Diamond Jubilee

later12

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

More tellingly the number of people who think the UK would be worse off without the monarchy has dropped from 77% in 1984 to 46% today. It would seem that indifference and inertia characterises a good chunk of current British attitudes towards the monarchy.

That would be my (of course, merely anecdotal) experience as well. I would imagine most people would report a similar experience of the British. When I was younger and first moved to the UK from a Republic, I often brought up the issue of monarchy with my classmates and questioned how they could accept such a thing. Most of them, politicised as they may have been, seemed to have thought the whole arrangement was a tedious irrelevance.

On the other hand, I think there is rather a nice popular pre-occupation with the institutions of the Irish state amongst those who are interested in politics. Irish people who are political by nature may tend to care about the democratic probity of the constitution and its institutions to a greater degree than their British counterparts.

Perhaps this is an artifact of having fought for and having been denied these institutions for so long. Perhaps it is a result of having a constitution which can only be amended by plebiscite. Perhaps it is the only aspect of governance which Irish people feel they have a direct say on. Either way, I think the Irish are more attached to our constitutional institutions that the British may be.

Batsy

Wibbs wrote: »

Nope. You're getting your Matildas mixed up. Matilda Queen consort of William AKA Matilda of Flanders was Norman French of the house of Flanders, grandaughter of Robert Cabet(sp) the Pious, king of the Franks.

I'm not getting my Matilda's mixed up. I know full well that William the Conqueror's wife was Matilda of Flanders - and she was a direct descendent of Egbert. I don't care if she was a Frank, a Norman or a Martian. She was still a direct descendent of Egbert (and also of Alfred the Great, Egbert's grandson) and so is Elizabeth II.

If you don't believe me, here's what the New World Encyclopedia says:

Matilda of Flanders (c. 1031 – November 2, 1083) was Queen consort of England and the wife of William I the Conqueror. She and William had 10 or 11 children, two of whom were kings of England: William Rufus (1056–1100) and his successor Henry Beauclerc (1068–1135). She twice acted as regent for William in Normandy while in England and was the first wife of an English king to receive her own coronation.

Matilda was daughter of count Baldwin V of Flanders and Adèle (1000-1078/9), the daughter of Robert II of France. After a notoriously stormy courtship, she and William were thought to have been a peaceful, loving marriage, for the most part. However, their relationship was strained when her eldest son, Robert, opposed his father after a series family squabbles turned into war and William discovered that Matilda had been sending her son money. However, she was able to reconcile father and son, and the couple remained at peace until her death.

For many years Matilda was mistakenly thought to have been responsible for the creation of the famous Bayeux Tapestry. All sovereigns of England and the United Kingdom since William I are directly descended from her.

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Matilda_of_Flanders

See above. Her connection to the French Matilda is... well nonsense. She is not a direct descendant or anything like it. She is a cousin fourteen times removed.

Queen Elizabeth II is the great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-great-granddaughter of Matilda.

The vast majority of the DNA that floats around the Windsors is European/German/Hapsburg.

They are still directly descended from Egbert, his grandson Alfred the Great and other Anglo-Saxon monarchs.

Again avoiding the obvious point that they considered themselves separate and Norman French, not English. To the degree they didn't even bother to use the language of their subjects, your ancestors for over 3 centuries.

Who cares? They were still the Kings of England.

given the French are about the most successful military force Europe has ever seen.

I think you really are deluded.

KeithAFC

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Will you be celebrating the Easter Rising? Since we have all moved on and forgiven each other.

I ain't too sure if celebrating the Easter Rising would mean making the Irish people happy from the Irish Republic. A lot of people at that time didn't like the 1916 rebels. So from a historical view point, I would perhaps need to think about that.

Batsy

This is how Matilda of Flanders was descended from Egbert of Wessex:

King Egbert married Redburga.

The couple had a child, Æthelwulf, who suceeded Egbert as King of Wessex.

Æthelwulf got married twice: first to Osburh and then to Judith of France. With Osburh he had six children: Æthelstan of Wessex, Æthelswith, Queen of Mercia, Æthelbald, King of Wessex, Æthelberht, King of Wessex, Æthelred, King of Wessex, Alfred the Great, King of Wessex.

Æthelwulf's son, Alfred the Great, married Ealhswith. The couple had five children: Æthelflæd, Lady of the Mercians, Edward, King of Wessex, Æthelgifu of Wessex; Æthelweard of Wessex, Ælfthryth, Countess of Flanders.

Ælfthryth became the Countess of Flanders because she married Baldwin II, Count of Flanders. Together the couple had four children: Arnulf I of Flanders, Adalulf, Count of Boulogne, Ealswid and Ermentrud.

Arnulf I of Flanders married Adele of Vermandois. Together they had five children: Liutgard, Egbert, Baldwin III of Flanders, Elftrude and Hildegarde.

Arnulf I made his eldest son and heir Baldwin III of Flanders co-ruler in 958, but Baldwin died untimely in 962, so Arnulf I was succeeded by Baldwin III's infant son, Arnulf II of Flanders.

Arnulf II married Rozala of Lombardy, daughter of Berengar II of Italy. They had a son, Baldwin IV.

Baldwin IV married twice. First to Ogive of Luxembourg and then to Eleanor of Normandy. With Ogive, Baldwin IV had a son: Baldwin V.

Baldwin V married Adele of France. Together the couple had three children: Baldwin VI, Matilda of Flanders and Robert I of Flanders.

Matilda of Flanders married William the Conqueror, who became King of England in 1066. The couple had 8 children, including William II of England and Henry I of England.

I think that makes Matilda of Flanders the great, great, great, great, great, great, great, granddaughter of Egbert.

And, considering that Elizabeth II is a direct descendent of William the Conqueror and Matilda of Flanders, she is also the direct descendent of Egbert.

Shea O'Meara

Anyhoo......
I can think of no logical reason for the members of a partially occupied country to celebrate the diamond jubilee of a figure head of that very same foreign power and who didn't exactly treat us very neighbourly over the past few centuries.
Crazy idea.
It'll never be in the past while they lay claim to the northern part of Ireland regardless of how many cups of tea and slices of cake the aul' geebag has in Dublin.

who the fug

Sweet suffering Jesus , lads all it means is I get an extra day off work.


Now can we go back to debating how many angels fit on a pin head

Batsy

Shea O'Meara wrote: »

I can think of no logical reason for the members of a partially occupied country

Don't lie. The Republic of Ireland isn't partially occupied.

Shea O'Meara

Batsy wrote: »

Don't lie. The Republic of Ireland isn't partially occupied.

You foreign nationals crack me up

Wibbs

Batsy wrote:

They are still directly descended from Egbert, his grandson Alfred the Great and other Anglo-Saxon monarchs.

Clearly our definitions of direct ancestry are fantastically different, so there's absolutely no point in debating further. It's up there with the notion among some Irish people who think themselves descended from high kings and chieftains. They probably are, most of us probably have "royal blood" in us somewhere, especially if one stretches the definition of ancestry to the limit. This works out well for dynasties, especially new ones eager to make a connection to the past to justify their claims. Indeed walk around a town like Norwich and you'll likely walk past many people who have many more traces of the actual DNA of the Anglo Saxons, than you'll find walking around Windsor castle. Funny enough Saxon genetics are quite low in the modern English population as a whole. Very similar to the Irish and Scots and Welsh who see themselves as "Celtic" but the genetics tell a different story. Your average Englishman, Scot, Welsh and Irish are more closely related to each other than to continental influences.

Who cares? They were still the Kings of England.

You're willfully avoiding the points raised. They were French kings of England. An invading force and culture that was happy to enslave your ancestors and treat them like dirt and see them as apart and lesser for a very very long time. A fact that would not have been lost on your ancestors, who would find your attitude odd. Your same ancestors resisted them as much as they could and bravely too on more than one occasion. In Ireland the Norman French assimilated far more, hence you have a lot more Fitz's in surnames here. Indeed this idea of fraternising with the conquered freaked out your Norman overlords so much that they enacted laws to try and stop it over here. OK Batsy, imagine this, a thought experiment if you will. Say Napoleon had won and installed a French monarchy in the UK 200 years ago, a monarch who along with his court only spoke French and excluded locals from positions of power, would you have considered them "Kings of England"? I seriously doubt it. And you'd be dead bloody right.

I think you really are deluded.

Nope, look at the record. Who won the 100 years war? Who routed the Muslim forces at Tours? Who won at Hastings? Who won the 30 years war? Who beat the combined forces of Russia and Austria? Who won at Yorktown, setting up Britain to lose America? Who marched through Italy and Spain on more than one occasion routing the combined might of the locals? I'll give you a hint it wasn't the Greeks. The list is long. Better yet look at the loan words in English military speak. Words like regiment, captain, reconnaissance, corps, camouflage, lance, volunteer, barracks, corporal, general, lieutenant(though you anglicised it to Left tenant), bayonet, epaulette etc. Even the words army and soldier come from the French and that's no coincidence. Britain had the most successful navy in European history alright, but on land it was a very different matter.

KeithAFC wrote:

I ain't too sure if celebrating the Easter Rising would mean making the Irish people happy from the Irish Republic. A lot of people at that time didn't like the 1916 rebels. So from a historical view point, I would perhaps need to think about that.

True enough, but the subsequent monumental screwup by the crown forces consolidated and increased the resistance and dissatisfaction in the minds of the people. The event itself was a "failure" but it's fallout wasn't as far as the establishment of the republic. Like you say it's not quite so black and white. That said having a representative from the UK government on the day would be good and will likely happen. Ditto for the Queen of Englands jubilee. Neither events would be celebrated by the other as they're culturally specific. I'd hardly expect a Londoner to celebrate 1916 and I'd not expect a Galwegian to celebrate the jubilee. However acknowledging it as important to each other as neighbours and acknowledging our connections rather than differences is a good thing.

Batsy

Wibbs wrote: »

Clearly our definitions of direct ancestry are fantastically different, so there's absolutely no point in debating further.

I've proved that the Queen and Matilda of Flanders are direct descendents of Egbert. I don't know why you are still arguing about it.

You're willfully avoiding the points raised. They were French kings of England.

They weren't French. They were Norman. But they were still Kings of England.

An invading force and culture that was happy to enslave your ancestors and treat them like dirt and see them as apart and lesser for a very very long time.

The Normans would be my ancestors, too.

Who won at Hastings?

That was the Normans, not the French.

But I could give easily give you a list of all the battles and wars that the English and the British have won. Just because the French have won a few battles in their time doesn't mean they have been the most impressive fighting force Europe has ever seen.

I'd not expect a Galwegian to celebrate the jubilee.

Why not? The last time I checked she is the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. She isn't the Queen of England.

She's also the Queen of 15 other countries.

Wibbs

Batsy wrote: »

I've proved that the Queen and Matilda of Flanders are direct descendents of Egbert. I don't know why you are still arguing about it.

Our definitions of direct are never going to converge. Hell some eejits claim for her descent from some of the high kings of Ireland too, including Brian Boru. I kid thee not gentle reader. No doubt some dribbling royalist somewhere has traced her to Gaius Julius Caesar. Lucky for her and her family there's a lot of invention going on or the inbreeding, which is bad enough as it is, would be significantly worse.

They weren't French. They were Norman. But they were still Kings of England.

The Normans would be my ancestors, too.

Avoiding the points again. On the Normans being your ancestors? According to geneticist Bryan Sykes' findings "Evidence of Norman genetic influence in England was extremely small – about two percent, discounting the idea that William the Conqueror, his troops and any settlers disrupted and displaced previous cultures". So unless you're one of that 2% the chances of you having Norman ancestry are very low. In Ireland the genetics show more widespread influence, showing the differences between the two invaders attitudes. Are you "Anglo Saxon"? Unlikely, unless you hail from around Norfolk and even then you have only a 15% chance of some Saxon ancestry. English mtDNA lines show pretty much no Saxon lines. Have an old read of this for your further delectation. Hey the Irish ain't "Celts" either and some are utterly convinced we are, but they're equally wrong/misinformed.

But I could give easily give you a list of all the battles and wars that the English and the British have won. Just because the French have won a few battles in their time doesn't mean they have been the most impressive fighting force Europe has ever seen.

Pity the stats don't agree with you. To quote historian Niall Ferguson; "of the 125 major European wars fought since 1495, the French have participated in fifty – more than both Austria (forty-seven) and England (forty-three). And they’ve achieved an impressive batting average: out of 168 battles fought since 387 BC, they have won 109, lost forty-nine and drawn ten".

Why not? The last time I checked she is the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. She isn't the Queen of England.
She's also the Queen of 15 other countries.

Ehhh lets add geography to the list... Galway isn't in one of those countries, it's in Ireland. Why would we celebrate her jubilee? Why would we celebrate Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands if she had one? Same thing. Both foreign Queens who we would acknowledge out of respect for the countries involved and basic good manners, but that's about it. Just because some British people have a near religious devotion to their monarch bolstered by a couple of centuries of indoctrination, why would anyone else in the world do so? Certainly you lucked out as a nation with Elizabeth, who has been a byword for duty throughout her life, but she stands out alone among most of those who held the title. You'd damn near have to go back to her namesake to get similar. That's the problem with unelected monarchies. Some stand out for good reasons, many more stand out for bad and the rest stand out for pretty much nothing of worth.

Batsy

Wibbs wrote: »

Our definitions of direct are never going to converge. Hell some eejits claim for her descent from some of the high kings of Ireland too, including Brian Boru. I kid thee not gentle reader. No doubt some dribbling royalist somewhere has traced her to Gaius Julius Caesar. Lucky for her and her family there's a lot of invention going on or the inbreeding, which is bad enough as it is, would be significantly worse.

I have PROVEN that she is a direct descendent of Egbert. What more do you want me to do?

Take the word granddaughter, but 38 greats in front of it and that is her relation to Egbert.

So she is a direct descendent of Egbert. There can be no other definition for it. It's time now for you to admit defeat.

Avoiding the points again. On the Normans being your ancestors? According to geneticist Bryan Sykes' findings "Evidence of Norman genetic influence in England was extremely small – about two percent, discounting the idea that William the Conqueror, his troops and any settlers disrupted and displaced previous cultures". So unless you're one of that 2% the chances of you having Norman ancestry are very low. In Ireland the genetics show more widespread influence, showing the differences between the two invaders attitudes. Are you "Anglo Saxon"? Unlikely, unless you hail from around Norfolk and even then you have only a 15% chance of some Saxon ancestry. English mtDNA lines show pretty much no Saxon lines. Have an old read of this for your further delectation. Hey the Irish ain't "Celts" either and some are utterly convinced we are, but they're equally wrong/misinformed.

First you were telling me how I didn't seem bothered that the Normans subjugated my Anglo-Saxon ancestors and now you are telling me that only a few English people have Anglo-Saxon descent.

Pity the stats don't agree with you. To quote historian Niall Ferguson; "of the 125 major European wars fought since 1495, the French have participated in fifty – more than both Austria (forty-seven) and England (forty-three).

".

But how many of those wars have the French won?

And if you go back even further, to wars fought since 1000, you may find that Britain is ahead of France in terms of wars fought.

England, and then Britain, has fought over a HUNDRED wars since 1066 and won most of them, losing just a few. And a lot of those came against the French.

Ehhh lets add geography to the list... Galway isn't in one of those countries, it's in Ireland. Why would we celebrate her jubilee? Why would we celebrate Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands if she had one? Same thing.

I'm not bothered whether you celebrate the Jubilee or not.

Just because some British people have a near religious devotion to their monarch bolstered by a couple of centuries of indoctrination, why would anyone else in the world do so?

Elizabeth II is not just the Queen of the UNited Kingdom

Certainly you lucked out as a nation with Elizabeth, who has been a byword for duty throughout her life, but she stands out alone among most of those who held the title.

Nope. We'v e had many great monarchs over the years. I'd choose any of them over Higgins.

You'd damn near have to go back to her namesake to get similar.

Don't be daft. What about George VI? What about Victoria? What about William III and Mary II? What about George III? What about George IV and his beautiful Regency buildings?

Wibbs

Batsy wrote: »

I have PROVEN that she is a direct descendent of Egbert.

No you haven't. Certainly not direct by any stretch.

First you were telling me how I didn't seem bothered that the Normans subjugated my Anglo-Saxon ancestors and now you are telling me that only a few English people have Anglo-Saxon descent.

Bless, avoiding the point again. Probably by hiding under a bridge.

But how many of those wars have the French won?

It's in the quote. out of 168 battles fought since 387 BC, they have won 109, lost forty-nine and drawn ten. Wars? The 100 years war but one example. The English remember Agincourt alright but mysteriously forget about Castillon where the French decimated the English lines and won said war.

And if you go back even further, to wars fought since 1000, you may find that Britain is ahead of France in terms of wars fought.

Nope I'm afraid it's not.

I'm not bothered whether you celebrate the Jubilee or not.

Then why ask why a Galwegian wouldn't celebrate it? This may help you in future.

Nope. We'v e had many great monarchs over the years. I'd choose any of them over Higgins.

No particular fan of Higgins myself. The beauty is of course he's not a permanent fixture, he was elected and one of his kids doesn't inherit the position through accident of birth.

Don't be daft. What about George VI?

By all accounts a quiet unassuming man who stood up for duty. All around nice guy forced into a role he didn't want, but went on to be a far better bet than his eejit of a brother.

Like I pointed out that's your problem with monarchy right there. It's down to dumb luck what you end up with. You got Elizabeth, a monarch likely in the top three you ever had, but you could have got Maggie, who seemed to think duty was what one didn't pay on ones cigarettes. The next likely incumbent? You could have had Anne who seems to have inherited good sense, but instead you'll get a daffy insecure bloke who converses with daffodils while insisting they call him sir.

What about Victoria?

What about her? She was a remote figure absent from British public life for decades. Her own people started to ask questions. Though to be fair to her she worked hard on the making of a new role for a constitutional monarch. Then you got Bertie...

What about William III

Another foreigner for you, but he at least made strides for the UK.

What about George III

Oh right the mad one? Oh god.:D

What about George IV and his beautiful Regency buildings?

His buildings? You are having a laugh. You mean the Palladian style that was kicked off in Italy a century before? You and indeed we call it "Georgian" but that's habit, not historically or stylistically accurate. It would be akin to Americans claiming the Monkees instead of the Beatles as the fab four.

Ping Chow Chi

I get a day off work - so it's all good to me

honestly fella's I am sure there are more important things we can all moan\cheer about than some womans long service award.

Madam

Couldn't give a stuff tbh:p

southsiderosie

MOD NOTE:

OK folks, I think at this point the debate over the descent of the Queen is, while interesting, perhaps more appropriate for the History forum. So let's just leave it be for this thread.