BS: War with England?

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: Le Scaramouche
Date: 20 Jun 05 - 05:58 AM

Not quite true. The Americas most certainly did exist it just was a rebellion by the Colonies in the Americas.

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: Jim McLean
Date: 20 Jun 05 - 06:08 AM

Dutch William of Orange, III of England and II of Scotland but once again only the English title is used today.

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: Rapparee
Date: 20 Jun 05 - 09:06 AM

England and Britain have been invaded many times by a hostile power. Those living there would like to forget this, though. And some of these invasions were even successful.

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: Le Scaramouche
Date: 20 Jun 05 - 10:47 AM

And William of Orange was more or less invited.

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: Rapparee
Date: 20 Jun 05 - 10:51 AM

Only because the English parliament and such didn't want James to be King for religious reasons. And look what THAT led to!

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: Le Scaramouche
Date: 20 Jun 05 - 12:03 PM

Yes, but invited he was. Dutch did come uninvited earlier. Sailed up the Thames and Medway and live up to their reputation as Sea-Dogs.
And this the Dutchman knows...

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: Wilfried Schaum
Date: 21 Jun 05 - 03:06 AM

Hey, the English are fighting a war in the Americas! The Hessian Jaeger Bataillon will march again with the Brits, and we shall get DOUBLE PAY! When the war lasts long enough, I can send my son to university with the pay saved! Let's hope the rebels won't give in too soon.

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: Le Scaramouche
Date: 21 Jun 05 - 03:44 AM

Just don't forget to post the student drinking songs.

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: ad1943
Date: 21 Jun 05 - 06:05 AM

Britain has no eternal enemies
Britain has no eternal allies
Only British interests are eternal

Lord Palmerston

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: Le Scaramouche
Date: 21 Jun 05 - 06:06 AM

Good old Pam!

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 21 Jun 05 - 06:46 AM

Wasn't he responsible for the true motto of Politics?

"What I want are men who will support me when I am wrong."

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: Le Scaramouche
Date: 21 Jun 05 - 07:16 AM

He was a politician with fire, guts and character.
Unlike those spineless blancmanges one gets nowadays.

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Jun 05 - 07:30 AM

I like my blancmanges without spines, they get stuck in my teeth.

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: Le Scaramouche
Date: 21 Jun 05 - 07:38 AM

Fine and well on your plate, but would you give one your vote?

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Jun 05 - 07:46 AM

I thought last time I was voting for a blancmange with a spine. But after it had set for a while the spine disappeared. And it didn't look like it had on the box. Right flavour , just no oomph.

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: jacqui.c
Date: 21 Jun 05 - 10:47 AM

And Scottish to boot.

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: Susu's Hubby
Date: 21 Jun 05 - 10:57 AM

I swear I saw this painted on a barn in South Carolina.



"Cornwallis wears girls underwear."




Hubby

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: GUEST,Pioneer 41st regt
Date: 21 Jun 05 - 12:25 PM

Let me know when 1812 comes along, I have an appointment at the White House.

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Jun 05 - 07:43 AM

Sorry Wilfried--

Your son is not likely to get much in the way of pay (perhaps more if he's an officer, but hardly anything if he's not an officer.) Your local Herzog will get the vast majority--even more if your son is killed or injured. But at least if he winds up living "off the land", the food available in the colonies is good.

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: gnu
Date: 25 Jun 05 - 10:33 AM

The Governor is in a quandry and we would like to ask a favour of you Yanks.

Some silly colonial servant, who has been appropriately lashed, has managed to break an entire place setting of the Governor's formal dining wares. Of course, you know how embarrassing it would be to ask any of the invited dinner guests for the upcoming gala to give up their seat. Even more embarrassing would be an odd place setting.

So, I am sure you can understand the grave situation and would kindly permit us to borrow your formal dining wares for the upcoming occasion. In advance of your affirmative reply, we are sending a party to collect them.

Tata for now.

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: The Walrus
Date: 25 Jun 05 - 12:00 PM

Le Scaramouche wrote:

"...He was a politician with fire, guts and character.
Unlike those spineless blancmanges one gets nowadays..."

Comparing modern politicians to blancmanges is highly insulting to the blancmange.

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: skarpi
Date: 25 Jun 05 - 12:05 PM

Halló all , I remember the war England had agianst the Icelanders
and we had them at that time that´s was a sea battle a one of kind
witch has never been done before or after it was about the (fishing)
We cut their fising nets and their big battleships crashed in to
our little coastcards boats straigt into their middle.

We lost one man ,coast card.
And sadly then their fishermen lost their jops, the British always wants their thing by force why didin´t just asked?? us
no they had to go the other way,

Well it´s history and I hope that this will not happen again
ever never anywhere , and about England is ( Ireland and Scotland and......... ) well thats an nother story.

:-)
Well I thing I ´ll write a song about this war....
sea shanty thats somthing I can take with me to the Geatway:-))))

All the best Skarpi Iceland.

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: gnu
Date: 25 Jun 05 - 12:15 PM

Skarpi! Hello. Good idea for a shanty. Hope you post it.

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: Le Scaramouche
Date: 25 Jun 05 - 12:19 PM

Skarpi, when was this?
Alright, alright, I apologise publicly to all blancmanges I may have hurt.

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: GUEST,sorefingers
Date: 25 Jun 05 - 12:32 PM

And they/we are at it again! Tony Blair having scuppered the EU budget deal giving lots of lovely Euros to Eastern Europe, now says it was all a mistake and he really wanted to reform the CAP and other things to make the EU better.

Yeah right!

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: skarpi
Date: 25 Jun 05 - 01:04 PM

We called it the Codwar and it where from 1972-1976

Slán ,
Skarpi Iceland.

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 25 Jun 05 - 06:12 PM

Cod war was an unlawful and unilateral purported annexation by Iceland of international water.

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: gnu
Date: 25 Jun 05 - 06:25 PM

I thought it was part of an international treaty which attempted to stem the tide of overfishing of certain stocks. Ask the Portuguese... we Canucks have some of their ships at dockside in Halifax at present. Of course, we would never attempt to ram a ship of the British Navy in the bow with the broadside of our little coast guard vessels as these rogue Icelanders have done. Tsk. Tsk. For shame!

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 25 Jun 05 - 07:36 PM

If the UK had unilaterally extended its internationally recognised three mile limit to the extent that Iceland did, we would have had fishing rights for lakes and rivers the other side of St. Omer in Northern France..

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: skarpi
Date: 25 Jun 05 - 07:38 PM

What did Canada do they stopped all fhising for many years and
we did that also for few years and build up new fhisingsystem
wich are working (almost)I was just a shild when all this happen´t
I know we put out our border but was it right to do or not
thats a matter wich the politics have to solve.
Was right or wrong ??don´t know
anyway all the best Skarpi Iceland.

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: LadyJean
Date: 25 Jun 05 - 10:32 PM

Hving nothing to do with Iceland or fishing, a great many American families claim descent from member's of Britain's multinational force, who decided they liked the U.S. just fine, and stuck around.

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: Le Scaramouche
Date: 26 Jun 05 - 06:04 AM

Wasn't a multinational force, it was the Royal Army which was undiscrimanitng about where it recruited and who it hired.

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Jun 05 - 02:43 PM

I'm not sure that I understand any of this, but since when was 'independence' spelled with an 'a'?

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: gnu
Date: 26 Jun 05 - 02:52 PM

Since the internut forced people like me to pay more attention to trying to hunt and peck at a reasonable speed than worry about nitpickers being upset if I spell a few words rong.

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: The Walrus
Date: 27 Jun 05 - 03:43 AM

"...Wasn't a multinational force, it was the Royal Army which was undiscrimanitng about where it recruited and who it hired..."

I think you'll fine that it WAS a multinational force:

The Army consisted of British (Including Ireland<1>) born British and American born British (including Canada) serving in the regular forces.
America Loyalist forces.
possibly Hanovarians (George III was heredetary 'Elector' of Hanover) forces.
German forces hired as complete forces from the various German princlings (Complete battalions as 'mercenary' forces).

As each little German state ('Lande'?) was a seperate state, surely that makes it a multinational force.

W

<1> Or bearing in mind the way "Sjt Want" and "Sjt Hunger" recruited - especially from Ireland

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: Le Scaramouche
Date: 27 Jun 05 - 04:12 AM

Yes, but they were for the war taken into the Royal Army.

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: Wilfried Schaum
Date: 27 Jun 05 - 04:15 AM

Ron - my contribution was based on the story an old friend (RIP) told me, whose ancestors had been peasants and then - snap - suddenly they were all on universities. "We never could have turned to an academic family, if my great-grandfather hadn't saved so much from his British pay in the Americas" he told me.

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: Rapparee
Date: 27 Jun 05 - 08:41 AM

Don't forget England's "Herring War" in the 16th Century.

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: Wilfried Schaum
Date: 27 Jun 05 - 09:00 AM

Scaramouche - the Hessian Army never was taken into the British Army! We fought with the Brits in several wars, but always as an independent reinforcement under our own officers and commanders.

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: Le Scaramouche
Date: 27 Jun 05 - 09:50 AM

What I ment was under the control of the British Army. It wasn't at war with the Colonies itself was it?

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: Charmion
Date: 27 Jun 05 - 02:11 PM

Some quibbles about the British Army:

The British Army as a whole has belonged to Parliament (not the Crown) since Cromwell's time, and is never referred to as Royal. Many regiments and corps have royal sponsors (e.g., the Royal Corps of Transport) but not all (the Army Catering Corps).

In its troop-levying practices, the British Parliament has racked up several centuries of -- shall we say -- equal-opportunity oppression. Mercenary regiments came from Scotland (e.g., Fraser's Highlanders) and Switzerland (Haldimand's Legion) as well as Hesse and Hanover by the same mechanism: colonels were invited to raise regiments at War Office expense, which were then simply added to expeditionary forces by royal order through the War Office. Britain used mercenaries in this way as late as 1857, when Hessian troops were hired for operations in the Crimea.

Because of Europe's international alliances and royal dynasties, 18th-century European armies were truly multicultural, while each being a subculture of its own. The British Army absorbed its non-English elements through its regimental system, maintaining the outward and visible signs of difference such as kilts, grenadiers' caps and bagpipes, and imposing army-wide culture throughout the ranks by means of discipline, training and long stints of overseas service.

During the Imperial period (1860-1945) Indian, Ghurka and African regiments were raised by the same methods, but generally employed for the defence of British interests in their own regions -- except when the War Office needed trained soldiers elsewhere, such as South Africa (1899-1902) and France (1914-1918). That said, in the Imperial structure of the 19th century, coloured [sic] regiments never received the considerations and dignity (such as they were) extended to white regiments.

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: Le Scaramouche
Date: 27 Jun 05 - 04:39 PM

Gurkhas are the last mercenaries.

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Jun 05 - 05:20 PM

Charmion, how can you say that mercenary regiments came from Scotland during a British parliament? Have you no sense of history? Don't you know anything about Britain as distinct from England? No wonder the English will never understand Europeanism with such an imperialstic and blinkered view.

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 27 Jun 05 - 05:27 PM

If the Scots had played their cards right in 1647 and not handed over Charles I to Oliver's army, we'd all be wearing kilts and called MacTavish.

Possibly.....

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: gnu
Date: 27 Jun 05 - 05:34 PM

Or, McTavish?

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: Le Scaramouche
Date: 27 Jun 05 - 05:58 PM

Kilts? I think not.

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: gnu
Date: 27 Jun 05 - 07:08 PM

The Governor finds himself in another quandry.

The gala was a ball, thanks to your kindness and generousity. Unfortunately, I bear bad news.

The Governor has asked me to convey his deepest sympathies for the rudeness of General Sir Robert Ross. Whilst kind Sir did attempt to leave a thank you note for your helpful packaging of the dining wares for transport, none of your staff were on hand to greet him, and, apparently the note was victem to fire resulting from errant BBQ'g. Touchy thing, that BBQ fluid... one can never be too careful. As I understand it, some property was also damaged. Apologies.

Well, here's the bad news. The Governor has not been able to replace the damaged setting, and, since your wares were actually a gift from the Crown oh so many years ago in the first place (no pun intended) the Governor has seen fit to keep them. Should you feel strongly to the contrary, you may collect them at your will, but please give us notice if you do send a party to collect them.

*********************************
Yo Rap! Forgive my literary license, but is this not in the spirit of your original post?

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 27 Jun 05 - 11:20 PM

Wilfried--

The story of university educations courtesy of pay as mercenaries sounds a bit apocryphal--it may well be part of your friend's family lore, but your friend's ancestors must then have all been officers-- and as peasants I wouldn't think that's likely. The rank and file were not paid well at all--much of the money went to the local Landgraf or Herzog who was supplying the troops and who was paid even more if a soldier was killed or wounded. ("Hessians" was in fact a catch-all term for German soldiers.)   This arrangement even provided an opportunity for propaganda by Franklin, who wrote a letter, which pointed out the advantages to a purported German duke if there were a lot of casualties.

"Hessians" were famous (or infamous) for looting--at least many of these offenses were charged to "Hessians" by the British---and some were hanged.



It would be fascinating if there were some proof of the story--too bad you can't ask your friend.



One thing I read recently, possibly of interest here, is that when the British were trying to involve foreign soldiers against the American colonies, they first tried to get Russians--specifically for the reason that it would be difficult for them to desert, since there were few Russian speakers in the colonies. On the other hand, there were a lot of German speakers--so sanctuary and blending in with the local population would be easier. But the French and the Germans, for differing reasons, were able to torpedo British neogotiations with Russia.   The Russian troops never came.




The book I'm reading now makes it abundantly clear that the American Revolution was in fact Britain's Vietnam-style quagmire--complete with a very vocal and vociferous opposition, slashing attacks in the press, national security questions, and even riots at home.

The riots appear to be due to other complications. When the French joined the Americans in 1778 (after Saratoga), there was a threat of French invasion of Britain. An inconclusive battle off Ushant resulted in charges and countercharges between Admiral Keppel, who was in charge of the British fleet --(and who was against the American war)-- and Admiral Palliser, who was supported by the pro-war group, including Lords Sandwich and Germain.

It turned out that the log of a ship had been falsified to make it appear that Admiral Keppel had neglected his duty. When the frame-up was discovered and Keppel was acquitted ---(and not, like Admiral Byng, executed on his own flagship), rioting crowds attacked the Admiralty building in Whitehall, "lifting the gates off their hinges"---then went looking for Palliser and his supporters (who included many prominent proponents of the American war, such as Lords North and Germain).

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: Paco Rabanne
Date: 28 Jun 05 - 03:21 AM

99 is the new 100.

Subject: RE: BS: War with England?
From: Le Scaramouche
Date: 28 Jun 05 - 03:29 AM

Not anymore.