I NEED SOME HELP IN UNDERSTANDING FRENCHMEN.

I'm with cav, let's drift back towards the topic, or have Jes start a new topic. Walter may be able to do the same.

Setanta, I'm with you on this, but I suppose the question was 'no succesful invasion' since 1066. So again, if this is the position they want to take, then they must thank the French. The biggest joke on the English from Spain was selling them sweet sherry....crap they had tossed into the harbour. Dumbass English thought it was booty, lol, developed a taste for it, and the Spanish said, hey, why not sell our shitty sherry to the English...we were just dumping it in the harbour anyway...

Cav

Your knowledge of British history is only surpassed by your expertise in viniculture.

Set

You missed out in your list of invasions the French monkey washed up on the N E coast of England and captured by the good people of Hartlepool. Charged with spying for France he (or she or it) was duly found guilty and executed.

Rather heavy handed, but, i'm always in favor of sarcasm, Boss . . .

"Ever since Sir Francis Drake ransacked the port of Cádiz in 1587 and made off with 3,000 barrels of Sherry, the British have been addicted to the stuff, and continue to be the main international clients. But they favour the so called "cream" Sherry, to which sugar or grape juice is added as a sweetener, while Spaniards prefer the bone-dry, crystal-clear fino, consumed with particular enthusiasm at feria time. Other types of Sherry include oloroso, amontillado, palo cortado, and sweet Pedro Ximenez. "

Well, there was no 'cream' sherry then, but the stuff he ransacked were barrels of sherry that were tossed because they did not develop a full 'flor', which results in a sweeter, darker sherry, rather than the bone-dry fino that the Spanish prefer to this day.

I don't like sherry but I do like port. As to the French ? If they weren't there, we'd have to invent them. I love France and I like the French. Why ? Firstly cos they have this attitude of "sod you lot, we will do what we think is best for France". They may give us a severe rectal pain but they make you smile at the same time.
Going to France is fine but you have to meet the French half way when you want something. Don't expect them to speak English, cos outside of the major towns and cities they probably don't. My French is pathetic but I do make the effort and I can usualy get by.
I like French food and drink, the sleepy little towns and villages and driving round the Paris Parifique Road, a 60mph parking lot. Try outrunning a Renaul Clio driven by some shapely chick and you in a V6 Ford whilst you playing playing Motorhead at full blast.

You've gone off topic- you're all saying how you like the French.

I thought this was a thread about how you didn't like the French?
(I like hairy armpits, BTW- well, on women at least)
Is that the best we can do?
Come on, where's the xenophobia? Where's the jingoism?
We're talking about our natural enemies here, the Frogs!
Allez, rosbifs! Where's that natural spite? You've been softened by Charles Aznavour, Dominique Breart, Sacha Distel, Catherine Deneuve!
Once more into the breach, dear friends, once more!

The enduring love of the Brits for the Frogs (and vice versa):

Going absent without leave--

England, "taking French leave"
France, "filer à l'anglaise"

Syphillis--

England, "the French disease"
France, "la maladie anglaise"

You guys are so cute when you spat like that . . .

Oh, I don't dislike the French. I just want to learn more about them.

There is very good produce in the markets in the south of France. I have particularly enjoyed lightly grilling their parti-colored peppers, which they allow to ripen very nicely on the vine. Expensive French wine is very good, but my wallet and I prefer cheap Italian wine and its descendants in California, Australia, and Chile.

Paris is a beautiful city, but I don't blend well there, and the metro smells like piss. I thought the people in Arles were very friendly and generous.

And that's all I have to say about France (which is more, it turns out, than I have to say about Germany).

The best place for the english to meet the french is when they play rugby football against each other. a great game with some serious fighting and headbanging and afterwards they kiss and make up

Rugby: five men trying to stuff three men up one man's bum. (Not anonymous, but I've no idea who it was. Pretty sure it weren't a Frenchman.)

I believe that Frenchmen are exactly just like Latvians except only, you know ... French.

Set, Steve...

Good points on both sides, I'd warrant! Love that story about the monkey - it's a classic.

Set - I'm amazed at your detailed knowledge of English/British history. I'm with Steve in maintaining that there has been no invasion which has overturned the nation and changed administration without there being an explicit invitation to do so (W of Orange). The Wars of the Roses were civil wars - so would you say that the USA was invaded by the North when they took on the South in the Civil War? I think not.

As to the others, they hardly brought about 'regime change' (to use that all purpose term) so don't constitute successful invasions.

Then again, as my ancestors fought alongside William I, I suppose I have a certain vested interest in the argument that the legacy of the Normans is unbroken by external invaders.

By the way, when George I was brought over from Hannover, was that an invasion too?

Well Boss, i continue to maintain that you're taking an opportunity to define invasion very narrowly to suit you own contentions about the alleged stability of the "Norman Legacy." (BTW, given that the second William was murdered, a younger son of his "usurped" the throne, a civil war--the first of many--broke out in the reign of his successor, i find contentions about "regime changes" awfully suspect.)

Point by point: the landing of William of Orange was made with the invitation of some members of Parliament, certainly. However, both of you are taking the opportunity to make this entire situation seem a good deal more benign that it was. Churchill was among the last of the high-ranking officers to abandon James, who did not decide to flee until after that event. Standing armies simply have not been maintained in your island through most of your history. The landing of William at the head of more than 15,000 Dutch troops constituted a threat with which James was not able to deal militarily. You're ignoring a bitter war fought afterward between James and William in which, typically, no one suffered more than the Irish. In 1660, George Monck had been able to assure the restoration of the Stewart monarchy in the person of James' brother Charles because as he marched slowly south from Coldstream with the Parliamentary Guard, there was no military force to oppose him, and he could therefore dictate terms, or, as in this case, opt for the restoration when a nervous (by that time, nearly hysterical) parliamentary rump proposed it. I believe it was our dear friend Chairman Mao who said that power grows out of the barrel of a gun. This was proven to have been the case in 1660 and again in 1688. Think about the IRA and the Prod organizations such as the UDF (most of these groups now having taken up narco-terrorism) and tell me again about a successful, peaceful change of regime. Of course, that is your despised Irish brothers who continue to suffer, as they did under Cromwell, and again in 1690 during the war between James and William, so perhaps you don't consider that important in your history. I'm reminded of Bernadotte in Paris in 1814, saying "One always forgets that damned King of Rome (Nappy's son by his Austrian wife)." One always seem to forget the suffering of Ireland, don't they?

As for the issue of civil war, you're absolutely correct--the Army of the Potomac and the Armies of Tennessee and Ohio and Cumberland were not invading the United States. They were invading the Confederate States of America, and so it was seen at the time. In 1862 and 1863, when the Army of Northern Virginia cross the Potomac river, it was seen as an invasion of the United States, on both sides of the river, and, in fact, the Battle of Sharpsburg/Antietam came so very close to the destruction of the Army of Northern Virginia because a great many southerners were unwilling to participate in an invasion of the north, although they would sell their lives as dearly as possible to fight a northern army on southern soil. Lee had better attendance in 1863 because it was seen how much the effectiveness of the army had been reduced by the straggling in 1862. At all events, these were indeed seen as invasions in our history. Y'all have been quibbling about narrower and narrower definition, and it does historiography no service. Owen Tudor, a Welshman, married Catherine de Valois, widow of Henry V and daughter of Charles le bien aimé; their son Jasper Tudor married Margaret de Beaufort, the daughter of John of Gaunt, which is as much anglo-norman blood as got into the veins of Henry Tudor, and John of Gaunt's grandmother had been a French princess. Seems to me very much like an invasion launched from foreign soil, hostile, and successful in changing the regime.

No, of course the installation of George I was not an invasion, although it did spur on the abortive attempt at a Scottish invasion by "Bonnie Prince Charlie." To me, the significant point in all of this is the vigor with which Englishmen defend the bald, and largely disingenuous contention that England has not been invaded since 1066. Challenged on that point, y'all start drawing upon all sorts of qualifiers, and hedging the issue 'round with self-serving interpretations of events and their meanings. The "Glorious Revolution" of 1688 firmly established the supremacy of an Episcopalian, Whig, mercantile Parliament, whose power grew so that by the reign of William IV and the passage of the first Reform Act, Lord Gray could dictate to the King that a creation of peers would be necessary, AND the King reluctantly agreed, no longer being a free agent in these matters. But ask yourself how peasants on the land, or the festering slums of London felt about any of this, going back to 1066. Do you contend that every in England made happy happy in 1688, and that no one resented the Test Act and the exclusion of Catholics, Jews and any definition of Dissenter from participation in government?

The history of any European nations (in which i include the United States and all nations of the Americas) over the last thousand years won't bear close examination if one's object is to paint a rosy picture of harmony and a cheerful, enthusiastic march toward the future and national prosperity. Many millions have died, been killed, been tortured, turned from their homes, robbed, cheated, starved, lied to, dragooned into some self-serving idiot's army, and otherwise been made thorougly miserable, if they survived at all, all in aid of the personal greed and ambition of a handful of men, representing the local Protestant or Catholic asendancy.
Let's not quibble, Boss. All of these events, and those of our history on this side of the pond, have been about the temporary and transitory benefit of a privileged few, and the mass suffering of the majority.

Well, having finished that rant, i feel much, much better.

Set,

What's eating you?

I resent the phrase: "your despised Irish brothers who continue to suffer". We Brits IN NO WAY despise the Irish. The Republic of Ireland is a very successful economy and is not a country suffering under opression. A minority in Northern Ireland object to being part of the UK...but the majority are pro-British.



So, you're a Socialist, right? Or are you just having a bad day? You must really hate the Bush regime, if you object to the "transitory benefit of a privileged few"...what a shocking story of plutocracy the current US political situation is!

I'm truly impressed by your knowledge of historical facts. It far exceeds my own. As you say "let's not quibble"...as with most discussions, we define our terms differently, so we don't come to the same conclusion.

Thank you for the excellent history lessons you've given us on this thread, Setanta!

Well said KP. I too was going to pick on Set's comments about the "despised Irish". But rather less politely than you. I'm also impressed with Set's knowledge of history, though my wife, a history teacher, rather less so.

I think Set's barely concealed contempt for the Brits stems from

(here deleted several paragraphs)

oh I don't know. He just doesn't like the Brits because he likes the Irish. Absolutely no skin off my nose! Toodle pip old boy!

KP, it is true that the majority in Ulster are pro-Brit, but the majority of Ireland is not. I don't have Setanta's patience to post historical references, but there is ample evidence of British oppresion of Ireland from medieval times to very recent times. While Ireland may not be officially occupied, a lot of Irish still resent the fact that there is a British military presence in the country, and they are not buying the story that it is 'necessary' because of the IRA. The average Irish person has as much contempt for the IRA as they do for the Brits, but the Brits seem to assume that every Irishman is somehow connected with terrorism. Again, this is another situation that comes down to religion, that great albatross around the neck of peace in the world. Aren't you Brits protestant just because Henry VIII wanted a divorce? Then Liz I, daddy's little girl, made it law?

When referring to the despised Irish, i was still commenting on historical conditions, KP--i have no reason to contend that the Irish continue to be despised by the English. It is undeniable that they were despised and slaughtered by the English in the past, and in a way that no other group was persecuted by the English.

From what i've read of your posts here, KP, i consider you a decent and honorable man, and have not meant to imply that you despise the Irish.

I'm not necessarily a socialist, but i don't consider them the red menace, either. And yes, i do despise Bush, his administration and all of it's works. I would not quibble at all with a description of the United States as a plutocracy, although i would point out that the ruthless enforcement of English colonial policy by local authorities in Canada after the American Revolution, and especially after the War of 1812, and the insurrections in 1837, has created in Canada a much more plutocratic style of government than that which obtains in America. In Canada, all power has flowed from the top, and the mercantile and industrial interests have always had a death grip on the Tories--excuse me, Progressive Conservatives--and more leverage with the Liberals than anyone else. The New Democrats have captured provincial parliaments, but never formed a national government. A general prosperity in the United States--at first fueled by seemingly endless resources in land and raw materials, and later by rapid industrialization, and finally by a burgeoning service industry and technological development--has made that plutocracy less offensive to a population who has usually gotten what they've wanted--complancency and a full gut are very conducive to political indifference. I see warts and wens in English history, but don't construe that to mean that i find the history of the United States to be simon pure in comparison. We've probably got more warts than y'all--after all, there's more of us.

When i wrote of the "transitory benefit of a priveleged few" i was specifically referring to the Anglican, Whig mercantile acendency which arose in Parliament after the 1688 revolution. However, i would not hesitate to apply it much more widely, and that was the intent of my final statement on European history (which i will say again, includes, to my mind, the history of the nations of the Americas). I'm appalled that the American electorate is willing to put such men as Ronald Reagan in power, and then re-elect him, fer crissake, and am appalled that someone like the Shrub is admired and respected. There are few American administrations which have not been dedicated to the enrichment of themselves and their cronies, and don't think it is unjust of me to apply that to Parliaments in English history. I'm quite willing to lay the same charge at the feet of continental monarchies and republics throughout European history, as well.

As for Ireland, just to reassure Steve in his suspision of my motives, i'll tell you that i'm descended from Irish Catholics on my father's side--and from Irish Protestants on my mother's side (the Antrims, in fact--Belfast is in County Antrim). When i was younger, it would have been appropriate to write of my "barely concealed contempt for the Brits" as Steve has done. As i've aged, and read and re-read European/American history, it would be more appropriate to write "unconcealed contempt for the inevitably corrupting power of political success." I believe that just as Irish, and Scots and Welsh peasants suffered from the tender attentions of the English, so the English peasant suffered in equal measure. A true view of country life in England in the centuries before the Reform Bills of the 19th century, and of the squalid lives of those in London, would reveal as much, or nearly as much misery as that suffered by my Keltic cousins. The Test Act enshrined the ascendancy of the Anglican minority in England; the principle difference in the United States was that any immigrant group which could successfully ape the Protestant ascendancy in charge after the Revolution had a fair shot at setting up their own petty tyranny, whether locally or on the State level. The Presidency has remained in the hands of the Protestant ascendancy, with the single exception of John Kennedy--and the other 13 U.S. Presidents of Irish descent were all of Protestant descent. The Senate has been in the hands of the same ascendancy for most of our history, but that has begun to change, and dramatically, in my lifetime. But when Senator Hiakawa stands up in the Senate to say of Panama: "It's ours; we stole it fair and square; I say we keep it." -- it's damned hard to see any substantive change. The House has changed much earlier in our history, and has changed much more quickly--but the over-rated "two party system" has effectively assured that the rules and the outcomes haven't changed much in 200 years.

I know this all sounds very pessimistic of me, but i'm actually an optimist. The human race has thrived and prospered for many millenia, despite cupidity, venality, greed, bullying and oppression. I think that it will continue to do so, and i think the world has profited greatly from the achievements of the English, the Americans, the French, the Germans--Europe has made a profound change in the human condition, and i believe that this change could have derived from no other source. I believe that the Europeans in general, and the British Isles in particular, including all of their peoples, English, Scots, Irish and Welsh, have made some of the most crucial contributions, whether acting on the left-hand or the right-hand side of the pond.

I like you guys, Boss, which doesn't oblige me to admire your history, or that of my own nation. It also doesn't mean that i have to like everything or nothing; i love bangers, you couldn't force-feed mash to me.