13 Dec 14
Originally posted by phil3000I've read that the "hillbilly" dialect comes more from Northeastern England, whose ancestors largely migrated to the south of the US. These were largely non religious, many criminally inclined folks, with an inclination to fight at the drop of a hat, and to be intemperate and immoral.
There is a city in the south east of England were the locals speak in a country bumpkin dialect . They also sit on their porch's chewing straw and playing banjo's. It is said that the American accent originated from this area of England crossing the Atlantic with these fine folk .
The city is Norwich (England ) the city that Cromwell hailed from, and many of his puritans . 🙂
13 Dec 14
Originally posted by normbenignSome historians say that we in England spoke in a dialect similar to that you (American's) speak now when the English settlers first crossed the Atlantic .Later when we (the British ) got booted out we needed another country to dump our criminals ,that country was Australia .By that time our accents had changed to the more "clipped southern English accent " well the crims mostly. Us here in the North eastern regions were to busy tuning our banjo's and spitting tobacco on our pet dogs.
I've read that the "hillbilly" dialect comes more from Northeastern England, whose ancestors largely migrated to the south of the US. These were largely non religious, many criminally inclined folks, with an inclination to fight at the drop of a hat, and to be intemperate and immoral.
14 Dec 14
Originally posted by moonbusHave you heard the Hull accent ?
Norwich: (k)Nickers off, ready when I come home! Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.
Milton Keynes slobspeak is the least digestible UK dialect, IMO.
Near smirking - no smoking
telefern ~ telephone .....it's a shocker
21 Dec 14
1 edit
I agree with the premise, but only if I can split the two elements - the monarchy is a complete nullity, and doesn't require replacement by anything substantial, let alone anything so appalling as a president, weak, strong, or merely loud. If I had to have a meaningful choice, I'd replace it with a pair of scissors for the supermarket ribbons and a line or two of html to direct which party to call in the event of a hung parliament. If I really wanted the country run on Zaphod Beeblebrox principles, I'd certainly want Zaphod Beeblebrox to fill the role.
21 Dec 14
Originally posted by AmauroteThe monarchy is not a nullity Go back to the start of the thread and start from there.
I agree with the premise, but only if I can split the two elements - the monarchy is a complete nullity, and doesn't require replacement by anything substantial, let alone anything so appalling as a president, weak, strong, or merely loud. If I had to have a meaningful choice, I'd replace it with a pair of scissors for the supermarket ribbons and a line or ...[text shortened]... ntry run on Zaphod Beeblebrox principles, I'd certainly want Zaphod Beeblebrox to fill the role.
22 Dec 14
Originally posted by normbenignwe just call them numptys like Andy and suzie.
I've read that the "hillbilly" dialect comes more from Northeastern England, whose ancestors largely migrated to the south of the US. These were largely non religious, many criminally inclined folks, with an inclination to fight at the drop of a hat, and to be intemperate and immoral.
Originally posted by finneganI disagree completely, and refer you to the opening propositions made by Moonbus. The original premise of the thread clearly relates to the monarchy, not royal prerogative, which has been entirely arrogated to the executive in the various legislatures where the Queen is nominally Head of State - if you want to make an argument about making crown prerogative more accountable I'm with you, but it's an argument for another thread. The Gough Whitlam affair was a scandal, but it's worth remembering that he was dismissed by the Governor-General, not the Queen, and that the Governor-General was his own appointee. I live in one of the most centralized nation-states in Western Europe, and one of the reasons it is so centralized is that the 10 Downing Street has gradually absorbed so many powers from the sovereign and the Cabinet that the occupant exercises nabob-like powers.
The monarchy is not a nullity Go back to the start of the thread and start from there.
You ascribe misplaced credibility to the monarchy, and inadvertently provide it with a scintilla of justification by attributing to it sinister powers it hasn't exercised in generations. The truth is that the best argument for abolishing it is that it no longer serves a function and operates as a sort of pointless organ of a comic-opera state: insofar as it has a tradition, the traditions are phoney and date back no more than a hundred years; insofar as it exercises objectivity, it does it poorly (George V famously demanded the exclusion of George Lansbury and other republicans from Ramsay MacDonald's government, and seduced MacDonald into forming the National Government in 1931; the present Queen has twice departed from neutrality to attack Scottish nationalism); insofar as it sets a moral example for bourgeois families, it does it ludicrously, by filling the tabloids with inspiring spectacles of its various princelings dressing up as Nazis, racist bogeymen and chavs, presumably to announce their equal disdain for ethnic minorities and the dispossessed alike. Superadd this to the fact that the ratings for the Queen's Christmas speech have halved in the last ten years, that Scotland is republican in all but name, and that no-one under the age of 30 has any time for the monarchy at all, and you have yet more evidence for a sort of Kierkegaardian revolution, where the institution has not been attacked frontally, but has been completely corroded from below, and which no-one takes seriously at all.
Of course, those who do want to make the argument for a mystical property of monarchical stability need to explain the co-existence of the "stabilizing" monarchies of Victor Emmanuel III and the future Juan Carlos (who actually tried to enlist in Franco's army) alongside fascist and clerico-fascist regimes in Italy and Spain respectively. Those monarchies, unlike our own, were certainly no laughing matter.
25 Dec 14
Originally posted by AmauroteI do not recall endorsing the monarchy. I am an Irish republican and a socialist (but not a nationalist).
I disagree completely, and refer you to the opening propositions made by Moonbus. The original premise of the thread clearly relates to the monarchy, not royal prerogative, which has been entirely arrogated to the executive in the various legislatures where the Queen is nominally Head of State - if you want to make an argument about making crown prerogative ...[text shortened]... aly and Spain respectively. Those monarchies, unlike our own, were certainly no laughing matter.
Monarchy - Royal Prerogative - Crown - The Queen.
Your distinctions are confused and that is how the Establishment likes to keep it. I have already said what I think above and do not need to alter what I wrote in the light of your post.
25 Dec 14
Originally posted by finneganhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_prerogative
I do not recall endorsing the monarchy. I am an Irish republican and a socialist (but not a nationalist).
Monarchy - Royal Prerogative - Crown - The Queen.
Your distinctions are confused and that is how the Establishment likes to keep it. I have already said what I think above and do not need to alter what I wrote in the light of your post.
It looks like the dictionary is confused, too...
While I sympathize with your general detestation of the British monarchy and monarchy in general, you might want to reflect that the Gough Whitlam episode you cite occurred without the intervention of the monarch, and that government in general in Canada, Australia and the UK is routinely carried out via royal prerogative minus the Queen. It's pretty appalling, but the powers are only formally attached to the Head of State, and for you to conflate two separate categories (which you now list as four, based on your last post) is to provide the semblance of function to an in reality pointless monarchy and the semblance of helplessness to over-centralized executives that are republics in all but name.
I'm not attempting to change your mind as that is obviously futile business in any online forum, but republican readers brushing through this debate might want to check the basic constitutional details first before basing their admirable and correct opposition to monarchy on the shakiest grounds available.
25 Dec 14
2 edits
Originally posted by moonbusNot if it's shortened to "God Save the Prez"
...Contra: “God save the president” has the wrong number of syllables for the tune....
And the word "President" has the same number of syllables as "noble Queen" or "gracious Queen"
It would work.