Shireroth

Feel free to drive me from Shireroth.

Back ye! Back across the pond!

*throws cups of tea*

Yes indeed - what a happy day - and correct honor given with the name here - much better than just the ole day of the year. The day America told the Brits - go F _ _ _ Off. But now we're the best of friends again, as it should be after a screwing.

I'm looking forward to the return match when the French get to support us in our war of independence from you buggers.

try living next to them....

The Khan of Vijayanagara wrote:I'm looking forward to the return match when the French get to support us in our war of independence from you buggers.

Which country - there are several which the U.S.A. pretends are only being protected by the U.S., I must admit I don't kinw of which one you're speaking.

Screw the British Day?... Return Match? Some would hold that the War of 1812 would have been that return match but I disagree as we only managed to burn Washington as opposed to demolishing it, ploughing the hubristic ruins into the swampy earth and sowing the ground with salt.

The right decision. Punishing hubris in such a hubristic way would have brought about further punishment. That is why Britain remains great to this day- temperance.

Hmm.

YOU seem to be getting temperate in your old age, I was baiting you there Ardashir in case you didn't quite catch me through your ear trumpet.

There is nothing that replying here would achieve that selling you to the BNP would not gain in the future... with compound interest.

A misunderstanding, like a lot of wars. John Adams (& some others) were angling for what later history called "Dominion Status".

Can you imagine Churchill's English Speaking Union? Including India, of course......

(I must be channeling my old Canadian Grandpa again)

Dominion status was akin to home rule. Before the ambitious interfered, the independence movement in Ireland was mostly focused on home rule and the creation of the Dominion of Ireland under that status. Canada was a Dominion until 1982 when the 'constitution' was repatriated breaking the last and final legal tie with Britain. Essentially the status is centred around the Monarchy. At the time (George III) was by God and law, corporeally the culmination of a number of offices and titles that allowed him and his successors to be the Sovereign. For ERII, this means that she is able to be the Monarch of Canada (for example) and at the same time, be Queen of GB and NI. To further illustrate, it means that the law recognizes both of those titles and does not consider the fact that they are held by a single individual. In this way, one person can be the sovereign of many independent states. This goes further in that the association is exclusive to the monarch without any legal association with other titles and governments associated with that individual.

This would have made sense in the context of the American rebellion. Considering that the Monarch is/was ruling 'by the grace of God' the idea of complete independence would have been unpalatable for some. The trouble with Dominion status is that it can't be forced, but appointed. I believe the American rebellion was the first to consider the architecture of 'dominion status' which was eventually adopted in Canada, Australia (etc.) as a means to prevent further independence movements and to cut responsibilities to colonies that were no longer profitable.

Well spoken.

Yay America!

Yeah, Shireroth!

*kicks Bacchus, in a ceremonial sort of way*

Allowing the United States to become independent was smart of the British. If the United States had remained a colony, it might not have developed as much on its own during the Industrial Revolution. Then when World War I and II came, it might not have been so prepared to come and save Britain during those wars.

The UK is like a parent who became old and frail, but its child, the US, took very good care of it. It remained venerable, with a side effect being that Americans still go agog over a British accent and consume massive amounts of British culture. Plus there was a growth in economic and military ties.

Elliot Markham wrote: The UK is like a parent who became old and frail, but its child, the US, took very good care of it.

And now they are both frail and old.

Elliot Markham wrote:Allowing the United States to become independent was smart of the British. If the United States had remained a colony, it might not have developed as much on its own during the Industrial Revolution. Then when World War I and II came, it might not have been so prepared to come and save Britain during those wars.

An interesting interpretation but there is little to immediately suggest that a British North America that was perhaps relatively weaker in terms of living space and industrial capacity (less California, Louisiana and Texas, and with the great plains undeveloped), but firmly orientated towards an Atlantic world view would not still have made a decisive influence on the two world wars by virtue of intervening sooner.

That said without America's ability to bring its full might to bear in the Pacific Theatre it would have probably taken the British Empire a generation to defeat Japan.

Allowing? I thought there was a war of some sorts, between the colonies and Britain? History must be wrong there...

Yes, it was an act of paternal benevolence on our part. We only pretended to fight the Americans for the sake of their self-esteem. They might have ended up like New Zealand otherwise.

Yes, but then we could've gotten some self-esteem when the Lord of the Rings got filmed here. The mighty Mississippi as the River Anduin, the Rockies of the Pacific Northwest as the Misty Mountains, the Midwest as the fields of Rohan, probably New Jersey as Mordor...