Andy,

With reference to your question of December 6th @ 8:17 p.m.

''Can you help me. You said in a message a few days ago that there was no British Flag, but I can't find the message. Do you still have that message somewhere, or can you give an outline of what you said? Thanks.''

Andy, I don't keep messages. Furthermore I never said there was not a British Flag.

What I said was that the ''United Kingdom Jack'', was made up of three flags. The South British Flag, the West British Flag, and the North British Flag. And the British Flag was missing from the ''United Kingdom Jack''.

Don't ask me why, I don't know. It just ain't there. I guess all the British are forced to buy two flagpoles for their front lawn, one for the United Kingdom Jack & one for the British Flag. Must make the place look like a rodeo.

However Andy, I must add that somebody once told me that the ''United Kingdom Jack'', was completely different from the ''United Kingdom Flag''. He claimed that the ''United Kingdom Flag'' was a pure red flag with the ''United Kingdom Jack'' in the upper staffside canton, that could be flown by any member of the public. He said that it was a criminal offence for anyone to fly the ''United Kingdom Jack'' unless they were a member of the organized militia, or the naval forces, or the military forces, or the air forces.

But I've seen pictures of the ''United Kingdom Jack'' flying over the United Kingdom Parliamentary buildings, so maybe the felony or misdemeanor or petty offence has been scrapped? Or maybe the lords in the primary house & the knights in the secondary house are not members of the unorganized militia, but members of the organized militia?

Talking about the militia, organized or unorganized, Andy, you might find the following interesting.

A family friend told me several times of being taken one time around the United Kingdom Parliamentary buildings in the 1930s. I can't remember the year, and I can't remember if it was the primary house, the secondary house, or both. But I do remember that he said that there was a huge cloakroom with hundreds of quite large coathangers. Maybe he said there were two huge cloakrooms, one for each house, I can't remember. Each large coathanger had the individual Parliamentarian's name on it in the middle, a leather handgun holster on one end, and a large red ribbon on the other end.

It was explained to him that the law required each member of the United Kingdom Parliament to attend the buildings for sittings, carrying a gun or a sword. However, although the law required that they attend the Parliamentary buildings for sittings carrying a gun or a sword, the law also forbade them from sitting in the debating chamber carrying a gun or a sword. This meant that all Parliamentarians had to bring their guns or swords to the Parliamentary buildings, and then leave their guns or swords somewhere in the buildings, while they all proceeded on to the chamber.

If I remember correctly, the guy was told that originally no Parliamentarian was allowed to speak in Parliament or vote in Parliament, unless he held up a gun or sword in his hand when he either spoke or voted. Later it was decided that one single mace would be placed in the middle of the chamber for all Parliamentarians to see. As long as all Parliamentarians could see this single mace, then this mace replaced all the Parliamentarians' guns or swords, and accordingly all guns or swords had to be left outside the chamber.

This sounds right, because of course the words ''Parliament'', ''Weapontake'', and ''Wapenshaw'', all demand arms. Unlike ''Assembly'', ''Congress'', ''Convention'', or ''Meeting'', which may or may not imply arms.

I still don't get the mace bit, though. O.K., it's an arm, but it's a mace arm, not a gun arm or a sword arm.

The family friend said that in the Parliamentary cloakroom he couldn't see any swords anywhere, certainly none hanging from any of the so-called sword red ribbons. Although all the coathanger handgun holsters were well constructed to hold a medium frame handgun, he couldn't see any handguns in any of the handgun holsters he saw.

He was told that although the law was enforced forbidding all Parliamentarians carrying their guns or swords into the chamber, while the singe mace was visible, the law was NOT enforced requiring all Parliamentarians to carry a gun or sword when entering the United Kingdom Parliamentary buildings.

This sounds about right for a state that has abandoned the Rule of Law. Mercenary flunky stipendiary politicians enforce the criminal/public statutes and laws they like, and don't enforce the criminal/public statutes and laws they don't like. After all, the criminal/public statutes and laws apply to all the public, but mercenary flunky stipendiary politicians are above the ordinary common public scum, and therefore are above the Rule of Law.

I can't remember whether the family friend said that the United Kingdom Parliament was in session or not, when he visited. But if it was, I can't see tourists being allowed into the Parliamentary cloakroom, or cloakrooms.

I say mercenary flunky stipendiary politicians, because the family friend stated that in the United Kingdom in the 1930s, it was a required by law for persons to attend without pay for, inquest jury duty, indictment jury duty, criminal/civil trial duty, United Kingdom secondary house duty, and United Kingdom primary house duty.

He said however, that a few years earlier the United Kingdom Parliamentarians had already voted for themselves a statute which allowed Parliamentarians to claim so-called expenses, which were so substantial and so open to fraud, that many Parliamentarians treated the expenses as a wage. Even this corruption was not enough for some United Kingdom Parliamentarians, and a number were screeching that they were entitled to stuff their snouts into the public trough permanently: that is a statute establishing a wage for all Parliamentarians should be passed. A few Parliamentarians were screaming that all Parliamentarians were entitled to a pension after only 21 years service, and one of them said it should be free!

In 2004 United Kingdom Parliamentarians have given themselves all a wage. They've also given themselves all a pension. Guess what. It's a FREE pension, and they get it after TEN YEARS! You couldn't make it up even if you wanted to.

Anyway Andy, hope that's the ''outline'' you wanted and more.

Info @

http://www.weights-and-measures.com

And topic:

Melting Points of Common Metals & Tempering Bath Common Salts

Hmmm, Actually there may be no "British Flag" - as the union flag is for GB and NI.

You got me -a- thinking there xcole.


btw - in the commons you'll notice a line infront of mp's and opposition mp's.

That line, when stood behind, would mean that a drawn sword would not touch the drawn sword of an opposite number.

Just thought I'd throw that one in.

BTW - the Welsh flag is by far the most interesting!!! ;-)

What pray is the 'British flag'?


Jsut so everyone knows, in case anyone is confused:

Wales has no flag representation in the UK flag (because it is so integrated with England). The "British" flag is merely the Union flag without the diagonal st. patrick's cross. This cross represents ireland. Thus, there is a SCOTTISH flag (not official), and ENGLISH flag (not official), an IRISH flag (not official) welsh and northern irish flags (not official and not relevant in the context), A BRITISH flag (not official and no logner relevant) etc etc.

Someone forgot xcole's meds...

I think I went temporarily delirious in my above post. Steve, the UK flag is the most interesting anyday ;) :D

The union flag was created by a welshman - don't forget, from a stuart.

and no - you are wrong - how can the UK flag look better than the Dragon?

Although I'll accept that the UK flag is the second best looking flag in the world!

At least we don't have to have a crappy boring flag with just threee diagonal or horizontal lines on it.

Or one that takes an hour to draw like the US one.

I seem to remember that St Lucia's flag was pretty damn good.

Bryan wrote

<<
Wales has no flag representation in the UK flag (because it is so integrated with England). The "British" flag is merely the Union flag without the diagonal st. patrick's cross. This cross represents ireland. Thus, there is a SCOTTISH flag (not official), and ENGLISH flag (not official), an IRISH flag (not official) welsh and northern irish flags (not official and not relevant in the context), A BRITISH flag (not official and no logner relevant) etc etc.
>>

May I correct you on a few points.

1. Wales is not represented in the Union flag because is was conquored by the English back in medieval times. That is also why English law applies in Wales.

2. Prior to 1801 the Union flag was the current Union flag, but without St Patrick's cross.

3. The Scottish saltire is very much official - it flies over the Scottish parliament. (Bryan - you had better keep your address private or else you will be forced to eat a live haggis while listening to the bagpipes from a distance not exceeding one metre).

4. The English flag is very much official. Have you ever been to Twickenham when we are thrashing the Welsh? Also, St George's cross is offically flow from Government buildings in England on St George's day.

5. Ok, I don't know whether St Patrick's flag is flow officially anywhere anymore - I am not too sure what flag flies when Ireland play rugby.

6. I am not aware of any flag that has been known offically as "The British Flag" - only the "Union flag" (know as the "Union Jack" when flown from a ship.


If you would like top know more, I suggest that you visit http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/

>>>>>>
1. Wales is not represented in the Union flag because is was conquored by the English back in medieval times. That is also why English law applies in Wales.
<<<<<<

Didn't I say that? I pretty sure I implied it because I know this and it is what I was trying to say.

>>>>>>
2. Prior to 1801 the Union flag was the current Union flag, but without St Patrick's cross.
<<<<<<

Likewise, see my above comment.

>>>>>>
3. The Scottish saltire is very much official - it flies over the Scottish parliament. (Bryan - you had better keep your address private or else you will be forced to eat a live haggis while listening to the bagpipes from a distance not exceeding one metre).
<<<<<<

IS it? I stand corrected. That must have come with devolution. In any case I do not believe it has official status in the UK??? Please link me if you can, because flags cna be flown but it does not necessarily render them official.

>>>>>>
4. The English flag is very much official. Have you ever been to Twickenham when we are thrashing the Welsh? Also, St George's cross is offically flow from Government buildings in England on St George's day.
<<<<<<

I beg to differ. It may be offical to people... but that is not official. Martin, the EU flag is flown over public buildings- does that make the EU flag an official flag? I would say there is a slight difference here. I have read several sources which say that the flags of the nations of the UK are not official.

>>>>>>
6. I am not aware of any flag that has been known offically as "The British Flag" - only the "Union flag" (know as the "Union Jack" when flown from a ship.
<<<<<<

See point two. There is a union flag..... which before 1801 referred to Great Britain only. After that time it referred to the UK. Therefore the old union flag, no longer used as I said, could be referred to as the British flag and the one now the UK flag.

Official: "prescribed or recognized as authorized"

I fail to see how any flag that flies upon any building (with authorization) can be considered unofficial.

Today's debate has been poor, but do we now get down to deliberating the colour of the saltire (officiallly Pantone 320 (I think????))








:-) :-) :-)

"1. Wales is not represented in the Union flag because is was conquored by the English back in medieval times. That is also why English law applies in Wales."

Why are laws quoted as "in England and Wales" - why not just England?
Why are prescriptions free in Wales but not in England? Surely a different law?
Why is it mandatory to show Welsh in official documents, bills, roadsigns etc? I've never seen my Gas bill in Welsh while I've been in England? Surely a different law?
(Plus other examples)

"4. The English flag is very much official. Have you ever been to Twickenham when we are thrashing the Welsh?"

What's with the "we" Maarten?

"5. Ok, I don't know whether St Patrick's flag is flow officially anywhere anymore - I am not too sure what flag flies when Ireland play rugby."

Depends on sport - in Rugby its mainly the Irish tricolor and the ulster flag (if played north)
With football its always the Ulster flag and GSTQ. The ulster flag being an england flag with the red hand of king billy in the middle - and its unofficial.

Here's a few odd factettes:

The irish flag is one third represented by the protestants
The Swiss flag is the only perfectly square flag
The barbados flag must never be flown after 6pm
The UK flag, flown upside down is to either insult or denote disaster - that's how it was flown on an EU building btw - go figure!
The US flag must never touch the floor and must only be disposed of by a military figure (tell that to the lefty flag burners! ERIC? ERIC????)
Oh, and the French flag is rubbish


But I still say that the Welsh Flag has got to be one of the most visually interesting in the world - at least most can agree to that?

"Or one that takes an hour to draw like the US one."

Response: Hey! I'll have you know that it only takes 20 minutes to draw a US flag. : )

"The UK flag, flown upside down is to either insult or denote disaster - that's how it was flown on an EU building btw - go figure!"

Response: To the untrained eye, the upside down UK flag looks the same. The EU bureaucrats are probably clueless.

"But I still say that the Welsh Flag has got to be one of the most visually interesting in the world - at least most can agree to that?"

Response: That goes without saying – it has a dragon, after all.

<<<Response: To the untrained eye, the upside down UK flag looks the same. The EU bureaucrats are probably clueless.>>>>

That's because there's no regulation number to cover that - plus they eventually want to see it obsoleted anyway!

<<Response: That goes without saying – it has a dragon, after all.>>

And it's red white and green!!


draig coch!!

re (Beranger): The official colour of the Scottish flag is, I think, Pantone 320..."

REPLY: Well, nearly right. This comes from the website of the Rotary Club of Edinburgh:

"Congratulations to George Reid who has fought an almost single-handed battle to have a decision taken on the correct shade of blue in the Saltire, Scotland's national flag. George succeeded in getting the Scottish Parliament's Education, Culture and Sport Committee to recommend that the optimum shade of blue for the flag is Pantone 300, (azure or sky blue), the colour of the sky at Athelstaneford when in AD932 St Andrew helped the Pictish King Hungus defeat the Anglian King Athelstan by making a white cross in the sky".

COMMENT: I hope they've chosen the same colour blue as for the Union Jack, that flag rarely flown in Scotland these days...

The origin of the diamond-shaped cross is because, by strong tradition, the apostle Andrew was crucified diagonally for his Christian faith by the Romans

>>>>>>
draig coch!!
<<<<<<


Bless you.

Thanks Tony

I think I did quite well with my unresearched guess/vague memory about the pantone number considering:
1) The time of my post &
2) "Another year older & deeper in debt" - had been out celebrating!

"COMMENT: I hope they've chosen the same colour blue as for the Union Jack, that flag rarely flown in Scotland these days..."

Saltire is usually a lighter blue than the dark blue used in most Union Flags. As you correctly stated, Pantone 300 is azure/sky blue.

Just to be pedantic, it is unlikely that the Union Jack will be flown in Scotland. It is only called the "Union Jack" when flown from a ship.

You do see the Union Flag on occasaion though.

A couple of things:

Wales is technically a principality of England - hence, the ruling Monarch's eldest son is always the Prince of Wales. This goes back to when King Edward defeated Llewellyn Ap Llewellyn in the 12th Century to take the crown of Wales. Since then, Wales has (at least in theory) been subject to English rule and law and exists as a kind of English sub-kingdom. The use of Welsh goes back to a cultural revival in the 60s and 70s when laws prohibiting the speaking and/or teaching of Welsh in schools west of the border was overturned.

Now, the Scots (thanks mainly to the work of William Wallace) despite dozens of attempts by the English were never defeated and remained independant until the Act Of Union in 1801 - England and Scotland had joint monarchs from the death of Elizabeth 1 until the end of the Stuart line when the Hanoverians from Germany took over. The Scots to this day still maintain their own legal system and judiciary as well as maintaining a seperate educational system.

The Irish tricolour is thus explained:

You have the green for the catholics, the orange for the protestants and the white is supposed to represent a neutral common ground on which both communities can work. You see, some dyed-in-the-wool Irish republicans and nationalists insist that the Unionists are in fact Irish people, but are living under some kind of false notion of 'Britishness' and that they need bringing to their senses.

The red flag with the Union Flag (notice I didn't say Union Jack)in the corner is known as the Red Ensign annd is used aboard vessels of Her Majesty's Royal Navy.

Bryan: "Bless you."

lol! Diolch yn fawr!



<<You have the green for the catholics, the orange for the protestants and the white is supposed to represent a neutral common ground on which both communities can work.>>

Lat time I was in ireland I was told that the white represented peace between the two communities (pronounced kumm-myern-ett-eyz, in northern ireland!)

<<You see, some dyed-in-the-wool Irish republicans and nationalists insist that the Unionists are in fact Irish people, but are living under some kind of false notion of 'Britishness' and that they need bringing to their senses.>>

I thought that a unionist could still call himself Irish, in that he is born in Ireland. The only difference being that to him Ireland (or more accurately northern ireland) is part of the UK.
Therefore he is both Irish and British (erm UKish!) in much the same way as I am both Welsh and British.

I suppose you could strictly say that unionist should support the unification of Ireland so long as its part of the British Crown (oooh, risky!)

I always wonder why countries as far away as Australia, Pakistan and Barbados are enthusiastic members of the British commonwealth whereas Ireland has never yearned for that.

AndyA wrote

<<
Now, the Scots (thanks mainly to the work of William Wallace) despite dozens of attempts by the English were never defeated and remained independant until the Act Of Union in 1801 -
>>


The Union of the Crowns took place in 1603 (James VI of Scotland became JAmes I of England)

The Union of the countries (Act of Union) took place in 1707

Ireland joined the Union in 1801.

Whereas I have never joined a union.

Being a "thatcher child" and all that...




:-)

Some interesting theories above.

"The Union of the Crowns took place in 1603 (James VI of Scotland became JAmes I of England)

The Union of the countries (Act of Union) took place in 1707

Ireland joined the Union in 1801."

Well, James VI remained James VI. He became James I of GB. Would everyone agree that the current queen is Elizabeth I (or just plain Elizabeth) of the UK?

Act of Union was actually dated 1706, but didn't come into effect until 1707.

Did Ireland voluntarily join the union? They didn't stay very long....

Steve says he has never joined a union.....

Who is going to break this to Mrs H? :-)

"Well, James VI remained James VI. He became James I of GB. Would everyone agree that the current queen is Elizabeth I (or just plain Elizabeth) of the UK?"

My take on this is that she is QE II due to the fact that both histories were (different but) united at the time of union. Similarly all those US states that joined after the main creation of the US would see the current presisdent as the same 'n'th predident of the USA.

<<Did Ireland voluntarily join the union? They didn't stay very long....>>

Only 8 people lived there at the time ;-)

<<Steve says he has never joined a union.....
Who is going to break this to Mrs H? :-)>>

LOL! Very good King Billy Conolloy the second!

SteveH wrote

<<
Well, James VI remained James VI. He became James I of GB. Would everyone agree that the current queen is Elizabeth I (or just plain Elizabeth) of the UK?"
>>

No - He became James I of ENGLAND. (If you don't believe me find some coin catalogues and check them out). When ELizabeth II ascended the throne, it was decided that she and all future monarchs would have the which ever number was the highest taking both England and Scotland into account.

The media here refer to her as "Elizabeth II" of the United Kingdom, Britain, or sometimes England (all pretty much used synonymously).
If Elizabeth I was queen of England, how can we have another one, even if she is also queen of something else as well?
I think the system of taking the higher number is an excellent idea.

The Anglo-saxons never numbered their kings. Perhaps that was a good idea afterall.

....and they had silly descriptors - something like "King Bobby the unbearded", or "King Rupert the real lazy one"

<<I think the system of taking the higher number is an excellent idea>>

Which as you see is what I said - likening it to how presidents are numbered

You forgot the Cornish flag, also known as St Piran's flag. A black rectangle with a white vertical and horizontal barred cross.

If the EU is totally metric, why does the EU flag have 12 stars instead of ten? Is it because it is too difficult to subdivide the circle into ten?

I'm not sure, but I believe the 12 stars symbolise the 12 original member states?

(They stole this idea from us!)

<<You forgot the Cornish flag, also known as St Piran's flag. A black rectangle with a white vertical and horizontal barred cross.>>

Indeed the Cornish flag does exist - and they have their own language too. However Cornwall is not defined as a nation (even though there are some who'd like it that way but we're talking hundreds of people max rather than some great movement)




<<If the EU is totally metric, why does the EU flag have 12 stars instead of ten? Is it because it is too difficult to subdivide the circle into ten?>>

and

<<I'm not sure, but I believe the 12 stars symbolise the 12 original member states?>>

Indeed that is correct - and each morning when I wake up I pray that I'll see only eleven!


<<(They stole this idea from us!)>>

Except they stopped at 12!

The story of the EU flag can be found at

http://europa.eu.int/abc/symbols/emblem/index_en.htm

I have to say that he descriptions they used turned my stomach.

But then it *IS* the big EU-biased site - so I guess thats natural.

While we're on this topic (well, this is a bit tangential), does anyone happen to know who the twelfth president of the U.S, was?

Without consulting any workd of reference I will hazard a guess - Abraham Lincoln. (He became president in 1860 - 68 years after George Washington. That means that ther ewere 11 presidents before him with an average presidency of 6.2 years each. Tht figure is the correct order of magnitude so I will not change my guess.

While we're on this topic (well, this is a bit tangential), does anyone happen to know who the twelfth president of the U.S, was?

---------------------------------------------

The twelfth president of the US was Zachary Taylor (1849-1849), if you consider George Washington the first president.

By the same reckoning from George Washington, that would make Abraham Lincoln the 16th president.

Geoffrey said: "The twelfth president of the US was Zachary Taylor (1849-1849), if you consider George Washington the first president."

Response: Exactly, 'if you consider George Washington to be the first president'.

Zachary Taylor is, of course, the answer if you are asking about presidents under the current Constitution – and, indeed, most people mean this when they ask for the number assigned to a president.

If I may I direct your attention to the Declaration of Independence… The opening phrase states that it is "[t]he unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America" – this document heralds the formation of a legal entity known as the United States. The argument can be made that the president of the Continental Congress at the time (John Hancock) is the first president of the United States. This would make Abraham Lincoln our twenty-ninth president, Zachary Taylor our twenty-fifth, and Arthur St. Clair our twelfth (if you count Samuel Huntington's last term as president of the Continental Congress and his four month interim presidency under the Articles of Confederation as one term).

However, I like to count from John Hanson, the first president under the Articles of Confederation (the United States under the Continental Congress was more like a military alliance than like a country). He was the third president in the year 1781, but the first to be sworn in under the terms of the Articles of Confederation (the Articles had been ratified in February 1781, but, by their stipulations, presidential terms began in early November, so they needed some interim presidents – I consider these presidents to be not different in character than the presidents of the Continental Congress.). Counting from John Hanson, then, George Washington is the ninth president, James Madison is the twelfth, Zachary Taylor is the twenty-first, and Abraham Lincoln is the twenty-fifth.

Sorry to get off topic, but that discussion of whether Queen Elizabeth II should really be such since Elizabeth I was queen only of England reminded me of our forgotten presidents, who are not numbered simply because they were the presidents under the Articles of Confederation.

In England, numbering of monarchs only began in 1066 - Harold II (who died at Hastings) being the first king to have a number after is name. Harold I was only numbered posthumously to distinguish him from Harold II.

The reason we number our presidents starting with Washington was because he was the first president of the federal nation. Before that, the United States wasn't a nation, it was just a confederation of states. (Much like the EU is today.)

Actually Martin, it was Ćđelrćd king who was the first to be numbered... that is to say, there were two Aethelrćd kings of England foreconquest and they were later numbered 1 and 2 to distinguish them. Likewise Edmund I & II.

Also note there were three Edward's in the wessex line who ruled England, but they too are not counted, and even retrospectively have no been assigned numbers, but rather known by nomikers.

West-saxon kings of England:

Egbert
Aethelwulf
Aethelbald
Aethelbert
Aethelred I
Alfred the Great
Edward the Elder
Athelstan
Edmund I
Eadred
Eadwig
Edgar
Edward the Martyr
Aethelred the Unready (in reality Ćţelrćd unrćd, not unready: unrćd means "bad counsel".. and his name was "Ćţelrćd" which means "noble counsel")
Edmund II, Ironside
Edward the Confessor
Harold II

<<BUD
<<The reason we number our presidents starting with Washington was because he <<was the first president of the federal nation. Before that, the United <<States wasn't a nation, it was just a confederation of states. (Much like <<the EU is today.)

Surely the United States of America is STILL a confederacy? Each individual state is a "Sovereign State" or nation, with its own legislature, judiciary and enforcement, must seek extradtion of lawbreakers who comit state crimes and flee to another state, and is able to raise a "National Guard". In effect the USA is a confederacy both for the reasons above and also because the individual states hold the bulk of power, passing some powers to a "Supra-National" government for those affairs that were considered to be in the common interest of all individual states.

Canada on the other hand held a Conference of Confederation in 1867 and finished up with a Federal state, sub-divided today into 10 Provinces and 2 Territories. The Federal Government holds the balance of power and devolves some powers down to the Provincial governments, has one national police force, the RCMP, and has one and only one armed forces raised by the federal government and no provincial armed forces. Provinces and municipalities also have police forces for their own jurisdiction, but federal crimes committed in one province do not require extradition between provinces as there is but 1 state, Canada.

It must be admitted that the USA has evolved to exhibit more federal characteristics, but it is still essentially a Confederacy.

As for Europe, who knows what it is now or where the politicians are taking it. I have asked politicians of the three main parties in the UK what Europe is or is going to be and in all cases have NOT been given an answer!!!! Either they do not know what it is or what it will be, or they don't even know the difference between a Federal state and a confederacy, or even more sinister an option, they don't want us to know!!!!

Ray,
I'm not sure if you're a regular on this board or a lurker, but I'm going to answer you hoping that you will come back and read it.
The main reason I consider the US to be a federal nation, rather than a confederacy, is because it represents itself as one in international affairs. Individual states have no connections with foreign nations or organizations. Although states can raise a national guard, all armed forces are under the ultimate control of the president. States are supposed to hold the bulk of power under the 10th amendment of the constitution, but that has changed recently as the courts have been more and more willing to expand federal authority.
Federal crimes committed in one US state, as far as I know, do not require extradition to another state because federal authorities have nationwide jurisdiction.
I would say that although the US is still a confederacy in legal terms, it is not so in reality.

Apologies to all the British people for going into this depth about the US.

Bud wrote

<<
The main reason I consider the US to be a federal nation, rather than a confederacy
>>

So, apart from slavery, what were the main differences between the USA and the Confederate States of America (I think I have the correct name).

<<Canada on the other hand held a Conference of Confederation in 1867 and finished up with a Federal state, sub-divided today into 10 Provinces and 2 Territories. The Federal Government holds the balance of power and devolves some powers down to the Provincial governments, has one national police force, the RCMP, and has one and only one armed forces raised by the federal government and no provincial armed forces. Provinces and municipalities also have police forces for their own jurisdiction, but federal crimes committed in one province do not require extradition between provinces as there is but 1 state, Canada.>>


That sounds HORRIBLY familiar!

As well as been the Queen of GB, Her Majesty is also styled as the Duke of Normandy (never referred to as the Duchess!). Channel Islanders drink toasts to Ma'am as their Duke, not their Queen.

Ma'ams proper surname should be 'Saxe-Coburg-Gotha' although the more English sounding 'Windsor' was adopted when her ancestors were at war with cousin Kaiser Wilheim (Queen Victoria's first grandchild) in 1917. When Prince Phillip married Elizabeth, it was said that it reaaly got up his nose that he had to use his wife's surname, so they prefixed the name Windsor with Mountbatten (which itself was an Anglicisation of the German 'Battenburg') to create the name 'Mountbatten-Windsor'.

I think that in Anglo-Saxon tradition, Harold was known as plain old Mr Godwinson and I don't think that the numbering started until after the Norman invasion.

For those of us who are aware of a world beyond our shores (and who's maps don't say things like 'Terra Incognita' and 'Dragons dwelleth here'), the 12 stars of the EU flag denote the number of members between 1986 and 1992. After Maastricht in '92 there were 15 members which has since increased to 25.

Actually, the Union allowed slavery. In return for seceding from Virginia and siding with the Union against the Southern secessionists, Lincoln allowed the citizens West Virginia to keep their slaves. Also, it is a little known fact that the Emancipation Proclamation had no legal effect whatsoever -- the only slaves that it 'freed' were those in territories not controlled by Union forces. British jurists of the day commented on this, but it was largely ignored in the Union controlled American press.

An important difference between the USA and the CSA is that the CSA forbade government subsidy of business in its constitution. The federal Constitution does not expressly forbid such subsidies; so our current government subsidizes businesses all the time.

* * *

I imagine that Elizabeth would be described as the 'Duchess of Normandy' as part of the reading of her titles at a formal state function. When referring to someone by their title, their highest current title has priority. If John Smith, Ph.D. won a senate seat, he would not be called 'Dr. Smith', he would be called 'Senator Smith'. One of my pet peeves is that after Senator Smith left office, our news media would continue to call him 'Senator Smith' even though he no longer held the title.

Do presidents get called "Mr President" even after they finish holding that office?

Niles, am I reading your above post correctly? That is, you are saying the Confederacy was not some big-bag evil empire it is so often portrayed as in America. If so, praise the lord!! Seriously. There are not enough Americans with that amount of sense (no disrespect meant)

re (AndyA): "The 12 stars of the EU flag denote the number of members between 1986 and 1992. After Maastricht in '92 there were 15 members which has since increased to 25".

REPLY: So how come the European Union flag - or the EEC flag as it was - had 12 stars well beofre 1986 - in fact from 1957?

Or how come the Council of Europe adopted precisely the same flag for itself back in 1950?

And how come the figure 12 has stayed the same?

The answer, actually, is in a misconstruction, or rather a misinterpretation, of two verses in the Bible - Revelation 12, vv. 1-2.

But if I say more, I will be accused of being a conspiracy theorist. All I can say is type in 'E.U.', 'Flag', '12', 'stars' on Google and see what you can find. Oh, and it might be useful if you type in the word 'Mary' as well

<<
So, apart from slavery, what were the main differences between the USA and the Confederate States of America (I think I have the correct name).
>>

Yes, you have the correct name. The reason the southern states seceded from the Union was because they were disgusted with what they saw as oppression from the government in Washington. So obviously, they would be unwilling to give up power to a new central government. The Confederacy was exactly that, a confederation of states that had left the union because they did not want to be forced to submit to the will of the federal government. I would say that by that point in time, the US federal government had become quite strong, although not as strong as it is today.


An interesting point to note, the Confederate flag flew over the capitols of some southern states until a couple of decades ago.

Bud,

No I don't believe I qualify as a "lurker". I have read your reply and would like to make the following points.

Your statement thatb the USA represents itself as a single nation is accepted as it does do just that. However is I said originally "It must be admitted that the USA has evolved to exhibit more federal characteristics, but it is still essentially a Confederacy.". The representation of the USA as a single nation is an outgrowth of its original goal to cede specifi powers to a "supra-national" government for thos aspects of mutual concern to the individual states. This is but one manifestation of this evolution of power from state to federal government.

The raising of National Guard armies is still a fact in each state that wishes to do so and these are separate from federal control until "nationalized" by a federal order. This does not remove the right of the individual states to raise their own armies and to use them as they see fit until such a federal order is invoked. The use of such an order must also be subject to strict rules agreed between state and federal authorities.

My original post clearly specified regarding extradition cited "lawbreakers who comit state crimes and flee to another state". The salient point here is STATE CRIMES. You responded with FEDERAL crimes and FEDERAL AUTHORITIES. State crimes and flight to other states still require extradition.

Your summary agrees with my original post in agreeing that the USA is still legally a confederacy, but it also agrees with my own statement that "the USA has evolved to exhibit more federal characteristics".

I believe we are in close agreement in most aspects as long we compare apples to apples. As is the example of history, nothing remains static and everything changes with time. So the original intentions of thhe fledgling USA and Canada, their stated intentions were not originally relialized but in the case of the USA, the move has been inexorably towards an all powerful central government and metamorphosis into a federal state, while the individual states become more like provinces.

My original intention in providing this example was to highlight the gradual creep of power from national european governments to an all powerful european super state. By the time most Europeans wake up, it will be too late!

Cheers Bud
Happy New Year to all.

Ray, you seem to know a lot about this topic. I too was thinking that the EU seems to be repeating the entire procedure. I am sure that you will agree with me that the states, when ratifying the constitution, did not anticipate that the federal government would become as powerful as it is today. If they had known, they would have put in stronger language. The tenth amendment was inserted in order to prevent it from happening, but the courts circumvented it.
I would be interested to know how you would answer the following question. What events, in your opinion, are chiefly responsible for the transfer of power historically from states to central government. I have two thoughts: the fourteenth amendment, which was stretched and stretched by the courts, and the federal income tax (he who controls the money controls everything).

I think the EU is heading in this direction, for better or for worse. I was looking at the draft of the EU constitution a while ago. It explicitly states that Union law shall trump national law. And it doesn't appear to place any serious limitations on the topics on which the EU may legislate.

People sometimes think that the UK is the only country which houses a "eurosceptic" public. Even to the extent of making up an image of us (the Brits) holding the europeaners back from progress. Nothing could be more further from the truth. Most countries in europe are getting more and more eurosceptic (Luxembourg being one of the exceptions). This "euroscepticness" is getting stronger also. Even Germany has become more eurosceptic with much of its populous wanting the deutschmark back (Carlyle: No they don't).

With this in mind, and in some sort of response to your question, one must consider the mis-balance that is occuring when comparing the driving centralisation of power by unelected beurocrats with the public's drive for national importance and independance.

I, for one, hope that I'll be around to see the EU implode on itself. I just hope that europeans are more vocal that the British mentality of simply "tutting" at things we don't like.


=======================

BTW - will someone please answer my question regarding the title of "Mr President" ?

Yes, Steve, ex-presidents are regularly called "Mr. President" after they leave office (sorry for the delay, I've had family in town from up North). I routinely hear Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton referred to as 'President Carter' and 'President Clinton'. I am unclear as to why this is done since, in actuality, they are Mr. Carter and Mr. Clinton, respectively. Interestingly, our press has taken to calling President Bush 'Mr. Bush'. I actually heard 'Mr. Bush' and 'President Clinton' in the same news program sometime in November (to be fair, two different news anchors were speaking about these men in different segments).

Additionally, I routinely hear former generals (including Secretary of State Powell) referred to as ‘general.’ U.S. ambassadors are commonly called ‘ambassador’ even though one is not an ambassador unless one is actually serving as such in another country. This improper use of titles shows a certain deference on the part of the media that is rather alarming.

The media’s tendency for bowing and scraping to those formerly in possession of government power is not healthy. The people who depend on the media for information can also be easily influenced by its members. Thus, if listeners hear news anchors on NPR referring to private citizens as 'Vice-President Gore', 'General Clark', and 'Secretary Kissinger', they may begin to see these people as somehow imbued with more inherent authority, or even political power, than other ordinary individuals. This attitude, in turn, will lend itself to the creation of a de facto class system in a country that is supposed to be one of equals.

My point is simple. We the people have to remember that candidates do not suddenly gain any special expertise or other intrinsic quality simply because they have acquired a temporary political title. They do not exercise any legitimate governmental power once they have left office. Former Secretary of State Albright is not 'Secretary Albright'. She is a private citizen just like you or I and as such has no special qualification that makes her current judgements on foreign policy any more correct than those of other individuals working from similar information. The elected representatives of the people, aside from actual inside information, do not have any special knowledge that makes them inherently more qualified than any other thinking individual for their position. If we forget this, then I think that we will be doomed to one day abandon modern ideal of individual liberty and return to the old dogma of political tyranny by the most gifted looters.

* * *
Bryan, you are reading my post correctly. No disrespect taken -- I'm the one who has to live with them after all :) If the Confederate States of America really were an evil empire, the government would have ordered General Jackson to take Washington DC after his handy defeat of the Union troops defending the city. The Confederacy was responding to an invasion, and never wanted to conquer the Union. After the Southern States withdrew their representatives in Congress and established their own confederacy, one of their actions was to either cut drastically, or remove altogether the customs duties paid on goods shipped to Confederate ports. This would have destroyed Northern shipping, unless the Union also cut their customs duties -- and this is not something that Lincoln's government was willing to do (not unlike complaints I am hearing from UN members that some countries taxes are too low -- they can't compete economically with a country that taxes less, so they try to get the UN to impose a world tax, which it has no authority to do). Lincoln's motives for invading the Confederacy were primarily economic. The part about 'freeing slaves' came later as part of an international PR move -- which didn't fool the British, I might add. After Lincoln started making noises about fighting to free the slaves, there were draft riots in New York (it turns out that the Northerners were more racist at that time than the Southerners).

I could go on, but this really isn't on topic except to say that under the Confederate constitution, the government would have little economic leverage to try to enforce the metric system on the several states. I would like to also state that none of the above should be construed as support of slavery -- I am just making the point that there are a lot of misconceptions about the War of Northern Aggression, commonly referred to as the U.S. Civil War. I'll leave you with this little tidbit: Abraham Lincoln could have freed all the slaves in the United States without the cost of one American life or the destruction of any American property -- he could have purchased them on the credit of the United States. I think I read that this would actually have been cheaper in real dollars than the total cost to the Union in both war and reconstruction, but don't quote me.

* * *

My above post doesn't have any relation to the Channel Islanders calling the monarch of England their 'duke', I just used it as an excuse to go off onto a tangent regarding the calling of out-of-politicians by their former political titles. But now I am curious -- what is the history of the Channel Islands? I am thinking that they may refer to the monarch as their 'duke' because they were for a long time part of a duchy that was not part of the Kingdom of England. Their duke being the king of another country would not change the political control of the territory in feudal Europe the way it would in a modern political environment. I recall hearing about one English king who had become a vassal of the king of France (he had not expected to inherit the throne). When he became king, he was still lord of his fief and owed fealty to the King of France in that capacity. When England and France went to war, this king fulfilled his feudal obligation by raising men-at-arms from his fief in France and ordering them to fight as part of the French army against England.

Also FYI, the title of "Mr. President" goes back to George Washington, who flatly refused to be called "His Excellency" because he considered it royalist.

American news media hardly ever refer to presidents as in "Mr. Bush". I thought it extremely strange when I heard the BBC say "Mr. Blair", although I have grown used to it now.

I don't see anything wrong in calling ex-presidents "Mr. President". Calling them that does not give them any power, it is just a way of showing respect. Some of them don't deserve it, but that is a different story. It is a bit of tradition that has no political implications.

In Britain we don't really refer to (ex- or current) Prime Ministers as "Prime minister xxx". Even Churchill is just "(Winston) Churchill", and Thatcher is often simply "Maggie".

Niles - thanks for the short essay there - very interesting.

(Its a good job eric has left these boards with all this US talk happening!!! Can you imagine???)


The route of my question goes back to watching Clinton appear as a guest on the Richard and Judy show this year when they refered to him as "Mr President". I didn't know if that was the "proper" address or if they were just sucking up to him(!)

Talking of the Channel Islands - it should never be forgotton that the Nazis actually did take over Jersey and thus the UK *was* invaded by Hitler. Ironically, today Jersey is *outside* the EU with mainland Britain being inside it! Take about "what goes around....." !

SteveH wrote

<<
Talking of the Channel Islands - it should never be forgotton that the Nazis actually did take over Jersey and thus the UK *was* invaded by Hitler. Ironically, today Jersey is *outside* the EU with mainland Britain being inside it! Take about "what goes around....." !
>>

Steve, Jersey and Guernsey are sovereign independent states (a remnant of the Duchy of Normandy) who happen to have the same head of state as the United Kingdom. Because of their close ties with the United Kingdom and their small populations they have seen fit to "Contract out" the handling of their foreigh affairs to the United Kingdom.

They are UK dependancies - just like the Isle of Man (another lucky country that is in europe but outside the EU).

Andorra has a similar set-up with Spain I believe, which is also outside of the EU.

Oops!

I think that was the first time I've ever posted accidentally as 'anonymous'

Bud said: "I don't see anything wrong in calling ex-presidents "Mr. President"… It is a bit of tradition that has no political implications."

Response: That is because you have a good head on your shoulders. I don't know if you were paying attention during the last election, but a lot of Americans aren't as well informed as you are (of course, it could be the other way around and there are a lot more of us who are well informed than our press lets on :).

I have no problem with Clinton or Bush the Elder being referred to as 'Former President Clinton' and 'Former President Bush' respectively. I just think that 'Mr. President' ought to be reserved for whoever is currently the president of these United States. It might be the logician in me, but I like to describe things as they are. I would hardly refer to a corpse as 'alive'. Yes, it was alive at some point, but it is currently deceased and likely to remain so for the foreseeable future. Likewise, it would not make sense to refer to a former president of XYZ Company as 'the president of XYZ Company'.

It may interest you to note that the European representatives at Versailles following the Great War thought that 'Mr. President' was too plain an address for someone of Woodrow Wilson's stature and insisted on referring to him as 'His Excellency the President of the United States'. I prefer Washington's desire to avoid all appearance of a class system (at which he was less successful than the watered-down history we get in school records).

Bryan, I may be way off base, here, but I have long thought that you treat your politicians with much less deference than we do (by the way, I love watching the House of Commons on C-Span. Blair's debates with the Conservative leader are enthralling; best reality television out there.). The reason for this, I theorize, is that because you still have a royal family and an aristocracy (people who have certain inherent legal entitlements), you are more aware than we are that your politicians are no more entitled to their office than you would be if you were elected.

Happy New Year, everyone. Cheers.

<<
In Britain we don't really refer to (ex- or current) Prime Ministers as "Prime minister xxx". Even Churchill is just "(Winston) Churchill", and Thatcher is often simply "Maggie".
>>

I hear "Prime Minister Tony Blair" on TV all the time. Maybe someone should point this out to the American news media.


Does anyone have any objection to calling a doctor or professor "Dr. ____" or "Professor ______" after they are retired?

And I concur regarding the House of Commons... it is quite unruly considering that it is one of the most powerful groups of people in the world. Or are they simply putting on a show for the cameras?

Bud wrote

<<
Does anyone have any objection to calling a doctor or professor "Dr. ____" or "Professor ______" after they are retired?
>>

The title "Dr" is correct when addressing somebody who has a PhD. When addressing a physician, it is a recognition that he usually has two degrees - one in medicine and one in surgery.

It is incorrect (in the UK at any rate) to address a retired professor as "Professor" unless the University concerned has made him an "Professor Emeritus" (an honourary title - usually they cannot gove him an honourary PhD because he already has one). In UK universities, *the* professor typically occupies a *chair* in the University Senate, so when he retires, the chair passes on to his successor.

"And I concur regarding the House of Commons... it is quite unruly considering that it is one of the most powerful groups of people in the world. Or are they simply putting on a show for the cameras?"

LOL! Before the cameras came it was *worse*

Two politicians (one being the despicable Heseltine) threw the mace to the ground (signalling the "end of democracy")

And you see those lines painted on each "side" of the floor? The distance between the lines is slightly longer than two drawn swords. "Go figure" !

Bud said: "Does anyone have any objection to calling a doctor or professor "Dr. ____" or "Professor ______" after they are retired?"

Response: To be technically correct (at least at the universities here in Florida), 'professor' is the title that accompanies a teaching position at a University. I had some older professors who did not have Ph.D.s, although U.F. had changed this policy in regard to new faculty by the date of my attendance. Retired professors, then, ought to be referred to as 'Doctor' if they have a Ph.D. However, popular usage has come to treat 'Doctor' and 'Professor' to mean the same thing (one who has a Ph.D.), and I don't have much objection to this usage in common parlance (though I would expect the news media to know better).

Here's some interesting trivia for you: Lawyers are not called 'Doctor', but the United States law degree is 'Juris Doctor'. At my law school, I only had one or two professors who had whatever the law equivalent of a Ph.D. is – these were the ones who could be properly addressed as 'Doctor'.

As far as an M.D. or a Ph.D. goes, those degrees remain with you until you die (unless the issuing body revokes them). Thus the form of address accompanying them persists whether or not you are practicing.

* * *
Two drawn swords, huh? I think we should start letting our politicians carry swords to work; that would make things more exciting. Before the War of Northern Aggression, the U.S. Congress was much more interesting – Congressmen used to get into fistfights.

I used to love watching debates in the 80's when it was really left versus right.

We have one charachter called "The beast of bolsover" (look it up on the web) who's the real old-school cloth cap hectoring lefty - but enderneath his bark he was pretty harmless.

Then there's the bearded extremist Jeremy Corbyn - the creep who tried to get the IRA into Westminster! How do those sort get elected?!?! How can you call that "right honorable"?

They're both still sitting MP's I believe.

Regarding Ireland, they never actually voted to join the union in 1801.

They had their own parliament in Dublin and quite a degree of autonomy under the crown. However, entry into parliament was dependent on one being protestant - catholics which consisted of the majority of Irish population, were prohibited. Catholics only got the right to vote in 1843 with the 'Catholic Emancipation' act.

Due to the gradual enactment of more and more local legislation by the Dublin parliament, London was concerned and forced the act of union upon the Irish parliament. As if to prove the point, London ordered the parliament building (now the impressive Bank of Ireland building, on Dublin's College Green) to be 'stripped' of all mentions of its past. This included a physical transformation of the building - the dozens of tall, stained glass windows covering its circular structure were take out and replaced by stone.

After Independence in 1922, the Irish free state as it was known, remained in the British Commonwealth until 1949, when the Republic of Ireland act withdrew her membership.

As regarding the British flag. The cross of St. Patrick is not flown, observed nor even recognised in the Republic. It is very much a relic of the colonial past of this part of the Island.

Therefore, strictly speaking, our flag really recognises the Kingdoms of Scotland and England, where the original crosses are still recognised and used today.

Indeed, the "adopted" flag of NI is the english flag with the red hand symbol in the centre.