Dalek Prime wrote:Lol! My mistake. I assumed the old Roman encampment on the Thames. (Can't recall what the Romans called the river).
Who is the present Jarl/Eorl in you're shire?
That's the trouble with being a dinosaur, you have to study to find out what stuff was originally called.
"Flumen Tamesis" was the Thames. BTW (pretty good for continuity).
There are 8 Jarls in the region, my nearest is Simon Kirby in the oest, but I owe no allegiance to that scum, my natural Jarl is Peter Kyle, of vestr brighthelmstone (Hove).
Yeah, Latin class was a long time ago.
Watch out for the Normans to your south. They'll change the place names on you in a heartbeat, and install barons and shire reeves to replace your Jarls.
Dalek Prime wrote:Lol! My mistake. I assumed the old Roman encampment on the Thames. (Can't recall what the Romans called the river).
Who is the present Jarl/Eorl in you're shire?
That's the trouble with being a dinosaur, you have to study to find out what stuff was originally called.
"Flumen Tamesis" was the Thames. BTW (pretty good for continuity).
There are 8 Jarls in the region, my nearest is Simon Kirby in the oest, but I owe no allegiance to that scum, my natural Jarl is Peter Kyle, of vestr brighthelmstone (Hove).
Yeah, Latin class was a long time ago.
Watch out for the Normans to your south. They'll change the place names on you in a heartbeat, and install barons and shire reeves to replace your Jarls.
So who is your Jarl, or do you have something else?
As for Normans, half my ancestors were from Norway, so I might be partly responsible.
No Jarls here in Haute (Upper) Canada, I'm afraid. We do have representatives of her Britannic Majesty though, who is now the longest reigning in history. Now she only has to beat out Louis XIV.
Dalek Prime wrote:No Jarls here in Haute (Upper) Canada, I'm afraid. We do have representatives of her Britannic Majesty though, who is now the longest reigning in history. Now she only has to beat out Louis XIV.
She can go and boil her own head as far as I am concerned.
Dalek Prime wrote:No Jarls here in Haute (Upper) Canada, I'm afraid. We do have representatives of her Britannic Majesty though, who is now the longest reigning in history. Now she only has to beat out Louis XIV.
She can go and boil her own head as far as I am concerned.
That's okay. I'm just saying without opinion either way.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:She can go and boil her own head as far as I am concerned.
There was a time when you would have lost your own head for expressing such a sentiment but I guess there's nothing to be gained by waxing nostalgic about the good old days. As a treasonous Australian I have always been resolutely in favour of our country being a republic although I bear the old biddy no personal ill-will. I certainly don't envy her the misfortune of either her husband or her dysfunctional family.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:She can go and boil her own head as far as I am concerned.
There was a time when you would have lost your own head for expressing such a sentiment but I guess there's nothing to be gained by waxing nostalgic about the good old days. As a treasonous Australian I have always been resolutely in favour of our country being a republic although I bear the old biddy no personal ill-will. I certainly don't envy her the misfortune of either her husband or her dysfunctional family.
The institution of the Monarchy infantilises the entire ex-empire, turning the populace into a bunch of lag-waving morons that acquiesce to a monumental system of privilege based on birth, wealth and position. It's bad enough in republics without paying idiots to rule over us without consent or merit.
Dalek Prime wrote:No Jarls here in Haute (Upper) Canada, I'm afraid. We do have representatives of her Britannic Majesty though, who is now the longest reigning in history. Now she only has to beat out Louis XIV.
She can go and boil her own head as far as I am concerned.
That's okay. I'm just saying without opinion either way.
The monarch is still your head of state (?), you need to have an opinion.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
The institution of the Monarchy infantilises the entire ex-empire, turning the populace into a bunch of lag-waving morons that acquiesce to a monumental system of privilege based on birth, wealth and position.
You've got to admit it though, mate, that it's bloody good for business because it hauls the punters in from all over the world. You Poms are like exhibits in a medieval zoo when it comes to poncing around in drag for money. In fact when it comes to flag-waving morons the biggest enthusiasts for this sort of entertainment are probably the Americans, who have a passion for pageantry which is almost as bizarre as that of your own culture , as well as a similar taste for cross-dressing which may be somewhat less than healthy.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
The monarch is still your head of state (?), you need to have an opinion.
You didn't know?
Anyways, I wrote without an opinion, but here it is. I make a distinction between the crown and any one monarch. A tree could wear the crown, and still function through a rep for signing legislation. I don't throw away what functions.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
The institution of the Monarchy infantilises the entire ex-empire, turning the populace into a bunch of lag-waving morons that acquiesce to a monumental system of privilege based on birth, wealth and position.
You've got to admit it though, mate, that it's bloody good for business because it hauls the punters in from all over the world. You Poms are like exhibits in a medieval zoo when it comes to poncing around in drag for money. In fact when it comes to flag-waving morons the biggest enthusiasts for this sort of entertainment are probably the Americans, who have a passion for pageantry which is almost as bizarre as that of your own culture , as well as a similar taste for cross-dressing which may be somewhat less than healthy.
I do not think the institution of the Monarchy is a necessary part of tourism. Pro-monarchists like to say "tourists are money", but I really do not think that having an actual monarch makes any difference, as they never see her. What would draw in the tourists is if we were to properly open up all her palaces, with her in a cage for them to gawk at.
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
The monarch is still your head of state (?), you need to have an opinion.
You didn't know?
Anyways, I wrote without an opinion, but here it is. I make a distinction between the crown and any one monarch. A tree could wear the crown, and still function through a rep for signing legislation. I don't throw away what functions.
Besides that, I'm UEL.
The reason for the "(?)" was that there has been, from time to time, moves to change the system around the old empire, and I did not know if that had been done like changing the flag. A person that signs the legislation has the ability to NOT sign the legislation - that is why you need an opinion.
What the fuck is UEL?
I do understand your point, and it's sound. But as the system stands, it would be simpler in law to hold the writer of the legislation accountable, and seek accountability laws, than to change the system of government itself.
UEL: United Empire Loyalist. My ancestors fought for the King in the American Revolution, and settled in Quebec after the war. Hence the creation of Upper Canada and New Brunswick.
Dalek Prime wrote:I do understand your point, and it's sound. But as the system stands, it would be simpler in law to hold the writer of the legislation accountable, and seek accountability laws, than to change the system of government itself.
UEL: United Empire Loyalist. My ancestors fought for the King in the American Revolution, and settled in Quebec after the war. Hence the creation of Upper Canada and New Brunswick.
It's interesting that in 1812, most Canadians were expat Americans. When the US invasion occurred it ought to have been plain sailing for them to take control of the Canadian colonies. But so disgraceful was their behaviour that the Americans living in Canada decided to side with the Empire in defence of Canada, and gave the invaders a kick up the arse.
Obviously this soon led to a British win and the burning of the Whitehouse.
Ask any Yank and they will tell you the War of 1812 was an American victory. Oh fucking um!
AiR wrote:Do you want to be liberated? Do you want to achieve enlightenment? Do you want to be free - mukth? Then learn a simple secret: ignore negativity. In this drama of Samasara, this world, negative situations will come across your path, negative people, negative circumstances, negative challenges will confront you. What should you do? Ignore them. Know that it is drama and know that these negative tendencies are just to pull you into Samsaar, the world, and entangle you into unnecessary trifles. What should you do? Just be happy. Ignore negativity and move on. I know it’s easier said than done, but that’s the way to attain Nirvana. If you truly want Nirvana, bliss, aananda, joy, then the way to get that bliss and aananda is to ignore negativity. Somebody makes a nasty comment, it’s okay, take it in your stride. That nasty comment is supposed to confuse you and pull you into the world; get your mind working on foolish, unnecessary matters. Is that what you want to do? If not, then just withdraw from that negativity and move on with positivity. Smile, be humorous, forgive, forget, understand, be passionate and move ahead on your path to liberation. Negativity is one element that draws us into the world and takes us away from the journey of self-realization. Realize that you are not the body, you are the spirit and you are not supposed to get into these entanglements of the body and you will soon be on your way to Nirvana.
AiR
How do you ignore negativity and think the world is a jail at the same time?
