Anglosphere

***The sight of SO many British War Commission maintained cemeteries***

I missed out a very significant word there - it should have read "British War Graves Commission", the organisation responsible for maintaining all such graves both here in the UK and anywhere else in the world where British servicemen killed on active service lie buried. Sorry.

Wow, you guys still think about WWII, and it's the third millenium already. People rarely mention it here. Personally, my favorite is the Cold War, where nothing happened. I don't particularily like wars all that much.

Anyway, Damian, how do you like American humor? You should definitely look into it. Charlie Chaplin is one of my favorite American comedians.

"Wow, you guys still think about WWII, and it's the third millenium already."
*******************

You mean the war that ended only 64 years ago, and whose veterans march past The Cenotaph every year to honour their fallen comrades?

I have to say that I agree here - the UK's future is with the rest of Europe, and not with any kind of Anglosphere, despite the commonplace notions thereof and the misguided attempts of some more conservative Britons to distance themselves from the rest of Europe.
*********************************

I disagree.

Britain's future is with the Anglosphere - Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the USA - and with countries such as India and Bangladesh rather than with other European countries.

Britain has more in common with the Anglosphere than it does with Continental Europe. For a start, Britain is an English-speaking nation; the Anglosphere countries share Britain's system of government, which they adopted; and, of course, the USA, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and India have been long, reliable allies of the UK, something which you can't say about many European countries.

In fact, Britain's future is outside of the EU, and it needs to build closer links to the major English-speaking nations and nations such as India. In 1973, when Britain joined the EU, New Zealand's economy suffered when its main trading partner joined that monstrous, undemocratic Union. We need to get out of the EU and establish closer links to our closer allies and friends.

This is stupid and racist, because many Australian, Canadian, New Zealander don't have british ancestry, so UK is not their "Mother Country".
******************************************

Many Australians, Canadians and New Zealanders may not have British ancestry, but Britain IS the Mother Countey of those nations.

If there had never been a British Empire there would be no Australia, Canada, New Zealand or US today.

History has moved on enormously and many generations have come and gone since the Pilgrim Fathers sailed from England's wave-beat shores and subsequently became the Founding Fathers of the infant America. The Americans themselves irrevocably severed the umbilical cord on 04 July 1776.

Probably the only durable bond we now have with America in this new scenario is a common Language but there are shades of difference even there.

The only countries having the right, if they so wish at any time, to call Britain the Mother Country are those contained within the aforementioned Commonwealth. They are not bound to do so, of course.....as I said....they have the choice. The United States doesn't because it isn't because it's totally foreign in the international sense.
************************************

The United States got its independence in 1776....... from Britain.

Which means that, even in 500 years' time, Britain will still be the Mother Country of the United States, whether it's in the Commonwealth or not.

The architect Lord Rogers has said he believes Prince Charles has broken the "constitutional understanding" governing the role of the monarchy.

Lord Rogers attacks Prince Charles for intervening in Chelsea Barracks wrangle

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/theroyalfamily/5546098/Lord-Rogers-attacks-Prince-Charles-for-intervening-in-Chelsea-Barracks-wrangle.html
**********************************************

I think Prince Charles was right to speak his mind - and the vast majority of the British people wish he would do it more often, as long as it is not his opinion on British politics which, being politically neutral, is not allowed to do (whatever ignorant foreigners say about the monarchy, having a non-politician as Head of State is infinitely more preferable to having a politician as Head of State).

Lord Rogers, a corrupt (like them all) friend of the New Labour "government", wanted a "space age" design for the development at the Chelsea Barracks.

Prince Charles, more of a traditionalist when it comes to architecture, wanted a more traditional-type building, one of the sort of grand designs that the great architects of the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries would have been proud of.

And ask 100,000 Brits which design they would have wanted, they would have opted for Prince Charles's more traditional design, rather than Lord Rogers' space-age carbuncle.
-------------------------------------------------


HARRY PHIBBS: Lord Rogers is as mad as a hornet - Prince Charles is right to speak out against his barracks project

17th June 2009
Daily Mail

Daily Mail poll:
Should Prince Charles keep his opinions to himself?
Yes:36%
No: 64%Thank you for voting

One of the remarkable features of the Prince of Wales has been his willingness to defend ordinary people against establishment special interests.

There are plenty of examples of this, but the outstanding one has been his challenge to the modernist consensus in architecture. His critique has not been a passing fad. Nor has it been a residual grumble.

In 1984 he faced the enemy. He stood before the Royal Institute of British Architects and told them the proposed National Gallery extension was 'a monstrous carbuncle on the face of a much-loved and elegant friend.'

A quarter of a century later Prince Charles had a victory last week with developers withdrawing a brutalist design for the Chelsea Barracks site after he had described it as 'unsuitable'.

The architect responsible for it, Lord Rogers, is as mad as a hornet. He huffs that the Prince has set 'a dangerous precedent' and broken the 'constitutional understanding' governing the role of the monarchy.

This is nonsense. The constitutional convention is that the Prince avoids party politics but while architecture is an important and controversial subject, it is certainly not party political.

With breathtaking audacity Rogers continued: 'The Prince is not willing to debate. If the Prince does not debate there must be a question over why he can participate in political situations.'

A debate is the last thing the modernist architects want. They want the Prince of Wales - and the rest of us - to shut up and defer to their 'expertise'.

It is not just Lord Rogers. His fellows in the architectural establishment have rallied round with a letter to The Guardian demanding silence from Prince Charles.

But as Kit Malthouse, a member of the London Assembly and leading critic of the Chelsea Barracks plans, responded: 'This is a standard tactic deployed by that elite club when the public doesn't like their work.

'Their other tactic is to gather together and award each other prizes. In their letter those self-proclaimed luminaries state that the planning system is "open and democratic"

'It is nothing of the sort. Negotiations between developers and planning officers take place behind closed doors, the public has little formal say, and the final arbiter in all cases is a man in a suit from the planning inspectorate in Bristol, who may not even visit the site before deciding its future.

'For the poor old local councillor, planning has become a high-stakes game of poker where councils are forced to compromise over mediocre architecture for fear of getting something worse.'

For the Prince of Wales, this hasn't just been about impotent grumbling in the manner of Victor Meldrew. He has sought to show the positive alternative.

Just as with food we have had the Grocer Prince and his Duchy Originals organic range, so with architecture we have the Builder Prince and the success story of Poundbury which shows that new classical architecture is viable.

But while Poundbury may be the best known example there are others. The Prince's Foundation for the Built Environment has been established to provide an alternative source of expertise to the brutalism of the modernist school.

If anything, the Royal Family has been too soft on the modernist architectural mafia allowing them a closed shop on honours. Hence we have Lord Rogers and Lord Foster while Quinlan Terry, a 72-year-old neo-classical architect whose array of commissions have brought immense public approval remains Mister.

The greatest hypocrisy is that the modernist architects refuse to live in the hideous constructions they arrogantly pronounce are good enough for the rest of us.

Earlier this year HRH adressed RIBA again.

He said: 'The other day an architect friend of mine asked: "How many Pritzker prizewinners are not living in beautiful classical homes?" and we all know what he was getting at.


READERS' COMMENTS

This article is spot on. Once again, it is the Royal Family who speak for the people of Britain and the Labour cronies who are trying to dictate to us and to impose monstrosities on us. Anyone with eyes can see the superiority of the Quinlan Terry proposals; he is a most distinguished architect with fine buildings behind him such as those at Downing College, Cambridge and the RC cathedral at Brentwood. Modern architecture is a sham, an emperor without clothes. Not only is it ugly but it does not even do the basic job of keeping out the rain. I was a teacher and the modern schools always had leaking roofs. The modern buildings are too hot in summer (and so air-conditioning is needed) and too cold in winter (and so big heating bills). Thank you Your Royal Highness and thank you Harry Phibbs.
- George, Bolton UK
**************************

That proprosed building looks like it's made of sticklebricks. It's hideous, and Prince Charles is right.
- Carolyn, Isle of Man
**************************

The Chelsea Hospital is old and any additions should blend in, not be enormous modern encumbrances. Totally out of place in that area - future generations will be thankful we had a Prince Charles.
- Willow, Dorset, UK
****************************

Hitler would have subjugated the UK with ease if it weren't for the unrelinquishing imperial might of Great Russia and her Soviet comrades surging forth from the never-ending steppes of the Eurasian continent
*************************************

And if it wasn't for the RAF who, when Great Britain (including its great Anglophile allies such as Australia, Canada and New Zealand) was fighting the Nazis ALONE, whilst the rest of Western Europe was overrun and America watched from the sidelines, fought so valiantly against the Luftwaffe during the Battle of Britain to inflict Nazi Germany's first major defeat of the war and put off Hitler's plans of an invasion of Britain.

>> The United States got its independence in 1776....... from Britain Which means that, even in 500 years' time, Britain will still be the Mother Country of the United States, whether it's in the Commonwealth or not <<

Yes, that's very true. I don't understand how anyone can think otherwise.

>>
Britain's future is with the Anglosphere - Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the USA - and with countries such as India and Bangladesh rather than with other European countries <<

Yes, that's quite true.

>> Britain has more in common with the Anglosphere than it does with Continental Europe. For a start, Britain is an English-speaking nation; the Anglosphere countries share Britain's system of government, which they adopted; and, of course, the USA Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and India have been long reliable allies of the UK, something which you can't say about many European countries <<

Exactly. Finally someone with some sense.

Why should the UK be stuck with Europe? In the age of globalisation, physical proximity is not that important.



<<
You mean the war that ended only 64 years ago, and whose veterans march past The Cenotaph every year to honour their fallen comrades? >>



Well, US soldiers have been dropping like flies ever since then, so the more recent conflicts tend capture our attention more.

Anglospheric GB, USA, Australia, New Zealand and Canada are all European ...

I'm sorry but I simply can't agree that Britain could, or should, ever be called "the Mother Country" where the United States is concerned. In my book that link was severed on 04 July 1776.

We may well have a common Language (for the most part) but that's where the link ends outside of the friendship and global alliance which no doubt will always be shared between our two countries barring any unthinkable catastrophe of whatever kind.

Of course there are large numbers of Americans who can trace their ancestry back to Great Britain directly and entirely but surely they are now in the minority over there?

I think I read somewhere that the % of Americans in this category is only about 35 or 40 or so, if that. Would that be correct? With this fact in mind how on earth could Great Britain ever be considered a "Mother Country" by the 65%/70% of the population with absolutely now ancestral allegiance to this country?

Of course you could argue that the breakaway from nasty old Limeyland was instigated by a group of blokes who had actually been born and bred over on this side of the ocean in the first place and who had begun to get pissed off with a Limey King and horrid British tea, and had signed the Declaration of Independence and so can still consider this green and pleasant land to be the Mother Country? Or is that a load of tripe?

In the present world as it now is I don't think Great Britain is a Mother Country to any country anyway.....we are now a cog in the new European wheel, an ofshoot still retaining all our national characteristics nonetheless...nothing but nothing will ever alter that, and within that whole our own separate four "nation" constituent identities.

Whatever - I will still send fraternal greetings to our American friends on Saturday week - when they celebrate being shot of us all those years ago.

>> I'm sorry but I simply can't agree that Britain could, or should ever be called "the Mother Country" where the United States is concerned. In my book that link was severed on 04 July 1776. <<

Do you know what the word mother means? A mother gives birth to a child. The child may be highly dependent on its mother, or highly independent, but the mother will still be the mother.

>> ? With this fact in mind how on earth could Great Britain ever be considered a "Mother Country" by the 65%/70% of the population with absolutely now ancestral allegiance to this country? <<

Ancestral allegiance in my opinion is highly overrated. Even though my parents were born in Taiwan, since I grew up here, I have cultural ties to here, and to other English-speaking countries, and by extension, Western Europe, rather than to Taiwan, which seems like quite an exotic foreign country.

<<I have to say that I agree here - the UK's future is with the rest of Europe, and not with any kind of Anglosphere>>

I'd say that the UK's future is with the rest of the West, rather than with just the Angloshpere or Europe. The West includes Europe (perhaps Russia, too), Australia/NZ, and the Americas.

The enemies we face in the future may be so powerful that the whole West will have to hang together, or face elimination from this planet. It's possible that the Islamic world and even India may be with us, when it comes time to choose up sides for the next big life-or-death struggle.

Pretty sure Charlie Chaplin was British, hon. The silent movie thing might be throwing you off....

<<But if the US is so Germanised, how come you never hear anything about German-Americans? References to Italian/Irish/African/Mexican-Americans are literally everywhere, but German-Americans are less heard of. True, you don't here about British-Americans either... Is it because they are the standard to which the others are compared or something, and there's no need to peg the nationality on the front?>>

Two reasons, in my opinion:

1. German-Americans are usually a few generations more removed from the Fatherland than, say, Mexican-Americans. There was a sizeable German population here during the Revolution, for instance. They also tended to be more willing and able to assimilate into the dominant culture than certain other groups, especially the Poles, Irish, and Italians who came over in vast waves later in the 19th C, and tended to settle down in ethnic enclaves that better preserved their culture and identities.

2. As a direct result of point #1, German-Americans are less likely to be purebreds, and more likely to share that ancestry with six other competing ethnicities. There are some areas where you see a lot of German ancestry that may still have fairly pure bloodlines, like Travis's region, but for the rest of the bunch scattered across the country, forget it.

I can offer up my own family history as an illustration: my mother's side is German and Scottish and maybe some Irish (see -- already mongrelized!). Although her German ancestors arrived fairly recently (1900 or so), that makes me fourth generation. And they landed in New Orleans, of all places, immediately forbade the speaking of German in the household, and were left with nothing but a last name to remind them of the Vaterland within a generation! They still live in Louisiana (not known for its German culture), and are indistinguishable from any other Southerners you might ever meet.

My dad's side is pure Portuguese. My great-grandparents came over in the 1920's from the Azores and Brazil as young adults, settled in New Bedford, Massachusetts, which is a big Portuguese area, and died of old age without ever speaking much if any English. I'm third generation, born in the 70's , and the first to speak only English -- largely because I didn't grow up in Mass, and without anyone else to talk to, my dad gradually lost his Portuguese. Which had been his first and only language until he was school age!

British-Americans are in the same boat as German-Americans -- less likely to be pure, more likely to be greatly removed in time from their ancestral culture. Many of them might also be German-Americans and eight other things to boot. Which is why you have to be careful when you look at population percentages -- they overlap. And often people just report the most obvious ethnicity they are part of or the one they happen to like the most -- even if it's that one-quarter Irish blood or that one-eighth Cherokee.