Britain - The Official Thread

[Famine]

Overnight, Malcolm Turnbull met with the Queen. He's a staunch republican, but he has also described himself as an Elizabethan and says that he thinks most of us are.

Naturally, this has triggered the question back home: if we are Elizabethans under Elizabeth's reign, what will we be when Charles takes the throne? Charlesites? Chuckians? Chazists? Or will it be something completely different? When James I was king, his reign was referred to as Jacobean.

Caroleans (although some old boys of schools named for a Charles call themselves Carolians). We've had enough Kings named Charles for this to be a thing.

However, it's been rumoured that Charles doesn't want to be known as King Charles, because it's associated with some crappy bits of history for the monarchy, and instead wants to be George VII. So Georgians.

 

[Lizard]

Caroleans (although some old boys of schools named for a Charles call themselves Carolians). We've had enough Kings named Charles for this to be a thing.

However, it's been rumoured that Charles doesn't want to be known as King Charles, because it's associated with some crappy bits of history for the monarchy, and instead wants to be George VII. So Georgians.

Caroleans were the Swedish army under Charles XI and Carolus Rex.



Also what does everyone think of the MP who used a very racist phrase to put it lightly?

 

[Famine]

Caroleans were the Swedish army under Charles XI and Carolus Rex.

Yep, cause Charles. The Restoration is also called the Caroline or Carolean era.

Also what does everyone think of the MP who used a very racist phrase to put it lightly?

She's caused herself a problem there, hasn't she? There's probably some snappy phrase for a problem lurking in the bits of the house you rarely look at, but I can't remember it right now.


Hopefully the party doesn't do what all political parties do with obvious racists, which would be to suspend her, have the party leader say that their comments are reprehensible or don't belong in modern society and then quietly reinstate her six months later.

But they will.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

it's been rumoured that Charles doesn't want to be known as King Charles, because it's associated with some crappy bits of history for the monarchy

Does he not appreciate the irony of this?

 

[Liquid]

A few of the most recent Kings chose regal names different to their given name used by family members.

George VI was known as Albert or Bertie
Edward VIII was known as David
Edward VII was known as Albert or Bertie

I think even Queen Victoria was known by her actual first name to close relatives; Alexandrina.

So there is a precedence. Charles has made it known he would like to be called King George since at least the 1990s from my own memory.

 

[TenEightyOne]

what will we be when Charles takes the throne?

Charles (as noted by others) will very likely use his last given name: George. We'd be Georgians.

The regnal name Charles has a chequered history in Britain, we've already had 2-and-a-half Kings with that name and their reigns (or attempted coups) are hallmarked by religious and social division and the mess of post-reformation politics. And the only public execution of a monarch.

The soon to be Charles III (or Charles III.V) has already weathered various storms around his second wife's catholicism, I think he'd prefer a regnal name that harks back to (relative) stability and national glory.

 

[UKMikey]

Also what does everyone think of the MP who used a very racist phrase to put it lightly?

I think the peer who used menacing, racist slurs against Brexit challenger Gina Miller is in bigger trouble.

As for the MP's remark the last time I heard it was in the early eighties when doing a cultural studies module of my engineering course at college in which the subject of racial epithets was under discussion. At one point the lecturer (an older posh lady) got mad at the class's irreverent treatment of the subject and loudly wondered why there always has to be a "🤬" in the woodpile fouling everything up. Poor woman ended up being laughed out of the class.

 

[Liquid]

Another name on the Royal blacklist is John.

King John (1199-1216), of Robin Hood and Magna Carta fame, was a terribly ineffective ruler and the only other Royal John of note is Prince John, brother of Kings Edward VIII and George VI, and uncle to the Queen. Prince John had epilepsy, amongst other supposed mental illnesses, and his illnesses were quietly concealed as he led a life of seclusion away from public life and died aged 13.

It's an "unlucky" name.

 

[UKMikey]

The regnal name Charles has a chequered history in Britain, we've already had 2-and-a-half Kings with that name and their reigns (or attempted coups) are hallmarked by religious and social division and the mess of post-reformation politics. And the only public execution of a monarch.

Who is the half-king? Is it Bonnie Prince Charlie?

 

[Famine]

King Charles I was about 7/8ths of a king. Well, at the end, at any rate.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Who is the half-king? Is it Bonnie Prince Charlie?

Aye. For some (maybe many) citizens he was the rightful King and arguably the main reason for his denial by the throne-sitter's supporters was purely religious. Nice song though.

King Charles I was about 7/8ths of a king. Well, at the end, at any rate.

Yes. The bottom end.

 

[Lizard]

Does he not appreciate the irony of this?

It is tradition for a monarch to take a new name when they take the throne IIRC. I may be wrong. A bit like the Pope.

 

[TenEightyOne]

It is tradition for a monarch to take a new name when they take the throne IIRC. I may be wrong.

No it isn't. It's tradition for them to be able to but the majority haven't.

Even the numbering's difficult - Scotland is still on Elizabeth I while England and Wales are on Elizabeth II. That caused vandalism and public unrest back in the 50s north o'the border.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

It is tradition for a monarch to take a new name when they take the throne IIRC. I may be wrong. A bit like the Pope.

So you're Elizabethans under Elizabeth, Georgians under Geirge, Caroleans under Charles and Jacobeans under James. So what if the plot of King Ralph came true and the person with the greatest claim to the throne was Camilla Parker-Bowles? Or Pippa Middleton?

 

[Famine]

So you're Elizabethans under Elizabeth, Georgians under Geirge, Caroleans under Charles and Jacobeans under James. So what if the plot of King Ralph came true and the person with the greatest claim to the throne was Camilla Parker-Bowles? Or Pippa Middleton?

Republicans.

 

[Lizard]

I think the peer who used menacing, racist slurs against Brexit challenger Gina Miller is in bigger trouble.

As for the MP's remark the last time I heard it was in the early eighties when doing a cultural studies module of my engineering course at college in which the subject of racial epithets was under discussion. At one point the lecturer (an older posh lady) got mad at the class's irreverent treatment of the subject and loudly wondered why there always has to be a "🤬" in the woodpile fouling everything up. Poor woman ended up being laughed out of the class.

Yes he has an issue. I am not sure how he expected people to believe that it was a joke either.

I do understand it is an old phrase but it isn't just using the N word. It is putting the idea out that black people should be property as the whole reason they were in the wood pile (when the phrase was coined) was to hide and escape to the north and win their freedom.

No it isn't. It's tradition for them to be able to but the majority haven't.

Even the numbering's difficult - Scotland is still on Elizabeth I while England and Wales are on Elizabeth II. That caused vandalism and public unrest back in the 50s north o'the border.

Fair enough.

 

[polysmut]

So you're Elizabethans under Elizabeth, Georgians under Geirge, Caroleans under Charles and Jacobeans under James. So what if the plot of King Ralph came true and the person with the greatest claim to the throne was Camilla Parker-Bowles? Or Pippa Middleton?

Chameleons or pipettes.

 

[Famine]

It is putting the idea out that black people should be property as the whole reason they were in the wood pile (when the phrase was coined) was to hide and escape to the north and win their freedom.

It was more that homeowners could be charged with harbouring escaped slaves if one was found on their property, as being part of the underground railroad. It would thus be an issue of major importance that, if revealed, would cause disaster but which everyone in the house knew about and kept secret.

Think 'elephant in the room', but for the 1850s. Which is practically the future for many MPs.

 

[Liquid]

No it isn't. It's tradition for them to be able to but the majority haven't.

Even the numbering's difficult - Scotland is still on Elizabeth I while England and Wales are on Elizabeth II. That caused vandalism and public unrest back in the 50s north o'the border.

Which is why protocol now is to use whichever regal number is higher; Scottish monarch or English monarch.

So it is "correct" to have Elizabeth II but for example, the next "King James" will be James VIII and not James III; James II of England, of Catholic being overthrown in a Protestant insurrection infamy, was James VII of Scotland so that number takes precedence.

I mean, not that any of this is something I have a positive attachment to. I just like knowing things.

 

[Hun200kmh]

Irrelevant info for you brits to forget or pile up in some "random facts warehouse" at the back of your brains. Filipe (or, as you say, "Philip") II of Spain was Filipe I of Portugal, Filipe III of Spain was II of Portugal and Filipe IV of Spain was III of Portugal. Then ... they were off.

 

[polysmut]

Irrelevant info for you brits to forget or pile up in some "random facts warehouse" at the back of your brains.

In British brains, that goes at the front.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I just like knowing things.

Stephen Fry taught me that about James VIII.

Not, you know, personally. I picked it up from an episode of "QI".

 

[Lizard]

It was more that homeowners could be charged with harbouring escaped slaves if one was found on their property, as being part of the underground railroad. It would thus be an issue of major importance that, if revealed, would cause disaster but which everyone in the house knew about and kept secret.

Think 'elephant in the room', but for the 1850s. Which is practically the future for many MPs.

Fair enough. Still implies that black people should be property though.

 

[Hun200kmh]

Will he? Won't he? (mention Gibraltar)

Will they? Won't they? (leave in protest)

The Donalds and the Russians (new money, blah ) must now wait. The world's post medieval greatest superpowers are back in action, Kings and Queens step forward and the world will hold its breath for a moment there ...

 

[Famine]

Fair enough. Still implies that black people should be property though.

More the opposite of that.

The notion is that it's a potentially disastrous problem that's well-known, but no-one talks about it. The only people who'd know that they have an escaped slave hiding in their woodpile and not talk about it would be the underground railroad - people who didn't think that black people should be property.

It's easy to look at the phrase and think it's racist and was only used by racists - it wasn't, although racists did use it (such as when the Democrats used the exact phrase in campaign ads to attack Lincoln) - simply because it use the N-word. The fact is that the N-word was used a lot, even by Lincoln, to just mean the black population. Which was predominantly slaves, which is why it's considered racist now.

The phrase aside, it's baffling that an MP, of all people, doesn't know that it's not really okay to say it any more. It's even more baffling that she's not the first member of the Houses of Parliament to not know this - Lord Dixon-Smith used the same phrase in 2008!

 

[Lizard]

More the opposite of that.

The notion is that it's a potentially disastrous problem that's well-known, but no-one talks about it. The only people who'd know that they have an escaped slave hiding in their woodpile and not talk about it would be the underground railroad - people who didn't think that black people should be property.

It's easy to look at the phrase and think it's racist and was only used by racists - it wasn't, although racists did use it (such as when the Democrats used the exact phrase in campaign ads to attack Lincoln) - simply because it use the N-word. The fact is that the N-word was used a lot, even by Lincoln, to just mean the black population. Which was predominantly slaves, which is why it's considered racist now.

The phrase aside, it's baffling that an MP, of all people, doesn't know that it's not really okay to say it any more. It's even more baffling that she's not the first member of the Houses of Parliament to not know this - Lord Dixon-Smith used the same phrase in 2008!

Oh ok.

 

[Liquid]

Saw this thanks to @Omnis:

Find Your Tory Name

-Take the first name of a grandparent
-Then take the name of the street you grew up on
-Hyphenate with your headmaster's surname

Bernard Derwen-Dixon
Bernard Leighton-Schleising

Depending on which street or headmaster you fancy.

 

[polysmut]

Saw this thanks to @Omnis:

Find Your Tory Name

-Take the first name of a grandparent
-Then take the name of the street you grew up on
-Hyphenate with your headmaster's surname

Bernard Derwen-Dixon
Bernard Leighton-Schleising

Depending on which street or headmaster you fancy.

Bernard Leighton-Dixon works better.

 

[TheCracker]

Cyril Stonerings-Norfolk

 

[Dennisch]

Find Your Tory Name

Cornelis Lopes Dias-van Buuren.