abukede Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 Today is April 19th... and 236 years ago today the American War of Independence began at a small sleepy village called Lexington. My how the time has flown by. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 Isn't that political ? : ) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abneo3sierra Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 Not at all..it's historical. What I want to know, as a only recent immigrant(relatively speaking..30 yrs lol ) to the US..is...why couldn't we just let them keep New York...I'm just sayin....??? haha. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gautrek Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 Today is April 19th... and 236 years ago today the American War of Independence began at a small sleepy village called Lexington. Yawn. And does the rest of the world care. ERR no. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Other Means Posted April 19, 2011 Share Posted April 19, 2011 Today is April 19th... and 236 years ago today the American War of Independence began at a small sleepy village called Lexington. My how the time has flown by. It's a fad. The whole independence thing. Pretty soon you'll all get bored of it and it won't be "cool" any more and you'll all come back to Blighty. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abukede Posted April 20, 2011 Author Share Posted April 20, 2011 We can't all have Royals. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 236 years later and most americans are still revolting..... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ironbar Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 Hottest subject on most network news in the states? Will and Kate. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 We can't all have Royals. But we do have an aristocracy. They just don't have titles like duke and count. Instead, they are called CEO and chairman of the board. We do have quite a few Earls though. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Affentitten Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 But we do have an aristocracy. They just don't have titles like duke and count. Instead, they are called CEO and chairman of the board. Or Kennedy, or Clinton or Bush. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 Actually it's funny here people bleating about knighthoods recently (they were done away with by the last Labour Govt in 2000 & and reinstated by the new National Govt in 2009) saying we don't want an aristocracy.....except of course Knights aren't aristocrats - they're commoners 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 ...except of course Knights aren't aristocrats - they're commoners Are they counted as part of the nobility, or is that considered the same as the aristocracy? And how about baronets? Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dieseltaylor Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 David Cameron has been told by a cross-party group of senior peers that the House of Lords is "full" and he must stop creating new members. The prime minister has created more peers more quickly than any of his post-war predecessors, having ennobled 117 people in less than a year. Unfortunately for those like myself who have an antipathy to politicians there are now more than ever in the Upper House. The effect on the culture of the Chamber has been noticeable - and not for the better. Edit for ME A baronet (traditional abbreviation Bart, modern abbreviation Bt) or the rare female equivalent, a baronetess (abbreviation Btss), is the holder of a hereditary baronetcy awarded by the British Crown. The practice of awarding baronetcies was originally introduced in England and Ireland by James I of England in 1611 in order to raise funds, and is now practically obsolete as hereditary honours are generally no longer recommended. A baronetcy is the only hereditary honour which is not a peerage; baronets are commoners. A baronet is styled "Sir" like a knight, but ranks above all knighthoods except for the Order of the Garter and the Order of the Thistle. A baronetcy is not a knighthood and the recipient does not receive an accolade. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
costard Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 It's mostly about land entitlements (recognition of property and the the rent therefrom) that distinguishes the true peerage. About to come back into it's own. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 Edit for ME Quote: A baronet (traditional abbreviation Bart, modern abbreviation Bt) or the rare female equivalent, a baronetess (abbreviation Btss), is the holder of a hereditary baronetcy awarded by the British Crown. The practice of awarding baronetcies was originally introduced in England and Ireland by James I of England in 1611 in order to raise funds, and is now practically obsolete as hereditary honours are generally no longer recommended. A baronetcy is the only hereditary honour which is not a peerage; baronets are commoners. A baronet is styled "Sir" like a knight, but ranks above all knighthoods except for the Order of the Garter and the Order of the Thistle. A baronetcy is not a knighthood and the recipient does not receive an accolade. My, my. You Limeys do make life complicated, don't you? I suspect you have the most thinly layered pecking order on the planet. Perhaps that in some way derives for all being crowded together on a small island. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 Are they counted as part of the nobility, or is that considered the same as the aristocracy? And how about baronets? Michael Depends where you live I think - it seems to vary wildly, so I'm restricting myself to comments about the British system. According to wiki, in the "British" system only the Sovereign and hereditary peers are not commoners. So even Prince william & Princess Anne are commoners, as they have no title of peerage. Nobility is less well defined, but seems to include non-hereditary title holders such as knights and baronets, and even untitled offspring. Obviously in places without titled "gentry" the terms have been suborned with other meanings more appropriate - so in the US the "aristocracy" probably refers to "old money" families & political and business dynasties & that terminology is understood worldwide too as it is more common than the traditional meanings. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted April 20, 2011 Share Posted April 20, 2011 Obviously in places without titled "gentry" the terms have been suborned with other meanings more appropriate - so in the US the "aristocracy" probably refers to "old money" families & political and business dynasties & that terminology is understood worldwide too as it is more common than the traditional meanings. That's pretty much how it is in the US, although not strictly confined to "old" money. Of course, seniority does count, but in many circles the size of the wad counts more. What it really comes down to is who has clout and who does not. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GonzoAttacker Posted April 23, 2011 Share Posted April 23, 2011 The locals in Mass. have a problem. They currently and for years say Concord not Lexington is where war started! Battle Road visitor center is a great visit by the way. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruce90 Posted April 24, 2011 Share Posted April 24, 2011 Writer Mark Urban contends that this war was where the British army lost the battle against the American revolutionaries but revolutionised the way it fought and came up with the tactics and doctrines that enabled it to defeat Napoleon. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 Writer Mark Urban contends that this war was where the British army lost the battle against the American revolutionaries but revolutionised the way it fought and came up with the tactics and doctrines that enabled it to defeat Napoleon. That's an interesting thesis. Where does he say that? I wouldn't mind pursuing this a bit further. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruce90 Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 In his book ' Fusiliers. How the British Army lost America but learned to fight.' published by Faber and Faber in 2007. An excellent read. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stalins Organ Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 Seems unlikely - the British Army didn't use any different tactics in the Revolutionary Wars & it was only Wellesly himself who had different tactics from the rest with his typical reverse slope deployments. His first experiences were in Flanders in 1793 where he learned how poor supply and HQ arrangements could ruin a campaign - a lesson which stood him in good stead in the Peninsular. Light infantry famously was only expanded and improved as a result of the revolutionary wars experiences, and cavalry remained poor until Wellington beat it into shape in the Peninsular. I'm not sure what the lesson(s) he thinks the Brits learned was - haven't read the book - could you provide a precis? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 In his book ' Fusiliers. How the British Army lost America but learned to fight.' published by Faber and Faber in 2007. An excellent read. Thanks. I may look that up. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted April 25, 2011 Share Posted April 25, 2011 Seems unlikely - the British Army didn't use any different tactics in the Revolutionary Wars & it was only Wellesly himself who had different tactics from the rest with his typical reverse slope deployments. His first experiences were in Flanders in 1793 where he learned how poor supply and HQ arrangements could ruin a campaign - a lesson which stood him in good stead in the Peninsular. Light infantry famously was only expanded and improved as a result of the revolutionary wars experiences, and cavalry remained poor until Wellington beat it into shape in the Peninsular. I'm not sure what the lesson(s) he thinks the Brits learned was - haven't read the book - could you provide a precis? Also interesting. Looks like we may have a jolly good controversy going here. By all means pursue it as far as you like, gentlemen. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bruce90 Posted April 26, 2011 Share Posted April 26, 2011 I'm not sure what the lesson(s) he thinks the Brits learned was - haven't read the book - could you provide a precis? I'll try. It's a while since I read it. Give me a day or two to dig the book out and scan through it and I'll get back to you. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.