I reckon it was a political f.u to the Queen at the time. Drogheda has commemorative plaques documenting the food relief sent from Turkey that was refused by the British so the animosity between Turkey and England was definite.

iguana

Rango555 wrote: »

Why does it seem unlikely? To take a look at the politics between Turkey and England back then it seems very likely that he offered that amount knowing that he would be asked to reduce it so the Queen could save face. I reckon it was a political f.u to the Queen at the time. Drogheda has commemorative plaques documenting the food relief sent from Turkey that was refused by the British so the animosity between Turkey and England was definite.

1) Abdülmecid I is famed for pursuing better relations between the Ottoman Empire and the Europeans, including the British and worked very hard at making goodwill overtures to the British government and monarch. The Ottomans fought on the same side as the British in Crimea and as a result his empire was formally included as part of the European family of nations as declared in the Congress of Paris in 1856.

He never tried to make a political f u to Victoria. Where are you getting this stuff from?

2) There is no actual evidence for the Drogheda ships, just a few hole filled anecdotes. It's even less likely to have happened than the most probably didn't happen £10k offer of aid.

Rango555

iguana wrote: »

1) Abdülmecid I is famed for pursuing better relations between the Ottoman Empire and the Europeans, including the British and worked very hard at making goodwill overtures to the British government and monarch. The Ottomans fought on the same side as the British in Crimea and as a result his empire was formally included as part of the European family of nations as declared in the Congress of Paris in 1856.

Abdülmecid I was educated in France and is famed for reorganization of the finance system according to the French model and reorganization of the Civil and Criminal Code according to the French model. We all know that France and England were the best of mates eh? :rolleyes: The British fought on the same side as the Ottomans in Crimea but that was out of necessity, certainly not out of friendship

iguana wrote: »

He never tried to make a political f u to Victoria. Where are you getting this stuff from?

You know this to be a fact then? I think you are naive of European politics of the time to be honest but I will concede that I said it is what I reckon and that is from an understanding of what was happening in Europe at the time. The fact that Turkey had a resident English Ambassador at the time does not mean that there was anything but strained diplomacy between the two empires.....wikileaks showed us a little of how diplomacy works :cool:

iguana wrote: »

2) There is no actual evidence for the Drogheda ships, just a few hole filled anecdotes. It's even less likely to have happened than the most probably didn't happen £10k offer of aid.

I suggest you should take a trip to Drogheda with a hammer and chisel and remove this then

iguana

Do you think that's evidence? Seriously? That plaque was erected in 1995 by Alderman Frank Godfrey, who read about it in the memoirs of Taner Baytok, a former Turkish ambassador to Ireland, who cited an article by the historian Thomas P O’Neill in a magazine called The Threshold in 1957. An that's where the trail ends. A citation of a magazine article that hasn't been located, supposedly written over 100 years after the incident. Even the Drogheda Historical Society calls the story nonsense.

The sultan did make a £1k donation, but the rest of it appears to be a myth.

Rango555

iguana wrote: »

Do you think that's evidence? Seriously? That plaque was erected in 1995 by Alderman Frank Godfrey, who read about it in the memoirs of Taner Baytok, a former Turkish ambassador to Ireland, who cited an article by the historian Thomas P O’Neill in a magazine called The Threshold in 1957. An that's where the trail ends. A citation of a magazine article that hasn't been located, supposedly written over 100 years after the incident.

Did I say it was evidence? I said you should get out the hammer and chisel I dare say there are many tales that have been erased from history from around that period....when you have completely unbiased historians let me know. T'internet hadn't been invented yet by Al Gore and I'm sure that even if the millions in Ireland were literate at the time that pen, ink and paper were luxuries far beyond their reach....so a lot of the "evidence" of what did and did not happen in Ireland has been largely sourced from a hugely biased propoganda machine who would not have been in the habit of documenting flotillas from a Muslim country to a Christian country that had millions starving while the powers that be of the day orchestrated the removal of food from the entire country.

iguana wrote: »

Even the Drogheda Historical Society calls the story nonsense.

Source? I am not familiar with the society so cannot say whether or not they are entirely reliable..

iguana wrote: »

The sultan did make a £1k donation, but the rest of it appears to be a myth.

You seem to only take what has been "properly" documented as being rock solid while everything else appears to you to be myth....history itself is largely myth, documented "properly" or not.

seachto7

I doubt Celia's posse have a clue about the historical info in the previous posts.....

Rango555

seachto7 wrote: »

I doubt Celia's posse have a clue about the historical info in the previous posts.....

Again, my apologies for taking this off topic.

Happy Easter

Insect Overlord

Rango555 wrote: »

Again, my apologies for taking this off topic.

Happy Easter

In future, please keep historical debate to the History & Heritage forum, or, if unsure if the evidence is actually factual, the Conspiracy Theories forum.

Any further updates as to the broadcasting of the royal wedding in Limerick City this year?

Rango555

Insect Overlord wrote: »

In future, please keep historical debate to the History & Heritage forum,

Thanks for the link

Insect Overlord wrote: »

or, if unsure if the evidence is actually factual, the Conspiracy Theories forum.

Ouch! Unfair :rolleyes:

Insect Overlord wrote: »

Any further updates as to the broadcasting of the royal wedding in Limerick City this year?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xXpkt6revK0

[/QUOTE]

Amazotheamazing

seachto7 wrote: »

I doubt Celia's posse have a clue about the historical info in the previous posts.....

Tbf, it seems Celia herself could have made up some of the historical info in those posts. She's certainly old enough.

Insect Overlord

Rango555 wrote: »

Ouch! Unfair :rolleyes:

Sorry, that wasn't aimed just at you. I should have made that clearer.
Good call on the Kinks though!

davejones572

Lived in England for 25 years with lots of english friends along with most of the country who don't give a toss about the wedding or the royal family !

There happy to get a extra bank holiday off but won't bother watching it on the TV or having street parties , which you will see all over the UK being run by the local "nut jobs"

Berty

I was in Glasgow for the weekend and the amount of places closing for the royal wedding is unreal. We were in Primark. Women & Primark/Pennys :rolleyes:

There were t-shirts with the royal logo "Thanks for the day off". That said it all for me really.

Most of the pubs have big screens, bbqs etc etc for the "big day". I don't care one way or the other because it has nothing to do with me or the country I live in.

iguana

Berty wrote: »

I was in Glasgow for the weekend and the amount of places closing for the royal wedding is unreal.

It's probably partly because the wedding day is being made a Bank Holiday so it might be that certain businesses can't afford to pay their employees double pay for the day. It may be more cost effective to lose the day's business and just pay the amount they'd already budgeted for salaries for the week/month.

seachto7

Berty wrote: »

I was in Glasgow for the weekend and the amount of places closing for the royal wedding is unreal. We were in Primark. Women & Primark/Pennys :rolleyes:

There were t-shirts with the royal logo "Thanks for the day off". That said it all for me really.

Most of the pubs have big screens, bbqs etc etc for the "big day". I don't care one way or the other because it has nothing to do with me or the country I live in.

which is grand in the UK, but what relevance it has in the milk market in a small provincial town is beyond me....

Firefox11

seachto7 wrote: »

which is grand in the UK, but what relevance it has in the milk market in a small provincial town is beyond me....

Because lots of people at the fashion show will want to want to watch it.
I mean....what's the problem with this? Big fuss over nothing!

Mr. TTime

Silly girls want to watch silly wedding with silly people taking silly offense...

A lot more important things going on in our city which the councilors and general public should be trying to resolve...

Clareman

Well said Mr. TTime

A pub in Ennis is having a coffee morning for people who want to watch the wedding in public, proceeds going to a local charity, personally I think this is the best way to deal with it, let people who are interested in it get together and do some good with it.

NeirBot

seachto7 wrote: »

which is grand in the UK, but what relevance it has in the milk market in a small provincial town is beyond me....

Just wondering since when did Limerick stop being a city!?

No interest in the wedding but I'll probably end up watching some of it, it's either that or studying!

seachto7

well, Limk feels a lot like a small provincial town these days. Usually a city has a lot more going on in it

Amazotheamazing

seachto7 wrote: »

well, Limk feels a lot like a small provincial town these days. Usually a city has a lot more going on in it

Sure there's loads going on, can't you watch the royal wedding in the market! What else would you be doing?

cunningtino

tis

Insect Overlord

'tis what?

source

Confirmed today that it is being shown in the Milk Market on Friday, page 4 Limerick Post.

seachto7

Maybe they could also show the other "celeb" weddings taking place this year:

http://www.celebritybrideguide.com/2011-wedding-preview/

source

seachto7 wrote: »

Maybe they could also show the other "celeb" weddings taking place this year:

http://www.celebritybrideguide.com/2011-wedding-preview/

Please God no, 1 pointless exhibition is enough.