Cannot find it but someone on here once said as a reply to me that Boomers deserved generous pensions due to their suffering in WW2.
When it was pointed out that Boomers weren't alive in the war they doubled down and said they deserved the pension due to the mental anguish of maybe and Uncle dying in the war
You'd need to be about 80 at least today for that to even begin to be possible - born 1942. But where does anyone get a pension or compensation for an event that happened when one was about 3, unless it was the actual loss of a parent?
BigG has a honourable mention for the V-2 strike near his home in Manchester, but I think he was quite small at the time. Nor has he defended the triple lock in the current circs, either.
I was in the school playground when, high above us and a bit to the North, the tail light on a 'doodlebug' went out, meaning it was about to crash. We were all rushed into the shelters.
Does that count?
JackW is still traumatised by the Napoleonic war. He deserves a few extra shillings.
I imagine he will never forget those seaforts being constructed in the Solent.
As an American I want to apologize for Megan Markle. She doesn't seem to be able to get along with anyone, except her poor husband. And I can't help wondering whether the person who introduced the two wasn't acting on a Russian (or Chinese) suggestion. Yes, that's improbable, but the chances that she would cause problems for the monarchy should have been obviously high.
(What should Elizabeth and Charles have done? Well, this is hindsight, but I think they should have found a job for Harry in Scotland, and hope that some Scottish lass would be willing to sacrifice for her nation, by taking him on.)
Speaking of Singapore grip & etc, perhaps fact that The Firm has suffered/facilitated TWO very similar royal family feuds, both centered around alluring but problematic American divas, might just be indicative of that problem is NOT just matter of individuals, but also systemic?
Actually THREE feuds if you count Charles v Diana, which is of course at the heart of current discombobulation, as well as strongly connected to the first.
Republicans' biggest problem in this country is that they just seem weird and obssessive to most people.
That's what they used to say about Brexiteers back in the day, when Alan Sked led UKIP.
We were in the EEC/EU for 46 years, we have had a monarchy for over 1000 years except 10 years from 1649-1659
"we"? Who's this ****ing We?
99 years, please.
Scotland has had a monarchy for over 1000 years too, united with England's in 1603, NI via Ireland has had the English monarch as its head of state since 1542 and before that the English monarch held the Lordship of Ireland since 1171. Wales has had the English monarch as its head of state since 1284
I am on way back north, my meeting in the Bucks countryside being over (very close to Chequers as it happens), having driven down this morning. I am having the largest strongest coffee I can stomach and find that Sir Keir has laid down the gauntlet. Good for him!
Those Covid lockdown rules are having a hell of an after-life.
I assume nothing else has happened - like Putin declaring war on us or anything.
I am currently listening to Mary Beard read her book "Twelve Caesars". I thought it would tell me about the Roman Emperors and what they did. But no. It's all about how they've been portrayed in art. At best it could have amounted to a 30 minute podcast. Instead of which it is endless chapter after endless chapter saying that
1. Suetonius made up a lot of what he wrote. 2. No-one really knows what Julius Caesar or others looked like. 3. Artists made it up. 4. Aristocrats liked having busts of them in their house. 5. Er .... that's it.
In TWELVE chapters. I don't think I've ever listened to anything so long and learned so little. In fact most of the time a I have no idea what she is talking about - it's like having a bath of warm words with occasional bubbles of names I recognise - Titian, Mantua, Charles 1st, Caligula etc.
My admiration for my daughter who did a classics degree has increased significantly if this is what her lectures were like.
That's a shame, as it's literally the next book on my reading pile (though I go in knowing it is about imagery).
I could see a little of that party pooping tendency in her book SPQR, when talking about ancient battles and essentially going 'Things would have been far too chaotic for people to really know what was going on, so most of the detail we hear about, say, Cannae, is probably wrong' without really offering up any insight about that. I did enjoy the parts pointing out how the Roman foundational myths are really quite unusual in some ways (an unnecessary twin, outsides and outcasts founding the place etc)
For those who have not seen it (and who care about the relative merits of Greece vs Rome) here is Mary Beard in a 90-minute debate against Boris Johnson. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k448JqQyj8
Doesn't seem like a fair fight, one the face of it. She generally knows what she's talking about.
An academic expert in their field vs a former journalist and MP who did classics at univeristy 30 years before and likes it is presumably designed as an entertainment event not an even intellectual contest.
But did he win?
Johnson has also had books published about Rome and presented TV shows on the subject.
Erich von Daniken also had books published about ancient history. Dunno about TV, mind.
Apparently he is still alive - and probably very happy about how much TV and movie material seems inspired by or influenced by his ideals. People love ancient astronaut theory.
I remember Paul Merton joking about how the answer was always No to Erich's questions.
Could this be a UFO from the 12th century? No
Could this be a landing platform for an alien scacecraft? No
Could this... "No, no no"
He seems very happy when he's on Ancient Allens. Given the US are paying to study UAPs and have conceded one possibility is they are of non terrestrial origin then its no leap at all to their having been visiting since human records exist. The possibility of human interaction with aliens is somewhat beyond cheesy 'and finally' stories about stereotypical yokels in backwoods America now
Whether aliens have interacted with ancient humans or not, and that would be awesome, wild extrapolation about connections and development of ancient cultures based on very open to intepretation images and the like, does not speak to the worthiness of the idea.
If they are open to interpretation, interpreting them in support of your theory seems apposite. Like any theory, one can then look elsewhere to support, or debunk. If your belief is ancient contact with aliens, in the absence of time travel interpreting ancient text etc that may support your idea is your only option
I think we will find out lots about the immense contribution made by Queen Elizabeth II in the future.
Like: she was almost singlehandedly responsible for the successful transition from the Empire to the Commonwealth and personally for preserving well over a dozen Commonwealth Realms into the 21st Century. She also gave a huge boost to the projection of British soft power on the European, US and global stage through the respect and admiration she commanded.
Never let it be said that monarchs are 'just' figureheads.
Given the number of places that clearly want to be Republics yet are holding off (apparently not presently willing to follow Barbados in this) there must be some personal element involved.
Many things, people or actions are symbolic - but symbols have power.
Do we know they want to be republics? Surely if they wanted it that much they would now be republics?
Anyway, republics are shit and boring. You either have a political and divisive President (France /USA) or one that no-one ever hears about or knows (Ireland/Germany).
Monarchs are better but there are rules you have to play by. They fall when their egos get the better of them, as ours would have done post WWII during the Attlee administration had Edward VIII not abdicated.
Looking at the list of realms ruled by Glorious Britain, sorry, voluntary members of the regnal Commonwealth, they are:
“Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu.”
Of those I’d say Oz, Jamaica and Belize are the most likely to go, first. But there is a question mark over all of them. For Oz it’s just an arse-ache - why bother if you are such a successful country, and this is source of stability? - for the other two it’s the opposite. Do you really need the extra INstability?
I think it's only been me and you on here who've, consistently, argued for the monarchy. Perhaps backed by a handful of others.
As you rightly said: most pb.com posters are number nerds who are somewhat on the spectrum and simply don't 'get' the powerful emotional reasonance and symbolism of the monarchy, nor why it's so valuable.
When we're talking about matters of emotional resonance, the people disagreeing with you aren't "not getting it". They just disagree. But to imply that their subjective view is the result of a diagnosable condition is way off. Come on.
Republicanism is heavily overrepresented on here compared to the population at large.
That is the reason, together with some misplaced sense of intellectual superiority.
Have you ever wondered if the support for the monarchy is in fact support QEII and that sad day when she passes on the support for the monarchy will evaporate?
Even Charles now has a net favourable rating of +27%, William of +67%, almost the same as the Queen's +71%.
The British monarchy has with the exception of the Protectorate lasted for a 1000 years in England, Scotland and then the UK with monarchs coming and going. The Queen has been a good one but her loss after a long reign will be no different to Victoria's after a long 64 year reign and then the Prince of Wales proved a better than expected monarch as Edward VIIth for his relatively short 9 year reign https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2021/12/02/public-opinion-prince-charles-improves-latest-roya
There’s a strong argument when Liz, sadly, moves on that they should skip a generation to help make the monarchy more relevant to diverse, dynamic, modern Britain.
King William.
People have been saying that literally for decades, I don't think it is that strong of an argument at this point. A balding 40 year old may be closer to the average person in the country but is not that much more relevant. Especially as part of Will's appeal seems to be he is personally boring, like his grandmother - a steady hand.
You can't skip a generation in an hereditary monarchy.
Takes a bit of effort, but people have managed to keep a monarchy young and fresh. We're probably not up for strangling people upon their majority though.
Ah, yes, I was kinda assuming that wouldn't be appropriate in the modern case.
Who sez that the younger royals are neither use nor ornament? Bit miffed that BJ & co think Scotland is so much in the bag that they don't need to send the duchess to live in Edinburgh.
The Northern Ireland Secretary has already ruled out granting a border poll and Unionist parties still won more seats than Nationalist parties at Stormont even if SF came first
If the sectarians insist on spitting their orange dummies out, why not isolate them and appoint Naomi Long as Deputy First Minister?
Cannot find it but someone on here once said as a reply to me that Boomers deserved generous pensions due to their suffering in WW2.
When it was pointed out that Boomers weren't alive in the war they doubled down and said they deserved the pension due to the mental anguish of maybe and Uncle dying in the war
My parents experienced rationing. I know this because they tell me at least once a week.
Used to have to take my ration book to Scout camp.
I never knew ration books were allowed to be Scouts!
Boy Scouts, at the time. PBpedantry.
Sea Scouts, to be strictly accurate. To be fair there wasn't a lot which was still on ration by then. Chocolate was!
Was this the rule at camp? - One hand for the ship, and one for yourself!
I think we will find out lots about the immense contribution made by Queen Elizabeth II in the future.
Like: she was almost singlehandedly responsible for the successful transition from the Empire to the Commonwealth and personally for preserving well over a dozen Commonwealth Realms into the 21st Century. She also gave a huge boost to the projection of British soft power on the European, US and global stage through the respect and admiration she commanded.
Never let it be said that monarchs are 'just' figureheads.
Given the number of places that clearly want to be Republics yet are holding off (apparently not presently willing to follow Barbados in this) there must be some personal element involved.
Many things, people or actions are symbolic - but symbols have power.
Do we know they want to be republics? Surely if they wanted it that much they would now be republics?
Anyway, republics are shit and boring. You either have a political and divisive President (France /USA) or one that no-one ever hears about or knows (Ireland/Germany).
Monarchs are better but there are rules you have to play by. They fall when their egos get the better of them, as ours would have done post WWII during the Attlee administration had Edward VIII not abdicated.
Looking at the list of realms ruled by Glorious Britain, sorry, voluntary members of the regnal Commonwealth, they are:
“Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu.”
Of those I’d say Oz, Jamaica and Belize are the most likely to go, first. But there is a question mark over all of them. For Oz it’s just an arse-ache - why bother if you are such a successful country, and this is source of stability? - for the other two it’s the opposite. Do you really need the extra INstability?
I think it's only been me and you on here who've, consistently, argued for the monarchy. Perhaps backed by a handful of others.
As you rightly said: most pb.com posters are number nerds who are somewhat on the spectrum and simply don't 'get' the powerful emotional reasonance and symbolism of the monarchy, nor why it's so valuable.
When we're talking about matters of emotional resonance, the people disagreeing with you aren't "not getting it". They just disagree. But to imply that their subjective view is the result of a diagnosable condition is way off. Come on.
Republicanism is heavily overrepresented on here compared to the population at large.
That is the reason, together with some misplaced sense of intellectual superiority.
You've just ticked off another poster for pomposity and now you're telling me my republicanism is a symptom of my autism?
Yep.
You have no fucking idea you arrogant little twit.
Who sez that the younger royals are neither use nor ornament? Bit miffed that BJ & co think Scotland is so much in the bag that they don't need to send the duchess to live in Edinburgh.
The Northern Ireland Secretary has already ruled out granting a border poll and Unionist parties still won more seats than Nationalist parties at Stormont even if SF came first
If the sectarians insist on spitting their orange dummies out, why not isolate them and appoint Naomi Long as Deputy First Minister?
As the leader of the biggest Unionist party has to be FM or DFM of NI under the GFA and Long is not a Unionist but non sectarian. Plus the DUP came second, not the Alliance
Who sez that the younger royals are neither use nor ornament? Bit miffed that BJ & co think Scotland is so much in the bag that they don't need to send the duchess to live in Edinburgh.
So many questions about that photo, and also surely they should have a spare title for NI and go as the Mcgillycuddies of Armagh or sinilar?
You're much more au fait with that kind of thing than me but is that St Kilda?
Republicans' biggest problem in this country is that they just seem weird and obssessive to most people.
That's what they used to say about Brexiteers back in the day, when Alan Sked led UKIP.
We were in the EEC/EU for 46 years, we have had a monarchy for over 1000 years except 10 years from 1649-1659
"we"? Who's this ****ing We?
99 years, please.
Scotland has had a monarchy for over 1000 years too, united with England's in 1603, NI via Ireland has had the English monarch as its head of state since 1542 and before that the English monarch held the Lordship of Ireland since 1171. Wales has had the English monarch as its head of state since 1284
But the current state and monarchy have only existed since the departure of the RoI in 1923 (and arguably later, as it was some time before Eire cut all links). Else you could count all the way back to the King of Amesbury or whatever in 5000 BCE.
I am on way back north, my meeting in the Bucks countryside being over (very close to Chequers as it happens), having driven down this morning. I am having the largest strongest coffee I can stomach and find that Sir Keir has laid down the gauntlet. Good for him!
Those Covid lockdown rules are having a hell of an after-life.
I assume nothing else has happened - like Putin declaring war on us or anything.
I am currently listening to Mary Beard read her book "Twelve Caesars". I thought it would tell me about the Roman Emperors and what they did. But no. It's all about how they've been portrayed in art. At best it could have amounted to a 30 minute podcast. Instead of which it is endless chapter after endless chapter saying that
1. Suetonius made up a lot of what he wrote. 2. No-one really knows what Julius Caesar or others looked like. 3. Artists made it up. 4. Aristocrats liked having busts of them in their house. 5. Er .... that's it.
In TWELVE chapters. I don't think I've ever listened to anything so long and learned so little. In fact most of the time a I have no idea what she is talking about - it's like having a bath of warm words with occasional bubbles of names I recognise - Titian, Mantua, Charles 1st, Caligula etc.
My admiration for my daughter who did a classics degree has increased significantly if this is what her lectures were like.
That's a shame, as it's literally the next book on my reading pile (though I go in knowing it is about imagery).
I could see a little of that party pooping tendency in her book SPQR, when talking about ancient battles and essentially going 'Things would have been far too chaotic for people to really know what was going on, so most of the detail we hear about, say, Cannae, is probably wrong' without really offering up any insight about that. I did enjoy the parts pointing out how the Roman foundational myths are really quite unusual in some ways (an unnecessary twin, outsides and outcasts founding the place etc)
For those who have not seen it (and who care about the relative merits of Greece vs Rome) here is Mary Beard in a 90-minute debate against Boris Johnson. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k448JqQyj8
Doesn't seem like a fair fight, one the face of it. She generally knows what she's talking about.
An academic expert in their field vs a former journalist and MP who did classics at univeristy 30 years before and likes it is presumably designed as an entertainment event not an even intellectual contest.
But did he win?
Johnson has also had books published about Rome and presented TV shows on the subject.
Erich von Daniken also had books published about ancient history. Dunno about TV, mind.
Apparently he is still alive - and probably very happy about how much TV and movie material seems inspired by or influenced by his ideals. People love ancient astronaut theory.
I remember Paul Merton joking about how the answer was always No to Erich's questions.
Could this be a UFO from the 12th century? No
Could this be a landing platform for an alien scacecraft? No
Could this... "No, no no"
He seems very happy when he's on Ancient Allens. Given the US are paying to study UAPs and have conceded one possibility is they are of non terrestrial origin then its no leap at all to their having been visiting since human records exist. The possibility of human interaction with aliens is somewhat beyond cheesy 'and finally' stories about stereotypical yokels in backwoods America now
Not only is it not a leap, but it would be far more plausible that if UAPs are ET origin, that they have been here for a very long time rather than pitching up only recently. Unless you think nuke testing is some special intergalactic marker at a quantum level and the speed of light has been conquered, allowing them to get here toute de suite after 1945.
Ergo, if UAPs are indeed non terrestrial, then the thrust of the ancient aliens theory is probably right, if not of course the finer detail about Pharaohs being aliens or whatever it was. A self replicating autonomous Von Neumann probe might have been indifferently monitoring Earth since time immemorial. Not intervening but quietly cataloguing, feeding back info to a central hub on behalf of a civilisation long ago lost to time.
Republicans' biggest problem in this country is that they just seem weird and obssessive to most people.
That's what they used to say about Brexiteers back in the day, when Alan Sked led UKIP.
We were in the EEC/EU for 46 years, we have had a monarchy for over 1000 years except 10 years from 1649-1659
"we"? Who's this ****ing We?
99 years, please.
Scotland has had a monarchy for over 1000 years too, united with England's in 1603, NI via Ireland has had the English monarch as its head of state since 1542 and before that the English monarch held the Lordship of Ireland since 1171. Wales has had the English monarch as its head of state since 1284
But the current state and monarchy have only existed since the departure of the RoI in 1923 (and arguably later, as it was some time before Eire cut all links). Else you could count all the way back to the King of Amesbury or whatever in 5000 BCE.
George Vth was head of State of NI before 1923 and after 1923, in fact the UK monarch also continued as head of state of the Irish Free State too until 1948
As someone who has grown up in a republic, I can make this point: Constitutional monarchies are often stable democracies. I don't know whether that is a historical accident, though I recall reading, many years ago, that some students of comparative politics thought there were reasons for it, such as making it easier, psychologically, to make reforms, when needed.
Who sez that the younger royals are neither use nor ornament? Bit miffed that BJ & co think Scotland is so much in the bag that they don't need to send the duchess to live in Edinburgh.
The Northern Ireland Secretary has already ruled out granting a border poll and Unionist parties still won more seats than Nationalist parties at Stormont even if SF came first
If the sectarians insist on spitting their orange dummies out, why not isolate them and appoint Naomi Long as Deputy First Minister?
As the leader of the biggest Unionist party has to be FM or DFM of NI under the GFA and Long is not a Unionist but non sectarian. Plus the DUP came second, not the Alliance
That was agreed when NI only had sectarian parties. Now that there is a non sectarian alternative, why should they always be excluded from being FM or DFM?
Who sez that the younger royals are neither use nor ornament? Bit miffed that BJ & co think Scotland is so much in the bag that they don't need to send the duchess to live in Edinburgh.
So many questions about that photo, and also surely they should have a spare title for NI and go as the Mcgillycuddies of Armagh or sinilar?
You're much more au fait with that kind of thing than me but is that St Kilda?
Who sez that the younger royals are neither use nor ornament? Bit miffed that BJ & co think Scotland is so much in the bag that they don't need to send the duchess to live in Edinburgh.
The Northern Ireland Secretary has already ruled out granting a border poll and Unionist parties still won more seats than Nationalist parties at Stormont even if SF came first
If the sectarians insist on spitting their orange dummies out, why not isolate them and appoint Naomi Long as Deputy First Minister?
As the leader of the biggest Unionist party has to be FM or DFM of NI under the GFA and Long is not a Unionist but non sectarian. Plus the DUP came second, not the Alliance
Who sez that the younger royals are neither use nor ornament? Bit miffed that BJ & co think Scotland is so much in the bag that they don't need to send the duchess to live in Edinburgh.
So many questions about that photo, and also surely they should have a spare title for NI and go as the Mcgillycuddies of Armagh or sinilar?
You're much more au fait with that kind of thing than me but is that St Kilda?
It's amazingly similar - and the weather can also be very Caribbean there. Occasionally. Looked as if they were dressed up to see the Army detachment there in Village Bay on Hirta.
Who sez that the younger royals are neither use nor ornament? Bit miffed that BJ & co think Scotland is so much in the bag that they don't need to send the duchess to live in Edinburgh.
The Northern Ireland Secretary has already ruled out granting a border poll and Unionist parties still won more seats than Nationalist parties at Stormont even if SF came first
If the sectarians insist on spitting their orange dummies out, why not isolate them and appoint Naomi Long as Deputy First Minister?
As the leader of the biggest Unionist party has to be FM or DFM of NI under the GFA and Long is not a Unionist but non sectarian. Plus the DUP came second, not the Alliance
That was agreed when NI only had sectarian parties. Now that there is a non sectarian alternative, why should they always be excluded from being FM or DFM?
Because reasons to do with the right wing always being right, so to speak.
I am on way back north, my meeting in the Bucks countryside being over (very close to Chequers as it happens), having driven down this morning. I am having the largest strongest coffee I can stomach and find that Sir Keir has laid down the gauntlet. Good for him!
Those Covid lockdown rules are having a hell of an after-life.
I assume nothing else has happened - like Putin declaring war on us or anything.
I am currently listening to Mary Beard read her book "Twelve Caesars". I thought it would tell me about the Roman Emperors and what they did. But no. It's all about how they've been portrayed in art. At best it could have amounted to a 30 minute podcast. Instead of which it is endless chapter after endless chapter saying that
1. Suetonius made up a lot of what he wrote. 2. No-one really knows what Julius Caesar or others looked like. 3. Artists made it up. 4. Aristocrats liked having busts of them in their house. 5. Er .... that's it.
In TWELVE chapters. I don't think I've ever listened to anything so long and learned so little. In fact most of the time a I have no idea what she is talking about - it's like having a bath of warm words with occasional bubbles of names I recognise - Titian, Mantua, Charles 1st, Caligula etc.
My admiration for my daughter who did a classics degree has increased significantly if this is what her lectures were like.
That's a shame, as it's literally the next book on my reading pile (though I go in knowing it is about imagery).
I could see a little of that party pooping tendency in her book SPQR, when talking about ancient battles and essentially going 'Things would have been far too chaotic for people to really know what was going on, so most of the detail we hear about, say, Cannae, is probably wrong' without really offering up any insight about that. I did enjoy the parts pointing out how the Roman foundational myths are really quite unusual in some ways (an unnecessary twin, outsides and outcasts founding the place etc)
For those who have not seen it (and who care about the relative merits of Greece vs Rome) here is Mary Beard in a 90-minute debate against Boris Johnson. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k448JqQyj8
Doesn't seem like a fair fight, one the face of it. She generally knows what she's talking about.
An academic expert in their field vs a former journalist and MP who did classics at univeristy 30 years before and likes it is presumably designed as an entertainment event not an even intellectual contest.
But did he win?
Johnson has also had books published about Rome and presented TV shows on the subject.
Erich von Daniken also had books published about ancient history. Dunno about TV, mind.
Apparently he is still alive - and probably very happy about how much TV and movie material seems inspired by or influenced by his ideals. People love ancient astronaut theory.
I remember Paul Merton joking about how the answer was always No to Erich's questions.
Could this be a UFO from the 12th century? No
Could this be a landing platform for an alien scacecraft? No
Could this... "No, no no"
He seems very happy when he's on Ancient Allens. Given the US are paying to study UAPs and have conceded one possibility is they are of non terrestrial origin then its no leap at all to their having been visiting since human records exist. The possibility of human interaction with aliens is somewhat beyond cheesy 'and finally' stories about stereotypical yokels in backwoods America now
Not only is it not a leap, but it would be far more plausible that if UAPs are ET origin, that they have been here for a very long time rather than pitching up only recently. Unless you think nuke testing is some special intergalactic marker at a quantum level and the speed of light has been conquered, allowing them to get here toute de suite after 1945.
Ergo, if UAPs are indeed non terrestrial, then the thrust of the ancient aliens theory is probably right, if not of course the finer detail about Pharaohs being aliens or whatever it was. A self replicating autonomous Von Neumann probe might have been indifferently monitoring Earth since time immemorial. Not intervening but quietly cataloguing, feeding back info to a central hub on behalf of a civilisation long ago lost to time.
It's very much all in or not at all, yes. Although speed of light isn't really an issue, I'd imagine any interstellar travel isn't done by actually traversing the empty space between two star systems.
Who sez that the younger royals are neither use nor ornament? Bit miffed that BJ & co think Scotland is so much in the bag that they don't need to send the duchess to live in Edinburgh.
I'm sure Charles can go, being Duke of Edinburgh now.
Duke of Rothesay.
That one too, but he'd had that for 70 years, the Edinburgh one is shiny and new, to provide a reason to renew his relationship with the country etc etc.
Merge the two titles and create a super new Scottish title like the Duke of Glasgae.
Duke of Harthill, symbolising that magical point where East meets West in the central belt.
Once worked over in Breich, near Harthill. Mighty grim up there on the moors.
I think we will find out lots about the immense contribution made by Queen Elizabeth II in the future.
Like: she was almost singlehandedly responsible for the successful transition from the Empire to the Commonwealth and personally for preserving well over a dozen Commonwealth Realms into the 21st Century. She also gave a huge boost to the projection of British soft power on the European, US and global stage through the respect and admiration she commanded.
Never let it be said that monarchs are 'just' figureheads.
Given the number of places that clearly want to be Republics yet are holding off (apparently not presently willing to follow Barbados in this) there must be some personal element involved.
Many things, people or actions are symbolic - but symbols have power.
Do we know they want to be republics? Surely if they wanted it that much they would now be republics?
Anyway, republics are shit and boring. You either have a political and divisive President (France /USA) or one that no-one ever hears about or knows (Ireland/Germany).
Monarchs are better but there are rules you have to play by. They fall when their egos get the better of them, as ours would have done post WWII during the Attlee administration had Edward VIII not abdicated.
Looking at the list of realms ruled by Glorious Britain, sorry, voluntary members of the regnal Commonwealth, they are:
“Antigua and Barbuda, Australia, Bahamas, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu.”
Of those I’d say Oz, Jamaica and Belize are the most likely to go, first. But there is a question mark over all of them. For Oz it’s just an arse-ache - why bother if you are such a successful country, and this is source of stability? - for the other two it’s the opposite. Do you really need the extra INstability?
I think it's only been me and you on here who've, consistently, argued for the monarchy. Perhaps backed by a handful of others.
As you rightly said: most pb.com posters are number nerds who are somewhat on the spectrum and simply don't 'get' the powerful emotional reasonance and symbolism of the monarchy, nor why it's so valuable.
When we're talking about matters of emotional resonance, the people disagreeing with you aren't "not getting it". They just disagree. But to imply that their subjective view is the result of a diagnosable condition is way off. Come on.
Republicanism is heavily overrepresented on here compared to the population at large.
That is the reason, together with some misplaced sense of intellectual superiority.
You've just ticked off another poster for pomposity and now you're telling me my republicanism is a symptom of my autism?
Yep.
You have no fucking idea you arrogant little twit.
Speaking as someone with diagnosed autism, I'd say you were 100% spot on.
But please don't judge him on just the one post. For the full picture you need to see the immortal Barbour and labradors, or was it Barbours and labrador, claim. I'll see if I can dig it out.
Cannot find it but someone on here once said as a reply to me that Boomers deserved generous pensions due to their suffering in WW2.
When it was pointed out that Boomers weren't alive in the war they doubled down and said they deserved the pension due to the mental anguish of maybe and Uncle dying in the war
You'd need to be about 80 at least today for that to even begin to be possible - born 1942. But where does anyone get a pension or compensation for an event that happened when one was about 3, unless it was the actual loss of a parent?
BigG has a honourable mention for the V-2 strike near his home in Manchester, but I think he was quite small at the time. Nor has he defended the triple lock in the current circs, either.
I was in the school playground when, high above us and a bit to the North, the tail light on a 'doodlebug' went out, meaning it was about to crash. We were all rushed into the shelters.
Does that count?
JackW is still traumatised by the Napoleonic war. He deserves a few extra shillings.
I imagine he will never forget those seaforts being constructed in the Solent.
Republicans' biggest problem in this country is that they just seem weird and obssessive to most people.
That's what they used to say about Brexiteers back in the day, when Alan Sked led UKIP.
We were in the EEC/EU for 46 years, we have had a monarchy for over 1000 years except 10 years from 1649-1659
"we"? Who's this ****ing We?
99 years, please.
Scotland has had a monarchy for over 1000 years too, united with England's in 1603, NI via Ireland has had the English monarch as its head of state since 1542 and before that the English monarch held the Lordship of Ireland since 1171. Wales has had the English monarch as its head of state since 1284
But the current state and monarchy have only existed since the departure of the RoI in 1923 (and arguably later, as it was some time before Eire cut all links). Else you could count all the way back to the King of Amesbury or whatever in 5000 BCE.
George Vth was head of State of NI before 1923 and after 1923, in fact the UK monarch also continued as head of state of the Irish Free State too until 1948
Excellent, that.s very helpful. We can refine the age of the current UK monarchy to 76 years, give or take the odd few months. l do like precision. (And we'll ignore the annexation of Sgeir Rocail.)
Republicans' biggest problem in this country is that they just seem weird and obssessive to most people.
That's what they used to say about Brexiteers back in the day, when Alan Sked led UKIP.
We were in the EEC/EU for 46 years, we have had a monarchy for over 1000 years except 10 years from 1649-1659
"we"? Who's this ****ing We?
99 years, please.
Scotland has had a monarchy for over 1000 years too, united with England's in 1603, NI via Ireland has had the English monarch as its head of state since 1542 and before that the English monarch held the Lordship of Ireland since 1171. Wales has had the English monarch as its head of state since 1284
But the current state and monarchy have only existed since the departure of the RoI in 1923 (and arguably later, as it was some time before Eire cut all links). Else you could count all the way back to the King of Amesbury or whatever in 5000 BCE.
George Vth was head of State of NI before 1923 and after 1923, in fact the UK monarch also continued as head of state of the Irish Free State too until 1948
Excellent, that.s very helpful. We can refine the age of the current UK monarchy to 76 years, give or take the odd few months. l do like precision. (And we'll ignore the annexation of Sgeir Rocail.)
No, as the UK monarch was head of state of NI when it was part of Ireland for centuries before that too
Who sez that the younger royals are neither use nor ornament? Bit miffed that BJ & co think Scotland is so much in the bag that they don't need to send the duchess to live in Edinburgh.
The Northern Ireland Secretary has already ruled out granting a border poll and Unionist parties still won more seats than Nationalist parties at Stormont even if SF came first
If the sectarians insist on spitting their orange dummies out, why not isolate them and appoint Naomi Long as Deputy First Minister?
As the leader of the biggest Unionist party has to be FM or DFM of NI under the GFA and Long is not a Unionist but non sectarian. Plus the DUP came second, not the Alliance
That was agreed when NI only had sectarian parties. Now that there is a non sectarian alternative, why should they always be excluded from being FM or DFM?
Well for starters as they still fail to come first or second. If they ever do then there might be a case for reconsideration but for now they are 3rd
As someone who has grown up in a republic, I can make this point: Constitutional monarchies are often stable democracies. I don't know whether that is a historical accident, though I recall reading, many years ago, that some students of comparative politics thought there were reasons for it, such as making it easier, psychologically, to make reforms, when needed.
Provides for a Head of State who is non-political.
Look at the alternative, for example America, where the head of state and the chief of the executive/head of cabinet is combined. POTUS has become such a divisive and political office it is unbelievable.
I am on way back north, my meeting in the Bucks countryside being over (very close to Chequers as it happens), having driven down this morning. I am having the largest strongest coffee I can stomach and find that Sir Keir has laid down the gauntlet. Good for him!
Those Covid lockdown rules are having a hell of an after-life.
I assume nothing else has happened - like Putin declaring war on us or anything.
I am currently listening to Mary Beard read her book "Twelve Caesars". I thought it would tell me about the Roman Emperors and what they did. But no. It's all about how they've been portrayed in art. At best it could have amounted to a 30 minute podcast. Instead of which it is endless chapter after endless chapter saying that
1. Suetonius made up a lot of what he wrote. 2. No-one really knows what Julius Caesar or others looked like. 3. Artists made it up. 4. Aristocrats liked having busts of them in their house. 5. Er .... that's it.
In TWELVE chapters. I don't think I've ever listened to anything so long and learned so little. In fact most of the time a I have no idea what she is talking about - it's like having a bath of warm words with occasional bubbles of names I recognise - Titian, Mantua, Charles 1st, Caligula etc.
My admiration for my daughter who did a classics degree has increased significantly if this is what her lectures were like.
That's a shame, as it's literally the next book on my reading pile (though I go in knowing it is about imagery).
I could see a little of that party pooping tendency in her book SPQR, when talking about ancient battles and essentially going 'Things would have been far too chaotic for people to really know what was going on, so most of the detail we hear about, say, Cannae, is probably wrong' without really offering up any insight about that. I did enjoy the parts pointing out how the Roman foundational myths are really quite unusual in some ways (an unnecessary twin, outsides and outcasts founding the place etc)
For those who have not seen it (and who care about the relative merits of Greece vs Rome) here is Mary Beard in a 90-minute debate against Boris Johnson. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k448JqQyj8
Doesn't seem like a fair fight, one the face of it. She generally knows what she's talking about.
An academic expert in their field vs a former journalist and MP who did classics at univeristy 30 years before and likes it is presumably designed as an entertainment event not an even intellectual contest.
But did he win?
Johnson has also had books published about Rome and presented TV shows on the subject.
Erich von Daniken also had books published about ancient history. Dunno about TV, mind.
Apparently he is still alive - and probably very happy about how much TV and movie material seems inspired by or influenced by his ideals. People love ancient astronaut theory.
I remember Paul Merton joking about how the answer was always No to Erich's questions.
Could this be a UFO from the 12th century? No
Could this be a landing platform for an alien scacecraft? No
Could this... "No, no no"
He seems very happy when he's on Ancient Allens. Given the US are paying to study UAPs and have conceded one possibility is they are of non terrestrial origin then its no leap at all to their having been visiting since human records exist. The possibility of human interaction with aliens is somewhat beyond cheesy 'and finally' stories about stereotypical yokels in backwoods America now
Whether aliens have interacted with ancient humans or not, and that would be awesome, wild extrapolation about connections and development of ancient cultures based on very open to intepretation images and the like, does not speak to the worthiness of the idea.
If they are open to interpretation, interpreting them in support of your theory seems apposite.
Yeah, the plausibility of the interpretation is still relevant. I can interpret a blob on a painting as a UFO, but absent other evidence it is not a very compelling intepretation. Your basically saying all ideas are equally valid, just because.
Who sez that the younger royals are neither use nor ornament? Bit miffed that BJ & co think Scotland is so much in the bag that they don't need to send the duchess to live in Edinburgh.
I'm sure Charles can go, being Duke of Edinburgh now.
Duke of Rothesay.
That one too, but he'd had that for 70 years, the Edinburgh one is shiny and new, to provide a reason to renew his relationship with the country etc etc.
Merge the two titles and create a super new Scottish title like the Duke of Glasgae.
Duke of Harthill, symbolising that magical point where East meets West in the central belt.
Once worked over in Breich, near Harthill. Mighty grim up there on the moors.
Friend of mine went for a teaching job in a school in that area. He drove in, stopped in the car park, reconsidered, and drove straight out again. But then it is the Great Scottish Central Desert of Southron PBTory fame. My granddad was born in that generai airt. Did you meet St John Philby and Wilfred Thesiger, I kept meaning to ask?
Who sez that the younger royals are neither use nor ornament? Bit miffed that BJ & co think Scotland is so much in the bag that they don't need to send the duchess to live in Edinburgh.
So many questions about that photo, and also surely they should have a spare title for NI and go as the Mcgillycuddies of Armagh or sinilar?
You're much more au fait with that kind of thing than me but is that St Kilda?
It's amazingly similar - and the weather can also be very Caribbean there. Occasionally. Looked as if they were dressed up to see the Army detachment there in Village Bay on Hirta.
Sure, an island's an island, and I've had lots of cloudless sky, 75F days in da Hebrides.
Who sez that the younger royals are neither use nor ornament? Bit miffed that BJ & co think Scotland is so much in the bag that they don't need to send the duchess to live in Edinburgh.
The Northern Ireland Secretary has already ruled out granting a border poll and Unionist parties still won more seats than Nationalist parties at Stormont even if SF came first
If the sectarians insist on spitting their orange dummies out, why not isolate them and appoint Naomi Long as Deputy First Minister?
As the leader of the biggest Unionist party has to be FM or DFM of NI under the GFA and Long is not a Unionist but non sectarian. Plus the DUP came second, not the Alliance
Don't suppose UUP or TUV could step in for DUP?
No as they are 4th and 6th and the leader of the largest Unionist party is the one which gets to pick the FM or DFM under the GFA now. Though the TUV would of course boycott the executive with even more vehemence than the DUP until the Irish Sea border is removed
As an American I want to apologize for Megan Markle. She doesn't seem to be able to get along with anyone, except her poor husband. And I can't help wondering whether the person who introduced the two wasn't acting on a Russian (or Chinese) suggestion. Yes, that's improbable, but the chances that she would cause problems for the monarchy should have been obviously high.
(What should Elizabeth and Charles have done? Well, this is hindsight, but I think they should have found a job for Harry in Scotland, and hope that some Scottish lass would be willing to sacrifice for her nation, by taking him on.)
My long-standing proposal is for Harry to become monarch of Scots and his big brother monarch of England. On the pattern of the Norwegian/Danish deal post the successful Norwegian independence referendum. I have never had a single person support the idea.
But the monarch of Denmark wasn't the monarch of the United Kingdoms.
Never said he was.
Post-independence from Sweden, the Norwegians took the younger son of the Danish king - Prince Carl of Denmark - as their monarch. His big brother subsequently became king of Denmark, upon their father’s death.
Republicans' biggest problem in this country is that they just seem weird and obssessive to most people.
That's what they used to say about Brexiteers back in the day, when Alan Sked led UKIP.
We were in the EEC/EU for 46 years, we have had a monarchy for over 1000 years except 10 years from 1649-1659
"we"? Who's this ****ing We?
99 years, please.
Scotland has had a monarchy for over 1000 years too, united with England's in 1603, NI via Ireland has had the English monarch as its head of state since 1542 and before that the English monarch held the Lordship of Ireland since 1171. Wales has had the English monarch as its head of state since 1284
But the current state and monarchy have only existed since the departure of the RoI in 1923 (and arguably later, as it was some time before Eire cut all links). Else you could count all the way back to the King of Amesbury or whatever in 5000 BCE.
George Vth was head of State of NI before 1923 and after 1923, in fact the UK monarch also continued as head of state of the Irish Free State too until 1948
Excellent, that.s very helpful. We can refine the age of the current UK monarchy to 76 years, give or take the odd few months. l do like precision. (And we'll ignore the annexation of Sgeir Rocail.)
No, as the UK monarch was head of state of NI when it was part of Ireland for centuries before that too
NI did not exist till the rebellion of the Unionists! You'll be doing a Neil Oliver next and telling me that the UNited Kingdom existed as a state back in the Jurassic.
Who sez that the younger royals are neither use nor ornament? Bit miffed that BJ & co think Scotland is so much in the bag that they don't need to send the duchess to live in Edinburgh.
The Northern Ireland Secretary has already ruled out granting a border poll and Unionist parties still won more seats than Nationalist parties at Stormont even if SF came first
If the sectarians insist on spitting their orange dummies out, why not isolate them and appoint Naomi Long as Deputy First Minister?
As the leader of the biggest Unionist party has to be FM or DFM of NI under the GFA and Long is not a Unionist but non sectarian. Plus the DUP came second, not the Alliance
That was agreed when NI only had sectarian parties. Now that there is a non sectarian alternative, why should they always be excluded from being FM or DFM?
Which is why the Alliance want the GFA reformed. Then we can have proper coalitions. Like a normal place
Who sez that the younger royals are neither use nor ornament? Bit miffed that BJ & co think Scotland is so much in the bag that they don't need to send the duchess to live in Edinburgh.
So many questions about that photo, and also surely they should have a spare title for NI and go as the Mcgillycuddies of Armagh or sinilar?
You're much more au fait with that kind of thing than me but is that St Kilda?
It's amazingly similar - and the weather can also be very Caribbean there. Occasionally. Looked as if they were dressed up to see the Army detachment there in Village Bay on Hirta.
Sure, an island's an island, and I've had lots of cloudless sky, 75F days in da Hebrides.
Who sez that the younger royals are neither use nor ornament? Bit miffed that BJ & co think Scotland is so much in the bag that they don't need to send the duchess to live in Edinburgh.
The Northern Ireland Secretary has already ruled out granting a border poll and Unionist parties still won more seats than Nationalist parties at Stormont even if SF came first
I'm struggling with this one @HYUFD but I'm not an expert on how it calculated but surely it is as follows although I am not confident I have this right:
Republicans' biggest problem in this country is that they just seem weird and obssessive to most people.
That's what they used to say about Brexiteers back in the day, when Alan Sked led UKIP.
We were in the EEC/EU for 46 years, we have had a monarchy for over 1000 years except 10 years from 1649-1659
"we"? Who's this ****ing We?
99 years, please.
Scotland has had a monarchy for over 1000 years too, united with England's in 1603, NI via Ireland has had the English monarch as its head of state since 1542 and before that the English monarch held the Lordship of Ireland since 1171. Wales has had the English monarch as its head of state since 1284
But the current state and monarchy have only existed since the departure of the RoI in 1923 (and arguably later, as it was some time before Eire cut all links). Else you could count all the way back to the King of Amesbury or whatever in 5000 BCE.
George Vth was head of State of NI before 1923 and after 1923, in fact the UK monarch also continued as head of state of the Irish Free State too until 1948
Excellent, that.s very helpful. We can refine the age of the current UK monarchy to 76 years, give or take the odd few months. l do like precision. (And we'll ignore the annexation of Sgeir Rocail.)
No, as the UK monarch was head of state of NI when it was part of Ireland for centuries before that too
NI did not exist till the rebellion of the Unionists! You'll be doing a Neil Oliver next and telling me that the UNited Kingdom existed as a state back in the Jurassic.
The UK existed since 1801 and the Kingdom of Britain since 1603 but the English monarch has been head of state in Northern Ireland since the 12th century as I stated
Answering questions from the media, Starmer indicated that he would not necessarily step down if police did not fine him yet said the event may have breached rules.
“The penalty for a Covid breach is a fixed-penalty notice,” he said when asked about that situation. “That’s a matter of law. And I’ve set out what the position is in relation to that.”
Who sez that the younger royals are neither use nor ornament? Bit miffed that BJ & co think Scotland is so much in the bag that they don't need to send the duchess to live in Edinburgh.
The Northern Ireland Secretary has already ruled out granting a border poll and Unionist parties still won more seats than Nationalist parties at Stormont even if SF came first
If the sectarians insist on spitting their orange dummies out, why not isolate them and appoint Naomi Long as Deputy First Minister?
As the leader of the biggest Unionist party has to be FM or DFM of NI under the GFA and Long is not a Unionist but non sectarian. Plus the DUP came second, not the Alliance
That was agreed when NI only had sectarian parties. Now that there is a non sectarian alternative, why should they always be excluded from being FM or DFM?
Which is why the Alliance want the GFA reformed. Then we can have proper coalitions. Like a normal place
This won’t happen unless/until the Alliance come first and indeed can get support from a decently placed UUP and SDLP.
The current system or something close works too well for SF and DUP to be changed.
As an American I want to apologize for Megan Markle. She doesn't seem to be able to get along with anyone, except her poor husband. And I can't help wondering whether the person who introduced the two wasn't acting on a Russian (or Chinese) suggestion. Yes, that's improbable, but the chances that she would cause problems for the monarchy should have been obviously high.
(What should Elizabeth and Charles have done? Well, this is hindsight, but I think they should have found a job for Harry in Scotland, and hope that some Scottish lass would be willing to sacrifice for her nation, by taking him on.)
My long-standing proposal is for Harry to become monarch of Scots and his big brother monarch of England. On the pattern of the Norwegian/Danish deal post the successful Norwegian independence referendum. I have never had a single person support the idea.
I've long suspected that the PR is a sleeper agent slipped nto place by the Royal Family to take over the family business in Scotland come indy. Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Kirk, married in the Kirk not the C of E, and all that.
That ship has sailed (or mare has bolted or something).
Republicans' biggest problem in this country is that they just seem weird and obssessive to most people.
That's what they used to say about Brexiteers back in the day, when Alan Sked led UKIP.
We were in the EEC/EU for 46 years, we have had a monarchy for over 1000 years except 10 years from 1649-1659
"we"? Who's this ****ing We?
99 years, please.
Scotland has had a monarchy for over 1000 years too, united with England's in 1603, NI via Ireland has had the English monarch as its head of state since 1542 and before that the English monarch held the Lordship of Ireland since 1171. Wales has had the English monarch as its head of state since 1284
But the current state and monarchy have only existed since the departure of the RoI in 1923 (and arguably later, as it was some time before Eire cut all links). Else you could count all the way back to the King of Amesbury or whatever in 5000 BCE.
George Vth was head of State of NI before 1923 and after 1923, in fact the UK monarch also continued as head of state of the Irish Free State too until 1948
Excellent, that.s very helpful. We can refine the age of the current UK monarchy to 76 years, give or take the odd few months. l do like precision. (And we'll ignore the annexation of Sgeir Rocail.)
No, as the UK monarch was head of state of NI when it was part of Ireland for centuries before that too
NI did not exist till the rebellion of the Unionists! You'll be doing a Neil Oliver next and telling me that the UNited Kingdom existed as a state back in the Jurassic.
The UK existed since 1801 and the Kingdom of Britain since 1603 but the English monarch has been head of state in Northern Ireland since the 12th century as I stated
As an American I want to apologize for Megan Markle. She doesn't seem to be able to get along with anyone, except her poor husband. And I can't help wondering whether the person who introduced the two wasn't acting on a Russian (or Chinese) suggestion. Yes, that's improbable, but the chances that she would cause problems for the monarchy should have been obviously high.
(What should Elizabeth and Charles have done? Well, this is hindsight, but I think they should have found a job for Harry in Scotland, and hope that some Scottish lass would be willing to sacrifice for her nation, by taking him on.)
My long-standing proposal is for Harry to become monarch of Scots and his big brother monarch of England. On the pattern of the Norwegian/Danish deal post the successful Norwegian independence referendum. I have never had a single person support the idea.
I've long suspected that the PR is a sleeper agent slipped nto place by the Royal Family to take over the family business in Scotland come indy. Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Kirk, married in the Kirk not the C of E, and all that.
That ship has sailed (or mare has bolted or something).
We need a fresh one.
Ms Tindall not do? Wrong sort of rugger bugger husband or something? I had no idea.
Who sez that the younger royals are neither use nor ornament? Bit miffed that BJ & co think Scotland is so much in the bag that they don't need to send the duchess to live in Edinburgh.
The Northern Ireland Secretary has already ruled out granting a border poll and Unionist parties still won more seats than Nationalist parties at Stormont even if SF came first
If the sectarians insist on spitting their orange dummies out, why not isolate them and appoint Naomi Long as Deputy First Minister?
As the leader of the biggest Unionist party has to be FM or DFM of NI under the GFA and Long is not a Unionist but non sectarian. Plus the DUP came second, not the Alliance
That was agreed when NI only had sectarian parties. Now that there is a non sectarian alternative, why should they always be excluded from being FM or DFM?
Well for starters as they still fail to come first or second. If they ever do then there might be a case for reconsideration but for now they are 3rd
They're de facto second if the actual second place people try to take the ball home with them in a huff
Who sez that the younger royals are neither use nor ornament? Bit miffed that BJ & co think Scotland is so much in the bag that they don't need to send the duchess to live in Edinburgh.
The Northern Ireland Secretary has already ruled out granting a border poll and Unionist parties still won more seats than Nationalist parties at Stormont even if SF came first
I'm struggling with this one @HYUFD but I'm not an expert on how it calculated but surely it is as follows although I am not confident I have this right:
You forgot Independent Unionist Alex Easton elected in North Down and Independent Unionist Claire Sugden elected in East Londonderry. That makes 37 Unionists in total ie more than the 36 Nationalists (though PBP designate as socialist not nationalist anyway)
I am on way back north, my meeting in the Bucks countryside being over (very close to Chequers as it happens), having driven down this morning. I am having the largest strongest coffee I can stomach and find that Sir Keir has laid down the gauntlet. Good for him!
Those Covid lockdown rules are having a hell of an after-life.
I assume nothing else has happened - like Putin declaring war on us or anything.
I am currently listening to Mary Beard read her book "Twelve Caesars". I thought it would tell me about the Roman Emperors and what they did. But no. It's all about how they've been portrayed in art. At best it could have amounted to a 30 minute podcast. Instead of which it is endless chapter after endless chapter saying that
1. Suetonius made up a lot of what he wrote. 2. No-one really knows what Julius Caesar or others looked like. 3. Artists made it up. 4. Aristocrats liked having busts of them in their house. 5. Er .... that's it.
In TWELVE chapters. I don't think I've ever listened to anything so long and learned so little. In fact most of the time a I have no idea what she is talking about - it's like having a bath of warm words with occasional bubbles of names I recognise - Titian, Mantua, Charles 1st, Caligula etc.
My admiration for my daughter who did a classics degree has increased significantly if this is what her lectures were like.
That's a shame, as it's literally the next book on my reading pile (though I go in knowing it is about imagery).
I could see a little of that party pooping tendency in her book SPQR, when talking about ancient battles and essentially going 'Things would have been far too chaotic for people to really know what was going on, so most of the detail we hear about, say, Cannae, is probably wrong' without really offering up any insight about that. I did enjoy the parts pointing out how the Roman foundational myths are really quite unusual in some ways (an unnecessary twin, outsides and outcasts founding the place etc)
For those who have not seen it (and who care about the relative merits of Greece vs Rome) here is Mary Beard in a 90-minute debate against Boris Johnson. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k448JqQyj8
Doesn't seem like a fair fight, one the face of it. She generally knows what she's talking about.
An academic expert in their field vs a former journalist and MP who did classics at univeristy 30 years before and likes it is presumably designed as an entertainment event not an even intellectual contest.
But did he win?
Johnson has also had books published about Rome and presented TV shows on the subject.
Erich von Daniken also had books published about ancient history. Dunno about TV, mind.
Apparently he is still alive - and probably very happy about how much TV and movie material seems inspired by or influenced by his ideals. People love ancient astronaut theory.
I remember Paul Merton joking about how the answer was always No to Erich's questions.
Could this be a UFO from the 12th century? No
Could this be a landing platform for an alien scacecraft? No
Could this... "No, no no"
He seems very happy when he's on Ancient Allens. Given the US are paying to study UAPs and have conceded one possibility is they are of non terrestrial origin then its no leap at all to their having been visiting since human records exist. The possibility of human interaction with aliens is somewhat beyond cheesy 'and finally' stories about stereotypical yokels in backwoods America now
Whether aliens have interacted with ancient humans or not, and that would be awesome, wild extrapolation about connections and development of ancient cultures based on very open to intepretation images and the like, does not speak to the worthiness of the idea.
If they are open to interpretation, interpreting them in support of your theory seems apposite.
Yeah, the plausibility of the interpretation is still relevant. I can interpret a blob on a painting as a UFO, but absent other evidence it is not a very compelling intepretation. Your basically saying all ideas are equally valid, just because.
Then the arguments against that interpretation can be presented. Von Daniken relies on a bit more than 'blobs', his detractors tend to rely on mockery not counter evidence.
Who sez that the younger royals are neither use nor ornament? Bit miffed that BJ & co think Scotland is so much in the bag that they don't need to send the duchess to live in Edinburgh.
The Northern Ireland Secretary has already ruled out granting a border poll and Unionist parties still won more seats than Nationalist parties at Stormont even if SF came first
If the sectarians insist on spitting their orange dummies out, why not isolate them and appoint Naomi Long as Deputy First Minister?
As the leader of the biggest Unionist party has to be FM or DFM of NI under the GFA and Long is not a Unionist but non sectarian. Plus the DUP came second, not the Alliance
That was agreed when NI only had sectarian parties. Now that there is a non sectarian alternative, why should they always be excluded from being FM or DFM?
Well for starters as they still fail to come first or second. If they ever do then there might be a case for reconsideration but for now they are 3rd
They're de facto second if the actual second place people try to take the ball home with them in a huff
I am on way back north, my meeting in the Bucks countryside being over (very close to Chequers as it happens), having driven down this morning. I am having the largest strongest coffee I can stomach and find that Sir Keir has laid down the gauntlet. Good for him!
Those Covid lockdown rules are having a hell of an after-life.
I assume nothing else has happened - like Putin declaring war on us or anything.
I am currently listening to Mary Beard read her book "Twelve Caesars". I thought it would tell me about the Roman Emperors and what they did. But no. It's all about how they've been portrayed in art. At best it could have amounted to a 30 minute podcast. Instead of which it is endless chapter after endless chapter saying that
1. Suetonius made up a lot of what he wrote. 2. No-one really knows what Julius Caesar or others looked like. 3. Artists made it up. 4. Aristocrats liked having busts of them in their house. 5. Er .... that's it.
In TWELVE chapters. I don't think I've ever listened to anything so long and learned so little. In fact most of the time a I have no idea what she is talking about - it's like having a bath of warm words with occasional bubbles of names I recognise - Titian, Mantua, Charles 1st, Caligula etc.
My admiration for my daughter who did a classics degree has increased significantly if this is what her lectures were like.
That's a shame, as it's literally the next book on my reading pile (though I go in knowing it is about imagery).
I could see a little of that party pooping tendency in her book SPQR, when talking about ancient battles and essentially going 'Things would have been far too chaotic for people to really know what was going on, so most of the detail we hear about, say, Cannae, is probably wrong' without really offering up any insight about that. I did enjoy the parts pointing out how the Roman foundational myths are really quite unusual in some ways (an unnecessary twin, outsides and outcasts founding the place etc)
For those who have not seen it (and who care about the relative merits of Greece vs Rome) here is Mary Beard in a 90-minute debate against Boris Johnson. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k448JqQyj8
Doesn't seem like a fair fight, one the face of it. She generally knows what she's talking about.
An academic expert in their field vs a former journalist and MP who did classics at univeristy 30 years before and likes it is presumably designed as an entertainment event not an even intellectual contest.
But did he win?
Johnson has also had books published about Rome and presented TV shows on the subject.
Erich von Daniken also had books published about ancient history. Dunno about TV, mind.
Apparently he is still alive - and probably very happy about how much TV and movie material seems inspired by or influenced by his ideals. People love ancient astronaut theory.
I remember Paul Merton joking about how the answer was always No to Erich's questions.
Could this be a UFO from the 12th century? No
Could this be a landing platform for an alien scacecraft? No
Could this... "No, no no"
He seems very happy when he's on Ancient Allens. Given the US are paying to study UAPs and have conceded one possibility is they are of non terrestrial origin then its no leap at all to their having been visiting since human records exist. The possibility of human interaction with aliens is somewhat beyond cheesy 'and finally' stories about stereotypical yokels in backwoods America now
Not only is it not a leap, but it would be far more plausible that if UAPs are ET origin, that they have been here for a very long time rather than pitching up only recently. Unless you think nuke testing is some special intergalactic marker at a quantum level and the speed of light has been conquered, allowing them to get here toute de suite after 1945.
Ergo, if UAPs are indeed non terrestrial, then the thrust of the ancient aliens theory is probably right, if not of course the finer detail about Pharaohs being aliens or whatever it was. A self replicating autonomous Von Neumann probe might have been indifferently monitoring Earth since time immemorial. Not intervening but quietly cataloguing, feeding back info to a central hub on behalf of a civilisation long ago lost to time.
It's very much all in or not at all, yes. Although speed of light isn't really an issue, I'd imagine any interstellar travel isn't done by actually traversing the empty space between two star systems.
I’m aware it makes you sound like a Kubrick obsessive to say so but if you accept that a) UAP are intelligently controlled and non human, b) have likely been here a very long time, then c) there is strong merit in serious academic study into the cloudy past of human evolution and the cognitive revolution.
I would start by looking for non natural patterns and changes over millennia in junk DNA, the portion of our genetic code that does not have an obvious physiological function, making it presumably fairly stable against mutations that stick thanks to conferring no evolutionary advantage. Chances are there’s nothing to find of course. But it would still be worth allocating a small drop of the sea of money humans spend on nonsense every year.
Republicans' biggest problem in this country is that they just seem weird and obssessive to most people.
That's what they used to say about Brexiteers back in the day, when Alan Sked led UKIP.
We were in the EEC/EU for 46 years, we have had a monarchy for over 1000 years except 10 years from 1649-1659
"we"? Who's this ****ing We?
99 years, please.
Scotland has had a monarchy for over 1000 years too, united with England's in 1603, NI via Ireland has had the English monarch as its head of state since 1542 and before that the English monarch held the Lordship of Ireland since 1171. Wales has had the English monarch as its head of state since 1284
But the current state and monarchy have only existed since the departure of the RoI in 1923 (and arguably later, as it was some time before Eire cut all links). Else you could count all the way back to the King of Amesbury or whatever in 5000 BCE.
George Vth was head of State of NI before 1923 and after 1923, in fact the UK monarch also continued as head of state of the Irish Free State too until 1948
Excellent, that.s very helpful. We can refine the age of the current UK monarchy to 76 years, give or take the odd few months. l do like precision. (And we'll ignore the annexation of Sgeir Rocail.)
No, as the UK monarch was head of state of NI when it was part of Ireland for centuries before that too
NI did not exist till the rebellion of the Unionists! You'll be doing a Neil Oliver next and telling me that the UNited Kingdom existed as a state back in the Jurassic.
The UK existed since 1801 and the Kingdom of Britain since 1603 but the English monarch has been head of state in Northern Ireland since the 12th century as I stated
But Northern Ireland did not exist till 1923.
It existed as part of Ireland until 1923 and Ireland's head of state and overlord was the English monarch since the 12th century
Answering questions from the media, Starmer indicated that he would not necessarily step down if police did not fine him yet said the event may have breached rules.
“The penalty for a Covid breach is a fixed-penalty notice,” he said when asked about that situation. “That’s a matter of law. And I’ve set out what the position is in relation to that.”
Feck it. Let's just take this to the Supreme Court and have done with it all.
Answering questions from the media, Starmer indicated that he would not necessarily step down if police did not fine him yet said the event may have breached rules.
“The penalty for a Covid breach is a fixed-penalty notice,” he said when asked about that situation. “That’s a matter of law. And I’ve set out what the position is in relation to that.”
Yeah well, the police could say that I may have raped a cat. It's very difficult indeed to see that I need to do anything in response to that.
Who sez that the younger royals are neither use nor ornament? Bit miffed that BJ & co think Scotland is so much in the bag that they don't need to send the duchess to live in Edinburgh.
I'm sure Charles can go, being Duke of Edinburgh now.
Duke of Rothesay.
That one too, but he'd had that for 70 years, the Edinburgh one is shiny and new, to provide a reason to renew his relationship with the country etc etc.
Merge the two titles and create a super new Scottish title like the Duke of Glasgae.
Duke of Harthill, symbolising that magical point where East meets West in the central belt.
Once worked over in Breich, near Harthill. Mighty grim up there on the moors.
It is, even seems to have its own micro climate involving rain, sleet, fog and rapid temperature drops in my experience.
I am on way back north, my meeting in the Bucks countryside being over (very close to Chequers as it happens), having driven down this morning. I am having the largest strongest coffee I can stomach and find that Sir Keir has laid down the gauntlet. Good for him!
Those Covid lockdown rules are having a hell of an after-life.
I assume nothing else has happened - like Putin declaring war on us or anything.
I am currently listening to Mary Beard read her book "Twelve Caesars". I thought it would tell me about the Roman Emperors and what they did. But no. It's all about how they've been portrayed in art. At best it could have amounted to a 30 minute podcast. Instead of which it is endless chapter after endless chapter saying that
1. Suetonius made up a lot of what he wrote. 2. No-one really knows what Julius Caesar or others looked like. 3. Artists made it up. 4. Aristocrats liked having busts of them in their house. 5. Er .... that's it.
In TWELVE chapters. I don't think I've ever listened to anything so long and learned so little. In fact most of the time a I have no idea what she is talking about - it's like having a bath of warm words with occasional bubbles of names I recognise - Titian, Mantua, Charles 1st, Caligula etc.
My admiration for my daughter who did a classics degree has increased significantly if this is what her lectures were like.
That's a shame, as it's literally the next book on my reading pile (though I go in knowing it is about imagery).
I could see a little of that party pooping tendency in her book SPQR, when talking about ancient battles and essentially going 'Things would have been far too chaotic for people to really know what was going on, so most of the detail we hear about, say, Cannae, is probably wrong' without really offering up any insight about that. I did enjoy the parts pointing out how the Roman foundational myths are really quite unusual in some ways (an unnecessary twin, outsides and outcasts founding the place etc)
For those who have not seen it (and who care about the relative merits of Greece vs Rome) here is Mary Beard in a 90-minute debate against Boris Johnson. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k448JqQyj8
Doesn't seem like a fair fight, one the face of it. She generally knows what she's talking about.
An academic expert in their field vs a former journalist and MP who did classics at univeristy 30 years before and likes it is presumably designed as an entertainment event not an even intellectual contest.
But did he win?
Johnson has also had books published about Rome and presented TV shows on the subject.
Erich von Daniken also had books published about ancient history. Dunno about TV, mind.
Apparently he is still alive - and probably very happy about how much TV and movie material seems inspired by or influenced by his ideals. People love ancient astronaut theory.
I remember Paul Merton joking about how the answer was always No to Erich's questions.
Could this be a UFO from the 12th century? No
Could this be a landing platform for an alien scacecraft? No
Could this... "No, no no"
He seems very happy when he's on Ancient Allens. Given the US are paying to study UAPs and have conceded one possibility is they are of non terrestrial origin then its no leap at all to their having been visiting since human records exist. The possibility of human interaction with aliens is somewhat beyond cheesy 'and finally' stories about stereotypical yokels in backwoods America now
Not only is it not a leap, but it would be far more plausible that if UAPs are ET origin, that they have been here for a very long time rather than pitching up only recently. Unless you think nuke testing is some special intergalactic marker at a quantum level and the speed of light has been conquered, allowing them to get here toute de suite after 1945.
Ergo, if UAPs are indeed non terrestrial, then the thrust of the ancient aliens theory is probably right, if not of course the finer detail about Pharaohs being aliens or whatever it was. A self replicating autonomous Von Neumann probe might have been indifferently monitoring Earth since time immemorial. Not intervening but quietly cataloguing, feeding back info to a central hub on behalf of a civilisation long ago lost to time.
It's very much all in or not at all, yes. Although speed of light isn't really an issue, I'd imagine any interstellar travel isn't done by actually traversing the empty space between two star systems.
I’m aware it makes you sound like a Kubrick obsessive to say so but if you accept that a) UAP are intelligently controlled and non human, b) have likely been here a very long time, then c) there is strong merit in serious academic study into the cloudy past of human evolution and the cognitive revolution.
I would start by looking for non natural patterns and changes over millennia in junk DNA, the portion of our genetic code that does not have an obvious physiological function, making it presumably fairly stable against mutations that stick thanks to conferring no evolutionary advantage. Chances are there’s nothing to find of course. But it would still be worth allocating a small drop of the sea of money humans spend on nonsense every year.
Eh? Junk DNA should be particularly unstable. Most mutations are deleterious, so will persist only in junk DMA where they are not transcribed and expressed in the phenotype.
Who sez that the younger royals are neither use nor ornament? Bit miffed that BJ & co think Scotland is so much in the bag that they don't need to send the duchess to live in Edinburgh.
The Northern Ireland Secretary has already ruled out granting a border poll and Unionist parties still won more seats than Nationalist parties at Stormont even if SF came first
If the sectarians insist on spitting their orange dummies out, why not isolate them and appoint Naomi Long as Deputy First Minister?
As the leader of the biggest Unionist party has to be FM or DFM of NI under the GFA and Long is not a Unionist but non sectarian. Plus the DUP came second, not the Alliance
That was agreed when NI only had sectarian parties. Now that there is a non sectarian alternative, why should they always be excluded from being FM or DFM?
Which is why the Alliance want the GFA reformed. Then we can have proper coalitions. Like a normal place
This won’t happen unless/until the Alliance come first and indeed can get support from a decently placed UUP and SDLP.
The current system or something close works too well for SF and DUP to be changed.
Indeed it does. In theory. However not in practice, if there is always an excuse not to participate. The irony about the Shinners moaning about non- participation is, however, somewhat delicious.
Republicans' biggest problem in this country is that they just seem weird and obssessive to most people.
That's what they used to say about Brexiteers back in the day, when Alan Sked led UKIP.
We were in the EEC/EU for 46 years, we have had a monarchy for over 1000 years except 10 years from 1649-1659
"we"? Who's this ****ing We?
99 years, please.
Scotland has had a monarchy for over 1000 years too, united with England's in 1603, NI via Ireland has had the English monarch as its head of state since 1542 and before that the English monarch held the Lordship of Ireland since 1171. Wales has had the English monarch as its head of state since 1284
But the current state and monarchy have only existed since the departure of the RoI in 1923 (and arguably later, as it was some time before Eire cut all links). Else you could count all the way back to the King of Amesbury or whatever in 5000 BCE.
George Vth was head of State of NI before 1923 and after 1923, in fact the UK monarch also continued as head of state of the Irish Free State too until 1948
Excellent, that.s very helpful. We can refine the age of the current UK monarchy to 76 years, give or take the odd few months. l do like precision. (And we'll ignore the annexation of Sgeir Rocail.)
No, as the UK monarch was head of state of NI when it was part of Ireland for centuries before that too
NI did not exist till the rebellion of the Unionists! You'll be doing a Neil Oliver next and telling me that the UNited Kingdom existed as a state back in the Jurassic.
The UK existed since 1801 and the Kingdom of Britain since 1603 but the English monarch has been head of state in Northern Ireland since the 12th century as I stated
But Northern Ireland did not exist till 1923.
It existed as part of Ireland until 1923 and Ireland's head of state and overlord was the English monarch since the 12th century
Dids you ask the Irish? This is even more insane than von Daniken and his laser cut stone walls.
I am on way back north, my meeting in the Bucks countryside being over (very close to Chequers as it happens), having driven down this morning. I am having the largest strongest coffee I can stomach and find that Sir Keir has laid down the gauntlet. Good for him!
Those Covid lockdown rules are having a hell of an after-life.
I assume nothing else has happened - like Putin declaring war on us or anything.
I am currently listening to Mary Beard read her book "Twelve Caesars". I thought it would tell me about the Roman Emperors and what they did. But no. It's all about how they've been portrayed in art. At best it could have amounted to a 30 minute podcast. Instead of which it is endless chapter after endless chapter saying that
1. Suetonius made up a lot of what he wrote. 2. No-one really knows what Julius Caesar or others looked like. 3. Artists made it up. 4. Aristocrats liked having busts of them in their house. 5. Er .... that's it.
In TWELVE chapters. I don't think I've ever listened to anything so long and learned so little. In fact most of the time a I have no idea what she is talking about - it's like having a bath of warm words with occasional bubbles of names I recognise - Titian, Mantua, Charles 1st, Caligula etc.
My admiration for my daughter who did a classics degree has increased significantly if this is what her lectures were like.
That's a shame, as it's literally the next book on my reading pile (though I go in knowing it is about imagery).
I could see a little of that party pooping tendency in her book SPQR, when talking about ancient battles and essentially going 'Things would have been far too chaotic for people to really know what was going on, so most of the detail we hear about, say, Cannae, is probably wrong' without really offering up any insight about that. I did enjoy the parts pointing out how the Roman foundational myths are really quite unusual in some ways (an unnecessary twin, outsides and outcasts founding the place etc)
For those who have not seen it (and who care about the relative merits of Greece vs Rome) here is Mary Beard in a 90-minute debate against Boris Johnson. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k448JqQyj8
Doesn't seem like a fair fight, one the face of it. She generally knows what she's talking about.
An academic expert in their field vs a former journalist and MP who did classics at univeristy 30 years before and likes it is presumably designed as an entertainment event not an even intellectual contest.
But did he win?
Johnson has also had books published about Rome and presented TV shows on the subject.
Erich von Daniken also had books published about ancient history. Dunno about TV, mind.
Apparently he is still alive - and probably very happy about how much TV and movie material seems inspired by or influenced by his ideals. People love ancient astronaut theory.
I remember Paul Merton joking about how the answer was always No to Erich's questions.
Could this be a UFO from the 12th century? No
Could this be a landing platform for an alien scacecraft? No
Could this... "No, no no"
He seems very happy when he's on Ancient Allens. Given the US are paying to study UAPs and have conceded one possibility is they are of non terrestrial origin then its no leap at all to their having been visiting since human records exist. The possibility of human interaction with aliens is somewhat beyond cheesy 'and finally' stories about stereotypical yokels in backwoods America now
Not only is it not a leap, but it would be far more plausible that if UAPs are ET origin, that they have been here for a very long time rather than pitching up only recently. Unless you think nuke testing is some special intergalactic marker at a quantum level and the speed of light has been conquered, allowing them to get here toute de suite after 1945.
Ergo, if UAPs are indeed non terrestrial, then the thrust of the ancient aliens theory is probably right, if not of course the finer detail about Pharaohs being aliens or whatever it was. A self replicating autonomous Von Neumann probe might have been indifferently monitoring Earth since time immemorial. Not intervening but quietly cataloguing, feeding back info to a central hub on behalf of a civilisation long ago lost to time.
It's very much all in or not at all, yes. Although speed of light isn't really an issue, I'd imagine any interstellar travel isn't done by actually traversing the empty space between two star systems.
I’m aware it makes you sound like a Kubrick obsessive to say so but if you accept that a) UAP are intelligently controlled and non human, b) have likely been here a very long time, then c) there is strong merit in serious academic study into the cloudy past of human evolution and the cognitive revolution.
I would start by looking for non natural patterns and changes over millennia in junk DNA, the portion of our genetic code that does not have an obvious physiological function, making it presumably fairly stable against mutations that stick thanks to conferring no evolutionary advantage. Chances are there’s nothing to find of course. But it would still be worth allocating a small drop of the sea of money humans spend on nonsense every year.
Eh? Junk DNA should be particularly unstable. Most mutations are deleterious, so will persist only in junk DMA where they are not transcribed and expressed in the phenotype.
At an individual level yes but perhaps not at a population level.
Who sez that the younger royals are neither use nor ornament? Bit miffed that BJ & co think Scotland is so much in the bag that they don't need to send the duchess to live in Edinburgh.
The Northern Ireland Secretary has already ruled out granting a border poll and Unionist parties still won more seats than Nationalist parties at Stormont even if SF came first
I'm struggling with this one @HYUFD but I'm not an expert on how it calculated but surely it is as follows although I am not confident I have this right:
Not enough I have to say. I presume that is without an oil embargo and much of a move on gas supplies? Even if it takes a few years for the economic effects to be completely felt the important thing is for the elite to find themselves staring into the abyss.
There can be no meaningful oil embargo because there are plenty of countries willing to buy Russian oil. Ditto coal exports.
If the gas pipelines from Russia to Europe are severed (in one way or another), that would have a bigger impact, but it is worth remembering that (even before the recent rises in the oil price), gas exports were only about a sixth of oil exports - https://oec.world/en/profile/country/rus
I know you’re a pro in this area but I know a few things too. There is a way to have a meaningful impact on Russian oil production, and it lies in not only an EU import ban but an EU shipping ban. Unfortunately the EU bottled it on that second step today only 6 days before it was due to come into effect, ostensibly at Greece’s request.
As for demand, India is talking about 16m bbl [EXIT: a MONTH!] of Russian oil. Small potatoes from the 2.7m bbl a day Europe was using before the war (circa 2m now). And China, well the state owned companies aren’t entering into new contracts to buy Russian crude or refined products like jet fuel. The private sector is and the net result is that Chinese demand for Russian oil has remained roughly flat, albeit a higher share of the total given the falling demand overall due to lockdowns.
There’s a further step I believe should be taken and that’s an import ban on third country refined products that have been refined from Russian crude or blended with Russian refined product. As soon as a third country turns it into something else, legally it ceases to be Russian. Impact is a) the free market would overcome the logistics difficulty to keep outsized share of Russian production going, b) it would be at the commercial detriment of the European refining sector, given Urals is said to trade at perhaps a $30 / bbl discount. India still gets cheaper energy but not at Europe’s expense.
If you did all that, then you could perhaps halve Russian oil production, more or less wiping out the oil export industry save for what goes to China from further East. And this would be permanent, given the technical challenges with much of Russia’s production. Suspend a well and there’s a good chance it doesn’t ever come back on again.
A cynic might suggest Europe knows all this and is still hedging its bets, hoping Putin goes quickly and the whole tedium of diversifying supply goes away with him. Fat chance in my view.
That's a good and fair comment, but do remember that it's not countries that buy crude shipments, but individual managers of refineries.
Whatever the Chinese or Indian government says, if there's a cargo of Russian oil that matches how your refinery is set up, and it's there for $84 rather than $108 for the equivalent barrel of Mayan Heavy, you'll buy it. Unless there are specific (and enforced) sanctions against the importation of Russian oil, then that oil will find a buyer.
You will also see a lot of "rebranding" of Russian oil. The tanker will sail into Port Harcourt, maybe top up with a little bit of Nigerian oil, and then sail on. (The founder of Glencore, Marc Rich, made billions of dollars in the 1970s doing just that.)
"President Biden on Monday signed an updated version of the Lend-Lease Act that supplied Britain and eventually other allies during World War II, summoning the spirit of the last century’s epic battle for democracy as he paved the way for further arms shipments to Ukrainians fighting to repel Russian invaders.
“Every day, Ukrainians fight for their lives,” Mr. Biden said as he approved the legislation in the Oval Office. “The cost of the fight is not cheap but caving to aggression is even more costly.”
Who sez that the younger royals are neither use nor ornament? Bit miffed that BJ & co think Scotland is so much in the bag that they don't need to send the duchess to live in Edinburgh.
I'm sure Charles can go, being Duke of Edinburgh now.
Duke of Rothesay.
That one too, but he'd had that for 70 years, the Edinburgh one is shiny and new, to provide a reason to renew his relationship with the country etc etc.
Merge the two titles and create a super new Scottish title like the Duke of Glasgae.
Duke of Harthill, symbolising that magical point where East meets West in the central belt.
Once worked over in Breich, near Harthill. Mighty grim up there on the moors.
It is, even seems to have its own micro climate involving rain, sleet, fog and rapid temperature drops in my experience.
As an American I want to apologize for Megan Markle. She doesn't seem to be able to get along with anyone, except her poor husband. And I can't help wondering whether the person who introduced the two wasn't acting on a Russian (or Chinese) suggestion. Yes, that's improbable, but the chances that she would cause problems for the monarchy should have been obviously high.
(What should Elizabeth and Charles have done? Well, this is hindsight, but I think they should have found a job for Harry in Scotland, and hope that some Scottish lass would be willing to sacrifice for her nation, by taking him on.)
My long-standing proposal is for Harry to become monarch of Scots and his big brother monarch of England. On the pattern of the Norwegian/Danish deal post the successful Norwegian independence referendum. I have never had a single person support the idea.
But the monarch of Denmark wasn't the monarch of the United Kingdoms.
Never said he was.
Post-independence from Sweden, the Norwegians took the younger son of the Danish king - Prince Carl of Denmark - as their monarch. His big brother subsequently became king of Denmark, upon their father’s death.
Norway having been associated with & or part of Danish kingdom before 1814 (think that's date) when it was handed over to Sweden, in compensation for Russia keeping Finland AND for Sweden under Bernadotte joining the final coalition against Napoleon I (the man who'd made him a Marshall of France).
In 1905 the Swedes thought Norwegians were rubbing it in by choosing scion of Danish royal house for their new, independent, definitely NOT Swedish monarchy. And they were right.
BTW, Seattle is the ONLY place I ever saw, or even heard of, anti-Swedish sentiment. By old-school Norskis!
One thing the two cohorts DO agree on: best keep an eye on the Finns . . .
If Brenda is so awesome why on earth is Prince Andrew her favourite child?
I mean that's a great big red flag that she's got terrible judgment.
Sometimes attributed to his striking resemblance to her very close friend Lord Porchester
Thanks, I googled him and I got this.
It's not easy to see from that photo, but he looks like he's got brown eyes. It would be unusual for a child with a brown-eyed parent to have blue eyes, as the brown-eyed gene is dominant.
Not that unusual, otherwise the number of blue eyed children would be trending towards zero*.
FWIW, my wife has brown eyes, and I have blue/green. One of our two children has my coloured eyes, and the other my wife's.
* Unless, of course, those with blue eyes were significantly more fertile.
Due to the dominance of the brown eyed gene (or ukelele or whatever Ishmael would like us to call it), it is very very rare for the child of two blue eyed parents to have brown eyes. Because they don't have any of the brown eyed gene. It's bred out. So its recessiveness is its strength in that regard.
I am on way back north, my meeting in the Bucks countryside being over (very close to Chequers as it happens), having driven down this morning. I am having the largest strongest coffee I can stomach and find that Sir Keir has laid down the gauntlet. Good for him!
Those Covid lockdown rules are having a hell of an after-life.
I assume nothing else has happened - like Putin declaring war on us or anything.
I am currently listening to Mary Beard read her book "Twelve Caesars". I thought it would tell me about the Roman Emperors and what they did. But no. It's all about how they've been portrayed in art. At best it could have amounted to a 30 minute podcast. Instead of which it is endless chapter after endless chapter saying that
1. Suetonius made up a lot of what he wrote. 2. No-one really knows what Julius Caesar or others looked like. 3. Artists made it up. 4. Aristocrats liked having busts of them in their house. 5. Er .... that's it.
In TWELVE chapters. I don't think I've ever listened to anything so long and learned so little. In fact most of the time a I have no idea what she is talking about - it's like having a bath of warm words with occasional bubbles of names I recognise - Titian, Mantua, Charles 1st, Caligula etc.
My admiration for my daughter who did a classics degree has increased significantly if this is what her lectures were like.
That's a shame, as it's literally the next book on my reading pile (though I go in knowing it is about imagery).
I could see a little of that party pooping tendency in her book SPQR, when talking about ancient battles and essentially going 'Things would have been far too chaotic for people to really know what was going on, so most of the detail we hear about, say, Cannae, is probably wrong' without really offering up any insight about that. I did enjoy the parts pointing out how the Roman foundational myths are really quite unusual in some ways (an unnecessary twin, outsides and outcasts founding the place etc)
For those who have not seen it (and who care about the relative merits of Greece vs Rome) here is Mary Beard in a 90-minute debate against Boris Johnson. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k448JqQyj8
Doesn't seem like a fair fight, one the face of it. She generally knows what she's talking about.
An academic expert in their field vs a former journalist and MP who did classics at univeristy 30 years before and likes it is presumably designed as an entertainment event not an even intellectual contest.
But did he win?
Johnson has also had books published about Rome and presented TV shows on the subject.
Erich von Daniken also had books published about ancient history. Dunno about TV, mind.
Apparently he is still alive - and probably very happy about how much TV and movie material seems inspired by or influenced by his ideals. People love ancient astronaut theory.
I remember Paul Merton joking about how the answer was always No to Erich's questions.
Could this be a UFO from the 12th century? No
Could this be a landing platform for an alien scacecraft? No
Could this... "No, no no"
He seems very happy when he's on Ancient Allens. Given the US are paying to study UAPs and have conceded one possibility is they are of non terrestrial origin then its no leap at all to their having been visiting since human records exist. The possibility of human interaction with aliens is somewhat beyond cheesy 'and finally' stories about stereotypical yokels in backwoods America now
Not only is it not a leap, but it would be far more plausible that if UAPs are ET origin, that they have been here for a very long time rather than pitching up only recently. Unless you think nuke testing is some special intergalactic marker at a quantum level and the speed of light has been conquered, allowing them to get here toute de suite after 1945.
Ergo, if UAPs are indeed non terrestrial, then the thrust of the ancient aliens theory is probably right, if not of course the finer detail about Pharaohs being aliens or whatever it was. A self replicating autonomous Von Neumann probe might have been indifferently monitoring Earth since time immemorial. Not intervening but quietly cataloguing, feeding back info to a central hub on behalf of a civilisation long ago lost to time.
It's very much all in or not at all, yes. Although speed of light isn't really an issue, I'd imagine any interstellar travel isn't done by actually traversing the empty space between two star systems.
I’m aware it makes you sound like a Kubrick obsessive to say so but if you accept that a) UAP are intelligently controlled and non human, b) have likely been here a very long time, then c) there is strong merit in serious academic study into the cloudy past of human evolution and the cognitive revolution.
I would start by looking for non natural patterns and changes over millennia in junk DNA, the portion of our genetic code that does not have an obvious physiological function, making it presumably fairly stable against mutations that stick thanks to conferring no evolutionary advantage. Chances are there’s nothing to find of course. But it would still be worth allocating a small drop of the sea of money humans spend on nonsense every year.
Eh? Junk DNA should be particularly unstable. Most mutations are deleterious, so will persist only in junk DMA where they are not transcribed and expressed in the phenotype.
At an individual level yes but perhaps not at a population level.
The population is simply the individuals added together. In the absence of any phenotypic expression leading to, for example, frequency-dependent selection, then it will make absolutely no difference.
Not enough I have to say. I presume that is without an oil embargo and much of a move on gas supplies? Even if it takes a few years for the economic effects to be completely felt the important thing is for the elite to find themselves staring into the abyss.
There can be no meaningful oil embargo because there are plenty of countries willing to buy Russian oil. Ditto coal exports.
If the gas pipelines from Russia to Europe are severed (in one way or another), that would have a bigger impact, but it is worth remembering that (even before the recent rises in the oil price), gas exports were only about a sixth of oil exports - https://oec.world/en/profile/country/rus
I know you’re a pro in this area but I know a few things too. There is a way to have a meaningful impact on Russian oil production, and it lies in not only an EU import ban but an EU shipping ban. Unfortunately the EU bottled it on that second step today only 6 days before it was due to come into effect, ostensibly at Greece’s request.
As for demand, India is talking about 16m bbl [EXIT: a MONTH!] of Russian oil. Small potatoes from the 2.7m bbl a day Europe was using before the war (circa 2m now). And China, well the state owned companies aren’t entering into new contracts to buy Russian crude or refined products like jet fuel. The private sector is and the net result is that Chinese demand for Russian oil has remained roughly flat, albeit a higher share of the total given the falling demand overall due to lockdowns.
There’s a further step I believe should be taken and that’s an import ban on third country refined products that have been refined from Russian crude or blended with Russian refined product. As soon as a third country turns it into something else, legally it ceases to be Russian. Impact is a) the free market would overcome the logistics difficulty to keep outsized share of Russian production going, b) it would be at the commercial detriment of the European refining sector, given Urals is said to trade at perhaps a $30 / bbl discount. India still gets cheaper energy but not at Europe’s expense.
If you did all that, then you could perhaps halve Russian oil production, more or less wiping out the oil export industry save for what goes to China from further East. And this would be permanent, given the technical challenges with much of Russia’s production. Suspend a well and there’s a good chance it doesn’t ever come back on again.
A cynic might suggest Europe knows all this and is still hedging its bets, hoping Putin goes quickly and the whole tedium of diversifying supply goes away with him. Fat chance in my view.
That's a good and fair comment, but do remember that it's not countries that buy crude shipments, but individual managers of refineries.
Whatever the Chinese or Indian government says, if there's a cargo of Russian oil that matches how your refinery is set up, and it's there for $84 rather than $108 for the equivalent barrel of Mayan Heavy, you'll buy it. Unless there are specific (and enforced) sanctions against the importation of Russian oil, then that oil will find a buyer.
You will also see a lot of "rebranding" of Russian oil. The tanker will sail into Port Harcourt, maybe top up with a little bit of Nigerian oil, and then sail on. (The founder of Glencore, Marc Rich, made billions of dollars in the 1970s doing just that.)
Yes it requires the authorities actually applying sanctions properly and holding the big commodity traders to account. So it probably won’t happen. But it could if there was the political will.
Who sez that the younger royals are neither use nor ornament? Bit miffed that BJ & co think Scotland is so much in the bag that they don't need to send the duchess to live in Edinburgh.
The Northern Ireland Secretary has already ruled out granting a border poll and Unionist parties still won more seats than Nationalist parties at Stormont even if SF came first
I'm struggling with this one @HYUFD but I'm not an expert on how it calculated but surely it is as follows although I am not confident I have this right:
You forgot Independent Unionist Alex Easton elected in North Down and Independent Unionist Claire Sugden elected in East Londonderry. That makes 37 Unionists in total ie more than the 36 Nationalists (though PBP designate as socialist not nationalist anyway)
Cheers. Yep I saw 4 in the Other column but only counted 2 of them. Silly me.
PBP are pro a unification so should be in the nationalist column, but are you saying that as they haven't designated as such that doesn't count? Silly of them if that is the case if that is what they stand for.
I am on way back north, my meeting in the Bucks countryside being over (very close to Chequers as it happens), having driven down this morning. I am having the largest strongest coffee I can stomach and find that Sir Keir has laid down the gauntlet. Good for him!
Those Covid lockdown rules are having a hell of an after-life.
I assume nothing else has happened - like Putin declaring war on us or anything.
I am currently listening to Mary Beard read her book "Twelve Caesars". I thought it would tell me about the Roman Emperors and what they did. But no. It's all about how they've been portrayed in art. At best it could have amounted to a 30 minute podcast. Instead of which it is endless chapter after endless chapter saying that
1. Suetonius made up a lot of what he wrote. 2. No-one really knows what Julius Caesar or others looked like. 3. Artists made it up. 4. Aristocrats liked having busts of them in their house. 5. Er .... that's it.
In TWELVE chapters. I don't think I've ever listened to anything so long and learned so little. In fact most of the time a I have no idea what she is talking about - it's like having a bath of warm words with occasional bubbles of names I recognise - Titian, Mantua, Charles 1st, Caligula etc.
My admiration for my daughter who did a classics degree has increased significantly if this is what her lectures were like.
That's a shame, as it's literally the next book on my reading pile (though I go in knowing it is about imagery).
I could see a little of that party pooping tendency in her book SPQR, when talking about ancient battles and essentially going 'Things would have been far too chaotic for people to really know what was going on, so most of the detail we hear about, say, Cannae, is probably wrong' without really offering up any insight about that. I did enjoy the parts pointing out how the Roman foundational myths are really quite unusual in some ways (an unnecessary twin, outsides and outcasts founding the place etc)
For those who have not seen it (and who care about the relative merits of Greece vs Rome) here is Mary Beard in a 90-minute debate against Boris Johnson. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k448JqQyj8
Doesn't seem like a fair fight, one the face of it. She generally knows what she's talking about.
An academic expert in their field vs a former journalist and MP who did classics at univeristy 30 years before and likes it is presumably designed as an entertainment event not an even intellectual contest.
But did he win?
Johnson has also had books published about Rome and presented TV shows on the subject.
Erich von Daniken also had books published about ancient history. Dunno about TV, mind.
Apparently he is still alive - and probably very happy about how much TV and movie material seems inspired by or influenced by his ideals. People love ancient astronaut theory.
I remember Paul Merton joking about how the answer was always No to Erich's questions.
Could this be a UFO from the 12th century? No
Could this be a landing platform for an alien scacecraft? No
Could this... "No, no no"
He seems very happy when he's on Ancient Allens. Given the US are paying to study UAPs and have conceded one possibility is they are of non terrestrial origin then its no leap at all to their having been visiting since human records exist. The possibility of human interaction with aliens is somewhat beyond cheesy 'and finally' stories about stereotypical yokels in backwoods America now
Not only is it not a leap, but it would be far more plausible that if UAPs are ET origin, that they have been here for a very long time rather than pitching up only recently. Unless you think nuke testing is some special intergalactic marker at a quantum level and the speed of light has been conquered, allowing them to get here toute de suite after 1945.
Ergo, if UAPs are indeed non terrestrial, then the thrust of the ancient aliens theory is probably right, if not of course the finer detail about Pharaohs being aliens or whatever it was. A self replicating autonomous Von Neumann probe might have been indifferently monitoring Earth since time immemorial. Not intervening but quietly cataloguing, feeding back info to a central hub on behalf of a civilisation long ago lost to time.
It's very much all in or not at all, yes. Although speed of light isn't really an issue, I'd imagine any interstellar travel isn't done by actually traversing the empty space between two star systems.
I’m aware it makes you sound like a Kubrick obsessive to say so but if you accept that a) UAP are intelligently controlled and non human, b) have likely been here a very long time, then c) there is strong merit in serious academic study into the cloudy past of human evolution and the cognitive revolution.
I would start by looking for non natural patterns and changes over millennia in junk DNA, the portion of our genetic code that does not have an obvious physiological function, making it presumably fairly stable against mutations that stick thanks to conferring no evolutionary advantage. Chances are there’s nothing to find of course. But it would still be worth allocating a small drop of the sea of money humans spend on nonsense every year.
To tie several threads together, the mayor of Sanliurfa is claiming that Gobekli Tepe and the Tas Tepeler were indeed created by aliens. Probably with blue eyes, and six fingers, so definitely related to the Smithsons
Who sez that the younger royals are neither use nor ornament? Bit miffed that BJ & co think Scotland is so much in the bag that they don't need to send the duchess to live in Edinburgh.
The Northern Ireland Secretary has already ruled out granting a border poll and Unionist parties still won more seats than Nationalist parties at Stormont even if SF came first
I'm struggling with this one @HYUFD but I'm not an expert on how it calculated but surely it is as follows although I am not confident I have this right:
You forgot Independent Unionist Alex Easton elected in North Down and Independent Unionist Claire Sugden elected in East Londonderry. That makes 37 Unionists in total ie more than the 36 Nationalists (though PBP designate as socialist not nationalist anyway)
Cheers. Yep I saw 4 in the Other column but only counted 2 of them. Silly me.
PBP are pro a unification so should be in the nationalist column, but are you saying that as they haven't designated as such that doesn't count? Silly of them if that is the case if that is what they stand for.
Well Alliance don't support a border poll so they are "unionist" in a deracinated sense, but the designations are about community representation in a historically sectarian state so they are not entirely policy-based.
I am on way back north, my meeting in the Bucks countryside being over (very close to Chequers as it happens), having driven down this morning. I am having the largest strongest coffee I can stomach and find that Sir Keir has laid down the gauntlet. Good for him!
Those Covid lockdown rules are having a hell of an after-life.
I assume nothing else has happened - like Putin declaring war on us or anything.
I am currently listening to Mary Beard read her book "Twelve Caesars". I thought it would tell me about the Roman Emperors and what they did. But no. It's all about how they've been portrayed in art. At best it could have amounted to a 30 minute podcast. Instead of which it is endless chapter after endless chapter saying that
1. Suetonius made up a lot of what he wrote. 2. No-one really knows what Julius Caesar or others looked like. 3. Artists made it up. 4. Aristocrats liked having busts of them in their house. 5. Er .... that's it.
In TWELVE chapters. I don't think I've ever listened to anything so long and learned so little. In fact most of the time a I have no idea what she is talking about - it's like having a bath of warm words with occasional bubbles of names I recognise - Titian, Mantua, Charles 1st, Caligula etc.
My admiration for my daughter who did a classics degree has increased significantly if this is what her lectures were like.
That's a shame, as it's literally the next book on my reading pile (though I go in knowing it is about imagery).
I could see a little of that party pooping tendency in her book SPQR, when talking about ancient battles and essentially going 'Things would have been far too chaotic for people to really know what was going on, so most of the detail we hear about, say, Cannae, is probably wrong' without really offering up any insight about that. I did enjoy the parts pointing out how the Roman foundational myths are really quite unusual in some ways (an unnecessary twin, outsides and outcasts founding the place etc)
For those who have not seen it (and who care about the relative merits of Greece vs Rome) here is Mary Beard in a 90-minute debate against Boris Johnson. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k448JqQyj8
Doesn't seem like a fair fight, one the face of it. She generally knows what she's talking about.
An academic expert in their field vs a former journalist and MP who did classics at univeristy 30 years before and likes it is presumably designed as an entertainment event not an even intellectual contest.
But did he win?
Johnson has also had books published about Rome and presented TV shows on the subject.
Erich von Daniken also had books published about ancient history. Dunno about TV, mind.
Apparently he is still alive - and probably very happy about how much TV and movie material seems inspired by or influenced by his ideals. People love ancient astronaut theory.
I remember Paul Merton joking about how the answer was always No to Erich's questions.
Could this be a UFO from the 12th century? No
Could this be a landing platform for an alien scacecraft? No
Could this... "No, no no"
He seems very happy when he's on Ancient Allens. Given the US are paying to study UAPs and have conceded one possibility is they are of non terrestrial origin then its no leap at all to their having been visiting since human records exist. The possibility of human interaction with aliens is somewhat beyond cheesy 'and finally' stories about stereotypical yokels in backwoods America now
Not only is it not a leap, but it would be far more plausible that if UAPs are ET origin, that they have been here for a very long time rather than pitching up only recently. Unless you think nuke testing is some special intergalactic marker at a quantum level and the speed of light has been conquered, allowing them to get here toute de suite after 1945.
Ergo, if UAPs are indeed non terrestrial, then the thrust of the ancient aliens theory is probably right, if not of course the finer detail about Pharaohs being aliens or whatever it was. A self replicating autonomous Von Neumann probe might have been indifferently monitoring Earth since time immemorial. Not intervening but quietly cataloguing, feeding back info to a central hub on behalf of a civilisation long ago lost to time.
It's very much all in or not at all, yes. Although speed of light isn't really an issue, I'd imagine any interstellar travel isn't done by actually traversing the empty space between two star systems.
I’m aware it makes you sound like a Kubrick obsessive to say so but if you accept that a) UAP are intelligently controlled and non human, b) have likely been here a very long time, then c) there is strong merit in serious academic study into the cloudy past of human evolution and the cognitive revolution.
I would start by looking for non natural patterns and changes over millennia in junk DNA, the portion of our genetic code that does not have an obvious physiological function, making it presumably fairly stable against mutations that stick thanks to conferring no evolutionary advantage. Chances are there’s nothing to find of course. But it would still be worth allocating a small drop of the sea of money humans spend on nonsense every year.
To tie several threads together, the mayor of Sanliurfa is claiming that Gobekli Tepe and the Tas Tepeler were indeed crested by aliens. Probably with blue eyes, and six fingers, so definitely related to the Smithsons
As an American I want to apologize for Megan Markle. She doesn't seem to be able to get along with anyone, except her poor husband. And I can't help wondering whether the person who introduced the two wasn't acting on a Russian (or Chinese) suggestion. Yes, that's improbable, but the chances that she would cause problems for the monarchy should have been obviously high.
(What should Elizabeth and Charles have done? Well, this is hindsight, but I think they should have found a job for Harry in Scotland, and hope that some Scottish lass would be willing to sacrifice for her nation, by taking him on.)
My long-standing proposal is for Harry to become monarch of Scots and his big brother monarch of England. On the pattern of the Norwegian/Danish deal post the successful Norwegian independence referendum. I have never had a single person support the idea.
But the monarch of Denmark wasn't the monarch of the United Kingdoms.
Never said he was.
Post-independence from Sweden, the Norwegians took the younger son of the Danish king - Prince Carl of Denmark - as their monarch. His big brother subsequently became king of Denmark, upon their father’s death.
Norway having been associated with & or part of Danish kingdom before 1814 (think that's date) when it was handed over to Sweden, in compensation for Russia keeping Finland AND for Sweden under Bernadotte joining the final coalition against Napoleon I (the man who'd made him a Marshall of France).
In 1905 the Swedes thought Norwegians were rubbing it in by choosing scion of Danish royal house for their new, independent, definitely NOT Swedish monarchy. And they were right.
BTW, Seattle is the ONLY place I ever saw, or even heard of, anti-Swedish sentiment. By old-school Norskis!
One thing the two cohorts DO agree on: best keep an eye on the Finns . . .
Anti-Swedish sentiment is extremely common and rabid among Russians. Just last week they were calling our wonderful Astrid Lindgren (author of Pippi Longstocking etc) a “Nazi”. Too daft for words
If Brenda is so awesome why on earth is Prince Andrew her favourite child?
I mean that's a great big red flag that she's got terrible judgment.
Sometimes attributed to his striking resemblance to her very close friend Lord Porchester
Thanks, I googled him and I got this.
It's not easy to see from that photo, but he looks like he's got brown eyes. It would be unusual for a child with a brown-eyed parent to have blue eyes, as the brown-eyed gene is dominant.
Not that unusual, otherwise the number of blue eyed children would be trending towards zero*.
FWIW, my wife has brown eyes, and I have blue/green. One of our two children has my coloured eyes, and the other my wife's.
* Unless, of course, those with blue eyes were significantly more fertile.
Due to the dominance of the brown eyed gene (or ukelele or whatever Ishmael would like us to call it), it is very very rare for the child of two blue eyed parents to have brown eyes. Because they don't have any of the brown eyed gene. It's bred out. So its recessiveness is its strength in that regard.
OK. Let's build a very simply model.
Let's assume that we have a population of 100, split equally between blue and brown eyes. Let's assume that 85% of blue/brown parents have a brown eyed child, that 99% of brown/brown have a brown eyed child, and that 1% of blue/blue have a brown eyed child.
Does that sound reasonable?
Would you like to tell me how many blue eyed children there are after a dozen or so iterations of the model?
If Brenda is so awesome why on earth is Prince Andrew her favourite child?
I mean that's a great big red flag that she's got terrible judgment.
Sometimes attributed to his striking resemblance to her very close friend Lord Porchester
Thanks, I googled him and I got this.
It's not easy to see from that photo, but he looks like he's got brown eyes. It would be unusual for a child with a brown-eyed parent to have blue eyes, as the brown-eyed gene is dominant.
Not that unusual, otherwise the number of blue eyed children would be trending towards zero*.
FWIW, my wife has brown eyes, and I have blue/green. One of our two children has my coloured eyes, and the other my wife's.
* Unless, of course, those with blue eyes were significantly more fertile.
Due to the dominance of the brown eyed gene (or ukelele or whatever Ishmael would like us to call it), it is very very rare for the child of two blue eyed parents to have brown eyes. Because they don't have any of the brown eyed gene. It's bred out. So its recessiveness is its strength in that regard.
OK. Let's build a very simply model.
Let's assume that we have a population of 100, split equally between blue and brown eyes. Let's assume that 85% of blue/brown parents have a brown eyed child, that 99% of brown/brown have a brown eyed child, and that 1% of blue/blue have a brown eyed child.
Does that sound reasonable?
Would you like to tell me how many blue eyed children there are after a dozen or so iterations of the model?
Republicans' biggest problem in this country is that they just seem weird and obssessive to most people.
That's what they used to say about Brexiteers back in the day, when Alan Sked led UKIP.
We were in the EEC/EU for 46 years, we have had a monarchy for over 1000 years except 10 years from 1649-1659
"we"? Who's this ****ing We?
99 years, please.
Scotland has had a monarchy for over 1000 years too, united with England's in 1603, NI via Ireland has had the English monarch as its head of state since 1542 and before that the English monarch held the Lordship of Ireland since 1171. Wales has had the English monarch as its head of state since 1284
But the current state and monarchy have only existed since the departure of the RoI in 1923 (and arguably later, as it was some time before Eire cut all links). Else you could count all the way back to the King of Amesbury or whatever in 5000 BCE.
George Vth was head of State of NI before 1923 and after 1923, in fact the UK monarch also continued as head of state of the Irish Free State too until 1948
Excellent, that.s very helpful. We can refine the age of the current UK monarchy to 76 years, give or take the odd few months. l do like precision. (And we'll ignore the annexation of Sgeir Rocail.)
No, as the UK monarch was head of state of NI when it was part of Ireland for centuries before that too
NI did not exist till the rebellion of the Unionists! You'll be doing a Neil Oliver next and telling me that the UNited Kingdom existed as a state back in the Jurassic.
The UK existed since 1801 and the Kingdom of Britain since 1603 but the English monarch has been head of state in Northern Ireland since the 12th century as I stated
But Northern Ireland did not exist till 1923.
1922!
BTW the UK didn't change its name to "United Kingdom of GB & NI" until 1927.
If Brenda is so awesome why on earth is Prince Andrew her favourite child?
I mean that's a great big red flag that she's got terrible judgment.
Sometimes attributed to his striking resemblance to her very close friend Lord Porchester
Thanks, I googled him and I got this.
It's not easy to see from that photo, but he looks like he's got brown eyes. It would be unusual for a child with a brown-eyed parent to have blue eyes, as the brown-eyed gene is dominant.
Not that unusual, otherwise the number of blue eyed children would be trending towards zero*.
FWIW, my wife has brown eyes, and I have blue/green. One of our two children has my coloured eyes, and the other my wife's.
* Unless, of course, those with blue eyes were significantly more fertile.
Due to the dominance of the brown eyed gene (or ukelele or whatever Ishmael would like us to call it), it is very very rare for the child of two blue eyed parents to have brown eyes. Because they don't have any of the brown eyed gene. It's bred out. So its recessiveness is its strength in that regard.
OK. Let's build a very simply model.
Let's assume that we have a population of 100, split equally between blue and brown eyes. Let's assume that 85% of blue/brown parents have a brown eyed child, that 99% of brown/brown have a brown eyed child, and that 1% of blue/blue have a brown eyed child.
Does that sound reasonable?
Would you like to tell me how many blue eyed children there are after a dozen or so iterations of the model?
All this assumes the parents are the biological parents. Call me cynical.
Who sez that the younger royals are neither use nor ornament? Bit miffed that BJ & co think Scotland is so much in the bag that they don't need to send the duchess to live in Edinburgh.
So many questions about that photo, and also surely they should have a spare title for NI and go as the Mcgillycuddies of Armagh or sinilar?
You're much more au fait with that kind of thing than me but is that St Kilda?
If Brenda is so awesome why on earth is Prince Andrew her favourite child?
I mean that's a great big red flag that she's got terrible judgment.
Sometimes attributed to his striking resemblance to her very close friend Lord Porchester
Thanks, I googled him and I got this.
It's not easy to see from that photo, but he looks like he's got brown eyes. It would be unusual for a child with a brown-eyed parent to have blue eyes, as the brown-eyed gene is dominant.
Not that unusual, otherwise the number of blue eyed children would be trending towards zero*.
FWIW, my wife has brown eyes, and I have blue/green. One of our two children has my coloured eyes, and the other my wife's.
* Unless, of course, those with blue eyes were significantly more fertile.
Due to the dominance of the brown eyed gene (or ukelele or whatever Ishmael would like us to call it), it is very very rare for the child of two blue eyed parents to have brown eyes. Because they don't have any of the brown eyed gene. It's bred out. So its recessiveness is its strength in that regard.
OK. Let's build a very simply model.
Let's assume that we have a population of 100, split equally between blue and brown eyes. Let's assume that 85% of blue/brown parents have a brown eyed child, that 99% of brown/brown have a brown eyed child, and that 1% of blue/blue have a brown eyed child.
Does that sound reasonable?
Would you like to tell me how many blue eyed children there are after a dozen or so iterations of the model?
I couldn't do so even if I wanted to.
The point is that it can't be *that* unusual for blue/brown to produce blue, otherwise the number of blue eyed babies would rapidly trend towards zero.
If Brenda is so awesome why on earth is Prince Andrew her favourite child?
I mean that's a great big red flag that she's got terrible judgment.
Sometimes attributed to his striking resemblance to her very close friend Lord Porchester
Thanks, I googled him and I got this.
It's not easy to see from that photo, but he looks like he's got brown eyes. It would be unusual for a child with a brown-eyed parent to have blue eyes, as the brown-eyed gene is dominant.
Not that unusual, otherwise the number of blue eyed children would be trending towards zero*.
FWIW, my wife has brown eyes, and I have blue/green. One of our two children has my coloured eyes, and the other my wife's.
* Unless, of course, those with blue eyes were significantly more fertile.
Due to the dominance of the brown eyed gene (or ukelele or whatever Ishmael would like us to call it), it is very very rare for the child of two blue eyed parents to have brown eyes. Because they don't have any of the brown eyed gene. It's bred out. So its recessiveness is its strength in that regard.
OK. Let's build a very simply model.
Let's assume that we have a population of 100, split equally between blue and brown eyes. Let's assume that 85% of blue/brown parents have a brown eyed child, that 99% of brown/brown have a brown eyed child, and that 1% of blue/blue have a brown eyed child.
Does that sound reasonable?
Would you like to tell me how many blue eyed children there are after a dozen or so iterations of the model?
I couldn't do so even if I wanted to.
I think the percentages are off too - the likelihood of two brown-eyed parents having a blue eyed child is higher than the likelihood of two blue-eyed parents having a brown-eyed one.
Incidentally, I believe all iris colours are actually the same eye colour anyway - just more or less. It goes black, brown, hazel, green, blue, grey, white, according to how much or little pigment you have.
I am on way back north, my meeting in the Bucks countryside being over (very close to Chequers as it happens), having driven down this morning. I am having the largest strongest coffee I can stomach and find that Sir Keir has laid down the gauntlet. Good for him!
Those Covid lockdown rules are having a hell of an after-life.
I assume nothing else has happened - like Putin declaring war on us or anything.
I am currently listening to Mary Beard read her book "Twelve Caesars". I thought it would tell me about the Roman Emperors and what they did. But no. It's all about how they've been portrayed in art. At best it could have amounted to a 30 minute podcast. Instead of which it is endless chapter after endless chapter saying that
1. Suetonius made up a lot of what he wrote. 2. No-one really knows what Julius Caesar or others looked like. 3. Artists made it up. 4. Aristocrats liked having busts of them in their house. 5. Er .... that's it.
In TWELVE chapters. I don't think I've ever listened to anything so long and learned so little. In fact most of the time a I have no idea what she is talking about - it's like having a bath of warm words with occasional bubbles of names I recognise - Titian, Mantua, Charles 1st, Caligula etc.
My admiration for my daughter who did a classics degree has increased significantly if this is what her lectures were like.
That's a shame, as it's literally the next book on my reading pile (though I go in knowing it is about imagery).
I could see a little of that party pooping tendency in her book SPQR, when talking about ancient battles and essentially going 'Things would have been far too chaotic for people to really know what was going on, so most of the detail we hear about, say, Cannae, is probably wrong' without really offering up any insight about that. I did enjoy the parts pointing out how the Roman foundational myths are really quite unusual in some ways (an unnecessary twin, outsides and outcasts founding the place etc)
For those who have not seen it (and who care about the relative merits of Greece vs Rome) here is Mary Beard in a 90-minute debate against Boris Johnson. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k448JqQyj8
Doesn't seem like a fair fight, one the face of it. She generally knows what she's talking about.
An academic expert in their field vs a former journalist and MP who did classics at univeristy 30 years before and likes it is presumably designed as an entertainment event not an even intellectual contest.
But did he win?
Johnson has also had books published about Rome and presented TV shows on the subject.
Erich von Daniken also had books published about ancient history. Dunno about TV, mind.
Apparently he is still alive - and probably very happy about how much TV and movie material seems inspired by or influenced by his ideals. People love ancient astronaut theory.
I remember Paul Merton joking about how the answer was always No to Erich's questions.
Could this be a UFO from the 12th century? No
Could this be a landing platform for an alien scacecraft? No
Could this... "No, no no"
He seems very happy when he's on Ancient Allens. Given the US are paying to study UAPs and have conceded one possibility is they are of non terrestrial origin then its no leap at all to their having been visiting since human records exist. The possibility of human interaction with aliens is somewhat beyond cheesy 'and finally' stories about stereotypical yokels in backwoods America now
Not only is it not a leap, but it would be far more plausible that if UAPs are ET origin, that they have been here for a very long time rather than pitching up only recently. Unless you think nuke testing is some special intergalactic marker at a quantum level and the speed of light has been conquered, allowing them to get here toute de suite after 1945.
Ergo, if UAPs are indeed non terrestrial, then the thrust of the ancient aliens theory is probably right, if not of course the finer detail about Pharaohs being aliens or whatever it was. A self replicating autonomous Von Neumann probe might have been indifferently monitoring Earth since time immemorial. Not intervening but quietly cataloguing, feeding back info to a central hub on behalf of a civilisation long ago lost to time.
It's very much all in or not at all, yes. Although speed of light isn't really an issue, I'd imagine any interstellar travel isn't done by actually traversing the empty space between two star systems.
I’m aware it makes you sound like a Kubrick obsessive to say so but if you accept that a) UAP are intelligently controlled and non human, b) have likely been here a very long time, then c) there is strong merit in serious academic study into the cloudy past of human evolution and the cognitive revolution.
I would start by looking for non natural patterns and changes over millennia in junk DNA, the portion of our genetic code that does not have an obvious physiological function, making it presumably fairly stable against mutations that stick thanks to conferring no evolutionary advantage. Chances are there’s nothing to find of course. But it would still be worth allocating a small drop of the sea of money humans spend on nonsense every year.
To tie several threads together, the mayor of Sanliurfa is claiming that Gobekli Tepe and the Tas Tepeler were indeed crested by aliens. Probably with blue eyes, and six fingers, so definitely related to the Smithsons
Nah, they were made by humans. Just because it was 11,600 years ago doesn't mean they lacked the know-how (and the inclination).
Yep, they just decided one day to stop being hunter gatherers and to start a collective community level mass construction project in stone relying on structured organisation and farming that didn't exist yet immediately after we exited the last ice age.
Edit - they had help or early human history is very wrong
If Brenda is so awesome why on earth is Prince Andrew her favourite child?
I mean that's a great big red flag that she's got terrible judgment.
Sometimes attributed to his striking resemblance to her very close friend Lord Porchester
Thanks, I googled him and I got this.
It's not easy to see from that photo, but he looks like he's got brown eyes. It would be unusual for a child with a brown-eyed parent to have blue eyes, as the brown-eyed gene is dominant.
Not that unusual, otherwise the number of blue eyed children would be trending towards zero*.
FWIW, my wife has brown eyes, and I have blue/green. One of our two children has my coloured eyes, and the other my wife's.
* Unless, of course, those with blue eyes were significantly more fertile.
Due to the dominance of the brown eyed gene (or ukelele or whatever Ishmael would like us to call it), it is very very rare for the child of two blue eyed parents to have brown eyes. Because they don't have any of the brown eyed gene. It's bred out. So its recessiveness is its strength in that regard.
OK. Let's build a very simply model.
Let's assume that we have a population of 100, split equally between blue and brown eyes. Let's assume that 85% of blue/brown parents have a brown eyed child, that 99% of brown/brown have a brown eyed child, and that 1% of blue/blue have a brown eyed child.
Does that sound reasonable?
Would you like to tell me how many blue eyed children there are after a dozen or so iterations of the model?
I couldn't do so even if I wanted to.
I think the percentages are off too - the likelihood of two brown-eyed parents having a blue eyed child is higher than the likelihood of two blue-eyed parents having a brown-eyed one.
Incidentally, I believe all iris colours are actually the same eye colour anyway - just more or less. It goes black, brown, hazel, green, blue, grey, white, according to how much or little pigment you have.
I am on way back north, my meeting in the Bucks countryside being over (very close to Chequers as it happens), having driven down this morning. I am having the largest strongest coffee I can stomach and find that Sir Keir has laid down the gauntlet. Good for him!
Those Covid lockdown rules are having a hell of an after-life.
I assume nothing else has happened - like Putin declaring war on us or anything.
I am currently listening to Mary Beard read her book "Twelve Caesars". I thought it would tell me about the Roman Emperors and what they did. But no. It's all about how they've been portrayed in art. At best it could have amounted to a 30 minute podcast. Instead of which it is endless chapter after endless chapter saying that
1. Suetonius made up a lot of what he wrote. 2. No-one really knows what Julius Caesar or others looked like. 3. Artists made it up. 4. Aristocrats liked having busts of them in their house. 5. Er .... that's it.
In TWELVE chapters. I don't think I've ever listened to anything so long and learned so little. In fact most of the time a I have no idea what she is talking about - it's like having a bath of warm words with occasional bubbles of names I recognise - Titian, Mantua, Charles 1st, Caligula etc.
My admiration for my daughter who did a classics degree has increased significantly if this is what her lectures were like.
That's a shame, as it's literally the next book on my reading pile (though I go in knowing it is about imagery).
I could see a little of that party pooping tendency in her book SPQR, when talking about ancient battles and essentially going 'Things would have been far too chaotic for people to really know what was going on, so most of the detail we hear about, say, Cannae, is probably wrong' without really offering up any insight about that. I did enjoy the parts pointing out how the Roman foundational myths are really quite unusual in some ways (an unnecessary twin, outsides and outcasts founding the place etc)
For those who have not seen it (and who care about the relative merits of Greece vs Rome) here is Mary Beard in a 90-minute debate against Boris Johnson. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k448JqQyj8
Doesn't seem like a fair fight, one the face of it. She generally knows what she's talking about.
An academic expert in their field vs a former journalist and MP who did classics at univeristy 30 years before and likes it is presumably designed as an entertainment event not an even intellectual contest.
But did he win?
Johnson has also had books published about Rome and presented TV shows on the subject.
Erich von Daniken also had books published about ancient history. Dunno about TV, mind.
Apparently he is still alive - and probably very happy about how much TV and movie material seems inspired by or influenced by his ideals. People love ancient astronaut theory.
I remember Paul Merton joking about how the answer was always No to Erich's questions.
Could this be a UFO from the 12th century? No
Could this be a landing platform for an alien scacecraft? No
Could this... "No, no no"
He seems very happy when he's on Ancient Allens. Given the US are paying to study UAPs and have conceded one possibility is they are of non terrestrial origin then its no leap at all to their having been visiting since human records exist. The possibility of human interaction with aliens is somewhat beyond cheesy 'and finally' stories about stereotypical yokels in backwoods America now
Not only is it not a leap, but it would be far more plausible that if UAPs are ET origin, that they have been here for a very long time rather than pitching up only recently. Unless you think nuke testing is some special intergalactic marker at a quantum level and the speed of light has been conquered, allowing them to get here toute de suite after 1945.
Ergo, if UAPs are indeed non terrestrial, then the thrust of the ancient aliens theory is probably right, if not of course the finer detail about Pharaohs being aliens or whatever it was. A self replicating autonomous Von Neumann probe might have been indifferently monitoring Earth since time immemorial. Not intervening but quietly cataloguing, feeding back info to a central hub on behalf of a civilisation long ago lost to time.
It's very much all in or not at all, yes. Although speed of light isn't really an issue, I'd imagine any interstellar travel isn't done by actually traversing the empty space between two star systems.
I’m aware it makes you sound like a Kubrick obsessive to say so but if you accept that a) UAP are intelligently controlled and non human, b) have likely been here a very long time, then c) there is strong merit in serious academic study into the cloudy past of human evolution and the cognitive revolution.
I would start by looking for non natural patterns and changes over millennia in junk DNA, the portion of our genetic code that does not have an obvious physiological function, making it presumably fairly stable against mutations that stick thanks to conferring no evolutionary advantage. Chances are there’s nothing to find of course. But it would still be worth allocating a small drop of the sea of money humans spend on nonsense every year.
To tie several threads together, the mayor of Sanliurfa is claiming that Gobekli Tepe and the Tas Tepeler were indeed created by aliens. Probably with blue eyes, and six fingers, so definitely related to the Smithsons
But that's the actual boring law, elitist judges and whatnot.
Dan's talking about the real law, where The Mail (embodiment of what right-thinking people are thinking) don't like the cut of Starmer's jib. He's had the temerity to not do what they have told him to. That's clearly far worse.
(If Starmer gets out of this alive, the relationship between him and the press is going to be fascinating.)
If Brenda is so awesome why on earth is Prince Andrew her favourite child?
I mean that's a great big red flag that she's got terrible judgment.
Sometimes attributed to his striking resemblance to her very close friend Lord Porchester
Thanks, I googled him and I got this.
It's not easy to see from that photo, but he looks like he's got brown eyes. It would be unusual for a child with a brown-eyed parent to have blue eyes, as the brown-eyed gene is dominant.
Not that unusual, otherwise the number of blue eyed children would be trending towards zero*.
FWIW, my wife has brown eyes, and I have blue/green. One of our two children has my coloured eyes, and the other my wife's.
* Unless, of course, those with blue eyes were significantly more fertile.
Due to the dominance of the brown eyed gene (or ukelele or whatever Ishmael would like us to call it), it is very very rare for the child of two blue eyed parents to have brown eyes. Because they don't have any of the brown eyed gene. It's bred out. So its recessiveness is its strength in that regard.
OK. Let's build a very simply model.
Let's assume that we have a population of 100, split equally between blue and brown eyes. Let's assume that 85% of blue/brown parents have a brown eyed child, that 99% of brown/brown have a brown eyed child, and that 1% of blue/blue have a brown eyed child.
Does that sound reasonable?
Would you like to tell me how many blue eyed children there are after a dozen or so iterations of the model?
All this assumes the parents are the biological parents. Call me cynical.
Can’t remember the stats but rather more people are not the child of the person they think is their dad than would be expected.
If Brenda is so awesome why on earth is Prince Andrew her favourite child?
I mean that's a great big red flag that she's got terrible judgment.
Sometimes attributed to his striking resemblance to her very close friend Lord Porchester
Thanks, I googled him and I got this.
It's not easy to see from that photo, but he looks like he's got brown eyes. It would be unusual for a child with a brown-eyed parent to have blue eyes, as the brown-eyed gene is dominant.
Not that unusual, otherwise the number of blue eyed children would be trending towards zero*.
FWIW, my wife has brown eyes, and I have blue/green. One of our two children has my coloured eyes, and the other my wife's.
* Unless, of course, those with blue eyes were significantly more fertile.
Due to the dominance of the brown eyed gene (or ukelele or whatever Ishmael would like us to call it), it is very very rare for the child of two blue eyed parents to have brown eyes. Because they don't have any of the brown eyed gene. It's bred out. So its recessiveness is its strength in that regard.
OK. Let's build a very simply model.
Let's assume that we have a population of 100, split equally between blue and brown eyes. Let's assume that 85% of blue/brown parents have a brown eyed child, that 99% of brown/brown have a brown eyed child, and that 1% of blue/blue have a brown eyed child.
Does that sound reasonable?
Would you like to tell me how many blue eyed children there are after a dozen or so iterations of the model?
I couldn't do so even if I wanted to.
The point is that it can't be *that* unusual for blue/brown to produce blue, otherwise the number of blue eyed babies would rapidly trend towards zero.
Well, the fact that two blue eyed parents are the less likely to have a child of a different eye colour than two brown-eyed parents pulls things in the opposing direction.
I am on way back north, my meeting in the Bucks countryside being over (very close to Chequers as it happens), having driven down this morning. I am having the largest strongest coffee I can stomach and find that Sir Keir has laid down the gauntlet. Good for him!
Those Covid lockdown rules are having a hell of an after-life.
I assume nothing else has happened - like Putin declaring war on us or anything.
I am currently listening to Mary Beard read her book "Twelve Caesars". I thought it would tell me about the Roman Emperors and what they did. But no. It's all about how they've been portrayed in art. At best it could have amounted to a 30 minute podcast. Instead of which it is endless chapter after endless chapter saying that
1. Suetonius made up a lot of what he wrote. 2. No-one really knows what Julius Caesar or others looked like. 3. Artists made it up. 4. Aristocrats liked having busts of them in their house. 5. Er .... that's it.
In TWELVE chapters. I don't think I've ever listened to anything so long and learned so little. In fact most of the time a I have no idea what she is talking about - it's like having a bath of warm words with occasional bubbles of names I recognise - Titian, Mantua, Charles 1st, Caligula etc.
My admiration for my daughter who did a classics degree has increased significantly if this is what her lectures were like.
That's a shame, as it's literally the next book on my reading pile (though I go in knowing it is about imagery).
I could see a little of that party pooping tendency in her book SPQR, when talking about ancient battles and essentially going 'Things would have been far too chaotic for people to really know what was going on, so most of the detail we hear about, say, Cannae, is probably wrong' without really offering up any insight about that. I did enjoy the parts pointing out how the Roman foundational myths are really quite unusual in some ways (an unnecessary twin, outsides and outcasts founding the place etc)
For those who have not seen it (and who care about the relative merits of Greece vs Rome) here is Mary Beard in a 90-minute debate against Boris Johnson. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k448JqQyj8
Doesn't seem like a fair fight, one the face of it. She generally knows what she's talking about.
An academic expert in their field vs a former journalist and MP who did classics at univeristy 30 years before and likes it is presumably designed as an entertainment event not an even intellectual contest.
But did he win?
Johnson has also had books published about Rome and presented TV shows on the subject.
Erich von Daniken also had books published about ancient history. Dunno about TV, mind.
Apparently he is still alive - and probably very happy about how much TV and movie material seems inspired by or influenced by his ideals. People love ancient astronaut theory.
I remember Paul Merton joking about how the answer was always No to Erich's questions.
Could this be a UFO from the 12th century? No
Could this be a landing platform for an alien scacecraft? No
Could this... "No, no no"
He seems very happy when he's on Ancient Allens. Given the US are paying to study UAPs and have conceded one possibility is they are of non terrestrial origin then its no leap at all to their having been visiting since human records exist. The possibility of human interaction with aliens is somewhat beyond cheesy 'and finally' stories about stereotypical yokels in backwoods America now
Not only is it not a leap, but it would be far more plausible that if UAPs are ET origin, that they have been here for a very long time rather than pitching up only recently. Unless you think nuke testing is some special intergalactic marker at a quantum level and the speed of light has been conquered, allowing them to get here toute de suite after 1945.
Ergo, if UAPs are indeed non terrestrial, then the thrust of the ancient aliens theory is probably right, if not of course the finer detail about Pharaohs being aliens or whatever it was. A self replicating autonomous Von Neumann probe might have been indifferently monitoring Earth since time immemorial. Not intervening but quietly cataloguing, feeding back info to a central hub on behalf of a civilisation long ago lost to time.
It's very much all in or not at all, yes. Although speed of light isn't really an issue, I'd imagine any interstellar travel isn't done by actually traversing the empty space between two star systems.
I’m aware it makes you sound like a Kubrick obsessive to say so but if you accept that a) UAP are intelligently controlled and non human, b) have likely been here a very long time, then c) there is strong merit in serious academic study into the cloudy past of human evolution and the cognitive revolution.
I would start by looking for non natural patterns and changes over millennia in junk DNA, the portion of our genetic code that does not have an obvious physiological function, making it presumably fairly stable against mutations that stick thanks to conferring no evolutionary advantage. Chances are there’s nothing to find of course. But it would still be worth allocating a small drop of the sea of money humans spend on nonsense every year.
To tie several threads together, the mayor of Sanliurfa is claiming that Gobekli Tepe and the Tas Tepeler were indeed created by aliens. Probably with blue eyes, and six fingers, so definitely related to the Smithsons
I am on way back north, my meeting in the Bucks countryside being over (very close to Chequers as it happens), having driven down this morning. I am having the largest strongest coffee I can stomach and find that Sir Keir has laid down the gauntlet. Good for him!
Those Covid lockdown rules are having a hell of an after-life.
I assume nothing else has happened - like Putin declaring war on us or anything.
I am currently listening to Mary Beard read her book "Twelve Caesars". I thought it would tell me about the Roman Emperors and what they did. But no. It's all about how they've been portrayed in art. At best it could have amounted to a 30 minute podcast. Instead of which it is endless chapter after endless chapter saying that
1. Suetonius made up a lot of what he wrote. 2. No-one really knows what Julius Caesar or others looked like. 3. Artists made it up. 4. Aristocrats liked having busts of them in their house. 5. Er .... that's it.
In TWELVE chapters. I don't think I've ever listened to anything so long and learned so little. In fact most of the time a I have no idea what she is talking about - it's like having a bath of warm words with occasional bubbles of names I recognise - Titian, Mantua, Charles 1st, Caligula etc.
My admiration for my daughter who did a classics degree has increased significantly if this is what her lectures were like.
That's a shame, as it's literally the next book on my reading pile (though I go in knowing it is about imagery).
I could see a little of that party pooping tendency in her book SPQR, when talking about ancient battles and essentially going 'Things would have been far too chaotic for people to really know what was going on, so most of the detail we hear about, say, Cannae, is probably wrong' without really offering up any insight about that. I did enjoy the parts pointing out how the Roman foundational myths are really quite unusual in some ways (an unnecessary twin, outsides and outcasts founding the place etc)
For those who have not seen it (and who care about the relative merits of Greece vs Rome) here is Mary Beard in a 90-minute debate against Boris Johnson. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k448JqQyj8
Doesn't seem like a fair fight, one the face of it. She generally knows what she's talking about.
An academic expert in their field vs a former journalist and MP who did classics at univeristy 30 years before and likes it is presumably designed as an entertainment event not an even intellectual contest.
But did he win?
Johnson has also had books published about Rome and presented TV shows on the subject.
Erich von Daniken also had books published about ancient history. Dunno about TV, mind.
Apparently he is still alive - and probably very happy about how much TV and movie material seems inspired by or influenced by his ideals. People love ancient astronaut theory.
I remember Paul Merton joking about how the answer was always No to Erich's questions.
Could this be a UFO from the 12th century? No
Could this be a landing platform for an alien scacecraft? No
Could this... "No, no no"
He seems very happy when he's on Ancient Allens. Given the US are paying to study UAPs and have conceded one possibility is they are of non terrestrial origin then its no leap at all to their having been visiting since human records exist. The possibility of human interaction with aliens is somewhat beyond cheesy 'and finally' stories about stereotypical yokels in backwoods America now
Not only is it not a leap, but it would be far more plausible that if UAPs are ET origin, that they have been here for a very long time rather than pitching up only recently. Unless you think nuke testing is some special intergalactic marker at a quantum level and the speed of light has been conquered, allowing them to get here toute de suite after 1945.
Ergo, if UAPs are indeed non terrestrial, then the thrust of the ancient aliens theory is probably right, if not of course the finer detail about Pharaohs being aliens or whatever it was. A self replicating autonomous Von Neumann probe might have been indifferently monitoring Earth since time immemorial. Not intervening but quietly cataloguing, feeding back info to a central hub on behalf of a civilisation long ago lost to time.
It's very much all in or not at all, yes. Although speed of light isn't really an issue, I'd imagine any interstellar travel isn't done by actually traversing the empty space between two star systems.
I’m aware it makes you sound like a Kubrick obsessive to say so but if you accept that a) UAP are intelligently controlled and non human, b) have likely been here a very long time, then c) there is strong merit in serious academic study into the cloudy past of human evolution and the cognitive revolution.
I would start by looking for non natural patterns and changes over millennia in junk DNA, the portion of our genetic code that does not have an obvious physiological function, making it presumably fairly stable against mutations that stick thanks to conferring no evolutionary advantage. Chances are there’s nothing to find of course. But it would still be worth allocating a small drop of the sea of money humans spend on nonsense every year.
To tie several threads together, the mayor of Sanliurfa is claiming that Gobekli Tepe and the Tas Tepeler were indeed crested by aliens. Probably with blue eyes, and six fingers, so definitely related to the Smithsons
Who sez that the younger royals are neither use nor ornament? Bit miffed that BJ & co think Scotland is so much in the bag that they don't need to send the duchess to live in Edinburgh.
The Northern Ireland Secretary has already ruled out granting a border poll and Unionist parties still won more seats than Nationalist parties at Stormont even if SF came first
I'm struggling with this one @HYUFD but I'm not an expert on how it calculated but surely it is as follows although I am not confident I have this right:
You forgot Independent Unionist Alex Easton elected in North Down and Independent Unionist Claire Sugden elected in East Londonderry. That makes 37 Unionists in total ie more than the 36 Nationalists (though PBP designate as socialist not nationalist anyway)
Cheers. Yep I saw 4 in the Other column but only counted 2 of them. Silly me.
PBP are pro a unification so should be in the nationalist column, but are you saying that as they haven't designated as such that doesn't count? Silly of them if that is the case if that is what they stand for.
With respect to People Before Profit position on Irish unity, this from wiki (two sources):
>Both the PBP and the Socialist Party (SP) are all-Ireland organisations but do not form part of a single electoral alliance in elections in Northern Ireland. The PBP contests elections under its own name, while the SP is part of the Cross-Community Labour Alternative. The electoral alliance between the PBP and Solidarity supports anti-capitalism, democratic socialism, and eco-socialism, and promotes Irish reunification through a socialist European federation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_Before_Profit/Solidarity
> Solidarity believes that Ireland, England, Scotland, and Wales should merge and form a socialist federation, which should aspire to be part of a Socialist Federation of Europe. The Phoenix has opined that this position is a "bizarre fusion of Trotskyism and British Unionism" that "articulates a unionist outlook dressed in socialist rhetoric" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity_(Ireland)
SSI - note that Cross-Community Labour Alternative (CCLA) did field a candidate in Fermanagh and South Tyrone, Donal O'Cofaigh
So would seem that lumping PBP with nationalist contingent is problematic?
Comments
Actually THREE feuds if you count Charles v Diana, which is of course at the heart of current discombobulation, as well as strongly connected to the first.
Like any theory, one can then look elsewhere to support, or debunk.
If your belief is ancient contact with aliens, in the absence of time travel interpreting ancient text etc that may support your idea is your only option
https://www.shropshirestar.com/news/uk-news/2022/04/29/royal-tours-to-caribbean-should-be-scrapped-unless-they-address-justice/
Clothing looks more Caribbean than St Kilda
Ergo, if UAPs are indeed non terrestrial, then the thrust of the ancient aliens theory is probably right, if not of course the finer detail about Pharaohs being aliens or whatever it was. A self replicating autonomous Von Neumann probe might have been indifferently monitoring Earth since time immemorial. Not intervening but quietly cataloguing, feeding back info to a central hub on behalf of a civilisation long ago lost to time.
Although speed of light isn't really an issue, I'd imagine any interstellar travel isn't done by actually traversing the empty space between two star systems.
But please don't judge him on just the one post. For the full picture you need to see the immortal Barbour and labradors, or was it Barbours and labrador, claim. I'll see if I can dig it out.
And are busily hoisting their flapping, somewhat- soiled undies on their own splintery petards.
It’s an odd sort of arrangement; but it kind of worked until Brexit destabilised everything.
I happen to think the DUP are in their rights to refuse a NI government to be established.
1. What other leverage do they have over the Northern Ireland protocol?
2. Sinn Fein are literally abstentionist when it comes to Westminster
A new election may give them what they want, ie enough votes back from the TUV, to regain the First Ministership.
Look at the alternative, for example America, where the head of state and the chief of the executive/head of cabinet is combined. POTUS has become such a divisive and political office it is unbelievable.
That isn't how it works.
Post-independence from Sweden, the Norwegians took the younger son of the Danish king - Prince Carl of Denmark - as their monarch. His big brother subsequently became king of Denmark, upon their father’s death.
SF & SDLP & PBP 36 Nationalist
DUP & UUP & TUV 35 Unionists
Alliance 17 Non aligned
Answering questions from the media, Starmer indicated that he would not necessarily step down if police did not fine him yet said the event may have breached rules.
“The penalty for a Covid breach is a fixed-penalty notice,” he said when asked about that situation. “That’s a matter of law. And I’ve set out what the position is in relation to that.”
The current system or something close works too well for SF and DUP to be changed.
We need a fresh one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Northern_Ireland_Assembly_election
I would start by looking for non natural patterns and changes over millennia in junk DNA, the portion of our genetic code that does not have an obvious physiological function, making it presumably fairly stable against mutations that stick thanks to conferring no evolutionary advantage. Chances are there’s nothing to find of course. But it would still be worth allocating a small drop of the sea of money humans spend on nonsense every year.
It would be good to see more of some Alliance folks with respect to national issues.
In theory.
However not in practice, if there is always an excuse not to participate.
The irony about the Shinners moaning about non- participation is, however, somewhat delicious.
One certainly does as ex-DUP.
Whatever the Chinese or Indian government says, if there's a cargo of Russian oil that matches how your refinery is set up, and it's there for $84 rather than $108 for the equivalent barrel of Mayan Heavy, you'll buy it. Unless there are specific (and enforced) sanctions against the importation of Russian oil, then that oil will find a buyer.
You will also see a lot of "rebranding" of Russian oil. The tanker will sail into Port Harcourt, maybe top up with a little bit of Nigerian oil, and then sail on. (The founder of Glencore, Marc Rich, made billions of dollars in the 1970s doing just that.)
"President Biden on Monday signed an updated version of the Lend-Lease Act that supplied Britain and eventually other allies during World War II, summoning the spirit of the last century’s epic battle for democracy as he paved the way for further arms shipments to Ukrainians fighting to repel Russian invaders.
“Every day, Ukrainians fight for their lives,” Mr. Biden said as he approved the legislation in the Oval Office. “The cost of the fight is not cheap but caving to aggression is even more costly.”
NY Times
In 1905 the Swedes thought Norwegians were rubbing it in by choosing scion of Danish royal house for their new, independent, definitely NOT Swedish monarchy. And they were right.
BTW, Seattle is the ONLY place I ever saw, or even heard of, anti-Swedish sentiment. By old-school Norskis!
One thing the two cohorts DO agree on: best keep an eye on the Finns . . .
PBP are pro a unification so should be in the nationalist column, but are you saying that as they haven't designated as such that doesn't count? Silly of them if that is the case if that is what they stand for.
@visegrad24
·
1h
On Victory Day, 75 days into the defense of Mariupol, the Ukrainian flag still flies high over Azovstal.
Absolute heroes!
https://twitter.com/visegrad24
https://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/gobeklitepe-may-be-made-by-aliens-says-mayor-173262
Let's assume that we have a population of 100, split equally between blue and brown eyes. Let's assume that 85% of blue/brown parents have a brown eyed child, that 99% of brown/brown have a brown eyed child, and that 1% of blue/blue have a brown eyed child.
Does that sound reasonable?
Would you like to tell me how many blue eyed children there are after a dozen or so iterations of the model?
BTW the UK didn't change its name to "United Kingdom of GB & NI" until 1927.
Call me cynical.
https://twitter.com/DPJHodges/status/1523717177089880065
Incidentally, I believe all iris colours are actually the same eye colour anyway - just more or less. It goes black, brown, hazel, green, blue, grey, white, according to how much or little pigment you have.
https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/1523747474434895873?s=20&t=9aKF6axzAvzXvkmoNR1ctw
Edit - they had help or early human history is very wrong
https://www.babymed.com/tools/baby-eye-color-calculator-predictor?p1=Brown&p2=Brown
"The official Ukrainian position is that "the Ukraine" is incorrect, both grammatically and politically."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine
Dan's talking about the real law, where The Mail (embodiment of what right-thinking people are thinking) don't like the cut of Starmer's jib. He's had the temerity to not do what they have told him to. That's clearly far worse.
(If Starmer gets out of this alive, the relationship between him and the press is going to be fascinating.)
It’s fuckin aliens. The mayor of Urfa is bang on
>Both the PBP and the Socialist Party (SP) are all-Ireland organisations but do not form part of a single electoral alliance in elections in Northern Ireland. The PBP contests elections under its own name, while the SP is part of the Cross-Community Labour Alternative. The electoral alliance between the PBP and Solidarity supports anti-capitalism, democratic socialism, and eco-socialism, and promotes Irish reunification through a socialist European federation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_Before_Profit/Solidarity
> Solidarity believes that Ireland, England, Scotland, and Wales should merge and form a socialist federation, which should aspire to be part of a Socialist Federation of Europe. The Phoenix has opined that this position is a "bizarre fusion of Trotskyism and British Unionism" that "articulates a unionist outlook dressed in socialist rhetoric"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidarity_(Ireland)
SSI - note that Cross-Community Labour Alternative (CCLA) did field a candidate in Fermanagh and South Tyrone, Donal O'Cofaigh
So would seem that lumping PBP with nationalist contingent is problematic?