Best Of

Playing the game "which is the biggest city in China I've never heard of" I get

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foshan

9.5m

Though it does seem to be contiguous with others, so not sure it really counts.

I’ve been to Foshan. Not far from Hong Kong. Not remarkable.

Xi’an for me. Never heard of it.

You've probably heard of the Terracotta Warriors though, which come from there. Which isn't just a random fact. Xi'an was the first capital of a unified China. Xi'an was also the capital during the Tang dynasty and as such was the eastern end of the Silk Road.

It is now a provincial capital and regional centre for North East China.

I have the equivalent problem of large cities I haven't heard of in India.

Yes me too. I was aware of all the usual ones in India like Delhi, Bombay, Madras, and Calcutta but all these new ones seem to have sprung up like Mumbai, Chennai, Kolkata which seem to be every bit as large and important.

The one I came across the other day is Bhubaneswar, the state capital of Odisha. I hadn't heard of either the state or the capital but apparently they are very historic places. There are plenty more like that.

What a chump Redwood is. No awareness at all that the period of Norman subjugation, as he would put it, was the furnace from which English would emerge as the language that would go on to conquer the world. Prior to the Conquest, 'we' spoke Old English, with all the complexity of other European languages - three genders, a complex set of inflections and endings, a whole stack of now unfamiliar letters.

While the Normans were running everything and churning out their documents in Latin and Norman french, our ancestors were turning Old English into Middle English - one of the most dramatic linguistic transformations of history. Spoken by ordinary folk and rarely written down, out went the genders and most of the inflections and endings, with propositions and a more rigid word order used to convey tense and subject/object. The dialect in the linguistic driving seat shifted from Wessex to the more populous and prosperous East Midlands, enabling a synthesis of English and Norse syntax. Through some process not fully understood, the most straightforward elements of English and Norse were melded a new language, which also took in a batch of Latin derived words from French. After a few hundred years, when writing stuff down in the way that ordinary folk spoke, our proto-super-language was born.

Had we not invented printing at just the time when, for reasons not fully understood, we changed the pronunciation of all of our vowels, such that the pronunciation of English became separated from its spelling, English would have been so obviously superior that no-one would ever have bothered to invent Esperanto.

I think the Norman Conquest was beneficial in the long run, for this country, but pretty awful for the people (those North of the Humber at any rate), that had to live through it. In that respect, it resembles the downfall of the Western Roman empire.

1066 and all that was definitive. The Norman conquest was a good thing because it helped England become top dog.

England bided its time in that case. It wasn't top dog until maybe seven centuries later and state wasn't called England by that point anyway.

Isn't it bode?

Bode or Bided.

Joe Boden, past tense of President Joe Biden.

What a chump Redwood is. No awareness at all that the period of Norman subjugation, as he would put it, was the furnace from which English would emerge as the language that would go on to conquer the world. Prior to the Conquest, 'we' spoke Old English, with all the complexity of other European languages - three genders, a complex set of inflections and endings, a whole stack of now unfamiliar letters.

While the Normans were running everything and churning out their documents in Latin and Norman french, our ancestors were turning Old English into Middle English - one of the most dramatic linguistic transformations of history. Spoken by ordinary folk and rarely written down, out went the genders and most of the inflections and endings, with propositions and a more rigid word order used to convey tense and subject/object. The dialect in the linguistic driving seat shifted from Wessex to the more populous and prosperous East Midlands, enabling a synthesis of English and Norse syntax. Through some process not fully understood, the most straightforward elements of English and Norse were melded a new language, which also took in a batch of Latin derived words from French. After a few hundred years, when writing stuff down in the way that ordinary folk spoke, our proto-super-language was born.

Had we not invented printing at just the time when, for reasons not fully understood, we changed the pronunciation of all of our vowels, such that the pronunciation of English became separated from its spelling, English would have been so obviously superior that no-one would ever have bothered to invent Esperanto.

I think the Norman Conquest was beneficial in the long run, for this country, but pretty awful for the people (those North of the Humber at any rate), that had to live through it. In that respect, it resembles the downfall of the Western Roman empire.

1066 and all that was definitive. The Norman conquest was a good thing because it helped England become top dog.

But England was pretty well off before 1066. It could well have become top dog anyway.

It's an interesting counterfactual. On the one hand the centuries of conflict with France (that followed from the Duke of Normandy becoming King of England) bled the country dry, and diverted attention from establishing control of Britain and Ireland and exploring beyond.

On the other hand, the pressure of that conflict on the body politic helped to provoke a number of critical developments in the history of English law and Parliament.

Was Harold's claim to the throne in 1066 any better than William's?

The key aspect to William's claim (which was tenuous) was it was supported by Edward the Confessor who was not going to provide a child from his marriage to Godwin's daughter. Edward blamed Godwin for the death of Alfred Atheling, Edward's brother though the actual brutality was carried out by Harold Harefoot, Alfred was handed over to Harold by Godwin.

Naming William as his successor in 1051 at a time when Godwin's fortunes were in decline seemed a smart move to forestsall any attempt by Godwin to put himself or one of his sons on the throne.

Edgar Atheling had the best claim in 1066 but he was only 13 years old - he was the grandson of Edmund Ironside whose death had led to Cnut becoming sole King of England in 1016, the kingdom having been partitioned after the decisive Danish victory at Assandun.

Playing the game "which is the biggest city in China I've never heard of" I get

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foshan

9.5m

Though it does seem to be contiguous with others, so not sure it really counts.

I’ve been to Foshan. Not far from Hong Kong. Not remarkable.

Xi’an for me. Never heard of it.

You've probably heard of the Terracotta Warriors though, which come from there. Which isn't just a random fact. Xi'an was the first capital of a unified China. Xi'an was also the capital during the Tang dynasty and as such was the eastern end of the Silk Road.

It is now a provincial capital and regional centre for North East China.

I have the equivalent problem of large cities I haven't heard of in India.

Yes me too. I was aware of all the usual ones in India like Delhi, Bombay, Madras, and Calcutta but all these new ones seem to have sprung up like Mumbai, Chennai, Kolkata which seem to be every bit as large and important.

Naughty, but funny.

What a chump Redwood is. No awareness at all that the period of Norman subjugation, as he would put it, was the furnace from which English would emerge as the language that would go on to conquer the world. Prior to the Conquest, 'we' spoke Old English, with all the complexity of other European languages - three genders, a complex set of inflections and endings, a whole stack of now unfamiliar letters.

While the Normans were running everything and churning out their documents in Latin and Norman french, our ancestors were turning Old English into Middle English - one of the most dramatic linguistic transformations of history. Spoken by ordinary folk and rarely written down, out went the genders and most of the inflections and endings, with propositions and a more rigid word order used to convey tense and subject/object. The dialect in the linguistic driving seat shifted from Wessex to the more populous and prosperous East Midlands, enabling a synthesis of English and Norse syntax. Through some process not fully understood, the most straightforward elements of English and Norse were melded a new language, which also took in a batch of Latin derived words from French. After a few hundred years, when writing stuff down in the way that ordinary folk spoke, our proto-super-language was born.

Had we not invented printing at just the time when, for reasons not fully understood, we changed the pronunciation of all of our vowels, such that the pronunciation of English became separated from its spelling, English would have been so obviously superior that no-one would ever have bothered to invent Esperanto.

I think the Norman Conquest was beneficial in the long run, for this country, but pretty awful for the people (those North of the Humber at any rate), that had to live through it. In that respect, it resembles the downfall of the Western Roman empire.

1066 and all that was definitive. The Norman conquest was a good thing because it helped England become top dog.

But England was pretty well off before 1066. It could well have become top dog anyway.

As described on The Rest Is History, England was fabulously wealthy pre 1066. This is one of the reasons it was so attractive to try to get the crown.

Not just wealthy, but the administration to extract wealth from it was pretty decent for the time?

What a chump Redwood is. No awareness at all that the period of Norman subjugation, as he would put it, was the furnace from which English would emerge as the language that would go on to conquer the world. Prior to the Conquest, 'we' spoke Old English, with all the complexity of other European languages - three genders, a complex set of inflections and endings, a whole stack of now unfamiliar letters.

While the Normans were running everything and churning out their documents in Latin and Norman french, our ancestors were turning Old English into Middle English - one of the most dramatic linguistic transformations of history. Spoken by ordinary folk and rarely written down, out went the genders and most of the inflections and endings, with propositions and a more rigid word order used to convey tense and subject/object. The dialect in the linguistic driving seat shifted from Wessex to the more populous and prosperous East Midlands, enabling a synthesis of English and Norse syntax. Through some process not fully understood, the most straightforward elements of English and Norse were melded a new language, which also took in a batch of Latin derived words from French. After a few hundred years, when writing stuff down in the way that ordinary folk spoke, our proto-super-language was born.

Had we not invented printing at just the time when, for reasons not fully understood, we changed the pronunciation of all of our vowels, such that the pronunciation of English became separated from its spelling, English would have been so obviously superior that no-one would ever have bothered to invent Esperanto.

I think the Norman Conquest was beneficial in the long run, for this country, but pretty awful for the people (those North of the Humber at any rate), that had to live through it. In that respect, it resembles the downfall of the Western Roman empire.

1066 and all that was definitive. The Norman conquest was a good thing because it helped England become top dog.

But England was pretty well off before 1066. It could well have become top dog anyway.

I seem to recall that at the time it was effectively the richest kingdom in Europe due to a very efficient tax system and therefore irresistible to Duc Guillaume so Anglo Saxon England was really a victim of its own success.

Would have been more interesting if England had remained part of the Danish Kingdom after Cnut and whether it would have made a Scandinavian kingdom develop as the most powerful region of Europe with its potential for control of sea routes and trade across the whole of the North of Europe from the Baltic to the Atlantic.

Yes, English silver was the main currency - we were still using it to pay the Danegeld. There was a thriving wool trade with Flanders whose ruler's sister was married to William of Normandy.

William had the Papal blessing and was able to bring over a force of knights with promises of riches in England which weren't available in France.

As England had avoided wars during Edward the Confessor's reign, a generation of peace had built up a strong and thriving agricultural economy with abundant food supplies - all in all, it must have looked very attractive to the Norman invaders.

Edward the Confessor was Harthacnut's half brother - they had the same mother, Emma of Normandy. Magnus the Good, who was both King of Denmark and of Norway briefly could have tried to take England by force and threatened to do so but never did. Even if he had, it's likely that after his death in 1047, the throne would have reverted - assuming Edward lived, to him, if not, perhaps Godwin's eldest son, Sweyn, would have ruled until his death in 1052 leaving Harold Godwinson to become Harold II somewhat earlier and with a much stronger claim so no Norman invasion in 1066.

Today's Times, page 6.

"Britain "cannot afford the array of promises it has made to the public", the budget watchdog has concluded in a stark warning that the country has been living beyond its means".

That's true of all developed world countries.

The combination of rising life expectancy, promised pensions, increasingly expensive healthcare, and low birthrates is absolutely toxic for the sustainability of developed world government finances.

Not looking likely for the penny to drop any time soon when we look at today's polling on the Triple Lock.



https://bsky.app/profile/yougov.co.uk/post/3ltk4bjssnk22

Well I am over 65 and in the 1% group who would certainly abolish the triple lock. I wonder what % of PB posters and readers are over 65 and also believe the triple lock should certainly go. I guess it is well over 1% of them. Are we too altruistic, or just too well off? Or both.

Neither. Just very untypical of real people.

I post from Alpha Centauri, so, asking for a friend, what is the difference between 'people' and 'real people'. And which sort is Leon?

Fun fact: from Alpha Centauri, our sun would appear as a first magnitude star in Cassiopeia, extending the distinctive "W" pattern into a "W plus a bit more".

So it does. I never noticed.