You should dress up like an Indian and throw all his tea in the swimming pool.
Though this has been retrospectively imbued with a certain amount of symbolism as a seperation of France and Germany, in practice it was anything but. As good old Charles III, ruler of a fully reunited Carolingian empire 884-887 would doubtless have argued ;).
I must have missed that day in history class where they talked about Texas annexing the United States.
I watched that. Not entirely willingly. However I was turned off ultimately by some very unlikely insanities in the production and story.
The most egregiously implausible of all being that the Indians — on whose land’s future behalf the war was partially fought — were favorable to the American Revolution and willing allies to the chief nutter in the series. Some were, most weren’t. The Mohawks shown most decidedly weren’t.
And fully were the Iroquois punished for it by Washington, Burner of Towns.
The Guy Fawkes conspiracy was a plot to blow up Parliament and the King in a massive explosion caused by barrels of gunpowder hidden under the Houses of Parliament. It would have taken out the government and most of the Protestant nobility and there would have been a uprising of the Catholics with the support of foreign Catholic powers.
It was quite a big deal in a country that had recently switched from Catholic to Protestant under Henry VIII, then again Protestant to Catholic under Mary and then back to Protestant under Elizabeth. The country was split between these religions, there was persecution many assassination plots of great deal of spying going on. Nabbing Guy Fawkes and his gang red handed was a great cause for celebration and a law was passed proclaiming that the 5th November should be marked with church bells and bonfires to celebrate a joyful deliverance.
In the UK Guy Fawkes Bonfire parties are celebrated with great gusto in certain parts of the country. Particularly on the south coast in the towns like Lewes next to Brighton. Mary executed a number of Protestant martyrs there and the bonfire tradition is still strong. Rather than being all about burning Catholic conspirators, the celebrations are more about getting drunk and having a costumed parade with bonfires and fireworks. There is a strong anti-authority theme and police usually have their hands full. On one notable occasion they burnt effigies of Bush and Blair to give the celebration a topical flavour.
The 5th on November Bonfire night celebrations are thought to be not very conducive to community relations in big cities like London and people are encouraged to go to highly controlled family oriented celebrations organised by local government. Not quite as much fun, I think.
As I mentioned in another thread, I set up his computer to play the theme from Team America when he sat down to have breakfast as it’s a rouser when he’s in a delicate state.
He asked what it was in aid of, and I replied, ‘238 years, bitches.’
As for national holidays, you’re just not going to see flag waving over here unless you’re in the BNP or whatever (sporting events and Jubilees are ok though). The British find the US propensity for plastering flags all over the place rather odd if not strangely endearing. For example, Mr Magnet really wants a t-shirt that features a montage of wolf, a full moon, a flag, an eagle, Jesus with an assault rifle, etc.
There was some poll recently asking people here how proud to be British they were (probably in the Guardian), and the most popular answer was ‘somewhat’ - which is rather British.
An outsider is going to see it more, I think, than a native; it’s subtle, but it’s there. It’s less rah rah team GB, and more having a calm sip of tea in the middle of a battle sort of thing.
However an American friend of mine did observe that the Union Jack is just as prevalent, but not necessarily as a flag. The British do have a strange habit of putting it on strange things, like underpants.
Union flag – the jack goes on a ship, as an ex-navy Yorkshire pal of mine constantly reminds me.
Usually (but not always of course) the people who buy Union flag emblazoned items are tourists (note the shops filled with that stuff when you’re in London!) 
Ignore him. This irritating pedantic “gotcha” was new-minted some time in the last twenty years, and has no founding in common or official usage. The flag of the United Kingdom has been called the Union Jack since it was created.
Your ex-naval chum can call it what he wants, of course, but the Admiralty (who ought to know) seem happy to call it the Union Jack, and always have done.
QI tells me that it doesn’t actually matter either way 
Haha yep! We flog our flag!
Don’t British ships fly The White Ensign instead?
Cheers! Apologies for opening up a can of worms over that one.
I’ve just spent the last few weeks or so boning up for the Life in UK test (which I had to take as part of my leave-to-remain visa application; fingers crossed that that interview goes well in a couple of weeks!).
The test questions (and booklet you have to study) are interesting to say the least. The book is called Life in the United Kingdom: A Guide for New Residents. Hardly any of it matches what I’ve actually experienced or needed to know about living here.
Royal Navy ships do – there are also Blue and Red Ensigns. The ensign’s flown at the stern of the ship, though; the Jack is an additional national flag flown at the bow when in port.
Oh I don’t know, you find Union Jack’s used as fashion/home decor items everywhere, they aren’t just for tourists. I’m not sure we have them as a ‘YAY UK!’ thing though, more because the Union Jack is a very cool piece of graphic design.
My personal favourite are the pink Union Jack flags you see at pride events.
Is that the one about how to queue and what to do if you spill someone’s pint in a pub?
That’s the kind of stuff it ought to have!
Anyone wanting to see if they are up on their Life in the UK, here’s a site chockful of practice tests.
Enjoy!
SanVito – That is true, isn’t it! We don’t really have any Union Jack bits here in the house as Mr Magnet goes grumpy at the thought, but I agree with you that it does show up frequently as a cool piece of design rather than ‘Rarh! Team GB, UK go!’ and that.
In my earlier comment I was thinking about all of the mad tat you can get in the high street shops up in London (Personally, I’ve got my eye on a plain white mug that says TWAT on the bottom.)
That said, when I sent out our marriage announcements, they were appropriately kitschy with a half Union Jack/half Stars and Stripes hearts on them 
You should totally have a Reed Richards day and take a trip to the Microverse.
You’ve missed the point here. What you were replying to was intended as a rebuttal to points such as the one you just made.
You speak as if Wales has had a long and rich history as an independent country. It hasn’t. It has had a long history of being an area of land made up of smaller kingdoms, and it has a long history of being part of a larger kingdom. The idea that creating an independent country called Wales would be a restoration to the state of affairs of some special point in history at which everything that came before it was too old and can be ignored, and everything that came after it is meddling and must be reverted, is silly and arbitrary.
As an aside, unsurprisingly, military conquest was used to change borders in Wales before any English/Norman conquest.
I’ve just opened this up and don’t know the answer to the first question. Oops
Well, Wales does have a rich history, and separately it has a short and patchy history as an independent country. There are two things at play here:
-
For both England and Wales, the separate early medieval kingdoms still shared a common cultural heritage, so that you can certainly speak of an English nation (comprised of the various Anglo-Saxon kingdoms) before you have a unified England. Both are complicated by the fact that some of the later divisions (Wales v. Cornwall, England v. English-speaking Scotland) put barriers into these loose cultural areas which became separate countries.
-
Wales was an independent kingdom before its takeover: just not for very long, and not with its present borders. Hywel Dda’s kingdom, 300 years before the conquest, is an example.
I don’t think I said or implied anything about a restoration to a notional past glory. Sure, that rhetoric is out there, but it’s just rhetoric.