Matter of fact, he referred to something he had read. That’s a reference. Don’t be so pissin’ pedantic.
:dubious: 1707?
Yes, it is. You’d probably have to reveal your identity, but there are documents proving that they exist.
“I read this somewhere” is not a reference. The point of asking for a cite is to see what evidence the poster has for the assertion. Quite obviously, spike has none. We usually have higher standards for that sort of thing in GQ. His answer would have been fine IMHO.
:smack: Sorry, brainfart - I’m confusing the year of James 1st’s accession with the year of the union.
I’ll ignore the sniping over references, as anything I can’t read about through a direct link is uninteresting to me.
Aboriginals: is there a particular group of aboriginals that qualifies as a sovereign nation, and that has gone a really long time without a violent transfer of power from one regime to another? If so, please link somewhere that I can read about them!
England had a violent transfer of power under Oliver Cromwell in 1649, resetting their clock then.
Chronos, the US’s clock was reset (or, rather, set) when they declared peace with England, at the latest. The switch from Articles of Confederation to the Constitution was not accomplished directly through violence (Shay’s rebellion may have motivated it, but it wasn’t the direct cause of the change in government). The United STates was considered a single sovereign nation, of an admittedly peculiar form, under the AoC.
The Holy See is not a sovereign nation. If it were, I’d want to go back and find the last time that the transfer of power from one Pope to another was accompanied by violence.
Thanks for the replies, guys–even if lots of places are disqualified according to the rules I’ve set up, I’m learning a lot of really interesting history here!
Daniel
By the way, spike, I suspect what you saw was a claim that the US is the oldest continuous (or even currently existing) representative democracy. Either that, or the claim you read was simply incorrect: there is no standard by which the US can claim to be an older government than England’s.
QFT.
If simply asking for a cite is now considered snarky in GQ, we may as well eliminate the forum, and let IMHO serve as the place for answering questions.
Now I’ll drop out of this hijack and follow the thread’s topic with continued interest.
1603 is a better date anyway.
So when would you start counting for England? At the time of restoration? At the time of Union?
Was there any violent change in England’s government since 1649?
Not as old, but modern Switzerland is up there. Since 1291.
It defends how you define “change in England’s government.” The territory of the Republic of Ireland is no longer governed by England, as it was in 1649. That changed through violent means. Ireland is not England, and the Irish are not the English, and it didn’t dramatically change the way England itself was governed. But it was certainly a violent change in England’s government.
One of the difficulties with discussing England is that there really is no governing body for England only. Devolution has brought about limited self-government for Scotland, and really super-duper limited self-government for Wales, but the body that governs England is the same body that governs England-and-Wales and the United Kingdom as a whole. How does the OP want to handle violent re-arrangement of a nation’s borders while the central government remains basically intact?
Can you clarify? Switzerland was invaded by Napoleon and had its government replaced, didn’t it?
Is THAT why the craic is 90 there?
Oops! I forgot that small detail.
No clock reset, if the national government does not itself change. Think of the difference between the British loss of the Americas (no reset for England), and Cromwell (reset), or the difference between France’s loss of Mexico (no reset for France) and the French Revolution (reset).
I think this definition bests matches my intuition of what it means for a government to continue.
Daniel
The US had a violent transition of power in November 1963.
Surely England’s “clock” was reset in 1688, with the Glorious Revolution, later than Cromwell’s rule? The popular idea that the GR was completely bloodless is incorrect, and I’d posit that a foreign monarch assuming the throne is a pretty significant change in how government is managed.
San Marino’s existing constitution dates to 1600, but as someone else pointed out there was that nastiness in 1739 where the constitution was temporarily replaced with someone else’s.
Napoleon conquered Switzerland in 1798 so Switzerland is disqualified.
Iceland was a good guess, except that they were part of Norway’s and later Denmark’s monarchy until 1918. So they weren’t completely sovereign until 1918.
Denmark’s current government you can date no farther back than 1849.
The Isle of Man isn’t sovereign, disqualifies them outright.
Nothing in Africa comes even close to consistant over the past 300 years. Same with much of Asia.
Most all aboriginal populaces of the world have been “conquered” by some country or another in the past 300 years. Those aboriginals unfortunate enough to be in North or South America were conquered in turns by the English, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, and French. Those in Asia and Australia by the English (again), French, Chinese, Japanese, Russians, or each other. Those in Africa by English and French, Italy, or again each other.
That leaves us with jolly ol’ England and the USA.
Someone mentioned the United Kingdom since 1649. You might want to date it at 1707 (see history) instead, which is still older than the U.S. However, I’m wondering if the gradual decline of the power of the King/Queen since the start of the 19th Century would disqualify the UK? If it doesn’t disqualify them, than I’m going with the UK since 1707.
If the gradual dis-evolution of the power of the Monarchy since 1707 disqualifies the UK, than the the only thing left is . . .
The USA! Holding truths to be self-evident since 1787!!
San Marino’s existing constitution dates to 1600, but as someone else pointed out there was that nastiness in 1739 where the constitution was temporarily replaced with someone else’s. And also the Nazis. But if you dont’ count the Nazis, than 1739. Back to SM in a moment. . .
Napoleon conquered Switzerland in 1798 so Switzerland is disqualified.
Iceland was a good guess, except that they were part of Norway’s and later Denmark’s monarchy until 1918. So they weren’t completely sovereign until 1918.
Denmark’s current government you can date no farther back than 1849.
The Isle of Man isn’t sovereign, disqualifies them outright.
Nothing in Africa comes even close to consistant over the past 300 years. Same with much of Asia.
Most all aboriginal populaces of the world have been “conquered” by some country or another in the past 300 years. Those aboriginals unfortunate enough to be in North or South America were conquered in turns by the English, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, and French. Those in Asia and Australia by the English (again), French, Chinese, Japanese, Russians, or each other. Those in Africa by English and French, Italy, or again each other.
That leaves us back with San Marino, The UK, and the USA.
Someone mentioned the United Kingdom since 1649. You might want to date it at 1707 (see history) instead, which is still older than the U.S. However, I’m wondering if the gradual decline of the power of the King/Queen since the start of the 19th Century would disqualify the UK? If it doesn’t disqualify them, than I’m going with the UK since 1707.
If you disqualify The UK, than you have to go with San Marino since 1739. Unless you count the brief drive-by from the Nazis.
If you disqualify both the UK and San Marino, than it’s the USA! Holding truths to be self-evident since 1787!!